The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 81-10; Carlsbad Research Center Phase I; Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation; 1986-05-19- - - LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES SOIL ENGINEERING GEOLOGY GEOPHYSICS GROUND WATER HAZARDOUS WASTES PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PALOMAR CENTER, PHASE I CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA May 19, 1986 Project No. 8860575-01 - ENGINEERING DEPT. LIBRARY City of Carlsbad 2075 Las Pahnas Drive Carlsba4 CA 92009-4859 - - - - ENGlNEERtNG DEPT. LIBRARY Prepared for: CALIBER DEVELOPMENT, INC. 18300 Von Karmen, Suite 720 Irvine, California 92715 Attention: Mr. Jim Bosler city of Carlsbad 2075 Las Palntas Drive C&&d, CA 920094859 5421 AVENIDA ENCINAS. SUITE C, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Q2M)6 (619) 93’1-9953 l (800) 447.2626 lR”lNE . WESTLAKE,“ENTURA . DlAMOND BAR/WALNUT . PALM DESERT l SANTACLARITAIVALENCIA . SAN L?ERNARDlNcJlRlVERSlDE . SAN DlEGO CARLSBAD . TEMECVLAIRANCMO CALlFcJRNlA - - LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES .- ,- - - r r ,~ r 7 r r r _- SOIL ENGINEERING GEOLOGY GEOPHYSICS GROUND WATER HAZARDOUS WASTES TO: Caliber Development, Inc. 18300 Von Karmen, Suite 720 Irvine, California 92715 ATTENTION: Mr. Jim Bosler SUBJECT: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Palomar Center, Phase I, Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California May 19, 1986 Project No. 8860575-01 In accordance with your authorization, we have conducted a preliminary geotechnical investigation of the subject site. The accompanying report presents a summary of our investigation and provides conclusions and recommendations relative to site development. If you have any questions regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. RLW/SRH/RW/lk Distribution: [;I (2) (1) Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Stan Helenschmidt, RCE 36570 Chief Geotechnical Engineer Addressee Brandow and Johnston Associates Attention: Mr. Lee Freeland The Falick/Klein Partnership Attention: Mr. Wayne Marchand Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates Attention: Mr. Emmet Berkery 6421 AVENIDA ENCINAS. SUITE C. CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA 9X-06 (619) 931-9953 . (603) 447-2626 IRYlNE . WESTL*KE/“ENT”RA . DlAMOND BARWVALNUT . SAN BERNARDINO,RIYERSIDE . SAN DlEGO PALM DESERT l SANTA CLARITANALENCIA . CARLSB,¶D . TEMECULA,RANCHO C*LIFORNIA - - - - - - - r ,- I .- r 7 7 - - 8860575-01 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 3.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 5.0 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 5.1 Regional Geology 5.2 Site Geology Formation (Map Symbol - Kpl) Artificial Fill (Map Symbol - Afd) 5.2.3 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Map Symbol - Afu) 5.2.1 Point Loma 5.2.2 Documented 5.3 Geologic Structure 5.4 Surface and Ground Water 6.0 FAULTING, SEISMICITY, AND LIQUEFACTION 6.1 Faulting 6.2 Seismicity 6.3 Liquefaction 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Earthwork 8.1.1 Site Preparation 8.1.2 Excavations 8.1.3 Trench Excavation and Backfill 8.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction Drainage Foundation and Slab Design Considerations for Expansive Soils 8.3.1 Foundations 8.3.2 Floor Slabs 8.3.3 Moisture Conditioning Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance Type of Cement for Construction Corrosivity Pavement Sections Construction Observation 1 1 3’ 3 4 4 4 8 9 9 ; 1: :: :: 11 :: :: 13 i - 8860575-01 - - - - - - - - TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Tables Table 1 - Seismic Parameters for Active Faults Figures Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Fault Location Map Figure 3 - Geologic Cross Section A-A' Plates Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map APPENDICES Appendix A - References Appendix B - Boring Logs Appendix C - Sampling and Laboratory Test Results Appendix 0 - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Rear of Text 2 Rear of Text Rear of Text In Pocket - - .- - ii - - - - - - -. - - - - - - - - I.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation at the subject site. The purpose of the investigation was to identify and evaluate the geotech- nical conditions present on the site and to provide conclusions and geotechnical recommendations regarding the proposed development. Our scope of services of the investigation included: Review of available pertinent, published and unpublished geologic literature (Appendix A). Aerial photographic analysis to assess the general geology and possible faulting (Appendix A). Field reconnaissance of the existing on-site geotechnical conditions. Subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation, logging, and sampling of ten 8-inch diameter, hollow-stem borings in the vicinity of the proposed commercial building and adjacent proposed parking areas (see Figure 2, Site Plan). Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix 8. Laboratory testing of representative undisturbed and bulk soil samples obtained from the subsurface exploration program (Appendix C). Analysis of field data and laboratory test results. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommen- dations with respect to the proposed development. 2.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed development is located on Lot 6 within the Carlsbad Research Center in Carlsbad, California (see Site Location Map, page 2). The site is bounded to the north by Faraday Avenue, to the east by Priestly Drive, and to the west by an existing commercial development occupying Lots 7 and 10 of the Carlsbad Research Center. The subject property encompasses approximately 2.3 acres of graded, vacant, and relatively flat land. Site elevations (U.S.C. and G.S. Datum) range from approximately 300 feet near the northwest property corner to approximately 306 feet near the eastern property boundary along Priestly Drive. Surface drainage, in general, is towards the northwest along the present gradient of the site. Localized areas of ponding were noted during our investigation. Site vegetation primarily consists of cut grasses and weeds. Existing development on site consists of the graded subject property, graded drainage ditches, surface drains, and various underground utilities along the northern and eastern perimeters of the subject site. _-__A.___ %. t ~, ‘;; . ..I” \ 812 \ . c-7 .------ '-, I i : __..-. / F-A--- ------- + ---- \,...I 1 I i i ‘9 i ,XRL’jBAD ;fi \ "j _____. -x . -. / - Ej if p 111 ,.~.” \ .: ,,, ,,- ~:..~ ..,.,. L;A>‘-y i , y- ~~~ “-/M 1 i 1 /’ \ .-A ,.A .‘- ,/ _’ -._._:_----- ---- IL---“.-- ?i -. - ( Y’ ‘i 2:! _ ~~~~ JIllI .: {; N $::.. $ . . s:.:.:.. .31 BASE MAP: Aerial Foto-Map Book, 1985, Page 8D and 8E. I CALIBER / PALOMAR CENTER Figure 1 SITE LOCATION MAP Prolect No. 8860576-01 LEl‘iHTON ad ASSOCIATES .““^““^“a”“^ ~:ale feet - 8860575-01 - 3.0 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - - - - - - - - .- - - -. Based on our review of preliminary project drawings provided by Brandow and Johnston Associates (dated March 17, 1986), the proposed Phase I development is to be located in the northeastern portion of Lot 6. It is to consist of one three-story, commercial building, adjacent plaza, surface parking, and associated underground utilities. According to the preliminary project drawings, the proposed Phase I structure is to be located within the cut portion of Lot 6. Portions of the proposed parking and plaza areas will be underlain by fill soils. The proposed building will utilize steel-beam and column framing, metal decks, and concrete-fill floors. Preliminary structural loads were provided to this office by Brandow and Johnston Associates and are summarized as follows: Foundation Element Dead Load Live Load Design Load (Dead Plus Live) Typical Interior Column 110 kips 45 kips 155 kips Typical Exterior Column 70 kips 25 kips 95 kips Typical Exterior Corner Column 45 kips 20 kips 65 kips It is anticipated that only minor grading will be necessary to bring the site to finished grade. Because of the intended office use of the proposed structure, we assume that large vibratory equipment is not anticipated within the structure. 