HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 76-02; ROYAL HOMES NO 6; REPORT OF COMPACTION TESTS; 1977-07-14. -~-:." "~ •• •
1 DUCO' 'Engineering, Inc. FOUNDATION. GEOLOGIC INVESTIG"'T.IONS
FILL CONTROL -SOIL T,STING
'J~t ,
,:'!
Ca.rlsbad Development Corp.
P.O. Box n.n"
Carlsbad, California
~170 CEtt~R,E DRIVE, SUITE F • WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91-789
, \. ~ (2i3) 964-3440 • 964-3449
Subject: Report of Compaction Test~
Carlsbad Tract 76-2
Gentlemen:
Royal Homes No. 6
Carlsbad, California
Job No.: 6-20
Irt ~~cordance with your request this fir. has·~nspected 'and tested
the compacted fill placed on the subj ect site between May :1.1· and
July 11, 1977. A plan of the site showing the test locations and
other data pertinent to this report is attached as Figure No. 1
(3 sheets). , ~
Referen~e data used in the preparation· of this report consisted B£'
a Report of Soils In~estigation prepared by·th~s firm dated 3-~6~76,
Geo·logic Investigation dated 10-4-~6 prepared by Bob Dickey and a
Grading Plan of the site prepared by Brian. Smith Engine,ers, Inc.
,Site .preparation, grading and testing were conduct.ed in the follow-
-"'.1 .. ,
ing manner: .. 1
~ite Preparation
1. Surface debris and vegetation was str~pped and-h~uled offsite.
2. No surface s~ructt1res were· present c;m the site.
3. No subsurface structures were en:countered ,during ,grading.
4. No trees were existing on the site when we arrived~
5. Existing fill soils were remQved to natural grou~d and-ihcor~·
porated into the compacted fill after removal of al~ de1eter~,
ious material. ~
6. EXisting loose natural soils were removed by benching as the
compacted fill progressed upslope.
• " ,~."" ~l" .:
I
Page Two
July' 14 J 1977 •
Site Preparation (con't)
7. The exposed surface of the natural,ground was prepa~ed ~o r~
ceive 'fill by scarifying to a depth of'8 inches, watering as
necessary and compacting to minimum requirements.,"
8. A 'shear key excavated into bedrock or approv~d .~oil was pro-
vided at the to~ of the major fill slopes.
'Gra'd'ing
l~ Fill ~oils were 'spread in'6' inch loos~' lifts, watered as neces-
sary and compacted to minimum requirements.
2. The method used for adding moisture and compacting was a water
truck and rolling,with a self-propelled iron .heeled eomp.ritor
and a sheepsfoot roller.
3. Top soils were removed and an equipment wi~th wide '~ilt-bac~
bench was provided at the daylight point for propoaed fill oye~'
cut slopes.
Tes,ting
1. Field density tests were ~erformed in accordance with ASTM t~st
method D1556. The ~esu1ts of these tests, taken duiiug the
course of grading are attached as a part of this'teport.
2. Maximum density and optimum moisture, were' determined for each
type of fill soil in accordance with ASTM fest metbod n1557~70.
The results of these determinations along with the expan$~on
potential of the soils, determined in accordance .ith U.B.C.'
test standard 29-2, are as follows:
, -Soil Type Max. 'Den. ·Opt. Moist. Expan. Index
A -Clayey sand 125.3 PCF 8.2% , 48
B -Clayey fine sand 1,18.1 It 11.5%, 77
C -Sandy clay 111.3 II 14.8% 88
D -.C1ayey silty sand 112.2' " 14.0% _27
E Clayey sand 121.9 Ii 9.8% 53 -F -Claystone 110.2 n 14.2% 1.03
G Sandy clay 116.3 It 12.6% -'90
H -Clayey silty sand 122.2 " 10.1% 25
I Sandy clay (blend) 116.7 II-12.3% 81
J Gravelly clayey sand 125.0 II 9.8% 21
K -Clayey sand w/gravel 120.3 II 9.5,% 55
!> .
Page Three
July 14, 1977
Conclusions and Recommendations
• Job No.: 6-20
The expansion potential of the onsite soils that will directly
affect shallow foundations and slabs is considered moderate
for lots 1, 7-.9,11-16,19-24,26-38,46-54,57 and 6'9.
Remedial construction m~asures to minimdze this cQndition are
recommended as follows:
Footing shall be continuous under all exterior and interior bearing
walls and shall be imbedded a minimum depth of 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent finished grade. Reinforce the continuous footings
with a minimum of one #4 rebar placed top and bottom.
Concrete floor slabs shall be reinforced with 6X6 -lOXlO welded
wire mesh placed at midpoint in the slab. Floor slabs ~hall be
cast on a 4 inch thick layer of graded aggregat~ base course or
w·ashed concrete sand.
Garage floor slabs need not be reinforced if poured entirely inde-
pendent of the stem walls using a positive expansion joint of felt
or similar approved material.
The recommended soil bearing value for continuous and square footings
a minimum' of 12 inches in width and imbedded a ~inimum depth of 12
inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade shall be 1500 P.S.F.
TJie foregoing values are for dead and live loads' and may be increased
1/3 for t~mporary horizontal forces.
It is the opinion of this firm that the fill soils placed on the
subject site, as reported herein, have been properly compacted for
their intended use.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved .by:
H
HD/cd
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS JOB NO.: 6-20
Test Lot Elevations % Moist. Dry Den. Soil I , I
No • D ate No. ~N.=a..::.t..=... _--:::;..F.=i,;;;;n..=... --.::;;G..:.r..=... _--",-T_e..::;.s..::;.t Field peF Fi~~d Type Comp"," I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
\ 8
9
10
11
,-12
13
14 "
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 I
25
26
<
5-11-77 '2 278.0 282.0
• It 4" ,28,3.0 285.-5
5-12-77 3
"
It
;5
51
68
5-13-77 ,2
II
..
"
' ..
It
4,
30
68
57
56
5-161;77 63
II
II
"
It
"
"
"
57 '
54
58
51
Clara
55
5
,. '3
5-17-77 58
"
"
It
II
57,
58
52
58
277.0
275.5
182.0
196.0
277.0
277.0
220.0
284.6
286.0
216.2
218.0
282.0
285.5
167.0
205.0 218.0
160.0 '181.0
175.0 189.5
183.0' 204.0
157.0
165.0
152.0
184.0
199.5
161.0
.281.0
281.5
155.0
160.0
i59.0
170.0
158.0
165.0
175.0
162.0-
216.2'
215.0
,173.0
286.0:
284.6
168.0
181.0
170.0
179.0
180.0
280.0
283.5
279.0
279.5
184.0
199.0
281.0
281.5
222.0
, 209.0
162.0
178.0
188.0
159.0
169.0
157.0
187.0
205~5
167.0
283.0
283.0
161.0
14.5
8.6
9.9
9.2
'14.1
11.2
8.4
8.5'
7.1
16.4
14.3
14.7
21.9
15.0
15.8
17.7
13.2
15.9
'17.3'
8.6 '
15 .. 4
19.1
16 6 '. 0 ' 15. 9
~65.o-13.8
176.0 11.9
165.0 13.8
~15.1 "
, 122.6 ",'
114,.6
-
116.2
105.6
110.3
113.7
i12~1
117.1
107.3
108.4
107.2
A, '91.9
A,'
,C
B
97.,8
97.0
98.4
94'.,9
93.4
, 96.3
Bo" . ' 95.4
B -, ,99,.2
C
G
G
96.4
, 93~2
92.2
,105.,0", 'C .94.3
, 90.5
.
, '113.4
105.2
102.8'
, 109.8
106.9
103.4
113.8
107.,6
103.1
100.8
117.2
117.6
111.0
F
F
G
G
1" '
B
C
95.5
, 93.,2
94.,4
'91.9
93.8
96,.4 '
91.1
93.2
, C ' '90.5
, A 93.~5
A 93.9
B ' 94.0
• SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS JOB NO.: 6-20.
Test Lot Elevations % Moist. Dry Den. Soil %
C·omp •. No. D ate No. ,::.:N..=a...::,t..:;,.. _-..::..F.=.in.:=.=,... ~G=-r.;;... __ T",-e;:;;..s_t Field peF Field Type.
27
28
29
30.
31
.32
33
34
35
36
37
-38
39
40.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50.
51
52
5-17-77 58
II 59
57
5-18-77 57
It
" 53
It 51
" 58
163.0.
1.10..0.
157.0.
160..0.
167.0.
172.0.
161.0.
175.0. .
177.0.
178.0.
175.0.
180..0.
180..0.
181.0.
" 57' 163.0. '181.0.
" 58 165.0. 181.0.
II 55 167.0. 185.0. .. 53 175.0. 190..0.
5-19-77 5.8
" 56
" 57
,,-58
" 58
" 59 .
'11 59
5-20.-77 .59
It 60.
" 60.
n 60.
It 63
63
5-23-77 56
II
II 56
165.0. 177.0.
169.0.. 184.0.'
164.0. 181.0.
.168.5 181.0.
172.0. 181.0.
177.0. 185.0.
115.0. 185.0.
175.0.
176.0.
181.0.
183.0.
193.0.
190.-;-0.
175.0.
173.0.
185.0. .
185.0.-,
189.0.
189.0.
20.4.0.
20.4.0.'
184.0.
184.0.
167.0.
171.0.
168.0.
170..0.
13.5
15.9., .
13.0.
13.1
175.0.' .13.6
176.0. ~7.o.
170..0.
170..0.
172.0.
171.0.
177.0.
174.0.
18.9..
13.3
12.2
12.4
15.4
9.5
1.12. D.
110..-9,'.
111.5
10.7.0.
