The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 80-15; CARLSBAD COMMERCIAL CENTER; SOIL INVESTIGATION; 1980-04-30I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·1 .1 I ,I I ;-I !. /::J I / April 30, 1980 245-5A, V088 , , ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES " Consulting Soil, Foundation & Geological Engineers S haw and Tal bot and Budge 1303 Avocado Avenue, Suite 220 Newport Beach, California 92660 Attention: Mr. Will iam A. Budge Re: Soil Investigation Proposed Business Park Carlsbad, California Gentlemen: In accordance with your request we have performed a soil investigation for the subject project. The accompanying report presents the results of our field investigation, lab- oratory tests and engineering analysis. The soil and foundation conditions are discussed and recommendations for the soil and foundation engineering aspects of the project are presented. If you have any questions concerning our fi"ndings, please call. Very truly yours, ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Robert Prater, C. E • RP:bjm Copies: Addressee (4) Williamson & Schmid, Attn: Mr. Richard R. Schmid (2) 10505 Roselle Street, San Diego, California 92727 • (774) 453-5605 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SOIL INVESTIGATION For PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Carlsbad, California To SHAW AND TALBOT AND BUDGE 1303 Avocado Avenue, Suite 220 Newport Beach, California 92660 April 1980 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Letter of Transmittal Title Page Table of Contents INTRODUCTION SCOPE SITE CONDITIONS A. Surface B. Subsurface C. Groundwater D. Seismic Considerations CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Earthwork 1. Clearing and Strippin~ 2. Subgrade Preparation 3. Materials for Fill 4. Compaction 5. Slopes 6. Trench Backfi II 7. Drainage 8. Constructi on Observation B. Foundations 1. Footings 2. Siabs-On-Grade 3. Retaining Walls 4. Lateral Loads C. Pavements Figure 1 -Site Plan APPENDIX A -FIELD INVESTIGATION Figure A-1 -Key to Exploratory Boring Logs Exploratory Boring Logs 1 through 11 APPENDIX B -LABORATORY TESTING Table B-1 -Results of No. 200 Sieve Tests Figure B-1 -Compaction Test Results Figures B-2 through B-5 -Direct Shear Test Data Results of R(Resistance)-Value Test APPENDIX C -GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS -SITE EARTHWORK Page No. 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 A-1 B-1 C-l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I INTRODUCTION SOIL INVESTIGATION FOR PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA In this report we present the results of our soil investigation for a proposed business/ industrial development to be located on the west side of Interstate 5 south of Cannon Road in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the soil conditions at the site and to provide recommendations concerning the soH and foundation engineering aspects of the project. As presently planned the proposed development wi II include the construction of 20 single-story buildings with slab-on-grade floors. It is anticipated that building loads wi II be typical for this type of light construction. Paved parking and drives will be provided for 786 cars. Due to the flat terrain, grading to achieve the desired finish site grades is expected to be minimal. SCOPE As outlined in our proposal dated February 29, 1980, the scope of work performed in this investigation included.a site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data and the preparation of this report • The data obtained and the analyses performed were for the purpose of providing design and constru~tion criteria for site earthwork, bui Iding foundations, slab-on-grade construction, lateral earth pressures for retaining walls, and pave- ments. SITE CONDITIONS A. Surface The site is relatively flat and roughly rectangular in shape with a plan area of approx- imately 22 acres. IVK>st of the site appears to have been used for agricultural purposes. Surface vegetation consists of a moderate growth of low grass, weeds, and vegetable crop remnants. tB • Subsurface A subsurface investigation was performed using a truck-mounted, continuous flight auger to investigate and sample the subsurface soi Is. Eleven exploratory borings were I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 245-5A Page 2 drUled on April 5, 1980 to a maximum depth of 20 feet at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. Logs of the borings and details regarding the field investigation are presented in Appendix A. Details of the laboratory testing and the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B . The soils encountered in the borings consisted predominately of medium dense to dense silty sands. No potentially expansive soils were encountered in any of the borings. The boring logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the spe- cific locations shown on the site plan and on the particular date designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations. Also, the passage of time may result in changes in the subsurface conditions due to environmental changes. C. Groundwater Free groundwater was encountered at the time of drilling in Borings 1, 2, ~, 5,,7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 at depths of 5J {, .6., 4",:,.1/2, 3-~/2, 9, 5, 6, and 6-1/2 feet, respec- tive Iy. Borings 4 and 6 caved at depths of 4 and 3 feet I respectively I 'before ground- water levels could be measured. It must be noted, however, that fluctuations in ground- water levels are possible due to variations in surface topography, subsurface stratifi- cation, rainfall and other possible factors which may not have been evident at the time of our field investigation. D. Seismic Considerations Based on a review of some available published information including the County of San Diego Faults and Epicenters Map, there are no active or potentially active faults known to pass through the site. The fault zones generally considered to have the most potential for earthquake damage in the vicinity of the site are the active Elsinore and San Jacinto Fault Zones located approximately 25 and 50 miles northeast of the site, respectively. The off-shore extension of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located approximately 5-1/2 miles southwest of the site. No earthquake epicenter clusters are associated with this system and no faults associated with the Rose Canyon Fault Set are classified as active under current criteria. Although research on earthquake prediction has greatly increased in recent years, seismologists have not yet reached the point where they can predict when and where an earthquake will occur. Nevertheless, on the basis of current technology, i.t is reasonableto assume that the proposed structures will be subject to the effects of at least one moderate earthquake during their design life. During such an'earthquake, the danger from fault offset through the site is remote, but strong ground shaking is I ikely to occur. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 245-5A Page 3 From a soil and foundation engineering standpoint I it is our opinion that the site is suitable for construction of the proposed development provided the conclusions and recommendations presented in this rep!Jrt are incorporated into the design and construc- tion of the project. Detailed earthwork and foundation recommendations are pre- sented in the following. paragraphs. A . .Earthwork 1. Clearing and Stripping The site should be stripped of surface vegetation and cleared of all obstructions includ- ing any miscellaneous trash and debris that may be present at the time of construction. The cleared and stripped materials s.hould be disposed of off-site. 2. Subgrade Preparati on After th~ site has been cleared and stripped, the exposed subgrade soils in those areas to. receive fill and/or building improvements or pavements should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to the requirements of Item A.4., IICompaction. II Any isolated pockets of loose surface soils should be removed and recompacted. The depth and areal extent of removal should be determined in the field by the soil engineer·s representative at the time of construction. 3 • ' Materi al s for Fill All on-site soils with an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume are in general suitable for reuse as fi II. Fill material should not, however, contain rocks or lumps over 6 inches in greatest dimension and not more than 15 percent larger than 2-1/2 inches. In addition, any required imported fill material should be a non- expansive (less than 3 percent swell) granular.soil with a plasticity index of 12 or less. We also recommend that the upper 12 inches of fill material in pavement areas consist of either natural on-site sandy soil or imported fill material having a minimum R(Resistance)-value of 50 (an R-value of 80 was obtained for the on-site sandy soils). 4. Compaction All structural fill should be compaCted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 per- cent based upon ASTM Test Designation D1557-78. The upper 6 inches of the sub- grade soil beneath pavements should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 95 percent just prior to plac ing the pavement 98se rock layer. Fill material should be spread and compacted in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncom- pacted thickness. Before compaction begins, the fill should be brought to a water I I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 I· I 1 I 1 I I I 245-5A Page 4 content that will permit proper compaction by either: 1) aerating the fill if it is too wet, or 2) moistening the fill with water if it is too dry. Each lift should be thor- oughly mixed before compaction to ensure a uniform distribution of moisture. Bas~d on our past experience with similar soils, we estimate that the shrinkage loss due to compaction will be in the range of 5 to 10 percent for the natural on-site soils. In addition, in estimating earthwork quantities consideration should be given to the fact that some surface soils may be lost during the initial clearing and stripping operations. 5. Slopes Based on the results of our exploratory borings, laboratory tests, and past experience with similar soils, it is our opinion that any proposed cut and fill slopes will be safe against mass instability if constructed to an inclination no steeper than 2 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical). Fill slopes should be constructed so as to ossure that a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent is attained to within 18 inches of the finished slope face and that a minimum clegree of compaction of 85 percent is attained in the outer 18 inches. This may be accomplished by "backrolling" with a sheepsfoot roller or other suitable equipment. Placement of fill near the tops of slopes should be carried out in such a manner as to assure that loose, uncompacted soils are not sloughed over the tops and allowed to accumulate on the slope face. The on-site sandy soils will be quite susceptible to erosion. Therefore, the project plans and specifications should contain all necessary design features and construction requirements to prevent erosion of the on-site soils both during and after construction. Slopes and other exposed ground surfaces should be appropriately planted with a pro- tective ground cover. It should be the grading contractor's obligation to take all measures deemed necessary during grading to provide erosion control devices in order to protect slope areas and adjacent properties from storm damage and flood hazard originating on this project. It should be made the contractor's responsibility to maintain slopes in their as""'graded form until all slopes, berms, and associated drainage devices are in satisfactory com- pliance with the project plans and specifications. 6. Trench Backfi I I Pipel ine trenches should be backfi lied with compacted fi II. Backfi II material should be placed in lift thicknesses appropriate to the type of compaction equipment utilized and compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 85 percent by mechanical means. In all building and pavement areas, the upper portion of the backfill to a depth equal to 1.5 times the trench width, but not less than 3 feet, should be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent. In pavement areas, that portion of the trench backfill within the pavement section should conform to the material and com- paction requirements of the adjacent pavement section. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7. Drainage 24S-SA Page S Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to structures so as to direct surface water away from foundations and slabs toward suitable discharge facilities. Ponding of surfpce water should not be allowed adjacent to structures or on pave- ments. 8. Construction Observation Variations in soil conditions are possible and may be encountered during construction. In order to permit correlation between the preliminary soil data and the actual soil conditions encountered during construction and so as to aSsure conformance with the plans and specifications as originally contemplated, it is essential that the soiJ engi- neer be retained to perform on-site review during the course of construction. All earthwork should be performed under the observation of the soil engineer's repre- sentative to assure proper site preparation, selection of satisfactory fill materials, as well as placement and compaction of the fills. Sufficient notification prior to earthwork operations is essential to make certain that the work will be properly observed. All earthwork should be performed in accordance with the guide earth- work specifications presented in Appendix C. It should be pointed out, however, that the guide specifications are only general in nature and the actual job specifica- tions should also incorporate all requirements contained in the text of this report. B. Foundations 1. Footings We recommend that the proposed single-story -buildings be supported on conventional individual spread and/or continuous footing foundations bearing on undisturbed natural soil and/or well compacted fill material. All footings should be founded at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade. Footings located adjacent to the tops of slopes should be extended sufficiently deep so as to provide at least S feet of horizontal cover between the slope face and outside edge of the footing at the footing bearing level. At the above recommended depths footings may be designed for allowable bearing pressures of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) for combined dead and live loads and 4,000 psf for all loads, including wind or seismic. The footings should, however, have a minimum width of 12 inches. All continuous footings should contain top and bottom reinforcement to provide structural continuity and to permit spanning of local irregularities. Settlements under building loads are expected to be within tolerable limits for the proposed structures. We estimate that post-construction differential settlements across anyone building will not exceed 1 inch,. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Siabs-On-Grade 245-5A Page 6 Concrete slabs-on-grade may be supported directly on compacted fill and/or natural soil prepared as recommended previously in Item A.2u "Subgrade Preparation. II In areas where moisture-sensitive floor coverings are to be utilized and in other areas where floor dampness would be undesirable, we recommend that consideration be given to providing an impermeable membrane beneath the slabs. The membrane should be covered with 2 inches of sand to protect it during construction. The sand should be lightly moistened just prior to placing the concrete. From a soil engineering standpoint and assuming that there is no structural heed for reinforcement in the slabs, it is our opinion that wire mesh in the slabs is unnecessary with the understanding that the slabs will be subject to more extensive cracking due to concrete shrinkage. 3.' Retaining Walls Any proposed retaining walls as well as truck loading dock walls must be designed to resist lateral earth pressures and any addit-ional lateral pressures caused by surcharge loads on the adjoining retained surface. We recommend that unrestrained (canti- lever) walls be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). We recommend that restrained walls be designed for an equivalent fluid pres- sure of 30 pef pl'us an additional uniform lateral pressure 'of 5H pounds per square foot where H = the height Qf backfill above the top of the wall footing in feet. Wherever walls will be subjected to surcharge loads, they should also be designed for an addi- tional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-third the anticipated surcharge pressure in the case of unrestrained walls and one-half the anti cipated surcharge pressure in the case of restrained walls. The preceding design pressures are for a level backfill condition and assume that there is sufficient drainage behind the walls to prevent the build-up of hydrostatic pressures from surface water infiltration. Adequate drainage may be provided by means of weep holes with permeable material installed behind the walls or ,by means of a system of subdrains. Backfill placed behind the walls sho""ld be compacted to a minimum degree of com- paction of 90 percent using light compaction equipment. If heavy equipment is used, the walls should be appropriately temporarily braced. Retaining walls should be supported on footing foundations designed in accordance with the recommendations presented previously under Item B.1., II Footings • II Lateral load resistance for the walls can be developed in accordance with the recQmmenda- ti ons presented under Item B.4., II Lateral Loads ~ II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4. Lateral Loads 245-5A Page 7 Lateral load resistance for the buildings and retaining walls supported on footing founda- tions may be developed in friction between the foundation bottoms and the supporting subgrade. An allowable friction coefficient of 0.40 is considered applicable. An additional allowable passive pressure equal to an equivalent f1vid weight of 400 pounds per cubic foot acting against the foundations may be used in design provided the foot- ings are poured neat against the adjacent undisturbed native soils and/or compacted fill materials. C. Pavements A bulk sample representative of the typical surface soils at the site was obtained and an R{Resistance}-value test performed to evaluate the pavement subgrade quality of the on-site soils. The results of the test are attached and indicate a design R-value of 80. Based on traffic indices for different pavement loading requirements and pavement lives and assuming that the upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade soil will have a minimum R-value of 50 as recommended under Item A.3., "Materials for Fill," we have devel- oped the following recommended pavement sections using Procedure 301-F of the State of California, Department of Transportation. The four-inch base course thickness recommended in the following table is, in our opinion, the minimum thickness that can be effectively placed and controlled during construction. TABLE 1 RECOMMENDED ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTIONS Location Automobile Parking and Minor Traffic Channels Major Automobile Traffic Channels Areas subject to loadings from heavy trucks (such as trash trucks) Asphalt Concrete (Inches) 2 2-1~ 3 Pavement Components Class 2 Aggregate Base Total Th i ckness (Inches) {Inches} 4 6 4 6-1/2 4 7 Asphalt concrete, aggregate base, and preparation of the subgrade should conform to and be placed in accordance with the requirements of the State of California, Department . of Transportation, Standard Specifications, Janugry 1978 edition, .except that the test method for compaction should be determined by ASTM 01557-78. Preparation of the subgrade and placement of the base material should be performed under the observation of the soil engi neerls representative. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 24S-SA Page 8 If decomposed granite is used in lieu of Class 2 Aggregate Base, the asphalt concrete thicknesses recommended above should be increased by 1/2 inch. Decomposed granite for use as base material should have a minimum R-value of 73 and a minimum sand equivalent of 30. ------------------- .." t-.):lD ~e Olm I n Ol-t »z 9 b1l1a ao ~at "1ft ~lIa R-e 6''11 §lIa g.:.. !i ~:.. 2.'" 8'" nO 2.n lS; ~. "' ~'" '"C :;:0 o ()'"C Q 0 » :::!.. VI -0& 0 ~ ., Q -I -. 0 a... O:J m ~ .. C "'C cgmQ~ s;: o -z Z :;';m ----,I~ ~ -. "'C :!! IQ ~ cg A ; -.0 LEGEND « EB-1. INTERSTATE 5 A.T. & S.F. RAILWAY Indicates approximate location of exploratory boring. Approximate Scalle (Feet) i : I .1 o 100200 400 , , Base: A land use plan entitled IIProposed Business Park, Carlsbad, California, II prepared by How.ard F. Thompson AlA & . Associ ate~, dated 1/17/80. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION A-1 The field investigation consisted of a surface reconnaissance and a subsurface exploration program using a truck-mounted continuous fl ight auger. Eleven explorato.ry borings were drilled on April 5, 1980 to a maximum depth of 20 feet at the approximate locations shown on the Site Plan, Figure 1. The soils encountered in the borings were continuously logged in the field by our geologist and described in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487). The boring locations indicated on the sHe plan were estimated from a land use plan entitled "Proposed Business Park, Carisbad,California, II prepared by Howard F. Thompson AlA & Associates, dated January 17, 1980. Representative samples were obtained from the exploratory borings at selected depths ap- propriate to the investigation. All samples were returned to our laboratory for eval ua- tion and testing. Standard penetration resistance blow counts were obtained by driving a 2-inch O. D. split spoon sampler with a 140-pound hammer dropping through a 30-inch free fall. The sampler was driven a maximum of 18 inches and the number of blows re- corded for each 6-inch interval. The blows per foot recorded on the boring logs represent the accumulated number of blows that were required to drive the last 12 inches. Samples contained in liners were obtained by driving a 2.5-inch I.D. California sampler 18 inches into the soil using a 140-pound hammer. Boring log notations for the standard split spoon and Cal ifornia samplers are indicated below. ~ Standard Split Spoon Sampler California Sampler The boring logs show our interpretation of the subsurface conditions on the date and at the locations indicated, and it is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. I PRIMARY DIVISIONS GROUP SECONDARY DIVISIONS SYMBOL I GRAVELS CLEAN GW Well graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no ...J GRAVELS fines . ~ ~\ MORE THAN HALF (LESS THAN Poorly 9raded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or 0:0 GP Wo 5% FINES) no fmes. 0 ~N OF COARSE I I I (f) ~d FRACTION IS GRAVEL GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. Cl u..Z W LARGER THAN WITH w Oz N FINES GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. Z u..