HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 02-01; PACIFIC VIEW CONDOMINIUMS; REPORT OF COMPACTED FILLED GROUND; 2003-12-02&ro7.-o\
ALLIED EARTH TECHNOLOGYk,~'';_,
P.O.BOX 1932 'EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA 92022-1932
TELEPHONE(619)447-4747
ROBERTCHAN, P.E.
December 2, 2003
Mr. Jim. Zathas
6384 Lourdes ] rrae
San Diego', CA--.:92120
Subject iPr9ject No; 03l106E7
Report of Compacted Filled Ground
Proposed Pacific Views Condominium Site
:So
I t1a5t Corner of Carlsbad Boulevard and Juniper Avenue
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mi Lathas
This ieport records our observations of the grading and the results of tests pciornied in
c.oni with 'our inspection of cdrnpactiom.of fillsoils placed on the proposed
condominium building site on subject property, more specifically referred to as being Lot
Nos 1, 2 and 3 in Block E of Palisade, a ordl!lg to Map thereof No 1 747 (Assessor's
Parcel Nos 204-251-01 to 03, inclusive, iti the City olCarisbad, State of California.
The grading epottd heren vas performed during the period between Novenibei 5 and
12, 2003.
Prior, to grading, the site was cleared and grubbd. Existing loose upper soils to a depth
ot 2 to 3 kct that remain bLiow I inishLd rdL w.i L t cmovLd Additional liii soils were
generated on site from excavation for ihe orposed bas.inent All 'fill soils vre pioprLly
moistened, and uniformly bmpacted in lifion.the order of 6 to 8 inches.
The depths of fil' at which the tests were taKen and the final test suits arc presented on
page T- I, under "Table of Test Results' l he laboratory JLlermnauos of thc
maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the fili soils are
set forth on page L-1, under Laboratory Test.' Results' The approximate
location of the field density tests are shown on Figure No I entitled, "Approximate
Location of Compacted Filled Ground".
Project No. 03-1106E7 Mr. Jim Zathas 12/02/03 Page 2
Carlsbad Boulevard and Juniper Avenue
The results of the-tests and observations indicate that the fill soils placed and tested have
been compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Test results indicate
that the building pad is adequate for its intended use as support to the
proposed condominium building.
Foundation for the proposed structure should be setback at least 7 feet back from the top
of fill slope. Foundation placed closer to the top of fill slope should be deepened such
that the outer edge along the bottom of the foundation is at least 7 feet back from the face
of slope at that level.
The soils encountered on the site possess LOW expansion potential (Expansion Index =
25). "
It is recommended that a safe allowable soil bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square
foot be used for the design of continuous or spread footings that are a minimum of,] 2 and
24 inches in minimum horizontal dimension, respectively, and are embedded at least 12
inches (for single-story) or 18 inches (for two stories) below the lowest adjacent final
grade.
It is further recommended that all continuous footings be reinforced with four #5 rebars;
two rebsrs located near the top, and the other two rebars near the bottom of the footingts.
Spread footings should be 24 inches in minimum horizontal dimension, and reinforced
with a minimum of 2 #5 rebars each, in both directions, placed near the bottom of
footings.
The concrete slab-on-grade should be 4 inches net in thickness, and be reinforced with #3
rebars @ 24 inches on center, placed at mid-height of concrete slab. The concrete slab
should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand. In areas to be tiled or carpeted, a
visqueen-type moisture barrier should be placed at grade and be overlain by one inch of
protective sand cover. This moisture barrier should 'be heavily overlapped or sealed at'
splices. Please note that the foundation and slab reinforcements are based on sol
characteristics, and should be superceded by the requirements of the project architect.
Proper control of the site 'drainage and regular maintenance of all drainage facilities are
important factors related to the overall stability of the soil mass. Surface water should
drain into the' Street or into on-site drainage structures without intermediate ponding.
This report discusses the fill placement observed by personnel from our firm during the
periods specified. It is recommended that any additional grading and/or fill soils placed,
like backfill soils behind retaining walls, as well as backfill placed in utility trenches
located within 5 feet of any improvements and deeper than 12 inches, or backfill placed
Project No. 03-1106E7 Mr. Jim Zathas 12/02/03 Page 3
Carlsbad Boulevard and Juniper Avenue
in any trench located 5 feet or more from a building and deeper than 5 feet, be compacted
under our observation and tested to verify compliance with the earthwork specifications
of the project.
Should you have any questions regarding the contents of this report, please feel free to
contact our office at your convenience. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely
appreciated.
Pages L- - and Figure No. 1 are parts of this report.
espectfully s mitted,
ALLIED E TH TECHNOLOGY
Robert an, i'
Project No. 03-1106E7 Mr. Jim Zathas 12/02/03 Page L-1
Carlsbad Boulevard and Juniper Avenue.
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
1. The maximum dry densities and optimum moisture contents of the fill soils, as
determined in accordance with A.S.T.M..131557-91, Method A, are presented as
follows:
Optimum
Moisture Content
(% Dry Wt.)
9.5
Maximum
Soil Soil Dry Density
Type Description (lbs./cu.ft.)
Medium dark brown silty 128.0
fine to medium sand (SM)
2 Light reddish brown silty 125.0
fine samd (SM)
ME
2. The ExpansiOn Index of the soils was determined in accordance with UBC Test
No. 18-2. The results of the test are presented as follows :
Soil Soil Expansion
Tune Description Index
Light reddish brown siltyt fine 25 *
sand (SM)
* Considered to possess LOW expansion potential
Project No. 03-1106E7 Mr. Jim Zathas 12/02/03 Page T-1
Carlsbad Boulevard and Juniper Avenue
TABLE OF TEST RESULTS
Depth
of Fill Field Dry Maximum Date
Test Soil at Test Moisture Density Dry Density Percent of
No. Type (Ft.) (% Dry Wt.) (lbs/cu.ft.) (lbs/cu.ft.) Compaction Test Remarks
I + 2.0 9.5 118.9 128.0 92.9 11/06/03
2 I + 2.0 8.9 122.5 128.0 95.7 11/06/03
3 I + 2.0 10.0 117.6 128.0 91.9 • 11/06/03
4 1 -i-. 2.0 10.1 119.6 128.0 93.5 11/06/03
5 I + 2.0 9.3 117.5 128.0 91.8 11/07/03
6 I + 2.0 10.3 118.6 128.0 92.7 11/07/03
7 • 2 + 4.0 15.0 116.6 125.0 93.3 11/10/03 Finished grade
8 2 + 4.0 14.2 118.0 125.0 94.4 11/10/03
9 2 + 3.5 15.5 116.0 125.0 92.8 11/10/03
10 2 + 3.0 11.0 116.5 125.0 93.2 11/10/03
II 2 2.0 13.0 118.0 125.0 94.4 11/10/03
12 2 + 2.0 11.9 118.6 125.0 94.9 11/10/03
13 I + 4.0 • 11.3 122.8 128.0 • 95.9 11/12/03 Finished grade
14 I + 4.0. 10.7 121.7 128.0 95.0 11/12/03
15 2 + 4.0 11.1 118.2 125.0 94.6 11/12/03
16 2 + 4.0 10.7 115.2 • 125.0 92.2 11/12/03
17 2 +4.0 10.2 117.2 125.0 93.8 11/12/03
18 2 +4.0 11.0 117,1 125.0 93.7 11/12)03
19 2 +4.0 10.7 116.8 125.0 93.4 11/12/03
20 2 +4.0 • 10.8 116.2 125.0 93.0 11/12/03