HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-02; RANCHO CARILLO VILLAGES A-D; FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING; 1998-09-09FINAL REPORT OF TESTING
AND OBSERVATION SERVICES
DURING SITE GRADING
VILLAGE C
RANCHO CARRILLO
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
CONTINENTAL RANCH INC.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 1998
a
Project No. 05845-12-16
September 9, 1998
Continental Ranch Inc.
12230 El Camino Real, Suite 300
San Diego, California 92130
Attention: Mr. Dave Lother
Subject: VILLAGE C
RANCHO CARRILLO
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION
SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request and our proposals dated December 6, 1996 and April 1, 1998, we
have provided compaction testing and observation services during the mass grading and fine grading
of the subject site. Our services were performed during the period of March 14, 1997 through
September 8, 1998. The scope of our services included the following:
Observing the grading operation, including the removal and/or processing of loose topsoils,
colluvium, and alluvium.
Performing in-place density tests in fill placed and compacted at the site.
Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating the compaction, expansion, and shear
strength characteristics of various soil conditions encountered and/or used for fill.
Providing on-site geologic consultation services to verify that grading was performed in
substantial conformance with the recommendations of preliminary project geotechnical
report.
Preparing "As-Graded" Geologic Maps.
Preparing this final report of grading.
GENERAL
The grading contractor for the mass grading phase of the project was Sukut Construction,
Incorporated. The fine grading operations were performed by Signs and Pinnick. The project mass
grading plans were prepared by Rick Engineering Company and are entitled Grading Plans for
Rancho Carrillo, Sheets 21 through 24 with the City of Carlsbad approval dated November 14,
1996. The fine grading plans were also prepared by Rick Engineering Company and are entitled
Grading and Erosion Plans for Rancho Carrillo, Villages A B C and D, C. T. 97-02, Sheets 4, 5, 7,
and 8, with the City of Carlsbad approval dated May 6, 1998. The project soils report is
entitled: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Villages A, B, C, and D, Rancho Carrillo,
Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated March 3, 1993, updated July 14,
1997.
A report entitled Interim Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading [for] Lot
Nos. 1 through 4 (Model Lots), Village C, Rancho Carrillo Carlsbad, California, prepared by
Geocon Incorporated, was issued on July 20, 1998. This final report supersedes the interim report.
References to elevations and locations herein were based on surveyor's or grade checker's stakes in
the field and/or interpolation from the referenced Grading Plans. Geocon Incorporated did not
provide surveying services and, therefore, has no opinion regarding the accuracy of the as-graded
elevations or surface geometry with respect to the approyed grading plans or proper surface
drainage.
GRADING
Mass grading of Village C occurred during the period of March 14, 1997 through May 4, 1998. Fine
grading for the lots reported herein was performed during the period of May 29 through
September 8, 1998. Grading began with the removal of brush and vegetation from the area to be
graded. In addition to the vegetation, topsoils, colluvium , and alluvium were removed to firm
natural ground. The excavations were observed by an engineering geologist to verify that unsuitable
materials had been removed and dense formational soils were exposed at the base of the cleanouts.
Prior to placing fill, the exposed ground surface was scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted.
Fill soils derived from on-site excavations and the surrounding areas were then placed and
compacted in layers until the design elevations were attained. In general, the fill materials consist of
light gray-brown silty sand to green-brown clayey sand.
During the grading operation, compaction procedures were observed and in-place density tests were
performed to evaluate the relative compaction of the fill material. The in-place density tests were
performed in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D-2922-81. The results of the in-place
dry density and moisture content tests are summarized on Table I. In general, the in-place density
test results indicate that the fill soil has a relative compaction of at least 90 percent at the locations
tested. The approximate locations of the in-place density tests are shown on the As-Graded Geologic
Project No. 05845-12-16 -2- - September 9, 1998
Maps, Figures 1 through 4. It should be noted that since the grading of Village C was performed in
conjunction with grading of Villages A, B and D, the field density test numbers are not in sequential
order.
Laboratory tests were performed on samples of material used for fill to evaluate moisture-density
relationships, optimum moisture content and maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557-91), shear
strength and expansion characteristics. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in
Tables II through IV.
Slopes
In general, the cut and fill slopes have planned inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter, with
maximum height of approximately 24 and 50 feet, respectively. The fill slopes were either over-
filled and cut back or were track-walked with a bulldozer during grading.
Stability fills were constructed along the south facing slope bordering the north edge of the subject
area due to the presence of inter-bedding of fractured claystone and sandstone. No heel drain was
placed within these stability fills.
All slopes should be planted, drained, and maintained to reduce erosion. Slope irrigation should be
kept to a minimum to just support the vegetative cover. Surface drainage should not be allowed to
flow over the top of the slope. 1.
Subdrains
Two canyon subdrains are located below Lot Nos. 15 through 18 and 20 and 21 . These subdrains
were installed in a tributary canyons and, after connecting to the main canyon subdrain, flow into the
open space off site. The subdrains drain were "as built" for location and elevation by Rick
Engineering Company and are shown on the enclosed As-Graded Geologic Maps.
Finish Grade Soil Conditions
During the grading operation, building pads which encountered very high expansion potential were
undercut up to 3 feet and "capped" with less expansive soils (except Lot Nos. 94 through 97). Based
on laboratory test results, the prevailing soil conditions within approximately the upper 3 feet of
rough pad grade on each lot have an Expansion Index of 14 to 135 (Table V), and are classified as
having a "very low" to "very high" expansion potential as defined by the Uniform Building Code
(UBC) Table 18-I-B. The cut portion of those lots which contained a cut-fill transition within the
Project No. 05845-12-16 -3 - September 9, 1998
building areas was undercut approximately 3 feet below rough finish grade and replaced with
compacted fill soil.
