HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 03-06; BLACK RAIL 16; INTERIM REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL TESTING & OBSERVATION SVCS; 2007-07-25•'S •
- r
5-,
S
INTERIM REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL TESTING
AND OBSERVATION SERVICES
DURING EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION
BLACK RAIL TM No. 2-026
LOTS 1 THROUGH 16
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
TRANS WEST HOUSING, INC.
10721 TREENA STREET, SUITE 200
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92131
PREPARED BY
GEOTEK,INC.
1384 POINSETTIA AVENUE, SUITE A
VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92081-8505
PROJECT No.:3103SD3 JULY 25,2007
GeoTek, Inc.
1384 Poinsettia Avenue, Suite A,Vista, CA 92081-8505
760-599-0509 Office 760-599-0593 Fax www.geotekusa.com
July 25, 2007
Project No.: 3 103 SD3
TRANS WEST HOUSING, INC.
10721 Treena Street, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92131
Attention: Mr. Paul O'Boyle
Subject:
Interim Report of Geotéchnical Testing and Observation During
Earthwork Construction
Lots 1 through 16
Black Rail TM No. 2-026
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. O'Boyle:
We are pleased to present herewith the results of our geotechnical testing and observation
services during earthwork construction associated with the construction of Lots 1 through 16 of
the subject project.
Final grading for the subject lots has been completed under the observation of and with testing
by GeoTek, Inc. In our opinion that the aforesaid work has been completed in accordance with
the approved soils engineering report and applicable provisions of the 2001 California Building
Code (CBC).
We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service. Please do not hesitate to call our office
if there are any questions or if we may be of further service.
I
I
Respectfully Submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.
GE 285, Exp. 3/31/08
Senior Engineer O;cAU*J.
Timothy E. Metcalfe
C.E.G.1142, Exp. 4/30/08
Principal Geologist
iD/TM/S V/lg
Distribution: (6) Addressee
G:lProjectslProjects 3000 to 39991.Projects 3100 to 314913103SD3'Transwest Black Rai1I3103'Final T&O.doc
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
I
HI
I
I
Trans West Housing, Inc.
0
July 25, 2007
Black Rail TM No. 2-026 Project: 3103SD3
I Interim Report of Earthwork Construction Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK .................................................1
2. SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS .......................... 1
3. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING........................................................2
3.1. FIELD TESTING ........................................ . ............................................................ 2
3.2. LABORATORY TESTING ................................................................................... 3
4. CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................................................. 4
5. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 4
5.1. SETTLEMENT ...................................................................................................... 5
5.2. FOUNDATION SETBACKS ................................................................................5
5.3. CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION...........................................................................5
6., UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL ..........................
.
6
7. POST GRADING CRITERIA ...........................................................................6
7.1. ADDITIONAL GRADING ...................................................................................6
7.2. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AND PLANTING ............................................ 7
7.3. DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................ 7
7.4. FOUNDATION OBSERVATION ........................................................................7
S. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE .............................. . ....................................... 7
ENCLOSURES
Table 1 - Summary of Field Density Testing
Plate 1—Density Test Location Plan
11
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Trans West Housing, Inc. S July 25, 2007
Black Rail TM No. 2-026 Project: 3103SD3
Interim Report of Earthwork Construction Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF WORK
This report presents the results of our geotechnical testing and observation services during
earthwork construction associated with the Black Rail TM No. 2-026 project located in the City
of Carlsbad, California. These services were performed by representatives of this firm, who were
on site as requested during the period of March 5 through July 9, 2007.
GeoTek, Inc. provided observation and compaction testing on a full time basis during grading
operations at the subject site. Our scope of services included laboratory testing to aid in
evaluation of the compaction characteristics and relevant engineering properties of the soils
encountered and/or used within the fill operations. To aid in preparing this report, we have
reviewed and incorporated the following reports and grading plans:
> Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 17-Lot Subdivision, Black Rail Road, Carlsbad, APN
#215-080-20, 21, 28, dated May 22, 2003, by Vinje and Middleton Engineering. Inc.
> Rough Grading Plans for Black Rail-16, CT 03-06, Carlsbad, California, undated, by Excel Engineering,
Inc.
> Geotechnical Update, Black Rail TM No. 2-026, by GeoTek, Inc., dated September 5, 2006.
> Report of Monitoring During Soil Remediation Activities, Proposed 17 Lot Residential Subdivision
Development, 6602 Black Rail Road, Carlsbad, California, APN(s) 215-050-20, -21, & -28 by GeoTek,
Inc., May 1, 2007.
2. SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC AND SOILS CONDITIONS
Based on our field observations and testing during grading operations at the subject site we noted
the following:
> The grading operations were performed in two stages as a result of needing to move an
existing SDG&E power pole on Lot 1. The primary grading operations occurred between
the dates of March 5 and May 4, 2007 and the secondary grading took place on July 9,
2007.
> Prior to site grading, vegetation and deleterious materials were removed within the
graded areas.
> Lots 1, 2, and 4 through 16 are underlain by compacted fill, which varies in thickness
from 3 to 5 feet. Lot 3 was originally a cut lot that, because of time elapsed from original
grading activities, was subsequently moisture conditioned within the upper 12 inches of
finished lot grade.
> The relatively loose and compressible upper soils were removed and replaced with
compacted fill in accordance with the recommendations Of the soils reports. Removals
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Trans West Housing, Inc. July 25, 2007
Black Rail TM No. 2-026 Project: 3103SD3
Interim Report of Earthwork Construction Page 2
extended into the underlying dense terrace deposits. The depth of removal typically
I varied from 3 to 18 feet. The deepest removal was along the eastern edge of the property.
Actual depths to bottom of removals are shown on the attached site plan (Plate 1).
I > Remedial grading was performed on various building lots to reduce the potential for
differential settlement between the cut and fill transition that resulted from the proposed
grading. Formational materials beneath the lots were excavated to a minimum depth of
I . three feet below finished lot grade elevation, except for Lot 3. The excavated soils were
then moisture conditioned and placed as compacted fill in accordance with the approved
soils report.
I > The keyways and fill slopes associated with lots 8 and 9 were constructed in accordance
with the recommendations of the referenced soils reports.
I > Undercutting of Street 'A' as recommended in the geotechnical investigation was not
performed during grading operations. As a result, excavations for utilities may encounter
very dense formational material which may require extra effort to remove.
I . > Environmental soil remediation was performed during grading operations on the surficial
soils at two locations on site to mitigate potential organochiorine pesticides. A
description of the remedial grading and results of post remediation laboratory testing is
I presented in GeoTek, Inc. May 1, 2007 report.
> During grading an apparent abandoned seepage pit was discovered within Lot 1. The
I area immediately adjacent to the seepage pit was excavated to an elevation of 365'/2 feet
msl, the seepage pit was cut and subsequently filled with a cement-sand slurry. The
excavation was then filled with compacted soil.
I
- 3. FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTING
3.1. FIELD TESTING
To assist in evaluation of the overall grading activities, our field technician performed field
I density testing of the fill materials placed during recent earthwork. Field density tests were
performed using a nuclear gauge, following the general guidelines outlined in ASTM D 2922.
I Results of our field density testing are presented in Table 1, Summary of Field Density Tests,
and approximate test locations are shown on Figure 1, Field Density Test Plan.
I Field density tests are normally taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check
compaction efforts by the contractor. Tests indicating relative compaction of at least 90 percent
I with a moisture content of optimum or higher were considered to pass. Tests are directly
applicable only to locations tested.
j
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
I
Trans West Housing, Inc. July 25, 2007
Black Rail TM'No. 2-026 Project: 3103SD3
Interim Report of Earthwork Construction Page 3
3.2. LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratoly testing was performed on representative soil samples from the site. The laboratory,
testing was performed to aid in construction observation and testing services and to evaluate as-
graded building lot soil properties for use in engineering design and analysis. Laboratory tests are
presented below.
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected soil samples that
were used 'for grading was estimated in accordance with the laboratory procedures
outlined in ASTM D 1557, modified Proctor. The test results are presented in the table
below.
LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY. DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 1557)
Soil Type Description Maximum Dry
Density (pd)
Optimum Moisture
Content (%)
A Red-brown clayey fine to medium SAND 123 13
B Gray-brown clayey fine SAND 119W 10V2
C Brown silty fine SAND trace clay .126 12
D Red-brown, fine SAND 123 13
E Red-brown silty fine SAND 133 V2 8V2
F Red-brown silty SAND 125 . 121/2
Expansion Index
The expansion potential of selected soil samples obtained from the finish grade of the
building lots were estimated in general accordance with the laboratory procedures
outlined iii ASTM D 4829. The expansion potential is based on classifications per Table
18-I-B of the 2001 California Building Code.
