Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 81-10; CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER - LOT 12; Callaway Golf Distribution Building Carlsbad Research Center; 1994-08-08GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CALLAWAY GOLF DISTRIBUTION BUILDING CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER - LOT 12 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Callaway Golf Company 2285 Rutherford Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 August 1994 Woodward-Clyde Sunroad Plaza 3, Suite 1000 1615 Murray Canyon Road San Diego, CA 92108 (W:\9451092K\SI01-A-C.CVR) Woodward-Clyde Engineering & sciences applied lo the earth & its environment August 8, 1994 Project No. 9451092K-SI01 Mr. Richard Merk Callaway Golf Company 2285 Rutherford Road Carlsbad, CA 92008 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION CALLAWAY GOLF DISTRIBUTION BUILDING CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER - LOT 12 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Merk: Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) is pleased to provide the accompanying report, which presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the project. This study was performed in accordance with our proposal, dated July 15, 1994, and your authorization of July 25, 1994. This report presents our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the project, as well as the results of our field explorations and laboratory tests. Our engineer assigned to this project is Mr. Kevin Crennan. If you have any questions or if we can be of further service, please give us a call. Very truly yours, WOODWARD-CLYDE C TS John Moossazadeh G.E. 617 JM/DLS/KMC/Sll ow:\M51 David L. Schug C.E.G. 1212 Woodward-Clyde Consultants • A subsidiary of Wood ward-Clyde Group, Inc. Sunroad Plaza 3, Suite 1000 • 1615 Murray Canyon Road • San Diego, California 92108 619-294-9400 • Fax 619-293-7920 Woodward-Clyde TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION 1-1 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT 2-1 3.0 SITE HISTORY 3-1 4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 4-1 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 5-1 5.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING 5-1 5.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS 5-1 5.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 5-1 5.3.1 Fill 5-2 5.3.2 Santiago Formation 5-2 5.3.3 Point Loma Formation 5-2 5.4 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FAULTS 5-3 5.5 GROUNDWATER 5-3 5.6 LANDSLIDES 5-3 6.0 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6-1 6.1 POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 6-1 6.1.1 Faults and Seismicity 6-1 6.1.2 Landslides 6-1 6.1.3 Groundwater 6-2 6.1.4 Liquefaction 6-2 6.2 SOIL AND EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS 6-2 6.3 EXPANSION CHARACTERISTICS 6-3 6.4 SLOPE STABILITY 6-3 6.5 GRADING AND EARTHWORK 6-4 6.6 SURFACE DRAINAGE 6-5 6.7 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE 6-6 W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R Woodward-Clyde TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded) Section Page 6.8 DEPOLLUTANT BASINS 6-6 6.9 FOUNDATIONS 6-7 6.10 STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENTS 6-8 6.11 RETAINING WALLS 6-8 6.12 LATERAL RESISTANCE 6-9 6.13 CONCRETE SLABS 6-9 6.14 HARDSCAPE SLABS 6-10 6.15 PAVEMENTS 6-10 7.0 UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS 7-1 Figures 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan Appendices A. Field Investigation B. Laboratory Tests C. Guide Specifications for Earthwork D. Guide Specifications for Subsurface Drains W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 11 Woodward-Clyde 1.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation at the 8.2-acre site of the proposed Callaway Golf Distribution Building on Lot 12 of the Carlsbad Research Center. The site is located west of El Camino Real, northeast of Priestly Drive, and north of the extension of LaPlace Court in Carlsbad, California. The location of the project is shown on the Vicinity Map (Figure 1). This report has been prepared exclusively for Callaway Golf Company and their consultants for use in evaluating the property and in project design. This report presents our conclusions and/or recommendations regarding: • The geologic setting of the site • Potential geologic hazards • General subsurface soil conditions, including the general extent of existing fill soils, and the presence and effect of expansive soils • Groundwater conditions within the depths of our subsurface investigation • Stability of proposed cut and fill slopes • Grading and earthwork • Surface and subsurface drainage • Types and depths of foundations • Allowable soil bearing pressures W:\9451092KASI01-A-R 1-1 Woodward-Clyde • Estimated settlements • Design pressures for retaining walls • Lateral resistance • Concrete slabs-on-grade and hardscape areas r • Flexible and rigid pavement design In addition, we are presenting recommendations for use in design of the proposed depollutant basins at the site. W:\945I092K\SIOI-A-R 1-2 Woodward-Clyde 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT For our study, we have discussed the project with Mr. Richard Merk of Callaway Golf Company, Mr. Burrel Magnusson of Bay Development Corporation, Ms. Dennie Smith and Mr. Gary Baker of Smith Consulting Architects, and Mr. Chuck Cater of Hunsaker & Associates. We have also reviewed the following reports and plans prepared by our firm andi others pertaining to the Carlsbad Research Center development: • "Preliminary Soil and Geologic Investigation, Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California," prepared by WCC, dated April 27, 1981 • "Additional Studies, Carlsbad Research Center, Phase I, Carlsbad, California," prepared by WCC, dated August 17, 1981 • "Addendum to Additional Studies, Carlsbad Research Center, Phase I, Carlsbad, California," prepared by WCC, dated September 3, 1981 • "As-graded Geotechnical Report, Rough Grading Completed, Carlsbad Research Center, Phase I, Carlsbad Tract No. 81-10, Carlsbad, California," prepared by San Diego Soils Engineering, Inc. (SDSE), dated April 21,1982 • "Update Geotechnical Study, The Campus Project, Lot 14 - Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California," prepared by WCC, revised dated June 20, 1985 We understand that the proposed project will include construction of a roughly pentagonal- shaped, 35-foot high tilt-up reinforced concrete shell structure with partial mezzanines. The structure is expected to cover a footprint area of about 113,000 square feet. Parking and landscaped areas will be located around the perimeter of the building, and driveway entrances to the site will be located off of Priestly Drive at the intersections with Rutherford Drive and LaPlace Court. Furthermore, dock-high retaining walls are planned at the W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 2-1 Woodward-Clyde southeast corner of the building, and rigid portland cement concrete (PCC) driveways and aprons are planned for heavily loaded truck areas. Two depollutant basins are proposed at the southeast and southwest corners of the site. The layout of the proposed improvements is shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2). Building loads are not known at this time but are expected to be moderate to heavy. Maximum bay widths will be on the order of 50 feet. We understand that concrete floors may have stringent tolerances for flatness and smoothness as required for the proposed automated material handling system. Proposed pad grades range from about 317 to 320 feet mean sea level (MSL) and include shallow cuts and fills (less than about eight feet deep) to prepare a select fill cap and for the depollutant basins. We understand that the basins will have soil slopes with inclinations up to 2:1 and will have a sand bottom. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 2-2 Woodward-Clyde 3.0 SITE HISTORY The site was initially studied by WCC as part of a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the entire Carlsbad Research Center and is discussed in our April 27, 1981 report. At the time of that investigation, the undisturbed terrain was part of a natural terrace surface that was part of an agricultural area. Several exploratory test pits were performed in the site vicinity during our 1981 study. Based on our review of the provided documents, we understand that the site was initially mass graded in 1981 as part of Phase I grading for Carlsbad Research Center. Testing and observation services during this grading period were provided by SDSE and are summarized in their April 21, 1982 report. According to this report, grading within the current site vicinity included removal of loose topsoil and residual soils, placement and compaction of fill soils to design grades, and performance of field and laboratory tests to determine the relative compaction and moisture content of compacted fills. Between 0 and about 16 feet of compacted fill was placed on Lot 12 during grading. At the completion of this phase of grading, the surface elevation on the graded portion of Lot 12 ranged from approximately 309 to 322 feet MSL. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 3-1 Woodward-Clyde 4.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS Our field investigation included making a visual geologic reconnaissance of the existing surface conditions, advancing 6 exploratory borings on July 21, 1994, and obtaining representative soil samples. The depths of the borings ranged from 1616 to 26V4 feet. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2. A Key to Logs is presented in Appendix A as Figure A-l. Final logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A as Figures A-2 through A-7. The descriptions on the logs are based on field logs, sample inspection, and laboratory test results. Results of laboratory tests are shown at the corresponding sample locations on the logs and in Appendix B. The field investigation and laboratory testing programs are discussed hi Appendices A and B. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 4-1 Woodward-Clyde 5.0 SITE CONDITIONS 5.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING The project site is located in the coastal subprovince within the Peninsular Range Province, a well defined geologic and physiographic province southeastward from southern California to the tip of Baja California. The coastal subprovince consists of gently westward sloping Cretaceous through Quaternary age sedimentary formations that abut Jurassic age metamorphic and Cretaceous age crystalline rocks to the east. 5.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS The entire 8.2-acre project site is located within a previously graded roughly triangular lot. The lot is bounded by Priestly Drive to the south, the developed Lot 13 to the southeast, El Camino Real to the northeast, the developed Lot 4 to the northwest, and undeveloped Lot 5 to the west (Figure 2). Fill slopes up to about 8 feet in height and inclined at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) ascend from a portion of the northwestern side of the lot and descend from the southeast side of the pad. In addition, a cut and fill slope up to about 8 feet in height and inclined at about 5:1 descends to El Camino Real. The graded pad portion of Lot 12 slopes from an elevation of about 322 (MSL datum) to about 309 feet, generally from east to west. Vegetation on the pad generally consists of a moderate growth of grasses and weeds. The slopes and landscaped strips separating the property from the bordering roadways and lots have been planted with grass and trees and are irrigated. Desiccation surface cracking of soils (up to 2 inches deep) was observed during our site work. 5.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The site is underlain by fill soils, the Eocene Santiago Formation and the Cretaceous Point Loma Formation. These geologic units are described below. W:\9451092KVSI01-A-R 5-1 Woodward-Clyde 5.3.1 Fill Based on our review, we understand that the site was initially mass graded in 1982 for Phase I grading of Carlsbad Research Center. The grading was performed under the observation and testing by SDSE. The depth of fill encountered in our test borings ranged from about 9 feet in Boring B-4 to about 16 feet in Boring B-3; typical fill depth appears to be about 10 feet across the pad. The results of our borings and review of grading reports indicate that the fill is composed primarily of highly to very highly expansive lean and fat clay. A cut area is indicated along the extreme southern portion of the site. The approximate location of the cut/fill boundary ("daylight" line) as reported in the 1982 SDSE report is shown on Figure 2. Variations hi the actual daylight line location should be expected. 5.3.2 Santiago Formation Our review indicates that the Santiago Formation has previously been mapped by SDSE at the extreme southern edge of the site. This unit was encountered below the fill in our two borings on the eastern side of the lot (Borings B-3 and B-4). The actual location of the buried geologic contact is difficult to estimate. This formational material is composed of medium dense to dense, poorly graded sand with silt. The Santiago Formation may be exposed at the surface in the extreme southern portion of the site. 5.3.3 Point Loma Formation The results of our review and field investigation indicate that the Point Loma Formation underlies the fill soils over the majority of the site and the Santiago Formation in the southern portion of the site. In addition, the report by SDSE indicates that the Point Loma Formation may be exposed at the existing ground surface in a small cut area hi the southwestern portion of the site. This formational material is primarily composed of hard and very hard claystone. These materials are classified as lean and fat clays when excavated and are considered highly to very highly expansive. WA9451092K\SIOI-A-R 5-2 Woodward-Clyde 5.4 LOCAL AND REGIONAL FAULTS Our field studies and review of previous studies did not indicate the presence of active faults within or near the site area. The dominant local fault system is the Rose Canyon fault zone, which is projected offshore to be approximately 7 miles west of the site. Although the Rose Canyon fault zone has been seismically quiescent through most of recorded history, a series of earthquakes in 1985, with events up to Richter Magnitude 4.2, were attributed to the Rose Canyon fault zone in San Diego Bay. In addition, recent studies on fault traces within the Rose Canyon fault zone have indicated that it should be classified as being "active." Studies of the geologic history and character of the Rose Canyon fault zone indicate that it is capable of producing a moderate to large magnitude earthquake. Other known active fault systems where recurring seismic events of Richter Magnitude 4.0 or greater have been recorded are within the Elsinore fault zone and the Coronado Banks fault zone, located approximately 25 miles northeast and approximately 26 miles southwest (offshore) of the site, respectively. Both of these systems are also considered capable of producing a moderate to large magnitude earthquake. 5.5 GROUNDWATER No surface seeps, springs, or unusually wet areas were observed during our field studies nor reported in the reports reviewed for the site. 5.6 LANDSLIDES Indications that ancient landslides may underlie portions of the general study area were not observed during our field studies nor indicated in the reviewed geologic and geotechnical investigation reports. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 5-3 Woodward-Clyde 6.0 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The discussions, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are based on the information provided to us, results of our review of previous reports for the site, results of our current field and laboratory studies, analysis, and professional judgments. 6.1 POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 6.1.1 Faults and Seismicity Our field studies did not indicate the presence of faults within the project area. Our review of geologic literature and maps also indicates that no nearby major faults are mapped as projecting toward the site. Thus, fault surface rupture does not appear to present a potential geologic hazard. Southern California is a seismically active region and the San Diego County area (including Carlsbad) is subject to periodic seismic shaking from earthquakes on local or more distant faults. It is not unreasonable to anticipate that the general project area, as well as the entire San Diego area, could experience relatively strong ground shaking due to nearby or distant earthquakes. It is generally considered economically unfeasible to build a totally earthquake-resistant project; it is, therefore, possible that a large or nearby earthquake could cause damage at the site. 6.1.2 Landslides No landslides were identified on or adjacent to the site during our current investigation or during previous site studies. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 6-1 Woodward-Clyde 6.1.3 Groundwater A groundwater surface was not encountered in any of our current test borings or previous borings in the site area. However, localized zones of perched water may be encountered within planned excavations at the site. 6.1.4 Liquefaction With the absence of a near-surface permanent groundwater table and the compact and hard nature of the underlying materials, it is our opinion that the subsurface soils at the site do not have a potential for liquefaction. 6.2 SOIL AND EXCAVATION CHARACTERISTICS Our study indicates that the majority of the site is underlain by compacted fill soils over undisturbed materials of the Point Loma Formation and Santiago Formation. Undisturbed formational soils have been mapped at the surface by others in localized cut areas in the extreme southern and southwestern portion of the site. Compacted fill soils were likely derived from Santiago and Point Loma formational materials excavated from the general site area. Based on the results of our field investigation and review of a pre-graded topographic map, we estimate that the fill soils range from zero up to about 20 feet in thickness, with an average of about 10 feet over most of the pad. The proposed building pad appears to be entirely within the previous fill area (Figure 2). Our record review indicates that the fills at the site were placed and compacted under the observation and control of SDSE in 1981 and 1982. The results of the compaction tests presented in SDSE's final grading report in 1982 indicate that a relative compaction of 90 percent or higher (per ASTM D1557) was generally achieved throughout the fill and that field moisture contents were at or above the laboratory optimum moisture contents. In general, our field and laboratory investigations indicate that the fill soils at the site are in a relatively tight and compact condition. As reported in the reviewed grading reports and revealed by our current field and laboratory classifications, the fill soils consist predominantly of lean and fat clays with some zones of clayey sand. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 6-2 Woodward-Clyde Based on our review, it appears that the observations of construction and field density procedures used followed normally accepted procedures; such procedures are discussed in the 1994 annual book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.08 "Soil and Rock." Variations in relative compaction should be expected in lateral and vertical extent. In our opinion, excavations in fill or undisturbed Point Loma and Santiago Formations can be accomplished with light to heavy ripping effort generally provided by conventional heavy-duty grading equipment. Excavations in Point Loma Formation may result in oversize chunks requiring special placement or off site disposal. 6.3 EXPANSION CHARACTERISTICS Results of our current laboratory testing program indicate UBC Expansion Indexes of 96, 113 and 135 for existing compacted fill materials. Based on these results and the results of plasticity index tests for this investigation, in addition to our experience in the general site area and the results of previous tests at the site, both the fill soils and Point Loma formational materials may be considered to have a high to very high expansion potential upon wetting. Special considerations should be given in project design for protection of structures, slabs-on-grade and pavements from damage related to swelling of the subgrade soils. More specific recommendations on this subject are presented later in the report. 6.4 SLOPE STABILITY Based on the current project plans, a permanent cut and cut/fill slope up to 8 feet in height will be located along the eastern property line and descend to El Camino Real below. Slopes of similar height will also be present along most of the remaining site boundaries. We understand that no changes to the existing slopes are proposed. As such, it is our opinion that the stability of the slope has been previously analyzed and has been adequately studied. We expect that the subject slopes will have adequate safety factors (in excess of 1.5) against deep-seated failure under static conditions. Our opinion is based on the assumption that there will be no surcharge loads on the slope, that all surface drainage is directed away from the slope tops, that no adverse geologic conditions exist within the slope, that there is no W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 6-3 Woodward-Clyde groundwater seepage out of the slope, and that there is no water seepage from the adjacent depollutant basin. 6.5 GRADING AND EARTHWORK We anticipate that change to existing grades will be relatively minor and that the earthwork for the proposed project will consist mainly of performing shallow excavations and compacting fill to provide a select fill cap and a level pad. Other related activities will include footing excavations; utility trench excavations and backfilling; and preparation of subgrades for building floor slabs, loading area slabs, exterior sidewalks, and parking lot pavements. We recommend that all earthwork (including trench backfill operations) be performed in accordance with the attached Guide Specifications of Earthwork (Appendix C). We recommend that WCC review the grading plans for compliance with the recommendations of this report. We further recommend that WCC observe the earthwork operations and test the compacted fill and backfill placed at the site. We recommend that subgrade soils within 4 feet of finish grade in the building and exterior hardscape areas and within 2 feet of subgrade in the pavement areas consist of nonexpansive to slightly expansive select soils. Select soils are defined in Section 6.2 of the attached Appendix C. Building areas are defined as the building limits plus a horizontal distance of 5 feet outside all settlement-sensitive portions of the building and hardscape areas. Based on the available information, we do not anticipate that any of the existing soils at the site will be classified as select material; however, localized areas of select may be encountered during grading. We recommend that subgrade soils not meeting the requirements for select material be excavated to the specified minimum depths and be replaced with properly compacted select material. Our firm should test all planned borrow soils prior to import to the jobsite to verify compliance with the requirements for select material. We recommend that select fill soils at the site be placed and compacted at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content. Fill soils consisting of excavated fill or W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 6-4 Woodward-Clyde formational materials should be placed and compacted at a moisture content of at least 3 percent above the optimum moisture content. A pre-construction conference should be held at the site with the owner representatives, contractor, civil engineer, and geotechnical engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and earthwork procedures can be discussed at that time. 6.6 SURFACE DRAINAGE We recommend that positive measures be taken to finish grade the site properly so that drainage waters from the site and adjacent properties are directed off the site and away from foundations, floor slabs, slopes and hardscape areas. Even when these measures have been taken, experience has shown that a shallow groundwater or surface water condition can and may develop in areas where no such water condition existed prior to site development. This is particularly true where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscaping irrigation. It is particularly critical at the project site to control surface drainage in order to reduce the possibility of heaving of the highly expansive subsurface soils. To further reduce the possibility of moisture related problems, we recommend that landscaping and irrigation be kept as far away from building perimeters as possible. Irrigation water, especially close to the buildings, should be kept to the minimum required level. We recommend that the ground surface in all areas be graded to slope away from building foundations, floor slabs and hardscape areas, and that all runoff water be directed to proper drainage areas and not be allowed to pond. A minimum ground slope of 5 percent is suggested for unpaved areas within 10 feet of the proposed structure; paved areas should have a minimum gradient of 1 percent. In order to provide a subsurface barrier to reduce the potential for moisture migration, we recommend that the structure be provided with a continuous perimeter concrete footing extending at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent rough grade. Recommendations for subsurface drainage and floor slab underlays are provided later in this report. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 6-5 Woodward-Clyde 6.7 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE The proposed grading scheme will result in placement of a cap of select material over the entire site area. These soils are typically much more permeable than the underlying clayey fill or formational soils. Thus, the select cap can act as a collection zone for infiltrated water and aid in buildup and horizontal migration of water. In our opinion, the most efficient method of controlling subsurface water in the more permeable select fill cap and preventing ponding on the less permeable and highly expansive clay fill is to install a perimeter subdrain system around the entire building and to install a subdrain system in the landscaped areas. The subdrain should collect the subsurface water in the select fill and direct the water off-site. We recommend that the subdrains be installed in accordance with the attached "Guide Specification for Subsurface Drains" (Appendix D). The perimeter subdrain should be a minimum of 16 inches wide and consist of 1-inch maximum crushed rock wrapped in filter fabric and a 4-inch diameter perforated drain pipe. The perimeter drain should be a minimum of 4V4 feet deep (or a minimum of 6-inches below bottom of the select fill) and be located a minimum of 2 feet away from building foundations. The perforated pipe should slope a minimum of 0.2 percent towards the outlet. A 4-inch diameter solid pipe should slope from the subdrain to the drainage outlet location. The landscaping drain should be a minimum of 2V4 feet deep (or a minimum of 6-inches below the select fill) within the landscape areas. The perforated pipe should slope a minimum of 0.2 percent. A 2- to 4-inch diameter solid pipe should slope from the subdrains to the drainage outlet location. At locations where the subdrain intersects existing utility trenches, we recommend that an impermeable liner be used to prevent water in the subdrain from infiltrating the more permeable trench backfill beneath the building. 6.8 DEPOLLUTANT BASINS We understand that two depollutant basins are proposed at the southwestern and southeastern corners of the site. These basins may have depths on the order of 4 feet and proposed soil slopes with inclinations up to 2:1. We recommend that measures be taken to prevent the W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 6-6 Woodward-Clyde migration of retained water into the subsurface soils, in order to reduce the possibility of heaving of the highly expansive fill soils in the parking area and failure of the adjacent fill slope. Current plans indicate that on-site soils will be placed over permeable sand and that a seepage collection system will drain to the storm drain. It should be anticipated that the clay slopes will crack upon drying and require periodic maintenance. We recommend that a minimum of 12 inches of soil be placed over at least 6 inches of permeable sand or gravel. We also recommend that consideration be given to utilizing an impermeable geosynthetic liner to prevent the infiltration of moisture. We can provide additional recommendations as project plans develop. 6.9 FOUNDATIONS Based on the subsurface soil information obtained from our borings and our review, it appears that the proposed building location is currently underlain by highly expansive compacted fill and formational materials. The available plans indicate that at the conclusion of the planned grading activities, the building pad will be underlain by approximately 10 to 20 feet of compacted fill. It is our opinion that a foundation system consisting of conventional spread or continuous footings may be used to support the proposed moderately to heavily loaded structure, provided that the site is properly prepared in accordance with our recommendations in the Grading and Earthwork section of this report. We recommend that spread or continuous footings bearing entirely on properly compacted select fills be designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. The recommended bearing pressure should be considered as an allowable pressure for dead plus live load conditions. In our opinion, this allowable bearing pressure may be increased by up to one-third for wind and seismic loading conditions. We recommend that spread or continuous footings have a minimum width of 24 inches and a minimum embedment depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent rough grade and that, as a minimum, all continuous footings be reinforced top and bottom with steel. These recommendations are intended only to reduce the effects of heaving; footings should be W:\W51092K\SI01-A-R 6-7 Woodward-Clyde designed for about 1 inch of heave over a distance of 100 feet. This estimate is based on the assumptions of grading and surface and subsurface drainage presented earlier in this report. Foundations should be properly reinforced in accordance with the structural engineer's design. Footings located closer than 20 feet to the top of a slope should be deepened such that a minimum clear horizontal distance of 20 feet exists between the face of the slope and the outside bottom edge of the footings. 6.10 STRUCTURAL SETTLEMENTS We estimate that total settlements due to structural loads for the proposed building should not exceed 1 inch for footings founded entirely hi compacted select fill soils. Most of these settlements should occur as construction loads are applied to the footings. Differential settlements should generally be less than one-half of the total settlements. 6.11 RETAINING WALLS It is our understanding that retaining walls are not planned at this time. In the event that retaining walls are included in future plans, we recommend that cantilevered retaining walls with maximum heights of up to 15 feet be designed to resist the following lateral loads expressed in pounds per cubic foot (pcf): Backfill Slope Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (horizontal: vertical) (pcf) Level 45 2:1 60 Cantilever conditions are defined as walls capable of horizontal movements of at least 0.005H at the top of the wall, where H is the height of the wall in feet. If these conditions are not satisfied, restrained conditions should be used. Restrained walls (such as the loading dock walls) should be designed for the appropriate equivalent fluid unit weight presented W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 6~8 Woodward-Clyde above, plus an additional uniform pressure of 12H psf. Walls subject to conventional vehicular and forklift traffic should be designed for additional uniform lateral pressures of 75 and 200 psf, respectively. The above design values are based on the assumptions that select granular soils, as defined in Section 6.2 of Appendix C, will be used for backfill within a minimum horizontal distance behind the wall equal to one-half the height of the wall; that there will be no other surcharge loads, such as adjacent footings, acting on the walls; and that the walls will be provided with backfill drains designed to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressures. A suggested method of drainage behind walls is presented in the attached "Guide Specifications for Subsurface Drains" (Appendix D). 6.12 LATERAL RESISTANCE To provide passive resistance for design lateral loads, we recommend using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 300 pcf for footings poured neat against properly compacted select fills. This value assumes a horizontal surface for the adjacent soil that extends at least 10 feet from the face of the footings or grade beam, or three times the height of the vertical surface generating passive pressures, whichever is greater. The upper 12 inches of material hi areas not protected by floor slabs or pavements should not be included in design for passive resistance to lateral loads. If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, we recommend using a coefficient of friction of 0.4 between select soil and concrete. If it is desired to combine frictional and passive resistance in design, we recommend using a friction coefficient of 0.3. 6.13 CONCRETE SLABS We have not been provided with specific design loads for interior warehouse traffic; however, we have assumed that moderately to heavily loaded forklifts with wheel loads on the order of 9,000 pounds will be used inside the warehouse. We recommend that the concrete slab-on-grade floors be at least 8 inches thick. We further recommend that as a minimum, the slab be reinforced near mid-depth with No. 4 steel rebars spaced 18 inches W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 6-9 Woodward-Clyde on-center both ways. The slab thickness and reinforcement should be properly designed by the structural engineer for the anticipated floor loads and other structural considerations. In order to reduce post-construction differential movement and cracking in buildings underlain by expansive soils, we recommend that consideration be given to structurally separating concrete slabs-on-grade from the building foundations. Concrete slabs should be provided with control joints at regular intervals of approximately 15 feet, each way. Construction joints should be properly dowelled to accommodate differing concrete shrinkage rates across the joints and to provide for load transfer. We recommend that concrete slabs-on-grade be underlain by a minimum 4-inch underlay of clean, coarse sand. A vapor barrier (e.g., 10-mil visqueen) with a 2-inch protective sand cover should be placed over the coarse sand. 6.14 HARDSCAPE SLABS We recommend that the exterior concrete slab-on-grade hardscape areas be underlain by at least 4 feet of properly compacted select fill. These slabs should be at least 5 inches thick and reinforced near mid-depth with steel rebars; typical reinforcement may consist of No. 3 rebars spaced 18 inches on center both ways (to be verified by the structural engineer). Concrete slabs should be provided with control joints at regular intervals of approximately 15 feet, each way. Construction joints should be properly dowelled. These recommendations are intended to reduce the effects of highly expansive subgrade soils. Even with these provisions, the lightly loaded hardscape slabs may be subject to some localized heaving. 