Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 16-09; 800 GRAND AVENUE; FINAL SOILS REPORT; 2020-12-04 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 485 Corporate Drive, Suite B Escondido, California 92029 Telephone: (619) 867-0487 ORANGE AND L.A. COUNTIES INLAND EMPIRE SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES (714) 786-5661 (619) 708-1649 (619) 867-0487 McKellar McGowan December 4, 2020 888 Prospect St. #330 P/W 1607-03 La Jolla CA 92037 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 GR2017-0072 Attention: Scott Myers COO/CFO Subject: Project Grading Report, Building Pad, 800 Grand Avenue Condominium Subdivision Project No. CT 16-09, Carlsbad, California References: See Attachments Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and authorization, Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (AGS), presents herein our observations and test results pertaining to the recently completed grading of the building pad for the 800 Grand Avenue Condominium Subdivision, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. Specifically, this report summarizes the rough grading of the building pad for the project. Based on the results of the testing and observations by representatives of AGS, the work described herein is considered to be in general conformance with City of Carlsbad Grading Code and the recommendations presented in the referenced geotechnical reports. This report addresses grading operations aimed at attaining finish grades for the subject building pad as reflected on the 10-Scale Grading Plan, Sheet 4 of 6, Drawing No DWG 509-1A, prepared by BHA, Inc. of Carlsbad, California. Grading for the subject site was conducted in July 2018 and August 2018. Soil engineering observations and geologic observations collected during grading are summarized in the text of this report and the developed data are presented in Table 1. The approximate distribution of geologic units, removal elevations and compaction tests under the purview of this report are shown on the accompanying Plate 1. 1.0 GEOLOGY The subject site is situated within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province. The Peninsular Ranges province occupies the southwestern portion of California and extends southward to the southern tip of Baja California. In general, the province consists of young, steeply sloped, northwest trending mountain ranges underlain by metamorphosed Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous-aged extrusive volcanic rock and Cretaceous-aged igneous plutonic rock of the Peninsular Ranges Batholith. The westernmost portion of the province, where the subject site is located, is predominantly underlain by younger marine and non- marine sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges’ dominant structural feature is northwest-southeast trending crustal blocks bounded by active faults of the San Andreas transform system. December 4, 2020 Page 2 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 1.1. Subsurface Conditions A brief description of the earth materials encountered during grading operations for this portion of the site is presented in the following sections. Based on the referenced reports and our observations during site grading the site was mantled with undocumented fill and Old Paralic Deposits underlain by Santiago Formation. 1.1.1. Artificial Fill- Undocumented (afu) Undocumented fill soils were encountered during grading overlying Old Paralic Deposits. As encountered, the undocumented fill soils were approximately 2 to 3 feet thick. As encountered, these materials generally consisted of brown, dry to slightly most, fine- grained sand with some silt in a loose condition. 1.1.2. Old Paralic Deposits (Map symbol Qop6) The site is underlain to depths excavated by Old Paralic Deposits. These materials can generally be described as orange brown to light brownish gray, slightly moist to moist, medium dense to dense, fine-grained sand. The upper one to three feet was weathered and was removed during grading. At the contact between the old paralic deposits and the underlying Santiago formation is a coarse grained sandy to gravelly lag deposit approximately six to twelve inches thick and saturated. 