HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Golf Course South Commercial Pad As-Graded Rpt; As-Graded Rpt South Commercial Pad Golf Course; 2008-04-08AS-GRADED REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING,
SOUTH COMMERCIAL PAD,
CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
CITY OF CARLSBAD
c/o Dudek Engineering and Environmental
1645 South Rancho Santa Fe Road, Suite 202
San Marcos, California 92078
Project No. 841363-009
April 8, 2008
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COIViPANY
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
April 8, 2008
Project No. 841363-001
To: City of Carlsbad
c/o Dudek Engineering and Environmental
1645 South Rancho Santa Fe Road, Suite 202
San Marcos Califomia 92078
Attention: Mr. George Litzinger
Subject: As-Graded Report of Rough Grading, South Commercial Pad, Carlsbad Municipal
Golf Course, Carlsbad, Califomia
hi accordance with the request and authorization of representatives of the City of Carlsbad, we have
performed geologic observation services during the rough gradmg of the south coirunercial pad at
the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course project in located in Carlsbad, Califomia. The accompanying
report summarizes our geologic and geotechnical observations and the geotechnical conditions
encountered during the grading operations for the south commercial pad. hi addition, the
accompanymg report presents our geotechnical conclusions and preliminary recommendations
concerning the future commercial development on the south commercial pad.
The grading operations for the south commercial pad were performed in general accordance with
the project geotechnical reports (Appendix A), geotechnical recommendations made during
grading, and the City of Carlsbad requirements. As of the date of this report, the rough grading
operations for the south commercial pad are essentially complete. It should be noted that a site
specific geotechnical investigation should be performed for any proposed fiiture development on
the pad.
I 3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425
858.292.8030 • Fax 858.292.0771
841363-009
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this
opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William D. Olson, RCE 45283
Associate Engineer
Randall K. Wagner, CEG 1612
Principal Geologist
Distribution: (4) Addressee
I
I
I Leighton
841363-009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
2.0 SUMMARY OF GRADING OPERATIONS 3
2.1 SITE PREPARATION AND REMOVALS 3
2.2 FILL SLOPE KEY 3
2.3 FILL PUVCEMENT AND COMPACHON 4
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC SUMMARY 5
3.1 AS-GRADED GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 5
3.2 GEOLOGIC UNITS 5
3.2.1 Previously-Placed Artificial Fill (Unmapped) 5
3.2.2 Topsoil (Unmapped) 5
3.2.3 Colluvium (Unmapped) 6
3.2.4 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol-Tsa) 6
3.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 6
3.4 FAULTING 6
3.5 SBSMICnY 7
3.6 GROUNDWATER 8
3.7 EXPANSION AND SULFATE CONTENT TESTING OF REPRESENTATIVE FINISH GRADE SOILS 8
4.0 CONCLUSIONS.... 9
5.0 RECOMMENDATEONS 11
5.1 ADomoNAL GEOTECHNICAL INVESHGATION 11
5.2 EXCAVATIONS 11
5.3 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACHON 11
5.4 SLOPE MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES 12
5.5 CoNSTRucnoN OBSERVATION AND TESTING 12
6.0 LIMITATIONS 13
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP - PAGE 2
FIGURE 2- AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL MAP - REAR OF TEXT
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES
APPENDIX B - COMMERCIAL PAD COMPACHON TESTING REPORT BY TESTING ENGINEERS
APPENDIX C - GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIRCATIONS
I Leighton
841363-009
1.0 INTRODUCTION
hi accordance with the request and authorization of representatives of the City of Carlsbad, we have
performed geologic observation services during the rough grading of the south commercial pad at
the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course located m Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). This as-graded
report summarizes our geologic and geotechnical observations, geologic mapping, and the
geotechnical conditions encountered during the course of our services for the project.
Based on the contract for the development of the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Leighton
performed the duties of the geologic/geotechnical consultant of record while Testing Engineers
performed the all of the geotechnical services associated with the fill placement and compaction
operations. As of this date, the grading activities for the south commercial pad are essentially
complete. However, the site is only sheet-graded and will still need to be fme graded in order to
construct the future proposed commercial building pad(s), driveways/parking areas, and other
anticipate site improvements. In addition, it should be noted that a site specific geotechnical
investigation should also be performed for any proposed future development (i.e., the design and
constmction of buildings and other site improvements) of the site as indicated in Section 5.0.
The grading plans for the project, prepared by P&D Consultants, were utilized as the base map to
present the as-graded geologic/geotechnical conditions. The As-Graded Geotechnical Map
(Figure 2) is presented at the rear of the text.
1.1 Project Description
The Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course is bounded by Palomar Airport Road on the south.
Hidden Valley Road and the Grand Pacific Carlsbad Resort on the west, Faraday Avenue
on the north, and the Palomar Airport and Business Park on the east in Carlsbad,
Califomia. College Boulevard bisects the golf course in an approximately southwest to
northeast direction. The subject site (i.e. the south commercial pad) is located on the
eastem side of the golf course and north of College Boulevard as indicated on Figure 1.
Based on the project grading plans, the proposed grade of commercial pad ranges from
approximately 289 feet mean sea level (msl) at the northeast comer of the pad to 297 feet
msl along the southem side of the pad. The original topography ranged from
approximately 260 feet msl at the northeast comer of the pad to approximately 320 feet
msl in the westem portion of the pad.
I -1-
Leighton
4,000
Carlsbad Municipal
Golf Course
Carlsbad, California
SITE LOCATION
MAP
Project No.
841363-009
Date
April 2008
4
Figure 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
841363-009
2.0 SUMMARY OF GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS
The grading operations for the south commercial pad were performed by SEMA Constmction
between November 2005 and June 2006. The grading operations were geologically observed and
documented by Leighton while the fill placement and compaction operations were observed and
tested by Testmg Engineers (TE, 2007). Documentation related to Testmg Engmeers' observations
and testing is presented in Appendix B of this report. In summary, during the rough grading
operations, Testmg Engineers' field technicians were on site full-tune during the grading operations
while a Leighton field and/or project geologist were on site on a periodic basis.
Grading of the site included: 1) the removal of potentially compressible desiccated previously
placed artificial fill soils, topsoil, colluvium, and weathered formational material; 2) the excavation
of a fill slope key; 3) preparation of areas to receive fill; 4) excavation of formational material; and
5) the placement of compacted fill soils. Up to approximately 30 feet of cut was excavated and a
maxunum of approximately 35 feet of fill was placed within the gradmg limits of the site. The as-
graded geotechnical conditions are presented on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Figure 2).
