The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3338; Agua Hedionda & Calavera Creek Dredging; Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges; 2006-11-30GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION CANNON ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL BRIDGES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR EDAW, Inc. 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 620 San Diego, Califarnia 92101 PREPARED BY ]Vinyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants 5710 Ruffin Road San Diego, California 92123 November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 Ms. Teresa T.G Wilkinson EDAW, Inc. 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 620 San Diego, California 92101 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California Dear Ms. Wilkinson: In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the Can- non Road and El Camino Real Bridges and the adjacent slopes in Carlsbad, California. This report presents our geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the pro- posed project. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE / Tong Qiu, h. . Proj ect Engineer o athan Goodmacher, C.E.G, H.G ri cipal Geologist Q H/SG/JG/gg � � l.Gt,� Soumitra Guha, Ph.D., G E. ,,,��: ER�N� Principal Eng' ��p �;�NpT HqNc Gccp�o � � No.2136 � Exp.10l0� 3� * �►r Q s� ��ODMA��Q,�� 9rFOFG�''f0 Distribution: (3) Addressee (2) Mr. Chris Herencia; Brown & Caldwell Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California TABLE OF CONTENTS November 30, 2006 Project No. 1059530C11 Page 1. 1NTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................1 3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................1 4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ....................................2 5. PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS .............................................................3 6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................3 6.1. Regional Geologic Setting ............................................................................................3 6.2. Site Geology .................................................................................................................4 6.2.1. Fi11 .......................................................................................................................4 6.2.2. Alluvium .............................................................................................................4 6.2.3. Santiago Formation .............................................................................................4 6.3. Groundwater .................................................................................................................5 7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS ..........................................................................................................5 7.1. Faulting and Seismicity ................................................................................................5 7.1.1. Ground Surface Rupture .....................................................................................6 7.1.2. Strong Ground Motion ........................................................................................6 7.1.3. Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement ..............................................6 7.2. Landsliding ...................................................................................................................7 7.3. Flooding ........................................................................................................................7 8. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................8 9. RECOMMENDATIONS ..........................................................................................................8 9.1. Earthwork .....................................................................................................................8 9.1.1. Site Preparation ...................................................................................................9 9.1.2. Excavation Characteristics ..................................................................................9 9.1.3. Materials for Fi11 .................................................................................................9 9.1.4. Compacted Fi11 ..................................................................................................10 9.1.5. Fill Placement on Sloping Ground ....................................................................1 l 9.1.6. Drainage ............................................................................................................11 9.2. Seismic Design Parameters .........................................................................................1 l 9.3. Slopes ..........................................................................................................................12 9.4. Erosion Protection ......................................................................................................12 9.4.1. Filter Fabric .......................................................................................................13 9.4.2. Rock Slope Facing ............................................................................................13 9.4.3. Vmax3 ................................................................................................................13 9.5. Soil Parameters for LPILE Analysis ...........................................................................14 9.6. Gabion Basket Retaining W�11 ...................................................................................14 9.7. Corrosion ....................................................................................................................15 9.8. Concrete ......................................................................................................................16 