HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Palomar Airport Business Park Lot 12; Soils Report; 1984-03-09-
-
-
-
-
-
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Roberr R, Protei. C.6 ,942.,980
Conrulmg Soil. Foundation d Geolopicol Engineers Wm, David Herpeier. C E,
March 9, 1984
218-1E. 5661
ConwelllMarshall 6 Associates, Inc.
3160 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 217
San Diego, California 92108
Attention: Mr. Christopher Knell
Re: Neil Fox Development
Palomar Airport Business Park - Lot 12
Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
ENtjlNEERlNG DEPT. LIBRARY
City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palmas Drive Carfsbad CA 92009-4859
In accordance with your request we are presentlng design recommendations for
retaining walls constructed on sloping ground. Our letter dated November 28,
1979, presented foundation design recommendations and the results of our earth-
work observation and testing services performed during the mass grading of the
site.
It is our understanding the unrestrained retaining walls will have sloping 2
horizontal to 1 vertical backfills and will be up to about 10 feet high.
.-
Based on our previous work on the site, we recommend that unrestrained walls
with 2 to 1 sloping backfills be designed for an equivalent fluid weight of 45
pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This design pressure is based on the assumption
that a clean sandy soil will be used as backfill within a 1 to 1 zone behind
the wall and that there is sufficient drainage behind the walls to prevent the
build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water infiltration. Wherever
the walls are subject to surcharge loads they should be designed for an
additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-third the anticipated
surcharge pressure.
Retaining walls which have 2 to 1 sloping ground at the toe of the wall should - be designed for an allowable passive pressure equal to an equivalent fluid
weight of 150 pcf acting against the foundation. Walls founded in level ground
may be designed for an allowable passive pressure equal to an equivalent fluid - weight of 300 pcf. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.35 is recommended
for use in design.
Backfill placed behind the walls should be compacted to a minimum degree of
compaction of 90 percent using light equipment. If heavy equipment is used,
the walls should be appropriately temporarily based.
-
- lC1935 Roreile Srreer Son Diego, Col,lornra 92121 (ON, m-m
.- - - _
March 9, 1984
218-1E. 5661
Page 2
Retaining walls should be supported on footing foundatlons designed in accor-
dance with the recommendations presented in our November 28, 1979 letter,
except that for low walls (less than 4 feet high) founded in level ground the
footing embedment depth may be reduced to 12 inches below the lowest adjacent
flnished grade.
Our November 28, 1979 letter indicates that the compaction of utility and storm - drain trench backfills was not completed. Accordingly, unless there is proper
documentation indicating that the trenches were subsequently properly com-
pacted, we recommend that uncompacted backfills be removed and properly recom-
- pacted to a distance of 5 feet on either side of the retaining wall alignment.
Our services consist of professional opinions‘and recommendations made in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and - practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties either express or
implied.
- If you have any questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
-
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
Leslie H. Pennington, k., RCE No. 32,054
- LHP: Is
Copies : Addressee (3 1
Coneer Engineering, Attn: Mr. Kurt Pfizenmaier (1)
-
-
-
Romr *RATER ASSOCIATES
bmd*n~ bJ6cw.-domn b +.logu,l togmec,,
- November 28, ‘1979
ZlB-lE, 3098
Polomar Airpart Business Park
- 6231 Yarrow Drive, Suiteet
Carlsbad, California 92OOB
- Attention: Mr. Bernard W. Gllmare
Re: Earthwork Observatian and Testing Services - And Foundation Re -ddiWS
Carlsbod Tract No. 79-t
- Parcel B of Cot 12 - Palamrr Airport Business Park
Carlsbad, California
-- . Gentlemen:
-.
In occordonce with your request we hove provided earthwark observation ond testing
services in connection with’the mass grading aperotiam far the subject project. A geo-
kchnical investigation far the btniness park was perfarmed by our predecessor firm the
results of which were presented in orepart entitled “Gcotechnical tnvertigotian, C.C.
B F. Patom- Airport Business Pmk - Phase 1, Cwlsbad, Califanio,” doted Februmy 26,
1974.
.- Our representatives were present d the site on an intermittent basis from August 31, 1979
to October 12, 1979 to observe the cnors grading operations and to provide field density
testing services as required. The approximate locations af OIR field density tests are shown
an the attached Site .Plans, Figues 1 and 2. The results of OUT field density and loboratary
campoction tests are presented in the attached Tables A and B.
- Based an our observations and the attached test results, it is our opinion that the moss e&h-
work operations were ccrried aut in accordance with the recamendotions of the geotechnicol
investigation report ond thot 011 fill moteriol was compacted to a minimum degree of compoc-
tion of 90 percent bored on ASTM Test Designotion 01557-70.
Work remaining at the site which will require additional earthwork testing and inspection
services includes 1) finish grading ape&ions for individual building pods which will probably
require odditionol cuts and fills of probobly less thon two or three feet deep, 2) compaction
-. ‘fK? r ‘;* SW.!. $00 D,cpo, CdJ,,rnloV2l?l .,,,.,‘SM&X / C,,A,,a Y,,ro 0,~ SWI, It& ,‘,,,Q ~o,,,o,n.o ~2~5, .I,,,, m-91,.
_-
-
Nwember Lb, ii, i
218-lE, 3098
PW~ 2
of utility ad storm drain trench &&fills which hove not been ampleted 01 of this dote,
3) prepmotion and compoctian of pavement subgrode soils, and 4) ploccment ond com-
poction of pavement base rock materiots.
-
We recommend thot propased buildings be supported on conventional, individuol spread
and/or cantinuous perimeter footings bearing on firm noturol sail and/or compacted fill
moteriols. footings should be founded ot least 18 inches below the lowest odjocent ~finished
grade. At this recommended depth, footings may be designed far allowable &wing pressures
of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) for dead l&dr, 3,500 psf for combined deod ond live
loads, ond 4,500 psf fa oil loads, including wind or seismic. The footings should, however,
have a minimum width of 12 inches. All continuous footings should be reinfarced with top
ond bottom reinforcement to provide strudurol continuity ond to permit spanning of local
irregulmitiu. Post-construction differential settlements across the buildings ore expected
ta be within toterable limits for the structures.
-
_-
--
Building fioar slobs may be supported directly on cornpocted fill and/or notual soil. Slob
reinforcing should be provided in accordonce with the anticipated use of ond loads on the
slobs. tn areas such as offices where moisture-sensitive floar coverings me to be utilised
ond in other meas where floor dampness would be undesirable, we recommend thot can-
siderotion be given to providing on imperrneoble membrane beneath the slabs. The mem-
brane should be covered with 2 inches of sand to protect it during construction. The sond
should be lightly moistened lust prior to placing the concrete. 1
Poorly graded imported son& and/a gravels (such os pea gravel) should not be used in arem
where slabs will be subjected to concentrated heavy loads such as would be inpased by
loaded faklifh.
-
Lateral load resistance for building foundations moy be developed in frictian between the bars
of the founddiam and the wing +rade. An ollowoble friction co&c&? of 0.35
is recommended fa use in d&g”. &I odditianol ollowoble passive pressure quo! ta m
quivolent ft3d weight of 300 pounds F cubic foot acting against the foum&;on soy be
used in design Provided the foot+ ox Paured neot ogoinst undistubed soil. These ollow-
oble values m bared on o safety focta of 1.5 applied to the ultimate values.
Any dock high retaining walls mut be designed to resist lotcrol earth prerrues from the
.- bockfill materials as well or my floor surcharge loads. It is recommended that walls re-
strained from movement ot the top be designed for on quivolent fluid preuve of 30 pounds
per cubic foot plus an odditionol unifam lotcrol pressure of 5H pounds per squm-c foot, where - H is the height of bockfill obave the wall footing in feet. Unrestrained wollr may be designed
far the 30 pounds per cubic foot quivatent fluid pressus only. Wherever walls will be sub-
ject to surcharge loads, they should be designed for on odditionol uniform lateral pressure - quo1 to one-hotf the anticipated surchorgs pressure in the case of rcstroined walls ond one-
third the anticipated surcharge pressure in the cme of unrertroined walls.
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Bmed on our general knowledge of the soils present on tk rubiect lots and our post
experience in prwiding R-voluc test resufh far similar sofls within the business Park,
it is our opinion that a design R-volw of at least 30 is appropriatifar UK at this site.
Combining this Rwolue with selected traffic indices fm different pavement looding re-
quirements we have developed the following recommended pavement sections using Pro-
cedure 301-F of tk State of Califanio, Oepmtment ofTronsp.ortation. The recommended
pavement sections contained in Table 1 should provide o pavement life of 20 years with o
narmol amount of flexible pavement maintenance.
TABLE I - RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Prrvement Conpanents
Asphalt
Concrete
4;ri,a; Bme
Total Thickness
location (Inches) (Inches) (Inches)
Automobile Parking Areas 2.0 4.0 6.0
fT.1. =3.5for20-year life)
Traffic Channels md areos 3.0 5.5 8.5
subject to occassianol heavy vehicular
loads such os would be imposed by ,trosh
trucks (1.1. = 5.0 f@ 20-yeor life)
Our services consist of profeuionol opinions end recommendations mode in occardance with
generally accepted soil and foundation engineering principles md proctlco. This wuronty
is in lieu of oil other worronties etther express Q implied.
If you have ony questions, please call.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES
Robert Prater, C.E.
RP:lmt
Attochmnts
Copies: Addressee (3)
Peter A. Lendrum Arsociotel, Attn: Mr. Ed Wright (2)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-~
-~
-
-
-
-
&pr&e hole (Feet) I LEGEND
l 1 lndicotes approwimote location of
field density test.
B-e: Sheet 2 of o set of Qroding plans entitled “Corlrbod Tract No. 79-l Polomor Airport
Business Park,’ by Henry Worley Atrociater, doted July 12, 1979.
SITE PLAN
ROSCRT PRATER MSOClAlEJ tc..u*,.p so.! La-&+- . CIohprd r~“,w,
PALOMAR AIRPORT B S;fEjS PARK x - CARLSBAD TRA Corlrbod, Colifornio
?llWECT NO. MU
21B-1E 1 November 1979
LEGEND
. I Indicoto oppraxllnotr Iocollorl
of field dcmity test.
Bose: Sheet 3 of set of rodi Business Par 1,” by !ienr$%kley lam entitled “Corlsbod froct NO. 79-l Polomor AirPort ks ociotcr, doted July 12, 1979.
I / I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
TABLE A - SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM 01556-64 and/or ASTM b2922-71,eASTM 03017-72)
Test
Approrlmote
Il0votlon
No. Dote of Tot Too Locatlon (Feet)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
8/31fl9
E/51/79
a/+1/19
9/04/79
9/04/19
9/04/79
9/06/19
9/05/19
9/05/79
‘9/05/f9
9/ow9
9[05/19
9/06f79
9/06/79
9/06j79
9/06/19
9/07/19
9/07/19
9/07/79
9/07/13
Lot I 277
Lot 1 278
Lot I 278
Lot 1 280
Lot 2 263
Lot 2 265
Lot I 282
Lot 1 286
Lot I 285
Lot 2 263
Lot 2 267
Lot 2 270
Lot 2 269
Lot 2 270
Lot 2 272
Lot 2 272
Lot 3 278
Lot 2 274
Lot 2 275
Lot 3 277
Wotcr
Content
w=).
JO
10
11
‘18
12
14
15
13
14
14
13
11
11
12
9
12
11
14
13
13
Notes: 1) “Compaction Curve No,” refers to Table 8.
2) Unless otherwise noted elcvotionc shown ore to nearest foot.
DfY Degree of
Density Compaction
u (%I
103.8~ 90
101 .s 80
106.3 93
101 .o 90
98.6 86
106.S 93
103.6 90
104.8 91
105.8 92
105.0 91 ,
103.7 90
103.6 90
107.6 94
105.3 91
109.4 93
105.5 92
110.5 96
105.5 92
103.8 90
109.0 95
Compaction
Curve No. Remorks
1
1
1
3
1
I
1
1
5
1
1
I
1
5
s
1
5
I
1
1
lest foiled,’ KO r3
Retest of 12
Test foiled, see 110 \
Retest of ‘5
I I I I I I / I I I I I I I ,
TABLE A - SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D1556-64 and/or ASTM 02922-71, ASTM 03017-72)
Tot
No. Dote of Test
21 9/l o/79
22 9/l o/19
23 9/l on9
24 9/l on9
25 9/l l/79
26 9/l lr/9
27 9/l lf79
28 9/l 1 /I9
29 9/l l/19
30 VIZ’9
31 9/12fi9
32 9/12/79
33 9/12/19
34 9/l 2/79
35 9/13n9
36 9/l 3/I9
37 9/13/79
38 9/13/79
39 9/14/19
40 9/14//9
Approximate
Elevation
Test Location (Feet)
Lot 3 274
Lot 3 283
Lot 3 280
Lot 2 275
Lot 2 275
Lot 4 - Fill Slope 244
Lot 4 - Fill Slope 246
Lot 4 : Fill Slope 248
Lot 5 250
Lot 5 252
Lot 5 254
Lot 3 256
Lot 5 258
Lot 3 259
Lot 5 262
Lot 3 264
Lot 5 265
Lot 3 260
Lot 3 270
Lot 3 2R
Woter
Content
w
13
13
16
12
14
17
.I2
16
16
13
II
14
14
10
12
11
11
16
16
13
DV Degree of
Density Compoetiort
(PCf) (%I
103.7 90
104.6 91
102.2 93
102.4 89
103.8 90
94.0 91
99.1 90
loo.4 91
loo.9 92
105.3 92
107.1 93
103.9 9d
105.3 92
104.1 90
104.1 90
103.5 90
103.6 90
104.2 90
104.9 91
lM.l 91
Compaction
Curve No. Retirkt
1
1
4
1 fed foiled, see ‘95
1 Retest of 124
2 1
4
4
4
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
1
6
Notes: 1) “Compaction Curve No. ” refers to Table 8.
2) Unless othemire noted elevotionc shown ore to nearest foot.
I / I / I I I I I , I I I I I I I 1 !
TABLE A - SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 1556-64 and/or ASTM b2922-71, ASTM 03017-72)
Test
No. Dote of Test
41. 9/l 4f79
42 9/l 8f79
43 9/l 8/79
44 911 an9
45 9/l 8/79
46 9/l am
47 9/l s/79
48 9/19/19
49 9/l 9/79
50 9/l 9/?9
51 9/l 9/19
52 9/l 9/79
53 9/l 9/19
54 9/l 9p9
55 9/l 9/79
56 9/l 9/79
57 9/l 9/79
58 9/l 9/79
59 9/l 9/79
60 9/l 9/19
Approximate Woter
Elevotion Content
Test Location (Feet) &)
Lot 3
Lot 8
Lot 8
Lot 9
Lot 8
Lot 9
Lot 6
Lot 3
Lot 3
lot 3
Lot 3
Lot 3
Lot 3
Lot 8
Lot 8
Lot B
Lot a
Lot 9
Lot 9
Lot 9
274 11
’ 230 10
232 11
228 12
234 13
228 13
271 ‘11
274 9
276 IO
278 9
276 8
275 11
275 i0
233 13
235 14
213 16
233 15
225 11
225 19
226 14
b Degree of
Density Compaction Compacfion
(P4 W) Curve No. Remarks
105.4
102.0
102.3
98.5
107.6
106.3
102.8
102.5
101.5
102.2
104.2
103.3
1M.3
106.7
106.9
100.4
102.1
100.7
102.6
104.7
91
90
90
87
95
94
91
90
90
90
92
91
92
94
94
88
90
89
90
92
5
6
6
6 fed foilcd, see ‘46
6
6 Retest of 144
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6 \ i
b Test lolled, see f57
6 Retest of 156
6 Test foiled, see ‘59
6 Retest of 158
6
Notes: 1) “Compaction Curve No.” refers to Table 8.
2) Unless otherwise noted elevations shown ore to nearest foot.
Test
No.
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
R
73
74
75
76
77
70
79
80
I I I I / I / I I I I I I I I I 1 ~~, ,~
TABLE A - SUMMARY OF FIELD DtNSITY TfST RESULTS (ASTM 01556-M and/or ASTM 02922-71, ASTM 03017-72) _--. -- .-
Dote of Test Test Locotton
9/t 9/79 Lot 9
9/20/19 Lot 4
9/20/79 Lo, 1
9/20//9 Lot 1
9/20/19 La, 9
9/10/79 Lot 4
9/2l/19 Lot 3
9/21/79 Lot 5
9/24/79 Lot 7
9/z s/79 lot 4
9/25/79 Lot 4
9/26/19 Cul De Sot (West End)
10/01/V Stam Droin Backfill Lot 3
10/01/79 Sram Drain Eockftll Ld 3
10/01/13 Storm Droin Bockfltl Lot 3
1 omm Entrance Rood - Lot 3
1 o/02/79 Entrance Rood - Lot 3
1 o/02/79 Entrance Rood - Lot 3
1 o/02/79 Entrance Road - Lot 3
1 o/03/79 Entrance Road - Lot 3
Approxlmote Water DV
Elevolion Content Density
(Feet) (%) (pet)
228 I6 103.9
231 14 103.8
287(FSG) to 112.3
288(FSG) 7 103.9
230 11 102.6
234 14 104.4
279 ,8 103.6
266 15 102.6
260 10 106.0
237 14 103.1
239 15 102.9
222(FSG)~ 11 103.2
281 12’ 103.5
280 13 104.4
279 12 105.1
283 9 105.3
204 13 104.6
206 14 102.5
289 17 103.9
292 to 104.0
Notes: I) “Compaction Curve No.” refers lo Table 8.
2) Unless othemise noted elevations shown ore to nearest foot.
3) “FSG” denotes finish subgrode etevotton.
Degree of
Compaction Compoc,ion
(%) Curve No.
92 6
91 6 .
90 1
90 1
90 6
92 6
91 6
90 6
93 6
’ 91 6
91 6
91 6
91 6
92 6
91 5
92 1
91 1
90 6
92 6
90 1
* .
Remorks
~1
I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
TABLE A - SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS (ASTM 01556-64 and/or ASTM D2922-71, ASTM D3017-72)
1
Test
No. Dote of Test
Approximotc
Elevotion
(Feet)
294
26B(FSG)
268(FSG)
239
28O(FSG)
2R41FS.G)
28l(FSG)
276(FfG)
276(FSG)
237(FSG)
237(FSG)
237(FSG)
276(FSG)
237(FSG)
231 (FSG)
24O(FSG)
231(FSG)
Woter Dry
Content Density
Degree of
Compaction
W)
94
.93
94
91
92
w-
94
87
90
aa
88
86
91
90
07
94
92
Compaction
CurYe ~NO. Rcmorks
61 1 o/03/79
82 10/03/19
63 1 o/03/19
a4 1 O/Mf79
85 1 o/09/19
86 1 Q/09/19
07 1 o/09/19
86 10/10/19
a9 1 O/l o/I9
90 10/10/79
91 1 O/l o/I9
92 10/l l/79
93 10/l l//9
94 10/l l/19
95 1 o/1,1/19
96 10/l l/79
97 10/12/19
Test Location
Entrance Rood - Lot 3
Lot 5
Lot 5
Lot 4
Lot 6
Lot 3
Lot 3
Lot 2
Lot 2
Lot 8
Lot 3
Lot 8
Lot 2
Lot 8
Lot 9’
Lot 4
Lot 9
(PCf) ’
13 108.5
14 lM.6
15 107.8
15 103.5
10 104.1
9 102.2
11 106.3
8 90.7
6 102.3
10 99.8
8 100.4
15 97.6
10 103.9
12 101.7
a 99.2
6 107.0
6 104.9
Notes: 1) “Compaction Curve No.” refers to Toblc 8.
2) Unless otherwise noted elevations shown ore to nearest foot.
3) “FSG” denotes finish subgrodc elevation.
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Test foiled, see ‘93
Test foiled, see i94
Tot foiled, see I 94
Test foiled, see 194
Retest of I88
Retest dS ‘@a 90, 91 itI c
Test ,folled, see 197 ,
Retest of ‘95
-
TABLE B -
LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST RESULTS (ASTiM 01557-70)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.-
-
Compaction Test Description of
(Curve)No. Moteriol
1 SILTY SAND
(SW, tan
2. CLAYEY ond
SANDY SILT
VW, ton
3 SILTY and
SANDY CLAY
(CL-CH), ton
4 SILTY and
SANDY CLAY
(CH), tat-,
5 SILTY SAND
(SM), brown ~.
6 SANDY SILT
W), tm
source of
Moteriol
Onsite
Onrite
Onsite
Onside
Onside
Onsitc
Maximum Optimum
Dry Density Woter Content
(PCf) 6)
115.0 14.0
103.0 2i.3
112.0 15.9
110.0 15.7
115.5 13.5
113.5 14.0 .