It should be noted that although rocks or concretions larger than 12 inches were not intentionally
placed within the upper 3 feet of pad grade, some may exist at random locations. Where
concretionary beds (highly cemented materials) were encountered within finish grade of cut lots,
they were extracted and the resulting excavations backfilled with compacted fill. However, some
concretions may exist below finish grade at random locations.
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be similar to those
described in the project geotechnical report. In general, the compacted fill soils are underlain by
formational soils of the Delmar Formation.
The enclosed As-Graded Geologic Maps (Figures 1 through 4) depict the general geologic conditions
observed. These maps also show the original topography prior to the start of grading. No soil or
geologic conditions were observed during grading which would preclude the continued development
of the property as planned.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0. General
1.1. Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the
grading, which is the subject of this report, has been performed in substantial conformance
with the recommendations of the previously referenced project soil report. Soil and
geologic conditions encountered during grading which differ from those anticipated by the
project soil report are not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant
modification to the recommendations of the project soil report, they have been described
herein.
2.0. Liquefaction Potential
2.1. The site is underlain by fine grained compacted fill and dense formational soils. Near
surface permanent groundwater is not present. Therefore, it is our opinion that the soils on
site are stable and that the potential for liquefaction is remote.
Project No. 05845-12-16 -4- September 9, 1998
3.0. Future Grading
3.1. Any additional grading performed at the site should be accomplished in conjunction with
our observation and compaction testing services. All trench backfill in excess of one-foot
thick should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. This office should be
notified at least 48 hours prior to commencing additional grading or backfill operations.
4.0. Foundations
4.1. The foundation recommendations that follow are for one- or two-story residential
structures and are separated into categories dependent on the thickness and geometry of
the underlying fill soils as well as the Expansion Index of the prevailing subgrade soils of
a particular building pad (or lot). The recommended minimum foundation and interior
concrete slab design criteria for each category is presented in Table 4.1. A summary of as
graded building pad conditions is presented in Table VI.
TABLE 4.1.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation
Category
Minimum
Footing Depth
(inches)
Continuous Footing Reinforcement Interior Slab
Reinforcement
I 12 One No. 4 bar top and bottom 6 x 6-10/10 welded wire
mesh at slab mid-point
II 18 Two No. 4 bars top and bottom No. 3 bars at 24 inches on
center, both directions
III 24 Two No. 5 bars top and bottom No. 3 bars at 18 inches on
center, both directions
CATEGORY CRITERIA
Category I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 50.
Category H: Maximum fill thickness is less than 50 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 90, or variation in fill thickness is between 10 feet and 20 feet.
Category III: Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, or variation in fill thickness exceeds 20 feet, or
Expansion Index exceeds 90, but is less than 130.
Notes:
All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches.
Footing depth is measured from lowest adjacent subgrade.
All interior living area concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick for Categories I and II and 5 inches thick for Category III.
All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 inches for Category III) of clean sand or crushed rock.
All slabs expected to receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture-sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor barrier covered with at least 2 inches of the clean sand
recommended in No. 4 above.
See Section 4.13 for modification to foundation geometry for lots with Expansion Index greater
than 130.
Project No. 05845-12-16 -5 - September 9, 1998
4.2. Foundations for either Category I, II, or III may be designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure
may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as wind or seismic forces.
4.3. The use of isolated footings which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and
support structural elements connected to the building is not recommended for Category III.
Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the
building foundation system with grade beams.
4.4. For Foundation Category Ill, the structural slab design should consider using interior
stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In
addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in
width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
4.5. No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as necessary, to
maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
4.6. Recommended foundation category for each lot is presented in Table 4.2.
TABLE 4.2.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION FOUNDATION CATEGORY
Lot Numbers * Recommended Foundation Category
1 through 9, 40 through 63, 72, 73, and 78 through 93 I
10 through 13, 24 through 39, 64 through 71, 74, 75,
98 through 107, and 112 through 115 II
14 through 23, 76 and 77, and 108 through 111
III
94 through 97 III (see Section 4.13)
* Lot 13 is designated as open space
4.7. For building pads with finish grade soils possessing an Expansion Index greater than 50
(see Table V), it is recommended that all exterior concrete flatwork with a least dimension
exceeding 8 feet be reinforced with 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh to reduce the potential for
cracking. In addition, all concrete flatwork should-be provided with crack control joints at
a maximum spacing of 12 feet.
Project No. 05845-12-16 - 6 - September 9, 1998
4.8. All subgrade soils should be properly moisture conditioned prior to concrete placement.
Where drying has occurred, reconditioning of surficial soils will be required. This
recommendation applies to slabs-on-grade foundations as well as exterior flat work.
4.9. Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper
than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are
recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such
that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the
face of the slope.
Where the height of the fill slope exceeds 20 feet, the minimum horizontal
distance should be increased to H13 (where H equals the vertical distance from the
top of the slope to the toe) but need not exceed 40 feet. For composite (fill over
cut) slopes, H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the bottom
of the fill portion of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings
would be the use of a post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased
footing and slab reinforcement. Specific design parameters or recommendations
for either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill
slope geometry have been determined.
For cut slopes in dense formational materials, or fill slopes inclined at 3:1 (hori-
zontal:vertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge of building footings should be at
least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope, regardless of slope height.
Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not
recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, it is recommended that
the portion of the swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed
assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation
applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height.
For swimming pools located near the top of fill slopes greater than 30 feet in
height, additional recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated
should be contacted for a review of specific site conditions.
