HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 06-24; BRESSI RANCH VILLAGE CENTER; GEOTECHNICAL AS-GRADED COMPLETION REPORT OF ROUGH AND FINE GRADING; 2008-03-24I C'r 0 (,p , ~7_4
I
fl L
I
GEOTECHNICAL AS-GRADED COMPLETION REPORT
I OF ROUGH AND FINE GRADING, BUILDING PADS FOR
MAJOR "A" THROUGH "C", PAD "A",
I
AND SHOPS "A", "B", AND "D" THROUGH "G",
BRESS I RANCH VILLAGE CENTER, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I
I
I Prepared For:
I I LNR PROPERTY CORPORATION
I COMMERCIAL PROPERTY GROUP
4275 EXECUTIVE SQUARE, SUITE 210
LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037
I
I
I
I
Project No. 971009-050
March 24, 2008
I Leighton and Associates, Inc.
I A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
Leighton andAssociates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
March 24, 2008
Project No. 971009-050
To: LNR Property Corporation
Commercial Property Group
4275 Executive Square, Suite 210
La Jolla, California 92037
I Attention: Mr. Jeff Williams
Subject: Geotechnical As-Graded Completion Report of Rough and Fine Grading, Building
Pads for Major "A" through "C", Pad "A", and Shops "A", "B", and "D" through
"G", Bressi Ranch Village Center, Carlsbad, California
I Introduction
I In accordance with your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) has performed
geotechnical services during the rough and fine grading operations for the building pads for Major
"A" through "C", Pad "A", and Shops "A", "B", and "D" through "G" of the Bressi Ranch Village
I Center project, located in Carlsbad, California. This report summarizes our geotechnical
observation and testing services during the rough and fine grading operations for the subject
building pads. As of this date, the grading operations are essentially complete on the building
I pads listed above, however, rough and fine grading is still on-going on the remainder of the site.
I Summary of Grading Operations
The rough and fihe grading operations for the subject pads were performed between January and
I March 2008. The grading operations were performed by F. J. Willert Contracting while Leighton
and Associates performed the geotechnical observation and testing services. Our field technician
was on site full-tim during the grading operations while our project geologist, was 6n site on a
I periodic basis. Grading of the site included: 1) the removal of potentially compressible and/or
desiccated fill soils and weathered formational material; 2) preparation of areas to receive fill; 3)
overexcavation of the building pads having cut/fill transition
. conditions; 4) I processing/undercutting of the finish grade soils on the cut pads; 5) excavation of formational
material; and 6) the placement of compacted fill soils.
I
I
I
3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 • San Diego, CA 92123-4425
858.292.8030 • Fax 858.292.0771
971009-050
. Site Preparation and Removals
Prior to grading, the areas within the limits of the proposed grading were stripped of surface
vegetation and debris and these materials were disposed of away from the site. Removals of
unsuitable, desiccated, and/or potentially compressible soils (including previously placed fill
soils and weathered formational materials) Were made to competent material. Removals were
performed in accordance with the recommendations of the project geotechnical report
(Leighton, 2007) and geotechnical recommendations made during the course of grading. The
removal areas were scarified a minimum of 6 to 12 inches, moisture-conditioned as needed to
obtain an above-optimum moisture content and'compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative
compaction, as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557.
. Overexcavation of Cut/Fill Transition Conditions and Cut Lots
During the rough and fine grading operations, the overexcavation or undercutting of the
building pads having a cut/fill transition condition or comprised entirely of cut material was
performed in order to mitigate potential differential settlement of the proposed buildings and
to pre-moisture condition the building pad finish grade soils. Table 1 presents a summary of
the overexcavation/undercut conditions on each of the building pads.
. Fill Placement and ComDaction
After the completion of the remedial grading removals and processing of the excavated areas,
native soil was placed as compacted fill. The fill soil was generally spread in 4- to 8-inch
loose lifts; moisture conditioned as needed to attain near-optimum moisture contents; and
compacted with heavy-duty construction equipment. Field density test results performed
during the grading operations indicated that the fill soils were compacted to at least 90
percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557.
