HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 81-05; HOEHN HONDA; UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 1986-04-24I'.
3467 Kurtz Street
California 92110 Woodward-Clyde Consultants
(619) 224-2911
ENGINEERING
April 24, 1986
Project No. 54167D-EC03
Architects Dominy Larson Carpenter
3111 Camino del Rio North
San Diego, California 92108
Attention: Mr. Byron Anderson
UPDATE GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
HOEHN HONDA
CARLSBAD TRACT 81-5, LOT 16
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Gentlemen:
This report presents the results of our update soil investigation at the
subject site. The site is located on Lot 16 at the north end of Carlsbad
Tract 81-5 north of Poinsettia Lane between Avenida Enemas and Interstate
5 in Carlsbad, California.
To assist us in our study, we have discussed the project with you and
have been provided a copy of a preliminary plan dated March 18, 1986
prepared by Klagge, Stevens & Associates. In addition, we have reviewed
our records of work done previously on the site. Our previous reports
are entitled: "Final Report of Engineering Observation of Grading and
Testing of Compacted Fill, Lot 2 through 7 and 9 through 16, Carlsbad
Tract 81-5, Carlsbad, California," dated December 13, 1974, and "Adden-
dum Report, Additional Design Recommendations, Meister Property, Lot 16,
Carlsbad Tract 81-5, Carlsbad California," dated June 20, 1985.
We understand the proposed project will include:
° Regrading the site by lowering the east side by up to 5 feet and
raising the west side by up to 5 feet.
Three earth retaining walls are planned, one in the central
portion of the site, one along the north and east sides of the
site and one covering about one-third of the south side of the
site. The maximum height of retaining wall will be about 14
feet. We understand that the wall will be constructed of con-
crete block.
° The wood frame and stucco structures on the site will be up to
two-stories high.
Consulting Engineers. Geologists
and Environmental Scientists
Offices in Other Principal Cities qW
Architects Domin•arson Carpenter
Project No. 54167D-EC03
April 24, 1986
Page 2 . Woodward-Clyde Consultants
PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION
The purpose of our investigation will be to provide information to assist
you and your consultants in evaluating the property and for project de-
sign. In particular, our investigation is designed to address:
O General subsurface soil conditions;
Conditions of areas to receive fill;
O Presence and effect of expansive soils;
O Grading and earthwork;
Types and depths of foundations and allowable soil bearing
pressure; and
O Design lateral earth pressures for retaining walls.
Review of Existing Reports
The December 13, 1984 WCC report indicates that the lot is a cut-fill lot.
Fill was placed on the western side of the lot up to about 4 feet in thick-
ness. The fill was compacted to an indicated minimum of 90 percent rela-
tive compaction. The cut area, roughly the eastern one-half of the site,
has cuts ranging from about 7 feet in the northeast corner to zero at the
southwest property corner. The cut-fill line extends from near the south-
west property corner in a northerly direction to the north property line.
Non-expansive fill was placed within 3 feet of rough grade on the fill
portion of the lot. Soils exposed in the cut areas were also
non-expansive.
Field and Laboratory Investigation
Our field investigation included making a visual geologic reconnaissance of
the existing surface conditions, making 3 test pits on April 4, 1986 and
obtaining representative soil samples. The pits were advanced to depths
ranging from 5 to 8 feet. The approximate locations of the pits are shown
on Figure 1.
A Key to Logs is presented in Appendix A as Figure A-i. Final logs of
the test pits are presented in Appendix A as Figure A-2 and A-3. The
description of the logs are based on field logs, sample inspection, and
laboratory tests. The results of laboratory tests are shown in Appendix
B. The field investigation and laboratory testing programs are discussed
in Appendices A and B.
Architects Domin.arson Carpenter . Project No. 54167D-EC03 Woodward-Clyde Consultants April 24, 1986
Page 3
Site Conditions
The site has been graded into a level lot pad which appears to be at the
elevation as left in the 1984 grading operation. Cut slopes having slope
ratios of approximately 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) and maximum heights
of 7 feet exist on the north and east sides of the site.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations presented below are based on the
results of our field investigation, review of our files and available plans,
laboratory tests results, engineering analysis, and professional judgement.
