HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 14-09; UPTOWN BRESSI RANCH; FINAL SOILS REPORT; 2020-02-27FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND
OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING
SITE GRADING
UPTOWN BRESSI RANCH BUILDING PADS 1 THROUGH 23
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
SHEA HOMES SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 27, 2020 PROJECT NO. G2108-32-02
Project No. G2108-32-02
February 27, 2020
Shea Homes
9990 Mesa Rim Road
San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Greg Ponce
Subject: FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION
SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING
UPTOWN BRESSI RANCH
BUILDING PADS 1 THROUGH 23
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Ponce:
In accordance with your request and our Proposal No. LG-17399, dated October 20, 2017, we have
provided testing and observation services during grading at the subject site. Our services during site
grading for the residential portion of the property were performed between October 23, 2017 and
February 13, 2020. The scope of our services during grading included the following:
Observing the grading operation, including undercutting of formational materials and
placement of compacted fill.
Performing in-place density tests in fill soils placed and compacted at the site.
Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating compaction characteristics, expansion
potential and water soluble sulfate content of the on-site and imported soils placed during the
grading operation.
Preparing an "As-Graded" Geologic Map.
Evaluating the wall backcut and preparing an exhibit showing the geologic conditions along
the northern perimeter of the property.
Preparing this final report.
GENERAL
The grading contractor for the project was Pinnick Inc. The project grading plans were prepared by
Rick Engineering Company titled Grading Plans for: Uptown Bressi, CT 14-09, Carlsbad, California,
Sheets 1 through 26 of 26, print dated July 17, 2017. Recommendations for grading were provided in
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL ■ ENVIRONMENTAL ■ MATE RI ALS O
6960 Flanders Drive ■ San Diego, California 92121-297 4 ■ Telephone 858.558.6900 ■ Fax 858.558.6159
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 2 - February 27, 2020
our reports titled Update Report and Change of Geotechnical Engineer of Record, Bressi Ranch,
Lots 29 Through 32, Carlsbad, California, dated April 24, 2017 and Updated Recommendations,
Uptown Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, dated October 25, 2017.
The exhibit used as a base map to present the as-graded geologic information and density test locations
(Figure 1) is a reproducible copy of a compilation of digital information provided by Rick
Engineering. The map depicts the structure footprints and existing and proposed improvements. We
added the approximate locations of the field density tests and geologic contacts.
References to elevations and locations herein are based on as-graded survey information obtained from
grade checkers’ stakes in the field. Geocon Incorporated does 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.
We previously prepared a report titled Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site
Grading, Improvement, and Foundation Construction, The Square at Bressi Ranch Retail, Uptown
Bressi Ranch, Carlsbad, California, dated January 15, 2019, which summarized our observations and
testing during grading and improvement construction for the adjacent retail portion of the subject
property.
Grading and improvement construction for the adjacent retail portion of the property was performed
concurrently with the residential portion. The grading plans combined both the residential and retail
portions of the site. As such, the As-Graded Geologic Map shows both areas. Table I summarizes the
in-place density test results performed during the grading of both areas.
GRADING
Grading consisted of removing surficial soils and weathered Santiago Formation to expose competent
formational materials. The removals extended at least 3 feet below finish grade prior to placing
additional fill. The lateral limits of the overexcavation generally extended at least 5 feet outside the
building footprints. Prior to placing fill, the ground surface was scarified, moisture conditioned, and
compacted. Grading consisted of maximum cuts and fills of approximately 4 feet and 12 feet,
respectively.
During excavation of the retaining wall backcut along the northern property line, several bedding
plane shears (BPS) consisting of weak, remolded clay layers were exposed in the Santiago Formation.
The shears were either discontinuous, extended below grade, or truncated by a fault zone observed in
the backcut on the residential portion of the project. Our geologic observations are summarized on the
Wall No. 2 Backcut exhibit (Figure 2). Slope stability analyses were performed along several
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 3 - February 27, 2020
representative geologic cross-sections considering both the temporary wall backcut and ultimate wall
and sloping conditions. Based on the results of the slope stability analyses, the retaining wall and fill
slope along the northern property limits for the residential portion of the property possesses an
acceptable factor of safety. A drained shear key and stability fill was constructed in the same slope
north of the retail portion of the property.
The grading was performed in conjunction with testing and observation services provided by Geocon
Incorporated. Fill soils derived from on-site and imported excavations were placed and compacted in
layers until the design elevations were attained. Grading for the residential portion (West) and
commercial portion (East) were performed concurrently. In-place density tests for both are included in
Table I and the as-graded Geologic map.
Fill Materials and Placement Procedures
The on-site fill materials generally consisted of silty/clayey sands and sandy/silty clays. Imported fill
materials generally consisted of silty sands. The fills were placed in lifts no thicker than would allow
for adequate bonding and compaction. The soil was moisture conditioned as necessary and mixed
during placement.
Field In-Place Density and Laboratory Testing
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 6938 (nuclear). Results of the field
density tests and moisture content tests performed during grading have been summarized on Table I.
In general, the in-place density test results indicate that the fill, at the locations tested, has a relative
compaction of at least 90 percent.
Laboratory tests were performed on samples of materials used for fill to evaluate moisture-density
relationships, optimum moisture content and maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557) and shear
strength (ASTM D 3080). Additionally, laboratory tests were performed on samples to determine the
expansion potential (ASTM D 4829) and the water-soluble sulfate content (California Test Method
No. 417). The results of the laboratory tests are summarized on Tables II through VI.
Finish Grade Soil Conditions
Observations and laboratory test results indicate that the prevailing soils within 3 feet of finish grade
of the building pads have Expansion Index (EI’s) ranging between 22 and 88 and are considered to be
“expansive” (expansion index [EI] less than 130) as defined by 2016 California Building Code (CBC)
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 4 - February 27, 2020
Section 1803.5.3 (see Table 1). Table III presents a summary of the expansion classification for the
prevailing finish grade soils on each building pad.
TABLE 1 EXPANSION CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion Index (EI) Expansion Classification 2016 CBC
Expansion Classification
0 – 20 Very Low Non-Expansive
21 – 50 Low
Expansive 51 – 90 Medium
91 – 130 High
Greater Than 130 Very High
We performed laboratory tests on samples of the site materials to evaluate the percentage of water-
soluble sulfate. Results from the laboratory water-soluble sulfate content testing are presented in
Table IV and indicate that the on-site materials at the locations tested possess a “Not Applicable” and
“S0” to “Severe” and “S2” sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by 2016 CBC
Section 1904 and ACI 318-14 Chapter 19. The CBC provides no specific recommendations for
concrete subjected to “not applicable” sulfate exposure. It should be noted that the presence of water-
soluble sulfates is not a visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site
could yield different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e. addition of
fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration.
Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, it is
recommended that further evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed if improvements are
planned that are susceptible to corrosion.
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be generally similar to
those described in the referenced geotechnical report. A fault zone and several bedding plane shears
were observed in the retaining wall backcut along the north and east project boundaries. Although
Holocene-Age soil did not overlie the fault zone to enable dating, it is presumed the displacements
occurred in a pre-Holocene time period. The geologic conditions observed during grading are
presented on the As-Graded Geologic Map. No geologic conditions were observed during grading that
would preclude the continued development of the property as planned.
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 5 - February 27, 2020
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0 General
1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that grading
has been performed in substantial conformance with the recommendations of the 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.