4.10. Although other improvements which are relatively, rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope,
it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to
incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil movement without
causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific
recommendations.
4.11. As an alternative to the foundation recommendations for each category, consideration
should be given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the
support of the proposed structures. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a
Project No. 05845-12-16 - 7 - September 9, 1998
structural engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the
Post-Tensioning Institute (LJBC Section 1816). Although this procedure was developed
for expansive soils, it is understood that it can also be used to reduce the potential for
foundation distress due to differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should
incorporate the geotechnical parameters presented on the following table entitled Post-
Tensioned Foundation System Design Parameters for the particular Foundation Category
designated.
TABLE 4.3.
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PT!)
Design Parameters
Foundation Category
I H
Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20
Clay Type - Montmonllonite Yes Yes Yes
Clay Portion (Maximum) 30% 50% 70%
Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft.
Soil Suction 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft.
Moisture Velocity 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo.
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft.
Edge Lift 0.41 in. 0.78 in. 1.15 in.
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft.
Center Lift 2.12 in. 3.21 in. j 4.74 in.
*See Section 4.13
4.12. UBC Section 1816 uses interior stiffener beams in its structural design procedures. If the
structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than IJBC
Section 1816, it is recommended that interior stiffener beams be used for Foundation
Categories II and III. The depth of the perimeter foundation should be at least 12 inches
for Foundation Category I. Where the Expansion Index for a particular building pad
exceeds 50 but is less than 91, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 18 inches; and
where it exceeds 90 but is less than 130, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 24
inches. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters
as required by the structural engineer.
4.13. Laboratory test results indicate the surficial soils on Lot Nos. 94 through 97 have an
Expansion Index of 135. It is recommended that the perimeter footings for the
foundations constructed on these lots be deepened an additional 6 inches to mitigate the
Project No. 05845-12-16 - 8 - September 9, 1998
migration of water to the slab interior. For conventionally reinforced foundations
(Table 4. 1.) the perimeter footing should be embedded 30 inches. For post-tensioned
systems the perimeter footing should have an embedment depth equal to the depth as
determined by the structural (Table 4.3.) engineer plus 6 inches.
4.14. The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to expansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills or fills of
varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations
presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions
may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of
concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their
occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper
concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic
intervals, in particular, where re-entry slab corners occur.
5.0. Retaining Walls And Lateral Loads
5.1. Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of
30 poundi per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0
to 1.0, an active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that
the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending
upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50. For those
lots with finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where
backfill materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted for additional recommendations.
5.2. Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.00I11 at the top of the
wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform
pressure of 711 psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in
feet) should be added to the above active soil pressure
5.3. All retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the
buildup of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project
architect. The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes, etc.) is
not recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact
the property adjacent to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a
properly compacted granular (Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no
Project No. 05845-12-16 -9 - September 9, 1998
hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described
are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted for additional recommendations.
5.4. In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of one foot may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet
below the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 90. The proximity of the
foundation to the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing
pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted where such a condition is
anticipated.
5.5. For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating
the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected
by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An
allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and
concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth
pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
5.6. The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls,
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
6.0. Slope Maintenance
6.1. Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) may, under conditions which are both
difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability.
The instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and
usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the
slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is
generally preceded by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of
subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result
from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may
also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore,
recommended that, to the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils
Project No. 05845-12-16 -10- September 9, 1998
be either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically
inspected and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains
on and adjacent to slopes be periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion.
Although the incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for
surficial slope instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be
necessary to rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the future.
7.0. Drainage
7.1. Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances should water be
allowed to pond adjacent to footings. The building pads should be properly finish graded
after the buildings and other improvements are in place so that drainage water is directed
away from foundations, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage
devices.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to
grading, and represent conditions at the date of our final observation September 8, 1998. Any
subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As
used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of the work with
which we agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the
potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether
the work essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience,
and test results. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions,
can vary greatly at any time. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services
were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and
location.