Grading
We recommend that the proposed grading be performed in accordance with
the attached Guide Specifications for Site Grading. We recommend that
backfill placed in utility trenches located within 5 feet of a building and
deeper than 12 inches, or backfill placed in any trench located 5 feet or
more from a building and deeper than 5 feet, be placed in accordance with
the above specifications. We also recommend that all grading be performed
under the observation and testing services of our firm.
Drainage
We recommend that positive measures be taken to properly finish grade the
lot after structures and other improvements are completed 'so that all
drainage waters from the building pad and adjacent properties are directed
off the site and away from foundations and floor slabs. Even when these
measures have been taken, experience has shown that a shallow ground
water or surface water condition can and may develop in areas where no
such water condition existed prior to site development; this is particularly
true where a substantial increase water infiltration results from landscap-
ing irrigation.
To further reduce the possibility of moisture related problems, we recom-
mend that all landscaping and irrigation be kept as far away from the
building perimeter as possible. Irrigation water, especially close to the
building, should be kept to the minimum required level. We recommend
that the ground surface in all areas be graded to slope away from the
building foundations and floor slabs and that all runoff water be directed
to proper drainage areas and not be allowed to pond.
Foundations
We recommend that conventional spread or continuous footings be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf (total dead plus live
load) at a depth below lowest adjacent rough grade of 18 inches. This is
assuming that foundations are placed in properly compacted low expansion
fill or undisturbed native soil. All footings should have a minimum width
Architects Dominarson Carpenter
Project No. 54167D-EC03
April 24, 1986
Page 4 . Woodward.Clyde Consultants
of 12 inches. The bearing pressure may be increased by one third for
loads that include wind or seismic forces. We recommend that all continu-
ous footings be reinforced top and bottom with at least one No. 4 rebar.
Retaining Walls
It is recommend that retaining walls not restrained from movement at the
top and required to support lateral earth pressures due to differential soil
height be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. This
pressure assumes the wall has a level backfill composed of granular soil
available on site, and drainage is provided behind the wall to prevent
build-up of hydrostatic pressures.
To resist lateral loads, it is recommended that an equivalent fluid passive
pressure of 350 pcf be used for design for foundations founded in natural
undisturbed native soils.
As an alternate method to resistance sliding, friction factor of 0.35 for
concrete against soil may be used for design in undisturbed native soils.
If passive pressures and friction are used in combination, it is recommend-
ed that the friction factor be reduced to 0.3 for native and fill soils.
Concrete should be poured neat against the undisturbed dense to very
dense formational sands to develop full design values of passive sliding
friction resistance.
UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS
We have observed only a very small portion of the pertinent soil and
conditions on the site. The recommendations made herein are based on the
assumption that soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those found
during our field investigation. We recommend that Woodward-Clyde Con-
sultants review the foundation and grading plans to verify that the intent
of the recommendations presented herein has been properly interpreted and
incorporated into the contract documents. We further recommend that
Woodward-Clyde Consultants observe the site grading, subgrade prepara-
tion under concrete slabs and paved areas, and foundation excavations to
verify that site conditions are as anticipated or to provide revised rec-
ommendations if necessary. If the plans for site development are changed,
or if variations or undesirable geotechnical conditions are encountered
during construction, we should be consulted for further recommendations.
This report is intended for design purposes only and may not be sufficient
to prepare an accurate bid. California, including Carlsbad, is an area of
high seismic risk. It is generally considered economically unfeasible to
build a totally earthquake-resistant project; it is, therefore, possible that
a large or nearby earthquake could cause damage at the site.
Geotechnical engineering and the geologic sciences are characterized by
uncertainty. Professional judgements presented herein are based partly on
our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our general
Architects Dominarson Carpenter
Project No. 54167D-EC03 Woodward-Clyde Consultants April 24, 1986
Page
experience. Our engineering work and judgements rendered meet current
professional standards; we do not guarantee the performance of the project
in any respect.
Inspection services allow the testing of only a small percentage of the fill
placed at the site. Contractual arrangements with the grading contractor
should contain the provision that he is responsible for excavating, placing,
and compacting fill in accordance with project specifications. Inspection
by the geotechnical engineer during grading should not relieve the grading
contractor of his primary responsibility to perform all work in accordance
with the specifications.
This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering.
We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we can not be respon-
sible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the
safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor
should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions
presented herein to be unsafe.
If you have any questions, please give us a call.
Very truly yours,
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS
Joseph G. Kocherhans
R.E. 23060
JGK/sar
Attachments
(6) Architects Dominy Larson Carpenter
N I N _J PROPOSED
" RETAINING
\\\ WALL PARKING AREA
\. \ /Site Boundary
31-5 1-75 1\
PROPOSED BUILDING)\
12 \
PROPOSED
-, RETAINING
WALL /
/ 3 / PARKING AREA
I .
/
I -- 2
0 20 110
I—
Graphic Scale (Feet)
SITE PLAN
HOEHN HONDA
AWN DY ch I CNECXEO SY PIOUDS NO: 1
.,..TE: 11-22-86 I PDOJCTNO: 511167DECO3
Dues W000WARO-CLYOE CONSULTANTS
Project No. 54190-EC03 S.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
Appendix A
Three exploratory test pits were advanced at the approximate locations
shown on the Site Plan (Figure 1). The pits were dug on April 4, 1986
with a 24 inch bucket backhoe under the direction of a geologist from our
firm.
Samples of the soils encountered were obtained from the test pits in sacks
or in thin metal tubs (hand drive). The tube samples were sealed to
preserve the natural moisture content of the sample. The samples were
bought to the laboratory for examination and testing.
A-i
Location Boring Number Elevation
IDEPTH
IN
TESTOATA I'OTHER1LN SAMPLE
J
SOIL DESCRIPTION
I _
FEET TESTS NIBER
12 110 65 Very dense, moist, brown silty sand (SM)
NOTES ON FIELD INVESTIGATION
WATER LEVEL
At time of drilling or as indicated.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION -
Soil Classifications are based on the Unified Soil Classification System
and include color, moisture and consistency. Field descriptions have
been modified to reflect results of laboratory analyses where
appropriate.
DISTURBED SAMPLE LOCATION
Obtained by collecting the auger cuttings in a plastic or cloth bag.
DRIVE SAMPLE LOCATION
MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER
Sample with recorded blows per foot was obtained with a Modified
California drive sampler (2' inside diameter, 2.5 outside diameter)
lined with sample tubes. The sampler was driven into the soil at the
bottom of the hole with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches.
STANDARD PENETRATION SAMPLER
Sample with recorded blows per foot was obtained using
a standard spilt spoon sampler (1 Inside diameter, 2"
outside diameter). The sampler was driven into the soil at the bottom of the hole with a 10 pound hammer falling
30 Inches and the sample placed In a plastic bag.
INDICATES SAMPLE TESTED FOR OTHER PROPERTIES
GS - Grain Size Distribution CT - Consolidation Test
LC - Laboratory Compaction UCS - Unconfined Compression Test
Test SDS - Slow Direct Shear Test
P1 - Atterberg Limits Test 05— Direct Shear Test
ST - Loaded Swell Test TX— Triaxial Compression Test
CC— Confined Compression 1R'— R—Value
Test
NOTE: In this column the results of these tests may be recorded
where applicable.
BLOW COUNT
Number of blows needed to advance sampler one foot or as indicated.
DRY DENSITY See Note 2.
Pounds per Cubic Foot
MOISTURE CONTENT
Percent of Dry Weight
1. REFUSAL indicates the inability to extend excavation practically,
with equipment being u.ed in the investigation.
KEY TO LOGS
HOEHN HONDA
DRAWN BY: chj CHECKED BY: I PROJECT NO: 54167D—EC03 J DATE: 4-22-86 FIGURE NO: A—i
W000WARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS
•:
Test Pit 1
n-c P1 •)'
I DEPTH I TEST DATA d*OT~HEIRI1
.BCT SL
.
