Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-09; RANCHO CARRILLO VILLAGE N; FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSER; 1998-11-01UI [ :; o (^qTECHNKpi^i. 10N$li)LTANT5 I C» R ! I i ! i i ; ( : ; ^ ' I I M M M i ! : : I ! qafxM? Can nib N FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING VILLAGE N RANCHO CARRILLO CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR CONTINENTAL RANCH INC. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 1998 ProjectNo. 05845-12-OlC November 3,1998 Continental Ranch Inc. 12636 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, Califomia 92130 Attention: Mr. Dave Lother Subject: VILLAGE N RANCHO CARRILLO CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and, our proposal dated December 6, 1996 , we have provided compaction testing and observation services during the grading of the subject site. Our services were performed during the period of October 23, 1997 through January 29, 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 deposits. • Construction of a buttress fill along the southern boundary • 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 reports. • Preparing an "As-Graded" Geologic Map. • Preparing this final report of grading. GENERAL The grading contractor for the project was Sukut Construction, Incorporated. The project mass grading plans were prepared by Riclc Engineering Company and are entitled Grading Plans for Rancho Carrillo, Sheets 14, 15, and 51, with the City of Carlsbad approval dated November 14, 1996. The project soils report are entitled: • Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Villages N, O, Q, R, T, and U, Rancho Carrillo, Carlsbad, Califomia, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated February 16, 1993. • Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Stability Analyses, Village N, Rancho Carrillo, Carlsbad, Califomia, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated September 25,1997. References to elevations and locations herein were based on surveyor's or grade checker's stakes in the field and/or interpolation fi"om 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 Sheet grading began with the removal of brush and vegetation fi-om the area to be graded. In addition to the vegetation, topsoils, colluvium, and alluvial deposits were removed to firm natural ground. In general, surficial deposits were removed and the excavations were observed by an engineering geologist to verify that unsuitable soils had been removed and dense formational soils were exposed. A buttress fill was constructed for the proposed cut slope along the southem property boundary, as recommended in the referenced supplemental report. Due to the close proximity of the existing structures, the key for the buttress was excavated in approximately 100 to 200 feet segments, while maintaining a backcut inclination of 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). A heel drain with associated prefabricated panel drains was then installed in the backcut. 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 grayish brown silty sand to greenish brown sandy clay. Due to the presence of large patches of expansive clayey soils within the upper pad (southeastem portion of the site) this area was under cut approximately 3 feet and replaced with less expansive, uniform soils. 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 ProjectNo. 05845-12-OlC ~- November3, 1998 perfonned in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D-l556-82 (sand cone) or D-2922-81 (nuclear). 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 Maps, Figures 1 though 3. It should be noted that since the grading of Village N was performed ui conjunction with the grading for Villages O, Ql, and Q2, 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 (horizontahvertical) or flatter, with maximum height of approximately 7 and 44 feet, respectively. The fill slopes were either over-filled and cut back or were track-walked with a bulldozer during grading. The cut slope along the south property margin was buttressed due to the presence of a bedding plane shear zone (Buttress No. 5). A stability fill was also constmcted for the east facing slope along Melrose Drive due to the presence of dark gray siltstones and claystones that were determined to be unsuitable for landscaping. This stability fill was constmcted during the grading of Melrose Drive and is included 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. Subdrains A heel drain associated with the buttress fill, located along the south property margin, flows to the open space to the west of the site. Another heel drain was installed during constmction of the stability fill along Melrose Drive. This drain flows to the south and connects to the storm drain system. These heel drains were "as built" for location and elevation by Rick Engineering Company and are shown on the attached as-graded geologic maps. Finish Grade Soil Conditions The site is sheet-graded into three large pads, with understanding that the site will be fine-graded in future to receive multifamily stmctures. During grading operations, the upper pad (southeastem ProjectNo. 