10.9.2
107 .. 8
10.1.1
110. .. 8
.111.0.
10.5."7
10.4.5
116.0. .
H
.R
H
F
:F
C .
9..1.7
~
90. ... 8
9~.'2
9.7.1
9.3.9.,
92.7
9.1~ 7 .
95 .• 3
94.0.
95.0.
. 9.3'.9.
9.4 .. 9
175 •. 0.
177.0.
.. It~.o.
. 11.6 '. . t1,9~O : . ·G· 9.4.6
178.0.
119.0.
182.0.
l~D.o.
18.3
18.5
14.1
17.1.
180..0. ": '10..3
i8s.o. .
~87.o.
197.0
199.0.
179.0.'
18'2.0.
12.3 .
12.0
. 16.5
14.9
10..8
11.6
... ,io.j.~·:O·
102.!?
10.2.1
10.5.2'
110..3
lQ5.6·
.. lo.5~9
10.6..5
106.5
.
10.4.'9
10.2.8
10.3.2
10.4.3
. ·,F 97.1
. F 93.0.
F9.4.7
F 95'.5
B .. 9,3.4
G.
B
B
G
...
90..8
91.1
.90..2 .
'90..2
90..2 .
F·93.3
93.7
F " '.94.7
-1
--
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS JOB NO.: 6-20
Test Lot Elevations % Moist. Dry Den. Soil %
.Comp •. Ii 0 • D ate No. ,:.:N-=a..;::t..::... _--=-F-=i=n..::... --=.G;:.r..:... _--=-T.::.e.::,s.:.t Field peF Field Type
53
54
55
56
57
,58
59
60
61
6.2
63
-64
65
66
67
68
69
TO
. 71
72
73
74
75
76 .
77
7-8
5-23-77 55
n· 53
" 52
.. 62
.. 63
... 51
It 56
.. 57
" 54
5-25-77 56
"
"
"
"
"
II
"
It
"
so
52
54
50
51
50
53
55
53
5-26-77 49
'11 52
II 66
It 53
" 50
It 52
" 56
174.0 193.0
175.0 189.0
178.0 190.0
195.0 198.0
195.0 204.0
. 183.0 216.2
175 .• 0 195.0
. 170.0 '190.0
176.0 192.0
180.0 197.0
177.0 186.0
.'
168.0 193.0
182.0· 299.0
180~0' .190 ~O
182.0 216:2
179.0 193.0
182.0 214.0
~80.0 . 206.0
'195.0 214.0
190.0
182.0
208.0
178.0
184.0
187.0
177.0
198. O.
215.5
212.0
214.0
213.0'
21'5~5
201.0
181.0
180.0
177.0
197.0
202.0
187.0
186.0
183.0
186.0
188.0
180.0
181.0
11.7
11.0
10.9
10.5
10.7
'16.6
15.4
1·3.1
11.8
15.8
11.6
12.8
106.6 I
.. ,
105.5." ,I 90.4
106~9 I 91.6 "
105.4 I 90.3
'. 103.6 F, '94.0'
'106 • 8 F . 9 6 • 9
10 7 .it G 9 2 .'1
109.7
. 104 •. 7,
G
F
I
I
94.3
95.0
91.4
.97.2
189.0 9.6 1?2.2, A 97~5
184.0 ' 14.2 106~4 G ~5.6
189 • 0 10 • 3 ' 1]" i ~' 2 R 9,1 • 0
.' 187.0' 12.3". 110.5 R .90.4
189.0.. i4.8 .107.3 G " ·96.4
188.0 '9.2 . 113.4 '. II 92'·.8
197 .0 10 .0 102.1 'F . " 92. 7
195.0
192.0 .
210;0
·193.0
191.0
194.0
191.0
8.9
10.4
12.6
10.3'
12.6
9.6
13.9
1'14.6
112 •. 5
110.9
.
114.1
113.3
111.5
111.5
R
l
I
A
I
1:
I
93.8
'96.4
·95.Q
91.i
97.1
95.5
95.5
:~
• '. SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS JOB NO.: 6.,.20
Test Lot Elevations
N!> • D ate N-o. _N..;;;;;a....:;.,t.;;... __ F_i_n...;;...--'-G..:;or...;;... __ T_e_s_t
I
79 5-26-77 48 199.0
1'67.0
181.0
188.0
205.0
196.'0 80
81
82
83
-84
85
86
.87
88
89
"
"
tt
5-27-77 ..
"
"
"
"
tI
It
57
51
53
55
49
"54
49
55.
53
51
68
185.0
. 190
176.0
210.'0
214.0
206.0
203.'0
200.0
193.0 ·208.0
182.0 206.0
194.0
~90.0
187.0
214.0
216.2
218.0
91 5-28-77 52 193.0. 215.5
92
93
94
95
·96'
97
..
It
tt
It
..
tt
54
50
51
55
50
48
195.0 212.0
191.0 217.0
192.0 216~2
193.0· 206.0.
192.0 217.0
200.0 215.'0
9a 5-31-77 Clara 191.0 214 ~O ..
211.0
216.2
99
100
101
102
103·
1tl4
."
"
"
tt
tI
53 177.0
51 '185.0
54' 193.0
68 2'01.0
55 186.0
6-1-77 53 185·.0
212.0
218.0
206.'0
214.'0
2'01.0
194.0
193.0
196.0
195.0
197.'0
198.0
200.0
197.0
198.0
195.0
190.0
197.0
200.0
198.0
199.0
200.0"
2'01.0
?05.0
199.0
212.'0
203.'0
202.0
2'04.'0
203.0
2'04.0
% Moist. Dry Den. Soil
Field ~eF ~i~1d ~ype
17.4
20.6.
9.1
8.4
7.8
9.2
1117
10.0
11.3
112.9
"
. 118.5
12~.2
118.'6
117.5'
119.-2
115.4
113.8
A
A
H
H
H
A
R
R
11
%
Comp.
90.1
94.6
99.2
• 97.1
9:6.2
.97.6
'. 94.4
93,.1
93.6
9.4
114.4
119.5 H .' 97.8
7.7
16.7 .
12'0.8
11.3.5-
H .98·.9
A 90.6
~~f~i'? '. 117.4 A 93.7
12.2
7.9
7.0
12.1
7.6
10.~
9.7
8.1 ..
8.4
17.3
9.3
10.8
112 .• 8
125.1
118.8
118.6
116.4
115.8
119.1
H
A
H
H
H
R·
H
117.3 H
118.8. '. H ..
..
114.1, A
116.8 -R
115.'0. R
113.2 H
9,9.8
97.2
. 97.1
95 .• 3
94.8
97.5
96 •. 0 -
-97.2
91.1 I
95.6 , "/
94.1
9'2.6
,.
" .;
. '"
. :1
• • ••
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS JOB NO.: 6-20
Test Lot Elevations % Moist. Dry Den. Soil %
Comp,. No. D ate No. .;;..;N-=a:...::t..::.._-....:::.F-=i:..=:n:..=..~G-=r-=.._--=.T-=e:..:::s:..=.t Field peF Field Type
105 6-1-77
106
107
108
109
,110'
111
112
113
114
-115
116
II
"
"
II
II
"
"
"
II
"
"
50 '187.0 217.0
, .
45 222.0 228.0
47 216.0 223.0
43 236.0 246.0
44 229.0 240.0
46 '221~0 .231.0
48 206.0 215.0
55 189.0 206.0
52
56
47
45
187.0
179.0
210.0
226.0
215.5
194.0
222.0
243.0
117 6-2-77 . 46 220.0, 232.0
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
, 129
130
"
"
,,' '~
. "
, " .
"
"
II
II
"
"
II
44
51
229.0
186.0
4.2 242.0
45 230.0
43 239.0
46 230.0
49 201.0
42 243.0
44 ;235.0
243.0
216.2
257.0
238.0
258.0
240.0
213.0
259.0
241.0
48' 211.0' 220.0
49
43
49
. .
~OO.O
238 .. 0
207.0
218.9
256~'0
218.5 .
204.0
224.0
219.0
238.0
233.0
227.0
208.0
, ,204.0
9.7
8.2
11.4
10.0
17.2
16.3
12.5,
9.7
205.0 8.4
183.0. . ,13.5'
216.0
234.0
23,0.0
11.7
12.6'
,,15.8
, 116.2
',114.3
111.9
117;2 .
119.3 :',
112.9
113' .• 7 .'
116.~
1.14.5
112.8
1;10.9, .
115.2 .
118.4
H
, , H
H
H
A
A
H
H
..
. , iI'
A
95.1
9~3. 5 '
91.6
95.9.
95.2
90.1
93.,0
95.6
9317
90.Q
H:,90~8 '
H·,·94.3'
236.0 12~5: .' 120.-2 .. ' H . ~ --,
94.5
98~4
207.0 " 7.7',
245.0
238.0
242 .• 0
235.0
211.0
248.0
240.,0
214.0
211.0
246.0
2,15.0
8.3
7.8
9.6
,8.4
10.'6
. 6.'9
7 ~4 .
11~3
.10.4
9.1
8.8
'115~ 5' H
121.1 H
111.6 H
'117,.4 H
113 •. 2 H
~14.9 A
'ii2.8.'-;-:,., H
110.7 , H
'119'~ 4
'117.6 '
113.5 .
116.8
H·
H
H
H
, .
94.5
99.1
: '91.3
9'6.1
-,2.6
91. ~
.90.6'
97.7
95.2
92.9
95.6 '
I I
tit •
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS JOB NO.: 6-40
Test Lot Elevations % Moist. Dry Den. Soil
No. Date No. _N~a_t~. ____ F~i~n~.~G~r~. __ ~T~e~s~t Field PCF Field Type
%
Compo
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
2-3-77 41 , , ...
..
..
