HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS 2021-0002; JUNIPER BEACH HOMES; FINAL SOILS REPORT; 2023-11-27
27 November 2023
RINCON HOMES Job No. 20-13022
5315 Avenida Encinas, Suite 200
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attn: Mr. Kevin Dunn
Subject: Report of Final Grading Observations and Soil Testing
Rincon Homes - Juniper Avenue Residential Project
295 Juniper Avenue
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. Dunn:
Per the request of your site project manager, Mr. Chad Longo, and as required by the
City of Carlsbad, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. hereby presents this report of
additional grading observations and soil testing performed for the subject project
between November 22, 2022, and October 17, 2023. For the location of the subject
site, refer to Figure No. I, the Vicinity Map. The earthwork presented in this report
is in conformance to the recommendations presented in our Report of Preliminary
Geotechnical Investigation dated January 7, 2021. Our firm has also issued the
following reports or letters for the project:
Response to Third-Party Reviewer (First), Project No. 9500.1; Log No. 21630;
dated November 18, 2021; and
Structural Foundation Plan Review; dated February 2022.
Report of Rough Grading Observations and Soil Testing; dated November 30,
2022.
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
1. As previously stated, we are reporting the additional observations and testing
performed between November 22, 2022, and October 17, 2023. The building
pad rough grading information can be found in our report dated November 30,
2022.
2. Our representative observed and tested the backfill placement for the interior
water utility trench located within the building pad that runs parallel to unit 2
and enters into units 1 and 3 to the north. The backfill placement for the
4~~-Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERING • GROUNDWATER • ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
7420 TRADE STREET• SAN DIEGO, CA. 92121 • (858) 549-7222 • FAX: (858) 549-1604 • EMAIL: geotech@gei-sd.com
Rincon-Juniper Avenue Project Job No. 20-13022
Carlsbad, California Page 2
interior plumbing line trenches for the 4 building pads were also observed and
tested for the recommended degree of compaction.
3. The final footing excavation bearing soils for the 4 building pads were observed
by our representative on different dates and were found to be in suitable
recompacted fill soils. A footing memo was issued to the
contractor/contractor’s representative for the observed and approved footing
excavations.
4. The curb subgrades located in the paver driveway were observed and tested
to the recommended degree of compaction. The ribbon gutter subgrade
located in the middle of the driveway was hand-probed. The hand-probing
yielded suitable firm/dense results. A field density test was also performed to
confirm the recommended degree of compaction.
The curb and gutter subgrade located on Juniper Avenue was observed and
tested. Recycled base material placed on top of subgrade soils at this location
was also observed and tested to the recommended compaction.
5. The paver driveway subgrade was observed and tested by our representative.
It was noted that the driveway consisted of 6 inches of ¾-inch-diameter
crushed rock followed by the 4-inch-thick choker course of No. 57 rock followed
by 2 inches of No. 8 bedding sand, all on top of the soil subgrade per the civil
grading plan details. The No. 8 bedding sand was also placed between paver
voids. The base grade was observed and tested for the recommended degree
of compaction.
The soil subgrades for pavement of the joint utility trenches in the street
(Juniper Avenue) were observed and tested for the recommended degree of
compaction. The recycled base material was tested to the recommended
degree of compaction. The placement of the ¾-inch-diameter 3B3-PG64-10
(supplier: Vulcan) asphalt concrete material was observed and tested to the
recommended degree of compaction.
6. New flatwork improvement areas around the perimeter of the project were
hand-probed. The hand-probing yielded suitable firm/dense soils. The
sidewalk area subgrade soils located on the east side of Juniper Avenue and at
the front of the project were observed and tested to recommended degree of
compaction.
7. The driveway approach subgrade soils (between the driveway and street) were
observed and tested. The contractor placed recycled base material on top of
the subgrade soils and the base layer was also tested to the recommended
degree of compaction.
Rincon-Juniper Avenue Project Job No. 20-13022
Carlsbad, California Page 3
8. The Juniper Avenue pavement subgrade, base grade, and base layer for the
asphalt concrete were observed and tested to the recommended degree of
compaction. The contractor placed 6 inches of recycled base material over the
soil subgrade followed by placement and compaction of the ¾-inch-diameter
asphalt concrete mix (3B3-PG64-10). The final lift of the asphalt concrete
consisted of Type III C-3½-inch asphalt concrete mix (supplier: Superior
Ready Mix).
SOIL TESTING
Representative soil samples were collected during the grading to determine
laboratory maximum dry density of the soils per ASTM D1557-12e1. Field density
tests were performed at approximate locations plotted on Figure No. II, Plot Plan and
Site-Specific Geologic Map, in accordance with ASTM D6938-17a. The complete list
of field density tests results is shown as Table A of Figure Nos. IIIa-d, and laboratory
soil compaction test results are shown as Table B of Figure No. IIIe.
Equipment used for grading and compaction consisted of an excavator and min-
excavator with a compaction sheep’s foot wheel, skid steer, vibratory steel drum
roller, and pneumatic hand tampers. Water was added, when needed, to increase
soil moisture. Field density tests yielded a relative compaction of at least 90 percent
(95 percent at specified locations) of the maximum dry density at the tested locations
with the recompacted fill soils moistened approximately to or over the optimum
moisture content.
On-site and imported soil materials were used during the observed backfill and field
density testing. In general, the on-site soils consisted of gray/reddish brown, and
orange/reddish brown silty sand and the imported soils consisted of dark brown silty
sand, and recycled base material or as previously described. The existing on-site
yielded expansion index (E.I.) values of 2 and 5, and the imported soils were visually
classified to be of low expansion potential per our experience with similar soils. The
Hveem values used to determine the wet density of the asphalt concrete was provided
to us by the asphalt concrete plant.
Proper finish surface drainage for the site is to be implemented by the general
contractor prior to completing construction. Approximate limits of the graded areas
are shown in the attached Plot Plan, Figure No. II.
SITE SUITABILITY AND COMPLIANCE
The observed and tested areas of the project site are in our professional opinion
suitable for their intended use. The dense formational soils are in our professional
opinion suitable to support any recompacted fill or pavement components, new
exterior improvements, and vehicular loads.
Rincon-Juniper Avenue Project Job No. 20-13022
Carlsbad, California Page 4
We certify that the geotechnical engineering aspects of the grading are in compliance
with the approved plans and geotechnical report.
LIMITATIONS
The findings and opinions presented herein have been made in accordance with
currently accepted principles and practice in the field of geotechnical engineering in
the City of Carlsbad. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is made.
All statements in this grading report are applicable only for the grading operation
observed and tested by our firm. The firm Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. shall
not be held responsible for fill soils placed without our observations and testing at
any other time, or subsequent changes to the site by others, which directly or
indirectly cause poor surface or subsurface drainage, water erosion, and/or alteration
of the strength of the compacted fill soils.
It is not within the scope of our services to provide quality control oversight for
surface or subsurface drainage construction or retaining wall sealing and base of wall
drain construction. It is the responsibility of the contractor to verify all surface and
subsurface drainage including proper wall sealing, geofabric installation, protection
board installation (if needed), drain depth below interior floor or yard surfaces, pipe
percent slope to the outlet, etc.
This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions
regarding this letter, please contact our office. Reference to our Job No. 20-13022
will help expedite a response to your inquiry.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION, INC.
_______________________________
Jaime A. Cerros, P.E.
R.C.E. 34422/G.E. 2007
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
______________________________
Richard A. Cerros, P.E.
R.C.E. 94223
n ,-. r-~AA""\""\/,-,-""\f"\f"\,
tit
VICINITY MAP
Rincon Homes
Juniper Avenue
Residential Development
295 Juniper Avenue
Carlsbad, CA.
Figure No. I
Job No. 20-13022
SITE
Thomas Guide San Diego County Edition pg 1106-E5
w ~ KNOWLES AV _ _j_ci
?ii Ul D• U ::,0 U.. o "VISA¼:,,., w LJ. 0 0 ~•J
a: w ~~I-' s: a:o.. ~~
POINT 2 SCENl1 3 LOREl 4 SAND
Geotechnical Exploration, Inc.
Indicates Tree RemovedApproximate Limits of
Removal and Recompaction
1
3
4
2
5
7
6
9
10
23
16
20
13
28
12
15
19
14
27
26
25
24
18
30
11
8
29
21 22
49
41
35 39 36
37
38 40
42
3334
43
32
31
63
77
71
81
59
66
62
60
61
72 80
67
76
54
68
53
73
64
69
78
45
46
56
55
44
51
47
57
52
58
50
48
17
56
75 79
65
70
74
Sewer Trench Location
Interior Plumbing Trench Location
212
515
414
1
CYLINDER
CISTERN
No. 2
( removed)
CYLINDER
CISTERN
No. 3
( removed)
CYLINDER
CISTERN
No. 4
( removed)
CYLINDER
CISTERN
No. 1
( removed)
Old Paralic Deposits, units 6-7
Artificial FillQaf
6
Qop
Geologic Legend
Qaf
6
Qop
Qaf
6
QopQaf
6
Qop
Qaf
6
Qop
Qaf
6
Qop
Qaf
6
Qop
Qaf
6
Qop
Bottom of Excavation
Elevation (feet)
53.0’
53.0’53.0’
53.0’
53.0’
53.0’
51.0’
53.0’
53.0’
53.0’
53.5’
53.5’
53.0’
52.0’
53.5’
53.5’
49.0’
51.0’
49.0’
53.0’Bottom of Cistern
Elevation (feet)
20-13022-p3.ai
Rincon Homes
Juniper Avenue
Residential Development
295 Juniper Avenue
Carlsbad, CA.
Figure No. II
Job No. 20-13022
PLOT PLAN AND
SITE SPECIFIC
GEOLOGIC MAPLegend
REFERENCE: This Plot Plan was prepared from an existing undated
GRADING PLAN by PASCO LARET SUITER & ASSOCIATES
and from on-site field reconnaissance performed by GEI.
NOTE: This Plot Plan is not to be used for legal
purposes. Locations and dimensions are approximate.
Actual property dimensions and locations of utilities
may be obtained from the Approved Building Plans
or the “As-Built” Grading Plans.
November 2023
JU
N
I
P
E
R
A
V
E
N
U
E
GRAPHIC SCALE (Feet)
Area Not Over-Excavated
or Reworked as of 10-5-22
81
Water Trench Location
Approximate Location of
Field Density Test
s:
0
EXISTING BLOCK L EXISTING OFFS/TE
WOOD FENCE TO
POR LOT 3 BLOCK R 57.4 EG
157.5 FG
°'
30'
EXISTING 6" AC 111:A TER
M,/',IN PER DWGi 170-6
TORr MAIN
9 STA. 4+51.94 -20,qo RT
.; /.7/E
EXISTft<f,G WATER r--L
SERV/Cf & METE
TOBtREMOVE
56. TC
5 °5FL • 13
I EXISTING 6" VG SEWER v~
MAIN PER DWG. / 17-2
TO REMAIN
EX~TING MU , 'ALL T BE
I
REMO'(ED
60' \ • 30'
I
5
l
j
20% ~
~
\ LA
\
561k
4
\
5.5'
"
"
I 56.5FG
,4 11
I I
• I I I :c
-~
~ rc:=J 8 1 lo <,..
~ I
8 .~
l r.Q
I I <1
I
4.5'
10'
LA
.,.
\
/
10.1'
LA
0
'"'
1►
I
•
17
•
~ --I ~ U WA j oc)[:~.UGA ~~ S Q11\IG X
SD ----S -_· -SD ~~Q~SiDD~---SD --SD ---SD --SD// SD --0 ~ C, ~ 17 _56.85HP .
"" LA AP p()p * -l=__j--_
1 0 x
>< ------
SD SD •
>< --
'" I rt"'t5~i-=-~-------1:----,------'---.....&...----f-i::::+=Lx=::±.
56.9FG
56.4 TG 2
55.9 IE
56.5 TG 20
56.0 IE
LIMIT OF ROOF
LINE ABOVE (TYP.}
57.4 FS '----
57.2 FS • 56.9 FG
END 6" X 28' FLUSH
CURB; SEE DETAIL
SHEET4 • 56.9FG
56.1 FS
UNIT 1
FF= 57.6
-... -PA&--~ -
PVT 6" PVC
SHARED SEWER
LATERAL (TYP.)
l .9FG
•
I ----1 56.9 FG
~~1 1
I
I
I
I
56.9FG
56.BFS
----------
• ......
.9FG
56.5 FS I
56.7 FS
------
I - - -I
I PVT 4' ,l'--vl ,=u --~
SEWER
LATERAL (TYP.} • 3
---G ---l G ~--;-'-,-'
17
5.5' I:.' H---""'-----t~-ec
55.6FL
NEW 20' Wld,E PCC DWY 5 ,4
q)
J I
Ul 54.lFS IS
"'
• •
• 2.Q% P' ~
• 54.6FL f I
, 55.1 TC i_
t EXISTING SEWER . 6_
~ LATERAL TO BE.~t.r=::_~~--~J.,:__::::-i-.._____
: REMOVED I •
STA'-. 3-+-98r-_9~5--1-4.2-.9R""Ta?.....,~
CONNEC'f'TO EXISTING ' i 1-1-'ATER MAIN
12 STA. 3+94.45 -14.20_RT
CONNEC1f TO EXISTING
wWA TER MAIN,
STA. 3+91.95-14.11 RT
CONNECl!T. -TO EXISTING
WATER MAIN
12 STA. 3+.89.45 ~14.02 RT
CONNEC·l·T. TO EXISTING WATER MAIN '.
,Cll
I
53.9 FL
,20' TO TC
Ir,
I
9 STA. 3+72.10-20.00 RT
53.3 IE
5 STA. 3, 66.61 -20.00 RT
:.::
~
LA
5.5'
I~
sj I LA
2.0% END CURB & GUTTER
TO'MATCH EXITING
l~f'ROVEMENTS;
(53t 5 TC);(53.15 FL) J ,snNG PCC CURB, ' -"
GUTTER, & SIDEWALK
rt) 5' TO REMAIN
~ C~!1N~!NG~~~J3AD w
GIW>DIG PLIJra JOB:
GR 2001-0036
JUNIPER BEACH HOMES
295 JUNIPER AVENUE
PUD 2021-0002
I APPRO'wm: J"5CN s. GEl.DERT I
ENGN:ERNG WNW.ER RC£ 63912 Df'IRfS 9/;,ct/22 DAlE
lblffi SY: ::12L.I F'Ro.ECT NO. DRAWING NO.
Clf<D BY!__ MS2021-0002 533-7A ,RVWD BY: __ _
PASCO LARET SUITER
& ASSOCIATES
San Diego I Solana Beach I Oranee County
Phone 858.259.8212 I www.plsaengineering.com
I
I
•
LA
56.4 TV" FG
54.68W
10.0' FYSB C') ...
11.5'
,..
56.5 FG
56.9FG
ROUTE 4X WATER
SERVICES IN A JOINT
TRENCH
1'BACKFLOW
(TYP)
57.2FS
56.9FG
LA J_ --
><
56.3TG(]) IL 54.2 IE
SD SD
-------
56.4 TW FG -56.4ml FG ,(53.9 BW@EG)
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT /No
CONNECTION VALVE TO REMAIN
\ (54 0 BW@EG)
G ~IL EXISTIN'c, f ENCE I
TO REMAIN
•
r --
L -_J
•
s
56.3FS
56.9FG ..._ -
APPROX. LOCATION
PVT JOINT WATER
SERVICE TRENCH •
3 ---I APPh-~
L J u
WATER SERVICE POC TO
BUILDING (TYP.) 1 _
I
I _________ ...
•
56.9FG
56.5 FL
•
LA
I
(')
AC CONDENSER
(TYP.) I
LIMIT OF ROOF
LINE ABOVE (TYP.)
EXISTING OFFS/TE
BLOCK WALL TO
REMAIN
I
I
v SD
. -. -. _4---'-___,_ '.D :--:-::;::~SD .-:-::;::~SD ---0)
L()
56.9 TW FG
155.0 BW@f'G) rt: CL co
....
1
BLOCK WALL m ..-
56.5 FS
56.9FG
56.55 FS ---
4
t
56.9FG
56.7FS
56.9FG
PVR LOT 2 BLOCK R
PALISADES #2 MAP 1803
..----5 0 5
----
■■■■■■
---
r --,
I • --
I
56_gTG 20
56.4 IE
15
57.2 FG
56.9 FG
56.8 FS
•
J"' u:: '-----'f----'
57.2 FG
I
AC CONDENSJR
(TYP.} I
I
I
I
APPROX LOCATION
WATER SERVICE POC I
--
"' ~
LA "' I~
u I
L.. -
I
I
I
-1
I
"O
i --
0
I UNIT 3
I FF=57.9
f AD = 57.2
------
15'
7 ~
--~ gm_/ ,-----1
NO:::>
~I~
·'\
..
I
u
57.1 EG C
j
18'
LAU
0
( ~· i--_ ► _ ~U~!W'P.
7
____ _ I -----lffl,Rffll ..I
SEPARATE PLANS (f) .
>< 17 LU
• 57.4FG
56.6 FS
57.0 S
56.8 FS
56.5 FS
57.2 FG
7
57.2FG
56.7 FS
57.2 FG
-
APf ROX.
Lcf;A TION OF
JOr,JT TRENCH
Fc;fl DRY UTILITIES
3
3
57.0 FS
57.1 FS
9t 57.0FS
57.2FG
57.2 FG
57.0 FS
PVT 4' PVC
SEWER LATERAL _j_ __ (T~-j _ ----
•
1
I
I
le
I
I
I
I
I
D
0
4,
L
( I
I UNIT4
FF= 57.9 I PAD= 57.2 I
I
r -1 .
I I
I 572Fl
I 57. FL
4
CONSTRUCT
PCC WALKWAY
57.0FS
15' ~ 57.0 EG
j
LA
r--.
t-,~r---17
.Xh-,_-H-X!---'--r,-'-h! 1 !r,9x_~-x,--➔,
y ~
>< o.:,· • /.
LA
56.9FS
"_'7'-L I ~ 1 ~ s1.orn,: FG
CONSTRUCT
PCC WALKWAY I (57.0 BW@EG)
-""T:O!'m!V (TYP.) .1 17 I r PER SEf ARA TE A
(LANS .....,...__-+-_J I
/I,~ I
'/ I ' 57.2FG I
I
I LIMIT OF ROOF
LINE ABOVE (TYP.)
I
I
I 57.2FG
•
I
LA
~"'
' ~"'
EXISTING
r OFFS/TE BLOCK
WALL TO REMAIN
/ ~
57.1 ll~ FG
(56.0 BW@EG)
17.5' RYSB
57.3 TW FG
L - -_J -= (56.1 BW@EG)
(55.4 EG)
---... .,_
57.2TW FG
(55.2BW@EG)
LA
/59.3 TW) 51:
(55.0 TW@EG} '-.._
(53.4 B W@EG) _
EXISTING---.,_
OffSITE BLOCK '-....
WALL TO REMAIN
4~ ~
..()
L() ---
57.3 TW rn
/55.8 BW@EG)
"--
Geotechnical
57.4 HP
---------------(.; -· .-------...
56.1 FG
Exploration, Inc.
N
"--
V _)<_
EXISTING
OFFS/TE BLOCK
WALL TO REMAIN
i--L()
A <8ORLOT2
BLOCK R
PALISADES #2
MAP 1803
i--
57.25 TW
(57.1 TW@EG)
(56.7 BW@EG)
CD m
CD
L()
II
~
57.0 TW
(56.5 TW@EG)
CD (56.4 BW@EG)
N co
CD
L()
I
~ ~
D L()
N
(!)
L()
I■■■■■■
PAriCEL 1
PM16596
TABLE A
Approximate Water Dry Degree of
Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction
No. Date of Test Test Location (Feet) (%) (pcf) (%) Curve No. Remarks
1 8/30/22 Fill Placement Unit #1 52 7.3 120.1 92 2
2 8/31/22 Fill Placement Unit #1 54 9.5 118.9 91 2
3 8/31/22 Fill Placement Unit #1 54 9.8 119.3 91 2
4 9/1/22 Fill Placement Unit #2 54 7.6 121.4 93 2
5 9/1/22 Fill Placement Unit #2 54 7.9 120.0 92 2
6 9/1/22 Fill Placement Unit #1 55 9.2 117.6 90 2
7 9/2/22 Fill Placement Unit #1 56 8.2 119.1 91 2
8 9/2/22 Fill Placement Unit #1 56.9 9.3 121.8 93 2
9 9/6/22 Fill Placement Unit #4 54 8.4 120.7 93 2
10 9/7/22 Fill Placement Unit #4 54.5 7.9 119.3 91 2
11 9/7/22 Fill Placement Unit #4 55 8.8 118.2 91 2
12 9/12/22 Fill Placement Unit #3 53 7.4 119.7 92 2
13 9/12/22 Fill Placement Unit #3 54.5 8.1 118.2 91 2
14 9/12/22 Fill Placement Unit #1/#2 51 9.3 120.0 92 2
15 9/12/22 Fill Placement Unit #3 51 8.9 121.0 93 2
16 9/12/22 Fill Placement Unit #3 53 7.8 119.2 91 2
17 9/12/22 Fill Placement Unit #2 54 8.6 119.6 92 2
18 10/5/22 Fill Placement Unit #2 56 9.1 118.4 91 2
19 10/5/22 Fill Placement Unit #3 55 11.0 117.0 90 2
20 10/5/22 Fill Placement Unit #4 56 10.8 119.8 93 3
21 10/5/22 Retaining Wall Backfill 56.5 9.4 117.6 91 3
22 10/5/22 Fill Placement Unit #4 57 11.6 120.1 93 3
23 10/7/22 Fill Placement Unit #3 57.2 7.3 118.4 91 3
24 10/7/22 Fill Placement Unit #1 56.9 8.1 118.6 92 3 Finish Grade
25 10/7/22 Fill Placement Unit #4 57.2 9.4 117.8 91 3 Finish Grade
Job No. 20-13022
Figure No. IIIa
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1556 and/or ASTM D6938)
Notes: 1) Curve number refers to Table B
2) FSG denotes finish subgrade elevation
3) FBG denotes finish base grade elevation
4) FPG denotes finish pavement grade
TABLE A
Approximate Water Dry Degree of
Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction
No. Date of Test Test Location (Feet) (%) (pcf) (%) Curve No. Remarks
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1556 and/or ASTM D6938)
26 10/7/22 Fill Placement Driveway area 55 8.6 120.1 93 3 Street left low
27 10/7/22 Fill Placement Driveway area 55 8.8 118.2 91 3 Street left low
28 10/10/22 Fill Placement Unit #2 56.9 7.1 119.0 92 3 Finish Grade
29 10/20/22 Water Trench Tie-in 50.5 6.0 126.8 97 2
30 10/20/22 Water Trench Tie-in 52 5.8 123.6 95 2
31 10/26/22 Sewer Trench Backfill 52.2 8.9 116.2 90 3
32 10/27/22 Sewer Trench Backfill 54.7 7.0 124.0 95 2
33 10/27/22 Sewer Trench Backfill 49.9 9.7 123.4 95 2
34 10/27/22 Sewer Trench Backfill 53.2 6.9 126.7 97 2
35 10/27/22 Sewer Trench Backfill 51.2 10.9 117.7 90 2
36 10/27/22 Sewer Trench Backfill 53.5 12.6 117.2 90 2
37 10/28/22 Sewer Trench Backfill 52 9.2 122.2 94 2
38 10/28/22 Sewer Trench Backfill 54 10.9 119.9 92 2
39 10/28/22 Sewer Trench Backfill 53 11.5 119.0 91 2
40 10/28/22 Sewer Trench Backfill 50 8.3 125.2 96 2
41 11/22/22 Water Trench Backfill 54.9 8.4 125.1 96 2
42 11/23/22 Water Trench Backfill 55 6.9 123.0 95 3
43 11/23/22 Water Trench Backfill 55.5 7.8 121.8 94 3
44 11/28/22 Interior Plumbing Trench Backfill 56.9 4.5 124.4 95 2
45 11/28/22 Interior Plumbing Trench Backfill 56.9 6.1 125.2 96 2
46 11/28/22 Interior Plumbing Trench Backfill 56.6 6.8 127.2 98 2
47 11/28/22 Interior Plumbing Trench Backfill 56.9 6.0 126.0 97 2
48 11/28/22 Interior Plumbing Trench Backfill 57 6.7 125.0 96 2
49 8/28/23 Curb Subgrade FSG 4.8 124.8 96 2
50 8/28/23 Curb Subgrade FSG 3.6 125.1 96 2
Job No. 20-13022
Figure No. IIIb
Notes: 1) Curve number refers to Table B
2) FSG denotes finish subgrade elevation
3) FBG denotes finish base grade elevation
4) FPG denotes finish pavement grade
TABLE A
Approximate Water Dry Degree of
Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction
No. Date of Test Test Location (Feet) (%) (pcf) (%) Curve No. Remarks
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1556 and/or ASTM D6938)
51 8/28/23 Curb Subgrade FSG 5.7 123.8 95 2
52 8/29/23 Curb Subgrade FSG 6.6 126.7 97 2
53 8/31/23 Curb and Gutter Subgrade FSG 7.7 124.8 96 2
54 9/1/23 Curb Gutter Base Grade FBG 13.5 124.5 106 4
55 9/6/23 Driveway Subgrade FSG 5.1 128.7 99 2
56 9/6/23 Driveway Subgrade FSG 5.0 129.1 99 2
57 9/6/23 Driveway Subgrade FSG 5.2 128.4 98 2
58 9/6/23 Driveway Subgrade FSG 5.1 127.1 97 2
59 9/8/23 Base Placement FBG 10.8 112.2 96 4 Juniper Ave
60 9/8/23 Street Subgrade FSG 6.1 124.8 96 2 Juniper Ave
61 9/8/23 Asphalt Concrete Placement FG 0.0 144.1 96 5 Juniper Ave
62 9/8/23 Asphalt Concrete Placement FG 0.0 145.0 97 5 Juniper Ave
63 9/8/23 Asphalt Concrete Placement FG 0.0 143.5 96 5 Juniper Ave
64 9/18/23 Sidewalk Subgrade FSG 5.1 123.6 95 2
65 9/27/23 Curb and Gutter Base Grade FBG 13.1 111.0 95 4
66 9/27/23 Curb and Gutter Base Grade FBG 10.8 112.2 96 4
67 9/29/23 Driveway Approach FSG 4.8 127.0 97 2 Subgrade
68 10/2/23 Driveway Approach FBG 13.8 111.7 95 4 Base grade
69 10/16/23 Juniper St Subgrade FSG 8.4 123.8 95 2
70 10/16/23 Juniper St Subgrade FSG 7.8 124.1 95 2
71 10/16/23 Juniper St Subgrade FSG 9.1 123.4 95 2
72 10/16/23 Juniper St Base Grade FBG 10.4 112.1 96 4
73 10/16/23 Juniper St Base Grade FBG 11.8 111.9 95 4
74 10/16/23 Juniper St Base Grade FBG 10.0 113.4 97 4
75 10/16/23 Juniper St Asphalt Concrete FG-1.25 0.0 141.5 95 5
Job No. 20-13022
Figure No. IIIc
Notes: 1) Curve number refers to Table B
2) FSG denotes finish subgrade elevation
3) FBG denotes finish base grade elevation
4) FPG denotes finish pavement grade
TABLE A
Approximate Water Dry Degree of
Test Elevation Content Density Compaction Compaction
No. Date of Test Test Location (Feet) (%) (pcf) (%) Curve No. Remarks
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1556 and/or ASTM D6938)
76 10/16/23 Juniper St Asphalt Concrete FG-1.25 0.0 143.0 96 5
77 10/16/23 Juniper St Asphalt Concrete FG-1.25 0.0 144.0 96 5
78 10/17/23 Juniper St Asphalt Concrete FG 0.0 141.3 95 6
79 10/17/23 Juniper St Asphalt Concrete FG 0.0 144.0 97 6
80 10/17/23 Juniper St Asphalt Concrete FG 0.0 143.3 96 6
81 10/17/23 Juniper St Asphalt Concrete FG 0.0 143.0 96 6
Job No. 20-13022
Figure No. IIId
Notes: 1) Curve number refers to Table B
2) FSG denotes finish subgrade elevation
3) FBG denotes finish base grade elevation
4) FPG denotes finish pavement grade
Job No. 20-13022
Figure No. IIIe
TABLE B
LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1557)
Compaction Maximum Optimum
Test Source of Dry Density Water Content
Curve No. Description of Material Material (pcf) %
C-1 (SM) SILTY SAND, Gray and Red-Brown On-Site 125.2 9.5
C-2 (SM) SILTY SAND, Orange and Red-Brown On-Site 130.4 7.7
C-3 (SM) SILTY SAND, Dark Brown Import 129.4 9.0
C-4 RECYCLED BASE Import 117.2 12.0
C-5 VULCAN ¾” AC 3B3 PG64-10 Import 149.5* 0.0
C-6 SUPERIOR READY MIX TYPE III C-3 ½” Import 148.6* 0.0
*Hveem values are based off of the wet density and do not have an optimum water content.