HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Access Road for North County Animal Shelter; Access Road for North County Animal Shelter; 1998-02-23REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD
FOR NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IMPROVEMENT
STATION 71+50 TO STATION 82+00
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
February 23, 1998
This document was prepared for use only by the client, only for the purpose stated, and within a reasonable time
from issuance. Non-commercial, educational and scientific use of this report by governmental agencies is regarded
as "fair use" and not a violation of copyright. The client and governmental agencies may make additional copies of
this document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. The reprint
must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission to reprint has been received.
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC . Pageiofiii February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
KLEINFELDER
A report prepared for:
P & D Technologies
401 West A Street, Suite 2500
San Diego, California 92101
Attn: Mr. Dan Lee
REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED ACCESS ROAD FOR NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER
P ALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD IMPROVEMENT
STATION 71+50 TO STATION 82+00
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Kleinfelder Job No. 51-4687-01
Prepared by:
George M. Binger III
Staff Engineer
KLEINFELDER, INC.
9555 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 101
San Diego, California 92123
(619)541-1145
Rick E. Larson, GE 2027
Senior Associate
February 23, 1998
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Page ii of iii February 23, 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 GENERAL 1
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES 2
2.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING KLEINFELDER REPORT 3
3.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 4
3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION 4
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING 4
4.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6
4.1 DISCUSSION 6
4.1.1 Physiography 6
4.1.2 Subsurface Conditions :...6
4.2 CONCLUSIONS 7
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS 7
4.3.1 Site Preparation and General Earthwork Operations 7
4.3.1.1 General 7
4.3.1.2 Remedial Grading 8
4.3.1.3 Engineered Fill 8
4.3.2 Retaining Walls 9
4.3.3 Concrete Energy Dissipater 9
4.3.4 Access Road Pavement Subgrade 10
4.3.5 Corrosive Soils 10
5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS 12
FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Plan
Figure 3 Recompacted Surface Fill
APPENDICES
Appendix A Boring Logs and Cone Soundings
Appendix B Laboratory Test Data
Appendix C ASFE Insert
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC Pageiiiofiii February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
This report presents the results of Kleinfelder's limited geotechnical investigation for the access
road to the North County Animal Shelter along Palomar Airport Road in the vicinity of Station
71+50 to Station 82+00. A vicinity map showing the general location of the site is presented in
Figure 1 at the end of this report.
This report has been prepared as a supplemental report to our "Geotechnical Report for Palomar
Airport Road and El Camino Real Improvement in Carlsbad, California." This earlier report was
prepared under Kleinfelder's Project Number 51-1588-01, dated January 25, 1991. Our previous
report covered the widening of approximately 5,000 lineal feet along Palomar Airport Road. The
objective of this report is to provide the design team with findings, conclusions, and
recommendations regarding the immediate subgrade and foundation areas in the vicinity at the
proposed access road, adjacent retaining walls, and new 18" RCP headwall near Station 77+70.
Our investigation has been coordinated with Mr. Dan Lee, Project Manager with P & D
Technologies.
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will consist of constructing masonry retaining walls, grading, extending the existing
30" CMP, constructing a new energy dissipater, and providing a new access road to the shelter.
The retaining walls will be constructed in accordance with regional standard drawings, and they
will support additional fill to be placed to accommodate the new access road from Palomar
Airport Road. The access road will be a fourteen-foot wide terrace that will be constructed on
the new engineered fill slope. Sections of the retaining walls will be constructed with maximum
anticipated exposed wall heights on the order of four feet.
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC Page 1 of 12 February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
The new engineered fill slope will extend beyond the location of the existing headwall for a 30"
CMP culvert crossing under Palomar Airport Road. The headwall will be removed and the
culvert will be extended by approximately sixty feet using 18" RCP. It will terminate with a new
concrete energy dissipater.
1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The purpose of this geotechnical investigation was to supplement our 1991 study in order to
provide additional geotechnical recommendations for the design of the retaining walls,
earthwork, and pavement section for the new access road.
Our scope of services included field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses, to
provide the following information:
• Discussion of the surface and subsurface conditions;
• Bearing capacity of the retaining wall foundation soils, including recommendations for a
foundation leveling pad, minimum foundation embedment, and anticipated foundation
settlement;
• Lateral earth pressures for retaining wall design;
• Recommendations for retaining wall drainage;
• Anticipated excavation conditions;
• Guidelines for earthwork construction, including recommendations for site preparation, fill
placement, compaction, and subgrade preparation;
• Recommended pavement section for the new access road; and
• Corrosion tests of soils for the proposed RCP.
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC Page2ofl2 February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
2.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING KLEINFELDER REPORT
«
As part of our services we reviewed our 1991 geotechnical report entitled "Geotechnical Report
for Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real Improvement in Carlsbad, California to evaluate
whether it was still valid for the new improvements. Based on our site reconnaissance and the
additional subsurface information we obtained, it is our opinion that the 1991 report is still valid
for the proposed improvements with the addition of the new data within this report for the
improvements in the vicinity of the new exit ramp along the North County Animal Control
Shelter.
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC Page3ofl2 February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
3.0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION
D
n
3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION
For this supplemental investigation, we excavated three hand auger borings to depths up to five
feet below the existing ground surface and advanced five cone soundings to depths up to ten feet
below ground surface. Effective hand auger refusal was encountered in Borings 1 and 2 at
depths of four feet and 1.5 feet, respectively. The cone soundings were completed using a
portable dynamic cone penetrometer which consisted of driving a nominal 1.5 inch diameter cone
into the soil with a free-falling 35 pound hammer. Approximate boring and cone sounding
locations are shown on the Site Plan, Figure 2.
Our field engineer maintained a log of the borings, visually classified soils encountered
according to the Unified Soil Classification System, and obtained representative samples of the
subsurface materials. Logs for Borings 1 through 3 are included in Appendix A.
For the cone soundings, the actual blow counts in four-inch (10 centimeter) increments were
recorded in the field and later converted to dynamic cone resistance by computer program. A plot
of dynamic cone resistance and soil consistency is made for each sounding. The plots for Cone
Soundings 1 through 4 are also included in Appendix A.
The water table was encountered in Boring 3 at depth of 2.5 feet. However, the water table may
change due to variations in precipitation, site drainage, or other factors that may have not been
present at the time of our investigation.
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was performed on representative bulk samples to substantiate field
classifications and provide engineering parameters for geotechnical design. Testing consisted of:
51-4687-0175118R037.DOC Page4ofl2 February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
sieve analyses, expansion potential, soil plasticity, R-value tests and direct shear testing. The test
results are presented in Appendix B.
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC Page 5 of 12 February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
4.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 DISCUSSION
4.1.1 Physiography
The site is located along the south side of Palomar Airport in the general vicinity of Station
71+50 to Station 82+00 for the improvement to Palomar Airport Road. The site slopes
downward from Palomar Airport Road into the animal shelter compound. The slope is
approximately fifteen feet high near the east end of the site and increases to approximately
twenty-five feet in height near the west end. The slope angle ranges from 2.5 to 1 (horizontal to
vertical) to 1.5 to 1. The site elevations near the base of the slope is approximately 265 feet
above mean sea level (MSL). The top of the slope ranges from 275 feet MSL to 295 feet MSL.
The western portion of the slope is covered with trees and relatively thick underbrush. The
eastern part of the slope is covered by sparse grass. There is evidence of current soil erosion on
portions of the slope. At the base of the hill, the majority of the site is occupied by a gravel
parking lot. The east end of the site contains a concrete culvert and headwall. The culvert
empties in a natural drainage channel. The channel is approximately three feet deep. The area is
densely vegetated.
4.1.2 Subsurface Conditions
The subsurface conditions encountered in our borings were generally consistent with the
conditions described in our 1991 report for the road widening. The upper two feet of soils in our
test borings generally consisted of a brown sandy clay residual soil. This sandy clay residual soil
generally had a medium plasticity and a medium expansion potential as exhibited by its
expansion index of 62. The surficial soil within the upper one to two feet in the retaining
wall/ramp area were loose to medium stiff soils as indicated by Cone Soundings 1, 2, 3, and 5.
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC Page6ofl2 February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
U Soils encountered at other depths in other borings and cone soundings were found to be very stiff
p to hard.
f~| The locations for the new headwall is underlain by less dense soil at depth than the soils found in
the retaining wall area. They generally consisted of very loose to loose, alluvial, silty and clayey
[~| sands, silts and clays. The loose soils were encountered from depths of 2.5 to ten feet in Boring
3 and Cone Sounding 3
U 4.2 CONCLUSIONS
D^ Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses, it is our opinion
R that it is geotechnical feasible to construct the proposed improvements at the site provided the
recommendations presented in our January 25, 1991 report and this supplemental report are
Pj incorporated into the project design and construction. Regrading of the surficial soils has been
recommended to mitigate their existing loose condition which could result in settlement and
lateral slippage if they are left in their present condition.
n
lLJ 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
[_j 4.3.1 Site Preparation and General Earthwork Operations
[J 4.3.1.1 General
All site preparation, earthwork operations, and erosion control methods should be performed in
accordance with the recommendations of Kleinfelder's 1991 report and applicable codes. All
jj references to maximum dry density are established in accordance with ASTM Standard Test
Method D-l557.
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC Page7ofl2 February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
4.3.1.2 Remedial Grading
The very loose to loose surface soils indicate that some remedial grading of the upper two feet of
(J surficial material should be completed. These existing surficial fill soils are potentially
compressible and may not provide sufficient lateral stability for the new fill and retaining walls
U in their present condition. Some of this remedial grading will already be accomplished by the
P. normal excavation and backfilling procedures that will be done to install the retaining walls.
n> The upper very loose to loose soils should be removed and recompacted as indicated on Figure 3.
*—' Prior to removal, the surface organics and vegetation should be removed and disposed from the
|~j site. Once the very loose to loose fill soils have been removed, the exposed soils should be
horizontally benched into the medium dense to dense underlying fill soils as shown on Figure 3.
R The exact dimensions shown on Figure 3 may require modifications as actual field conditions
during construction dictate. The bottom of the key should be proofrolled, scarified, moisture
M conditioned, and recompacted as described in Kleinfelder's 1991 report.
4.3.1.3 Engineered Fill
We anticipate that most of the on-site soils may be reusable as engineered fill provided it is
n moisture conditioned, placed, and compacted in accordance with our 1991 report. Please note
that because of the clay content of the on-site soils, this material is to be placed between 2 to 5
[~1 percent above optimum moisture content.
If import fill for the foundation and retained earth fills is necessary for this project, we
recommend the import fill be of a low to non-expansive nature and meet the following minimum
criteria:
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC Page 8 of 12 February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Percent Soil Passing
No. 200 Sieve: Less than 30%
Maximum Particle Size: 3"
Expansion Index: less than 30
Phi angle (0): > 34°
Liquid Limit: Less than 30%
R-Value: 20 Minimum
4.3.2 Retaining Walls
We understand that the retaining walls for this project will conform to the San Diego Regional
Standard Drawings. Provided the upper two feet of loose material along the existing
embankment and the new engineered fill are constructed in accordance with the
recommendations of this report and our earlier 1991 report, those standard drawings can be used.
The onsite soils are not suitable for use as backfill directly behind the retaining walls and
imported backfill is recommended. The imported backfill should be used behind the back of the
stem wall for a distance at least equivalent to the height of the wall supporting the backfill. The
imported backfill should meet the requirements of Section 4.3.1.3.
4.3.3 Concrete Energy Dissipater
We understand the concrete headwall at about Station 77+72, 110 feet right will be removed and
replaced with a concrete energy dissipater per Drawing Number D-41 of the San Diego Regional
Standard Drawings. This dissipater should be constructed on undisturbed soils.
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC Page9ofl2 February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
4.3.4 Access Road Pavement Subgrade
Plan Sheet 2* of the project plans indicate the access road will be 4 inches of asphaltic concrete
over 6 inches of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. On the basis of the pavement section shown on
the project plans, we have recommended that the upper twelve inches of imported pavement
subgrade material have a minimum R-value as shown on Table 1. We recommend that the
material placed in the upper twelve inches of pavement subgrade be tested for R-value before
paving operations begin to evaluate the subgrade's suitability to support the pavement. All
subgrade soils should be placed and compacted in accordance with our 1991 recommendations.
Table 1: Recommended R-value of Pavement Subgrade
Traffic Index
5.0 or less
6.0
7.0
Minimum R-value Required
for Pavement Sections on Plan
Sheet 2* (4" AC/ 6" Base)
20
32
45
4.3.5 Corrosive Soils
A sample of the on-site soils that are likely to come in contact with the buried culvert and
foundations were tested for potential corrosion to concrete and reinforcing steel. These samples
were tested for pH and resistivity in our laboratory. A split sample was sent to Pacific Analytical
nu
"Plans for the Improvement of Palomar Airport Road from 556 Feet West of Yarrow Drive to 622 Feet West of El
Camino Real," Drawing No. 323-3, Section "A-A" on Sheet 2, Fill Slope Benching Detail on Sheet 7, prepared by P
& D Technologies, undated.
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Pa?e 10 of 12 February 23, 1998
Laboratories to test for soluble sulfates and chlorides content of soils. Samples were tested in
general accordance with California Test Method 643, (pH and minimum electrical resistivity)
Cal Test Method 417 (water soluble sulfates) and Cal Test Method 422 (water soluble chlorides).
The test results are as follows:
Boring
1
Depth
(ft)
Ito3
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
1,170
pH
4.6
Water Soluble
Sulfates
(mg/Kg)
50
Water Soluble
Chlorides
(mg/Kg)
280
These tests are only an indicator of soil corrosivity for the soils that are likely to come in contact
with foundations and underground utilities. Test results indicate the soils may be somewhat
corrosive to buried structures. A competent corrosion engineer should be consulted for specific
recommendations to mitigate corrosion.
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Pa°e 11 of 12 February 23, 1998
5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES AND LIMITATIONS
The Additional Services and Limitations from our 1991 report are extended to cover this report.
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC Pagel2ofl2 February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
crbji<
oo
o
X
CL
Q-O
crUJ
u.
CM
ceLU
O
<t
I00
o
O
bjO i *Si
•u.O sxo
g So
IX
O
o
CO
O
UJ
CD
O
in
_2UJca
croo CO
O<%ms
0. rf±
O
O
UJoc
in
o
PENDIX
LOG OF HAND AUGER BORING 1
Depth Below Ground Surface
Surface to 8 in.
8 in. to 4 ft.
Soil Description
RESIDUAL SOILS
Brown clayey SAND (SC), fine grained,
moist (one-inch thick root zone)
Brown silty CLAY (CL), dry
(Effective auger refusal at 4 ft.)
LOG OF HAND AUGER BORING 2
Depth Below Ground Surface
Surface to 4 in.
4 in. to 16 in.
Soil Description
ARTIFICIAL FILL
Olive-brown clayey SAND (SC), fine
grained, moist (parking lot subgrade)
Brown silty CLAY (CL), moist
(Effective auger refusal at 16 in.)
LOG OF HAND AUGER BORING 3
Depth Below Ground Surface
Surface to 1 in.
1 in. to 12 in.
12 in. to 3 ft.
3 ft. to 5 ft.
Soil Description
ALLUVIUM
Black silty SAND (SM), fine grained,
moist, abundant roots and organic matter.
Brown clayey SAND (SC), fine grained,
moist
Brown silty CLAY (CL), moist
Olive-brown clayey SILT (ML) with sand,
wet (free water observed at 3.0 ft.;
boring stopped at 5.0 ft.)
KLEI NFELDER
9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE 101
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123
CHECKED BY:
PROJECT NO 51-4687-01
FN:
DATE: 02-23-98
LOG OF HAND AUGER BORINGS
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
RETAINING WALL/EGRESS RAMP
NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE
A1
DYNAMIC CdNE SOUNDING 1
DATE PERFORMED: 01-29-98 SURFACE ELEVATION: 280 ft.
CREW: G. Binger WATER ON COMPLETION: No free water observed
CONE AREA: 10SQ. CM LOCATION: NW corner
HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 pounds
DEPTH DEPTH BLOWS RESISTANCE CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY
FT M PER 10 CM KG/CMA2 0 50 100 150 N1 SAND SILT CLAY
4" 0.1 2 8.9
8" 0.2 6 26.6
V 0.3 12 53.3 ...........
1'4" 0.4 12 53.3 ...........
1'8" 0.5 15 66.6
2'8" 0.8 15 66.6 .............
3'4" 1.0 14 62.2 ............
4' 1.2 24 92.6 ................
4'4" 1.3 16 61.8 ** —
5' 1.5 22 84.9 ................
5'4" 1.6 23 88.8 ................
5'8" 1.7 18 69.5 *****
6'4" 1.9 33 127.4 ..........
2 VERY LOOSE
7
15
15
19
16
21
19
12
17
22
17
* 24
24
25
19
22
"
Notes: 1 . A "-" in the N' column indicates an equivalent SPT N' value greater than 25.
2. The soil was generally classified in the field as a brown silty CLAY (CL).
A more detailed description of the soils generally corresponds with the soils observed in Boring 1.
3. Effective cone refusal was encountered at approximately 6'8".
KLEI NFELD ER
9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE lOI
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92 1 23
PROJECT NO. 51-4687-01
CHECKED BY: Q>f&> JDATE: 02-03-98
DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING LOG
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
RETAINING WALL/EGRESS RAMP
NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
MED.STIFF
STIFF
STIFF
VERY STIFF
VERY STIFF
VERY STIFF
VERY STIFF
STIFF
VERY STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
VERY STIFF
VERY STIFF
VERY STIFF
VERY STIFF
VERY STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
HARD
FIGURE
A2
]
]
]
]
]
0
D
D
D
D
D
C
r~
I
DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING 2
DATE PERFORMED: 01-29-98 SURFACE ELEVATION: 278ft.
CREW: G. Binger WATER ON COMPLETION: No free water observed
CONE AREA: 10 SO. CM LOCATION: NE corner
HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 pounds
DEPTH BLOWS RESISTANCE CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY
FT M PER 10 CM KG/CMA2 0 50 100 150 N' SAND SILT CLAY
4" 0.1
8" 0.2
T 0,3
1'4" 0.4
1'8" 0.5
2' 0.6
2'4" 0.7
2'8" 0.8
3' 0.9
3'4" . 1.0
3'8" 1.1
4' 1.2
4'4" 1 .3
4'8" 1 .4
5' 1.5
5'4" 1 .6
5'8" 1.7
Notes:
Ml
PROJECT NO.
CHECKED BY:
2 8.9 " 2 VERY LOOSE
6 26.6 7 M
10 44.4 ......... 12
27 119.9 ........................
22 97.7 ....................
30 133.2 *
35 155.4 ...............................
30 133.2 ...........................
30 115.8 .......................
21 81.1 ................ 23 VE
40 154.4 ...............................
45 173.7 ...................................
44 169.8 ..................................
40 154.4 ...............................
1 . A "-" in the N' column indicates an equivalent SPT N' value greater than 25.
2. The soil was generally classified in the field as a brown silty CLAY (CL).
A more detailed description of the soils generally corresponds with the soils observed in Boring 1.
3. Effective cone refusal was encountered at approximately 5'8".
1 KLEINFELDER DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING LOG
9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE 101 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 RETAINING WALL/EGRESS RAMP
51-4687-01 _____ _ _ PAR| qRAn rAI IFDRWIA
6/M& JDATE: 02-23-98
ED.STIFF
STIFF
RY STIFF
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
RY STIFF
RY STIFF
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
FIGURE
A3
DYNAMIC
DATE PERFORMED: 01-29-98
CREW:G. Binger
CONE AREA: 10 SO. CM
CONE SOUNDING 3
SURFACE ELEVATION: 260 ft.
WATER ON COMPLETION: No free water observed
LOCATION: Culvert head wall
HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 pounds
DEPTH
FT M
4" 0.1
8" 0.2
V 0.3
1'4" 0.4
1'8" 0.5
2' 0.6
2'4" 0.7
2'8" 0.8
3' 0.9
3'4" 1.0
3'8" 1.1
41 1.2
4'4" 1.3
4'8" 1 .4
5' 1.5
5'4" 1 .6
5'8" 1.7
6' 1.8
6'4" 1 .9
6'8" 2
r 2.1
7'4" 2.2
7'8" 2.3
8' 2.4
8'4" 2.5
8'8" 2.6
9' 2.7
9'4" 2.8
9'8" 2.9
10' 3
Notes:
BLOWS RESISTANCE CONE RESISTANCE TESTED
PER 10 CM KG/CW2 0 50 100 150 N1 SAND
1 4.4
4 17.8
4 17.8
8 35.5
15 66.6 .•.....••...«
26 115.4 ....................
30 133.2 ....................
6 26.6
4 17.8 ****
6 23.2 *****
4 15.4
8 30.9 ******
6 23.2
6 23.2 •""
7 27.0 *"" ""
4 15.4
5 19.3 ***'
6 23.2 "****
5 19.3
7 23.9 *****
7 23.9 *****
9 30.8 ******
10 34.2 *******
11 37.6 .
1 1 37.6 —••••*
10 34.2 ."«••
11 37.6 ........
10 34.2 •«*••••
9 30.8 *
1 VERY LOOSE
5 LOOSE
5 LOOSE
10
19
20
7
5
6
CONSISTENCY
SILT CLAY
o i irr
VERY STIFF
HARD
HARD
VERY STIrr
LOOSE
LOOSE
LOOSE
4 VERY LOOSE
8
6
6
7
LOOSE
LOOSE
LOOSE
LOOSE
4 VERY LOOSE
5
6
5
6
6
8
9
10
10
9
10
9
8
LOOSE
LOOSE
LOOSE
LOOSE
LOOSE
LOOSE
LUUoh
LOOSE
LUUob
LOOSE
LUUot
LOOSE
LOOSE
1. A "-" in the N' column indicates an equivalent SPT N' value greater than 25.
2. The soil was generally classified in the field as a brown silty CLAY (CL).
A more detailed description of the soils generally corresponds with the soils observed in Boring 3.
3. Cone sounding was stopped at approximately 10'0".
151
PROJECT NO.
CHECKED BY:
\ KLEI NFELDER
9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE 101.
SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123
51-4687-01
GMh IDATE; 02-23-98
DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING LOG
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
RETAINING WALUEGRESS RAMP
MPlDTUI C"C\\ 1MTV AK1IMAI CUCI TPD
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE
A4
DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING 4
DATE PERFORMED: 01-29-98
CREW: G. Binger
CONE AREA: 10SQ. CM
HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 pounds
SURFACE ELEVATION: 264 ft.
WATER ON COMPLETION: No free water observed
LOCATION: SW corner of south wall
DEPTH
FT
4"
8"
r
2'
2'4"
2'8"
3'
3'4"
3'8"
4'
4'4"
4'8"
5'
M
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
BLOWS RESISTANCE
PER 10 CM KG/CMA2 0
CONE RESISTANCE
50 100 150
8
10
13
23
29
32
31
29
31
33
32
35
30
22
30
35.5
44.4
57.7
102.1
128.8
142.1
137.6
128.8
137.6
146.5
123.5
135.1
115.8
84.9
115.8
N1
10
12
16
TESTED CONSISTENCY
SAND SILT CLAY
LOOSE
24
Notes: 1. A "-" in the N' column indicates an equivalent SPT N' value greater than 25.
2. The soil was generally classified in the field as a brown silty CLAY (CL).
A more detailed description of the soils generally corresponds with the soils observed in Boring 2.
3. Cone sounding was stopped at approximately 5'0".
STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
VERY STIFF
HARD
KLEI NFELDER
9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE 101
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123
PROJECT NO.51-4687-01
CHECKED BY:DATE:02-23-98
DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING LOG
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
RETAINING WALL/EGRESS RAMP
NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE
A5
DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING 5
DATE PERFORMED: 01-29-98 SURFACE ELEVATION: 263ft.
CREW:G. Binger WATER ON COMPLETION: No free water observed
CONE AREA: 10SQ. CM LOCATION: SE corner of south wall
HAMMER
DEPTH
FT M
4" 0.1
8" 0.2
V 0.3
1'4" 0.4
1'8" 0.5
2' 0.6
2'4" 0.7
2'8" 0.8
3' 0.9
3'4" 1.0
3'8" 1.1
4' 1.2
4'4" 1.3
4'8" 1 .4
5' 1.5
Notes:
m
PROJECT NO.
CHECKED BY:
WEIGHT: 35 pounds
BLOWS RESISTANCE CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY
PER 10 CM KG/CMA2 0 50 100 150 N1 SAND SILT
4 17.8 "" 5 LOOSE
3 13.3 *" 3
CLAY
SOFT
6 26.6 *"" 7 MED.STIFF
10 44.4 ......... 12
19 84.4 ................. 24 VE
22 97.7 ....................
28 124.3 .........................
29 128.8 *****
31 137.6 ......
27 119.9
30 115.8 .......................
33 127.4
42 162.1 ................................
1 . A "-" in the N' column indicates an equivalent SPT N' value greater than 25.
2. The soil was generally classified in the field as a brown silty CLAY (CL).
A more detailed description of the soils generally corresponds with the soils observed in Boring 2.
3. Cone sounding was stopped at approximately 5'0".
KLEI NFELDER DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING LOG
9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE 101 PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 RETAINING WALL/EGRESS RAMP
51-4687-01 nAR| qRAn rA| IFORNIA
<e/Vf£ JDATE: 02-23-98
bllhl-
RY STIFF
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
HARD
FIGURE
A6
PENDIX
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
General
Laboratory tests were performed on selected, representative samples as an aid in classifying the
soils and to evaluate physical properties of the soils which may affect foundation design and
construction procedures. A description of the laboratory testing program is presented below.
Particle Size Analyses
Sieve analyses were performed on two samples of the materials encountered at the site to
evaluate the gradation characteristics of the soils and to aid in their classification. Tests were
performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D422. Results of these tests are
presented on Figures Bl and B2.
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg limits tests were performed on one soil sample to aid in soil classification and to
evaluate the plasticity characteristics of the materials. Tests were performed in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method D4318. Results of these tests are summarized on Figure
B3.
Direct Shear
Direct shear tests were performed on one sample to evaluate the shear strength of representative
site soils. Samples were tested on remolded samples in a saturated state in general accordance
with ASTM Test Method D3080. Results of the direct shear results are presented on Figure B4.
R-value
An R-Value test was performed in accordance with California Test Method 301 on one soil
sample. Results of this test are presented on Figure B5.
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC Bl February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
Expansion Index
An expansion index test was performed on two soil samples. Test procedures were in general
accordance with the ASTM Test Method D4829. Test results are shown on Figure B5.
Corrosive Potential
Two samples were tested to evaluate potential of steel and concrete corrosion that comes in
contact with on-site soils. These tests were performed in general accordance with pH and
Minimum Electrical Resistivity (Cal Test Method 643), Water Soluble Sulfate Content (Cal Test
Method 422), and Water Soluble Chlorides Content (Cal Test Method 417). A summary of these
tests is presented on Figure B5.
51-4687-01/5118R037.DOC B2 February 23, 1998
Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.
3
100
90
80
70
CD /en
HCOCO
CL rnJU
LUO
Lu 40CL
<E
0 30
20
10
0
SIEVE ANALYSIS
1.5"3/4" 3/8"#4
9-
1
«e=
?10
^•^
HYDROMETER
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
#16 #30 #60 #100 #200
! . 1 1 1
--V
10
GRAVEL
coarse
Symbol
•
fine
i K •»>•v
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\i
0
10
20
30
0
40 £J
H
1—LU
50 *i-
LUCJ
60 LUCL
_1
70 p
80
90
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
SAND
coarse medium
Boring No.
1
Depth (ft)
2.5
fine SILT CLAY
Description
Brown silty CLAY
Classification
CL
JgJ KLEINFELDER
PROJECT NO.51-4687-01
North County Animal Shelter Access Road
Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE
Bl
3
100
90
80
70
i 60
H<SI
CO
<E
°- 50i—•z.Ul
ffi 40
<c
o 30
20
10
0
SIEVE ANALYSIS
11 1.5" 3/4" 3/8"i i i #4
9-«^
no
=?P1
HYDROMETER
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES
#16 #30 #60 #100 #200
! 1 1
*I
10
GRAVEL
coarse fine
• «...•H k.-».
^1\
\\
\
\
\
\s1i
0
10
20
30
Q40 £J
H<x
Ul
50 *i—•z.Ulu
60 2]O.
_l<n
70 o
80
90
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE (mm)
SAND
coarse medium
Symbol Boring No.
• 3
Depth (ft)
4.0
fine SILT CLAY
Description
Olive-brown clayey SILT
Classification
ML
JJJ KLEINFELDER
PROJECT NO. 51-4687-01
VL
North County Animal Shelter Access Road
Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE
B2
J
60
50
/-s
HD_
x 40LlJa
H
£ 30
o
H
Crt
5 20
10
0(
rr -Ml
) 10
•
Boring
No.
1
CL
S/
/
ML
OL
/
,
'
/
A
/
20 30 40 50 60
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
Depth (ft)
2.5
LL (%) PL (%) PI (%)
38 19 20
CH
'
/
/
/
S"
MH
OH
/
/
/
70 80 90 100 110
LI (-) Description
Brown silty CLAY
LL - Liquid Limit PI - Plasticity Index
PL - Plasticity Limit LI - Liquidity Index
Unified Soil Classification
Fine Grained Soil Groups
LL < 50
A _ Inorganic clayey silts to very fine sands
M.L of slight plasticity
„,_ Inorganic clays of low toCJL medium plasticity
_^T Organic silts and organic silty clays of
OL/ low plasticity
MH
CH
OH
gjg KLEINF
3
ELDER 1
i
PROJECT NO. 51-4687-01V.
LL > 50
Inorganic silts and clayey siltsof high plasticity
Inorganic clays of high plasticity
Organic clays of medium tohigh plasticity, organic silts
Vorth County Animal Shelter Access Road
Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California
PLASTICITY CHART
FIGURE
B3
J
toCOLUcet-co
LJXCO
345
NORMAL STRESS - ksf
Dry Density - pcf
Initial Water Content - %
Final Water Content - %
Normal Stress - ksf
Maximum Shear - ksf
110.1
13.2
23.2
1.00
0.98
110.1
13.2
21.2
2.00
1.69
110.1
13.2
21.7
3.00
2.44
Sample remolded to 110 pcf at 13.2% moisture content
Boring No.
Depth - ft
Friction Angle - deg
Cohesion - ksf
Description
Classification
1
2.5
36
0.20
Brown silty CLAY
CL
Ml KLEINFELDER
PROJECT NO.51-4687-01
North County Animal Shelter Access Road
Palomar Airport Road, Carlsbad, California
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
FIGURE
B4
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS (ASTM D4829)
Sample Location
and depth
Boring 1 from 1 - 3 ft.
Percent Swell
6.2
Expansion Index
62
Expansion
Potential
Medium
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SOILS
Sample Location
and depth
Boring 1 from 1 - 3 ft.
Minimum
Resistivity
(ohm-cm)
1,170
pH
4.6
Soluble
Sulfates
(mg/Kg)
50
Soluble
Chlorides
(mg/Kg)
280
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS (CalTest 301)
Sample Location
and depth
Boring 1 from 1 - 3 ft.
R-value
16
KLEI NFELDER
9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE 101
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123
:HECKED BY:
•ROJECTNO 51-4687-01
FN:
DATE: 02-23-98
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD
RETAINING WALL/EGRESS RAMP
NORTH COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FIGURE
B5
PENDIX
As the client of a consulting geotechnical engineer/you
should know that site subsurface conditions cause more
construction problems than any other factor. ASFE/The
Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the
Geosciences offers the following suggestions and
observations to help you manage your risks.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED
ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS
Your geotechnical engineering report is based on a
subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a
unique set of project-specific factors. These factors
typically include: the general nature of the structure
involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the
structure on the site; other improvements, such as
access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities;
and the additional risk created by scope-of-service
limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly
problems, ask your geotechnical engineer to evaluate
how factors that change subsequent to the date of the
report may affect the report's recommendations.
Unless your geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise,
do not use your geotechnical engineering report:
• when the nature of the proposed structure is
changed, for example, if an office building will be
erected instead of a parking garage, or a refrigerated
warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated
one;
• when the size, elevation, or configuration of the
proposed structure is altered;
• when the location or orientation of the proposed
structure is modified;
• when there is a change of ownership; or
• for application to an adjacent site.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for
problems that may occur if they are not consulted after
factors considered in their report's development have
changed.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE
A geotechnical engineering report is based on condi-
tions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration.
Do not base construction decisions on a geotechnical
engineering report whose adequacy may have been
affected by time. Speak with your geotechnical consult-
ant to learn if additional tests are advisable before
construction starts.Note, too, that additional tests may
be required when subsurface conditions are affected by
construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or by
natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or ground
water fluctuations. Keep your geotechnical consultant
apprised of any such events.
MOST GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ARE
PROFESSIONAL ]UDGMENTS
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions
only at those points where samples are taken. The data
were extrapolated by your geotechnical engineer who
then applied judgment to render an opinion about
overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface
between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt
than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas
not sampled may differ from those predicted in your
report. While nothing can be done to prevent such
situations, you and your geotechnical engineer can work
together to help minimize their impact. Retaining your
geotechnical engineer to observe construction can be
particularly beneficial in this respect.
A REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS
CAN ONLY BE PRELIMINARY
The construction recommendations included in your
geotechnical engineer's report are preliminary, because
they must be based on the assumption that conditions
revealed through selective exploratory sampling are
indicative of actual conditions throughout a site.
Because actual subsurface conditions can be discerned
only during earthwork, you should retain your geo-
technical engineer to observe actual conditions and to
finalize recommendations. Only the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the report is fully familiar with
the background information needed to determine
whether or not the report's recommendations are valid
and whether or not the contractor is abiding by appli-
cable recommendations. The geotechnical engineer who
developed your report cannot assume responsibility or
liability for the adequacy of the report's recommenda-
tions if another party is retained to observe construction.
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED
FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS
Consulting geotechnical engineers prepare reports to
meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report
prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a
construction contractor or even another civil engineer.
Unless indicated otherwise, your geotechnical engineer
prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for
purposes you indicated. No one other than you should
apply this report for its intended purpose without first
conferring with the geotechnical engineer. No party
should apply this report for any purpose other than that
originally contemplated without first conferring with the
geotechnical engineer.
GEOENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS
ARE NOT AT ISSUE
Your geotechnical engineering report is not likely to
relate any findings, conclusions, or recommendations
about the potential for hazardous materials existing at
the site. The equipment, techniques; and personnel
used to perform a geoenvironmental exploration differ
substantially from those applied in geotechnical
engineering. Contamination can create major risks. If
you have no information about the potential for your
site being contaminated, you are advised to speak with
your geotechnical consultant for information relating to
geoenvironmental issues.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS
SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION
Costly problems can occur when other design profes-
sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations
of a geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid
misinterpretations, retain your geotechnical engineer to
work with other project design professionals who are
affected by the geotechnical report. Have your geotech-
nical engineer explain report implications to design
professionals affected by them, and then review those
design professionals' plans and specifications to see
how they have incorporated geotechnical factors.
Although certain other design professionals may be fam-
iliar with geotechnical concerns, none knows as much
about them as a competent geotechnical engineer.
BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED
FROM THE REPORT
Geotechnical engineers develop final boring logs based
upon their interpretation of the field logs (assembled by
site personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field
samples. Geotechnical engineers customarily include
only final boring logs in their reports. Final boring logs
should not under any circumstances be redrawn for
inclusion in architectural or other design drawings,
because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the
transfer process. Although photographic reproduction
eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimize the
possibility of contractors misinterpreting the logs during
bid preparation. When this occurs, delays, disputes, and
unanticipated costs are the all-too-frequent result.
To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta-
tion, give contractors ready access to the complete
geotechnical engineering report prepared or authorized
for their use. (If access is provided only to the report •
prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the
report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not
one of the specific persons for whom the report was
prepared and that developing construction cost esti-
mates was not one of the specific purposes for which it
was prepared. In other words, while a contractor may
gain important knowledge from a report prepared for
another party, the contractor would be well-advised to
discuss the report with your geotechnical engineer and
to perform the additional or alternative work that the
contractor believes may be needed to obtain the data
specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating
purposes.) Some clients believe that it is unwise or
unnecessary to give contractors access to their geo-
technical engineering reports because they hold the
mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsi-
bility for the accuracy of subsurface information always
insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the
best available information to contractors helps prevent
costly construction problems. It also helps reduce the
adversarial attitudes that can aggravate problems to
disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY
Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively
on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other
design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly
unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical
engineers. To help prevent this problem, geotechnical
engineers have developed a number of clauses for use in
their contracts, reports, and other documents. Responsi-
bility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to
transfer geotechnical engineers' liabilities to other
parties. Instead, they are definitive clauses that identify
where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and
end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their
individual responsibilities and take appropriate action.
Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in
your geotechnical engineering report. Read them
closely. Your geotechnical engineer will be pleased to
give full and frank answers to any questions.
RELY ON THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE
Most ASFE-member consulting geotechnical engineer-
ing firms are familiar with a variety of techniques and
approaches that can be used to help reduce risks for all
parties to a construction project, from design through
construction. Speak with your geotechnical engineer not
only about geotechnical issues, but others as well, to
learn about approaches that may be of genuine benefit.
You may also wish to obtain certain ASFE publications..
Contact a member of ASFE or ASFE fora complimentary
directory of ASFE publications.
PROFESSIONAL
FIRMS PRACTICING
IN THE GEOSCIENCES
8811 COLESV1LLE ROAD/SUITE GI06/SILVER SPRING, MD 20910
TELEPHONE: 301/565-2733 FACSIMILE: 301/589-2017
Copyright 1992 by ASFE, Inc. Unless ASFE grants specific permission to do so. duplication of this document by any means whatsoever is expressly prohibited.
Re-use of the wording in this document, in whole or in part, also is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or for purposes
of review or scholarly research.
IIGR0294