HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEV 2017-0074; ROYAL JET HANGER EXPANSION; REVISDE REPORT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2017-01-12RECORD COPY
—' i[zth2
REVISED REPORT ntia1 Date
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
___ 1JLIIllhI*IIIE ______
lull Is -
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion
2220 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California
PREPARED FOR
Royal Jet, Inc.
8355 La Jolla Shores Dr.
La Jolla, CA 92037
PREPARED BY
A
NOVA
OCT 03 2017
LAND DEVELOPMENT
ENGINEERING
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
NOVAProject Project No. 2016553
12 JANUARY 2017
REVISED 02 OCTOBER 2017
jg.
GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • SPECIAL INSPECTI Nov SBE • SLBE. SCOOP
Royal Jet, Inc. 10 October 2017
Attention: Mr. Hadi Stein NOVA Project 2016553
8355 La Jolla Shores Dr
La Jolla, CA 92037
Subject: Revised Repert
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Infiltration Study
Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion
2220 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. Stein:
Attached hereto please find the above-referenced report. The work reported herein was completed by
NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) for Royal Jet, Inc. in accordance with NOVA's proposal dated November
18, 2016.
NOVA appreciates the opportunity to be of service to Royal Jet. Should you have any questions
regarding this report or other matters, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
NOVA Services, Inc.
Wall Mota
Project Manager
2
4 / 1
~rii~_an Miller-Hicks, C.E.G. 1323
Senior Geologist
r 51-
Brien, P.E., G.E.
ngineer
/
cI 1tIc fl1LiI0 I D.( 'i1G1 I D ,\ 1...
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Ste. B I San Diego, CA 92123 1 P:858.292.7575 I F: 858.292.7570
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
REVISED REPORT
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion
2220 Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Terms of Reference..................................................................................................................1
1.2 Objective, Scope and Limitations of This Work .....................................................................2
1.3 Limitations ................................... . ........................................................................................... 4
1.4 Understood Use of This Report...............................................................................................4
1.5 Report Organization.................................................................................................................4
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION...........................................................................................5
2.1 Site Description ........................................................................................................................5
2.2 Planned Development..............................................................................................................5
2.3 Design of the Existing Hangar.................................................................................................8
2.4 Earthwork to Develop the Existing Site ................................................................................10
2.5 Condition of the Existing Hangar..........................................................................................10
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .....................................14
3.1 Overview................................................................................................................................14
3.2 Engineering Borings..............................................................................................................15
3.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing...........................................................................................16
3.4 Corrosivity Testing................................................................................................................17
3.5 Percolation Testing ........................................................................ ........................................ 17
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS.......................................................................................................19
4.1 Geologic Setting ....................................................................................................................19
4.2 Faulting and Seismicity .........................................................................................................19
4.3 Site Conditions.......................................................................................................................20
5.0 REVIEW OF GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS ...................................................22
5.1 Overview................................................................................................................................22
Page i of iv
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
5.2 Geologic Hazards...................................................................................................................22
5.3 Soil Hazards...........................................................................................................................23
5.4 Other Hazards........................................................................................................................24
5.5 Quantitative Evaluation of Embankment Stability................................................................25
6.0 EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATIONS.......................................................................29
6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 29
6.2 Building Condition Survey....................................................................................................30
6.3 Seismic Design Parameters....................................................................................................30
6.4 Corrosivity and Sulfates ........................................................................................................31
6.5 Earthwork..............................................................................................................................32
6.6 Alternative 1, Shallow Foundations.......................................................................................33
6.7 Alternative 2, Deep Foundations...........................................................................................35
6.8 Control of Moisture Around Foundations .............................................................................37
6.9 Retaining Walls .....................................................................................................................38
7.0 STORMWATER INFILTRATION..............................................................................40
7.1 Current Planning for Stormwater Infiltration BMPs .............................................................40
7.2 Site Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 40
7.3 Infiltration Test Results .........................................................................................................41
7.4 Design Infiltration Rate .........................................................................................................42
7.5 Review of Geotechnical Feasibility Criteria .......................................................................... 42
7.6 Suitability of the Site for Stormwater Infiltration..................................................................44
8.0 PAVEMENTS .................................................................................................................45
8.1 Overview ................................................................................................................................. 45
8.2 Subgrade Preparation.............................................................................................................46
8.3 Flexible Pavements................................................................................................................46
8.4 Rigid Pavements ..................................................................................................................... 47
9.0 REFERENCES................................................................................................................48
List of Appendices
Appendix A Use of the Geotechnical Report
Appendix B Logs of Borings
Appendix C Laboratory Analytical Results
Appendix D Percolation Testing
Page ii of iv
d
Ak
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2-1. Approximate Site Limits and Location
Figure 2-2. Conceptual Planning for Hangar Improvements
Figure 2-3. North Elevation
Figure 2-4. Current Planning for New Stormwater BMPs and Retaining Wall
Figure 2-5. Foundation Plan for the Existing Hangar
Figure 2-6. Existing Hangar Located Relative to 1963 Topography
Figure 2-7. Cracked Concrete Pavement Near the South Embankment
Figure 2-8. Horizontal and Vertical Separation at a Control Joint
Figure 2-9. Slab Cracking and Control Joint Separation, Southwest Corner of the Hangar
Figure 2-10. Concrete Spalling and Control Joint Separation
Figure 2-11. Rotational Separation of Tilt up Panels, East Wall
Figure 3-1. Boring Locations
Figure 4-1. Geologic Map of the Site Vicinity
Figure 4-2. Alignment of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone
Figure 4-3. Surface Conditions, South Property Limits, December 2016
Figure 5-1. Worst Case Embankment Stability, F = 1.18 in a Seismic Event
Figure 5-2. Red Hand Probe Easily Penetrated Through Looser Surface Soils of the Embankments
Figure 6-1. Common Micropile Installation Approaches
Figure 7-1. Current Planning for New Stormwater BMPs and Retaining Wall
Page iii of iv
Ak
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
List of Tables
Table 3-1. Abstract of the Engineering Borings
Table 3-2. Abstract of the Soil Index Testing
Table 3-3. Abstract of the Soil Expansivity Testing
Table 5-1. Soil Strength Parameters Used for Embankment Stability Analyses
Table 6-1. Seismic Design Parameters, ASCE 7-10
Table 6-2. Summary of Corrosivity Testing of the Near Surface Soil
Table 6-3. Exposure Categories and Requirements for Water-Soluble Sulfates
Table 6-4. Lateral Earth Pressures
Table 7-1. Percolation Test Results
Table 8-1. Preliminary Recommendations for Flexible Pavements
Table 8-2. Recommendations for Concrete Pavements
List of Plates
Plate 1: Site Vicinity Map
Plate 2: Subsurface Investigation Map
Plate 3: Regional Geologic Map
Plate 4: Fault Activity Map
Plate 5: Subsurface Investigation Map
Plate 6: Aerial Site Map with Topo 1963
Plate 7: Aerial Site Map with Topo 1973
Plate 8: Topographic Site Map
Page iv of iv
as
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Terms of Reference
1.1.1 This report presents the findings of a preliminary geotechnical investigation, for a planned
expansion of the existing Royal Jet aircraft hangar at Palomar Airport Carlsbad, California.
The work reported herein was completed by NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) for Royal Jet,
Inc. in accordance with the scope of work detailed in NOVA's proposal dated November 18,
2016. Figure 1-1 depicts the site vicinity.
I
Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map
Page 1 of 48
dAft
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
1.1.2 Revisions to Prior Work
The revisions are limited to the infiltration section and worksheet "C" of the report.
1.2 Objective, Scope and Limitations of This Work
1.2.1 Objective
The objectives of the work reported herein were threefold, namely:
characterize the subsurface conditions;
provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations for foundation design and construction; and
provide recommendations for design of stormwater infiltration BMPs.
1.2.2 Scope
The scope of NOVA's services may be considered as the task-based activities described below.
Task 1, Background Review. Review background data, including geotechnical reports, fault
investigation reports, topographic maps, geologic data, fault maps, and preliminary develOpment
plans for the project. Structural loads for the proposed development were obtained and reviewed.
Task 2, Field Exploration. Completed a subsurface exploration that included the following
subtasks.
Subtask 2-1, Reconnaissance. Conducted a site reconnaissance, including layout of
exploratory borings. Dig Alert was notified for underground utility mark-out services.
Subtask 2-2, Permitting. Obtained a drilling permit from the County of San Diego,
Environmental Health Department.
Subtask 2-3, Engineering Borings. Drilled, logged and sampled four (4) engineering
borings to depths of 22 feet below existing ground surface (bgs). The borings were
logged and sampled by a NOVA geologist.
Subtask 2-4, Percolation Testing. Drilled, logged and sampled two (2) percolation test
borings to depths of approximately 5 feet and 8 feet bgs. The borings were logged and
sampled by a NOVA geologist, following which percolation testing was completed after
guidance provided in Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region, for Permanent Site
Design, Storm Water Treatment and HydromodJlcation Management (February 2016).
Subtask 2-5, Building Condition Screening. A NOVA engineer conducted a brief
screening of the condition of the existing hanger as a basis for evaluating the potential
effects of the new construction on the existing structure.
Page 2 of 48
1 8
di'l Ski,
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
Task 3, Laboratory Testing. Laboratory testing of disturbed samples was completed. Testing
addressed soil gradation, plasticity, in-situ moisture content and density, expansion potential,
compressibility, strength, and corrosivity.
Task 4, Engineering Evaluations. Conducted an evaluation of the site, utilizing field and
laboratory information obtained during the preceding tasks. Evaluations addressed:
seismic design;
foundations, earthwork and pavements;
soil corrosivity;
stormwater infiltration; and,
wall design.
Task 5, Reporting. Preparation of this report presenting NOVA's findings and preliminary
geotechnical recommendations completes the scope work described NOVA's proposal.
Page 3 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
1.3 Limitations
The construction recommendations included in this report are not final. These recommendations are
developed by NOVA using judgment and opinion and based upon the limited information available from
the borings and soundings. NOVA can finalize its recommendations only by observing actual subsurface
conditions revealed during construction. NOVA cannot assume responsibility or liability for the
recommendations of this report if NOVA does not perform construction observation.
Note also that the Building Condition Screening completed as Subtask 2-5 for this report (and discussed
in Section 2.5 herein) is not intended as a Building Condition Survey or an assessment of the structural
integrity of the existing hanger. NOVA's screening was for s use in preparation of this report
only.
This report does not address any environmental assessment or investigation for the presence or absence of
hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, groundwater, or surface water within or beyond the site.
Appendix A to this report provides important additional guidance regarding the use and limitations of this
report. This information should be reviewed by all users of the report.
1.4 Understood Use of This Report
NOVA expects that the findings and recommendations provided herein will be utilized by Royal Jet, Inc.
and its Design Team in decision-making regarding the planned development.
NOVA's recommendations are based on its current understanding and assumptions regarding project
development. Effective use of this report by the Design Team should include review by NOVA of the
final design. Such review is important for both (i) conformance with the recommendations provided
herein, and (ii) consistency with NOVA's understanding of the planned hangar expansion.
1.5 Report Organization
The remainder of this report is organized as follows:
Section 2 reviews the presently available project information;
Section 3 describes the field investigation;
Section 4 describes the surface and subsurface conditions;
Section 5 describes site hazards;
Section 6 provides recommendations for site preparation for earthwork and foundation design;
Section 7 describes the site stormwater infiltration evaluation; and,
Section 8 provides recommendations for pavement design and construction.
The report is supported by four appendices. Appendix A provides guidance regarding the use and
limitations of this report. Appendix B presents logs of the engineering borings. Appendix C provides
records of the geotechnical laboratory testing. Appendix D provides the results of percolation testing.
Page 4 of 48
am
1 111
NOVA
I Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangtr Expansion
02 October 2017
NOVA Project No. 2016553
I 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Description
2.1.1 Location
The existing hangar is located at 2220 Palomar Airport Road in the City of Carlsbad, Carifornia and
within the limits of McClellan- Palomar Airport. The hangar is sited on a parcel of land identified in ' County of San Diego tax records as APN 760-221-96. Figure 2-1 depicts the location of the hangar and
the approximate limits of the property (also referenced herein as "the site").
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
171
I
Figure 2-1. Approximate Site Limits and Location
(source: Google Earth 2016)
2.2 Planned Development
2.2.1 General
The current hangar is approximately 84 feet by 121 feet in plan dimension. This approximately 9,894
square foot (sf) hangar is accessed by a concrete taxi-way at the front of the hangar. Figure 2-2 depicts
the existing hangar.
Project planning is currently only conceptual. As presently envisioned, the project will consist of
expanding the existing hangar with 7,000 sf of additional hangar space and 2,340 sf of office space on the
eastern side of the hangar. Site improvements will include two stormwater Best Management Practices
(BMP's) structures, a two to three-foot-high retaining wall, and a trench drain.
I Page 5 of 48
I
NOVA
I Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
I Figure 2-2 provides a plan view of the current layout of the hangar improvements, showing the proposed
hangar and office/garage space.
Figure 2-2. Conceptual Planning for Hangar Improvements
(source: Proposed New 5te Plan, Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar, Sheet Al, Hagman and Associates, 2016)
2.2.2 Structural
Design is in preliminary stages, with limited details regarding structural design available at this time.
Based upon review of available drawings, it appears that the new hangar space will be developed utilizing
a pre-engineered hangar system. The new hangar space will extend approximately 50 feet West from the
face of the existing structure, as is depicted on Figure 2-3. The new space will likely be developed in
steel construction, with stacking hangar doors similar to those presently employed. NOVA expects that
working loads (DL+LL) to cntinuous exterior footings will be on the order of 7 to 9 kips per lineal foot.
Page 6 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Haiigar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
As may also be seen by review of Figure 2-4, the new office and garage Space will be developed off of the
rear of the existing hangar, extending 20 feet to the East. This new space will be relatively lightly loaded,
likely able to be supported on continuous exterior footings.
IDIlIlIVIlIE
Figure 2-3. North Elevation
(source: North Eleva 'ion, Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar, Sheet A4, Hagman and Associates, 2016)
2.2.3 Civil
Civil-related infrastructure developed to support the expansion will include development of permanent
storm water Best Management Practices (BMP' s) on the West South and East periphery of the site.
Additionally, a new 2 to 3-foot-high retaining wall will be developed near the location of the existing
fueling area. Figure 2-4 depicts current planning for this infrastructure.
'ROYAL JET HANGAR PROPOAD
AN 0
.. )1
/)V/'•\
// - - • / . - /1 ;EXiTiNO
/ ROAL
1 1.\
/.1ACRES
XISTINGCO E
v
WAI
TRENCH DRAIN
Figure 2-4. Current Planning for New Stormwater BMPs and Retaining Wall
(source: Concept Plan, Terramar Consulting Engineers, October 2016)
Page 7 of 48
Ak
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
2.2.4 Potential for Earthwork
It is NOVA's understanding that that no below ground construction is planned.
NOVA expects that the planned finished floor for the structure will be about ±318 feet msl. The surface
elevations in the vicinity of the existing hanger is ±316 feet msl. As such it is anticipated that limited
earthwork will be necessary for the expansion.
2.3 Design of the Existing Hangar
2.3.1 Foundations
The North East and South sides of the building has concrete walls of 'tilt-up' construction, supported on
shallow foundations. of the building include a continuous 16-inch-wide exterior footing set about 30
inches below surrounding grade, with shallow foundations spaced about 24 feet on center.
The floor slab is supported at grade. The slab is 5 inches thick, reinforced by welded wire mesh,
including control joints at 24 feet on center each way. The West side, which includes the sliding doors,
supported by a 5-foot wide continuous thickened edge of the floor slab. Figure 2-5 (following page)
reproduces the 1983 foundation plan.
2.3.2 Structure
The North East and South sides of the building has concrete walls of 'tilt-up' construction, NOVA
understands that the building will be built using 'tilt-up' construction methods. Tilt-up construction is
common for development of structures such as the hangar, characterized by relatively taller floor-to-
ceiling heights and larger interior column spacing.
The existing hangar stands about 36 feet in height. The roofing system is steel framed. Based upon review
of the foundation system depicted on Figure 2-5, it appears that all roof and wall loads are carried by
shallow foundations- continuous and isolated footings- set along the periphery of the hangar.
NOVA has not been provided any structural information. Bearing pressures for foundations are not
indicated on the structural drawings. Based upon experience with similar structures, NOVA expects that
working loads (DL + LL) to continuous footings are on the order of 7 kips per lineal foot. It is expected
that the individual footings support working loads on the order of 150 kips to 250 kips.
Page 8 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
:*_r1i M2Ibh__
1 1> _
1
TM 4 CB
ORREn I!
cc
--NELMO - -
S INIck MMETE SJS
%c 1?X H!ib
SEFE.fl 10 MfL3 fl'flT FF04 7 1
I
-
r
I W 1: H4 7' - CE
L
Figure 2-5. Foundation Plan for the Existing Hangar
(source: Foundation Plan, Sheet SI.0, Lusardi Construction and Engineering Co., Job 82-075, 3/9/1983)
Page 9 of 48
; A 'd Am
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Gotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
2.4 Earthwork to Develop the Existing Site
The existing ground surface at the hangar site is developed to about Elevation +316 feet msl. Historical
topography of the site area obtained by NOVA indicates that prior to development the ground in the
vicinity of the existing hanger was relatively steeply sloping, with elevations ranging from about ±275
feet msl to ±304 feet msl in the vicinity of the hangar. Figure 2-6 reproduces topographic information
from 1963.
Figure 2-6. Existing Hangar Located Relative to 1963 Topography
Comparison of existing site grades with historical topography shows that the area of the hangar was
developed with fill ranging in thickness from ±12 feet to perhaps as much as ±40 feet.
2.5 Condition of the Existing Hangar
2.5.1 Pavements
As may be seen by review of Figure 2-6, the existing hangar is surrounded by both aspl lt and concrete
pavements. The pavements apJear to be in generally good condition. However, the concrete pavement
has a crack aligned approximately East to West parallel to the slope near the existing fueling area.
Figure 2-7 (following page) depicts a portion of the cracked concrete pavement. NOVA believes this
crack may be associated with long-term movement of the embankment that forms the southern boundary
of the site.
2.5.2 Exterior
The exterior of the existing structure appears to be in generally good condition. There is no visual
indication of architectural damage to the building on the building exterior.
Page 10 of 48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
111
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation C Cctober2Cl7
Proposed Roya Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA project No. 2016553
Figure 2-7 Cracked Concrete Pavement Near the South Embankment
2.5.3 Interior Floor Slabs
As is discussed in Section 2.3, the existing hangar floor slab is supported at grade. The slab is 5 inches
thick, reinforced by welded wire mesh, including control joints at 24 feet on center eacI wa'. Several
modes of damage, appear to result from long-term movement of the slab as described below.
Contrl Joint Separations. The floor slab shows separation at control joints, includiig both
horizontal and vertical differential movement. Figure 2-8 depicts a 0.4 inch hotizortal separation
and an approximately 0.2 inch vertical separation at a control joint near the Eas: wall.
a)
C)
N.
UL
- N
MMM
U,
Figure 2-8. Horizontal and Vertical Separation at a Control Joint
Cracking. Individual ground supported slabs have cracked near the periphery of the interior. This
cracking is most evident in the southwest corner of the building, but also occurs in tie Northwest
corner of the building. Figure 2-9 (following page) depicts this condition.
Page 11 of 48
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geoteclriical Investigation 02 Octobe2Cl7
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Pro et No. 2016553
Figure 2-9. Slab Cracking and Control Joint Separation,
Southwest Corner of the Hangar
3. Spalling. Spalling and slight cracking is evident in the concrete floor slab in several areas at the
intersection of control joints. Figure 2-10 depicts one such circumstance.
Figure 2-10. Concrete Spalling and Control Joint Separation
Page 12 of 48
ill
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion
02 October 2017
NOVA Project No. 2016553
2.5.4 Tilt-Up Walls
The separate panels that comprise the tilt up walls are in generally good condition on the North and the
East. However, the panels along the East wall may be affected by foundation settlement. As may be seen
by review of Figure 2-11, tilt up panels near the center of the East wall appear to have rotated away from
each other, creating a separation at the joint and a change to roof a1ignmnt. The separation app ears to
increase with increasing wall height, suggesting that panel rotation is related to foundation niovment.
Figure 2-11. Rotational Separation of Tilt up Panels, East Wall
I
I Page 13 of 48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[
I
I
I
I
I
I
ill
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Gectechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
3.1 Overview
The field exploration was completed on December 12-13, 2016. Two engineering borings 13-1 and B-2)
and two percolation borings (P-i and P-2) were completed by a drilling subcontractor retained by NOVA.
The borings were backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion. Figure 3-1 presents a plan view of the
site indicating the location of the engineering borings and the percolation tests borings.
TRENCHDHAIM
Ts a
' I-.l:N.6OO$F ..
p' •.c-' ROYAL JET HANGAR\ \ PROED ,,-1 ... PROTECT INPLACE V\"
' % fQ av,\ •.
%$
1:44.
I_t .
11\ I I \ '2
/ : -: #-...i•-- -, /EYWINL I. ROYAL
LEASEHOIb -, /
11 ACRES 4'.
7A AYAC C.E. S S Oaf LM I
.-,--
61
- V
,.,..--
PROPOSED ';• //
8MS ALL
'ED zx
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Oaf AR1 FIC /L P :LL F
Tsa SANTIAW F09MATION
PPROPA&1E PEHOLT3N tNFlLT:ATIC! orci
APPROX FAA7E GE CTE( - k I..L BOR rG _C.Z,4TJC14
Figure 3-1. Boring Locations
Page 14 of 48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I a
NO Milk
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion
02 October 2017
NOVA Project No. 2016553
3.2 Engineering Borings
3.2.1 Drilling
The engineering borings were advanced by a truck-mounted drilling rig utilizing hollow stem drilling
equipment. The engineering borings were each extended to 22 feet bgs. Table 3-1 abstracts the
indications of the engineering borings.
Table 3-1. Abstract of the Engineering Borings
Boring Approx. Elevation
m (feet, sl)
Total Depth
(feet)
Approximate
Thickness of
Artificial Fill (feet)
Elevation of Top of Geologic
Formation (feet, msl)
B-i +316 22 >22 <+294
B-2 +316.5 22 ?22 <+293
B-3 +317 22 >22 <+295
B4 +317 22 ?22 <+295
Notes:
The referenced 'geologic formation' is the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation
No groundwater was encountered in the borings.
Boring locations were determined in the field by the NOVA geologist who measured distances and
estimated right angles from existing site features. As these methods are not precise, the boring locations
shown on Figure 3-1 should be considered approximate.
3.2.2 Sampling
Both disturbed and relatively undisturbed samples were recovered from the boings, sampling soils as
described below.
The Modified California sampler ('ring sampler', after ASTM D 3550) was driven using a 140-
pound hammer falling for 30 inches with a total penetration of 18 inches, recording blow counts
for each 6 inches of penetration.
The Standard Penetration Test sampler ('SPT', after ASTM D1586) was driven in the same
manner as the ring sampler, recording blow counts in the same fashion. SPT blow counts for the
final 12 inches of penetration comprise the SPT 'N' value, an index of soil consistency.
Bulk samples were recovered from the upper 5 feet of the subsurface, providing composite
samples for testing of soil moisture and density relationships, corrosivity, and R-value.
The NOVA geologist maintained a log of all sampling, as well as a depiction of the subsurface materials
based on the indications of the samples and observation of the drilling itself. The recovered samples were
transferred to NOVA's geotechnical laboratory for visual inspection and laboratory testing. Records of
the engineering borings are presented in Appendix B.
3.2.3 Closure
Upon completion, the borings were backfilled with soil cuttings to match the existing surfacing.
Page 15 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
3.3 Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
3.3.1 General
Soil samples recovered from the engineering borings were transferred to NOVA's geotechnical laboratory
where a geotechnical engineer reviewed the soil samples and the field logs. Representative soil samples
were selected and tested in NOVA's materials laboratory to check visual classifications and to determine
pertinent engineering properties. The laboratory program included visual classifications of all soil
samples as well as index, expansivity and strength testing in general accordance with ASTM standards.
Records of the geotechnical laboratory testing are provided in Appendix C.
3.3.2 Index
The visual classifications were further evaluated by performing moisture content, grain size, and plasticity
(Atterberg limits) tests. The index testing may be used to estimate a variety of soil characteristics and
physical properties. Table 3-2 provides an overview of this testing.
Table 3-2. Abstract of the Soil Index Testing
Sample Ref Plasticity Classification
after
ASTM D2488 Boring Depth (feet) LL P1
B-i 16 58 41 CH
Notes:
1. 'LL' and 'P1' indicates 'Liquid Limit' and 'Plasticity Index', respectively, after ASTM D4318 (Atterberg limits).
3.3.3 Expansivity
An Expansion Index test (ASTM D5402) was performed to evaluate the potential for expansion of fine
grained soils. Expansion test was performed on a remolded sample of a clayey soil from Unit 2.
Table 3-3. Abstract of the Soil Expansivity Testing
Sample Ref Testing Conditions Expansion
Index
Expansion
Potential Boring Depth Initial Initial Density
(feet) Moisture (%) (lb/k.3)
B-3 14 9 110 57 Medium
Page 16 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
3.3.4 Mechanical Characteristics
The mechanical characteristics (strength and compressibility) of the soils were tested as described below.
Compressibility. A single sample (Boring B-3 at 6 feet depth) from Unit 1 was tested in one
dimensional consolidation after ASTM D2435. This testing indicated the soil is over-
consolidated and will be relatively incompressible under loads expected loads from the new
hangar.
2. Resistance Value. A bulk sample of soils representative of Unit 1 was tested to measure the
potential strength of this soil for use as the subgrade in new pavements. The R-Value testing was
completed after ASTM D2844, indicating R = 24. Testing after ASTM D1557 (the 'Modified
Proctor') to determine the moisture-density relationship of the Unit 1 soil indicated a maximum
dry unit weight of 130 lb/ft3 at 6.5% moisture content.
3.4 Corrosivity Testing
Resistivity, sulfate content, and chloride contents were determined to estimate the potential corrosivity of
the soils. These chemical tests were performed on a representative sample of the near surface soils by
Clarkson Laboratory and Supply, Inc.
3.5 Percolation Testing
3.5.1 General
NOVA directed the excavation and construction of two (2) percolation test borings, following the
recommendations for percolation testing presented in Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region, for
Permanent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment and Hydromodflcation Management (February 2016),
which has been adopted by the City of Carlsbad. The locations of these borings (referenced as P-i and P-
2), is shown on Figure 3-1.
3.5.2 Drilling
Borings were drilled with a truck mounted 8-inch hollow stem auger to an approximate depth equal to the
proposed depth of the bottoms of the detention/infiltration basins. Field measurements were taken to
confirm that the borings were excavated to approximately 8-inches in diameter.
The boreholes were logged by a NOVA geologist, who observed and recorded exposed soil cuttings and
the boring conditions. The bottom (depth below surrounding ground level) of the boring was recorded at
approximately 8 feet for P-i and 5.5 feet for P-2. The bottom of borings P-i and P-2 terminated in Unit 1
fill, comprised of silty sand (SM).
3.5.3 Conversion to Percolation Wells
Once the test borings were drilled to the design depths, the borings were converted to percolation wells
using %-inch gravel and 3-inch diameter Schedule 40 perforated PVC pipe.
After placing an approximately 2-inch layer of gravel on the bottom, the perforated PVC pipe was
lowered, extending from the surface to the 2-inch layer of gravel at the bottom of the excavations.
Page 17 of 48
A MR
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
The 3/4-inch gravel was used to fill the annular space around the perforated pipe to at least 12-inches
below existing finish grade to minimize the potential of soil caving.
3.5.4 Percolation Testing
The percolation test holes were pre-soaked before testing, and immediately prior to testing. The pre-soak
process consisted of filling the hole twice with water before testing.
Consecutive measurements indicated that less than 6 inches of water percolated in 25 minutes. The
percolation tests holes were then filled with water and allowed to presoak overnight. Water level readings
took place the following day.
After filling the test borings with water and recording the initial water level, the subsequent water levels
were recorded every 30 minutes for at least six hours (minimum of 12 readings), or until the water
percolation stabilized. After each reading, the water level was raised to close to the previous water level
to maintain a near constant head before each reading. Water depth measurements were obtained from the
top of the pipe.
Records related to the percolation testing are provided in Appendix D.
Page 18 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS
4.1 Geologic Setting
4.1.1 Regional
The project area is located in the western San Diego County portion of the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends approximately 900
miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the southern tip of Baja California
(Nom's and Webb, 1990). The province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles.
In general, the province consists of rugged mountains underlain mostly by Jurassic metavolcanic and
metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the southern California batholith. The most
abundant rocks in the embayment are gently folded and faulted Eocene marine, lagoonal and nonmarine
rocks. The surface topography is characterized geomorphically by eroded and dissected mesa terrain.
4.1.2 Site Specific
Like much of this coastal area, the site area was eroded into a series of interconnected ridges and
intervening drainages. The Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation (Tsa) is the primary sedimentary deposit at
the site. This geologic unit consists primarily of sandstones and claystones/siltstones.
Figure 4-1 depicts the geology of the site area, from which it can be seen that the Santiago Formation
(Tsa) is the most commonly occurring geologic unit in the site vicinity.
\' 76
lu
4.M
uNITE
A7OA 5 A (S
Figure 4-1. Geologic Map of the Site Vicinity
(Brown-shaded area maps the extent of the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation (Tsa))
4.2 Faulting and Seismicity
As is well known to residents of the area, this area Southern California is seismically active. The site is
reasonably proximate to the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, a system capable of generating large magnitude
Page 19 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Gèotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
seismic events. Figure 4-2 maps the occurrence of nearby major faulting segments associated with the
Rose Canyon Fault Zone, located just offshore about 7 miles from the hangar site.
' \ •Vista
O'nsid ?\
aikd \\ San Marcos
I \ \\ t.c.ELL4N Escon
\\A1Ri - \% N
Figure 4-2. Alignment of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone
Review of the literature indicates there are no known active faults on or near the hangar site. Moreover,
the site is not within and Earthquake fault zone. No known fault traces across the site, nor was there
evidence of historic ground ruptured noted during NOVA's reconnaissance of the site.
4.3 Site Conditions
4.3.1 Surface
The site area comprises about 3.5 acres. The existing hangar, constructed in 1983, covers the eastern 0.7
acres. The remainder of the site is covered with asphalt and concrete pavement. A fueling station is
located at the South central portion of the site, including an aboveground fuel storage tank. The ground
surface is relatively level, averaging about Elevation +316 feet msl across the site.
As is previously discussed, the area of the hangar and related pavements was developed by placement of
artificial fill that may be as thick as about 40 feet toward the Eastern portion of the site. The site is
bounded to the East and South by man-made slopes. These well vegetated slopes are set at inclinations
that range from as steep as 1.5H : 1V (Horizontal : Vertical) to about 3H: 1V, typically rising about 20
feet. Figure 4-3 (following page) depicts the site's embankment conditions at the time of NOVA's field
exploration.
Page 20 of 48
I
NOVA
I Revised Report of Preliminary Ceotechrical Investigation
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion
02 October 20 7
NOVA Project No. 2016553
Figure 4-3. Surface Conditions, South Property Limits, December 2016
I 4.3.2 Subsurface
The engineering borings only penetrated fill placed to develop site grades. For the purposes of this report,
the subsurface at the site may be gereralized to occur as the sequence of soil and rock described below.
1 1. Unit 1, Fill. Undocumented artificial fill (Qaf) covers the entire site. The fill is characteristicaly
sandy, of medium dense to dense consistency. SPT blowcounts ('N') are in the range N = 20 to
I SO, suggesting denser sandy soils. Borings ff1, B-3 and B-4 encountered clayey so--Is at various
intervals between depths of 10 feet to 20 feet, with Nave 28. This resistance suggests clays of
stiff to very stiff consistency.
1 2. Unit 2, Sandstone. Though not encountered, the site is known to be underlain by sandstones and
siltstones of the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation (Tsa) underlie the entire site. Soils of this
geologic unit are locally of sufficient strength to refuse the SPT sampler (i.e., with SPT
I blowcounts ('N') ranging to N> 100 blows/foot). This geologic unit likely extends to depths
greater than 75 feet across the site.
I 4.3.3 Groundwater
Ground water was not encountered in the borings by NOVA. It is expected that groundwa:er does not
occur within 30 feet of the existing ground surface. Local zones of perched groundwater may locally
I occur within the near-surface deposits due to local seepage or prolonged wet weather.
4.3.4 Surface Water
I No surface water was evident on the site at the time of NOVA's work. There is no visual evidence of
historic problems with surface water (e.g., seeps, springs, eroded gullies, rilling erosion, etc.
I
I Page 21 of 48
I
El
I
I
I
I
I
a I AR
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geoteclmical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
5.0 REVIEW OF GEOLOGIC AND SOIL HAZARDS
5.1 Overview
This section provides review of soil and geologic hazards common to this region of California,
considering each for its potential to affect the site.
The primary geologic and seismic hazard during the life of the planned development is the likelihood of
moderate-to-severe ground shaking in response to either a local moderate or more distant large-magnitude
earthquake. While there is no risk of liquefaction or related seismic phenomena, strong ground motion
could affect the site.
5.2 Geologic Hazards
5.2.1 Strong Ground Motion
The site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone (Hart and Bryant,
2007). No known active faults are mapped on the site area. The nearest known active fault is the Rose
Canyon fault system, located offshore approximately 7.5 miles west of the site. This system has the
potential to be a source of strong ground motion.
The site may be subjected to a Magnitude 7 or greater seismic event at the Rose Canyon Fault, with a
corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) of PGA = 0.41 g.
5.2.2 Fault Rupture
As is discussed in Section 4, there are no known active faults on or near the site. The potential for surface
rupture at the site is thus considered low. Shallow ground rupture due to shaking from distant seismic
events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site.
5.2.3 Landslides
As used herein, 'landslide' describes downslope displacement of a mass of rock, soil, and/or debris by
sliding, flowing, or falling. Such mass earth movements are greater than about 10 feet thick and larger
than 300 feet across. Landslides typically include cohesive block glides and disrupted slumps that are
formed by translation or rotation of the slope materials along one or more slip surfaces.
The causes of classic landslides start with a preexisting condition- characteristically, a plane of weak soil
or rock- inherent within the rock or soil mass. Thereafter, movement may be precipitated by earthquakes,
wet weather, and changes to the structure or loading conditions on a slope (e.g., by erosion, cutting,
filling, release of water from broken pipes, etc.).
The site is set in a relatively flat area, such that NOVA considers the landslide hazard to be 'low' for the
site and the surrounding area in their current condition.
Page 22 of 48
RI
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotecimical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
5.3 Soil Hazards
5.3.1 Embankment Stability
As used herein, 'embankment stability' is intended to mean the safety of localized natural or man-made
embankments against failure. Unlike landslides described above, embankment stability can include
smaller scale slope failures such as erosion-related washouts and more subtle, less evident processes such
as soil creep.
No new slopes are planned as part of the hangar expansion. Slopes currently exist on the East and South
boundaries of the site. These well vegetated slopes are formed as steep as about 1.5H:1V (Horizontal:
Vertical). Based upon the indications of the borings conducted in the vicinity of the slopes, the slopes are
constructed of a sandy artificial fill (SM) of medium dense to dense consistency. The existing hanger is
set back greater than 15 feet from the crest of these slopes.
NOVA completed quantitative analyses of these embankments that are discussed in more detail in Section
5.6 of this report. These analyses show the existing slopes are stable under static loading, with a factor of
safety (F) ofF> 1.6. A major seismic event will stress these slopes, but they will maintain adequate
stability at F> 1.2.
As is discussed in additional detail in Section 5.6 herein, NOVA's assessment of the safety of the slopes
that bound the site is highly contingent on proper maintenance, as described below.
Control of Surface Water. Absent care to control drainage over the slopes and to vegetate slopes
to limit erosion. Absent such protection, surficial instability or 'sloughing" and "rilling erosion"
could occur. If such smaller-scale losses of ground occur repairs should be effected to avoid
larger scale loss of ground.
Control of Infiltration. Surface water drainage and ground cover should be established such that
surface water does not infiltrate within 50 feet of the crest of the slopes. Saturation of the slopes
will weaken soils, potentially creating stability problems. Roof drains should not discharge to
ground near slopes. Stormwater infiltration BMPs should not be established within 50 feet of the
crest of the slopes.
5.3.2 Liquefaction
"Liquefaction" refers to the loss of soil strength during a seismic event. The phenomenon is observed in
areas that include a shallow water table and coarse grained (i.e., 'sandy') soils of loose to medium dense
consistency. The ground motions increase soil water pressures, which causes the soils to lose strength.
Because of the low ground water levels, as well as the geologic age and cemented nature of the saturated
soils, the potential for "liquefaction" of soils during a seismic event is considered to be extremely low.
5.3.3 Seismically Induced Settlement
During a strong seismic event, seismically induced settlement can occur within loose to moderately dense,
unsaturated granular soils, separate from liquefaction. Settlement caused by ground shaking is often non-
uniformly distributed, which can result in differential settlement. Based on NOVA's evaluation, the
seismically induced settlement under the existing hanger is anticipated to on the order of 1/4 inch to 1/2
inch. Seismically induced differential settlement is expected to be less than 1/2 inch over a span of 40 feet.
Page 23 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
5.3.4 Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil move downslope on
a liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is often a regional event. For lateral spreading to occur, a
liquefiable soil zone must be laterally continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along sloping
ground.
Due to the low susceptibility for liquefaction and laterally confined topography of the site, the potential
for lateral spreading is considered very low.
5.3.5 Expansive Clays
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrinking or
swelling) due to variations in moisture content. These volume changes can be damaging to structures.
Nationally, the value of property damage caused by expansive soils is exceeded only by that caused by
termites.
In consideration of the largely sandy near surface soils, expansive soils will not be problematic.
5.3.6 Collapsible Soils
Collapsible soils occur with some frequency in and climates such as this area of California. Collapsible
soils would have been removed during the original site grading. Collapsible soils do not constitute a
hazard to site development.
5.3.7 Corrosive Soils
Chemical testing of the near surface soils indicates the soils contain low concentrations of soluble sulfates
(33 ppm), and chlorides (21 ppm). Saturated soil resistivity is 2,200 Ohm-cm, with a pH of 8.7.
The tested soils should not be corrosive to construction materials. Section 6 addresses this consideration
in more detail.
5.4 Other Hazards
5.4.1 Flood
The site is not located within a FEMA-designated flood zone, designated as Flood "Zone X" (FEMA,
2006). Zone X is an "Area of500-year flood. areas of 100-year flood with average depths of less than 1
foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood".
5.4.2 Tsunami
Tsunami ('tidal wave') describes a series of fast moving, long period ocean waves caused by earthquakes
or volcanic eruptions. The altitude and distance of the site from the ocean preclude this threat.
5.4.3 Seiche
Seiches are standing waves that develop in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water such as lakes
or reservoirs. Harbors or inlets can also develop seiches. Most commonly caused by wind and
atmospheric pressure changes, seiches can be effected by seismic events and tsunamis.
The site is not located near a body of water that could generate a seiche.
Page 24 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
5.5 Quantitative Evaluation of Embankment Stability
5.5.1 General
In planned typically 15 foot to 20 foot high earth embankments that border the hangar to the south and
east were evaluated to assess global embankment stability for the both static and seismic conditions.
Limit equilibrium analyses of global slope stability were performed. NOVA utilized the computer
program SLIDE (Rocscience 2012) to calculate factors of safety against slope failure using limit
equilibrium procedures and assuming two-dimensional, plane strain conditions. SLIDE completes 2D
stability calculations in rocks or soils offering the user the choice of procedures of varying rigor.
NOVA used both the Spencer and Bishop Simplified methods for both deterministic analyses, calculating
the lowest single factor of safety for a set of soil parameters and slope geometry. Like all limit
equilibrium methods of slope stability analysis, the factor of safety (FS) calculated by the Spencer and
Bishop procedures use the following definition:
FS = shear strength of the soil (resisting force)
shear stress required for equilibrium (driving force)
5.5.2 Modeling Input
Slope Geometry
The analyses by NOVA conservatively considered a generic 24-foot-tall embankment inclined at
1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical. The numerical model assumed the hangar expansion would add load
to the embankment at about 200 psf, set back 15 feet from the embankment crest.
Stratigraphy
Based upon the indications of the site-specific borings completed by NOVA for this area the
stratigraphy in the area of concern was modeled as described below.
Unit 1, Fill. Undocumented artificial fill (Qaf) covers the entire site. The fill is
characteristically sandy, of medium dense to dense consistency. Stability modeling assumed
the fill extends to at least 25 feet.
Unit 2, Sandstone. Sandstones and siltstones of the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation (Tsa)
underlie the entire site. Locally, Unit 2 is locally of sufficient strength to refuse the SPT
sampler, with SPT blowcounts ('N') ranging to N> 100 blows/foot. This geologic unit likely
extends to depths greater than 75 feet across the site.
Soil Strength
Table 5-1 (following page) provides the soil strength parameters used in the global stability
analyses.
Page 25 of 48
I a
dAft 21
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion
02 October 2017
NOVA Project No. 2016553
Table 5-1. Soil Strength Parameters Used for Embankment Stability Analyses
Soil
Unit Description
Soil Parameters
__________
Cohesion
(c', psI)
Friction Angle
(o', degrees)
Unit Weight
(lbs/ft3)
1 Engineered Fill 100 33 125
2 Santiago Formation 200 35 125
3 Deep Santiago Formation 400 37 130
Notes:
groundwater assumed to occur below 40 feet depth
all analyses are effective stress-based
NOVA compared the findings of the Bishop and Spencer methods to each other. Both methods
provide similar estimates (within a few percent) of global embankment stability. As a practical
matter, for the conditions evaluated this at this site, FSBishop = FSspencer for both static and seismic
conditions.
Seismic Analysis
Seismic loads were emulated using a pseudostatic horizontal constant (kh) of kh = 0.15. For
perspective, kh = 0.1 is normally employed for slopes at sites where M < 6.5, while kh = 0.2 is
employed at sites expected to be affected by violent and catastrophic earthquakes. This guidance
derives from that originally developed by Seed (1979). No pseudostatic vertical force (ky) was
used (i.e., k= 0).
Target Factor of Safe-1E
NOVA recommends that design seek long term global static stability that is in general
conformance with the standards for such analyses provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers
(Slope Stability, Engineering Manual (EM) 1110-2-1902, 31 Oct 2003). USACE 2003
recommends that long term static embankment stability for circumstances such as this
embankment target a design Factor of Safety (FSstatic) of FSstatic ?1.5.
USACE and the industry allows more judgment in the assessment of allowable factor of safety
for seismic slope stabiity (i.e., FSseismic). As a matter of practice, both FERC (Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission) and the NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), both federal
regulators of embankment dams, seek seismic stability in the range FSseismic> 1 to FSseismic? 1.1
for slopes evaluated using the pseudostatic methods described herein. As a matter of its San
Diego area practice, NOVA considers that FSseismic? 1.1 a practical minimum for civil works. The
calculated stability of the embankment addressed in this report is compared to these standards.
5.5.3 Findings
Embankment Stability
The above-described analyses show that the existing embankment is stable for both static and
seismic conditions, with FSstatic> 1.5. and FSseismic> 1.15. Figure 5-1 provides graphical output
from evaluation of embankment stability in a seismic event.
Page 26 of 48
d Al
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
Note that analyses of both static and seismic stability addressed the potential for failure that
extended to and inboard of the embankment crest and threaten the structure. A major seismic
event will cause widespread sloughing along the in the slope face, but will not threaten the
structure if set back 10 feet from the slope crest. Similar, localized sloughing could occur under
static conditions and should be repaired/restored, as is discussed below.
1.183
hiM 2 Samago Fm
Unit 3 Deep Santiago Fm]
Figure 5-1. Worst Case Embankment Stability, F = 1.18 in a Seismic Event
Structural Setback for Shallow Foundations
As may be seen from Figure 5-1, in the event of an embankment failure, the upper portion of the
failure surface will extend approximately 5 to 8 feet inboard from the crest of the embankment.
Accordingly, if the expansion is developed on shallow foundations, NOVA recommends that no
element of the hangar expansion foundations be set closer than 10 feet from the crest of the
embankment. This setback is approximately half of the slope height (i.e., 11/2). Foundations
closer than 1-112 should be developed on deep foundations (i.e., piles or caissons). This
consideration is considered in more detail in Section 6.
Embankment Maintenance
During its inspection of the embankment, NOVA observed that the surficial few feet of soil is
locally very loose. Figure 5-2 depicts this circumstance, showing a 3-foot long hand probe easily
penetrated the surface of the South embankment.
Page 27 of 48
1 id ;ak
NOVA
I Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion
02 October 2017
NOVA Pr:ject No. 201655
- . . •
S .• . ..
- i... i..J
....v .....
..
_.. ;..
-
-
..iY'
M .'WKI
:,'-
. !
:-
-
Figure 5-2. Red Colored Hand Probe Easily Penetrated Through
Looser Surface Soils of the Embankments
The occurrence of looser surficial soil is common in older earthen embankments. The occurrence
of the soils does not diminish global embankment stability, though the looser near surface soil can
lead to shallow 'sloughing' that must be repaired. These surficial soils must rem:in in pace. As is
discussed in Section 5.3.1, NOVAs assessment that the embankments that bound the si:e are
stable is highly contiagent on proper maintenance of these embankments, as desribed lelow.
Control of Surface Water. Absent care to control drainage over the slopes and tD vegetate
slopes to limit erosion. Absent such protection, surficial ins-ability or "sloughing" and
"rilling erosion" could occur. If such smaller-scale losses of ground occur rpairs sould be
effected to avoid larger scale loss of ground.
Control of Infiltration. Surface water drainage and ground cover should be stalrlished such
that surface water does not infiltrate within 50 feet of the crest of the slopes. Saturation of the
slopes will weaken soils, potentially creating stability problems. Roof drains should not
discharge to the ground near slopes. Stormwater infiltration BMPs should n:'t be es:ablishec
within 50 feet of the crest of the slopes.
[7]
I
U
I
U
I
I
I
1
I
[j
I
I
I
I
I
I Page 28 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
6.0 EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATIONS
6.1 Overview
6.1.1 Alternatives for Foundations
Based upon the indications of the field and laboratory data developed for this investigation, as well as
review of previously developed subsurface information, the site is suitable for the planned hangar
provided the geotechnical recommendations described herein are followed.
Additions to the structure will be constrained by the existing embankment slopes to the South and East of
the structure. Planning that has been reviewed by NOVA indicates that the 20-foot-wide office/garage
extension to the East of the structure will approach the crest of the slope in that area. As is discussed in
Section 5, evaluations of embankment stability show that shallow foundations should be set back
approximately 10 feet (about half the embankment height, H) from the crest of slopes. With this
constraint, foundation alternatives for the hangar expansion will be as described below.
Alternative 1, Shallow Foundations. Shallow foundations (isolated footings, continuous footings,
etc.) may be utilized if these foundations are set back a minimum of 10 feet from the crest of the
embankments. Secticn 6.6 herein addresses design for this alternative.
Alternative 2, Deep Foundations. Deep foundations should be employed if the hangar expansion
extends closer than 10 feet to the crest of the embankments. No structural element of the hangar
expansion should be set closer than 5 feet from the crest of the embankments. Section 6.7 herein
addresses design for deep foundations.
6.1.2 Limitations to StDrm Water BMPs
Section 7 provides additional discussion of relevance to foundation design. In particular, stormwater
infiltration BMPs planned for the periphery of the structure to the East may saturate and weaken the
embankment, threatening embankment and foundation stability.
6.1.3 Review of Final Design
NOVA should review the grading plan, foundation plan and geotechnical-related specifications as they
become available to confirm that the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated
into the plans prepared for th project.
All earthwork related to site and foundation preparation should be completed under the observation of
NOVA. NOVA cannot assume responsibility or liability for the recommendations of this report if NOVA
does not perform construction observation.
The subsections following provide geotechnical recommendations for the planned development as it is
now understood. It is intended that these recommendations provide sufficient geotechnical information to
develop the project in general accordance with 2013 California Building Code (CBC) requirements.
Page 29 of 48
SRI
216,
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion
02 October 2017
NOVA Project No. 2016553
6.2 Building Condition Survey
6.2.1 Source of the Existing Building Movement
NOVA believes that the wall and slab movements discussed in Section 2-5 are related to long term
foundation settlement. It is the judgment of NOVA that the observed movements and cracking of the
ground supported slab, as well as the observed separation of tilt up wall panels, occur as a result of
foundation movement. This foundation movement may be settlement caused in part by long term
settlement of the artificial fill in which the foundations are set. Poor foundation preparation during the
original construction may also be a factor.
6.2.2 Building Condition Survey
As is noted in Section 1.3, the building condition screening provided herein is not intended as a complete
assessment of the structural integrity of the existing hanger. Conduct of such an assessment is beyond the
scope of NOVA's work for this project. Moreover, NOVA does not practice Structural Engineering. A
more formal Building Condit- on Survey addressing structural integrity of the hangar may be appropriate.
6.3 Seismic Design Parameters
6.3.1 Site Class
The Site Class has been determined from ASCE 7, Table 20.3-1. Based on estimated average N-values in
the upper 100 feet of the soil/rock profile, the site corresponds to a Site Class D.
6.3.2 Seismic Design Parameters
Table 6-1 provides seismic design parameters for the site in accordance with 2016 CBC and mapped
spectral acceleration parameters.
Table 6-1. Seismic Design Parameters, ASCE 7-10
Parameter Value
Site Soil Class D
Site Latitude (decimal degrees) 33.12586
Site Longitude (decimal degrees) -117.27453
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.074
Site Coefficient, FV 1.588
Mapped Short Perioc Spectral Acceleration, 5s 1.066
Mapped One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.412
Short Period Spectrai Acceleration Adjusted For Site Class, 5MS 1.144 g
One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted For Site Class, SMI 0.654 g
Design Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SDS 0.763 g
Design One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, 5D1 0.436 g
Source. U.S. Seismic Design Maps, found at http://earth quake. usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php
Page 30 of 48
jilifti
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
6.4 Corrosivity and Sulfates
6.4.1 Corrosivity
Electrical resistivity, chloride content, and pH level are all indicators of the soil's tendency to corrode
ferrous metals. Chemical tests were performed on representative samples by Clarkson Laboratory and
Supply, Inc. of Chula Vista. The results of the testing is tabulated on Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. Summary of Corrosivity Testing of the Near Surface Soil
Parameter Units Value
pH standard unit 8.7
Resistivity Ohm-cm 2,200
Water Soluble Chloride ppm 21
Water Soluble Sulfate ppm 33
Caltrans considers a site to be corrosive if one or more of the following conditions exist for representative
soil and/or water samples taken at the site:
chloride concentration is 500 parts per million (ppm) or greater;
sulfate concentration is 2,000 ppm (0.2%) or greater; or,
the pH is 5.5 or less.
Based on the Caltrans criteria, the on-site soils would not be considered 'corrosive' to buried metals.
Records of this testing are provided in Appendix C. These records include estimates of the life
expectancy of buried metal culverts of varying gauge.
6.4.2 Sulfates and Concrete
As shown on Table 6-2, the soil sample tested indicated water-soluble sulfate (SO4) content of 33 parts
per million ('ppm,' 0.003% by weight). With SO4 < 0.20 percent by weight, the American Concrete
Institute (ACT) 318-08 considers a soil to have no potential (SO) for sulfate attack. Table 6-3 reproduces
the Exposure Categories considered by ACI.
Table 6-3. Exposure Categories and Requirements for Water-Soluble Sulfates
Exposure
Category Class
Water-Soluble
Sulfate (SO4) In Soil
(percent_by_weight)
Cement Type
(ASTM C150)
Max Water-
Cement Ratio
Min. f'
(psi)
Not SO SO4 <0.10 - - -
Moderate 51 0.10 SO4 <0.20 TI 0.50 4,000
Severe S2 0.20 SO4 2.00 V 0.45 4,500
Very severe S3 SO4 > 2.0 V + pozzolan 0.45 4,500
Adapted from: AC! 318-C8, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
6.4.3 Limitations
Testing to determine several chemical parameters that indicate a potential for soils to be corrosive to
construction materials are traditionally completed by the Geotechnical Engineer, comparing testing results
with a variety of indices regarding corrosion potential. Like most geotechnical consultants, NOVA does
Page 31 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
not practice in the field of corrosion protection, since this is not specifically a geotechnical issue. Should
more information be required, a specialty corrosion consultant should be retained to address these issues.
6.5 Earthwork
6.5.1 General
Earthwork for the hangar expansion will consist of minor fine grading, and excavations for foundations
and utilities. Based upon the indications of the engineering borings, the Unit 1 fill can be readily
excavated with conventional earthmoving equipment.
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with Section 300 of the most recent approved edition of the
"Standard SpecijI cations for Public Works Construction" and "Regional Supplement Amendments." All
fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction after ASTM D1557
(the 'modified Proctor') following moisture conditioning to 2% above the optimum moisture content. Fill
placed in loose lifts no thicker than the ability of the compaction equipment to thoroughly densify the lift.
For most construction equipment, this limit loose lifts to on the order of 10-inches or less.
6.5.2 Select Fill
The sandy Unit 1 fill will be suitable for use as fill. Should a sufficient amount of this material not be
available, a 'select' soil shoulc be imported. 'Select' soil should be a mineral soil free of organics with the
characteristics listed below:
at least 40 percent by weight finer than '/4-inch;
maximum particle size of 6 inches; and,
El (after ASTM D4829) of less than 50.
All select fill should be compacted to 90% relative compaction after ASTM D1557.
6.5.3 Site Preparation
Pavements should be removed from the area plan for the hangar extension and the new office /garage
space. Abandoned utilities and improvements, vegetation, and debris and rubble should be removed and
properly disposed off-site before the start of grading operations.
Abandoned underground utilitLes should either be excavated and the trenches backfilled or the lines
completely filled with sand-cement slurry.
6.5.4 Remedial Grading
Ground level slabs for the new additions may be supported at grade on subgrade prepared as described in
this section. Preparation of the subgrade should be completed as described below.
Excavation. The Unit 1 fill should be removed to a depth of 4 feet below ground surface or to 2
feet below conventional foundations, whichever is greater. This excavation should extend to a
minimum of 5 feet laterally beyond the footprint of the hangar additions.
Replacement and Compaction. The Unit 1 will be suitable for reuse following moisture
conditioning using the step-wise procedure described below.
Page 32 of 48
dAft
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
Step 1, Inspect/Approve Exposed Surface. After excavation and prior to replacement
with any engineered fill, the exposed soils should be examined by a Geotechnical
Engineer from NOVA to identify any localized loose, yielding or otherwise unsuitable
materials. Prior to the replacement of the fill, the bottom of the removal area that is
disturbed by excavation should be recompacted.
Step 2, Moisture Conditioning. The excavated soils should be moisture conditioned to
about 2% to 4% above optimum moisture.
Step 3, Replacement. The moisture conditioning soils should be replaced in relatively
thin lifts within the excavated area and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction after ASTM D1557 (the 'Modified Proctor').
3. Timely Foundation Construction. Foundations should be constructed as soon as possible
following subgrade approval. The Contractor should be responsible for maintaining the subgrade
in its approved condition (i.e., moist, free of water, debris, etc.) until the foundation is
constructed.
6.5.5 Remedial Grading for Flatwork and Pavements
Non-structural areas outside of building pads, such as pavements, sidewalks and other flatwork, etc.,
should be over-excavated a minimum of 24 inches below existing grade or finished subgrade, whichever
is greater, moisture conditioned, and be replaced as described above.
Depending on the observed condition of the Unit 1 fill, deeper over-excavation may be required in some
areas. The over-excavation for flatwork should extend a horizontal distance of at least two feet beyond
the limits of the flat work.
6.5.6 Temporary Excavations
All temporary excavations should comply with local safety ordinances. The safety of all excavations is
the responsibility of the contractor, and should be evaluated during construction as the excavation
progresses. Based on the data interpreted from the borings, the design of temporary slopes may assume
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) Soil Type C.
6.6 Alternative 1, Shallow Foundations
6.6.1 General
The building may be supported on shallow foundations, including a hangar floor slab supported at grade.
The following subsections provide recommendations for these foundations. Shallow foundations designed
as described in this section will settle on the order of 0.75", with 80% or more of this settlement occurring
during construction.
6.6.2 Setback from the Crest of Slopes
Shallow foundations for the hangar expansion may be employed if these foundations are set back a
minimum of 10 feet from the crest of slopes that bound the property to the east and south.
Page 33 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
6.6.3 Conventionally Reinforced Concrete Slab
A conventionally reinforced on-grade concrete slab may be designed using a modulus of subgrade
reaction of 110 pounds per cubic inch (110 pci). NOVA recommends the slab be a minimum of 5" thick.
Minor cracking of concrete after curing due to drying and shrinkage is normal. Cracking is aggravated by
a variety of factors, including high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of
placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due during curing. The use of low-
slump concrete or low water/cement ratios can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking.
To reduce the potential for excessive cracking, concrete slabs-on-grade should be provided with
construction or 'weakened plane' joints at frequent intervals. Joints should be laid out to form
approximately square panels.
6.6.4 Isolated and Continuous Foundations
Shallow foundations- isolated or continuous footings- may be employed as described below.
Isolated Foundations
Isolated foundations may be designed for an allowable contact stress of 3,000 psf. This value
may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as wind and seismic. These foundation
units should have a minimum width of 30 inches, embedded a minimum of 24 inches below
surrounding grade.
Continuous Foundations
Continuous foundations may be designed for an allowable contact stress of 2,200 psf, for footings
a minimum of 18 inches in width and embedded 24 inches below surrounding grade. This
bearing value may be increased by one-third for transient loads such as wind and seismic.
Resistance to Lateral Loads
Lateral loads to shallow foundations may be resisted by passive earth pressure against the face of
the footing, calculated as a fluid density of 350 psf per foot of depth, neglecting the upper 1 foot
of soil below surrounding grade in this calculation. Alternatively, a coefficient of friction of 0.35
between soil and the concrete base of the footing may be used with dead loads. Because of the
strain incompatibility, passive resistance and concrete-soil friction will not act in concert.
6.6.5 Moisture Barrier
Capillary Break
NOVA recommends that the requirements for a capillary break ('sand layer') be determined in
accordance with ACI Publication 302 "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction."
A "capillary break" may consist of a 4-inch thick layer of compacted, well-graded gravel or
crushed stone should be placed below the floor slab. This porous fill should be clean coarse sand
or sound, durable gravel with not more than 5 percent coarser than the 1-inch sieve or more than
10 percent finer than the No. 4 sieve, such as AASHTO Coarse Aggregate No. 57.
Page 34 of 48
Ska
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
Vapor Barrier
Membranes set below floor slabs in should be rugged enough to withstand construction. If a
vapor barrier is desired, a minimum 15-mil polyethylene membrane should be placed over the
porous fill to preclude floor dampness.
NOVA recommends that a minimum 15-mil low permeance vapor membrane be used. For
example, Carlisle-CCW produces the Blackline 4008 underslab, vapor and air barrier, a 15-mil
low density polyethylene (LDPE) rated at 0.012 perms after ASTM E 96.
Limitations of This Recommendation
Recommendation for moisture barriers are traditionally included with geotechnical foundation
recommendations, though these requirements are primarily the responsibility of the Structural
Engineer or Architect.
If there is particular concern regarding moisture sensitive materials or equipment to be placed
above the slab-on-grade, a qualified person (for example, such as the flooring subcontractor
and/or Structural Engineer) should be consulted to evaluate the general and specific moisture
vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction. NOVA does not practice
in the field of moisture vapor transmission, since this is not specifically a geotechnical issue.
6.7 Alternative 2, Deep Foundations
6.7.1 General
A variety of deep foundation options are available in the event foundations for the hangar expansion must
be set closer than 10 feet to an embankment crest.
NOVA expects that drilled cast-in-place piles (also known as 'augercast piles' or 'auger cast-in-place'
piles ('ACIPs')) will prove economical on a basis of cost and performance.
If drilled cast-in-place piles are employed, these piles should be drilled through the Unit 1 fill, and
extended 10 feet into the Unit 2 sandstone. Based on the indications of the field exploration, Unit 2 will
be encountered at about 20 feet below existing site grade. In the event Unit 1 is thicker than anticipated,
in no case should piles extend greater than 35 feet in total depth.
6.7.2 Allowable Axial and Lateral Pile Capacities
NOVA estimates that a 16-inch diameter drilled cast-in-place pile founded to as described above, may be
designed for an axial capacity of 80 kips in compression, 20 kips in tension with a safety factor of at least
FS = 2.5 in compression and FS = 1.5 in tension.
Assuming fixity and a pile cap that approximates 'fixed head' conditions (i.e., the top of the individual
pile may not rotate) piles designed for top shear of 15 kips will translate approximately 0.1 inch laterally.
6.7.3 Settlement
Piles founded as described in this section will gain axial support from embedment in both Unit 1 and Unit
2. Settlement will be on the order of 0.5 inch and will be primarily elastic, with about 80% of this
movement occurring as load is applied during construction.
Page 35 of 48
dAft 4121
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
6.7.4 Connection with the Existing Hanger
The existing hanger is supported on shallow foundations. If the hangar expansion is supported on deep
foundations, the expansion will move differentially from the existing structure. This differential behavior
will occur during both static loading and in a seismic event. It is unusual to combine shallow and deep
foundations in the same structure, as the differential performance is commonly problematic.
If deep foundations for the hangar expansion, design should include connections flexible enough to
accommodate this differential movement of about 1 inch between the structures.
6.7.5 Conventionally Reinforced Concrete Slab
If piles are employed, the hanger slab may be developed as a conventionally reinforced on-grade concrete
slab designed using a modulus of subgrade reaction of 110 pounds per cubic inch (110 pci). NOVA
recommends the slab be a minimum of 5" thick.
Minor cracking of concrete after curing due to drying and shrinkage is normal. Cracking is aggravated by
a variety of factors, including high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of
placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due during curing. The use of low-
slump concrete or low water/cement ratios can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking.
To reduce the potential for excessive cracking, concrete slabs-on-grade should be provided with
construction or 'weakened plane' joints at frequent intervals. Joints should be laid out to form
approximately square panels.
6.7.6 Micropile Alternative to Drilled Piles
General
Micropiles are small diameter drilled and grouted piles, a subset of cast in place replacement
piles. Innovative drilling and grouting methods permit high concrete/concrete bond values to be
generated along the micro piles periphery. To exploit this benefit, high-capacity steel casings can
be used as the principal loadbearing element with the surrounding concrete serving only to
transfer, by friction, the applied load between the soil in the steel. Micropiles could be extended
to penetration depth similar to those for the drilled piles.
Recent years and recent advances in design have seen micropiles become more common in use in
new foundations and in seismic retrofitting of structures. As the practice of micro pile installation
has matured, the language of micropile design has come to consider a variety of classifications of
these foundation units. Micro piles are known by four classifications (Types 'A' through 'D'),
considering both (i) design behavior and (ii) the method of installation/ grouting. Construction of
these units are depicted on Figure 5-1, showing the range of compressive capacities achievable by
different pile types.
Page 36 of 48
I
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion
02 October 2017
NOVA Project No. 2016553
3-10 Tons 15-75 Tons 40-100 Tons 25-75 Tor
U H
Driven
MicroiIe
Compaction
Grout Mbropile
Post Grouted
Micropile
Pressure Grouted
Micropile
Figure 6-1. Common Micropile Installation Approaches
(Left to Right, 'Type A' through 'Type D')
Source: http://geonusa.com!micror•ile.htm
ExDected Performance
Micropile construc:icn is provided by a number of specialty contractors throughout the United
States. Micropiles have been employed in a number of instances in nearby Southern California.
NOVA expects tha: an eight-inch to 10-inch diameter Type C or D micropile penetrating to a
I
depth of about 25 feet would develop allowable axial capacity on the order of 4C kips.
6.8 Control of Moisture Around Foundations
I 6.8.1 General
Design for foundations- whether shallow foundations (Alternative 1) or deep foundatiors (Alternative 2)
should include care to control accumulations f moisture around and below foundations
6.8.2 Erosion and Moisture Control During Construction
I Surface water should be coitrolled during construction, via berms, gravel/sandbags, silt fences, straw
wattles, siLation basins, positive surface grades, or other method to avoid damage to the finish work or
adjoining properties. The Contractor should take measures to prevent erosion of graded areas until such
I time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. After grading, all excavated
surfaces should exhibit positive drainage and eliminate areas where water might pond.
I
I
Page 37of48
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I a
AN Me
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
6.8.3 Design
Drainage
Rainfall to roofs should be collected in gutters and discharged in a controlled manner through
downspouts designed to drain away from foundations. Downspouts, roof drains or scuppers
should discharge into splash blocks to slabs or paving sloped away from buildings.
Surface Grades
Proper surface and subsurface drainage will be required to minimize the potential of water
seeking the level of the bearing soils under the foundations, footings and floor slabs. In areas
where sidewalks or paving do not immediately adjoin the structure, NOVA recommends that
protective slopes be provided with a minimum grade (away from the hangar) of approximately 2
percent for at least 10 feet from the perimeter. A minimum gradient of 1 percent is recommended
in hardscape areas. Earth swales should have a minimum gradient of 2 percent, directing drainage
away from the structure to approved drainage facilities.
6.8.4 Utilities
Design for Differential Movement
Underground piping within or near structures should be designed with flexible couplings to
accommodate both ground and slab movement, so that minor deviations in alignment do not
result in breakage or distress. Utility knockouts should be oversized to accommodate the
potential for differential movement between foundations and the surrounding soil.
Backfill Above Utilities.
Excavations for utility lines, which extend under or near structural areas should be properly
backfilled and compacted. Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with approved granular soil
to a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. This backfill should be uniformly watered and
compacted to a firm condition for pipe support.
6.9 Retaining Walls
6.9.1 Shallow Foundations for Retaining Walls
Continuous shallow foundations for CMU retaining walls may be designed as described below.
Minimum Dimensions. Footings should be at least 24 inches wide and embedded at least 24 inches below
the lowest adjacent grade. For foundations adjacent to slopes, the bottom of foundations should be
excavated to depths such that the distance to daylight from the bottom of foundations is at least 7 feet in
distance laterally from the slope face.
Contact Stress. Continuous footings placed on properly compacted fill may be designed using an
allowable (net) contact stress of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) based on the minimum embedment
and width mentioned above.
Page 38 of 48
4.
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Ceotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
6.9.2 Lateral Earth Pressures
NOVA understands that design will include smaller (perhaps 3 feet tall) cantilevered, conventionally
reinforced concrete retaining wall. This section provides recommendations for wall pressures.
Lateral earth pressures for wall design are provided on Table 6-4 (following page) as equivalent fluid
weights, in psf/foot of wall height or pounds per cubic foot (pcf). These values do not contain a factor of
safety, such that design should apply the applicable factors of safety and/or load factors during design.
6.9.3 Resistance to Lateral Loads
Lateral loads to the wall may be resisted by a combination of frictional and passive resistance as
described below.
Frictional Resistance A coefficient of friction of 0.4 between the soil and base of the footing.
Passive Resistance. Passive soil pressure against the face of footings or shear keys will
accumulate at an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). The upper 12 inches
of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement should not be included in
calculations of passive resistance.
Table 6-4. Lateral Earth Pressures
Loading Condition
Equivalent Fluid Density (pcf) for
Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill
Sloping Upwards
Active (wall movement allowed) 35 60
"At Rest" (no wall movement) 65 100
'Passive" (wall movement toward the soils) 260 220
Note A: 'approved' means select soil with El < 50 after ASTM D4829.
Note B: assumes wall includes appropriate drainage.
6.9.4 Drainage
The above recommendations assume a wall drainage panel or a properly compacted granular free-
draining backfill material (El of 50 or less).
The use of drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where the
seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base of the wall.
6.9.5 Uplift
Foundation resistance to uplift caused by overturning may be calculated assuming soil unit weight of 125
pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft').
Page 39 of 48
I
/ LXSTING 9,600 SF \ ROYAL JET HANGAR\
PROTECT IN PLACE I
I
I
I
I
I
02 -
EXXISJIN
LEASEHOL
1.11 ~CRES
co
CIVI-Q CENT
I
ER
PROPOSED
BMP'
PROOSp_j\4
TRENCH DRAIN
- \ PROPOSED \
.k' ~
I,
XISTING cO4C?TE
/ V-GUTTER TO
DEMOLISI-IEO
01
I iI
NOVA
I Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion
02 October 2017
NOVA Project No. 2016553
1 7.0 STORMWATER INFILTRATION
7.1 Current Planning for Stormwater Infiltration BMPs
As is discussed in Section 2, current planning envisions development of permanent storm water Best
Management Practices (BMP's) on the West, South and East periphery of the site. Figure 7-1 depicts this
infrastructure.
I
Figure 7-1. Current Planning for New Stormwater BMPs and Retaining Wall
(source: Cncep1 Plan, Terramar Consulting Engineers, October 2016)
7.2 Site Evaluation
Based upon the indications of -.he field exploration and laboratory testing reported herein, NOVA has
evaluated the site as abstractec below after guidance contained in the February 2016 County of San Diego
BMP Design Manual for Perir anent Site Design, Storm Water Treatment, and Hydromodfication
Management (hereafter, 'the EMP Manual'), adopted by the City of Carlsbad.
There are no areas of contaminated soil or contaminated groundwater known to be within the site
or within 1,000 feet of the site (GeoTracker 2016).
Page 40 of 48
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
dAft,
Ik
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion
02 October 2017
NOVA Project No. 2016553
There are no 'brownfield' sites within 1,000 feet of the site.
There are descending slopes steeper than 25% within the site limits.
There are no known water supply wells, permitted UST's (GeoTracker, 2016) or permitted
graywater systems within 1,000 feet of locations contemplated for retention/b iofiltrationlBMPs.
Soil types have been rigorously mapped. The site is largely underlain by the sequence of soils
and rock listed below.
Fill. A generally sandy artificial fill of medium dense to dense consistency. It is likely
that the Eastern portion of the site is locally greater than 20 feet in thickness.
Bedrock. The fill is underlain by naturally occurring geologic units consisting of
siltstones and sandstones of the Santiago Formation (Tsa).
Section 3 provides a description of the field work undertaken to complete the testing. Figure 3-1 depicts
the location of the testing. This section provides the results of that testing and related recommendations
for management of stormwater in conformance with the BMP Manual.
As is well-established by the BMP Manual, the feasibility of stormwater infiltration is principally
dependent on geotechnical and hydrogeologic conditions at the project site. The remainder of this section
provides NOVA's assessment of the feasibility of stormwater infiltration BMPs utilizing the information
developed by the field exploration described in Section 3, as well as other elements of the site assessment.
7.3 Infiltration Test Results
Table 7-1 provides a summary of the testing to determine the infiltration rate. The percolation rate of a
soil profile is not the same as its infiltration rate ('I'). Therefore, the measured/calculated field
percolation rate was converted to an estimated infiltration rate utilizing the Porchet Method in accordance
with guidance contained in the BMP Manual.
Table 7-1. Percolation Test Results
Test Depth of Test
(feet below Infiltration Rate Infiltration Rate
Boring existing grade) (inches/hour) (in/hour, F=2)'
P-i 8.0 0.01 0.01
P-2 5.5 0.18 0.09
Note: 'F=2' indicates 'Factor of Safety of 2'
Records related to the infiltration testing are provided in Appendix D.
Page 41 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
7.4 Design Infiltration Rate
NOVA considers the infiltration rates presented in Table 7-1 to be representative of the infiltration rate
that may be expected at this site.
In consideration of the nature of Unit 1 fill, as well as the Unit 2 sandstones and siltstones beneath it, the
infiltration rates presented in Table 7-1, column 3, are to be used with a minimum factor of safety (F) of
F= 2 for design and location of the infiltration/retention basins. As may be seen by review of Table7-1,
column 4, the resultant design infiltration rates (I) should be approximately I = 0.01 inches/hour and I =
0.09 inches/hour using a preliminary factor of safety (F) of F= 2. These infiltration rates in themselves
indicate that the locations would be suitable for partial infiltration, however, the subject site is underlain
by over 20 feet of existing fill, which is neither a natural soil nor a geologic condition. According to the
BMP manual, no infiltration in any appreciable amount is feasible on this site.
7.5 Review of Geotechnical Feasibility Criteria
7.5.1 Overview
Section C.2 of Appendix C of the BMP Manual provides seven factors should be considered by the
project geotechnical professional while assessing the feasibility of infiltration related to geotechnical
conditions. These factors are listed below
C.2.1 Soil and Geologic Conditions
C.2.2 Settlement and Volume Change
C.2.3 Slope Stability
C.2.4 Utility Considerations
C.2.5 Groundwater Mounding
C.2.6 Retaining Walls and Foundations
C.2.7 Other Factors
The above geotechnical feasibility criteria are reviewed in the following subsections.
7.5.2 Soil and Geologic Conditions
The engineering borings and percolation tests borings completed for this assessment disclose the artificial
fill described below.
Unit 1, Fill (Oaf). Undocumented silty to sandy fill covers the site; this fill is of moderate
density. This material is expected to have moderate to low permeability and large variability
in composition and thickness throughout the site.
Page 42 of 48
A a
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
7.5.3 USDA NRCS Review
The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS)
provides soil data and information for the entire United States. Data available from the USDA NRCS
include a description of the soils, their location on the landscape, and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses.
Review of USDA NRCS data (USDA 2007), indicates that 100 percent of the subject site is underlain by
soil unit "LvF3", Loamy alluvial land-Huerhuero complex, 9 to 50 percent slopes, severely eroded. The
Loamy alluvial land-Huerhuero complex profile is described as "drainageways", where the parent
material is alluvium derived from mixed sources. The loamy alluvial land profile is classified as
hydrologic Soil Unit Group B, described as
"...soils that have moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist
chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with
moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of
water transmission (0.15-0.30 in/hr) ".
The Huerhuero profile landform is described as "Ridges"; the parent material is described as residuum
weathered from calcareous sandstone and shale. The Huerhuero is classified as hydrologic Soil Unit
Group D, described as "soils have high runoffpotential." They have very low infiltration rates when
thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent
high-water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly
impervious material. These soils have a very low rate of water transmission (0-0.05 in/hr)."
7.5.4 Settlement and Volume Change
The soils at the tested infiltration locations are of sufficient density that saturation should not affect
settlement or soil collapse. However, the large variability and clayey soils at depth may have an effect on
the volume of the soils if stormwater infiltration is introduced.
7.5.5 Slope Stability
The site includes areas with descending slopes. Infiltration BMPs if planned should not be planned near
descending slopes steeper than 25%. This limitation precludes the area of P-2 as a feasible storm water
infiltration BMP site, because of the limited space available.
7.5.6 Utilities
Stormwater infiltration BMPs should not be sited within 10 feet of underground utilities. NOVA is not
aware of any utility trenches within 10 feet of the locations of perspective BMPs. Accordingly, NOVA
sees no constraint to the feasibility of stormwater BMPs by this consideration.
7.5.7 Groundwater Mounding
Stormwater infiltration can result in damaging ground water mounding during wet periods. Mounded
water would not be considered damaging to utilities, development infrastructure (pavements, flat work,
etc.) and building foundations and retaining walls, due to the design and location of the proposed basins.
As is discussed in Section 5.3.2, the infiltration testing reported herein indicates that vertical infiltration
rates are low, (infiltration of I = 0.01 and I = 0.09 inches/hour in the areas tested); groundwater level is
expected to be much deeper than 30 feet. As such, the implementation of stormwater infiltration BMPs
may result in minimal groundwater mounding near individual BMPs.
Page 43 of 48
SRI
Elk
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
7.5.8 Retaining Walls and Foundations
The BMP Manual recommends that stormwater infiltration BMPs be sited a minimum 10 feet from the
retaining walls and foundations. Infiltration in close proximity to retaining walls and foundations can be
impacted by increased water infiltration and result of potential increases in lateral pressures and
reductions in soil strength.
7.5.9 Other Factors.
Due to the considerable fill depth of the subject site, the extension of the BMPs down to natural soil is
infeasible.
NOVA is not aware of all subsurface conditions on nearby sites and cannot address the potential effects
of added saturation to geotechnical hazards like saturation, heave, settlement or hydrocollapse,
liquefaction, etc. Accordingly, NOVA recommends potential for lateral migration of water from
stormwater BMP's be limited by siting any such structures away from property lines.
7.6 Suitability of the Site for Stormwater Infiltration
In consideration of the site evaluation- the depth, extent and variability of the existing fill soils and the
limited space between the existing building and the existing slope in the area of P-2 on the eastern
periphery of the site - it is the opinion of NOVA that the site is not suitable for application of stormwater
infiltration BMPs as currently envisioned. As such, alternative stormwater retention and treatment
BMP's should be considered.
Page 44 of 48
4k
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
8.0 PAVEMENTS
8.1 Overview
8.1.1 General
For the purposes of this section, NOVA has assumed that traffic in the vicinity of the hangar will be
principally related to automobiles, with some truck traffic. Business jets and other aircraft will also use
the area.
The structural design of pavement sections depends primarily on anticipated traffic conditions, subgrade
soils, and construction materials. For the purposes of the preliminary evaluation provided in this section,
NOVA has assumed a Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0 for the passenger car parking, and 6.0 for the driveways.
These traffic indices should be confirmed prior to final design.
8.1.2 Design for Drainage
An important consideration with the design and construction of pavements is surface and subsurface
drainage. Where standing water develops, either on the pavement surface or within the base course,
softening of the subgrade and other problems related to the deterioration of the pavement can be expected.
Furthermore, good drainage should minimize the risk of the subgrade materials becoming saturated over a
long period of time. The following recommendations should be considered to limit the amount of excess
moisture, which can reach the subgrade soils:
site grading at a minimum 2% grade away from the pavements;
compaction of any utility trenches for landscaped areas to the same criteria as the pavement subgrade;
sealing all landscaped areas in or adjacent to pavements to minimize or prevent moisture migration to
subgrade soils; and,
concrete curbs bordering landscape areas should have a deepened edge to provide a cutoff for moisture
flow beneath the pavement (generally, the edge of the curb can be extended an additional twelve inches
below the base of the curb).
8.1.3 Maintenance
Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for. Preventative maintenance activities are
intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration, and to preserve the pavement investment. Preventative
maintenance consists of both localized maintenance (e.g. crack sealing and patching) and global
maintenance (e.g. surface sealing). Preventative maintenance is usually the first priority when
implementing a planned pavement maintenance program and provides the highest return on investment for
pavements.
8.1.4 Review and Surveillance
The Geotechnical Engineer-cf-Record should review the planning and design for pavement to confirm
that the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the plans prepared for the
project. The preparation of subgrades for roadways should be observed on a full-time basis by a
representative of the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record.
Page 45 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
8.2 Subgrade Preparation
Subgrades for any new pavements should be prepared in a manner similar to that described in Section 6.6
for the hangar floor.
Following removal of existing pavements, the Unit 1 fill will be disturbed by that action. This relatively
sandy soil should be re-densified by vibratory densification to a minimum of 95% relative compaction
after ASTM D 1557 using the following general approach.
Moisture Conditioning. The soils should be moisture conditioned to 2% over optimum moisture
content (with reference to ASTM D 1557) to a depth of 12".
Re-Densification. The Unit 1 soils should be densified by compaction using a heavy vibratory
drum roller, completing at least five passes in the forward direction over the area of the new
hangar floor slab. This densification should affect ground improvement to a minimum of 24
inches depth. Quality control testing should be undertaken to confirm that the upper 12 inches of
Unit 1 is densified to at least 95% relative compaction after ASTM D 1557.
Proof-Rolling. The entire area of the new hangar floor slab should be proof rolled by a heavy
wheeled vehicle (for example, a loaded dump truck). Areas that appear soft during the proof
rolling process should be re-densified/improved.
8.3 Flexible Pavements
Provided the subgrade in paved areas is prepared per the recommendations in Section 8.2, an R-value of
25 can be assumed. This R-value was verified by laboratory testing reported herein (see Appendix C).
Table 8-1 provides recommended sections for flexible pavements. The recommended pavement sections
are for planning purposes only. Additional R-value testing should be performed on actual soils at the
design subgrade levels to confirm the pavement design.
Table 8-1. Preliminary Recommendations for Flexible Pavements, R = 25
A Area Estimated Traffic Asphalt Base Course
Subgrade R-Value Index Thickness (in) Thickness (in)
Auto Driveways/Parking 25 5.0 4.0 6.0
Roadways 25 6.0 j 4.0 7.5
The sections assume properly prepared subgrade consisting of at least 24 inches of soil compacted to a
minimum of 95% relative compaction. The aggregate base materials should also be placed at a minimum
relative compaction of 95%. Construction materials (asphalt and aggregate base) should conform to the
current Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ('Green Book').
Page 46 of 48
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hanar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
8.4 Rigid Pavements
8.4.1 Pavement Section
The flexible pavement specifications used in roadways and parking stalls may not be adequate for wheel
loads from aircraft, including areas for engine runup, loading and turnaround. In this event, NOVA
recommends that a rigid concrete pavement section be provided. The pavement section should be 6 inches
of concrete and a 6-inch base course. The concrete should be obtained from an approved mix design with
the minimum properties shown on Table 8-2.
Table 8-2. Recommendations for Concrete Pavements
Property Recommended Requirement
Compressive Strength @ 28 days 3,250 psi minimum
Strengt Requirements ASTM C94
Minimum Cement Content 5.5 sacks/cu. yd.
Cement Type Type Il/V Portland
Concrete Aggregate ASTM C33
Aggregate Size 1 inch maximum
Maximum Water Content 0.5 lb/lb of cement
Maximum Allowable Slump 4 inches
Longitudinal and transverse joints should be provided as needed in concrete pavements for expansion/
contraction and isolation. Sawed joints should be cut within 24-hours of concrete placement, and should
be a minimum of 25% of slab thickness plus 1/4 inch. All joints should be sealed to prevent entry of
foreign material and doweled where necessary for load transfer. Where dowels cannot be used at joints
accessible to wheel loads, pavement thickness should be increased by 25 percent at the joints and tapered
to regular thickness in 5 feet.
Page 47 of 48
Ak
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
9.0 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, 2002, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-02.
American Concrete Institute, 2015, Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, AC! 302.1R-15.
ASCE, Minimum Design Load for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-10.
APWA, 2015 Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction ('Greenbook')
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2013 California Building Standards Code.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, DMG Open File Report,
96-02, Geologic Maps of Northwest Part of San Diego County California.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2003, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1.0, available at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/ttsb/corrosionlpdf/20 12-11- 19-Corrosion-Guidelines.pdf.
California Department of Water Resources, Water Data Library: found at
http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2007, Geologic Map of The Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle,
California. Scale 1:100,000. Plate 1 of 2.
City of Carlsbad, Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region, for Permanent Site Design, Storm
Water Treatment and Hydroraodfication Management, February 2016.
Hart, E. W. and Bryant, W. A., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones In California, California Department
of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
Jennings, C. W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California Division of
Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6.
Structural Engineers Associaion of California, Seismic Design Recommendations, Tilt up Buildings,
SEAOC Blue Book, Article 9.02.010, September 2008.
Tan, S. and Giffen, G., California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1995,
DMG Open File Report, 95-04, Landslide Hazards In The Northern Part Of The San Diego Metropolitan
Area, San Diego County, Cailfornia.
San Diego County, Model BMP Design Manual, San Diego Region for Permanent Site Design, Storm
Water Treatment and Hydromodification Management, February 2016.
Seed, H.B., Nineteenth Rankine Lecture: Effects of Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments,
Geotechnique, Vol. 24, No. 3, September 1979.
Terramar Consulting Engineers, Concept Plan, (undated).
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Engineering and Design: Stability of Earth and Rock-fill Dams,
Engineering Manual (EM)1 110-2-1992, 1970.
USACE, Slope Stability, EM 1110-2-1902, 31 Oct 2003.
USGS, Earthquake Hazards Program, Seismic Design Maps & Tools, accessed 30 Dec 2016 at:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps.
Page 48 of 48
L 41c,
' - - -
-- - - '' Lir - r. : isi.,J,
\\ I
7
g&and
SITE
flew
Sil
\
p ••..
•__"_S isi; •11
'T k2 Sit ri '.
rAirpon -j bl
sit
521
A CL
1 POinsettia Lone (
\\I \ I
\ I
E Carlsbad Poinsew. '\\ - - .
'ar- ... ...
\ .
. 51 tj
- •- —:. •':I. - - - a( way 1
•
—
nas -
45
11J
521
L
L
OPENSTREETMAP
SITE VICINITY MAP
ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION
NOVA I 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B '4 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
HONE: 858-292-7575 FAX. 858-292-7570
FDATEN 2017
-
PROJECT: 2016553 PLATE: 1
KEY TO SYMBOLS
/\j APPROXIMATE SITE PERIMETER
A
NOVA
4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
E: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-757C
SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH, 2016
SITE LOCATION MAP
ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION
/ 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
- CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE: JAN 2017 PROJECT: 2016553 PTE: 2
V
voplo-1 1
ft I _:'
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Tsa SANTIAGO FORMATION QvoplO-11 VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, UNITS 1011
MzU METASEDIMENTARY AND METAVOLCANIC ROCKS, UNDIVIDED
QvoplO VERY OLD PARALICDEPOSrS, UNIT 10
SOURCE: OCEANSIDE 30'X60 QUADRANGLE
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
NOVA 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
4373 IIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B
DATE:
ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION
CARLSBAD, CAL FORNIA
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA JAN 2017 PROJECT: 2016553 PLATE: 3
HONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-757C
ild San Marcos.
1CIE LLA Escondidd PAWMAP
itas
risid?
,Vista
(
'I
'I
\
ees
KEY TO SYMBOLS
16,
_/
4!!
-----------.- HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT
------------- LATE QUARTERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT
QUARTERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT
PRE-QUARTERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT
SOURCE: FAULT ACTIVITY MAP OF CALIFORNIA
NOVA f
4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B /
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
PHONE: 858292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570
FAULT ACTIVITY MAP
ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION
2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE: JAN 2OI7 I PROJECT: 2015553 I PLATE:4
,
'1 /#
O
37. fill B-2
EXISTING
CIVIC
HELICOPTER
LEASEHOLD
KEY TO SYMBOLS
I
L.
Ts V
XISTING CONtCETE /
bV V GUTTER TO BE /
DEMOLISHED V /
\ 1
PROPOSED /
TRENCH DRAIN '
-
,600 SF ;a HA GAR
IN CE &PROPOSED
Oaf 7 ,1
Tsa
EXISTING
-
)EXISTING' WESTERN \ " P RO'fAL JE 'lp
FLIGHT c' LEASEHOLD LEASEHOLD \> / '3 1 ACRES
TAXIWAY ACCESS Oaf
- Tsa
B-1 -
P1. -
ACCESS
GATE
PROPOSED
PROPOSED - \'
TRENCH ) \
\
Oaf ARTIFICIAL FILL P-2
Tsa SANTIAGO FORMATION 0
APPROXIMATE GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATION
Able
NOVA
4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
858-292-7575
858-292-7570 (FAX)
WWW. USA-NO VACOM
z 0
z
Cr
cc
x0
cl:
LLI
z
'2 o
<0
00u
w c
) C
—J (\J
>-
0
PROJECT NO: 2016553
DATE: JAN 2017
DESIGN BY: JDB/AJS
DRAWN BY: AJS
CHECKED BY: WM
REVIEWED BY: JDB
SUBSURFACE
INVESTIGATION
MAP
0 50, 100
PLATE: 5
I
I
I
I
Li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CONCEPT PLAN
T E RR MA R
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
2888 LOKER AVE. EAST, SUITE 303
CARLSBAD, CA 92010
P: 760.603.1900 F: 760.603.1909
)
IN
T1 'NG
L
3/6.0
3/8.0
7
x297
04.0
"I/ ~ 950 30
KEY TO SYMBOLS
APPROXIMATE SITE LIMIITS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
oft
•x
3/1.5
A
ill,
NOVA
4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
858-292-7575
858-292-7570 (FAX)
WWW.USA-NOVA.COM
z 0
U, z <a
xo <
cc z cr Er o
- —
<cr -1
Z
CC co
00(1) cr
—<a:
C) C) w
-, c
_I
>- 0
PROJECT NO; 2016553
DATE: JAN 2017
DFSIGN RY JDB/AJS
DRAWN BY: AJS
CHECKED BY: WM
REVIEWED BY: JDB
AERIAL SITE MAP
TOPO 1963
0 200 400'
PLATE: 6
3/3.0
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N /
3085
3I5--
v v--------
3/9.0
3/80
/
5 --2820 /7 J
/ (
.770,
Ak
,
rl It
Las ( )
/
3?zoti\304.5
r
i
CALS BAD .RACT NO.j
/ 3045 oss '4 P
3 M A P N 8054'
KEY TO SYMBOLS
fps..I APPROXIMATE SITE LIMIITS
A
NOVA
4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
858-292-7575
858-292-7570 (FAX)
WWW.USA-NOVA.COM
z 0
Cl) z
ZLi
z
I cr— 'cr
Z 0-
Io
co
<cr
w c
) CJ
_J c\J
0
PROJECT NO: 2016553
DATE: JAN 2017
DFSIflN RY JDB/AJS
DRAWN BY: AJS
CHECKED BY: WM
REVIEWED BY: JDB
AERIAL SITE MAP
TOPO 1973
(ij)
0 200' 400'
PLATE: 7
k _
- C
CIVIC
HIELICO
Oft
FILI
t XyN(
-.STERN 1LV •,)
I
--
Y
FLIGHT
?2' /
.NG - C IC -
- -'
OV
1020
~po
- ST Sr
iANGArZ
'
I EC I
'
N ,7
TING EXISTINIZIC WIES
LEASEHOLD EHOLD 1.31 ACRES
CIVICCENTER
1##
06
%T CON
GVV___
-
V-UTrER TO
-'TA5dWAY ACCESS BE
/
- _
M
A TE -
DEOLISHED --
-•"
I
KEY TO SYMBOLS
SS
PROPOSED
' R0POSD
/
- 7 FRENCH DRAIN
, I
EN
OLD
N 0 \7'\
4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
858-292-7575
858-292-7570 (FAX)
WWW. USA-NOVA.COM
z 0
z
C,0 LL — zo-
cc X<0 I— LI cr
CC cn 00(1)
<I
oO w cj —) c
—J c J
lq: >- 0
CC
PROJECT NO: 2016553
DATE: JAN 2017
DESIGN BY: JDB/AJS
DRAWN BY: AJS
CHECKED BY: WM
REVIEWED BY: JDB
TOPOGRAPHIC
SITE MAP
0 160'
PLATE: 8
/'\J 1963 CONTOUR LINES
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
APPENDIX A
USE OF THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
- not even you - should apply the report for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac-
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements,
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
not prepared for you,
not prepared for your project,
not prepared for the specific site explored, or
completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
composition of the design team, or
project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes—even minor ones—and request an assessment of their impact.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
ing report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly—
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or
liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Subject to
Misinterpretation
Other design team members misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design teams plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate in prebid and preconstruction
conferences, and by providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
reports accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they
need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-
tors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly.
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
study, For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually
relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led
to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-
agement guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal with Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry.
While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services per-
formed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold
from growing in or on the structure involved.
Rely, on Your ASFE-Member Geotechncial
Engineer for Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer
with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
ASFr=
The nest People on Earth
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: 301/565-2733 Facsimile: 301/589-2017
e-mail: info@asfe.org www.asle.org
Copyright 2004 byASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying of this document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's
specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE, and only for
purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other
firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be commiting negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation.
IIGER06045.0M
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
APPENDIX B
LOGS OF BORINGS
EQUIPMENT: B-51
GPSCOORD.: N/A
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CR CORROSIVITY
MC MAXIMUM DENSITY
DS DIRECT SHEAR
El EXPANSION INDEX AL AUERBERG LIMITS SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
RV RESISTANCE VALUE
DATE EXCAVATED: DECEMBER 12, 2C16
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION: 8 INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
I BORING LOG B-i
I
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ELEVATION: 315 FT CN CONSOLIDATION
- SE SAND EQUIVALENT
11 uj
I
I
Iw°-
-J w >- I p I SOIL DESCRIPTION Ir
I -j I SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
X I I 0 (USGS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) ir
lI _iw 2
0 wl cr-I< J 0 Co 0 0 D -J REMARKS
o ASPHALT/CONCRETE
SM 50/5" ARTIFICIAL FILL (Oaf): SILTYSAND; LIGHTBROWN, RED BROWNAND BROWN, MOIST, MC 130 plc @6.8%
-- * MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED RV 24
50/2" — *
I LIGHT YELLOWISH BROWN
5—
. 38
29
- LIGHT BROWN TO YELLOWISH BROWN AC FRAGMENTS
10
- / 16
- — 24
— LIGHT BROWN AND REDDISH BROWN, DAMP MOTTLED - — 22
-
.15— /
/ CH 25
-------------------------------------------------------
FAT CLAY WITH SILT; LIGHT GRAY TO REDDISH BROWN AND TAN, MOIST, VERY AL MOTTLED
STIFF, FINE GRAINED
20
— / —
---
ML 5/5"
--------------------------------
SANDY SIL UGHTGRAY AND ó7s BROWN (RUST), MOTTLED
— BORING TERMINATED A T21.5 FT. NO GROUND WA TER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING.
25
30
KEY TO SYMBOLS
ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGER EXPANSION
GROUNDWATER # ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
Z BULK SAMPLE * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Z SPTSAMPLE(ASTM D1586) GEOLOGIC CONTACT LOGGED BY: HE DATE: JAN 2017
D CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550) — — — SOIL TYPE CHANGE REVIEWED BY: HP PROJECT NO.: 2016553
A
like
NOVA
APPENDIX B-i
I
BORING LOG B-2 I
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
DATE EXCAVATED: DECEMBER 12, 2016 EQUIPMENT: B-51 CR CORROSIVITY MC MAXIMUM DENSITY DS DIRECT SHEAR
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION: 8 INCH DIAMETERAUGER BORING El EXPANSION INDEX GPS COORD.: N/A AL A1TERBERG LIMITS
I SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
RV RESISTANCE VALUE GROUNDWATER DEPTH: GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ELEVATION: 318.5 FT CN CONSOLIDATION SE SAND EQUIVALENT
-J
w,. Cl) w < w
SOIL DESCRIPTION
LL z SUMMARY SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
I Cl) - Cl) 0 (USGS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) cc -I-- a- 0
o U) M Q- -j REMARKS
0 3"ASPHALT/CONCRETEOVER4"BASE
- -
-
E—]
SM 47 ARTIFICIAL FILL (Oaf): SILTYSAND; LIGHT OLIVE GRAY, BROWN GRAY, MOIST, CR
-
MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
20 DARK OLIVE GRAY
5
AC FRAGMENTS 38 I
ML 65 ICLAYEY SILT; LIGHT GRAYAND REDDISH BROWN (RUST), MOIST, HARD f MO1TLED
ML-SM 61 SANDY SILT-SILTY SAND; LIGHT GRA YAND REDDISH BROWN (RUST), MOIST, HARD,
I I VERY DENSE, FINE GRAINED
59
BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FT. NO GROUND WATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING.
KEY TO SYMBOLS ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGER EXPANSION
V GROUNDWATER # ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD I BULK SAMPLE * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SPTSAMPLE(ASTMD15B6) GEOLOGIC CONTACT LOGGED BY: HE DATE: JAN 2017
fl CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550) - - - SOIL TYPE CHANGE REVIEWED BY: HP PROJECT NO.: 2016553
110
4
120
I
1 25
A
'JIM
NOVA
F-1 9 9:1 kllql 61041 -IN
BORING LOG B-3
DATE EXCAVATED: DECEMBER 12, 2016 EQUIPMENT: B-51 CR
MC
DS
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION: 6 INCH DIAMETEF AUGER BORING GPS COORD.: N/A El
AL
SA
RV
DEPTH: GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ELEVATION: 317 FT CN
GROUNDWATER
SE
w
LLJ -
-J Cl) LU
SOIL DESCRIPTION
-J SUMMARY SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
I Cl) Q- 0 cli (USGS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) cr
CL
0 0ci ...JUJ LU 0 < o in -J
0 - SM ARTIFICIAL =ILL (Oaf): SILTY SAND; LIGHT BROWN WITH REDDISH BROWN AND - - -
- 47 YELLOW FRAGMENTS, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED CR
46
CORROSIVITY
MAXIMUM DENSITY
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
AUERBERG LIMITS
SIEVE ANALYSIS
RESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATION
SAND EQUIVALENT
REMARKS
LIGHT BROWN, DENSE CLAY FRAGMENTS 5
70
107.lpcf 12.3%
CL 39 SILTY CLAY; OLIVE GRAY MOIST, VERYSTIFF
31
- 26 El 57 (MEDIUM)
29
si SILTY SAND; RED BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
40
BORING TERMINATED AT 21.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING.
KEY TO SYMBOLS
ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGER EXPANSION
2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
Al
V GROUNDWATER # ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
BULK SAMPLE * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Z SPT SAMPLE (ASTM D1586) __ GEOLOGIC CONTACT NOVA LOGGED BY: HE DATE: JAN 2017
D CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTMD355O) - - - SOIL TYPE CHANGE REVIEWED BY: HP PROJECT NO.: 2016553 APPENDIX B-3
10
15
120
I
1 25
BORING LOG B-4
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
DATE EXCAVATED: DECEMBER 12, 2016 EQUIPMENT: B-51 CR CORROSIVITY MC MAXIMUM DENSITY
J
DS DIRECT SHEAR
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION: 8 INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING GPS COORD.: N/A El EXPANSION INDEX AL AUERBERG LIMITS SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
RV RESISTANCE VALUE
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: -GROUNDWATER OT ENCOUNTERED ELEVATION: 317 FT CN CONSOLIDATION
SE SAND EQUIVALENT
W —J C/)
O Cl)
W
SOIL DESCRIPTION
I p O
-j SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
0
' <F- - ..j
C-) (USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) Cc
u_I
o- < CJ) 0 Cc JW
0 co cc 0m n < 0
LJ °- —J REMARKS
° — SM ARTIFICIAL FILL (Oaf): SILTY SAND; LIGHT BROWN TO MEDIUM BROWN, MOIST,
MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED 55
fu
73
'7
57
32
10
—
IN,
— CL — — SILTY CLAY; OLIVE GRAY, WET, STIFF SILTY
1 15— 7 20
------ — --- --------------------
SM
--------------------------------------------------------------
SIL TV SANDOARK GRAY VERYMOIST FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED ODOR
20— 32
I
BORING TERMINATED AT2I.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING.
1 251
-ORGANIC
30
KEY TO SYMBOLS
ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGER EXPANSION
'V GROUNDWATER # ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD id AAA~
BULK SAMPLE * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
NOVA Z SPTSAMPLE(ASTMD1586) __ GEOLOGIC CONTACT LOGGED BY: HE DATE: JAN
O CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM 03550) - - — SOILTYPECHANGE REVIEWED BY: HP PROJECT NO.: 2016553 APPENDIX B-4
A IAN
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested
procedures. Brief descriptions of the tests performed are presented below:
. CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the
Unified Soils Classification System and are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A.
EXPANSION INDEX TEST (ASTM 04829): The expansion index of a selected soil was determined in accordance with ASTM 04829. A 1.0 inch thick by
4.0 inch diameter specimen was prepared by compacting the soil with a specified energy at approximately 50.0 percent saturation. The specimen was
placed in a consolidometer with porous stones at the top and bottom and a total normal pressure of 144.7 psf. was applied. The specimen was allowed to
consolidate for a period of 10 minutes and then saturated. The change in vertical movement was recorded until the rate of expansion became nominal.
SOLUBLE SULFATES (California Test Method 417): The soluble sulfate content was determined for samples of soil likely to be present at the
foundation level. The soluble sulfate content was determined in accordance with California Test Method 417.
MOISTURE-DENSITY (ASTM D2937): In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information
was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per
cubic foot, and the in-place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the exploration logs
presented in Appendix A.
MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557 METHOD A,B,C): The maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content of typical soils were determned in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D- 1557, Method A, Method B, Method C.
ATtERBERG LIMITS PLASTICITY INDEX (ASTM D4318): The Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plastic Index were determined for representative soil
samples in order to help classify the soils in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. These tests were performed in accordance with
ASTM 04318
RESISTANCE VALUE ( California Test Method 301 and ASTM D2844): The Resistance Value, for near-surface site soils was evaluated in general
accordance with California Test Method 301 and ASTM 02844. Samples were prepared and evaluated for exudation pressure and expansion pressure.
GRADATION ANALYSIS (ASTM C136 and/or ASTM D422): Tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accordance with
ASTM 0422. The grain size distributions of selected samples were determined in accordance with ASTM C136 and/or ASTM D422.
CONSOLIDATION TEST (ASTM 02435): Consolidation tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed soil samples in general accordance with
ASTM 02435. The samples were inundated during testing to represent adverse field conditions. The percent of consolidation for each load cycle was
recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original height of the sample.
Ill, I LAB TEST SUMMARY
ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION
N OVA 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I BY:AJS I DATE: JAN 2O17 I PROJECT: 2016553 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570
APPENDIX: C.1
Expansion Index Test (ASTM D4829
Sample Sample Initial Compacted Final Volumetric Expansion Expansion Depth Moisture Dry Density Moisture Swell Location (ft) (%) (pcf) (%) (INCH) Index Potential
B-3 14.0 8.9 110.2 24.7 0.060 57 Medium
Corrosivity Test (Cal. Test Method 417,422,643)
Sample Sample Depth Resistivity Sulfate Content Chloride Content
Location (ft) pH (Ohm-cm) (ppm) (%) (ppm) (%)
B-2 1,0-3.0' 8.4 800 12.0 0.013 110 0.011
Plastic Index (ASTM D424)
Sample Sample Liquid Plastic Plastic USCS
Location Depth Limit Limit Index (% Finer
(ft) LL PL P1 than No. 40)
B-i 16.0' 58.0 18.0 41 CH
USCS
(Entire
Sample)
CH
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM D1557
Sample Maximum Optimum Moisture Sample Depth Dry Density Content
Location (ft) Soil Description (pcf) (%)
B-i 1 .0' - 5.0 Light Brown Silty Sand 130.0 6.8
Resistance Value (Cal. Test Method 301 & ASTM D2844
Sample
Sample Depth
Location (ft) Soil Description R-Value
B-i 1 .0' - 5.0' Light Brown Silty Sand 24
LAB TEST RESULTS
NOVA
4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA BY: AJS
PHONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570
ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION
2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DATE: JAN 2017 I PROJECT: 2016553 APPENDIX: C.2
100
90
80
70
pit
a. 60
U
50
40
30
20
10
0.
100
'K--- Size (inches) —4< U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes > < Hydrometer Analysis
a C CD 0 0 0 0
ó 6 6 6 a 6 6 7 2 2 2 Z
I I I
it±t
I
I
I
I
II I
II I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
II I
II I
II I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I II I I I i I
p
p
I
ii I
ii I
II I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
II I
II I
II I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- -
I II I I
:
I
p
I I I
- - - - - - - :- -
I
I
—t i —i-
II I
II I
I
I
p
I
-t----
p
I
- —i----
I
I
I
I
- -
- - I I I l II I I
- - - —r -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
P
I
I II ii
II
I
I
I
I
I
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel Sand
Silt or Clay.
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Sample Location P-i
Depth (ft) 6.5'
USCS Soil Type SM
Passing No. 200 (%) 36
I GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS I I ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANSION 1
1
NOVA I 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA I I I I I BY: DATE: I PROJECT: APENDIX:C.3 I
'HONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570 I I
0.1
-2.0
-1.0
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FEET, (ksf)
1.0 10.0
--- Loading Prior to H20
—e-- Loading After H20
--*-- Rebound
Boring Number: B-3
Depth (II): 6.0
Soil Type: Light Browi Silty Sand (SM)
NOTES: SAMPLE TESTED AT FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT. WATER ADDED AFTER
SEATING LOAD. PERFORMED IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH ASTM D2435.
4A I GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGAR EXPANS ON
NOVA 2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT RCAD
4373 VIEWRIDGE AVENUE, SUITE B CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA BY: AJS DATE: JAN 2017 PROJEC1: 201E553 APENDIX: C.4
-lONE: 858-292-7575 FAX: 858-292-7570
A.
NOVA
Revised Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation 02 October 2017
Proposed Royal Jet Aircraft Hangar Expansion NOVA Project No. 2016553
APPENDIX D
RECORDS OF PERCOLATION / INFILTRATION TESTING
i PERCOLATION BORING LOG P-i
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
DATE EXCAVATED: DECEMBER 12, 2016 EQUIPMENT: B-51 CR CORROSIVITY
MC MAXIMUM DENSITY
I DS DIRECT SHEAR
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION: 8 INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING GPS COORD.: N/A El EXPANSION INDEX
AL A1TERBERG LIMITS SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
RV RESISTANCE VALUE
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ELEVATION: 315 FT CN CONSOLIDATION
- SE SAND EQUIVALENT
uJ
ui Cl) uJ >- — SOIL DESCRIPTION
Z SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
0
'-
I - ) <F— - ..J 0 (USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) Cc
w O -JuJ
0
co 0 -Co CL. —J REMARKS
I °
ASPHALT/CONCRETE
SM ARTIFICIAL FILL (Oaf): SILTY SAND; OLIVE GRAY, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO AC AND GRAVEL
MEDIUM GRAINED FRAGMENTS
5—
I
27
SA
- / 19
LIGHT GRAY, TAN, RED-BROWN, FINE GRAINED MOTTLED
I —
— BORING TERMINATED AT8 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING.
Ii
10 —
I15
I20
1
25-
30
KEY TO SYMBOLS
ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGER EXPANSION
2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD I 'V GROUNDWATER # ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
BULK SAMPLE * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Alk,
I Z NOVA SPT SAMPLE (ASTMD1586) GEOLOGIC CONTACT LOGGED BY: HE DATE: JAN 2017
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550) - - - SOIL TYPE CHANGE REVIEWED BY: HP PROJECT NO.: 2016553 APPENDIX P-i
PERCOLATION BORING LOG P-2
DATE EXCAVATED: DECEMBER 12, 2016 EQUIPMENT: B-51 CR CORROSIVITY MC MAXIMUM DENSITY
DS DIRECT SHEAR
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION: 8 INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING GPS COORD.: N/A El EXPANSION INDEX AL A1TERBERG LIMITS
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
RV RESISTANCE VALUE
GROUNDWATER DEPTH: GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ELEVATION: 318.5 FT CN CONSOLIDATION
- SE SAND EQUIVALENT
uJ
uJ >-
0 SOIL DESCRIPTION
< Z —
SccI
SUMMARY SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
I 0 Cl) a- (J)
-J 0 (USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER) cr I-.
w < U) 0 cc 0 co
0 1) -J REMARKS
0 SM ARTIFICIAL FILL (Oat): SILTY SAND WITH CLAY; LIGHT BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM
DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
MEDIUM BROWN
5 24 /
BORING TERMINATED AT 5.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING
10
15
20
25
KEY TO SYMBOLS
ROYAL JET AIRCRAFT HANGER EXPANSION
2220 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 'V GROUNDWATER # ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
BULK SAMPLE * NO SAMPLE RECOVERY CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
NOVA
Z SPTSAMPLE(ASTM D1586) __ GEOLOGIC CONTACT LOGGED BY: HE DATE: JAN 2017
CAL. MOD, SAMPLE (ASTMD3550) - - - SOIL TYPE CHANGE REVIEWED BY: HP PROJECT NO.: 2016553 APPENDIX P-2
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Part 1 - Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable
consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed
facility locations greater than 0.5 inches per hour? The response
1 to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive x evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix
D.
Provide basis:
The infiltration rate of the existing soils for locations P-i and P-2 based on the on-site infiltration study was calculated to be
less than 0.5 inches per hour (P-i =0.01 inches per hour and P-2=0.09) after applying a minimum factor of safety (F) of F=2.
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability,
2 groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot
be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this X
Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
the factors presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis:
The infiltration rate of the existing soils for locations P-i and P-2 based on the on-site infiltration study was calculated to be
less than 0.5 inches per hour (P-1=0.01 inches per hour and P-2=0.09) after applying a minimum factor of safety (F) of F=2.
Geotechnical hazards need not be evaluated in this Criterion for infiltration rates below 0.5 inches per hour.
1-3 February 2016
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without increasing risk of groundwater contamination (shallow
water table, storm water pollutants or other factors) that cannot
be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this
Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
Water contamination was not evaluated by NOVA services.
Can infiltration grater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed
without causing potential water balance issues such as change
of seasonality of ephemeral streams or increased discharge of
contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The response to
this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive
evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
The potential for water balance was not evaluated by NOVA services.
If all answers to rows 1 - 4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible.
Part 1 The feasibility screenng category is Full Infiltration
Result
* If any answer from :0w 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but
Proceed to Part 2
would not generally be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design.
Proceed to Part 2
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in
the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings.
1-4 February 2016
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
;
Part 2 - Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of water in any appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative
consequences that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any
5 appreciable rate or volume? The response to this Screening
Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the
factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
Provide basis:
The infiltration rates of the existing soils for locations P-i and P-2 based on the on-site infiltration study was calculated to be
P-1=0.01 inches per hour and P-2=0.09 inches per hour after applying a minimum factor of safety (F) of F=2. Infiltration rates
of less than 0.5 inches per hour and greater than 0.01 inches per hour imply that soil and geologic conditions allow for partial
infiltration. However, due to the considerable existing fill depth at these locations, this is not a natural soil or geologic
condition. Furthermore, it would be infeasible to extend the BMP down to natural soil and geologic formations at the locations
tested.
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed
without increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope
6 stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or other factors)
that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response X
to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive
evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis:
C2.1 A geologic investigation was performed at the subject site.
C2.2 Settlement and volume change due to water infiltration is possible as clayey soils were noted at depths within the
relatively variable fill.
C2.3 The subject site is bounded to the south and east by descending slopes that are steeper than 25% that may be subject to
saturation and failure if BMPs are planned within 50 feet of these slopes.
C2.4 Stormwater infiltration can potentially damage subsurface and underground utilities if BMPs are sited within 10 feet of
said utilites.
C2.5 Stormwater infiltration can result in damaging groundwater mounding during wet periods.
C2.6 Stormwater infiltration has the potential to increase lateral pressure and reduce soil strength which can impact
foundations and retaining walls if BMPs are sited within 10 feet of said foundations and retaining walls.
C2.7 Other Factors: Due to the considerable fill depth of the subject site, the extension of the BMPs down to natural soil is
infeasible. In consideration of the significant fill depth, the proximity to existing slopes, building foundations, possible existing
utilities, and the particularly low measured infiltration rates, the condition in these locations do not allow for infiltration in any
appreciable rate or volume without increasing the risk of geotechnical hazards.
1-5 February 2016
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Criteria Screening Question Yes No
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed
without posing significant risk for groundwater related
concerns (shallow water table, storm water pollutants or other
factors)? The response to this Screening Question shall be based
on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in
Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
Water contamination was not evaluated by NOVA services.
Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream
8 water rights? The response to this Screening Question shall be
based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in
Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
The potential for water balance was not evaluated by NOVA services.
If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible.
Part 2 The feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration.
Result * No Infiltration
If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be
infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration.
*To be completed using gathered site information and best professional judgment considering the definition of MEP in
the MS4 Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by the City to substantiate findings.
1-6 February 2016