Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 99-09; Village N Rancho Carrillo; FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING; 1998-11-031 ' ! J i i 3 QCOffl RjB Q R jAJT N FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING VILLAGE N RANCHO CARRILLO CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR CONTINENTAL RANCH INC. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA NOVEMBER 1998 Project No. 05845-12-01C Novembers, 1998 Continental Ranch Inc. 12636 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92130 Attention: Mr. Dave Lother Subject: VILLAGE N RANCHO CARRILLO CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING Gentlemen:1 "*t In accordance with your request and, our proposal dated December 6, 1996 , we have provided A compaction testing and observation services during the grading of the subject site. Our services «• were performed during the period of October 23, 1997 through January 29, 1998 The scope of our «j services included the following: ^ • Observing the grading operation, including the removal and/or processing of loose topsoils, t colluvium, and alluvium deposits. "™ • Construction of a buttress fill along the southern boundary H • 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 i<•• i i Rancho Carrillo, Sheets 14, 15, and 51, with the City of Carlsbad approval dated November 14, 1996. The project soils report are entitled: • Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Villages N, O, Q, R, T, and U, Rancho Carrillo, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated February 16, 1993. • Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Stability Analyses, Village N, Rancho Carrillo, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated September 25, 1997. References to elevations and locations herein were based on surveyor's or grade checker's stakes in the field and/or interpolation 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 Sheet grading began with the removal of brush and vegetation from the area to be graded. In addition to the vegetation, topsoils, colluvium, and alluvial deposits were removed to firm natural ground. In general, surficial deposits were removed and the excavations were observed by an engineering geologist to verify that unsuitable soils had been removed and dense formational soils were exposed. A buttress fill was constructed for the proposed cut slope along the southern property boundary, as recommended in the referenced supplemental report. Due to the close proximity of the existing structures, the key for the buttress was excavated in approximately 100 to 200 feet segments, while maintaining a backcut inclination of 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). A heel drain with associated prefabricated panel drains was then installed in the backcut. Prior to placing fill, the exposed ground surface was scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted. Fill soils derived from on-site excavations and the surrounding areas were then placed and compacted in layers until the design elevations were attained. In general, the fill materials consist of grayish brown silty sand to greenish brown sandy clay. Due to the presence of large patches of expansive clayey soils within the upper pad (southeastern portion of the site) this area was under cut approximately 3 feet and replaced with less expansive, uniform soils. ....During the grading operation, compaction procedures were observed and in-place density tests were performed to evaluate the relative compaction of the fill material. The in-place density tests were Project No. 05845-12-01C ~- Novembers, 1998 : 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 Maps, Figures 1 though 3. It should be noted that «| since the grading of Village N was performed in conjunction with the grading for Villages O, Ql, ~* and Q2, the field density test numbers are not in sequential order. 4 J 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 *s strength and expansion characteristics. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in - Tables II through IV. 4 — Slopes i In general, the cut and fill slopes have planned inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter, with maximum height of approximately 7 and 44 feet, respectively. The fill slopes were either over-filled and cut back or were track-walked with a bulldozer during grading. The cut slope along the south property margin was buttressed due to the presence of a bedding plane shear zone (Buttress No. 5). A J stability fill was also constructed for the east facing slope along Melrose Drive due to the presence of * dark gray siltstones and claystones that were determined to be unsuitable for landscaping. This . stability fill was constructed during the grading of Melrose Drive and is included in the final grading ^ report of Melrose Drive, dated March 11, 1998. All slopes should be planted, drained, and *" maintained to reduce erosion. Slope irrigation should be kept to a minimum to just support the *pj vegetative cover. Surface drainage should not be allowed to flow over the top of the slope. -w ** •* Subdrains "** A heel drain associated with the buttress fill, located along the south property margin, flows to the "I open space to the west of the site. Another heel drain was installed during construction of the «. stability fill along Melrose Drive. This drain flows to the south and connects to the storm drain —} system. These heel drains were "as built" for location and