HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 93-04; Village L Rancho Carrillo; Village L Rancho Carrillo; 1999-10-20FINAL REPORT OF TESTING
AND OBSERVATION SERVICES
DURING SITE GRADING
VILLAGE L
RANCHO CARRILLO
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
CONTINENTAL RANCH INC.
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 1999
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
Project No, 05845-12-33L
October 20, 1999
Continental Ranch Inc.
2237 Faraday Avenue, Suite 100
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Dave Lother
Subject: VILLAGE L
RANCHO CARRILLO
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION
SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request and, our proposal dated March 8, 1999, we have provided
compaction testing and observation services during the grading of the subject site. Our services were
performed during the period of July 27, 1999 through August 27, 1999 The scope of our services
included the following:
• Observing the grading operation, including the removal and/or processing of loose stockpile
fill, topsoils, and colluvial deposits.
• 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 and Erosion
Control Plans for Rancho Carrillo, Villages L and M, (Sheet 4), with the City of Carlsbad approval
dated May 6, 1999. The project soils reports prepared by Geocon Incorporated are
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone [858) 558-6900 • Fax (858) 558-6159
entitled: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Rancho Carrillo, Villages F, G, L, M, NandP,
Carlsbad, California, dated August 27, 1993, and Final Report of Testing and Observation Services
During Mass Grading, Melrose Drive, Rancho Carrillo, Carlsbad, California, dated march 11, 1198
(Project No. 058945-12-01 A).
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
The majority of the site was originally sheet graded during the mass grading operation for Melrose
Drive in 1997 (see reference report). During this operation a portion of "Landslide B" underlying
Village L was removed and recompacted. The sheet graded pad then received end-dump fill from
other parts of the Rancho Carrillo project.
The current phase of grading began with the removal of brush and vegetation from the area to be
graded. In addition to the vegetation, the undocumented fill soils, topsoils, and colluvial 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 or previously placed compacted fill were exposed.
^
Prior to placing fill, the exposed ground surface was scarified, moisture conditioned, and compacted.
Fill soils derived from on-site excavations and the surrounding areas were then placed and
compacted in layers until the design elevations were attained. In general, the fill materials consist of
grayish brown silty sand to reddish brown clayey sand with cobbles.
During the grading operation, compaction procedures were observed and in-place density tests were
performed to evaluate the relative compaction of the fill material. The in-place density tests were
performed in general conformance with ASTM Test D-2922-81 (nuclear). The results of the in-place
dry density and moisture content tests are summarized on Table I. In general, the in-place density test
results indicate that the fill soil has a relative compaction of at least 90 percent at the locations tested.
The approximate locations of the in-place density tests are shown on the As-graded Geologic Map,
Figure 1.
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
Project No. 05845-12-33L -2- October 20,1999
strength and expansion characteristics. The results of the laboratory tests are summarized in Tables II
through IV.
Slopes
In general, the cut and fill slopes have planned inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter, with
maximum height of approximately 30 and 20 feet, respectively. The fill slopes were either over-filled
and cut back or were track-walked with a bulldozer during grading. All slopes should be planted,
drained, and maintained to reduce erosion. Slope irrigation should be kept to a minimum to just
support the vegetative cover. Surface drainage should not be allowed to flow over the top of
the slope.
Subdrains
No subdrain was installed within Village L.
Finish Grade Soil Conditions
The site was sheet-graded to construct a large pad, with understanding that the property will be fine-
graded in the future to receive multifamily residential structures. Based on laboratory test results, the
prevailing soil conditions within approximately the upper 3 feet of rough pad grade have an
Expansion Index of 31 to 76 (Table IV), and are classified as having a "low" to "medium" expansion
potential as defined by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Table 18-I-B.
It should be noted that although rocks or concretions larger than 12 inches were not intentionally
placed within the upper 3 feet of pad grade, some may exist at random locations.
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be similar to those
described in the project geotechnical report. In general, the compacted fill soils are underlain by
formational soils of the Del Mar Formation and the Lusardi Formation. The landslide debris, pre-
viously mapped within the western portion of the site, was removed and replaced with compacted fill.
