Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 98-20; RANCHO CARRILLO RECREATION CENTER; FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSEVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING; 1998-04-01FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING LOTS 105 AND 106 OF VILLAGE Q-1 RANCHO CARRILLO CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR CONTINENTAL RANCH INC. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA APRIL 1998 J GEOCON I N C 0 H 11 0 H A T p: I) G€OTEO-IN)CAL CONSULTANTS (low) Project No. 05845-12-0 IC April 20, 1998 Continental Ranch Inc. 12636 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92130 Attention: Mr. Dave Lother Subject: LOTS 105 AND 106 OF VILLAGE Q-1 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 May 9, 1997 through November 20, 1997. The scope of our services included the following: Observing the grading operation, including the removal and/or processing of loose topsoils, colluvium, and landslide debris. 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 Rick Engineering Company and are entitled Grading Plans for Rancho Carrillo, Sheet 39, City of Carlsbad approval dated November 14, 1996. The project soils 6960 Flanders [)r'e U Son Diego, California 92121-2974 U Telephone (619) 558-6900 0 Fax (619) 558-6159 report is entitled: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation. Villages N. 0, Q. R. T. and U. Rancho Carrillo, Carlsbad. California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated February 16, 1993. References to elevations and locations herein were based on surveyor's or grade checker's stakes in the field and/or interpolation from the referenced Grading Plans. Geocon Incorporated did not provide surveying services and, therefore, has no opinion regarding the accuracy of the as-graded elevations or surface geometry with respect to the approved grading plans or proper surface drainage. GRADING Grading began with the removal of brush and vegetation from the area to be graded. In addition to the vegetation, topsoils, colluvium, and landslide debris were removed to firm natural ground. In general, the landslide deposits were removed in segments. After removal, the excavations were observed by an engineering geologist to verify that the landslide debris (identified as Landslide B) had been removed and dense formational soils were exposed. 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. 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-1556-82 (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 Map, Figure 1. It should be noted that since the grading of the Lots 105 and 106 of Village Q-1 was performed in conjunction with the grading for Villages N, 0, QI, and Q2, the field density test numbers are not in sequential order. Where the fill soils being tested for in-place density contained particles larger than 3/4 inch, rock corrections were made to the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content using methods suggested by AASHTO T224-86. The values of maximum dry density and optimum moisture content presented on Table I reflect the corrections. Project No. 05845-12-0IC -2 - April 20. 1998 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 V. Slopes In general, the fill slopes have planned inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter, with maximum height of approximately 40 feet. No major cut slope exists within the site. The fill slopes were either over-filled and cut back or were track-walked with a bulldozer during grading. 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 removal of Landslide B is located just south of the site, within Village 0. This heel drain was."as built" for location and elevation by Rick Engineering Company and is shown on the attached as-graded geologic map. This subdrairi flows to the south into a canyon subdrain which ultimately discharges into open space. Finish Grade Soil Conditions Based on laboratory test results, the prevailing soil conditions within approximately the upper 3 feet of rough pad grade have an Expansion Index of 115 to 117 (Table IV), and are classified as having a "high" expansion potential as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18-I-B. It should be noted that although rocks or concretions larger than 12 inches were not intentionally placed within the upper 3 feet of pad grade, some may exist at random 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 Lusardi Formation and the Delmar Formation. Landslide B was removed within the site and replaced with compacted fill soils. Project No. 0545-I2-0IC 3 - April 20. 1998 I The enclosed As-Graded Geologic Map (Figure 1 ) depicts the general geologic conditions observed. No soil or geologic conditions were observed during grading which would preclude the continued I development of the property as planned. I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS I 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 bçen performed in substantial conformance 1 with the recommendations of the previously referenced project soil report. Soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading which differ from those anticipated by the I 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 I herein. 