1.2 Several bedding plane shears (BPS) were identified in the Santiago Formation during wall
backcut operations along the northern property limits. The results of a slope stability
analysis performed along several representative geologic cross-sections indicated that a
factor of safety of at least 1.5 or greater is present against deep-seated slope instability with
the current as-graded dimensions.
2.0 Future Grading and Improvements
2.1 Additional grading or planned improvements performed at the site should be accomplished
in conjunction with our geotechnical services. Plans for any future improvements should be
reviewed by Geocon Incorporated prior to finalizing. Any additional trench backfill in
excess of 1-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 Seismic Design Criteria
3.1 We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the USGS. Table 3
summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained from the 2016 California Building Code
(CBC; Based on the 2015 International Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-10), Chapter 16
Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The short spectral response uses a
period of 0.2 seconds. The values presented in Table 3 are for the risk-targeted maximum
considered earthquake (MCER). Based on soil conditions and planned grading, the buildings
should be designed using a Site Class D. We evaluated the Site Class based on the
discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2016 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of ASCE 7-10.
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 6 - February 27, 2020
TABLE 3 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2016 CBC Reference
Site Class D Section 1613.3.2
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (short), SS 1.039g Figure 1613.3.1(1)
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1 0.403g Figure 1613.3.1(2)
Site Coefficient, FA 1.084 Table 1613.3.3(1)
Site Coefficient, FV 1.597 Table 1613.3.3(2)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS 1.127g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-37)
Site Class Modified MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SM1 0.644g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design Spectral
Response Acceleration (short), SDS 0.751g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-39)
5% Damped Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.429g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-40)
3.2 Conformance to the criteria for seismic design does not constitute any guarantee or
assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in the event of a
maximum level earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life and not to
avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
4.0 Foundation and Concrete Slabs-On-Grade Recommendations
4.1 The foundation recommendations that follow are for one- to three-story residential/
commercial 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. The recommended minimum foundation and
interior concrete slab design criteria for each Category is presented on Table 4.1. Table VI
presents the as-graded building pad conditions and recommended foundation categories.
TABLE 4.1 FOUNDATION CATEGORY CRITERIA
Foundation
Category
Maximum Fill
Thickness, T (Feet)
Differential Fill
Thickness, D (Feet)
Expansion Index
(EI)
I T<20 -- EI<50
II 20<T<50 10<D<20 50<EI<90
III T>50 D>20 90<EI<130
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 7 - February 27, 2020
4.2 Table 4.2 presents minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for
conventional foundation systems.
TABLE 4.2 CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation
Category
Minimum Footing
Embedment Depth
(inches)
Continuous Footing
Reinforcement
Interior Slab
Reinforcement
I 12 Two No. 4 bars,
one top and one bottom
6 x 6 - 10/10 welded wire
mesh at slab mid-point
II 18 Four No. 4 bars,
two top and two bottom
No. 3 bars at 24 inches
on center, both directions
III 24 Four No. 5 bars,
two top and two bottom
No. 3 bars at 18 inches
on center, both directions
4.3 The embedment depths presented in Table 4.2 should be measured from the lowest adjacent
pad grade for both interior and exterior footings. The conventional foundations should have
a minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches for continuous and isolated footings,
respectively.
4.4 The concrete slab-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches thick for Foundation
Categories I and II and 5 inches thick for Foundation Category III. Slabs that may receive
moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-sensitive materials should
be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should be consistent with the
guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI) Guide for Concrete Slabs that
Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R). In addition, the membrane
should be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s recommendations and ASTM
requirements and installed in a manner that prevents puncture. The vapor retarder used should
be specified by the project architect or developer based on the type of floor covering that will
be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity-controlled environment.
4.5 The bedding sand thickness should be determined by the project foundation engineer,
architect, and/or developer. The foundation engineer should provide appropriate concrete
mix design criteria and curing measures to assure proper curing of the slab by reducing the
potential for rapid moisture loss and subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. We recommend
that the foundation engineer present the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on
the foundation plans. It is critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the
recommendations presented on the foundation plans.
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 8 - February 27, 2020
4.6 As an alternative to the conventional foundation recommendations, 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 (PTI) DC 10.5-12 Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of
Shallow Post-Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive Soils or WRI/CRSI Design of
Slab-on-Ground Foundations, as required by the 2016 California Building Code (CBC
Section 1808.6.2). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soil conditions, 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 in Table 4.3 for the particular Foundation Category designated. The parameters
presented in Table 4.3 are based on the guidelines presented in the PTI DC 10.5 design
manual.
TABLE 4.3 POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI),
Third Edition Design Parameters
Foundation Category
I II III
Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20
Equilibrium Suction 3.9 3.9 3.9
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet) 5.3 5.1 4.9
Edge Lift, yM (inches) 0.61 1.10 1.58
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, eM (feet) 9.0 9.0 9.0
Center Lift, yM (inches) 0.30 0.47 0.66
4.7 Foundation systems for the lots that possess a foundation Category I and a “very low”
expansion potential (Expansion Index of 20 or less) can be designed using the method
described in Section 1808 of the 2016 CBC. If post-tensioned foundations are planned, an
alternative, commonly accepted design method (other than PTI Third Edition) can be used.
However, the post-tensioned foundation system should be designed with a total and
differential deflection of less than 1 inch. Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to
review the plans and provide additional information, if necessary.
4.8 The foundations for the post-tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with the
recommendations of the structural engineer. If a post-tensioned mat foundation system is
planned, the slab should possess a thickened edge with a minimum width of 12 inches and
extend below the clean sand or crushed rock layer.
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 9 - February 27, 2020
4.9 If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than
PTI, Third Edition, then the following criteria should be included in the design:
The deflection criteria presented in Table 4.3 are still applicable.
Interior stiffener beams should be used for Foundation Categories II and III.
The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches.
The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 12 inches, 18 inches and
24 inches for foundation categories I, II, and III, respectively. The embedment
depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade.
4.10 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs are susceptible to excessive edge lift,
regardless of the underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom of the
perimeter footings and the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. Current PTI
design procedures primarily address the potential center lift of slabs but, because of the
placement of the reinforcing tendons in the top of the slab, the resulting eccentricity after
tensioning reduces the ability of the system to mitigate edge lift. The structural engineer
should design the foundation system to reduce the potential of edge lift occurring for the
proposed structures.
4.11 During the construction of the post-tension foundation system, the concrete should be
placed monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints be allowed to form
between the footings/grade beams and the slab
4.12 Category I, II, or III foundations 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 due to wind or seismic forces.
4.13 Isolated footings, if present, should have the minimum embedment depth and width
recommended for conventional foundations for a particular foundation category. The use of
isolated footings, which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support
structural elements connected to the building, are 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.
4.14 For Foundation Category III, consideration should be given to 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. G2108-32-02 - 10 - February 27, 2020
4.15 Footings that must be placed within seven feet of the top of cut or fill slopes should be
extended in depth such that the outer bottom edge of the footing is at least seven feet
horizontally inside the face of the slope.
4.16 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete on Pads
15, 16, 18 and 23; however, for Building Pads 1 through 14, 17, and 19 through 22, where
moderately to highly expansive soils are present, it is imperative that the exposed
foundation and slab subgrade soils be moisture conditioned regularly after grading
and a moist condition is maintained until the concrete is placed. Additional
testing/observation may be necessary to verify that the appropriate moisture content is
being maintained. It is the responsibility of the client’s project field management team
to coordinate such testing/observation with Geocon representatives prior to concrete
placement.
4.17 The following recommendations apply to exterior flatwork where near surface soils are low
to medium expansive (EI less than 90). Additional laboratory expansion index testing
should be considered in actual subgrade areas to confirm the values reported within the
building pads. Exterior slabs not subjected to vehicular traffic should be a minimum of 4
inches thick and reinforced with 6 x 6-6/6 welded wire mesh. The mesh should be placed in
the middle of the slab. Proper mesh positioning is critical to future performance of the slabs.
The contractor should take extra measures to provide proper mesh placement. Prior to
construction of slabs, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned
at or slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum dry density per ASTM 1557.
4.18 Where highly expansive soils (EI greater than 90) are present near finish grade, the
following recommendations apply. Exterior slabs should be at least 5 inches thick and
reinforced with No. 3 steel bars spaced 18 inches on center each direction positioned at the
slab midpoint. Driveways should be constructed with a 6-inch deep slab edge (measured
from the bottom of the slab). Slabs should be doweled to the building foundation where they
abut the stem wall. Sidewalks should be doweled to the curbs. Prior to construction of slabs,
the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should scarified and moisture conditioned to a
minimum of 3 percent above optimum moisture content just prior to placing the
concrete. Moisture conditioning should be observed and checked by a representative of
Geocon Incorporated.
4.19 All subgrade surfaces should be scarified approximately 12-inches, moisture conditioned to
the appropriate moisture content and compacted in accordance with the recommendations
herein.
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 11 - February 27, 2020
4.20 Consideration should be given to adding concrete cut-off walls beneath exterior flatwork
supported by highly expansive soils (EI greater than 90). The cut-off walls are
recommended where any water (e.g. landscape) may migrate laterally beneath the flatwork
and cause adverse soil movement. The cut-off walls should be located along the perimeter
of the concrete slab adjacent to landscaping areas and extend at least 6-inches into the soil
subgrade.
4.21 Concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints to reduce and/or control
shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be determined by the project structural
engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended usage. Criteria of the American
Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration when establishing crack control
spacing. A 4-inch-thick slab should have a maximum joint spacing of 10 feet. Subgrade soil
for exterior slabs not subjected to vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with
criteria presented above prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soil should be properly
compacted and the moisture content of subgrade soil should be checked prior to placing
concrete.
4.22 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs
due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with 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. Periotic maintenance such as
slab replacement and/or grinding of elevated slab margins may be necessary due to the
highly expansive soils. 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-entrant slab
corners occur.
4.23 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as
required by the structural engineer.
5.0 Lateral Loading
5.1 To resist lateral loads, a passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid with a density of
300 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for design of footings or shear keys poured
neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed formational material. The
passive pressure assumes that a horizontal ground surface extends away from the base of the
wall at least five feet or three times the depth of the surface generating the passive pressure,
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 12 - February 27, 2020
whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or
pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance.
5.2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between
soil and concrete of 0.35 should be used for design for footings founded in compacted fill.
The recommended passive pressure may be used concurrently with frictional resistance
without reduction and may be increased by one-third for transient wind or seismic loading.
6.0 Retaining Walls
6.1 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 with a
density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at 2:1
(horizontal:vertical), an active soil pressure of 50 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 less than 50.
Imported low expansion granular soil would be required.
6.2 If moderately expansive soils (EI greater than 50) are used for backfill, the active earth
pressure would increase to 80 pcf for level backfill and 95 pcf for backfill inclined at
2:1 (horizontal:vertical). 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 less than 130. Backfill material exhibiting an Expansion Index greater
than 130 should not be used.
6.3 Retaining walls shall be designed to ensure stability against overturning sliding, excessive
foundation pressure and water uplift. Where a keyway is extended below the wall base with
the intent to engage passive pressure and enhance sliding stability, it is not necessary to
consider active pressure on the keyway.
6.4 Where walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of
8H psf (where H equals the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) should be
added to the active soil pressure where the wall possesses a height of 8 feet or less and 12H
where the wall is greater than 8 feet. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads within a
horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to two feet of
fill soil should be added (total unit weight of soil should be taken as 130 pcf).
6.5 Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be
identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time Geocon Incorporated should obtain
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 13 - February 27, 2020
samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures may
be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear
strength. City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active lateral
earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as backfill may
or may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if standard wall
designs will be used.
6.6 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount
of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and
loads acting on the wall. The wall designer should provide appropriate lateral deflection
quantities for planned retaining walls structures, if applicable. These lateral values should be
considered when planning types of improvements above retaining wall structures.
6.7 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) is not recommended where the
seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of
the wall. If conditions different than those described are expected, or if specific drainage
details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations.
6.8 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth of 24 inches and width of 12 inches
may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The recommended
allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by 300 psf and 500 psf for each additional
foot of foundation width and depth, respectively, up to a maximum allowable soil bearing
pressure of 4,000 psf.
6.9 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. As a minimum, wall footings should be deepened such that
the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least seven feet from the face of slope when
located adjacent and/or at the top of descending slopes.
6.10 The structural engineer should determine the Seismic Design Category for the project in
accordance with Section 1613.3.5 of the 2016 CBC or Section 11.6 of ASCE 7-10. For
structures assigned to Seismic Design Category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support
more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance
with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained
height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 14 - February 27, 2020
square foot (psf) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. A seismic
load of 21H should be used for design. We used the peak ground acceleration adjusted for
Site Class effects, PGAM, of 0.438g calculated from ASCE 7-10 Section 11.8.3 and applied
a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.33.
6.11 If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are
desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. If on-
site highly expansive soils are used as retaining wall backfill, modifications to the design
parameters provided above would be required.
7.0 Slope Maintenance
7.1 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 slope instability. The
instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and 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 usually 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 for 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
should be periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. It should be noted that
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.
8.0 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection
8.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement,
erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond
adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is
directed away from structures in accordance with 2016 CBC 1804.4 or other applicable
standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into
swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed
into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 15 - February 27, 2020
8.2 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked
periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil
movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time.
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 on February 13, 2020. Changes in
the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time due to natural processes or the works
of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may
occur, resulting from legislation or the broadening of knowledge in the fields of geotechnical
engineering or geology. 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. 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. Due to the inaccuracies inherent in most field and laboratory soil tests, and the necessary
assumption that the relatively small soil sample tested is representative of a significantly larger volume
of soil, future tests of the same soil, location or condition should not be expected to duplicate specific
individual test results of this report. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure
such conditions, can vary greatly at any time. We make no warranty, express 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. It is the responsibility of Shea Homes to ensure that the information and
recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and civil engineer for
the project, and are incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the
contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Recommendations that
pertain to the future maintenance and care for the property should be brought to the attention of the
homeowner’s association or entity responsible for future maintenance.
Project No. G2108-32-02 - 16 - February 27, 2020
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,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
Trevor E. Myers
RCE 63773
Joseph P. Pagnillo
CEG 2679
David B. Evans
CEG 1860
TEM:JPP:DBE:arm
(e-mail) Addressee
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF
PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:02/25/2020 1:52PM | By:RUBEN AGUILAR | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G2108-32-02 Uptown Bressi Ranch\SHEETS\G2108-32-02 AsGradedMap.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
GEOCON LEGEND
........APPROX. LOCATION OF IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST FG....Finish Grade; ST...Slope Test; SZ...Slope Zone
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF BASE OF FILL; OR REMOVALS
IN AREAS OF Qpf (In Feet)
1" =
AS - GRADED GEOLOGIC MAP
UPTOWN BRESSI RANCH
BUILDING PADS 1 THROUGH 23
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
40' 02 - 27 - 2020
G2108 - 32 - 02
1 1 1
222
420
........COMPACTED FILLQcf
........COMPACTED FILL IN UNDERCUT AREAQuc
........PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Dotted Where Buried)Qpf
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT (Dotted Where Buried)
........APPROX. LOCATION OF SUBDRAIN CONSTRUCTED DURING MASS GRADING (See Leighton Report)
........SANTIAGO FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried)Tsa
........APPROX. LOCATION OF WALL NO. 2 BACKCUT EXHIBITAA'
' ' ' '
-'
' ' ' ' ' '
' !
--=-\-=-_ ,._
'
-----i·
'· 406. 7
.SPI I
PROJECT
LIMITS
' \[]M]
,..,
FG-87 • w[]
FG-215e
·1C c:
11.-----1--;;:.,.
0
E412.
WALL NO. 2
BACKCUT
STREE C'
FG-69
PE4 4.43
1 ..... l J....,____ : •••• •••• ; ,::: Cl
• •• II
... ·-.. •· . \ . :• ·. ·:· . . ... . . . . . . ... . :•·· . .
411
FG-146
-. \ .... \ 42r \
'
\, 11:::::....--,,11
',
eF~'-ro
T'B'\
3
.\
i
I
I
I
I
I
FG-203l..~-'\
416
'
[ill]
)-\
\ ,, ', > \_I
" 1. 1r,,> \ \ ~
I
I
I
---'-
1
\ __
-->-
\
\
\ '
'
'>-
-4'.:1 3
\--+--R-1LDG 'A'
I
I
I
I
'/ 422,:::.
ff 421.80'
PE421.05
_-,-
\ ~Ii:-,-\
I I
1""
'< 421 ,_,
I
I
I
I
\
I
\
Ff\ 419<9,0, 3
PE ·,41915
/ '---1 ./
< 42'
I
I
I
I
I
' ' ' '
I
I
I
I I
I
\
\ \
'
I
I
/ 1~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\ )
I //
V ' I
I
\
/
/
B DG B'
F
'D'
I
I
423,10
422,35
I
I
I
-.T" ,.;j;.•·------------.l/·----------
O:'t·--. ·-<::;( ___ _ ,,-. ___ . __
·-·-/-.. _ ---·.·.::.·~-
-~--
!~
i'.
\ \
\
\ 425./', I
' -'
,BLDG 'C'
l'.F 425 60
PE 424,85
2: 1
fi I tJ'I \ "
I ~:
\-~, I
I I
\
I
I
BLDG 'H',
.;,:-·-/
' ----/
' ' .___ I ,,
I
I
I
I
' ' ' '
' ' ' '
t: --1,1 i
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ,---
\
' '
' ' \
' ' '
c,
' '
' '' '' '' '' ''
' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' '
I/ '
,/·i'/,/ ,/
•
' ' '
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' '
.. " " " ' " ' " ' '' ' " I"• ••• // r-,._
' ' ' ' ' ' _,
' ' @ :
r;,p~ '
>' 4-C,.8
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' '
' '
' ' ' ' ' ' '
' '· ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' '
' .,,
\\
' .\
o' 40' 80' 120' 160'
SCALE 1 "=40' (On 42x30}
\\/,;6 /
•
GEOCON
l ,\I CU .H..P ORA'J'~D
■ ■
AA'APPROX. LIMITS OF SHEAR KEY454.18N73ºW????REMOLDEDPOORLY REMOLDED·········??ZONE OF FAULTINGSandstoneSiltstoneSandstone(Siltstone/Claystone)SandstoneSiltstoneTsaTsaTsaSiltstoneBPS1BPS2BPS6CEMENTED LAYERSBPS3BPS5BPS2BPS1BPS2APPROX. TOP OFBACKCUTAPPROX. BASE OFBACKCUTAPPROX. TOP OFBACKCUTAPPROX. BASE OFBACKCUTPLPALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(Sandstone)TsaELEVATION (MSL)
ELEVATION (MSL)4004104204304404504604004104204304404504600102030405060708090100110120130140150160170180190200210220230240250260270280290300310320330340350360370380390400410420430440450454.186960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159SHEET OFPROJECT NO.SCALEDATEFIGUREPlotted:02/25/2020 1:52PM | By:RUBEN AGUILAR | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G2108-32-02 Uptown Bressi Ranch\SHEETS\G2108-32-02 Profile-BackcutNortherlyPerimeter_BldgPads1-23.dwgGEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS1" = WALL NO. 2 BACKCUT UPTOWN BRESSI RANCHBUILDING PADS 1 THROUGH 23CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA10' 02 - 27 - 2020G2108 - 32 - 02112DISTANCE (FEET)GEOLOGIC PROFILE A-A'SCALE: 1" = 10' (Vert. = Horiz.)GEOCON LEGEND........SANTIAGO FORMATIONTsa....SILTSTONE - Pale green to olive green, very stiff, Clayey/Sandy SILTSTONE, thinly laminated to massive, laminations more prevalent near base; has one mapped Bedding Plane Shear.....SANDSTONE - Light gray, very dense, Silty SANDSTONE, cemented layers throughout unit, including shell bed (~520-620); massive, cross-bedded sands (~930-960); has one mapped Bedding Plane Shear on clay lens within unit.....SILTSTONE/CLAYSTONE - Dark olive green to dark gray, very stiff to hard, interbedded SILTSTONE/CLAYSTONE, thinly laminated; has four mapped Bedding Plane Shears.........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT........APPROX. LOCATION OF INTRAFORMATIONAL CONTACTBEDDING PLANE SHEARS........1/16-1/8 inch thick, damp, dark olive, remolded, plastic CLAY (N75ºE, 5ºS); discontinuous to the west.BPS1........1/2-3/4 inch thick, damp, dark olive, highly remolded plastic CLAY (N65ºW, 3ºS); discontinuous to the west. East of fault: 1/16-1/8 inch thick, olive, remolded plastic CLAY; discontinuous to the eastBPS2........1/8 inch thick, damp, olive, remolded plastic CLAY (N70ºE, 5ºS)BPS3........3/4 inch thick, moist, dark olive, remolded plastic CLAY (N50ºW, 2ºN); discontinuous to the south.BPS4........3/4-1 inch thick, moist, dark olive, highly remolded plastic CLAY (N60ºW, 1ºS); discontinuous to the east.BPS5........1/16-1/8 inch thick, damp, olive, remolded plastic CLAY; ends abruptly to the east (cementation); discontinuous to the west (observed in wall footing excavation).BPS6ZONE OF FAULTING-GENERAL TREND: Strike North-South, dip 65º west-Remolded CLAY on fracture surfaces-Total throw offset all fractures approximately 16 feet, down to the west------t-a>----.-----,-----,----,-----,-----,----,------.-----,-----,----,-----,------,----,------,------,-----,-----,-----,------,-----,----,----------,-----,----,-----,-----,----,------,------,-----,-----,-----,------,-----,,------,------,------,-----,-----,------,-----,----,------,--<--\ 1-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+------+--------l-----f-----1-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+------+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+------+--------l--------l-----f-----1-----+-----+-----+-----+\~+--~-,,dl~fl II ' I j ',~Ill ,,lil;::;'fl D D D ill 1~' • 11 i==cl , 11h11l.;,;)II I ,:._, .. ,,,_ I ---------------~---------...:~_..; __ ---__ ..,: _____ _ I I .,, 11~11,,_ ill l~I I /. I --.----..----. . GEOCON TNOORPORAT!'1n • •
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
1 10/23/17 Bldg 15 408 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.1 16.1 90 90
2 10/23/17 Bldg 16 410 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.3 15.3 91 90
3 10/24/17 Bldg 18 412 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.0 15.5 90 90
4 10/24/17 Bldg 17 413 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.1 19.3 90 90
5 10/24/17 Bldg 15 412 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.0 14.9 92 90
6 10/24/17 Bldg 16 414 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.6 15.2 92 90
7 10/24/17 Bldg 17 414 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.8 14.8 93 90
8 10/24/17 Bldg 18 414 2 0 116.4 14.9 104.0 12.8 89 90
8 A 10/24/17 Bldg 18 414 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.8 15.1 91 90
9 10/24/17 Bldg 17 416 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.0 15.3 91 90
10 10/24/17 Bldg 20 412 1 0 109.7 17.9 100.1 19.9 91 90
11 10/24/17 Alley F 412 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.7 18.3 91 90
12 10/25/17 W of Bldg 20 414 1 0 109.7 17.9 101.0 18.0 92 90
13 10/25/17 Bldg 19 416 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.4 18.6 91 90
14 10/25/17 Bldg 22/Alley G 414 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.1 15.4 91 90
15 10/25/17 Bldg 23 415 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.2 19.8 90 90
16 10/25/17 Bldg 21 416 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.5 14.9 91 90
17 10/25/17 Bldg 23 417 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.7 14.7 92 90
18 10/26/17 Bldg 14 404 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.0 15.1 92 90
19 10/26/17 Bldg 14 408 1 0 109.7 17.9 100.4 18.8 92 90
20 10/26/17 Bldg 9 407 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.6 14.7 91 90
21 10/26/17 Bldg 8 408 1 0 109.7 17.9 98.9 20.0 90 90
22 10/26/17 Bldg 5 408 1 0 109.7 17.9 100.4 17.9 92 90
23 10/26/17 Bldg 6 NW Corner 410 1 0 109.7 17.9 101.1 18.4 92 90
24 10/27/17 Bldg 10 411 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.6 19.1 91 90
25 10/27/17 Bldg 6 NW Corner 411 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.1 15.0 90 90
26 10/27/17 Bldg 13 411 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.5 18.8 91 90
27 10/27/17 Btwn Bldgs 13/14 410 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.7 15.2 91 90
Curve
No.
Test No.
Bressi Ranch G2108-32-02
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Date
(MM/DD
/YY)
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Location
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
~GEOCON
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Curve
No.
Test No.
Bressi Ranch G2108-32-02
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Date
(MM/DD
/YY)
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Location
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
28 10/27/17 Bldg 14 412 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.2 14.8 91 90
29 10/27/17 Street A 413 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.9 15.3 91 90
30 10/27/17 Bldg 12 413 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.8 15.1 93 90
31 10/27/17 Bldg 12 415 2 0 116.4 14.9 108.0 14.9 93 90
32 10/30/17 Bldg 3 407 1 0 109.7 17.9 98.8 18.2 90 90
33 10/30/17 Bldg 3 410 1 0 109.7 17.9 100.1 18.0 91 90
34 10/30/17 Street H 412 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.4 17.7 91 90
35 10/30/17 Bldg 7 411 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.1 18.1 90 90
SZ 36 10/30/17 SW of Bldg F 413 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.6 14.8 91 90
SZ 37 10/30/17 SW of Bldg F 416 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.1 15.1 92 90
38 10/31/17 Parking Lot W of Bldg E 414 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.6 15.2 91 90
39 10/31/17 Parking Lot W of Bldg F 415 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.0 15.0 90 90
40 10/31/17 Bldg 11 413 1 0 109.7 17.9 100.0 18.8 91 90
41 10/31/17 Parking Lot E of Bldg 3 416 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.2 15.2 91 90
41 A 11/01/17 Parking Lot E of Bldg 3 416 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.8 15.3 91 90
42 11/01/17 Bldg 7 413 2 0 116.4 14.9 104.0 13.1 89 90
42 A 11/14/17 Bldg 7 413 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.7 15.8 91 90
43 11/01/17 Parking Lot E of Bldg 3 415 2 0 116.4 14.9 103.8 13.0 89 90
43 A 11/14/17 Bldg 7 415 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.9 14.9 91 90
44 11/01/17 Bldg F 414 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.5 16.0 91 90
45 11/01/17 Bldg E 415 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.1 15.8 91 90
46 11/02/17 Bldg H 420 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.1 16.3 91 90
47 11/02/17 Parking Lot N of Bldg H 421 2 0 116.4 14.9 104.7 17.1 90 90
48 11/02/17 Bldg C 422 2 0 116.4 14.9 104.9 16.6 90 90
49 11/02/17 Bldg C 424 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.2 17.1 90 90
50 11/02/17 Parking Lot N of Bldg 11 428 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.0 17.6 90 90
51 11/02/17 Bldg C 422 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.2 16.8 91 90
52 11/02/17 Bldg 4 409 1 0 109.7 17.9 98.8 17.9 90 90
~GEOCON
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Curve
No.
Test No.
Bressi Ranch G2108-32-02
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Date
(MM/DD
/YY)
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Location
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
53 11/02/17 Bldg 6 409 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.0 16.2 91 90
54 11/02/17 Bldg 4 410 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.1 18.2 90 90
55 11/03/17 Bldg G 419 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.2 16.1 91 90
56 11/03/17 Bldg G 418 2 0 116.4 14.9 104.8 15.7 90 90
57 11/03/17 Bldg F 417 2 0 116.4 14.9 108.9 13.6 94 90
58 11/03/17 Bldg E 416 1 0 109.7 17.9 100.1 17.6 91 90
59 11/07/17 Bldg E 417 3 0 120.1 12.8 110.0 13.2 92 90
60 11/07/17 Bldg E 418 3 0 120.1 12.8 109.2 13.8 91 90
61 11/13/17 Bldg 11 413 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.0 15.1 91 90
62 11/15/17 Bldg 5 408 3 0 120.1 12.8 110.4 13.4 92 90
FG 63 11/15/17 Bldg 10 412 3 0 120.1 12.8 112.0 12.9 93 90
FG 64 11/16/17 Bldg 11 414 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.0 15.1 90 90
FG 65 11/16/17 Bldg 6 412 3 0 120.1 12.8 109.8 14.0 91 90
FG 66 11/16/17 Bldg 7 414 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.1 15.7 91 90
67 11/17/17 E of Bldg B Wall Footing 421 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.0 14.7 91 90
68 11/17/17 E of Bldg B Wall Footing 422 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.7 14.8 91 90
FG 69 11/21/17 Bldg 13 414 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.4 14.2 91 90
FG 70 11/21/17 Bldg 12 416 3 0 120.1 12.8 110.1 13.0 92 90
71 11/21/17 N of Bldg A Wall Footing 416 3 0 120.1 12.8 109.8 13.1 91 90
FG 72 11/22/17 Bldg C 425 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.1 14.7 91 90
FG 73 11/22/17 Bldg H 421 2 0 116.4 14.9 108.4 14.7 93 90
74 11/22/17 N of Bldg A Wall Footing 418 3 0 120.1 12.8 108.8 13.0 91 90
FG 75 11/29/17 Bldg E 419 3 0 120.1 12.8 114.0 13.2 95 90
FG 76 11/29/17 Bldg F 419 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.2 14.8 91 90
77 11/30/17 Bldg A 417 9 10 128.6 9.3 120.0 9.6 93 90
78 11/30/17 Bldg B 418 9 10 128.6 9.3 119.2 10.0 93 90
79 R 12/01/17 W of Bldg D 417 8 20 131.0 9.3 116.0 9.2 89 90
80 12/01/17 Bldg A 418 9 0 125.5 10.5 116.6 10.8 93 90
~GEOCON
- - -
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Curve
No.
Test No.
Bressi Ranch G2108-32-02
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Date
(MM/DD
/YY)
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Location
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
81 12/04/17 Bldg A 418 9 0 125.5 10.5 115.0 10.6 92 90
82 12/04/17 Bldg B 417 9 0 125.5 10.5 115.4 10.9 92 90
83 12/05/17 Bldg A 419 9 0 125.5 10.5 114.8 11.0 91 90
84 12/05/17 Bldg B 419 9 0 125.5 10.5 115.0 10.8 92 90
85 12/05/17 Parking Area E of Bldg 12 417 8 10 127.7 10.6 117.6 13.0 92 90
86 12/05/17 Parking Area E of Bldg 11 416 8 10 127.7 10.6 116.6 12.4 91 90
FG 87 12/05/17 Bldg 17 418 3 0 120.1 12.8 111.2 15.2 93 90
FG 88 12/05/17 Bldg 18 415 3 0 120.1 12.8 110.8 13.4 92 90
FG 89 12/05/17 Bldg 20 416 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.1 16.7 90 90
FG 90 12/06/17 Bldg 19 418 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.0 15.4 91 90
91 12/06/17 Bldg A 420 10 0 113.9 14.6 109.1 14.8 96 90
92 12/06/17 Bldg B 420 10 0 113.9 14.6 108.2 15.0 95 90
93 12/06/17 W of Bldg A 418 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.8 15.0 91 90
94 12/08/17 Bldg B 421 11 0 125.0 10.3 112.8 12.4 90 90
95 12/08/17 Bldg A 421 11 0 125.0 10.3 113.1 12.2 90 90
96 12/11/17 E of Bldg 7 412 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.2 15.4 91 90
97 12/11/17 Street B 415 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.0 15.1 91 90
98 12/11/17 Street B 416 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.5 15.7 91 90
99 12/11/17 NE of Bldg A Wall Footing 419 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.7 15.3 92 90
100 12/12/17 NE of Bldg A Wall Footing 419 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.6 15.0 91 90
101 12/12/17 Bldg A 420 9 0 125.5 10.5 114.8 10.6 91 90
102 12/13/17 NE of Bldg B Wall Footing 421 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.1 15.2 91 90
103 12/13/17 NE of Bldg B Wall Footing 422 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.8 14.8 91 90
104 12/14/17 Street F Temp Basin 405 3 0 120.1 12.8 113.0 13.0 94 90
105 12/14/17 Street F Temp Basin 409 3 0 120.1 12.8 111.6 13.2 93 90
FG 106 12/15/17 Bldg B 422 9 0 125.5 10.5 118.0 10.3 94 90
FG 107 12/15/17 Bldg A 421 9 0 125.5 10.5 117.4 10.1 94 90
108 12/15/17 Street B E Entry 424 1 0 109.7 17.9 100.1 18.0 91 90
~GEOCON
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Curve
No.
Test No.
Bressi Ranch G2108-32-02
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Date
(MM/DD
/YY)
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Location
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
109 12/15/17 Street A SW of Bldg A 418 1 0 109.7 17.9 98.8 19.2 90 90
110 12/19/17 Street B E of Bldg 2 406 2 0 116.4 14.9 104.1 11.4 89 90
110 A 12/19/17 Street B E of Bldg 2 406 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.3 15.9 92 90
111 12/20/17 Parking Area N of Bldg G 418 1 0 109.7 17.9 97.0 14.1 88 90
111 A 12/22/17 Parking Area N of Bldg G 418 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.1 18.4 90 90
112 12/20/17 Bldg 2 410 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.9 18.7 91 90
113 12/20/17 Bldg 3 410 1 0 109.7 17.9 101.0 18.3 92 90
114 12/22/17 Parking Area S of Bldg A 420 1 0 109.7 17.9 100.0 20.0 91 90
115 12/27/17 Parking Area North of Bldg C 422 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.6 15.1 92 90
116 12/27/17 Parking Area North of Bldg C 422 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.0 15.7 91 90
FG 117 01/04/18 Bldg G 420 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.1 14.8 92 90
118 01/05/18 Bldg C Wall Backcut 418 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.8 15.7 92 90
119 01/08/18 Parking Area East of Bldg B 419 8 0 124.5 11.8 113.8 12.9 91 90
120 01/16/18 Bldg D 419 2 0 116.4 14.9 108.8 16.4 93 90
121 01/16/18 Bldg D 419 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.1 16.7 92 90
FG 122 01/17/18 E of Bldg C Post-rain 424 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.3 21.6 91 90
FG 123 01/17/18 Bldg E Post-rain 419 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.2 15.2 92 90
FG 124 01/17/18 Bldg F Post-rain 419 2 0 116.4 14.9 108.1 16.1 93 90
125 01/17/18 W of Bldg D 418 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.6 16.4 92 90
126 01/22/18 SW of Bldg G Street 412 1 0 109.7 17.9 98.9 18.9 90 90
127 01/22/18 SE of Bldg B 421 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.1 15.5 90 90
128 01/22/18 NE of Bldg C 423 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.7 15.0 92 90
FG 129 01/23/18 Bldg D 420 3 0 120.1 12.8 111.8 12.9 93 90
130 01/23/18 N of Bldg D 420 3 0 120.1 12.8 110.1 13.0 92 90
131 01/25/18 Bldg 3 411 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.5 15.6 91 90
132 01/26/18 Street B E Entry 426 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.0 15.0 90 90
133 01/30/18 S of Bldg B 420 6 0 119.5 13.6 108.1 14.0 90 90
134 01/30/18 N of Bldg D 422 6 0 119.5 13.6 108.7 13.8 91 90
~GEOCON
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Curve
No.
Test No.
Bressi Ranch G2108-32-02
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Date
(MM/DD
/YY)
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Location
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
135 01/30/18 N of Bldg E 418 6 0 119.5 13.6 109.0 14.2 91 90
136 01/30/18 N of Bldg E 420 6 0 119.5 13.6 108.2 13.9 91 90
FG 137 01/31/18 Bldg 16 416 2 0 116.4 14.9 108.2 14.7 93 90
FG 138 01/31/18 Bldg 3 412 2 0 116.4 14.9 109.0 14.4 94 90
139 02/01/18 E of Bldg C 424 6 0 119.5 13.6 108.7 14.0 91 90
140 02/01/18 N of Bldg C 419 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.5 15.1 91 90
141 02/02/18 Private Drive C 413 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.7 15.3 91 90
FG 142 02/05/18 Bldg 15 415 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.6 15.0 92 90
SZ 143 02/07/18 Wall 2 429 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.5 15.3 91 90
SZ 144 02/07/18 Wall 2 430 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.0 15.1 91 90
FG 145 02/07/18 Bldg 21 418 2 0 116.4 14.9 108.1 14.2 93 90
FG 146 02/07/18 Bldg 22 416 2 0 116.4 14.9 109.2 14.4 94 90
FG 147 02/07/18 Bldg 23 418 1 0 109.7 17.9 100.1 17.8 91 90
SZ 148 02/07/18 Wall 2 433 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.1 14.9 90 90
ST 149 02/08/18 Wall 2 434 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.2 14.5 92 90
ST 150 02/08/18 Wall 2 430 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.6 14.7 92 90
151 02/20/18 Drain NE of Bldg B 419 1 0 109.7 17.9 102.1 17.8 93 90
152 02/20/18 Drain E of Bldg B 420 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.3 16.0 90 90
153 02/22/18 Drain N of Bldg B 420 2 0 116.4 14.9 104.9 15.8 90 90
154 02/22/18 Drain NE of Bldg A 420 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.1 19.4 90 90
155 02/22/18 Drain N of Bldg A 421 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.3 15.0 91 90
156 07/27/18 Bldg 14 408 2 0 116.4 14.9 103.3 15.8 89 90
156 A 07/27/18 Bldg 14 408 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.7 16.2 92 90
157 07/27/18 Bldg 14 410 1 0 109.7 17.9 102.3 18.8 93 90
158 07/28/18 Bldg 14 411 2 0 116.4 14.9 104.0 12.4 89 90
158 A 07/28/18 Bldg 14 411 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.3 16.0 90 90
159 07/28/18 Bldg 14 411 2 0 116.4 14.9 103.3 12.0 89 90
159 A 07/28/18 Bldg 14 411 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.0 15.2 91 90
~GEOCON
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Curve
No.
Test No.
Bressi Ranch G2108-32-02
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Date
(MM/DD
/YY)
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Location
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
160 07/28/18 Bldg 14 412 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.2 15.8 92 90
FG 161 07/31/18 Bldg 14 413 17 0 128.0 9.9 121.1 10.2 95 90
SZ 162 08/21/18 Wall 1 SE of Bldg B 437 15 0 117.8 14.7 106.3 15.8 90 90
SZ 163 08/21/18 Wall 1 E of Bldg B 439 15 0 117.8 14.7 107.2 14.9 91 90
SZ 164 08/22/18 Wall 1 NE of Bldg B 436 15 0 117.8 14.7 105.1 14.7 89 90
SZ 164 A 08/22/18 Wall 1 NE of Bldg B 436 15 0 117.8 14.7 106.2 14.8 90 90
SZ 165 08/23/18 Wall 1 N of Bldg A 437 15 0 117.8 14.7 107.7 14.9 91 90
SZ 166 08/23/18 Wall 1 N of Bldg B 438 15 0 117.8 14.7 106.5 14.7 90 90
SZ 167 08/24/18 Wall 1 NW of Bldg A 437 15 0 117.8 14.7 106.0 14.8 90 90
ST 168 08/24/18 Wall 1 NE of Bldg B 441 15 0 117.8 14.7 110.8 15.0 94 90
ST 169 08/24/18 Wall 1 NW of Bldg B 439 15 0 117.8 14.7 109.1 14.9 93 90
ST 170 08/24/18 Wall 1 N of Bldg A 440 15 0 117.8 14.7 108.4 14.7 92 90
171 09/10/18 Bldg 8 405 3 0 120.1 12.8 106.4 8.6 89 90
171 A 09/10/18 Bldg 8 405 3 0 120.1 12.8 108.9 13.9 91 90
172 09/10/18 Bldg 5 402 3 0 120.1 12.8 105.1 10.0 88 90
172 A 09/10/18 Bldg 5 402 3 0 120.1 12.8 107.8 13.6 90 90
173 09/10/18 Bldg 4 403 3 0 120.1 12.8 108.2 13.8 90 90
174 09/11/18 Bldg 8 406 3 0 120.1 12.8 114.1 13.4 95 90
175 09/11/18 Bldg 5 404 2 0 116.4 14.9 109.0 16.3 94 90
176 09/11/18 Bldg 9 407 3 0 120.1 12.8 113.3 15.1 94 90
177 09/11/18 Bldg 9 408 3 0 120.1 12.8 108.9 13.4 91 90
178 09/12/18 Bldg 9 409 3 0 120.1 12.8 108.1 13.8 90 90
179 09/12/18 SW of Bldg 5 406 8 0 124.5 11.8 113.3 13.9 91 90
180 09/13/18 SE of Bldg 5 406 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.1 15.8 92 90
181 09/14/18 Bldg 8 408 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.6 15.2 92 90
182 09/14/18 Bldg 8 409 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.9 15.4 91 90
183 09/17/18 Bldg 5 408 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.6 15.1 92 90
184 09/17/18 Bldg 4 409 2 0 116.4 14.9 107.1 15.7 92 90
~GEOCON
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Curve
No.
Test No.
Bressi Ranch G2108-32-02
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Date
(MM/DD
/YY)
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Location
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
185 09/21/18 NW of Bldg 23 420 17 0 128.0 9.9 122.2 10.0 95 90
186 10/01/18 Street F 402 1 0 109.7 17.9 99.9 18.4 91 90
187 10/05/18 Bldg 2 403 2 0 116.4 14.9 106.8 16.2 92 90
188 10/23/18 Bldg 2 406 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.2 15.4 90 90
189 10/23/18 Pvt Drive F 405 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.5 15.8 91 90
190 10/25/18 Bldg 2 407 3 0 120.1 12.8 110.0 14.4 92 90
191 10/25/18 Pvt Drive F 406 17 0 128.0 9.9 117.1 11.3 91 90
192 10/26/18 Bldg 1 407 17 0 128.0 9.9 112.0 15.5 88 90
192 A 10/26/18 Bldg 1 407 17 0 128.0 9.9 115.6 11.0 90 90
193 10/26/18 Bldg 1 407 17 0 128.0 9.9 115.8 12.1 90 90
194 10/27/18 Bldg 1 404 17 0 128.0 9.9 116.4 12.4 91 90
195 10/27/18 Pvt Drive F 408 17 0 128.0 9.9 118.1 10.8 92 90
196 10/27/18 Pvt Drive F 407 17 0 128.0 9.9 116.0 11.0 91 90
197 10/29/18 Bldg 2 409 17 0 128.0 9.9 117.7 10.8 92 90
198 10/29/18 Bldg 1 407 17 0 128.0 9.9 116.2 10.6 91 90
199 10/30/18 Bldg 1 408 3 0 120.1 12.8 112.0 13.7 93 90
200 10/31/18 Pvt Drive F 406 3 0 120.1 12.8 111.3 13.9 93 90
201 11/02/18 Bldg 1 408 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.1 17.4 90 90
202 11/02/18 Bldg 1 409 2 0 116.4 14.9 104.9 18.0 90 90
FG 203 08/01/19 Bldg 7 414 2 0 116.4 14.9 108.8 14.7 93 90
FG 204 08/01/19 Bldg 11 414 2 0 116.4 14.9 109.2 15.0 94 90
205 08/16/19 Bldg 1 Desilter 405 7 0 127.4 10.5 114.9 12.7 90 90
206 08/16/19 Bldg 1 Desilter 406 6 0 119.5 13.6 108.3 13.6 91 90
207 08/16/19 Bldg 1 Desilter 407 6 0 119.5 13.6 108.0 13.6 90 90
208 08/16/19 Bldg 1 Desilter 408 13 0 126.7 10.5 113.6 11.5 90 90
FG 209 08/16/19 Lot 8 410 13 0 126.7 10.5 114.3 10.5 90 90
FG 210 08/16/19 Lot 9 411 13 0 126.7 10.5 114.7 10.5 91 90
211 08/20/19 Bldg 1 Desilter 409 13 0 126.7 10.5 114.9 12.6 91 90
~GEOCON
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
Curve
No.
