HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 06-17; PALOMAR AIRPORT BUS PARK; REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2005-12-06I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ii
I
<...-1-\R.\Sfl/\N W\ \ITL\]\. . LNc;[Nl.LR.lf\iC
.RE.PORT OF PRELIM;INARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED OFFICE-BUILDING STABILIZATION AND RENOVATIONS
2055 CORTE DEL NOGAL
,qz.'i :vlt·rcury Street-+
CARLSB.AP, CALIFORNIA
SUBMITTED TO:
MR. CHUCK SWIMMER
c/ o CHARCO CONSTRUCTION
. 7065 EL CAJON BOULEVARD
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92115
SUBMITTED BY:
CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING
4925 MERCURY STREET
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92111
r--.
; PLA{';, "~ c-,. -ECG{ ~o I , r,,, : , f.\-dJ -;;f. uu .
L .·· QhN_~
S a n 1) i e g o , C A 9 2 1 I 1 + 8 ,; 8 ---l: 9 (> -lJ ~ (i o +-\l: AK 'i\at) -s H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I" )--~ ~t ·":~~~:
ti
December 6, 20ll5
i\[r. Chuck ~wimmcr
c/o Charco Construction
..,()65 U Cajon Boulevard
~an Diego, California 921 l 5
" C x\\\. \S\\ i\ \"\ "N\\"t.tL~R \.. N C \ N F \.·. R \ N C
SUBJECT: REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION,
PROPOSED OFFICE BIULDING STABILIZATION AND RENOVATIONS,
2055 CORTE DEL NOGAL, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Dear [\.fr. Swimmer:
_ In accordance with rour ~cquest, we ha,·e completed a prelim:inary geotechnical im·cstigation for the :rnbjccr
project. \Ve arc presenting here\vith a report of our findings and recommendations.
In ~eneral, \VC found that the subject site_ is suitable for the proposed stabilization and improvements,
prcn·idc<l rhe recqmmendations provided herein are followed. 'fhe site was found to be underlain by dense t<>
,·c~· dense sandstones kno,vn as the Santiago Formation; however, much of the site is mantled by a layer of
man-placed fill material. The thickness of the fill generally increases towards the south and was up to about
25 feet thick near the south corner of the existing building. In our opinion, the proposed pier footings rhat
will be constructed to stabilize the existing bt.Jilding as well as the new footings for the proposed enclosure
an<l ck\'aror will need ro extend through the existing fill and be embedded in the underlying sandstones.
.\Jditionally, the upper two feet of the existing fill will need to be removed and replaced as uniformly
compacted fill in the areas to support new pavement.
The site is located in an area that is relatively free of geologic hazards that \Vil! ha,·e a significant effect on the
proposed construtrion. :\ significant geologic hazard thar could affect the site is ground shaking due to
~eisrnic activity along one of the regional active faults; however, construction in accordance wirh rhe
rc·,1uirt·ments of the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and the local governmenrnl agencies
should pr.o,·idc a !eye! of life-safety suitable for the type of eonstruction proposed ..
8 L °( J: (\ /. () + f' t' x• 8 'i 8 • ' () 6 • l) ,-') " • ,1 9 .l 1 Mc r c u·q-St re·<; t • San Diego. CA 9 2 1 I l +-8 5 • ·d n • ~ -o . ·~ ,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ti ~
c,,·F. ~OS()()..\:(H)l December 6, '.?.OOS
If ~-ou ha,·e any questions after revie\,i.ng this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This ·
opportunity to be of professional sen-ice is sincerely appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
Cl IR.ISTL\N \''OIEELER ENGINEERING
Pffk ~~
Charles r-I. Christian, RGE # 00215 Curtis R. Burdett, CEG # 109()
C :I IC:CRB:scc
cc: (6) Submitted
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1'.~LEOF CON'IENTS
P,\CF
Inm>c.luction and Project Description ........ :; .................. : ................................................................................................ l
Project scope .................................................................................................. , ..................................................................... ~:
findings-.................................................................................................................................................................................. 'i
Sire I)escription .................................... :: ..................................................................................... , .................................... ,
c-;.encral Geology and Subsurface Conditions .............. : .......................... · ................................................................... ·~
( ~eologic Setting and Soil Description ................................................. : ................................................................... .J.
. \rtificial Fill.: ........................................................................................................................................................... ,j.
Santiago Formation ...................... :.~ ...................... : ................................................................................................ J.
c-;.roundwatcr ................................................................... , ............................................................................................ 5
·1·ectonic Setting ................................................................................................................................................... , ....... 5
C,cologic I Iazards ........................................................... , ............................................................................................... c·,
C ;round Shaking .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Landslide Potential and Slope Stability ........................................................................................... , ....................... (J
I .iquefaction ........................................................................................................................................... · ..................... (,
1 ·1ooding ......................................................................................................... , ............................................................ ~1
·r·sunarnis ······································································································································································--;
Seiches .......................................................................................................................................................................... ,
( :onclusions ................ : ................................................................................................................ , ........................................ ·.,
Rec<>1nr;ncndations .............................................................................................................................................................. 8
( ;rading and I~arthwork .................................................................................................................... : ............................ 8
(ieneral ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8
()bscrvation of (,-rading ................... : ......................................................................................................................... 8
(]earing and C1rubbing ........................................................................... , ................................................................... 8
Sire Preparation ......... : ........................................ : .......................................................................................................... 8
Processing of Fill Areas ................................................................................. _ ............................................................ 9
Compaction and rvfethod of Filling ......................................................................................................................... ()
Surface L)rainage ................. : ...................... , .................. , ............................................................................ , ..... : ........... 9
i:ound,ations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 9
c-;.cneral ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Sister Footings .............................................................................................................................................................. 9
Ne\v Footing l)imensions ................... : ............................ '. ........ _ ....... : ........... , .......................................................... 1(1
J~earing Capacity ....................................................................................................................................................... 1(1
I·'.xpansive Characteristics .. , ............................................................ : ........................................................................ 10
Settlement Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................ !fl
I ·ooting Reinforcing ... : ............................................................................................................................................. 1 ( 1
I ,ateral I ,oad Resistance ........................................................... , ................................................................................ 11
Jiounc.lation Plan Review ................................................................................ : ............................... , ......................... 11
' I :oundation Excavation Observation .................................................................................................................... i J. s . . I). . P .. c1sm1c es1gn arameters ......................................................................................................................................... 1 l
c )n .( ~rade Slabs .............. : .............................................................................................................................................. 12
c;cneral ......................................................... , ............................................................................................................ 12
Interior I·1oor Slabs ................................................................................................................................................... [2
Exterior Concrete Flatwork ..................................................................................................................................... 13
Soluble Sulfates ................................................................................................................ , ............................................. 1.1
Preliminary Pavement Sections ........................................ : .......... , .............................................................................. 13
·i:raffic Index ................................................................ , ..................... , ....................................................................... I J
R·Value··rcst ......................................................... -....... : ............................................................................................. 11
CWE 2050940.nl
Proposed Office Building.Stabilization and Renovations
2055 Corte Del Nogal, Carlsbad, California
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
I
I
.I
I.
I
.I
I·
J.
• • -' ' C' • -""'""""'"""""'""""""'"""'"\\ ,~,c\\n'.\l'C\'il.'1."")' 'Stmc.tu."1:'il.1. .:::iec.'U.an .................................................... ,, •• ,,, •• ,,,, •••••• , ........ ,.
I .in1irations .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.)
Rcvic\v, ()bscn,ation and Testing ...... : ..... , ............................................. , ................................................................... J .~
lTniforrnity of Conditions ............. , .............................................................................................................................. -1..J.
~:::1~;i!::rn:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: : :~
Pi:ofessional Standard ......................................................... , ......................................................................................... I 5
Client's Rc;;ponsibility .................................................................................................................................................. 15
J.-idd Explorations ..................................................................................... _ ....... , ............................... -................................. 16
I ,aboratory ·resting ............. : ............................................................................. _ ................................................................. I 6
ATTACHMENTS
TABLES
·1·able I: 1,faximurn Ground Accelerations ........................ : .............................................................................. , .............. 6
·1·ablc U: Seismic Design Parameters ..................................................................................... · ........................................ l 1
FIGURES
r:io-urc 1 b Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1
PLATES
Plate 1 Site Plan
Plates 2-11 Boring Logs
J>lates 13-14 Laboratory Test Results
Plate 15 Sister Footing Detail
APPENDICES
..:\ Rcf erences .\ppendix
,\ppcndix B Recommended Grading Specifications -General Provisions
CWE 2050940.01
Proposed Office Building Stabilization and Renovations
2055 Corte Del Nogal, Carlsbad, California
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
' C\--\R,s1-\AN \N\-\EELER.
LNCINLLRINC
REPORT OF .PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED OFFICE BLTtLDING STABILIZATION I\ND RENOV,\TIONS
2055 CORTE DEL NOGJ\L
C\RLSBAD CALIFORNL-\
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRJPTION
Tlu:,; rep(irt presents rhc results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed scabihz:i.tinn oi and
n-nov.uions to the existing office building located at 2055 Corte Del Nogal, in the city of Carlsbad, Ctliforn.i:i..
1-'igurc Number 1 presented on the following page provides a vicinity map shmving the location of the propt'rt\·.
Thl· western corner of the existing office building, which is above fill slopes tlrnt descend from the prnpcm
ww:m.h the northwest and southwest, has experienced some distress, possibly relared to foundation
settlement. in the westerly comer. W'e·undersrand that it is desired to stabilize this porrion of the buildinK fr
is ,1lso proposed to enclose the overhanging portion of the building at the front and ro in,m,ll an elev:iror in
the easterly cmner. Further. it is proposed to pave most of the· grass lawn area in the easterly porrion nf r he
property to tncrease the size of t~e parking lot for the building. Grading for the parking lot expansion 1s
rxpected to rnn:.-isr of cuts and fills of less than about five feet from· existing grades.
To :ikl in rht,~ preparation of this report, our firm was provided with the follo'-v~ng documents:
L Limited Site Review, 2055 Corte Del Noga:l, Carlsbad. Ca 92009, by Landtcch Soils
Engineering, Inc., dated October 24, .'.2003.
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 2055 Corte Del Norte, Carh;bad. California. b?
DeBerry Engineering Associates, Inc., dated December 8 . .'.2003.
Tim; report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Charco Construction and its design conwlt::mrs for . . '
specific apphcation to the project described herein. Should the project be changed in any way, the modified
plam should be submitted to Christian \X!heeler Engineering for review to determine their conformance wirh
, >ur rccommcndarions and to determine ·if any additional subsurface investigation, laboratory tesring anJ/ or
1 9 .! 'i M e r c u r y S t r e e t + S a n D i e g o . C A 9 2 l l I + 8 5 8 --¼ 0 6 · <.) 7 6 0 + FA X 8 'i-8 -·f 9 () · 9 -'i 8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·,··
I
I
I
1·
{Adapted from Thomas ~rothers Maps)
PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING STABILIZATION AND RENO\';'\TLQNS
2055 CORTE DEL NOGAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFQRNIA
North SITE
,·· .... '\ -~ . ·:;,;,
• l' I/, = -... '":.·· ···.
~"·-~:; qi'·--..
( ~\X'E '.:2050')40..l
r'". -, .. -··:·
\ '
1.lr1 . .., / . .. ; ~
'r ...
:..~ ,v .. -:---.. ""
1i,"'~ -·:.···· ~
':C'f.1
-~':~
:,,?
~;1 r;..:.;_,;;,
i:''. 25 u,UJ ;:-~-!'-°'
'(ll·: ,,: IL··-,.;,,·····,
~ i-:, / :·r
. :7-'
!. ---···
/ \
December 2005
__ ;;;
/v:· '<),,.,,
-I ,J.·, -=
c..• .::....
.. :·._·-~-;~DU
~ .-·.
I ( . J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II 1, .. ·.
-, 1;Jtt
( ':'--\.'\ :_ ~\):-,\.\\)~\)_\)\_
rccon,n1.endati.ons arc necessary. ~ur p~~fcssi.?na\ servi.ces have been performed, our tmctmgs ohatnC~ ·a.n.d. <)Ut'
t"l'C<>mmemiations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and pr:i.cticc!\. This
\\·:u·ranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied.
PROJECT SCOPE
C )ur preliminary geotechnical imrestigation consisted of surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration,
obtaining reprcsemati,·e soil samples, laborato~ testing, analysis of the field and laboratory dat:1 and rc\·icw of
rdcvant geologic literature. Our scope of service Qid not include assessment of hazardous substance
contamination, recommen~ations to prevent floor slab moisture intrusion or the formation of mold within the
~rnicture, or any other services not specifically described in the scope of sen·ices presented belcy1.v. l\-fore
spccificallr, the intent of rhis investigation was to:
a)
b)
c)
d)
fl
Explore the subsurface conditions of the site to the depths influenced by the proposed
stabilization and construction;
Evaluate, by laboratory tests and our experience \vith similar soils. the engineering properties
of the ,·arious strata that may influence the proposed stabilization and consrmcrion,
including bearing capacities, expansive characteristics a·nd settlement potential;
Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards thar could ha\·c
an effect-on the site construction, and provide the seismic design parameters as required !w
the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code;
.'.\ddress pot~ntial construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil condirions.
groundwater or geologic hazard~, and prm'ide recommendations concerning these problems;
Develop soil engineering criteria for site preparation and grading, as necessary;
Recommend an appropriate foundation system for the stabilization of rhe southern corner
of the existing building as well as the proposed renovations to rhe existing building. and
de,·elop so_il engineering design cr1teria for the recommended foundation de:-ig;n:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,. I ,,
h)
December 6, ::?.OOS
expansion;
Present our professional opinions in this report, \·vhich includes in addirion ro our
conclusions and recommendatiQns, a plot plan, exploration logs and a summ:u:y of the
laboratory test results.
. \lrhcmgh a test for the presence of soluble sulfates \,,ithin the soils tha_t ;11ay be in contact ,\ith rci.ntt)rced
concrete was performed as part of the scope of our services, it should be understood Chnsrian \X11cclcr
Engineering docs not practice corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is considered necess,u:y, ,\'C
recommend that the client retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this
ruatter. The results of these te_sts should only be used as a guideline to detennine if additional testing :md
analysis is necessary . .:\dditionally, our _approved scope of sen,ice did not include assessments ofhaza.tdous
wbstancc contamination, tl;ie_ formation of mold ",j_thin the proposed structure, or any other sen·iccs nor
specifi.callY described.
FINDINGS
SITE DESCRIPTION
The s_ubject site consists of a :large, nearly square parcel of land located in the Palomar .:\irport Business P:trk
com.plex, at the address of 2055 Corte Del Noga]., in the city of Carlsbad, California. The pared is also
identified ,lS Lot 8 of Carlsbad Tract 80-34 and.is siruated southeast of Corte Del Nogal :tnd northeast of
Corte Del ~-\be.to, and is bounded on the other t\VO ?ides by developed commercial and industrial properties.
\X'c understand that the lot \Vas graded around 1981 and that the existing imprm;emenrs. ,rhich consist ot an
existinj?; t\VO-story, tilt-up concrete office buildi.ng, an associated parking lot, and a relati,·ely large hwn area,
\,·ere con:-;cructed around 1986. Additionally, there is a concrete-lined storriw..'ater catch basin and a se\ver
man-hole located just off the southern comer of the existing buildi.ng. Topographically, the site has been
·,
gladed into :1 relati1:ely le-t·el pad ·with a. fill slope about 30 feet high descending from the southwestern side ot
rhc lot and :1 5-to 20-foot-h.igh fill slope descendi.ng from the northwestern side of the sue to Corte Del
. \beto . .:\n approximately 5-foot-high cm and fill slope ascends to the property to the northeast.
lhseJ on our reYiew of the referenced·reports, we understand that se,•eral distress features ha,·e been noted
in the southem portion of the building; which include cracks up to about 1 inch ,vide in the t1oo.r slab and
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i ~
,.:"'F ~u::,1\t)-1,0.0\
._\i..'-"'~m-:-l c'l'..ackin,;.. at the ,viudow and door frames in the perimeter wa'us. \n ?.0.0.\.~()\\, tt\i\j_~t\~ \1.lit
.;"' ....
:;cpararions were observed between the concrete tilt-up panels_ at the southern and \t;e~.tern corners of the
building, Based on our re.view of the referenced report by Landtech Soils Engineering, Inc.. we underst:1nd
rh:H a floor le,•cl sunrey perfo~ed in '.!00~ indicated that the floor had an overall differential floor ckvatt()n
·t>f approximately -1-.1 inches and a local ,rariation of 2.5 inches .in 17 feet near the southern corner.
GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located in Coastal Plams
Ph~·siographic Province of San Diego County. ·Based on the results of om: subsurface explorations and our
rc,·ic,v of the referenced report as well as pertinent, readily available geologic literature_, we have determined thar
rhc site is underlain by artificial fill that is in cum underlain by Cretaceous-age sedimenrary deposits locally
referred to as the Santiago Formation. These units are described below in order of increasing age.
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf): Man-placed fill soil was encountered ,vithin si..x of our ten cxplorawry
borings. Based on our review of the original grading plan. whi~h is included in the referenced reporr
by I)eBerry Engineering Associates, the cut/fill transition is located in the northeastern portion of
the site. 111c thickness qf the fill generally increases in a southerly direction from the cut/ fill
transition and, within our borings, ranged from approximately 11:2 feet near the norrhern corner of
the existing buiJding to approximately '.?.41,12 feet in the southern corner. In general, t:he fill con$istcd
of light grayish-brown, moist, medium dense, clayey sand (SC) and light greenish-co gr:1yish-br0\vn.
moist, ~·ery stiff, sandy clay (CL). Within our borings drilled near the southern comer of rhe exisring
building (B-1, B-'.?., and B-4), the clayey sand material was encountered in the upper approxunardy 7
w 1'.?. feet and the sandy clay material was encountered below those depths. Additionally, within
those same borings, construction debris such as chunks of concrete was noted in the fill. Based on
the results of our laboratory testing and our experience with similar $Qi! types, the existing fill is
expected to have a "low" Expansion Index in the clayey sand portions and a --medium" Expansion
Index in the sandy clay portions. Additionally, we expect that the fill generally has moderate strength
characteristics and a low co moderate settlement potential in its present ,-;rate.
SANTIAGO FORMATION (l'sa): Tertiary-age sedimentary deposits locally referred co as the:
Sanriago Formation were encountered in each of our exploratory borings. These sandstones were
encountered near the surface in our borings drilled.in the north-northeastern portion of the site fB-7
rhr.:ough B-10) and below the fill in our remaining borings. The formational materials generally
I
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I· .
cnnsi;sted. l)f light gra:yish-brnwn, silty sand (Si:vf) that was moist and dense to \; et~ dense ·111
consistency. Based on our experience 'W'ith similar soil types, the Santiagt, Jlon11:1ti,m ·is t::x.1x·t·t1:d tu
luve ,l "low" Expansion Index, high strength parameters, and a low settlement pott·nual. The
(,.:>rmation;1l material is considered_suitable in its present condition to support fill and/ t1r set tlt•ment-
st·nsirin~ improvements.
GROUNDWATER: Gro~ndwater was not encountered in any of our exploratory trenches and we dn not
;u1ticip:1te tb:lt any groundwater-related proble11;1s will be encountered either during tJr after tht• proptJsed
constnicti()n provided that proper drainage is maintained.
TECTONIC SETTING: No faults are known to traverse the subject site. 1 lowever, it shm1ld be noted that
much of Southern California, including the San Diego Cot.mty area, is characterized by a seri~·s nf Quaternary
age fault zones that consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike 111 a northerly to
northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults ,vi thin the zone) .ire d.1ssified ·,t$
"active'' according to the criteria of the Californja Division oflv.Gnes and Geology. ActiYe fault zones are
those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Ept)ch (the most recent 11,()0()
year~), ·n1e Division of Mines and Geology used the term «potentially active" on Earthl1uake Fault :/.lmt'
maps until 1988 to refer to all Quaternary-age (last 1.6 million years) faults for the purpose of evaluat1,m for
pnssihk zonation in accordance with the. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault ZQning Act and identified all
(~uaternary·-ag-e faults as "rotentially active" except for certain faults that were presumed to be mactive based
on din·L-t geologic eviden~e of inactivity .during all of J Iolocene time or longer. ~;'Qme faults considered to lw
"potentially active" would be considered to be ''active'rbut lack specific criteria used by the Srate Ce-ologist_
::uch as St(.(Jitient!Y a£1i1,e and ;ve/1-dejined Faults older than Quaternary-age ~e not specifically defined in Spen:1l
Publication 42, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, published by the Califoniia DiYision of Mint~s ant!
(;eology. However, it is generally accepted that faults showing no movement during the Quaternary period
nuy he considered to be "inactive".
. \ rt'\'iew of available geologic maps indicates that the active Rose Canyon Fault Zone is located approximately 1 I l
kih.)meters northeast of the subject site. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly aff~·cr the
site indude. the Ne\vport-Inglewood and Palos Verdes Fault Zones to the northwest, the Coronado Bank
F;mlt Zone to the southwest, th'e F.lsin~re and Earthquake Valley Fault Zones to the northeast and e:1st,
rt':-pectivdy.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
... ,..,~ ----~--·
I•(:.·'."-' ·_·-;r::-: ..
. ';
! t De.c.e.mbe:i: 6, 2()()5
C'\\'E 2\)5n9..\()_()\
GROUND SHAKING: .A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as a result of movement
along one of the major active fault zones m~ntioned abo,·e. B~sed on a Deterministic Seismic 1-faz:-1.rd :\nalysis.
the maxirnum ground accelerations that would be attributed to a tna:cim_um probable carthc1uake occurring along
the nc-arest faulr segments of selec;ted fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in Table I presented
below.
TABLE I: MAXIMUM GROUND ACCELERATIONS
-··----Fault Zone Dist~nce Max. Magnitude Maximum Ground
Earthql_lake Acceleration --Rrn,e Canyon 10km 6. 9 Magnitude 0.34g
--N cwport-Inglewood 14km 6.9 Magnitude 0.26 g
--·--·--Coronado Bank 35 km 7.4 Magnitude 0.18 g
-------Elsinore O uli.an) · 37km 7.1 Magnitude 0.15 g
~ ·--~ ·---·-Palos Verdes 64km 7. i Magnitude 0.10 g
i Earthquake Valley 65 km 6.5 Magnitude 0.07 g
L
LANDSLIDE ~OTENTIAL A1;-J"D S_LOPE STABILITY: The Relative Landslide Susceptibility and
Landslide Distributio~ Map of the Encinitas Quadrangle, prepared by the California Division of Mines and
Geology, indicates that the site is situa~ed within Relative Landslide Susceptibility .-\rea 3-1. A.rca 3-1 is
considered to be "generally susceptible" to slope failures; Area 3-1 includes moderately to steeply sloping
terrain? where slope failure and landsliding occurrences are rare though possible if it were adversely mfldified.
Based on the results of our subsurface explorations, the subject site is underlain by dense to very dense
sandstones of the Santiago Formation and the on-site slopes are comprised of medium dense fill material. In
· terms of slope stability, these soils have moderate to high strength parameters. Based on these conditions, it
is our opinion that the potential for deep-seated landsliding within the subject site proper is low; however,
this opinion should be verified by performing a quantitative analysis of the stability of the on-sitc slopes,
\Vl~ich was not part of our s"cope of services for this project.
LIQUEFACTION: 1ne native materials at the site are not subject to liquefaction due to such factors as soil
density, grain-size distribution. and the absence of shallow groundwater conditions .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FLOODING: ·111e site is located outside the boundaries of both the 100-year and the 500-ycar floodpl:uns
according to the maps prepared by the Federal Emergency l\-fanagemenr ..:\.gcncy.
TSUNMfIS: Tsunamis are great sea \-vaves produced by submarine earthquakes or Yokanic eruptions. Based
upon the location of the sire it \,ill not be affe-cted by tsunamis.
SEI CHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors. bays or
tesen,·01rs. Due to the site's location, it' is considered to ba,·e a negligible risk poter:i~al for se1ehc:s.
CONCLUSIONS
ln general. we found that the subject property is suitable for the proposed building stabilization and
improvements, prm·ided the recommendations p1;ovided herein are folloi.ved. Based on our im·estigation, \·n:
have identified the following geotechnical conditions tha.t \vill have a significant impact on the proposed
cc)nstruction:
• The southern and western portions of the existing building exhibit signs of movement distress. ]11is
movement appears to be related to settlement of the e?sting foundations and possibl~' to some lateral
creep of the descending fill slopes adjacent to the buil~g. \"{.'e understand that it is desired to stabilize
the distressed portions of the building. Based on the age of the existing building and its supporting fill
(approximately 19 and 24 years old, respectively), it is our opinion that the primary settlement has mo;;t
likely ceased and that the possibility of future building movement can be mitigated by constructing a
sister footing adjacent to and doweled into the existing footing. Specific geotechnical design criteria for
sister footings are presented in the "Foundations" section of this report.
•
•
'111<: area to support the proposed enclosure and elevator in the northern comer of the existing buildiny,
is underlain by fill material that is considered suitable to support the proposed improv_cm.ents; howenr,
the found:,i.tions \Vlli need to be deepened and the excavations ,vill need to be observed by our firm
prior to placing formwork or reinforcing steel in order to verify that a competent bearing stratum ha:;
been reached.
The area to support the pr<;>posed parking lot .improvements is underlain partially by form.ational
sandstones and partially by artificial fill .. The existing fill in this area is generally considered snitabk to
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1-
1-,-·
..
I '>·· .;¥_
: ,• ··~
,~ '_,_.
(
support the proposed parking lot provided the upper one foot of subgrade is prepared in accordance
\\1th the recommcndatioI).s presented in th~ "Grading and Eatth,vork" section of this report.
. .
( ;cologitally, the site is located in an area th.at is relatiYely free of geologic hazards that wtll han: a significant
effect on the proposed residence. ~-\ significant geologic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking due
to seismic acciYity along one of the regional active faults; however, construction in accordance with rhc
n.'quirements of the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and the local governmental agencies
should pwvide a le:tel of life-safety suitable for the type of constructio_n~ proposed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
GRADING AND EARTHWORK
GENERAL: All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in _.\ppencli."\: CJ1apter :\33 of rhe Uniform
Building Code and the minimum -r~quirements of the City of Carlsbad except where specifically superseded in
the text of this report. Prior to grading, a representative of Christian \'\'heeler Engineering should be present at
. the pre-corn-truction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if necessary, and to reYie,,· the earthwork
schedule.
OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential
during rhe grading_ operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in
degign criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed, ·and to determine that the grading proceeds in general
accordance with the recommendations contained herein.
CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Site preparation should begin with the complete remO"\·al of the cxisring
Ycgctation, including all root balls from t;he trees to be removed and all signifo;:ant root material. It should be
. '
noted that discing: of the vegetation into the surficial soils is not an acceptable form of removal, and may result
in the requirement that soils contaminated with vegetation be exported from the site.
SITE PREPARATION: "The upper twelve inches of sul:;,grade beneath paved area$ should be compacted to
95 percent of the materials maximum dry density. 'Ibis compaction should be obtained by the paving
contractor just prior to placing the aggregate ba~e material and should not be part of the mass grading
rcqtiiremcnts or operation.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ' -'; -· I ·.-~
r
-:-~\:_ :_$\">i'.\t).l,\")\Y\.
PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS: Prior to placing any hew fill soils or constructing any new improYemcnrs
i.n ::trc:is that have been cleaned out and approved to recei,~e fill, the exposed soils should be scarified to a Jcpth
nC 12 inches, moi~turc conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relati"\.·e compaction. No ocher $pcci:.il
ground preparation is anticipated at this time.
COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING: All structural fill placed at d1c sire should be compacrcd
to a relative con'ipaction of at least 90 percent of ma::cimum dry density as determined by AST.l\f LaboratoFy Tesr
.1)1557. Fills should be placed at or slightl~ above optimum moisture content, in lifts ~i.~ ro eight inches rhick,
with each lift compacted by mechanicai mea;:is. Fills should ca"nsist of approved earth marerial, free of crash or
debris, roots, vegetation, or oilier materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project
geologist. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of twelve inches in ma~mum
dimension. However, in ilie upper two feet of pad grade, no rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches
should be allowed.
, \ll utility trench backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maxim.um dry density.
SURFACE_b.RAINAGE: The ground around ilie structure should be graded so that surface ,vatcr flows
rapidly away from the buil~g;s ~-iiliout ponding. In general, we recommend iliat the ground adjacent to
buildings slope away at a gradient of at least two percent. Densely ·vegetated areas where runoff can l-5c imp:urcd
should ha,•e a minimum gradient of five perc~t wiiliin ilie fustfive feet from ilie structure. Gutters and
dc>wnspouts should discharge into c;on~olled drainage devices.
FOUNDATIONS
GENERAL: \-X:'e recommend ilie stabilization of ilie southern <;Omer of the building consist of constructing
a sister footing adjacent to and doweled inro the existing footing. Also, we anticipate that the enclosure and
t'.;~_Jl)I~ noriliem comer of the building will be supported b~~i~~("'!rr.;-,.--,
Design criteria for these foundations are presented in ilie follm.vi.ng sections.
SISTER FOOTINGS: It is our opinion that the£ Jy£B40 in the southern portion of the building can
be Sta weled into the existing footings. \X1c
recommend that at least t!"ie ·first two tilt-1:1p panels (four total} on each side of the souiliern corner of the
building be stabilized with s~ster footings. The sister footings should be embedded to a depth equivalcnr to the·
CXisring footings, 'I; ~~clil(J'T~"'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
1-
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
( December 6, 2005
c~\;. '2.\)St\t),\~).01
"\'\1c 1')n-i1e~\. ~\rocturi\ engineer s'nou\a. ptOVlO.e rel.ntotcemen't an.a. 0.0\Vtl teqUitemen't.S \ot S~~tet \Mbn.i::.:
Plate Number 16 of this report.
NEW FOOTING DIMENSIONS: Shallow spread footings may be used to support the proposed
enclosure and ~levator at the northern comer of the building. Such foundations should have a minimum
---•144fi@dAtdts1, .. J?b.&WJ&.!WWWJAAE-Conventional foundations should have a minimum
f~~#-~~
BEARING CAPACITY: New conventional spread footings as :well as existing footings stabilized with sister
footings, \V:ith the above minimum dimensions, may be designed for ah allowable soil bearing pressure of
The bearing value may be increased by one-third for combinations of
temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads.
EX~ ANSIVE CHARA~ERISTICS: Due to the generally "low" expansive potential of the soils to be
found within the foundation zones; special foundation design for heavip,g soils are not considered necessary ar
this time.
SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and differential settlement is expected to be
less than about one inch and one inch over forty feet, respectively, provided the recommendations presented 1ri
this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and
foundations due to concrete shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses, therefore some cracks shouid
be anticipated. Such c.ncks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements.
FOOTING REINFORCING: Reinforcement requirements for new shallow foundations should be provickd
by a structural engineer. I Iowever, based on the existing soil conditions, we recommend that the reinforcing for
continuous footings consist qf at ti JLAlt8$•~fiu6n:€i:fffiF~1fiFfITfs<Kf>b've.:tlieBottc5~·:8f'H1lt(joting ·
-~~~6.'JS~ti]~i5~ect!app~~te'Iftwb~ftich~'1$'~l6wrh"~t(')p:·srffie'f~~tirig-:" \'{;'here new foc>tings
abt1t existing footings, they should be doweled together in accordance with the recommendations of the project
~tmctural enginee~.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' December: 6, ::005
, ·:\,T-2.0:>~)9-iU.01
1.A'TER..t,.L LOAD RESlSTi\NCE: l:a.tm.\. \oa0:'5 ag'ainst to\.m.cl2.11ons ma·y be rei1$te.a. D~ foeuon \'let\\lef.'n
the bottom of the footing and rhe supporting soil, and by rhe passive pressure :i.g:1insr rhe routing. The
wefficicnr of friccion between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.35. ·111e passive rcsisuncc m;1y be
,:onsidered ro be egual ro ·:1n eqtrivalenr t1ui__d weight of 250 pounds per cubic foor. ':llus .1ssume:; rltc foorm~s
.trc poured right againsr undisrurbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and fricti,in is used. the
friccinn ;-;1lue should be reduced by one-third. . . .
FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW: The foundation plans should be submitted ro this office for r(Ticw i.n
order to ascertain chat the recommendations of this report have been implemented. ,rnd that no additional
n:commendarions are needed due ro changes in the anticipated construction.
FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: All shallow foundarion ex:cavanons should be
c>bsetvcd by the Gcotechnical Consulranr prior to placing concrete to detennine if the foun<larion
rccommen(hrions presented herein are complied with. All footing e:s:cavacions should ?e e:s:c:n·awd near, lcvd
'.lnJ sy_u:.1.rc. ,\11 loose or unsuirable material should be removed prior to the placement of.concrete.
SEISMIC DESI9N PARAMETERS
Based on our Deterministic Seisrµic Hazard Analysis, the Maximum Ground a-\cceleracion .n the sire i5 e:-1im:1k·d
w be approximately 0.34 g. For structural design purposes, a, damping raci9 not greater than 5 percent of cntic1!
dampening, and Soil Profile Type Sc are recommended (UBC Table 16-:J). Based on the sire's location ar
.-1.ppr<1ximatdy 10 kilometers from·the Rose Cmyon Fault Zone (Type B Fault). Near Source Factors N, c'qual t(1
I .0 and 1'.,. equal to 1.0 are also applicable. These values, along \Vlth other seismically related defign parameters
from the Cniform Building Code ({JBC) 1997 edition, Volume II, Chapter 16, utilizing a Seismic 7.one ..J. :trc
prescnecd in rabular form on the following page.
TABLE II: SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
UBC Chapter 16 Seismic Design Recommended
Table No. Parameter Value
16-I Seismic Zone Factor Z 0.-+0
16~J Soil Profile Type S,::
16-Q Seismic Coefficient Ca . 0.40 :'.\I.,
16-R Seismic Coefficient (,. 0.56 N ....
" 16°S Near-Source· F;i.ctor Na 1.0 -----16-T Neat Source Factor N,-1.0
16-C' Seismic Source Type B ·-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
C.\."'-.F ~~)':/)8,\-0.W\
ON-GRADE SLABS
GENERAL: It is ol)r understanding that the floor system of the proposed enclosure will consist of concrete
:;[abs-on-grade. 111e foll0\'1.mg recommendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the
soil conditions and are not intended in lieu of structural considerations.
INTERIOR FLOOR SLABS:.The minimµm slab thickness should be five inches (actual) and the slab should
be reinforced \,,ith at least No. 3 bars spaced at 12 inches on center each ~':ay. Slab reinforcement should be
supported on' chairs such that. the reinforcing bars are positioned at mid-height in the floor slab. ·111.e slab
reinforcement should extend i?to tq.e pe~eter footings at least six inches.
MOISTURE PROTECTION FOR ~TERlOR SLABS: Historically, it has been a construction
standard to install a moisture/vapor retarder system below interior on-grade slabs where moisture-sensici,,c
floor covering is anticipated. The purpose of the moisture/vapor retarder is to attempt to minimize the
transmission of moisture up through the concrete slab from sources below the slab. It should be nored thar
there i~ no known construction method that will insure that no moisture \v-ill. migrate up though on-grade
Hoor slab. and that there \vill always be some amount of moisture migration into the air space above on-grade
floor slabs.
The industry standard for a moisture/Yapor retarder system is to place a four-inch layer of clean. coarse sand
or crnshed rnck below on-grade concrete floor slabs. If sand is used, which is the most common subslab
material ir should ha,·e less than ten pe,;cent and five percent passing the No. 100 and No. 200 sieves,
respectively. in order to provide a capillary break between ~e underlying soil and the concrete slab. In
addition. a lS~mil polye.thylene m.embrane, SU;Ch ;i.s Stago-\X'rap, should be placed directly over the sand or
rock blanket and the slab concrete should be placed directly over the membrane. The membrane should b<·
placed in·accordance with the recommendation and considemtion of ACI 302, "Guide for Concrete Floor
an<l Slab Construction" and .ASThf E1643, "Standards Practice for Installation of \\1ater Vapor Retarder
l.lscd in Contact 'w,ith Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs".
In addition. concrete mixes can be designed to reduce the permeability of the concrete, and thus, reduce the
amc>unt of moisture migration up into the air space above the on-grade concrete slab. If desired, we can
prcivide mix design recommendations to help minimize the concrete permeability.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
EXTERIOR-CONCRETE FLA.TWORK: Exterior slabs should have a mi.rum.um tt1.i.c\.mcss ot tout.mc\\c::..
Rc.1nforccmcnr should be placed in exterior concrete flat\vork to reduce the potential for cracking and
differential m0vcmenr. Control joints should be placed in exterior concrete flat\·mrk ro help control the
lc,cat:i.on nf_shrinkage crl).cks. Spacing of control joints should be in accordance \,,:ith the .:\merican Concrete
1 n:-. dtute :-pecific:ation::-.
SOLUBLE SU-LF ATES
The water $olubk sulfate content was determined in accordance with California Test 1\{ethod -!-1' for
representative soil samples taken from borin_gs B-1 and B-3. The results of these tests indicate that rhe
represcntati-re soil samples h~d soluble sulfate contents of ~.137 and 0.006 percent for B-1 and R-3,
rcspectiYcly. Soils with a_sol~ble:sulfate content ofless than 0.1 percent are considered to be negligible and
no special r.ecommcndations are needed. Soils ,vith a soluble sulfate content between 0.1 and 0.2 pc.rcent arc
considered moderate. Specific design parameters for concrete e)..--posed to a "moderate" sulfate exposure arc
presented in Table 19-A-3 of the Uniform Building Code (1997). ?Jlese parameters generally consist of using
Type II cement, pro,·iding a maximum ,vater to cement ratio of 0.50 and providing a minimum comprcs~in-
strcngrh of 4,000 pou.nds per square foot.
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT SECTIONS
TRAFFiC INDEX: Based on the fact that the proposed dri_.eway and parking areas ,,i.11 typically support
light ,·chide loads \V:ith only occasional heavy vehicle lo~ds, we have assumed Traffic Indexes of 4.5 and ~.(J for
the proposed parking and dri_Yeway areas, respectively.
R-V ALUE TEST: Since an evaluation of the supporting characteristics of the actual subgrade soils can only be
prm·ided after the completion of grading, the following pavement section should be considered p.reliminary and
should be used for planning purposes only. Final pavement designs should be e,·aluated after R-valuc tc:m haYc
been pcrfom1cd in the actual subgrade material. For prel.irn.i.rtary planning purposes, \~:e ha,·e performed R-
\'alu,c testing on t\VO samples of the existing on-site near-surface material. The test results indicated R-Yalues 29
and -J.() for said soils. Based on these results, an R-value of 30 was used in determining the preliminary stmcmral
pa,·emcm sect1on.
PRELIMINARY STRUCTURAL SECTION: Based on the above parameters, it was determined that the
preliminary stn1cniral pa,;ement section should consist of 3.0 inches of asphalt concrete (1\C) pavement on -t5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Page l·l
r l)ecem'oer6,2G~S
l ·:-,..."\J\ :. ~,\Snt):\O.~\'\.
mc\w:-of Crn$11Cl1 .\g__gre~ate Base mater!.?-}. in tbe parking areas and°:).\) ·m.c\1es o\ as~'ha\\ concrete ~\C)
p:tn·nwnt on 5.5 inches of Cmshed A&-,'1"cgate Rase material in the d.riYcway areas. Tbt· base marcrial should be
in accordam--e ,virh Section 200-2.2 of th~ Standard Specifications for Public \Vorks C:omtruction on,ith
:-;ection 26-1.02,-\ of the State of California, Department of Transportation. Standard Specifications. If a
Port.land Cement Concrete pa,sement section is used, we recommend that it haYe a thickness of 6.0 incl:es and
lw placed directly on properly compacted subgrade material.
LIMITATIONS
REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING
·111c recommt•ndations prescx~ted m this report are contingent upon our revie\v of final plans and specifications.
Such plarn; and specifications sh~uld be made available to the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering ( ;cologist
so that they may review and verifytheir compliance with this report and with the Unifonn Building Code.
. It is rcco1nmendcd that Christian \X'heeler Engineering be retained to prc)Vide continuous soil engineering
services during the earthwork operations. 'Ibis is to verify compliance ,vith the de·sign concepts. spccificariom
or n·commcndations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those
anticipated prior to start. of construction .
UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
·nw n.·commendatiom and.opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project
regnirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration
l<xati<ms and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encounrere<L l t
should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/ or cut and fill slopes may be influ~nced by
nndisdosc~d or unforeseen ,·ariations in the soil conditions that may occur in ·the intermediate and unexpl~m:d
areas. :\riy unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during sire development
~hould be brought ro the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may make modifications if
CHANGE IN SCOPE
·111is office should be advi~ed of any changes in th~ project scope or proposed site grading so that we may
detmnine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. It should be Yerified in writing if the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
December 6, '2.005
rccomrncndacions are found to be appropriate for the proposed changes or our recommendaciom-should be
tn< )di.fied by a written r-tddendum.
TIME LIMITATIONS
The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occnr
,v:ith the passage of ti.me, whether they are due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent
properties. In addition, ·changes in the Standards-of-.Pract:ice and/ or Government Codes may occur, _Due ro
such changeSc, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control.
Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years ,.vithout a re,·iew by us :verifying the
suitability of the conclusions and recommendations.
PROFESSIONAL STANDARD
In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised
by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same loc;ality. 'll1e client
recognizes 'tl1at subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings,
surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations are based solely on
the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations,
' '
but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services con"ist
of professional comultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied,
is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for
consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings.
CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY
It is the client's responsibility, or his representatives, to ensure that the information and recommendations
· contained herein are brought to th.e attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and
incorporated into .the .project's plans and specifications. It is further their respopsibility to take .the necessary
measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during
constmc;ti<m.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·I·
1:·'
I ,;;·:...-'
FIELD EXPLORA.TlONS
Ten ~ubsurface explorations were made benveen October 19 and 21, 2()05 at the locariom indica_ccd on the
arrached Plate Number 1. Tbese explorations consisted of small-diameter borings tnade ,virh a Ingersol-Rand
?,!l(l truck-mounted drill rig. 1be field,vork was conducted by an engineering geologi:;r.
The explorations were carefully logged when made. The boring logs are presented on rhe .following Plate
Number:,:·::?, through 13. The soils are described in accordance with the Uni~e~ Soils Cla::-sification Sp rem.
In addition. a verbal rexrur~l description, the wet color, the apparent moisrure and rhe density or crmsisrcncy
arc provided. The density of granular soils is given as ,rery loose, loose, medium dense. deme or ,,cry den:-e.
The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft. soft, medium stiff, stiff. ,rery stiff. or hard.
Relatively undisturbed drive samples were collected from our borings using a modified California ::-ampler.
The sampler, \vith an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is lined with 1-inch long. thin, brass rings with inside . -· . .
diameters of appn')ximatcly 2:4 inches, The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a
1-1-0-pound hammer falling 30 inches in general accordance with .-\STM D 3550-84. The driving weight ts
permitted ro fall freely. The number of blows per foot of driving, or a~ indicated, are presented on the bonng
lo~::-as an index to the relative resistance of the sampled materials. 1be samples '\Vere removed from the
sample barrel in the brass rings, ;md sealed.
LABORATORY TESTING
Labor;rory rests were performed in accordance \vith the generally accepted American Society for Testing and
tvfarerials (ASTl\.1) test methods or sugges~ed procedures. A brief description of the rests performed is
pres·ented below:
a) CLASSIFICA,TION: Fidd classifications were ,•erified in the laboratory by visual examination. The
_ final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.
b) MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densitieg were determined for
rcpr~sentari,re soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitrcd recognition of
variations in material consistency with depth. 1be dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic
foot. and the in-place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The
results of these tests are summarized in the boring logs.
POOR
QUALITY
ORIGINAL S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
· December 6, 2QOS
<. :\'('} ·: 2ll5l )9-1-lW l
-=·) c.RMN s.1-z.i n1~1'.fil'BtrnoN~ 1.:\\e. P ;itz.e &;im'a\lt.()\\ ~i~ <it\tt\\\\.\\td. fot ~de.ctcd
rcprc::;cntative soi.\ samp\es in acc~ro.ance wit\1 NSTul D422. The resuhs of these tests arc prcs~)ntcli on . .
Platt~ Number 1-J..
-d) DIRECT SHEAR TESTS: Direct shear te~ts were performed on representative soil samples to
determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to
;Kcommodate a sample having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.l l inch.
Samples were tested at different vertical loads and at saturated moisture content. The shear strCS$ was
;ipplied at a constant rare of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. The results o( tliesc: tests :1n·
presented on the attached Plate Number 1-+.
e) EXPANSION INDEX TEST: Expansion ln9-ex tes~g was :p~rformed on a remolded
representative sample of the on-site soil. The test was performed on the portion of the sample
passing the #-J. standard sieve. The sample was brought to optimum moisture content and then dried
back to ~1.constant moisture content for l'.?. hours at '.?.30 ± 9 degrees Fahrenheit. 11,e specimen w;1s
then compacted in a +inch-diameter mold in two equal layers by means of a tamper, then trimmed
to a final height of 1 inch, and 'brought to a saturation of approximately 50 percent. 1be specimen
was placed in a C<;Jrisolidometer \Vi.th porous stones at the top and bottom, a total normal l'oad of
12:63 pounds was placed (l44. 7 psf), and the sample was allowed to consolidate for a period of 1 n
minutes. 111e sample was saturated, and the change in vertical movement was .recorded unril the rate
of expansion became nominal. The expansion index is reported on Plate Number 15 as the·t,)tal
,·ertical displacement times 1000.
t) PLASTIC INDEX TEST: The Llquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plastic Index were determined for
r<.'presentative soil samples in order to help classify the soils in accordance ·with the Cnified Soil
Classification System. These tests \Vere performed in accordance with ASTi\f D42-+. ·n1e results of
these tests are presented Plate Number 15.
g) SOLUBLE SULFATES: The soluble sulfate content was detennined for samples of soil likely to he
present at the foundation. level. The sbluble s_ulfate content was determined-in .accordance 'with
California Test Method 417. The result~ are present~d on Plate Number 15.
h) R-VALUE: 1be resistance value was dete.nnined for Safl?-ples of soil likely to be present at the sub?7:idc
level. "111e R-Value was dete~ed in accordance '->::ith California Test Method 301. 'lhe results arc
presented on Plate Number 15.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
l late r.xcavated:.
[·:<wipmenr:
10/19/2005
Mole#{
252.0 feet [ ·'.xii:nnf,: I-:kv~.tion:
r:ini:-h Fb·at.ion:
,~
~' ~ . .2 ~ .. . _,'
(1
I~
-
.. ·· ..... ··
.. • .. ·· •' ,•
Slli\IT\L:\RY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
b:,rtificial Fill (Qaf): Light grayish-br0\'1:n, moist, medium dense/very
stiff, CL.\ YEY S.\ND (SC), \.-ith minor PCC debris and silty clay
nodules 1 to 2 inches maximum diameter.
1" irrigation line at 1 foot.
Light greenish-grayish-brown and light grayish-brown, moist, ,·ery
stiff. S.\NDY SILTY CL:\Y (CL), \,-ith trace gravels.
1,ogged by:
Project lv1anagcr:
Depth to \\'atcr:
Dri,·c \\:'eight:
S.\i\ll'l i:,
r.rJ z
~ 0 0 ,,.. -[-~ r' ~-< ,-
Ci! ,-; r:::::: ,,
--1 :::i "' r' ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ 2; ;;-~ "' C, < i:.rJ V) ~
C.tl 3(,
44
Cal _,,,
Cal (,1
:\KN
CJTC
N,'.\
1.+n lbs./3(1"
...-:;--r s:__, ~ c:J !...., ~ C ,....,
::.i z u ~ r-:..J './) ...... :,.. 0 ~ ;.2 Q
11.1 I JB \
XA 115 4
11 5 l lll.;
;.,-.
r::::::
._., (/j [-:....... _.,..
~ :.r.,
~ [-
~ --r ;
,-;
;.['!),
ll:--. S.\
..:.c·,,
~.![)_
11.\. l'l
157 l!IR.t, !)S
· .)1 ~U,L...__ _____________ _. _______________ __L_:<.:,::a::._I J__J__:_'".:_JL,.:.h".t.~·:_l .Ll'...:.l:.:...'l=-2..L _ _j
Borin continued on Plate No. 3.
l 'l !R.l~ll:\N WHfELER
I N t, I N I I R I N (.
PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING STABILIZATION & RENOVATIONS
2055 Corte Del Nagai, Carlsbad, California
BY: HF D:\TE: December 2CHl5
JOB NO.: 2050940 PL\TENO.: 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I:
I
·1
I
I
I·
I
\ l..OG 013 t"E~t "BORlNG N\JMllER 'B-1 (Continued)
D:irc Fxc:iv:itc:d: 10/19/2005 I.ogged by: ,\1~1\l
I ·'..:1uipn1cnt: rvfok #4 Project r.[anagcr: CHf.
l-'.xi::1it1g T]ention: Z52.0 feet Depth to \'rater: N/.\
Fini!-h Ekntion: Dri\·c \'("eight: HO lb::; /.11)"
-
::;.\:-!Pl.l·'.S
,.,-.
;.' '-' ,.· z ........ ...... ...... ..c :...-
~ '-< p.. , ..... ;.;: :::::: ...... '--' ---;:::__ ,.._ ..... ;;.> ~ ·-· ''
,.,,.. l-" ,_, ~ -~ t-' :.L'. ...... ;..., './:.
.:-,-..,.. < -~ ~ ..... ·=-~ -Sl:l\f:t\L\RY OF SCBSCRF.ACE CONDITIONS ~ ......1 . c:: ---:J z ~ ~ :-:; ~ C...-~ :J "' :,:'. ;:..., ~ r..... -., .. , .,..,.. ,.., CD ~ ~ -~-...... :--2 ~ 0 ~ '~ ;--
0 2 -;::; ;::::
'" C, C, .._,, < ,., c:: ~
u:, ,-.. ?--c " -,-..
f0 Artificial Fill (Oaf): Light greenish-grayish-brown and light
·,-.,., grayish-hrown. moist, Ycry stiff, S.-\:NDY SILTY CL-\ Y (CL), with -
rracc gravels.
..... 2-4 .-::.
Santiago Formation (Tsa): Light grayish-brown, moist, medium C1! _',l) 7 ') ltl'\.8
····· ... dense, SILn· S. \~D (S;\f), fine to medium-grained, with trace clay and
-26 "•
: iron staining.
··=· ..
~ 2~ ..
·-
'
.• C1I 50 '5" 15 4 11.n
-.">0 '•
-Boring terminated at 291/, feet.
-.., .1 ....
Boring properly backfilled \Vi.th± t~n cubic feet of bentonite grout .
... . 1-l-
,-_)(l
-;:4
'
--HI
PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING STABILIZATION & RENOVATIONS
2055 Corte Del Nogal, Carlsbad, California
1..~I IRI~ Tl-\'-! \VHEELER BY: HF D.-\ 1F.: December .2ilOS
!N<,l""IIKIN(; OBNO.: 2050940 PL.--\.TENO.: 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n:11r 1".xc:n-.ited:
! ·:~1uipm.._•nt:
Fxi:;ting Elevation:
1 :ini:-h Fk,·:i.tion:
'"' __ .._ X
:..i -:: ._3 --: ... '' '-' __,
c... ~ . . . --:-'
,""'. ~ , .... ,...,,
10/19/2005
Mole #-t-
252.0 feet
. . .
Sl :·MMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Artificial Fill (Qaft;. Light grayish-brown to tan, moist, medium
d<:"nse/very stiff, CL\ll:.Y $_.-\.:.'\'D (SC), with trace gravels and silty
day nodules up to 1" in diameter.
.. ,:
8 _ .. ; .. ··>: .. . .. • . .. ·
1,ogged. by: .\KN
Project i'vlanagcr: Cl IC
Depth to \X-'ater: ":-J./.\
Drive \\·'<-'ight: 1-1-ll lb:-:./.)0"
S.\'.\ll'I.ES
C:;11
C.tl 35
.. ,"·:·_. -------------------· 2--------------------------------------------------------------
12
14
1 (,
J~
._-.·:-.-:.
2(1
Light greenish-grayish-brown, moist, very stiff, S.-'i.NDY SILT:{
CL\ Y (CL), ·with trace gravels.
1 ;ight grayish--brown. moist, very q.ense, .SILTY SAND (S~1), fine to
medium-rained, with trace cla .
Borin continued on Plate No. 5.
(,4 17.S l ltJ.(,
Cal 1() 14.4 111, H
Cal 50/5" 14.2 . 1 ! 5.1,
\
!N
PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING STABILIZATION & RENOVATIONS
2055 Corte Del Nogal, Carlsbad, California
<. ·1 IRl,:O: fl.'\~ Wf IF.Fl.FR
I ~ ;; I '-.: I I R l N <,
BY:
OBNO.:
HF
2050940
D:\.TE: Decc..'1tlber 2005
PLATE \10.: 4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
I .
. I
ii
I
I
I
• i
LOG Or 'TEST_.BORING N\JMBER B-2 (Continued)
l )art· E xcaYated.: l()/19/201):,
Mole #4
.25.2.0 feet
Equipment:
Ex:isting Elc,·ation:
1 :inish EleYation:
·:;-, v
:.., 0 -:.> ,.....1 ·-....... ', -'--' ....... ..... -:--< ...... ,.. p.. ~ _..
~ ~ '" ...., (.'.)
-22
•;:: . . t;,
1-24 .. ,-,.:::,,,:_::
I-
.... J8
I-
-
I-3(1.
SCtfi\B.RY OF SUBSCR.FACE CONDITION$
Santiago Formation (Tsa): Light grayish-brown, moist, very dense,
SILn· S:\ND (S?-.1), fine to medi.um-srained, with trace clay and iron
staining.
Boring terminated at 24 feet.
Boring-properly backfilled ·with± eight cubic feet ofbenton,ite grout .
1.,oggeo. by
Project Manager: CHC
Depth to \'Cater: N/1\
DriYe \'\!eight: HO lb:;./~O"
$.\l\!l'J.ES
Cal 50/6" 12:1 I 19. I
w PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING STABILIZATION & RENOVATIONS
2055 Corte Del Nogal, Carlsbad, California
i...:.f {R.15Il:\."-J WHEELER. BY: HF DATE: December 2(105
I N (, l "-l l It l N (,· ITOBNO.: 2050940 PL\.TENO.: 5
I
I
I
I
I
I_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1--
. '
D:i.tc F.:s:ca\·:tted:
r·:quipmcnr:
I ~xi:-ting_ Elcn rion:
Fmi:;h }:'.kncion:
10)'.21 / 2005
IR-300
SFl\'fM:\RY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Artificial Fill (Oaf): Light to medium brownish·gray, moist, loose to ...
Logged by: .\K1~
Prnien l\.1:rnager: CHC
Depth to \,-'acer: N/:\
Drive \X'eight: 1-t0 lb:-.i ~()"
S.\:\!Pl .1-:s
~ z c' ;.-, ::,..
c.. 0 ~ l c::: ,-,. ~ ?-...... c· (.:.) '"' t--< -;--' ,_r,
:---' './ < 0 ~ :--< ' ·-...... C' ~ ;.r.l ....., ~ ...____ :.J z u -< :r,
~ :J u, 5 ::,:: ~ ;:..., ~ :-< ::_:_; ~ 1.r.J
,..._
C Vi ~· :-< -...... -:,... ~ z = 0 ::c < ~ ~ ~ :r, c.. ~ 0. ~
,_ 2 i-:·-···,.:;.:-..,· +--m_e_di..:... \lffi.....:..:;._;.;d..;.;en..;.;s.:;.e::..., C..:..1..:...-..:..:\ \.;.;.~;;:.;:_;;Y...;S;;.;;A-=...N;;;.D_(:.;;.S..;;C,...),_;w.;..;1·.;:;;th;;_t;;;.ra::.;c_;;e_.gri::_:a::.;v_;;e_;;__;ls..:... -------------4---1,.,......,l----1---l---4---l
.::::·:.
,_ .J.
·. ·:·-f
. ,;.• .. .. ·.
·'
Santiago Formation (Tsa): Light gray to tan, moist, dense to very
dense. SILTY S.--\ND-CL--\\"EY S.--\ND (SM-SC), fine to
mediwn-grained, \"1-ith iron staining.
Well cemented from 5 to 6 feet.
Cal
Cal
50/5" 15.3 112.'.l
50/5" ,\!l).
ris. :-:.\,
•• :~· C.1.l 51)7511 .:!O.tl }1il-\-:
-lO ,-.·'-· --·-+----------------------------... ~--1---1--...,1.---1,..---l
,_ Boring terminated at 9½ feet.
12
-16
-18
w
Cl flUSTl AN WHEEL.ER. r N '; I N I l lt l N c;
PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING STABILIZATION & RENOVATIONS
2055 Corte Del Nogal, Carlsbad, California
BY: HF D:\TE: Decemher ~005
JOB NO,: 2050940 PL\11-: NO.: 6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l )ar" E:-::tavated:
f ·'.l1uipn1cp r:
10/21/2005
IR-300
f :. xi:-ring Ek,·a t.ion:
1 :imsh I ~kvatton:
-, ~ ti ~ ·~
...,... -;--t c... .,, ....... ,....
-'
. ..,
V ,-... v .-1 u >-< >-<
c... ~ v
.-· .~ .. ··" . .:.•"' .... ··~-
::! >
-I
(,
8
[{)
!~
..... .. ·· .
... ·· ......... ~·' :
· .. -··:<
SC-:t-vfMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Artificial Fill (Oaf): Light grayish-brown to brown, moist, medium
dense, CL\ \TY S:\ND (SC), with PCC debris and silty clay nodules
up to 1" in diameter .
Light grennish-gray and brownish-gray, moist, very stiff to hard,
S.\NDY SILTY CL-\\' (CL).
Logged by: .. \KN
Projecr Managf:'r: C1 IC
Depth to \X'ater: N / :\
Drive \Xieight: 1..J.0 lbs./30"
S:\,\ll'LES
i:.:.l z ----C p.... 0 ,::;-c .. ::,.. ..... 1-C 2 !-~ ~ C ·-C!..'l -: ...... , ::...> .-1 ::) "' !-::: !-p., c::o i:.:.l 0 V) ~ z ~~ ,.....
..... r.r.l 0 ,, L. U, p.,
C:il 50/5" 12 ·1 ll!.l.-1
Cal '27 16.7 1 ]IJ :'
Cal 56 15.11 11 \.2
1-1 f"-'~!----------------------------+---!---le---+---+--~----l
16
18
. := .. Santiago Formation Usa): Light gray to tan, moist, very dense,
SIL'IY SA.ND (S~1), fine~grained, \,;,-ith trace clay and iron staining.
Borin terminated at 19½ feet.
Cal Sii/2" 14.6 111.!J
C.11 50/3" 15.'J 115.r,
PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING STABILIZATION & RENOVATIONS
2055 Corte Del N ogal, Carlsbad, California
Cl lRl~·n 1\'.'J WHf.H.ER. BY: HF
I NC, IN 1. I RI N 1,; JOB NO.: 2050940
DATE:
PL\TENO.:
December 2< 10:i
_, ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I-
I·.' ...
. ,
_\
. • -"\.J.)~ C)~ \.~~\. ~\)~\~\l ~~\\.it\\. \\-S
D:HC E:s:caY:i.tcd: lb/~l/~005 1,ogged by: .. \KN
I ·'.quipmcnt: TR->00 Pr0ject l\fo-nagcr: Cl!C
Fxi$tinp: FkY,Hion: Depth w \'\'arcr: N/:\
Fini,-h FkYation: Drin \\'cip;hr-1--1-0 lb::. . .1 .10"
-
:-:.\i\ll'l r-,
...... v z 0 ~ l:.J -::-,. ~ ;;,.. ,..._ .,-
.:J -~ V ,--. L-;:,::: -~ ;/ ~ .... ' u ("' ~ w • ....J •j '-< f-, ;.r. ..,.. -r ~ -~. ~ ..
t -Sl TJ\L\.L\RY OF SUBSURF.-\CE CONDITIONS 2L; :J ......_ . ' c:----( r'
2: "' ....., z (.J ~ '.ti
-~ ~ f-, ~ f-< .E-iaL}
:::: ~ CQ ....., ~ f-, c;::: D:1 Vi . ....,
r-. ...... >--..... ~ 7. c', 0 CQ
0 < L:.l ~ ~ :/.) c.. 2 Cl -
Ci" laret of sod and associated topsoil.
1--.. .-·~ ~ Nrificial Fill (QaO: Light grayish-brO\\,'n and greenish-brownish-~ ... --~ gray, moist. medium dense/very stiff, CL-\\'"EY S~\ND-S_-\NDY
: .• ., ..
• !'• CL\ Y (SC-CL), with PCC debris. -.j. ~-
Boring terminated at 5 feet. f I ,-()
,-I{
,-[!)
'-
12
,-[.j.. .
,-!'()
,-ts ',
c-::1\
w
' 1..~HR.IS1l ,\N Wl!F.f.LF.R.
f N'.,JNI 1.J'lJNC
PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING STABILIZATION & RENOVATIONS
2055 C:oqe Del Nogal, Carlsbad, California
BY: HF D.\TE: December 2111_15
OBNO.: 20509-1-0 PL\TENO.· 8
I
I
·I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:I
I
I
I
I·
I
I.
.
\ LOG Of TEST BO"RlNG ~\JM"B1IR "B-&
l,oggect by: AK~ \htc. F.""c~vated: 10/'.:.1/'.:.005
Equipment: IR-3QO Project Manager: CJIC
Fxu,ting Elevation: Depth to \Yater: .NIA
Fini~h Elc,•ation: Drive W/eight: 1.-J.O lbs./.1.tl"
-
S.\:-.!PU,S
·:::-V z .--,., c' :...., :;...., v --< ....,
~ ,.. ,-.. G ' 0::: ......; " . ...., ::-~ :::. :--, ,-..
, ' ?" C 'T' ~ -·~ ..... ~ ...... ..s 2 :...., v:: -< :--...... :_ 0 ...., c; sn,Ilv:L-\RY OF Sl::BSURF,-\CE CONDITIONS ~ ....:) c,::: '-z L, < '.r; -~ :.) "' ,-I c.. :::::: .. , -l-< _§ :--< --· -~ co _; ----r :-...., ,, ~ if; ___, :-' -,.... 0::: ~ z ,2, -:,-, z::: ..... ,-..
G < •,..1 .__, ::l::: ___.
er. -2 r-. :::.. ~ ....,
... .,~
. 611 layer of sod and associated _topsoil.
··-Artificial Fill (Oaf): Light grayish-brown, moist, medium dense/very 2
.,·· ..
t-~ 5tiff, CL-\.\'EY S.-\ND-SANDY CL-\Y (SC-CL). i I\, R
.,·~ \":\!.
-.-J. ~
,_ 6 Boring term0-ated at 5 feet.
...
--8
...
,_ 1!J
,_
~ 12
...
-14
,_ 1(1
...
,-!8
' ...
-21l
-.],.1R.lS'TI,'\'! WHEELER
I :-,: ·I, I N l. I R I N <;
:
PROPOSED OFFICE-BUILDING STABILIZATION & RENOVATIONS
2055 Corte Del Nogal, Carlsbad, California
. BY: HF DATE: December 2005
OBNO.: 2050940 PL.ATE NO.: 9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\\
.
,_
,_
,_
-
~
-
,_
,_
...
...
....
...
....
-
~
• \ L~'=i ~~ \.~~rt ~\)~\~'1 ~~~~~~ \\.!1
Dare F.:xcr,:atl'd: 10121n.oos 1~ogged by: :\l~N I
! ·:quipnwnr: IR-300 Project I\lanagcr: CHC
l ·'.x~:-t mg '1 ·1e,·.;trinn: Depth to \'Carer: N/:\
[:mi~h !]eY;trt(lll: Drin' \'('eight: 1-1-t) lbs./ _'in"
-
S.\).ll'I .i-::;
'" ._ .... ._, z ·? ~--,..., ~ -:., ~ ,..., • ~ :., -~ --· ·1 "-~ ·-.... ---. ~ ~ i.lJ :---· -r-' ~ h ,.r., --. ·-0::: ,-,.::._,-.... r' -
~ ...:.. Sl 'r\fl\i. \RY OF SlTBSlTRF.\CE CONDITIONS ,,, _, ~ -....... :.J 7. (.o < V;
~ ~ ;:_; "' ::. ;:::::: .,.
: .... ,:"' t ~ r ;:: t-< ;:_J .... 1.... -A2 C-!J ~ -0 \.,,, ::: -...... >--,?.; z c:, 0 ~
T" -.:: 0::: < V r,•
(/', -'-~ 0 .....J ,:::...
6" layer of sod and 'associated topsoil: -. . ·· ...
-; .... ·~ : _Santiago Formarion..Q:fil!).;_ Light grayish-brown to tan, moist, dense, -•' ~--. · .• :--= (L.:\ YEY S.-\ND (SC), fine-grained, ·with iron stainix1g. ;.,• .-. ... -··
.J. ::.-···. .. • .....
~-···· :·-.
(1
Boring terminated at 5 feet.
~
[!)
i'2
i .J.
I<,
1~
\
.)I
PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING STABILIZATION & RENOVATIONS
!N -2055 Corte Del Noga!, Carlsbad, California
1..·1 IR.1>11·\!"-.'. \VHf-H.ER · BY: HF DXlE: Dcc.:emher 21)1)5
l N r; I NI I It l N < ~ TOBNO.: 2050940 PL\11-'.:'.\JO.: 10
I
I
I
:I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
1-
'I
',
\\
.. \ . •
LOG Of 'tES't BORING NUMBER B-S
\ ht\." \:.-SC\'\ .. Att.:d: l\'J}~\}'2.,Y0~ \,oggeo. 'Dy. l\\(~
f .-,1nip111.cnt: IR-300 Project Manager: CIIC
Existing Elevation: Depth to y,:arer: N/:\
huish l ~kYation: Dri\·c \\1eight: 1 . .J.(l lbs./.'.:\! J"
:,_\;\IPJ. ES
·-. ...._ .._, z -~ ... :? :,..., :,,.. :., ~ -() .~ r ~-. :::::: ~ ., ;:::: .:· '. r :-.-~ .~
-a '-' ,_ ~ ~ .,E .~ '.f,
:---:,.... :::c: ,.;_--.... ...,., ... ., :.--; -< ..... Sl ':t--11\L\RY OF SCBSURF.:\CE CONDITIONS ......; :::::: '· :..., z ,s /, c:... ~ . ::_, tr. .::::: -< ~ ~ l-.., .. , < ::q L:.: Lt:. -· -...... ._. :-...... ::,::: ..2: z 2. -:,.. ;:Q -~ , ... ,--.
. ......, < E: v :::::: ..-
~ '-< C: ·, ..2: -
6" laver of sod and associated topsoil . .... ~ ..... •:_:: Santiago Fonnation (Tsa): Light ~nd medium gray, moist, d~se,
I-·1 : .... ~: CI .. \':tl~Y S.\.:'.'JD (SC), fine:.grained. i I:\, .. .. •·:. I\ •
.t: \'·\!. .......
.i ....... -:,. ··•·· ,: .. ~~··.: ~;
,._ (, Boring terminated at 5 feet.
-><
·!-l!J
-,., ,_
..... i .J.
I-le,
1-Ji-)
'
''-.~' J
PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING STABILIZATION & RENOVATIONS · ·w ' ~055 Corte Del Nogal, ·carls~ad, California
<._' f l R. b'll A.1'; \VI !EEL.ER BY: HF D.,-\TE: Dcccmbt·r 2!.l!!S -I ... (, 1 ·,s,: I ( It I "-! {, ·. JOB NO.: 2050940 PLYff.NO.: 11
I~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1--
. . ~
"L()~ ()~ '\.~~\. ~~~\\'\\1 ~~'-'\~t-i. "\)-l)
l hte Fxcm·;tt:ed: 10/~1/2005 1,oggeo by: f\\ZN
r ·:quipmcnt: IR-300 Vroject l\fana)!er: CllC
l ·:xi:-ttnµ; 1-:lt•va tion: Dt•pth ro \\"ater: N/.\
-hrmh l ·]eYation: Dri\Te \\\.·i~ht: J ..J.() lb~./30"
S.\~IPI. 1-:s
. ..,
' V 1/. ...... r..:.) :?-r' ;.,., ;..' ' '-' ~ ....... ~ ._;:: -1 .... : ·=-:::, __ ;:::: -'-;:...., ,:) 2 ,_. '-' :--' ~ ::,.... ""' r' ·f-:-r; -,...:; ._ ..... -, .. ~ -...,... ~ t ..,_ sn ... 11\L\RY OF SlJBStTR.f.-\CE CONDITIONS ...:.. ...... -----z u ~ c... ;_, "' ~ c... ... -;:...., ~ :_:: ...:.. .. ~ < " cc ~. "I
....... ~ t""" _, _, v; .---. er: ---< ->--. f£ _, .?; :z. 6 ..... v < r•' '-' p:: ~ tf.:
...,._ ~ 0 C.
<," layt.'r of ~od and a,ssociated topsoil . ..
~ ~ Santiago Fonnation_(Tsa): Light reddish-brown, moist, dense,-
I-....
SILTY S.:\.ND CL\\1.:Y $_-\..~D (SM-SC), ±me-grained, ·with iron
' . _. .. :-~
····: ~t.tining. --+ ~
I-(l Boring terminated at 5 feet.
>-
I-8
~ V
I-ii-}
I-
.. 12
I-1-i
-l(l
I-1~
I
>-
-211
PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING STABILIZATION & RENOVATIONS
2055 Corte Del Nogal, Carlsbad, California
1..:1 IRl~-Il ·\:"'-! WHEELFR ·
l '-J ,; I N l l It I N t;
BY:
OBNO.:
HF
20.50940
D:\11:: December 2()():i
PL:\'11~ NO.: 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
!I
I ..
I •'
--:-~·
~~ ::
',.
.. I "·.,
\ -. ' ·• '
LOG()"£ '!\~S~ \\ORlNG N\JM.1JBR 1\-\l)
\\~ l htt.' F~t-;W:llt.'tl: l O) ~l} 2()\)'S \ ,t)~t~ \)~·-'
! ·:\.1u1pnwnt: IR-300 Project :'\lan:1ger: C:HC
Fxi~tin!-', Fk\'ation: Depth to \Yater: >:--::/.\
[:ini~h I ]c,·ation: Drive \'?eight: 1-Hl lbs.;'.'>O"
~-\:\1 Pl.!·:~
'~ .:.,, '-' 1/. ·-----:.:.J :.,.. ,:..; '-, .c
<J ~ r, ~. . :::::'. -..... ._, --,-;-. ~ ·~ ;:,-. ...... ~ c.~ r-< C ~ :...., ::::. ·r. --< ~ C ,_ < ·-..... ,~ ... ~ -.. , ~ -Sl:l\ll\L\RY OF Sl'l~Sl'RF:\CE CONDITIONS -:::::'. --:_; 1/-; \.) :J~ ::.. c.. ':._; •n c.., .a::: __, ;..., ::?: r-' ---( c.. cc _; ---. -c.. !•' ~~ er; -· :-~ ...... .... :.,.. ·-"" . ' ...>; L'. ...... '""' -, ... ,...., er: v < :.i.3 V -"." ...... r-: '/; ~ /, --
6" 1:tver of sod and assopated topsoil. -..
" '
Santiago_ Fo~ation (Tsa): Light grayish-bro'wn to tan, moist, dense, ,--·
C:L\ YEY S:\~D (SC), fine grained. '\'l.i.th iron staining .
,--f
...
' I-
-(1'
Boring terminated at 5 feet.
-:-:
I-
-1ll
>-
-12
-1-1
,-l (1
-l~ .
.~ '
-.))
PROPOSED OFFICE.BUILDING STABILIZATION & RENOVATIONS
2055 Corte Del Noga!, Carlsbad, California
1.. f IR1~·11 ·\J'-,; WHEELER
I :S: <. I N I l R I N (,
HY:
OBNO.:
HF
2050940.
D.\.TE:
PL\.TE :'/0.: 13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I.
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PROPOSED OFFICE BL:tLDING STABILIZ.-\110N AND RENOV:\TI0NS
2055 CORTE DEL NOG,\L
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557)
Sample Location
Sample Description
:--Iaximum Demit}'
Optimum Moisture
Boring B-1@ 0-5'
Lt. grayish-brown, SC
113.5 pcf
9.3 0/0
DIRECT SHEAR (ASTM D3080)
Sample Location
Sample T:-pe
Friction . \ngle
Cohesion
Boring B-1@ 0-5'
Remolded to 90 %
11 °
275 psf
Boring B-1 @ l2'-18½'
Lt. grayish-brown, CL
118.9 pcf
11.9 %
Boring ~-1 @ 15½'
Ring
22 °
575 psf
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (ASTM D422)
Sample Location
.\"ie,_.,,Ji::;_e
#4
#8
#!6
#30
#50
#100
#200
(1.05 mm
o.005 mm
ll.001 mm-
S~mple Location
.l"icn Si::;_e
#4
#8
#1(,
#.',O
#50
#WO
#2(1(1
n.os mm
0.005 rnm
O:t)!l! mm
C\'{'E 2050940.01
Boring B-l@q-s•
Percent Passin._~
100
99
98
97
93
74
53
Boring B-8 @ 0-5'
Percent Passin._~
100
99
%
59
53
26
18
·~· .
Boring B-1@ 12'-18½'
Percent Passing
100
99
99
98
92
78
73
46
30
December 2005
Boring B-3 @1½'-8½'
Light ran, Sl\I
117.2 pcf
10.1 %
Boring B-3@ 1½'-8½'
Remolded to 90 ° o
27 °
300 psf
Boring B-3@ l112'-8½'
Percent Passing
100
99
97
96
93
50
30
Boring B-6 @• 0-5'
Percent Passi,!~
100
()9
98
98
')7
67
40
35
23
15
Plate No. 1-t
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I··
1---.--. -.. -
.:
EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM D4829)
Sample Location
I niti:il :'-[oim1rc
[ nin:il Dry Dcmity
[ :in.11 .\fomurc
Fxp.imion Index
Boring B-3@ l1/z'-8½'
8.8 .0,0 ·
10-1-."' pcf
21.7 °'o
35 '(low)
LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT, AND PLASTICITY INDEX (ASTM D424)
Sample Location
I .1quid T ,imit
Plasric I .1mit
Plamcity Index
·' Boring B-1@ 12'-18½'
-1-9
18
31
SOLUBLE CHLORIDES (CALIFORNIA TEST 422)
Sample Location
Soluble Chloride
Boring B-1 @ 0-5'
0.137 %
Boring B-3@ 1½'-8½'
0.006 °/o
RESISTANCE VALUE (CALIFORNIA TEST 301)
Sample Location
Ry Exudation
By Expansion
.\t Equivalent
C:\'\!E 20509..J.0.01
Boring B-6 @ 0-5'
-1-0. .
N/.\
-1-0
Boring B-8 @ 0-5'
29
32
29
December 2005 Plate No. l~
I
\
' 1·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1:
I
I ... j
I .. :··
l
t .. :.~ . ..:!.-------------------
SISTER FOOTING DETAIL
,· .z. :a
Existing Footin
· .. .,
' A -.., •
4 ... -.. -~~~ .. .:.1~ .· .. 4
., . . r:------=-. _.&41n~ . .. . ., ~--
. ~ . 4
. . : ,4 :·. ~ . -~.a · .. 4 •. ~-,0 •
~puxicd No. 4 Dowels at ~·~O:~-4
.s <!.. .:, ••
• ~ • ~ • '.a
..
! • 4 ..
~-
-~
"·
...
<I
...
: .t' .,
.,:
..
Two No. 5 Bars Top and Bottom
SCALE: 1" = 10'
4 ••
,6•' .
4 ., ..
\:ore:;: 1) Existing footing dimensions are shown for ill:ustration purposes only.
~ .
4
. 4
• <l.
. ·4
•<l
24" n1it1imun1
\._ Sister Footing
\ i
\
2) The sister footing should_ haYe the same embedment depth as the existing footi,;ig, 'l.'t"ith a minimum depth of~-+ mche:;.
\
\
\
I _,,., ... "•-·---·--·-----------------r---------------------------------.J
PROPOSED BUILDING STABILIZATION & RENOVATION
~-HR!:-:Tl:\N \\'HEELER.
f N ,; f N f I.Rf f\; <,
i i-----------'--,-----;-----------·-·--·-···---~
I
D.\TI-:: Dt·ec.:rnl,t·1 ~llll:i ! !------------+----------.. ,,, _____ _j
BY:
2055 Corte Del Nogal, Carlsbad, California
so:
; 1·1~'.-,. '-'.' !tc c n,· S rJU· f I !"El.. :8SH) 491,_ 97<,tJ l 1:_::'; ~~;;"•'· 1.~11 ,:~'.·':~'.~~~)-'~-~~'.~':.~---·-----.,...--'-'·'_x_·,_·ii;_·M_Y-1_6'_9·9_7_5s-1.._J_<_)_B_N...,-0_.: __ 2_o_s_o_9_.u_>._0_1 ____ .1..._P_1..:..\_·1_·1_,: _N_·<)~'.... .. ______ 1~, __ ... ----·-· .J
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1· '·-·
,_ ..
I
C\\ .. I ·: 20509-1-0.01
December 6, '.2005
:\ndcrsoc.,J.G.; Rochvell. R.K and Agnew, D.C., 1989, Past and Possible Future Earthquakes
of Significance to the San Diego Region, Earthquake Spectra, Volume 5, No.::?., 1989.
Blake, T.F., 2000, EQF.-\l.:LT, .A Computer Program for the Estimation of Peak Horizontal :\cceleration from 3-D . \
Fault Sources, \Tersion 3.0, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software, Thousand Oaks, California.
Boore, Da·1,id M.,Jc>yner, \\'illiam B., a!ld Fumal, Thomas E., 1997, "Empirical Near-Source .-\rrenuation Relationships
. ~ .
for I Iorizonral and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Grc;)Und Velocity, and Pseudo-.\bsolutc
. \ccclcrarion Response Specq-a", in Seismological Research Letters, Volume 68, Number 1, J anuaty / Pcbru:uy 1997.
California Di,-ision of l\1ines and Geology, 1997, "Guidelines for Evaluating and l\fitigating Seismic Haza1cds in
California", CDMG Special Publication 117.
California Di'-0ision of l\1ines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known ~-\ctive Fa1;1lt Near-Source Zones in
California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada.
Coun~,vi.de Flood Insura,nce Rate Map, Map No. 06073C1584F (panel 1032 of 2375), prepared by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, effectiYe date June 19, 1997.
DeBcrry Engineering .-\ssoci~tes Inc., 2003, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, 2055 Corte pc1 Nogal, Carlsbad,
California 92009 (dated December 9, 2003).
Jennings, C.\'\'., 1975, Fauldvfap of California, California Division ofI:vunes and Geology, Map
No. 1, Scale 1:750,000.
Kennedy, il.-LP., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California; California Di,·ision of
i\fines and Geology, Bulletin 200'. ·
I ,and tech Soils Engineering, Inc., 2003, Limited Site Re\0iew, 2055 Corte Del Nogal, Carlsbad, Ca 92009, dat<'d
\
Oqober 24, 2003.
Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide H~zards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan _-\rea, San
Diego·County, California, California Division ofl\1ines and Geology Open-File Report 95-03.
\,'esnousk.-y, S.G., 1986, "Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, -and Seismic Hazards in California", in
Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 91, No. B12, pp 12,587 to 12,631, November 1986.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix H-1
C\'\'E 20509-1-0.01 December 6, 2005
R"£.C.~M.M.13.'N'D"£.'D G\\.illl'NG ~~'£.C,l~\C.~1.\{)'N~ -Ct"£.'N£'R1l. ~ROV1SlONS
GENERAL INTENT
PROPOSED STABILIZATION AND RENOVATIONS
2055 CORTE DEL NOGAL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNtA
The intent of th<.:.s~ specifications is to e_stablish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground,
preparing areas to be filled, ?-nd placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades sho\vn on the
accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/ or
the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications ahd shall supersede
the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in
conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specificariom
will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other '.NTitten communication signed
by the Georechnical Engineer.
OBSERVATION AND TESTING
Christian \v'hecler Engineering shall be r_etained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the
t:.arthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his
representative provide adequate observation so that h~ may provide his opinion as to whether or not the
work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical
I ~ngineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so rhat he
may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions
or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer
shall be contacted for further recommendations.
If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard c:onditions are encountered, such as
questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable m'oisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc..,
construction should be stopped until the conditions ~e remedied or corrected or he shall recommend
rejection of this work.
Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be. performed~ accordance v.rith rhe following
.\merican Society for Tes~g and Materials test methods:
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1·-·
I _-... :•: ..
. -' .. :.
I '
Dc.c.embe.r. 6, ?.005
1',hxi.n:n.1m Dem.ity & Optimum Moisture Content -.i\SThi D-1SS1-91
Dcmity of Soil In-Place -_-\SThf D-1556-90 or .ASTivf D-2922.
.\II densities shall be expressed in terms of.Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing :\STlV(
resting procedures.
PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECETVE FILL
.\ll Ycgetation, b1.·ush and debris deriv~d from_ -clearing operations shall be .removed, and legally disposed of.
:\ll areas_ disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance. free from tinsightly debris.
. .-\ftcr clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches.
brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of
compaction. .c\ll loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick shoulq be .removed to firm natural ground which 1s
defined as narural soil which possesses an in-siru density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry demity.
\"X?hcn the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percem (5 horizontal units IO l vertical unit).
rhe original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil.
The lowe: bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 times the equipmenr \'.v-idth, :whichever is greater, and
shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent .. /d1 other benches should
be at leasr 6 feet wide. The horizontal_porri?n of each bench shall be compacted prior ro receiving fall as
~recified herein for compacted narural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when
con:,-;idered necessary by i:he.Geotechnical Engineer_.
:\ny abandoned ?uried structures encountered during grading operations must be rorally removed. J\11
underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from v..-:ithin 1()
feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure
should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Ge9technical Engineer.
Tl\i_s includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks. fuel tanks, sewer lines ·or leach lines, storm drains and water . .
lines. 1\ny buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the
(.;emechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation '\vill be necessary.
:\ll water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance ro the require1.;·;cnrs
scr fr,rth by the Geotechnical E_ngineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or .1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
,-~-Appendi::,,. B _;
. · . . 1:\\: ta\ ,:o: \'\J\\\ ~ti'lt\\Ci. ,..)\\the.di.a.meter l)f the
t<.!<:t \).::\~"'"° t\,c \:iottom ot fooun.i ~n,\c.n.e.'\l'e.t \.':. i1e.i.ttt. t t\1 ~ ·t
well .md :-hould be deren11i.ned by the Geotechnical Engineer and/ or a qualified Structural Engineer.
FILL MATERIAL
\larcrials ro be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of
v<.'gerable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficienr fine material to fill
rhc void;:;. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansiv~ or detrimental :;oils are covered m
. -
rhl' geotechnica[ report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with lo\v
~rrengrh characteristics may be thoroughly mixed \Vith other soils to pro·vide satisfactory fill material, but onh•
with rhe explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. _,\ny import material shall be approved br rhe
( ;eotechnical Engineer before being ~rought to the site.
PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL
,\pprovt"d fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive £ill in layer? not to exceed 6 inches m
compacted thickne~s. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow tht:
t.:ompaction effort co be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each byer shall be
uniformly compacted ro the specified minimum degree of compacti.o_n with equipment of adequate size co
<.'Conomically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for :-oil . .
compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is spei;ificd in e1thl'r
the Special Provisions or the recommendations contai~ed in the preliminary geotechnical invesrigation reporr.
When rhe structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nesr and al~ voids musr be
¢arefully filled with soil such chat the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provision~
is achievt'd. The maximum ~ize and spacing of rock permitted in structur~ fills and in non--srrucrural fills ,~
discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable.
Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the
( ;eotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the test:-shall be at rhe
<.; eotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than
the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of rhe Georechnical
Engineer and unril the desired relative compa<:tion has been obtained.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ri.\\ $\0\'C~-,-ha\.\ be com\?~ctcd b~ means of sbee'i?sfoot i:o\lers or ot\,er su1ta'o\e e°'-Ul~ment c_C)\\\~'aC.~\J\\ \~
shcepsfoot roller shall be ::\t ,·ettical inten·als o_f not greater than four feet. In additio~1, fill slopes at a ratio ('f
rw<1 horiwnral to one ,·ertical or flatter, should be track.rolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be ovcr-bmlt and cut
back to finish contours after the slope_has...been con~tructed. Slope compaction operaciom shall result in ,11!
iill mate.rial six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compacr.inn of at
least 90 percent of max.imwn dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Pro,·isions
section of this specification. TI1e compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until rhc
Gcotcchnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes· will be sutficially stable.
Dcmit:y rem; in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to
determine if the required compaction is being achieved. \Xlhere failing tests occur or other field problems
a.rise, the Contractor ·will be notified that day of such· conditions by written communication from the
Gentcchnical l~ngineer or his representative in the form of 3z daily field report.
If the method of achieving_ the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the
nc.ccssa.ry results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction . . . .
is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or-Geotechnical Engineer.
CUT SLOPES
The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excaYated in rock or lithified formational material du.nng
fhe grading operations at intervals determined at his di·scretion. If any conditions nor anticipated m the
preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse n;1ture.
unfa,·orably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading. these conditiom shall be
analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechn.ical Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are
tH.'Cl'SSarv.
Unless otherwise specified in the geotechni~al report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than
tl1at allowed by the otdir_1ances of the controlling governmental agency.
ENGINEERING OBSERVATION
l~idd observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made ·du.ring the filling and
compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of rhe grading with
acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-,,,_
---:-:· . -
.,-'
December 6, '.2005
.\ppcnJix B-5
the t)b,t·n·ation :md testing shall ~elease the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material tt)
·the specified degree of compaction.
SEASON LIMITS
hll shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. \Vhen work is interrupted by heavy rain,
tilling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill m.lterials cm
be achieved. Damao-ed site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before 0 .
acct.·pt:mcc· ot work
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS -SPECIAL PROVISIONS
RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural
ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking: lot
:mbgradc. the upper twelve inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction.
EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an cxpamicm index of
50 or greater when tested in accordance with the American Society of Testing ]\faterials (,\STM) Labqratory
Test D-!-819-95.
OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil
over six-inche:,.; in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of
placement of such material is provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall
pass through a No . .J. l'.S. Standard Sieve.
TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed buildin~ pad, the
cut portion shot1ld be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and
recompacred as structural backfill. In certain cas~s that would be addressed in the geotechnical report. ::-peci:1!
fl'>C>ting reinforceq:ient or a combination of special footing reinforcemenr and undercutting may be required.·