< en NO.4 SIEVE ~ ...J:I: w etl-> SANDS CLEAN SW Well graded sands, gravelly sands. little or no fines. t!) :I: w SANDS 0: en w ZW MORE THAN HALF (LESS THAN (f) <C) SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines. :I: 0: 5% FINES) 0: 1-< OF COARSE 8 ...J W FRACTION IS SANDS SM Silty sand.s, sand-silt mixtures, non-plastic fines. a: en 0-SMALLER THAN WITH ~ NO.4 SIEVE FINES SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures, plastic fines. I I I W SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inor~anic 'silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or ~ u.. a: N c ayey fine sands or clayey. silts with slight plasticity. ow en 5 -' CL 'Inor~anic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly -' W LIQUID LIMIT IS en u..< > cays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. ...J~ W LESS THAN 50% 0 ~en en Ot Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. w Z Zen 0 ~ et-0 MH Inorganic silts micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or ::I:...J N SILTS AND CLAYS I-~ d Silty soils, 'elastic silts. t!) wa: Z o:W LIQUID LIMIT IS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays. w o~ Z Z ~~ < GREATER THAN 50% u: :I: OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic Silts. I- I HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils. DEFINITION OF TERMS I U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS 200 40 10 4 3/411 311 1211 SAND GRAVEL I SILTS AND CLAYS I I J COARSE COBBLES BOULDERS FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE GRAIN S.lZES I SANDS,GRAVELS AND BLOWS/FOOT t CLAYS AND STRENGTH'" BLOWS/FOOT t NON-PLASTIC SILTS PLASTIC SILTS I I VERY LOOSE 0-4 VERY SOFT 0 -1/4 o -2 LOOSE 4 -10 SOFT 1/4 -1/2 2 - 4 FIRM 112 -1 4 -~ MEDIUM DENSE 10 -30 STIFF 1 - 2 8 -16 DENSE ~-50 VERY STIFF 2 - 4 16 -32 VERY DENSE CNER 50 HARD OVER 4 OVER 32 I RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY I t Number of blows of 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive. a 2 inch 0.0. (1-3/8 inch 1.0,) split spoon (ASTM 0-1586). f.lJnconfined compressive strength in tons/sq. ft. as determined by laboratory testing or approximated by the standard penetration test (ASTM 0-1586), pocket penetrometer, tor vane, or visual observation. I KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORING LOGS I Unified Soil Classification System CASTM 0-2487) ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK ConsulllOg SOIl. FoundOlion & Geologlcol Engineers Carlsbad, California I PROJECT NO. DATE 245-5A April 1980 Figure A-l I DRILL RIG Continuous Flight Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ---LOGGED BY JB I DEPTH TO GROUNQWATER 51 (see note) BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DATE DRILLED 4/5/80 DESCRIPTION ·AND CLASSIFICATION Zw--' DO W OW 001-J:Z W>J: a: ~ZLL a:-a:t;~-Z iii!- DEPTH W «' w .... -cnCl-..J a: .... cn I-z <za:"" LL.wzLL.. Q. 1-(J)3: <W W wo (/) za:w(J) 1 SYM-SOIL (FEET) ~ ~iiig 3:!z ~a:I-~ oQ.a:~ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIST. < o~ .... BOL TYPE (J) ~l:!e 0 . In ~ Zo(J) 0 ::10 SILTY SAND brown medium SM ..... - I dense -1 -~ ..... -reddish I-2 -26 9 1 brown I-... -f-- I-3 - Note: Depth to groundwater >-- I measured at the time of >-4 . drilling. :sz f-.. 1-5- I·· I-- I-6 -J-.- I-- I 10 19 I-7 - I--1-'- l-S - I I--. l-S - I-- I (gravel) I--10- I-- I-11 - I gray dense I-.,. I-12 - I-- I very I-13 -tI 50 dense I-1611 19 - I-14 - I I-- 15 Bottom of Boring = 15 Feet I-- I I-- 1-. - ..... - I f-... f-... >-- I :-- Note: lhe stratification lines reprelent the approximol8 I-- bollndory b.tween moterial typel ond th. tronsition _y I-- I b. IlracNal. ., ,-. - EXPLORATORY BORING LOG I ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Cor>su/rlnp Soli. Foundot,on & Ge%picol Enpineers Carlsbad, CalifQrnia I PROJECT NO. .DATE BORING 245-5A April.1980 NO. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILL RIG Continuous Flight Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ---lOGGED BY JB DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 7' (see note) BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DATE DRillED 4/5/80 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ZW-' :0 W fil~:t: Qut: • :t:z a: I-Z ........ rr;: a:t;~-Z(I)I- DEPTH w -(I)e,,-..J «(I) Wz Q. ~Iii:t I-w <zo:"-U.WZLL wwocn zo:w(l) SYM-SOIL (FEET) :::!i ~iiig ~~ , iJ;1=1-~ OQ.a:~ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIST. < U:::!il- BOl TYPE (I) ~~e 0 cn~ Zo(l) U ::lu SILTY SAND brown ' medium SM ~ - dense. "'" 1 --..---- reddish -2 -19 10 Note: "S" denotes sack sample of brown ------, ~ 3 -S auger cuttings. ~ - ~ 4 - r-.. 1'-5- ~ - Note: Depth to groundwater ,... 6 -~ ~ -- measured at the time of ,... 7 -42 drilling. --I'---l -8 - -- -9 - -- -10- .. ~ - -11 - -- gray -12 - -- -13 - --~ dense ~ 14 -47 ~ - 15 Bottom of Boring = 15 Feet ~ - -- -- -- ~ -' ~. - ~ - ~ - -- -- ~--... EXPLORATORY BORJNG LOG ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES PROPOSED BUSI NESS PARK Consul"ng So,1. Foundallon & Geological Engineers Carlsbad Cali.fornia PROJECT NO. DATE BORING 245-5A April 1980 NO. 2 I 1 1 1 1 I I I -I I 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 DRILL RIG Continuous Flight Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ---LOGGED BY JB DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 6' (see note) BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DATE DRILLED 4/5/80 . . DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION zw-.. W OW Qut . :x:z w>:x: Ir a:;: Ir ~~_ Z iiP- DEPTH w I-z ...... -II)CJ- ~ «II) Wz <za:1L ILWZ IL Q. e:lii~ I-w Wwoll) zlrwlI) SYM-SOIL (FEET) :l; ~iiig ~lZ ~lrl-~ oQ.lr~ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIST. < U:l;1- BOL TYPE II) wW Ill 0 1->-Zoll) Q.1r~ 0 (1)111 =>0 SILTY SAND brown loose SM ~ - ~ 1 -~ ~ - ~ 2 -8 reddish medium ~ - h 3 - brown dense ~ 17 13 - ~ 4 -1-....... ~ .- ~5- l£ ~ - Note: Depth to groundwater I-6 -r-r- measured at the time of ~ - drilling. ~ 7 -24 17 ~--f-- I-8 - ~ - ~ 9 - ~ - ~10- ~ - (gravel) ~ 11 - I-- dense ~ 12 -~ 87 gray I--~II 13 - CLAYEY SAND gray dense SC ~ I-- I-14 - ~ ... 1-15- I-- I-16 - ~ - ~ 17 ... Note: IIX" denotes jar sample ~ ... taken from auger cuttings. ~ 18 -. ~ - Note: The .Iratificatian lin .. r.pr ••• nl Ih. app",,<imal. ~ 19 -X bol/fldary between material typ •• and Ihe Iran.ilian may ~ - be gradual. 