HomeMy WebLinkAbout3843; El Camino Real Water Pipeline; El Camino Real Water Pipeline; 2002-09-16^B5H?== Leighton and Associates
A GTG Company GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
n
m
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION,
PROPOSED EL CAMINO REAL
WATER PIPELINE,
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
September 16, 2002
Project No. 040752-001
Prepared For:
KENNEDY JENKS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
16855 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 360
Encinitas, California 92024
3934 Murphy Canyon Road, #8205, San Diego, CA 92123-4425
(858) 292-8030 • FAX (858) 292-0771 • www.leightongeo.com
=^ Leighton and Associates
A GTG Company GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
September 16,2002
Project No. 040752-001
To: Kennedy Jenks & Associates
16855 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 360
San Diego, California 92127
Attention: Mr. Ray Montoya
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed El Camino Real Water Pipeline, Carlsbad,
California
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have performed a geotechnical investigation for the
proposed pipeline on El Camino Real between Cougar Drive and Faraday Avenue in Carlsbad, California.
The accompanying report presents a summary of our investigation and provides conclusions and
recommendations relative to the proposed.
Based on the results of our investigation and review of the conceptual project plan prepared by the Kennedy
Jenks & Associates (Kennedy Jenks, 2002), the proposed improvements are considered feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations outlined in this report are implemented during
project design and construction.
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to
be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
William D. Olson, RCE 45283
Senior Project Engineer
Distribution: (6) Addressee
Michael R. Stewart, CEG 1349
VicePresident/PrincipalGeologist
ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST
3934 Murphy Canyon Road, #B205, San Diego, CA 92123-4425
(858) 292-8030 • FAX (858) 292-0771 • www.leightongeo.com
040752-001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION 1
1.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 3
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 4
2.1 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING 4
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 5
3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 5
3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY 5
3.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu) 5
3.2.2 Point Loma Formation (kp) 5
3.3 SURFACE AND GROUND WATER 6
3.4 SOIL COMPRESSIBILITY 6
3.5 EXPANSION POTENTIAL 6
3.6 GEOCHEMICALCONSIDERATIONS 6
4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 7
4.1 FAULTING 7
4.2 SEISMICITY 7
4.2.1 Lurching and Shallow Ground. 8
4.2.2 LiquefactionandDynamic Settlement 9
5.0 CONCLUSIONS 10
5.1 CONCLUSIONS 10
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 11
6.1 EARTHWORK 11
6.1.1 Site Preparation 11
6.1.2 Excavations and Shoring 11
6.1.3 Removals 72
6.1.4 Pipe Bedding and Pipe Zone Backfill 72
6.7.5 Trench Zone 72
6.1.6 Excavatability 13
6.1.7 Lateral Earth Pressures 13
6.2 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 14
6.3 EXISTING UTILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS 15
6.4 TRENCH RESURFACING 15
7.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND PLAN REVIEW 16
8.0 LIMITATIONS 17
040129-001
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
FIGURE
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP - PAGE 2
TABLES
TABLE 1 - SEISMIC PARAMETERS FOR ACTIVE FAULTS - PAGE 8
TABLE 2 - GENERALIZED RIPPABILITY CHARACTERISTICS - PAGE 13
TABLE 3 - STATIC EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT (PCF) - PAGE 13
TABLE 4 - RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SECTION UTILIZING CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE - PAGE 14
PLATE
PLATE 1 - GEOTECHNICAL MAP - IN POCKET
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES
APPENDIX B - BORING LOGS
APPENDIX C - LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES
APPENDIX D - SEISMIC ANALYSIS
APPENDIX E - GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
040752-001
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation of the proposed El Camino Real
water pipeline located in the City of Carlsbad, California (Site Location Map, Figure 1). The
purpose of our investigation was to identify and evaluate the pertinent geotechnical conditions
present at the site and to provide geotechnical conclusions and recommendations relative to the
proposed construction. Our scope of services included:
• Review of the referenced documents and maps (Appendix A).
• A geotechnical reconnaissance of the site.
• Coordination with Underground Services Alert and City of Carlsbad representatives.
• Acquisition of City of Carlsbad permits for underground excavations in the public right-of-
way.
• Preparation and implementation of traffic control plans.
• Excavation of 6 exploratory borings using a small diameter hollow-stem auger rig to depths
of 2 to 15.5feetbgs.
• Geologic logging of the borings (Appendix B).
• Laboratory testing of representative samples obtained from the subsurface exploration. Results
of these tests are presented in Appendix C of this report and on the borings logs (Appendix B).
• Geotechnical analysis of data obtained.
• Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding
the proposed improvements.
1.2 Site Description
The proposed pipeline, approximately 2,000 feet long, will be located beneath the existing eastern
northbound lanes of El Camino Real from Faraday Avenue (Station 19+75) to Cougar Drive
(Station 2+75). Topographically, El Camino Real slopes down northward from Faraday Avenue
(approximately elevation 320 feet mean sea level) to Cougar Drive approximately elevation 265
feet mean sea level).
m
i
PROJECT
SITE
NORTH
BASE MAP: 2003 Digital Edition Thomas Guide, San Diego County
NOT TO SCALE
Kennedy/Jenks
El Camino Real Water Main
Between Cougar Drive and
Faraday Avenue
San Diego, California
SITE
LOCATION
MAP
Project No.
040752-001
Date
Sept. 2002 Figure No. 1
040752-001
1.3 Proposed Improvements
Based on our review of the proposed project plans and conversations with Kennedy Jenks, we
understand the proposed pipeline will vary in depth from approximately feet 5 to 9 feet below the
existing ground surface (bgs), and consist of a Ductile Iron Pipe (DIP) pipe with diameters of 16
inches and 24 inches. Installation of the pipeline will be primarily a cut-and-cover construction
method. In addition, we understand that the proposed pipeline will be connected to existing
pipelines located at Faraday Avenue and Cougar Drive.
-3-
040752-001
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
2.1 Subsurface Exploration
Our subsurface exploration consisted of the excavating six 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger
borings (B-l through B-6) to depths ranging from 2 to 15.5 feet bgs. The purpose of these
exploration excavations was to evaluate the engineering characteristics of the onsite soils relative to
the proposed 24-inch pipeline. Prior to excavation of the borings, location and identification of
nearby underground utilities were coordinated with Underground Service Alert.
The borings were logged by representatives from our firm. Relatively undisturbed drive samples and
bulk disturbed samples were collected during drilling for laboratory testing. The approximate
locations of the borings are shown on Geotechnical Map, Plate 1 . After logging, the borings were
backfilled with bentonite and native soils, and pavement was restored with 6-inches of concrete
overlay by 2 inches of asphalt. Logs of borings are presented in Appendix B of this report.
2.2 Laboratory Testing
Selected samples were tested for expansion potential, moisture content, dry density, R- Value, and
geochemical properties (i.e., pH, Resistivity, Chloride, and Sulfate Content). The results of our
laboratory testing along with a summary of the testing procedures are presented in Appendix C of
this report. In-situ moisture and density test results are presented on the borings logs (Appendix B).
-4-
040752-001
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
3.1 Regional Geology
The site is located within the coastal subprovince of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province,
near the western edge of the southern California batholith. The topography at the edge of the
batholith changes from the rugged landforms developed on the batholith to the more subdued
landforms which typify the softer sedimentary formations of the coastal plain such as are present on
the site.
Specifically, the site is underlain by Point Loma Formation and surficially underlain by
Undocumented Artificial Fill. Subsequent to the deposition of these units, erosion and regional
tectonic uplift created the valleys and ridges of the area. Human influences, recent weathering and
erosional processes have produced the Quaternary and recent surficial units including
undocumented fill soils, which mantle the formational and bedrock materials along the proposed
pipeline alignment.
3.2 Site-Specific Geology
Formational and bedrock materials including Point Loma Formation and a surficial unit
consisting undocumented fill soils were encountered during our investigation of the site. Brief
descriptions of the geologic units encountered are provided below.
3.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Afu)
Undocumented artificial fill placed during the construction of El Camino Real was
encountered. Since no documentation of the placement and compaction of the existing fill
were available, we have designated these fills as undocumented at this time. As
encountered during our investigation, the artificial fill materials generally consist of brown
to dark brown and gray-brown, damp to moist, dense to hard, fine to clayey sand and sandy
clay. This material generally exists within graded portions of El Camino Real between
Station 7+00 and Station 14+75. Artificial fill material was encountered in Borings B-1, B-
4, and B-5 to depths ranging from 1.5 to 13 feet bgs (Appendix B).
3.2.2 Point Loma Formation (kp)
The Point Loma Formation underlies the entire site of the proposed pipeline alignment.
As encountered during our investigation, this sedimentary formation primarily consists
of moderately to well cemented, light brown to olive-brown, and orange brown, very
dense to hard, very fine silty sandstone with clay to very fine sandy siltstone with clay.
Occasional cemented interbeds and hard concretionary layers can be observed in
adjacent road cuts and may be encountered within this unit. This material was
encountered in Borings B-l, B-3, B-4, B-5, and B-6 at depths ranging from 2 to 15.5 feet
bgs (Appendix B).
-5-
040752-001
3.3 Surface and Ground Water
During our field investigation, ground water was not encountered in any of our exploratory borings,
nor was surface water observed in the adjacent drainages. However, seasonal fluctuations of
surface water and ground water should be expected. It is our opinion that ground water related
problems should be minor provided the recommendations in this report are incorporated into the
design and construction of the project.
3.4 Soil Compressibility
Based on our field exploration and observations, the soils encountered are predominantly sands,
clays, and silts. In general, undocumented fill soils located at the central portion of the alignment
(approximately Station 7+00 to 14+75) appear to be moist and relatively well compacted.
However, localized porous zones were noted which may be relatively compressible.
3.5 Expansion Potential
The test results indicate the on site soils have a medium expansion potential (per UBC Table 1 8-1-
B). In addition, the siltstone and claystone materials of the Point Loma Formation may have a
medium to high expansion potential.
3.6 Geochemical Considerations
We have performed geochemical testing for soluble sulfate, chloride, pH and minimum resistivity
on representative soils (Appendix C). The chloride content indicates a threshold affect on exposed
steel or concrete. The soluble sulfate testing indicates a negligible soluble sulfate content in the
onsite soils. The results of the minimum resistivity and pH testing indicate a very high to high
potential for corrosion to buried uncoated metal materials. A corrosion engineer should be
consulted regarding the type of protection needed for buried metal materials.
m
m
i
-6-
040752-001
4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
~ 4.1 Faulting
Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and state
"•" policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By definition of
m the California Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is a fault which has had surface
displacement within Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The State Geologist has defined a
m potentially active fault as any fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last
gj 1,600,000 years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the
Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972 and as most recently revised in 1997. The
HI intent of this act is to regulate development near active faults so as to mitigate the hazards of
^ surface fault rupture" (Hart, 1997). Based on our review of the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones, the
site is not located within any Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act
m (Hart, 1997).
l^lj San Diego, like the rest of southern California, is seismically active as a result of being located near
^ the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The principal source of
seismic activity is movement along the northwest-trending regional fault zones such as the San
"" Andreas, San Jacinto and Elsinore Faults Zones, as well as along less active faults such as the Rose
Canyon Fault Zone. Seismic activity is also possible (although less likely) along unnamed inactive
faults mapped on the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazard Analyses and Mapping Study
«• (Leighton,1992).
""* Our review of geologic literature pertaining to the site area indicates that there are known major
m active faults in the immediate vicinity of the site (Jennings, 1994). Based on our review, unnamed
faults were mapped central and northern portion of the proposed alignment through the El Camino
** Real (Leighton, 1992). Approximate location of these faults are presented on Geotechnical Map
M (Plate 1). The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located offshore
approximately 6.8 miles west of the site.
4.2 Seismicitv
— The site can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of Southern
California. Table 1 (below) indicates potential seismic events that could be produced by the
n maximum moment magnitude earthquake. A maximum moment magnitude earthquake is the
maximum expectable earthquake given the presently known tectonic framework. Site-specific
seismic parameters included in Table 1 are the distances to the causative faults, earthquake
magnitudes, and expected ground accelerations (Appendix D).
M
-7-
m
040752-001
ill
m
Table 1
Seismic Parameters for Active Faults (Blake, 2000)
Potential Causative Fault
Rose Canyon (offshore)
Newport-Inglewood
(Offshore)
Elsinore- Julian
Distance from Fault
to Site (Miles)
6.8
8.8
22.3
Maximum Moment
Magnitude
7.0
6.9
7.1
Peak Horizontal Ground
Acceleration (g)
0.374
0.299
0.17
As indicated in Table 1, the Rose Canyon Fault is the 'active' fault considered having the most
significant effect at the site from a design standpoint. A maximum moment magnitude earthquake
of moment magnitude 7.0 on the fault could produce an estimated peak horizontal ground
acceleration 0.374g at the site. The Rose Canyon Fault is considered a Type B seismic source
according to Table 16-Uofthe 1997 Uniform Building code (ICBO, 1997).
The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the Uniform Building code or
state-of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California.
The soil parameters in accordance with UBC 1997 and other guidelines, are as follows:
Soil Profile Types = Sc, (Table 16-J, 1997 UBC)
Seismic Zone = 4 (Figure 16-2, 1997 UBC)
Seismic Source Type = B (Table 16-U, 1997 UBC)
Na= 1.0 (Table 16-S, 1997 UBC)
Nv = 1.0 (Table 16-T, 1997 UBC)
Secondary effects that can be associated with severe ground shaking following a relatively large
earthquake which include shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and dynamic settlement.
These secondary effects of seismic shaking are discussed in the following sections.
4.2.1 Lurching and Shallow Ground
Soil lurching refers to the rolling motion on the ground surface by the passage of seismic
surface waves. Effects of this nature are likely to be most severe where the thickness of
soft sediments vary appreciably under structures. The potential for lurching can be
mitigated if the potentially compressible soils present on the site are properly compacted
in accordance with the recommendations of this report (Section 6.0).
Breaking of the ground because of faulting is not likely to occur on site due to the
absence of known active faults on the site. Cracking due to shaking from distant seismic
events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site.
H
m
m
i
040752-001
4.2.2 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, fine-grained granular soils
behave similarly to a fluid when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction
occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow-groundwater; 2) low density non-
cohesive soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Based on absence of aforementioned
characteristics along proposed pipeline, the potential for liquefaction is considered
unlikely.
m
ma
-9-
040752-001
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the development of the site is feasible
from a geotechnical standpoint. There appear to be no significant geotechnical constraints on the
site that cannot be mitigated by proper planning, design, and sound construction practices. Our
recommendations for proper site development are presented in the following sections. The
following items discuss the major conclusions based on our site investigation.
• The soils encountered were generally evaluated to have favorable load-settlement characteristics
at the depth of the pipe. However, localized zones of potentially compressible fill materials are
anticipated in the central portion of the alignment from Stations 7+00 and 14+50.
• Shallow excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with
conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. Heavy ripping or breaking will likely be
required where cemented and concretionary lenses are encountered in deeper excavations.
Our preliminary interpretation of rippability with respect to geologic unit is provided in
Section 6.1.6 of this report.
• Ground water is not anticipated on the proposed pipeline alignment on El Camino Real.
• The peak horizontal ground acceleration on the site due to the maximum credible earthquake is
postulated to be 0.374g.
• The test results indicate on site soils have a medium expansion potential.
• Soluble Sulfate content tests indicate the soils possess negligible concentrations of soluble
sulfates (per U.B.C. Table 19-A-4). Chloride content indicates a threshold affect on exposed
steel. Minimum resistivity and pH testing indicate high to very high potential for corrosion. A
corrosion engineer should be consulted regarding the type of protection needed for buried
metal materials.
m
ti
-10-
m
m
040752-001
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Earthwork
Grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations
and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included as Appendix E.
6.1.1 Site Preparation
Site preparation is anticipated to include demolition pavement and buried obstructions.
Voids resulting from removal of buried obstructions that extend below finished pipeline
grades should be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. Utilities should be properly
abandoned in accordance with appropriate local codes. All grading should be performed
under the testing and observation of a qualified geotechnical consultant.
6.1.2 Excavations and Shoring
Based on our observations during subsurface investigation and results of laboratory tests,
shallow excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with
conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. Heavy ripping or breaking will likely be
required where cemented and concretionary lenses are encountered in deeper
excavations. Our preliminary interpretation of excavatability characteristics of onsite
material is provided in Section 6.1 .6 of this report
All excavation should comply with OSHA requirements. For preliminary planning,
sloping of surficial fill soils at 1 to 1 (horizontal to vertical) may be assumed. Loose
and/or saturated artificial fill, if present on site, may cave during trenching operations.
Special care should be taken for excavation near existing improvements and, to verify
that the integrity of the existing improvements will not be impacted. For shored
excavations, the geotechnical consultant should review the contractors proposed shoring
design.
We anticipate that scattered amounts of oversize material may be generated during
excavation of localized cemented lenses within the formational unit. Recommendations
for treatment of oversize material are included in the attached General Earthwork and
Grading Specifications for Rough Grading (Appendix E). In general, oversize material
should be hauled off site.
ma -11-
040752-001
6.1.3 Removals
Removal depths should be evaluated by a qualified geotechnical consultant during
excavation. Significant removals of compressible material are not anticipated, and should
generally be limited to within 2 feet of the bottom of the proposed pipeline. We do
anticipate that potentially compressible soils will generally be encountered in the
undocumented fill located at the central portion of the alignment.
Compressible soils beneath the proposed Pipeline alignment should be removed to a
minimum depth of 2 feet below the bottom of the proposed Pipeline line. The bottom of the
excavation should be overlain with Mirafi 600x (or equivalent) and removed soil should be
replaced with 2 feet of crushed aggregate prior to additional fill placement or the
construction of improvements.
6.1.4 Pipe Bedding and Pipe Zone Backfill
Pipe bedding should extend to a depth of at least 6 inches below the pipe and the pipe zone
backfill should extend from the top of the bedding to a height of at least 12 inches over the
top of the pipe. In addition, there should be a range of 6 to 12 inches of pipe zone backfill
material on either side of the pipe.
The bedding and pipe zone material may consist of compacted free draining sand, gravel or
crushed rock (SE >30) in accordance with Appendix E of this report and the City of
Carlsbad specifications.
The bedding layer should be supported on firm, competent material, as determined by the
Geotechnical Consultant and provisions of the above reference. Disturbed or loose
materials at excavation bottom should be removed to expose firm native material. We
anticipate that firm soil conditions exist at proposed invert depths, although some soft
and/or loose soils may be encountered, as discussed above. Removals should be performed
as previously described in Section 6.1.3 of this report and in accordance with the
recommendations made during the course of excavation.
6.1.5 Trench Zone
The onsite soils are generally suitable for reuse as compacted structural fill provided
they are free of oversize material, organic materials, and debris. Saturated soils should
be dried back and/or replaced with import soils. The optimum lift thickness required to
produce a uniformly compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction
equipment used. In general, fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches
in thickness. Materials greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension should not be
utilized in fills.
Fill soils (onsite and import) should be placed near or above optimum moisture content
and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test
Method D1557). Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance
-12-
040752-001
with local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of a qualified
geotechnical consultant. Densification by water jetting within the trench zone is not
recommended.
6.1.6 Excavatability
Based on our preliminary findings and our experience with the following geologic units,
the following is our preliminary interpretation of excavatability with respect to geologic
unit:
Table 2
Generalized Excavation Characteristics
Geologic Unit
Artificial Fill
Point Loma Formation
General Excavation Characteristic
Easy ripping, localized debris, oversize material
may be encountered
Generally excavated with standard construction
equipment, localized cemented zones may prove
to be difficult with localized breaking required
"Difficult ripping" refers to rocks, in which it becomes difficult to achieve tooth
penetration, sharply reducing ripping production. Localized ripping or breaking may be
necessary in order to maintain a desired ripping production rate.
We also note that concrete was encountered at shallow depths in Boring B-2 and B-3. The
actual extent of this concrete was not determined by our study.
m
m
mi
6.1.7 Lateral Earth Pressures
For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values for level or sloping
backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with on-site soils or approved granular
material of very low to low expansion potential.
Table 3
Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf)
Conditions
Active
At-Rest
Passive
Level
35
55
350
(Maximum of 3 ksf)
2:1 Slope
55
65
150 (sloping
down)
-13-
040752-001
m
m
m
m
Unrestrained (yielding) cantilever walls up to 10 feet in height should be designed for an
active equivalent pressure value provided above. In the design of walls restrained from
movement at the top (nonyielding) such as basement walls, the at-rest pressures should
be used. If conditions other than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent
fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual case basis by the geotechnical
engineer. A surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall resulting from
automobile traffic may be assumed to be equivalent to a uniform pressure of 75 psf,
which is in addition to the equivalent fluid pressure given above. For other uniform
surcharge loads, a uniform pressure equal to 0.35q should be applied to the wall (where q
is the surcharge pressure in psf). The wall pressures assume walls are backfilled with
free draining materials and water is not allowed to accommodate behind walls. Wall
backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent relative
compaction (based on ASTM D1557). Wall footings should be designed in accordance
with the foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with
structural considerations. For all retaining walls, we recommend a minimum horizontal
distance from the outside base of the footing to daylight of 10 feet.
Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained
from the passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, the
friction coefficient of 0.3 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 that the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the
total resistance.
The geotechnical consultant should approve any backfill materials that will be utilized prior
to the backfill placement operations. It is the contractor's responsibility to provide
representative samples of the selected backfill material.
6.2 Preliminary Pavement Design
Since an evaluation of the characteristics of the actual soils at pavement subgrade cannot be
made at this time, we have provided the following range of pavement sections to be used for
planning purposes only. Based on laboratory test R-Value and the City of Carlsbad's minimum
section thickness requirements, a preliminary pavement section is presented in Table 3.
m
Table 4
Recommended Pavement Section Utilizing Class 2 Aggregate Base
Location
El Camino Real
(Station No. 13+00)
Traffic
Index
8.5
Design
R-Value
16
Asphalt Concrete
Thickness (in inches)
5
Class 2 Aggregate Base
Thickness (in inches)
17
-14-
040752-001
6.3 Existing Utilities and Improvements
The proposed pipeline improvements are located near and cross several existing utilities. The
contractor should exercise care to not disturb these utilities and or support them during
construction. Compacting backfill above the pipe zone may be detrimental to surrounding
utilities, we recommend a lean 1-sack cement sand slurry mix be used for backfilling operations.
These areas should be limited to a zone between two pipes and not exceeding two feet on either
side of the crossing.
6.4 Trench Resurfacing
Trench resurfacing should be performed in accordance with San Diego Regional Standard
Drawing No. G-24 and G-25 and the City of Carlsbad requirements.
mi
-15-
040752-001
7.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND PLAN REVIEW
The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by field
reconnaissance and widely-spaced exploratory borings. All construction should be performed under the
observation and testing of the Geotechnical Consultant at the following stages:
• During trench excavation;
• During placement of bedding and backfill;
• During pavement capping; and
• When any unusual or unexpected geotechnical conditions are encountered.
The final Pipeline improvement plans should implement the recommendations presented in this report and
should be reviewed by the project geotechnical consultant.
m
m
-16-
040752-001
8.0 LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that were obtained from
a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests, such information is by
necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing geotechnical or geological
conditions can occur within small distances and under varying climatic conditions. Changes in
subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations presented in this report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to
observe the subsurface conditions during grading and construction of the project, in order to confirm that
our preliminary findings are representative for the site.
m
m
-17-
•I
i
040752-001
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Blake, 2000, EQFAULT, Version 3.00.
Boore, D.M., Joyner, W.B., and Fumal T.E., 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra
and Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: a Summary of Recent
Work, Seismological Research Letters, v.68, No 1.
Carlsbad, City of, 1996, Standards for Design and Construction of Public Works Improvements in the City
of Carlsbad, California, Project No. 05332-12-01, dated April 20, 1993, revised December 10,
1996.
CDMG, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open-File Report,
96-08.
, 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open File Report
96-706.
Kennedy Jenks & Associates, 2002, El Camino Real, Water Main Preliminary Design Plan, undated.
Hart, E.N., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning with
Index to special Study Zone Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and
Geology, Special Publications42.
International Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform Building Code.
Jennings, CW, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California, California Division Mines and Geology, Scale
1:750,000.
Leighton and Associates, 1992, City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study,
48 Sheets, dated November, 1992.
NCEER, 1997, Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,
December 31,1997, NO. 97-0022.
San Diego County Department of Public Works, 1992, San Diego Area Regional Standard Drawings, dated
May, 1992.
Tan, Siangs S. and Kennedy, Michael P., 1996, Geology Map of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey, and
San Marcos Quadrangles, San Diego County, California
A-l
040752-001
APPENDIX A (Continued)
REFERENCES
Tokimatu and Seed, 1986, Evaluation of Settlement in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking, JGE, Vol. 113,
No. 8, August, 1987.
Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault zone, Southern California: California Division of Mines and
Geology, Open-File Report 93-02,45 p.
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Date
4-11-53
Source
USDA
Scale
1:2000
Flight
AXN-8M
Photo Nos.
70 and 71
A-2
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY
Date
Project
Sheet 1 of 1
ct
ngCo.
Diameter
LtionTopofHole +/-
KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS
Drive Weight
ft. Ref. or Datum
Project No.
Type of Rig
Drop in.Elevation(feet) 1II
o —
25 —
in —
o
.CO)Q_O
L
////
f$fa
A A A iA A A AA A A V
/
7.
y/.
%
i'/y
/•/y.///
° r\f~-~~) ^> Co • .
3 \> ^
%%/. . .
±U^l-"~
EI-I-I-:
<? /\ 0 /-
Wsx \ x
/- VV^Notes 1///$• ///
^^/^^J
•&&&Q
6
<u
0.
ruCO
GRO
TAI
01
CL
SPT
SAMPI
CAL
SAMPI
ND WA
,EATT
3RILLI
31
c£0) OQ a
t_a
E
.E
TER
[ME
<G Moisture 1Content ('/.)V
O)•
C/3
CL
CH
OL-OH
ML
MH
CL-ML
ML-SM
CL-SC
SC-SM
SW
SP
SM
SC
GW
GP
GM
GC
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By
Sampled By
Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy clay; silty clay; lean
clay
Inorganic clay or high plasticity; fat clay
Organic clay, silt or silty clay-clayey silt mixtures
Inorganic silt; very fine sand; silty or clayey fine sand; clayey silt with low plasticity
Inorganic silt; diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils; elastic silt
Low plasticity clay to silt mixture
Sandy silt to silty sand mixture
Sandy clay to clayey sand mixture
Clayey sand to silty sand mixture
Well graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines
Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines
Silty sand; poorly graded sand-silt mixture
Clayey sand; poorly graded sand; clay mixture
Well graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines
Poorly graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines
Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixture
Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixture
Sandstone
Siltstone
Claystone
Breccia (angular gravel and cobbles or matrix-support conglomerate)
Conglomerate (rounded gravel and cobble clast-supported)
Igneous granitic or granitic type rock
Metavolcanic or metamorphic rock
Artificial or man-made fill
Asphaltic concrete
Portland cement concrete
-
505A(11/77)LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
Date
Project
Drilling Co.
8-21-02
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-l
Kennedy Jenk/ECR
Sheet 1 of 1
Project No. 040752-001
Cal Pac Drilling Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 308 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
c
'^_+-
><J!0)^
Ul
305-
300-
295-
290-
285-
280-
f »<u,J!O^
-
—
5 —
10 —
15 —
-
20 —
-
25 —
-
10
_
;
////
u
0(0
CD
|
1ri
0)o_J
•>^«
a'
<U
oz
o
<U
Q.
CO
Bag-1
@2'-5' .
'1
3 I
1
4 1
-i-
1°
~~ /
1"
55
70
31
Ct-QJ Ua a.-j,^t_
Q
100.3
£_^
^
._ OJ
°"c^~ oo
24.5
*~
GCJ
CO
co^
ML
CL
ML
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By MDJ
Sampled By MDJ
@0-8": Asphaltic Concrete
@ 8"-16": Aggregate Base
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Undocumented') ( Afu)
@ 16": Sandy clayey SILT: Brown to gray-brown, damp to moist, dense
-
@ 5': Sandy CLAY: Brown, moist, hard; porous, possible topsoil derived fill
CRETACEOUS POINT LOMA FORMATION
@ 8': Very fine sandy SILTSTONE with clay: Orange-brown, damp, hard
@ 10': Very fine sandy SILTSTONE with clay: Orange-brown, damp, hard
Total Depth = 1 1 Feet
No ground water encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled on 8/2 1/02
-
-
-
-
-
-
505A(11/77)LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Date
— Project
8-21-02
ct
ng Co.
Diameter 8 in.
ition Top of Hole +/- 315
Kennedy Jenk/ECR
Cal Pac Drilling
Drive Weight
ft. Ref. or Datum
Sheet 1
Project No.
Type of Rig
140 pounds
Mean Sea Level
of 1
040752-001
Hollow-Stem Auger
Drop 30 in.Elevation(feet) |315-
310-
305-
300-
295-
290-
?8<i-Depth 1(feet) 1u
.CO)Q.Ofd_i
CD
&0)+-o
P"-
5 —
10 —
15 —
20 —
25 —
10
lsla
d
01
Q.
01CO
Bag-1
@7"-2'
38
0^
<QOJQ.
31•(-
in^CH-OJ UQ Q.\^D)
Q MoistureContent (*) |w^
>
u^— V>
'53CO
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By MDJ
Sampled By MDJ
@ 0-7": Asphaltic Concrete
@7"-2': Aggregate Base
@ 2': Encountered concrete, possible storm drain or slurry, practical refusal
Total Depth = 2.5 Feet
No ground water encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled on 8/21/02
-
-
-
-
-
505A(11/77)LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date 8-21-02
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter 8 in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 315
Kennedy Jenk/ECR
Cal Pac Drilling
Drive Weight
ft. Ref. or Datum
Sheet 1 of 1
Project No. 040752-001
Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger
140 pounds Drop 30 in.
Mean Sea Level
Elevation(feet) |315-
310-
305-
300-
295-
290-
•785-'Depth(feet) 1o
.CO)Q.On)_i
cs NotesM
-
-
5~
10 —
15
20 —
^c
in —
>.'-":
6z
<u
Q.
(00)
sl
0^
cofea.
JP-i-
tn^
CM-
QJ Ua a.
\-S
3)
Q MoistureContent (/O<n~
S"
"^_to
"5303
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By MDJ
Sampled By MDJ
@ 0-8": Asphalt Concrete
@8"-2': Class 2 Aggregate Base
\@ 2': Encountered concrete, practical refusal 7
Total Depth = 2 Feet
No ground water encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled on 8/21/02
-
-
-
-
-
505AC11/77)LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
Date 8-21-02
Project
Drilling Co.
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4
Kennedy Jenk/ECR
Sheet 1 of 1
Project No. 040752-001
Cal Pac Drilling Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger
Hole Diameter Sin. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 303 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
c
«8
ju£
LU
300-
295-
285-
280-
275-
?«(UfjTQw
-
5 —
-
10 —
-
15 —
-
20 —
-
25 —
-
O
Qffl£_O
•^^0
~
/ /
'4.
-:
0)O1
•^" f
> 0%
01-1-0z
6
0>
O)
1I
1
Bag-2 1
3 |
4 I
'1
6 1
•+-
§£
CD QJ
29
1 21
28
24
1 50/1"
S
CH-OI Oa a.
3)
a
98.9
99.6
93.8
QJ-5
^
" (U
°"£
o
24.2
14.0
25.2
j»2
o". *z •
ww
CL
ML
CL
SM
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By MDJ
Sampled By MDJ
@ 0-8.5": Asphalt Concrete
@ 8.5"-2': Aggregate Base
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Undocumented) (Afu)
@ 2': Sandy silty CLAY: Orange-brown to brown, moist, very stiff
@ 5': Clayey SILT with clay: Orange-brown, moist, very stiff
@ 7.5': Silty CLAY: Brown, moist, very stiff
@ 10': Silty CLAY: Brown to black, moist, very stiff; slighdy porous, possible
topsoil
CRETACEOUS POINT LOMA FORMATION
@ 13': Silty SANDSTONE: Light brown, damp, very dense
@ 15': Well-cemented layer or concretion
~\@ 15': Two ring sluff, two rings formation f
\Practical refusal at 15.5'
Total Depth = 15.5 Feet
No ground water encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled: 8/12/02
-
-
-
-
505A(11/77)LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5
Date 8-21-02
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter 8 in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 296
Kennedy Jenk/ECR
Cal Pac Drilling
Drive Weight
ft. Ref. or Datum
Sheet 1 of 1
Project No. 040752-001
Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger
140 pounds Drop 30 in.
Mean Sea Level
o^
;SIs
LU
295-
290-
285-
280-
275-
270-
•£*-1!
„-
-
-
5 —
—
-
15 —
-
20
-
25
-
10
0
.CO)CLO(0 _l
CD
•i'•'"'"
" °o " »
////
////
////
%/
W/
Ifl0)-1-o
o
QJ
Q.£
CO
1
1 1
Bag-2 1
@2'-4f 1
3 |
4 1
f
+-
~~ (_
44
1 38
98
^+•
CH-OI OQ Q.
a
95.9
/^
t-^*^ii
o
25.5
I/I ^^
(f\ f*
fl
-^CO^
CL
ML
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By MDJ
Sampled By MDJ
@ 0-7.5": Asphalt Concrete
@ 7.5"-2.5': Aggregate Base
-
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Undocumented") (Ami
@ 2.5': Silty CLAY with sand: Brown, moist, hard
-
@ 5': Silty CLAY with sand: Brown, moist, hard
-
CRETACEOUS POINT LOMA FORMATION
@ 7': Clayey SILTSTONE with very fine SAND: Green, damp, hard; fracture
infilled with calcium carbonate
Total Depth = 9 Feet
No ground water encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled on 8/21/02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
505AO1/77)LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6
Date 8-21-02
Project
Drilling Co.
Hole Diameter 8 in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 279
Kennedy Jenk/ECR
Cal Pac Drilling
Drive Weight
ft. Ref. or Datum
Sheet 1 of 1
Project No. 040752-001
Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger
140 pounds Drop 30 in.
Mean Sea Level
c
"8"^(y
LU
275-
270-
265-
260-
255
250-
£«01 (jrQ^
"1
J
C
_
-
—
10 —
-
15 —
-
20 —
-
25 —
-
in
j
|
D
•
.'
-
J
I
p
D
|
^P
c
T
0)o_]
•0
C
in01
oz
r--
6
01
Q.
(/)
1
[
1 1
Bag-2 1
@2'-5' [
3
1
:
'1r
-H
g£
(
f\u_
70
1
88
:
98
j
3»
ci01 OO Q.
31C-o
102.0
C.^^-
._ 01o"^E oo
23.0
W-
uu!
~ •
cn^
SM/ML
ML
ML
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By MDJ
Sampled By MDJ
@0-7": Asphalt Concrete
@ 7"-2': Aggregate Base
CRETACEOUS POINT LOMA FORMATION
@ 2.0': Silty very fine SANDSTONE with clay to very fine sandy SILTSTONE
with clay: Orange-brown, damp, very dense to hard; iron-oxided stained
~
@ 5': Very fine sandy SILTSTONE with clay: Orange-brown to brown, damp,
hard
@ 6.5': Cemented layer
-
@ 10': Very fine sandy SILTSTONE: Orange-brown, damp, dense; iron-oxided
\ stained f
Total Depth = 10.5 Feet
No ground water encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled on 8/21/02
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
505A(11/77)LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
m
m
040752-001
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT422. The
results are presented below:
Sample Location
B-l @ 2-5 Feet
B-4 @ 2.5-5 Feet
B-5 @ 2-4 Feet
B-6 @ 2-5 Feet
Chloride Content, ppm
213
141
139
206
Chloride Attack Potential*
Threshold
Threshold
Threshold
Threshold
*per City of San Diego Program Guidelines for Design Consultant, 1992.
m
m
m
m
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index
Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 18-2 and/or ASTM Test Method 4829. Specimens are molded under a given
compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation
or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. 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:
Sample Location
B-4 @ 2.5-5 Feet
Sample Description
Gray-olive sandy lean CLAY
Compacted Dry
Density (pcf)
99.6
Expansion
Index
70
Expansion
Potential
Medium
m Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content (ASTM Test Method D2216) and dry density
determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed ring samples obtained from the test borings and/or
trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench logs. Where applicable, only the
moisture content was determined from disturbed samples.
mm
m
ij^i
C-l
040752-001
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results (Continued)
Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general
accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT643 for Steel or CT532 for concrete and standard geochemical
methods. The results are presented in the table below:
Sample Location
B-l@ 2-5 Feet
B-4 @ 2.5-5 Feet
B-5 @ 2-4 Feet
B-6 @ 2-5 Feet
Sample Description
Gray-olive sandy lean CLAY
Gray-olive sandy lean CLAY
Gray-olive lean CLAY
Gray-olive lean CLAY with sand
pH
8.11
8.25
8.05
7.92
Minimum Resistivity
(ohms-cm)
1786
962
893
756
"R"-Value: The resistance "R"-value was determined by the California Materials Method CT301 for base,
subbase, and basement soils. The samples were prepared and exudation pressure and "R"-value determined.
The graphically determined "R"-value at exudation pressure of 300 psi is reported.
Sample
Number
B- 1,2-5 Feet
Sample Description
Olive sandy lean CLAY
R-Value
16
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard
geochemical methods (Caltrans Test Method CT417). The test results are presented in the table below:
Sample Location
B-l@ 2-5 Feet
B-4 @ 2.5-5 Feet
B-5 @ 2-4 Feet
B-6 @ 2-5 Feet
Sample Description
Gray-olive sandy lean CLAY
Gray-olive sandy lean CLAY
Gray-olive sandy lean CLAY
Gray-olive lean CLAY with sand
Sulfate
Content (%)
<0.015
<0.06
0.015
<0.015
Potential Degree of
Sulfate Attack*
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
* Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Table No. 19-A-4, prepared by the
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO, 1997).
C-2
EQFAULT
Version 3.00
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 040785-001
DATE: 08-30-2002
JOB NAME: EL CAMINO REAL @ COUGAR DRIVE
CALCULATION NAME: Analysis
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\Program Files\EQFAULTl\CdmgfIte (Modified RCFZ).dat
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1415
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2775
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 13) Boore et al. (1997) Horiz. - Vs = 750 m/s
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cd_2drp
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR:
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CdmgfIte (Modified RCFZ).dat
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0
EQFAULT SUMMARY
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 1
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
ROSE CANYON
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
ELSINORE-JULIAN
ELSINORE-TEMECULA
CORONADO BANK
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY
PALOS VERDES
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE . (Elsinore)
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L. A. Basin)
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
WHITTIER
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN
COMPTON THRUST
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
ELYSIAN PARK THRUST
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino
SAN ANDREAS - Southern
SAN JOSE
PINTO MOUNTAIN
SAN ANDREAS - Coachella
CUCAMONGA
SIERRA MADRE
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)
BURNT MTN.
CLEGHORN
EUREKA PEAK
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto)
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East)
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture
SAN ANDREAS - Mojave
RAYMOND
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT
ELMORE RANCH
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)
VERDUGO
LACUNA SALADA
APPROXIMATE
DISTANCE
mi ( km )
6.
8.
22.
22.
22.
34.
39.
40.
45.
46.
49.
49.
49.
53.
54.
59.
60.
61.
62.
64.
64.
70.
71.
71.
72.
72.
75.
76.
78.
78.
79.
79.
82.
82.
82.
82.
82.
83.
85.
85.
8(
8(
3(
3(
9(
9(
5(
4(
2(
3(
2(
3(
6(
4(
4(
0(
5(
2(
8(
2(
2(
2(
0(
4{
6(
9(
9(
2(
3{
9(
K
5(
K
K
4(
5(
7(
8(
K
7(
10.
14.
35.
35.
36.
56.
63.
65.
72.
74.
79.
79.
79.
86.
87.
94.
97.
98.
101.
103.
103.
113.
114.
114.
116.
117.
122.
122.
126.
127.
127.
127.
132.
132.
132.
132.
133.
134.
137.
137.
9)
2)
9)
9)
8)
1)
5)
0)
7)
5)
2)
4)
8)
0)
5)
9)
3)
5)
1)
4)
4)
0)
3)
9)
8)
3)
2)
6)
0)
0)
3)
9)
1)
ESTIMATED MAX.EARTHQUAKE EVENT
MAXIMUM | PEAK
EARTHQUAKE SITE
MAG. (Mw) | ACCEL, g
7.
6.
7.
6.
7.
6.
7.
6.
7.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6.
7.
7.
6.
7.
7.
7.
7.
7.
6.
6.
6.
6.
6 .
7 .
1) 7.
6) 6.
7) 6.
1) 6.
8) 6.
0) 6.
9) 7.
1
0 | 0
9 | 0
1 1 0
8 | 0
4 | 0
8 | 0
1 0
5 0
2 0
9 0
7 0
9 0
8
8
8
7
7
6
3
4
5
0
1
0
0
0
4
5
4
6
7
8
1
5
5
6
6
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.222
.178
.100
.086
.115
.061
.065
.046
.062
.052
.054
.049
.046
.044
.043
.049
.038
.046
.035
.049
.052
.037
.039
.041
.047
.047
.045
.027
.028
.026
.029
EST. SITE
INTENSITY
MOD . MERC .
IX
VIII
VII
VII
VII
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
V
VI
V
VI
VI
V
V
V
VI
VI
VI
V
V
V
v
.037 V
.053 VI
.037 V
.033 V
.032 | V
.028 | V
.028 V
.035 V
.034 V
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 2
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
LANDERS
HOLLYWOOD
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE
SANTA MONICA
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN .
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern)
MALIBU COAST
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)
NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge)
SAN GABRIEL
a PPPOVriv^TA TIT?r\L r C\\J A J. i*.Ln j. Hi
DISTANCE
mi
86.4 (
87. 2(
88. 2(
91. 7(
92. 0(
92. 2 (
94. 3(
94.4 (
95. 1(
98.1 (
98.7 (
99.9 (
(km)
139.0)
140.3)
141.9)
147.5)
148.0)
148.4)
151.8)
152.0)
153.1)
157.9)
158.8)
160.7)
ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
MAXIMUM
EARTHQUAKE
MAG. (Mw)
7.3
6.4
7.1
7.3
6.4
6.6
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.9
7.0
PEAK
SITE
ACCEL, g
0.039
0.030
0.035
0.038
0.023
0.031
0.030
0.027
0.032
0.032
0.035
0.030
t*-JfJr-*-****-*-*-J
EST. SITE
INTENSITY
MOD. MERC.
V
V
V
V
IV
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
t-TtTt--t-t-Jr-Jr-Jr-it4-
-END OF SEARCH-
THE ROSE CANYON
52 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 6.8 MILES (10.9 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.2222 g
* EQFAULT *
* *
* Version 3.00 ** *
***********************
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
JOB NUMBER: 040785-001
DATE: 08-30-2002
JOB NAME: EL CAMINO REAL @ COUGAR DRIVE
CALCULATION NAME: Analysis
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: C:\Program Files\EQFAULTl\CdmgfIte (Modified RCFZ).dat
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1415
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2775
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 13) Boore et al. (1997) Horiz. - Vs = 750 m/s
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): S Number of Sigmas: 1.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cd_2drp
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: Campbell SHR:
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: C:\Program Files\EQFAULT1\CdmgfIte (Modified RCFZJ.dat
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 0.0
c
L
C
C
I
z
c
c
c
c
c
E
C
EQFAULT
DETERMINISTIC
SUMMARY
SITE PARAMETERS
Page 1
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
ROSE CANYON
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
ELSINORE-JULIAN
ELSINORE-TEMECULA
CORONADO BANK
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY
PALOS VERDE S
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE . (Elsinore)
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L. A. Basin)
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
WHITTIER
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN
COMPTON THRUST
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
ELYS IAN PARK THRUST
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
SAN ANDREAS - San Bernardino
SAN ANDREAS - Southern
SAN JOSE
PINTO MOUNTAIN
SAN ANDREAS - Coachella
CUCAMONGA
SIERRA MADRE
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)
BURNT MTN.
APPROXIMATE
DISTANCE
mi
6.8(
8.8(
22. 3(
22. 3(
22. 9(
34. 9 (
39. 5(
40.4 (
45.2 (
46. 3(
49. 2(
49. 3(
49. 6(
53.4 (
54.4 (
59. 0(
60. 5(
61. 2(
62. 8 (
64. 2(
64. 2(
70. 2(
71. 0(
71.4 (
72. 6(
72. 9(
75. 9(
76. 2(
CLEGHORN 78.3(
EUREKA PEAK 78.9(
SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto) 79. 1(
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 79.5(
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 82. 1 (
SAN ANDREAS - Mojave 82.1(
RAYMOND 82.4(
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 82. 5 (
ELMORE RANCH 82.7 (
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 83. 8 (
VERDUGO I 85.1(
LACUNA SALADA I 85.7(
(km)
10.
14.
35.
35.
36.
56.
63.
65.
72.
74.
79.
79.
79.
86.
87.
94.
97.
98.
101.
103.
103.
113.
114.
114.
116.
117.
122.
122.
126.
127.
•127.
127.
132.
132.
132.
132.
133.
134.
137.
137.
9)
2)
9)
9)
8)
1)
5)
0)
7)
5)
2)
4)
8)
0)
5)
9)
3)
5)
1)
4)
4)
0)
3)
9)
8)
3)
2)
6)
0)
0)
3)
9)
1)
1)
6)
7)
1)
8)
0)
9)
ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
MAXIMUM
EARTHQUAKE
MAG. (Mw)
7.0
6.9
7.1
6.8
7.4
6.8
7.1
6.5
7.2
6.9
6.7
6.9
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.7
6.6
7.3
7.4
6.5
7.0
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.4
6.5
6.4
6.6
6.7
7.8
7.1
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.6
6.7
7.0
PEAK
SITE
ACCEL, g
0.374
0.299
0.169
0.144
0.194
0.103
0.109
0.078
0.104
0.087
0.091
0.083
0.078
0.074
0.073
0.083
0.064
0.077
0.058
0.083
0.088
0.062
0.066
0.069
0.079
0.078
0.076
0.045
0.047
0.044
0.049
0.062
0.089
0.062
0.055
0.055
0.047
0.047
0.059
0.057
EST. SITE
INTENSITY
MOD . MERC .
IX
IX
VIII
VIII
VIII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VII
VI
VII
VI
VII
VII
VI
VI
VI
VII
VII
VII
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VII
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
I
I
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page 2
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
LANDERS
HOLLYWOOD
HELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE
SANTA MONICA
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN .
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern)
MALIBU COAST
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando)
NORTHRIDGE (E. Oak Ridge)
SAN GABRIEL
APPROXIMATE
DISTANCE
mi ( km )
86. 4( 139.0)
87. 2( 140.3)
88. 2( 141.9)
91. 7( 147.5)
92. 0( 148.0)
92. 2( 148.4)
94. 3( 151.8)
94. 4( 152.0)
95. 1( 153.1)
98. 1( 157.9)
98. 7( 158.8)
99.9 ( 160.7)
ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
MAXIMUM
EARTHQUAKE
MAG. (Mw)
7.3
6.4
7.1
7.3
6.4
6.6
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.9
7.0
t**********v
PEAK
SITE
ACCEL, g
0.066
0.050
0.059
0.063
0.039
0.053
0.050
0.045
0.054
0.053
0.059
0.050
t**********v
EST. SITE
INTENSITY
MOD. MERC.
VI
VI
VI
VI
V
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
t*********
-END OF SEARCH-
THE ROSE CANYON
52 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 6.8 MILES (10.9 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.3737 g
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
EL CAMINO REAL (5) COUGAR DRIVE
-25--
-50--
-75--
-100--
-125 --
150 175 200 225 250 275 300 325 350
Leightonand Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 1 of 6
LEIGHTONAND ASSOCIATES, INC.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
1.0 General
1.1 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
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
recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
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,
and recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work
plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel
to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
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
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
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.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioningand process ing 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
the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
3030.1094
Leightonand 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
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 continuing to 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.
3030.1094
Leightonand Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 3 of 6
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 Overexcavation: 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
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.
3030.1094
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 4 of 6
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
Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that
its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.
4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
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
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,
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
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
(ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
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
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
maximum density per ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91.
4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill
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
inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
3030.1094
Leightonand Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 5 of 6
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
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
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.
4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
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
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.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the
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
Contractor for these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
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
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.
3030.1094
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 6 of 6
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
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
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 to the surface.
7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
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.
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
PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE
OF 8LOPE TO APPROVED GROUND
NATURAL
GROUND
FILL SLOPE
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
BENCH
HEIGHT
V MIN.
KEY DEPTH LOWEST BENCH
(KEY)
NATURAL
GROUND
4' TYPICAL
' I—BENCH
HEIGHT
FILL-OVER-CUT
SLOPE
REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
CUT FACE
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR
TO FILL PLACEMENT TO ASSURE
ADEQUATE OEOLOOe CONDITIONS
CUT FACE
TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR
TO FILL PLACEMENTv
OVERBUILT AND
TRIM BACK
PROJECTED PLANE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM
TOE OF SLOPE TO
APPROVED GROUND
DESIGN SLOPE REMOVE
NSUITABLE
MATERIAL
CUT-OVER-FILL
SLOPE
For Subdrains See
Standard Detail C
BENCH HEIGHT
2f MIN.—'
KEY DEPTH
LOWEST BENCH
(KEY)
BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPES
ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1
MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET
MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET
KEYING AND BENCHING GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS A uu
REV. 4/11/96
FINISH GRADE
SLOPE
FACE
™_m^n^r^iO' MIN.irtr-_r:COMPACTED FILL
JETTED 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 burled rock shaH be
parallel to the finished slope fill.ELEVATION
PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
A-A'
JETTED OR FLOODED
GRANULAR MATERIAL
OVERSIZE
ROCK DISPOSAL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS B
T
4/95
NATURAL
GROUND
BENCHING REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
- COMPACTED FILL
2" MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP
HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET
CALTRANS CLASS II
PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK'
(9FT.3/FT.) WRAPPED IN
FILTER FABRIC
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAF1140 OR
APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL
PERFORATED PIPE
6'* MIN.
V\COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL
BE MINIMUM 6* DIAMETER
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED
PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL D
FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION
DESIGN
FINISHED
GRADE
20' MIN-
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140 OR
APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
.NON-PERFORATED.
MIN.
5' MIN X #2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER
TABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS II
PERMEABLE.
CANYON SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS C LU
4/95
OUTLET PIPES
4'* NON-PERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
BACKCUT 1:1
OR FLATTER
2' MIN.
POSITIVE SEAL
SHOULD BE
PROVIDED AT
THE JOI
12* MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP
HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET
VI
OUTLET PIPE
(NON-PERFORATED)
CALTRANS CLASS II
PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK
(3FT.3/FT.) WRAPPED IN
FILTER FABRIC
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAF1 140 OR
APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
ECTIONT-CONNECTION FOR
COLLECTOR PIPE TO
OUTLET PIPE
• SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be installed with perforations down or,
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant Outlet pipes shad be non-perforated
pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Perforation shad
be Vt to Vi1 if drilled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2% towards the
outlet
• SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40, or
ASTM D3034, SDR 23.5, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe.
• All outlet pipe shall be placed in a trench no wider than twice the subdrain pipe. Pipe shall be in soil
of SE>30 jetted or flooded in place except for the outside 5 feet which shall be native soil backfill.
BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS D LU
4/95