HomeMy WebLinkAbout1535 FARADAY AVE; ; CB993795; Permit12/10/1999
Job Address:
Permit Type:
Parcel No:
Valuation:
Reference #:
Project Title:
Applicant:
City of Carlsbad
Retaining Wall Permit Permit No:CB993795
Building Inspection Request Line (760) 438-3101
1535 FARADAY AV CBAD
RETAIN
Lot#: 0
$12,000.00 Construction Type: NEW
SPEC BUILDING
1000 SF RETAINING WALL
Status: ISSUED
Applied: 10/15/1999
Entered By: MDP
Plan Approved: 12/10/1999
lnspe~f~~8 JWi1J)}ij9
&01 01
C-PRMT
RENO CONTRACTING
Total Fees: $14~.48
Clearance: _____ _
NOTICE: ease take NOTICE that approval of your project includes the "Imposition" of fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively
referred to as "fees/exactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these fees/exactions. If you protest them, you must
follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for
processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack,
review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition.
You are hereby FURTHER NOTIFIED that your right to protest the specified fees/exactions DOES NOT APPLY to water and sewer connection fees and capactiy
changes, nor planning, zoning, grading or other similar application processing or service fees in connection with this project. NOR DOES IT APPLY to any
fees/exactions of which ou have reviousl been iven a NOTICE similar to this or as to which the statute of limitations has reviousl otherwise ex ired.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad, CA 92009 (760) 438-1161
02
142-48
)
PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF CARLSBAD BUllDfNG DEPARTMENT
2075 Las Palmas Dr., Carlsbad CA 92009
(760) 438-1161
MSftlfJl'I I'~# '212 • (?.O · 2.
111,me
FAX NO. 000 0000 P.02/02
P. 02 ---·--·--------i,..._ __
l'OR OFACE USE ONLY
PLAN CHECK NO. C/Cf->rt~
/1.. ~ o v ES'T. VAL.--...... --------'--Plan Ck. Depoait ___ 1-,,1111;.__ __ -'-_
Vaffdated By ________ -+-D111e. ____________ ~_
!\-~::.~----';~
6)
Stitt llc:anff 11 _______ _
~-si~~~~~~ ... ~-.l~~~i'.)t~~~~.~~·wr~'·
_.. C"11!e,eMittion Oei:l.,.tial; t '*9hy lffirlfl llfflfet penaftv Df ~ 11M af the following dc=-:atioM.
I htV• Inf will ll\1itlr.in. ~ rtf C!Onnll'C M fflf-inM• for w--' G0""9l1HIIIIII -~ 11v Slctiort '.4100 of ..... Lll>ar eo., fOr ffll pffiaffl\lm:e
WOIII fe, which thfa PlfflM ls lnuwd.
O I lll'n llllCI will malntein WIIOfkers' cam!MIMll!an. • IWOVirwd by ~"" 3700 of 1tle Labar C., fflf thlt '*'°""'nr:tt ot ""'-wo,11 ffff wNd't th!$ 1191'ffilt It
in~. My -W• cvm,,,,..1ion ~ nrtMf _!!ld PolicV fflJffllter en,: U • I ( ,..p..
lflNMICICGfflPIIIY S ~'"=-Co'""\.t:L..L:oe ~Ab l"vtlcrNo, 7 ""1 l -;~ I L..J.. ~o.t• q --V'-.J
rtftllli liECTION Nm> HOT II COMfU'm> • M fl8IMff IS FOR ON! MUNDIIUt DOUAM l$100} OR UISI
Q CMTIRCAll Of EXIMPTtO& I Clffllfyihat lri • NlfOrrNnc:e ot tt. ~ f«" Wflict,W. pe,mlt if iNl,,rd, I .ti.M .,-~ 1!'1V "'90II 1'I 81fJ fflafflW IO ff
m ~ Uikt to ttw Wcntfl' co111ciennt1on i..we Of Califamilt.
WARMIM: FlilUl'a Ill._.._._.. Nft ... lllClvn ~ le ll!llawW. MNJ "'1alt lllllljwt e ....... tD ~,...... 11M cl¥1' nn.. .,_ te _,. fMlndqd
t21t1UMM1 ..._. ct ff 01, "' ..... a111a Of_,..,,...,, d..,..... • .,........,. lfeatlOff J7ff of1tla • ~ ..,..,,..,,.., teu.
IIIGNA~E OATE (c;) I
~.... ,~ ...... ,.... .~~$..'2-E~ .:,,, .,,..., .. ,e;,~~~~
thereby afflfffl ltlat I &fl'I -pt"-tl'l9 c::.nrtreao,', UwnR ~ tor the fvl~ 1euot1:
0 t. ,s OW'* .. , ,.,. lllf1IPfflY er n,y -~ With ._..., n llttlr eole 01111•11..-WA. wm do t"-wOfll 4fflCf .,,-auu,:ture it not lnttnd9d OI' rMlred far •le
!Sa.;:. 10.U, •-"'-• eftll Ptofes•..s CQdts n.. CanVem,t"a Uc.nu i..w «IW9 not" IIOPIY m .,, e-~~who llulla or~~. WKf Wl'ro 00.
a~II ~k Nm"lf o, tt.r°"ll'I lli9 _,. ·~· prO'riftd d'll1 WUt!I lff!pr0vtlm1nta 11e not mr.ndad or etferwd fer ute. If • ..._.,_, it.. Wldlng or lmpfOvemtnt II
1a111 Wltll!11 -"'" of con,pletlc)n, tflf owntt-bufdtr wlll flew N l.'"9,, Of IQlllng fflft l'lt did t10t builll °'....,,,.,.,. fw tht DVrPON"' nleJ.
C1 ,. • -Mr ot vi. 11R1'*1Y, •m PC!lvflVely eci~ wfttl KGellMII ~ w c"'IIVUCt It-. PftllMt ttn. 7044, ~" ltld Prot...iona coa: ni.
Contt~• UelnM Law 11-not "'" to 1111 0wnet et~ ..,t,o b,,,llda • ~ lll«HI!, Ind~ fOf lllldl projlet1 with -*"-*'1•1 n-i.td --to"'• c--r'• uc_. 1..9w). Cl I am 111-,,,t "11W hClion _____ •~ ltlfl Ptofwel-Cvdlt ,.,, thltl ,.....,.t
1. I !lfflonall-, .,_,, ~ p,0111• the melor IBllar w,........ fOI' ~ Of Vie DretHISff Pl'ONl't'I mi,,.,.,_,i_ C vu C)No
2. I Olaq I tiev. n•t1 Iii~ -~fora~ "tfflllt hJf m. pn,pond W.,
8, I hlYI tentraettd wtffl ihe hillowmg pertin, (firm) to PIO'lidt ttle pr..,_ed ~ ~ mlmt I actdrw I"'*" flUftlNf / cont,aota,J liCanM lllffllNl'Jl
"· I 9lan to prWide po,tionl of the WOl"t, 1M I h"'8 hired N fefblo\linf ~-_,,.,.19, IIVJIIMff 11111! pro'liee the fflliOI' Wark lim:lllde _,...,...,.,,..,,.
numb,...fc0h1r-• rre-"""ltletl:. ______ ~-------------~--------------~
6, r will~,_ Of 1t11 'ffffl. but I hen~ llliled> ?ha tea.w;,i9 .,....,_ 1111 llfll"4ae mt W"'1C illllclted linclUds ,.._ I •dd-/ 111ha11• nu~., 1""""
~ world,•.._ -----~---------------------------------------1
PflQPVITY OW~ft SIGNATURE;.;;..:,:;:;.;;;:.;;;:~;;,;;;;;;::,:;:;;:;;:;;;;;;;:;;;:;=;;;:::=::.;::: OAT&_~-------~~.!t.~~t~-#t:~~:,-...::,~/-:==_;;::::..--z.~1~Qf'~~4~'1Jf~~Z~~ .. ;~"7;~~~-~·;~~;ii~~~~;~~~
Is "111w Jlppl!Qffl CH M11t1 bulh5nQ ecwpMt ,eq..,il'eel t• submit • busi-, ,i.n, MU\'lly ~ lllltWrithr l'9fttm.left form a, ritk mfl'lqemlfflt -ncs PMNffilOl'I
fl''9tfin.,.., ~ aH06. Ul33 or 2552& of en. "9llllv•T811Mt~ ...._~ Ac!tl--0. "" 0-NO •
11 h 1111Plic1m ..-NWr• llvlldl!lt ~ NWfld te MM!• permit IY9ffl tfte eit pol!Ullcrl ~ Glttrifl er lit fllllltv -~ ~t O YE$ 0 MO
I& ltll facility to be i:ons1fuetq wt1hln 1.000,... of VII Olff9!' boundery or I Rllotl • ., 0 YES O NO
IF ANY OF' THE AH$W!flS AM YU. A P!NA4 CSlllRCATl OF OCCUPANa" MAY JC01' II' 11ste UNI..SU TIC~ HU MU Oii fS Mm'INC THI ~ OF THI Of'FICE OIi IMS•IJI_,., NfMCD AHO THI aM JOUUTJON CONTIIOt. DISTWCT. ~---~?,, .. ":?.B!t~~:~4¾!~~;c·
I lleret,,, tfflrm tlllt ttllrl ls a~~ '-'Int~ fllf the ,e,fOl!MIIA et tl'le won ftw ll1fhich ml!: s.-n,,li it !Nud (S.C. ~976) Chll Code).
wtO!lt'S NAMi-Nm•;;;:~;;;;;;;;;:;;;;;;_;. liN0!R'S AOOM$S
~~~-HM P!J I SJ,.: li~":ifflf~~~k~G"i:'.
