The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutEA 09-07; Coastal Rail Trail Reach 1; Administrative Permits (ADMIN) (6)• • • GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION COASTAL RAIL TRAIL ROUNDABOUT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR: City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 PREPARED BY: Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants 5710 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 57! 0 Ruffin Road • San DiegO, California 92123 • PhOne (8581 576~ l 000 • Fax (858) 57~9600 San Diego • ltvine • los Angeles • Rancho Cucamonga • Oakland • San Frands<:o • Sacramento Las Vega5 • Pt1oenix • Tucson • Prescott Valfey • Denver • El Paso • Houston Mr. Jon Schauble City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Schauble: July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the pro- posed Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout project in Carlsbad, California. This report presents our geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the proposed project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE MAC/FOM/SG/mmd Distribution: (5) Addressee 57!0RuffinRoad • SanDiege,Califomia92123 • Phone(858J576-IOOO • Fax(858)576-9600 san Diego • Itvine • LOs Angeles • Rancho Cucamonga • oakland • san Ftand:s:co • Sacramento las Vegas • Phoenix • TUC5011 • f're5cott Valley • Denver • 8 Paso • Houston . ll ---------------------------------------- Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODDCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 2. SCOPE OF SERDICES ............................................................................................................ l 3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................. .2 D SDDSDRFACEEDPDORATION AND DADORATORD TESTING .................................... 2 5. GEODOGD AND SDDSDRFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................. 3 5.1. Site Geology ................................................................................................................. 3 5.1.1. Fill ....................................................................................................................... 3 5.1.2. Alluvium ............................................................................................................. 3 5.1.3. Old Paralic Deposits ............................................................................................ 3 5.2. Groundwater ................................................................................................................. 0 6. CONCDDSIONS ...................................................................................................................... 0 7. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................... D 7.1. EarthworD ..................................................................................................................... 5 7.1.1. Site Preparation ................................................................................................... 5 7 .1.2. Remedial Grading ............................................................................................... 5 7 .1.3. Materials for Fill ................................................................................................. 5 7.1.0 Compacted Fill .................................................................................................... 6 7.1.5. Temporary EC:Cavations ...................................................................................... 7 7.1.6. Drainage .............................................................................................................. 7 7.2. Preliminary Pavement Design ...................................................................................... 7 7.3. Corrosion ...................................................................................................................... 9 7. D Concrete ........................................................................................................................ 9 7.5. Pre-Construction Conference ........................................................................................ 9 7 .6. Construction Observation ........................................................................................... ! 0 8. DIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... lO 9. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 12 Table Table 1 DRecommended Pavement Sections .................................................................................. 8 Figures Figure 1 DProject Docation Figure 2 DGeotechnical Map Appendices Appendi DA D Doring Dog Appendi D D D Daboratory Testing 107357001 Rdoc _ _j Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California 1. INTRODUCTION July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 In accordance with your rewest, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout project in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1 ). This report presents our conclusions regarding the geotechnical conditions at the site, and our recommendations for the design and earthworDconstruction of this project. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES Ninyo 0 Moorel:S scope of services for this project included review of pertinent baccground data, performance of a geologic reconnaissance, a subsurface evaluation, laboratory testing, and engineering analysis with regard to the proposed construction. Specifically, we performed the following tas[};: • Reviewing bac cground data listed in the References section of this report. The data reviewed included topographic maps, geologic data, stereoscopic aerial photographs, and fault maps. • Performing a geologic reconnaissance of the site including the observation and mapping of geologic conditions and the evaluation of possible geologic hazards which may impact the proposed project. • Obtaining a San Diego County Department of Environmental Dealth boring permit. • MarOng boring location prior to contacting Dnderground Service Alert (DSA) for under- ground utility clearance at the site. • Performing subsurface eQ:>loration consisting of drilling one boring to evaluate the subsur- face conditions. • Performing geotechnical laboratory testing on selected soil samples to evaluate design parameters. • Compiling and analyzing the data obtained from our bac cground research, subsurface e Q:>lo- ration, and laboratory testing. • Preparing this geotechnical design and data report presenting our findings and conclusions regarding the proposed site. The report also includes geotechnical recommendations for the design and earthworDconstruction ofthe project. 107357001 Rdoc Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California 3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 The roadway and biceway improvement project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Carlsbad adjacent to the City of Oceanside (Figure 1). The improvements eClend north and south from the intersection of Carlsbad Doulevard and State Street. The project will include construction of a roundabout at the intersection of Carlsbad Doulevard and State Street and im- provements to the roadway, bi ceways, and sidewal CS along the roadway alignments within Carlsbad (Figure 2). A 10-foot-wide bice lane will be constructed along the west side of Carlsbad Doulevard to Eaton Street in Oceanside. Grading is generally e c:pected to be relatively minor e []. cept where the roundabout will be constructed. Cuts and fills of up to appro Ornately 5 feet are anticipated for the roundabout construction. Elevations range from appro Ornately 10 feet above mean sea level (MSD) at the northern Carlsbad city limit to appro Ornately 50 feet at the southern end of the Carlsbad project alignment. Degetation generally consists of grass and weeds in land- scaped areas adjacent to the roadways. 4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our subsurface ec:ploration was conducted on July 10, 2012 and consisted of drilling one boring with a trucO.mounted, continuous-flight auger drill to a depth of approOmately 26.5 feet. The boring location was selected based on the results of our hac c:ground review and field reconnais- sance. Prior to commencing the subsurface ec:ploration, DSA was notified for marO.out of the e Osting utilities. A boring permit was also obtained from San Diego County prior to performing the boring. The appro Ornate location of the boring is presented on Figure 2. The boring log is presented in Appendi DA. Daboratory testing of representative soil samples included an evaluation of in-place moisture and density, gradation, consolidation, corrosivity, and resistance value (R-value). The results of the moisture content and density tests are presented on the boring log in Appendi DA. The results of the other laboratory tests performed are presented in Appendi D D. 107357001 Rdoc 2 Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California 5. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 Our findings regarding regional and local geology, including rippability (eCCavatability), and groundwater conditions at the site are provided in the following sections. 5.1. Site Geology The geologic units mapped or encountered during our site reconnaissance and subsurface e [}Jloration consist of fill, alluvium, and old paralic deposit materials. Generalized descrip- tions ofthe earth units encountered are provided in the subsewent sections. 5.1.1. Fill Fill was encountered in our boring underlying the cOsting pavement section to ap- proOmately 15.5 feet below the ground surface. As encountered, the fill generally consisted of brown to reddish brown, moist, loose to medium dense, sand with silt, with scattered gravel and cobbles and gray, moist to wet, stiff to very stiff, sandy clay. Docu- mentation regarding placement of the fill was not available. 107357001 Rdoc 5.1.2. Alluvium Alluvium was encountered in our boring beneath the fill to the depth e[}Jlored. The al- luvial materials generally consisted of bluish gray, saturated, medium dense to dense, poorly graded fine to medium sand and sand with silt. 5.1.3. Old Paralic Deposits Old paralic deposits were not encountered in our boring but have been mapped south of the intersection of Carlsbad Doulevard and State Street and north of the Carlsbad city line. Dased on borings by this firm for other projects in this area, the old paralic deposit materials are generally anticipated to consist of moist to saturated, medium dense to very dense, sand or silty sand with gravel (Ninyo 0 Moore, 2010). 3 Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California 5.2. Groundwater July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 Groundwater was encountered in our boring at the time of drilling at a depth of approO- mately 15 feet below the ground surface (2 feet above MS D). Do wever the soils at this depth consisted of sandy clay. These soils are slow to transmit water and a shallower depth should be anticipated for stabilized groundwater. Fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to variations in ground surface topography, subsurface geologic conditions and struc- ture, rainfall, tides, irrigation, and other factors. 6. CONCLUSIONS Dased on our review of the referenced hac c:ground data and geotechnical evaluation of the site, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical stand- point. Dased on our review of published geologic maps and our field evaluation, the project site is not underlain by faults or landslides. Geotechnical considerations include the following: • The project site is underlain by fill materials, alluvium, and old paralic deposits. Fill was encountered in our boring to a depth of approOmately 15.5 feet below the ground surface. The fills were clayey and not suitable for reuse. • The on-site soils should be generally eD::avatable with heavy-duty earth moving ewipment in good worOng condition. Dariations in moisture content will be encountered and the con- tractor should be prepared to aerate or moisture condition the soils. • Groundwater was encountered in our boring at a depth of appro Ornately 15 feet below the ground surface (2 feet above MSD). Shallow groundwater may be encountered in eD::ava- tions along portions of the project alignment. The contractor should be prepared to deal with groundwater and wet soils. • ED::avations in or close to groundwater will encounter wet and loose or soft ground condi- tions. Wet soils may be subject to pumping under heavy ewipment loads. The contractor should be prepared to stabilize the bottom of the e D::avations. Recommendations for stabiliz- ing eD::avation bottoms are presented in the following sections. 7. RECOMMENDATIONS Dased on our understanding of the project, the following recommendations are provided for the design and construction of the project. 107357001 Rdoc D Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California 7.1. Earthwork July 26, 20 12 Project No. 107357001 Details of proposed site earthwarD are not Dlown at this time. The following sections pre- sent our recommendations regarding earthwarD for the project. Ninyo 0 Moore should be contacted for westions regarding the recommendations presented herein. 7.1.1. Site Preparation The project site should be cleared and grubbed prior to grading. Clearing and grubbing should consist of the substantial removal of vegetation and other deleterious materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should eClend to the outside of the proposed eD.:avation and fill areas. The debris generated during clearing and grubbing should be removed from areas to be graded and disposed of off site at a legal dumpsite. 7.1.2. Remedial Grading Wet soils should be anticipated in the remedial eD.:avations and the subsewent drying and additional handling of these soils should be anticipated. [bose, soft, or otherwise deleterious material encountered at the bottom of eD.:avation should be overeD.:avated and recompacted in accordance with the recommendations provided herein. Additional stabilization efforts may be used in lieu of the additional removal at the bottom of the eD.:avations, Ninyo 0 Moore should be consulted regarding the usage of an approO- mately 1-foot thicD layer of crushed aggregate into the eD.:avation in conjunction with geosynthetic materials or placement of a lean concrete mud mat. 107357001 Rdoc 7.1.3. Materials for Fill On-site clayey soils are compressible in nature, and are not suitable for use as fill. In general, on-site granular soils may be used as fill. Imported fill material, if used, should have a low ec:pansion potential (50 or less as evaluated by American Society for Testing and Materials CASTMDD [829), should not contain roc[]; or lumps over Dinches in largest dimension, and not more than 30 percent larger than 0 inch. Oversize materials or larger chunO;, may be bro[1m into acceptably sized pieces or disposed of off site. Im- port material should be non-corrosive in accordance with Caltrans (2003) and American 5 Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 I 07357001 Rdoc Concrete Institute (ACI) 318 corrosion guidelines. Materials for use as fill should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultantes representative prior to filling or importing. 7.1.4. Compacted Fill Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor should re west an evaluation of the e c:posed ground surface by Ninyo 0 Moore. Onless otherwise recommended, the e c:posed ground surface should then be scarified to a depth of approOmately 8 inches and watered or dried, as needed, to achieve generally consistent moisture contents at or near the optimum moisture content. The scarified materials should then be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. For proposed pavement areas, the subgrade should be scarified to a depth of appro Ornately 8 inches, moisture-conditioned to near opti- mum moisture content, and compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The evaluation of compaction by Ninyo 0 Moore should not be considered to preclude any re Dlirements for observation or approval by governing agencies. It is the contractoriSJ responsibility to notify Ninyo 0 Moore and the appropriate governing agency when project areas are ready for observation, and to provide reasonable time for that review. Fill materials should be moisture-conditioned to near optimum moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moisture content will vary with material type and other factors. Moisture-conditioning of fill soils should be generally consistent within the soil mass. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill material following a delay in the grading operations, the e c:posed surface of previously compacted fill should be prepared to receive fill. Preparation may include scarification, moisture-conditioning, and recompaction. Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts ofapproOmately 8 inches in loose thic[]. ness. Prior to compaction, each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve near optimum moisture condition, mi c:ed, and then compacted by mechanical methods, using sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other appropriate compacting rollers, to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Successive lifts should be treated in a li c:e manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. 6 Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California 7.1.5. Temporary Excavations July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 We recommend that trenches and e C:Cavations be designed and constructed in accor- dance with Occupational Safety and Dealth Administration (OS DA) regulations. These regulations provide trench sloping and shoring design parameters for trenches up to 20 feet deep based on a description of the soil types encountered. Trenches over 20 feet deep should be designed by the Contractori:S engineer based on site-specific geotechni- cal analyses. For planning purposes, we recommend that the following OS DA soil classification be used: Fill, Alluvium, and Old Paralic Deposits TypeC In general, temporary e C:Cavations above the water table should be inclined no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) in fill, alluvium, and old paralic deposit materials. Tem- porary e C:Cavations that encounter seepage may need shoring or may be stabilized by placing sandbags or gravel along the base of the seepage zone. EC:Cavations encounter- ing seepage should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. 7.1.6. Drainage Positive surface gradients should be provided per rewirements of the GreenbooD Sur- face water should not be allowed to pond within the area of the proposed pavements. 7.2. Preliminary Pavement Design For design of new asphalt concrete pavements in the planned pavement areas, we have used Traffic Indices of 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, and 8.5. If traffic loads are different from those assumed, the pavement design should be re-evaluated. Actual pavement recommendations should be based on R-value tests performed on bul D samples of the soils e [posed at the finished sub- grade elevations once grading operations have been performed. 107357001 Rdoc 7 Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 The R-value characteristics of the subgrade soils were evaluated by conducting laboratory testing on a representative soil sample obtained from our ecploratory boring. The test result indicated an R-value of 59. Considering the variability of near-surface soil anticipated at the site and the results of laboratory testing, we used a design R-value of rn in our analysis. We recommend that the import soil material, if used as subgrade, should have an R-value of rn or more. The preliminary recommended pavement sections are based on City of Carlsbad Standard Drawing DS-17 and are as follows: Traffic Index ....,.__ 6.0 7.0 8.0 8.5 As halt Concrete DO DO DO 5.0 9.0 We recommend that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade be compacted to a relative compac- tion of95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The pavement sections should provide an appro Ornate pavement life of 20 years. As mentioned, if traffic loads or the R-value of fin- ished subgrade are different from those assumed, the pavement design should be re-evaluated. The subgrade beneath concrete curb and gutters should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to generally above the laboratory optimum moisture content and com- pacted to a relative compaction of95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The subgrade beneath sidewalO; should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to near the laboratory optimum moisture content, and compacted to a relative compaction of 90 per- cent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. 107357001 Rdoc 8 Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California 7 .3. Corrosion July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 Dlboratory testing was performed on a representative sample of the on-site earth materials to evaluate pD and electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pD and electrical resistivity tests were performed in accordance with California Test (CT) 603 and the sulfate and chloride content tests were performed in accordance with CT 017 and CT C22, respectively. These laboratory test results are presented in Appendi 0 D. The results of the corrosivity testing indicated an electrical resistivity of 660 ohm-em, a soil pO of 8.7, a chloride content of 330 parts per million (ppm) and a sulfate content of 0.051 percent (i.e., 510 ppm). Dased on the Caltrans corrosion (2003) criteria and ACI 318, the on-site soils would be classified as corrosive. Corrosive soils are defined as the soils with electrical resistivities less than 1,000 ohm-em, more than 500 ppm chlorides, more than 0.1 percent sulfates, or a pO less than 5.5. 7 .4. Concrete Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of water-soluble sul- fates can be subject to premature chemical and/or physical deterioration. As stated above, the soil sample tested in this evaluation indicated a water-soluble sulfate content of 0.051 percent by weight (i.e., 510 ppm). According to ACI 318, the potential for sulfate attacDis negligible for water-soluble sulfate content less than 0.10 percent by weight (i.e., 1,000 ppm) in soils. Therefore, the site soils may be considered to have a negligible potential for sulfate attacD Dowever, due to the variability of site soils, we recommend using Type 11/0 cement and/or in- corporating fly-ash into the concrete miDas well as maintaining a water to cement ratio of0.05. 7.5. Pre-Construction Conference We recommend that a pre-construction conference be held prior to commencement of grad- ing. Owner representatives, the agency representatives, the civil engineer, Ninyo 0 Moore, and the contractor should be in attendance to discuss the plans, the project, and the proposed construction schedule. 107357001 Rdoc 9 Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California 7 .6. Construction Observation July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on analysis of ob- served surface conditions. If conditions are found to vary from those described in this report, Ninyo D Moore should be notified, and additional recommendations will be provided upon rewest. Ninyo D Moore should review the final project drawings and specifications prior to the commencement of construction. Ninyo D Moore should perform the needed observation and testing services during construction operations. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Ninyo D Moore will provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. In the event that it is decided not to utilize the services ofNinyo D Moore during construction, we rewest that the selected consultant provide the client with a letter (with a copy to Ninyo D Moore) indicating that they fully understand Ninyo D MooreCS recommendations, and that they are in full agreement with the design parameters and recommendations contained in this report. Construction of proposed improvements should be performed by walified subcon- tractors utilizing appropriate techni wes and construction materials. 8. LIMITATIONS The field evaluation and geotechnical analyses presented in this geotechnical report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care e t::ercised by geo- technical consultants performing similar tasOi in the project area. No warranty, eQ:>ressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this re- port. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Dariations may e Ost and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construc- tion. Dncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through subsurface ec:ploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon rewest. Please also note that our evalua- tion was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, or the presence of hazardous materials. 107357001 Rdoc 10 Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo D Moore should be contacted if the reader rewires additional information or has westions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant per- form an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional e c:ploration and laboratory testing. Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified, and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon re west. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to govern- ment action or the broadening of Dlowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo D Moore has no control. This report is intended e Cblusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclu- sions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertal1m at said parties [Sole risD 107357001 Rdoc 11 Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California 9. REFERENCES July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 American Concrete Institute, 2011, ACI 318 Duilding Code Rewirements for Structural Con- crete and Commentary. Dlac:e, Thomas F., 2001, FRlSDSP Dersion 000, Probabilistic Earthwac:e Dazard Analysis Computer Program. Duilding News, 2009, CGreenbooqD Standard Specifications for Public WorD; Construction: DNI Publications. California Duilding Standards Commission, 2010, California Duilding Code, Title 2q Part 2, Cblumes 1 and 2: dated June. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2003, Corrosion Guidelines (Dersion 1.0), Di- vision of Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion Technology Dranch: dated September. California Geological Survey (CGS), 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Del Mar Duadrangle: dated June 1. County of San Diego, 1975, Topographic Survey, Sheet 362-1659, Scale 1:2,[1)0. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2012, Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), Map Number 06073C0761G: dated May 16. Geotracc:tr website, 2012, http://geotracc:tr.swrcb.ca.gov. Dennedy, M.P. and Tan, S. S., 2005, Geologic Map ofthe Oceanside 3000600Duadrangle, Cali- fornia: Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 2, Scale 1:100,000. Ninyo D Moore, In-Douse Proprietary Data. Ninyo D Moore, 2010, Geotechnical Evaluation, Dome Plant Sewer Force Main Project, Carls- bad, California: dated September 30. Ninyo D Moore, 2011a, Infiltration Evaluation, Dome Plant Dift Station Infiltration Dasin, Carls- bad, California: dated October 20. Ninyo D Moore, 2011 b, Geotechnical Evaluation, City of Carlsbad, Dome Plant Sewer Dift Sta- tion Replacements, Carlsbad, California: dated October 28. Norris, R. M. and Webb, R. W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley D Sons, Inc. Tan, S.S., and Giffen, D.G, 1995, Relative Qmdslide Susceptibility and Dandslide Distribution Map, Oceanside and San wis Rey Duadrangles, Plate 35A, Scale 1:2[l000. Dnited States Department of the Interior, Dureau of Reclamation, 1998, Engineering Geology Field Manual. 107357001 Rdoc 12 Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 Dnited States Geological Survey, 1968, (photorevised 1975) San Duis Rey Duadrangle, Califor- nia, San Diego County, 7 .5-Minute Series (Topographic), Scale 1:2 qooo. Dnited States Geological Survey, 2011, Ground Motion Parameter Calculator v. 5.1.0, World Wide Web, http://earthwace.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/. Source Date DSDA I 5-2-53 107357001 Rdoc AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Flight I ADN-1CM I 13 Numbers 19 and 20 Scale I 1:20,000 \ San Diego County 7/12 SOURCE: 2008THOMAS GUIDE FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY, STREET GUIDE AND DIRECTORY; MAPC> RAND MCNALLY, R.L.07-S-129 SCALE IN FEET 0 1,200 2,400 4,800 NOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE COASTAL RAIL TRAIL ROUNDABOUT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 1 "' ~ '8 _j "' 0 0 ,._ .., "' ,._ ~ "' 0 $'r-----------!'(/·--~ ---------------------~---... ~: Ill: wi ~~ <~I I LEGEND ·B-1 BORING TD=26.5' TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET Qaf FILL Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS -?-GEOLOGIC CONTACT, QUERIED WHERE QUESTIONABLE ------ ~~ NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. SCALE IN FEET 150 300 PROJECT NO. DATE 107357001 7/12 / < ' -£Mf-;t/ '] I { tl / I, I I' _ .. ~-I / / ----......1--------· I J--~- GEOTECHNICAL MAP COASTAL RAIL TRAIL ROUNDABOUT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA .. ---, --{ I l I ' SOURCE: RBF CONSULTING. DATED 05/09112. FIGURE 2 Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California APPENDIX A BORING LOG Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples July 26, 2012 Project No. 107357001 Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods. Bulk Samples DulD samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the ec:ploratory boring. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard Penetra- tion Test· sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an e Clernal diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1-3/8 inches. The sampler was driven into the ground 12 to 18 inches with a I CO-pound hammer falling freely from a height of 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches ofpenetrationClhe blow counts reported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of penetration. Soil samples were observed and removed from the sampler, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing. Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the Modified Split-Darrel Drive Sampler. The sampler, with an eClernal diameter of3.0 inches, was lined with l-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of appro Ornately 2. D inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a hammer in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The appro Ornate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring log as an in de D to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. 107357001 Rdoc (/) u:::-w u z ...J 1-;;: e:_ 0 ~ 0... 0 ~ i= ~ ~ 0 w ~ ...J <Ccri <( u.. 0::: 0 u· (/) (i) => Ci5 co -U ::::!: u.. . ~ 1-z _(f) (/) w >-Cl)• 0 0 (/) (/)=> ...J ~ co ::::!: ~ u 0 SM CL BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET Modified split-barrel drive sampler. No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler. Sample retained by others. Standard Penetration Test (SPT). No recovery with a SPT. Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in inches. No recovery with Shelby tube sampler. Continuous Push Sample. Seepage. Groundwater encountered during drilling. Groundwater measured after drilling. MAJOR MA TERIAD TOPE (SOiq): Solid line denotes unit change. -~oo~m~muh~~------------------- Attitudes: StriC£/Dip b: Dedding c: Contact j: Joint f: Fracture F: Fault cs: Clay Seam s: Shear bss: Dasal Slide Surface sf: Shear Fracture sz: Shear Done sbs: Shear Dedding Surface E [planation of Doring Dog Symbols U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION MAJOR DIVISIONS GRADEC:S (More than 1/2 of coarse fraction DNo. Dsieve size SANDS (More than 112 of coarse SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES :•::.:i~;, Well graded gravels or gravel-sand miClures, little or :ioi~it;t GW ""$" no fines •••• ... 11/!.' .... :... .... ~ .... ~. ~ .......... . ... ~ ...... . ........... ........... ·········"' ............ GP Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand miClures, little or no fines GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt miClures GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay miClures SW Well graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines fraction DNo. Dsieve size SM Silty sands, sand-silt miClures SillS D CDADS DiiJiid Dimit 050 SillS D CDADS Di wid Dimit 050 DIGDDD ORGANIC SOILS GRAIN SIZE CHART RANGE OF GRAIN ,: • SC Clayey sands, sand-clay miClures . ..-: I~ II I~ MD Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rocDflour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity CD Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays 0 D Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy MD or silty soils, elastic silts CD Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OD Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silty clays, organic silts Pt Peat and other highly organic soils PLASTICITY CHART 70 C DASSIFICA TION D.S. Standard Grain Size in v Sieve Size Millimeters DOmDERS Above 12D Above 305 CODDCES 12Dto 3D 306 to 76.2 GRADED 3Dto No. D 76.2 to 076 Coarse 3Dto 3/DD 76.2 to 19.1 Fine 3/DDto No. D 19.1 to 076 SAND No. Dto No. 200 076 to 0.075 Coarse No. Dto No. 10 076 to 2.00 60 I / 'I-50 v / (:$ CH / ~ ~ 40 ~ I v ~ 30 ~ / CL / MH&OH u ~ 20 / / :l / ~ 10 Medium No. 10 to No. CD 2.00 to o.mo , CL-L / Ml&Ol Fine No. CD to No. 200 0. 010 to 0.075 oiL J 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 SIDT D CDAD De1ow No. 200 Delow0.075 UQUID LIMIT(LL), o/o U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION Dpdated Nov. 2011 en w ....J u:-a. :2 ,..... () <( c '>R e::. en ~ 0 ~ ....J w 0 u.. 0:: (i) :::) Ci) co :2 ~ 1-z en w >- 0 0 en ....J co :2 >-0:: 0 16 26.0 9 29.8 86.8 9 z 0 i=. <(en ()' _() u.. . -en en· en:::J ::s () DATE DRILLED 7110112 --------~~------BORING NO. ___ ____:::o....:-1 ___ _ GROUND ELEVATION ..:..;l7~G::=-(:::.:M.:::S..:::O)!.,__, ____ _ SHEET l OF __ ....:2:.....__ METHOD OF DRILLING 6.5DDiameter Dollow Stem Auger (CME-65) (Daja E[j?loration) DRIVE WEIGHT !DO bs. (Auto-Trip Dammer) ----~~~~~~~~~---DROP ____ ..=.30:..:0:::_ __ SAMPLED BY NMM LOGGED BY NMM REVIEWED BY JG DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION ASPDAOf CONCRETE: Appro Ornately 17 to 19 inches thicD SW-SM FIDD: CL Drown to reddish brown, moist, loose to medium dense, well graded SAND with siltiTew gravel and cobble (to 5 inches). Wet [];tiff. SP-SM ADDD DIDM: Dight gray, saturated, medium dense, poorly graded fine to medium SAND with ., ... u.~~'"'"'ll clay. Q) ~ I 1-a. w 0 20 25- 30- 35- m I en w ...J a. u:::-~ ~ (.) <( 1-e:. en 0 ~ --0 w ~ ...J LL a:: 0 ~ ::l U5 Ill ~ 1-z en w >-c: 0 en ::l!:g,! 0 0 ...J ~ 't: Ill ~ >-0 a:: 0 , .... 17 r- '- t-- t-- t-- t-, 21 - t-- -- - - -c- -r- -t- t-- - - -- t-- r-- t-- -r- z 0 i= . <(en u· _(.) LL . -en en· en=> ::5 (.) SP DATE DRILLED ___ .:..:7.:..:11:..:.0/:..:.1.::..2 __ _ BORING NO. -----=D--=-1 ___ _ GROUND ELEVATION .:..17--=Cl::::...(M~S-'-'0)'-------SHEET _2_ OF _..;:..2_ METHOD OF DRILLING 6.5 ODiameter Oollow Stem Auger (CME-65) (Oaja Eep1oration) DRIVE WEIGHT __ .:..10=-0.:....b.:..:s-'. ("'-A.:..:u-'to-'-T::..::r.:.:iPc...:O=-:amm==-:e.:c:r) __ DROP ___ .:..30:...:0.:...._ __ SAMPLED BY NMM LOGGED BY NMM REVIEWED BY JG -----DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION ADDDDIDM: (Continued) Dight gray, saturated, medium dense, poorly graded medium SAND. Dense Clrace shell fragments Dl-inch thic Dbed of organic silt at 26 feet. Total Depth 026.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at appro Ornately 15 feet during drilling. DacUilled with appro Ornately 5 cubic feet of bentonite grout and patched with perma patch shortly after drilling on 7110/12. Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to relatively slow rate of seepage in clay and several other factors as discussed in the report. Please refer to the report for groundwater monitoring recommendations. l(lnf!D&/ft.OO"r8 I BORING LOG COASTADRAIDTRAIDRODNDADODT CARDS DAD, CADIFORNIA PROJECT NO. I DATE _l FIGURE· 107357001 7112 A-2 Coastal Rail Trail Roundabout Carlsbad, California Classification APPENDIXB LABORATORY TESTING July 26, 2012 Project No. 1073~7001 Soils were visually and te D:urally classified in accordance with the Onified Soil Classification System (OSCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2C88. Soil classifications are indicated on the log of the e cploratory boring in Appendi OA. In-Place Moisture and Density Tests The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the eO. ploratory boring were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the log of the e [ploratory boring in Appendi OA. Gradation Analysis Gradation analysis test was performed on a selected representative soil sample in general accor- dance with ASTM D 022. The grain-size distribution curve is shown on Figures 0-1. This test result was utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with OSCS. Consolidation Test Consolidation test was performed on a selected relatively undisturbed soil sample in general ac- cordance with ASTM D 2035. The sample was inundated during testing to represent adverse field conditions. The percent of consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original height of the sample. The results of the test are summarized on Figures 0-2. Soil Corrosivity Tests Soil pD, and resistivity tests were performed on a representative sample in general accordance with CT 603. The soluble sulfate and chloride content of the selected sample were evaluated in general accordance with CT a 7 and CT 022, respectively. The test results are presented on Figure 0-3. R-Value The resistance value, orR-value, for site soils was evaluated in general accordance with CT 301. Samples were prepared and evaluated for ewdation pressure and ecpansion pressure. The ewi- librium R-value is reported as the lesser or more conservative of the two calculated results. The test result is shown on Figure 0-0 107357001 Rdoc FINES Fine Silt Clay U.S, STANDARD SIEVE NI,IMBERS HYDROMETER ~· 1-1/2" 1" 314" 112" 318" 4 8 i6 30 50 100 200 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Sample Depth LiQuid Plastic Plasticity D10 D30 Deo Cu Cc Symbol Location (ft) Limit Limit Index • B-1 2.5-5.5 ----0.30 0.65 --- PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422 GRADATION TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO. 107357001 DATE 7/12 COASTAL RAIL TRAil ROUNDABOUT CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA Passing No. 200 (%) 11 u.s.c.s SW-SM FIGURE B-1 z 0 i ~ 0.1 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0 17.0 -------• • _ _..,._, STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 1.0 Seating Cycle Loading Prior to Inundation Loading After Inundation Rebound Cycle 10.0 Sample Location Depth (ft.) Soil Type 8-1 10.0-11.5 CL PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2435 PROJECT NO. DATE 107357001 7112 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS COASTAL RAil TRAil ROUNDABOUT CARLSBAD. CAliFORNIA 100.0 FIGURE B-2 ,-------------------------------------------------- ' I SAMPLE LOCAT.ION B-1 SAMPLE DEPTH {FT) 5.0-6.5 pH, 8.7 RESISTIVITY 1 (Ohm-em) 660 SULFATE CONTENT 2 (ppm) (%) 510 0.051 1 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 643 2 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417 3 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 422 PROJECT NO 107357001 107351001_CORROS!\ftTY P-1@ S.o..&.S.xts DATE 7/12 CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS COASTAL RAIL TRAIL ROUNDABOUT CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA CHLORIDE CONTENT 3 (ppm) 330 FIGURE B-3 SAMPLE LOCATION B-1 SAMPLE DEPTH {FT) 2.5-5.5 SOIL TYPE Well Graded SAND with Silt and Gravel (SW-SM) PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2844/CT 301 PROJECT NO. 107357001 1013$7001_1'Wal.., TABLE Pilll• 1 .xl$ DATE 7112 R-VALUE TEST RESULTS COASTAL RAIL TRAIL ROUNDABOUT CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA .. • I .... R-VALUE 59 FIGURE B-4