HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-02; RANCHO CARILLO VILLAGES A-D; INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING; 1998-07-20 (3)INTERIM REPORT OF TESTING
AND OBSERVATION SERVICES
DURING SITE GRADING
LOT NOS. 153 THROUGH 156
(MODEL LOTS)
VILLAGE -D
RANCHO CARRILLO
CARLSBAD; CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
CONTINENTAL 'RANCH INC.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
T
JULY 1998
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNIcAL CONSULTANTS
Project No. 05845-12-16
July 20, 1998
Continental Ranch Inc.
12230 El Camino Real, Suite 300
San Diego, California 92130
Attention: Mr. Dave Lother
Subject: LOT NOS. 153 THROUGH 156 (MODEL LOTS)
VILLAGE D
RANCHO CARRILLO
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
INTERIM 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
June 11, 1998. The scope of our services included the following:
Observing the grading operation, including the removal and/or processing of loose topsoils,
colluvium, 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 an "As-Graded" Geologic Map.
Preparing this interim report of grading.
The purpose of this report is to document the grading operations within the designated model lots. A
final report of testing and observations for all of the Village D will be prepared upon completion of
grading operations.
6960 Flanders Drive 0 San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone (619) 558-6900 U Fax (619) 558-6159
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 8 and 25 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, Sheet 6, 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.
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 approved grading plans or proper surface
drainage.
GRADING
Mass grading of Village D occurred during the period of March 14, 1997 through April 30, 1998:
Fine grading for the lots reported herein was performed during the period of Ma 29 through June 11,
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 grayish brown silty sand to greenish brown sandy clay.
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 Figure 1. It should be
Project No. 05845-12-16 -2- July 20, 1998
noted that since the grading of Village D was performed in conjunction with grading of Villages A,
B and C, 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 fill, slopes have planned inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter, with
maximum height of approximately 17 feet. No major cut slope exists within the site. The fill slopes
were either over-filled and cut back or. were track-walked with a bulldozer during grading.
The south facing slope bordering the south of the subject area was buttressed during the mass
grading operation for Melrose Drive (Buttress No.3), and was discussed in the final grading report of
Melrose Drive, dated March 11, 1998.
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.
S ubdrains
A canyon subdrain is located within Lot Nos. 154 and 155 . This subdrain was installed in a tributary'
canyon and after connecting to the main canyon subdrain flows into the open space off site. The
heel drain associated with the buttress fill located south of the subject area flows to the east and is
connected to the storm drain system at Melrose Drive. ,The subdrain and the heel drain were "as
built" for location and elevation by Rick Engineering Company and are shown on the attached as-
graded geologic map.
I Finish Grade Soil Conditions
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 57 (Table IV), and are classified as
having a "medium" expansion potential as 'defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
Table 18-I-B. 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 location's.
Project No. 05845-12716 -3 - July 20, 1998
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 Map (Figures 1) depicts the general geologic conditions observed.
This map also shows 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.
I 2.0. Seismic Soil Stability
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.
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:
Project No. 05845-12-16 -4- July 20, 1998
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 V.
TABLE 4.1.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation Minimum Continuous Footing Interior Slab
Category Footing Depth Reinforcement Reinforcement
(inches)
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.
Categdry II: 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.
3 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 HI) 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.
Project No. 05845-12-16 -5- July 20, 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 III, 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
156 II
153, 154, and 155 III
4.7. 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
Project No. 05845-12-16 -6- July 20, 1998
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.
4.8. 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.
4.9. 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
structural engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the
Post-Tensioning Institute (IJBC 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.
Project No. 05845-12-16 -7- July 20, 1998
TABLE 4.3.
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PT!)
Design Parameters
. Foundation Category
I II III
Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20
Clay Type - Montmorillonite 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. 4.74 in.
4.10. 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 UDC.
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.
4.11. 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.
Project No. 05845-12-16 - 8 - July 20, 1998
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 pounds 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 0.001H at the top of the
wall. Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform
pressure of 7H 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
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
Project No. 05845-12-16 -9- July 20, 1998
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
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.
Project No. 05845-12-16 _10- July 20, 1998
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 June 11, 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.
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 Sadr
CEG 1778
#.JED Gs.
$ADR \cj.