4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our subsurface exploration program consisted of drilling ten 8-inch diameter borings to depths of 6 to 25 feet in the vicinity of the proposed commercial building, adjacent plaza, and parking areas of the proposed Phase I development (Plate 1, Geotechnical Map). The purpose of this program was to evaluate the physical characteristics of the on-site soils pertinent to the proposed development. Borings were continuously logged and sampled by a geologist from our firm. Sampling consisted of obtaining bulk samples and relatively undis- turbed (drive cylinder) samples at frequent intervals. Logs of the borings are presented in Appendix 8. Subsequent to logging and sampling, the borings were backfilled. Appropriate laboratory testing was performed on representative samples to evaluate the density, strength, grain size, expansive, and chemical characteris- tics of the subsurface soils. A discussion of the laboratory tests performed and a summary of the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. Moisture and density test results are provided on the boring logs (Appendix B). I- r- -3- - 8860575-01 5.1 Regional Geology - 5.0 SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The subject site is situated in the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Province, .- . . . . _ . . . a Calitornia geomorpnic province witn a long and active geologic history throughout southern California. Through the last 54 million years, the area known as the "San Diego Embayment" has undergone several episodes of marine inundation and subsequent marine regression. This has resulted in a thick sequence of marine and nonmarine sediments deposited on rocks of the southern California batholith with relatively minor tectonic uplift of the area. - 5.2 Site Geology Based on our subsurface exploration, aerial photographic analysis, and review of pertinent geotechnical literature (Appendix A) and site grading plans, the bedrock unit underlying the site consists of the Cretaceous age Point Loma Formation. Surficial units noted mantling the Point Loma Formation included documented fill soils associated with the grading of the subject subdivision (Appendix A, Reference 15) and undocumented fill associated with the landscaping along Faraday Avenue, Priestly Drive, and Rutherford Road. The site-specific geology is depicted on the Geotechnical Map, Plate 1, and Geologic Cross Section A-A', Figure 3. A brief descrip- tion of the geologic units encountered on the subject site is presented below. 5.2.1 Point Loma Formation (Map Symbol - Kpl) The Cretaceous age Poi'nt Loma Formation, as encountered during our investigation, predominantly consisted of interbedded, moist, very stiff to hard, clayey siltstone and silty claystone shale. Localized, very hard, cemented, siltstone layers were encountered during our subsurface exploration. The Point Loma Formation was generally observed to be finely bedded to laminated and moderately jointed in the relatively undisturbed samples. Bedding surfaces and joint surfaces observed in the samples typically are stained by dark gray to black manganese oxide and red-brown, iron oxide deposits. Based on laboratory testing and visual classification, the Point Loma Formation generally has a relatively high shear strength and a low to high expansion potential. 5.2.2 Documented Artificial Fill (Map Symbol - Afd) Our subsurface exploration and review of the as-graded geotechnical report (Appendix A, Reference 15) and as-built grading plans (Appendix A, Reference 14) of the subject subdivision indicates that the southern portion of Lot 6 is underlain by documented fill soils (as shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). The soils encountered can be generally classified into two groups. The first consists of -4- - 8860575-01 - moist to wet, stiff to very stiff, sandy and clayey silt. The second type consists of moist to wet, stiff to very stiff, silty clay. - - As indicated in the as-graded report (Appendix A, Reference 15), deleterious and potentially compressible materials were apparently removed to firm, natural material or bedrock suitable for the support of fill placed at the site. The exposed soils were then scarified to a depth of about 6 to 8 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture conditions, and compacted. Fill soils were apparently placed in about 6- to 8-inch lifts, brought to near-optimum moisture content and compacted. Test results presented in the as-graded report indicate that the documented fill on the site was compacted to a minimum of ninety percent (90%) of the laboratory maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM method D1557-78. 5.2.3 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Map Symbol - Afu) A landscape strip approximately 30 to 38 feet wide and 1 to 4 feet high, is located on the edge of the site along Faraday Avenue, Priestly Drive, and Rutherford Road. Fill soils associated with the landscape strip appear to be relatively soft. 5.3 Geologic Structure Bedding observed in the relatively undisturbed samples indicates a gentle dip within the formational soils. Pertinent geotechnical literature and review of nearby bedrock exposures indicate the sedimentary formational soils regionally dip gently to the northwest and southwest. 5.4 Surface and Ground Water Localized areas of ponding were observed on site during our reconnaissance. This appears to be due to the shallow gradient as a result of site grading of the subject property. No ground water was encountered during our subsurface investigation. Ground water is not anticipated to be a constraint to the design and construction of the project. -5- LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES IYcOPmOPITFn -. 8860575-01 - 6.0 FAULTING, SEISMICITY, AND LIQUEFACTION - 6.1 Faulting r- I -. - - - A review of available geologic literature and aerial photos pertaining to the subject site indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the property. Additionally, no active faults or folding were reported in the as-graded report (Appendix A, Reference 15). Further, there was no evidence of faulting encountered during our investigation. The nearest active regional faults are the Elsinore fault, located approximately 23 miles northeast of the site, and the Coronado Banks fault zone, located offshore approximately 19 miles southwest of the site. Figure 3 indicates the location of the site in relationship to known major faults in the San Oiego region. 6.2 Seismicity The seismic hazard most likely to impact the subject site is ground shaking following a large earthquake on one of the major active regional faults. Table 1 indicates probable seismic events that could produce ground shaking at the study area. Included in 'Table 1 are the distances to the faults, maximum credible and probable earthquakes, and the expected peak horizontal bedrock accelerations. The Elsinore fault is the most likely to affect the site with ground shaking should an earthquake occur on the fault. A maximum probable event on the Elsinore fault could produce a peak horizontal bedrock acceleration of about 0.189. For design purposes, two-thirds of the peak horizontal bedrock acceleration may be assumed for the design ground acceleration. The effects of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the Uniform Building Code or state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. 