..
"
"
It
"
It
il
"
It
U"
47
45
42
44
46
48
41
43
45
42
47
43
46
41
U '\ 44
.. 45
" 43
44
2.-.6-77 42
"
44
n 42
45 .
" 55
" 52
11 55
253.0
223.0
238.0
248.0
242.0
234.0
215.0
260.0
233.5
250.5
264.5
259.5
242.5
225.0
258.0
228.0
244.0
'249.0
247.0
238.0
220.0
255.0 . 265.·0 . ·261.0
247.0 263.0 . 248.0
235.0 254.0 247.0
255.0 1 264.0 258.0
231.0 239.0 238.0
253.0 '263.0
239.0 248:.0
258.0' 265.0
2.50.0 259.0
245.0 257.0
254.0 263.0
240.0 . '259.5
252.0 264.5
260.0
264.5
251.0
. ,
241.0
263.0
252.0
256.0
254·.0
256.0
258.0
'258.0
261.,0
11.8
'9.5
7.4
8.9
13.6
11.9
7.7
9.1'
. 12.2
14.8
10.4
9.6
7.4
8.5
12.2
15.6
13.9
11.7
10.2
11.1'
10 .• 7
13;4
247.0
250.0
235.0
194.0
179 .• 0
250.5 .248.0, ,.10.4
196.0
206 .• 0
~.11.0
209.0
20,5 ~5 .
204.0
208 •. 0
7.4
7.6
9.5
113.7
1l6.{.
118.5
113.'1
105.3'
107.2
11'5.7
'114.0
116.a
],04.6
114.3
116.2'
119 • .1
, ;t10 .• ·6
..
, 110.2
105.6
. t.
103.9
. 1.18.4
121.8
'107 •. 8
i06.2
1,08.5
110.1 ' , t ,
. 114.6
114.8
116.7
·R,
R
R
C
C
R
95.3.
97.0 '
92.6
94.6
95.3
f)4.7
fl., 93.3
·R··: 95.6
.. ' .
C '94.0'
H ·93.5
R 95.1
9a.o
C· ,99,.0
c
c
R
,R
c
C
C
C
R
R
'. . 93.4
96.9
99.7
. 95. ~
95'.4
97.5
98.9
93.8
93.9' ,
95.5
.-:
. , • I
• • SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS '~OB NO.: 6-20
Test
No,. Date
157 6-6-77
158 "
Lot Elevations
No. ~N~a~t~. __ ~F~i~n~.~G~r~.~ __ T~e~s~t
53
"'54
197.0
202.0
214.0
212.0 210.0
159 6-7-77 Clara 201.0 208.0
160
161
,162
163
164
165
166
.
167
168
16'9
170
171
172
17:3
174
176
177
1.78
1.79
i,80
181
182
II
...
..
." ..
" ..
."
..
6-8-77
"
"
II
II .
. it
It
"
.11
~t .
6-9-77
~,
tI
"
"
50
51
53
50
52
51
49
53
67
Clara
67
.68 .
'\ 67
69
67
68
69
67
197.0
178.0
.195.0
191.0
189'.0
184.0
197.0
183.0
192.0
198.0
200.0
204.0
196.0
208.0
207.0
203.0
209.0
197.0
68 ;202.0
67 . ' 202.0
69 '212.0
22 206.0
68 201.0
217.0
216.3
214.0
217.0
.215.5
216.?
218.5
214.0
221.0
213.0
221.0
218.0
221.0
219.7'
221.0
220.0
219.7
221.0'
218.0
, 224.0
:225.0
229:5
23-4.0
209.0
210'.0
212.0
211.0
. 213.0
214.0
213.0
213.5
'195.0
200.0
],98.0
. 205.0
203.0
209.0
'210.0'
213.0
216 ~ O'
218.0
217.0,
219.0
, 221,.0
221.0
224.0
% Moist. Dry Den. Soil
Field Pel'Fie1d Type
14.6
10.8'
11.7
13.2
12.4
11.6
12.8
14.3
13.0
15.6
14.0
12.7
'13.1
. 11.9
13.8
14.6
13.0
10.8
12.8
9.9'
10.1
11.3
9.6
18.2
15.1
105.8
107.~
108.3
106.1
104.8
110.7
113.6 .
109 ~.1 .
108~7
110,.7
104.2
101,5'
-,
109.-2
108.9 . .'
111.4
113.2
110.5 '
·109.6
..... '.
c
c
c
G
G
,G
I.
D
I
I
I
I
I
I
112.7 I
114.-3 I
116.8
'113'~2'
, .1'15.0
101.8
104.3
" ) .:'.
H
'. D
D
%
Comp.
95.1
9{).1
97,.3
94.2
95 .• 2
97.7
. 93.8
93.1
.94.9
92 •. 9
90'.5
93.3
95.5
·91.0
, .
-9·4.7
93.9
9'6.6
97.9
91.3
. '(,95. 6
92.6
94.1
90.7
93.0
.~-
.-,
"1
.-' ,"
. I'Ll'.' (.--V·· .
• SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS JOB NO.: 6-20
Test Lot Elevations
No. Date , No. ~N~a~t~. __ ~F~i=n~.~G~r~. __ ~T~e~s~t
183
184
185
186
187
188
6-9-77
"
"
"
It
"
"
69
22
23
68
69
23
22
215.0
207.0
218.0
210.0
212.0
227.0
210.0
229.0
229.5
231.0
225.0
263.0
234.0
229.5 189
190
1~1
192
193
,i 69 217.0' ·243.0
1.94
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
. '
"
6-10-77
"
"
"
" '. ,
n· '\
-,.
" ,..
6-13-77
23
24
22
23
43
44
45
68
i1
46
,30
21
23
226.0
232.0
221.0
231.0
252. O.
246.0
242.0
212.0
216.0
237.0
225.0
227.0
204 " 46 234.0
205 6-i5-77 21.· 225.0
206 " 31 227.0 .
20'7 .' 21 229 .0
2 Q8 " 20 2 32 • 0
235.0
,247.0
263.0
259.5
250.5
236.0
239.0
242.5
267.0
239.0
260.0
442.5.
246.0
267.0
... 2~9.0
249.0
228.0
224.0
223.0
227.0
236.0
230.0
226.0
.. 234.0
'228.0
235.0'
233.0
262.5
259.0
250.0
235.0
228.0
241.0
230.0
233.Q, ,
'235.0
236.0
234.0
239.0
236.0
% Moist. Dry Den. Soil
Field peF Field Type
14.1
12.6
13.8
20.1
15.6
12.4
13~0 .
10.6
11.8
14.3
17.0
20.9
, 18.6'.
14.1 .
15.9
12.7 .
13.8
19.6
11.6
13.2, '
15.1 ,
16.6
12.4,
1'0.8
9.4
12.1
108.4
,106.1 . ,
99.8
101.6
1.10.4 .
114.3
112.5
112.9
109.6', '
111.6
'109.7
100.6'
to,6.1
105 ~.9
108.3
101.5
114.3
109.7
113.6 .-
115.2
,I
F
F
I
I
I
I .
I
H
,I
F
D
D
D
I
D
I
',102.8." \.: F
108.1
. 112~:4 ,
110.5
109.3
113.6
-D
I
I
I
I
%
Comp~
92.9
90.-9
90.6
9:2.2,
94.6
,97 .• ·.9
..
·
95.4
96.7
93'.9'
91.3
94.Q
91.3
94.6
94.4
96.:5
90.5 ,
· :~7. ~,
97-.8
97.3
98.7.
~. ";.
93~3
96.4
· 96.3
94.7
93.7
97.3
:
, , .
" ,
. ,/ '. ,
',~
Test Lot
N 0, • D ate No.
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
6-15-77 69
n .. 21
" 24
" 30
" 29
" 31
" 23
216 ,;,6-17-7Z 20
217
218
220
221
n,
"
n
29
31
Sonora"
30
'20
222 6-20-77 29
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
" " 31
n '\ 30
41
47
48
48
. "
"
n
..
"
"
"
Sonora
32
29. "
232 ' " 33 .
233 6-22-77 31
2.34 It 34
tit •
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS JOB NO.: 6 ... 20
Nat.
Elevations
Fin. Gr. Test
212.0
235.0
241.0
226.0
237.0
232.0
234.0
250.0
24-6.0
260.0
267.0
266.5
267.0
260.0
242.0 ,259~0
245.0
237.0
242.0
234.0
244.0
245.0
·241.0
234.0
259.0
227.0
215.0
220.0
248 .. 0
266'-5
267.0
265.0
267.0
249.0
266.5
267.0
267.0
265.0
'233.5
225.0
230.0
265.0
250.0 267.,0
247.0' 266.5
24.6.0
221.0
252.0
267.0
261".0
267.0
233.0
239.0
242.0
235.0
239.0
241.0
-245.0
244.0
243.0
245.0
247.0
446.0
24,8.0
,,249.0 ,
250.0
252.0
265.0
222.0
223.0
227.0
255.0
253.0
257.0
'249.0
256.0
555.0
~ Moist. Dry Den. Soil %
Field' PtF F!e1d Type£omp.
11.7
,8.9
13.4
12.6
9.6
10.1
12'.6
10.3
11.6
13.4
14.,2
12.9
10'.1
11.7
15.0 '
11.9
12.7
10.8
12.5,
13.4
',10.'6
12.1
,13.7
12.2
11.6
14.2
112.4
110.1
109.1
111.6
113.6'
110.9
11-1.6
, , 114.7 ,
.109.7 ,
112.3
110.4
113.7.
, ' , 114.7 ...
, '
'108.6
107.3
1'14. i
112.6
116.5
,112.0 .
