The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 81-10; Snap-On Tools Lot 26; Soils Report; 1989-07-28- - _- - - .- - - - - - - GEOCON PC. J, .P, y: IXCORPORbTED =, , id ’ 3 ~~“’ Geotechnical Engineers and Engineering Geoiogi~ts File No. D-4264-WOl July 28, 1989 Snap-On Tools Corporation 2801 80th Street Kenosha, Wisconsin 53141-1410 Attention: Mr. John Basler Subject: SNAP-ON TOOLS FACILITY CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER LOT 26 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA CONSULTATION Gentlemen: In accordance with the request of Ms. Lee Ann Wootton of Krommenhoek McKeown and Associates, project architects, we have reviewed our previous geotechnical report entitled "Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for Snap-On Tools Facility, Carlsbad, California", prepared December 19, 1988. It is our opinion that the site conditions have not changed substantially since the date of our previous investigation and all recommendations contained in our report remain valid for project development. If you have any questions regarding this letter or we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCORPORATED DJC:WS:dmc (2) addressee (1) Krommenhoek McKeown and Associates Attention: Ms. Lee Ann Wootton (I) Kahr and Associates Attention: Mr. Larry Walton 6960 Flanders Drive San Diego. CA 92121.2974 619 556-6900 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION FOR SNAP ON TOOLS FACILITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FOR SNAP ON TOOLS CORPORATION KENOSHA, WISCONSIN BY GEOCON INCORPORATED SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA DECEMBER, 1988 - - - - -. GEOCON INCORPORATED Geotechnical Engineers and Engineering Geologists File No. D-4264-W01 December 19, 1988 Snap On Tools Corporation 2801 80th Street Kenosha, Wisconsin 53141-1410 Attention: Mr. John Basler Subject: SNAP ON TOOLS FACILITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION Gentlemen: In accordance with your authorisation and our proposal dated October 27, 1988, our firm has performed a geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed Snap On Tools Facility project in Carlsbad, California. The accompanying report presents the findings of our study and our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to site development. Highly expansive soils are present at existing grade throughout the property and will require mitigating measures as recommended herein. Based on the results of our study, it is our opinion that the site can be developed as proposed provided the recommendations of this report are followed. If you have questions concerning this report or if we may service, please contact the undersigned at your convenience. Very truly yours, GEOCON INCOR DJC:WS:dav Staff Engineer (4) Krommenhoek McKeown Associates Attn: Mr. Bob Brotherton 6960 Flanders Drive San Diego. CA 921212974 619 556-6900 FAX 619 556.6159 be of further - TABLE OF CONTENTS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION Page Purpose and Scope of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Site and Project Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Soil and Geologic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Previously Placed Fill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Point Loma Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Geologic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Liquefaction Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Grading............................ 7 Foundations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Lateral Loads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Pavement Design Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Plan Review. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFOBMITY OF CONDITIONS Figure 1, Vicinity Plan Figure 2, Site Plan Figure 3, Wall/Column Footing Dimension Detail APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION Figures A-l - A-5, Logs of Test Borings APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Table I, Summary of Laboratory Compaction Test Results Table II, Summary of In-place Moisture-Density and Direct Shear Test Results Table III, Summary of Laboratory Expansion Index Test Results Figures B-l and B-2, Consolidation Curves Figures B-3 and B-4, Gradation Curves Figure B-5, R-Value Test Results APPENDIX C RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS ,- File No. D-4264-W01 December 19. 