HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 04-08; LA COSTA VALLEY TOWNHOMES; FINAL REPORT OF TESTING & OBSERVATION DURING SITE GRADING; 2012-05-31FINAL REPORT OF TESTING
AND OBSERVATION SERVICES
DURING SITE GRADING
LA COSTA VILLAGE TOWNHOMES
(CARLSBAD 3), CT 04-08
BUILDING PADS I THROUGH 6
AND 9 THROUGH 13
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
/
PREPARED FOR
CITY VENTURES
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA
MAY 31, 2012
PROJECT NO. 07193-32-03A
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
G E 0 1 E C H N I C A I • E N V I R 0 N M E N I A I •u MAT E R I A L S
Project No. 07193-32-03A
May 31, 2012
City Ventures
1900 Quail Street
Newport Beach, California 92660
Attention: Mr. Matthew Jansen
Subject: FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION
SERVICES DURING SITE GRADING
LA COSTA VILLAGE TOWNHOMES (CARLSBAD 3), CT 04-98
BUILDING PADS 1 THROUGH 6 AND 9 THROUGH 13
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Jansen:
In accordance with your request and our Proposal No. LG-1 1284, dated September 30, 2011, we have
provided testing and observation services during grading of the subject site located in Carlsbad,
California. We are also providing information relating to the construction of the "Verdura"
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls on the site. The scope of our services included
the following: -
Observing the grading operation including the placement of fill, as well as the removal and/or
processing of loose surficial soil, and undercutting of cut/fill transition building pads.
Performing in-place density and moisture content tests in fill placed and compacted on the
site. 0
Observation and testing of the "Verdura" MSE retaining wall construction.
Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating the compaction, expansion characteristics,
and soluble sulfate content of the soil material used as fill.
Performing laboratory tests to verify the MSE retaining wall parameters, including shear
strength, plasticity index and gradation.
Preparing an As-Graded Geologic Map.
Preparing this final report of grading.
6960 Flanders Drive • San Diego, California 92121-2974 • Telephone 858.558.6900 U Fax 858.558.6159
GENERAL
The grading contractor for the project was TNT American Pride. The project grading plans were
prepared by C&V Consulting, Inc. and are entitled Grading Plans For: La Costa Village Townhomes,
City of Carlsbad, Sheets I through 33 of 33, signature dated November 17, 2011. Recommendations
for grading were provided in our report entitled Update Geotechnical Investigation, La Costa Village
Townhomes (Carlsbad 3), CT 04-08, Dove Lane and El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, dated
July 14, 2011 (Project No. 07193-32-03). The design and construction of the "Verdura" MSE
retaining walls was provided by Soil Retention Designs. Staking and collection Of the field survey
information were performed by C&V Consulting, Inc.
The exhibit used as a base map to present the as-graded geologic information and density test
locations (Figure 1) is a reproducible copy of the grading plans provided by C&V Consulting, Inc.
The map depicts the ultimate proposed grading configuration, as well as the ground surface
topography prior to grading. The base of fill elevations is also presented. This information was
primarily, collected by TNT American Pride during remedial grading operations using their mobile
GPS mapping system.
References to elevations and locations herein are based on as-graded survey information provided by
C&V Consulting, Inc., or grade checker's stakes and GPS data provided by TNT American Pride.
Geocon Incorporated does not provide surveying services and, therefore, has no opinion regarding the
accuracy of the as-graded elevations or surface geometry with respect to the approved grading plans
or proper surface drainage.
GRADING
Grading of the property consisted of. removal and compaction of existing surficial deposits.
Excavations consisted of maximum cuts and fills of approximately 16 feet and 27 feet, respectively.
The grading was performed in conjunction with testing and observation services provided by Geocon
Incorporated. If a cut/fill transition was exposed in the building pad resulting in less than 3 feet of
compacted fill, the building pad areas were overexcavated approximately 3 feet and replaced with
properly compacted fill soils.
Following remedial grading excavations, the exposed ground surface was scarified, moisture
conditioned, and compacted. Fill soils derived from on-site excavations were then plaèed and
compacted in layers until the design elevations were attained.
Building Pads 7 and 8 are unfinished and will be used as a balance area. During construction, soils
generated from footings and utility trenches will be stockpiled adjacent to Pads 7 and 8 and then
Project No. 07193-32-03A -2- May 31, 2012
placed during the final stages of construction. A separate report will be submitted when these lots are
completed.
Fill Materials and Placement Procedures
The on-site fill materials generally consisted of silty to clayey sands. Imported soils generally
consisted of gravelly, silty to clayey sands with abundant 6-inch minus rock. The fills were placed in
lifts no thicker than would allow for adequate bonding and compaction. The soil was moisture
conditioned as necessary and mixed during placement.
Field In-Place Density and Laboratory Testing
During the grading operation, compaction procedures were observed and in-place density tests were
performed to evaluate the relative compaction of the fill material. The in-place density tests were
performed in general conformance with ASTM D 6938-08A (nuclear). Results of the field density
tests and moisture content tests performed during grading are summarized on Table I and are
presented on the As-Graded Geologic Map (Figure 1). In general, the in-place density test results
indicate that the fill at the locations tested has a relative compaction of at least 90 percent and near or
slightly above optimum moisture content.
Laboratory tests were performed on samples of material used for fill to evaluate moisture-density
relationships, optimum moisture content and maximum dry density, expansion characteristics, shear
strength, plasticity, gradation, and water-soluble sulfate content. The results of the laboratory tests are
summarized on Tables II through VII.
Slopes
Cut and fill slopes were constructed at design inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter, with
maximum heights of approximately 17 feet, respectively. In the vicinity of the 3-tiered Verdura Wall
system, the total height from bottom of lower wall to finish pad grade is approximately 27 feet. In
general, fill slopes were either over-filled and cut back or track-walked with a bulldozer during
grading.
All slopes should be planted, drained, and maintained to reduce erosion. Slope irrigation should be
kept to a minimum to just support the vegetative cover. Surface drainage should not be allowed to
flow over the top of the slope.
Project No. 07193-32-03A -3- May 31, 2012
Finish-Grade Soil Conditions
Laboratory tests were performed on samples exposed at finish grade to determine the expansion
potential (ASTM D 4829-08) and the water-soluble sulfate content (California Test No. 417). The
results of the laboratory tests are summarized on Tables IV and V.
