The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2308 ALTISMA WAY; 118; CB880921; Permit-r ,. -r YOl3VYlNO3 UL - I1 Y~~II~~IY~NMO NOllVSN3d~03S.U3YUOM 1 LA U3aN31 SNO11VYVl33(1 i r I r r r r I r c r r ~ ! r 1 SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA FOR LA COSTA VIEW HOMEOWNERS INCORPORATED CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA BY GEOCON INCORPORATED SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA APRIL, 1988 r r I r GEOCON ~~ Geotechnical Engineers and Engineering Geologists - .- File No. D-2764-507 April 5, 1988 La Costa View Homeowners Association Post Office Box 1141 Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mary Ellen Subject: LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS, ALTISMA DRIVE BUILDING NO. 2304, UNITS 117 AND 118 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SOIL INVESTIGATION Gentlemen: In accordance with our proposal dated January 15, 1988, we have performed a soil investigation to ascertain the surface and subsurface soil conditions in the vicinity of Condominium Units 117 and 118 at the subject site. The accompanying report presents the findings our investigation and our recommendations pertaining to the remedial measures for mitigation of the observed distress. contact the undersigned at your convenience. If there are any questions or if we can be of further service, please Vn truly yours, R;JD:JEL:W (6) addressee Staff Engineer . r i - 9530 Dowdy Drive San Diego. CA 92126-4335 619 695-2880 TABLE OF CONTENTS SOIL INVESTIGATION Page Purpose and Scope. ...................... 1 Site and Project Description ................. 3 Soil ............................. 4 Fill Soils ......................... 4 Delmar Formation ...................... 5 Existing Structural Conditions ................ 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General. ........................... 8 Remedial Recommendations ................... 9 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS Figure 1, Site Plan Figure 2, Approximate Floor Level Contours for Unit 117 Figure 3, Approximate Floor Level Contours for Unit 118 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A-1 - A-4, Logs of Test Borings APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Table I, Summary of Laboratory Test Results Table 11, Summary of In-Place Moisture-Density Test Results Table 111, Summary of Expansion Test Results Figure B-1, Gradation Curve APPENDIX C Figures and Tables from, previously reported "Limited Soil Investigation for La Costa View Condominiums, Carlsbad, California" dated January 9, 1987, prepared by Geocon Incorporated Figures A-1 and A-2, .Logs of Test Trenches Table I, Summary of In-Place Moisture-Density Table 11, Summary of Laboratory Compaction Test Results Table 111, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Test Results Table IV, Summary of Plasticity Indices Test Results Figures 8-1 - B-3, Gradation Curves Figures B-4 - B-6, Consolidation Curves and Direct Shear Test Results r c - c r i - r ! c r File No. D-2764-507 April 5, 1988 r- SOIL INVESTIGATION Puruose and Scoue The purpose of our investigation was to ascertain the surface and subsurface soil conditions in the vicinity of Building 2304, Units 117 and 118 of La Costa View Condominium Complex in Carlsbad, California. This report presents the results of our soil investigation performed between March 4, 1988 and March 17, 1988 and also includes information from our "Limited Soil Investigation" report dated January 9, 1987. Based upon the information obtained from the aforementioned 'investigations, we have provided remedial recommendations for the mitigation of the observed distress. The scope of our services consisted of a site reconnaissance and the excavation of four exploratory borings to a maximum depth of 16 feet. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on Figure 1. We also performed a check of the floor level surveys of Units 117 and 118 reported in our "Limited Soil Investigation" dated January 9, 1987. In addition, the following reports were reviewed during the preparation of this investigation. 0 Carlsbad, California" prepared by Geocon Incorporated dated "Limited Soil Investigation for La Costa View Condominiums, October 8, 1984. March 14, 1984. "Consultation" letter prepared by Geocon Incorporated dated 0 -1- File No. D-2764-507 April 5, 1988 r I- C c r 0 "Consultation" letter prepared by Geocon Incorporated dated May 28, 1986. Carlsbad, California" prepared by Geocon Incorporated dated "Limited Soil Investigation for La Costa View Condominiums, January 9, 1987. March 19, 1987. "Consultation" letter prepared by Geocon Incorporated dated 0 0 We have also been in contact with two contractors to determine viable alternatives for the stabilization for Unit Nos. 117 and 118. These alternatives will be discussed in further detail in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section of this report. Laboratory tests were performed on selected soils samples to evaluate grain-size distribution, compaction and expansion characteristics and relative compaction. The field investigation summary sheets and the results of the laboratory tests performed are presented in Appendices A and B, respectively. Appendix C contains the field investigation summary sheets and the laboratory tests results presented in our "Limited Soil Investigation Report" dated January 9, 1987. The recommendations presented herein are based on analysis of data obtained during this investigation and our previous investigation reported January 9, 1987. r I -2- File No. D-2764-507 April 5, 1988 !