HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 260C; PALOMAR TRANSFER STATION; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT; 2006-04-05~; ~-:.: ·:·;~~,.,
·-~J-
RECEIVED
OCT 2 5 2011
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DIVISION
• • • • . ---:-, )
• • •
•-• • • •-• • ., • • • •
•• • • •c .,
• ·--i \ /
•••
• • • • • • •-• • • • • • • • • • • •
•., . • • • • •
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Orion.Street and Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California
Prepared For:
Riha Construction
8173 Commercial Street
Carlsbad, CA 91942
Converse Project No. 06-32-110-01
April 5, 2006
• • • • .,
• 1
• I • • • • • • • • • •·'.
•• • • •· • • • • e:
.(
··•.;~--) ., • • •• • •· • • • •·
•-•: •
•-• • • • . , • • • • • • •• •
:c.o-nve-rse ·Co·n,s.ultants
Over SO Years of Dedication in Geotechnical Engineering-and Environmental.Sciences
April 5, 2006
Mr. Kenneth Riha
Riha Construction Co .
8173 Commercial Street
La Mesa, CA 91942
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REPORT
Improvements to the Palomar Transfer Station
Orion-Street and Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, California
Converse Project No. 06-32-110-01
Dear Mr. Riha: .
Converse Consultants (Converse) has prepared this report presenting the results of our
geotechnical investigation for the proposed improvements to the Palomar Transfer
.:station in the City of-Carlsbad, California. This report was prepared in accordance with
our proposal dated February 17, 2006 and Professional Services Consultant Agreement
. dated.March .7, 2006 .
We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to Riha Construction Co. If you
have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at (714) 444-9660 .
CONVERSE CONSULTANTS
~-----v-· r
William H. Chu, G. E.
Senior Vice President/Principal Engineer
Dist.: 5/Addressee
KN/WHC/dlr
185 East Paularino Avenue, Suite B, Costa Mesa, California 92626
Telephone: (714) 444-9660 ❖• Facsimile: (714) 444-9640 'I>' e-mail: costamesa@converseconsultants.com
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Geotechnlcal Investigation-Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
April 5,.2006
Page ii
The following is a summary of our geotechnical investigation, conclusions and
recommendations, as presented in the body of this report. Please refer to the appropriate
sections of the report for complete conclusions and recommendations. In the event of a
conflict between this summary and the report, or an omission in the summary, the report
shall prevail.
• The proposed improvement to the existing Palomar Transfer Station is located at
5960 EI Camino Real, Carlsbad, California. -·
• The project consists of an addition to the existing 15uilding, new Truck Scale and scale
building, parking areas and driveways. All the improvements will likely to be
constructed at or near grade.
• The site grading and design recommendations provided in this report are based on our
understanding of the project, experience with similar projects in the area, and the
results of our investigation and laboratory testing.
• The field investigation consisted of a field exploration performed on March 9, 2006
including drilling nine (9) exploratory borings (BH-1 through BH-9) within the project
site.
• Based on the current exploration borings BH-1 through BH-9, the site for the
proposed improvement consists of five (5) to seven (7) feet of fill. The fills soils
encountered in the boring are believed to have been derived from the original
grading of the site. Underneath the fill, sedimentary bedrock was encountered in our
borings.
• Groundwater was not encountered in the borings (BH-1 through BH-9) drilled to a
depth ranging from 6.5 to 24.5 feet below ground surface (bgs ). Based on the
available well data, the recorded highest groundwater table is reported to be 10 feet
below ground surface.
• There are no known active faulfs projecting toward or extending across the proposed
project site. The site is not situated within any currently designated Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zone of California. The site is, however, located in a seismically
active zone. Ground shaking from earthquakes associated with nearby and distant
faults may occur during the lifetime of the project. The nearest Type B fault to the site
is the Rose Canyon Fault located about 7.0 miles (11.2 km) from the site. Due to
relatively close proximity of the project site to this fault and other adjacent faults there is
a high probability of strong shaking at the site during a strong seismic event. However,
the potential for ground surface rupture is considered remote.
~; Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBF!LE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
Geotechnical Investigation Report
lmprovements·to PalomarTransfer.Station
Carlsbad, California
April5,2006
Page.iii
• In accordance with Table 16-J of the California Building Code (CBC, 2001), ·the
geologic subgrade classification will be Sc. The site seismic design coefficients in
accordance with Tables 16-Q through 16-T are:
Na=1.0
Nv=1.0
Ca=0.44
Cv=0.56
·• The potential of seismic hazards due to the secondary effects of earthquakes
including surface fault rupture, seismically induced differential settlement, lateral
spreading, and earthquake induced flooding is considered to be low but based on
the topography of the site, the potential of seismic induced landslide is considered to
be moderate to "low. Based on the site location arid elevation, tsunamis and seiches
pose a very low hazard to the project site.
• Site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction under earthquake ground shaking.
• Laboratory tests conducted on representative soil samples indicated the expansion
potential of the site soils is low (El=40).
• Based _on the corrosivity test results, the site soils are considered to be negligible to
concrete. Therefore, Type I or II Portland cement is recommended. Electrical
resistivity test results indicate that the site soils are severally corrosive to ferrous
metals.
• Earth materials at the site should be excavatable with conventional heavy-duty earth
moving equipment. '
•· Based on the materials encountered in the exploratory borings, temporary excavations
for a short period of time, may be supported using shoring or constructed vertical up to
an excavation depth of four (4) feet, at 1 :1 horizontal: vertical (H:V) slope for
excavations from four (4) feet to ten (10) feet. •
• All trench backfill should be compacted to a m1rnmum relative compaction of 90
percent as per ASTM Standard P1557 test method .
•
tl · e, ti , ~ <!l ,. , . The compacted fill should
exten a e ) feet aterally or to the maximum extent possible. Alternatively, it
may be supported on drilled cast-in-place piles .
• , The new Truck Scale may be supported on mat foundation founded all on firm and
unyielding bedrock or at least two (2) feet of properly compacted fill below the bottom
@: Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFllE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
• • • • •·· et • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • •r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . \ • • • • • •
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
April 5, 2006
Page iv
of foundations. The compacted fill should extend at least five (5) feet laterally or-to the
maximum extent possible .
•• Shallow footings such as conventional isolated spread footings for the proposed
Transfer Station , , ·en f0om1i~~~~.ffiils shall be setback from
the descending s ope o a distance equal to one third of the height of the slope. If the
drilled cast-in-place piles are used to support the building, then the upper five (5) feet of
soils should not be considered for the vertical and the lateral capacities .
·• Spread footings for the Transfer Station addition, founded on bedrock or properly--
compacted fill may be designed based on an allowable net bearing capacity of 4,000
pounds per square foot (psf). Alternatively, the drill piles with allowable skin friction of
300 psf driving from the bedrock may be used for the design .
• All undocumented fill soils at the new Scale Building and the new Truck Scale area
should be removed and replaced as compacted fill. Subgrade soil surfaces that will
receive compacted fill shall be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches and the
scarified on site soils shall be moisture-conditioned to 120 percent of optimum moisture
content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. The fill
materials placed on scarified and compacted soils should be compacted to 90 percent
relative compaction.
• • Footings founded on compacted fill, and placed at a depth 24 inches below lowest
adjacent grade with at least 18 inches wide, may be designed based on an allowable
net bearing capacity of 2,500 psf. The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by
500 psf for each foot of additional embedment depth and 250 psf for each foot of
additional width, but should not exceed 4,000 psf .
• Resistance to lateral loads and lateral bearing capacity may be provided by the
passive earth pressures and frictional resistance at the base of the footing. A
coefficient of friction of 0.35 between concrete and soil may be used with the dead load
forces. An allowable passive earth pressure of 300 psf per foot of footing depth may
be used for compacted soil. The passive resistance should be limited to a maximum of
2,500 psf .
Based on our investigation, we believe that the project site is suitable for the proposed
development, provided the findings and conclusions presented in this geotechnical
investigation report are considered in the planning, design and construction of the
project.
~\ Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
• • • • •.. •
.( • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •· • • • •(
•• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . ( • • • • • •
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
AprilS,2O06
Pagev
·PROFESSIONAL-CERTIFICATION
This report has been prepared by·the staff of Converse Consultants under the professional
supervision of the following professionals whose seals and signatures appear hereon .
The findings, recommendations, specifications and professional opinions contained in this
report were prepared in accordance with the generally accepted professional engineering
and engineering geologic principle and pradice in this area of Southern California. We
make no other warranty, either expressed or implied .
Krishnamenon Nadaraja, P .E.
Project Engineer
~~ Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32116-01_gir.doc
Mar Schluter, C.E.G.
S ior Engineering Geologist
.-:; ~. H[;; ..
• Q:-'° ,>-•
"C" No. 1415 ~
CERTIFIED
ENGINEERING
•. GEOLOGIST •• • . . .,. .
q O ••
• • • • • e( • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ./
.\ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I • • • • • •
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Geotechnical Investigation-Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
April 5, 2006
Page vi
~1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................... 1
·3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION .. u ......................................................................................... 1
4.0 SCOPE OF WORK ........................ -....................................................................... 1
5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ..................................... 2
5.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................... : ............................................. 2
5.2 LABORATORY TESTING ......................................................................................... 2
6.0 SITE CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... .; ............ 3
6.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING ............................................................................................. 3
6.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............... ··············· ..................................................... 4
6.3 EXCAVATABILITY .................................................................................................. 5
6.4 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS ...................................................... 5
6.5 SOIL CORROSIVITY EVALUATION ........................................................................... 6
7.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY .............................................................................. 7
7.1 FAULTING ............................................................................................................ 7
7.2 SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS ........................................................................................ 7
7.3 SECONDARY EFFECTS OF SEISMIC ACTIVITY .......................................................... 8
8.0 EARTHWORK/SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 9
8.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................ 9
8.2 SUBGRADE PREPARATION ·········•·········· ................................................................ 9
8.3 OVER-EXCAVATION/REMOVAL FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING TRANSFER STATION
BUILDING AND NEW SCALE BUILDING ................................................................... 10
8.4 OVER-EXCAVATION/REMOVAL FOR NEW TRUCK SCALE ......................................... 10
8.5 OVER-EXCAVATION/REMOVAL FOR CONCRETE FLAT WORK AND PAVING AREAS ..... 11
8.6 EXPANSIVE SOIL MITIGATION .............................................................................. 11
8.7 STRUCTURAL BACKFILL ............ ::. ......................................................................... 11
8.7.1 C0MPACTI0N ..................................................................................................... 12
8.7.2 SHRINKAGE ....................................................................................................... 12
8.8 SITE DRAINAGE .................................................................................................. 13
8.9 PAVING ............................................................................................................. 13
8.10 UTILITIES ........................................................................................................... 14
9.o· DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS ................... ■u••······· .. 14
9.1 GENERAL EVALUATION ....................................................................................... 14
9.2 SPREAD FOOTING DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................................. 15
$•, ~onverse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
• • • • •1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • ••
.( \
., • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • ! • • • • • •
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar-Transfer Station
cansbad, California
April 5, 2006
Page vii
9.3 .DRILLED CAST IN PLACE PILES ............................................................................ 16
9.4 MAT FOUNDATION···················································"···· ••••••••••••••••••.•.•.••.••.••••.•.. 17
9.5 RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS ......................................................................... 17
9.4 SLABS-ON-GRADE .............................................................................................. 17
9.5 TEMPORARY SLOPED ExCAVATIONS .................................................................... 19
10.0 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION ............................... 20
11.0 CLOSURE .......................................................................................................... 20
12.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 22
FIGURES
Following Page No .
Figure No. 1, Site and Boring Location Plan ................................................................. 1
APPENDICES
Appendix A ......................................................................................... Field Exploration
Appendix B .............................................................. : ........... .Laboratory Testing Program
Appendix C ............................................................................... Earthwork Specifications
@ 1
~onverse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
April5,2006
Page 1
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation performed for the
improvement to the existing Palomar Transfer Station in the City of Carlsbad, California.
The approximate location of the site is shown in the vicinity map on Figure No. 1, Site and
Boring Location Plan.
The purposes of this investigation were to determine the nature and engineering
properties of the subsurface soils and to provide recommendations for site earthworfs and
design and construction of foundations for proposed improvements.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Based on the information provided to our office, it is our understanding that the
proposed project includes construction of an addition to the existing Transfer Station
Building, new Truck Scale and Scale Building, parking areas and driveways. All the
improvements will likely to be constructed at or near grade.
The site grading and design recommendations provided in this report are based on our
understanding of the project, experience with similar projects in the area, and the results of
our investigation and laboratory testing.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The existing Palomar Transfer Station is a Waste Management Facility, located at 5960
El Camino Real in the City of Carlsbad, California. It is noted that the location of the
proposed addition is currently vacant. The new Truck Scale and new Scale Building are
currently used by the old truck scale and the existing scale building. The proposed truck
parking area is currently used as container storage area.
The ground surface elevation varies from 325' MSL (Mean Sea Level) at the north and
north westerly side, 31 0' MSL at existing Truck Scale area and the Transfer Station
Building and about 300' MSL at truck loading area.
4.0 SCOPE OF WORK
The scope of this investigation includes the following tasks: (1) review the project
information and available data for the proposed structures, (2) obtain information on the
subsurface conditions within the project area, (3) evaluate the data, and (4) provide
conclusions and recommendations for the foundation design and construction of the
proposed improvements considering current building codes, from a geotechnical
standpoint:
To accomplish these objectives, we:
~ W· Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
• • • •
:( • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • .( . ) • • : • : •. •• • • • • • • • • • • •· e1 __ • •• • •• •
Geotechnical Investigation'· Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
Apri15,2006
Rage_.2
1. Collected and reviewed the available project data, and previous reports in the
site vicinity .
2. Performed a site reconnaissance of the e~isting conditions .
3. Prepared an exploration program for the project.
4. Engaged a contractor to perform test borings, and logged the borings .
5. Performed laboratory tests to aid in classification of the materials sampled and to
obtain data on their engineering properties .
6. Correlated, interpreted, analyzed, and evaluated the data obtained .
7. Prepared this report to present our conclusions and recommendations .
5.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
5.1 Field Exploration
The field exploration, consisting of drilling nine (9) soil borings, was performed on March 9
2006. An engineer visually logged the subsurface conditions encountered in the
exploratory borings at the time of drilling and collected soil samples. A more detailed
description of the field exploration procedures and the Logs of Borings are presented in
Appendix A, Field Exploration. The approximate locations of the borings are shown in
Figure No. 1, Site and Boring Location Plan .
A total of nine (9) borings (BH-1 through BH-9) were drilled for the project. The depths of
the borings ranged from 6.5 to 24.5 feet below existing ground surface (bgs). The
exploratory borings were advanced using an 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger drill rig .
The drilling was terminated when the refusal of drilling encountered due to bedrock
formation.
Relatively undisturbed ring and disturbed bulk samples of the subsurface materials were
obtained from the borings at selected intervals for the purpose of laboratory testing .
5.2 Laboratory Testing ~
Representative samples of the site soils were tested in the laboratory to aid in the soils
classification and to evaluate the relevant engineering properties of the site soils. These
tests included:
., In-situ moisture content and dry density (ASTM Standard D2216) •
., Grain size analysis (ASTM Standard 0422)
.,_ Percent passing sieve No. 200 (ASTM Standard 01140)
•· Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content (ASTM Standard· D1557)
~-~-Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
·• Collapse (ASTM Standard D5333)
• Direct shear (ASTM Standard 03080)
-• Expansion index (ASTM Standard D4829)
• Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)
• R-Value (ASTM D2844)
Geotechnfcal Investigation· Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
April 5, 2006
Page3
• Soil corrosivity (California test 643 and ASTM D512, 0156 and G57)
For a description of the laboratory test methods and test results, see Appendix B,
Laboratory Testing Program. For in-situ moisture and dry density data, see the Logs of
Borings in Appendix A, Field Exploration. •
6.0 SITE CONDITIONS
A general description of the subsurface conditions and various materials encountered
during our field exploration at the site are presented in this section.
6.1 Geologic Setting
Geologic Setting
The project site lies along the central coastal margin of the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province of California. Some interpretations of the western boundary for
the Peninsular Ranges extend westward beyond the present-day coastline into the
offshore continental shelf. The Peninsular Ranges province is characterized by
northwest trending valleys and mountain ranges, which have formed in response to the
regional tectonic forces along the boundary between the Pacific and North American
tectonic plates. The geologic structure is dominated by northwest trending right-lateral
faults, most notable, the San Andreas Fault, San Jacinto Fault, Elsinore Fault and
Newport-Inglewood Fault. This Province extends southward from the Transverse
Ranges at the north end of the Los Angeles basin to the southern tip of the Baja
California peninsula.
The coastal margin of the Peninsufar Ranges has undergone coastal erosion during the
past 1 million years (Holocene and Pleistocene Epochs). Marine erosion and wave
action has cut terraces into the coastal margin. The width of the terraces was a function
of the lengths of stable geologic time periods. These periods of stability. were also
influenced by sea level fluctuations during glacial advances and retreats and vertical
tectonic movement. Generally, the longer the stable time interval the wider the resulting
terrace. Once the terrace platforms were elevated by emergent tectonic uplift or glacial
sea level changes beyond the reach of the sea, continental erosion and mass wasting.
processes took over and gradually altered them.
~.
w· converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to P.alomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
April5,2006
Page-4
During the final Pleistocene glacial stage (about 14 to 16 thousand years ago), the sea
level was lowered about.200-300 feet. This forced streams crossing the terraces to cut
deep gullies and canyons into the terrace platforms and readjust to the new base sea
levels. The amount of down cutting and width of the channel or valley was dependent
on the size of the stream tributary or river. As the continental ice sheets melted and the
postglacial sea levels rose, the lower ends of the channel~ and.valleys were flooded by
the rising ocean and filled with sediments from stream deposition and shoreline
processes. The channels mouths were gradually filled with continental alluvial deposits
to form the present day features.
The plant site is located on the coastal plain north of.Palomar Airport Road and east of
El Camino Real. The underlying sediments consist mostly of fine grained fill soils
placed during previous site grading and natural soils. Natural bedrock materials
composed of elastic sedimentary rock formations of marine and nonmarine origin were
encountered beneath the fills. These bedrock units consist of gravel, cobble and
boulder size conglomerates with thin lenses of sandstone, siltstone and claystone.
These bedrock units are reported to comprise the Lusardi Formation on of the Upper
Cretaceous Rosario Group.
The project site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone of California. No faults with evidence of surface rupture are known to project
through or towards the plant site. The site is located along the coastal margin between
the active Elsinore Fault and the offshore Newport-Inglewood Fault.
6.2 Subsurface Conditions
6.2.1 Subsurface Profile
Based on the current exploration borings BH-1 through BH-9, the site for the proposed
improvement consists of five (5) to seven (7) feet of fill. The· fill soils encountered in our
exploratory borings consist of silty sand, clayey sand, and clay. The fill is likely to have
been derived from the original grading of the site. The documentation (The report by
Vinje and Middleton Engineering, Inc. entitled "Limited Soil and Foundation Study,
Proposed Recycling and Building Expansions, ADJ Sorting Facility, 5960 El Camino
Real, Carlsbad, California", dated ~March 23, 1995) provided to our office for review at
the time this report was prepared is not adequate to determine that the fill soils were
placed as engineered fill.
Underneath the fill, bedrock consists of sedimentary rock formations consist of
sandstone and claystone broken in to silty _sand, silt, clayey sand, clay with sand and
clay with elastic rock materials (gravels, cobbles and boulders) encountered to the
maximum explored depth of 24.5 feet.
~. w· Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
• • • • •. -
e( • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • •< •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •(· • •• • • • •
6.2.2 Groundwater
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
Apri15,.2006
·Pages
Groundwater was not encountered in the exploratory borings drilled to the maximum
depth of 24.5 feet below ground surface. Based on the available well data, the recorded
highest groundwater table is reported to be 10 feet below ground surface. It should be
noted that the site is on elevated terrace and the groundwater may be higher than the
reported depth below surface .
6.2.3 Subsurface Variations
..
Based on results of the subsurface exploration and our experience, some variations in the
continuity and nature of subsurface conditions within the project site should be anticipated .
Because of the uncertainties involved in the nature and depositional characteristics of the
earth material at the site, care should be exercised in interpolating or extrapolating
subsurface conditions between or beyond the boring locations .
6.3 . Excavatability
The fill and native materials encountered in the exploration are generally dense to very
dense. It is our opinion that the earth materials at the site can be excavated by
conventional heavy-duty earth moving and trenching equipments .
6.4 Summary of Laboratory Testing Results
Laboratory testing was performed to determine the physical characteristics and
engineering properties of the subsurface soils. Discussion on the various test results is
presented below:
• In-situ Moisture and Dry Density -Results of in-situ moisture and dry density tests
are presented on the Logs of Borings in Appendix A, Field Exploration. In-situ dry
density and moisture content of the site soil ranged from 92 to 118 pounds per cubic
feet (pcf) and 6.5 to 25.0 percent, respectively .
~
• Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content -Typical moisture-density
relationships of the representative near surface soil is presented in Drawing No. 8-3,
Moisture-Density Relationship Results, in Appendix 8, Laboratory Testing Program .
The laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the sample
tested was 129.0 pounds per cubic feet (pcf) at 9.5 percent moisture content.
•· Direct Shear -Results of direct shear test are presented in Drawings No. B-5 and
8-6, Direct Shear Test Results, in Appendix B, Laboratory. Testing Program. The
results indicate that the site· soils have moderate shear strength .
~i ~r Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFlLE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
Geotechnical Investigation-Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, Callfomla
April·5, 2006
Page,6
·• Expansion Index -Representative samples from ·the upper five (5) ·feet of the site
soils were tested to evaluate Expansion Index (El) in accordance with the California
Building Code (CBC, 2001) Standard. Test results are included in Appendix 8,
Laboratory Testing Program. The value of the measured El was found to be 40.
This value of EI indicates that the site soils have low expansion potential.
• Consolidation -Results of Consolidation test is presented in Drawings No. 8-4,
Consolidation Test Results, in Appendix 8, Laboratory Testing Program. The results
indicate that the site clayey soils have slightly to moderately compressible.
• R -Value -Results of R -Value test is presente'1 in Table No. 8-4, R -Value Test
Results, in Appendix 8, Laboratory Testing Program. The results indicate that the
subsurface sandy soils have low soil resistance to penetration.
6.5 Soil Corrosivity Evaluation
Laboratory tests were performed by EGL, Inc. at Santa Fe Spring, California on
selected soil sample from Boring BH-7 at depths between 0.0 to 5.0 feet to make a
preliminary assessment of the soil corrosion potential. The test results ( sulfate and
chlorides content, resistivity and pH) are summarized in Appendix 8, Laboratory Testing
Program.
Test results on the selected sample indicated sulfate concentration of 0.011 percentage
by weight. Soils with sulfate concentration less than 0.1 percentage by weight are
generally reported to have a negligible corrosive effect on foundation concrete. Type I
or Type II Portland cement may be used for concrete in contact with these soils. This
should be confirmed by additional testing during or upon completion of site grading.
Laboratory tests ( soluble chlorides, pH and resistivity) indicated that the site soils are
severely corrosive to metallic installations. Consideration may be given to retaining a
corrosion engineer to more thoroughly evaluate the corrosion potential of any proposed
subsurface piping or other metallic installation.
Some general, conventional corrosion mitigation measures include the following:
• All steel reinforcement should have at least three (3) inches of concrete cover
where cast against soil, unformed.
•-As a minimum, below-grade ferrous metal should be given a high-quality
protective coating, such as 18-mil plastic tape, extruded polyethylene, coal-tar
enamel or Portland cement mortar.
Below-grade metals should be electrically insulated (isolated) from_ above-grade metals
by means of dielectric fittings in ferrous utilities and/or exposed metal structures
breaking grade.
~)'s Converse Consultants.
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
Apn15,2006
Page 7
7.0 FAULTING AND·SEISMICITY
7. 1 Faulting
There are no known active faults projecting toward or extending across the project site.
The site is not situated within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone of California .
The site is situated within the seismically active region of southern California. Although
there are no documented active faults projecting towards or transecting the site, there
are a number of nearby faults, which could produce significant ground shaking at the
site during a major earthquake. The project site is located within close proximity of
·Several active faults. The closest active type B fault to the site is the Rose Canyon
Fault, which is mapp~d approxima~ely 7 .0 miles ( 11.2 km) southwest of the site.
Earthquake intensities will vary throughout southern California, depending upon the
magnitude of the earthquake, the distance of the site from the causative fault, and the
type of materials underlying the site. The site will probably be subjected to at least one
moderate to severe earthquake during its design life that will cause strong ground
shaking.
Based on our analysis the site could be subjected to a peak ground acceleration of
about 0.30g (Alluvium/Bedrock Condition) with a 10 percent probability of exceedance
in 50 years. A magnitude of 6.9 was noted as the predominant earthquake that
contributes most to the hazard at 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years on
the alluvial site condition.
7.2 Seismic Coefficients
The site is located within Seismic Zone 4 in accordance with the California Building
Code (200.1 CBC). Based on the results of our borings, laboratory testing, and in
accordance with CBC, the site should be considered as having a Sc profile. The
following seismic coefficients are considered appropriate for analysis:
Seismic Zone Factor, Z ........................................ 0.40
Nearest Fault.. ............................. Rose Canyon Fault
Distance to the Fault. ................................... 11.2 km
Soil Profile Type ................................................... Sc
Seismic Source Type......... .. . . . .. ... . .. .. .. .. . . .. .... . . .. .. .... B
Seismic Coefficient, Na .......................................... 1.0
Seismic Coefficient, Nv .......................................... 1.1
Seismic Coefficient, Ca ........................................ 0.44
Seismic Coefficient, Cv ...................................... 0.56"
~-W' Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFlLE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
• • • •
•.( • •· •· • • • • •• •· • ., • ••
•! • ••
•·'
.l
•;·
e; •c •i-·
.i • •i:
•.. , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .\ • • • • • •
\
J _,.
7.3 Secondary Effects of Seismic Activity
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
Apri15,2006
PageB
In addition to ground shaking, effects of seismic activity on a project site may include
surface fault rupture, soil liquefaction, and seismically induced differential settlement of
structures; ground lurching, landsliding, lateral spreading, earthquake-induced flooding,
seiches, and tsunamis. Results of a site-specific evaluation of each of the above
possible secondary effects are explained below:
Surface Fault Rupture: The project site is not located within a currently design·ated
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone of California .. Based on our review of existing
geologic information, no known major surface fault crosses through or extends towards
the site. The potential for surface rupture resulting from the movement of a previously
unrecognized fault is not known with certainty but is considered low.
Landslides: Seismically induced landslides and other slope failures are common
occurrences in areas of significant ground slopes during or soon after earthquakes.
Based on the topography of the project site, the potential for seismically induced
landslides to affect the site is considered moderate to low.
Lateral Spreading: Seismically induced lateral spreading involves primarily lateral
movement of earth materials due to ground shaking. It differs from the slope failure in
that complete ground failure involving large movement does not occur due to the
relatively smaller gradient of the initial ground surface. Lateral spreading is
demonstrated by near-vertical cracks with predominantly horizontal movement of the
soil mass involved. Based on the topography at the project site and in the immediate
vicinity of the site along with the subsurface conditions encountered in the investigation,
the potential for lateral spreading at the subject site is considered low .
Earthquake-Induced Flooding: Flooding may be caused by failure of dams or other
water retaining structures due to earthquake. Based on our review, no significant dams
or other enclosed bodies of water are present in the vicinity of the site. The potential of
earthquake-induced flooding is considered low .
Tsunamis: Tsunamis are seismic 'Sea waves generated by fault displacement or major
ground movement. Based on the location and elevation of the site, tsunamis pose a very
low hazard to the site .
Seiches: Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to
ground shaking. Review of the area adjacent to the site indicates that there are no
significant up-gradient lakes or reservoirs with the potential of flooding_ the site .
Soil Liquefaction and Seismic· Induced Settlement: Liquefaction is defined as the
phenomenon in which a cohesionless soil mass within about upper 50 feet of the ground
surface·-, suffers a· substantial reduction in its shear strength, due. the development of
~: ~ Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
Ill
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements-to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
Aprif 5,2006
Page9
excess pore pressures. During -earthquakes, excess pore pressures in . saturated soil
deposits may develop as a result of induced cyclic shear stresses, resulting in liquefaction.
Soils that are most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose,· saturated, and uniformly
graded, fine-grained sands that lie below the groundwater table within a depth usually
considered to be about 50 feet deep.
The groundwater was not encountered in our exploration, and based on the available well
data in the vicinity of the project, the recorded depth to the high groundwater is about 8.5
feet below ground surface. Based on the results of the subsurface conditions encount~red
in the investigation, the soils beneath the recorded highest groundwater table in the vicinity
generally consisted of bedrock and the potential for the seismic induced settlement is very
low.
8.0 EARTHWORK/SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 General
This section contains our general recommendations regarding earthwork and site grading
for the proposed development. These recommendations are based on our experience
with similar projects in the area and the results of our field exploration, laboratory testing,
and data_evaluation as presented in the preceding sections.
Prior to the start of grading, utilities should be located in the field and either re-routed or
protected. All debris, concrete foundations, surface vegetation, deleterious material,
and surficial soils containing roots and perishable materials should initially be stripped
and removed from the site. Any unsuitable materials uncovered by the stripping
operation should be excavated to expose undisturbed bedrock.
The excavations should not cause loss of bearing and/or lateral supports of the existing
structures or utilities.
8.2 Subgrade Preparation
The final bottom surfaces of all e~cavations should be observed and approved by the
project geotechnical consultant prior to placing any fill and/or structures. Any over
excavations for the building should be observed by a Converse representative. Based on
observations, removal of localized areas deeper than those documented may be required
during grading. Therefore, some variations in the depth and lateral extent of over
excavation recommended in this report may be anticipated.
Subgrade soil surfaces that will receive compacted fill shall be scarified to a depth of at
least 12 inches and the scarified on site soils shall be moisture-conditioned to 120 percent
of optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90.
~. ~ Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
•• •-· • • .,
el • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • •1
•••
'
•••• • • •-· • • •-·
•• . :
•-=
••• • ---• • • . -• • • • . { • • • • •• •
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
Aprif 5,2006
Page 10
percent. The fill materials placed on scarified and compacted soils should be compacted
to 90 percent relative compaction .
B.3 Over--excavation/Removal for Addition to Existing Transfer Station .Building
and New Scale Building
Based on our field investigation, the upper five (5) feet of the site soils encountered in
our exploratory boririg are undocumented fill soils in the vicinity of the building addition
and the new scale building are not suitable to support the structure. Based. on
laboratory test results and exploration, the upper site soils have low expansion potential
(E1=40) .
l . The top two (2) feet of on-site soils are not suitable to support the slab-on-g"rade for
these proposed buildings. These materials should be removed and replaced with
compacted fill. The clayey fill soils should be brought to at least 120 percent of the
optimum moisture and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction as per
ASTM Standard 01557 test method. The depth of anticipated over-excavation is about
2 feet. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio of the in-place spil dry density to the
laboratory maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM Standard 01557 test
method .
Conventional isolated spread footings for the addition to existing Transfer Building
foundered all in compacted fill or bedrock may be used to support the building. The
entire undocumented fill soils shall be removed and replaced as compacted fill, if the
footings to be supported on properly compacted fill. The footings for the addition to the
existing building shall be setback from the descending slope to a distance equal to one
third of the height of the slope. •
Conventional footings for the new Scale Building foundered all in compacted fill may be
used to support the building and all the undocumented fill soils shall be removed and
replaced as compacted fill. •
The anticipated depth of removal is about five (5) feet and the removal should extend at
least five ( 5) feet laterally or to the extend possible. The subgrade soils need to be
scarified at least 12 inches and recompacted according to the Section 8.2, Subgrade
Preparation.
8.4 Over-excavation/Removal for New Truck Scale
Based on our exploration, and the information given to our office, the site for the
proposed new Truck Scale consists of minimum five (5) feet of fill. Over excavations
need to be observed to verify the excavation bottomed to competent bedrock .
~ . w· Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
• • • • •• e( • • • • • • • ~ • • •· ••
•• • • • ~ • •••
•• .,-. \_ ) • • • • • • • • •· •· • • • •• • • • • .-• . \ • • • • •
•-
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer. Station
Carlsbad, California
April.5, 2006
-Page 11
The proposed Truck Scale may be supported on mat foundation ·founded on bedrock or·
at least two (2) feet of compacted fill. The subgrade soils need to be scarified at least 1.2
inches and recompacted according to the Section 8.2, Subgrade Preparation .
8.5 Over-excavation/Removal for Concrete Flat Work and Paving Areas
As a minimum, 18 inches of compacted fill should be provided for any concrete flatwork,
curbs ancf gutters and ·asphalt concrete paving areas. Such over-excavation should
extend at least two (2) feet beyond the edges of concrete flatwork or to the extent
possible .
8.6 Expansive Soil Mitigation
The site soils have low expansion potential. There are several mitigation measures that
can be utilized to improve expansive soils at the site. Some mitigation measures
include:
• Remove and replace with two (2) feet of non-expansive soils
• Thicker concrete slabs with moisture barrier and grade beams
• Post-tensioned slabs with moisture barrier
It is very important to keep the site soils moisture content around or under the edge of
foundation, concrete slab, and asphalt concrete pavement at approximately the same
moisture content before, during and after construction. This will reduce greatly the
expansion potential of the site soils .
The site soils have low expansion potential. Slabs, foundations and pavement placed
directly on expansive subgrade soil will li_kely crack over _time. The impact of the expansive
soil can be reduced by (a) removing about two (2) feet of the underlying soils below slabs
and footings throughout the site, except landscape areas, and replacing with imported
sandy material (Expansion Index less than 20), (b) deepen and reinforce footing and
place thicker concrete slab with grade beam and moisture barrier, (c) use post-tensioned
slab, and (d) lime treat the upper two (2) feet of the subgrade soils .
~
B. 7 Structural Backfill
All structural fill should be placed on competent, scarified and compacted materials as
determined by a geotechnical consultant representative, and in accordance with the
specifications presented in this section .
Rocks larger than three (3) inches in the largest dimension should not be placed as fill.
Rocks larger than one ( 1 ) inch should not be placed within the upper 12 inches. of
subgrade soils .
~.
W'' Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
• • • •
:( • • • • • • • . : • • • • • • • • •· • •
••
•r .,.
e: • ••
••• • • •· •• • • •• • • • • • • • • • . ;, • •• • • • •
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
Aprtl5,2006
Page 12
Excavated site soils, free of deleterious materials and cobbles/boulders larger than six (6)
inches in the largest dimension should be suitable for placement as compacted fill. Any
import fill should be tested and approved by Converse prior to delivery to the site. The
import fill should be free of organic matter and other deleterious material, non-expansive,
with an expansion index less than 20 .
8. 7. 1 CQmpaction
This section contains our recommendations for compaction of fill placed in accordance
with the specifications provided in Appendix C, Earthwork Specifications and in Section
8.2, Subgrade Preparation .
• All clayey fill, if not noted otherwise, should be compacted t_o a relative compaction
of at least 90 percent as per ASTM Standard D1557 test method at moisture content
at least 120 percent of optimum .. Relative compaction is defined as the ratio of the
in-place soil dry density to the lc;1boratory maximum dry density as determined by the
ASTM Standard D1557 test method.
• All sandy fill, if not noted otherwise, should be compacted to a relative compaction of
at least 90 percent and moisture content about 2 percent within the optimum
moisture .
• All bases and subbase, if any, for pavement structures should be compacted to
relative compaction of at least 95 percent as per ASTM Standard D1557 test
method.
The project geotechnical consultant will observe the placement of compacted fill and
conduct in-place field density tests on the compacted fill to-check for adequate moisture
content and relative compaction as required by the project specifications. Where less
than the required relative compaction is indicated, additional compactive efforts shall be
applied and the soil moisture-conditioned as necessary, until the required relative
compaction is attained. The contractor shall provide level testing pads upon which the
soils engineer may conduct field density tests. The contractor shall provide safe and
timely access for the geotechnical testing personnel throughout the grading operation to
allow continuous monitoring and testing .
~
8. 7.2 Shrinkage
The shrinkage would depend on, among other factors, the depth of cut and/or fill, and
the grading method and equipment utilized. The average shrinkage factor for the near
surface on site soils may be estimated to range from ten (10) to twenty (20) percent.
Although these values are only approximate, they represent our best estimates of the
factors to be used to calculate lost volume that may occur· during grading. If more
accurate shrinkage and subsidence factors. are needed, it is-recommended that field
testing using the actual equipment and grading techniques be conducted .
~l
~· Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir;doc
8.8 Site Drainage
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
April5,2006
Page 13
Adequate positive drainage should be provided away from building pad areas to prevent
ponding and to reduce percolation of water into the foundation soils. Building pads should
have a drainage gradient of at least two (2) percent towards drainage devices. Planters
and landscaped areas adjacent to the building pad perimeter should be designed and
irrigated to minimize water infiltration into the subgrade soils.
Adequate drainage -should also be provided for any cut/fill slopes, landscaped and paved
areas. A desirable drainage gradient is one ( 1) percent for paved areas and two (2)
percent in landscaped areas.
Surface drainage should be directed to suitable non-erosive devices. Slope drainage
should be constructed in accordance with Appendix Chapter 33 of the California Building
Code (2001 ).
8.9 Paving
All areas to be paved should be graded in accordance with the general
recommendations for site grading presented under the Section 8.0, Earthwork/Site
Grading Recommendation. If the proposed pavement subgrade areas have become
disturbed or desiccat~d after th~ site grading and prior to placing the base course, the
subgrade may have to be re-(carified to a depth of at least 12 inches, be moisture
conditioned as required to obtain optimum moisture conditions, and be recompacted to
at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. This decision will be made at the time
of construction by our field representative.
One R-value test was performed on a_ bulk sample of the on-site surface soils from
boring BH-9. The results of this test are presented in Appendix B, • Summary of
Laboratory Test Results, and indicate an R-value of 11. Based on this R-value and the
selected traffic index values indicated below, the following minimum flexible pavement
sections were computed for budget purposes. Our computations were based on the
Ca/trans Highway Design Manual, fourth edition:
PAVEMENT COMPONENT· THICKNESS,(lnches)
Tl·= 5.5 Tl =·6:'5 . Tl--= 7,;5" Tl =-8:5 Tl =·9;5
Asphalt Concrete (AC) 3.0 4.0 4.5 5.0 6.0
Aggregate Base (AB) 11.0 12.5 15.0 18.0 20.0
Total Pavement Thickness 14.0 16.5 19.5 23.0 26.0
~' W' Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFlLE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir:doc
I . )
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
Aprif 5,2006
Page 14
The actual R-value -will depend on the compacted fill at the ·subgrade level. We
recommend that R-value tests be performed during grading to confirm design pavement
section indicated above. Additional pavement sections can be presented upon request
for imported fill subbase or for different traffic index values. Selection of the traffic
indices should be made by your civil engineer based on his knowledge of traffic flow
and loading. The base course should be crushed aggregate base or processed natural
material conforming to Section 200-2.2 or 200-2.4, Standard Specifications for Public
Works Construction (Green Book 2003). The aggregate base and asphalt concrete
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance
with ASTM D1557-00.
8.10 Utilities
The on-site soils are suitable for backfill of utility trenches from one foot above the top of
the pipe to the finished grade, provided the material is free of organic matter and
deleterious substances.
It is anticipated that the compacted fill will provide a firm foundation for site utilities. Any
soft and/or unstable material encountered at the pipe invert should be removed and
replaced with an adequate bedding material.
The on-site soils are not considered suitable for bedding or shading of utilities.
Therefore, we recommend that non-expansive granular soils with a Sand Equivalent
(SE) greater than 30 as determined by ASTM Test Method D2419 be imported for that
purpose. Trench backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557.
9.0 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 General Evaluation
Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and analyses of subsurface conditions·
at the site, remedial grading is required to prepare the site for support of the various
structures.
Shallow footings such as conventional isolated spread footings for the proposed Transfer
Station addition and Truck Scale Building founded on bedrock or compacted fills shall be
setback from the descending slope to a distance equal to one third of the height of the
slope. If the drilled cast-in-place piles are used to support the building, then the upper five
(5) feet of soils should not be considered for the vertical and the lateral capacities.
The new Truck Scale may be supported on mat foundation founded all on undisturbed
bedrock or at least two (2) feet of properly compacted fill below the bottom of foundations.
The compacted fill should. extend at least five (5) feet laterally or to the maximum extent:
possible~
~
~-Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
Geotechnical Investigation-Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
AprilS,2006
Page 15
The various design recommendations provided in this section are based on the
assumption that in preparing the site, the above earthwork and grading
recommendations will be implemented.
9.2 Spread Footing Design Parameters
Spread footings for the Transfer Station addition, founded on bedrock or properly
compacted fill may be designed based on an allowable net bearing capacity of 4,000
pounds per square foot (psf).
All undocumented fill soils at the new Scale Building a11d the new Truck Scale area should
be removed and replaced as compacted fill. Subgrade soil surfaces that will receive
compacted fill shall be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches and the scarified on site
soils shall be moisture-conditioned to 120 percent of optimum moisture content and
compacted to a_ minimum relative compaction of 90 percent. The fill materials placed on
scarified and compacted soils should be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction.
Footings founded on compacted fill, and placed at a depth 24 inches below lowest
adjacent grade with at least 18 inches wide, may be designed based on an allowable net
bearing capacity of 2,500 psf. The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by 500
psf for each foot of additional embedment depth and 250 psf for each foot of additional
width, but should not exceed 4,000 psf. The footing reinforcement should be based on
structural design.
The allowable net bearing capacity is defined as the maximum allowable net bearing
pressure on the ground. It is obtained by dividing the net ultimate bearing capacity by a
safety factor. The ultimate bearing capacity is the bearing stress at which ground fails
by shear or experiences a limiting amount of settlement at the foundation. The net
ultimate bearing capacity is obtained by subtracting the total overburden pressure on a
horizontal plane at the foundation level from the ultimate bearing capacity.
The net allowable bearing values indicated above are for the dead loads and frequently
applied live loads and are obtained by applying a factor of safety of 3.0 to the net
ultimate bearing capacity. If nor,rnal code requirements are applied for design, the
above vertical bearing value may be increased by 33 percent for short duration
loadings, which will include loadings induced by wind or seismic forces.
The maximum anticipated settlement of a square footing founded on compacted fill is
estimated to be less than ½-inch for a five (5) foot square footing and the differential
settlements are expected to be on the order of ¼-inch between adjacent footings.
~' ~· Converse Consultants-
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
• • • • .,
e( • • • • • • • • • • •: •· • • • •
•-• • • •r .,
•• • ., • • •
•-
•-• • • • • • • • • • • . [ •
•-• • • •
9.3 Drilled Cast in Place Piles
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
April5,2006
Page 16
Drilled cast in place piles are another alternative foundation system and the piles
deriving their capacities primarily from the bedrock about five (5) feet below the existing
grade. We recommend that the grade beam, footings, and slab be supported on the
piles if piling is the selected alternate. Ttie allowable design allowable skin friction of 300
psf driving from the bedrock may be used for the design .
The capacity was computed by using a safety factor of two (2) for skin friction. The
settlement of a single pile is expected to be abo.ut one-fourth (¼) inch. The vertical
capacities above may be increased by 33 percent to resist transient downward vertical
loads, such as wind forces or seismic shaking. Pile uplift design capacities may be
taken as 50 percent of the vertical downward pile design values shown .
The drill cast in place pile should have a minimum diameter of 14 inches and the
spacing between piles should not be less than three (3) times the pile diameter .
Allowable axial loads of pile groups with center-to-center pile spacing of less than three
(3) pile diameters should be determined by incorporating an efficiency reduction factor
to the allowable axial loads for single piles.
Based on the subsurface conditions, the piers can be drilled without casing. However, if
caving or an unstable hole is encountered, a temporary casing may be required. Drilled
pile excavations should be filled with concrete on the same day they are drilled. The
drilling for piles should not be performed adjacent to recently excavated or recently
poured piles until the concrete in the completed piles has been allowed to set for
several hours. In addition, the piles should also be poured in a manner that will not
result in concrete flowing into adjacent open pile excavations. Piles in groups should be
drilled and poured in an alternating sequence to minimize the potential for fresh
concrete flowing into adjacent open pile excavations.
The placement of reinforcement and concreting operations should conform to ACI and
other applicable code requirem_ents. Concrete placement should be continuous from
the bottom to the top of the drilled pile. Concrete placement should continue after the
borehole is filled until good quality ~concrete is evident at the top of the shaft. Concrete
should be placed through a tremie or pump system and the discharge end of the
tremie/orifice should be immersed at least 5 feet in concrete at all times after the start of
the concrete flow. In addition, the level of concrete in the tremie should be maintained
above the level of slurry in the borehole at all times to prevent slurry intrusion into the
shaft concrete .
We recommend that the installation of the drilled piles be performed with the
·observation of Converse Consultants .
~-
~-Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32.\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
• • • •
•••• e( • • • • • • • • • • • ••• • •• •· • • •• • •
•·· • ~(_ \ • • • •• • • •. , • e: • • •
•·-• • .--
•• • . -•· ._r • • • • • •
:9.4 Mat Foundation
Geotechnical Investigation 'Report
Improvements to PalomarTransfer:Sfalion
Carlsbad, California
April5,2006
Page 17
A mat foundation may be used to support the proposed new Truck Scale. An allowable
net bearing capacity of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) may be used to support the
Truck Scale on competent bedrock or at least two feet of compacted fill.
A total settlement within ½-inch with a differential settlement of ¼-iinch is anticipated for
a mat foundation placed on competent bedrock or on two feet of properly compacted fill .
A modulus of subgrade reaction of 175 pounds per square inch per·inch can be used for
design of the mat foundation for the tank and booster pump station. This value is based
on a unit square foot area and must be adjusted to mats of various widths .
4
The following equation may be used to calculate k for use in mat foundation design:
k= 175[(8+1 )/28] 2
k= Modulus of subgrade reaction, pounds per square inch per inch
B= Mat foundation width, feet
9.5 Resistance to Lateral Loads
Resistance to lateral loads can be assumed to be provided by friction acting at the base of
foundations and by passive earth pressure. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 between
concrete and soil may be used with the dead load forces. An allowable passive earth
pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth may be used for the sides of footings poured· against
recompacted soils. A factor of safety. of 1.5 was applied in calculating passive earth
pressure. The maximum value of the passive earth pressure should be limited to 2,500
psf.
Vertical and lateral bearing values indicated above are for the total dead loads and
frequently applied live loads. If normal code requirements are applied for design, the
above vertical bearing and lateral resistance values may be increased by 33 percent for
short duration loading, which will include the effect of wind or seismic forces .
Due to the low overburden stress of the soil at shallow depth, the upper one foot of
passive resistance should be neglected unless the soil is confined by pavement or slab . .
9.4 Slabs-on-Grade
Structural design elements such as thickness, reinforcement, joint spacing, etc., for the
slab-on-grade should be selected based on the analysis performed by the project
structural engineer considering anticipated loading conditions and the modulus of
subgrade reaction of the supporting materials .
The site soils will be substantially mixed during site grading. and the Expansion· Index
(El) values of the final subgrade soils are likely to be different. At the completion of
@: Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBF!LE\2006\32\06-1i0\06-32110-01_gir.doc
Geotechnicai Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, Galifomla
AprilS,2006
Page 18
grading, the expansion index of the subgrade soils should be determined and
recommendations should be re-evaluated.
For upper the two (2) feet of subgrade soils replaced with compacted imported soils:
Slab-on-grade should have a minimum thickness of _four (4) inche~ for support of
nominal ground-floor live loads. Minimum reinforcement for slab-on-grade will be No. 4
reinforcing bars, spaced at 16 inches on-center each way. The thickness and
reinforcement of more heavily loaded slabs will be dependent upon the anticipated
loads and shall be designed by a structural engineer. A static modulus of subgr.ade
reaction equ~I to 200 pounds per square inch (psi) may be used in structural design of
concrete slab-on-grade. ..
For upper the two (2) feet of subgrade soils, replaced with compacted on-site soils:
Slab-on-grade should-have a minimum thickness of six (6) inches for support of nominal
ground-floor live loads. Minimum reinforcement for slab-on-grade will be No. 4
reinforcing bars, spaced at 16 inches on-center each way. The thickness and
reinforcement of more heavily loaded slabs will be dependent upon the anticipated
loads and shall be designed by a structural engineer. A static modulus of subgrade
reaction equal to 150 psi may be used in structural design of concrete slab-on-grade.
Our recommended parameters for the design of post-tension slab-on-grade are based
on the CBC, 2001 Edition, Section 1816, listed below:
• Edge Moisture Variation Distance (Em, Center Lift): 6 feet
• Edge Moisture Variation Distance (Em, Edge Lift): 3 feet
• Estimated Differential Swell (Ym, Center Lift): 0.9 to 1.3 inches
• Estimated Differential Swell (Ym, Edge Lift): 0.18 to 0.32 inches
Actual design method for post-tensioned slab-on-grade should be selected by the
project structural· engineer.
All slab-on-grade should be underlain by a ten-mil Visqueen ( or equivalent) moisture
barrier. The moisture barrier should be covered by approximately two (2) inches of
sand to minimize punctures and to aid in concrete curing.
Subgrade soils must be firm and nonyielding prior to placement of concrete.
In hot weather, the contractor should take appropriate curing precautions after
placement of concrete to minimize cracking of the slabs. The potential for slab cracking
may be lessened by the addition of fibre mesh to the concrete and/or control of
water/cement ratio.
~' Converse Consultants
CCOC\M~\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
Geotechnlcal Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station •
Carlsbad, California
April5,2006
Page 19
Joints for concrete slabs-on-grade must be carefully designed. Joint spacing is
dependent upon slab thickness and concrete properties and should be selected by the
structural engineer.
Concrete should be cured by protecting it against loss of moisture and rapid
temperature change for at least seven days after placement. Moist curing, waterproof
paper, white polyethylene sheeting, white liquid membrane compound, or a combination
thereof, may be used after finishing operations have been completed. The edges of
concrete slabs exposed after removal of forms should be immediately protect~.d to
provide continuous curing.
After the subgrade soils have been compacted to at least 90 percent of compaction and
moisture-conditioned to at least 120 percent above optimum moisture, at least 24 inches
of the subgrade soil below the bottom of the footings shall be presoaked to 20 percent
above optimum moisture content prior to concrete pour. For example, the optimum
moisture content of ·the subgrade soil is 8.0 percent, presoaking to 20 percent above
optimum moisture content will bring the· moistur(;} content to 9.6 percent (20 percent
increase). This moisture content should be maintained at the time of concrete pour.
The above recommendations are based on the results of tests performed on
representative site soils. If soils other than those presently encountered within the
project site are placed as structural fill within the building pads, the modulus of subgrade
reaction should be reevaluated. The final slab design should be based on this value of
the modulus of subgrade reaction.
9.5 Temporary Sloped Excavations
The following recommendations are provided for use by the engineer during the design of
the.project to determine shoring requirements and estimate construction costs.
Based on the materials encountered in the exploratory borings temporary excavations may
be supported by shoring or constructed according to the slope ratios presented in the table
below. Temporary cuts encountering loose fill or loose dry sand, excavated near existing
structures. may require shoring or have to be constructed at a flatter gradient than
presented in the following table.
Maximum-Depth of Excavation {feet) Maximum Slope.Ratio 1
(horizontal:vertical).
0-4 Vertical
4-10 1:t
1Slope ratio assumed to be uniform from top to toe of slope.
For steeper temporary. construction slopes or deeper excavations, shoring should be·
provided by the contractor as necessary, to protect the workers in the excavation.
~' Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
• • • •
:( • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• •-( • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .(, • • • • •
•--
Geotechnical Investigation-Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
April5,2006
Page20
Surfaces exposed in slope excavations should be kept moist but not saturated to retard
raveling and sloughing during construction. Adequate provisions should be made to
protect the slopes from erosion during periods of rainfall. Surcharge loads, including
construction materials, should not be placed within five (5) feet of the unsupported slope
edge. Stockpiled soils with a height larger than six (6) feet will require greater distance
from trench edges. •
If -the excavation occurs near existing structures, special construction considerations
would be required during excavation to protect these existing structures dLi'ring
construction. The proposed excavation sho_uld not cause loss of bearing and/or lateral
supports of the existing structures .
Due to close proximity of the existing building, the sloped over-excavation for the
transfer station addition building may not be feasible. The excavation may consist of
vertical cut exGeeding five (5) feet or more should be adequately supported by
temporary shoring to protect existing adjacent structures. Recommendations of shoring
will be provided upon requested .
All applicable requirements of the California Construction and General Industry Safety
Orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1987 and current amendments, and
the Construction Safety Act should be met. The soils exposed in cuts should be
observed during excavation by a competent person employed by the contractor. If
potentially unstable soil conditions are encountered, modifications of slope ratios for
temporary cuts may be required .
10.0 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION
This report has been prepared to aid in the -evaluation of the site, to prepare site grading
recommendations, and to assist the structural engineer with the design of the proposed
structures .
~/ // Recommendations presented herein are based upon the assumptions that earthwork
pY monitoring will be provided by a C9nverse consultant. All excavation bottoms should be
fi observed by a geotechnical representative prior to fill placement. Structural fill and backfill
fff should be placed and compacted during continuous observation and testing. It is ~ recommended footing excavations should be observed by a geotechnical consultant
l: representative prior to placement of steel and concrete, so that footings are founded on
'\_, satisfactory materials and excavations are free of loose and disturbed materials . .....,~
11.0 CLOSURE
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in-accordance with
generally accepted professional engineering. and engineering geologic principles and
~~
~-Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
• • • •
·-•• -~ • ..--•:~ • • ••
••• • •· ~.
••
___ ;
.: • • .:
••
•••
• • •( . ' )
•• • ··:
•. ,
•-· • •· ••
••
••• • • • • • • •
•••• • • el . • •• •-• •
•-
Geotechnlcal Investigation Report
lmprovemems·to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
April 5,.2006
Page.21
practice within our profession at this time in Southern California. Our conclusions and
recommendations are based on the results of the field and laboratory investigations,
combined with an interpolation of subsurface conditions between and beyond exploration
locations .
As the project evolves, a continued consultation and construction monitoring by a qualified
geotechnical consultant should be considered an extension of geotechnical investigation
services performed to date. The geotechnical consultant may review plans and
specifications to verify that the recommendations presented herein have been
appropriately interpreted, and that the design assumptions used in this report are valid.
Where significant design changes occur, Converse may be required to augment or modify
the recommendations presented herein if the subsurface conditions during over
excavation differ in some locations from those encountered in the explorations and this
office should notify immediately .
This report was prepared for Riha Construction Co. for the subject project described
herein. We are not responsible for technical interpretations made by-others of our
exploratory information. Specific questions or interpretations concerning our findings and
conclusions may require a written clarification to avoid future misunderstandings .
@, Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
• • • • •· el • • • • • •• • • • •• •· •••
•.. ,
---• • -, •
=-••
__ (_ )
•---• . -. •· •• • •· • • •• • • • • • • • •---• e:
.:'.'( • • • • • •
1,2.0 =REFERENCES
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Garlsbad, California
April5,2006
Page22
BLAKE, T. (2000), UBCSE/S and FRISKSP, Version 1.03, Computer Programs for the
Determination of UBC Seismic Design Parameters from Digitized California Faults,
California .
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC), 2001 .
LAMBE, T. W., and WHITMAN, R. V., 1979, Soil Mechanics, John Wiley & Sons .
NAVFAC (1986), D~sign Manual 7.02: Foundation and Earth Structures.
FOUNDATION ENGINEERING HANDBOOK, Has F. Winterkom and Hsai-Fang .
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S PORT ABEL HANDBOOK, Robert w. Day .
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CENTER, Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California, March 1999.
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION (Green Book
2003), Building News, Inc., Los Angeles, California.
VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC., March 23, 1995, Limited Soil and
Foundation Study, Proposed Recycling and Building Expansions, ADJ Sorting
Facility, 5960 El Camino Real, Carlsbad; California, JOB# 95-144-E.
@converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
•( • •• • • • •
F
I
G .
I
'
u
R
E
COMMERCW.. EXIT 10CJ'• st
LEGEND
BH-2
~
INDICATES NUMBER ANO
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF BORlNG
VICINITY MAP
H.T.S.
Base P!an·Provided by. Riha Construction Co.
IMPROVEMENTS. TO'THEPALOMAR TRANSFER STATION.
Cityro.f'Carlsb:ad; __ CaUfomi~ oo-3211 o;.o".1
Geoted!nical Enginaerlng
and J\ppued Sciences
Figure No.
..
A
p
p
E
N
D
I
X
A '
' \
• • • • :< • • • • • • • , . • • • • • • • • • • • • •r . '· ) • • • • • • •• •· •• • . , •· • • • • ••
•• • • -~ • • • • • •
'
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
• • • •
•·· e( • • • • • • • • •• •· • • • •· • • • • • • ~(
• 't -: •· . :
.;
••
•:
•J • •-:
-~: • • • • • •• • . , . ,--· • • • • • •
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
Geotechnlcal Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
April5,2006
PageA-1
Our field investigation included a site reconnaissance and subsurface exploration program
consisting of drilling exploratory borings. During the site reconnaissance, the surface
conditions were noted and the locations of the borings were determined. The borings
were located using existing topography, structures and boundary features as a guide .
A total of nine (9) borings (BH-1 through BH-9) were drilled on the site on March 9, 2006
to depths ranging from 6.5 to 24.5 feet below ground surface. The drilling was terminated
when the refusal of drilling encountered due to the bedrock formation. Relatively
undisturbed ring and disturbed bulk samples of the subsurface materials were obtained
from the borings at selected intervals for the purpose of laboratory testing. Approximate
borings locations are shown in Figure No. 1-, Site and Boring Location Plan .
The borings were advanced using an 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger drill rig. Soils
were continuously logged and classified in the field by visual exami.nation in accordance
with the Unified Soil Classification System. The field descriptions have been modified
where appropriate to reflect laboratory test results .
Relatively undisturbed ring and bulk samples of the subsurface soils were obtained at
frequent intervals in the borings. The relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a
California Modified Sampler (2.4 inches inside diameter and 3.0 inches outside diameter)
lined with thin sample rings. Resistance blow counts were obtained with the sampler by
dropping a 140-pound automatic hammer through a 30-inch free fall. The blows per
foot recorded on the boring logs represent the accumulated number of blows required
for the last 12 inches or shorter distance as indicated when refusal was encountered .
The soil was retained in brass rings (2.4 inches in diameter and one inch in height). The
central portion of the sample was retained and carefully sealed in waterproof plastic
containers for shipment to the laboratory. Bulk soil samples collected from the borings
were sealed in plastic bags and brought to the laboratory .
Standard Penetration Tests (SPTs) were performed at selected depths in the borings
using a standard (1.4-inch inside diameter and 2.0-inch outside diameter) split-barrel
sampler. The mechanically driven hammer for the SPT sampler was 140 pounds,
falling 30 inches for each blow. Resistance blow counts were obtained with the sampler
by dropping a 140-pound automatic hammer through a 30-inch free fall. The blows per
foot recorded on the boring logs represent the accumulated number of blows required
for the last 12 inches or shorter distance as indicated when refusal was encountered .
The standard penetration tests were performed in accordance with the ASTM Standard
D1586 test method .
@converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
• • • • •e{ • • • • • • • • • •
•-•· • • • • • • • •· •t •. , ' \ i • • •• • • • • •.. •·
•• • • • • • • • • • • • • l~-• • • • •· •
Geotechnical Investigation-Report
Improvements to P.alomar Transfer Station
Carisbad,.Califomia
Aprff5, 2006
PageA-2
• A key to 'Soil symbols and terminology used in ·the Boring. is included as DrawiAg No. A
·1, Unified Soil Classification and Key·to Boring. For Logs of Borings see Drawings No .
A-2 through A-10. Logs of Borings .
~'i Conver-se-CoAsultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
-D
~
~SOlL-(C:LA:SSlFtCA Tl:ON CHART.
'MAJOR.'.DIVISlONS SYMBOLS
GRAPH LETTER
TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE THAN 50% 01
MATERIAL IS
lARGER THAN NO.
200 SIEVE SIZE
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
MORE 7HAN 50% OF
MATERIAL IS
GRAVEL
AND
GRAVELLY
SOILS
MORE THAN 50% OF
COARSE FRACTION
RETAINEO ON NO. 4
SIEVE
SAND
AND
SANDY
SOILS
MORE THAN 50% OF
COARSE FRACTION
PASSING ON NO. 4
SIEVE
SILTS AND
CLAYS
SMAU.ER THAN NO. SIL TS AND
:ZOO SIEVE SIZE CLAYS
CLEAN
GRAVELS
(llTTI..EORNORNES)
GRAVELS
WITH
FINES
(APPRECIAlll.EAMOUl<T
OFRNES)
CLEAN
SANDS
(llTTI..E OR NO FINES)
SANDS WITH
FINES
(APPRECIAlll.EAMOUNT
OF FINES)
LIQUID LIMIT LESS
THAN SO
...... . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
·•:.-............. ·
\). : :: •.•• \:} .. ···.: :. ·. · .• ;: ....
--'----'---
LIQUID LIMIT ~
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
WEU.-GRAOEO GRAYaS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,
UTTl.E OR NO FINES
• POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL-SANO MDCTURES,
UlTLE OR NO FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND -SILT MIXTURES
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL
SAND .. CLAY MIXTURES
WELL-GRADED SANOS,
GRAVELLY SANOS, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
POORLY-GRADED SANOS.
GRAVELLY SAND, LITTLE OR
NO FINES
SILTY SANDS, SANO-SILT
MIXTURES
CLAYEY SANDS, SANO• CLAY
MIXTURES
INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY
FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE·
SA!>IDS_OR ~~:5" SILTS
INORGANIC ctAYS OF LOWTO
MEDIUM PI.ASTICllY,
GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY
~~X~ SILTY CLAYS, LEAN
ORGANIC SIL TS AND ORGANIC SILTYCLAYSOFLOW
PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR OIATOMACEOUS FINE
SAND OR SIL1Y SOILS
INORGANIC ClAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
GREATERTHAN50 ~ ~~r--t-------1
OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC
SILTS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT, HUMUS, SNIW.P SOILS
WITH HIGH ORGANIC
CONTENTS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
BORING LOG SYMBOLS
SAMPLE TYPE
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST LABORATORY TESTING ABBREVIATIONS
Split barrel sampler in accordance with
ASTM D-1586-84 Standard Test Method
DRIVE SAMPLE 2.42" I.D. sampler, driven
with 140 lb weight, 30 in. drop
DRIVE SAMPLE No recovery
BULK SAMPLE
GROUNDWATER WHILE DRILLING
GROUNDWATER AFTER DRILLING
TEST TYPE
(Results shown in Appendix 8)
ClASSIFICATION
Plasticity pi
Grain Size Analysis ma
Passing No. 200 Sieve wa
Sand Equivalent se
Expansion Index ei
Compaction Curve max
Hydrometer h
STRENGTH
Pocket Penotsometer
Din!ict Shear
Direct Shear (single point)
Unconfined Compression
TriaxfaJ Compression
Vane Shear
Consolldation
Collapse Test Resistance {R) Value
Chemical Analysis
Electrical Resistivity
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND KEY TO BORING LOG SYMBOLS.
p
ds
ds"
UC
tx
vs
C col
ca
er
Project Name Project No.
06-3211 0-01
Drawing No.
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
For: Riha Construction Co.
A-1
• • • • •-· e( • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • •
•·· • 41; • •t
•• • • •• • • •• •· .,
•• . :.. • • • • • • • • • •
Log;o.f;BH-1
Dates .Drilled: -----------. "3/9/2006 Logged-by: _____ C_K_L _____ Checked By: __ ·_KN __
Equipment: __ 8'_' H_O_L_L_o_w_s_T_E_M_A_U_G_E_R __ Driving Weight:and.Drop: 140 lbs/ 30 in
·. Ground Surface Elevation (ft)'"-: __ ·N_/A __ _ Depth to Water (ft): NOT ENCOUNTERED
g
..r:: ..... 0. Q) 0
·5
10
.2 .c a.. t1l Cl) L.. 0 (!) ....J
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project
• and should be read together with the report. This summary applies
only at·the location of the boring and at the time of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change
at this location with the passage of time. The d~ta presented is a
simplification of actual conditions encountered.
4" ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 8" AGGREGATE
BASE
FILL:
SIL TY SAND {SM): fine-to coarse-grained, olive gray .
BEDROCK FORMATION:
SANDSTONE: broken into silty sand, fine-to
coarse-grained, cemented clasts, olive gray.
-rocks and cobbles
End of boring at 10.5 feet due to refusal of bedrock.
Groundwater not encountered at the time of drilling .
Boring backfilled with bentonite chips and soil cuttings.
SAMPLES
w ::.::: > 52 -I :::,
0 Ill
-I-~ ~ 0 ~
0 w
Li.. 0:: t: -::i z ~ I-::i (/J 0 0 ~'t ....J
CD ~ 0~
50-4" 11.5 110
50-6" 14.5 99
50-4" 10.5 106
(50-2")
(/J
I-. (/J w I-m <(
....J
ds, wa
-~:
: .Converse Consultants,
Project Name Project No.
06-32110-01
Drawing No.
• • • •
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California For: Riha Construction Co .
A-2
• •• • .Oates Drilled: • -----------3/9/2006 .Logged:by: _____ C_K_L _____ Checkect·sy: __ K_N __
• .Equipment: 8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER
·.(.·
Driving Weight and Drop: 140 lbs / 30 in
Depth to Water (ft): 'NOT ENCOUNTERED Ground Surface Elevation (ft)'--: __ N_/A __ _ • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • •· • • ••
•·· •< -··• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •· ..
..c a.
(IJ
0
10
15
20
et-li}
.Q .c a. Cll c, ... 0 CJ-1
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse·for this project
and should be read together with the report. This summary applies
only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change
at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a
simplification of actual conditions encountered.
SIL TY SAND {SM): fine-to coarse-grained, some fine
gravel, brown.
BEDROCK FORMATION:
SANDSTONE: broken into silty sand, fine-to
coarse-grained, some broken cobbles, cemented,
elastic sedimentary rocks and cobbles, reddish brown.
-gray, rocks and cobbles
-rocks and cobbles
-some fine gravel, olive gray
-rocks and cobbles
End of boring at 24.5 feet d1,1e to refusal of bedrock .
Groundwater not encountered at the time of drilling .
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings .
Project Name
Improvements to Palomar-Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
For: Riha Construction Co.
SAMPLES I-0
w ~ > a: ....J :::> D co
0 LL -~ 0 _J
Ill
50-6"
50-6"
50-4"
(50-4")
(50-2")
(96-11")
(50-6")
Project No.
06-32110-01
....... ~ ~ 0 -w (J)
a:: I-I-
::, z (J) w I-::, I-Cf.)
0 >-.;::-llJ 0:::: t) ::5 :=z oS
max,ma
9.5 118
16 109.5
10 dist.
Drawing No.
A-3-: ~Converse· Consultants. . --·---------------------------------• • •
• Log of.:B'H-3 • • • Dates Drilled: ------------3/9/2006 .Logged by: _____ C_K_L _____ Checked By: __ ·_KN __
:(
Equipment ------------811 HOLLoW·STEM AUGER Driving Weight.and Drop: -140 lbs I 30 in
Ground-Surface Elevation (ft)'-: __ N_/A __ _ Depth to Water (ft): NOT ENCOUNTERED • •• • • ., • • • • •
•·•• • • • • -• • •
g
.c 0.. Q)
0
-5
10
.Q .c a. ctl C) ... 0 (!) ...J
• •c ,i 15 Iii/
xXXX
-XX XX
-XX XX
•
XX XX
X X X X
•
XX XX
X X X X
X X X X
•
' xxxx
X X X X
X X X X
•
XX XX
20 X X X X
•
XX XX
X X X X
X X X X
• , XX XX • • • • • • • • • • • •
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project
and should be read together with the report. This summary applies
only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling.
Subsutface conditions may differ at other locations and may change
at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a
simplification of actual conditions encountered.
FILL:
SIL TY SAND {SM): fine-to coarse-grained, some fine
gravel, brown.
BEDROCK FORMATION:
SANDSTONE: broken into silty sand, some fine gravel,
cemented, elastic sedimentary rocks and cobbles,
brown.· i
-gray
CLA YSTONE: broken into clay, cemented, gray brown.
End of boring at 22.0 feet due to refusal of bedrock .
Groundwater not encountered at the time of drilling .
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings .
-SAMPLES I-'#. ~ 0 -0 UJ
LI.. 0::: !::: -.. :::, z ~ UJ ~ I-:::, > ..J 0 £2 >-c-ii: ::J ...J 0 0::: (.)
0 OJ lD -~ oE;
50-4" 12.5 108
50-6" 8 115.5
(50-6")
50-4" 10 107
50-6" 25 92
50-6" 18.5 103
Cl) I-Cl)
UJ I-
C'.l ::i
i (--@;converse Consultants
•
Project Name Project No.
06-32110-01'
Drawing No.
• •· •
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
For: Riha Construction Co .
A-4,
• • •• Dates. Drilled: 3/9/2006 ·Logged·by-: _____ C~K_Lc.._ ____ Checked'By: __ KN __ •
:(
.Driving Weight:and Drop: ·140 lbs/ 30 in
. Ground Surface Elevation (ft)_: __ -_N_/A___ . Depth to Water (ft): ·NOT ENCOUNTERED
Equipment ·811 HOLLow-sTEM AUGER
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS -SAMPLES t-~ 0 0
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse· for this project -0 w
and should be read together with the report. This summary applies Ll. 0::: 2 -::> -t) only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling. ~ .c 1: Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change w ~ t-
a. a. > ....I 0 (/)
lU C> at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a 0::: 0 Q) ,_ 0 :) _J
Cl C9 _J simplification of actual conditions encountered. Cl co co ~
4" ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 811 AGGREGATE
::-:/ :;:: . BASE
• • • • • • • • • • •· ••
}.{
\/ :ll
·.-::: r~.,,,. FILL: 0 50-2" 6.5 SIL TY SAND (SM): fine-to medium-grained, some fine )<'
•• • • • •• • ~ • •• . _(. • •
= • • •· ••• • ••• • • • • • • • • • ••
-
\ I
:;~·. ·:::: gravel, light brown. ..
_\\ :~(:
5 -·.· ·.-·:·
::::.\ }i: :_;( -rocks
End of boi:ing at 6.5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered at the time of drilling .
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings .
~
-~--
: .Converse Consultants • •
Project Name
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
For: Riha Construction Co.
• • •
• ~
X
X (50-6")
Project No.
06-32110-01
~ (/)
t-f-.z . (/)
w ::, f-
>-c 0::: t) o-3:
ID ::i
-·
dist.
Drawing. No.
A-5-
• • • • •( • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • .; • .! e: • e; • •C •··· • • • • • • • •• •· • • • • • • • • • • •r . \·-:-• • • • • •
Dates Drilled: -----------'3/9/2006 Logged by: _____ ._C_K_L _____ Checked 'By: __ K_N __
Equipment: 8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER Driving Weight.and-Drop: 140 lbs/ 30 in
Ground Surface-Elevation (ft)_: __ N_/A __ _ Depth to Water (ft): NOT ENCOUNTERED
.c -0. Q) •
0
·5
10
0 :c 0. CCI o, .... 0 C!L.J
X X X X
X X X X
X X XX
X X X X
X X XX
X X XX
X X XX
X X X X
X X X X
X X XX
X X X X
X X XX
. -~-~--?'.
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse forthis project
and should be read together with the report. This summary applies
only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling.
Subsuliace conditions may differ at other locations and may change
at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a
simplification of actual conditions encountered.
4" ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 8" AGGREGATE
BASE
FILL:
CLAYEY SAND {SC): fine-to medium-grained, light
brown: •
BEDROCK FORMATION:
CLAYSTONE: broken into clay with sand, olive.
-brown
SANDSTONE: broken into silty sand, light brown.
End of boring at 10.5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered at the time of drilling.
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
SAMPLES
w ~ >
0::
_j
::)
0 co
-I-~ ~ 0 0 w
LL. er: !:: ._ :::i z ~ I-:::i (J) 0 0 >-c
_j 0:: (.) co -~ 0 .8::
72 11.5 116
41 16 109.5
52 21 dist.
50-6" 20.5 dist.
(J)
I-(J) w I-co ~ _J
ei
ds
wa
@converse-Consultants
Project Name Project No .
06-32110-01
Drawing No.
Improvements. to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
For: Riha Construction Co .
A-6.
• • • • •e( • • • • •· •• • • • • • • •• • • ., • • ••
••
-Log ·of:BH-6
-Oates.Drilled: ____ 3/_9_/2_0_06 ____ _ Logged-by: _____ C_KL ______ Checked By: __ K_N __
Equipment: __ a·_· H_O_L_L_O_W_S_T_E_M_-A_U_G_E_R __ _
Ground Surface Elevation (ft)'-: __ N_/_A __ _
Driving Weightand Drop: 140 lbs / -30 in
Depth·to Water (ft): NOT ENCOUNTERED
.c .....
C. a> □
·5
10
u :.c: C. C\l Cl L. 0 (!) -1
xXXX
X X X X
X X X X
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project
and should be read together with the report. This summary applies
only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change
at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a
simplification of actual conditions encountered.
4" ASPHALT CONCRETE OVER 8'.' AGGREGATE
BASE
FILL:
SIL TY SAND (SM): fine-to medium-grained, gray . ..
BEDROCK FORMATION:
SANDSTONE: broken into silty sand, fine-to
mediun:i-grained, sedimentary, light brown .
---------------------------------CLA YSTONE: broken into clay, moderately hard, dark
gray .
SAMPLES I-0 0 LL. -~ w V > :J 0 0:: :::, -1 □ CD £0
50-6"
50-6"
50-6"
75
~ ~ -LU (/)
c::: !:: t-
:::, z Cl)
LU I-::, t-~ >-c co 0 0:: u <( ~ □-3: _J
14 115
13 113.5
dist.
dist. pi
•(···
·1
:-• } 15
X X X X
X X X X
X X XX, x x x kx,..
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X .X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
(50-3") • • • • • • ••
•• • • • • • • • • • •
20
X X X X
X X XX x_x xx
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
·End of boring at 23.0 feet due to refusal.
.' G·roundwc1ter not encountered at the time of drilling .
_Borin~ backfilled with soil cuttings .
(50-4")
• • ~-:a----~-_j_ _ __JL_ _________ P_r_OJ-.e-ct_N_a_m_e _______ _j____..J__LP-r-oJ-.e-ct-N-+o-.--1--D-raJ.-w-in_g_N-:-o-.·
• l •. \ C C Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station 06-32110 01 A 7'
•
~
·-. _.,.< _,; o.nverse: onsultants: Carlsbad;California -• -. ~ . · For: Rlha Construction Co. • • • • •
., . • •·-·_ • • ···_
•:
., .,: .. ,
' .
••• • • • •:-
-~c • • ••
~Log ;o.f B'H-7
Dates Drilled: ------------.3/9/2006 Logged by: _____ C_KL ______ Checkect·sy: ---,-··K_N'---
·Equipment 8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER Driving Weight:and Drop: 140 lbs I 30 in
':Ground Surface Elevation (ft)=-: __ N-'-'l_'A'----·oepth·to Water (ft): ·NOT-ENCOUNTERED
g
.c ci. QJ
0
5
10
I
}
0 :c a. cu 0) ,_ 0 (9 ...l
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X XX
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project
and should be read together with the report. This summary applies
only at the location of the boring and at the titne of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change
at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a
simplification of actual conditions encountered.
FILL:
CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine-to medium-grained, some
fine gravel, gray brown.
CLAY (CL): some fine-grained sand, brown.
BEDROCK FORMATION:
CLA YSTONE: broken into clay, some fine-grained
sand, cemented, sedimentary, gray.
End of boring at 11.5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered at the time of drilling.
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
SAMP
w > a::
0
LES I-0 0 u_
,.....
-~
:::R e..,
w
a'. I---
~ ~
...I 0 ::> ...l OJ OJ
::, z I-::, en
0 >-c a:: 0 ~ 0 ..!:;
39 15 113
64 22.9 95.7
50-6" 19 101
50-6" 18.5 103
Cl) I-·en w I-
co ·:5
ca,er
C
• ••
--~~---· '
: .Converse Consultants
Project Name
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
Project No.
06-32110-01
Drawing No.
A-S:
• • • •
For: Riha Construction Co .
• • • 'Oates Drilled: -----------'3/9/2006 Logged by: _____ C_K_L _____ Checked By: __ KN __
• :Equipment 8" HOLLOW-STEM AUGER Driving Weight-and Drop: 140 lbs/ 30 in
:-• ' Ground Surface Elevation (ft)::__ __ • N_/A __ _ Depth to Water (ft): NOT ENCOUNTERED • • • • • • • • • • •· • • • • • ••• • •· • • ✓
.(
•• • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • •• • • •
2 .......
:5 c.. Q)
Cl-
·5
(.) :c C. co 0) ... 0 CJ _J
. ...... .
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for this project
and should be read together with the report. This summary applies
only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change
at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a
simplification of actual conditions encountered.
FILL:
CLAY (CL): trace fine-grained sand, brown ..
BEDROCK FORMATION:
SANDSTONE: broken into sil sand red brown .
End of boring at 6.5 feet.
Groundwater not/encountered at the time of drilling .
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings .
SAMPLES I-0 0 LL -~ w ~ > ...J 0 a'.'. ::> _J
Cl CD CD
20
50-6"
-'#. g -LU (/)
0:: I-I-
:::> z ·C/) w I-::J . I-fQ >-c OJ 0 0:: (.) -<(
~ o-8: _J
20 101.5
14 113.5
e(---
: @tconverse Consultants, • •
Project Name Project No.
06-32110-01
Drawing No.
• • •
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California For: Riha Construction Co.
A-9·
• • • •
•·· e( • • • • • • • • • • . -. •· • •· • •• • • • • •• (
•-·· • • • • • • • •• •
•·· • • • • • • • • • • • t-• • • • • •
Dates Drilled: ------------.3/9/2006 Logged· by: _____ C_Kl _____ Checked By: __ ·_KN __
·Equipment: 8" HOLLOW STEM AUGER _Driving Weightand.Drop: ·140 lbs I 30 in
Ground Surface Elevation (ft)_: __ N_/A __ _ Depth to Water (ft): NOT ENCOUNTERED
¢? .........
..s::: 15. (I) 0
5
10
.Q ..s::: 0. CO Cl
I-0 (!) _j
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
X X X X
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
This log is part of the report prepared by Converse for·this project
and should be read together with the report. This summary applies
only at the location of the boring and at the time of drilling.
Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change
at this location with the passage of time. The data presented is a
simplification of actual conditions encountered.
FILL:
CLAYEY SAND (SC): fine-grained, light brown .
BEDROCK FORMATION:
CLAYSTONE: broken into clay, red brown
-gray brown
End of boring at 11.5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered at the time of drilling .
Boring backfilled with soil cuttings.
........
SAMPLES I-'#. g 0 .._.,
0 w u.. 0:::: !:: --:::> z w ~ I-:::> ~ > -I 0 ~ ~'u ii: 0 :::> -I 0 CD CJ ~ o.3:
50-4" 16 102.5
50-6" 18 96
50-6" 17.5 99
Cl)
f-• Cl) w f-
OJ <(
_j
r
• Converse Consultants
Project Name Project No .
06-32110-01
Drawing No .
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
For: Riha Construction Co .
A-10
• • • • :· • • • • • • • •· • • • •• • • • • • • • • . ( ••. ) • • • • • • • •• • • •• • • • • • • • • • •t-_ .. • • • • • •
..
A
p
p
E
N
D
I
X
B l
• • • • •e( • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • •-• • •--
•---• ( •-· ') • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • ·(~: • • • • • •
APPENDIX 8
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
• • • • .(
.\ • • • • • • • • • • •• •. -
•-• • • • • • . ( -
._I, • • • • • • • ··-• • • • • • • • • • • • . (--• • • • • •
-APPENDIXB
Geotechnical lnves1igation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, Callfomia
AprilS,2006
Page B-1
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Tests were conducted in our geotechnical laboratory on representative soil samples for
the purpose of classification and evaluation of their relevant physical characteristics and
engineering properties. The amount and selection of tests were based on the
geotechnical parameters required for the design and construction of the project. Test
results are presented herein and on the Logs of Borings in Appendix A, Field
Exploration. The following is a summary of the variqus laboratory tests conducted for
this project.
Moisture Content and Dry Density
Results of these tests performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples were used to aid in
the classification of the soils and to provide qualitative information regarding soil strength
and compressibility. For test results, see the Logs of Borings in Appendix A, Field
Exploration .
Sieve Analysis
To aid in classification of the soils, mechanical grain-size analyses were performed on
one (1) representative samples. Testing was performed in accordance with the ASTM
Standard D422 method. For test results, see Drawing No. 8-1, Grain Size Distribution
Results .
Amounts of Material In Soils Finer Than The No. 200 Sieve
Two (2) selected samples were tested in accordance with the ASTM Standard D1140
test method to determine the amounts of materials finer than U.S. Standard Sieve No.
200. This information are summarized in Table No. 8-1,-Percent Finer Than #200 Sieve
Results .
Table No. 8-1, Percent Finer thaq #200 Sieve Results
Boring No. Depth·(ft) Soil:.Class.ification
BH-1 5 SANDSTONE
*BH-2 0-5 SIL TY SAND (SM)
BH-5 7 CLAYSTONE
~-w· Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
Percent.·Finer Than-No.
2-00·, Siev.e.-(%)
17
27
82
• • • • •e( • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • c • • • • • • • •• • • •• • • • • • • • • • ·l~--• • • • • •
Atterberg Limits
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Liberty Baptist Church
Newport Beach, California
April5,2006
PageB-2
Atterberg Limit Test was performed on one (1) representative sample to assist in the
classification of the soils according to ASTM 04318. The test resuJt is presented in
Drawing No. 8-2, Atterberg Limits Results .
Laboratory Maximum Density Tests
One (1) representative bulk sample was tested in the laboratory to determine· the
maximum dry density and optimum moisture cont~nt. The test was conducted in
general accordance with the ASTM Standard D1557 laboratory procedure. The test
results are presented in Drawing No. 8-3, Moisture-Density Relationship Results .
Expansion Index
One (1) representative bulk sample was tested to evaluate the expansion potential of
material encountered at the site. The test was conducted in accordance with U8C/CBC
Standard. For test results, see table below:
Table No. B-2, Summary of Expansion Index Test Results
'
Depth • Expansio.r:t ·exp·ansion : Boring·No.
:(ft)
SoU--Descri_ption
fn·dex . ·Potential
BH-5 1.0'-5.0' CLAYEY SAND (SC) 40 Low
Consolidation Test
Data obtained from this test, performed on one (1) relatively undisturbed soil sample,
was used to evaluate the settlement characteristics of the on-site soils under load .
Preparation for this test involved trimming the sample, placing it in a one-inch-high
brass ring, and loading it into the test apparatus, which contained porous stones to
accommodate· drainage during testing. The sample was tested at field moisture and
submerged conditions. Normal axial loads were applied to one end of the sample through
the porous stones, and the resulting deflections were recorded at various times. The load
was increased after the sample reached a reasonable state of equilibrium. Normal loads
were applied at a constant load-increment ratio, successive loads being generally twice
the preceding load .
For test results, including sample density and moisture content, see Drawing No. B-4,
Consolidation Test Results .
~~
W· Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
• • • • .,
e( • • •· • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •r •. '
--• • • • • • ··-• • • • • • • • • • • • ·l~---• • • • • •
Direct Shear Tests
Geotechnical Investigation-Report
Liberty Baptist Church
Newport Beach, California
April 5,.2006
PageB-3
Two (2) direct-shear tests were performed on undisturbed samples at soaked moisture
conditions. Three samples contained in brass sampler ring was placed, one at a time,
directly into the test apparatus and subjected to a range of normal loads appropriate for
the anticipated conditions. The sample was then sheared at a constant strain rate of
0.01 inch/min. Shear deformation was recorded until a maximum of about 0.30-inch
shear displacement was achieved. Ultimate strength was selected from the shear-stress
deformation data and plotted to determine the shear strength parameters. For test data,
including sample density and moisture content, see prawing Nos. B-5 and 8-6, Direct
Shear Test Results and Table No. 8-3, Summary of Direct Shear Test Results .
Table No. 8--3, Summary of Direct Shear Test Results
PeakcS.trength
Sample .Depth 'Parameters
-·· ~SoitD.escri_ption :F-rictio.n •· • : .,.. ... • !• ·, ·,No. ·{feet}· ·Cohesiora* Angle (psf) (.deg r.ees') . ,
BH-1 5 SANDSTONE 30 400
BH-5 5 CLAYSTONE 27 800
*Cohesion is not accounted in engineering analysis due to generally granular nature of site soils .
R-Value Test
One (1) representative bulk sample of the surface soil was tested for resistance value
(R-value) in accordance with State of California Standard Method 301-G. This test is
designed to provide a relative measure of the soil strength for use in pavement design .
For test results, see Table No. 8-4, R-Value Test Results.
Table No. B-4; R-Value Test Results
Boring No. Depth (ft) Soil Classification -R.;Value
, usc:s
BH-9 0.0' -5.0' CLAYEY SAND (SM) 11
S.oil Corrosivity
One (1) representative soil samples were tested to determine minimum electrical
resistivity, pH, and chemical content, including soluble sulfate and chloride
concentrations. The purpose of these tests is to determine-the corrosion potential of
~: W-Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
Geotechnical-lnvestigation;Report
Liberty.Baptist Church
• Newport Beach, California
-April·S, 2006
Page·B-4
site soils when placed in contact with common construction materials. For·test.results,
see Table No. ·s-6, Soil Corrosivity Test Results.
Table No. B.;.6,:Soil Corrosivity Test Results
.. ..
:ll.:acation'~~pth •
BH-7/0.0' -5.0' 7.88
Sample Storage
. .. -: .
'O:tilGiatte ~ .
'. twirl-}
235
::&iffat-e
(%~,q.¼':'7~e~ght)
0.011
·min:·:.;Saturated
i,~istiy.ijy
·{-otrm:.cm)·
820
Soil samples presently stored in our laboratory will be discarded 30 days after the date
of this report, unless this office receives a specific request to retain the samples for a
longer period.
@converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBF!LE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
• • • • . (
., • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •r •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . ,_ .. • • •• • • •
APPENDIXC
EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
• • • • •c •· • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • • : • • • •r
•• • • • • • • • : • • • • • • • • • • ·(~-:-
\ f
•
•
.U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES u.s.-stEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
-6 4 3 2 1_5 ..2. 314 112318 3 4 s 810 14 1s 20 30 40 so 60 100 140 200
1oor-r-,-...,......,.l--,'"TT-'T-r-r--rr-,-<1~•1~-~::---r-l-,,IITTTIIT'"l"'""M""li-Tl-r--lr-r-l,.,,-rrr-ll""'T"',,--,-r1-,-..,.1----.,1..,..,..,,..,...,...,...-.--...,...._...,..,..,..,..,..,....,._,..__,., _ _,
951-r-t--t-----tt-,r.H---J-t-r--t,--,_~-t-tti""rr--t--i----t---rt-t-t-t-t-+--+--+---++r-t-t-+-t-+----,1-----++++++-+-+-+--1
90t-+--t--+---+++.+-t-+-t--+-f:----"l\rl+-l++--r.--t--+--t---J+t+-t--f-+-t-+--++-+.+++-+-+--1--++-1-1-l-!--l---l--t-~
851-t--t--t-----tt--t:1-t--t-t--t---t:------'!--rH'--rr.-i---i----t---ti-t--J-t-r.t--t--t---t+i:-t-i-t-t-+-l-----++H--++-l-+-+--I , .
80t-t--+--+---++H-t--+-t-+---t----t-t'<IT-t-t---r-+--t--+H-i-i-t-t--+--+---++t-t-t-l-t--+-l----+-l-l-+++--+-+---+---I
I\
75t-t--t---t---H-H-t--+-t-+----t----i-t-t-t-l\'t-t---r-+--t--+H-1-t-t-t--t--+---++t-t-t-t-t--+--,l----+-l-l-+++--+-+---+---I I\: ~ 701-+--+--+---+-HH-++-+-+--+--+H++-+:---t<l\,_:--+--+--+++Hf--f-'-l--+---lf---l--l--fi-+-t-+--+---!---++l--+-l--l--l--+---I----I
, ~
'-651-t--+--t----l+H-+-t-t-+--tl----+-t-H-+-t---r--t--"';--++-t-t+-t-+--+--+---++r-H-+--t-+---,l----++H--++-l-+-+--I
I •"" Q 60 1-!--+--t----l+H-+-t-t-t---tl----+-t-H-rr--t-t--+--'-s:-+t'\-H-f-t-;+--t-l----l+-l+l-+-t-+---t---!--+H+++-+-+--+---I ~ >-55 1-t--+--+----t-Hr.-t-+-J-t-t---f.---t-H+-t-f.--t-t--i--t-As+-+-t-+--+--+---+t-+H-t-+--,f-+---l--l-+++-++-+-+-+---1 co I\ • ffi 50 t-t--+--+---++H-+-+--1-+-t--++++-i-r.--!--+---t--+t++-i--'\1-+--+--+----+++-H-+-t--+-l---i--l-l-l-++--+-+---+---I ~ ·i ffi 45 t-t--+--+---++t-++-+--1-+-t---t-+++-t-r-!--+---f--+H-++-t-!+,\-+--t----++-H-t-+-t--+---,l---i--l-l-l-++--+-+---+---I
~ 40 t-t--+---t---++t-++-+-t-+---t---t-H-t--t-t---r-+--t--+H-++-t-+--ll\--'t=-l----,'-t--H-t-t-l--+---+---+H++-1-1---1--+--I
w \
a. 351-+--+--t---++f++-t-t-+---+---+-t+++-t----t--l-+--+-1++-+-H--+--h---++-H-+-l--'f-+---l--l-+++++--+-+-+--1
301-1--f--+--+++-1-11-+-l---l-+---+-t+H--t-+-+--l---+!-++-t-l-l--lf---l--~---"<--H++-l-l-+--I--I-----H-l--l-l-l--l--l--l---l '-i
251-+-+--t---H-R-+-l-l-+-fl----fH-+-t--+-+-+-+--+-1+++-t--+-+--t-----l+r-H-t--t-+---ll-----++++++-l-+-+--l
20t-t--+--+---1+8-t--+-t-+-tl---+++++-r---!--+---t--+++++-t-+t--+--t---t+-r-+-l-t-t--+--l---+-l-l-+++--+-+---+--I
15t-t--+---t---H-r.t-t---+-l-t---tl----t-H-t-+-ti---r-+--t--+++i-i-r.+--+--+---++r.H-+--,t--+--l--++++-++-+-+--+---t
101-+--+---t---++H-+-+-t-t---t.c----t-H-t--t-t--+--+---t---+++-H--t-+-t--t---t+r.+-t-+--,t--+--l--++++-++-+--+---l---t
5t-t--t--+---H-H-t-t--,r-t---t,-----t+-H---t-t:--i------i---t---++++-+-+-r--+---t---H--H-t-+-t--+--1'----+++++-+-+-+---t--i
o ........ .....___,__~......._........,._....___._-".", ................ _._.._...__........_....,_.__.__,__._ _ _._._.....__......_...._.____. _ ___.,......,_..._._..._....._..,____.
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND
coarse fine coarse medium fine SILT OR CLAY
Boring No. Depth (ft) Description LL PL Pl Cc Cu
BH-2 0-5 SILTY SAND {SM}
"'
Boring No. Depth (ft) 0100 060 030 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I %Clay
BH-2 0-5 25.4-1.296 0.113 28.0 45.0 27.0
GRAIN. SIZE DISTRIBUTION RES UL TS . • • •• • •
it Converse Consultants
Project Name
Improvements to Palomar-Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California For: Riha Construction Co .
Project No. Drawing No.
06-32110-01 B-1
•
• • • • •t ., • • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • ..
•• •• • •r ~-
•• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
;
p
L
A s
T
I
C
I
T y
I
N
D
E
X
Symbol
•
60
'
·SO
-40
30
20
10
0
0
CL-ML
Boring No.
BH-6
-
20
Depth LL
(Ft) (%)
10 46
/
/
PL
(%)
16
@ @
--V /
/ V
40
Pl
(%)
30
,
@ 8
60
LIQUID LIMIT
Description
CLAYSTONE
,V V
V /
/ V
--
.
80 100
. ~-------------------------------------
• \-_ • ATTERBERG:LIMITS RESULTS . ~.
:· ~·converse Consultants
• • •
Project Name
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
For: Riha Construction Co .
Project No. Drawing No.
06-32110-01 B-2
• • • • •t •• • •· •• • •: e: • •: .i
•• 8i
el
•• • • •• • • • • . (
•-· • • • • • • • :-• • • • • • • •
•-• •
150
r:"
~ 1201-------l--------l'--------",,-4----"'c-----+--------1--------1
w 0
~ 0
90L,_ ____ _J__ ____ __,_ _____ .J_ ____ __,__ _____ ~---------::-'
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
WATER CONTENT, %
~ ASTM OPTIMUM MAXIMUM DRY SYMBOL SAMPLE NO. DEPTH (ft) DESCRIPTION TEST METHOD WATER,% DENSITY, pcf
•· BH-2 0-5 SIL TY SAND (SM) D1557 Method B 9.5 129
e(-. --_ MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP RESULTS .
•• Project Name
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
For: Riha Construction Co.
Project No.
06-32110-01
Drawing No.
B-3-: .• ·converse Consultants __ ....;::_ ________________________________ _
••
•-
••
e;-•· ..
·--•• • c • • • • • • • • • .__
••
·•·
•--••
•-· _.,;· • •• • •( : • •. -• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
0
2
6
8
10
0.1
SAMPLE NO. :
DESCRIPTION ;
MOISTURE
CONTENT(%)
INITIAL 22.9
FINAL 26.7
-◄~
\
I\
~ •
4~ I'--..._ r----.....__
1
BH-7
~ CLAY(CL)
I DRY DENSITY
(pcf)
95.7
99.1
""' N "' -.
~ t'.
I'\.
----l"e [\
I'-------I\
I'--i-. I\
1--. I--~~ '-
10 100
STRESS, ksf
DEPTH (ft) 5
SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.65
PERCENT
!
VOID
SATURATION RATIO
84 0.710
100 0.10a
• NOTE: •----------------------------------e/--CONS-OLIDATION TEST RESULTS-
• ~\ Project Name
For: Riha Construction Co.
Project No.
06-3211 0-01
Drawing No.
B-4-•.-~-·!?J_) Converse-Consultants-'81:rr:;:::~~~f~~J:lomarTransferStation
·-----------------------------------• •
• • • • •r
.\ • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • • •• • • •r
=· • :·
-4,000
3,500
3,000
'[ 2,500
t C) z w c:: t5 2,000
c::
;ii ::c en
1,500
1,000
500
0
,,.
/'
V V ..
/
V /
4
/
/ V /0
/
• -•
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000
~ . • •• • • • • • • • • • •• -~
SAMPLE NO. :
DESCRIPTION
COHESION (psf)
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
NOTE: ULTIMATE STRENGTH
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
BH-1 , DEPTH (ft) :
SANDSTONE
400 FRICTION ANGLE (degrees):
15 DRY DENSITY (pcf)
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RES UL TS:
=~-• i(!!J/ Converse Consultants •
Project Name
I mprovements·to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
For: Riha Construction Co .
• •
Project No.
06-32110-01
5
30
99
Drawing No.
B-5
• • • • •(· •. , • • • • • • • ~ • •r-·
=--
•••
~-•
~-•
=·· .(
:_
• . -:
•--·
•• • •-
•·-· •:
.
... • • • • • • • •
-4,000
3,500
3,000
i 2,500
:r:·
~ z w a:: t:, 2,000
a::
iD :r: en
1,500
1,000
500
~
~
~-.
~
/'
_,,,,,,,--
~
n ~
~,
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000
NORMAL PRESSURE, psf
SAMPLE NO. BH-S " DEPTH (ft) :
DESCRIPTION : CLAYSTONE
COHESION (psf) 800 FRICTION ANGLE (degrees):
MOISTURE CONTENT(%) 16 DRY DENSITY (pct)
_/
y·
4,000
5
27
110
• NOTE: ULTIMATE STRENGTH .-----------------------------------~-DIRECTSH-EAR TEST RESULTS.
: ., ·converse Consultants
• • •
Project Name
lmpr.ovements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California For: Riha Construction Co .
Project No.
06-32110-01
Drawing No.
B-6
A
P
p
E
N
D
I
X
C ,
• • • •
:( • • • • • • • • • •
•·•• • : • • • •
=··
~-( • • • • • : • ., •· • ., • • • • • • ••
•• . ~--• ., • • . ,
••
APPENDIX C
Geotechnicaf Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
cartsbad, Gallfomia
-April 5;.2006
Page D-1
EARTHWORK SPECIFICATIONS
·c1 .1 Scope of Work
The work includes all labor, supplies and construction equipment required to construct
the building pads in a good, workmanlike manner~ as shown on the drawings and herein
specified. The major items of work covered in this section include the following: ...
..
• Site Inspection
• Authority of Geotechnical Engineer
• Site Clearing
• Excavations
• Pre·paration of Fill Areas
• Placement and Compaction of Fills
• Observation and Testing
C1 .2 Site Inspection
1. The Contractor shall carefully examine the site and make all inspections
necessary in order to determine the full extent of the work required to make the
completed work conform to the drawings and specifications. The Contractor
shall satisfy himself as to the nature and location of the work, ground surface and
the characteristics of equipment and facilities needed prior to and during
prosecution of the work. The Contractor shall satisfy himself as to the character,
quality, and quantity of surface and subsurface materials or obstacles to be
encountered. Any inaccuracies or discrepancies between the actual field
conditions and the drawings, or between the drawings and specifications must be
brought to the Owner's attention in order to clarify the exact nature of the work to
be performed.
2. This Geotechnical Investigation Report by Converse Consultants may be used as
a reference to the surface and subsurface conditions on this project. The
information presented in this above referenced report is intended for use in
design and is subject to confirmation of the conditions encountered during
construction. The exploration logs and related information depict subsurface
conditions only at the particular time and location designated on the boring logs .
Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions encountered
at the exploration locations. In addition, the passage of time may result in a
·change in subsurface conditions at the exploration locations. Any review of this
information shall not relieve the Contractor from performing such independent
~-.....,_,, Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-11D\06-32110-01_gir.doc
• • • • •• e( • • • • • • • • • • . ,
e: • ••• •· • •• • • • •( • •• • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • • • • . {--• • • • • •
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, Callfomfa
AprilS,2006
PageD-2
investigation and evaluation to satisfy himself as to the nature of the surface and
subsurface conditions to be encountered and the procedures to be used in
performing his work .
C1 .3. Authority of the Geotechnical Engineer
1. The Geotechnical Engineer will observe the placement of compacted fill and will
take sufficient tests to evaluate the uniformity and degree of compaction of filled
ground .
2.As the Owner's representative, the Geotechnical Engineer will (a) have the
authority to cause the removal and replacement of loose, soft, disturbed. and
other unsatisfactory soils and uncontrolled fills; (b) have the authority to approve
the preparation of native ground to receive fill material; and (c) have the authority
to approve or reject soils proposed for use in building areas .
3. The Civil Engineer and/or Owner will decide all questions regarding (a) the
interpretation of the drawings and specifications, (b) the acceptable fulfillment of
the contract on the part of the contractor and (c) the matters of compensation .
C1 .4 Site Clearing
1. Clearing and grubbing shall consist of the removal from building areas to be
graded: all existing pavement, utilities, and vegetation .
2. Organic and inorganic materials resulting from the clearing and grubbing
operations shall be hauled away from the areas to be graded .
C1 .5 Excavations
Based on observations made during our field explorations, the surficial soils can
be excavated with conventiopal earthwork equipment.
C1 .6 Preparation of Fill Areas
1. All organic material, organic soils, incompetent alluvium, undocumented fill soils
and debris should be removed from the proposed building areas .
2. After the required removals have been made, the exposed bedrock shall be
scarified to provide a zone of structural fill for the support of footings, slabs-on
grade, exterior flatwork. All l9ose, soft or disturbed earth materials-should be
~-
~' Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBF!LE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc
• • • •
.(
et • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • i :
.( • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •-• • • • • •
Geotechnical Investigation-Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Carlsbad, California
April· 5,. 2006
Page D-3
removed from the bottom of excavations before placing .structural ·fill. As a
minimum, the on site soils in the building area and to five {5) feet beyond the
building limits and appendages shall be removed and recompacted to provide at
least two {2) feet of properly compacted fill underneath all slabs and footings .
3. The subgrade in all areas to receive fill shall be scarified to a minimum depth of
twelve (12) inches, then compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90
percent as· per ASTM Standard D1557 test method at moisture content at least
120 percent of optimum and compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90
percent.
4. Compacted fill may be placed on native soils that have been properly scarified
and recompacted as discussed above .
5. All areas to -receive compacted fill will be observed and approved by the
Geotechnical Engineer before the placement of fill.
C1.7 Placement and Compaction of Fills
1. Compacted fill placed for the support of footings, slabs-on-grade, exterior
concrete flatwork, and driveways will be considered structural fill. Structural fill
may consist of approved onsite soils or imported fill that meets the criteria
indicated below .
2. Fill consisting of selected on-site earth materials or imported soils approved by
the Geotechnical Engineer shall be placed in layers on approved earth materials .
Soils used as compacted structural fill shall have the following characteristics:
a. All fill soil particles shall not exceed three (3) inches in nominal size, and
shall be free of organic matter and miscellaneous inorganic debris and inert
rubble. •
b. In order to limit moisture penetration to foundation earth materials, imported
fill materials shall· be similar to on-site earth materials with at least 30 percent
passing the No. 200 sieve. As an alternative to 30 percent passin~ the No.
200 sieve, import materials with a remolded permeability of 1 x 10 <-> cm/sec
or less would be acceptable .
c. Fill materials shall have an Expansion Index (El) less than 20. All imported
fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density
(ASTM Standard D1557 test method) at about two (2) percent above
optimum moisture for fine grained soils, and within two (2) percent-of
optimum for·granular soils.
~1 Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01 _gir.doc
• • • • •· e( • • • • • • • ~ • • • •• • • • • •• • • • •· .( ·) : :· • : • : • • • • • • • • • • e(-• • • • •• •
Geotechnical Investigation Report
Improvements to Palomar Transfer Station
Cansbad, California
April 5,2006
Page D-4
d. Imported fill materials shall have less than 0.1 percent sulfate salts, if
possible. If laboratory test results indicate import fill materials contain more
than 0:1 percent sulfate salts, a concrete mix should be designed to resist
the sulfate levels indicated by the laboratory test results .
3. Fill soils shall be evenly spread in maximum eight-inch lifts, watered or dried as
necessary, mixed and compacted to at least the density specified below. Th~ fill
shall be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved
by the Geotechnical Engineer .
4. All fill placed at the site shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum laboratory density as determined by ASTM Standard D1557 test
method. Granular soils shall be moisture conditioned to within two (2) percent,
and clayey soils to at least 120 percent of optimum moisture content.
5. Representative samples of materials being used as compacted fill will be
analyzed in the laboratory by the Geotechnical Engineer to obtain information on
their physical properties. Maximum laboratory density of each soil type used in
the compacted fill will be determined by the ASTM D1557 compaction method.
6. Fill materials shall not be placed, spread or compacted during unfavorable
weather conditions. When site earthwork is interrupted by heavy rain, filling
operations shall not resume until the Geotechnical Engineer approves the
moisture and density conditions of the previously placed fill.
7. It shall be the Earthwork Contractor's obligation to take all measures deemed
necessary during earthwork to provide erosion control devices in order to protect
slope areas and adjacent properties from storm damage and flood hazard
originating on this project. It shall be the contractor's responsibility to maintain
slopes in their as-graded form until all slopes are in satisfactory compliance with
job specifications, all berms have been properly constructed, and all associated
drainage devices meet the r~quirements of the Civil/Geotechnical Engineer .
8. Fill exceeding five (5) feet in height shall not be placed on native slopes that are
steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Where native slopes are steeper than
5: 1, and the height of fill is greater than five (5) feet, the fill shall be benched into
competent materials. The height and width of the benches shall be at least tow
(2) feet.
~
W"converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-3211 Q.,Q 1 _gir.doc
C1 .8 Observation ,and Testing
Geotechnical Investigation Report
lmprovemen1sto Palomar Transfer Station
Carfsbad,-califomla
Aprir5,2006
PageD-5
1. During the progress of earthwork, the Geotechnical Engineer will provide
observation of the fill placement operations.
2. Field density tests will be made during earthwork to provide an opinion on· the
degree of compaction being obtained by the contractor. Where compaction of
less than specified herein is indicated, additional compactive effort with
adjustment of the moisture content shall be made as necessary until the required
degree of compaction is obtained.
3. A sufficient number of field density tests will be performed to provide an opinion
to the degree of compaction achieved. In general, density tests will be performed
on each one-foot lift of fill, but not less than one for each 500 cubic yards of fill
placed.
@: Converse Consultants
CCOC\M:\JOBFILE\2006\32\06-110\06-32110-01_gir.doc