2.1 Site Preparation and Removals
Prior to grading, the area was stripped of surface vegetation and debris and disposed of off
site. Removals of unsuitable and potentially compressible soils (mcluding desiccated
previously placed artificial fill soils [associated with the constmction of College
Boulevard], topsoil, colluvium, and weathered formational material) were made to
competent material. The removals of potentially compressible material were performed in
accordance with the recommendations of tiie project geotechnical report (Appendix A) and
geotechnical recommendations made durmg the course of grading. Specifically, removals of
the potentially compressible material included approximately 2 to 10 feet of desiccated fill
soils, topsoil, colluvium, and weathered formational material.
After tiie removals were made, the removal bottoms and/or areas flatter than 5:1 (horizontal
to vertical) were scarified a minimum of 12 inches. The steeper natural hillsides were
benched into competent material as fill was placed. Representative bottom elevations in the
removal areas are shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Figure 2).
2.2 Fill Slope Kev
Prior to the placement of the fill slope along the northeast and east sides the commercial
pad, a fill slope key was constmcted. The fill slope key was excavated at least 2 feet into
competent formational soil along the toe-of-slope and constmcted a minimum of 15 feet
wide with the key bottom angled at least 2 percent into-the-slope.
Leighton
I
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
841363-009
2.3 Fill Placement and Compaction
As discussed above. Testing Engineers observed and tested the compacted fill placed during
the rough grading operations. A summary of these observations and testing services are
presented in the Commercial Pad Compaction Testing Report presented in Appendix B.
As recommended in tiie project geotechnical documents (Appendix A), the fill soils witiiin
the south commercial pad were compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (in
accordance with ASTM Test Metiiod D1557). Areas of fill in which field density tests
indicated compactions less than the recommended relative compaction or where the soils
exhibited nonuniformity or had field moisture contents less than approximately 2 to 3
percent below the laboratory optimum moisture content, were reworked. The reworked
areas were recompacted, and re-tested until the recommended minimum 90 percent relative
compaction and near-optimum moisture content was achieved.
-4-
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
841363-009
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC SUMMARY
3.1 As-Graded Geologic Conditions
The geologic and/or geotechnical conditions encountered during the rough grading
operations were essentially as anticipated. A comprehensive summary of the geologic
conditions (including geologic units, geologic stinicture, and faulting) is presented below.
The as-graded geologic conditions are presented on tiie As-Graded Geotechnical Map
(Figure 2).
3.2 Geologic Units
The geologic units encountered during tiie rough grading of the soutii commercial pad
consisted of previously placed artificial fill soils, topsoil, colluvium, and tiie Santiago
Formation. Due to the potentially compressible nature of the desiccated fill soils, topsoil,
colluvium, and weathered formational material, these soils were removed to competent
material during the rough grading operations.
The approximate limits of tiie as-graded geologic units encountered during the grading
operations are presented on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map (Figure 2) and discussed
(youngest to oldest) below.
3.2.1 Previouslv-Placed Artificial Fill fUnmapped")
Previously-placed artificial fill associated witii tiie constiiiction of College
Boulevard was encountered in the south eastem portion of tiie site. The upper 1 to 2
feet of tiie fill was found to be desiccated and was removed prior to the placement of
additional fill.
3.2.2 Topsoil (Unmapped)
A relatively tiim veneer of topsoil was removed fi-om the majority of tiie site. The
topsoil, as encountered, consisted predominately of a brown, damp to moist, loose,
sandy clay and minor clayey to silty sand. The topsoil was generally massive,
porous, and contained scattered roots and organics. Topsoil removal thicknesses
were on tiie order 1 to 2 feet thick. During the grading operations, the topsoil was
observed to have been removed within the limits of grading.
-5-
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
841363-009
3.2.3 Colluvium ("Unmapped^
Colluvium was encountered during the rough grading in the northeast comer of
the pad. As encountered, the colluvium consisted of dark brown, moist, loose to
stiff, clayey sand, sandy clay, and silty sand. Where encountered, the colluvium
was removed to competent material. Up to approximately 7 to 10 feet of
colluvium was removed during the rough grading operations.
3.2.4 Santiago Formation (Map Svmbol-TsaV
The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation, as encountered during tiie rough grading
operations, consisted primarily of a massively bedded sandstone with minor
interbedded siltstones. The sandstone generally consisted of orange-brown (iron
oxide staining) to light brown, damp to moist, dense to very dense, silty very fme to
medium grained sandstone. The siltstone interbeds were generally olive-brown,
damp to moist, stiff to hard, and occasionally fractured and moderately sheared.
3.3 Geologic Structure
The general stmctiire of tiie formational material appears to be near horizontal. Based on
our geologic mapping during the rough grading operations relative to the south commercial
pad, bedding within tiie Santiago Formation generally exhibited somewhat variable bedding
witii stiikes ranging from northwest to northeast and dips typically 2 to 7 degrees (or less) to
the northwest and southwest.
Jointing on-site was observed to be very variable, but predominantiy trended subparallel to
tiie existing slopes. Jointing dips were found to be generally moderately to steeply dipping.
Jointing was mainly encountered in the upper portion of the bedrock becoming less
pronounced with depth.
3.4 Faulting
Inactive normal faults that offset the Santiago Formation were identified during the
project geotechnical investigations (Appendix A). No evidence of any faulting was
encountered during the rough grading of the south commercial pad; however, inactive
faulting was encountered during the grading of the golf course in areas outside the limits
of the commercial pads.
Leighton
841363-009
3.5 Seismicity
Our discussion of the seismicity of tiie site is prefaced with a discussion of Califomia
legislation and state policies concerning tiie classification and land-use criteria associated
with faults. By defmition of the Califomia Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a
fault tiiat has had surface displacement witiiin Holocene time (about tiie last 11,000 years).
The State Geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any fault considered to have
been active during Quatemary time (last 1,600,000 years) but that has not been proven to be
active or inactive. This definition is used in delineating Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones as
mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 and as most recentiy
revised in 2007. The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development does not
occur across the traces of active faults. Based on our review of the Fault-Rupture Hazard
Zones, the site is not located within any Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone as created by the
Alquist-Priolo Act (Bryant and Hart, 2007).
San Diego, like the rest of southem Califomia, is seismically active as a result of being
located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The
principal source of seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional fauh
zones such as the San Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore Faults Zones, as well as along less
active faults such as the Rose Canyon Fauh Zone.
The nearest known active fault is tiie Rose Canyon Fault Zone, which is located
approxunately 5.7 miles (9.2 kilometers) west of the site, and has a Site Classification of C
based on the 2007 Califomia Buildmg Code (CBC). Because of the lack of known active
faults on the site, the potential for surface mpture at tiie site is considered low. Shallow
ground mpture due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant
hazard, although it is a possibility at any site.
Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion
due to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, saturated,
granular soils are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement. Liquefaction is
typified by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing tiie soil to act
as a viscous liquid. This effect may be manifested by excessive settlements and sand boils
at the ground surface. The fill and formational materials underlying the site are not
considered liquefiable due to their fine-grained nature, dense physical characteristics, and
unsaturated condition.
-7-
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
841363-009
3.6 Ground Water
Ground water was not encountered during tiie rough grading or retaining wall constinction
operations and should not be a constiahit to future development. However, unanticipated
seepage conditions may occur and steps to mitigate tiie seepage should be made on a case-
by-case basis.
3-7 Expansion and Sulfate Content Testing of Representative Finish Grade Soils
Expansion potential and soluble sulfate content tests were not performed on representative
finish grade soils of the sheet-graded pad. However, we anticipate that the representative
fmish grade soils have a very low to possibly medium expansion potential and have a
negligible to moderate soluble sulfate content per the Uniform Building Code criteria.
Additional laboratory testing is recommended to determine the actual expansion potential
and soluble sulfate content of the site.
-8-
Leighton
I
I
I
841363-009
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
The rough gradmg for tiie soutii commercial pad were performed m general accordance with the
project geotechnical reports (Appendix A), geotechnical recommendations made during grading,
and tiie City of Carlsbad requirements. The following is a summary of our conclusions concerning
the grading operations.
• Geotechnical conditions encountered during grading were generally as anticipated.
• Site preparation and removals were geotechnically observed.
• The geologic units encountered during tiie rough grading of tiie site consisted of
artificial fill, topsoil, colluvium, and the Santiago Formation.
• Desiccated previously placed artificial fill soils and unsuitable topsoil, colluvium, and
weathered formational material were removed to competent material within tiie limits of
grading.
• The fill slope on the northeast and east sides of the south commercial pad was
constioicted with a fill slope key. The key was constmcted a minimum of 15 feet wide,
excavated at least 2 feet into competent material along the toe-of-slope and tiie bottom
inclined 2 percent into the slope.
• Fill soils were derived from on-site soils. The fills soils were compacted to a mmimum
90 percent relative compaction (in accordance with ASTM Test Metiiod D1557).
• Field density testing indicated tiiat the fill soils were placed and compacted to at least a
90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557) and near-
optimum moisture contents in accordance witii the recommendations of Leighton and
Associates and tiie requirements of the City of Carlsbad. The results of the field density
tests performed by Testing Engineers is included m Appendix B.
• The cut/fill tiansition condition present on the commercial pad was not mitigated during
the grading operations. Cut/fill transition conditions present witiiin the limits of any
proposed buildings should be mitigated by the overexcavation of tiie cut portion of tiie
building pad or by special foundation design. Additional subsurface evaluation will be
necessary to identify the location of tiie cut/fill transition.
• No evidence of fauhing was encountered during the rough grading operations for tiie
south commercial pad. However, minor inactive faults were encountered during tiie
Carlsbad Golf Course gradmg outside the limits of the commercial pads.
-9-
Leighton
I
I
841363-009
Ground water was not encountered during the rough grading operations.
Due to the dense nature of the onsite soils, it is our professional opinion that the
liquefaction hazard at the site is considered low.
The expansion potential of representative finish grade soils of tiie sheet-graded pad was
not tested during site grading. However, very low to possibly medium expansive soils
should be anticipated. Further geotechnical investigation should be performed for the
future site development, and the representative fmish grade soils should be tested to
determine the actual expansion potential of the soils.
The potential for soluble sulfate attack of the finish grade soils was not tested during site
grading. However, negligible to moderate soluble sulfate contents are anticipated. As
discussed above, further geotechnical investigation should be performed for the fijture
site development, and the representative finish grade soils should be tested to determine
the actual potential for soluble sulfate attack of the soils.
It is our opinion that the slopes of the south commercial pad possess a static factor of
safety of at least 1.5 to resist deep-seated failure (under normal irrigation/precipitation
pattems), provided the recommendations in the project geotechnical reports are
incorporated into the post-grading, constmction, and post-constmction phases of site
development.
-10-
Leighton
841363-009
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Additional Geotechnical Investigation
We anticipate tiiat future development of the site will consist of site preparation, remedial
grading for tiie mitigation of cut/fill transitions, fine gradmg, utility trench excavation and
backfill, retaining wall backfill, and driveway and parking area pavement section
preparation and compaction. Based on tiie current as-graded condition of tiie site, we
recommend that a site specific geotechnical mvestigation be performed for any proposed
future development.
5.2 Excavations
Excavations of the on-site materials may generally be accomplished with conventional
heavy-duty earthwork equipment. It is not anticipated that blasting will be required or tiiat
significant quantities of oversized rock (i.e. rock with maximum dimensions greater than 8
inches) wall be generated during future grading. However, localized cemented zones within
the cut areas may be encountered on the site that may require heavy ripping and/or removal.
If oversized rock is encountered, it should be placed in accordance with the
recommendations presented in Appendix C, hauled offsite, or placed m non-stiiicttiral or
landscape areas.
5.3 Fill Placement and Compaction
The on-site soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free or
organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension.
We do not recommend that high or very high expansive soils be utilized as fill for the
building pads or as retaining wall backfill.
All fill soils should be brought to 2-percent over the optimum moisttire content and
compacted m uniform lifts to at least a 90 percent relative compaction based on tiie
laboratory maximum dry density (ASTM Test Metiiod D1557). The optimum lift tiiickness
required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of
compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches
in compacted thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general
accordance witii Appendix C, tiie current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound
constiiiction practices, and the geotechnical recommendations presented herein.
-11-
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
841363-009
5.4 Slope Maintenance Guidelines
It is the responsibility of the owner to maintain the slopes, including adequate planting,
proper irrigation and maintenance, and repair of faulty irrigation systems. To reduce the
potential for erosion and slumping of graded slopes, all slopes should be planted with
ground cover, shmbs, and plants that develop dense, deep root stmctures and require
minimal irrigation. Slope planting should be carried out as soon as practical upon
completion of grading. Surface-water runoff and standing water at the top-of-slopes
should be avoided.
Oversteepening of slopes should be avoided during constmction activities and
landscaping. Maintenance of proper lot drainage, undertaking of property improvements
in accordance with sound engineering practices, and proper maintenance of vegetation,
including regular slope irrigation, should be performed. Slope irrigation sprinklers should
be adjusted to provide maximum uniform coverage with minimal of water usage and
overlap. Overwatering and consequent runoff and ground saturation should be avoided. If
automatic sprinklers systems are installed, their use must be adjusted to account for
rainfall conditions.
Trenches excavated on a slope face for any purpose should be properiy backfilled and
compacted in order to obtain a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction, in accordance
with ASTM Test Method D1557. Observation/testing and acceptance by the geotechnical
consultant during trench backfill is recommended. A rodent-control program should be
established and maintained. Prior to planting, recently graded slopes should be
temporarily protected against erosion resulting from rainfall, by the implementing slope
protection measures such as polymer covering, jute mesh, etc.
