The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 72-20; Sea Point Village Phase 5; Soils Report Third Interim; 1986-11-03CATLIN ENGINEERING, INC. P.O. Box 4225 La Mesa, California 92044-0970 (619) (619) 55655C'Q CT 72-2-o SW Qoiht Vi/Iqu Phase 5 Continental American Properties 1764 San Diego Avenue San Diego, CA 92110 ATTN: Mr. Vic Baker November 3, 1986 Subject: Project No. 2OC5C Third Interim Report of Compacted Filled Ground Proposed Condominium Complex 3171 Venado Street Carlsbad, California Gentlemen: We refer to our First Interim Report of Compacted Filled Ground prepared far subject site dated March 12, 1986 and Second Interim Report of Compacted Filled Ground dated October 9, 1986 and to reports by Benton Engineering, Inc, Final Report of Compacted Filled Ground dated November 27, 1974 and Site Inspection and Recommendations for Construction dated July 22, 1981. This report records our observations and the results of tests performed in connection with our inspection of the compaction of filled ground placed on certain areas of the above subject property. This property is more particularly referred to as Assessors Parcel No. 223-190-05, -06, -07, and -08 in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California. The grading reported herein was accomplished during 9 and October 29, 1986. the period between October The elevations of fill at which the tests were _ - - _ - _ taken and the final test results are presented on pages t-12 through l-15, under "Table of Test Results". The laboratory determinations of the maximum dry density and the optimum moisture content of the fill soils are set forth on page L-l under "Laboratory Test Results". The approximate location of the filled ground and the field density tests are presented on Drawing Nos. 3 to 6 entitled "Approximate Location of Compacted Filled Ground". The results of the tests and observations indicate that the soils placed on subject site under our inspection have been compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density. Test results indicate that this soil will support the proposed building structure(s) without detrimental settlement, if the foundations are placed at least 5 feet back from the top of slope. Foundations, fences, edges of slabs, or paved surfaces placed closer to the top of slope than five feet could suffer differential movement as a result of the inherent poor lateral stability of soils near the top of a slope. In this zone, foundations should be deepened such that the face of the foundation where it bottoms is at least five feet back from the face of slope at that level. (Please refer to Appendix E). WE NOTE ESPECIALLY THAT THE BUILDING PAD FOR DESIGNATION 277 IS COMPLETE AND THAT A~ SMALL AMOUNT OF WORK REMAINS ON PAD DESIGNATION 278. Consulting Engineers and Geologists PAGE 2 CONTINENTAL AMERICAN/VENADO STREET 2OC5C NOVEMBER 3, 1986 At the completion of grading, vertical cut slopes as high as approximately 7 feet existed on the site. We judge that these cut slopes will be stable against massive slope failure for a limited period of time, say two to four weeks, until they are supported by retaining structures. Special care should be exercised to assure that no water is either from natural or artificial sources. allofWu;thi$ saturate the slope(s) no worker should be permitted between these slopes and any retaining stricture because vertical cuts are subject to sloughing and this slough could injure a worker. Some of the fill soils encountered on the site were considered to be critically expansive with respect to change in volume with change in moisture content. In order to minimize the detrimental effects of these expansive soils on the structures, we recommend that the provisions of Appendix CCC be adhered to. Please note that these recommendations anticipate conventional financing. Please notify us for alternate recommendations if the project is to be F.H.A. or V.A. guaranteed. A safe allowable soil bearing value of 1650 pounds per square foot may be used as set forth in the above mentioned report of Site Inspection and Recommendations for Construction. We observed that the soils encountered during grading did not differ substantially from those anticipated by the above mentioned reports. Please be aware that proper control of the site drainage and continuous maintenance of all drainage facilities is an important factor related to the overall stability of foundations as well as the stability of cut and fill slopes. We therefore recommend that all necessary efforts be made to direct any surface runoff away from the foundations of the structure(s) and to the street or drainage facilities without intermediate ponding and that drainage be maintained such that surface waters are not permitted to flow over the top of any exposed slopes. We further recommend that we be authorized to review the design of the foundations and inspect any further grading and the construction of the foundations in order to assure that our recommendations have been understood. Seemingly minor variations between our recommendations and the construction can result in essentially nullifying their advantageous effects. This, then would result in a waste of the engineering, time, money, and materials. Therefore, if the work is not inspected by us, we offer no assurance that any of the parameters or any of our recommendations may be relied upon. Pages T-12 through T-15, L-l, Drawing Nos. 3 to 6, and Appendices CCC and E are parts of this report. PAGE 3 CONTINENTAL AMERICAN/VENADO STREET 2OC5C NOVEMBER 3, 1986 The opportunity to be of service is S incerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CATLIN ENGINEERING. INC. M?kk$$- Civil ingineer' Distr. Addressee MBC:JCF/waw/A PAGE T-12 CONTINENTAL AMERICAN/VENADD STREET 2OC5C NOVEMBER 3, 1986 REVISED TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Field Density Tests were performed in accordance with the applicable orovisions of the current ASTM Standard D1556 and the results are presented below. Field Test Location Test Moisture No. of Test Elevation % Dry Wt. 189 STA 1 + 27 BASEGRADE 4.5 190 STA 0 t 63 BASEGRADE 4.0 PIRAGUA STREET 191 STA 22 t 25 BASEGRADE SEE DRAWING #4 192 LOT 280 195.0 193 la 195.0 PIRAGUA STREET 194 STA 22 t 75 BASEGRADE SEE DRAWING #5 195 LOT 282 235.0 196 ” 235.0 197 LOT 281 226.0 198 ” 228.0 199 It 205.0 200 o" 207.0 201 iI 230.0 202 lo 232.0 203 ' 233.0 204 ' 209.0 205 ' 211.0 206 ' 213.0 Dry Density lb/tuft 132.2 133.4 5.0 131.5 14.0 118.1 14.5 117.0 6.9 134.0 17.3 81.5 18.0 116.6 16.4 115.9 16.9 116.7 17.5 108.1 17.6 107.4 12.7 131.6 10.9 130.8 13.1 122.6 15.9 108.9 17.6 112.2 16.1 117.8 Soil Type H H I G G I G G G G G G J J J G G G Compac- Test tion % Date Remarks 96.2 ' 97.1 ” 94.9 ” 99.7 10-08-86 RETEST OF #187 98.8 ' 96.7 ” 68.8 n FAILED SEE #196 98.5 10-09-86 RETEST OF #195 97.9 10-13-86 98.5 ” 91.3 10-14-86 90.7 n 98.9 ' 98.3 ' 92.1 ” 92.0 n 94.7 10-14-86 99.5 10-15-86 -. PAGE T-13 CONTINENTAL AMERICAN/VENADO STREET 2OC5C NOVEMBER 3, 1986 TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Field Density Tests were performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the current ASTM Standard D1556 and the results are presented Test Location Test No. of Test Elevation SEE DRAWING #5 LOT 281 215.0 207 208 209 210 211 212 r. 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 .,- 226 II 217.0 II 219.0 I, 221.0 w 223.0 II 225.0 II 211.0 II 227.0 II 230.0 II 230.0 I, 229.0 II 228.0 II 229.0 II 231.0 II 231.0 II 231.0 II 231.0 LOT 282 240.0 LOT 282 240.5 LOT 281 FG/232.0 below. Field Dry Moisture Density % Dry Wt. lb/tuft Soil Type 14.6 118.2 G 13.1 124.4 J 13.8 122.1 J 13.6 121.7 J 14.7 122.2 J 14.3 115.0 G 18.6 110.3 G 14.6 113.0 G 14.2 104.7 G 16.2 111.4 G 17.4 120.2 J 17.2 120.0 J 13.8 121.6 J 13.5 128.1 J 15.1 124.1 J 21.1 109.0 G 17.0 130.3 J 16.3 116.7 G 17.3 111.5 G 17.8 115.2 G ;;;,"a;- Test * Date Remarks 99.8 ' 93.5 It 91.8 ' 91.5 VI 91.8 ” 97.2 ” 93.1 w 95.4 ” 88.4 10-15-86 FAILED SEE #216 94.1 It RETEST #215 90.3 10-16-86 90.1 ” 91.4 n 96.2 It 93.2 n 92.1 w 97.9 10-17-86 98.6 ' 94.2 10-17-86 97.3 " PAGE T-14 CONTINENTAL AMERICAN/VENADD STREET 2OC5C NOVEMBER 3, 1986 TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Field Density Tests were performed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the current ASTM Standard D1556 and the results are presented below. Field Dry Test Location Test Moisture Density No. of Test Elevation % Dry Wt. lb/tuft SEE DRAWING #5 227 LOT 281 SG/233.0 228 229 230 231 _- 232 233 234 235 236 237 II SG/233.0 LOT 282 FG/242.0 II FG/242.0 LOT 281 231.0 II 235.0 II FG/233.0 ,I 235.0 II FG/236.0 II 233.0 II FG/235.0 238 0’ 234.5 SEE DRAWING #3 WALL BACKFILL* 239 LOT 283 -4.0 240 ' -2.0 SEE DRAWING #5 241 LOT 281 FG/230.5 242 " FG/236.0 243 ' FG/236.5 244 LOT 282 FG/236.5 16.9 126.0 J 94.7 ” 16.4 110.1 G 93.0 n 15.2 126.1 J 94.8 ' 14.8 123.2 J 92.5 u 15.6 112.7 G 95.2 u 14.0 106.5 G 90.0 10-22-86 16.4 115.0 G 97.2 " 12.8 122.6 J 92.1 10-23-86 14.8 106.9 G 90.3 In 15.0 123.4 J 92.7 ” 15.4 125.5 J 94.3 ” 11.4 129.1 J 97.0 n 10.2 121.2 10.5 118.4 12.5 127.2 13.6 126.3 10.4 122.2 11.8 122.5 96.6 ’ 94.3 ” 95.6 ’ 94.9 It 91.8 10-27-86 92.0 os Soil Compac- Test Type tion % Date Remarks * Elevation taken from top of wall. -. PAGE T-15 CONTINENTAL AMERICAN/VENADO STREET 2OC5C NOVEMBER 3, 1986 TABLE OF TEST RESULTS Field Density Tests were performed in accordance with the applicable orovisions of the current ASTM Standard D1556 and the results are presented below. Test Location Test No. of Test Elevation SEE DRAWING #5 245 246 247 248 249 250 5. 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 LOT 282 FG/243.0 II FG/244.0 LOT 283 S.G. n S.G. II S.G. LOT 278 227.0 LOT 279 -3.5 LOT 278 229.5 I, 230.0 II 230.5 II FG/235.0 LOT 277 231.0 II 235.0 II 235.0 00 238.0 0 238.0 Field Dry Moisture Density % Dry Wt. lb/tuft 12.7 122.9 8.3 120.7 11.7 121.7 7.9 127.1 7.0 122.0 11.9 123.3 14.3 118.2 15.5 112.0 15.0 110.0 17.4 109.9 18.9 104.2 18.6 106.9 18.1 113.7 16.2 112.3 15.1 114.7 17.9 118.4 Soil Compac- Test Type tion % Date Remarks J 92.3 10-23-86 J 90.7 ” B 95.2 10-31-86 B 99.5 to B 95.5 " J 92.7 ” G 99.9 w F 91.4 11-01-86 L 95.7 " L 95.8 ' A 91.6 ’ L 93.0 " A 99.9 l" A 98.7 " G 96.9 ' G 97.8 " PAGE L-l CONTINENTAL AMERlCAN/VENADO STREET 2OC5C NOVEMBER 3, 1986 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS The maximum dry density and optimum moisture contents of the soils as determined by the ASTM D1557-70 method, that uses 25 blows of a 10 pound rammer falling from a height of 18 inches on each of 5 layers in a 4 inch diameter l/30 cubic foot compaction cylinder, are presented as follows: Soil Type A 8 C D E F G waw/A Soil Description Gray Tan silty Clay Red Brown Very Fine to Coarse Clayey Sand Green With Red Streaks Silty Clay Medium Brown Silty Fine Sand With Clay Binder Tan Yellow silty Clay Light Brown-Orange clayey Fine to Coarse Sand Olive Brown Fine to Medium Clayey Sand Gray Silty Fine to Coarse Sand Gray Brown Silty Fine to Coarse Sand Brown Clayey Fine to Coarse Sand Brown Silty Fine to Coarse Sand (Import) Maximum Dry Density lb/cu.ft. 113.8 127.8 Optimum Moisture Content % Dry Wt. 16.4 9.5 106.3 15.4 122.9 12.0 120.4 13.0 122.6 12.7 118.4 14.0 137.4 6.9 138.6 7.2 133.1 8.9 125.5 8.7 CATLIN ENGINEERING. INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS P.O. Box 4225 La Mesa, California 92044-0970 (619) 588-8500 APPENDIX CCC RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES RE: EXPANSIVE SOILS The following recommendations apply to conventionally financed residential construction. If you anticipate FHA or VA financing, please contact us for the necessary special recommendations. For soils that are expansive with respect to change in moisture content, there is no economical way to absolutely prevent movement if there is a change in soils moisture content. Insofar as it is practicable, a stable soil moisture content should be established and maintained throughout the life of the structures. However, it is usually not practical to maintain a completely stable soils moisture content. Therefore, in order to minimize the undesirable effects of expansive soils on structures, if these soils are placed or allowed to remain within the upper 3 feet below finish grade, we recommend that the following special precautions be exercised in design and construction of slabs and foundations. a. Avoid the use of isolated interior piers. Continuous interior and exterior footings should be used throughout and these should be placed at a minimum depth of 2 feet below the lowest adjacent exterior final ground surface. We note especially that these continuous footings should run across door openings such as garage doors and person doors. b. Reinforce and interconnect continuously with steel bars all interior and exterior footings with one #6 bar or two #4 bars at 3 inches above the bottom of all footings and one #6 bar or two #4 bars placed 1.5 inches below the top of the foundation stems for frame floors or top of slab for slab-on-grade construction. C. Insofar as practicable, maintain the moisture at 1 to 4 percent greater than optimum in the soil below the building to a depth of 3 feet below finish grade prior to placing concrete. Please note that large amounts of moisture should not be added immediately prior to placing the concrete. This will result in expansion of the soil against the uncured concrete which would cause damage. PAGE 2 APPENDIX CCC CATLIN ENGINEERING. INC. d. e. f. 9. In buildings where it is practicable to permit independent movement of slabs relative to the foundations, such as in garages and warehouses, these slabs should be separated from the foundations by .50 inch thickness of construction felt or equivalent. Special care should be exercised to assure that the separation extends to the full depth of the thickened edges of slabs and that door stops attached to the building be clear of the slab by at least 1 inch. Use raised self-supporting floors that span between continuous footings or reinforce all concrete slabs-on-grade with #4 bars at 24 inches on centers each way. Provide a minimum of 4 inches of clean sand beneath all concrete slabs. Provide a moisture barrier 2 inches below slabs in areas that receive flooring which might be adversely affected by capillary moisture. Positive drainage should be provided away from all perimeter footings. Positive drainage is defined as a slope of 4 percent or greater (4 feet fall per 100 feet) away from the foundations for at least 3 feet, drainage should then be directed by swales that fall at 2 percent or greater to the street or some other collective drainage system. PROP03ED sTRVCTVRE toh(cRrTE FLOOR SLhB fi.L- TOP OF COMPACTED I FILL aLoPE I . / s UEzINFORCE/+ENT OF F COMPACTED FlLL3LOPt 4 FLOOR SLABS .FOLL U’LC3MMEENFATION5 OF -i-HE ARCHITECT OR ~T~WCTO~ZAL ENGINEER T y p : i= A L 3ECTION < -3H0~lt.l C pZOPo3ED FOlJNDATtOtd LOCATEI3 WITHIN FIVE FEET OF TOP OF COMPACTED FILL SboPE)