Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 99-14; KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTERS; GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS; 1999-05-28Geo technical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Kin derCare Learning Center Hidden Valley Road and Plum Tree Road Carlsbad, California Prepared For: KinderCare Learning Centers, Inc. Portland, Oregon May 28, 1999 Project No 2G-9904015 GILES CNGINEERING eSSOCIATES, INC. I TABLE OF CONTENTS I GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Hidden Valley Road and Plum Tree Road I Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-9904015 Description Page COVERLETTER................................................................................................................I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES.................................................................................................2 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION.........................................................................2 3.1 Site Description..........................................................................................................2 - 3.2 Proposed Project Description.....................................................................................2 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION.................................................................................3 4.1 Subsurface Exploration..............................................................................................3 - 4.2 Subsurface Conditions ...............................................................................................4 4.3 Laboratory Testing.....................................................................................................4 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................5 5.1 Soil Vapor Scan ...........................................................................................................5 5.2 Seismic Design Considerations ............................................ ...................................... 6 5.3 Site Development Recommendations........................................................................6 5.4 Construction Considerations......................................................................................8 5.5 Foundation Recommendations...................................................................................9 5.6 Floor Slab Recommendations..................................................................................11 - 5.7 Pavement Recommendations...................................................................................12 Atpendices: Appendix A: Project Details Appendix B: Figures (1) and Test Boring Logs (8) Appendix C: Field Procedures Appendix D: Laboratory Testing and Soil Classification Appendix E: General Information (Modified Proctor Procedures) © Gies Engineering Associates, Inc. 1999 I GILES I CNGINEERING SSOCIATES, INC. Atlanta, GA GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS I . Dallas, TX Los Angeles, CA Madison, WI Milwaukee, WI I Seattle, WA May 28, 1999 Washington, D.C. KinderCare Learning Centers, Inc. I 650 NE Holladay, Suite 1400 Portland, Oregon 97232 I Attention: Mr. Philip DePasquale III Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Hidden Valley Road and Plum Tree Road Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-9904015 Dear Mr. DePasquale: In accordance with your request and subsequent authorization, a Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis has been completed for the above referenced project. Conclusions and recommendations, developed from the exploration and analysis are discussed in the accompanying report. We recommend that you read the report in its entirety. This report was prepared with the assistance of Jeff Millei P.E. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If we may be of additional assistance, if geotechnical related problems should develop, or if observation and testing services during construction are needed, please do not hesitate to call at any time. Very truly yours, ASSOCIATES, INC. Pro ecEngineV R.C.E. 5'6i26 ftM. S1WUP4 Regional Director R.C.E. No. 49720 Enclosure: Report No. 2G-9904015 I Distribution: (4) Addressee BDS/sh-geo.G99040 15 4875 East iaPalma Avenue • Suite 607 • Anaheim, CA 92807 714/779-0052 • Fax 714/779-0068 • E-Mail losangls@gilesengr.com GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS PROPOSED KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER I HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD AND PLUM TREE ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 2G-9904015 I 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following is a brief summary outline of the report conclusions and recommendations. The accompanying report should be read in complete context for proper interpretation. I Site Development Initial site preparation should consist of site stripping which is expected to require removal of about 2 to 4 inches o surficial soils and vegetation. I . Abandonment of desilting basin at southwest corner of site would require removal of the existing drainage pipe. Removal and replacement of soil on the order of 3 to 4 feet is expected in this area. . Dry Weather: No significant subgrade undercutting due to subgrade instability is expected to be I necessary. Wet Weather: Removal or scarification to a depth of 6 to 8 inches followed by aeration and recompaction may be necessary if subgrade stability problems develop during wet weather due to the I moderate moisture sensitivity of the near surface soils. . Possible reduced excavation rates due to near-surface, slightly cemented materials. Some crushing of near surface, cemented material may be necessary. I Building Foundation Conventional shallow foundation system supported on suitable bearing native and/or newly placed structural compacted fill. I . • Maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Suitable bearing soil anticipated to exist at nominal depth below finished grade upon completion of recommended site grading. I . Conventional steel reinforcing as determined by the structural engineer is considered appropriate with respect to geotechnical engineering aspects. Building Floor Slab I . Conventional 4-inch thick slab-on-grade or turned-down slab supported on a properly prepared subgrade. Floor slab reinforcement may consist of conventional welded wire mesh (6x6-Wl.4xWl.4 WWM) positioned at mid-height within slab section. Pavement Asphaltic Concrete: 3 inches in thickness Crushed Aggregate Base: 7 inches in drive lanes, 5 inches in parking stalls. . Portland Cement Concrete: 6 inches in thickness in high stress areas such as drive-thru lane and in trash enclosure IDading zone. Environmental Considerations No odors, discoloration's and/or elevated PID readings were observed within the recovered soil samples. GILES ENG[NEER[NG ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-9904015 Page 2 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES I The scope of services authorized for this project included a site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing. Also included is a geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing the design of the building foundations, building floor slab, and parking lot pavement along with site preparation recommendations and construction/design considerations for the proposed development. General comments and other limitations relative to this report are I presented in Appendix E. In addition to the previously described geotechnical services, all below-grade soil samples I recovered from the field exploration program were subjected to a Limited Volatile Organic Compound Vapor Scan using a Photoionization Detector. Further evaluation of the environmental aspects of the site is beyond the authorized scope of services, but will be addressed in the Phase I I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) currently being prepared by our firm (Project No. 2E-990401 1) which will be submitted under separate cover. 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 Site Description U The proposed site is located south of the northeast corner of Hidden Valley Road and Plum Tree Road in the city of Carlsbad, California. At the time of field exploration the property was a I vacant field, with sparse grass, weed, and shrub vegetation. Some small piles of concrete rubble existed on the vacant lot. The surrounding topography generally consisted of rolling hills. Topography in the area of the proposed building generally slopes down to the southwest, with an I elevation differential of about 1 foot between test boring locations within the building area. A desilting basin, about 50 to 60 feet in diameter, existed at the southwest corner of the site at the time of this exploration. The adjacent properties and topography consisted of residential homes to the I north separated from the subject site by a canyon: similarly to the east, residential homes were separated from the subject site by a canyon as well. The bottom of the canyons to the north and east were about 20 and 15 feet below the subject site grade based on visual observation. The homes to I the north and east appeared to be about at grade and 10 feet above grade as compared to the subject site. A vacant lot and a park were located to the south and west respectively. The lot to the south appeared to be about grade, and the park appeared to be about 70 feet below grade a compare to the I grade of the subject site. I W GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-9904015 Page 3 3.2 Proposed Project Description A description of the proposed development is presented in Appendix A, which includes the structural loads and anticipated parking lot traffic intensity. Preliminary project information provided by the client did not indicate the planned finished floor elevation for the proposed building. A finished floor at El. 101.0 referenced to the benchmark indicated on Figure 1 enclosed in Appendix B has been assumed for this geotechnical analysis. The existing site grades at test borings within the proposed building area ranged from El. 10 1. 3 to El. 102.3 at the time of exploration. The proposed building location is shown on Figure 1, Boring Location Plan. Based on the assumed finished floor elevation and the existing site grades, site grading is expected to be minor, with less than 1 foot of cut required to establish the necessary site grades to accommodate the assumed floor elevation. The estimated site grading is, however, exclusive of site preparation and overexcavation requirements. If the actual floor elevation differs from the assumed floor elevation (relative to the benchmark indicated on Figure 1), we should be notified to evaluate the impact upon building pad preparation. 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4.1 Subsurface Exploration Field exploration for the subject property consisted of eight test borings; five within the proposed building area, and three in the proposed parking areas. Test borings extended to depths of between 5 to 15 feet below existing grade. Relatively undisturbed samples, Standard Penetration test (SPT) samples, and bulk samples were obtained. The approximate test boring locations are indicated on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). The Boring Location Plan, as well as copies of the Test Boring Logs (Records of Subsurface Exploration) are enclosed in Appendix B. Field and laboratory test procedures are enclosed in Appendix C and D, respectively. The terms and symbols used on the Test Boring Logs are defined on the General Notes in Appendix E. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-9904015 Page 4 4.2 Subsurface Conditions I The subsurface conditions as subsequently described have been simplified somewhat for ease of report interpretation. A more detailed description of the subsurface conditions at the test boring I locations are described on the test boring logs enclosed in Appendix B of this report. Soil The soils encountered within the test borings generally consisted of layers of stiff to very stiff comparative consistency, sandy clay and firm to dense relative density clayey sand. Some layers of stiff comparative consistency silty clay, and dense relative density silty fine to coarse sand were encountered in some of the test borings. Firm relative density, fine to coarse sand was encountered in some of the test borings beginning at a depth of about 12 feet below the existing grade. Some of the near-surface materials are slightly cemented. - Groundwater Free water was not encountered during drilling operations. Observations conducted upon completion of crilling and removal of the drilling augers indicated no groundwater accumulation I within the test borings above the depths at which the test boreholes caved. Based on field observations and the relative moisture contents of the recovered soil samples, the groundwater table is considered to have existed below the exploration depths (5 to 15 feet). Water may, however, I become perched within loose, pervious granular soils, where underlain by less permeable material. 4.3 Laboratory Testing I The project engineer reviewed the recovered soil samples and laboratory tests were performed on the soil samples to aid in the classification of the soils and the analysis of their I engineering properties. The field moisture content was determined on all recovered subsurface samples, and dry I density was determined on the recovered undisturbed samples. Calibrated penetrometer and unconfined compressive strength tests were performed on selected samples to evaluate the strength of the recovered soil samples. The results of the tests are shown on the Test Boring Logs in I Appendix E. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, [NC. Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-9904015 Page 5 Expansion Index (El) tests were performed to determine the expansion potential of the possible fill soils. Testing was conducted on a composite, representative sample of the soils recovered from Test Boring No. 3 to a depth of about 5 feet below the existing grade. The results of testing indicate the soils possess a medium expansion potential (EI=65). I Laboratory testing also included Atterberg Limits determination for a composite soil sample from Test Boring No. 3 to a depth of 5 feet below the existing grade. The results of testing are I shown on the Test Boring Logs and generally indicate the soils possess medium plasticity (P1=28), corresponding medium to high expansion potential, which confirms results obtained from the Expansion Index test. Representative samples of the near surface soils were submitted to an analytical laboratory to determine the concentration of water soluble sulfate in the soils. The results of this testing are further discussed in Section 5.3 of this report, and the results from the analytical laboratory area attached in Appendix B. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Conditions imposed by the proposed development have been evaluated on the basis of our I assumed floor elevation, engineering characteristics of the subsurface materials encountered in the borings, and their anticipated behavior both during and after construction. Conclusions and recommendations presented for the design of building foundations, building floor slabs, and parking I lot pavement, along with site development recommendations and construction considerations are discussed in the following sections of this report. I . Development of the proposed site entails soil and foundation-oriented considerations, due to the presence of near-surface, moisture/disturbance sensitive and medium expansive soils. Recommendations presented in this report are predicated upon site preparation, foundation, floor I slab, and pavement construction observed and tested by a qualified geotechnical engineer. 1 5.1 Soil Vapor Scan The recovered soil samples did not exhibit odors and/or discoloration, which would be potentially indicative of volatile organic vapor content. In addition, the results of the vapor scan I conducted with a photoionization detector (PID) did not identify any detectable concentrations of volatile vapors within the headspaces of the soil sample containers. Additional environmental aspects of this site will be addressed in our Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, presented under separate cover. I GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. I Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Carlsbad, California I Project No. 2G-9904015 Page 6 I 5.2 Seismic Design Considerations I The proposed site is located in one of the most seismically active regions of California according to the Uniform Building Code (Figure 16-2). Determination of the appropriate seismic design parametrs utilized for structural purposes was not included within the scope of authorized I services. However, it is recommended that the seismic design of the proposed structure be performed in accordance with the latest version of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Seismic Zone 4 parameters should be utilized for the design. The structural engineer should verify the seismic I design parameters. A specialized liquefaction potential study was not included within the authorized scope of I services. The evaluation of liquefaction typically requires deeper test borings, on the order of 50 feet below existing grade, review of available geologic information, as well as additional laboratory testing and engineering analysis. However, based on soil types encountered in the upper 15 feet I explored; mostly firm to dense relative density material high clay contents, the potential for liquefaction to occur at the subject site is considered to be low. I 5.3 Site Development Recommendations I The recommendations presented for site development are based on the conditions encountered at the test boring locations. Bids for site preparation should be based upon the weather conditions anticipated the time of year that construction will proceed. Site Clearing/Demolition I Preparation of the proposed site should include removal of vegetation, as well as any debris or deleterious materials, such as the concrete rubble on the surface, and soils with significant organic content. The geotechnical engineer should determine the actual depth of stripping based on the I encountered conditions in the field. On the basis of the conditions encountered at the test boring locations and the appearance of the site at the time of exploration, surficial stripping on the order of 2 to 4± inches is expected to be necessary to remove vegetation. Based on the Preliminary site plan, I removal of the existing desilting basin is planned. Abandonment of the desilting basin would require removal of the existing drainage pipe. Removal and replacement of soil on the order of 3 to 4 feet is estimated in. this area but is not specifically known since test borings were not drilled in this area. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-9904015 Page 7 Dry Weather Conditions If earthwork (site stripping/grading) activities are performed during dry weather, extensive overexcavation/stabilization is not expected to be necessary, provided that the subgrade is not exposed to excessive disturbance from construction traffic. However, some areas of overexcavation/ stabilization of soils that become unstable may be needed because of lower strength natural soil not encountered in our test borings. Wet Weather Gradin If grading is conducted during wet weather, moderate subgrade stability problems should be I expected where the near surface soils exhibit significant fines content. In the event that subgrade stability problems develop, scarification and aeration of the subgrade to depths of 6 to 8 inches I followed by reompaction is recommended to achieve a stable subgrade. The estimated depth of scarification and recompaction is based upon the moisture sensitivity of the soils and the anticipated effect of wet weather grading. A stable subgrade may also be achieved by the placement of a coarse I crushed aggregate working mat. Similar subgrade stability problems may develop after completion of subgrade preparation, requiring stabilization, due to the effects of weather and construc:ion traffic. Reuse of On-site Soils - On-site material may be reused as structural compacted fill within the proposed building and pavement areas provided the moisture content is adjusted, and they do not contain excessive quantities of organic, deleterious or oversized materials. Reuse of the on-site soils with significant silt and clay content requires compaction at a moisture content that is within a narrow range of optimum moisture content for pavement support and load bearing characteristics. Moisture conditioning to within a -3 to +3 moisture content range of the optimum moisture content for cohesionless soils, and to within a +1 to +3 moisture content range for medium expansive cohesive soils is recommended to promote proper compaction for load bearing and pavement support characteristics. All subgrade soil recompaction as well as selection, placement and corripaction of new fill soils should be performed in accordance with the project specifications under engineering controlled conditions. Reuse of on-site material may require some crushing of slightly cemented, near-surface materials so that fill satisfies the recommendation provided in Item No. 4 of the Guideline Specifications enclosed in Appendix E. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-9904015 Page 8 Soluble Sulfates I Representative samples of the near surface soils were submitted to an analytical laboratory for soluble sulfate testing. The results from the chemical analysis are as follows: Boring Number Sample Depth (Feet) Water Soluble Sulfates in Soil (Percent) 1 1to4 0.007 5 lto4 0.006 I The results indicate that sulfate concentrations in the tested samples are negligible with respect to the potential for attack of concrete, in accordance with Portland Cement Association I (PCA) and Uniform Building Code (UBC) guidelines. Therefore, specialized sulfate res:stant mix designs are not anticipated to be necessary for concrete which will come into contact with the on-site soils. 5.4 Construction Considerations Subrade Protection The soils that will be exposed by the subgrade preparation operations are somewhat moisture I and disturbance sensitive. These soils may become unstable when disturbed (rutted) by construction traffic. Any exposed granular (non-cohesive) soils are also susceptible to erosion if exposed to free flowing water. The site should be graded to prevent water from ponding within construction areas and/or flowing into excavations. Accumulated water must be removed immediately along with any - unstable soil. Foundation concrete should be placed and excavations backfilled as soon as possible to protect the bearing grade. Construction Dewatering Perched or hydrostatic groundwater was not encountered during field exploration within the anticipated depths of excavation for the proposed development. The groundwater table was anticipated to exist at depths greater than 15 feet below existing grade. In the event perched water is encountered during construction, filtered sump pumps placed in pits in the bottoms of excavations are expected to be suitable if dewatering becomes necessary. GILES ENGEERG ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-9904015 Page 9 Soil Excavation Excavation stability problems are also expected where unsupported excavations extend into non-cohesive granular soils. Excavation banks may require sloping for stability or widening in the anticipation of caving. Deeper excavations may require some form of external support such as shoring or bracing. All excavations should be performed in accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations. Reduced excavation rates may be encountered due to near surface, slightly cemented materials. Specialized excavation equipment is not expected to be needed based on the field data from the test borings. However, there may be areas between boring locations with higher degrees of cementation. The degree of excavation difficulty will depend upon the capability of the excavation equipment. I 5.5 Foundation Recommendations Vertical Load Capacity Upon completion of the recommended building pad preparation, the proposed structure may be supported by a conventional shallow foundation system. The foundation system may consist of either independently poured spread footings or monolithically poured foundations and floor slab (thickened slab) in which walls and columns are supported by continuous strip footings and isolated square pad footings, respectively. Foundations should be founded at least 12 inches into suitable bearing native or structural compacted fill soils. Foundations may be designed for a maximum, net, allowable soil-bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot @sf). Minimum footing widths are recommendei to be 14 and 24 inches, respectively, for continuous wall strip footings and isolated column pad footings. Trench footing construction is also considered suitable, provided the excavations remain stable and are allowed by the local building department. Footing Reinforcing Conventional steel reinforcing is considered to be adequate for geotechriical design purposes for the foundation of the proposed building. A qualified structural engineer should perform the design of the foundation for proper footing proportions and adequate reinforcing. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. I Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Carlsbad, California I Project No. 2G-9904015 Page 10 Lateral Load Resistance I Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. Passive pressure and friction may be used in combination, without reduction, in determining the total I resistance to lateral loads. A one-third increase in the passive pressure value may be used for short duration wind or seismic loads. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used with dead load forces for footings placed on non-expansive structural compacted fill. An allowable passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of footing depth below the lowest adjacent grade (pcf) may be used for the sides of footings placed against properly compacted structural fill or poured against undisturbed suitable bearing existing soils. The maximum recommended allowable passive pressure is 2,000 psf. Bearing Material Criteria I In order to achieve the recommended 3,000 psf bearing capacity, soil suitable for both direct and indirect (structural fill subgrade within the foundation influence zones) foundation support should meet the following criteria. These soils should exhibit at least a firm relative density for I non-cohesive soils (average corrected N-value of at least 11), or a stiff comparative consistency for cohesive soils (average qu value of at least 1.5 tsf). For design and construction estimating purposes, suitable bearing soils are expected at Y2 to 2 feet depths below existing grades at the test borings. I Actual depths to suitable bearing soils may vary between test boring locations. Structural fill placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions is considered to be suitable for direct foundation support. We recommend that evaluation of the foundation bearing soils be performed by a qualified geotechnical engineer at the time of construction, prior to placement of reinforcing steel. Evaluation should be performed to a minimum depth of 4 feet or the equivalent of two footing widths (or thickened slab width) below bearing grade. Evaluation should include appropriate bearing capacity testing, dependent upon soil type, to verify in-situ strength. The actual depth of evaluation may be revised at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer. If unsuitable bearing soils are encountered, they should be compacted in-place, if feasible. Alternatively, unsuitable bearing soils should be excavated to a suitable bearing soil subgrade and the foundations extended by stepping, or with thickened footing pads by extending the excavations to a lateral extent as defined by Item No. 3 of the enclosed Guide Specifications, and backfllled with structural compacted fill to develop a uniform bearing grade. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-9904015 Page 11 Foundation Embedment In accordance with local building code a minimum 18-inch foundation embedment depth is required. It is recommended that all exterior foundations extend at least 18 inches below the adjacent exterior grade for bearing capacity purposes. Interior footings may be supported at nominal depth below slab grade. All footings must be protected against weather and water damage during and after construction, and must be supported within suitable bearing materials as recommended herein. Estimated Foundation Distortion Post-construction total and differential settlements of a shallow foundation systems designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively. The estimated differential movement is anticipated to result in an angular distortion on the order of 0.002 inches per inch on the basis of a minimum clear span of 20 feet. The maximum estimated total and differential movement is considered within tolerable limits for the proposed structure, provided that the structural design adequately considers this distortion. 5.6 Floor Slab Recommendations Sub-grade The floor slab subgrade should be prepared in accordance with the appropriate recommendations presented in the Site Development Recommendations section of this report. Foundation, utility trenches and other below-slab excavations should be backfilled with structural compacted fill in accordance with the project specifications. Design The floor of the proposed structure may be constructed as a slab-on-grade supported by a properly prepared subgrade. If desired, the floor slab may be poured monolithically with perimeter foundations where the foundations consist of thickened sections thereby using a "turned-down" construction technique. A 3-inch thick drainable base, underlain by a 2-inch thick sand cushion on top of a synthetic sheet should placed immediately below the floor slabs to serve as a vapor barrier capillary break to protect moisture sensitive floor coverings (i.e. tile, etc.). If materials underlying the synthetic sheet contain sharp, angular particles layer of sand should be placed between the synthetic sheet and the sharp, angular particles to protect the synthetic sheet from puncture. In addition, the vapor barrier sheets should be evaluated for holes and/or punctures prior to placement GILES ENGEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-9904015 Page 12 and the edges overlapped and taped. Proper curing techniques are recommended to rduce the I potential for excessive shrinkage cracking or curling. Based on the recommended subgrade preparation and the anticipated live floor loading, a 4- inch thick concrete slab with a 4-inch thick aggregate base course is considered to be suitable. I Conventional slab reinforcement such as welded wire mesh (6x6-W1 .4xW1.4 W)ATM) positioned at mid-height within the slab section is considered adequate for geotechnical design purposes. A qualified structural engineer should perform the actual design of the slabs to ensure proper thickness I and reinforcing. Estimated Distortion With the recommended site preparation and construction observation, the post-construction total and differential settlement of the floor slabs, constructed as recommended are estimated to be less than 0.5 and 0.3 inches, respectively. Movements of the slab on the order of those estimated for foundations should be anticipated where the floor is cast monolithically with the foundation. The estimated differential movement is anticipated to occur across the short dimension of the structure and is expected to be within tolerable levels. 5.7 Pavement Recommendations Following completion of the recommended subgrade preparation procedures, the pavement subgrade soils are expected to consist of medium plastic silty clay which is classified as a poor subgrade soils based on the Unified Soil Classification System designation of SC-CL. 'The general subgrade soils are anticipated to exhibit an R-value in the range of 5 to 30 when properly prepared. Since an R-value test was not included in the authorized scope of services, an R-value of 20 has been used for pavement design. The City of Carlsbad may require specific R-value testing to allow the use of the following design section or may specify a code section in lieu of R-value testing. To use this R-value, all fill added to the pavement subgrade must have pavement support characteristics at least equivalent to the existing soils, and must be placed and compacted in accordance with the project specifications. - Asphalt Pavements The following table presents the recommended pavement section consisting of asphaltic - concrete over a granular base, along with the appropriate CALTRANS specifications for proper materials and placement procedures. An alternate pavement section has been provided for use in parking stall areas due to the anticipated lower traffic intensity in these areas. However, care must - be used so that truck traffic is excluded from areas where the thinner pavement section is used, since GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-9904015 Page 13 premature pavement distress may occur. In the event that heavy vehicle traffic cannot be excluded from the specific areas, the pavement section recommended for drive areas should be utilized I throughout the parking lot. ASPHALT PAVEMENTS Materials Thickness (inches) CALTRANS Specifications Parking Stalls Drive Lanes Asphaltic Concrete 1 1 Section 39, (a) Surface Course (b) Asphaltic Concrete 2 2 Section 39, (a) Binder Course (b) Crushed Aggregate 5 7 Section 26, Class II Base Course (R-value at least 78) NOTES: Compaction to density between 95 and 100 percent of the 50-Blow Marshall Density The surface and binder course may be combined as a single layer placed in one lift if similar materials are utilized. I Pavement recommendations are based upon CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty- year design life and assume proper drainage and construction monitoring. It is, therefore, recommended that the geoteclmical engineer observe and test subgrade preparation, and that the I subgrade be evaluated immediately before pavement construction. Pavement rehabilitation at 8- to 9-year intervals should be anticipated to achieve a 20-year design life. Concrete Pavements Considering the higher pavement stress in the trash enclosure loading zone, a 6-inch thick, I properly reinforced concrete pavement underlain by a 4-inch compacted coarse granular base placed on a properly prepared subgrade should be considered. Minimum reinforced within concrete pavements is recommended to consist of heavy welded wire mesh (6x6-W2.9xW2.9 WWM). I Materials and construction procedures for concrete pavements should be in accordance w:th Section 40 of the CALTRANS standard. I GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. I APPENDIX A PROJECT DETAILS - The information enclosed herein provides a brief description of assumed project details. If, however, the actual details are different than the assumed details, Giles must be notified, since changes and/or additions to the geotechnical recommendations may be necessary. ri GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. I I I I PROPOSED KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER CARLSBAD,CALIFORNIA I PROJECT DETAILS Building Project information provided by the client indicates that the proposed building will consist of a one-story structure. The building has maximum overall plan area of about 9,897 square feet. This building will not include a basement. The proposed structure will be supported by interior and exterior load bearing walls and isolated interior columns. The maximum combined live and dead loads supported by the bearing wails and columns are assumed to be about 2,000 pounds per linear foot (plf) and 20,000 pounds, respectively, based upon previous experience with similar developments. The live load supported by the floor slab will be a maximum of 100 pounds per square foot (psf). Pavement The parking lot is anticipated to be subjected to primarily automobile traffic with occasional heavy truck traffic. The parking lot pavement sections have been designed assuming two, 18-kip truck loads, and 1,000 cars per day in drive lanes, and a lesser volume of cars and no trucks in parking stalls for a 20-year design life. I I I I I I GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX B FIGURES AND TEST BORING LOGS The Boring Location Plan contained herein was prepared based upon information supplied by Giles' client, or others, along with. Giles' field measurements and observations. The diagram is presented for conceptual purposes only and is intended to assist the reader in report interpretation. The Test Boring Logs and related information enclosed herein depict the subsurface (soil and water) conditions encountered at the specific boring locations on the date that the exploration was performed. Subsurface conditions may differ between boring locations and within areas of the site that were not explored with test borings. The subsurface conditions may also change at the boring locations over the passage of time. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. NOTE: Dimensions indicate approximate method of locating test borings in the held with respect to southwest corner of site. Boring Location Plan adapted from Site Plan provided by client. I LU LU PROPOSE H LEAW r \ / \DESILTING BASIN ri Th' , - NI 122' (J 44'— 29'_.,• 38 46' 1 23'_A_'24'_ -' alit 9 PLUM TREE ROAD B.M. for Boring Elevations, top of curb - Plum Tree Road: Assumed EL 100.00. Figure 1 BORING LOCATION PLAN Proposed KinderCare Learning Center Hidden Valley Road and Plum Tree Road Carlsbad, California Project No. 2G-990401 5 IN SCALE: 1 Inch = 60 Feet GILES CNGINEERING S30CIATES, INC. RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Dallas Madison Atlanta Milwaukee Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Seattle BORING NQ &L,.QCATION I (SI: building) SURFACE ELEVATION: 101.4 COMPLETION DATE: 5/18/99 Scott Watson FIELDREPRESENTATIVE -- PROJECT: Proposed KinderCare Learning Center No. 1634 PROJECT LOCATION: NEC Hidden Valley Rd and Plum Tree Rd Carlsbad, California PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-9904015 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Feet Below Surface Sample No. & Type N per 12 (tsf) q (tsf) L3 (tsf) W (%) PID NOTES Brown Silty Clay, little fine to coarse Sand - Dry - - - 10— - - 1-AU 25 24 30 34 34 13 4.5 4.5+ 4.0 14 16 17 17 4 7 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Dd=122 pcf Dd113pcf Dd=112pcf Dd=108pcf Dd=lo8pcf Orangish Brown fine to coarse Sandy Clay - Damp - - Moist 2-CS 3-CS 4-CS Brown Clayey fine to coarse Sand - Moist - 5-CS Dark brown and Black fine to coarse Sand - Dry - - 6-CS Orangish Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace Clay - Damp - 7-SS - Boring Terminated at 15' 15- - WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS WATER ENCCUNTERED DURING DRlLLlNG:None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry CAVE DEPTH AFTER REMOVAL: 13.5 WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: ri - Changes in strata indicated y the lines are approximate boundaries between soil types. I fle actual transition may be grauual and may vary consiaeraoiy oerween borings. Location of Test Bc.ring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. U I I I I I I I RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Dallas Madison Atlanta Milwaukee Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Seattle BORING2N.LCION) wng Proposed SURFACE ELEVATION: 102.3 COMPLETION DATE: 5/18/99 Scott Watson PROJECT: KinderCare Learning Center No. 1634 PROEC JT LOCATION: NEC Hidden Valley Rd and Plum Tree Rd Carlsbad, California PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-9904015 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Feet Below Surface Sample No. & Type N per 12" (tsf) q (tsf) (tsf) W (%) PID NOTES Brown Silty clay, little fine to coarse Sand - Dry - - - - 5- - - 10- - 1-AU - 18 13 11 27 15 4.5 3.0 12 13 26 3 3 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, little Clay, some Cementation - Moist 2-SS Light Brown Silty Clay, some fine to medium - Sand - Damp - 3-SS Light Brown Clay, trace Silt - Moist - 4-SS Brown Clayey fine to coarse Sand - Dry - - 5-SS Light Brown fine to coarse Sand - Dry - 6-SS Boring Terminated at 15 15 - - WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS 2 WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING-.None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry CAVE DEPTH ATERREMOVAL: 13.5 WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: I - changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundaries between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between borings. Location of Test Boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Dallas Madison Atlanta Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Seattle BORIG(dIg\, SURFACE ELEVATN: IO 101.7 COMPLETION DATE: 5/18/99 Scott Watson FIELDREPRESENTATrIE--Milwaukee PROJECT: Proposed KinderCare Learning Center No. 1634 PROJECT LOCATION: - - NEC Hidden Valley Rd and Plum Tree Rd Carlsbad, California PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-9904015 - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Feet Below Surface Sample No. & Type N ,, per 12 (tsf) q (tsf) (tsf) (/o) PID NOTES Brown Silty Clay, little fine to coarse Sand - Dry - - - - 5- - - - 10- - 1-AU 29 24 27 22 17 4.5+ 4.5+ 10 15 8 3 5 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL NOTE A Dark Brown fine to coarse Sandy Clay - On 2-SS Brown fine to coarse Sandy Clay - Damp — 3-SS Orangish Brown Clayey fine to coarse Sand - - Damp 4-SS Brown Clayey fine to coarse Sand - Dry - — 5-SS Dark Brown and Black fine to coarse Sand - Dry Boring Terminated at 15 15 WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRlLLlNG:None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry CAVE DEPTH AFTER REMOVAL: 13.5 WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: NOTE A: Sample Oto5feet. El=65 LL=43; P1=28 - Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate Dounoaries oetween soil types. me actusi transition may us grsuusl dilU tusy v.y borings. Location of Test Boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Dallas Madison Atlanta Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Seattle BORING%LCQN) SUFA RCE ELEVATION: 101.3 COMPLETION DATE: 5/18/99 Scott Watson Ing Proposed FIELDREPRESENTATPIE--Milwaukee PROJECT: KinderCare Learning Center No. 1634 PROJECT LOCATION: - - - NEC Hidden Valley Rd and Plum Tree Rd Carlsbad, California PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-9904015 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Feet Below Surface Sample No. & Type N per 12 q (tsf) q (tsf) c1s (tsf) W (%) PID NOTES Brownish Orange Silty fine to medium Sand, little coarse Sand, little fine Gravel, trace Organic Matter (Rootlets) - Dry - - - - - 5- - - - 10- - 1-AU 19 15 28 14 18 3.87 3.75 7 26 9 9 5 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL 2-SS Brownish Orange Silty fine to medium Sand, - trace Clay - Damp Greenish Gray Clay, trace fine to coarse Sand - Moist — 3-SS _____ Orangish Dark Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace - Silt, little Clay - Damp 4-SS Brownish Orange fine to coarse Sand, trace Silt - - Damp - 5-SS Brown Clayey fine to coarse Sand - Dry - 6-SS - Boring Terminated at 15 15- WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS 2 WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRlLLlNG:None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry CAVE DEPTH AFTER REMOVAL: 13.5 WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: - Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundaries between Soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between borings. Location of Test Boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Dallas Madison Atlanta Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Seattle SURFACE ELEVATION: 102.2 COMPLETION DATE: 5/18/99 Scott Watson PROJECT: Proposed KinderCare Learning Center No. 1634 PROJECT LOCATION: ----------------- NEC Hidden Valley Rd and Plum Tree Rd Carlsbad, California -Milwaukee PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-9904015 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Feet Below Surface Sample No. & Type N per 12 (tsf) q (if) q5 (tsf) W PID (%) NOTES Light Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace fine Gravel, trace Organic Matter (Rootlets) - Dry - - - - 10- - 1-AU 64 73 33 55 36 18 45+ 7 7 12 4 2 5 BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL BDL Disturbed Sample Dd=134 pcf Dd=121 pcf Dd=ll7pcf Dd=llOpcf Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, little Clay, - slightly Cemented - Damp 2-CS Light Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, slightly - Cemented - Damp 3-CS ______ - Brown fine to coarse Sandy Clay - Damp - 4-CS 5-CS - Brown Clayey fine to coarse Sand - Dry - - 6-CS Dark Brown and Black fine to coarse Sand - Dry Boring Terminated Terminated at 15 - WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING:None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry CAVE DEPTH AFTER REMOVAL: 13.5 WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: - changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundaries oetween soil rjpes. I no actuai transition may oe grauuai aria may vary Iuriauuvrawy borings. Location of Test Boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. 111111111 RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Dallas Madison Atlanta Milwaukee LosAngeles Washington, D.C. Seattle BORIN . & LOATQN: outh arking) SURFACE ELEVA1]ON - - - - 102.2 RDN COMPLETDATE - 5/18/99 REPRESENTATIVE:FIELD Scott Watson PROJECT: Proposed KinderCare Learning Center No. 1634 PROJECT LOCATIO NEC Hidden Valley Rd and Plum Tree Rd - Carlsbad, California -- PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-9904015 - - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Feet Below Surface Sample No. & Type N per 12" (tsf) q (tsf) c1 (tsf) W PID (%) NOTES Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace to little Clay, trace to little Organic Matter (Rootlets) - - - 1-AU - 18 18 5 9 BDL BDL 2-SS Orangish Brown fine to coarse Sand, trace Clay --Dry - 3-SS - __ Orangish Brown fine to coarse Sandy Clay - Dry Boring Terminated at 5 WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING:None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry CAVE DEPTH AFTER REMOVAL. 3.5 WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: . Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundaries between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between borings. Location of Test Boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Dallas Madison Atlanta Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Seattle 8ORlNc, . ast v & LQATlQN:) arkng SURFACE ELEVATRJN - - - - 102.9 COMPLE11ON DATE 5/18/99 FIELDREPRESENTATh/E Scott Watson PROJECT: Proposed KinderCare Learning Center No. 1634 - PROJECT LOCATIO -NEC Hidden Valley Rd and Plum Tree Rd - - .-- Carlsbad, California -Milwaukee PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-9904015 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Feet Below Surface Sample No. & Type N per 12" (tsf) q (tsf) (tsf) W PID (%) NOTES Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace to little Clay, trace to little Organic Matter (Rootlets) - \Dry - - - - - 5- 1-AU -- 20 21 6 8 BDL BDL 2-SS Brownish Orange Silty fine to medium Sand, - trace Clay - Damp Light Brown Clayey fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand - Damp 3-SS - Boring Terminated at 5' WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRlLLlNG:None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry CAVE DEPTH AFTER REMOVAL: 3.5 WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: 37 - Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundaries between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between borings. Location of Test Boring is shown on the Boring Location Plan. RECORD OF SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Dallas Madison Atlanta Milwaukee Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Seattle BORING & LOATIQN: orth arking) - SURFACE ELEVATJN - - - - 102.9_ - - - COMPLETJN DATE - 5/18/99 Scott Watson PROJECT: Proposed KinderCare Learning Center No. 1634 PROJECT LOCATION NEC Hidden Valley Rd and Plum Tree Rd - - Carlsbad, California PROJECT NUMBER: 2G-9904015 - - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Feet Below Surface Sample No. & Type N per 12" U (tsf) q (tsf) (tsf) W (%) PID NOTES Brown Silty fine to coarse Sand, trace to I tUe Clay, trace to little Organic Matter (Rootlets) - Dry - - - - - 1-AU -- 23 17 9 6 BDL BDL 2-SS Orangish Brown Clayey fine to coarse Sand - -Damp Orangish Brown Clayey fine to medium Sand, trace coarse Sand - Damp 3-SS 5- Boring Terminated at 5' WATER OBSERVATION DATA REMARKS 2 WATER ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING:None WATER LEVEL AFTER REMOVAL: Dry CAVE DEPTH AFTER REMOVAL: 3.5 WATER LEVEL AFTER HOURS: I - CAVE DEPTH AFTER HOURS: . - . Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate Doundaries between soil types. i ne actual transition may oe graauai ano may vary consiaeraoiy ootween borings. Location of Test Boring is shown on the Boring _ocation Plan. LAk ASSOCIA TED LAB ORA TORIES 806 North Batavia - Orange, California 92868 - 714/771-6900 CLIENT Giles Engireering Assoc., Inc. (1637) ATTN: Gary Conards 4875 E. La?alma Ave. Suite 607 Anaheim, CA 92807 PROJECT #2G-9904015 SUBMITTER Clieit COMMENTS FAX 714/538-1209 LAB REQUEST 37509 REPORTED 5/25/99 RECEIVED 5/20/99 This laboratory request covers the following listed samples which were analyzed for the parameters indicated on the attached Analytical Result Report. All analyses were conducted using the appropriate rrethods as indicated on the report. This cover letter is an integral part of the final report. Order No. Client Sample Identification 123144 BI l-4FT 123145 135 1-4FT Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to your company. Please feel free to call ifthere are any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further service. ASSO IATED ABO TO Al Tit4 Parola President NOTE: Unless notified in writing, all samples will be discarded kv appropriate disposal protccol 30 days from date reported TESTING & CONSULTING The reports of the Associated Laboratories are confidential property of our clients . Chemical may not be reproduced or used for publication in part cr in full without our written Microbiological permission. This is for the mu:ual protection of the public, our clients, and ourselves. Environmental Lab request 37509 cover, page 1 of I Order #: 123,1441 Client Sample ID: B 14FT Log Date: 5/20/99 Matrix: SOLID Ana lyte Result DLR Units Date/Analyst 300.0 Soluble Sulfate in Soils by IC 0TO07 0T00i 07o Th72U9NS Order #: I 123,1451 Client Sample ID: B5 1-4FT Log Date: 5/20/99 Matrix: SOLID Analyte Result DLR Units Date/Analyst 300.0 Soluble Sulfate in Soils by IC Soluble Sulfate 0.006 0.00T% /2T/99NS - DLR = Detection limit for reporting purposes, ND = Not Detected below indicated detection limit ASSOCIA TED LABORA TORIES Analytical Results Report LM\- Lab Request 37,509, Page 2 APPENDIX C FIELD PROCEDURES The field operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) designation D 420 entitled "Standard Guide for Sampling Soil and Rock" and/or other relevant specifications. Soil samples were preserved and transported to Giles' laboratory in general accordance with the procedures recommended by ASTM designation D 4220 entitled "Standard Practice for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples." Brief descriptions of the sampling, testing and field procedures commonly performed by Giles are provided herein. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. FIELD SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURES Auger Sampling (AU) Soil samples are removed from the auger flights as an auger is withdrawn above the ground surface. Such samples are used to determine general soil types and identify approximate soil stratifications. Auger samples are highly disturbed and are therefore not - typically used for geotechnical strength testing. Split-Barrel Sampling (SS) - (ASTM D-1586) A split-barrel sampler with a 2-inch outside diameter is driven into the subsoil with - a 140-pound hammer, free-falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The summation of hammer-blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches of an 18-inch sample interval is defined as the "Standard Penetration Resistance" or "N-value." The N-value is representative of the soils' resistance to penetration. The N-value is therefore an index of the relative density of granular soils and the comparative consistency of cohesive soils. A I soil sample is collected from each SPT interval. Shelby Tube Sampling (ST) - (ASTM D-1587) - A relatively undisturbed soil sample is collected by hydraulically advancing a thin- walled Shelby Tube sampler into a soil mass. Shelby Tubes have a sharp cutting edge and are commonly 2 to 5 inches in diameter. Unless otherwise noted, Giles uses 3-inch-diameter tubes. Bulk Sample (BS) A relatively large volume of soil is collected with a shovel or other manually- operated tool. The sample is typically transported to Giles' materials laboratory in a sealed bag or bucket. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DC) - (ASTM STP 399) This test is conducted by driving a 1.5-inch-diameter cone into the subsoil using a 15-pound steel ring (hammer), free-falling a vertical distance of 20 inches. The number of hammer-blows required to drive the cone 11/4 inches is an indication of the soil strength and density, and is defined as "N." The Dynamic Cone Penetration test is commonly conducted in hand auger borings, test pits and within excavated trenches. - Continued - ri GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Ring-Lined Barrel Sampling - (ASTM D 3550) In this procedure, a ring-lined barrel sampler is used to collect soil samples for classification and laboratory testing. This method provides samples that fit directly into laboratory test instruments without additional handling/disturbance. Sampling and Testing Procedures The field testing and sampling operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and/or other relevant specifications. Results of the field testing (i.e. N-values) are reported on the Test Boring Logs. Explanations of the terms and symbols shown on the logs are provided on the appendix enclosure entitled "General Notes." GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX D LABORATORY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION The laboratory testing was conducted under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and/or other relevant specifications. Brief descriptions of laboratory tests commonly performed by Giles are provided herein. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. LABORATORY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION Photoionization Detector (PID) In this procedure, soil samples are "scanned" in Giles' analytical laboratory using a Photoionization Detector (PID). The instrument is equipped with an 11.7 eV lamp calibrated to a Benzene Standard and is capable of detecting a minute concentration of certain Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) vapors, such as those commonly associated with petroleum products and some solvents. Results of the PID analysis are expressed in HNu (manufacturer's) units rather than actual concentration. Moisture Content (w) (ASTM D 2216) Moisture content is defined as the ratio of the weight of water contained within a soil sample to the weight of the dry solids within the sample. Moisture content is expressed as a percentage. Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) (ASTM D 2166) An axial load is applied at a uniform rate to a cylindrical soil sample. The unconfined compressive strength is the maximum stress obtained or the stress when 15% axial strain is reached, whichever occurs first. Calibrated Penetrometer Resistance (qp) The small, cylindrical tip of a hand-held penetrometer is pressed into a soil sample to a prescribed depth to measure the soils capacity to resist penetration. This test is used to evaluate unconfined compressive strength. Vane-Shear Strength (qs) The blades of a vane are inserted into the flat surface of a soil sample and the vane is rotated until failure occurs. The maximum shear resistance measured immediately prior to failure is taken as the vane-shear strength. Loss-On-Ignition (ASTM D 2974: Method C) The Loss-On-Ignition (L.O.I.) test is used to determine the organic content of.a soil sample. This procedure is conducted by heating a dry soil sample to 440°C in order to burn- off or "ash" organic matter present within the sample. The L.O.I. value is the ratio of the weight lost due to ignition compared to the initial weight of the dry sample. L.O.I. is expressed as a percentage. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Particle Size Distribution (ASTM D 421, D 422. and D 1140) This test is performed to determine the distribution of specific particle sizes (diameters) within a soil sample. The distribution of coarse-grained soil particles (sand and gravel) is determined from a "sieve analysis," which is conducted by passing the sample through a series of nested sieves. The distribution of fine-grained soil particles (silt and clay) is determined from a "hydrometer analysis," which is based on the sedimentation of particles suspended in water. Consolidation Test (ASTM D 2435) In this procedure, a series of cumulative vertical loads are applied to a small, lateral ly confined soil sample. During each load increment, vertical compression (consolidation) of the sample is measured over a period of time. Results of this test are used to estimate settlement and time rate of settlement. - Classification of Samples Each soil sample was visually-manually classified, based on texture and plasticity, in - general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2488-75). The classifications are reported on the Test Boring Logs. Laboratory Testing The laboratory testing operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and/or other relevant specifications. Results of the laboratory tests are provided on the Test Boring Logs or other appendix enclosures. Explanation of the terms and symbols used on the logs is provided on the appendix enclosure entitled "General Notes." "Wa GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. - California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test ASTM D-1833 The CBR test is used for evaluation of a soil subgrade for pavement design. The test consists of measuring the force required for a 3-square-inch cylindrical piston to penetrate 0.1 or 0.2 inches into a compacted soil sample. The result is expressed as a percent of force required to penetrate a standard compacted crushed stone. Unless a CBR test has been specifically requested by the client or heavy traffic loads are expected, the CBR is estimated from published charts, based on soil classification and strength characteristics. A typical correlation chart is indicated below. CALIFORNIA BEARING RATIO-Cep- 2 90 Ic T T 'r 15202, 30 'r 5r so ASTU SOIL CLASSFICATION SYSTEM'- c. IIAIth.d Cau.I.ca,cnl -. - - - - _L.T GC __ SW SP I I i -- — I — — — • _ — I aAS$TO SOIl. CLASSIFICATION - - —: •••• - - FERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION - - -E.- - SOIl. CLASSIFICATION 1 I t. (' _J I RESISTANCE VALUE -R S IO 20 30 '0 50 60 70 I,IOOULUS OF SU5GRAOE REACTION -K PSI PER IN' IO ISO 200 250 300 400 500 600 700 — — — — . — — — — — - BEARING vuuE. PSI IC 20 30 40 50 60 - — — — — I — — _____________ I _ • --a-- —+—- COR — CAl.IORMA 20 2300 SO 6Ci9CO 70 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. APPENDIX E GENERAL INFORMATION GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL COMMENTS The soil samples obtained during the subsurface exploration will be retained for a period of thirty days. If no instructions are received, they will be disposed of at that time. This report has been prepared exclusively for the client in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. Copies of this report may be provided to contractor(s), with contract documents, to disclose information relative to this project. The report, however, has not been prepared to serve as the plans and specifications for actual construction without the appropriate interpretation by the project architect, structural engineer, and/or civil engineer. Reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Giles. This report has been based on assumed conditions/characteristics of the proposed development where specific information was not available. It is recommended that the architect, civil engineer and structural engineer along with any other design professionals involved in this project carefully review these assumptions to ensure they are consistent with the actual planned development. When discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to ensure they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations provided herein. The project plans and specifications may also be submitted to Giles for review to ensure that the geotechnical related conclusions and recommendations provided herein have been correctly interpreted. The analysis of this site was based on a subsoil profile interpolated from a limited subsurface exploration. If the actual conditions encountered during construction vary from those indicated by the borings, Giles must be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices in the field of geotechnical engineering. No other warranty is either expressed or implied. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUBGRADE AND PREPARATION FOR FILL, FOUNDATION, FLOOR SLAB AND PAVEMENT SUPPORT; AND SELECTION, PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF FILL SOILS USING MODIFIED PROCTOR PROCEDURES Construction monitoring and testing of subgrades and grades for fill, foundation, floor slab and pavement; and fill selection, placement and compaction shall be performed by an experienced soils engineer and/or his representatives. All compacted fill, subgrades, and grades shall be (a) underlain by suitable bearing material, (b) free of all organic frozen, or other deleterious material, and (c) observed, tested and approved by qualified engineering personnel representing an experienced soils engineer. Preparation of subgrades after stripping vegetation, organic or other unsuitable materials shall consist of (a) proofrolling to detect soft, wet, yielding soils or other unstable materials that must be undercut, (b) scarifying top 6 to 8 inches, (c) moisture - conditioning the soils as required, and (d) recompaction to same minimum in-situ density required for similar material indicated under Item 5. Note: Compaction requirements for pavement subgrade are higher than other areas. Weather and construction equipment may damage compacted fill surface and reworking and retesting may he necessary for proper performance. In overexcavation and fill areas, the compacted fill must extend (a) a minimum 1 foot lateral distance beyond the exterior edge of the foundation at bearing grade or pavement at subgrade and down to compacted fill subgrade on a maximum 0.5(H): 1(v) slope, (b) 1 foot above footing grade outside the building, and (c) to floor subgrade inside the building. Fill shall be placed and compacted on a 5(H): 1(V) slope or must be stepped or benched as required to flatten if not specifically approved by qualified personnel under the direction of an experienced soils engineer. The compacted fill materials shall be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as "contaminated", and shall be low-expansive with a maximum Liquid Limit (ASTM D-423) and Plasticity Index (ASTM D-424) of 30 and 15, respectively, unless specifically tested and found to have low expansive properties and approved by an experienced soils engineer. The top 12 inches of compacted fill should have a maximum 3 inch particle diameter and all underlying compacted fill a maximum 6 inch diameter unless specifically approved by an experienced soils engineer. All fill material must be tested and approved under the direction of an experienced soils engineer prior to placement. If the fill is to provide non-frost susceptible characteristics, it must be classified as a clean GW, GP, SW or SP per Unified Soils Classification System (ASTM D-2487). For structural fill depths less than 20 feet, the density of the structural compacted fill and scarified subgrade and grades shall not be less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by