"I 11778 u,
CER1JFIED 1- 0 ENGINEERING
- GEOLOGIST
AS:DFL:slt
(6/del) Addressee
Project No. 05845-12-16 -11- July 20, 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) (%)
65 03/14/97 VILLAGE D 388 17 0 112.2 15.5 103.7 17.1 92 90
146 03/21/97 VILLAGE D 395 3 0 116.4 13.6 104.8 15.0 90 90
326 04/16/9.7 VILLAGE D 400 4 0 115.8 15.7 106.8 17.1 92 90
333 04/18/97 VILLAGE D 409 4 0 115.8 15.7 105.2 17.6 91 90
335 04/18/97 VILLAGE D 409 16 0 114.2 16.3 105:9 18.6 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
Test
No. Date Test Location
SZ 573 05/29/98 VILLAGE D LOT 152
SZ 573A 05/29/98 VILLAGE D LOT 152
SZ 573B 05/30/98 VILLAGE D LOT 152
SZ 574 06/01/98 VILLAGE D LOT 153
575 06/01/98 VILLAGE D LOT 154
576 06/01/98 VILLAGE D LOT 155
577 06/02/98 VILLAGE D LOT 156
578 06/02/98 VILLAGE D LOT 153
SZ 579 06/02/98 VILLAGE D LOT 152
SZ 580 06/02/98 VILLAGE D LOT 154
581 06/02/98 VILLAGE D LOT 157
582 06/03/98 VILLAGE D LOT 157
592 06/03/98 VILLAGE DLOT 152
593 06/04/98 VILLAGE D LOT 156
594 06/04/98 VILLAGE D LOT 155
595 06/04/98 VILLAGE D LOT 152
PG 607 06/05/98 VILLAGE D LOT 152
FG 608 06/05/98 VILLAGE D LOT 153
FG 609 06/05/98 VILLAGE D LOT 154
PG 610 06/05/98 VILLAGE D LOT 155
FG 611 06/05/98 VILLAGE D LOT 156
FG 612 06/05/98 VILLAGE D LOT 157
626 06/09/98 VILLAGE D LT 160 KEY
628 06/09/98 VILLAGE D LT 159 KEY
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) (%)
415 1 0 113.4 14.6 98.2 23.3 87 90
415 1 .0 113.4 14.6 ' 98.4 22.8 87 90
415 . 1 0 113.4 14.6 102.5 19.1 90 90
417 25 0 112.2 17.0 101.5 19.9 90 90
419 19 0 112.8 17.2 103;1 21.4 91 90
422 17 0 112.2 15.5 105.0 16.8 94 90
424 2 0 115.0 14.8 109.5 15.5 95 90
427 1 0 113.4 14.6 105.3 16.7 93 90
428 4 0 115.8 15.7 106.0 18.2 92 90
430 3 .. 0 116.4 13.6 108.7 13.3 93 90
428 1 0 113.4 14.6 104.9' 16.6 93 90
427 4 0 115.8 15.7 104.2 20.8 90 90
433 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.7 16.4 93 ' 90
430 17 0 112.2 15.5 103.6 15.4 92 90
433 17 0 112.2 15.5 104.8 16.0 93 90
435 17 0 112.2 15.5 103.7 16.6 92 90
437 17 0 112.2 15.5 103.2 17.5 .92 90
436 17 0 112.2 15.5 ' 101.8 19.0 91 90
436 17 0 112.2 15.5 102.4 16.7 91 90
435 17 0 112.2 15.5 102.6 17.8 ' 91 , 90
435 17 0 112.2 15.5 104.5 16.8 93 90
434 17 0 112.2 15.5 103.7 18.5 ' 92 90
427 24 0 117.4 13.9 107.2 17.7 91 90
430 ' 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.8 20.2 93 90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
Project No. 05845712-16 (C) TABLE
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
FINE GRADING S
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)
629 06/09/98 VILLAGE'D LOT 160 - 433 24 0 117.4 13.9 110.6 13.8 94 90
630 06/09/98 VILLAGE D LOT 161 435 - 24 0 117.4 13.9 110.3 14.8 ' 94 90
631 06/09/98 VILLAGE D LOT 158 432 24 0 117.4 13.9 108.9 17.2 93- 90
ST 633 06/10/98 ' VILLAGE D LOT 152 428 17 0 112.2 15.5 101.5 14.0 90 90
ST 634 06/10/98 VILLAGE D LOT 152 432 - 17 0 112.2 15.5 102.2 16.9 91 90
ST 635 06/10/98 VILLAGE D LOT 154 431 .17 0 112.2 15.5 105.1 13.5 94 90.
FG 640 06/10/98 VILLAGE D LOT 146 434 , 17 0 112.2 15.5 104.2 15.9 93 ' 90'
FG 641 06/10/98 VILLAGE D LOT 147 435 17 0 112.2 15.5 103.7 18.6 92 90
PG 642 06/10/98 VILLAGE D LOT 148 435 17 0 112.2 15.5 105.3 '. 14.2 94 90
PG 643 06/10/98 VILLAGE D LOT 149 436 17 0 112.2 15.5 102.7 15.1 92 ' 90
FG 645 ' 06/11/98 VILLAGE D LOT 158 434 4 0 115.8 15.7 106.5 .19.2 92 90
FG 646 06/11/98 VILLAGE D LOT 159 435 4 0 . 115.8 15.7 104.4 16.1 90 - 90
FG . 647 ' 06/11/98' VILLAGE D LOT 160 436 4 , 0 115.8 15.7 105.8 17.6 91 90
FG 648 06/11/98 VILLAGE D LOT 161 437 4 0 115.8 15.7 107.5' 16.4 93 90
ST 651 06/11/98 VILLAGE D LOT 158 428 4 0 115.8 15.7 104.7 15.3 90 90
Note:' See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
AD - Area Drain
B - Base Test
CC - Curb & Gutter
CW - Crib Wall
DW - Driveway
FG Finish Grade
IT - Irrigation Trench
JT - Joint Trench
MT - Moisture Test
RW - Retaining Wall
SD - Storm Drain -
SG - 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 rip Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture
No. Density (pci) 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
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
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Sample No. Dry Density
(pci)
Moisture Content
(%)
Unit Cohesion
(psi)
Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees)
2 103.4 14.8 400 30
3 104.4 • 13.6 450 16
17 101.2 15.5 290 36
19 101.2 17.2 255 30
Note: Samples were remolded to 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content.
Project No. 05845-12-16 July20, 1998
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Sample
No.
Moisture content Dry
Density (pci)
Expansion
Index Before Test (%) After Test (%)
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
D-B 10.8 27.9 108.5 57
TABLE
SUMMARY OF AS-GRADED BUILDING PAD CONDITIONS FOR LOT NOS. 153
THROUGH 156, VILLAGE D, RANCHO CARRILLO
Lot
Number
Pad
Condition
Approximate Depth
of Fill(feet)
Approximate Maximum
Depth of Fill
Differential (feet)
153 Fill 43 33
154 Fill 39 28
155 Fill 35 25
156 Fill 25 15
Project No. 05845-12-16 July 20, 1998