The enclosed As-Graded Geologic Map (Figure 1) depicts the general geologic conditions observed.
The map also shows the original topography prior to the start of this phase of grading. No soil or
geologic conditions were observed during grading which would preclude the continued development
of the property as planned.
"•" Project No. 05845-12-33L - 3 - October 20,1999
mi
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0 General
1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the
grading, which is the subject of this report, has been performed in substantial conformance
with the recommendations of the previously referenced project soil report. Soil and
geologic conditions encountered during grading which differ from those anticipated by the
project soil report are not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant
modification to the recommendations of the project soil report, they have been described
herein.
1.2 The site is currently sheet-graded and soils with low to medium 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.
3.0 Foundations
3.1 The recommendations presented herein are provided as general guidelines for planning
future development. Final project-specific foundation design recommendations should be
determined once fine grading is complete and 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 HI 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.
Project No. 05845-I2-33L -4- October 20, 1999
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 connected to the
building foundation system with grade beams.
3.5 For Foundation Category HI, 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.
TABLE 3.1
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
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
6 x 6-10/10 welded wire
mesh at slab mid-point
No. 3 bars at 24 inches on
center, both directions
No. 3 bars at 18 inches on
center, both directions
CATEGORY CRITERIA
Category I: Maximum fill thickness is less than 20 feet and Expansion Index is less than or
equal to 50.
Category II: Maximum fill thickness is less than 50 feet and Expansion Index is less than or
equal to 90, or variation in fill thickness is between 10 feet and 20 feet.
Category III: Fill thickness exceeds 50 feet, or variation in fill thickness exceeds 20 feet, or
Expansion Index exceeds 90, but is less than 130.
Notes:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
All footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches.
Footing depth is measured from lowest adjacent subgrade.
AH interior living area concrete slabs should be at least 4 inches thick for Categories I and II and
5 inches thick for Category III.
All interior concrete slabs should be underlain by at least 4 inches (3 inches for Category III) of
clean sand or crushed rock.
All slabs expected to receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or used to store moisture-
sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor barrier covered with at least 2 inches of the
clean sand recommended in No. 4 above.
Project No. 05845-12-33L -5-October20, 1999
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 ail 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.
3.8 All concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control joints at a maximum spacing
of 12 feet. 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.
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 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1
(horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended
due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
• For 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
Project No. 05845-12-33L - 6 - October 20, 1999
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.
• Although other improvements which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls may experience some distress if located near the top of a
slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible,
however, to incorporate design measures which would permit some lateral soil
movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted for specific recommendations.
3.11 As an alternative to the 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.
TABLE 3.2
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI)
Design Parameters
1 . Thomthwaite 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 inVmo.
2.6ft.
1.15 in.
5.3ft.
4.74 in.
3.12 UBC Section 1816 uses interior stiffener beams in its structural design procedures. If the
structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than UBC
Section 1816, it is recommended that interior stiffener beams be used for Foundation
Categories II and III. The depth of the perimeter foundation should be at least 12 inches for
Project No. 05845-12-33L -7-October20,1999
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 inches.
Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as
required by the structural engineer.
3.13 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of
slabs due to expansive soils (if present), differential settlement of deep fills or fills of
varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations
presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions
may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of
concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their
occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper
concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic
intervals, in particular, where re-entry slab corners occur.
4.0 Retaining Walls And Lateral Loads
4.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of
30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper than 2.0 to
1.0, an active soil pressure of 40 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures assume that 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
Project No. 05845-12-33L - 8 - October 20, 1999
forces or imposed surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are
anticipated, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be
contacted for additional recommendations.
4.4 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 12-inches may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Special foundation depth and
reinforcement may be necessary depending on the expansive characteristics of the
prevailing foundation soils. The proximity of the foundation to the top of a slope steeper
than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore, Geocon Incorporated
should be consulted where such a condition is anticipated.
4.5 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid
density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against properly
compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive pressure
assumes a horizontal surface extending at least 5 feet or three times the surface generating
the passive pressure, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material not protected by
floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the design for lateral resistance. An
allowable friction coefficient of 0.4 may be used for resistance to sliding between soil and
concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the allowable passive earth
pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
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 wails, Geocon
Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
5.0 Slope Maintenance
5.1 Slopes that are steeper than 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) may, under conditions which are both
difficult to prevent and predict, be susceptible to near surface (surficial) slope instability.
The instability is typically limited to the outer three feet of a portion of the slope and
usually does not directly impact the improvements on the pad areas above or below the
slope. The occurrence of surficial instability is more prevalent on fill slopes and is
generally preceded by a period of heavy rainfall, excessive irrigation, or the migration of
subsurface seepage. The disturbance and/or loosening of the surficial soils, as might result
from root growth, soil expansion, or excavation for irrigation lines and slope planting, may
also be a significant contributing factor to surficial instability. It is, therefore,
recommended that, to the maximum extent practical: (a) disturbed/loosened surficial soils
be either removed or properly recompacted, (b) irrigation systems be periodically inspected
Project No. 05845-12-33L - 9 - October 20,1999
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
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to
grading, and represent conditions at the date of our final observation August 27, 1999. Any
subsequent grading should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As used
herein, the term "observation" implies only that we observed the progress of the work with which we
agreed to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the potential
presence of hazardous or corrosive materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work
essentially complies with the job specifications are based on our observations, experience, and test
results. Subsurface conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions, can vary
greatly at any time. We make no warranty, expressed or implied, except that our services were
performed in accordance with engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location.
We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the
uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the
uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated
wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Project No. 05845-12-33L - JO- October 20, 1999
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,
GEOCONINCORP
RCE 22527
AS:DFL:dmc
(6/del) Addressee
(I/del) Continental Ranch Inc., Job Site
(1) Rick Engineering Company
Attention: Mr. Craig Kahlen
Project No. 05845-12-33L - 11-October20,1999
lift i: i * i
Project No. 05845-12-33 (G) VL
I i I 1 i I *
TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test
No.
1
2
3
3A
4
5
6
7
8
8A
9R
10
11
12
12A
13
140
15
16R
17
18
19R
2 OR
21R
Date
05/27/97
05/27/97
06/02/97
06/02/97
08/06/97
08/06/97
08/20/97
08/21/97
08/21/97
08/21/97
08/22/97
08/22/97
08/22/97
08/22/97
09/02/97
09/02/97
03/09/97
10/02/97
10/02/97
10/08/97
10/08/97
10/09/97
10/09/97 •
10/17/97
Test Location
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
Elev.
or
Depth
(ft)
343
346
340
340
342
345
340
343
345
345
354
349
351
355
355
358
358
356
358
360
362
365
363
366
Curve
No.
4
4
1
1
1
1
29
28
28
28
28
29
29
28
28
28
40
46
46
29
29
29
28
2
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)
115.8
115.8
113.4
113.4
113.4
113.4
112.4
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
112.4
112.4
109.0
109.0
109.0
114.2
111.3
111.3
112.4
112.4
112.4
109.0
115.0
Opt.
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
15.7
15.7
14.6
14.6
14.6
14.6
13.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
13.0
13.0
16.0
16.0
16.0
15.6
14.7
14.7
13.0
13.0
13.0
16.0
14.8
Field
Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
106.2
106.8
96.3
102.5
101.9
103.2
102.9
98.2
95.6
98.3
99.3
102.0
101.5
96.2
100.1
99.7
107.5
104.0
102.6
103.4
101.4
103.6
100.1
106.2
Field
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
18.8
17.9
9.7
15.1
17.0
15.9
16.0
19.3
17.2
17.0
18.1
13.9
16.0
13.1
18.3
20.0
15.6
17.0
16.2
15.1
17.0
14.2
17.8
17.4
Field
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
92
92
85
90
90
91
92
90
88
90
91
91
90
88
92
91
94
93
92
92
90
92
92
92
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
Ml I * §
Project No. 05845-12-33 (G) VL
I ! I ! f I 1 !
TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
iiii
FG
FG
FG
FG
SZ
sz
SZ
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
Test
No.
22R
23R
24R
25R
26R
27
28
28A
29
29A
30
31
32
32A
33
34
35
35A
36
36A
37
38
39
39A
Date
10/17/97
10/17/97
01/09/97
01/09/97
01/09/97
07/27/99
07/27/99
07/27/99
07/27/99
07/27/99
07/28/99
07/28/99
07/28/99
07/28/99
07/29/99
07/29/99
07/30/99
08/02/99
07/30/99
08/02/99
08/03/99
08/03/99
08/03/99 '
08/04/99
Test Location
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
Elev.
or
Depth
(ft)
368
368
367
369
372
345
351
351
300
300
305
308
310
310
313
315
368
368
364
364
315
344
336
336
Curve
No.
2
2
19
4
3
8
8
8
8
8
8
147
147
147
147
147
157
157
11
11
147
8
147
147
Plus
3/4"
Rock
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max.
Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
115.0
115.0
112.8
115.8
116.4
119.5
119.5
119.5
119.5
119.5
119.5
118.3
118.3
118.3
120.2
118.3
109.0
109.0
119.9
119.9
118.3
119.5
118.3
118.3
Opt.
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
14.8
14.8
17.2
15.7
13.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.6
13.7
13.7
13.7
12.9
13.7
15.4
15.4
13.6
13.6
13.7
12.6
13.7
13.7
Field
Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
103.8
105.0
103.0
106.5
109.1
107.7
105.2
108.1
105.7
107.5
109.0
107.2
104.4
106.8
107.9
106.5
95.6
99.9
100.7
109.2
107.2
107.9
104.8
106.7
Field
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
18.4
17.2
18.0
17.9
14.2
16.5
14.4
15.1
14.7
13.9
16.5
13.8
14.5
14.9
17.2
16.6
19.8
18.7
14.9
16.4
15.8
14.1
16.8
15.5
Field
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
90
91
91
92
94
90
88
91
89
90
91
91
88
90
90
90
88
92
84
91
91
90
89
90
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; i
Project No. 05845-12-33 (G) VL
i i i i i i 1 i
TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
sz
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
ST
Test
No.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
49A
49B
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Date
08/04/99
08/04/99
08/04/99
08/05/99
08/05/99
08/05/99
08/05/99
08/05/99
08/13/99
08/18/99
08/27/99
08/27/99
08/19/99
08/20/99
08/20/99
08/23/99
08/23/99
08/23/99
08/24/99
08/24/99
08/24/99
08/25/99
08/25/99.
08/25/99
Test Location
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
Elev.
or
Depth
(ft)
318
340
321
329
324
340
328
330
333
310
310
310
343
330
340
345
343
362
347
344
345
349
345
344
Curve
No.
157
159
157
9
159
159
9
14
159
159
159
159
159
9
9
147
147
164
164
164
164
159
164
159
Plus
3/4"
Rock
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
0
0
24
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max.
Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
109.0
114.0
109.0
107.1
114.0
114.0
107.1
105.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
107.1
107.1
126.0
131.1
109.0
109.0
109.0
109.0
114.0
109.0
114.0
Opt.
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
15.4
15.5
15.4
17.1
15.5
15.5
17.1
19.8
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
17.1
17.1
10.5
8.5
19.0
19.0
19.0
19.0
15.5
19.0
15.5
Field
Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
101.8
103.7
98.2
98.5
102.8
103.6
97.1
94.2
103.2
98.6
100.8
103.5
104.7
97.0
96.3
114.9
123.2
98.9
100.8
101.5
98.5
103.2
101.1
103.6
Field
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
16.3
14.5
17.7
23.8
16.3
18.8
22.5
25.6
17.9
20.4
21.6
17.2
19.1
23.8
20.4
14.1
12.5
22.6
19.4
19.0
19.8
19.5
22.9
18.9
Field
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
93
91
90
92
90
91
91
90
91
87
88
91
92
91
90
91
94
91
93
93
90
91
93
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; I f I f I I i i i I I I i I
Project No. 05845-12-33 (G) VL TABLE I
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test
No.