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 4829)
Location Description Expansion Expansion
Index Potential
1-2,6 - Red-brown, silty SAND I. Very Low
3,4 Dark red-brown clayey.SAND 22 . Low
5 , 7 Brown silty SAND 13 Low
8,16 Red-brown silty SAND 6 Very Low
9-10 Light red-brown clayey SAND 29 , Low
12,13 Red-brown clayey SAND 26 Low
11,14-15 Orange brown silty SAND ., 7 Very Low
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Trans West Housing, Inc. July 25, 2007
Black Rail TM No. 2-026 Project: 3103SD3
Interim Report of Earthwork Construction Page 4
Sulfate Content
Sulfate testing was performed on selected soil samples obtained from the finish grade of
building lots. Sulfate testing was estimated, in general accordance with Caltrans Test
Method 417. The structural engineer should evaluate the sulfate content along with Table
19-A-4 of the 2001 CBC and provide an appropriate cement type to be used for concrete
in direct contact with soil.
Location [ Sulfate Content
of Dry Soil Weight)
1,2,6 0.027
3,4 0:033
5,7 0.033
8,16 0.016
9, 10 0.077
11,14, 15 0.010
12, 13 0.019
4. CONCLUSIONS
Based on our result of our testing and observation services during earthwork construction
I between the dates of March 5 and July 9, 2007, it is our opinion that the earthwork construction
at the project site has been performed in general accordance with 'the recommendations contained
I in the referenced soils reports and the Grading Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As described
herein, removal bottoms extended to dense formational materials and the fill soils were
adequately processed and compacted.
I
I
5. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of the above testing and observations, the recommendations included in the
I approved soils engineering report remain applicable except where modified herein. The
proposed buildings may be supported on either conventional slab-on-grade with footings
construction or post-tensioned slabs.
I
I
I
I GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Trans West Housing, Inc. July 25, 2007
Black Rail TM No. 2-026 Project: 3103SD3
Interim Report of Earthwork Construction Page 5
5.1. SETTLEMENT
Foundations should be designed for 3/4-inch of total settlement and 3/4-inch differential settlement
over a distance of 40 feet.
5.2. FOUNDATION SETBACKS
The outside bottom edge of all footings for settlement sensitive structures should be set back a
minimum of H13 (where H is the slope height) from the face of any descending slope. The
setback should be at least seven (7) feet and need not exceed 20 feet. The bottom of all footings
for structures near retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1:1 projection
upward from the bottom inside edge of the wall stem. Any improvements not conforming to
these setbacks may be subject to lateral movements and/or differential settlements.
5.3. CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION
The concrete contractor should follow the most recent CBC and ACI guidelines regarding
design, mix, placement, and curing of the concrete.
Cement Type
The project structural engineer should review the results of the sulfate testing along with Table
19-A-4 of the 2001 CBD and provide an appropriate cement type to be used for concrete in
direct contact with soil.
Concrete Cracking
Concrete cracks should be expected. These cracks can vary from sizes that are essentially
unnoticed to more than 1/8 inch in width. Most cracks in concrete, while unsightly, do not
significantly impact long-term performance. While it is possible to take measures (proper
concrete mix, placement, curing, control joints, etc.) to reduce the extent and size of cracks that
occur, some cracking will occur despite the best efforts to reduce it. Concrete undergoes
chemical processes that are dependent on a wide range of variables, which are difficult, at best,
to control. Concrete, while seemingly a stable material, is also subject to internal expansion and
contraction due to external changes over time.
One of the simplest means to control cracking is to provide weakened joints for cracking to occur
along. These do not prevent cracks from developing; they simply provide a relief point for the
stresses that develop. These joints are widely accepted means to control cracks but are not
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Trans West Housing, Inc. July 25, 2007
Black Rail TM No. 2-026 Project: 3103SD3
Interim Report of Earthwork Construction Page 6
always effective. Control joints are more effective the more closely spaced. We recommend that
control joints be provided in accordance with ACI guidelines.
6. UTILITY TRENCH CONSTRUCTION AND BACKFILL
Utility trench excavation and backfill is the contractor's responsibility. The geotechnical
consultant typically provides observation and testing of the backfill operations. While efforts are
made to make sufficient observations and tests to verify that the contractor's methods and
procedures are adequate to achieve proper compaction, it is typically impractical to observe all
backfill procedures. As such, it is critical that the contractor use consistent backfill procedures.
Trenches for all utilities should be excavated in accordance with CAL-OSHA and any other
applicable safety standards. Safe conditions will be required to enable compaction testing of
the trench backfill.
All utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas, streets and beneath all flat work or
hardscape should be brought to at least optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90
percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D1557). Neither flooding nor jetting is
recommended for native soils. Flooding or jetting may be used with select sand having Sand
Equivalent (S.E.) of 30 or higher in shallow (12± inches) under slab interior trenches. The
water should be allowed to dissipate prior to pouring slabs.
Sand backfill should not be allowed in exterior trenches adjacent to and within an area
extending below a 1:1 projection from the outside bottom edge of a footing, unless it is
similar to the surrounding soil.
Where expansive soil is present care should be taken to prevent the possible intrusion of
I water along the utility trenches from exterior sources.
Care should be taken not to place soils at high moisture content within the upper three feet of the
I trench backfill in street areas, as overly wet soils may impact subgrade preparation.
7. POST GRADING CRITERIA
7.1. ADDITIONAL GRADING
This office should be notified in advance of any additional fill placement, regrading of the site, or
trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils
generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction
of 90 percent (based on ASTM D-1557) if not removed from the site.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Trans West Housing, Inc. July 25, 2007
Black Rail TM No. 2-026 Project: 3103SD3
Interim Report of Earthwork Construction Page 7
1 7.2. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AND PLANTING
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is significantly
I reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be
maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for
I
.planted slopes. Overwatering should be avoided.
Care should be taken when adding soil amendments to avoid excessive watering. Leaching as a
method of soil preparation prior to planting is not recommended.
Graded slopes constructed within and utilizing onsite materials are considered erosive. Eroded
I debris may be reduced and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a
suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. . Plants selected for landscaping should be
I lightweight, deep-rooted types, which require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing
climate. .
An abatement program to control ground-burrowing rodents should be implemented and
maintained. This is critical as burrowing rodents can decrease the long-term performance of slopes..
I . 7.3. DRAINAGE . .
The need to maintain proper surface drainage and subsurface systems cannot be overly emphasized.
Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled
down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations and not allowed to
pond or seep into the ground. Lot drainage should be directed toward approved area(s).
7.4. FOUNDATION OBSERVATION
All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of this office to check for
compliance with the recommendations prior to the placement of reinforcement. It would likely
be necessary to perform this observation following compaction of the interior utility trenches.
8. REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Cuts, fills, and processing of original ground under the purview of this report, have been
completed under the observation of, and with testing by GeoTek, Inc. and are found to be in
compliance with the Grading Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad, California.
I
I GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Trans West Housing, Inc. July 25, 2007
Black Rail TM No. 2-026 Project: 3103SD3
Interim Report of Earthwork Construction Page 8
Conclusions and recommendations presented herein are based on the findings included in the
referenced geotechnical evaluation and our understanding of the proposed project. The •
recommendations were prepared using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under
similar circumstances, by geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No
warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional opinions included in.
this report. GeoTek, Inc. accepts neither responsibility nor liability for work, testing or
recommendations performed or provided by others.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
TRANSWEST HOUSING, INC. GeoTek, Inc. 7/25/2007
Black Rail 16 Project No.: 3103-SD3
Carlsbad, California Page 101`4
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
GRADING
DATE Test
No. Location Lot
No.
Sta
No.
Elev/
Depth
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Soil
Type
Maximum
Density
(pcfl
Test
Type
Relative
Compaction
(%)
3113107 1 Fill Slope E of Cul de sac 330.0 13.5 115,2 A 123.0 N 94
2 Fill Slope E of Cul de sac - - 334.0 13.8 116.8 A 123.0 N 95
3 Fill Slope E of Cul de sac - - 338.0 13.2 114.7 A 123.0 N 93
4 Fill slope/Lot 9 - 344.0 14.0 114.0 A 123.0 N 93
3/14/07 5 Fill Slope E of Cul de sac - - 340.0 12.1 108.6 B 119.5 N 91
6 Fill Slope E of Cul de sac - - 342.0 12.9 111.0 B 119.5 N 93
7 1 Fill Slope E of Cul de sac - 344.0 13.9 112.4 A 123.0 N 91
8 Fill Slope/Access Road E of Lot 9 - 346.0 13.9 113.7 A 123.0 N 92
3/15/07 9 Fill Slope SE of Cul de sac - - 346.0 10.7 111.4 B 119.5 N 93
10 Access Road/Const. EofLot 9 - 348.0 11.4 110.1 B 119.5 N 92
11 Fill Slope E of Cul de sac - - 348.0 11.9 111.0 B 119.5 N 93
12 Access Road/Const. EofLot 9 - 350.0 14.9 113.6 A 123.0 N 92
13 Fill Slope E of Cul de sac - - 350.0 13.6 112.9 A 123.0 N 92
14 Middle E of Lot 9 - 352.0 12.8 114.0 A 123.0 N 93
3/16/07 15 Fill Slope NE/Cul desac - 326.0 .12.3 115.4 C 126.0 N 92
16 Fill Slope NE/Cul desac - 328.0 12.7 116.8 C 126.0 N 93
17 Fill Slope NE/Cul de sac - - 330.0 14.2 116.0 C 126.0 N 92
18 Fill Slope NE/Cul de sac - - 334.0 12.8 117.4 C 126.0 N 93
19 Fill Slope NE/Cul de sac - - 336.0 13.6 116.5 C 126.0 N 92
20 Fill Slope NE/Cul de sac - - 340.0 13.5 114.8 C 126.0 N 91
21 Fill Slope NE/Cul de sac - - 342.0 12.0 117.2 C 126.0 N 93
22 Lot 9 354.0 13.1 112.0 A 123.0 N 91
3/19/07 23 Fill Slope NEof Cul desac - - 344.0 14.0 114.9 A 123.0 N 93
24 Fill Slope NE of Cul de sac
- - 346.0 13.2 116.0 A 123.0 N 94
25 Fill Slope NE of Cul de sac - - 348.0 13.7 115.4 A 123.0 N 94
3/20/07 26 Fill Slope NE of Cul de sac - - 318.0 10.7 108.0 B 119.5 N 90
27 Fill Slope NE of Cul de sac
- - 320.0 11.0 109.4 B 119.5 N 92
28 Fill Slope NE of Cul de sac - - 322.0 11.1 110.8 B 119.5 N 93
29 SW Corner of Lot 9 - 356.0 14.2 115.0 C 126.0 N 91
30 NW Corner of Lot 9 - 356.0 14.2 116.4 C 126.0 N 92
31 Middle E of Lot 9 - 356.0 13.5 115.8 C 126.0 N 92
32 SW Corner of Lot 10 - 356.5 13.1 117.0 C 126.0 N 93
33 NW Corner of Lot 10 - 356.5 13.7 116.0 C 126.0 N 92
34 Middle of Lot 10 - 356.5 14.0 117.1 C 126.0 N 93
3/21/07 35 Middle N of Lot 9 - 357.0 13.2 115.1 C 126.0 N 91
36 SW of Lot 9 - 357.0 13.9 116.4 C 126.0 N 92
37 SEofLot 9 357.0 13.5 116.0 C 126.0 N 92
38 NW of Lot 10 - 358.5 14.4 114.9 C 126.0 N 91
39 SEofLot 10 - 358.5 13.5 114.0 C 126.0 N 90
3/22/07 40 Fill Slop NEofProject - 324.0 13.8 114.0 A 123.0 N 93
41 Fill Slope NEofProject - - 326.0 13.0 113.2 A 123.0 N 92
42 Fill Slope NEofProject . - - 328.0 12.8 113.5 A 123.0 N 92
3/23/07 43 Fill Slope Eof Lot 8 - 332.0. 15.5 112.5 A 123.0 N 91
44 Fill Slope E of Lot 8 - 335.0 13.5 113.4 A 123.0 N 92
45 Fill Slope E of Lot 8 - 338.0 14.7 113.9 A 123.0 N 93
46 Fill Slope E of Lot 8 - 340.0 14.1 112.0 A 123.0 N 91
47 Fill Slope EofLot 8 - 342.0 13.9 114.0 A 123.0 1 N 93
Note:
N = Nuclear Gauge Test
FG = Finished Grade Test
All elevations are approximate
TRANS WEST HOUSING, INC. GeoTek, Inc. 7/25/2007
Black Rail 16 Project No.: 3103-SD3
Carlsbad, California Page 2 of 4
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
GRADING
DATE Test
No. Location Lot
No.
Sta
o.
Elev!
Dept
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcU
Soil
Type
Maximum
Density
(pcO
Test
Type
Relative
Compaction
(%)
48 Fill Slope E of Lot 8 345.0 14.0 115.8 A 123.0 N 94
3/26/07 49 Fill Slope E of Lot 8 - 348.0 14.8 108.0 B 119.5 N 90
50 E of Cul de sac/Slope - - 350.0 14.1 110.1 B 119.5 N 92
51 Fill Slope Eof Lot 8 - 350.0 14.5 111.0 B 119.5 N 93
52 Slope Construction E of Lot 8 - 352.0 13.6 117.2 C 126.0 N 93
53 Eof Culde sac/Slope - - 352.0 13.0 118.0 C 126.0 N 94
3/27/07 54 SofLot 11 - 361.0 9.8 120.8 E 133.5 N 90
55 NofLot 11 - 361.0 10.6 121.5 E 133.5 N 91
56 Fill Slope E of Lot 8 - 354.0 10.0 124.0 E 133.5 N 93
57 E of Cul de sac/Slope - - 354.0 11.1 125.6 E 133.5 N 94
3/28/07 58 Wof Lot 11 - 363.0 11.1 122.9 E 133.5 N 92
59 EofLot 11 - 363.0 10.4 124.0 E 133.5 N 93
60 SE of Lot 11 - 364.0 11.0 121.1 E 133.5 N 91
61 SW of Lot 11 - 364.0 11.4 126.0 E 133.5 N 94
3/29/07 62 N of Lot 14 - 375.0 9.9 124.1 E 133.5 N 93
63 N of Lot 15 - 375.0 10.7 125.0 E 133.5 N 94
64 SofLot 14 - 375.0 10.4 125.9 E 133.5 N 94
65 SofLot 15 375.0 11.5 124.4 E 133.5 N 93
3/30/07 66 E of Lot 14 - 376.0 11.1 125.5 E 133.5 N 94
67 EofLot 15 - 376.0 10.9 124.2 E 133.5 N 93
68 WofLot 14 376.0 10.9 123.4 E 133.5 N 92
69 WofLot 15 376.0 8.9 127.1 E 133.5 N 95
4/2/07 70 SofLot 16 - 371.0 14.9 119.5 E 133.5 N 90
71 N of Lot 16 - 371.0 7.1 118.9 E 133.5 N 89
70A Retest of#70 16 - 371.0 10.1 123.4 E 133.5 N 92
71A Retest of#71 16 - 371.0 9.7 125.0 E 133.5 N 94
4/4/07 72 Slope Const. NE of Lot 8 - 356.0 10.9 121.5 E 133.5 N 91
73 Slope Const. SE of Lot 8 - 356.0 10.1 123.0 E 133.5 N 92
74 Middle Wof Lot 8 - 356.0 9.1 120.9 E 133.5 N 91
75 Middle ofCuldeSac
- - 356.0 9.7 124.0 E 133.5 N 93
4/5/07 76 NE of Lot 12 - 366.5 10.0 125.5 E 133.5 N 94
77 SE of Lot 12 - 366.5 9.0 123.8 E 133.5 N 93
78 W Middle of Lot 12 - 366.5 11.7 121.4 E 133.5 N 91
4/06/07 79 Lot 8 358.0 9.1 122.0 E 133.5 N 91
80 Lot 8 358.0 9.6 124.0 E 133.5 N 93
81 NW 12 - 368.5 11.0 125.4 E 133.5 N 94
82 SW 12 - 368.5 10.5 123.8 E 133.5 N 93
83 E Middle 12 - 368.5 . 10.6 125.0 E 133.5 N 94
84 N of Lot 13 - 373.0 8.7 122.9 E 133.5 N 92
85 SofLot 13 - 373.0 11.4 124.4 E 133.5 N 93
4/09/07 86 ISE of 13 - 374.0 11.4 124.2 E 133.5 N 93
87 'NW of 13 - 374.0 11.3 123.5 E 133.5 N 93
4/10/07 88 SE of 16 - 372.0 8.6 125.4 E 133.5 N 94
89 NW of 16 - 372.0 8.8 126.0 E 133.5 N 94
90 Abandoned Seepage Pit 1 - 367.0 9.4 124.4 E 133.5 N 93
91 Abandoned Seepage Pit 1 - 369.0 9.0 122.4 E 133.5 N 92
92 JAbandoned Seepage Pit 1 - 371.0 10.4 125.0 E 133.5 N 94
I'lute.
N
= Nuclear Gauge Test
FG = Finished Grade Test
All elevations are approximate
TRANS WEST HOUSING, INC. GeoTek, Inc. 7/25/2007
Black Rail 16 Project No.: 3103-SD3
Carlsbad, California Page 3 of 4
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
GRADING
DATE Test
No. Location Lot
No.
Sta
No.
Eievl
Dept
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcO
Soil
Type
Maximum Maximum rest
(pci) Type
Relative
Compaction
(%)
93 NofLot 7 359.0 14.4 110.9 B 119.5 N 93
94 SofLot 7 - 359.0 13.2 109.5 B 119.5 N 92
4/11/07 95 Middle Sof Lot 1 - 374.0 8.6 126.5 E 133.5 N 95
96 Middle of Lot I - 374.0 8.5 127.0 E 133.5 N 95
97 NE of Lot 1 - 374.0 9.7 124.9 E 133.5 N 94
98 Middle N of Lot 2 - 374.0 9.1 123.3 E 133.5 N 92
99 Middle of Lot 2 - 374.0 10.6 124.0 E 133.5 N 93
100 SW of Lot 2 - 374.0 9.8 122.6 E 133.5 N 92
101 NEofLot 7 - 360.5 13.2 110.1 B 119.5 N 92
102 SW of Lot 7 - 360.5 12.9 112.2 B 119.5 N 94
4/12/07 103 1 N of Lot 6 - 363.5 12.8 109.5 B 119.5 N 92
104 ISofLot 6 - 363.5 13.5 111.0 . B 119.5 N 93
105 SW of Lot 6 - 365.5 14.2 116.1 C 126.0 N 92
106 NE of Lot 6 - 365.5 14.7 117.4 C 126.0 N 93
4/13/07 107 NofLot 5 - 368.5 9.7 124.1 E 133.5 N 93
108 SofLot 5 - 368.5 10.5 123.0 E 133.5 N 92
109 NofLot 4 - 374.0 10.0 122.5 E 133.5 N 92
110 SofLot 4 - 374.0 9.0 123.8 E 133.5 N 93
4/16/07 111 EofLot 6 - 366.5 9.7 122.5 E 133.5 N 92
112 WofLot 6 - 366.5 9.6 123.4 E 133.5 N 92
113 EofLot 5 - 369.5 13.1 121.0 C 126.0 N 91
114 WofLot 5 - 369.5 12.4 114.0 C 126.0 N 90
115 EofLot 4 - 375.0 8.9 115.5 E 133.5 N 92
116 Wof Lot 4 - 375.0 10.0 117.2 E 133.5 N 93
4/17/07 117 NW of Lot i - 375.5 8.8 124.6 E 133.5 N 93
118 Middle E of Lot 1 - 375.5 9.6 126.0 E 133.5 N 94
119 Middle S 2 - 376.0 11.0 124.0 E 133.5 N 93
120 SE of Lot 2 - 376.0 10.2 127.0 E 133.5 N 95
4/19/07 121 S Middle ofLot 9 - FG 14.1 116.0 C 126.0 N 92
122 NW of Lot 9 - FG 13.8 117.1 C 126.0 N 93
123 NEofLot 10 - FG 14.4 117.5 C 126.0 N 93
124 SW of Lot 10 - FG 13.0 118.0 C 126.0 N 94
125 Middle Eof Lot 11 - FG 9.0 123.4 E 133.5 N 92
126 NW of Lot 11 - FG 8.5 125.1 E 133.5 N 94
127 NE of Lot 12 FG 9.9 127.0 E 133.5 N 95
128 Middle Sof Lot 12 - FG 10.6 126.6 E 133.5 N 95
129 SW of Lot 13 - FG 9.7 124.0 E 133.5 N 93
130 NEofLot 13 - FG 8.9 125.7 E 133.5 N 94
131 NW of Lot 14 FG 9.0 126.0 E 133.5 N 94
132 SE of Lot 14 - FG 10.0 122.0 E 133.5 N 91
133 NE of Lot 15 - FG 10.8 125.5 E 133.5 N 94
134 SW of Lot 15 - FG 10.8 124.0 E 133.5 N 93
135 Lot 16 - FG 9.6 123.3 E 133.5 N 92
136 Lot 16 - FG 9.4 124.4 E 133.5 N 93
137 Slope Eof Lot 13 - 370.0 . 11.0 126.0 E 133.5 N 94
138 Slope Eof Lot 11 - 361.5 15.0 114.3 C 126.0 N 91
139 Slope Eof Lot 9 - 355.0 13.5 114.0 A 123.0 N 93
rioie:
N = Nuclear Gauge Test
FG = Finished Grade Test
All elevations are approximate
GeoTek, Inc. TRANS WEST HOUSING, INC. 7/2512007
Black Rail 16 Project No.: 3103-SD3
Carlsbad, California Page 4 of 4
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
GRADING
DATE Test
No. Location Lot
No.
Sta
No.
Elev/
Depth
Moisture
Content
(%)
Dry
Density
(pcfl
Soil
Type
Maximum
Density
(pcfl
Test
Type
Relative
Compaction
(%)
4/26/07 140 N of Lot 3 FG 8.6 125.5 E 133.5 N 94
141 SofLot 3 - FG 8.8 126.0 E 133.5 N 94
142 N of Lot 4 - FG 9.9 124.3 E 133.5 N 93
143 SofLot 4 FG 9.9 124.0 E 133.5 N 93
144 NofLot 5 - FG 14.1 118.8 C 126.0 N 94
145 SofLot 5 - FG 14.4 117.5 C 126.0 N 93
146 N of Lot 6 - FG 9.1 114.9 E 133.5 N 94
147 SofLot 6 - FG 10.4 127.0 E 133.5 N 95
148 N of Lot, Middle 7 - FG 13.7 109.9 B 119.5 N 92
149 SofLot, Middle 7 - FG 14.6 112.0 B 119.5 N 94
150 EofLot 8 - FG 8.5 124.8 E 133.5 N 93
Lot 8 FG 9.5 126.5 E 133.5 N 95
4/27/07 Fill
F151Wof
Slope Eof Lot 8 325.0 14.1 115.0 A 123.0 N 93
Fill Slope Eof Lot 8 330.0 13.9 113.5 A 123.0 N 92
Fill Slope E of Cul de sac - - 340.0 13.5 113.9 A 123.0 N 93
155 Fill Slope E of Cul de sac - - 345.0 12.7 112.4 A 123.0 N 91
156 Fill Slope E of Lot 8 - 350.0 15.4 109.0 B 119.5 N 91
157 Fill Slope E of Cul de sac - - 355.0 15.0 108.5 B 119.5 N 91
158 Fill Slope E of Lot 4 - 372.0 8.9 122.6 E 133.5 N 92
159 Fill Slope E of Lot 6 - 363.0 10.2 123.7 E 133.5 N 93
5/1/07 160 Driveway, Lot 9 - 356.0 13.9 115.9 C 126.0 N 92
161 Driveway, Lot 10 - 358.0 14.4 117.0 C 126.0 N 93
162 Driveway, Lot 11 - 363.0 9.3 123.8 E 133.5 N 93
163 Driveway, Lot 12 - 367.5 9$ 123.0 E 133.5 N 92
164 Driveway, Lot 13 - 373.0 9.9 124.4 E 133.5 N 93
165 Driveway, Lot 14 371.0 10.7 125.1 E 133.5 N 94
166 Driveway, Lot 15 - 371.0 8.6 127.5 E 133.5 N 96
167 Driveway, Lot 16 - 375.0 8.9 124.0 E 133.5 N 93
5/3/07 168 SWofLot 2 - FG 9.2 124.9 E 133.5 N 94
169 NEofLot 2 - FG 10.3 125.0 E 133.5 N 94
5/04/07 170 Driveway, Lot 2 - 375.0 8.9 122.6 E 133.5 N 92
171 Driveway, Lot 3 - 374.5 9.6 124.0 E 133.5 N 93
172 Driveway, Lot 4 - 374.0 9.1 124.4 E 133.5 N 93
173 Driveway, Lot 5 - 368.0 12.8 117.4 C 126.0 N 93
174 1 Driveway, Lot 6 - 365.0 10.2 127.0 E 133.5 N 95
175 Driveway, Lot 7 - 360.0 13.9 112.0 B 119.5 N 94
7/09/07 176 NW Corner of Lot 1 - 374.0 10.8 124.9 E 133.5 N 94
177 NW Corner of Lot - 1 - FG 10.3 123.0 E i 133.5 N 92
I
Note:
I N = Nuclear Gauge Test
FG = Finished Grade Test
All elevations are approximate