HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Carlsbad Blvd Bridge Agua Hedionda Lagoon; Carlsbad Blvd Bridge Agua Hedionda Lagoon; 1981-07-01CARLSBAD BOULEVARD BRIDGE
AT THE
AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
for the
City of Carlsbad, California
Submitted July 1981
by
McDaniel Engineering Company, Inc,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I INTRODUCTION 1
II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 5
III BRIDGE SITE CONSTRAINTS ........ 6
IV CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE ........ 12
V TRAFFIC CONTROL 13
VI BRIDGE TYPES 14
VII DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED
BRIDGE ALTERNATE 17
VIII BRIDGE DESIGN CRITERIA 19
ROADWAY WIDENING
A. Project Description 20
B. Cross Section 21
C. Alignment 22
X UTILITIES 25
XI BRIDGE REMOVAL 27
XII CONSTRUCTION COSTS
A. Bridge Construction Costs .... 27
B. Existing Bridge Removal 3 0
C. Roadwork Construction Costs ... 31
Two Span Alternative Cost Estimate 3 3
Three Span Alternative Cost
Estimate 34
Clear Span Alternative Cost Estimate 35
Roadwork' Cost Estimate, 3 6
Roadwork Alternate Alignment Cost
Estimate • 37
XIII CONCLUSIONS AND REC0Mr4SNDATI0NS 3i
XIV DRAWINGS
A. Two Span Alternative
B. Three Span Alternative
C. Clear Span Alternative
D. Preliminary Roadway Plan - Sheet 1
E. Preliminary Roadway Plan - Sheet 2
F. Preliminary Roadway Plan - Sheet 3
G. Preliminary Roadway Plan - Alternative
Alignment North of Bridge
XV APPENDICES
A. ORIGINAL FIELD REVIEW DATA
B. REQUEST FOR REVISION TO ORIGINAL FIELD REVIEW
C. FIELD REVIEW AiMENDMENT APPROVAL
D. FOUNDATION REPORT
E. FOUNDATION REPORT SUPPLEMENT
F. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
11
INTRODUCTION
The proposed project under study involves a widening of
Carlsbad Boulevard (old Highway 101) from two to four lanes,
beginning 300 feet southerly of Tamarack Avenue and con-
tinuing to Cannon Road in the City of Carlsbad, California.
As a part of the project, the existing bridge over the Agua
Hedionda Lagoon inlet is to be removed and replaced with a
four lane facility. Project scope, limits, history, funding
sources, etc. are further discribed in original study docu-
ments ^"^^ and Field Review ^"''^ appended ,as well as in -the
project Environmental Report and in the roadway discussion
and preliminary plans accompanying this report.
Following is a brief biography of the Carlsbad Boulevard
Proj ect:
Funding: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Funding Program (Bridge): Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation (HBRR)
Funding Program (Roadway): Federal Aid Urban (FAU)
Program Administration: California Department of
Transportation (CalTrans)
Local Agency Administration: City of Carlsbad
Design Consultant: . McDaniel Engineering Company, Inc.
Environmental Consultant: New Horizons, Inc.
Initial Studies, Field Reviews: Kercheval Associates
1979-1980 (1)
Figures 1, 2 and 3 show the project vicinity and site location
Preliminary Study, Carlsbad Blvd. Bridge and Highv/ay Project,
Kercheval Associates, Novenber 13, 1979.
-1-
New Horizons, Inc,
Figure 1 VICINITY MAP
-2-
New Horizons, Inc.
Figure, 2 SITE LOCATION
-3-
New Horizons, Inc,
Figure 3 AERIAL VIEW OF PROPOSED PROJECT SITE
-4-
This report is a summary of engineering studies and analyses
which have been made for the Carlsbad Boulevard project. The
primary purpose of preliminary studies has been, in general, to
derive the most suitable solutions for accomplishing the overall
required work with specific emphasis towards selecting the
appropriate bridge type for this particular site. The following
subjects will be addressed in the ensuing discussions:
o Environmental aspects
o Bridge site constraints
o Construction sequence
o Traffic control
o Bridge study types
o Bridge•design criteria
o Roadway widening
o Utilities
o Bridge removal
o Construction costs
o Conclusions and recommendations
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Alternate studies have given priority attention towards
construction options which will minimize or avoid adverse
environmental impacts. Selection of proper bridge type is
especially important in achieving timely and successful
project implementation . It is difficult to precisely
assess what adverse impacts, real or alleged, might ensue
as a result of construction within the Agua Hedionda Lagoon
channel. It appears somewhat certain that such construction
could be controversial and that, as a consequence, project
delays might be expected. Construction within the channel
below mean sea elevation zero could require a Corps of
Engineer,permit. Other aspects of the project do not appear
contro\/ersial except for loss of existing beach parking that
will occur immediately south of the existing bridge when
the roadway is widened.
The project Environmental Report discusses environraental
issues in detail including proposed mitigation measures.
III. BRIDGE SITE CONSTRAINTS
A careful study of a site is necessary to proper selection
of the construction options appropriate to a particular site.
The Carlsbad Boulevard site has been studied under all of its
prevailing conditions of traffic, weather, surf conditions
and recreation activities during various times on weekdays
and weekends during all seasons of the year. In addition, a
search has been made for plans of prior constructions and
other data which might have a bearing on selection of new
construction options. Discussions have been held with
abutting tenants and property owners. ' Some of the site
-6-
constraints which must be considered for this particular
project are briefly discussed below:
1, The project site is adjacent to and parallel to
public ocean beach areas and the environmentally
sensitive Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The general scene
is that of the typically beautiful Southern Calif-
ornia seacoast. Project options must include envir-
onmental site analyses, with special emphasis being
given towards minimizing or avoiding adverse con-
struction impacts.
2. The ocean entrance to the Agua Hedionda -Lagoon,
which is to be bridged, consists of a channel
bordered by rock-riprapped jetties extending seaward
from the existing bridge about 400 feet. The channel
is approximately 160 feet wide at the bridge site.
Approximate elevations developed from bottom soundings
and other data are as follows:
EXISTING
DATUM CHANNEL BOTTOM BRIDGE SOFFIT BRIDGE DEPTH
MSL -10 max. +12. 5 minimum 3'-9"
Under certain conditions of surf, tide and weather,
the channel is subject to swift currents and extreme
turbulence. Since breakwaters do not exist, ocean
breakers during such periods enter the channel where
they become exaggerated in both height and velocity
-7-
due to the channel restriction. VJave impingement
on riprapped channel sideslopes contribute towards
excited wave action within the channel.
Floating equipment access to the channel from seaward,
locations is not considered feasible. Access.from
easterly lagoon areas is blocked by the existing
bridge. Under favorable tidal and.weather conditions
small steel segmental float units might be launched
within the channel. Such launching, however, and the
mounting of equipment thereon would require either
dredging of access ramps or construction of temporary
launching piers. Segmental float units suitable for
assembly into marine barge units,capable of sustaining
heavy equipment loads are not readily available on
the West Coast. For all of the reasons stated, the
use of marine equipment is not considered to be a
feasible option for construction of the Carlsbad
Boulevard Bridge. It is therefore, concluded that all
construction must be accomplished utilizing land
based equipment.
The San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E) draws
water from the Agua Hedionda Lagoon for cooling pur-
poses for its adjacent Encina.Power Plant in the
amount of approximately 550,000 gpm. Since water is
supplied through the Agua Hedionda channel it is
of critical importance that the channel not-be
obstructed in any manner which, would impede required
flov7S. Consequently, any construction within the
channel must be carefully planned to avoid signifi-
cant reductions in channel volume and water velocity.
5. Boring logs show the construction site to be underlain
by Del Mar Sandstone varying between a medium dense
. to very dense condition. Said formation occurs at
approximately the elevation of the channel bottom
(-10.0 MSL).
6. The area west of the existing bridge, where new first-
phase bridge construction v/ill occur, appears to be
the site of an earlier bridge crossing. Remains of
what appears to have been abutments exist at either
shore. It is not known v/hat obstacles in the nature
of former pier remains might exist within the channel.
The channel bottom below the existing bridge, where
new second-phase bridge construction will occur, is
paved with a two foot thick heavily reinforced con-
crete apron which extends 12 feet either side of
the bridge. Bridge foundations which originally
-9-
supported pier columns consist of 7'x7' concrete
footing blocks eight feet in depth. Numerous steel
piles which were used during bridge rehabilitation
construction in 19 54 to support shoring members re-
main within the construction area. All of these
elements of original and present construction are
anticipated to remain in place during new construction.
Due to natural channel bottom conditions and the exist-
ence of obstacles from existing and prior constructions
it is not possible to predict with certainty the pile
driving conditions that will be encountered during con-
struction. The following statements are quoted from the
Foundation Report:
"In view of the relatively dense condition of
material encountered below elevation (-)IO feet,
we recommend that a test pile be driven at both
abutments in order to determine if it is necessary
to.use steel H-piling or provide a drive shoe
for prestressed concrete piling. For estimating
purposes, all pilings should be driven below
elevation (-)30 feet."
"Downward Pile Capacities: As mentioned earlier,
the minimum required pile capacity will be 7 0 tons.
For calculating pile capacities, refer to Plate 4.
Minimum tip elevation fbr all piles should be at
elevation (-)30' feet. Refusal to further penetra-
tion may be encountered above this elevation.
-10-
Accordingly, pre-drilling may be necessary at this
location. If pre-drilling is considered necessary,
the diameter of the hole should be at least 3 inches
less than the leas t w idth of the pile. Pre-
drilling should not be permitted within 5 feet
above the desired tip elevation."
Further concluding statements were made in a supple-
ment to the Foundation Report as follows:
"As shown in Plate 3 of the above referenced re-
port, we anticipate relatively high resistance to
pile driving within the channel considering the
medium dense to very dense condition of the Del Mar
Formation as encountered in borings 1 and 2 and
expected to prevail within the channel. In view •
of this condition, it is advisable, to consider
designing a single-span bridge.in between abutments.
Furthermore, pier construction will be difficult
due to the presence of deep water and wave action
in the channel unless some type of pneumatic
caisson technique is employed. This technique
if available locally,' may be "expensive".
The Foundation Report further suggests the use of
steel piles in order to minimize resistance to pile
driving and suggests the possibility of cast-in-drilled
hole "tremie concrete" piles at abutments in lieu of
driven piles.
-11-
In conclusion, it is anticipated that piles can be placed at
abutments without undue difficulty, since pre-drilling may
be utilized and access is not a problem. However, pile
driving within the channel is complicated by numerous site
constraints as summarized below:
1. Lack of ability to use floating pile driving equipment
within the channel.
2. Difficult natural bottom conditions plus additional
obstacles from existing and prior constructions.
3. Uncertainty as to whether permanent piles can be
• driven from the existing bridge due to its deteriorated
structural condition and reduced live load capacity..
4. Difficulty of pre-drilling below water under turbulent
water conditions.
It is concluded that the placement of piles within the
Hedionda Lagoon presents extreme difficulties and that piling,
where required, should be limited to heavy steel HP bearing piles in
lieu of other types. Placanent of large precast concrete piles within
the channel does not appear to be a feasible option v/ithin th'e budget
constraints of the project.
IV. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
The inability to close Carlsbad Boulevard during bridge con-
struction mandates a need for 2-phase construction which is
anticipated to occur as follows:
•12-
(a) Construct a 2-lane bridge ^segment west of the
i
•
existing bridge (Phase 1).!
(b) Route traffic to Phase 1 construction.
(c) Demolish the existing bridge.
(d) Construct remainder of bridge (Phase 2).
The existing roadway will remain in place with localized
detour connections from the bridge being constructed as re-
i
quired. At completion of bridge construction the required I . . widening will be completed. i
V. TRAFFIC CONTROL j
•
Since Carlsbad Boulevard cannot be detoured, the project
i
must be planned to accommodate trafjfic through the Carlsbad
Boulevard site during construction.j Average daily traffic
counts as furnished by the City of icarlsbad for 1980 are
15, 000 (summer count) and 9, 000 (wilnter count).
I
Construction during summer months w!il-l aggravate the prob-
lems of phase-type construction. In the event that new con-
I
struction is accomplished by utilizjing the existing bridge
as a working platform some traffic, [delay and congestion
I
can be expected. It may be necessajry to close the bridge
to traffic for short periods of time. Specifications
will prohibit such closures except jfor limited periods
I during non-rush hours. [
-13-
as Drawings A, B / and
VI. BRIDGE TYPES
Preliminary General Plans numbered
C , accompany this report. Depicted in the drawings are 1,
2, and 3 span structures with various types of super and
substructures which might normally be suitable for,small
water crossings. Each of these bridge types are discussed
below and evaluated for suitability of use at the Carlsbad
Boulevard site:
1. • Drawing Number A is a two span structure. Super-
structure type is designated- as either cast-in-place
posttensioned box girder or precast, prestressed I-
girder. Pier types are designated as either rein-
forced concrete columns supported by steel piles or
reinforced concrete pile bents consisting of 30"
octagonal precast concrete pile-columns.
2. Drawing Number B is a three span structure. Super-
structure types depicted are similar to the two span
structure shown. Pier types are designated as
either reinforced concrete wall type supported by
steel piles or reinforced concrete pile bents.
3. Drawing Number C is a single clear-span structure.
Superstructure type is cast-in-place posttensioned
box girder.
The two and three span structures depicted were examined
to correlate with earlier studies and Field Reviews for this
project. However, neither of these structures are considered
-14-
appropriate to the Carlsbad Bouleva
ing reasons:
As discussed earlier, construct
expected to be extremely diffic
rd site for . the follow-
ion within the channel is
ult. Certain types of con-
struction depicted may not be possible within the budget
constraints of the project. Un less a test pile program
is initiated prior to design, placing of precast concrete
piles within the channel should not be considered. Con-
sequently, pile bent substructures are not considered
to be feasible options -at this time.
Assuming steel bearing piles can be driven to required
design loadings, the construction of cast-in-place
column.or wall type piers within the channel is possible.
However, such work would require sheetpile cofferdam con-
struction under extremely difficult conditions of access
and bottom conditions. In any event ,it is not certain
that either steel piles or sheetpiles can be driven in
the required locations without extensive removal of ex-
isting obstacles on the channel bottom.
An attempt has been made to provide preliminary cost estimates
for construction of the two and three span alternates shown.
However, it should be recognized that much is unknown about
subsurface conditions and other aspects to be encountered in
the construction of piers for these alternates. Consequently,
-15-
such estimates • are only intended td provide some eval-
uation of the probable magnitude of costs for the various
alternates. j
i
The single clear-span structure as |shown on Drawing C is
the recommended bridge solution for! the Carlsbad Boulevard-
Hedionda Lagoon site. Numerous adv'antages exist for this
i
selection as follows: ^
1. Uncertainties regarding pile placement and pier con-
struction within the channel are eliminated.
2. The existing channel will remain unaltered except
j
that piers of the existing bridge will be removed.
Thus, there will be no alteration or impedance to
the cooling water required for SDG&E Company's '
Encina Power Plant.
3. An absence of construction within the channel should
simplify enviromnental and permit procedures. The
construction will not impose negative environmental
impacts within the channel.| It is anticipated
that the lengthy Corps of Engineer permit processes
will be avoided. . ; ,
4. The existing bridge has deteriorated due to the
rusting of reinforcing and subsequent spalling of
concrete. Elimination of piers within the channel
will help to ensure longer structure life.
5. Extensive removal.of underwater and subgrade obstacles
will not be required. ^
6. Preliminary estimates of structure cost compare
favorably with other alternates.
-16- \
VII. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED BRIDGE ALTERNATE
A box girder superstructure is required for the 200 foot
bridge that is required to clear-span the channel. The
structure will be posttensioned to avoid the deterioration
which has shortened the life of the existing bridge. Pre-
cast box units could be utilized for the superstructure
using temporary false^vork bents and segmental construction
and stressing techniques. However, as previously discussed,
the site does not lend itself to marine erection and other
construction operations. Precast girder placement might
be accomplished by erecting from the existing bridge. How-
ever, this would involve heavy loadings on a structure with
uncertain capacity to sustain such forces. In addition, con-
siderable traffic delays and public inconvenience would be
caused by contractor occupation of the existing (two-lane)
bridge. Precast segments would require a cast-in-place
deck overlay.
Other methods for erecting a structure across the channel
were analyzed. Discussions relative to segmental cantilever
construction techniques, structure launching and horizontal
jacking methods were discussed with the following firms:
W.F. Maxwell Construction Company
VSL Corporation
Engineering Computer Corporation
Dyckerhoff and Widman, Inc.
-17-
The firms listed are contractors or contractor consultants
specializing in bridge construction activities. Various
modern state-of-the-art methods are in use in Europe and, to
a more limited extent, the U.S. for constructing bridges
over rivers without using either falsework or floating
marine equipment. However, the equipment required for
such.operations is expensive and cannot be subsidized by a
project as small as the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge.
Cast-in-place construction is recommended for construction
of the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge superstructure. It is
anticipated that concrete can be placed by land based equip-
ment utilizing either conveyor belt or-pumping operations.
Such work can be accomplished on new bridge alignment with-
out interrupting traffic flow.
Cast-in-place superstructure construction involves considera-
tions of temporary falsework and falsework support within
the channel. Deck falsework would be located at elevations
above channel water surface to avoid obstruction of flow.
However, at least three temporary bents would be required
within the channel. Temporary bents could be of open lattice
type steel construction supported on driven steel piles. The
driving of temporary piles within the channel presents some of
the same pile placement problems as discussed earlier under
"Bridge Site Constraints".. However, considerable construction
-1?
latitude exists for temporary work that does not exist for
permanent work. Steel piles can be used without the need for
cut-offs at groundline (underwater). Temporary pile locations
are not rigidly fixed. That is, if obstructions during
driving are met, the pile can be relocated. Piles need not'
be precisely in place or plumb. Lighter bearing.capacity is
required for temporary work than for permanent work.
Falsework support for second-phase construction may be supported
from existing bridge substructure elements without a need for.
driven piles. It may be possible to avoid piles in first-phase
construction by supporting falsework bents from precast concrete
footing blocks in combination with existing substructure.
VIII. BRIDGE DESIGN-CRITERIA
Field Reviews' for this project.were concluded and approved by
CalTrans and FHWA in October 1979. The approved Field Review
conclusions (see Appendix) called for construction of either
a reinforced or prestressed concrete three span stracture
with precast girder superstructure. Piers were designated as
either wall type or pile bents supported on driven piles.
The approved bridge cross section consisted of a 78'-G" four
lane roadway with 6' shoulders and 5' walkway/bikeway on
either side. By letter of May 4, 1981, a reques't was made by
our office to revise the original Field Review conclusions in
three respects as follows:
-19-
(1) Add a four foot median for reasons of traffic safety.
(2) Permit additional concepts to be studied for clear-
spanning of the Hedionda Lagoon channel.
(3/ Revise structure type to a cast-in-place posttensioned
box girder in lieu of precast-prestressed I-girders.
The reasons for requesting Field Review revisions are con-
tained in our letter of May 4, 1981, which is included in the
Appendix. Said request was approved by CalTrans with notification
being made by letter of May 11, 1981.
Final structural design will be accomplished in accordance
with AASHTO specifications and California Bridge Design supple-
ments. Construction specifications will utilize the Calif-
ornia Department of Transportation State Standard Specifications.
IX, ROADWAY WIDENING
A. Projec.t.' D.escription
Carlsbad'Boulevard (formerly Highway 101) is currentiy a four
lane facility north of Tamarack Avenue. As the roadway enters
the project area it transitions into two lanes, crosses the
existing bridge, and traverses a sandy istlimus which separates
the Agua Hedionda Lagoon from the Pacific Ocean. At the
southerly end. of the lagoon, Carlsbad Boulevard provides
access to San Diego Gas. and Electric Company's Encina Power
Plant, north of its intersection with Cannon Road.
The proposed project will widen Carlsbad Boulevard to a four-
lane facility,, meeting existing four-lane improvements south
-20-
of Tamarack Avenue, and transitioning to two lanes at the
intersection at Cannon Road.
B. Cross Section
The roadway cross-section is that established by the amended
Field Review discussed earlier in this report. Tv/o twelve-
foot driving lanes (each direction) are separated from on-
coming traffic by a four-foot median, and are bounded on the
outside by an eight-foot shoulder, which doubles as a bicycle
lane. Total roadway, width is 68 feet. It is suggested that
the median be defined by painted stripes rather than curb,
since a vehicle striking the curb may be deflected into on-
coming traffic rather than into its own lane. If-, instead,
somie type of positive median barrier is required, a Jersey-
type rail could be considered. However, this v/ould add
measurably to the cost of the project.
The four-foot median widens to ten feet (total roadway width
equals 74 feet) to allow left-turning movements in three
places: the "fisherman's parking lot" east- of the roadway at
the lagoon, and the two main entrances to the. Encina Power
Plant. Providing of this extra median width is at the dis-
cretion of the City of Carlsbad, however the areas in question
presently have left-turn pockets, and elimination of them
in this project would result in a reduced standard of safety
from that currently existing. Carlsbad Boulevard is presently
posted for reduced (35 mph) speeds, however observation in-
dicates that motorists on this section of roadway travel
-21-
much faster when able, generally exceeding 55 mph. VJidening
of Carlsbad Boulevard to four lanes will quite possibly
aggravate this condition further. Addition of turning lanes
will not only give vehicles turning from Carlsbad Boulevard.
a place to stack out of the traveled way, but the gradual
transition back to a four-foot median will give vehicles turning
left onto Carlsbad Boulevard an opportunity- to accelerate
and merge into the traffic flow. It should be noted that
SDG&E has specifically requested separate turning lanes to
service their facility.
C. Alignment
Alignment of the roadway is constrained by the obvious
desirability of keeping v/ithin the existing right of way. In
fitting a cross-section which varies in total width from
68 to 74 feet into a right of way width of 100 feet, there
is not much room for adjustment; however the existing top-
ography and•improvements preclude centering the new roadway
within the right of way available.
The staged-construction concept discussed previously
determines the location of Carlsbad Boulevard at the lagoon
inlet. The preferred alignment shown on the preliminary
roadway plan depicts the roadway on tangent through the
bridge site, arcing through a gentle curve just north of
the bridge, and intersecting the existing roadway south of
Tamarack Avenue. This alignment requires placing fill west
of the existing roadway, and constructing approximately
-22-
400 linear feet of retaining wall adjacent to the beach
parking area north of the bridge site. Neither the retaining
wall hor the slope would encroach into the existing parking
area, and construction of roadway embankment would remain
within Carlsbad Boulevard right of way, to a point im^med-
iately preceeding the' new bridge.
The proximity of the proposed bridge to the western right of
way line, together with the finished roadway grade, cause the
fill slopes emanating from the abutment to encroach outside
of right of way. This encroachment is onto land owned by
SDG&E, and necessitates an agreement between the City of
Carlsbad and SDG&E. The grading shown at the bridge location
also provides a transition between the pedestrian walkways on
the bridge and the beach and lagoon areas north and south of
the bridge.
An alternate alignment designed to minimize grading west of
the roadway has also been considered (Drawing G ) This
alignment would direct the roadway through two short-radius
reversing curves with a minimum intervening tangent immed-
iately north of the bridge. Required cut slopes would be ex-
tensive and approximately 470 linear feet of retaining wall
would need to be constructed. This amount of retaining wall
could be lessened should the City of Carlsbad elect to obtain
grading rights outside of the right of way from private prop-
erty ov/ners.
-23-
Sequoia Avenue currently descends to intersect Carlsbad
Boulevard at a grade of 12%, requiring motorists to stop on a
steep slope prior to proceeding onto Carlsbad Boulevard."
Election of the alternative alignment would require reconstruc-
tion of Sequoia Avenue to a more severe grade, in the order of
13h-6 r aggravating an undesirable intersection condition.
Should off-site grading rights not be obtained, the required
retaining walls would also impose sight distance limitations.
Election of the alternate alignment would also necessitate
relocation of a four inch water line and an overhead tele-
phone line located at the top of the existing slope east of
the roadway, within the right of way. A sewer ]-ift station
and sewer lines located at the prolongation of Chinquapin
Avenue at Carlsbad Boulevard would also need reconstruction.
South of the bridge, the Preliminary Roadway Plans show the
roadway improvements placed to the westerly side of the right
of way, in the area where the roadway abuts the lagoon. This
is done to minimize grading along the lagoon side of the
roadway. In addition, the westerly alignment allows utiliza-
tion of the existing parking area west of the existing
roadway as a base course for the future roadway structural
section, thus elimiinating substantial surface preparation and
placement of foundation material.
-24-
Further south, next to the Encina Plant, the roadway also
climbs vertically from the beach. Fill slopes, if constructed
west of the existing roadway at this point, would toe out
outside of the right of way onto public beach property,
which may be environmentally unacceptable. The roadway,
therefore, transitions easterly, cutting into an already
existing s-lope in front of the Encina plant entrance. It
will be necessary to obtain permission from SDG&E for this
construction.
As the roadway proceeds southerly from this area, the align-
ment shifts to center the pavement within the right of way.
The roadway transitions from four lanes to two in the 35 0 feet
between Tierra Del Oro and Cannon Road, meeting existing
improvements at Cannon Road.
X. UTILITIES
Early in the preliminary design phase, the following agencies
were contacted for information regarding utilities in the pro-
ject area,, and possible requirements for utilities on the bridge:
City of Carlsbad
San Diego Gas and Electric Company
Pacific Telephone Company
Costa Real Municipal Water District
La Costa Cable Television
Carlsbad Cablevision Company
-25-
The results of this utility research are shown on the Pre-
liminary Plans. A 4" gas line and a 12" water main are
carried by the existing bridge.
Three agencies requested provisions for passage of utilities
on the new bridge. San Diego Gas and Electric Company requested
provisions for passage of the 4"HP gas line and future electric
conduits, and the City of Carlsbad requested provisions for
the 12" water main. Pacific Telephone Company has overhead
telephone facilities in the eastern portion of the right of
way. This is a major trunk installation between San Diego
and Los Angeles, and is scheduled to be relocated to El
Camino Real in approximately three years.
Roadway construction will impact the existing overhead tele-
phone facility immediately south of the new bridge, and at the
northerly entrance to the Encina'Power Plant, probably requir-
ing several poles to be reset. If an alignment other than thaf.
shown on the Preliminary Plans is chosen, there may be
additional utility relocations required. This is discussed
in the "Roadway Widening-Alignment" section of this report.
Preliminary Plans will be circulated to the various utilities
once again after their approval by the reviewing agencies.
^Provision for passage of utilities on the bridge will be made
for those agencies who have requested them.
-26-
XI. BRIDGE REMOVAL
Demolition of the existing bridge will be accomplished after
traffic is routed to the bridge segment to be built westerly
of existing alignment during Phase 1 construction.
Specifications for bridge removal will prohibit demolition
debris from being deposited in the Hedionda Lagoon channel.
Debris entrapment and removal is necessary in order to ensure
the maintenance of cooling water flows to SDG&E Company's
Encina power plant. In addition, large volumes of debris
deposits in the channel would be environmentally unacceptable.
It is anticipated that .debris control will be accomplished by
utilizing wood rafts to.prevent the deposit of materials
within the channel. Wood rafts, upon being loaded, can be
lifted from the channel by cranes and stored for removal from
the site.
XII. CONSTRUCTION COSTS
A. Bridge Construction Costs.
Preliminary planning cost estimates have been made for each of
the three bridge alternates previously discussed and shown on
the General Plans accompanying this report. Estimates are
based on preliminary quantity take-offs and on current (1981)
unit prices for bridge construction in California. Preliminary
miaterial quantities were estimated by developing designs
sufficiently to determine dead and live loads, foundation re-
quirements, structural member sizes, and reinforcing and pre-
-27-
stressing requirements. Where this was not required or feasible,
estimating parameters developed by CalTrans were used to develop
material quantities for each bridge.
Each of the alternates were considered to be 8 2 feet in width
and 200 feet in total length. This length is required in order
to place new bridge abutments- clear of existing bridge founda-
tion elements and other below-grade appurtenances. Within
these parameters, one, two and three span alternates consisting
of posttensioned, cast-in-place box girder construction were
considered. Cost estimates for precast girder superstructures
were not made since studies reveal cast-in-place construction
to be the most feasible option. For the two- and three- span
bridge,v/all type piers supported on steel bearing piles were
assumed for cost estimating purposes.. Each of the alternates
would require placing rock slope protection in front of each
abutment when the existing abutment walls are removed and the
slopes reshaped. The two and three span types would require
pier construction in the water necessitating sheet piling and
dewatering in order to drive piles and place pile cap and pier
concrete. The cost of such work is extremely difficult to
estimate for this particular site and bids could range widely
depending on how individual contractors perceive the problem
and its solution. Based on the foregoing, the preliminary cost
estimates for the various alternates are as follows:
TYPE CONSTRUCTION COST PER SQ. FT,
COST
CLEAR SPAN $1,337,300 $81.54
TWO SPAN $1,492,201 $90.99
THREE SPAN $1,706,221 $104.04
Notes:
1. Excluding bridge demolition
2. Based on 16,400 sq. ft.
It should be noted that, as one would expect, material quantities
and the resultant costs for superstructure construction is less-
ened as span lengths are shortened. This is more than offset,•
however, by the increased work involved in adding additional
complex and costly piers with their attendant construction un-
certainties as discussed previously in this report.
In conclusion, at this particular site, there appears to be no
cost advantage for multi-span structures over a single clear-
span. In addition it should be noted that a contingency factor
of 10% has been used for costing of all three alternates. For
the multi-span alternates where uncertainties could lead to
problems in pier construction, it would be prudent to consider
higher contingency allocations to cover the costs of potential
change orders.
•29-
B. Existing Bridge Removal Costs
The existing bridge to be demolished is a two lane, four-span
reinforced concrete T-beam structure approximately 160 feet
long and 42 feet wide. It was constructed in 1934 and is
presently in a highly deteriorated condition. While still being
open to traffic it is posted for reduced live loading.
Piers for the existing bridge originally consisted of three-
column reinforced concrete, bents supported on 7' x 7' x 8' deep
spread footings. In 1954 the bridge was modified by SDG&E
Company. Modifications consisted essentially of constructing
a heavily reinforced two foot thick concrete slab at channel
bottom (elevation -lOMSL) for the full length of bridge and
extending 12 feet beyond the bridge width and constructing new
wall type piers between elevation -10.0 and +7.0. At bent
locations, the foundation slab is supported by steel pipe pile
clusters located each side of the bridge. In addition, the
slab rests on the spread footings which previously provided
column support. The slab serves as a modified foundation
element. In addition it presumably was intended to prevent
scour below the modified spread footing pier supports.
Wall type piers presently existing are two feet thick and like
the foundation slab are heavily reinforced with two way re-
inforcing bars each side of the member. Piers are securely
connected to the foundation slab with heavy dowel reinforcement.
-30-
While removal of existing bridge superstructure should present
no problems out of the ordinary, the bridge substructure will
be difficult and costly to remove. This is due to several
factors including location under water, the nature of channel
hydraulics, inability to use floating miarine equipment, during
rough water conditions, a need to prevent rubble from being
deposited within the channel, and the secure nature of pier
to foundation connections.
Costs for bridge demolition were derived with Contractor input.
However, the unique nature of the substructure removal work
and the limited contractor analyses available at this time
suggests further development of demolition costs during the
final design phase. The cost estimated __at this time for
bridge removal is $105,0 00.
C. Roadwork Construction Costs
The basis for the roadwork estimate is shown on Drawings D
through F of the Preliminary Roadway Plans.
The alternate roadway alignment north of the bridge has also
been analyzed. This estimate reflects the additional cost
of the alternate alignment over the preliminary plan alignment.
No change is shown in the cost of retaining v/all construction,
as the additional cost of the longer wall required for the al-
ternate alignment would be offset by the increased height of
the wall shown on the preliminary plans. The increased cost
-31-
of the alternate alignment results mainly from utility reloca-
tions required..
Costs for landscaping and irrigation in these estimates reflect
minimal hydroseeding and irrigation of newly constructed slopes
only. If more extensive landscaping is desired, unit prices
should.be increased accordingly.
-32-
BRIDGE ESTIMATE
• GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE -
0 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
• FINAL ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
BY KAG
CHECKED
-DATE jiine 19B1
DATE
BRIDGE: Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge
SUPERSTRUCTURE: Two (.2) Span (lOO'-lOO') Box Girder. - Alternate 1
LENGTH: 200' X WIDTH: 82-' = BRIDGE DECK AREA: 16, 400 S.F,
CONTRACT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT
PRICE AMOUNT
CLEARING AND GRUBBING JOB Tncl. in R« :)adwork
STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION (BRIDGE:) CY 1 ROO 20.00 36. nnn
STRUCTURAL BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 400 30.00 12,000
PERVIOUS BACKFILL CY Incl. in S iruc. E .F.
CIDH CONCRETE PILING LF
FURNISH Abut PILING ( 70 hon ^ LF 2520 15.00 37 ,800
DRIVE ahn+- PILING EA 1? 1 nnn.nr 72,nnn
FURNISH j^ier ' PILING ( JQ ton ^ LF 7 00 25. GC 17. .sno
DRIVE pH^^ PILING rwn+P-n EA ?fi >nnn.nr •sfi. nnn
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (BRIDGE), CLEIV CY ^•nn nn IRS nnn
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (BRIDGE)., CLD CY . 1 n?^ 77^ nn ?«1 R7t^
BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 3I «nnn n t;r| 1 <^Q nnn
PRESTRESSING STEEL LB
PRESTRESSING CONCRETE JOB LS 75,000
PRECAST CONCRETE GIRDERS ( FT) EA
ERECT PRECAST CONCRETE GIRDERS EA
STRUCTURAL STEEL (INCL PAINTING) ' LB
METAL RAILING, TYPE Special LF 472 25. OC 11.800
METAL RAILING^ TYPE LF
BARRIER RAILING, TYPE 25 modified LF 472 25. OQ 11,800
WATERSTOP LF
JOINT SEAL, TYPE LF
CONCRETE APPROACH SLAB CY 82 2 25.OC 18,450
ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION. TON 1550 60. OC 93 , 000
UTILITIES ON BRIDGE 15,000
=5T7BT<^TAL-B PTDf^F
SKFT^TPTT,F AND DEWATFR
RFMOVF r.HANNKT. ROT . CnNCRRTF PAVING ,TOR LS 150,000
OF PIER LOCATION
Note 1
Estimate for driving pier'
piles includes pre-drilling
SUBTOTAL $1 .733 .
Note 1
Estimate for driving pier'
piles includes pre-drilling
MOBILIZATION Tn% $ 1 7 3 •. 3 2 2
Note 1
Estimate for driving pier'
piles includes pre-drilling
SUBTOTAL-BRIDGE ITEMS $1.3.56.547 Note 1
Estimate for driving pier'
piles includes pre-drilling
CONTINGENCIES( %) $ 115.654
Note 1
Estimate for driving pier'
piles includes pre-drilling
TOTAL-BRIDGE $1,492,201
Note 1
Estimate for driving pier'
piles includes pre-drilling COST PER SQUARE FOOT $ qn.qq
Note 1
Estimate for driving pier'
piles includes pre-drilling
BRIDGE REMOVAL $ ins.nnn
Note 1
Estimate for driving pier'
piles includes pre-drilling
OTHER
GRAND TOTAL $1,597,201
McOANIEL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
M49 CASS STREET. SAN OIEGO, CAJ.IFOHNU KllW - . (714) 2734380
-33-
0 o o
BRIDGE ESTIMATE
• GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE
Q PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
• FINAL ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
BY KAG
CHECKED
DATE June 1981
DATE
BRIDGE: Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge
SUPERSTRUCTURE: Three (3) Span - ( 60'±-80'±-60 ' ±) Box Girder. Alternate 2
LENGTH: 20Q'± X WIDTH: QQ . = BRIDGE DECK AREA: 16, 400 S.F.
CONTRACT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT
PRICE AMOUNT
CLEARING AND GRUBBING JOB INCL. IN R3ADW0RI
STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 1800 20. OC 36,000
STRUCTURAL BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 400 30.OC 12,000
PERVIOUS BACKFILL CY INCL IN STRUC. B.
CIDH CONCRETE PILING LF
FURNISH Abut PILING ( 7 0 ton J LF 2520
DRIVE Abut PI LING EA
15.Q( 37,800
_Z2-1 nnn. 72,QQO FURNISH Pier PILING ( 70 ton J LF
DRIVE Pier PI LING (Note 1) 1200 25. OC'
EA
30.000
A3. 2000 Q6. nnn STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (BRIDGE), CLE CY 8nn ,3on. Of 2A6, nno STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (BRIDGE), CLD CY 950 275. nc 261,75n BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 35n • nnn n.sf i7q,nnn PRESTRESSING STEEL LB
PRESTRESSING CONCRETE JOB
PRECAST CONCRETE GIRDERS ( FTT LS
EA
50 . OQO
ERECT PRECAST CONCRETE GIRDERS
STRUCTURAL STEEL(INCL PAINTING)
EA
LB
METAL RAILING, TYPE Special LF TTT 25.0( 11,800
METAL RAILING, TYPE LF
BARRIER RAILING, TYPE 25 modified LF 472 25.0CI 11,800
WATERSTOP LF
JOINT SEAL, TYPE LF
CONCRETE APPROACH SLAB CY 82 225. OCi 18 ,450
ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION TON 1550 60.0CI 93.000
UTILITIES ON BRIDGE -15, 000
SUBTOTAL BRIDGE 1,160,100
SHEET PILE AND DEWATER
REMOVE CHANNEL BOTTOM PAVING JOB 25n.nnn
AT PIER LOCATIONS
SUBTOTAL ^Tr410,100
MOBILIZATION 10%
Note 1
Estimate for driving pier piles
^eludes,pre-drilling
$ 141,010
SUBTOTAL-BRIDGE ITEMS
CONTINGENCIES( 0
$1,551,110
TOTAL-BRIDGE
$ 155,111
$1,706,221
COST PER SOUARE FOOT 104.04
McDANiEL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
CASS STREET SAN OIEQO, CALIFORNIA UIOS • {TU) 272^300
BRIDGE REMOVAL $
OTHER $ 105,nno
GRAND TOTAL $1,811,221
-34-
BRIDGE ESTIMATE
•GENERAL PLAN ESTIMATE
Q PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
• FINAL ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
BY KAG
CHECKED
DATE ,Tnnp 1QR1
DATE
BR I DGE : Carlsbad Boulevard -Brid.ge-
SUPERSTRUCTURE: One Span (200')' Box Girder. Alternate 3
LENGTH: 200' X WIDTH: 82' = BRIDGE DECK AREA: S.F.
CONTRACT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT '
PRICE AMOUNT
CLEARING AND GRUBBING JOB Tne1. in R -lac^work
STRUCTURAL EXCAVATION (BRIDGE) CY 1 Rnn 7n. nr 36,nnn
STRUCTURAL BACKFILL (BRIDGE) CY 400 30. OC 12.000
PERVIOUS BACKFILL CY Incl. in S true. E .F.
CIDH CONCRETE PILING LF _
FURNISH Abut PILING ( 70 ton ) LF 3700 15. OC 55,500
DRIVE Abut PILING EA 92 looo. 92.000
FURNISH PILING ( ) LF —
DRIVE PILING EA --
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (BRIDGE), CL A CY 76n 75n.nr 1qn,nnn
STRUCTURAL CONCRETE (BRIDGE)., CL D CY 11 3 5 2 7 5. n r 317,175
BAR REINFORCING STEEL (BRIDGE) LB 31nnn n. sr 1R7 ^ Rnn
PRESTRESSING STEEL LB
PRESTRESSING CONCRETE JOB T,S 1nn.nnn
PRECAST CONCRETE GIRDERS ( FT) EA
ERECT PRECAST CONCRETE GIRDERS EA
STRUCTURAL STEEL (INCL PAINTING) LB
METAL RAILING, TYPE Special LF 472 25. or n .Rnn
METAL RAILING, TYPE LF
BARRIER RAILING, TYPE 25 modified LF 472 25.0c 11,800
WATERSTOP LF
JOINT SEAL, TYPE LF
CONCRETE APPROACH SLAB CY 82 225.oc 18.450
ROCK SLOPE PROTECTION TON 1550 fin. nc 93.nnn <5=
UTILITIES ON' BRIDGE 15,000
SUBTOTAL B RIDGE 1.105.175
-
SUBTOTAL $1 .1 ns . 1 7s
MOBILIZATION 10% $ 110.525
SUBTOTAL-BRIDGE ITEMS $1,215,700
CONTINGENCIES( 10%%) $• 121,500
TOTAL-BRIDGE $1,337,300
COST PER SQUARE FOOT ^ 81.54
BRIDGE REMOVAL $ 105,000
OTHER $
GRAND TOTAL $1,442,300
McOANIEL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
4«49 CASS STREET. SAN OIEGO. CAUFOANtA 92109 • (714)273-6260
-35-
ROADWORK ESTIMATE
/5- ^C>& .-
(3 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
• FINAL ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
BY JDH
ZHECKED
DATE .TnnP 19R1
DATE
ROADWAY: Carlsbad Boulevard
FROM•• South of Tamarack Avenue TO: Cannon Road
ROADWAY WIDTH: 68 ' -.RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH: 100'
CONTRACT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT
PRICE
AMOUNT
CLEARING AND GRUBBING JOB Lumo Sum 10 .0 0 n ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 4200 0
R0ADV7AY EMBANKMENT CY 4 2 0~0 5 21.000
IMPORTED BORROW CY 1800 10 18,000
EXPORT CY
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MSF 27 . 5 66n 1 4, S7 n
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SF 144 .750 1.44 7nR,44n
ASPHALT ( 1" OVERLAY ) SF 2.S7 . 25n n. 7n Sl ,4sn
AGGREGATE ( ) TON
AGGREGATE(
) •
TON
A.C. BERM ( ) LF 351 n 6. ns 71 . 74 n
PCC PAVEMENT
PCC CURB AND GUTTER ( TYPE "H" ) LF 1370 8 .00 12. n6n
GUARD RAIL LF 1130 22 " 24 , R6n
STREET LIGHTS EA
CULVERT ( TYPE "R" CB. ) LF 1 7n 4S s, 4 nn
CULVERT ( nrTTT,FT,q ) LF
DRAINAGE STRUCTURE ( ) EA 3 7nnn 6 nnn DRAINAGE STRUCTURE ( ) EA 4 • 77S 1 , nnn
LINED DITCH LF
STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKING LS 7 =;nn
UTILITY RELOCATION LS T t^nn
TRAFFIC HANDLING LS s, nnn
DETOUR CONSTRUCTION LS
RETAINING WALT, T,F 4nn ss 77 nnn
RELOCATE EXISTING GUARD RAIL T,F snn-1 7 nnn
,qTATRway awn MT.qrFT.T.aMFonc; s J nnn
SUBTOTAL $437,970
MOBILIZATION $ 93,800
SUBTOTAL - ROADWORK $481,770
CONTINGENCIES ( %) $ 48,180
TOTAL - ROADWORK $
DEMOLITION $
OTHER $
GRAND TOTAL $529,950 .
McOANIEL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
464a CASSSTKEET SAN OIEOO, CAUKAMAmoa . |7t4|27MatO
-3 6-
• 7^?T76a
ROADWORK ESTIMATE
0 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
• FINAL ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE
BY JDH
:HECKED
-DATE June li
DATE
ROADWAY: Additional Cost - AltprnatP Alignmpn-i- Nn-r+h nf
FROM: ^TO:
ROADWAY WIDTH: .RIGHT OF WAY WIDTHI
CONTRACT ITEM UNIT QUANTITY UNIT
PRICE
AMOUNT
CLEARING AND GRUBBING JOB
ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 700 0
R0ADV7AY EMBANKMENT CY 700 5 3 , 500
IMPORTED BORROW CY (1,800) 10 (18.000)
EXPORT . CY 2.800 S 14 . n n n
LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MSF S. 6 66n 4 , n n n
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SF 2.400 1. 44 3.460
ASPHALT ( )
AGGREGATE ( ) TON
AGGREGATE( ) • TON
A.C. BERM { ) LF .
PCC PAVEMENT t
PCC CURB AND GUTTER ( ) LF
GUARD RAIL LF
STREET LIGHTS EA
CULVERT '( , ) LF
CULVERT ( ) LF
DRAINAGE STRUCTURE ( ) EA
DRAINAGE STRUCTURE ( ) EA
LINED DITCH LF
STRIPING AND PAVEMENT MARKING LS
UTILITY RELOCATION LS IS.nnn
TRAFFIC HANDLING LS
DETOUR CONSTRUCTION LS
SUBTOTAL $71 . q^n
MOBILIZATION (add'l) $ 2.2nn
SUBTOTAL - ROADWORK $24,160
CONTINGENCIES ( IQ %) $ 7.47n
TOTAL - ROADWORK $
DEMOLITION $
OTHER $
GRAND TOTAL $74.SRn
McOANIEL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
4«4« CASSaTREEt SANOIEOO, CAUrORNUSnoS • (714I27MM0
-37-
XIII. CONCLUSIONS AND REC0I-II4ENDATI0NS
Site investigations, foundation explorations, construction
feasibility studies, cost estimates and environmental considera-
tions point conclusively towards a recommendation for eliminating
construction within the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Channel and for
constructing a single clear-span bridge. The type of bridge
for such a crossing is recommended to be a single span cast-in-
place, posttensioned box girder as shown on General Plan Draw-
ing C accompanying this report.
-38-
Modrfled'Typa 2S
PDrKii^ij Cot
Post- Tet^sionsd -
EAST HALF - einder WEST HALF
CAST-IN-PLACE BOX GIRDER OPTION
CT-.pP 9 •• {Traffic oy WssrHa/f; Dei^o/ish
blAUC £• £x'isflrig Sr'idgo and Coi.ns-f^rucf
Bast Half)
.es •tzo
-tlS .
—no '
, o
-5
-IO-
L
.worn Arrset
(z La.^es)
ri I 7-0 I
.-E'xistii^g Bridge.
^—fiemova OKist. sidewalK, mit, .
ar}d fUet. tf.rstjutnsdrsi^^e
eattsrioi' girdsr OI.K1 portion :
of Slab. " . • , .
WEST HALF
North Abut.
Gi-ouiid Profi/a,
east edga af
exist bridge
CTARP • 1 (Tr-affi'c oil fKi'sti'i^g Bridga; .
''"^^'^ Construct west tiaffi). , .
WALL-TYPE PIER OPTION"
_JXI^„'„V-J---rTT'^ ^-S. f?, west edge ,
1;; >i'. I!) i !! ' • ',!• i!'!:'--^ -• ;l I) II I.-" •* ' i> K-i :!f.ii tl) I. s 11M >i) 'u <i >t H-Pihs
FG.-DRAWING A TWO SPAN ALTERNATIVE
PILE COLUMN SENT OPTIO
, liiiiijli; i|;iRpi[ Z4-'-3o'<b-C^-
•^.K-'li!,!!! •••i'.illlU • Ser7^.
PRELIMINARY BRIDGE PLAN
ELEVATION A\\n> McOANIEL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
4649 CASS STREET, SAN OlEGO. CAUFORNIA KMOB • (714) Z7«2flt>
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
SHEET CITY OF CARLSBAD
EWSIWECmwO OEPARTMENT
CARLSBAD BLVD. BRIDGE]
AT AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
APPROVED:
_CITt ENGINEER
OWN.BY, CHKD. BY;_ riEiro BK.,
PROJECT HO,
DATE ,
VERT.
HORZ.
QRAWINO NO,
32'
Modified Tgpe 25.
Barrier..
7 , a' , 12' 12
\ I
closure pour <S
medi'ari —
Bridge
a. -Metal.
Railing
-post' Terisioned X-Girders -
PRECAST IrGinOER OPTION
.ParKlfi^ Lot
200-0
eo'-o' <zo'-o'
g Pior I —C Pier 2
.23
\—* SO
i-lS
— I-IO
— . 5
o,
-5
-lO.
-IS
^-S/'Owwc^ profile, east
edge of etist. bridge
. &P,vJestedge of
exist bridge
,., I, .>.. i „.1J., ,1.,,
•'Tifiri?lR^f:'iP::L -H-Plies
-WALL T-VPE PIER OPTION 4
JZJ ' - • . X • N X 1
1 -x - • '
T , \ k : .
-f-i — CT2 I i^rrrrrrr.; '--f-1
PILE COLUMN BENT OPTION! ; ; |.; i -ia-3.^ «s -Col.
Pile 3ent.s
PRELIMINARY BRIDGE PLAN Pier i ELEVATION Pier Z AWHV McOANIEL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
4048 CASS STREET, SAN OtEOO. CAUFOHNU BZKJfl • (714) 7T^-V2tf>
Modified Tijpo £5
7-'
az
a' < IZ' , iz' ' , .d'-32' • Y
f\
\^
K
Closurs paurQ
t^eciiarj -—
.i Q eridge
a 'w If if'"""ir
-Metal
Mil
4' I a'-
-Post-Tensioi^ed.Box Girder
EAST HALF • WEST HALF
CAST-IN-PLACE BOX GIRDER OPTION
STAGE 2 (Tr-affi'c on West Half; Oemo'-
/Ish Bxi'stirrg Bridge arja
Construct Bast Half)
3-io^ t ivorx o/BOl-
(Z Lane%)
Te.nporarij
<- rail
23 t
7LJ \s~~^^
'listing Bridge
j^-—TemporarLj K-ra'il—.^^
MUlCZDCIZlCZ]!
-Refr!0\^e exist, sidewalk, rail ^
toilet, if regi^ired removed '
extenor girder d oorticin
of slab
.WEST HALF T
STAGE 1 (Traffic oi^ Existing Bridge,
Construct Wasf Halfy
DRAWING B THREE SPAN ALTERNATIVE
DESCRIPTION
REVISIONS
. I APP D
SHEET CITY OF CARLSBAD
ENGIWEERINO OEPARTMENT
CARLSBAD BLVD. BRIDGE
AT AGUA HEDIONDA LAGOON
APPROVED;
.CITT ENQINEER
.PROJECT NO,
VERT,_
HORZ,_
ORAWNO NO.
s!0
Modified TypeZS
on West tlal^i Demo/isM
STAGE 2 existing Bridge a^ci Construct
-.- - - • eost Halfi.
S'lOfl
(Z Lanes)
Temp t^-rail— Area.
Temporory
IS>{>-& '•^\i^Lrnr~L^-^
Existing Sridgo
North Abut
ELEVATION '
South Abut
DRAWING G
~Pemovc exist. SidewalK,
rail a.jd fillet, if racjuirsd
rismove exterior girder
. and pe>rtion of.slab. '
WEST HALF '
QT AfiF 1 TratVi'c oh £xi.sti'ng Bridge •
.rJ^^_. -L- C<3nstru^tWesttlaff. ^
CLEAR SPAN ALTERNATIVE
•\\n>
PRELIMINARY BRIDGE PLAN
McOANIEL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
4049 CASS STREET. SAN OtEOO, CAUFORNIA azios • (7M)?73-«2aO
OESCRIPTIDN
REVISIONS
5»^rCITY OF CARLSBAO 5"^"'
EN6INEERIN0 DEPARTMENT
CARLSBAD BLVD. BRIDGE
" AT AGOA HEDIONDA'LAGObN
APPROVED:
CITY . ENQINEER.
PROJECT NO.
VERT._
MOR<^
DRAWING-NO,
^.Ji*-^i
PRELIMINARY ROADWAY PXAtT-r-SHEET 2
1^
iorias 37-i 37~
. '3' 12' IZ' • 1
Id' • IZ' •IZ' . a'
— utimis,
Left
Turn ^
•pooKef 1 kr
^! •
s'
Bsssai
/Wftf pavemen1\ and base
-Existing Cor/sbad Blvd pavenent
(to receive AC over/ay as reguired]
TURN POCKET
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION
No Scale
jmrt.
__&<x6nfroi/ w^sm rf^i/i'rga'
per Mtt^ans 3£a/'a'isra's
'^A.C Oerrrr or PC.c. cvrt> an</
^^c/tter w/ierf /rigcj/nrd' /or
^v COrriro^^ of Vro/nepe
\
P/tv \
PRELIMINARY ROADWAY PLAN CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
23 t
^~-Ramove exist sidewa/k,
• . rai/ohd if requirad rarrKivi!:
STAGE 1 exterior girder and
portion Off s/ah
£ir/te Xrr/x. ^r maf/fi7
aix/iMr^
s£fiffiie. eii/lse
STAGE 2
PHASED BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
I
/mmm/xT!
34.'
e' li'
/
/
/Z'
-TO:
pa.
,. - ^^^.m,|i^,Mhik^k'll,i,%4ni)iM\>•^li^),a\,JM,,^^^
•£pvr
^ rreef/s/i.
ip — •« »—'trtl • - - "T* ' ••'
" •-- • vn-a!) •
a'-/o'
fto rece/ue 4.C otvriv/ as r^^/maO
PARKING ADJOININ<3
A/en/ paveffre/xt
'iriiyng
/ane
z:
a'
SLOPES ADJOINING
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTIONS
ygnas , i
Oc/arr/ra// xAent rt^/raf
per i^Mrans Jtanfarz/s
^ aer?rt dr PCC. a^o/o^
goiter uy/rere reqe/ired
,;7toA ro/Ttiro/ of t^//73ipe '
DRAWINiS F
, li-rr.or'
6-iV.Sf
SHEET 3
DRAWING G
PRELIMINARY ROADWAY PLAN
. CARLSBAD BOULEVARD
ALTERNATE ALIGNMENT NORTH OF BRIDGE
APPENDICES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. ORIGINAL FIELD REVIEW DATA
B. REQUEST FOR REVISION TO ORIGINAL FIELD REVIEW
C. FIELD REVIEW AiffiNDMENT APPROVAL
D. FOUNDATION REPORT
E. FOUNDATION REPORT SUPPLEMENT
F. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX A ORIGINAL Revised .10/79
.FIELD REVIEW FORM Date 9/7/79
District n-SD ' ' ' " •/"'" Federal Route f rAli600.4 H-l. loi^'. >
Local Agency City of Carlsbad . State Route ^ N.A,
Road Name Carlsbad Boulevard County Road # ^^-^^ •
Federal-Aid System FAU Bridge Name Aqua iiodinnda Lagoon
Area Urban/Urbanized/Rural Bridge # 57C-133
1. LI.'IITS Carlsbad Boulevard from Tamarack to Cannon over A^ju.i hedionda Lagoon Dutle
(attach a sketch Vicinity nap)
2. PROPOSED IMPROVEflENT Gr. . Surf, and Struct. NET LE'iniH _f1ILES (0.0)
(Gr. Surf. Drainage, Structures, Etc.)
3. PROPOSED FUNDING: Federal-Aid (FAS, FAU, etc.) FAi! and HBRR
State Highway Funds li^i<s/';o
Matching ratios {%] State C:'.y ?0 County Other
4. COST BREAKDO\IN FAU HBRR
Preliminary Engineering Total Cost • Federal Partic*
Preliminary R/W work
Design
Advertise and Award
Construction
Constr. Engr.
R/W Acq. No. of Pels _
RAP Mo. of Fmls
No. of Bus. '
s
i Yes/fcja
s lbU,UUU 1,050,000
Ib.UUU 70,000
s 5 Ves/N«
s Yes/No
5 1U,UUU Yes/««
TOTAL PARTICIPATING COST $ 185,000 1,120,000
5. DESCRIPTION** - EXISTING FACILITY PROPOSED FACILITY**
When Constructed 1934 modified 1953
Surface Type asphaltic concrete over conc. A.C. over Conc. Deck
Surface Width 41' b" . deck
Number of Lanes ... ^,
Shoulder Widths »' °
Florie i None Median Width
Buildings Affected »e6/'lo
Relocation Housing Study Required Y«9/No
Access Control Yes/No .
Possible Exceptions to AASHTO Design Standards or Approved Modifications
Possible use of 8' shoulders for bike lane across bridge
6. TERPAIN flat coastal beach __—,
'. (Rat, Rolling, ftountainous)
7. imflC DATA
Present ADT 11,200Year 19 77 Future ADT 22,000 Year 19 95
Design Speed 3b " DHV TT800 . Percent Trucks 4
Remarks: traffic is constrainpd hv two lane bridnp hflvino 4 lanes fppdina
it less than h mile awav . • , , n rs m B-TTT
'^Describe non-part1cipat1ng work and limits under "Remarks on Page 5.
**Attach a sketch of a typical section for both existing and proposed.
EXHIBIT 05-lc
1978-1
8. DEFICIENCIES OF EXISTING FACILITY
Structurar H Grade Q ; Culverts •
Alignment Q Accident Record • Bridge •
Remarks: the deck and girder soffits are badly deteriorated by
extensive spalling and reinforcement corrosion. In addition, the two
lane structure has a high traffic count from 4 lane approaches
9. DESCRIPTION OF CONTIGUOUS SECTION
S/y end Surface Type AC Surface Width Sho. Width
- \(/^ -end Surface Type AC Surfaqe Width Sho. Width_
Remarks;
10 AGENCIES AFFECTED (Check and describe under remarks or on attached sheets)
Telephone Co. ^ irrig. Dist. Communities,^
Sanitary Co. Water Develop. ^ Power Co.
Reel. Dist. . • J Assessment Dist. involved — Other (Describe) Dept. of PaFks and Kec,; Uept. oi Hsn ana bame, bUb&h
Dnm;,rif*. The hiohwav is adjacent to a state park and the lagoon is a public
^fZino frcihlv ihe San U.ego bas and l\ec^r^c io. bnc.no HoWgrTTSTTT—
"uses the lagoon water for cooling purposes
n. Mfl.inp iiTTt TTY Arwill'^TMENTS: water/sewer line
Remarks:
High Risk Fac^Mties:
12. PER/1ITS REQUIRED: T X
Fish & Wildlife Resources x Coastal Protective Zone ^
Corps of FnQineers(404) x State Land Comnission_
Navigable Stream (Coast Guard
X
EXHIBIT 05-1e
1978-1
13. ENVIRONMENTAL: / •
Enyir. Impact Statement x Wetlands (E.O. 11990) x
Negative Declaration .. Historical Properties (106)
Non Major Action (List Type) Public Recreation Land (4(f))
Exemption (List Class)_
14. REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY (FHPM 4-4-2) Comprehensive Planning Organization (S.D.)
15. CLEARINGHOUSE NOTICES (A-95): State x! filed after Field Review 11-79
Areawide X; tiled after Held Review n-iT
16. PUBLIC HEARING:
Public hearing or opportunity for a public hearing is , iiisxxtotx
required. i
EXPLAIN: (Discuss alternatives)Public hearing is required for environmental
review '
17. TRAFFIC SIGNALS N.A. ( )(If new, attach Warrant Sheets )
18. NO. OF MAJOR STRUCTURES 1 (See description on attached form)
19. RAILROADS N.A. (See description on attached form)
20. AIRPORTS N.A. ^ (See description on attached form)
21. TRANSIT DISTRICT(S) No. County TransitiDistrict
22. FLOOD PLAIN ENCROACHMENT (See FHPM 6-7-3-2) n^/Uo
23. UNUSUAL DRAINAGE PROBLEMS^ ; Yes/No
24. ADMINISTRATION BY: \
Prepare PS&E ^""ty of Carlsbad/Consultant
Right-of-Way Acquisition None Required
Advertise & Award by City of Carlsbad
Provide Resident Engineer for:
Roadwork City
Bridges City or State
Pay Contractor City of Carlsbad
Maintain City of Carlsbad
EXHIBIT 05-1g
1978-1
25. PROPOSED ADVERTISING DATE: Summer, 1980
26. REMARKS: P S & E to start in November 1979 to be complete by
December, 1980 by City of Carlsbad
27. FIELD REVIEW REPRESENTATIVES CONCURRENCE
Local Agency: £gtvt^ ._ Date 'o/iijl^
CALTRANS Districtt^i^?^^^^/4e^^ Cate /^-/7-Z'7
FHWA: J^^^iCU,,^^^ Date /O-zS-')^
28. LIST OF ApACHMENTS
(ExaiV^^s of Attachments 1-5 are included)
xl. Protection of Wetlands Statement (if applicable) I
x2. Major Structure Data Sheet (if applicable)
^•A-3, Railroad Grade Crossing Data Sheet (if applicable)
N.A4. Airport Data Sheet (if applicable)
X 5. Field Review Attendance Roster
X 6. Vicinity Map
x7. Typical Section(s) '
X 8. A sketch of each Alternate of the Proposed Improvement
N.A.9. Signal Warrants (if applicable)
xiO. Environmental Evaluation <ft<i^>''^iy/'-^5>^^a^^
W.^}, Public Interest Statement to do work by other than contract
(See Section 22 of this manual.)
: . A1TACHtIfr2 .
• '"' ^ llAJOR STRUCTURE DATA •
(Separate sheet for each structure)
EXHIBIT 05-T
1973-1
Carlsbad Boulevard - Old 101
BRIDGE Mflrit: Aaua Hedionda Lagoon
ROAD tlAME_
STRUCTURE:
Type
Width.
Length
Spans (No. a Length)
Sidewalks or bikeways
Rail Type
APPROACH WIDTH
UTILITIES AT SITE:
BR.NO. 57C-133
Existing
LOCATION at Lagoon Outlet
Proposed
Reinforced Concrete Reinforced Conc/PSC
2' sidewalk both sidesi
Ornamental R.C. R.C. Jersey Rail
40' -6^ LA'
Gas, Sewer, future water and telephone
HIGH RISK UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AT SITE: yes, 6" gas line
FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION BY:.. ["Vj-f .t^^^^ " "^^^^"^ ^^"^
HYDROLOGY STUDY .v Preliminary based on existing studies; final by CUy through^
DETOUR, STAGE CONSTRUCTION. OR CLOSE ROAD:
ESTIMATED STRUCTURE RELATED COSTS:
•Right-of-Way Acquisition
•Utility Relocation
•Preliminary Engineering
•Approach Roadway Touchdown
Structure Items
Detour/Stage Construction
Bridge Removal
•Construction Engineering
Total
Summer, 1980
FAU HBRR
None required
•• bU,UUU
(60.000)
50.000
840.000
50.000
bU,UUIJ
70,000
1.120,000 fl^
PROPOSED ADVERTISING DATE:
AGENCY PROVIDING R.E. FOR BRIDGE WORK: City of Carlsbad with consultant ^
REMARKS: assistant R.E. approved by the State ^
^complete when funded by Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program.
I
I
I
I FIELD REVIEW ATTENDANCE ROSTER
ORGANIZATION
r S.--';_
L>^;-i=r
-'i-^ftX^cC'
4
I
I'l'
L 17
-26-
APPENDIX B
Mc DANIEL ENGINEERING COMPANY 4649 CASS STREET. SAN OIEGO, CALIFORNIA. 92109 (7141273-8280
-May 4, 19 81
Caltrans
Office of Local Assistance
P.O. Box 81406
San Diego, CA 92138
ATTENTION: Mr. Joseph Abinanti
Re: Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Over Agua Hedionda Lagoon
Entrance and Street Improvements, Carlsbad, California
Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of the original Exhibit 05-Li Form and a
revised form for the referenced project. Also included is a
Foundation Report prepared by Southern California Testing
Company and a letter from U.S.F. & WLS.
The revised Exhibit 05-Li shows the changes which we request
authorization to make on this project. They are essentially as
follows:
(1) A four foot wide median has been added. This widens
bridge width to 82'-0" in lieu of the original 78'-0",
and roadway to 68'-0" in lieu of the original 64'-0".
(2) Revise bridge structure to a single clear span of 180'
to 200' in lieu of an originally proposed three span
layout of 45'-90'-45'. Revise structure type to a CIP
posttensioned box girder in lieu of precast prestressed
I-girder. Existing remains of prior substructures make
total bridge length indeterminate at this time. The
length of 180'-200' is an estimate. The reasons for clear-
spanning the channel are as follows:
(a) The channel to be crossed is a shallow and, at times,
extremely turbulent watercourse depending upon tidal
and surf conditions. A barge-mounted pile driving
operation for intermediate piers does not appear
feasible. The possibility of driving piles from
the existing bridge is uncertain due to the bridge's
deteriorated condition and its (posted) load limi-
tations. Also, stage 2 of new construction must be
placed on existing bridge alignment.
May 4, 1981
Mr. Joseph Abinanti
Page 2
(b) Old foundations of the existing bridge and a prior
bridge to the west will remain in the channel area on
both Stage 1 and Stage 2 new construction alignments.
Plans (not As-Builts) of the existing bridge are
available. However, an archival search of records in
Sacramento revealed no information regarding the prior
bridge that existed. Consequently, the ability to
drive piles within the channel is uncertain.
(c) Soil conditions at the site add to the uncertain
nature of pile driving within the channel area. A
copy of the Foundation Report is enclosed for your
review.
(d) The San Diego Gas and Electric Company's Encino plant
is within the project limits. Cooling water for the
plant is taken from the adjacent lagoon. SDG&E is
extremely concerned over any revisions which might be
made to, or within, the existing channel. SDG&E has
spent considerable funds in modifying the channel
and the existing bridge to assure a certain, continuous,
undiminished supply of water through the lagoon inlet.
(e) Clear spanning the channel would simplify environ-
mental considerations relating to the project. Corps
of Engineer and other permits would, most likely, not
be required, thus avoiding costly delays. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife has expressed concerns regarding water
turbidity and other factors which might have adverse
effects on eel grass beds. (See letter enclosed).
(3) A clear-span of 180'-200' requires a box girder structure
in lieu of the originally proposed precast I-girder super-
structure. It is felt that box girder also offers improved
opportunities to protect against future corrosion in the
salt-laden environment of the bridge.
Our office is proceeding with preliminary studies and other work on
this project. More importantly, the environmental processes, which
are well along, cannot be concluded until bridge concepts are final-
ized. We would, therefore, appreciate any efforts you can make to
expedite the decisions discussed herein.
May 4, 1981
Mr. Joseph Abinanti
Page 3
Please note that revised Forms 05-Li do not contain cost data. We
will not be able to study costs until preliminary work is finalized,
Very truly yours.
Art McDaniel
MCD/dh
cc: Larry Dossey
Ed Dilginis
APPENDIX C
May 11, 19^1
11-GD-O-Carlsbad
Agvia Hedionda Br.
M-S 101(4)
Mr, Les Evans
City Engineer
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92003
Attention: Mr, Larry Dossey
in a letter dated May 4, 19^1, Mr. Art McDaniel requested some
changes in the design that was approved for the structure on the
above-noted project at the time of the field review.
The changes were as follows:
1. The addition of a foui>-foot-wide median.
2. Revise the structure from the proposed 3-span layout to
a sixigle clear spaii of 1^ ft. to 200 ft.
3. « Change from the proposed I-girder to a CIP post-tensioned
box girder.
The request was approved by our Headqiiarters Office of Structures.
Sincerely,
Russell 0. Lightcap
District Director of Transportation
3y
E. A. Kubichek
District Local Assistance Engineer
JJA:rs
c c: McDa/iielEngineerintiG o.
bcc:JOGrasberger
EAKubichek
REVISED FIELD .'".REVIEW FORM- ATTACH'Efr 2 (REVI D 5-81) EXHIBIT 05-11
1978-1
MAJOR STRUCTURE DATA
(Separate sheet for each structure)
BRIDGE NAi'lE Aqua . Hedionda Lagoon BR.NO. 57-C-133
ROAD NAME Carlsbad Boulevard LOCATION Carlsbad. CA at lagoon
STRUCTURE:
Type
Width
Length
Spans (No. & Lenqth)
Existing
RC T-Beam
41'-10"
160'
4 @ 40'
Sidewalks or bikeways SW each side
Rail Type
APPROACH WIDTH
Reinforced concrete
40'
Proposed outlet.
CIP Pt Box Girder
82'-0"(incl. 4' median)
180'- 200'
1 (§ 180' to 200'
Bikeway share shldr and
5' SW each side
Reinforced concrete
68'(incl. 4' median)
UTILITIES AT SITE: Gas, sewer, future water, telephone
HIGH RISK UNDERGROUND FACILITIES AT SITE: Yes, 6" gas line
FOUNDATION INVESTIGATION BY; Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc,
HYDROLOGY STUDY BY: None to date
DETOUR, STAGE CONSTRUCTION, OR CLOSE ROAD:
ESTIMATED STRUCTURE RELATED COSTS:
•Right-of-Way Acquisition
•Utility Relocation
•Preliminary Engineering
•Approach Roadway Touchdown
Structure Items
Detour/Stage Construction
Bridge Removal
•Construction Engineering
Total
PROPOSED ADVERTISING DATE: Unknown at this time
Stage construction
unknown at this time
unknown at this time
unknown at this time
AGENCY PROVIDING R.E. FOR BRIDGE WORK: City of Carlsbad with consultant
REMARKS: See accompanying letter McDaniel to Abinanti dated May 4,1981.
•Complete when funded by Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program.
APPENDIX D
REPORT m
PRhLIMIfW GEOTECW^ICAL INVESTK^Tia^
PROP(]SED mim RECDWRiniCN
CITY- OF CARLm C/LIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
ftDANiEL ENGINEERING COMPANY
^6^9 CASS STREET
SAN DiEGo^ CALIFORNIA 92109
PREPARED BY
SOUIHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING. INC.
- 155 WEST ORANGETHORPE AVENUE
PLACEWTIA, CALIFORNIA 92670
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING 1 N C
1S5 WEST QRANBETHaRPE AVENUE, PLACENTIA. CALIFORNIA 92S7a • TELE S24-9I3a
CaRPQRATIDN OFFICE SZaC RIVERDALE ST., SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120 - TELE 280-4321
Marcn 6, 1981
McDaniel Engineering Company
4649 Cass Street
San Diego, California 92109
Attention: Mr. Art McDaniels
SCST 1331
Report No.
SUBJECT: Report on Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation,
. Site of Proposed Bridge Reconstruction, located at
the Carlsbad Boulevard Crossing ^of Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, City of Carlsbad, California.
Gentlemen: I
We transmit herewith, our report on the subject investigation.
In S'Limir.ary, this investigation revealed that site conditions
are favorable to the proposed construction, provided that rec-
ommendations herein presented are incorporated in your plan-
ning and design considerations. '
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project.
If you have any questions, please call usiat your convenience.
I
Respectfully submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC
Artedx B. C&rtez, R.C.E. #26009
Resident Engineer
ABC:Hj/kk
cc: (6) Submitted
(1) SCST, San Diego
Harvey
Staff
R. G. # 3270
Geologist
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pace
I. Introductioi i
II. Proposed Construction j 1
III. Site Locaticn and Description 2
IV. Subsurface Conditions 2
V. Groundwater 3
VI. Seismicity i 3
Liquefaction Potential ; 3
VII. CciTclusions and Peconmendations I 4
a. General i 4
b. .Abutment Foundation \ .4.
c. Dcwrward .Pile Capacities 4
d. Lateral Pile Pesistance i 5
e. Pile Driving Criteria \ 5
" f. Settlenient j 6
g. Retaining Wall Design I 6
h. Rock Slope Protection 7
i. Fill Placement ' 7
j. Sulfate Resistant Canent I 7
VIII. Agency Coordination i 7
. . IX. Limitations I g
X. Field Investigation | g
XI. Laboratory Test Pi-ocedures ; 9
a. Moisture-Density 9
b. Classification | 9
c. Cciipaction Tests - ; ' 9
d. Direct Shear Tests j 9
e. Consolidation Tests 10
f. Chemicoil Analysis ' 10
TABLE QF CCOTENPS (Cant'd.
Illustrations
Vicinity Map
Fault Location f-lap
Plan View
Driven Pile Capacities
Pile Efficiency Chart
Boring Logs
Grain Size Distribution
Direct Shear Test Results
Consolidation Test Pesults
Sulfate Test Results
Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
Plate 4
Plate 5
Plates A-1 and A-2
Plate A-3 and A-4
Plate B
Plates C-1 and C-2
Plate D
INTRODUCTION
!
This report summarizes the results of a geotechnical investiga-
tion underta.ken by this firm for the subject bridge site. This
investigation has been performed to determine the engineering
properties of the soils underlying the site, for the purpose
of providing recommendations for grading the site and for design-
ing foundations and retaining walls. ;
The scope of the investigation consisted pf site reconnaissance,
conducting exploratory test borings wherejon-site materials
have been recovered, laboratory testing of selected soil
samplesengineering analyses, and analysis for local seismicity.
I
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Based on the preliminary information given to us by Mr. Keith
Gallistel of McDaniel Engineering Companyl, it is proposed to
construct a widened reinforced concrete bridge with one or two
spans between the abutments. The intermediate support may
consist of column piers extended from the' driven prestressed
concrete piling.. Each piling will be designed for a minimum of
70 tons downward loading. Uplift on these piles may be considered
negligible. It is planned to use an octagonal pile 15 or 13
-inches in size.
The proposed four lane bridge, when completed, will replace the
existing four span, two lane concrete bridge. The existing
bridge exhibits appreciable amounts of cracking and spalling of
concrete within the girders, thus exposing some bottom steel
reinforcement. The still functional bridge had been operational
since 1934.
SOUTHER N CALIFORNIA SOIL AiND TESTING, INC
SCST 13811 March 6, 1931 i Page Two
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRII^TION
!
The proposed replacement bridge crosses Agua Hedionda Lagoon
along Carlsbad Boulevard in the City of Carlsbad, California.
I
The existing bridge abutments consist of a cast-in-place concrete
wall that had been backfilled with silty sand. We suspect the
abutment walls had been designed as a cantilever that is prevented
from overturning by the weight of the backfill that overlies its
supporting slab foundation. The presence:of ungrouted rock
revetment placed against the wall along the channel bank and some
sheetpiling adjacent to the wing walls are means to protect the
abutment foundation from being underminediby strong currents.
i
I
In addition, breakwaters, composed of rock boulders had been
built projecting from both abutments towards the ocean.
i
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The site is mantled by brown silty sand, fill near the bridge
abutments that is underlain by Del Mar Sandstone. The gray sand-
stone varies between cemented in boring 21, to friable in boring 1.
A wedge of Terrace deposit lies between the fill and Del Mar
sandstone northerly- from the bridge. This Terrace deposit con-
sists of brown, well graded sand. i
A wedge of beach deposit lies between the! fill and Del Mar Sand-
stone southerly from the bridge. This beach deposit consists of
gray-brown, well-graded sand with well rounded pebbles. This
beach deposit exhibited moderate caving during the drilling opera-
tion . ' I
Detailed description of soil conditions encountered are shown
in the boring logs presented in the appendix.
The distribution of different soil types are shown in the geo-
technical profile, Plate 3.
SOUTHER N CALIFORNIA SOIL A ND TESTI.NG. INC
SCST 13811 March 6, 1931 P-age Three
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered in both boring|s at approximately .
zero to +2 feet above mean sea level. No jevidence of artesian
conditions was observed during the drillin|g operations.'
SEISMICITY I
I
The proposed site is within the seismic influence of two major
faults, namely the Newport-lnglewood-Rose Canyon, and the
Whittier-Elsinore fault zones. Considering the distance of the
site from these fault zones, the probable magnitude associated
with them, and in conjunction with Housner's attenuation
curves, the following tabulation' is obtained:
I
Site Prcbable Magnitude Acceleraticxi (g's)
Fault Zone Distance (miles) (Richter) Peak Design
i
Newport-Inglewood- 7 6.3 0.29 0.19
Rose Canyon I
I
Whittier-Elsinore 24 6.5 0.25 0.16
It has been generally accepted that the design or repeatable
acceleration is 65 percent of peak rock acceleration. The
foregoing accelerations were based on probable magnitudes
associated with the average obtained between one-half and
one-fifth of each fault zone's total length of rupture.
I
Due to the proximity of the site to the Newport-lnglewood-Rose
Canyon fault system, we recommend the use,of at least 0.19
ground acceleration for the structural design of the proposed
bridge. i
i
Liquefaction Potential: In view of the dense to very dense con-
dition of the on-site soils, failure of the proposed bridge due
to liquefaction is remote. !
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL A;ND TESTING. INC
SCST 13811. March 6, 1981
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page. Four
General; Based on inf ormation gathered during this invest: igat ion,
the site should be suitable for the proposed construction pro-
vided that recommendations herein presented are incorporated,
in the design considerations, project plans and job specifica-
tions. Grading should be performed in accordance with the
i
attached standard grading specifications, unless superseded
in.this report. ! •
Abutment Foundation: The subsurface conditions shown in Plate 3
indicate that.the surface of the Del Mar sandstone is near mean
i
sea level at the vicinity of the existing abutments. Judging
•from the penetration resistance (blow counts) obtained during the
field exploration, the sandstone formation!at the south abutment
appears to be less dense than at the norlih | abutment. .In any case,.
the weathered upper portion of the sandstone is medium dense to
•
dense. .
In view of the relatively dense condition of material encountered
below elevation. (-) 10. feet, we recommend tiiat a test, pile be
driven at both abutments in order to.determine if it is necessary
to use steel H-piling. or provide a drive' shoe for prestressed
concrete piling. For estimating purposes, all pilings should be
driven below elevation (-)30 feet.
Downward Pile Capacities: As mentioned earlier, the minimum
required'pile capacity will be 70 tons. For calculating pile
capacities, refer to Plate 4. Minimum tip elevation for all piles
should be,at elevation (-)30 feet. Refusal to further penetration
may be encountered above this elevation. Accordingly, pre-
drilling may be necessary at this locatloni If pre-drilling is
considered necessary, the diameter of the hole should be at least
3 inches less than the least width of the pile. Pre-drilling
i
should not be permitted, within 5 feet above the desired tip •
elevation. I
S D UTH E R N CA LIFORNIA SOIL AND TES TING.
I
I
I
I
I
1
SCST. 13811 March 6, 1981 Page Five
The Pile Efficiency Chart shown in Plate 5 should be used in
determining the capacity of a.pile group.
Lateral Pile Resistance: A 15-inch octagonal, pile driven below
elevation (-)30 feet will have a lateral capacity of 14,000 pounds.
The .lateral resistance of other size pilesjshould be proportional
to diameter.
In calculating the maximum bending moment in a pile, the lateral
load imposed at elevation (-)IO feet (minimum design scour level)
should be multiplied by a moment arm equaljto 3.5 feet. For
designing the exposed column piers .^at' the middle of the channel, V •'"
assume the point of fixity at elevation^C-] 4.5 feet.' Similarly, A; '-•
in designing the abui::ment piles, the minimum design scour level
should also be assumed at elevation (-)10 feet and the point of fix-
'^^ity at elevatior^C-) 4.5 feet. At this point, it should be emphasized
that the estimated minimum depth of scour had been based solely from
the interpolation of soil conditions between the two test borings
as shown in the geotechnical profile, Plate 3. Actual conditions
along the channel will be verified during ihe pile-driving
operations..
Furthermore, in designing, the pile, depth of zero moment should
be assumed to occur 17 feet below elevation (-)IO feet.
-P-ile Driving Criteria: The pile driving equipment should deliver
a minimum energy of one foot-pound per pound of pile being driven.
1
In determining the minimum blow count per foot of penetration
below elevation (-)30 feet, we recommend the Engineering News
Record formula given as follows: j
2WH
For Drop Hammer: F = S + 1. 0
For Single Acting Hammer: F = —_
2E
For Double Acting Hammer: F = S + 0.1
SOUTHER N CALIFORNIA SOI L AND TESTING. INC.
SCST 13811 March 6, 1981 Pace Si:-:
Where F = Safe load bearing capacity in pounds
W = Weight of Ram or striking parts in pounds
H = Height of stroke in feet
S -= Set penetration per blow in inches
E = Rated energy as listed by manufacturer
of hammer in foot-pounds.
In order to prevent breaking of the concrete pile, we recommend a
maximum driving energy of 40,000 foot-pounds. Furthermore, a
built-up plywood cushion block 7 inches thick should be placed
between the pile head and the driving cap,;
I I
Settlement: Settlement of the pile foundations should transpire
shortly after construction. Total settlement should not exceed
one-half inch; differential settlement should be less than one-
quarter inch. \
I
i
•
Retaining Wall Design: The abutment walls:should be designed
like a loading dock where some lateral res-traint is imposed at the
top of th'e wall. Under this condition, we^ recommend the following
:
earth pressure diagram: j
Where H = The height pf wall in feet. j
In addition to the earth pressure given above, the walls should
also be designed for pressures induced by heavy traffic loading,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL A'ND TESTING. INC
SCST 13811 March 6, 1981 j Page Seven
• • . • i .
In order to prevent hydrostatic pressure build-up behind the wall,
a free-draining backfill at least one-footjthick should be placea
in contact with the wall and suitable weepnoles or backdrains
should be provided near the base of the wail.
I
Rock Slope Protection: A group of abutment piles whose tip
elevation lies at or above elevation.(-)25!feet may slide along
its base due to lack of passive soil resistance in the channel.
This lack of resistance may develop due to; scouring of soil
around the abutment in the absence of a rock revetment. If a
I
rock revetment around the abutment is not included,in the design,
further analysis by the soil engineer willi be required to
establish the lateral stability of the abu^nent-pile system.
Accordingly, a detail of the abutment-pile! system should be sub-
mitted to us for review prior to construction.
Fill Placement: All fill material behind !the abutment walls
should consist of low to non-expansive soills (expansion index
less than 20) and should be moisture condiitioned sufficiently
above pptimum mpisture content, spread in ioose lifts restricted
to 6 inches or less prior to rolling and should be compacted to
at least 9 0 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in
accordance with A.S.T.M. D-1557-70, the five-layer method. Lighter
compactipn equipment should be used when compacting fill within
5 feet from the abutment walls. !
• • • I
I
Sulfate Resistant Cement; Chemical analysis for soluble sulfate
content indicates that Type V cement will; not be required for
use in concrete exposed to the on-site soils.
AGENCY COORDINATION
i
A pregrading meeting to be arranged by the developer shall
be held on the site prior to the initiation pf grading pperatipns.
At that time, a determination will be made as to what public
and private agencies will be involved in this grading work
and what notification these agencies willjrequire to effectively
perform their required duties. I
i
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL A^ND TESTING. INC.
I
SCST 13811 March 6, 1981 • Page Eight
LIMITATIONS '
This report was prepared to aid the project: designers, review-
ing agencies, grading contractors, owners and other concerned
parties in completing their responsibilities toward the successful
completion of this project. The findings and recommendations
in this report were prepared in accordance;with generally accepted
professional engineering principles and practices. We make
no other warranty, either expressed or implied. The findings
and recommendations are based on the results of the field and
laboratory investigation, combined with interpolation of soil
conditions between, boring locations. If conditions encountered
during construction appear to be- different: from those presented
in this report, this office should be notified.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was perforaed on February 9 and 10, 19 81,
by drilling 2 exploratory test borings, utilizing a CME55 drill
rig equipped with a 6-inch diameter hollow: stem auger. These
exploratory borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 66 feet
below the existing asphalt paving. The locations of the borings
are shown on the attached Plan View, Plate 3.
During this investigation, the soils encountered were continuous!.'
logged by our project geologist and were classified in accordance
with the Unified Soil Classification System. The final logs .
of the exploratory borings are i.ncluded in the appendix of
this report as Plates A-1 and A^2.
Representative bulk and undisturbed samples of the soils encounterec
were recovered for laboratory testing and .analysis. Undisturbed
samples were obtained by driving a ring-lined steel sampler
into the desired strata utilizing a 140-pound hammer, free-falling
30 inches. Tne ring-lined soil sa.mples were then sealed in
waterproof containers to mini.mize loss of moisture.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL A ND TESTING. INC
SCST 13811 March 6, 1931 Page Ni.-:a
I
. LABORATORY TEST PROCEDURES
A. Moisture-Density: Field moisture content and dry density
were determined for each undisturbed sample obtained. This
information was an aid to classification and permitted
recognition of variations in material consistency with depth.
The dry unit weight- is determined in pounds per cubic foot,
and the field moisture content is determined as a percentage
of the soil's dry weight. The results|are summarized in the
boring logs. ,
B. Classification: Field classifications! were verified in the
laboratory by. visual examination, and by performing several
sieve analyses. The final soil classifications are in
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System.
C. Compaction Tests; The maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content of typical soils were determined in the laboratory in
accordance v/ith ASTM Standard Test Method D-1557-7 0, the five-
layer method. The results of these tests are summarized as
follows; ' I •
Boring No. & Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture
Soil Type Depth (ft.) Density (pcf) Content (%)
•
Silty Sand' . B-1 @ 12 feet 121 11.5
D. Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed to
determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength.
The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having a
diameter'of 2.375 inches and a heightiof 1.0 inch. Samples
were tested at different vertical loads and at increased
moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a con-
stant rate of strain of approximately ;0.05 inches per minute.
The results of these tests are presented in Plate B.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL A ND TESTING. INC
SCST 13811 March 6, 19Sl Page Ten
E. Consolidation Tests; Consolidation testing was performed on
selected "undisturbed" samples. Tha consolidation apparatus
was designed to acccmmodate a 1-inch high by 2.375 inch dia-
meter soil sample laterally confined by the brass ring.
Porous stones were placed in contact with the top and
bottom of the*sample to permit the addition or release
of pore fluid during testing. Loads were applied to -che
sample at 24-hour intervals in a geometric progression,
and the resulting deformations were recorded. The percent
consolidation for each load cycle is reported as the ratio
of the amount of vertical compression tc the original one-
inch sample height. The test sample was inundated at so.Tte
point in the test cycle to determine its behavior under- the
anticipated footing load as soil moisture increases. The
results of these tests are plotted in Plates C-1 and C-2.
F. Chemical Analysis: Representative soil samples were analyzed
for soluble sulfate content. 'The results are presented in
Plate D.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SO-IL AND TESTING
' ST.=LN'DARD GFJ-OIKG SPECIFICATIONS
These specifications presen. -.-.e usual and minimum rec^jire.-e^
ror grading operations perfcr.-.ed under the control of 'sc^^^'-'e:
Cali:ornia Soil and Testing, ir.c.
l.o ceviation from these specifications will be allowed, ,
wnere specifically superseded m the pr el ur^mar y geolocv ar^'
soils report, or in'other v-ritcen communication signed'b'.- the
Sons Engineer or Eng ineer i.-.c Geologist.
I. GENERAL
A. The Soils Engineer a.nd Engineering Geologist are the
Owner's or Builder's representative on the prcject. For
the purpose of these specifications, supervision by the
Soils Engineer includes that inspection performed by any
person or persons employed by, and responsible to, the
licensed Civil Engineer signing the soil report.
B. All clearing, site preparation or earthwork performed on
the project shall be conducted by the Contractor under
the supervision of the Soils Engineer.
C. It IS the Contractor's responsibility to prepare -'^-e
ground surface to receive the fills to the satisfaction
of the Soils .Engineer and to place, spread, mix, water '
and compact the fill in accordance with the specifica-
tions of the Soils Engineer. The Contractor shall also
remove all material considered unsatisfactory by the
Soils Engineer.
D , It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suit-
able and sufficient compaction equipment on the job site
to handle the amount of fill being placed. If necessary,
excavation equipment will be shut down to permit CCSE-
pletion of compaction. Sufficient watering apparatus
will also be provided by the Contractor, with due con-
sideration for the fill material, rate of placeme.-.t a.nd
time of year.
A final report shail be issued by the Soils Encmeer a^'-'
Engineering Geologist attesting to the Contractor's
conformance with these specifications.
II. SITE PREPARATION
All vegetation and deleterious material such as r-ubi:
shall be disposed of offsite. This removal must*be"
concluded prior to placing fill.
Standard Grading Specifications Page Two
B. The Soils Engineer shall locate all houses, sheds,
sewage disposal systems, large trees or structures on
the site or on the grading plan tc the best of his
knowledge prior to preparing the ground surface.
C. Soil, alluvi-um or rock materials determined by the Soils
Engineer as being unsuitable for placement in co.-.pacted
fills shall be reiTiOved a.nd wasted from the site. .-..ny
miaterial incorporated as a-tart of a compacted' fill must
be approved by the Soils Engineer.
D. .nfter the ground surface to receive fill has beer,
cleared, it shall be scarified, disced or biaded by the
Contractor until it is uniform and free from^ ruts,
hollows, hummocks or other uneven fea tur es' which .-ay
prevent uniform compaction.
The scarified ground surface shall then be brought to
optimum moisture, mixed as required, and compacted as
specified. If the scarified zone is greater than twelve
inches in depth, the excess shail be re.moved and placed
in lifts restricted to six inches.
Prior to placing fill, the ground surface to receive
fill shall be inspected, tested and approved by t.he Soils
"Eng ineer.
E. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns,
mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe imes
or others not Ipcated prior to grading are to be removed
or treated in a manner prescribed by the Soils Engineer,
III. COMPACTED FILLS
A. Any material imported or excavated on the property may
be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been
. , -determined to be suitable by the Soils Engineer. Roots,
tree branches and other matter missed during clearing
shall be removed from the fill as directed by the Soils
Engineer .
B. Rock fragments less than six inches in diameter -a;.- be
utilized in the fill, provided:
1. They are not placed in concentrated pockets.
2. ''There is a sufficient percentage of f ine-gra i.ned
material to surrou.id the rocks.
3. The distribution of the rocks is supervised by tne
Soils Engi.neer.
Sta.ndara Grading Specifications Page Th.ree
C. Rocks greater than six inches in diameter shall be
taken offsite, or placed m accordance with the rec- ^
oramendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated
as suitable for rock disposal. Details for rock dis-
posal such as location, rr.oisture control, percentage or
rock placed, etc., wil^ t-i referred to in the "Conclu-
sions and Recomme.ndations" section of the soils report.
If rocks greater than six inches in diamieter were not
anticipated in the prelL-mary soils and geology report,
rock disposal recomm.endations may not have been ma-de i.',
the "Conclusions and Recommendations" section. In this
case, the Contractor shall notify the Soils Engineer if
rocks greater than six inches in diameter are encoun-
tered. The Soils Engineer will then prepare a rock dis- •
posal recoiTw.endations or request that such rocks be
taken offsite.
D. Material that is spongy, subject to decay, or otherwise
•considered unsuitable shall not be used in the compacted
fill.
E. Representative samples of materials to be utilized as
compacted fill shall be analyzed in the laboratory by the
Soils Engineer to determine their physical properties.
If any material other than that previously tested is
encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of
this material shall be conducted by the Soils Engineer
as soon as possible.
F. Material used in the 'compacting process shall be evenly
spread, watered, processed and compacted in thin lifts
not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uni-
formly dense layer. The fill shall be placed and com-
pacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise approved
by the Soils Engineer.
G. If the moisture content or relative density varies from
that required by the Soils Engineer, the Contractor shall
rework the fill until it is approved by the Soils Engineer,
H. Each layer shall be compacted to 90 perce.nt cf the
maximum density in compliance with the testing method
specified by the controlling governmental agency.
(A.S.T.M. D-1557 -7 0 - five-layer method).
If compaction to a lesser percentage is authorized by
the controlling governmental agency because of a specific
land use or expansive soil conditions, the area to
receive fill compacted to less t.han 90 percent shall
either be delineated on the gradi.ng plan or appropriate
reference made to the area m the soil report.
standard Grading Specifications Page r our
I. All fills shall be keyed ar.d benched through all top-
soil, colluvi'im, alluvi^um or creep material, into sound
bedrock or firm material where the slope receivi.ng fill
exceeds a ratio of five horizontal to one vertical, i.n
accordance with the recomcr.endations of the Soils Engmee;
The key for side hill fills shall be a minimum of 15
feet within bedrock cr fir- materials, unless otherwise
specified in the soil repor.t. (See detail on Plate GS-i,.
K. Drainage terraces and subdrainage -devices shall be
constructed in compliance wi.th the ordinances of the
• controlling gover.mriental ace.ncy, or with the recorrme-nda-
tions of the Soils Engi.neer ar^i' Engineering Geologist.
L. The Contractor will be required to obtain a miniiriu.m
relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finish
slope face of fill slopes, but-tresses and stabilization
fills. This may be achieved by either overbuildi.ng the'
slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by
direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equip-
ment, or by any other procedure which produces the
required compaction.
The Contractor shall prepare a written detailed descrip-
, tion ,of the method or methods he will employ to obtain
the required slope compaction. Such documents shall be
submitted to the Soils Engineer for review and commients
prior to-the start of grading.
If a method other than overbuilding and cutting back to
the compacted core is to be employed, slope tests wili
be made by the Soils Engineer during construction of the
slopes to determine if the required compaction is being
achieved. Each day the Contractor will receive a copy
of the Soil Engineer's "Daily Field Engineering Report"
which will indicate the results of field density tests
for that day. Where failing tests occur or other field
probie.ms arise, the Contractor will be notified of such
conditions by written cor-.unication from the Soils
Engineer in the form of a conference memorandum, to'
avoid .any misunderstanding arising from oral comiriunicatic
If the method of achieving the required slope compaction
selected by t.he Contractor fails to produce the neces-
sary results, the Contractor sh.all rework or rebuild
such slopes until the req^iired degree of co.mpactio.n is
obtained, ,at no additi-onal ccst to the Owner or Soils
Engineer.
Standard Grading Specifications Pace Five
M. fill slopes should be planted or protected from ,
erosion by methods specified in the s-oils report.
.\'. Fil 1-over-cut slopes shall be. properiy keyed through
topsoil, colluvi'or, or creep riaterial into rock or fir-
materials; and 'the transition shall be stripped of all
soil prior tc placing fill. ;5ee detail Plate GS-2; .
I'.'. CUT SLOPES •
. The Engi.neering Geologist shail inspect all cut slopes
excavated in rock, lithified or formation material at
vertical intervals not exceeding ten feet.
3. If any conditions .not anticipated in the preliminary
report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or
confined strata of a potentially adverse nat'ore, • •
unfavorably i.nclined bedding, joints or fault planes
are encountered during gradi.ng, these conditions shall
be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils
Engineer; and recommendations shall be made to treat
these problems.
C. Cut slopes that face in the same direction as the
prevailing drainage shall be protected from slope
wash by a non-erosive interceptor swale placed at the
top of the slope.
D. Unless- otherwise specified i.n the soils and geological
report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or
steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of con-
trolling governiTiental agencies.
E. - Drainage terraces shall be constructed in compliance
with the ordinances of controlling goverrjnental agencies,
or with the recomme.ndations of the Soils Engineer or
Engineering Geologist.
V. G.-ADING CONTROL
Inspection of the fill placament shall be provided by
the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading.
B. In general, density tests should be made at intervals
not exceeding two feet of fill height or every cubic
yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depe.ndmg'
on soil conditions and the size of the ]ob. In any
event, an adequa.te number of field density tests shall
be made to verify that the required compaction is being
achieved .
TYPICAL FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE
PROJECTED
MIN.
NATURAL
SLOPE -s^
BEDROCK OR FIRM
FORMATION MATERIAL
NOTE^ WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5 • \ OR
LESS BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY, UNLESS
STRIPPING DID NOT REMOVE ALL COMPRSSIBLE
MATERIAL.
80UTHEP9M CALiF=aRfNJIA
BY ABC
joe NO, 13811
OATE -6-81
Plate GS-i
0> 0
c
• 5 Ma BY MO. U)
00
M
fit a
(«
o 1 CO cn 1 1
ro
1
00
TYPICAL FILL OVER CUT SLOPE
REMOVE ALL TOPSOl
COLLUVIUM AND CR
MATERIAL FROM TR
L
EEP
ANSITION
CUT SLOPE
BEDROCK OR FIRM
FORMATION MATERIAL
SOUTHERfM CALIFORNIA
SOIL & TESTINQ , INC.
I
Vicinity Map
Reference: San Luis Rey Ih min. qijad
BY
JOB NO. 13811
DATE 2-19-31
Plate ]
TT8CI 'OU cpp
T8-LZ-Z -a^Pt
09-
pUE
OC-
- 0
-OC
^fsocfep tppag'
TTFJ
tl
T-a
uorrteuaoij
auoq spires
jEi-1 -rsa
TTFJ
MHA N«Td
r-fl
/
fxrr^s-rxa — .
09-
oe- -
oc
DOWNWARD PILE CAPACITY .'TONS)
4
id
Ul
LL.
o
I
2
>
30
CD
'-Ll
- 40
60
OCTAGONAL PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILE
t
MINIMUM TIP ELEVATION •
1
\
1
\
: i
j
i
i 1 1 1 1
1
1 i 1 i j i
j
1 i i 1 1
i i 1 i
1
50
UP'.V ARD P:
75 100
:APACITY (TONS) • 1
B BCXJTHEHN CALIFORNIA
\^^^ SOfl. A TESTlfSKa , HNiC
fl ^
DRIVEN PILE CAPAC TIES
11 BY ABC 2-27-31
II —— . JOB Na 13811 Plate 4 j
E= efficiency of a pile in fhe group, reiofive to
its single pile value
n = number of piles in eoch row
m = number of rows in fhe group
d = pile diameter
s : pile spocing
: 10
i— e 5
c
Q.
C
e
3
«— 2
EXAMPLE
To Illustrate the use of the chort,
ossumt 0 group of ten piles, orronged in fwo rows
of five piles, ond hovii>4 fl rtftio of diometer to
spocing of 0.20. Firs* draw o line (shown dashed)
connecting m = 2 ond n = 5 on fhe verticol scoies.
Porollel to this drow o second line through
0.20 on the inclined scole. This line (olso
shown dashed) intersects the left vertical scale ot
E = 0.88, which is the volue sought.
1—0.50
SOUTHS;^ CALIFORfvUA
SC^ A TSSTMMCi , BVSC. PILE EFFICIENCY CHART
•Y DATE
JOB NO.
p^Loecr- Car.1 .shad Boulevard Bridge JOB NC
1 -jo-
tunFACt CLCVATION
•MUMOWATER LCVCL
19 (estimated MSL) .9 (
estimated MSL)
BORING LOS NO. 1
DATE DRILLED-
SMECT_i_ Of,
Plate A-1
a.
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
•LOWS/FT •
50 100
' I I I I I ' 1 ' I I I I
ORY UNIT WT(PCF)«
90 100 110 120
I I t 1 I I I I I I I 1 I
I 'I
PL
-L-l-
MC
10
-Ll.
20
• fll'*
I
1
i
I
FILL: SILTY SAND - Brown .SM
-
15
20
BEACH, PEPOSIT: S;^ - Gray brown,
medium to fine, sane' caving
SP
^5
r
r
1
DEL MAR POIMiTICN: SAND - Dark gray,
well graded, friable
SW
30
ATTITUDC _«CA«aRgMCWTa:
J -. J*««t
C - Cowtoirt
ns - R«^r« S«rf«e« •
psimjmcr- Carl,.sbad Boulevard Bridge
LOCATIOH Carlftaaj, CiaUifvrnia.
SUHFACE ELEVATKMi;
••OLWOWATER LCVCL
JOB NO 13811
DATE DRILLED-
SHEET 2 Of
i-lo^fil
BORING LOS NO, 1 (cont'd.) Plate A-1
1
I
r
JO
L
45
-- i
rt
55
4-
60
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
u
an
3
SILTY FINE SAND - Gray and brown
•LOWS/FT •
50 100
I • ' I ' I I •
SM
Brown SM
Light brown
ATTITUDC !«CASORgMCWT3,
• - »«M»t F - FMM
J - J»»«f RS - R«y*«r« Sarfaea
DRY UNIT WT(PCF)«
90 100 110 120
! I : I . I I I I i I I i
' ' I ' I I I ' I I I I 1 t
MC
• -
I
I
I f
•"':,'
imty.&<ir CarLsfcad Boulevard Bridge
LOCAT ION C^lS^, Calif QCnja.
JOB .><C 13511
Si/RFACC ELEVATION
•ROUNOWATER LCVCL
BORING LOS NO. 1 (cont'd.
- OATE ;
)....;. Plate
.LEO
Gf
1
z >-a.
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION to
3
• LOWS/FT. •
50 100 I
' I ' ' I ' ' • ' ' ' ' 1 : ' I I I I I '. I ' I '
DRY UNIT WT(PCF>«
90 lOG 110 12
I • ' ' I ' ' I I ' I • '
PL t
UC
—•r-10
I I I I ' I I I I '' ' • . I
n Bottcm at 66 feet.
70
i-i
w
SILTY FINE SAND - Light Brown SM
Note: No caving in fill or Del Mar
formation
ATTITUOC ^MCA>URC»gWTS.
• - F - FMit
J - J«<«t W - R«f««r« S«rf«c«
C - Co»»oef
weajTCT- Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge 1 '
JOB NO — -"-'^
a
-1
•UHFACC ELfVATiQN' 26 (estimated MSL)
«K>U«C«ATCR LCVCL'_2J__4estimated MSL)
BORING LOS NO. 2
OATC DRILLED _±
SMfTT 1 Of _^
Plate A-2
FILL: SILTY SAND - Brown
15
EEL MAR FORIVEVriCN: SILTY SAND - Gray,
I well-graded
20
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TERRACE DEPOSIT: SILTY SAND - Brown,
well-graded
^ SAND - Gray, fine
Gray and brown
r •
^5
30
r
r
u
M
3
SM
SW-
SM
SP
BLOWS/FT •
50 100
' I I • I ' • I ' I ' ' • 1 I I i I i : I I I !
DRY UNIT WT.(PCF)«; V
90 100 110 120 Io zO"
!
' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' I ' I ' f ' ' I ' • • •
AITITWe »^A80Rgl«WTS,
B • ••««to« F - Fwtt
J - J**«it NB - ^pHn S«rf«e«
C - Cow'eef
m^Q^t T: Carl.sbfid Boulevard Bridge
LOCAT low Cari^?ad. Califomia
8m??Acc ELEVATION;
•NCUNOWATER LCVCL.
JOB NO 1-:3I
OATC OR.ILLCD.
SHCCT _i Of ,
BORING LOS NO.2 ^cont'd.) Plate A-2
X
a.
8
35
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SILTY SAND - Gray, well-graded
•LOWS/FT •
50 100
• ''I'll
sw-
SM
45
Botton at 41 Feet.
Note: No Caving
DRY UNIT WT(PCf)«;
90 100 110 12a
I I I 1 I I I ' I I ' • < i
PL
1-1-
uc
ro"
' I •
20
1. 111
1
4
\
\
220
240
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
ATTITUPC i^ABUWEMCWTS.
B - MMiai F - FMit
J - Jfi RS - RMptmrt S«rf«e«
C - Cowtset
CO
3
m
rt-
(li
I
M
I
Ul
I
CO
(0
«• m
H? m 2
(0
02
>
2
02
N
m
o cn
H
00 c
H
o
z:
3fi'
100
90
till
/O
^ 60
SO
S 40
^ ;io
10
18"
OS Standard Sieves
2" r Ka" «io »2o Mo tieo
. -5" .• I
Hydrometer
( Minutes)
••V" "fl
OM / fl I, .1 \ ?
I UO
Ml6
l>li / II ;> 4 ,1 IO
N
Nl
lift / II !, ,| ,\
<?/"<7//? Si;;e (mm)
u n ^ ll ;•) 4 .^ un / r, ,| 1
PARTICLE SIZE LIMITS
BOULDER I COBBLES
(12 in )
GRAVEL
Coarse Fine
SAND
Coarae Medium
3 in.
Fine
3/4 In.
U. S.
SILT OR CLAY
No 4 No lo
STANDARD
No, 40
SIEVE
No. 200
SIZE
B-1 f.i 10': Mcdiiuii t-o Pine S^url (SP)
•- B-1 0 20': Well Graded Saii.:l (.S•^^^)
R-l 0 40': Silty Fine Sand (SM)
mq ISO am I - -r lOO
IO
50 "Bk,
iot; -wkS
30^;-
20 •
2
00
ID
> I
5
m
NJ I tSJ Ul I CD
0)
I
Of m
mZ to
^2
zS
- >
(D
>
cn
M
m
o
H
OD
C
O
«o
70
I 60
k
50
§ 40
^ .30
20
10
V^- 6"
DB / 11
IOOO
OS standard Sieves
I" V'f 'A" «I0 »20 Mo tt<30
a« •/ 6 5 4 3 100 98 7 fi 5 4 3 10 atlas 4 3
PARTICLE
Groin Size (mm)
SIZE LIMITS
Hydrometer
( Minutes)
12 5 30 IBO
'.IS I fi •\ i
u. s. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
B-2 0 5'" Silty Sand (SM)
B-2 @ 15': Silty Well Graded Sand (SW-SM)
B-2 0 40': Silty Well Graded Sand (SW-SM)
I44Q 150 nm ) lOO
70
Si
50*^^
401: K S
zo
1
1
BOULDER!COBBLES
1
GRAVEL SAND
SILT OR CLAY
1
1
BOULDER!COBBLES
1 Cooree Fine Coarse Medium Fine
SILT OR CLAY
SHEAR STRENGTH (KSF)
0 2,0 3C
CO 1-0
Ul
QC
z>
CO
CO
Ui
X
0.
UJ ts a: <
X
o
(T 3
cn . 3.0
4.0
KEY:
• TESTED AT FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT
O' TESTED AT INCREASED MOISTURE ""CONTENT
4,0
V ' ' ' I
' \
: \
O' V &
f I 1 1 1 1 I r ,. 1 . 1 I 1 1 1 • 1 F
\ .USED
\
1
1 (
'
IN ANALYSIS
j
-
' 1
\
1 ! 1 \ 1
scxm^m cjdiFcmaA son DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
< ^ »^ ^STDC, DC.
r 17811 Sty Park Orel* Q-1TB Wf .2BC DATE 2-25-81
Ir^nn», GkUfomla 92714 ICM no. 13811 PIATE NO. B
i
5
Q
O
o
LOAD kips/sq. ft.
B-2 (3 5' : Silty Sand (SW-SM)
B-2 @ 15': Fine Sand (SP)
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
BY ABC DATE 2-25-81
JOB NO. 13811 PLATE C-1
I
I
! 5
9
IJ
O
O
o
^ ' i 1 i 1 i ; 1 : i 1 T—1 1 '. 1 ; 1
; ; : 1 1 i i ! f-f 1
' ; ' '! • ' •
1 i 1 ) 1 1 1 1 i I 1 ' • i ! ! ,1 i i ! i
' i 1 1 \, • : . \ " ' i
' i i 1 i ! 1 1 1 1 ' i 1 ilii i I 1 !
1 1 j 1 1 1. .j 1 I 1 1
! : i 1 1 1 i i : \ •
i 1 i 1 1 i 1 i i i 1 ' ' *' i_
'^ i * ' ( • i
! , 1 1 1 j . 1.. 1 ! ' i i ' 1 I ' 1 ' f ' • \ 1 ' , 1 1
i i ! 1 i ' : : I
! •
j 1 i 1 I 1
i ' 1 ; j : • i
1 ! i t i ' i ' i
n i 1 1 1 1
1 1 • ; 1 1 1 1 1 "• •• T 1 7 - r
• -
1
1
1 ! ' i •—
r.77\' 11 L'-D 7*, ^^^^^^^^^
fcrt: r 1 j •' WA,Lr.K rtHnr.n i.
i i'i''
—'[—
r" 1
—i— — "yj^ -1 —1—
—:— \ \ i i !
^rzi— — ••*—
i •
> -
•
i ! 1 /<-4— ' -4., 1 ; BE
1 ^ 1 1 i i 1 1 i 1 i
I 1 / ' • r - -r- •• ^—1—
1 ] , |_ I 1 1 s, '^^ 1 s, • 1 1 1 1 j 1
V
1 1 L 1 1 I 1 : j Iji
1 I ^. i. i . i 1 • 1 ' ; ' ; 1 1 1 i 1 i
1 , i 1 Nr-J _ 1 • 1 1 j
! 1
! i. • ., 1 1 1 X 1 . 1 i \ 1 ! 1 X ' . 1 i I
1 1 1 < 1 , V 1 1 t 1 1
1 • 1 1 i i 1 . 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1
i i 1 1 i N ' 1 j
k 1 1 \' f 1 1 1
1 i '^"—^
i • ! 1
1—1 —i— 1 -4-• i 1 1 1
1 1 1 i 1
, I'ii 1 .- 1 1 1 . 1 ' 1 1 1
! 1 i r '•• —i—
1 - •• 1 , ' ' i ' 1 1 1 i . 1 f— 1 1
1 • ( i 1 ! 1 i i
1 1 1 1 —i—
I i 1 1 i . I
1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 •'t"" —f—
! ' 1 1 1 ! . 1 1 •" • ' T " '
i • - 1 ' ' 1 1 1 t
—j 1 1 1 i 1 , i 1 1 1 - ' 1 1 . 1 i 1 1 1 . ( . 1 j i i • i 1 1 ' ' 1 1 1 j
1 I -I , 1
i I 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 i
i i 1 1 i 1 i
i : 1 1 1 • . ;
1 ; 1 1 i 1 1
1 ; 1 1 1 1 1 ' 1
•
• —t i
•
— • ' - ' " 1 • • - .. i
! i ' !" : t 1 —1
1 I i t :
1 1 1 , f )
' i ' i
. i : L - 1 , '1 ! • 1 1 i 1 • 0.1 0.5 1.0 10 50
LOAD kips/sq. ft.
B-1 (§5': Fill - Silty Sand (SM)
3-1 (3 20' : Well Graded Sand (SW)
B-1 @ 50': Silty Fine Sand (SM)
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
BY ABC OATE 2-25-81
JOS NO. 13811 PLATE C-2 I ^Jesting SPoboAoto^y. 3iyc.
ANAHEIM TEST LABORATORY
TO: S . C . T . L .
3004 S. ORANGE AVENUE
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNLA 92707
PHONE (714) 549-7267
DATE: 2-17-81
P.O. No. Verbal
Shipper No. Job 13S11
Lab. No. K-5889-1-7
specification:
Material: Soil
Project Carlsbad Eridge
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
SOLUBLE SULFATE
per Calif 4l7 A
Bl @5' .0222 %
Bl @12 .0169
Bl @20 .0156
Bl '@40 .0144
Bl @55 .0140
B2 @5 .0193
B2 @15 .0148
FORM
-\-\AHEl,M TEST L,-\BORAT0KV
SCST 13cU
Place D
APPENDIX E
SDUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
ISS WEST aRANGETHDRPE AVENUE, PLACENTIA, CALIFORNIA 92570 • TELE S24-913Q
CaRPORATlON OFFICE 6230 RIVERDALE ST., SAN DIEGD, CALIF. 92120 "TELE 230-4321
March 23, 1981
McDaniel Engineering Company SCST 13 811
4649 Cass Street
San Diego, California 92109
Attention: , Mr. Art McDajiiel
SUBJECT: Addendum to Below Referenced Report for the
Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge.
Reference: 1) Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc.,
"Report on Preliminary Geotechnical Investiga-
tion, Proposed Bridge Reconstruction, City of
Carlsbad, California", SCST 13311, Report N9. 1,
dated March 6, 19 81
2) Letter from McDaniel Engineering Company dated
March 17, 1981.
Gentlemen: .
As shown in Plate 3 of the above referenced report, we antici-
pate relatively high resistance to pile driving within the
channel considering the medium dense to very dense condition
of the Del Mar Formation as encountered in borings 1 and 2 and
expected to prevail within the channel. In view of this con-
dition, it is advisable to consider designing a single-span
bridge in between abutments. Furthermore, pier construction
will be difficult due to the presence of deep water and wave
SCST 13811 March 23, 1981 Page Two
action in the channel unless some type of pneumatic caisson
technique is employed. This technique if available locally,
may be expensive.
An alternate to driven prestressed concrete piles would be to
use cast-in-drilled hole caissons for the abutments. In view
of the presence of groundwater, tremie methods in combination
with pumping, would be•necessary. If this alternate is adopted,
we estimate a 50% reduction in downward capacity with respect
to driven octagonal prestressed concrete piles. The capacity
of any other size pile or caisson should be proportional to
its lateral surface area. Furthermore, if drilled caisson
is used, load testing should be performed to twice its design
capacity. Load testing will not be required if the caisson
will be designed as end-bearing, using an allowable bearing
pressure of 7 tons per square foot. Minimum base elevation
for the caisson should be at elevation (-)30.
Another alternative would be to use steel bearing piles in
order to minimize resistance to pile driving. In determining
steel pile capacity, lateral surface area should be calcu-
lated using the inscribed perimeter of the pile section.
Similarly, capacity will be proportional to the calculated
surface area of th.e steel pile with respect to the octagonal
prestressed pile. In view of the lesser amount of soil that
will be displaced by the steel piling, the capacity of the
steel pile should be assumed equal to 7 5 percent of the octagonal
pile after proportioning with respect to surface area.
In using steel piles, sufficient thickness (minimiam 1/6-inch)
should be added to the required thickness for structural
integrity in order to compensate for corrosion over a design
life of at least 50 years. Furthermore, it would be
advisable to use low-alloy steel alloyed with copper in order
to produce high corrosion resistance.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING. INC
SCST 13811 • March 23, 1981 Page Three
If you have any further questions, you may call us at your con-
venience.
Respectfully submitted,
SOUTRERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC.
:edi B. >Cc Artedi B. >Cortez, R.C.E. #26009
Resident Engineer
ABC/kk
cc: C3) Submitted
Cl) SCST, San Diego
SOUTHERN CAL IFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING, INC
Existing bridge, looking north on Carlsbad Boulevard
Southwesterly View
v;esterly View
Easterly View
Existing Bridge Substructure
View showing remains of former abutment, west side existinq
bridge.
Looking south, Tamarack Avenue in left foreground. Encina Power
Plant (SDG&E) in far background.
Looking south tov^ards bridge, Sequoia Avenue in loft foreground,
South of Sequoia Avenue, looking towards bridge. Existing sewer
pump station in left foreground.
Looking southerly from point immediately south of bridge
Looking southerly at roadside parking area south of bridge,
Looking north from Cannon Road,
Parking lot locatod northwesterly of bridge site. Tamarack Avenue
in far background.
"Fishermans Parking Lot" located on east side of Carlsbad Boulevard
southerly from bridge. (Property owned by SDG&E)
Looking north along east side of Carlsbad Boulevard from point
southerly of bridge and northerly of "Fishermans Parking Lot".
(Property owned by SDG&E)
Entrance to SDG&E Encina Fishing Area and "Fishermans Parking Lot"
Looking southerly from point north of Encina Power Plant entrance
Entrance to SDG&E Encina Power Plant