elevation by Rick Engineering Company and are shown on the attached as-graded geologic maps. m Finish Grade Soil Conditions *»| The site is sheet-graded into three large pads, with understanding that the site will be fine-graded in _ future to receive multifamily structures. During grading operations, the upper pad (southeastern Project No. 05845-12-01C -3- November 3, 1998 portion of the site) was undercut approximately 3 feet due to the presence of large scattered lenses of highly expansive claystones. The excavation was then filled with less expansive soils. Based on "". laboratory test results, the prevailing soil conditions within approximately the upper 3 feet of rough m pad grade have an Expansion Index of 78 to 124 (Table IV), and are classified as having a "medium" «• to "high" expansion potential as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18-I-B. « Table V presents a summary of the indicated Expansion Indices of prevailing subgrade soil conditions for each pad. It should be noted that although rocks or concretions larger than 12 inches : were not intentionally placed within the upper 3 feet of pad grade, some may exist at random locations. '•3 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS mr 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 t formational soils of the Del Mar Formation. An adverse geologic condition caused by presence of a || bedding plane shear zone within the proposed cut slope, located along the southern boundary, was *"* mitigated by construction of a drained buttress fill. These high angled faults with a generally north- "m south trend were mapped during the grading operations. These faults are considered m interformational and inactive, and, thus, have no adverse impact on the development. * The enclosed As-Graded Geologic Maps (Figures 1 through 3 ) depicts the general geologic I conditions observed. These maps also show the original topography prior to the start of grading. A • geologic cross section is presented on Figure 4. No soil or geologic conditions were observed during "**" grading which would preclude the continued development of the property as planned. c~.» " CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1.0. General » 1.1. Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the «£ grading, which is the subject of this report, has been performed in substantial conformance t with the recommendations of the previously referenced project soil report. Soil and • geologic conditions encountered during grading which differ from those anticipated by the "-• project soil report are not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant •» modification to the recommendations of the project soil report, they have been described ~* herein. Project No. 05845-12-01C - 4 - November 3, 1998 1.2. The site is currently sheet-graded and soils with medium to high expansion potential exist at finished grade. It is understood that the site will be fine graded to receive multifamily residential structures, with associated driveways and parking areas. 2.0. Future Grading 2.1. Any additional grading performed at the site should be accomplished in conjunction with our observation and compaction testing services. All trench backfill in excess of one-foot thick should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. This office should be notified at least 48 hours prior to commencing additional grading or backfill operations. y * 3.0. Foundations i i i sai 3.1. The recommendations presented herein are provided as general guidelines for planning future development. Final project-specific foundation design recommendations should be determined once fine grading is complete and structure layout has been finalized. 3.2. The foundation recommendations that follow are for one- or two-story residential structures and are separated into categories dependent on the thickness and geometry of the underlying fill soils as well as the Expansion Index of the prevailing subgrade soils of a particular building pad (or lot). The recommended minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for each Category is presented on the following page (Table 3.1). 3.3. Foundations for either Category I, II, or III may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) (dead plus live load). This bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as wind or seismic forces. 3.4. The use of isolated footings which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support structural elements connected to the building is not recommended for Category III. Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be con- nected to the building foundation system with grade beams. 3.5. For Foundation Category III, the structural slab design should consider using interior stiffening beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition, consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur. Project No. 05845-12-01C -5- November 3, 1998 TABLE 3.1. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY •i ~4 i Foundation Category I II III Minimum Footing Depth (inches) 12 18 24 Continuous Footing Reinforcement One No. 4 bar top and bottom Two No. 4 bars top and bottom Two No. 5 bars top and bottom Interior Slab Reinforcement 6x6- 10/10 welded wire mesh at slab mid-point No. 3 bars at 24 inches on center, both directions No. 3 bars at 1 8 inches on center, both directions CATEGORY CRITERIA Category I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 50. Category II: Maximum fill thickness is less than 50 feet and Expansion Index is less than or equal to 90, or variation in fill thickness is between 10 feet and 20 feet. Category III: Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, or variation in fill thickness exceeds 20 feet, or Expansion Index exceeds 90, but is less than 130 . Notes: 1. All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches. 2. Footing depth is measured from lowest adjacent subgrade. 