HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 03-21; NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2002-03-07GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER
2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92007
March 7, 2002
Unauthorized use or copying of this document is strictly prohibited. See "Application For Authorization To Use" l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
end of this document if use or copying is desired by anyone other than the client for the specific project.
C51-606201/5102R I 98-doc Page i of iv March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
REI K L E I N F E L D E R
A report prepared for:
The County of San Diego
5555 Overland Avenue, Suite 2600
Building 2, Room 220
San Diego, California 92123-1294
Attention: Ms. Darlene Cervantes, Project Manager
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER
2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Kleinfelder Job No. C51-606201
Prepared by:
2L7
Thomas J. Weaver, Eff
Staff Engineer
KLEINFELDER, INC.
5015 Shoreham Place
San Diego, California 92122
(858) 320-2000
Pj /
Rick E. Larson, PE, GE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
March 7, 2002
C51-606201/5102R198doc Page ii of iv March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
TABLE OFCONTENTS KLEINFELOER
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION......................................................................................1
1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK .....................................................................2
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION .............................................................................. 3
2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION..........................................................................................3
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING.....................................................................................3
3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SITE CONDITIONS......................................................4
3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING............................................................................................4
3.2 SEISMICITY AND FAULTING ............................................................................. 4
3.3 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS..................................................5 3.3.1 Surface Covering .......................................................................................... 5 3.3.2 Existing Fill..................................................................................................5 3.3.3 Santiago Formation......................................................................................6
3.3.4 Groundwater................................................................................................6
4.0 CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................7
5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMENDATIONS...................................................................8
5.1 EXPANSION POTENTIAL....................................................................................8
5.2 SITE GRADING......................................................................................................8
5.2.1 Site Preparation ............................................................................................ 8 5.2.2 Cut/Fill Transitions....................................................................................10
5.2.3 Engineered Fill .................... . ....................................................................... 10
5.3 UTILITY TRENCHES ..........................................................................................10
5.3.1 Temporary Trench Excavations.................................................................10
5.3.2 Pipe Bedding and Trench Backfill.............................................................11
5.4 FOUNDATION RECOMENDATIONS ...............................................................11
5.4.1 Recommendations for Treatment of Expansive Soils Conditions.............11
5.5 RETAINING WALLS ...........................................................................................13
5.5.1 New Retaining Walls.................................................................................13
5.5.2 Existing Retaining Wall.............................................................................14
5.6 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................14
5.7 PAVEMENT SECTIONS......................................................................................15
5.8 CORROSION SCREENING ................................................................................. 15
6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ............................................................................................17
7.0 LIMITATIONS................................................................................................................18
8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 19
C51-606201/5102R I 98.doc Page iii of iv March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) I1 KLEINFELDER
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Plan
Figure 3 Transition Lot Details
APPENDICES
Appendix A Geotecbnical Test Borings
Appendix B Laboratory Testing
Appendix C Suggested Guidelines for Earthwork Construction
Appendix D ASFE Insert
Appendix E Application for Authorization to Use
[I:
C5I-606201/5102R198.doc Page iv of iv March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
I9 1< El NF E L D E R
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
This report presents results of a geotechnical investigation for the new North County Animal
Shelter at 2481 Palomar Airport Road in Carlsbad, California. The proposed shelter will
essentially be an entirely new and expanded facility that will replace the existing animal shelter at
the same address. The general site location is shown on Figure 1.
This report includes our recommendations related to the geotechnical aspects of project design
and construction. Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the
subsurface conditions encountered at the locations of our explorations and the provisions and
requirements outlined in the Limitations section of this report. Recommendations presented
herein should not be extrapolated to other areas or used for other projects without prior review.
In addition, a brochure prepared by the ASFE (Association of Finns Practicing in the Geo-
Sciences) has been included in Appendix D. We recommend that our report be read in
conjunction with this document.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
C The project will consist of the demolition and removal of the existing animal shelter facilities,
additional site grading, and construction of a new facility to replace the existing animal shelter.
The new facility will consist of a one-story building, parking lot, and animal walking track. We
anticipate that the new building will be founded on a shallow foundation system with wall loads
on the order of 2 to 5 kips per lineal foot and column loads of 20 to 70 kips.
Based on a review of the existing site plan and the conceptual grading-drainage-sewer study No.
1 provided by Pickard Architects, we anticipate the site grade may increase by up to 5 feet along
the southern property boundary. We anticipate elevation changes on the order of 1 foot just north
of the proposed building pad. The conceptual grading plan shows that a new retaining wall will
be constructed south of the existing entrance with additional parking along the northwest
boundary of the facility. An existing retaining wall along the southern property line will likely
need to be removed and replaced due to additional loads imposed by the new structure and an
increase in site grade. The existing shelter exit will be relocated to the east, by approximately 90
feet, and will be used as an additional entrance/exit to the facility.
The undeveloped lot located east of the existing facility will be acquired to provide additional
parking space and the new walking track.
C51-606201/5102R198.doc Page 1 of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k9 KLEI NFELDER
1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK
This report was prepared in general accordance with our proposal dated December 5, 2001. The
purpose of our geotechnical study was to evaluate the conditions at the site and provide
geotechnical recommendations for earthwork, foundation support, utility trenches, new
pavement, and seismic soil type and near fault considerations according to the 1997 Uniform
Building Code (UBC).
Specifically this report includes the following elements:
Discussion of site surface and subsurface conditions encountered;
Recommendations for site grading, fill placement, and compaction;
Recommendations for temporary slope excavations;
Recommendations for foundation design, including mitigation measures for expansive
soils;
Active and passive earth pressures for retaining wall design;
Recommendations for flexible pavement based on traffic indices of 4, 5, and 6; and
A preliminary screening to evaluate the corrosion potential of the soils in the foundation
area.
C51-606201 /5102R I 98doc Page 2 of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEI NFEL DER
0
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
Our exploration for this project consisted of the visual reconnaissance of the existing site
conditions, the drilling of seven small-diameter borings, and the completion of two dynamic cone
penetration soundings. The borings and cone penetration soundings were completed at the
approximate locations indicated on Figure 2. All seven borings were completed using an
Jngersol-Rand A-300 truck mounted drill rig equipped with an 8-inch diameter auger. The
borings ranged in depth from 5 to 20 feet below existing ground surface (bgs). The two dynamic
cone soundings were performed to depths ranging from 2 to 4 feet bgs.
Samples of the materials encountered while using the truck mounted drill rig, were obtained by
driving a 3-inch outside diameter California sampler containing thin brass liners into the bottom
of the borings. The soil samples were visually classified in the field, identified on the boring log,
sealed to reduce moisture loss, and returned to our San Diego office for testing and further
review. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the last 12 inches of an 18-inch drive
were recorded by our staff engineer as the penetration resistance (blows per foot) on the boring
log. The borings were backfilled with excavated soil after completion of the field exploration.
Dynamic cone soundings were advanced with a hand operated 35-lb safety hammer and a 90
degree apex, 10 sq. cm. cone fitted at the end of a steel extension rod. The safety hammer was
manually lifted and allowed to fall 15 inches. Our staff engineer recorded the number of blows
required for each 10-cm increment of penetration. The data was later reduced to an equivalent
SPT N-value for engineering analysis.
The test boring and cone sounding logs are included in Appendix A.
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING
The purpose of our testing program was to evaluate the physical characteristics and engineering
properties of the materials encountered. Tests performed included moisture content and unit
weight, an expansion index, plasticity index, R-value, unconfined compression, and corrosion
testing. The laboratory tests are described and presented in Appendix B.
C51-60620115102R198doc Page 3 of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
RI KLEINFELDER
3.0 GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SITE CONDITIONS
3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING
San Diego County is located within the Peninsular Range geomorphic province. This province is
characterized by mountainous terrain composed mostly of Mesozoic metamorphic and igneous
rocks. Sedimentary rocks are also present within this province and are primarily concentrated
within the low-lying coastal region occupying the majority of San Diego.
The sedimentary rocks consist of a variety of conglomerates, sandstones, siltstones, and
cláystones which were deposited during the Cretaceous, Tertiary, and Quaternary periods. The
Tertiary rocks are much thicker than the Cretaceous or Quaternary rock unit systems and are
thought to have been deposited within a marine embayment up to 15 miles wide and stretching
from north San Diego County to Mexico. These rocks are contained within a westward
thickening clastic wedge package and represent two series of progradational and retrogradational
events.
The site is underlain by Tertiary age sedimentary Santiago Formation.
3.2 SEISMICITY AND FAULTING
[1
Southern California is dominated by a major tectonic structure known as the San Andreas fault.
The northwest/southeast trending San Andreas fault is located approximately 95 miles east of the
animal shelter (within the Imperial Valley). This fault is situated at the boundary between two
global tectonic plates known as the North American and Pacific Plates. The Pacific Plate
occupies the area west of the San Andreas fault, which includes San Diego County.
The San Andreas fault is actually composed of a system of numerous subsidiary faults bracketing
a broad region, extending westward from the main branch in the Imperial Valley to well
off-shore of San Diego County. A major subsidiary fault east of Carlsbad includes the Elsinore
fault. Faults west of Carlsbad (off-shore) include the Rose Canyon and Newport Inglewood
faults.
The most dominant fault structure located near the animal shelter is the Rose Canyon fault. This
fault extends along a northwest/southeast line just off the coast west of Carlsbad. The animal
shelter is located approximately 7 miles to the east of the Rose Canyon fault. A geologic map of
the northwestern part of San Diego County produced by the California Division of Mines and
Geology indicates that several minor shear joints have been mapped in the Carlsbad area, and one
C5I-606201/5102R198doc Page of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 K!einfelder, Inc.
k9 KLEINFELDER
has been mapped in the vicinity of the new animal shelter. These local shear joints are described
as minor since they are relatively discontinuous, are thought to be more of a bedding-related
feature rather than fault-related feature (there are no known active or potentially active faults
mapped close by), and the potential for movement on the shear joint is anticipated to be low.
The mapped shear joint was not observed in our test borings.
3.3 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
3.3.1 Surface Covering
The ground surface is generally covered by a gravelly sand west of the main animal shelter
entrance with some areas covered with grass along the southern property boundary. To the south
and east of the main entrance extending to the current eastern property line, the ground surface is
generally covered by asphalt concrete and buildings. The ground surface is covered by bare soil
and vegetation consisting of trees and shrubs east of the current property line.
3.3.2 Existing Fill
The borings generally show silty to clayey fill soils of varying thickness below the proposed
is
building pad. Boring 1, located near the western edge of the proposed building pad, shows silty
sand and clayey sand fill from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 6 feet bgs.
Approximately 160 feet to the east of Boring I near the southern edge of the proposed building
pad, Boring 2 shows a sandy clay fill extending to a depth of approximately 3 feet bgs. With
increasing distance to the east, the fill thickness increases from approximately 8 feet to 12 feet
bgs in Borings 5 and 3, respectively. The sand content in the fill also decreases between borings
from west to east. The borings show that the clay fill is generally stiff to hard and that the silty
and clayey sand fill is medium dense. The two dynamic cone soundings performed in the
embankment fill just south of Palomar Airport Road indicate the fill in these areas is generally
medium dense to dense.
Borings 6 and 7 were located within the area where the new walking track will be located.
Boring 6 shows clay fill from the ground surface to a depth of approximately 3 feet. Boring 7
shows medium dense silty sand fill extending from the ground surface to the bottom of the
boring at a depth of 5 feet. Although the fill appears to be generally stiff to hard, medium dense,
and relatively well compacted in our test boring and cone sounding locations, we haven't
reviewed any records or documents to confirm that the fill was placed as engineered fill. Unless
records or documents can be produced and reviewed to confirm that the soil was placed as
engineered fill, the local standard of practice is to consider the fill as being undocumented.
C5I-606201/5102R198.doc Page of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
$11 KLEI NFEL DER
3.3.3 Santiago Formation 0
The Santiago Formation, consisting of weakly indurated siltstone underlies the fill and extends to
the bottom of each boring within the proposed building pad area. Boring 4, located at the
northern edge of the proposed building, shows the Santiago Formation directly below the asphalt
and aggregate base. The fill in Boring 6 is also underlain by the Santiago Formation.
3.3.4 Groundwater
Groundwater was observed in Boring 1 at a depth of approximately 13 feet bgs. This
groundwater is likely surficial seepage water that is "perched" on a less permeable layer below
13 feet in Boring 1. A drainage culvert below Palomar Airport Road exits approximately 100
feet to the west of Boring 1. A concrete lined ditch extends from the culvert on an alignment
along the southern boundary of the property. Groundwater was not observed in any other boring
at the time of the field investigation to depths of 20 feet bgs.
Groundwater was observed at a depth of approximately 2.5 feet during a field exploration for the
existing access road at the animal shelter according to a previous study reported by our firm in
1998. Again, it is likely that the water observed on the slope adjacent to the access road in 1998
is due to a localized "perched" water condition. Please note that groundwater elevations within
the project area may vary depending on seasonal rainfall, irrigation practices, land use, and/or
runoff conditions that may not have been present or apparent at the time of our field
investigation.
051-606201/5102R198.doc Page 6 of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
S
OWE K L E I N F E L D E R
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based upon data collected during our study, it is our professional opinion that the project can be
constructed from a geotechnical standpoint. The following key items are conclusions developed
from our investigation:
The site is located in the seismically active Southern California area. The structures
should be designed to tolerate seismic shaking.
Earthwork consisting of excavations up to 12 feet in depth and fills up to 17 feet in depth
are anticipated to obtain the desired finish grade elevations within the southern portion of
the building pad.
Development of the site may result in transitions from fill to formation across the
proposed animal shelter building. To reduce the potential for distress associated with
differential settlement, the building pad should be graded so that the structure does not
straddle cut/fill transitions, or the location of the structure should be planned so that it
does not straddle transitions. Remedial grading recommendations for cut/fill transitions
are provided in this report.
• Existing clayey soils are medium to highly expansive and will need to be addressed in
design. Recommendations for the treatment of expansive soil conditions are provided in
this report.
Existing clayey soils exhibit a corrosive potential to ferrous metal elements. A qualified
corrosion engineer should evaluate the general corrosion potential with respect to
construction materials at this site.
Groundwater was observed in Boring 1 at a depth of approximately 13 feet bgs. This
groundwater is likely surficial seepage water that is "perched" on a less permeable layer.
Groundwater elevations within the project area may vary due to conditions that may not
have been present or apparent at the time of our field investigation.
C5I-606201/5102R198.doc Page 7 of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
K L E I N F E L D E R
5.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMENDATIONS S
5.1 EXPANSION POTENTIAL
The near surface soils at the site generally consist of silty to clayey soils. A representative
sample of the near-surface soils was tested in accordance with UBC test method 18-2,
"Expansion Potential." The representative soil tested indicated a medium to high potential for
expansion. The expansion index test results are included in Appendix B. Recommendations for
expansive soil mitigation are provided within this report.
5.2 SITE GRADING
Based on a review of an existing site plan and the conceptual grading-drainage-sewer study No. 1
provided by Pickard Architects, we anticipate excavation of undocumented fill up to
approximately 12 feet below existing grade and placement of fill to depths up to approximately
17 feet to obtain finish grade below the southeastern portion of the building pad. As part of the
site grading we recommend that all the undocumented fill be removed and replaced, as required,
from the proposed building pad prior to placement of any fill soils. Final grading plans should be
reviewed by our office for conformance to design recommendations prior to construction
bidding. 0
Suggested guide specifications for earthwork are presented in Appendix C. These guide
specifications, together with the following additional recommendations, may be used in
preparation of plans and specifications. All references to relative compaction and optimum
moisture content are based upon the ASTM D 1557 test procedure.
52.1 Site Preparation
The location of all existing foundations and known buried utility lines should be recorded prior
to demolition of the existing facility. During demolition a representative of Kleinfelder should
be present to observe the removal of all underground concrete and utilities. The remaining voids
after overexcavation should be filled with compacted on-site soil or approved imported material
as per Section 5.2.3.
After the existing demolition is complete, the existing undocumented fill soils should be
overexcavated to firm and unyielding formational material under the new building pad. The
approximate depth of the existing fill at each boring location is listed below:
S
C51-606201/5102R198.doc Page 8 of 19 March 7, 2002
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER
The limits of the excavation should extend at least five feet from the outside perimeter of all
entrance sidewalks, or the proposed building limits, whichever is greater. The bottom of the
excavation should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches, moisture conditioned to at least 2
percent above optimum, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density
according to ASTM D 1557.
Localized areas requiring deeper removals may be required, due to the possibility of loose areas
or potential voids created by any necessary demolition operations. All asphalt concrete
pavements, concrete (if encountered), and deleterious, organic, inert and oversized materials
(greater than 4 inches in maximum dimension) should be stripped and isolated prior to removal
Of reusable soils. Areas to receive fill should be stripped of loose or soft earth materials until . formation is exposed. The stripping work should include the removal of existing fill and topsoil
that, in the judgment of the geotechnical engineer, is uncertified, compressible, collapsible, or
contains significant voids. - The voids caused by the removal of subsurface features, if
encountered, should also be processed and backfihled in accordance with the recommendations
presented in this report.
Placement of fill and preparation of the building pad will be affected by the foundation system
chosen to mitigate expansive soil conditions. Specific recommendations for building pad
preparation are provided with the foundation recommendations in Section 5.4.
Preparation of the walking track and asphalt paved areas outside the building pad area should be
stripped of vegetation and topsoil, scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to a
minimum of 2 percent above optimum, and compacted to at least 90 percent of ASTM D 1557
maximum dry density. On-site soils may be used to obtain site grade in these areas by moisture
conditioning the soils to within 1 to 3 percent above optimum moisture, placing the fill in lifts no
greater than 8 inches in loose thickness, and compacting each layer to a minimum of 90 percent
of ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density (95 percent in the upper 6 inches below pavements).
1]
C5 1-606201/5102R198.doc Page 9 of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleirifelder, Inc.
KLEINFELD ER
5.2.2 Cut/Fill Transitions
Where transitions from firm natural soils to compacted fill will exist beneath the building pad,
we recommend that a suitable thickness of the firm natural portion of the pad be overexcavated
and replaced with compacted fill to provide a relatively uniform compacted fill layer beneath the
animal shelter building. The depth of overexcavation should be a minimum of 3 feet below the
bottom of the foundation, or to a depth of H12, whichever is greater, where H is the greatest depth
of fill beneath the building pad. Figure 3, Transition Lot Details, may be used as a general
guideline in evaluating the overexcavation depth.
5.2.3 Engineered Fill
The majority of on-site soils are anticipated to have a medium to high expansion index. We
anticipate that on-site soils can be used for fill beneath the new building pad provided
recommendations for mitigation of expansive soil conditions in Section 5.4 are incorporated.
Import materials, if required, should have an expansion index less than 20, be uniformly graded
with no greater than 30 percent of the particles passing the No. 200 sieve, and contain no
particles greater than 3 inches in dimension. Fill should be placed in lifts no greater than 8
inches in loose thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of ASTM D 1557
maximum dry density within I to 3 percent above optimum moisture under the slab-on-grade and
foundations, and 95 percent of the maximum dry density in the upper 6 inches below pavements.
5.3 UTILITY TRENCHES
5.3.1 Temporary Trench Excavations
Shallow, temporary utility trench excavations are anticipated for installation of the required
utility lines. All vertical or steeply sided trench excavations greater than 5 feet in depth should
be braced and shored in accordance with good construction practice and all applicable safety
ordinances and codes.
The on-site fill is generally classified as Type B soils for evaluating OSHA sloping or shoring
requirements. Heavy construction loads, such as those resulting from stockpiles and heavy
machinery, should be kept sufficiently back from the top of the excavation or shoring to prevent
unanticipated surcharge loading. All surface water should be diverted away from excavations.
If very steep or vertical-sided excavations in excess of 5 feet deep are necessary, we recommend
that the sidewalls be shored in accordance with OSHA standards to provide temporary trench
C51-606201/5102R198.doc Page 10 of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEI NFEIDER
stability during construction. The contractor should be responsible for the structural design and
safety of the temporary shoring system and we recommend that this design be submitted to
Kleinfelder for review and approval.
5.3.2 Pipe Bedding and Trench Backfill
Pipe bedding should consist of sand or similar granular material having a minimum sand
equivalent value of 30. The sand should be placed in a zone that extends a minimum of 6 inches
below and 12 inches above the pipe for the full trench width. The bedding material should be
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum dry density. Trench backfill above pipe
bedding may consist of approved, on-site or import soils placed in lifts no greater than 8 inches
loose thickness and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density.
5.4 FOUNDATION RECOMENDATIONS
5,4.1 Recommendations for Treatment of Expansive Soils Conditions
To mitigate the expansive foundation soil conditions we recommend one of the following
alternatives for support of building foundations and slabs-on-grade. The two alternatives are
presented in order of increasing risk.
Support on very low- to low-potential expansive soils.
Stiffened grid foundation system.
Alternative 1: Support on Very Low- to Low-Potential Expansive Soils
This alternative consists of removing the fill to formational material and recompacting existing
soils below the building pad to 90 percent maximum dry density according to ASTM D 1557 to
within 4 feet of finish subgrade. Import fill with significantly less expansive potential (El <20)
should be placed within 4 feet of the finish subgrade. The horizontal extension of the import fill
should be at least 5 feet outside the perimeters of building foundations and at least 2 feet beyond
the edges of pavements/fiatwork adjacent to the building pad. All other sidewalks/concrete slabs
located outside the 4 feet of building pad fill area should be underlain by 2 feet of very low
expansive soil with a horizontal extension of 2 feet beyond the edge of the slab. The bottom of
the excavation should be prepared in accordance with Section 5.2.1.
After the building pad has been prepared in accordance with Alternative 1, conventional shallow
foundations and slab-on-grade can be constructed to support the new structure. Alternative 1
C5-606201/5IO2R198.doc Page II of 19 March 7,2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
IF1 KLEINFELDER
should provide allowable bearing support for foundations of at least 3000 psf. Anticipated total
settlement is not expected to exceed 1/2-inch and differential settlement is not expected to
exceed 50 percent of the total settlement (over a 40-foot-span). Lateral bearing should be at least.
150 psf7foot of embedment and the coefficient of sliding friction between concrete structures and
the supporting granular fill should be at least 0.35.
A moisture barrier membrane should be placed over the sand or gravel base in locations where
moisture vapor transmission through the concrete slab is to be mitigated. This membrane should
have a pernieance of less than 0.3 perms as determined in accordance with ASTM B 96. If
polyethylene plastic sheeting is used, it should have a minimum thickness of ten mils with joints
lapped at least 6 inches and taped. This membrane should be overlain by 1 to 2 inches of moist,
clean sand meeting the Unified Soil Classification for SP or SW soils. This sand is to help
promote the proper curing of concrete and to provide a degree of protection for the plastic
membrane during concrete pouring operations.
Alternative 2: Stiffened Grid Foundation System
Under this alternative, the foundation system is constructed directly on the expansive subgrade
Minor floor cracking may occur although the footings and slabs are combined structurally with
shallow grade beams and are nominally reinforced to reduce the opening of cracks. Foundations
should have embedment depths of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The slab should
rest on a sand or gravel subbase and be reinforced as described below.
Care should be taken to avoid drying of soils exposed in the floor slab subgrade and footing
excavation. The moisture content of the subgrade for foundation and slab support should be
checked 24 hours before pouring concrete. Supporting soil should be in a moist condition prior
to the placement of concrete to reduce the potential for volume change in the soil. If the moisture
content is below 1 percent above optimum moisture, the foundation material should be sprayed
or flooded with water 24 hours prior to pouring concrete to increase the moisture content until
the moisture exceeds the above requirement for a depth of 6 inches beneath the foundation. The
granular subbase described below will help maintain the moisture and will also provide a
workable surface for the slab-on-grade.
Reinforcement steel requirements for foundations and slabs should be designed by the structural
engineer. The presence of expansive soils will probably control the reinforcement requirements.
We recommend that slab-on-ground foundations be designed in accordance with Section 1815 of
the most recent California Building Code. For the geotechnical input to the design procedure, we
C51-606201/5102R198.doc Page 12 of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
IF1 KIFINFELDER . recommend a climatic rating factor, CW, of 15 and an effective plasticity index (P.1.) of 24. As a
minimum, we recommend that continuous footing reinforcement consist of at least two No. 4
bars placed at the top and two placed at the bottom of the foundation. These reinforcement
guidelines should not supersede the reinforcement requirements calculated by the structural
engineer.
Foundations built in accordance with Alternative 2 should be capable of supporting an allowable
foundation pressure of 2000 psf. The allowable design bearing value can be increased by one
third for transient loading due to seismic and wind forces. Anticipated total settlement is not
expected to exceed 1/2- inch and differential settlement is not expected to exceed 50 percent of
the total settlement (over a 40-foot span). Values of 100 psf/foot of embedment and 130 psf can
be used for lateral bearing and lateral sliding resistance, respectively.
Subgrades supporting concrete slabs should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction to a depth of 6 inches Support for concrete floor slabs should be provided by a 6-
inch blanket of select granular subbase. The granular subbase should be a free-draining sand or
crushed gravel base meeting the Unified Soil Classification for GW, GP, SP, or SW soils. A
moisture barrier membrane should be placed over the sand or gravel base in locations where
moisture vapor transmission through the concrete slab is to be mitigated as outlined in
Alternative I. Sidewalks and concrete slabs located outside the building pad area should be
underlain by 2 feet of very low expansive soil with a horizontal extension of 2 feet beyond the
edge of the slabs.
Floor slabs should have a minimum concrete thickness of 5 inches for Alternative 2. The floor
slab should be reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing bars spaced at 18 inches and placed mid-
height in the slab. Proper reinforcement positioning is important to future performance of the
slab. Misplacement of reinforcing bars would result in insufficient reinforcement and could
result in poor performance of the concrete slab. A joint arrangement should be used which will
provide complete low friction separation at all footings and slab interfaces to allow for minor
movement. A modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci) can be used to
design the floor for structural load.
5.5 RETAINING WALLS
5.5.1 New Retaining Walls
We recommend that cantilever retaining walls up to 12 feet in height be designed for equivalent
fluid weights (triangular distribution) of 45 pcf and 60 pcf for level and 2H:1V sloping backfill
C51-606201/5102R198.doc Page 13 of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc-
1FI KLE N FE ID ER
conditions, respectively. Cantilever conditions apply to walls that are capable of rotating at the S
top at least 0.005H, where H is the wall height in feet. Thirty percent of any surcharge pressures
located within a 45-degree envelope from the base of the wall should be applied as a uniform
horizontal pressure.
The recommended lateral earth pressures assume granular import fill as recommended in Section
5.2.3 is placed behind the wall and that drainage is provided behind the walls to prevent the
accumulation of hydrostatic pressures. Walls should be provided with backdrains to reduce the
potential for the accumulation of hydrostatic pressures. Backdrains may consist of a 2-foot wide
zone of Caltrans Class 2 permeable material located immediately behind the wall, extending to
within one foot of the ground surface. A perforated pipe should be installed at the base of the
backdrain and sloped to discharge to a suitable collection facility or through weep holes.
5.5.2 Existing Retaining Walls
An existing retaining wall approximately 5 feet in height is located along the southern property
line. Existing fill behind this wall should be removed and replaced with import fill as described
in Section 5.2.3. The import fill should extend from the back of the wall horizontally for a
distance at least equal to the exposed wall height. A structural engineer should evaluate the 5 existing wall under new loads resulting from an increase in site grade, foundation loads, or other
surcharge loads that may be imposed as a result of the new construction. Recommended
horizontal wall loads are provided in Section 5.5.1. Also, the wall drainage should be reviewed
and backdrains (Section 5.5. 1) should be provided, if required.
5.6 SEISMIC DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The proposed development is located in a seismically active region and proposed buildings can
expect to be subjected to seismic shaking during its design life. The primary potential seismic
hazard is ground shaking. Since this site is located in the seismically active Southern California
region, we recommend that, as a minimum, the proposed development be designed in accordance
with the requirements of the latest (1997) edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) for
Seismic Zone 4. We recommend that a soil profile factor of SD be used with the UBC design
procedure (Table 16-J). Near source seismic coefficients for acceleration and velocity, Na=l .0
and Nv=1.0 (UBC Tables 16-S and 16-T), should be used in design along with a Seismic Source
Type B (UBC Table 16-Ti).
[II
C51-606201/5102R198.doc Page 14 of 19 March 7, 2002
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
11 KEINFELDER
0 5.7 PAVEMENT SECTIONS
For purposes of analysis and design of pavements, we performed an R-value on a selected soil
sample considered representative of subgrade materials on-site. Our test results indicate that on-
site subgrade soils have an R-value of 14. Pavement sections have been evaluated in general
accordance with the Caltrans method for flexible pavement design. Traffic indices of 4.0, 5.0,
and 6.0 were used to facilitate the design of driveways and parking areas. Recommended
flexible pavement sections for these conditions are given in the following table:
Traffic IiitJ Asphalt Concrete -tggregare Base
(ill inches) (111 incheS)
4.0
5.0 [ 3 9
-
6.0
-
3
- -. - -
12
The recommended pavement sections assume the following conditions:
The upper 6 inches of subgrade and base materials are compacted to a minimum of 95
percent of ASTM D 1557 maximum dry density;
. I The finished subgrade is in a stable, non-pumping condition at the time aggregate base is
laid and compacted;
Asphalt concrete pavement and aggregate base materials conform to Section 02510, Parts
2 and 3 of the standard specification referred in Section 1.4 the Standard Specifications
for Construction of Public Works (Green Book), current edition; and
All concrete curbs separating pavement from landscaped areas extend at least 6 inches
into the subgrade to reduce movement of moisture into the aggregate base layer. This
reduces the risk of pavement failures to subsurface water originating from landscaped
areas.
5.8 CORROSION SCREENING
One selected sample of the near-surface soils encountered in the borings was subjected to
preliminary chemical corrosion screening analysis. The test results indicate that soluble chloride
and sulfate concentrations in the sample tested were negligible. These concentrations indicate
that Type II concrete may be used.
C51-606201/5102R198.doc Page 15 of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
RI KLEIN F E L D ER
Our corrosion screening tests are preliminary in nature. Although the minimum resistivity value
obtained for the one sample tested was 1740 ohm-centimeters, typical resistivity values for clay
soils are significantly lower and tend to be corrosive to ferrous metal elements. Additional
sampling and testing should be performed after completion of grading. We recommend that a
qualified corrosion engineer evaluate the general corrosion potential with respect to construction
materials at this site. The corrosion test results are included in Appendix B.
C51-606201/5102R198.doc Page 16 of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfe]der, Inc.
UWW K L E I N F E L D E R
0
6.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The recommendations made in this report are based on the assumption than an adequate program
of tests and observations will be made during construction to verify compliance with these
recommendations. These tests and observations would be additional services provided by our
firm. Such tests and observations should include, but are not necessarily limited to, the
following:
I. Review of all plans and specifications;
Continuous observation and testing during earthwork excavation, compaction, and
placement of engineered fill and pavement construction;
Observation of footing excavations for proper bearing soils prior to placement of
concrete; and
Other consultation as necessary during construction.
C51-606201/5102R198doc Page 17 f 19 March 7, 2002
Copyright 2002 K]einfelder, Inc.
k9 KLEINFELDER
7.0 LIMITATIONS 0
The recommendations contained in this report are based on our field exploration, laboratory tests,
and our understanding of the proposed construction. The subsurface data used in the preparation
of this report were obtained from the borings made for this investigation. It is possible that
variations in the soils and groundwater conditions could exist between the points explored. The
nature and extent of variations may not be evident until construction occurs. If any conditions
are encountered at the site which are different from those described in this report, our firm should
be immediately notified so that we can make any necessary revisions to recommendations
contained in this report. In addition, if the scope of the proposed construction changes from that
described in this report, our firm should also be notified.
This report was prepared in accordance with the generally accepted standard of practice in the
Carlsbad area at the time the report was written. No other warranty, express or implied, is made.
It is the client's responsibility to see that all parties to the project including the designer,
contractor, subcontractor, etc are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of
information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's
option and risk.
0 This report contains information which may be useful in the preparation of contract specification.
However, the report is not worded in such a manner that we recommend it use as a construction
specification document without proper modification.
C5I-606201/5102R198.doc Page 18 of 19 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KI.ENFELDER
0
8.0 REFERENCES
American National Standard for Polyethylene Encasement for Ductile Iron Pipe Systems, 1993,
ANSJIAWWA C105/A21.5, Denver, Cob.: American Water Works Association..
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1996, Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego
County, California, Plate 1, Geologic Maps of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey, and San Marcos
7.5' Quadrangles.
County of San Diego, 1963, Topographic Map 350-1683.
County of San Diego, 1975, Orthotopographic Map 350-1683.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Uniform Building Code (UBC):
Whittier, California.
Kleinfelder, February 23, 1998, Report of Limited Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Access
Ramp for North County Animal Shelter Palomar Airport Road Improvement Station 7+50 to
Station 82+00 Carlsbad, California.
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1982, Foundations and Earth Structures, Design Manual
7.2, Department of the Navy.
C5I-606201/5102R198doc Page 19 of 19 March 7, 2002
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
FIGURES
0
Bl
kittly
0 60 120
APPROXIMATE GRAPHIC SCALE
LEGEND:
(FEET) B14 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
K L E I N F E L D E R SITE PLAN FIGURE
5015 SI409EAIAM PLACE
CiA APPROXIMATE CONE SOUNDING LOCATION
SAN BECO. CALIFORNIA 92122 NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER CHECKED BY REL FN; 6062SITE 2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD PROJECT NO. 51-6062-01 1 DATE 02/2002 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009 . . .
CUT—FILL LOT
NATURAL GROUND
REMOVE UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL \
31 MIN. oTh/2 COMPACTED WHICHEVER ISLARGER FILL
OVEREXCAVATE and RECOMPACT
.. . per GEOTECHNTCAL ENGINEER'S
RECOMMENDATION*
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK or FIRM NATURAL SOILS
AS VERIFIED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
kn K I E I N F E I D E R TRANSITION LOT DETAIL FIGURE
5015 SHOREHAM PLACE SAN DIEGO, CALJFORNIA 92122 NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER 3 CHECKED BY: REL FN: 6062TLD 2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
PROJECT NO. 51-6062-01 1 DATE: 02/2002 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
APPENDIX A
n
Geotechnical Test Borings
Wrl KLEINF ELDER
O APPENDIX A
GEOTECHNICAI TEST BORINGS
The geotechnical test boring program for the proposed project consisted of the excavation and
logging seven (7) hollow-stem auger borings and two (2) dynamic cone soundings. The borings
were advanced to depths ranging from 5 to 20 feet below existing grades and the cone soundings
extended to depths of approximately 2 to 4 feet. Figure 2 presents the approximate locations of
the borings.
The Logs of Borings are presented as Figures A3 through All. A USCS chart and a Boring Log
Legend are presented as Figures Al and A2, respectively. The Logs of Borings describe the earth
materials encountered, samples obtained, and show field and laboratory tests performed. The
logs also show the general location, boring number, drilling date, and the names of the logger and
drilling subcontractor. The borings were logged by an engineer using the Unified Soil
Classification System. The boundaries between soil types shown on the logs are approximate
because the transition between different soil layers may be gradual. Bulk and intact samples of
representative earth materials were obtained from the borings.
The exploratory borings were advanced using an Ingersoll-Rand A-300 truck mounted drill rig,
40 equipped with 8-inch-diameter hollow-stem augers. All borings were backfllled using the soil
from cuttings and tamped when the drilling and excavating was completed.
In-place soil samples were obtained at the test boring locations using a California penetration
sampler driven a total of 18-inches (or until practical refusal), into the undisturbed soil at the
bottom of the boring. The soil sampled by the California sampler (3-inch O.D.) was retained in
6-inch long brass tubes for laboratory testing. An additional 2-inches of soil from each drive
remained in the cutting shoe and was usually discarded after visually classifying the soil. The
samplers were driven using a 140 pound hammer falling 30-inches. The total number of hammer
blows required to drive the sampler the final 12-inches is termed the blow count and is recorded
on the Logs of Borings. Please note that these blow counts have not been adjusted for the effects
of overburden pressure, input driving energy, rod length, sampler correction, or boring diameter
correction.
Bulk samples of the surface soils were retrieved directly from the auger blades.
C51-606201/5102R198.doc A-I March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART 0
SYMBOLS TYPICAL MAJOR DIVISIONS
GRAPH LETTER DESCRIPTIONS w
WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL . CLEAN GW SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO GRAVEL GRAVELS 4 loll 1 FINES
AND
GRAVELLY (LITTLE OR NO FINES) ° ø
o GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL- SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE SOILS OR
COARSE GRAVELS WITH GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - GRAINED MORE THAN 50% FINES J 00 SILT MIXTURES
SOILS OF COARSE
FRACTION
RETAINED ON NO. APPRECIABLE AMOUNT GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - 4 SIEVE OF FINES) CLAY MIXTURES
sw WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
CLEAN SANDS -::••::-. SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
SAND
MORE THAN 50% AND (LITTLE OR NO FINES) OF MATERIAL IS
LARGER THAN NO. SANDY sp POORLY-GRADED SANDS,
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR NO 200 SIEVE SIZE SOILS FINES
MORE THAN 50% SANDS WITH S SILTYSANDS,SAND - SILT
OF COARSE FINES MIXTURES
FRACTION
• PASSING ON NO.4
SIEVE (APPRECIABLE AMOUN1 SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY • OF FINES) MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
ML SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO SILTS
LIQUID LIMIT CL CL MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY FINE AND LESS THAN 50 SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS,
GRAINED LEAN CLAYS
SOILS
- - - OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY
- CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
MORE THAN 50% MH DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
OF MATERIAL IS - SILTY SOILS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE SILTS
LIQUID LIMIT CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH AND GREATER THAN 50 PLASTICITY CLAYS
OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ' PT PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
,', ,", "• •t' HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
NOTE: DUAL. SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
FIGURE
Al
LOG SYMBOLS:
TWATER LEVEL
BULK/BAG SAMPLE (level after completion)
.2 WATER LEVEL
(level where first encountered)
MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER
(2-1/2 inch outside diameter) ABBREVIATIONS
SA - (38%) SIEVE ANALYSIS (PERCENT
PASSING #200 SIEVE) CALIFORNIA SAMPLER
(3 inch outside diameter) WA - (38%) - ONE POINT GRAJN SIZE ANALYSIS
(PERCENT PASSING #200 SIEVE)
STANDARD PENETRATION P1 - PLASTICITY INDEX
SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER IL - LIQUID LIMIT (2 inch outside diameter)
DS - DIRECT SHEAR TEST
- R—VALUE TEST
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
CORR - CORROS
-
MIY TEST
El UBC EXPANSION INDEX
LC - LABORATORY COMPACTION TEST SHELBY TUBE
M&D - MOISTURE & DENSITY
PP - POCKET PENETROMETER
GENERAL NOTES:
Lines separating strata on the logs represent approximate boundaries only. Actual tra
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
s
m
a
y
b
e
g
r
a
d
u
a
l
.
2. No warranty is provided as to the continuity of soil conditions between individual
s
a
m
p
l
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Logs represent general soil conditions observed at the point of exploration on the date indi
c
a
t
e
d
.
- - 4 In general, Unified Soil Classification designations presented on the fogs were e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
b
y
v
i
s
u
a
l
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
o
n
l
y
.
Therefore, actual designations (based on laboratory tests) may vary.
CONSISTENCY CRITERIA BASED ON FIELD TESTS
TORVANE PockET**
PENETROMETER
RELATIVE
DENSITY
SPT*
(# blows/ft)
RELATIVE
DENSITY (%)
Very Loose <4 0 - 15
Loose 4 - 10 15 - 35
Medium Dense 10 - 30 35 - 65
Dense 30 - 50 65 - 85
Very Dense >50 85 - 100
CONSISTENCY SPT
(# blows/ft)
UNDRAINED
SHEAR STRENGTH (tsf)
UNCONFINED
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
Very Soft <2 <0.13 <0.25 Soft 2 - 4 0.13 - 0.25 0.25 - 0.5 Medium Stiff 4 - 8 0.25 - 0.5 0.5 - 1.0 Stiff 8 - 15 0.5 - 1.0 1.0 - 2.0 Very Stiff 15 - 30 1.0 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 Hard >30 >2.0 >4
* NUMBER OF BLOWS OF 140 POUNDS HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH
O
.
D
.
(1 3/8 INCH ID.) SPLIT BARREL SAMPLER (ASTM-1386 STANDARD PENETRATION TEST)
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN TONS/SQ. FT. READ FROM POCKET PENETROMETER
MOISTURE CONTENT
CEMENTATION
DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST
Dry Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch
Moist Damp but no visible water
Wet Visible free water, usually soil is below water table
DESCRIPTION FIELD TEST
Weakly Crumbles or breaks with handling or slight finger pressure
Moderately Crumbles or breaks with considerable finger pressure
Strongly Will not crumble or break with finger pressure
KLEINFELDER
5015 SHOREHAM PLACE
SAN DIEGO, CAIJFORNLA 92122
CHECKED BY: REL I EN: 1-0C—KEY
PROJECT NO. 51-6062--01 1 DATE: 02/200
KEY TO LOGS
NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER
2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
FIGURE
DATE DRILLED: 1/18/02 WATER DEPTH: 13 feet DRILLING COMPANY: Scott's Drilling DATE MEASURED: 01/18/2002 DRILLING METHOD: Ingersol Rand A-300/Catheod ELEVATION: 261'± MSL and Pulley LOGGED BY: T. Weaver HOLE DIAMETER: 8" Hollow Stem Auger REVIEWED-BY: R. Larson
(I,
W
Cn Z=
Uj
SOIL DESCRIPTION 2 w'
I-
F-I-- Q o AND Z.j F- F-z Q_ > w _j CLASSIFICATION Z'
- z
O w
W 0 >- oi
a
FILL: 260 -
I
SILTY SAND (SM), brown, moist, medium dense
18 i CLAY SAND (SC), reddish brown, moist medium dense, 60%
g//, sand, 40% clay
.5 —
X
- 255 X
X SANTIAGO FORMATION: X
- 66 I 2
X SILTSTONE, gray, moist, weakly indurated
X X
- X
X
-
X
X
X
X 10— X
X
X
250 -
X
x x PP4.5tsf
I
X Gray to grayish brown, little hematite staining
- 79
2 -
X
xx Measured groundwater at 13 feet, maybe perched groundwater,
-
X
x X drainage culvert approximately 100' West X
X
15 X X
-245 -
X
X
X
X
X
- X
X
X
- X
X
X
X X
66 I 4
x x
x x Yellowish brown
20— —\Gray Bottom of boring at 20 feet 240
- Groundwater observed at 13 feet
- No caving observed
Boring backfilled with cuttings
NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER FIGURE K L E I N F E L D E R 2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009 A3 PROJECT NO. 51-6062-01 LOG OF BORING 1
S
S
S
DATE DRILLED: 1/18/02 WATER DEPTH: None DRILLING COMPANY: Scoff's Drflhing DATE MEASURED: 01/18/2002 DRILLING METHOD: Ingersol Rand A-300/Cathead ELEVATION: 259'± MSL and Pulley
LOGGED BY: T. Weaver HOLE DIAMETER: 8" Hollow Stem Auger REVIEWED BY: R. Larson
Co W -J CL
<
Co f-
z ...
MC!)
o
w . SOIL DESCRIPTION U)CI) I
w W I
C',
- I-
, Q --0.2 Z -J
o AND Z_j I• < a. >
Z w CLASSIFICATION a
z'_-_Oz
Z O W a
w
->03
-
0 ' >- o .0
OP
a a
\2 inches of SANDY TOPSOIL, brown, slightly moist
FILL:
SANDY CLAY (CL), brown, moist
- I X X
x SANTIAGO FORMATION:
-255 -
x
x
- x SILTSTONE (ML), brown, moist, hard, very thin yellow brown dry to
x
xx moist silty zones
-
I
x
73 2
xx
x x
x
x - x
x
-
x
x
x
-250 -
x x
x
-
10-
x
x xx
- I 68 3
xx x x
x xx. x
Grayish brown to gray
—
—
x x
x x
x x
245 — x x
x
15— x
x
-
I 62 4
xx
x x Gray
Bottom of boring at 16.5 feet No groundwater observed
- No caving observed
Boring backfilled with cuttings 240 -
20-
235 -
NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER FIGURE k9 KL EINF E L D E R 2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009 64 PROJECT NO. 51-6062-01 LOG OF BORING 2
DATE DRILLED: 1/18/02 WATER DEPTH: 19 feet DRILLING COMPANY: Scott's Drilling DATE MEASURED: 01/1 8/2002 DRILLING METHOD: Ingersol Rand A-300/Cathead ELEVATION: 262'± MSL and Pulley
LOGGED BY: T. Weaver HOLE DIAMETER: 8" Hollow Stem Auger REVIEWED BY: R. Larson
Cl)
U,
,, z -
0 o SOIL DESCRIPTION
I- I
w
CI)
W Q = z AND W z --
< o_ > w
Z
CLASSIFICATION ZOZ
z
0
W >- 0 0 0
0
6 inches of asphalt concrete, 5 inches of sand base
FILL:
260 -
CLAY (CL), grayish brown, moist, 3/4" reddish brown sandstone
inclusion
PP-2.5 tsf 2
17 1 87 28
5-
255 -
PP--1.5 tsf Few rootlets, trace of siltston, higher sand content at bottom (top) 14 3
PP'3.25 tsf
10— (bottom)
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
250 -
x
x
XX SILTSTONE, gray, moist, weakly indurated
- x x Drilling tightened more difficult at 11 ft. to 11. 5 ft.
50/6" 4 x x
- x x x
15— x
Xx x x -
x x 245 - x x x x - . x
Sz - °" Grayish brown hematite. staining
Bottom of boring at 19 feet
20— No groundwater observed
No caving observed
- Boring backfilled with cuttings
240 -
1
NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER FIGURE k9 K L E I N F E L D E R 2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 I CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
PROJECT NO. 5 1-6062-01
J LOG OF BORING 3
S
1~
DATE DRILLED: 1/18/02 WATER DEPTH: None DRILLING COMPANY: Scott's Drilling DATE MEASURED: 01/18/2002 DRILLING METHOD: IngersoI Rand A-300/Cathead ELEVATION: 264'± MSL and Pulley
LOGGED BY: T. Weaver HOLE DIAMETER: 8" Hollow Stem Auger REVIEWED BY: R. Larson
CI). W -J
C,) LU
o SOIL DESCRIPTION = Q ui . LU
--
o o z -j
AND LU ir:1•_ Z _j U) W
a.a. CLASSIFICATION z I-.aC,)ui z 9e.
W (9 > U
0
- • 3.5 inches of asphalt concrete, 5 inches sand base X X
x
x
- - SANTIAGO FORMATION:
-
x
x SILTSTONE, tan, slightly moist, very stiff, some hematite staining, PP=4.5 tsf x x trace roots
33 1 x - 98 20
160 -
x
x
5— 2
xx
x x
x
—
x x
x x
x
- x
x x PP4.5tsf
I
x Grayish tan, hard 53. 3 xx
x
155 -
x
x
-
10—
XX
x
x
- x x
-. x
-
x
x x
I
x
-
-
Weakly to moderately indurated
-, 76 4 XX XX
150 -
x x
x
-
-
15— x x
x X.
x x — x .X X
-
x
-
50/3' I 5 XX
X X XX Driller noted harder drilling
x
145 Bottom of boring at 18.5 feet
No groundwater observed
20— No caving observed
Boring backfilled with cuttings
140 -
NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER FIGURE KL EINF ELDER 2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
PROJECT NO. 51-6062-01 LOG OF BORING 4
DATE DRILLED: 1/18/02 WATER DEPTH: None DRILLING COMPANY: Scott's Drilling DATE MEASURED: 01/18/2002 DRILLING METHOD: Ingersol Rand A-300/Cathead ELEVATION: 262'± MSL and Pulley
LOGGED BY: T. Weaver HOLE DIAMETER: 8" Hollow Stem Auger REVIEWED BY: R. Larson
Lu -J
Co
Ci)
-. z
W
o < SOIL DESCRIPTION
I-
2 w . 12 UJ 0 z 4,0
Z
-J
o AND W 0
z
-- '- I- EL > Lu 0 CL
I CL CLASSIFICATION 2
!ac,,W Lu a
W 0 >.
a a
3.5 inches of asphalt concrete, 5 inches of sand base (SM), brown, \moist
PP--2.2 tsf FILL:
260 27 CLAY (CL), gray, moist, very stiff 85 28
—
x 2
13 3 Stiff, trace of si1tone inclusions 1/4' to 1/2" diameter
81 31
255 - Reddish brown siltstone inclusions 1/8" to 1/4" diameter
— xx SANTIAGO FORMATION:
— x x
x x SJLTSTONE, gray, moist, weakly indurated, some hematite staining
I0 x
xx
— I 84 4
x x x x
2.50 - x x x
- x x -
x x x x x
15— x-x
•
- I U 50/6 5 XX
x
245 Bottom of boring at 16.5 feet
No groundwater observed
- No caving observed
Boring backfilled with cuttings
20-
240 —
NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER FIGURE kNj KL EINF E L D E R 2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
PR.OJECTNO. 51-6062-01 LOG OF BORING 5
S
DATE DRILLED: 1/18/02 WATER DEPTH: None DRILLING COMPANY: Scott's Drilling DATE MEASURED: 01/18/2002 DRILLING METHOD: Ingersol Rand A-300/Cathead ELEVATION: 263'± MSL and Pulley LOGGED BY: T. Weaver HOLE DIAMETER: 8" Hollow Stem Auger REVIEWED BY: R. Larson
cc LU -J a-
V.) LU
CD SOIL DESCRIPTION = 2 w
cc
O
Z -
AND LU
ui< CL 111 0 (L CLASSIFICATION cc LU Z
0
0 0
FILL:
CLAY (CL), light brown, slightly moist, with hard brown silt inclusions
260 -
" x SANTIAGO FORMATION:
lxx
xx x S1LTSTONE, moist, hard, hematite staining
5-- x x
- I 50/5" 2
x
- xx xx
- - Bottom of boring at 6.5. feet
No groundwater observed
755 - No caving observed
Boring backfilled with cuttings
10-
250 -
15-
245 -
20-
240
NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER FIGURE k9 NEW KL El NFE L D E R 2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
PROJECT NO. 5 1-6062-01 LOG OF BORING 6
DATE DRILLED: 1/18/02 WATER DEPTH: None DRILLING COMPANY. Scott's Drilling DATE MEASURED: 01/18/2002 DRILLING METHOD: Ingersol Rand A-300/Cathead ELEVATION: 259'± MSL and Pulley LOGGED BY: T. Weaver
HOLE DIAMETER: 8" Hollow Stem Auger REVIEWED BY: R. Larson
C,, LU -J 0
CD SOIL DESCRIPTION
I-
9 u III
C/) C- to
0 Z0 -J
AND F- Z j I- < >
z0 n. W
LIJ CLASSIFICATION S z '-
0 LU LU - j
co 0
oe.
Co co CD -j
.
.
O E 08
a
FILL:
SILTY SAND (SK, brown, moist, medium dense, fine to medium
-
. . grained, asphalt chunks, brown clay inclusion
—,
255 —
2 5—-- Bottom of boring at 5 feet — . No groundwater observed
No caving observed — S Boring backfihled with cuttings
250 —
10-
245 —
15-
240 —
20-
235 —
NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER FIGURE kI KLEINFELDER 2481 PALOMARAIRPORTROAD 5015 SHOREHAM PLACE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009 A9
Nk PROJECT NO. 51-6062-01 LOG OF BORING 7 f
[IJ
DYNAMIC
CONE SOUNDING
Page 1 of I
W:
E #:
ATION
DEPTH
FT M
0.3 0.1
0.7 0.2
1.0 0.3
1.3 0.4
1.6 0.5
2.0 06
2.3 0.7
2.6 0.8
3.0 0.9
3.3 1.0
3.6 1.1
3.9 1.2
4.3 1.3
4.6 1.4
4.9 1.5
5.2 1.6 .5.6 1.1
5.9 1.8
6.2 1.9
6.6 2.0
6.9 2.1
7.2 2.2
7.5 2.3
7.9 2.4
8.2 2.5
8.5 2.6
8.9 2.7
9.2 2.8
9.5 2.9
9.8 3.0
10.2 3.1
10.5 3.2
10.8 3.3
11.2 3.4
11.5 3.5
11.8 3.6
T. Weaver
C'
New North County Animal Shelter
Carlsbad, California
BLOWS RESISTANCE CONE RESISTANCE
PER 10 CM KG/CMA2 0 50 100 150
6 26.6 *****
4 17.8
13 57.7 ************
19 84.4 ****************
27 119.9 ***********************
28 124.3 s*****
35 155.4 *************************$*$
SURFACE ELEVATION N/A
WATER ON COMPLETION: N/A
HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 LBS.
CONE AREA: 10 SQ. CM
DATE PERFORMED: 1/18/01
TESTED CONSISTENCY
N' SAND SILT CLAY
7 LOOSE LOOSE MED,STIFF
5 LOOSE LOOSE MED.STIFF
16 MED. DENSE MED. DENSE VERY STIFF
24 MED. DENSE MED, DENSE VERY STIFF
- DENSE DENSE HARD
- DENSE DENSE HARD
• DENSE DENSE HARD
Notes: . I. A "-' in the N' column indicates an equivalent SF1 N' value greater than 25.
Sk" K LEt N FELD ER
5 015 SHORE HAM PLACE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122
PROJECT NO. 51-606201
CHECKED BY: TJW bATE: 1/18/02
DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING LOG
NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER
2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE
AIO
DYNAMIC
CONE SOUNDING
Page 1 of I
CREW: T. Weaver SURFACE ELEVATION N/A
HOLE #: C2 WATER ON COMPLETION: N/A
FOR: New North County Animal Shelter HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 LBS.
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California CONE AREA: 10 SQ. CM
DATE PERFORMED: 1/18/01
DEPTH BLOWS RESISTANCE CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY Fr M PER 10 CM KG/CM"2 0 50 100 150 N' SAND SILT CLAY
0.3 0.1 10 444 ******** 12 MED.DENSE MED.DENSE STIFF
0.7 0.2 30 133.2 **************'*******$****
- DENSE DENSE HARD
1.0 0.3 15 66.6 19 MED.DENSE MED.DENSE VERY STIFF
1.3 0.4 14 62.2 ****'* 17 MED.DENSE MED.DENSE VERY STIFF
1.6 0.5 14 62.2 **4"** 17 MED.DENSE MED.DENSE VERY STIFF
2.0 0.6 20 88.8 25 MED. DENSE MED.DENSE VERY STIFF
2.3 0.7 23 102.1 S****************$*
- MED.DENSE MED.DENSE VERY STIFF
2.6 0.8 28 1243 *****
- DENSE DENSE HARD
3.0 0.9 29 128.8 ************************* . DENSE DENSE HARD
3.3 1.0 25 111.0 *S***********$*$****
- DENSE DENSE HARD
3.6 1.1 28 108.1 **$$**************$** - DENSE DENSE HARD
3.9 1-2 30 115.8 - DENSE DENSE HARD
4.3 1.3
4.6 1.4
4.9 1.5
5.2 1.6
5.6 1.7
1.8
6.2 1.9
6.6 2.0
6.9 2.1
71 2.2
7.5 2.3
7.9 2.4
8.2 2.5
8.5 2.6
8.9 2.7
9.2 2.8
9.5 2.9
9.8 3.0
10.2 3.1
10.5 3.2
10.8 3.3
11.2 3.4
11.5 3.5
11.8 3.6
Notes: I. A '-" in the N column indicates an equivalent SPT N' value greater than 25.
Kn
5015 SHOREHAM PLACE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122
PROJECT NO. 51-606201
CHECKED BY: TJW IDATE 1/18/02
DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING LOG
NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER
2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT RD
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE
All
APPENDIX B
Laboratory Testing
S
ID KLEI NFELDER
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
GENERAL
Laboratory tests were performed on selected, representative samples as an aid in classifying the
soils and to evaluate physical properties of the soils which may affect foundation design and
construction procedures. A description of the laboratory testing program is presented below.
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST
One unconfined compression test was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 2166 to
measure the undrained compressive strength of a representative soil sample. Results of the
unconfined compression test are presented in Figure B 1. A soil penetrometer (pocket type) was
also used to measure the unconfined compression strength of selected clay samples. The soil
penetrometer was pushed directly into the soil and the unconfined compression was measured by
a calibrated spring. Results of these tests are presented on the test boring logs in Appendix A.
CHEMICAL REACTIVITY
A series of chemical reactivity tests were performed on one selected sample of the near-surface
soils to estimate pH, resistivity and sulfate and chloride contents. Our boring logs and these test
results should be reviewed by a qualified corrosion engineer to evaluate the general soil
stratigraphy corrosion potential with respect to construction materials; he should evaluate if
further testing is warranted. The test results are presented in Table B 1.
ATTERBERG LIMITS
An Atterberg limit test was performed one soil sample to aid in soil classification and to evaluate
the plasticity characteristics of the materials. Test procedures were in general accordance with
ASTM D 4318. Results of this test are summarized in Table B2.
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
Expansion Index testing was performed on a selected sample of the near-surface soils to evaluate
the expansion characteristics. The test was performed in accordance with Uniform Building
Code (TJBC) Standard 18-2. The results are presented on Table B3 and may be compared to the
table presented below to qualitatively evaluate the expansion potential of the near-surface site
soils.
C5I-60620115102R198.doc B-I March 7, 2002
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k9 K L E I N F E L D E R
R-VALUE TEST
A resistance value (R-value) test was performed on a representative bulk soil sample to evaluate
pavement support characteristics of the near-surface on-site soils. R-value testing was performed
in accordance with Caltrans Standard Test Method 301. The test results are presented in Table
B4.
TABLE Bi
CORROSION TEST RESULTS
..•.:.•. . I.:... 1)epth . . Sulfate : CJiloi1de Resistivity Sample . • . ee (ft) PH
.
..:
ppm
• .•
Boring 3 1-4 4.8 130
. ppm...ohm/cm
30 1740
TABLE B2
ATTERBERG LIMIT TEST RESULTS
DLpth Sample Soil Type Liquid.Limit Plastic Index
[ Boring 3 Clay (CL.) 1-4 44 24
C5I-606201/5102R198.doc B-2 March 7, 2002 Coçiyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFEDER
TABLE B3
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
r Saiiipk J)eptli
hXpanslon liiilt-'x Expaiiion
116teutial
Boring 3 1-4 90 Medium
TABLE B4
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
Sarnpe Soil Tvpt R-Value
Boring 34 Clay (CL) 1-4 14
0 C51-606201/5102R198.doc B-3 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Unconfined Compression Test
Boring B3 Sample I
3-4.5 feet
300
2500
2000
U) 1500
1000
me
iI
0 2 4 6 8 10
Axial Strain (%)
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2166-00
UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST FIGURE Nit '. 4n enploye c'wnedcompary NEW NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER
_______ 2481 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD B1
CHECKED BY: T. Weaver FN: LAB CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO,: C51-606201 DATE: 2122/02
0
APPENDIX C
Suggested Guidelines for
Earthwork Construction
IWTI K L E I N F E L D E R . APPENDIX C
SUGGESTED GUIDELINES FOR EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 Scope - The work done under theses specifications shall include clearing,
stripping, removal of unsuitable material, excavation, preparation of natural soils,
placement and compaction of on-site and imported fill material and placement and
compaction of pavement materials.
1.2 Contractor's Responsibility - The Contractor shall attentively examine the site
in such a manner that he can correlate existing surface conditions with those
presented in the geotechnical investigation report. He shall satisfy himself that the
quality and quantity of exposed materials and subsurface soil or rock deposits
have been satisfactorily represented by the Geotechnical Engineer's report and
project drawings. Any discrepancy of prior knowledge to the Contractor to that is
revealed through his investigations shall be made known to the Owner. It is the
Contractor's responsibility to review the report prior to construction. The
selection of equipment for use on the project and the order of the work shall
similarly be the Contractor's responsibility. The Contractor shall be responsible
for providing equipment capable of completing the requirements included in the
following sections.
1.3 Geotechnical Engineer - The work covered by these specifications shall be
observed and tested by Kleinfelder, the Geotechnical Engineer, who shall be hired
by the Owner. The Geotechnical Engineer will be present during the site
preparation and grading to observe the work and to perform the tests necessary to
evaluate material quality and compaction. The Geotechnical Engineer shall
submit a report to the Owner, including a tabulation of tests performed. The costs
of re-testing unsuitable work installed by the Contractors shall be deducted by the
Owner from the payments to the Contractor.
1.4 Standard Specifications - Where referred to in these specifications, "Standard
Specifications" shall mean the State of California Standard Specifications for Public
Works Construction, with Regional Supplement Amendments for San Diego
County, 2000 Edition.
S
C51-606201/5 102R198.doc C-I March 7, 2002
Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
k9 KLEI NFELDER
1.5 Compaction Test Method - Where referred to herein, relative compaction shall
mean the in-place dry density of soil expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry
density of the same material, as determined by the ASTM D1557 Compaction Test
Procedure. Optimum moisture content shall mean the moisture content at the
maximum dry density determined above.
2.0 SITE PREPARATION
2.1 Clearing - Areas to be graded shall be cleared and grubbed of all vegetation and
debris. These materials shall be removed from the site by the Contractor.
2.2 Stripping - Surface soils containing roots and organic matter shall be stripped from
areas to be graded and stockpiled or discarded as directed by the Owner. In general,
the depth of stripping of the topsoil will be approximately 3 inches. Deeper
stripping, where required to remove weak soils or accumulations of organic matter,
shall be performed when determined necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Stripped material shall be removed from the site or stockpiled at a location
designated by the Owner.
2.3 Removal of Existing Fill - Existing fill soils, trash and debris in the areas to be
graded shall be removed prior to the placing of any compacted fill. Portions of any
existing fills that are suitable for use in new compacted fill may be stockpiled for
future use. All organic materials, topsoil, expansive soils, oversized rock or other
unsuitable material shall be removed from the site by the Contractor or disposed of
at a location on-site, if so designated by the Owner.
2.4 Ground Surface - The ground surface exposed by stripping shall be scarified to a
depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to the proper moisture content for
compaction and compacted as required for compacted fill. Ground surface
preparation shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placing fill.
3.0 EXCAVATION
3.1 General - Excavations shall be made to the lines and grades indicated on the plans.
The data presented in the Geotechnical Engineer's report is for information only and
the Contractor shall make his own interpretation with regard to the methods and
equipment necessary to perform the excavation and to obtain material suitable for
fill.
C51-606201/5102R198.doc C-2 March 7, 2002
Copyright 2002 K)einfelder, Inc.
iE:i KI El NFELD ER
3.2 Materials - Soils which are removed and are unsuitable for fill shall be placed in
nonstructural areas of the project, or in deeper fills at locations designated by the
Geotechnical Engineer.
All oversize rocks and boulders that cannot be incorporated in the work by placing
in embankments or used as rip-rap or for other purposes shall be removed from the
site by the Contractor.
3.3 Treatment of Exposed Surface - The ground surface exposed by excavation shall
be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture conditioned to the proper moisture
content for compaction and compacted as required for compacted fill. Compaction
shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placing fill.
3.4 Rock Excavation - Where solid rock is encountered in areas to be excavated, it
shall be loosened and broken up so that no solid ribs, projections or large fragments
will be within 6 inches of the surface of the final subgrade.
4.0 COMPACTED FILL
4.1 Materials - Fill material shall consist of suitable on-site or imported soil. All
materials used for structural fill shall be reasonably free of organic material, have a
Expansion Index of 20 or less, 100% passing the 3 inch sieve and less than 30%
passing the #200 sieve.
4.2 Placement - All fill materials shall be placed in layers of 8 inches or less in loose
thickness and uniformly moisture conditioned. Each lift should then be compacted
with a sheepsfoot roller or other approved compaction equipment to at least 90%
relative compaction in areas under structures, utilities, roadways and parking areas.
No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled while it is frozen or thawing, or
during unfavorable weather conditions.
4.3 Compaction Equipment - The Contractor shall provide and use sufficient
equipment of a type and weight suitable for the conditions encountered in the field.
The equipment shall be capable of obtaining the required compaction in all areas.
4.4 Recompaction - When, in the judgment of the Geotechnical Engineer, sufficient
compactive effort has not been used, or where the field density tests indicate that the
required compaction or moisture content has not been obtained, or if pumping or
C51-606201/5102R I 98.doc C-3 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
I1 KIEINFELDER
other indications of instability are noted, the fill shall be reworked and recompacted
as needed to obtain a stable fill at the required density and moisture content before
additional fill is placed.
4.5 Responsibility - The Contractor shall be responsible for the maintenance and
protection of all embankments and fills made during the contract period and shall
bear the expense of replacing any portion which has become displaced due to
carelessness, negligent work or failure to take proper precautions.
5.0 UTILITY TRENCH BEDDING AND BACKFILL
5.1 Material - Pipe bedding shall be defined as all material within 4 inches of the
perimeter and 12 inches over the top of the pipe. Material for use as bedding shall
be clean sand, gravel, crushed aggregate or native free-draining material, having a
Sand Equivalent of not less than 30.
Backfill should be classified as all material within the remainder of the trench.
Backfill shall meet the requirements set forth in Section 8.6.1 for compacted fill.
5.2 Placement and Compaction - Pipe bedding shall be placed in layers not exceeding
8 inches in loose thickness, conditioned to the proper moisture content for
compaction and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction. All other trench
backfill shall be placed and compacted in accordance with Section 306-1.3.2 of the
Standard Specifications for Mechanically Compacted Backfill. Backfill shall be
compacted as required for adjacent fill. If not specified, backfill shall be compacted
to at least 90% relative compaction in areas under structures, utilities, roadways,
parking areas and concrete fiatwork.
6.0 SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE
6.1 General - Subsurface drainage shall be constructed as shown on the plans.
Drainage pipe shall meet the requirements set forth in the Standard Specifications.
6.2 Materials - Permeable drain rock used for subdrainage shall meet the following
gradation requirements:
C51-606201/5102R198doc C-4 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
II K L E I N F E L D E R
Sieve Size Percentage Passing
3!' 100
1-1/2" 90-100
3/4" 50 -80
No.4 24-40
No. 100 0-4
No. 200 0-2
6.3 Geotextile Fabric - Filter fabric shall be placed between the permeable drain rock
and native soils. Filter cloth shall have an equivalent opening size greater than the
No. 100 sieve and a grab strength not less than 100 pounds. Samples of filter fabric
shall be submitted to the Geotecbriical Engineer for approval before the material is
brought to the site.
6.4 Placement and Compaction - Drain rock shall be placed in layers not exceeding g
inches in loose thickness and compacted as required for adjacent fill, but in no case,
to be less than 85% relative compaction. Placement of geotextile fabric shall be in
accordance with the manufacturer's specifications and shall be checked by the
Geotechnical Engineer.
7.0 AGGREGATE BASE BENEATH CONCRETE SLABS
7.1 Materials - Aggregate base beneath 'concrete slabs shall consist of clean free-
draining sand, gravel or crushed rock conforming to the following gradation
requirements:
Sieve Size Percent Passing
1" 100
3/8" 30 -100
No. 20 0- 10
7.2 Placement - Aggregate base shall be compacted and kept moist until placement of
concrete. Compaction shall be by suitable vibrating compactors. Aggregate base
shall be placed in layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Each layer shall
be compacted by at least four passes of the compaction equipment or until 95%
relative compaction has been obtained.
C51-606201/5102R198.doc C5 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.
APPENDIX D
ASFE Insert
0
Aeolechnincol Engineering Report--
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the spe-
cific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study con-
ducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construc-
tion contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geot-
echnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engi-
neering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one
except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report
without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who pre-
pared it. And no one—not even you—should apply the report for
any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated.
A Geotechnical Engineering Report Is Based on
A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-spe-
cific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors
include: the client's goals, objectives, and risk management pref-
erences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and
configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other
planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads,
parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical
engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates other-
wise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
not prepared for you,
not prepared for your project,
not prepared for the specific site explored, or
completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing
geotechnical engineering report include those that affect:
the function of the proposed structure, as when
it's changed from a parking garage to an office
building, or from a light industrial plant to a
refrigerated warehouse,
elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or
weight of the proposed structure,
composition of the design team, or
project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer
of project changes—even minor ones—and request an
assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot
accept responsibility or liability fOr problems that occur
because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed.
Subsurface ConditiOns Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that
existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a
geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have
been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events,
such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural
events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before apply-
ing the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount
of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are
Professional Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those
points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are
taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data
and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion
about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sub-
surface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly—from
those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engi-
neer who developed your report to provide construction obser-
vation is the most effective method of managing the risks asso-
ciated with unanticipated conditions.
AReport's Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included
in your report. Those recommendations are not final, because
geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgment
and opinion. Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recom-
mendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions
revealed during construction. The geotechnical engineer who
developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for
the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geolechnical Engifleeping Report Is Sect
To misintepppetation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical
engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower
that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with
appropriate members of the design team after submitting the
report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications.
Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering
report. Reduce that risk by having your geotechnical engineer
participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by
providing construction observation.
Do Not Redraw the Engineep's Legs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs
based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory
data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a
geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for
inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photo-
graphic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give comipactops e Complete
Report and Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they
can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface condi-
tions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help
prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotech-
nical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written let-
ter of transmittal. In that letter, advise contractors that the report
was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the
geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee
may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain
the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid
conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have suffi-
cient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in
a position to give contractors the best information available to
you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial
responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Pruvens Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not
recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than
other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has
created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappoint-
ments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce such risks, geot-
echnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory
provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled "limitations",
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engi-
neers responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize
their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions
closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should
respond fully and frankly.
Geoenv1ponmental Ceceres Are Net Cevere
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a
geoenvironmental study differ significantly from those used to
perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical
engineering report does not usually relate any geoenvironmen-
tal findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the
likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regu-
lated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have
led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obtained
your own geoenvironmental information, ask your geotechnical
consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an
environmental report prepared for someone else.
Rely on Your Geolechnical Eeeer fop
Additional Assistance
Membership in ASFE exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide
array of risk management techniques that can be of genuine ben-
efit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with
your ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
n
ASFE
8811 Colesville Road Suite G106 Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: 301-565-2733 Facsimile: 301-589-2017
email: info@asfe.org www.asfe.org
Copyright 2000 by ASFE. Inc. Unless ASFE grants written permission to do so, duplication of this document by any
m
e
a
n
s
w
h
a
t
s
o
e
v
e
r
I
s
e
x
p
r
e
s
s
l
y
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
.
Re-Use of the wording in this document, in whole or in part, also Is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the ex
p
r
e
s
s
p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
A
S
F
E
o
r
f
o
r
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
of review or scholarly research.
tIGER 1000.10M
APPENDIX E
Application For Authorization To Use
0
I1 KLEINFEIDER
APPLICATION FOR AUTHORIZATION TO USE
Geotechnical Investigation
New North County Animal Shelter
2481 Palomar Airport Road
Carlsbad, California 92007
March 7, 2002
TO: Kleinfelder, Inc.
5015 Shoreham Place
San Diego, CA 92122
FROM:
Applicant hereby applies for permission to:
(state the exact use(s) contemplated)
for the purpose(s) of.-
Applicant understands and agrees that subject Document is a copyrighted document, that
Kleinfelder is the copyright owner and that unauthorized use or copying of subject Document is
strictly prohibited without the express written permission of Kleinfelder. Applicant understand
s
that Kleinfelder may withhold such permission at its sole discretion, or grant such permission
upon such terms and conditions as it deems acceptable, such as the payment of a re-use fee.
Signed Date
Company Title
Is C51-606201!5102R198.doc E-1 March 7, 2002 Copyright 2002 Kleinfelder, Inc.