- r c i Site and Proiect Descriution The site is located on the north side of Altisma Drive in the La Costa area of Carlsbad, California. The site is currently occupied by ten multi-story condominium units comprising the La Costa View Condominium Complex. Building No. 2304, Unit Nos. 117 and 118 are located in the northeastern section of the site. Unit Nos. 117 and 118 are the lower two units of a two-story, four unit structure. The upper two units were not inspected for distress. Based on the data obtained from this investigation and previous investigations, it appears that the foundations for Unit Nos. 117 and 118 are founded in fill soils ranging in depth from 5 to 15 feet. The thickest portion of the fill soils is located in the southeast corner of the site. Grading of the site appeared to have been done in a stairstep fashion with the building pad elevations increasing to the west. The history of the site grading was not available to us for review, but we feel that the site was likely graded during at least two separate phases of work. Elevations of the finish floor slabs were also not available to us. -3- i File No. D-2764407 April 5, 1988 r I Soil Conditions The soil conditions as encountered during the field investigation consisted primarily of fill soils and formational soils of the Delmar Formation. The soil conditions encountered are discussed in further detail below. Fill Soils. Fill soils were encountered in all exploratory borings and extended to a maximum depth of 15 feet below existing ground surface in Boring 4. The fill materials consisted of soft to stiff, moist, olive gray, sandy clays and silts. The thickness of fill soils in the vicinity of Boring Nos. 1 and 2 were observed to be 9 to 11 feet. The fill thickness decreased to approximately 5 feet in the area of Boring No. 3. An approximation of the relative compaction of the in-place soils was determined by comparison of the in situ dry densities and moisture content of the drive tube soil samples obtained in the field to the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a representative sample of the fill soils. ASTM Laboratory Test Method D1557-78, Method A was performed to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the fill soils. Drive tube samples of the fill soils obtained from Boring Nos. 1, 2 and 3 indicate the approximate relative compaction of the fill in this area to be between 79 percent and 89 percent and moisture contents range from 4 to 8.5 percent above optimum. Drive tube samples of the fill -4- r i File No. D-2764-507 April 5, 1988 r c r soils in Boring No. 4 indicate the approximate relative compaction of the fill in this area to be between 85 percent to 92 percent with moisture contents ranging from 5.5 to 7 percent above optimum. It should be pointed out that the tests performed do not conform to ASTM Standards for the determination of relative compaction due to insufficient sample size and sample disturbance. Accordingly the relative compaction are approximations only. An approximately 1.5 foot thick colluvial soil layer was observed beneath the fill soils in Boring No. 4. It was difficult to determine whether colluvium had been reworked and recompacted or was representative of its natural state. In either case, the colluvial soils appeared to be moist and dense in their present condition. Delmar Formation. The formational soil of the Delmar Formation was encountered in all the exploratory borings to the maximum depth explored. These materials consist of hard, slightly moist to moist, pale yellow, fine to medium sandy silts and clays with interbedded cemented siltstones and claystones. Existine Structural Conditions The following is a summary Of the surficial structural distress observed by a representative of our firm during our recent investigation. The -5- r r I File No. D-2764-507 April 5, 1988 c c r c distress observed did not appear to vary significantly from that described in our "Limited Soil Investigation" report dated January 9, 1987 and our "Consultation" letter dated March 19, 1987. Condominium Unit N n 117 and 118 comprise pproximately 1200 square feet each with mirror i ge floor plans. ajority of the observed distress was found to be locate western portion of the units. Inside Unit No. 117 a 1- to 2-foot long diagonal drywall crack (1/8-inch separation) stemming from the upper western corner of the doorway leading to the patio was observed. The doorjam to this doorway and to the sliding door also leading to the patio were misaligned. The south bedroom door had been planed to allow opening and closing. The floor level survey indicated a 1-1/2- to 2-1/2-inch lowering of the floor slab towards the west. Figure 2, shows the floor plan of Unit No. 117 and our interpretation of the floor level contours as reported on March 19, 1987. The floor level survey of Unit No. 117 performed during our recent investigation did not show a significant change from that reported March 19, 1987. (U Unit No. 118 also showed misalignment of the doorway leading to the patio and hairline drywall cracks stemming from the corners of south facing windows. The floor level survey of Unit No. 118 showed an approximately 2-1/2 inch lowering of the floor slab to the west. Figure 3 shows the 7 I i -6- r ! 1 r - File No. D-2764-507 April 5, 1988 floor plan of Unit No. 118 and our interpretation of the floor level contours as reported March 19, 1987. The floor level survey of Unit No. 118 performed during our recent investigation did not show a significant change from that reported March 19, 1987. Distress to the exterior of the structure did not appear to be abnormal for wood-frame, stucco construction. r i r r 1 -7- r File No. D-2764-507 April 5, 1988 r L r i i 7 i r r i c CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General 1. A review of the exploratory boring and trench logs indicate that the structure is underlain by approximately 5 to 15 feet of fill soils. 2. It is our opinion that the fill soils in the vicinity of the structure are in a condition of inadequate density and excessive moisture content. Based upon our laboratory tests and floor level surveys, it appears that fill soils beneath the western portion of the structure are settling more than those to the east causing a differential settlement on the order of 2 to 3 inches. 3. We recommend that the site water lines be checked for leakage and that the landscape watering up gradient of the site be monitored prior to any remedial work being performed. It is unlikely that the fill soils were placed at the excessive moisture contents indicated by our field samples. The area for surface water infiltration is limited, especially in the western portion of the site, due to concrete paving. 4. A component of soil expansion may be having some affect on the differential floor slab elevations, but taking in to consideration the -8- r r r File No. D-2764-507 April 5. 1988 r - I r moisture content and relative compaction of the fills, we feel that any affect due to soil expansion is negligible. 5. We feel that the settlement and subsequent distress to the structure is incomplete. We therefore, recommend that actions be taken to mitigate the settlement of the structure. An estimate of the ultimate magnitude and timing of the settlement is beyond the scope of this report. Remedial Recommendations 6. One alterative to mitigate the settlement of the structure is by employing a compaction grouting technique. Compaction grouting is a process whereby the underlying fill soils are densified by radially expanding bulbs of grout pumped through a pipe at various depths. We have been in contact with Mr. Don Clark with the compaction grouting division of Moore and Taber Geotechnical Agencies and he feels that compaction grouting is a viable solution to the settlement problem. 7. Another alternative to mitigate the settlement of the structure is by the use of pipe piles. Installation of pipe piles is done by excavating adjacent to footings and bearing walls so that brackets can be attached to the foundation. Sections of pipe are then driven to competent bearing material in numerous locations using a hydraulic ram, and the final pipe sections are attached to the above-mentioned brackets, thus supporting the r i r -9- r - - r r - - File No. D-2764-507 April 5, 1988 structure. We have been in contact with Mr. Chester Carville of Soil Engineering Construction, Incorporated and he feels that this technique is a viable solution to the settlement problem. 8. We recommend that the two contractors mentioned herein, and, if you desire, others competent in the fields of compaction grouting and underpinning be contacted to provide an estimate for repairs to the structure. In all probability estimates can be provided based on a review of the site and this report. If additional geotechnical data is required it can be provided by our office. 9. It may be necessary to retain a structural engineer to provide recommendations concerning the structural integrity of the existing structure and the structural feasibility of the proposed remedial work. 10. Upon completion of either of the above techniques, or if another alternative is chosen, we recommend that a monitoring program for future indications of distress be implemented. 11. After stabilization of the existing structure we recommend that cosmetic repairs be made to the interior of the affected units. L r File No. D-2764407 April 5, 1988 r r - ? LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITI OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon, Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings 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. c ! 7" --. I APPENDIX A File No. D-2764407 April 5, 1988 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation performed between March 4, 1988 and March 17, 1988, consisted of advancing four exploratory borings to a maximum depth of 16 feet. Borings were advanced using a 6-inch diameter continuous flight auger drill rig. Samples were obtained by driving a 3’ O.D. split- spoon sampler into the undisturbed soil mass by blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. Disturbed bag samples were also taken. The materials were visually classified and sampled at the time of excavation by a representative of our firm and a summary of the exploratory boring logs, including the sample depths, are presented in Figures A-1, through A-4 of this Appendix. r File No. D-2764-507 BORING 1 I ELEVATION EQUIPMENT @a unknown DATE DRILLED 3/4/88 $3 Mobil B-50 @! MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 3" Concrete 6x6 Mesh; 2" Base - FILL 28 Stiff, moist, light olive brown, CLAY trace of sand, trace of gravel - \, L I Loose, fine grained Sandy SILT, little clay - SILT, trace fine sand Soft, very moist, light olive Clayey t DELMAR FORMATION Hard, slightly moist, weathered, olive fine Sandy SILTSTONE t - NOTETHELOGOFSUBSUPFACECONDlTlONSSHOWNHEREONAPPLlESONLYATTHESPEClFlCBORlNGORTRENCHLOCATlONAND ATTHEDATEINDICATE0 ~TISNOTWARRANTEDTOBEREPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDlllONSATOTHERLOCATIONSANDTIMES I File No. D-2764407 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I 3" Concrete 6x6 Mesh; 2" Base t FILL 18 Soft, moist, olive, Silty CLAY, trace of sand, trace of gravel - L - Soft/Loose, moist, olive Sandy SILT/Silty -9 SAND, little clay - very moist -8 " - DELMAR FORMATION 501 - 9" Hard, slightly moist, olive, fine Sandy SILTSTONE, iron staining - - "g 2 5.5 6.7 7.8 ! r r April 5, 1988 File No. D-2764-507 iy 51- BORING 3 I MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 3" Concrete; 2" Base - , - FILL Looselsoft, moist, olive, Silty, fine SANDISandy SILTY - 15 108.t - - 151 BULK 8" Ill.