3. All interior living area concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick for Categories I and II and 5 inches thick for Category III. 4. All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 inches for Category III) of clean sand or crushed rock. 5. All slabs expected to receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture- sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor barrier covered with at least 2 inches of the clean sand recommended in No. 4 above. -I 3.6. No special subgrade presaturation is deemed necessary prior to placing concrete, however, the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soils should be sprinkled, as necessary, to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement. 3.7. For building pads with finish grade soils possessing an Expansion Index between 50 and 90, it is recommended that all exterior concrete flatwork with a least dimension exceeding 8 feet be reinforced with 6x6-6/6 welded wire mesh. The reinforcement for exterior concrete flatwork for building pads with Expansion Index between 90 and 130, should consist of No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, both directions. Project No. 05845-12-01C -6-NovemberS, 1998 i i i i w-*^ 1J 3.8. All concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints at a maximum spacing of 12 feet. 3.9. All subgrade soils should be properly moisture conditioned prior to concrete placement. Where drying has occurred, reconditioning of surficial soils will be required. 3.10. For lots with Expansion Index between 90 and 130 the edge of the exterior concrete flatwork should be thickened (shovel footing), to reduce the potential for moisture migration underneath the slab. • Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1 (horizontahvertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur. • For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope. • Where the height of the fill slope exceeds 20 feet, the minimum horizontal distance should be increased to H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance 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 reinforcement. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope geometry have been determined. • For cut slopes in dense formational materials, or fill slopes inclined at 3:1 (hori- zontal: vertical) or flatter, the bottom outside edge of building footings should be at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope, regardless of slope height. «~ • Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, it is recommended that *"* the portion of the swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed «••! assuming that the adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation *"* applies to fill slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height. "** For swimming pools located near the top of fill slopes greater than 30 feet in «•; height, additional recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated : should be contacted for a review of specific site conditions. »*** M; 3.11. Although other improvements which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete flatwork or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a slope, I 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 Project No. 05845-12-01C -7- November 3, 1998 causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for specific recommendations. 3.12. As an alternative to the foundation recommendations for each category, consideration should be given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of the proposed structures. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute (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. 4 i i TABLE 3.2. POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI) Design Parameters 1 . Thornthwaite Index 2. Clay Type - Montmorillonite 3. Clay Portion (Maximum) 4. Depth to Constant Soil Suction 5. Soil Suction 6. Moisture Velocity 7. Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance 8. Edge Lift 9. Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance 10. Center Lift Foundation Category I -20 Yes 30% 7.0ft. 3.6ft. 0.7 in./mo. 2.6ft. 0.41 in. 5.3ft. 2.12 in. II -20 Yes 50% 7.0ft. 3.6ft. 0.7 in./mo. 2.6ft. 0.78 in. 5.3ft. 3.21 in. Ill -20 Yes 70% 7.0ft. 3.6ft. 0.7 in./mo. 2.6ft. 1.15 in. 5.3ft. 4.74 in. 3.13. 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 for Foundation Categories II and III. The depth of the perimeter foundation should be at least 12 inches for Foundation Category I. Where the Expansion Index for a particular building pad exceeds 50 but is less than 91, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 18 inches; and where it exceeds 90 but is less than 130, the perimeter footing depth should be at least 24 Project No. 05845-12-01C Novembers, 1998 inches. Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as required by the structural engineer. ™j^3.14. The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of *" slabs due to expansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills or fills of *«l 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. 