SOIL DESCRIPTION
I MC DD
SAMPLEIN
FEET
5
10
15
Medium dense, moist, brown, silty sand (SM)
with trace clay PLEISTOCENE TERRACE
DEPOSITS
Medium dense, moist, light brown and light
gray brown, poorly graded band (SP)
PLEISTOCENE TERRACE
DEPOSITS
Dense, moist, dark gray to brown, silty
sand (SM) PLEISTOCENE TERRACE
-DEPOSITS
Bottom of Hole
Test Pit 2
I DEPTH
I IN
I TEST DATA J*OTHERI SAMPLE I SOIL DESCRIPTION
1 MC OD BC I FEET TESTS NUMBER
(
5-1 26 I 95
10
2-1 E Medium dense, moist, light brown and light
gray to brown, silty sand (SM)
PLEISTOCENE TERRACE
DEPOSITS
Medium dense, moist, dark gray to brown, 2-2 = :
poorly graded sand (SP).
PLEISTOCENE TERRACE
DEPOSITS
Bottom of Hole
15] I 1 I
For description of symbols, see Figure A—i
LOG OF TEST PITS 1 AND 2
HOEHN HONDA
DRAWN BY: ch I CHECKED BY)'14I PROJECT NO: 54167D—EC03 DATE: 4-22-86 FIGURE NO: A-2
WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS
5
10
15
Test Pit 3
I DEPTH
I IN
I TEST DATA 'OTHERI F SAMPLE I SOIL DESCRIPTION MC DD BC FEET TESTS NUMBER
*For description of symbols, see Figure A-i
LOG OF TEST PIT 3
HOEHN HONDA
DRAWN BY: ch I CHECKED BYI PROJECT NO: 54167DEC03 I DATE: 4-22-86 FIGURE NO: A-3
W000WARD.CLYDE CONSULTANTS
Project No. 541-EC03
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTS
The materials observed in the borings were visually classified and evalu-
ated with respect to strength, swelling, and compressibility characteris-
tics; dry density; and moisture content. The classifications were substan-
tiated by performing grain size analyses on representative samples of the
soils.
The strength of the soils was evaluated by considering the density and
moisture content of the samples and results of the slow direct shear test.
The results of the moisture content and dry density tests are shown with
the penetration resistance of the sampler at the corresponding location on
the logs, Figure A-2 and A-3. The results of the grain size analyses are
shown in Figure B-i and slow direct shear test results are shown in
Figure B-2.
:
fl
SAND SILT and CLAY
1 I GRAVEL
Coarse I Fine ICoarsel Med i um I Fine
Mesh Op ening Ins Sieve Sizes Hydrometer An
I, ----- —
an
_____ _________________________
.._..__•________
____________ . .-- .________ ____i..___ —
70
60
0
zo
30
C/) C,)
50 w
30
20
_____________________ •1
- -- --._________
1 00 5s 10.0' 0.01 0.005 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I
SAMPLE CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL *LL *PI
o_1-3 Poorlygradedsand (SP) ---
C) 2-2 Poorlygradedsand(SP)
3-2 Poorly _gradedsand _(SP)
*LL - Liquid Limit PI
- Plasticity Index
I GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES
I HOEHN HONDA
LDRAWNBY:ch _CHECKED BV:7I_PROJECTNo:54167D-ECO3 _ DATE: 4-22-86 J_ FIGURE NO:Bl
W000WARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS
IC
C-GS-76
]sees
9830
8000
7800
(.0 Ln
8000
I- In 5000
4000
In
3200
2000
(002
0
STRESS/STRAIN GRAPH
10000
9000
8020
7000
6000
U, Ln 5000
I-
' 4000
Cr
LLJ 3000
U,
2000
(000
(I
DEFORMATION, inches
(U (U
- (U (' r (0 CD (U (U
NORMAL STRESS,psf
SAMPLE DATA
Sample/Classification Sample 1-3, Light brown to tan, silty sand (SM)
Specimen Number 1 2 Height, inches .812 .812 Diameter, inches 1.94 1.94
Initial Dry Density, pcf 94 95 Initial Moisture Content, % 8 7 Initial Saturation, % 28 26
Final Dry Density, pcf 96 98 Final Moisture Content, % 24 23
Final Saturation, % 87 89 Normal Stress, psf 4116.5 8185.9
TEST DATA
Type of Test: Slow Direct Shear Test
Angle of Friction, Effective 0' = 300
Cohesion, Effective C' = 1075 psf Rate of Shear, in/mm .00028800
r SLOW DIRECT SHEAR TEST I HOEHN HONDA
[DRAWN BY: chiCHECKED BY:,4XJPROJECT NO: 54167D—ECO3 IDATE: 4-2286 FIGURE NO: B-2
W000WARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS
Project No. 541610--EC03
Woodward. Clyde Consultants
GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SITE GRADING
Project: Hoehn Honda, Tract 81-5, Lot 16
1. GENERAL
1.1 The work of the Contractor covered by this specification consists of
furnishing labor and equipment and performing all operations
necessary to remove deleterious and undesirable materials from
areas of grading, to properly prepare areas to receive fill, and to
excavate and fill to the lines and grades shown on the plans or as
directed in writing by the Civil Engineer (Architect).