Modified Proctor (ASTM D- 1557) with the exception of the top 12 inches of pavement subgrade which shall have a minimum in-situ density of 95 percent of maximum dry density, or 5 percent higher than underlying structural fill materials. Where the structural fill depth is greater than 20 feet, the portion below 20 feet should have a minimum in-place density of 95 percent of its maximum dry density or 5 percent higher than the top 20 feet. Cohesive soils shall not vary by more than - I to +3 percent moisture content and granular soil ±3 percent from the optimum when placed and compacted or recompacted, unless specifically recommended/approved by the soils engineer observing the placement and compaction. Cohesive soils with moderate to high expansion potentials (P1>15) should, however, be placed, compacted and maintained prior to construction at a 3±1 percent moisture content above optimum moisture content to limit future heave. Fill shall be placed in layers with a maximum loose thickness of 8 inches for foundations and 10 inches for floor slabs and pavements, unless specifically approved by the soils engineer taking into consideration the type of materials and compaction equipment being used. The compaction equipment should consist of suitable mechanical equipment specifically designed for soil compaction. Bulldozers or similar tracked vehicles are typically not suitable for compaction. Excavation, filing, subgrade grade preparation shall be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation, springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working platform. Springs or water seepage encountered during grade/foundation construction must be called to the soils engineer's attention immediately for possible construction procedure revision or inclusion of an underdrain system. Non-structural fill adjacent to structural till should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls (i.e. basement walls and retaining walls) must be properly tested and approved by an experienced soils engineer with consideration for the lateral pressure used in the wall design. 8. Wherever, in the opinion of the soils engineer or the Owner's Representatives, an unstable condition is being created either by cutting or filling, the work should not proceed into that area until an appropriate geotechnical exploration and analysis has been performed and the grading plan revised, if found necessary. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. CHARACTERISTICS AND RATINGS OF UNIFIED SOIL SYSTEM CLASSES JUK SOiL wNSuKuJTIOr1 Max. Dry Value as Value as Temporary Density Subgrade Pavement Class Compaction Standard Compressibility Drainage and Value as an When Not Value as Base . With Dust With Characteristics Proctor and Expansion Permeability Embankment Subject to Course (PC') Material Frost Palliative Bituminous Treatment GW Good: tractor, rubber-tired, steel 125-135 Almost none Good drainage, Very stable Excellent Good Fair to Excellent wheel or vibratory roller pervious Poor GP Good: tractor, rubber-tired, steel 115-125 Almost none Good drainage, Reasonably Excellent Poor to fair Poor wheel or vibratory roller pervious stable to good GM Good: rubber-tired or light 120-135 Slight Poor drainage, Reasonably Excellent Fair to poor Poor Poor to fair sheepsfoot roller semipervious stable to good GC Good to fair: rubber-tired or 115-130 Slight Poor drainage, Reasonably Good Good to fair Excellent Excellent sheepsfoot roller impervious stable ** SW Good: tractor, rubber-tired or 110-130 Almost none Good drainage, Very stable Good Fair to poor Fair to Good vibratory roller pervious - poor SP Good: tractor, rubber-tired or 100-120 Almost none Good drainage, Reasonably Good to Poor Poor Poor to fair vibratory roller pervious stable when fair dense SM Good: rubber-tired or sheepsfoot 110-125 Slight Poor drainage, Reasonably Good to Poor Poor Poor to fair roller impervious stable when fair dense SC Good to fair: rubber-tired or 105-125 Slight to Poor drainage, Reasonably Good to Fair to poor Excellent Excellent sheepsfoot roller medium impervious stable fair ML Good to poor: rubber-tired or 95-120 Slight to Poor drainage, Poor stability, Fair to Not suitable Poor Poor sheepsfoot roller medium impervious high density poor required CL Good to fair: sheepsfoot or 95-120 Medium No drainage, Good stability Fair to Not suitable Poor Poor rubber-tired roller impervious poor - OL Fair to poor: sheepsfoot or 80-100 Medium to high Poor drainage, Unstable, Poor Not suitable Not Not suitable rubber-tired roller impervious should not be suitable used MH Fair to poor: sheepsfoot or 70-95 High Poor drainage, Poor stability, Poor Not suitable Very poor Not suitable rubber-tired roller impervious should not be used CH Fair to poor: sheepsfoot roller 80-105 Very high No drainage, Fair stability, Poor to Not suitable Very poor Not suitable impervious may soften on very poor expansion OH Fair to poor: sheepsfoot roller 65-100 High No drainage, Unstable, Very poor Not suitable Not Not suitable impervious should not be suitable used Pt Not suitable Very high Fair to poor Should not be Not Not suitable Not Not suitable ________________________________ drainage used suitable suitable * - "The Unified Classification: Appendix A - Characteristics of Soil, Groups Pertaining to Roads and Airfields, and Appendix B - Characteristics of Soil Groups Pertaining to Embankments and Foundations," Technical Memorandum 357, U.S. Waterways Ixperiment Station, Vicksburg, 1953. * * Not suitable if subject to frost. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL NOTES SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION All samples are visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487-75 or D-2488-75) DESCRIPTIVE TERM (% BY DRY WEIGHT) PARTICLE SIZE (DIAMETER) Trace: 1-10% Boulders: 8 in and larger Little: 11-20% Cobbles: 3 in to 8 in Some: 2 1-35% Gravel: coarse - 3/4 to 3 in And/Adjective 36-50% fine - No. 4 (4.76 mm) to 3/4 in Sand: coarse - No. 4 (4.76 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) medium - No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) fine - No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Silt: No. 200 (0.074 mm) and smaller (Non-plastic) Clay: No. 200 (0.074 mm) and smaller (Plastic) SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS Dd: Dry Density (pcf) SS: Split-Spoon LL: Liquid Limit, percent ST: Shelby Tube - 3" O.D. (except where noted) PL: Plastic Limit, percent CS: 3" O.D. California Ring Sampler P1: Plasticity Index (LL-PL) DC: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer per ASTM LOI: Loss on Ignition, percent Special Technical Publication No. 399 Gs: Specific Gravity AU: Auger Sample K: Coefficient of Permeability DB: Diamond Bit w: Moisture content, percent CB: Carbide Bit qp: Calibrated Penetrometer WS: Wash Sample Resistance, tsf RB: Rock-Roller Bit qs: Vane-Shear Strength, tsf BS: Bulk Sample qu: Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf Note: Depth intervals for sampling shown on Record of qc: Static Cone Penetrometer Resistance Subsurface Exploration are not indicative of sample Correlated to Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf recovery, but position where sampling initiated Pifi: Results of vapor analysis conducted on representative samples utilizing a Photoionization Detector calibrated to a benzene standard. Results expressed in HNU-units (BDL=Below Detection Limits) N: Penetration Resistance per 6 inch interval, or fraction thereof, for a standard 2 inch O.D. (1% inch I.D.) split spoon sampler driven with a 140 pound weight free-falling 30 inches. Performed in general accordance with Standard Penetration Test Specifications (ASTM D-1586). N in blows per foot equals sum of N values where plus sign is shown Nc: Penetration Resistance per 13/4 inches of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Approximately equivalent to Standard Penetration Test N-Value in blows per foot. Nr: Penetration Resistance per 6 inch interval, or fraction thereof, for California Ring Sampler driven with a 140 pound weight free- falling 30 inches per ASTM D-3550. Not equivalent to Standard Penetration Test N-Value. SOIL STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS COHESIVE (CLAYEY) SOILS NON-COHESIVE (GRANULAR) SOILS UNCONFINED COMPARATIVE BLOWS PER COMPRESSIVE RELATIVE BLOWS PER CONSISTENCY FOOT (N) STRENGTH (TSF) DENSITY FOOT (N) Very Soft 0-2 0-0.25 Very Loose 0-4 Soft 3-4 0.25-0.50 Loose 5-10 Medium Stiff 5-8 0.50-1.00 Firm 11-30 Stiff 9-15 1.00-2.00 Dense 31-50 Very Stiff 16-30 2.00-4.00 Very Dense 51+ Hard 31+ 4.00+ DEGREE OF DEGREE OF PLASTICITY P1 EXPANSIVE POTENTIAL P1 None to Slight 0-4 Low 0-15 Slight 5-10 Medium 15-25 Medium 11-30 High 25+ High to Very High 31+ GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES INC. Atlanta, GA (770) 458-3399 (770) 458-3998 (Fax No.) Dallas, TX (214) 358-5885 (214) 358-5884 (Fax No.) Los Angeles, CA (714) 779-0052 (714) 779-0068 (Fax No.) Madison, WI (608) 2234853 (608) 223-1854 (Fax No.) Milwaukee, WI (414)544-0118 (414) 549-5868 (Fax No.) Seattle, WA (425) 482-2020 (425) 482-6300 (Fax No.) Washington, D.C. (410)312-9950 (410) 312-9955 (Fax No.) GILES CNGINEERINGSSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL & CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS CONSULTANTS