HomeMy WebLinkAboutPUD 2017-0008; SMAC 2020.06.02; FINAL SOILS REPORT; 2020-02-06FINAL REPORT OF TESTING
AND OBSERVATION SERVICES
PERFORMED DURING SITE GRADING
SMAC BUILDING CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
SMAC CORPORATION CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 6, 2020 PROJECT NO. G2123-11-02
Project No. G2123-11-02
February 6, 2020
SMAC Corporation
5807 Van Allen Way
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Jim Sibold
Subject: FINAL REPORT OF TESTING AND OBSERVATION SERVICES
PERFORMED DURING SITE GRADING
SMAC BUILDING
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Sibold:
In accordance with the request of our proposal (LG-17092) dated March 8, 2017, and Change Order
No. 1 dated April 2, 2019, we provided testing and observation services during the grading operations
for the subject development. We performed our services from January 15, 2020 through February 3,
2020. The scope of our services summarized in this report includes:
Observing grading operations including the removal and recompaction of existing fill soil.
Performing in-place dry density and moisture content tests on fill placed and compacted
during the grading operations.
Performing laboratory tests to aid in evaluating the maximum dry density and optimum
moisture content of the compacted fill. Additionally, we performed laboratory tests on
samples of soil present within approximately 3 feet of finish grade to evaluate expansion
characteristics and water-soluble sulfate content.
Preparing a Final As-Graded Geologic Map.
Preparing this final report of grading.
GENERAL
The SMAC Building site is located on the south side of Faraday Avenue and west of Van Allen Way
in the City of Carlsbad, California (see Vicinity Map, Figure 1). The existing SMAC Building
driveway entrance from Van Allen Way provided access to the site during the current grading
operations. Sierra Pacific West General Engineering, Inc. performed the grading for the subject site.
Geocon Project No. G2123-11-01 - 2 - February 6, 2020
To aid in preparing this report, we reviewed the following report and plans associated with the project:
1.Geotechnical Investigation, SMAC Building, Carlsbad, California, prepared by Geocon
Incorporated, dated August 17, 2017 (Project No. G2123-11-01).
2.Grading Plans for: Lot 75, C.T. No 5-24, Map No. 11811, S.M.A.C., Carlsbad, California,
prepared by Karn Engineering and Surveying, Inc., City of Carlsbad approval dated November
20, 2019 (Grading Plan No. GR2018-0023; Project No. PUD207-0008, Drawing No. 512-
7A).
References to elevations and locations presented herein were based on the surveyor’s or grade
checker’s stakes in the field, surveyed bottom elevations, and/or interpolation from the referenced
grading plan. Geocon Incorporated does not provide surveying services and, therefore, has no opinion
regarding the accuracy of the as-graded elevations or surface geometry with respect to the approved
plans or proper surface drainage.
GRADING
This report pertains to the grading operations for the industrial building pad for the SMAC
development. Grading for the building pad included removal of the upper approximately 3 feet of
existing previously placed fill across the site to expose underlying competent previously placed fill.
Compacted fill was then placed to achieve building pad elevations following removal of existing fill.
We understand additional minor grading will be necessary within two driveway areas as shown on the
Geologic Map, Figure 2. We will report additional minor grading in the driveway areas in our final
improvement report.
During the grading operations, we observed compaction procedures and performed in-place density
tests to evaluate the dry density and moisture content of the new fill materials. We performed in-place
density tests in general conformance with ASTM Test Method D 6938 (nuclear). Table I presents the
results of the in-place dry density and moisture content tests. In general, the in-place density test
results indicate the compacted fill possesses a dry density of at least 90 percent of the laboratory
maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content at the locations tested. The
As-Graded Geologic Map, Figure 2, presents the approximate locations of the in-place density tests for
the building pad, associated driveways and parking stalls.
We tested laboratory samples of material used for fill to evaluate moisture-density relationships,
optimum moisture content and maximum dry density (ASTM D 1557). We tested samples material
within the upper approximately 3 feet of finish grade to evaluate the expansion index (ASTM D 4829)
and water-soluble sulfate content (California Test No. 417) characteristics.
Geocon Project No. G2123-11-01 - 3 - February 6, 2020
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The soil and geologic conditions encountered during grading are similar to those described in the
project geotechnical report dated August 17, 2017. We performed testing and observation services
during the placement of compacted fill in accordance with recommendations provided in the project
geotechnical report. The As-Graded Geologic Map, Figure 2, depicts the general geologic conditions
observed during our site investigation and during grading operations. Compacted fill (Qcf) ranging in
thickness between approximately 3 to 7 feet overlying previously placed fill (Qpf), and the Santiago
Formation (Ts) underlies the site. In general, the compacted fill consists of silty clay to clayey sand.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1.0 General
1.1 Based on our observations and test results, we opine that the grading to which this report
pertains has been performed in conformance with the recommendations of the previously
referenced project geotechnical report prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated August 17,
2017, and the geotechnical requirements of the referenced grading plans.
1.2 We did not observe soil or geologic conditions during grading that would preclude the
continued development of the property as planned. Based on laboratory test results and field
observations, it is the opinion of Geocon Incorporated the fill observed and tested as part of
the grading for this project was generally compacted to a dry density of at least 90 percent
of the laboratory maximum dry density near to slightly above optimum moisture content.