1988 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION Puruose and Scooe of Study This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed Snap On Tools Facility within Lot 26 of the Carlsbad Research Center in Carlsbad, California (Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The purpose of the investigation was to provide recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical engineering aspects of developing the property as presently proposed. The recommendations are based on the surface and subsurface soil and geologic conditions encountered during our investigation. The scope of our field investigation consisted of a site reconnaissance and the excavation of six small-diameter borings. The approximate locations of the exploratory borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. In addition, a review of aerial photographs and relevant soil and geologic literature concerning the site was performed. This review included a report prepared by San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Incorporated entitled "Foundation Investigation Proposed Commercial Development, Lot 26, Phase II, Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California", dated August 23, 1988. Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples obtained at various depths in the exploratory excavations to evaluate pertinent geotechnical properties. Details of the field exploration and laboratory tests are presented in Appendices A and B, respectively. The -l- ,- ,- File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based on an analysis of the data obtained in the various phases of the investigation and experience with similar soil and geologic conditions. Site and Proiect Descriotion The project site encompasses Lot 26 within the Carlsbad Research Center in Carlsbad, California and is located at the southeast corner of Geiger Court. The approximately 2.07 acre parcel is bordered to the north and east by commercial development, to the south by McClellan-Palomar Airport and to the west by an undeveloped parcel, Lot 25. A review of the as- built grading plans indicates the site is underlain by 6 to 10 feet of fill soils placed during previous grading operations. The report prepared by San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Incorporated indicates that no select grading was performed to provide a cap of low expansive soil at finish grade. It is understood property development will consist of constructing a 20,000 square-foot warehouse with attached offices and storage facilities. On grade parking and a truck loading area is also planned. A review of the "Concept Drainage and Utility Plan, Facility for Snap on Tool Corporation, Carlsbad, California", prepared by Krommenhoek/McKeown & Associates indicates the warehouse and office area will receive approximately 1 to 4 feet of fill while the driveway and parking lots will - -2- File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 be cut 1 to 2 feet. Anticipated foundation loads were unavailable for review at this time. The locations and descriptions contained herein are based on our site reconnaissance and the site plan provided for our use. If project details vary significantly from those described herein, Geocon Incorporated should be notified for review and possible revision of the conclusions and recommendations that follow. Soil and Geoloeic Conditions Two general soil conditions were encountered within the site: previously placed fill soils and formational soils of the Point Loma Formation. Both of the soil types encountered are discussed below: Previously Placed Fill. Previously placed fill soils cover the entire site ranging in depth from 7 to 10 feet below existing grade. These soils typically consist of stiff to hard, moist, greenish gray, silty clays with a little fine sand. Laboratory tests indicate that the fill soils are highly expansive. Thus, remedial grading and/or special foundation considerations will be necessary for support of the proposed improvements. -3- File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 Point Loma FormatIon. Soils of the Cretaceous-age Point Loma Formation were encountered underlying the fill soils throughout the site. The Point Loma Formation consists of hard, gray, silty clay with a little fine sand. These soils are anticipated to provide satisfactory foundation support characteristics. Geoloeic Hazards No faults or ancient landslides are known to exist at the site or in the immediate vicinity, and none were encountered during the course of our investigation. The nearest known active faults are the Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults which lie approximately 24 miles and 50 miles, respectively, to the northeast. The potentially active Rose Canyon Fault lies approximately 8 miles to the west in the Pacific Ocean (Map No. 1 California Division of Mines and Geology). It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along any of the above mentioned faults; however, the site is not considered to pXSE3SS a*Y greater seismic risk than that of the surrounding developments. -4- ,- ,- File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 Groundwater was not encountered within the exploratory borings at the time of our investigation. Groundwater related problems are not expected to significantly impact project development provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. Liouefaction Potential In view of the relatively dense nature of the formational soils and the lack of a near-surface groundwater table, it is our opinion that liquefaction does not present a significant geologic hazard to proposed site development. ,- ,- - File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 CONCLUSIONS AND RFXONHENDATIONS General 1. It is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development provided that the recommendations of this report are carefully followed. 