5.5 Construction Observation and Testing
Constiiiction observation and testing should be performed by the geotechnical consultant
during futiare gradmg operations or excavations and foundation or retaining wall
constmction. Additionally, footing excavations should be observed and moisture
determination tests of subgrade soils should be performed by the geotechnical consultant
prior to the pouring of concrete. Fine grade and foundation plans should also be reviewed by
the geotechnical consultant prior to site development.
-12-
Leighton
841363-009
6.0 LIMITATIONS
The presence of our field representative at tiie site was intended to provide the owner with
professional advice, opmions, and recommendations based on observations of the contractor's
work. Altiiough the observations did not reveal obvious deficiencies or deviations from project
specifications, we do not guarantee the contiactor's work, nor do our services relieve tiie conti-actor
or his subcontractor's work, nor do our services relieve the confractor or his subcontractors of their
responsibility if defects are subsequentiy discovered in their work. Our responsibilities did not
include any supervision or dnection of the actual work procedures of the confractor, his personnel,
or subcontiactors. The conclusions in tiiis report are based on test resuhs and observations of the
grading and earthwork procedures used and represent our engineering opinion as to the compliance
of the results with the project specifications.
-13-
Leighton
I 841363-009
APPENDIX A
References
Bryant, W.A., and Hart E.W., 2007, Special Publication 42, Fault Rupttire Hazard Zones in
California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with fridex to Earthquake Fauh
Zone Maps, Interim Revision 2007.
Califomia Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2007 Califomia Building Code, Based on
2006 Intemational Building Code.
Califomia Geological Survey (CGS) formally Califomia Division of Mines and Geology
(CDMG), 1996a, Geologic Maps of the Northwestem Part of San Diego County,
Califomia, CDMG Open-File Report 96-02, Plate 1, Geologic Map of the Oceanside, San
Luis Rey, and San Marcos 7.5' Quadrangles, San Diego County, Califomia, Scale
1:24,000.
, 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in CaUfomia and Adjacent
Portions of Nevada, to be used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code, Intemational
Conference of Building Officials, dated Febmary 1998.
Leighton and Associates, hic, 1998, Geotechnical hivestigation for the Proposed Carlsbad
Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, Catifomia, Project No. 841363-006, dated Febmary 16
1998.
, Undated, Unpublished In-House Geotechnical Data.
P&D Consultants, 2005, Gradmg Plans for Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Phase 2, Carlsbad,
California, Drawing No. 381-4A, 99 Sheets, dated April 15, 2005.
Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, Geologic Maps of tiie Northwestem Part of San Diego
County, Califomia: California Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 96-
02,2 Plates.
Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G., 1995, Landslide Hazards in tiie Northem Part of tiie San Diego
Mefropolitan Area, San Diego County, Califomia, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No.
35, Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report No. 95-04.
Testing Engmeers San Diego, hic. (TE), 2007, Supplemental Compaction Testing Report, Carlsbad
Municipal Golf Course, Carisbad, Califomia, Contract No. 108078, dated March 19
2007.
A-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.VERITAS
City of Carlsbad March 19, 2007
5950 El Camino Real Contract No.: 108078
Carlsbad, CA 92009
Attention: Mr. Skip Hammann
Subject: ' Supplemental Compaction Testing Report.
Project: Commercial Sites
Carlsbad - Municipal Golf Course
Palomar Airport Road/ Palomar Oaks Way
Carlsbad, CA
Reference: 1. "Contract Documents and Supplemental Provisions", for Carlsbad
Municipal Golf Course Project. Project No. 39721-1 dated June 13, 2005.
2. "Compaction Testing Report, Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course,"
prepared by Testing Engineers - San Diego, dated July 18, 2006..
Dear Mr. Hammann:
In accordance with your request, Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc. (TESD) has conducted grading
observations and compaction testing at the above referenced project site. Services described herein
were provided by TESD from November 28, 2005 to January 6, 2006. It should be noted that this
report refers to testing performed on two commercial pad areas located on the west end of the
site, north and south of College Boulevard. The purpose of this report is to supplement the
Compaction Testing Report (see Reference Number 2) that included rough grading for these
commercial pads as well as other areas of the golf course.
A representative of this office observed rough grading and placement of on-site and import fill soils
within the commercial pads. All fill areas were tested in accordance witii the project specifications
unless otherwise directed by die Geotechnical Engineer of Record (i.e. Leighton and Associates).
The approximate site location and features are presented on Figures 1 and 2, respectively
Locations of field density testing are presented on Figure 3. Summaries of laboratory and field
compaction test results are provided in Appendix A, Tables I and 2, respectively. On site and
import material was used as fiU for the new development. Fill was placed, compacted and tested
for compliance with minimum 90%, and 95% relative compaction based on ASTM D-1557 as
applicable.
It should be noted that the precision of the field and laboratory maximum dry density test results
are subject to variation inherent with testing procedures and heterogeneous material
characteristics. Quantitative values of testing precision have been documented by the American
Society of Testing and Materials. For example, results indicate the accuracy of the ASTM D-
Testing Engineers San Diego, Inc.
A Bureau Veritas Company Main: (858) 715-5800
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 (858 715-5810
S»n Diego. CA 92111 www.us.bmeauveritas.com
City of Carlsbad
Municipal Golf Course Contract No.: 108078
1557 test to be plus or minus 2 percent of the mean density. Based on this information, relative
compaction results should be interpreted as approximate values subject to variations in lateral and
vertical directions.
I
I
I
I
Survey lines and elevations relative to grade modifications, fmal design grades, locations of
various elements, etc., were estabhshed by others.
Field Monitoring services provided by this office, consisting of visual observation of compaction
operations and random m-place density testing, are intended as assistance to the owner/client and
Geotechnical Engineer of Record (i.e. Leighton and Associates) in monitoring apparent
reasonable compliance with the project earthwork specifications. The presence of our field
representative during the work progress did not involve any direct supervision of the
contractor/subcontractor, nor any recommendations in a geotechnical capacity. Technical advice
and suggestions were provided upon request based upon the results of the tests and observations
til any case, no warranty or responsibility for the contractor's performance is intended or implied.
If you should have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact die
undersigned at (858) 715-5800.
Sincerely,
Testing Engineers - San Diego, Inc.
A Bureau Veritas Company
Nick Tracy, EIT 1^
Staff Engineer
Van W. Olin, G.E.
Principal Geotechnical Eng
NTfVO:mtn
Attachments: Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Site Location Map
Overall Exhibit Drawing
Plot Plan
Distribution;
Appendix A: Table 1 and Table 2
*(4) Addressee
* Includes copies for building department submitted
S:\engineer\Geotechnical Files\Projects\Current Projects\108078_Carlsbad_Municipal_Golfcourse\l08078 As graded compacuon report-final.doc ^
I
4/
Pi
-1
.^1
-. »,
21
L ^
1in = 1900 ft.
NOTE: This figure may contain areas of color. TE-U.S. Labs cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information resuK-
ing from black and white reproductions of this figure.
Title:
Project:
Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, OA 92111
Site Location Map
Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
Drwn:
NJT
Date: March, 2007
Contract No:
108078
Figure No:
Appendix A
City of Carlsbad ContractNc: 108078 Municipal Golf Course
TABLE 1
RESULTS OF MAXIMUM DENSITY TESTS
(ASTM-D-1557)
Maximum Dry . Optimum Moisture
Sample* Descnption Density (PCF) Content (%)
9.5
11.0
1- On-site: Grayish Silty Sand 127.5
2. Import: Mixed Gray Silty Sand 123.5
3. On-site: Red Brown Clayey Sand 124.0 12.0
4. On-site: Yellowish Brown Silty Sand 114.5 14 5
5. On-site: Greenish Brown Silty Sand 124.5 110
6. On-site: Mixed Brown Silty Sand 123.0 10.5
7. On-site: Dark Green & Brown 126.0 10 0
Clayey Sand
8- On-site: Brown Silty Sand 128.5 9 5
9. On-site: Tan Clayey Sand II9.0
10. On-site: Brown Clayey Sand 121.5
IL On-site: Brown Sandy Clay . 124.5
12. On-site: Yellow Silty Sand II7.0
13.5
10.5
10.5
13.0
Print Date:
Project Nurrber:
Project Name:
Location:
Table 2
March 12, 2007 "^'''"'^ COMPACTION TEST DATA
108078
Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
Pa/omar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks Way
Carlsbad, California
Test # Test
Date Test Location
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
292A
293
9/28/2005 Plate 2 Keyway
9/28/2005 Plate 2 Keyway
9/28/2005 Plate 2
9/28/2005 Plate 2
9/28/2005 Plate 2
10/7/2005 Plate 2
10/7/2005 Plate 2
10/7/2005 Plate 2
10/19/2005 Plate 2 Bottom Right on Plate
10/19/2005 Bottom Right of Plate 2
11/3/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad
11/3/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad
11/3/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad
11/10/2005 Plate 2 Hole 16
11/10/2005 Plate 2 Hole 16
11/10/2005 Plate 2 Hole 16
11/10/2005 Plate 2 Hole 16
11/10/2005 Plate 2 Hole 16
11/10/2005 Plate 2 Hole 16
11/10/2005 Plate 2 Hole 16
11/23/2005 Plate 2 Central Fill Slope South
Side
Plate 2 Central Fill Slope North
Side
Retest of #282
Plate 2 NE Comer Area of Fill
Scope West of College
Retest of #284
Plate 2 Lower Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Lower Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Commercial Pad
Retest of 286, 287, & 288
Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
Retest #292
Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
38
39
40
41
42
73
74
75
108
109
166
167
168
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
281
282 11/23/2005
11/23/2005
11/23/2005
11/23/2005
11/23/2005
11/23/2005
11/23/2005
11/23/2005
11/23/2005
11/28/2005
11/28/2005
11/28/2005
11/28/2005
Conform
Non-Conform
154.0 16.3% 14.5%
154.0
247.0
247.0
153.0
152.0
247.0
152.0
152.0
155.0
157.0
137.0
158.0
13.6%
17.0%
16.3%
13.2%
13.8%
13.9%
13.3%
12.3%
14.5%
13.2%
12.4%
13.6%
14.5%
14.5%
13.5%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
100.9
106.7
100.5
105.0
118.3
115.7
115.2
120.9-
120.3
121.3
119.2
121.9
117.6
114.5
114.5
114.5
119.0
127.0
127.0
127.0
127.0
127.0
127.0
127.0
127.0
127.0
88%
93%
88%
88%
93%
91%
91%
95%
95%
96%
94%
96%
93%
95%
' 95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform .
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Non-conform 1
Conform
Conform
Non-conform 1
Non-conform 1
Conform
Non comform 1
Non-conform
Non-conform
Non-conform
Non comform
Non-conform
Non-conform
Non-conform
Non-conform
Conform
Non comform
Conform
Non-conform
Conform
Non-conform
Print Date:
Project Number:
Project Name:
Location;
Table 2
°' COMPACTION TEST DATA
108078
Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks Way
Carlsbad, Califomia
Test# Test
Date
293A 11/28/2005
294 11/28/2005
295 11/28/2005
299 11/29/2005
300 11/30/2005
301 11/28/2005
302 11/28/2005
Test Location
Retest #293
Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
Retest of #285
Plate 2 NE Comer Area of Mail Fill
Slope. West Adj. to College Ave.
Moisture
(ft) I Field I Optimum
158.0 12.8% 11.0%
160.0 11.0% 11.0%
160.0 11.5% 11.0%
152.0 10.7% 9.5%
154.0 11.5% 9.5%
247.0 10.1% 14.5%
253.0 12.9% 13.5%
Dry Density (pcf) | Relative Compaction"
122.3
121.7
123,1
121,9
121.8
109,3
110.5
307 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
308 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
309 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
309A 11/29/2005 Retest of #309
310 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
311 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
311A 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
312 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
313 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
314 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
315 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
316 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
316A 11/29/2005 Retest of #316
317 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
318 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
319 11/29/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
330 11/30/2005 Plate 2 East Area Main Slope Fill
Area
347 12/1/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad East 259.0
Area
348 12/1/2005 Plate 2 Commercial Pad East
Area
348A 12/1/2005 Retest of #348
127.0
127.0
127.0
127.5
127.5
114.5
119.0
156.0 10.3% 9.5% 124.7 127.5
158.0 9.5% 9.5% 123.2 127.5
160.0 10.3% 9.5% 119.8 127.5
160.0 9.9% 9.5% 124.0 127.5
162.0 9.1% 9.5% 124.4 127.5
164.0 8.9% 9.5% 115.6 127.5
164.0 10.7% 9.5% 122.1 127.5
165.0 11.1% 10.0% 121.2 126.0 167.0 11.5% 10.0% 122.1 126.0
168.0 9.9% 10.0% 120.1 126.0 170.0 12.4% 11.0% 122.3 127.0
171.0 12.9% 11.0% 119.2 127.0
171.0 12.4% 11.0% 121.8 127.0
173.0 11.5% 11.0% 123.2 127.0
174.0 11.1% 11.0% 123.2 127.0
176.0 10.7% 11.0% 122.7 127.0
253.0 14.9% 13.5% 108.0 119.0
255.0 15.4%' 13.5% 104.5 119.0
255.0 13.2% 13.5% 110.5 119.0
258.0 11.7% 11.0% 113.4 124.5
259.0 13.8% 11.0% 114.2 124.5
260.0 13.0% 11.0% 111.3 127.0
260.0 11.8% 11.0% 114.5 127.0
96%
96%
97%
96%
96%
95%
93%
98%
97%
94%
97%
98%
91%
96%
96%
97%
95%
96%
. 94%
96%
97%
97%
97%
91%
88%
93%
91%
92%
88%
90%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
90%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
90%
Conform
Non-Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Non-conform
Conform
Conform
Non-conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Non-conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
90% Non-conform
90% Conform
90% Conform
90% Conform
90% Non comform
90% Conform
Print Date:
Project Number
Project Name:
Location:
Table 2
