HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 01-17; TAMARACK FIVE; GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION RPT AND GRADING PLAN; 2001-12-136^
DECEMBER 13, 2001
PROJECT NO. 01-5421
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT AND GRADING PLAN REVIEW
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (5 LOTS)
625 TAMARACK AVENUE
CARLSBAD CALIFORNIA
FOR
MANNING HOMES
20151 SOUTH WEST BIRCH STREET, SUITE 150
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92660-1713
OILS ENGINEERING, INC. OXO f'/^
CORPORATE: 3320 AIRPORT WAY - LONG BEACH, CALIF. 90806 - PHONE 562/426-7990 - FAX 562/426-1842
SAN DIEGO: 9235 CHESAPEAKE DR. - SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92123 - PHONE 858/974-3691 - FAX 858/974-3752
SINEERING.INC.
Consulting Foundation Enginmr*
December 13, 2001
Project No. 01-5421
Manning Honnes
20151 South West Birch Street, Suite 150
Newport Beach, California 92660-1713
Attention: Mr. Peter Hemphill
Subject: Geotechnical Exploration Report and Grading Plan Review
Proposed Residential Development (5 Lots)
625 Tamarack Avenue
Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
Presented herewith is our Geotechnical Exploration Report for the proposed residential
development which is to be constructed at the above subject address. The work was
conducted in accordance with our proposal dated May 18, 2001 (reissued November 9,
2001), and your subsequent authorization on November 16, 2001.
The exploration was planned and performed utilizing the information provided by you as to
the proposed future development of the site. Provided information included a Tentative
Subdivision Map for the property prepared by BHA Inc., undated, and enclosed herein as
Plate A.
Engineering evaluation for site conditions has been made with regard to the geotechnical
aspects of the planned residential development. Our evaluation indicates that the proposed
residential structures may be supported on shallow conventional foundations bearing on
approved compacted fill.
Presented within this report are geotechnical criteria for site grading, design and construction
of the proposed structures on shallow conventional foundations.
We thank you for the opportunity of working with you on this project. We look fonA/ard to
assisting you during site grading and foundation construction.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Ed ware
Engineering Geolc^
GLM/LFA/ECR:cmc
Distribution: (4) Addressee
L. Fernando AragonJ^.E. GE-99
Geotechnical Engineer
OILS ENGINEERING, INC.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical exploration for the proposed development of
five (5) single-family detached homes to be located at 625 Tamarack Avenue in Carlsbad,
California. The approximate location of the site is shown on the Site Location Map (Figure 1).
The purpose of the exploration was to evaluate the general soil conditions at the site, including
evaluation of the site specific liquefaction potential, and provide geotechnical recommendations
for the design and construction of the proposed project.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The following information provided by project consultants is currently understood to apply
to this project.
1.1.1 Building Concepts:
It is our understanding that existing site structures are to be razed and the site regraded
to accommodate five (5) residential lots along with an associated cul-de-sac. The
proposed residential structures are presumed to consist of one and two-story frame
construction supported by shallow conventional foundations, and with interior slabs-on-
grade.
1.1.2 Structural Loading:
In the absence of actual structural loading information, we will assume that the maximum
column load will be on the order of 25 kips. Maximum load on continuous footings will be
assumed to be less than 2500 pounds per linear foot.
1.2 SCOPE OF EXPLORATION
In order to accomplish the purpose of this exploration, our scope of work included the
performance of the following tasks:
A. Review of available project data and preparation of an exploration program.
B. Field exploration consisting of drilling four (4) borings to depths of 25 to 40 feet below
existing grades, field logging of borings and soil sampling.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
OILS ENGINEERING, INC. 01-5421 Pagel
ProjectNo.: 01-5421 SITE LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1
C. Laboratory testing of selected soil samples to aid in the classification of the materials
sampled and to determine their engineering properties.
D. Interpretation, analysis and evaluation of the data obtained and preparation of this
report presenting recommendations for foundation design and construction.
The results of field exploration and laboratory testing upon which our evaluation and
recommendations are based are presented in the Appendices to this report.
This exploration did not include any evaluation or assessment of hazardous or toxic
materials, which may or may not exist on or beneath the site.
2.1 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
2.1 LOCATION
The site is located at 625 Tamarack Avenue in the City of Carlsbad, California, and is
legally described as a portion of Tract 232 of Thums Land in the City of Carlsbad, County
of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 1681, filed in the Office of
the County Recorder of San Diego County, December 9, 1915.
The following information pertaining to site conditions was obtained during the course of
performing field work for this project.
2.2 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Tamarack Avenue is north of the property, with the Dolphin Beach Apartments and an
asphalt parking lot for the apartment complex beyond. A single-family residence and
undeveloped property are south and west of the site. Single-family residences bound the
site to the east.
2.3 EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
The site surface is generally uniform and level. The majority of the site has been used for
agricultural purposes, with furrowed rows from previous and current plantings.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Page 2
OILS ENGINEERING, INC.
A single-story frame and stucco residence and a converted garage/office are present is
the southerly portion of the site. Portland cement concrete walks are located around the
residence. The existing flatwork visually appears to be in fair condition. A small wood
frame commercial flower shack is located on-site along Tamarack Avenue.
Several medium-size trees, small palms, fruit trees, grape vines, tomato plants and other
planted crops are present within the property. Tree stumps were also noted in the
southerly portion of the site. Planters are located around the existing residence.
2.4 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Subsurface exploration disclosed the presence of shallow fill soils at one (1) of the four
(4) boring locations drilled for this project. Fill soils (or disturbed native soils) were
encountered to a depth on the order of 15-inches below existing grade in Boring B-2.
Encountered fill soils consist of silty sands, and contain metal pipe pieces.
Site native soils are Quaternary Age Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol -Qt) and consist
predominantly of silty sands, silty sands with clay, sands with silt, and sands, with some
sandy silt with clay layers. The soils were, in general, damp to moist, with some layers
very moist. Standard Penetration Test ("N" Value) and barrel sampler blow counts
indicate that native granular soils are in a medium dense to very dense condition.
More detailed descriptions of the soils encountered and conditions observed during the
subsurface exploration are shown in the boring logs in the Appendix A. Included in the
logs are the depth of soil samples, Standard Penetration Test ("N" Value) and barrel
sampler blow counts, field dry densities and field moisture contents.
2.4 GROUNDWATER AND CAVING
During field exploration, groundwater was encountered at a depth of approximately 34
feet below existing grade in Boring B-4.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Pages
OILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Generally, seasonal and long-term fluctuations in the groundwater may occur as a result
of variations in subsurface conditions, rainfall, run-off conditions and other factors.
Therefore, variations from our observations may occur.
The use of hollow-stem augers during drilling precluded observation of potential caving
conditions which may have otherwise occurred in an uncased hole. Caving and/or
sloughing in the test borings was not determined during the extraction of auger stem at
the completion of boring operations. Caving may be likely in excavations greater in
dimension than our test borings.
2.5 UTILITIES
No overhead or underground utilities were encountered during the course of our field
work for this project. However, overhead and underground utility lines provide service to
existing site structures. Overhead lines are along the easterly property line.
3.0 REGIONAL SEISMICITY
3.1 FAULTING AND SURFACE RUPTURE HAZARD
The subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. No known
active or potentially active faults are shown crossing the site on published maps reviewed
(Jennings, 1994). Therefore, the risk of surface rupture at the site is considered low.
However, being in close proximity to several known active and potentially active faults,
severe ground shaking should be expected during the life of the proposed structures.
There are a number of faults in the Southern California area which are considered active
and could have an effect on the site in the form of moderate to strong ground shaking,
should they be the source of an earthquake. These faults include, but are not limited to,
the San Andreas fault, the San Jacinto fault, the Whittier-Elsinore fault and the Newport-
Inglewood fault zone. The Rose Canyon Fault is closest to the site, approximately 4.6
miles away.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Page 4
OILS ENGINEERING, INC.
3.1 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL
The term "liquefaction" describes a phenomenon in which a saturated cohesionless soil
loses strength and acquires a degree of mobility as a result of strong ground shaking
during an earthquake. The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil
type and depth, grain size, relative density, groundwater level, degree of saturation, and
both the intensity and duration of ground shaking. Clayey soils are generally not
susceptible to liquefaction. Also, based on published case histories, liquefaction of soils
deeper than about 45 feet depth appears unlikely.
During our field exploration, groundwater was encountered in Boring B-4 at a depth of
approximately 34 feet below existing grade. The soils to the 40 feet maximum depth
drilled consist predominantly of dense to very dense granular soils, with some medium
dense near surface layers. Based on available geotechnical data obtained during this
exploration, it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction as a result of ground
shaking at the site is low.
4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our field exploration and laboratory testing, combined with engineering
analysis and our experience and judgment, it is the opinion of ASE that the site may be
developed as planned, provided the site grading and foundation criteria discussed herein are
incorporated into the project plans and specifications and implemented during construction.
The major geotechnical considerations affecting the design and construction of the residential
development include the following:
1. Soil disturbance as a result of site demolition and clearing operations.
2. Presence of existing fill soils in some areas of planned construction.
It is our opinion that overexcavation and backfilling with properly compacted fill in the building
areas as recommended herein, will be necessary to reduce structure settlements and provide
satisfactory performance of the buildings. The grading recommendations provided herein are
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Page 5
OILS ENGINEERING, INC.
specific to the presently proposed grading and should be reviewed if final project concept and
grading plans are changed. It is currently proposed to reconfigure the site to accommodate five
(5) single family residences on individual building pads, access road and parkways. Cuts and
fills are planned at up to one to five feet, respectively.
The recommendations provided herein apply to conventional foundations comprised of
continuous and spread footings.
4.1 SITE PREPARATION
4.1.1 Existing Improvements:
Prior to grading operations, it will be necessary to remove designated existing
construction, including any remaining buried obstructions, which may be in the areas of
proposed construction. Structure removal should include foundations. Concrete flatwork
should also be stripped from the site. Concrete fragments from site demolition operations
should be disposed of off-site.
4.1.2 Surface Vegetation:
Surface vegetation should be stripped from areas of proposed construction. Stripping
should penetrate three to six inches into surface soils. Any soils contaminated with
organic matter (such as root systems or strippings mixed into the soils) should be
disposed of off-site or set aside for future use in landscaping areas.
Removal of trees and shrubs should include rootballs and attendant root systems.
4.1.3 Underground Utilities:
Any underground utilities to be abandoned within the zone of proposed construction
should be cut off a minimum of 5 feet from the area of the future construction. The ends
of cut off lines should be plugged a minimum of 5 feet with concrete exhibiting minimum
shrinkage characteristics to prevent water migration to or from hollow lines. Capping of
lines may also be required should the plug be subject to any line pressure.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Pagea
OILS ENGINEERING, INC.
As an alternate, deep hollow lines may be left in place, provided they are filled with
concrete. No filled line should be permitted closer than 2 feet from the bottom of future
footings.
Local ordinances relative to abandonment of underground utilities, if more restrictive, will
supersede the above minimum requirements.
4.2 SITE GRADING
4.2.1 Old Fill/Disturbed Native Soils:
All old undocumented fill soils should be excavated full depth. Any native soils disturbed
during demolition and clearing operations should also be excavated full depth. Lateral
extent of overexcavation beyond structure perimeters, where possible, should be to a
minimum distance equal to the depth of fill/loose soil encountered or three feet,
whichever is greater.
The exposed excavation bottoms should be scarified to a minimum one foot depth and
recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture
content prior to backfilling with approved soils as specified in Section 4.2.7 below.
4.2.2 Remedial Grading:
To provide acceptable support for structure foundations and slabs, it is recommended
that the native soils be overexcavated to a minimum depth of three feet below existing or
proposed grade, whichever is deeper, and replaced with properly compacted fill such that
the building footings and slabs are supported on an improved layer of approved
compacted fill.
It will be necessary to provide a minimum three feet of approved compacted fill beneath
existing grade or finish grade, whichever is lower, in all areas of building interior slab-on-
grade construction. Approved fill material in areas of interior slabs-on-grade should
consist predominantly of granular material (Expansion Index less than 20). Granular soils
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Page?
50ILS ENGINEERING, INC.
should be recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum
moisture content.
The overexcavation should extend laterally beyond footing edges to a distance equivalent
to the depth of overexcavation below footings, and to a minimum of three feet beyond
building perimeters, where possible.
A six-inch scarification and recompaction of in-place soils to 90 percent relative
compaction at near optimum moisture content may be taken equivalent to six-inches of
approved compacted fill, when computing total excavation requirements.
The depth of overexcavation should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant during
the actual construction. Any subsurface obstruction, buried structural elements, and
unsuitable material encountered during grading, should be immediately brought to the
attention of the Geotechnical Consultant for proper exposure, removal and processing, as
recommended.
Exposed excavation bottoms should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant or his
representative.
4.2.3 Excavation Procedures:
Excavations of site soils 4 feet or deeper should be temporarily shored or sloped in
accordance with Cal OSHA requirements.
a) Temporary Slopes:
In areas where excavations deeper than 4 feet are not adjacent to existing structures
or public right-of-ways, sloping procedures may be utilized for temporary excavations.
It is recommended that temporary slopes in native soils be graded no steeper than
1.5:1 (H:V) for excavations up to 10 feet in depth. The above temporary slope criteria
is based on level soil conditions behind temporary slopes with no surcharge loading
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Pages
OILS ENGINEERING, INC.
(structures, traffic) within a lateral distance behind the top of slope equivalent to the
slope heighL
It is recommended that excavated soils be placed a minimum lateral distance from
top of slope equal to the height of slope. A minimum setback distance equivalent to
the slope height should be maintained between the top of slope and heavy
excavating/grading equipment.
Soil conditions should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant as excavation
progresses to verify acceptability of temporary slopes. Final temporary cut slope
design will be dependent upon the soil conditions encountered, construction
procedures and schedule.
b) Shoring:
Temporary shoring will be required for those excavations where temporary slope cuts
as specified above are not feasible.
Temporary cantilever shoring, if used, should be designed to resist an active earth
pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid pressure for level conditions
behind shoring.
The design of shoring should also include surcharge loading effects of existing
structures and anticipated traffic, including delivery and construction equipment, when
loading is within a distance from the shoring equal to the depth of excavation.
In addition to the above, a minimum uniform lateral pressure of 100 pounds per square
foot in the upper ten feet of shoring should be incorporated in the design when normal
traffic is permitted within ten feet of the shoring.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Page 9
OILS ENGINEERING, INC.
4.2.4 Exterior Concrete Flatwork and Pavement Support:
It will be necessary to provide a minimum one foot of approved compacted fill beneath
existing grade or finish grade, whichever is lower, in all areas of exterior concrete
flatwork, as well as asphalt pavement areas. Site soils should be recompacted to a
minimum 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture contents.
A six-inch scarification and recompaction of in-place soils to 90 percent relative
compaction at near optimum moisture contents may be taken equivalent to six-inches of
approved compacted fill, when computing total excavation requirements.
4.2.5 New Fills:
The upper one foot of site soils should be excavated and recompacted to a minimum of
90 percent relative compaction prior to placement of any new fills, where required, to
achieve finish grade elevations.
The exposed excavation bottoms should be scarified a minimum one foot and
recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture
contents. The excavation bottom should be firm and unyielding prior to backfilling.
4.2.6 Imported Soils:
Any imported soil required to complete grading operations should consist of
predominantly granular material which exhibits an expansion index less than 20 when
tested in accordance with U.B.C. 18-2 Expansion Test Procedures, and should be free of
debris, particles greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension, organic matter or other
deleterious materials, and should be approved by the Geotechnical Consultant or his
representative.
4.2.7 Backfilling and Compaction Requirements:
Existing site soils, unless indicated otherwise, are considered suitable for re-use during
site grading and backfilling of utility trenches, provided they are free of debris, particles
greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension, organic matter or other deleterious
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Page 10
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
materials, and are to a suitable moisture condition to permit achieving the required
compaction.
On-site and import materials approved for use should be placed in horizontal lifts not
exceeding 8-inches in loose thickness, moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture
contents, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined by ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91.
4.2.8 Tests and Observations:
All grading, compaction, and backfill operations should be performed under the
observation of and testing by the Geotechnical Consultant's representative. An adequate
number of field tests should be taken to ensure compliance with this report and local
ordinances.
If it is determined during grading that site soils require overexcavation to greater depths
for obtaining proper support for the proposed structures, this additional work should be
performed in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Consultant.
Imported fill soils should be examined by a representative of the Geotechnical
Consultant, and tested as necessary for evaluating their suitability for use as fill prior to
being hauled to the site. Final acceptance of any imported soil will be based upon review
and testing of the soil actually delivered to the site.
Maximum density for control of grading should be determined in accordance with ASTM
Dl 557-91 test procedures.
4.3 FOUNDATION DESIGN
It is our opinion that conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on approved
compacted fill may be used to provide support for the proposed residential development
construction at the subject site. Presented below are the recommended geotechnical
criteria for the design of footings.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Pagell
OILS ENGINEERING, INC.
4.3.1 Bearing Capacities:
Dead plus live load allowable soil bearing pressures of 2200 and 2500 pounds per
square foot may be used in the design of continuous and spread footings, respectively,
when supported on approved compacted fill in accordance with recommendations in
Section 4.2.2. Recommended minimum footing width is one foot.
The above bearing pressures may be increased by one-third under short term loading
from wind or seismic forces.
4.3.2 Footing Embedment and Reinforcement:
Recommended minimum footing embedment is 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish
soil grade, with minimum reinforcement of one #4 for top and bottom of the footings.
Foundation design details such as concrete strength, reinforcements, etc. should be
established by the Project Structural Engineer.
4.3.3 Settlements:
Total settlements for foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the above
criteria, and supporting maximum assumed column and wall loads of 25 kips and 2.5 kips
per linear foot, respectively, are not anticipated to exceed one inch. A differential
settlement on the order of 1/4 inch is anticipated between similarly loaded pad footings
and for continuous wall footings over a distance of approximately 30 feet. A differential
settlement on the order of 1/4 inch is anticipated between adjacent column and wall
footings supporting the assumed structural loads.
This office should be contacted for further evaluation and recommendations, as
necessary, should final design structural loads exceed the maximum loads used in our
analysis by more than 10 percent.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Page 12
OILS ENGINEERING, INC.
4.3.4 Lateral Resistance:
Resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by passive earth pressure
and by friction acting on structural components in permanent contact with the subgrade
soils.
Lateral resistance on the sides of footings may be computed using a passive pressure of
250 pounds per square foot perfoot of embedment into properly compacted fill, subject to
a maximum of 2500 pounds per square foot. An ultimate friction coefficient of 0.4 may be
assumed with dead load forces between concrete and the supporting soils.
4.3.5 Retaining Walls:
Any retaining walls planned should be adequately designed to resist the lateral soil
pressures and the anticipated construction loadings and service conditions. The earth
pressure acting on retaining walls depends primarily on the allowable wall movement,
type of backfill materials, backfill slopes, wall inclination, surcharges, and any hydrostatic
pressure. The following equivalent fluid pressures are recommended for vertical walls
with no hydrostatic pressure and no surcharge loading:
EARTH PRESSURE
Backfill Slope Equivalent Fluid Pressure (pcf)
Soil Tvpe Behind Walls Active (Cantilever) At-Rest (Rigid)
Silty Sands Level 40 60
These values are applicable for site soils placed between the wall stem and an imaginary
plane rising at 45 degrees from below the edges (heel) of wall footings. The surcharge
effect of anticipated loads on the wall backfill (e.g., traffic, construction equipment,
footings) should be included in the wall design. Depending on whether the wall is free to
deflect or restrained, 33 or 50 percent, respectively, of a maximum surcharge load
located within a distance equal to the retained height of the wall should be used in
design.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Page 13
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Positive drainage measures should be incorporated in design. Consideration should be
given to the use of a drainage system at the base of retaining walls to intercept any
seepage should it develop at some time following construction. Alternately, weep holes
may be provided to relieve any hydrostatic pressure build-up, where feasible, with
suitable collection and discharge points.
4.3.6 Footing Observation:
All footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant's
representative to verify minimum embedment depths and competency of bearing soils.
Such observations should be made prior to placement of any reinforcing steel or
concrete.
4.4 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
The following seismic design parameters are provided based on review of data obtained
from our recent geotechnical exploration, and review of available literature from the
California Division of Mines and Geology, and the US Geological Survey.
1997 UBC Indicated Value or
Chapter 16 Table # Seismic Parameter Classification
16-1 Seismic Zone Factor 0.40
16-J Soil Profile Type SD
16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca 0.44 Na
16-R Seismic Coefficient Cv 0.64 Nv
16-S Near-Source Factor Na 1.0
16-T Near-Source Factor Nv 1.2
16-U Seismic Source Type B
Final selection of design coefficients should be made by the structural consultant based
on the local laws and ordinances, expected building response, and desired level of
conservatism. The nearest fault to the site is the Rose Canyon Fault located
approximately 4.6 miles away.
OILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Page 14
4.5 EXPANSIVE SOILS
Site subgrade soils exhibit a very low soil expansion potential as defined in Table No. 18-
1 B "Classification of Expansive Soils" in the Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition. It is
our opinion that for site conditions, soil expansion may not be a critical factor in design.
The degree of soil expansion should be confirmed by additional tests during or after
rough grading operations.
4.6 SITE DRAINAGE
Surface grades adjacent to buildings should be designed and constructed to facilitate
drainage away from structures. Recommended minimum grade in unpaved areas around
buildings and asphalt-paved areas is 2 percent, and in concrete paved areas is 1 percent.
Any planter areas placed adjacent to perimeter footings should be provided with solid
bottoms and a drainage pipe, or other devices to divert water away from foundation and
slab subgrade soils. Excessive moisture variations in such soils could result in significant
volume changes and movement.
4.7 SLAB-ON-GRADE
Concrete floor slabs in buildings and exterior concrete flatwork should be supported on
properly compacted soils as recommended in the Site Grading section of this report. Any
interior slab to receive a moisture sensitive floor covering should be underlain by an
impermeable membrane (minimum 8 mil thick visqueen) topped with two inches of clean,
coarse sand.
As a minimum, slabs should be 4-inches thick and reinforced with #3 reinforcing bars
spaced at 30-inches on center.
The slab subgrade should be proof-rolled just prior to construction to provide a firm,
unyielding surface, especially if the subgrade has been disturbed or loosened by the
passage of construction traffic. Final compaction and testing of slab subgrade should be
performed just prior to placement of concrete.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Page 15
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Interior and exterior slabs should be properly designed for the construction and service
loading conditions. The structural details, such as slab thickness, concrete strength,
amount and type of reinforcements, joint spacing, etc., should be established by the
Project Structural Engineer.
4.8 SOLUBLE SULFATES
A sample of selected subgrade soil was tested to determine the concentration of water-
soluble sulfates. Laboratory testing indicated a sulfate concentration of 0.004 percent by
weight of dry soils in the tested soil sample. Soils with sulfate concentrations less than
0.10 percent are generally reported to have a negligible corrosive effect on concrete as
defined on Table 19-A-4 of the U.B.C, 1997 Edition. All concrete in contact with site soils
should comply with Table 19-A-4 of the U.B.C, 1997 Edition for negligible sulfate
exposure.
4.9 UTILITY TRENCHES
Bedding material should consist of sand with a Sand Equivalent value not less than 30.
Backfill of all trenches should be compacted to achieve a relative compaction of not less
than 90 percent, in accordance with ASTM Dl 557-91. Care should be taken during
backfilling to prevent utility line damage.
The walls of temporary construction trenches may not be stable when excavated nearly
vertical due to the potential for caving. Shoring of excavation walls or flattening of slopes
will be required for temporary excavations deeper than 4 feet.
Trenches should be located so as not to impair the bearing capacity of soils or cause
settlement under foundations. As a guide, trenches parallel to foundations should be
clear of a 45-degree plane extending outward and downward from the edge of the
foundations.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Page 16
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
All work associated with trenches, excavations and shoring must conform to the State of
California Safety Code.
4.10 PLAN REVIEW. OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
All excavations should be observed by a representative of this office to verify minimum
embedment depths, competency of bearing soils and that the excavations are free of
loose and disturbed materials. Such observations should be made prior to placement of
any fill, reinforcing steel or concrete. All grading and fill compaction should be performed
under the observation of and testing by the Geotechnical Consultant or his
representative.
As foundation and grading plans are completed, they should be forwarded to the
Geotechnical Consultant for review for conformance with the intent of these
recommendations.
5.0 CLOSURE
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of the Manning Homes and their design
consultants relative to the design and construction of the proposed residential development at
the subject site. The report has not been prepared for use by other parties, and may not contain
sufficient information for purposes of other parties.
The Owner or their representatives should make sure that the information and
recommendations contained in this report are brought to the attention of the project engineers
and architects and incorporated into the plans, and that the necessary steps are taken to
confirm that the contractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
This office should be notified should any of the following, pertaining to the final site
development, occur:
1. Final plans for site development indicate utilization of areas not originally proposed for
construction.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Paget?
OILS ENGINEERING, INC.
2. Structural loading conditions vary from those utilized for evaluation and preparation of this
report.
3. The site is not completed within 12 months following the date of this report.
4. Change of ownership.
Should any of the above occur, this office should be notified and provided with finalized plans of
site development for our review to enable us to provide the necessary recommendations for
additional work and/or updating of the report. Any charges for such review and necessary
recommendations would be at the prevailing rate at the time of performing review work.
The findings contained in this report are based upon our evaluation and interpretation of the
information obtained for the limited number of test borings and the results of the laboratory
testing and engineering analysis. As part of the engineering analysis it has been assumed, and
is expected, that the geotechnical conditions which exist across the site are similar to those
encountered in the test excavations. However, no warranty is expressed or implied as to the
conditions at locations or depths other than those excavated. Should any conditions
encountered during construction differ from those described herein, this office should be
contacted immediately for recommendations prior to continuation of work.
Our findings and recommendations were obtained in accordance with generally accepted
current professional principles and local practice in geotechnical engineering and reflect our
best professional judgment. We make no other warranty, either express or implied.
These findings and recommendations are, however, dependent on the above assumption of
uniformity and upon proper quality control of fill placed and foundations installed. Geotechnical
observations and testing should be provided on a continuous basis during grading at the site to
confirm design assumptions and to verify conformance with the intent of our recommendations.
If parties other than Associated Soils Engineering, Inc., are engaged to provide services during
construction they must be informed that they will be required to assume complete responsibility
for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring with the recommendations in this report
or providing alternative recommendations.
Manning Homes December 13, 2001
01-5421 Page 18
OILS ENGINEERING, INC.
This concludes our scope of services as indicated in our proposal dated May 18, 2001 (reissued
November 9, 2001), however, our report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for the
project. Any further geotechnical services that may be required of our office to respond to
questions/comments of the controlling authorities after their review of the report will be
performed on a time and expense basis as per our current fee schedule. We would not proceed
with any response to report review comments/questions without authorization from your office.
We appreciate your business and hope that we can assist you during construction related
service.
6.0 REFERENCES
Blake, 1995, EQFAULT, a Computer Program for the Deterministic Prediction of Horizontal
Acceleration of Digitized California Faults, IBM-PC Version, User's Manual
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, Scale 1:750,000,
California Division of Mines and Geology, California Data Map Series, Map No. 6.
crJc^^,r,Lcol>r rMr Manning Homes December 13, 2001
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. ^^^l Page 19
APPENDIXA
The following Appendix contains the substantiating data and laboratory test results to
complement the engineering evaluations and recommendations contained in this report.
Plate A Boring Location Plan
Plates B-1 through B-4 Logs of Borings
Plates C-1 through C-3 Consolidation Test Results
Plates D-1 through D-3 Direct Shear Tests
SITE EXPLORATION
On November 26, 2001, field explorations were performed by drilling four (4) test borings at the
approximate locations indicated on the attached Boring Location Plan, Plate A. Exploratory
borings were drilled by C & C Drilling Company, utilizing a truck mounted, rotary drilling rig
equipped with 8-inch diameter continuous flight, hollow-stem rotary augers. The borings
extended to depths ranging from 25 to 40 feet from existing grades.
Continuous observations of the materials encountered in the borings were recorded in the field.
The soils were classified in the field by visual and textural examination and these classifications
were supplemented by obtaining bulk soil samples for future examination in the laboratory.
Relatively undisturbed samples of soils were extracted in a barrel sampler lined with 2.375-inch
diameter by one-inch rings and tipped with a tapered cutting shoe. Additional samples were
obtained in a Standard Penetration sampler in accordance with specifications outlined in ASTM
D1586. All samples were secured in moisture-resistant bags as soon as taken to minimize the
loss of field moisture while being transported to the laboratory and awaiting testing.
Upon completion of exploration, the borings were backfilled with excavated materials and
compacted by tamping.
Description of the soils encountered, depth of samples, field density and field moisture content
of tested samples, and Standard Penetration Test ("N" Values) and barrel sampler blow counts
are given on the Logs of Borings (see attached "B" Plates).
^ ^ ' ~ ^ ^ Manning Homes December 13, 2001
SOILS ENGINEERING. INC. ^^,5421 Page 20
/A FIELD LOG OF BORING B - 1
Sheet 1 of 2 /A Project: New Residential Devopment (5 Lots)-Carlsbad
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Location: 625 Tamarack Avenue Project No. 01-5421
Dates(s) Drilled:
Drilled By:
Rig Make/Model:
Drilling Method:
Hole Diameter:
11/26/01
C&C Drilling Company
Mobile B-61
Hollow-stem Auger
8 In.
Logged By: Gary Martin
Total Depth: 25 Feet
Hammer Type: Wireline downhole
Hammer Weight/Drop: 140 Lb./±30 In.
Surface Elevation: Unknown
Comments: No groundwater.
Q. LU
Q
CO
UJ ^
_1
UJ
SAMPLE
INTERVALS
UJ b
Q.
> (3 O _i O
X 03 O CO 3
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
o
Q.
CO
>- z
cc UJ
Q Q
UJ CC Z) t-co
o
z
LU H Z o o
CO H CO UJ
I-
tr
UJ
X
H
o
5 —5
10 10
|1 6/6"(Ring)
m 17/6"(Ring
46(Rlng)
I 50/6"(Ring;
SM
SM
SM
JL
SM
SM
SP-SM
SILTY SAND: Dark brown,molst,fine-
grained sand
SILTY SAND: Dark yellowish
brown,moist,fine-grained sand,trace clay
SILTY SAND WITH CLAY: Dark yellowish
brcwn.moist.fine-grained sand
SILTY SAND: Ught dive brown,damp,fine-
grained sand
\ 'insufficient sample for density
SILTY SAND: Yellowish brown,moist,fine-
grained sand,trace clay
SAND WITH SILT: Olive yellow,moist,fine-
grained sand
+nioisture sample from upper 6" of SPT
112.0
117.0
123.2 9.3
11.2
10.9
* 5 8 105.0 8:4
13.0
MAX,EXP,S04
REMOLD
SHEAR
/A FIELD LOG OF BORING B - 1
Sheet 2 of 2 /A Project: New Residential Devopment (5 Lots)-Carlsbad
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Lcx:ation: 625 TamaracAr Avenue Project No. 01-5421
a.
UJ Q
z
O
< CO
—I
Ul
SAMPLE
INTERVALS
A
>-CD O _i O X CO o CO 3
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
o Q.
CO > z cn lu Q Q
Q o 2 o
Ol
CO H CO
m
H 01 UJ X
15 15
20
25
20
25
I 54(SPT)
• 50/5"(Ring;
I 82/10"
(SPT)
SM
SM
SM
SILTY SAND: Ught yellowish brown,very
moist to wet,fine^rained sand
SILTY SAND WITH CLAY: Pale yellow to
light gray,moist,fine to coarse-grained sand
same as above
26.6
111.6 i 11.1
11.7
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
FIELD LOG OF BORING B
Sheet 1 of 2
Project: New Residential Devopment (5 Lots)-Carlsbad
Location: 625 Tamarack Avenue Project No. 01-5421
Dates(s) Drilled:
Drilled By:
Rig Make/Model:
Drilling Method:
Hole Diameter:
11/26/01
C&C Drilling Company
Mobile B-61
Hollow-stem Auger
8 In.
Logged By: Gary Martin
Total Depth: 25 Feet
Hammer Type: Wireline downhole
Hammer Weight/Drop: 140 Lb./±30 In.
Surface Elevation: Unknown
Comments: No groundwater.
X h-Q. UJ Q
UJ
UJ
CO
SAMPLE
INTERVALS
UJ b a.
CD O _i O
X CO o CO
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
sr-o a.
CO >- z cc in a Q Q o
UJ
CO h-CO UJ H
CC lU X
10 10
1
1
SM SILPi' SAND: FILL-Brown,damp,fine-
grained sand,with metal pipe pieces
i
• 82/8"
P (Ring)
i-z-z-
SM SILTY SAND: NATIVE-Yellowish
brown,damp,fine-grained sand
105.7 3.4
i
• 82/8"
P (Ring) SM SILTY SAND WITH CLAY: Yellowish
brown,moist,fine-grained sand
• 51(SPT)
_ \~_ _
_ .\"_ •_ .x~"_ 8.1
_ \~._ _ \~_ " " \~ • .\~ "
_ .\-_ "_ \-_
- .- -r-
-z~z-z SM SILTY SAND: Ught olive brown.damp.fine-
grained sand
• 53(Ring) 108.2 6.4 • 53(Ring)
-z-z-z J J
j
m
r \ SP-SM SAND WITH SILT: Pale olive,trace brownish
yellow,damp to moist,fine-grained sand
1 23/6"(Ring 4 104.8 7.3
SHEAR
CONSOL
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
FIELD LOG OF BORING B
Sheet 2 of 2
Project: New Residential Devopment (5 Lots)-Carisbad
Location: 625 Tamarack Avenue Project No. 01-5421
X H Q. UJ Q
Z
o
< CO
UJ
SAMPLE
INTERVALS
>-CD O
_i O X CO
o
CO 3
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
o Q.
CO >- z cc m
Q Q
UJ ^
i=
O o 2 o
LU
so
CO H CO m I-
cc
UJ
X h-o
15 — 15
20 20
25 25
50/6"(Ring]
65(SPT)
I
SP
SM
50/6"{Ring; SM
SAND: Paie olive,trace brownish
yellow.moist to very moist,fine to medium-
grained sand.trace silt
103.5
SILTY SAND WITH CLAY: Pale yellow to
light gray,moist,fine to medium-grained sand
SILTY SAND: Pale olive with
white,mojst,fine to coarse-grained
sand,trace clay
112.2
V
17.8
14.3
13.0
fA
FIELD LOG OF BORING B - 3
Sheet 1 of 2 fA Project: New Residential Devopment (5 Lots)-Carlsbad
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Location: 625 Tamarack Avenue Project No. 01-5421
Dates(s) Drilled:
Drilled By:
Rig Make/Model:
Drilling Method:
Hole Diameter:
11/26/01
C&C Drilling Company
Mobile B-61
Hollow-stem Auger
8 In.
Logged By: Gary Martin
Total Depth: 25 Feet
Hammer Type: Wireline downhole
Hammer Weight/Drop: 140 Lb./±30 In.
Surface Elevation: Unknown
Comments: No groundwater.
X H Q. UJ Q
% HI _1 UJ
CO
SAMPLE
INTERVALS
UJ b ^
>
CD O _i O X
CO
o
CO 3
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
o
CO
>- z
cc UJ
Q Q
UJ
CC
I-
co
O
z m
O o
UJ
CO H CO UJ H
CC LU X
0 -r-0
5 ^5
10 -h 10
26(Ring)
50/5"(Ring;i-
37(SPT)
SM
SM
SM
I 72(Ring)
SP
SILTY SAND: Dari< yellowish
brown.damp.fine-grained sand
118.0
SILTY SAND: Yellowish brown,moist,fine-
grained sand.trace clay
SILTY SAND: Ught dive brown.damp to
mdst.fine to medium-grained sand
121.6
SAND: Olive yellow with brownish
yellow,damp,fine to medium-grained
sand,trace silt
6.4
8.1
7.5
109.9 i 3.6 CONSOL
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
FIELD LOG OF BORING B
Sheet 2 of 2
Project: New Residential Devopment (5 Lots)-Carlsbad
Lcx:ation: 625 Tamarack Avenue Project No. 01-5421
LL
X
h-o. UJ Q
< CO
UJ
SAMPLE
INTERVALS
>-
CD O _i
o
X
CO
o
CO ZD
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
CL
CO >- _ cc UJ
Q Q
LU CC
1-co
o
UJ
z o
H LU
CO
co UJ I-cc m
X
15 15
I 50/4"(SPTt
20 -+-20
25 25 P 88/10"
(Ring)
SP
SM
SM
SAND: Olive yeilcM/with brownish
yellGw,damp,fine to medium-grained
sand.trace siit
SILTY SAND: Pale yellow to light
gray,mdst,fine to coarse-grained
sand.trace clay and gravel
SILPT SAND: Pale yellow,mdst,fine to
medium-grained sand.trace clay
9.9
114.6 12.4
/A FIELD LOG OF BORING B - 4
Sheet 1 of 2 /A Project: New Residential Devopment (5 Lots)-Carlsbad
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. Location: 625 Tamarack Avenue Project No. 01-5421
Dates(s) Drilled:
Drilled By:
Rig Make/Model:
Drilling Method:
Hole Diameter:
11/26/01
C&C Drilling Company
Mobile B-61
Hollow-stem Auger
8 In.
Logged By: Gary Martin
Total Depth: 40 Feet
Hammer Type: Wireline downhole
Hammer Weight/Drop: 140 Lb./±30 In.
Surface Elevation: Unknown
Comments: Groundwater encountered at 34.0'.
LL
X H Q. UJ D
Z
o
i
UJ _I UJ
CO
SAMPLE
INTERVALS
UJ b P- a
/^ B
>
CD O _i
o CO
X o H CO _1 D
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
o Q.
CO >- z cc m
Q Q
UJ
H IH
Q o
z o
H UJ
CO h-co UJ H
CC in X
5 -^-5
10 — 10
15 15
65/10" (Ring)
50/6"(Ring;
50/6"(Ring;
36(SPT)
36(Rlng)
SM
SM
SM
SM
SM
SP-SM
I
- -7 -1 SP
25/6"(SPT) [JZ -i
30/6"(SPT)-r;^ ML
SILTY SAND: Dari< brown.mdst to very
mdst.fine-grained sand
SILTY SAND: Dark yellowish
brown,moist,fine-grained sand
SILTiC SAND: Yellowish brown to
brown.mdst to damp,fine to medium-
grained sand,trace clay
same as at)ove.becoming light olive brown
SILTY SAND: Ught dive brown.damp to
mdst,fine-grained sand
same as above
SAND: Ught divebrown.mdst.fineto
medium-grained sand.trace silt
i SAND WITH GRAVEL Pale
I yellow.damp.fine to medium-grained sand
SANDY SILT WITH CLAY: Pale
olive,mdst.fine-grained sand
121.5
121.2
104.0
111.7
8.7
7.0
5.7
5.4
8.1
100.1 7.3
3.6
15.6
CONSOL
SHEAR
SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
FIELD LOG OF BORING B - 4
Sheet 2 of 2
Project: New Residential Devopment (5 Lots)-Carlsbad
Location: 625 Tamarack Avenue Project No. 01-5421
LL
X H Q. UJ D
Z
o
< CO
_i m
SAMPLE
INTERVALS
m
CL o
m
/•- -
>
CD O _i O X CO
o
CO 3
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
o Q.
CO >- z cc in
Q Q
UJ cc
3 I-co
o
UJ H z o o
z o
h-
UJ
di
CO H CO UJ H
oc
LU
X
20 20
25 25
30 30
35 35
40 40
• 50/6"(Ring;
82(SPT)
SM
SM
SM
I 82/9"(Ring:
74(SPT)
SM
I 82/9"(SPT;
SM
SM
SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL Pale
dive,mdst,fine-grained sand and gravel
S\LTY SAND WITH CLAY: Ught gray to
yellow.mdst.fine to mediun>-grained sand
SILTY SAND: Ughtgray.mdst.fineto
medium-grained sand.trace clay
81.7
109.0
same as above.becoming pale yellow
SILTY SAND WITH CLAY: Pale yellow.very
mdst to mdst.fine to coarse-grained sand
116.5
same as above
11.5
15.1
11.7
14.3
17.0
12.4
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTS
After samples were visually classified in the laboratory, a testing program that would provide
sufficient data for our evaluation was established.
MOISTURE CONTENT AND DENSITY TESTS
The undisturbed soil retained within the sampler rings was tested in the laboratory to determine
in-place dry density and moisture content. Test results are presented on the Logs of Borings.
CONSOLIDATION AND DIRECT SHEAR TESTS
Consolidation and direct shear tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed and
remolded samples to determine the settlement characteristics and shear strength parameters of
various soil samples, respectively. The results of these tests are shown graphically on the
appended "C" and "D" Plates.
MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST
The following maximum density test was conducted in accordance with ASTM Dl 557-91,
Method A, using 5 equal layers, 25 blows each layer, 10-pound hammer, 18 inch drop in a 1/30
cubic foot mold. The results are as follows:
BORING NO. DEPTH, FEET
MAXIMUM DRY
DENSITY, PCF
OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT. %
MATERIAL
CLASSIFICATION
B-1 0-5 131.5 8.5 SM
Manning Homes
01-5421
December 13, 2001
Page 21
SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
APPENDIX B - continued
EXPANSION TEST
An expansion test was performed on a soil sample to determine the swell characteristics. The
expansion test was conducted in accordance with a modification of the Uniform Building Code
Standard No. 18-2, Expansion Index Test. The expansion sample was remolded to
approximately 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content, subjected to
144 pounds per square foot surcharge load and saturated.
LOCATION
MAX. DRY
DENSITY, PCF
OPT. MOIST.
CONTENT. %
MOLDED DRY
DENSITY. PCF
MOLDED
MOISTURE
CONTENT. %
%
SATURATION
EXPANSION
INDEX
EXPANSION
CLASSIFICATION
Boring B-1
@ 0-5'
131.5 8.5 119.8 7.8 51.6 0 Very Low
SOIL SULFATE
Laboratory testing was performed per guidelines of California 417-A test procedures on a
representative sample of on-site soils. The test is intended to provide data for a preliminary
assessment relative to the potential for concrete deterioration due to soil sulfate. The test result
is shown below:
SAMPLE
SULFATE CONTENT
(% BY WEIGHT OF DRY SOIL)
Boring B-1 @0- 5' 0.004
Manning Homes
01-5421
December 13, 2001
Page 22
SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
-7^ 5.00
c .o
CO 6.00
o
^ 7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
i
1
/
nduD Wi th'
Wi itor Taj
"
1
1
I
1
1
j
!
1
1
I
i
1
!
] 1 i i i
1 ! . 1 i
i -i i 1 -
1 1
1 III
' : t
1 ' ! I
i i
1 1 1 I 1
j 1 1 1
0.1 1.0 10.0
Pressure ,p (ksf)
100.0
Boring No. B-2
Depth (ft.) 9.0
Sample Undisturbed
Sample Type : Silty Fine Sand
Dry Density (pcf) = 108.2
Moisture (%) = 6.4
Project Name:5 Residences-625 Tamarack Ave.-Carlsbad Project No.: 01-5421
ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES OF SOILS
(ASTM D 2435)
PLATE C-1
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
^ 5.00
c o
ro 6.00
<=> 7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
—1
A 1
1 / ( Indue datf w th
"To •1 IA/ —l-a J VV
1 H > -i 1 i
1 i
j 1
1
; 1 1
i
1 1 i
1 1
1 —1—
! i—'— i !
1 1 1 1 1 ; i
: 1 I
I 1 1 i [ :
i 1 1 1 1 \
I 1
i ! 1
i ' i -1 I -
1 i
! i
; i 1 :
0.1
Boring No.
Depth (ft.)
Sample
1.0 10.0
Pressure ,p (ksf)
100.0
B-3
13.0
Undisturbed
Dry Density (pcf) = 109.9
Moisture (%) =3.6
Sample Type : Fine to Medium Sand with trace Silt
Project Name:5 Residences-625 Tamarack Ave.-Carlsbad Project No.: 01-5421
ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES OF SOILS
(ASTM D 2435)
PLATE C
c o
ra
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
o
° 7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
11.00
12.00
< L-
/ / -/-ndur w th
Ta 1W
I
1
i
J i \
j i
1 1
1 i I
1
[
1
1 i
\
0.1 1.0 10.0
Pressure ,p (ksf)
100.0
Boring No. B-4
Depth (ft.) 2.0
Sample Undisturbed
Sample Type : Silty Fine Sand
Dry Density (pcf) = 121.5
Moisture (%) = 8.7
Project Name:5 Residences-625 Tamarack Ave.-Carlsbad
ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
Project No.: 01-5421
ONE-DIMENSIONAL CONSOLIDATION
PROPERTIES OF SOILS
(ASTM D 2435)
PLATE C-3
2.0
Nonnal Stress (kip/ft^
Boring No. : B-2
Depth(ft.) : 2.0
Sample : Undisturbed
Moisture : Saturated
Sample Type : Silty Fine Sand
Cohesion(C) = 90 psf
Friction (([») = 26°
Dry Density (pcf) = 105.7
Moisture (%) = 3.4
Project Name:5 Residences-625 Tamarack Ave.-Carlsbad Project No.: 01-5421
ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D 3080)
PLATE D-1
Q Q I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1-
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Normal Stress (kip/ft^
Boring No. : B-4 Cohesion(C) = 100 psf
Depth(ft.) : 4.0 Friction ((j)) =31°
Sample : Undisturbed Dry Density (pcf) = 121.2
Moisture : Saturated Moisture (%) =7.0
Sample Type : Silty Fine to Medium Sand with trace Clay
Project Name:5 Residences-625 Tamarack Ave.-Carlsbad Project No.: 01-5421
ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D 3080)
PLATE D-2
Boring No. : B-1
Depth (ft.) : 0-5
Sample : Remolded(90% of Maximum Density)
Moisture : Saturated
Sample Type : Silty Fine Sand with trace Clay
Cohesion(C) = 125 psf
Friction ((j)) =32.5°
Dry Density (pcf) = 118.4
Moisture (%) = 8.5
Project Name:5 Residences-625 Tamarack Ave.-Carlsbad Project No.: 01-5421
ASSOCIATED SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D 3080)
PLATE D-3