( DELMAR FORMATION Hard, slightly moist, light olive, fine Sandy SILTSTONE - - I - 19.6 lMPL1 15.6 - 7 Figure A-3, Log of Test Boring 3 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 - SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I]-STANOARO PENETRATION TEST - DRNE SAMRE WNDISTURBEDI ~-DlSTURBEOORBAGSAMPLE P-CHUNKSAMPLE - WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE I - I NOTETI~ELOOOFSUBSURF~CECONO~T~ONSSHOWN*EREONAPPLIESONLIATTHESPEC~F~CBOR~NGORTRENC~LOCATIONANO ATTMJATEINDICATEC ~T!5NOTWI~RANTEDTOBEREPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFI(CECONDiTIONSATOTHERLOCATIONSIIND~MES r i r April 5, 1988 File No. 0-2764-307 CL IC , \ '\ , , /' BORING 4 - gu ELEVATION unknown DATE DRILLED 3/17 188 32 FYt Little Beaver Auger MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL Stiff, moist, olive Sandy CLAY - - 16 - _" slight increase in sand content t l7 t ~ 'est Boring 4 19.8 17.9 17.0 16.3 WL APPENDIX B r r c I c File No. D-2764-507 April 5, 1988 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted American Society .for Testing Material Test Method (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected samples obtained during the field investigation were tested for compaction characteristics, in-place moisture density, expansion characteristics and grain-size distribution. The results of these tests are presented in Tables I through 111, and Figure B-1 of this Appendix. r r ! c r c r i r I File No. D-2764-507 April 5, 1988 TABLE I Summarv of Laboratory Comoaction Test Results A.S.T.M. D1557-78 Sample Maximum Dry Optimum No. DescriDtion Density ocf Moisture % Dry Wt. B1-4 Light olive gray, SILT and 124.2 11.2 CLAY little fine sand r ! i r r i r File No. D-2764-507 April 5, 1988 r r i r r I r r r 1 r I TABLE I1 Summary of In-Place Moisture-Density Test Results Dry Moisture Sample Density Content No. DeDth DCf % B1-1 3 105.1 19.5 B1-2 5 110.5 16.3 B1-3 7 98.7 17.8 B1-5 10 97.0 25.8 B2-1 3 107.9 15.5 B2-3 8 102.6 17.8 B2-4 10 100.2 29.8 B3-1 4 108.8 19.6 B3-2 6 111.0 15.6 B4-1 3 105.2 19.8 B4-2 6 109.8 17.9 B4-3 11 114.2 17.0 B4-4 14 113.6 16.3 r - - r r r I i r I r File No. D-2764-507 April 5, 1988 TABLE I11 Summarv of Laboratorv Expansion Index Test Results Moisture Content Expansion(+) Before After Test Test Dry Settlement(-) or Sample Density Surcharge Expansion No. % % pcf % psf Index B1-4 10.3 22.0 109.3 6.0 144 60 r c File No. D-2764407 April 5, 1938 I Figure B-1 APPENDIX C c File No. D-2764407 April 5, 1988 APPENDIX C PREVIOUSLY REPORTED FIELD SUMMARY SHEETS AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS This appendix presents the field investigation summary sheets and laboratory test results reported in our "Limited Soil Investigation" report dated January 9, 1987. The information presented herein was used in our most recent analyses to provide feasible alternatives for the mitigation of the settlement of the structure in question. c File No. D-2764404 January 9, 1987 TRENCH 1 ELEVATION~DATE DRILLED 10/16/86 EQUIPMENT MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL - Loose to medium, moist to wet, yellow-green, little clay fine to sandy SILT and Silty SAND, trace/ - - Becomes medium t TOPSOIL Loose, mo!st. dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY - - MAR FORMATION Hard, damp, green-yellow, Fine SAND/Silty CLAY and Clayey SILT t TRENCH TERMINATED AT 8.0 FEET - - - TRENCH 2 FILL - Loose to medium, moist, green-gray, firm to medium, Clayey SAND, little silt - - - - / Medium to stiff, moist, red mottled-green 7 - gray, fine to medium, Sandy CLAY - - \ TOPSOIL Medium to stiff, moist, dark green, fine Sandy CLAY - 1 DEL MAR FORMATION Hard, damp, green-yellow, fine, Sandy, Clayey SILT Figure A-1, Log of Test Trenches 1 and 2 TRENCH TERMINATED AT 9.0 FEET r i - January 9, 1987 File No. D-2764404 I TRENCH 3 ELEVATION DATE DRILLED 10/15/86 EOUIPMENT $9 ZY pgl z$ VI-, MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL SOIL Medium to stiff, moist to very moist, - yellow-green gray, fine. Sandy CLAY and - Clayey SILT - t l0PSOIL - Medium, moist to wet, dark brown, fine Sandy CLAY - - DEL MAR FORMATION - Hard, damp, light green-yellow, fine Sandy SILTY and CLAY - - TRENCH TERMINATED AT 17.0 FEET - :est Trench 3 - [I] - SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL O-STIWDARD PENETRATION TEST - ORWE SAURElUNDlSTUPaCDI SAMPLE SYMBOLS r ~ c ! - File No. D-2764-504 January 9, 1987 TABLE I Summarv of In-Place Moisture-Density and Direct Shear Test Results Angle of Dry Moisture Unit Shear Sample Depth Density Content Cohesion Resistance No. ft. ucf % usf Deerees 1-1 2 1-2 4 *1-3 5 1-4 6 1-5 7 2-1 2 2-2 3 2-3 2-4 6.5 7 3-1 5 3-2 6 3-3 9 3-4 10 3-5 13 3-6 14 3-7 16 105.3 92.3 104.9 92.6 " " 101.7 109.5 108.5 99.2 105.3 " " " " " 18.9 19.5 13.6 19.3 20.9 16.9 13.8 18.4 17.9 13.8 15.2 18.0 19.5 21.8 19.5 15.8 300 26 TABLE I1 Summarv of Laboratorv Comuaction Test Results ASTM D1557-78 Maximum Dry Optimum Sample Density Moisture No. Descriution DCf % Drv Ut. 1-3 Olive, fine, Sandy CLAY 116.3 13.7 3-2 Green, fine, Sandy CLAY 116 .O 14.2 3-4 Gray, fine, Sandy CLAY 119.5 11.6 * Remolded to 90% maximum dry density near the optimum moisture content. r I r c - c File No. D-2674-504 January 9. 