1 w*» i WW* i an* i u 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 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 0.001H 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. 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 Project No. 05845- 12-0 1C -9- November 3, 1998 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 •m density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly m 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 i 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. t 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 M, 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 m be either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically Project No. 05845-12-01C -10- Novembers, 1998 1 i *m i i 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. 7.0. Plan Review 7.1. Geocon Incorporated should be provided the opportunity to review the finish grading plans and site development plans prior to finalizing. At that time, the foundation design recommendations can be updated considering the building sizes and locations as related to the underlying soil conditions. > LIMITATIONS m^ The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to t grading, and represent conditions at the date of our final observation January 28, 1998. Any ^- subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As used herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of the work with **" which we agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the — potential presence of hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether M) 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 M| uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the _Si* uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated Project No. 05845-12-01C - 11 - November 3, 1998 I awm 1 /mmi i i 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, GEOCONINCO, RCE 22527 AS:DFL:slt (6/del) Addressee (1) Rick Engineering Company Attention: Mr. Craig Kahlen CEFTOREDENGINEERING GEOLOGIST 08/31/99/Afc CEG 1778 Project No. 05845-12-01C -12-November 3, 1998 ;. JL «.» • : L, i fci,, * '..I , i ..,!„ i t.|, i i i i., i , i Project No. 05845-12-01G (G)TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No. 1763 1764 1764A 1765 1766 1767 1824 1824A 1825 1825A 1827 1828 1829 1831 1832 1833 1834 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 Date 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/23/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/29/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/30/97 10/31/97 10/31/97 10/31/97 Test Location VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N Elev. or Depth (ft) 410 435 435 414 418 421 439 439 441 441 446 428 444 435 441 449 445 448 451 442 447 439 452 452 Curve No. 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 34 28 28 28 34 34 34 34 34 Plus 3/4" Rock (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. Dry Dens . (pcf) 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 109.0 115.2 109.0 109.0 109.0 115.2 115.2 115.2 115.2 115.2 Opt. Moist. Cont. (%) 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 13.4 16.0 16.0 16.0 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.4 Field Dry Dens . (pcf) 98.1 93.8 100.2 100.6 103.3 101.2 96.7 102.3 95.4 100.1 102.8 103.5 102.9 101.1 102.3 107.0 99.5 98.6 101.5 106.4 105.7 107.3 106.3 101.4 Field Moist. Cont. (%) 19.6 17.9 16.4 18.3 16.5 18.0 17.5 16.6 20.7 19.2 17.6 15.5 19.0 18.9 20.5 15.0 17.7 17.9 20.0 15.0 14.1 16.5 16.6 11.7 Field Rel. Comp . (%) 90 86 92 92 95 93 89 94 88 92 94 95 94 93 94 93 91 90 93 92 92 93 92 88 Req'd Rel. Comp . (%) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms 1 II 1 Mr*. Project No. 05845-12-01C (G)TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No. 1841A 1842 1843 1844 1847 1848 1849 1850 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1898 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009A Date 10/31/97 10/31/97 10/31/97 10/31/97 11/04/97 11/04/97 11/04/97 11/04/97 11/04/97 11/04/97 11/05/97 11/05/97 11/05/97 11/05/97 11/05/97 11/05/97 11/05/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/06/97 11/07/97 11/07/97 11/07/97 Test Location VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N Elev. or Depth (ft) 452 449 455 454 475 479 482 477 480 483 489 481 491 495 487 494 498 482 500 489 497 484 489 489 Curve No. 34 34 28 28 40 40 28 40 28 40 40 40 40 28 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Plus 3/4" Rock (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. Dry Dens . (pcf) 115.2 115.2 109.0 109.0 114.2 114.2 109.0 114.2 109.0 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 109.0 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 Opt. Moist. Cont. (%) 13.4 13.4 16.0 16.0 15.6 15.6 16.0 15.6 16.0 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 16.0 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 Field Dry Dens . (pcf) 104.1 105.2 102.0 100.0 105.4 104.1 99.8 104.9 100.6 105.7 107.2 106.0 104.7 98.4 107.3 103.3 105.0 105.6 109.4 108.7 103.0 104.8 99.5 104.3 Field Moist. Cont. (%) 15.9 17.0 20.6 22.0 17.7 18.5 21.5 16.6 20.2 17.0 17.4 16.8 18.2 21.0 18.6 19.7 16.5 17.8 18.5 16.2 19.8 18.6 24.3 19.2 Field Rel. Comp. (%) 90 91 94 92 92 91 92 92 92 93 94 93 92 90 94 90 92 92 96 95 90 92 87 91 Req'd Rel. Comp . (%) 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms i: I.JL ' cJL *» »I. i Project