Test No.
Bressi Ranch G2108-32-02
>¾"
Rock
(%)
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Date
(MM/DD
/YY)
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
Location
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
212 08/20/19 Bldg 1 Desilter 409 13 0 126.7 10.5 115.1 13.0 91 90
FG 213 10/16/19 Lot 10 412 3 0 120.1 12.8 110.4 13.4 92 90
FG 214 11/11/19 Lot 6 412 3 0 120.1 12.8 108.7 16.8 91 90
FG 215 11/11/19 Lot 6 412 3 0 120.1 12.8 109.7 17.3 91 90
FG 216 01/03/20 Bldg 5 411 3 0 120.1 12.8 108.5 15.9 90 90
FG 217 01/22/20 Bldg 1 410 2 0 116.4 14.9 105.5 16.8 91 90
FG 218 01/28/20 Bldg 2 412 17 0 128.0 9.9 121.8 10.1 95 90
FG 219 02/05/20 Bldg 3 413 3 0 120.1 12.8 109.4 13.1 91 90
FG 220 02/05/20 Bldg 4 411 2 0 116.4 14.9 104.7 15.8 90 90
FG 221 02/13/20 Bldg 18 414 11 0 125.0 10.3 112.8 11.8 90 90
FG 222 02/13/20 Bldg 18 414 7 0 127.4 10.5 118.5 11.1 93 90
~GEOCON
TABLE I
EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS
AC Asphalt Concrete IT Irrigation Trench SG Subgrade
AD Area Drain JT Joint Trench SL Sewer Lateral
B Base M Moisture Test SM Sewer Main
CG Curb/Gutter MG Minor Grading SR Slope Repair
DW Driveway MSE Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall ST Slope Test
ET Electrical Trench PT Plumbing Trench SW Sidewalk
ETB Exploratory Trench RG Regrade SZ Slope Zone
FB Footing Backfill RT Retest UT Utility Trench
FG Finish Grade RWL Reclaimed Water Lateral WB Wall Backfill
FS Fire Service RWM Reclaimed Water Main WL Water Lateral
GT Gas Trench SD Storm Drain WM Water Main
A, B, C, …
R
>¾" ROCK - ROCK CORRECTION
The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content can be adjusted for in-place soil that possesses rock larger than
¾ inch. The curve no. is adjusted for the percentage of ¾ inch rock in accordance with ASTM D 4718 or Woodward Clyde guidelines.
TEST NO. PREFIX
TEST NO. RE.
Retest of previous density test failure following additional moisture conditioning or recompaction
Fill in area of density test was removed during construction operations
CURVE NO.
Corresponds to the curve numbers presented in the summary of the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content test
results. The field representative selected the curve no. based on the laboratory test results and field observations.
ELEVATION OR DEPTH
Corresponds to the elevation or the depth, in feet, of the in-place density/moisture content test. The value has been rounded to the
nearest whole foot.
0 GEOCON
r---------------,
Project No. G2108-32-02 February 27, 2020
TABLE II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557
Proctor
Curve
No.
Source and Description
Maximum
Dry Density
(pcf)
Optimum
Moisture
Content (%)
1 Reddish brown, Silty fine SAND 109.7 17.9
2 Brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 116.4 14.9
3 Brown, Silty fine SAND with trace gravel 120.1 12.8
5 Yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 121.6 12.5
6 Light brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 119.5 13.6
8 Olive Brown Silty CLAY with sand 124.5 11.8
9 Import: Yellowish-brown Silty, fine to coarse SAND 125.5 10.5
10 Light brown, Silty fine SAND 113.9 14.6
11 Import: Dark brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with trace clay 125.0 10.3
13 Light brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 126.7 10.5
15 Import: Yellowish-brown, Clayey Silt 117.8 14.7
17 Import: Brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 128.0 9.9
TABLE III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS ASTM D 3080
Sample No.* Dry Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
Peak [Ultimate]
Cohesion (psf)
Peak [Ultimate]
Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees)
5 109.5 12.6 675 [615] 24 [23]
6 107.4 13.7 390 [450] 27 [24]
*Samples remolded to approximately 90 percent relative compaction
Project No. G2108-32-02 February 27, 2020
TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829
Sample No.
Moisture Content
Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index
Before Test (%) After Test (%)
EI-1 10.2 18.4 108.6 25
EI-2 10.3 18.8 108.8 22
EI-3 10.0 19.0 110.9 51
EI-4 10.0 19.5 108.3 32
EI-5 13.7 25.9 98.5 81
EI-6 13.5 25.3 99.3 54
EI-7 11.9 24.2 102.1 60
EI-8 11.3 22.6 104.4 53
EI-9 11.5 20.6 106.6 46
EI-10 13.5 30.3 98.4 88
EI-11 12.5 26.8 102.0 87
EI-12 11.6 22.2 105.4 62
EI-13 11.8 22.3 104.5 60
EI-14 11.7 23.9 104.8 56
EI-15 11.3 24.8 106.4 75
EI-27 12.7 27.5 101.6 80
EI-28 12.0 24.8 102.5 69
EI-33 11.2 24.5 104.2 75
EI-36 9.8 21.1 108.1 47
EI-37 11.6 23.4 104.9 65
EI-38 11.5 21.6 105.4 50
EI-39 11.0 22.3 105.2 52
Project No. G2108-32-02 February 27, 2020
TABLE V SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Exposure
EI-1 0.045 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-2 0.046 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-3 0.074 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-4 0.062 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-5 0.052 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-6 0.314 Severe (S2)
EI-7 0.584 Severe (S2)
EI-8 0.065 Not Applicable (S0)
EI-9 0.122 Moderate (S1)
EI-10 0.841 Severe (S2)
EI-11 0.990 Severe (S2)
EI-12 0.693 Severe (S2)
EI-13 0.448 Severe (S2)
EI-14 0.255 Severe (S2)
EI-15 0.973 Severe (S2)
EI-27 1.000 Severe (S2)
EI-28 1.141 Severe (S2)
EI-33 1.123 Severe (S2)
EI-36 0.401 Severe (S2)
EI-37 0.672 Severe (S2)
EI-38 0.448 Severe (S2)
EI-39 0.387 Severe (S2)
Project No. G2108-32-02 February 27, 2020
TABLE VI SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION INDEX AND SULFATE EXPOSURE TEST RESULTS, AND RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION CATEGORY
Building
Number
Sample at
Finish Grade
Expansion
Index
CBC
Expansion
Classification
Recommended
Foundation
Category
Sulfate
Exposure
1 EI-38 50 Medium II Severe
2 EI-36 51 Medium II Severe
3 EI-33 75 Medium II Severe
4 EI-39 52 Medium II Severe
5 EI-37 65 Medium II Severe
6 EI-27 80 Medium II Severe
7 EI-11 87 Medium II Severe
8 EI-28 69 Medium II Severe
9 EI-28 69 Medium II Severe
10 EI-15 75 Medium II Severe
11 EI-10 88 Medium II Severe
12 EI-12 62 Medium II Severe
13 EI-13 60 Medium II Severe
14 EI-14 56 Medium II Severe
15 EI-1 25 Low I Not Applicable
16 EI-2 22 Low I Not Applicable
17 EI-3 51 Medium II Not Applicable
18 EI-4 32 Low I Not Applicable
19 EI-5 81 Medium II Not Applicable
20 EI-6 54 Medium II Severe
21 EI-7 60 Medium II Severe
22 EI-8 53 Medium II Not Applicable
23 EI-9 46 Low I Moderate