6.15 PAVEMENTS We anticipate that the traffic at the project site will consist primarily of passenger cars in the parking areas, for which we have assumed a traffic index (TI) of 5.0; and truck traffic consisting of service, delivery, and trash vehicles, for which we have assumed a TI of 6.5. W:\9451092K\S101-A-R 6-10 Woodward-Clyde We recommend that the upper 2 feet of subgrade material in areas to be paved consist of properly compacted select fill. We further recommend that the top 6 inches of the subgrade be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. For our analysis we have assumed that the select import material will have a minimum R-value of 25. We recommend that the actual strength of the ultimate subgrade soils be verified by performing R-value tests at the time of grading. The recommended pavement section should then be adjusted accordingly. In parking lots and areas where traffic will consist primarily of passenger cars, based on a TI value of 5.0, we recommend that the pavement section consist of 3 inches of asphalt concrete on 6 inches of Class 2 aggregate base. This pavement design is based on a design life of 20 years with normal maintenance. We suggest using concrete pavements in truck traffic areas, where dumpsters will be stored and picked up, and where trash trucks will maneuver. Our experience indicates that heavy truck traffic can shorten the useful life of asphalt concrete sections. In areas where there will be truck traffic (including heavy traffic driveways), based on a TI value of 6.5, we recommend that 8 inches of 3,000-psi portland cement concrete (PCC) be used over the prepared subgrade surface. Concrete pavements should be provided with control joints at regular intervals (approximately every 15 feet each way); the joints should be provided with load transfer provisions (key or dowels). Class 2 aggregate base should conform to the current State of California (Caltrans) "Standard Specifications," Section 26-1.02B and be placed at a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. Our firm should test the compaction of the subgrade and base material. Asphalt concrete should conform to the current Specifications, Section 39-2.01 for the asphalt and Section 39-2.02 (Type B) for the aggregate. PCC should conform to Sections 40 and 90 of the Specifications. We recommend that mix designs be made for asphalt concrete and PCC by an engineering company specializing in these types of work, and that the paving operations be inspected by a qualified testing laboratory. W:\945109ZK\SI01-A-R 6-11 Woodward-Clyde We recommend that adequate surface drainage be provided to reduce ponding and infiltration of water into the subgrade materials. We suggest that paved areas have a minimum gradient of 1 percent. As much as possible, planter areas next to pavements should be avoided; otherwise, subdrains should be used to drain the planters to appropriate outlets. It is important to provide adequate drainage to reduce ponding and possible future distress of the pavement section. W:\9451092K\Sf01-A-R 6-12 Woodward-Clyde 7.0 UNCERTAINTY AND LIMITATIONS We have observed only a very small portion of the pertinent soil and groundwater conditions. The recommendations made herein are based on the assumption that soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those reported in previous studies and found during our current field investigation. We recommend that WCC review the foundation and grading plans to verify that the intent of the recommendations presented herein has been properly interpreted and incorporated into the contract documents. We further recommend that WCC observe the site grading, subgrade preparation under concrete slabs and paved areas, and foundation excavations to verify that site conditions are as anticipated or to provide revised recommendations if necessary. If the plans for site development are changed, or if variations or undesirable geotechnical conditions are encountered during construction, we should be consulted for further recommendations. This report is intended for design purposes only and may not be sufficient to prepare an accurate bid. Geotechnical engineering and the geologic sciences are characterized by uncertainty. Professional judgements presented herein are based partly on our understanding of the proposed construction, and partly on our general experience. Our engineering work and judgements rendered meet current professional standards; we do not guarantee the performance of the project hi any respect. Earthwork observation services allow the testing of only a small percentage of the fill placed at the site. Contractual arrangements with the grading contractor should contain the provision that he is responsible for excavating, placing, and compacting fill in accordance with project specifications. Observation by the geotechnical engineer during grading should not relieve the grading contractor of his primary responsibility to perform all work in accordance with the specifications. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 7-1 Woodward-Clyde This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other than our own on the site; the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R 7-2 Woodward-Clyde APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R Woodward-Clyde APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Six exploratory borings were advanced at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan (Figure 2). The drilling was performed on July 21,1994, under the direction of an engineer from our firm, using a CME 85 drill rig, equipped with an 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger. Samples of the subsurface materials were obtained from the borings using a modified California drive sampler (2-inch inside diameter and 2-1/2-inch outside diameter) with thin stainless steel liners. The sampler was generally driven 18 inches into the material at the bottom of the hole by a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches; thin metal liner tubes containing the sample were removed from the sampler, sealed to preserve the natural moisture content of the sample, and returned to the laboratory for examination and testing. The locations and elevations of all borings are approximate and were estimated by our engineer using the as-graded topographic map provided to us. A Key to Logs is presented in Figure A-l. Final Logs of the Borings are presented on Figures A-2 through A-7. W:\W51092K\S101-A-R A- 1 MCCLELIAH PALOMAR AIRPORT Source: The Thomas Guide, 1994 edition "Reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS. This map Is copyrighted by THOMAS BROS. MAPS, ft is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, whether for personal use or resale, without permission. VICINITY MAP CALLAWAY GOLF DISTRIBUTION BUILDING CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER - LOT 12 DRAWN BY: cb | CHECKED BY: K>J PROJECT NO: 9451092K-SI01 | DATE: 8-S-94 | FIGURE NO: 1 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS E&y / **&>jue , / <? DATE ' STARTED HAMMERWEIGHT (Ibs) DATE TOTAL DEPTH ,ft AFINISHED DRILLED (feet) JW'U HAMMER GROUNDWATER DROP (inches) DEPTH (feet) DIAMETER OF BORING (inches) DATE MEASURED DRILLING DRILLING COMPANY EQUIPMENT DRILLING BOREHOLE LOGGEDM ETHOD BACKFILL BY APPROXIMATE SURFACE BORING ELEVATION (feet, MSL) LOCATION x'«J-1SQ. Oiri**- Q 10- 15- 20- 25-SAMPLESBLOWS/ftGRAPHICLOGill DESCRIPTION DISTURBED SAMPLE LOCATION Sample was obtained by collecting cuttings in a bag or sack. MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLE Sample with recorded blows per foot was obtained by using a Modified California drive sampler (2" inside diameter, 2.5" outside diameter). The sampler was driven into the soil with a 140 pound hammer felling 30 inches. Fill Sand Clay ABBREVIATIONS: GS - Grain Size Distribution Analysis El - UBC Expanion Index PI - Plasticity Index LL - Liquid Limit WA - Wash Analysis ATD - At time of drilling MOISTURECONTENT,%DEW'S aga Q Project:CallawayGolf-Lot12 RORIIVir tfFV ' Project Number: 9451092K-SI01 LOG OF BOKINfc KEY OTHER TESTS/ NOTES Figure A-1 1 of 1 8/5/94 BGLOG 1092K Woodward-Clyde Consultants HATE 'L*rt 1 C T/*> 1 /AffSTARTED '/•«/-» HAMMER ,.ftWEIGHT (Ibs) 1W DATE -jnnQA TOTAL DEPTH ,, -FINISHED »-*l'»* DRILLED (feet) il<9 HAMMER -.« GROUNDWATER w«__ a«o«..-*DM.jDROP (inches) 30 DEPTH (feet) None encountered DIAMETER OF .„BORING (inches) * DATE A™MEASURED A1U DRILLING AARnrilHmr DRILLING CME 85COMPANY A & K Uniting EQUIPMENT ^™i *° METHOD0 Hollow-stem auger BACKFILL* AuSer cuttings BOGGED g rrtzwmiam APPROXIMATE SURFACE ,,, BORING ~ -- „,«.. ELEVATION (feet, MSL) J" LOCATION oee aiM: rian LU-«- O 5- 10- 15- 20- 25- J W en 1 m 1-2 I J 1-1 DQ 24 m F1 1-3 H 27 1-4 rj 44 1-5 tl 48 1-6 H 75 GRAPHICLOG^^( 'i t DESCRIPTION FILL Moist, light brown, fat clay, some sand and rootlets Moist, brown and light brown, lean clay, some sand, trace gravel - POINT LOMA FORMATION Hard, moist, light purple gray, lean to fat clay (CL-CH) with patches of orange brown and brown clayey sand (SC) { Becomes orange brown and purple grey • Bottom of boring at 21 .5 feet -MOISTURECONTENT,%15 14 17 oz ^*in Q 97 96 96 ProKl?brG°^°o9\2K^ LOG OF BORING B-1 OTHER TESTS/ NOTES GS(74), PI =36, LL=53 WA(81), PI =32, LL=48 Figure A-2 1 of 1 9KI94 BGLOC 1092K Woodward-Clyde Consultants STARTED 7/21/94 HAMMER tAnWEIGHT (Ibs) I4U DATE 7/11/01 TOTAL DEPTH ,, eFINISHED '"•/=•* DRILLED (feet) *l<5 HAMMER ,„ GROUNDWATER „ enrnuntPrerfDROP (inches) JO DEPTH (feet) "one encountered DIAMETER OF «„BORING (inches) * DATE ATnMEASURED AIU DRILLING . . „ n.-n-«. DRILLING PMP oeCOMPANY A&RDrillmg EQUIPMENT CME85 METHOD0 Hollow-stem auger BACKFILL* AuBcr cuttings ^GGED S. Fitzwilliam APPROXIMATE SURFACE ,,,- BORING - cifo piQ« ELEVATION (feet, MSL) J1° LOCATION See Mle rian ,. Q_ Q| HIM—Q 5- 10- 15- 20- 25- wuj—iQ- (O 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 £ O — im 32 24 25 41 46 O $° ° i jj H DESCRIPTION FILL Moist, light brown, clayey fine sand to sandy clay Moist, brown, fat clay with trace fine sand and rootlets Moist, purple grey and brown, sandy lean to fat clay Moist, purple gray and orange, brown, fat clay with some sand POINT LOMA FORMATION Hard, moist, light purple grey, well indurated lean to fat clay (CL-CH), with patches of orange brown fine clayey sand (SC) Bottom of boring at 2 1 .5 feet Q^f"^ ^f 1 1 So 20 11 18 > ocw"S UJ Q 92 toi 106 OTHERTESTS/NOTES WA(91), PI =33. LL=53 PI =35. LL=*S6 Project: Callaway Golf • Lot 12 Dr»omir* D o Figure A-3 Project Number: 9451092K-SI01 LOG OF BORING B-2 1 of 1 8J5J94BOLOG 1092K Woodward-Clyde Consultants DATE'STARTED 7/71/QA"•"/!»DATEFINISHED TOTAL DEPTHDRILLED (feet)DIAMETER OF »„BORING (inches) ** HAMMER WEIGHT (Ibs)— «-DATEMEASURED ATnAIU DRILLINGCOMPANY A & R Drilling EQUIPMENT CME DRILLINGMETHOD Hollow-stem auger BACKFILLE Au8er cuttings ^GGED S. Fitzwilliam APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION (feet, MSL) BORING LOCATION - «.,„ „.»ee Site nan x SAMPLES£ <=> S|83 2-1 m o DESCRIPTION MOISTURECONTENT,%DCCOO mQ OTHER TESTS/ NOTES 3-2 FILL Moist, light brown, clayey fine sand to sandy clay 3-1 IT! 16 Moist, light orange brown, fat clay with some fine sand, trace fine gravel 18 87 5~" 3-3 kJ 22 . 14 105 Moist, dark brown, lean clay with some fine sand and patches of clayey fine sand '""I 3^ pj 23 £ With 1/8" - 1/2" layers of light yellow brown, poorly graded fine sand g 103 Moist, light yellow brown and light brown, clayey fine to medium sand •jc_i LJ °~ 3-5 tl 22 SANTIAGO FORMATION Medium dense to dense, light yellow gray, poorly graded sand (SP) 2(H 3-6 LJ 26 ^ 25 ' 3-7 L J 39 GS(84), £1=96, PI =33, LL=5I Bottom of boring at 26.5 feet Project: Callaway Golf - Lot 12 Project Number: 9451092K-SI01 LOG OP D OB-3 Figure A-4 1 of 1 Woodward-Clyde Consultants DATE ' -T/91/aiSTARTED '/•«/« HAMMER ,jftWEIGHT (Ibs) IW DATE Trti/oi TOTAL DEPTH 1£-FINISHED ti*Uy+ DRILLED (feet) ift-5 DROP finches) ^" DEPTH (feet) None encountered DIAMETER OF fiHBORING (inches) * DATE ATnMEASURED Alv DRILLING * - ,, TW;II;«,. DRILLING riv/nr «eCOMPANY A at K Drilling EQUIPMENT ^wtXl 5:> METHOD3 Hollow-stem auger BACKHLtf AuSer cuttings BOGGED s FltzwiUiam APPROXIMATE SURFACE ,1Q BORING - c:tat mELEVATION (feet, MSL) *gy LOCATION Bee aite rian t-sQ_ 01 aT 5- 10- 15- 20- 25-SAMPLES4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 BLOWS/ft25 20 51 34 GRAPHICLOGDESCRIPTION FILL Moist, light brown, clayey fine sand with rootlets Moist, tight brown and brown, fat clay with fine sand Moist, light yellow brown and dark brown, lean clay with sand SANTIAGO FORMATION Dense, moist, yellow gray, poorly graded fine to coarse sand with silt (SP-SM) Bottom of boring at 16.5 feet MOISTURECONTENT,%15 15 >-" or 55*5 Ul Q 90 97 OTHER TESTS/ NOTES PI «33, LL=54 PI =27, LL=45 Project: Callaway Golf -Lot 12 .-*—*»— ~^ «... . ~. -» . Figure A-5 Project Number: 9451092K-SI01 LOG OF BORING B-4 1 Qf 1 Woodward-Clyde Consultants DATE ' 7m;«M DATE 7/71/01 TOTAL DEPTH 1£ -STARTED ff*Uy* FINISHED "*1'» DRILLED (feet) IO<a HAMMER |4n HAMMER ,„ GROUNDWATER „ farount*redWEIGHT (Ibs) I4° DROP (inches) JO DEPTH (feet) None encountered DIAMETER OF onBORING (inches) * UA 1 c ATTfcMEASURED Al" DRILLING A * » nr;i!Jn« DRILLING f^m ReCOMPANY A&RDnllmg EQUIPMENT CME85 METHOD0 Hollow-stem auger BACKFoif Au8cr cuttinSS ^?GGED S. FiUirilliam APPROXIMATE SURFACE ,.a BORING ~ „.. „. „ ELEVATION (feet, MSL) *l° LOCATION aee &Iie rian EsQ_ 4)IIH^a 10- 15- 20- 25-SAMPLES5-1 5-3 5-4 5-5 I BLOWS/ft18 20 45 37 GRAPHICLOG[ '%. DESCRIPTION FILL Moist, light brown, clayey fine sand to sandy clay Moist, light brown and dark brown, fat clay with some fine sand, trace fine gravel Moist, brown and light brown, sandy lean clay POINT LOMA FORMATION Hard, moist, purple gray, well indurated lean to fat clay (CL-CH) Hard, moist, layered brown and black, fine sandy lean to fat clay (CL-CH) Bottom of boring at 16.5 feet pp:oK:NcuarbrG°945Lio91 2 2K.s,o1 -MOISTURECONTENT,%11 8 >-' DCW^Q2 a UJQ 96 103 LOG OF BORING B-5 ' OTHER TESTS/ NOTES GS(79), EI=135, PI =35, LL=52 WA(58) Figure A-6 1 of 1 B/S/94BGIOO1092K Woodward-Clyde Consultants DATE- STARTED 7/21/94 DATE FINISHED 7/21/94 TOTAL DEPTH DRILLED (feet)16.5 DIAMETER OFBORING (inches) HAMMER WEIGHT (Ibs)140 HAMMER DROP (inches)30 GROUNDWATER DEPTH (feet)None encountered DATE MEASURED ATD DRILLING COMPANY A & R Drilling DRILLING EQUIPMENT CME85 DRILLING METHOD Hollow-stem auger BA?KFI°LLE cuttings LOGGED BY S. Fitzwilliam APPROXIMATE SURFACE ELEVATION (feet, MS L)315 BORING LOCATION See Site Plan Q_ qiLLI1^ Q C/5 LU CL. 5 <CO s DESCRIPTION OQ occno02 tt uia OTHER TESTS/ NOTES 25- FILL Moist, light brown, clayey fine sand to sandy clay with gravel at surface 6-1 24 Moist, mottled orange brown and brown fat clay, with fine to coarse sand 19 89 WA(97), PI =39, LL=58 6-2 kJ 22 15 Moist, brown, lean to fat clay, some sand 6-3 POINT LOMA FORMATION Dense, moist, yellow brown, poorly graded fine to coarse sand with silt (SP-SM) with gray sandy lean clay {CL) Medium dense, moist, yellow brown and gray, fine to coarse sand with clay (SC) 6-4 M 26 Becomes less clayey Bottom of boring at 16.5 feet 20- Project: Callaway Golf - Lot 12 Project Number: 9451092K-SI01 LOG OF BORING B-6 Figure A-7 1 of 1 an/94 &GLOO 1092K Woodward-Clyde Consultants 1 I Woodward-Clyde APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R Woodward-Clyde APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTS The materials observed in the borings were visually classified and evaluated with respect to strength, swelling, and compressibility characteristics, dry density, and moisture content. The classifications were substantiated by performing grain size analyses and evaluating plasticity characteristics of representative samples of the soils. The strength of the soils was evaluated by considering the density and moisture content of the samples and the penetration resistance of the sampler. The expansion potential of soils was evaluated by considering the natural moisture content of the soil samples, the results of Expansion Index tests, and the results of the plasticity tests. The results of the moisture content and dry density tests are shown with the penetration resistance of the sampler at the corresponding sample location on the logs, Figure A-2 through A-7. The grain size analyses and plasticity index tests results are shown in Figures B-l and B-2. Results of the Expansion Index tests are shown in Figure B-3. The results of one-pomt grain size analyses are presented on the boring logs as percent passing the No. 200 sieve. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT_ W tf». OS CD Oo o o o o oUNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION COBBLES GRAVEL COARSE FINE U.S. SIEVE SIZE IN INCHES 3 3/4 3/8 < 'i 1"103 _ 10 SYMBOL BORING O 1-2 D 3-2 A 5-2 . ! ib"" GRAIN DEPTH LL I(ft) g) J< 0-5 53 3 0-5 51 3. 0-5 52 31 SAND COARSE MEDIUM FINE CLAY U.S. STANDARD SIEVE No. HYDROMETER t 10 20 40 60 140 200 3 E J ^ *---* CT-1 ^N ^ "—*S '"•'•• n^ *s ^ I ^xS 4 ^i ^ I t 1 i icr* 10* SIZE IN MILLIMETER «) DESCRIPTION >- CO 05 ^. (0 0o o o o oPERCENT RETAINED BY WEIGHT1CT3 5 FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) 3 FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) 5 FAT CLAY WITH SAND (CH) Remark : 9451092K SI01 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS SAN DIEGO CALLAWAY GOLF LOT 12 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION Figure No. B-1 PLASTICITY INDEX. PI-i)OCd.U(JlO>vja>oooooooooSample Number 1-3-4 2-1-4 2-3-4 4-1-3 4-2-4 6-1-4 1-SK-2 3-SK-2 5-SK-2 CL-ML CL S orOL S ML A« E0 >/ orOL F 'G ••• me HVoJ Ch > ^ or OH / / MH ^ r -A" or OH / LINE /r 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT. LL Depth (feet) 6 3 11 3 6 3 0-5 0-5 0-5 Letter Desig. A B C D E F G H I Moisture Content (%) 14 20 18 15 - 19 15 18 11 LL 48 53 56 54 45 58 53 51 52 PI 32 33 35 33 27 39 36 33 35 Description Brown, lean clay (CL) Brown, fat clay (CH) Gray, orange and brown, fat clay (CH) Brown, fat clay (CH) Brown, lean clay (CL) Brown, fat clay (CH) Orange brown and brown, fat clay (CH) Light orange brown, fat clay (CH) Grayish brown, fat clay (CH) Project: CaKaway Golf - Lot 12 reject Number: 9451092K-SI01 PLASTICITY CHART Figure No.: B-2 Woodward-Clyde Consultants Sample Number 1-2 3-2 5-2 Initial Dry Dens i ty pcf 102 100 98 Water Content % 12 14 13 Saturation % 50 49 55 Final Dry Dens i ty pcf 92 89 89 Water Content % 29 31. 31 Saturation % 95 95 94 Pressure psf 144 144 144 Expansion 113 96 135 UBC EXPANSION N)EX CALLAWAY GOLF DISTRIBUTION BUILDING - LOT 12 CRC DHA»H1Y: Cb | CHiCKgD JY: | PBOliCT MO:94 51092~SI0 11 DATE: 8~8~94 | FK3UBC MO: B~3 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS Woodward-Clyde APPENDIX C GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR EARTHWORK W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R Woodward-Clyde APPENDIX C GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR EARTHWORK NOTE: These specifications are provided as a guide for preparation of the final grading specifications for the project, which with the plans constitute the project documents. These guide specifications are not intended for use as final grading specifications. 1. GENERAL 1.1 The work of the Contractor covered by these specifications consists of furnishing labor and equipment and performing all operations necessary to remove deleterious and undesirable materials from areas of grading, to properly prepare areas to receive fill, and to excavate and fill to the lines and grades shown on the plans or as directed in writing by the (Owner) (Civil Engineer) (Architect). 1.2 The Contractor shall perform the work in strict accordance with these specifications and the Contractor shall be responsible for the quality of the finished product notwithstanding the fact that the earthwork may be observed and tests made by a Geotechnical Engineer. Deviations from these specifications will be permitted only upon written authorization from the (Owner) (Civil Engineer) (Architect). 1.3 The data contained in the geotechnical report and in any following addenda indicating subsurface conditions are not intended as representations or warranties of the accuracy or continuity of subsurface conditions between soils borings. It shall be expressly understood that the interpretations or conclusions drawn from such data are the responsibility of the Contractor. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Contractor shall mean the contractor performing the earthwork. 2.2 Owner shall mean the owner of the property or the party on whose behalf the earthwork is being performed and who has contracted with the Contractor to have the earthwork performed. 2.3 (Civil Engineer) (Architect) shall mean the (engineer) (architect) who has prepared the grading plans and who is the Owner's representative concerning the configuration, quantities and dimensions of the earthwork and who usually sets basic surveying data at the site for the Contractor's confonnance. W:\W51092K\SIOt-A-R C-1 Woodward-Clyde 2.4 Geotechnical Engineer shall mean a licensed civil engineer authorized to use the title "Geotechnical Engineer" in accordance with Section 6736.1, Chapter 7, Division 3, State of California Business and Professions Code. The Geotechnical Engineer shall be responsible for having representatives on site to observe and test the Contractor's work for conformance with these specifications. 2.5 Green Book shall mean the most recent edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, prepared by the Joint Cooperative Committee of the Southern California Chapter, American Public Works Association, and Southern California Districts, Associated Contractors of California. 2.6 Standard Special Provisions shall mean the most recent edition of the Standard Special Provisions, prepared by County of San Diego, Department of Public Works. 3. OBSERVING AND TESTING 3.1 The Geotechnical Engineer shall be the Owner's representative to observe and make tests during the foundation preparation, filling, and compacting operations. 3.2 The Geotechnical Engineer shall make field density tests in the compacted fill to provide a basis for expressing an opinion as to whether the fill material has been compacted to at least the minimum relative compaction specified. The basis for this opinion shall be that no tests in compacted or recompacted areas indicate a relative compaction of less than that specified. Density tests shall be made in the compacted material below any disturbed surface. When these tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the specified density, the particular layer or area represented by the test shall be reworked until the specified density has been achieved. 3.3 Testing shall conform to the following standards as pertinent: ASTM D2922, "Density of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth)" ASTM D3017, "Moisture Content of Soil and Soil-Aggregate in place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth)" ASTM D1556, "Density of Soil in place by the Sand-Cone Method" W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R C-2 Woodward-Clyde ASTM D1557, "Moisture-Density Relations of Soils and Soil-Aggregate Mixtures Using a 10-lb. (4.54 kg) Rammer and 18-in. (457-mm) Drop," Methods A, B, and C. AASHTO T 224, "Correction for Coarse Particles in the Soil Compaction Test." 4. CLEARING AND PREPARING AREAS TO BE FILLED 4.1 Clearing and grubbing shall be in accordance with Section 300-1 of the Green Book and, in addition, all trees, brush, grass, and other objectionable material shall be collected from areas to receive fill and disposed of off-site prior to commencement of any earth moving so as to leave the areas that have been cleared with a neat and finished appearance free from debris. 4.2 All loose or porous soils shall be removed or compacted as specified for fill. The depth of removal and recompaction shall be approved in the field by the Geotechnical Engineer. Prior to placing fill, the surface to be filled shall be free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment to be used. It shall then be plowed or scarified to a depth as required and in no case less than a minimum depth of 6 inches. 4.3 Where the exposed slope is steeper than 6 horizontal to 1 vertical, or where specified by the Geotechnical Engineer, the slope of the original ground on which the fill is to be placed shall be stepped or keyed by the Contractor as shown on the figure below. The steps shall extend completely into the underlying formational materials or, where formational material is not present, into previously compacted fill. W:\9431092K\SI01-A-R C-3 Woodward-Clyde Original ground New fill Slope to be that sloughing or sliding does not occur Remove all —/ loose or porous soils See Note NOTES: The outside edge of bottom key "A" shall be not less than 2 feet in depth into formational soil or no less than 5 feet into previously compacted fill. The minimum width of benches "B" shall be at least 1-1/2 times the width of the compaction equipment, and not less than 10 feet. 4.4 After the foundation for the fill has been cleared, plowed or scarified, it shall be disked or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to the specified moisture content, and compacted as specified for fill. 5. SUBGRADE PREPARATION IN PAVEMENT AREAS 5.1 Subgrade preparation shall be in accordance with Section 301-1 of the Green Book, except that relative compaction of subgrade shall be in accordance with Section 12 of these specifications. Scarification and recompaction requirements may be waived by the Geotechnical Engineer in subgrade areas with naturally cemented formational soils. 5.2 All areas to be paved shall be proofrolled in accordance with Section 301-1.3 of the Standard Special Provisions. W:\9451092K\S101-A-R C-4 Woodward-Clyde 6. MATERIALS - GENERAL FILL 6.1 Materials for compacted fill shall contain no rocks or hard lumps greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension and shall contain at least 40% of material smaller than 1/4 inch in size. Material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise improper nature shall not be used in fills. 6.2 Soil used at finish grade to the depths and at the locations specified on the grading plans, shall consist of material that contains no rocks or hard lumps greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension and that has an Expansion Index of 30 or less when tested in accordance with UBC Standard 29-2. 6.3 Samples of materials to be used for fill shall be tested in the laboratory by the Geotechnical Engineer in order to evaluate the maximum density, optimum moisture content, classification of the soil, and expansion index, as required. 6.4 During earthwork operations, soil types other than those analyzed hi the report of the geotechnical investigation may be encountered by the Contractor. The Geotechnical Engineer shall be consulted to determine the suitability of these soils. 7. MATERIALS - PAVEMENT SUBGRADE 7.1 Pavement subgrade shall be defined as the top 12 inches of soil, excluding aggregate base, in areas to be paved with asphalt concrete or Portland cement concrete. 7.2 Materials for pavement subgrade shall contain no rocks or hard lumps greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension, shall contain at least 40 percent of material smaller than 1A inch in size and have an Expansion Index of 30 or less when tested in accordance with UBC Standard 29-2. Material of a perishable, spongy or otherwise improper nature shall not be used in fills. 8. MATERIALS - TRENCH BACKFILL 8.1 Trench backfill materials above pipe bedding shall be in accordance with Section 306-1.3 of the Green Book. 8.2 As an alternative, cement slurry may be used to backfill trenches. The slurry shall have a minimum cement content of two sacks per cubic yard within the building limits and zone of influence of foundations and other W:\945I092K\SI01-A-R C-5 Woodward-Clyde settlement-sensitive structures. A minimum one sack per cubic yard slurry shall be used elsewhere. 9. MATERIALS - WALL BACKFILL 9.1 Wall backfill materials shall be in accordance with Section 300-3.5 of the Green Book. 10. COMPACTION EQUIPMENT 10.1 Compaction shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of compaction equipment made specifically for the purpose of compacting soils. Equipment shall be of such a design that it will be capable of compacting the fill to the specified density at the specified moisture content. 11. PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTING GENERAL FILL MATERIAL 11.1 After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted by the Contractor to a relative compaction that is indicated by test to be not less than 90 percent. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio (expressed in percent) of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill divided by the maximum laboratory dry density evaluated in accordance with the ASTM D1557. Unless otherwise specified, fill material shall be compacted by the Contractor while at a moisture content at or above the optimum moisture content determined in accordance with the above test method. 11.2 The fill material shall be placed by the Contractor in layers that, when compacted, shall not exceed 6 inches. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading to obtain uniformity of moisture and material in each layer. The entire fill shall be constructed as a unit, in nearly level lifts starting up from the lowest area to receive fill. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area, and the equipment shall make sufficient uniform trips so that the desired density has been obtained throughout the entire fill. 11.3 When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the Geotechnical Engineer, water shall be added by the Contractor until the moisture content is as specified. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R C-6 Woodward-Clyde 11.4 When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the Geotechnical Engineer or too wet to achieve proper compaction, the fill material shall be aerated by the Contractor by blading, mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as required to permit compaction. 11.5 Properly compacted fill shall extend to the design surfaces of fill slopes. The surface of fill slopes shall be compacted in accordance with Section 11.1 of these specifications. 12. PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTING PAVEMENT SUBGRADE 12.1 Subgrade materials shall be placed, spread, and compacted in accordance with Section 11 of these specifications, except that the top 6 niches of subgrade material shall be compacted to a relative compaction that is indicated by test to be not less than 95 percent. 13. PLACING AND COMPACTING TRENCH BACKFILL 13.1 Backfilling and compacting shall be in accordance with Section 306-1.3 of the Green Book, except that jetting or flooding shall not be allowed and that all backfill shall be compacted to a relative compaction that is indicated by test to be not less than 90 percent. 13.2 All trenches 5 feet or more in depth shall be sloped or shored in accordance with OSHA safety requirements. Trenches less than 5 feet in depth shall also be so guarded when examination indicates hazardous ground movement may be expected. 13.3 No compaction testing shall be required for portions of trenches backfilled with cement slurry. 14. PLACING AND COMPACTING WALL BACKFILL 14.1 Backfilling and compacting shall be in accordance with Section 300-3.5 of the Green Book, except that jetting or flooding shall not be allowed. 14.2 The Contractor shall be responsible for using equipment capable of compacting the backfill to the specified relative compaction without damaging adjacent walls or other existing improvements. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R C~7 Woodward-Clyde 15. PROTECTION OF WORK 15.1 During construction, the Contractor shall properly grade all excavated surfaces to provide positive drainage and prevent ponding of. water. When earthwork operations are interrupted, the Contractor shall reestablish specified compaction to the depth necessary before placing new fill. The Contractor shall control surface water to avoid damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take remedial measures to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas and until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control features have been installed. 15.2 After completion of the earthwork and when the Geotechnical Engineer has finished observation of the work, no further excavation or filling shall be done except under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R C-8 Woodward-Clyde APPENDIX D GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUBSURFACE DRAINS W:\945t09ZK\SI01-A-R Woodward-Clyde APPENDIX D GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUBSURFACE DRAINS I. DESCRIPTION Subsurface drains consisting of either filter gravel or drainage board, both with perforated pipe, shall be installed as shown on the plans in accordance with these specifications, unless otherwise specified by the engineer. H. MANUFACTURE Subsurface drain pipe shall be manufactured hi accordance with the following requirements. Perforated PVC pipe or ABS pipe shall conform to the ASTM Designations 1785 and 2751, respectively. HI. DRAIN MATERIAL Drain material for use in draining the wall shall consist of either of the following alternatives: (a) Open-graded crushed rock or gravel (1-inch maximum size) surrounded entirely by a geotechnical filter fabric (such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent). or, as an alternative, (b) In-plane geotechnical drainage boards (such as Miradrain or equivalent) placed against the back of the wall for the entire backfilled depth of wall. IV. LAYING Trenches for drains shall be excavated to a minimum width equal to the outside diameter of the pipe plus 1 foot and to the depth shown on the plans or as directed by the engineer. The bottom of the trench shall then be covered full width by 4 inches of filter material and the drain pipe shall be laid with the perforations at the bottom and sections shall be joined with couplers. The pipe shall be laid on a minimum slope of 0.2 percent. After the pipe has been placed, the trench shall be backfilled with filter material to the elevation shown on the plans, or as directed by the engineer. W:\9451092K\SI01-A-R D-l i 4.5-FOOT k AS NEC TOMEE" GRADES TRENCH TOC i • t 6" + INIMUM.OR ESSARY r OUTLET 5. SLOPE BOTTOM )RAIN i r 4"t ^ *°" s * "•" ^-% ^1 7 X^s c \\\^ 5^S"^>^3 ^ v/\ 18" MINIMUM ^-COMPACTED ON-SITE SOIL 1" MAXIMUM BUILDING FOOTING CRUSHED ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC COMPACTED SELECT FILL fe-MiN. /#J^ -*— SANTIAGO FORMATION v (UNDISTURBED OR \ PERFORATED RECOMPACTED) PIPE TYPICAL SECTION PERIMETER SUBDRAIN CALLAWAT GOLF DISTRIBUTION BUILDING - LOT 12 DRAWN BY: cb | CHECKED BY: P»**\ PROJECT NO: 9451 092K-SJ01 | DATE: 8-8-94 | FIGURE NO: D-1 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS WALL WATER PROOFING PREFABRICATED DRAINAGE COMPOSITE CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB CAP OF NON-EXPANSIVELOW PERMEABILITY BACKFILL EXISTING SOIL V'DIAMETER PERFORATED DISCHARGE PIPE WRAPPED ENTIRELY IN FILTER FABRIC AND SLOPED TO DRAIN FILTER MATERIAL WALL DRAIN DETAIL CALLAWAT GOLF DISTRIBUTION BUILDING • LOT 12 DRAWN BY: cb CHECKED BY:PROJECTNO: 9451092K-SI01 | DATE: 8-8-94 | FK3URENO;P-2 WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS 18" Minimum >o Impervious Soil Waterproof Membrane Filter Material — 16" minimum width Minimum 4" Diameter Perforated Pipe 6" Minimum pipe bedding of filter material FILTER MATERIAL CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL DRAIN CALLAWAT GOLF DISTRIBUTION BUILDING - LOT 12 DRAWN B Y: cb | CHECKED BY:PROJECT NO: 9451092K-SI01 | DATE: 8-8-94 | FIGURE NO: P" WOODWARD-CLYDE CONSULTANTS