The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCT 74-21; Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Lot 22; UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Concrete Tilt-Up Structure Lot 22; 1998-02-11• ENGINEERING, INC. CrYw-Q °I f J 2 I I V 11Peni CoNSTRUCTION ThsTING & ENGINEERING, 1Ni SAN DIEGO, CA RIVERSIDE, CA VENTURA, CA TRACY, CA 2414 Vmey,nl Ave. 490 E. Princeland Ct. I 645 p,.;fic Ave. 392 W. Lartb Rd. Suite G Suite 7 Sulte 105 Suite 19 Escondido, CA 92029 Coron~ CA 91719 Oxn,rd, CA 93033 Tncy, CA 95376 (760) 746-4955 (909) 371·1890 (805) 486M75 (209) 839-2890 (760) 746-9806 FAX (909) 371-2168 FAX (805) 486-9016 FAX (209) 83~2895 FAX UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED CONCRETE TILT-UP STRUCTURE LOT 22, CARLSBAD TRACT MAP 74-21 CARLSBAD OAKS BUSINESS CENTER CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: MR. MARK MCLAREN MCLAREN PROPERTIES 4370 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE 655 SAN DIEGO, CA 92122 Prepared by: CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. 2414 VINEY ARD A VE\"UE, SUITE G ESCONDIDO, CA 92029 LANCASTER, CA 4215610th St W. Unit K l.2ncaster, CA 93534 (805) 726-9676 (805) 726-9676 FAX CTE JOB NO. 10-2612 February 11, 1998 • TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ Page I 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................... Page 2 I.I Introduction ............................................................................................... Page 2 1.2 Scope ofServices ...................................................................................... Page 2 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... Page 3 3.0 FIELD AND LABORA--;'ORY INVESTIGATIONS ........................................... Page 3 3.1 Field Investigation .................................................................................... Page 3 3.1.1 "Undisturbed" Soil Samples ...................................................... Page 4 3.1.2 Disturbed Soil Sampling ............................................................ Page 4 3.2 Laboratory Investigation ........................................................................... Page 5 4.0 GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................... Page 5 4.1 General Setting .......................................................................................... Page 5 4.2 Geologic Conditions ................................................................................. Page 5 4.2.1 Fills and Topsoils ...................................................................... Page 6 4.2.2 Tertiary Santiago Formation ...................................................... Page 6 4.3 Groundwater Conditions ........................................................................... Page 6 4.4 Geologic Hazards ...................................................................................... Page 7 4.4.1 General Geologic Hazards Observation ..................................... Page 7 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting ...................................................... Page 7 4.4.3 Earthquake Accelerations .......................................................... Page 8 4.4.4 Liquefaction Evaluation ............................................................. Page 9 4.4.5 Seismic Settlement Evaluation .................................................. Page 9 4.4.6 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation ............................................. Page I 0 4.4.7 Landsliding or Rocksliding ...................................................... Page 10 4.4.8 Compressible and Expansive Soils .......................................... Page I 0 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. Page 11 5.1 General .................................................................................................... Page 11 5.2 Grading and Earthwork ........................................................................... Page 11 5.3 Site Preparation ....................................................................................... Page 11 5.4 Site Excavation ....................................................................................... Page 12 5.5 Fill Placement and Compaction .............................................................. Page 13 5.6 Fill Materials ........................................................................................... Page 13 5.7 Temporary Construction Slopes ............................................................. Page 14 5.8 Foundations and Slab Recommendations ............................................... Page 15 Page i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 5.8.1 Structural Considerations ......................................................... Page 15 5.8.2 Foundations .............................................................................. Page 15 5.8.3 Foundation Settlement ............................................................. Page 16 5.8.4 Foundation Setback .................................................................. Page 16 5.8.5 Interior Concrete Slabs ............................................................ Page 17 5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures ................................................... Page 17 5.10 Exterior Flatwork .................................................................................. Page 19 5.11 Drainage ................................................................................................ Page 19 5. I 2 Vehicular Pavements ....................................................................... Page 20 5.12.1 Asphalt Pavement ..................................................... Page 20 5.12.