20 Bottom otBonng ~:.!u reet .' ~~' .. EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES PROPOSED BUSI NESS PARK Consu/,mg SOIl. Foundotlon & Geologlcol Engmeers Carlsbad, Cal ifornia PROJECT NO. DATE BORING 245-5A April 1980 NO. 3 I DRILL RIG Continuous FIiQht Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ---LOGGED BY JB 'I DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER Not Established BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DATE DRILLED 4/5/80 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION zw~ .. w OW a: Q0t:: 0 :t:z w>:t: ... Z, a;-a:t;~-zCi51- DEPTH W w'" -cn Cl -.... «U) I-z <za;u.. LLWZLL I n. ~~~ <W wwoU) ,Z a: w til SYM-SOIL (FEEJ) ~ ~ii5g ~~ ilia: ... ~ on.a:~ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIST. < o~ ... BOL TYPE til ~~s 0 t;~ Zotll 0 :;'0 SILTY SAND brown loose SM """ - I I-1 -~ reddish medium ~ -25 12 I brown dense I-2 ,- """ -f---' """ 3 - I-- I """ 4 - brown loose -.. -5- I -- -6 ---,-- I-- I I-7 -2 ~ -f-'-- -8 -~ I -36 gray dense ~ 9 - """ -f-I- I 10 Bottom of Boring = 10 Feet I-- -,. - I I-- ~ - """ - I I-- '-- I-- I """ - ~ - """ - I r - I-- """ - I -- " - - -- I -- """ - ~ - I : .. , ....... EXPLORATORY So'RING LOG I 'ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Consu/'lng So". Foundotion & Geologlcol Engineers Carlsbad, California I PROJECT NO. DATE BORING 245-5A April 1980 NO. 4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRILL RIG Continuous Flight Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ---LOGGED BY JB DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 4-1/2 '(see note) BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DATE DRILLED 4/5/80 . DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION zw-:0 w OW 20t . :rZ w>:r a: a:;: Z iiP-W .... Z, a::;~ ~. DEPTH ..J «II) Wz -",el- 0.. ~t;~ .... w <za:"" LLUJZu.. wwo'" za:w'" SYM-SOIL (FEET) ~ ~u;g ~!Z iJ5a: .... !!:. Oo..a:!!:. DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIST. < o~ .... BOL TYPE '" wW III 0 ....> zo'" o..a:~ 0, "'III :>0 SILTY SAND brown medium SM f-.. dense ~ 1 - f--, I-2 .. 1-.- reddish f-- brown 21 13 I-3 .. I--f-L- ~ f-4 .. Note: Depth to groundwater ~ .. measured at the time of r-5- drill ing. I-.. I-6 .. I-.. I-7 .. ~ I-.. l-S .. 47 21 I-.. ~ I-9 .. f-.. .. -10- -.. I-11 - ~ .. CLAYEY SAND dense SC 12 .. gray f-.. ~ 13 .. -- I-14 .. I-.. 15 Bottom of Boring = 15 Feet ~ .. r-- f-.. I-.. I-- f-- I-.. I-- f--Nole: The ,tratification lin •• r.pr ••• nl th. appraltimat. boundary betw •• n malerial typ.' and Ih. Irani; lion may I--' - be gradual. .. -;.1 -:- EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Consu/hng So". Foundotion 8, Geologlcol Engineers Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO. DATE BORING 245'-5A April 1980 NO. 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRill RIG Continuous Flight Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ---lOGGED BY JB DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER Not Established BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DATE DRilLED 4/5/80 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION zw-.. W OW 2ut:: . :rz w>:r a: a:-Zw .... DEPTH w .... z ...... w .... a: l:;~--(I)Cl--" «(I) .... z <za:"-Ll...UJzL&.. 0-I=t;~ <w "'wo(l) za:w(l) SYM-SOIL (FEET) ::Ii ~ing ~!Z iJja: .... ~ Oo-a:~ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIST. < u::!i .... BOl TYPE (I) ~~~ 0 ....>-z o~(I) u (1)10 ::I u . SILTY SAND dark loose-SM --brown medium -1 - Note: liS II c;lenotes sack sample dense -- taken from auger cuttings. reddish -2 .... brown r--s --3 - , -- -4 - -- 5 Bottom of Boring = 5 Feet -- -- - I-- -- -- -..; -- -- -- I-- ----. -- -- -- -- I-- I-- -- ---.,.. -- -- I-- I-- -- r-- -- -- '0 • ~. EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES PROPOSED BUSI NESS PARK Consulrmg SOIl, FoundatIon & GeologIcal Engineers Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO. DATE BORING 245-5A April 1980 NO. 6 I DRILL RIG Continuous Flight Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ---LOGGED BY JB I DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 3-1/2' (see note BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DATE DRILLED 4/5/80 Zw-, o· w OW DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Q0t:: . rZ w>r a: a:-a: ~~_ Z iiP- DEPTH W ... z ....... w~. -",Cl-..J «en ;:Sffi~:li U-wzlL. 11. ::lii~ ~I!: za:w'" I (FEET) ~ iJia: ... ~ OI1.a:~ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS SYM-COLOR CONSIST. SOIL < ~Ciig ~z o~ ... BOL TYPE '" ~~s. 0 lii~ zoen 0 =>0 SilTY SAND dark loose SM f-- I brown f-1 - f-- reddish medium f-2 -1-.- I brown dense --11 14 Note: Depth to groundwater ~ -3 - I measured at the time of --"-"- grilling. -4 - -- r-5- I I--- f-6 - f-- I \ f-7 =~ f-53. 17 I f-a '--'--- -9 - I-- I 1-10- .1-- f-11 - I brown dense I--, f-12'..;. I-- I f-13 - ~ - t-14 - I Note: "x" denotes jar sample I-- t-15-x taken from auger cuttings. - I CLAYEY SAND gray very SC I-16 -I 50 dense I--~II f-17 - I 1-, - f-1a - t-- I Not.: Th. stratification linel r.pr ... nt lhe approxlmal. ' I-19 - boundary betw •• n mal.,ial typ.l and 1M tranlilion may r--II. gradual. 20 I Bottom of Boring = 20 Feet ." EXPLORATORY BORING LOG I ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Const//rlng Sor/. Foundalran ct Geo/ogrcol Engineers Carlsbad. Cal ifornia I PROJECT NO. DATE BORING 245-5A April 1980 NO, 7 1 1 ·1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I DRILl, RIG Continuous Flight Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ---LOGGED BY JB DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 6' (see note) BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DATE DRILI,.Ef) 4/5/80 DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ZW~ :0 w OW Qut . J:Z W:>J: a: rr;: zu;1- DEPTH W ~ ~ Ii) a: 0~--",CI-~ ...J Wz «zrr'" u..wzL&.. 0.. g:t;~ "'w wwo'" ,z 0: w'" SYM-SOIL (FEET) ::;: ~u;g ~~ ilirr ... ~ ,00.. 0: ~ DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS COLOR CONSIST. « u::;:1- BOl TYPE '" wWm 0 Iii~ zo'" 0..0:_ U ~:J u SILTY SAND brown loose SM f-- f-1 - ..... - -2 -R --19 f-3 - f--'---' r-4 - f- reddish medium 1-5- 'Sl brown dense f-- Note: Depth to groundwater -6 - measured at the time of --- drilling. f-7 - f-- f-8 - f---,.- ~ 9 - gray dense f--36 10 Bottom of Boring -10 Feet f-.... f-- - - -- -- - - -- -- -- -- - - -.- -- ---- ..... - ,.. - -- -- -- " EXPLORATORY BORING LOG ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Consullmg 50.1. Foundo"on & Geo/og/col Engineers Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO. DATE BORING 24S-SA April 1980 NO. 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRIll RIG Continuous Flight Auger SURFACE ELEVATION lOGGED BY DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 5' (see note) BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DATE DRillED DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ~ ________________ ------------~---r------r-------~~ DEPTH (FEET) DESCRIPTION AND. REMARKS SILTY SAND Note: Depth to groundwater measured at the time of drill ing ° CLAYEY SAND SYM-COLOR BOl brown ~ °h graYls brown CONSIST. SOil TYPE SM f--loose medium dense - 1 -f-r- --9 I-2 - f--t-'- I-3 - f-- - 4 - - ~: =~ 57 I-. -I'----' i-7 - '-- I-8 - I-- I-9 - I-- f-10 - i-- I-11 - I-- I-12 -f-r- I-- I-13 - i--f-...... I-14 - I-- 60 ----~-------+---4-15-gray dense SC I-_ very dense I-16 - i-- I-17 - I-- I-18 - I--t8 5~1I I-19 -2 Not.: Th. ,lralificatian lin., r.p,.,.nl th. appn:)I<imol. boundary b."' .. n mol.rial typ.' and ,h. I,an,ilian may i-- o o a:;: Wz ~w ~!Z o o 11 14 JB 4/5/80 b. gradual. ~~====~~====~==========F=~====~======~==~20-i==*===~===F====*===~ D nf Bnrina -'O-FF!F!t ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Consullmg 50,1. FoundOhon & Geolog,col Engineers EXPLORATORY BORING LOG PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Carlsbad, California t-_P_R_O_JE_C_T_N_O_. __ -+ ___ D_A_T_E ____ --1 BORING 245-5A April 1980 NO. 9 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I DRill RIG Continuous FI ight Auger SURFACE ELEVATION DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 61 (see note) BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION h-____________________________ r--. ______ ~------T-~ DEPTH DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS SYM· COLOR BOl CONSIST. SOIL TYPE (FEET) SILTY SAND brown reddish . brown medium SM I-- dense -- I-2 - I---f--L- I-3 - .... - - 4 -- 1-5- .... - LOGGED BY DATE DRILLED 16 .. . a:;: W z ~UJ ~!Z o u Note: Depth to groundwater measured at the time of drilling. orangish brown- gray ~ : =~ 44 f....: -'---' 16 (gravel) grqy very dense I-8 - I-.:. I-9 - I-- '-10 - .... - I-11 - I-- I-12 - I-- I-13 - ~ '':[ 66 JB 4/5/80 ~====~~~==~~======~=i====~====~===r15~~===*==~==~==~ Bottom of Boring = 15 Feet I-- ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Consul/mg So". Foundo/ion & GeologIcal Engineers r-- I-- I-- .... - I-- 1--' - .... - I-- I-- EXPLORATORY BORING LOG PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Carlsbad, California r-__ P_RO_J..,..E_C_T_N_O_. _+-__ D_A_T_E ___ ---l BORING 245-5A April 1980 NO. 10 'I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I DRill RIG Continuous Flight Auger SURFACE ELEVATION ---lOGGED BY DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER 6-1/2' (see note) BORING DIAMETER 6 Inches DATE DRilLED DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION ~ __________________________ ~-r--~----~r-------r-~DEPTH (FEET) DESCRIPTION AND REMARKS SILTY SAND Note: Depth to groundwater measured at the time of drill ing. (gravel) CLAYEY SAND SYM-COLOR BOl brown reddish brown grayish brown gray CONSIST. SOil TYPE medium dense SM I-- dense dense SC .... 1 - .... - = 2 N 34 I-3 -1;\ I--I'----' I-4 - I-.. 1-5- - - - 6 - -- t-7 -f-r- t-- I-8 - I---- ... 9 -... - -10- t-- I-11 - t-- I-12 -- I-- 34 -13 -R50 - -~" t-14 _~ 6 I-- 1-15- I-- I-16 - ... - I-17 - -- 18 - -- Nole: The uralificatlan lines represent lhe approxlmale -1 9 - bouna.ry betw .. n material types and the transition may - - .. . 0:;:-W z "'w ~!Z o () 10 18 JB 4/5/80 be gradual. ~~==~~~==~~~======~~F=====*=====~===t-20~==F===F===*===~==~ Rnttom ~()f ~Bori no = 20 Feet ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES Consu/tmg Soil. Foundo"on & Geologlcol Engineers EXPLORATORY BORING LOG PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Carlsbad, California t-__ P_RO_J_E_C_T_N_O_._-+-___ D_A_T_E ___ ~ BORING 245-5A April 1980 NO. 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING B-1 The natural water content was determined on selected samples and is recorded on the boring logs at the appropriate sample depths. Eleven No. 200 sieve tests were performed on selected samples of the subsurface soils to aid in classifying the materials according to the Unified Soil Classification System. The results of these tests are presented in Table B-1. One laboratory compaction test (ASTM 01557-78) was performed on a representative bulk sample of the on-site soils. The results of this test are presented on Figure B-1. Three direct shear tests were performed on samples of the subsurface soi Is contained in I iners and another was performed on 'a sample remolded to approximately 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. The samples were sheared at a constant rate under various surcharge pressures; failure was taken at the peak shear stress. The results of the tests are presented on Figures B-2, B-3, B-4, and B-5. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Exploratory Boring No. 1 1 2 4 5 7 7 9 9 10 11 245-5A TABLE B-1 RESULTS OF NO. 200 SIEVE TESTS Sample Depth Percent Passing (Feet) Sample Descripti.on No. 200 Si eve 2 SILTY SAND (SM) 24 13 SILTY SAND (SM) 33 2 . SILTY SAND (SM) 25 2 SILTY SAND (SM) . 26 3 SILTY SAND (SM) 28 3 SilTY SAND (SM) 23 8 SilTY SAND (SM) 18 2 SilTY SAND (SM) 24 6 SILTY SAND (SM) 24 2 SILTY SAND (SM) 26 3 SILTY SAND (SM) 21 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - Boring DEPTH SPECIFIC LIOUID No. 1FT,) SAMPLE DE S C RIP T ION GRAVITY LIMIT (0/01 2 3 SILTY SAND (SM), reddish brown ------ , Zero Air Voids Curve Specific Gravity = 2.70 135 \ \ J / f-.. \-- (~ \ \ 130 (~ 1\ .... / "i\ \ 0 II \ \ a. ~ \ \ >-r-125 I (. :) \ -t/) / z \ w r. \ \ c 'i \ >-/ 1\ a: 0 \ 120 f\ \ 1\ \ 115 0 [\ 5 10 .15 20 25 -__ '~_"'A~ . -" MOISTURE CONTENT 0/0 . .. OPTIMUM WATER CONTENT % 8.5 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, pef 131.7 TEST DESIGNATION ASTM 01557-78 COMPACTION TEST RESULTS R08ERT PRATER ASSOCIATES PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Consultmg 5011. Foundotlon & Geologlcol Eng meers Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE B-1 245-5A April1980 " PLA"STIC INDEX . --- - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4.0 3.5 k ( / / / / G::-oo ~ 3.0 V -00 00 i w a: l-V 00 a: <t /' ~ 2.5 V 00 / / / 2.0 /~ P v / // 1.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 NORMALPRESSURE(KS~ SAMPLE DATA TEST DATA DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND (SM)" reddish TEST NUMBER 1 2 3 " brown NORMAL PRESSURE (KSF) 0.50 1.50 2.50 SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1.93 2.81 3.54 BORING NO.: 1 INITIAL H20 CONTENT ("!o) 9 9 9 DEPTH (ft.): 2 I ELEVATION (ft): ---FINAL H20 CONTENT ("!o) 12 12 12 TEST RESULTS INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCF) 123.1 123.1 123.1 APPARENT COHESION (e): 1.57 ksf FINAL DRY DENSITY (PCF) --------- APPARENT ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION (4)): 3~: STRAIN RATE: 0.02 inches/minute approx.) Note: Test was performed on a sample recovered with a California sampler. Sample was allowed to saturate before shearing. -. -. -- DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK ConsultlOg $011. Foundollon t Geologicol Engineers Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO. DATE 245-5A April 1980 Figure B-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.0 ) V 2.5 V L -V u... en ~ 2.0 r en en / w a: V I-en / a: < w 1.5 :J: V en /' j V 1.0 V ,/ // 0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 NORMALPRESSURE(KS~ SAMPLE DATA TEST DATA DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND (SM), reddish TEST NUMBER 1 2 3 4 brown NORMAL PRESSURE (KSF) 0.50 1.50 2.50 SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1. 13 1.82 2.62 BORING NO.: 2 INITIAL H20 CONTENT ('Yo) 7 7 7 DEPTH (tt.): 3 I ELEVATION (tt): ---FINAL ~hO CONTENT ('Yo) 13 13 13 TEST RESULTS INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCF) 116.1 116. 1 116. 1 APPARENT COHESION (e): 0.74 ksf FINAL DRY DENSITY (PCF) --------- APPARENT ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION (~): 370 STRAIN RATE: 0.02 inche~minute (approx.) Note: T est was performed on a sample remolded to approximately 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density. Sample was allowed to ~aturate before shearing. -,..". " DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Consu/hng Soil. foundahon & Geological Engineers Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO. DATE Figure B-3 245-5A April 1980 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3.0 ~ v D 2.5 V V /' ( V LL ./ CI) ~ 2.0 V CI) / CI) UJ a: .... /V CI) a: ct UJ 1.5 r :c CI) k v/ / / 1.0 0.5 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 NORMALPRESSURE(KS~ SAMPLE DATA TEST DATA DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND (SM)" reddish TEST NUMBER 1 2 3 " brown NORMALPRESSURE~S~ 0.50 1.50 2.50 SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1.30 2. 18 2.84- BORING NO,: 4 INITIAL H20 CONTENT ("!o) 12 12 12 DEPTH (11.): 2 J ELEVATION (II): ---FINAL H20 CONTENT ("!o) 14 14 14 TEST RESULTS INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCF) 121.0 121 0 121 0 APPARENT COHESION (C): 0.97 ksf FINAL DRY DENSITY (PCF) --- ------ APPARENT ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION (~): 38° STRAIN RATE: 0.02 inches/minute apE!ox·l Note: Test was performed on a sample recovered with a California sampler. Sample was allowed to saturate before shearing. "-,,.--,,--- DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIATES PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Consulting Soil. Foundation & Geological Engineers Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO. DATE 245-5A April 1980 Figure B-4 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I I I 5.0 , 4.0 LL ( V en ~ 3.0 [7 en en / w a: t-V en ./ a: <: ~ 2.0 / en / /f. D' / 1.0 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4:0 5.0 -6.0 NORMALPRESSURE(KS~ SAMPLE DATA TEST DATA DESCRIPTION: SILTY SAND (SM), reddish TEST NUMBER 1 2 3 4 brown NORMAL PRESSURE (KSF) 0.50 1.50 2.50 SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF) 1.42 2. 18 .3.13 BORING NO.: 11 INITIAL H20 CONTENT ('Yo) 10 10 10 DEPTH (fl.): 2-1/2 1 ELEVATION (II): ---FINAL H20 CONTENT ('Yo) 15 15 15 TEST RESULTS INITIAL DRY DENSITY (PCF) 1162 1116.2 116.2 APPARENT COHESION (e): 0.96 ksf FINAL DRY DENSITY (PCF) --------- APPARENT ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION (4)): 400 STRAIN RATE: 0.02 inches/minute approx. ) Note: Test was performed on a sample recovered with a ,California sampler. Sample was allowed to saturate before shearin~. ", DIRECT SHEAR TEST DATA ROBERT PRATER ASSOCIAtES PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK Consulflng Soil. Foundation & Ge%glcal Engineers Carlsbad, Cal ifornia PROJECT NO. DATE 245-5A April 1980 Figure B-5 FORM II -!p I _, Testing Engineers-San Diego . ~ • I :;.~ ~ J. 3467 Kurtz St., P.O. Box 80985, San Diego, Ca. 92138 (714) 225-9641 ~ , ~) ~ '::i ~-~ rt -1903 West Vista Way, Unit B,-Vista, California 92083 (714)758-3730 , .~~ ~ BORATORY NUMBER SD35..,.1415 REPORT OF SOIL TESTS DATE April 18~ 1980 JOfATA: File 671 SAMPLE DATA: Sample sub~itted to laboratory on April 11~ 1980, PROJECT: identified as 245-5A, EB-6 .. , CLIT: 2~5t- Robert Prater Associates - 10505 'Roselle Street rt San Diego, CA 92141 k-VALUE DATA BEARING VALUE (SAN DIEGO CITY METHOD) COMPACTED AND, SOAKED FOUR DAYS ~OIACTOR PRESS -P.SJ. A B C D 350 350 350 350 PENETRATION STANDARD "OF INCHES P.S •. 1. P.S.I. STANDARD ~ • COMPACTION -"%. 0.1 1000 10.2 9.4 8.5 8.9 0.2 1500 . 0.3 1990 DENSITY -I./Cu. FT. 124.5 125.5 124.6 124.8 0.4 2300 . EiUE -STABILOMETER 0.5 2,,00 67 76 81 80 MOISTURE AFTER SOAKING •••.••••••• _ •••••••• .." Ex, t PRESSURE· P.S.I. 80 170 530 320 EXPANSION. '.' ............................. " ~ . ST) • THICK -FEET 0.48 0.34 0.27 0.29 > • COMPACTION TEST: ::IN. PRESS. THICK-FEET 0 0 0.13 0.03 METHOD -CALIFORNIA BEARING OPTIMUM MOISTURE; (ApPARENT) ••••••.••• ' •• ~ • " T. I. (ASSUMED) .. " 4.5 OPTIMUM DRY DENSITY. LBS'/CU. FT. (ApPAR'ENT) •• ~Y STAB.'. 3.00 P'S.I. E~UD. 80 ~ & ..J PLASTIC CHARACTERISTICS: ;; ~ . ~c1 {Y ExPA.SOON PRESSUR' • 84 LIQUID LIMIT - 80 PLASTIC L',M,T -, AT EOUILIBRIUM . F=I . PLASTICITY INDEX - AND EQUIVALENT = II REPORTED To: (1) Robert Prater Assocaites I -. I . ' .. . ' I TESTING ENG'~'EGO REVIEWED BY . / I iIIc 0!- THC:pi ThomaS H. Cha~an, R.E.fl l?~R7. ...... > -:-, .,~" ..... ~ . .' , .. • ~_ ~~h' ' •• n-, __ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. GENERAL A. Scope of Work APPENDIX C GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS -SITE EARTHWORK FOR PROPOSED BUSINESS PARK CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA C-1 , These specifications and applicoble plans pertain to and include all site earthwork includ- ing, but not limited to, the furnishing of all labor, tools, and equipment necessary for site clearing and stripping, disposal of excess materials, excavation, preparation of foundation materials for receiving fill, and placement and compaction of fill to the lines and grades shown on the project grading plans. B. Performance The Contractor warrants all work to be performed and all materials to be furnished under this contract against defects in materials or workmanship for a period of year{s} from the date of written acceptance of the entire construction work by the Owner. Upon written notice of any defect in materials or workmanship during said year period, the Contractor shall, at the option of the Owner, repair or replace said defect and-any -damage to other work caused by or resulting from such defect without cost to the Owner. This shall not limit any rights of the Owner under the "acceptance and inspectionll clause of this contract. The Contractor shall be responsible for the satisfactory completion of all site earthwork in accordance with the project plans and specifications. This work shall be observed and tested by a representative of Robert Prater Associates, hereinafter known as the Soil Engineer. Both the Soil Engineer and the Architect/Engineer are the Owner's representatives. If the Contractor should fail to meet the technical or design requirements embodied in this document and on the applicable plans, he shall make the necessary readjustments until all work is deemed satisfactory as determined by the Soil Engineer and the Architect/Engineer. No deviation from the specifications shall be made except upon written approval of the Soil Engineer or Architect/Engineer. No site earthwork shall be performed without the physical presence or approval of the Soil Engineer. The Contractor shall nofify the Soil Engineer at least 24 hours prior to commencement of any aspect of the site earthwork. The Soil Engineer shall be the Owner's representative to observe the earthwork operations during the site preparation work and placement and compaction of fills. He shall make I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C-2 enough visits to the site to familiarize himself generally with the progress and quality of the work. He shall make a sufficient number of tests and/or observations fo enable him to form an opinion regarding the adequacy of the site preparation, the acceptability of the fill material, and the extent to which the compaction of the fill, as placed, meets the specification requirements. Any fill that does not meet the specification requirements shall be removed and/or recompacted until the requirements are satisfied. In accordance with generally accepted construction practices, the Contractor shall be solely and completely responsible for working conditions at the job site, including safety of all persons and property during performance of the work. This requirement shall apply continuously dnd shall not be limited to normal working hours. Any construction review of the Contractor's performance conducted by the Soil Engineer is not intended to include review of the adequacy of the Contractor's safety measures in, on or near the construction site. Upon completion of the construction work, the Contractor shall certify that all compacted fills and foundations are in place at the correct locations, have the correct dimensions, are plumb, and have been constructed in accordance with sound construction practice. In addition, he shall certify that the materials used are of the types, quantity and quality required by the plans and specifications. C. Site and Foundation Condi tions The Contractor is presumed to have visited the site and to have familiarized himself with existing site conditions and the soil report titled "Soil Investigation, Proposed Business Park, Carlsbad, California," dated April 30, 1980. The Contractor shall not be relieved of liability under the contract for any loss sustained as a result of any variance between conditions indicated by or deduced from the soil report and the actual conditions encountered during the course of the work. The Contractor shall, upon becoming aware of surface and/or subsurface conditions differ- ing from those disclosed by the original soil investigation, promptly notify the Owner as to the nature and extent of the differing conditions, first verbally to permit verification of the conditions, and then in writing. No claim by the Contractor for any conditions differing from those anticipated in the plans and specifications and disclosed by the soil investigation will be allowed unless the Contractor has so notified the Owner, verbally and in writing, as required above, of such changed conditions. O. Dust Control The Contractor shall assume responsibility fo~ the alleviation or prevention of any dust nuisance on or about the site or off-site borrow areas. The Contractor shall assume all liability, including court costs of co-defendants, for all claims related to dust or wind- blown materials attributable to his work. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C-3 II. DEFINITION OF TERMS STRUCTURAL FILL -All soil or soil-rock material placed at the site in order to raise grades or to backfill excavations, and upon which the Soil Engineer has made sufficient tests and/or observations to enable him to issue a written statement that, in his opinion, the fill-has been placed and compacted in accordance with the specification requirements. ON-SITE MATERIAL -Material obtained from the required site excavations. IMPORT MATERIAL -Material obtained from off-site borrow areas. ASTM SPECIFICATIONS ;.. The 1979 edition of the American Society for Testing and Materials Standards. DEGREE OF COMPACTION -The ratio, expressed as a percentage, of the in-place dry density of the compacted fill material to the maximum dry density of the same material as determined by ASTM Test Designation D 1557 -78. III. CLEARING AND STRIPPING - The site shall be stripped of surface vegetation and cleared of all obstructions includ- ing any miscellaneous trash or debris that may be present at the time of construction. Holes resulting from the removal of any buried obstructions that extend below the pro- posed finish site grades shall be cleared and backfilled with suitable material compacted to the requirements for structural fill. The cleared and stripped materials shall be disposed of off-site. IV. EXCAVATION All excavation shall be performed to the lines and grades and within the tolerances specified on the project grading plans. All over-excavation below the grades speci- fied shall be backfilled at the Contractor's expense and shall be compacted in accor- dance with the specifications. The Contractor shall assume full responsibi lity for the stability of all temporary construction slopes at the site. V. SUBGRADE PREPARATION After the site has been cleared and stripped, the exposed subgrade soils in those areas to receive fi II and/or building improvements or pavements shall be scarified to a depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to the requirements for structural fill. Any isolated pockets of loose surface soils shall be removed and recompacted. The depth and areal exter:!t of removal shall be determined in the field by the Soil Engineer at the time of construction. All rut.s, hummocks, or other uneven surface features shall be removed by surface grading prior to placement of any fill materials. All areas whi ch are to receive fi II material shall be approved by the Soi I Engineer prior to the placement of any fi" material. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C-4 VI.. MATERIALS FOR FILL All on-site soils with an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume are in gen- eral suitable for reuse as fill. Fill material shall not, however, contain rocks or lumps over 6 inches in greatest dimension and not more than 15 percent larger than 2-1/2 inches. In addition, imported fill material shall be a non-expansive (less than 3 percent swell) granular soil with a' plasticity index of 12 or less. The upper 12 inches of fill material in pavement areas shaH consist of either natural on-site sandy soil or imported fill material having a minimum R(Resistance)-value of 50. All material for use as fi II shall be approved by the Soil Engineer prior to the placement of fi II. VII. PLACING AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIAL All structural fill shall be compacted by mechanical means to produce a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent as determined by ASTM Test Designation 01557-78. The upper 6 inches of the subgrade soils beneath pavements shall be compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 95 percent just prior to placing the pavement base rock layer. Field density tests shall be performed in accordance with either ASTM Test Designation 01556-64 (Sand-Cone Method) or ASTM Test Designation 02922-78 and 03017-78 (Nuclear Probe Method). The locations and number of field density tests and compliance with these specifications shall be the basis upon which satis- factory completion of work shall be judged by the Soil Engineer. Fill material shall be placed in uniform horizontal lifts not exceeding 8 inches in uncompacted thickness. Before compaction begins, the fi II shall be brought to a water c;ontent that will permit proper compaction by either: 1) aerating the fill if it is too wet, or 2) moistening the fill if it is too dry. Each lift shall be thoroughly mixed before compaction to insure a uniform distribution of moisture. Fill slopes shall be constructed so as to assure that a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent is attained to within 18 inches of the finished s'lope face and that a mini- mum degree of compaction of 85 percent is attained in the outer 18 inches. This shall be accomplished by "backrolling" with a sheepsfoot roller or other suitable equipment. Placement of fill near the tops of slopes shall-be carried out in such a manner ~s to assure that loose, uncompacted soils are not sloughed over the tops and allowed to accumulate on the slope face. ' It shall be the Contractor's obligation to take all measures deemed necessary during grading to provide erosion control devices in order to protect slope areas and adjacent properties from storm damage and flood hazard originating on this project. It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to maintain slopes in their as-graded form until all dopes; berms, and associated drainage devices are in satisfactory compliance with the project plans and specifications. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I C-5 VIII. TRENCH BACKFill Pipeline trenches shall be backfilled with compacted fill. Backfi II materials shall be placed in lift thicknesses appropriate to the type of compaction equipment utilized and compacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 85 percent by mechanical means. In a II slab.,.on-grade and pavement areas the upper portion of the backfi.ll to a depth equal to 1.5 times the trench width, but not less than 3 feet, shall be com- pacted to a minimum degree of compaction of 90 percent. In pavement areas, that portion of the trench backfill within the pavement section shall conform to the mate- rial and compaction requirements of the adjacent pavement section. IX. TREATMENT AFTER COMPLETION OF EARTHWORK After the earthwork operations have been completed and the Soil Engineer has finished his observation of the work, no further earthwork operations shall be performed except with the approval of and under the observation of the Soil Engineer. It shall be the responsibility of the Contractor to prevent erosion of freshly graded areas during construction and unti I such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed.