Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6607; State Street CMP Replacement Geotechnical; State Street CMP Replacement Geotechnical; 2009-04-13Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants I GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION CMP REPLACEMENT PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I PREPARED FOR: Harris & Associates 750 B Street, Suite 1800 San Diego, California 92101 1 c i PREPARED BY: Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants 5710RuffmRoad San Diego, California 92123 i I I April 13, 2009 Project No. 106379001 57 10 Ruffin Road • San Diego, California 92123 • Phone (858) 576-1 000 • Fax (858) 576-9600 San Diego • Irvine • Rancho Cucamonga • Los Angeles • Oakland • Las Vegas • Phoenix • Denver • El Paso • Tucson Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants c I April 13, 2009 Project No. 106379001 Mr. Bob Sutherlin Harris & Associates 750 B Street, Suite 1800 San Diego, California 92101 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation CMP Replacement Project Carlsbad, California c c 1 I E I I Dear Mr. Sutherlin: In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the Cor- rugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Replacement Project in Carlsbad, California. This report presents our geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the proposed project. Our report was prepared in accordance with our revised proposal dated August 28, 2008. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE Jeffrey T. Kent, P.E., G.E. Senior Project Engineer Kenneth H. Mansir, Jr., P.E., G.E Principal Engineer tan Goodmacher, C.E.G. 2136 lager/Principal Geologist MAH/JTK/KHM/JG/ek istribution: (4) Addressee 5710 Ruffin Road • San Diego, California 92123 • Phone (858) 576-1000 • Fax (858) 576-9600 San Diego • Irvine • Rancho Cucamonga • Los Angeles • Oakland • Las Vegas • Phoenix • Denver • El Paso • Tucson I I i B I C C C C CMP Replacement Project \ April 13,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1 3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2 4.1. Encountered Pavement Sections 2 4.2. Site Geology 3 4.2.1. Fill 3 4.2.2. Old Paralic Deposits 3 4.2.3. Groundwater 3 4.3. Excavation Characteristics 3 5. LABORATORY TESTING 4 6. CONCLUSIONS -...- 4 7. RECOMMENDATIONS 5 7.1. Site Preparation 5 7.2. Excavation Bottom Stability 5 7.3. Temporary Excavations, Braced Excavations and Shoring 5 7.4. Pipe Bedding and Pipe Zone Backfill 6 7.5. Materials for Trench Zone Backfill 7 7.6. Trench Zone Backfill 7 7.7. Pavement Section 8 7.8. Drainage 8 7.9. Pre-Construction Conference 8 7.10. Plan Review and Construction Observation 9 8. LIMITATIONS 9 9. REFERENCES 11 Table p Table 1 - Encountered Pavement Sections 2 fa Figures E Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Boring Location Map Figure 3 - Lateral Earth Pressures for Braced Excavations E Appendices Appendix A - Boring Logs E Appendix B - Laboratory Testing Appendix C - Typical Earthwork Guidelines 106379001 R.doc 7& I I I I i I C c i i CMP Replacement Project April 13, 2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 1. INTRODUCTION In accordance with your authorization and our revised proposal dated August 28, 2008, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) Replace- ment Project in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the project site and provide geotechnical design and construction rec- ommendations for the proposed project. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of services for this study included the following: • Reviewing available documents pertinent to this evaluation. • Obtaining a Right-of-Way permit from the City of Carlsbad. • Preparing and implementing a traffic control plan that was approved by the City of Carlsbad. • Coordinating and mobilizing for a subsurface exploration. Mark-out of the existing utilities was conducted through Underground Services Alert (USA). • Performing a subsurface exploration that consisted of the drilling, logging, and sampling of two small-diameter exploratory borings. The borings were logged by a Ninyo & Moore rep- resentative and soil samples were collected and then transported to our in-house geotechnical laboratory for testing. • Performing geotechnical laboratory testing to evaluate design parameters. • Preparing this report presenting the findings from our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing and providing earthwork recommendations for trenching. 3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION As shown of Figure 2, the project alignment runs along State Street from its intersection with Beech Avenue to a driveway at the North County Transit District's (NCTD) Coaster Station park- ing lot. Current improvements along the alignment include the existing two-lane roadways with curbside parking. Site elevations range from approximately 36 to 38 feet above mean sea level (MSL). C 106379001 Rdoc .tyinyo F * i E i CMP Replacement Project Carlsbad, California April 13, 2009 Project No. 106379001 We understand that the project will consist of the installation of approximately 780 lineal feet of storm drain, including the laterals. The new storm drain will consist of 18-inch, 24-inch, and 36-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipes. In addition to the new storm drain, the project will include the construction of five curb inlet systems. The new alignment will run along the center- line of State Street from its intersection with Beech Avenue and will continue northwest along an access road toward the intersection with the NCTD driveway. From there the alignment will turn west to run along the NCTD driveway. As planned, the depths of the storm drain inverts will range from approximately 3'/z to 10 feet. 4. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS B Our subsurface exploration was conducted on March 31, 2009, and consisted of two small-diameter exploratory borings. The borings were advanced using a truck-mounted drill rig H equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers to depths up to approximately 16'/2 feet. The purpose of the borings was to observe and sample the underlying earth materials. The borings P were logged by a representative from our office. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on Figure 2, and the corresponding logs are presented in Appendix A. c c f 4.1. Encountered Pavement Sections During the performance of our subsurface exploration, two different pavement sections were encountered. At boring B-l (within State Street), asphalt concrete (AC) was underlain by Portland cement concrete (PCC) and base materials. At boring B-2 (at the NCTD driveway) AC was underlain by base materials. A summary of the encountered pavement sections is presented in the following Table 1: Table 1 - Encountered Pavement Sections Boring No. B-l B-2 Measured AC Thickness (inches) 2-'/2 6 Measured PCC Thickness (inches) 6 — Measured Base Thickness (inches) 4 4 106379001 R doc CMP Replacement Project April 13, 2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 _ 4.2. Site Geology i li The geologic units encountered during our subsurface evaluation included fill and old _ paralic deposits (Kennedy & Tan, 2005), which were formerly mapped as terrace deposits In (Kennedy, 1996). Generalized descriptions of the earth units encountered are provided in the pi subsequent sections. Additional descriptions are provided on the boring logs presented in • Appendix A. 1 4.2.1. Fill _ Fill materials were encountered underlying the existing pavement sections to depths of • approximately 3 feet. As encountered, the fill generally consisted of gray and brown to m olive-brown, moist, firm, sandy clay.C 4.2.2. Old Paralic Deposits E• Old paralic deposits were encountered underlying the existing fill to the depths ex- plored. As encountered, the deposits generally consisted of shades of olive gray to light • brown, moist to wet, medium dense, clayey and silty sand with scattered gravel and p, moist to wet, firm, sandy clay. L 4.2.3. Groundwater jto Although groundwater was not encountered in our exploratory borings, seepage was en- countered in both borings at depths of approximately 10 and 14 feet. Although not li observed, existing utility trenches may act as conduits for perched water conditions. p Fluctuations in the groundwater level and local perched conditions may occur due to hi variations in ground surface topography, subsurface geologic conditions and structure, M tidal fluctuations, rainfall, irrigation, and other factors. c 4.3. Excavation Characteristics Our evaluation of the excavation characteristics of the on-site materials are based on the re- sults of our exploratory borings and our experience with similar materials. In our opinion, 106379001Rdoc In p to I E I E P L c CMP Replacement Project April 13, 2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 _ the on-site soils are generally expected to be excavatable with heavy-duty earthmovingIP ll equipment in good working condition. 5. LABORATORY TESTING Geotechnical laboratory testing of samples obtained during our subsurface exploration included an evaluation of in-situ moisture content and dry density, grain-size analysis, shear strength, soil corrosivity, and sand equivalent. The results of the in-situ moisture content and dry density tests are shown at the corresponding sample depths on the boring logs in Appendix A. The results of the other laboratory tests performed are presented in Appendix B. 6. CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of our geotechnical evaluation, the proposed project is feasible from a geo- technical perspective. The following section provides our conclusions based on the geotechnical evaluation conducted for the project: • Boring B-l within State Street encountered concrete beneath the AC. The contractor should be prepared to address the removal of the concrete section during trenching operations. • The on-site materials encountered during our subsurface exploration should be generally ex- cavatable with heavy-duty earthmoving equipment in good working condition. • Seepage was encountered within our borings at depths of approximately 10 and 14 feet, hi ad- dition to this seepage, existing utility trenches may act as a conduit for perched water conditions. The contractor should be prepared to address these water issues during construction. • Materials derived from the on-site excavations are considered to be generally suitable for reuse as trench zone backfill. Moisture conditioning (watering or aerating) of soils should be anticipated. • Materials derived from on-site excavations are not considered suitable for reuse as pipe bedding and/or pipe zone backfill as defined by "Greenbook" (Public Works Standards, Inc., 2006). P^ • Based on the anticipated depths for the planned storm drain replacement, trenches are ex- pected to extend to depths of approximately 10 feet. Accordingly, shoring for the trench p excavations should be designed using recommendations presented below. ,0637900, Rdoc 4 ^//jffO& I C C CMP Replacement Project April 13,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 7. RECOMMENDATIONS The following sections present our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construc- tion of the proposed improvements. We recommend that the site earthwork and construction be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the recommendations pre- sented in the Typical Earthwork Guidelines included in Appendix C. In case of conflict, the following recommendations should supersede those outlined in Appendix C. 7.1. Site Preparation During excavation, the project site should be cleared of any loose, wet, or otherwise unstable soils, as well as surface soils containing organic material. Materials generated from the clearing operations should be removed from the site and disposed of at a legal dumpsite away from the project area. 7.2. Excavation Bottom Stability In general, we anticipate that the bottom of the pipeline trenches will remain stable and pro- vide suitable support to the proposed storm drain line. However, excavations that extend into ! zones of seepage or below the water table (if encountered) may be unstable. In general, un-hw stable bottom conditions may be overexcavated and replaced with gravel. Recommendations for stabilizing excavation bottoms should be based on evaluation in the field by Ninyo & Moore at the time of construction.ri* 7.3. Temporary Excavations, Braced Excavations and Shoring mH We recommend that trenches and excavations be designed and constructed in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations. These regulations • provide shoring design parameters for trenches up to 20 feet deep based on the soil types en- countered. Trenches over 20 feet deep should be designed by the Contractor's engineer if based on site-specific geotechnical analyses. For planning purposes, we recommend that the _ following OSHA soil classifications be used: C C I Fill/Old Paralic Deposits Type C 106379001 R.doc E i E c c c |l E c CMP Replacement Project April 13,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 Upon making the excavations, the soil classifications and excavation performance should be evaluated in the field by Ninyo & Moore in accordance with OSHA regulations. Recom- mendations for temporary shoring can be provided, if requested. Temporary excavations should be constructed in accordance with OSHA recommendations. For trench or other excavations, OSHA requirements regarding personnel safety should be met by using appropriate shoring (including trench boxes). Temporary excavations that en- counter seepage should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. On-site safety of personnel is the responsibility of the contractor. Due to site constraints, temporary excavations may be shored or braced. Temporary earth re- taining systems will be subjected to lateral loads resulting from earth pressures. Shoring systems for excavations may be designed using the lateral earth pressure parameters pre- sented on Figure 3. These lateral earth pressures should be evaluated by a structural engineer for the design of the shoring systems. These design earth pressures assume that spoils from the excavations, or other surcharge loads, will not be placed above the excavations within a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) plane extending up and back from the base of the excavation. For bracing subjected to surcharge loads, such as soil stockpiles or construction materi- als/equipment, an additional horizontal uniform pressure of 0.40q may be applied to the full height of the excavation, where "q" is the surcharge pressure. 7.4. Pipe Bedding and Pipe Zone Backfill It is our recommendation that the new pipelines (pipes), where constructed in open excava- tions, be supported on 6 or more inches of granular bedding material. Granular pipe bedding should be provided to distribute vertical loads around the pipe. Bedding material and compac- tion requirements should be in accordance with this report. Pipe bedding typically consists of graded aggregate with a coefficient of uniformity of three or greater. The pipe bedding should conform to the specifications presented for pipe zone backfill materials. 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 106379001 R.doc f. mm*mir*& E E i 1 i E I C E E I I E CMP Replacement Project April 13,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 extend one foot or more above the top of the pipe. In the instance that open-graded gravel is util- ized for the pipe zone material, we recommend that a layer of geosyntheu'c filter fabric be placed on top of the pipe zone material to separate it from the overlying trench zone backfill. 7.5. Materials for Trench Zone Backfill On-site soils with an organic content of less than approximately 3 percent by volume (or 1 percent by weight) are suitable for reuse as trench zone backfill. Backfill material should not generally contain rocks or lumps greater than approximately 3 inches, and particles not more than approximately 30 percent larger than %-inch. Soils classified as silts or clays should not be used for pipe zone backfill or pipe bedding. Imported fill material, if needed for the project, should generally be granular soils with a low or very low expansion poten- tial. Import material should also have generally low corrosion potential. Materials for use as fill should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore's representative prior to filling or importing. 7.6. Trench Zone Backfill Prior to placement of trench zone backfill, the contractor should request an evaluation of the pipezone backfill by Ninyo & Moore. The evaluation of compaction by Ninyo & Moore should not be considered to preclude any requirements for observation or approval by gov- erning agencies. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify Ninyo & Moore and the appropriate governing agency when project areas are ready for observation, and to provide reasonable time for that review. Trench zone backfill materials should be moisture conditioned to generally above the labora- tory optimum moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moisture content will vary with material type and other factors. Moisture conditioning of trench backfill soils should be generally consistent within the soil mass. Trench backfill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thick- ness. Prior to compaction, each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve a moisture content generally above the laboratory optimum, mixed, and then compacted by 106379001 R doc : c E S C c I I I 1 E CMP Replacement Project April 13, 2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 mechanical methods to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by American Soci- ety for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 1557. Successive lifts should be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. 7.7. Pavement Section Trenching within the street rights-of-way will result in the replacement of pavements for the project. In general, pavement repair should conform to the material and compaction require- ments of the adjacent pavement section, actual pavement reconstruction should conform to the requirements of the appropriate governing agency. Aggregate base material and the upper 12 inches of subgrade soil should be compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor dry density as evaluated by the latest edition of ASTM D 1557. Asphalt concrete should be com- pacted to 95 percent of the material's Hveem density as evaluated by ASTM D 1560. 7.8. Drainage Positive drainage should be considered in the design and construction of the project. Surface drainage on the site should generally be provided so that water is not permitted to pond. A gradient of 2 percent or steeper should be maintained over the site and drainage patterns should be established to divert and remove water from the site to appropriate outlets. If planters or landscaping are located adjacent to paved areas, measures should be taken to re-L duce the potential for water to enter the pavement section. Care should be taken by the contractor during grading to preserve any berms, drainage ter- races, interceptor swales or other drainage devices on or adjacent to the property. Drainage patterns established at the time of grading should be maintained for the life of the project. 7.9. Pre-Construction Conference We recommend that a pre-construction meeting be held prior to commencement of grading. The owner or his representative, the agency representatives, the architect, the civil engineer, 106379001 R.doc I C c I c c c rL E CMP Replacement Project April 13, 2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 Ninyo & Moore, and the contractor should be in attendance to discuss the project, the plans, and the proposed construction schedule. ll 7.10. Plan Review and Construction Observation The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on analysis of ob- mt served conditions in our core and boring. If conditions are found to vary from those p described in this report, Ninyo & Moore should be notified, and additional recommendations • will be provided upon request. Ninyo & Moore should review the final project drawings and •I specifications prior to the commencement of construction. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Ninyo & Moore will provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construc- tion. 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 recommen- dations, 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 subcontractors utilizing appropriate techniques and construction materials. 8. LIMITATIONS f" 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 P 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- H 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 IS during construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through addi- tional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request. B Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the 106379001 R doc P k I I I CMP Replacement Project April 13,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, or the pres- ence of hazardous materials. H 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 P should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. r" This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an P accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant per- •• form an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent E 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. JIJ 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 encountered, 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 |g 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 ac-F if tion or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control. im 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. jm to yinyo106379001 R doc i r. f CMP Replacement Project April 13,2009 ii Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 E c CIi 9. REFERENCES Harris & Associates, Undated, Project Plans: State Street Storm Drain Replacement, Sheets 3 and 4 of 6 (60% Design Submittal). Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-02. Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2005, Geology of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California, California Division of Mines and Geology: Regional Geologic Map Series, Scale 1:100,000. Norris, R.M., and Webb, R.W, 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Public Works Standards, Inc., 2006, "Greenbook," Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1968, San Luis Rey 7.5-Minute Quadrangle: photorevised 1975. I 106379001 R.doc 11 _ _• ^ a°& I I I I I I I I I IO)r- I Ttf^^V^O Rwurte .*>»&« '•••_ k* i*; ^ £•$#,Mil '!'»;. PACKARD i^s O m»B^\^«a*» «s • • tr1 \r*-'t \ro \ >^A€€^lt '^ WtBMBlffi i - j> v^^\ ,- nA\° -^- «g^f: ^^W^^A^ ^kjft^^W^^^ "l^fx^^K^•^^^^ -;^^ - StE'yPW ;FWT£ <OCHJ ^WB7.JBII ' . REFERENCE: 2005 THOMAS GUIDE FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY, STREET GUIDE AND DIRECTORY, APPROXIMATE SCALE 2400 4800 FEET NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. Map © Rand McNally. R.L.07-S-129 ty/nyo PROJECT NO. 106379001 DATE 4/09 SITE LOCATION MAP CMP REPLACEMENT PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 1 PROJECT AREA LEGEND ,.2 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TD=16.5' EXPLORATORY BORING TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET A Rfl NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.REFERENCE: MICROSOFT LIVE SEARCH MAPS, DATED 2009 APPROXIMATE SCALE ss 60 120 FEET tyinyo PROJECT NO. 106379001 DATE 4/09 BORING LOCATION MAP CMP REPLACEMENT PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE to pi GROUND Sl//?r/*Cf • SHORING c BRACES C 12 OR MORE H 12 INCHES OR MORE NOTES: 1. APPARENT LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE, Pg Pa = 30 H psf 2. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC INDUCED SURCHARGE PRESSURE, Ps Ps = 120 psf 3. PASSIVE LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE, P Pp = 250 D psf 4. ASSUMES GROUNDWATER IS NOT PRESENT 5. SURCHARGES FROM EXCAVATED SOIL OR CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS ARE NOT INCLUDED 6. H AND D ARE IN FEET NOT TO SCALE PROJECT NO. 106379001 DATE 4/09 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR BRACED EXCAVATION CMP REPLACEMENT PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE E I CMP Replacement Project April 13, 2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 APPENDIX A BORING LOGS 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 borings. 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 methods. 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 the hammer of the drill rig in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 3550. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, 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. 106379001 R doc m P" pi • : i DEPTH (feet)0 5- 70 \ J c 1 i \ I : O !ip / xx/xx \ i MOISTURE (%)9 DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOL 11 lyinyo 1 CLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.SM MO BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET Bulk sample. Modified split-barrel drive sampler. No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler. 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. Continuous Push Sample. Seepage. Groundwater encountered during drilling. Groundwater measured after drilling. ALLUVIUM: Solid line denotes unit change. TJashedTine 3enotes materTarchange. ~~ ~ ~ Attitudes: Strike/Dip b: Bedding c: Contact j: Joint f: Fracture F: Fault cs: Clay Seam s: Shear bss: Basal Slide Surface sf: Shear Fracture sz: Shear Zone sbs: Sheared Bedding Surface The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the boring. BORING LOG HMV~1JR EXPLANATION OF BORING LOG SYMBOLS PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE Rev. 01/03 U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL VI COARSE-GRAINED SO(More than 1/2 of soil>No. 200 sieve size)FINE-GRAINED SOILS(More than 1/2 of soil<No. 200 sieve size)GRAVELS (More than 1/2 of coarse •BIH••••» > ...••• fraction f ' •' > No. 4 sieve size) L"'" P*^ SANDS 1 (More than 1/2 of coarse 1 fraction I <No. 4 sieve size) 1 SILTS & CLAYS Liquid Limit <50 \ SILTS & CLAYS Liquid Limit >50 ; •fflKilBi I'/&%%•&&• '/t///' Im HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS low • GP GM ^ GC I sw 1 SP SM % scx' ML ^ CL•y \ °L MH ^ CH I OH Pt TYPICAL NAMES 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, gravel-sand-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 fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silty clays, organic silts Peat and other highly organic soils GRAIN SIZE CHART CLASSIFICATION BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL Coarse Fine SAND Coarse Medium Fine SILT & CLAY RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE U.S. Standard Sieve Size Above 12" 12" to 3" 3" lo 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 76.2tol9.1 19.1 to 4.76 4 76 to 0 075 4.76 to 2.00 2.00 to 0.420 0 420 to 0.075 Below 0.075 PLASTICITY CHART "• 10 j£ /" / / CL- W / L X / CL x ML / / 10L / / / CH / / ' MH / OH / 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 00 100 LJQ UID UMIT (LL), % U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION P ta USCS Soil Classification Updated Nov 2004 DATE DRILLED 3/31/09 BORING NO.B-l GROUND ELEVATION 36' ± (MSL)SHEET OF METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Tri-County) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto-Trip) DROP SAMPLED BY MAH LOGGED BY MAH REVIEWED BY DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION 30" RJ \ASPHALT CONCRETE: (Approximately 2.5 inches thick.) ^PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE: (Approximately 6 inches thick.) BASE: (Approximately 4 inches thick.) Brown, moist, medium dense, silty GRAVEL. FILL: Gray, moist, firm, sandy CLAY. OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: Olive gray, moist, medium dense, fine to medium SAND; many carbonate nodules. Moist to wet. Olive gray, moist to wet, firm, sandy CLAY. Light brown, wet, medium dense, silty Tine to coarse SAND; wlthTew graveT Moist. Gravelly. Total Depth = 15 feel Seepage encountered at approximately 10 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled with hydrated bentonite chips and capped with permapatch shortly after drilling on 3/31/09. Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. mire BORING LOG CMP REPLACEMENT PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 106379001 DATE 4/09 FIGURE A-l DATE DRILLED 3/31/09 GROUND ELEVATION 37'±(MSL) METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Tri-County) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Auto-Trip) DROP SAMPLED BY MAH LOGGED BY MAH REVIEWED BY DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION ASPHALT CONCRETE: (Approximately 6 inches thick.) \Brown, moist, medium dense, silty GRAVEL. FILL: Brown to olive brown, moist, firm, sandy CLAY. BASE: (Approximately 4 inches thick.) BORING NO.B-2 SHEET OF 30" RJ OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS: Olive brown to reddish brown (mottled), moist, clayey fine to medium SAND. Olive brown, moist to wet, firm, sandy CLAY. LighFbrown, moist, 3ense, clayeyTine to coarse SAND. Total Depth = 16.5 feet. Seepage encountered at approximately 14 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled with hydrated bentonite chips and capped with permapatch shortly after drilling on 3/31/09. Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. BORING LOG CMP REPLACEMENT PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 106379001 DATE 4/09 FIGURE A-2 L CMP Replacement Project April 13,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Classification p, Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification , System (USCS) in general accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings in p, Appendix A. ^In-Place Moisture and Density Tests p. The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the ex- ploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A. Gradation Analysis Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accor- „. dance with ASTM D 422. The grain-size distribution curves are shown on Figures B-l and B-2. These test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with USCS. „. Direct Shear Test A direct shear test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample in general accordance with ** ASTM D 3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of the selected material. The sample p, was inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are shown on fc Figure B-3. Soil Corrosivity Tests |. Soil pH, and resistivity tests were performed on a representative sample in general accordance with California Test (CT) 643. The soluble sulfate and chloride content of the selected sample were evaluated in general accordance with CT 417 and CT 422, respectively. The test results are JL presented on Figure B-4. Sand Equivalent E A Sand Equivalent (SE) test was performed on a selected representative sample in general accor- dance with CT 21IIAmerican Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials T 176. _ The SE value reported on Figure B-5 is the ratio of the coarse- to fine-grained particles in the j, selected sample. IP it P in 106379001 Rdoc GRAVEL Coarse 3" 2* 1 o 2 LL IL) O LU Q. Fine SAND Coarse U.S. STANDAF A 1 Iii I I I I I T T—f TT™E iDS |— ^i Medium Fine EVE NUMBERS B 16 30 50 t 100 10 'symbol • Sample Location B-1 Depth 5.0-6.5 ~T-^V \ \ \ \ FINES SILT CLAY HYDROMETER 100 200 \ \ \ II \ \ f 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 00001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Liquid Limit - Plastic Limit - Plasticity Index - D10 -- DJO D60 - c. - c. - Passing No. 200 24 uses SC PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63 (02) Aflnyo&ffiawr* GRADATION TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. 106379001 DATE 4/09 CMP REPLACEMENT PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-1 106379001 SIEVE B-1 @ 5 0-6.5.xls GRAVEL Coarse 3' 7 114" 80 0 - - X 70 0 - - O UJ 5 60 0 - - DC 600 Z U- zUJo LU CL I I II I I Fine SAND Coarse I Medium | Fine FINES SILT U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS " '/•" V V 4 B 16 30 50 100 200 I I I 100 1Symbol • II I -•- s s S,A -H-- \\ .... A _,_.. \\ V"" \;ii iii I CLAY HYDROMETER 10 1 0.1 0.01 0001 0.0001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Sample Location B-2 Depth (ft) 5.0-6.5 Liquid Limit - Plastic Plasticity Limit Index - D,o -- D30 - 0K - cu - cc - Passing No. 200 40 uses SC PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63 (02) /f/ffffO *^(OOre GRADATION TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. 106379001 DATE 4/09 CMP REPLACEMENT PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-2 106379001 SIEVE B-2 @ 5.0-6 5.xls 3000 1000 2000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) 3000 Description Clayey SAND Clayey SAND Symbol - -X - - Sample Location B-2 B-2 Depth (ft) 5.0-6.5 5.0-6.5 Shear Strength Peak Ultimate Cohesion, c (psf) 700 290 Friction Angle, $ (degrees) 27 26 Soil Type SC SC PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 3080-04 PROJECT NO. 106379001 DATE 4/09 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS CMP REPLACEMENT PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-3 106379001 SHEAR B-2 @ 5.0-6.5.xls SAMPLE LOCATION B-1 SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) 1.0-5.0 PH1 7.7 RESISTIVITY 1 (Ohm-cm) 1,700 SULFATE CONTENT 2 (ppm) 30 (%) 0.003 CHLORIDE CONTENT 3 (ppm) 355 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 PROJECT NO. 106379001 DATE 4/09 CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS CMP REPLACEMENT PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-4 fii 106379001 CORROSIVITY Page Vxls m SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH (FT)SOIL TYPE SAND EQUIVALENT B-1 10.0-11.5 SM 18 PI P y p p m pm PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH AASHTO T176/CT 217 PROJECT NO. 106379001 DATE 4/09 SAND EQUIVALENT VALUE CMP REPLACEMENT PROJECT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-5 106376001 SEPage1.xls T CMP Replacement Project Appendix C * Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 P m p m P m APPENDIX C TYPICAL EARTHWORK GUIDELINES 106379001 Earthwork.doc £ ly P CMP Replacement Project Appendix C Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. GENERAL 1 2. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES 2 3. SITE PREPARATION 3 4. TRENCH BACKFILL 3 5. SITE PROTECTION 4 6. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 6 PI to P to 106379001 Earthwork.doc j Rev 12/05 fP CMP Replacement Project Appendix C Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 p TYPICAL EARTHWORK GUIDELINES » 1. GENERAL p» These guidelines are presented as general procedures for earthwork construction. They are to be utilized in conjunction with the project plans. These guidelines are considered a part of the geo- Piy technical report, but are superseded by recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of construction may result in p 1^ 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 i^w 1^ Guidelines as well as the geotechnical report and project plans. ** 1.1. The contractor shall not vary from these Guidelines without prior recommendations by *• the geotechnical consultant and the approval of the client or the client's authorized rep- resentative. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant 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 speci- "" fications, 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.m 1.3. It is the responsibility of the contractor to notify the geotechnical consultant and the B jurisdictional agencies, as needed, prior to the start of work at the site and at any time that earthwork resumes after interruption. Each step of the earthwork operations shall be observed and documented by the geotechnical consultant and, where needed, re- P viewed by the appropriate jurisdictional agency prior to proceeding with subsequent • work. i 1.4. If, during the earthwork operations, geotechnical conditions are encountered which were not anticipated or described in the geotechnical report, the geotechnical consult- ant 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 I 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 geotech- f* nical recommendations and the plans. 106379001 Earthwork.doc 1 Rev. 12/05 1 CMP Replacement Project Appendix C Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 1.6. Definitions of terms utilized in the remainder of these specifications have been pro- vided in Section 6. 2. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES The parties involved in the projects earthwork activities shall be responsible as outlined in the following sections. 2.1. The client is ultimately responsible for each of the 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 contrac- tor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During earthwork the client or the client's authorized representative shall remain on site or remain rea- sonably accessible to the concerned parties to make the decisions that may be needed to maintain the flow of the project. 2.2. The contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of pipeline installation and other associated operations, including, but not limited to, earthwork in accordance with the project plans, specifications, and jurisdictional agency requirements. The contractor shall further remain accessible during non- working hours 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 geotechnical matters. The geotechnical con- sultant 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 two working days in advance to schedule the needed observation and test- ing services. 2.4.1. Prior to any significant expansion or reduction in the grading operation, the geotechnical consultant shall be provided with two working days notice to make appropriate adjustments in scheduling of on-site personnel. 2.4.2. Between phases of earthwork operations, the geotechnical consultant shall be provided with two working days notice in advance of commencement of ad- ditional operations. to m 106379001 Earthwork doc CMP Replacement Project Appendix C Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 3. SITE PREPARATION 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 geotechnical consultant, and representatives of appropriate governing authorities, as well as any other involved parties. The parties shall be given 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 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 per- formed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. 4. TRENCH BACKFILL The following sections provide recommendations for backfilling of trenches. 4.1. Trench backfill shall consist of granular soils (bedding) extending from the trench bot- torn 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 classified as having a very low expansion po- tential, 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 mechanical means to 90 percent relative compaction as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Backfill soils shall be placed in loose lifts 8 inches thick or thinner, moisture conditioned, and com- pacted in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and of these guidelines. The backfill shall be tested by the geotechnical consultant at vertical inter- vals of approximately 2 feet of backfill placed and at spacings along the trench of approximately 100 feet in the same lift. 4.3. Jetting of trench backfill materials is generally not a recommended method of densifi- cation, unless the on-site soils are sufficiently free-draining and provisions 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 gener- 10637900] Earthwork.doc P k CMP Replacement Project Appendix C Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 ally 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. 4.5. Trench backfill which underlies the zone of influence of foundations shall be mechani- "" cally compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The zone of influence of the foundations is generally defined as the roughly triangular area within the limits of a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) projection from the inner and outer edges of the foundation, projected down and out from both edges. i 4.6. Trench backfill within slab areas shall be compacted by mechanical means to a relative •* compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. 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 contrac- tor so that mechanical methods used to compact the soils do not damage the utilities.m 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 specified safety precautions, in accordance with ** OSHA Trench Safety Regulations, while conducting trenching operations. Such pre- cautions 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 operations or stability of the trenches. 5. SITE PROTECTION fl The site shall be protected as outlined in the following sections.i _ L 5.1. Protection of the site during the period of construction shall be the responsibility 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 finished as agreed upon by the geotechnical consultant, the client, and the regulatory agency. E 5.2. The contractor is responsible for the stability of temporary excavations. Recommenda- tions by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations are made in consideration of stability of the finished project and, therefore, shall not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the geotechni- C 106379001 Earthwork doc A Rev 12/05 CMP Replacement Project Appendix C Carlsbad, California Project No. 106379001 cal consultant shall also not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the applicable regulatory agencies. m 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. 1-1 Temporary provisions shall be made during the rainy season so that surface runoff is away from and off the working site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps shall be provided to remove water as appropriate during periods of rainfall. 5.4. Following periods of rainfall, the contractor shall contact the geotechnical consultant P 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. M 5.5. Rain- or irrigation-related damage shall be considered to include, but may not be lim- ited to, erosion, silting, saturation, swelling, structural distress, and other adverse ** conditions noted by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected shall be classi- fled as "Unsuitable Material" and shall be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or to other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical ** consultant. i 106379001 Earthwork doc CMP Replacement Project Carlsbad, California Appendix C Project No. 106379001 I 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 evaluating 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. P to 106379001 Earthwork doc Rev 12/05 CMP Replacement Project Carlsbad, California Appendix C Project No. 106379001 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST: m jjUM mm i^pI EROSION: EXCAVATION: EXISTING GRADE: FILL: FINISH GRADE: GEOFABRIC: GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: GRADING: LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS: A geologist registered 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 as-graded ground surface elevation that conforms to the grading plan. An engineering textile utilized in geotechnical applications such as subgrade stabilization and filtering. 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. A licensed civil engineer and geotechnical engineer, regis- tered 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. 106379001 Eaithwork.doc Rev. 12/05 If m CMP Replacement Project Carlsbad, California Appendix C Project No. 106379001 OPTIMUM MOISTURE: RELATIVE COMPACTION: SITE: SLOPE WASH: SLOUGH: SOIL: The moisture content that is considered optimum relative to compaction operations. The degree of compaction (expressed as a percentage) of a material as compared to the dry density obtained from ASTM test method D 1557. 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. Pm p m pi 106379001 Earthwork doc