2. The site has been previously mass graded as part of the Carlsbad Research Center grading operations. 3. A review of the previous grading report and our exploratory borings indicates the site is underlain by 7 to 10 feet of previously placed fill. Laboratory tests have determined that the fill soils are highly expansive. Thus, remedial grading and/or special foundation considerations are recommended herein. 4. As previously discussed, groundwater was not encountered during the investigation. Groundwater and/or seepage related problems are not anticipated if surface drainage is directed into contained drainage structures and away from buildings, pavement edges, etc. -6- -- File No. D-4264-W01 December 19, 1988 Grading 5. All grading should be performed in accordance with the "Recommended Grading Specifications' contained in Appendix C. Where the recommendations of this section conflict with Appendix C, the recommendations of this section take precedence. All earthwork should be observed by, and all compacted fill tested by, representatives of our firm. 6. Site preparation should begin with the removal of any deleterious material and/or vegetation. 7. Existing fill soils beneath the proposed warehouse, storage and office building should be removed to a minimum depth of 5 feet below finish pad grade. As the thickness of additional fill to be placed beneath the building area is anticipated to vary from 1 to 4 feet, this will require undercuts below existing grade ranging from 4 feet (where 1 foot of additional fill is to be placed) to 1 foot in areas where 4 feet of additional fill will be placed. The horizontal extent of this removal should be at least 10 feet beyond the proposed building footprint. All excavated soil should be exported offsite. The resulting excavation should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, properly moisture conditioned and backfilled to finish pad grade with very low expansive import soils (Expansion Index less than 20). Existing fill soils in areas of -7- r- - File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 driveways, parking or hardscape (patios, sidewalks, etc.) should be removed to a minimum depth of 2 feet below finish subgrade or pad grade and backfilled with very low expansive soils as discussed above. 8. An alternative to the removal and export of existing fill soils would consist of excavating the soils to a depth of 5 feet below finish pad grade within the building area and 2 feet below subgrade or pad grade in pavement or hardscape areas. The excavation bottom should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, properly moisture conditioned and recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. The excavated soil should then be uniformly moisture conditioned to approximately 4 to 5 percent above the optimum moisture content and compacted. It is recommended the soil be compacted to a relative compaction between 85 and 88 percent to reduce the expansion potential of the soil. Difficult compaction operations should be anticipated due to the higher water content of the soils. It should be noted that this alternative will reduce but not eliminate the potential for expansion of the soils at the site. This will be particularly true in areas of pavements, hardscape, etc. Increased pavement maintenance and hardscape differential movement will likely occur. -8. - File No. D-4264-W01 December 19, 1988 Foundations 9. The project is suitable for the use of continuous strip footings, isolated spread footings or appropriate combinations thereof if the preceding grading recommendations are followed. The following recommendations assume the removal of existing fill soil and backfilling with very low expansive material will be performed as outlined in Paragraph 7. Continuous strip footings should be at least 12 inches wide and should extend at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade into properly compacted fill soils. Isolated spread footings should be at least 2 feet square and extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade into properly compacted fill. Details of these foundation dimensions are shown in Figure 3. Minimum continuous footing steel reinforcement should consist of four No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two near the bottom. - 10. If removal and export of the high-expansive material is not performed, both wall and column loads should be supported on continuous strip footings or grade beams at least 18 inches wide and extending at least 30 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Minimum steel reinforcement should consist of four No. 5 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and two near the bottom. -9- ,- File No. D-4264-WOl December 19. 1988 11. The recommended reinforcement presented above is based on soil characteristics only and is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary to satisfy structural loading. 12. The recommended allowable bearing capacity for foundations designed as recommended above is 2,500 psf. The above bearing capacity may be increased an additional 600 psf for each additional foot of depth and an additional 400 psf for each additional foot of width, to a maximum allowable bearing capacity of 3,500 psf. The values presented above are for dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic forces. 13. All footing excavations should be observed by a representative of Geocon Incorporated prior to placing reinforcing steel or concrete. Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 14. If the high-expansive material is removed and replaced with very low expansive soil as described above, the interior concrete slabs-on-grade in the warehouse and storage area should be at least 6 inches thick, In the office area, the slab thickness may be reduced to 4 inches. The slabs should be underlain by 4 inches of clean sand. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are planned, a visqueen moisture barrier should be placed -lO- File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 within the middle of the sand blanket. At least 2 inches of the sand blanket should overlie the visqueen to allow for proper concrete curing. 15. Minimum slab reinforcement for the office area should consist of 6x6- 10/10 welded wire mesh placed at the slab midpoint. The warehouse and storage area slabs should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars spaced 24 inches on center. Crack control joints should be placed no more than 20 feet on center to reduce the incidence of shrinkage cracking. 16. If the high-expansive material is left onsite, the slab-on-grade in the warehouse and storage area should be increased to 8 inches thick and the slab-on-grade in the office area should be increased to 6 inches thick. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No. 3 steel bars placed 18 inches on cater for all slabs. The concrete slabs-on-grade should also be provided with isolation or expansion joints to permit vertical movement between the slabs and footings, walls, etc. 17. The concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support characteristics only. It is recommended the project structural engineer evaluate the structural requirements of the concrete slabs for supporting equipment and storage loads, forklift wheel loads, etc. -ll- File No. D-4264-WOI December 19. 1988 Lateral 18. Lateral loads may be resisted by a passive pressure equivalent to that generated by a fluid weighing 300 pcf for foundations in compacted fill soils. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 may be used for resistance to sliding along the concrete/soil interface. Pavement Desien Recommendation 19. The following recommendations SA%lllle the removal of the high- expansive soil as outlined in Paragraph 7. It is our recommendation the parking stall pavement areas consist of 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of Class II Aggregate base over 8 inches of compacted subgrade. The base and subgrade materials should be compacted to at least 95 percent and 90 percent relative compaction, respectively. All materials should conform with the requirements of the applicable governing agencies. 20. In the traffic and driveway lanes, loading dock, trash pick-up and truck areas, it is recommended that a concrete pavement be utilized. The concrete slab should be at least 6 inches thLck and be reinforced with at least No. 3 steel reinforcement bars placed 18 inches on center. The slab should be underlain by 6 inches of Class II base. 21. If the high-expansive material is not removed as recommended, the parking stall pavement area should consist of 4 inches of concrete -12- -. - -. File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 reinforced with No. 3 bars placed 18 inches on center. All other pavement areas should be increased to 8 inches of concrete and reinforced with at least No. 3 steel reinforcement bars placed 18 inches on center. All slabs should be underlain by 6 inches of Class II base. 22. The performance of asphalt concrete pavements is highly dependent upon providing positive surface drainage away from the edge of the pavement. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement will likely result in pavement distress and subgrade failure. If planter "islands" are proposed, the perimeter curb should extend at least 12 inches below the surface of the adjacent pavement. In addition, the surface drainage within the planter should be such that ponding will not occur. Site Drainaee and Moisture Protection 23. Providing and maintaining adequate drainage and moisture protection of supporting soils is an important design consideration. Foundation recommendations presented herein assume proper site drainage will be established and maintained. 24. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond adjacent to footings or structures. The site should be graded such that surface drainage flow is directed away from structures at a minimum slope of 2 percent and into wales or other controlled drainage facilities. In -13- - - - - - - .- 00%0~ D File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the pavement, it is recommended that consideration be given to providing a cutoff wall or extended curb along the edge of the pavement that extends to at least the bottom of the Class II base material. Plan Review 25. Geocon Incorporated should review grading and foundation plans for the project prior to final design submittal. Additional engineering analysis, comments or recommendations can be provided at that time if required. -14- File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the proposed construction will differ from that anticipated herein, Geocon, Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recommendations can be given. 2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. 3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years. - - - - - - - - File No. D-4264-~01 December 19, 1988 Point ---- +p;;------------” b? ~~ \ ~;, .~~~~,:.~, JI& . ; , ‘;-*:; ::,~~,..~~:,,~,.-,. ,,1 _, g,;i ;...~~-, l \ ‘, ‘1 I \ .::;, , *x VICINITY MAP SNAP ON TOOL FACILITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Elgure I - File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 PROPOSED BLDG. Q-2 1 “-“e 1 LEOEND e..... APPROX. LOEATION OF TEST SclRlNO SITE PLAN SNAP ON TOOL FACILITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure 2 - - - - File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 WALL FOOTING COLUMN FOOTING CONCRETE SLAB 4;: a*. +. . . +:. 1: _-’ L - *.........SEE REPORT FOR FO”HO~TlON WIOTH *iNo DEPTH RECOHMENDATIONS WALL / COLUMN FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL SNAP ON TOOL FACILITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure 3 ,- - ,- r - File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was performed on November 16 and 23, 1988 and consisted of a visual site reconnaissance and the excavation of six small- diameter borings. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The borings were advanced to maximum depths of 16 feet below existing grade using a B-51 Mobile drill rig utilising a 6-inch diameter flight auger. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained from the borings by driving a 3-inch O.D. split-tube sampler 12 inches into the undisturbed soil mass with a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were also performed during the borings and the results are shown on the boring logs. The soils encountered in the boring were visually examined and logged. Logs of the borings are presented on Figures A-l through A-5. The logs depict the soil and geologic conditions encountered and the depth at which samples were obtained. - r- - File No. D-4264-WOI December 19, 1988 Y : ; . . :./rl L : .: ‘. ‘_ j,; . . ; . . ./.! /I-.. . . ‘.. .’ %J ;“’ (,’ ‘, ;.+r . . . . . ‘., ,<, 1.: .., .‘,. y;: . . _. ‘. . . 2.’ (. -1; - j@nno -0 BORING 1 & ILEVATION 296 DATE DRILLED 11/16/88 2:$ -,“,o IQUIPMENT Mobile B-50 3" MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL Hard, moist, orange brown to greenish- brown, Silty CLAY with a little fine sand - 44 -- some layers of sandy clay 97. 02. POINT LOMA FORMATION Very dense, damp to moist, greenish &ray with some orange streaks, Clayey SILT with a little fine sand 501 5" 06. I 80+ - - 0.6 - - Figure A-l, Log of Test Boring 1 SAMPLE SYMBOLS 17 - SIUPLlNG “NS”CCESSF”L II -STANDARD PENETRATlON TEST I - DRWE SAYPLE ,“NDIST”RBED, q - 015T”nsEOORsAGsAMPLE P - CWUNI SAMPI.?. z - - WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE NOTE T~(ELOGOFSUsSURFlCECONOlTlONSS*OWN”E~EON*PPLIESONL”~~T”ESPECIF1CsO(llNOORIRENC~LOCI,,DN*ND ATTHEOAIEINDICATED I,ISNOIWLRR~NTEDTOsEAEPRESENT*T,YEOFS”BS”RF*CECONDlTlONSLiTOTClERLOC*T,ONS~INO,lUES File No. D-l December 19, - 2 -- p 2 L : Cl - - * I- - L - BZ-1 _ -BZ-2 4 ,6_ B2-3 _~2-4 8 ,_ _ -BZ-5 _ 10, _ 12, L 14, -B2-6 . 16 ,- - 7 . . :. , f’; :::p ‘./ <: ‘.’ I:;<. 1 .‘., :. : :.., .- ,;,y : c //,:; >/. ; . . . ,‘. ::.:, -/: / ‘. : ..‘,.. .;/ ‘.‘> : e;: L ‘1 . /’ - --. - ,I @Inn i a? ,~. -. . . BORING 2 & ELEVATION 295 DATE DRILLED 11/16/88 ::$ s;o iOUlPMENT Mobile B-50 @i MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL Stiff to hard, damp to moist, orange brown and grayish brown, Silty CLAY with a little fine sand 40 1 grayish brown, Clayey SILT. with a little 19.t 13 .; 14.: 04. Lt f$ sg - 2.2 2.6 - 0.3 21.3 - Figure A-2, Log of Test Boring 2 SAMPLE SYMBOLS Cl - SAUPLING “NS”ttES5FUL cl -STANDARO PENETRATION TEST l - ORlVE SlMPLE ,UNLmT”RBEDl El - DIST”RBEDORBAGSAMPLE q - CW”WI SAuPLe x - - WATER TABLE cm SEEPAGE NOTE~T*ELOGOFSUBS”~F*CECONDlllONSSHOWNWEREONLIPPLIESONL”*TTt(ESPEClFlCsORlNGOT(TRENCHLOClllON111O I\TTHEDATEtNotC*TED ITISNOTW*RO*NTEDTDsEREPFIE*ENT*~~”EOfS”BS”FIF~CECONDlTlONSITOT*E~(LOC~,,ONS*NOTIUE* File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 DATE DRILLED Stiff to hard, moist, orange brown to gray, Silty CLAY with a trace of fine sand 6, BORING 4 Stiff to hard, moist, grayish brown, Silty CLAY with trace of fine sand BULK %MPL BORING TERMINATED AT 4.0 FEET Figure A-3, Log of Test Borings 3 and 4 SAMPLE SYMBOLS L7 - SAUPLINO “NS”CCESSF”L cl -SIANDAm PENEraATION TEST n - DRWE SAMPLE ,“NDlST”RBED, ta - DISIURBEO OR eAG SAMPLE q -C”UNK SAUPLE I. _ - WATER TASLE OR SEEP&x File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 7- -- -. - 2 L. . 4 . 6. 8 10. 12. 14. 16. B5-6 B5-1 B5-2 B5-3 B5-4 B5-5 - 7 ‘... ,f/ _. ‘. ‘. ‘I ,y: ..’ . . ‘:/ T 2 + I..1 g ‘;.;I ;;;:I &/ --_ - - POINT LOMA FORMATION Hard, moist , grayish brown and orange brown, Silty CLAY with a little fine sand BORING TERMINATED AT 16.0 FEET - - Figure A-4, Log of Test Boring 5 BORING 5 $a, ELEVATION 296 DATE DRILLED 11/23/88 ::a $g EOUIPMENT Mobile B-50 $" MATERIAL DESCRIPTION FILL Stiff to hard, moist, greenish gray to brown, fine to medium Silty CLAY with a little fine sand -501 5.5" -- rock in sampling shoe I- t 50 L Stiff to hard, moist, gray brown to dark brown, Sandy CLAY 50 501 - 5" r; YY a2 i - XK 13.1 13.7 15.5 17.7 iMpLI 11.9 :1.9 :I.6 :0.6 SAMPLE SYMBOLS q - SAUPLING “NS”CCESSF”L 0 -STANDARD PENEmAT!ON TEST n -DRIVE S*UPLE,“NDIST”ReED, EJ - DlST”ilBED OR e-40 SIMPLE P- CWUNI SAUPLE z - - WATER TABLE OR SEEPAOE NOTLTLlELOGOFS”BS”~F*CECONDlTlONSSnOWNHEREON*PPLIESONLY~TT”ESPEClFlC~O~)lNOORTRENC”LOClTlON1ND lTT”EDATEINDICIIED IIISNOTWIAR*NTEDToBEREPRESENT*TI”EOFS”BS”T1~*CECONDITIONS*TOI~1ERLOCITIONS~NOTIMES File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 -- -- -. - ,- l- - T- ’ :” jmj, .‘I, ,aD BORING 6 iLEVATlON 296 DATE DRILLED 11/23/88 gp &j P .QUIPMENT Mobile B-50 ;;A MATERtAL DESCRIPTION FILL Hard to stiff, moist, greenish gray to brown, Silty CLAY with a little fine sand 501 - 11" 48 POINT LOMA FORMATION Very dense, moist, grayish brown, fine Clayey SILT with a little fine sand _ 501 5" ._ concretions Figure A-5, Log of Test Boring 6 - 19.8 15.7 - 15.9 19.6 14.5 2o.c 20.8 19.5 SAMPLE SYMBOLS cl - SAMPLING “NS”CCESSF”L q -SIANOAR PENETRATION TEST I - DRIVE SAUPLE ,“NDIST”RBED, H -oITURBEOORmGsAMPLE cl -CII”NK SAMPLE z _ - WITER IaLE OR SEEPAGE I r- r- - ,- File No. D-4264-W01 December 19, 1988 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other suggested procedures. Selected relatively undisturbed drive samples were tested for their in-place dry density and moisture content, direct shear strength, consolidation, compaction and expansion characteristics. Atterberg Limit tests were also performed. A bulk sample from the anticipated subgrade soils was taken for R-Value tests. The results of our laboratory tests are presented in tabular and graphical forms hereinafter. The in-place dry density and moisture content are also presented on the logs of borings in Appendix A. ,- File No. D-4264-W01 December 19, 1988 TABLE I Summarv of Laboratory Comuaction Test Results ASTM D1557-78 Maximum Dry Optimum Sample Density Moisture No. DescriVcion DCf % Drv Wt. 3-3 Dark gray, Clayey SILT 113.0 16.5 with a little fine sand 5-6 Grayish-brown, Silty CLAY with a little fine sand 112.6 13.8 File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 TABLE II Sumnarv of In-Place Moisture-Density and Direct Shear Test Results Sample NO. Angle of Dry Moisture Unit Shear Density content Cohesion Resistance DCf % usf DC?ElX?eS l-1 97.1 25.0 900 18 l-3 102.1 25.3 l-5 106.7 20.6 2-l 99.6 22.2 900 13 2-3 103.2 22.6 2-5 94.3 20.2 2-6 104.3 21.3 3-1 99.0 24.1 5-2 103.1 21.9 5-3 103.7 21.9 5-4 105.5 21.6 5-5 107.7 20.6 6-l 109.8 14.9 6-2 105.7 20.0 6-3 105.9 20.8 6-4 109.6 19.5 ,- File No. D-4264-WOl December 19. 1988 TABLE III Summarv of Laboratory ExDansion Index Test Results UBC Standard No. 29-2 Sample No. 3-3 4-l 5-6 Moisture Content Before After Test Test % % 14.5 37.5 14.9 37.8 13.8 33.9 D*Y UBC Density Expansion Expansion DCf Index Classification 94.5 120 High 93.2 128 High 96.7 114 High I File No. D-4264-WOl December 19, 1988 - ‘ SAMPLE NO. I - 3 -6 E -4 I= g ~-3 i :: g -2 l- z -I i+ E 0 I 0.1 0.6 1.0 5.0 10.0 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) 60.0 100.0 - INITIAL DRY DENSITY 102.1 (PCD INITIAL SATURATION 65 (%I INITIAL WATER CONTENT 25.3 (%I SAMPLE SATURATED AT 0.5 (kSD CONSOLIDATION CURVE SNAP ON TOOL FACILITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure B-l .- - .