I~ N1, ,-.. '"'* ~ ~ ei,d maw 1'm tile·-ln'9rffle1iOn ill_,.._, thlt ttle lnfllmletion ffl the plans"~. I Ill'" tg oornply wltft .. , e1tv 0~ •nd Stet,t laWI '"""19 W llulldlnf GOM1n1Ctio11. I ""811-, BIIIMrih l'epfffen19tiflt Of ttlt Cltt af Cwtsba,J to ,mer upon tile IIIO',fe ~
ptlil*fY fr,r lnlClee'dClfl ~-I Al.SO A.Oflel TO :sAV£, IMJIMNIFV Af«> QEP NMMUiSS TME CffY o, ~ ~ A&.&. I.IMIUfb
JUOGMfNTS, COS,-S AND~ WMtCff MAY IN ANY WAY A~ A.,._.T ~ c,n •~OF THli QMN't!NG o, TMl5 f!eRMfT, •
OStt,\; Afl OSHA P'l'lllit If """*41l for W'llttmli:,t,11 OVlt" s10• C1M11 encl .... alldM or~ of 8'tuct\llW °"' 3 lfflRies In~-
~TIOft, b,ry p-ml't iAUld by 11111 lulldina Dfficlaf~ 'lhe ~ ~ VIII Ccidt ahlU ~ oy ffllltatlot\ llftd ..._ null imd VOiO If 'Ole IIUlldi or
werrc ~ bv •11eh Pltll!lt II IIOt """""1ced wtt11!,i ~95 4eva from --. ._ qt """ flllffll1t or 11' the ~ w _.. ~ bv avet, ""'11t ts •~ded
o< .tlenclon1d at •nv t1n,,o -1~ tt.. :~ f~ ~-11'9 day,r PJt--, f08,4__. Uniform •IJlll!lnt Cede). ..J:
Am.lC~N't'8St<5NA"t1Jfll! -====¾-~ l-k<.-<.----DATE 10(\~S 7 WHIT'E: I'll, YaLOW~ AODIIAl!t fl!HIC, "'--
City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request
For: 6/6/2000
Permit# CB993795 Inspector Assignment: TP ---
Title: SPEC BUILDING
Description: 1000 SF RETAINING WALL
Type: RETAIN Sub Type:
Job Address:
Suite:
Location:
1535 FARADAY AV
Lot
APPLICANT RENO CONTRACTING
Owner:
Remarks:
Total Time:
CD Description
69 Final Masonry
Associated PCRs
Inspection History
Date Description
5/31/2000 69 Final Masonry
5/30/2000 69 Final Masonry
0
Act Comments
Phone: 7604382633
Inspector: L
Requested By: BILL
Entered By: CHRISTINE
ff ________ _
Act lnsp Comments
NR . TP WAITING FOR REPORTS, KEEP PERM OPEN
NR TP NEED REPORTS
...
EsGil Corporation
'ln Partnersliip witli (jovernment for '13uiftfing Safety
DATE: 12/6/99
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
PLAN CHECK NO.: 99-3795
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1535 Faraday Ave.
PROJECT NAME: Keystone Retaining Wall
SET: II
D APPLICANT ~~ _____ _..,
D PLAN REVIEWER
D FILE
D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply
with the jurisdiction's building codes.
~ The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes
when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff.
D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list
/d should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
D ·· The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil
, Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck.
D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant
contact person.
D The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
~ Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
D Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
Person contacted: Telephone#:
Date contacted: (by: ) Fax#:
Mail Telephone Fax In Person
[8J REMARKS: 1. Please see 99-3794 for the required plans and calculation. 2. City to approve the
special inspection program. '¥Jc~
By: David Yao Enclosures:
Esgil Corporation
D GA D MB D EJ D PC log trnsmU.dot
9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576
..
Geotechnical O Geologic O Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915
,1 ;-7 r r,t;;>J'l.CP"'J:
The Blackmore Company
1530 Faraday Avenue, Suite 170
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Ms. Colleen Blackmore
June 2, 2000
W.O. 2472-C/D/E/F-SC
Subject: FinaL Compaction Report for Backfill of Water Line Trench, Storm Drain
Trench, Sewer Trench, Retaining Wall, and Subgrade and Base Testing, Lot
103 of Carlsbad Research Center, San Diego County, California
Reference: "Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, Lot 103 of Carlsbad Research Center,"
W.O. 2472-A-SC, dated August 17, 1998, by GeoSoils, Inc.
Dear Ms. Blackmore:
This report presents a summary of the geotechnical engineering observation and testing
services provided by GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) for the water line trench backfill, storm drain
trench backfill, sewer trench backfill, retaining wall footing and backfill, and subgrade and
base testing for the subject site. This report covers only the water line trench, storm drain
trench, sewer trench, retaining wall footing and backfill, subgrade, and base tested by GSI
from October 8, 1999, through March 2, 2000.
UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL
Native onsite soils were used as backfill for the water, storm drain, and sewer line trenches,
The required compaction was achieved by mechanical means. The minimum compaction
required was 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D-1557). ·
. RETAINING WALLS
Native onsite soils were used as backfill for the retaining walls. The required compaction
was achieved by mechanical means. The minimum compaction required was 90 percent
of the laboratory standard (ASTM D-1557).
Retaining Wall Footing Observations
Footing excavations for the retaining wall were observed by a representative of GSI, upon
request of the contractor. All observed excavations appear to be in conformance with our
recommendations. Wall construction, in general, appeared to be in conformance with the
approved construction plans.
SUBGRADE TESTING
The exposed subgrade was tested to a depth of 12 inches. Our tests indicate that the
subgrade materials meet or exceed the minimum requirement of 95 percent relative
compaction of the laboratory staridard {ASTM D 1557) for streets and parking lots.
BASE TESTING
The exposed base was tested per recommendations of GSI report dated August 17, 1998.
Our tests. indicate that the subgrade materials meet or exceed the minimum requirement
of 95 percent relative compaction of the laboratory standard {ASTM D 1557) for streets and
drive approaches.
FIELD TESTING
1 . Field density tests were performed using nuclear densometer ASTM test methods
D-2922 and D-3017 and sand-cone A$TM test method ASTM D-1556. The test
.results are presented in the attached Table 1.
2. Field density tests were taken at periodic intervals and random locations to check
the compactive efforts provided by the contractor. Where test results ·indicated a
less than the·required minimum compaction, the contractor was notified and the
area was reworked until the required minimum relative cqmpaction was achieved
for ~ach respective are~. ·
3. Visual classification of the soil in the field was the basis for determining the
maximum density value to use for a given density test.
LABORATORY TESTING
The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each of the major
soil types were determined according to test method ASTM D-1557. The following table
presents the results:
The Blackmore Company
Lot 103, Carlsbad Research Center
File: e:\wp7\2400\2472cef.fcr
GeoSoils, Ine.
W.O. 2472-C/D/E/F-SC
June 2, 2000
Page2
Soil Type Maximum Dry Density Optimum Moisture
(pcf) Content (percent)
A -Sandy Clay, Brown 117.0 14.5
B -Class II Base 138.0 7.5
C -Class II Base 139.5 6.5
REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
Placement of compacted backfills under the purview of this report have been completed
using the observation and selective testing services provided by representatives of
GeoSoils, Inc. Earthwork was performed in general compliance with the Grading Code of
City of Carlsbad, California.
Our findings were made in conformance with generally accepted professional engineering
practices, and no further warranty is implied or rnade. GSI assumes no responsibility or
liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others: This report
js subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project.
CLOSURE
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questi_ons pertaining to this
report, please contact us at (760) 438-3155. ·
Respectfully submitted,
GeoSoils, Inc.
Attachment:-Table 1 -Field Density Test Results
Distribution: (4) Addressee
The Blackmore Company
Lot 103, Carlsbad Research Center
File: e:\wp7\2400\2472cef.fcr
GeoSoils, Ine.
W.O. 2472-C/D/E/F-SC
June 2, 2000
Page3
• Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
S-1 10/08/99 EAST END E-W TRENDING SEWER FG
S-2 10/08/99 NORTH END N-S TRENDING SEWER FG ·
S-3 10/08/99 SOUTH END N-S TRENDING SEWER FG
10/08/99 MIDDLE OF NW-SE TRENDING LINE FG
RW-1 10/28/99 MIDDLE OF N'.S TRENDING WALL 154.0
RW-1 10/26/99 MIDDLE OF N-S TRENDING WALL 154.0
RW-2 10/28/99 MIDDLE OF N-S TRENDING WALL 156.0
RW-3 11/03/99 1+40 TOP 1' OF COVER
RW-4 11/03/99 1+15 TOP 1' OF COVER
RW-5 11/03/99 2+15 TOP 2' OF COVER
RW-6 11/03/99 1+70 TOP 2' OF COVER
RW-7 11/03/99 o+ao TOP 1' OF COVER
RW-8 11/08/99 FINISHED SLOPE E-W TRENDING WALL, WEST END FG
RW-9 11/08/99 FINISHED SLOPE E-W TRENDING WALL, EAST END FG
,o,ccxn-,. 1= ,. __ -'''" iti~~i1t)i\~~~~l(~Slt9RMiP~ltt~~£';~f~-,~~1~ cMJ: . ~--!;;'.'~ii,'£~'
SD-1 11/05/99. WEST END 1 +55 -2.5
SD-2 11/05/99 WEST END 1 +50 -2.5
SD-3 11/05/99 WEST END 1 +40 -2.5
SD-4 11/08/99 WESTERN END 1 +00 -3.5
SD-5 11/08/99 WESTERN END 0+50 -2.5
SD-6 11/08/99 STORM DRAIN BOX NORTHERN END OF LOT -3.0
SD-7 11/08/99 STORM DRAIN BOX SOUTHERN END OF LOT -3.0
SD-8 11/08/99 1+70 -4.0
SD-9 11/08/99 1+70 -2.0
SD-10 11/16/99 STORM DRAIN BOX EAST -1 .. 5
SD-11 11/16/99 STORM DRAIN BOX WEST -1.5
~~ t~~~f ti!~\~~~~i~\tz~1;tt:1l\vlAt~i~~tZ~31:tlit~~~~·f ~~~~i,~~i
W-1 11/16/99 1 +48 SOUTH LOT -1.0
W-2 11/16/99 1 +68 SOUTH LOT -2.0
W-3 11/16/99 SOUTH LATERAL LOT -1.5
~i"hi :,nf}.,, .. , :}t~1~~~]%fft~±m~i~i$uif$FJAOJa;tr:t~1~ttit:nitt~-~t ~tffd~~,i~~~i~
SG-1 02/02/00 CONCRETE APPROACH, NORTH SIDE OF LOT SG
SG-2 02/02/00 CONCRETE APPROACH, SOUTH SIDE OF LOT SG
SG-3 02/10/00 NORTH PER KING SG
SG-4 02/10/00 NORTH PER KING SG
SG-5 02/10/00 EAST PER KING SG
SG-6 02/10/00 EAST PER KING SG
SG-7 02/10/00 SOUTH PER KING SG
;fitt ~~~,i t~~~lrf~¼~~~~ti~JiAtft .. ~~$~{:Z~1}~Glt~t{i!i~f~_;ft ;~i!~~'-5:~~t~
B-1 02/01/00 SWALE ·(NORTH SIDE OF Lon BG
B-2 02/01/00 SWALE (NORTH SIDE OF LOn BG
B-3 02/01/00 SWALE (EAST SIDE OF LOl) BG
B-4 02/01/00 · SWALE (EAST SIDE OF LOn BG
B-5 02/02/00 CONCRETE APPROACH; NORTH SIDE OF LOT BG
B-6 02/02/00 CONCRETE APPROACH, SOUTH SIDE OF LOT -0.5
B-7 02/02/00 CONCRETE APPROACH, SOUTH SIDE OF LOT BG
Blackmore
File:e:\excel\tables\2400\2472cdef
GeoSoils, Ine.
14.5
14.7
14.6
14.6
14.7
11.7
14.5
15.3
14.5
14.7
14.5
14.9
14.8
14.6
e
14.5
14.5
14.5
16.3
15.4
14.8
15.2
14.5
15.7
14.5
14.5
?t~:t.ftfitlef~~
14.5
14.5
14.5
~~11?~~11
16.2
15.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
1~ :•,.
8.0
7.5
7.5
7.7
7.8
7.5
8.0
105.5
105.9
106:5
105.9
106.1
100.4
105.8
108.0
106.1
107.5
105.8
105.9
105.3
105.5 ·
,.·:.:c-.,:•:,.
109.8
107.6
108.0
105.3
105.8
106.6
106.5
107.3
107.1
105.4
105.6
:ft,tdf;;s·~~;
105.5
105.8
106.2
~®~li~?X
115.2
115.1
111.6
112.1
111.3
112.2
112.1
'"'"
131.1
131.7
131.4
131.7
132.3
132.1
132.5
90.2 ND A
90.5 ND A
91.0 ND A
90.5 ND A
90.7 ND A
85.8 SC A
90.4 ND A
92.3 ND A
90.7 SC A
91.9 ND A
90.4 ND A
90.5 SC A
90.0 ND A
90.2 ND A
r1:~~~-~t~Y--wi :,~i~~~~~
93.8 ND A
91.9 SC A
92.3 SC A
90.0 SC A
90.4. ND A
91.1 ND A
91.0 ND A
91.7 ND A
91.5 SC A
90.0 ND A
90.2 ND A
-v~,?.)~01);1;. I },tli.1¼,, ),j,.,f:t-i:0'< 1~ ,"'< ·,:rt::: ~r:¥::;,'.\t~i ~te~~~ ~MAt'.:,.,"'7,,~
90.1 ND A
90.4 SC A
90.7 ND A
~?fgtiit~i!~l].¥{.: ~~~~!i;fi "~ ~ '>~ .....
95.2 ND A
95.1 ND A
95.4 ND A
95.8 ND A
95.1 ND A
95.9 ND A
95.8 ND A
f~lf~?~~~if~~ r;;,.
95.0 ND B
95.4 ND B
95.2 ND B
95.4 ND B
95.9 ND B
95.7 ND B
96.0 ND B
W.O. 2472-C/D/E/F-SC
Page 1
,,.
.. Table 1
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
~1~1~-~--~~~i~ffi!~~~~i~~~~
B-1 02/18/00 NORTH DRIVEWAY BG 6.5 135.2 96.9 ND C
B-2 02/18/00 NORTH PARKING
B-3 02/18/00 EAST PARKING
B-4 ·02/18/00 EAST DRIVEWAY
B-5 02/18/00 SOUTH DRIVEWAY
B-6 02/18/00 SOUTH PARKING
B-12 03/02/00 APPROACH @ ENTRANCE TO LOT
B-13 03/02/00 APPROACH @ ENTRANCE TO LOT
LEGEND
ND -NUCLEAR DENSOMETER
SC -SAND CONE
Blackmore
Flle:e:\excel\tables\2400\2472cdef
BG
BG
BG
BG
BG
BG
BG
GeoSoils, lne.
6.5 134.6
6.5 134.1
6.5 135.0
6.5 133.8
6.5 134.2
7.5 132.8
7.9 131.2
96.4 ND C
96.1 ND C
96.7 ND C
95.9 ND C
96.2 ND C
96.2 ND C
95.1 ND C
W.O. 2472-C/D/E/F-SC
Page2
EsGil Corporation
1.n Partnersli.ip Witli. {jovemment for '.BuiUing Safety
DATE: 10/26/99
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
PLAN CHECK NO.: 99-3795
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1535 Faraday Ave.
PROJECT NAME: Retaining Wall
SET:I
CJ~CANT
~
CJ PLAN REVIEWER
CJ FILE
D The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply
with the jurisdiction's building codes.
D The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction's building codes
when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff.
D The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list
and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
IZJ The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil
Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck.
D The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant
contact person.
IZJ The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
Bob Thomson 1650 Hotel Circle North San Diego CA
IZJ Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
D Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
Person contacted: Telephone#:
Date contacted: (by: ) Fax#:
Mail Telephone Fax In Person
D REMARKS:
By: David Yao Enclosures:
Esgil Corporation
D GA D MB D EJ D PC 10/18 trnsmtl.dot
9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576
Carlsbad 99-3795
10/26/99
GENERAL PLAN CORRECTION LIST
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1535 Faraday Ave.
DATE PLAN RECEIVED BY
ESGIL CORPORATION: 10/18
REVIEWED BY: David Yao
FOREWORD (PLEASE READ):
PLAN CHECK NO.: 99-3795
DATE REVIEW COMPLETED:
10/26/99
This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code,
Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws
regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and disabled access. This plan review is
based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections
based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department
or other departments.
The following items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied
before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3,
1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any
state, county or city law.
1. Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new sets of prints to:
ESGIL CORPORATION.
2. To facilitate rechecking, please identify, next to each item, the sheet of the plans
upon which each correction on this sheet has been made and return this sheet
with the revised plans.
3. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of
corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and
where they are located on the plans. Have changes been made not resulting from this
list?
D Yes D No
4. The keystone retaining wall detail shall be signed and sealed by the engineer.
5. Provide a copy of the project soil report prepared by a California licensed architect or civil
engineer. The report shall include foundation design recommendations based on the
engineer's findings and shall comply with UBC Section 1804.
Carlsbad 99-3795
10/26/99
6. Note on the plan the soils classification, wheth_er or not the soil is expansive and note the
allowable bearing value. Section 106.3.3.
7. The soils engineer recommended that he/she review the foundation excavations. Note
on the foundation plan that "Prior to the contractor requesting a Building Department
foundation inspection, the soils engineer shall advise the building official in writing that:
The foundation excavations, the soils expansive characteristics and bearing capacity
· conform to the soils report."
8. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the retaining wall plan, grading
plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the
recommendations in the soils report are properly incorporated into the construction
documents (when required by the soil report).
9. Note on the plan to provide special inspection for foundation condition, reinforced backfill
placement and structural geogrid installation.
10. Provide special inspection program to the building official prior to issuance the building
permit.
11. The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake
Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to
perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan
review items, please contact David Yao at Esgil Corporation. Thank you.
Carlsbad 99-3795
10/26/99
VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE
JURISDICTION: Carlsbad
PREPARED BY: David Yao
BUILDING ADDRESS: 1535 Faraday Ave.
BUILDING OCCUPANCY:
BUILDING PORTION BUILDING AREA
(ft. 2)
Retaining wall
Air Conditioning
Fire Sprinklers
TOTAL VALUE
PLAN CHECK NO.: 99-3795
DATE: 10/26/99
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:
VALUATION VALUE
MULTIPLIER ($)
12000
(per city)
D 199 UBC Building Permit Fee D Bldg. Permit Fee by ordinance:$ 131.08
D 199 UBC Plan Check Fee D Plan Check Fee by ordinance: $ 85.2
Type of Review: D Complete Review D Structural Only D Hourly
D Repetitive Fee Applicable D Other:
Esgil Plan Review Fee: $ 68.16
Comments:
Sheet 1 of 1
macvalue.doc 5196
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
RETAINING WALL
BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER:
BUILDING ADDRESS: l535
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: _R_e_ta_in_in~g~W_al_l _____ _
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER: ,9.,, L,R -I 'bo ,.... c:t-8
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
APPROVAL
The item you have submitted for review has been
approved. The approval is based on plans, information
and/or specifications provided in your submittal;
therefore, any changes to these items after this date,
including field modifications, must be reviewed by this ·
office to insure continued conformance with applicable
codes. Please review carefully all comments attached,
as failure to comply with instructions in this report can
result in suspension of permit to build.
~~ Date:~
ATTACHMENTS
Right-of-Way Permit Application
DENIAL
Please see the attached report of deficiencies
marked with D. Make necessary corrections to
plans or specifications for compliance with
applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected
plans and/or specifications to this office for review.
By: Date: --------
By: Date: --------
By: Date:
ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON
NAME: JOANNE JU.CHNIEWICZ
City of Carlsbad
ADDRESS: 2075 Las Palmas Drive
Carlsbad, CA 92009
PHONE: (760) 438-1161, ext. 4510
\\LASPALMAS\SYS\LIBRARY\ENG\WORO\OOCS\CHKLSnRetaining Wall Building Plancheck Cklst Form JJ.doc Rev. 6/26/98
2075 Las Palmas Dr. "' Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 ° (760) 438-1161 ., FAX (760) 431-5769
Cl
Cl Cl Cl
a Cl
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
RETAINING WALLS
1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show:
A. North Arrow D. Easements
f O Cz1 Ooo6
Dwc.... i7~-5L
ft:Jf1 lf150S
i;>W( '377-7
B. Existing & Proposed Structures
(dimensioned from street)
E. Retaining Wall
(location and height)
C. Property Lines
2. Show on site plan:
A. Drainage Patterns
B. Existing & Proposed Slopes
C. Existing Topography
3. Include on title sheet:
A. Site Address
B. Assessor's Parcel Number
C. Legal Description
D. Grading Quantities Cut___ Fill ___ Import/Export __ _
(Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required)
4. Project does not comply with the following Engineering Conditions of approval
for Project No. ________________ _
Conditions were complied with by: _______ Date: ____ _
MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS
5. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-Way
and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-Way.
A separate Right-of-Way issued by the Engineering Department is required
for the following:
Please obtain an application for Right-of-Way permit from the Engineering
Department.
Page 1
I\LASPALMAS\SYSILIBRARYIENGIWORDIDOCSICHKLSnRetainingWall Building Plancheck Cklst Form JJ,doc Rev. 6/26/98
PLANNINC/ENCINEERINC APPROVALS
PERMIT NUMBER CB q q $ '} Cf':) DATE / {) . l-&:,.-9'9
ADDRESS __ J.-=-S-_3~:S----~--~_V__,;_l -"=B-4. :+----A-v_·. _L.=,__
-RESIDENTIAL
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR
< < $10,000.00)
PLAZA CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES
VILLACE FAIRE
COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDINC
OTHER . ~ e_k,'v,.,,»-= ~
PLANNER ~ DATE /O-'Z-6-P7
ENCINEER DATE ---------------
oocs/Mlsform5/Planning Engineering Approvals
SE?. 30 '99 (7HU) 15:35 RENO CON7RAC7:NG
B~?-30-BB lS,00 FROM, GSJ CARLSBAD •-•.a.•~ ,lll'U ~• • • •••~• "• • ...,'"' .~..,••w --··•·-•-• .. ,•-
··· • · 'SEP-28-99 1w. 1J :itJ
'J
~28.J!9W
Mr. BobLaVj_ane
WMt CoutOeosral Ccqxntion
l22-f3 ffiahway 67
LakNide. CA. 9'»10
Suluect: Lot 103 CcJlbad RclllrCb c.e,
Oeu-Mr. I.a Vigne,
!D• ?908:310816
FAX t«). 000 0000
?AGE. 5/5
PAGE 4
P.02/03
Llltfld helow -.ns the *P"ffio soil paQnmln J)l'Orid4'd by Geosona. Inc as tho buts fbf K~U>ni:
waJl~ia0012'brmancewftbrbcabtOODdi1:klnl: )1;,.1e_ ,/4.:r /OJ
\ . .._,
-. .._,,
Design Calculations for Keystone Retaining Wall
Carlsbad Research Center Lots 98 and 103
Carlsbad, California
Prepared for
Reno Contracting
1650 Hotel Circle N., Ste. 201
Attn.: Rob Thomson
References
Prepared by
AB International
6 Ocean Mist
Aliso Viejo, Ca 92656
October 4, 1999
Project No. D1004-99
1. Site Plan for Carlsbad Research Center, Fax Copies of Lot 98 and Lot 103 Proposed
Keystone Wall Locations
2. Site Specific Soil Parameters for the design of Keystone Walls at Carlsbad Research
Center, Geosoils, Inc.
3. "Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls", First Edition, National Concrete
Masonry Association, 1993
4. Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. "Keywall Software for Retaining Wall
Designs." Design and Operation Manual, Robert J. Race, P.E., 10/15/95
5. ICBO No. 4599 for Keystone walls, June 1997 or latest revision.
Project Description
Site Plan (Reference 1) shows proposed Keystone walls at following locations with
conditions as described below:
• Lot 98: Wall along eastern side of parking spaces. This wall is maximum 4' high and
has a maximum 10' high 2:1 slope surcharge. The wall is designed with 1:32
(horizontal: vertical) batter and Keystone Standard units (21.5" depth).
• Lot 103 A and 103 B: Two separate walls maximum 6' high with 2: 1 slope surcharge.
The wall is designed with 1:32 batter Keystone Standard units (21.5" depth).
This submittal provides the design calculations and geogrid reinforcement schedule, as
needed for the above walls.
-!
\)
Subsurface and Backfill Soils
Based on the following soils parameters provided by the Soils Engineer (Reference 2),
values equal to less than these were used in the design.
Lot 98 -Northern Friction angle, Cohesion, psf Unit Weight,
Half degrees pcf
Reinforced zone backfill 27 375 125 pcf
Retained Zone 27 375 125 pcf
Foundation subgrade 27 375 125 pcf
Lot 98 -Southern Half
Reinforced zone backfill 20 355 125 pcf
Retained Zone 20 355 125 pcf
Foundation subgrade 20 355 125 pcf
Lots 103A & 103B
Reinforced zone backfill 30 300 125 pcf
Retained Zone 30 300 125 pcf
Foundation subgrade 20 355 125 pcf
Keystone Wall Design
Keywall computer program specifically prepared for the Keystone Wall units was used for
the analysis of internal and external stability of the retaining wall. The ICBO number for
Keystone wall is 4599. Rankine Earth Pressure theory was used for calculating the earth
pressures on the wall. The target Factors of safety (FS) used for the retaining wall design
are FS sliding = 1.5; FS overtmning = 2.0(reinforced walls), FS overturning = 1.5(unreinforced
walls), FS bearing =2.0, FS pullout= 1.5, and FS llllcertainties = 1.5. These are the standard modes
of failures analyzed in the design of retaining walls. The Keywall Program Manual
describes the methodology and details of the calculations performed by the program, and
provides examples with hand calculations. The summary results of the calculations are
attached to this report.
Keystone Compac precast cement masonry units, 18" width x 12" depth x 8" high,
weighing 85 pounds each is used. For geogrid reinforcement,
Miragrid 3:Xt geogrids . manufactured .. · by Mirafi, Inc. are used. Based on the ·
calculated results the schedule of geogrid reinforcement for different heights of the
Keystone walls is presente~ in Table 1. This schedule applies for all three walls in the
project.
Table 1 Geogrid Reinforcement Schedule for Keystone Wall
Total Wall Minimum Geogrid Geogrid Location*
Hei2ht (ft) Embedment (ft.) Lemrth, (Mira2rid 3XT)
4.67 or less 0.67 NOGEOGRID
5.67 0.67 5.5 2 3.33
6.67 0.67 5.5 2. 4
* The geogrid layer(s) shall be placed on the Keystone course at this height(s) measured from
the top of the leveling pad.
Recommendations
• The wall shall be constructed per the details and geogrid reinforcement schedule based
on the design calculations provided in this report, and typical sections shown on
Drawings.
• The backfill materials shall have the shear strength properties as used for design in this
report and as specified on the plans. All backfill shall be compacted to minimum 90%
of the maximum dry density detennined per Modified Proctor Compaction test
(ASTM D1557).
• The Keystone wall should be constructed per the manufacturer recommended
procedures for installation of Keystone blocks, fiberglass pins, and geogrid
reinforcement.
• The temporary excavation back cut, subdrain, and surface drainage system for the
Keystone walls shall be properly constructed per Project Soils and Civil Engineer's
recommendations.
• Reinforced fill zone shall be free draining granular fill soils.
• Soils Engineer shall review the design parameters used herein for conformance with
their recommendations.
Limitations
The calculations and recommendations provided herein are based on the assumption that
site preparation, foundation preparation, installation of base course, keystone segmental
wall blocks, interlocking pins, geogrids, backfill and caps are in conformance with the
recommendations of the manufacturer/supplier, recommendations in this report. The
calculations have considered site specific soil and loading conditions. If conditions vary
from those assumed, the designer shall be notified in writing. By accepting the design
calculations and results in this report, the Client agrees to limit the liability of AB
International, from Client and all other parties for claims arising out of the use of these
designs, to the amount paid for the preparation of this report. No other warranty is
expressed or implied.
' --~F~-,;;-ta-.'!
KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN
Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology
2.0.1.12, 16 Jul 99
Project: Carlsbad Research Center
Proj. No.: Project No
Design Parameters
Soil Parameters _L
Reinforced Fill: 30
Retained Fill: 27
Foundation Fill: 20
_ug
0
200
200
Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands
Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, l inch minus
Factors of Safety
Sliding: 1.50 Overturning:
y__m
125
125
125
Date: 10/3/99
By: abi
Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties:
2.00
1.50
1.50
Bearing: 2.00
Connection Peak: Serviceability: 1. 00
Reinforcing Parameters: Mirafi XT Geogrids
Tult RFcr RFd RFid LTDS ~ Tai .£L Cds
Miragrid 3XT 2738 1.67 1.10 1.30 1146 1.50 764 0.90 0.95
Analysis: Lot 103 and 103A Case: Case 1
Unit Type: Standard (21.5 in) Wall Batter: 0.00 deg.
Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone
Wall Ht: 6.67 ft embedment: 0.67 ft
BackSlope Geometry: 26.67 deg. slope, 15.00 ft long
Surcharge: LL-100 psfuniform surcharge DL-100 psfuniform surcharge
Offset= 15.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft
Results: Sliding Overturning
Factors of Safety: 2.54 5.09
Calculated Bearing Pressure: 1087 psf
Bearing
4.81
Shear
11.53
Bending
2.69
Eccentricity at base: 0.19 ft Allow. Peale Seniceablity
Reinforcing: (ft & lbs/ft) Calculated
Layer Height Length Tension
2 4.00 5.5 406
1 2.00 5.5 563
Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included):
Miragrid 3XT: 1.22 sy/ft
Tension Connection Connection
Reinf. Type Tai Tel Tse
Miragrid 3XT 764 ok 892 ok 941 ok
Miragrid 3XT 764 ok 897 ok 948 ok
( Efficiency= 87 % ) FoSPO=
-1 -AB International
Pullout
FS
1.87 ok
3.47 ok
2.33
page __ of_
KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN
Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology
2.0.1.12, 16 Jul 99
Project: Carlsbad Research Center
Proj. No.: Project No
Design Parameters
Soil Parameters
Retained Fill:
Foundation Fill:
_j_
27
27
..LQ§f
200
200
Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus
Factors of Safety
Sliding: 1. 50 Overturning:
Pullout: 1. 50 Uncertainties:
Connection Peale
Analysis: Lot 98
Unit Type: Standard (21.5 in)
Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone
Wall Ht: 4.67 ft
BackSlope Geometry: 26.67 deg. slope, 15.00 ft long
y_j!g
125
125
2.00
1.50
1.50
Case: Case 1
Wall Batter: 0.00 deg.
embedment: 0.67 ft
Date: 1013199
Bv: abi
Bearing: 2.00
Serviceability: 1.00
Surcharge: LL --100 psfuniform surcharge DL-100 psfuniform surcharge
Offset= 15.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft
Results:
Factors of Safety:
Calculated Bearing Pressure: 655 psf
Eccentricity at base: 0.29 ft
Sliding Overturning
5.33 3.65
Bearing
12.58
-1 -AB International
Shear
NIA
Bending
NIA
page __ of_
~:KEYSIO~;i Rf!f/ill'•UNCi WALL S'(SU:MS I -.. --· -·-· -· ... ' '~f~-,;;--(~
Project: Carlsbad Research Center
Proj. No.: Project No
Design Parameters
Soil Parameters
Retained Fill:
Foundation Fill:
KEYSTONE RETAJNING WALL DESIGN
Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology
2.0.1.12, 16 Jul 99
_!_
20
20
£.l?§f
200
200
y___;ogJ
125
125
Date: 10/3/99
Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus
Factors of Safety
~m;;
I/ 1.-----+----i t /
Sliding: 1.50 Overturning:
Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties:
Connection Peak:
Analysis: Lot 98
Unit Type: Standard (21.5 in)
Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone
Wall Ht: 4.67 ft
BackSlope Geometry: 20.00 deg. slope, 15.00 ft long
2.00
1.50
1.50
Case: Case 1
Wall Batter: 0.00 deg.
embedment: 0.67 ft
Bearing: 2.00
Serviceability: 1. 00
Surcharge: LL -100 psfuniform surcharge DL --500 psfuniform surcharge
Offset= 15.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft
Results:
Factors of Safety:
Calculated Bearing Pressure: 744 psf
Eccentricity at base: 0.40 ft
Sliding Overturning
3.61 2.47
Bearing
5.91
-1 -AB International
Shear
NIA
Bending
NIA
page_of_
KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN
Based on Rankine (modified) Methodology
2.0.1.12, 16 Jul 99
Project: Carlsbad Research Center
Proj. No.: Project No
Design Parameters
Soil Parameters
Retained Fill:
Foundation Fill:
j_
27
20
~
200
200
Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus
Factors of Safety
Sliding: 1.50 Overturning:
Pullout: 1.50 Uncertainties:
Connection Peak:
Analysis: Lot 103 and 103A
Unit Type: Standard (21.5 in)
Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone
Wall Ht: 4.67 ft
Back:Slope Geometry: 26.67 deg. slope, 15.00 ft long
y__Jg
125
125
2.00
1.50
1.50
Case: Case 1
Wall Batter: 0.00 deg.
embedment: 0.67 ft
Date: 1013/99
Bv: abi
/
Bearing: 2.00
Serviceability: 1.00
/
Surcharge: LL --100 psfuniform surcharge DL -100 psfuniform surcharge
Offset= 15.00 ft; Load Width= 100.00 ft
Results:
Factors of Safety:
Calculated Bearing Pressure: 655 psf
Eccentricity at base: 0.29 ft
Sliding Overturning
5.33 3.65
Bearing
6.82
-1 -AB International
Shear
NIA
Bending
NIA
page __ of_
"
"t
~ Cl w :r: z Cl ~
CAP UNIT
GRID LENGTH
REINFORCED BACKFI
APPROX.
EXCAVATION LINE
4"l2l(MIN.) PERF. DRAIN PIPE
Wii;..~1~i~J;g~J%!wovEN
FILTER FABRICOl/TLET AT END OF WALL Ofi!>T 40' CENTERS (MAX,).
TYPICAL REINFORCED SECTION
SCALE: NONE
~ETAINED BACKFILL
EXCAVATION LIMIT
-.
NOTES:
1. KEYSTONE STANDARD UNITS MEASURE 8" H X \ {:) 1/2 " W X 21" D. KEYSTONE CAP UNITS MEASURE
4"HX18 1/2 "WX10.5" D. KEYSTONE BLOCKS, PINS, AND GEOGRID CONNECTIONS SHALL BE INSTALLED
CONSISTENT WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
2. GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE AND WALL EMBEDMENT DEPTHS SHALL BE PER TABLE 1.
GEOGRID LENGTHS ARE MEASURED FROM THE FACE OF THE WALL.
3. ALL BACKFILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 90% RELATIVE DENSITY PER MODIFIED PROCTOR
COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D1557),
4. EXCAVATION OF THE SLOPE AND FOUNDATION TRENCHES SHALL PROVIDE SAFE ACCESS FOR
CONSTRUCTION, STABLE TEMPORARY SLOPE AND AS REQUIRED TO PROPERLY CONSTRUCT THE
KEYSTONE WALL AND ITS REINFORCEMENT.
5. INSTALL SUBDRAIN PIPE TO DRAIN MOISTURE BEHIND THE WALL AND AS RECOMMENDED BY SOILS
ENGINEER.
6. THE SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE SHALL BE EFFECTIVELY DIVERTED AROUND THE WALL. .
7. INSTALLATION OF 24'' RCP STORM DRAIN BEHIND THE WALL SHALL BE SUCH THAT THE KEYSTONE
WALL IS NOT SUBJECT UNDUE CONSTRUCTION LOADS. HEAVY EQUIPMENT SHALL WORK NO CLOSER
THAN 3' BEHIND THE WALL. THE STORM DRAIN SHALL BE FREE FROM LEAKS AND BREAKAGE SO
STORM WATER IS DOES NOT LEAD TO MOISTURE BEHIND THE WALL.
8. FOR ALL WALLS PROVIDE MINIMUM 1-FOOT OF GRAVEL FILL BEHIND THE BACK OF THE UNITS FOR
DRAINING MOISTURE. FOR SOUTHERN HALF OF WALL AT LOT 98 PROVIDE MINIMUM 2-FOOT OF GRAVEL
FILL BEHIN·OTHE BACK OF THE UNITS. THIS FILL SHALL BE IN ADDITION TO UNIT FILL.
t" 'I fi • Ir 1 i !,,/ ReiV\.-jO'f"c.e.4 .":,)Sil\ ,;;c.(...,{.?-,.,,.[
ti> ~ 30° Ult l03
4> ~ ~ft Lo\-q~
Table 1 Geogrid Reinforcement Schedule for Keystone Wall
Total Wall Minimum Geogrid Geogrid Location*
i Height (ft) Embedment (ft.) Len!!th, (Mira2rid 3XT)
4.67 or less 0.67 NOGEOGRID
5.67 0.67 5.5 2, 3.33
6.67 0.67 5.5 2.4
.* The geogrid layer(s) shall be placed on the Keystone course at this height(s) measured fn1-
the top of the leveling pad
DRAWING 1 KEYSTONE WALL TYPICAL SECTJON
CARLSABD RESEARCH CENTER LOT 98 AND 103
CARLSBAD,CA
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE AB INTERNATIONAL
PROJECT: D1"Cl04-99
DATE: 10/5/99
,
~
f
CRUSHED ROCK (3/4" MAX.)
STANDARD KEYSTONE
UNIT (TYPICAL)
GEOGRID
AS REQUIRED
CAP UNIT 'y
PIN (TYPICAL)
GEOGRID TO BE INSTALLED
OVER PINS AND PULLED
TIGHT BEFORE BACKFILL
-4" GEOGRID INSET FROM UNIT FACE
BLOCK DETAIL
3" OF SOIL FILL REQUIRED BETWEEN
OVERLAPPING GEOGRIDS FOR PROPER
ANCHORAGE
--6" ~ _,
'
<]
1~ 3'-0"~
LEVELING PAD
FIBERGLASS PIN CONNECTION
GEOGRID PLACEMENT ON CURVES ~
SPECIFICATIONS FOR KEYSTONE WALLS
1. MASONRY UNITS SHALL BE KEYSTONE BLOCKS OF THE SIZES SHOWN ON THE
PLANS. ALL BLOCKS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C-9O, WITH 28 DAY
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 3000 PSI. UNITS SHALL BE INTERLOCKED WITH
NON-CORROSIVE FIBERGLASS PINS, AND SHALL BE SETBACK 1" FROM THE UNIT
BELOW.
2. BASE LEVELING PAD SHALL BE CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE CONFORMING TO
"STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS" CONSTRUCTION STANDARD
200.2.2.2. ALL CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED IN
LIFTS NO GREATER THAN 8" THICK & AND COMPACTED WITH A HAND HELD
VIBRATING PLATE.
3. UNIT FILL FOR DRAINAGE BEHIND THE WALL SHALL BE UNIFORMLY GRADED
GRAVEL. UNIT FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO MINIMUM 90 % RELATIVE DENSITY
PER MODIFIED .PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTMD1557).
4. BACKFILL MATERIAL IN THE REINFORCEMENT ZONE SHALL BE AS INDICATED ON
THE PLANS OR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE BACKFILL SOIL
SHALL BE PLACED IN LIFTS NO GREATER THAN 8" THICK AND COMPACTED TO
MINIMUM 90% OF MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY DETERMINED PER MODIFIED PROCTOR
COMPACTION TEST.
5. GRIDS ARE TO BE ORIENTED WITH THE STRONG FIBERS RUNNING
PERPENDICULAR TO THE LINE OF THE WALL.
6. CONNECT THE SUBDRAIN TO STORM DRAIN FOR PROPER DRAINAGE AND
INDICATE FINAL LOCATIONS ON CONSTRUCTION RECORD PLANS.
7. THE GEOGRID SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE CONCRETE WALL UNITS BY
HOOKING THE GEOGRID OVER THE FIBERGLASS PINS. PULL TAUT AND ANCHOR
BEFORE BACKFILL IS PLACED ON GEOGRID. BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED,
SPREAD AND COMPACTED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT MINIMIZES THE
DEVELOPMENT OF SLACK OR LOSS OF PRETENSION OF THE GEOGRID.
BACKFILL SHALL BE PLACED FROM THE WALL REARWARD INTO THE
EMBANKMENT TO ENSURE THAT THE GEOGRID REMAINS TAUT.
8. CAP UNITS SHALL BE FASTENED TO THE UNITS BELOW WITH KEYSTONE
"KAPSEAL" CONSTRUCTION ADHESIVE.
4" SLOTTED PVC DRAIN PIPE
6" MINIMUM COMPACTED CRUSHED
STONE OR 6" UNREINFORCED
CONCRETE LEVELING PAD I
r KEYSTONE UNIT
NEEDLE PUNCHED NONWOVE
GEOTEXTILE WRAP
FREE DRAINING STONE SUBDRAIN DETAIL
FIBERGLASS PIN CONNECTION
DRAWING 2 KEYSTONE WALL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
AND SPECIFICATIONS
CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER
CARLSBAD, CA
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
~-
AB INTERNATIONAL
PROJECT: D1004-99
DATE: 10/5/99
l .;
SEP. '. 7 '99 (FR: J '. 2: 38 RENO CON':'RAC':':NG
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
LOT 103 OF CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER
CARLSBAD, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
FOR
THE BLACKMORE COMPANY
12626 HIGH BLUFF DRIVE, SUITE 440
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92130
W.O. 2472-A-SC AUGUST 17, 1998
PAGE. 2/20
SEP. 1 7 ' 99 (FR!) i 2: 38 RENO CONTRACT I NG PAGE. 3/20
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915
August 17, 1998
W.O. 2472-A-SC
The Blackmore Company
12626 High Bluff Drive, Suite 440
San Diego, California 92130
Attention:
Subject:
Dear Sir:
Mr. Allen Blackmore
Preliminary Geotechnlcal Evaluation, Lot 103 of Carlsbad Research
Center, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California.
In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a preliminary
gedtechnical evaluation regarding proposed construction on Lot 103 within the Carlsbad
Research Center. Zhe purpose of our study was to provide a site specific evaluation of
earth materials underlying the site and to provide preliminary recommendations for site
preparation, earthwork construction, and foundation design/construction, based on our
findings.
~XECUTIVE SUMMABY
Based on our review of the available data (Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory
testing, and geologic and engineering analysis, the proposed development appears to be
feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented In the
text of this report are properly incorporated into 1he design and construction of the project.
The most significant elements of this study are summarized below:
• Due to the desiccated and relatively soft/loose condition of the soils within 1 to 2 feet
of existing grade, within the proposed building footprint and parking/driveway areas,
·these materials should be removed, moisture conditioned to at least optimum
moisture content, and recompacted and/or processed in place.
• If transition conditions (either cut fill and/or nonuniform expansion) are encountered,
mitigation consisting of overexcavation of bedrock materials is recommended to a
minimum depth of 5 feet below pad grade, within areas proposed for settlement-
sensitive improvements.
I
·r
SEF. '. 7 ' 99 (FR'.) 12: 39 RENO CON':'RACT!NG PAGE. 4/20
•
•
•
•
..
Soils with a medium expansion potential exist onsite. Soils with a high expansion
potential also may be encountered during grading.
The site materials have a moderate sulfate exposure for corrosion to concrete. This
should be further evaluated at the completion of grading, as should the potential for
corrosion to exposed steel.
Subsurface and surface water are not anticipated to affect site development, provided
that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design
and construc~ion and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are
incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along
fill/bedrock contacts and along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be
precluded from occurring in the Mure due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions,
or damaged utilities.
The seismlcity acceleration values provided herein should be considered during the
design of the proposed development.
The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during
project planning design and construction by the project structural engineer and/or
architects. ·
The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions
concern, ng thfs rel?ort or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact any of the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoSolls, Inc.
SLE/RGC/DWS/ JPF/mo
The Blackmore Company
File:e:\wp~400\2472a.pge
,() ¼I
~ikelly
Civil Engineer, RC
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O 2472-A-SC
Page Two
SEP. !7 '99 (FRi) 12:39 RENO CONTRACT!NG PAGE. 5/20
Seismic Shaklng.J?arnmeters
Based on the site conditions, Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (International
C~nfe.rence of Building Officials, 1997) and Peterson and others (1996), the following
se1sm1c parameters are provided.
Seismic zone (per Figure 16-2*) 4
Soll Profile Type (per Table 16-J*) Sa, Sc, So**
Joyner and Boore Subgrade Type Class A, B, C"•
Seismic Source Type (per Table 16-U*) B -
Distance to Seismic Source 6 ml. (10 km)
Upper Bound Earthquake M...,6.9
"" Figure and table references from Chapter 16 of the Uniform Building Code (i 997). ** Multiple classiflcatrons due to varying earth material types in the upper 100 feet
underlying the site.
GROUNDWATER
Subsurface water was not encountered within the property during field work performed in
preparation of this report nor In a.ny test excavations completed during the previous study
(Geotechnlcs Incorporated, 1994). However, seepage may occur locally (due to heavy
precipitation or Irrigation) in areas where fill soils overlie silty or clayey soils. Such a
condition would likely occur where more permeable materials overlie less permeable
materials. Should such a condition occur, recommendations for mitigation would be
provided during future grading.
LlOUEfACIION
SeismicallyMinduced liquefaction Is a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by
earthquake~induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures In soils. The soils may
thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, and lead to lateral movement, sliding, sand
boils, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, and other damaging deformations.
This phenomenon occurs only below the water table; but after liquefaction has developed,
it can propagate upward into overlying, non~saturated soil as excess pore water dissipates.
Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential at depths greater than 45 feet and is
virtually unknown below a depth of 60 feet.
The Blackmore Company
Lot 103 of Carlsbad Research Center
File: e:\wp7\2400\2472a.pge
GeoSoils, Ine.
W.O 2472-A-SC
August 17, 1998
Page 6
I
I l I
SEP. 17 '99 (FR!) 12:40 RENO CONTRACT!NG PAGE. 6/20
Liquefaction susceptibility Is related to numerous factors and the following conditions
should be present for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age
and not have developed a large amount of cementation; 2) sediments generally consist
of medium to fine grained relatively cohesionless sands; 3) the sediments must have low
relative density; 4) free groundwater must be present In the sediment; and 5) the site must
experience a seismic event of a sufficient duration and magnitude, to induce straining of
soil particles.
Inasmuch as three or four of these five conditions do not have the potential to affect the site
and the entire site is underlain by dense bedrock materials and compacted fill materials,
our evaluation indicates that the potential for liquefaction and associated adverse effects
within the site is very low, even with a future rise In groundwater levels.
LABORATORY TESTI~
Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of representative site earth
materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and
results obtained are presented below.
Classlffcallon
Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil
classifications are shown on the boring logs In App.endix B .
....
Atterberg Limit~
Atterberg 'limits testing was conducted on selected samples in general accordance with
ASTM test method D-4318. Test results and classifications of the fine-grained materials per
ASTM D-2487 are presented in Appendix C.
Laboratory Standard
The maximum density and optimum moisture content was determined for the major soil
type encountered in the excavations. The laboratory standard used was ASTM DJ1557.
The moisture-density relationship obtained for this soil is shown below:
. .-~-. ··' . ·.···: .. , . . , ·:.~.-: .
LOCAJ"ION SOIL TYPE
B-1 @0-3' SANDY CLAY, Brown
(Artificial Fill)
The Blackmore Company
Lot 103 of Carlsbad Research Center
File: e:\wp7\2400\2472a.pge
..
-··· -····:,MAXIMUM-:·
DENSITY
(PCF)
117.0
GeoSoils, Jnc.,
OPTIMUM:}):J. ;·
MOISTURE ·;_-:
CONTENT(%), .
14.5
W.O 2472-A·SC
August 17, 1998
Pagel
.I I,
I I ...
I
SEP. 17 '99 (FR!) 12:40 RENO CONTRACTING PAGE. 7/20
l:XRiD!5iQo Joc!ex Testing
Expansion Index testing was performed on a representative soil sample, according to
Standard No. 18-2 of the Uniform Building Code (1997}. The test results are presented
below as well as the expansion classification according to UBC (1997).
·. --.:·EXPANSION .. : .. -'.-'·. _· EXPAN~ION:._._·=-.
. ·:-.. ·INDEX·_. . _., : Poi:ENTIAl· '.· ..
EH @0-3'
Shear Testing
SANDY CLAY, Brown
(Artificial Fill)
75 Medium
Shear tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM test method D-3080 in a
Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type. The shear test results are presented
below:
9-1 @ 0-3' 355 20
Soluble SulfiJtes
A typical sample of the site materials was analyzed for soluble sulfate content. The results
indicate 180 ppm. Based upon the soluble sulfate test results (USC range for moderate
is 150 to 1,500 ppm soluble [SO4] in water), the site soils have a moderate sulfate
exposure for corrosion to concrete. The laboratory test results for corrosivity testing are
presented in Appendix C.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION$
9.!oerat
Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analysis,
it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed industrial
development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the
recommendations presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and
The Blackmore Company
Lot 103 of Carlsbad Research Center
FIia: e:\wp7\2400\2472a.pge
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O 2472-A-SC
August 17, 1998
Page8
SEP. 17 ' 99 (FR!) 12: 4! RENO CON':'RAC':':NG PAGE. 8/20
•
construction phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns with respect
to the proposed development are:
•
•
Depth to competent bearing material, including cut/fill transitions .
Expansion potential of site soils .
• Corrosion potential for exposed concrete .
• Subsurface water and potential for perched water .
• Regional seismic activity .
The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as other aspects of the site.
The .~ngineerlng analyses performed, concerning site preparation and the
recommendations presented herein, have been completed using the information provided
and obtained during our field work, as well as information provided to this office with
regard to grading (Appendix A). In the event that any significant changes are made to
proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in 1hfs
report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the
recommendations of this report verlfled or modified in writing by this office. Foundation
design parameters are considered preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and
structural loads are provided to this office for review.
Earth Materials/Depth to Competent Bearing Materl.m
The existing non~unlform fill materials that exist within 1 to 2 feet of existing pad grade are
generally loose/soft and/or do not meet the current industry minimum ~tandard of 90
percent (or greater)-relative compaction. FIii materials below this surficial layer appear to
be relatively compact and suitable for their intended use. Recommendations for the
treatment of existing fills are presented in the earthwork section of this report. If exposed
during grading, additional evaluations may be performed as deemed appropriate.
It is unlikely that bedrock materials will be encountered during site earthwork. However,
if encountered, these materials are considered competent to support settlement-sensitive
structures in their existing state. '
Should future plans indicate a cut/fill transition, recommendations for overexcavatlon to
mitigate cut/fill transitions are presented In the earthwork section of this report, if they
occur.
Expansion Potent(al
Our laboratory test results indicate that soils with a medium expansion potential underlie
the site; however, our experience in the site area indicates soils with a high expansion
potential also may exist onsite. This should be considered during. project design.
The Blackmore Company
Lot 103 of Carl$bad Research Canter
rile: e:\wp7\2400\2472ii.pge
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O 2472-A-SC
August 17. 1998
Page9
SEP. 17 '99 (FR:) i2:4i RENO CONTRACTING PAGE. 9/20
Foundation design and construction recommendations are provided herein for medium
expansion potential. These recommendations should be considered preliminary and used
for general project planning.
Corrosion Potential
Our laboratory test results indicate that the site materials have a moderate sulfate exposure
for corrosion to concrete. Recommendations for conc~ete are presented herein.
Subsurface ang Surface Water
Subsurface and surface water, as discussed previously, are not anticipated to affect site
development, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are Incorporated
into final design and construction and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage
practices are incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions
along fill/bedrock contacts and along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be
precluded from occurring in the future due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or
damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater condftions develop, this office could
assess the affected area(s) and provide the appropriate recommendations to mitigate the
observed groundwater conditions.
The groundwater conditions observed and opinions generated were those at the time of
our investigation. Conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or
other factors that were not obvious at the time of our investigation.
Beglonal SeJsmle; Activity
The seismicity acceleration values provided herein should be considered during 1he design
of the proposed development.
EARTHWORK QONSTAUCIJON BECOMMENQATIONS
General
All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the
Uniform Building Code (adopted and curren1 edition), the requirements of the City of
Carlsbad, and the Grading Guidelines presented in this report as Appendix D, except
where specifically superseded iri the text of this report. Prior to grading GSl's
representative should be present at the preconstruction meeting to provide additional
grading guidelines, if needed, and review the earthwork schedule. Earthwork beyond the
limits of the surficial, remedial overexcavations or those indicated on the grading plan
should be reviewed by the geologist and/or geotechnical consultant prior 1o and following
these additional removals.
The Blackmore Company
Lot 103 of ca,lsbad Research Center
File: e;\wp7\2400\2472a,pge
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O 2472-A-SC
August 17, 1998
Page 10
SEF. :7 '99 (FR:) 12:42 RENO CON,RACT!NG PAGE. : 0/20
During earthwork construction all site preparation and the general grading procedures of
the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of
GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field or if modifications are
proposed to the rough grade or precise grading plan, they should be reviewed by this
office and if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered.
All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general indu~try safety
orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should
be met. GSI does not consult In the area of safety engineering. Excavations in1o the
granular material on this site may be unstable.
Site Pr§!parnUQD
Debris, vegetation, and other deleterious material should be removed from the
improvement(s) area prior to the start of construction.
Following removals, areas approved to receive additional fill should first be scarified in two
perpendicular directions and moisture conditioned (at or above the soils optimum moisture
content) to a depth of 12 Inches and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative
compaction.
Bemovars (Un~urtabfe Surflcial Materials)
Due to the desiccated and relatively soft/loose condition of near surface soils across the
lot, removals should consist of fill soils within 1 to 2 feet of existing grades within the
building footprint and parking/driveway areas. Once these materials are removed, the
bottom of the excavations should be observed and tested. At that time, the removed
existing earth materials may be re-used as fill, provided the materials are moisture
conditioned at or above the soils optimum moisture and compacted in accordance with
the recommendations of this report. When removals are completed, the exposed surface
should be scarified In two perpendicular directions (cross ripped), moisture conditioned
and recompacted prior to fill placement. ·
overexcavatl2n
If a transition condrtlon is created during grading, a uniform structural support should be
provided. Areas underlain by bedrock materials withJn-5 fe~t of proposed grade, should
be overexcavated to provide a minimum 5~foot layer of compacted fill and at least 5 feet
outside the limits of the outer-most foundation eleme·nts. The limits of any bedrock
overexcavatlon should be determined once a grading plan for the site Is made available.
This 5-foot overexcavation is considered a minimum and within the limits of the building
assumes a 2-foot footing embedment (from lowest adjacent soil grade). If embedments
are greater than 2 feet, the overexcavation should be increased to a minimum of 3 feet
The Blackmore Company
Lot 103 of Carlsbad Research Center
File: e:\wp7\2400\2472a.pge
GeoSoiJs, Inc.
W.O 2472-A-SC
August 17, 1998
Page 11
SEP. 17 ' 99 (FR:) 12: 42 RENO CON:'RACTiNG PAGE. l :/20
beyond the bottom of the footing and the lateral extent should be increased the same
amount beyond 1he width of the footing.
Exposed subgrades for cut areas greater than 2 feet below existing grade should be well
scarified (cross-ripped), moisture conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a minimum
90 percent rela1ive compaction (ASTM test method D-1557).
EIII elacement
Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (±6 inch) lifts,
cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content, and
compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. Oversized cobbles
and boulders (8 to 24 Inches), generated as the result of the earthwork should be placed
outside of the limits of the building in landscape areas or a pre-designated disposal area.
If fill materials are imported to the site, the proposed import fill should be submitted to
GSI, so laboratory 1esting can be performed to verify that the intended import material is
compatible with onsite material. At least three business days of lead time should be
allowed by builders or contractors for proposed import submittals. This lead time will allow
for particle size analysis, specific gravity, relative compaction, expansion testing, and
blended Import/native characteristics as deemed necessary.
Erosion Control
Ons!te soils materials have a moderate erosion potentlal. Use of hay bales, silt fences,
and/or sandbags should be considered, as appropriate during construction. Temporary
grades should be constructed to drain at a minimum of 1 to 2 percent to a suitable
temporary or permanent outlet. Precise grades should be evaluated by the design civil
engineer to reduce concentrated flows to less than 6 feet per second (Amimoto, 1981) and
Into lined or landscaped swales. Evaluation of cuts during grading will be necessary in
order to identify any areas of loose or non-cohesive materials. Should any sign)ficant
zones be encountered during earthwork construction, additional remedial grading may be
recommended; however, only the remedial measures discussed herein are anticipated at
this time.
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION~
In the event that the information concerning the proposed development plan Is not correct
or any changes In the design, location, or loading conditions of the proposed structure are
made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are for Lot 103 only
and shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this
report are modified or approved in writing by this office.
The Blackmore Company
Lot 103 of Carlsbad Research Center
Fila: e:\wp7'2'!00'2472a.pge
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O 2472-A-SC
August 17, 1998
Page 12
SEP. : 7 '99 (FR!) 12: 43 RENO CON:'RAC:'!NG PAGE. 12/20
The information and recommendations presented In this section are considered minimums
and are not meant to supersede design(s) by the project structural engineer or civil
engineer specializing in structural design. Upon request, GS! could provide additional
consultation regarding soil parameters, as related to foundation design. They are
considered preliminary recommendations for proposed construction, In consideration of
our field investigation, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis.
Recommendations tor Concrete "TIit-up" Structures
For preliminary planning purposes, the following is presented. It is our understanding that
the str.ucture will be erected utilizing a tilt-up type of construction. We assume that column
loads are not anticipated to exceed 100 kips for dead plus live loading conditions while
wall loads are not expected to exceed 3 to 5 kips per lineal foot. The engineering analysis
performed, concerning the foundation system and the recommendations offered below,
have been prepared using these anticipated loads and assuming the recommended
earthwork is. performed. In the event that the information concerning the proposed
development is not correct, or any changes in the design, location, or loading conditions
of the proposed structure are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in
this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions
of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office.
Our review, field work, and laboratory testing Indicates that onsite soils have a medium
expansion potentiat Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction
are presented below. Final foundation recommendations should be provided at the
conclusion of grading based on laboratory testing of fill materials exposed at finish grade.
Bearing Value
An allowable vertical bearing value of 2000 pounds per square foot (psf) should b~ used
for design of continuous footings a minimum 15 inches wide and 18 inches deep (below
lowest adjacent exterior grade) and for design of square footings 24 inches wide and 24
inches deep (below lowest adjacent grade, not including sand layer), bearing In properly
compacted fill material. Per UBC code, this value may be increased by 20 percent for each
additional 12 inches in depth of embedment or width, to a maximum value of 2500 pounds
per square foot.
The above values may be increased by one-third when considering short duration seismic
or wind loads. Exterior square footings should be tied back to the main foundation with
a grade beam or tie beam as described in the "construction" section of this report. In
addition, foundation depths and widths should be constructed per the USC guidelines.
The Blackmore Company
lot 103 of Carlsbad Research Center
File; e;\wp7'240012472a.pgo
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O 2472-A-SC
August 17, 1998
Page 13
SEP. 17 '99 (FR:) 12:43 RENO CONTRACTING PAGE. ! 3/20
Lateral Pressure
Passive earth pressure of compacted fill may be computed as an equivalent fluid having
a density of 225 pounds per cubic foot per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of
2,500 pounds per square foot. An allowable coefficient of friction between compacted fill
soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces. When combining passive
pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be requced by
one-third.
· All footings should maintain a minimum 7-foot horizontal setback from the base of the
footing to any descending slope. This distance is measured from the footing face at the
bearing elevation. footings should maintain a minimum horizontal setback of H/3 (H ==
slope height) from the base of the footing to the descending slope face and no less than
7 feet nor need be greater than 40 feet. Footings adjacent to unlined drainage swales
should be deepened to a minimum of 6 Inches below the fnvert of the adjacent unlined
swale. Footings for structures adjacent to retaining walls should be deepened so as to
extend below a 1 :1 projection from the heel of the wall. Alternatively, walls may be
designed to accommodate structural loads from buildings or appurtenances as described
In the retaf nlng wall section of this report.
Due to anticipated disturbances in areas adjacent to landscaping, the upper 6 inches of
passive pressure should be neglected if not confined by slabs or pavement.
Construction
All footings should be embedded a minimum 18 inches Into properly compacted fill or
bedrock. Foundation footings should be minimally reinforced with four No. 5 bars, two top
and two bottom (in the cross-sections). Footings should be: a} tied with a grade beam or
tie beams, or b) have continuous footings across large openings, (i.e., garages or
entrances). All exterior isolated footings should be tied in at least two perpendicular
directions by grade beams or tie beams to reduce the potential for lateral drift or diffe~entlal
distortion. The base of the grade beams should enter the adjoining footings at the same
depth as the footings (i.e., in profile view). The grade beam steel should be continuous at
the footing connection. Grade beams and footings should be minimally reinforced and
sized per the structural engineers recommendations.
Foundation Settlement -Structural Loads
Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are Incorporated into final
design and construction phase of development, a majority (50 percent or more) of the
anticipated foundation settlement is expected to occur during construction. Maximum
settlement is not expected to exceed approximately¾ to 1 inch and should occur below
the heaviest loaded columns. Differential settlement is not expected to exceed
approximately ¼ to ½ inch between similar elements, in a 20-foot span.
The Blackmore Company
Lot 103 of Carlsbad Research Center
File: e:\wp7\2400\2472a.pge
GeoSoils, Inc.
W,O 2472-A·SC
August 17, 1998
Page 14
SEP. : 7 ' 99 (FR:) : 2: 44 RENO CON:'RACTING PAGE. , 4/20
E.l,.OOR SLAB DESIGN RECOMMENDAIION_§
C~~crete slab:on·grade floor construction is anticipated. The following are presented as
minimum design parameters for the slab, but they are fn no way intended to supersede
design by the structural engineer. Design parameters do not account for concentrated
loads (e.g., fork lifts, other machinery, etc,) and/or the use of freezers or heating boxes.
Light Load Floor Slabs
The slabs In areas that will receive relatively light live loads (i.e., less than 50 psf) should
be a minimum of 5 inches thick and be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bar on 18 inches
centers In two horizontally perpendlcular directions. Reinforcing should be properly
supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the slab. "Hooking" of the
reinforcement Is not considered an acceptable method of positioning the steel. The
recommended minimum compressive strength of concrete Is 2,500 pounds per square
Inch {ASTM 520-C-2500). A minimum 4 inch layer of clean select sand should be provided
beneath the concrete slab.
The project structural engineer should consider the use of transverse and longitudinal
control Joints to help control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two
of the best ways to control this movement are: 1) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing
steel to increase the tensile strength of the slab; and 2) provide an adequate amount of
control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage and
expansion. Transverse and longitudinal crack control joints should be spaced no more
than 12 feet on center and constructed to a minimum depth of T/4, where ''T" equals the
slab thickness In lnches.
Heavy Load Flgor Slabs
The project structural engineer should design the slabs in areas subject to high loads
(machinery, forklifts, storage racks, ate. or above standard office loading). The M(!dulus
of subgrade reaction (k-value) may be used in the design of the floor slab supporting
heavy truck traffic, fork lifts, machine foundations and heavy storage areas. A k-value
(modulus of subgrade reaction) of 75 pounds per square inch per inch (pci) would be
prudent to utilize for preliminary slab design. An A-value test and/or plate load test may
be used to verify the k-value on near surface fill soils.
Concrete slabs should be at least 5½ Inches thick and reinforced with at least No. 3
reinforcing bars placed 18 Inches on center In two directions. Selection of slab thickness
compatibility with anticipated loads should be provided by the structural engineer. Heavily
loaded concrete slabs should be underlain with a minimum of 4 inches of %-inch crushed
rock (vibrated Into place), or 4 inches of aggregate base materials (Class 2 aggregate
base or equivalent) compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent.
Transverse and longitudinal crack control joints should be spaced no more than 14 feet
The Blackmore Company
Lot 103 of Carlsbad Research Center
File: e:\wp7\2400\2472a.pge
GeoSoils, lnc.
W.O 2472-A-SC
August 17, 1998
Page 15
SEF. : 7 ' 99 (FRl) i 2: 44 RENO CONTRACT:NG FAGE. : S/20
on center and constructed to a minimum depth of T/4, where "P equals the slab thickness
!n Inches. The use of expansion joints in the slab should be considered. Concrete used
1n slab construction should be of minimum compressive strength 3250 pounds per square
Inch (ASTM 560-C-3250}. Spacing of expansion or crack control joints should be modified
based on the footprint of the area to be heavily loaded.
These recommendations are meant as minimums. The project architect and/or ~tructural
engineer should review and verify that the minimum recommendations presented herein
are considered adequate with respect to anticipated uses.
The subgrade material should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent of the maximum_
laboratory dry density. Prior to placement of concrete, the medium expansive subgrade
soils should be presaturated to 18 inches below grade to 120 percent optimum moisture
content and verified by our field representative prior to visqueen placement and prior to
·:··,,${ltd Within 72 hours of the concrete pour.
· •' !! l·I ·-.. ;··
Moisture Protection
In areas where moisture condensation is undesirable (e.g., areas to have moisture-
sensitive floor coverings}, a minimum 6-rnil plastic membrane should be placed with all
laps/openings sealed. The· membrane should be sandwiched between two 2-lnch
(mtni~wm) sand layers for a toi"a.l of 4 Inches of sand. These areas should be separate
from areas not similarly protected. This separation could be provided with a concrete cut-
off wall (minimum 6 Inches thick) extending at least 18 inches into the subgrade soil, below
the sand fayer.
C088QSJON AND CONCRETE MIX
• GSI conducted preliminary sampling of near-surface materials for soluble sulfates on the
subject site. Laboratory test results indicate that the site materials have a moderate
potential for corrosion to concrete. The design criteria presented in Table 19-A-2 and 19~A~
3 of the UBC {1997 edition) should be followed. Based on the corrosion potential for
exposed concrete·. Type V concrete is not required, and foundations may be constructed
using Type If, IP (MS), or IS (MS) concrete. Upon completion of grading, additional testing
of soils (Including Import materials) should be considered prior to the construction of
utilities and foundations. Alternative methods and additional comments may be obtained
from a qualified corrosion engineer.
The Blackmore Company
Loi 103 of Carlsbad Research Center
FIia: e;\wµ7\2400\2472a.pgti
GeoSoils, lne.
W.O 2472-A-SC
August 17, 1998
Page 16
SEP. 17 ' 99 (FR!) : 2: 45 RENO CONTRAC':":NG
RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
9eoeral
PAGE. '. 6/20
The equivalent fluid pressure parameters provide for either the use of native or low
expansive select granular backfill to be utilized behind the proposed walls. The low
expansive granular backfill should be provided behind the wall at a 1 :1 (h:v) projection
from the heel of the foundation system. Low expansive fill ls Class 3 aggregate baserock
or Class 2 permeable rock. Wall backfilling should be performed with relatively fight
equipment within the same 1 :1 projection (i.e., hand tampers, walk behind compactors).
Highly expansive soils should not be used to backfill any proposed walls. During
construction, materials should not be stockpiled behind nor in front of walls for a distance
of 2H where H Is the height of the wall.
Foundation systems for any proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance
with the recommendations presented in the Foundation Design section of this report.
Building walls, below grade, should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the
degree of moisture protection desired. All walls should be properly designed in
accordance with the recommendations presented below.
Some movement of the walls constructed should be anticipated as soil strength
parameters are mobilized. This movement could cause some cracking depending upon
the materials used to construct the wall. To reduce the potential for wall cracking, walls
should be Internally grouted and reinforced with steel. To mitigate this effect, the use of
vertical crack control joints and expansion joints, spaced at 20 feet or less along the walls
should be employed. Vertical expansion control Joints should be infilled with a flexible
grout. Wall footings should be keyed or doweled across vertical expansion Joints.
Bestralned Walls
Loading Dock Wall
It Is recommended that loading dock walls be designed for restrained conditions (indicated
below), where adjacent to the proposed site building. Loading dock walls should be
designed to resist lateral earth pressure and any additional lateral pressures caused by
surcharge loads on the anticipated adjoining slab surface. Approximately up to ½ of
surcharge loads on the truck loading dock slab may be added a.s a uniform load In the
back of the loading dock wall. However, the structural engineer or civil engineering
specializing in structural design should review and evaluate the type of wall connection(s)
and the condition of the wall (restrained or cantilever).
The Blackmore Company
Lot 103 or Carlsbad Research Center
File: e:\wp7\2400\2472a.pge
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O 2472·A-SC
August 17, 1998
Page 17
SEP. :7 '99 (FR:) :2:45 RENO CONTRACTING PAGE. : 7/20
Other Walls
Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material
or that have re-entrant or male comers, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid
pressures (EFP) of 65 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. This restrained-wall,
earth pressure value Is for select backfill material onfy. For areas of male or re-entrant
corners, the restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height
of the wall laterally from 1he corner.
Building walls below grade or greater than 2 feet in height should be water·proofed or
damp~proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. The wall should
be drained as Indicated In the following section. A seismic increment of 1 OH (uniform
pressure) should be considered on walls for level backfill, and 20H for sloping backfill of
2:1, where H is defined as the height of retained material behind the wall. For structural
footing loads within the 1 :1 zone of influence behind wall backfill, refer to the following
section.
Qantfleyered WE!l1$
These recommendations are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 1 O feet high. Active
earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall· is not
restrained from minor deflections. An empirical equivalent fluid pressure approach may
be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights
are provided for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include
other superimpos~d loading conditions such as traffic, structures, seismic events, •
expansive soils, or adverse geologic conditions.
• , •• , • ,w ·,~" f•r·=: , ; •. ·. '"' . ·1 • • ,.;-, ·: • • • •
·• ·:·1 \SURF.ACE SLOPE-OF,RETAINEDi. · .. : .·: . · ·. ·,,.MAfERIAi/cttortzonta1·to'verticai} ....=. :-;::-:·
Level**
2 to 1
eauivAi.eNr FLu10 werGHri.oii}~i
. : ··:· ':'.:SELECT SOJL* .. ··.::·-.:?(/"t:'
33
45
*To be increased by traffic, structural surcharge and seismic loading as needed.
**Level walls are those where arades behind the wall are level for a distance of 2H.
Wall Backfm and Qrninage
All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrain and outlet system
(a minimum two outlets per wall and no greater than 1 OD feet apart), to prevent buildup of
hydrostatic pressures and be designed in accordance with minimum standards presented
herein. See site wall drain options {Figure 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5). Drain pipe should
consist of 4-inch diameter perforated schedule 40 PVC pipe embedded in gravel. Gravel
The Blackmore Company
Loi 103 of Carlsbad Research Center
FIie: e:\wp7\~400\2472a.pge
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O 2472-A-SC
August 17. 1998
Page 18
D
IDE
SEP. 17 '99 (FR!) i~:49 RENO CONTRAC':'!NG
/ , .
/ / / / ( I .. /_..',.·· __ .. /
..-· .-· I /
(( ///
l j-t-r / --
I 1' d_ '.2.
! ' \\j'-.r () i ~ I 'b"' ,. .~o "· I '° 1 I
I I l
I
I
' •
TOP OF WALL
18''
TC ELEV
PAGE. 18/20
_.,
RETAINING WALL
PER SDRSO C-6 AND
PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS
SECTION A·A
NOT TO SCALE
-N a2· Jo'oo• w ---.:.:....:__--.!_459,82' -.__ ---