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements ...................... Page 21 5.13 Slopes .................................................................................................... Page 22 5.14 Construction Observation ..................................................................... Page 22 5.15 Plan Review .......................................................................................... Page 23 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ............................................................. Page 23 FIGURES FIGURE I FIGURE 2 FIGURE 3 APPENDICES SITE INDEX MAP EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL APPENDIX AREFERENCES CITED APPENDIX B EXPLORATION LOGS APPENDIX CLABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS Page ii Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Page I CTE Job No. 10-2612 This investigation was performed to provide site-specific geotechnical information for the construction of a concrete tilt-up structure and associated improvements proposed for Lot 22, Carlsbad Tract No. 74-21 Map 10372, of the Carlsbad Oaks Business Center, Carlsbad, California. The proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided that the recommendations presented in this report are implemented. Our investigation found that topsoils, minor surficial fills, and units of the Tertiary Santiago Formation underlie the proposed building pad area. Topsoils and fills extend to a maximum depth of approximately 2.5 feet below grade (fbg). Topsoils and fills consist generally of dry to moist, medium dense, silty sand. Santiago Formation soils consist generally of moist, dense to very dense, sandy siltstone or silty sandstone. Groundwater was not encountered in our explorations to the total depths explored. Although groundwater levels will likely fluctuate during periods of precipitation, groundwater is not expected to affect the proposed development if recommendations presented in this report are carried out. With respect to geologic and seismic hazards, the site is considered as safe as any within the San Diego County area. San Diego County is an area of moderate to high seismic risk. Based on the geologic findings and reference review no active surface faults are known to exist at the site. \\"ORD C PROJECTS 10~61'.! Rpt_l'pdate Geotcch. ln,es1i!;:uion.dc>c Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California Page 2 February 11, 1998 CTE Job No. 10-2612 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF SERVICES I. I Introduction This report presents the results of our updated geotechnical investigation and provides conclusions and geotechnical engineering criteria for the proposed development. It is our understanding that the site is to be developed by constructing a concrete tilt-up structure and associated improvements ( e.g., landscaping and parking areas). Specific recommendations for excavations, fill placement, and foundation design for the proposed structure are presented in this report. The investigation for this report included field exploration, laboratory testing, geologic hazard evaluation, and engineering analysis. Appendix A contains a list of references cited in this report. 1.2 Scope of Services The scope of services provided included: • Review of readily available geologic and soils reports pertinent to the site and adjacent areas. • Exploration of subsurface conditions to the depths influenced by the proposed construction. • Laboratory testing of representative soil samples to provide data to evaluate the geotechnical design characteristics of the soils. • Define the general geology and evaluate potential geologic hazards at the site. • Provide soil engineering design criteria for the proposed improvements. • Preparation of this summary report of the investigations performed including geotechnical_ construction recommendations. • Provide a design for asphaltic concrete and concrete pavements. \VORD·C PROJECTS 10=61:! Rp,_l.:pd:11.: G.:oiech. ln~·ntii::uinn.doc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION Page 3 CTE Job No. 10-2612 The site is on Loker Avenue West, north of its intersection with Palomar Airport Road, and west of El Fuerte Street, in the Carlsbad Oaks Business Center, Carlsbad, California. Figure I is an index map showing the location of the site. Land use 1.ear the site is mixed commercial: light industrial Currently unimproved, according to Rick Engineering Co. ( 1987) and San Diego Geotechnical Engineering ( 1987), the site area was mass graded in the mid i 980's to elevations between approximately 383 and 390 feet above mean sea level. Site topography slopes generally downwards from northwest to southeast. Figure 2 is a map showing the site area. The lot is roughly rectangular in shape and approximately 5.36 acres in area. Graded slopes descend to the building pad on the southern and eastern margins and from the pad on the northern edge. All slopes are I :3.5 or flatter and the tallest slope is 13 feet in height. Wild grasses and weeds cover the pad area, and landscaped vegetation has been planted on the slopes and frontage along Loker Avenue West. 3.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATIONS 3.1 Field Investigation Field exploration, conducted January 12, 1998, included site reconnaissance and the excavation of three soil borings and three shallow test pits to assess the condition of shallow soil materials. Soil borings were excavated using a hand-operated powerhead auger to the maximum explored depth of W:,PROJECTS 10~61~ Rpt_Cpdate Ch!o1cd1. ln\~til!ation.d<.-.: Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 Page 4 CTE Job No. 10-2612 approximately three tbg. Test pits were excavated by hand to a depth of two tbg. Soils were logged in the field by a representative from Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc .. (CTE) and were visually classified using the Unified Soil Classification system. The field descriptions have been modified, where appropriate, to reflect laboratory test results. Soil boring logs and test pit logs including descriptions of the soil, field-testing data, and supplementary laboratory data are included in Appendix B. Approximate soil boring and test pit locations are shown on Figure 2. 3. l. I Undisturbed Soil Samp !es Undisturbed soil samples were collected using a modified California-drive sampler (2.4- inches inside diameter, 3-inches outside diameter) lined with brass sample rings. Drive sampling was conducted in overall accordance with ASTM D-3550. The steel sampler was driven into the bottom of the borehole with successive drops of a 35-pound weight. The soil was retained in brass rings (2.4-inches in diameter, 1.0-inches in height) and carefully sealed in waterproof plastic containers for shipment to the CTE geotechnical laboratory. 3 .1.2 Disturbed Soil Sampling Bulk soil samples of the drill cuttings and test pit spoils were also collected in large plastic bags. These samples were also delivered to the CTE geotechnical laboratory for analysis. W: PROJECTS lU=:bt:! Rp1_L.pcb1eGeotf.'Ch lm.-sti!,ta1ion.J~-..: Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, Cali fomia February 11, 1998 3.2 Laboratory Investigation Page 5 CTE Job No. 10-2612 Laboratory tests were conducted on representative soil samples for classification purposes and to evaluate physical properties and engineering characteristics. Specifically, laboratory tests for in-place density and moisture, particle-size distribution, direct shear, expan~ivity, Modified Proctor, and Resistance "R" value were performed. Test method descriptions and laboratory results are included in Appendix C. 4.0GEOLOGY 4.1 General Setting The site lies within the upland portion of the coastal San Diego County area. Landforms near the site consist generally of uplifted coastal terraces dissected by intermittent creeks. Locally, the topography slopes down to the west toward the Pacific Ocean. 4.2 Geologic Conditions Based on geologic observation and mapping in the area by San Diego Geotechnical Engineering ( 1987) and Tan and Kennedy ( 1996), surface soils consist of units of the Tertiary Santiago Formation. However our investigation found that surface soils consist of topsoils and minor surficial fills. Units of the Tertiary Santiago Formation underlie these soils. W: PROJECTS l0:!6l:!·Rp1_Upda.1e Geo1cch. lnves1i1:a.1ion.~ Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 4.2.1 Fills and Topsoils Page 6 CTE Job No. 10-2612 According to Rick Engineering Co. ( 1987) and San Diego Geotechnical Engineering ( 1987), Lot 22 is cut entirely from formational materials. However, minor surficial fills or disturbed native soils (topsoils) were encountered in all soil borings and test pits at this site. The maximum observed depth of fills and topsoils was approximately 2.5 fbg. Topsoils and fills consist generally of dry to moist, medium dense, silty sand. For the purposes of this report, fills and topsoils are mapped as one unit and are discussed as such. 4.2.2 Tertiary Santiago Formation Units of the Tertiary Santiago Formation were encountered below the disturbed surficial soils. Santiago Formation soils consist generally of moist, dense to very dense, sandy siltstone or silty sandstone. 4.3 Groundwater Conditions Groundwater was not encountered in any of our exploratory soil borings to the maximum. depth explored of 3.0 fbg. Groundwater is not expected to affect the proposed construction if the recommendations in this report regarding drainage are followed. WORD ('·PROJECTS• 10:?61~ Rp1_L'pda1c Geo1ech. lll\'dti~llie>ruloc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 4.4 Geologic Hazards 4.4.1 General Geologic Hazards Observation Page 7 CTE Job No. 10°2612 From our investigation it appears that geologic hazards at the site are primarily limited to those caused by violent shaking from earthquake generated ground :notion waves. The potential for damage from displacement or fault movement beneath the proposed structures should be considered low. 4.4.2 Local and Regional Faulting Based on our site reconnaissance, evidence from our exploratory soil borings, and a review of appropriate geologic literature, it is our opinion that the site is not on known active fault traces. San Diego Geo technical Engineering ( 1987) has mapped inactive Miocene faults in the area, but these faults are not expected to affect the proposed construction. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, approximately IO miles to the southwest is the closest known active fault (Jennings, 1987). Other principal active regional faults include the Coronado Banks Fault Zone and San Clemente Fault, Elsinore, San Jacinto and San Andreas faults. According to the California Division of Mines and Geology, a fault is active ifit displays evidence of activity in the last 11,000 years (Hart, 1994). Table I is a summary, including the seismic characteristics, of the principal regional faults considered most likely to rupture · WORD C PROJECTS', 10'.:b 1 ~ Rpt_ Update G,:01ech. [n\·n1i~a11on.doc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 Page 8 CTE Job No. 10-2612 and possibly induce strong ground shaking at the site during the useful life of the proposed construction. Estimated probable earthquake magnitudes are from California Division of Mines and Geology Website (January 14, 1997) except the San Clemente Fault (from Greensfelder, 1974) TABLE I SEISMICITY FOR MAJOR FAUL TS FAULT ZONE ESTIMATED ESTIMATED PEAK BEDROCK REPEATABLE DISTANCE PROBABLE ACCELERATION HIGH GROUND (miles) AND EARTHQUAKE (in G-forces) ACCELERATION DIRECTION MAGNITUDE (in G-forces) FROM SITE Rose Canyon I0SW 6.9 0.36 g 0.23 g Coronado Banks 21 SW 7.4 0.17 g 0.17 g Elsinore 21 NE 6.7 0.12 g 0.12 g San Jacinto 45 NE 6.7 0.05 g 0.05 g San Clemente 56 NE 7.0 0.05 g 0.05 g San Andreas 65 NE 7.3 0.05 g 0.05 g 4.4.3 Earthquake Accelerations We have analyzed the possible bedrock accelerations at the site using procedures outlined in Crouse and McGwire (1994). For the intended use, it is our opinion that the most significant seismic events would be 6.9 moment magnitude earthquakes on the Rose Canyon_ Fault Zone Fault. This event could produce estimated peak bedrock accelerations of 0.36 g and repeatable high ground accelerations of 0.23 g. WORD C' PROJECTS 10:61: Rpc_l"pJm,: G,:u1,:d1.. lns·es11~Jt1c'n.do~ Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 4.4.4 Liquefaction Evaluation Page 9 CTE Job No. 10-2612 Liquefaction occurs when saturated fine-grained sands or silts lose their physical strengths during earthquake induced shaking and behave as a liquid. This is due to loss of point-to-point grain contact and transfer of normal stress to the pore water. :..iquefaction potential varies with water level, soil type, material gradation, relative density, and probable intensity and duration of ground shaking. Because of the generally dense nature of the on-site soils and the absence of a permanent groundwater condition it is our opinion that the potential for liquefaction should be considered low in all areas of the project. 4.4.5 Seismic Settlement Evaluation Seismic settlement occurs when loose to medium dense granular soils densify during seismic events. The on-site materials were generally found to be medium dense to very dense and are not considered likely to experience significant seismic settlement. Therefore, in our opinion, the potential for seismic settlement resulting in damage to site improvements should. be considered low. WORD C' PROJECTS 10:!61:: Rpt_l'pdalcG~L<!Ch. lnves1ii;:.1:;.:,n.doc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 4.4.6 Tsunamis and Seiche Evaluation Page 10 CTE Job No. 10-2612 The site is not near any significant bodies of water that could induce seiche (oscillatory waves) damage. The potential for tsunami damage at the site is nonexistent due to the site's distance from t!:e ocean (approximately 4 miles) and elevation (approximately 390 feet above mean sea level). 4.4. 7 Landsliding or Rocksliding Active landslides were not encountered and have not been mapped in the immediate area of the site. The graded condition of the existing slopes in the area precludes landsliding as a significant hazard within or immediately next to the proposed structures. 4.4.8 Compressible and Expansive Soils Based on geologic observation and laboratory testing, the on-site soil materials exhibit very low to low compressibility characteristics and are considered suitable for the proposed structure. The expansion index of the tested fill materials was 80. This is indicative of soil with a medium expansion potential per UBC Table 18-1-B. WORD C PROJECTS 10:'.6!~ Rp1_tpda1e Geo1eth. lm·e,1i~anc,n.doc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 General Page 11 CTE Job No. 10-2612 We conclude that the proposed construction on the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations below are incorporated into the design of the project. 5.2 Grading and Earthwork Upon commencement of construction, Construction Testing and Engineering, Inc. should continuously observe the grading and earthwork operations for this project. Such observations are essential to identify field conditions that differ from those predicted by this investigation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to detect that the grading is overall accordance with the recommendations of this report. Our personnel should perform adequate observation and sufficient testing of fills during grading to support the Geotechnical Consultant's professional opinion about whether the work complies with compaction requirements and specifications contained herein. 5.3 Site Preparation Before grading, the site should be cleared of any existing debris and other deleterious materials .. Expansive, surficially eroded, desiccated, burrowed, or otherwise disturbed soils should be removed to the depth of the competent undisturbed formational soils, between six inches and 2.5 feet below existing grade. Organic materials not suitable for structural backfill should be disposed of off-site WORD·C PROJECTS lO~b!~ Rp1_L'pda1e G,:c,ttd1. ln\'~1ii;:11i,,n . .ioc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 Page 12 CTE Job No. 10-2612 or placed in non-structural planter or landscape areas. All organic materials excavated and removed should be disposed of at a legal disposal site. 5.4 Site Excavation Excavations in site materials should generally be accomplished with heavy-duty construction equipment under normal conditions. Irreducible materials greater than six inches encountered during excavations should not be used in fills on the site. As the site grading plans have not been completed, two options for site excavations are presented. Option I: Foundations are embedded entirely in compacted fill materials. This option requires that the building pad area be overexcavated to provide a minimum of 1.5 feet of compacted fill beneath all footings, including deepened loading dock footings. As an example, if the loading dock footings are to be excavated to a depth of 4 feet, the overexcavation in the loading dock area should extend to a depth of 5.5 feet. Option 2: Foundations are embedded entirely in competent formational materials. This option . requires that footing excavations be deepened to extend a minimum of 12 inches into competent formational materials. Deepened footing excavations may be backfilled with a 2-sack sand/cement \VORD C PROJECTS 10~61~ Rp1_lJpdate G<!\'tt1:h. lnns1i,Ju,,n.doc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 Page 13 CTE Job No. 10-2612 slurry or plain concrete to the design bottom of footing elevation. As a minimum, the upper 12 inches of the cut pad area should be scarified, moisture conditioned, and properly recompacted. 5.5 Fill Placement and Compaction The geotechnical consultant should verify that the proper site preparation has occurred before fill placement occurs. Areas to receive fills should be scarified nine inches, moisture conditioned and properly compacted. Fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent (as evaluated by ASTM D1557) at a moisture content between 2 and 4 percent above optimum. The optimum lift thickness for backfill soil will be dependent on the type of compaction equipment used. Generally, backfill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8-inches in loose thickness. Backfill placement and compaction should be done in overall conformance with geotechnical recommendations and local ordinances. 5.6 Fill Materials Moderately expansive soils derived from the native soils are considered suitable for reuse on the site as compacted fill. If used, these materials must be screened of organic materials and materials. greater than 3 inches in a maximum dimension. If encountered, clayey native soils may be blended with granular soils and reused in non-structural fill areas. WORD C PROJECTS I0:111~ Rpi_L:pda1, Geotcch. lnvn1i,ation.doc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 Page 14 CTE Job No. 10-2612 Imported fill beneath structures, pavements and walks should have an expansion index less than or equal to 30 (per UBCIS-I-8) with less than 35 percent passing the no. 200 sieve. Imported fill soils for use in structural or slope areas should be evaluated by the soils engineer to determine strength characteristics before placement on the site. 5.7 Temporary Construction Slopes Provided below are recommendations for unshored temporary excavations. The recommended slopes should be relatively stable against deep-seated failure, but may experience localized sloughing. The recommended slopes are based on the assumption that excavation sidewalls will consist of non-cemented sandy siltstone or silty sandstone. These soils are considered Type A soils with recommended slope ratios as set forth in Table 2 below. TABLE2 RECOMMENDED SLOPE RATIOS SOILS TYPE SLOPE RATIO MAXIMUM HEIGHT (Horizontal: vertical) A (NATIVE) I: I (MAXIMUM) 10 FEET A "competent person" must verify actual field conditions and soil type designations while excavations exist according to Cal-OSHA regulations. Also, the above sloping recommendations W: PROJECTS I 0~61 ~-Rpt~ Cpda1e Geo1eo::h. lnves111,:a1ion.d1.1c Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 Page 15 CTE Job No. 10-2612 do not allow for surcharge loading at the top of slopes by vehicular traffic, equipment or materials. Appropriate surcharge setbacks must be maintained from the top of all unshored slopes. 