We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the
uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the
uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated
wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Project No. 05845-12-16 -11- September 9, 1998
If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
Ali Sad
CEG 1778
ED
IF
J SADR
.( CEjp )_. A ENGINEERING
1/99
'2 CA
(4) Addressee
(2/del) Continental Ranch Job Site r
Attention: Mr. Ray McDougle
(1) Rick Engineering
Attention: Mr. Craig Kahlen
Project No. 05845-12-16 -12- September 9, 1998
Project No. 05845-12-01D (C) TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
MASS GRADING Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd
or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
74 03/17/97 VILLAGE C 382 12 0 114.7 16.0 106.5 18.0 93 90
122 03/20/97 VILLAGE C 381 14 0 105.0 19.8 96.2 21.6 92 90
126 03/20/97 VILLAGE C 395 9 0 107.1 17.1 100.3 20.2 94 90
134 03/20/97 VILLAGE C 385 14 0 105.0 19.8 100.0 20.6 95 90
139 03/20/97 VILLAGE C 404 1 0 113.4 14.6 103.2 17.1 91 90
140 03/20/97 VILLAGE C 400 14 0 105.0 19.8 94.8 21.2 90 90
142 03/20/97 VILLAGE C 403 14 0 105.0 19.8 96.4 22.3 92 90
143 03/20/97 VILLAGE C 412 1 0 113.4 14.6 102.2 16.1 90 90
145 03/21/97 VILLAGE C 407 14 0 105.0 19.8 96.2 21.6 92 90
148 03/21/97 VILLAGE C 407 1 0 113.4 14.6 104.2 15.6 92 90
158 03/21/97 VILLAGE C 407 14 0 105.0 19.8 96.2 22.1 92 90
161 03/21/97 VILLAGE C 412 14 0 105.0 19.8 97.0 21.8 92 90
171 03/24/97 VILLAGE C 415 14 0 105.0 19.8 98.2 20.1 94 90
173 03/25/97 VILLAGE C 410 1 0 113.4 14.6 103.6 17.1 91 90
194 03/26/97 VILLAGE C 417 9 0 107.1 17.1 101.8 17.4 95 90
195 03/26/97 VILLAGE C 412 9 0 107.1 17.1 98.3 19.5 92 90
196 03/27/97 VILLAGE C 415 16 0 114.2 16.3 102.9 16.5 90 90
222 03/31/97 VILLAGE C 425 14 0 105.0 19.8 97.0 21.2 92 90
223 03/31/97 VILLAGE C 422 9 0 107.1 17.1 100.7 18.4 94 90
226 03/31/97 VILLAGE C 415 1 0 113.4 14.6 104.5 17.1 92 90
227 03/31/97 VILLAGE C 405 15 0 116.8 13.3 107.8 15.5 92 90
233 03/31/97 VILLAGE C 418 9 0 107.1 17.1 98.0 20.2 92 90
235 03/31/97 VILLAGE C 421 4 0 115.8 15.7 103.9 17.8 90 90
239 04/01/97 VILLAGE C 417 1 0 113.4 14.6 105.3 16.2 93 90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
Project No. 05845-12-OlD (C) TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
MASS GRADING Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd
or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
240 04/01/97 VILLAGE C 418 1 0 113.4 14.6 104.7 16.5 92 90
242 04/01/97 VILLAGE C 424 4 0 115.8 15.7 103:7 17.7 90 90
243 04/01/97 VILLAGE C 422 1 0 113.4 14.6 105.0 16.9 93 90
244 04/01/97 VILLAGE C 419 14 0 105.0 19.8 95.2 22.6 91 90
247 04/01/97 VILLAGE C 428 9 0 107.1 17.1 98.8 21.6 92 90
248 04/01/97 VILLAGE C 423 9 0 107.1 17.1 97.5 20.7 91 90
253 04/01/97 VILLAGE C 425 9 0 107.1 17.1 97.7 20.1 91 90
254 04/01/97 VILLAGE C 420 14 0 105.0 19.8 96.6 22.0 92 90
255 04/01/97 VILLAGE C 428 9 0 107.1 17.1 99.5 19.4 93 90
259 04/02/97 VILLAGE C 430 14 0 105.0 19.8 95.7 20.8 91 90
268 04/02/97 VILLAGE C 431 14 0 105.0 19.8 94.6 22.1 90 90
360 12/16/97 VILLAGE C 429 4 0 115.8 15.7 107.8 18.6 93 90
437 01/06/98 VILLAGE C 445 26 0 120.0 12.6 109.5 14.2 91, 90
445 01/08/98 VILLAGE C 457 4 0 115.8 15.7 98.1 15.8 85' 90
445A 01/08/98 VILLAGE C 457 4 0 115.8 15.7 100.2 17.0 87 90
445B 01/08/98 VILLAGE C 457 4 0 115.8 15.7 104.4 17.2 90 90
451 01/23/98 VILLAGE C 448 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.2 16.5 92 90
452 01/23/98 VILLAGE C 450 2 0 115.0 14.8 100.7 13.0 88 90
452A 01/23/98 VILLAGE ç 450 2 0 115.0 14.8 104.3 19.7 91 90
453 01/23/98 VILLAGE C 452 2 0 115.0 14.8 108.3 17.7 94 90
454 01/23/98 VILLAGE C 454 24 0 117.4 13.9 109.2 18.0 93 90
455 01/26/98 VILLAGE C 451 24 0 117.4 13.9 107.5 16.6 92 90
456 01/26/98 VILLAGE C 456 24 0 117.4 13.9 109.4 12.9 93 90
ST 463 01/29/98 VILLAGE C 452 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.8 13.6 93 90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
Project No. 05845-12-01D (C) TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
MASS GRADING Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd
0
or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf)
ST 464 01/29/98 VILLAGE C 454 2 0 115.0 14.8 104.9 16.1 91 90
473 03/04/98 VILLAGE C 442 4 0 115.8 15.7 108.0 16.6 93 90
476 03/05/98 VILLAGE C 445 4 0 115.8 15.7 105.9 19.6 91 90
485 03/09/98 VILLAGE C 446 4 0 115.8 15.7 100.4 21.8 87 90
485A 03/09/98 VILLAGE C 446 4 0 115.8 15.7 104.3 18.5 90 90
504 03/12/98 VILLAGE C 429 2 0 115.0 14.8 95.4 32.2 83 90
504A 03/17/98 VILLAGE C 429 2 0 115.0 14.8 97.2 28.9 85 90
504B 03/20/98 VILLAGE C 429 2 0 115.0 14.8 104.7 18.2 91 90
505 03/12/98 VILLAGE C 429 2 0 115.0 14.8 96.7 29.4 84 90