No. 05845-12-01C (G)TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No. ST ST ST FG FG FG FG 2010 2011 2012 2013 2021 2022 2023 2024 2048 2049 2050 2151 2152 2153 2182 2183 2184 2185 2186 2187 2188 2189 2190 2191 Date 11/07/97 11/07/97 11/07/97 11/07/97 11/17/97 11/17/97 11/17/97 11/17/97 11/25/97 11/25/97 11/25/97 11/25/97 11/25/97 11/25/97 12/10/97 12/11/97 12/11/97 12/11/97 12/11/97 12/11/97 12/13/97 12/13/97 12/13/97 12/13/97 Elev. or Depth Test Location (ft) VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N VILLAGE N 502 491 497 503 502 506 502 507 477 473 474 491 485 496 441 447 453 458 461 452 475 477 480 477 Curve No. 40 17 19 17 40 40 40 40 17 17 17 40 40 40 3 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 Plus 3/4" Rock (%) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Max. Dry Dens . (pcf) 114.2 112.2 112.8 112.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 112.2 112.2 112.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 116.4 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 112.2 112.2 112.2 112.2 Opt. Moist Cont. (%) 15.6 15.5 17.2 15.5 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.6 15.6 15.6 13.6 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 Field . Dry Dens . (pcf) 103.1 101.6 101.5 102.4 105.8 108.6 110.5 108.2 101.0 104.7 102.0 104.6 103.5 105.9 108.2 104.5 103.6 106.5 105.7 103.4 106.2 105.4 104.9 107.3 Field Moist. Cont. (%) 20.7 20.5 22.7 20.0. 19.2 17.5 16.4 16.8 16.6 14.3 16.1 19.7 17.0 16.8 15.5 18.1 20.1 18.5 17.3 19.8 14.8 15.6 17.3 15.7 Field Req'd . Rel. Rel. Comp . Comp . (%) (%) 90 91 90 91 93 95 97 95 90 93 91 92 91 93 93 92 91 93 93 91 95 94 93 96 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 ' 90 90 90 90 90 90 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms lei.ol, Project No. 05845-12-01C (G)TABLE I FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS Test No. ST 2240 ST 2240A ST 2241 ST 2241A Date 12/23/97 01/28/98 12/23/97 01/28/98 Te: VILLAGE VILLAGE VILLAGE VILLAGE 3t Location N N N N Elev. or Depth (ft) 457 457 441 441 Curve No. 40 40 40 40 Plus 3/4" Rock (%) 0 0 0 0 Max. Dry Dens . (pcf) 114.2 114.2 114.2 114.2 Opt. Moist. Cont. (%) 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 Field Dry Dens . (pcf) 91.7 103.2 97.4 104.1 Field Moist. Cont. (%) 19.4 20.0 20.2 18.9 Field Rel. Comp. (%) 80 90 85 91 Req'd Rel. Comp. (%) 90 90 90 90 ST 2356 01/28/98 VILLAGE N 448 40 0 114.2 Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms 15.6 105.3 18.1 92 90 .L 't-i 'mi. '«. ' Project No. 05845-12-01C (G) I ' '!. 'call ''*JL '•«, '*&i i i l 1 1 I i EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS - TEST SUFFIX A, B, C,...: Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or recompaction. R: Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with properly compacted fill soil. - PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS AD - B - CG - CW - DW - FG - IT - - CURVE NO. Area Drain Base Test Curb & Gutter Crib Wall Driveway Finish Grade Irrigation Trench JT - Joint Trench MT - Moisture Test RW - Retaining Wall SD - Storm Drain SG - Subgrade SL - Sewer Lateral SM - Sewer Main ST - Slope Test SW - Sidewalk SZ - Slope Zone UT - Utility Trench WB - Wall Backfill WL - Water Lateral WM - Water Main Corresponds to curve numbers listed in Table II, representing the laboratory 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. i i i TABLE II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557-91 Sample No. 3 16 17 19 28 29 34 40 Description Light brown to brown, Sandy CLAY, trace silt Olive, Silty, fine to coarse SAND Light olive-brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND Olive, fine to medium, Sandy CLAY, with little silt Light brown, Silty CLAY Yellow-tan, Silty, fine SAND Yellow-olive-tan, fine to medium, Silty SAND, with trace clay Rust-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 116.4 114.2 112.2 112.8 109.0 112.4 115.2 114.2 Optimum Moisture Content (% dry wt.) 13.6 16.3 15.5 17.2 16.0 13.0 13.4 15.6 TABLE 111 SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Sample No. 3 16 17 19 28 29 40 Dry Density (pcf) 104.4 103.5 101.2 101.2 96.5 100.0 102.9 Moisture Content (%) 13.6 16.3 15.5 17.2 16.0 13.0 15.4 Unit Cohesion (psf) 450 740 290 255 500 390 650 Angle of Shear Resistance (degrees) 16 23 36 30 20 29 32 Note: Samples were remolded to 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content. Project No. 05845-12-01C Novembers, 1998 TABLE IV SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS 1 <•» i mm i i Sample No. 3 16 17 19 28 29 40 N-A N-B N-C N-D N-E N-F N-G N-H N-I Moisture Content Before Test (%) 10.7 12.4 12.1 14.2 14.3 9.0 10.2 11.2 10.4 12.2 12.2 10.9 12.4 13.7 11.6 11.9 After Test (%) 28.5 34.7 26.1 35.8 36.6 23.7 25.2 33.2 34.5 31.7 30.9 30.0 31.9 32.1 29.2 29.7 Dry Density (pcf) 105.4 101.1 102.4 96.3 97.3 113.3 108.9 105.1 108.6 104.1 103.6 108.0 101.1 97.7 102.8 103.3 Expansion Index 107 87 23 62 108 13 17 78 89 124 101 83 86 86 73 85 TABLE V SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS FOR EACH PAD Location Upper Pad, NW (fill) Upper Pad, SE (fill) Lower Pad, W (fill) Middle Pad, S (cut) Middle Pad, N (cut) Middle Pad, S Center (cut) Middle Pad, W (cut) Lower Pad, N (cut) Lower Pad, Center (fill) Sample No. N-A N-B N-C N-D N-E N-F N-G N-H N-I Expansion Index 78 89 124 101 83 86 86 73 85 UBC Classification Medium Medium High High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium Project No. 05845-12-01C Novembers, 1998