Compaction of the fill soils was achieved by use of heavy-duty construction equipment
• (including rubber-tire compactors and scrapers).
Areas of fill in which field density tests indicated compactions less than the recommended
relative compaction, where the soils exhibited nonuniformity, or had field moisture contents
I less than approximately 2 percent above the laboratory optimum moisture content, were
reworked. The reworked areas were then recompacted and re-tested until the recommended
minimum 90 percent relative compaction and near-optimum moisture content was achieved.
I
I
I
I 4
I -2-
Leighton
971009-050
Table 1
As-Graded Condition of the Building Pads
Building Pad As-Graded Condition
Major "A" Building Pad Overexcavated 3 feet below Lowest Footing
Major "B" Building Pad Overexcavated 3 feet below Lowest Footing
Major "C" Building Pad Overexcavated 3 feet below Lowest Footing
Pad "A" Building Pad Overexcavated 3 feet below Lowest Footing
Pad "B" Not Completed Yet
Shop "A" Cut Pad Undercut 18 inches
Shop "B" Building Pad Overexcavated 3 feet below Lowest Footing
Shop "C' - Not Completed Yet
Shop "D" Cut Pad Undercut 18 inches
Shop "E" Building Pad Overexcavated 1 foot below Lowest Footing
Shop "F" Building Pad Overexcavated 1 foot below Lowest Footing
Shop "G" Building Pad Overexcavated 1 foot below Lowest Footing
I . Field and Laboratory Testing
I Field density testing and observations were performed using the Nuclear-Gauge Method
(ASTM Test Methods D2922 and D3017). A summary of the field density test results are
presented in Appendix B. The approximate test locations will be provided on the final
I geotechnical map for the project upon completion of the rough, fine, and post grading
operations. The field density testing was performed in general accordance with the applicable
ASTM Standards, the current standard of care in the industry, and the precision of the testing
I method itself. Variations in relative compaction should be expected from the documented
results. -
I .
1
I Leighton
971009-050
Laboratory maximum dry density tests of representative on-site soils were performed in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. Expansion potential and soluble sulfate content
tests of representative finish grade soils were also performed in accordance with Uniform
Building Code (UBC) 18-2 and standard geochemical methods, respectively. Expansion
potential and soluble sulfate content tests indicate the representative finish grade of the building
pads have a very low to medium expansion potential and a negligible to severe soluble sulfate
content. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C.
Engineering Geology Summary
The geologic or geotechnical conditions encountered during the rough and fine grading of the
subject building pads were essentially as anticipated. Ground water was not encountered or
observed during the grading operations. A comprehensive summary of the geologic conditions
(including geologic units, geologic structure and faulting) will be summarized in the final as-
graded report for the project. Based on our geotechnical observations and geologic mapping during
the rough and fine grading operations for the project, no faults or evidence of faulting was
encountered.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The rough and fine grading operations for the building pads of Major "A" through "C", Pad "A",
and Shops "A", "B", and "D" through "G" of the Bressi Ranch Village Center were performed in
general accordance with the project geotechnical report and documents (Appendix A),
geotechnical recommendations made during the rough and fine grading, and the City of Carlsbad
requirements. Therefore, it is our professional opinion that the subject building pads are suitable
for their intended use provided the recommendations included in the project geotechnical report
and documents are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The
conclusions and recommendations presented in the referenced project geotechnical documents
are still considered pertinent and applicable to the proposed development and should be followed
during the post grading and construction phases of the site development. The following is a
summary of our conclusions:
Geotechnical conditions encountered during the rough and fine grading were generally as
anticipated.
Site preparation and removals were geotechnically observed.
Due to potential fill depths greater than 5 feet, the cut portion of the building pads of Major
"A", "B", and "C", Pad "A", and Shop "B" were overexcavated a minimum of 3 feet below the
bottom of the lowest foundation/footing. The cut portion of the building pads of Shops "E".
"F", and "G" were overexcavated a minimum of 1 foot below the bottom of the lowest
4
-4-
Leighton
971009-050
foundation/footing.
The building pads of Shop "A" and "D" were undercut approximately 18 inches and replaced
with compacted fill.
Fill soils were derived from onsite soils. Field density testing indicated that the fill soils were
placed and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test
Method D1557) and above-optimum moisture content in accordance with the project
recommendations.
The expansion potential of representative finish grade soils of the building pads was tested
and found to have a very low to medium expansion potential.
The potential for soluble sulfate attack of the finish grade soils on the building pads was
tested and found to possess negligible to severe soluble sulfate contents.
No evidence of active or inactive faulting was encountered during site rough and fine grading.
Ground water was not encountered or observed during the grading operation.
Due to the lack of a near-surface ground water table and the dense nature of the onsite soils, it
is our professional opinion that the liquefaction hazard at the site is considered low.
Addendum Recommendations
Recommendations concerning the construction of the project that have previously been issued
(Appendix A) are still considered applicable and should be followed during the post-grading and
constructions phases of site development. Addendum recommendations based on geotechnical
conditions that are different than assumed in the project geotechnical documents are provided
below.
Additional Overexcavation of the Major "C" Footings
It should be noted that the building pad of Major "C" was overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet
below the bottom of the proposed footings prior to having the final foundation designs
available. As a result, the bottom of the stepped footing on the western and southern sides of
the building may be founded on formational material rather than on compacted fill; Prior to
placement of the building foundation concrete, the bottom of the footing and/or key on the
west and south sides of the building pad should be evaluated by the project geotechnical
consultant to determine if the footing or key will be founded on formational material. If
formational material is encountered or if there is less than 18 inches of compacted fill below
the bottom of the footing and/or key, the footing and/or key should be over-dug to a depth of
18 inches below the bottom of the key or footing and replaced with fill soils compacted to a
minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557).
AlIft
-5-
Leighton
971009-050
Presaturation of the Building Pad Subgrade Soils
The slab subgrade soils underlying the foundation systems of the proposed structures should
be presoaked in accordance with the recommendations presented in Table 2 prior to
placement of the moisture barrier and slab concrete. The subgrade soil moisture content
should be checked by a representative of Leighton and Associates prior to slab construction.
Table 2
Presaturation Recommendations Based on Finish Grade Soil Expansion Potential
Major "A" through "C", Pad
"A", and Shops "B", and "D" Shop "A" Presaturation Criteria through "G"
Expansion Potential (per UBC 18-I-B)
Very Low to Low Medium
(0-50) (51-90)
Minimum Presoaking 12 18 Depth (in inches)
Minimum Recommended 1.2 times optimum moisture 1.2 times optimum moisture Moisture Content
Limitations
The presence of our field representative at the site was intended to provide the owner with
professional advice, opinions, and recommendations based on observations of the contractor's
work. Although the observations did not reveal obvious deficiencies or deviations from project
specifications, we do not guarantee the contractor's work, nor do our services relieve the contractor
or his subcontractor's work; nor do our services relieve the contractor or his subcontractors of their
responsibility if defects are subsequently discovered; in their work. Our responsibilities did not
include any supervision or direction of the actual work procedures of the contractor, his personnel,
or subcontractors. The conclusions in this report are based on test results and observations of the
grading and earthwork procedures used and represent our engmeenng opinion as to the compliance
of the results with the Project specifications.
-6-
Leighton
1 971009-050
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact this office. We appreciate this
I
opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
I Mft LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William
I T No. 45283
I Associate r
RCE 45283
I
:I
Randall . WagG 1612
Principal Geologist 0AL Q
I No. 1612
Attachments: Appendix A -References U. ( EN
CERWIED
GINEERING ) '
I
Appendix B - Summary of Field Density Tests GEOLOG151
Append. C = Laboratory Testin EXP. 3 g Procedure: and Test Results
OPC
I Distribution: (6) Addressee
(2) Grant General Contractor,
Attention: Mr. John Sandalil
I
1
I
I
-7-
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
LI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 971009-050
I APPENDIX A
References
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2001, California Building Code, Volume I -
Administrative, Fire- and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provision, Volume II -
Structural Engineering Design Provision, and Volume III - Material, Testing and
Installation Provision.
2008, 2007 California Building Code, California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, dated June 2007 with Errata dated January 1, 2008.
GSSI Structural Engineers, 2008, Structural Foundation Plans, Bressi Ranch Village Center,
Carlsbad, California, Sheets S1.1, S2.1, S-Al, 5-Bi, S-BP1, S-Cl, S-CM1, S-Dl, S-El,
S-Fl, and 5-Gi, Project No. (6146A) 9910.30, dated November 29, 2007, revised
February 14, 2008.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Uniform Building Code, Volume I -
Administrative, Fire- and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provisions, Volume II -
Structural Engineering Design Provisions, and Volume ifi - Material, Testing and
Installation Provision, ICBO.
I Leighton & Associates, 2007, Geotechnical Preliminary Investigation, Bressi Ranch Village
Center, A Portion of Planning Area PA-15, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 971009-047,
dated January 25, 2007.
I , 2008a, Addendum Geotechnical Recommendations for Structural Foundations and
Exterior Concrete Flatwork, Bressi Ranch Village Center, a Portion of Planning Area PA-
15, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 971009-050, dated January 15, 2008.
2008b, Limited pH Field Testing Study, Bressi Ranch Village Center, Carlsbad,
California, Project No. 971009-050, dated February 6, 2008, revised March 18, 2008.
Project Design Consultants, 2007, Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plans For: Bressi Ranch
I Village Center, Carlsbad, California, Drawing Number 452-9A, 16 Sheets, date received
December 12, 2007.
I
I
I
I
A-i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-050
APPENDIX B
Explanation of Summary of Field Density Tests
Test No. Test of Test No. Test of
Prefix Test of Abbreviations Prefix Test of Abbreviations
(none) GRADING
Natural Ground NG (SG) SUBGRADE
Original Ground OG (AB) AGGREGATE BASE
Existing Fill EF (CB) CEMENT TREATED BASE
Compacted Fill CF (PB) PROCESSED BASE
Slope Face SF (AC) ASPHALT CONCRETE
Finish Grade FG
Curb . C (5) SEWER
(SD) STORM DRAIN Gutter G
(AD) AREA DRAIN Curb and Gutter CG
(W) DOMESTIC WATER Cross Gutter XG
(RC) RECLAIMED WATER Street ST
(SB) SUBDRAJN Sidewalk/Walkway SW
(G) GAS Driveway DW
(E) ELECTRICAL Driveway Approach DA
(T) TELEPHONE . . Center Median CM
(J) JOINT UTILITY . . . . Concrete Slab . . . . . CS
(I) IRRIGATION . Trash Enclosure it
Bedding Material B
Shading Sand 5
Main M
Lateral L .
Crossing X
Manhole MI-I
Fire Hydrant Lateral FL
Catch Basin .CB ..
Inlet I
Clean-Oout CO
Water Service WS
(RW) RETAINING WALL (P) PRESATURATION
(CW) CRIB WALL
(LW) LOFFELL WALL Moisture Content M
(SF) STRUCT FOOTING
Footing Bottom F
Backfill . B
(IT) INTERIOR TRENCH
Sewer Lateral S
Storm Drain SD
Electric Line E
N renresents nuclear aue tests that were nerformed in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Tt
Methods D2922 and D3017. -
S represents sand cone tests that were performed in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Test Method D1556.
iSA represents first retest of Test No. 15
15B represents second retest of Test No. 15
"0 in Test Elevation Column represents test was taken at the ground surface (e.g. finish grade or subgrade)
"- I" in Test Elevation Column represents test was taken one foot below the ground surface
B-i
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test Location
Of
Test
Lot #. Elev (ft)
Soil
Type
Dry Density
Field Max
Moisture (%)
Field Opt.
Relative (%)
Compaction Remarks
1 2/1/08 CF Major "C" 398.0 1 102.2 110.0 19.0 17.0 93
2 2/1/08 CF Major "C" 401.0 1 103.9 110.0 18.9 17.0 94
3 2/1/08 CF Major "C" 402.0 1 105.2 110.0 18.6 17.0 96
4 2/1/08 CF Major "C" 402.0 1 106.8 110.0 18.5 17.0 97
5 2/1/08 CF Major "C" 397.0 1 103.2 110.0 19.0 17.0 94
6 2/1/08 CF Major "C" 397.0 1 102.9 110.0 19.1 17.0 94
7 2/1/08 CF Major "C" 400.0 1 102.7 110.0 19.2 17.0 93
8 2/1/08 CF Major "C" 402.0 1 103.4 110.0 20.1 17.0 94
9 2/6/08 CF Major "C" 403.0 1 103.9 110.0 19.4 17.0 94
10 2/6/08 CF Major "C" 402.0 1 102.0 110.0 19.0 17.0 93
11 2/6/08 CF Major "C" 403.0 1 102.7 110.0 19.8 17.0 93
12 2/6/08 CF Major "C" 402.0 2 106.7 116.0 16.0 14.0 92
13 2/6/08 CF Major "C" 402.0 2 105.2 116.0 16.9 14.0 91
14 2/6/08 CF Major "C" 404.0 2 105.9 116.0 16.5 14.0 91
15 2/6/08 CF Major "C" 404.0 2 106.8 116.0 17.7 14.0 92
16 2/7/08 CF Major "C" 405.0 2 106.3 116.0 17.1 14.0 92
17 2/7/08 CF Major "C" 402.0 2 105.4 116.0 16.5 14.0 91
18 2/7/08 CF Major "C" 402.0 2 105.0 116.0 16.2 14.0 91
19 2/7/08 CF Major "C" 404.0 2 104.9 116.0 17.7 14.0 90
20 2/7/08 CF Major "C" 403.0 2 107.8 116.0 16.3 14.0 93
21 2/8/08 CF Major "C" 402.0 2 107.3 116.0 15.7 14.0 93
22 2/8/08 CF Major "C" - 402.0 2 106.9 116.0 16.8 14.0 92
23 2/8/08 CF Major "C" 403.0 2 104.7 116.0 19.2 14.0 90
24 2/8/08 CF Major "C" 404.0
.
2 104.9 116.0 19.0 14.0 90
25 2/8/08 CF Major "C" 404.0 2 104.5 116.0 15.2 14.0 90
26 2/11/08 CF Major "A" 400.0 3 106.1 116.0 17.1 13.5 91
27 2/11/08 CF Major "A" 401.0 3 104.7 116.0 16.9 13.5 90
28 2/11/08 CF Major "A" 401.0 3 105.3 116.0 17.4 13.5 91
29 2/11/08 CF Major "A" 401.0 3 106.6 116.0 16.6 13.5 92
30 2/11/08 CF Major "A" 401.0 3 104.5 116.0 15.5 13.5 90
31 2/12/08 CF Major "A" 401.0 3 105.9 116.0 14.9 13.5 91
32 2/12/08 CF Major "A" 401.0 3 107.1 116.0 15.2 13.5 92
Project Number: 971009-050
Project Name: LNRJBressi
Project Location: 0 .
Client: 0 Page 1 of 5
3/25/2 7:22:19AM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test Test Test Location Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (%)
No. Date Of Lot # Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
33 2/12/08 CF Major "A" 401.0 3 106.2 116.0 16.1 13.5 92
34 2/12/08 CF Major "A" 403.0 3 106.7 116.0 16.2 13.5 92
35 2/12/08 CF Major "A" 402.0 3 105.8 116.0 15.9 13.5 91
36 2/12/08 CF Major "A" 402.0 3 105.5 116.0 18.1 13.5 91
37 2/12/08 CF Major "A" 402.0 3 106.1 116.0 16.0 13.5 91
38 2/12/08 CF Major "A" 402.0 3 106.8 116.0 17.2 13.5 92
39 2/12/08 CF Major "A" 402.0 3 105.9 116.0 15.7 13.5 91
40 2/13/08 CF Major "A" 400.0 3 106.7 116.0 15.2 13.5 92
41 2/13/08 CF Major "A" 401.0 3 105.3 116.0 16.1 13.5 91
42 2/13/08 CF Major "A" 399.0 3 105.0 116.0 16.5 13.5 91
43 2/13/08 CF Major "A" 400.0 3 106.8 116.0 16.2 13.5 92
44 2/13/08 CF Major "A" 400.0 3 105.8 116.0 15.9 13.5 91
45 2/13/08 CF Pad "A" 404.0 4 104.1 113.0 18.1 16.0 92
46 2/13/08 CF Pad "A" 405.0 4 103.9 113.0 18.5 16.0 92
47 2/13/08 CF Pad "A" 406.0 4 103.5 113.0 18.2 16.0 92
48 2/13/08 CF Pad "A" 406.0 4 105.8 113.0 18.0 16.0 94
49 2/13/08 CF Pad "A" 406.0 4 103.8 113.0 18.6 16.0 92
50 4/19/08 CF Major "A" 401.0 4 104.3 113.0 18.2 16.0 92
51 4/19/08 CF Major "A" . 403.0 4 104.7 113.0 18.8 16.0 93
52 4/19/08 CF Major "A" 403.0 4 103.9 113.0 17.9 16.0 92
53 4/19/08 CF Major "A" 403.0 4 104.7 113.0 18.9 16.0 93
54 4/19/08 CF Major "A" 403.0 4 104.5 113.0 19.1 16.0 92
55 4/19/08 CF Májor"A" 403.0 4 104.0 113.0 18.4 16.0 92
56 4/19/08 CF Major "A" 403.0 4 103.8 113.0 18.0 16.0 92
57 4/19/08 CF Shop "E" 403.0 3 105.9 116.0 15.8 13.5 91
58 4/19/08 CF Shop "E" 403.0 3 106.2 116.0 16.2 13.5 92
59 4/19/08 CF Major "B" 403.0 3 108.4 116.0 14.8 13.5 93
60 4/19/08 CF Major "B" 404.0 3 107.4 116.0 15.2 13.5 93
61 4/19/08 CF Major "B" 404.0 3 106.2 116.0 15.0 13.5 92
62 4/19/08 CF Shop "E" 404.0 3 106.8 116.0 16.2 13.5 92
63 4/19/08 CF Shop "E" 404.0 3 108.5 116.0 15.2 13.5 94
64 4/19/08 CF Major "B" 405.0 3 103.2 116.0 11.9 13.5 89 Retest on 64A
Project Number: 971009-050
Project Name: LNR/Bressi
Project Location: 0
Client: 0 Page 2of5
3/25/2 7:22:20AM
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test Test Test Location Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (%)
No. Date Of Lot # Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
64A 4/19/08 CF Major "B" 405.0 3 107.3 116.0 15.2 13.5 93 Retest of 64
65 4/19/08 CF Shop "E" 405.0 3 104.2 116.0 12.1 13.5 90 Retest on 65A
65A 4/19/08 CF Shop "E" 405.0 3 108.2 116.0 16.0 13.5 93 Retest of 65
66 3/5/08 CF Major "B" 0.0 2 107.1 116.0 16.8 14.0 92
67 3/5/08 CF Major "B" 403.0 2 105.8 116.0 16.2 14.0 91
68 3/5/08 CF Major "B" 404.0 2 105.9 116.0 17.2 14.0 91
69 3/5/08 CF Major "B" 404.0 2 106.2 116.0 16.8 14.0 92
70 3/5/08 CF Major "B" 405.0 2 106.3 116.0 16.2 14.0 92
71 3/5/08 CF Major "B" 405.0 2 106.0 116.0 16.2 14.0 91
72 3/5/08 CF Major "B" 404.0 2 104.2 116.0 16.8 14.0 90
73 3/5/08 CF Major "B" 404.0 2 106.6 116.0 16.0 14.0 92
74 3/5/08 CF Shop "G" 405.0 4 103.9 113.0 19.1 16.0 92
75 3/5/08 CF Shop "G" 404.5 4 104.7 113.0 18.4 16.0 93
76 3/6/08 FG Major "C" 0.0 2 107.2 116.0 16.2 14.0 92
77 3/6/08 FG Major "C" 0.0 2 106.2 116.0 15.9 14.0 92
78 3/6/08 FG Major "C" . 0.0 2 105.9 116.0 16.7 14.0 91
79 3/6/08 FG Major "C" 0.0 2 106.3 116.0 16.2 14.0 92
80 3/6/08 FG Major "A" 0.0 5 108.3 118.0 15.2 13.0 92
81 3/6/08 FG Major "A" 0.0 5 107.4 118.0 14.9 13.0 91
82 3/6/08 FG Major "A" 0.0 5 107.6 118.0 16.1 13.0 91
83 3/6/08 FG Major "A" 0.0 5 107.9 118.0 15.3 13.0 91
84 3/6/08 FG Major "A" 0.0 5 108.4 118.0 15.0 13.0 92
85 3/6/08 FG Major "A" 0.0 5 107.2 118.0 16.1 13.0 91
86 3/7/08 CF Shop "G" 405.0 3 105.7 116.0 16.1 13.5 91
87 3/7/08 CF Shop "G" 405.0 3 105.2 116.0 16.2 13.5 91
88 3/7/08 CF Shop "F" 404.5 3 106.3 116.0 16.8 13.5 92
89 3/7/08 CF Shop "F" 404.5 3 106.8 116.0 15.5 13.5 92
90 3/7/08 CF Shop "F" 405.0 3 105.7 116.0 16.2 13.5 91
91 3/7/08 CF Shop "F" 405.0 3 105.9 116.0 16.3 13.5 91
92 3/7/08 CF Shop "G" 406.0 3 101.2 116.0 17.1 13.5 87 Retest on 92A
92A 3/7/08 CF Shop "G" 406.0 3 106.6 116.0 16.2 13.5 92 Retest of 92
93 3/7/08 CF Shop "F" 405.5 3 104.8 116.0 15.2 13.5 90
Project Number: 971009-050
Project Name: LNR/Bressi
Project Location: 0
Client: 0 Page 3of5
3/25/2 7:22:20AM
- - - - - - - - - - =,M - - - - - - - SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
Test
No.
Test
Date
Test Location
Of
Test
Lot # Elev (ft)
Soil
Type
Dry Density
Field Max
Moisture (%)
Field Opt.
Relative (%)
Compaction Remarks
94 3/7/08 CF Shop "F" 405.5 3 104.9 116.0 16.0 13.5 90
95 3/12/08 CF Shop "B" 404.0 6 105.2 116.0 16.2 14.0 91
96 3/12/08 CF Shop "B" 405.0 6 107.4 116.0 15.9 14.0 93
97 3/12/08 CF Shop "B' 406.0 6 105.9 116.0 15.8 14.0 91
98 3/12/08 CF Shop "B' 406.0 6 105.7 116.0 15.3 14.0 91
99 3/12/08 CF Shop "B" 406.5 6 100.7 116.0 16.8 14.0 87 Retest on99A
99A 3/12/08 CF Shop "B" 406.5 6 107.5 116.0 15.7 14.0 93 Retest of 99
100 3/13/08 FG Shop "F" . 0.0 5 108.9 118.0 18.0 13.0 92
101 3/13/08 FG Shop "F" . 0.0 5 108.8 118.0 17.9 13.0 92
102 3/13/08 FG Shop "G" 0.0 5 108.5 118.0 17.8 13.0 92
103 3/13/08 FG Shop "G" 0.0 5 107.9 118.0 18.3 13.0 91
104 3/13/08 FG Shop "E" 0.0 2 104.8 116.0 17.0 14.0 90
105 3/13/08 FG Shop "E" 0.0 2 106.7 116.0 16.3 14.0 92
106 3/13/08 FG Major "B" 0.0 2 110.6 116.0 16.4 14.0 95
107 3/13/08 FG Major "B" 0.0 2 110.4 116.0 16.0 14.0 95
108 3/13/08 FG Major "B" 0.0 2 110.0 116.0 17.4 14.0 95
109 3/13/08 FG Major "B" 0.0 2 109.7 116.0 16.1 14.0 95
110 3/18/08 FG Pad "A" 0.0 106.9 118.0 15.2 13.0 91
111 3/18/08 FG Pad "A" 0.0 5 106.3 118.0 16.0 13.0 90
112 3/18/08. CF Major "A" 397.0 1 103.6 110.0 19.8 17.0 94
113 3/18/08 CF Major "A" . 397.0 1 101.2 110.0 19.3 17.0 92
114 3/18/08 CF Major "A" 398.0 1 101.8 110.0 20.1 17.0 93
115 3/18/08 CF Major "A" 398.0 1 102.7 110.0 18.9 17.0 93
116 3/20/08 FG Shop "D" 0.0 5 112.6 118.0 13.9 13.0 95
117 3/20/08 FG Shop "D" 0.0 5 112.8 118.0 14.2 13.0 96
118 3/20/08 FG Shop "D" 0.0 5 111.8 118.0 14.6 13.0 95
119 3/20/08 FG Shop "A" 0.0 6 105.2 116.0 16.0 14.0 91
120 3/20/08 FG Shop "A" 0.0 4 102.7 113.0 18.0 16.0 91
121 3/20/08 FG Shop "A" 0.0 6 106.9 116.0 15.0 14.0 92
122 3/20/08 FG Shop "B" 0.0 5 112.8 118.0 15.0 13.0 96
123 3/20/08 FG Shop "B" 0.0 5 105.8 118.0 16.0 13.0 90
124 3/20/08 FG Pad "B" 0.0 2 108.5 116.0 16.0 14.0 94
Project Number: 971009-050
Project Name: LNR/Bressi
Project Location: 0
Client: 0 Page 4of5
3/25/2 7:22:20AM
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY. TESTS
Test Test Test Location Test Soil Dry Density Moisture (%) Relative (%)
No. Date Of Lot # Elev (ft) Type Field Max Field Opt. Compaction Remarks
125 3/20/08 FG Pad "B" 0.0 2 107.0 116.0 14.9 14.0 92
126 3/20/08 FG Shop "C" 0.0 6 108.6 116.0 13.9 14.0 94
127 3/20/08 FG Shop "C" 0.0 6 111.2 116.0 14.0 14.0 96
I Project Number: 971009-050 4 Project Name: LNR/Bressi
.
.
Project Location: 0
I Client: 0 Page 5of5
3/25/2 7:22:20AM
U
I
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Li
I
I
971009-050
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
ExDansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the
Expansion Index Test, UBC Standard No. 18-2 and/or ASTM Test Method 4829. Specimens are
molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and
approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared
1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are
inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are
presented in the table below:
Sample Location . Expansion Index Expansion Potential*
Major "A" 31 and 39 Low
Major "B" 12 and 43 Low
Major "C" 21 and 47 Low
Pad "A" 10 Very Low
Pad "B" NOT TESTED YET
Shop "A" 68 Medium
Shop "B" 4 Very Low
Shop "C" NOT TESTED YET
Shop "D" 0 and 9 Very Low
Shop "E" 43 Low
Shop "F" 47 Low
Shop "G" 34 Lo'
* Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Table 18-I-B.
c-i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
971009-050
APPENDIX C (continued)
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical soils
were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The results of these tests are
presented in the table below:
Sample
Number Sample Description Maximum Dry
Density (P
Optimum
Moisture
Content (%)
1 Olive gray silty to clayey SAND 110.0 17.0
2 Olive brown silty to clayey SAND 116.0 14.0
3 Yellow brown clayey SAND 116.0 13.5
4 Light olive brown silty to clayey SAND 113.0 116.0
5 Pale olive brown silty to clayey SAND 118.0 13.0
6 Gray silty SAND 116.0 14.0
C-2
971009-050
APPENDIX C (continued)
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard
geochemical methods. The test results are presented in the table below:
Sample Location Sulfate Content (%) Sulfate Exposure*
Major "A" 0.030 and 0.075 Negligible
Major "B" 0.024 and 0.100 Moderate
Major "C" 0.051 and 0.350 Severe
Pad "A" . 0.030 Negligible
Pad "B" NOT TESTED YET
Shop "A" 0.038 Negligible
Shop "B" 0.030 Negligible
Shop "C' NOT TESTED YET
Shop "D" 0.190 and 0.200 Severe
Shop "E" 0.021 Negligible
Shop "F" 0.100 Moderate
Shop "G" 0.015 Negligible
* Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), Table 19-
A-4 (ICBO, 1997).
C-3