505A 03/17/98 VILLAGE C 429 2 0 115.0 14.8 94.6 28.3 82 90
505B 03/20/98 VILLAGE C 429 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.6 15.8 93 90
507 03/19/98 VILLAGE C 433 12 0 114.7 16.0 98.9 19.5 86 90
507A 03/20/98 VILLAGE C 433 12 0 114.7 16.0 106.1 18.4 93 90
508 03/20/98 VILLAGE C 431 2 0 115.0 14.8 107.5 15.6 93 90
541 05/01/98 VILLAGE C 433 14 0 105.0 19.8 97.6 23.9 93 90
FG 542 05/01/98 VILLAGE C 435 14 0 105.0 19.8 98.7 22.7 94 90
545 05/01/98 VILLAGE C 430 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.2 17.7 92 90
FG 546 05/01/98 VILLAGE C 432 2 0 115.0 14.8 105.5 18.0 92 90
557 05/01/98 VILLAGE C 431 2 0 115.0 14.8 97.8 23.3 85 90
557A 05/04/98 VILLAGE C 431 2 0 115.0 14.8 98.6 24.1 86 90
557B 05/11/98 VILLAGE C 431 2 0 115.0 14.8 104.2 19.6 91 90
FG 569 05/04/98 VILLAGE C 431 3 0 116.4 13.6 109.2 13.9 94 90
FG 570 05/04/98 VILLAGE C 430 4 0 115.8 15.7 105.3 18.4 91 90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
Project No. 05845-12-16 (C) TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
FINE GRADING Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd
or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
644 06/11/98 VILLAGE C LOT 17 431 4 0 115.8 15.7 101.2 20.4 87 90
644A 06/11/98 VILLAGE C LOT 17 431 4 0 115.8 15.7 105.8 18.5 91 90
649 06/11/98 VILLAGE C LOT 19 431 4 0 115.8 15.7 106.0 17.7 92 90
650 06/11/98 VILLAGE C LOT 16 433 27 0 114.4 15.1 105.9 16.0 93 90
655 06/11/98 VILLAGE C LOT 18 433 101 0 115.6 14.4 101.4 13.8 88 90
655A 06/11/98 VILLAGE C LOT 18 433 101 0 115.6 14.4 104.8 15.9 91 90
673 06/15/98 VILLAGE C LOT 23 436 17 0 112.2 15.5 104.5 15.2 93 90
674 06/15/98 VILLAGE C LOT 25 438 17 0 112.2 15.5 103.9 16.6 93 90
675 06/15/98 VILLAGE C LOT 27 439 17 0 112.2 15.5 105.1 13.9 94 90
FG 676 06/15/98 VILLAGE C LOT 13 437 101 0 115.6 14.4 109.2 15.5 94 90
FG 677 06/15/98 VILLAGE C LOT 14 436 101 0 115.6 14.4 106.3 15.8 92 90
FG 678 06/15/98 VILLAGE C LOT 15 436 101 0 115.6 14.4 104.7 14.2 91 90
FG 679 06/15/98 VILLAGE C LOT 16 436 101 0 115.6 14.4 105.8 13.7 92 90
FG 680 06/15/98 VILLAGE C LOT 17 436 101 0 115.6 14.4 106.0 16.1 92 90
FG 681 06/15/98 VILLAGE C LOT 18 435 101 0 115.6 14.4 104.9 14.9 91 90
FG 682 06/15/98 VILLAGE C LOT 19 435 101 0 115.6 14.4 107.7 16.1 93 90
683 06/16/98 VILLAGE C LOT 20 432 19 0 112.8 17.2 103.2 18.5 91 90
684 06/16/98 VILLAGE C LOT 28 442 19 0 112.8 17.2 99.4 19.8 88 90
684A 06/16/98 VILLAGE C LOT 28 442 19 0 112.8 17.2 102.7 18.9 91 90
685 06/16/98 VILLAGE C LOT 101 433 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.7 14.6 93 90
686 06/16/98 VILLAGE C LOT 99 434 2 0 115.0 14.8 101.8 14.3 89 90
686A 06/16/98 VILLAGE C LOT 99 434 2 0 115.0 14.8 104.4 15.9 91 90
687 06/16/98 VILLAGE C LOT 97 436 17 0 112.2 15.5 106.5 16.8 95 90
688 06/16/98 VILLAGE C LOT 102 442 12 0 114.7 16.0 107.1 15.7 93 90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
Project No. 05845-12-16 (C) TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
FINE GRADING
Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd
or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
689 06/16/98 VILLAGE C LOT 103 444 12 0 114.7 16.0 106.9 17.6 93 90
ST 705 06/19/98 VILLAGE C LOT 18 431 101 0 115.6 14.4 99.5 16.0 86 90
ST 705A 06/19/98 VILLAGE C LOT 18 431 101 0 115.6 14.4 104.3 16.4 90 90
ST 706 06/19/98 VILLAGE C LOT 15 432 101 0 115.6 14.4 99.7 15.1 86 90
ST 706A 06/19/98 VILLAGE C LOT 15 432 101 0 115.6 14.4 103.7 15.0 90 90
ST 707 06/19/98 VILLAGE C LOT 102 441 12 0 114.7 16.0 98.5 14.8 86 90
ST 707A 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 102 441 12 0 114.7 16.0 102.9 15.6 90 90
ST 708 06/19/98 VILLAGE C LOT 103 441 12 0 114.7 16.0 100.7 13.8 88 90
ST 708A 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 103 441 12 0 114.7 16.0 103.4 16.1 90 90
FG 709 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 97 437 17 0 112.2 15.5 105.8 15.4 94 90
FG 710 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 98 436 17 0 112.2 15.5 107.2 16.2 96 90
PG 711 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 99 436 17 0 112.2 15.5 105.3 17.2 94 90
FG 712 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 100 435 17 0 112.2 15.5 107.5 14.9 96 90
FG 713 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 101 435 17 0 112.2 15.5 107.0 15.9 95 90
FG 714 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 102 446 12 0 114.7 16.0 106.5 15.2 93 90
FG 715 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 103 446 12 0 114.7 16.0 107.0 14.5 93 90
FG 716 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 20 433 4 0 115.8 15.7 111.3 13.8 96 90
FG 717 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 21 433 4 0 115.8 15.7 109.7 14.4 95 90
PG 718 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 22 437 101 0 115.6 14.4 110.6 15.7 96 90