1.3 Compacted fill, previously placed fill and the Santiago Formation underlies the site. We
observed the placement of compacted fill during the grading operations and performed in-
place density tests to evaluate the dry density and moisture content of the fill material.
1.4 Laboratory testing of near-grade soil conditions indicates the upper approximately 3 feet of
soil underlying the building pad possess a “medium” expansion potential (expansion index
of 51 to 90). In addition, the samples indicate the soil possesses “S0” and “S2” water-
soluble sulfate exposure class. The site concrete that is in contact with the existing soil (e.g.
the building and exterior improvements) should be designed using the “S2” sulfate exposure
class as indicated herein. The results of the laboratory expansion index and water-soluble
sulfate tests are presented herein.
1.5 We understand the proposed building pad will be supported on shallow conventional
foundation systems founded on compacted fill as recommended in the project geotechnical
report. The building was designed using the 2016 California Building Code. We should be
Geocon Project No. G2123-11-01 - 4 - February 6, 2020
contacted to provide additional recommendations if the 2019 CBC will be used for design and
construction.
1.6 Excavations within the fill should generally be possible with moderate to heavy effort using
conventional heavy-duty equipment. In excavations for utility trenches within formational
materials, if encountered, localized cemented zones may be encountered that will require
very heavy effort to excavate, and oversize blocks may be generated.
2.0 Finish Grade Soil Conditions
2.1 Observations and laboratory test results indicate that the prevailing soil conditions within
the upper approximately 3 feet of finish grade of the building pad is considered to be
“expansive” (expansion index [EI] greater than 20) as defined by the 2016 California
Building Code (CBC) Section 1803.5.3. Table 2.1 presents soil classifications based on the
expansion index. Results of the EI laboratory tests are presented in Table III and indicate
that the soil possesses a “medium” expansion potential (EI of 90 or less).
TABLE 2.1 EXPANSIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION BASED ON EXPANSION INDEX
Expansion Index (EI) ASTM D 4829
Expansive Soil Classification
2016 CBC
Expansion Classification
0 – 20 Very Low Non-Expansive
21 – 50 Low
Expansive 51 – 90 Medium
91 – 130 High
Greater Than 130 Very High
2.2 We performed laboratory tests on samples of the finish-grade materials to evaluate the
percentage of water-soluble sulfate content. Table IV presents results of the laboratory
water-soluble sulfate content tests. The test results indicate the on-site materials at the
locations tested possess “S0” and “S2” sulfate exposure to concrete structures as defined by
2016 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318-14 Chapter 19. The site concrete for the building and
exterior improvements should be designed using the “S2” sulfate exposure class as indicated
herein. This will require a specific concrete mix design as indicated in Table 2.2 as set forth
by 2016 CBC Section 1904 and ACI 318. The presence of water-soluble sulfates is not a
visually discernible characteristic; therefore, other soil samples from the site could yield
different concentrations. Additionally, over time landscaping activities (i.e., addition of
fertilizers and other soil nutrients) may affect the concentration.
Geocon Project No. G2123-11-01 - 5 - February 6, 2020
TABLE 2.2 REQUIREMENTS FOR CONCRETE EXPOSED TO SULFATE-CONTAINING SOLUTIONS
Exposure Class
Water-Soluble
Sulfate (SO4)
Percent
by Weight
Cement
Type (ASTM C
150)
Maximum
Water to
Cement Ratio
by Weight1
Minimum
Compressive
Strength (psi)
S0 SO4<0.10 No Type
Restriction n/a 2,500
S1 0.10<SO4<0.20 II 0.50 4,000
S2 0.20<SO4<2.00 V 0.45 4,500
S3 SO4>2.00 V+Pozzolan or
Slag 0.45 4,500
1 Maximum water to cement ratio limits do not apply to lightweight concrete
2.3 Geocon Incorporated does not practice in the field of corrosion engineering. Therefore,
further evaluation by a corrosion engineer may be performed if improvements susceptible to
corrosion are planned.
3.0 Seismic Design Criteria
3.1 We used the computer program U.S. Seismic Design Maps, provided by the USGS to
evaluate the seismic design criteria. Table 3.1 summarizes the seismic design criteria
obtained from the 2016 California Building Code (CBC; Based on the 2015 International
Building Code [IBC] and ASCE 7-10), Chapter 16 Structural Design, Section 1613
Earthquake Loads. The short spectral response uses a period of 0.2 second. The building
structure and improvements should be designed using a Site Class D. We evaluated the Site
Class based on the discussion in Section 1613.3.2 of the 2016 CBC and Table 20.3-1 of
ASCE 7-10. The values presented in Table 3.1 are for the risk-targeted maximum
considered earthquake (MCER).
