HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS 04-07; 952 PINE AVENUE CONDOMINIUMS; REPORT OF SOIL INVESTIGATION; 2007-02-214 SOIL & TESTING, INC. San Dieo Office Indio Office
. PHONE P.O. Box 600627 PHONE
(619) 280-4321 (760) 775-5983
S • San Diego, CA 921600627% /
83-740 Citrus Avenue
Suite G
6280 Riverdale Street (877) 215-4321
( S1I San Diego, CA 92120 FAX
Indio, CA 92201-3438
(619) 280-4717 www.scst.com (7.60) 775-8362 ww.scst.cdm
S
I
•• • .
•
. REPORT-OF SOIL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED PINE AVENUE '
GARAGES •
952:pINE AVENUE S.
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
• . .
S
PREPARED FOR:
REMAX S
MR. JOHN PUHEK
• - 1645 tAPALINA ROAD1 SUITE 800
SAN MARCOS, CALIFORNIA 92068 •
-
-
PREPARED BY: .
-. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING1 INC.
6280 RIVERDALE STREET nob SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92120 ,
•
• Providing Pro fessionél Engineering Services Since 1959 .•
. • S
••
.
•
S ••
•
.
S
. •
.
S : . .
5 SOIL & TESTING INC. San DiegoOffice Indio Office
P H 0 N E P.O. Box 600627 PH ONE 83-740 Citrus Avenue 0 ' 2°0-4321 (760) 775-5983 Sin Diego, CA 92160-0627
. Suite G TOLL FREE (877) 215-4321 6280 Riverdale Street (877) 215-4321 Indio, CA 92201-3438 SF AX San DiegoCA92120 FAX (619) 280-4717 www.scst.com (760) 775-8362 - www.scst.com
February 21, 2007 - SCS&T No. 0711001
Report No. 2
Mr. John Puhek
Remax.
1645 Capallna Road, Suite 800
San Marcos, California 92068
Subject: REVIEW Of FOUNDATION PLANS
S PROPOSED PINE AVENUE GARAGES
952 PINEAVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
.
Reference: 1. "Report of Soil Investigation, Proposed pine Avenue Garages, 952 Pine.A venue,
Carlsbad, California," prepared by Southern-California Soil and Testing; Inc.; dated January 24, 2007; (SCS&T No. 0711001-1)
Dear Mr. Puhek:
In accordance with a request from Robin Chriss, this letter has been prepared to verify that we have
reviewed the foundation plans (Sheets A-04, A-05, A-06 and A-i 0) prepared by 4 Design Architure and Planning for the subject project, dated January 6, 2007.
The plans were found to be in accordance with the recommendations provided in the referenced
report.
This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated.
.• - - S.
ReecttuIIy submitted, . . . .
& TESTING, INC.
S
•
•. •
Vicetc
(3) Addressee •
(1)4 Design Architecture & Planning
• .
.
S
S
• 2
4 SOIL & TESTING, INC. . San Diego Office Indio Office
P H 0 N E
4321
P.O. Box 600627 PHONE 83-740 Citrus Avenue
• (619) 20 (760) 775-5983 San Diego, CA 92160-0627 Suite G S (877)215-4321 6280 Riverdale Street
z Indio, CA9220l-3438 W •/ 'j/ San Diego, CA 92120 FAX
(619) 280-4717 'www.scst.com (760) 775-8362 www.scst.com
.
:.>- •': ; - . .
January 24, 2007 - . SCS&T No. 0711001
Report No. i
Mr. John Puhek . .
- Remal . . .
1645 Capalina Road, Suite 800
. .. San Marcos, California 92068
Subject: REPORT OF SOIL INVESTIGATION . .
PROPOSED PINE AVENUE GARAGES . 'H 952 PINE AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr.. Puhek:
In accordance with your request, we have completed a preliminary soil Investigation for the
subject project. The findings and recommendations of our study are presented herewith.
• I . .
.. .. If you have any questions after reviewing the findings and recommendations, contained in the
attached report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of
. professional service is sincerely. appreciated. . .
. .
Respec I Efrfifttq
.SOUT AUI N, SOIL & TESTING, INC.
• • *
• .. .•
-
EX. - - 8 • • . • • • I • • • .
• . -
D else' . 7 • ..
•' I,.
. Vice P es
,
CAU0 - . . • S
• •
.
•
•
DBA:kv, • . • . I S • •
(6) Addressee • ,.
• S. . I -
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
, .' PAGE
S ..
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................... 1
PROJECT SCOPE ................. . ......................... ... ................ ..............................................................
.
•
FINDINGS ...................................................... . ..................................................................................... 2
3.1 . SITE DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................................
•. ...............2 3.2 SOIL DESCRIPTION ................. ........................................................................................................ .2
- 3.3 . GROUNDWATER' ..........................................................I .................................................................2
- 4. CONCLUSIONS.............. ................................... . .................................................... . ........................... 2
5. RECOMMENDATIONS .............. . ................................................................................... .................. 3
5.1 GRADING.......................................................................................................................................
/ 5.1.1 Site Preparation ................................................................................... .................................3
5.1.2 Surface Drainage ................................ . .................. ................................................................ 3. 5.1.3 Earthwork ............................................................................................................................. 3
5.2 FOUNDATIONS...............................................................................................................................4 5.2.1 General ...................................... ....................... . ..................................................................... 4 5.2.2 Reinforcement.......................................................................................................................
5.2.3 Site Seismicity.............................................................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
... 4 ' . 5.2.4 Settlement characteristics ..... .................................. . ............................... . ............................ 5 5.2.5 . Expansive Characteristics ...................................... . .............................................................. 5 5.2.2 Foundation Excavation Observation................................................................................... .. 5 5.3 SLABS-ON-GRADE ..........................................................................................................................s 5.4 EARTH RETAINING WALLS ....................................................................................... . ....................... 6 5.4.1 Foundations ............................. ................................................... . .................................. ......6 5.4.2 Passive Pressure .... ................................................................................................................6
5.4.3 Active Pressure ..................................................... .................................................................. 6 . 5.4.4 FaOtor of Safety ............................................... . ......................................... . ........................ ......6
6. LIMITATIONS ............... ..................................................................................... ....................... . ........ 6,
S • p6.1 REVIEW, OBSERVATION AN TESTING..........................................................................................6 6.2 UNIFORMITY OF CONDITION ........................................................................................................7 6.3 CHANGE IN SCOPE ............................ ....................................................................................... ....... 6.4 TIME LIMITATIONS ...................................................................................................................
... 7 6.5 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD ............................................................................ ................................7 6.6 CLIENT RESPONSIBILITY ....................................................... ............................................................ 8
7. FIELD EXPLORATION ........ ......................................................................... . ................................... 8
8. LABORATORY TESTING.. ............................ .......................................... .......... ............................... 9
ATTACHMENTS FIGURES Figure 1 . Site Vicinity Map
PLATES . • S. • •
Plate 1 . Site Plan S
Plate 2 Unified Soil Classification • . . Plates 3 & 4 Boring Logs, •
Plate 5 Single Point Consolidation • . '. •
I •
• •;•
S
• 'S • • •.
I • .. -
•1
I.. SOIL INVESTIGATION:
PROPOSED PINE AVENUE GARAGE
952 PINE AVENUE ..
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
1, INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
'. This report presents the results of our soil investigation for the proposed garages to be
constructed at 952 Pine Avenue in the citj, of Carlsbad, California. The site location is shown on
- Figure No. 1.
.
.
.
.
. .
It is our understanding that the subject project will consist of four, single story.garage structure.
The structures will be of wood-frame and masonry constructipn. Shallow foundations and
conventional concrete slab-on-grade floor systems are proposed. '• 'S ...
.:
To assist in the preparation of this report; we were provided with a site grading plan prepared by
bHA, Inc., dated July 14, 2006. In addition, we have reviewed the following reports prepared by
Southe,n California Soil & Testing, Inc.: .. .. . S .
1. uReport of In-Place-Density Tests, Borrow Fill Area Backfill, Proposed 4 Unit Apartment
.
. Building", dated December 30, 1988 (SCS&T No. 9921153, Report No. 2);
.
2, uReport of Field Observation and Relative compaction Tests,, Proposed - 4 Unit
Apa-trnent Building" dated October 5, 1988 (SCS&T No. 831153, Report No. 1).
. - . 2. PROJECT SCOPE
The investigation consisted of: surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, obtaining
representative disturbed and undisturbed samples, labbrator' testing, analysis of the field and
.
laboratory data, and preparation of this report. More specifically; the intent of this analysis was
to: . S ' -. •. . .
a) Explore the subsurface conditions.
Evaluate the engineering properties of the various strata that may influence the
•
-
• proposed development, including bearing capacities, expansion characteristics and
settlement potentials.
I &
Mr. John Puhek - ' : ., January 24, 2007 Proposed Pine Avenue Garages SCS&T No. 0711001-1 952 Pine Av., Carlsbad, CA Page 2
Addess potential construction conditions- that may be encountered due' to subsurface
,conditions, or groundwater, and provide recommendations concerning these conditions.
Develop geotechnical engineering criteria' for site preparation.
S
Recommend an' appropriate foundation system for the, type of structure anticipated and
develop geotechnical engineering design criteria for the recommended' fouhdation
system,
. , • 3 FINDINGS'
3.1 SITE DESCRIPTION
' The subject site is located'at' 952 Pine' Avenue in the city of Carlsbad, California.' The
rectangular-shaped site is bounded on the south by Pine Avenue, and is 'otherwise bounded by
residential developments. The kkt is presently occupied by single story residential structures.
Topographically, the' site is relatively level with an average elevation of 65 feet mean sea level
(rnsl). Existing vegetation 'consists of a grass lawn, small bushes and trees.
-
3.2 SOIL DESCRIPTION.
The subject site is underlain by fill and terrace deposits. This fill cbnsists of dark brown and light
brown, humid, medium dense, silty sand. The fill extends to a depth of about 2 to 2Y2 feet
below existing grade. The -fill is underlain by terrace deposits consisting Of light reddish-broin,
humid to moist; medium'dense to ver' dense, silty sand.
.'.. 3.3 GROUNDWATER.
No groundwater was observed in the borings. Seepage can occur after construction on a site,
even where none'was present before construction. This is bften the result of an alteration in
- . drainage patterns and an increase in irrigation water. Local seepage can be most effectively
'addressed on an individual basis if and when it occurs.
.
. S '
.. . ' .- 4. . CONCLUSIONS,.
- , * In general, no geotechnicalconditions were encountered which-would preclude the construction
of the proposed garages as. presently proposed, provided the recommendations presented
herein árefolloved. .'
.
. i•
•
: -
The site is underlain by fill soils to a depth of about 21/2 'feet.. This material was placed In -
conjunction with the construction of the existing improvements. Some 0f this material was
placed as part of mass grading. operations and some was placed afterward Based on the
information in our files, it is assumed that the fill is properly compacted.. -
a ' ' ,
Mr. John Puhek - January 24, 2007 Proposed Pine Avenue Garages sçs&T No. 0711001-1 952 Pine Av., Carlsbad, CA .'.
, . . . Page 3
, 5. RECOMMENDATIONS .. . . S
5.IGRADING.
5.1.1 Site Preparation . . . . . .
4
.. .
Site preparation should, begin with the demOlition of existing improvements from,. proposed
building areas. The resulting debris as well as any existing vegetation and- deleterious
matter should be disposed of properly.: It is recomtnended that the existing fill
, soils be.
scarified to a depth of 12 inches, watered thoroughly and compacted to at least 90 percent
relative compaction. The maximum dry density .and optimum moisture content for the
determination of relative compaction should be. determined in 'accordance with ASTM D-
557, Method A or C. All references to optimum moisture coptent and relative compaction in ..
this report are based on this test method: Fill should be placed in. 6- to 8-inch thick loose lifts
'and compacted to at least 90 percent 'relative cçmpa'ction..
5.1.2 Surface Drainage .. ' . . .•
The drainage around the proposed improvements should be designed to- collect' and direct
surface water away from proposed- improvements toward appropriate drainage facilities.
It is imperative that the drainage around the improvements be designed to collect and direct
surface water away from the improvements and toward appropriate drainage de'ices. Rain'
'
gutters with downspouts ,that discharge runoff away from the strictures into controlled
drainage devices are recommended....
- . . . .
The ground around. the proposed improvements should be graded so -that surface water
flcws rapidly away from the improvements, without ponding; In general, werècommend that
the 'ground adjacent to structures be sloped away, at a gradient of at least .2 percent.
Densely vegetated areas where runoff can be impaired should hive a minimum gradient of
at least 5 percent within the first 5 feet from the structure. - ...
'Drainage patterns provided at the time of fine grading should be-.maintained throughout the.
life, of the proposed' improvements. Site, irrigation should be limited to the. minimum,
necessary to sustain landscape growth, and over-watering should. be avoided. Should
excessive-irrigation, impaired drainaçge, or unusually high rainfall occur, zones of wt or
saturated soil may develop. • . , .
5.1.3 Earthwork
All earthwork and grading. contemplated for site preparation should be accomplished in
accordance with the attached' Recommended Grading Specificatidns and Special
--
/
" Mr. John Puhek : January 24, 2007 Proposed Pine Avenue Garages SCS& T No. 0711001-1
. 952 Pine Av., Carlsbad, CA
. . Page 4 -
Provisions. All special site preparation recommendations presented in the sections above
supersede thosd in the standard Recommended Grading Specifications. Fill should be.
'.compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction at cir slightly over optimum moisture
content. Utility trench backfill within. 5 feet of the road bed surface shoyld be compacted. to a
minimum of 90 percent relative, compaction. • the. upper 12 inches of subgrade beneath
payed areas shduld be cornacted to 95 percent relative compaction.
5.2 FOUNDATIONS - •.. S •
5.2.1. Gefleral
Shallow foundations founded in competent terrace deposits may be utilized for the support
of the proposed structures. The footings should have a minimum depth of 12 inches below'
lowest adjacent-finish pad grade and a minimum width of 15 and 24 inches is recommended
for continuous and'isolated footings, respectively. A bearing capacity of 1500 pounds per
square foot (psf) may be assumed for said footings. The' bearing capacities may be
increased by 1/3. when considering wind or seismic forces.
5.2.2 Reinforcement . . .. .
Both exterior and interior continuous footings should be reinforced with at least two No. 5
bars positioned near the bottom of te footing and at least two No. 5 bars positioned near
the top of the-footing. This reinforcement, is based on soil. characteristics and is not intended
to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural considerations. .
5.2.3 Site Seismicity .
A geologic hazard likely to affect the site is groundshaking as a' result of movement, along
one of the main strands of the active fault zones mentioned above. As per the 2001
California Building Code (CBC), the following 'information is presented for the subject site.1
• • Seismic Zone 4: Z=0.40 '
Source Fault: Rose Canyon Fault • '• .
• Seismic SourceType: B
Soil ,Profile Type: S. '. • • . .
Distance to Seismic. Source: = 4.0 kilometers
Near-Source Factor Na=l .1 • •
• • Near-Source Factor-K=1.3 5
•
Probable groundshaking levels at the'sie could range from 'slight to strong depending on
such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is
• .likely that the site will experience the effects of at leasf one moderateto large earthquake
during the life of the structures. • •. •
&
n Mr. John Puhek
. .. - . . January 24, 2007 Proposed Pine Avenue Garages - . . SCS&T No. 0711001-1 952 Pine Av., Carlsbad, CA . .. Page 5.
• 5.2.4 Settlement Characteristics . S
The anticipated total and/or differehtial settlements for the proposed structures may be
assumed to :be '1 inöh and % inch provided the recommendations presented in this report
are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks. normally occur in concrete slabs
and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or reditribution of stresses and some
cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive
vertical movements.
5.2.5 Expansive Characteristics,
The prevailing foundation soils were judged 'to be nonØetrimentall expensive. The
recommendations contained in this report assume this condition.
5.2.2 Foundation Excavation Observation
It is recommended that all foundation excavations be approved by a representative from
SCS&T prior to forming or placement of reinforcing steel.
5.3 SLABS-ON-GRADE
Concrete slabs-on-grade should have a thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with at least No.
4 reinforcing bars placed at .18 inche on-center each Way. -, Slab reinforcement should be
placed approximately at mid-height of the slab and should extend at least 6 inches down into
-
the footings. Slabs-on-grade should be underlain by a 4-inch thick blanket of clean, poorly
graded, coarse sand (sand equivalent— 30 or greater) or crushed rock. This blanket should
consist of no more than 20 percent and, 10 percent passing thd #100 and #200 sieves,
respectively. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, vapor retardant should be
placed over the sand layer. An additional 2 inches of sand should be placed over the vpor
retardant. Typically, plastip is used as a vapor retardant. If plastic, is used, a minimum .1 0-mil is•
recommended., The 'plastic :5h0u1d comply with ASTM E 1745: Plastic installation should
comply with ASTM E 1643. '• S
It is our understanding that • the moisture protection layer described above will': allow the
-
transmission of 6 to 12 pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day through the slab under
normal conditions. Moisture emissions may vary widely depending upon factos such as
concrete type and .subgrade moisture conditions. If this amount of moisture is xcessivé,,.
additional recommendations will be provided by this office. It is recommended thét moisture
emission -tests be performed prior to the placenint of floor coverings to ascertain whether
moisture emission values are within the manufacturer's specifications.. In addition, over-watering
I '
'
Mr. John Puhek January 24, 2007
- Proposed Pine Avenue Garages SCS&T No. 0711001-1 952 Pine Av., Carlsbad, CA' - Page 6'
shoild be avoided, and good site drainage should be established and maintained to prevent the
build-u'of excess sub-slab moisture.
. . ... . .
5.4 EARTH RETAINING WALLS
•5.4.1 Foundations
..
The recommendations provided in the foundation section of this report are also applicable to
earth retaining structures.
.. . - '••
5.4.2 Passive Pressure '. . • .
, .
- The- passive pressure fo(the prevailing soil conditions may be considered to be 350 psf per
foot of depth. This pressure may be increased .1/3 for seismic loading. The coefficient1of
friction for, concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.30 'for the resistance to lateral
•
movement; When combining 'frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be
reduced by 1/3. The upper 12 inches of soil should 'not be considered when calculating
passive pressures for exterior walls. . ... . .'
* . - 5.4.3 Active-Pressure
The active soil pressure for the design, of unrestrained earth retaining structures with level
'
backfills may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 38 pcf. For
. restrained Walls, an equivalent fluid pressure of 58 pcf may be assumed. These pressures . *
do not consider any other surcharge loads. If any are anticipated, this office, should, be
contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. These values assume a granular and
drained backfill' condition. Waterproofing specifications and details should bd provided by
the project architect. A typical wall subdrain detail is provided on the attached ,late No. 5.
5.4.4 Factorof Safety ' , . . '•' •
The above values, with the exception of the, allowable bearing. pressure, do ,not include a
factor of safety. Appropriate factors of safety should be incornorated intO the design to
prevent the wallsfrombvertuming and.slidin'g.
- •
6. LIMITATIONS • • , ' •
'. -
. 6.1 REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING, . .' •-. . • • ,
I '
'The recommendations presented in this report are.contingent upon our review Of final plans and
•
- specifications.., Such plans. and specifications should be 'made available to the geotechnical
en'gineer and engineering geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this
- report and the California Building Code. .' •' , * • *
*
.
.
*
I
I
*
I
Mr. John Puhek .' , ' . January 24, 2007 Proposed Pine Avenue 'Garages SCS& T No. 0711001-1 952 Pine Av., Carlsbad, CA . .. ' Page 7
It is recommended that SCS&T be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services
during the earthwork operations. This is to verify, compliance with the design concept,'
specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface
conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction.
6.2 UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
The recommendations and Opinions expressed, in -this, re0ort reflect our best estimate of the '
project, requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at
the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not
deviate appreciabl' from those encoLinteréd. It should be recognized that the performance of
the foundatiohs and/or cut and. fill slopes may be influenced by jundisclosed or .unforeseen
variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and Unexplored areas. Any
unusual conditions not covered in this report thatmay be encountered during site development
should be brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may. make
màdifications if necessary. .. •. .•' .
6.3 CHANGE IN SCOPE
This 1office should be.advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site gradihg so
that we may'deterrTine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This Should
be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. .
.
Disturbed samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and returned to the
laboratory for testing-.' .- ' S S .'
•
64 TIME LIMITATIONS
The findings of this report are valid as of this date.. Changes' in the condition of a property can,
however, occur with the 'passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the work
of man on this or adjacent properties In 'addition,changes in,e standards-of-practice and/or,
government, codes may occur. Due 'to such changes, the findings, of this report may be
.
- invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond pur control. Therefàre, this report should not be
relied Upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability- of the
conclusionsand recommendations. - .
•
.
6.5 PROFESSIONAL STANDARD .' .
I. S - • '
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care., and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of our 'professi6n5currently practicing under similar conditions•
and in the same locality. - The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those
I • • / . •
. ••
S • /
- S
Mr: John Puhek S •JanUar 24, 2007 Proposed Pine Avenue Garages - SCUT No. 0711001-1 952 Pine Av., Carlsbad, CA Page 8
- encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys,, and explorations are thade, and' that
our data, interpretations, and recommendations be based solely on the infQrmation obtained by
We will be responsible-for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not
be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information develoed.. Our services
consist of 'professional consultation 'and observation only, and no warranty of any 'kind
- whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to
be performed by us, 0r by ou'r proposal for consulting or other services; or by our furnishing of
oral or written reports or findings. ' .5
6.6 CLIENT RESPONSIBILITY'
,•, :,.
, . . -
It is the responsibility of the client, or their representatives, to ensure that the' information and
recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and
architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further
their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure, that the contractor and his
, subcOntra'ctOrs' carry out such recommendations. during construction.
'
' , 7. FIELD EXPLORATION' '
13
-- __ ,,a £L.., I----------_1. -- IIL IWO small uiameer uoliflys were UFIIIU 011 .jdflUdry IU, ZUUI dt L1i IU(dLIUflb Ir1uILdteu On IIdL
No., 1. The fieldwork was conducted under the observation of our engineering, personnel.
- The borings were carefully logged when niade. These logs are presented on Plate Nos. 3 and
4. The soils are described in accordance with' the Unified Soil' Cléssification System as ; illustrated on the attached simplified chart on Plate No. 2. In addition,, a verbal 'textural
description, -the wet color, the apparint moisture and the density or consistency aé provided.
The density of granular soils is given as very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense.
The consistency of silts or clays is given as very soft, soft, medium, stiff; stiff, very stiff, or hard.
Disturbed and "undisturbed" samples of typical and representative soils were obtained and
returned to the laboratory ,for testing. - Disturbed ,and "undisturbed" samples of typical and
representative soils were obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing. Representative
undisturbed core samples were obtained by means of a split tube sampler driven into the soils by
-means of a 140-pound weight free failing a distance of 30 inches. The number of blows required
to drive the sampler is.indicatOd on the boring logs as "penetration blows/ft. of drive".
Mr. John Puhek S Januay 24, 2007 Proposed Pine Avenue Garages SCS&T No. 0711001-1 952 Pine Av., Carlsbad, CA I Page 9
8.. LABORATORY TESTING'S .-
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted Americain. Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. 'A brief description of
the tests performed is presented below:
CLASSIFICATION: Field classification'S were verified in the laboratory by visual
examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil
Classification System. '
.
.
MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and. dry densities were determined
for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and
prmitted recognition of variations in material consistency, with depth. The dry ,unit
weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-place moisture content is
determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The rsults are sum mariied in the
boring logs.
SINGLE POINT CONSOLIDATION TESTS: Single point consolidation tests were
performed on. selected "undisturbed". samples. The consolidation, apparatus' was
designed to accommodate a 1-inch high by 2.375-inch or 2500-inch diameter soil
sample laterally confined by a brass ring. Porous stones were placed in contact with the
,. top and bottom of the sample to permit the' addition or, release of pore fluid during tèsting Selected loads'were applied to the samples and the resulting deforniations were
recorded. The percent consOlidation is reported as the ratio of the,amoUnt of vertical
compression to the original sample height. The test samples were inundated to
'. determine their behavior under the anticipated loads as soil ,moisture increases. The
results of these tests are presented on Plate No. 5.
•
S. -
. S . . • . - I
.
• . • - .• , . 1'
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP
SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES
1. COARSE GRAINED, more than half of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size.
GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no tines.
More than half of coarse
fraction is larger than No. 4 GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel sand mixtures, little or no fines.
sieve size but smaller than 3'.
GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixtures.
(Appreciable amount of lines)
GC Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand, clay mixtures.
SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand, gravelly sands, little or no tines.
More than half olcourse
fraction is smaller than No. 4 SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines. sieve size.
SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands, poorly graded sand and silty mixtures.
(Appreciable amount of fines)
SC Clayey sands, poorly graded sand and clay mixtures.
II. FINE GRAINED, more than half of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.
SILTS AND CLAYS ML inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, sandy silt
Liquid Limit less than 50 or clayey-silt-sand mixtures with slight plasticity.
CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,
gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays.
OL Organic silts and organic silty clays or low plasticity.
SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous tine
Liquid Limit greater than 50 sandy or silty soils, elastic silts.
CH . Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays.
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity.
lii. HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils.
- Water level at time of excavation or as indicated CK - Undisturbed chunk sample
US - Undisturbed, driven ring sample or tube sample 0 - Bulk Sample
SC - Sand Cone DS - Direct Shear
CON - Consolidation SA - Sieve Analysis
El - Expansion index P1 - Plasticity Index
MS . Maximum Size of Particle RC - Relative Compaction
MAX - Maximum Density UC - Unconfined Compression
ST - Shelby Tube TX - Triuxial Compression
SPT . Standard Penetration Sample RS - Ring Shear
AL - Atterberg Limits
pH - pH & Resistivity RV - R Value
SF/CL - Sulfate & Chloride
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 952 PINE AVENUE
BY: DBA DATE: 1/18/2007 SOIL & TESTING, INC.
JOB NUMBER: 0711001-1 PLATE NO: 2
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NUMBER B-I
Date Excavated: 1/10/2007 Logged by: DBIMM
Equipment: CME 55 Project Manager N/A
Surface Elevation (ft): 65 Depth to Water (ft):
AM LLbI
C
Cl) I- Cl) o W
co 0 • >-
a. _
0 i- SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
CO ca UJ
Z D
D
2 1/2 inches asphaltic concrete
SM FILL: Light brown, humid, medium dense, SILTY SAND
y
? US29/6" 5.2 119.4 SPC
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: Light, reddish-brown, humid, very dense,
- 4 SILTY SAND
us 89/11" 4.1 113.4
-6 us 84
-8 USI 191/11"
usi I 80
1-12 Boring ended at 10 1/2 feet
I- 14
1- 16
18
L 20
Zr-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 952 PINE AVENUE
SOIL & TESTING, INC. 1BY: DBA 'DATE: 1-18-07 Itt-I
, I
JOB NUMBER: 0711001-1 I PTE NO.: 3 I
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NUMBER B-2
Date Excavated: 1/10/2007 Logged by: DBi MM
Equipment: CME 55 Project Manager N/A
Surface Elevation (ft): 65 Depth to Water (ft):
SAMPLES
z
c U CL
Cl) W F-
I
a. SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
W >-
0
CO W
Z
z WOO 0
- 2 1/2 inches asphaltic concrete - - -
SM FILL: Dark brown, humid, medium dense, SILTY SAND, -
-2
'7 US 51
SM - -------------------
TERRACE DEPOSITS: Light, reddish-brown, moist, medium
dense to densem, SILTY SAND
-6
Gravel Us 29 7.5 110.5 SPC
?
- - -
Dense
8
110,
US 44
US 1 69 1. 9.3 107.7
Boring ended at 10 1/2 feet
-12
-14
-16
18
-20—
952 PINE AVENUE
I BY:
NUMBER: 0711001-1 1 PLATE NO.: 4
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
: DBA JDATE: 1-18-07 SOIL & TESTING, INC. BY
SINGLE POINT CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE NO. BI @ 2.5' B2 @ 6'
INITIAL MOISTURE (%) 5.2 7.5
INITIAL DENSITY (PCF) 119.2 110.5
CONSOLIDATION BEFORE WATER ADDED (%) 1.6 0.8
CONSOLIDATION AFTER WATER ADDED (%) 2.4 0.8
FINAL MOISTURE (%) 11.8 14.8
AXIAL LOAD (KSF) 2.86 2.86
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 952 PINE AVENUE
SOIL & TESTING, INC. DBA DATE: 1/18/2007
0711001-1 IFIGURENO