The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCUP 99-30; CANNON COURT; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 1999-12-10I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CoNSTRUCTION lksTING & ENGINEERING, INC. SAN DIEGO, CA . RIVERSIDE, CA . VENTURA,CA . TRACY,CA 2414 Vineyard Ave. 490 E. Princeland Ct. 1645 Pacific Ave. 242 W.Larch SuiteG Suite 7 Suite 105 SuiteF Escondido, CA 92029 Corona, CA 91719 Oxnard, CA 93033 Tracy, CA 95376 (760) 746-4955 (909) 371-1890 (661) 486-6475 (209) 839-2890 (760) 746-9806 FAX (909) 371-2168 FAX (661) 486-9016 FAX (209) 839-2895 FAX GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CANNON COURT DEVELOPl'vfENT CANNON COURT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: MR. JOHN BUZA WEST DEVELOPMENT, INC. P O BOX 676066 RANCHO SANTE FE, CA 92067 Prepared by: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2414 VINEY ARD A VENUE, SUITE G ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 . LANCASTER, CA 42156 10th St. W. UnitK Lancaster, CA 93534 (661) 726-9676 (661) 726-9676 FAX CTE JOB NO. 10-37150 DECEMBER 10, 1999 GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CoNSTRUCTION TEsnNG & ENGINEERING, INC. SAN DIEGO, CA 2414 Vineyard Ave. SuiteG Escondido, CA 92029 (7<i41) 746-4955 '. 999 (760) 746-9806 FAX Mr. John Buza West Development, Inc. P O Box 676066 Rancho Sante Fe, Ca 92067 . RIVERSIDE, CA 490 E. Princeland Ct. Suite 7 Corona, CA 91719 (909) 371-1890 (909) 371-2168 FAX Subject: Geotechnical Investigation . Proposed Cannon Court Development APN 223-051-12 Cannon Court Carlsbad, California Mr. Buza: VENTURA,CA . TRACY,CA . LANCASTER, CA 164S Pacific Ave. 242 W. Larch 4215610th St. W. Suite !OS SuiteF UnitK Oxnard, CA 93033 Tracy, CA 9S376 Lancaster, CA 93S34 (661) 486-6475 ::; :~A/ob ~.;f~ZJ 5 (661) 486-9016 FAX At your request, we have performed a geotechnical investigation at the referenced site to provide geotechnical recommendations for the proposed development. The attached report discusses the findings of our investigation activities and provides geotechnical recommendations for use during project design and construction. The project is considered feasible if the recommendations presented in this report are carried out. If you have any questions regarding our findings or recommendations, please do not hesitate to contact this office. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ane D. B , Geotechnical Engineering Manager J .nathan Goodmacher, CEG #2136 C • rtified Engineering Geologist GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................. 4 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Scope of Services ......................................................................................................... 4 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................................. 4 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................. 5 3 .1 Field Investigation ....................................................................................................... 5 3 .2 Laboratory Investigation .............................................................................................. 6 4.0 GEOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 6 4.1 General Setting ............................................................................................................. 6 4.2 Geologic Conditions .................................................................................................... 7 4.4 Geologic Hazards ......................................................................................................... 7 4.4.1 General Geologic Hazards Observation ........................................................ 7 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting ......................................................................... 7 4.4.3 Earthquake Accelerations ............................................................................. 8 4.4.4 Liquefaction Evaluation ................................................................................ 8 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 10 5.1 General ....................................................................................................................... 10 5 .2 Grading and Earthwork .............................................................................................. 10 5.3 Site Preparation .......................................................................................................... 10 5.4 Site Excavation ...................................................................................................... : ... 11 5.5 Fill Placement and Compaction ................................................................................. 12 5.6 Fill Materials .............................................................................................................. 12 5.7 Temporary Construction Slopes ................................................................................ 13 5.8 Foundations and Slab Recommendations .................................................................. 13 5.8.1 Foundations ................................................................................................. 14 5. 8 .2 Foundation Settlement ................................................................................ 14 5.8.3 Foundation Setback ..................................................................................... 15 5.8.4 Interior Concrete Slabs ............................................................................... 15 5. 9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures ...................................................................... 15 5.10 Seismic Loading Parameters .................................................................................... 17 5 .11 Exterior Flatwork ..................................................................................................... 17 5.12 Drainage ................................................................................................................... 17 5 .13 Vehicular Pavements ............................................................................................... 18 5 .13 .1 Asphalt Pavement ..................................................................................... 18 5.13.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements ...................................................... 19 5.14 Slopes ....................................................................................................................... 19 5 .15 Construction Observation ........................................................................................ 20 5 .16 Plan Review ............................................................................................................. 20 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................................ 21 C;\WISlX)WS\0£."it-nlP',NICOLn fOl..DU' UT .GEClncHSl<.".\LDOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I FIGURES FIGURE 1 SITE INDEX MAP FIGURE 2 EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP FIGURE 3 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL APPENDICES APPENDIX AREFERENCES CITED APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS APPENDIX CLABO RA TORY METHODS AND RESULTS C:1WIN[)()WS\OE.'l:li.TI)f'\NICOI.E8 FOWER\RPT _ OEOll:ClfNl(.'.\LOOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December 10, 1999 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pagel CTE Job No. 10-3715 This investigation was performed to provide site-specific geotechnical information for the proposed commercial structures and associated improvements. This project is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint if the recommendations presented in this report are implemented. Our investigation found that the proposed building pad areas are directly underlain by thin fills and topsoil which in turn is underlain by Quaternary terrace deposits. Fills and topsoil were found to consist generally of dry to moist, loose, silty sands with organic material. The terrace deposit materials consist generally of dry to moist, very dense, silty sands. Soils exposed within the upper two feet of existing grade were generally observed to be loose and dry with organic debris. Removal of these loose, organic soils will be necessary before construction may begin. Groundwater was encountered in two of our borings at depths of approximately 16 tbg (feet below grade). Although groundwater levels will likely fluctuate during periods of precipitation, groundwater is not expected to affect the proposed development if proper drainage controls are implemented and maintained. With respect to geologic and seismic hazards, the site is considered as safe as any within the San Diego County area. San Diego County is an area of moderate to high seismic risk. Based on the geologic findings and reference review no active surface faults are known to exist at the site. C: WISIXlW:f\DESI\TOl":-IICOU'8 FOL0£RIRJ"T_ GEOTECtr..1C.\LD0C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December 10, 1999 Page 4 . CTE Job No. 10-3715 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 1.1 Introduction This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation and provides conclusions and geotechnical engineering criteria for the proposed development. It is our understanding that the site is to be developed by constructing a hotel with underground parking, a restaurant. and market/service stations and associated improvements (e.g., utilities, landscaping, and parking areas). Specific recommendations for excavations, additional fill placement, and foundation design for the proposed structures are presented in this report. The investigation for this report included reference review, field exploration, laboratory testing, geologic hazard evaluation, and engineering analysis. Appendix A contains a list of references cited in this report. . 1.2 Scope of Services The scope of services provided included: • Review of readily available geologic and soils reports pertinent to the site and adjacent areas. • Exploration of subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. • Laboratory testing of representative soil samples to provide data to evaluate the geotechnical design characteristics of the soils. • Definition of the general geology and evaluation of potential geologic hazards at the site. • Soil engineering design criteria for the proposed improvements. • Preparation of this summary report (with geotechnical construction recommendations) of the investigations performed. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The site is located west of Interstate 5 and north of Cannon Road in Carlsbad, California. The site is bordered on the west by Amtrack railroad tracks, on the south by Cannon Road and Interstate 5 to C:IWINOClW!i" Of.Si,;illf' 'IC'Ol.ES FOLDEl:IRPT _ OEOTF.('IISJ(: \L DOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad. California December 10, 1999 Page 5 CTE Job No. 10-3715 the east. Currently the site is vacant with no existing buildings, however the site has been recently used to stockpile organic cuttings. The parcel elevations range from approximately 20 to 22 feet above mean sea level. Site drainage is to the west from a central, east-west trending, bladed swale accepting drainage from the interstate ramp. Figures 1 and 2 are maps showing the location of the site and the layout of the proposed construction. 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 3.1 Field Investigation Field exploration, conducted on November 1, 1999, included site reconnaissance and the excavation of seven borings to assess the condition of shallow soil materials. Borings were excavated, using a truck mounted drilling rig, to the maximum explored depth of approximately 46 feet below grade (fbg). Soils were logged in the field by a geologist and visually classified using the Unified Soil Classification system. The field descriptions have been modified, where appropriate, to reflect laboratory test results. Soil boring logs including descriptions of the soil, field-testing data, and supplementary laboratory data are included in Appendix B. Approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2. 3.1.1 "Undisturbed" Soil Samples "Undisturbed" soil samples were collected using a modified California-drive sampler (2.4-inches inside diameter, 3-inches outside diameter) lined with brass sample rings. Drive sampling was conducted in overall accordance with ASTM D-3550. The steel C:IWl!\'Pl)WS'·DE..'>i.:Ttll"-:,.tK'OlnfOLDER\RPT_GEOTECHNIC.',\LDOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December I 0, 1999 Page6 CTE Job No. 10-3715 sampler was driven into the bottom of the test pit with successive drops of a 30-pound weight. The soil was retained in brass rings (2.4-inches in diameter, 1.0-inches in height) and carefully sealed in waterproof plastic containers for shipment to the Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ("CTE") geotechnical laboratory. 3 .1.2 Disturbed Soil Samples Bulk soil samples were also collected for laboratory analysis. Bulk soil samples of boring cuttings were collected and sealed in plastic bags for transporting to the CTE geotechnical laboratory for analysis. 3 .2 Laboratory Investigation Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples for classification purposes and to evaluate physical properties and engineering characteristics. The following laboratory test was conducted: particle-size analysis, plasticity tests, In-Place Moisture/Density, direct shear, and modified proctor. Test method descriptions and laboratory results are included in Appendix C. 4.0GEOLOGY 4 .1 General Setting At an approximate elevation ranging from 20-30 feet above mean sea level (msl), the site lies within the near shore portion of the northern San Diego County area typified by marine terraces lying perpendicular to the modern coastline. The site topography slopes down to the west toward the Pacific Ocean. C:IWl:-ll)(>WSIDE.'it.:nlI"SICOU:'S fOLOEtllRPT _ OEOTECHNK'AL DOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December 10, 1999 4.2 Geologic Conditions Page 7 CTE Job No. 10-3715 Based on our investigation and geologic mapping compiled by Kennedy and Tan ( 1996) the site lies on Quaternary Terrace Deposits. Based on our explorations, surface and near surface soils at the site consist of very dense, silty sand terrace deposits which are overlain by intermittent piles of tree branches and other unsuitable organics. 4.3 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 16 feet in two of our exploratory excavations. Groundwater is not expected to affect the proposed development provided proper site drainage is provided. 4.4 Geologic Hazards 4.4.1 General Geologic Hazards Observation From our investigation it appears that geologic hazards at the site are primarily limited to those caused by violent shaking from earthquake generated ground motion waves. The potential for damage from displacement or fault movement beneath the proposed structures should be considered low. 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting Based on our site reconnaissance, evidence from our exploratory soil borings, and a review of appropriate geologic literature, it is our opinion that the site is not on known fault traces. The Rose Canyon Fault, approximately 5 miles to the west, is the closest zoned active fault l'.IWINDt)WSIDE.'O,;Tt)I" ,lCO(.ES FOLDER1.RPT _OEOTT.CIDill' U.DOC I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad. California December 10, 1999 Page8 CTE Job No. 10-3715 (Jennings. 1987). Other principal active regional faults include: the Coronado Banks, San Clemente. Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults. 4.4.3 Earthquake Accelerations We have analyzed the possible bedrock accelerations at the site using the computer program EQF AULT (Blake, 1996). For the intended use, it is our opinion that the most significant seismic events would be 6.9 moment magnitude earthquakes on the Rose Canyon Fault located eight (8) kilometers from the site. The Rose Canyon Fault is considered a seismic source Type B. 4.4.4 Liquefaction Evaluation Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths during earthquake induced shaking and behave as a liquid. This is due to loss of point-to-point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. Liquefaction potential varies with water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable intensity and duration of ground shaking. It is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction should be considered low in all areas of the project. This is based on the generally very dense nature of the soils and because there is apparently is no permanent shallow groundwater. C 1WIX()()W~"\DE.~I..Tc)l":-.;1ccll.n; FOU>ERlllPT _GEOTEl'lr.-.lCALDOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December 10, 1999 4.4.5 Seismic Settlement Evaluation Page9 CTE Job No. 10-3715 Seismic settlement occurs when loose to medium dense granular soils densify during seismic events. Due to the very dense nature of the underlying materials, it is our opinion that the potential for seismic settlement should be considered low in all areas of the project. 4.4.6 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation The potential for tsunami damage at the site is very low due to the distance from the ocean (approximately 1 mile) and elevation (greater than 20 feet above mean sea level). Damage caused by oscillatory waves (seiche) is considered unlikely, as the site is not near any significant bodies of water. 4.4.7 Landsliding Active landslides were not encountered and have not been mapped in the immediate area of the site (Tan and Giffen, 1995). Additionally, the underlying site materials are typically not susceptible to landsliding. Landsliding, therefore, is not considered a significant hazard to the proposed improvements. 4.4.8 Compressible and Expansive Soils Based on geologic observation, the underlying surficial site soil materials consist generally of dense silty sands generally exhibiting low compressibility and expansion characteristics. The surficial soils extending to a depth of one foot will require removal and recompaction. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December 10, 1999 Page 10 CTE Job No. 10-3715 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General We conclude that the proposed construction of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design of the project. Recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed structure are included below. The main factors affecting the proposed development is the presence of surficial topsoils and thin fills that are loose and contain organic material. 5 .2 Grading and Earthwork Upon commencement of construction, Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. should continuously observe the grading and earthwork operations for this project. Such observations are essential to identify field conditions that differ from those predicted by this investigation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to ensure that the grading is in overall accordance with the recommendations of this report. Our personnel should perform adequate observation and sufficient testing of fills during grading to support the Geotechnical Consultant's professional opinion regarding compliance with compaction requirements and specifications contained herein. 5.3 Site Preparation Before grading, the site should be cleared of any existing debris, existing buildings, and other deleterious materials. Surficially eroded, desiccated, burrowed, or otherwise disturbed soils should C:\W\NDt~~"\OESKTI)l":-.11Cot.£;i Ft)U)Ea\Rf"i' _ oamcm.1C.\l.DOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December I 0, 1999 Page 11 CTE Job No. 10-3715 be removed to the depth of the competent materials (estimated to be approximately two to three feet). Organic materials not suitable for structural backfill should be disposed of off-site or placed in non- structural planter or landscape areas. All organic materials excavated and removed should be disposed of at a legal disposal site. 5.4 Site Excavation Shallow excavations in site materials throughout most of the site should generally be accomplished with heavy-duty construction equipment under normal conditions, although localized dense zones may be encountered. It is recommended that proposed structures to be constructed on site be founded entirely on non- disturbed terrace deposits or entirely on recompacted structural fill. If founded on recompacted structural fill, excavations should be conducted such that a minimum of 18 inches of newly engineered fill is provided beneath the building envelope and that cleanout of all surficial deposits above the terrace deposits is performed. Overexcavation and placement of engineered fill should be conducted laterally to a distance of 5 feet beyond building limits. Ifloading docks or other deepened footings are proposed, additional excavation and recompaction should be performed in these areas to provide the 18 inches of recompacted fill beneath all structure footings. t.·:1WINDt)WS\DESl.:TI)f":O.ICOl.£'S fOU)EJ.IRPT_GEOttcllNIC:.\LDOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December 10, 1999 5.5 Fill Placement and Compaction Page 12 CTEJobNo.10-3715 The geotechnical consultant should verify that the proper site preparation has occurred before fill placement occurs. Following removal ofloose, disturbed soils and required overexcavations, areas to receive fills or concrete slabs on grade should be scarified, moisture conditioned to above optimum moisture content, and properly compacted. Fill and backfill should be compacted to a . minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D1557 at moisture content between 0 and 2 percent above optimum. The optimum lift thickness for backfill soil will be dependent on the type of compaction equipment used. Generally, backfill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness. Backfill placement and compaction should be done in overall conformance with geotechnical recommendations and local ordinances. 5.6 Fill Materials Low expansive soils derived from the onsite fills and terrace deposits are considered suitable for reuse on the site as compacted fill. If used, these materials should be screened of organic materials and materials greater than six inches in a maximum dimension. Any imported fill beneath structures, pavements and walks should have an expansion index less than or equal to 30 (per UBC 18-I-B) with less than 35 percent passing the no. 200 sieve. Imported fill soils for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the soil engineer to determine strength characteristics before placement on the site. C:IWINlXlW!<i"DfSKTTll"SK."OLE'S fOLOERIRPT_GEllTEl'HN'.K'.\LIXlC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad. California December 10. 1999 5. 7 Temporary Construction Slopes Page 13 CTE Job No. 10-3715 Sloping recommendations for unshared temporary excavations are provided. The recommended slopes should be relatively stable against deep-seated failure, but may experience localized sloughing. Terrace deposit materials are generally considered Type A and onsite fill soils are considered Type B soils. Recommended slope ratios are set forth in Table 1 below. TABLE I RECOMMENDED TEMPORARY SLOPE RATIOS SOILS TYPE SLOPE RATIO MAXIMUM HEIGHT (Horizontal: vertical) A (Terrace deposits) 3/4: 1 (MAXIMUM) 20 FEET B (Engineered Fills) 1: 1 (MAXIMUM) 20 FEET A --competent person·· must verify actual field conditions and soil type designations while excavations exist according to Cal-OSHA regulations. Also, the above sloping recommendations do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic, equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all unshored slopes. 5.8 Foundations and Slab Recommendations The following recommendations are for preliminary planning purposes only. These foundation recommendations should be reviewed after completion of earthwork and testing of surface soils. C: llilSD:)WS\DE..'il.Till"~IC.'OU:'~ FOLDt:l.\ltPT_OEllTI:CHSIC.U-IXX' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December 10, 1999 5.8.1 Foundations Page 14 CTE Job No. 10-3715 Continuous and isolated spread footings are suitable for use at this site. However, footings should not straddle cut/fill interfaces; we anticipate all footings for structures will be founded entirely in cut Quaternary Terrace Deposits or on recompacted structural fill. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on allowable bearing values of 3500 pounds per square foot (pst) for structures founded entirely on undisturbed Terrace deposits and 2500 psf for structures founded on recompacted structural fill. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. Footings for the proposed structures should be at least 15 inches wide and installed at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent subgrade. Footing reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of a minimum of four #4 reinforcing bars; two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom. The structural engineer should design isolated footing reinforcement. 5.8.2 Foundation Settlement In general the maximum post-construction compression settlement is expected to be about 0. 75 inches. Maximum differential settlement of continuous footings across the building is expected to be on the order of 0.5 inch. C:'-WINIX)WS\DESKTI»"'SICOLE'S FIJLDEJtlRJ'T_OEOTECHNIC.\LOOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December I 0, 1999 5.8.3 Foundation Setback Page 15 CTE Job No. 10-3715 Footings for structures should be designed such that the minimum horizontal distance from the face of adjacent slopes to the outer edge of the footing is a minimum of 10 feet. 5.8.4 Interior Concrete Slabs Lightly loaded concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick for interior concrete slabs and 5 inches for all parking garage slabs. The concrete slabs can be placed directly over site granular deposits. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #3 reinforcing bars placed on 18-inch centers each way at mid-slab height. A vapor barrier of ten-mil visqueen overlying a two-inch layer of compacted sand should be installed beneath moisture sensitive slab areas. At a minimum, a one-inch layer of clean coarse sand should be placed above the visqueen to protect the membrane during steel and concrete placement. Areas subject to heavy loads or vehicular traffic may require increased thickness and reinforcement. 5. 9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures The following recommendations may be used for shallow footings on the site. Foundations placed in firm, well-compacted fill material may be designed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35 (total frictional resistance equals coefficient of friction times the dead load). A design passive resistance value of 350 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 1200 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. C:1Wf:'11DllWS',O£.n.Tt>r ,,col...FS FOLDER\RPT _ GEO'nCHSIC.~LDOC I I I I I I I I I I I : I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December 10, 1999 Page 16 CTE Job No. 10-3715 Retaining walls up to ten feet high and backfilled using generally granular soils may be designed using the equivalent fluid weights given in Table 2 below. WALL TYPE TABLE2 EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS (pounds per cubic fo9t) ____ __;,.....;_ _________ -I LEVEL BACKFILL SLOPE BACKFILL 2:1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) 11-------------t------------- CANTILEVER WALL (YIELDING) RESTRAINED WALL 35 55 58 85 The values above assume non-expansive backfill and free draining conditions. Measures should be taken to prevent a moisture buildup behind all retaining walls. Drainage measures should include free draining backfill materials and perforated drains. Figure 3 is recommended gravel and perforated pipe drainage system. These drains should discharge to an appropriate offsite location. C 1WINJ)(lW!\"IDESKTilt•.'\Jl'OlES FllLDERIRPT_UE<lTtCIDH(.' \LIX)C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December 10. 1999 5. l 0 Seismic Loading Parameters Page 17 CTE Job No. 10-3715 In accordance with the 1997 UBC the site is located within seismic zone 4 with factor z = 0.40. The Rose Canyon Fault. a class B seismic source type, is located eight (8) kilometers from the site. Therefore the site has a near surface source factor Nv = 1.1 and Na= 1.0. Based on our subsurface exploration and our knowledge of site area geology, the site has a soil profile type of S0 and therefore the site has seismic coefficients Cv = 0. 70 and Ca= 0.44. 5 .11 Exterior Flatwork To reduce the potential for distress to exterior flatwork caused by minor settlement of foundation soils. we recommend that such flatwork be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as designed by the project architect. Flanvork, which should be installed with crack control joints, includes driveways, sidewalks, and architectural features. All subgrades should be prepared according to the earthwork recommendations previously given before placing concrete. Positive drainage should be established and maintained next to all flatwork. 5. 12 Drainage Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements by means of appropriate erosion reducing devices and positive drainage should be established around the proposed improvements. Positive drainage should be directed away from improvements at a gradient of at <::1WC,.[)(lWS\D£."J.lllf"-NIC'Otn FtlLDER'RP'T _ OECJnClfSIC\LDlX: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December 10. 1999 Page 18 CTE Job No. 10-3715 least 2 percent for a distance of at least five feet. The project civil engineers should evaluate the on- site drainage and arrange to keep surface water from affecting the site. 5 .13 Vehicular Pavements Preliminary pavement sections presented below are based on an assumed Resistance "R" Value testing of representative surficial materials on nearby sites. 5 .13 .1 Asphalt Pavement The asphalt pavement design is based on California Department of Transportation Highway Manual and on traffic indexes as indicated in Table 3 below. Upon completion of finish grading, "R" Value sampling and testing of subgrade soils should occur and the pavement section modified if necessary. TABLE3 ASPHALT PAVEMENT Traffic Area Assumed Subgrade AC Class II Traffic Index "R" Value Thickness Aggregate Base (inches) Thickness (inches) Light Truck 6.0 50 ,., 5 ., Drive/ Loading Areas Auto Parking 4.5 50 2.5 4 Areas C:1WJNOI IWS Of.g.1'1.>P"Sll'OLE"S R»I.DER'Rn' ~ GEOTECH!'-IK.\LOOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December 10, 1999 Page 19 CTE Job No. 10-3715 5 .13 .2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements We understand that parking and light truck drive areas may be paved with concrete pavements. The recommended concrete pavement section for drive areas has been designed assuming light industrial traffic loads of single axle loads of 15 kips, 10 repetitions per day. Corresponding pavement designs presented in the table below may not be adequate for larger axle loads and traffic volume. Concrete used for pavement areas should possess a minimum 600 psi modulus of rupture. Pavements should be constructed according to industry standards. Traffic Area Truck Drive/ Loading Areas Auto Parking Areas 5.14 Slopes TABLE4 CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN Subgrade R-Value PCC Thickness (inches) 50 6.0 50 5.5 Based on anticipated soil strength characteristics, fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios of 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. These fill slope inclinations should exhibit factors of safety greater than 1.5. Although graded and existing slopes on this site should be grossly stable, the soils will be somewhat erodible. Therefore. runoff water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of slopes unless that water is confined to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities. Erosion resistant vegetation should be maintained on the face of all slopes. C:IWIN[)()W!'!i'\J)f.'ik"!"l)l"'-.:lc:-OLE"S FOU)ERIRPT_OEOTECIINI<.' \LDOC I I I I , I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December 10, 1999 Page 20 CTE Job No. 10-3715 Typically soils along the top portion of a fill slope face will tend to creep laterally. We do not recommend distress sensitive hardscape improvements be constructed within five feet of slope crests in fill areas. 5 .15 Construction Observation • The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions found in the exploratory boring locations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction to verify that conditions are as anticipated. Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that CTE will provide the observation and testing services for the project. All earthwork should be observed and tested to verify that grading activity has been performed according to the recommendations contained within this report. The project engineer should evaluate all footing trenches before reinforcing steel placement. 5.16 Plan Review CTE should review the project foundation plans and grading plans before commencement of earthwork to identify potential conflicts with the recommendations contained in this report. C:IWJNDClWSIDE.'iiKTCll"NICOI.ES FOlD£11\U'T _ GEf.rn:ctCSK'.\LOOC: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Report of Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Cannon Court Development Cannon Road, Carlsbad, California December 10, 1999 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION Page 21 CTE Job No. 10-3715 The field evaluation, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied. is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. Our conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided upon request. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. Respectfully submitted, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. ne Jonathan Goodmacher, CEG #2136 Geotechnical Engineering Manager Engineering Geologist C:I WINDC.lWS\DESK Tl IF" SICOU'S FOLOERIRl'T _ GB.JT'ECHNIC,\LDOC LEGEND TRENCH 2 -+- APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING PARKING AND DRIVE AREAS OUTLINE OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES ~\ CONS'f~~CTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. -., C,EO IE< IINICAL ANU CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION "-EN...:IGIN.,:.EER_.IN.-..G,IN~C 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE, STE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746-49;; ----------------- ARKING AREA B-6 HOTEL B-5 PARKING AREA CANOPY CANNON ROAD EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP l'ROl'OSED CANNON COllRT DEVELOPMENT CANNON COURT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA CTEIOBNO 10-3715 SCAI I·: NO SCALE 2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I RETAINING WAL q. op CJ~ "' ov > -111 ~ ~ ~, ... ,------;,-II' d > 04) . 0 • FINISH GRADE ' __ ..,..._, __ ........... ......-..~ I:,, .C. • 0 4 ~ C) d do • 4 ~ q • • oo " CJ 0 .. t::l 111 ~ ' . .. 3/4" GRAVEL SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140 N, OR EQUIVALENT) l'MIN 4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR 111 EQUIV ALENn. MINIMUM , ~ • 1 % GRADIENT TO SUIT ABLE ~ ) ~ > / ~' OUTLET ' WALL FOOTING IIF:IPROJECTS\10-3300\RET AININGW ALLCNV MINIMUM 6" LA YER OF FILTER ROCK UNDERLYING PIPE CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. GEOTECHNJC AL AND CONSTIWC110N ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPEC110N 2414 VINEY ARD AVENUE. S"re G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (7601 746-4955 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL PROPOSED CANNON COURT DEVELOPMENT CANNON COURT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA BN • 10-3715 NO SCALE DA"IE: 12/99 3 I I I I APPENDIX A REFERENCES CITED I I I II I I I I I I I I I I C.IWJNO(lWS',DESKTI>P'SICOLE'S Ft>U>Ea\l.l'T_OEO'T"£CID,,'1CALOOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I REFERENCES CITED 1 Tan, S.S., and Kennedy, M.P, 1996, "Geologic Maps of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey, and San Marcos 7.5' Quadrangles, Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-02. 2 Tan, S.S. and Giffen, D.G., 1995, "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California," Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 95-04. C:1WIN[){lWS\DESKTI>l"NKOI.ES FOI..DER\JlPT_GEOT£CHNK'ALDOC C:\wtNOOWI\Df.St,,;mp,SJCOLE'!I FOLD£1,\Rn_O!OIKIL'1C.-\LDOC I I I " l " 0. ;; >, J " Vl I-"- I C ,, Q, .:,. " ~ > ~ ·: 0 " 2: C co 0 I I I 5 I I I 1 I I 15 I I I 2 I I 2 I I , INC .. .~~c O ~~o!E~H~lfAT !~ ~ONTT~u~!L~~IN~ER~N~TgS~~GEA~~!~E9 ~ 2414 VINEYARD AVE~UE. SUITE O ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) 746-0 TION ,i El<GINEEIUKG.N: C 0 " =-,&, :::, ~ [ ell 0 ·z :r. ..J :;; ~ :Ii '-' ::, i.) :.2 0 ~ 0. t-·5 :Ii "' C ~ ::i 0 "SM" BORING LEGEND DESCRIPTION Block or Chunk Sample Bulk Sample Standard Penetration Test Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sample Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample Groundwater Table Formation Change [(Approximate boundaries que ?---?--?--?--?-- \__ Soil Type or Classification Change [Approximate boundaries queried(?)] r) ried (?)] ?-- e soils Quotes are placed around classifications where th exist in situ as bedrock Laboratory Tests ?- FIGURE: I BL2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l~ \CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. I), :lb., GEOTECHNICAL AND COi'lSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTIO~ '-O !41 ♦ VINEYARD AVENUE. SU!TE G ESCONDIDO CA 1~1)29 /7601 "."-46-44~~ l!KGINEEllll'G..NC DEFINITION OF TERMS PRIMARY DIVISIONS GRAVELS CLEAN MORE THAN GRAVELS HALF OF < 5% FINES COARSE FRACTION IS GRAVELS LARGER THAN WITH FINES NO.4SIEVE SANDS CLEAN MORE THAN SANDS HALF OF <5%FINES COARSE FRACTION IS SANDS SMALLER THAN WITH FINES NO.4SIEVE SIL TS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS LESS THAN 50 SIL TS AND CLAYS LIQUID LIMIT IS GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS WELL GRADED GRAVELS.GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OF NO FINES SIL TY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES WELL GRADED SANDS. GRA YELL Y SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS. GRA YELL Y SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES. NON-PLASTIC FINES CLAYEY SANDS.SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES INORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR. SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS. SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SIL TS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY. GRA YELL Y, SA1'iDY, SIL TS OR LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SIL TS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SIL TY SOILS, ELASTIC SIL TS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY. FAT CLAYS ORGANIC CLAYS OF ~IEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY. ORGANIC SIL TY CLAYS PEAT Ai'ID OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS GRAIN SIZES BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILTS AND CLAYS COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE 12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200 CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING U.S. STA.i'-ITIARD SIEVE SIZE ADDITIONAL TESTS (OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS) MAX-Maximum Dry Density GS-Grain Size Distribution SE-Sand Equivalent El-Expansion Index CHM-Sulfate and Chloride Content , pH, Resistivity COR -Corrosivity PM-Penneability SG-Specific Gravity HA-Hydrometer Analysis AL-Atterberg Limits RV-R-Value CN-Consolidation PP-Pocket Penetrometer WA-Wash Analysis DS-Direct Shear UC-Unconfined Compression MD-Moisture/Density M-Moisture SC-Swell Compression 01-Organic Impurities I /J/" ~~{ O ~~o~E~H~l~} !~ ~oNTrt~IL~2,s~ER~N~ Hs~~GE 1~!~E9r:o! NC' cl 2414 VINEYARD AVENUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760> 746-Oll l:l<GINEERl!-G.OC I PROJECT: CannonCowt DRILLER: West Hazmat SHEET: I of I CTEJOBNO: I0-3715G DRILL METHOD: 8" HollowStem Auger DRILLING DA TE: 11/1/99 LOGGED BY: DLI SAMPLE METHOD: Drive ELEVATION: I u C: 0 ii u 5 J:; E " ~ E BORING: B-1 C. Oil ;:; "' >, 8 ~ >, 0 Laboratory Tests 1 r/l I-';i; r/l ..J "'-~ ~ cti u I C 'o! 3 u :.c: a .SIi u :r; "' C. > cti :i ;§ 0 ~ ·a E 8 ~ ai 0 ~ j 0 DESCRIPTION I ,..Q I uravel, concrete chunks, leaves at sunace TOPSOIL/DISTURBED SOIL: ... -? ---? ---? ---? ---?---?---? -110/6" QUATERNARTY TERRACE DEPOSITS I I "'" -25 25 SM Very dense, dry, brown, silty fine SAND ... -- I -- -5-■-25 I 17 SM Dense, moist, orange to brown, silty SAND --17 ■--- I -- -- I -lO-z 25 106.7 5.2 SM Very dense, moist, orange tan, with some dark mineral grains, silty MD 50/6" fine SAND with decreasing fines. -- I -- -- I --Very dense, moist, light brown to tan, silty fine SAND, with trace rom WA -l5-gravel in top 6" of sampler T 35 SM Very dense, moist to wet, orange to tan, GRAVEL with coarse sand GS I ~0/6" and trace silt in bottom 6 " -- -- I -- ... - I -W- "'" -Total Depth: 16 feet I No refusal ... -Water table at approximately 16 feet ... -Borring Backfilled with soil cuttings I -- -25- I FIGURE:I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT: CTEJOBNO: LOGGED BY: u 0. ~ u Q. ;, >, lJ r/J f-r... C ..c: u Q. .:,l > :i ·c ~ Ill 0 (\ ... ~ .... - --r --- -- -5-~ ----- -- .... - ~0-... .... -... -- ... - -- ~5- --7 .... - -- -- -20- -- -- -- -- -25- 0 0 r... ,; :i:: 0 cc 56 45 50 50 so 25 30 40 35 50/6" /,.~.(~{ O ~~o!E!H~lf.! !~ ~ONTT~U~rL~~IN~ER~N~ Hs~~GEA~~!~F.~r~o!N C. t'7( H14 'SJ)l£YARD AV.ENUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO CA. 9202' (760) H6-0lS l!l<~G= Cannon Court DRILLER: West Hazmat SHEET: I of I 10-3715G DRILL METHOD: 8" HollowStem Auger DRILLING DA TE: 11/1/99 DU SAMPLE METHOD: Drive ELEVATION: C 0 " e J:J l [ BORING: B-2 ~ 00 Laboratory Tests 0 -~ r/J ...I ~ cti " ;; .3 cj :.c 0 <II cti Q. c ·o e 0 :E j 0 DESCRIPTION 1uravel, leaves, debns on surrace TOPSOIL/DISTURBED SOIL: ?---?---?---?---?--?---? QUA TERNARTY TERRACE DEPOSITS SM Very dense, moist, brown, silty fine SAND MD 120.6 6.0 SM Very dense, moist, orange to light brown, silty SAND WA SM Very dense, moist, orange to tan, silty SAND 115.2 11.5 SM Very dense, wet, light gray to light tan, silty SAND with MD mica. Medium to coarse l!rai.ned sand. decreased fines. Total depth: 17 feet No refusal Water table at approximately 16 to 16.5 feet below grade. Borring Backfilled with soil cuttings FIGURE:I I I PROJECT: CTEJOBNO: LOOGEDBY: I " 9-u 3 C. ;; >, :, CJ'; i--I -= C ... " C. > :i ~ " ~ :::::i I " 1--V .... --I .... -I .... --- I .... - --5- I .... -v .... - I .... - ... - I 1-l ().. ·- ... -.... I ... - .... - I ... - ~5-·- I .... - -- I -- -- I -20- .... - I -- -- I :.. - -25- I I 0 0 "-,; ~ 0 2i 28 47 30 22 17 14 6 7 8 16 21 30 l!KGINElllKG,N: Cannon Court 10-3715G DU 116.0 5.3 :i -g >, CJ'; :Ii 0 :Ii ::i SM SM SP-SM SM DRILLER: West Hazmat DRILL METHOD: 8" HollowStem Auger SAMPLE METHOD: Drive BORING: B-3 DESCRIPTION Uravel at surrace TOPSOIL/DISTURBED SOIL: SHEET: I of I DRILLING DA TE: 11/1/99 ELEVATION: Laboratory Tests ?---?---?---?---?---?---? OUATERNARTY TERRACE DEPOSITS Very dense, moist to dry, dark brown, silty fine SAND Dense, moist, orange to light tan, silty SAND Medium dense, moist, light gray to white, medium to fine SAND occasional iron staining Very dense, moist, light gray to white,silty SAND with gravel Increased moisture Total depth: 16.5 feet No refusal No groundwater Boring Backfilled with soil cuttings Composite Sample EPA 8150, 8081 MD WA WA,GS FIGURE:I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT: CTEJOBNO: LOGGED BY: u C. ~ 1) C. ;; ;,., 8 E r/l !-- "-C -;;; u ~ .;,: > :r; u = is 0 =: co ai 0 - ~ 60/6" - - - -5 -■-25 27 -37 ... -- -J -- IO-7 27 40 -so -- - - 15- - -- ... - - 20- - - - - 25 ,~~co~~}E~H~lf}!N~~O}Tt~~L~~l~~ER~N~Hs~~GEA~~!s~E~r'io!NC. <.o/l I(~ H 14 VINEYARD AViNUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO CA. ??0l9 (760) H6-0ll e,"GJIIElllKG.N: CannonCow1 DRILLER: West Hazmat SHEET: I of I 10-37150 DRILL METHOD: 8" HollowStem Auger DRILLING DA TE: 11/1/99 DU SAMPLE METHOD: Drive ELEVATION: C 0 0 .e .J:> -e BORING: B-4 ?;-~ co Laboratory Tests ;,., 0 ·;;; r/l .J C !! <Ji 0 u .3 u :.a 0 "' <Ji C. c ·5 e 0 ~ ::i 0 DESCRIPTION I vraveJ anct ctebns on surrace ? ---? ---? ---? ---? ---?---? QUA TERN ARTY TERRACE DEPOSTIS SM Very dense, dry, dark brown, silty fine SAND SM Very dense, moist, orange to brown, silty SAND MAX SM Very dense, moist, brown, silty SAND MD,DS 117.2 5.8 SM Very dense, moist, dark reddish brown to orange, silty SAND with mica. Medium to coarse grained sand decreased fines. Total depth 11.5 feet No refusal No groundwater Borring Backfilled with soil cuttings FIGURE:I I l~.~(~.~{0 ~~o!E!H~lf}!~~O}T~U~~a1~~~1S~ER~N~Hs~~GEA~~!~E9r'IO!NC. <-'V'( 241< VINEYARD A\<ENUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO CA 92029 (760) H6-HSS El<GINEEIUl<G.N: I PROJECT: Cannon Court DRILLER: Wc:st Hazmat SHEET: 1 of 2 CTEJOBNO: 10-37l5G DRILL METHOD: 8" HollowStem Auger DRILLING DA TE: 11/1/99 LOGGED BY: DU SAMPLE METHOD: Drive ELEVATION: I I " C 0 Q. " .e .J:J ~ u l 6 BORING: B-5 ~ Q, ~ 00 Laboratory Tests ,., 8 ,., 0 u er, er, u !--·:;; ...J ~ t.. C: 1:! rJ'i (.) C: ".i u :::J u :.c: a ... u ~ Cl ;;; Q, > ·o vi u :i ·.:: 0 c e 0 al 0 iii 0 ::E ::i 0 DESCRIPTION I ... o 1 au grasses, some gravel ane1 C1ebns on sunace TOPSOIUDISTURBED SOIL: ... -? ---? ---? ---? ---? ---?---? I -34 QUATERNARTY TERRACE DEPOSTIS ... -I 38 SM Very dense, moist, dark brown, silty fine SAND 40 --- I -- --5-SM Very dense, moist, orange to brown, silty SAND I ... - ... - ... - ... -SM Grades to light brown light tan, silty SAND !-1.0- ... -- I SM Very dense, moist, orange to tan, silty SAND ... - ---I -- .,l5-... 30 I 40 SM Very dense, moist, light gray, silty SAND ... -40 SP Very dense, moist,orange to white-tan, mottled coarse SAND .. -- I -- --?---?---?---?---?---?---? I -20-... 10 AL 15 CH Hard , moist, gray-orange mottled, CLAY --20 .. I -- -- I -- -25- I FIGURE:I I I ~.,i~,.. ~~.~; O ~~o;E!H~1f} !N~ ~oNTr~u~ !L~~ 1N~E R~N~ Hs~~GE A~~!~E~r•IO! NC • ¢l HI< VINEYARD AViNUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) H6,nll QcGlNEEIID'G.DIC I PROJECT: Cannon Court DRILLER: West Hazmat SHEET: 2 of 2 CTEJOBNO: 10-3715G DRILL METHOD: 8" HollowStem Auger DRILLING DA TE: 1 L 1/99 LOGGED BY: DU SAMPLE METHOD: Drive ELEVATION: I I " C 0 C. " = .z::, E " E BORING: B-5 Q, ~ ~ 00 ;; "' ,., g ,., 0 Laboratory Tests lJ "' f-·;; "' ...J '::. Cl. C :, vi " C ",; ~ ~ (.) :c .c " ;; 0. .;I. > ~ 5 vi Q, -;; 8 ..9 i:' "' " ~ :i ... 0 Cll Cll a 0 DESCRIPTION I ... 2.; I 30 CH Hard , moist, gray-orange motuee1, CLAY 50/6" SM very dense, moist, llght gray wim occasiona1 orange, suty :::iANu ... ---decreased fines I ... - ... - I I ... - -3Q v 20 40 SP No recovery ... -Very dense, light gray to white, medium to coarse SAND 50 --... - I ... - ... - I ~5-v 20 108.5 5.3 SM Very dense, moist, light tan to gray with orange, silty SAND MD 70/6" ... -- I ... - ... -Cuttings are wet at about 38 feet I ... - I 40-[ 45 SP-SM Very dense, wet, white-gray with orange staining medium to coarse S; WA 60/6" with silt. -- ... - I -- ... - I 45-rr 35 SM Very dense, wet, light gray, silty SAND WA f,()/ft" ... - I ... -Total depth: 46 feet No refusal ... -Groundwater at about 38 feet I ... -Borring Backfilled with soil cuttings --50- I FIGURE:I I I A.~.f ~\;0 ~~o!E!H~lf}!N~ ~ONTT~U~~L~~IN~ER~N~Hs~~GEA~~!~E?T~O!N C. 87 HI• VINEYARO AV£NUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) H6-'9ll l!J'GJNEEIUl(G.N: I PROJECT: Cannon Court DRILLER: West Hazmat SHEET: I of I CTEJOBNO: 10-3715G DRILL METHOD: 8" HollowStem Auger DRILLING DA TE: 11/1/99 LOGGED BY: DU SAMPLE METHOD: Drive ELEVATION: I I " C o Q. " § ., e ~ -g BORING: B-6 u Q. ~ ;;, 00 Laboratory Tests >, 0 0 0 " er. f-0 ·;; VJ ...J ':!:, u.. C: ~ vi u C: ".; ., 3 u :c ..c: " 0 15.. ..,. > ~ "' <Ii Q. " "3 ·.: 0 c ·o e Cl c:c Cl ci 0 ::E ::i 0 DESCRIPTION I -0 1 au grasses, some gravel ano aeons on surrace ? ---? ---? ---? ---? ---?---? --QUATERNARTY TERRACE DEPOSTIS I ~ 87/6" SM Very dense, dry, orange brown, silty SAND with minor organic rootle ---- I -- -5-SM Very dense, moist, orange to brown, silty SAND I -- -- I SM Grades to tan, silty SAND -- -- I -l0-7 21 OS 42 SM Very dense, moist, orange brown, silty SAND --50 -I -- -- I -- -15-SM Grades to light brown to tan, silty SAND with minor gravel I -- -- I --SP/SM Grades to silty, medium to coarse SAND -- I -20-7 34 96.0 7.8 SM Very dense, moist, light gray to white, silty SAND MD S0/6" -- I -- Total depth 21 feet --No refusal I --No groundwater Borring Backfilled with soil cuttings -25- I FIGURE:I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I PROJECT: CTEJOBNO: LOGGED BY: u C. E ,, Q. u "' >, ~ Vl I-,, 0 ~ .i. ::: .; -5 ~ u ~ > Q. :i 8 ~ u 0 cc --0 ~ - ~ 100/6" ... - ... - -- -5- ... - ... - ... - ... - 0-- ~ -~ ... -.... .... - ... - kls-7 40 'i0/6" ... - ... - -- ... - ~0- ~ - ... - ~ - ~ - ~5- $~l 0 ~~0!E~H~lf}!~~ONTT~U~JL~~IN~ER~N~Hs~~GEA~!;!~E9T~O!NC • e/( I(~ 241< VINEYARD AHNUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO CA 9l029 (760) 7'6-'955 El<GINEERll<G.DIC Cannon Court DRILLER: West Hazmat SHEET: I of I 10-3715G DRILL METHOD: 8" HollowStem Auger DRILLING DA TE: 11/1/99 DU SAMPLE METHOD: Drive ELEVATION: C 0 (.) .e .c ~ ::: BORING: B-7 ~ ;;. ,0 Laboratory Tests ~ '< ·;; Vl ~ ::: :Ii -~ u 3 0 "' c.i -a :Ii t, ·5 "' ~ ::i ... 0 0 DESCRIPTION 1 au grasses, some gravel, and debns on surtace ?---?---?---?---?---?---? QUA TERNARTY TERRACE DEPOSTIS SM Very dense, dry, brown, silty SAND SM Very dense, moist, orange, silty SAND SM Very dense, moist, dark brown, silty SAND, with clay. WA SM Grades to tan, silty SAND 95.2 3.8 SP Very dense, moist, white to light gray with orange blotches, MD coarse SAND Total depth 16 feet No refusal No groundwater Borring Backfilled with soil cuttings FIGURE:I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIXC LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS E;\10-J115\llPT_OEIOTl!ll"IINICALOOC I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIXC LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS Laboratory Testing Program Laboratory tests \Vere performed on representative soil samples to detect their relative engineering properties. Tests were performed following test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples according to ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B. Particle-Size Analysis Particle-size analyses were performed on selected representative samples according to ASTM D422. The particle-size distribution curves are in Appendix C. Atterberg Limits The procedure of ASTM D4318-84 was used to measure the liquid limit plastic limit and plasticity index of representative samples. These values are reported on the particle distribution curve sheets in Appendix C. In-Place Moisture/Density The in-place moisture content and dry unit weight of selected samples were determined using relatively undisturbed chunk soil samples. The dry unit weight and moisture content are shown on the attached exploration logs and are shown in Appendix C. Direct Shear Direct shear tests were performed on either samples direct from the field or on samples recompacted to 90% of the laboratory maximum value overall. Direct shear testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D3080-72 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of selected materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. Modified Proctor Laboratory compaction tests were performed according to ASTM D 1557, Method A. A mechanically operated rammer was used during the compaction process. Modified Proctor analysis curve is presented in Appendix C. C··\\'[:,.:[)(lWS\OFM1't,,;TI)l":-IIC'OI.ES FOLDER\Rl'T~O.EUTECHNIC.0.\LOOC I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,/~ ~ CONSTRUCT I·O N TE STING & ENG IN E ERIN G, INC . £•1--r.._,,:tt,,• OEOTECHNICAL ANO CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION LOCATION B-4 LOCATION B-1 B-2 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-5 B-6 B-7 LOCATION B-1 B-2 B-3 B-5 B-5 B-7 LOCATION B-5 c' Hl4 VINE YI.RD I.VENUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO Cl.. '2029 j'60) Hh-4915 E1'GINEEIIKG.N: MODIFIED PROCTOR RES UL TS DEPTH (feet) 4-9 MAXIMUM DENSITY (pst) 138 UNDISTURBED MOISTURE AND DENSITY TEST ASTMD2216 DEPTH MOISTURE CONTENT (feet) (%) 10-11 5.2 5.5-6.5 6.0 16-17 11.5 5.5-6.5 5.3 10.5-11.5 5.8 35-36 5.3 20-21 7.8 15-16 3.8 200 WASH ANALYSIS DEPTH (feet) 15-15.5 10.5-11.5 10.5-11.5 40-41 45-46 10-12 ATTERBERG LIMITS ASTM D4318 DEPTH (feet) LIQUID LIMIT 20.5-21.5 82.6 CTE JOB NO.: 10-3715 OPTIMUM MOISTURE (%) 8.3% DRY DENSITY (pct) 106.7 120.6 115.2 116 117.2 108.5 96 95.2 PERCENT PASSING %) 21% 18% 11% 11% 31% 32% PLASTICITY INDEX 39.2 LAB SUMMARY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5000 .----------r-----------,-----------------------, 4000 1---------+----------t-------+--------+---------1 ~ 3000 1---------+----------t-------+---------+---------t ; r,i r,i '-l a: ii: ~ ~ /. ~ 2000 1---------+----------t-------+-..,..c;.------+---------1 /( 1000 --------1------/-___ -+ 4 • ______________ -t-______ _ o ...... _______________________ ...,_ _____________ __. 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 SHEAR STRENGTH TEST Sample Designation Depth (ft) Cohesion Angle of Friction Sample Description B-4 10.5-11.5 0 psf 32° Light Brown, Sandy SILT J~CO~~o~E!H~,f}!~~oNTr~u~!}N~~,N~ER~~~s~~OEA~~!~E~r'IO!NC • ~ Hl4 VINEYARD AVENUE. SUITE O ESCONDIDO CA. 9Z0Z9 (760) H6-49SS El<GINEERll<GL'IC CTEJOBNO: 10-3715 FIGURE: C-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 5000 ----------------r--------r--------r----------, 4000 l---------+--------+--------.,__-------1-----------i ~ 3000 rJl ' e:. ' rJl rJl lal a: tn 1, iJ z ; ~ ~ ~ 2000 1, /, IOOOt------4----V--'--+-----+--------.~----I 0.M:;. _______ ..._ _______ ..1-_______ ,L_ _______ i..... ______ __, 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 SHEAR STRENGTH TEST Sample Designation Depth (ft) Cohesion Angle ofFriction Sample Description B-6 10.5-11.5 0 psf 34° Tan, Silty SAND f~%co~~o!E!K~lf}!~~ONTT~U~~L~~IN~ER~~T~S~~GEA~~!~E~/1o!NC • -?7( If~ HI' VINEYARD AVENUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 (760) H6-Hll El'GIIIEEID(GJ)IC CTE JOB NO: 10-3715 FIGURE: C-2 -- 90 80 70 30 20 JO - 1 I I I c-1 I I I ' i \ i I I i I t r IIX> --- i I I i I I i I 1 10 I I ! 1 - ... 00 -----U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 0 "' 0 .,.. 8 PARTICLE SIZE (mm) 0.1 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS --- i i I 11 -1 I I I, i I 11 TT II I ' , I 1 1 I ! I : / I 11 ! I I I I I ; \ ! i I 0.01 .£~ ~\,CON ST R U CT ION TESTING & ENG IN E ER ING , INC. 1--'--...:::.....-+--:.....;..:.=.:.;;__~=- ;-~ 11c.'fl {il·illl:l'IINIL"AI ANI> CONSIH.llClloN l:NUINl:l:RINO ·11'.'.\IJN<i AND INSl'l:Tl'ION Sample Desi~nation Sample Dep1h (feet) Symbol L\quid Limit(%) 8-1 15.5-16 • ,.,_o 2414 V)NJ•)'AH.J) AV! Nlll· :-ti/Ill: li l:SCONl>Jl>O l'A 'J202'J (7(,0J 7-lh--l'J)j 8-3 15.5-16.5 ■ CTE JOB NUMBER: 10-3715 ---- I 0.001 Plasticity index ('lassificaiion Fl<.iURE: C-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LAB NUMBER 9806 SAMPLE NUMBER B-4 14 5 1 3 5 130 120 1 1 5 \r-\---\ -\ L\-\-\-\\ 11oi-----t---..,....,.---,.......-- 1 __ ' ----------- __ 1 __ ~--~----· -..-~ ;-:---I - 105 I ' ' • ' -:-·----~--------~---~--~ --1·--r----- -~ ·-I • -------------T ----'-I 1 00 --T--' : l :·· ---------+--+-----~ ' • ' f-L-~----+~--~ -----;--~ ' ~- ---~----r---: , 951---t----t--,--,--r------+--_,i--........ ~ ;.___,_ +--' -i---·-+---- -----,---•---------t~~•----H- , -, : _.,.._ .... _ -...l.----' . 90 85.._ _ __. ___________ ..__ _ __, ___ __._......., _ _,.___,,_ 0 5 I 0 1 5 20 25 30 3 5 PERCENT MOISTURE (o/e) ASTM D1557 METHOD [X) A O B De DEPTH (FEET) 7-9 MODIFIED PROCTOR RESULTS SOIL DESCRIPTION BROWN SIL TY SAND MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY (PCF) 137.5 OPTIMV\I MOISTURE CONTENT (0/e) 8.5% ~ CTE JOB NO: /J ~?, CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. DATE: i2199 t---------t f•1 --~";b• GEOTECHNICAL AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION t----------11 1 0-3 715 (.,:OINEERl!<O.INC 2414 VINEY ARD A VENUE, STE G ESCONDIDO CA. 92029 ( 760)746-4955 FIG URE: C-4