The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 82-21; PARK DRIVE; REPORT OF IN-PLACE DESNITY TESTS; 1985-12-19SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOILAND TESTINC, INC. 6280 RIVEROALE Sr. SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120 • TELE 2004321 • P.O. eox 20627 SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120 74-031 V E L I E WAY PALM DESERT, CA -LIP. 92260 • T E L E 346-1070 67B ENTERPRISE ST. ESCONDIDO, CALIF. 92025 • TELE 746-4544 December 19, 1985 -B.A.' Worthing Post Office Box 1041 - SCS&T 8521118 Carlsbad, 'California 92008 ' 92,2i Report No. 2 'C Attention: Henry Tubbs - - - - - SUBJECT: Report of In-Place Density Tests, Lots 3, 6, 7 and 8, Map 10870, Bruce Road .& Park Drive, Carlsbad, California. - - - - Reference: Report of Geotechnical Investigation, Lot 3 and 6 - 8, Map - 10870, Bruce Road and Park Drive, Carlsbad, California,,by - Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., dated June 6, 1985. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, this report has been 'prepared to present the . results'of the in-place density tests performed on the prepared natural ground, recompacted embankment, and retaining wall backfill at the subject site by ' D Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc.' These tests were -' November land December 18, 1985. ' AVAILABLE PLANS O f, CPALS - To assist in determining the locations and elevations of our fiPs'i - tests' and to define the general extent of the site grading for this phase of - work, we were provided with a grading plan' prepared by Toal Engineering, Inc., dated October 25, 1985. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTIN', INC. .' . SCS&T 8521118 ' December 19, 1985 Page 2 SITE PREPARATION Prior to the placing of embankment, the existing' loose artificial fills and native soils were removed down to firm natural ground and 'stockpiled onsite for future use:' These removals were performed in all areas to receive fills or structural loads, with the exception of fills which lie beneath existing roadway pavements. The native medium dense to dense sandy subsoils exposed at the bottom of the 'removal areas were then scarified to a depth of approx- imately 12 inches, watered to slightly above optimum moisture content, and recompacted. Fill soils, taken from the stockpiles and onsite cuts, were then placed in six to eight inch lifts, watered to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted by means of a sheepsfoot roller and heavycbnstruction equipment. FIELD TESTING Field density tests Were performed by a representative of Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. as the grading work was in progress. The density tests were taken- according to A.S.T.M. Test 1556-74 and the location -and results,of those tests are shown on the attached plates. The locations and elevations of the in-situ tests were determined in accordance with their importance and the accuracy and proximity of the survey control provided by other 'than Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. representatives. Unless otherwise noted, their locations and elevations were determined by pacing and hand level methods and should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. LABORATORY' TESTS Maximumdry density determinations were performed on representative samples of the soils used in the compacted, fills according to A.S.T.M. Test 1557-78, Method A. This method specifies that a four (4) inch diameter cylindrical mold of 1/30 cubic foot volume beusedand that the soil tested be placed i'n, five (5). equal layers with each layer compacted by twent-five (25)' blows of a 10 pound hammer with a 18 inch drop. The results of these tests, as presented on attached plates, were used in conjunction with the field density tests to determine the percent of relative compaction of-'the compacted 'fill. SDUT'NERN CALIFORNIA .SOL AND TESTIND INC. SCS&T 8521118 . December 19, -198'5 Page 3 CONCLUSIONS Based upon our field observations and the in-place density test results, it is our opinion that the grading work was performed substantially in accord- ance with the recommendations contained in the. referenced Report of Geotech- nicàl Investigation. This report covers only the work performed between' October 31 and December :18, 1985. Additional testing will be required for retaining wall backfills and utility trench backfill located under areas to be paved or within five feet of the proposed structures. As limited by the scope of the services which we agreed to perform, our opinions 'presented herein are based on our observations and the relative compaction test results. 'Our work was performed in accordance with the currently accepted standards of practice and in such a manner as to provide a reasonable measure of the compliance of the mass grading operatións'with the job requirements'. No warranty, express or implied is given or intended with respect to the services which we have performed, and neither the per- formance of those services nor the submittal of this report should be con- strued as relieving the grading contractor of his primary responsibility to conform with the jobrequirements. If you should 'have any'questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. 'This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. ( Charles H. Christian, R.C.E. #2233,0 CHC/DH/rr cc: (5)' Submitted ' (1) SCS&T, Escondido SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL -AND TESTINC..INC. FIGURE NO. 2 • DATE 12-1985 S ELEV. OR TEST DEPTH OF MOIST. NC) DATE LOCATION .TEST,FT 8521118 JOB NO. DRY DEN. •i. LBS. / SOIL RELATIV CU, Ft TYPE COME 1 ' 11-1-85 Lot 8 26.5 .12.4 120.2 1 93.1 2 11-1-85 Lot 8 . 28.0 13.0 118.6 1 91.9 3 11-5-85 Lot 8, Retaining Wall 28.5 8.7 . 114.0 1 88.3 4 11-5-85 Lot 8, Retaining Wall 27.0 8.7 . 112.7 1 ' 87.3 5 11-6-85 Lot 8 . 29.5 8.1 128.8 1 99.8 6 11-6-85 Lot 8 30.5 14.9 119.9 1 92.9 7 11-6-85 Lot 8. . 31.5 14.0: 114.5 2 96.5 8 11-6-85 Retest of 43 '' 28.5 , 14.3 118.0 1 91.4.. 9 ' 11-685 Retest of #4 27.0 14.0 119.1 '1 ' 92.2 10 11-6-85 Lot .3' 89.0 15.6 114 ..0 2 96.1 11 11-8-85 Lot 8 .33.0 13.6 112.8 ' 2. 95.1' 12 11-8-85 Lot 8 335 : 13.0 .. 112.6 2 94.9 13 11-14-85 Lot 8 ' 34.0 .15.6 117.0 ' 2 98.7 14 : 11-14-85' Lot 8' . • 35.0 ' 14.9 116.7 . 2 98.4 15 11-14-85 Lot 8 . 34.5 11.1 114.6 2 96.6 16 •, 11-14-85 Lot 8 33.0 13.0 113.1 ' 2 95.4 17 11-14-85 Lot 6 ' . 42.0 . 11.1 117.8 1 91.2 18 . 11-21-85 Lot 7, Retaining Wall . 36.0 13.6 117.2 1 90.8 19 11-21-85 Lot 7, Slope • • 38.0 12.0 • 116.8 1 90.5 20 11-21-85 Lot 7 • 42.0 11.1 116.2 2 98.0 21 11-22-85 Lot S . 44.0 ' '11.1 117.1 2 98.7 22. 11-22-85 Lot 8 •. 38.4 FG 12.4 122.5 11 94.9' 23 11-22-85 Lot 7 . 44.3 FIG 11.1 118.0 1 91.4 24 12-4-85 . Lot-6, Slope • 46.0 14.9 104.9 1 81.3 25 12-6-85 Retest of #24 , •• 46.0. • , 13.6 • 113.9 1 88.2 FIGURE.NO. 2 . DATE .12-19-85 . S ELEV. OR TEST . . . . DEPTH OF MOIST. NO. DATE LOCATION . TEST;FT ,. JOB NO, -8521118 Page 2 DRY DEN. LBS. / SOIL -. RELATIV CU FT TvD 26 .12-6-85 Lot 8, Slope . 34.0 13.6 111.9 . . 1 86.7 27 12-9-85 . Retest of #25 46.0 15.6 116.2 1 90.0 28 . 12-9-85 Retest of #26 . 34.0 14.3 120.7. 1 93.5 29 12-9-85 Lot 8 31.0 13.6 119.2 1 92.3 30 12-18-85 Lot •8 . 34.0 14.3 . 120.1 1 : . 93.0 31 12-18-85 Lot 8 . 36.0 FG 16.3 116.2 1.•. . 90.0 32 12-18-85 Lot 8, Slope . 33.0 14.9 116.9 1 90.5 33 12-18-85 Lot 3, Retaining Wall 82.5 . 8.7 . 109.5 2 92.3 Backfill * . 34 12-18-85 Lot 3, Retaining Wall 85.0 9.3 112.0 2 94•4 Backfill 35 12-18-85, Lot 3, Retaining Wall 47.5 9.9 . 112.5 2 . 94.9 Backfill . . 36 . 12-18-85 Lot 3, Retaining Wall . 49.0 7 110.5 2 93.2 Backfill 27 12-18-85 Lot 3, Retaining Wall.. 57.5 . 9.3 113.7 2 95.9 Backfill SOIL TYPE OPTIMUM MO STURE MAXIMUM DR DENSITY (PERCENT). (LBS./CU.FT.) . 1 .9•5 129.1 * . Red Brown, Fine to Medum, Silty S nd * . 2 . 13.0 118.6 . .. .. * Beige, Fine to Coarse, Silty Sand .