HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 99-49; ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY; AS-GRADED REPORT FOR THE ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY; 2002-01-07Ti
I
D H.
Ja
An e~rnployee owned 6rnpany
CITY OF L
Project No. 516O11O1:
UGINEMUG
ARTMEIVT
Mr. Ron Oreb.
Project Inspector S
City of Carlsbad ..
0 Public Works - Engineering 0 0
5950 El Camino Real 0
Carlsbad, California 92008 0
0
Subject: As-Graded Report for the Army and Navy Academy
Dormitory and Site Improvements 0 0 Grading Permit No. GRO1 0022 0 • 0 0
00 Coastal Development Permit: 99-49
0 0 Regional Plan: 99-14
Project: Army and Navy Academy 0
0
0
0 0
0 0 2605 Carlsb ad- Boulevard 00 0
0
0
0
0 Carlsbad, California 0
0
0
REFERENCE REPORT: REFERENCE PLANS:
0 0
0 0
Preliminary Geotechnical Study 0
0 Army & Navy Academy
Dormitories and Parking Lot Addition Dormitory Building & Site Improvements 0
0
Arniy' and Navy .Academy 0 Carlsbad, California
0 Carlsbad, San Diego County, California Prepared by: tBP Architecture 000
0
O Prepared by: Kleinfelder Inc. ,Dated: May 7, 2001
0
0
0 Dated: September 17, 1999 0 0 0 0 0
Project No. 58-921201 0
0
0 0 0
0
Dear Mr. Oreb: 0 0
0
Kleinfelder, Inc.' (Kleinfelder) provided geotechnical testing and observation services during 0
0 0 earthwork Operations for the Army and Navy. Academy project. This report summarizes our test •
. results and observatiOns.. The scope of our services consisted of observation and testing of
0
0 0 earthwork operations for building pad preparation, the parking lot, the curb and gutter, aggregate 0 0 0 base for the parking lot, and asphalt operations for the parkinglot. 0 •
0
0
0
0 'SUMMARY
o
00 0
0
•
0 0
• 0 0
0 Our testing and observation services were performed from Noveth6er 19, 2001 tltrOugh January 0
O 3, 2002 by a representative Of our firm who was onsite on a near continuous basis during the fill
operations for the building pad and parking lot areas. The general contractor for the work was 0
Buchanan and Buchanan; the earthwork contractor was Mark Construction.
0 The building pad was undercut to a depth-of approximately 3-1/2 feet below finish subgrade; the
undercut extended laterally approximately 5 feet from the perimeter of the structure. The bottom 0
of the undercut was scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted, to a -
0 51-601101/5102L011.doc
0 0 " 0 Page 1& 3 0 0 0 0 January 7,2002 0 0
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. 0
0
0
0
• 0
•
0 0
K L El N FE L D ER 5015 Shoreham Place, San Diego, CA 92122 (858) 320-2000 (858) 320-2001 fax 0 0
minimum of 92 percent of the maximum relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D 1557
Engineered fill consisting of onsite native soils and import soil were moisture conditioned,
spread in the excavation in approximate 8-inch thick loose lifts, and compacted by mechamcal
means to the 92 percent specification relative compaction.
The parking lot was undercut to a depth of approximately 18 inches below subgrade. The
bottom of the undercut was scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, and
recompated to a minimum of 92 percent of the maximum relative compaction in accordance
with ASTM D 1557. A septic tank at the northeast corner of the parking lot was removed,
leaving a.hole approximately 7 feet wide.by 16 feet long and 6 feet deep. The hole was filled.
with concrete slurry to about 12 inches below subgradé Engineered fill consisting of onsite
native soils, import soil, and Class 2 aggregate base were moisture conditioned, spread in the
excavation in approximate 8-inch thick loose lifts, and generally compacted to the specified
relative compaction Approximately, 1 5 inches of asphalt concrete was placed over the parking
lot as of December 20, 2001. We have informed that an additional 1.5 inches of asphalt concrete
will be placed above the newly placed asphalt to reach the finish parking grade. The maximum
density of the asphalt was provided by the mixing plant.
In-place density tests were performed in random locations and at various elevations throughout
the building pad and -parking lot area and are in substantial conformance with ASTM test
procedure D 2922 and D 3017 (nuclear method for density and moisture, respectively).
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of samples of fill materials were
evaluated at our laboratory in general accordance with ASTM test procedure D 1557. The
results of the tests are presented in Table 1 entitled "Maximum Density Test Results." The
results of the in-place density tests at the specific locations tested are presented in Table 2
entitled "Compaction Test Summary." In areas where in-place density tests did not meet the
minimum compaction requirethents, the soil was either removed and recompacted or additibnal
compactive effort was applied until project specifications were met or exceeded.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of our' tests and observations indicate that the earthwork operations, placemeht of
aggregate base, and the first lift of asphalt placement that our firm observed were performed in
substantial conformance with the project specifications and the geotechnical report.
/
CLOSURE .
The services provided as described in this report include professional opinions and judgements
based on the data collected and our field observations. These services have been performed
according to generally accepted geotéchnical engineering practices that exist in the Carlsbad area
at this time. No warranty,' express or implied, is provided.
The, conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply to our work with respect to
grading and represent conditions at the completion of the grading operations. Any subsequent
grading should be done in conjunction with our observations and testing services.
The tel-rn "observation" implies that we observed the progress of the work which was within our
scope of'services. Construction observation and testing should be performed during all footing
and. retaining wall excavations, placement of backfill for utility trenches, retaining walls', and
granular fill placed' prior to the placement of concrete for'footings and for slab support.
' S
51-601101/5102L011.doc ' Page2of3 , January 7, 2002
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. .4. '* ,
K L El N F ELDER . 5015 Shoreham Place, San Diego, CA 92122 (858) 32072000 (858) 320-2001 fax
Our conclusions and opinions regarding general conformance with the referenced geotechmcal
report are based on our observations, experience, and testing Subsurface conditions and the
accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions can vary greatly at any time
If any subsurface conditions are encountered subsequent to grading which are different from
those described in our report, our firm should be notified immediately in case any supplemental
recommendations may be necessary.-.We will not accept 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
This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated within a reasonable
time from it issuance Land use, site conditions (both on-site and offsite), or other factors may
change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time Any party
other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify Kleinfelder of such intended use
Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be
performed and that an updated report be issued Non-compliance with any of these requirements
by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from liability resulting from the use of this
reportby any unauthorized party.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project If you should
have any questions concerning this report or require additional services, please contact our
office.
Sincerely,
KLEINFELDER, INC
AESS10
7L , cfS
Thomas J Weaver Rick E Larson, G E 2027 No 027
Staff Engineer Senior Engineer Exp
TJW REL mliii
FQ
Attachments: Table 1 - Maximum Density Test Results
Table 2 - Compaction Test Summary
cc Ms Dana Teagarden, Buchanan Construction
Mr. Roger Cellim, Army and Navy Academy
Mr. Ronald Thomson, Kleinfelder, Inc
51 601101/5lO2L011doc Page 3of3 January7, 2002
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER 5015 Shoreham Place San Diego CA 92122 (858) 320 2000 (858) 320 2001 fax
TABLE! KLEINFEL.DER
MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Project: Army& Navy Academy Project No. 51-601101 -
* Optiiñuiii nn 'ii1e - 4- Description -' MoistureContent Diy Density
(% of-Dry Weight)
Dark Brown Silty Sand (SM) 7.0 135 0 _East _Side _of (From Parking Lot)
Dark Brown Silty Sand 2 7-8 133.1 _Building (From Pad)
White Tan Clayey Sand
- 3 (Import from El Camino Real in Carlsbad) 10.5
.
125 8
-
4 - White Sandy Silt (Import) 9.0 : 127.0
5 Class II Base from Vulcan 6.9 - 138.0
Light Brown Slightly Clayey Sand (SC) 6 8.5 132.0
____ (Mix of Import and On-site Native)
7 F Brownish Silty Fine to Coarse Sand 9.8 - 126.8
-Asphaltiq Concrete. 155.9
TABLE2 k4 KLEINFELDER
COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY
Project: Army & Navy Academy Project No. 51-601101
Date Test
No .Test
Retest
of .- Location
...
Approx
Elev
Dr)
;Density,
.. Moist
Cont
Rel
Comp
(%)-...
•
Sample
No
.
Retested
No"" Remirks
11/20/01 1 Parking Lot Northeast Side 38 111.0 65 82 1 24 Fail
11/20/01 2 Parking Lot Northeast Side 38 117.6 11.7 87 1 6 Fail
11/21/01 3 Parking Lot Northeast Side 36 118.4 10.0 88 1 6 Fail
11/21/01. 4 Parking Lot Northeast Side 39 118.7 7.3 88 1 7 Fail
11/21/01 5 . Parking Lot Northeast Side 39 118.8 6.2 88 1 7 Fail
11/21/01 6 2&3 Parking Lot Northeast Side 38 123.8 9.2 92 1 Pass
11/21/01 7 4&5 Parking Lot Northeast Side 39 125.3 7.1 93 1 Pass
11/23/01 8 Building Pad West Side , 45'. - 123.8' 6.7 \ 92 1 Pass
11/23/01 Building Pad West Side 45 117.2 7.3 88 2 10 Fail
.11/23/01. 10 9 Building Pad West Side .45 123.9 7.0 93 2 Pass
11/23/01 11 Parking Lot South Side 40 '. / 120.4 7.2 89 1 16 Fail
11/23/01 12 Parking Lot South Side 40 120.2 7.1 89 1 16 Fail
.1 1/23/01 13
•
Building Pad West Side
,
46 117.1 6.7 '88 .2 20 Fail
11/23/01. 14 Building Pad West Side 46 115.5 6.4 k 87 2 20 Fail
11/23/01 . 15 . Building Pad West Side 46. . 112.6 6.5 85 2 20 Fail
11/23/01 16 11&12 Parking Lot South Side , 40 126.2 7.2 94 1 • Pass
11/23/01 17 . Parking Lot South Side , 41 126.7 6.8 94 1 • Pass
11/23/01 18 Parking Lot South Side . 41 124.1 7.6 92 1 Pass
11/26/01 19 . Building Pad East Side 45 122.3 7.8 92 2 . Pass
11/26/0I. 20 . Building Pad East Side 47 121.8 8.6 92 2 Pass
11/26/01 21 . Building Pad East Side 47 122.5 8.5 92 2, Pass
11/26/01 22 Building Pad East Side 47 126.9 85 95 2 Pass
11/26/01 23 Building Pad East Side 47 123.1 7.8 93 2 Pass
FSG = Finish Subgrade FGB = Finish Base Grade FPG = Finish Parking Grade'
*Sojl in this area was removed and re'com'pacted to' meet the project specifications
51-601101/5102L011.doc , . •' Page! of
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.'
TABLE 2 (Continued) k9 K 1E I N FE L D ER
COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY
PrOject: Army & Navy Academy Project No. 51-601101
Date •
j.Test
N 0
Rtèst
of
Test
.
Location
4
Ele
(Ft)
Dry
Density
Moist
.--
Cont 11:Comp
Ret. Sample
N
.
Retested
' ° b N Remarks
12/5/01 24 1 Parking Lot Northeast Corner 38 123.8 11.0 92 - 1 Pass
12/5/01 25 Parking Lot Subgrade Northeast
Corner -
40 116.7. 12.0 93 3 *Fail
12/5/01 26 Parking Lot Subgrade Northeast P40, Corner
116.2 12.3 92 3
12/5/01 27 Parking Lot Subgrade Pavement
Section 40' 114 13.2 . 91 3 *Fail
12/6/01 28 Parking Lot Curb & Gutter 40 129.0 7.5 96 1 Pass
12/6/01 29 Parking Lot Curb & Gutter 40 118.0 7.0 88 1 33 Fail
12/6/01 30 Parking Lot Curb & Gutter 39 120.8 11.2 96 3 Pass
12/6/01 31 Parking Lot Curb & Gutter 40 128.4 8.4 95 1 Pass
12/6/01 32 Parking Lot Curb & Gutter 40 124.5 - 8.2 92 1 33 Fail
12/6/01 33 29&32 Parking Lot Curb & Gutter 40 128.6 9.3 95 1 Pass
12/6/01 34 Driveway Entry 38 108.3 10.6 86 3 *Fail
12/6/01 35 Parking Lot Curb & Gutter 39 129.7 11.2 96 1 Pass
12/13/01 36 East Parking Bay. FSG 122.4 15.0 92 2
12/14/01 37 East Parking Lot Northern Stalls 39 128.1 6.1 95 1 Pass
12/14/01 38 East Parking Lot Northern Stalls 39 128.8 11.4 95 3 Pass
12/14/01 39 East Parking Lot Middle Stalls 39 119.1 7.8 95 . I Pass
12/14/01 40 East Parking Lot Eastern Stalls 39 128.5 10.2 95 1 Pass
12/17/01 41 - east Parking Lot Entrance Area 39 119.2 13.3 95 3 Pass
12/17/01 42 East Parking Lot Southeast Stalls 39 119.4 9.8 95 3 Pass
12/17/01 43 East Parking Lot Western Stalls 39 130.7 6.2 95 5 Pass
12/17/01 44 East Parking Lot Eastern Stalls 39 - 131.0 - 6.7 95 5 - Pass
12/17/01 45 East Parking Lot Near Eastern 39 Stalls
131.7 6.1 95 5 Pass
12/18/01 46 South End of East Parking Bay FBG 130.8 6.1 95 5 Pass
12/18/01 47 East Side of Center Landscape
Island FBG 131.1 6.2 95 5 Pass
12/18/01 48 North Side of Center Landscape
Island FBG 130.6 . 6.0 95 5 Pass
FSG =Finish ,Subgrade FGB = Finish Base Grade FPG = Finish Parking Grade
*Soil in this area was removed and recbrnpacted to meet the project specifications • -
. 51-601101/5102LO1l.doc - Page 2of4 January 7, 2002
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. -
TABLE2(C'ntinied)' 1111 KLEIN FEL.DER
COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY
Project: Army & Navy Academ Project No. 51-601101
.'.':J ;S
ft
' . *
Date Tests
*
Retest i.
Location
Approx
.. .Elev:
Dn
.- Density
Moist
ont.
Ret
.Comp Sample Retested ,Remarks
. I O Test
- .' .
(Ft) (pc N b N Y O
12/18/01 49 North Parking Bay FBG 131.7 5.9 95 5 Pass
12/18/01 50, Northwest Comer of Parking Bay FBG 132.2 6.0 96 - 5 Pass
12/18/01 51 West Center Portion of Parking Lot FBG 131.9 6.3 96 5 Pass
12/18/01 52 Southeast Parking Bay FBG 131.3 6.3 96 5 Pass
12/18/01 53 South End of Parking Lot FBG 134.3 6.0 97 5 Pass
12/18/01 54 Parking Lot Driveway Entrance FBG 135.1 5.8 98 5 Pass
12/19/01 55 . Northeast Parking Stall 148.7 -- 95 8 Pass FPG
12/19/01 561 Northwest Parking Stall 148.0 -- 95 8 Pass FPG
.12/19/01 57 Northeast Driveway 150.8 -- 97 8 Pass
58
FPG
12/19/01 Northeast Driveway 150.2 -- 96 8 . Pass FPG
12/19/01 59 Northwest Driveway 149.0 -- 96 8 . Pass FPG
12/20/01 . 60 Northwest Driveway. 148.4 -- 95 8 Pass FPG
12/20/01 61 Building Pad West End 45 125.0 6.7 93 1 Pass
12/20/01 62 Building Pad West End 45 124.6 7.7 92 1 Pass
12/20/01 63 BuildingPadWestEnd 46 123.9 6.3 92 1 Pass
12/20/01 64 Building Pad West End 46 124.2 6.6 92 1 Pass
12/20/01 65 Building Pad West End 46.5 1.22.6 7.6 93 6 Pass
12/20/01 66 Building Pad West End 46.5 123.6 7.9 94 . 6 Pass
12/20/01 67 Building Pad West End . 46.5 123.1 9.2 93 6 Pass
1/2/02 68 Building Pad West End 47.3 116.9 10.7 92 7 Pass
1/2/02 69 Building Pad West End 47.3 116.1 10.2 92 7 Pass
1/2/02 70 Building Pad West End 47 124.2 7.0 93 2 Pass
1/2/02, 71 Building Pad West End 48 123.0 6.9 92 2' . Pass
1/2/02 72 Building Pad West End 46.5 122.0 7.8 92 6 Pass
1/2/02 73 - Building Pad West End 47.5 124.4 7.9 94 6 Pass
FSG Finish Subgrade FGB = Finish Base Grade FPG = Finish Parking Grade'
*Soil in this area was removed and recompacted to meet the project specifications
51-601101/5102L0ll.doc - . S Page 3of4
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
- -- • I
January 7, 2002
...
TABLE 2 (Continued) IEIK I. E IN FE L ER
COMPACTION TEST SUMMARY
Project: Army & Navy Academy Project No. 51-601101
Retest i Moist Rd T Approx Dry Sample Re test cd3 ' Date e 10 of Location E Density Cont Comp 1\0 bi\o Remarks
.. Test (Ft) (pet)
1/3IO2 74 Building Pad West End FSG - 116.9 11.9 92 . 7 --. Pass
1/3162- 75 Building Pad West End . FSG -, 117.5 12.1 # 93 7 . . Pass
1/3/02 76 Building Pad West End FSG 117.4 11.5 93 7 Pass
1/3/02 77 . Building Pad West End FSG 123.8 6.8 93 2 Pass
1/3/02 78 . Building Pad West End FSG : 127.2 6.5 96 2 Pass
FSG = Finish Subgrade FGB = Finish Base Grade FPG = Finish Parking Grade
*Soil in this area was removed and recompacted to meet the project specifications>
.51-601101/5102L011.doc . Page 4of4 January 7, 2002
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc. S