The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 12-05; LA COSTA RESIDENTIAL; AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT; 2014-01-17LGC; Ge al, Inc. Januaiy 17, 2014 Project No.: 12043-01 Ms. April Tornillo Taylor Morrison 8105 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 1450 Irvine, California 92618 Subject: As-Graded Geotechnical Report of Rough Grading and construction Operations for the Proposed La Costa Town center Residential Development, Carlsbad, California. In accordance with your request and authorization, LGC Geotechnical, Inc., has provided on-call geotechnical observation and testing services during grading operations within the proposed La Costa Town Center Residential Development in the city of Carlsbad, California. This report summarizes our geotechnical observations, recommendations, and field and laboratory test results during the subject grading operations. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Sincerely, FES ,ç0AL co 0 NO. 11821 1 CERTIFIED LGC Geotechnical, Inc. LU Fri f3O/i \ GEOLOGIST \,)\ EXP2I28/l4,'J Tim Lawson, GE 2626, CEG 1821 Geotechnical Engineer/Geologist CH ENGINEERING J TJL/JTC/kmh Distribution: *(3) Addressee (including 2 wet-signed copies for city submittal) TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Site Description and Project Background...................................................................................1 2.0 SUMMARY OF ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS .........................................................................2 2.1 Site Preparation and Removals...................................................................................................2 2.2 Over-excavation .......................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Fill Placement ............................................................................................................................ 2 2.4 Field Density Testing.................................................................................................................2 2.5 Laboratory Testing ..................................................................................................................... 3 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................... 4 3.1 Foundation Recommendations .................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Soil Corrosivity to Concrete and Metal ................................................. .. .................................... 4 4.0 LIMITATIONS ..................................................................................................................................... LIST OF ILL US TRA TIONS & APPENDICES Figures Figure 1 - Site Location Map (Rear of Text) Figure 2 - Geotechnical Map (Rear of Text) Appendices Appendix A - References Appendix B - Explanation & Summary of Field Density Test Results Appendix C - Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Project No. 12043-01 i January 17, 2014 1.0 INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and authorization, LGC Geotechnical has provided on-call geotechnical observation and testing services during rough grading operations located at the proposed La Costa Town Center Residential Development in the city of Carlsbad, California (refer to Figure 1). In addition, LGC Geotechnical has prepared an as-graded report of the rough grading that summarizes our geotechnical observations, geologic mapping, field and laboratory test results, review of previously prepared geotechnical reports, and the geotechnical conditions encountered during the rough grading operations within the subject project site. The as-graded geotechnical conditions, including removal bottom elevations, over-excavation elevations, fill limits across the site, and approximate field density test locations are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Figure 2). Field density test results are summarized in Appendix B and laboratory test results are summarized in Appendix C. 1.1 Site Description and Project Backmand The proposed project is located north of Rancho Santa Fe Road, southeast of Old Rancho Santa Fe Road, and west of Paseo Lupino in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1 - Site Location Map). The subject area was originally rough graded in 2004 under the observation and testing of Southern California Soil and Testing (SCS&T, 2012). The grading consisted of excavating (i.e., cutting) the eastern portion of the site and placement of fill in the western portion of the site. Up to approximately 55 feet of fill was placed in the western portion of the site, while cut excavations extended up to approximately 31 feet below the previous existing grade at the eastern portion of the site. An over-excavation of the previously proposed building pads and parking area cut portion was performed into the underlying meta-volcanic rock and replaced with capping fill material of less than 6 inches in diameter. Previously proposed building pads were over-excavated 2 to 7 feet below ground surface and previously proposed parking areas were over-excavated to a minimum of 10 feet below ground surface and replaced with documented fill. Remedial grading consisted of the removal of topsoil, alluvium, and existing fill up to a depth of 25 feet below previous existing grades. In the southwestern portion of the site, previous existing fills that were associated with grading and construction of Rancho Santa Fe Road were left-in- place. Based on our review of the current grading plans and improvements for the project prepared by Latitude 33, (Latitude 33, 2013a & b), we understand the proposed development will include construction of 32 single-family residential buildings and associated improvements including roadways, building patios, driveways, parking areas, concrete flatwork, underground utilities, landscaping, etc. Project No. 12043-01 Page 1 January 17, 2014 2.0 SUMMARY OF ROUGH GRADING OPERATIONS The subject rough grading of the proposed La Costa Residential Development began in December 2013 and was essentially complete in January 2014. Rough grading operations included: 1) removal of the upper 1 to 2 feet of existing fill; 2) the placement of compacted fill soils; and 3) over-excavation of shallow meta- volcanic rock. 2.1 Site Preparation and Removals Prior to grading, the areas of proposed development were stripped of heavy vegetation and debris that was subsequently disposed of off-site. In general, the existing upper 1 to 2 feet of the disturbed/weathered fill was removed within the grading limits. Site preparations were performed in general accordance with the recommendations of the referenced geotechnical reports and recommendations provided during the grading operations. 2.2 Over-excavation The presence of shallow underlying meta-volcanic rock resulted in the need for over-excavation in some areas within the limits of grading (refer to Figure 2). Where excavation of the rock was performed, the removed bottom elevation was surveyed by the project surveyors and certified to be below footing grades. 2.3 Fill Placement After processing the areas to receive fill, native and imported soils were generally spread in 6- to 10- inch lifts, moisture-conditioned as needed to attain a near-optimum moisture content, and compacted. Compaction was achieved by use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Areas of fill in which field density tests indicated less than 90 percent relative compaction, or the soils exhibited non-uniformity and/or showed an inadequate or excessive moisture content, were reworked, recompacted, and retested until a minimum 90 percent relative compaction and near-optimum moisture content was achieved. 2.4 Field Density Testing Field density tests were performed during the rough grading operations in accordance with the Nuclear-Gauge Method (ASTM Test Method D6938). The results of the field density tests performed are summarized in Appendix B. Based on our testing, fill materials were compacted at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method Dl 557. Field density tests were performed on a periodic and random nature in general accordance with the current standard of care in the industry to form an opinion of the work performed. It is ultimately the contractor's responsibility to ensure that all work is performed to the applicable codes and specifications. Variations in relative compaction and moisture content should be expected from results documented herein. Project No. 12043-01 Page 2 January 17, 2014 2.5 Laboratory Tesli,w Representative soil samples were tested for maximum dry density and optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557 and for expansion potential in accordance with ASTM Test Method D4829. In addition, representative soil samples were tested for chlorides (CTM 422), sulfates (CTM 417), and pH and resistivity (CTM 463). The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. Project No. 12043-01 Page 3 January 17, 2014 3.0 RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our periodic testing and observation, recent grading operations in the proposed La Costa Residential Development were performed in general accordance with the project requirements, geotechnical recommendations made during construction, and the City of Carlsbad Grading and Excavation Code. It is our professional opinion that the subject grading is suitable for its intended use from a geotechnical viewpoint. In addition, it is our professional opinion that the design recommendations provided in the previous geotechnical report are valid and geotechnically sufficient (Leighton and Associates, 2012). 3.1 Foundation Recommendations Foundations and slabs should be designed as Category III (Leighton and Associates 2012) and in accordance with the parameters provided in the Foundation Plans (JD Reinforcing Company 2013). These recommendations assume that the soils encountered within 5 feet of pad grade have a medium to high expansion potential (i.e. an expansion index less than 130) for expansion and a differential fill thickness of less than 15 feet. 3.2 Soil Corrosivitv to Concrete and Metal Although not corrosion engineers (LGC Geotechnical is not a corrosion consultant), several governing agencies in Southern California require the geotechnical consultant to determine the corrosion potential of soils to buried concrete and metal facilities. We therefore present the results of our testing with regard to corrosion for the use of the client and other consultants, as they determine necessary. Based on Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines, soils are considered corrosive if the pH is 5.5 or less, or the chloride concentration is 500 ppm or greater, or the sulfate concentration is 2,000 ppm or greater. Based on isolated testing of the site, the near surface soils have a severity categorization of "Si" per AC! 318, Table 4.2.1 with respect to sulfates. At minimum, concrete in direct contact with the onsite soils can be designed according to AC! 318, section 4.3 using the "Si" sulfate classification. Project No. 12043-01 Page 4 January 17, 2014 4.0 LIMITATIONS Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and submitted for laboratory testing, the observations made and the in-situ field testing performed are believed representative of the entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions revealed by excavation may be different than our preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the project soils engineer and geologist and design(s) adjusted as required or alternate design(s) recommended. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his/her representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the designer and/or project engineer and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and/or subcontractor properly implements the recommendations in the field. The contractor and/or subcontractor should notify the owner if they consider any of the recommendations presented herein to be unsafe. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can and do occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if LGC Geotechnical has the opportunity to observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site. 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 modification, and should not be relied upon after a period of 3 years. Project No. 12043-01 Page 5 January 17, 2014 flOjfl 47 IERO NDF ULF RM %17- 100 14 11. R 13,j 77 IN" I / -VAI : Irl LLA ,SUBJECT SIT —L0 S-Afl — rv, t el \ ' Ly lu rr-,7~z- tT . ' H ST PROJECT NAME La Costa Town Center LGG FIGURE I PROJECT NO. 4301 Geotechnica, h,c. Site Location Map SCALE Not to Scale DATE January 2014 / LEGEND: Af Artificial Fill Material r / Afo Compacted Fill From Previous Grading (SCS&T 2012), Circled Where Buried / -. / 36 Jsp Santiago Peak Volcanics Circled Where Buried 37 1 10 ' Af - 1 Approximate Location of Field Density Test ) 35 , ,\ \ 38 /J/. • F3-8-6 I Approximate Removal Bottom Elevation / ' /7 34 33'\N Z IL - - Approximate Geological in 0 \ Dotted Where Buried gical Contact - Queried Where Uncertain, / / 0,//' \ / / / / / \ \\-t• \ / / 44 1 / / 40,9 0 45 A/ C 378 / °>"-28 46 / 0 / 27 8 — - - _-- / 26 N- '.- - _- - •- 14 fl .t / A. / .• N. —. 1,6 \- • Af/25'-ç15 '400 N 12 13 . c- 21 20 9 17 -:- : • & • itl Al 24 19 Al -- / / / /.' /\• --- --- RanchO Oad / antaF8F /r9 V''Gectechn icai, Inc. CLIENT: Taylor Morrison 8105 Irvine Center Dr., Ste. 1450 Irvine, CA 92618 FIGURE 2 Geotechnical Map CIVIL ENGINEER: Lattitude 33 Planning and Engineering 5355 Mira Sorrento Place, Suite 650 San Diego, CA 92121 PROJECT NAME La Costa Town Center PROJECT NO. 12043-01 ENG.IGEOL. TJL SCALE 1"50' DATE I January 2014 Appendix A References A PPENDJX A References ID Reinforcing Company, 2013, Post-Tension Foundation Plans for La Costa Residential, Sheets 1 through 9, dated October 2, 2013. Latitude 33 Planning and Engineering, 2013a, Grading and Erosion Control Plans for La Costa Residential, Sheets I through 12, dated January 30, 2013. 2013b, Improvement Plans for La Costa Residential, Sheets I through 12, dated January 30, 2013. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 2012, Geotechnical Update and Addendum to Geotechnical Investigation Proposed La Costa Town Center Residential Development Carlsbad, California, Project No. 042631- 001, dated, November 16, 2012. Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., 2012, Update Geotechnical Investigation, La Costa Town Square, North Residential Development, Carlsbad California, dated January 3, 2012. Project No. 12043-01 A-i January 17, 2014 Appendix B Explanation &Summary of Field Density Test Results A PPENDIX B Explanation & Summary of Field Density Test Results Test No. Test of IL Test No. I 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 SEWER Curb C (SD) STORM DRAIN Gutter G (AD) AREA DRAIN Curb and Gutter CG (W) DOMESTIC WATER Cross Gutter XG (RC) RECLAIMED WATER Street ST (SB) SIJBDRAIN Sidewalk SW (G) GAS Driveway DR (E) ELECTRICAL Driveway Approach DA TELEPHONE Parking Lot PL JOINT UTILITY Electric Box Pad EB (I) IRRIGATION House Connection HC Bedding Material B Shading Sand S Main Backfill M Lateral Backfill L Crossing X Manhole MH Hydrant Lateral HL Catch Basin CB Riser R Invert I Check Valve CV Meter Box MB Junction Box JB (RW) RETAINING WALL (P) PRESOAKING (CW) CRIB WALL (LW) LOFFELL WALL Moisture Content M (SF) STRUCT FOOTING Footing Bottom F Backfill B Wall Cell C (IT) INTERIOR TRENCH Plumbing P Electrical E N represents nuclear gauge tests that were performed in general accordance with most recent version of ASTM Test Method D6938. ISA represents first retest of Test No. 15 "O/FG/SG" 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. Project No. 12043-01 B-i January 17, 2014 Appendix B (Cont'd) Explanation and Sum,narp of Field Density Tests Prefix Test No. Test Method Test Date Test of Tech Initials Approximate Test Location Approx. Test Elevation (ft) Soil Dry Density (pci) Field I Max Moisture Content (%) Field I Optimum Relative Compaction (%) Remarks Compacted Fill CF - - N 12/10/2013 CF TTP LOT 21 -4' 19 99.1 103.8 23.0 19.0 95 CF _2_ N 12/10/2013 CF TIP L0123 -3' 19 101.3 103.8 22.0 19.0 98 CF 3 N 12/10/2013 CF TIP LOT 26 -3' 19 98.2 103.8 19.9 19.0 95 CF 14= N 12/11/2013 CF TIP LOT 27 -2' 16 108.2 118.0 14.0 12.0 92 CF 5 N 12/11/2013 CF TIP LOT 25 -2' 16 107.7 18.0 - 13.8 12.0 91 CF 1 6 N 12/11/2013 CF TTP LOT 22 -1' 17 105.4 1 112.0 14.2 11.0 94 CF 7 N 12/12/2013 CF TIP LOT 11 -1' 16 109.1 118.0 13.6 12.0 92 CF - 8 N 12/12/2013 CF TIP LOT 13 -1' 16 108.0 118.0 12.7 12.0 92 CF 9 N 12/12/2013 CF TTP LOT 16 -1' 16 110.5 118.0 13.2 12.0 94 CF 10 N 12/12/2013 CF TIP LOT 19 -1' 16 107.9 118.0 14.1 12.0 91 CF 11 N 12/13/2013 CF TTP LOT 3 -2' 17 107.7 112.0 13.8 11.0 96 CF 12 N 12/13/2013 CF TTP LOT 5 -2' 17 110.1 112.0 14.0 11.0 98 CF 13 N 12/13/2013 CF TTP LOT 2 -3' 17 108.3 112.0 13.6 11.0 97 CF 14 N 12/13/2013 CF TTP LOT 1 -1' 17 107.6 112.0 13.2 11.0 96 CF 15 N 1/7/2014 CF TTP LOT I FG 17 103.2 112.0 12.7 11.0 92 CF 16 N 1/7/2014 CF TTP LOT 2 FG 17 102.1 112.0 11.9 11.0 91 CF 17 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 3 FG 17 105.5 112.0 11.8 11.0 94 CF 18 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 4 FG 17 104.3 112.0 12.0 11.0 93 CF 19 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 5 FG 17 102.2 112.0 11.7 11.0 91 CF 20 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 6 FG 16 113.4 118.0 11.9 12.0 96 CF 21 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT FG 16 115.0 118.0 12.3 12.0 97 CF 22 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 8 FO 17 105.6 112.0 11.1 11.0 94 CF 23 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 9 FG 17 110.0 112.0 10.9 11.0 98 CF 24 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 10 FO 17 102.6 112.0 11.4 11.0 92 CF 25 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 11 FG 17 103.0 112.0 11.3 11.0 92 CF 26 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 12 FG 17 104.8 112.0 11.8 11.0 94 CF 27 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 13 FG 17 105.1 12.0 - 12.1 11.0 94 CF 28 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 14 FG 17 102.2 112.0 11.6 11.0 91 CF 29 N 10/2014 CF TTP LOT 15 FG 17 106.7 112.0 10.9 11.0 95 CF 30 N 1/7/2014 CF TTP LOT 16 FG 17 105.1 112.0 11.2 11.0 94 CF 31 N 1/7/2014 CF TTP LOT 17 FG 17 103.3 112.0 11.5 11.0 92 CF 32 N 1/7/2014 CF TTP LOT 18 FG 17 104.0 112.0 11.5 11.0 93 CF 33 N 1/7/2014 CF TTP LOT 19 FO 17 106.2 112.0 12.0 11.0 95 CF 34 N 1/7/2014 CF TTP LOT 20 FG 17 105.9 112.0 11.2 11.0 95 CF 35 N 1/7/2014 CF TTP LOT 21 FG 17 105.3 112.0 11.3 11.0 94 CF 36 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 22 FG 17 103.5 112.0 11.7 11.0 92 CF 37 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP L0123 FG 17 104.1 112.0 11.9 11.0 93 CF 38 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 24 FO 17 102.1 112.0 12.1 11.0 91 CF 39 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP LOT 25 FG 17 103.3 112.0 11.4 11.0 92 CF 40 N 1/7/2014 CF TTP LOT 26 FG 17 106.4 112.0 11.5 11.0 95 CF 41 N 1/7/2014 CF TIP L0127 FG 17 108.1 112.0 11.7 11.0 97 CF 42 N 1/7/2014 CF TTP LOT 28 FG 17 104.5 112.0 1 10.8 11.0 93 12043-01 B-I January 17, 2014 12043-01 B-2 January 17, 2014 !!!.!!!!_ Relative Compaction (%) Remarks .0 97 .0 95 .0 93 .0 94 Appendix C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results The laboratory testing program was directed towards providing quantitative data relating to the relevant engineering properties of the soils. Samples considered representative of site conditions were tested in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedure and/or California Test Methods (CTM), where applicable. The following summary is a brief outline of the test type and a table summarizing the test results. Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected samples was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test per ASTM D4829. Sample Location Expansion Index Expansion Potential* B-i 65 Medium B-2 76 Medium B-3 88 Medium Per ASTM D4829 Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods (CTM 417). The soluble sulfate content is used to determine the appropriate cement type and maximum water-cement ratios. The test results are presented in the table below. Sample Location Sulfate Content, ppm B-i 1118 B-2 1267 B-3 463 Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with CTM 422. The results are presented below. Sample Location Chloride Content, ppm B-i 472 B-2 387 B-3 83 Project No. 12043-01 C-i January 17, 2014 Laboratory Compaction: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. The results of these tests are presented in the table below. Sample Location . Sample Description Maximum Dry Density (pci) Optimum Moisture Content (%) 1* Reddish Brown Silty Sand 126.2 8.9 2* Reddish Brown Silty Sand with 5% Rock 127.7 8.5 3* Reddish Brown Silty Sand with 10% Rock 129.3 8.1 4* Reddish Brown Silty Sand with 15% Rock 131.0 7.8 5* Reddish Brown Silty Sand with 20% Rock 132.6 7.4 6* Reddish Brown Silty Sand with 25% Rock 134.3 7.0 7* Reddish Brown Silty Sand with 30% Rock 136.4 6.6 8* Brown Silty Sand with Rock 129.5 8.1 9* Brown Silty Sand with Rock with 5% Rock 131.0 7.8 10* Brown Silty Sand with Rock with 10% Rock 132.5 7.4 11* Brown Silty Sand with Rock with 15% Rock 134.0 7.1 12* Brown Silty Sand with Rock with 20% Rock 135.6 6.7 13* Brown Silty Sand with Rock with 25% Rock 137.2 6.4 14* Brown Silty Sand with Rock with 30% Rock 139.1 6.0 15* Light Brown Silty Sand 120.5 7.3 16* Light Tan to White Silty Sand 118.0 12.0 17* Tan to Brown Silty Sand! Sandy Silt with Clay 112.0 11.0 18* Brown Silty Sand with Clay 121.8 9.5 19* Tan Clayey to Sandy Silt 103.8 19.0 B-i Yellowish Brown Clayey Sand 121.0 11.0 B-2 Olive Brown Sandy Clay 111.0 16.5 *As reported by others (Leighton and Associates 2012) Project No. 12043-01 C-2 January 17, 2014 Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with CTM 643 and standard geochemica! methods. The electrical resistivity of a soil is a measure of its resistance to the flow of electrical current. The results are presented in the table below. Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm) B-I 7.8 402 B-2 6.2 385 B-3 7.2 390 Project No. 12043-01 C-3 January 17, 2014 Location Sample No. Depth (ft) Molding Moisture Content (%) Initial Dry Density (pcf) Final Moisture Content (%) Expansion Index Expansion Classification1 Carlsbad B-i - 9.3 112.9 23.9 65 Medium Carlsbad B-2 - 9.5 110.0 25.7 76 Medium Carlsbad B-3 - 11.9 107.6 27.5 88 Medium Per ASTM D4829-08a Project Number: 12043-01 EXPANSION INDEX Date: Dec-13 (ASTM D 4829' t. / Carlsbad Ranch, Santa Fe Road 130 ------------------ _________ 125 Gs=2.65 - —Gs=2.75 Poly. (?) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11111111 I 1 I I II III - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 120 — - 11111111 1 I 1 1 111111111111111111 115 -I------ ----- -.-- -I-. -I-- - I 110 - - -------1 11111 11I1I1I1I1I111 ----- 11i1I1I1I1I11 105 - - ioO NHHH! o 5 10 15 20 25 Moisture Content (%) 30 35 LGG CnC& C. LABORATORY COMPACTION Project Number: 12043-01 Date: Nov-13 Carlsbad Ranch Santa Fe Road Maximum Maximum Optimum Optimum Location: Location: Sample No.: Sample No.: Depth (ft) Depth (ft) Sample Description Sample Description Dry Density Dry Density Moisture Moisture (pcf) (pcf) Content (%) Content (%) Carlsbad Carlsbad B-I B-I - - Yellowish Brown Clayey Fine SAND Yellowish Brown Clayey Fine SAND 121.0 121.0 11.0 11.0 120—-—- 115 - _ Gs=2.65 - Gs=2.75 Poly(?) - - - - - - - 110 I — I II 1111111111 111111 11111111 liii 105 C C) -- -- — - c 100 111111111 liii II 111111 ------------------ -95 iiIiIiIiiiIiIiIiIIiiiIiIiIiIiiiI 90 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Moisture Content (%) LC40 nc1&e4. iic. LABORATORY COMPACTION Project Number: 12043-01 Date: Dec-13 Carlsbad Ranch Santa Fe Road Maximum Maximum Optimum Optimum Location: Location: Sample No.: Sample No.: Depth (ft) Depth (ft) Sample Description Sample Description Dry Density Dry Density Moisture Moisture (pcf) (pcf) Content (%) Content (%) Carlsbad Carlsbad B-2 B-2 - - Olive Brown Sandy CLAY Olive Brown Sandy CLAY 111.0 111.0 16.5 16.5 TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS Project Name: Carlsbad Tested By : GEB/ACS Date: 12/05/13 Project No. : 12043-01 Data Input By: 3. Ward Date: 12/13/13 Boring No. N/A N/A N/A Sample No. 1 2 3 Sample Depth (ft) N/A N/A N/A Soil Identification: Olive yellow s(CL) Olive brown (CL)s Olive brown (CL)s Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g) 191.60 198.10 183.90 Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g) 188.50 195.70 179.90 Weight of Container (g) 61.40 68.10 53.80 Moisture Content (%) 2.44 1.88 3.17 Weight of Soaked Soil (g) 100.20 100.10 100.00 SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II Beaker No. 17 41 33 Crucible No. 29 6 23 Furnace Temperature (°C) 860 860 860 Time In/Time Out 10:15/11:00 10:15/11:00 10:15/11:00 Duration of Combustion (mm) 45 45 45 Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g) 20.7724 23.3725 18.4325 Wt. of Crucible (g) 20.7459 23.3423 18.4216 Wt. of Residue (g) (A) 0.0265 0.0302 0.0109 PPM of Sulfate (A)x41150 1090.48 1242.73 448.53 PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis 1118 1267 463 CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422 ml of Extract For Titration (B) 15 15 15 ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C) 2.5 2.1 0.6 PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B 460 380 80 PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 472 387 83 pH TEST, DOT California Test 532/643 pH Value 7.75 6.16 7.20 Temperature °C 21.2 20.8 19.9 SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST DOT CA TEST 532 / 643 Project Name: Carlsbad Tested By: G. Berdy Date: 12/11/13 Project No. : 12043-01 Data Input By: J. Ward Date: 12/13/13 Boring No.: N/A Depth (ft.): N/A Sample No. : 1 Soil Identification:* Olive yellow s(CL) *California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 us Standard Sieve before resistivity testina. Therefore, this test method may not be reoresentative for coarser materials. Adjusted Water Resistance Soil Specimen Added (ml) Moisture Reading Resistivity No. (Wa) Content (ohm) (ohm-cm) (MC) 1 40 33.96 450 450- 2 50 41.84 410 410 3 60 49.72 410 410 4 1 70 1 57.60 1 500 1 500 Moisture Content (%) (MCi) 2.44 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 191.60 Dry Wt. of Soil +Cont. (g) 188.50 Wt. of Container (g) 61.40 Container No. Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt) 130.00 Box Constant 1.000 MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+ 1))-1)x100 Mm. Resistivity (ohm-cm) Moisture Content (%) Sulfate Content (ppm) Chloride Content (ppm) Soil pH pH Temp. (°c) DOT CA Test 532 / 643 DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422 DOT CA Test 532 / 643 402 46.5 1118 472 7.75 21.2 520 500 480 E 460 > 440 U) U) 420 0 U) 400 380 4- 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 Moisture Content (%) SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST DOT CA TEST 532 / 643 Project Name: Carlsbad Tested By: G. Berdy Date: 12/11/13 Project No. : 12043-01 Data Input By: J. Ward Date:12/13/13 Boring No.: N/A Depth (ft.) : N/A Sample No. : 2 Soil Identification:* Olive brown (CL)s *California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testinq. Therefore, this test method may not be rerresentative for coarser materials. Adjusted Specimen Water Moisture Resistance Soil Added (ml) Reading Resistivity No. (Wa) Content (ohm) (ohm-cm) (MC) 1 30 25.39 620 620 2 40 33.23 480 480 3 50 41.07 390 390 4 60 48.90 400 400 5 Moisture Content (%) (MCi) 1.88 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 198.10 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 195.70 Wt. of Container (g) 68.10 Container No. Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt) 130.00 Box Constant 1.000 MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+ 1))-1)x100 Mm. Resistivity (ohm-cm) Moisture Content (%) Sulfate Content (ppm) Chloride Content (ppm) Soil pH pH I Temp. (°C) DOT CA Test 532 / 643 DOT CA Test 417 Part H DOT CA Test 422 DOT CA Test 532 / 643 385 43.0 1267 387 6.16 20.8 650 600 550 9 E 0 500 > U, 450 0 U) 400 350 -I- 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 Moisture Content (%) SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST DOT CA TEST 532 I 643 Project Name: Carlsbad Tested By: G. Berdy Date: 12/11/13 Project No. : 12043-01 Data Input By: J.Ward Date:12/13/13 Boring No.: N/A Depth (ft.) : N/A Sample No. : 3 Soil Identification:* Olive brown (CL)s *California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 Us Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials. U Adjusted Water Resistance Soil Specimen Added (ml) Moisture Reading Resistivity No. (Wa) Content (ohm) (ohm-cm) (MC) 1 40 34.92 500 500 2 50 42.85 440 440 3 60 50.79 390 390 4 70 58.73 470 470 5 Moisture Content (%) (MCi) 3.17 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 183.90 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 179.90 Wt. of Container (g) 53.80 Container No. Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt) 130.00 Box Constant 1.000 MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100 Mm. Resistivity (ohm-cm) Moisture Content (%) Sulfate Content (ppm) Chloride Content (ppm) Soil pH pH Temp. (°c) DOT CA Test 532 / 643 DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422 DOT CA Test 532 / 643 390 50.3 463 83 1 7.20 19.9 520 500 480 E 460 > 440 U, U, 0 420 0 Cl) 400 380 -I- 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0 65.0 Moisture Content (%)