05845-12-OlC - 3 - November 3, 1998 portion of the site) was undercut approximately 3 feet due to the presence of large scattered lenses of highly expansive claystones. The excavation was then filled with less expansive soils. Based on laboratory test results, the prevailing soil conditions within approximately the upper 3 feet of rough pad grade have an Expansion Index of 78 to 124 (Table TV), and are classified as having a "medium" to "high" expansion potential as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18-1-B. Table V presents a summary of the indicated Expansion Indices of prevailing subgrade soil conditions for each pad. 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. 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 Del Mar Formation. An adverse geologic condition caused by presence of a bedding plane shear zone within the proposed cut slope, located along the southem boundary, was mitigated by constmction of a drained buttress fill. These high angled faults with a generally north- south trend were mapped during the grading operations. These faults are considered interformational and inactive, and, thus, have no adverse impact on the development. The enclosed As-Graded Geologic Maps (Figures 1 through 3 ) depicts the general geologic conditions observed. These maps also show the original topography prior to the start of grading. A geologic cross section is presented on Figure 4. 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. ProjectNo. 05845-12-OlC -4- November3, 1998 1.2. The site is currently sheet-graded and soils with medium to high expansion potential exist at finished grade. It is understood that the site will be fine graded to receive multifamily residential stmctures, with associated driveways and parking areas. 2.0. Future Grading 2.1. 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. 3.0. Foundations 3.1. The recommendations presented herein are provided as general guidelines for planning future development. Final project-specific foundation design recommendations should be determined once fine grading is complete and stmcture layout has been finalized. 3.2. The foundation recommendations that follow are for one- or two-story residential stmctures 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 on the following page (Table 3.1). 3.3. 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. 3.4. The use of isolated footings which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support stmctural elements connected to the building is not recommended for Category III. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be con- nected to the building foundation system with grade beams. 3.5. For Foundation Category III, the stmctural 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. Project No. 05845-12-OlC - 5 - November 3, 1998 TABLE 3.1. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY Foundation Category Minimuin Footing Depth (inches) Continuous Footing Reinforcement Interior Slab Reinforcement I 12 One No. 4 bar top and bottom 6x6-10/10 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 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: 1. 2. 3. All footings should have a minimimi width of 12 inches. Footing depth is measured fi-om 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. 3.6. 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. 3.7. For building pads with fmish grade soils possessing an Expansion Index between 50 and 90, it is recommended that all exterior concrete flatwork with a least dimension exceeding 8 feet be reinforced with 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh. The reinforcement for exterior concrete flatwork for building pads with Expansion Index between 90 and 130, should consist of No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, both directions. ProjectNo. 05845-12-OlC •6-November3, 1998 3.8. All concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints at a maximum spacing of 12 feet 3.9. All subgrade soils should be properly moisture conditioned prior to concrete placement. Where drying has occurred, reconditioning of surficial soils will be required. 