2.0 The site is currently sheet-graded and highly expansive soils exist at finished grade. It is I understood that the site will be fine graded to receive a single story building with associated driveways and parking areas. It is recommended that, if practical, the building I pad be capped with at least 3 feet of low expansive soils (El <50). I 2.0. Future Grading 2.1. Any additional grading performed at the site should be accomplished in conjunction with I 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 I notified at least 48 hours prior to commencing additional grading or backfill operations. 1 3.0. Foundations 3.1. The following foundation recommendations are based on the presence of highly expansive I soils within the upper 3 feet of finished grade. These recommendations may be modified depending on the soil expansion characteristics present at grade after fine grading i operations. 3.2. It is understood that initially one single-story wood-framed structure will be constructed at I the site as an Information Center. Additional buildings may be constructed later for a Day Care Center. Foundations for the one- or two-story structures should have a minimum I width of 12 inches and extend at least 24 inches into dense natural soil or properly Project No. 05845-12-OIC -4 - April 20. 1999 compacted uI1 soils. Foundations with the above dimensions may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by 300 psf for each additional foot of width and 500 psf for each additional foot of depth up to a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when considering wind or seismic loads. 3.3. It is recommended that minimum continuous footing reinforcement consist of four No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footing, two near the top of the footing and two near the bottom. The above minimum reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary for structural considerations. 3.4. Minimum total and differential settlement is estimated to be 1/2 inch assuming with differential settlement is measured over a horizontal distance of 50 feet. 3.5. Foundation concrete slabs-on-grade should be a minimum of 5. inches thick and should be underlain by at least 4 inches of clean sand. Slab reinforcement should consist of No. 3 steel reinforcing bars spaced 18 inches on center, each way. Where moisture-sensitive floor coverings are planned or where moisture migration through the slab is undesirable, the slab should be underlain by a visqueen moisture barrier placed in the middle of the sand blanket. 3.6. The above recommended slab reinforcement and thickness are based on anticipated subgrade soil characteristics and are not intended to be in lieu of structural considerations. The need for additional reinforcing or concrete thickness should be determined by the project structural engineer. 3.7 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. 3.8 It is recommended that all exterior concrete flatwork with a least dimension exceeding 8 feet be reinforced with 6x6- 6/6 welded wire mesh to reduce the potential for cracking. In addition, all concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints at a maximum spacing of 12 feet. Project No. 05845-12-01C - 5 - April 20. I904 3.9. Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur. For till slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. Where the height of the fill slope exceeds 20 feet, the minimum horizontal distance should be increased to H13 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the toe) but need not exceed 40 feet. For composite (fill over cut) slopes, H equals the vertical distance from the top of the slope to the bottom of the fill portion of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings would be the use of a post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased footing and slab reinforce- ment. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope geometry have been determined. 3.10. Although other improvements which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete flatwork or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible, however, to incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific recommendations. 3.11. As an alternative to the above conventional foundation recommendations, consideration should be given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation system for support of the proposed structure. The post-tensioned system should be designed by a structural 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. Project No. 05845-12-0 1C -6 - April 20. INS TABLE 3. POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS Post-Tensioning Institute (PT!) Design Parameters Category III Thornthwaite Index -20 Clay Type - Montmorillonite Yes Clay Portion (Maximum) 70% Depth to Constant Soil Suction 7.0 ft. Soil Suction 3.6 ft. Moisture Velocity 0.7 in./mo. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 2.6 ft. Edge Lift 1.15 in. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 5.3 ft. Center Lift 4.74 in. 3.12. UBC Section 1816 uses interior stiffener beams in its structural design procedures. If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than UBC Section 1816, it is recommended that interior stiffener beams be used. The depth of the perimeter foundation below adjacent finish grade should be at least 24 inches. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. 3.13. The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs due to expansive soils, differential settlement of deep fills or fills of varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in particular, where re-entry slab corners occur. 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 recommended. These soil pressures assume that Project No. 05845-I2-0IC -7- April i. 1498 the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50. For those lots with finish grade soils having an Expansion Index greater than 50 and/or where backfill materials do not conform to the above criteria, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 4.2. Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.00I1-1 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 recommended where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely impact the property adjacent to the base of the wall. A typical retaining wall drain system is presented on Figure 2. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular (Expansion Index less than 50) backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional recommendations. 4.4. In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 12-inches may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Special foundation depth and reinforcement 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 recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads. Project No. 05845-I2-0IC -8- April 0. 1998 4.6. The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations. 5.0. Slope Maintenance 5.1. Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal: vertical) may, under conditions which are both difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability. The instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is generally preceded by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore, recommended that, to the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils be either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected and maintained to eliminate leaks and excessive irrigation, and (c) surface drains on and adjacent to slopes be periodically maintained to preclude ponding or erosion. Although the incorporation of the above recommendations should reduce the potential for surficial slope instability, it will not eliminate the possibility, and, therefore, it may be necessary to rebuild or repair a portion of the project's slopes in the future. 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, pavements, concrete slabs, and slope tops to controlled drainage devices. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to grading, and represent conditions at the date of our final observation November 20, 1997. 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 Project No. 05845-I2-0IC -9- April 20. 1998 which we agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience, and test results. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions, can vary greatly at any time. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services were performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location. We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GE ONIN( RCE 22527 AS:DFL:dmc CEG 1778 AU 0 SADR 0.1 #1778 W I CERTIFIED i — ENGINEERING • A GEOLOGIST (4/del) Addressee (1) Horowitz Taylor Engineering Attention: Mr. Rich Horowitz (1) Rick Engineering Company Attention: Mr. Craig Kahien (3) Dahlin Group Architects Attention: Mr. Alejandro Magallon Project No. 05845-I2-0IC - 10. April 20. 1999 GROUND I 12" MIN. 1 • /Z__ SURFACE '/SOIL/ BACKFILL RETAINING WALL -7_.._- 3/4' CRUSHED • ••. GRAVEL -1'_____ °L_..-••° - -.. • MIRAFI 140 ° •.O..°. 0 •• o - FILTER FABRIC 213H H / 4 DIA. PERFORATED ABS ORADS PIPE 0. ull NO SCALE I . RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL I GEOCON (low) INCORPORATED GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 6960 FLANDERS DRIVE . SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121- 2974 PHONE 619 558-6900 FAX 619 558-6159 AS/JS DSK/G0000 RE1'WALL RANCHO CARRILLO LOTS 105 AND 106 OF VILLAGE Q-1 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE 04-20- 1998 1 PROJECT NO. 05845- 12- 01CI FIG. 2 TABLE II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM 0 1557-91 Sample Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture 0 No.Density (pd) Content (/0 dry WI.) I Light brown, Silty CLAY 113.4 14.6 2 Yellow-tan, Silty, fine to medium SAND, with trace clay .115.0 14.0 4 Green, Silty CLAY, with little fine to medium sand 115.8 15.7 9 Yellow-brown, Silty CLAY, with fine to medium sand 107.1 17.1 12 Green-gray-tan, Silty CLAY, with trace sand and trace gravel 114.7 16.0 28 Light brown, Silty CLAY 109.0 16.0 TABLE III SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Sample No. Dry Density (pci) Moisture Content 0 (/o) Unit Cohesion (psi) Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) 2 103.4 14.8 400 30 12 104.0 16.0 525 23 28 . 96.5 16.0 500 20 Note: Samples were remolded to 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content. TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS Sample No. Moisture Content Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index Before Test (%) After Test (%) 2 11.0 23.0 106.1 12 4 11.7 29.1 104.1 87 9 12.1 32.1 103.0 107 12 13.1 32.1 98.4 53 28 14.3 36.6 97.3 lOS DC-A 12.2 37.0 102.3 115 DC-13 12.0 34.7 102.4 117 Project No. 05845-12-0 1C Apri120. 1998 Project No. 05845-12-01C (C) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test - No. Date Test Location 212 05/09/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 216 08/09/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 - 217 05/09/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 218 05/09/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 219 05/12/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 220 05/12/97 VLG QI LOTS 105/106 221 05/12/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 222 05/12/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 223 05/12/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 SZ 224 05/12/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 SZ 229 05/13/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 SZ 230 05/13/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 231 05/13/97 VLGQl LOTS 105/106 234 05/13/97 VLG QI LOTS 105/106 235 05/13/97 VLC Qi LOTS 105/106 246 05/16/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 247 05/16/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 248 05/16/97 VLG QI LOTS 105/106 - 249 05/16/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 250 05/16/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 251 05/16/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 261 05/19/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 275 05/21/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 276 05/21/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. Rel. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp. (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) 311 1 0 113.4 14.6 104.2 15.5 92 90 310 1 0 113.4 14.6 103.3 17.9 91 90 298 1 0 113.4 14.6 104.2 16.6 92 90 308 1 0 113.4 14.6 103.6 16.9 91 90 308 9 0 107.1 17.1 97.7 19.5 91 90 306 9 0 107.1 17.1 98.3 17.9 92 90 310 9 0 107.1 17.1 98.6 16.9 92 90 311 9 0 107.1 17.1 97.4 18.8 91 90 316 9 0 107.1 17.1 98.0 18.5 92 90 296 4 0 115.8 15.7 107.2 16.2 93 90 300 4 0 115.8 15.7 106.3 18.1 92 90 310 4 0 115.8 15.7 107.0 16.9 92 90 313 4 0 115.8 15.7 107.4 17.9 93 90 320 4 0 115.8 15.7 107.6 16.1 93 90 309 4 0 115.8 15.7 106.0 18.3 92 90 323 9 0 107.1 17.1 97.3 18.7 91 90 326 9 0 107.1 17.1 98.4 17.9 92 90 328 9 0 107.1 17.1 99.0 16.6 92 90 329 9 0 107.1 17.1 97.5 17.7 91 90 325 9 0 107.1 17.1 98.2 18.9 92 90 320 9 0 107.1 17.1 97.7 16.3 91 90 326 4 0 115.8 15.7 106.2 16.3 92 90 332 - 2 0 115.0 14.8 106.5 18.0 93 90 333 12 0 114.7 16.0 105.3 19.2 92 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05845-12-01C (G) TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No. Date Test Location 277 05/21/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 277A 05/22/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 27/B 05/27/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 278 05/21/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 289 05/23/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 295 05/23/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 418 05/30/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 ST 1549 09/22/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 ST 1550 09/22/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 ST 1551 09/22/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 ST 1552 09/22/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 ST 1553 09/22/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 ST 1554 09/22/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 ST 1554A 09/23/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 ST 1555 09/22/97 VLG QI LOTS 105/106 ST 1555A 09/23/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 PC 2037 11/20/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 PC 2038 11/20/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 FG 2039 11/20/97 VLG Qi LOTS 105/106 FC 2040 11/20/97 VLG Q1 LOTS 105/106 Elev. Plus Max. Opt. Field Field Field Req'd or 3/4" Dry Moist. Dry Moist. Rel. [(el. Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Dens. Cont. Comp Comp (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) 335 1 0 113.4 14.6 99.7 8.5 88 90 335 1 0 113.4 14.6 100.6 10.0 89 90 335 1 0 113.4 14.6 104.5 15.2 92 90 336 4 0 115.8 15.7 104.2 19.6 90 90 333 9 0 107.1 17.1 98.5 22.1 92 90 341 4 0 115.8 15.7 104.8 18.9 91 90 326 4 0 115.8 15.7 106.5 17.8 92 90 326 28 0 109.0 16.0 98.9 16.8 91 90 312 28 0 109.0 16.0 99.0 19.7 91 90 302 4 0 115.8 15.7 104.5 17.9 90 90 306 28 0 109.0 16.0 98.5 18.6 90 90 340 28 0 109.0 16.0 100.0 15.9 92 90 352 28 0 109.0 16.0 95.1 20.0 87 90 351 28 0 109.0 16.0 103.8 16.2 95 90 351 28 0 109.0 16.0 96.0 19.2 88 90 353 28 0 109.0 16.0 101.5 17.8 93 90 338 9 0 107.1 17.1 101.3 20.5 95 90 337 9 0 107.1 17.1 102.2 19.0 95 90 336 9 0 107.1 17.1 99.6 22.1 93 90 337 9 0 107.1 17.1 100.1 21.2 93 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms Project No. 05845-12-01C (C) EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS - TEST SUFFIX A, B, C .....Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or récompaction. - - R: Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with properly compacted fill soil. - PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS AD - Area Drain B - Base Test CC - Curb & Gutter CW - Crib Wall DW - Driveway FC - Finish Grade IT - Irrigation Trench - CURVE NO JT - Joint Trench MT - Moisture Test RW - Retaining Wall SD - Storm Drain SC - Subgrade SL - Sewer Lateral SM. - Sewer Main ST - Slope Test SW - Sidewalk SZ - Slope Zone UT - Utility Trench WB - Wall Backfill WL - Water Lateral WM - Water Main LI Corresponds to curve numbers listed, in Table II, representing' the laboratory maximum dry density/optimum moisture content data for selected fill soil samples encountered during testing and observation. - ROCK CORRECTION For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values listed are then unadjusted values. - TYPE OF TEST SC: Sand Cone Test NU: Nuclear Density Test DC: Drive Cylinder Test ELEVATION/DEPTH Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot.