HomeMy WebLinkAbout3811; El Camino Real Widening Project Geotechnical; El Camino Real Widening Project Geotechnical; 2006-04-28GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
REPORT
EL CAMINO REAL ROAD WIDENING
PROJECT
El Camino Real Road between Chestnut Avenue &
Tamarack Avenue, City of Carlsbad, California
Prepared for:
Mr. Keith Gillfillan
Berryman & Henigar, Inc.
11590 West Bernardo Court, Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92127
Prepared by:
Testing Engineers - US Labs, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, California 92111
Contract No. 103582
March 28, 2006
TE-USL
U.S. LABS Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
Keith Gillfillan
Berryman & Henigar, Inc.
11590 West Bemardo Court, Suite 100
San Diego, CaUfomia 92127
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Report
Project; El Camino Real Road Widening
Dear Mr. Gillfillan:
This report presents tiie resuhs of the geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed
widening of El Camino Real Road between Chesttiut Avenue and Tamarack Avenue in the City of
Carlsbad, Califomia. Based on the information obtained during this investigation, it is our opinion
that the proposed development is geotechnically feasible, provided recommendations contained in
this report are followed.
Testing Engineers - US Labs, Inc., appreciates the opportunity to be provide this geotechnical
engineering service for this project. We look forward to continue our role as your geotechnical
engineering consultant on this project.
Respectfully submitted,
Testing Engineers - U.S. Laboratories, Inc.
Laith I. Namiq, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal Engineering
Distribution: (4) Addressee
LINA'O: mm
'i-:\Geolectinicat Files\Projects\Contract
VanW. Olin, GE 257
Principal Geotechnical
Et Camino Reat Road Widening\ Geotechnical Report
S.iil I)icyi>. f.llllOIIlM 'J."' I I 1
Testing Engineers - U.S. Laboratories
41 14(1 I'Ini Sliwl, Sink' \
Mlirrii'l.i, (" :ililorilja ''2^(i2
l)77-n.";(i() • I I'f.^l 1 1-177
Rescaivh \h\\^-. SiiiiL' :
Hnlni Spi'iri!;^. Cililiirnui iJ^^h^
i7i,0i 12^ 8,:7N • t-.w i7l.0i "i2.'^-74M)
:OI)l KLIM i•n^l Slivi'l
Sanl.i All,I. (.•;LliUir[Uii 'I27l]^
M4l .'i(iH-7;(IO • (7I4H)()4 112-=^;
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
3. SITE DESCRIPTION 2
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 2
5. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING 3
5.1. FiELD EXPLORATiONS 3
5.2. LABORATORY TESTING 3
6. GEOLOGY 3
6.1. GEOLOGiC SETTING 3
6.2. GEOLOGIC MATERIALS 4
6.3 GROUNDWATER 5
6.4. FAULTS 5
6.5. GEOSEISMIC HAZARDS 5
7. EXISTING ROAD CONDITIONS 6
7.1. PAVEMENT SECTION 6
7.2. EASTERN SLOPE OF PAVEMENT EAR I H EMBANKMENT 7
8. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 7
8.1. GENERAL 7
8.2. SITE PREPARATION 8
8.3. TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS 9
8.4. UTILITY TRENCH EXCAVATIONS 9
8.5. NEW FLEXURAL ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC) PAVEMEN r 10
8.6. EXISTING FLEXURAL ASPHALT CONCRETE (AC) PAVEMENT 11
8.7. ROAD EARTH FILL SLOPE STABILITY 12
8.8. FOUNDATIONS FOR ANCILLARY STRUCTURES 13
8.9. PIPE BEDDING 14
8.10. SIDEWALK CONCRETE SLABS 14
9. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING 14
9.1. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 15
9.2. CONSTRUCTION MONHORING 15
10. LIMITATIONS 15
12. SELECTED REFERENCES 17
FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 2 - PLOT PLAN
FIGURE 3 - SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS (FAILED SLOPE)
FIGURE 4 - FILL SLOPE DETAIL
FIGURE 5 - SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS (RESTORED SLOPE)
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TESTING
APPENDIX C - SEISMIC ANALYSIS DATA
APPENDIX D - ASFE INFORMATION ABOUT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the geotechnical engineering investigation for the proposed El
Camino Real Road Widening improvements between Chestnut Avenue and Tamarack Avenue in
the City of Carlsbad, Califomia. The location of the subject project is presented on Figure 1, Site
Location Map. The purpose of this study was two fold. Firstly, to evaluate pavement and
subsurface conditions of the existing road and provide recommended pavement structural section
based on the provided traffic index and subgrade conditions. Secondly, to evaluate pavement
embankment slope stability and the need for remedial grading and/or ground improvements. This
report summarizes the data collected and presents our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services for this project consisted of the following tasks:
• Review of readily available background data, including in-house geotechnical data,
geotechnical literature, geologic maps, topographic maps, and seismic hazard maps and
literature relevant to the subject site.
• Conduct a site reconnaissance to observe the general road, abutting areas and existing
channel conditions, and to select boring locations.
Perfomi two field exploratory programs to assess and characterize existing conditions. The
first program included drilling, logging, and soil sampling of 11 exploratory borings located
generally along the alignment and east shoulder of the proposed roadway improvements lo
depths up to approximately 30 feet below the existing grade. The program included coring
the asphalt concrete pavement at seven locations along the subject road alignment. The
second program included hand angering, logging and sampling of 4 exploratory holes
generally located within the existing channel along the eastern side of the subject road to
depths up to approximately 6 feet below the existing grade. Soil samples obtained from the
field exploration programs were transported to our in-house laboratory for further testing.
Engineering evaluation of the geotechnical data collected to develop relevant geotechnical
recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed improvements.
Specifically addressing the following items:
Evaluation of pavement and subgrade conditions of the existing road and provide
recommendation for pavement structural section based on the City of Carlsbad street design
criteria and in-situ subgrade conditions. Recommendation for pavement structural section
includes alternative subgrade treatment to reduce pavement section thickness.
Evaluation of existing pavement embankment slope stability, and provide recommendations
for remedial grading and/or ground improvements.
Determination of seismic design parameters in accordance with chapter 16 of the 2001
Califomia Building Code (CBC).
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
• Recommendations for utility trench backfill, and design of suitable foundation systems for
light poles including allowable bearing capacity, lateral resistance, and settlement estimates.
• Preparation of this report, including reference maps and graphics, summarizing the data
collected and presenting our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical recommendations for the
design and constmction of the proposed development.
3. SITE DESCRIPTION
The site for the proposed El Camino Real Road Widening improvements is that portion of the
subject road and its east side abutting channel extending between Chestnut Avenue and
Tamarack Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad, Califomia. The subject site is delineated by
residences to the west, and vacant land to the east, except for approximately the northern 1000
feet where a row of residences are next to the east side of road. The abutting channel bottom is
densely vegetated by various shrubs, trees, and bushes. At the time of our site visit the channel
was surface dry. The subject road consists of 6 travel lanes including 3 northbound and 3
southbound lanes separated by a median island, and 4 foot wide bike lane on each side of the
road. The asphalt concrete pavement exhibits several areas of fine alligator cracks especially at
the northem portion of the subject road. The 4 foot wide concrete paved sidewalk on the east side
ofthe road shows some distress at various locations along its length. The approximately 5 lo 10
foot wide easlem earth shoulder ofthe pavement embankment has tension cracks and also signs
of surface water scour at several locations along its length. The easlem slope of the pavement
earth embankment exhibits several distress areas among which sloughing and slope failure al two
locations situated approximately along the middle third of the subject road, (see Figure 2, Plot
Plan). The lots to the west slope toward the subject road. Signs of surface slope wash were
observed at several locations along the toe ofthe slope.
Existing grades along the subject road alignment range from approximately 286 feet above mean
sea level (AMSL) at the north end (intersection with Chestnut Avenue) down lo approximately
77 feet AMSL al the south end (intersection wilh Tamarack Avenue). General topography in the
vicinity ofthe site is also shown on Figure 2. Plot Plan.
4. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS
HI Camino Real is a major north/south roadway serving as a vital parallel circulation element to
1-5 for the cities of Encinitas. Carlsbad and Oceanside. Based on the El Camino Real Widening.
Scope of Work, prepared by Berryman & Henigar, dated September 28. 2005, it is proposed that
this project entails widening of El Camino Real Road between Chestnut Avenue and Tamarack
Avenue to full prime arterial standards within the City of Carlsbad, California. The improved
subject road will consist of 6 travel lanes (3 northbound/3 southbound - 106 feet improved width
with 126 feet right of way width) 8-foot bike lanes on both sides of the street. 18 foot wide
landscaped median island and 10 foot wide parkways consisting of a 5 foot sidewalk and 5 foot
native vegetation.
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
5. FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING
5.1. Field Explorations
The soil and groundwater conditions beneath the site were explored by drilling, logging, and
sampling of 11 exploratory borings located generally along the proposed realignment to
depths up to approximately 30 feet below the existing grade. The borings were drilled using
a truck mounted 8-inch-diameter hollow-stem auger drill. In addition, 4 hand auger holes
located within the channel along the road alignment were bored, logged, and sampled to
depths up to approximately 6 feet below the existing grade.
Before starting our field exploration program, a field reconnaissance accompanied by the
City of Carlsbad representative was conducted to observe site conditions and mark the
locations of the planned explorations. As required by the law, Underground Service Alert
was notified of the locations of our exploratory borings 48 hours prior to drilling.
Details of the explorations and the logs of the borings are presented in Appendix A. The
approximate locations of the exploratory borings and hand auger holes are shown on Figure
2, Plot Plan.
5.2. Laboratory Testing
Laborator>' tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings and hand
auger holes to aid in the soil classification and to evaluate the engineering properties ofthe
foundation soils. The following tests were performed:
In-situ moisture content and dry density;
Particle-size distribution:
Percent finer than sieve No. 200:
Atterberg limits;
Maximum density and optimum moisture content;
Direct shear: and
R-value
Testing was performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards and
California Test Methods. The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. Details of
the laboratory-testing program are also included in Appendix B.
6. GEOLOGY
6.1. Geologic Setting
The site is located on the coastal plain of San Diego County within the Peninsular Ranges
geomorphic province. This province is characterized by northwest-trending mountain ranges
bordered by relatively straight-sided, sediment-floored valleys. The northwest trend is also
reflected in the direction of the dominant geologic structural features, which consist of
northwest-trending faults and fault zones. Two major northwest-trending fault zones
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
traverse the San Diego metropolitan and the inland county areas: the Rose Canyon fault zone
on the south and the Elsinore fault zone on the east.
The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province is located within what was formerly known as
the Southem Califomia Batholith, but is now termed the Peninsular Ranges Batholith. This
batholith forms the core of the Peninsular Ranges, which extends from the Los Angeles
Basin in the north to the tip of Baja Califomia, Mexico in the south. The Peninsular Ranges
Batholith is a major link in the chain of late Mesozoic batholiths that rim the Pacific Basin.
The Peninsular Ranges Batholith is a large igneous complex consisting of many well-defined
plutons ranging in exposed diameter from a few hundred yards to nearly 30 miles. Igneous
rock types range from peridotite to granite with granodiorite and tonalite being the most
common. The granites are exposed in the central and interior portions of the region.
The site is located within the near-coastal portion of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic
Province of California. The near-coastal areas of the province in San Diego County are
typically made up of shallow westward dipping sediments that form low mesas which are
dissected by west-draining stream channels. According to information obtained in our
investigation, the site is underlain by alluvium deposited on the relatively flat lying Tertiary-
age sandstone sedimentary materials.
6.2. Geologic Materials
Geologic materials encountered during the subsurface explorations consist in general of fill
and alluvium materials overlying weathered Santiago Formation. Generalized descriptions of
the units encountered in our field exploration are provided below. Detailed descriptions of
the earth materials encountered in our exploration are presented on the boring logs in
Appendix A.
6.2.1. Fill
Fill was encountered in all the exploratory borings and hand auger holes other than hand
auger hole 1, HA-1. The fill soils were in general light brown, damp, silty sand, clayey
sand, and/or sandy clay, dense or soft to firm in consistency. The depth of fill ranged in
thickness between 2 to 15 feet, approximately.
6.2.2. Alluvium
Alluvial soils were encountered in borings 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9, and hand auger holes 1,
and 4. The alluvium generally consisted of light brown sandy clay/clayey sand that was
moist and medium soft to stiff in consistency. As observed in our borings, the alluvium
depth ranged up to approximately 30 feet below the existing grade.
6.2.3. Santiago Formation
Santiago Formation was encountered in borings 5. 6, 7. 8. 10, 11, and hand auger hole 3 at
depths ranging approximately between 2 lo 15 feet. The formation is moderately
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
weathered al contact and was observed to be light olive brown silly sand and silly clay,
weakly cemented, friable lo stiff, and in a damp to moist state. The depth lo the Santiago
Formation appears to increase toward the east.
6.3 Groundwater
Perched groundwater was observed in hand auger holes 1 and 4 al a depth of approximately
4 feel below existing grade. Il is anticipated that this water is retained in low channel bed
areas above the lower laying relatively impervious layers, since other deeper borings did not
encounter groundwater. However, il should be noted lhat groundwater conditions may vary
due lo different seasonal precipitations, channel flow, and other factors.
6.4. Faults
The numerous faults in southem California include active, potentially active, and inactive
faults. As used in this report, the delinilions of fault terms are based on those developed for
the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 and published by the Califomia
Division of Mines and Geology (Hart and Bryant. 1997).
Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within
Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or have been included within any of
the state-designated Earthquake Fault Zones (previously known as Alquist-Priolo Special
Studies Zones). Faults are considered potentially active if they exhibit evidence of surface
displacement since the beginning of Quaternary time (approximately two million years ago)
but not since the beginning of Holocene lime. Inactive faults are those that have not had
surface movement since the beginning of Qualemary time.
6.4.1. Active Faults
Fhe closest known active fault lo the site is the Rose Canyon fault zone, located
approximately 6 miles from the site. Other important active faults in the San Diego area
include Elsinore-Julian, Newporl-Inglewood, Coronado Bank, and EIsinore-Temecula
fault zones. These fault zones are located approximately 23 miles. 6.5 miles, 22 miles,
and 23 miles from the site, respectively. The San Andreas Fault, which is generally
considered lo be capable of generating the largest earthquake in Califomia. is located
approximately 64 miles from the site.
6.5. Geoseismic Hazards
6.5.1. Fault Rupture
The site is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zone delineated by the State of
Califomia for the hazard of fault surface rupture. The surface traces of any active or
potentially active faults are not known to pass directly through, or to project toward the
site. Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site
during the design life of the proposed roadway is considered low.
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
6.5.2. Seismic Shaking
The site is located in a seismically active area, as is the majority of southem California.
The most significant seismic hazard at the site is considered to be shaking caused by an
earthquake occurring on a nearby or distant active fault. Active faults within a 62-mile
radius of the site include the Rose Canyon, Coronado Bank, Newport-Ingle wood
(offshore segment), Elsinore (Julian, Temecula, Glenn Ivy, and Coyote Mountain,
segments), Earthquake Valley, San Jacinto (Coyote Creek in Los Angeles, Anza and
Borrego Segment), and Palos Verdes faults.
6.5.3. Liquefaction and Seismically-induced Settlement
Liquefaction of soils can be caused by ground shaking during earthquakes. Research and
historical data indicate that loose, relatively clean granular soils are susceptible to
liquefaction and dynamic settiemenl, whereas the stability of the majority of clayey silts,
silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by ground shaking. Liquefaction is
generally known to occur in saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than
approximately 50 feet. Dynamic settlement due to earthquake shaking can occur in both
dry and saturated sands.
The site is underlain predominately by relatively dense Santiago Formation overlain by
shallow, fine-grained, alluvial deposits, without a groundwater table, which is not
considered to be subject to liquefaction. Therefore, the potential for liquefaction and the
associated ground deformation occurring beneath the site is considered low.
6.5.4. Subsidence
The site is not located in an area of known ground subsidence due to the withdrawal of
subsurface fluids. Accordingly, the potential for subsidence occurring at the site due to
the withdrawal of oil, gas. or water is considered remote.
6.5.5. Tsunamis, Inundation Seiches, and Flooding
The project site is located at an elevation ranging from approximately 77 to 286 feet
AMSL. Therefore, tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are not considered a hazard al the site.
The site is not located downslope of any large body of water that could affect the site in
the event of an earthquake-induced failure or seiche (oscillation in a body of water due to
earthquake shaking).
7. EXISTING ROAD CONDITIONS
7.1. Pavement Section
The existing pavement was cored at seven random locations, depicted as B-6 through B-12
on Figure 2, Plot Plan. The cored pavement sections were found to consist of a layer of
asphalt concrete (AC) supported on silty sandy gravel aggregate base (AB Class II). The
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
observed total pavement section thickness as well as the thickness of the AC and AB
components at each coring location are presented in Table 1, Existing Pavement Sections.
TABLE 1
Existing Pavement Sections
Boring No. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Average
AC.
(in.) 6.5 5.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 5.1
AB.
(in.) 5.0 4.5 4.5 5.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.1
Pavement
Section
(in.)
11.5 10.0 8.5 9.0 10.0 11.0 11.0 10.2
Approximately 1 foot thick light brown, damp, medium dense silty sand was observed
beneath the pavement at all cored locations except at B-6 and B-11.
7.2. Eastern Slope of Pavement Earth Embankment
As described in Section 3., the eastern slope of the pavement earth embankment, which
forms the western slope of the abutting channel, exhibits several distress areas among which
sloughing and slope failure at two locations situated approximately along the middle third of
the subject road. The slope varies in height from about 5 feet or less to about 15 feet, with
the height increasing generally toward the north. In general, the slope is steep with an
approximate inclination of 1H:1V for most of its length. Four borings. B-1, and B-3 through
B-5. as well as hand auger hole-2 were drilled at the top, and 3 hand auger holes were drilled
at the side and toe of the slope. The borings showed that the slope material is fill that
consists primarily of loose to medium dense silty sand down to the alluvium. The fill
thickness varies from about 10 feet at B-4 to about 15 feet at B-1. The heavy and above
normal rainfall during the 2004/2005 winter season had a negative impact on the slope
which included surface erosion and tracks of shallow water rivulets at various locations
along the top and side surfaces of the slope.
8. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1. General
Based on the results of the field explorations and engineering analyses, it is TE-USL's
opinion that the proposed constmction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided
lhat the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the design plans and
implemented during construction. Recommendations for the geotechnical design and
construction of the subject road improvements are presented below.
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
8.2. Site Preparation
Clearing and Grubbing
Prior lo grading, the project area should be cleared of any existing structures, surface
vegetation, rubble, trash, debris, etc. Any buried organic debris or other unsuitable
contaminated material encountered during subsequent excavation and grading work should
also be removed.
Excavations made for removal of any existing footings, utility lines, tanks, and any other
subterranean structures, laying within any proposed road alignment, should be processed and
backfilled in the following manner:
1. Clear the excavation bottom and side cuts of all loose and/or disturbed material.
2. Prior to placing backfill, the excavation bottom should be moisture conditioned to
within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90
percent of the ASTM D-1557 laboratory test standard.
3. Backfill should be placed, moisture conditioned (i.e., watered and/or aerated as
required and thoroughly mixed to a uniform, near optimum moisture content), and
compacted by mechanical means in approximate 6-inch lifts. The degree of
compaction obtained should be at least 90% of the ASTM D-1557 laboratory test
standard.
It is also critical that any surficial subgrade materials disturbed during initial demolition and
clearing work be removed and/or recompacted in the course of subsequent site preparation
earthwork operations.
Site Grading
in view of the non-uniform characteristics of alluvial deposits and in order lo create a
uniform and firm bearing support for the proposed development, the following earthwork
operations are recommended.
• New Pavement/Concrete Sidewalks: Over-excavate the existing soils to a depth of
at least 1.0 feet below existing ground surface or design subgrade, whichever is
deeper, and to a lateral distance of at least 2 feet beyond the road embankment
footprint or as constrained by existing features (e.g., utilities, walkways, etc.).
• Light Standards: Over-excavate the existing soils to a depth of at least 2 feet below
base of footing, and lo a lateral distance of al least 2 feel beyond lateral extents of
the footings or as constrained by existing adjacent features.
All bottoms of over-excavations should be scarified a minimum of 8 inches, moisture
conditioned lo within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content, and compacted to al least
90 percent of the maximum dr>' density per ASTM D-1557 test method. The bottom of over-
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
excavations should be inspected and tested by a representative of TE-USL prior to the
placement of any compacted fill materials.
Fill placement associated with the removal and re-compaction of any existing artiiicial fill
and upper alluvium soils, utility trench backfill, and fill placed to achieve finish grade or
subgrade elevations, should be moisture-conditioned to within 2 percent of the optimum
moisture content. The fill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry
density (note: at least 95 percent for the upper 12 inches in pavement areas), as evaluated by
the latest version of ASTM D1557.
Import soils should be sampled, tested, and approved by TE-USL prior to arrival on site.
Imported fill materials should consist of granular soils free from vegetation, debris, or rocks
larger than 3 inches maximum dimension with an Expansion Index of 20 or less.
8.3. Temporary Excavations
Excavation of the on-site soils may be achieved with conventional heavy-duty grading
equipment. Temporary, unsurcharged. excavation walls may be back sloped at an inclination
of 1(H): 1(V) in existing undocumented fill or alluvium. Personnel from TE-USL should
observe any temporary excavations so that any necessary modifications based on variations
in the encountered soil conditions can be made. All applicable safety requirements and
regulations, including CalOSIIA requirements, should be met.
Where sloped excavations are used, the tops of the slopes should be barricaded so that
vehicles and storage loads are not within 10 feet ofthe tops of excavated slopes. A greater
setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and
cranes. TE-USL should be advised of such heavy loadings so that specific setback
requirements may be established. If the temporary construction slopes are to be maintained
during the rainy season, berms are recommended along the lops of the slopes, lo prevent
runoff water from entering the excavation and eroding the slope faces. Vertical excavations
greater than 4 feet high should not be attempted without proper shoring to prevent local
instabilities. Shoring may be accomplished with hydraulic shores and trench plates, trench
boxes, and/or soldier piles and lagging. The actual method of a shoring system should be
provided and designed by a contractor experienced in installing temporary shoring under
similar soil conditions. All trench excavations should be shored in accordance with
CalOSHA regulations.
8.4, Utility Trench Excavations
Temporary, shallow excavations with vertical side slopes less than 4 feet high may be stable,
although localized sloughing should be anticipated. Vertical excavations greater than 4 feet
high should not be attempted without proper shoring to prevent local instabilities. Shoring
may be accomplished with hydraulic shores and trench plates, trench boxes, and/or soldier
piles and lagging. The actual method of a shoring system should be provided and designed
by a contractor experienced in installing temporary shoring under similar soil conditions.
All trench excavations should be shored in accordance with CalOSHA regulations. For
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
planning purposes, on-site fill and shallow alluvial deposits may be considered a Type B
soils, as defined the current CalOSHA soil classification.
For design of temporary shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be
used. It may be assumed that the retained soils with a level, unsurcharged, surface behind
the shoring will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fiuid with a density of
35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
Unless reflected in the shoring design, stockpiled (excavated) materials should be placed no
closer to the edge of a trench excavation than a distance defined by a line drawn upward
from the bottom ofthe trench at an inclination of 1(H): 1(V), but no closer than 4 feet. All
trench excavations should be made in accordance with CalOSHA requirements.
8.5. New Flexural Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavement
Laboratory testing of the near surface subgrade materials from test boring nos. 7, 8, andlO
yielded R-values of 13. 9. and 8. respectively. In any case an average R-value of 10 is
recommended for the design of pavement sections According to the City of Carlsbad
Engineering Standards, Vol.1, General Design Standards, General Design Criteria, Table A,
Street Design Criteria, the minimum traffic index, TI of a Prime Arterial is 9. And the
minimum structural section is 6 inches AC over 18 inches AB for an R-value of 10 per the
City of Carlsbad Supplemental Standard No. GS-17. The subject road is a prime arterial as
discussed in Section 4 of this report and hence the TI value of 9 should be used for pavement
design. Based on these design parameters, analysis in accordance with the current Cal-Trans
Highway Design Manual, and assuming compliance with site preparation recommendations,
TE-USL recommends the following pavement structural section for the proposed road
widening portion:
TABLE 2
Asphalt Concrete Pavement Sections
TiwfHc hitfex
m
PevMRMrt Se^ien
TiwfHc hitfex
m (inches) (indies) (Mies) (indies)
9.0 6.0 18.0 14.5 13.5
(1) Asphalt Concrete;
(2) C rushed Aggregate Base (CABl. Green Book section 2(10-2.2. compacled to at least 95% relative
compaction (ASJM D-1557):
(31 .Aggregate Base section utilizing ! ensar BX 1100 geogrid installed al the design subgrade elevation;
(4) Aggregate Base section utilizing Tensar BX 1200 geogrici installed at the design subgrade elevation.
Note: Ihe upper 12-inehes ol subgrade soils should be compaeted lo al least 9S% relative compaction
(AS tM D-1557).
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
It is recommended that R-value testing is performed on representative soil samples affer
rough grading operations on the upper 2 feet to confirm applicability of the above pavement
sections.
The aggregate base should conform to the Crushed Aggregate Base per Greenbook
requirements, Section 200-2.2. The base course should be compacted to a minimum dry
density of 95% of the materials maximum density as determined by the ASTM D-1557 test
procedure. Field testing should be used to verify compaction, aggregate gradation, and
compacted thickness.
The asphalt concrete pavement should be compacted to 93% ofthe maximum theoretical unit
weight as tested in accordance with the ASTM D-2041 procedure. The maximum lift
thickness should be two inches. The asphalt concrete material shall conform lo Type III,
Class C2 or C3, 2005/edition ofthe Greenbook Standard Specifications for Public Works
Constmction. An approved mix design should be submitted 30 days prior to placement. The
mix design should include proportions of materials, maximum density and required lay-down
temperature range. Laboratory testing should be done to verify oil content, aggregate
gradation, and maximum theoretical unit weight. Field testing should be used to test
compaction, lift thickness, and lay-down temperature.
If the paved areas are to be used during construction, the pavement section should be re-
evaluated for the anticipated traffic.
8.6. Existing Flexural Asphalt Concrete (AC) Pavement
The existing pavement shows some distress signs of fine alligator cracks primarily within the
northem portion of the subject road. Section 7.1 presented an average thickness of the
existing pavement section equal to about 10 inch comprised of 5 inch AC on top of 5 inch
AB. In terms of gravel equivalency. GE, the pavement section is approximately 15 inches.
Based on the design parameters discussed in the preceding section and an R-value equal to
10. the existing pavement section is severely deficient in thickness for a T.I. of 9 and a design
life of 20 years. The pavement minimum required gravel equivalency, GE. is 31.8 inches
while the existing GE is only 14.5 inches which amounts to a negative difference in the total
GE equal to 16.8 inches. Therefore, to achieve the required pavement structural strength and
to mitigate the observed distress TE-USL recommends the following alternatives:
• The application of a 9 inches overlay of densely graded asphalt concrete. DGAC. to
bring the total required GE to the minimum required value of 31.8 inches.
• Introduce Glassgrid mesh 8502 or similar installed at the surface of the existing
pavement prior to the application of the DGAC to improve reduction of reflective
cracking and reduce the required AC overlay thickness to 7 inches.
The following table presents a summary of the recommended asphalt concrete overlay
pavement structural section:
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
TABLE 3
Asphalt Concrete Overlay Pavement Sections
Traffic Index
(Tl)
Pavement Section
Traffic Index
(Tl) ACt^»
(Inches) (inches)
AC*'^
(inches)
AC<*>
(inches)
9.0 5.0 5.0 14.0 12.0
{I) Existing Asphalt Concrete thickness;
(2) Existing Crushed Aggregate Base (CAB):
(3) Total Asphalt Concrete Ihictiness including 9 inch \h\ck Dense Aggregate Asphalt
Concrete overlay:
(4) Total Asphalt Concrete lhicli;ness including Glassgrid mesh 85027 inch & 7 inch
thick Dense Aggregate Asphalt Concrete overlay:.
Application of the DGAC overlay will inherently lead to elevating the surface elevation of
the subject road by the total thickness of the applied overlay. This increase in grade will
require the introduction of a transition zone at each end ofthe road. For a transitional grade
not greater than 0.75% TE-USL recommends a 100 foot long transition zone. The pavement
at the beginning of each zone should be cut normal to the road alignment. All pavement and
subgrade material should be removed to a depth of 30 inches. The depth of excavation is
deceased uniformly to 10 inches at the end of the transition zone and beginning of the overlay
application. The transition zone should then be paved as recommended Section 8.5.
8.7. Road Earth Fill Slope Stability
As discussed in Section 7.2. the eastem side of the subject road earth fill embankment had
suffered various levels of distress including sloughing and slope failure at the locations
depicted on Figure 2, Plot Plan. Figure No. 3 shows the factor of safety of the slope the
abnormally heavy rainfall season of the year 2004. Slope stability analysis indicated lhat the
subject slope has a factor of safely less than 1, signifying failure, which is the case as
observed and reported earlier. To mitigate this failure as well as the sloughed area,
maintaining the pre-failure slope inclination, the slope should be over-excavated and
reconstructed as detailed in Figure*^, Fill Slope Detail. The fill should be compacted as
described in Section 8.2. Slope stability analysis of the mitigated 15 fool high slope produced
a minimum factor of safety of 1.6. Figure 5. slope stability analysis Restored Slope. Higher
values of safety are anticipated for slopes lower than 15 feel in height.
The on-site soils, except alluvial clays or any contaminated soil, debris, organic matter, or
other deleterious materials, may be used for backfill in the upper backfill zone. Any rock or
other soil fragments greater than 3 inches in size should not be used in fills. All imported fill,
if any, should consist of granular, non-expansive soil with an Expansion Index of 20 or less.
Import material should be evaluated by our firm prior lo transport to the site and not contain
any contaminated soil, expansive soil, debris, organic mailer, or other deleterious materials.
12
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
8.8. Foundations for Ancillary Structures
A shallow foundation system may be used for support of relatively lightly loaded ancillary
structures, such as site screen walls, light standards, etc. The foundations for each feature
should be supported entirely on compacted fill prepared in accordance with the
recommendations in Section 8.2. of this report. Recommendations for the design and
construction of these shallow foundations are presented below.
8.8.1. Design Parameters
Shallow foundations should be designed using the geotechnical design parameters
presented in Table 4. Footings should be designed and reinforced in accordance with the
recommendations ofthe structural engineer and should conform lo the 2001 California
Building Code.
TABLE 4
Geotechnical Design Parameters
Spread Footing Foundations for Ancillary Structures
Foundation Dimensions At least 12 inches wide
At least 18 Inches below the lowest adjacent grade
Allowable Bearing Capacity
(dead-plus-llve load)
1,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable
bearing value may be increased by one-third for
transient live loads from wind or seismic.
Estimated Static Settlement
(Total/Differential) Less than 1-inch/ less than y2-inch
Allowable Coefficient of
Friction 04
Allowable Lateral Passive
Resistance 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf; EFP)
The total allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the friction resistance and passive
resistance, provided the passive resistance does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable
resistance. The passive resistance values may be increased by one-third when considering wind or
seismic loading.
8.8.2. CBC Seismic Design Parameters
The seismic design of the project may be performed using criteria presented in the 2001
California Building Code, Volume 2, Chapter 16, division IV and V. using the following
seismic design parameters.
13
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
Table 5
2001 CBC Seismic Factors
2001 CBC Seismic Design Factor Value
Seismic Zone 4
Soil Profile Type So
Seismic Source/ Type'^' Rose Canyon/ Type B
Distance to Source 9.6 km
Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.4
Near Source Acceleration Factor, Ng 1.0
Near Source Velocity Factor, N„ 1.02
Seismic Acceleration Coefficient, Ca 0.44
Seismic Velocity Coefficient, Cv 0.65
8.9. Pipe Bedding
It is recommended that pipes be supported over 6 inches of VA'' washed gravel. The gravel
bed should be covered with filler fabric Mirafi HON or approved equivalent. The edges of
filter fabric should overlap a minimum of 2 feel. Overlying the gravel on the sides and up lo
1 foot above the pipe should be backfilled with ASTM C-33 concrete sand or approved
granular soil with sand equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater. This pipe backfill material should be
compacted in accordance with the recommendations in Section 8.2. of this report.
8.10. Sidewalk Concrete Slabs
Sidewalk concrete flatwork should have a minimum concrete thickness of four inches. All
concrete should be supported on at least 4 inches of Class 2 aggregate base compacted to al
least 95 percent ofthe maximum dry density. The upper 12 inches of subgrade soil located
below the aggregate base should reconditioned to achieve a moisture content of within 2% of
optimum moisture content, and compacled lo 90 percent relative compaction (D-1557).
Where driveways occur, the concrete aggregate base sections should be increased lo 6 inches.
For sidewalk concrete fialwork. we recommended lhat narrow strip concrete slabs, be
reinforced wilh at least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed longitudinally al 36 inches on-center.
Wide sidewalk slabs should be reinforced with al least No. 3 reinforcing bars placed 36
inches on-center, each way. The reinforcement should be extended through the control joints
lo reduce the potential for differential movement. Control joints should be constructed in
accordance with recommendations of the civil or structural engineer.
9. DESIGN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING
Geotechnical review of plans and specifications is of paramount importance in engineering
practice. The poor performance of many structures has been attributed lo inadequate geotechnical
review of construction documents. Additionally, observation and testing of the subgrade will be
important to the performance of the proposed improvements. The following sections present our
14
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
recommendations relative to the review of construction documents and the monitoring of
construction activities.
9.1. Plans and Specifications
The design plans and specifications should be reviewed and approved by TE-USL prior to
bidding and constmction, as the geotechnical recommendations may need to be reevaluated
in the light of the actual design configuration. This review is necessary to evaluate whether
the recommendations contained in this report and future reports have been properly
incorporated into the project plans and specifications. Based on the work already performed,
this office is best qualified to provide such review.
9.2. Construction Monitoring
Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, assessment of imported fill materials, fill
placement, and other earthwork operations should be observed and tested. The substrata
exposed during the construction may differ from that encountered in the test borings.
Continuous observation by a representative of TE-USL during construction allows for
evaluation of the soil conditions as they are encountered, and allows the opportunity to
recommend appropriate revisions where necessary.
10. LIMITATIONS
The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are based on TE-USL's review of
background documents and on information obtained from field explorations. It should be noted
that this study did not evaluate the possible presence of hazardous materials on any portion of the
site.
Due to the limited nature of our field explorations, conditions not observed and described in this
report may be present on the site. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced
through additional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation and laboratory
testing can be performed upon request. It should be understood that conditions different from
those anticipated in this report may be encountered during construction, e.g., the extent of
removal of unsuitable soil, and that additional effort may be required to mitigate them.
Site conditions, including groundwater elevation, can change with time as a result of natural
processes or the activities of man at the subject site or at nearby sites. Changes to the applicable
laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur as a result of govemment action or
the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over
time, in part or in whole, by changes over which TESD has no control.
TE-USL"s recommendations for this site are. to a high degree, dependent upon appropriate
quality control of subgrade preparation, fill placement, etc. Accordingly, the recommendations
are made contingent upon the opportunity for TE-USL to observe the earthwork operations for
the proposed construction. If parlies other than TESD are engaged lo provide such services, such
15
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
parties must be notified that they will be required lo assume complete responsibility as the
geotechnical engineer of record for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring wilh the
recommendations in this report and/or by providing allemalive recommendations.
This document is intended lo be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself,
is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. TE-USL should
be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content,
interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.
TE-USL has endeavored to perform our evaluation using the degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical professionals with experience in
this area in similar soil conditions. No other warranty, either expressed or implied, is made as to
the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report.
El Camino Real Road Widening Contract No.: 103582
March 28, 2006
12. SELECTED REFERENCES
ASTM, 2001, Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials: vol. 4.08 for ASTM test
methods D-420 to D-4914; and vol. 4.09 for ASTM test methods D-4943 to highest
number.
City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards, Volume 1, General Design Standards, 2005.
Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geology of the Westem San Diego Metropolitan Area, Califomia:
Califomia Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200,
Part A. 39 pp. plus 3 plates, map scale 1:24,000.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for
Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in Califomia: Special Publication 117, 74 pp.
Califomia Department of Conservation. Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Maps of Known
Active Fault Near-Source Zones in Califomia and Adjacent Portions of Nevada:
Intemational Conference of Building Ofticials, dated Febmary. Scale
r'-4km.
Califomia Department of Transportation, Highway Design Manual 2004.
Hart, E.W., and Bryant. W.A., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in Califomia, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps: Califomia
Department of Conservation. Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 38
pp..
International Conference of Building Officials. 2001, Califomia Building Code: Volume 2.
Jennings, C.W.. 1994. Fault Activity Map of Califomia and Adjacent Areas with Locations and
Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions; Califomia Department of Conservation, Division of
Mines and Geology Geologic Data Map No. 6. scale 1:750.000.
Roescienee Inc., SLIDE. Program for the Analysis of Slope Stability, Version 5. 2005
Youd. T.L. and Idriss. I.M., 2001. Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary report of NCEER
1996 and 1998 NCEER/SF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils:
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, dated April, pp. 297-313.
Youd. T.L. and Idriss, I.M.. 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary report of NCEER
1996 and 1998 NCEER/SF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils:
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, dated April, pp. 297-313.
17
FIGURES
)lnter 33*08'56.20' N 11
Ref:
NOTE: This figure may contain areas of color. TE-U.S. Labs cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information result-
ing from black and white reproductions of this figure.
i Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA92111
^ Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
Title Site Location Map
Project: El Camino Real Road Widening
DnA/n: NJT Contract No: 103582
Date:
March, 2006 Figure:
1
Ref: Berryman & Henigar, Exhibit 2, Pavement Coring, 12-14-2005
Surficial Slope Stabiltv Analysis (FAILED SLOPE)
• Cut Slope
M Fill Slope
• Natural Slope
Parameters
Z = Depth of Saturation (feet) 5
Y, = Buoyant Unit Weight of Soil (pcf) = 62.6
= Total Unit Weight of Soil (pcf) ~ 125
a. = Slope Angle = 45°
4) = Angle of Internal Friction = 33°
c = Cohesion (psf) ~ 200
Force Tending to Clause Movement
Fp = ZYtCosasinct - i2Y^sin2£r =312.5 lb.
Force Tending to Resist Movement
F, = ZYtC0s2atan4) + c =101.6+200 = 301.6
Factor of Safety
F.S. , aZvj^cos^gtancfa 2c ,
Zy^sin2fli
301.6
312.5 = 0.97<1.0
Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
NOTE: This figure may contain areas of color. TE-U.S. Labs cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information result-
ing from black and white reproductions of this figure.
Title
Surficial Slope Stability Analysis (Failed Slope)
Project: El Camino Real Road Widening
Drwn: D.M.M. Contract No: 103582
Date:
March, 2006
Figure:
3
Ml
•8' min.-
12'-
Typical "Bench'
3'width -
3" heighi
15'
3'
1' wide concrete drainage channel
6" high water retainer berm
Hydro Seed Slope
Geogrid Reinforcement
• Tensar UX1100
• Lenght: 8' min.
• Vertical separation V max
Subdrain
• 4 inch PVC sch. 40 perf. pipe
• Encapsulate in gravel 3ft.3/ft.
SCALE: 1/4" = r
(approx.)
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
NOTE: This figure may contain areas of color. TE-U.S. Labs cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information result-
ing from black and white reproductions of this figure.
Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
Title Fill Slope Detail
Project: El Camino Real Road Widening
Drwn: D.M.M.
Date:
March, 2006
Contract No: 103582
Figure:
8-
Safety Factor
u. uuu
0.500
111.
0.500
1.000 1.000
1.500 1.500
2.000 2.000
£, . ouu
3.000 3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000 5.000
5.500
6.000+
Safety Factor (Minimum)
Material 1 (Recompacted FIIQ:
Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 129 Ib/(t3
Cohesion: 200 psf
Friction Angle; 33 degrees
Material 2 (Native):
Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb
Unn Weight: 12S Ib/ft3
Cohesion: 100 psf
Friction Angle: 29 degrees
Matenal 3: (Native)
Strength Type: Mohr-Coulomb
Unit Weight: 120 Ib/ft3
Cohesion: 300 psf
Friction Angle: 32 degrees
Piezometnc Level
-30 ft -20 I
-10
I
10 20 1^ 30 40 1^ 50 • I • 60
Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
NOTE: This figure may contain areas of color. TE-U.S. Labs cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information result-
ing from black and white reproductions of this figure.
Title
Slope Stability Analysis (Restored Slope)
Project: El Camino Real Road Widening
Drwn: D.M.M. Contract No: 103582
Date:
March, 2006 Figure:
0
APPENDIXA
BORING LOGS
GENERAL NOTES
SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION
The Unified Soil Classification System is used to identify the soil unless otherwise noted.
SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS
N:
Qu
Qp
Mc
LL
PI:
DD:
V :
Standard "N" penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2-inch CD.
split-spoon.
Unconfined compressive strength, tsf.
Penetrometer value, unconfined compressive strength, tsf.
Water content, %.
Liquid limit, %.
Plasticity index, %.
Natural diy density, PCF.
Apparent groundwater level at time noted after completion.
m
DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS
8 CAL: Modified Califomia Sampler - 2 5/8" I.D., 3.0" O.D., except where noted.
^ SS: Split'Spoon -1 3/8" I.D., 2" O.D.. except where noted.
I BULK: Bulk sample.
DB: Diamond Bit.
CB: Carbide Bit.
WS: Washed Sample.
RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY CLASSIFICATION
TERM (NON-COHESIVE SOILS)
Very Loose
Loose
Medium Dense
Dense
Very Dense
TERM (COHESIVE SOILS)
Ver>' Sof^
Sofi
Medium Stiff
Stiff
Ver^ Stiff
Hard
STANDARD PENETRATION RESISTANCE fSPT)
0to4
4 to 10
11 to 30
31 to 50
Over 50
SPT
Oto2
2 to 4
4 to 8
8 to 16
16 to 32
Over 32
PAR riCLE SIZE
Boulders
Cobbles
Gravel
12 in.+
12 in -3.in
3 in -5mm
Coarse Sand
Medium Sand
Fine Sand
5mm-0.6mm
0.6mm-0.2mm
0.2mm-0.074mm
OU - (TSF)
0 -0.25
0.25 - 0.50
0.50- 1.00
LOO-2.00
2.00 - 4.00
4.00+
Silt 0.074 mm-0.005mm
Clay - 0.005mm
Log of Boring No. 1
Date Drilled: February 22, 2006
Driving Weight: 140 ibs/30"
Drilling Equipment: 8" HSA
Surface Elevation (feet):±204
CD Q- > 0
^ O
C CO «
3 O
Material Description
Q O CD m
CO
o
CO
ZD
o c
B
if) c o o
•E -5 Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
10
15
20-
EILL
Siity SAND, light brown, damp to moist,
firm, very fine grained, high plasticity.
^2 Interlaced with tan clayey SAND,
becomes soft to firm.
18
SM
SM/SC
17 105
Silty SAND/Ciayey SAND, tan, moist to
very moist, soft to firm, fine grained, low to
medium plasticity, inclusions of dense
7 slightly cemented sandstone, friable.
i ALLUVIUM. Silty CLAY: trace fine sand,
27 dark olive, moist, stiff slightly porous,
minor dark organic stains, minor orange
brown iron staining.
CL
20 107
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.: 103582 Figure No.:A-1
Log of Boring No. 1 (continued)
Date Drilled: February 22, 2006
Driving Weight: 140 lbs/30"
Material Description
Drilling Equipment: 8" HSA
Surface Elevation (feet):±204
Q) O
D-o m CD
1 1 E D. LL
c Sa am per x: c (/) Q. CD > 0) o m Q D ID CD
u
CO
o c
0)
c o O Q
25
ALLUVIUM. Silty CLAY: trace fine sand, CL
15 dark olive, moist, stiff slightly porous,
minor dark organic stains, minor orange
brown iron staining.
Color change to tan, damp to moist,
very stiff.
Total Depth 30'
No Groundwater Encountered
40
45-
Molsture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.:103582 Figure No.:A-1 (continued)
Log of Boring No. 2 (Hand Auger)
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight: N/A
Drilling Equipment: 8" HSA
Surface Elevation (feet):N/A
0 "5
E 1^ ro c
ro
3
0) D.
g O
Material Description
Q Q CD CD
o
CO 3
>. o c
s % '</) c o O
a
FILL Sandy CLAY; olive gray moist firm,
fine grained, medium plasticity.
CL
16
18
96.4
106
Total Depth 6'
No Groundwater Encountered.
10
15
20
25-
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.:103582 Figure No.:B-2
Log of Boring No. 3
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight: 140 lbs/30"
Drilling Equipment: 8" HSA
Surface Elevation (feet):±177
^ ^ o £ Iff
0) -C ZJ O
CD O CD CD
Material Description
CO o
CO
o c S %
ti o o Q
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
R
R 10
20 '-^
25-
FILL Clayey SAND, light gray brown,
moist firm, fine grained sand,
high plasticity.
SC
.^j Inter-layered with Sandy CLAY,
few gravel 1/2" max. size. SC 17 112
"•^ Sandy SILT, light gray green, moist, firm,
fine to medium grained, medium plasticity. ML 14 114
ALLUVIUM: Sandy CLAY/clayey SAND,
grayish brown, moist to very moist,
soft to fine, fine grained, slightly porous.
Sandy CLAY, light brown, moist, stifle to
very stiff, fine grained, medium to high
24 plasticity, slightly porous, trace dark
manganese staining.
CL
Total Depth 20'
No Groundwater Encountered.
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.:103582 Figure No.:B-3
Log of Boring No. 4
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight: 140 lbs/30"
Drilling Equipment: 8" HSA
Surface Elevation (feet):±153
a.
Q
E t"-
ro c
C CO y)
Q CD CD
Material Description
CO
u
CO
ZD
o c
B
c o O D
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
R
10
15
20
EILL Clayey SAND, light green, damp to
moist, firni, fine, grained,
medium plasticity.
SC/CL
13 Inter4ayered with Sandy CLAY,
few gravel 1/2" max. size. 15 111
ALLUVIUM: Sandy CLAY light gray
"^-^ brown, moist, firm to stiff, fine grained,
medium to high plasticity.
CL
16 Inter-bedded with clayey SAND,
fine to coarse grained.
Silty SAND, damp, medium dense, fine to gfy]
coarse grained, trace pebbles-rounded
24 to sub-rounded.
Total Depth 21.5*
No Groundwater Encountered.
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.:103582 Figure No.:B-4
Log of Boring No. 5
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight: 140 lbs/30"
Drilling Equipment: 8" HSA
Surface Elevation (feet):±103
C CO
E o.
E ro c CO
Material Description
Q Q CD CD
CO U
CO
0
c o O a
"I
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
EILL: Sandy SILT, damp, medium dense,
fine grained sand, low plasticity.
ML
R 44 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE,
tan , dry to damp, dense weakly
cemented friable, very fine to fine grained.
SM
10 105
10 _ / Clayey SAND, light orange brown, damp,
medium dense, contains minor FE, O3
12 staining. Mottled with gray clay, slightly
porous, highly weathered.
SC
Total Depth 11.5'
No Groundwater Encountered.
15
20
Geologist: CBM
Kinri
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No : 103582 Figure No.:B-5
Log of Boring No. 6
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight: 140 lbs/30"
Drilling Equipment: 8" HSA
Surface Elevation (feet):±235
^ -5^ o
^, CO (/3
Q Q m CD
Material Description
CO
o
CO ZD
c o o
ZD 3
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
m
m
AC-6.5" thick
FILL: Silty Sandy GRAVEL (Class II) gray brown, GW
dampjTied. dense to dense, 5" thick.
Silty CLAY, tan, damp, finn to stiff. Q|_
trace organics somewhat blocky.
SANTIAGO FORMATION: Silty CLAY
tan, damp, stiff to very stiff, staining in
minor vertical fractures, minor specs of
white calcium carbonate, high plasticity.
19 106
Total Depth 6.5'
No Groundwater Encountered.
20
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.:103582 Figure No.:B-6
Log of Boring No. 7
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight: 140 lbs/30"
Drilling Equipment: 8" HSA
Surface Elevation (feet):±148
C CO «
Q Q m CD
Material Description
O-0)
CO O CO ZD
c
c o O
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
m
10
15
20
25-
AC 5.5" thick
EILL: Silty Sandy GRAVEL (Class II). light
\brawn^arnp. medjum dense, 4^" thick^
Silty SAND (decomposed granite) QK»
Jight brown, darrip, rnedium dense. _
San3y CDVYTR. brown, to ITgray brown
damp to moist, stiff, fine to med. grained
sand. Some inclusions of rock and day clods.
Clayey SAND, brawn, damp to moist,
medium dense, fine grained.
CL
23 15 99
Silty CLAY with sand, brown, moist, stiff,
fine grained sand, high plasticity.
CM
13 becomes soft to firm.
SANTIAGO FOUNDATION:- It.olive
21 brawndamp, stiff, dark colored manganese
staining, medium, plasticity.
ML
Total Depth 16.5"
No Groundwater Encountered.
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.:103582 Figure No.:B-7
Log of Boring No. 8
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight: 140 lbs/30"
Drilling Equipment: 8" HSA
Surface Elevation (feet):±235
D.
03 a
_0
CL _Q)
£ CL
CD C
^ i
C CO
D CD
Material Description 0
CO
o
(O
ZD
c o O
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
10
20
AC-4" thick
EILL: Silty Sandy GRAVEL (Class I to moist, med. dense, 4.5" thick. base) damp GW
Silty SAND, It. browm, moist, med. dense, g|y.
fine to med. grained, some coarse grained.
Native: Sandy CLAY, It. brown, moist, stiff, Q|_
moderately weathered, some fine to med.
grained sands.
SANTIAGO FORMATION: It. olive gray to
17 tan. damp to moist, stiff to very stiff, med
to high plasticity, manganese staining.
123
Total Depth 6.5'
No Groundwater Encountered.
Geologist: CBM
•=II1=1MI1
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
Ei Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.: 103582 Figure No.:B-8
Log of Boring No. 9
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight: 140 lbs/30"
Drilling Equipment: 8" HSA
Surface Elevation (feet):±95
Q.
E
CD CO £ o ro Q CO w
D CD CD
Material Description
CO
o
CO ZD
c o o
ZD S
Q
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
15
20
21)-
AC-4'' thick
RLL: Silty Sandy GRAVEL (Class II} It brown rw damgjne_i dense, S^thlck
Silty SAND, (decomposed granite) It. brown,
damp, med. dense to dense.
®®"ciayey SAND: bTownTdamp to"moist,"~"
medium dense, fine to medium grained.
~ CL
SM
SC
121
Sandy CLAY, trace fine sand, brown,
moist, soft to firm, high plasticity.
Silty CLAY, trace sand, brown, stiff,
12 fine grained sand, high plasticity.
Total Depth 10*
No Groundwater Encountered.
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No : 103582 Figure No.:B-9
Log of Boring No. 10
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight: 140 lbs/30"
Drilling Equipment: 8" HSA
Surface Elevation (feet):±185
o "5
E
E CO w
. £31 Q Q CD cn
Material Description
D- > 0)
CO
o
CO ZD
>, o c
QJ o
-i % c o loisti jSUO o
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
10
20
AC-5" thick
OLL: Silty Sandy GRAVEL (Class I Jarnpjneo^dense. I It. brown GW
SM
CUCH
Silty SAND, (decomposed granite) It. brown
damp, med. dense, med. grained, micaceous.
SAI^IAGOTORMATFON? Silty cilAYr
trace sand, It. gray brown, damp to moist,
stiff to very stiff, moderately weathered,
@ contact, high plasticity.
50/ Inter-bedded with fine clayey sands &
5 5" medium grained silty sand.
13 118
Total Depth 6.5'
No Groundwater Encountered.
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.:103582 Figure No.:B-10
Log of Boring No. 11
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight: 140 lbs/30"
Drilling Equipment: 8" HSA
Surface Elevation (feet):±95
Q.
0
Q
_0
D- O
E Q.
!= CO
0 ^
Material Description
D CD CD
CO
O
CO
ZD
o c 0
c o O D
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
m
m
•m
m
m
m
m
m
10
15
20
AC-5.5" thick
i
EILL: Silty Sandy GRAVEL (Class II) It. brown riw jnoisttoveijmoist, med.dense^e'tt^^ _ _
Sandy CLAY, It. gray brown, moist, stiff, fine to med. grained sand, high plasticity, mottled, CL some inclusions of daystone. slightly micaceous.
28 16 113
SANTIAGO FORMATION: Claystone, It.
olive to It. yellow brown, dry to damp,
very stiff, specs of gypsum, some orange
brown Fe203 staining
CUCH
Total Depth 9.5'
No Groundwater Encountered.
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego. CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.: 103582 Figure No.:B-11
Log of Boring No. 12
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight:
Drilling Equipment: Hand Auger
Surface Elevation (feet):±235
x:
Q.
Q
_0
D CD
0
CL
3:
Material Description
CO
o
ZD
0
c o o
r) 3
D
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
m
m
m
m
AC-5" thick
OLL: Silty Sandy GRAVEL (Class II} It. brown,
_damgjne_d^dense, 6^thick^ _
Silty SAND (DG j, ll golden brown, damp,
jTieaium dense, fine to coarse grained.
Clayey SAND. It. gray brown, moist,
medium dense, fine to medium grained,
contains pieces of asphalt.
GW
SM
SC
Total Depth 3.5"
No Groundwater Encountered.
10
15
20
Geologist: CBM
Em
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
Ei Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.:103582 Figure No.:B-12
Log of Boring No. HA-1
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight:
Drilling Equipment: Hand Auger
Surface Elevation (feet):
c CO
Q.
0 Q
^ o
E 0
CD CL
D CO ca
Material Description
CO
o
CO ZD
O
>. o c 0
c o O
D B
7
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
Alluvium: Sandy CLAY, It. gray brawn,
moist, soft to firm, fine grained, medium
plasficity
CL
29
...v..
93
Total Depth 5'
Groundwater Encountered at 4"
10
15
20
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.: 103582 Figure No.: HA-1
Log of Boring No. HA-2
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight: N/A
Drilling Equipment: 8" HSA
Surface Elevation (feet): N/A
^ ^ o
03 CL Q O
ro c
c C CO
0
Q.
O
Material Description
Q Q CD CO
CO O CO ZD
0
'lA C o O D
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
EILL Sandy CLAY: olive gray, moist firm,
fine grained, medium plasticity.
CL
16
18
96.4
106
Total Depth 6'
No Groundwater Encountered.
15
20
25-
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.:103582 Figure No.:HA-2
Log of Boring No. HA-3
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight:
Drilling Equipment: Hand Auger
Surface Elevation (feet):
^ o
CL
03
ro c
^ ro a t= CO
o
Material Description
Q Q CO CD
CO CJ CO ZD
c o U
ZD S
D
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
EILL: Sil^ CLAY, It. yellow brawn, moist, CL
soft medium to high plasticity, color change to light olive brown at 1 ft.
SANTIAGO FORMATION: Claystone. It. CL/CH
pale olive-green, damp, firm, moderately
to highly weathered, becomes firm to stiff
atajt.
Lt. yellow brow, dry to damp, stiff.
Total Depth 5'
No Groundwater Encountered.
10
15
20
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
Ei Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.:103582 Figure No.: HA-3
Log of Boring No. HA-4
Date Drilled: March 3, 2006
Driving Weight:
Drilling Equipment: Hand Auger
Surface Elevation (feet):
o
Q- o
t CL
ro (z
•1-1 c
Q. 0
D
ro
c CO
Material Description
Q CD CD
CO O CO ZD
o c 0
'cn c o O
ZD B
Moisture Content (% Dry Weight)
10 20 30 40 50
10
15
20
EILL: Silty SAND, It. brown, moist, loose. SM
slightly micaceous.
Sandy CLAY, It. brown, moist, soft to firm, CL
medium plasticity.
ALLUVIUM: Clayey SAND, It. brown,
, damp, medium dense, fine to medium
\ grained.
Light brown, moist, medium dense, fine
to medium grained, slightly micaceous,
\. contains some rounded pebbles,
\ becomes very moist at 4 ft.
SC .V.
Total Depth 6'
Groundwater Encountered at 4.5'
Geologist: CBM
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
El Camino Real Road Widening
Contract No.:103582 Figure No.: HA-4
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Atterberg Limits
The Atterberg Limits were detennined in accordance with ASTM Test Method D423 for
engineering classification of the fine-grained materials and presented in the table below:
MM
tm
Sample Number
(%) (%)
Plas^]^.''^
Index
uses Soil
r vC^assification
(Passing 200
Sieve)
m Boring 1@ 10-13 ft 24 15 9 CL
m Boring 3 @ 2-4 ft 21 11 10 CL
Particle-size Distribution Tests
An evaluation of the grain-size distribution of a selected soil sample was performed in
general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D422 (including -200 wash). These
test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the
Unified Soil Classification System. The grain-size distribution curves are presented herein.
RESULTS OF SOIL CLASIFICATION TESTS
(ASTM D-1422, D-4318, D-2487)
m Sample Boring 1 @ 10-13 ft Boring 3 @ 2-4 ft m
Particle Size
Distribution Percent Finer Percent Finer
m 1.5 in 100 100
1 in 100 99
3/4 in 99 99
em 'A in 99 99
3/8 in 98 99
m #4 97 98
Ml #10 92 93
#20 84 78
"Ml #40 68 60
#60 55 45
m #100 42 33
#200 31 24
Plastic Limit 15 11
m Liquid Limit 24 21
m
m
Plasticity Index 9 10 m
m uses
Classification
SM SM
In-situ Moisture and Density Tests
The moisture contents and dry densities of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from
the exploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of
ASTM D2937. Results of these tests are also, reported in the test pit logs. Appendix B.
RESULTS OF NATURAL MOISTURE AND DENSITY
(RING SAMPLES)
(ASTM D-2216, D-2937)
Sample Location Moisture Content (%) Dry Density, pcf
Boring 1 (g 2 ft 7.5 122.7
Boring 1 (g 10 ft 16.2 115.9
Boring 2 (g 2 ft 6.2 115.5
Boring 3 5 ft 9.6 115.7
Boring 3 @ 15 ft 12.3 121.4
Expansion Index Tests
The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test,
U.B.C. Standard No. 18-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy at
approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter
specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water
until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table
below:
EiqiWlitiPii
P«49lM
Boring 1 @ 3-5 ft Light Brown silty
Sand, SM
9 Very Low
4i
Consolidation Tests
Consolidation testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D-2435, on a selected,
relatively undisturbed ring sample. The consolidation pressure curve is presented on the
following Figure No. 2B.
Direct Shear Tests
•"I
•m
Direct shear tests were performed on selected remolded and/or undisturbed samples, which
were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force
during testing. After transfer of the sample to the shear box, and reloading the sample, pore
pressures set up in the sample due to the transfer were allowed to dissipate for a period of
approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested under
various normal loads, a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus at a
strain rate of less than 0.001 to 0.5 inches per minute (depending upon the soil type). The test
results are presented in the test data. The direct shear curves are presented on the following
Figure No. 3B and 4B.
Sample Location Sample Description Friction Angle
(degrees)
Apparent
Cohesion (psf)
Borings @ 15 ft Weathered granite, SM 46 0
m
12.1. R-Value Tests
The resistance R-Value testing was performed on a selected representative sample in
accordance with Califomia Test Method 301 for subgrade soils.
RESULTS OF R-VALUE TESTS
(CTM301)
Location Boring 1 Boring 3
Depth 3-1 ft 3-5 ft
R-value at
equilibrium 63 81
12.2, Soil Corrosivity Tests
Soluble sulfate, chloride, resistively and pH tests were performed in accordance with
Califomia Test Methods 643, 417 and 422 to assess the degree of corrosivity of the
subgrade soils with regard to concrete and normal grade steel.
RESULTS OF CORROSIVITY TESTS
(CTM417, CTM 422)
m
LabNumber 13733
Sample Location Boring l@3-5ft
pH 5.54
Resistivity
(Ohm-cm) 8028
Chloride Content 11 (ppm) 11
Sulfate Content 7 (ppm) 7
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
a.
CO
CO
LU
Q: H
CO
<
LU
X
col
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
2750 psf( 1
1450 psf 1
' 600 psf
12 3 4
NORMAL STRESS (KSF)
LOCATION:B-3 ®) 10 ft.
LAB NUMBER:16781
FOR SCHEMATIC USE ONLY - NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
CLASSIFICATION: Lt. gray Sandy SILT (CL)
COHESION:C = 300(psf)
FRICTION ANGLE: 30'
SCALE:=1:10
1 |, Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs, Inc.
n 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
J San Diego, CA 92111
^ Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax:(858)715-5810
Title
Direct Shear Test
Project: El Camino Real Road Widening
Drwn: D.M.M. Contract No: 103582
Date:
March 20, 2006 Figure No: ^ Bl
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
CO
a_
CO
CO
LU
01
\-
co
a:
S5
X
CO
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
2360 psf ,
1212 psf(
1554 psf
12 3 4
NORMAL STRESS (KSF)
FOR SCHEMATIC USE ONLY - NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
LOCATION: HA-1 (5) 2 ft.
LAB NUMBER:16801
CLASSIFICATION: Dark gray Sandy SILT (CL)
COHESION: C= 100(psf)
FRICTION ANGLE: 29'
SCALE:=1:10
•awi-i'Jt-yii
Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
Title Direct Shear Test
Project: El Camino Real Road Widening
Drwn: D.M.M. Contract No: 103582
Date:
March 20, 2006
Figure No:
82
APPENDIX C
SEISMIC ANALYSIS DATA
I 1 I ^ / ft
adjusted as needed, before tliey are used in desiqn
D E C S E I
Version l.<
COMPUTATIOH OF 13?"
'Jl-TIFORM BUILDINI3 CODS
5E:3MIC DESIGM F.'iPjy-IETERS
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
JOB NUMBER: J
JOE HAMEl: EL 7.'i>11110 ?.E.\L
TAULT-DATA-fTLE M;.J^E : - DMGUECR . DAT
SITE COORDIMr.TES:
SITE LATITUDE:
SITE LONGITUDE: :i~.;i8i
UBc SEISMIC ::ydE: j
UBC SOIL PRO.-iLE TiFS: :
^TEAREST TYPE A F.-.ULT;
tlMlE : ELPIHORE - JUL:.AM
DISTANCE: 3 7 . •• .;m
MEAPEST TYPE ? FAULT:
MTME: ROS^ CAITVOM
DISTANCE: km
DATE: 03-24-200-:
;)E.IIRE.';T TYPE
!JAI-IE:
DIST.iiJJCE:
-• =AULT:
^ 5 ? 9 . i"
SELECTED UBC SEISMIC CCEFriCIENTS:
1.0
1.0
0.65
0 .59:
O.llS
:AUTION: The digiLi::ed data points used no model faults are
umit-d in numbei: and havs been digitized from sirall-
.scale maps .e.g.. 1:7 50, 000 scale! . Sonsequentl--,
the estimated fault-site-distances mav te in =rrcr by
.^e--eral ktloineters . Therefore, it is important that
th-a dista.nces be careful;:- checl:ed for accuracy iind
Page 1
ABBREVIATED
FAULT HAME
ROSE CANYON
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
CORONADO BANK
ELSINORE-TEMECULA
ELSINORE-JULIAN
ELSIKORE-GLEN IVY
PALOS VERDES
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD {L.A.Basinl
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore)
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
ELSINOEIE-WHITTIER
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIH
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
SAN ANDREAS - Southern
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
SAN JOSE
CUCAMONGA
SIERRA MADRE (Central)
PINTO MOUNTAIN
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (Westl
BURNT MTN.
CLEGHORN
EUREKA PEAK
RAYMOND
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT
SAN ANDREAS - 1S57 Rupture
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto)
VERDUGO
HOLLYWOOD
ELMORE RANCH
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)
LANDERS
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT
ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA
SANTA MONICA
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS MALIBU COAST
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern)
APPROX. SOURCE MAX. SLIP FAULT
ISTANCE TYPE MAG. RATE TYPE (km) 1A,B,C] (Mw) (mm/yr) {SS,DS,BT)
="=='^ ====== '===>.==== ========== S.6 B 6.9 1.50 SS
10.3 E 6.9 1.50 ss 35.6 E 7.4 3.00 SS 37.1 B 6.8 5.00 SE
37.3 A 7.1 5.00 SE 53.9 B 6.8 5.00 SS
59. 3 B 7.1 3.00 SS
68 .6 B 1 6.5 2.00 SS
73.6 A 1 7.2 12.00 SS 7<3 , 6 B 1 6.9 12.00 SS
•'5.1 B 1 6.9 1.00 SS 76.5 B 1 6.7 1.00 DS
82 . •! B t 6.8 4.00 SS
32.6 B 1 6.8 2.50 ss 31.6 B 1 6.8 4.00 ss 95.6 1 B 1 6.7 12.00 1 ss 103.2 1 A 1 7.4 24.00 1 ss 104.•;• 1 B 1 6.6 1 4.00 1 ss 109.S 1 B 1 6.5 I 0.50 1 DS
114.0 1 A 1 7.0 1 5.00 1 DS
114.1 1 B 1 7.0 1 3.00 1 DS
114.3 1 B i 7.0 1 2.50 1 ss 122.0 1 B 1 7.0 1 1.00 1 DS
123.S [ B 1 6.5 1 0.60 1 SS 124.1 1 B I 6.5 I 3.00 1 SS 128.3 ! B 1 6.5 1 0.60 1 ss 129.0 1 B 1 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS
129.4 1 B j 6.5 1 0.50 1 DS
129.5 1 A 1 7.8 1 34.00 i ss 130.0 ( B 1 6.7 1 0.50 1 DS 131.3 1 B 1 6.6 1 5.00 1 SS 133.2 1 B 1 6.7 1 0.50 1 DS 136.4 1 B I 6.5 \ 1.00 1 DS 137.0 1 B 1 6.6 1 1.00 1 SS 138.7 [ B i 5.6 1 4.00 1 SS
135.6 1 B 1 7.3 I 0.60 ) SS
141.0 1 B 1 7.1 1 0.60 1 SS 142.1 i B 1 7.0 1 3.50 1 SS 144.3 1 B 1 6.6 t 1.00 i DS
147.3 1 B [ 7.3 1 0.60 1 SE 148.9 ; B 1 6.7 1 0.30 1 DS 151.4 1 B ! 6.5 1 25.00 1 SS
152.2 ! B 1 6.7 1 0.60 1 SS
APPENDIX D
ASFE INFORMATION >^OUT GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
m
•m
Important Inlormatlon About YOur
Geoteclinical Engineeping Report
Subsmiace p/oblsms arc a principal cause of conslruclion delays, cos! ovcnuns. claims, and disnnles
Wllowing inlonnation is provided to help you manage your risks.
•m
•m
•m
m
m
m
Geotechnical Services Ape Performeil for Spedflc Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their sen/ices to meet the specilic needs of
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared so/e/yfor the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
— not even you—should apply the report for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Rdl Itepopt
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary
Do not read selected elements only
A Geoteclnical Engineering Report Is Rased on A ttiique Set of Prqlect-SpedMc Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac-
tors when establishing the scope of a study Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of
the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements,
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project,
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made,
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed stmcture, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building, or from a light Industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general mle, always Inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes—€ven minor ones—and request an assessment of their Impact.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of whicfi
they were not informed
Subsurface Conditions Can Cluuige
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions thai existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
ing reporfwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
to determine if 1! is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Gootecimicai HnMgs Are Professional Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ—sometimes significantly—
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Report's Reconunendations Are Atof Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion, Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. The geotechnical
engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or
liability for the report's recommendations if that engineer does not perform
construction observation.
A Geoteciuiicai Bigineering Report is Sutiject to nilistnterprotation
Other design team members' misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering
reports has resulted in costly problems. Lower that risk by having your geo-
technical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after
submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review perti-
nent elements of the design team's plans and specifications. Contractors can
also misinterpret a geolechnlcal engineering report. Reduce that risk by
having your geotechnical engineer participate In prebid and preconstmction
conferences, and by providing constmction observation.
Do Net Redraw ttie Engineer's Logs
Geotechnical engineers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon
their Interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or
omissions, the logs included In a geotechnical engineering report should
never be redrawn for inclusion In architectural or other design drawings.
Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize
that separating logs from the report can elevate risk.
Give Contractors a Complete Report and
Guidance
Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make
contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what
they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly protitems, give con-
tractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, preface it with a
clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter advise contractors that the
report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the
report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the geotechnical
engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to
conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they
need or prefer A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contrac-
tors have sufficient time to perform additional study Only then might you
be in a position to give contractors the best information available to you,
while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities
stemming from unanticipated conditions.
Read Responsibility Provisions Closely
Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that
geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disci-
plines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that
have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk
of such outcomes, geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of
explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled limitations"
many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' responsi-
bilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities
and risks. Read these provisions closely Ask questions. Your geotechnical
engineer should respond fully and frankly
Geoenvironmental Concerns Are IVot Covered
The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenviron-
mental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical
study For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually
relate any geoenvironmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations;
e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or
regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have ted
to numerous project failures If you have not yet obtained your own geoen-
vironmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk man-
agement guidance. Do not rety on an environmental report prepared for
someone else.
Obtain Professional Assistance To Deal witli Mold
Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction,
operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold fmm
growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be
devised for the express purpose oi mold prevention, integrated into a com-
prehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional
mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or
moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, a num-
ber of mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry
While groundwater water infiltration, and similar issues may have been
addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings
are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this
project is not a mold prevention consultant; none ol the services per-
lormed in connection with the geotechnical engineer's study
were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold preven-
tion. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed
in this report will not of Itself be sufficient to prevent mold from
growing in or on the structure involved.
Rei^ on Your ASFE-Member Geetechncial Engmeer for Additienal Assistance
Membership in ASFE/The Best People on Earth exposes geotechnical
engineers to a wide array of risk management techniques that can be of
genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Gonler
with you ASFE-member geotechnical engineer for more information.
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106, Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: 301/565-2733 FacsirTiile: 301/589-2017
email inlo@asle.org wwwasleorg
Copyright 2004 by ASFE, Inc. Duplication, reproduction, or copying ot tills document, in whole or in part, by any means whatsoever, is strictly prohibited, except with ASFE's
specific written permission. Excerpting, quoting, or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of ASFE. and only for
purposes of scholarly research or book review. Only members of ASFE may use this document as a complement to or as an element of a geotechnical engineering report. Any other
firm, individual, or other entity that so uses this document without being an ASFE member could be committing negligent or intentional (fraudulent) misrepresentation
IIGER06045 Or^