5.8 Foundations and Slab Recommendations The following recommendations are for preliminary planning purposes only. These foundation recommendations should be reviewed after completion of earthwork and testing of surface soils. 5.8.1 Structural Considerations Specific structural information was not available at the time of this report. However, based on our experience, it is anticipated that structural loads will be on the order of 125 kips for columns and 6.0 kips per lineal foot for walls. In the event the above assumptions are not correct, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report will not be considered valid unless reviewed and modified. 5.8.2 Foundations Continuous and isolated spread footings are suitable for use at this site. We anticipate all. building footings will be founded entirely on recompacted fills or entirely on native formational soil. The building foundation should not span a cut:fill transition. Foundation dimensions and reinforcement should be based on allowable bearing values of 2500 pounds WORD C PROJECTS I0:1>1: Rp1_L'pdate G.:01a:h. [n,;~1i_:J1i,,n.doc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 Page 16 CTE Job No. 10-2612 per square foot (psf) for footings founded on properly compacted fills and 4000 pounds per square foot (psf) for footings founded on competent native materials. The allowable bearing value may be increased by one third for short duration loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. Footings should be at least 18 inches wide and installed at least 24 inches below the lowest subgrade. Footing reinforcement for continuous footings should consist, at a minimum, of four #5 reinforcing bars: two placed near the top and two placed near the bottom. The project structural engineer should design reinforcement of isolated footings. 5.8.3 Foundation Settlement In general, for the previously stated column and wall loads the maximum post construction compression and consolidation settlement is expected to be about 1.0 inches. Maximum differential settlement of continuous footings across the buildings are expected to be on the order of 1/2 inches. 5.8.4 Foundation Setback Footings for structures should be designed such that the minimum horizontal distance from the face of adjacent slopes to the outer edge of the footing is at least of 10 feet. ·WORD C PROJECTS· I0Z61: Rpt_UpdateG001cch. lnvnu1,m<'n.d.-i, Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 5.8.5 Interior Concrete Slabs Page 17 CTE Job No. 10-2612 Lightly loaded concrete slabs should be a minimum of 4 inches thick. Minimum slab reinforcement should consist of #3 reinforcing bars or # 4 reinforcing bars placed on 18-inch or 24-inch centers, respectively, each way at mid-slab height. A four-inch layer of clean coarse sand or crushed rock should underlie the concrete slab. A vapor barrier of ten mil visqueen overlying a three-inch layer of compacted clean coarse sand, gravel, or crushed rock should be installed beneath moisture sensitive slab areas. At a minimum, a one-inch layer of clean coarse sand, gravel or crushed rock should be placed above the visqueen to protect the membrane during steel and concrete placement. Slab areas subject to heavy loads or vehicular traffic may require increased thickness and reinforcement. This office should be contacted to provide additional recommendations. 5.9 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures The following recommendations may be used for shallow footings on the site. Foundations placed in firm, well-compacted fill material may be designed using a coefficient of friction of 0.35 (total frictional resistance equals coefficient of friction times the dead load). A design passive resistance · value of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value of 1200 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the frictional ,WORD C PROJECTS 10~61~ Rpt_L'pda1e Geo1e,;h, ln\nti~Jne>r1.doc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 Page 18 CTE Job No. 10-2612 resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. Retaining walls up to ten feet high and backfilled using generally granular soils may be designed using the equivalent fluid weights given in Table 3 below. TABLE3 EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS (pounds per cubic foot) WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL SLOPE BACKFILL 2:1 (HORIZONTAL: VERTICAL) CANTILEVER WALL 38 60 (YIELDING) RESTRAINED WALL 58 90 The above values assume non-expansive backfill and free draining conditions. Measures should be taken to prevent a moisture buildup behind all retaining walls. Drainage measures should include free draining backfill materials and perforated drains. Figure 3 provides a recommended gravel and perforated pipe drainage system. These drains should discharge to an appropriate offsite location. WORO·C PROJECTS !0~61: Rpt_l.pd:ue Geo1ech. lnn:stii,-:anl"n_J(lc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 5.10 Exterior Flatwork Page 19 CTE Job No. 10-2612 To reduce the potential for distress to exterior flatwork caused by minor settlement of foundation soils, we recommend that such flatwork be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacings as designed by the project architect. Additionally, we recommend that flatwork be installed with reinforcement similar to that outlined in Section 5.8.5 above for interior concrete slabs i.e. #3 reinforcing bars or# 4 reinforcing bars placed on 18-inch or 24-inch centers or each way. Flatwork, which should be installed with crack control joints, includes driveways, sidewalks, and architectural features. All subgrades should be prepared according to the earthwork recommendations previously given before placing concrete. Positive drainage should be established and maintained next to all flatwork. 