6.3 Liquefaction Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Both research and historical data indicate that loose, saturated, granular soils are susceptible to liquefac- tion and dynamic settlement, while the stability of silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is typified by a total loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to flow as a liquid. This effect may be manifested by excessive settlements and sand boils at the ground surface. The Point Loma Formation on the site predominantly consists of very stiff to hard, silty claystone and clayey siltstone. In addition, no near-surface ground water table was encountered during our subsurface investigation. Therefore, it is our professional opinion that the on-site Point Loma -6- 8860575-01 Formation does not have a significant potential for liquefaction. The on- site fill soils are not considered liquefiable due to their fine-grain nature and lack of a permanent ground water table within the fill soils. - - - - -. - - .- - - _- .- -7- LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES lNCc.RPORlTED - 8860575-01 - 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site, - it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incor- porated into the project plans and specifications. - The following is a summary of the geotechnical factors which may effect develop- ment of the site. - 0 - l - 0 -. l a _- 0 .- - a -. l - - - - - Our investigation indicates that highly expansive soils are present on site. Special foundation and slab considerations for expansive soils will be necessary to mitigate this condition (Section 8.3). Active faults are not known to exist on or in the vicinity of the site. The maximum anticipated bedrock acceleration on the site is estimated to be approximately 0.189 based on a maximum probable earthquake of Richter Magnitude 6.7 on the active Elsinore fault. No ground water was encountered during our investigation. The on-site formational soils have relatively high shear strength characteris- tics for foundation support. Undocumented landscape fill is present on the site. These soils are con- sidered unsuitable for structural support in their present condition. Remedial grading measures such as removal and recompaction may be necessary to mitigate this condition if future structures are planned within this landscape area. The proposed commercial structure of the Phase I development is anticipated to be situated on formational soils. A cut/fill transition line is located near the southern portion of the proposed Phase I development and transects portions of the plaza and parking areas (see Geotechnical Map, Plate 1). Localized areas of ponded water exist within the subject area. Recommendations for surface drainage are provided in Section 8.2. -8- LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCOmPOmATEO - 8860575-01 - 8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Earthwork - We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, excavation, and backfill. We recommend that earthwork on site be performed - in accordance with the following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix 0. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix 0. - 8.1.1 - 8.1.2 8.1.3 Site Preparation Prior to grading, all areas to receive structural fill or engineered structures should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any existing debris, and stripped of vegetation. Removed vegetation and debris should be properly disposed of off site. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions which extend below finished site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. All areas to receive fill and/or other surface improve- ments should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM 01557-78). Excavations Excavation of the on-site soils may be accomplished with conven- tional, heavy-duty grading equipment. Due to the high density characteristics and cohesive nature of the on-site soils, temporary excavations such as utility trenches with vertical sides in the bedrock materials should remain stable for the period required to construct the utility. Excavations deeper than 5 feet should be shored or should be laid back to 1:l (horizontal to vertical) if workers are to enter such excavations. All excavations should be performed in accordance with OSHA requirements. Trench Excavation and Backfill Excavation of utility trenches and foundations in the on-site soils appears to be generally feasible with light-duty backhoe equipment. However, excavation of trenches in locally cemented zones in the formational materials may be difficult for light backhoes and may require the use of heavy-duty trenching equipment. The on-site soils may be used as trench backfill provided they are screened of organic matter, debris, and rock fragments greater than 6 inches in diameter. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts (not exceeding 8 inches in thickness) by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM 01557-78). -9- LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES ,NCOIPOF.ITEO - 8860575-01 - - - - 8.2 - 8.3 As an alternative to mechanical compaction of the native soils, trenches may be backfilled with granular backfill (sand equivalent 30 or better) which lend themselves to densification by jetting. 8.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction The on-site soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic material and debris. All fill soils should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM 01557-78. The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with local grading ordinances, sound construction prac- tice, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix B. Drainage Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. The subject commercial structure should have appropriate drainage systems to collect roof runoff. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from the structure, toward the street or suitable drainage facilities. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing a minimum 2 percent gradient from the structure. Ponding of water should be avoided adjacent to the structure. The need for surface drainage devices is within the purview of the design civil engineer. Due to the expansive nature of the soils at the site, we recommend a subsurface drainage system (i.e., french drains or equivalent) be installed beneath planters adjacent to the proposed building and parking areas to help facilitate drainage. This drainage system should be designed to direct collected water away from the structure and associated improvements. Planter drain design should be checked by the geotechnical engineer prior to construction. Foundation and Slab Design Considerations for Expansive Soils Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations and the following recommendations. These recommendations assume the soils encountered within 3 feet of pad grade will have a high potential for expansion (i.e., expansion index greater than 90). Foundation and slab soils should be thoroughly moistened prior to placement of concrete or moisture barriers. - - - 10 - LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES lNCORPORATED - 8860575-01 - - - - 8.3.1 Foundations The proposed three-story structure may be supported on conventional, continuous, perimeter footings founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches beneath the lowest adjacent grade into competent forma- tional soils. At this depth, footings may be designed for an allowable soil bearing capacity of 4,000 psf with an increase of IO percent per foot of additional depth to a maximum of 5,500 psf. In order to reduce potential uplift due to soil expansion, we recommend that a minimum dead load bearing of 2,500 psf be designed for all footings. Minimum reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of one No. 5 bar top and bottom or equivalent. Isolated spread footings with a minimum width of 24 inches and a minimum depth of 24 inches beneath the lowest adjacent grade may be used for interior bearing members. - - - - - - Lateral loads may be resisted by assuming a passive lateral earth pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 between concrete and soil may also be assumed. Passive and frictional resistance may be combined provided the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total lateral resistance. 