1987 TABLE I11 Summan of Laboraton Exuansion Test Results Moisture Content Expansion (+) Before After Test Test Dry Settlement(-) Sample Density Surcharge m No % % sf or 2-2 18.6(5.3) 24.9 101.7 +2.9 150 TABLE IV Summary of Plasticity Indices Test Results Unified NO . Limit Limit Index Svmbo 1 Sample Plastic Liquid Plastic Classification 1-5 14 49 35 CL 3-6 14 50 36 CL/CH File No. D-2764404 .. . . W rn W > rn 0 K 0 z e! w a Qt s rn Figure B-1 n 0 a File No. D-2764404 January 9, 1987 Figure B-2 File No. D-2764404 January 9, 1987 Figure B-3 File No. D-2764-304 0 I- 2 w 0 w a n 3 4 3.1 1.0 LD FOR 4 DAYS I tao 50.0 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksD INITIAL DRY DENSITY 107.9 (pcf) INITIAL SATURATION 93 ((6) INITIAL WATER CONTENT 18.6 (%I SAMPLE SATURATED AT 2 (M) CONSOLIDATION CURVE LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS CAPLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure B-4 File No. D-2764404 January 9, 1987 SAMPLE NO. 2-2 1.0 5.0 10.0 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) 50.0 100.0 INITIAL DRY DENSITY INITIAL WATER CONTENT 87 (%I INITIAL SATURATION 101.8 (pcf 1 2 (MI SAMPLE SATURATED AT 18.3 (%) CONSOLIDATION CURVE LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA igure B-5 File No. D-2764-504 SAMPLE NO. 1-2 0 I 2 0.1 ( - "_ "_ "_ "_ \ . "_ "_ "_ "_ "_ "_ "_ "-L i 1 .o s.a APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) INITIAL DRY DENSITY 105.3 ( pct 1 INITIAL SATURATION 98 (%I INITIAL WATER CONTENT 19.3 (% 1 SAMPLE SATURATED AT 2 (M) - CONSOLIDATION CURVE LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure B-6 M 0 0 R E & TA B E R GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS TELEPHONE: (714) 779-2591 * FAX: (714) 779-8377 1290 NORTH HANCOCK STREET * P.O. BOX 19079 * ANAHEIM, CA 92817 SAN DlEGO BAKERSFIELD REPORT OF COMPACTION GROUTING La costa View Condominiums Building No. 2308, Units 117 and 118 Carlsbad, California CLIENT La Costa View Homeowners Association December 15, 1988 Job No. 088-843 M 0 0 R E & TA B E R GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERSAND GEOLOGISTS REPORT OF COMPACTION GROUTING INTRODUCTION compaction grouting program performed at 2308 Altisma Way, Units This report presents a summary and the results of a remedial August, 1988. The work was undertaken to compact low-density 117 and 118, Carlsbad, California by Moore & Taber during July and foundation soils underlying portions of the site and concurrently lift depressed areas of the overlying structure. Grouting Incorporated in their soil investigation report for the property operations followed the recommendations provided by Geocon, dated April 5, 1988 (Job No. D-2764-J07) and the design outlined dated June 20, 1988 (Proposal No. 88-179). in the Moore & Taber Estimated Compaction Grouting Costs proposal Procedures area to be treated (see attached plan, page A-1) . Low slump, sand-cement grout was injected at 97 points in the The location planned program due to soil or structure response as grout of these points was adjusted in some cases from the originally emplacementprogressed. In some cases limited access or subsurface impediments also necessitated slight modification of the work. The general method used consisted of first driving casing at each point shown on the attached plan (page A-1) to competent soil as determined by penetration resistance and data from the geotechnical investigation. Selected grout points were angled beneath the structure in order to access the underlying soils. The casing was then withdrawn in short stages and a thick grout pumped into the resulting open hole. The maximum depth of soil treated was 15 feet below the existing grade. Grout was injected in a sequence beginning at the deepest stage and progressing to the shallowest stage in intervals of about 1 to 2 feet. Pumping was generally terminated on each interval upon achieving at least 0.1- inch lift of the overlying surface, which is considered indicative of adequate compactive effort. Surface motion was monitored by conventional survey equipment and water manometers stationed over the area of grout emplacement. Job No. 088-843 - December 15, 1988 -2- M 0 0 R E & TA B E R GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS completed first to develop a buttress or constraining reaction for The grout points located away from the structure were subsequent, more critical, grouting near the foundations. This the area of assumed influence and also provides additional lateral sequence helps to confine the treatment of subsequent injection to grout points positioned adjacent to the footings. support for the structure. Nearly all lift was obtained from the emplaced grout volumes, lift, and other aspects of the operations Detailed records of casing installation, injection pressures, were maintained during the course of work. The pressure at which each stage accepted grout was monitored by a gauge at the injection point, and the volume of grout was measured to the nearest two cubic feet. Most injection pressures ranged from 150 to 200 psi, and a total grout volume of 1,234 cubic feet (approximately 45 cubic yards) was pumped into the soil. The attached Table, pages A-2 through A-6 shows the emplaced grout volume for each grout point by stages. CONCLUSIONS comvaction We believe that the completed grouting program accomplished significant densification of compressible soils and alleviated the potential for future settlement in the area treated. As noted above, ?rout return, excessive pressures, ground or structure lift, and/or lncipient distress were the criteria used in the field to determine termination of the injections. Subsequent analyses using the grout volume and lift figures were also undertaken to evaluate the work's effectiveness in terms of increased soil density. Using a hypothetical but appropriate three foot radius of affected by the grouting computes to approximately 2,741 square influence around each grout point for this project, the total area emplaced grout yields a calculated average layer of grout 0.45 feet feet. For this assumed area of influence, the 1,234 cubic feet of thick. Subtracting the average lift at the surface from this figure shows that theoretically - about .35 feet of grout was applied to compacting the compressible soil and filling voids. Job No. 088-843 - December 15, 1988 -3- M 0 0 R E & TA B E R GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS The grout volumes and assumed areas of influence were also analyzed with respect to the magnitude of soil density increase achieved. An average densification of slightly more than 8 percent However, when the distribution of grout quantities per stage is over the area treated was calculated, excluding the upper 4 feet. considered, it is obvious that some soil intervals accepted comparatively small quantities of grout. The section of relatively low density soil located from 8 to about 12 feet was affected to mass of compressible soil is computed to be about 10 percent, and the greatest degree. The average increase in soil density of this is likely higher in the most compressible layers. Lift The structure was raised by the grout injections. Relative elevation surveys of the floor slab before and after completion of the work indicate 1.2-inches of lift. The final relative floor Although greater lift might have been achieved, the grout elevation reveals improvement over pre-grouting conditions. emplacement was stopped in order to minimize aggravatjng existing or causing new damages to the structure. Generally lift to a satisfactory level has been accomplished when the work stopped. Slab-On-Grade Finish exposed (carpeting removed) during the project. Areas examined Portions of the concrete slab-on-grade floor in each unit were appear to undulate with no discernable distress related features the irregularities noted suggest poor craftsmanship during original associated with post construction movement. It is our opinion that concrete finish. Job No. 088-843 - December 15, 1988 -4- M 0 0 R E & TA B E R GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERSAND GEOLOGISTS RECOMMENDATIONS Repairs Some minor adjustments of stress and strain may occur subsequent to grouting, especially if the soil moisture content possible to accomodate minor soil adjustment. Cracks in concrete increases. Flexible patching materials should be utilized wherever mineral grout. should be filled with high bond strength, non-shrink epoxy or If you have any questions concerning this project, please contact US. ohn R. Arbuckle- routing Division Supervisor JRA/ JT/ JTE/rlllC Attachments: Grout Point Locations Plan - page A-1 Grout Quantity vs. Depth - page A-2 through A-6 Pre-Grout Relative Floor Elevations - Page A-7 Post-Grout Relative Floor Elevations - Page A-8 Distribution: (2) Client (1) Geocon Inc. Attention: Mr. Jim Likins Job No. 088-843 - December 15, 1988 -5- GROUT QUANITIES (cu.ft.) vs DEPTH p z F A-2 I GROUT QUANlTlES (cu.ft.) vs DEPTH GROUT QUANlTlES (cu.ft.) vs DEPTH GROUT QUANlTlES (cu.ft.) vs DEPTH U!/7-# //7 . 0.0 44 A-8 AGREEMENT * THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this 23- pk- day of , 1988, by and between Moore & Taber, a California rporation, hereinafter called MOORE & TABER and LA COSTA VIEW HOMEOWNERS, ASSOCIATION hereinafter called the CLIENT. 1. The CLIENT and MOORE & TABER agree to the terms set forth in Articles I through I11 attached and hereby made a part of this agreement. 2. MOORE' & TABER agrees to provide compaction grouting services to treat foundation soil on the real property described as La Costa View Condominiums Building No. 2308, Unit Nos. 117 and dance with the Moore & 'Taber Proposal No. 88-179 dated June 118 Carlsbad, California. The work will be done in accor- 20, 1988 and Grouting Specifications, both attached and hereby made a part of this agreement. 3. The CLIENT shall pay MOORE & TABER for these materials and services at the following agreed prices and payment schedule. Work to be performed: For a fixed fee of $74,700. (including floor level survey of Unit 119). Payment Schedule: job site. $20,000 due upon completion of (50) of the $24,700 upon mobilization of equipment and material to planned grout injection points. Balance due (30) days after completion of work. In witness thereof the parties hereto have signed this agreement the day and year first written above. LA COSTA VIEW HOMEOWNERS ASSOC. MOORE & TABER By : 27- D, d F" - By: 'Dugald R. Campbell Title: Title: Vice President ,I 4530 E. La Palma Avenue Anaheim, California 92807 (714) 779-2591 Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regulated by the Contractor' State License Board. Moore & Taber's contractor's license is #291715. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the Registrar of the Board whose address is: 3132 Bradshaw Road, Sacramento, California 95826. ARTICLE I - OBLIGATIONS OF MOORE li TABER 1. 2. 3. 4. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. To furnish and install in a good workmanlike manner all such labor and material as may be necessary to accomplish those ITEMS set forth on page one of this agreement and perform its obligations under this agreement. To secure, prior to the time it shall commence performance under this agreement, and to maintain at all times during the period of its obligations under this contract at its expense the following insurance coverages: a. Workman’s Compensation b. Comprehensive Liability with minimum limits of $500,000 as to bodily injury or death and $500,000/$500,000 as to property damage. To keep records describing the work performed and to sum- marize this data in a report upon completion of the job. To commence the work specified within thirty days of the date manner to completion, unless prevented from so doing by of this agreement and continue in a diligent and workmanlike neglect of the CLIENT or any other cause beyond the control strike, fire, inclement weather, unavoidable casualty, of MOORE & TABER. ARTICLE I1 - OBLIGATIONS OF THE CLIENT To obtain and pay for all permits and licenses, as required, for access to personnel and equipment to the property, and for the work set forth on page one. To provide at no cost to MOORE & TABER all water and electricity as required to perform the work. To provide unimpeded access to all portions of the property, including the interior of structures while the work is in progress. To remove furnishings, floor covering, and other movable work is to be done. accessories from the interior portions of structures where bushes, shrubs, plants or other form of landscaping or To remove and replace at the CLIENT’S expense any trees, destroyed as a consequence of the work. To minimize site obstruction that shall impede the work or become injured or disturbance, every reasonable care will be exercised by MOORE Ei TABER. 