5 .1 I Drainage Surface runoff should be collected and directed away from improvements by means of appropriate erosion reducing devices and positive drainage should be established around the proposed improvements. Positive drainage is drainage away from improvements at a gradient of at least 2 percent for a distance of at least five feet. The project civil engineers should evaluate the on-site drainage and make necessary provisions to keep surface water from affecting the site. WORD C-PROJECTS 10:1,1: Rp1_L'pda1e Gefltech. ln\·esti~a11,,n.J,'IC Updated Geo technical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 5.12 Vehicular Pavements Page 20 CTE Job No. 10-2612 Where pavements are to be placed all aggregate base materials and the upper 12 inches of subgrade materials should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of95 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. These soils should also be appropriately moisture conditioned. 5.12.1 Asphalt Pavement Preliminary pavement sections presented below are based on a Resistance "R" Value testing of surficial materials. The asphalt pavement design is based on California Department of Transportation Highway Manual and on traffic indexes as indicated in Table 4 below. The Grading option chosen in Section 5.4 will affect the pavement design as shown in the table below. Upon completion of finish grading, "R" Value sampling and testing ofsubgrade soils should occur and the pavement section modified if necessary. TABLE4 ASPHALT PAVEMENT Class II Assumed Subgrade Grading AC Aggregate Traffic Area Traffic Index "R" Value Option Thickness Base (inches) Thickness (inches) Auto Parking Option I 2.5 9.0 4.5 11 Areas Option 2 3.0 8.0 Truck Drive/ Option I 3.5 12.0 Loading 6.0 11 Areas Option 2 I 4.0 I l.O WORD C PROJECTS 10~61~ Rpt_L'pdaieGcom·h. lnl'estii;au,~n .:loc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 5.12.2 Portland Cement Concrete Pavements Page 21 CTE Job No. 10-2612 We understand that parking and drive areas may be paved with concrete pavements. The recommended concrete pavement section for drive areas has been designed assuming single axle loads of 15 kips, IO repetitions per day. The above assumed values reflect light industrial traffic loads. Corresponding pavement designs presented in Table 5 below may not be adequate for larger axle loads and traffic volume. Concrete used for pavement areas should possess a minimum 600-psi modulus of rupture. Pavements should be constructed according to industry standards. TABLE 5 CONCRETE PAVEMENT DESIGN Traffic Area Subgrade R-Value PCC Thickness (inches) Truck Drive/ 11 6.5 Loading Areas Auto Parking Areas I I 5.5 Additionally, pavements should be installed with #3 reinforcing bars or# 4 reinforcing bars placed on 18-inch or 24-inch centers. WORD C PROJECTS 10~61~ Rpl_l.:pdat<!' G('(>l~><:h. lnH•sllJ,:lllOn doc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 5.13 Slopes Page 22 CTE Job No. 10-2612 Based on anticipated soil strength characteristics, fill slopes should be constructed at slope ratios of 2: I (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. These fill slope inclinations should exhibit factors of safety greater than 1.5. Although graded and existing slopes on this site should be grossly stable, the soils will be somewhat erodible. Therefore, runoff water should not be permitted to drain over the edges of slopes unless that water is confined to properly designed and constructed drainage facilities. Erosion resistant vegetation should be maintained on the face of all slopes. Typically soils along the top portion of a fill slope face will tend to creep laterally. We do not recommend distress sensitive hardscape improvements be constructed within five feet of slope crests in fill areas. 5.14 Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design information for the proposed construction and the subsurface conditions found in the exploratory boring locations. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction to verify that conditions are as anticipated. WORD·C PROJECTS 10:611 Rpt_Updatie Gt'..,utch. ln\·es1ii;a1icin.doc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, California February 11, 1998 Page 23 CTE Job No. 10-2612 Recommendations provided in this report are based on the understanding and assumption that CTE will provide the observation and testing services for the project. All earthworks should be observed and tested to verify that grading activity has been performed according to the recommendations contained within this report. The project engineer or geologist should evaluate all footing trenches before reinforcing steel placement. 5.15 Plan Review CTE should review the project foundation plans and grading plans before commencement of earthworks to identify potential conflicts with the recommendations contained in this report. 6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION The field evaluation, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have been conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by reputable geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. WORD C PROJECTS 10:!61:! Rpc_Update Goor,:,;:h. ln\·e,t1~.111on.doc Updated Geotechnical Investigation Lot 22, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center Carlsbad, Cali fomia February 11. 1998 Page 24 CTE Job No. 10-2612 Our conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided upon request. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted, '?[;CTI~/ ENGINEERING, INC. Rodney D. Ballard, GE #2173 \VORD C PROJECTS J0::61:: Rp1_Cpda1eG,:,m:d1. lnvestiga1ion.doc 0 0 -\.,..-.... ' 22 --, :111&---'C'. I -.... I I I I I I I I I I !:it ,c, -~;...J._;_-,./ ' 14 I 2 I .\1I1.ES ., .... ----,,.,. ........ ,/ I I I 'I ____ J .... L,----,, .\ ,,, .... -~ __ ,,,,,, '"' l( __ .,9.\\.'-~.,.,.. .... _ .. v-/ <A COSTA -CUii + ' I , __ I I I I I , __ , , ,- ' --.... '· ,,,_ ____ _ ____ .... -------- -: --:.-"' --, '. I I' , W-I ' ii ' ' ' I: I ____ ...!.-::'· .--·· --, I . ' a-·• -:~ :.:,_ ~,<>! '" 7 ., 19 I 3( 1320 2M-tJ _ "~·, CON~,J!,~Sl1,?~o;,f.~J,~S'a,~,~~~!~r~~~'~o~NC. 528QFEET ~ :-11-IVl~EYARD:~\-E:-;L:E.STEG ESCO'-DIOOCA <1:;:o:'11~601":-IO-N~S 1-.c.o=c;:.;;:.;.;;._ _____________________ ...,,,=,~""""""'"0,------I SQ( IR(f· THOMAS BROTHERS MAPS 1998 SAN DIEGO EDIT\O', SITE INDEX MAP PROPOSED COMM EC/AL BUILDl~G LOT 22. CARI.SR-\n CH. s.''-. Rl'Cl~C''-'.C D, nt.· 10-2612 > A --I I I I so· I f--, C/l J.LI ;:: I J.LI ::J z J.LI > I -< I 0:: J.LI I ~ 0 ....:i ------z co ' '>?IA/\"-' PROPOSED BUILDING --------1 ~ n_ ~ I TP-3 ~ <J B.3 ~r====-0 ! I I ·, I '"ti ' I B-1 I :::: ----~----/ \ --/ \ --L \ I PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD ;'~';, CON~~.~~,S!i~S~ .. ~~~:;.~~.~;,t,.~~~!.~.~-~.~!~.~;,.~NC. -~ ~-11-1 \'INI YAKllAVl·~lil .SIi· t; l·'>CONllllXJ(',\ •1~ ~'1!1h '111!•--l•l~i, I •.,,1•,111<,· .. , I'.<" LEGEND C8JTP-l Q9B-l APPROXIMATE EXPLORATION LOACTIONS PROPERTY BOUNDARY BORING AND TEST LOCATIONS PROPOSED COMMECIAI. BIIILDJNG I.OT 22, CARI.SHAD OAKS llllSJNt:SS l',\111,; CARI.SHAD-CAI .IF<UlNI,\ I'll.JOH NI 10-2612 SC,\1.1 NO SCALE T>:\71 ~,, .. ~1-1<,t kl RETAINING WALL FINISH GRADE WALL FOOTING ~~ v~~~ .~~~~ ~~~'0 : r::i 0 0 9 ~ WALL BACKFILL COMPACTED • 7 • • ~'\): TO 90% RELATIVE DENSITY . < ',::iOV/A_)/ tf 4 ... ' A. •• . . ., Q • "Q r::i • •• •" p <>~ • QV > . • 0 0 .~A. •• ~ 0 • > 0 . a • 6 .• 0 .,d 3/4" GRAVEL SURROUNDED BY FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140 N, OR EQUIVALENT) !'MIN 4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR MINIMUM 6" LA YER OF FILTER ROCK UNDERLYING PIPE ·r J a. ·o: RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL PROPOSED COMMECIAL BUILDING s 10-2612 NO SCALE LOT 22, CARLSBAD OAKS BUSINESS PARK APPENDIX A REFERENCES CITED REFERENCES CITED California Division of Mines and Geology Website, January 15, 1997, "California Fault Parameters." 2 Crouse, C.B., and McGwire, J. W., 1994, "Site Response Studies for Purpose of Revising NEHRP Seismic Provisions", in Proceedings, SMIP94 Seminar of Seismological and Engineering Implications of Recent Strong-Motion Data, California Division of Mines and Geology. 3 Greensfelder, R., 1974, "Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. 4 Hart, Earl W., Revised 1994, "Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist Priolo, Special Studies Zones Act of 1972," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. 5 Jennings, Charles W., revised l 987, "Fault Map of California with Locations of Volcanoes, Thermal Springs and Thermal Wells." 6 Rick Engineering Company, 1987, prepared for City of Carlsbad, Engineering Department, Grading Plans for County Tract 74-2 l Carlsbad Airport Business Center, Sheet 3. 7 San Diego Geotechnical Engineering, 1987, "As-graded Geotechnical Map, Kaiser Development, Carlsbad Oaks Business Center, Carlsbad, California", 8 Tan, S.S. and Kennedy, M.P., 1996, "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California", California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report No. 96-02. APPENDIXB EXPLORATION LOGS ~ CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. OEOTECHNIC H ANO CONSTRUCTIO!; ENGINEERING TESTJ);Q AND INSPECTION p :,1, \IISEYARD AVENUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO CA ·1~u:•1 ,11,111 Ht..i•1,5 £'-·••1~n~,;:-,,;,; PROJECT: LOT 22. CARLSBAD OAKS BUS. DRILLER: SHEET: I of I CTEJOB NO: 10-2612 DRILL METHOD: POWER AUGER DRILLING DATE: ,. 12 98 LOGGED BY: HORACE BARGE SAMPLE METHOD: HAND SAMPLE ELEVATION: - " C ~ 0 , C. " = " ~ .~ l "' ,, ~ .. BORING: B-1 Laboratory Tests ] ,: ·;;:: ,:, ,: ---~ i ;r. :a a ";;; = ~ ~ ~ -~ 5-]" > £ l ~ i ~ ~ = £ DESCRIPTION i..O" SM I' : 1v101st, medium aense,Drown, stlty tme ~ANU I.. - ... - ... - ... - ... - ~"--SM,ML MD I I I.I 14.6 l J:K JIAI{ Y C>A1' :,11t_,'.,__I\Jl ~!!' : MOISI, dense, llght brown, "' -silty SANDSTONE, interbedded with . very stiff, gray sandy SILTSTONE I.. - I.. - -- I.. - ~2~ ... - I.. -Refusal to continued drilling 101a1 oeptn '" ... -No groundwater encountered Boring backfilled with soil cunings ... - ... - 48~ ... - (.. - I.. - ... - ... - J4'.:. I.. - FIGURE:f B-1 tfll~,CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC . .t; ,:~ GEOTECHNICAL ANO COSSTRUCTION ENGINEERINCi TESTING AND INSl'ECTION -.3/l ~.~ ;~1~ v1-.EYARD AVENUE. SUITE G ESCONDIDO CA .,!•I!~ t71><11 7H,-~•,n E?<,:;1N("(JUS,:;:!,c: PROJECT; LOT 22. CARLSBAD OAKS BUS. DRILLER: SHEET; I of I CTEJOBNO; 10-2612 DRILL METHOD; POWER AUGER DRILLING DATE: L 12.98 LOGGED BY: HORACE BARGE SAMPLE METHOD: HAND SAMPLE ELEVATION: - :; C ¾ " "' !!. = -j t l ::, ;!' BORING: B-2 Laboratory Tests " ·"' g :r. -" --5 i ~ I -~ ~ = t E. £ > • c .E :.-; ;; ~ ~ 0 :::, ::; :0 DESCRIPTION 1-o SM I 11 " -~n : Moist, medtum aense, Drown, suty tme .:'.)ANU L.. -., . I !UN: kVlOISt, oense, light brown, MD,WA 94.7 23.1 ML l l:K I 1t'1'-Y :>AN • L.. -j sandy SILTSTONE - '--Ketusal 11!! L.Y Total depth= 2.5' L.. -No groundwater encountered Boring backfilled with soil cuttings ~s - L.. - L.. - ._ - L.. - ~0- ~ - ._ - '-- L.. - ~5- ~ - ._ - L.. - ._ - JO- ~ - L. - L. - ._ - ~5- FIGURE:! B-2 ...:,__ Ii ~CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. -~ " ., ~¥• '\, OEOTECHNlCH AND CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERJNG TESTING ._NO INSPECTION 1-1 \'. :~1~ VINErARD AVENUE, SUITE G ESCONOIOOC.~ •1~u:,, ,., .... Hf•-~•/" Et,,,~tNE'fllJ!IIL~N'. PROJECT: LOT 22. CARLSBAD OAKS BUS. DRILLER: SHEET: I of I CTEJOB NO: 10-2612 DRILL METHOD: POWER AUGER DRILLING DATE: J;f2 9S LOGGED BY: HORACE BARGE SAMPLE METHOD: HAND SAMPLE ELEVATION: - " C i ., 5-" = = BORING: B-3 -= 0. "' i :J: " Laboratory Tests ,; J ,. s .:..1 -.? .E -= ~ ~ :,: .: -= ~ ,. ~ G_ -€. C. ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ :, .~ ,< .. - DESCRIPTION ~o SM !1 ___ '"l.11 : Moist, medtum dense, orown, s11ty une ~f\l'IILJ '--FILL : Moist, medium dense, light brown, silty SAND '---ML 11:KfIARY SANIIAUU, DS J , n..,, .a. 11uN: 1v101st, oense, ugnt orown, sandy SILTSTONE '--... total depth -3.u '--No groundwater encountered Boring backfilled with soil cuttings '-5- '-- ~ - L. - L. - l..J a. L. - ... - '-- '-- -15- ~ - '-- '-- ~ - Lza. L. -' L. - L. - ~ - 25- FIGURE] B-3 ~ O ~~";'~'~'~'; !,~ ~,,},1;:~ !,!"~~,.,~,,~"~ ,~},~P,~~,!~,9,;o! NC· . ,'-!~l~VIN~.YAltllA\'lNOE \0111:(; l:SCUNll1DO(-A '1!11!'1t7!,IIJHh-~~H lcJl,,;1Nllkll',1;t'il" PROJECT: LOT 22, CARLSBAD OAKS BUS. EXCAVATOR: CTEJOB NO: 10-2612 EXCAVATION METHOD: HAND DUG EXCAVATION DATE: 1/12/98 WGGEDBY: HORACE BARGE SAMPLING METHOD: BULK SAMPLING ELEVATION: . C c u u C. .c ~ u -? E ., t C C. TEST PIT LOG: TP-1 t· ,. .c Labomlory Tests , ~ "' C u ; ::::· ] ~ V: u -= ,-~ , :.., "' ~ C ,. C. C. ~ ~ fc,' ·c ~ ~ u :i ;: ::; ::.. C '° :r '° DESCRIPTION 0 . ,.., ..... -- --... -- ... -TOPSOIL: Moist, medium dense, brown, silty fine SAND 5" ~ ,- M/ML ... - -- TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION: Moist, dense, light brown, --silly SANDSTONE, inlerbedded with , very stiff, gray sandy SILTSTONE -- -10!.!. r - ~ - ... - ... - ~5!!.. --Kclusal Cf!! 16" No waler --Boring backfilled wilh soil i.:ullings J·Jl1l/l<l::I II· I ~ONSTRUCTION TE.STING & ENGINEERING, INC. . , (jEUTE\IINl('AI ANIJ t"llNSfRltCl'ION ENC.JNEEltlN{i lf.SllNG ANO INSPEt'llON /' l~ I~ VINEVARIJ AVLNIJ~ ~llll~ ti 1'5fllNllll>11 l'A •1!11~•• 171,UJ 7~,,.~•J~S ~1'•;/NIIIUr,,,;N,· . PROJECT: LOT 22, CARLSBAD OAKS BUS. EXCAVATOR: C'TEJOB NO: 10-2612 EXC' A VATION METHOD: HAND DUG EXC' AV A TION DA TE: l/12/98 LOGGED BY: HORACE BARGE SAMPLING METl!OD: BULK SAMPLING ELEVATION: - C c " u C. "--" -• ~-"" ~ a • TEST PIT LOG: TP-2 :::-, ,:: -" j ~ Labomlory Tesls , er. s u ~ ~ 0 u -= ~.c- ~ :, .E ~ a "-E. ~ -$;' c ✓. e )( -; .:. ,' -.:; :r ::, DESCRIPTION 0 ,,m \ / MAX,KV -- --... 1-6~ ~ -TOPSOIL: Moist, medium dense, brown, silty fine SAND ~ - ,M/ML 1-J 2- ~ - .... -TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION: Moist, dense, light brown, silty SANDSTONE, interbedded with , very stiff, gray sandy Hg_ SILTSTONE .... - ~ - f-24- .... -Refusal 0) 2.0' Tolal depth= 2.0' ~ -No groundwater encountered Test Pit backfilled with soil cuttings 30- .... - --Boring hal'.kfillcd with soil cllllings ,. _, , ..... .f''N'CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. . . ., .:, r., (iHHl'-CIINll"AI. ANJJ CUNHIIIIC' rltJN ENCilNl'HON(j T~-~TIN(i ANO IN~!>F.CTION .--'l( I('? !~ I~ Vltll:VAklJ ·\\'l-.tllll, \IJIII. c; l'SCIINIHllll l"A •iJu!•• 111,n1 7~1,-~•11i lo?'-•4Nllkll\.•il'«" • PROJECT: LOT 22, CARLSBAD OAKS BUS. EXCAVATOR: CTEJOB NO: I0-2612 EXCAVATION METHOD: HAND DUG EXCAVATION DATE: 1/12/98 LOGGED BY: HORACE BARGE SAMPLING METHOD: BULK SAMPLING ELEVATION: - C c 0 " C. "--" -:. ~-"' t E ~ TEST PIT LOG: TP-3 ,: s -" J. .::· Laboratory Tests ·.:;. "' " C ~ :,: " E. -~ 0 , 0 C " ,,. ~ -" ~ ~ C. i:· c ;.r. e 0 3 ·;: " :; --' C " :,: " DESCRIPTION 0 Jm I Cl -- --TOPSOIL: Moisl, medium dense, brown, silly line SAND .... -6!!.. -- TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION: Moist, dense, light brown, --silly SANDSTONE, interbedded with, very stiff, gray sandy l-l2-SILTSTONE M/ML -- >-- 1-l &-- >---- ~4- >--Refusal @ 2.0' Tolal depth= 2.0' >-- No groundwater encountered Test Pil backlillcd wilh soil cullings ,-JO- >-- --Boring backfilled wilh soil cullings APPENDIXC LABO RA TORY METHODS AND RES UL TS Laboratory Testing Program Laboratory tests were perfonned on representative soil samples to detect their relative engineering properties. Tests were perfonned following test methods of the American Society for Testing Materials or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the various test methods used. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples according to ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs in Appendix B. Particle-Size Analysis Particle-size analyses were perfonned on selected representative samples according to ASTM D422. The particle-size distribution curves are in Appendix C. Expansion Index Expansion testing was perfonned on selected samples of the matrix of the onsite soils according to Building Code Standard No. 29-2. Expansion Index results are reported in Appendix C. In-Place Moisture/Densitv The in-place moisture content and dry unit weight of selected samples were detennined using relatively undisturbed chunk soil samples. The dry unit weight and moisture content are shown on the attached exploration logs and are shown in Appendix C. R-Value The resistance "R" value was detennined by the California Materials Method No. 30 l for representative subbase soils. Samples were prepared and exudation pressure and "R" value detennined. The graphically detennined "R" value at exudation pressure of 300 psi is the value used for pavement section calculation. Direct Shear Direct shear tests were perfonned on either samples direct from the field or on samples · recompacted to 90% of the laboratory maximum value overall. Direct shear testing was perfonned in accordance with ASTM D3080-72 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of selected materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. • • " " " ; . ,. 145 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I I \ I I 140 \ II \ \ \ \ \ .\ \ 1 3 S I I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 130 \ .\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ 125 \ \ \ \ ' \ \ \ \ c-" \ ' \ a 120 \X \ \ ,.. ~\ :i: i:., . ' . ~ I IS I✓ \ ' ~ '. '· ~ \ ,, \ \\ ,.. \ \ \\ \ z =, I 1 0 " \ \ \ >-\ \ \ \ \ 0: .\ \ \ \ \ Q IO S \ \ \ \ \ \\\ \ \ .. ' \ \· 100 ',..\\ \. \ \ ,\\ \' \\\ 95 \ \ \. \ I\ \ \ \ \ .\ \' \\ .. , .. ' 90 ' <, \' \ I\\\:\ 85 ,I\•\\ 0 ; I 0 IS 20 25 30 35 PERCENT MOISTURE (%) ASTM D1557 METHOD IX] A □ B □ C MODIFIED PROCTOR RESULTS MAXIMl'M OPTIMUM LAB SAMPLE DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION DRY DENSITY MOISTURE NUMBER NUMBER (FEET) (PCF) CONTENT(%) 7518 TP-2 1-2 Gray clayey SAND 118.5 14.5 CTEJOB NO: & CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC. DATE: 2/98 -GEOTEC'H'.\IC'A,l .-\:',;D C'OSSTRL"CTIO'.\I E:,,;GfNEERING TESTING ASD INSPEC'TIO~ 10-2612 ;.'" :41-' VISEY,~RD AVE'.'ll'E. STE G ESCONDIDO CA. Q~029 (760) 746--'955 FIGURE: C-1 ~,,;i,,l~~1,,; I"' • 5000 4000 ,,_ 3000 :i: .. " 2000 IO00 0 0 Sample Designation B-3 IO00 2000 3000 SHEAR STRENGTH TEST Depth (ft} Cohesion Angle ofFriction 2-3 1200 psf 7' CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING. INC. GEOTECH~ICAL .\'1/D (l);>;STR!JC".''.V\ E,',GINEERl~G !EST!>,;G ":-JD INSPECTION ;."" !~14 Vl).IEY-'RO -'.I.E"-L'E. SL'I:-: G ESCO'l/0I00 Ca\ •1:11:•• ,•r,1I1 "H••4·•!, E,\, ;rt-TIRIX•~ ~;,,· • 4000 5000 Sample Description Olive sandy lean CLAY (CL} CTE JOB NO: 10-2612 FIGURE: C-2 ~ --------=-:-------------------------------'\CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING. INC. o/'rr"'T,"'~• (HOTECHNICAL :\NO CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING TESTING AND INSPECTION LOCATION 8-1 8-2 LOCATION TP-3 LOCATION TP-2 LOCATION TP-1 B-2 CTE JOB NO.: 10-2612 :~1~ VINEYARD ,vENUE. SUITE Ci ESCONOJOO CA •!!ll?•J ,,,,,q 741,.~•1,, UNDISTURBED DENSITY AND MOISTURE CONTENT DEPTH (feet) 0.5-1.5 l.5-2.5 MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 14.6 23.l EXPANSION INDEX TEST UBC 18-2 DEPTH (feet) 0-1.5 EXPANSION INDEX 80 RESISTANCE "R"-VALUE CALTEST301 DEPTH (feet) 0-1.5 200 \VASH ANALYSIS DEPTH (feet) 0-1.5 l.5-2.5 DRY DENSITY (pct) 111.1 94.7 EXPANSION POTENTIAL MEDIUM R-VALUE 11 PERCENT PASSING 28.5 70.3 FIGURE: C-3