TABLE 3.1 2016 CBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value 2016 CBC Reference
Site Class D Section 1613.3.2
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
Acceleration – Class B (short), SS 1.077g Figure 1613.3.1(1)
MCER Ground Motion Spectral Response
Acceleration – Class B (1 sec), S1 0.415g Figure 1613.3.1(2)
Site Coefficient, FA 1.069 Table 1613.3.3(1)
Site Coefficient, FV 1.585 Table 1613.3.3(2)
Geocon Project No. G2123-11-01 - 6 - February 6, 2020
Parameter Value 2016 CBC Reference
Site Class Modified MCERSpectral Response Acceleration (short), SMS 1.151g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-37)
Site Class Modified MCER
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SM1 0.658g Section 1613.3.3 (Eqn 16-38)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (short), SDS 0.768g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-39)
5% Damped Design
Spectral Response Acceleration (1 sec), SD1 0.439g Section 1613.3.4 (Eqn 16-40)
3.2 Table 3.2 presents additional seismic design parameters for projects located in Seismic
Design Categories of D through F in accordance with ASCE 7-10 for the mapped maximum
considered geometric mean (MCEG).
TABLE 3.2 2016 CBC SITE ACCELERATION DESIGN PARAMETERS
Parameter Value ASCE 7-10 Reference
Mapped MCEG Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA 0.417g Figure 22-7
Site Coefficient, FPGA 1.083 Table 11.8-1
Site Class Modified MCEG
Peak Ground Acceleration, PGAM 0.452g Section 11.8.3 (Eqn 11.8-1)
3.3 Conformance to the criteria in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 for seismic design does not constitute any
kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not
occur if a large earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life, not
to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive.
3.4 The project structural engineer and architect should evaluate the appropriate Risk Category
and Seismic Design Category for the planned structures. The values presented herein
assume a Rick Category of I, II or III and resulting in a Seismic Design Category D.
4.0 Shallow Foundations
4.1 The proposed structure can be supported on a shallow foundation system embedded in the
compacted fill. Foundations for the structure should consist of continuous strip footings
and/or isolated spread footings. Continuous footings should be at least 12 inches wide and
extend at least 24 inches below lowest adjacent pad grade. Isolated spread footings should
have a minimum width of 2 feet and should also extend at least 24 inches below lowest
Geocon Project No. G2123-11-01 - 7 - February 6, 2020
adjacent pad grade. Steel reinforcement for continuous footings should consist of at least
four No. 5 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the footings, two near the top and
two near the bottom. Steel reinforcement for the spread footings should be designed by the
project structural engineer. Figure 3 presents a wall/column footing dimension detail. In
addition, footings should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at
least 7 feet horizontally from the face of a slope. Deepened foundations may be necessary
on the north and northwest portions of the building to achieve at least 7 feet horizontal to
daylight due to the close proximity of the proposed basins.
4.2 The recommendations herein are based on soil characteristics only (EI of 90 or less) and are
not intended to replace reinforcement required for structural considerations.
4.3 The recommended allowable bearing capacity for foundations with minimum dimensions
described herein and bearing in properly compacted fill is 2,500 pounds per square foot
(psf). The bearing values can be increased 500 psf for every additional foot of width and
depth to a maximum of 4,000 psf. The values presented herein are for dead plus live loads
and may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to wind or seismic
forces.
4.4 We estimate the total and differential settlements under the imposed allowable loads to be
about 1 inch and ½ inch in 40 feet, respectively, based on an 8-foot square footing.
4.5 Foundation excavations should be observed by the geotechnical engineer (a representative
of Geocon Incorporated) prior to the placement of reinforcing steel to check that the
exposed soil conditions are similar to those expected and that they have been extended to
the appropriate bearing strata. If unexpected soil conditions are encountered, foundation
modifications may be required.
4.6 Special subgrade presaturation is not deemed necessary prior to placing concrete; however,
the exposed foundation and slab subgrade soil should be moisturized to maintain a moist
condition as would be expected in any such concrete placement.
4.7 The foundation and concrete slab-on-grade recommendations are based on soil support
characteristics only. The project structural engineer should evaluate the structural
requirements of the concrete slabs for supporting expected loads.
4.8 Geocon Incorporated should be consulted to provide additional design parameters as
required by the structural engineer.
Geocon Project No. G2123-11-01 - 8 - February 6, 2020
5.0 Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
5.1 Concrete floor slabs should possess a thickness of at least 5 inches and reinforced with a
minimum of No. 4 steel reinforcing bars at 18 inches on center in both horizontal directions
placed in the middle of the slab based on geotechnical conditions. The structural engineer
should design the floor slab thickness and reinforcing steel required for the planned loading
conditions.
5.2 Slabs that may receive moisture-sensitive floor coverings or may be used to store moisture-
sensitive materials should be underlain by a vapor retarder. The vapor retarder design should
be consistent with the guidelines presented in the American Concrete Institute’s (ACI)
Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials (ACI 302.2R-
06). In addition, the membrane should be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s
recommendations and ASTM requirements and installed in a manner that prevents puncture.
The vapor retarder used should be specified by the project architect or developer based on
the type of floor covering that will be installed and if the structure will possess a humidity
controlled environment.
5.3 The bedding sand thickness should be determined by the project foundation engineer,
architect, and/or developer. It is common to have 3 to 4 inches of sand for 5-inch thick slabs
in the southern California region. However, we should be contacted to provide
recommendations if the bedding sand is thicker than 6 inches. The foundation design
engineer should provide appropriate concrete mix design criteria and curing measures to
assure proper curing of the slab by reducing the potential for rapid moisture loss and
subsequent cracking and/or slab curl. We suggest that the foundation design engineer
present the concrete mix design and proper curing methods on the foundation plans. It is
critical that the foundation contractor understands and follows the recommendations
presented on the foundation plans.
5.4 Consideration should be given to connecting flatwork, which exceed 5 feet in width, to the
building foundation to reduce the potential for future separation to occur.
5.5 Concrete slabs should be provided with adequate crack-control joints, construction joints
and/or expansion joints to reduce unsightly shrinkage cracking. The design of joints should
consider criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) when establishing crack-control
spacing. Crack-control joints should be spaced at intervals no greater than 12 feet.
Additional steel reinforcing, concrete admixtures and/or closer crack control joint spacing
should be considered where concrete-exposed finished floors are planned.
Geocon Project No. G2123-11-01 - 9 - February 6, 2020
5.6 The recommendations of this report are intended to reduce the potential for cracking of slabs
due to expansive soil (if present), differential settlement of existing soil or soil with varying
thicknesses. However, even with the incorporation of the recommendations presented
herein, foundations, walls, and slabs-on-grade placed on such conditions may still exhibit
some cracking due to soil movement and/or shrinkage. The occurrence of concrete
shrinkage cracks is independent of the supporting soil characteristics. Their occurrence may
be reduced and/or controlled by limiting the slump of the concrete, proper concrete
placement and curing, and by the placement of crack control joints at periodic intervals, in
particular, where re-entrant slab corners occur.
6.0 Concrete Flatwork
6.1 Exterior concrete flatwork not subject to equipment loading or vehicular or forklift traffic
should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein. Slab panels should
be a minimum of 4 inches thick and, when in excess of 8 feet square, should be reinforced
with 6 x 6 - W2.9/W2.9 (6 x 6 - 6/6) welded wire mesh or at least No. 3 reinforcing bars
spaced 18 inches center to center in both directions in the middle of the slab to reduce the
potential for cracking. In addition, concrete flatwork should be provided with crack control
joints to reduce and/or control shrinkage cracking. Crack control spacing should be
determined by the project structural engineer based upon the slab thickness and intended
usage. Criteria of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) should be taken into consideration
when establishing crack control spacing. Subgrade soil for exterior slabs not subjected to
vehicle loads should be compacted in accordance with criteria presented in the grading
section prior to concrete placement. Subgrade soil should be properly compacted and the
moisture content of subgrade soil should be checked prior to placing concrete.
6.2 Even with the incorporation of the recommendations within this report, the exterior concrete
flatwork has a likelihood of experiencing some uplift due to expansive soil beneath grade;
therefore, the steel reinforcement should overlap continuously in flatwork to reduce the
potential for vertical offsets within flatwork. Additionally, flatwork should be structurally
connected to the curbs, where possible, to reduce the potential for offsets between the curbs
and the flatwork.
6.3 Where exterior flatwork abuts the structure at entrant or exit points, the exterior slab should
be dowelled into the structure’s foundation stemwall. This recommendation is intended to
reduce the potential for differential elevations that could result from differential settlement
or minor heave of the flatwork. Dowelling details should be designed by the project
structural engineer.
Geocon Project No. G2123-11-01 - 10 - February 6, 2020
7.0 Retaining Walls
7.1 Retaining walls not restrained at the top and having a level backfill surface should be
designed for an active soil pressure equivalent to the pressure exerted by a fluid density of
40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Where the backfill will be inclined at 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical), we recommend an active soil pressure of 55 pcf. Soil with an expansion index (EI)
of greater than 90 should not be used as backfill material behind retaining walls.
7.2 Retaining walls should be designed to ensure stability against overturning sliding, excessive
foundation pressure and water uplift. Where a keyway is extended below the wall base with
the intent to engage passive pressure and enhance sliding stability, it is not necessary to
consider active pressure on the keyway.
7.3 Unrestrained walls are those that are allowed to rotate more than 0.001H (where H equals
the height of the retaining portion of the wall) at the top of the wall. Where walls are
restrained from movement at the top (at-rest condition), an additional uniform pressure of
7H psf should be added to the active soil pressure for walls 8 feet or less. For walls greater
than 8 feet tall, an additional uniform pressure of 13H psf should be applied to the wall
starting at 8 feet from the base of the wall. For retaining walls subject to vehicular loads
within a horizontal distance equal to two-thirds the wall height, a surcharge equivalent to
2 feet of fill soil should be added.
7.4 Drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) should not be used where the
seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the property adjacent to the base
of the wall. The recommendations herein assume a properly compacted free-draining
backfill material (EI of 90 or less) with no hydrostatic forces or imposed surcharge load.
Figure 4 presents a typical retaining wall drainage detail. If conditions different than those
described are expected, or if specific drainage details are desired, Geocon Incorporated
should be contacted for additional recommendations.
7.5 We understand the slurry backfill may be used for the retaining wall. We recommend the
slurry backfill should be placed at maximum increments of 4-feet.
7.6 The structural engineer should determine the Seismic Design Category for the project in
accordance with Section 1613.3.5 of the 2016 CBC or Section 11.6 of ASCE 7-10. For
structures assigned to Seismic Design Category of D, E, or F, retaining walls that support
more than 6 feet of backfill should be designed with seismic lateral pressure in accordance
with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC. The seismic load is dependent on the retained
height where H is the height of the wall, in feet, and the calculated loads result in pounds per
square foot (psf) exerted at the base of the wall and zero at the top of the wall. A seismic
Geocon Project No. G2123-11-01 - 11 - February 6, 2020
load of 16H should be used for design. We used the peak ground acceleration adjusted for
Site Class effects, PGAM, of 0.452g calculated from ASCE 7-10 Section 11.8.3 and applied
a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.3.
7.7 The retaining walls may be designed using either the active and restrained (at-rest) loading
condition or the active and seismic loading condition as suggested by the structural
engineer. Typically, it appears the design of the restrained condition for retaining wall
loading may be adequate for the seismic design of the retaining walls. However, the active
earth pressure combined with the seismic design load should be reviewed and also
considered in the design of the retaining walls.
7.8 In general, wall foundations having a minimum depth and width of 1 foot may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. The proximity of the foundation to the
top of a slope steeper than 3:1 could impact the allowable soil bearing pressure. Therefore,
retaining wall foundations should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the
footing is at least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
7.9 The recommendations presented herein are generally applicable to the design of rigid
concrete or masonry retaining walls having a maximum height of 8 feet. In the event that
other types of walls (such as mechanically stabilized earth [MSE] walls, soil nail walls, or
soldier pile walls) are planned, Geocon Incorporated should be consulted for additional
recommendations.
7.10 Unrestrained walls will move laterally when backfilled and loading is applied. The amount
of lateral deflection is dependent on the wall height, the type of soil used for backfill, and
loads acting on the wall. The retaining walls and improvements above the retaining walls
should be designed to incorporate an appropriate amount of lateral deflection as determined
by the structural engineer.
7.11 Soil contemplated for use as retaining wall backfill, including import materials, should be
identified in the field prior to backfill. At that time, Geocon Incorporated should obtain
samples for laboratory testing to evaluate its suitability. Modified lateral earth pressures
may be necessary if the backfill soil does not meet the required expansion index or shear
strength. City or regional standard wall designs, if used, are based on a specific active lateral
earth pressure and/or soil friction angle. In this regard, on-site soil to be used as backfill may
or may not meet the values for standard wall designs. Geocon Incorporated should be
consulted to assess the suitability of the on-site soil for use as wall backfill if standard wall
designs will be used.
Geocon Project No. G2123-11-01 - 12 - February 6, 2020
8.0 Lateral Loading
8.1 To resist lateral loads, a passive pressure exerted by an equivalent fluid weight of
350 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) should be used for the design of footings or shear keys
poured neat in compacted fill. The passive pressure assumes a horizontal surface extending
at least 5 feet, or three times the surface generating the passive pressure, whichever is
greater. The upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or pavement
should not be included in design for passive resistance.
8.2 If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, an allowable coefficient of friction between
soil and concrete of 0.35 should be used for design. The friction coefficient may be reduced
to 0.2 to 0.25 depending on the vapor barrier or waterproofing material used for construction
in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations
8.3 The passive and frictional resistant loads can be combined for design purposes. The lateral
passive pressures may be increased by one-third when considering transient loads due to
wind or seismic forces.
9.0 Site Drainage and Moisture Protection
9.1 Adequate site drainage is critical to reduce the potential for differential soil movement,
erosion and subsurface seepage. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond
adjacent to footings. The site should be graded and maintained such that surface drainage is
directed away from structures in accordance with 2016 CBC 1804.3 or other applicable
standards. In addition, surface drainage should be directed away from the top of slopes into
swales or other controlled drainage devices. Roof and pavement drainage should be directed
into conduits that carry runoff away from the proposed structure.
9.2 The performance of pavements is highly dependent on providing positive surface drainage
away from the edge of the pavement. Ponding of water on or adjacent to the pavement will
likely result in pavement distress and subgrade failure. If planter islands are proposed, the
perimeter curb should extend at least 12 inches below proposed subgrade elevations. In
addition, the surface drainage within the planter should be such that ponding will not occur.
9.3 Underground utilities should be leak free. Utility and irrigation lines should be checked
periodically for leaks, and detected leaks should be repaired promptly. Detrimental soil
movement could occur if water is allowed to infiltrate the soil for prolonged periods of time.
Geocon Project No. G2123-11-01 - 13 - February 6, 2020
9.4 Landscaping planters adjacent to paved areas are not recommended due to the potential for
surface or irrigation water to infiltrate the pavement's subgrade and base course. Area drains
to collect excess irrigation water and transmit it to drainage structures or impervious above-
grade planter boxes can be used. In addition, where landscaping is planned adjacent to the
pavement, construction of a cutoff wall along the edge of the pavement that extends at least
6 inches below the bottom of the base material should be considered.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein apply only to our work with respect to
development, and represent conditions on the date of our final observation. Any subsequent
improvement should be done in conjunction with our observation and testing services. As used herein,
the term “observation” implies only that we observed the progress of the work with which we agreed
to be involved. Our services did not include the evaluation or identification of the potential presence of
hazardous materials. Our conclusions and opinions as to whether the work essentially complies with
the job specifications are based on our observations, experience and test results. Subsurface
conditions, and the accuracy of tests used to measure such conditions, can vary greatly at any time. We
make no warranty, express or implied, except that our services were performed in accordance with
engineering principles generally accepted at this time and location.
We will accept no responsibility for any subsequent changes made to the site by others, by the
uncontrolled action of water, or by the failure of others to properly repair damages caused by the
uncontrolled action of water. The findings and recommendations of this report may be invalidated
wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and
should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
Should you have any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact
the undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
Michael C. Ertwine
CEG 2659
John Hoobs
CEG 1524
Shawn Foy Weedon
GE 2714
MCE:JH:SFW:dmc
(3/del) Addressee
)[UL
SITESITE
NO SCALE
FIG. 1
THE GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION MADE AVAILABLE FOR DISPLAY WAS PROVIDED BY GOOGLE EARTH,SUBJECT TO A LICENSING AGREEMENT. THE INFORMATION IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY; IT ISNOT INTENDED FOR CLIENT'S USE OR RELIANCE AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED BY CLIENT. CLIENTSHALL INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS GEOCON FROM ANY LIABILITY INCURRED AS A RESULTOF SUCH USE OR RELIANCE BY CLIENT.
VICINITY MAP
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
DSK/GTYPD PROJECT NO. G2123 - 11 - 02MCE / CW
SMAC BUILDING
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIAGEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
Plotted:02/06/2020 2:07PM | By:JONATHAN WILKINS | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G2123-11-02 SMAC Building\DETAILS\G2123-11-02_Vicinity Map.dwg
DATE 02 - 06 - 2020
t
N
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
■ ■
I I I I
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF
PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
Plotted:02/06/2020 2:07PM | By:JONATHAN WILKINS | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G2123-11-02 SMAC Building\SHEETS\G2123-11-02 Geo Map.dwg
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
AS - GRADED GEOLOGIC MAP
SMAC BUILDING
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
20' 02 - 06 - 2020
G2123 - 11 - 02
1 1 2
GEOCON LEGEND
........COMPACTED FILLQcf
........APPROX. LOCATION OF IN-PLACE DENSITY TEST
FG....Finish Grade, R....Removed
........APPROX. ELEVATION OF BASE OF NEW FILL (Feet, MSL)
33
237
........PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL (Dotted Where Buried)Qpf
........AREA WHERE ADDITIONAL MINOR GRADING IS REQUIRED
........SANTIAGO FORMATION (Dotted Where Buried)Tsa
--
I
Bi <(
4 49· z .,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6 I
33~1\
1 I •
i1 ~ 1\
I 29\
\
~ ----+
40.S 2 +
4-
• 32
I
1 -
-11---
-11-_,,_(1-r.,--11--. ---~ ==-~
(5E1l
lillIIl
I 23a I
T] 41,4
1
2 ' __ I
I
~
I
I
I
F --zs;
I
)
4
F F
7
Do
240
H
FG-25 •
• 16
FG-24 •
-F
20
• 11
LOT 75
6 43. 2 .,.
CT NO. 85-24
MA p NO . ,.-c:;1~1~8_11_....____
FF =,.245.77
[fil] PAD= 245.02 444
z +
• 17
e 15
F F F
5)
L
• 12
e FG-27
F F
-T
e 18
Q "1/.··· ..... ::·.:"'':",•.•, •::,· . . . . . . . . . C . . . . . . ..... . ·•.:,: ;--··: : . ..
FG-26 •
• 10
•--------A ·-----c,
F
4S.Z z .,.
.21
[fil]
s 2
/
14
I 242 I • "
F
"..;-.
...
I
) z •
•
•',
)
..
' ' 4 '
'Z
• • • • •
4 . ;j .
•· • .
4 • 4 • ' • • ..
• .. :i:l
.4. •
• • ,
4
' • 3 • zj6:, • 4 • • .
' •
4
F
53
+
• <l •
22R
(/
~
' :z-41
I
t ' I
I
0.. U)
<( K ----t-n 1 I
t
. ' I
t ' I t ' .. I
i
I
t i'
I
t i'
I t i'
I
t i'
I t ' I
I t i'
I
I ~
I
I t i'
I •
t ' I
i
I I .
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o I
1s I
o I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
b I
i'
I
t i'
"APPROX. LIMITS
4
OF GRADING
I
I
~
I
t
I
p C W
t x,,~S c_ I l lv·s ,
i' \
I
t i'
I
t i'
I
I
I
I ' i'
I
• .
(,
~
f---
Q
0 z 0 (_)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
u
F
(. .
