The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3098; CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE; PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 1981-07-314S. -rmO SOUTHERN bALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING. INC. 6280 RIVERDALE ST. SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120 • TELE 280-4321 • P.O. BOX 20627 SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120 74831 VEL.IE WAY. PALM DESER.T,CALIF. 92260 T E L E 3 4 6 1 0 7 B .678 ENTERPRISE ST. ESC.ONOIOO, CALIF. 92025 T E L E 7464544 July 31, 1981 . McDaniel Engineering Company, . : SCS&T 13906 4649 Cass Street 0 Report No. 1, San Diego, California • 92109 S I SUBJECT: Pavement Section Reconmendatiôns, Carlsbad Boulevard Improve- . . rnents, Carlsbad, California. . . Gentlemen: In accordance with your letter, dated July 9, 19819 we are presenting herein recómmendatións Jor. a suitable pavement section •for. the proposed Carlsbad Boulevard Improvements. We understand that the portion of. Carls- bad Boulevard to undergo the improvements will include 'the section between Sequoia Avenue and Cannon Road. . Two samples of reprësentativesubgrade; soil were obtained and tested for their resistance value ("R".-Value) i.n accordance with California Test Method 301. The locations and results of the tests are provided on the attached Plte Numbers 1 and 2. • . . . - . 0 In addition the -existing pavement section for the parking area adjacent to the roadway was measured at the locations . requested by Mr. Jim Hall McDaniel Engineering Company. At the location approximately 1430 and 2110 feet south of Sequoia Avenue the section was found to consist of 2" inches I I SOUTHERN. CALIFORNIA 901L AND TESTING, INC. SCS&T 13906 July31, 1981 . Page 2 of A.C. on red-brown to gray-brown, silty, sand, which appears to be Simi- lar to the subgrade material sampled fOr the AR" Value test. Further, a random check of the pavement section for the street indicated that the section varies from approximately 1 inch :to 2 1/2 inches of A.C. over approximately 2 inches of aggregate base. As requested in. the work aUthorization letter, we have contacted the County of San Diego in order to obtain a traffic . index on which .to base I our section design. Coversati.on with Mr. Phil. Presnell *on July 30, 1981, indicated that VI.qfiII?should apply to the portion of Old Highway 101 I .just south of Carlsbad. This traffix index assumes a 20 year life expec- tancy. Based on this traffic index Wand the results of the "R" Value I . Testing, the following pavement sections are recommended. NEW ROAD CONSTRUCTION . . 4.0 inches of asphalt concrete. pavement . I . on.. 6.0 inches of Class II Aggregate base on 12.0 inches of .subgrade material compacted to 95% or greater relative compaction' OVERLAY ON EXISTING PAVEMENT SECTION . I , 4.0. inches of asphalt concrete pavement . I on existing roadway or parking-lot surface I. .All aggregate base and native subgrade material should be compacted.to 'at least 95% relative compaction. All paving materials and methods of con- I . strUction should comply with good grading practices.. and, 'with the require- ments of governing agencies. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND' TESTING. INC. % SOUTHERN CALIFOP BOIL & TESTING, I SSO q,VSPDALE STRUT SAN OItOO CALIFORNIA 881 I bridge in between abutments Furthermore, pier construction SCST 13811 March 23, 1981 Page Two I action in the channel unless some type of pneumatic caisson technique is employed. This technique if available locally, I may be expensive. I An alternate to driven prestressed concrete piles would be to use cast-in-drilled hole caissons for the abutments In view of the presence of groundwater, tremie methods in combination I with pumping, would be necessary If this alternate is adopted, we estimate a 50% reduction in downward capacity with respect I to driven octagonal prestressed concrete piles The capacity Of ányoth.er size pile or caisson should be proportional to • I its lateral surface area Furthermore, if drilled caisson is used, load testing should be performed to twice its design I capacity Load testing will not be required if the caisson will be designed as end-bearing, using an allowable bearing pressure of 7 tons per square foot Minimum base elevation I for the caisson should be at elevation (-)30 I Another alternative would be to use steel bearing piles in order to minimize resistance to pile driving In determining I steel pile capacity, lateral surface area should be calcu- lated using the inscribed perimeter of the pile section Similarly, capacity will be proportional to the calculated I surface area of th steel pile with respect to the octagonal prestressed pile In view of the lesser amount of soil that I will be displaced by the steel piling, the capacity of the steel pile should be assumed equal to 75 percent of the octagonal I pile after proportioning with respect to surface area In using steel piles, sufficient thickness (minimum 1/6-inch) I should be added to the required thickness for structural integrity in order to compensate for corrosion over a design life of at least 50 years. Furthermore, it would be • • advisable to use low-alloy steel alloyed with copper in order 1 to produce high corrosion resistance. :1 • • : • • '• 0 0 • 0 •• 0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING. INC. I $L . 1 7# 4e . -t SO U TjHE RN' .C-A.L,i F.tj RNIA SD I L -,A'ND T E S T I N 6,-. I N C. U 165 WEST ORANGETHORPE AVENUE; PLACENTIA, CALIFORNIA 92670 •TELE 524-9130 CORPORATION OFFICE 6280 RIVERDALE ST., SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120. TELE 280-4321 . March 6, 1981 :' . . •. McDaniel Engineering Company.,.' .. . . 4649. Cass Street - . . SCST .13811 1 San Dieo, .California 92-10'9 ' Report No. 1 Attention: Mr. Art McDani1's- . I SUBJECT': Report on Pre1imi.rary'Geotechnica1Investigation, Site.of Proposed Bridge Reconstruction, located at the Carlsbad Boulevard Crossi.Vngof Agua Hed.ionda Lagoon, City of Carlsbad, California.. . I. Gentlemen: We transmit herewith our report" on the subject investigation. - In summary, .this'investigation,revealed that site conditions 1 . are. favorable to the proposed construction, provided thatrec- - ommendations herein presented are incorporated in your plan- - . fling and desin considerations-. 1 -We appreciate the opportunity to be of 'service on this project. - If you have -any questions, please call us at' your convenience. -. - Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC I Artedi B. ,C tez,, R.C.E. #26009. -. Harvey JAno, R.G. 43270 •. Resident Engineer - . .... Staff Geo1 gist H' I ABC:HJ/kk - - . '• - : . - - cc(6). Submitted (1) SCST,.- San Diego ,,' •. . -. - I V 1 ' - ' - - . -. ' - . . - - - - •. - - A • It I TABLE OF CC NI'ENPS 0 Page I. Intoduction 1 : Proposed Construction 1 I III. Site Location and Description 2 IV. Subsurface Conditions 2 I V. Groundwater - 3 VI. Seisrnicity 3 1. Liquefaction Potential - 3- VII, Conclusions and Recannendations 4 General :. Abutment Foundation . 4 c. Downward .Pile Capacities 4 I - d. Lateral Pile Resistance . 5 é. Pile Driving Criteria . 5 f. Settlement. . . . 6 . Retaining Wall Design . 6 S Rck Slope Protection .7 . Fifl Placnent - 7 - . i Sulfate Resistant Cement . . . 7 VIII. Agency Coordination . • 0 0 :Limitations 0 - - 8 I X. Field Investigation. 0 8 XI. 0 Laboratoxy Test Procedures 9 I a. t'bisture-Density S 9 00 b. Classification . • . 0 9 0 0 .. c.. Canpaction Tests . . 9 J . d. Direct Shear Tests :- . 9 e. Consolidation Tests . . . 10 f. thaidcal Analysis . . 10 . 0 I 1. .0 - 00 lit • 1 :. 0 • . • . TABLE OF CaTEt1S ___________ (Cont 'd.) . . Illustrations . I Vicinity Map Plate 1 Fault Location Nap . Plate 2 I .Plan View . . . Plate 3 Driven Pile Capacities . . Plate ' Pile Efficiency Chart . .. -. . . Plate 5. I . . Boring Logs . . Plates A-i and A-2 Grain Size Distribution . Plate A-3 and A-4 Dirt Shear Test Results 0 . Plate B Corsolidation Test Results . . Plates C-i and C-2 1 Sulfate Test Results .•. . .. 0, - Plate D II • 0 • .. • .. . •0 0 0, I 0, I. I 1 . 0 • 0• 0• 0' 0 0 I 001 0 * 1 I II INTRODUCTION' I This report summarizes the results of a geotechnical investiga- tion undertaken by this firm for the subject bridge site. This J investigation has been performed to determine the engineering properties of the soils underlying the site, for the purpose I of providing- recommendations for grading the site and for design- ing foundations and retaining walls. I ' The scope of the investigation consisted of site. reconnaissance, conducting exploratory test borings where on-site, materials have been recovered, laboratory testing of selected soil . , samples,. engineering analyses, and analysis for local seismicity. 'PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Based on the preliminary infornation given to us by Mr. Keith Gallistel of McDaniel Engineering Company, it is proposed to. ' construct a widened reinforced concrete. bridge with One or' two spans between the abutments. The intermediate support may - consist of column piers extended from the driven prestressed concrete piling.. Each piling will be designedfor a minimum of 70 tons downward loading. Uplift-on these piles may be considered negligible. It is planned to use an octagonal pile, 15 or 18 inches in The proposed' four lane bridge, when completed, will replace the existing four span, two lane concrete bridge. Theexisting bridge exhibits appreciable amounts of cracking and spalling of ' concrete within the girders, thus exposing some bottom steel ' 1 ' . reinforcement. The still 'functional bridge had been operational since 1934. SOUTHE'R.N CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING. INC. 4 SST 13811 March 6, 1981 S Page, Two U : SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The proposed . replacement bridge crosses Agua Hedionda Lagoon along Carlsbad Boulevard in the City of Carlsbad, California. The existing bridge abutments consist of a cast-in-place.concrete wall that had been backfilled with silty sand. We suspect the abutment walls had been designed as a cantilever that is prevented from overturning by the weight of the backfill that overlies its J supporting slab foundation. The presence of ungrouted rock , revetment placed against the wall along thechannel bank and some I sheetpiling adjacent to the wing walls .are means to protect the abutment foundation from being undermined by strong currents. In addition, breakwaters, composed of rock boulders had been ,I built projecting from both abutments towards the ocean. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS f The site is mantled by brown silty sand fill near the bridge abutments that is underlain by Del Mar Sandstone. The gray sand- stone varies between cemented in boring 2, to friable in boring 1. A wedge. of Terrace deposit lies between the fill and Del. Mar sandstone northerly from the bridge. This Terrace deposit con- sists of brown, well graded sand. A wedge of beach deposit lies between the fill and Del Mar Sand- U stone southerly from the bridge. This beach deposit consists of gray-brown, well-graded sand with well rounded pebbles. This J beach deposit exhibited moderate caving during the drilling opera- tion. I Detailed description of soil conditions encountered are, shown in the boringlogs presented in the appendix. 55 5 I The distribution of different soil types are shown in the geo-. technical profile, Plate 3. 5 S ,SOUTHERN :CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. I SCST 13811 March 6, 1981 Page Three GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered in both borings at approximately zero to +2 feet above, mean sea level. No evidence of .artesian conditions was observed, during the drilling operations. SEISMICITY The' proposed site is within the seismic influence of two.major faults, namely the-Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon, and the Whittier-Elsinore fault zones. Considering the distance of the site from these fault zones, the probable magnitude associated with them, and in conjunction with Housner's attenuation . . curves, the following tabulation is obtained: Site Prab1e Magnitude .ccelerati (g's') Fault Ze . Distance (miles) (Richter) 'Peak Design. NzpDrt-Ing1ewood- ' c, • ' ' ' 6.3 0.29 0.19 Rose Canyon Whittier-Elsinore, 24 , , 6.5 0.25 0.16 It has been generally accepted that the design or repeatable. acceleration is 65 percent of peak rock acceleration. The 'forgoing accelerations were based on probable magnitudes associated with the average 'obtained between' one-half and one-fifth. of each fault zone's total length of rupture. Due to the proximity of the site to the Newport-Ihglewood-Rose Canyon fault system, we recommend the use of at least 0.19 ground acceleration for the structural design of the proposed bridge. Liquefaction Potential: In- view of the dense to very' dense con- dition of the on-site soils, failure of the proposed bridge due to liquefaction is remote. SOU'THE;RN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING.. INC. I SCST 13811 March 6, 1981 Page Four LONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 General: . Based on information gathered during this investigation; the site should be suitable for the proposed construction pro- I vided that recommendations herein presented are incorporated in the design considerations, project plans and job'specifica- i. tions. Grading should be performed in accordande with the attached standard grading specifications, unless superseded J in this report. . . . . Abutment Foundation: The subsurface conditions shown in Plate 3 .I 'indicate that the surface of the Del Mar sandstone is -near mean, sea level at the vicinity, of the existing abutments. Judging I from the penetration resistance (blow counts) obtained during the field exploration, the sandstone formation at the south abutment appears to be less dense than at the north abutment. In any case,. I the.weathered upper portion of the 's,and.stone is medium dense to' dense. In view of the relatively dense condition, of material, encountered below elevation (-)lo feet; we recommend that a test pile be driven at both abutments in order to determine, if it is necessary. ' to use steel H-piling or provide a drive shoe for prestressed concretepiling. For estimating purpose's, all' pilings should be 'driven below elevation (7)30 feet. ' .. ' Downward Pile Capacities: As mentioned earlier, the minimum I , required pile capacity will be 70 tons. For calculating pile capacities, refer to Plate 4. Minimum,tip.elevation for all.-'piles should be at elevation (-)30 feet. Refusal to further penetration may be encountered above this elevation. ' Accordingly, pre- drilling may be necessary at this location. If .pre-drilling is I considered necessary, the diameter of the hole should be at least, 3 inches less than the least width of the pile. Pre-drilling I should not be permitted within 5 feet above the desired tip "elevation. I SOUTHERN 'CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING. INC. SCST 13811 March 6, 1981 Page Five The Pile Efficiency Chart shown in Plate 5 should be used in determining the capacity of a pile group Lateral Pile Resistance: AI5-inch octagonal pile driven below elevation H30-feet will have a lateral capacity of 14,000 pounds The lateral resistance of other size piles should be proportional - to diameter . In calculating the.maximum bending moment in a pile, the lateral load imposed at elevation (-)10 feet (minimum design scour level) should be-multiplied by a moment arm equal to 3.5 feet. For designing the exposed column piers at the middle of the. channel, assume the point of fixity at elevation C-)4.5 feet. Similarly, in designing the abutment piles, the minimum design scour level should also be assumed at elevation (-)10 feet and the point of fix- ity at elevation (-)4 5 feet At this point, it should be emphasized that the estimated minimum depth of scour had been based solely from the interpolation of soil conditions between the two test borings as -shown in the geotechnical profile, Plate 3. Actual conditions along the, channel will be verified during .the pile-driving S operations ' Furthermore, in designing the pile, depth of zero moment should be assumed to occur 17 feet below elevation (-)10 feet. -Pile' Driving Criteria: The pile driving equipment should:deliver a minimum energy of one foot-pound per pound of, pile being driven. I In determining the minimum blow count per foot of penetration below elevation (-)30 :feet, we recommend the Engineering News J Record formula given as follows 2i S For Drop Hammer F 2WH I For SingleActing Hammer.: F = +o.o For Double Acting Hammer: • F I I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING INC I SCST13811 March 6,' 1981 Page' .Si.x" Where F=Safe load bearing capacity in pounds W *--,Weight of Ram or striking parts in pounds ' H = Height of stroke in feet S = Set penetration per blow in inches '. E .= Rated energy as listed by manufacturer of hammer. in: toot-pounds.. In order to prevent breaking of the concrete pile, we recommend a I maximum driving energy of 40;000 foot-pounds. Furthermore, a built-up plywood cushion block 7 inches thick should be placed. between the pile head, and the-driving cap. Settlement: Settlement of, the pile foundations should transpire. I' shortly after construction. Total settlement should not exceed one-half inch;' differential settlement should be less than one- quarter inch. • . Retaining Wall Design: The abutment walls should be. designed like a loading dock where some lateral restraint is imposed at.the top of the wall. Under this conditiOn, we recommend the following earth pressure diagram: • , 02h . -----H O.6H 2 I S . , • 1; Where H.= The height of wall.in feet. In addition to the earth pressure given above, the walls should also be designed for pressures induced by heavy traffic loading SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC. J I S(ST 13811 March 6, 1981 Page Seven j I I I J I .. 1 I I. In order to prevent hydrostatic pressure build-up behind the wall, a free-draining backfill at least one-foot thick should be placed in contact with the wall and suitable weepholes or backdrains should be provided near the base of the wall. Rock Slope Protection: A group of abutment piles whose tip elevation lies at or above elevation (-)25 feet may slide along its base due to lack of passive soil resistance in the channel. This lack of resistance may develop due to scouring of soil around the abutment in the absence of a rock revetment. If a rock revetment around the abutment is not included in the design, further analysis by the soil engineer will be required to establish the lateral stability of the abutment-pile system Accordingly, a detail of the abutment-pile system should be sub- mitted to us for review prior to construction Fill Placement: All fill material behind the abutment walls should consist of low to non-expansive soils (expansion index less than 20) arid should be moisture conditioned sufficiently above optimum moisture content, spread in loose lifts restricted to 6 inches. or less prior to rolling and should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with A.S.T.N. 'D-1557-70, the five-layer method., Lighter compaction equipment should be used when compacting fill within 5 feet from the abutment walls. Sulfate Resistant Cement: Chemical analysis for soluble sulfate content indicates that Type V cement will not be required for use in concrete exposed to the on-site soils. AGENCY COORDINATION A pregrading meeting to be arranged by the developer shall be held on the site prior to the initiation of grading operations. At that time, a determination will be made as to what public and private agencies will be involved in this grading work and what notification these agencies will requiie to effectively perform their required duties. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING 1NC SCT 13811 March 6, 1981 Page Eight LIMITATIONS This report was prepared to aid the project designers, review- ing agencies, grading contractors, owners and other concerned parties in completing their responsibilities toward the successful completion of this project. The findings and recommendations in this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practices. We make no other warranty, either expressed or implied. The findings and recommendations are, based on the results of the field and laboratory investigation, combined with interpolation of soil conditions between boring locations. If conditions encountered during construction appear to be different from those presented in this report, this office should be notified. FIELD INVESTIGATION 'The field investigation was performed onFebruary9 and 10, 1981;, by drilling 2 exploratory test borings, utilizing a CME55 drill rig equipped with ,a 6-inch diameter hollow stem auger. These exploratory boring's were drilled to a maximum depth of 66' feet below the existing asphalt paving. The locations of the borings are shown On the attached Plan 'View, Plate 3. During this investigation, the soils encountered were continuously logged by our project geologist and were classified in accordance with the Unified Soil. Classification System. The final logs of the exploratory borings, are included in the appendix of this report as Plates A-i and A-2. Representative bulk and undisturbed samples of the soils encountered were recovered for laboratory testing and analysis. Undisturbed samples were obtained -by driving a ring-lined steel sampler into the desired strata utilizing a 140-pound hammer, free-falling- 30 inches. The ring-lined soil samples, were then sealed in waterproof containers to minimize loss of moisture. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTINO f . SC.ST 13811 March 6., 1981 S Page Nine I . . LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES . Mois.ture-Density: Field moisture content and dry density were determined for each undisturbed sample obtained. This I . information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot,' . and the field moisture content is determined as a percentage J of the soil's dry weight. The results are summarized in the boring logs. Classification: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination, 'and -by performing several I sieve analyses. The' final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. . I C. Compaction Tests: The maximum -dry density and optimum moisture content of typical soils were determined in the laboratory in I accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D-1557-70, the five- . layer.method. The results of these tests àre.summar'izedas follows: . 5. 0 •' . ' ' 1 . . . Boring No. & Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture Soil Type Depth (ft.) Density (pcf)' Content .( %) Silty Sand 'B-i @12, feet .121 11.5 • D. Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were perfornied to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having a I diameter of 2.375 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. Samples were tested at different vertical loads and at increased I moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a con- stant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inches per minute. 5 0 1 The results of these tests are presented in Plate B. 0 I ,. , 0 • 0 . ' 0 I •SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING. INC. SC-ST 13811 March 61 1981 Page Ten E.. Consolidation Tests: Consolidation testing was performed on 1 .se1ectedundisturbed" samples. The consolidation apparatus was designed to accofnmodate a 1-inch high.. by 2.375 inch dia- meter soil sample laterally confined by the brass ring. Porous stones were placed in contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore fluid during testing. Loads were applied to the sample at 24-hour intervals in a geometric progression, J. and the resulting deformations were recorded. The percent consolidation for each load cycle is reported as the ratio I of the amount of vertical compression to the original one- inch sample height. The test sample was inundated at some point in the test cycle to determine its .behay.ior under the 1 . . anticipatedfooting load as soil moisture increases. The results of these tests are plotted in Plates C-71 'and C-2 F Chemical Analysis Representative soil samples were analyzed I for soluble sulfate content The results are presented in Plate D I 1 I ... .. . ..,. .. I 1 1 I I I I I SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING INC F L STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS These specifications present the usual and minimum reqiiirenents for grading operations performed under the control of Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. N deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the preliminary geology and soils report, or in other written communication signed by the Soils Engineer or Engineering Geologist. I. GENERAL S A. •The Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist are the Owner's or Builder's representative on the project. For the purpose of these specifications, supervision by the Soils Engineer iincludes that inspection performed by any person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the licensed'Civil Engineer signing the soil report. B. All clearing, site preparat ion br earthwork performed on the project shall be conducted by the Contractor- under the supervision of the Soils Engineer. ,C. It is the Contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction of the Soils Engineer and to place,. spread, mix, water and compact the fill in accordance with the specifica- tions of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall also remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the Soils Engineer. D. It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suit- able and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit can- pletionof compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus will also be provided by the Contractor, with due con- sideration for the fill material, rate of placement and time of year. •• E. A final report shall be issued by the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist attesting to the Contractor's S conformance with these specifications. II. SITE PREPARATION A. All vegetation and deleterious material such as rubbish shall be disposed of offsite. This removal must be concluded prior to placing fill. • I I I Standard. Grading- Specifications Page Two The Soils Engineer shall locate alihouses, sheds, sewage disposal systems, large trees or structures on the site or. on the grading plan to the best of his knowledge prior to preparing the ground surface. Soil, alluvium or rock materials determined by the Soils Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in: compacted fills shall be removed and wasted, from the site. Any material incorporated as a part of a compacted fill must be approved by the, Soils Engineer. After the ground surface-to receive fill, has been cleared, it shall be scarified, disced or bladed by the Contractor until it is uniform and free-from ruts, hollows, hummocks or other uneven features which may prevent uniform compaction. The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted Ias -- specified. If thescarified zone -is greater than twelve - - inchesin depth, the excess shall be removed -and placed inlifts restricted to six inches. - Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to. receive ' fill shall be inspected,. tested and approved by the Soils 'Engineer. - - - - - - E. Any underground structures such -as cesspools, cisterns, - mining, shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines - or others not located prior to grading are to be removed - - - -s or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soils Engineer. - III COMPACTED FILLS A. Any material imported or excavatedonthe property may - be utilized- in the fill, prOvided each material has been • - determined to be suitable by the Soils Engineer. Roots, - tree branches and other matter missed during clearing - shall be removed from the fill -as directed by the Soils, Engineer. - - - -- - B. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: -- - - 1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.. There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks. - - The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer. - - - - I I Standard Grading SpecificatiOns Page Three C. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter shall be taken offsite, or placed in accordance with the rec- ornmendationsof the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock,disposal. Details for rock dis- posal such as location, moisture control, percentage of rock placed, etc., will be referred to in the "Conclu- sions and Recommendations" section of the soils report. If rocks greater than six inches in diameter were not anticipated in the preliminary soils and geology report, rock disposal recommendations may not have been made in the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section. In this case, the Contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer if rocks greater than six inches in diameter are encoun- tered. The Soils Engineer will then prepare a rock--dis- posal recommendations 'or request that such rocks be taken offsite. Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise considered unsuitable shall not' be used in the compacted fill. Representative samples of materials to be.utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the laboratory by the Soils Engineer to determine their physical properties. f any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the Soils Engineer' as soon as possible. 0 Material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uni- formly dense layer. The fill shall be placed 'and com- pacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved by the Soils Engineer. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that required by the Soils Engineer, the Contractor shall rework the fill until it is approved by the Soils Engineer. H. 'Each layer shall be compacted to: 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. (A.S.-T.M. D-1557-70 - five-layer method). If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by the controlling governmental agency because of a specific land use or expansive soil conditions, the area to receive fill compacted to less than 90 percent shall 'either bedelineàted on the grading plan or appropriate reference made to the area in the soil report. D. SIandard.Grading Specifications Page Four I I. All fills shall be keyed And benched through all top- soil, colluviu.m, alluvium or creep material, into sound bedrock or firm material where the slope receiving fill 1.. exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical, in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer. I 3. The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum of 15 feet within bedrock or firm materials, unless otherwise specified in the soil report. (See detail on Plate GS-l),. K. Drainage terraces and surainage devices shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency, or with the recommenda- t'ions of the Soils Engineer and Engineering Geologist. L. The. Contractor will be required to obtain a minimum . relative compaction of 90 percent outto the finish slope face of fill slopes, buttresses and stabilization fills. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted c-ore, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equip- ment, or by-any other procedure which produces the required compaction. . . .. I The Contractor shall prepare a written detailed descrip- tion of the method or methods he will employ to obtain I .the required slope compaction. Such documents shall be submitted - to the Soils Engineer for review and comments. prior to the start of grading. I . If 'a method other than overbuilding and cutting back. to the -compacted core is to be employed, slope tests will be made by the Soils Engineer during construction of the slopes, to determine if the required compaction is being - achieved. Each day the. Contractor will receive a copy of the.Soil Engineer's "Daily Field Engineering Report" I . which will indicate the results of field density tests for that'day. Where failing tests -occur or other field . . . problems arise, the Contractor will be notified of such conditions by written communication from the Soils I . Engineer in the form of. a. 'conference memorandum, to avoid any misunderstanding arising from oral communication. I If the method of achieving the required slope compaction' selected by the Contractor fails to produce the neces- sary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild I- such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no additional cost to. the Owner or Soils Engineer. . , I I Standard Grading Specifications Page Five Alifill' slopes should be planted or protected from erosion by methods specified' in the soils report. Fill-over-cut slopes shall be properly keyed through topsoil, colluvium or-creep material into rock or firm materials; and the transition shall be stripped of all soil prior to placing fill. (See detail Plate GS-2').. IV. CUT SLOPES A. The Engineering Geologist shall inspect all cut slopes - excavated in rock, lithified or formation material at vertical -intervals not exceeding ten feet. - - - B. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary - report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or - confined, strata of a potentially adverse nature', - unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes - are encountered during grading, these conditions shall - - be analyzed by the Engineering Geol,ogist and Soils - Engineer; and-,recommendations shall- be made to treat - - - these problems.' - - C. .Cut slopes that face in the same dirtion as the - prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope wash by anon-erosive-interceptor swale placed at the - - - top of the slope. D.. unlessotherwise -specified in the soils and geological' - report, no cut slopes shall be.excavated higher or - steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of con- - ' - 'trolling governmental agencies. E., Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance with the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies, or with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer or - ' Engineering Geologist. V. GRADING CONT RO L Inspection of the fill placement shall be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. - In general, density, tests should be made at' intervals not 'exceeding two feet of fill height or every cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending' on soil conditions and the size of the job. In any - event, an adequate number of 'field density tests shall - be made to verify that the required compaction is being achieved. ' ' 'I 4l' 11> BEDROCK OR FIRM I - FORMATION MATERIAL. Mm 15 Minimum I NOTE WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5:1 OR LESS BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY, UNLESS I STRIPPING DID NOT REMOVE ALL COMPRSSIBLE I \4/ aaL. a TESTING By DATE INC. I. . . . . . . . ABC. . 3-6-81 JOB No.13811 Plate GSl J Li ir- 10 Li Li U- 0 z 20 I- >-. Li -J Li 30 0 -j Li CD 0 -J 40 a- • 50 60 DOWNWARD PILE CAPACITY (TONS) 0• 50 100 150 200 250 I • I .1 I • • '1 0 25 50 75 100 • 125 UPWARD PILE CAP ACITY (TONS) I E : I sMnW fn I)M 4- (M- I I)n 42 (M-1) (n-1 E = efficiency of a pile in the group .relotive to its single pile value n :: number of piles in each row m = number of rows in the group 'd = pile diameter I—" $ = pile spacing 0• - 0 10 .19 Cx IY - —O7O AD N N EXAMPLE - To Illustrate the use of the chart, assume a group of ten piles, arranged in two rows 4— of five piles, and: hovin' a rdtio of diameter to . spacing of 0.20. First draw a fine (shown dashed) - —0.60 connecting' m = 2 and : 5• on the vertical scales. 6 - Parallel to, this draw a second line, through a • , --: 0.20 on the inclined scale. This line (also 10= - " . shown dashed). intersects the left vertical scale at. = 0.88, which is the value sought. —050 SOUTHERN. CALUMMUNM - PILE EFFICIENCY CHART •. '• -• •, • DATE 36 •'' -. 132 t RATE 5 - •tf .-.•, ., • --I S • 11110. 138U . LOCATION CAKLIb4d, ~'QAIAIQ MIA SURFACE E LE VA T 109' 19"' stimated ML DATE - DRILLED SROUNDWA'?'ER LEVEL' 7' (estimated IVEL) : SHEET 1 O 3- --BORING LOG NO. 1 Plate A-i * . SLOWS/FT. I . 50 100 ii i i I i i ii i i i I I I I LI t MATERIAL DESCRIPTION ii i i I I t Mc DRY UNIT WT. (PC F) PL 4- lo 20 90 100 110 121 FILL: SILTY SAND - Brown SM S I \ I \\ j - BEACH DEPOSIT: SAND -. Gray brown, SP medium to fine, some. caving S . S .% ............ 15 ........... . ..................... I'.......... ....................................... - . S .. S... .. 20 DEL MAR BORVTI(: SAND - Dark gray, SW ..............S St well graded, friable ................... I • S. •• . .25 J -.Jèt . RS- !vpt.rII Sfsc . . . C.-Ctoct c;__Bridge JOBS no.- 13811 LOCATION C1QniA SURFACE ELEVATION: ________ DATE DRILLED 240-81 GROUNDWATER LEVEL: _______ SHEET '-2 or BORING LOG NO. 1 (cont'd.).' Plate A-i . BLOWS/FT. • S • 100 .50 - MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1A1!L11IIII11 IILIIIIIIIILII Mc S DRY UNIT WT.(PCF) 90 100 110 12( PL lo 20 SILTY FINE SAND - Gray and brown . SM ' S . I I -S . -• • . . .. .. I . 5 .-I.. • • . II : ...................................... I. S '4.0 . 'L Gqn .. SM 5 1 ' . . . ................... t -'I .1 I .45 ...... ............................................. .... .... ....................................................... ..... ........................................................ S S . S. ....................................................... t . ............................................................I.... ................................................................... S.'.. .............................. .................................... S................. 5 ' . IS - SI... 50 55 . S . I S............ i - 1 .- ..i: Light brown . S • .............................................I ... I -! I I.• • I -•I ................................... . • ' •. £ 5-5 e-.dd F-FcaU . 3 4040t N! - ftip$vrs Swfac• • . S CCc$oet. . . Waal: ,':....-CaSbad B lie Joe no. 13811 • sUNFAcE ELEVATION: DATE DRILLED SHEET I OF I- j SOUNDA'TER LEVEL . - .. BORING LOG NO. 1(nt'd.) Plate A SLOWS/FT. 0 . . . 50 100 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION DRY UNIT WT.(PCF) 4 b 20 &' 90 100 110 12 1ii11,.IAlLL_1_ 1lIIIi1LIL1Ii_A_4 SILTY FINE S?1'JD - Light Brin SM 65 • . •• . __ Bott at 66 feet. •• • Note: No caving in fill or Del Mar •• . 1 1. 1 1. 1. fonnation : a ,70 • . . • • • 111111.......................... -S. .: . . . ................................................. F- . • • . : • • kTT!TIIIOL EASURtMtTS. • - •F - PI$ • • . • II - Jöf •. -• !ØV'S 3uvfe •• • • • C- Co?cct • • • C, Bc'u1e'ard &idqe JOB NO. 13811 LOC*T!c 80FACE ELEVATION'. 26 (estimated L) DATE DRILLED SO I*DWT £ R I.E YE L 7 (f iinated MSL) NET 1 oc 2_ BORING LOG NO 2 Plate A- 2 • - BLOWS/FT. • 50 100 I I I I I III II 1.1 1 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 1 11.1 I £ I I I I 1 1 I_J) DRY WIlT WT. (PC F) 90 100 110 121 PL • i 4 lo 20 . IIIILIIIiIII1 . 1IL1I11LIIIAL. - . FILL. SILTY SAND - Brcn SM TERRACE DEPOSIT:- SILTY SAND - Brown, SW- well-graded SM \ 1 'I4 I • . ........... . S. • S. . S I ............. / \ / .. ........... SAND - Gray, fj . . sp EEL MR TI: SILTY SAND Gray, ..................... . .. N.. S. well-graded Gray and brin. • . . . . . . . . I . . • • . . S. V • .. - . . •1 - S . . . ... . .L . 200 . 1 0- .5. C.- Contact _406. No 13811 $*OUDWATER LEVEL: SHEET ____or BORING LOG NO.2 (xnt'd.)Plate A-2 V. V BLOWS/FT... V. 50 100 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION DRY UIT WT.(PCF)s 90 100 110 12 mc PL Ia_20 - V_V - II1LI11IIIt1I I.IIILIjI'IIIAi.. SILTY SAND - Gray, well-graded sw- : .. . . 220 SM 5.V . 1 J! V V .:.:: :t ::::1.. .. .; I I . ....................a Botta t n at 41 Fee. V 240.. . ...... .............. Note: No Caving V. 45 V V V V 'V V ................... __ IKER V V V C. - Contact Grain Size (mm). PARTICLE SIZE. LIMITS I . BOULDER COBBLES GRAVEL SAND . SILT OR CLAY Coarse . Fine coarse-I- . Medium Fine C) H co z. Cl) N P1 p (I) rn K) . w C (Lfl . 0• I H Z L) 11.5. Standard S/eves 36 I8 - 2' Y2' V4 io *2o 040 860 (12 in.) 3m. 3/41n. No-4 No.10 No.40 No. 200 U. S. STANDARD. SIEVE SIZE B-i @10': Medium to Fine Sand (SP) B-i @ 20': Well Graded Sand (SW) B-1@ 401 : Silty Fine Sand (SM) Hydrometer (Minutes) 80 1440 (50 GM.) 100 no 80 70 180 I4 (/OOG'ø) q) :. 50 MIL I '... 40''-.S Q 30 : 20 10 ir .001 C) H i " 0 Ln z o H 36" 18" (IS. Standard Sieves . . Hydrometer 2" I' Y2' V4" *10 *20 4O tt60 . (M/nutes) _... 3 • !2 ., 83Q.0_._i0Q QQ___ 30 80 490 . - - - - - • . --- -- . . ------- - ------ - ----- --- - ------ ------- —90 -- _\ ------ . • -80 . -------70 . . .--.. .. . • 2 . ------..._!___ • : :. .': : .1:!! :i '- ----'------5O - • - - - - 8, -H 30I - . . . •• • .........—-s —.........-::-" ..-. ........ ,.:. 20 : : : L : : .s :5 ....,.._...:..__-.: -•Io - .......•.S..._ c a . 2 QA7 S 4 2 8878 S 4 2 987G 5 4 3 2. - 0 Grain Size (mm) PARTICLE SIZE LIMITS I . BOULDER COBBLES GRAVEL . SAND SILT OR CLAY Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine (12 in) 3m. 3/4 in. No-4 No.10 No. 40 No ZOO U. S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE B-2 @ 5" Silty Sand (SM) B-2 @15': Silty Well Graded Sand (SW-SM) ........ B-2 @ 401 : Silty Well Graded Sand (SW-SM) Il, •1. o•\ C' 11Y \t6 40 \ ' USED IN ANALYSIS • 4I • b i al C' to I t 40 ' &pO' Il '' \• • ANAHEIM TEST LABORATORY 3004 S. ORANGE AVENUE SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92707 PHONE (714) 549-7267 TO: S.C.T.L. 0 DATE: 2-17-81 P.O. No. Verbal Shipper No. Job 13811 Lab'. No. K-5889-1-7 • . Specification: • S Material: Soil Project Carlsbad Bridge SOLUBLE SULFATE . . • per Calif 11.17 A . 1 . ' Bi @5 .0222 %. . .. 2 Bi @12 . .0169 3 • . BI @20 • .0156 . .• • •k 0 • Bi @110 • .o1114 .5 . B1@55 : .01110 6. B2@5 .0193 7. B? @15 .0111.8 '0 I r; • :' . . 0 : . •. . 0 0, .• • ANAHEIM TEST LABORATORY . • i •,0' •• • ,,, 0• . . 5 0 James A. Kollas. Chief Chemist S . ST. 13811 . • S . . FORM #2 • • S. . - 0 • S. • S Plate D . • 0 ••' 5