3.10. For lots with Expansion Index between 90 and 130 the edge of the exterior concrete flatwork should be thickened (shovel footing), to reduce the potential for moisture migration undemeath the slab. • Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 (horizontahvertical), 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 H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance fi-om 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 altemative 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- zontahvertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge ofbuilding 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. 3.11. 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 raay be possible, however, to incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil movement without Project No. 05845-12-OlC - 7 - November 3, 1998 causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific recommendations. 3.12. As an altemative 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 stmctures. The post-tensioned systeras should be designed by a stmctural engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute (UBC 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 3.2. POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Design Parameters Foundation Category Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Design Parameters I II Ill 1. Thomthwaite Index -20 -20 -20 2. Clay Type - Montmorillonite Yes Yes Yes 3. Clay Portion (Maximum) 30% 50% 70% 4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. 7.0 ft. 5. Soil Suction 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 3.6 ft. 6. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo. 0.7 in./mo. 7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 2.6 ft. 8. Edge Lift 0.41 in. 0.78 in. 1.15 in. 9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. 5.3 ft. 10. Center Lift 2.12 in. 3.21 in. 4.74 in. 3.13. UBC Section 1816 uses interior stiffener beams in its stmctural design procedures. Ifthe stmctural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than UBC Section 1816, it is recoraraended 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 periraeter footing depth should be at least 24 ProjectNo. 05845-12-OlC Novembers, 1998 inches. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design pararaeters as required by the stmctural engineer. 3.14. The recoramendations 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 placeraent and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entry slab comers occur. 4.0. Retaining Walls And Lateral Loads 4.1. 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 recoraraended. These soil pressures assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward fi-om 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 raaterials do not conforra to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recoraraendations. 4.2. Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate raore than O.OOIH 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 4.3. 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 recoraraended 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 raaterial with no hydrostatic forces or iraposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described Project No. 05845-12-01C - 9 - November 3, 1998 are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recomraendations. 4.4. In general, wall foundations having a minimura depth and width of 12-inches may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Special foundation depth and reinforceraent may be necessary depending on the expansive characteristics of the prevailing foundation soils. 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. 4.5. For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid density of 300 pcf is recoraraended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure assuraes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three tiraes 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 fnction 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. 4.6. The recoraraendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or raasonry 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. 5.0. Slope Maintenance 5.1. Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontahvertical) raay, under conditions which are both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability. The instability is typically liraited 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 raaximura extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically ProjectNo. 05845-12-OlC November 3, 1998 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 projecfs slopes in the future. 6.0. Drainage 6.1. 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, paveraents, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage devices. 