(l_
0.. '
46• 2 ;.
z w _J
_J
<{
z
<{ >
0.. (_)
•.(
-
0
,-,c . ..,__ ;~>-
L
<[
0:)
I.. I s s
I ~"
ID
I
o I
1s I
o I
I
I
I I c,S I l)'-\ss
I~" ~
v;./c,-_1_17_1_
I
I
I
I
I
ASPH
s z46·,
-
I __
I
I I--
/_c17•.o-
l z4 ;
/ __
I
1---
1
I--
I
I
I
I
I
~~~-L._ ~~~~7 ~ I
I
I
C ,,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
l
f----
A H
[]]] I . . I
.\
11, _ --,\'
)~----l----I
f3
□
I
I . (
o· 10' 20' JO' 40' 60' 80'
SCALE 1" 20, (On 36x24)
•
c:::::J
0
■ ■
CONCRETE SLAB
FOOTING*DEPTHFOOTING WIDTH*
SAND AND VAPORRETARDER INACCORDANCE WITH ACI
FOOTING* WIDTH
CONCRETE SLAB
PAD GRADE
FOOTING*DEPTHSAND AND VAPORRETARDER INACCORDANCE WITH ACI
FIG. 3
WALL / COLUMN FOOTING DIMENSION DETAIL
NO SCALE
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
DSK/GTYPD PROJECT NO. G2123 - 11 - 02MCE / CW
SMAC BUILDING
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIAGEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
Plotted:02/06/2020 2:07PM | By:JONATHAN WILKINS | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G2123-11-02 SMAC Building\DETAILS\Wall-Column Footing Dimension Detail (COLFOOT2).dwg
DATE 02 - 06 - 2020
*....SEE REPORT FOR FOUNDATION WIDTH AND DEPTH RECOMMENDATION
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
■ ■
I I I I
PROPERLYCOMPACTEDBACKFILL
CONCRETEBROWDITCH
2/3 H
PROPOSEDRETAINING WALL
PROPOSEDGRADE 1"
FOOTING 4" DIA. PERFORATED SCHEDULE40 PVC PIPE EXTENDED TOAPPROVED OUTLET
MIRAFI 140N FILTER FABRIC(OR EQUIVALENT)
1" MAX. AGGREGATEOPEN GRADED
GROUND SURFACE
TEMPORARY BACKCUTPER OSHA
12"
WATER PROOFINGPER ARCHITECT
H
FOOTING
PROPOSEDGRADE
4" DIA. SCHEDULE 40PERFORATED PVC PIPEOR TOTAL DRAINEXTENDED TOAPPROVED OUTLET
DRAINAGE PANEL(MIRADRAIN 6000OR EQUIVALENT)
RETAININGWALL
3/4" CRUSHED ROCK(1 CU.FT./FT.)
NOTE :
DRAIN SHOULD BE UNIFORMLY SLOPED TO GRAVITY OUTLETOR TO A SUMP WHERE WATER CAN BE REMOVED BY PUMPING
CONCRETEBROWDITCH
WATER PROOFINGPER ARCHITECT
GROUND SURFACE
12"2/3 H 2/3 H
FOOTING
PROPOSEDGRADE
RETAININGWALL
CONCRETEBROWDITCH
WATER PROOFINGPER ARCHITECT
GROUND SURFACE
FILTER FABRICENVELOPEMIRAFI 140N OREQUIVALENT
4" DIA. SCHEDULE 40PERFORATED PVC PIPEOR TOTAL DRAINEXTENDED TOAPPROVED OUTLET
DRAINAGE PANEL(MIRADRAIN 6000OR EQUIVALENT)
FIG. 4
TYPICAL RETAINING WALL DRAIN DETAIL
NO SCALE
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159
DSK/GTYPD PROJECT NO. G2123 - 11 - 02MCE / CW
SMAC BUILDING
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIAGEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
Plotted:02/06/2020 2:07PM | By:JONATHAN WILKINS | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G2123-11-02 SMAC Building\DETAILS\Typical Retaining Wall Drainage Detail (RWDD7A).dwg
DATE 02 - 06 - 2020
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
■ ■
I I I I
TABLE ISUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTSProject Name:Project No.:Pre. No. Re.1 01/15/20 W End Building 240 1 0 113.6 16.0 102.1 20.1 90 902 01/15/20 W End Building 241 1 0 113.6 16.0 104.9 19.2 92 903 01/15/20 W End Building 242 1 0 113.6 16.0 104.5 19.0 92 904 01/16/20 N End Building 242 1 0 113.6 16.0 106.7 20.5 94 905 01/16/20 Mid End Building 242 2 0 118.7 13.5 111.4 18.0 94 906 01/16/20 N End Building 243 2 0 118.7 13.5 111.6 16.9 94 907 01/16/20 Mid End Building 243 2 0 118.7 13.5 112.5 15.7 95 908 01/16/20 S End Building 244 2 0 118.7 13.5 112.3 15.3 95 909 01/23/20 S End Building 243 1 0 113.6 16.0 104.3 20.4 92 9010 01/23/20 S End Building 244 1 0 113.6 16.0 103.2 20.3 91 9011 01/23/20 N End Building 243 2 0 118.7 13.5 111.5 16.3 94 9012 01/23/20 N End Building 244 1 0 113.6 16.0 105.4 20.7 93 9013 01/23/20 NW Corner Building 243 1 0 113.6 16.0 102.9 17.6 91 9014 01/24/20 S End Building 243 1 0 113.6 16.0 105.5 20.0 93 9015 01/24/20 S End Building 244 1 0 113.6 16.0 104.0 20.2 92 9016 01/24/20 W End Building 244 2 0 118.7 13.5 111.6 17.2 94 9017 01/24/20 S End Building 245 2 0 118.7 13.5 111.6 16.2 94 9018 01/24/20 NE End Building 244 1 0 113.6 16.0 105.5 20.0 93 9019 01/24/20 E End Building 245 2 0 118.7 13.5 109.0 18.2 92 9020 01/27/20 S End Site 241 1 0 113.6 16.0 105.9 20.9 93 9021 01/27/20 S End Site 242 1 0 113.6 16.0 106.2 19.3 93 9022R01/27/20S EndSite24210113.616.0100.523.3889023 01/27/20 S EndSite243 1 0 113.6 16.0 105.4 20.0 93 90FG 24 01/27/20 SWBuilding245 2 0 118.7 13.5 110.3 18.1 93 90FG 25 01/27/20 NWBuilding245 1 0 113.6 16.0 105.6 17.7 93 90FG 26 01/27/20 NEBuilding245 2 0 118.7 13.5 108.5 18.0 91 90FG 27 01/27/20 SEBuilding245 1 0 113.6 16.0 104.3 20.3 92 9028 01/30/20 SWEntrance240 1 0 113.6 16.0 104.8 20.5 92 90Required Relative Compaction (%)Curve No.Test No. SMAC BuildingDate (MM/DD/YY)Elev. or Depth (feet)LocationG2123-11-02>¾" Rock (%)Max. Dry Density (pcf)Opt. Moist Content (%)Field Dry Density (pcf)Field Moisture Content (%)Relative Compaction (%)~GEOCON - - -
TABLE ISUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTSProject Name:Project No.:Pre. No. Re.Required Relative Compaction (%)Curve No.Test No. SMAC BuildingDate (MM/DD/YY)Elev. or Depth (feet)LocationG2123-11-02>¾" Rock (%)Max. Dry Density (pcf)Opt. Moist Content (%)Field Dry Density (pcf)Field Moisture Content (%)Relative Compaction (%)29 01/30/20 W EdgeSite241 1 0 113.6 16.0 103.5 17.9 91 9030 01/31/20 NWDriveway235 2 0 118.7 13.5 109.2 17.5 92 9031 01/31/20 NWDriveway238 2 0 118.7 13.5 110.6 17.2 93 9032 01/31/20 WDriveway242 2 0 118.7 13.5 112.1 18.0 94 9033 01/31/20 NWBasin243 2 0 118.7 13.5 109.9 17.8 93 90~GEOCON
TABLE IEXPLANATION OF CODED TERMSAC Asphalt Concrete ITIrrigation TrenchSG SubgradeAD Area Drain JTJoint TrenchSL Sewer LateralBBaseMMoisture TestSM Sewer MainCG Curb/Gutter MGMinor GradingSR Slope RepairDW Driveway MSE Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall ST Slope TestET Electrical Trench PTPlumbing TrenchSW SidewalkETB Exploratory Trench RGRegradeSZ Slope ZoneFB Footing Backfill RWL Reclaimed Water Lateral UT Utility TrenchFG Finish Grade RWM Reclaimed Water MainWB Wall BackfillFS Fire Service SBTSubdrain TrenchWL Water LateralGT Gas Trench SDStorm DrainWM Water MainA, B, C, …R>¾" ROCK - ROCK CORRECTIONThe laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content can be adjusted for in-place soil that possesses rock larger than ¾ inch. The curve no. is adjusted for the percentage of ¾ inch rock in accordance with ASTM D 4718 or Woodward Clyde guidelines.TEST NO. PREFIXTEST NO. RE.Retest of previous density test failure following additional moisture conditioning or recompactionFill in area of density test was removed during construction operationsCURVE NO.Corresponds to the curve numbers presented in the summary of the laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content test results. The field representative selected the curve no. based on the laboratory test results and field observations.ELEVATION OR DEPTHCorresponds to the elevation or the depth, in feet, of the in-place density/moisture content test. The value has been rounded to the nearest whole foot. 0GEOCON
Geocon Project No. G2123-11-01 February 6, 2020
TABLE II SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS ASTM D 1557
Curve No. Description Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum
Moisture Content
(% dry weight)
1 Brown, Silty Clay 113.6 16.0
2 Light brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND 118.7 13.5
3 Light brown, Clayey, fine to coarse SAND 121.8 11.9
TABLE III SUMMARY OF LABORATORY EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS ASTM D 4829
Sample No.
Moisture Content (%) Dry Density
(pcf)
Expansion
Index
2016 CBC
Expansion
Classification
ASTM Soil
Expansion
Classification Before Test After Test
2 11.7 26.0 103.1 64 Expansive Medium
3 11.5 24.5 104.8 73 Expansive Medium
EI-A
Building Pad 13.9 26.4 98.2 53 Expansive Medium
EI-B
Building Pad 12.7 28.2 100.4 66 Expansive Medium
TABLE IV SUMMARY OF WATER-SOLUBLE SULFATE LABORATORY TEST RESULTS CALIFORNIA TEST NO. 417
Sample No. Water Soluble Sulfate (%) ACI 318 Sulfate Exposure
2 0.047 S0
3 0.387 S2
EI-A Building Pad 0.278 S2
EI-B Building Pad 0.422 S2