HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 96-14G; Legoland Waterworks Expansion; Site Development Plan (SDP) (3)I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE REPORT
PROPOSED WATER PARK ACTIVITY POOL
LEGOLAND THEME PARK
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
MERLIN ENTERTAINMENT GROUP/
US HOLDING, INC.
One Lege Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Project No. 10075.002
July 24,2013 RECEIVED
SEP 2 6 2013
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DIVISION
----Leighton and Associates, Inc.----
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
July 24, 2013
Project No. 10075.002
To: Merlin Entertainment Group/US Holding, Inc.
One Lego Drive
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Chris Romero
Subject: Geotechnical Update Report, Proposed Water Park Activity Pool,
LEGOLAND Theme Park, Carlsbad, California
In accordance with your request and authorization, Leighton and Associates, Inc.
(Leighton) has conducted a geotechnical update for the proposed Water Park Activity
Pool that is planned for the LEGOLAND Theme Park in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1).
This report presents the results of our field investigation activities, review of the
laboratory testing, geotechnical analyses, and provides our conclusions and
recommendations for the proposed improvements.
Based on the result of our preliminary geotechnical investigation, the proposed project
is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided our recommendations
are implemented in the design and construction of the project. If you have any questions
regarding our report, please do not hesitate to contact this office. We appreciate this
opportunity to be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
A!ILfJtli--
wmiam D. Olson, RCE 45289
Associate Engineer
Distribution: (4) Addressee
t!!i~
Project Geologist
(3) R.W. Apel Landscape Architects, Attention: Richard Apel
3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite 8205 • San Diego, CA 921234425
858.292.8030 • Fax 858.292.0771
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
10075.002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ............................................................................................. 1
1.2 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ............................................................................ 1
1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 2
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .......................... 3
2.1 SUBSURFACE FIELD INVESTIGATION .......................................................................... 3
2.2 lABORATORY TESTING ............................................................................................ 3
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS .................................................... 5
3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING ................................................................................................. 5
3.2 SITE-SPECIFIC GEOLOGY ......................................................................................... 5
3.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Map Symbol-Afu) ............................................ 6
3.2.2 Artificial Fill (Map Symbol-Af) ...................................................................... 6
3.2.3 Quaternary-Aged Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol-Qt) ................................. 6
3.2.4 Santiago Formation (Unmapped-Tsa) ......................................................... 6
3.4 lANDSLIDES ............................................................................................................ 7
3.5 CUT SLOPES ........................................................................................................... 8
3.6 ENGINEERING CHARACTERISTICS OF ON-SITE SOIL ................................................... 8
3.6.1 Soil Compressibility and Collapse Potential. .................................................. 8
3.6.2 Expansive Soils ............................................................................................. 9
3.6.3 Soil Corrosivity ............................................................................................... 9
3.6.4 Excavation Characteristics ............................................................................. 9
4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY ............................................................................... 10
4.1 FAULTING ............................................................................................................. 10
4.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS ............................................................................... 10
4.3 SECONDARY SEISMIC HAZARDS .............................................................................. 11
4.3.1 Shallow Ground Rupture ............................................................................. 11
4.3.2 Liquefaction ................................................................................................. 11
4.3.3 Tsunamis and Seiches ................................................................................ 12
5.0 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 13
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 15
6.1 SITE PREPARATION ............................................................................................... 15
6.2 FOUNDATION DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS .................................................................. 15
6.2.1 Conventional Spread Foundations ............................................................... 15
6.2.2 Drilled Pile Foundations ............................................................................... 16
-i-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
6.2.3 Mat Slab ...................................................................................................... 18
6.3 FLOOR SLAB CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................................. 18
6.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN ...................................................................................... 19
6.5 EARTHWORK ......................................................................................................... 20
6.5.1 Site Preparation ........................................................................................... 20
6.5.2 Excavations and Oversize Material .............................................................. 21
6.5.3 Cut/Fill Transitions ....................................................................................... 21
6.6 PROPOSED SWIMMING POOLS ................................................................................ 21
6.6.1 Pool Deck Recommendations ...................................................................... 22
6.7 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND EROSION ......................................................................... 22
6.8 VEHICULAR PAVEMENTS ........................................................................................ 23
6.9 PLAN REVIEW ....................................................................................................... 24
6.1 OCONSTRUCTION 0BSERVATION ............................................................................... 24
Tables
Table 1 -2010 CBC Seismic Parameters -Page 11
Table 2-Shaft Model Parameters-Page 17
Table 3-Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf)-Page 19
Table 4 -Preliminary Pavement Sections -Page 23
Figure
Figure 1 -Site Location Map-Rear of Text
Plate 1 -Geotechnical Map -In Pocket
Appendices
Appendix A-References
Appendix B -Boring Logs
Appendix C -Laboratory Results
Appendix D -CIDH Pile Capacity Curves
Appendix E -General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
-ii -Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose and Scope
This report presents the results of our updated preliminary investigation for the
proposed Water Park Activity Pool Attraction that is to be constructed in the
North Expansion area of LEGOLAND Theme Park in Carlsbad, California
(Figure 1). The purpose of our investigation was to identify and evaluate the
existing geotechnical conditions present at the site and to provide conclusions
and recommendations relative to the proposed development. Our scope of
services included:
• Review of pertinent documents regarding the geotechnical conditions at the
site (Appendix A).
• Notification and coordination of underground utility locators.
• Advancement of 2 exploratory hollow-stem borings throughout the site to
evaluate the subsurface conditions. Note that borings performed during
previous subsurface investigations in the site vicinity have been incorporated.
The approximate boring locations are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate
1 ). The logs of the borings are presented in Appendix B.
• We obtained representative soil samples during exploration and performed
laboratory testing and analysis. Laboratory tests included in-place moisture
and density, shear strength, expansion index, sieve analysis, and an
evaluation of chemical characteristics such as minimum resistivity, sulfate
content, chloride content, and pH. Results of these tests are presented in
Appendix C.
• Geotechnical analysis of data obtained.
• Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and
geotechnical recommendations with respect to the proposed geotechnical
design, site grading and general construction considerations.
1 .2 Site Location and Description
The LEGOLAND Theme Park is located north of Palomar Airport Road and west
of College Boulevard in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The location of the
proposed Water Park Activity Pool attraction site is in the northern portion of the
LEGOLAND Park property as shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). The
Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
conceptual site plan prepared by R.W. Ape! Landscape Architects, Inc., (Ape!,
2013) was utilized as the base map for the geotechnical map. Topographically,
the current site grades gentle slopes to the west with elevations ranging from
approximately 185 feet above mean sea level (msl) at the eastern end of the site
to approximately 174 feet at the western end. Along the southern and western
perimeters there are an existing cut slopes with 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical)
inclination down to previously developed areas. In addition, there is an existing
storm water detention basin located in the western portion of the site. The bottom
elevation of the basin is at approximately 172 feet msl.
1.3 Proposed Development
It is our understanding that the proposed development will consist of a new
attraction that includes a wave pool, swimming pools, foot bridges, waterslide
structures, a restroom/changing area building, and two mechanical buildings.
Additional improvements will include access ramps, walkways, viewing decks,
and retaining walls. We anticipate the site earthwork will consist of remedial
grading (i.e., removal undocumented fill) and general grading (i.e., cuts and fills)
to reach the proposed site finish grades. We anticipate the foundation system for
the proposed attractions will be shallow spread footings or mat-type foundations
with some shallow isolated pole foundations, and possibly deeper large diameter
drilled shaft foundations (Ape!, 2013).
-2-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
2.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
2.1 Subsurface Field Investigation
Our recent subsurface exploration consisted of the excavation of two (2) small
diameter (8-inch) hollow-stem auger borings drilled to depths ranging from
approximately 19 to 19.5 feet below the existing ground surface (bgs). The
purpose of these excavations was to evaluate the engineering characteristics of
the on-site soils with regard to the proposed Waterpark improvements. The
borings allowed evaluation of the onsite soils, including those likely to be
encountered at the proposed foundation elevations and provided samples for
laboratory testing. We recorded the number of blows necessary to drive either a
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler or a California sampler at each
sampling location.
The exploratory excavations were logged by an engineer from our firm.
Representative bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained at
frequent intervals for laboratory testing. The approximate locations of the borings
are depicted on Plate 1. Subsequent to logging and sampling, the borings were
backfilled with bentonite chips and native soil.
2.2 Laboratorv Testing
Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples to evaluate
moisture and density, shear strength, expansion potential, grain-size, and
chemical characteristics of the subsurface soils. In-situ moisture and density test
results are provided on our boring logs (Appendix B). In addition, a discussion of
the laboratory tests performed and a summary of the laboratory test results are
presented in Appendix C.
2.3 Previous Field Investigations and Laboratorv Testing
Previous subsurface explorations performed by Leighton in 2009 and 2011
consisted of excavating, logging, and sampling several small-diameter borings in
the vicinity and adjacent to the proposed project. The depths of the borings ranged
from 25 to 50 feet below the previous existing topography (i.e., borehole bottom
elevation ranging from 130 feet to 166 feet msl). The approximate locations of the
borings are shown on Plate 1. The boring logs are included in Appendix B.
-3-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
Laboratory testing was also performed during the previous site investigations to
evaluate moisture and density, shear strength, expansion index, and geochemical
characteristics of the subsurface soils. The previous laboratory test results are
presented in Appendix C.
-4-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.1
3.2
10075.002
3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
Geologic Setting
The site is located in the coastal section of the Peninsular Range Province, a
geomorphic province with a long and active geologic history throughout Southern
California. Throughout the last 54 million years, the area known as "San Diego
Embayment" has undergone several episodes of marine inundation and
subsequent marine regression, resulting in the deposition of a thick sequence of
marine and nonmarine sedimentary rocks on the basement rock of the Southern
California batholith.
Gradual emergence of the region from the sea occurred in Pleistocene time, and
numerous wave-cut platforms, most of which were covered by relatively thin
marine and nonmarine terrace deposits, formed as the sea receded from the
land. Accelerated fluvial erosion during periods of heavy rainfall, coupled with the
lowering of the base sea level during Quaternary times, resulted in the rolling
hills, mesas, and deeply incised canyons which characterize the landforms we
see in the general site area today.
Site-Specific Geology
Based on our subsurface exploration, geologic mapping during previous grading
operations (Leighton, 1998), and review of pertinent geologic literature and
maps, the geologic units underlying the site consist of documented artificial fill
soils and Quaternary-aged Terrace Deposits. Specifically, the site of the
proposed Water Park Activity Pool Attraction is overlain by up to 5 feet
undocumented fill which is underlain by 2 to 10 feet of documented Artificial Fill
(Af). Terrace Deposits (Qt) underlie the documented fill materials.
A brief description of the geologic units present on the site is presented in the
following sections. The approximate aerial distributions of those units are shown
on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1).
-5-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
3.2.1 Undocumented Artificial Fill (Map Symbol-Afu)
As encountered during our exploration, the undocumented artificial fill
consists of moist, gray to brown, silty sands. The fill was derived from on-
site excavations that were placed following the rough grading operations
which occurred in the late 1990's. As shown on the Plate 1, the area of the
undocumented fill is generally across the southern and eastern portions of
the site. The existing slopes along the southern and western perimeters
should be evaluated during site grading for adverse geological conditions.
3.2.2 Artificial Fill !Map Symbol-AD
The artificial fill consists of moist, red-brown, dense, silty sands. The fill
was derived from on-site excavations that was placed and compacted
during the rough grading operations in the late 1990's. The fill soils were
compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test
Method D1557 (Leighton, 1998). The upper 1 to 2 feet of previously placed
documented fill is weathered and should be removed and reprocessed
prior to the placement of additional fills or construction of improvements.
3.2.3 Quaternary-Aged Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol-Qt)
Quaternary Terrace Deposits are present across the site beneath the
artificial fill (and stockpiled undocumented fill to be removed). These
Terrace Deposits consist of brown to reddish brown, dry to moist, medium
dense to very dense, silty fine-to medium-grained sandstone. It should be
noted that the top 3 to 5 feet of Terrace Deposits that were weathered
and/or disturbed by previous agricultural use were removed and replaced
by compacted fill during grading operations (Leighton, 1998).
3.2.4 Santiago Formation (Unmapped-Tsa)
Santiago Formation was encountered in our previous subsurface
investigation (Leighton, 2011) below the Terrace Deposits at a depth of
30 feet below existing ground. Santiago Formation consists of gray-brown
to off-white damp, very dense, silty fine to medium sandstone. We do not
anticipate that Santiago Formation will be encountered during site grading
with the exception of deep foundation (drilled pile) associated with the
proposed improvements.
-6-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
3.3 Ground Water
No indication of surface water or evidence of surface pending was encountered
during our field investigation. However, surface water may drain as sheet flow
across the site during rainy periods. Ground water was not observed in the
exploration borings during our investigation. Perched ground water levels may
develop and fluctuate during periods of precipitation.
Based on our experience and given the approximate elevation of the site, we
anticipate the ground water to be at a depth of 75 feet or more. However, it
should be noted that previous nearby investigations have encountered perched
ground water accumulated on the geologic contact between the Santiago
Formation and the Terrace Deposits observed at the site. In addition, we
anticipate that the Terrace Deposits may be present after cut slopes are
excavated at the site creating of fill-over cut slope. If this condition is mapped, we
recommend constructing a subdrain at the geologic contact or construction of a
stability fill with subdrain to mitigate potential accumulation of water. These
conditions will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis during site grading.
Therefore, based on the above information, we do not anticipate ground water
will be a constraint to the construction of the project.
3.4 Landslides
Landslides are deep-seated ground failures (several tens to hundreds of feet
deep) in which a large arcuate shaped section of a slope detaches and slides
downhill. Landslides are not to be confused with minor slope failures (slumps),
which are usually limited to the topsoil zone and can occur on slopes composed
of almost any geologic material. Landslides can cause damage to structures both
above and below the slide mass. Structures above the slide area are typically
damaged by undermining of foundations. Areas below a slide mass can be
damaged by being overridden and crushed by the failed slope material.
Several formations within the San Diego region are particularly prone to
landsliding. These formations generally have high clay content and mobilize
when they become saturated with water. Other factors, such as steeply dipping
bedding that project out of the face of the slope and/or the presence of fracture
planes, will also increase the potential for landsliding. Based on our site
-7-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
reconnaissance and geologic mapping, the materials on site are generally
massive with no distinctive structure.
No active landslides or indications of deep-seated landsliding were noted at the
site during our field reconnaissance or our review of available geologic literature,
topographic maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs. Furthermore, our field
reconnaissance and the local geologic maps indicate the site is underlain by
favorable oriented geologic structure, and no nearby slopes. Therefore, the
potential for significant landslides or large-scale slope instability at the site is
considered low.
3.5 Cut Slopes
We understand there are planned cut slopes at the western end of the project site.
Based on geologic mapping during mass grading and recent subsurface
exploration, we anticipate a fill-over cut condition may occur once the final cut
slopes are excavated. The cut slope will need to be geologically mapped during
grading to evaluate geologic contact between fill and Terrace Deposits. If adverse
geologic conditions exists (i.e., out slope contact between fill and Terrace
Deposits), a stability fill may be recommended to mitigate slope instability.
3.6 Engineering Characteristics of On-Site Soil
Based on the results of our previous geotechnical investigations, the current
laboratory testing of representative on-site soils (Appendix C), and our
professional experience on adjacent sites with similar soils, the engineering
characteristics of the on-site soils are discussed below.
3.6.1 Soil Compressibilitv and Collapse Potential
Based on the dense nature of the on-site documented fill and Terrace
Deposits, it is our opinion that the potential for settlement and collapse at
the site is low. Existing undocumented fills that are present are considered
compressible but are expected to be removed by planned grading and/or
remedial grading.
-8-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
3.6.2 Expansive Soils
Laboratory tests carried out on selected soil samples collected from our
subsurface investigation (Appendix C) indicate the soils at the site
possess a very low expansion potential. Locally, soils may have a low to
medium potential expansion. Soils generated from excavations in the
Terrace Deposits are expected to possess a very low to low potential
expansion while excavations into the artificial fill are expected to possess
a very low to medium potential expansion.
3.6.3 Soil Corrosivity
Laboratory tests carried out on selected soil samples collected from our
subsurface investigation (Appendix C) indicate the soils possess a low
soluble sulfate content, neutral pH, low soluble chloride content, and low
electrical resistivity. These results are consistent with the results
presented in our previous reports (Appendix A).
These findings indicate that the corrosive effects to buried ferrous metal
are expected to be moderate to severe. Affects to properly designed and
placed concrete are considered low.
3.6.4 Excavation Characteristics
It is anticipated the on-site soils can be excavated with conventional
heavy-duty construction equipment. Localized loose soil zones and friable
sands, if encountered, may require special excavation techniques to
prevent collapsing of the excavation.
-9-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
4.0 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
4.1 Faulting
Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California
legislation and policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria
associated with faults. By definition of the California Geological Survey, an active
fault is a fault which has had surface displacement within Holocene time (about the
last 11,000 years). The state geologist has defined a potentially active fault as any
fault considered to have been active during Quaternary time (last 1,600,000
years). This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated
by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazards Zones Act of 1972 and most recently
revised in 2007 (Bryant and Hart, 2007). The intent of this act is to assure that
unwise urban development and certain habitable structures do not occur across
the traces of active faults. The subject site is not included within any Earthquake
Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act.
Our review of available geologic literature (Appendix A) indicates that there are
no known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The
nearest active regional fault is the offshore segment of the Rose Canyon Fault
Zone located approximately 4.9 miles (7.9 kilometers) west of the site.
4.2 Seismic Design Parameters
The following seismic design parameters have been determined in accordance
with the 2010 CBC and the USGS Ground Motion Parameter Calculator (Version
5.1.0):
-10-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table 1
2010 CBC Seismic Design Parameters
Site Class
Site Coefficients
Mapped Spectral Accelerations
Site Modified Spectral Accelerations
Design Spectral Accelerations
4.3 Secondary Seismic Hazards
D
Fa= 1.002
Fv= 1.529
Ss = 1.246g
s1 = o.471g
SMs = 1.249g
SM1 = 0.720g
Sos = 0.832g
So1 = 0.480g
10075.002
Secondary effects that can be associated with severe ground shaking following a
relatively large earthquake include shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction and
dynamic settlement, lateral spreading, seiches and tsunamis. These secondary
effects of seismic shaking are discussed in the following sections.
4.3.1 Shallow Ground Rupture
No active faults are mapped crossing the site, and the site is not located
within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Bryant and Hart,
2007). Shallow ground rupture due to shaking from distant seismic events
is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any
site.
4.3.2 Liquefaction
Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong
vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate
that loose granular soils underlain by a near surface ground water table
are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most clayey
material are not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction is
characterized by a loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby
causing the soil to behave as a viscous liquid. This effect may be
-11-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
manifested at the ground surface by settlement and, possibly, sand boils
where insufficient confining overburden is present over liquefied layers.
Where sloping ground conditions are present, liquefaction-induced
instability can result.
Based on the results of our subsurface explorations, laboratory testing,
and geotechnical analysis it is our professional opinion that the site is not
considered susceptible to liquefaction resulting from ground shaking at the
design ground motion.
4.3.3 Tsunamis and Seiches
Based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water,
and the elevation of the site with respect to sea level, the possibility of
seiches and/or tsunamis is considered to be very low.
-12-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our geotechnical review of the site, it is our opinion that the
proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the following
conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the project plans and
specifications. The following is a summary of the significant geotechnical factors that we
expect may affect development of the site.
• Areas of undocumented fill up to approximately 5 feet in thickness are located
across the southern and eastern portions of site. These materials should be
removed prior to the placement of additional fills or construction of improvements.
• The upper 1 to 2 feet of previously placed documented fill is weathered and
should be removed and reprocessed prior to the placement of additional fills or
construction of improvements. Additional overexcavation or undercutting may be
needed if cut or fill transitions are encountered.
• We anticipate that the soils present on the site will be generally rippable with
conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment.
• Although foundation plans have not been finalized and building loads were not
provided at the time this report was drafted, we anticipate that a lightly loaded
conventional foundation system, consisting of continuous and spread footings
with slab-on-grade flooring supported by competent documented fill materials or
Terrace Deposits, will be utilized for the site structures. Additionally we
understand that some of the structures may utilize drilled piles, and/or mat
foundations to compensate for overturning forces.
• Based on laboratory testing and visual classification, the soils on the site
generally possess a very low to low expansion potential. Nevertheless, there may
be localized areas across the site and between our exploration locations having a
higher expansion potential.
• Laboratory test results indicate the soils present on the site have a negligible
potential for sulfate attack on normal concrete, and are moderately to severely
corrosive to buried ferrous metals. These tests should be confirmed upon
completion of the grading activities where appropriate. A corrosion consultant
should be consulted.
-13-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
• The existing onsite soils are suitable material for fill construction provided they
are relatively free of organic material, debris, and cobbles or rock fragments
larger than 8 inches in maximum dimension.
• Ground water was not encountered during our investigation. Therefore, ground
water is not considered a constraint on the proposed project development.
However, perched ground water and seepage may develop along the less
permeable clay and silt layers within the Terrace Deposits and along the fill and
Terrace Deposit contact during periods of precipitation or increased landscape
irrigation.
• Active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity or project
toward the site. However, the proposed project is located in the seismically active
region of southern California and can expect to be subjected to seismic shaking
during its design life.
• Our review of the geologic literature (Appendix A) along with the results of our
study, indicate that the probability of geologic hazards including, tsunamis and
seiche, landsliding, liquefaction, and seismic induced settlement are considered
low for the site.
-14-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based in part upon data that
were obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples,
and tests. Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such
that differing geotechnical or geological conditions can occur within small distances and
under varying climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur
over time. Therefore, the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this
report can be relied upon only if Leighton has the opportunity to observe the subsurface
conditions during earthwork operations and construction of the project, in order to
confirm that our preliminary findings are representative for the site.
6.1 Site Preparation
A special consideration regarding the planned site development is the presence
of undocumented fill. If excavations to attain the design grades do not remove
the materials, then these materials should be completely removed and
recompacted as part of the site preparation. In addition, areas of grass and
shrubs may have developed over time. These materials and any construction
debris that may have accumulated over time on the ground surface should also
be removed from the site and disposed of at an approved location.
Recommendations for earthwork are presented in Section 6.5 below.
6.2 Foundation Design Considerations
As discussed in the preceding section, we anticipate that the proposed
improvements will be supported on spread footings, drilled piles (CIDH), and/or
mat slabs. The following sections address the recommendations for these types
of foundation systems.
6.2.1 Conventional Spread Foundations
Footings should extend at least 18-inches beneath the lowest adjacent
finish grade. At these depths, footings founded in properly compacted fill
soil or formatiomil material may be designed for a maximum allowable
bearing pressure of 3,500 psf. The allowable pressures may be increased
by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or
seismic forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is 15 inches
-15-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
for continuous footings and 18 inches for square or round footings.
Footings should be designed in accordance with the structural engineer's
requirements and have a minimum reinforcement of four No. 5 reinforcing
bars (two top and two bottom).
The recommended allowable bearing capacity for spread footings is based
on a maximum allowable total and differential settlements of 1-inch and
3/4-inch. Since settlements are functions of footing size and contact
bearing pressures, some differential settlement can be expected between
adjacent columns, where large differential loading conditions exist. With
increased footing depth to width ratios, differential settlement should be
less.
We recommend a horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes and
retaining wall for all structural footings and settlement-sensitive structures.
The distance is measured from the outside edge of the footing,
horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall) and should
be a minimum of H/2 and need not be greater than 15 feet. Utility trenches
that parallel or nearly parallel structural footings should not encroach
within a 1:1 plane extending downward from the outside edge of footing.
Please note that the soil within the structural setback area possess poor
lateral stability, and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks,
fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this setback area may be
subject to lateral movement, and/or differential settlement. Potential
distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened
footing or a pier and grade beam foundation system to support the
improvement. Deepened footings should meet the setback as described
above.
6.2.2 Drilled Pile Foundations
For the analysis and development of the various vertical capacities of
CIDH piles, the computer program SHAFT (Version 2012) produced by
Ensoft, Inc. was used. As shown in Appendix D, the Shaft capacity curves
were developed for 24-to 48-inch diameter piles penetrating into dense fill
and formational material. Uplift capacity curves are also presented in
Appendix D. Pile settlement is anticipated to be less than 1/4 inch under
design loads and normal service conditions. The design curves are based
-16-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
I
10075.002
on center to center pile spacings of at least 3 pile diameters for the CIDH
piles less than or equal to 3 foot diameter, and at least 5 pile diameters for
the CIDH piles greater than 3 foot diameter. Where piles are spaced more
closely, reduction in pile capacity is necessary. Construction of piles
should be sequenced such that the concrete of constructed piles are
allowed to setup prior to construction of piles within 5 diameters.
Design of free standing poles as columns embedded in the earth (i.e.,
CIDH foundations) to resist lateral loads can be designed in accordance
with Section 1807.3 of the 2010 CBC. For level ground conditions, we
recommend lateral soil bearing pressures of 300 psf per foot of depth
below the finish grade be used for determination of parameters S1 and
S3, in the Non-constrained and Constrained design criteria, respectively.
These values should be reduced by 50 percent to account for 2 to 1
downward sloping ground conditions, if applicable.
In addition, we recommend that no subsurface existing or proposed
improvement be constructed within at least five (5) pile diameters of the
proposed CIDH foundations.
If alternative methods of lateral analysis are preferable, we recommend
analysis methods such as p-y of strain wedge models that consider the
boundary conditions at the ground surface. The following Table 2 presents
idealized soil profile models for use in Shaft analysis, or similar lateral pile
analysis software.
Table 2
Shaft Model Parameters
Layer Depth Effective Unit Friction k Top Bottom Soil Model Weight Angle (pci) (ft) (ft) (pcf) ( cl>')
0 20 Sand 127 32 225
20 80 Sand 125 32 225
-17-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
6.2.3 Mat Slab
A soil modulus of 200 pounds per cubic inch is recommended for design
of structural slab foundations. Structural foundations should be designed
by the project structural engineer utilizing an allowable bearing pressure of
1,500 psf.
6.3 Floor Slab Considerations
Slab-on-grade floors should be at least 5 inches thick and reinforced with a
minimum of No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way, placed at mid height
in the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand or clean
crushed gravel and a vapor barrier. We recommend that the architect follow the
guidance of ACI 302.2R-06 for design of the under slab moisture protection
measures and development of construction specifications. We recommend
control joints be provided across the slab at appropriate intervals as designed by
the project architect.
Prior to placement of the sand layer, the upper 6-inches of slab subgrade should
be moisture conditioned to a moisture content at or above the laboratory
optimum.
The potential for slab cracking may be further reduced by careful control of
water/cement ratios. The contractor should take the appropriate precautions
during the pouring of concrete in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We
recommend that a slip-sheet (or equivalent) be utilized above the concrete slab if
crack-sensitive floor coverings are to be placed directly on the concrete slab. If
heavy vehicle or equipment loading is proposed for the slabs, greater thickness
and increased reinforcing may be required.
-18-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
6.4 Retaining Wall Design
For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values in Table 3 for
level or sloping backfill are recommended for walls backfilled with very low to low
expansion potential (Expansion Index less than 50).
Table 3
Static Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf)
Conditions Level 2:1 Slope
Active 35 55
At-Rest 55 85
Passive 300 150
(maximum of 3 ksf) (sloping down)
Active earth pressures are considered are considered appropriate for walls that
are allowed to rotate an amount equal to 0.002H at the top of the wall, where H is
equal to the wall height. Where walls are not allowed to rotate that minimum
amount, at-rest pressures are considered appropriate.
Retaining structures should be provided with a drainage system, as illustrated in
Appendix F, to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. For
sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may be used at the soil-concrete
interface. The lateral passive resistance can be taken into account only if it is
ensured that the soil against embedded structures will remain intact with time.
Retaining wall footings should have a minimum embedment of 12 inches below
the adjacent lowest grade unless deeper footings are needed for other reasons.
To account for potential redistribution of forces during a seismic event, walls that
fall within the requirements of ASCE 7-05 Section 15.6.1 should also be checked
considering an additional inverted triangular seismic pressure distribution equal
to 20 H psf, where H equals the overall retained height in feet. If conditions other
than those covered herein are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values
should be provided on an individual case basis by the geotechnical engineer. A
surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall resulting from automobile
traffic may be assumed to be equivalent to a uniform lateral pressure of 75 psf,
-19-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
which is in addition to the equivalent fluid pressure given above. For other
uniform surcharge loads, a uniform lateral pressure equal to 0.35q should be
applied to the wall (where q is the surcharge pressure in psf).
If segmental walls are planned, a friction angle of 30 degrees and a unit weight of
120 to 125 pcf are considered appropriate for the onsite materials. The design
should be performed in accordance with NCMA methodology (NCMA, 2009) and
design requirements of the wall system.
6.5 Earthwork
We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of remedial grading of the
undocumented fill and weathered documented fill for new site improvements;
utility construction; subgrade preparation in pavement areas; foundation
excavation; and retaining wall construction and backfill operations. We
recommend that earthwork on the site be performed in accordance with the
following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading
Specifications for Rough Grading included in Appendix E. In case of conflict, the
following recommendations shall supersede those in Appendix E.
6.5.1 Site Preparation
The areas to receive structural fill, engineered structures, or hardscape
should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstructions, including any
existing debris and undocumented or loose weathered fill soils, and
stripped of vegetation. Removals should extend to the competent
documented fill soils or Terrace Deposits. Removed vegetation and debris
should be properly disposed off site. Holes resulting from the removal of
buried obstructions which extend below finish site grades should be
replaced with suitable compacted fill material. All areas to receive fill
and/or other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum
depth of 12 inches, brought to above optimum moisture conditions, and
recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on ASTM
Test Method 01557. If clayey soils that are more expansive (EI>70) are
encountered, increased moisture and revised recommendations may be
needed.
-20-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
6.5.2 Excavations and Oversize Material
Shallow excavations of the onsite materials may generally be
accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment.
Localized heavy ripping may be required if cemented and concretionary
lenses are encountered in deeper excavations.
Shallow, temporary excavations, such as utility trenches with vertical
sides, in the engineered fill and formational materials should remain stable
for the period required to construct the utility, provided they are free of
adverse geologic conditions or seeps. In accordance with OSHA
requirements, excavations deeper than 5 feet should be shored or be laid
back to if workers are to enter such excavations. Temporary sloping
gradients should be determined in the field by a "competent person" as
defined by OSHA. For preliminary planning, sloping of surficial soils at 1:1
(horizontal to vertical) may be assumed. Excavations greater than 20 feet
in height will require an alternative sloping plan or shoring plan prepared
by a California registered civil engineer.
6.5.3 Cut/Fill Transitions
In order to minimize potential differential settlement, we recommend that
proposed buildings and settlement sensitive structures be entirely
underlain by a layer of properly compacted fill. Cut portions of areas
planned for structures should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 2
feet below lowest footing bottom elevation and replaced with properly
compacted fill. The overexcavated areas should be graded with a 1
percent gradient sloping toward the deeper fill areas, if possible.
6.6 Proposed Swimming Pools
The swimming pools and water elements should be designed by a structural
engineer to resist the forces lateral earth pressures soils and differential
settlement of the fill. The following items should be taken into consideration in the
design and construction of the swimming pools and water elements:
• Installation of a pressure release valve system beneath the pool bottom is
recommended.
-21-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
• The pool contractor should provide a sufficient level of inspection and control
to assure that approved pool plans and specifications are implemented during
construction.
• Observations and testing should be performed by a geotechnical consultant
during pool excavation and backfill operations to verify that exposed soil
conditions are consistent with the design assumptions.
6.6.1 Pool Deck Recommendations
We recommend that the pool deck be a minimum of 5-inches thick,
reinforced with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center each way, and
underlain by a minimum 2 inch layer of clean sand. The clean sand should
be underlain by a 1 0-mil visqueen moisture barrier properly lapped and
sealed, which is in-turn underlain by an additional of 2 inches of sand
(minimum). The moisture barrier should be sloped away from the pool at a
minimum gradient of 2 percent. The perimeter of the decking should be
constructed with a perimeter footing a minimum of 8 inches wide and
deep. The deck should have appropriate crack control and expansion
joints to reduce the potential for the formation of unsightly cracks as the
deck responds to the underlying expansive soils. In general, the
construction joints should be a minimum of 5 feet on center (each way)
and extend to a depth of at least 1/3 of the concrete thickness. The joints
should not cut the rebar reinforcement. Special attention should be given
to ensure that the joint between the pool decking and pool coping is
properly sealed with a flexible, watertight caulking to prevent water
infiltration. The concrete decking should be sloped to area drains with
sufficient gradient to maintain active flow, even if the deck is subject to
minor movement.
6.7 Surface Drainage and Erosion
Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. The proposed structures
should have appropriate drainage systems to collect runoff. Positive surface
drainage should be provided to direct surface water away from the structure
toward suitable drainage facilities. In general, ponding of water should be
avoided adjacent to the structure or pavements. Over-watering of the site should
be avoided. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion during
-22-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075 002
construction should also be implemented in accordance with the latest City of
Carlsbad grading ordinances.
6.8 Vehicular Pavements
The pavement section design below is based on an assumed Traffic Index (TI),
our visual classification of the site soils, and previous laboratory testing (we have
utilized an R-Value of 11). The Tl values were chosen based on our experience
with similar projects. Actual pavement recommendations should be based on R-
value tests performed on bulk samples of the soils that are exposed at the
finished subgrade elevations across the site at the completion of the grading
operations. Flexible pavement sections have been evaluated in general
accordance with the Caltrans method for flexible pavement design. The
recommended flexible pavement section for this condition is given in Table 4
below:
Table 4
Preliminary Pavement Sections
Traffic Description Assumed Traffic Asphalt Concrete Aggregate Base
Index (TI) (inches) (inches)
Auto Parking 4.5 4.0 5.0
Driveways 5.0 4.0 7.0
Flexible pavements should be constructed in accordance with current Caltrans
Standard Specifications. Aggregate base should comply with the Caltrans
Standard Specifications of Section 26. The upper 12 inches of subgrade and the
aggregate base should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative
compaction (ASTM D 1557).
For areas subject to regular truck loading (i.e., trash truck apron), we recommend
a full depth of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) section of 7.0 inches with
appropriate steel reinforcement and crack-control joints as designed by the
project structural engineer. We recommend that sections be as nearly square as
possible. A 3,250-psi mix that produces a 550-psi modulus of rupture should be
-23-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
utilized. Additional City of Carlsbad specifications are presented on Detail GS-16
of the City of Carlsbad Engineering Standards Volume 3 -Standard Drawing and
Notes.
If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, we
recommend some measure of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade
soils from becoming saturated. It is recommended that the concrete curing
separating the landscaping area from the pavement extend below the aggregate
base to help seal the ends of the sections where heavy landscape watering may
have access to the aggregate base. Concrete swales should be designed in
roadway or parking areas subject to concentrated surface runoff.
6.9 Plan Review
Foundation and grading plans should be reviewed by Leighton to confirm that the
recommendations in this report are incorporated in project plans.
6.10 Construction Observation
The recommendations provided in this report are based on preliminary design
information, our experience during rough grading, and subsurface conditions
disclosed by widely spaced excavations. The interpolated subsurface conditions
should be checked in the field during construction. Construction observation of all
onsite excavations and should be performed by a representative of this office so
that construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. All
footing excavations should be reviewed by this office prior to steel placement.
-24-Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Figures
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
Project: 10075.002
Scale: 1 " = 2,000 '
N
I
2,000
Feet
Eng/Geol: WDO/MDJ
Date: July, 2013
Base Map: ESRI Resource Center, 2010
Thematic Info· La1ghton
I Author: mmurphy (mmurphy)
Map Saved as P:'Crafting\10075\002\GIS\of_2013-02·15\Ftgure1.nu:d on 712312013 8:5-4:23 AM
SITE LOCATION MAP
Water Park Activity Pool
LEGOLAND California
1 Lego Drive
Carlsbad California Leighton
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PLATE 1
Geotechnical Map
I
I
I
I APPENDIX A
I References
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
APPENDIX A
References
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2006, Guide for Concrete Slabs that Receive
Moisture-Sensitive Flooring Materials.
Bryant, W. A. and Hart, E. W., 2007, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-
Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zone Maps,
Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication
42, dated 1997 with 2007 Interim Revision.
California Building and Safety Commission (CBSC), 2010, California Building Code.
Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30'x60'
Quadrangle, California, California Geologic Survey, 1:100,000 scale.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1995, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Lego
Family Park and Pointe Resorts, Lots 17 and 18 of the Carlsbad Ranch,
Carlsbad, California, Project No. 950294-001, dated October 5, 1995.
----, 1996, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Lego Family Park,
Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 960151-001, dated July 23.
---, 1998, Final As-Graded Report of Rough-Grading, LEGOLAND, Carlsbad,
California, Project No. 4960151-003, dated February 10.
----, 2009, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Waterworks Cluster, LEGOLAND
Theme Park, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 960151-031, dated September 30.
----, 2011, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Pirate Island Attraction,
LEGOLAND Theme Park, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 960151-035, dated
September 30.
A-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
APPENDIX A (Continued)
NCMA, 2009, Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls, 3rd Edition
R.W. Apel Landscape Architects, Inc., 2013, Conceptual Site Plan, 2014 Water Park
Expansion, Legoland, Carlsbad California, dated July15
Tan, S. S. and Kennedy, M. P., 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San
Diego County, California, Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) Open-File
Report 96-02, San Luis Rey and San Marcos Quadrangles.
Treiman, J.A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone, Southern California: California
Division of Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 93-02, 45 p.
United States Geologic Survey (USGS), 2010, Ground Motion Parameter Calculator,
Version 5.1.0.
A-2
I
I
I
I APPENDIX B
I Boring Logs
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No.
Project
Drilling Co.
Drilling Method
Location
t. s
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY
KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS
0 .. l:' Q)fl!. " z ~"li ·;;; ~ -
" "--:I~ ~c c. o.!: ~li .!.! E jjjCD 0<:: ~ .. ~ ::os U) " 0 a.
cD-;-fi)(J) ... -o 0· _U)
"0:::)
Ul-
Date Drilled
Logged By
Hole Diameter
Ground Elevation
Sampled By
SOIL DESCRIPTION
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
Asphaltic concrete
; gravelly clay; sandy
) ) OL Organic clay; medium to 1 • organic silts
ML · : silt; clayey silt with low , .. ,
MH silt; diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils; elastic silt
-~ ML-CL Clayey silt to silty clay
~-~ji---t----tl--!---t---towow~~W~eiGI-gr~a~ded~gr~a~~~~~~~~l~m~~mre],,l~~-kle:~mr~nom~es~-----
': ~ o GP Poorly graded gra~l; ~ I mixture, little or no fmes
H_o' GM Silty gra~l; 1
~ GC Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixtures
I ' .. ' ; SW ; gravelly sand, little or no mes
. · · SP Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines
-~ ~-j--~-!-j-j~~~(CI~~ey·s~and;~~-m~ixt·m~es ________ ___ I . SM Silty sand; poorly graded sand-;;ilt m~mres
-
-
20-
-
-
-
-
25-
-
-
-
-
-;~~'W,;Pl.E
C CORE SAMPLE
G GRAS SAMPLE
R RING SAMPLE
B-1
C-1
G-1
R-1
SH-1
S-1
PUSH
Bedrock
Ground water encountered at time of drilling
Bulk Sample
Core Sample
Grab Sample
Modified California Sampler (3" O.D., 2.5 I.D.)
Shelby Tube Sampler (3" O.D.)
Standard Penetration Test SPT (Sampler (2" O.D., 1.4" I. D.)
Sampler Penetrates without Hammer Blow
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
SE SAND EQUIVALENT
TR THERMAL RESISnVITY
UC UNCONFlNED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
• • • This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document • • •
J!l .. ~ -0
" Q.
~
Page 1 of 1
I GEOTECHNICALBORING LOG B-1
I Project No. 10075.002 Date Drilled 5-23-13
Project Legoland Water Park Activi!Y Pool Logged By FJW
Drilling Co. Baia ExQioration Hole Diameter 8"
I Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger-1401b -Auto hammer -30" DroQ Ground Elevation 184'
Location See Borina Location Mao Sampled By FJW
I 0 Ill ~ mfl-en-:-SOIL DESCRIPTION J!j c XI .. Ill
~1) " z ;1i "iii ~ -I/IUJ .. .c_ :CQ "tl .. c-,-... This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the 1--.. _c -u .... c.., c.o " 15. oE .,.., "'"' -(). time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations 0 ~u.. ...... I!!.J E E iii"' ca. ----Ul
iii 0 C) ~ oc "():::) and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the ..
I c( .. ~ :::!!!0 c. rn .. 0 () rn-actual conditions encountered. Transtlions between sotr types may be >-II-gradual. 1-s
,(QJO':~
I -. 8-1 SM ~~~·:: IJND<l FILL IAful 0-4'
' -• SAND with gravel, dense, light brown to brown, moist
I I light brown to gray I -
I 180·
I.
SM @ 4.5': ARTIFICIAL FILL !AO
5-Silty SAND, dense, reddish brown, moist, micaceous S-1 6 El, SA,
I -.. I· B-2 12 CR 5-10' II
-I·
-I
I 175 -I
10-.
I -SC-SM ~~~OS: IARY T I !Otl
R-1 5 r ~la~~AND, medium dense, dark reddish brown, moist, DS
-12
27
-, I 170------r----------r--.----------------------------SM Silty S~ND. with gravel, very dense, light reddish brown, dry to
15-'. I· motst, mtcaceous
S-2 14
I -·, I· B-3 20
15-17' 20 _·. I·
' ~ ---------1---~p~[i~~----------------------I 165-
R-2 23 SP-SC SAND with Clay, vezy dense, dark reddish brown,
<Of<"
20-Total De~th 19' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled on
-51231 013.
I -
-
I 160-, --c
25-
I
-
I 155·
BU~~~~PLE TY;~oo;_TESTS: , B FINES PASSING OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
I c CORE SAMPLE AL ATIERBERG LIMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIFIC GRAVlTY
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY uc UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
~ ~~~J~~~ESAMPLE g~ : ~~~~~PENETROMETER
I • • • This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * * Page 1 of 1
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICALBORING LOG B-2
Project No. 10075.002 Date Drilled 5-23-13
Project Legoland Water Park Activi!Y Pool Logged By FJW
Drilling Co.
Drilling Method
Location
""-.!:! .c., -.. a.., CLo t!Ju.. f..J
(!)
13 BULK SAMPLE
C CORE SAMPLE
G GRAB SAMPLE
It RING SAMPLE
Baja Ex121oration
Hollow Stem Auger -1401b
See Boring Location Ma12
~ ,
:I '"' :: <(
0 z .. c.
E ..
1/)
8·1
04"
R·l
8·2
6-10"
S·l
8·3
11-13'
Ill ..
~"5 o.5
iii"' ~ ..
0..
9
26
50/5"
12
14
16
R-2 21
S·2
50/5"
21
27
OF TESTS:
l;o "iii "-GIU CCL
~ c
-200 % FINES PASSING
AL ATTERBERG LIMITS
CN CONSOLIDATION
CO COLLAPSE
SPLIT SAMPLE CR CORROSION
Hole Diameter 8"
-Autohammer -30" Dreg Ground Elevation 172'
ai~ ~ -::1--" .... ·--oc :EO 0
Sampled By FJW
en-:-SOIL DESCRIPTION
011/) ... This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the -o 0· time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations _(J) ·cs::; and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
Ul-actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
SM
GW Well-graded GRAVEL with Sand, gray to brown, moist, with Silt
sand,
WeU-gruded SAND ~th BaY: deflseio~ery detlse, brmvtl, ffioisl:--
medium sand, micaceous
SM Silty SAND, dense, light brown, moist, fme to medium sand,
micaceous, friable
Total Depth 19.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled on
5/23/2013
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
HYDROMETER
MAXIMUM DENSITY
POCKET PENETROMETER
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
SE SAND EQUIVALENT
SG SPECIFIC GRAVITY
UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
• • • This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. • • •
J!! Ill {!!. -0 .. CL ~
Page 1 of 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Previous Boring by Leighton-2011
I
Project No.
I Project
Drilling Co.
I
Drilling Method
Location
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY
KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHI.,.C..,S,___
. -
..
Date Drilled
Logged By
Hole Diameter
Ground Elevation
Sampled By
-------
: .. ~ ci ~ t»'#. ., z .. .<: .. ... -., ~u c-,--c "li o.5 GIU .... CCL
SOIL DESCRIPTION ~ ~~ I :8e _;ti . This Soil Descn'ption applies only to a location of the exploration at the
-tlf : ~uj ! time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
.. ., ... -0
E I iijco ·--oc ., ... ~ .. '
:;;o rn ., 0 0
D.. '
w · 'Q:j : and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
I en-, actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
IN ' dual r-·--T·-oo=~==~-~ ;-.5j!=====t,=====T==============~··====~~~:~"~-~~c~on~c;re;te~==~=================================1
Q.
?:'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
'¥
I
! i
'
I
I
i i
::-~-·'.,>,'.: ,.:~·,_ . ...-;_
I ) ( '
i I :
I I· I
•.. it.. !I' •
li\
...
~ ~
20!
~
~
! -1
I
--1
' 25---"
-
-I
I
~
'
' •
'
I
'
i
• ::
i I I I
I i :!
I I
H B-1 w
C-1 u
~:.;
PUSH '
f--i
i I !!
' ""
'
'
;
•
:
Portland cement concrete
; OL Organic clay; medium to : · · , organic silts
j ML · · : silt; clayey silt wilh
MH ·;silt; , ; fine sandy or silly soils; elaslic sih
ML-CL i Clayey silt to silly clay
GW '" . ~ gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines
I GP Poorly graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines
! GM Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixtures
' GC Clayey gravel; gravel-sand-clay mixtures
SW
I
Well-graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines
SP i Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines
1 SM : Silly sand; poorly graded sand-.ilt
' sc ' Clayey sand;
I Bedrock
I Ground water encountered at time of drilling
Bulk Sample
I Core Sample
! Grab Sample
Modified California Sampler (3" O.D., 2.5 I.D.)
Shelby Tube Sampler (3" O.D.)
Standard Penetration Test SPT (Sampler (2" O.D., 1.4"l.D.)
Sampler Penetrates without Hammer Blow
' I I ! , ;
SAMPL
I 30TYP_j_ES·. _ _j_ __ >=----c-:::::':c:----'--__j--Li -----------------------------~
:E TYPE Of TESTS: ..-,
B BULK SAMPLE ..200 'Y. FINES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ,
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG UMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
GR ~~ 5AM_PJ,E gCC~NO CCONOUAPSSOUDEATION H HYDROMETER TR THERMAL RESISTMTY "'".; .o•uoo • MD MAXIMUM DENSITY UC UNCONANED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ~ ~ _!1!'!?0~ SAMPLE CORROSION : ~~PENETROMETER
• • • This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. • • • Page 1 of 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Project No. 960151-035 Date Drilled 7-22-11
Project
Drilling Co.
Drilling Method
Location
c u ,2-1 .c_ :;:.,
-.. I -., ~"'I ... ., c.o
!}!."-c!ju.. E_.
w C)
180
·,'I.
~
I
• • '·I •
175; 5~ I I . ' . ·:.
~ ;·' . ~-. ~
! 170j
'
LEGOLAND Logged By MDJ
Baja Excavation Hole Diameter 8"
Hollow Stem Auger-1401b -Autohammer -30" Drop Ground Elevation 180'
South Central Sampled By MDJ
.. ., .,
:I -~
0 z
!}!.
Q.
E .. rn
B·l
3'-{;'
R-1
"-
I 15 116
39
44
f----1
w
G)cf!. ... -::1--c .. ., ·--oc ::;;o u
II
SOIL DESCRIPTION :;J":
.!!cJ 1 This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the ~cri I time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
'Q::j and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the rn-actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
gradual.
: Brown to red-brown, moist, loose (top
SM @ 5': Silty fine SAND with clay: Orange-brown to red, moist, very
dense
----+----c_--,___------·@ 9.s': Ctayey ffiediUm-sANO:aroWntofed-hrowtl, ffioiSt-:-deflSe;--
R-2 I' . 7 i 131 8 sc mottled
17
50
I ' ' '
--fL¥-<;LL"i---j_---_:___._------+----~--+--------------------------------"! · ; · SM! @13': Siltyfine_SAND.withclay:Red-brown,damptomoist,very
165
i 1ssj
I
_j-'. ·1 ' -. : I dense; formation at tip , , .. , ! I
. ·I 15~·· .; .1
. ' ' ~ .: -i--,
,. : :
ll: I.' , , i ·I·., I. 1 -1 20----l . i
J·.:
-r 25~ ..
-t •
R-3 I II 127 10
16
60
J
---~~--·----L--~-_ _L_ -~-------------------------. SM I ~UATERNARY TERRACE DEPOSITS IOtl
f-" : 18': Silty fine SANDSTONE: Red/orange-brown, damp very
1 1 dense
R-4 • ;6
28
50/3"
116 10 @ 25': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light brown, damp,
very dense
i . i llV)~~,··. 1
• • • This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document • • • Page 1 of 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Project No.
Project
Drilling Co.
960151-035
LEGOLAND
Baja Excavation
Date Drilled 7-22-11
Logged By _,M""D,J,___
Hole Diameter 8"" -"----
Drilling Method _.H_.,o""l"lo,w,._...S..,teeom=Ao,u,-,g"e.._r_:-_,1.,4.,0,.Ib"--"-"'A"'u,..t"'ohammer-30"" Drop Ground Elevation _1!!0_" ______ _
Location South Central Sampled By MDJ
... SOIL DESCRIPTION "' 0 "' 01';/!. ' u;--:--<: "' CD -"' .2_ ..,_ -~ CD z ., ... "iii
'
~ -. Ultl) ' Cll ... ., ., ~u r::-::~-.!!e,j This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the 1-1Q G) ' -., Cll -"' ... ., c.o :I c:. i o.5 ~g_; .,., , ~cri time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations ->at I ~u.. E-' ' ---0
CD ' ~ E iii«> 0<: · ·c;::; I and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the Cll iii (!) .. ~ ~ :28 Q.
tl) Cll Q 0-: actual conditions encountered. Transitions between s011 types may be ~ IL ; gradual.
N s 150' 30 .. , . ' SM TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION~,.) :. i • ! @ 30': Sil% fine to medium SANDSTo:very lire!tfay-brown i ·I R-6 6216" 1!0 8 to off-w ite, damp, very dense; top 2 rings distur e . ' . ·i • -i .
_j·. t
. . i -i • :
--j . . ,'. ~
~ • ! _-; .i 145~ 35 ____; . i
R-7 I 70/6" Ill 9 ' @ 35': Sil% fine to medium SANDSTONE: Very li~:fay-brown
'-' '
to off-w ite, damp, very dense; top 2 rings distur
'• ~ w :I
~.I ; ·i '-!
! ·:. i! i ' '. ---+ ; c--J. ) i
140-40~·. S-1 ~ 52/6" @ 40': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray-brown, -r ' damp very dense
i· l ,. I ____, ... r
',' I I I
,._ ~ 135-45----j R-8 6116'' Ill II @ 45': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light gray-brown,
! r damp, very dense
i'.
' '' l' l
_J ..
. . --i•.
. '
130j i :!
50----;'. i S-2 ' @ 50': Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE: Light brown, damp,
dense
, I
Total Depth~ 50.5 Feet
No ~ound water encountered at time of drilling
Bac filled with bentonite and native soil on 7/22/11
l
125c 55----j
; :
. I :"l w I' ; i
~ :--'
IJ -
!1&-PL~TYPES: lYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE ..200 % ANES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
C CORE SAMPLE AI. ATTERBERG UMITS El EXPANSION INDEX SE SAND EQUIVALENT
G GRAB SAMPLE CN CONSOUDATION H HYDROMETER SG SPECIAC GRAVITY
R RING SAMPLE co COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY uc UNCONANED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
S SPUT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION pp POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE cu U D NEDT RV R VALUE
• • • This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. • • • Page 2 of 2
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Project No.
Project
960151-035
LEGOLAND ~~~ ----~~--~-
Drilling Co. Baja Excavation -----~------
Date Drilled
Logged By
Hole Diameter
7-22-11
MDJ
8"
Ground Elevation 190'
Sampled By MDJ
Drilling Method __,_H_,o<"ll.,.o""w'-'S_.,t.,.e"-'m-'-'A._.u..,g.,e,..r_-.c1C"4'-"0._.Ib'---"-'--A)Jiohammer -30" DrOJl ___ _ ~~L:o:c;a:tio:n~-----r~N~o~rt~h~w~e~s~t~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~::~:::!----~~~~~~~.,
I <:: ' .. 5!_ : -cui ~GI'
.!!""
u :E., a.o f!..J
Cl
0 ., ., z , .. :I a. -
., ~ ., .,.c 'iii ;;:u "'-o.!: GJU• ca. i
SOIL DESCRIPTION OJ"/! W-:-~....r! :;tn -£: -0 This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
.!!!,! ; ~u) . time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L1J ~ E iii«> .. ~
"' .,
D..
~ !
c
~ ~ "Q:::j i and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
U 0-; actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be
1
gradual.
' N
19o-o~ i.
-· ~------+--
• 1 '
' ' :. ' '.,
I t"l t.l .,
185i
to~·,., 180j . t •
I
B-1
3'-6'
;J I ---+'----
'
IS
25
120
SM ARTIFICIAL FILL UNDOCUMENTED (Afu) .
@ 0': Silty fine to medium SAND with clay: Red-brown to medium
brown, damp to moist, loose
__ L~-~~~---~~------------~--~~--~-' CL i @ 7 .5': Sandy CLAY: Black, loose, moist, loose; organics
i
II
L~~-~~~~----------------~~-~-SM : @ 9 .5': Silty medium SAND: Gray-brown and red-brown, moist, ! medium dense to dense R-1 ~~ . II
I, , :
H ' '
I
. :_ I ' i_
I I ' ' ' ' ---~------~--~--~----------------------------SM ARTIFICW FILL (Afo)
175-
@ 14': Silty fine SAND: Red-brown, moist, deose
l i 1
I ·, ."1
-'
i. 1 J .I ~ ., -:· ·i
R-2
i: ~
124 II
S-1 170 ; zo-{'j -J--:
1
1
-i. ·~~ ·,_-·_
12
22
28
@ 20': Silty fine to medium SAND: Brown to dark red-brown,
moist, dense
~ • . ! . .
~-. : _., --1 ,.I.--: ,._.·1-__ .._ ____ !---J •: .
1
• i·'i i I
l.j j 'I ~H
!65j 25 -+:: l-j' R-3 30 i 123
sM ~ ~uA.iERNARY TERRACE DEPOsrrs ~ - -~ ~ ~ --~ ~ -
23.5': Silty fine to medium SANDSTO : Red-brown, damp, very dense
9
: -i -1 :L-i: B-2 II 50
/4"
! --t •• ; 26'-28' ~-: ::.
l
:. •j ·,·_ ·.; Ji
•:, • ;. , 1 I
I ' I 1 : i i 25 . --1·"_,-i., ! ~ 30
i ' . ' .. :· ': I S-2 30 SAM~rn!~~: j . . TYPE Of TESTS:
B BULK SAMPLE .;!00 % ANES PASSING OS DIRECT SHEAR
C CORE SAMPLE AL ATTERBERG UMITS El EXPANSION INDEX
G GRABSAMPLE CN CONSOUDATION H HYDROMETER
R RING SAMPLE CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY
S SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
T TUBE SAMPLE CU UNDRAI D T 1AL RV R VALUE
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
SE SAND EQUIVALENT
SG SPECIAC GRAV!TY
UC UNCONANED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
* * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *
CR
Page 1 of 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project No.
Project
Drilling Co.
Drilling Method
Location
<: u .2-.<:~ n; CD I ~ .. :Em a.., a.o >G)! c!:"-l!...J .,u.. I
iii <-'
~
160-30~-;-
' ~ i
155-35----j ~
j
I
I I
15oJ 40---l
_J
'
i
i
]
I
i I
145J 45l
--j
j
140j 50----i
1
' i
l _J
1
I --j
135j 55___j
I
_j
960151-035
LEGOLAND
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Date Drilled
Logged By
7-22-11
MDJ
Baja Excavation ______________ _ Hole Diameter
Ground Elevation
Sampled By
8"
Hollow Stem Auger -140ib -Autol)_<}mmer -30'' Drop 190'
Northwest
.. .. "0 " :!:: :i
ci z
.!! Q.
E .. Ul
1 n u I I I I n r-: : i fo
I I ~
! i r
I i
__;
' I
:1 ~ i: ~ u i!
.. ~ .. .,.<: "iii ;r:u "'-o.E QIU
jjjco ca. .. ~ .. Q 0..
G)?!-' ui--:-.. -UIUl ,~ ... -"' c::;~ .!! 0<: . -Ul
::IE8 ·;:;::;
rn~
SM
MDJ
SOIL DESCRIPTION
This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the
time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations
and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the
actual conditiOns encountered. Transitions between soH types may be
; gradual.
Total Depth~ 30.5 Feet
No ground water encountered at time of drilling
Backfilled with bentonite and native soil on 7/22/11
-------· ---
! j
SAMpJj!TYPE$: TYPE OF TESTS:
B BULK SAMPL£ .:!00 % ANES PASSING DS DIRECT SHEAR
C CORE SAMPL£ AL ATTERBERG UMITS El EXPANSION INDEX
R RING SAMPL£ CO COLLAPSE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY
S SPUT SPooN SAMPLE CR CORROSION PP POCKET PENETROMETER
SA SIEVE ANALYSIS
SE SAND EQUIVALENT
SG SPECIAC GRAVITY
UC UNCONANED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH I G GRAB SAMPL£ CN CONSOUDATION H HYDROMETER
L.-JT~T~U~BE~S~~PL~Es_ ...... ~C~U~U~D~~~N~E~D~TUmAX~~~~~RV~~R~V~AL~U~E~----------------------------------------------~--__J
I • • • This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. • • • Page 2 of 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Previous Boring by Leighton -2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Project No. 960151-031 Date Drilled 8-25-09
Project LEGO/Waterworks Cluster Logged By MDJ
Drilling Co. Baja Ex11loration Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger -1401b -30" Dro11 Ground Elevation 167'
Location Southwest Portion of Site Sampled By MDJ
i!' SOIL DESCRIPTION .. c:i 0 t/J";f!. en~ ~ "' 0 CD ..
0 -"'~ u CD z ,...:: 'iii ~ -011) ., ·--:Ccn "C CD ~u .:: .... ,-... The Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the 1--;a: -.. -"' -<J I:I.CD l:l.o " 1i. o.5 CDU 0CD <J· time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and -~u. ...... f!.J -CCI. ·--_Ill 0 c E E iii«~ 01: 'o::i may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual CD iii (!) c( "' ~ ~ :;;o 1:1. Ill CD c (J Ill~ conditions encountered Transitions between soil types may be gradual ... 0.. 1-
N • 0 SM ARTIFICIAL FILL~ @ 0': Silty fme SA With clay: Dark red-brown, moist, medium
dense, top 2 inches dry
165 -B-1 CR
-2'-4'
-
s-R·l 13 127 II
-38
50 @ 6': Silty medium SAND: Red-brown, mois~ very dense
160 -.
-.
-·
to-·. R-2 14 122 9 @ I 0': Silty fme SAND: Red-brown, mois~ dense, traces of clay -·. 17
29
ISS -·.
-·
-.
IS-.
R-3 24 130 9 @ 15': Same as 10 feet except very dense
-. 43
50/4"
ISO -.
------1-------~--~----------------------------~UAlERNARY~D~S-17 .5': Stlty fm(;t(); Uin FD : Red-brown, damp to
-. moist, very dense
20-. R-4 36 115 7
5013"
14S -TotaiDepth ~ 21 Feet
No rfi]Wld water encountered at time of drilling
-Bac filled on 8/25/09
-
2S-
140 -
-
30
SAMPLE lYPES: lYPE OF TESTS: cf s SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ·200 % FINES PASSING
R RING SAMPLE c CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT AL ATTERBERG UMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOUDAllON El EXPANSION INDEX co COLlAPSE
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV RVALUE pp POCKET PENETROMETER
UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
• • • This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document • • • Page 1 of 1
I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Project No. 960151-031 Date Drilled 8-25-09
I Project LEGO/Waterworks Cluster Logged By MDJ
Drilling Co. Baja Ex~loration Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger-1401b -30" Oro~ Ground Elevation 173'
Location Center of Site Sampled By MDJ I
I ci ., ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION ..
0>?/!. uj-;--c .. .. ..
. 2-.c_ " .. z .,.c 'iii ... -Inti) .. :Ea , .. 3:" c-::1-... The Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the 1--.. -.. _c -u .... ..... <>.o :I a. o.E "'" .... 0· time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and -~tu.. GilL f!...J :!::: iii"' 0<>. ---::Ill 0 0 -E oc may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual .. iii (!) a: .. ... ~ :;:o 0:::1 <>.
til .. 0 (.) til-conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual . ... D. 1-
N ~
0 SM UNDOCUMENTED ARTm~IAL FILL(~
-.. @ 0': Stity hne SAND: Medtum to dark re?rown, moist, dense
-
I
I
170 -B-1
-3'-5'
5 ----f----- --f-----------------------------R-1 7 125 10 SM ARTmOAL FILL (M)
-·. 18 @ 5': Silty fine SAND: Medium to dark red-brown, moist, dense
27
-·. . --------1-----,_ ____________________________
165 -SM ~JA1ERNARY 1ERRACE DEPOSITS~) 7.5': S1lty !me to medium SANDSTO :Red-brown, darop to
-. moist, very dense
10-. R-2 7 120 10 @ I 0': Same as above
I
I
I
-. 29
50
-·. @ 12': Very dense
160 I
IS-S-1 II @ 15': Silty fine SANDSTONE: Red-brown, darop and mois~
-15 dense, several friable layers
I
15
-
155 -I
I 20-. 8-2 10
:~
@ 20': Same as above except more friable
-Total Depth~ 21.5 Feet
ISO -No ~nmd water encountered at time of drilling
Bac illed on 8125/09
I
-I 25-
-
-
145 -I
-
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE 01' TESTS: ,. s SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS -200 % ANES PASSING
R RING SAMPLE c CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT AI. ATTERBERG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX co COLLAPSE
T TIJBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV RVALUE pp POCKET PENETROMETER
UC UNCONANED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
I
I
I * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand--alone document * • • Page 1 of 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Project No. 960151-031 Date Drilled 8-25-09
Project LEGO/Waterworks Cluster Logged By MDJ
Drilling Co. Baja Ex~loration Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger-1401b -30" Dro~ Ground Elevation 193'
Location Northeast Portion of Site Sampled By MDJ
0 .. ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION ..
0)';/!. W"""":" -c: .. CD ..
0 ..c:_ u " z .,..c: 'iii ~ -IIIU) CD ·--:Em "0 CD ~u c: ... ::J-.... The Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the 1--.. -CD -c: -u ..... a.., a.o ::J ii o.E a>u II> CD U· ...
i;IL GilL E-' -ca. ·--_U) time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and 0 Q :a E iii«> oc: ·c;:::i may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual ., iii C) c( ... ~ ~ :;;o a. U) ., Q () U)~ conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual . ... D.. 1-..
~ ~ sc •AI ~-IAful
(§ ~e~~% ~:~~ fine SAND: • , ruy ro aamp, loose to
~
190 B·l
3'-4'
@ 3': Gets moist EI
-
5-R·l 8 115 12 0 II
I· 17 SM @ 6': Silty fine to medium SAND: Red-brown, mois~ medium
-dense I· I· @ l 0': Silty fine to medium SAND with clay: Dark red-brown,
185· -1· moist, rnediwn dense
-1·
10-. R-2 8 114 II _. 8
_· I· 12
180 -:· I·
. I· -
15-R-3 14 120 13 @ 15': Silty fine SAND: Red-brown, moist, dense
-14
39
-
175 ------'-----------~----------------------------SM ~UATERNARY TERRA....$;& DE~ITS I~
2o-1 ' I· 18.5': Sllty fine to medrum ~STO :Red-brown, damp,
dense
R-4 15 117 8
-I· I· 25
I· I· 38
-
170· -
-
25-. S·l 10 @ 25': Silty fine SANDSTONE with clay: Red-brown, damp to -. ~~ moist, dense
-Total Depth~ 26.5 Feet
165 -No flowtd water encountered at time of drilling
Bac filled on 8/25/09
-
OAUDO r=. TYPE OF TESTS: tl s SPUTSPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS -200 % FINES PASSING
R RING SAMPLE c CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSrTY SE SAND EQUIVALENT AL ATTERBERG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOIJDAllON El EXPANSION INDEX co COLLAPSE
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV RVALUE pp POCKET PENETROMETER
UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
• • • This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document • • • Page 1 of 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4
Project No. 960151-031 Date Drilled 8-25-09
Project LEGO/Waterworks Cluster Logged By MDJ
Drilling Co. Baja Ex~loration Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger -1401b -30" Dro(l Ground Elevation 175'
Location Northwest Portion of Site Sampled By MDJ
ci 1/1 ~ a>,. tn-:-SOIL DESCRIPTION .1!1 1: 1/1 .. 1/1 .2_ u .. z IJI.C "iii ~ . IIIII) {!!. .c_ :Em .., .. ;~:u "-::1-... The Soil Descdption applies only to a location of the exploration at the -.. -.. -" -o .... ... .. a.o :I a. o.5 OIU .!.!! .... 0· time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and 0 ~II. ~L&. f!-1 :!::: CCL _II) -E iii"' 01: iii C) (( ~ :28 "6::i may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual .. .. ~ CL II) .. Q II)~ conditions encountered. Transitions between sail types may be gradual . ;::: D..
N E 175 0 UNDOCUMENTED ARTIFICW. FILL~Afu) @ 0': Silty fine to medium SAND: Red-Town, moist, medium
dense; top 4 inches dry
-
-
-
170 5 -----r----- -------------------------------R-1 IS 128 8 ARTIFICW. FILL(~
-25 @ 5': Stlty fme to m Urn SAND: Red-brown, moist, dense
31
-
-
-
165 10-R-2 12 129 9 @ 10': Same as 5 feet
-B-1 22
10"-13' 44
-EI
-
-
160 15-R·3 9 117 10 @ 15': Silty fine SAND with clay: Red-brown, moist. medium DS
-12 dense
14
-
--------------r-----------------------------~UATERNARY TERRA~ DFPOSill! ~
-is•: Stlty SANDSHJ: Red-brown, p, dense
155 20-20 121 8
-45
50/4"
-
150 25-
-
-
145 30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: ct s SPI.IT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS -200 % ANES PASSING
R RING SAMPLE c CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSllY SE SAND EQUIVALENT AI.. ATTERBERG LIMITS
B llULK SAMPLE CN CONSOLIDATION El EXPANSION INDEX co COLLAPSE
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV RVN..UE pp POCKET PENElROMETER
UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
* * • This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document * * * Page 1 of 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4
Project No. 960151-031 Date Drilled 8-25-09
Project LEGO/Waterworks Cluster Logged By MDJ
Drilling Co. Baja Ex~loration Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger-1401b -30" Oro~ Ground Elevation 175'
Location Northwest Portion of Site Sampled By MDJ
"' ~ SOIL DESCRIPTION .. 0 QJ';fl. 0-:---c u .. z .. ..
0 .c_ :Cc:n .. ,..c .. ~ -IOU) ~ ·--, .. ~u c .... ::1-... The Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the -.. -.. -c -o .... a.., a.o :I -a. oE a>u IOCil 0· .....
~ .... 2l"-!!-' -ca. ·--::<I! time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and 0 E E m"' oc may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual Cl) iii (!) <( .. ~ ~ :20 0::::1 tl. Ul .. c 0 Ul~ conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual . "' "-1-
N s
145 30
-Total Depth ~ 30 feet
No ffi]und water encountered at time of drilling
-Bac filled on 8125109
-
-
140 35-
-
-
-
-
135 40-
-
-
-
-
130 45-
-
-
-
-
125 50-
-
-
-
120 55-
-
-
115 6U
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: ct s SPLIT SPOON G GRAB SAMPLE DS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ·200 % FINES PASSING
R RING SAMPLE c CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT AI. ATTERBERG UMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOUDATION El EXPANSION INDEX co COLlAPSE
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV RVAI.UE pp POCKET PENE1ROMETER
UC UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
• • • This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document • • • Page 2 of 2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5
Project No. 960151-031 Date Drilled 8-25-09
Project LEGO/Waterworks Cluster Logged By MDJ
Drilling Co. Baja Ex(<loration Hole Diameter 8"
Drilling Method Hollow Stem Auger-1401b -30" Dro11 Ground Elevation 169'
Location Southeast Portion of Site Sampled By MDJ
0 .. ~ (JJ~ ui-:-SOIL DESCRIPTION J!l c .. .. ..
.2_ .c_ u .. z .,.c .. ~ -UIU) ~ :Ctn , .!! 3:u c_ ,-... The Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the -.. -.. -c .... a.., a.o :l o.E CDU .... -(.) -~ a. (.) . time of drilling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and 0 a;u.. 2lu.. f!..J ca. ·--="! E ffiu> oc may change with time. The description is a simplffication of the actual CD iii C> .. ~ I!' ::;;o 0::;) a.
U) CD c (.) rn~ conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. ... a. 1-
N s
0 B-1 ARTIFICIAL FIL~
-0-2' @ 0': Stlty hne S sRed/orange-brown, dry to damp
-@2': Damp
-
165 -
5-R-1 13 116 8
-----_zo_ --------~---------------------------50 ~ TA:If,RN*Il~ TERRACE DEPOSIT~ (Q!l -6': lft}'lfleANnSTONE: Red-brown, damp, dense, massive
B-2
-7'-9'
160 -
10-R-2 16 122 10 @ I 0': Same as above
-31
50
-
-
155 -
15-S-1 10
-15
16
-
-
150 -
20
-Total Depth~ 20 Feet
No rruund water enCOlUltered at time of drilling
-Bac lied on 8125/09
-
145 -
25-
-
-
-
140 -
30
SAMPLE TYPES: TYPE OF TESTS: ct s SPLrrSPOON G GRAB SAMPLE OS DIRECT SHEAR SA SIEVE ANALYSIS ·200 % ANES PASSING
R RING SAMPLE c CORE SAMPLE MD MAXIMUM DENSITY SE SAND EQUIVALENT IU. ATTERBERG LIMITS
B BULK SAMPLE CN CONSOUDATlON El EXPANSION INDEX co COLLAPSE
T TUBE SAMPLE CR CORROSION RV RVALUE pp POCKET PENETROMETER
UC UNCONANED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
• • • This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document • • • Page 1 of 1
I
I
I
I APPENDIXC
Laboratory Test Results
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
APPENDIXC
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Following are tables that summarize laboratory testing that was performed by other
consultants and provided to Leighton. Copies of the tests results we were provided are
included at the end of this appendix.
Moisture and Densitv Determination Tests: Moisture content and dry density
determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test
borings according to ASTM D 2216 and D 2937. The results of these tests are presented
in the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from
"undisturbed" or disturbed samples.
Direct Shear: A direct shear test was performed in accordance with ASTM D3080 on
selected a sample that were soaked for under a surcharge equal to the applied normal
force during testing. The rate of shearing used for the tests was reported to be 0.05
in/min. Plots of the individual test results are provided within this appendix. Strength
envelopes are provided on each of the individual plots. Those envelopes correspond to
the peak shear resistance and the shear resistance at the end of the test.
Minimum Resistivitv and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in
general accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT643. The results are presented in the
table below:
Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity
(ohms-em)
B-1 @ 5-10 feet 7.14 2,455
Chloride Content: Chloride content was tested in accordance with DOT Test Method No.
422. The results are presented below:
Sample Location Chloride Content Degree of Corrosivity (ppm)
B-1 @ 5-10 feet 12 Low
C-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10075.002
APPENDIX C (Continued)
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by
Caltrans Test Method CT417. The test results are presented in the table below:
Sample Location Sulfate Content (ppm) Potential Degree of
Sulfate Attack*
B-1@ 5-10feet 210 Negligible
* Based on the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318-08, Table No. 4.3.1.
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of a selected material was evaluated by
the Expansion Index Test, ASTM Test Method 4829. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch
diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated
with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The result of the test is presented in
the table below:
Sample
Location
B-1
Depth (ft)
5 to 10
Sample Description
Dark Reddish Brown-Silty Sand (SM)
C-2
Expansion
Index
1
Expansion
Potential
Very Low
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.00 .----------r---------.-----------,
1.50
c rJ) ~ -rJ)
rJ)
Q) 1.00 .... -(/) .... ro Q) .s:::. (/)
0.50
0.00 -----------+---------+------------!
0
~ (J) 6
(J)
(J)
l!? U5
'-<11 Ql .c (J)
Boring No. B-1
Sample No. R-1
Depth (ft) 11-12.0
SamQieT~~: RING
Soil Identification:
CLAYEY SAND (SC), reddish
brown.
Strenath Parameters
C (psf) ~ (0)
Peak 631 .5 30.1
Ultimate 116.0 33.0
0.1 0.2
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
4.0
3.0
/ ~
2.0 ~ ,/
,-
~ ,)
~------
1.0 V ,J p/
, , ;a-'
,-'
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0
Normal Stress (ksf)
Normal Stress (kip/ft2)
Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2)
3.0
Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf)
Deformation Rate (in./min.)
Initial Sample Height (in.)
Diameter (in.)
Initial Moisture Content(%)
Dry Density (pcf)
Saturation (%)
Soil Height Before Shearing (in.)
Final Moisture Content(%)
4.0
0.500
• 0.914
0 0.446
0.0025
1.000
2.415
12.06
118.6
77.3
0.9993
17.9
0.3
1.000 2.000
• 1.222 ... 1.787
0 0.757 D. 1.417
0.0025 0.0025
1.000 1.000
2.415 2.415
10.33 11.58
123.2 114.9
75.7 67.0
0.9964 0.9757
15.1 15.4
~ ~Leighton Project No.: 10075.002
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Drained ASTM D-3080 LEGOLAND / WATERPARK EXPANSION
06-13
Direct Shear-Geomatic; B-1, R-1(5-23-13)
-------------------
I I GRAVEL 1 SAND r--~~-::C:c:O·A:-::R:::SE:C-=. c.:;I.::_~~FI~NE=-·--ll-ccCO=cARSE MEDIUM I FINE I
FINES
SILT CLAY
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMffiR
J
3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #SO #100 #200
100
90 I -1--t-----l
80
70 ..... -·-·--·-
,_ 60
:1: S! ~ 50 >-Ill
-·
'
I I
I
I
11-H' ·t-t . · ___ _
I I I .1----L .
I I I I
II: w 40 z I . r--
ii: ,_ z 30 w (.)
II: w 0..
20
10
·--1+1-t-r-+-t--J -· c----·. -----
I lL I
' I
i --
,I I I i i
. -1
I I -+-t-~_J__
10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 0.001
r~uJ"''-' Name: LEGOLAND I WATERPARK EXPANSION
10075.002 ClUJ"''"' No.:
~------~--~P~A~R~TI~C~L~E--~S~IZ~E~--~
leighton DISTRIBUTION
ASTM 06913
PARTICLE • SIZE (mm)
Exploration No.: B· 1 Sample No.: B·2
Depth (feet): 5·10.0 Soil Type: SM
Soil Identification: SILlY SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL CSM). dark reddish brown.
GR:SA:FI: (%) 1:65:34 JUn·U
Seve Landscape; 8-1, B-2 ( 5-23-13)
I
I
I
I
1 Previous Laboratory Testing by Leighton-2011
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
960151-035
APPENDIXC
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Following are tables that summarize laboratory testing that was performed by other
consultants and provided to Leighton. Copies of the tests results we were provided are
included at the end of this appendix.
Moisture and Density Determination Tests: Moisture content and dry density
determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test
borings according to ASTM D 2216 and D 2937. The results of these tests are presented
in the boring logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from
"undisturbed" or disturbed samples.
Direct Shear: A direct shear test was performed in accordance with ASTM D3080 on
selected a sample that were soaked for under a surcharge equal to the applied normal
force during testing. The rate of shearing used for the tests was reported to be 0.05
in/min. Plots of the individual test results are provided within this appendix. Strength
envelopes are provided on each of the individual plots. Those envelopes correspond to
the peak shear resistance and the shear resistance at the end of the test.
Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in
general accordance with Caltrans Test Method CT643. The results are presented in the
table below:
Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity
(ohms-em)
B-2 @ 24-28 feet 7.39 1,373
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by
Caltrans Test Method CT417. The test results are presented in the table below:
Sample Location Sulfate Content (ppm) Potential Degree of
Sulfate Attack*
B-2 @ 24-28 feet 150 Negligible
• Based on the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318-08, Table No. 4.3.1.
C-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.00
2.50 ....
/ ~ ...... <P 2.00. "' / ~ ~
"' "' I!' 1.50 Iii r / ....... i; ~ ., 1.00 .c ~~ ..___ I Cf)
0.50 r
0.00
0 0.1 0.2
Horizontal Deformation (in.)
4.0
3.0 /
/ .,. • /__ ~~, ............ ~ • 0 • / ~ 2.0 v ........ 0
~ 0 ~ .......... "' .. ~ UJ / / 1.0 lt---P/0/
0
0.0 ..
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
Normal Stress (ksf)
Boring No. B-1 Normal Stress (kip/ft') 0.500
Sample No. R-4 Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft') • 0.676
Depth (ft) 20.5 Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) 0 0.374
Samglg TyQe: Drive Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.0500
Soil Il!~::ntification: Initial Sample Height (in.) 1.000
Strong brown silty sand (SM) Diameter (in.) 2.415
Initial Moisture Content(%) 9.17
Dry Density (pcf) 108.9
C (psi) H') Saturation (%) 45.2
Peak 104.0 51.1 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 0.9920
Ultimate 31.0 32.7 Final Moisture Content(%) 17.8
~ Project No.: f/1 Leighton DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
Consolidated Undrained
0.3
1.000 2.000
• 1.412 .... 2.556
D 0.641 /::,. 1.327
0.0500 0.0500
1.000 1.000
2.415 2.415
9.17 9.17
120.9 124.3
62.9 69.6
0.9929 0.9870
15.1 14.5
960151-035
Lege
08·11
Direct Shear 8-1. R-4@ 20.5
I
I
I
I
I
I Previous Laboratory Testing by Leighton-2009
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
960151-{)31
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
Following are tables that swnmarize laboratory testing that was performed by other consultants
and provided to Leighton. Copies of the tests results we were provided are included at the end of
this appendix.
Moisture and Densitv Determination Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were
performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings according to ASTM D
2216 and D 2937. The results of these tests are presented in the boring logs. Where applicable, only
moisture content was determined from "undisturbed" or disturbed samples.
Direct Shear: A direct shear test was performed in accordance with ASTM D3080 on selected a
sample that were soaked for under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing.
The rate of shearing used for the tests was reported to be 0.05 in/min. Plots of the individual test
results are provided within this appendix. Strength envelopes are provided on each of the
individual plots. Those envelopes correspond to the peak shear resistance and the shear resistance
at the end of the test.
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the
Expansion Index Test; ASTM Standard D4829 Specimens are molded under a given compactive
energy to approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared l-inch thick by 4-inch diameter
specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with water until
volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below:
Sample Location Compacted Dry Density Expansion Index (pcf)
B-3@ 3-4 feet 114.9 20
B-4 @ I 0-13 feet 116.9 II
Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general
accordance with Cal trans Test Method CT64 3. The results are presented in the table below:
Sample Location pH Minimum ResistMty
(ohms-em)
B-1@ 2-4 feet 7.2 1,570
Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by Cal trans Test
Method CT417. The test results are presented in the table below:
C-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
960151-Q31
Sample location Sulfate Content (ppm) Potential Degree of Sulfate
Attack*
B-1 @ 2-4 feet 210 Negligible
* Based on the Amencan Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 318-08, Table No. 4.3.1.
C-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3000
• Peak Point l / • Residual Point
I 2500 --Linear (Peak Point)
--Linear (Residual Point) I v / /
2000
~ / 1-/ rn ,.-!!:. rn // rn w "' 1500 .... / /,) rn
"' <
// w :1: rn
1000 ~ // r
500 ? ...
/'
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
Interpreted Shear StrenQth
Peak Relaxed
Friction Angle Friction Angle
Location I Sample No. I Depth (Ill I uses Cohesion rosf\ {deal Cohesion rosf\ (deal
B-4 I R-3 I 15 I sc 100 42 50 35
Sample Description:
Dark brown clayey SAND
Strain Rate; 0.05 in.lmin.
ASTM D 3080
4 Project No. 960151-031
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS LEGOLAND Waterworks Cluster
Carlsbad, California
Le!ghton
I
I
I
I APPENDIX D
I CIDH Pile Capacity Curves
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 10
0
Total Ruistancr!F.S. (tons)
40
--r-~r-T1--~~-,--~,_,--,-,--r---r-o-r-~T-,--,--~,-,---r-rT-IIo-
20 30 so 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
' I I I I I
I I I I
N ·---,----------------r----,-----r----,-----r----,-----r----·---------r-----
00
0
N
I
00 -I ------,-----
I ....
1 I
I
~
--.
I
I
I I I
------~----l-----~----l----------l-----~-----------1 I I I 1 I I
I I
I
l-I
I I I I I I I - - -1 - ----,---- -r - - - - -.-- - - -1 - - - --.-- - - - - - - -- -- - - - -1 -- ---
I I I I I I
I
I I I I I ---,-----~----------~----,---------------------,-----
1 I
s. 0 I ---,--------I I I I I 1
..C N ----r----,-----r----,-----r---------------r-----Q. .. Q
... N
00 N
0 ....
N ....
I ---,----------
I
----------------L·---~--
I I ~ ___ J ________________ ~ ____ J ___ _
00 I I M -----~----------------(----~------
1
I
I
1
I I I I I ----,-----r·---,---------------------,-----
------.1-----
v D1a:2 fl
a D1a:2 5 ft
"'D1a 3ft
<> Dm 3 s n
o Dta:4 fl
LEGOLA D Wattrpark Activity POOL-CIDH Axial Capacity
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIXE
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
1.0 General
1.1
1.2
These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the
geotechnical report( s ). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations
contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific
recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general
Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical
Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised
recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report( s ).
The Geotechnical Consultant of Record
Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall employ the Geotechnical
Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants
shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report( s) and
accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and
recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the
"work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule
sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and
compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall
observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verif'y the geotechnical
design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly
different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the
Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes
in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notif'y the review agency
where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped,
elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared
for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas,
all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and
processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction
testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical
Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a
routine and frequent basis.
-1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
2.0
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor
The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced, and
knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to
receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill.
The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report( s ), and
these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be
solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and
specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical
Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the
number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork
contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor
shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work
schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such
changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant
is aware of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment
and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable
grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the
recommendations in the approved geotechnical report( s) and grading plan( s ). If,
in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as
unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient
buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than
required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work
and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the
conditions are rectified.
Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be
sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the
owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals
depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more
than I percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more
than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be
allowed.
-2-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work
in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed
immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to
continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products
(gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents
that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping
or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor,
punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.
2.2 Processing
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.
Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the
following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and
free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform,
flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation
2.4
2.5
In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be
overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant
during grading.
Benching
Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal to
vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard
Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of
15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of
4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical
Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also be benched or
otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.
Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and
benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to
being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The
Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant
-3-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
3.0
4.0
prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for
determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
F iII Material
3.1 General
3.2
3.3
Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant
prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable
gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas
acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve
satisfactory fill material.
Oversize
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless
location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of
oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely
surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed
within I 0 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or
underground construction.
Imoort
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall
meet the requirements of Section 3 .I. The potential import source shall be given
to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before
importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests
performed.
Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Layers
Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness.
The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the
grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall
be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material
and moisture throughout.
-4-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning
Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to
attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum.
Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in
accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test
Method Dl557).
4.3 Compaction of Fill
After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, it shall
be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method 01557). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized
and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to
efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes
In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of
slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at
increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion
of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least
90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method 01557.
4.5 Compaction Testing
Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be
performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests shall
be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered.
Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis.
Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas
that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces
and at the fill/bedrock benches).
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing
Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in vertical rise and/or
I ,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a
guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet
of slope face and/or each I 0 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall
assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished
by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the
earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.
-5-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
5.0
6.0
7.0
4.7 Compaction Test Locations
The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate elevation and
horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with
the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that
the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient
accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100
feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be
provided.
Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical
report( s ), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may
recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or
material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be
surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior
to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.
Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on
geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined
by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions
during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope
shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement
of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise
recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Trench Backfills
7.1 Safety
The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cai/OSHA requirements for safety of
trench excavations.
-6-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
General Earthwork aod Grading Specifications
7.2 Bedding and Backfill
All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be performed in accordance with
the applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works
Construction. Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30
(SE> 30). The bedding shall be placed to I foot over the top of the conduit and
densified. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of
relative compaction from I foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction.
At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
7.3 Lift Thickness
Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can
demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to
the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
7.4 Observation and Testing
The densification of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
-7-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALL SLOPE __ .::::;:;:::::E:::;:;:;:::E:;:;:;:;:;:
~~g~~~~~A~~~~~A~) _-_-::::~=~~:ul~~~~~~~l~~~~111
MAXIMUM FROM TOE .-.--------------------·.-,.-.-----..,.._~ OF SLOPE TO ---·-------·-·---·--.-.-,.·.-------=x
APPROVED GROUND .-:::::~~~~lut~====-~~ ,, .. -REMOVE
EXISTING\ .-::::::::::::::-:----~-:-:-:-UNSUITABLE
GROUND SURFACE .. ·· _ --_-::~::j:~::::J BENCH 11 MATERIAL . · _l ::·,;=~-:-:::::::::::: . • BENCH HEIGHT
-------------------------( 4 FEET TYPICAL) ~ :':::::2% MIN-:-:;_::;:
]115 FEET MIN. I
2 FEET MIN. LOWEST
KEY DEPTH BENCH {KEY)
ALL -oVER-cuT SLOPE
~ ~-Jt5 FEET MIN. J ~ ~ / LOWEST
__. / 2 FEET BENCH (KEY) REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
CUT -ovEA-FLL SLOPE
''\ ~~~-KEY ~TH
CUT FACE
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTIED PRIOR TO .-
FILL PLACEMENT TO ALLOW VIEWING /
OF GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS /
EXISTING---
GROUND
SURFACE
/
/ FACE SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED PRIOR
TO FILL PLACEMENT
OVERBUILD
TRIM BACK
PROJECTED ~"''-''"'~-...
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM
FROM TOE OF SLOPE
TO APPROVED GROUND
2 FEET MIN.
KEY DEPTH
115 FEET MIN.,
LOWEST
BENCH (KEY)
KEYING AND BENCHING
UN SUIT I.BLE
MATERIAL
LBENCH HEIGHT
{ 4 FEET TYPICAL)
BENCHING SHALL BE DONE WHEN SLOPE'S
ANGLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREA TIER THAN 5: 1.
MINIMUM BENCH HEIGHT SHALL BE 4 FEET
AND MINIMUM FILL WIDTH SHALL BE 9 FEET.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAIL A
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SLOPE FACE
0 OVERSIZE ROCK IS LARGER THAN
8 INCHES IN LARGEST DIMENSION
0 EXCAVATE A TRENCH IN THE COMPACTED
FILL DEEP ENOUGH TO BURY ALL THE
ROCK
0 BACKFILL WITH GRANULAR SOIL JETTED
OR FLOODED IN PLACE TO FILL ALL THE
VOIDS.
DO NOT BURY ROCK WITHIN 10 FEET Of
FINISH GRADE
0 WINDROW Of BURIED ROCK SHALL BE
PARALLEL TO THE FINISHED SLOPE.
__.--f-INI~;H GRADE
GRANULAR MATERIAL TO BE
DENSIFIEO IN PLACE BY
FLOODING OR JETTING.
DETAIL
- - - - - - - -JETTED OR FLOODED - - - - -
GRANULAR MATERIAL
TYPICAL PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
OVERSIZE ROCK
DISPOSAL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAIL B
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DESIGN FINISH
GRADE
EXISTING
GROUND SURFACE
SUBDRAIN DETAIL
···--·-··
TRENCH
---REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
SEE DETAIL BELOW
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)•
COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL
BE MINIMUM 6 • DIAMETER
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED
PIPE SEE STANDARD DETAIL D
FOR PIPE SPECIFICA liONS
__ -_-::::::::::::::::::::::: 1 Q' MIN FILTER FABRIC
__ -:-:-·,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-,BACKFILL (MIRAFI 140N OR APPROVED
__ :.-:zf:: I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f~~~~~~i~:~~~~~~~: :~~~~~~~~~~:::-:_. . . .. _::,:::~::: cLAss 2 PERMEABLE
OR 12 ROCK (9FT'3/FT) WRAPPED
1-• ' • • • . • • ' IN FILTER FABRIC
20' MIN. 5' MIN. PERFQRA TED
6" fZ1 MIN. PIPE NONPERFORATED 6"0 MIN.
DETAIL Of CANYON SUBDRAIN OUR£!
CANYON SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAIL C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OUTLET PIPES
•.• 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE.
100' h/AX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX 0 C I/£RTICALL Y
KEY WIDTH
CUT
FLATTER
TRENCH
LOWEST SUBORAIN SHOULD
BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUIT ABLE OUTLET
-r--AS
LKEY DEPTH
(2' MIN )
NOTED ON GRADING PLANS
(15' MIN) 12" MIN 011£RLAP
FROM THE TOP HOG
RING TIED EVERY
6 FEET
CALTRANS CLASS II
PERMEABLE OR f2
ROCK (3 FT'3/FT)
WRAPPED IN FILTER
FABRIC
PROVIDE POSITI\1£
SEAL AT THE
JOINT
T-CONNECTION
FOR COLLECTOR
PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE
6~ ~IN.
COII£R
4" 0
PERFORATED
PIPE
'---4" MIN
BEDDING FILTER FABRIC
ENII£LOPE (MIRAFI
140 OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION -subdroin coUector pipe shall be installed with perforation down or,
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnical consultant Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated
pipe Tt'le subdroin pipe shall hove at teost 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot Perforation
shall be 1/4" to 1/2" if drilt hofes ore used All subdroin pipes shall hove a gradient of at
least 2% towards the outlet.
SUBORAIN PIPE -Subdro1n pipe shall be ASTU 02751. SDR 2.15 or ASTM 01527. Schedule 40. or
ASTM 030.34, SOR 23 5. Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe.
All outlet pipe shall be ploced in a trench no wider than twice the subdrain pipe.
BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT
FILL SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAIL D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CUl=_FILL TRANSITION LOT_ OVER'CXCAVA TION
~
TRANSITION LOT FILLS
'EIAOVE
U~JSUJTABLE
:;ROUND\___~
~ ~
OVEREXCAVATE
I'I..NO RECOYPACT
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAIL E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
RETAINING WALL
WALL WATERPROOFING ~
PER ARCHITECT'S
SPECIFICATIONS
fiNISH GRADE
-----------------------------------::::::::~~~~~t~~1~~f:~~1W;~ii~l~~;~~~~~~~I~~~
WALL FOOTING--
SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION
BASED ON ASTM D1557
3" MIN
COMPETENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
NOTE: UPON REVIEW BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT.
COMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR
J-ORAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL INSTALLATION SHOULD BE
PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS
RETAINING WALL
DRAINAGE
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAIL F
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ACTIVE
ZONE
/---f.,.m Fll TER FABRIC
1---f',il ~-------------,-----c.---
i-----+;.:..f:~-------------I l---1'.~1~t1 IREINFORCEDj I RETAINED! II
,,(·>.' ZONE I I ZONE I I f---+':{~:~t-~-------/
I--F .. ·~-~?""" - ----------- -I 1---+JJ~-------------,/
------------r---i.:i~~)~~ FILTER FABRIC f
·'·.~·.t:.,.,..-------------~
GRAVEL---"--
DRAINAGE FILL
·.;·.·,_·h•·•{ifi ~--"'
-----,WALL SUBDRAIN '
'REAR SUBDRAIN:
BACKDRAIN
TO 70%0F
WALL HEIGHT
MIN s-BELOW WALL
MIN 12~ BEHIND UNITS
I FOUNDATION SOl LSI 4" (MIN) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE
(SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT) WITH
PERFORATIONS DOWN. SURROUNDED BY
1 CU. FT/FT OF 3/4" GRAVEL WRAPPED IN
NOTES
1) MATERIAL GRADATION AND PLASTICITY
REINFORGEQ 70Nf·
SIEVE SIZE
11NCH
N0.4
NO. 40
NO. 200
%pASSING
100
20-100
0-60
0-35
FOR WALL H~IGHT < 10 FEET, PLASTICITY INDEX< 20
FOR WALL H~IGHT 10 TO 20 FEET, PLASTICITY INDEX< 10
FOR TIERED WALLS, USE COMBINED WALL HEIGHTS
Fll TER FABRIC (MIRAFI140N OR EQUIVALENT)
OUTLET SUBDRAINS EVERY 100 FEET, OR CLOSER,
BY TIGHTUNE TO SUITABLE PROTECTED OUTLET
GRAVEl QBAINAGf Ell I ·
S!EVf S!Zf
11NCH
3/41NCH
N0.4
NO_ 40
NO. 200
%fASSING
100
75-100
0-60
0-50
0-5
WALL DESIGNER TO REQUEST SITE-SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR WALL HEIGHT> 20 FEET
2) CONTRACTOR TO USE SOILS WITHIN THE RETAINED AND REINFORCED ZONES THAT MEET THE STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS OF WALL DESIGN.
3) GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT TO BE DESIGNED BY WALL DESIGNER CONSIDERING INTERNAL, EXTERNAL, AND COMPOUND STABILITY
3) GEOGRID TO BE PRETENSIONED DURING INSTALLATION.
4) IMPROVEMENtS WITHIN THE ACTIVE ZONE ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO POST-CONSTRUCTION SETTLEMENT. ANGLE ex 45+¢/2, WHERE 11 IS THE
FRICTION ANGl-E OF THE MATERIAL IN THE RETAINED ZONE.
5) BACKORAIN SHOULD CONSIST OF J-DRAIN 302 (OR EQUIVALENT) OR 6-INCH THICK DRAINAGE FILL WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC. PERCENT
COVERAGE OF BACKDRAIN TO BE PER GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW.
SEGMENTAL
RETAINING WALLS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND
GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAIL G