HomeMy WebLinkAbout3887C; Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program; Geotechnical Evaluation; 2002-06-07Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINES PROJECT
ENCINA BASIN WATER
RECLAMATION PROGRAM
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
Parsons
110 West A Street, Suite 1050
San Diego, California 92101
PREPARED BY
Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants
5710RuffmRoad
San Diego, California 92123
June 7, 2002
Project No. 104611001
5710 Ruffin Road • San Diego, California 92123 - Phone (858J 576-1000 - Fax (858J 576-9600
San Diego • Irvine • Ontario • Los Angeles • Oakiand • Las Vegas • Salt Lake City • Phoenix
Environmental Sc/ences Consultants
June 7, 2002
Project No. 104611001
Mr. Daniel Duprey
Parsons
110 West A Street, Suite 1050
San Diego, California 92101
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation
Industrial Park Pipelines Project
Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. Duprey:
In accordance with your authorization, we have completed a geotechnical evaluation report for
the proposed Industrial Park Pipelines Project. This report presents our geotechnical findings,
conclusions, and recommendations regarding the proposed improvements.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions or
comments regarding our report, please contact our project manager, Frank Moreland, or the un-
dersigned.
Sincerely,
NINYO & MOORE
Randal L. Irwin, C.E.G.
Chief Engineering Geologist
NAA/FOM/RI/EO/kmf/rlm
Distribution: (5) Addressee
Erik Olsen, G.E.
Chief Geotechnical Engineer
5710 Ruffin Road • San Diego, California 92! 23 - Phone (858J 576-1000 • Fax (858J 576-9600
San Diego • Irvine • Ontario • Los Angeles • Oakland • Las Vegas • Salt Lake City • Phoenix
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
4. SITE DESCRIPTION 2
5. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2
6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
6.1. Regional Geologic Setting 3
6.2. Site Geology 4
6.2.1. Fill 4
6.2.2. Santiago Formation 4
6.2.3. Point Loma Formation 4
6.2.4. Santiago Peak Volcanics 5
6.3. Groundwater 5
7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 5
7.1. Faulting and Seismicity 6
7.1.1. Strong Ground Motion 6
7.1.2. Surface Rupture 6
7.2. Landsliding 7
7.3. Liquefaction 7
8. UBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 7
9. CONCLUSIONS 7
10. RECOMMENDATIONS 9
10.1. Earthwork 9
10.1.1. Site Preparation 9
10.1.2. Temporary Excavations and Shoring 9
10.1.3. Excavation Characteristics 10
10.2. Pressure Reducing Station 11
10.3. Pipe Bedding and Modulus of Soil Reaction (E1) 11
10.4. Thrust Blocks 12
10.5. Import Soil 13
10.6. Trench Backfill 13
10.7. Soil Corrosivity 13
10.8. Concrete 14
10.9. Pre-Construction Conference 15
10.10. Construction Observation 15
11. LIMITATIONS 15
12. SELECTED REFERENCES 17
4611001R Parsons - Carlsbad Pipelines.doc
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
Table
Table 1 - Seismic Design Parameters,
Figures
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figures 2 through 5 - Geotechnical Map
Figure 6 - Fault Location Map
Figure 7 - Shoring Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram
Figure 8 - Pressure Reducing Station Earth Pressure Diagram
Figure 9 - Thrust Block Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram
Appendices
Appendix A - Boring Logs
Appendix B - Laboratory Testing
Appendix C - Typical Earthwork Guidelines for Pipeline Projects
4611001R Parsons - Carlsbad Pipelines doc
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
1. INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your contract dated April 10, 2002, we have completed a geotechnical evalua-
tion for the design of the Industrial Park Pipelines Project. The project study areas are located in
the Carlsbad Research Center, Camino Vida Roble, and Palomar Oaks Service Areas in Carlsbad,
California (Figure 1). The purpose of this evaluation was to provide design recommendations re-
garding the geotechnical aspects of the proposed project. This report presents the results of our
background review, subsurface evaluation, laboratory testing, geotechnical analyses, our conclu-
sions regarding the geotechnical conditions along the subject alignment, and our recommendations
for design.
2. SCOPE OF SERVICES
Ninyo & Moore's scope of services for this project included the following:
• Review of readily available published geotechnical literature, including geologic maps, geo-
logic reports, and aerial photographs.
• Geologic reconnaissance of the pipeline alignments.
• Coordination and mobilization for the subsurface exploration. Mark-out of existing under-
ground utilities was conducted through Underground Service Alert and the project plans.
• Performing a subsurface evaluation consisting of the excavating, logging, and sampling of
37 borings to evaluate the subsurface soils. The borings were advanced to depths of up to
approximately 11.5 feet. Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples were obtained at selected
intervals from the boring. The soil samples were transported to our laboratory for testing.
• Laboratory testing of selected samples from the borings to evaluate in-place moisture and
density, gradation, Atterberg limits, direct shear and corrosivity.
• Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained.
• Preparing this geotechnical report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommenda-
tions for the design and construction of the proposed project.
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
We understand the project will include the construction of approximately 52,000 feet of new 4-,
8-, 12-, and 16-inch recycled water pipeline for the Encina Basin Water Reclamation Program.
M/nuo
4611001RPaiMns-CarlsbadPipclines.doc 1 ? *»
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
The proposed alignments are along existing roadways and include 3,250 feet of 16-inch diameter
pipeline, 9,800 feet of 12-inch diameter pipeline, 27,600 feet of 8-inch diameter pipeline, and
10,550 feet of 4-inch diameter pipeline. Depths of the pipelines are generally anticipated to be on
the order of 6 feet below the ground surface. Construction of a new pressure reducing station is
also proposed along Faraday Avenue at Camino Hills Drive. The pressure reducing station is ex-
pected to consist of a precast concrete vault 16 feet by 20 feet in plan dimension and
approximately 8 feet deep.
4. SITE DESCRIPTION
The proposed pipeline alignments in the Carlsbad Research Center Service area are generally along
existing roads in the area of the Carlsbad Research Center. Major roadways include El Camino
Real from Palomar Airport Road to Faraday Avenue, Faraday Avenue, Rutherford Road, Priestly
Drive, and Aston Avenue. Another alignment within this service area crosses undeveloped land
from Palomar Oaks Way to Aston Avenue. The Camino Vida Roble Service area includes align-
ments along Camino Vida Roble, Kellog Avenue, Palomar Oaks Way, Owens Avenue, and Dryden
Place. An alignment across undeveloped land from Palomar Oaks Court to near Kiwi Place is also
included within this service area. The Palomar Oaks Service Area includes alignments along Loker
Avenue, Sea Otter Place, and Sea Lion Place. The Calavera Heights Service Area includes an
alignment along Glasgow Drive between Carlsbad Village Drive and Woodstock Street.
5. FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Thirty-seven borings were drilled on April 29 through May 13, 2002 using 6-inch diameter, hol-
low-stem augers on a truck-mounted drill rig. The borings were excavated to depths up to
approximately 11.5 feet below the ground surface (bgs). Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples
were collected from the borings. In borings B-6, B-7, and B-18, a hard object was encountered
during drilling within fill. No attempt was made to penetrate the object due to the suspicion that
it was a utility. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figures 2 through 5. The
boring logs are presented in Appendix A.
4611001R Parsons - Carlsbad Pipelines doc
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
Laboratory testing of representative soil samples included in-situ moisture content and dry density,
gradation analyses, Atterberg limits, direct shear, and corrosivity. The results of the in-situ moisture
content and dry density tests are shown at the corresponding sample depth on the boring logs in
Appendix A. The results of the other laboratory tests performed are presented in Appendix B.
6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Our findings regarding regional and local geology, including faulting and seismicity, landslides,
and groundwater conditions along the proposed pipeline route are provided in the following sec-
tions.
6.1. Regional Geologic Setting
The project area is situated in the western San Diego County section of the Peninsular
Ranges Geomorphic Province. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends
approximately 900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to
the southern tip of Baja California (Norris and Webb, 1990). The province varies in width
from approximately 30 to 100 miles. In general, the province consists of rugged mountains
underlain by Jurassic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous
rocks of the southern California batholith. The westernmost portion of the province in San
Diego County, in which the project area is situated, generally consists of Tertiary- and Qua-
ternary-age sedimentary rocks and Jurassic metavolcanic rock.
The Peninsular Ranges Province is traversed by a group of sub-parallel faults and fault zones
trending roughly northwest. Several of these faults are considered active faults. The
Whittier-Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults are active fault systems located north-
east of the project area and the Agua Blanca-Coronado Bank, San Clemente, and Rose Canyon
faults are active faults located north and west of the project area. Major tectonic activity associ-
ated with these and other faults within this regional tectonic framework consists primarily of
right-lateral, strike-slip movement. Further discussion of faulting relative to the site is pro-
vided in the Faulting and Seismicity section of this report.
461IOOIR Parsons - Carlsbad Pipdines.doc
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
6.2. Site Geology
Geologic units encountered during our subsurface evaluation include artificial fill, Tertiary
(Eocene)-age Santiago Formation, Cretaceous-age Point Loma Formation, and Jurassic-age
Santiago Peak Volcam'cs. Generalized descriptions of the earth units encountered are pro-
vided in the subsequent sections. More detailed descriptions are provided on the boring logs
in Appendix A. The approximate limits of units greater than 5 feet thick, encountered during
our evaluation are shown on Figures 2 through 5.
6.2.1. Fill
Portions of the proposed alignment are underlain by fill soils. Fill soils were encoun-
tered in many of the borings up to a depth of 11.5 feet, the maximum depth explored. In
general, the fill soils observed in our borings consisted of yellowish, grayish, and olive
brown, damp to moist, medium dense to dense, silty and clayey fine to medium sand, and
dark gray, dark brown, and olive, damp to moist, very stiff to hard, sandy and silty clay.
Fill was generally observed to contain scattered gravel.
6.2.2. Santiago Formation
Large portions of the proposed alignment are underlain by materials of the Santiago
Formation. Materials of the Santiago Formation were encountered in 15 of our ex-
ploratory borings up to the maximum depth explored (approximately 11.5 feet). In
general, the materials of the Santiago Formation observed in our borings generally con-
sisted of yellowish to reddish brown, olive to greenish gray, damp to moist, weakly to
moderately cemented, silty fine- to medium-grained sandstone, fine- to medium-grained
sandy siltstone, and weakly to moderately indurated, silty claystone.
6.2.3. Point Loma Formation
Materials of the Point Loma Formation were encountered in borings B-8 and B-9 up to
the total depth explored. In general, the materials of the Point Loma Formation ob-
served in our borings generally consisted of light brown, olive, yellowish brown, and
grayish brown, moist, weakly to moderately indurated, clayey siltstone. Local manga-
nese-oxide and iron-oxide mineralization were observed. Hard, strongly cemented
Waff°f&mw JT—
4611001R Parsons - Carlsbad Pipe1ines.doc
Parsons June 7,2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
zones (or concretions) can also be present within the unit. The Point Loma Formation is,
in general, expected to be relatively easy to excavate but may present some difficulty in
concretionary zones.
6.2.4. Santiago Peak Volcanics
Materials of the Santiago Peak Volcanics were encountered during our subsurface
evaluation in borings B-23 and B-24 along Glasgow Drive. In general, the Santiago
Peak Volcanics consist of reddish to yellowish brown and gray, damp, slightly to mod-
erately weathered metavolcanic rock. Materials of the Santiago Peak Volcanics are
expected to be moderate to difficult to excavate. Based on our subsurface evaluation,
metavolcanic rock, which likely will require the use of breakout equipment or blasting,
should be anticipated at relatively shallow depths (borings B-23 and B-24 encountered re-
fusal at approximately 3 feet). It is expected that much of the rock can be classified as
hard to very hard. Excavations in the unit may expose adverse jointing and fracture pat-
terns that may necessitate the use of shoring.
6.3. Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered during our subsurface exploration in borings B-35 and B-36
along Camino Vida Roble at depths of approximately 8.75 feet and 10.5 feet bgs, respectively.
Shallower groundwater may be encountered along this portion of the alignment. Groundwater
is not expected to be encountered along the majority of other portions of the pipeline align-
ment, and is not expected to be a constraint to construction. It should be noted that
groundwater levels could fluctuate due to seasonal variations, irrigation, and other factors.
7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The following sections describe potential geologic hazards at the site, including faulting and
seismicity, landsliding, and liquefaction.
4611001R Paisons - Carlsbad Pipdines.doc
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
7.1. Faulting and Seismicity
The project area is considered to be seismically active, as is most of southern California.
Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps and stereoscopic aerial photographs, as
well as on our geologic field mapping, the subject alignments are not underlain by known ac-
tive or potentially active faults (i.e., faults that exhibit evidence of ground displacement in the
last 11,000 years and 2,000,000 years, respectively) (see Figure 6). According to the 1997
Uniform Building Code (UBC), the proposed project alignments are in Seismic Zone 4.
In general, hazards associated with seismic activity include; strong ground motion, ground
surface rupture, liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, and tsunamis. These hazards
are discussed in the following sections.
7.1.1. Strong Ground Motion
Based on a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the Western United States, is-
sued by the United States Geological Survey (1997), the project site is located in a zone
where the horizontal peak ground acceleration having a 10 percent probability of exceed-
ance in 50 years is 0.27g (27 percent of the acceleration of gravity). This ground
acceleration approximately corresponds to the ground acceleration that has a 10 percent
probability of being exceeded in 100 years. The requirements of the governing jurisdic-
tions and the practices of the Structural Engineers Association should be considered in the
design of structures. The closest mapped active fault (approximately 6 miles) to the sub-
ject alignments is the Rose Canyon fault, which could produce a maximum moment
magnitude 6.9 earthquake (California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG], 1998).
7.1.2. Surface Rupture
Ground surface rupture due to faulting is considered unlikely in the project area, as
there are no known underlying active faults. Lurching or cracking of the ground surface
as a result of nearby or distant seismic events is also considered unlikely.
4611001R Parsons - Carlsbad Pipelines.doc
Parsons
Industrial Park Pipelines Project
June 7, 2002
Project No. 104611001
7.2. Landsliding
No landslides or indications of deep-seated landsliding were noted along the proposed
alignments during our field exploration or our review of available geologic literature, topo-
graphic maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs. The potential for significant large-scale
slope instability along the alignments is considered low.
7.3. Liquefaction
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earth-
quakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils with clay contents of
less than 20 percent, and saturated by a relatively shallow groundwater table, are most sus-
ceptible to liquefaction. Based on the relatively dense nature of the subsurface materials
encountered in our exploratory borings, and/or the lack of a shallow groundwater table, it is
our opinion that the potential for liquefaction at the site is very low.
8. UBC SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Table 1 includes the seismic design parameters for the site as defined in the 1997 edition of the
UBC (International Conference of Building Officials [ICBO], 1997).
Table 1 - Seismic Design Parameters
Parameter
Seismic Zone Factor, Z
Soil Profile Type
Seismic Coefficient Ca
Seismic Coefficient Cv
Near-Source Factor, Na
Near-Source Factor, Nv
Seismic Source Type
Value
0.40
Sc
QAQNa
Q.56NV
1.0
1.0
B
1997 UBC Reference
Table 16 -I
Table 16 -J
Table 16 -Q
Table 16 -R
Table 16 -S
Table 16 -T
Table 16 -U
9. CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the referenced background data and subsurface evaluation, it is our
opinion that the proposed Industrial Park Pipelines Project is feasible from a geotechnical stand-
point, provided the conclusions and recommendations in this report are considered during the
4611001R Parsons - Carlsbad Pipelines.doc
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
design and construction of the project. In our opinion, the following will be significant in the
planning, design, and construction of the proposed project:
• The study alignment is underlain by artificial fill, materials of the Santiago Formation, Point
Loma Formation, and metavolcanic rock.
• Subsurface conditions along the alignment should not preclude cut-and-cover construction
methods. In general, portions of the alignment underlain by fill or materials of the Santiago
and Point Loma Formations are likely to be rippable with standard heavy-duty excavation
equipment. Isolated cobble lenses or concretions, however, may be encountered during
trenching operations within the Santiago and Point Loma Formations. Subsurface materials
along portions of the alignment underlain by metavolcanic rock are likely to be rippable with
standard heavy-duty excavation equipment to only relatively shallow depths (i.e., less than
5 feet). Metavolcanic rock materials below depths of approximately 5 feet are likely to re-
quire breaking equipment or blasting. Along some portions of the alignment, blasting may be
necessary at the surface. In addition, excavations in metavolcanic rock may generate oversize
materials that may not be suitable for use as backfill. Blasting should be performed by a li-
censed and qualified contractor and conducted in accordance with the California Health and
Safety Code and the requirements of the local jurisdictions.
• Joints and fractures observed in the Santiago Peak Volcanics during our reconnaissance and
subsurface evaluation were generally random in orientation. Measured joint and fracture at-
titudes were in most cases neutral to the proposed trench alignment and are not anticipated to
result in adverse trenching conditions. It is likely, however, that limited areas of adverse
jointing and fracturing may be encountered during trench excavation which would necessi-
tate the use of shoring or other methods of stabilization.
• In general, soil materials generated from the trench excavations should be suitable for reuse
as backfill for the trench zone. However, much of the excavation along portions of the align-
ment underlain by metavolcanic rock is anticipated to generate significant quantities of rock
clasts greater than 3 inches in dimension. Disposal or crushing of this material should be an-
ticipated. Deleterious material, such as trash, was generally not encountered during our
reconnaissance or subsurface exploration.
• A shallow groundwater table is not anticipated along the majority of the alignment during
construction. Groundwater may, however, be encountered on Camino Vida Roble. The neces-
sity for dewatering may be expected. In addition, some areas of seepage may be encountered
but they are not likely to require dewatering measures. It should be noted, however, that
seeps will vary seasonally depending on local rainfall.
• Based on minimum resistivity, chloride, and sulfate test results and Caltrans criteria, portions of
the alignment warrant a corrosive site classification.
4611001R Parcom - Carlsbad Pipelines.doc
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
10. RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of the project are based on the results of
the engineering analysis, and our understanding of the project. Should the proposed project plans
change, a supplemental geotechnical evaluation may be needed.
10.1. Earthwork
In general, earthwork should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented
in this report. The geotechnical consultant should be contacted for questions regarding the rec-
ommendations or guidelines presented herein. In addition, Typical Earthwork Guidelines for
the project are included as Appendix C. In the event of a conflict in recommendations, the rec-
ommendations presented in the text of this report supersede those in Appendix C.
10.1.1. Site Preparation
Site preparation activities should begin by clearing and removing existing pavement, as
appropriate, from the project alignment areas and disposing of it off site. Underground
utilities located within the proposed limits of the construction should be protected in
place or removed, abandoned, capped off, or relocated so as not to interfere with earth-
work operations.
10.1.2. Temporary Excavations and Shoring
We recommend that trenches and excavations be designed and constructed in accordance
with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. These regula-
tions provide trench sloping and shoring design parameters for trenches up to 20 feet deep
based on a description of the soil types encountered. Trenches over 20 feet deep should be
designed by the Contractor's engineer based on site-specific geotechnical analyses. For
planning purposes, we recommend that the following OSHA soil classifications be used;
Fill Type C
Santiago Formation Type B
Point Loma Formation Type B
Santiago Peak Volcanics Type B
4611001R Parsons - Carlsbad Pipdines.doc
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
Upon making the excavations, the soil classifications and excavation performance
should be confirmed in the field by the geotechnical consultant in accordance with the
OSHA regulations.
Temporary excavations should be constructed in accordance with OSHA recommenda-
tions. For trench or other excavations, OSHA requirements regarding personnel safety
should be met by laying back the slopes no steeper than 1.5:1 for fill and 1:1 for the
Point Loma and Santiago Formations and Santiago Peak Volcanics. Temporary excava-
tions that encounter seepage may be stabilized by placing sandbags or gravel along the
base of the seepage zone. Excavations encountering seepage should be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. As an alternative to laying back the side walls, the excavations may
be shored or braced. Temporary earth retaining systems will be subjected to lateral loads
resulting from earth pressures. Shoring systems for excavations may be designed using
the lateral earth pressure parameters indicated on Figure 7.
The design of the earth pressure diagram assumes that spoils from the excavation or
other surcharge loads will not be placed above the excavation within a 1:1 plane ex-
tending up and back from the excavation. If spoil piles are placed closer than this to the
braced excavation, the resulting surcharge loads should be considered in the bracing de-
sign. In addition, groundwater pressures and hydrostatic uplift pressures at the base of
the excavations should be considered in shoring design. We recommend that an experi-
enced structural engineer design the shoring systems. The shoring parameters presented
in this report should be considered as guidelines.
We recommend that completed sections of excavated areas be backfilled as soon as
practicable. The stability of the excavations decreases over time as the soil dries and
weathers. On-site safety of personnel is the responsibility of the contractor.
10.1.3. Excavation Characteristics
Our evaluation of the excavation characteristics of the on-site materials is based on the re-
sults of our exploratory borings, our site observations, and our experience with similar
materials. Our borings at the site encountered fill soils and formational materials of the
V//wtf Moore
46llOOmParsons-CarlsbadPipdincs.doc 10
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
Santiago Formation, Point Loma Formation, and Santiago Peak Volcanics (Figures 2
through 5). In our opinion, excavation of the fill, Santiago Formation, and Point Loma
Formation materials to the proposed depths of pipe placement for pipeline construction
can generally be performed with conventional equipment. Isolated cobbles or concretions
may, however, necessitate the use of breakout equipment. Excavations may encounter
rock that may be difficult to rip or dig along Glasgow Avenue in the Santiago Peak Vol-
canics. Excavation of metavolcanic rock is likely to be difficult below relatively shallow
depths and the use of rock breaking equipment or blasting should be anticipated.
10.2. Pressure Reducing Station
The proposed pressure reducing station walls may be designed for lateral pressures repre-
sented by the pressure diagram on Figure 8. It is essential that the exterior of the pressure
reducing station be carefully waterproofed. All horizontal and vertical construction joints
should be waterproofed in accordance with the recommendations of the project civil engi-
neer. All horizontal and vertical construction joints should have water stops appropriately
designed by the project civil engineer and/or architect.
For pipe wall penetrations into the station, standard "water-tight" penetration design should
be utilized. To minimize relative pipe to wall differential settlement, which could cause pipe
shearing, we recommend that a pipe joint be located close to the exterior of the wall. The
type of joint should be such that minor relative movement can be accommodated without
distress.
Fine-grained materials (silts and clays) should not be used for structural backfill. Oversize
material, rocks or hard lumps greater than 6 inches in dimension, should not be used in
compacted fills or backfills. Backfill should be placed as recommended herein.
10.3. Pipe Bedding and Modulus of Soil Reaction (E*)
It is our recommendation that the new pipeline, where constructed in open excavations, be
supported on 4 or more inches of granular bedding material. Granular pipe bedding should
be provided to distribute vertical loads around the pipe. Bedding material and compaction re-
Mlnuo
46U001R Parsons- Carlsbad Pipelines.doc \\ " **
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
quirements should be in accordance with this report, and the Standard Specifications for Pub-
lic Works Construction (Public Works Standards, Inc., 2000), known as the "Greenbook."
Section 306-1.2.1 in the Greenbook defines bedding requirements for the installation of pipe.
The trench excavation should provide 6 to 8 inches of lateral clearance between the trench
wall and the side of the pipe. Pipe bedding typically consists of graded aggregate. The pipe
bedding and pipe zone backfill should conform to the following gradation limits:
Sieve Sizes
r
3/4"
No. 4
No. 30
No. 200
Percentage Passing Sieves
100%
90-100%
50-95%
25-45%
3-9%
Pipe bedding and pipe zone backfill should have a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or greater,
and be placed around the sides and top of the pipe. In addition, the pipe zone backfill should
extend 1 foot or more above the top of the pipe.
The modulus of soil reaction (E") is used to characterize the stiffness of soil backfill placed
at the sides of buried flexible pipes for the purpose of evaluating deflection caused by the
weight of the backfill over the pipe. A soil reaction modulus of 1,000 pounds per square inch
(psi) may be used for a 0- to 5-foot deep excavation backfilled with granular soil compacted to
90 percent based on ASTM D1557-00. A soil reaction modulus of 1,400 psi may be used for
trenches 5 to 10 feet deep, and a soil reaction modulus of 1,600 psi may be used for trenches
10 to 15 feet deep.
10.4. Thrust Blocks
Thrust blocks should be designed for the support of pipelines in accordance with the pres-
sure diagram on Figure 9. Thrust block excavations should be backfilled with compacted
granular material in accordance with the recommendations included in Section 10.6.
Moore
461 lOOlRPanons- Carlsbad Pipe1ines.doc J2
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
10.5. Import Soil
We recommend that import material, if any, consist of granular, very low to low expansive
material (Uniform Building Code Expansion Index of 50 or less). The import material should
have an organic content of less than 3 percent by volume, not contain rocks or lumps over
3 inches in largest dimension, and not more than 40 percent larger than 1-1/2 inches. The
import material should also have low corrosion potential (minimum resistivity greater than
1,000 ohm-cm, and soluble sulfate content of less than 0.2 percent). Import material should
be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant at the borrow site for its suitability as fill prior
to importation to the project site.
10.6. Trench Backfill
The soils encountered in the borings should be generally suitable for reuse as backfill of the
trench zone provided they are free of organic material (less than 3 percent by volume), con-
taminated material, clay lumps, debris, and rocks greater than 3 inches in diameter. Rocks
greater than 1-1/2 inches in diameter should not exceed 40 percent of the backfill volume.
Soils classified as silts or clays should not be used for backfill material in the pipe zone.
Backfill should be moisture conditioned to within approximately 2 percent of the optimum
moisture content, placed, and compacted to 90 or more percent of the specified maximum
laboratory dry density, as evaluated by ASTM D1557-00. Wet soils, if encountered, should
be moisture conditioned to within approximately 2 percent of optimum prior to their place-
ment as backfill. Backfill lift thickness will be dependent upon the type of compaction
equipment utilized. Backfill should generally be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches
in loose thickness. Pavement subgrade, base, and asphalt concrete should be compacted to
95 percent or more relative compaction. Special care should be exercised to avoid damaging
the pipes during compaction of the backfill.
10.7. Soil Corrosivity
Laboratory testing was performed on samples of the on-site soils to evaluate pH and mini-
mum electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pH and minimum
Moore
461100lRparsons-CarlsbadPipe[ines.tloc J3 ' "
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
electrical resistivity tests were performed in accordance with California Test Method 643,
and the sulfate and chloride tests were performed in accordance with California Test Meth-
ods 416 and 422, respectively. These laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B.
The results of the corrosivity testing indicated that the minimum electrical resistivity of the
samples tested ranged from approximately 340 to 1,100 ohm-cm. The soil pH of the samples
ranged from approximately 6.0 to 8.1, which is considered slightly acidic to slightly alka-
line. The chloride content of the tested samples was up to approximately 580 ppm, which is
considered extremely corrosive to unprotected ferrous materials. Based on the minimum re-
sistivity, sulfate, and chloride test results and California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) criteria, portions of the alignment warrant a corrosive site classification, which is
defined as soil with more than 500 ppm chlorides, more than 0.20 percent sulfates, or mini-
mum resistivity less than 1,000 ohm-cm. Accordingly, if corrosion-susceptible improvements
are planned, it may be warranted to consult a corrosion engineer for the project.
10.8. Concrete
Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of soluble sulfates can
be subject to chemical deterioration. Based on the UBC criteria (UBC, 1997), the potential
for sulfate attack is negligible for water-soluble sulfate contents in soil ranging from 0.00 to
0.10 percent by weight, and moderate for water-soluble sulfate contents ranging from 0.10 to
0.20 percent by weight. The potential for sulfate attack is severe for water-soluble sulfate
contents ranging from 0.20 to 2.00 percent by weight and very severe for water-soluble sulfate
contents over 2.00 percent by weight. Laboratory testing indicated sulfate contents of the sam-
ples tested of up to approximately 0.25 percent, which is considered a severe potential for
sulfate attack. Based on the results of the sulfate tests and the potential for variable conditions
at the site, we recommend that Type V cement be used for concrete structures in contact with
soil. The concrete should have a water-cement ratio no greater than 0.45 by weight for normal-
weight aggregate concrete, a slump no greater than 4 inches, and a 28-day compressive
strength of 4,500 psi or more.
WUOOlRPanons-CartsbadPipelinesdoc J4
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
10.9. Pre-Construction Conference
We recommend that a pre-construction conference be held. Owner representatives, the civil
engineer, geotechnical consultant, and contractor should be in attendance to discuss the
plans and the project.
10.10. Construction Observation
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on analysis of ob-
served conditions encountered in our exploratory borings. If conditions are found to vary
from those described in this report, the geotechnical consultant should be notified and addi-
tional recommendations will be provided upon request. The project geotechnical consultant
should review the final project drawings and specifications prior to the commencement of
construction. The geotechnical consultant should perform appropriate observation and test-
ing services during construction operations.
The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Ninyo &
Moore will provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. In the
event that it is decided not to utilize the services of Ninyo & Moore during construction, we
request that the selected consultant provide the client with a letter (with a copy to Ninyo &
Moore) indicating that they fully understand Ninyo & Moore's recommendations, and that
they are in full agreement with the design parameters and recommendations contained in this
report. Construction of proposed improvements should be performed by qualified subcon-
tractors utilizing appropriate techniques and construction materials.
11. LIMITATIONS
The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this geotechnical
report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care
exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty,
expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions pre-
sented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition.
Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered
4611001R Pareons - Carlsbad Pipelines.doc ~[ 5
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
during construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through addi-
tional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request.
Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the
project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, or the pres-
ence of hazardous materials.
This document is intended to 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. Ninyo & Moore
should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the
content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.
This report is intended for design purposes only and may not provide sufficient data to prepare
an accurate bid by some contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical con-
sultant perform an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The
independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports
prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory
testing.
Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site
conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encoun-
tered, our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be
provided upon request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with
time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In
addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur
due to government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, there-
fore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no
control.
This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclu-
sions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said
parties' sole risk.
46H001RParoms-CarlsbadPipelmes.doc
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
12. SELECTED REFERENCES
Public Works Standards, Inc., 2000, "Greenbook," Standard Specifications for Public Works Con-
struction.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1986, Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas
Quadrangle, San Diego County, California: Open File Report 86-8.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern
Part of San Diego County, California: Open File Report 96-02.
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-
Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference of
Building Officials.
County of San Diego, 1967, Topographic Survey Map, Sheet 346-1683, Scale 1"=200'.
County of San Diego, 1975, Orthotopographic Survey Map, Sheet 346-1677, Scale 1"=200'.
County of San Diego, 1975, Orthotopographic Survey Map, Sheet 350-1677, Scale 1"=200'.
County of San Diego, 1975, Orthotopographic Survey Map, Sheet 354-1677, Scale 1"=200'.
County of San Diego, 1975, Orthotopographic Survey Map, Sheet 354-1683, Scale 1"=200'.
County of San Diego, 1975, Orthotopographic Survey Map, Sheet 366-1677, Scale 1"=200'.
County of San Diego, 1976, Orthotopographic Survey Map, Sheet 346-1683, Scale 1"=200'.
County of San Diego, 1976, Orthotopographic Survey Map, Sheet 350-1683, Scale 1"=200'.
County of San Diego, 1979, Orthotopographic Survey Map, Sheet 350-1689, Scale 1"=200'.
International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Uniform Building Code: Whittier,
California,
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of
Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000.
Norris, R.M., and Webb, R.W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.
United States Geological Survey, 1968 (photo-revised 1975), San Luis Rey Quadrangle, Califor-
nia, San Diego County, 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic): Scale 1:24,000.
United States Geological Survey, 1968 (photo-revised 1975), Encinitas Quadrangle, California,
San Diego County, 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic): Scale 1:24,000.
United States Geological Survey, 1997, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, World Wide
Web, http://geohazards.cr.usgs.gov/eq.
461IOOIR Pareons - Carlsbad Pipelines-doc 1 ~J
Parsons
Industrial Park Pipelines Project
June 7, 2002
Project No. 104611001
Source
USDA
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Date Flight Numbers
4-11-53 AXN-8M 21,70-72, & 103
Scale
1:20,000
4611001R Parsons - Carlsbad Pipe1ines.doc 18
4000 0 4000 8000
Approximate Scale in Feet
LEGEND
— Pipeline Alignment
E \REFERENCE: 2001 THOMAS GUIDE FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY, STREET GUIDE AND DIRECTORY
N
A
SITE LOCATION MAP
INDUSTRIAL PARK
PIPELINE PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.
104611001
DATE
6/02 X FIGURE A
1 J
46nooid
Qaf
Tsa
LEGEND
Approximate location of exploratory boring
Fill
Santiago Formation
Approximate location of geologic contact,
queried where questionable
2 I Diameter of proposed pipeline
NA
NOT TO SCALE
rlEFERENCE: "ZONE 660 PALOMAR OAKS INDUSTRIAL PARK RECYCLED WATER
PIPELINES", CITY OF CARLSBAD, 12-27-2001.
' GEOTECHNICAL MAP ^
INDUSTRIAL PARK
PIPELINE PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
t PROJECT NO.DATE
104611001 6/02 3CTD.
46110013
PROPOSED PRESSURE
REDUCING STATION
CARLSBAD
RESEARCH
CENTER
LEGEND
Approximate location of exploratory boring
Fill
Santiago Formation
Point Loma Formation
Approximate location of geologic contact,
queried where questionable
Diameter of proposed pipeline
N
A
PALOMAR AiPORT
\r
NOT TO SCALE
REFERENCE: 'CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER RECYCLED WATERPIPELINES", CITY OF CARLSBAD, 12-27-2001.
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
INDUSTRIAL PARK
PIPELINE PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIAtPROJECT NO.
104611001
DATE
6/02
}f FIGURE A
A 3 J
ai
o
i
o
¥&>iT,1"uj -^
<*•-.UJj
tcE
r
Q.
<HNICAL M,OLUbLU
CD
i^
j
TRIAL PARKCO
Q
2 sJE PROJECT^_
LUD_
Q_
<D, CALIFORNICO
CO
DC
O
^
r 1
LU
CC
O
LJ_
v^y
r1
LL1
feQ
O
HOLLJ
~3
c\
CO
T—oo
^_
COO •<*X 0Q.
Xi—^
qiooitgt-
4611001C
LEGEND
B-37 Approximate location of exploratory boring
Qaf *»
I S3 Santiago Formation
**• Approximate location of geologic contact,
. _ S queried where questionable
2_ I Diameter of proposed pipeline
N
A
NOT TO SCALE
REFERENCE 'CAMINO VIDA ROBLE RECYCLED WATER
PIPELINES', CITY OF CARLSBAD, 12-27-2001.
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
INDUSTRIAL PARK
PIPELINE PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE
104611001 6/02
-?,
^ y }sif •fd*.-> •*/ ^TtHABWll
f G^MCUVC1
scale
ty/nyo
FAULT LOCATION MAP
INDUSTRIAL PARK
PIPELINE PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
t PROJECT NO.
104611001
DATE
6/02
C
4 to*
27H psf
1 i=rjJ_l:=l_M~ IJ_|—
ASSUMPTIONS AND NOTES
1. 7m = 125 pcf
2. KA = 0.33
3. KP = 3.00
4. PP =375 psf
5. No groundwater
NOT TO SCALE
SHORING LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
WDUSTR1AL PARK
PPELJ^ PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALFORNIA
r PROJECT NO.
V 104611001
DATE "\
6/02 JX FIGURE A
7 )
-^
^
AT REST PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION
(NON-YIELDING VERTICAL WALLS)
125 psf 63 H psf
TRAFFIC STATIC
SURCHARGE PRESSURE
PRESSURE
(IF APPLICABLE)
ASSUMED CONDITIONS
V.
/*
1. At rest conditions kQ =0.50
2.
3. No groundwater
4. Lateral earth pressures act on all vertical exterior walls.
5. Additional pressures caused by structures must be added.
NOT TO SCALE
PRESSURE REDUCING STATION
EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM
tDUSTRIAL PARK
PPELJNE PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALFORNIA
PROJECT
1046TI001
DATE FIGURE
6/02
GROUND SURFACE
THRUST
BLOCK
d (VARIES)
D (VARIES)
PR
ASSUMPTIONS AND NOTES
1. Kp= 3.0
2. 7m= 125 pcf
3. No groundwater
4. P i =375d pcf
P 2 =3750 pcf
P R =188 (D2-d2) psf
/^THRUST BLOCK LATERAL EARTH PRESSURED
DIAGRAM
NDUSTRIAL PARK
PPEUNE PROJECT
V CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA J
f PROJECT NO.
V 104611001
DATE ^\f FIGURED
6/02 A 9 J
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
APPENDIX A
BORING LOG
Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples
Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods.
Bulk Samples
Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory excava-
tions. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing.
Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples
Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.
The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler
The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with 1-inch long, thin brass
rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into
the ground with the weight of a hammer of the drill rig in general accordance with ASTM
D 3550-84(1995). The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length
of the fall, the weight of the hammer or bar, and the number of blows per foot of driving are
presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled.
The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported
to the laboratory for testing.
4611001R Parsons - Carlsbad Pipelines-Rev.doc
U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES
COARSE-GRAINED SOILS(More than 1/2 of soil>No. 200 sieve size)w— 3 ~ ^-~.
O w N
W <3 •«
g ca >UJ ^ ai
Z c 'trt
<• « 02 « 8
<? § oItsu.
GRAVELS
(More than 1/2 of coarse
fraction
> No. 4 sieve size)
SANDS
(More than 1/2 of coarse
fraction
<No. 4 sieve size)
SILTS & CLAYS
Liquid Limit <50
SILTS & CLAYS
Liquid Limit >50
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GW
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
Pt
Well graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures little or no
fines
Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or
no fines
Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures
Clayey gravels, graveKsand-clay mixtures
Well graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines
Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines
Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures
Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures
inorganic silts and very tine sands, rock Hour, silty or
clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly
clays, sandy clays, silly clays, lean clays
Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity
Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous tine sandy or
silty soils, elastic silts
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays
Organic clays ot medium to high plasticity, organic silty
clays, organic silts
Peat and other highly organic soils
CLASSIFICATION CHART (Unified Soil Classification System)
CLASSIFICATION
BOULDERS
COBBLES
GRAVEL
Coarse
Fine
SAND
Coarse
Medium
Fine
SILT & CLAY
RANGE OF GRAIN SIZES
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
Above 12"
12" to 3"
3" to No.4
3" to 3/4"
3/4" to No. 4
No. 4 to No. 200
No. 4 to No. 10
No. 10 to No. 40
No. 40 to No. 200
Below No. 200
Grain Size in
Millimeters
Above 305
305 to 76.2
76.2 to 4.76
76.2to 19.1
19.1 to 4.76
4.76 to 0.074
4.76 to 2.00
2.00 to 0.420
0.420 to 0.074
Below 0.074
GRAIN SIZE CHART
*
X
ri 40-
Z
O
5
°- in.£.
/
/
/
CL
]/
WL/
/
CL
/
ML
/
*
/
.OL
/
/
/
CH
/
/
r
s/
/
MH & OH
0 10 2ft 30 40 SO 60 70 80 00 100
LIQUID LIMIT (LL). %
PLASTICITY CHART
U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
USCS ClassifiMiion Chart dot
X
0.UJQ
0
10-
,5-
?n
c
L
^*<;C
-
_
_
-
[
0JJ
-
0
c4)
Q
1
I
\
.
h
j
OO
LL
COs
XX/XX
• *9IM"
P"
LU01D
CO
O
V
I
rtL
€/
oQ.
f
CO
UJo
KO
F|7<<
oCD
S
CO
fej
zo
h- .< COy<j^coW3
5o
^ MBWDT
DATE DRILLED BORING NO. SYMBOL SAMPLES
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING
DRIVE WEIGHT DROP
SAMPLED BY LOGGED BY REVIEWED BY
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
Solid line denotes unit change.
Dashed line denotes material change.
Modified split-barrel drive sampler.
No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler.
Seepage.
Groundwater encountered during drilling.
Groundwater measured after drilling.
Sample retained by others.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT).
No recovery with a SPT.
Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered
in inches.
No recovery with Shelby tube sampler.
Bulk sample.
Continuous Push Sample.
The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the
boring.
BORING LOG
(%V* B^ EXPLANATION OF BORING LOG SYMBOLS
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
SYMSAMP Rev. 10/01 A-l
cr
X
UJ
0
5-
10-
in
&LJ
<
0
-
J
_
J
_
0JJ
•
0
1
o
11
j
ooLJ.
CO
o
27
80
95/11"
m m9v/T
-^
UJo:
w
O
9.7
13.8
153
TtLa
oLX
w
UJQ
D:Q
118.0
116.7
1147
fO
oCO
to
1:i
]
1
i
fcj
2O
h- .< CO
CO -j
o
SO
MaT
DATE DRILLED 04/29/02 BORING NO. B-l
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 6" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 6" thick.
FILL:
Grayish to olive brown, damp to moist, medium dense, clayey fine to medium SAND; trace
gravel.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Olive, grayish to reddish brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty fine- to medium-grained
SANDSTONE; local carbonate mineralization.
Olive gray, moist, weakly to moderately indurated, silty CLAYSTONE.
Total Depth =11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/29/02.
BORING LOG
(%V*^& INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
!%•% ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-l
I
CLLU
O
0
5-
10-
uu
*
<</
"3m
:
-
)1
1
1
O
~
I
-
j
Oou.
W
O
19
12
29
m m*v/T
ss
LUu:
D
W
O
12.7
16.5
13.4
mU
u.oQ.
1 i
g ^
KQ
1Be
116.6 :
105.5
110.7 i
f|7&
Q
— CO *0 W ^
o
1l:1 SM
1
Mfa
*
DATE DRILLED 04/29/02 BORING NO. B-2
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF l
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 5" thick. |
AGGREGATE BASE: AoDroximately 5" thick.
FILL:
Yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey silty fine to medium SAND; scattered
gravel.
Total Depth =11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/29/02.
BORING LOG
•%Mh fl% INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
tmB^ ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-2
13
X
0.UJQ
0
-
5-
10-
70 SAMPLES |!uCD
I
c0)
O
1 BLOWS/FOOT91/11"
92/9"
,\n MOISTURE (%)19.0
19.6
17.4 DRY DENSITY (PCF107.0
109.2
107.5 SYMBOL |I
1
3
(I
||
1
li CLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.Ninffo&Mp
DATE DRILLED 04/29/02 BORING NO.
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET
B-3
1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 5" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 6" thick.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Yellowish brown to light gray, moist, weakly cemented, fine-grained sandy SILTSTONE
to silty SANDSTONE; abundant iron-oxide staining.
Reddish brown and light gray to yellowish brown, moist, weakly cementedV silty fine-
grained SANDSTONE.
Total Depth =11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/29/02.
BORING LOG
!•••• Vm INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
!%•• v5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE
104611001 06/02
FIGURE
c-
I
a.UJa
0
5-
10-
70
Va
•*;
<
<t
—CD
1
-
1
•
i
>
ca;
O
!
1
i
jM
oou,
w
O
13
22
-
« «•v^T
a?
UJa:3
W
O
23.4
26.7
16.9
niu
LL
OD.
fc
W
UJ
O
fcO
...
95.1
98.4
112.3
fO'
oCO•?
w
*5^
ffl*frVr4
Wf
SoH<
Swjxxj
i
&j
^
zo
< wyd
^w
w^(O -*
o
^.r
w*T1
DATE DRILLED 04/29/02 BORING NO. B-4
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 1 40 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY JTK LOGGED BY JTK REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 4" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 4 thick.
FILL:
Grayish to olive brown (mottled), moist, loose to medium dense, clayey fine to medium
SAND; with chunks of siltstone.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Brown to grayish olive, moist, weakly cemented, clayey fine- to medium-grained
SANDSTONE; with some carbonate staining and shell fragments.
Total Depth = 11.0 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
BORING LOG
iff%V*Cfc INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
i%Bm «S CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-4
£-
I
CLUJ
O
0
5-
10-
(ju
»
<0
-
m
~
-
J
•>j
•3
c
Q
~
11
j
OoLL55
o
39
70
50/6"
M ••v/T
^LU
CCLD
«
O
17.9
16.8
19.0
ftLa
oQ-
f
W
III
O
£o
105.2
109.1
105.1
w
oCQ?
W
ff
V
1
J !
|
:|
iii
ti
2
O
< w9d^wCO "
o
. _.,
SM
MPTm
DATE DRILLED 04/29/02 BORING NO. B-5
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY Rl
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 4" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 12" thick.
FILL:
Yellowish to reddish brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND; scattered
gravel.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Light grayish brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty fine-grained SANDSTONE; local iron-
oxide staining.
Olive gray, moist, weakly indurated, clayey SILTSTONE; abundant iron-oxiHe staining.
Total Depth =11.0 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
BORING LOG
i(%Ml^% INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
tml% ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-5
"oJB
X
Q.
UJ
Q
0
5-SAMPLES 1<£
(
1
c
.>
Q
|BLOWS/FOOT20
61 MOISTURE (%)17.4
12.3 DRY DENSITY (PCF)103.8
108.0 SYMBOL |~,fl;
S$&
yfxl-f^XXx FICATION3.C.S.CO -J
O
SC
fiflnyo ffp
DATE DRILLED 05/13/02 BORING NO. B-6
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 6" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 12" thick.
FILL:
Light reddish brown, moist, medium dense, silty clayey SAND; scattered gravel.
Encountered a hard object and terminated drilling at 8'.
Total Depth = 8.0 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/1 3/02.
BORING LOG
•%Vt^& INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
imB^ ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-6
"oafQ.IllO
0
5-
10-
7(1 SAMPLES 1^
3CO
1
ca
Q
•BLOWS/FOOT17
20 MOISTURE (%)24.5 DRY DENSITY (PCF)93.9 SYMBOL |H
•XXJ
2SS FICATION3.C.S.W_;(0 ^5o
SC
/yfrry/7 /y\a
DATE DRILLED 05/13/02 BORING NO. B-7
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximatelv 12" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximatelv 15" thick.
!
FILL:
Olive to dark grayish brown, moist, medium dense, silty clayey fine to medium SAND;
scattered gravel and pieces of asphalt.
Light grayish to yellowish brown.
.Refusal on hard object encountered while drilling at 8*.
Total Depth = 8.0 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/13/02.
BORING LOG
•%•* ^& INDUSTRIAL PARK. PIPELINE PROJECT
imB^ mS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-7
"o
£
X
CLUJQ
0
-
5-
10-
?ft SAMPLES!JC
DCD
03
Q
|BLOWS/FOOT87
82
50/5"MOISTURE {%)23.6
23.7 DRY DENSITY (PCF)100.7
100.4 SYMBOL |X&m>4'•*£"•%K CLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DATE DRILLED 05/13/02
GROUND ELEVATION
BORING NO.
SHEET
B-8
1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY
30"
NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 5
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 10"
1 thick.
thick.
POINT LOMA FORMATION:
Olive to yellowish and grayish brown, moist, weakly to moderately indurated, silty
CLAYSTONE to clayey SILTSTONE; local manganese-oxide and iron-oxide
mineralization.
Total Depth =11.0 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/13/02.
tyinya&tfpwt*BORING LOG
INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO.
104611001
DATE
06/02
FIGURE
A-8
TE
X
Q.UJ
Q
0
5-
10-
nu
^*<
0
-
r
-
3JJ
I
0
c0)
D
"
I
|
-
J
1-OOU-55
g
50/5-1 2"
50/5"
50/4"
m. m +MST
#
UJo:D
</>
O
19.2
20.1
22.0
74•1
oQ.i i
a J
aQ
1R
102.8
97.4
102.3
fff&
Z
O
5 < W
~ CO ^J0 W ^
o
I1
: SM
I
^^QJ
DATE DRILLED 04/29/02 BORING NO. B-9
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF l
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY JTK LOGGED BY JTK REVIEWED BY Rl
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 4" thick.
FILL:
Light brown to brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND.
POINT LOMA FORMATION:
Brown with reddish brown, damp to moist, weakly indurated, clayey SILTSTONE; black
staining.
Olive green; scattered clay.
Moderately cemented.
Total Depth =10.8 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/29/02.
BORING LOG
•'•^••m INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
Aim ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-9
C-
X
D.Ill
D
0
5-
7fl
C/u
*:
<
(/
3
h
1
)
j
:
<U
o
-1I
1
j
oou.55
O
50/6"
50/6"
50/4"
m m£v/T
#
UJcr^
w
o
22.0
21.4
74•7
oD.
1 1
§ 8
KQ
•
1
' '
103.0
101.2
fO&
zo
5 §»3 y o> ^ w
w^3 W ^
5o
11
i SM
|
^^Q^
DATE DRILLED 04/29/02 BORING NO. B-10
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET l OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY JTK LOGGED BY JTK REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 4" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 12" thick.
FILL:
Light brown to brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Reddish brown to brown to grayish olive green, damp to moist, weakly indurated, clayey
SILTSTONE.
Black and iron-oxide staining; rootcasts.
Reddish brown; clay seams.
Total Depth -10.9 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/29/02.
BORING LOG
L V%VA^% INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECTl%B% «3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO, DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A- 10
c-
X
£LLLJQ
5-
10-
7ft
ou
»
<0
1
1
"
9uJ
9
c
O
1
^
j
oou.w
g
59
87
50/5"
m m*v/7
3"
UJa:D
(O
O
24.4
24.1
21.0
M«/
2
i S§ ^
o:a
:&
97.2
99.9
104.4
fff&
ZO
J 1- -> 5»3 y o
> U-cfl
w^1 W ^5o
1
Mi«i SM
.
i
j^A^*
DATE DRILLED 04/29/02 BORING NO. B-l 1
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF l
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. {Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY JTK LOGGED BY JTK REVIEWED BY Rl
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
•\ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 3" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 10" thick.
FILL:
Reddish brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND; scattered clay.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Grayish olive green, damp to moist, weakly cemented, clayey SILTSTONE; with zones of
reddish yellowish brown clay and silt.
Some iron oxide staining; scattered clay.
With black and iron oxide staining.
Total Depth- 10.9 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/29/02.
BORING LOG
•\|Mh(% INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT!%•% ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A- 11
"5
I
D-111Q
0
•
10-
0LJ
^
<o
"5LLJ
-
~0
1
3JJ
1
cto
Q
'
1
_
|
J
OOu.w
g
20
60
83/11"
m m Jv/7
^UJaD
M
O
16.4
21.0
20.0
mU
oCL
f
W
UJa
crD
108.3
104.2
105.1
fjJ6
oCO•?
«
f3
Ilx
"5r
1
fcj
ZO
< CO96"-cocol-CO3
o
SM
CL
VtPT*
DATE DRILLED 04/29/02 BORING NO. B-12
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY JTK LOGGED BY JTK REVIEWED BY Rl
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 4" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 12" thick.
FILL:
Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND.
Grayish olive green (mottled), moist, stiff to very stiff, sandy CLAY; scattered gravel; with
rootlets.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Grayish green to olive green, damp to moist, weakly indurated, CLAYSTONE; some sand
infills.
Reddish brown zones; moderately indurated.
Total Depth =11. 4 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/29/02.
BORING LOG
•%V*^& INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
I«BM ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A- 12
"55
X
Q.LUO
0
5-
10-
(/u
*
<
0
"5
|
J
3J
1
c
.>
Q
1
|
A
l-OOu.
«
O
57
91/9"
50/5"
m. wJv/T
£
UJo:D
W
O
25.6
25.2
22.8
74•j
oQ.
i ii ^
£o
11?Pi
lr
W
II
94.6 II
97.6 !!
I
100.6 I!
II
m&
zo
J 1- .3 <W3 y o
- W Ij0 W -J
o
•1
1 sc
ij
1
iii
j^Af]
J
DATE DRILLED 04/30/02 BORING NO. B-13
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET l OF I
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY JTK LOGGED BY JTK REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 4" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 8" thick.
FILL:
Olive brown, moist, medium dense, clayey fine SAND; scattered gravel.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Olive to grayish brown, moist, weakly indurated, clayey SILTSTONE; abundant iron-oxide
staining.
Moderate induration; abundant tight fractures.
Local manganese-oxide staining.
Total Depth =11.0 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
BORING LOG
(%•* gfc INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
|mA% Vfi CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO- DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-13
c~<uU
X
tUJQ
0
5-
1
J
-
10-
2(1 SAMPLES I3m
1
-
-
c0)
Q1-BLOWS/FOOT42
28 MOISTURE (%)21.1
18.9
23.8 DRY DENSITY (PCF)98.4
106.9
97.5 SYMBOL |id,-'!llr
j?P5%&&
f,
^FICATION3.C.S.CO _:05 -J
O
SM
SC
CL
DATE DRILLED 04/30/02 BORING NO.
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET
B-14
1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. {Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 5" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Aooroximatelv 7" thick.
FILL;
Yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND.
Olive to grayish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey fine to medium SAND; scattered
gravel.
Olive and grayish brown, moist, hard, fine to medium sandy CLAY; scattered gravel.
Total Depth =11. 5 feet
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/30/02.
Minuo &yy\jn WE BORING LOG
INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECTCARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE
104611001 06/02
FIGURE
A-14
"S
z
Q.
Q
0
5-
10-
0u
*
<
0
"5UJ
i
•
i
-\-
0JJ
0
1
Q
|
1
-
J
OOu_
w
1
28
22
•
A ».*v/7
#mo:
D
CO
O
24.0
28.3
21.1
TtLa
oO-fw
tilD
KQ
101.3
92.8
105.9
to
oCD
•?
W
1i:t:f:J|Ma:J!ttsi:
^
1i
1
fcj
"Z.oh- .< wod"-coW3
5o
l_
CL
SC
MPT
DATE DRILLED 05/13/02 BORING NO. B-15
GROUND ELEVATION Existing grade SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. {Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 5" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 15" thick.
FILL:
Gray to dark brown, moist, hard, sandy CLAY with scattered gravel.
Scattered rootlets.
Grayish light reddish~brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.
Total Depth =11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/13/02.
BORING LOG
•%V* ^& INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
imBv ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A- 15
"oi
FCLLU
Q
0
.
-
10-
70
0u
•
<&
"5
1
1
-
5JJ
s
•>
c0)
O
|
1
-
J
1-OOLJ.
«
o
34
28
49
m m9v/T
^UJKID
(O
O
22.0
23.8
18.9
7£•7
oQ.
PW
LIJ
Q
£Q
92.2
100.0
106.0
fH<!
om^
w
•:«;=f
a1*:iilSii
w£i%\
^i
zo1- .< w06
"-co"-?0)=>5o
SC
CL
VtPTm
DATE DRILLED 05/13/02 BORING NO. B-16
GROUND ELEVATION Existing grade SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 5" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 15" thick.
FILL:
Olive to dark grayish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.
Light brown to gray, moist, hard, sandy CLAY.
Total Depth =11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/13/02.
BORING LOG
L VmttMvm INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
|ml% «5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 • 06/02 A-16
DEPTH (feet)0
5-
10-SAMPLES 13CQ
I
c<D
O
I
I BLOWS/FOOT43
43
69 MOISTURE (%)20.7
17.6
19.6 DRY DENSITY (PCF)102.8
106.4
106.8 SYMBOL |1
*FICAT1ON5.C.S.w ^
5o
1
CL
DATE DRILLED 04/30/02 BORING NO.
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET
B-17
1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 4" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 6" thick.
FILL:
Olive and dark grayish brown, moist, hard, sandy silty CLAY; scattered gravel.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Light gray, moist, weakly cemented, silty fine-grained SANDSTONE.
Reddish brown to gray; fine- to coarse-grained; scattered gravel-sized clasts; local interbeds
of fine-grained sandy siltstone.
Total Depth =11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/30/02.
Nlnuo &yy\!Qwe BORING LOG
INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE
104611001 06/02
FIGURE
A-17
"S
X
Q.UJQ
0
5-
70
(JLJ
»
<
0
£
5J
5
ca
Q
!
j
oou_
w
o
17
13
A ».*MST
g
LJK3
to
O
14.2
24.7
ftL
ft/
o
CL
H
CO
LJ
Q
KQ
102.4
95.6
fjJA
Om•?
CO
•
|
fcj
zo1- .
< COydU-WWS
o
SC
MPT
DATE DRILLED 05/01/02 BORING NO. B-18
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY Rl
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 6" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 6" thick.
FILL:
Olive to yellowish and grayish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey fine to medium
SAND; scattered gravel.
kRefiisal on hard object at 8'.
Total Depth = 8.0 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/01/02.
BORING LOG
i (%•* ^& INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
>«BM ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-18
"S
X
0.LU
O
0
•
-
5-
10-
70
Vu
^f<0
"5
I
--
3JJ
I
9
1
Q
i
•_
i
h-O
gw
O_j
31
37
. 50/3"
m *9v/7
^LUm
ID
to
O
20.7
18.5
16.1
7£
•/
Oo._£w
UJ
Q
o:Q
94.3
104.7
97.7
fO
oCD
•?
«
•Pi"
iiiii
:ii:i|i:E;
i|||.
III!
:!;!
fe.
zo
< wyd"-oiWHw -3
5o
; CL//tft1//tt1///1///
w«r"
DATE DRILLED 04/30/02 BORING NO. B-19
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 3" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 12" thick.
FILL:
Gray to dark grayish brown, moist, hard, sandy silty CLAY; scattered gravel.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Dark gray, moist, weakly cemented, fine-grained sandy SILTSTONE; local manganese-
oxide staining.
.Strongly cemented; trace shell fragments.
Total Depth =10.25 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/30/02.
BORING LOG
L •%•(•> gfc INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
imBv ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A- 19
0
FQ.LL1
O
0
"
5-
10-
9fl
C/U
*
<f
"5m
h
|
5JJ
•>
(U
Q
-
I
1
j
OOLL.
w
3
59
50/5"
50/6"
m » Jv/T
#
UJcc3
«
O
22.9
19.7
11.0
tila
oa.
1 i1 s&a
Ili-r
11
105.5 1
,J
|!
122.2 II
J0&
ZO
^ 5wa 96= u-oi; w -;} W 3
5o
1i'.-!
!!
1
1
^^o^
DATE DRILLED 05/13/02 BORING NO. B-20
GROUND ELEVATION Existing grade SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 5" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 10" thick.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Light gray to light olive brown, moist, weakly cemented, sandy SILTSTONE.
Abundant iron-oxide mineralization.
Pinkish gray; moderately cemented.
Total Depth = 10.5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/13/02.
BORING LOG
Lff%V*^i INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECTimB% ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-20
"5(D
X
Q.UJQ
5-
10-SAMPLES [cc
co
O BLOWS/FOOT1 57
j
<
64
50/4"MOISTURE (%)9.8
12.2 DRY DENSITY (PCF)"
119.6
115.9 SYMBOL |:?,::rfjit
lirSB-§
iiiilulu
111!!
iiii
i CLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.CL
Mnuo&Ms^
^M ^^f ft ^t ^^ ^^f ^^
DATE DRILLED 05/13/02 BORING NO. B-21
GROUND ELEVATION Existing grade SHEET I OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. {Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY Rl
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 5" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 18" thick.
FILL:
Brown, moist, very stiff, sandy CLAY.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Light gray, moist, moderately cemented, SILTSTONE; scattered roots.
Scattered tight iron-oxide stained fractures; weakly cemented.
Yellowish to olive gray, damp, weakly to moderately cemented, silty fine- to coarse-
grained SANDSTONE.
Total Depth = 11.0 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/13/02.
BORING LOG
tfl%W* ^& INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
IVflM ^3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-21
£I
'o.uQ
0
"
5-
0u
*
<
0
"5cu
"1
J
3JJ
0
c0)
Q
1
|
,
"
j
HOy8so—i
42
.
M m*v/T
^UJa
D
CO
O
l 15.4
19.8
17.8
fila
oai ii 5
aD
ir
H;
:i:
A
&•5*vVv1128 !K
103.3
108.6 ^
^
fO&
zo
^ 5uia yd
> U-<nW — :^ W31
5
O
I
Si
| SCS^P•Q*•&&A
\ SM
i
:
i __|r
M^*
DATE DRILLED 05/13/02 BORING NO. B-22
GROUND ELEVATION Existing grade SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. {Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RJ
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 4" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 13" thick.
FILL:
Olive to gray, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.
Yellowish to light reddish brown, moist, medium dense to dense, fine to medium silty
SAND.
Trace iron-oxide mineralization.
Interlayer of dark gray, moist, hard, sandy CLAY.
Total Depth =11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/13/02.
BORING LOG
(%*•* •% INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
|mB^ ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-22
"5
FO.LUO
0
70
(/u
•
<V
"5
34J
5
C
>
O
S
j
1-oou_
w
o
50/3"
m m±v/T
£
UJo;D
U
O
7£U
o
^f
CO
UJo
&o
w
omP
CO
fcj
2
O
H .gwyo
"• wCOc/53o
SM
w°T
DATE DRILLED 05/01/02 BORING NO. B-23
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF l
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY Rl
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
FILL:
Brown to light grayish brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND; abundant
large cobbles.
SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS:
Reddish to yellowish brown and gray, damp, slightly to moderately weathered,
MFTAVOT PANTP ROCK
(Refusal to penetration at 3'.
Total Depth = 3 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings on 05/01/02.
BORING LOG
V\Vt^& INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
|%BK ^S CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-23
"o
J£
I
Q.LUQ
0
?f)SAMPLES*L
3CD
03
a BLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)9.4 DRY DENSITY (PCF)105.7 SYMBOL |w^w:Ki:\M'&-t::S::yfix:^•ipHsH;rS;
...X.CLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S,flfinyo flfp
DATE DRILLED 05/01/02 BORING NO. B-24
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RJ
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 6" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 6" thick.
SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS:
Yellowish to reddish brown and gray, damp, slightly to moderately weathered,
iMETA VOLCANIC ROCK.
\Refusal to penetration at 3'.
Total Depth = 3 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/01/02.
BORING LOG
•m^»^m INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
!%BM vS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-24
"S
r
Q.
UJO
0
-
5-
10-
ou
•
<0
*
I
-\
0JJ
9
1
Q
1
-
j
OOU.
CO
O
50/5"
50/2"
50/3"
m m$v/T
#
UJa:D
(O
O
7.5
8.4
8.0
74
•/
oQ^
fto
UJ
Q
KQ
109.8
109.6
118.7
ro
offlsg
1
5:j
o
H .
gwy o^-cd«-?«I35o
VV^QT
DATE DRILLED 05/01/02 BORING NO. B-25
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET l OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY Rl
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Light brown, damp, weakly cemented, silty fine-grained SANDSTONE; iron-oxide
Micaceous; local manganese-oxide mineralization.
Total Depth =10.75 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings on 04/30/02.
BORING LOG
V%V*^& INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
!«AM »5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-25
X
Q.LUD
0
5-
10-
(/u
»
<(1
"5CO
J-1
-
31
1
c03
Q
1
-\
j
O
u.
w
O
46
49
60
« 04
WT
^o:D
CO
O
8.9
7.2
7£«J
U-O(X
fe \
S 8
ccQ
E-H
111.8 .
112.2
f!7&r
zO
a yd: "• oi; w-^3 CO 3
5O
11
SM
:
^^|]J
DATE DRILLED 04/30/02 BORING NO. B-26
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY Rl
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 4" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 8" thick.
FILL:
Yellowish to light brown, damp, dense, silty fine to medium SAND.
Moist.
Local layers of clayey sand with gravel.
Total Depth = 11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/30/02.
BORING LOG
(%•* 1^ INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
|mB% V3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-26
"S
I
0-nio
0
5-
10-
0u
•
<
0
-
1
-
•)
J
0
a
Q
j
n
j
1-
OOu.
3)
O
33
24
A •_*MIT
^UJaD
«
O
16.6
15.9
20.2
TtLO
oa.
g \
B ^
aQ
PEJrii
108.2
104.6
103.4 !
J0&
ZO
D <«
CO _;0 o> 3
O
1
fl5j-
SM
MD*Tm
DATE DRILLED 04/30/02 BORING NO. B-27
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 4" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 8" thick.
FILL:
Yellowish to grayish brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND.
Scattered clay pods and gravel.
Dense; abundant iron-oxide staining
Total Depth =11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/30/02.
BORING LOG
•%VA V& INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
imB% ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-27
c-
.S3
X
a.UJQ
0
5-
10-
QU
r
<
0
JC
cu
—
H
-
DJJ
1
c
O
-
-
JA
Oou_
w
O
54
73
50/6"
M «•M7
3?
UJo:
D
to
O
22.6
24.1
16.3
7£•7
i — -
o0.i i
g 8
a:Q
1
M"
97.9
99.5
ip
108.8 !:
m&r
zo
3 < CO
- CO0 W ^
o
J
:{M
! SM
.
!
y^oJ
DATE DRILLED 04/30/02 BORING NO. B-28
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF l
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 4" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 8" thick.
FILL:
Brown to olive and yellowish brown, moist, dense, clayey silty fine to medium SAND;
scattered gravel.
Very dense; scattered pieces of gypsum and layers of clayey silt.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Gray and yellowish to reddish brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty fine- to medium-
grained SANDSTONE; abundant iron-oxide mineralization.
Total Depth =10.5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/30/02.
BORING LOG
(%V*^& INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
t%l% JS CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-28
c-
X
Q.Ill
D
0
5-
10-
0u
•!
«0
-
-
1JJ
T
c<D
Q
-
J
1-OOu,
§O
—i
54
44
46
A m9MS7
£
UJo:^
w
O
16.3
13.4
16.3
7£
ft/
OQ.
g i
I ^
£Q
1
1
r
108.8 ii
106.7 |
109.6 |
fff&
zO
3 <«Q i2 OS "-«: w-^1 W^5o
J1
iii SM
;i
ii
||
y^fi^
DATE DRILLED 04/30/02 BORING NO. B-29
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF l
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 6" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 6" thick.
FILL:
Yellowish brown to light gray, moist, dense, silty fine to medium SAND; scattered gravel;
abundant iron-oxide staining.
Scattered clay pods.
Total Depth =11. 5 feet
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/30/02.
BORING LOG
[•%>*•% INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECTimBm ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-29
X
Q.
QJQ
0
5-
10-
uu
««!
<
^-1
CQ
~
-
)
>
Q
1
-
im
O
u.w
O
15
33
M »•y/T
^o:D
«
22.2
21.7
m«j
Li.
OQ.
£
CO
UJO
sD
100.4
95.5
fOr
uCD•^
W
•IlBli
;SSJ
1
1
i
B:^
zg
96^wi«_:CO3
5O
SC
CL
Mp"m
DATE DRILLED 04/30/02 BORING NO. B-30
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
\ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 3" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 6" thick.
FILL:
Yellowish to olive brown, moist, medium dense, clayey silty fine to medium SAND;
scattered gravel.
Olive brown to dark gray.
Dark grayish brown, moist, hard, fine to medium sandy CLAY; scattered gravel.
Total Depth =11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/30/02.
BORING LOG
,g%B(^gfc INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
hmll *5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-30
I
CL
UJQ
0
5-
10-
VLL
5<tr
^^CQ
1
~
-
c
Q
1
i-
j
ooU-
«
O
49
39
M «•v/T
3?
UJt£3
CO
18.7
20.0
18.4
filU
O£L_
t c
CO S1 *
£o
fe
r •"*
109,9
106.8
109.7
fjj&r
zo
> <w
- co^> w -1
^1o
1
SM
MD^"m
DATE DRILLED 05/01/02 BORING NO. B-31
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY Rl
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
\ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 3" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 9" thick.
FILL:
Olive to grayish brown, moist, dense, clayey silty fine to medium SAND; scattered gravel;
isolated clay pods.
Total Depth = 11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/01/02.
BORING LOG
k(%W* •% INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
ImX^ *S CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-31
"o
I
0-UlQ
0
5-
10-
20
0LJ
*
<0
-
_
_
_
1
-
0J
1
c
Q
-
1
j
Koou_
w
o
24
24
« «•v/7
3^
LJK
ZD
W
O
18.3
17.8
20.5
TILa
u.OQ.
f
W
UJQ
KQ
105.6
107.3
105.6
fa*
oCQ
?
>-
W
*lj
w$pft>**
*Hi55*>*/
*>**
/5**/*j*/*/*vv*
fc
2
O
V- .< «yo"-co
w D
o
1
SM
\ sc 1f^
X
X
X44
XXX
XXXXXXX
XX
MP7
DATE DRILLED 04/30/02 BORING NO. B-32
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 4" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Aoproximately 6" thick.
FILL:
Yellowish to olive brown, moist, medium dense, clayey silly fine to medium SAND;
scattered gravel.
Light olive to grayish brown, moist, dense, clayey fine to medium SAND.
Total Depth =11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 04/30/02.
BORING LOG
^•••h^V INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
iml^ ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-32
"S
^X
a.LUa
0
5-
10-
2(1 SAMPLES.ic
3CO
\
coi
Q
|BLOWS/FOOT88/11"
74
50/5"MOISTURE (%)18.3
17.5
13.6 DRY DENSITY (PCF)108.4
106.0
115.3 SYMBOL |FICATION3.C.S.W _:W -3
5O
Afl/iyo flfp
DATE DRILLED 05/13/02 BORING NO. B-33
GROUND ELEVATION Existing grade SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY Rl
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 6" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 7" thick.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Light gray, yellowish, and pinkish brown, moist, weakly to moderately cemented, silty
fine-grained SANDSTONE.
Trace of iron-oxide, manganese-oxide, and calcium carbonate.
Weakly cemented.
Total Depth =11.0 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/13/02.
BORING LOG
(%•* ^& INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
imBlk ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-33
I
0-Ul
Q
0
5-
10-
(/u
^^<<j
&
til
1-
1
'•
1
03
Q
-
1"
jm
OOu.
555o
48
32
-
« vtv/T
5
UJKD
(O
O
14.8
13.8
VL•J
o0-i I
s «
g
1
Eilt:
115.6
120.3
ftf&
zQ
) g w
™ CO r^'0 CO -J
o
1
!1
: SM
^^JQ
^
DATE DRILLED 05/01/02 BORING NO. B-34
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
xASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 3" thick. i
FILL:
Light brown to olive brown, moist, dense, silty fine SAND; scattered gravel; locally clayey]
Medium dense; fine- to medium-grained.
Total Depth =11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/01/02.
BORING LOG
(%BfBl^% INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
kmBjl V5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-34
K-Q.UJ
Q
0
5-
10-I saidwvsCD
.
_
-
H
:
c0)
o1
1-
oou.
1CD
32
17
^-.MOISTURE12.3
21.1
.xz.
19.7 DRY DENSITY (PCF)CLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.N
110.9
99.7
103.0
i.*|
SM
/y//*y<7 /y\o
DATE DRILLED 05/01/02 BORING NO. B-35
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF l
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 5" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 8" thick.
FILL:
Brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND; scattered gravel.
Dark olive to grayish brown; few pinhole pores.
Wet; fine-grained.
Total Depth = 11. 5 feet.
Groundwater encountered during drilling at approximately 8.75 feet.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/01/02.
BORING LOG
•%V*^% INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
im>K ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-35
X
Q.LU
Q
0
5-
10-
(fu
^
<((
*
CD
-
-
;
i
1
a
Q
1
-
i
1-
OOLL.
CO
O
30
20
.
M vlY/T
~
HIKD
W
O
20.2
19.5
2fr6
mu
LL.OQ.
fc
W
LLJQ
ao
102.5
98.2
106.4
90<r
oCO•5
(0
WV
ilflf'rrr'rrtrrr'rrtrrr
I
ISiSw?uo*t'V*'p
titJy
*??
^
W
rf
JHr
d^Wn
JHr
1i
&j
zo
< COHO"- «i
CO ™*^
o
sc
vv^Tm
DATE DRILLED 05/01/02 BORING NO. B-36
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF 1
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
FILL:
Dark brown to grayish brown, moist, medium dense, silty clayey fine to medium SAND;
scattered gravel; trace roots.
Fine-grained; few pieces of wood.
Wet.
Total Depth = 11. 5 feet
Groundwater encountered during drilling at approximately 10.5 feet.
Backfilled with cuttings on 05/01/02.
BORING LOG
ig%B%^% INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
t%BM ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-?fi
"S•£
X
Q.LU
Q
0
5-
10-
<ju
•
<
V
*
-
-
)JJ
:
c
>
Q
|
I
-
1
OOu.u5
O
33
29
85
m mMv/f
^li)a:D
W
O
19.1
21.1
20.4
ftL
U
oa.i i
u 3
D C
a:o
1•
•[it
104.0
99.3 !
104.4
^
fff&
ZO
J 1- .^ <wS OQ
> LJ-COCO _:0 W D
fO
J1
•ia
ii SM
.;
:
i
^^0^
DATE DRILLED 05/01/02 BORING NO. B-37
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF l
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hollow-Stem Auger
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto Trip Hammer) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY NAA LOGGED BY NAA REVIEWED BY RI
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
ASPHALT CONCRETE: Approximately 6" thick.
AGGREGATE BASE: Approximately 6" thick.
FILL:
Yellowish to reddish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey silty fine SAND; locally iron-
oxide stained.
Dark grayish brown.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
Yellowish and reddish brown, moist, weakly cemented, silty fine-grained SANDSTONE;
labundant iron-oxide staining.
Total Depth =11. 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled with cuttings and patched with asphalt concrete on 05/01/02.
BORING LOG
(%V*^& INDUSTRIAL PARK PIPELINE PROJECT
ima% ^3 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE
104611001 06/02 A-37
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Classification
Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488-00. Soil classifications are indicated
on the logs of the exploratory excavations in Appendix A.
In-PIace Moisture and Density Tests
The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the ex-
ploratory excavations were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937-00. The test
results are presented on the logs of the exploratory excavations in Appendix A.
Gradation Analysis
Gradation analysis tests were performed on a selected representative soil samples in general ac-
cordance with ASTM D 422-63(1998). The grain size distribution curves are shown on Figures
B-l through B-5. The test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance
with the Unified Soil Classification System.
Atterberg Limits
Tests were performed on a selected representative fine-grained soil sample to evaluate the liquid
limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318-95. These test
results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classi-
fication System. The test results and classifications are shown on Figure B-6.
Direct Shear Test
A direct shear test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample in general accordance with
ASTM D 3080-98 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of selected material. The sample
was inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are shown on
Figures B-7 through B-14.
Soii Corrosivitv Tests
Soil pH, and minimum resistivity tests were performed on representative samples in general ac-
cordance with California Test (CT) 643. The chloride content of selected samples was evaluated
in general accordance with CT 422. The sulfate content of selected samples was evaluated in
general accordance with CT 417. The test results are presented on Figure B-15.
4611001R Parsons - Carlsbad Pipelines-Rev.doc
1
GRAVEL
Coarse Fine
SAND
Coarse Medium Fine
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS
3" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2- 3/8' 4 8 16 30 50
O
Ul
£
UJ
in
UJ
g
Q.
r
P
I,
Ih
P
I,
I
(,
P
1f
rl
^•*
|
-~f -H >.-™-— <
FINES
Sitt
100 200
t— ,
100 10 1
Symbol
•
Hole No.
B-3
Depth
(ft)
1.0-5.0
Liquid
Limit
_
Plastic
Limit
-
A\
1 \
i
I
Clay
HYDROMETER
0.1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Plasticity
Index
-
D.
-
o»
-
0.01
0,0
-
cu
_
Cc
_
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-98
t.
0.001 0.0001
Passing
No. 200
54
u.s.c.s
ML
J
' ^
^ ^
r
\^_
GRADATION TEST RESULTS ^
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California ^
(PROJECT NO.
104611001
DATE A f FIGURE ^
6/02 J L B-1 J
SVB3@1-S.xls
GRAVEL
Coarse Fine
SAND
Coarse Medium Fine
FINES
Silt Clay
3' 1-1/2"
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS
1- 3/4" 1/2' 3/8- 4 8 16
HYDROMETER
30 50 100 200
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
10 0.1 0.001 0.0001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Symbol
•
Hole No.
B-8
Depth
(ft)
2.0-3.5
Liquid
Limit
49
Plastic
Limit
27
Plasticity
Index
22
DID
-
Dao
-
Deo
-
cu
-
cc
-
Passing
No. 200
(%)
87
U.S.C.S
CL
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63
_ ty/nyo
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California
r PROJECT NO.
^ 104611001
DATE
6/02 ^)
SVB8@2-3.S.xls
3
100 ry
100
GRAVEL
Coarse Fine
SAND
Coarse Medium
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS
1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8' 4 B 16 30
I
|
I
!
i
10
^"
i
• -\H ^
Fine
FINES
Silt
50 100 200
•-1>— .
^
0.1
i
0.01
Clay
HYDROMETER
0.001 0.00
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
Symbol
•
Hole No.
B-9
Depth
(ft)
5.0-6.0
Liquid
Limit
-
Plastic
Limit
-
Plasticity
Index
_
Dm
-
DM
-
Deo
-
C0
-
cc
-
Passing
No. 200
(%)
90
U.S.C.S
ML
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California
f PROJECT NO.
\^ 104611001
DATE A
6/02 J
SVB9@S-fl.xls
GRAVEL
Coarse Fine
SAND
Coarse Medium Fine
FINES
Silt Clay
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS
1" 3/4" 1/2' 3/8" 4 8 16 30
HYDROMETER
50 100 200
100 n
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
100 10 0.1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
0.01 0.001 0.0001
Symbol
•
Hole No.
B-15
Depth
(ft)
2.0-3.5
Liquid
Limit
48
Plastic
Limit
24
Plasticity
Index
24
DM
-
Dao
-
Deo
-
cu
-
cc
-
Passing
No. 200
(%)
89
U.S.C.S
CL
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California j
r PROJECT NO.
^ 104611001
DATE A
6/02 J
SVB15®2-3.5.ils
GRAVEL
Coarse Fine
SAND
Coarse Medium Fine
FINES
Silt Clay
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS
1-1/2- 1- 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" 4 8 16
HYDROMETER
30 50 100 200
100
90
80
70
60
60
40
30
20
10
0
10 0.1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
0.001
Symbol
•
Hole No.
B-20
Depth
(ft)
5.0-6.5
Liquid
Limit
-
Plastic
Limit
-
Plasticity
Index
_
D,0
-
D30
-
Deo
-
cu
-
cc
-
Passing
No. 200
(%)
65
U.S.C.S
ML
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63
_ ty/nyo GRADATION TEST RESULTS
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California j
r PROJECT NO.
^ 104611001
DATE A
6/02 J
SVB20Q5-S.5.it$
SYMBOL
•
•
+
o
LOCATION
B-8
B-14
B-15
B-19
DEPTH
(FT)
2.0-3.5
5.0-6.5
2.0-3.5
2.0-3.5
LL<%)
49
43
48
47
PL (%)
27
20
24
23
PI {%)
22
23
24
24
U.S.C.S.
CLASSIFICATION
(Minus No. 40
Sieve Fraction)
CL
CL
CL
CL
U.S.C.S.
(Entire Sample)
CL
CL
CL
CL
NP - Indicates non-plastic
70
60
t 50
xu
9 40
g 30
CO50.
20
10 /
/
-LL
/
M\S
/
CL
/
ML*
/
'?
/
iOL
/
/
/
CH
/
/f
MH
>
/
/
&OH
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
LIQUID LIMIT (LL), %
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318-00
X AATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS^
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California J
f PROJECT NO.
V 104611001
DATE ^\
6/02 J
2500
2000
!£ 1500
V)w
IUa:
<o
1000
XCO
500
500 1000 1500
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
2000 2500
Description
Silty SANDSTONE
Symbol Boring
Number
B-5
Depth
(ft)
5.0-6.5
Shear
Strength
Peak
Cohesion
(psf)
345
Friction Angle
(deg)
35
Soil Type
Formation
\ f DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California
( PROJECT NO.
^ 104611001
DATE ^
6/02 J
DSBS@5-6.5.!ds
2500
2000
t 1500
V)wlil
t£
«
a 1000
XCO
500
500 1000 1500
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
2000 2500
Description
SiltyCLAYSTONEto
Clayey SILTSTONE
Symbol Boring
Number
B-8
Depth
(ft)
5.0-6.5
Shear
Strength
Peak
Cohesion
(psf)
590
Friction Angle
(cleg)
39
Soil Type
Formation
\ /•
DS88@5-6.5.xls
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California
A PROJECT NO.
V 104611001
DATE ^
6/02 J
w(L,
W
W
IUo:
CO
UJXto
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
1000 2000 3000 4000
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
5000 6000
Description
Clayey SILTSTONE
Symbol Boring
Number
B-10
Depth
(ft)
5.0-6.0
Shear
Strength
Peak
Cohesion
(psf)
2170
Friction Angle
(deg)
5
Soil Type
Formation
•\ f DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California
( PROJECT NO.
^ 104611001
DATE ^
6/02 J B-9
DSB10@5-6.xls
2500
2000
1500
V)
UJ
w
1000
500
500 1000 1500
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
2000 2500
Description
SILTSTONE
Symbol Boring
Number
B-21
Depth
(ft)
5.0-6.5
Shear
Strength
Peak
Cohesion
(psf)
275
Friction Angle
(deg)
39
Soil Type
Formation
N f DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California
C PROJECT NO.
V^ 104611001
DATE ^
6/02 J 3
DSB21@5-6.5jds
2500
2000
1500
(A
(AU
£
10
UJ 1000X
V)
500
500 1000 1500
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
2000 2500
Description
Silty SAND
Symbol Boring
Number
B-26
Depth
(ft)
5.0-6.5
Shear
Strength
Peak
Cohesion
(psf)
270
Friction Angle
(deg)
35
Soil Type
SM
•\ /•DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California
f PROJECT NO.
^ 104611001
DATE
6/02 ^)
DSB26@5-6.5.xls
2500
2000
u-
L 1500
U)wcc.
ul 1000Xw
500
500 1000 1500
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
2000 2500
Description
Sandy CLAY
Symbol Boring
Number
B-30
Depth
(ft)
10.0-11.5
Shear
Strength
Peak
Cohesion
(psf)
390
Friction Angle
(deg)
37
Soil Type
CL
fifinyo
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California
C PROJECT NO.
^ 104611001
DATE A
6/02 J
A/FIGURE\
JVB-12 J
DSB30@10-11.5.xls
2500
500 1000 1500
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
2000 2500
Description
Silty SAND
Symbol Boring
Number
B-34
Depth
(ft)
5.0-6.5
Shear
Strength
Peak
Cohesion
(psf)
570
Friction Angle
(deg)
15
Soil Type
SM
\ /DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California
C PROJECT NO.
^ 104610001
DATE ^
6/02 J
OSB34@5-6.5.xls
CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
SAMPLE LOCATION
B-3
B-14
B-21
B-31
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FT)
1 .0-5.0
5.0-9.0
2.0-3.5
1 .0-5.0
pH*
7.1
8.1
6.0
7.6
RESISTIVITY *
(ohm-cm)
1,100
340
1.000
430
WATER-SOLUBLE
SULFATE
CONTENT IN SOIL"
(%}
0.013
0.070
0.057
0.245
CHLORIDE
CONTENT"*
(ppm)
120
580
65
230
* PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 643
** PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417
*** PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 422
CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
Industrial Park Pipeline Project
Carlsbad, California
r PROJECT NO.
^ 104611001
DATE A
6/02 J
FIGURE
B-14
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
APPENDIX C
TYPICAL EARTHWORK GUIDELINES
FOR PIPELINE PROJECTS
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. GENERAL 1
2. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES 3
3. SITE PREPARATION 4
4. TRENCH BACKFILL 5
5. SITE PROTECTION 7
6. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 10
46IIOOI APPENDIXC \ Rev. 05/02
Parsons June 7,2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
TYPICAL EARTHWORK GUIDELINES FOR PIPELINE PROJECTS
1. GENERAL
These Guidelines are presented as general procedures for earthwork construction. They are to be
utilized in conjunction with the approved plans. These Guidelines are considered a part of the
geotechnical report, but are superseded by recommendations in the geotechnical report in the
case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of pipeline installa-
tion may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications and/or the
recommendations of the geotechnical report. It is the responsibility of the contractor to read and
understand these Guidelines as well as the geotechnical report and approved plans.
4611001 APPENDIXC 1 Rev. 5/02
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project ProjectNo. 104611001
1.1. The contractor shall not vary from these Guidelines without prior recommen-
dations by the geotechnical consultant and the approval of the client or the
client's authorized representative. Recommendations by the geotechnical con-
sultant and/or client shall not be considered to preclude requirements for
approval by the jurisdictional agency prior to the execution of any changes.
1.2. The contractor shall perform the earthwork operations in accordance with
these specifications, and shall be responsible for the quality of the finished
product notwithstanding the fact that earthwork will be observed and tested by
the geotechnical consultant.
1.3. It is the responsibility of the contractor to notify the geotechnical consultant and
the jurisdictional agencies, as required, prior to the start of work at the site and
at any time that earthwork resumes after interruption. Each step of the earth-
work operations shall be observed and documented by the geotechnical
consultant and, where necessary, reviewed by the appropriate jurisdictional
agency prior to proceeding with subsequent work.
1.4. If, during the earthwork operations, geotechnical conditions are encountered
which were not anticipated or described in the geotechnical report, the geotech-
nical consultant shall be notified immediately and additional recommendations,
if applicable, may be provided.
1.5. An as-built geotechnical report shall be prepared by the geotechnical consultant
and signed by a registered engineer. The report documents the geotechnical
consultants' observations, and field and laboratory test results, and provides
conclusions regarding whether or not earthwork construction was performed in
accordance with the geotechnical recommendations and the plans.
1.6. Definitions of terms utilized in the remainder of these specifications have been
provided in Section 6.
4611001 APPEND1XC 7 Rev. S/02
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
2. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES
The parties involved in the projects earthwork activities shall be responsible as outlined in the
following sections.
4611001 APPENDKC 1 Rev. 5/02
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project ProjectNo. 104611001
2.1. The client is ultimately responsible for all aspects of the project The client or
the client's authorized representative has a responsibility to review the findings
and recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. The client shall authorize
the contractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide serv-
ices. During earthwork the client or the client's authorized representative shall
remain on site or remain reasonably accessible to the concerned parties to make
the decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project.
2.2. The contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory com-
pletion of pipeline installation and other associated operations, including, but
not limited to, earthwork in accordance with the project plans, specifications,
and juris diction al agency requirements. The contractor shall further remain
accessible at all times, including at night and during days off.
2.3. The geotechnical consultant shall provide observation and testing services and
shall make evaluations to advise the client on geotechnica! matters. The geo-
technical consultant shall report findings and recommendations to the client or
the client's authorized representative.
2.4. Prior to proceeding with any earthwork operations, the geotechnical consultant
shall be notified at least two working days in advance to schedule the needed
observation and testing services.
2.4.1. Prior to any significant expansion or reduction in the earthwork opera-
tions (e.g., the establishment of an additional heading), the geotechnical
consultant shall be provided with two working days notice to make ap-
propriate adjustments in scheduling of on-site personnel.
2.4.2. Between phases of earthwork operations, the geotechnical consultant shall
be provided with at least two working days notice in advance of com-
mencement of additional operations.
3. SITE PREPARATION
4611001 APPENDIXC 4 Rev. 5/02
Parsons June 7,2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
Site preparation shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the
following sections.
3.1. The client, prior to any site preparation or earthwork, shall arrange and attend a
pre-construction meeting between the contractor, the design engineer, the geo-
technical consultant, and representatives of appropriate governing authorities, as
well as any other involved parties. All parties shall be given at least two working
days notice.
3.2. Demolition in the areas to be graded shall include removal of pavements, and
other manmade surface and subsurface improvements. Demolition of utilities
shall include proper capping or rerouting of pipelines at the project perimeter.
3.3. The debris generated during demolition operations shall be removed from areas
to be graded and disposed of off site at a legal dump site. Demolition operations
shall be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant.
4. TRENCH BACKFILL
The following sections provide recommendations for backfilling of trenches.
4611001 APPENDIX C
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
4.1. Trench backfill shall consist of granular soils (bedding) extending from the
trench bottom to 1 or more feet above the pipe. On-site or imported fill which
has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant may be used above the
granular backfill. The cover soils directly in contact with the pipe shall be clas-
sified as having a very low expansion potential, in accordance with UBC
Standard 18-2, and shall contain no rocks or chunks of hard soil larger than
3/4-inch in diameter.
4.2. Trench backfill shall, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by me-
chanical means to 90 percent or more of the maximum dry density as evaluated
in accordance with ASTM D 1557-00. Backfill soils shall be placed in loose lifts
8-inches thick or thinner, moisture conditioned, and compacted in accordance
with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and of these guidelines.
The backfill shall be tested by the geotechnical consultant at vertical intervals of
approximately 2 feet of backfill placed and at spacings along the trench of ap-
proximately 100 feet in the same lift.
4.3. Jetting of trench backfill materials is generally not a recommended method of
densification, unless the on-site soils are sufficiently free-draining and provi-
sions have been made for adequate dissipation of the water utilized in the jetting
process.
4.4. If it is decided that jetting may be utilized, granular material with a sand
equivalent greater than 30 shall be used for backfilling in the areas to be jetted.
Jetting shall generally be considered for trenches 2 feet or narrower in width
and 4 feet or shallower in depth. Following jetting operations, trench backfill
shall be mechanically compacted to the specified compaction to finish grade.
4611001 APPENDIX C
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
4.5. Trench backfill which underlies the zone of influence of foundations shall be
mechanically compacted to 90 percent or more of the maximum dry density, as
evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 1557-00. The zone of influence of the
foundations is generally defined as the roughly triangular area within the limits
of a 1:1 projection from the inner and outer edges of the foundation, projected
down and out from both edges.
4.6. Trench backfill within slab areas shall be compacted by mechanical means to a
relative compaction of 90 percent or more of maximum dry density, as evalu-
ated in accordance with ASTM D 1557-00. For minor interior trenches, density
testing may be omitted or spot testing may be performed, as deemed appropri-
ate by the geotechnical consultant.
4.7. When compacting soil in close proximity to utilities, care shall be taken by the
contractor so that mechanical methods used to compact the soils do not damage
the utilities.
4.8. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding materials are not recommended for use
in slope areas unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the
potential for buildup of seepage forces or piping of backfill materials.
4.9. The contractor shall exercise the necessary and required safety precautions, in
accordance with OSHA Trench Safety Regulations, while conducting trenching
operations. Such precautions include shoring or laying back trench excavations
at 1:1 or flatter, depending on material type, for trenches in excess of 5 feet in
depth. The geotechnical consultant is not responsible for the safety of trench op-
erations or stability of the trenches.
5. SITE PROTECTION
The site shall be protected as outlined in the following sections.
4611001 APPENDIX C 7 Rev. S/02
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Proj ect Proj ect No. 104611001
5.1. Protection of the site during the period of construction shall be the responsibil-
ity of the contractor unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed
upon among the concerned parties. Completion of a portion of the project shall
not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the need for
site protection, until such time as the project is complete as agreed upon by the
geotechnical consultant, the client, and the regulatory agency.
5.2. The contractor is responsible for the stability of temporary excavations. Rec-
ommendations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary
excavations are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and,
therefore, shall not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contrac-
tor. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant shall also not be
considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the applicable regula-
tory agencies.
5.3. Precautions shall be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavation,
and grading to protect the site from flooding, ponding, or inundation by surface
runoff. Temporary provisions shall be made during the rainy season to ade-
quately direct surface runoff away from and off the working site. Where low
areas cannot be avoided, pumps shall be provided to remove water as needed
during periods of rainfall.
5.4. Following periods of rainfall, the contractor shall contact the geotechnical con-
sultant and arrange a walk-over of the site in order to visually assess rain-related
damage. The geotechnical consultant may also recommend excavation and testing
in order to aid in the evaluation. At the request of the geotechnical consultant, the
contractor shall make excavations in order to aid in evaluation of the extent of
rain-related damage.
4611001 APPENDIX C C Rev. 5/02
Parsons June 7, 2002
Industrial Park Pipelines Project Project No. 104611001
5.5. Rain- or irrigation-related damage shall be considered to include, but may not
be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress, and otber
adverse conditions noted by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected
shall be classified as "Unsuitable Material" and shall be subject to overexcava-
tion and replacement with compacted fill or to other remedial grading as
recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
4611001 APPEND1XC O Rev. 5/02
Parsons
Industrial Park Pipelines Project
June 7, 2002
Project No. 104611001
6. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
ALLUVIUM:
AS-GRADED (AS-BUILT):
BEDROCK:
BORROW (IMPORT):
CIVIL ENGINEER:
CLIENT:
COLLUVIUM:
COMPACTION:
CONTRACTOR:
DEBRIS:
ENGINEERED FILL:
Unconsolidated detrital deposits deposited by flowing water;
includes sediments deposited in river beds, canyons, flood
plains, lakes, fans at the foot of slopes, and in estuaries.
The site conditions upon completion of grading.
Relatively undisturbed in-place rock, either at the surface or
beneath surficial deposits of soil.
Any fill material hauled to the project site from off-site areas.
The Registered Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible
for preparation of the grading plans and surveying, and veri-
fying as-graded topographic conditions.
The developer or a project-responsible authorized represen-
tative. The client has the responsibility of reviewing the
findings and recommendations made by the geotechnical
consultant and authorizing the contractor and/or other con-
sultants to perform work and/or provide services.
Generally loose deposits, usually found on the face or near
the base of slopes and brought there chiefly by gravity
through slow continuous downhill creep (see also Slope
Wash).
The densification of a fill by mechanical means.
A person or company under contract or otherwise retained
by the client to perform, excavation, pipeline installation,
and other site improvements.
The products of clearing, grubbing, and/or demolition, or
contaminated soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted
backfill, and/or any other material so designated by the geo-
technical consultant.
A fill which the geotechnical consultant or the consultant's
representative has observed and/or tested during placement,
enabling the consultant to conclude that the fill has been
placed in substantial compliance with the recommendations
of the geotechnical consultant and the governing agency re-
quirements.
4611001 APPENDIX C 10
Parsons
Industrial Park Pipelines Project
June 7, 2002
Project No. 104611001
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST:
EROSION:
EXCAVATION:
EXISTING GRADE:
FILL:
FINISH GRADE:
GEOFABRIC:
A geologist certified by the state licensing agency who ap-
plies geologic knowledge and principles to the exploration
and evaluation of naturally occurring rock and soil, as re-
lated to the design of civil works.
The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the
movement of wind, water, and/or ice.
The mechanical removal of earth materials.
The ground surface configuration prior to grading; original
grade.
Any deposit of soil, rock, soil-rock blends, or other similar
materials placed by man.
The final as-graded ground surface elevation that conforms
to the grading plan.
An engineering textile utilized in geotechnical applications
such as subgrade stabilization and filtering.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT: The geotechnical engineering and engineering geology con-
sulting firm retained to provide technical services for the
project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations
by the geotechnical consultant include observations by the
geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist and other per-
sons employed by and responsible to the geotechnical
consultant.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER:
GRADING:
LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS:
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY:
A licensed civil engineer and geotechnical engineer, ap-
proved by the state licensing agency, who applies scientific
methods, engineering principles, and professional experience
to the acquisition, interpretation, and use of knowledge of
materials of the earth's crust to the resolution of engineering
problems. Geotechnical engineering encompasses many of
the engineering aspects of soil mechanics, rock mechanics,
geology, geophysics, hydrology, and related sciences.
Any operation consisting of excavation, filling, or combina-
tions thereof and associated operations.
Material, often porous and of low density, produced from
instability of natural or manmade slopes.
Standard laboratory test for maximum dry unit weight. Un-
less otherwise specified, the maximum dry unit weight shall
4611001 APPENDIXC 11 Rev.S/02
Parsons
Industrial Park Pipelines Project
June 7, 2002
Project No. 104611001
OPTIMUM MOISTURE:
RELATIVE COMPACTION:
SITE:
SLOPE WASH:
SLOUGH:
SOIL:
be evaluated in accordance with ASTM Test Method
D 1557-00.
The moisture content at the maximum dry density.
The degree of compaction (expressed as a percentage) of a
material as compared to the maximum dry density of the
material.
The particular parcel of land where earthwork is being per-
formed.
Soil and/or rock material that has been transported down a
slope by gravity assisted by the action of water not confined
to channels (see also Colluvium).
Loose, uncompacted fill material generated during grading
operations.
Naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc., or com-
binations thereof.
4611001 APPENDIX C 12