1.2 The Contractor shall perform the work in strict accordance with
these specifications and he shall be responsible for the quality of
the finished product notwithstanding the fact that the grading work
may be inspected and tests made by a Soil Engineer.
1.3 Deviations from these specifications will be permitted only upon
written authorization from the Soil Engineer. An update
geotechnical investigation has been made for this project; any
recommendations made in the report of the soil investigation or
subsequent reports concerning grading aspects shall become an
addendum to these specifications.
DEFINITIONS
2.1 Contractor shall mean the contractor performing the grading work.
2.2 Owner shall mean the owner of the property or the party on whose
behalf the grading.work is being performed and who has contracted
with the Contractor to have the grading performed.
2.3 Civil Engineer (Architect) shall mean the engineer (architect) who
has prepared the grading plans and who is the Owners'
representative concerning the configuration, quantities and
dimensions of the grading and who usually sets basic surveying
data at the site for the Contractor's conformance.
2.4 Soil Engineer shall mean a duly licensed Civil Engineer, qualified in
soil engineering, who is responsible for having qualified
representatives on site to observe and test the Contractor's work
for conformance with these specifications.
Project No. 541 -ECO3
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
OBSERVATION AND TESTING
3.1 The Soil Engineer shall be the Owner's representative to observe
and make tests during the fill foundation preparation, filling and
compacting operations. As a general rule, no more than 2 feet of
fill in vertical elevation shall be placed without at least one field
density test being made within that interval.
3.2 The Soil Engineer shall make random field density tests of the com-
pacted fill to provide a basis for expressing his opinion as to
whether the fill materiel is compacted as specified. The basis for
his opinion that the fill material has been compacted to at least the
minimum relative compaction specified, shall be that no tests in
compacted or recompacted areas indicate a relative compaction of
less than that specified. Density tests shall be made in the
compacted materials below any disturbed surface. When these tests
indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is
below the specified density, the particular layer or area
represented by the test shall be reworked until the speciried
density has been achieved.
3.3 Testing shall.conform to the following standards as pertinent:
O Field Density Test, Nuclear Method - ASTM D2922-81," Density
of Soil and Soil-Aggregate In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow
Depth)".
O Field Density Test, Sand-Cone Method - ASTM D1556-82, "Density of Soil In-Place by the Sand-Cone Method".
O Laboratory Compaction Test - ASTM D1557-78, "Moisture-Density
Relations of Scils and Soil-Aggregate Mixture Using a 10-lb.
Hammer and 18-inch Drops".
CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED
4.1 All trees, brush, grass, and other objectionable material shall be
collected from areas to receive fill, piled and disposed of off-site by
the Contractor so as to leave the areas that have been cleared with
a neat and finished appearance free from debris.
4.2 All loose or porous soils shall be removed or compacted as specified
for fill. The depth of removal and recompaction shall be approved
in the field by a representative of the Soil Engineer. Prior to
placing fill, the surface to be filled shall be free from uneven
features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the
equipment to be used. It shall then be plowed or scarified to a
minimum depth of 6 inches.
-2-
Project No. 5416*-EC03 . Woodward-Clyde Consultants
4.3 Where fills are constructed on hillsides or slopes; topsoil, slopewash
and colluvium shall be removed. Where the exposed slope is
steeper than 6 horizontal to 1 vertical, or where specified by the
Soil Engineer, the slope of the original ground on which the fill is
to be placed shall be stepped or keyed by the Contractor as shown
on the figure below. The steps shall extend completely through the
soil mantle and into the underlying formational materials or, where
formational material is not present, into compact ground.
TYPICAL KEY
Strip as specified
Original ground
-
M Slope ratio = N
Fill
Slope to be such
that sloughing
or sliding does
not occur Remove, all
topsoil,
slopewash,
colluvium
and other
loose soils
I- See note Varies A
See note
NOTES:
The outside edge of bottom key "A" shall be below topsoil or loose surface
material and in no event less than 2 feet in depth.
The minimum width of "B" Bench shall be 2 feet wider than the compaction
equipment, and not less than 10 feet.
Project No. 541 -ECO3 S
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
4.4 After the foundation for the fill has been cleared, plowed or
scarified, it shall be disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is
uniform and free from large clods, brought to the specified moisture
content, and compacted as specified for fill.
MATERIALS
5.1 Materials for compacted fill shall consist of any soil imported or
excavated from the cut areas. The soil shall contain no rocks or
hard lumps greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension and shall
contain at least 40% of material smaller than I inch in size. Material
of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise improper nature shall not be
used in fills.
5.2 Material placed within 36 inches of rough grade shall be select
material that contains no rocks or- hard lumps greater than 6 inches
in maximum dimension and that has an Expansion Index of 30 or
less when tested in accordance with UBC Standard 29-2.
5.3 Representative samples of materials to be used for fill shall be
tested in the laboratory by the Soil Engineer in order to determine
at least the maximum density, optimum moisture content,
classification of the rail and expansion index as required.
5.4 During grading operations, soil types other than those analyzed in
the report of the update geotechnical investigation may be
encountered by the Contractor. The Soil Engineer shall be
consulted to determine the suitability of these soils.
COMPACTION EQUIPMENT
6.1 Compaction shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot rollers, vibratory
rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of
acceptable compaction equipment. Equipment shall be of such a
design that it will be capable of compacting the fill to the specified
density at the specified moisture content.
PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTION OF FILL MATERIAL
7.1 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it
shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to. a relative
compaction that is indicated by test to be not less than 90 percent.
Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent)
of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill divided by the
maximum laboratory dry density determined in accordance with the
ASTM Test No. D1557-78, or other density test methods that will
obtain equivalent results. Unless otherwise specified, fill material
shall be compacted by the contractor while at a moisture content at
or above the optimum moisture content determined in accordance
with the above test method.
Project No. 541•-EC03
Woodward-Clyde Consultants
7.2 The fill material shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that,
when compacted, shall not exceed 6 inches. Each layer shall be
spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading
to obtain uniformity of moisture and material in each layer. The
entire fill shall be constructed as a unit, in nearly level lifts
starting up from the lowest area to receive fill. Compaction shall
be continuous over the entire area, and the equipment shall make
sufficient uniform trips so that the desired density has been
obtained throughout the entire fill. Rock materials greater than 6
inches in maximum dimension shall be distributed in such a manner
that they are completely surrounded by compacted fines; nesting of
rocks shall not be permitted.
7.3 When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified
by the Soil Engineer, water shall be added by the Contractor until
the moisture content is as specified.
7.4 When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified
by the Soil Engineer or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the
fill material shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading, mixing,
or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as
required to permit compaction.
7.5 Soils with higher expansion potential than specified may be used in
fills below a depth of 36 inches from design rough grade and shall
be compacted at a moisture content greater than the optimum
moisture content for the material.
7.6 Properly compacted fill shall extend to the design surface of fill
slopes. The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted as necessary
and there shall be no loose soil on the slopes.
8. PROTECTION OF WORK
8.1 During construction the Contractor shall properly grade all
excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent
ponding of water. He shall control surface water to avoid damage
to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The
Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of
freshly graded areas and until such time as permanent drainage and
erosion control features have been installed.
8.2 After completion of grading and when the Soil Engineer has finished
his observation of the work, no further excavation or filling shall
be done except under the observation of the Soil Engineer.
-5-