11,0.7: ,
I
',I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
H
H' ,
'9·4.3
93.5 '
95.6
97.3
95.0
9.5 .,6
,,98.3
" 94.0 ., -.
96.2'
, 90. j ,
93.0
'I"", 93.1
I
R
'H
Ii
, I,
t,
92.0
'93.4
" 92.1
11,3.6 '>J" 'i
95,~ 3
96.0
94.8
97.'3
111.5
,"10~'. 2
110.1
108.7
I
,I , .
, 'I
I
,1
95.5
, 93; 6 .
, 94.4'
95, • .5
9.3.1
:,
: .I
.. ;
• • SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS JOB NO.: 6-20 .
Lot Elevations % Moist. Dry Den. Soil %
No. ~N~a~t~. __ ~F~in~. __ G~r~. ____ T_e~s~t Field peF Field Type. Comp.
235 6-22-77. 67
236
237
238
239
240
It 22
It 30
6-23-77 34
It 31
" 29.
241 6-24~77. 30
242
243
244
'2'45
~46
"
"
33
, , 29
32,
47
68
247 6-27-77 '30
2.48 "
249 ~t •
250 ·6:;;28-7"
251
252
253
254
255
256
~57
258
,
259
260
261
. "
6-30-77
"
"
7-11-77
".
It
II
"
31
34
7
.7
35
32
29
40
38
37 ..
36
28
30
32
212.0
. 215.0
227.0
255.0
232.0
252.0
23.3.0
228.0
229.5 .
267.0
267.0
267.0
266.5
267.0
258.0 ·267.0
257.{)
259.0
229.0
202.0
230.Q
255.0
278.0
279.5
266.0
263.0
259.0
264.0
266.0
266.5
265.8
266.5
236.0
265.5
266.5
267.0
233.5
218.0
267.0
267.0
'l-6] .0
284.0
284.0
267.5
268.5
268.5
264.6
267.3
268.5
269.0
269~. 0
269.0
269.0
. 227.0
229.0
256.0
257.0
259.0
260.0
262.0
.. 260.0
264.0
261.0
233.5
218.0
264.0
265.0
265.0
2-80.0
282.0
267.0
268.0
268.0
264.6
267.$
268~5
12.4
10.5
13.9.
16.5
18.4
11.5
6.2.
14.7,
10.0
13 .. 7
15.5
. '14.1
12.7
11.3
3.5
12.4
9.1
7.4
11.4
7.1
8.6 "
7.1
269.0 9.4 .' ,
269.0 10.8
.29 9 •0 9.1
269.0 8.8
113.9
111 •. 6
101.6
100.8
103.6'
111.6
12'4.0
.110 .• 5
114.8
111.8
111.1
.-
108.8'
" 113.0
105.4
10.6.8
113.6
108.1 ,
; l1l:.1
108.6
10,5.1
. ,
I
I
F
F
F
B.
.J
I
. -
97.6 .
95.6·
92.2
94.0
94.5
99.2
94.7
I .98.2'-
I ' 95.~
I . 95 .. 2
I· 93.2
I.
B
B
.B .
B
B ..
I'
96.$
90.3
, 9.0·4
96.2
91.5
94'.1
92.0
90 • .1
115.6 ... '-B 97 ~,9
95.3
91.3
90.8
112.6 'B
, ,107 .8' B
107.2
118.1 'B
109.5 B
108.0
100.0
92.7
91.4
13
See /Ylf.5
( ;).)
t· " ... ----
.. ', .
. .
Bob Dickey, Geologist • 32145 Via Carlos, San Juan Capistrano
California 92675
(714)' 493-5207 .
October 4,.' 1976
Carlsbad Development Company
P. 00 Box B
Carlsbad, California 92008
. ~c,£\~~1)
\\. a '/. \<;\1\)
nt~ (.I .
v 'S£>l\U Orr: C~R~~t\\1\e(\\
C\'\i '\\'6 ~e9 , ",'ee\'\ '6'" Subj ect: Geological Investigation of Prop}~ed Residential Development
Carlsbad Tract 76-2, Royal Home No.6, Unit No.1, 2, & .. 3,
Elm Street at Appian Road, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen;
This Geologic Investigation has been conducted at your request to .
provide design input for preparation of the grading plan for Carlsbad
Tract 76-2. In 'conjunction with this investigation, the Preliminary
Soils Investigation by Duco Engineering dated March 26, 1976, and
the 100-scale Tentative Map for Carlsbad Tract 76-2 by Brian
Smith .. ··Engineers·, Inc., dated February 6, 1976, were both reviewed.
Completed geologic ,mapping on adjoining Carlsbad Tract 74-5
was also reviewed. Two surface reconnaissances and eight
backhoe trenches were complet~d to provide a record of site cond-
itions for interpretation of the proposed grading. This report
'has been prepared to present findings of these studies.
Geolpgical Conclusions and Recommendations
Based upon this Geologic Investigation, the Tentative Tract is consid-
ered to be feasible for development, provided that the recommenda-
tions of this report and the Soils Investigatio~ are considered during
design and development.
1) The proposed 2:1 cutslopes depicted on the lOO-scale
grading plan are expected to expose massive sandstone and siltstone
with relatively flat-lying bedding structure. This bedrock is
exposed on neighboring Tract 74-5 in cutslopes and on El Camino
Real roadcuts. 76-2 cutslopes are expected to be stable as graded,
subj ect to detailed geplogic maBping during site grading. Portions
of the cutslopes are expected to expose interbeds of siltstone material.
This siltstone was found to be jointed and fractured, with' clay seams
. dipping at various angles. These clay seams and joints may fail
as small-scale pop-outs on slope faces where slopes undercut these
features. As alternatives, eit her increased maintenanc.~ for pop-but
,1"". ~ •
---;f7 b-D ~i
• Carlsbad Dev Co -TX'act 76-2
October 4:" IH76
Site Index Map
. I
Base map fr·.om a portion of the San Lui's. Rey Quadra.ngle, U. S. G. S.
Scale: 1 inch = 2000 feet '
..... ~.~.~'-.\/ ~~I"..~1, ..... ~, ... : ..... ~ .... :'I~;~~ ........... 1'f"'tr~~:t~'t"'~'t .... ft"I"'" :r~-t';'W!.,..~~"",.., ~~ ... ~~"t.~d
~: , I,.:' / J ~ '. ],
.... ' ,:\ :." I
I',' :1.:
"
, ,.
';
, ,
I ,
1
I
I '
I 'I_
I j -
J
I 1 I
:'
.. ~'" ' .
j.
Carlsbad Dev Co -Tract 76-2
October 4, 1976
page two
•
,failures can be expected~ or minimal width replacement fill
blankets can be provided, as deter:rp.ined during grading. The
, area behind Lots 62-67 is expect~<:i to expose this siltstone
material.
2) Soil materials have been treated by'Duco Engineering in
their report of February 6, 1976. The trash fill encountered along
several drainages was not found in the proposed cutslope 'areas
explored during this geologic investigation. ,
3) The landslide encountered by Duco near Lots 44 and 45
was probably a cross-bedding failure which occurred along a clay seam
or joint plane. Since the siltstone material tends to fail along such
features, it is important that the s~dehill fill keys be geologically -, ,.
inspected where ungraded natural Slopes are to remain beneath the
toe of the keyway. The area recommended for inspection by the
geologist is the keyway~io-be constructed below Lots 41 to 50 QD
the San--Bte'go-Ga-s-a:rrd--EIectric easeme~ ff more convenient, a
prinC!:paI with1)uco (15OtIi gI!aduat? g,eologists) couJ,,(t,make-th-is-4ns'pe~ tion.' . .,-, ''------------
~
4) Because of the sandy character of much of the bedrock to
be exposed on the proposed cutsiope's--;--C-Onsrderahle~-erosron_can 'be
expected where run-,off.:::1:s=-allowed to flow over slopes. The slope pro-
tection berms and drainage terraces sl1oul(Lbe_design~truc-
ted to minim1f.~rJ!r:L-(~,ff .2yer sloJ2,e faces. Future homeown,ers should
be warned to-.minJm-i-z-e-ir.xig~t!.<?nr consistent with maintaining ground
cover. Only lightweight deeply-rooted plarit varieties should be planted on
these slopes. '
5) Recommended geologic mapping on cutslope faces should
be accomplished while grading -equipment remains on the site to
facilitate possible remedial grading. The fill-over-cut slopes should
be graded to lower pad grades, inspected and approved, all before
superposed fill embankments are constructed. This is to minimize
unnecessary removal of engineered fills.
6) Removals and fill compaction should be inspected by the
Soil Engineer. Structural support for buildings or for compacted
fills is available within the upper few feet of bedroc~ materials.
Where loading geometry permits, suitably, compact nat-qrp,l soil
materials may be left in place b~neath compacted fills. Potential
areas of dispute can be resolved by the Spil Engineer ,and Geologist.
t
, !, i
"
.' ~
'1·· ...... . . i ~<v ... ~
. I • ;
, ~" ;~
. ",' , "
:ia-,;
, "
Iii, ;
" , ,.
J. , "
. '
i
I
·1
I '
I
I.
I· i
;'< >,--
~-
, .
" '1'
Carlsbad Dev Co -Tract 76-2
October 4~ 1976
page ··:three
•
7) No fault rupture is anticipated O:t:l-Site. To resist
probable seismic shaking from future· off-site 'earthquakes, .
. buildings can be designed in conformance' with normal Zope III -. .,----. . loadin~ v~ues. . ~
8) It is unlikely t~~~~ubdrains.will'-p~ __ re~d beneat~
canyon fills, based upon surface conditions during the inv-estigation.
A final determination=sJ:ioul~ be made when cleruiouts~:na;)-e'-:b-e-en:' .... ------------------.-------------------------' · made. .J .: ' ..... ;
~ 9) Building setbacks from graded slopes should be _ 'based upon:': -
the current Uniform Building Code, Chapter ~ . ~ ,A
....:------
Thank you for this opportunity to be' of continued service.
Please call if there are any questions regarding this report, •. ' This .:~:
investigation has been conducted in accordance with generally acc.epted/
· practice in the field of Engineering Geology. . No further warranty is , :
offered or implied. " -,',1
"'YI.
· Respectfully,
Attachments:
Dis tribution;
• G. 914
Appendix-Geology, Index Map, Geology Map
(2) Addressee ..
(1) Duco Engineering ..
j _._ 6
-; .......
;, , J'
. ',. ".
I
~': : .. /
.
,-... ~"I:II-'~" f .. ,
)
i ,,'
, ,\ ~
" I,
., .
"j! I
"
'i' f
• I I
!
I
"
i ~!. , ,
i ,I, •
j
I '
. ~'. .
Carlsbad Dev Co
October 4, 1976
page four
Tract 76-2
•
Appendix .. Geology:'
Site Conditions -The 25-acre site is in essentially natural condition,'
with graded properties bounding to the west. A natural drainage, flows'
southerly along the east boundary. This draInage lies beneath the'
power lines in the San Diego Gas and Electric right of way. Partly
paved Appian Road and Elm Street bound the northwest edge of the
tract. Lot. 8 of Carlsbad Development Tract No. 76-2 was,'graded.
with adjoining Tract 74-5A to the west. "
Site conditions have been lavishly described in the March 26, 1976
Preliminary Soils Investigation by Duco Engineering. Reference to this
report is heartily recommended.
, ,
Proposed Grading -The site is to be graded with normal cut,-and-till '
techniques. The', upper, or northerly portion is to be ex,cavated,
with fill yardage to be placed in the upper and lower central drainage
and along the west side of the power easement. Cut slopes will be
graded at 2:1, with highest slopes to be constructed 50+ feet high
above.,J.Jot 66. Other cut slopes are to be up to 20 feet high. Fill
and fill-over-cut slopes are also to be graded at 2:1, with 1 1/2:1
fill slopes adjacent to the power eaE?ement. The deepest fill, exclu-
sive of probable cleanout depth, will be 45 feet deep on Lot ,53.
Geologic Se~ting -The site lies on the east flank of a low dissected
ridgeline in an Eocene marine sandstone deposit w:i.thin the central
Penninsular Range Province. This bedrock is essentially flat-lying,
composed of quartz and feldspar rich sandstones with interbedded
siltstone layers. Overlying the bedrock are surficial deposits of
alluvium, slopewash and topsoil. Scattered fill and trash are locally
present. No faults are known to cross the site. Nearby active faults. "
include the Southern California Offshore Fault (Rose Canyon?) which ':: ,"
reportedly occurs a few miles offshore beneath the Pacific, Ocean '
to the southwest, and the Elsinore Fault, 22 miles to the northeast.
Groundwater is not expected to be significant to the site.
Bedrock -Bedrock sandstone and siltstone are exposed in upper
drainages where these are deeply incised. Trenches revealed com-
petent bedrock beneath a thin soil cover in cut-slope localities. The
sandstone b'edrock was found to be composed of fairly massive medium
to coarse grained feldspathic and quartzitic materials, which eroded
in typical badlands fashion. Interbed¢led siltston:es were found to be
fine grained, massive and generally we 11 fractured and jointed, with
local clay coated fracture planes. Upper drier portions of the silt-
stone were deeply cut by shrinkage cracks, i~dicating an expansive
n~ure. ' ,
, "
, , , ,
" ..
v" .I.'~
" '.~} ,
I .,',
" \!
'/
, "
.. ' .
, I
'I' j.
, ~ ~. ,
)' ,
I I
" 1
! I
I , ,
I •
,
i'
1
. ()
l •
.• I·
i
Carlsbad Dev Co -Tract 76-2
October 4, 1976
. page five
• , ,
The approximate surface exposures of the sandstone and 'siltstone
materials are indicated on the attached Preliminary Geologic Map.
Field distinction was made between sandstone and siltstone on the'
basis of the soil character. Expansion cracks in the soil mantle'-
were interpreted as overlying siltstone bedrock •. Granular soil
was interpreted as overlying sandstone bedrock.
Structure of the bedrock was essentially flat lying with a very gentle
westerly inclination, or dip, of 2 to 4 degrees. In addition to the . '
, \ gentle westerly dip, the siltstone was cut by several random joint
sets, some of which exhibited clay coatings. The sandstone was
generally massive, with cross-bedding apparent in som,e exposures. '
Surficial Deposits -Alluvium is present along the San Diego Gas' ,,,
and Electric power easement, extending into the site along some
of the drainange swales. This material is generally sandy, with
more cohesive portions in up slope areas. Local conglomeratic
zones can be expected. Depth of removal for alluvium was not
teste,d, ,for this geologic study. However, relative compaction' of
these materials 'wiii guide the ultimate removal depth. No exposure
of underlying bedrock materials is considered to be necessary.
~ " . , ,
Slopewash, or deep soil, can be expected in natural drainage channels. iI'
This material is expected to be cohesive in character, expansive, and
subject to lateral and down slope movement when ,loadeq. with .
superposed fills or structures. Removal should be considered necessary,'
in graded portions of the tract.
Soil was encountered in the trenches excavated for this study. Thick.-,: ': ::
nesses ranged from 1 1/2 to 3 112 feet. Sandstone bedrock was over-
lain by granular soil and siltstone was overlain by cohesive soil. This
, cohesive soil was found to be less well compacted than the granular
soil. Both soil types will likely require reworking during grading.
Fill was placed on lot No. '8 in conjunction with grading of adjacent
tract 74-5A. Trash fill along several drainages has been reported
by Duco Engineering. The trash fill will require removal and offsite
disposal. Fpundations and concrete walks I drives are evident in the
area of lots 42 & 43. This will require removal.·
Geologic Hazards -Faults, large landslides, and significant groundwater
were not found on the tract. A landslide has been reported by Duco
on lots 44 & 45. This was probably a cross-bedding plane failure':" , ~ occurring within the siltstone unit, since bedding in this area is
indicated to be quite flat. No ground rupt~re from ~aults, is exp~cted
"
, ' . . . ~ ..... ' . r " ,
~'.'
:' , ---~--",'--: ------"~{if1r-:----cr~~
" " ,t, ,! , " i-, : if
, !
I :,
" \ '\
"'I " ,
-1"')" ':'.':
, ..
, , , , ..
'I, "
':, ~ . . .~
:I"! Ii'
.I",r ..
i
.i
I
,I
i j
1
I ., .\ -!
, , . '
! •
i'
;
4
·1 1 .
. {
f)
II
, .
• ~'. t
Carlsbad Dev Co -Tract 76',:"2
October 4, 1976
page six
" .
• ••• "
....... ~ "
'. '.:l
on the property. Ground shaking ir~ni~iit,~iIt'~ .earthquakes occurring
on nearby active fault traces cah ;.~¢ , .. ~~¢,~e~?\during the life of the .
. ·project. These nearby falllts :.in61ud'$;= ·~h(,3·::S(,;>u'thern Califor:nia Offshore . . ,. I • 1 ~~. • •
(Rose Canyon) Fault and the Elsi;nore Fault'~ . ;·,'tbe Elsinore is considered
to be the most likely site of ~ nearby earthquake, for this tract. Site
shaking consistent with Zone ~II lOJld~n:g. dan l?~' expected. No ground-
water was encountered during thi!>:.~Ju~y .. Ol:' the $qil Investigation. No ,-
groundwater is expected to be enCPur.lter.~~ dur41g site grading. .. . . ',;:!!j \ ... . ,
'. t
.j
,: .
I'
. \ I;
.· .. · ... :, .. :,'.~1.;,I· ~." .:',~/~' . ','~ ~ -~' .. :{l,:l:
{ . , . :.'~
( 'i":", J . :
. 1 ~ .f ,
" ;. .......
-; :
. f .
'_ .. , .
. i:~{!:' ,f,
. '. f ~:V. \ .
;; . '.
,.
t ,"
, ,
:.
'\"
. ,
J' . ,.~ ,
'j,
~~~. :
.' .,' ~ .I ~ ,
, :
,
-,
• ,
.. < •
Carlsbad De.co -'l'racL ,o-~
---':. ,.,
:Trench 1
O-:3~
Trench 2 ..
0-2. 50lL
;,: .• nch . Logs :.,}"
". '.' ,:"": '1', ,T
2.-7 VP/ZtJ?,< .s/lAlPS77)III~ 1#a:>IIIM nJ c:1t?~c: GlUIN~
1///59Vl£.j ~"#e::. 61bsmAl~ 8a/tp~ 7CU/:'" fla,2ii;a,v~
Trench 3
CJ -~ :X?jL.: /4"# ~..?;vp t"RU?)
f'2--'2-:5tJ1L g~(I/N S#AI.tJy ~/ ,/)/lAlt?
:2 -b~:2.1 EFP/ZtJc.I:.
:.' Trench 4
c> -1?-":2-~ BRaUN ~ cJlm 6.K;:;W6"iM ~
1~:2--7/ 86P~ 8RtxVN CL4f'&f' 6"IP:s?Z>(I$I)4¥5il/~
. d~/jJ'T$P/ F/2.4c..114.1Z/"'~
Trench. 5 .
(/ -I~z.. .:::gIL !3&WAI Cb,4?l
/~.z. -4 gpgog L/~ 6~,v t!#fY6j/ 6";?rG7ZJ#P,
4--5' g6£?~ .tAJlli7l5. tJp~ &~tS sM~O'Al~ ,
S -6" 8£p@c:;e:: u6/1r" 6~ ~~lt' -slVS7tJAft$.
-. Trench 6 . O-/~ ~
a;/eG,/ aAVGlj SIL.7S?7JIV'-%
... -.
/~ -2-,t;E/?&?U
'2--~ %p~cg Stiff 61vr ,q;V';:'-6~~ -S;l1</£J5m~ I
6 -&,/ B@@C? .6l/rr ;t4c:PIP/tf ... a~~ ~,A;~
5MpSmIV6/ N~sit/5
Trench 7
/ ~ -5'~:z-ecPlZtXY< {/fA! S/lAlo:smlVe., ~/fr-.c..~/N" Go,
'. tJ1,IJ£51(/.6' ~/r/Z->e . ~-9/N~
"",' '. ';~' j .~ • ": • P"t" '" .... \',. . f
Trench 8 ", " ""
0-/1'/;2.-
. ~
TAN S/lIllP ) ., ,
. 'S "
, 't,
1f'1Z---1-7":2-13e:P~0< T/?A! S/lNt:>S1?JAI.c., ~r(..'f'/AI'~ . /." \ ..
,N/?55/Vc', C/);?ase:. 6t4t/~'fP.:;" ... :~ ." .
'~, -.. ," ~ ,.:j I{J~.< ~.i.:; " t
.;'. ':., • ~p"'h
',' t
" . '
, . J
,. . 'C··"··:'}·::""1t·l~~t,,."~~t·-·,~,
.' ... '. !J,._.".:-,.. "i' ~. 1 : .
: .... ';.;: ,I ,.,~ ::. .. t' • r
II -. hZ-, II ". "
1 J
I .1,
I "
, " :.
. '
J", .. ' . . i: ,:-. ' .. ' 1
'!.
" ',: ' .. ~
',' , ..
i ,~. :' ,:.. t,
\ I ;,
t. ' W'
,I
e e
DUCO Engineering, Inc. FOUNDATION & GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATIONS
FILL CONTROL -SOIL TESTING
1170 CENTRE DRIVE, SUITE F . WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91789
(213) 964-3440 . 964-3449
PRE LIM I N A R Y SOl L S I N V EST I GAT ION
PRO P 0 SED 7 0 LOT'S U B D I V I S ION
CAR L S BAD T R ACT N U M B E R 7 6'-2
CAR L S BAD, CAL I FOR N I A
CT71o-0 ;)-
REC£l~£D
FOR: Carlsbad Deve19pment Corp.
P .0. Box "B"
Carlsbad, Calif. 92008
March 26, 1976
Job No.: 6-20
DUCO Engineering, Inc.
•
FOUNDATION Be GEOLOGIC INVESTIG"ATIONS
" FILL CONTROL -SOIL TESTING
1170 CENTRE DRIVE, SUITE F • WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91789
(213) 964-3440 • 964-3449
}larch 26, 1976
Carlsbad Development Corp.
P.O. Box" "B"
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: Soils Investigation
Carlsbad Tract No. 76-2
Carlsbad, California
Job" No.: 6-20
Gentlemen:
Attached is a
subject site.
report or the
this office.
copy of our Report of Soils Investigation for the
Should you have any questions with regard to th~s
recommendations contained herein, please ~ontact
We wish to thank you for selecting our firm to provide this
service.
Very truly yours,
DUCO
HD/nd
Page One
March 26, 1976 Job No.: 6-20
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a preliminary soils invest-
igation for a proposed 70 lot residential subdivision to be known
as Carlsbad Tract No. 76-2, to be located southeast of the inter-
section of Elm Avenue and Appian Road, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, California. Figure No. 1 presents a plot
plan of the site indicating the pertinent soils data. .
The object of this investigation was to gather information and
data regarding the surface and subsurface soil strata upon which
to base our recommendations for the safe and economical develop-
ment of the site for the proposed single family residences.
SITE CONDITIONS
The subject site is an irregularly shaped parcel of property en-
compassing approximately 25 acres, sotith and east of the intersec-
tion of Elm Avenue and Appian Road, in the City of Carlsbad, cali-
fornia. The property is bounded on the east by a 150' wide ease-
ment for the San Diego Gas and Electric Co.; on the south by a
currently developed residential subdivision; on the west by Appian
Rd. and on the north by Elm Avenue.
The site is characterized topographically by several east to
~outheast plunging ridges separated by a well incised dendritic
drainage pattern which converges into two main drainage courses
in the southeast portion of the site. The surface runoff coll-
ected by these drainag~ course~-ls discharged into a main north-
south draining water course which is roughly aligned within th~
150' easement along the east property line.
T4e north central and northwest portions of the site are composed
of gently sloping terrain which drains both east and west.
The maximum topographic expression is from a high point at elev-
ation 297'+ on proposed lot 16 to a low point at e1~vation 154'+
on lot 60,-for a maximum relief of 143 feet.
Surface vegetation, at the time of our field investigation, con-
sisted of a moderate to very heavy growth of native weeds and
grasses with locally heavy concentrations of brush and scattered
small trees.
A considerable amount of burned, dump re{use was ~ncountered in
the northeast corner of the site in the area of proposed lots
41, 42 and 43. Test hole #2, ~xcavated in. lot 41, e~countered
a depth of 8 feet of mostly glass and decomposing metal in a
minor matrix of soil. .
Page Two
March 26, 1976 Job No.: 6 -20
Site Conditions (cont'd)
A 'very heavy growth of tall weeds in this :,area made the exact
areaL limits of this fill impossible to.determine; however test
hole #3, excavated on lot 40, did not encounter any fill, but considerable._,~.REfj[~~_ debil~Tong' wrdi-' tlie-"re'~~-~ts-'ai." previous
struc tures-:Was eVi.d.e.n.i:~_tlYiS area.
~'~', ..... ----
Other areas on the site where fill and debris was noted were
lot. No.eight, to a depth of 5 feet; 34 and 3.5 to a depth of 3 ,
feet; lot 36 to a depth of approximately 18 inches and minor
surface fill and debris on lots 66, 67 and 15.
The soils encountered in the test holes consisted of topsoils
composed of clayey sands on the higher elevations, overlying
sandstone bedrock, and sandy and silty clays at the lower elev-.
ations overlying siltstone and claystone bedrock. Thick top-
soil and altering bedrock were encountered to depths of 8 to
10 feet along the toe of the proposed major fill slope along
the east property line. The top 4 feet of .these soils was noted
to be fairly loose.
Test hole #4, excavated'in.the vicinity of 'lot line 44-45, ex-
posed a very disturbed and distorted claystone bedrock which
may be part of an ancient slump or laridslide block. Additional
test holes, ex·cavated approximately 50 to 60 feet north and
south of test hole #4, revealed undisturbed clayey sandstone
indicating this situation is local in nature and can aucess-
fully be corrected during grading~
No ground water or caving were encountered in the te~t holes
to the depths explored, nor was any ground water cohdition
evident from surface observation.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The subsurface soils conditions were explored' by excavating
nine (9) engineering te~t holes to depths of 5 to 10 feet using
a backhoe with an 18 inch wide bucket.
The approximate location of each test hole is shown on Figure
No. '1, a plan of the site prepared by Brian Smith Engineers.
A continuous log of eac~ test hole was kept in the field at the
time of excavation. These logs, attached as Figure Nos. 2
through 10, reflect the condition and type ~f ~ach Boil strata
encountered based on the Unified System of Soil Classification
as devised by A, Casagrande.
Page" Three
March 26, 1976
Field Investigation (cont'd)
•
Job No.: 6-20
Relatively undisturbed samples of the subsurface soils were
obtained using a 2.5 'inch diameter hollow-tube s~mpler. Dis-
turbed, bulk samples of the typical soils e~countered were also
obtained to be subjected to laboratory testing and analysis.
LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
In-situ moisture and density tests were performed on the undis-
turbed samples and the results of these tests are shown on the
appropriate test hole log at the depth sampled. Also shown are
the results of calculations made to determine the reLative com-
paction of the undisturbed soils compared to the maximum density
determined in accordance with ASTM test method D1557-70.
Results of the maximum density determinations and the laboratory
tests to d~termine the expansion potential of the onsite soils
in accordance with the U.B.C. test standard 29-2 are as followst
Soil Type Max. Den.
A -Clayey Silty Sand 122.2 PCF
B Sandy Clay 111.3 "
C -Clayey Silty Fine Sand 112.2 "
D -Sandy Clay 116.3 "
E -Clayey Sand 118.1 "
F Fine Sandy Claystone 110.2 "
Opt. Moist. Expan. Index
10.1%
14.8% "
14.0%
12.6%
11.5%
14.2%
25
88
27
90
77
103
A summary of the direct shear tests are shown below. The tests
were performed on typical soil samples in a saturated state in
order to duplicate extreme field moisture conditions.
DIRECT SHEAR SUMMARY
Hole No. Depth, Ft. Shear Angle Cohesion
1 ;3.5 33° 750 P.S.F.
3 5.5 23° 600 "
6 4.5 26° 1250 "
7 4.5 24° 900 It
\'
Page Four
March 26, 1976
Laboratory In¥estigation (cont'd)
Job No.: 6-20
Grain size analyses of the typical soil types encountered are
shown graphically on Figure Nos. 11 through 13.
The ,consolidation potential of the typical undisturbed subsur-
face soils is presented on the Pressure-Void Ratio Curves, att-
ached as Figures 14 and 15.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .
The development of the site, as proposed, is considered feasible
from a soils engineering standpoint based on the implementati~n
and incorporation of the following recommendations into the sit~
preparation, grading and construction of the proposed structures.