PG 719 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 23 437 101 0 115.6 14.4 109.1 14.7 94 90
PG 720 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 24 440 101 0 115.6 14.4 107.2 17.5 93 90
FG 721 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 25 440 4 0 115.8 15.7 105.4 15.2 91 90
FG 722 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 26 443 17 0 112.2 15.5 103.5 15.5 92 90
FG 723 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 27 443 17 0 112.2 15.5 102.6 17.1 91 90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
Project No. 05845-12-16 (C)
FINE GRADING
Test
No. Date Test Location
FC 724 06/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 28
737 07/29/98 VILLAGE C LOT 39
738 07/29/98 VILLAGE C LOT 35
FG 740 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 30
FG 741 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 31
FG 742 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 32
FG 743 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 33
FG 744 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 34
FG 745 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 35
FG 746 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 36
FG 746A 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 36
FG 747 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 37
FG 747A 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 37
FG 748 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 38
FG 748A 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 38
FG 749 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 39
FG 749A 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 39
FG 750 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 40
FG 751 07/30/98 VILLAGE C LOT 29
FG 752 08/01/98 VILLAGE C LOT 104
FG 753 08/01/98 VILLAGE C LOT 105
FG 754 08/01/98 VILLAGE C LOT 106
FG 755 08/01/98 VILLAGE C LOT 107
FG 756 08/01/98 VILLAGE C LOT 108
TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd
or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
(ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
443 17 0 112.2 15.5 104.0 17.2 93 90
446 24 0 117.4 13.9 109.3 16.0 93 90
447 24 0 117.4 13.9 108.6 16.4 93 90
445 16 0 114.2 16.3 107.4 17.5 94 90
445 24 0 117.4 13.9 106.2 17.8 90 90
447 16 0 114.2 16.3 105.7 16.7 93 90
447 16 0 114.4 16.3 103.4 18.6 91 90
448 16 0 114.2 16.3 104.0 19.1 91 90
448 24 0 117.4 13.9 109.4 14.8 93 90
449 16 0 114.2 16.3 100.8 15.5 88 90
449 16 0 114.2 16,3 105.9 17.1 93 90
449 16 0 114.2 16.3 99.5 16.2 87 90
449 16 0 114.2 16.3 106.8 16.6 94 90
448 24 0 117.4 13.9 104.2 14.7 89 90
448 24 0 117.4 13.9 108.7 14.2 93 90
448 24 0 117.4 13.9 102.0 14.9 87 90
448 24 0 117.4 13.9 109.4 14.5 93 90
447 16 0 114.2 16.3 104.3 15.9 91 90
443 16 0 114.2 16.3 103.1 16.2 90 90
448 16 0 114.2 16.3 106.4 15.8 93 90
448 16 0 114.2 16.3 105.7 16.8 93 90
449 16 0 114.2 16.3 106.2 .18.3 93 90
449 16 0 114.2 16.3 108.0 18.1 95 90
448 16 0 114.2 16.3 104.2 19.2 91 90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
Project No. 05845-12-16 (C) TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
FINE GRADING Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd
or 3/411 Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
FG 757 08/01/98 VILLAGE C LOT 109 448 16 0 114.2 16.3 103.6 17.2 91 90
PC 758 08/01/98 VILLAGE C LOT 110 448 16 0 114.2 16.3 103.4 16.1 91 90
766 08/01/98 VILLAGE C LOT 109 447 16 0 114.2 16.3 104.9 15.9 92 90
767 08/01/98 VILLAGE C LOT 105 446 16 0 114.2 16.3 105.8 17.2 93 90
SZ 774 08/17/98 VILLAGE C RCH BRAVAD 406 1 0 113.4 14.6 105.1 15.3 93 90
775 08/17/98 VILLAGE C PASE VAL 410 1 0 - 113.4 14.6 104.0 16.7 92 90
776 08/17/98 VILLAGE C RCH BRAVAD 413 1 0 113.4 14.6 103.3 18.7 91 90
SZ 777 08/18/98 VILLACE' C PASE VALIN 415 2 0 115.0 14.8 104.2 14.8 91 90
778 08/18/98 VILLAGE C RCH BRAVAD 417 1 0 113.4 14.6 105.0 17.2 93 90
SZ 779 08/18/98 VILLAGE C RCH BRAVAD 420 2 0 115.0 14.8 104.4 15.9 91 90
780 08/18/98 VILLAGE C LOT 77 422 3 0 116.4 13.6 107.0 17.0 92 90
781 08/19/98 VILLAGE C RCH BRAVAD 420 1 0 113.4 14.6 105.0 14.1 93 90
782 08/19/98 VILLAGE C LOT 76 425 20 0 114.3 14.9 105.4 15.7 92 90
SZ 783 08/19/98 VILLAGE C RCH BRAVAD 428 20 0 114.3 14.9 105.8 15.8 93 90
784 08/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 77 429 2 0 115.0 14.8 104.8 14.1 91 90
785 08/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 76 432 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.7 15.5 93 90
786 08/20/98 VILLAGE C LOT 75 435 2 0 115.0 14.8 107.7 16.4 94 90
787 08/25/98 VILLAGE C RCH LA PRS 441 2 0 115.0 14.8 104.0 13.7 90 90
788 08/25/98 VILLAGE C LOT 78 436 2 0 115.0 14.8 107.2 14.8 93 90
789 08/25/98 VILLAGE C LOT 77 436 2 0 115.0 14.8 102.3 12.7 89 90
789A - 08/25/98 VILLAGE C LOT 77 436 2 0 115.0 14.8 104.4 15.1 91 90
790 09/01/98 VILLAGE C LOT 74 436 16 0 114.2 16.3 103.7 19.5 91 90
791 09/01/98 VILLAGE C LOT 76 436 16 0 114.2 16.3 106.0 15.8 93 90
792 09/01/98 VILLAGE C LOT 77 436 16 0 114.2 16.3 105.1 11.7 92 90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
Project No. 05845-12-16 (C) TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
FINE GRADING
Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd
or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Test Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
No. Date Test Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
792A 09/10/98 VILLAGE C LOT 77 436 16 0 114.2 16.3 104.3 15.5 91 90
ST 793 09/01/98 VILLAGE C RCH BRAVAD 415 2 0 115.0 14.8 100.1 15.9 88 90
793A 09/01/98 VILLAGE C RCH BRAVAD 415 2 0 115.0 14.8 105.1 13.5 91 90
FG 794 09/04/98 VILLAGE C LOT 78 439 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.6 14.8 93 90
FG 795 09/04/98 VILLAGE C LOT 77 438 2 0 115.0 14.8 110.3 15.7 96 90
FG 796 09/04/98 VILLAGE C LOT 76 438 2 0 115.0 14.8 105.7 18.2 92 90
ST 797 09/04/98 VILLAGE C LOT 77 434 2 0 115.0 14.8 101.5 14.3 88 90
ST 797A 09/08/98 VILLAGE C LOT 77 434 2 0 115.0 14.8 104.6 15.2 91 90
FG 798 09/04/98 VILLAGE C LOT 75 438 2 0 115.0 14.8 107.2 16.1 93 90
FG 799 09/04/98 VILLAGE C LOT 74 438 2 0 115.0 14.8 104.5 18.0 91 90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
AD - Area Drain
B - Base Test
CC - Curb & Cutter
CW - Crib Wall
DW - Driveway
FG - Finish Grade
IT - Irrigation Trench
JT - Joint Trench
MT - Moisture Test
RW - Retaining Wall
SD - Storm Drain
SC - Subgrade
SL - Sewer Lateral
SM - Sewer Main
ST - Slope Test
SW - Sidewalk
SZ - Slope Zone
UT - Utility Trench
WB - Wall Backfill
WL - Water Lateral
WM - Water Main
- CURVE NO.
Project No. 05845-12-16 (C)
EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS
- TEST SUFFIX
A, B, C .....Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning
and/or recompaction.
R: Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with
properly compacted fill soil.
- PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS
Corresponds to curve numbers listed in Table II, representing the laboratory
maximum dry density/optimum moisture content data for selected fill soil samples
encountered during testing and observation.
- ROCK CORRECTION
For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values listed are then unadjusted values.
- TYPE OF TEST
SC: Sand Cone Test
NU: Nuclear Density Test
DC: Drive Cylinder Test
- ELEVATION/DEPTH
Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot.
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-91
Sample
No. Descri fi p Maximum Dry
Density (pci)
Optimum Moisture
Content (% dry wt.)
1 Light brown, Silty CLAY 113.4 14.6
2 Yellow-tan, Silty, fine to medium SAND,
with trace clay 115.0 14.0
3 Light brown to brown, Sandy CLAY, trace
silt 116.4 13.6
4 Green, Silty CLAY, with little fine to
medium sand 115.8 15.7
16 Olive, fine to medium Sandy CLAY, with
little silt 114.2 16.3
17 Light olive-brown, Silty, fine to coarse
SAND 112.2 15.5
19 Olive, fine to medium, Sandy CLAY, with
little silt 112.8 17.2
24 Light olive, Silty, fine to medium SAND 117.4 13.9
25 Light greenish tan Sandy CLAY 112.2 17.0
9 Yellow-brown, Silty CLAY with some fine
to medium SAND 107.1 17.1
14 Yellow-tan Silty CLAY 105.0 19.8
12 Green-gray-tan Silty CLAY with trace Sand
and gravel 114.7 16.0
15 Dark olive-yellow brown clayey fine SAND 116.8 13.3
26 Tan Silty fine SAND 120.0 12.6
27 Yellow-tan Silty fine to medium SAND,
little clay 114.4 15.1
101 Yellow-gray Silty sand with little CLAY 115.6 14.4
Project No. 05845-12-16 September 9, 1998
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Sample
No.
Dry Density
(Pei)
Moisture Content
(%)
Unit Cohesion
(psi)
Angle of Shear
Resistance
(degrees)
2 103.4 14.8 400 30
3 104.4 13.6 450 16
16 103.5 16.3 740 23
17 101.2 15.5 290 36
19 101.2 17.2 255 30
9 97.2 17.1 345 28
12 104.0 16.0 525 23
27 103.4 15.1 1 280 1 30
NOte: Samples were remolded to 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content.
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Sample
No.
Moisture Content
Before Test (%) After Test (%)
Dry
Density (pci)
Expansion
Index
2 11.0 23.0 106.1 12
3 10.7 28.5 105.4 107
4 11.7 29.1 104.1 87
17 12.1 26.1 102.4 23
19 14.2 35.8 96.3 62
C-A 12.2 25.0 102.9 25
C-B 11.9 26.0 103.7 16
C-C 12.5 28.9 102.9 72
C-D 12.5 26.1 103.0 67
C-E 13.1 123.0 102.3 14
C-F 14.2 29.7 100.5 65
C-G 13.9 24.2 102.2 30
C-H 12.8 25.9 102.6 37
C-I 12.6 30.9 102.0 70
C-J 10.5 32.9 108.9 116
C-K 11.5 32.0 103.6 47
C-L 10.1 30.4 109.1 35
C-M 15.9 42.5 91.1 135
Project No. 05845-12-16 September 9, 1998
TABLE IV (Continued)
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Sample
No.
Moisture Content
Before Test (%) After Test (%)
Dry
Density (pci)
Expansion
Index
C-N 10.8 31.7 109.0 61
C-O 10.5 29.0 108.0 62
C-P 10.0 26.5 109.4 70
C.Q 11.2 37.8 105.3 97
C-R 10.2 26.4 110.0 54
C-S 11.1 26.0 106.0 50
C-T 9.1 27.6 113.2 47
C-U 108.2 28.7 109.1 23
C-V 10.2 24.8 109.5 14
C-W 10.0 26.9 109.6 53
CX 11.0 28.1 105.7 46
C-Y 9.4 30.2 111.2 48
C-Z 10.5 24.1 109.6 21
C-AA 9.8 28.1 110.7 41
TABLE V
SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS FOR EACH LOT
Lot No. Sample No. Expansion Index UBC Classification
1 through 4 C-E 14 Very Low
5 through 9 C-G 30 Low
10 through 13 C-F 60 Medium
14 through 19 C-H 37 Low
20 through 23 C-J 116 High
24 through 28 C-C 72 Medium
29 through 33 C-N 61 Medium
34 through 40 C-O 62 Medium
46 through 51 C-T 47 Low
41 through 45 C-S 50 Low
52 through 59 C-U 23 Low
60 through 64 C-V 14 Very Low
65 through 71 C-W 53 Medium
Project No. 05845-12-16 September 9, 1998
TABLE V (Continued)
SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS FOR EACH LOT
Lot No. Sample No. Expansion Index IIBC Classification
72,73 C-Y 48 Low
74 through 77 C-Z 21 Low
78 through 82 C-AA 41 Low
83 through 85 C-X 46 Low
86 through 89 C-K 47 Low
90 through 94 C-L 35 Low
95,96 C-M 135 Very high
97 through 101 C-D 71 Medium
102, 103 C-I 70 Medium
104 through 107 C-P 70 Medium
108 through 111 C-Q 97 High
112 through 115 C-R 54 Medium
TABLE VI
SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS
FOR VILLAGE C, RANCHO CARRILLO
Lot
Number
Pad
Condition
Approximate
Depth of
Fill (feet)
Approximate
Maximum Depth
of Fill Differential
Expansion
Index
Foundation
Category
1,2 Cut 0 0 14 I
3-4 Cut 0 0 14 I
5-6 Cut 0 0 30 I
7-8 Cut 0 0 30 I
9-10 Cut 0 0 65 H
11-12 Cut 0 0 65 II
14-15 Fill 25 24 37 III
16-17 Fill 40 24 37 III
18-19 Fill 45 30 37 III
20-21 Fill 43 27 116 III
22-23 Fill 37 21 116 III
24-25 Fill 32 20 72 III
26-27 Fill 18 14 72 II
Project No. 05845-12-16 September 9, 1998
TABLE VI (Continued)
SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS
FOR VILLAGE C, RANCHO CARRILLO
Lot
Number
Pad
Condition
Approximate
Depth of
Fill (feet)
Approximate
Maximum Depth
of Fill Differential
Expansion
index
Foundation
Category
28-29 Fill/Undercut 8 6 61 II
30-31 Fill 3 2 61 II
32-33 Fill 2 1 61 II
34-35 Fill 3 1 62 II
36-37 Fill 3 0 62 II
38-39 Fill 3 0 62 II
40-41 Cut/Fill 3 2 50 I
4243 Cut 0 0 50 I
44-45 Cut 0 0 50 I
46-47 Cut/Fill 2 2 47 I
48-49 Cut 0 0 47 I
50-51 Cut 0 0 47 I
52-53 Cut 0 0 23 I
54-55 Cut 0 0 23 I
56-57 Cut 0 0 23 I
58-59 Cut 0 0 23 I
60-61 Cut 0 0 14 I
62-63 Cut 0 0 14 I
64-65 Cut 0 0 53 II
66-67 Cut 0 0 53 II
68-69 Cut 0 0 53 II
70-71 Cut 0 0 53 II
72-73 Cut 0 0 48 I
74-75 Undercut/Fill 14 11 21 II
76-77 Fill 26 23 21 III
78-79 Cut/Fill 2 2 41 I
80-81 Cut 0 0 41 I
82-83 Cut 0 0 46 I
84-85 Cut 0 0 46 I
86-87 Cut 0 0 47 I
88-89 Cut 0 0 47 I
Project No. 05845-12-16 September 9, 1998
TABLE VI (Continued)
SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS
FOR VILLAGE C, RANCHO CARRILLO
Lot
Number
Pad
Condition
Approximate
Depth of
Fill (feet)
Approximate
Maximum Depth
of Fill Differential
Expansion
Index
Foundation
Category
90-91 Cut 0 0 35 I
92-93 Cut 0 0 35 I
94-95 Cut 0 0 135 111*
96-97 Cut 0 0 135 111*
98-99 Cut 0 0 71 II
100-101 Cut 0 0 71 II
102-103 Fill 12 9 70 II
104-105 Fill 3 0 70 II
106-107 Fill 3 1 70 II
108-109 Fill 3 1 97 III
110-111 Fill/Cut 2 2 97 III
112-113 Cut 0 0 54 II
114-115 Cut 0 0 . 54 II
*See Section 4.13
Project No. 05845-12-16 September 9, 1998