8.3.2 Floor Slabs Floor slabs should be at least 4 inches in thickness and be rein- forced with 6x6-6/6 wire mesh placed midheight in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 4-inch layer of clean sand over a 6-mil Visqueen moisture barrier. The potential for slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios. The contractor should take appropriate curing ' precautions during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or equivalent) be utilized if grouted tile, marble tile, or other crack-sensitive floor covering is planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordance with structural considerations. 8.3.3 Moisture Conditioning - .- The building pad and footing excavations should be thoroughly moistened prior to placement of concrete or moisture barriers. After grading, occasional watering may be recommended to prevent dessica- tion of surface soils in the building and parking areas prior to placement of structural improvements. 8.4 Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the walls can yield under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, they can be designed - - 11 - LEIGHTON and ASSOClA+iS INCORPORATED - - - - - - 8860575-01 for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. The recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static ground water table is provided below: Equivalent Fluid Pressure Cantilever wall (yielding) 35 pcf Restrained wall (nonyielding) Passive resistance 50 pcf 250 pcf - ..- - The above pressures assume nonexpansive (imported), level backfill and free- draining conditions. Nonexpansive backfill should extend horizontally at least 0.5H from the back of the wall where H is the wall height. Retaining walls should be provided with appropriate drainage as shown in Appendix 0. Wall footings should be designed in accordance with the previous building foundation recommendations as stated in Section 8.3.1, and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations. The soil resistance against lateral loading consists of friction or adhesion at the base of foundations and passive resistance against the embedded portion of the structure. Concrete foundations placed directly on forma- tional soils may be designed using a coefficient of friction of 0.30 (total frictional resistance equals coefficient of friction times the dead load). In lateral resistance applications, a passive resistance of 300 psf per foot of depth with a maximum value of 3,000 psf can be used for design. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable lateral resistance. The coefficient of friction and passive resistance values can be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic loading. 8.5 Type of Cement for Construction Concrete in direct contact with soil or water that contains a high con- centration of soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical deterioration commonly known as "sulfate attack." Based on U.S. Bureau of Reclamation criteria, the potential for sulfate attack is negligible for sulfate contents ranging from 0 to 150 p.p.m. Soluble sulfate contents of samples tested at this site were within this range (Appendix C). Foundation members and flatwork should not require the use of sulfate-resistant cement. Therefore, Type II (or equivalent) may be used for construction purposes. - 12 - LEIGHTON and ASSXlATES INCORPORATED -. - Construction observation and testings should be performed by representatives of the geotechnical consultant during the following stages: 11s including pavement base material. l During placement of all compacted fi l During retaining wall excavations. e During placement of backfill for uti lity trenches and retaining walls. - - - - 8860575-01 - 8.6 Corrosivity Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed on representative samples of the subgrade soils (Appendix C). Based on our results, the site soils are - mildly corrosive. Estimated design lives for metal culverts are provided below: -.. - - Gauge 18 16 Estimated Design Life (Years) 64 80 -- 8.7 Pavement Sections - Design of pavements was not included within the scope of this report. Pavement sections will depend largely on the subgrade soil conditions exposed after grading and should be based on R-value testing. Pavement J sections can be provided upon completion of grading. 8.8 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary structural design information for the proposed facilities, and subsurface conditions disclosed by widely spaced borings. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by repre- ./ sentatives of Leighton and Associates, Inc. Final project drawings should // be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer prior to beginning construction. l After prewetting of subgrade and prior to pouring of slabs and foundations. e When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during any construction subsequent to this report. - 13 - LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED - 8860575-01 - TABLE 1 - - - - SEISMIC PARAMETERS FOR ACTIVE FAULTS Caliber/Palomar Center, Phase I MAXIMUM PROBABLE EARTHQUAKE (Functional Basis Earthquake) Fault Distance From Fault To Site (Miles) - Coronado Banks 19 Elsinore 23 San Jacinto 46 - Newport-Inglewood 53 Agua Blanca/ 55 San Clemente - San Andreas 67 Maximum Credible Earthquake Richter Magnitude 6.5 6.0 0.13/0.08 7.5 6.7 0.18 7.5 7.2 0.10 7.0 6.5 0.05 7.5 7.0 0.06 8.5 8.3 0.11 Richter Magnitude Peak Bedrock/ Repeatable Horizontal Ground Acceleration (Gravity)* * For design purposes, the repeatable horizontal ground acceleration may be taken as 65% of the peak acceleration for sites within 20+ miles of the epicenter (after Ploessel and Slosson, 1974). - - - - -- - 8860575-01 - APPENDIX A - - - - - - - _- - - -- - - - 1. Albee, A.L., and Smith, J.L., 1966, Earthquake characteristics and fault activity in southern California in Lung, R. and Proctor, R., editors, Engineering Geologists, Fecial Publication, dated October. 2. Allen, C.R., Amand, P., ~Richter, C.F., and Nordquist, J.M., 1965, Relationship between seismicity and geologic structure in southern California, Seismological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 55, No. 4, pp. 753-797. 3. Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of strong ground motion, Proc. Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Enqineering, Rome, Paper No. 292, 4. Bonilla, 5. The Falick/Klein Partnership, Inc., 1986, Master plan, Palomar Center, Caliber Development, Inc., scale 1"=40', dated March 17. 6. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. 7. Hannan, D.L., 1975, Faulting in the Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Vista areas, northern San Diego County, California in Ross, A. and Dowlen, R.J., eds., Studies on the geology of CamTPendleton and western San Diego County, California: San Diego Association of Geologist Field Trip Guidebook, pp. 56-60. 8. Lamar, D.L., Merifield, P.M., and Proctor, R.J., 1973, Earthquake recurrence intervals on major faults in southern California in Moran, D.E., Slosson, J.E., Stone, R.O., Yelverton, California, Zitors, 1973, Geology, Seismicity, and environmental impact: Association of Engineering Geologist, Special Publication. 9. 10. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1986, Preliminary geotechnical investigation, Palomar Airview Park, Phase I, Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4851900-01, dated January 28. , Unpublished in-house data. REFERENCES pp. 1304-1313, dated June. - M.J., 1970, Surface faulting and related effects in Wiegel, R. (editor) Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc.,Tew Jersey, pp. 47-74. - A -i - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8860575-01 APPENDIX A (Continued) 11. Peterson, G.L., and Abbott, P.L., 1975, Paloeocene age of lateritic paleosol western San Diego County, Caifornia in Ross, A., and Dowlen, R.J., eds., Studies on the geology of CampPendleton and western San Diego County, California: San Diego Association of Geologists Field Trip Guidebook, pp. 60-65. 12. 1981, Early Cenzoic torrid climate, coastal southern California, in ' Abbott, P.L., and O'Dunn, S., eds., Geologic investigation of tl% coastal plain, San Diego County, California: San Diego Association of Geologists Field Trip Guidebook, pp. 90-96. 13. Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E., 1974, Repeatable high ground accelera- tions from earthquakes-important design criteria, California Geology, Vol. 27, No. 9, dated September. 14. Rick Engineering Company, Inc., 1981, As-built grading plans for Carlsbad Tract No. 81-10, Carlsbad Research Center, Job No. 73801, scale 1"=50', dated September 23. 15. San Diego Soils Engineering, Inc., 1982, As-graded report, geotechnical report, rough grading completed, Carlsbad Research Center, Phase I, Carlsbad Tract No. 81-10, Carlsbad, California, Job No. SD1144-10, dated April 21. 16. Schnabel, B. and Seed, H.B., 1974, Accelerations in rock for earthquakes in the western United States; Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 501-516. 17. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Kiefer, F.W., 1969, Characteristics of rock motions during earthquakes, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divisions, ASCE, Vol. 95, No. SM5, Proc. Paper 6783, pp. 1199-1218, dated September. 18. Seed, H.B., 1979, Soil liquefaction and cyclic mobility evaluation for level ground during earthquakes, ASCE, GT2, p. 201, dated February. 19. Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Arango, Ignacio, 1983, Evaluation of liquefac- tion potential using field performance data, ASCE JGE, Vol. 109, No. 3, p. 458, dated March. 20. Weber, F. Harold Jr., 1982, Recent slope failures, ancient landslides and related geology of the north-central coastal area, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 82-12, LA. 21. Wilson, K.L., 1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas quadrangles, San Diego, California. A - ii - 8860575-01 - APPENDIX A (Continued) - 22. Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1981, Preliminary soil and geologic investiga- tion, Carlsbad Research Center, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 51113M-SIOl, dated April 27. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS - Agency U.S.D.A. - Flight Photo Nos. AXN-8M 71 and 72 Scale 1"=2,000' Date 4-11-53 A - iii GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date 4/3/86 Drill Hole No. B-l Sheet 1 of l- -- Project Caliber/Paluter Job No.. 8860575-01 Drilling Co. Geodrill Type of Rig CME-45C Hole Diameter 8” Drive Weight 140 Pounds hop 30 in. cl?** rl I-f-l, ?- - i7 i0, 15 - ? ;I ::’ s 2 - - 39 15 10 N Re, - E a, 0 .2 PI - - 23. 23. !ec or - . S’ 21” VC z” $E - cc ML ML 9-y ML ,tum U.S.C. & G.S. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION weed by RLW ampled by RLW POINT LOMA FORMATION: O-2’ Medium brown, moist, stiff to hard, silty clay; moderate root develop- ment to a depth of 1 foot, weatherel 2-4’ Light to medium yellow-brown, moist very stiff to hard, clayey silt- stone; moderately jointed, minor iron oxide staining 4-8’ Medium yellow-brown to gray-brown, mottled light yellow-brown, moist, hard, clayey siltstone; moderately jointed, finely bedded to laminated, black manganese oxide stain develop. ed on majority of bedding and joint surfaces, occasional fossil casts 8-17' Medium yellow-brown, gray-brown, and olive-gray, moist, hard, sandy to clayey siltstone; moderately jointed, finely bedded, black man- ganese oxide and red iron oxide stain developed on joint and beddin! surfaces, occasional fossil casts @ 15' 6 to 8-inch thick, weathered gravel layer; no recovery 17-25' Light to medium gray, moist, hard, slightly sandy to slightly clayey siltstone; micaceous, minor iron oxide staining Total Depth = 25 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 4/3/86 - - - - .- - - _- -- - - - - - .- - GEDTECHNICAL BORING LOG Date 4/3/86 Drill Hole No. B-2 Sheet 1 of I- -- Project Caliber/palomar Center Job No.. 8860575-01 Drilling Co. Geodrill Type of Rig CME-45C Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Pounds &OP 30 in. Elevation Top of Ho le 0 tg 2e.A : fy Y$ ?I 2 _.-.-. FL-z : __._. -.-. . . . .---. --+:I- .-.-. - --- -.- ._ - -- -. -._ .-. -. -.-.. -L =. -.-._ .-. -. --. -._ .‘I’. :. r -.-.-. ;.-A-. - i .-.-_ w-‘. “.L .-._ _ -.- .- : 2: L’. -.-.- ; 72. -.-.- .-.-. - -. _ I --L7z _._.- .--T--z : -.-_- _-.-, -- ‘F’-- .-.z-. ._. -.- -z---c. ._.-.- L.Z. -.-.- -.-. j --_-.- .-.-. _: L.‘-: .-.-_ _.-.- _.-._ .., .-.-. . ..-.- .-.-. -.-.- ,-- .- , . __.-. -. _. -. .-.-. q Ref. or Datum Ref. or Datum U.S.C. E G.S. U.S.C. E G.S. I - . : ai 0 .:: < 4, - - 19. 19. .7. 12.1 - . Z’ Id‘ GC zc JE - - GEDTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION wed by ampled by RLW RLW POINT LOMA FORMATION: ML YH ML O-4' Light to medium olive-brown to yellow-brown, moist, very stiff to hard, slightly clayey siltstone; moderately jointed, minor black manganese oxide and red-brown iron oxide staining 4-8' Light gray, damp to moist, hard, fine, sandy siltstone; finely bed- ded to laminated, moderately jointec minor black manganese oxide and red iron oxide staining 8-12' Light gray to yellow-brown, moist, hard, clayey siltstone; moderately jointed, minor red iron oxide and -black manganese oxide stain develop- ed on joint surfaces, secondary gypsum crystallization noted on joint surface ML 12-25' Light gray to yellow-gray, damp, hard, slightly sandy siltstone; moderately jointed, slightly to moderately stained by manganese oxide and iron oxide, scattered fossil casts - = - = Total Depth = 25 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 4/3/86 I ^:-L.-- 0 A^^^^:r,rr GEOTECYNICAL BORING LOG Dota w/a6 & e/?/a6 Drill Hole NO. a-3 Sheet 1 of I- -- Project Caliber/Palomar Center Job No.. 8860575-01 Drilling Co. Geodrill Hole Diameter 8” Drive Weight 140 Pounds Drop 30 in. Ilevvation Top of SfXlA r3/771 49 75 43/ 861 10 68 32 83. 03. Nc tom U.S.C. & G.S. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION wed by RLW ampled by RLW Ra or - - . :: :’ 2” 3 UC .:: P g - - - - POINT LOMA FORMATION: ML ,ec 9-y Il. O-4' Medium yellow-brown to gray-brown, moist, very stiff to hard, very clayey siltstone; slightly sandy, moderately jointed, joint surfaces typically stained with black man- ganese oxide and red-brown iron oxide stain, locally laminated 4-a' Medium gray, moist, hard, clayey siltstone; numerous joints, minor iron oxide and manganese oxide stain, ing throughout a-15' Medium gray and light yellow-brown, damp, hard, sliphtly sandy, silt- stone; laminated minor manganese oxide staining throughout @ 1D' Cemented siltstone layer, approxi- mately 6 inches thick; no recovery on sample 15-20' Medium gray to gray-olive, moist, hard, fine, sandy siltstone, finely bedded, moderately jointed, red iron oxide stain developed on joint sur- faces 20-25' Medium gray, moist, hard, sandy siltstone; scattered, broken shell fragments, minor iron oxide stain- ing throughout @ 22' Noticeable hard layer, possible cemented siltstone Total Depth = 25 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 4/7/86 - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GEDTE(XNICAL BORING LOG Date 4/7/86 Drill Hole No. B-4 SheetlofL Project Caliber/Palomar Center Job No.. 8860575-01 Drilling Co. Geodrill Type of Rig CME-45C Hole Diameter 8" Drive Weight 140 Pounds bP 30 in. :le”ntian Ton nf Holr ?303.5’ l2-f~ cl?. nn*,m II.S.l. & G s 'ji+mnlad hv 4,--r--- -’ RLW .--------- --r -- ..--- I _ _ _. - _ . _ . 2 * $7 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIF’TION ,“U I r( v; Wwd by RLW 102.7 16.1 105.6 21.7 ML ML ML ML/ SM .1 "100 21.9 ML k la-25’ Light to medium gray, moist, hard, fine, sandy siltstone; slightly jointed, iron oxide stain developed on joint surfaces and throughout Total Depth = 25 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 4/7/86 POINT LDMA FORMATION: O-3’ Medium gray and yellow-gray, moist, hard, clayey siltstone; highly jointed, black manganese oxide and red iron oxide staining throughout, upper 6 to 8 inches wet and soft 3-6’ Light gray to light golden brown, moist, hard, fine, sandy siltstone; iron oxide and manganese oxide stain- ed throughout, moderately jointed 6-13' Light to medium gray, moist, hard, very fine, sandy siltstone; finely bedded, scattered red iron oxide stain throughout, black manganese oxide stain developed in bedding surfaces 13-H' Light gray and light yellow-brown, damp, hard, very sandy siltstone to very silty, fine sandstone; red iron oxide staining throughout EnnA r, I-77, I -:-L*-- a .-_-- :_*-_ - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - GEOTEMNICAL BORING LOG Data 4/7/86 Drill Hole No. 8-5 ShootLofL Project Caliber/Palomar Center Job No..ps-nl Drilling Co. Geodrill Type of Rig CME-4!K Hole Diameter 8” Drive Weight 140 Pour& Drop 30 in. ihvation 0 i, 2w ‘,% p I -.- --- -, -. -- - .. . . -.-, -.-_ -- . . .I: / -7 -.-, -.- . . . . -.- .---: -.- .__- z .-L .-._ .->y e&Y I- 5- 1- 1 ,p of: 4 .2 :: 4 -I I 28 rlL rlL 4L U.S.C. & G.S. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION oared by RLW I ampled by RLW FILL: O-1' Medium gray, wet, stiff, clayey 1-3' silt; scattered grass cuttings Medium brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, very sandy silt; local silty clay lifts to 6 inches -----_------- POINT LOMA FORMATION: 3-6' Light olive-gray, moist, very stiff, clayey silt; highly jointed, red iron oxide developed on joint sur- faces Total Depth = 6 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Cavina Backfilled 4/7/86 cnnr ,7t-l7, I -:-I-*-- 0 A ----: -.-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Dato 4/7/86 Drill Hole No. a-6 Sheet 1 of1 - -- Project Caliber/Palomar Center Job No.. 8860575-01 Drilling Co. Geodrill Trpe of Rig CME-45C Hole Diameter a” Drive Weight 140 Pounds hop 30 in. ilwotion Ton of Hole C305’ Ref. or Datum U.S.C. & G.S. : GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION u i, 2bo LX p In v I I -._. --_- .- .-. -.__ --_ - ---- - .- -_-_ - .- __- -.- --___ -‘--z. -- -:-: - - .-.; .L- .:. -.L.” - .u. I- , - a 93.9 28.2 ML o-1 ’ Mottled medium brown, light gray, and yellow-brown, very moist, firm, clayey silt;numerous roots and root. lets to a depth of 6 inches 1-4' Dark brown, very moist to wet, firm, silty clay; potentially expansive _______------ POINT LOMA FORMATION: 4-6.5' Light yellow-brown, mottled red- brown, damp, hard, fine, sandy silt- stone; moderately jointed, red iron oxide stain throughout Total Depth = 6.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered. No Caving Backfilled 4/7/86 SOOA (2/771 I ninhtnn A A@cncintaa GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Dot0 4/l/86 Drill Hole No. B-7 Sheet 1 of1 - -- - Project Caliber/Palomar Center Job No.. 8860575-01 Drilling Co. Geodrill Type of Rig CME-45C _- Hole Diameter 8” Drive Weight Drop 140 Pounds 30 in. - - - - - -. - - - - - - - op of a .; 2 $ - - 3 ‘-1 - - n: gi zr i - - 18 44 - - - : : i’ : 3 - - 1. -- - - Re: - :: 5. +.a .: 3, - - 23. I- ! L - or - . Z’ 8‘ GC Z” 3; - - ML -_ ML - - turn U.S.C. & G.S. CEDTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION weed by RLW ampled by RLW O-5’ Light gray to light yellow-brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, fine, sandy silt; chunky texture ---e------w-_ POINT LOMA FORMATION: 5-6.5’ Light yellow-brown, damp, very stiff to hard, fine, sandy silt- stone; moderately jointed; red iron oxide and black manganese oxide staining throughout Total Depth = 6.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 4/7/86 %-MIA rllm I ainhtnn A Accreiatac _- - -- - - - .- - -. - - - - - - - - Dot0 4/7/86 Drill Hole No. ~-8 .Sheot 1 of1 - -- Project Caliber/Palomar Center Job No.. 8860575-01 Drilling Co. Geodrill Type of Rig CME-45C Hole Diameter 8” Drivo Weight hop 140 Pounds 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole t305’ Ref. or Datum U.S.C. & G.S. n T . I 1 Z’ : 0 :” ! GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION J)c Z” moggod by RLW SE 0 Zb iu aq ;tJ t- ur _.-.- I.-. --.-, :-I .- -.-. :,.- .A -.-. :- :- -.-. _..A .‘A __,-.. ,-.. i _ .- .A :: .-..- l- - amplod by RLW u POINT LOMA FORMATION: 32 18. ?2, ML O-6.5' Light gray and light yellow-brown, moist, hard, fine, sandy siltstone moderately jointed, red iron oxide and black manganese oxide staining throughout, rare fossil casts note1 Total Depth = 6.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 4/7/86 GEOTE(XNICAL BORING LOG SOOA (2/771 Leiahtm R Asscxiates - - - - - - _. - - - - - - - -~ - - GEDTEoplIuIL BORING LOG Dot0 4/7/86 Drill Hole No. B-9 Shoot 1 of1 - -- Project Caliber/Palomar Center Job No.. 8860575-01 Drilling Co. Geodrill Type of Rig CME-45C Hole Diameter 8” Drive Weight 140 Pounds mop 30 in. Elevation TOD of Hole -+305’ Ref. or Datum U.S.C. & G.S. u 20 &j aq ST! T LTL -.-. -‘.L(- -.-. .-.- L.2. _-.- -. ,.. .- ._ --‘.A.’ .-.- -.-. L’.:: -. - -1 ..L.. _ .- D- j- I- = 2 ;1 gy 6 - - 01. = - , :: 2: :: 9) - 22. = . i’ f” J)c Z” XE - - ML GEDTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION wed by RLW ‘ampled by RLW POINT LOMA FORMATION: O-6.5' Light yellow-brown and gray, damp to moist, hard, fine, sandy silt- stone; moderately jointed, finely bedded, red irony oxide and black manganese oxide stain developed on joint and bedding surfaces SOOA (2/771 Leiahton 8 Asscciates - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CEOTEWUCAL BORING LOG Date 4/7/w Drill Hole No. G-10 .Sheet 1 of1 - -- Project Caliber/Palomar Center Job No.. 886057501 Drilling Co. Geodrill Type of Rig CME-45C Hole Diameter 8” Drive Weight 140 Pounds Drop 30 in. ilevation Top ilevation Top of Hole u u iu iu 2cd 2cd 43 43 ;; * ;; * “I- “I- 7.‘. 7.‘. : L.-. : L.-. -_ .- .- -_ .- .- -.-. -.-. -‘. L .‘I -‘. L .‘I .-.-. .-.-. -.-._ -.-._ .-. L : .-. L : -.-.- -.-.- .-.-‘. .-.-‘. .’ 7. I .’ 7. I ._.-. ._.-. ..-.- ..-.- :::‘.= :::‘.= -- -.- -- -.- ---- - ---- - l- l- Ref. or Datum U.S.C. E G.S. n’ II ; n’ L GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION II !4. Ml _I’ Cl sagged by RLW ampled by RLW FILL: FILL: O-6' O-6' Mottled yellow-brown and light gra Mottled yellow-brown and light moist, stiff to very stiff, fine, moist, stiff to very stiff, fine, sandy silt; chunky texture, minor sandy silt; chunky texture, minor root development.to a depth of root development.to a depth of 6 feet 6 feet _----------- H POINT LOMA FORMATION: 6-6.5' Medium to dark brown, moist, very stiff, silty claystone; minor sand oarticles Total Depth = 6.5 Feet No Ground Water Encountered No Caving Backfilled 4/7/86 - 8860575-01 - - - - - .- - - - - - - - APPENDIX C SAMPLING AND LABORATORY PROCEDURES SAMPLING PROCEOURES Undisturbed Samples: Samples of the subsurface materials were obtained from the exploratory borings in relatively undisturbed conditions. The depth at which each undisturbed sample was obtained is shown on the boring logs. The sampler used to obtain undisturbed samples is a split-core barrel drive sampler with an external diameter of 3.0 inches which is lined with thin brass rings with an inside diameter of 2.41 inches. Each ring is 1 inch long. The sample barrel is driven into the ground with an effective weight of the kelly bar of the boring machine. The kelly bar is permitted to free fall. The approximate length of the fall, the approximate weight of the bar, and the number of blows per foot of driving area noted and recorded on the boring logs. Blow counts have been noted in the log of borings as an index to the relative resis- tance of the sampled materials. The samples are removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. Disturbed Samples: Bulk samples of representative material were also obtained from the borings, bagged, and transported to our laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES Moisture and Density Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings. The results of these tests are presented on the boring logs. Classification Tests: Typical materials were subject to mechanical grain-size analysis by wet sieving with U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM 0422). Hydrometer analyses were performed where appreciable quantities of fines were encountered. The data was evaluated in determining the classification of the materials. A graphical presentation of the grain-size distribution is presented in the test data and the Unified Soil Classification is presented in both the test data and the boring logs. C -i - - - - - - - - - - 8860575-01 APPENDIX C (Continued) Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials were determined in accordance with ASTM D1557-78. The results of these tests are presented in the test data. Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test (U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2). Specimens were remolded at-near-optimum moisture content to 90 percent relative compaction under a given compactive energy to approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared specimens (4-diameter x l-inch length) were loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and were inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium was reached. The results of these tests are presented in the test data. Atterberg Limits: The Atterberg Limits were determined in accordance with ASTM D423 and ASTM 0424 to assist in the engineering classification of fine-grained materials. The results of these tests are presented in the test data. Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples in accordance with ASTM Cl3080 at a strain rate of 0.05 inches per minute to determine cohesion and the angle of internal friction of the soil sample. Soluble Sulfate Tests: The percent of soluble sulfates in a representative sample was determined b~v the California Materials Method hand-held terbidmeter. - No. 417 utilizing a pH and Minimum Resistivity Tests: Determination of pH and value for typical subsurface sofli was made for analysis of GENERAL NOTE: minimum resistivity corrosion potential. All references to the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) imply the latest standards. - - - C - ii - - - - - - - - - - _- - - - - e.. - ..-- . . FINES ISilt or Clay) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER 0 GR:IN %.E IN Mlhhi?ERS SYMBOL BORlNO SAUPl.6 NUUBER N”hmER pFEyy w&:” ‘u.m;c ?Lxnc;T’ ;$a; l B-3 1 1 ML U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS J”MBQL sORIND SAMPLE NUMBER NUMlER DEPTH mm:” ‘L#.#;“u PLAsTICIn SOIL IFEET, lNOEX TYPE 0 B-7 1 1 ML I I I I I I I I 1 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS SYMBOL LOCATION DEPTH FIELD MOISTURE (%) LL (%I PL (WI PI (%I U.S.C.S. 0 B-2; No. 2 5 feet --- 54.5 31.8 22.7 MH & OH .so I -40 so . ; 10 '0 0 0 10 20 30 l o 30 M) 10 10 LL , Liquid Li.?ii,l,H CALIBER/PALOMAR CENTER -- - - .- - - - - - - - - - -~ -. - 3ooo ii &T ._ z f.( ,. /,8 ,I I’ W Iii:i!;Ikfl:iIiii ii1,/1;!iIiiiIiiiI;IIIii1iiiIiiiI loo0 so 1wo 3ooa uloo so00 NORMAL STRESSfPSF) BORING SAMPLE DEPTH (FEET) COHESION FRICTION SOIL DEEXXIPTION SYMBOL NUMBER NUMBER (PSF) ANGLE TYPE Undisturbed q B-2 1 2 1,050 52" ML Undisturbed @I B-4 1 5 440 38" ML I DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS - - - T ‘ES SAMPLE INITUL MOlSlUftE I NO. LOCATION (X) 1* B-l; No. 1 24.3 2* B-3; No. 1 21.9 3 B-3; No.~ 9.3 4* B-4; No. 1 23.3 5 B-6; No.@ 4.9 6 B-10; ri0.0 8.8 - COMPACTU JRY DENSIT (PCF) 100.4 39.0 2.44 144 Low 100.4 25.1 2.06 144 Low 95.6 31.8 11.80 144 High 102.0 24.7 2.36 144 Low 102.4 26.7 9.30 144 High 69.9 31.7 11.0 144 High FNAL w&y= rOLUMETRK SWELL B * Indicates Undisturbed Expansion Text llJRCHARQf (PSF) EXPANSION PoTpmM EXPANSION TEST RESULT’I - - - - - ,- -- - - - - - _.. -- - - SAMPLE B-6; No.@ a-10; No.G MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS SOIL DESCRIPTION Mottled brown, gray, and yellow- brown, clayey silt Gray to yellow-brown, sandy silt MAXIMUM DFwDDyY 113.0 108.0 OPTIMUM MOISTURE :ONTENT (+I 15.0 17.0 CALIBER/PALOMAR CENTER - I pH, MlNlMUM RESlSTlVlTY AND SOLUBLE SULFATE TEST RESULTS 1 SAMPLE LOCATION PH MNIMUM RESISTNITY SOLUBLE SULFATE I (ohm-cm) bfm) ' B-3; No.@ @ 5 - 8' 8.0 12,006 135 1 B-5; No.@ @ 0 - 1’ 8.2 10,005 140 1 1 LE~loN YII *SSODrES Proiac~ NO. 8860575-01 CALIBER~ALOMAR CENTER - -, GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - .- - 1.0 General Intent These specifications present general procedures and requirements for grading and earthwork as shown on the opproved grading plans, including preparation of areas to be filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains, and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are a port of the earthwork and groding specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. - 2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testing - - - Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soils engineer and engineering geologist, and their representatives) shall be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report ond these specifications. It will be necessary that the consultant provide adequate testing and observation so that he may determine that the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. - - -. - It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes or agency ordinances, these specifications and the approved grading plans. If, in the opinion of the consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as questionoble soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to determine the degree of compaction will be performed in accordance with the American Society for Testing and Materiats test method ASTM D IS57 -78. - 3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 3.1 Clearing and Grubbinq: All brush, vegetation and debris shall be removed or piled and otherwise disposed of. - - 3.2 Processing: The existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of fill shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification shall continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. - - - - - - - - 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 - 3.7 - - - - - Overexcovatian: Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, shall be overexcavated down to firm ground, approved by the consultant. Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils shall be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as required to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed and moisture-conditioned shall be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. P Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:l horrzontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench shall be a minimum of I5 feet wide, shall be at least 2 feet deep, shall expose firm material, and shall be approved by the consultant. Other benches shall be excavated in firm material for a minimum width of 4 feet. Ground sloping flatter than 5:l shall be benched or otherwise overexcavated when considered necessary by the consultant. Approval: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas and toe-of-fill benches shall be approved by the consultant prior to fill placement. 4.0 Fill Material 4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill shall be free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and shall be approved by the consultant. Soils of poor gradation, expansion, or strength characteristics shall be placed in oreas designated by the consultant or shall be mixed with other soils to serve as satisfactory fill material. 4.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically approved by the consultant. Oversize disposal operations shall be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within IO feet vertically of finish grade or within the range of future utilities or underground construction, unless specifically approved by the consultant. 4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material shall meet the requirements of Section 4.1. 5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 5.1 Fill Lifts: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 6 inches in compacted thickness. The consultant may opprove thicker lifts if testing indicates the grading procedures are such that adequate compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during spreading to attain uniformity of material and moisture in each layer. - - - - - - - - - - -, - - - 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Fill Moisture: Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum shall be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers shall be aerated by scarification or shall be blended with drier material. Moisture-conditioning ond mixing of fill layers shall continue until the fill material is at a uniform moisture content at or near optimum. Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture- conditioned, and mixed, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density. Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and shall be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes shall be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at frequent increments of 2 to 3 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the slope out to the slope face shall be at least 90 percent. Compaction Testinq: Field tests to check the fill moisture and degree of compaction will be performed by the consultant. The location and frequency of tests shall be at the consultant’s discretion. In generol, the tests will be taken ot on interval not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of embankment. In addition, on slope faces, at least one test shall be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each IO feet of vertical height of slope. 6.0 Subdroin Installation Subdrain systems, if required, shall be installed in opproved ground to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The s&drain location or materials shall not be changed or modified without the approval of the consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend and upon approval, direct changes in subdrain line, grade or material. All subdrains should be surveyed for line ond grade after installation and sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. 7.0 Excavation Excavations and cut slopes will be examined during grading. If directed by the consultant, further excovotion or overexcovotion and refilling of cut areas shall be performed, and/or remedial grading of cut slopes shall be performed. Where fill- over-cut slopes are to be graded, unless otherwise approved, the cut portico of the slope shall be made and approved by the consultant prior to placement of materiols for construction of the fill portion of the slope. - - TRANSITION LOT DETAILS - - - - - - - - - - - CUT-FILL LOT ~NAT~RAL GROUND UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR JUT LOT c’ - CRrMOVE. /+ ) - yUr . . . . . . . . . -A- ‘I NO”, IWOL .VIATERIAL /- - ---------_--____ r-- UNWEATHERED BEbRbCK OR 2 MATERIAL APPROVED 8Y THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: Deeper overexcavation and recompaction shall be performed,. ‘. If determined to be necessary by the geotechnical consultant. - - SIDE HILL CUT PAD OETAIL - - - - / NATURAL GROUND,%@ ./- 0 0 ,’ I’( /- / /- . / 0 OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT / 0 0- 0 FINISHED CUT PAD ,/+M . . . . . . . . * . . . . . . . . . . * ,.... Pad overexcavation and recampaction shall be performed if determined to be necessary by the geotechnicol consultant. UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR f / - MATERIAL APPROVED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT - SUBDRAIN AND KEY WIDTH REQUIREMENTS DETERMINED BASED ON EXPOSED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AND THICKNESS OF OVERBURDEN - - BENCHLNG DETAILS - - - - - - - - - - - - -. FILL-OVER-CUT. SLOPE To be cmmvctcd prior to fill ploccmcnr CUT FACE TO I. cm.lrucmd *riot to FfII rl~~~c CUT-OVER-FILL SLOE’E o”ER~“,Lp~~~ K REWNE “HS”IT.uLE . . NOTES: iOWEST BENCH : Depth and width subject to field change based on consultant’s inspection. SUBDRAINAGE:. Back drains may be required at the discretion of the geotechnicai consultant. - - - - __ ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL FINISH GRADE SLOPE FACE GRANULAR SOIL To fill voids, densified by flooding - PROFILE ALONG WINDROW ------- -- - -------- --- - CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL - - - BE iNCl -lING r- SEE ALTERNATES A&El FILTER MATERIAL - SUBDRAIN Perforated Pipe Surrounded With Filler material snalf be ALTERNATE A: Filter Material Class 2 permeable material FILTER MATERIAL per State of Calitornia - Standard Specifications. or approved alternate. Class 2 grading as follows: - SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 40- 100 - SUBDRAIN 1 112” Qravel Wrapped ALTERNATE B: in Filtaf Fabric 6” MIN. OVERLAP \ DETAIL OF CANYON SJEORAlN TERMINAL l SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdroin pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, at locations designoted by the geatechnical consultont, shall be nonperforated pipe. - l SUBDRAIN TYPE - Subdroin type shall be ASTM CSOE Asbestos Cement Pipe (ACP) or ASTM 0275 I, SDR 23.5 or ASTM D 1527, Schedule 40 Acrylonitrile Butodiene Styrene (ABS) or ASTM 03034 SDR 23.5 or ASTM Dl785, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic WC) pipe or approved equivalent. -, - REpSLLAOC~~~~~fTFq~LSS~EOTRAIL j$q ~1 c---- -------- OUTLET PIPES 4” 0 Nonperforated Pipe, 100’ Max. O.C. Horizontally, 30’ Max. O.C. Vertical1 ------ ----- -_--- ----- I:l OR FLATTER -_-_--- ------ ------- - - -2%---- ---- -------- ALTERNATE A 2’ iIN. /--- KEY WIDTH-4 EOUIPMWT SIZE. CENERALLY IS FEET FILTER MATERIAL - DETAIL A-A’ _. -44: - - . 1 . - - kill blanket, back cut, key width and key depth are subject to field change, per report/plans. Key heel subdrain, blanket droin, or vertical drain may be required at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Filter materia! shall be Class 2 permeable material per State of California Standard Specifications. or approved alternate. Class 2 grading as follows: SIEVE SlZE PERCENT PASSING 1’ 100 3/4' 318' i;:;g No. 4 25-40 No. B 18-33 No.30 No. 50 No.200 o-3 SURDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain pipe shall be installed with perforations down or, at locations designated by the geotechnical consultant, shall be nonperforated pipe. SUBDRAIN TYPE - Subdrain type shall be ASTM CSOE Asbestos Cement Pipe (ACP) or ASTM 0275 I, SDR 23.5 or ASTM 01.527, Schedule 40 Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene CABS) or ASTM D3034 SDR 23.5 or ASTM D 1785, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe or approved . OETAIL OF BUTTRESS SUBDRAIN TERMINAL O~I,C” FI”II”~O GRADL~