6. . To provide space for equipment and material on the job site while work is in progress. 7. To provide by stakes or lines marked on the ground the location of utility lines, pipes, and other subsurface improvements prior to commencing the job and to hold MOORE & TABER harmless for any damage to any subsurface improvement not so marked. 8. To permit MOORE & TABER to restrict entry to the work area of anyone not directly involved in accomplishing the work. 9. To pay MOORE & TABER the sum or sums specified on page one of this agreement and for any additional work authorized by the the invoice at the completion of the work. If full payment CLIENT. Payments, in full, shall be due on presentation of CLIENT agrees to pay interest on the unpaid balance at the is not received within thirty days of presentation, the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of the invoice. ARTICLE I11 - OTHER PROVISIONS 1. LIABILITY: In performance of the specified services, MOORE & TABER will use that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable contrac- tors. No other warranty expressed or implied is made or intended by this agreement. MOORE & TABER will not be liable incurred to the property and existing improvements in the for additional damage, distress, or disturbance which may be this agreement. MOORE & TABER is to be liable only for course of accomplishing the work as set forth on page one of breach of this agreement. damages proximately caused by MOORE & TABER'S negligence or 2. CLAIMS: In the event that either party to this agreement makes a claim or brings action against the other for any act arising out of this agreement and that party fails to prove such claim or action, then that party shall pay reasonable legal and other costs incurred by the prevailing party in defense of such claim or action. 3. AUTHORIZATION TO SIGN: Each person signing this agreement warrants that he had authority to sign in the capacity agrees that he is personally liable for all breaches of this indicated. If such a person does not have such authority, he agreement, and that in any action against him for breach of such agreement, a reasonable attorneys's fee shall^ be included in the judgement rendered. July 6, 1989 Moore & Taber 4530 East La Palma Anaheim, CA 92803 LaCosta View HOA and P. 0. Box 1141 Carlsbad CA 92008 Re: Building Permit t880921 Compaction Grouting for Repair of Distressed Slab - Geocan to Observe. Dear Sirs: This office has not received any verification from the soils engineer you may have from Geocon or any other testing laboratory to verify that regarding the above referenced permit. Please forward any documentation the recommendations contained in Geocon's preliminary investigation has been completed. The building permit will be held open until such time as we hear from either of the above parties or Geocon. Thank you, "LQk~ Pat Kelley Building Inspector City of Carlsbad PKlmh Enclosure - Copy Permit 2075 Las Palmas Drive-Carlsbad. California 92009-4659-(619) 436-1 161 1 GEOCON INCORPOR*T=D Geotechnical Engineers and Engineering Geologists File No. D-2764-503 October 16, 1986 La Costa View Homeowner's Association Carlsbad, California 92008 Post Office Box 1141 Attention: Ms. Marge De La Cruz Subject: ALTISMA DRIVE LA COSTA VIEW CONDOMINIUMS DRILLED PIER EXCAVATION OBSERVATIONS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Gentlemen: In accordance with the request of the project contractor Mr. Jack Williams of General Building Contractors, we have observed the excavation of the drilled piers on the northeastern side of Building A. The drilled piers were recommended in the report entitled "Limited Soil Investigation for La Costa View Condominiums, Carlsbad, California" dated October 8, 1984 for results of the excavations for the six drilled piers are shown on Table I. the support of the portion of the partially depressed parking garage. The 22.5 feet below the existing ground surface. As recommended in the above- In general, the piers extended to depths of approximately 15.5 feet to referenced project soil investigation, all pier excavations were found to extend a minimum of 5 feet into the dense formational soils of the Del Mar Formation. All drilled pier excavations were continuously logged and the results are shown in Figures 1 through 6. The piers are numbered continuously from north to south along the existing building line. Based on the above information, it is our opinion that the drilled pier excavations were performed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the above-referenced geotechnical report, and that they are ready to receive reinforcing steel and concrete. 9530 Dowdy Drive 619 695-2880 San Diego. CA 92126 File No. D-2764-503 October 16, 1986 If you have any questions concerning the contents of this letter, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. "2 truly yours, CE 17030 SJ:JEL:wm (4) addressee (2) City of Carlsbad-Engineering Department (2) General Building Contractors Attn: Mr. Pat Kelly (2) Duke Gerstel, Shearer & Bregante Attn: Mr. Jack Williams Attn: Mr. David Vargas Robert &dl S. Johnston Project Engineer File No. D-2764-503 October 16, 1986 TABLE I SUMMARY OF DRILLED PIER EXCAVATIONS Pier Depth No. of Fill 1 10.5 Ft 5.0 Ft 15.5 Ft 2 11.5 Ft 5.0 Ft 16.0 Ft 3 13.0 Ft 5.5 Ft 18.5 Ft 4 13.5 Ft 5.5 Ft 19.0 Ft 5 15.5 Ft 5.0 Ft 20.5 Ft 6 17.0 Ft 5.5 Ft 22.5 Ft Depth into Formation Soils Total Deuth 1 October 16, 1986 File No. D-2764-502 PIER EXCAVATION 1 iLEVATlON DATE DRILLED 9/26/86 Mini-drill MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LLL I Soft to medium,very moist.,yellow - tan sandy CLAY becomes moist “ Medium to firm,moist to very moist,,greenish yellow,sandy CLAY Firm,moist to very moist ,reddish brown., sandy CLAY odors) Stiff .very moist ?gray-brown clay (organic L CLAY Firm to stiff,moist,,yellow - green,silty DEL MAR FORMATION medium,silty SAND with trace of CLAY Dense,slightly moist,greenish - yellow,fine to - - - - PIER EXCAVATION TERMINATED @ 15.5 FEET - c Pile No. D-2764-502 October 16, 1986 " I PIER EXCAVATION 2 .LNATIONpDATE DRILLED 9/25/86 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I 'ILL Soft, very moist to wet ,yellow-tan, sandy t CLAY - - - - Soft to medium to firm.wet,greenish-yellow, silty CLAY - - - Medium to firm,very moist,red-brown sandy - CLAY - - - Firm,very moist to wet, gray-brown,CLAY (organic odor) - - L - Firm to stiff,very moist,greenish-yellow, silty CLAY - ~ DEL MAR FORMATION - Dense,slightly moist.greenish-yellow,fine to medium silty SAND with a trace of CLAY - - I - PIER EXCAVATION TERMINATED @ 16 FEET - - - - - - - - b - Figure A-2, Log of Pier Extavatzon 2 -SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL a-STANDARO PENETRATION TEST - DRIVE SAHPCE 1UNOlSTURBEDI - DlSTURBEOORMGUUPLE u-CHUNU SAMPLE x - WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE SAMPLE SYMBOLS ATTHEOATEINDICATEO.ITI~N~TWARRANTEDTOBEREPRESENTAT~VEOFSUBURFACECONO~T~ONSATOTHERLOWTIONSAND~MES NOTETHELOGOFSU8SURF~~ECONDlTlONSS~OWNWEREONAPPLIESONLVATTWESPECIF1C8ORlNGORTRENC~LOCATlONAND File Ik. D-2768402 October 16, 1986 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I FILL Soft to medium,verymoist to wet,greenish yellow,silty CLAY Medium,very moist to wetbred brown,sandy CLAY Medium.very moist.gray brown clay (organic odor) ~ ~~~~ \ Medium.very moist to wet.dark black-brown, silty CLAY (strong organic odor) 1 ~ ~~~ Medium,very moist to wet,greenish yellow, Medium, very moist to wet,dark black-brown, silty CLAY (strong organic odor) I Dense,slightly moist,greenish yellow,silty - SAND with a trace of CLAY - I - Dense to very dense.slighly moist,greenish yellow,silty CLAY and CLAYSTONES. - - - PIER EXCAVATION TEWIXATED @ 18.5 FEET - - - - - Figure A-3, Lug of Pier Excavation 3 SAMPLE SYMBOLS - SAMRINQ UNSUCCESSFUL m-STANDARD PENETRATION TEST - DRNE UMRE (UNOI-RW~ ~-DlSTURBEDORBIGYMPLE 0-CHUNKSAMPLE 5 -WATER TASLE OR SEEPAGE I ATTHEDATEINDICATE~.lTlSNOTWARRANTEDTOBEREPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURF~CECONDITIONSITOTnERLOU~ONSANDTlHES NOTETHELOGOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONSSHOWNHEREONAPPLIESONLYATTHESPEClFlCBORlNGORTRENCHLOCATIONAND File-No. D-2764402 October 16, 1986 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION I FILL silty CLAY Soft to medium,very moist,greenish yellow EIedium,very moist,light orange-brownJsandy CLAY \ (organlc odors). Medium,very moist,gray brown,CLAY \ Firm,very moist,greenish yellow,silty CLAY ' Medium .very moist, dark black-brown,silty \ CLAY Medium to firm,wet ,greenish'yellow, silty Medium,very moist, black-brown,silty CLAY (strong organic odor) DELMAR FOM4TION Dense to very dense,moist,greenish yellow, silty CLAY and CLAYSTONES (friable) - PIER EXCAVATION TERMINATED @ 19.0 FEET - ' File-No. D-2764402 October 16, 1986 9 EQUIPMENT Mini-drill rig $ $ $ 3 i ipa PIER EXCAVATION :5 . Y 2 '' ELEVATION DATE DRILLED 9/?-9/g6 € u+ - 0- MATERIAL DESCRIPTION - - Soft to medium,yellow-green,moist to very moist,silty CLAY - - - 4 - - - Medium to firm,very moist,light orange-brown, - -6- - ium, very moist,dark gray-brown,sandyCLAY - fter and wetter) - -8- - - ,very moist ,yellow-green,silty CLAY - - 10- - - - - 12 - (organic odor) ium ,very moist ,dark brobm-black - - - - 14 - I Medium to firm :<et ,"remish yellow ,silty - 16 - - - - becomes very wet - - - - 18' irtq wet,dark black-brown, silty - - - - - 20- - - - 22 Dense,moist, light green.silty CLAY and CLAYSTONES (friable) - - - - - - L PIER EXCAVATION TEEWINATED @ 20.5 FEET - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Figure A-5, Log of Pier Excavation 5 SAMPLE SYMBOLS -SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL m-STANOARD PENETRATION TEST - DRIVE SAMWE IUNDISTURBEO) m- OISTURLIEDOR8*GSAUPLE 0-CHUNK SAMRE f - WATER TA0LE OR SEEPAGE NOTETHELOGOFSUWSURFACECONO~T~ONSSHOWNHEREONA~~L~E~~NLY~~~HESPEC~F~C~OR~NGORTRENCHLOCAT~ONAND ATTHEOATEINOICATED.IT~SNOTWARRANTEDTOBEREPRESENTA~~~EO~SUBU~~*CECON~~~~ONSATO~H~~LOUTIONSANOTIMES 'File' No. 0-2764-502 - PIER EXCAVATION 6 ELEVATION DATE DRILLED 2sg EQUIPMENT Ri :% &e & MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL Soft,moist, greenish yellow,,silty CLAY L-becomes very moist to wet Medium,wet to very wet,greenish yellow sandy CLAY i Medium denseawet$ green-yellow,clayey SAW sandy CLAY !\ CLAY Medium to firm,wet,light orange-brown,,sandy Soft to medium,wet,gray-brown,sandy CLAY L Firm.very moist, green-yellow, silty CLAY \ Firm,very moist, dark black-brobm,silty CLAY ,\ (organic odor) I Firm,moist to very moist,green-yellowl,silty \\ CLAY I Medium to firq gray-brown, CLAY (organic odor) DELMAR FORMATION \ CLAYSTONES (friable) Dense, moist,. light green, silty CLAY with PIER EXCAVATION TERNINATED @ 22.5 FEET t