Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1620 FARADAY AVE; ; CB993794; Permit
City of Carlsbad l 12/10/1999 Retaining Wall Permit Permit No:CB993794 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 438-3101 Job Address: Permit Type: Parcel No: Valuation: Reference #: 1620 FARADAY AV CBAD RETAIN Lot#: 0 2121302300 $8,850.00 Construction Type: NEW Status: Applied: Entered By: Plan Approved: Issued: ISSUED 10/15/1999 MOP 12/10/1999 12/10/1999 Project Title: SPEC BUILDING 600 SF RETAINING WALL Applicant: RENO CONTRACTING 8104 COMMERCIAL STREET LA MESA, CA. 91944 Total Fees: Inspect Area: I (U) f ·····----... ~_.,,/// ;;7\ t----jl i Building Permit ; ~-j I ~1/1 b!J ----<---:s::v·> i \:::_.,.) $1 p4.83 Add'I Building Permit Fee\ \ ~ / 1 r ~ (/r-.._ \7;, ! ,$0.00 Plan Check ' ··\c:::;__ "-,, :.L ~ 1 1; \_{ uts; j/ J $,'68.14 Add'I Plan Check Fee \ . '·, ~ ~I o _ y / _/$0.00 Strong Motion Fee \ \ ; /~ ~z./i ('~-/ /: $1.00 Renewal Fee \ _ ~ l__/ 'i I / $0.00 Add'I Renewal Fee ,~~ ~ !NCO~~~:ATEO ,--.;,. / $0.00 Other Building Fee \:; /4/ .____ __ _JJ _____ ~ ;-s':::::\~ 1 $0.00 ~~;I fl 17 ,•_..;')~\\) / TOTAL PERMITFEES ~:-'::, /, I} @ \~ \/ $173.97 -----------......______ $98.97 FINAL APPROVAL Date: _h.~·/4........,,~""'~;...a:;.. __ /( Clearance: _____ _ NOTICE: Please take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a}, and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capactiy changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any fees/exactions of which ou have reviousl been iven a NOTICE similar to this, or as to which the statute of limitations has reviousl otherwise ex ired. CITY OF CARLSBAD 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 438-1161 02 99.,97 .• ": ,•:,•-;,. • '• ,·,Jr,··,·•··: :• ~ :-'·•" .•. · ·.-··,~. ' .~ •• ' •• ·.; ~: •• ·::..~1 ~' ..... , -.· I P.02/02 Oc'l'· ·13-99 WED 09:41 1• Uli1-1~-~~ TUE 14:01 FAX NO. 000 0000 P.02 PERMIT APPLICATION CJTY OF CARL.SSAO BUJLDJNG DEPARiMENT 2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad CA 92009 (760) 438-11 $1 Addr••a linelude l!ldgJSunt II Neme #of St.Qri4!s ~--·---·------..;;..-. __ FOR OFACE USE ONLY l'tJ PLAN CHECK NO. tf ~ -) EST. VAL. ~ 50 Plan Ck. Deposit-----~-""-""- Validated Bv. __ ~------ii.-- t>nte _______ ,.,_..._'--'.-A.----1- Ph11•• No. Tots! II of unit& If Qt BatllrOomJ ~ w;:),-t.l,)j'i,~:twtmtl:Jt~:f.$.:~,-- 6) ) '.). D$Si1Jr111r Ne111• .0.ddrns CIW Ste1a/%lp Telqoho,w State Llcans& ,, ________ _ ~'.~r.=i.WOlitl'Ms!'::toM~~~~,1~~.ffl~~}:~~-:~~~~l~;.~{~~~~: Worlc•1111· Co111p1r,i,,tlon 0ei:!,rttion; t hereby lffirm under p,,nlll1Y of fmju,Y one of the fellowing dKl11r1nlll!lfl ¥ I Mvo and will ntilntilin a c1rtifiet1tt of (!1)11ei11m to nlf-inwr11 fer workeri;' <:omp0t1rml11n u pl'OViCllld' by $ectian 3100 of tt!D l.lbar Cod,, fer th11 Pllrf11Trnane(I /~he wot~ fo, which this p11rmlt I$ lsslnld. , CJ I ll~Y• 1111d wDI rn11lnt11ill Y<Qrker$' camparu1t!on. es rcauir11d by Secti1m 3700 of th11 L•bar CQdo, tar th11 porto~imc1t of ~• work tor which thl111 1111rmtt 1$ lnufld, My workvr's compenHtlon in1ura1t1:"' comer and 111olicy numbet rre: 1_ 1113Ulffl\Clll;ompany Sl-<s,' ~ b6 :&::'iaS 0 Mcytw. :f '::Jl-!1,t-2-r 1;,tpinstlonl)att 9'-/-o~- rtrt1!i ,mcTJOff NEEi> NOT 8£ ~QM~ D> TH!i l'ER~rr 1$ FOR ()NE M1JNl)JIEI) DOUA."S moo1 OR 1.ess, Cl CEJITIFICATii OF e>CeMPltOH:. I .c.rtlfy that 111 u,, oer1omiance Qt tha wont for W!licll ~ petmit i$ ill~d, \ -'1111 r11Jt em,IJloy ai,y ~roon f,i ellY mannar to •• 10 botQm• auDjlli;t to th11 Wurk,rs' Con,111nnt1on Law~ of Colifomi11. WARM1'4G: FtllV1'9 to t"1:llf9 wo,I,:"*' ~ cc,..,.~ la 11!1fawM. fflll .tiall ""1.lfft ffl empw,ar to erfm)na} P'fllllflff lffld 11Mt ~ vi, to OtHt 1lvnclred ~11out1111d dollar• ( 0 001, In all~ 10 ffit4r7.rt of CIPIIIPll"'8tkzn, d11N111n • ~ fol~ SaGtJon 379~ of the~ "911•, ~t anct ilffil'lnllV'I , .. ,. :;~~~A~A~.' ·~~li4~~~~$._~~·~~~t;'~~~~ I hereby affirm ~t I am ox,mpt ft,;,m th• C<111traetbr'$ U1'Wn,111.1w f11r th11 f11ll0Wlttiif reucn: 0 l. H 11wner "' th~ ~ra1?1111Y or my .mpl~ wllh wage, 11:J thalr &ole cal!'Jpllnf$1ion. wm ® the wm •M ~et atruimire i$ not lntond11lf or 0ffem for ••I• !Se,;:, 7044, 8usln••• end Ptato"laras Cod•; Th .. C<>n?eetor'I' u~ma111.tw 1,!i.,1111 not 110P1v ta ~n a""""' i:i1 pro~ wtto bull~ or lmprov• tl'l'IJffffl, end wTlo oon 1111dh wotk himHlt or m1011tl'l hit own empl~-, pro\lilled ~t 1ut!fl lmprovtmmta 1111 not intl!ftd!ld or atfeted tor ul11. tf, tiow.vw, ~ bul1111n11 or improvement Is sol(! witllll'I ono ynr Q( complt!'!lon, tll, ownor-buildllr will hav• ~. b\ffVGn ¢ Plflvlllll' tlltt ht dld not build OT lrtJFrQY& for tho 011rpos11 cf 11lf>. CJ I, ll!J OVVnflr t;,f thlr Pf0Pllrfy, lll'n IIXCIIZJ'.IVl!ly ei:t~ w.tfi li~ed 1:ontrllCI.Cf.11 to coristruct VIO JIR!Jf.~ ($ti:, 7044, Bu~lhqH ff111 f>f,:,f11HIOnll COdlt! lhlJ Contre1:tQf'1 Ucill'l!JII bW <Ion not , pply 10 an owner of """'arty who 1>yllcg 'K lml)roVg, mereon, ind cantrtctll tor 11111:h proieeti with coi,tra~ttrrlal lh,•n11c:1 ouniu8nt t'l' thw c:anmwriir'11 uc11na11 l.,w). · CJ I am tx4f11pt 11ruf11r Se<:1lon _____ IS11111rlt111 11M Ptot.1111l0"" Cod,. ttrr ibis rosont 1. 1 0111ronanv p!en to J)!O'lld• thll m11!(N' t.bor an!! mmri«la for~~ ot tn1111roPCS,d prooe,ty ;,,.,1>11>Vomarnt. 0 ves Or.:o 2. I (have i tiavo Mtl li91)11d an •JlJIIJ08tlon for s lluil~119 pormlt ~r th, Pllll'Ollld Wllrll, 3, I hzt\lt tontr~od with '1h11 following pertol'I (finnl to p,ovidt 111B propc,Hd ,;,on~iDll tln0/11lfll namo / 11Cfdnifl I p>ion• numbor I c.ontntlrtol$ llcente nll!'fll>ll')l 4, ! 9111n to 11r0Yide poJliD/13 of the worli:, ~ut I ht'ie h!roll tht follo111in11 ptt'BGn w coardin4tll, wi,am,o llnO provldo the mtiOr work linchld11 n•l'!la / alldr!IH I pllQn• numb1rrl<:Ohtr11~rs fiO!l!'lll!r nu,nllllth, ______________ ...., _____________ _,.. ____________ ~ 5. r wlll ~rovlllll so"'° of 1h11 work, but I h1tv& eotnractad (hired) '1h11 fo~wing 1tomc;,no w proriQII mo Wtll'k indicated linclud11 n1ma / .11:Jdn,11& f phano numt,111 / 1YJ)W ofwo~l-~·-----~·------------------------------------------PRQPeR'l'Y OWNER SfGN.ATURI: ___________ ....., ___ ,_______ OAT!: ________ _ :'i¥C~-~~~~t!s:,::;t;~·~:c.~~~li="~~;.%-~·~ff~~,~~~~~~~mQ\~tw.~r~tc;~;~ZE-~~~a1t,~.~~~'i&~ Is 'Ill• appl~W or flllllt• bultr;fing cc~up,M r111Nirelf ,c:t aubmlt a b\ltih""'II plan, l'Clml!Y ha%1tdoQs ~•h• n9l~Ol'l form o, risk msnagerni,nt imi, prev,ntlon prqgtllm vnd\!r !inctiQrJI ;wsos. iH33 Qr 2S524 of tilt PrllllltY•T11rme, Hat&Nll>U3 $vblltit~ Aeelluttt A~!L-0' ¥1iw g_ NO • . . Is ~ eppffcsnt or f~we building °"'1.1111nt hlqU/red to ot>t11!n a potmlt rrvm tlltl tit poll1Jt11m c:Qlltrol dlflri~ or elr c,ualltv "1iln111ern1,,1t dlttrlct~ 0 YE$ O NO Is thet f&clll!VtQ be COn5IIIJct•4 within 1,000 ,,,t of w Ollf"7 boun4..rv orucnool ~It"? 0 YES ·Cl NO IF ANY OF THE AN$W!IIS AFJe YEs. A FINAi,. CEftTIFICA TE OF OCCUPANC'Y MAY NOT BE 1$SUm:l l)MJ.8$ Tffl Al'PtJCAffT tu\$ M£f OIHS MEIIT!NC THI< R.l!:Qll1REMENT$ OF THE Of!FIC£ OJ fMl1kQ1:NoY SSMCSI ANI) THe ~ l'OU.UTION QON1il0l 01$TRJOT. f~~;Utif>JtJg~ : .. · . ·1~~;lilr,Jf.:.:i~1c@.-;\E~~r~:ioi:1it!,~{\l;· I ll•rnlly •fflrm that thara Is " eiinl/tfuatlon 1•"41ng •11anc-, fQr the 911rlorm111~ 11f tn& work fczr whli:h this: :,,,rml: i. lsat.11)cl (Svc. 3097(1) Clvn Code). LENtleR'S N.b,ME; ________ ~----Lenoen•s ACOR~& =-~--~~~-~..!tM~.~:t~·~n"'9lHl#"~~~J~~"~~~~ ~ , ~~~...&t~~,!5'~~~'1:0k~~5:'£i;1~-. I ~ttlfy 'that I hDVIJ ra,d tffll e11plii:tt1<:n 11')(! Sla';~ 1h•t tht iibov. lntwrmation ilt cor:i;IR't end thft thv intonnlltioo qn tht plans l!J t¢t:uratet. I 1(11" tQ ootnply with nll etw ordlnlfnCtt'I-,nd StGi. l•ws r"'11trng ,,.. bulldl~ conffi\lctkln. I Mrllbv autl'lome rtprettmativeo of me Cltt af Clllltbtd ti> vnt11r upQn ttit a~ov11 mentlon•d ptoptrtY for lnfl)~oo J)Ul'J'0$8S. I Al.SO A.Oftl!E TO SAVE, rNOEMNCFV AM> t(ttP HAf!MUlSS T~ ertV OF CMLSl!IAD AC~N!:T AU. 1..rAlltUTl£8 JUDGMl!Pil'S, COSl'$ AHO ~$ES WHfCH M.6V 1H ANY WAY ACC/lth!a ~--INST #All) CfTT IN ~DJ'i5lQUEHCE OF Tim t:mANl'ING or. TM~ HffMIT. ' OSHA; Ar, OSHA p,rmit I• ro~1r,1t fOt .xc.-ntl,;,11!1 over S!O• clOJ? 1ml' d•rnall*1! i>• cc~on ot attuct1ITT1, over 3 fflrin In !'18l!lll'C, l:XJ'IRATIOI\I, Evmt parmlt i1111uod by th11 Sul/ding Official'. u11d~, the 11nwilliD1tt of tl!il Code shen 01111ir• tiy limltatlatt llt1d t;.aoorrn, nuh thd void It m, bullt!lng or worJc •llttlarliod ~v 1111Ch i,trtnlt la riot t:!Ommtni:l!d wltlllh ~n <I.vs from fl'lo dim, qf a\lQt\ p,,rmlt or If the blllldl,tff or wot!( lllrthorit>Od by suen ~erl\'llt 1$ !IU$jlllfld d or11b11ndone1Ut •nvt1,..,,. •tt., tt>~ w i; 1:D1M111 1 ~ a ·oant 180 cla~ is~., fOfl',4,4 Unltorm e,,11e1rn~ coda). 11 APl't.lCANf'UIC:iNA'tlJfle ~ DAT~ { 0 ( \S / 94 WHITE: Rt11 YE!.LOWr As,pJlcant fJlll/k!, Fl..,...,.. t I --:, City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 6/6/2000 Permit# CB993794 Title: SPEC BUILDING Description: 600 SF RETAINING WALL Type: RETAIN Sub Type:· Job Address: Suite: Location: 1620 FARADAY AV Lot 0 APPLICANT RENO CONTRACTING Owner: BLACKMORE SIGNAL HILL Remarks: Total Time: CD Description Act 69 Final Masonry ,4t° -- Associated PCRs lnsgection History Date Description Act 5/31/2000 69 Final Masonry NR 5/30/2000 69 Final Masonry NR Inspector Assignment: TP --- Phone: 7604382633 Inspector: 4--- Requested By: BILL Entered By: CHRISTINE Comments lnsp Comments TP WAITING FOR REPORTS, KEEP PERM OPEN TP NEED REPORTS I, 0 Geotechnical • Geologic O Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 /52-~ ~/?MPIJ-1 The Blackmofe Company 1530 Faraday.Avenue, Suite 170 Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Ms. Colleen Blackmore June 5, 2000 W.O. 2474-C/D/E/F-SC Subject: Final Compaction Report for Backfill of Water Line Trench, Storm Drain Trench, Sewer Trench, Retaining Wall, and Subgrade and Base Testing, Lot 98, Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California References: 1. "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California," W.O. 2474-A-SC, dated August 3, 1998, by GeoSoils, Inc. 2. "Plan Review, Lot98, Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California," W.O; 2474-A-SC, dated October 15, 1998, by GeoSoils, Inc. 3. "Final Compaction Report of Grading, Lot 98, Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California," W.O. 2474-8-SC, dated October 6, 1999, by GeoSoils, Inc. Dear Ms. Blackmore: ' ' ' This report presents a summary of the geotechnical testing and observation services provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) during the improvements construction (i.e. underground utility, wall backfill and paving) at the subject site. Improvements.construction commenced October 8, 1999, and was completed on February 3, 2000. Survey of line and, grade was performed by others and not performed by GSI. The frequency of testing was on an on-call basis, as requested. . · UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL Native. onsite soils were used as backfill for the water, storm drain, and sewer line trenches. The required compaction was achieved by mechanical means. The minimum compaction required was 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D-1557). RETAINING WALL Native onsite soils were used as backfill for the retaining wall located along the eastern property line. The required compaction was achieved by mechanical means. The minimum compaction required was 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D-1557). Retaining Wall Footing Observations Footing excavations for the retaining wall were. observed by a representative of GSI, upon request of the contractor. All observed excavations appear to be in conformance with our recommendations.-Wall construction, in general, appeared to be in conformance with the appr~ved constructio1_1 plans. SUBGRADE TESTING The exposed subgrade was tested to a depth of 12 inches. Our tests indicate that the subgrade materials meet or exceed the minimum requirement of 95 percent relative compaction of the laporatory standard (A~TM D 1557) for stre~ts and parking lots. BASE TESTING The exposed base was tested per recommendations of GSI report dated August 17, 1998. Our tests indicate that the subgrade materials meet or exceed the minimum requirement of 95 percent relative compaction of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557) for streets and drive approaches. FIELD TESTING. 1. Field density tests were performed using nuclear densometer ASTM test methods D-2922 and D-301.7 and sand-cone ASTM test method ASTM D-1556. The test results taken during grading are presented in the attached Table· 1. 2. Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check the compactive effort provided by. the contractor. Based upon the grading operations observed, the test results presented herein are considered · representative of the compacted fill. 3. Visual classification of the soils in the field was_ the basis for determining which maximum density value to use for a given density test. The Blackmore Company Lot 98, Carlsbad Research Center File:e:\wp7\2400\2474cdef.fcr GeoSoils, Ine. W.O. 2474-C/D/E/F-SC June 5, 2000 Page2 LABORATORY TESTING Maximum Density Testing The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for the major soil type within this construction phase were determined according to test method ASTM D-1557. The following table presents the results: .' :._._: :_,-;<: -:: : . '·J _\/:: --· -:-::' --~-~i~{f P_~ :'.~::_-: )', · , :'_ -_ i :_ : -~-,. _ .'.~-~imu~ Density M~i~~U:!;.:~tent 11==================================""*===:::::=!::========l= A -Clayey Silt, Olive Brown · 117.0 14.5 8-Silty Sand, gray 121.0 14.0 C-Sity Sand, Yellow gray 118.0 15.0 D-Class 2 Base 135.5 7.5 -E-Class 2 Base 138.0 7.5 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE· Processing of original/existing ground and placement of compacted fills under the purview of this report have been completed under the observation of and with selective testing provided by representatives of GSI and are found to be in general compliance with the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, California. Our findings were made in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering practices, and no further warranty is implied or made. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. The Blackmore Company Lot 98, Carlsbad Research Center File:e:\wp7\2400\2474cdef.fcr GeoSoils, lne. W.O. 2474-C/D/E/F-SC June 5, 2000 Page3 We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please call us at (760) 438-3155. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. Robert Crisman Engineering Geologist, CEG 1 ' RGC/ARK/JPF/mo Enclosures: Table 1 -Field Density Test Results Distribution: (4) Addressee The Blackmore Company Lot 98, Carlsbad Research Center File:e:\wp7\2400\2474cdef.fcr GeoSoils, lne. W.O. 2474-C/D/E/F-SC June 5, 2000 Page4 Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST.RESULTS SD, 1 10/08/99 MIDDLE OF N-S TRENDING STORM DRAIN -5.0 SD-2 10/11/99 STORM DRAIN -2.0 SD-3 10/13/99 STORM DRAIN -2.0 SD-4 10/19/99 00+50 STORM DRAIN BOX -2.CJ SD-5 10/19/99 1 + 70 STORM DRAIN BOX -4.5 SD-6 10/26/99 oo+oo STORM DRAIN BOX -2.5 SD-7 10/26/99 00+50 STORM DRAIN BOX -1.0 SD-~ 10/26/99 1 + 70 STORM DRAIN BOX -2.5 S:1 09/30/99 CENTER OF PAD -1.0 S-2 09/30/99 WEST SIDE OF LOT -1.0 S-3 . 10/14/99 WESTERN AREA -1.0 S-4 10/14/99 WESTERN AREA -2.0 S-5 1 0/19/99 MIDDLE EAST-WEST TRENDING SEWER -1.0 W-1 10/19/99 16+50 -1.0 W-2 10/19/99 15+85 -0.5 W-3 10/19/99 15+00 -0.5 W-4 10/19/99 14+10 -0.5 R-1 10/15/99 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL 2.0 R-2 10/15/99 EAST END OF LOT 2.0 R-3 10/20/99 WEST END WALL 201.0 R-4 , 10/20/99 EAST END WALL 203.0 RW-5 10/21/99 WEST END OF WALL 203.0 RW-6 10/21/99 EAST END OF WALL 205.0 RW-7 10/21 /99 WEST END OF WALL 205.0 RW-8 10/21/99 EAST END OF WALL 207.0 RW-9 10/22/99 WEST END OF WALL 207.0 RW-9A 11/08/99 WEST END OF WALL 207.0 RW-10 10/22/99 EAST END OF WALL 209.0 RW-10A 11/08/99 EAST END OF WALL 209.0 RW-11 11/08/99 .EAST END OF WALL FG RW-12 11/08/99 WEST END OF WALL FG RW-13 11/08/99 MIDDLE AREA OF WALL FG E-1 10/19/99 MIDDLE OF EAST -WEST TRENDING llNE . -1.0 AC-1 01/03/00 WATERLINE ACROSS FARADAY AC 01/03/00 WATERLINE ACROSS FARADAY AC 8-1 11/17/99 WATERLINE ACROSS FARADAY 8-2 11/17/99 WATERLINE ACROSS FARADAY· 8-3 11/17/99 WATERLINE ACROSS FARADAY 8-4 01/28/00 SWALE ON N.SIDE OF LOT The Blackmore Company File:e:\excel\tables\2400\247 4cdef BG BG BG BG 18.0 18.2 14.0 16.2 15.7 15.9 15.1 15.3 14.5 17.2 17.2 15.3 16.8 15.5 16.2 15.3 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.3 16.0 15.8 16.7 15.5 15.1 15.3 13.9 15.3 14.4 14.9 15.2 15.1 7.5 7.5 7.5 8.5 GeoSoils, lne. 105.4 106.3 110.0 106.7 106.2 116.7 112.7 113.3 108.4 106.7 111.4 110.5 106.4 107.1 106.9 109.4 106.7 106.5 106.3 106.4 107.1 109.0 109.5 108.9 112.8 98.2 107.0 103-.4 107.1 109.7 J09.1 107.9 105.4 144.4 144.8 129.2 130.4 130.1 129.3 90.1 ND A 90.8 ND A 91.3 ND 8 91.2 ND A 90.8 ND A 96.4 ND 8 93.1 ND 8 93.6 ND B 92.6 ND A 91.2 ND A 92.2 ND 8 91.3 ND 8 90.2 ND C 91.5 ND A 90.6 ND C 90.4 ND 8 91.2 ND A 90.2 ND C 90.0 ND C 90.2 ND C 90.8 ND C 90.1 ND C 90.5 ND C 90.0 ND C 93.2 ND C 83.2 ND C 90.7 ND C 87.6 ND ·C 90.3 ND· C 90.7 ND 8 90.2 ND 8 91.4 ND C 90.1 ND A 97.9 ND 147.5 98.2 ND. 147.5 95.3 ND D 96.2 ND D 96.0 ND D 95.4 ND D W.O. 2474-C/D/E/F-SC Page 1 .. Table 1 FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS B-5 01/28/00 SWALE ON N.SIDE OF LOT B-6 01/28/00 SWALE ON E.SIDE OF LOT B-7 01/28/00 SWALE ON E.SIDE OF LOT B-8 02/07/00 SOUTH SIDE OF LOT B-9 02/07/00 EAST SIDE OF LOT 8-10 02/07/00 NORTH SIDE OF LOT B-11 02/07/00 WEST SIDE OF LOT ~;_;~c.ti>ll ~\~1~ti10 ~4t)1rJr~~ij~'.tJ:\$'.Q~QijMEfE!:~i1fi!~1!~~1:~;_ti) ,_.,_.-.,,~ SG-1 01/28/00 ON-SITE PARKING AREA (W.SIDE) SG-1A 02/03/00 ON-SITE PARKING AREA (W.SIDE) SG-2 01/28/00 ON-SITE PARKING AREA (N.SIDE) SG-2A 02/03/00 ON-SITE PARKING AREA (N.SIDE) SG-3 01/28/00 ON-SITE PARKING AREA (E.SIDE) SG-4 01/28/00-ON-SITE PARKING AREA (S.SIDE) SG-5 01/28/00 ON-SITE PARKING AREA ENTRANCE TO LOT SG-6 02/03/00 ON-SITE PARKING AREA (N.SIDE) SG-7 02/03/00 ON-SITE PARKING AREA (S.SIDE) SG-8 02/03/00 ON-SITE PARKING AREA (E.SIDE) LEGEND ND -NUCLEAR DENSOMETER SC· SAND CONE FG • FINISH GRADE A -DENOTES A RETEST The Blackmore Company File:e:\excel\tables\2400\2474cdef BG 7.5 BG 7.9 BG 7.8 BG 7.7 BG 7.5 BG 7.6 BG 7.5 ,rvs,;-: '"''"'-' ;~Jt;~J~I)J SG 8.5 SG 14.1 SG 16.4 SG 15.0 SG 15.7 SG 15.3 SG 10.5 SG 14.4 SG 14,3 SG 15.4 GeoSoils, lne. 129.0 129.0 130.0 133.7 132.8 131.7 132.1 ~~~~z[~j 115.2 115.4 105.3 111.3 111.6 116.5 108.8 115.0 115.0 111.4 95.2 ND D 95.2 ND D 95.9 ND D 96.9 ND E 96.2 ND E 95.4 ND E 95.7 ND E ~~;;;~:~~-~~ <,;',.,_~ ,f,..,:'y,.., ,,i.:,, -'<,/<tl•o' se;~Y:ti:l::;G~ "'"'-' ,~}"¾fr)'_:C 95.2 ND B 95.4 ND B 90.0 ND A 95.1 ND A 95.4 ND A 96.3 ND B 93.0 ND A 95.0 ND B 95.0 ND B 95.2 ND A W.O. 2474-C/D/E/F-SC Page2 J 99 c:·.t-1uJ '.!:>:34 Ji.,,;No cor.,rlAt.,.M, ,-99 15,00 FROM: GBI CA~L5BAD / 28 · 9~ ITU.I) 11 :48 RF.NO C0N'l'IIAl:'1'1 NU ~cP-28-99 TUE tl:43 ..,, $(;~ 28;, 1999 Mr.BoblAVisnt West Coast GmtTal COtpOratioll 12243Hiafrwayo/ J akelid~ CA. 92010 Suhject~~CMW,.d ~ Center De,arMr.uVi~ IO, ?809310915 PACE 2 FAX .«>, 000 0000 P.03/03 Oearolls, Inc. /' I I I / .... ~ Design Calculations for Keystone Retaining Wall Carlsbad Research Center 1;-ots"--2B:~ana:::t03::;, Carlsbad, California Prepared for Reno Contracting 1650 Hotel Circle N., Ste. 201 Attn.: Rob Thomson References Prepared by AB International 6 Ocean Mist Aliso Viejo, Ca 92656 October 4, 1999 Project No. Dl004-99 ~"'~~ \Alce l ~ ~ 1. Site Plan for Carlsbad Research Center, Fax Copies of Lot 98 and Lot 103 Proposed Keystone Wall Locations 2. Site Specific Soil Parameters for the design of Keystone Walls at Carlsbad Research Center, Geosoils, Inc. 3. ''Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls", First Edition, National Concrete Masonry Association, 1993 4. Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. '°.Keywall Software for Retaining Wall Designs." Design and Operation M~µmal, Robert J. Race, P.E., 10/15/95 5. ICBO No. 4599 for Keystone walls, June 1997 or latest revision. Project Description Site Plan (Reference 1) shows proposed Keystone walls at following locations with conditions as described below: 1\-. • Lot 98: Wall along eastern side of parking spaces. This wall is maximum 4' high .. d · has a maximum 1 O' high 2: 1 slope surcharge. The wall is designed wi (horizont,al: vertical) batter and Keystone Standard units (21.5" depth). • Lot 103 A and 103 B: Two separate walls maximum 6' high with 2: 1 slope surcharge. The wall is designed with 1:32 batter Keystone Standard units (21.5" depth). This submittal provides the design calculations and geogrid reinforcement schedule, as needed for the above walls. \ > l -'l. Subsurface and Backfill Soils Based on the following soils parameters provided by the Soils Engineer (Reference 2), values equal to less than these were used in the design. Lot 98 -Northern Friction angle, Cohesion, psf Unit Weight, Half degrees pcf Reinforced zone backfill 27 375 125 pcf Retained Zone 27 375 125 pcf Foundation sub grade 27 375 125 pcf Lot 98 -Southern Half Reinforced zone backfill 20 355 125 pcf Retained Zone 20 355 125 pcf Foundation sub grade 20 355 125 pcf Lots 103A & 103B Reinforced zone backfill 30 300 125 pcf Retained Zone 30 300 125 pcf Foundation subgrade 20 355 125 pcf Keystone Wall Design Keywall computer program specifically prepared for the Keystone Wall units was used for the analysis of internal and external stability of the retaining wall. The ICBO number for Keystone wall is 4599. Rankine Earth Pressure theory was used for calculating the earth pressures on the wall. The target Factors of safety (FS) used for the retaining wall design are FS sliding = 1.5; FS overturning = 2.0(reinforced walls), FS overturning = 1.5(unreinforced walls), FS bearing =2.0, FS pullout= 1.5, and FS uncertainties= 1.5. These are the standard modes of failures analyzed in the design of retaining walls. The Keywall Program Manual describes the methodology and details of the calculations performed by the program, and provides examples with hand calculations. The summary results of the calculations are attached to this repo11·-"' Keystone Standard precast cement masonry units, 18 1/2" width x 21.5" depth x 8" high, weighing 105 pounds each are used. For geogrid reinforcement, Miragrid 3XT geogrids . manufactured .. · by Miran, Inc. are used. Based on the-, calculated results the schedule of geogrid reinforcement for different heights of the Keystone walls is presented in Table 1. This schedule appli~s for all three walls in the project. Table 1 Geogrid Reinforcement Schedule for Keystone Wall Total Wall Minimum Geogrid Geogrid Location* Heb?ht (ft) Embedment (ft.) Len2fh, <Mira2rid 3XT) 4.67 or less 0.67 NOGEOGRID 5.67 0.67 5.5 2 3.33 6.67 0.67 5.5 2 4 * The geogrid layer(s) shall be placed on the Keystone course at this height(s) measured from the top of the leveling pad Recommendations • The wall shall be constructed per the details and geogrid reinforcement schedule based on the design calculations provided in this ·report, arid typical sections shown on Drawings. • The backfill materials shall have the shear strength properties as used for design in this report and as specified on the plans. All backfill shall be compacted to minimum 90% of the maximum dry density determined per Modified Proctor Compaction test (ASTMD1557). • The Keystone wall should be constructed per the manufacturer recommended procedures for installation of Keystone blocks, fiberglass pins, and geogrid reinforcement. • The temporary excavation back cut, subdrain, and surfa6e drainage system for the Keystone walls shall be properly constructed per Project Soils and Civil Engineer's recommendations. • Reinforced fill zone shall be free draining granular fill soils. '. _.\. l 'i. • Soils Engineer shall review the design parameters used herein for conformance with their recommendations. Limitations The calculations and recommendations provided herein are based on the assumption that site preparation, foundation preparation, installation of base course, keystone segmental wall blocks, interlocking pins, geogrids, backfill and caps are in conformance with the recommendations of the manufacturer/supplier, recommendations in this report. The calculations have considered site specific soil and loading conditions. If conditions vary from those assumed, the designer shall be notified in writing. By accepting the design calculations and results in this report, the Client agrees to limit the liability of AB International, from Client and all other parties for claims arising out of the use of these designs, to the amount paid for the preparation of this report. No other warranty is expressed or implied. \ ..... l '-1. KEYSTONE RETAJNJNG WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology 2.0.1.12, 16 Jul 99 Project; Carlsbad Research Center Proj. No.: Project No Design Parameters Soil Parameters _t__ Reinforced Fill: 30 Retained Fill: 27 Foundation Fill: 20 ~ 0 200 200 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: Overturning: y__Jg 125 125 125 Date: 10/3/99 By: abi Pullout: 1.50 1.50 Uncertainties: 2.00 1.50 1.50 Bearing: 2.00 Connection Peak: Serviceability: 1.00 Reinforcing Parameters: Mirafi XT Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS 1§_ Tai ...£L Cds Miragrid 3XT 2738 1.67 1.10 1.30 1146 1.50 764 0.90 0.95 Analysis: Lot 103 and 103A Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard (21.5 in) Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 6.67 ft embedment: 0.67 ft BackSlope Geometry: 26.67 deg. slope, 15.00 ft long Surcharge: LL --100 psfuniform surcharge DL -100 psfuniform surcharge Offset= 15.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Factors of Safety: 2.54 5.09 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1087 psf Bearing 4.81 Shear 11.53 Bending 2.69 Eccentricity at base: 0.19 ft Allow. Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Layer Height . Length Tension 2 4.00 5.5 406 1 2.00 5.5 563 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Miragrid 3XT: 1.22 sy/ft '. ..... Tension Connection Connection Reinf. Type Tai Tel Tse Miragrid 3XT 764 ok 892 ok 941 ok Miragrid 3XT 764 ok 897 ok 948 ok ( Efficiency= 87 % ) FoSPO= -1 -AB Intemational Pullout FS 1.87 ok 3.47 ok 2.33 page __ of __ KEYSTONE RETAINlNG WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology 2.0.1.12, 16 Jul 99 Project: Carlsbad Research Center Proj. No.: Project No Design Parameters Soil Parameters _l._ Reinforced Fill: 30 Retained Fill: 27 Foundation Fill: 20 ~ 0 200 200 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: y____Q9f 125 125 125 Date: 10/4/99 By: abi Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: 2.00 1.50 1.50 Bearing: 2. 00 Connection Peak: Serviceability: 1. 00 Reinforcing Parameters: Mirafi XT Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS 1§__ Tai _£L Cds Miragrid 3XT 2738 1.67 1.10 1.30 1146 1.50 764 0.90 0.95 Analysis: Lot 103 and 103A Case: Case 1 Unit Type: Standard (18.5 in) Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 5.67 ft embedment: 0.67 ft BackSlope Geometry: 26.70 deg. slope, 15.00 ft long Surcharge: LL -100 psfunifonn surcharge DL --100 psfunifonn surcharge Offset= 15.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Sliding Overturning Factors of Safety: 2.72 4.70 Bearing 5.12 Shear 16.17 Bending 2.59 Calculated Bearing Pressure: 922 psf Eccentricity at base: 0 .19 ft Allow. Tension Peak Serviceablity Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated Layer Height Length Tension 2 3.33 5.0 272 1 2.00 4.0 386 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Miragrid 3XT: 1.00 sy/ft '. ,.\. l ·'< C:\ABI\CALCS\Carlsbad Research ctr. Connection Connection Reinf. Type Tai Tel Tse Miragrid 3XT 764 ok 890 ok 938 ok Miragrid3XT 764ok 893 ok 943 ok ( Efficiency= 56 % ) FoSPO= -1 -AB International Pullout FS 2.70 ok 2.01 ok 2.46 Project: Carlsbad Research Center Proj. No.: Project No Design Parameters Soil Parameters Retained Fill: Foundation Fill: KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology 2.0.1.12, 16 Jul 99 J._ 27 27 ~ 200 200 y_.N 125 125 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Pullout: 1.50 Connection Analysis: Lot 98 Unit Type: Standard (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 4.67 ft Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: 2.00 1.50 1.50 Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 0.67 ft Date: 1013199 Bv: abi Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: 1. 00 BackSlope Geometry: 26.67 deg. slope, 15.00 ft long Surcharge: LL --100 psfuniform surcharge DL -100 psfuniform surcharge Offset= 15.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 655 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.29 ft ! 'st Sliding Overturning 5.33 3.65 Bearing 12.58 -1 -AB International Shear NIA Bending NIA page __ of __ KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology 2.0.1.12, 16 Jul 99 Project: Carlsbad Research Center Proj. No.: Project No Design Parameters Soil Parameters Retained Fill: Foundation Fill: _L 20 20 ~ 200 200 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: 1.50 Overturning: Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties: Connection Peak: Analysis: Lot 98 Unit Type: Standard (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 4.67 ft BackSlope Geometry: 20.00 deg. slope, 15.00 ft long y_-12£f 125 125 2.00 1.50 1.50 Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 0.67 ft Date: 1013199 Bv: abi Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: 1. 00 Surcharge: LL --100 psfuniform surcharge DL --500 psfuniform surcharge Offset= 15.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 744 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.40 ft Sliding Overturning 3.61 2.47 Bearing 5.91 -1 -AB International Shear NIA Bending NIA page __ of __ KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology 2.0.1.12, 16 Jul 99 Project: Carlsbad Research Center Proj. No.: Project No Design Parameters Soil Parameters Retained Fill: Foundation Fill: _lL 27 20 ...£..m 200 200 Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, I inch minus Factors of Safety Sliding: Pullout: Connection Analysis: Lot 103 and 103A 1.50 1.50 Unit Type: Standard (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 4.67 ft Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: BackSlope Geometry: 26.67 deg. slope, 15.00 ft long :y_.ng 125 125 2.00 1.50 1.50 Case: Case 1 Wall Batter: 0.00 deg. embedment: 0.67ft Date: 1013199 Bv: abi / Bearing: 2.00 Serviceability: 1.00 Surcharge: LL --100 psf uniform surcharge DL --100 psf uniform surcharge Offset= 15.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft Results: Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: 655 psf Eccentricity at base: 0.29 ft , ..... Sliding Overturning 5.33 3.65 Bearing 6.82 -1 -AB International Shear NIA Bending NIA page __ of __ ~ Cl iii :r t§ ~ CA?UNIT GRID LENGTH TYPICAL REINFORCED SECTION SCALE: NONE APPROX. EXCAVATION LINE 4"i!(MIN.) PERF. DRAIN PIPE HOLES DOWN SLOPl:l!il{MIN.) WRAP IN 6 OZ./SQ. YD. NON-WOVEN FILTER FABRICOUTLET AT END OF WALL OR.T 40' CENTERS (MAX.). So,' I C.,/a.s,s.f ,c.~t,.011 -c.,l~-e.1 ~:~ lt ~ETAINED BACKFILL EXCAVATION LIMIT f":.xp~>1eS1j~ ~Je>c -75' A l\.o"'1a.bl'4. ~a.r:I,\_, C..,.C.·,J.,: p, '--'-: 2,~00 j>S'.c U.1>~t..k. : 2 ,Soo ps+ '< NOTES: 1. KEYSTONE STANDARD UNITS MEASURE 8" H X 21 1/2" W X 21" D. KEYSTONE CAP UNITS MEASURE 4"HX18 1/2 "WX10.5" D. KEYSTONE BLOCKS, PINS, AND GEOGRID CONNECTIONS SHALL BE INSTALLED CONSISTENT WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 2. GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE AND WALL EMBEDMENT DEPTHS SHALL BE PER TABLE 1. GEOGRID LENGTHS ARE MEASURED FROM THE FACE OF THE WALL. 3. ALL BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 90% RELATIVE DENSITY PER MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM 01557), 4. EXCAVATION OF THE SLOPE AND FOUNDATION TRENCHES SHALL PROVIDE SAFE ACCESS FOR CONSTRUCTION, STABLE TEMPORARY SLOPE AND AS REQUIRED TO PROPERLY CONSTRUCT THE KEYSTONE WALL AND ITS REINFORCEMENT. 5. INSTALL SUBDRAIN PIPE TO DRAIN MOISTURE BEHIND THE WALL AND AS RECOMMENDED BY SOILS ENGINEER. 6. THE SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SHALL BE EFFECTIVELY DIVERTED AROUND THE WALL. 7. INSTALLATION OF 24'' RCP STORM DRAIN BEHIND THE WALL SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE KEYSTONE WALL IS NOT SUBJECT UNDUE CONSTRUCTION LOADS. HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHALL WORK NO CLOSER THAN 3' BEHIND THE WALL. THE STORM DRAIN SHALL BE FREE FROM LEAKS AND BREAKAGE SO STORM WATER IS DOES NOT LEAD TO MOISTURE BEHIND THE WALL. 8. FOR ALL WALLS PROVIDE MINIMUM 1-FOOT OF GRAVEL FILL BEHIND THE BACK OF THE UNITS FOR DRAINING MOISTURE. FOR SOUTHERN HALF OF WALL AT LOT 98 PROVIDE MINIMUM 2-FOOT OF GRAVEL FILL BEHINlJTHE BACK OF THE UNITS. THIS FILL SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO UNIT FILL. · 7 1 •• ·, i'l , 1~ :,..n I K.e.i\lvjOn . .e~ .So,• .;,a...;.., i · 4> ~ 30° ~ ~ 2-?-~ lot lO?> Lo\-C\'6 Prior to the Contractor requesting a Building Department foundation Inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that: · The foundation excavations, the soils expansive characteristics and bearing capacity conform to the soils report. Table 1 Geogrid Reinforcement Schedule for Keystone Wall Total Wall Minimum Geogrid Geogrid Location* Hei2ht (ft) Embedment (ft.) Lenl!th, (Mira2rid 3XT) 4.67 or less 0.67 NOGEOGRID 5.67 0.67 5.5 2. 3.33 6.67 0.67 5.5 2. 4 * The geogrid layer(s) shall be placed on the Keystone course at this height(s) measured fr<' the top of the leveling pad Soils Engineer SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIRED FOR: • • • • • • • • VERIFY WALL BATTER: 1 :32 (h:v) EXCAVATION FOR FOUNDATION, SUBGRADE CONDITION PRIOR TO LEVELING PAD PLACEMENT PLACEMENT OF LEVELING PAD PLACEMENT OF KEYSTONE BLOCKS AND GEOGRlD SOIL TYPE TO MEET MINIMUM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS COMPACTION OF BACKFILL TO MINIMUM 90% OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY SUB-DRAIN PLACEMENT COMPLY WlTH ICBO REPORT NO. 4599 Approved By: _________ _ Date: GeoSoils, Inc. DRAWING 1 KEYSTONE WALL TYPICAL SECTJON CARLSABD RESEARCH CENTER LOT 98 AND 103 CARLSBAD, CA $CALE: NOT TO SCALE AB INTERNATIONAL PROJECT: D1004-99 DA TE: 10/5/99 ;~ CRUSHED ROCK (3/4" MAX.) STANDARD KEYSTONE UNIT (TYPICAL) CAP UNIT PIN (TYPICAL) GEOGRID TO BE INSTALLED OVER PINS AND PULLED TIGHT BEFORE BACKFILL '-J_Jh. I '-JJY /.I ~ \II Y,'""" /1_/ "--4" GEOGRID INSET FROM UNIT FACE 21""i BLOCK DETAIL 3" OF SOIL FILL REQUIRED BETWEEN OVERLAPPING GEOGRIDS FOR PROPER ANCHORAGE --6" :- <J ---3'.Q"----l LEVELING PAD FIBERGLASS PIN CONNECTION GEOGRID PLACEMENT ON CURVES ~ SPECIFICATIONS FOR KEYSTONE WALLS 1. MASONRY UNITS SHALL BE KEYSTONE BLOCKS OF THE SIZES SHOWN ON THE PLANS. ALL BLOCKS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C-9O, WITH 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3000 PSI. UNITS SHALL BE INTERLOCKED WITH NON-CORROSIVE FIBERGLASS PINS, AND SHALL BE SETBACK 1" FROM THE UNIT BELOW. 2. BASE LEVELING PAD SHALL BE CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE CONFORMING TO "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS" CONSTRUCTION STANDARD 200.2.2.2. ALL CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN LIFTS NO GREATER THAN 8" THICK & AND COMPACTED WITH A HAND HELD VIBRATING PLATE. 3. UNIT FILL FOR DRAINAGE BEHIND THE WALL SHALL BE UNIFORMLY GRADED GRAVEL. UNIT FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 90 % RELATIVE DENSITY PER MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTMD1557). 4. BACKFILL MATERIAL IN THE REINFORCEMENT ZONE SHALL BE AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE BACKFILL SOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN LIFTS NO GREATER THAN 8" THICK AND COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 90% OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY DETERMINED PER MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST. 5. GRIDS ARE TO BE ORIENTED WITH THE STRONG FIBERS RUNNING PERPENDICULAR TO THE LINE OF THE WALL. 6. CONNECT THE SUBDRAIN TO STORM DRAIN FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AND INDICATE FINAL LOCATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION RECORD PLANS. 7. THE GEOGRID SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE CONCRETE WALL UNITS BY HOOKING THE GEOGRID OVER THE FIBERGLASS PINS. PULL TAUT AND ANCHOR BEFORE BACKFILL IS PLACED ON GEOGRID. BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED, SPREAD AND COMPACTED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT MINIMIZES THE DEVELOPMENT OF SLACK OR LOSS OF PRETENSION OF THE GEOGRID. BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED FROM THE WALL REARWARD INTO THE EMBANKMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE GEOGRID REMAINS TAUT. ~ fESS 8. CAP UNITS SHALL BE FASTENED TO THE UNITS BELOW WITH KEYSTON ~"?~O BE:OA,14< A "KAPSEAL" CONSTRUCTION ADHESIVE. ,<ffe ~~?. '10-1, "'*-~ ~ "°-~ !:()~ 4" SLOTTED PVC DRAIN PIPE 6" MINIMUM COMPACTED CRUSHED STONE OR 6" UNREINFORCED CONCRETE LEVELING PAD I r KEYSTONE UNIT NEEDLE PUNCHED NONWOVE GEOTEXTILE WRAP FREE DRAINING STONE SUBDRAIN DETAIL FIBERGLASS PIN CONNECTION Soils Engineer DRAWING 2 KEYSTONE WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER ' , Approved By: _________ _ Date: GeoSoils, Inc. CARLSBAD,CA SCALE: NOT TO SCALE AB INTERNATIONAL PROJECT: D1004-99 DA TE: 10/5/99 EsGil Corporation 'l.n Partners/iip witli (jovemment for 'BuiUing Safety DATE: 12/3/99 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 99-3794 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1620 Faraday Ave. PROJECT NAME: Keystone Retaining Walls SET: II D APPLICANT ~ D PLAN REVIEWER D FILE D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. l:8:} The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. D The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. D The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: [8J Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. D Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone#: Date contacted: (by: ) Fax #: Mail Telephone Fax In Person [8J REMARKS: City to approve the -special inspection program. By: David Yao Enclosures: -Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 11/24 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 EsGil Corporation 1n Partnersliip witli government for '.BuiUing Safety DATE: 10/26/99 JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 99-3794 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1620 Faraday Ave. PROJECT NAME: Retaining Wall SET:I 0 APPLICANT ~ i:rPtAl\fREVIEWER D FILE D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes. D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. IZl The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. IZJ The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to: Bob Thomson 1650 Hotel Circle North San Diego CA IZl Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. D Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Telephone#: Date contacted: (by: ) Fax#: Mail Telephone Fax In Person D REMARKS: By: David Yao ~nclosures: Esgil Corporation D GA D MB D EJ D PC 10/18 trnsmtl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 Carlsbad 99-3794 10/26/99 GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PROJECT ADDRESS: 1620 Faraday Ave. DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 10/18 REVIEWED BY: David Yao FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): PLAN CHECK NO.: 99-3794 DATE REVIEW COMPLETED: 10/26/99 This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department or other departments. The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. · 1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of prints to: ESGIL CORPORATION. 2. To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet with the revised plans. 3. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this list? D Yes D No 4. The keystone retaining wall detail shall be signed and sealed by the engineer. 5. Provide a copy of the project soil report prepared by a California licensed architect or civil engineer. The report shall include foundation design recommendations based on the engineer's findings and shall comply with UBC Section 1804. Carlsbad 99-3794 10/26/99 6. Note on the plan the soils classification, whether or not the soil is expansive and note the allowable bearing value. Section 106.3.3. 7. The soils engineer recommended that he/she review the foundation excavations. Note on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that: The foundation excavations, the soils expansive characteristics and bearing capacity conform to the soils report." 8. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the retaining wall plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction documents (when required by the soil report). 9. Note on the plan to provide special inspection for foundation condition, reinforced backfill placement and structural geogrid installation. 10. Provide special inspection program to the building official prior to issuance the building permit. 11. The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact David Yao at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. Carlsbad 99-3794 10/26/99 VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISDICTION: Carlsbad PREPARED BY: David Yao BUILDING ADDRESS: 1620 Faraday Ave. BUILDING OCCUPANCY: I BUILDING PORTION I BUILDING AREA {ft.2) Retaining wall Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE PLAN CHECK NO.: 99-3794 DATE: 10/26/99 TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VALUATION VALUE. MULTIPLIER ($) 8850 (per city) D 199 UBC Building Permit Fee D Bldg. Perm_it Fee by ordinance: $ 104.83 D 199 UBC Plan Check Fee D Plan Check Fee by ordinance: $ 68.14 Type of Review: D Complete Review D Structural Only D Hourly D Repetitive Fee Applicable D Other: Esgil .Plan Review Fee: $ 54.51 Comments: Sheet 1 of 1 macvalue.doc 5196 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALL BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER: CB 9) 6 7'1 I/ BUILDING ADDRESS: _L ..... 'k""""o2,D=-=---~"--=--~--=---------'1~ui-- PROJECT DESCRIPTION: _R_e_ta_i_ni_,ng.,_W_a_ll _____ _ ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL The item you have submitted for review has been approved. The approval is based on plans, information and/or specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in uspension of permit to build. By: Date: t¢J/7, ATTACHMENTS Right-of-Way Permit Application DENIAL Please see the attached report of deficiencies marked with D. Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications 'for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. By: Date: By: Date: By: Date: ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON NAME: JOANNE JU.CHNIEWICZ City of Carlsbad ADDRESS: 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carlsbad, CA 92009 PHONE: (760) 438-1161, ext. 4510 IILASPALMAS\SYSILIBRARYIENG\WORO\DOCSICHKLSnRetaming Wall Building Plancheck Cklst Form JJ.doc Rev. 6/26/98 2075 Las Palmas Dr. • Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 .. (760) 438-1161 • FAX (760) 431-5769 @ ~6w 3RD.I 0 0 /a 0 0 0 0 0 0 BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALLS 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show: A. North Arrow D. Easements B. Existing & Proposed Structures E. Retaining Wall (dimensioned from street) (location and height) C. Property Lines 2. Show on site plan: A. Drainage Patterns B. Existing & Proposed Slopes C. Existing Topography 3. Include on title sheet: A. Site Address B. Assessor's Parcel Number C. Legal Description · D. Grading Quantities Cut___ Fill ___ Import/Export __ _ (Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required) 4. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval for Project No. _________________ _ Conditions were complied with by: _______ Date: ____ _ MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS 5. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way. A separate Right-of-Way issued by the Engineering Department is required for the following: Please obtain an application for Right-of-Way permit from the Engineering Department. Page 1 IILASPALMASISYSILIBRARYIENG\WORDIDOCS\CHKLST\Rela1ning wan Building Piancheck Cklsl Form JJ doc Rev. 6126/98 >, .Q N .. ti ., .<: (.) C: C: C: "' "' "' 0:: a: a: ¢00 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PLAN CHECK REVIEW CHECKLIST Plan Check No. CB . q q 51'" qi.{ Address l fo 1.. b ~adl,UW\___ Av i;;- Planner ?o.CA l G-ad w,·n Phone (619) 438-1161, extension 4$4 9 APN: '2-\ "2-~ l '3 Oe '2.. 3 Type of Project & Use: _______ Net Project Density: DU/AC Zoning: 0.,,. M General Plan: PI Facilities Management Zone:_£: __ _ CFO lin/n11tl # Date of participation: Remaining net dev acres: Circle One --------- (For non-residential development: Type of land used created by this permit: ____________________ ) Legend: 1::8:1 Item Com·plete ©l Item Incomplete -Needs your action Environmental Review Required: YES NO "f TYPE ---- DATE OF COMPLETION: _____ _ Compliance with conditions of approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: Discretionary Action Required: YES NO __i_ TYPE __ _ APPROVAL/RESO. NO. _____ DATE ___ _ PROJECT NO. _______ _ OTHER RELATED CASES: __________________ _ Compliance with conditions or approval? If not, state conditions which require action. Conditions of Approval: ----------------------- Coastal Zone Assessment/Compliance Project site located in Coastal Zone? YES NO f: CA Coastal Commission Authority? YES NO If California Coastal Commission Authority: Contact them at -3111 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 200, San Diego CA 92108-1725; {619) 521-8036 Determine status (Coastal Permit Required or Exempt): Coastal Permit Determination Form already completed? YES NO If NO, complete Coastal Permit Determination Form now. Coastal Permit Determination Log #: Follow-Up Actions: 1) Stamp Building Plans as "Exempt" or "Coastal Permit Required" (at minimum Floor Plans). 2) Complete Coastal Permit De.termination Log as needed. }J D D ln~lusionary Housing F:ee required: YES ~ NO ;:/_ 4 (Ettective"·µate·of ·tnpl_usionary Hol,Jsin? Ordinance "May 21, 1993·.) ' . Data-Entry Cornpl'eted? YES. . . N,O .. ('AJP/Ds, Activity Maintemin~e. enter-CB#, toolbar, ~6reens, Housing Fe'3s, Construct Housing Y/N, Enter Fee, UPDATE!J . \' ·.. . : . . .. . . . . Site Plan: ·· . _ . . . . . . ·o . D 1 • Provide a fully. . dimensional. sit<;! plan drawn to scale. Show: North ·arrow, · .. :. · property lines,· easement$, existin9; ·and proposed structures., streets, .existing I • · street improvements, right-·of~way Width; dimensional setbacks. and ex·isting topographical lines. I Jw-. 1 .·.··DD :-:ooo ' . -.2;. Provide· legal· description of ptbpe·rty and assessor's parcel number. •. ZQning: 1. Setl:>acks: · Front-: "l,/ lnteripr Side: .. Street Side~ Hear: Beq1;1ired ------,..-----".-'------ Re qui r E! d ---------------- .Required .... --~...,...,.--- ··Required · -------------- Shown. ---------Shown ------'-----Shown $how n ------'--- -------,---,-- :o ·D ·o 2. Access·ory struc~µ.re: sett;,acks: I / · Front: :Reql.lired _________ Shown __________ _ lnt.eriqr Side: Required___________ S.hown ---'-------- Street Side: Required-· iShown ------------------Re a r: · Required ·· . Shown ---------Structure separati·or;i: · Required. Shown _____ ...,,....-a. 0 D D 3. Lot Coveffa9e: Required Shown .;.__;---a ......... ..;.._.--~ --------,-- • I DOD 4. Height:. Required . . . . . ..-----------------' Shown ---------- 5. Parking.: Sp.~ces Require(:f . . ·-----~-----~ :Shown -----------Guest_ $paces Required .... · _ ........ _________ _ ·Shown ----------- [I]. o·· ·o·--- , ' '. ~ , :, Additiori$l Comnient_s ________ __,. ___ ~....------,---------------- ' ' ·--. . . - . ·dr< ro 1ssuE AND .ENTERED APPRo~AL INTQ co~PUjrER ~'~~ DATE ~ \ .··. -~- • Geotechnical •·Geologic• Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 August 3, 1"998 W.O. 2474-A-SC The B-lackmore Company 12626 High Bluff Drive, Suite 440 San Diego, California 92130 Attention: Subject: Dear Sir: Mr. Allen Blackmore Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluatioq_-;-"Lo~ of Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation regarding proposed construction on Lot 98 within the Carlsbad Research Center. The purpose of our study was to provide a site specific evaluation of earth materials underlying the site and to provide preliminary recommendations for site preparation, earthwork construction, and foundation design/construction, based on our findings. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review of the available data (Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering analysis, the proposed development app~ars to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The most significant elements of this study are summarized below: • Due to the desiccated and relatively soft/loose condition of the soils within 1 to 2 feet of existing grade, within the proposed building footprint and parking/driveway areas, these materials should be removed, moisture conditioned, and recompacted and/or processed in place. • Overexcavation of formational materials is recommended to a minimum depth of 5 feet below pad grade, within areas proposed for settlement-sensitive improvements, for mitigation of transition conditions. ···---.-~CtJ11J7%J • · Soils with a medium expansion potential exist onsite. Soils with a high expansion potential also may be encountered during grading. • The site materials have a moderate sulfate exposure for corrosion to concrete. • Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage pra9tices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along fill/bedrock contacts and along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. • The seismicity acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the design of the proposed development. • The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during project planning design and construction by the project structural engineer and/or architects. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, .. GeoSoils, Inc. The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File:e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge $/Iv. David W. Skelly Civil Engineer, R , GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page Two PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION LOT 98 OF CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FOR THE BLACKMORE COMPANY 12626 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE, SUITE 440 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92130 :: W.O. 2474-A-SC AUGUST 3, 1998 . -; •,. -: ... • .. :· .. Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental • Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 August 3, 1998 W.O. 2474-A-SC The 8-lackmore Company 12626 High Bluff Drive, Suite 440 San Diego, California 92130 Attention: Subject: Dear Sir: Mr. Allen Blackmore Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation regarding proposed construction on Lot 98 within the Carlsbad Research Center. The purpose of our study was to provide a site specific evaluation of earth materials underlying the site and to provide preliminary recommendations for site preparation, earthwork construction, and foundation design/construction, based on our findings. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review of the available data (Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering analysis, the proposed development appears to be feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are properly incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The most significant elements of this study are summarized below: • Due to the desiccated and relatively soft/loose condition of the soils within 1 to 2 feet of existing grade, within the proposed building footprint and parking/driveway areas, these materials should be removed, moisture conditioned, and recompacted and/or processed in place. • Overexcavation of formational materials is recommended to a minimum depth of 5 feet below pad grade, within areas proposed for settlement-sensitive improvements, for mitigation of transition conditions. • · Soils with a medium expansion potential exist onsite. Soils with a high expansion potential also may be encountered during grading. • The site materials have a moderate sulfate exposure for corrosion to concrete. • Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage pras:;tices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along fill/bedrock contacts and along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. • The seismicity acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the design of the proposed development. • The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during project planning design and construction by the project structural engineer and/or architects. The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact any of the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, .... GeoSoils, Inc. SLE/RGC/DWS/ JPF/kl The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\ wp 7\2400\24 7 4a.pge $/dJ David W. Skelly Civil Engineer, R 1 GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page Two TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES ................................................... 1 SITE DESCRIPTION ..................................................... 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .............................................. 1 '. FIELD EXPLORATION .................................................... 3 EARTH MATERIALS ...................................................... 3 ·-Artificial Fill (Map Symbol -At) ........................................ 3 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol -Tse) ................................ 3 GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ................................ · ...... 3 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY ..................................... 5 Faulting .......................................................... 5 Seismicity ........................................................ 5 Seismic Shaking Parameters ......................................... 5 GROUNDWATER ........................................................ 6 LIQUEFACTION ......................................................... 6 LABO RA TORY TESTING .................................................. 7 Classification ...................................................... 7 Laboratory Standard ...... : ......................................... 7 Expansion Index Testing ............................................ 7 Shear Testing ..................................................... 8 Soluble Sulfates ................................................... 8 . DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................... 8 General .......................................................... 8 Earth Materials/Depth to Competent Bearing Materials .................... 9 Expansion Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Corrosion Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Subsurface and Surface Water ....................................... 9 Regional Seismic Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 o EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... 10 General ......................................................... 10 Site Preparation .............. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Removals (Unsuitable Surfacial Materials) ............................. 11 Overexcavation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Fill Placement .................................................... 11 Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 GeoSoils, Inc. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... 12 Recommendations for Concrete "Tilt-up" Structures ..................... 12 Design .......................................................... 13 Bearing Value .............................................. 13 Lateral Pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Foundation Settlement -Structural Loads ........................ 14 FLOOR SLAB DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .......................... ' ..... 14 Light Load Floor Slabs ............................................. 14 Heavy Load Floor Slabs ............................................ 15 ·. Subgrade Preparation ............................................. 16 Moisture Protection ............................................... 16 CORROSION AND CONCRETE MIX ........................................ 16 RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS ................................... 16 General ......................................................... 16 Restrained Walls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Loading Dock Wall .......................................... 17 Other Walls ................................................. 17 Cantilevered Walls ................................................ 18 Wall Backfill and Drainage .......................................... 18 Retaining Wall Footing Transitions ................................... 22 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ....................................... 22 PCC Pavement Joints .............................................. 24 Weakened Plane Joints ....................................... 24 Expansion Joints ............................................ 24 Contact Joints .............................................. 24 Slab Reinforcement ............................................... 24 FLATWORK AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS ......................... : .. 25 Tile Flooring ..................................................... 25 Gutters and Downspouts ........................................... 26 Exterior Slabs and Walkways ........................................ 26 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA ................ 27 Additional Site Improvements ............ · ........................... 27 Erosion and Sedimentation Control .................................. 27 Landscape Maintenance and Planting ................................ 27 Drainage ........................................................ 28 Footing Trench Excavation ......................................... 28 Trench Backfill ................................................... 29 The Blackmore Company File:e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Table of Contents Page ii PLAN REVIEW ....................................... · .................. 29 LIMITATIONS .......................................................... 29 FlGURES: Figure 1 -Site Location Map .................................... 2 Figure 2 -California Fault Map .................................. 4 Figure 3 -Site Wall Drain Option A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 4 -Site Wall Drain Option B ......................... , ..... 20 Figure 5 -Site Wall Drain Option C .............................. 21 ATTACHMENTS: Appendix A-References .............................. Rear of Text Appendix B -Boring Logs ............................. Rear of Text Appendix C -Laboratory Test Results ................... Rear of Text Appendix D -General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines ... Rear of Text Appendix E -Pavement Grading Guidelines .............. Rear of Text Plate 1 -Geotechnical Map .................... Rear of Text in Pocket ... The Blackmore Company File:e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Table of Contents Page iii PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION LOT 98, CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services has included the following: 1. Review of readily available soils and geologic data (Appendix A). 2. G~ologic site reconnaissance. 3. Subsurface exploration consisting of three hollow-stem-auger borings using a truck mounted drill rig. 4. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration program. 5. Appropriate engineering and geologic analysis of data collected and preparation of this report. SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site Consists of Lot 98 within Unit 5 of the Carlsbad Research Center development in Carlsbad, California. The site is bounded on the south by Faraday Avenue, on the east by Lot 97, on the west by Lot 99, and on the north by undeveloped property (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). Unit 5 of the Carlsbad Research Center was graded in 1992 through 1994 under the observation and testing services of Geotechnics Incorporated (Geotechnics Incorporated, 1994). Our review of the grading plans indicates that the subject site is a transition lot that is underlain by the formational materials and shallow fill soils. The lot is relatively flat with drainage generally to the southwest. The site is sparsely vegetated with weeds and a landscaped greenbelt adjacent the streets. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that the proposed development would consist of finish grading for proposed industrial construction and associated driveway, parking, underground utility, and landscape improvements. It is our understanding that the building will be a two-story structure, utilizing wood-frame, masonry-block, or concrete tilt-up construction with slab- on-grade floors. Building loads are assumed to be typical for this type of relatively light construction. GeoSoils, Inc. ·----------, \ liSITE 1\:1 I ~--..... ,.._ _,, I ,, I ,, \ ' l I _j -----.... .,. ................. __ ,,,,,.-" I ;?; ~rEfi.\,',~--···•• •• \····················· . I~ \~-~~!.t.£r \ --""""-.L ;:,) ; i I ~--I n'j I '\., I/ ( .... ,,/ I ' .' t/ ,,,---' I I I 1..-, I I I I \ \ I I I I I / ,$~/ I I ,- m'f ll.11'1M9 i'J!'ll.•1 1,, ..... ... ' , .... ~ .. .,·· I / ,.. .... .,."'· I ' \ \ i :.I -zstJ•l .,; ;AIRF zow Base Map: The Thomas Guide, San Diego County Street Guide and Directory, 1998 Edition, by Thomas Bros. Maps, page 1107 and 1127 . 0 1/2 Scale 1 Miles • N Reproduced with permiasion 9rantod by Thomu Seo•. lbp:s. Th1:s map is copyrighted by Thomas Bros. Mapa. It la unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part th•reof, whether for por:sonal use or resale, without permission. All rights reserved. w.o. 2474-A-SC SJTE LOCATION MAP Figure 1 Typical cut and fill grading techniques are anticipated to construct the building pad to the desired graded configuration. Although grading plans for the project are not available at this time, we assume that finish grading will consist of grade changes not exceeding 2 feet. FIELD EXPLORATION Field studies conducted during our evaluation of the property for this study consisted of geologic reconnaissance mapping, and drilling of three hollow-stem-auger exploratory borings, for evaluation of near-surface soil and geologic conditions. The borings were logged by a geologist from our firm, who collected representative samples for laboratory testing. The logs of the borings are presented in Appendix 8. The locations of the borings are presented on Plate 1. EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials encountered on the site consist of artificial fill and the Eocene-age Santiago Formation. Artificial Fill (Map Symbol -Af) Artificial fill underlies the southerly portion of the site (see Plate 1). The fill materials encountered onsite consist of olive brown, clayey silts. The fill materials generally were moist and soft and non-uniform in the upper i to 2 feet, and graded to very stiff at about 2 feet. Inasmuch,. as the fill materials were placed under the observation and testing services of Geotechnics Incorporated (1994), evaluation of the suitability of the fill materials was not part of our scope of services. Santiago Formation (Map Symbol -Tse) The Eocene-age Santiago Formation underlies the northerly portion of the site at the surface and underlies existing fill materials at depth. The formational materials encountered in our subsurface investigation generally consisted of highly oxidized, greenish brown, claystone and sandy siltstone. These soils generally were moist and very stiff. The expansion potential for materials of the Santiago Formation ranges from low to high. GEOLOGY AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS The subject property has been evaluated previously (Geotechics Incorporated, 1994), and the previously described geologic and seismic conditions generally have not changed. Additional comments regarding site seismicity and secondary hazards are provided herein, as warranted. The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page3 \ ~ ~ I SAN FRANCISCO SITE LOCATION (+): ------------ Latitude -33.1402 N Longitude -117 .2883 W Lot 98, CRC CALIFORNIA W.O. 2474-A-SC GeoSoils, Inc. 0 50 100 SCALE (Miles) Figure 2 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY Faulting The site is situated in an area of active as well as potentially-active faults. Our review indic~tes that there are no known active faults crossing the site within the areas proposed for development (Weber, 1992), and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart, 1997). There are a number of faults in the southern California area that are considered active and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include--but are not limited to--the San Andreas fault, the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank fault zone, and the Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon fault zone. The location of these and other major faults relative to the site are indicated on Figure 2. The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. Seismicity The acceleration-attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Borzorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989) have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 1996). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean plus 1 -sigma attenuation curves developed by Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Borzorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1987). These acceleration-attenuation relations have been incorporated in EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1996), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a user-specified file. If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from the "maximum credible" and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by any of the 14 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAUL T. Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations from a maximum credible event may be on the order of 0.52 g to 0.62 g, and a maximum probable event may be on the order of 0.31 g to 0.35 g. Seismic Shaking Parameters Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (International Conference of Building Officials, 1997) and Peterson and others (1996), the following seismic parameters are provided. The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 5 Seismic zone (per Figure 16-2*) 4 Soil Profile Type (per Table 16-J*) Sa Joyner and Boore Subgrade Type Class A Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*) B Distance to Seismic Source 6 mi. (10 km) Upper Bound Earthquake Mw6.9 ' * Figure and table references from Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). GROUNDWATER Subsurface water was not encountered within the property during field work performed in preparation of this report nor in any test excavations completed during the previous study (Geotechnics Incorporated, 1994). However, seepage may occur locally (due to heavy precipitation or irrigation) in areas where fill soils overlie silty or clayey soils. Such a condition would likely occur where more permeable materials overlie less permeable materials. Should such a condition occur, recommendations for mitigation would be provided during future grading. LIQUEFACTION .... Seismically-induced liquefaction is a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake-induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in soils. The soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, and lead to lateral movement, sliding, sand boils, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table; but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying, non-saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 45 feet and is virtually unknown below a depth of 60 feet. Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following conditions should be present for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age and not have developed a large amount of cementation; 2) sediments generally consist of medium to fine grained relatively cohesionless sands; 3) the sediments must have low relative density; 4) free groundwater must be present in the sediment; and 5) the site must experience a seismic event of a sufficient duration and magnitude, to induce straining of soil particles. The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 6 Inasmuch as three or four of these five conditions do not have the potential to affect the site and the entire site is underlain by dense bedrock materials and compacted fill materials, our evaluation indicates that the potential for liquefaction and associated adverse effects within the site is very low, even with a future rise in groundwater levels. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of representative ;ite earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classifications are shown on the boring logs in Appendix B. Laboratory Standard The maximum density and optimum moisture content was determined for the major soil type encountered in the excavations. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557. The moisture-density relationship obtained for this soil is shown below: 8-1 @0-2' CLAYEY SILT, Olive Brown (Artificial Fill) Expansion Index Testing 117.0 14.5 Expansion index testing was performed on a representative soil sample, according to Standard No. 18-2 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). The test results are presented below as well as the expansion classification according to UBC (1997). . :_ =· -·· .. ··.::. /:-=:.>= · .. =.\·-:::·= . ·.-:·}:·.~-·:· .=_ :/: ·i:=t·.=:-.:·=·\·. ;:-::·:::::~:. :_ ._.. ··/·:_: .\:::_. .... r·: ---~o'~ii;:~~'.;':(\· -·: · -: ·:s·o1t=:fvPE 8-1 @ 0-2' CLAYEY SILT, Olive Brown (Artificial Fill) The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge --/-: --~;A~sja~/t -,-- -:: . iNDE)(:":_ i·= ::_ 75 GeoSoils, Inc. Medium W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page? Shear Testing Shear tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM test method D-3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type. The shear test results are presented below: I TP-1 @0-2' 355 20 Soluble Sulfates A typical sample of the site materials was analyzed for soluble sulfate content. The results indicate 270 ppm. Based upon the soluble sulfate test results (USC range for moderate is i 50 to i ,500 ppm soluble [SO4] in water), the site soils have a moderate sulfate exposure for corrosion to concrete. The laboratory test results for corrosivity testing are presented in Appendix C. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS General ... Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed industrial development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect to the proposed development are: • Depth to competent bearing material, including cuVfill transitions. • Expansion potential of site soils. • Corrosion potential for exposed concrete. • Subsurface water and potential for perched water. • Regional seismic activity. The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site. The engineering analyses performed, concerning site preparation and the recommendations presented herein, have been completed using the information provided and obtained during our field work, as well as information provided to this office with regard to grading (Appendix A). In the event that any significant changes are made to The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 8 proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or modified in writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this office for review. I Earth Materials/Depth to Competent Bearing Materials The existing non-uniform fill materials that exist within 1 to 2 feet of existing pad grade are generally loose/soft and/or do not meet the current industry minimum standard of 90 percent (or greater) relative compaction. Recommendations for the treatment of existing fills are presented in the earthwork section of this report. If exposed during grading, additional evaluations may be performed as deemed appropriate. Formational materials will be encountered during site earthwork. These materials are considered competent to support settlement-sensitive structures in their existing state. Dependant upon actual building location and proposed pad grade, there is a potential to create a cut/fill transition on the site. Recommendations for overexcavation to mitigate cut/fill transitions are presented in the earthwork section of this report. Expansion Potential Our laboratory test results indicate that soits with a medium expansion potential underlie the site; however, our experience in the site area indicates soils with a high expansion potential also may exist onsite. This should be considered during project design. Foundation design and construction recommendations are provided herein for both medium and high expansion potential classifications. These recommendations should be considered preliminary and used for general project planning. Corrosion Potential Our laboratory test results indicate that the site materials have a moderate sulfate exposure for corrosion to concrete. Recommendations for concrete are presented herein. Subsurface and Surface Water Subsurface and surface water, as discussed previously, are not anticipated to affect site development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along fill/bedrock contacts and along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 9 precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the observed groundwater conditions . . The groundwater conditions observed and opinions generated were those at the time of our investigation. Conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or other factors that were not obvious at the time of our investigation. Regional Seismic Activity The seismicity acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the design of the proposed development. EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS General All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the Uniform Building Code (adopted and current edition), the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the Grading Guidelines presented in this report as Appendix D, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Prior to grading GSl1s representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. Earthwork beyond the ... limits of the surficial, remedial overexcavations or those indicated on the grading plan should be reviewed by the geologist and/or geotechnical consultant prior to and following these additional removals. During earthwork construction all site preparation and the general grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field or if modifications are proposed to the rough grade or precise grading plan, they should be reviewed by this office and if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. GSI does not consult in the area of safety engineering. Excavations into the granular material on this site may be unstable.· The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 10 Site Preparation Debris, vegetation, and other deleterious material should be removed from the improvement(s) area prior to the start of construction. Following removals, areas approved to receive additional fill should first be scarified in two perpendicular directions and moisture conditioned (at or above the soils optimum moisture content) to a depth of 12 inches and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction. ' Removals (Unsuitable Surficial Materials) Due to the desiccated and relatively soft/loose condition of near surface soils across the lot, removals should consist of fill soils within 1 to 2 feet of existing grades within the building footprint and parking/driveway areas. Once these materials are removed, the bottom of the excavations should be observed and tested. At that time, the removed existing earth materials may be re-used as fill, provided the materials are moisture conditioned at or above the soils optimum moisture and compacted in accordance with the recommendations of this report. When removals are completed, the exposed surface should be scarified in two perpendicular directions (cross ripped), moisture conditioned and recompacted prior to fill placement. Overexcavation Formational materials occur near existing grade within the lot. Finish grading for the proposed development may create a cut/fill transition condition. If this condition occurs, a uniform structural support should be provided. Areas_ underlain by formational materials within 5 feet of proposed grade, should be overexcavated to provide a minimum 5-foot layer of compacted fill and at least 5 feet outside the limits of the outer-most foundation elements. The limits of any bedrock overexcavation should be determined once a grading plan for the site is made available. This 5-foot overexcavation is considered a minimum and within the limits of the building assumes a 2-foot footing embedment (from lowest adjacent soil grade). If embedments are greater than 2 feet, the overexcavation should be increased to a minimum of 3 feet beyond the bottom of the footing and the lateral extent should be increased the same amount beyond the width of the footing. Cut areas greater than 2 feet below existing grade should be well scarified (cross-ripped), moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM test method D-1557). Fill Placement Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (±6 inch) lifts, cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Oversized cobbles The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Ine. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 11 and·boulders (8 to 24 inches), generated as the result of the earthwork should be placed outside of the limits of the building in landscape areas or a pre-designated disposal area. If fill materials are imported to the site, the proposed import fill should be submitted to GSI, so laboratory testing can be performed to verify that the intended import material is compatible with onsite material. At least three business days of lead time should be allowed by builders or contractors for proposed import submittals. This lead time will allow for particle size analysis, specific gravity, relative compaction, expansion testing, and blended import/native characteristics as deemed necessary. Erosion Control Onsite soils materials have a moderate erosion potential. Use of hay bales, silt fences, and/or sandbags should be considered, as appropriate during construction. Temporary grades should be constructed to drain at a minimum of 1 to 2 percent to a suitable temporary or permanent outlet. Precise grades should be evaluated by the design civil engineer to reduce concentrated flows to less than 6 feet per second (Amimoto, 1981) and into lined or landscaped swales. Evaluation of cuts during grading will be necessary in order to identify any areas of loose or non-cohesive materials. Should any significant zones be encountered during earthwork construction, additional remedial grading may be recommended; however, only the remedial measures discussed herein are anticipated at this time. FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS In the event that the information concerning the proposed development plan is not correct or any changes in the design, location, or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are for Lot 98 only and shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. . The information and recommendations presented in this section are considered minimums and are not meant to supersede design(s) by the project structural engineer or civil engineer specializing in structural design. Upon request, GSI could provide additional consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. They are considered preliminary recommendations for proposed construction, in consideration of our field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis. Recommendations for Concrete 11Tilt-up11 Structures For preliminary planning purposes, the following is presented. It is our understanding that the structure will be erected utilizing a tilt-up type of construction. We assume that column loads are not anticipated to exceed 100 kips for dead plus live loading conditions while The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 12 wall loads are not expected to exceed 3 to 5 kips per lineal foot. The engineering analysis performed, concerning the foundation system and the recommendations offered below, have been prepared using these anticipated loads and assuming the recommended earthwork is performed. In the event that the information concerning the proposed cfevelopment is not correct, or any changes in the design, location, or loading conditions of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. Design Our review, field work, and laboratory testing indicates that onsite soils have a moderate expansion potential. Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented below. Final foundation recommendations should be provided at the conclusion of grading based on laboratory testing of fill materials exposed at finish grade. Bearing Value An allowable vertical bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot (psf) should be used for design of continuoL:Js footings a minimum 15 inches wide and 18 inches deep (below lowest adjacent exterior grade) and for design of square footings 24 inches wide and 24 inches deep (below lowest adjacent grade, not including sand layer), bearing in properly compacted fill material. Per USC code, this value may be increased by 20 percent for each additional 12 inches in depth of embedment or width, to a maximum value of 2500 pounds per square foot. ... The above values may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. Exterior square footings should be tied back to the main foundation with a grade beam or tie beam as described in the "construction" section of this report. In addition, foundation depths and widths should be constructed per the UBC guidelines. Lateral Pressure Passive earth pressure of compacted fill may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 225 pounds per cubic foot per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot. An allowable coefficient of friction between compacted fill soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. All footings should maintain a minimum 7-foot horizontal setback from the base of the footing to any descending slope. This distance is measured from the footing face at the bearing elevation. Footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H = slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face and no less than The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 13 7 feet nor need be greater than 40 feet. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales should be deepened to a minimum of 6 inches below the invert of the adjacent unlined swale. Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to extend below a 1: 1 ·projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described in the retaining wall section of this report. Due to anticipated disturbances in areas adjacent to landscaping, the upper 6,inches of passive pressure should be neglected if not confined by slabs or pavement. Construction All footings should be embedded a minimum 18 inches into properly compacted fill or bedrock. Foundation footings should be minimally reinforced with four No. 5 bars, two top and two bottom (in the cross-sections). Footings should be: a) tied with a grade beam or tie beams, or b) have continuous footings across large openings, (i.e., garages or entrances). All exterior isolated footings should be tied in at least two perpendicular directions by grade beams or tie beams to reduce the potential for lateral drift or differential distortion. The base of the grade beams should enter the adjoining footings at the same depth as the footings (i.e., in profile view). The grade beam steel should be continuous at the footing connection. Grade beams and footings should be minimally reinforced and sized per the structural engineers recommendations. Foundation Settlement -Structural Loads Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and construction phase of development, a majority (50 percent or more) of the anticipated foundation settlement is expected to occur during construction. Maximum settlement is not expected to exceed approximately¾ to 1 inch and should occur below the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed approximately¼ to ½ inch between similar elements, in a 20-foot span. FLOOR SLAB DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS Concrete slab-on-grade floor construction is anticipated. The following are presented as minimum design parameters for the slab, but they are in no way intended to supersede design by the structural engineer. Design parameters do not account for concentrated loads (e.g., fork lifts, other machinery, etc.) and/or the use of freezers or heating boxes. Light Load Floor Slabs The slabs in areas that will receive relatively light live loads (i.e., less than 50 psf) should be a minimum of 5 inches thick and be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bar on 18 inches The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp 7\2400\247 4a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 14 centers in two horizontally perpendicular directions. Reinforcing should be properly supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the slab. 11Hooking11 of the reinforcement is not considered an acceptable method of positioning the steel. The recommended minimum compressive strength of concrete is 2,500 pounds per square in'ch (ASTM 520-C-2500). A minimum 4 inch layer of clean select sand should be provided beneath the concrete slab. The project structural engineer should consider the use of transverse and lor:igitudinal control joints to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two of the best ways to control this movement are: i) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel to increase the tensile strength of the slab; and 2) provide an adequate amount of control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and expansion. Transverse and longitudinal crack control joints should be spaced no more than i 2 feet on center and constructed to a minimum depth of T/4, where 11T" equals the slab thickness in inches. Heavy Load Floor Slabs The project structural engineer should design the slabs in areas subject to high loads (machinery, forklifts, storage racks, etc. or above standard office loading). The Modulus of subgrade reaction (k-value) may be used in the design of the floor slab supporting heavy truck traffic, fork lifts, machine foundations and heavy storage areas. A k-value (modulus of subgrade reaction) of 75 pounds per square inch per inch (pci) would be prudent to utilize for preliminary slab design. An A-value test and/or plate load test may be used to verify the k-value on near surface fill soils. " Concrete slabs should be at least 5½ inches thick and reinforced with at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 18 inches on center in two directions. Selection of slab thickness compatibility with anticipated loads should be provided by the structural engineer. Heavily loaded concrete slabs should be underlain with a minimum of 4 inches of ¾-inch crushed rock (vibrated into place), or 4 inches of aggregate base materials (Class 2 aggregate base or equivalent) compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. Transverse and longitudinal crack control joints should be spaced no more than 14 feet on center and constructed to a minimum depth of T/4, where 11T11 equals the slab thickness in inches. The use of expansion joints in the slab should be considered. Concrete used in slab construction should be of minimum compressive strength 3250 pounds per square inch (ASTM 560-C-3250). Spacing of expansion or crack control joints should be modified based on the footprint of the area to be heavily loaded. These recommendations are meant as minimums. The project architect and/or structural engineer should review and verify that the minimum recommendations presented herein are considered adequate with respect to anticipated uses. The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeaSails, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 15 Subgrade Preparation The subgrade material should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density. Prior to placement of concrete, the medium expansive subgrade soils should be presaturated to 18 inches below grade to 120 percent optimum moisture content and verified by our field representative prior to visqueen placement and prior to and within 72 hours of the concrete pour. Moisture Protection In areas where moisture condensation is undesirable (e.g., areas to have moisture- sensitive floor coverings), a minimum 6 mil plastic membrane should be placed with all laps/openings sealed. The membrane should be sandwiched between two 2-inch (minimum) sand layers for a total of 4 inches of sand. These areas should be separate from areas not similarly protected. This separation could be provided with a concrete cut- off wall (minimum 6 inches thick) extending at least 18 inches into the subgrade soil, below the sand layer. CORROSION AND CONCRETE MIX GSI conducted preliminary sampling of near-surface materials for soluble sulfates·on the subject site. Laboratory test results indicate that the site materials have a moderate potential for corrosion to concrete. The design criteria presented in Table 19-A-2 and 19-A- 3 of the UBC (1997 edition) should be followed. Based on the corrosion potential for exposed concrete, foundations should be constructed using Type II, IP (MS), or IS (MS) .. concrete. Upon completion of grading, additional testing of soils (including import materials) should be considered prior to the construction of utilities and foundations. Alternative methods and additional comments may be obtained from a qualified corrosion engineer. RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS General The equivalent fluid pressure parameters provide for either the use of native or low expansive select granular backfill to be utilized behind the proposed walls. The low expansive granular backfill should be provided behind the wall at a 1 :1 (h:v) projection from the heel of the foundation system. Low expansive fill is Class 3 aggregate baserock or Class 2 permeable rock. Wall backfilling should be performed with relatively light equipment within the same 1 :1 projection (i.e., hand tampers, walk behind compactors). Highly expansive soils should not be used to backfill any proposed walls. During construction, materials should not be stockpiled behind nor in front of walls for a distance of 2H where H is the height of the wall. The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 16 Foundation systems for any proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Foundation Design section of this report. Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. All walls should be properly designed in accordance with the recommendations presented below. Some movement of the walls constructed should be anticipated as soil strength parameters are mobilized. This movement could cause some cracking depending upon the materials used to construct the wall. To reduce the potential for wall cracking, walls should be internally grouted and reinforced with steel. To mitigate this effect, the use of vertical crack control joints and expansion joints, spaced at 20 feet or less along the walls should be employed. Vertical expansion control joints should be infilled with a flexible grout. Wall footings should be keyed or doweled across vertical expansion joints. Restrained Walls Loading Dock Wall It is recommended that loading dock walls be designed for restrained conditions (indicated below), where adjacent to the proposed site building. Loading dock walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressure and any additional lateral pressures caused by surcharge loads on the anticipated adjoining slab surface. Approximately up to ½ of surcharge loads on the truck loading dock slab may be added as a uniform load in the back of the loading dock wall. However, the structural engineer or civil engineering specializing in structural design should review and evaluate the type of wall connection(s) ... and the condition of the wall (restrained or cantilever). Other Walls Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material or that have re-entrant or male comers, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid pressures (EFP) of 65 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. This restrained-wall, earth pressure value is for select backfill material only. For areas of male or re-entrant comers, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height of the wall laterally from the corner. Building walls below grade or greater than 2 feet in height should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. The wall should be drained as indicated in the following section. A seismic increment of 1 OH (uniform pressure) should be considered on walls for level backfill, and 20H for sloping backfill of 2: 1, where H is defined as the height of retained material behind the wall. For structural footing loads within the 1 :1 zone of influence behind wall backfill, refer to the following section. · The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 17 Cantilevered Waifs These recommendations are tor cantilevered retaining walls up to 1 o feet high. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. An empirical equivalent fluid pressure approach may be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are provided for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, expansive soils, or adverse geologic conditions. :.~:_):iif !i}:~!:1~*j~t&~;:1~~t:~-~if !!f J!~f:J:;I1}!/i;li/i;/~I\ \:f:;~;/~;t~lifr:~-~1~k;~'~icJ'.iijj;i:t~ii:lii!iii I L;~~I~* I : I *To be increased by traffic, structural surcharge and seismic loading as needed. **Level walls are those where Qrades behind the wall are level for a distance of 2H. Wall Backfill and Drainage All retaining walls should be proviged with an adequate backdrain and outlet system (a minimum two outlets per wall and no greater than 100 feet apart), to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures and be designed in accordance with minimum standards presented herein. See site wall drain options (Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5). Drain pipe should consist of 4-inch diameter perforated schedule 40 PVC pipe embedded in gravel. Gravel used in the backdrain systems should be a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of%- to 1-inch clean crushed rock wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) and 12 inches thick behind the wall. Where the void to be fitted is constrained by lot lines or property boundaries, the use of panel drains (Mirafi 5000 or equivalent) may be considered with the approval of the project geotechnical engineer. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with native soil. Proper surface drainage should also be provided. Weeping of the walls i~ lieu of a backdrain is not recommended for ~alls greater than 2 feet in height. For walls 2 feet or less in h~ight, weepholes should be no greater than 6 feet on center in the bottom coarse of block and above the landscape zone. A paved drainage channel (v-ditch or substitute), either concrete or asphaltic concrete, behind the top of the walls with sloping backfill should be considered to reduce the potential for surface water penetration. For level backfill, the grade should be sloped such that drainage is toward a suitable outlet at 1 to 2 percent. The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 18 Manufactured drainage Geocomposite drain ( Miro drain 5000 or equivalent ) Note: Filter fabric wraps c::,mpletely around perforated pipe end behind core material, core mcte:-icl wrccs benecth bottom of pipe. 4" die. min. perforoted --- Ceo drcin (cut off) I 18;, below soil line I l I ---Sice retcinir.g wail (structure! cesign by others) Pcvement section per -. GSI reccmmenccticns j j Finishe~ lot surface - I l I I r pipe pieced with holes ~---:--:-:--::::. l I down end sloped at 1-2% to suitable outlet ! 4" min. granular motedcl J ( class 2 permeable or 3/8-1" clean crushed rock wrapped in a .. filter fabric) Fl)RM 89/22 0 ,I' 0 / / lJ t::.. ! L Wall footing (designed by others) I SCHEMATIC OF SITE WALL DRAIN OPTION -A Figure 3 DATE ___ 8:r;.,(...,;:9=8;...__1 W. 0. N Q __ 2=47,&.;;4_.-~A--$~C"'----- Geotechnical • Geoto·gic • Environmental II alilllill oi,1 11ailal~~1111, ________________________ _ 2 r Cap drain (cut off) f 18" be!ow soil line Waterproofing 1 I 12" thick (min.) drain rock (class 2 permeable) or other acceptable granular material, 1/8-1" clean crushed rock wrapped in .. ·. ·:·:; .. .._·: I I f 1,/1 • e • I t . . . : . : ;; ~ ~: . . . , . ,, ... '•'. ! ••. • l:,t.1.,-: : • • • •..,., I I • • • ~-· > • I .. • • 4 • • : .", ·~ ...... Site recc1ning well (structural design by others) a filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) .. · . •.· -~ -~'-, .. ., .. ,., .. , .· ·;·:·· .. ·-~~ . :',';-.'·.,..: •• I •• • • ,' • ', e : I;• I • I• Pavement section per GS! recomendations - ,':. ·: ....... · .. _, ........ I 1 1 ..... •: 1 .. I e I I I • • t •. • : ;, I••:~ ..... 4" dia. min. perforated pipe placed with holes down and sloped at 1 -2% to a suitable outlet •, I• , .... • I I et • • I .. • I •1 • .. ; . . . . I • t • • I;, I 1 ..._, • , . ; .. , • ... ·. ·. . . Finished lot surface ... I f I 4" Min.J ',. 4 '.' Min-~ ~ h I .: I ~;: , ', • ~ , ", :' '. :: I I 1 10 1 lo• 1,0_10 • ,. I ' • I 1, ~ I ' • , • ' , • ,, 0 • ' i o • , • _....., 4 Min. ' · 0 • 7 1 · o f ,. f o • • I -\ •" • .... • • , A • ~o , • , -b. 0 t ~ 1, , 0 • 0 • D' f • • .. •• f O ~ .. p l •• 0 •• / • o f , • ,A • b. 0 bi, o , • ., r ,o • a. o • • • • b. 0 \./c.ll f co~ing (designed by others) _r 1 I SCHEM.ATIC OF SITE WALL DRAIN OPTION B Figure 4 DATE _8=/ __ 9 __ 8 ____ 1 W. 0. NO,_, -~2.;:;4.74.,.-.A:i.;;-~S.:.::C __ _ Geotechnical • Geologic• Environmental FOAM 89/22 If finished surface is within 8" of top of footing well drains shell be ot 6' intervals along the length of the wolf end located ot the !eve! of the bottom course cf block. The dreins shell be 4" in diameter. ... Waterproofing\ FQRM 89/22 ,--Cao drain '(c~t cff) t 18" below soii lir.e ! I . ,. . \./a.ll Feating <designed loy otners) SCHEMATIC OF SITE WALL DRAIN OPTION C Figure 5 DATE _s ... 1 __ 9._a ____ l w. o. N 0 ____ 2=-4.:.,:Z .. 4 .... -A .. -_.slWlc ___ _ Geotechnical • Geologic• Environmental Retaining Wall Footing Transitions Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the recommendations in this report. Wall footings may transition from formational bedrock to gravelly fill to select fill. If this condition is present the civil designer may specify either: a) If transitions from rock fill to select fill transect the wall footing alignment at an angle of less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should perform a minimum 2-foot overexcavation for a distance of two times the height of the wall and increase overexcavation until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall alignment. b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints or crack control joints) such that an angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H (where H=wall height in feet) on either side of the transition may be accommodated. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrink grout. c) Embed the footings entirely into a homogeneous fill. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN Pavement sections presented are based on the A-value data (to be verified by specific R- value testing at completion of grading) obtained throughout the project area, the anticipated design classification, information provided by the client, and the minimum ',. requirements of the City of Carlsbad. For planning purposes, pavement sections consisting of asphaltic concrete over base and full depth Portland cement concrete pavement (PCCP) are provided. Anticipated asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement sections are presented in the following: Parkinq Stalls 4.5 16 4.0 Traffic Areas 5.0 16 4.0 PlDenotes standard Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base® ?-78, SE ::'.'._22). (2JCity of Carlsbad minimum AC thickness is 4 inches. 4.0 6.0 (3lTI values have been assumed for planning purposes herein and should be confirmed by the design team durino future plan development. The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page22 Portland cement concrete pavement sections are presented below. Parkinq Stalls 10 16 liaht 5.5 Parking Stalls 25 16 light 6.0 Parking Stalls 100 16 light 6.0 Traffic Lane 10 16 medium 6.5 Traffic Lane 25 16 medium 7.0 Traffic Lane 100 16 medium 7.0 Traffic Lane 300 16 medium 7.5 Traffic Lane 500 16 medium 7.5 Loading Dock 10 16 heavy 7.5 Loading Dock 25 16 heavy 8.0 Loading Dock 100 16 heavy 8.0 Loading Dock 300 16 heavy 8.5 Loading Dock 500 16 heavy 8.5 <1>concrete shall be 560-C-3250 minimum. Assumes the construction of concrete shoulders. (2>ADTT values have been assumed for planning purposes herein and should be confirmed by th~ design team durinq future plan develooment. The pavement sections presented above have been calculated based on a subgrade A-value of 16, modulus of rupture (MR) of 560 psi and the use of concrete shoulders (curb and gutter) at the edge of pavement. A load safety factor of 1.0 and 1.1 were applied to parking and traffic/loading areas, respectively. GSI does not recommend the use of an ADTT value of less than 25 for any pavement section, unless the ADTT significantly less than 25 is certified by a civil engineer specializing in traffic engineering. Design of truck loading docks should utilize guidelines provided for traffic lanes. The transition of the pavement from parking to traffic lanes should be made over a distance of 18 inches with crack control joints (weaken plane) or contact joints at the end of the The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 23 transition. A minimum 4-inch layer of base rock in traffic and loading dock area should be considered to improve traffic lane performance. Base rock may consist of either ¾-inch crushed rock or Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. Crushed rock may be compacted by viqratory methods. Aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent. PCC Pavement Joints Weakened Plane Joints Transverse and longitudinal weakened plane joints may be constructed per Caltrans Standard specifications, Section 40-1.088 and 40-1.088(1). Transverse weakened plane joints should be spaced no farther than 15 feet apart and no closer than 5 feet. Longitudinal weakened plane joints should be spaced no farther than 20 feet apart, but not less than 5 feet. Joint layout may be determined per the applicable San Diego Regional Standard Drawings G-18 through G-21 (inclusive). Expansion Joints Transverse expansion joints should be constructed at 120 foot spacings in accordance with San Diego Regional Standard Drawing G-1 O. Contact Joints Transverse and longitudinal contact joints should be constructed in accordance with the contact joint detail shown on the San Diego Regional Standard Drawing G-1 o. Joint layout may be determined per the applicable San Diego Regional Standard Drawings G-18 through G-21 (inclusive). Within large parking areas, joint spacings should be no greater than 20 feet. Slab Reinforcement PCC Pavements for this project are designed as unreinforced and should perform adequately, assuming proper construction. If additional control of internal slab stresses (i.e., curing shrinkage, thermal expansion and contraction) is desired, then the use of 6- inch by 6-inch (6x6-W1 .4 x W1 .4), welded-wire mesh (or equivalent) may be considered. Pavement grading recommendations are presented in Appendix E. Subgrade preparation and aggregate base preparation should be performed in accordance with those recommendations, and the minimum subgrade (upper 12 inches) and Class 2 aggregate base compaction should be 95 percent of the maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). If adverse conditions (i.e., saturated ground, etc.) are encountered during preparation of subgrade, special construction methods may need to be employed. The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 24 These recommendations should be considered preliminary. Further A-value testing and pavement design analysis should be performed upon completion of grading for the lot. FLATWORK AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS 1. Planters and walls should not be tied to building(s). 2. Driveways, sidewalks, and patios adjacent to the building(s) should be separated tram the building(s) with thick expansion joint filler material. In addition, all sidewalks and driveways should be quartered and poured with expansion joints no farther apart than 8 feet for 4-inch ·slabs or 11 feet for 5½-inch slabs, respectively. To improve the performance of the driveway and/or sidewalks constructed on the expansive soils, consideration should be given to pre-saturation of the soils prior to placement of driveways and sidewalks to 120 percent of optimum moisture, for medium expansive soils. Consideration should additionally be given for the areas of the driveways and sidewalks adjacent to planters, lawns, and other landscape areas to have thickened edges, such that the edge is 4 to 6 inches thick and at least 6 inches below the adjacent landscaping zone (section). 3. Overhang structures should be structurally designed with continuous footings or grade beams tied in at least two directions. Footings that support overhang structures should be embedded a minimum of 18 inches from the lowest adjacent finished subgrade. 4. Any masonry landscape walls that are to be constructed throughout the property should be fully grouted and articulated in segments no more than 20 feet long. 5. Utilities should be enclosed within a closed vault or designed with flexible connections to accommodate differential settlement and expansive soil conditions. 6. Finish grade (Precise Grade Plan) on the lot should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street. It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not maintained due to landscaping work, modifications to flatwork, or post-sale homeowner modifications. Tile Flooring Tile flooring can crack, reflecting cracks in the concrete slab below the tile. Therefore, the designer should consider additional steel reinforcement of concrete slabs on-grade where tile will be placed. The tile installer should consider installation methods that reduce possible cracking of the tile such as slipsheets. Slipsheets or a vinyl crack isolation membrane (approved by the Tile Council of America/Ceramic Tile Institute) is recommended between tile and concrete slabs on grade. The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, I~c. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 25 Gutters and Downspouts eonsideration should be given to the installation of gutters and downspouts to collect roof water that may otherwise infiltrate the soils adjacent to the structures. The downspouts should be drained away from the foundation and collected in drainage swales or other approved non-erosive drainage systems designed by a registered civil engineer (specializing in drainage) to convey water away from the foundation. Gutters and downspouts are not a geotechnical requirement, however, provided positive draina·ge is maintained in accordance with the recommendations of the design civil engineer. Exterior Slabs and Walkways Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade (walkways, patios, etc.) should be constructed with a minimum 4-inch thick slab, and reinforced with steel rebar or welded mesh. The reinforcement should consist of No. 3 rebar placed at 18 inches on center in two horizontally perpendicular directions (long axis and short axis), or 6x6-W2.9xW2.9 welded wire mesh. It is important for the performance of the slab that the reinforcing be located near mid-slab thickness using chairs, supports, etc. Hooking is not an acceptable method of reinforcement placement, and is not recommended. Distortions on the exterior slab-on-grade due to expansive soils and proximity to slopes may warrant additional mitigation. This may include crack control joints (4 to 6 feet spacing in horizontally perpendicular directions [long axis and short axis]), and expansion · control joints at intervals 1 O feet or less. Other considerations for mitigation may include the use of thickened edges (see above) for slabs at the top of slopes, fiber mesh mixed into the concrete, or pre-saturation of subgrade soils to 120 percent of optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches. Due to expansive soils, air conditioning (NC) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into the building foundation {PT slab) or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for plumbing and electrical lines. NC waste water lines should be drained to a suitable outlet (see previous section). Shrinkage cracks in concrete could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of soils, and fertilizers used on site. The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils. Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 26 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA Additional Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request this includes but not limited to appurtenant structures. · This office should be notified in advance of any additional fill placement, regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench, and retaining wall backfills. Erosion and Sedimentation Control The objective of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements are to reduce (or eliminate) discharge of non-stormwater runoff from construction sites. One of the best management practices (BM P's) to mitigate significant erosion from sites in the grading phase of construction is implementation of structural containment devices, including but not limited to sandbags, retention basins, hay bales, etc. BM P's should be developed prior to the start of mass grading. As described in the General Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) specific to the subject development is required, and should include an erosion control plan presenting best management practices (BMP1s) for runoff control. The erosion control plan should be exhibited on the grading plans. The SWPPP should be maintained until a post- construction management plan is in effect. These services would be provided by GSI upon request. Landscape Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away from graded slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided. Onsite soil materials should be maintained in a solid to semisolid state. Brushed native and graded slopes (constructed within and utilizing onsite materials) would be potentially erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after construction. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Planting of large trees with potential for extensive root development should not be placed closer than 1 o feet from the perimeter of the foundation or the anticipated height of the mature tree, The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center · File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge _ GeoSoils. Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 27 whichever is greater. It order to minimize erosion on the slope face, an erosion control fabric (i.e. jute matting) should be considered . . From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils area processed for the purpose of adding amendments they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. .Moisture sensors, embedded into fill slopes, should be considered to reduce the potential of overwatering from automatic landscape watering systems. The use of certain fertilizers may affect the corrosion characteristics of soil. Review of the type and amount (pounds per acre) of the fertilizers by a corrosion specialist should be considered. Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided upon request. If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This office should be notified in advance of any additional fill placement, regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench, and retaining wall backfills. Drainage Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations arid no~ allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area. Landscaping should be graded to drain into the street, or other approved area. All surface water should be appropriately directed to areas designed for site drainage: Roof gutters and down spouts are recommended to control roof drainage. Down spouts should outlet a minimum of 5 feet from proposed structures or tightlined into a subsurface drainage system. We recommend that any proposed open bottom planters adjac~nt to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 1 o feet. As an alternative, closed bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. Drainage behind top of walls should be accomplished along the length of the wall with a paved channel drainage v-ditch or substitute. Footing Trench Excavation All footing trench excavations should be observed and approved by a representative of this office prior to placing reinforcement. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent, if not removed from the site. The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge G~oSnil~. Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 28 Trench Backfill Alf excavations should be obseNed by one of our representatives and conform to OSHA and local safety codes. Exterior trenches should not be excavated below a 1 :1 projection from the bottom of any adjacent foundation system. If excavated, these trenches may undermine support for the foundation system potentially creating adverse conditions. 1. All utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas and beneath hardscape features should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory ·standard. ObseNations, probing and, if deemed necessary, testing should be performed by a representative of this office to verify compactive efforts of the contractor. 2. Soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent (ASTM D-1557) if not removed from the site. 3. Jetting of backfill is not recommended. 4. Bottoms of utility trenches should be sloped away from structures. PLAN REVIEW Final site development and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review and comment, as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and any additional earthwork construction performed on the site should be obseNed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site grading, construction, and our post-grading study. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. Inasmuch as our study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analysis, the conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils. Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 29 practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GS! performed this study within the constraints of a budget. .. During the field exploration phase of our study, odors or stained or discolored soils were not observed onsite or in our borings or boring spoils. However, these observations were made during our preliminary geotechnical study and should in no way be used,in lieu of an environmental assessment. If requested, a proposal for a phase I preliminary environmental assessment could be provided. The Blackmore Company Lot 98 of Carlsbad Research Center File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge C~n~nil~. Inc. W.O 2474-A-SC August 3, 1998 Page 30 .APPENDIX .A REFERENCES ~ . . ' Appendix A REFERENCES Amimoto, Perry Y., 1981, Erosion and sediment control handbook: Division of Mines and Geology, Department of Conservation, May. Blake, Thomas F., 1997, EQFAULT computer program and users manual for the deterministic prediction of horizontal accelerations from digitized California faults. Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 1994, Near-source attenuation of peak horizontal acceleration from worldwide accelrograms recorded from 1957 to 1993; Proceedings, Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, volume Ill, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp 292-293. GeoSoils, Inc., undated, In-house, unpublished data. Geotechnics Incorporated, 1994, As-graded geotechnical report, Carlsbad Research Center, Unit 5, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 0017-001-01, April 29. Greensfelder, R. W., 1974, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. Hart, E.W., 1997, Fault-rupture hazard zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Housner, G. W., 1970, Strong ground motion in Earthquake Engineering, Robert Wiegel, ed., Prentice-Hall. International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code: Whittier, California, vol. 1, 2, and 3. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1 :750,000. Joyner, W. 8., and Boore, D. M., 1988, Measurement characterization and prediction of strong ground motion, in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics II --recent advances in ground motion evaluation: American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication no. 20, p. 43 to 102. --, 1982, Prediction of earthquake response spectra, U. S. Geological Survey Open- File Report 82-977, 16 p. --, 1981 , Peak horizontal acceleration and velocity from strong-motion records including records from the 1979 Imperial Valley, California, ear:thquake: Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, v. 71, no. 6, p. 2011-2038. Sadigh, K., Egan, J., and Youngs, R., 1987, Predictive ground motion equations reported in Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1988, "Measurement, characterization, and prediction of strong ground motion\ in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics 11, Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation, Von Thun, J.L., ed.: American Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20, pp. 43-102. Sowers and Sowers, 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U. S. Waterways Experiment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New York. Weber; Harold F., 1982, Geologic map of the central-north coastal area of San Diego County, California, showing recent slope failures and pre-development landslides: United States Geologic Survey, Open-File Report 82-12. · The Blackmore Company Appendix A File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge Page 2 APPENDIX B BORING LOGS BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o. 2474-A-SC _. PROJECT: BLACKMORE BORING B-1 SHEET_1_OF 1 - Lot 98 DATE EXCAVATED 6-10-98 Sample ,.. SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb hammer 30" drop ·-~ ,.. '-' ,.. +-~ ~ ::i: '-' C Standard Penetration Test +-0 'I-+-+-aJ -~ Water Seepage into hole '-' 'I-,.. L +- I iJ ' -·,> :, Ill ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample .J:. Ill aJ • Ill 0 ::, 0 +-L +-~ -.a ·3 Cll .!l 0. Ill :, 0. -iJ L 0 u e :n '-' ·-+- aJ :, C :, -Cl) :n L 0 Ill Description of Material 0 Ill ::, +-Ill ::, Cl) Cl :c Cl) ~ ML ,-ARTIFICIAL FILL .-, .-, , @ O', CLAYEY SILT, olive brown, moist, soft . ,-, ,-, , .-, , @ 2', as per O', stiff. 16 106.7 16.3 .-, , .-, , ~ 25 CL 111.6 6.2 I SANTIAGO FORMATION -@ 3', CLA YSTONE, greenish brown, moist, very stiff; roots, 5- weathered, iron oxide staining. ~ 17 @ 5', as per 3' - -Total Depth = 6 1 /2' No groundwater encountered -Backfilled 6-10-98 -. 1 o-... - - - - 15- ' - - - - 20- - - - - 25- - - - - Lot 98 GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-1 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o . 2474-A-SC • PROJECT: BLACKMORE BORING B-2 SHE£T_1_0F 1 - Lot 98 DATE EXCAVATED 6-10-98 ' ,... SAMPLE METHOD: 140 lb hammer 30" drop Sample :,: ,... ...., \ ,.... + :,: m :I ...., C Standard Penetration Test ·+ 0 ... + + ID -~ Water Seepage into hole ...., ... ,.... L + I "O -., -'i: ... ::J 111 ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample .c IJI ID IJI 0 ::i 0 + L + !,,! ·-.C 3 Cll .n a. IJI ::J a. -"CJ L 0 u e :,,'"' -+ ID ::, C::, -Cll :» L 0 111 Description of Material 0 lD ::i+ lD ::i Cll 0 I: Cll ML SANTIAGO FORMATION -@ O', SANDY SILTSTONE, olive brown, soft, damp; highly weathered. -@ 1 ', grades to moist, stiff. @ 2', grades to very stiff. Total Depth = 3' -No groundwater encountered 5-Backfilled 6-10-98 - - - - .... . ' 10- - -I I - -' 15-I - - - . 20· - - - - 25- - -- - - GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 8-2 Lot 98 BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. w.o . 2474-A-SC . PROJECT: BLACKMORE BORING B-3 SHEET _J_OF 1 -- Lot 98 DATE EXCAVATED 6-10-98 ' ,.., 140 lb hammer 30" drop Sample :,: SAMPLE METHOD: ,.., V ,.., I +-:,: ~ ::r V C Standard Penetration Test +-0 ... +-+-OJ ·-~ Water Seepage into hole V ... ,... L +- I "'Cl ' -·c ... :, 111 ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample .c Ill OJ •. Ill 0 :::, 0 +-L +-:,! ·-.0 3 Cl.I .0 a. Ill :, a. -"'Cl L 0 u e :J) V ·-+- OJ :I C :, -en :Jl L 0 111 Description of Material Cl ID :::, +-ID :::, en Cl :c en ML SANTIAGO FORMATION ~ @ O', SANDY SILTSTONE, olive brown, soft, damp; highly weathered. -@ 1 ', grades to moist, stiff. , @ 2', grades to very stiff. r Total Depth = 3' -No groundwater encountered 5-Backfilled 6-10-98 - - - - 10-... . i I -' - - 15-: ' I - - -: I - 20- - - - - 25- - - - -I GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-3 Lot 98 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TEST RES UL TS . ·'. . < .... -.--. r: .T .-····~~ 16100 Quail Valley Court R~vers~de, CA 92507 ·-!.· · ·./ l.~· :t_.., \ P.O. Box 432 R1vers1de, CA 92502 . ~-... E.S. BABCOCK & SONS, INC. . '.! i PH (909) 653-3351 FAX {909) 653-1662 pnvironmental Laboratory Certification #1156 ESTA81.151<,EO 1006 ;17;:.-.-.. ----:===' 2277 Client: GeoSoils, Inc. :::'llt!§=~t~~ }IIttQ:~:~J~~t!'s=t;-=--:= ~=o. o o 3 5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad,CA 92008 Client I.D.: soil-ag as listed Identification Collected Ion Chrom. Date Time Water Extractable sulfa to ppm RL: · .. -:·2·to 5. Date Reported: 06/30/98 Submitted By: UPS Date: 06/18/98 Time: 083-S ·:: .. ·.:..·,.:-· ' ,,.·· Date analysis completed: (Water Extractable Sulfate:06/24/98) ND= None detected at RL (Reporting Limit). Results repoted in ppm expressed on air dired soil basis. cc: Plate C-1 APPENDIX D GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES :~-. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas._ to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading rriay result in new recommendations which could supersede these guidelines or the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EARTHWORK OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer and engineering geologist) should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report, the approved grading plans, and applicable grading codes and ordinances. . The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants and keep them apprised of anticipated work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their personnel accordingly. All clean-outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and/or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractors's responsibility to notify the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready for observation. Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D-1557-78. Random field compaction tests should be performed i~ accordance with test method ASTM designation D-1556-82, D-2937 or D-2922 and D-3017, at intervals of approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria ,. __ C!t_~ .. -T....-- would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. . Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be c9nducted by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread_, moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non- earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. lt_is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is not acceptable, the consultant will inform the contractor, and the contractor is expected to rectify the conditions, and if necessary, stop work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade all surfaces to maintain good drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor shall take remedial measures to control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off-site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in-place should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted fills. Any materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approved by the soil engineer. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing ca~not adequately improve the condition should be ove'.-excavated down to General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines Appendix D File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge Page 2 ·-: firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations continue. Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture conditioned should be re-compacted to the minimum relative compaction as specified in these guidelines. Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as spec!fied herein. If the scarified zone is grater that 6 inches .in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be over- excavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on-site soils engineer and/or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollow, hummocks, or other uneven features which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench, which will act as a key, should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet with the key founded on firm material, as designated by the Geotechnical Consultant. As a general rule, unless specifically recommended otherwise by the Soil Engineer, the minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to ½ the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre-stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toe of fill benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill provided that each material has been determined to be suitable by the soil engineer. These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines Appendix D File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge Page 3 by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or substandard strength characteristics may be designated by the consultant as unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve as a satisfactory fill material. Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill/bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried or placed in fills unless the location of materials and disposal methods are specifically approved by the soil engineer. Oversized material should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal. Oversized material should not be placed within 1 o feet vertically of finish grade (elevation) or within 20 feet horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved by the soil engineer and/or the developers representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any material other thar:1 that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near horizontal layers that when compacted should not exceed 6 inches in thickness. The soil engineer may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of material and moisture suitable for compaction. Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material. Moisture condition, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation, D-1557-78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines Appendix D File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge Page 4 Where tests indicate that the density of any layer of fill, or portion thereof, is below the required relative compaction, or improper moisture is in evidence, the particular layer or portion shall be re-worked until the required density and/or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over-building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final determination of fill slope compaction should be based on observation and/or testing of the finished slope face. Where compacted fill slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, and special grading procedures, may be recommended. If an alternative to over-building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 1 o feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 4. An extra piece of equipment consisting of a heavy short shanked sheepsfoot should be used t0 rolf..(horizontal) parallel to the slopes continuously as fill is placed. The sheepsfoot roller should also be used to roll perpendicular to the slopes, and extend out over the slope to provide adequate compaction to the face of the slope. 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re-rolling. 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re-rolled with a sheepsfoot to achieve compaction to near the slope face. Subsequent to testing to verify compaction, the slopes should be grid-rolled to achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix and re-compact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify compaction. General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils. Ine- Appendix D Pages 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignm~nt and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and/or engineering geologist may recommend and direct changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending exposed conditions. The location of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and re-filling of cut areas should be performed and/or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portion of the slope should be observed by the engineering geologist prior to placement of-materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potential adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in-grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short-term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractors responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer and should be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and/or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines Fife: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge Geo&nil.c:_ ln~- Appendix D Page6 COMPLETION Observation, testing and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. After completion of grading and after the soil engineer and engineering geologist have finished their observations of the work, final reports should be submitted subject to review by the controlling governmental agencies. No further excavation or filling should be underta~en without prior notification of the soil engineer and/or engineering geologist. All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected from erosion and/or be planted in accordance with the project specifications and/or as recommended by a landscape architect. Such protection and/or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On..ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that site safety is the prime responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal o_f avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor and GS! personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed to attend contractors regularly scheduled and documented safety meetings. Safety Vests: Safety Flags: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by GSI personnel at all times when they are working in the field. Two safety flags are provided to GSI field technicians; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge Appendix D Page? GeoSoils. Inc. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area shall use rotating or flashing amber beacon, or strobe lights, on the vehicle during all field testing. While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location. Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative (dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form oncoming traffic, whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration which typically decreased test results. When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below·the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all changes to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access and site safety. In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractors failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The grading contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. However, in the General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines File: e:\wp 7\2400\247 4a.pge GeoSoils. Ine. Appendix D Page a interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill place can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor brings this to his/her attention and notify this office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors representative and the soils technician is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety plan. Trench and Vertical Excavation It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back, 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. · Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL-OSHA and/or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or 11riding down11 on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his/her supervisor. The contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject, to reprocessing and/or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner/developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GS! then has an obligation to notify CAL-OSHA and/or the proper authorities. General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines File: e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix D Page9 CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYPE A ', PROPOSED COMPACTED FILL ' ' ',,.,,,-NATURAL GROUND SEE ALTERNATIVES TYPE B ~----~--~~-~-~------~-~-----~- SEE ALTERNA TIYES NOTE: ALTERNATIVES. LOCATION ANO EXTENT OF SUBORAINS SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING GRADING. PLATE EG-1 · CANYON SUBORAIN ALTERNATE DETAILS ALTERNATE t PERFORATED PIPE ANO FILTER MATERIAL A-1 ·FILTER MATERIAL. . S{EVE SfZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH , mo ·3/ 4 INCH 90:::100 3/8 INCH 40-100 NO. 4 25-40. NO. 8 18-33 .NO. 30 :5-15. )rn. so .o-7 NO. 200 0-3 ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED P~PE, GRAVEL AND. FILTER FABRIC ~NIMUM' OVERLAP A-2 s· MINIMUM OVER~>! _s· MINIMUM COVER =4. MINIMUM BEDDING· · GRAVEL .MATERIAL 9 FT3/UNEAR FT. PERFORATED PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL: CLEAN 3/ 4 IN~ ROCK OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE FILTER FABRIC: MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED SUBSTITUTE PLATE EG-2 DETAJL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLAT ALLUVIA TED CANYON TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN l COMPACTED FILL ' ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE ~ RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL -L:C:L_:~~U=A~ SACl<CU~ VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS, /....f..-0~ r SACl<CUT ::t~SHOULD BE MADE NO <._~~ STEEPER ·THA~:1 OR AS NECESSAR~ ~~ ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL RE1i40VAL FOR SAFETY ......_~,CONSIOERATIONS"J l ~ , DEPTH PER SOIL EHG*EER. "$/J~\ // ~\%/W~PRovioEA ;;-MINIMUM PRo~cTIONFR;; r;;;; SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO THE RECOMMENDED REMOVAL DEPTH. SLOPE HEIGHT, SITE CONDITIONS AHO/OR LOCAL CONDITIONS COULD DICTATE FLATTER PROJ~CTJONS. REMOVAL ADJACENT TO EXISTING FILL ADJOINING CANYON FILL ----------------- PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FllL LIMITS LINE;\ , TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL ~ -- }., FOR DRAINAGE ONLY -----·/' ,rr;::; Qaf ..r<cf, Qaf / Oal (TO BE REMOVED) (EXISTING CO~PAkCTEO FILL) :<>2,~~j~l\~i~-<f/j'1-\ 1P/1A'Y/l':'1\ 'f/1,... LEGEND ~\ :;.--TO BE REMOVED BEFORE Qaf ARTIFICIAL FILL PLACING ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL Oal ALLUVIUM PLATE EG-3 l) r )> -I rn rn G> I +'- TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS Fill.. DETAIL OUTLETS TO BE SPACED AT 100' MAXIMUM INTERVALS, ANO SHALL EX TENO ( 12· BEYOND THE FACE OF SLOPE AT TIME OF. ROUGH GRADING COMPLETION. \' •\ 15' MINIMUM BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER 10' MINIMUM \\\7i/l\\//,I------ .-., "' nl..~ 15' TYPICAL ------1 -I.. DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE _c : ANO BACKDRAIN (SEE ALTERNATIVES} 1-2· .. ),it\·; j, > ,,d"' ~l"' 3' MINIMUM KEY DEPTH TYPICAL STABILIZATION / BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN DETAIL I.· MINIMUM r MINIMUM PIPE 7J r )> --1 rn m G) l Ul 2": ::) :i: z :i: N 2· MINIMUM FILTER MATERIAL: MINIMUM OF FIVE FP/LINEAR Ft OF PIPF OR FOUR FP/LINEAR Ft OF PIPE WHEN PLACED IN SQUARE FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE OF CUT TRENCH. THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION Al.IERNATIVE IN LIEU OF FILTER MATERIAL: GRAVEL MAY BE OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: ENCASED IN APPROVED FILTER FABRIC. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE MIRAFI 11.0 OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC I SHALL BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12· ON ALL JOINTS. M)N)MUM 1, • DIAMETER PIPE: ABS-ASTM 0-2751, SOR 35 OR ASTM D-1527 SCHEDULE 1.0 PVC-ASTM D-3031., SPR 35 OR ASTM 0-1785 SCHEDULE: 1.0 WITH A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF 1,000 POUNDS MINIMUM, AND A MINIMUM OF 8 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS OF BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT-UPSTREAM END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 % TO OUTLET PIPE. OUTLET PIPE TO BE CONNECTED TO SUBDRAIN PIPE WITH TEE OR ELBOW. t-XlTE: 1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFILLED WITH ON-SITE SOIL. 2. BACK DRAINS AND LATERAL DRAINS SHALL BE ' LOCATED AT ELEVATION OF EVERY BENCH DRAIN. FIRST DRAIN LOCATED AT ELEVATION JUST ABOVE LOWER LOT GRADE. ADDITIONAL DRAINS MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSl_!iil 1 INCH 100 3/l. INCH 90-100 3/8 INCH 40-100 NO. 4 25-40 NO. 8 18-33 NO. 30 5-15 NO. 50 0-7 NO. 200 0-3 GRAVEL SHALL BE OF THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR AN APPROVED EQUIVALENT: SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 11/2INCH 100 NO. I. 50 NO. 200 8 SAND EQUIVALENT: MINIMUM OF 50 FILL OVER NATURAL DETAIL SIDEHILL FILL ," TOE OF SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION FROM DESIGN TOE OF SLOPE TO TOE OF KEY AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT ~~ATURAL SLOPE TO BE RESTORED WITH I I I y .,,,. L---'* -,y':./ ------1 ~.MINIM~M BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY COMPACTED FILL ~ i,' MINIMUM NOTE: 1. WHERE THE NA"tURAL SLOPE APPROACHES OR EXCEEDS THE tJ r )> --1 rn m G) I m 'MINIMUM KEY WIDTH DESIGN SLOPE RA TIO, SPECIAL RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE 2'X 3' MINIMUM KEY DEPTH 2' MINIMUM IN BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL. PROVIDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 2. THE NEED FOR AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER BASED UPON EXPOSED CONDITIONS. FILL OVER CUT DETAIL • CUT/EILL CONTACT 1. AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN MAINTAIN MINIMUM 15' FILL SECTION FROM BACKCUT TO FACE OF FINISH SLOPE 2. AS SHOWN ON AS BUILT H ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHY //~~ BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL tJ r )> -! rn m G) l '-1 LOWEST BENCH WIDTH 15' MINIMUM OR H/2 BENCH WIDTH MAY VARY ---------- COMPACTED FILL '" NOTE: THE CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE SHOULD BE EXCAVATED AND EVALUATED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTING THE Fl.l-L PORTION. 7J r )> -I m m G) I 00 STABILIZATION FILL FOR UNSTABLE MATERIAL · Hl EXPOSED IN PORTION OF CUT .SLOPE {' • NATURAL SLOPE REMOVE: UNSTABLE MATEijlAL ~ k .. ~ ..., ·5.: I '*P~EO FINISHED GRADE 1 • , ~ .. '/'"" UNWEATHEREO BEOROCI< OR APPROVED MATERIAL REMOVE: UNSTABLE MATERIAL 'V/j ,. ___s.J• MINIMUM TILTED BACK \' \'¼)}~.;;. z=l 1F RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO/OR ENGINEERING r" ,... W2. GEOLOGIST, THE REMAINING CUT PORTION OF THE SLOPE MAY 'fn , ... ,<h.,.... Wl .,,7 -REQUIRE REMOVAL ANO REPLACEMENT WITH COMPACTED FILL. NOTE: 1. SU BO RAINS ARE NOT REQUIRED UNLESS SPECIFIED ·av SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, 2. ·w· SHALL BE EQUIPMENT .WIDTH (15•) FOR SLOPE HEIGHTS LESS THAN 25 FEET. FOR SLOPES GREATER· THAN 25 FEET ·w· SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PROJECT SOILS ENGINEER AND /OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. AT NO TIME SHALL ·w· BE LESS THAN H/2. L) ~ -I rn m G) I (0 SKIN FILL OF NA TUR AL GROUND ,, 15' MINIMUM TO BE MAINTAINED FROM PROPOSED FINISH SLOPE FACE TO BACK CUT ------- ORIGINAL SLOPE 3' MINIMUM '\-..;:T'"Y":'""'.;.,x-~~=-h~~~, ~ ··7.. ~,..,A \rc-:v,~1'\-=--\.\i' ~:w.~~:\v.~~~~~J~ MINIMUM KEY DEPTH · ~ NOTE: 1. THE NEED AND DISPOSITION OF DRAINS WILL BE DETERMINED! BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS. 2. PAD OVEREXCAVATION AND _RECOMPACTION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AN.DIOR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. -u ~ -l rn m G) l --Ii,. 0 DAYLIGHT CUT LOT DETAIL RECONSTRUCT COMPACTED FILL SLOPE AT 2:1 OR FLATTER !MAY INCREASE OR DECREASE PAD AREA}. OVEREXCAVA TE AHO RE COMPACT ---. REPLACEMENT FILL AVOID ANDIOR CLEAN UP SPILLAGE OF MATERIALS OH THE NATURAL SLOPE " / / -~ ~ ~ NOTE: 1. SUGDRAIN ANO KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS WILL BE DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUOSURFACE CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN. 2. PAD OVER EXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION SHOULD' BE PERFORMED IF DETERMINED NECE"SSARY BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/pR THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. TRANSITION LOT DETAIL CUT LOT (MATERIAL TYPE TRANSITION} ·---------------- PAO GRADE COMPACTED FILL TYPICAL BENCHING CUT-FILL LOT {DAYLIGHT TRANSITION) MUM PAO GRADE 3• MINIMUM* NOTE: * DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE RECOMMENDED SY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST IN STEEP CUT-FILL TRANSITION AREAS. PLATE EG-11' OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEWS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROO< SHOULD NOT TOUCH ANO VOIDS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY FILLED IN. VlEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FJNISH GRADE I 10· MJNJMUM ( El co cl:, Ct) H (8) co 1B!NIMU~~l VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE co co (Fl cc co PROPOSED FlNJSH GRADE CJ aoc:xx::ccccx::x 10' MINIMUM NOTE: IA) ONE EQUIPMENT. WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. f G) c;::;t:;O ~ (FJ (8) HEJGHT ANO WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE ANO TYPE OF EQUIPMENT USED. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100' MAXIMUM. re, IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO/OR ENGINEERNG GEOLOGIST WINDROWS MAY· BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIALS OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. (DJ ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHALL BE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF WINDROWS JS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. (EJ CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY TRENCHES,. FOUNDATIONS AND SWIMMING POOLS. · lFl VOIDS IN WINDROW SHALL BE FILLED BY FLOODING GRANULAR SOIL INTO PLACE. GRANULAR SOIL SHALL BE ANY SOIL WHICH HAS A UNfF!EO SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (USC 29-1) OESJGNATION OF SM, SP, SW, GP, OR GW. ALL ALL OVER ANO AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL Bij COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE . COMPACTION. . IG) AFTER FlLL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED ANO COMPACTED WITH THE LIFT OF FlLL COVERING WINDROW, WINDROW SHALL BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A 0-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. . (H) OVERSIZED ROCK IS DEANED AS LARGER THAN 12: ANO LESS THAN 4 FEET IN SIZE •. PLATE EG-12 ROCK DISPOSAL PITS Fill ~IFTS COMPAC'H:0 OVER r-:o~K~~~ ~~~~E~T .)_ __ ___ I I I I I I l I COMPACTED FILL GRANULAR MAT-ERIAL LARGE ROe,( SlZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SJZE. NOTE: 1. LARGE ROCK IS DEFINED AS ROCK LARGER THAN 4 FEET IN MAXIMUM SIZE. 2. PIT IS EXCAVATED INTO COMPACTED ALL TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO 1/2 OF ROCK SIZE. 3. GRANULAR SOIL SHOULD BE PUSHED INTO PIT AND DENSIFlEO BY FLOODING. USE A SHEEPSFOOT AROUND ROCK TO AID IN COMPACTION. 4. A MINIMUM OF 4 FEET OF REGULAR COMPACTED Flll SHOULD OVERUE EACH PIT. 5. PITS SHOULD SE SEPARATED BY AT LEAST 15 FEET HORIZONTALLY. 6. PITS SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WITHIN 20 FEET OF ANY FILL SLOPE. 7. PITS SHOULD ONLY SE USED IN DEEP Flll AREAS. I I I I I I I I PLATE EG-13 SETTLEMENT PLATE AND RJSER -DETAIL 2' X 2' X 11 4. STEEL PLATE STANDARD 3/C PIPE NIPPLE WELDED TO TOP OF PLATE. 3/ 4. X s· GALVANJZED PIPE, STANDARD PIPE THREADS TOP ANO BOTTOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENOS ANO ADDED IN 5• INCREMENTS. 3 INCH SCHEPULE 40 PVC PIPE SLEEVE, ADO IN s· INCREMENTS WITH GLUE JOINTS. FINAL GRADE l 1[ I : : MAJNTAJN 5' CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT. ~ -1..J\r-MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2'VEfHICAL -r'\-~.. ,'\,-LIFTS OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND , _____ ,_-.. __ _.,., ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. I s· -~ s· I I . I I 5' I I MECHANICALLY HANO COMPACT THE INITIAL 5• ~ VERTICA~ W_ITHIN A S'RADIUS OF PLATE BASE. / / I / / / ' ' ' ' :-: •• • •• : .·;-:·. •• • ••• •• ·.·_-:. BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1' BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND NOTE: 1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD BE CLEARLY MARKED AND READILY VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE OF A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE ANO WITHIN 5• (VERTICAL} FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. FlLL WITHIN CLEARANCE AREA SHOULD BE HANO COMPACTED TO PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS OR COMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 3. AFTER S"(YERTICALJ OF FILL IS IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN A 5' RADIUS EQUIPMENT CLEARANCE FROM RISER. 4. PLACE ANO MECHANICALLY HANO COMPACT INITIAL 2' OF FILL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL READING. 5. IN THE, EVENT OF DAMAGE TO THE SETTLEMENT PLATE OR EXTENSION RESULTING FROM EQUIPMENT OPERATING WITHIN THE SPECIFIED CLEARANCE AREA, CONTRACTOR SHOULD IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR RESTORING THE SETTLEMENT PLATES TO WORKING ORDER. 6. AN ALTERNATE DESIGN AND METHOD OF INSTALLATION MAY BE· PROVIDED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. PLATE EG-14 TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT Fl NISH GRADE ,_ -- --~------------ - ~----+-3/8. DIAMETER X 6. LENGTH CARRIAGE BOLT OR EQUIYALE.~T f.il-6• DIA~ETER X 3 112• LENGTH HOLE -CONCRETE BACKFfLL PLATE EG-15 . .. TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM 50 Fc.:T S?OIL P1LE SIDE VIEW ( NOT TO SCALE ) 100 FEIT I- LU LU u. 0 LO APFROXJMA TE CE?fTER /_ CF TEST PfT I-LU UJ u. 0 LO FUG ( NOT TO SCALE J SO F=T ~LEI 11 I I PLATE EG-16 OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 1 O' MINIMUM (El cc ~ co co co ~ 15' MINIMUM (Al (8) co o----=o ca co co ex::, 0 d) co{F) ViEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUt-1 (El JJ oo· MAXIMUM (B~ ~ C:X C 15" MINIMUM ~ ... ~ 3' MINIMUM (Gl c::) <::::;:::.:::o 15' MINIMUM ~ BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: (Al ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET. (Bl HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY VARY DEPENDING ON ROCK SIZE ANO TYPE OF EQUIPMENT. LENGTH OF WINDROW SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 1 oo· MAXIMUM. (Cl IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER ANO/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMPETENT MATERIAL OR BEDROCK PROVIDED ADEQUATE SPACE IS AVAILABLE FOR COMPACTION. (Ol ORIENTATION OF WINDROWS MAY VARY BUT SHOULD BE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING OF WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENDED. (El CLEAR AREA FOR UTIUTY TRENCHES, FOUNDATIONS ANO SWIMMING POOLS. (Fl ALL FILL OVER AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION OR AS RECOMMENDED. (Gl 00 (Gl AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINDROWS IS PLACED AND COMPACTED WITH THE UFT OF FILL COVERING WINDROW, WINDROW SHOU LO BE PROOF ROLLED WITH A 0-9 DOZER OR EQUIVALENT. . VIEWS ARE OIAGRAMMA TIC ONLY. ROO< SHOULD NOT TOU0-1 ANO VOIDS SHOULD e.s COMPLETELY FILLED IN. PLATE RD-1 ROCK DISPOSAL PITS VIF:NS ARE DIAGRAMMATIC ONLY. ROO< SHOULD NOT TOUCH AND VOIDS SHOULD Sc COMPLETELY FILLED IN. FILL UFTS COMPACTED OVER ROCK AFTER EMBEDMENT .--,__ ______ _ I J J ----1 I t COMPACTED FILL I r I r GRANULAR MATERIAL -------, SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO BE COMMENSURATE WITH ROCK SIZE I l I I I I ROCK DISPOSAL LAYERS GRANULAR SOIL TO FILL VOIOS.1 ( COMPACTED RLL DENSIFlED BY FLOODING .----r -----..._ .,,.., - LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH (100LDD\ ----------------- PROPOSED FlNJSH._ GRADE PROFILE ALONG LAYER FILL SLOPE ICLEAR ZONE 20' MINIMUM LAYER ONE ROCK HIGH PLATE RD-2 .. APPENDIX E PAVEMENT GRADING GUIDELINES APPENDIX E Pavement Grading Recommendations . General All section changes should be properly transitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered during the preparation of subgrade materials, special construction methods may need to be employed. Subgrade Within street and parking areas, all surficial deposits of loose soil material should be removed and recompacted as recommended. After the loose soils are removed, the bottom is to be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to 95 percent of maximum laboratory density, as determined by ASTM test designation D-1557. Delet~rious material, excessively wet or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock fragments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during grading should be removed. The compacted fill material should then be brought to the elevation of the proposed subgrade for the pavement. The subgrade should be proof-rolled in order to ensure a uniformly firm and unyielding surface. " All grading and fill placement should be observed by the project soil engineer and/or his representative. Base/Sub base Compaction tests are required for the recommended base/subbase section. Minlmum relative compaction required will be 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM Test Designation D-1557. Base/subbase aggregate should be in accordance to the "Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction" (green book) current edition. Paving Prime coat may be omitted if all of the following conditions are met: 1 . The asphalt pavement layer is placed within two weeks of completion of base and/or · subbase course. 2. Traffic is not routed over completed base before paving. GeoSoils, Inc. . ··. . .. - . . . ·:·.;·· . . . ;··. ..... ;;. . .,. -. :-...... •• ¥ • • • • • ·: ~ • •• •• Construction is completed during th LEGEND 3. 4. . . . Artificial fill, placed· under tt The base 1s free of dirt and debris. testing of Geotechnics In If construction is performed during the wet Tertiary Santiago Formation may be omitted if no rain occurs between c time between completion of base and pavir A . t I r f is free of dirt and debris. Where prime co pprox,ma e oca ion ° ge, routed over base course, or paving is delc course, subbase course, and subgrade 1Approximate location and tc directed by the soil engineer. exploratory boring Drainage ' Positive drainage should be provided for all curb and gutter, or to an approved draina maintained at all times. Water should not i planters or landscaping are adjacent to minimize the potential for water to enter th The Blackmore Company e:\wp7\2400\2474a.pge GeoSoi GEOTECH, W.O. 2474-A-SC DA