1.1.3. Santiago Formation (Tsa) Although not encountered during grading, the bedrock unit underlying the site is assigned to the Eocene-age Santiago Formation. The unit is composed predominately of a relatively massive grey green fine- to coarse-grained sandy siltstone to a silty claystone. 1.2. Groundwater No groundwater was encountered during grading within the subject site. It should be noted that water may develop at a later date, due to fluctuations in precipitation, irrigation practices, or factors not evident at the time of grading. 2.0 GRADING Presented herein is a summary of observations collected during grading. The property was originally an asphaltic concrete parking lot with minor areas of landscaping. The existing driveways and parking areas consisted of approximately 5 to 6 inches of concrete pavement. Prior to the commencement of grading operations, the existing onsite surface vegetation and debris within the proposed limits was removed and disposed of offsite. Based on AGS's referenced geotechnical report, it was concluded that remediation of the upper surface soils would be required during site grading operations to provide suitable building pads. Presented herein is a summary of the removal and fill placement operations. December 4, 2020 Page 3 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 2.1. Unsuitable Soil Removals Grading for the subject building pad consisted of rough grading to the design grades depicted on the 10-scale grading plans, prepared by BHA, Inc. (Plate 1). Prior to placement of fill on the site, the compressible pre-existing unsuitable fill and highly weathered formational materials were removed. The unsuitable soil removal depths for the subject pads generally ranged from approximately three (3) to six (6) feet below existing grades. Removal bottom elevations are shown on the accompanying Plate 1. Removal bottom elevations onsite were determined utilizing the Grading Contractor’s Global Positioning System (GPS). Accordingly, all elevations presented on Plate 1 are based upon this information source. The maximum depth of fill under the purview of this report is approximately 6 feet. 2.2. Compaction Operations The excavation bottoms were observed and approved by representatives of AGS. The exposed removal bottoms were then scarified to an approximate depth of 6 to 8 inches, brought to slightly above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method D-1557. Fill materials, consisting of the soil types summarized in Table 1, were then placed in thin, loose, lifts (approximately 8 inches), brought to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method D-1557. Compaction was achieved by a Cat D-8 dozer and other heavy grading equipment. Compaction tests were taken during the course of grading at approximately every one to two feet of fill placed. A summary of compaction tests pertaining to grading within the building pad is presented in Table 1. The approximate locations of these tests are shown on the accompanying Plate 1. 3.0 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Based on AGS’s recent testing, observations and review of the referenced reports, the building pad is considered suitable for support of the proposed residential structure. A final report summarizing our observations and compaction tests for improvements and utilities will be prepared once they are completed. From a geotechnical perspective the foundation elements for the residential structure can be constructed at this time. The foundations for the subject residential structure should be constructed in general conformance with the following recommendations: 3.1. Expansion Potential Representative bulk samples of near surface soils from the subject lots were collected tested to evaluate their potential for expansion. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 4829. Test results are summarized in Table 3.1. December 4, 2020 Page 4 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Table 3.1 Expansion Potential Building Area Expansion Index Expansion Potential Garage Pad 0 Very Low Garage Pad 0 Very Low 3.2. Foundation Design The proposed three story podium structure with a partial underground garage can be supported by conventional shallow slab-on-grade foundation systems based on “Very Low” expansion potential. The following values may be used in the foundation design. Allowable Bearing: 3000 lbs./sq.ft. Lateral Bearing: 350 lbs./sq.ft. at a depth of 12 inches plus 200 lbs./sq.ft. for each additional 12 inches embedment to a maximum of 3000 lbs./sq.ft. Sliding Coefficient: 0.37 Settlement: Total = 3/4 inch Differential: 3/8 inch in 20 feet The above values may be increased as allowed by Code to resist transient loads such as wind or seismic. Building Code and structural design considerations may govern. Depth and reinforcement requirements should be evaluated by the Structural Engineer. Based upon the onsite soil conditions and information supplied by the 2016 CBC, conventional foundation systems should be designed in accordance with the following recommendations.  Contnuous footings for should be a minimum of 18 inches wide and extend to a depth of at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade. Footing reinforcement should minimally consist of four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two top and two bottom or two No. 5 reinforcing bars, one top and one bottom.  Conventional, slab-on-grade floors, underlain by “low” expansive soil, should be five or more inches thick and be reinforced with No. 3 or larger reinforcing bars spaced 15 inches on center each way. The slab reinforcement and expansion joint spacing should be designed by the Structural Engineer.  If exterior footings adjacent to drainage swales are to exist within five feet horizontally of the swale, the footing should be embedded sufficiently to assure embedment below the swale bottom is maintained. Footings adjacent to slopes should be embedded such that a least seven feet are provided horizontally from edge of the footing to the face of the slope. I I I I I I December 4, 2020 Page 5 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.  Isolated spread footings outside the footprint of the proposed structures should be tied with grade beams to the structure in two orthogonal directions.  A grade beam reinforced continuously with the garage footings shall be constructed across the garage entrance, tying together the ends of the perimeter footings and between individual spread footings. This grade beam should be embedded at a minimum of 18 inches. A thickened slab, separated by a cold joint from the garage beam, should be provided at the garage entrance. Minimum dimensions of the thickened edge shall be six (6) inches deep. Footing depth, width and reinforcement should be the same as the structure. Slab thickness, reinforcement and under-slab treatment should be the same as the structure.  Prior to concrete placement the subgrade soils should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content.  A moisture and vapor retarding system should be placed below the slabs-on-grade in portions of the structure considered to be moisture sensitive. The retarder should be of suitable composition, thickness, strength and low permeance to effectively prevent the migration of water and reduce the transmission of water vapor to acceptable levels. Historically, a 10-mil plastic membrane, such as Visqueen, placed between one to four inches of clean sand, has been used for this purpose. More recently Stego® Wrap or similar underlayments have been used to lower permeance to effectively prevent the migration of water and reduce the transmission of water vapor to acceptable levels. The use of this system or other systems, materials or techniques can be considered, at the discretion of the designer, provided the system reduces the vapor transmission rates to acceptable levels. 3.3. Seismic Design Parameters The following seismic design parameters are presented in Table 3.3 to be code compliant to the California Building Code (2016). The project site is considered to be Site Class "C" in accordance with CBC, 2016, Section 1613.3.2 and ASCE 7, Chapter 20. The site is located at Latitude 33.1633°N, and Longitude 117.3462° W. Utilizing this information, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) web tool (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps) and ASCE 7 criterion, the mapped seismic acceleration parameters SS, for 0.2 seconds and S1, for 1.0 second period (CBC, 2016, 1613.3.1) for Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) can be determined. December 4, 2020 Page 6 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Table 3.3 Seismic Design Criteria Mapped Spectral Acceleration (0.2 sec Period), SS 1.147g Mapped Spectral Acceleration (1.0 sec Period), S1 0.440g Site Coefficient, Fa (CBC, 2013, Table 1613.3.3(1)) 1.000 Site Coefficient, Fv (CBC, 2013, Table 1613.3.3(2)) 1.360 MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (0.2 sec Period), SMS 1.147g MCER Spectral Response Acceleration (1.0 sec Period), SM1 0.598g Design Spectral Response Acceleration (0.2 sec Period), SDS 0.764g Design Spectral Response Acceleration (1.0 sec Period), SD1 0.399g Using the United States Geological Survey (USGS) web-based ground motion calculator, the site class modified PGAM (FPGA*PGA) was determined to be 0.454g. This value does not include near- source factors that may be applicable to the design of structures on site. 3.4. Concrete Design and Corrosivity Testing Testing at the site indicates that the onsite soils will exhibit “Class S0 – Not Applicable” sulfate exposure when classified in accordance with ACI 318-14 Table 3.6. (per 2016 CBC). Some fertilizers have been known to leach sulfates into soils and increase the sulfate concentrations to potentially detrimental levels. It is incumbent upon the owner to determine whether additional protective measures are warranted to mitigate the potential for increased sulfate concentrations to onsite soils as a result of the future homeowner’s actions. Resistivity tests performed indicate that the onsite soils are corrosive to buried metallic materials. In the past on similar projects, corrosion protection typically consisted of non-metallic piping for water lines to and below the slabs or by installing above slab plumbing. Sampling from the onsite soils was performed and those samples were chemically analyzed for the major soluble salts commonly found in soils. Laboratory results are shown in Table 3.4. December 4, 2020 Page 7 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. Table 3.4 Corrosivity Testing Results Location pH Soluble Sulfates (% wt.) Soluble Chlorides (ppm) Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm) Garage Pad 8.0 0.017 64 2100 Garage Pad 7.8 0.011 53 1900 Test results determined by Clarkson Laboratory and Supply, Inc., Chula Vista, California. Test Methods: Soluble Sulfates per CA 417, Soluble Chlorides per CA 422, Minimum Resistivity per CA 643 3.5. Retaining Walls The following earth pressures are recommended for design of retaining walls proposed onsite. At rest earth pressures should be used in the design of restrained basement walls. Static Case Compacted Fill/Old Paralic Deposits (34° at 125pcf): Rankine Equivalent Fluid Level Backfill Coefficients Pressure (psf/lin.ft.) Coefficient of Active Pressure: Ka = 0.28 35 Coefficient of Passive Pressure: Kp = 3.54 442 Coefficient of At Rest Pressure: Ko = 0.44 55 Seismic Case In addition to the above static pressures, unrestrained retaining walls should be designed to resist seismic loading. In order to be considered unrestrained, retaining walls should be allowed to rotate a minimum of roughly 0.004 times the wall height. The seismic load can be modeled as a thrust load applied at a point 0.6H above the base of the wall, where H is equal to the height of the wall. This seismic load (in pounds per lineal foot of wall) is represented by the following equation: Pe = ⅜ *γ*H2 *kh Where: H = Height of the wall (feet) γ = soil density = 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) kh = ½ * peak horizontal ground acceleration Walls should be designed to resist the combined effects of static pressures and the above seismic thrust load. A bearing value of 3,000 psf may be used for design of basement walls. A value of 0.40 may be used to model the friction between soil and concrete. For sliding passive pressure both passive and I I I I I I I I I I I I December 4, 2020 Page 8 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. friction can be combined to a maximum of 2/3 of the total. Retaining wall footings should be designed to resist the lateral forces by passive soil resistance and/or base friction as recommended for foundation lateral resistance. To relieve the potential for hydrostatic pressure wall backfill should consist of a free draining backfill (sand equivalent “SE” >20) and a heel drain should be constructed. The heel drain should be place at the heel of the wall and should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated pipe (SDR35 or SCHD 40) surrounded by 1 cubic foot of crushed rock (3/4- inch) per lineal foot, wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi® 140N or equivalent). Proper drainage devices should be installed along the top of the wall backfill, which should be properly sloped to prevent surface water ponding adjacent to the wall. In addition to the wall drainage system, for building perimeter walls extending below the finished grade, the wall should be waterproofed and/or damp-proofed to effectively seal the wall from moisture infiltration through the wall section to the interior wall face. Retaining wall backfill and drains should be constructed in general conformance to RTW-A. Final design of the waterproofing should be determined by the Architect. December 4, 2020 Page 9 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. The retaining walls should be backfilled with granular soils placed in loose lifts no greater than 8- inches thick, at or near optimum moisture content, and mechanically compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. Flooding or jetting of backfill materials generally do not result in the required degree and uniformity of compaction and, therefore, is not recommended. The soils engineer or his representative should observe the retaining wall footings, backdrain installation and be present during placement of the wall backfill to confirm that the walls are properly backfilled and compacted. 3.6. Utility Trench Excavation All utility trenches should be shored or laid back in accordance with applicable Cal/OSHA standards. Excavations in bedrock areas should be made in consideration of underlying geologic structure. AGS should be consulted on these issues during construction. ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. RETAINING WALL ALT. A - SELECT BACKFILL VER 1.0 NTS WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE PROVIDEDRAINAGE SWALE D E S I G N GRA D E 1:1 (H:V) OR FLATTER H BACKCUTH/2 min. SELECT BACKFILL(EI 20 &SE 20) <> NATIVEBACKFILL(EI 50)< DRAIN (1) NOTES: DRAIN: (1) 4-INCH PERFORATED ABS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT SUBSTITUTE PLACED PERFORATIONS DOWN AND SURROUNDED BY A MINIMUM OF 1 CUBIC FEET OF 3/4 INCH ROCK OR APPROVED EQUIVALEN T SUBSTITUTE AND WRAPPED IN MIRAFI 140 FILTER FABRIC OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT SUBSTITUTE 12 in. min.. 'i ... -~ ! 4· 1··············1 .... . . i i -~ ,· i ef· : -✓. i \ ,i • -i ·"~ ·~ I : V. ! : . I .\ -~ i \ ef· ·1011 : ~ .... ~-,=~-----1·~-~ ILQJ ! ~~~ DETAIL RTW-A December 4, 2020 Page 10 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 3.7. Utility Trench Backfill Mainline and lateral utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by ASTM: D-1557. Onsite soils may not be suitable for use as bedding material but will be suitable for use in backfill, provided oversized materials are removed. No surcharge loads should be imposed above excavations. This includes spoil piles, lumber, concrete trucks or other construction materials and equipment. Drainage above excavations should be directed away from the banks. Care should be taken to avoid saturation of the soils. Compaction should be accomplished by mechanical means. Jetting of native soils will not be acceptable. 3.8. Exterior Slabs and Walkways 3.8.1. Subgrade Compaction The subgrade below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc. should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction as determined by ASTM Test Method: D 1557. 3.8.2. Subgrade Moisture The subgrade below exterior slabs, sidewalks, driveways, patios, etc. should be moisture conditioned to at or near optimum moisture content prior to concrete placement 3.8.3. Slab Thickness Concrete flatwork should be designed utilizing four-inch minimum thickness. 3.8.4. Control Joints Weakened plane joints should be installed on walkways at intervals of approximately eight to ten feet. Exterior slabs should be designed to withstand shrinkage of the concrete. 3.8.5. Thickened Edge Consideration should be given to construct a thickened edge (scoop footing) at the perimeter of slabs and walkways adjacent to landscape areas to minimize moisture variation below these improvements. The thickened edge (scoop footing) should extend approximately eight inches below concrete slabs and should be a minimum of six inches wide. 4.0 LOT IMPROVEMENTS Final site grading should assure positive drainage away from structures, and positive drainage away from structures should be maintained. The use of gutters and down spouts to carry roof drainage well away from structures is recommended. Planter areas should be provided with area drains to transmit irrigation and rain water away from structures. Raised planters should be provided with a positive means to remove water through the face of the containment wall. All exterior improvements should be designed and constructed by qualified professionals using appropriate design methodologies that account for the onsite soils and geologic conditions. The aforementioned December 4, 2020 Page 11 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. considerations should be used when designing, constructing, and evaluating long-term performance of exterior improvements. 5.0 LIMITATIONS This report presents information and data relative to grading operations for the subject site. A representative(s) of this firm probed and tested at random locations in an effort to determine whether compliance with the project compaction, specifications, and applicable Building Code was being obtained. The presence of our personnel during testing operations does not involve any supervision or direction of the contractor or his work forces. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully Submitted, Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. Prepared by: STEVEN L. JESSUP Staff Engineer Reviewed by: ______________________________________ __________________________________ ANDRES BERNAL, Sr. Geotechnical Engineer PAUL J. DERISI, Vice President RCE 62366/GE 2715, Reg. Exp. 9-30-21 CEG 2536, Reg. Exp. 5-31-21 Distribution: (1) Addressee (pdf) Attachments: References Table I - Compaction Test Results Plate 1 - Geotechnical Plan December 4, 2020 Page 12 P/W 1607-03 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. REFERENCES Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc., 2017, “Second Revised Geotechnical Investigation and Foundation Design Recommendations for Proposed Residential Multi-Family Podium Structure (800 Grand Ave.) and Single Family (Home Ave.), 800 Grand Project, Carlsbad, California”, dated December 28, 2017 (Report No. 1607-03-B-2R2). ---, 2018, “As-Graded Statement for Building Pad, 800 Grand Avenue Condominium Subdivision, Project No. CT 16-09, Carlsbad, California”, dated August 13, 2018 (Report No. 1607-03-D-10). ---, 2020, “Final Compaction Report, Site Improvements, Multi-Family Podium Structure (800 Grand Ave.) and Single Family Residences (849 Home Ave.), 800 Grand Project, Carlsbad, California”, dated July 31, 2018 (Report No. 1607-03-D-13). BHA, Inc., 2018, Grading Plans for 800 Grand Avenue Sheets 1 through 6 of 6, dated June 4, 2018 (Drawing No. 509-1A). December 4, 2020 P/W 1607-03 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TABLE 1 Page 1 of Table 1 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 SOIL TYPE DESCRIPTION OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (pcf) A Medium brown silty sand 8.9 130.7 C Brown silty sand 9.0 127.0 ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. December 4, 2020 P/W 1607-03 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TABLE 1 (cont'd) Page 2 of Table 1 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 TEST NUMBER/LOCATION/ELEVATION KEY S - Sewer Trench I - Irrigation Trench SD - Storm Drain Trench E - Electrical Trench JT - Joint Utility Trench W - Water Trench RTW - Retaining Wall FTG - Footing FG - Finish Grade SG - Subgrade CG - Curb and Gutter Subgrade B - Base AC - Asphalt Concrete Finish Grade BC - Asphalt Concrete Base Course CC - Asphalt Concrete Cap Course -R,R1,R2 - Indicates Retest * Rock Correction- Estimated Percent Retained on #4 Sieve (Method A) or 3/4 inch (Method C), Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content adjusted per ASTM D 4718 Depth Moisture Dry Density Rel.Proj.Test Pass Test or Soil Rock (%)(pcf)Comp.Spec.Type or Date Number Location Elev.Type Corr.*Opt.Field Max.Field (%)(%)(S/N)Fail 07/13/18 101 800 Grand Pad - North 58 A 8.9 10.1 130.7 119.3 91 90 N Pass 07/13/18 102 800 Grand Pad - North 59 A 8.9 9.5 130.7 120.4 92 90 N Pass 07/13/18 103 800 Grand Pad - North 60 A 8.9 9.4 130.7 118.2 90 90 N Pass 07/13/18 104 800 Grand Pad - North 61 A 8.9 6.3 130.7 113.8 87 90 N Fail 07/13/18 104-R 800 Grand Pad - North 61 A 8.9 9.3 130.7 118.7 90 90 N Pass 07/16/18 105 800 Grand Pad - West 56 A 8.9 1.1 130.7 116.4 89 90 N Fail 07/16/18 105-R 800 Grand Pad - West 56 A 8.9 10.3 130.7 122.3 93 90 N Pass 07/16/18 106 800 Grand Pad - West 57 A 8.9 9.7 130.7 121.1 92 90 N Pass 07/16/18 107 800 Grand Pad - West 58 A 8.9 9.9 130.7 120.6 92 90 N Pass 07/16/18 108 800 Grand Pad - West 58.5 A 8.9 10.0 130.7 121.7 93 90 N Pass 07/17/18 109 800 Grand Pad - Northwest 57 A 8.9 9.4 130.7 119.2 91 90 N Pass 07/17/18 110 800 Grand Pad - Northwest 58 A 8.9 10.0 130.7 119.9 91 90 N Pass 07/17/18 111 800 Grand Pad - Northwest 59.8 A 8.9 10.3 130.7 122.3 93 90 N Pass 07/26/18 132 800 Grand Pad - South 58.5 A 8.9 11.2 130.7 123.2 94 90 N Pass 07/26/18 133 800 Grand Pad - South 58 A 8.9 12.0 130.7 121.7 93 90 N Pass 07/26/18 134 800 Grand Pad - South 57 A 8.9 10.7 130.7 119.4 91 90 N Pass 07/26/18 135 800 Grand Pad - South 58 A 8.9 13.3 130.7 115.3 88 90 N Fail 07/26/18 135-R 800 Grand Pad - South 58 A 8.9 10.5 130.7 121.7 93 90 N Pass 07/26/18 136 800 Grand Pad - South 60 A 8.9 9.7 130.7 122.2 93 90 N Pass 07/30/18 139 800 Grand Pad - North 60 A 8.9 8.9 130.7 119.3 91 90 N Pass ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC. December 4, 2020 P/W 1607-03 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS TABLE 1 (cont'd) Page 3 of Table 1 Report No. 1607-03-C-14 TEST NUMBER/LOCATION/ELEVATION KEY S - Sewer Trench I - Irrigation Trench SD - Storm Drain Trench E - Electrical Trench JT - Joint Utility Trench W - Water Trench RTW - Retaining Wall FTG - Footing FG - Finish Grade SG - Subgrade CG - Curb and Gutter Subgrade B - Base AC - Asphalt Concrete Finish Grade BC - Asphalt Concrete Base Course CC - Asphalt Concrete Cap Course -R,R1,R2 - Indicates Retest * Rock Correction- Estimated Percent Retained on #4 Sieve (Method A) or 3/4 inch (Method C), Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content adjusted per ASTM D 4718 Depth Moisture Dry Density Rel.Proj.Test Pass Test or Soil Rock (%)(pcf)Comp.Spec.Type or Date Number Location Elev.Type Corr.*Opt.Field Max.Field (%)(%)(S/N)Fail 07/30/18 140 800 Grand Pad - North 60.5 A 8.9 9.4 130.7 122.4 93 90 N Pass 07/31/18 143 800 Grand Pad - Seepage Pit 58 A 8.9 9.7 130.7 121.5 92 90 N Pass 08/02/18 150 800 Grand Pad - West 58 A 8.9 9.1 130.7 121.3 92 90 N Pass 08/02/18 151 800 Grand Pad - South 59.5 A 8.9 10.9 130.7 122.4 93 90 N Pass 08/03/18 152 800 Grand Pad - East 58 C 9.0 9.0 127.0 118.9 93 90 N Pass 08/03/18 153 800 Grand Pad - East 59.5 C 9.0 9.2 127.0 121.2 95 90 N Pass 08/03/18 154 800 Grand Pad - East 61.5 C 9.0 10.0 127.0 120.4 94 90 N Pass 08/06/18 155 800 Grand Pad - Southeast 59 C 9.0 10.1 127.0 122.7 96 90 N Pass 08/06/18 156 800 Grand Pad - Southeast 61 C 9.0 9.4 127.0 124.0 97 90 N Pass 08/09/18 157 800 Grand Pad - Southeast 59 C 9.0 9.8 127.0 120.5 94 90 N Pass 08/09/18 158 800 Grand Pad - Seepage Pit 56 C 9.0 10.3 127.0 121.2 95 90 N Pass 08/10/18 159FG 800 Grand- Northwest FG A 8.9 9.0 130.7 123.7 94 90 N Pass 08/10/18 160FG 800 Grand-Southwest FG A 8.9 9.8 130.7 121.4 92 90 N Pass 08/10/18 161FG 800 Grand-Southwest FG A 8.9 9.7 130.7 124.9 95 90 N Pass 08/10/18 162FG 800 Grand- South Lobby FG A 8.9 10.0 130.7 120.7 92 90 N Pass 08/10/18 163FG 800 Grand- Northeast FG C 9.0 10.2 127.0 119.4 94 90 N Pass 08/10/18 164FG 800 Grand- Southeast FG C 9.0 9.4 127.0 121.6 95 90 N Pass ADVANCED GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS, INC.