7.0. Plan Review 7.1. Geocon Incorporated should be provided the opportunity to review the finish grading plans and site developraent plans prior to finalizing. At that tirae, the foundation design recomraendations can be updated considering the building sizes and locations as related to the underlying soil conditions. 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 January 28, 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 raaterials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work essentially coraplies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience, and test results. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to raeasure such conditions, can vary greatly at any tirae. 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 recoramendations of this report may be invalidated Project No. 05845-12-OlC -11 - November 3, 1998 wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period ofthree years. Ifyou have any questions regarding this report, or if we raay be of fiirther service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very tmly yours, INCO; RCE 22527 AS:DFL:slt Airsai CEG 1778 (6/del) Addressee (1) Rick Engineering Company Attention: Mr. Craig Kahlen ProjectNo. 05845-12-OlC 12-November 3, 1998 Project No. 05845-12-OlC (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No. Date Test Location 1763 10/23/97 VILLAGE N 1764 10/23/97 VILLAGE N 1764A 10/23/97 VILIAGE N 1765 10/23/97 VILLAGE N 1766 10/23/97 VILIAGE N 1767 10/23/97 VILIAGE N 1824 10/29/97 VILIAGE N 1824A 10/29/97 VILIAGE N 1825 10/29/97 VILIAGE N 1825A 10/29/97 VILIAGE N 1827 10/29/97 VILLAGE N 1828 10/29/97 VILIAGE N 1829 10/29/97 VILIAGE N 1831 10/29/97 VILLAGE N 1832 10/29/97 VILIAGE N 1833 10/29/97 VILIAGE N 1834 10/30/97 VILIAGE N 1835 10/30/97 VILIAGE N 1836 10/30/97 VILIAGE N 1837 10/30/97 VILLAGE N 1838 10/30/97 VILIAGE N 1839 10/31/97 VILIAGE N 1840 10/31/97 VILLAGE N 1841 10/31/97 VILLAGE N Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Com (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 410 28 0 109. 0 16. 0 98. 1 19.6 90 90 435 28 0 109. 0 16. 0 93. 8 17.9 86 90 435 28 0 109. 0 16. 0 100. 2 16.4 92 90 414 28 0 109. 0 16. 0 100. 6 18.3 92 90 418 28 0 109. 0 16. 0 103. 3 16.5 95 90 421 28 0 109. 0 16. 0 101. 2 18.0 93 90 439 28 0 109. 0 16 0 96. 7 17.5 89 90 439 28 0 109. 0 16 0 102. 3 16.6 94 90 441 28 0 109. 0 16 0 95. 4 20.7 88 90 441 28 0 109 0 16 0 100. 1 19.2 92 90 446 28 0 109 0 16 0 102 8 17.6 94 90 428 28 0 109 0 16 0 103 5 15.5 95 90 444 28 0 109 0 16 0 102 9 19.0 94 90 435 28 0 109 0 16 0 101 1 18.9 93 90 441 28 0 109 0 16 0 102 3 20.5 94 90 449 34 0 115 2 13 .4 107 0 15.0 93 90 445 28 0 109 0 16 .0 99 5 17.7 91 90 448 28 0 109 0 • 16 .0 98 6 17.9 90 90 451 28 0 109 0 16 .0 101 .5 20.0 93 90 442 34 0 115 2 13 .4 106 .4 15.0 92 90 447 34 0 115 .2 13 .4 105 .7 14.1 92 90 439 34 0 115 .2 13 .4 107 .3 16.5 93 90 452 34 0 115 .2 13 .4 106 .3 16.6 92 90 452 34 0 115 .2 13 .4 101 .4 11.7 88 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05845-12-OlC (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS 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) (%) (%) (%) 1841A 10/31/97 VILIAGE N 452 34 0 115. 2 13.4 104.1 15.9 90 90 1842 10/31/97 VILLAGE N 449 34 0 115. 2 13.4 105.2 17.0 91 90 1843 10/31/97 VILIAGE N 455 28 0 109. 0 16.0 102.0 20.6 94 90 1844 10/31/97 VILIAGE N 454 28 0 109. 0 16.0 100.0 22.0 92 90 1847 11/04/97 VILLAGE N 475 40 0 114. 2 15.6 105.4 17.7 92 90 1848 11/04/97 VILIAGE N 479 40 0 114. 2 15.6 104.1 18.5 91 90 1849 11/04/97 VILIAGE N 482 28 0 109. 0 16.0 99.8 21.5 92 90 1850 11/04/97 VILLAGE N 477 40 0 114. 2 15.6 104.9 16.6 92 90 1890 11/04/97 VILIAGE N 480 28 0 109. 0 16.0 100.6 20.2 92 90 1891 11/04/97 VILLAGE N 483 40 0 114. 2 15.6 105.7 17.0 93 90 1892 11/05/97 VILIAGE N 489 40 0 114. 2 15.6 107.2 17.4 94 90 1893 11/05/97 VILIAGE N 481 40 0 114. 2 15.6 106.0 16.8 93 90 1894 11/05/97 VILIAGE N 491 40 0 114. 2 15.6 104.7 18.2 92 90 1895 11/05/97 VILIAGE N 495 28 0 109 0 16.0 98.4 21.0 90 90 1896 11/05/97 VILLAGE N 487 40 0 114 2 15.6 107.3 18.6 94 90 1897 11/05/97 VILIAGE N 494 40 0 114. 2 15.6 103.3 19.7 90 90 1898 11/05/97 VILIAGE N 498 40 0 114 2 15.6 105.0 16.5 92 90 2004 11/06/97 VILIAGE N 482 40 0 114 2 15.6 105.6 17.8 92 90 2005 11/06/97 VILIAGE N 500 40 0 114. 2 15.6 109.4 18.5 96 90 2006 11/06/97 VILIAGE N 489 40 0 114. 2 15.6 108.7 16.2 95 90 2007 11/06/97 VILIAGE N 497 40 0 114 2 15.6 103.0 19.8 90 90 2008 11/07/97 VILIAGE N 484 40 0 114 2 15.6 104.8 18.6 92 90 2009 11/07/97 VILLAGE N 489 40 0 114 2 15.6 99.5 24.3 87 90 2009A 11/07/97 VILLAGE N 489 40 0 114. 2 15.6 104.3 19.2 91 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05845-12-OlC (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No. Date Test 2010 11/07/97 VILIAGE N 2011 11/07/97 VILIAGE N 2012 11/07/97 VILIAGE N 2013 11/07/97 VILLAGE N 2021 11/17/97 VILIAGE N 2022 11/17/97 VILIAGE N 2023 11/17/97 VILIAGE N 2024 11/17/97 VILIAGE N 2048 11/25/97 VILIAGE N 2049 11/25/97 VILIAGE N 2050 11/25/97 VILIAGE N ST 2151 11/25/97 VILIAGE N ST 2152 11/25/97 VILIAGE N ST 2153 11/25/97 VILIAGE N 2182 12/10/97 VILLAGE N 2183 12/11/97 VILIAGE N 2184 12/11/97 VILLAGE N 2185 12/11/97 VILIAGE N 2186 12/11/97 VILIAGE N 2187 12/11/97 VILLAGE N FG 2188 12/13/97 VILIAGE N FG 2189 12/13/97 VILIAGE N FG 2190 12/13/97 VILIAGE N FG 2191 12/13/97 VILIAGE N Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Com (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 502 40 0 114. 2 15.6 103. 1 20. 7 90 90 491 17 0 112. 2 15.5 101. 6 20. 5 91 90 497 19 0 112. 8 17.2 101. 5 22. 7 90 90 503 17 0 112. 2 15.5 102. 4 20. 0 91 90 502 40 0 114. 2 15.6 105. 8 19. 2 93 90 506 40 0 114. 2 15.6 108. 6 17. 5 95 90 502 40 0 114. 2 15.6 110. 5 16. 4 97 90 507 40 0 114. 2 15.6 108. 2 16. 8 95 90 477 17 0 112. 2 15.5 101 0 16 6 90 90 473 17 0 112. 2 15.5 104 7 14 3 93 90 474 17 0 112. 2 15.5 102 0 16 1 91 90 491 40 0 114. 2 15.6 104 6 19 7 92 90 485 40 0 114 2 15.6 103 5 17 0 91 90 496 40 0 114 2 15.6 105 9 16 8 93 90 441 3 0 116 4 13.6 108 2 15 5 93 90 447 16 0 114 2 16.3 104 5 18 1 92 90 453 16 0 114 2 16.3 103 .6 20 .1 91 90 458 16 0 114 2 16.3 106 .5 18 .5 93 90 461 16 0 114 2 16.3. 105 .7 17 .3 93 90 452 16 0 114 2 16.3 103 .4 19 .8 91 90 475 17 0 112 .2 15.5 106 .2 14 .8 95 90 477 17 0 112 .2 15.5 105 .4 15 .6 94 90 480 17 0 112 .2 15.5 104 .9 17 .3 93 90 477 17 0 112 .2 15.5 107 .3 15 .7 96 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05845-12-010 (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No. Date Test Location ST 2240 12/23/97 VILIAGE N 457 ST 2240A 01/28/98 VILIAGE N 457 ST 2241 12/23/97 VILIAGE N 441 ST 2241A 01/28/98 VILIAGE N 441 ST 2356 01/28/98 VILIAGE N 448 Elev. Plus or 3/4" Depth Curve Rock (ft) No. (%) 40 0 40 0 40 0 40 0 40 0 Max. Dry Dens. (pcf) 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 Opt. Moist. Cont. (%) 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 Field Dry Dens. (pcf) 91.7 103.2 97.4 104.1 Field Moist. Cont. (%) 19.4 20.0 20.2 18.9 Field Rel. Comp. (%) 80 90 85 91 Req'd Rel. Comp. (%) 90 90 90 90 114.2 15.6 105.3 18.1 92 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05845-12-OlC (G) - TEST SUFFIX EXPIANATION OF CODED TERMS 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 AD - B - CG - CW - DW - FG - IT - - CURVE NO. Area Drain Base Test Curb & Gutter Crib Wall Driveway Finish Grade 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 Corresponds to curve numbers listed in Table II, representing the laboratory maximvun 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 raaximum 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. Description Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Optimum Moisture Content (% dry wt.) 3 Light brown to brown, Sandy CLAY, trace silt 116.4 13.6 16 Olive, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 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 sih 112.8 17.2 28 Light brown, Silty CLAY 109.0 16.0 29 Yellow-tan, Silty, fine SAND 112.4 13.0 34 Yellow-olive-tan, fine to medium, Silty SAND, with trace clay 115.2 13.4 40 Rust-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 114.2 15.6 TABLE III SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Sample No. Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) Unit Cohesion (psf) Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) 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 28 96.5 16.0 500 20 29 100.0 13.0 390 29 40 102.9 15.4 650 32 Note: Samples were remolded to 90 percent relative corapaction at near optimum moisture content. ProjectNo. 05845-12-OlC Novembers, 1998 TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS Sample No. Moisture Content Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index Sample No. Before Test (%) After Test (%) Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index 3 10.7 28.5 105.4 107 16 12.4 34.7 101.1 87 17 12.1 26.1 102.4 23 19 14.2 35.8 96.3 62 28 14.3 36.6 97.3 108 29 9.0 23.7 113.3 13 40 10.2 25.2 108.9 17 N-A 11.2 33.2 105.1 78 N-B 10.4 34.5 108.6 89 N-C 12.2 31.7 104.1 124 N-D 12.2 30.9 103.6 101 N-E 10.9 30.0 108.0 83 N-F 12.4 31.9 101.1 86 N-G 13.7 32.1 97.7 86 N-H 11.6 29.2 102.8 73 N-I 11.9 29.7 103.3 85 TABLE V SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS FOR EACH PAD Location Sample No. Expansion Index UBC Classification Upper Pad, NW (fill) N-A 78 Medium Upper Pad, SE (fill) N-B 89 Medium Lower Pad, W (fill) N-C 124 High Middle Pad, S (cut) N-D 101 High Middle Pad, N (cut) N-E 83 Medium Middle Pad, S Center (cut) N-F 86 Medium Middle Pad, W (cut) N-G 86 Medium Lower Pad, N (cut) N-H 73 Medium Lower Pad, Center (fill) N-I 85 Medium ProjectNo. 05845-12-OlC Novembers, 1998 A