ST
FG
FG
FG
ST
ST
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
Date
08/25/99
08/25/99
08/26/99
08/26/99
08/26/99
08/27/99
08/27/99
Elev.
or
Depth Curve
Test Location (ft)
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
VILLAGE L
346
348
350
348
346
328
339
No.
159
159
159
159
159
164
164
Plus
3/4"
Rock
(%)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max.
Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
114.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
109.0
109.0
Opt.
Moist
Cont.
(%)
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
19.0
19.0
Field
. Dry
Dens .
(pcf)
105.3
102.7
104.9
103.4
104.4
97.7
98.0
Field
Moist,
Cont.
(%)
17.9
21.1
19.2
19.9
18.4
24.2
19.0
Field Req'd
. Rel. Rel.
Comp . Comp .
(%)
92
90
92
91
92
90
90
(%)
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
Note: See last page of table for explanation of coded terms
I lit i; i 1 I i i i 1 I
Project No. 05845-12-33 (G) VL
- TEST SUFFIX
i i
EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS
A, B, C,...; Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning
and/or recompaction.
R: Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with
properly compacted fill soil.
- PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS
AD - Area Drain
B -
CG -
CW -
DW -
FG -
IT -
- CURVE NO.
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.
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-91
Sample
No.
1
2
3
4
8
9
11
14
19
28
29
40
46
147
157
159
164
Description
Light brown, Silty CLAY
Yellow-tan, Silty, fine to medium SAND,
with trace clay
Light brown to brown, Sandy CLAY, trace
silt
Green, Silty CLAY, with little fine to
medium sand
Brown, Clayey, fine SAND, with trace silt
and gravel
Yellow-brown, Silty CLAY, with fine to
medium sand
Olive-brown, Clayey, fine SAND, with silt
Yellow-tan, Silty CLAY
Olive, fine to medium, Sandy CLAY, with
little silt
Light brown, Silty CLAY
Yellow-tan, Silty, fine SAND
Rust-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND
Light brown, Silty CLAY, with trace of fine
to medium sand
Red-brown, Silty, fine to coarse GRAVEL,
with little clay
Very light brown, Silty CLAY, some fine
sand
Brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND
Light brown, Silty CLAY, with fine sand
Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
113.4
115.0
116.4
115.8
119.5
107.1
119.9
105.0
112.8
109.0
112.4
114.2
111.3
118.3
109.0
114.0
109.0
Optimum Moisture
Content (% dry wt)
14.6
14.8
13.6
15.7
12.6
17.1
13.6
19.8
17.2
16.0
13.0
15.6
14.7
13.7
15.4
15.5
19.0
Project No. 05845-12-33L October 20, 1999
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Sample No.
3
19
28
29
40
Dry Density
(pel)
104.4
101.2
96.5
100.0
102.9
Moisture Content
(%)
13.6
17.2
16.0
13.0
15.4
Unit Cohesion
(psf)
450
255
500
390
650
Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees)
. 16
30
20
29
32
Note: Samples were remolded to 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content.
ttf
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
Sample No.
3
19
28
29
40
L-A
L-B
L-C
Moisture Content
Before Test (%)
10.7
14.2
14.3
9.0
10.2
9.6
9.3
10.7
After Test (%)
28.5
35.8
36.6
23.7
25.2
25.6
32.4
30.9
Dry
Density
(DC*)
105.4
96.3
97.3
113.3
108.9
111.4
112.4
108.5
Expansion Index
107
62
108
13
17
31
72
76
TABLE V
SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION
INDEX TEST RESULTS WITHIN THE PAD
Location
East
North
South and West
Sample No.
L-A
L-B
L-C
Expansion Index
31
72
76
UBC Classification
Low
Medium
Medium
Project No. 05845-I2-33L October 20, 1999