HomeMy WebLinkAbout3184; CANNON ROAD WEST- BRIDGE OVER MACARIO CANYON; FINAL AS GRADED REPORT OF ROUGH GRADING; 1998-02-23El
: '•" •r1- .•
- - . .-... . . • . •.r.--.- '.r ,_'. 4I 4
.2 •..J -i .; 'L —
.'..J.. ..•.• ' :.:! :'-.Y'' •. -t
- t
- -. • ,., .•. • -
I .
l, 4-
t . , t:- " •
:• • • :- ' .d. •
,•i-'•
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES
Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants
F
L & I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC .IIU Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants
I
I:
I
FINAL AS-GRADED REPORT
OF ROUGH-GRADING,
I .
CANNON ROAD WEST (REACH 1)
STA. 37+43 T. STA. 66+00,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I .. CT 9409L03(3 184)
I
Project No. 4930489-018
I . Februaryr23, 1998
i
I
I
I
I
I Prepared For
CARLTASCOMPANY
5600 Avenida Encinas, Suite 100
I Carlsbad, California 92008-4452
3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
(619) 292-8030 • (800)447-2626
FAX (619)292-0771
Li & II I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1Fif 1 I U . Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants
1
February 23, 1998
. Project No. 4930489-018
To: Caritas Company
5600'Avenida Encinas, Suite 100
I
. Carlsbad, California 92008-4452
Attention: Mr. David Meyer
Subject Final As-Graded Report of Rough-Grading Cannon Road West (Reach 1) Sta. 37+43 to
Sta. 66+00, Carlsbad, California, CT 94-09-03 (3184)
- In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Inc., (Leighton) has
provided geotechnical observation and testing services during rough-grading and storm drain placement
I operations for Cannon Road West, Sta. 37+43 to Sta. 66+00 (Reach 1) located in Carlsbad, California.
The accompanying final as-graded report of rough-grading summarizes our observations, field and
laboratory test results, and the geotechnical conditions encountered during, rough-grading of the subject
I site.
If you have any .questions regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We
I appreciate, this opporiunity to be of service.
1 Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES INC. No. 1349
E
CERTIFIED
GEOLOGIST
NGINEERING
Michael R. Stewa G 1349 (Exp. 12/31/97)
;)
1&op
CA0 ço,,/ Director of Geology
Dir or of Engineering 1
KAB/JGF/MRS Lu -5 No. 39552
cc
Distribution: (6) Addressee . • , CSVfl.
(2) The Harrison Company: Attention: 'Mr. Steve Mahoney 0FCA
(2) City of Carlsbad Engineering, Attention: Ms. Sheri Howard . .
I
' • (619) 292-8030. (800) 447-2626
3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD,. SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 ' . • FAX (619) 292-0771
1
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
i Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................1
1 2.0 SUMMARY OF ROUGH-GRADING OPERATIONS.....................................................................................3
2.1 SITE PREPARATIONS AND REMOVALS.... ... .................................................. ......... ..........................................3 2.2 FILL PLACEMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 3 I 2.3 SUBDRAINS....................................................................................................................................................4 2.4 FIELD DENSITY TESTING ................................................................................................................................4
I
2.5 LABORATORY TESTING .................................................................................................................................4 2.6 GRADED SLOPES............................................................................................................................................4
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC SUMMARY ........................................................... ............................................ 5
I 3.1 AS-GRADED GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................5 3.2 GEOLOGIC UNITS ............
.
............................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.1 Compacted Artificial Fill Soils (not mapped) ....................................................................................... 5 I 3.2.2 Topsoil/Colluvium (Unmapped) ............................................................................................................ 5
3.2.3 Quaternary Alluvium (Map Symbol Qal) .............................................................................................. 6
1
3.2.4 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt..................................................................................6
3.2.5 Tertiary Santiago Formation (Map Symbol-Ts) ...................................................................................6
3.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE..................................................................................................................................6
I 3.4 LANDSLIDES AND SURFICIAL FAILURES ........................................................................................................7 3.5 FAULTING ....................................................................................................................................................... 7 3.6 GROUNDWATER ...........................................................................................................................................8
I 4.0 CONCLUSIONS ...............................................................
.
.................................................................................... 9
4.1 GENERAL ... ...................................................... ..............................................................................................9
I
4.2 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................................................ . ............
9
10
5.1 EArtTHWoRK ................................................................................................................................................10
I 5.1.1 Site Preparation..................................................................................................................................10
5.1.2 Excavations.........................................................................................................................................10
I 5.2 RETAINING WALL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................................. 11
5.3 TYPE OF CEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION........................................................................................................12
5.4 CORROSION RESISTANCE ............................................................................................................................. 12
I 5.5 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ..............................................................................................................12
5.6 GRADED SLOPES..........................................................................................................................................13
5.7 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING .............................................................................................13
I
NINA-
I LEIGHTONAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
I Figures
I Figure 1 - Site Location Map - Page 2
Plates
Plates 1 through 4 - As-Graded Geoteóhnical Maps - In Pockets
Appendices
I Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Summary of Field Density Testing
I Appendix
Appendix C
D
- Laboratory Testing Procedures
—General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
I
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
Ii
II
ri&rn IDLJ
LEIGH TONANDASSOCIA TES, INC.
4930489-018
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Inc., (Leighton) has
provided geotechnical observation and testing services during rough-grading I storm drain placement and
backfill operations for Cannon Road West, Sta. 37±43 to Sta. 66+00 (Reach 1) located in Carlsbad,
California. Rough grading for the project began on October 16, 1997 and is essentially complete as of
the date of this report. The accompanying final as-graded report of rough-grading. summarizes our
observations, field and laboratory test results, and the geotechnical conditions encountered during rough-
grading of the subject site In addition, this report provides conclusions and preliminary
recommendations for the proposed development of the site. We note that the current site construction
includes rough grading and installation of storm drain improvements. Installation of additional
improvements and paving of the roadway is to be completed at some future date.
The 40-scale grading plans for Cannon 'Road West Sta. 37+43 to Sta. 66±00, provided by O'Day
Consultants (O'Day, 1997), were used as a base map to present the as-graded geotechnical conditions
and approximate locations of the field density tests within the limits of the. current phase of grading
operations. The As-Graded Geotechnical Maps are presented as Plates 1 through 4 and are located at the
rear of this report. '
[TY
FSAN
ARCOS
CITY OF
OCEANSIDE
ENCINITAS
____
PROJECT No. 4930489-018
SITE LOCATION MAP SCALE Not to scale
CANNON ROAD-REACH 1 ENGR./GEOL.JGF/MRS
Carlsbad, California DRAFTED By KAB
DATE February 1998 FIGURE No. 1
4930489-018
I 20 SUMMARY OF ROUGI-i-GRADING OPERATIONS
I Rough-grading of the subject site began on October 16, 1997 and is essentially complete as of the date of
this report. Rough-grading operations were performed by Signs & Pinnick under the observation and
I testing services of Leighton. Our field technicians and geologist were onsite on a full-time and as-
needed basis, respectively, during grading operations. Rough-grading included the removal of
potentially compressible soils to competent material and cuts and fills to achieve design grades..
2.1 Site Preparations and Removals
I Prior to grading, the areas of proposed development were stripped of surface vegetation and
debris. These materials were disposed offsite. Removals of unsuitable and potentially
compressible soil, including undocumented fill, topsoil, colluvium, weathered Terrace Deposits
I and formational material, were made to competent material. Removals of the unsuitable and
potentially compressible soil were performed in accordance with recommendations made in the
field as well as utilizing data presented in the project, geotechnical report (Appendix A) and field
I recommendations made during the course of grading.
The removal areas flatter than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) exposing competent bedrock material
I were scarified a minimum of 6 inches, moisture conditioned, as needed, to obtain near-optimum
moisture content and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction as determined by
ASTM Test Method D1557-91. The steeper natural hillsides were benched into competent
I material prior to fill placement. Representative bottom elevations in the removal areas are
shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1 through 4).
I 2.2 Fill Placement
I After processing the areas to receive fill, native soil was generally spread in 4- to 8-inch lifts,
moisture conditioned as needed to attain a near-optimum moisture content, and compacted to at
least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557-91.
I Compaction was achieved by use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Areas of fill in which
field density test results indicated less than 90 percent relative compaction, the soils exhibited
nonuniformity, and/or showed an inadequate, or excessive moisture content, were reworked,
I recompacted, and retested until -a minimum .90 percent relative compaction and near-optimum
moisture content was achieved. In certain areas along the north side of the project, the limits of
grading and/or the location of the adjacent high pressure gas line precluded complete removals
I .of potentially compressible soils (when projected at the recommended 2:1, horizontal to
vertical). In these areas, geotextile was utilized to aid in stabilizing the toe of the fill slope. The
textile was installed during fill placement at one foot intervals starting at the removal bottom and
I extending to approximately the daylight of the fill. The location of the areas requiring this
textile are outlined on the accompanying As-Graded Geotechnical Maps at the rear of the text
(Plates 1 through 4).
I LU NPPW—
I . LEIGHTONAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1 4930489-018
2.3 Subdrains
I Subdrains were installed during rough-grading operation at the subject site. The approximate
location of these drains are shown on the accompanying As-Graded Geotechnical Maps (Plates I
through 4) located at the rear of the text. Subdrains consisted of 6 inch diameter perforated
I : schedule 40 PVC pipe and 3/4 inch gravel wrapped with Mirafi 140N (or equivalent) filter
fabric.
2.4 Field Density Testing
I Field Density testing was performed using the Nuclear Gauge Method (ASTM Test Methods
o D2922-96 and D3017-96). The approximate test locations are shown n the As-Graded
Geotechnical Maps (Plates* I through 4). The results of the field density tests are summarized in
i Appendix B.
:
I
2.5 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory maximum dry density tests of representative onsite soils were performed in general
accordance with ASTM Test Method-D1557-91. : The laboratory test results and a brief
description of the laboratory test procedures are presented in Appendix C.
2.6 Graded Slopes
Graded slopes
I
within the subject site were evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and
considered grossly and surficially stable from a geotechnical standpoint (Appendix A). All cut
and fill slopes were constructed with a slope inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter
during rough-grading operations under the observation of a representative of Leighton. Loose
I : unconsolidated alluvium and weathered bedrock material were exposed at grade during grading
operations for the north-facing cut slope from approximately Sta. 56+80 to Sta. 60+00. So that
alluvium was not exposed in a cut slope, a stability fill was constructed in place of the design
1 cutslope. A subdrain was installed at the backcut of the stability fill key and outletted into the
adjacent concrete vditch. The approximate location of the stability fill is shown on the As-
Graded Geotechnical Maps at the rear of the text (Plates 1 through 4).
Li
I
I
I
I
-4-
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1 4930489-018
3.0 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIC SUMMARY
3.1 As-Graded Geologic Conditions
The as-graded conditions encountered during rough grading of the subject site were essentially
as anticipated. A summary of the geologic conditions including geologic units, geologic
structure, and faulting is presented below. The as-graded geologic conditions of the subject site
are presented on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps (Plates I through 4).
3.2 Geologic Units
The geologic units encountered during the completion of rough-grading for the Cannon Road
West project consisted of previously placed compacted fill, topsoil, Quaternary
alluvium/colluvium, Quaternary Terrace Deposits, and the Tertiary Santiago Formation. The
approximate limits of the geologic units, encountered during rough-grading are presented on the
As-Graded Geotechnical Maps (Plates 1 through 4), and briefly described below.
3.2.1 Compacted Artificial Fill Soils (not mapped)
Import soils utilized during the completion of rough-grading operations were obtained
from compacted. artificial fill soils placed in a stockpile area on the adjacent Legoland /
Carlsbad Ranch project. These soils were placed by Signs & Pinnick, Inc., under the
observation and testing services of Leighton (Appendix A). These soils were derived
from the same formational onsite material and are similar to the fill soils generated
during this phase of grading. As encountered during grading these soils generally
consisted of light brown to reddish-brown,. damp, medium dense to dense, slightly
clayey, silty fine- to medium-grained sand. These fill soils are not differentiated on the
geotechnical maps from the fill soils derived from the current phase of grading.
3.2.2 Topsoil/Colluvium (Unmapped)
Topsoil and colluvium consisting of dry to moist, loose, silty sand and slightly clayey
I sand generally on the order of 3 to 4 feet in thickness and locally up to 8 feet in thickness
was encountered 'on portions of the subject site where no grading had previously been
completed. , These soils were considered potentially compressible and therefore,
I unsuitable to receive improvements in their existing condition. These soils were
removed to competent formational material and recompacted during the rough-grading
operations. An SDG&E transmission tower is located at the eastern end of the site
I grading within the alignment of Cannon Road. This tower is to be moved at a later date
and the grading in this area will be completed at some future time. Site grading around
this tower included the placement of compacted fill. In the area adjacent to the tower,
I , some fill was placed over the topsoil to allow proper drainage. This material which was
primarily on the southern side should be removed during future site grading.
ri&m U . , DLllJ
-5- _ I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
[I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I
I .. . 4930489-018
I
3.2.3 Quaternary Alluvium (Map Symbol Oat)
Quaternary alluvium was encountered in the lower portions of all the drainages at the
I . subject site. As encountered, this material generally consisted of dark brown, moist,
Those to medium dense, moderately, porous, clayey to silty, fine to coarse sand.
Abundant roots and rootcasts were also visible within this unit. Where possible, this
material was completely removed during grading to competent bedrock material. Where
removal was not possible, geotextile (as described in Section 2.2) was utilized.
1 3.2.4 Quaternary Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Ot)
Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits locally overlie the Eocene-aged Santiago Formation
in most areas .of the subject site. As encountered during grading, these deposits
generally consisted of orange to reddish-brown, dense, silty fine- to medium-grained
sandstone. The weathered portions of the Terrace material were observed to be porous
and potentially compressible. Therefore, the weathered portions of the Terrace material
were removed and recompacted where encountered during grading operations.
3.2.5 Tertiary Santiago 'Formation (Map Symbol-Ts)
The Eocene-aged Santiago Formation, as encountered during grading, generally
consisted of light gray to olive-green, moist, dense to very dense, silty sandstone with
relatively thin, laterally discontinuous, lenses of stiff claystone.
I
3.3 Geologic Structure
Based on our geologic mapping during the rough-grading operations, literature review and our
professional experience on adjacent sites, bedding on site is generally flat lying to gently dipping
I (5 to 10 degrees) to the west Previous investigations and geologic mapping during site grading
indicated that the Terrace Deposits and the Santiago Formation are generally weakly bedded to
massive.
I 'S.
I S
5.. -6-" _ I .
... . LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4930489-018
3.4 Landslides and Surficial Failures
Based on our review of the referenced project geotechnical reports (Appendix A), and our
mapping during rough-grading operations, there was no indication of landslides or other surficial
failures within the subject property However, during a review of pertinent aerial photographs,
several features which may be related to mass movement can be seen in the immediate Ivicinity.
Therefore, we recommend that prior to any development outside the limits of this phase of
grading, a thorough evaluation with regard to landslides or other mass movement be completed
by a qualified geotechnical engineer.
3.5 Faulting
No evidence of faulting was encountered nor anticipated during rough-grading operations at the
subjebt site. Grading operations within the Quaternary Terrace Deposits uncovered polygonal
and infilled features thought by some researchers to be evidence of paleoliquefaction
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which may result in .a large total and/or differential settlement
for structures founded on liquefying soils. In order for the potential effects of liquefaction to be
manifested at the ground surface, the soils generally have to be granular, loose to medium dense,
saturated relatively near the ground surface, and must be subjected to a sufficient magnitude and
duration of shaking. No evidence of surface faulting has been observed during grading
operations on site or during a review of pertinent aerial photographs In addition, due to the
relatively dense nature of the bedrock materials encountered during grading operations, lack of a
shallow water table, and observations and recommendations made during the course of grading
for the adjacent Carlsbad Ranch project, the potential for liquefaction on site due to the design
earthquake is anticipated to be very low.
It should be recognized, however, that many of the parameters used in liquefaction evaluation
are subjective and open to interpretation. It should also be understood that much of Southern
California lies in an area of moderate to' high seismic risk and it is not generally considered
economically feasible to build structures totally resistant to earthquake-related hazards.
However, current state-of-the-art standards for design and construction are intended to reduce the
potential for major structural damage.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4930489-018
3.6 Ground Water
Groundwater was not encountered during rough-grading operations of the subject site. It should
be noted that the majority of this phase of grading lacks a shallow ground water or widespread
perched ground water condition This point, as well as the installation of a series of subdrains
during grading operations indicates is low risk of a future build up of ground water. However, it
has been our experience that perched groundwater conditions can exist at the contact between the
relatively porous Terrace Deposits and the relatively non-porous underlying Santiago Formation
with the addition of precipitation and irrigation. This condition can become worse with
insufficient drainage. However, groundwater does not appear to be a significant constraint to
future site development provided the recommendations provided in this report are adhered to If
areas of seepage are noted, additional recommendations can be provided at that time.
4930489-018
4.0 CONCLUSIONS
4.1
4.2
General
Rough-grading and storm drain placement for Cannon Road West Sta. 37+43 to Sta. 66+00 was
performed in general accordance with the project geotechnical reports (Appendix A),
geotechnical recommendations made during the course of grading, and the City of Carlsbad
requirements. It is our opinion that the subject site is suitable to receive the proposed
improvements. The following is a summary of our conclusions concerning rough-grading of
Cannon Road West Sta. 37+43 to Sta. 66+00:
Summary of Conclusions
Geotechnical conditions encountered during rough-grading were generally as
anticipated.
Where possible, potentially compressible and/or desiccated fill, topsoil,
colluvium/alluvium, weathered Terrace, and weathered Santiago formational material,
was removed to competent material during grading operations. Where complete
removals were not possible, a geotextile fabric was utilized to help stabilize the toe of
fill slopes. However, no removals were made in the area immediately adjacent to the
SDG&E tower at the east end of the project.
Site preparation, removals, and storm drain backfill operations were geotechnically
observed.
Fill soils were derived from onsite and adjacent site soils. Fill soils were tested to have
at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91) and
near-optimum moisture content in accordance with the recommendations of the project
geotechnical reports (Appendix A) and the requirements of the City of Carlsbad.
Landslides or other surficial failures were not encountered during rough-grading
operations onsite.
No evidence of faulting was encountered during rough-grading operations onsite.
Ground water was not encountered during, this phase of grading onsite, and is not
considered a significant constraint to future development of this portion of the Cannon
Road extension project.
-9- _
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4930489-018--
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.
5.1 Earthwork
We anticipate that future earthwork at thesite will consist of site preparation, possible minor
regrading, and trench excavation and backfill. We recommend that earthwork on the site be
performed in accordance with the following recommendations, the City of Carlsbad grading
requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications of Rough Grading included
in Appendix D. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those in
Appendix D.
5.1.1 Site Preparation
Due to the length of time anticipated between the completion of the roadway and
placement of fill soils at the site, surficial soils of the graded areas may become loosened
and/or desiccated. If the length of time between the completion of grading and roadway
construction is longer than 6 to 12 months, or if the near-surface soils are disturbed or
desiccated, we recommend that the areas of proposed development be scarified a
minimum of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to near-optimum moisture content and
compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method
D1557-91).
If additional grading, such as fill placement, is planned on the site, the areas to receive
structural fill or engineered structures should be cleared of subsurface obstructions,
potentially compressible material (such as undocumented fills placed after the
completion of site grading, weathered formational material, and desiccated fill soils) and
stripped of vegetation prior to grading. Vegetation and debris should be removed and
properly disposed off site. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstructions which
extend below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material.
Areas to receive fill and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a
minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near-optimum moisture condition, and
recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method
D1557-91).
•
5.1.2 Excavations
Excavations of the onsite materials for the installation of utilities and future site grading
may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment.
-10 oi
'~!Ivm l
_
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
4930489-018
Due to the relatively high-density characteristics and coarse nature of the onsite soils,
temporary excavations, such as utility trenches, should remain stable for the period
required to construct the utility provided they are free of adverse geologic conditions.
However, in accordance with OSHA requirements, excavations between 5 and 15 feet in
depth should be shored or laid back to inclinations no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to
vertical).
Retaining -Wall Design Considerations
Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The
magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under
load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the full shear strength of the soil, it can be
designed for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength
of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be
designed for "at rest" conditions. If a structure moves toward the soil, the resulting resistance
developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance.
For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded
above the ground water table and backfilled with soils of very low expansion potential (less-than
20 per UBC 18-2) is provided below.
Equivalent Fluid Weight (pci)
Condition Level 2:1 Slope
Active 35 55
At-Rest 55 65
Passive 350
The above values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above
are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case
basis by the geotechnical engineer. All retaining wall structures should be provided with
appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical
drainage design is illustrated in Appendix D.
Wall backcut excavations less than 5 feet in height can be made near vertical. For back cuts
greater than 5 feet in height, but less than 15 feet in height, the back cut should be flattened to a
gradient of no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclination. For back cuts in excess
of 15 feet in height, specific recommendations should be requested from the geotechnical
consultant.
Soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained from the passive
pressure values in the previous table. Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35
may be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one-third when
considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance may be
taken as the sum of the frictional and passive resistance provided the passive portion does not
exceed two-thirds of the total resistance.
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
I
I
5.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 4930489-018
1 5.3 Type of Cement for Construction
I Representative samples of the soils near-finish grade were obtained during grading on the
adjacent Legoland site and tested for soluble sulfate content upon completion of rough grading to
determine the type of cement for construction. Tests performed during the rough-grading
operations indicated the soil possess a negligible soluble sulfate content (ICBO, 1994)
(Appendix C). Consult UBC Table 19-A-3 for the type of cement recommended for contact with
the onsite soils.
5.4 Corrosion Resistance
Samples of the representative onsite soils on the adjacent Legoland site were tested for minimum
resistivity and pH by California Test Method 643 during the previous investigations at the
subject site. The results of this testing indicate that the soils have a mild to high potential for
corrosion to buried uncoated metal conduits. A corrosion engineer should be consulted for
further evaluation of this potential if buried metal conduits are proposed.
5.5 Preliminary Pavement Design
I The roadway is not to be paved at this time. For future planning considerations, final pavement
recommendations should be provided based on R-value testing of roadway subgrade soils at such
time as completion of the roadway is planned. For planning purposes, we have assumed the
I sandy onsite soils will have an R-value of 40. Utilizing assumed traffic indices of T.I. = 7.0,
T.I.=8.0, and T.I.=9.0, the following structural pavement sections can be assumed for planning
purposes.
Design Recommended Structural Pavement
Assumed Traffic Index_j R-Value Design
T.I. = 7.0 R =40 4 inches of asphalt concrete over
7 inches of Caltrans Class 2 base
T.I. = 8.0 R =40 4 inches of asphalt concrete over
9.5 inches of Caltrans Class 2 base
T.I. = 9.0 R =40 6 inches of asphalt concrete over
9 inches of Caltrans Class 2 base
The upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted
to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91. If fill
is required to reach subgrade design grade, fill placement should be performed in accordance
with the recommendations presented in Section 5.1. The aggregate base material should be
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Untreated Class 2 aggregate base
should meet all the requirements of Caltrans specifications.
We recommend that the curbs, gutters, and sidewalks be designed by the civil engineer or
structural engineer. We suggest crack-control joints at appropriate intervals as determined by the
-12- _
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I.
I 4930489-018
I
I
I
I 5.6
I .
5.7
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
civil or structural engineer be considered. We also suggest a minimum thickness of 4 inches for
sidewalk slabs.
In accordance with City of Carlsbad guidelines, concrete improvements within city right-of-ways
should be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base.
If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, we recommend some measure
of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. It is
recommended that the concrete curbing separating the landscaping area from the pavement
extend below the aggregate base to help seal the ends of the sections where heavy landscape
watering may have access to the aggregate base and subgrade.
Graded Slopes
It is recommended that.all graded slopes within the subject site be planted with drought-tolerant,
ground-cover vegetation as soon as practical to protect against erosion by reducing runoff
velocity. Deep-rooted vegetation should also be established to protect against surficial slumping.
Oversteepening of existing slopes should be avoided during fine grading and construction unless
supported by appropriately designed retaining structures. Retaining structures should be
designed with structural considerations.
Construction Observation and Testing
Construction observation and testing should be performed by the project geotechnical consultant
during any future grading, excavations, and any retaining wall construction at the site.
-13-
LEIGHTONAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I .
I
I
i,
-'
I
I
I I:
I
I /
i :
4930489-018
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1994, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for Tentative Map Purposes,
Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4930489-05, dated July 5, 1994.
1997a, Final As-Graded Report of Rough-Grading, Lots 3, 5, and 6 and Portions of Lots 2, 7,
8, Cannon Road and Armada Drive, Carlsbad Ranch Phase 1, Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad,
California, Project No. 4930489-008, dated June 16, 1997.
1997b, Final As-Graded Report of Rough-Grading, Carlsbad Ranch Phase II, Carlsbad,
California, Project No. 4930489-011, dated March 12, 1997.
1997c, Recommendations for Pavement Section for Fleet Street, Carlsbad Ranch Unit 2,
Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4930489-015, Letter dated September 30, 1997
1997d, Recommendations for Additional Subdrains, Cannon Road West Sta. 37+43 to Sta.
66+00, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4930489-018, Letter dated October 21, 1997
1997e, Recommendations for Stability Fill, Cannon Road West Sta. 37+43 to Sta. 66+00,
Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4930489-018, Letter dated October 30, 1997
A-i
C
lil
B
- - - - -' - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
02/09/98
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
PROJECT NUMBER: 04-930489-18
NAME: CANNON RD. WEST
TEST TEST TEST TEST ------------LOCATION --------------TEST SOIL DRY DENSITY(pcf) MOISTURE(%) REL(%) REMARKS
NUMBER METH
-
DATE ELEV(ft) TYPE FIELD MAX FIELD OPT COMP
SD 1 N 11/20/97 SD LINE D7 C.B. STATION 53+56 100.0 1 113.8 124.0 11.2 10.0 92
SD 2 N 11/20/97 SD LINE D7 C.B. STATION 53+56 102.0 2 115.2 128.0 10.5 9.0 90
SD 3 N 11/20/97 SD LINE D7 S.O. STATION 53+52 106.0 2 115.8 128.0 14.3 9.0 90
SD 4 N 11/20/97 SD LINE D7 S.D. STATION 53+48 114.0 4 109.9 119.0 15.1 12.5 92
SD 5 N 11/20/97 SD LINE D7 C.B. STATION 53+45 124.0 3 116.4 125.0 9.6 9.0 93
SD 6 N 11/21/97 SD SLOPE STATION 5+45 124.0 3 113.5 125.0 9.5 9.0 91
SD 7 N 11/21/97 SD SLOPE STATION 53+40 128.0 3 113.3 125.0 9.2 9.0 91
SD 8 N 11/24/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 54+80 146.0 2 116.0 128.0 11.8 9.0 91
SD 9 N 11/24/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 55+80 140.0 8 115.5 122.5 12.6 12.0 94
SD 10 N 11/24/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 56+20 138.0 8 115.3 122.5 10.6 12.0 94
SD 11 N 11/25/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 57+70 128.0 5 114.4 124.0 13.5 11.0 92
SD 12 N 11/25/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 59+00 118.0 5 112.2 124.0 11.7 11.0 90
SD 13 N 11/26/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 60+35 104.0 8 112.6 122.5 14.2 12.0 92
SD 14 N 11/26/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 60+70 100.0 8 107.1 122.5 11.3 12.0 87 RT ON 14A
SD 14A N 11/26/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 60+70 100.0 8 111.4 122.5 12.4 12.0 91 RI OF 14
SD 24 N 12/02/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 60+80 107.0 3 115.7 125.0 15.8 9.0 93
SD 25 N 12/02/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 61+70 100.0 3 114.7 125.0 14.9 9.0 92
SD 26 N 12/02/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 63+10 92.0 7 113.5 124.5 11.7 8.5 91
SD 27 N 12/02/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 63+90 86.0 8 114.7 122.5 12.6 12.0 94
SD 28 N 12/03/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 53+60 150.0 3 115.5 125.0 14.1 9.0 92
SD 29 N 12/03/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 53+40 154.0 8 112.6 122.5 14.7 12.0 92
SD 30 N 12/03/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 53+20 156.0 8 114.4 122.5 11.4 12.0 93
SD 31 N 12/03/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 53+00 160.0 8 112.0 122.5 15.8 12.0 91
SD 32 N 12/05/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 52+80 156.0 3 116.6 125.0 10.2 9.0 93
SD 33 N 12/05/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 52+60 159.0 3 113.1 125.0 11.7 9.0 90
SD 34 N 12/10/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 51+65 162.0 8 112.9 122.5 10.9 12.0 92
SD 35 N 12/10/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 51+10 164.0 3 115.6 125.0 12.8 9.0 92
SD 36 N 12/10/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 50+70 167.0 3 115.7 125.0 11.2 9.0 93 SD 37 N 12/10/97 SD LINE D-10 STATION 54+25 150.0 3 113.4 125.0 10.1 9.0 91
SD 38 N 12/17/97 SD LINE 0-4 STATION 62+70 89.0 4 110.5 119.0 14.7 12.5 93 SD 39 N 12/17/97 SD LINE D-4 STATION 62+80 93.0 4 108.7 119.0 15.3 12.5 91
50 40 N 1 2/17/97 SD LINE D-2 STATION 56+85 134.0 5 114.5 124.0 11.1 11.0 92
SD 41 N 12/17/97 SD LINE D CONC. BOX STATION 52+34 158.0 1 117.9 124.0 10.0 10.0 95
SD 42 N 12/17/97 SD LINE D CONC. BOX STATION 52+23 161.0 1 111.1 124.0 13.6 10.0 90
SD 43 N 12/22/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 65+75 23.0 9 98.7 116.0 17.8 16.0 85 RI ON 43A
SD 43A N 12/22/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 65+75 23.0 9 105.2 116.0 18.1 16.0 91 RI OF 43
SD 44 N 12/22/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 65+70 26.0 9 96.2 116.0 18.4 16.0 83 RT ON 44A
SD 44A N 12/22/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 65+70 26.0 9 105.0 116.0 18.8 16.0 91 RT OF 44
SD 45 N 12/22/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 65+55 31.0 9 107.2 116.0 17.2 16.0 92
SD 46 N 12/23/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 65+40 39.0 9 104.0 116.0 19.0 16.0 90
SD 47 N 12/23/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 65+25 47.0 9 104.2 116.0 16.6 16.0 90
SD 48 N 12/23/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 65+10 54.0 9 105.8 116.0 17.5 16.0 91
SD 49 N 12/23/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 64+75 67.0 9 106.4 116.0 18.6 16.0 92
SD 50 N 12/23/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 64+60 73.0 9 107.1 116.0 15.3 16.0 92
SD 51 N 12/23/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 64+45 77.0 9 107.3 116.0 17.9 16.0 93
SD 52 N 12/23/97 SD CANNON ROAD STATION 64+30 79.0 9 105.1 116.0 17.2 16.0 91
SD 53 N 12/29/97 SD CONCRETE BOX STATION 62+40 90.0 3 112.6 125.0 15.3 9.0 90
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
02/09/98 Page No. 2
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
PROJECT NUM 3ER: 04-930489-18
N ME: CANNON RD. WEST
TEST TE T TEST TEST
NUMBER ME IH DATE OF
SD 54 12/29/97 SD
SD 55 12/29/97 SD
SD 56 12/29/97 SD
SD 57 12/29/97 SD
SD 58 1 12/29/97 SD
SD 59 12/30/97 SD
SD 59A 12/30/97 SD
SD 60 1 12/30/97 SD
SD 61 I 12/30/97 SD
SD 62 I 1 12/30/97 SD
SD 63 I I 12/30/97 SD
SD 64 I I 01/06/98 MH
SD 65 I I 01/06/98 M
SD 66 I I 01/06/98 M
SD 67 I I 01/06/98 M
SD 68 I I 01/07/98 M
SD 69 I 01/15/98 N
SD 70 I 01/15/98 M
SD 71 01/20/98 M
SD 72 p I 01/20/98 M
SD 73 p 01/20/98 N
SD 74 01/26/98 BOX
SD 75 p 01/26/98 BOX
SD 76 I 01/26/98 BOX
SD 77 p 01/26/98 BOX
LOCATION --------------TEST SOIL DRY DENSITY(pcf) MOISTURE(%) REL(%)
ELEV(ft) TYPE FIELD MAX FIELD OPT COMP
CURB INLET STATION 62+50 93.0 4 110.7 119.0 16.1 12.5 93
CURB INLET STATION 62+60 90.0 8 111.9 122.5 13.3 12.0 91
CONCRETE BOX STATION 62+50 92.0 8 111.4 122.5 16.7 12.0 91
CONCRETE BOX STATION 54+25 148.0 3' 115.7 125.0 12.6 9.0 93
LINE D-1 STATION 54+25 149.0 3 113.9 125.0 '12.9 9.0 91
CONCRETE BOX STATION 59+50 112.0 8 107.3 122.5 11.4 12.0 88
CONCRETE BOX STATION 59+50 112.0 8 110.1 122.5 11.0 12.0 90
CURB INLET STATION 59+50 113.0 8 110.7 122.5 14.3 12.0 90
CURB INLET STATION 59+50 115.0 8 110.9 122.5 12.6 12.0 91
CURB INLET STATION 54+25 148.0 3 116.3 125.0 13.3 9.0 93
CURB INLET STATION 54+25 150.0 3 113.2 125.0 14.1 9.0 91
INLET AND BOX STATION 54+25 151.0 3 114.7 125.0 12.1 9.0 92
INLET AND BOX STATION 62+25 93.0 3 114.9 125.0 13.0 9.0 92
INLET STATION 50+00 169.0 3 113.0 125.0 12.7 9.0 90
INLET STATION 54+25 150.0 3 114.0 125.0 13.2 9.0 91
BOX STATION 56+60 138.0 3 114.5 125.0 11.7 9.0 92
MAIN CROSSING STATION 37+50 151.0 7' 116.1 124.5 10.5 8.5 93
MAIN CROSSING STATION 37+50, 154.0 7 116.0 124.5 9.2 8.5 93
MAIN CROSSING STATION 37+50 152.0 7 112.8 124.5 11.8 8.5 91
MAIN CROSSING STATION 37+50 153.0 7 '111.9 124.5 14.4 8.5 90
MAIN CROSSING STATION 37+50 157.0 3 114.4 125.0 12.5 9.0 92
CONCRETE BOX N. STATION 37+50 150.0 3 116.5 125.0 14.2 9.0 93
CONCRETE BOX N. STATION 37+50 152.0 3 113.7 125.0 14.0 9.0 91
CONCRETE BOX S. STATION 37+50 152.0 3 118.1 125.0 14.8 9.0 94
CONCRETE BOX S. STATION 37+50 154.0 3 117.8 125.0 13.5 9.0 94
REMARKS
RT ON 59A
RT OF 59
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
02/13/98
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
PROJECT NUMBER: 04-930489-18
NAME: CANNON RD. WEST
TEST TEST TEST TEST ------------LOCATION --------------TEST SOIL DRY DENSITY(pcf) MOISTURE(%) REL(%) REMARKS
NUMBER METH
-
DATE OF ELEV(ft) TYPE FIELD MAX FIELD OPT COMP
1 N 10/16/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 54+10 96.0 1 112.3 124.0 8.2 10.0 91
2 N 10/16/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 55+10 100.0 2 114.8 128.0 9.7 9.0 90
3 N 10/16/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 53+80 98.0 1 112.2 124.0 9.2 10.0 90
4 N 10/16/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 54+20 101.0 1 104.5 124.0 9.8 10.0 84 RT ON 4A
4A N 10/16/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 54+20 101.0 1 111.1 124.0 7.6 10.0 90 RI OF 4
5 N 10/16/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 54+50 102.0 1 111.6 124.0 10.0 10.0 90
6 N 10/16/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 55+00 112.0 1 113.9 124.0 10.7 10.0 92
7 N' 10/16/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 54+00 105.0 3 115.6 125.0 9.2 9.0 92
8 N 10/16/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 53+80 112.0 3 112.8 125.0 11.6 9.0 90
9 N 10/16/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 55+10 118.0 1 111.4 124.0 11.8 10.0 90
10 N 10/17/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 54+35 116.0 2 117.8 128.0 9.1 9.0 92
11 N 10/17/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 54+60 118.0 1 113.8 124.0 8.8 10.0 92
12 N 10/17/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 55+50 , 124.0 3 114.5 125.0 10.7 9.0 92
13 N 10/17/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 55+65 126.0 1 113.7 124.0 8.3 10.0 92
14 N 10/17/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 54+80 123.0 1 113.0 124.0 9.7 10.0 91
15 N 10/17/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 54+30 125.0 2 120.4 128.0 10.4 9.0 94
16 N 10/17/97 CF NORTH SIDE ' STATION 54+10 121.0 1 113.3 124.0 10.3 10.0 91
17 N 10/17/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 53+60 120.0 2 119.2 128.0 11.3 9.0 93
18 N 10/17/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 53+50 124.0 3 117.5 125.0 9.4 9.0 94
19 N 10/17/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 53+95 125.0 2 119.6 128.0 8.8 '9.0 93
20 N 10/20/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 54+80 119.0 3 116.0 125.0 10.7 9.0 93
21 N 10/20/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 55+40 124.0 3 108.3 125.0 10.4 9.0 87 RI ON 21A
21A N 10/20/97 CF ' NORTH SIDE STATION 55+40 124.0 3 112.6 125.0 9.6 ' 9.0 90 RI OF 21
22 N 10/20/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 53+50 100.0 3 118.3 125.0 13.2 9.0 95
23 N 10/20/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 54+10 112.0 1 116.4 124.0 9.8 10.0 94
24 N 10/20/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+80 105.0 2 123.9 128.0 10.5 9.0 97
25 N 10/20/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+10 108.0 2 117.0 128.0 13.6 9.0 91
26 N 10/20/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+90 111.0 2 120.5 128.0 12.3 9.0 94
27 N 10/20/97 CF NORTH SIDE ' STATION 54+50 126.0 3 117.7 125.0 11.3 9.0 94
28 N 10/20/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+80 115.0 2 118.8 128.0 10.9 9.0 93
29 N 10/21/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 55+30 136.0 3 117.8 125.0 11.0 9.0 94
30 N 10/21/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 53+40 118.0 3 117.4 125.0 12.4 9.0 94
31 N 10/21/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+30 122.0 2 119.2 128.0 9.7 9.0 93
32 N 10/21/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+60 115.0 2 121.5 128.0 10.6 9.0 95
33 N 10/21/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+30 118.0 2 119.9 128.0 11.0 9.0 94
34 N 10/21/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 53+20 120.0 3 117.3 125.0 9.8 9.0 94
35 N 10/21/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 53+10 125.0 2 120.2 128.0 10.0 9.0 94
36 N 10/21/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+70 128.0 4 107.4 119.0 11.6 12.5 90
37 N 10/21/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 53+00 132.0 4 110.2 119.0 9.7 12.5 93
38 N 10/21/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+80 135.0 4 110.8 119.0 9.2 12.5 93
39 N 10/22/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+10 124.0 4 108.4 119.0 13.0 12.5 91
40 N 10/22/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 51+70 127.0 4 107.0 119.0 12.6 12.5 90
41 N 10/22/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+20 128.0 4 108.4 119.0 12.1 12.5 91
42 N 10/22/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+10 120.0 3 113.7 125.0 10.9 9.0 91
43 N 10/22/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+40 124.0 3 112.0 125.0 14.1 9.0 90
44 N 10/22/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 51+70 132.0 6 106.3 115.5 13.3 9.0 92
45 N 10/22/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 63+60 10.0 6 108.4 115.5 10.6 9.0 94
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
02/13/98 Page No. 2
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
PROJECT NUMBER: 04-930489-18
NAME: CANNON RD. WEST
TEST TEST TEST TEST
NUMBER METH DATE OF
46 N 10/22/97 CF
47 N 10/22/97 CF
48 N 10/22/97 CF
49 N 10/23/97 CF
50 N 10/23/97 CF
51 N 10/23/97 CF
52 N 10/23/97 CF
53 N 10/23/97 CF
54 N 10/23/97 CF
55 N 10/23/97 CF
56 N 10/23/97 CF
57 N 10/23/97 CF
58 N 10/23/97 CF
59 N 10/23/97 CF
60 N 10/23/97 CF
61 N 10/23/97 CF
62 N 10/23/97 CF
63 N 10/24/97 CF
64 N 10/24/97 CF
65 N 10/24/97 CF
66 N 10/24/97 CF
67 N 10/24/97 CF
68 N 10/24/97 CF
69 N 10/24/97 CF
70 N 10/24/97 CF
71 N 10/24/97 CF
72 N 10/24/97 CF
73 N 10/24/97 CF
74 N 10/24/97 CF
75 N 10/24/97 CF
76 N 10/27/97 CF
77 N 10/27/97 CF
78 N 10/27/97 CF
79 N 10/27/97 CF
80 N 10/27/97 CF
81 N 10/27/97 CF
82 N 10/27/97 CF
83 N 10/28/97 CF
84 N 10/28/97 CF
85 N 10/28/97 CF
86 N 10/28/97 CF
87 N 10/28/97 CF
88 N 10/28/97 CF
89 N 10/28/97 CF
90 N 10/28/97 CF
91 N 10/29/97 CF
92 N 10/29/97 CF
LOCATION --------------TEST SOIL DRY DENSITY(pcf) MOISTURE(%) REL(%)
ELEV(ft) TYPE FIELD MAX FIELD OPT COMP
NORTH SIDE STATION 64+10 12.0 6 109.8 115.5 11.1 9.0 95
NORTH SIDE STATION 63+80 18.0 6 109.2 115.5 13.2 9.0 95
NORTH SIDE STATION 64+20 16.0 6 110.5 115.5 8.2 9.0 96
NORTH SIDE STATION 63+40 20.0 6 110.3 115.5 10.8 9.0 95
NORTH SIDE STATION 63+90 21.0 6 109.6 115.5 9.3 9.0 95
NORTH SIDE STATION 64+40 25.0 5 113.3 124.0 10.9 11.0 91
NORTH SIDE STATION 63+90 28.0 6 108.5 215.5 11.9 9.0 94
NORTH SIDE STATION 51+60 134.0 4 107.9 119.0 14.4 12.5 91
NORTH SIDE STATION 52+30 140.0 4 106.7 119.0 15.0 12.5 90
NORTH SIDE STATION 53+60 138.0 6 106.1 115.5 13.7 9.0 92
NORTH SIDE STATION 54+10 142.0 4 107.5 119.0 11.7 12.5 90
NORTH SIDE STATION 54+40 145.0 8 114.6 122.5 12.2 12.0 94
NORTH SIDE STATION 54+60 148.0 8 115.2 122.5 13.1 12.0 94
NORTH SIDE STATION 52+00 148.0 8 113.7 122.5 12.6 12.0 93
NORTH SIDE STATION 53+00 144.0 7 115.0 124.5 12.1 8.5 92
NORTH SIDE STATION 52+50 147.0 7 115.7 124.5 14.6 8.5 93
NORTH SIDE STATION 52+00 152.0 8 114.6 122.5 13.7 12.0 94
NORTH SIDE STATION 51+90 135.0 8 113.3 122.5 11.8 12.0 92
NORTH SIDE STATION 52+50 138.0 7 111.9 124.5 11.0 8.5 90
NORTH SIDE STATION 53+20 140.0 7 118.2 124.5 10.4 8.5 95
NORTH SIDE STATION 51+80 142.0 7 117.2 124.5 10.8 8.5 94
NORTH SIDE STATION 52+30 145.0 8 113.7 122.5 12.1 12.0 93
NORTH SIDE STATION 51+10 154.0 8 114.1 122.5 11.8 12.0 93
NORTH SIDE STATION 51+30 156.0 7 115.5 124.5 9.7 8.5 93
NORTH SIDE STATION 51+20 164.0 7 115.0 124.5 9.9 8.5 92
NORTH SIDE STATION 51+40 162.0 8 114.5 122.5 11.7 12.0 93
NORTH SIDE STATION 51+90 164.0 8 112.1 122.5 10.8 12.0 92
NORTH SIDE STATION 53+80 148.0 7 117.5 124.5 10.4 8.5 94
NORTH SIDE STATION 54+30 150.0 8 113.4 122.5 12.1 12.0 93
NORTH SIDE STATION 54+90 149.0 8 113.1 122.5 9.1 12.0 92
NORTH SIDE STATION 64+30 30.0 6 109.7 115.5 9.9 9.0 95
NORTH SIDE STATION 64+20 32.0 8 110.6 122.5 12.3 12.0 90
NORTH SIDE STATION 63+60 35.0 6 107.8 115.5 13.6 9.0 93
NORTH SIDE STATION 63+80 37.0 5 112.3 124.0 10.1 11.0 91
NORTH SIDE STATION 63+40 42.0 6 108.7 115.5 13.0 9.0 94
NORTH SIDE STATION 64+10 45.0 6 109.0 115.5 14.4 9.0 94
NORTH SIDE STATION 63+10 48.0 8 112.2 122.5 9.6 12.0 92
NORTH SIDE STATION 52+40 157.0 8 113.5 122.5 11.4 12.0 93
NORTH SIDE STATION 52+90 159.0 8 116.3 122.5 9.6 12.0 95
NORTH SIDE STATION 63+80 53.0 8 114.8 122.5 12.6 12.0 94
NORTH SIDE STATION 63+15 58.0 7 115.4 124.5 9.8 8.5 93
NORTH SIDE STATION 62+35 51.0 4 108.8 119.0 13.0 12.5 91
NORTH SIDE STATION 62+15 62.0 4 111.1 119.0 11.8 12.5 93
NORTH SIDE STATION 61+20 78.0 4 111.6 119.0 12.4 12.5 94
NORTH SIDE STATION 61+60 75.0 4 112.1 119.0 11.7 12.5 94
NORTH SIDE STATION 62+60 66.0 4 109.3 119.0 9.4 12.5 92
NORTH SIDE STATION 63+50 64.0 4 110.1 119.0 10.1 12.5 93
REMARKS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
02/13/98 Page No. 3
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
PROJECT NUMBER: 04-930489-18
NAME: CANNON RD. WEST
TEST TEST TEST TEST ------------LOCATION --------------TEST SOIL DRY DENSITY(pcf) MOISTURE(%) REL(%) REMARKS NUMBER METH DATE OF ELEV(ft) TYPE FIELD MAX FIELD OPT COMP
93 N 10/29/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 61+70 80.0 8 112.3 122.5 10.2 12.0 92
94 N 10/29/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 62+20 85.0 6 108.9 115.5 12.5 9.0 94
95 N 10/29/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 63+30 73.0 4 110.8 119.0 14.8 12.5 93
96 N 10/29/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 64+10 68.0 4 110.3 119.0 15.6 12.5 93
97 N 10/29/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 62+80 72.0 4 110.9 119.0 13.8 12.5 93
98 N 10/29/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 61+00 97.0 3 112.0 125.0 11.7 9.0 90
99 N 10/30/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 61+95 97.0 9 116.3 116.0 14.1 16.0 100
100 N 10/30/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 61+30 94.0 9 111.2 116.0 17.6 16.0 96 101 N 10/30/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 61+80 98.0 8 109.9 122.5 14.0 12.0 90
102 N 10/30/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 61+20. 103.0 9 113.7 116.0 13.9 16.0 98 103 N 10/30/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 63+50 86.0 9 113.9 116.0 15.2 16.0 98
104 N 10/30/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 63+00 89.0 9 115.8 116.0 17.4 16.0 100 105 N 10/30/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 62+50 90.0 7 116.4 124.5 12.1 8.5 93
106 N 10/30/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 62+30 95.0 7 121.4 124.5 10.7 8.5 98 107 N 10/30/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 61+40 100.0 7 117.4 124.5 11.1 8.5 94
108 N 10/30/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 61+60 101.0 8 115.4 122.5 11.0 12.0 94 109 N 11/03/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 51+50 150.0 8 114.7 122.5 11.0 12.0 94
110 N 11/03/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+50 142.0 8 113.3 122.5 11.1 12.0 92 111. N 11/03/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 53+80 138.0 3 116.2 125.0 11.6 9.0 93
112 N 11/03/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 54+80 125.0 3 113.9 125.0 11.7 9.0 91 113 N 11/03/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 53+10 120.0 3 113.5 125.0 9.7 9.0 91 114 N 11/03/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 51+65 130.0 6 106.2 115.5 12.7 9.0 92 115 N 11/03/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 53+80 145.0 7 115.9 124.5 9.2 8.5 93
116 N 11/03/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 52+50 140.0 4 110.6 119.0 11.5 12.5 93 117 N 11/03/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 51+80 158.0 8 110.2 122.5 11.8 12.0 90
118 N 11/03/97 CF NORTH SIDE STATION 51+20 162.0 8 112.7 122.5 12.4 12.0 92 119 N 11/05/97 CF BUTTRESS CUT SLOPE STATION 57+30 138.0 8 111.3 122.5 12.9 12.0 91
120 N 11/05/97 CF BUTTRESS CUT SLOPE STATION 58+60 130.0 8 110.9 122.5 9.8 12.0 91
121 N 11/05/97 CF BUTTRESS CUT SLOPE STATION 58+00 140.0 8 112.9 122.5 13.1 12.0 92
122 N 11/05/97 CF BUTTRESS CUT SLOPE STATION 58+80 135.0 8 110.0 122.5 13.0 12.0 90
123 N 11/05/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 61+90 85.0 3 115.3 125.0 11.2 9.0 92
124 N 11/05/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 63+10 70.0 4 115.1 119.0 10.8 12.5 97
125 N 11/05/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 63+80 82.0 3 115.4 125.0 12.8 9.0 92
126 N 11/05/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 64+30 65.0 3 117.9 125.0 10.8 9.0 94
127 N 11/05/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 62+80 50.0 8 115.1 122.5 12.2 12.0 94
128 N 11/05/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 64+10 40.0 8 116.7 122.5 8.6 12.0 95 129 N 11/12/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 61+70 97.0 8 111.5 122.5 12.3 12.0 91
130 N 11/12/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 61+20 101.0 8 112.8 122.5 10.6 12.0 92 131 N 11/12/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 60+90 100.0 7 111.5 124.5 14.1 8.5 90
132 N 11/12/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 60+00 116.0 8 109.7 122.5 11.3 12.0 90
133 N 11/12/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 59+00 128.0 8 111.0 122.5 11.3 12.0 91
134 N 11/12/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 58+70 136.0 8 111.1 122.5 10.4 12.0 91
135 N 11/12/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 58+20 130.0 9 111.7 116.0 11.6 16.0 96
136 N 11/12/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 57+60 140.0 9 112.8 116.0 11.1 16.0 97
137 N 11/12/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 57+40 152.0 9 114.1 116.0 10.5 16.0 98
138 N 11/12/97 CF FACE OF FILL SLOPE STATION 57+10 142.0 8 109.8 122.5 10.3 12.0 90
139 N 11/12/97 FO NORTH SIDE STATION 42+00 0.0 7 116.0 124.5 9.4 8.5 93
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - El
02/13/98 Page No. 4
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TESTS
PROJECT NUMBER: 04-930489-18
NAME: CANNON RD. WEST
TEST TEST TEST TEST
NUMBER METH DATE OF
140 N 11/12/97 FG
141 N 11/12/97 FG
142 N 11/12/97 FG
143 N 11/12/97 FG
144 N 11/12/97 FG
145 N 11/12/97 FG
146 N 11/12/97 FG
147 N 11/12/97 FG
148 N 11/12/97 FG
LOCATION --------------TEST SOIL DRY DENSITY(pcf) MOISTURE(%) REL(%) REMARKS
ELEV(ft) TYPE FIELD MAX FIELD OPT COMP
NORTH SIDE STATION 43+30 0.0 7 114.9 124.5 10.6 8.5 92 NORTH SIDE STATION 45+10 0.0 7 114.8 124.5 9.0 8.5 92 NORTH SIDE STATION 47+35 0.0 7 115.4 124.5 11.3 8.5 93 NORTH SIDE STATION 48+15 0.0 8 113.8 122.5 7.2 12.0 93 NORTH SIDE STATION 51+10 0.0 6 109.3 115.5 9.2 9.0 95 NORTH SIDE STATION 52+50 0.0 8 110.2 122.5 11.4 12.0 90 NORTH SIDE STATION 54+60 0.0 8 111.4 .122.5 10.9 12.0 91 NORTH SIDE STATION 55+50 0.0 8 112.4 122.5 14.1 12.0 92 NORTH SIDE STATION 57+40 0.0 5 111.6 124.0 12.2 11.0 90
0
C
LA
4930489-018
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Maximum Density Tests: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical materials
were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D1557. The results of these tests are presented in
the table below:
Sample Number Sample Description
Optimum Moisture
Content
Maximum Dry Density
(pci)
Brown clayey sand 10.0 124.0
2 Dark brown, fine sand 9.0 128.0
3 Brown, fine to medium sand 9.0 125.0
4 Light brown, clayey sand 12.5 119.0
5 Gray, coarse sand 11.0 124.0
6 Gray to brown, medium sand 9.0 115.5
7 Orange-brown, silty, clayey, fine to
medium sand
8.5 124.5
8 Gray, silty to clayey sand 12.0 122.5
9 Gray to tan, clayey, sand 16.0 116.0
C-1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D.
I Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Pagel of6
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
I GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
I 1.0 General
I i .1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the geotechnical
report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the
I geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the
geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the
earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result
in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or . the
I recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
I employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The
Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions,
I and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work
I plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel
to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
I During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe,
map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical design
assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the
I interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform
the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed
conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be
I geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground
after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial
removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
I The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioningand processing of the
subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the
attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to
I the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
I
Li
I 3030.1094
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 2 of 6
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified,
experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of
ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill.
The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these
Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a
work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of
work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to
commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical
Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in
advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware
of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and
agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition,
inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in
a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant
shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until
the conditions are rectified.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
fl
j
I
I
I
I
1
I
3030. 1094
I
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious
material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to
the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on
specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic
materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter.
Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the
affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper
evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuingto work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline,
diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered
to be hazardous waste. As .such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids
onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment,
and shall not be allowed.
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page of
2.2 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing
ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section.
Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or
clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that
would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavatiort In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to
competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
2.4 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal
to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details
for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and
at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as
otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping
flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade
for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and
processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded,
and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive
fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for
determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
3.0 Fill Material
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
n
I
I .
I
I :
I
I 3030.1094
I
3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high
expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location,
materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and
such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill.
Oversize material shall not be placed within .10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet
of future utilities or underground construction.
3.3 Import If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall
meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the
I Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 4of6
1
Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that
I its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.
I 4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
I Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The
Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading
procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly
I and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed,
I
as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum.
Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in
accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method
I
D1557-91).
4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly
spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
I (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
I
achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above,
compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot
I rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of
grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of
I maximum density per ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91.
4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill
I soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests
shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction
test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be
selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to
I inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
1 vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a
guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope
face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill
I construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical
Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these
minimum standards are not met.
I - 3030.1094
I Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page of
I
4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
I elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate
with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the
Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a
I minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than
5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided.
1 5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the
I grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional
subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions
encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for
line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the
I Contractor for these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
I Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans
are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical
Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut
I ,slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the
slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.0 Trench Backfills
1 7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
1 7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material
I shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The bedding shall be placed to 1
foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and
densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit
I
, to the surface.
7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
I
Consultant.
7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least
one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
I
I 3030.1094
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 6 of 6
7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the
Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative
compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
3030.1094
-----------
PACTED=—
PROJECTED ROJEANE
ITOl _-:--- FILL SLOPE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED GROUND
------- = REMOVE
ITABLE NATURAL
MATERIAL GROUND BENCH
BENCH
HEIGHT
2' MI
TYPICAL uu
LOWEST BENCH KEY DEPTH (KEY)
FILL-
SLOPE
OVER-CUT
NATURAL V TYPICAL
GROUND
—2' MIN.
KEY DEPTH
CUT FACE
TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR
TO FlU. PLACEMENT
NATURAL 7'
GROUND -
CUT-OVER-FILL
SLOPE
OVERBUILT AND
TRIM BACK -
DESIGN SLOPE
PROJECTED PLANE
1101 MAXIMUM FROM
TOE OF SLOPE TO -----
APPROVED GROUND - 4' TYPICAL
--
-- PACTEDBENCH BENd
/ L..._..15'UI 2' UIPL [iór.si BENCH KEY DEPTH fiecwh
For Subdralns See.
REMOVE Standard. Detail C
INSUffABIJ
MATERIAL
1ir11hj
BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPES
ANGLE 18 EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1
MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET
IVIMUM FlU. WIDTH SHALL. BE 9 FEET
KEYING AND BENCHING GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
I STANDARD DETAILS A
REV. 411I96]
FINISH GRADE
-------------------- --------- -------------------- -------- -------------------- -------------
SLOPE MIN.-COMPACTED FI
--------------- FACE
- -
----------------------------------------
-----------------
------------
-
— JrrED OR FLOODED
-- GRANULAR MATERIAL
Oversize rock is larger than 8 inches
In largest dimension.
Excavate a trench In the compacted
fill deep enough to bury all the rock.
Backfill with granular soil Jetted or
flooded In place to fill all the voids.
Do not bury rock within 10 feet of
finish grade.
Windrow of buried rock shall be
parallel to the finished slope fill. ELEVATION A-A'
PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
JETTED OR FLOODED
GRANULAR MATERIAL
OVERSIZE
ROCK DISPOSAL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS B
NATURAL
GROUND
/
------------------------ -------------------------
COMPACTED FILL
BENCHING_
— -- UNSUITABLE
No __ MATERIAL
I
I
~"I
I
I
I
? MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP
HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET
CALANS CLASS 11 \(
PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK
(9FT.3/FT.) WRAPPED IN
FILTER FABRIC FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140 OR
APPROVED N.-ICOLLECTOR PIPE SHALL
EQUIVALENT) BE MINIMUM r DIAMETER
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED
CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL D
PERFORATED PIPE FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION
64 MIN.
DESIGN
FINISHED
GRADE 10' MIN. BACKFILL FILTER FABRIC .
140 OR
-
.0 APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
20' MIN.
NON-PERFORATE D MIN. #2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER
FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS II 64 MIN.
PERMEABLE.
I
I
I
I
I
I
C-,
I
I
I
I
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING CANYON SUBDRAINS SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS C I
I
15' MIN.
OUTLET PIPES
4 NON-PERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, ---------I-._ BACKCUT 1:1 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY OR FLATTER
BENCHING
--------------
--
----------------
20 MIN. kol~
(NON-PERFORATED)- 7 T-CONNE11ON FOR / COLLECTOR PIPE TO CALTRANS CLASS U / OUTLET PIPE PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK
(3FT.3/FT.) WRAPPED IN
FILTER FABRIC
SUBDRMN INSTALLATION - Subdraln collector pipe shall be Installed with perforations down or,
unless ctherwlse designated by the geotechnlcal consultant Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated pipe. The subdraln pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shall be ¼" to W If drilled holes are used. NI subdrain pipes shall have .a gradient at least 2% towards the outlet.
SUBDRPJN PIPE - Subdraln pipe shall be ASTM D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40 or ASTM D3034, SDR 235, Schedule 40 PolyvInyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe.
All outlet pipe shall be placed In a trench no wider than twice the subdraln pipe. Pipe shall be In soil of SE30 lotted or flooded In place except for the outside 5 feet which shall be native soil backfill.
BUTTRESS OR
SPECIFICATIONS REPLACEMENT FILL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
STANDARD DETAILS D SUBDRAINS
Tj
45
KEY WI
WIDTHOUTLET PIPE ' i
EQUIVALENT)
\
~12' VERLAP FROM THE TOP MIN.
POSITIVE SEAL (HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET
SHOULD BE
PROVIDED AT FILTER FABRIC
THE JOINT (MIRAFI 140 OR
S APPROVED
V MIN.
NoT TO SCALE
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size % Passing
1" 100 3/411 90-100
3/8" 40-100
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No. 30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
Sand Equivalent >75
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT;RELATIVE COMPACTION*
RETAINING WALL
WALC WATERPROOFING
PER ARCHITECT'S
SPECIFICATIONS
FINISH GRADE
-------------------
------------
60 MIN °I- FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE 'OVERLAP:MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED 0 0 EQUIVALENT)**
o o
Ii' MIN, 3!4"-1112 CLEAN GRAVEL**
0
4.(MIN DIAMETER _PERFORATED
o pvc PIPr(SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
ORIENTEDDOWN AS DEPICTED
MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT
0 TO SUITABLE OUTLET
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-:--€oMpACTED FILL ----------------------- -------------
WALL FOOTING
COMPEfENT BEDROK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
*BASED ON ASTM D1667
**IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
(SEE. GRADATION TO LEFT) 18 USED IN PLACE OF
31 °-i 1I2° GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC. MAY. BE
DELETED. CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED. TO aq.
PERCE RELATIVE COMPACTION *
NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MJRADRAJN
OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR
Uss a INSTALLAPON siiouw BE PERFORNM IN AORDANC
'wiThMANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.