REPORT OF COMPACTION TEST DATA
March 12,2007
108078
Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks Way
Carlsbad, Califomia
Testffl
349
350
351
352
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
365A
366A
367
Test
Date
12/1/2005
12/1/2005
12/1/2005
12/1/2005
12/2/2005
12/2/2005
12/2/2005
12/2/2005
12/2/2005
12/2/2005
12/2/2005
12/5/2005
12/5/2005
12/5/2005
12/5/2005
12/5/2005
Test Location
Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
Plate 2 Commercial Pad West
Plate 2 Commercial Pad East
Area
Plate 2 Commercial Pad East
Area
Plate 2 Commercial Pad East
Area
Plate 2 Commercial Pad East
Area
Plate 2 Commercial Pad East
Area
Plate 2 Commercial Pad East
Area
Plate 2 Commercial Pad East
Area
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Retest of #365
Retest of #366
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Elev. Moisture I Dry Density (pcf)"
(ft) I Field I Optimum | Field | Maxlij^Ii?;^
177.0 9.9%
180.0 10.3%
182.0 11.1%
184.0 12.4%
250.0 12.5%
252.0 13.0%
254.0 11.6%
256.0 11.3%
258.0 12.2%
260.0 13.0%
262.0 10.9%
196.0 17.3%
197.0 17.1%
196.0 17.0%
197.0 17^2%
198.0 14.8%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
11.0%
14.5%
14.5%
14.5%
14.5%
14.5%
119.5
121.6
122.5
122.6
115.5
116.1
115.3
121.4
119.3
114.6
115.3
103.5
104.5
109.9
111.1
104.8
Relative Compaction
124.5
127.0
127.0
127.0
124.5
124.5
124.5
127.0
127.0
124.5
124.5
114.5
114.5
114.5
114.5
114.5
Obtained Required
Conform
Non-Conform
96%
96%
96%
97%
93%
93%
93%
96%
94%
92%
93%
90%
91%
96%
97%
92%
95%
95%
95%
95%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
. 95%
95%
95%
95%
95% .
368 12/5/2005
367A
368A
369
370
373
374
373A
12/6/2005
12/6/2005
12/5/2005
12/5/2005
12/6/2005
12/6/2005
12/6/2005
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Non-conform
Non-conform
Conform
Conform .
Non-conform
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad 198.0 17.6% 14.5% 103.1 114.5 90% 95% Non-conform
Retest of #367
Retest of #368
Plate 2 East Area Commercial
Pad
198.0
198.0
263.0
14.9%
15.8%
13.9%
14.5%
14.5%
10.0%
109.9
108.8
114.0
114.5
114.5
124.5
96%
95%
92%
95%
95%
90%
Conform
Conform
Conform
Plate 2 East Area Commercial
Pad 258.0 16.0% 14.5% 104.8 114.5 92% 90% Conform
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad 198.0 16.4% 13.5% 105.8 119.0 89% 95% Non comform
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Retest of #373
198.0
198.0
14.7%
15.1%
13.5%
13.5%
107.8
115.4
119.0
119.0
91%
97%
95%
95%
Non-conform
Conform
Print Date:
Project Number:
Project Name:
Location:
Table 2
REPORT OF COMPACTION TEST DATA
March 12,2007
108078
Carisbad Municipal Golf Course
Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks Way
Carlsbad, California
374A
375
376
377
380
380A
381
382
383
384
385
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
404
404A
405
405A
406
406A
407
12/6/2005
12/6/2005
12/6/2005
12/7/2005
12/7/2005
12/7/2005
12/7/2005
12/7/2005
12/7/2005
12/7/2005
12/7/2005
12/7/2005
12/8/2005
12/8/2005
12/8/2005
12/8/2005
12/8/2005
12/8/2005
12/9/2005
12/9/2005
12/9/2005
12/9/2005
12/9/2005
12/9/2005
12/9/2005
12/9/2005
408
409
12/9/2005
12/9/2005
Test Location
Retest of #374
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Retest of #380
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
South Side
Retest of #404
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
South Side
Retest of #405
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
North Side
Retest of #406
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
North Side
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
South Side
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad ;
North Side
198.0
202.0
202.0
204.0
200.0
200.0
200.0
204.0
204,0
206.0
206.0
207.0
208.0
211.0
211.0
211.0
211.0
213.0
213.0
212.0
216.0
Maximum | Obtained | Required
14.0% 13.5% 114.2 119.0 96% 95% 14.5% 13.5% 115.4 119.0 97% 95%
15.1% 13.5% 115.4 119.0 97% 95%
15.3% 13.5%. 107.1 119.0 90% 95%
13.0% 13.5% 110.7 119.0 93% 95%
12.8% 13.5% 113.1 119.0 95% 95% 10.7% 13.5% 117.1 119.0 98% 95%
9.7% 13.5% 114.2 119.0 96% 95%
10.2% 13.5% 115.4 119.0 97% 95%
7.2% 13.5% 114.7 119.0 96% 95%
7.9% 13.5% 113.1 119.0 95% 95% 11.5% 13.5% 113.1 119.0 95% 95%
8.9% 13.5% 116.2 119.0 98% 95%
11.2% 13.5% 113.1 119.0 95% 95%
13.9% 14.5% 108.8 114.5 95% 95%
14.1% 13.5% 114.2 119.0 96% 95%
12.9% 14.5% 108.8 114.5 95% 95% 18.7% 13.5% 105.9 119.0 89% 95%
19.1% 13.5% 98.7 119.0 83% 95%
18.0% 13.5% 96.0 119.0 81% 95%
14.6% 13.5% 103.0 119.0 87% 95%
13.6% 13.5% 113.5 119.0 95% 95% 16.8% 14.5% 101.5 114.5 89% 95%
15.4% 14.5% 109.9 114.5 96% 95% 12.9% 14.5% 102.7 114.5 90% 95%
15.7% 14.5% 108.8 114.5 95% 95% 12.3% 13.5% 114.2 119.0 96% 95%
11.3% 13.5% 106.3 119.0 89% 95%
11.7% 13.5% 108.3 119.0 91% 95%
Conform
Non-Conform I
Conform
Conform
Conform
Non-conform
Non-conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Non conform
Non-conform
Non-conform 2
Non-conform 2
Conform 2
Non-conform
Conform
Non-conform
Conform
Conform
Non-conform
Non-conform
1
Print Date:
Project Number:
Project Name:
Location:
Table 2
REPORT OF COMPACTION TEST DATA
March 12,2007
108078
Carisbad Municipal Golf Course
Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks Way
Carlsbad, California
Test*
410
Test
Date
12/10/2005
Test Location
411 12/10/2005
408A
409A
41 OA
411A
. 412
412A
413
413A
412B
412C
414
413B
415
414A
416
417
418
431
12/10/2005
12/10/2005
12/10/2005
12/10/2005
12/10/2005
12/10/2005
12/10/2005
12/10/2005
12/10/2005
12/12/2005
12/10/2005
12/12/2005
12/13/2005
12/12/2005
12/13/2005
12/13/2005
12/13/2005
12/13/2005
432 12/13/2005
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
12/14/2005
12/14/2005
12/14/2005
12/14/2005
12/14/2005
12/14/2005
12/15/2005
12/15/2005
12/15/2005
12/15/2005
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
North Side
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
South Side
Retest of #408
Retest of #409
Retest of #410
Retest of #411
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
Center & West Edge
Retest of #412
Plate 2 Hole 16 Commercial Pad
South Side
Retest of #413
Retest of #412A
Retest of #412B
Plate 2 Commercial Pad Center
Retest of #413A
Plate 2 Commercial Pad
Retest of #414
Plate 2 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Commercial Pad
Commercial Pad 90% Area Plate
2
Commercial Pad 90% Area Plate
4
Plate 2 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Commercial Pad
Plate 2 Commercial Pad
Commercial Pad Plate 2
Commercial Pad Plate 2
Commercial Pad Plate 2
Retest of #439
Elev.
(ft)
Moisture
Field I Optimum
219.0 14.6%
219.0 11.0%
219.0 13.9%
219.0 • 14.1%
219.0 12.9%
219.0 11.3%
221.0 12.6%
Dry Density (pcf)
13.5%
13.5%
13.5%
13.5%
13.5%
13.5%
13.5%
Field Maximum
103.9
105.9
113.1
113.1
114.2,
113.1-
105.1
Relative Compaction
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
119.0
Obtained Required
Conform
Non-Conform
87%
89%
95%
95%
96%
95%
88%
221.0 17.3% 13.5% 101.9 119.0 86%
221.0 18.1% 13.5% 102.4 119.0 86%
221.0 15.6% 13.5% 104.1 119.0 87%
221.0 12.1% 13.5% 105.8 119.0 89%
221.0 11.1% 13.5% 108.3 119.0 91%
221.0 15.1% 13.5% 102.9 119.0 86%
221.0 14.1% 13.5% 107.1 119.0 90%
226.0 14.0% 13.5% 109.5 119.0 92%
221.0 14.8% 13.5% 108.3 . 119.0 91%-
226.0 14.3% 13.5% 110.7 119.0 93%
226.0 14.0% 1,3:5% 109.5 119.0 92%
226:0. 14.4% 13.5% 109.5 119.0 92% 237.0 14.2% 13.5% 109.8 119.0 * 92%
240.0 13.8% 13.5% 109.1 119.0 92%
235.0 14.6% 13.5% 108.6 119.0 91%
240.0 15.1% 13.5% 110.8 119.0 93%
244.0 13.4% 13.5% 109.8 119.0 92%
257.0 15.1% 13.5% 110.8 119.0 93% 253.0 14.7% 13.5% 107.5 119.0 90%
258.0 15.2% 13.5% 109.6 119.0 92%
260.0 13.4% 11.0% 106.3 123.5 86%
258.0 12.7% 11.0% 109.1 123.5 88%
261.0 12.0% 11.0% 107.2 123.5 87%
260.0 12.7% 11.0% 111.9 123.5 91%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
95%
90%
90% '
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
90%
Non-conform
Non-conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Non-conform
Non-conform
Non-conform
Non-conform
Non-conform
Conform
Non-conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
• Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Non-conform
Non-conform
Non-conform
Conform
Print Date:
Project Number:
Project Name:
Location:
Table 2
COMPACTION TEST DATA
108078
Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course
Palomar Airport Road and Palomar Oaks Way
Carlsbad, California
Test #1 Test
Date
443 12/15/2005
444 12/15/2005
445 12/15/2005
446 12/15/2005
447 12/15/2005
525 1/5/2006
526 1/5/2006
527 1/5/2006
528 1/5/2006
529 1/5/2006
530 1/5/2006
531 1/5/2006
532 1/6/2006
533 1/6/2006
534 1/6/2006
535 1/6/2006
Test Location
Retest of #440
Retest of #441
Commercial Pad Plate 2
Commercial Pad Plate 2
Commercial Pad Plate 2
Plate 2 Fainway 5 Repair Slope
Retest of #525
Plate 2 Fainway 5 Repair Slope
Plate 2 Fairway 5 Repair Slope
Retest of #528
Plate 2 Fainvay 5 Repair Slope
Plate 2 Fairway 5 Repair Slope
Plate 2 Fairway 5 Repair Slope
Plate 2 Fairway 5 Repair Slope
Plate 2 Fainvay 5 Repair Slope
Plate 2 Fairway 5 Repair Slope
I Elev. I Moisture
(ft) I Field I Optimum
258.0 12.4% 11.0%
261.0 11.8% 11.0%
262.0 12.6% 13.5%
264.0 14.2% 13.5%
263.0 14.6% 13.5%
276.0 12.2% 13.0%
276.0 12.0% 13.0%
277.0 13.2% 13.0%
279.0 13.4% 13.0%
279.0 12.6% 13.0%
280.0 12.8% 13.0%
282.0 13.3% 13.0%
284.0 12.6% 13.0%
284.0 12.1% 13.0%
285.0 13.0% 13.0%
285.0 12.6% 13.0%
Dry Density (pcf)
Field
113.7
111.6
109.0
109.8
109.8
111.0
113.6
114.6
109.5
113.5
115.7
114.6
114.7
113.2
114.6
114.5
Maximum | Obtained | Required
123.5 92% 90%
123.5 90% 90%
119.0 • 92% 90o/„
119.0 92% 90%
119.0 92% 90%
119-0 93% 95%
119.0 95% 95%
119.0 96% 95%
119.0 92% 95%
119.0 95% 95%
119.0 97% 95o/„
119.0 96% 95%
119.0 96% 95o/„
119.0 95% 95%
119.0 96% 95o/„
119.0 96% 95o/„
1 Areas reworked and non-confomiing density tests are waived.
2 Density tests approved by Randy Wagner of Leighton and Associates
3 Relative compaction requirement reduced from 95% to 90% by Leighton and Associates
Conform
Non-Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Non-conform
Conform
Conform
Non comform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
Conform
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and /\ssociates. Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPEaPICATIONS
Page 1 of 6
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
1.0 General
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical
report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the
geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the
earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result
in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1^2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The
Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions,
and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work
plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel
to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe,
map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design
assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the
interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform
the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed
conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be
geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground
after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial
removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and processing of the
subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the
attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to
the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
3030.1094
I
I
I
Leighton and /\ssociates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 2 of 6
1-3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified,
experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of
ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill,, and compacting fill.
The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these
Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a
work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of
work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to
commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical
Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in
advance of such changes so that appropriate observations, and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware
of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and
agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition,
inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in
a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant
shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until
the conditions are rectified.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2-1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious
material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to
the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on
specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic
materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter.
Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the
affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper
evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to vyork in that area.
As presently defined by the State of Califomia, most refined petroleum products (gasoline,
diesel fliel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered
to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids
onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment,
and shall not be allowed.
3030.1094
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPEaPICATIONS
Page 3 of 6
2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing
ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section.
Scarificafion shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or
clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that
would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to
competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
2.4 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal
to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details
for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and
at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as
otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping
flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade
for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and
processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded,
and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive
fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for
determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
3.0 Fill Material
3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted , by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high
expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location,
materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and
such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified filk
Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet
of fliture ufilifies or underground construction.
3030.1094
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIPICATIONS
Page 4 of 6
3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall
meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the
Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that
its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.
4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The
Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading
procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly
and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed,
as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum.
Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in
accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method
Dl 557-07).
4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly
spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method Dl557-07). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compacfion procedures specified above,
compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of
grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of
maximum density per ASTM Test Method D1557-07.
4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill
soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Locafion and frequency of tests
shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction
test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be
selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to
inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addidon, as a
guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope
face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill
construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical
Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construcfion if these
minimum standards are not met.
3030.1094
Leighton and /Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIPICATIONS
Page 5 of 6
4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate
with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the
Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a
minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than
5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the
grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional
subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions
encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for
line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient fime should be allowed by the
Contractor for these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans
are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical
Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut
slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the
slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
3030.1094
Leighton and /Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPEaPICATIONS
Page 6 of 6
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
7.2 . All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construcfion. Bedding material
shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1
foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and
densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit
to the surface.
7.3
I
I
I
The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relafive compaction. At least
one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the
Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative
compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
3030.1094
FILL SLOPE
PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM
TOE OF SLOPE TO
APPROVED GROUND
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
BENCH HEIGHT
(4' TYPICAL)
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL .
2 MIN
KEY
DEPTH
LOWEST
BENCH
(KEY)
FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
OMPACTED:-:-:-:-> :flLL--:g^:^^
•-BENCH HEIGHT
(4' TYPICAL)
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE
-CUT FACE
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR
TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ASSURE
ADEQUATE GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
EXISTING-
GROUND
SURFACE
OVERBUILD AND
TRIM BACK
PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO APPROVED GROUND
2' MIN."
KEY
DEPTH
CUT FACE SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED PRIOR
TO FILL PLACEMENT
-REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
BENCH HEIGHT
(4' TYPICAL)
FOR SUBDRAINS SEE
STANDARD DETAIL C
15" MIN.
LOWEST
BENCH
(KEY)
BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S
ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5-1
MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET
AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET
KEYING AND BENCHING GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS A
SLOPE FACE
FINISH GRADE
" ''?f^K-
. ?P!f^-]^^^"LL:
OVERSIZE WINDROW
• OVERSIZE ROCK IS LARGER THAN
8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION.
* EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COMPACTED
FILL DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY ALL THE
ROCK.
• BACKFILL WITH GRANULAR SOIL JETTED
OR FLOODED IN PLACE TO FILL ALL THE
VOIDS.
GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE'
DENSIFIED IN PLACE BY
FLOODING OR JETTING.
DETAIL
• DO NOT BURY ROCK WITHIN 10 FEET OF
FINISH GRADE.
• WINDROW OF BURIED ROCK SHALL BE
PARALLEL TO THE FINISHED SLOPE.
"JETTED OR FLOODED
GRANULAR MATERIAL
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
OVERSIZE
ROCK DISPOSAL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS B
BENCHING
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
SUBDRAIN
TRENCH
SEE DETAIL BELOW
CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE-^
OR #2 ROCK (9FT'^3/FT) WRAPPED^
IN FILTER FABRIC //.
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
C EQUIVALENT)*
4" MIN. BEDDING
COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL
BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED
PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL D
FOR PIPE SPECIFICATIONS
SUBDRAIN DFTAI!
DESIGN FINISH
GRADE
NONPERFORATED 6"0 MIN.
PERFORATED
6" 0MIN. PIPE
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI MON OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
CALTRANS CLASS.2 PERMEABLE
OR #2 ROCK (9FT"3/FT) WRAPPED
IN FILTER FABRIC
DETAIL OF CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTl pj
I
I
CANYON SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS C
15' MIN.
OUTLET PIPES
4" 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY
30' MAX O.C. VERTICALLY
BACK CUT
1:1 OR FLATTER
SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH
DETAIL
LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD
BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUITABLE OUTLET
-KEY DEP
(2' MIN.)
KEY WIDTH
AS NOTED ON CRADING PLANS
TH (15' MIN.) 12" MIN. OVERLAP-
FROM THE TOP HOG
RING TIED EVERY
6 FEET
CALTRANS CLASS
PERMEABLE OR #2
ROCK (3 FT"3/FT)
WRAPPED IN FILTER
FABRIC
r-4" 0
\ NON-PERFORATED
\ OUTLET PIPE
PROVIDE POSITIVE
SEAL AT THE
JOINT
T-CONNECTION
FOR COLLECTOR
PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE
4" 0
PERFORATED
PIPE
FILTER FABRIC
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI
140 OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
4" MIN.
BEDDING
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - subdrain collector pipe shall be instolled with perforation down or
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant. Outlet pipes shall be non-perforoted
ch"!, K f/!" u^?''^ °^ ^ perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation
shol be 1/4 to 1/2 .f drill holes ore used. All subdrain pipes sholl hove o grodient of at
least 2% towards the outlet.
^^i.^™,^""^ ~ Subdroin pipe shall be ASTM D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527. Schedule 40 or
ASTM D3034, SDR 23.5. Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe.
All outlet pipe sholl be placed in o trench no wide than twice the subdroin pipe. Pipe sholl be in
, u .ly^ '^^^^^ °' flooded in piece except for the outside 5 feet which sholl be native soil bockfill.
BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS D
SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION
BASED ON ASTM D1557
RETAINING WALL-
WALL WATERPROOFING
PER ARCHITECT'S
SPECIFICATIONS
WALL FOOTING-
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE
(MIRAFI HON OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)*'
-3/4" TO 1-1/2" CLEAN GRAVEL
-4" (MIN.) DIAMETER PERFORATED
PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED
MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
NOTE: UPON REVIEW BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT,
COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR
J-DRAlN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL. INSTALLATION SHOULD BE
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS.
RETAINING WALL
DRAINAGE DETAIL
I
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS E