Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Cannon Rd 24" Recycled Water & Sewer Line; Cannon Rd 24" Recycled Water & Sewer Lines; 1998-03-24KLEINFELDER A report prepared for: Carlsbad Municipal Water District 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, Califomia 92008 Attn: Mr. Bill Plummer CANNON ROAD 24" RECYCLED WATER AND 24" SEWER LINES CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Kleinfelder Job No. 51-4693-01 Prepared by: George M. Binger III, R.CX Staff Engineer KLEINFELDER, INC. 9555 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 101 San Diego, Califomia 92123 (619)541-1145 Rick E. Larson, R.C Senior Engineer March 24, 1998 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page ii of iii March 24. 1998 KLEINFELDER TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3 2.0 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4 2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY 4 2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 4 3.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6 3.1 DISCUSSION 6 3.1.1 Trenchwall Stability 6 3.1.2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation 7 3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 7 3.2.1 General 7 3.2.2 Site Preparation 8 3.2.3 Trench Backfill Material 8 3.2.4 Temporary Trench Excavations 8 3.2.5 Pipe Jacking 10 3.2.6 Pipe Bedding And Trench Backfill 12 3.2.7 Unstable Trench Bottom 12 3.2.8 Soil Parameters for Use in Buried Pipe, Thrust Block Design, and Manhole Design 13 3.2.9 Pavement Section 14 3.2.10 Soil Corrosion 14 4.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES 16 5.0 LIMITATIONS 17 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Plan Figure 2 Average Values of Modulus of Soil Reaction, E' APPENDICES Appendix A Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Testing Appendix C ASFE Insert 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page iii of iii March 24. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. •m m m KLEINFELDER 1.0 INTRODUCTION Kleinfelder, Inc. (Kleinfelder), was retained by the Carlsbad Municipal Water District to conduct a geotechnical investigation for the proposed 24" recycled water line and 24" gravity sewer line along Cannon Road in Carlsbad, Califomia. The site location is shown on Figure 1, Site Plan. The scope of services was presented in our proposals entitled, "Proposal for Limited Geotechnical Exploration, Cannon Road Sewer and Recycled Water Main, Carlsbad, California," dated February 2, 1998, and "Additional Services for Pavement Recommendations" dated February 4, 1998. 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE The purpose of this geotechnical exploration was to explore and evaluate the subsurface soil conditions in the vicinity of the proposed utility lines along Cannon Road between Avenida Encinas and Paseo Del Norte. We were asked to provide geotechnical recommendations for the design of underground pipelines, related earthwork construction, and a pavement section for Cannon Road which is to be reconstructed with a design traffic index of 8.5. This investigation also addressed anticipated groundwater levels, earthwork construction considerations, and tested soil samples for parameters affecting the potential corrosivity and electrical resistivity of the near-surface soils. A description ofthe scope of work performed is presented below: Task 1 - Encroachment Permits/Utility Coordination This initial task consisted of obtaining encroachment permits to enter Caltrans right-of-way near Interstate 5 and permits to enter the City of Carlsbad right-of-way along Cannon Road and Avenida Encinas. Traffic control plans approved by each agency were also prepared to meet the permitting and safety requirements of the project. A site meeting was made with the utility companies because ofthe numerous utility lines located in the project area. 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page I of 17 March 24, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder. Inc. KLEINFELDER Task 2 - Field Exploration For this investigation, we drilled three borings to depths of 25 feet below the existing ground surface. Borings were made by means of a truck-mounted, Ingersoll-Rand A-300 drill rig using either nominal 8-inch diameter, hollow-stem augers or 6-inch diameter, solid-stem augers. All borings were extended to their full depths without noticeable torque resistance. Three smaller holes were excavated using a hand auger to collect bulk samples of pavement subgrade soils for R-value testing. The drilling and sampling procedures were in general accordance with ASTM Method D420 "Standard Recommended Practice for Investigating and Sampling Soils and Rock for Engineering Purposes" and more particularly, ASTM Method D1452 "Soil Investigation and Sampling by Auger Borings." Our field engineer maintained a log of the borings, visually classified soils encountered according to the Unified Soil Classification System, and obtained representative samples ofthe subsurface materials. Soil samples were obtained from the borings using either a Califomia sampler or a standard penetration test (SPT) sampler. The Califomia sampler has a 3-inch outside diameter and is generally lined with 2.5-inch diameter brass sleeves. The SPT sampler has an outside diameter of two inches and does not contain liners. Samplers were generally driven 18 inches into undisturbed soil using a 140 pound hammer, hoisted by a cathead mechanism, and dropped (free- fall) 30 inches. Blow counts were recorded at six-inch intervals for each sample. Soil samples obtained from the borings were packaged, sealed in the field to reduce moisture loss and disturbance, and retumed to our San Diego laboratory for further testing. After borings were completed, the borings were backfilled with the excavated soil cuttings. Since Boring 1 was completed within the paved section of Avenida Encinas, it was capped with six inches of asphalt over six inches of concrete, in accordance with the standards established by the governing agency. The approximate locations ofthe borings are shown on Figure 1 which is entitled Site Plan. 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page 2 of 17 March 24. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER Please note that the blow counts recorded on the boring logs represent the raw field data and have not been corrected for the effects of overburden pressure, variation in sampler size, diameter of the borehole, length of rods attached to the sampler, or the type of hammer used. Task 3 - Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing was performed on representative bulk and disturbed driven samples to substantiate field classifications and provide engineering parameters for geotechnical design. Testing consisted of: in-situ moisture content and dry density, sieve analysis, R-value tests, minimum electrical resistivity tests, and soluble sulfates and chlorides testing. The test results are presented in Appendix B. Task 4 - Geotechnical Analysis and Report Preparation Field and laboratory data were analyzed to provide recommendations for various construction conditions, soil parameters for buried pipe design, and a new pavement section for the reconstruction of Cannon Road. The report contains a site map, logs of the borings, and laboratory test results. 1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is located in Carlsbad along Cannon Road in the general vicinity between Avenida Encinas and Paseo Del Norte. The proposed constmction will consist of installing about 1,200 lineal feet of 24-inch diameter sewer line and 24-inch diameter recycled water main on the south side of Cannon Road. The anticipated depth to invert will be about 10 feet for the sewer and 7 feet for the water main. Appurtenant structures such as thrust blocks and manholes will be included. The street will be totally reconstructed to provide a pavement section for a traffic index of 8.5. 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page 3 of 17 March 24. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 2.0 PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2.1 PHYSIOGRAPHY The general project site is located within the east bound travel lanes of Cannon Road between Avenida Encinas to the west and Paseo del Norte to the east. Interstate 5 crosses over Cannon Road and roughly bisects the proposed utility lines. Cannon Road is relatively flat west of Interstate 5 and has surface elevations of approximately 45 to 50 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). East of Interstate 5, Cannon Road slopes gently upwards towards the east. The elevations of the eastem portion ofthe project range from 50 ft. MSL to 70 ft. MSL. 2.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subsurface materials encountered in our borings generally consisted of Quaternary age marine terrace deposits. The deposits originated from soils that have been transported towards the ocean by surface runoff or gravity. Those deposits collected on successive wave-cut platforms. The upper twelve to thirteen feet of the deposits were soils that generally consisted of moist, loose to medium dense, clean sands. The terrace deposits underlying the sand layers were a mixture of friable, poorly indurated sandstone, siltstone, and claystone. Some sandstone lenses we observed were weakly cemented Groundwater was not encountered in any of our borings within theu* maximum depth of exploration. A more detailed description of subsurface stratigraphy and groundwater levels are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. In 1987, Woodward-Clyde Consultants completed a test pit to a depth of 5.5 feet in the future Cannon Road extension approximately 150 feet east of the intersection of Cannon Road and Paseo Del Norte. Cannon Road was eventually completed through this area with a cut of less than about 3 feet from the original grade. However, at the time Woodward-Clyde completed the 51 -4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page 4 of 17 March 24. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER test pit, the subsurface conditions consisted of 2 feet of silty sand over 3 feet of medium dense to dense formational silty sand logged as Lindavista Formation. No groundwater was encountered. 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC PageSof 17 March 24. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 3.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 DISCUSSION 3.1.1 Trenchwall Stability The soils encoimtered from die bottom of the existing pavements to die proposed pipe inverts will likely consist of the loose to medium dense, brown, fine to medium grained sand from the west end of the project to about the Interstate 5 northbound exit ramp directly east of Boring 3. Between Boring 3 and the Woodward-Clyde test pit 150 east of Paseo Del Norte, the dense, weakly cemented formational siltstone and sandstone units should be expected at increasingly shallow depths above Elevation 44 from west to east. Although no groundwater table was found in our test borings, the sands 3 to 4 feet above the formational units may be wet to saturated from surface infiltration water that is slowly moving • downward and to the west similar to the condition found in Boring 3. The primary difficulty anticipated for the project is in construction rather than in design. Based on our previous experience in the area, the uniform, relatively non-cohesive clean and silty sands we encountered in our test borings, combined with the fact that the new pipelines will be surrounded with disturbed subsurface conditions due to the several existing buried utilities, we anticipate lhat maintaining sidewall trench stability will be difficult. Laying back the trench sideslopes to 1.5 horizontal: 1 vertical for OSHA Type C soils may not be practical due to the existing adjacent utilities; ftirthermore, the trench walls will likely need to be sloped at 2 or 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical to maintain adequate stability in the looser deposits ofthe cleaner sands. Trench shields and close sheeting with hydraulic vertical shores have not provided sufficient restraint on past projects in similar conditions since the soil wedge fails as the excavation is made or when the shield or sheeting is moved to allow backfilling. 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page6of 17 March 24, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER Horizontal directional drilling is not recommended since clean to slightly silty sands tend to cave excessively during the subsequent reaming passes. Microtunneling has been used in medium dense to dense sands, but difficulties may occur where zones of loose sands are encountered. Direct pipe and jacking techniques with a carrier pipe could be used, but the cost of the carrier pipes and the need for intermediate jacking positions are anticipated to be relatively costly. However, pipe jacking may be the only practical altemative to installation ofthe pipes below die overpass due to height restrictions. Cement grouting of sandy soils has also been used successfully, but die need to drive soil grout tubes on fairly close intervals on both sides of the excavations and the cost ofthe cement installation are anticipated to be cost prohibitive. The usual way to maintain the stability ofthe trench walls in situations such as those encountered between Borings 1 and 3 is to use a conventional shoring system of closely-spaced soldier piles or sheet piles. Information on shoring is provided in later paragraphs. 3.1.2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation Based on our past experience with similar soil conditions for the Car Country Carlsbad expansion, we do not anticipate that any special soil additives or treatment will be required to obtain proper compaction of the subgrade. On this past project, the constructor was able to use conventional construction practices to prepare the subgrade for paving. 3.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 3.2.1 General All site preparation and earthwork operations should be performed in accordance with applicable codes and Carlsbad Municipal Water District Standards. All references to maximum dry density are established in accordance with ASTM Standard Test Method D-1557. 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page 7 of 17 March 24, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 3.2.2 Site Preparation In general, site grading, pavement improvements, and structure construction should follow the applicable portions of the current City of Carlsbad's Standards for Design and Construction of Public Works. Where the city standards are not specified, we recommend that the improvements should be constructed in accordance with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction with San Diego County Regional Supplement Amendments ("Green Book"). Additional geotechnical recommendations are presented below. 3.2.3 Trench Backfill Material We anticipate that most of the on-site soils may be reusable as trench backfill. If import fill/backfill material is necessary for this project, we recommend the import fill be of a low to non-expansive nature and meet the following minimum criteria: R-Value 40 Minimum Liquid Limit Less than 30% Percent Soil Passmg No. 200 Sieve Less than 30% Maximum Particle Size 3 inch 3.2.4 Temporary Trench Excavations All utility trench excavation work should comply m\h the current requirements of OSHA. The on- site soils are generally classified as Type C soils for evaluating OSHA sloping or shoring requirements. However, if unsupported sloping is used, side slopes of 2 or 2.5 horizontal to 1 vertical may be required in zones of loose, clean sand to maintain stability. A shoring system consisting of closely-spaced soldier piles or sheet piles may be used in lieu of sloping or closed sheeting with hydraulic vertical shores. Wide flange sections may be installed into pre-drilled holes surrounded by concrete. Timber lagging may be used between the soldier piles to support the trench walls. Lagging should be designed for the frill lateral pressure recommended below. Cantilevered shoring systems should 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page 8 of 17 March 24, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder. Inc. KLEINFELDER be designed to resist an active earth pressure equivalent to a fluid weighing 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Braced excavations should be designed to resist a uniform horizontal soil pressure of 22H (in pounds per square foot, psf) where H is the depth ofthe trench in feet. Thirty percent of any areal surcharge placed adjacent to the shoring may be assumed to act as a uniform horizontal pressure against the shoring. Special cases such as combinations of sloping and shoring or other surcharge loads (not specified above) may require an increase in the design values recommended above. These conditions should be evaluated by the project geotechnical engineer on a case-by-case basis. The above pressures do not include hydrostatic pressures; it is assumed that any temporary hydrostatic pressures will be relieved by spaces m the lagging. All soldier or sheet piles should extend to a sufficient depth below the excavation bottom to provide the required lateral resistance. We recommend required embedment depths be calculated using methods for evaluating sheet pile walls and based on die principles of force and moment equilibrium. For diis method, the allowable passive pressure against soldier piles which extend below the level of excavation may be assumed to be equivalent to a fluid weighing 250 pcf above the formational siltstone/sandstones and 500 pcf below the level of the formational siltstone/sandstones. To accoimt for three-dimensional effects, the passive pressure may be assumed to act on an area two times the width of the embedded portion of the pile, provided adjacent piles are spaced at least three diameters, center-to-center. Additionally, we recommend a factor of safety of 1.2 be applied to the calculated embedment depth and that the passive pressure be limited to 3,000 psf Alternatively, lateral capacity of a soldier pile extending below die excavation bottom may be evaluated using the "Pole Formula" given in Section 1806.8.2.1 ofthe Uniform Building Code, 1994 Edition. For this method, we recommend that a lateral soil bearing pressure of 300 pounds per square foot of embedment be used to estunate the required embedment depth for both S, and S3. These values assume that die 100 percent increase allowed by the Code for isolated poles (which 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page9of 17 March 24. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER are not adversely affected by a 1/2-inch horizontal deflection at the ground surface due to short- term lateral loads) has aheady been applied. If the 1/2 inch horizontal deflection is not acceptable, the lateral soil bearing pressure should be reduced to 150 pounds per square foot of embedment. Lateral movement of a shored excavation will depend on the type and relative stiffness of the system used and other factors beyond the scope of this study. However, based on our experience with projects with similar shoring requirements, we anticipate maximum lateral movement of the shoring system should generally be less than 1 percent of the trench depth. We recommend the project civil engineer complete a survey of all existing utilities adjacent to those portions of the proposed excavation which will be shored. The purpose of this review would be to evaluate the ability of existing pipelines or conduits to withstand horizontal movements associated with a shored excavation. If existing utility lines are not capable of withstanding anticipated lateral movements, altemative shoring or support systems may be required. The Contractor should anticipate repairing cracks m sidewalks and pavements adjacent to shored portions of the excavation due to anticipated lateral displacements of the shoring system. 3.2.5 Pipe Jacking Pipe jacking may be required at the Interstate 5 undercrossing where open trench construction may be impractical. Subsurface conditions to be encountered would vary from loose to medium dense sands, silty sands, and sandy silts. In order to install the pipe, an access pit or shaft with excavations on the order often to fifteen feet deep or more may be anticipated. The shaft should be wide enough for personnel to walk on both sides of the pipe and long enough to provide room for a thrust wall, pressure plates, jacks, tiirust ring, a joint of pipe, and a shield, if necessary. The shaft should be braced and shored with sheet piling or liner plates. The starting and reception shafts should be designed to withstand surrounding loads as well as jacking loads and stress. In the starting shaft, the jacking load is at the thrust wall. In die 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page 10 of 17 March 24, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER reception shaft, the jacking load is at the front wall when the shield enters the shaft. In addition, the floor of the pit should be designed to withstand jacking stress. Three types of loading that should be considered in the jacked pipe (carrier pipe) design are the axial loads on the pipe that will be transmitted through the joints as the pipe is jacked, the earth loading from the overburden, and live loads due to traffic. As the length of the pipeline to be jacked increases, the increased axial thrust loads should be considered in pipe design. The design load on the pipe due to earth loads converted into pounds per square foot of the projected pipe diameter at the crown of the pipe per linear foot of pipe can be assumed as 60 (B+H), where B is the diameter ofthe pipe in feet and H is the vertical distance between the top of pavement (or ground surface) and the top of the pipe. The live load on the pipe can be found in the Portland Cement Association publication "Vertical Pressure on Culverts Under Wheel Loads on Concrete Pavement Slabs," For normal highway H20 loading conditions, a liveload of 400 psf can be used where the top of pipe is at least 4 feet below the surface of the subgrade. Friction between the outer surface of the pipe and surrounding soil may become a factor that inhibits the successful progress of the bore. A suitable lubricant such as bentonite or aqua-gel may be applied to the surface ofthe pipe to reduce fiiction. This should be accomplished by the use of pressure equipment which pumps the lubricant through grout holes to die outside of the pipe. The jacking method of construction allows positive contact between the lower exterior surface of the pipe and the surrounding earth. For this type of installation, we recommend a bedding load factor of three. 51-4693-01/5! 18R227.DOC Page 11 of 17 March 24. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 3.2.6 Pipe Bedding And Trench Backfill Granular pipe bedding should be sand, gravel, or crushed aggregate with a sand equivalent of not less than 30. If on-site materials are used, the specific soils to be used should be stockpiled, sampled, and tested during constmction so diat the sand equivalent of the actual soils used can be tested. If the material meets the sand equivalent requirement, it may be used within the pipe zone. Bedding should extend over the full width of the trench for the entire pipe zone, which is the zone from the bottom of the trench to 12 inches above the top of the pipe. The pipe bedding should be densified to 90 percent relative compaction prior to backfilling. The bedding should be in a firm and unyielding condition prior to commencement of any subsequent improvements. Compaction of the pipe beddmg may be accomplished by either jetting or mechanical means. Jetting should be performed in accordance with Section 306-1.2.1 ofthe "Green Book." It should be noted that one of the keys to jetting is removing the water after flooding the pipe zone material. If compaction is to be performed by mechanical means, die specifications should require compacting widi pneumatic "powder puffs" and periodic density testing (which will require the contractor to provide special excavation for access and shoring). Backfill material above the pipe zone should consist of on-site or imported materials similar to those indicated in Section 3.2.3 of this report. We anticipate diat most of the on-site soils may be reusable as trench backfill. Trench backfill should be placed in uniform layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose tiiickness, moisture conditioned to between 1 percent below to 3 percent above optimum, and mechanically compacted to a minimum of 90% of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. The soils within the upper 12 inches of die pavement subgrade should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction. 3.2.7 Unstable Trench Bottom If a firm foundation is not encountered at the grade established due to soft, spongy, or otiier unsuitable soil, it may be necessary to provide a working surface to support heavy equipment. In such cases, the working area should be cleaned of any debris and tiien covered witii at least 18 inches of granular aggregate base conforming to Caltrans Class 2 Aggregate Base. Where a 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page 12 of 17 March 24, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder. Inc. KLEINFELDER working surface is required, no compaction of tiie native subgrade is recommended. Furthermore, the specifications should state that the contractor should use care in the removal of soft subgrade soils so that heavy or repeated traffic loads are not placed on subgrades with weak support. The depth of required removal should be established by the City's inspector in the field at the time of construction. However, if the depth of removal exceeds two feet, the geotechnical engineer should be notified so that additional recommendations can be provided as required. Prior to the removal, the contractor should have provided dewatering as required by the site conditions and should have kept water from re-entering die excavation. 3.2.8 Soil Parameters for Use in Buried Pipe, Thrust Block Design, and Manhole Design We recommend the following soil parameters for use in pipe design: • Total unit weight, =110 lbs/ft^ • Modulus of soil reaction, E' = Refer to Figure 2 We recommend the following parameters for use in thrust blocks and manholes: • Maximum allowable soil bearing pressure, qa = 2,500 Ib/ftl This value can be increased by one-third for seismic loads. • Equivalent fluid weight (efw) for lateral earth loads = 60 lbs/ft^ for undisturbed soils in the "at rest" case. The alluvium condition includes an allowance for hydrostatic pressure. All backfill should be placed in 8-inch tiiick loose lifts and compacted to 90% relative compaction. The on-site soils witii a Unified Soil Classification of SP, SM, SC can be used as backfill. 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page 13 of 17 March 24. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 3.2.9 Pavement Section The required pavement section for a traffic index of 8.5 (as provided by O'Day Consultants) was evaluated in accordance with Caltrans Test Method 301 for flexible pavement design. R-value tests were performed in our laboratory on two samples representative of pavement subgrade soils. We selected a design R-value of 36 as being representative of the lower bound of tiie anticipated subgrade soils. Based on a traffic index of 8.5 and design R-value of 36, we recommend a minimum pavement section of 5 inches of asphalt concrete over 11 inches of aggregate base. The recommended pavement section assume the following conditions: 1. The upper twelve inches of subgrade and base materials are compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of ASTM D1557 maximum dry density; 2. The finished subgrade is in a stable, non-pumping condition at die time aggregate base is laid and compacted; and 3. Asphalt concrete pavement and aggregate base materials conform to Section 02510, Parts 2 and 3 of tiie Standard Specification for Construction of Public Works (Green Book), witii County of San Diego Regional Supplement Amendments, current edition. 3.2.10 Soil Corrosion One sample ofthe on-site soils tiiat is likely to come in contact witii tiie pipeline materials was tested for potential corrosion to concrete and metal. On-site soils were tested for pH and resistivity in our laboratory. A split sample was sent to Pacific Analytical Laboratory to test for soluble sulfates and chlorides content of soils. Samples were tested in general accordance witii Califomia Test Metiiod 643 (pH and minimum electrical resistivity), Cal Test Metiiod 417 (water soluble sulfates), and Cal Test Metiiod 422 (water soluble chlorides). The test results are presented in the following table and also in Appendix B. 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page 14 of 17 March 24, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER m Sample Location Mimmum pH Soluble Sulfates Soluble Chlorides 1 •m and Depth Resistivity (mg/kg) (mg/kg) m (ohm-cm) -Boring 2 from 9,990 8.7 <50 80 •m 8' to 12' These tests are only an indicator of soil corrosivity for the soils that are likely to come in contact with the recycled water and sewer lines. Test results indicate the soils have a relatively low potential to aggressively corrode concrete and metals. If recommendations to mitigate the potential of corrosion are required, we recommend that a competent corrosion engineer be retained to design corrosion protection systems appropriate for the project. 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder. Inc. Page 15 of 17 March 24, 1998 KLEINFELDER 'm M m 4.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES ^ We recommend our firm conduct a general review of final plans and specifications to evaluate ^ that our earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and m implemented during design. If our firm is not retained for this review, we can assume no ^ responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. We recommend that all earthwork and foundation installation during construction be monitored by a representative from our office, including: * • Site preparation: site stripping, proofroUing, excavations, cut slopes, earthwork grading, and compaction of near-surface soils; m • Placement of all pipe zone material, engineered fill, and trench backfill; * • Conformance testing of materials; and * • Placement of pavement sections. Our representatives should be present to observe the soil conditions encountered during construction, evaluate the applicability of the recommendations presented in this report, and recommend appropriate changes in design or construction procedures if conditions differ from those described herein. 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page 16of 17 March 24. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 5.0 LIMITATIONS Recommendations contained in this report are based on our literature research, field observations, data from the field exploration, laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that soil conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil conditions are encountered during constmction which differ from those described herein, our firm should be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and any supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed constmction, including the proposed loads or stmctural locations, changes from that described in this report, we should also review our recommendations. Additionally, if information from this report is used in a way not described under the project description portion of this report, it is understood that it is being done at die designer's and owner's own risk. Our firm has prepared this report for the use of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District on this project in substantial accordance with tiie generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice as * it exists in the site area at the time of our study. No warranty is made or intended. The •m recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be conducted by our firm during the construction phase in order to ^ evaluate compliance with our recommendations, ^ This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, vidthin a reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (botii on-site and off-site) or other factors may " change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Based on the m intended use ofthe report, Kleinfelder may require tiiat additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of tiiese requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from tiie use of tiiis report by any ^ unauthorized party. 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC Page 17 of 17 March 24, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. CANNON ROAD LEGEND: APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION 1 f) APPROXIMATE HAND AUGER LOCATION PROPOSED 24" RECYCLED WATER MAIN C1 PROPOSED 24" GRAVITY SEWER MAIN C2 1-5 1-5 CANNON ROAD ©3 AVENIDA ENCINAS 80 160 APPROXIMATE GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE Id SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 CHECKED SY: Q^f^ PROJECT NO. 51-4693-01 FN: 4693SITE DATE: 5/10/98 SITE PLAN CANNON ROAD 24' RECYCLED WATER AND 24' SEWER UNES CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA FIGURE 1 MODULUS OF SOIL REACTION. F' SOIL TYPE-PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL (UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM) E' FOR DEGREE OF COMPACTION OF BEDDING. IN MEGA PASCALS SOIL TYPE-PIPE BEDDING MATERIAL (UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM) DUMPED^ HAND*^ TAMPED WATERS JETTING PORTABLE^ COMPACTOR COARSE-GRAINED SOILS WITH FINES GM, GC. SM OR SC CONTAINING MORE THAN 12% FINES 100 400 NOT APPLICABLE 700 COARSE-GRAINED SOILS WITH LITTLE OR NO FINES GW, GP. SW, SP CONTAINING LESS THAN 12% FINES 200 700 700 1000 ANGULAR, CRUSHED STONE OR CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE* 1000 2000 2000 3000 A. CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE PER SUBSECTION 200-2.2 OF THE CURRENT GREENBOOK. B. NOT RECOMMENDED FOR NORMAL SITUATIONS. C. BACKFILL MATERIAL SHOULD BE PLACED ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE PIPE IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 4 INCHES IN LOOSE THICKNESS. EACH UYER SHOULD BE MOISTENED AND COMPACTED BY THREE PASSES WITH A HAND TAMPER WEIGHING NOT LESS THAN 20 POUNDS. ANO HAVING A FACE NOT LARGER THAN 6 INCHES BY 6 INCHES TO ACHIEVE A RELATIVE COMPACTION OF APPROXIMATELY 80 TO 85 PERCENT OF ASTM D1557 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY, D. WATER JETTING SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED UNLESS APPROVED BY THE CIVIL DESIGNER AND THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. THE BEDDING MATERIAL SHOULD BE A FREE-DRAINING GRANULAR MATERIAL HAVING A SAND EQUIVALENT OF NOT LESS THAN 30 OR HAVE A COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY GREATER THAN 1 4 PER HOUR. THE SIZE AND LENGTH OF JET PIPE, QUANTITIES OF WATER, AND JETTING LOCATIONS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN THE FIELD AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION AND SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO THROUGHLY SATURATE AND DENSIFY BEDDING MATERIAL AROUND THE PIPE. JEHING SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY USE OF A JET PIPE (1-1/2 INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER PIPE) TO WHICH A MINIMUM 2-INCH. DIAMETER HOSE IS ATTACHED CARRING A CONTINUOUS SUPPLY OF WATER UNDER PRESSURE. ANY ACCUMULATED WATER WHICH REMAINS SHOULD BE REMOVED TO LEAVE THE BEDDING IN A FIRM. UNYIELDING CONDITION PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF TRENCH BACKFILL. E. SIMILAR TO C EXCEPT THAT THE LOOSE LIFT THICKNESS IS INCREASED TO 8 INCHES- AND THE MINIMUM EQUIPMENT WEIGHT SHOULD BE 30 POUNDS FOR A POWER TAMPER OR RAMMER AND 200 POUNDS FOR A VIBRATING BASEPLATE COMPACTER TO ACHIEVE A RELATIVE COMPACTION OF APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT OF ASTM D1557 MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY. NOTES: 1, THE MINIMUM THICKNESS OF BEDDING BELOW THE PIPE SHOULD BE 4 INCHES. UNLESS THE PIPE IS IN A ROCK CUT IN WHICH CASE THE MINIMUM BEDDING THICKNESS SHOULD BE 5 INCHES. 2, THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE GREENBOOK SPECIFICATIONS DEFINES BEDDING AS MATERIAL SUPPORTING SURROUNDING, AND EXTENDING TO 1 FOOT ABOVE THE TOP OF THE PIPE, SINCE LITTLE OR NO ADDITIONAL SIDE SUPPORT IS GAINED BY SPECIAL COMPACTIVE MATERIALS ABOVE THE CENTER OF THE PIPE (SPRINGLINE) THERE IS NO GEOTECHNICAL REASON WHY THE MATERIAL ABOVE THE SPRINGLINE CANNOT CONFORM TO THE REST OF THE TRENCH BACKFILL MATERIAL PROVIDED THE CIVIL DESIGNER APPROVES THE CHANGE AND THE MATERIAL iS FREE OF ROCKS OR FOREIGN MATERIAL THAT MAY INJURE THE PIPE IF THE MATERIAL IS PLACED AND COMPACTED TOO CLOSE, 3, THE PLJ\CEMENT OF PROPER MATERIAL INTO THE HAUNCH (ZONE BETWEEN THE BOTTOM AND SPRINGLINE CF THE PIPE) AND ITS DENSITY GREATLY AFFECT THE PIPE PERFORMANCE AND DEFLECTION. MATERIAL SHOULD BE PLACED AND COMPACTED UNDER THE HAUNCH WITH CARE TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE SIDE SUPPORT KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 CHECKED BY: C^MB PROJECT NO. 51-4593-0' FN: MODSOIL DATE: 3/13/98 AVERAGE VALUES OF MODULUS OF SOIL REACTION, E' CANNON ROAD 24' RECYCLED WATER AND 24- SEWER LINES CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CARLSBAD, CAUFORNIA iGURi c APPENDIX A c PROJECT NO. 51-4693-01 DRILLING EQUIPMENT LOG OF BORING LEGEND PROJECT NAME CANNON ROAD 24" RECYCLED WATER AND 24' SEWER LINES SHEET 1 OF 1 LOCATION TYPE DF BIT HAMMER DATA: WT. LBS. DROP INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION TOP OF CASING ELEVATION DATE STARTED: DRILLING AGENCY GROUNDWATER r-ATr n FvflTinN i-"^"^ •NM DATE COMPLETED: LOGGED BY BACKFILLED: SURFACE CONDITIONS SOIL DESCRIPTION WELL DETAILS m m o u LU a: CO z o o -5 o NOTES 29- WELL-GRADED GRAVELS AND GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LirrLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS AND GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES. LIHLE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS AND GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS AND GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS. VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PU\STICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDS OR SILTS, ELASTIC SILTS NORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS ORGANIC CU\YS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY PEAT, MUCK AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS VATD WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING i WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN WELL GW GP GM GC SW SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT BENTONITE CAVED AREA CEMENT CONCRETE NATURAL BACKFILL BENTONITE PACKER SAND BACKFILL SAND VOLCLAY GROUT PIPE SLOTTED PIPE X CONTINUOUS SAMPLER GRAB SAMPLE CALIFORNIA SAMPLER MODIFIED CALIFORNIA I SAMPLER NO RECOVERY PITCHER SAMPLER SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER I STANDARD PENETRATION • SAMPLER 4693LOG KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 FIGURE NO. Al PROJECT NO. 51-4693-01 LOG OF BORING 1 SHEET "I OF 1 DRILLING EQUIPMENT INGERSOLL-RAND A-300 PROJECT NAME CANNON ROAD 24" RECYCLED WATER AND 24" SEWER LINES LOCATION CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA TYPE OF BIT 6 SSA HAMMER DATA: m. 1 40 LBS. DROP 30 INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION •45" TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 25' STARTED: 2/27/98 DRILLING AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILLING GROUNDWATER DATE m 1 DATE COMPLETED: 2/27/98 LOGGED BY GMB mm 1 DATE BACKFILLED: 2/27/98 SURFACE CONDITIONS 5" AC / 5" BASE •0 1 2 3 4 5 6—1 7 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 1 4- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- 27- 28- 29- o CD >- LOG OF MATERIAL 5 INCHES ASPHALT CONCRETE AGGREGATE RASF INCHES TERRACE DFPOSrrS: MEDIUM DENSE, BROWN SILTY SAND, MEDIUM GRAINED, MOIST LOOSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED DENSE, MICACEOUS •30- LIGHT OLIVE, VERY THINLY BEDDED, FRIABLE CLAYEY SILTSTONE. DRY EXCAVATES AS "VERY DENSE, LIGHT OLIVE, CLAYEY SILT (ML)" SANDY BORING STOPPED @ 25 FT. NO CAVING OBSERVED NO FREE WATER OBSERVED BORING BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS AND GRAVEL, CAPPED WITH 6" CONCRETE AND 6" HOT MIXED ASPHALT SW WELL DETAILS tn ii CD O u 28 53 76/9^ 50/4' UJ cr I— _ O O -5U 6^ 99 97 NOTES "N: 4693L0G KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SU SAN DIEGO. CAUFORNIA 92 TE 101 23 FIGURE NO. A2 PROJECT NO, 51-4693-01 DRILLING EQUIPMENT HAND AUGER LOG OF HAND AUGER 1 PROJECT NAME CANNON ROAD 24" RECYCLED WATER AND 24" SEWER UNES SHEET 1 OF 1 LOCATION CARLSBAD. CAUFORNIA TYPE OF BIT 4"0 HAMMER DATA: WT. — LBS. DROP — INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION •45.5' TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 2' STARTED: 2/27/98 COMPLETED: 2/27/98 BACKFILLED: 2/27/98 DRILLING AGENCY KLEINFELDER LOGGED BY GMB SURFACE CONDITIONS GRASS / 2" ROOT ZONE GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATE •0' 1- 2- 3- 4—I 5- 6- 7- 10- 1 1- 12- 13—I 14- 15—1 16- 17- 18- !9- 20- 21- 22- 23- 24- 25—j 26- 27- o m >-(/I LOG OF MATERIAL WELL DETAILS CO ii CD O O on 2 o o -5 o ^ CL UJO-Q NOTES 29- BROWN SAND (SP-SM) FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, MOIST SM AUGER STOPPED @ 2 FT, DUE TO CLOSE PROXIMITY OF UNDERGROUND HIGH VOLTAGE UNE. BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUmNGS, '30' FN: 4693L0G KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 FIGURE NO.: A3 PROJECT NO. 51-4693-01 LOG OF BORING 2 ;HEET 1 OF •] DRILUNG EQUIPMENT INGERSOLL-RAND A-300 PROJECT NAME CANNON ROAD 24' RECYCLED WATER AND 24' SEWER LINES LOCATION CARLSBAD. CAUFORNIA TYPE OF BIT 8" HSA HAMMER DATA: WT. 1 40 LBS. DROP 30 INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION •49' TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 25' STARTED: 2/27/98 DRILLING AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILLING GROUNDWATER n r\/flTir,M DATE 1 DATE COMPLETED: 2/27/98 LOGGED BY GMB 1 DATE BACKFILLED 2/27/98 SURFACE CONDITIONS GRASS / 1" ROOT ZONE CL UJ St, -0- 1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- 27- 28- 29- •30- FN: LOG OF MATERIAL WELL DETAILS LO ii CD O o UJ cc 3 Ld, oo &5 NOTES TERRACE DEPOSITS: BROWN, SAND, SOME SILT, MEDIUM GRAINED, MOiST MEDIUM DENSE SP- SM OLIVE BROWN. MICACEOUS OLIVE SANDSTONE, FINE GRAINED, MASSIVE BEDDING, FRIABLE TO WEAKLY CEMENTED, MOIST, MICACEOUS EXCAVATES AS "VERY DENSE. OLIVE SILTY SAND (SM), FINE GRAINED, MOIST" OLIVE SANDY SILTSTONE, SOME CLAY, FRIABLE TO MODERATELY CEMENTED, DRY EXCAVATES AS "VERY DENSE, OLIVE SANDY SILT (ML). SOME CLAY" BORING STOPPED @ 25 FT, NO CAVING OBSERVED NO FREE WATER OBSERVED BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS 19 35 50/5' 50/5 70 103 105 4593L0G KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101 SAN DiEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 FIGURE NC A4 PROJECT NO. 51-4693-01 LOG OF HAND AUGER 2 SHEET ] OF •] DRILUNG EOUIPMENT HAND AUOER PROJECT NAME CANNON ROAD 24" RECYCLED WATER AND 24" SEWER LINES LOCATION CARLSBAD. CAUFORNIA TYPE OF BIT 4 0 HAMMER DATA: WT. — LBS. DROP — INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION -48' TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 4' 1 DATE STARTED: 2/27/98 DRILUNG AGENCY KLEINFELDER GROUNDWATER riATP 1 DATE COMPLETED: 2/27/98 LOGGED BY GMB 1 DATE BACKFILLED: 2/27/98 SURFACE CONDITIONS GRASS / 1" ROOT ZONE -0 2 3 4 5' 6- ?• 8- 9' 10' 11 — 12— 13' 14—I IS- IS- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 24- 25- 25- 27- 28- 29- LOG OF MATERIAL WELL DETAILS CO ii CD O O U CH 3UJ. 00 2 oo 6^ NOTES BROWN SAND (SP-SM), SOME SILT, MEDIUM GRAINED, MOIST SP- SM OLIVE SILTY CLAY CL HAND AUGER STOPPED @ 4' BORING BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS 30^ FN: 4693LOG KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 FIGURE NO,: A5 PROJECT NO, 51-4693-01 LOG OF BORING 3 SHEET 1 OF "I DRILLING EQUIPMENT INGERSOLL-RAND A-300 PROJECT NAME CANNON ROAD 24" RECYCLED WATER AND 24" SEWER UNES LOCATION CARLSBAD. CAUFORNIA TTPE OF BIT 8" HSA HAMMER DATA: WT. 140 LBS- DROP 30 INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION '56' TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 24' STARTED 2/27/98 COMPLETED: 2/27/98 BACKFILLED: 2/27/98 DRILLING AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILUNG LOGGED BY GMB SURFACE CONDITIONS GRASS / 1 ROOT ZONE GROUNDWATER ELEVATION DATE >- LOG OF MATERIAL WELL DETAILS CD O CJ Ld ^ _ Z) Ld. I— IJ) o o a NOTES 2- 3- 4—1 5- 6' !• 10- 11- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- TFRRACE OEPOSITS: BROWN SAND, MEDIUM GRAINED. MOIST MEDIUM DENSE, YELLOW-BROWN SP WET (SATURATED SOIL ZONE FROM 8.5' TO 12') NO SAMPLER MOVEMENT FOR 10 BLOWS IT; OLIVE SILTT CLAY. MOIST, FRIABLE CL LIGHT BROWN SAND, SOME SILT, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, WEAKLY CEMENTED, DRY ISP- SM VERY DENSE, OLIVE SANDY SILTSTONE, DRY, FRIABLE TO MODERATELY CEMENTED. MASSIVE BEDDING EXCAVATES AS "VERY DENSE, OLIVE SANDY SILT" 21- 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- 27- 28- 29- •30' FN: SAMPLER REFUSAL @ 24 FT. BORING STOPPED @ 24 FT. NO CAVING OBSERVED SATURATED SOIL ZONE OBSERVED FROM 8.5 FT. TO 12 FT. BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS 27 25/3' 14 50/3 50/5^ 50/5f 103 I 1 12 I 4693L0G KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 11 SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNIA 92123 FIGURE NC. A6 PROJECT NO. 51-4693-01 LOG OF HAND AUGER 3 SHEET ] OF 1 DRILLING EQUIPMENT HAND AUGER PROJECT NAME CANNON ROAD 24" RECYCLED WATER AND 24" SEWER LINES LOCATION CARLSBAD. CAUFORNIA TYPE OF BIT 4 0 HAMMER DATA; WT. — LBS. DROP — INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION • 58' TOTAL DEPTH OF HOLE 5' STARTED: 2/27/98 DRILUNG AGENCY KLEINFELDER GROUNDWATER Fl F\/ATinM DATE m 1 DATE COMPLETED: 2/27/98 LOGGED BY GMB m 1 DATE BACKFILLED: 2/27/98 SURFACE CONDITIONS GRASS / 1" ROOT ZONE UJ -0' 2- 3- 4- 5- 5- 7- 8- 9- 10—I 1 1- 12- 13- 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- 27- 28- 29- o CD >-00 LOG OF MATERIAL WELL DETAILS 00 ii CD O o UJ _ 00 ^ oo -5 o NOTES •30' FN: 4693LOG BROWN SILTY SAND, MEDIUM GRAINED, MOIST SM HAND AUGER STOPPED @ 5 FT. BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO. CAUFORNIA 92123 FIGURE NO.: A7 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING General Laboratory tests were performed on selected, representative samples as an aid in classifying the soils and to evaluate physical properties of the soils which may affect foundation design and construction procedures. A description of the laboratory testing program is presented below. Moisture and Density Moisture content and dry unit weight tests were performed on a number of samples recovered from the test borings. Moisture content and dry unit weight were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM Test Methods D2216 and D2937, respectively. Results of these tests are presented on the test boring logs in Appendix A. Sieve Analyses Sieve analyses were performed on four samples of the materials encountered at the site to evaluate the gradation characteristics of the soils and to aid in their classification. Tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D422. Results of these tests are presented on Figures Bl through B4. R-value Two R-Value tests were performed in accordance with Califomia Test Method 301 on two soil samples. Results of these tests are presented on Figure B5. Chemical Tests One sample of the on-site soils was tested for pH and minimum electrical resistivity lo evaluate the potential for corrosion of concrete and steel. The sample was tested in general accordance with Califomia Test Method 643 for pH and minimum electrical resistivity, Cal Test Method 417 for water soluble sulfates, and Cal Test Method 422 for water soluble chlorides. A summary of these chemical tests is given in Figure B5. 51-4693-01/5118R227.DOC B-1 March 24, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #16 #30 #60 #100 #200 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE (mm) O.Oi o UJ H <E UJ 01 UJ o Ql UJ Q- _J <E 0.001 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine SILT CLAY Symbol Boring No. Depth (ft) Description Classification • 1 4 to 7 Brown silty SAND SM KLEINFELDER PROJECT NO. 51-4693-01 Cannon Rd. Recycled Water and Sewer Lines Carlsbad, California GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE Bl SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" 100 ll I I |i I 1' • CD Z H (/) <n 90 80 70 60 50 UJ o S 40 Q- P 30 20 10 0 #4 #10 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES #16 #30 #60 #100 #200 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE Cmm) 0.01 10 •20 30 a 40 ^ H <E ^~ UJ 50 t- 2 UJ u 60 £ Q. 70 P 80 90 0.001 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY coarse fme coarse medium flne SILT CLAY Symbol Boring No. Depth (ft) Description ClassiHcation • 2 8 to 12 Brown SAND, some silt SP-SM m KLEINFELDER PROJECT NO. 51-4693-01 Cannon Rd. Recycled Water and Sewer Lines Carlsbad, California - GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE B2 SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" 100 ' ' U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES #4 #10 #16 #30 #60 #100 #200 ' \ I L. 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE (mm) 0.01 0.001 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY coarse | fme coarse medium fine SILT CLAY Symbol Boring No. Depth (ft) Description Classification • 3 5.0 Yellow-brown SAND SP KLEINFELDER PROJECT NO. 51-4693-01 Cannon Rd. Recycled Water and Sewer Lines Carlsbad, California GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE B3 SIEVE ANALYSIS HYDROMETER U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #16 #30 #60 #100 #200 J ^ 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE (mm) o UJ z: H <L t-U GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine SILT CLAY Symbol Boring No. Depth (ft) Description Classification • 3 9.5 Yellow-brown SAND . • • SP Cannon Rd. Recycled Water and Sewer Lmes FIGURE •gn KLEINFELDER Carlsbad, Caiifornia B4 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION B4 PROJECT NO. 51-4693-01 R-VALUE TEST RESULTS Sample location and depth R-Value Hand Auger 1 from O'to 2' 36 Hand Auger 2 from 0' to 4' 60 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SOILS Sample location and depth Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm) pH Soluble Sulfates (mg/kg) Soluble Chlorides (mg/l^) Boring 2 from 8' to 12' 9,990 8.7 <50 80 KLEI NFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRiVE SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 CHECKED BY: - 6yvg FN: PROJECT NO 51-4693-01 IDATE: 03-09-98 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS CANNON ROAD 24" RECYCLED WATER AND 24" SEWER LINES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B5 APPENDIX C IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT As the client of a consulting geotechnical engineer, you should know that site subsurface conditions cause more construction problems than any other factor. ASFE/The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences offers the following suggestions and obsen/ations to help you manage your risks. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PRO|Ea-SPEClFIC FACTORS Your geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific factors. These factors typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; other improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems, ask your geotechnical engineer to evaluate how factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the report's recommendations. Unless your geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise, do not use your geotechnical engineering report; • when the nature of the proposed structure is changed, for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an un refrigerated one; • when the size, elevation, or configuration ofthe proposed structure is altered; • when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified; • when there is a change of ownership; or • for application to an adjacent site. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors considered in their report's development have changed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE A geotechnical engineering report is based on condi- tions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration. Do not base construction decisions on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with your geotechnica! consult- ant to learn if additional tests are advisable before construction starts.Note. too, that additional tests may be required when subsurface conditions are affected by construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or ground water fluctuations. Keep your geotechnical consultant apprised of any such events. MOST GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL |UDGMENTS Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your geotechnical engineer who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your geotechnical engineer can work together to help minimize their impact. Retaining your geotechnica! engineer to observe construction can be particularly beneficial in this respect. A REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS CAN ONLY BE PREUMINARY The construction recommendations included in your geotechnical engineer's report are preliminary, because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork, you should retain your geo- technical engineer to observe actual conditions and to finalize recommendations. Only the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by appli- cable recommendations. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommenda- tions if another party is retained to observe construction. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS Consulting geotechnical engineers prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construaion contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your geotechnical engineer prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. GEOENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ARE NOT AT ISSUE Your geotechnical engineering report is not likely to relate any findings, conclusions, or recommendations about the potential for hazardous materials existing at the site. The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental exploration differ substantially from those applied in geotechnical engineering. Contamination can create major risks. If you have no information about the potential for your site being contaminated, you are advised to speak with your geotechnical consultant for information relating to geoenvironmental issues. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBIECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Costly problems can occur when other design profes- sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain your geotechnical engineer to work with other project design professionals who are affected by the geotechnical report. Have your geotech- nical engineer explain report implications to design professionals affected by them, and then review those design professionals' plans and specifications to see how they have incorporated geotechnical factors. Although certain other design professionals may be fam- iliar with geotechnical concerns, none knows as much about them as a competent geotechnical engineer, BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT Geotechnical engineers develop final boring logs based upon their interpretation ofthe field logs (assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field samples. Geotechnical engineers customarily include only final boring logs in their reports. Final boring logs should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid preparation. When this occurs, delays, disputes, and unanticipated costs are the all-too-frequent result. To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- tion, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering report prepared or authorized for their use. (If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors ofthe report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one ofthe specific persons for whom the report was prepared and that developing construction cost esti- mates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. In other words, while a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor would be well-advised to discuss the report with your geotechnical engineer and to perform the additional or alternative work that the contractor believes may be needed to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes.) Some clients believe that it is unwise or unnecessary to give contractors access to their geo- technical engineering reports because they hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsi- bility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems, (t also helps reduce the adversarial attitudes that can aggravate problems to disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical engineers. To help prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports, and other documents. Responsi- bility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer geotechnical engineers' liabilities to other parties. Instead, they are dehnitive clauses that identify where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your geotechnical engineering report. Read them closely. Your geotechnical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank answers to any questions. RELY ON THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE Most ASFE-member consulting geotechnical engineer- ing firms are familiar with a variety of techniques and approaches that can be used to help reduce risks for all parties to a construction project, from design through construction. Speak with your geotechnical engineer not only about geotechnical issues, but others as well, to learn about approaches that may be of genuine benefit. You may also wish to obtain certain ASFE publications. Contact a member of ASFE or ASFE fora complimentary directory of ASFE publications. PROFESSIONAL FIRMS PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES 8811 COLESVILLE ROAD/SUITE G106/SlLVER SPRING, MD 20910 TELEPHONE: 301/565-2733 FACSIMILE: 301/589-2017 Copyright ]992 by ASFE Inc Unless ASFE grants specific permission to do so, duplication of this document byany means whatsoever is expressly prohibited Re-useof the wording in this document, m whole orin part, also is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or for purposes of review or scholarly research nGR0294