The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCDP 00-62; HAMILTON RESIDENCE; RESULTS OF COMPACTION TESTING AND INSPECTION; 2001-10-12II I II& II ccriiq;, C. C17t7 CIVIL. GEOTECHNICAL, 8 QUALITY ENGINEERING FOUNDATION DESIGN. LAND SURVEYING • SOIL TESTING - CONS TRUC TION-MANAGEMENT 8 INSPECTION CLIENT:. HAMILTON HAMILTON PROJECT: HAM 901 - DATE: 12 OCT. 2001 JOHN & BARBARA HAMILTON 2335 Pio Pico Drive . Carlsbad, CA. 92008 .. Attention Mr. John Hamilton * Subject: Results of Compaction Testing and Inspection for the Residence located at 2335 Pio Pico Drive, Carlsbad, CA. (APN: 156-350-11) .. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hamilton:•' - .. Pursuant to your request, we have completed our Inspection and Compaction Testing of the rough grading operation for the subject parcel. Locations of our Field Density Tests are shown on Enclosure (1), and the results of these tests are detailed on Enclosure (2). - - Site preparation, compaction, and testing were accomplished between 24 September and 9 October, 2001. Based on our observations and testing, it is our opinion that the work performed during that period was in general conformance with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad Grading Ordinance and the Approved Grading Plan. . . . -• On 24 September 2001, grading began on the subject lot with the contractor constructing a "Keystone Wall" along the southwesterly cornerof the lot. During this wall construction, a member of our firm made periodic inspections to verify compliance with the plans and specifications relative to the wall foundation, the geogrid placement and compaction of backfill soils. On 5 October, the contractor begnthe over-excavation operation for the house pad by removing the loose soils in the upper 3 feet on the westerly portion of the proposed house pad. These soils were stockpiled on the easterly side of the site. The bottom of the excavation was scarified, watered, and recompacted prior to replacing the native stockpiled soils. The easterly half of the lot was processed in - -. - 1611-A SO. MELROSE DRIVE #285, VISTA, 6A 92083-5497 • 760-945-3150 • FAX: 760-945-4221 Iiigiiieeriuy, Inc. CIVIL. GEO TECHNICAL. & QUALITY ENGINEERING FOUNDATION DESIGN • LAND SURVEYING • SOIL TESTING pP.. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & INSPECTION this same manner. The limits of over-excavation extended a minimum of 5 feet outside of the proposed building foundations. On 8 October, import soils consisting of silty sands were utilized to fine grade the house pad to the design grades. Density was achieved by the use of a D-6 bulldozer compacting the soil as fill was placed in thin lifts. Since the existing and imported soils were low in moisture content, the contractor had to spend additional time and effort in his mixing operation in order to ensure near-optimum moisture and proper compaction in the fill material. As indicated by our Compaction Test Results, Enclosure (2), density tests performed in the construction of the keystone wall backfill and the house pad indicated over 90% relative compaction as compared to the Maximum Dry Density per ASTM Test Procedure D 1557-9 1. - In general, the native and imported soils exposed at surface grades for the subject pad are considered to have a low to moderate expansion potential according to our Test results and Table 18AIB of the Uniform Building Code. Foundations shall be sized and constructed in accordance with the recommendations found in the latter part of this Report. For foundation design purposes, an allowable bearing strength of 1450 psf may be utilized for all continuous or spread footings founded in dense native or imported soils compacted to 90% relative compaction per ASTM D 1557-91. This design bearing value is in accordance with the Uniform Building Code and is based on a foundation size of 12 inches in depth and width and may be increased as allowed by the provisions of the U.B.C. It is recommended that the continuous perimeter foundations and concrete slabs for a light weight, wood framed, stucco type structure shall be constructed and reinforced in accordance with the following minimum design criteria: a. The continuous perimeter foundations shall extend a minimum depth of 24 inches and a minimum width of 15 inches into the compacted fill soils for a two story structure and a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of 12 inches for a single story. The depth of footings shall be measured from the lowest adjacent grade. The continuous foundations shall be reinforced with a minimum of PA 1611-A SO. MELROSE DRIVE #285, VISTA, CA 92083-5497 • 760-945-3150 • FAX: 760-945-4221 ('T:I:; II&II Eiiçjitieirinçj, .,.' CIVIL GEOTECHNICAL & QUALITY ENGINEERING FOUNDATION DESIGN • LAND SURVEYING • SOIL TESTING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT d INSPECTION I four No 4 steel bars, two bars shall be placed 3 inches from the top of the foundation and the other bars shall be placed 3 inches from the bottom. As an alternative to the four No. 4 bars, one No. 5 steel bar top and bottom may be used. I b. Footings which span frm native material to compacted fill soils, where applicable, shall be reinforced with a minimum of one additional No. 5 steel bar top and bottom to control potential differential movement extended 10 feet on either side of the daylight line. . I . c. Footings placed on or adjacent to fill slopes shall have a minimum horizontal distance of seven feet (7') from the bottom edge of the footings to the face of the slope. .'. . . d. All concrete slabs shall'be a minimumof 4 inches in thickness and reinforced with a minimum of No. 3 steel' rebars at 18 inches on.center both ways and placed in the center of the slab. The slab steel reinforcement shall be bent downward into the perimeter footings and connected to the foundation steel at 18. I . inches on center. In order to minimize vapor transmission, an impermeable membrane (ie: 6 mil visqueen) shall be placed over 2 inches Of clean, poorly I ' graded, coarse sand, decomposed granite, or crushed rock. The membrane shall be covered with 2 inches of sand to protect it during construction and the sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing concrete. All concrete used on this project I shall have a minimum compressive strength of 2500 psi unless otherwise stated on the Building Plan These foundation recommendations are minimum design requiremenis for the soils encountered during grading; however, actual foundations shall be designed by. I the Structural Engineer for the expected live and dead loads, and for wind and seismic loads Findings of this Report are- valid as of this date; however, changes in conditions of a property can occur with passage of time, whether they be due to I natural process or works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur whether they result from legislation or broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, findings of this Report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this Report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of one year. . 3 I 1611-A SO MELROSE DRIVE #285, VISTA, CA 92083-5497 • 760-945-3150 • FAX 760-945-4221 ("f IIII Eiigiiieeriiigj, Inc. U CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL, & QUALITY ENGINEERING FOUNDATION DESIGN • LAND SURVEYING • SOIL TESTING - . CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENTINSPECTION I In the event that any change: in the nature, design, or location of buildings are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this Report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the conclusions of this. Report are modified or verified in writing. . . I This Report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or of his representative to ensure that the information and recommendations I contained herein are called to the attention of the project Architect and Engineer and are incorporated into the plans. Further, the necessary steps shall be taken to. • I ensure that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field I The Soil Engineer has prepared this Report for the exc1uive use of the ëlient and authorized agents This Report has been prepared in accordance with generally I . accepted soil and foundation engineering practices. No other warranties, either expressed or implied, are made as td the professional advice provided under the I terms of this agreement, and included in the Report B & B Engineering Inc. 'and Associates appreciate this opportunity to be of - I .service: Should you have any questions regarding this project, please do not hesitate to contact us I Sincerely, C. 9 Chief Engineer OF CAtft I 1611-A SO. MELROSE DRIVE #285, VISTA, CA 92083-5497 • 760:945-3150 • F(: 760-945-4221 A cJ 1aj17 , i il_cft Zf ti - / • APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS PLOT PLAN OWNER: JO1 i 6LM4 PAMILT00J ('Ti iT' 11ccil I? ngjineering, Inc. LOCATION: 233 PlO P/CO PL A.P.N.: /535O-// PROJECT: PAM 90/ DATE: CIVIL, GEOTECHNICAL, & QUALITY ENGINEERS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING PERCOLATION SOIL TESTING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT & INSPECTION A. ENCLOSURE (1) 1ingft,cering, i:,c. CIVIL GEOTECHNICAL. & QUALITY ENGINEERS STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING • LAND SURVEYING PERCOLATION & SOIL TESTING CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENTS INSPECTION CLIENT:'Th'tTO/'J PROJECT: /1 / DATE: 'w; Z/ Test No. Test Date Test Location. Test El/Depth Soil Type Dry Density, pcf Moisture, % Relative Compaction Retest No. Field Maximum. Field Opt. //9,7 1311 7.1 9, 8. .90 91 /j,4 , 9,3 93 9 H 9, 3 11 91 16 H0056 pio . , IZA 7 /33, 9, b.c AL 1 I' /Z2 " 92 7 101,7 14 14 B.Z H _____ iii /24,2 ii 91 1 93 14 1 COMPACTION CURVE DATA SOIL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION 0 . OPTIMUM MOISTURE % MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) 4' TA,iJ - &ovn) 16 7 ip (/v,q 7-1 tie) 1511.9 5. LAIV j/r" 510 (/frJfai.) . . . /0'0 COMPACTION TEST DATA ENCLOSURE (2)