-, File No. D-4264-WOl Decmeber 19, 1988 SAMPLE NO. 3-l I I I I I 1 0.1 0.6 1.0 5.0 10.0 60.0 100.0 APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf) INITIAL DRY DENSITY 99.0 INITlAL WATER CONTENT 24.1 (PC0 R) INITIAL SATURATION 63. (%) SAMPLE SATURATED AT 0.5 OU3fl CONSOLIDATION CURVE SNAP ON TOOL FACILITY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Figure B-Z 1 I I I 1 I I 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 1 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 0 ,000 1o 0.1 0.01 0.00, GRAIN SIZE lN’~“~ILLIMETERS I COBBLES GRAVEL I SAND COARSE I FINE ICOARSE I MEDl”M I FINE 1 SILT OR CL&Y 1 SAMPLE NO. DEPTH CLASSIFICATION NAT.WC LL PL PI l-2 3' CH Highly Plastic CLAY 5-6 O-2' CH Highly Plastic CLAY 57 20 37 GRADATION CURVE t 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I 1 ~1 I ii t ;b tp U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE 654 100 10 1.0 0.1 O.WJ, GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS I COBBLES GRAVEL I SAND COARSE 1 FINE lCOARSE 1 MEDWM I FlNE -1 ,ILT OR CLA” SAMPLE NO. DEPTH CLASSIFICATION NAT.WC LL PL PI l-6 15’ CH Hiahlv Plastic CT.AY 2-2 3’ CH Highly Plastic CLAY 58 20 38 GRADATION CURVE ++--I-- - ,-._ I I I SAMPILE /‘, 2, F~ 7 n’y.13 &J r&-a )~, 3% r/“rov-1- L”,’ I I I ‘I 1 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION 2 3 0Lit.c F-n TEST SPECIMEN Af RcClEVED 1 AS TESTED DATE TESTED /Z-Z I 2.51 I I I^ I I 5 INITIAL MOISTURE 4 COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE WATER ADDED ML NET WEIGHT OF BRIQUETTE GMS 7 BRIQUETTE HElGHT ij DENSITY 9 EXUDATlON PRESSUdE 14 ‘R’ VALUE EXPANSION DIAL READING 15 CORRECTED VALUE File No. D-4264-W01 December 19. 1988 1. General These specifications have been prepared for grading of the Snap On Tools Facility, located in Carlsbad, California. They shall be used in conjunction with the Geotechnical Engineering Investigation report dated December 19, 1988 prepared by Geocon Incorporated. 1.2 The contractor shall be responsible for placing, spreading, watering, and compacting the fill in strict conformance with these specifications. All excavation and fill placement should be done under the observation of the Soil Engineer. The Soil Engineer should be consulted if the contractor or owner wishes to deviate from these specifications. 1.3 The grading should consist of clearing, grubbing, and removing from the site all material the Soil Engineer designates as "unsuitable"; preparing areas to be filled; properly placing and compacting fill materials; and all other work necessary to conform with the lines, grades, and slopes shown on the approved plans. 2. 2.1 Preuaration of Areas to be Graded All trees and shrubs not to be used for landscaping, structures, weeds, and rubbish should be removed from the site prior to commencing any excavating or filling operations. 2.2 All buried structures (such as tanks, leach lines, and pipes) not designated to remain on the site should be removed, and the resulting depressions should he properly backfilled and compacted prior to any grading or filling operations. 2.3 All water wells should be treated in accordance with the requirements of the San Diego County Health Department. The owner shall verify the requirements. 2.4 All vegetation and soil designated as "unsuitable" by the Soil Engineer should be removed under his observation. The exposed surface should then be plowed or scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches until the surface is free from ruts, hummocks, or other uneven features that would prevent uniform compaction by the equipment used. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 2.5 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical, or where recommended by the Soil Engi- neer, the bank should be benched in accordance with the following illustration. NOTES (1) FINISH GRACC REMJ”E AS FmxmENDED BY SOIL ENGINEE.S IWJTE II 2.6 3. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 "B" should be 2 feet wider than the com- paction equipment, and should be a minimum of 10 feet wide. The outside of the bottom key should be below the topsoil or slopewash and at least 3 feet into dense formations1 ma- terials. After the areas have been plowed or scarified, the surface should be disced or bladed until they are free from large clods; brought to the proper moisture content by adding water or aerating; and compacted as specified in Section 4 of these specifications. Materials Suitable for Use in Compacted Fill Material that is perishable, spongy, contains organic matter, or is otherwise unsuitable should not be used in compacted fill. Material used for compacted fill should consist of at least 40 Percent fines smaller than 3/4-inch diameter. The soil Engineer should decide what materials, either imported to the site or excavated from on-site cot areas, are suitable for use in compacted fills; the Soil Engineer should approve any import material before it is delivered to the site. During grading, the contractor may encounter Soil types other than those analysed for the soil investigation. The Soil Engineer should be consulted to evaluate the suitability of such soils. Any material COntaining rocks or hsrd lumps greater than 6 inches in diameter should be Placed in accordance with Section 6 of these specifications. The Soil Engineer should Ferforn laboratory tests on representative samples of n=terial to be used in comPscted fill. Such tests should be performed to evaluate the naximum dry density and moisture content of the samples. The tests should be performed in accordance with accepted test ziethods of &terials (ASTM) * the American Society of Testing and - 2 - nmon OD 4. Placing, Spreading, and Compacting Fill Material 4.1 Unless otherwise specified, fill material should be compacted while at a moisture content near the optimum moisture content and to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent as determined by accepted ASTU test methods. 4.2 Fill materials should be placed in layers that, when compacted, have a relative compaction in conformance with the project specifications. Each layer should be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to provide uniformity of materials in each layer. 4.3 When the moisture content of the fill material is less than that recommended by the Soil Engineer, water should be added until the moisture content is as recommended. When the moisture content of the fill material is more than that recommended by the Soil Engineer, the fill material should be aerated by blading, mixing, or other methods until the moisture content is as recommended. 4.4 After each layer is placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it should be thoroughly compacted to the recommended minimum relative compaction. 4.5 The fill should be compacted by sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pheumatic-tired rollers, or other types of compacting rollers that are capable of compacting the fill at the recommended moisture content. Each layer should be rolled continuously over its entire area until the recommended minimum relative compaction is achieved throughout the fill. 4.6 . The fill operation should be continued in layers, as specified above, until the fill has been brought to the finished slopes and grades shown on the approved plans. 4.7 Fill slopes should be compacted by sheepsfoot rollers, by track- walking with a dozer, or by other suitable equipment. Compaction operations should continue until the slopes are properly compacted (that is, in-place density tests indicate a relative compaction of at least 90 percent at a horizontal distance of 2 feet from the slope face). 5. Observation of Grading Operations 5.1 The Soil Engineer should make field observations and perform field and laboratory tests during the filling and compaction operations, so that he can express his opinion whether or not the grading has been performed in substantial compliance with project recommendations. 5.2 The Soil Engineer should perform in-place density tests in accordance with accepted ASTX test methods; such density tests should be made in the compacted materials belou the disturbed surface. when results Of tests taken within any layer indicate a relative compaction below that recommended, that layer or portion thereof should be reworked until the recommended relative compaction is obtained. - . 6. 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Oversize Rock Placement "Oversize" rock is defined as material that is greater than 6 inches and less than 4 feet in maximum dimension. Naterial over 4 feet in maximum dimension should not be used in fills. "Soilfill." is defined as material containing no rock fragments over 6 inches in maximum dimension, and containing at least 40 percent (by weight) soil sizes passing a 3/4-inch sieve. Such "soilfill" should be compacted in accordance with specifications for structural fill. "Rockfill" is defined as material containing less than 40 percent (by weight) soil sizes passing a 3/4-inch sieve. Such "rockfill" can be placed in areas designated by the Soil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. The Soil Engineer should continuously observe placement of oversize rock. Oversize rock should be placed in accordance with the following illustration. - ZOM A: ZONE 8: ZONE C: ’ ii” ’ LEGEND Compacted "soilfill." In public right-of-way areas and easements, ZONE A should be at least 10 fSSt thick and should extend at least 3 feet below proposed utility line depth. Rocks 2 to 4 feet in dimension placed in windrows in compacted “soilfill.” ZO:.T. !3 disposal not Per- mitted for SloPeS steeper than 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. 'Rocks 6 inches to 2 feet in dimension, uniformly distributed in compacted "soilfill." r- ?- .- - 7. Protection of Work 7.1 During construction, the contractor should grade the site to provide positive drainage away from structures and to prevent water from ponding adjacent to structures. Water should not be allowed to dan- age adjacent properties or finished work on the site. Positive drainage should be naintained by the contractor until peruanent drainage and erosion control facilities are installed in accordance with project plans. 7.2 No additional grading shall be done, except under the observation of the Soil Engineer. - -