Site Preparation
Prior to the start of grading the surface vegetation, debris
and remnants of the previous structures shall be stripped and
hauled offsite. The trash, dump refuse and debris on lots 34 -.36
41, 42 and 66 shall be removed to natural ground to the satis-
fact~on of the soils engineer and hauled offsite. The existing
filIon lot No.eight shall be removed to expose the underlying
natural ground under the direc tion of the soils enginee-r. The
excavated fills on lots 1 and 2 may be incorporated into the
compacted fill if cleaned of all deleterious' substances.
The bottoms of the incised drainage courses to receive fill shall
be cleaned of all existing loose surface alluvial soils to ex-
pose the bedrock or soils determined to be competent by the
soils engineer.
Upon completion of the ravine bottom clean-outs, a determinations
will be made for th~ necessity of a subdrainage system based on
the exposed soil conditions. If deemed necessary, a gravel 'and
perforated pipe subdrain will be designed as required.
A minimum equipment width wide shear key shall be excavated at
the toe of all major fill slopes to a depth of 2 feet into app-
roved bedrock or soils deemed suitable by the soils engineer
for support of the surcharging fill soils. A mo:re e'xte,nsive
removal and possibly a stabilizati~n fill may be necessary in
the area of lots 44-45, depending on the soils conditions ex-
posed during the excavation of the fill slope shear-key in this
area.
Page Five
March 26, 1976
Site Preparation (cont'd)
.-tt
Job No.: 6-20
Prior to the placing of any filIon the proposed fill-over-cut
slopes, the eXisting top soil shall be removed to expose the
bed~ock and an equipment width wide tilt-back bench shall be
provided along the daylight line.
Grading
Fill soils shall be spread in 6 to 8 inch loose lifts, watered as
necessary to near optimum moistur~ condition ~nd c~~pacted to
a minimum of 90% of the maximum density as determined by ASTM
test metln:rd -n'1"5S1-70 by means of a sheepsfootroller or oth!ar
approved means of compaction.
Fill slopes shall be backrolled at maximum 4 foot vertical in-
tervals with a sheepsfoot roller and track or grid rolled for
surface compaction.
Berms shall be provided at the top of the cut and fill slopes.
No surface water runoff shall be allowed to flow over the face
of the slopes.
Expansive Soils
.The expansion potential of the onsite soils varies from low to
high. It is recommended that upon completion of the proposed
grading, a lot by lot evaluation of the soils that will direct-
ly affect shallow foundations and slabs be made and any remedial
construction measures deemed necessary to minimize the affect~
of·-t;..h·e--e-x-pa,n·sive soils will be made at -that--'t:ini'e-. --:._-
,-,----'"'~~-------..-.~-~ .~-. .;-......
Foundations
The proposed structures may be supported on conventional cunt-
inuous and square footings founded into firm natural ground or
compac~ed fill. A soil bearing value 0,f.l:500J .• S_ •. :t?_o_ . .!Il.ay be
used for f66tings imbedded a minimum dept~ of l2tnches below
the lowest adjacent finished grade. The ultimate depthf~r the
foundations will be determined by .the expansion pg,tent:ial of
the subgrad·e .. soils. Thj,JL __ ~~j:ft~ t=!:<:>n _~.:i.ll __ b .. e __ m~d:~ __ \1P"~.n ,com-
pletion of the grading when th,~ fi,n.a_l ___ dJ._sposit·ion -of, the soils, is known. --... 0--.----~--.---.--.
The bearing value recommended is for dead and live loads and
may be increased 1/3 for temporary horizontal forces.
Lateral values may be computed at 300 P.S.F. per foot of depth
t~ a maximum value of 4000 P.S.F.
---.
7
Page Six
March 26, 1976 Job No.: 6-20
Conclusions and Recommendations (cont'd)
The recommendations contained in this report are based on the'
results of our field and laboratory investigations, combined
with the principles of madern soil mechanics and sound engin-
eering judgment.
Should any unusual conditions arise or drastic design changes
be contemplated, this firm shall be notified immediately in
order that proper modifications to the recommendations contain-
ed herein may be made as deemed necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved by:
h_/ ,;{, ~/ .~Z21~~~
Sterling F .y'Whfte., RCEI0863
\-• e • e
q -
DATE DRILLED
Depth
In
'Feet
2-21-76
DUCO E11gineering, Inc.
LOG OF BORING NO. 1 PROJECT NO. 6 - 2 0
o Clayey sand with scattered gravel, med. brown,
-1--1--1-----1---+---10.., mo is t , firm ~----~------------~----------------------~-----+
.1
-
5
..
-
-
-
10 -
-
-
-
·
15 -
·
-
. -
·
20 -
-
-
-
""!
25
A 116.6 8.6 95.4
Bot tom 0 Hole
Bedrock -sandstone, clayey silty sand, red
brown & grey, moist, very dense
Very difficult excavation
Carlsbad Tract No. 76-2
FIGURE NO. 2
10,
DATE DRILLED 2-21-76
Depth
In
Feet
o
-
·
-
5 -
-
-
-
10
-
-
-
·
15 -
-
-
·
-
20 -
-
-
-
-
25
Bot tom 0 Hole
DUCO Engineering, Inc.
LOG OF BORING NO. 2 PROJECT NQ. 6-20
FJELD CLASSIFICATION
FILL -Burned
metal in soil
dump refuse, glass & rusting
matrix
loose ,
,
Caving
Nat.~ Clayey silty sand, It. grey orn., moist,
firm
Carlsbad Tract No. 76-2
FIGURE NO.
Dept
< In
Feet
o
5
10
15
20
25
DUCO Engineering, Inc.
DATE DRILLED 2-21-76 LOG OF BORING NO. 3
,Y./(/~;r ~ § ~ 0
h N4? A.q,"" ~~\..... ~o ~~i'" ~o v .... ~
.$ .....l., 'Y v'::" ~ 'Y'" ~'t' ~'t' o~ ~.o~ 4,~ ~o o~ 'FJELD CLASSIFICATION C;)/'Y'Y c;
Sandy clily, dark brown, very -firm
1 B 97.8 04.3 87.9
Clayey silty sand, 1 t. grey,
-
..,.
2 C 99.9 2.1 '89.0
Bo tom of Ho e -
-. -
-
-. ,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Carlsbad Tract No. 76-2
PROJECT NO. 6 - 2 0
mo~st, loose to
moist" firm
,
•
FIGURE NO. 4
/;2.
DATE DRILLED 2-21-76
Depth
In
Feet
o
5
10
15
20
25
-
·
·
-
Bo tom 0 F Ho -
-
·
·
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
."
e
-
DUCO Engineering, Inc.
LOG OF BORING NO. 4 PROJECT No.6..,. 20
FJELD CLASSIFICATION
Si1 ty clay, d"ark brown, very mo;ts t, loose
Claystone, greenish grey, moist, firm,
very distorted & disturbed
Possible old slide debris" or
fault zone
Carlsbad Tract No. 76-2
FIGURE No.5
j '3 ~" __ ---II
DUCO Engineering, Inc.
DATE DRILLED 2-21-76 LOG OF BORING NO. 5
~ ~ ~ 0
th Dep
in
Feet
1V<t.>c, A~<t.> ~-<;-Cj.,..... ~o ~ ~..... ~o &~ tY.t:;~~~ .$ .<,. A <:) v~· .$ <:)<.. ~ '"
c,'" o~ ~ -0";. .,.~ ~o o~ FJELD CLASSIFICATION • c.;/<:)..." v
Sandy clay, dark bro~m, very o
-dense
. 1 D 110.1 16.l 94.6
Clayey sand, med. grey brown,
5 -
-
-
2 E 113.7 12. t 96.3
Bo tom 0 i= HoJ e -
10 -,
-
-
-
-
15 -
-
-
.
-
20 -
-t
-
-
-
25
Carlsbad Tract No. 29-2
PROJECT NO. 6 -2 0
.
moist loose' to
.
moist, dense
,
FIGURE No.6
DUCO Engineering, Inc.
DATE DRILLED 2-21-76 LOG OF BORING NO. 6 PROJEct NO. 6-20
Dept
In
Feet
o
5
10
15
h
-
~
.
-
-
.
-
-
~
-
-
-
• -
.
-
20 -
-
-
-
-
25
1
l!d~tJ:~ ~ ~ ~ 0
N""C, A.q,4!. ~+\ .... ~o.,,~.,... ~~&~
.$' "" A "J d· ","J "J" ~ c,~ o~ 8;--o'S. .((:~ ~o o~ FlELD CLASSIFICATION 'O/"J"'o v
Silty clay, dark brown, very moist, loose
Sandy clay with ca1ichoe, dark grey bro-wn, moist
very firm /
D 107.9 17. 92.7
Silty clay with caliche, grey brown, very moist
firm
Fine sandy clay, 1t. grey brol07n, mOist, very
firm
Clayey fine sand, 1t. brown, very moist, firm
B( ttom pf He 1e
Carlsbad Tract No. 76-2
FIGURE NO. 7
DATE DRILLED 2-21-76
Depth
In
Feet
o
-
-
5 - 1 F 104.1 12.(94.5
-
B01tom 0 HoJe -
10 -
-
-
-
-
15 ....: ~
-
-
-
-
20 -
-
-
-
-
25
DUCO Engineering, Inc.
LOG OF BORING NO. 7 PROJECT NO. 6 -:'W
F1ELD CLASSIFICATION
Clayey sand,
firm
med. brown, moist, loose to mod.
Clayey medium sand, grey brown, moist, firm
Claystone (sandy), greenish g-rey,moist, dense
dry & Hard
.
Carlsbad Tract No. 76-2
FIGURE NO. 8
Dueo Engineering, Inc.
DATE DRILLED 2 -21·-7 6 LOG OF BORING NO. 8 PROJECT NO. 6 - 2 0
Depth
In
Feet
o
5
·
-
·
-
·
·
10 -
-
-
·
·
15 -
-
·
-
·
20 -
-
-
-
-
25
FJELD CLASSIFICATION
Silty sand, med~ brown, moist, firm
~~------~----------------~~------------------------~~ 1 A 107.9 7.7 88.3 Bedrock -sandstone, medium to coarse aand~
tan, damp, dense
difficult to dig
Bo tom olf: Ho e
Carlsbad Tract No. 76-2
FIGURE NO. 9
(7
DUCO Engineering, Inc.
DATE DRILLED 2-21-76 LOG OF BORING NO. 9 PROJECT NO. 6 - 2 0
Depth
In
Feet
o FJELD CLASSIFICATION
I---+---+----+---+-----l FILL -Clayey sand, yellow brn,
"
mois.t, loose
+-+--i----i---+-----{ FILL -Clayey sand, drk. brown,
FILL -Clayey sand, grey brown,
moist.loose
damp, loose
..
-
5
..
-
10 -
-
-
-
.
15 -
-
-
..
..
20 -
-
-
..
-
25
Boltom of Ho]e
-
Wire cable & bottles
,
NAT. -Clayey sand, dark brn., moist, firm
Bedrock -sandstone, med. to coarse sand, It.
grey brown, damp, dense
Carlsbad Tract No. 76-2
FIGURE NO. 10
::!! COl C
::0 ,.,
z' p
('
'.
'" :
CLAY SIZE' -----_. ----•• aVIFI SILT SIZES FINE SAND COURSE lAND .~ r · ...... _~IOO ---,OO~ r-'j T [TTT 'n I'f I '("ff-r "1'r r "j ng
..... 90 ..;;> ---90 I I I . Ii I I I II I IT [71 II I I II I Iii --.., 80 ..;----80 I I I I I II II II V1 I II I I I I I III
~ 70 e . --------/ 1 .1.1.1,1 I 1.1-t-.1 I i.11 ~ 1 C!) 70 ~ -= -----.., eo -' ------~ 50 ---... 40 -= --=
::: 50
i 20' e -I
~ ~ 1..1 ., , 1.1.1.1..l' ..l • (/) 1= r , I I I ~ 60 1= I Hole 111 1.1 -+ ...l...l .1..1..1 ~ I I I ... ~ V 8"-5.0...1 ...1...1...1 ...1...1' Z _ . I
... ~ 1 .1.1 u "'0 I:::. .1 .1 I ...1 I I GC ., ~ I I I ~ ~ . ! 1 ..l • I I I I I I I I I I '1
.J != . V \ 1 1.1 .1 .1 ~ 40 ~ I I
... ~. I I
o '= / I I i ...1 1.1' ... -I -.11. _I I Ii -.1 ~ .' I I I
I-" V I I 50 l-
E . . ./ ~
201--m I r lz-f1J I U II ± I I U I \I \I III;
'0 I. ... k==C \\ \.\ 1\ \\ \ \1 II I 1·1 II III I' 0
~ I I I I I I I I ~ I' I I .1 I -I I· I. 1 I II II I I I. I I I .1 I • l I I I • I I I II I I I. II I I 1 I-~ ~ __ n~ -m-20n+400lll~200~MO;!OO_;';IO---SO-~~II30;-~.(C~~Ib' ~ ~ ~;; r ;. r~l.~ t:.i·ll·i\~i·il·3·"" IIIC". . . ".IEVI: 'IZE' ... II T T I~ , • '0 ...... , ......... _ ...............
I II' I I I I I , I I I I I I II. I I II \ I 1". I·. I II 11.1 II" , ,. I .• I I I I . I II, I, I I I I I I I I I I I , i , i 1 i , • i i~ i r i' ,i iii iii r -I i r iii Iii L iii Iii iii Iii ,i i i r , iii ii' i i r, ' , ............... , 0..... ..... • .... -.. ....... .., .......
Ho l~ III -EQUIVALENT GRAIN DIAMETER NO.
DATE 3-4 ... 76
GRADING ANALYSIS·
DUCO ENGINEERING
PROJECT NO. 6-20
:!!
Gl C :u '" z p
t-,a
N
~
t
"'. '. CLAY .,ZEI SILT SIZES--~F-'-jijE SAND C:OURSE SAN. r----... iVEL
'00 1 '0 '20 1400 210 200 '00 50 W·~,08 4 l~ f". ," '. ,r t'd" ~,oo [I '1,111 11,11 ' r:?T1 I II II III~
90 I I 1 lilT II JfW I 'II II II 1111 90
80 I I II I r IlfJIf I I I" II II III ~ 80
70 e
20 r --~~ I I I III \I II ·1 \I I I II I 111 : 20
'0 I 1 II I I I 1\ II I I . III I 1111 1111' 0
~' I I I I • "I I I. 1 .1 1 I II ILl I LL I. I I I I J~ _~ _l I I I I 1 3 I I 11 t~ I I I I l. I I ==
10 20 400 2"10 200 100 50 30 16 10 8 .. r f f r ." r~· 2"2i" ...... -. , I-us -IJ'DMOIlO 10 1010 4114011 IS 10. M. ., " , .. -.,. ~ L-I .I.-3 ......
IIICIIOIII. llEVI: IIZEI .. 11 T T I~ , 1 .10 .... 1M ... 1000 .................
, ., I I I I I II , , " " II "I II" i I I '" '" , , 'I' ,I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I I I, ~ I i '1 , •• i I -, iii ( Iii I ,I iii iii I I ~. I I I lit: iii Ii' iii iii , , i , i , iii iii i • , .. oooee..... . 0..... ...... '....... ....... .. I • .-II
'Hole 113 EQUIV~LENT GRAIN DIAMETER NO.
DATE 3~4~76 BY __ ~L~.~W~. ________________ ~
GRADING ANALYSIS
DUCO ENGINEERING
LOCATION Car lshadTrae.t:_36 .... 2 PRO.lECT NO._6 - 2 0
ft.o. 1'OIt.' L.A.-~
"'II
Ci) c ::u 1"1
Z
P
'r.a w
~
r'
~.
01
CLAY SlZEI liLT IIZES ___ ==r FINE sallo __ -,-.1 COURSE __ liD .RavEL
'00 ~ t 'i Y r i 2f i 'il I j' (... '6 ...... 0 8-=-=--_, - -Lf to ," ,t 2"d"
90 I· II . I I II· 1IIIWll I . II II III 1'00
~ [T J ~ 80 ~ . =
o 70 ~ . HolE III Y V . .:: A ~ ~ 3 .0' _ 7. (' / 1/ : 70 -~ . J -~ ~ 1-.... L V -~ I-. 0: 60 I=-'., H ~le 115 ::
I-
-
;;;;. .....: e! ~ ~
20 ~.. . . = 20 I ~ . =
I§ ~ /'1 I I I I I I I I II I I I I ~ 50
to-. '. =
1"". ~ ; 10 I-:: t:: -10 F -~ ~
--~ I I ~ , I I'~ Jo ,. I &' 2~1 Jd '.' Jol 11 J I I', I. 1 I I I , I I I I I I I I I 1 I I .1 I I I I I I I I ~
---110 no. OMOIIO IOlOeo50"'40~30lSaQ.16 ... 1O 8 ? ." r,; r,r 4' rf'·I'·t\·I~·2i·3·"'"
IIIC ... S-"" .. . . SIEVI 1111. ' I II 10 ••.. 1"'" ... lOGe _..... ~ ..... • ......
I I I··' I I 1 I 1'1 I I I I I I I I I 1 I I ' I I II ., I I I , 1.1 I ' ,I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I .
iii •• ii' -'. i i ( I 'I I iii I r iii -, i i '. I I i L ' i i r iii iii' i , " i r , iii iii .' i -, " ' ........ ....... ...... ..... ....... ........ ... .-.
NO. ) H ole s 5 & 7 EQUIVALENT G~AIN OIAMETER
DATE 3-4-76 8Y_...,jL~.L.:W.u.i.--________ _
GRADING ANALYSIS
DUCO ENGINEERING
LOCATION Carlsbad Trac t' No. 76-2 PROJECT 6-20
II • 0. ".L.A-:-~ _. __ .
•
o -~ c a:
e o > .40UMTITHff~~~++~~~H+~~#m~~H4~wm
.01 .02 .o~
TEST DATA
BORING NUMBER
. SAMPLE NUMBER·
SYMBOL
DEPTH (FEET)
ELEVATION (FE ET )
HEIGHT (INCHES)
DIAMETER (INCHES)
IN ITIAl MOISTURE CONTENT{%)
INITIAL DRY DENSITY (LBS/CU.FT.)
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
FINAL MOISTURE CONTENT
.1 .2
PRESSURE
5
1
1
7.5
1.0
2.5
12.5
113.7
2.65
.~ . I TONS/ FT. 2
2 10
PRESSURE -VOID RATIO
DUCO .ENGINEERING
DATE 2-27-76 PROJECT NO 6-20
10
o
~ c a:
e o >
.40
.01 .02
TEST DATA
eORING NUMBER
SAMPLE NUMBER·
SYMeOL
DEPTH (FEET)
ELEVATION (FE ET)
HEIGHT (INCHES)·
DIAMETER (IN CHES)
IN ITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT(%)
INITIAL DRY DENSITY (LBS/CU.FT.)
SPECIFIC GRAVITY
F .. AL MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
.I .2
PRESSURE
6
1
1
3.5
1.0
2.5
17.3
107.9
2.65
2
TO~S I FT.12
z 5 10
PRESSURE -VOl D R.ATI 0
DUCO ENGINEERING
DATE 3-1-7 6 PROJECT NO
10