HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 80-01; LAGUNA RIVIERA UNIT 10; TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES; 1980-10-17•
GEOCON ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
INCORPORATED
• CONSULTANTS IN THE APPL-IED EARTH SCIENCES
File No. D-2l92-J02
October 17, 1980"1
Kamar Construction Company, Inc.
325 Elm Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Jerry Rombotis
Subject: Laguna Riviera Unit 10, CT-aO..,
Carlsbad, California
TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES DURING
GRADING OPERATIONS; FINAL REPORT OF WORK
FROM SEPTEMBER 16 THROUGH OCTOBER la, 1980
Gentlemen:
In accordance with ,your authorization, our firm has performed
testing and observation services during ,grading opeJ::~tions on
the subject project. These services included:' .
a. engineering observation of ,the grading operations,
including observation of the removal, and/or pro-
cessing of the loose t"opsoils, uncompacted fill,
and alluvial materials encount'ered; and -
, .
b. the taking of field density te$ts in the fill
placed and compacted within. the subject site.
Site preparation, compaction and testing were performed be-'
tween September 16 and October 10, 1980 in accordance with
recommendations set forth in our Soil and Geologic Ihvesti-
gation for the project dated April 7, 1980.
As indicated in our referenced report,' portions of the sit"e
have been previously graded in conjunction with, testing and
observation services provided by Woodward-Gizienski and. As-
'sociates as documented in their report of April 5, 1972
titled "Laguna Riviera Unit 5 Offs1.te Fill Areas A & B,
Carlsbad, California" .
• 6645 CONVOY COURT • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111 • PHONE (714) 292-5100
File No. D-2192-J02
October 17, 1980
Areas of loose to saturated soils were· removed until firm
ground was reached. The then exposed ground surface'which
was to receive fill was properly benched, scarified, mois-
ture conditioned and recompacted. In-place density tests'
performed by our firm indicated relative compactions o.f at
least 90 percent were being obtained. Fill derived from
onsite cutting operations was then placed in compacted
layers until final elevations were reached. In-plci.c~
density tests performed by our firm again indicated rel-
ative compactions of at least 90 percent were being ob-
tained. All tests were based on ASTM Compaction Test
D1557-78.
Expansive fill soils were placed at depths of greater than
two feet below final grade. Where known expansive soil was
encountered in cut sections, it was overexcavated in accor-
dance with the project specifications.
Results of expansion tests on representative near .... surface
soils indicated-a low potential swell.---There.fore ,." founda-
tions for single and/or two-story structures. should be a
minimum of 12 inches deep and should be r.einforced with'
two No.4 steel bars (one top, one bottom). At th~t depth,
an allowable bearing capac~ty of 1800 psf may be used for
dead plus real live loads.
Concrete slabs should be a minimum of four inches thick
and reinforced with 6x6-l0/10 'welded wire mesh. Bedding
under slabs should consist of a two-inch-thick l·ayer of
sand overlain by an impermeable plactic-membrane such as
visqueen. The visqueen should, in turn, be overlain by·
a . minimum of two inches of sand. Care .-should be takEm'
to insure that the wire mesh is adequately suppo~ted
while pouring concrete. so that it maintains 'p.roper
position.
In summary, the subject project has been ·sat.isfactorily
graded with respect to compliance with the grading rec'-
ornmendations contained in the referenced S.oil and Geologic
Investigation, the specifications of the City of Carlsbad,
and UBC Chapter 70. Potential geologic hazards have been
mitigated in accordance with the requirements .. of·the pro-
ject specifications and ordinances.
-2-
GEDeON
File No. D-2l92-J02
October 17, 1980
Footings located closer than five feet from the top: of slope
should be deepened such that the bottom edge of the footing
is at least five feet horizontally inside thefac~ of slope.
The site should be properly fine graded and maintained to
reduce the potential for damage due to uncontrolled water ..
This report covers only work performed between the subject
dates. Any subsequent grading should be performed only with.
our testing and observation services. The services provided
on the site during the subj-ect period were in accordance with
local acceptable standards for this period. The conclusions
and opinions from our services apply only to our work with
respect to grading, and represent conditions at the date of
the conclusions of our services.
Tables I through III present a summary of laboratory and field
tests utilized by our firm. A Site Plan is a.1so 'included.
Very truly yours,
NCORPORATED
J es E. Likins
R E 17030 8,L Y
ilAlhflJ111, ~ Jrc::~ W. Hart
CEG 706
JEL: 1m
copies: (6) addressee
-3-
GEDeON
iNC 0' R P 0' R A-T E D
D-2192-J02 File NO'17 1 October ,
0'
BEl
200'
..,--::--< I
LEG END " "" DENSITY tEST
FIN-PLACE I ..LOCATION 0 " ----" ./) FILL.: c.... -1___ "
-(Q ___ CUT <..;,. • ...:...:. .......
-4-" CON" GEO ATED. I"NCORPOR
, "
Soil
~
1
2
3
4
5
File No. D-2192-J02
October 17, 1980
TABLE I
Summary" of Laboratory Compaction Test Results
Max. Dry Density
Source & Description pcf
Investigation
Dark brown, Clayey SAND 129.7
Cut
Gray-tan, Clayey, Silty
SAND, gravel to %" 125.3
Cut _ .
Ye1low-orange-brown,
Clayey, Silty SAND 130 .. 9
Topsoil
Gray-brown, Silty SAND 131.8
Import river-bottom sand
for backfill .108.8
-5-
Op t.imutn 'Mo i s tur e
% dry wt.
9.7
9.9
9.2
8.8,
15.4
'GEOeON
INC 0 R POE, ATE D
· \
File No. D-2192-J02
October 17, 1980
TABLE II
Test Date Elevation Dry Dens. Moisture Re1.Comp Soil Type
No. 1980 Location ft Ecf % dry ,\l7t. % of max. & Remarks
1 9/17 Lot 15 lower split FG 41..5 120.3 11.4 91. 9 3
2 9/17 Lot 15 upper split 43.5 111.9 5.8 84.9 4
3 9/18 Lot 14 47.5 110.8 5.5 84.6 3 -4 9/19 Retest #2 43.5 119.7 8.7 90.8 4
5 9/19 Re.test iF3 47.5 120.5 9.3 92.0 3
6 9/19 Lot 4 110.0 119.2 10.8 91.1 3
7 9/19 Lot 4 112.0 120.0 10.5 91.7 3
I 8 9/19 Lot 3 114.0 123.4 12.0 94.3 3
0'
I 9 9/22 Lot 4 116.(') 119.5 6.9 91.3. 3
10 9/23 Lot 3 115.0 118.8 11. 0 90.8 3
11 9/23 Lot 2. 118.0 119.4 9.0 91.2 3
12 9/23 Lot 3 117.0 119.8 10.0 91.5 3
13 9/24· Lot 14 rear bench 147.0 120.0 9.5 91.7 3
14 ,9/24 Lot 1l-rear hench 163.0 121.1 9.5 92.5 3 e 15 9/24' -Lot 15 rear bench 151. 0 122.2 10 .. 8 93.4 3
16 9/24 Lo-t 1 Northwest corn~r 112.0 12'0.4 9.2 92.0 3
17', 9/2r:; Lot 1 N9rthwest COrner 114.0 119.l 10.0' 91.0 ' ,3
" '
18 9/25 Lot 1 Northwest corner 116.0 123.5 11.'5 94.3 3-
;Q 19 9/25 Lot 13 51.0 123.0' '12.4 93.9 3
gt?:j
':0 ~O ~O :2:
...
Test
No.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
I co 48 I
49
50
51
52
53
~~
~O ~O ~~
Date
1980
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/4
10/6
10/6
10/9
10/9
10/9
10/9
10/10
10/10
10/10
File No. D-2192-J02
October 17, 1980
Location -
Lot 1
Lot 5 upper half
Lot 6 lower half
Lot 7
Lot 8
Lot 12 rear slope (addition)
Lot 9 upper h~lf
Retest {f33
Lot 12 lower half
Lot 11 lower half
Lot 11 upper half
Lot 9 1mver half
Lot 10
LQt 12 rear slope
TABLE II (Continued)
Elevation Dry Dens. Moisture Re1.Comp Soil Type
ft Ecf. % dry wt. % of max. & Remarks
FG 117.0 120.1 9.3 91.8 3
FG 101. 2 120.1 10.8 91.8 3
FG 91. 2 117.5 11. 7 93.8 5
FG 88.2 122.5 12.7 97.8 5 e
FG 83.2 122.1 12.0 ,93.2 3
59.5 117.3 13.3 '93.6 5
73.5 120.4 13.0 92.0 3
52.0 117.2 10.5 93.5 5
FG 53.0 113.7 8.7 90.7 5
FG 58.5 118.2 10.2 94.3 5
FG 62.5 115.2 9.6 91.8 5
FG 69.5-115.5 9.0 92.2 5
FG 66.0 I 117.5 10.5 93.7 5
FG 61.5 117.4 11.1 93.7 5 e
-I
File No. D-2l92-J02
October 14, 1980
••
TABLE III
SUJnmary of Laboratory Expansion T~st Results·
.. Mo.isture Content . ~xp aris~~5~?: (+)
Before After ,6·r
Test Test Dry Settletnent'( -)
Sample Density' -Surcharge
No. Description % % -p.cf % pcf
1 Dark brown, Clayey
SAND 9.7 14'.3 117.0 +1. 7 150
2 Gray-tan, Clayey,
Silty SAND 9.8 l7~6 11-2.9-+2'.1 150
3 Yellow-brown, Clayey,
Silty SAND 8.7 15.5 118.3 +1.0 150
4 Gray-brown, Silty
SAND 8.3 14.5 119.0 0.0 150
5 Wall backfill, no
swell test performed
.. .. -
.,GEDeON
INC'QRPORATED
'I •
1.
I·.
I I'
I ' ~
, ....
!. ..
I
t ,"
, " ~ I • \
. ~; ,
,~-.
.. "
I '
. ,
,{. .
• • •
OT80-Df
. . . .
.. ' .
. SOIL INVESTIGATION
.~for
. .. . LAGUNA RIVIERA:
'.' Carlsbad~ California: ...
.I • '. • • •
. For'
. ~. ..
KAMAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ~ INC. .
Carlsbads California·
.. . ~y
GEOQON ,. :INCORPORATED .. '
San Diego'p .California:
Aprilp 1980
~~ .: '" .
-:', .
. ,,' .' . '.
'. -~
','
.~. -.... ..' .
.........
, .
·1
. . ~ .' .'
,-'.
. ,
" ;' ~
I ,)
I i
r
I f ! ' ,
I,
I . e
GEOCON ENGmEERSAND GEOLOGISTS • CONSULT~rn ~ THE APPLIED EA~TH SGIENCES INCORPORATED .
File No. D-2192-J01
April 1, 1980
Kamar Construction Company~ Inc.
325 Elm Street
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Jerry Ro~botis
Subject: Laguna Riviera
Carlsbad, California
SOIL INVESTIGATION
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request we have pe~f~rmed a soil in-
vestigation for the subject project.
..
'The accompanying report presents the findings from our study
and our conclusions and reconmlendations based on those finding'Se
In general, the site was found to be suitable "for 'development
as proposed, provided minor remedial measures recoIIlII1e.llded here-
in are followed.
If you have ques'tions concerning this report t . or if we' may be
of further service, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOCON, INCORPORATED
~~~.{1t~?-!~E 17030
MSC:JEL:1m
copies: (4) addressee
fi 6645 CONVOY COURT • SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92111 • PHONE (714) 292-5100'
l.
I
I ~. ..
I
File No. D-Z19Z-30l
April 7, 1980
SOIL INVESTIGATION
?urpose and Scope
'The purpose of our investigation was to e.valuate the surface
and subsurface soil conditions at the site and~ basf?d on con-·
ditions encountered, to provide recommendations' for development
.of the site to receive the proposed one-or t'l':tlo-story> wood-
frame residential' stru,ctures o.
The investig~tion consisted of a site reconnaissance and the'
drilling of three· exploratory borings. Laboratory tests were
performed on selected representative. soil samples .obtained at
various depths in the test borings to evalu.atepertinent phy-
~ -
sical properties of the soil types encountered. The conclusions
and recommendations that follow are based on an analysis of the
. t
data obtained from our field exploratiop. and lab'Qratory tests
and on our experience with similar soil.conditions.
Location and Description of Site and Project·
. .
The irregular-shaped 3.85 acre site is located along the west
side of Valencia Avenue and Hillside Drive between Park Drive
and Neblina Drive in Carlsbad •. California.
'-1-
GEOeON
INCOR-PORAT,ED
,
I
File No. D-2l92-JOl
April 7, 1980
e.
The property has been partially graded in conjunction with
testing and observation services provided by Woodward-Gizienski
and Associates as documented in their report 0;(:. April 5., 1972·
titled "Laguna Riviera Unit 5, Offsite Fill Areas'A and. B~
Carlsbad, California".
The previous grading consisted primarily of placement of excess
material from adjacent units of the Laguna Riviera subdivision
in the low-lying areas along the eastern portion of the subject
property_
The western portion of the site is ung'raded and in its natural
state. Vegetation at the site consists of moderate growths of"
native weeds, gr~sses, and chaparral.
. .
Topographically, the site ranges in elevation from a high of
approximately 120 feet above mean, sea level near its north ..
end to a low of about 20 feet above mean sea leveL at the
. south end.
It is proposed to complete the grading of ·the site to' receive
approxima.tely 15 one-' and two-s tory 3 wood-frame, single-family
residences.
,',
-2-
GEOCON
I'NCORPORATED
I·'
I.
! . I.-,
File No. D-2192-JOI
April 7, 1980
The locations and descriptions contained herein are ba.$ed upon
a site reconnaissance and upon preliminary site and development
plans provided to us by Kamar Construction Company., Inc." If
project d~tails vary significantly from th6se outlined f this·
firm should be notified for review and possible revision of
recommendations presented herein prior to final design sub-
mittaL
Field Investigation
The field investigation was performed on March 24, 1980 and
consisted of a site reconnaissance by our engineering geologist
and the excavation of three exploratory borings at.' the approxi-
mate locations shown on the attached Site Plan.
The borings were drilled to depths ranging from 15 to 16 feet
below existing gr~de utilizing 'a Mobile B-50 trucR~mounted 'ro-
tary drill rig equipped with six-inch diameter continuous flight
auger. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained by driving
. a three-inch D.D. split tube sampler into the undisturbed s6il
mass with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. The
sampler was equipped with one-inch high 2-3/8-inchdiameter
brass rings to facilitate' sample removal and testi~g.
turbed bulk samples were' also taken·.
-3-
.Dis-
GEOeON.
INCO.RI'ORATED
i
1
File No. D-2l92-JO.
April 7, 1980 .
0' 80' lBO'
I L;;;;,.J I
LEGEND
~ __ .LOCATION OF TEST BORING
FIGURE 1
SITE PLAN AND LOCATION OF TEST BORINGS
LAGUNA RIVIERA
Carlsbad, California
GEOeON, INCORPORATED. PAGE
4
GEDeON
INCOl\PORA~EJ;I
i·
! .
I .
I'
I
e·
File No. D-2l92-JOl
April 7, 1980
During the investigation, the soils en'countered were contiuu,-
ously examined, visually classified, 'and logged., Logs of the
test borings are presented on Figures 2 through 4 of Appendix
A. The logs depict the depth and description of the various
soil types encountered and include the depths at which samples
.were taken.
Laboratory Tests
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally
accepted test methods of the American S<;>ci'ety for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) and other suggested procedures.~ Selected
relatively undisturbed drive samples of natural soils an9-ex ...
isting fill soils were tested for their in-place dry density,
moisture content, shear strength, and expansive potential.
The maximum· dry density and optimum·moisture content of a'
disturbed.bulk sample were determined in accordance with. ASTM ,
Test Method D1557·-78.
, .
The results of our laboratory tests are sunnnarized in tabular
form in Appendix A. In-place moisture-density relationships
are alos presented on the Logs of Test Borings.
-5-
I,
!,
I
I t,
I '
I
I:, "
File No. D-Z19Z-JOl
April 7, 1980
Soil Conditions
As mentioned earlier, the eastern portion of the site was graded:
to its present configuration ,in the past; Results of in-place
, '
density tests recorded in the referenced Woodwa,rd~Gizienski re-
port indicate that the existing fill mat'erial was. compacted to
at least 90 percent of maximum dry density_ Our m6isture~4ensity
tests of undisturbed drive samples indicate similar re$u.lts. The
western portion of the site is presently in its natural state. ,"
The existing fill material consists of intermixed a.nd layered
medium dense/medium hard, silty and c'layey sands and sandy clays ..
A localized area of shallow uncompacted fill was encountered near
the north end of the site. Fill depths of up to seven feet were
encountered in our borings elsewhere on ,the site.,
Topsoils, colluvium and formational soils underlie the existing
fill.
The topsoils and colluvium consist of medium dense, humid to
moist, silty and clayey sands.
-6-
GEOCON
~ N. COR P 0 RAT E D
,I ,
,
I
j'
I
I '
., '.
File No. D-Z19Z-JOl
April 7, 1980
•
Formational soils underlying the topsoil are cha~acterized by
dense, silty and clayey sands with occasional clay layers,.
No groundwater was encountered during ,the course of our inves-
tigation.
, . Geocon~ Incorporated assumes no responsibility for the perform-
ance of fill placed under testing and observa'tion services pro-,
vided by others.
, .
";7-
GEOeON
INCORPORATF;D
I.
l
I .
! I .
. I
.1
I
f I . , ..
File No. D-2192-JOl
April 7. 1980
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
•
1. It is our opinion that the site is suitable· for the pro-
posed residential developmeI!t provided' the recommenda.tions o·f
this' report are carefully followed.
2. A localized area of relatively loose fill is pre'sent near
the north end of the site' and will require recompaction as
recommended be low. Additionally •. we re.commend that' ·the groUnd
surface of the existing compacted fill be ~carified'and recom~
pac ted to a depth of 12 inches prior to the placement of addi-
tional fill.
Grading
3. All grading should be performed in accordance'with Chapter
70 of the Uniform Building Code and the tlRecorrnnended Grading
SpecificationsVi presented in Appendix B. Where the. recommen""
dations of Appendix B conflict with those of this section of
the report, this section of the report taken precedence.'
-8-
GEOeON
1 N .c O· RI'O R .A T E I>
. I
·1
].
)
,
i .
I I·
i'
I
r. ~ ..
I .
I .\ ,
I··
File No. D-2l92-JOl
April 7, 1980
•
4. The existing loose fill 'at the north end of the site should
first be removed to a depth where natural ground is. exposed (see
Figure 1) .. The project soil engineer or his representative ~hould'
. observe the overexcavation operations to· ascertain that all of ....
the loose fill has been removed. The exposed natural ground .
should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, :moisture con-
titioned, and recompacted to at least 9'0 p'erc,ent of maximum dry
density. Any areas of excesf?ively wet near-surface material·
. should be removed or aerated prior to the. placement of addi-
tional fill.
5 .. The remainder of the site to receive fill should, . likewise,
be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and
·recompacted. If additional fill is to be placed on the existing
fill~ it may then be placed and compacted in'layers until final.
elevations are reached. Layers of fill should be'no thicker
than will allow for adequate bonding and compaction. A thick-
. ness of six to eight inche~ may be assumed to he satisfactory
for this project. All fill should be compacted to at least 90
percent of maximum dry density.
-9-
GEOCON
INCORPORAT'ED
1
I
'\
r I
1 ! I' ,
File No. D-2l92-JOl
April 7, 19S0
6~ If material is to be imported to the site~ it should be
approved for use by the project soils ,engineer prior to d~live:ry~
Foundations
, ' 7. The site. is suitable for the use of isolated spread footings,
or continuous strip footings if graded as recofilnl$uded above. Such
footings. should be at least 12 inches in width and should extend
at least 12 inches below lowest adjacent'pad grad~. If expansive
materials are present within 30 inches of finish grade~ footing
df?pths should be increased to 24 Inches,.
S. It is recommended that minimum footing reinforcement COJ;lsist'
of two continuous No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed 4orizon-
tally in the footings, one near the top of the footing and one
near the bottom. The above minimum reinforcement is based on
soil characteristics and is not intended to be in-lieu of ~ein-
forcement necessary for structural considerations.
9. An allowable bearing capacity of 1S00 psf may be used for
foundations constructed as recommended above. The allowable
bearing capacity is for dead plus live loads and may be in-
creased by one-third for transient loads due to wind or
seismic forces.
-10-
GEOCON'
INC 0 R P O.'R AT ED,'
File No. 0-2192-301
April 7, 1980
Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
100 Concrete slabs-on-grade should have a nominal thickness'
of four inches and be underlain by at least, four inches of
clean sando Reinforcement should consist of 6x6~lO/lO welded
wire mesh throughout 0 Where moisture sensitive floor coverings
are,planned~ the slab should be underlain by a visqueen mois-
ture barrier .. A ,two-inch-thick layer of sand or gravel should
be provided above the visqueen to allow proper concrete curing.
Slopes,
11. Cut and fill slopes constructed of' ongite materials should
be stable against deep-seated failure if graded at inclinations
of 2.0 horizontal to 1.0 vert,ic'al or flatter.·
Site Drainage and Moisture Protection
12. Adequate drainage provisions ,are .imperative~' Under no
circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to foot-
ings. The site should be graded such that storm waters and
irrigation excess d~ain away from structures and into swales
, ,
or other controlled drainage facilities.
'-11-
GEOeON
I 'N COR P '0 BAT lil P
,I
I
! I I
.j
I r
I· .
) ..
I· I
I '
!
I
.1
I
File' No. D-2l92-JOl
April 7, 1980
13. Roof downdrains should empty into splashblocks and the
water should be directed away ,from the structures into ·con"':
trolled drainages.
-12-' -
.GEOCON'
INCORPORAT.ED-
File No. D-2192-J01
April 7, 1980
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFO&~ITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations of this report pertain, only tQ
the site investigated and are hase<;l upon the assumption
that the soil conditions do,not deviate from those dis-
closed in the borings. If any variation~ or undesira'ble
conditions ar~ encountered,d~ring construction, 'or if,
the proposed construction will differ from" that' planned
at the present time, Geocon, Incorporated should be no-
tified so that supplemental recommendations can be given-.
2. This---report is issued with the 'understanding that it
is the responsibility of the owner,-or of his representa-
tive, to ensure that the information and recommendations
contained herein are brought to the attention of the arch-
itect and engineer for the project and incorpd+"ated into
the plans, and that the necess~ry steps ar~ taken to see.
that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such :
recommendat~ons in the field.'
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the pres-
ent dace. However, changes in the conditions of ~ property
.-13-
GEOeON'
, INCORPORATED
i· I
I I·
File No. D-2l92-J01
April 7, 1980
-e'
can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to
natural processes or the works of 1Ilan on ·this or adjacent
properties. In.addition, changes in applicable or appro-
priate standards.may occur, whether they resultfrorn. leg-
is 1ation or the broadening of knowledge. AC9-ord:i..ngl.y' ,. t~e
findings of this report may be· invali·dated wholly o~ par-.
tial~y by changes outside our control. Thereforer this
report is subject to review and should not be relied upon
after a period of three years.
-14-
GEOeON
INCORPORATED
I . . i
I·
I
-I---
File No. D-2l92-J01
April 7, 1980
TABLE I
•
Summary of In-Place Moisture-Density and Direct Shear Test Results
_-Sample
No.
1-1
1-3
2-1
2-2
2-3
3-2
3-3 .
3-4
Depth
ft.
5
10
2
5
10
5
10
15
Dry
Density
pcf
111.2
107.1
115.1
114.6
113.8
112.9
114.3
122.1
Moisture
Content
%
13.2
14.9
6.8
12.5
7.6
·9.2
10-.8
8.9
A-1
Unit
Cohesion . psf
223
257
Angle of
Shear-
Resistan_ce-
'degrees __
41
34
-GEOeON--.
INCORPORATE·D·
-I ,
.I
I
I I , i
·1
~. ,
I
•
File No. D-2192-J01
April 7, 1980
Sample
Number
3-
TABLE II'
Summary of Laboratory Compaction Test Results
A.S.T.M. D1557-70
Depth
ft.
1-4
Description
Dark brown, Clayey
SAND
TABLE III
Max. Dry
Density
pef
129.7
Summary of Laboratory Expansion Test Results
l10isture Content.
Before ,After
Test Test Dry
Sample Depth Density
pqf No. Description ft. % %
3-2 Dark brown, 5 i~9. 2 (1. 9) 16.9
Clayey SAND
*Air-dry moisture content in parentheses
'A-2
Optimum
Moisture
% dry wt.
9.7
'.
Expansion (+)
or
Sett;lement(-)
Surcharge,
%. psf
+1.7 150
,
I' I
t
. 1
I I. I ..
File No. D-2192-J01
April 7, 1980
•
DEPTH SAJ,tPLE LOC; 8 A1~~"1f,0" DESCRIPTION
IN NUJ,t8ER LOCATION R~sls"'_
FEET OF 810ws/1!
SAMPLE
BORING NO. 1 0
-
2
4~
-
6 1-1
~
-
• ./ . i:> -FILL ~:.. o· .' Medium loose, very moist, light :~~<: gray-brown, Clayey, medium to
/ •• 0 very coarse SAND with asphalt
:'. : 'Y" "rn,mu-c .
· 'I~('I'" FoRMATIONAL SOILS
;...~ ~I.·t~ ---I Medium loose, very mo.ist. orange-'
."/~" \ brown, Clayey medium SAND
g~' ." 42 \ ~~~'f---i\.\--becomes medium dense, Silty
~8 1-2 i~::·.>. '-nense, very moist, orange-brown, :-j:::: Clayey, medium to very coarse
-
..
-
10-1-3
12
.
14
16
-
y SAND with occasional layers of I'!:i 49 Sandy CLAY
· ". '/.
•. Y. · ,; '. /' ..... ;
'. 'y, '. '/. · . '/. : · /' ' .. 1/:'" '. : . . , '/
BORING TERMINATED AT 15.0 FEET
Figure 2, Log of Test Boring 1
A-3
IN-PLACE
DR.,. J,tOISTl,lItE
DENSIT.,. CONTENT
% dry wi
111.2 13.2
BULK SMfPLE
107.114.9
GEOeON
.INCORPORA,TED
•
File No. D-2l92-JOl
April 7, 1980
IN~PLACE
D£PTH SAMPLE LOG a ~1'}6ralton DESCHIPrtON DRY MOISTURE
IN NUMBER LOCATION ReslsfUIICe OENStfy CCWTENT
FEET OF 810 .. $1'11 P.~.1 % dry /If
$AItIPLE
BORING NO. 2
I
0 .... l' . : '. FILL · ~·H:I) Medium dense, very moist, gray-
2. ..... j-:. brown, Clayey, medium to very
2-1 _~l:l:i 50/ coarse SAND 115.1 6.8 -. .,' .. ':/ 10" . mixed with
~ 4. "~f-:" medium dense, humid, brown, "l' . , .
· I:~i Silty medium SAND
6 2-2 50/ 114.'6 12.5
r--9" , y. . ;.-. ... " ' . ,
. I ,1:1,'( : TOPSOIL 8 • I .....
~ ',1 .1·1 ' !\ Medium dense, humid, dark broV\.m·,' r:: --· ': .' "'/ Silty medium SAND
-10· _~{~r:',: L
2-3 44 Medium hard, humid, dark yellow"",: 113.8 7.6
~ I I ~ /. bro~m, Sandy CLAY ::IJ:t" 12 / .. '
'/. ' , .. \ r-:H:t: /,. , FORNATI ONAL SOILS
14 ~.rl,:[; Dense, moist, light ye llow-brown.,
r-o· " , . slightly Clayey, Silty, medium to
-16-\ very coarse SAND
-BORING TERHINATED AT 15'.0 FEET
~
0
~
·
i-
I· . ·
I-0
I-
0
Figure 3, Log of Test Boring 2
A-4
·GEOeON
INCORPORATED
I-
I-
I
I
I .' I
I-
I-
•
File No. D-2l92-JOl
April 7, 1980
DEPTH SAMPLE LOG 8 ~""'rol,on
IN NUMBER f.{)CATlON R~.,.,o_
FEET OF B/o ... :;/If
SAMPLE
•
IN-PLACE
DESCRIPTION DRY 1tIOISTUHi!
. O~NSITY C(J'ITENT
p. t:.i % dry wi
r-~----r---~---r----------------------------------~----~----~-BORING NO.3 0
2-3-1
4
-
~ 6 3-2
·
8
l:-
f-10
r
12
14-
16
·
·
·
3-3
3-4
FILL
Medium dense/medium hard, very
moist, dark brown, Clayey SAND/
Sandy CLAY (mixed)
TOPSOIL/COLLUVIill1
Hedium dense, moist, black-brown.
Clayey, coarse to very coarse
SAND
BORING TERMINATED AT 16.0 FEET
Figure 4, Log of Test-Borlng 3
A-5
13 ULK SAIYIPLE
112.9, 9'.2
"114.3 10.8
122.1 8.9
I I I '
i· , I, I ,
••
File No. D-2l92-JOl
April 7, 1980
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
for
LAGUNA RIVIERA
Carlsbad, ~alifornia
1.1 General Description
•
.1.11 These specifications have been prepared for grading
and site development of the Laguna Rivier~ located
along the west side of Valencia Avenue and Hills,ide
Drive between Park Drive and Neblina Drive in Carls-
bad, California. Geocon, Incorporated, hereinafter
described as the soil engineer, should be consulted
prior to any site work connected with. site develop~
ment to ensure compliance with these,specifcations.
These specifications shall only be used in conjunc-
tion with the soil report of which they are. a part., "
1.12 This item shall consist of all clearing and grubbing,
preparation of land to-be filled, filling ,of the ;Land,
spreading, compact~on and control of the fi1lJ and all
subsidiary work necessary to complete the grading of
the filled areas to confrom with the lines,. grades ,
and slopes as shown on the accepted plans.
1.13 '. '.-The soil engineer shall test and'observe all grading
operations. In the event that any unusual conditions
not covered by the special provisions are encountered
during the grading operations, the soil engineer shall'
be contact'ed for further informatiotL
2.1 ,Tests
2.11 The standard test used to define maximum dens-ity of
all compaction work shall be the ASTM Test Procedu.re
D1557-78. All densities shall be expressed as a
relative compaction in 'terms of ·the maximum density
obtained in the laboratory by the foregoing standard
procedure.
B-1
GEDeON
INCORPOR.ATED
-,..
I , ,
•
File No. D-2l9Z-JOl
April 7, 1980
.,
3.1 Clearing, Grubbing, and Preparing Ar.eas t9 be Filled
3.11 Any trees not utilized in landscaping, structures, weeds,
and other rubbish shall be removed,' piled, or otherwise
disposed of so as to leave, the areas that have 'been dis-·
turbed with a neat and finished appearance, free from
unsightly debris. .
3.1Z Any septic tanks, if encountered, ahd debris must be
removed from the site prior to any building, grading or
fill operations. Septic tanks', incluciingall connecting
drain fields and other lines, must be totally removed
and the resulting depressions properly reconstructed
and filled to the complete satisfaction of the super-
vising soil engineer.
3.13 All water wells on the site shall be capped according
to the requirements of the San Diego County Health De-
partment. . The strength of the 'cap shall be at least .
equal to the adjacent soil. The final elevat~on of the
top of the well casing must be a minimum.of 36 .inches
below any adjacent grade prior to any grading of fill
operations. .
3.14 All buried tanks, if encountered, must be totally
removed and the resulting depressions properly recon-
structed and filled to the compJ.ete satisfaction 0:£
the supervising soil engineer.
3.15 All vegetable matter and soil de~ignated as unsuitab.le .
by the soil engineer sh~ll be removed.und~r the direc-
tion of the soil engineer. The then exposed surface
shall then be plmved or scarified to a depth of at least
eight inches and 'until the surface is free fro~ ruts,
hurrrrnocks, or other uneven features ~vhich would tend to
prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used.
3.16 The original ground upon which the fill_is tO'be placed
shall be plowed or scarified deeply, and where the slope
ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6~O hori-
zontal to 1.0 vertical, the bank shall be stepped or
benched. At the toes of the major' fills and on the si:de-'
slope fills, the base' key shall be. as' describec;i else-.
where in this report, at least 10 feet in width,cut at
··B-2
l.
r !
I ·1
I
·1 . I
I
•
File No. D-2l92-J01
April 7, 1980
least three feet into the undis,turbed or native: soil,
and slope.d back into the hillside at a gradient, of not
less than two percent. Subsequent keys should be cut
into the hillside a~ the fill is brought up the slope.,
The construction of subsequent keying operations shall
be determined by the soil engineer during grading oper-
ations. Ground slope·s which are flatter than 6 t.O 1
shall be benched. 'i7hen considered necessary by the. soil
engineer.
3.17 After the' foundation for' the fill has been. 61eared"
plowed, or scarified, it shall be disced or bladed un-
til it is uniform and ·free from' large clods; hrougb,t
to the proper moi.sture content by adding water or ·aer-,
ating; and compacted to relative density of not less.
than 90 percent.
4.1 Haterial~
4.11 Native soil, free of organic ma·terial and undes.irable
deleterious material, may be used as fi1.l. Native soil
which is expansive shall not be p laced on the top t'\vO
feet of building' pads without the approval of' the s.oil
engineer.
4.12 The materials for fill shall be approved by the soil
engineer before commencement of grading operations. Any
imported materi'al must .pe approved for use before being·
brought to the site. The materials used shall be, free ..
from vegetable matter and other deleteriQus materia~,
and be nonexpansive. Expansive soil is defined ap soil
which expands more than 3.0 percent when saturated at
90 percent relative 'compaction and optimum moisture·
content under a surcharge of 150 psf. .
5.1 Placing. Spreading, and Compactinpj Fill Hateria1
5.11 The selected fill material shall be placed in layers
which when compacted shall allow ad~quate bonding and
compaction. Each layer shall be spread evenly and
shall be thoroughly blade mixed during the s:preading
to ensure uniformity of material in each layer.
S .12 ~Vhen the moisture content of the fill materi'al is be..,
low that specified by the soil engineer. water ·sha..11
B-3
GEOCON'
INC6~POR~TE:D
i i· I·.·· .
•
File No. D-2l92-JOl
April 7, 1980
·t
be added until the moisture content is as specified·
to assure thorough bonding during the compaction procesS .. ,
When the moisture content of the fill material is above
that specified by the ·soil engineer, the fill material
shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory·methods
until the moisture content is as specified. .
5.13 After each layer has been placed, mix~d~ and spre-ad
evenly, it shall be thoroughly .·compacted to a relative
compaction of not ~ess than 90 percent.
5.14 When fill material includes rock, ·no. rocks· will be
allowed to nest, and all voids must be carefully
filled with small stones .or earth and properly compacted.
No rocks larger than $ix inches in diameter will be
permitted in the~fill.
5.15 Compaction shall be by sheepsfoot rollers, multiple ... ·.
wheel pneumatic-tired ro·llers, or ·other types of
acceptable compacting ·rollers .. Rollers shall be .of
such design that they will be a.ble to compact the fill
to the spec.ified mois ture content range. Rolling of
eacn layer shall ·be continuous over its entire are·a and
until the required density has been obtained~
5.16 Field density tests shall be made by the soil engineer .
. Where sheepsfoot rollers are used, the soil may .be
disturbed to a depth of several inches. Density tests
s4all be taken in compacted material below the disturbed
surface. When t4ese tests indicate that the density. of
any layer of fill or portion t4ereof is below the required
90 percent density, the particular layer or portion shall
be rei.vorked until the required density has been obtained.
5.17 The fill operation shall be continued ;1.11 compacted laye·rs,
as specified above, until the fill has been brought t,o
the finished slopes and graded as shmvu o.n the accepted
plans.
5.18 Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot
rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction.opera-·
tions shall be continued until the slopes are stable .
. B-4
GEOeON
INCORPORATE·D
"
•
File No. D-2192-JOI
April 7, 1980
.,
5.19 All earthmoving and working operations'shall be con-
trolled to prevent water from'running into excavated
areas. All water sha~l be promptly removed and the
site kept dry.
6.1 Disposal of Oversize Rock'
6.11 Oversize rock shall be either exported :from the site,
used for landscaping purposes, or placed in designa.ted
nonstructural . fill areas. . . .
6.12 'Prior to grading, the soil engineer shall be ~onsulted
to approve any proposed nonstru~tur.al fill areas. In
general, nonstructural fill areas will be acceptable if
located outside of the: "zone of influence" of proposed'
structures; e.g. rear yard fills at least 15 feet from
structures and beneath street areas (deeper than pro-
posed utility lines).
6.13 Oversize rock shall not exceed ~our feet in greatest
dimension, shall be placed in lifts not exceeding four,
and shall be placed in a manner that will not produce
Vln'esting" of the ·rock. The voids between the rocks:
shall be completely filled with fine granular materiql.
6.14 No oversize rock shall be 'placed within four feet of
finish lot grade nor within the anticipated depth of
-utility lines, whicheve.r is deeper.
7.1 Engineering Observation
7.11 Field observations by the soil en,gineer snaIl. be made
during the fill and compaction operations so that he·
can expres s his opinion. regarding the. cOi1.formance.· bf
the grading with the accepted specification,s.
8.1 Seasonal Limits
S.ll No fill material shall be placed, spread, or· rolled,'
while it is at an unsuitable high moisture content.,
nor during unfavorable weather cop.ditions.·Hhen the
work is interrupted' by heavy rain, fill operations .'
shall not be .resumed until field tests'by the soil
engineer indicate that the moisture con,teI'l;t· and 'clen-
iity of fill are as previously specifie4.· .
B-5
" GEOeON \,
INCORPORATED