The laboratory tests performed on soil samples to measure the percentage of water-soluble sulfate
content indicate that the on-site materials possess "negligible" sulfate exposure to concrete structures,
as defined by the 2010 California Building Code (CBC). The soluble-sulfate test results for each lot
are presented on Table V. The CBC provides no specific recommendations for concrete subjected to
"negligible" sulfate exposure.
Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore, if
improvements that could be susceptible to corrosion are planned, it is recommended that further
evaluation by a corrosion engineer be performed.
VERDURA MSE RETAINING WALLS
We have provided observation and compaction testing services during construction of the "Verdura"
MSE retaining walls for the subject project. The scope of our services consisted of observing the
placement of the reinforcing geogrid, location and tensioning. In addition, in-place density testing
was performed on fill placed as backfill during wall construction.
Prior to placing fill, the base of the wall excavation was observed by a representative of Geocon
Incorporated. Our observation indicated that the soil conditions exposed at the base of the excavation
consisted of formational materials and/or dense compacted fill. These soil conditions are consistent
with those described in the referenced geotechnical report. In addition, the bearing strata at the base
of the excavations are considered acceptable for support of the retaining walls.
Backfill was placed and compacted in layers to the design elevations for geogrid reinforcement
shown on the referenced plans. The geogrid reinforcement consisted of Miragrid 5XT and 8XT. In
general, the geogrid was cut to the desired length shown on the plan and then installed by wrapping
the grid around a plastic sleeve installed between the wall-facing units. A minimum lap of 12 inches
was provided. Slack was removed by pulling the grid tight and nailing the back of the grid to the
ground.
In-place density testing on backfill soil was performed in substantial conformance with ASTM Test
Procedures D 2922-05 (nuclear). The results of the in-place density tests are presented on the attached
Table I. In general, the in-place density test results indicate that fill soil placed as backfill was
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at the locations tested.
Project No. 07193-32-03A -4- May 31, 2012
Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples of the material used for backfill to
determine shear strength, plasticity index, gradation and compaction characteristics (maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content).. The tests were performed in substantial conformance with
current ASTM test procedures. Results of the laboratory tests are presented on Tables II through VII.
Material used in the reinforced backfill zone of the "Verdura" retaining wall met or exceeded the
design parameters.
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading were found to be generally similar to
those described in the referenced project geotechnical report. The conditions observed are presented
on the As-Graded Geologic Map, Figure 1.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0 General
1.1 Based on observations and test results, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated that the
grading, to which this report pertains, has been performed in substantial conformance with
the recommendations of the referenced project soil report. Soil and geologic conditions
encountered during grading that differ from those anticipated by the project soil report are
not uncommon. Where such conditions required a significant modification to the
recommendations of the project soil report, they have been described herein.
1.2 No soil or geologic conditions were observed during grading that would preclude the
continued development of the property as planned. Based upon laboratory test results and
field observations, it is our opinion that the fill soils have generally been compacted to at
least 90 percent relative compaction at the locations tested.
1.3 Based on our observations and test results performed during the grading operation, it is our
opinion that "the site is adequate for its intended use."
1.4 It is not uncommon for groundwater or seepage conditions to develop where none
previously existed, particularly after landscape irrigation is initiated. The occurrence of
induced groundwater seepage from landscaping can be greatly reduced by implementing
and monitoring a landscape program that limits irrigation to that sufficient to support the
vegetative cover without overwatering. Shallow subdrains may be required in the future if
seeps occur after rainy periods or after landscaping is installed.
Project No. 07193-32-03A - 5- May 31, 2012
1.5 References to the thickness and extent of the pad undercut or capping of the subject
building pads are approximate and will be affected by subsequent fine grading to achieve
proper surface drainage.
2.0 Seismic Design Criteria
2.1 We used the computer program Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response
Spectra, provided by the USGS. Table 2 summarizes site-specific design criteria obtained
from the 2010 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2009 International Building
Code [IBC]), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613 Earthquake Loads. The short
spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. The building structure and improvements
should be designed using a Site Class C.
TABLE 2
2010 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2010 CBC Reference
Site Class C Table 1613.5.2
Spectral Response — Class B (short), Ss 1.161g Figure 1613.5(3)
Spectral Response — Class B (1 sec), S 0.438g Figure 1613.5(4)
Site Coefficient, F A 1.000 Table 1613.5.3(1)
Site Coefficient, F V 1.362 Table 1613.5.3(2)
Maximum Considered Earthquake 1.161g Section 1613.5.3 (Eqn 16-36) Spectral Response Acceleration (short), 5MS
Maximum Considered Earthquake 0.596g Section 1613.5.3 (Eqn 16-37) Spectral Response Acceleration —(1 sec), SMI
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), 5DS
0.774g Section 16 13.5.4 (Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design.
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SDI
0.398g Section 1613.5.4 (Eqn 16-39)
2.2 Conformance to the criteria for seismic design does not constitute any guarantee or
assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur in the event of
a maximum level earthquake. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life and not
to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
3.0 Foundation and Concrete Slabs-On-Grade Recommendations
3.1 The following foundation recommendations are for proposed one- to three-story residential
structures. The foundation recommendations have been separated into three categories
Project No. 07193-32-03A -6- May 31, 2012
based on either the maximum and differential fill thickness or Expansion Index. The
foundation category criteria are presented in Table 3.1.
TABLE 3.1
FOUNDATION CATEGORY CRITERIA
Foundation
Category
Maximum Fill
Thickness, T (Feet)
Differential Fill
Thickness, D (Feet) Expansion Index (El)
I T<20 -- EI<50
II 20<T<50 1O<D<20 50<EI<90
Ill T50 13>20 90<EI<130
3.2 Final foundation categories for each building or lot will be provided after finish pad grades
have been achieved and laboratory testing of the subgrade soil has been completed.
3.3 Table 3.2 presents minimum foundation and interior concrete slab design criteria for
conventional foundation systems.
TABLE 3.2
CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS BY CATEGORY
Foundation Minimum Footing
Embedment Continuous Footing Interior Slab
Category Depth (inches) Reinforcement Reinforcement
I 12 Two No. 4 bars, 6 x 6 - 10/10 welded wire
one top and one bottom mesh at slab mid-point
II 18 Four No. 4 bars, No. 3 bars at 24 inches
two top and two bottom on center, both directions
III 24 Four No. 5 bars, No. 3 bars at 18 inches
two top and two bottom on center, both directions
3.4 The embedment depths presented in Table 3.2 should be measured from the lowest
- adjacent pad grade for both interior and exterior footings. The conventional foundations
should have a minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches for continuous and isolated
footings, respectively.
3.5 The concrete slab-on-grade should be a minimum of 4 inches thick for Foundation
Categories I and II and 5 inches thick for Foundation Category III. The concrete slabs-on-
grade should be underlain by 4 inches and 3 inches of clean sand for 4-inch thick and
5-inch-thick slabs, respectively. Slabs expected to receive moisture sensitive floor coverings
Project No. 07193-32-03A -7- May 31, 2012
or used to store moisture sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor inhibitor covered
with at least 2 inches of clean sand or crushed rock. If crushed rock will be used, the
thickness of the vapor inhibitor should be at least 10 mil to prevent possible puncturing.
3.6 As a substitute, the layer of clean sand (or crushed rock) beneath the vapor inhibitor
recommended in the previous section can be omitted if a vapor inhibitor that meets or
exceeds the requirements of ASTM E 1745-97 (Class A), and that exhibits permeance not
greater than 0.012 perrn (measured in accordance with ASTM E 96-95) is used. This vapor
inhibitor may be placed directly on properly compacted fill or formational materials. The
vapor inhibitor should be installed in general conformance with ASTM E 1643-98 and the
manufacturer's recommendations. Two inches of clean sand should then be placed on top
of the vapor inhibitor to reduce the potential for differential curing, slab curl, and cracking.
Floor coverings should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations.
3.7 As an alternative to the conventional foundation recommendations, consideration should be
given to the use of post-tensioned concrete slab and foundation systems for the support of
the proposed structures. The post-tensioned systems should be designed by a structural
engineer experienced in post-tensioned slab design and design criteria of the
Post-Tensioning Institute (PT!), Third Edition, as required by the 2010 California Building
Code (CBC Section 1805.8). Although this procedure was developed for expansive soil
conditions, we understand it can also be used to reduce the potential for foundation distress
due to differential fill settlement. The post-tensioned design should incorporate the
geotechnical parameters presented on Table 3.3 for the particular Foundation Category
designated. The parameters presented in Table 3.3 are based on the guidelines presented in
the PTI, Third Edition design manual.
TABLE 3.3
POST-TENSIONED FOUNDATION SYSTEM DESIGN PARAMETERS
Post-Tensioning Institute (PTI),
Third Edition Design Parameters
Foundation Category
1 11 111
Thornthwaite Index -20 -20 -20
Equilibrium Suction 3.9 3.9 3.9
Edge Lift Moisture Variation Distance, em (feet) 5.3 5.1 4.9
Edge Lift, YM (inches) 0.61 1.10 1.58
Center Lift Moisture Variation Distance, e (feet) 9.0 9.0 9.0
Center Lift, YM (inches) 0.30 0.47 0.66
Project No. 07193-32-03A -8- May 31, 2012
3.8 Foundation systems for the lots that possess a foundation Category I and a "very low"
expansion potential (expansion index of 20 or less) can be designed using the method
described in Section 1808 of the 2010 CBC. If post-tensioned foundations are planned, an
alternative, commonly accepted design method (other than PT! Third Edition) can be used.
However, the post-tensioned foundation system should be designed with a total and
differential deflection of 1 inch. Geocon Incorporated should be contacted to review the
plans and provide additional information, if necessary.
3.9 The, foundations for the post-tensioned slabs should be embedded in accordance with the
recommendations of the structural engineer. If a post-tensioned mat foundation system is
planned, the slab should possess a thickened edge with a minimum width of 12 inches and
extend below the clean sand or crushed rock layer.
3.10 If the structural engineer proposes a post-tensioned foundation design method other than
PT!, Third Edition:
The deflection criteria presented in Table 3.3 are still applicable.
Interior stiffener beams should be used for Foundation Categories II and III.
The width of the perimeter foundations should be at least 12 inches.
The perimeter footing embedment depths should be at least 12 inches, 18 inches
and 24 inches for foundation categories I, II, and Ill, respectively.. The embedment
depths should be measured from the lowest adjacent pad grade.
3.11 Our experience indicates post-tensioned slabs are susceptible to excessive edge lift,
regardless of the underlying soil conditions. Placing reinforcing steel at the bottom of the
perimeter footings and the interior stiffener beams may mitigate this potential. Current PT!
design procedures primarily address the potential center lift of slabs but, because of the
placement of the reinforcing tendons' in the top of the slab, the resulting. eccentricity after
tensioning reduces the ability of the system to mitigate edge lift. The structural engineer
should design the foundation system to reduce the potential of edge lift occurring for the
proposed structures.
3.12 During the construction of the post-tension foundation system, the concrete should be
placed monolithically. Under no circumstances should cold joints be allowed to form
between the footings/grade beams and the slab during the construction of the post-tension
foundation system.
3.13 Category I, II, or III foundations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of.
2,000 pounds per square foot (psi) (dead' plus live load). This bearing pressure may be
increased by.one-third for transient loads due to wind or seismic forces.
Project No. 07193-32-03A ' -9- May 31, 2012
3.14 Isolated footings, if present, should have the minimum embedment depth and width
recommended for conventional foundations for a particular foundation category. The use of
isolated footings, which are located beyond the perimeter of the building and support
structural elements connected to the building, are not recommended for Category 111.
Where this condition cannot be avoided, the isolated footings should be connected to the
building foundation system with grade beams.
3.15 For Foundation Category III, consideration should be given to using interior stiffening
beams and connecting isolated footings and/or increasing the slab thickness. In addition,
consideration should be given to connecting patio slabs, which exceed 5 feet in width, to
the building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
3.16 Footings that must be placed within seven feet of the top of slopes should be extended in
depth such that the outer bottom edge of the footing is at least seven feet horizontally inside
the face of the slope.
3.17 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisture conditioned, as
necessary, to maintain a moist condition as would be expected in any such concrete
placement.
3.18 Where buildings or other improvements are planned near the top of a slope steeper than 3:1
(horizontal:vertical), special foundations and/or design considerations are recommended
due to the tendency for lateral soil movement to occur.
For fill slopes less than 20 feet high, building footings should be deepened such
that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the
face of the slope.
When located next to a descending 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) fill slope or steeper, the
foundations should be extended to a depth where the minimum horizontal distance
is equal to H/3 (where H equals the vertical distance from the top of the fill slope
to the base of the fill soil) with a minimum of 7 feet but need not exceed 40 feet.
The horizontal distance is measured from the outer, deepest edge of the footing to
the face of the slope. An acceptable alternative to deepening the footings would be
the use of a post-tensioned slab and foundation system or increased footing and
slab reinforcement. Specific design parameters or recommendations for either of
these alternatives can be provided once the building location and fill slope
geometry have been determined.
If swimming pools are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for a
review of specific site conditions.
Project No. 07193-32-03A -10- May 31, 2012
Swimming pools located within 7 feet of the top of cut or fill slopes are not
recommended. Where such a condition cannot be avoided, the portion of the
swimming pool wall within 7 feet of the slope face be designed assuming that the
adjacent soil provides no lateral support. This recommendation applies to fill
slopes up to 30 feet in height, and cut slopes regardless of height. For swimming
pools located near the top of fill slopes greater than 30 feet in height, additional
recommendations may be required and Geocon Incorporated should be contacted
for a review of specific site conditions.
Although other improvements, which are relatively rigid or brittle, such as concrete
flatwork or masonry walls, may experience some distress if located near the top of
a slope, it is generally not economical to mitigate this potential. It may be possible,
however, to incorporate design measures that would permit some lateral soil
movement without causing extensive distress. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted for specific recommendations.
3.19 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of•
slabs due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with
varying thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations
presented herein, foundations, stucco walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions
may still exhibit some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of
concrete shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their
occurrence may be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper
concrete placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic
intervals, in particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
3.20 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as
required by the structural engineer.
4.0 Retaining Walls and lateral loads
4.1 The structural engineer should determine the seismic design category for the project in
accordance with Section 1613 of the 2010CBC. If the project possesses a seismic design
category of D, E, or F, the proposed retaining walls should be designed with seismic lateral
pressures. The seismic load exerted on the wall should be a triangular distribution with a
pressure of 17H (where H is the height of the wall, in feet, resulting in pounds per square
foot [psf]) exerted at the top of the wall and zero at the base of the wall. We used a peak
site acceleration of 0.31g calculated from Section 1803.5.12 of the 2010 California
Building Code (SsI2.5) and applying a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.33. Alternatively, a
pseudo-static acceleration (kH) of 0.1og may also be used.
4.2 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid with a
Project No. 07193-32-03A -11- May 31, 2012
density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at no steeper
than 2.0 to 1.0, an active soil pressure of 55 pcf is recommended. These soil pressures
assume that the backfill materials within an area bounded by the wall and a 1:1 plane
extending upward from the base of the wall possess an Expansion Index of less than 50.
4.3 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.00IH (where H equals
the height of the retaining wall portion of the wall in feet) at the top of the wall. Where
walls are restrained from movement at the top, an additional uniform pressure of 7H psf
should be added to the above active soil pressure.
4.4 Retaining walls should be provided with a drainage system adequate to prevent the buildup
of hydrostatic forces and should be waterproofed as required by the project architect. The
use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended
where the seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent
to the base of the wall. The above recommendations assume a properly compacted granular
(El less than 50) free-draining backfill material with no hydrostatic forces or imposed
surcharge load. If conditions different than those described are anticipated, or if specific
drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated should be contacted for additional
recommendations.
4.5 In general, wall foundations at least 12-inches wide and 12-inches deep may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf, provided the soil within 3 feet below
the base of the wall has an Expansion Index of less than 90.
4.6 Footings that must be placed within seven feet of the top of slopes should be extended in
depth such that the outer bottom edge of the footing is at least seven feet horizontally inside
the face of the slope.
4.7 For resistance to lateral loads, an allowable passive earth pressure equivalent to a fluid with
a density of 300 pcf is recommended for footings or shear keys poured neat against
properly compacted granular fill soils or undisturbed natural soils. The allowable passive
pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending away from the face of the wall at least
5 feet or three times the height of surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is
greater. For 2:1 (H:V) sloping conditions in front of the surface generating the passive
pressure, an allowable passive earth pressure of 200 pcf is recommended. The upper
12 inches of material not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in the
design for lateral resistance. A friction coefficient of 0.40 may be used for resistance to
sliding between soil and concrete. This friction coefficient may be combined with the
allowable passive earth pressure when determining resistance to lateral loads.
Project No. 07193-32-03A -12- May 31, 2012
4.8 The recommendations presented above are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that
walls higher than 8 feet or other types of walls are planned, such as crib-type walls, Geocon
Incorporated should be consulted for additional recommendations.
5.0 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection
5.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement,
erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond
adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is
directed away from structures in accordance with 2010 CBC 1804.3 or other applicable
standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into
swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be
directed into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
5.2 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked
periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil
movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The firm that performed the geotechnical investigation for the project should be retained to provide
testing, and observation services during construction to provide continuity of geotechnical
interpretation and to check that the recommendations presented for geotechnical aspects of site
development are incorporated during site grading, construction of improvements, and excavation of
foundations. If another geotechnical firm is selected to perform the testing and observation services
during construction operations, that firm should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the
responsibilities of project geotechnical engineer of record. A copy of the letter should be provided to
the regulatory agency for their records. In addition, that firm should provide revised
recommendations concerning the geotechnical aspects of the proposed development, or a written
acknowledgement of their concurrence with the recommendations presented in our report. They
should also perform additional analyses deemed necessary to assume the role of Geotechnical
Engineer of Record.
The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the
assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any
variations or undesirable conditions, are encountered during construction, or if the proposed
construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified so that
supplemental recommendations can be given. The evaluation or identification of the potential
Project No. 07193-32-03A - 13- May 31, 2012
presence of hazardous or corrosive materials was not part of the scope of services provided by
Geocon Incorporated.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner or his
representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to
the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the
necessary steps are taken to see that -the contractor and subcontractors carry out such
recommendations in the field.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of
man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may
occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings
of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore,
this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please
contact the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
,ESSIo4
Trevor E. Myers 2 (<90E
RCE 63773 1( INo.RCE63773
TEM:DBE:dmc
(2) Addressee
(e-mail) C&V Consulting, Inc.
Attention: Mr. Vincent Scarpati
(e-mail) City Ventures - Job Site
Attention: Mr. Greg Jones
4Davidans
CEG 1860
2
NAL
ABR ( EVANS S
a. No \
CERTIFIED -• * ENGINEERING *
GEOLOGIST
N9PCAtV
Project No. 07193-32-03A -14- May 31, 2012
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD-DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. . Plus Field Field Field Req'd.
or 3/4 Dry Moist. Rel. Rel.
Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
Test No. Date Location No. (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
197
201
201 ------------------
198
203
209
203
200 ------------------
208
211
209
203
211 ------------------
214
212
208
200
264 ------------------
255
199
203
211
215
183
188
189
195
195 --------------------------------
197
206
195
202
205 --------------------------------
204
209
260
262
263 --------------------------------
O 256
212
265
218
268
--------------------------------
270
196
1 03/19/12 Black Skimmer Drive
2 03/20/12 Black Skimmer Drive
3 03/20/12 Black Skimmer Drive
SZ 4 03/21/12 Black Skimmer Drive
SZ 50 03/21/12 Black Skimmer Drive
SZ 6 03/21/12 Black Skimmer Drive
SZ 7 03/21/12 Black Skimmer Drive
8 03/22/12 SEof Pad 8
9 03/22/12 SEof Pad 8
10 03/23/12 SEof Pad 8
II 03/23/12 Brass B Street
12 03/23/12 Pad 8
13 03/26/12 El Camino Real 237+50
SZ 14. 03/27/12 El Camino Real 236+40
SZ 15 03/27/12 El Camino Real 237+25
SZ 16 03/27/12 El Camino Real 241+10
17 03/27/12 E of Building 8
SZ 18 03/27/12 El Camino Real 240+50
19 03/29/12 Eof Wall D
SZ 20 03/29/12 El Camino Real 241+40
SZ 21 03/29/12 El Camino Real 240+00
22. 04/02/12 W of Sea Rocket Lane
23 04/02/12 Wof Pad 4
24 04/02/12 Sea Rocket Lane
.24 A 04/02/12 Sea Rocket Lane
25 04/02/12 Wof Pad 4
26 04/04/12 Pad 3
27 04/05/12 Pad 2
28 04/05/12 Pad
29 04/05/12 SEof Pad 5
30 04/05/12 Pad 4
31 04/06/12 Pad
32 04/06/12 Pad 3
33 04/06/12 Cliff S-Lane
34 04/06/12 Pad 2
35
---------------------------------------------------------------------
04/09/12 Pad 2
36 04/09/12 Pad 4
37 04/09/12 Cliff S-Lane
ST 38 04/10/12 Black Skimmer Drive Slope
ST 39 04/12/12 El Camino Real 240+90
40 04/13/12 El Camino Real 234+00
SZ 41 . 04/17/12 W of Building 6 (SRS)
SZ 42 04/17/12 W of Buildings (SRS)
SZ 43 04/17/12 W of Building 2 (SRS)
44 04/17/12 Pad I
1 0 105.2 13.5 92 90
1 0 105.1 16.3 92 90
1 0 104.2 17.0 91 90
1 0 103.8 13.6 91 90
1 0 1 07 .0 14.0 94 90
1 0 104.2 15.2 91 90
1 0 104.1 13.7 91 90
1 0 104.0 17.7 91 90
1 0 105.2 14.4 92 90
2 0 110.5 14.0 95 90
2 0 107.6 13.5 93 90
2 0 110.0 13.8 95 90
2 0 108.0 13.4 93 90
2 0 104.9 14.9 90 90
2 0 106.7 14.1 92 90
3 0 110.1 12.8 92 90
1 0 104.4 14.0 91 90
6 20 . 130.1 6.6 93 90
3 0 108.5 13.2 91 90
6 0 122.5 8.0 91 90
6 0 124.8
--------------------------------------------------------------
7.5 93 90
2 0 105.1 14.1 90 90
2 0 104.6 15.8 90 90
2 0 99.9 13.5 86 90
2 0 105.2 14.2 91 90
2 0 104.5 17.1 90 90
6 20 131.9 6.0 95 90
6 20 127.9 6.9 92 90
6 20 129.3 . 8.8 93 90
8 0 107.5 13.8 92 90
6 20 130.7 5.8 94 90
6 20 126.8 9.4 91 90
6 20 128.8 6.6 92 90
6 0 122.9 10.4 92 90
8 0 104.9 15.2 90 90
8 0 110.5 13.5 95 90
8 0 110.0 13.8 94 90
8 0 105.0 13.9 90 90
8 0 104.6 13.5 90 90
6 0 122.0 7.0 91 90
1 0 104.6 13.6 91 90
8 0 109.5 15.1 94 90
8 0 104.9 18.2 90 90
8 0 106.9 16.1 92 90
8 0 105.7 15.9 91 90
Project No. 07193-32-03A • May 31, 2012
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test No. Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth Curve
No.
Plus
3/4
Rock
(O/\ O
Field
Dry
Dens.
( \ jj
Field
Moist.
Cont.
(O/\ o
Field
Rel.
Comp.
(O/\ o,
Req'd.
Rel.
Comp.
(0/
. o
45 04/17/12 Pad I 215 8 0 105.2 17.2 90 90
SZ 46 04/18/12 Above Wall E (SRS) 230 8 0 111.5 14.3 96 90
SZ 47 04/18/12 Above Wall E (SRS) 230 8 0 106.7 16.2 91 90
SZ 48 04/18/12 Above Wall E (SRS) 232 8 0 107.8 13.4 92 90
SZ 49 04/18/12 SWof Pad 6 204 8 0 105.5 13.5 90 90
SZ 50 04/18/12 Above Wall E (SRS) 225 8 0 105.0 13.8 90 90
SZ 51 04/18/12 Above Wall E (SRS) 225 8 0 106.2 13.6 91 90
52 04/19/12 Pad 7 209 8 0 106.3 14.0 91 90
53 04/19/12 Sof Pad 6 207 8 0 107.6 13.6 92 90
54 041.19/12 Pad 209 8 0 105.0 13.5 90 90
55 04/19/12 Wof Pad 5 205 4 0 106.1 13.2 91 90
56 04/20/12 Pad 211 8 0 106.0 14.5 91 90
57 04/20/12 E of Pad 6 (BS Dr) 210 8 0 104.6 17.4 90 90
58 04/20/12 Wof Pad 5 210 8 0 106.5 15.8 91 90
ST 59 04/20/12 Between Wall B&F 205 8 0 104.8 13.5 90 90
ST 60 04/20/12 Above Wall E 226 8 0 105.6 14.2 90 90
ST 61 04/20/12 Above Wall E 229 8 0 109.8 14.7 94 90
62 04/29/12 Pad 9 . 212 8 0 106.5 13.3 91 90
63 04/29/12 Pad 213 8 0 108.1 14.1 93 90
64 04/29/12 Pad 10 215 8 0 104.9 14.0 90 90
65 04/29/12 Pad 10 214 8 0 105.1 13.7 90 90
SZ 66 04/27/12 Between Wall D&E 226 8 0 107.1 13.5 92 90
67 04/30/12 El Camino Real 23+55 240 6 10 130.5 7.7 95 90
68 05/01/12 Pad 214 8 0 107.3 17.0 92 90
69 05/0 1/1 2 Pad 213 6 0 1 23 .3 7.3 92 90
SZ 70 05/01/12 E of Wall D 227 6 0 124.2 8.3 93 90
SZ 71 05/01/12 Eof Wall D 230 4 0 106.5 13.2 92 90
SZ 72 05/01/12 Pad 10 Building 215 8 0 105.7 15.1 91 90
SZ 73 05/01/12 Pad 10 Garage 216 8 0 106.4 14.7 91 90
SZ 74 05/01/12 Pad 9 Building 214 8 0 108.4 13.3 93 90
SZ 75 05/01/12 Pad 9 Garage 214 8 0 107.5 15.1 92 90
76 05/02/12 Pad 213 8 0 105.0 13.7 90 90
77 05/02/12 Pad . 0 214 7 0 109.1 13.2 91 90
FG 78 05/02/12 Pad 5 Building 215 8 0 105.3 13.9 90 90
FG 79 05/02/12 Pad 5 Garage 214 7 0 108.9 13.2 91 90
FG 80 05/04/12 Pad 6 Building 215 8 0 105.9 13.9 91 90
FG 81 05/04/12 Pad 6Garage 214 8 0 105.8 14.0 91 90
FG 82 05/04/12 Pad 4 Building 215 8 0 104.6 13.2 90 90
SZ 83 05/04/12 W of Sea Rocket Lane 211 1 0 106.2 13.2 93 90
SZ 84 05/07/12 Between Wall D&E 233 6 -----20-----1-27-.-6 6.3 91 90
85 05/07/12 Pad 2 216 8 0 100.3 10.3 86 90
85A 05/08/12 Pad 216 8 0 106.9 13.7 92 90
86 05/07/12 Pad 216 8 0 105.9 13.5 91 90
87 05/07/12 Pad 214 8 0 107.3 14.1 92 90
FG 88 05/07/12 Pad 4Garage 215 8 0 108.1 13.4 93 90
Project No. 07193-32-03A 0 May 31, 2012
Test No. Date
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Elev. Plus Field Field Field Reqd.
or 3/4" Dry Moist. Rel. Re 1.
Depth Curve Rock Dens. Cont. Comp. Comp.
Location (ft) No. (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%)
FG 89 05/07/12 Pad 2 Building 217 8 0 112.0 13.4 96 90
FG 90 05/07/12 Pad 3 Building 215 8 0 107.4 13.9 92 90
ST 91 05/09/12 Above Wall D 229 6 10 120.1 7.9 88 90
ST 91 A 05/09/12 Above Wall D 229 6 10 122.9 5.8 90 90
FG 92 05/09/12 Pad 2 Garage 216 8 0 108.5 16.9 93 90
FG 93 05/12/12 Pad I Building 216 8 0 113.9 13.8 98 90
FG 94 05/12/12 Pad I Garage 216 8 0 105.2 13.5 90 90
ST 95 05/12/12 Below Sea Rocket Lane 210 8 0 107.2 13.0 92 90
FG 96 . 05/14/12 Pad 3 Garage . 214 8 0 106.9 13.4 92 . 90
Project No. 07193-32-03A May 31, 2012
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test No. Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(fi)
Curve
No.
Plus
3/4
Rock
(%)
Field
Dry
Dens.
(pcf)
Field
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
Field
Re 1.
Comp.
(%)
Req'd.
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
VW 1 03/27/12 Wall G 1+40 212 2 0 107.8 14.3 93 90
VW 2 03/27/12 Wall G 1+20 214 2 0 106.3 14.6 91 90
VW 3 03/27/12 Wall G 1+20 214 1 0 104.1 13.8 91 90
VW 4 03/28/12 Wall G 1+20 215 2 0 108.1 13.8 93 90
VW 5 03/30/12 Wall C 1+75 215 2 0 109.3 13.6 94 90
VW 6 03/30/12 Wall C 1+30
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
215 2 0 107.3 14.3 92 90
VW 7 03/30/12 Wall C 1+17 217 1 0 106.1 12.8 93 90
VW 8 03/30/12 Wall C 1+76 217 1 0 105.4 13.3 92 90
VW 9 04/02/12 Lower Wall B 1+90 185 2 0 106.6 13.9 92 90
VW 10 04/02/12 Lower Wall B 1+30 185 2 0 108.0 13.7 93 90
VW II 04/03/12 Lower Wall B 2+07 187 2 0 106.6 14.1 92 90
VW 12 04/03/12 Lower Wall B 1+05 188 2 0 108.0 13.5 93 90
VW 13 04/03/12 Lower Wall A 1+63 192 2 0 106.5 14.0 92 90
VW 14 04/03/12 Lower Wall A 2+49 198 2 0 104.3 16.1 90 90
VW IS 04/03/12 Lower Wall A3+64 211 2 0 105.6 13.9 91 90
VW 16 04/03/12 Lower Wall B 1+67 189 8 0 108.3 13.7 93 90
VW 17 04/03/12 Lower Wall A 1+25 192 8 0 109.2 3.8 94 90
VW 18 04/03/12 Lower Wall A 2+22 198 8 0 106.6 14.7 91 90
VW 19 04/03/12 Lower Wall A 3+14 207 8 0 105.5 15.5 90 90
VW 20 04/03/12 Lower Wall B 2+20 189 8 0 105.5 16.1 90 90
VW 21 04/04/12 Lower Wall B 1+20 190 8 0 105.1 13.7 90 90
VW 22 04/04/12 Lower Wall A 1+63 195 8 0 104.9 14.2 90 90
VW 23 04/04/12 Lower Wall A 2+60 203 8 0 104.8 14.3 90 90
VW 24 04/04/12 Lower Wall A 3+64 214 8 0 106.2 13.7 91 90
VW 25 04/04/12 Lower Wall B 1+65 192 8 0 104.7 13.8 90 90
VW 26 04/04/12 Lower Wall A 1+50 196 8 0 107.5 15.3 92 90
VW 27 04/04/12 Lower Wall A 2+75 205 8 0 105.5 16.2 90 90
VW 28 04/04/12 Lower Wall A3+84 215 8 0 105.9 14.8 91 90
VW 29 04/06/12 Upper Wall A 3+43 215 8 0 105.2 15.3 90 90
VW 30 04/06/12 Upper Wall A 2+40 205 8 0 106.1 15.0 91 90
VW 31 04/06/12 Upper Wall A 1+40 198 8 0 105.4 14.3 90 90
VW 32 04/06/12 Upper Wall B 1+50 194 8 0 107.0 15.2 92 90
VW 33 04/06/12 Upper Wall A 3+00 213 8 0 105.4 14.2 90 90
VW 34 04/06/12 Upper Wall A 2+15 204 8 0 104.9 15.4 90 90
VW 35 04/06/12 Upper Wall 1+15 198 8 0 110.5 13.9 95 90
VW 36 04/06/12 Upper Wall B 1+75 196 8 0 106.4 15.6 91 90
VW 37 04/06/12 Upper Wall B 2+75 195 8 0 104.6 16.3 90 90
VW 38 04/09/12 Upper Wall A3+00 214 8 0 110.4 13.7 95 90
VW 39 04/09/12 Upper Wall A 2+00 205 8 0 107.5 15.9 92 90
VW 4-0-----0-4/0-9/1-2--Upper-Wall A 1+00 200 8 0 105.9 15.3 91 90
VW 41 04/09/12 Upper Wall B2+00 198 8 0 108.1 15.3 93 90
VW 42 04/09/12 Upper Wall B 3+50 198 8 0 106.5 14.0 91 90
VW 43 04/09/12 Upper Wall B 2+80 . 200 8 0 110.0 13.5 94 90
VW 44 04/09/12 Upper Wall B 3+72 200 8 0 107.2 16.2 92 90
VW 45 04/10/12 Upper Wall B 3+72 202 8 0 107.0 15.2 92 90
Project No. 07193-32-03A May 31, 2012
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test No. Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth Curve
No.
Plus
3/4"
Rock
(%)
Field
Dry
Dens.
(pct)
Field
Moist.
Cont.
(%)
Field
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
Req'd.
Rel.
Comp.
(%)
VW 46 04/10/12 Upper Wall B 5+00 202 8 0 107.8 14.2 92 90
VW 47 04/10/12 Upper Wall B 4+00 204 8 0 106.0 13.9 91 90
VW 48 04/10/12 Upper Wall B 4+85 204 8 0 106.8 13.6 92 90
VW 49 04/12/12 Wall D 1+25 215 4 0 110.8 12.5 95 90
VW 50 04/12/12 Wall D0+90 217 4 0 110.5 13.4 95 90
VW 51 04/12/12 Wall D2+00 217 4 0 109.0 13.6 94 90
VW 52 04/12/12 Wall D 3+00 217 4 0 104.4 13.3 90 90
VW 53 04/12/12 Wall E2+30 219 8 0 106.5 14.5 91 90
VW 54 04/12/12 Wall E 1+40 219 8 0 105.9 14.8 91 90
VW 55 04/16/12 Wall D 1+35 219 8 0 105.3 13.8 90 90
VW 56 04/16/12 Wall D2+40 219 8 0 106.8 14.2 92 90
VW 57 04/16/12 Wall D 3+21 219 8 0 106.6 14.4 91 90
VW 58 04/16/12 Wall E 1+25 221 8 0 105.5 14.9 90 90
VW 59 04/16/12 Wall E2+10 221 8 0 107.6 13.5 92 90
VW 60 0 4/1 6/1 2 Wall D 1+20 22l 8 0 1 06 .2 15.2 91 90
VW 61 04/16/12 Wall D2+25 221 8 0 106.2 16.7 91 90
VW 62 04/16/12 Wall D 3+00 221 8 0 104.9 15.6 90 90
VW 63 04/16/12 Wall E 1+60 223 8 0 105.0 15.9 90 90
VW 64 04/16/12 Wall E 2+50 223 8 0 105.5 13.9 90 90
VW 65 04/17/12 Wall E 1+50 225 8 0 104.9 17.2 90 90
VW 66 04/17/12 Wall E 2+20 . 225 8 0 106.6 14.1 91 90
VW 67 04/17/12 Upper Wall B 4+50 206 4 0 104.4 13.9 90 90
VW 68 .04/17/12 Upper Wall B 3+60 206 4' 0 106.8 12.8 92 90
VW 69 04/17/12 Upper Wall B 4+90 208 4 0 107.3 16.2 92 90
VW 70 04/17/12 Upper Wall B 4+46 210 4 0 106.1 14.0 91 90
VW 71 04/24/12 Wall F 1+50 203 8 0 107.6 14.1 92 90
VW 72 04/24/12 Wall F 2+25 203 8 0 108.7 15.1 93 90
VW 73 04/24/12 Wall F 2+00 205 8 0 107.7 14.6 92 90
VW 74 04/24/12 Wall F 1+20 207 8 0 108.2 15.9 93 90
VW 75 04/24/12 Wall F2+10 207 8 0 108.8 15.1 93 90
VW 76 .04/24/12 Wall F2+50 207 8 0 106.6 15.5 91 90
VW 77 04/24/12 Wall F 2+35 208 8 0 109.2 13.5 94 90
VW 78 04/24/12 Wall F 1+80 208 8 0 105.0 14.9 90 90
VW 79 04/25/12 Wall F 2+65 210 8 0 108.4 13.9 93 90
VW 80 04/25/12 Wall F 1+78 21. .8 0 105.1 1.8 90 90
VW 81 04/25/12 Wall F 1+25 210 8 0 106.0 17.2 91 90
VW 82 04/25/12 Wall F 2+30 211 8 0 108.8 13.8 93 90
VW 83 04/25/12 Wall F1+45 211 8 0 105.1 14.1 90 90
VW 84 04/25/12 Wall F2+50 213 8 0 111.0 13.7 95 90
VW 85 04/25/12 Wall F 1+75 213 8 0 105.3 14.8 90 90
VW 86 04/25/12 Wall F 2+60 214 8 0 109.9 15.7 94 90
VW 87 04/25/12 Wall F 1+70 214 8 0 105.3 14.2 90 90
Project No. 07193-32-03A May 31, 2012
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
Test No. Date Location
Elev.
or
Depth
(ft)
Curve
No.
Plus
3/4'
Rock
(O/\ 0,
Field
Dry
Dens.
( pc ,
Field
Moist.
Cont.
O 4'
Field
Rel.
Comp.
0
Reqd.
Re 1.
Comp.
o
WB 1 04/30/12 Wall H -3 6 0 123.7 8.2 92 90
WB 2 04/30/12 Wall H -2 6 0 128.6 9.4 96 90
WB 3 04/30/12 Wall G -3 6 0 124.7 7.4 93 90
WB 4 04/30/12 Wall G -3 6 0 126.1 7.3 94 90
WB 5 04/30/12 Wall G -3 6 0 128.0 8.1 95 90
WB 6 04/30/12 Wall H
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-1 6 0 124.2 8.3 93 90
WB 7 04/30/12 Wall H -1 6 0 123.5 7.7 92 90
WB 8 04/30/12 Wall G -1 6 0 125.8 8.4 94 90
WB 9 04/30/12 Wall G -1 6 0 125.0 9.5 93 90
Project No. 07193-32-03A May 31, 2012
TABLE I
EXPLANATION OF CODED TERMS
- TEST SUFFIX
A, B, C, . . . : Retest of previous density test failure, following moisture conditioning and/or recompaction.
Fill in area of density test failure was removed and replaced with properly compacted fill soil.
- PREFIX CODE DESIGNATION FOR TEST NUMBERS
FG - FINISH GRADE
SZ - SLOPE ZONE
WB - WALL BACKFILL
ST - SLOPE TEST
VW - VERDURA WALL
-CIJRVENO.
Corresponds to curve numbers listed in the summary of laboratory maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content test results table for selected fill soil samples encountered during testing and observation.
- ROCK CORRECTION
For density tests with rock percentage greater than zero, laboratory maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content were adjusted for rock content. For tests with rock content equal to zero, laboratory
maximum dry density and optimum moisture content values are unadjusted.
- TYPE OF TEST
SC: Sand Cone Test (ASTM D 1556)
NU: Nuclear Density Test (ASTM D 6938 and D 2950)
01: Other
- ELEVATION/DEPTH
Test elevations/depths have been rounded to the nearest whole foot.
Project No. 07193-32-03A May 31, 2012
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557-07
Proctor Maximum Dry Optimum
Curve No. Source and Description Density (pci) Moisture
Content (%)
Yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 114.4 13.4
2 Yellowish-brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 116.2 14.0
3 Yellowish-brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND 119.3 12.9
4 Brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 116.1 12.0
5 Yellowish-Brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND 116.4 13.8
6 IMPORT: Yellowish-Brown, Clayey, Fine to Coarse 134.2 7.7 SAND with 6-minus rock
7 Brown, Clayey, fine to medium SAND 119.4 13.2
8 Yellowish-Brown, Silty, fine to medium SAND with 116.7 13.9
trace clay
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF REMOLDED DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080-04
Sample No.* Dry Density
(pci)
Moisture Content
(%)
Unit Cohesion (psi) Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees)
1 102.4 13.9 400 30
2 103.9 14.8 350 30
3 106.7 13.9 50 30
4 103.8 12.3 50 30
5 104.1 14.1 150 29
7 107.6 12.8 440 27
8 104.8 13.6 400 30
*Samples were remolded to approximately 90 percent of maximum dry density at near optimum moisture content.
Project No. 07193-32-03A May 31, 2012
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4829-08A
Sample
No.
Moisture Content Dry Density
(pcf)
Expansion
Index Before Test (%) After Test (%)
El-I 11.4 21.2 104.7 27
EI-2 11.1 22.0 103.5 27
E1-3 12.2 21.9 102.6 26
E1-4 10.0 21.1 110.2 39
El-5 10.3 21.6 108.3 36
EI-6 10.5 21.0 108.9 26
EI-7 10.5 21.1 109.5 39
El-8 10.0 20.6 109.4 43
EI-9 10.5 20.2 108.3 . 19
EI-10 9.8 22.0 109.0 31
El-lI 9.2 21.7 1 109.0 33
TABLE V
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS
CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Water-Soluble Sulfate (%) Sulfate Exposure
El-I 0.030 Negligible
El-2 0.036 Negligible
El-3 0.033 Negligible
EI-4 0.027 Negligible
El-S 0.041 Negligible
E1-6 0.034 Negligible
E1-7 0.041 Negligible
EI-8 0.049 Negligible
El-9 0.051 Negligible
EI-10 0.038 Negligible
El-I 1 0.023 Negligible
Project No. 07193-32-03A May 31, 2012
TABLE VI
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY PLASTICITY INDEX TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 4318-05
Sample Description Liquid Plastic Plasticity Unified Soil
Classification No. Limit (LL) Limit (PL) Index (Pt) (Group Symbol)
4 Silty Sand NP NP NP SM
5 Silty Sand NP NP NP SM
NP = Non-Plastic.
TABLE VII
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY GRADATION TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 422-63
Sample No. Sieve Analysis Test Results
ASTM D 422-63 (sieve size) (% passing)
4 No. 200 24
5 No. 200 9
TABLE VIII
SUMMARY OF FINISH GRADE EXPANSION INDEX AND SULFATE
EXPOSURE TEST RESULTS, AND RECOMMENDED FOUNDATION CATEGORY
BUILDING PADS I THROUGH 13
Building
Pad
Number
Sample
at Finish
Grade
Expansion
Index
CBC
Expansion
Classification
Recommended
Foundation
Category
Sulfate
Exposure
El-9 19 Very Low I Negligible
2 EI-10 31 Low I' Negligible
3 El-1 1 33 Low II Negligible
4 El-8 43 Low II Negligible
5 El-6 26 Low II Negligible
6 El-7 39 Low II Negligible
7 -- -- -- -- --
8 -- -- -- -- --
9 El-S 36 Low I Negligible
10 EI4 39 Low I Negligible
11 EI-3 26 Low I Negligible
12 El-2 27 Low I Negligible
13 El-1 27 Low I Negligible
Lots 8 and 9 are balance lots and will be completed during project build-out.
Project No. 07193-32-03A May 31, 2012
/ Qa 2
pf,
0 ,/
/ / /