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc i Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project ]vo. 105953001 9.9. Pre-Canstruction Meeting ...........................................................................................16 9.10. Plan Review and Construction Observation ...............................................................16 10. LIlV1ITATIONS .......................................................................................................................17 11. SELECTED REFERENCES ..................................................................................................19 Tables Table 1— Seismic Design Parameters ................. Table 2— Soil Parameters for LPILE Analysis ... .......................................................................11 .......................................................................14 Fi�ures Figure 1— Site Location Map Figures 2 through S— Exploration Map Figure 6— Fault Location Map Figure 7 — Benching Details Figure 8— Caltrans ARS Curve Appendices Appendix A — Boring Logs Appendix B — Laboratory Testing Appendix C— Typical Earthwork Guidelines 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc 11 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges November 30, 2006 Carlsbad, California Project No. 105953001 1. INTRODUCTION In accordance with your request and our revised proposal dated September 20, 2006, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges and the adjacent slopes in Caxlsbad, California (Figure 1). This report presents our findings and conclu- sions regaxding the geotechnical conditions at the subject site, and our recommendations for the design and construction of the project. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES Ninyo & Moore's scope of services for this project included review of pertinent background data, performance of a subsurface evaluation, and engineering analysis with regaxd to the pro- posed bridge retrofit and slope reconfiguration. Specifically, we performed the following tasks: • Review of readily available published geotechnical literature, including geologic maps, geo- technical reports, engineering plans, and aerial photographs. • Performance of a field reconnaissance and a limited subsurface evaluation including shallow excavations to obtain near-surface soil samples. Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples were obtained at various locations within the project axea. • Performance of geotechnical laboratory testing on selected soil samples. • Prepaxation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations re- garding the geotechnical design and construction of the project. 3. SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located near the intersection of Cannon Road and El Camino Real in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). The project area includes the existing bridges on Cannon Road and El Camino Real, an approximately 3,000-feet-long embankment along Agu� Hedionda Creek from El Camino Real to Rancho Carlsbad Drive, and an approximately 3,200-feet long embank- ment along Calavera Creelc from its me��ger with Agua Hedionda Creelc to Don Juan Drive. Agua Hedionda Creek and its tributary creek, Calavera Creek, flow generally to the west through the project axea. Calavera Creek merges into the Agua Hedionda Creek approximately 200 feet east of El Camino Real. The creelc banks axe up to approximately 12 feet in height with inclinations 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges November 30, 2006 Caz�lsbad, California Project No. 105953001 of roughly 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) to nearly vertic:al. The creek banks are currently covered with trees and native and non-native vegetation. The existing dredged creelc beds vary in eleva- tion from approximately 36 feet above mean sea level (MSL) near the westerly end to approximately 40 feet above MSL at the easterly end. Existing developments in the project area include a retirement community between the two creelcs, and a golf course on the east side of Rancho Carlsbad Drive. The proposed project involves reconfi�uration of the creek channels, including deepening and widening the existing creek beds. The proposed geometry of Agua Hedionda Creek will have a bottom width of approximately 85 feet between Stations 11+33 and 19+50, and a bottom width of approximately 40 feet between Staticns 19+50 and 41+60. Side slopes of channel will gener- ally have an inclination of 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). The proposed geometry of Calavera Creek will have a bottom width of approxirnately 9 to 4 feet between Stations 0+00 and 5+00, and a bottom width of approximately 4 feet between Stations 5+00 and 32+00. Side slopes of channel will generally have inclinations of 1.5:1 to vertical. A Gabion basket retaining wall is proposed near the confluence of Agua Hedionda Creek and Calavera Creek. The proposed pro- ject also involves retrofit of the pile foundations of the Cannon Road and El Camino Real bridges for scour and erosion protection, due to the reconfiguration of the creek channels. The primary purposes of this investigation are to provide soil and seismic design parameters for the bridge retrofits, and to evaluate the stability of the reconfigured creek bank slopes. 4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our field reconnaissance and limited subsurface exploration were conducted on October 3, 2006. Seven surficial samples were obtained along the creelc channels. Surficial samples S-1 through S-3 were taken along Calavera Creelc and S-4 through S-7 were taken along Agua Hedionda Creek. Two borings were manually advanced to depths of approximately 2.6 feet below the exist- ing creek bank surface along Agua Hedionda Creek. Relatively undisturbed and bulk samples were obtained from our borings. The approximate locations of the borings and surficial samples are shown on Figures 2 through 5. The boring logs axe presented in Appendix A. 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc 2 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges November 30, 2006 Carlsbad, California Project No. 105953001 Laboratory testing of representative soil samples included sieve analyses, Atterberg limits, direct shear, and soil corrosivity. The results of the laboratory tests performed are presented in Appendix B. 5. PREVIOUS GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS A geotechnical investigation was conducted by Owen Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (Owen, 1985) for the Cannon Road bridge. Information (e.g., soil type and consistency) from selected borings from that investigation was utilized in this study. Approximate locations of the selected borings are presented in Figure 2 and the corresponding logs are presented in Appendix A. A limited geotechnical investigation was previously conducted by Ninyo & Moore (Ninyo & Moore, 2004) at the project site to evaluate the stability of proposed new channel slopes. The proposed channel slopes were generally at an inclination of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), and we concluded that the proposed slopes would have factors of safety greater than 1.5 for global (deep-seated) and surficial stability under static conditions. Our report also recommended ero- sion protection and periodic maintenance of the slopes. Two borings were drilled for this evaluation. Approximate locations of these borings are presented in Figures 2 and 3 and the cor- responding logs are presented in Appendix A. Laboratory tests performed in this study included sieve analyses and direct shear. The results of these laboratory tests are included in Appendix B. 6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Our findings regarding regional and site geology and groundwater conditions at the subject site are provided in the following sections. 6.1. Regional Geologic Setting The project area is situated in the coastal foothills section of the Peninsular Ranges Geo- morphic Province. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends approximately 904 miles from the 'Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the southern tip of Baja California (Norris and Webb, 1990). The province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles. In general, the province consists of mountains under- 105953001 R Geo Eval.dot 3 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 lain by Cretaceous and Tertiary sedimentary units underlain by Jurassic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocics and Cretaceous igneous rocics of the southern California batholith. 6.2. Site Geology Fill and alluvium were encountered during our subsurface evaluations. Though not encoun- tered in our subsurface exploration, materials of the Santiago Formation were encountered at depth during the Owen investigation in 1985. Generalized descriptions of these units are provided in the subsequent sections. More detailed descriptions are provided on the boring logs in Appendix A. 6.2.1. Fill Fill material was encountered in our previous borings to depths ranging from approxi- mately 4.5 to 9 feet below the existing ground surface. In general, the fill consisted of dark gray and brown, moist, loose, clayey fine to medium sand with scattered gravel and cobbles. 6.2.2. Alluvium Alluviurn was encountered in our shallow borings and surficial samples, and in our pre- vious borings. As encountered, these materials generally consisted of brown, moist to wet, stiff to very stiff, sandy clay and brown to dark brown, wet to saturated, loose to medium dense, fine to coarse sand and silty clayey sand. Based on the Owen investiga- tion in 1985, alluvium beneatla the surface generally consisted of loose to dense, clayey sands, silty sands, and soft to stiff, sandy silty clay. 6.2.3. Santiago Formation Materials of the Eocene-age Santiago Formation were encountered below the alluvium at depths greater than 100 feet by Owen during their 1985 investigation. As described in tlaeir boring logs and our experience with similar materials in the site vicinity indicates, these formational materials generally consist of greenish gray to bluish gray, saturated, 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc 4 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 moderately to well-cemented, silty sandstone, and moderately to well-indurated, sandy siltstone and claystone. 6.3. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at elevations ranging from approximately 34 to 42 feet above MSL in our borings. Groundwater was estimated to be at elevations of approximately 24 to 28 feet above MSL in the selected borings from Owen investig�tion in 1985. Groundwater is expected to be at the water level of Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creeks. Fluctuations in the water level of the creeks may occur due to seasonal variations, irrigation, and other factors. Groundwater should be anticipated during construction. 7. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS In general, hazards associated with seismic activity include ground surface rupture, strong ground motion, and liquefaction. These considerations and other geologic hazards such as land- sliding and flooding are discussed in the following sections. 7.1. Faulting and Seismicity The project area is considered to ti3e seismically active. Based on our review of the refer- enced geologic maps and stereoscopic aerial photographs, as well as our geologic field reconnaissance, the subject site is �iot underlain by known active or potentially active faults (i.e., faults that exhibit evidence of ground displacement in the last 11,000 years and 2,000,000 years, respectively). Major known active faults in the region consist generally of en-echelon, northwest-strilcing, right-lateral, strilce-slip faults. These include the San Clemente, Agua Blanca-Coronado Bank, Newport-Inglewood, and Rose Canyon faults, lo- cated to the west of the site, and the Whittier-Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults, located to the east of the site. The locations of these faults are shown on Figure 6. 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc 5 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California 7.1.1. Ground Surface Rupture November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 Based on our review of the referenced literature and our site reconnaissance, no active faults are lcnown to cross the project site. Therefore, the potential for ground rupture due to faulting at the site is unlikely. However, lurching or cracking of the ground surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible. 7.1.2. Strong Ground Motion The most significant seismic event with respect to the proposed improvements at the site would be a maximum credible earthquake associated with the Rose Canyon fault located approximately 6'/z mil�s west of the site. An earthquake with a moment magni- tude of 7.2 on the Rose Canyon fault (California Geological Survey [CGS], 2003) could generate a peak horizontal bedrock acceleration of 0.40g (Mualchin and Jones, 1992). The Caltrans California Seism:c Hazard Map (Mualchin, 1996) indicates that the gen- eral site area has the potential for 0.4g peak acceleration. Therefore, based on the proxirnity to active and potentially active faults capable of producing large earthquakes, the subject site has a high potential for experiencing strong ground motion. 7.1.3. Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which loosely deposited, saturated, granular soils (located below the water table) with clay contents (particles less than 0.005 mm) of less than 15 percent, a liquid limit of less than 35 percent, and natural moisture content greater than 90 percent of the liquid limit undergo rapid loss of shear strength due to development of excess pore ��ater pressure during strong earthquake-induced ground shaking. Ground shalcing of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-to-grain con- tact due to a rapid rise in pore water pressure, and it eventually causes the soil to behave as a fluid for a short period of time. Liquefaction is known generally to occur in satu- rated or near-saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than 50 feet below the ground surface. Factors known to influence liquefaction potential include composition and thickness of soil layers, grain size, relative density, groundwater level, degree of saturation, and both intensity and duration of ground shaking. 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc 6 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 Our evaluation of site conditions based on the previous geotechnical investigations in- dicates that in the event of a design earthquake with a moment magnitude of 7.2 and a peak bedrock acceleration of 0.40g, liquefaction may occur within layers of generally loose to medium dense sandy �iluvium from the creek channel surface to a depth of ap- proximately 25 feet. Based on a procedure proposed by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987), liquefaction induced settlement of up to approximately 3 inches is estimated. 7.2. Landsliding Based on our review of published geologic literature and aerial photographs, and our geo- logic reconnaissance, landslides or related featur.es have not been identified as underlying the project site vicinity. However, due to the loose and granular nature of surficial soils along the subject channel slopes, some sloughing and raveling from current or future erosion processes is a possibility. 7.3. Flooding Upstream of their confluence, Agua Hedionda Creelc and Calavera Creek have discharge rates of approximately 7,254 cubic feet per second (cfs) and 729 cfs, respectively, for a 100- year flood. Downstream to the confluence, Agua Hedionda Creek has a dischaxge rate of ap- proximately 7,983 cfs for this flood level. The El Camino Real bridge has top and bottom elevations of approximately 46.0 feet and 43.0 feet above MSL, respectively. At the 100-year flood level, the water surface is expected to be at approximately 42.5 feet and 42.0 feet above MSL on the upstream and downstream sides of the bridge, respectively. The Cannon Road bridge has top and bottom elevations of approximately 45.2 feet and 43.1 feet above MSL, respectively. At the 100-year flood level, the water surface is expected to be at approximately 41.7 feet and 40.3 feet above MSL on the upstream and dowilstream sides of the bridge, respectively. 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc 7 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California 8. CONCLUSIONS November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 Based on our review of the referenced bacicground data, geologic field reconnaissance, subsur- face evaluation, and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that the proposed improvements are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Geotechnical considerations include the following: � Groundwater was encountered in our exploratory borings and is expected to be at or near the water level of Agua Hedionda and Calavera Creelcs. Shallow groundwater will be encoun- tered during construction and should, therefore, be considered in project planning. • The proposed creek channel reconfiguration involves trimming or building the existing creek banks to an inclination of generally 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Based on the materi- als encountered and our slope stability analysis, a 1.5:1 slope yields an acceptable factor of safety (i.e., 1.5 or higher under static conditions) up to a height of about 12 feet. Surficial stability of reconstructed creek slopes, however, is a concern. Recommendations are pro- vided herein to maintain an acceptanle long-term stability for the proposed 1.5:1 slopes. • Due to the presence of shallow groundwater and relatively high potential for strong seismic ground motions, the relatively loose and sandy alluvium underlying the project area is sub- j ect to liquefaction. Liquefaction induced settlement of up to approximately 3 inches should be anticipated. • In general, the on-site materials are suitable for re-use as compacted fill and are anticipated to be generally excavatable with heavy-duty earthmoving equipment in good working condition. 9. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our understanding, the project is still in the design phase and construction details have not been finalized. The following recommendations are provided for use in design and construc- tion of the proposed improvements. If additional geotechnical recommendations are needed, please contact this office. 9.1. Earthwork In general, earthwork should be performed in accordance with the recommendations pre- sented in this report. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted for questions regarding the recommendations or guidelines presented herein. In addition, Typical Earthwork Guidelines I05953001 R Geo Eval.doc g Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 for the project are included as Appendix C. In the event of a conflict, the recommendations presented in the following sections of this report should supersede those in Appendix C. 9.1.1. Site Preparation Site preparation should begin ��•ith the removal of vegetation, utility lines, asphalt, con- crete, and other deleterious debris from areas to be graded. Tree stumps and roots should be removed to such a depth that organic material is generally not present. Clear- ing and grubbing should extend to the outside of the proposed excavation and fill areas. The debris and unsuitable material generated during clearing and grubbing should be removed from areas to be graded and disposed of at a legal dumpsite away from the project area. 9.1.2. Excavation Characteristics Our evaluation of the excavation characteristics of the on-site materials is based on the results of the exploratory borings and our experience with similar materials. In our opin- ion, the on-site materials are generally excavatable with heavy-duty earthmoving equipment in good working condition. 9.1.3. Materials for Fill If fill soils are to be used at the site, on-site soils with an organic content of less than approximately 3 percent by volume (or 1 percent by weight) should be suitable for use as fill. Fill material should generally not contain rocks or lumps over approximately 4 inches, and generally not more than approximately 40 percent larger than 3/4 inch. Utility trench bacicfill material should not contain rocks or lumps over approximately 3 inches in general. Soils classified as silts or clays should not be used for backfill in the pipe zone. Larger chunks, if generated during excavation, may be broken into accepta- bly sized pieces or disposed of offsite. linported fill material, if ileeded for the project, should generally be granular soils with a very low to low expansion potential (i.e., an expansion index [EI] of 50 or less as evaluated by Uniform Building Code [UBC, 1997] test method 18-2). Import material should also be non-corrosive in accordance with the 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc (� Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 Caltrans (2003) corrosion guidelines. Materials for use as fill should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore's representative prior to filling or importing. 9.1.4. Compacted Fill If compacted fill soils are to be placed at the site, the contractor should request an evalua- tion of the exposed ground surface by Ninyo & Moore prior to fill placement. Unless otherwise recommencied, the exposed ground surface should then be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches and watered or dried, as needed, to achieve a moisture content generally above the optimum moisture content. The scarified materials should then be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 1557. The evaluation of compaction by the geotechnical consultant shoirld not be considered to preclude any requirements for ob- servation or approval by governing agencies. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify Ninyo & Moore and the appropriate governing agency when proj ect areas are ready for observation, and to provide reasonable time for that review. Fill materials should be moisture conditioned to generally above the laboratory opti- mum moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moisture content will vary with material type and other factors. Moisture conditioning of fill soils should be generally consistent within the soil mass. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill material following a delay in the grading operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill should be prepared to re- ceive fill. Preparation inay include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction. Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thickness. Prior to coinpaction, each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve a moisture content generally above the laboratory optimum, mixed, and then compacted by mechanical methods, using sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers or other appropriate compacting rollers, to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evalu- 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc 1 O Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 ated by ASTM D 1557. Successive lifts should be treated in a like manner until the de- sired finished grades are achieved. 9.1.5. Fill Placement on Sloping Ground Fills constructed on sloping ground, if any, having an inclination steeper than 6:1 (hori- zontal to vertical) should be keyed and benched into competent materials as shown on Figure 7. The actual width of the toe keys and extent of removal of any existing loose surficial soil or other native materials should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore's repre- sentative in the field during construction. In addition, toe key excavations should be observed by a representative of our firm prior to placing fill. 9.1.6. Drainage Surface drainage on the site should genera115� be provided so that water is not permitted to pond and drain over the top of the creek banks. Care should be taken by the contrac- tor during grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales or other drainage devices on or adjacent to the project site. Drainage patterns established at the time of grading should be maintained for the life of the project. The property owner and maintenance personnel should be made aware that altering drainage patterns might be detrimental to long-tenn stability of slopes. 9.2. Seismic Design Parameters According to the 2001 California Building Code (CBC), the proposed project site is in Seismic Zone 4 and not within a near-source zone. Table 1 includes the seismic design pa- rameters for the site as defined in the 2041 edition of the CBC. Table 1— Seismic Design Parameters Parameter Value 2001 CBC Reference Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.40 Table 16A— I Soil Profile T e So Table 16A— J Seismic Coefficient C� 0.44 Table 16A— Q 105953001 R Geo Eval,doc 1 1 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California Table 1— Seismic Design Parameters November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 Parameter Value 2001 CBC Reference Seismic Coefficient C,, 0.64 Table 16A— R Near-Source Factor, N� 1.0 Table 16A— S Near-Source Factor, Nv 1.0 Table 16A — T Seismic Source Type B Table 16A— U For seismic design of the Cannon Road and El Camino Real bridge retrofits, an acceleration response spectrum (ARS) curve was developed based on the Caltrans Seismic Design Crite- ria (Caltrans, 2006). The AR.S curve is presented on Figure 8. 9.3. Slopes We understand that the proposed construction will involve trimming the existing creek bank to an inclination of generally 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). In areas where the existing slope is steeper than 1.5:1 along Agua ��edionda Creelc, fill may be used to build the slope to 1.5:1. Based on our subsurface evaluation and stability analysis, the proposed 1.5:1 slope should have an adequate factor of safety (i.e., 1.5 or higher under static conditions) up to a height of about 12 feet. However, surficial stability is a concern. To mitigate surficial insta- bility, we recommend that slape stabilization measures, such as use of geo-grid reinforced backfill, concrete lining, or rock slope facing, be considered to maintain a satisfactory long- term stability. 9.4. Erosion Protection The project plans and specifications should contain design features and construction re- quirements to reduce the potential for erosion of the on-site soils both during and after construction. Finished slope and other exposed ground surfaces should be appropriately planted with a protective ground cover. A standard method of slope protection is to use a rock slope facing. As an alternative, we suggest that considerations be given to using turf re- inforcement such as Vmax3 or similar products. Slope protection should be placed in general accordance with the following recommendations. 105953001 R Geo Evnl.doc 12 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Caxlsbad, California 9.4.1. Filter Fabric November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 Filter fabric should be placed on the slope facing prior to placing the rock slope facing. We recommend that the filter fabric consist of a Type B woven geofabric in accordance with Section 88-1.04, Rock Slope Protection Fabric, of the Caltrans Standard Specifica- tions (2006). The filter fabric should be installed in accordance with the Caltrans Standard Specifica- tions (2006) and the manufa�turer's recommendations. Longitudinal and transverse joints should be overlapped 2 feet or more. Stones or debris should be removed and de- pressions backfilled to provide a smooth surface to place the filter fabric on; folds or wrinkles should be carefully reinoved from the fabric. 9.4.2. Rock Slope Facing Rock slope facing should be designed and constructed according to Section 72, Slope Protection, of the Caltrans Standard Specifications (2006). The project civil engineer should evaluate the size of rocks to be used as facing elements based on the site hydrol- ogy. The limits of the slope facing should extend to approximately 2 feet above the anticipated high water elevation on the embailkinent slope. The slope facing should be approximately 2 feet thick. Care should be taken when placing this material to avoid excessive voids or instabilities. Some maintenance of the slope protection should be an- ticipated during the design life. Rock displaced from the slope facing should be replaced in their original positions periodically. 9.4.3. Vmax3 North American Green's Vmax3 products are a series of turf reinforcement mats consist- ing of composite layers that reduce erosion in flow channels. In a channel's initial un- vegetated state, Vinax3 contains a matrix material (straw, coconut, or polypropylene) that covers bare soil to reduce erosion. As vegetation establishes and matures, the ma- trix material continues to provide structural support for the developing plants. Ultimately, the vegetation and netting provides the desired erosion protection. Based on 105953001 A Geo Evol.doc 1� Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 our experience with the product, it is our opinion that the use of Vmax3 at the project site for erosion protection is feasible. We recommend design of the Vmax3 products be certified by North American Green for their Ultimate Assurance Guarantee. The erosion control should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. 9.5. Soil Parameters for LPILE Analysis Based on the subsurface profile established by the Owen investigation in 1985, we are pro- viding the following soil parameters for lateral pile analysis using LPILE Plus 4.0 (Ensoft, Inc., 2000) on the pile foundations of the Cannon Road and El Camino Real bridges. Table 2— Soil Parameters for LPILE Analysis Depth Soil Type (LPILE) LPILE Parameters (ft) 0-25 Loose Sand y��- = 0.033 (pci), k= 20 (pci), �= 30° y��- = 0.036 (pci), k = 250 (pci), 25-50 Firm to Stiff Clay c=10 si e— 0.007 �1� )� so — 50-100 Medium Dense Sand y�� = 0.036 (pci), li = 60 (pci), �= 32° > 100 Dense Sand y��- = 0.039 (pci), k=125 (pci), �= 34° Where, y��- , k,�, c, and eso are effective unit weight, modulus, friction angle, cohesion, and strain at 50 percent of undrained strength, respectively. In the event of a significant local seismic event, liquefaction may occur in the generally loose sandy soil from the creek channel surface to a depth of approximately 25 feet. To analyze the response of the pile foundations in the event of liquefaction, li = 0 and �= 0° may be used for the liquefied sand. 9.6. Gabion Basket Retaining Wall A Gabion basket retaining wall is proposed near the confluence of Agua Hedionda Creelc and Calavera Creek. Gabions are �,alvanized wire mesh baskets into which rock or soil are placed. Gabion sizes vary, but they are generally 3 feet wide by 3 feet long by 3 feet deep or larger. Filter fabric is placed on the interior of the baslcets to reduce migration of fines 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc 14 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California Novernber 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 through the faces of the basket. The baskets are then filled with compacted fill ox rock. The baskets should be placed on a relatively level fcundation surface excavated into the creek bed and inclined 10 degrees into the slope. Once a foundation layer is in place, subsequent layers can be placed vertically. The project civil engineer should size the rocic to be filled in the baskets based on the site hydrology. Compacted backfill should be placed behind the wall to reach finish grade. Fill should be compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The Gabion retaining wall should be supported on 3 feet of compacted fill and an allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (ps fl may be used. These allowable bearing capacities may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. We recomrriend a filter fabric blanket be installed between the com- pacted fill and the bottorn of the Gabion retaining wall. The Gabion retaining wall may be considered as a yielding retaining wall. An active pres- sure represented by an equivalent fluid weight of' 40 pounds per cubic foot (pc fl and 65 pcf may be assumed for level and 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) backfill, respectively. These pres- sures assume low-expansive and free draining conditions. For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.40 be used between the foundation soil and Gabion baskets. The frictional resistance value may be increased by one-third when consider- ing loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. 9.7. Corrosion Laboratory testing was performed on a representative sample of the on-site soils to evaluate pH and electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pH and electrical resistivity tests were performed in accordance with California Test 643 and the sulfate and chloride content tests were perfonned in accordance with California Tests 417 and 422, re- spectively. These laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. The results of the corrosivity testing indicated an electrical resistivity of the sample tested of 600 ohm-cm, a soil pH of 7.0, a chloride content of 250 parts per million (ppm) and a sulfate 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc 15 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 content of 0.01 percent (i.e., 100 ppm). Based on the Caltrans corrosion (2003) criteria, the on-site soils would not be classified as corrosive, which is defined as soils with more than 500 pprn chlorides, more than 0.2 percent sulfates, or a pH less than 5.5. 9.8. Concrete Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of soluble sulfates can be subject to chemical deterioration. Laboratory testing indicated a sulfate content of 0.01 per- cent for the tested sample, which is considered to represent a negligible potential for sulfate attack (IBC, 2003). However, due to the variability of on-site soils, we recommend that Type Vi cement be used for concrete structures in contact with soil. In addition, we recommend a water-to-cement ratio of no more than 0.45. We also recommend that 3 inches of concrete cover be provided over reinforcing steel for cast-in-place structures in contact with the soil. 9.9. Pre-Construction Meeting We recommend that a pre-construc*ion meeting be held prior to commencement of grading. The owner or his representative, the agency representatives, the architect, the civil engineer, Ninyo & Moore, and the contractor should be in attendance to discuss the plans, the project, and the proposed construction schedule. 9.10. Plan Review and Construction Observation The recommendations presented in this report are based on preliminary design plans for the proposed project and subsurface information disclosed by widely spaced borings. Ninyo & Moore should checic the subsurface conditions during construction. A representative of Ninyo & Moore should verify the depth and extent of removals during construction. Obser- vation and testing of compacted fill and backfill and foundation excavations should be perforrned by Ninyo & Moore. We further recommend that project plans be reviewed by the design engineer and Ninyo & Moore before construction. It should be noted that upon re- view of the project plans and speci;ications, some recommendations presented in this report might be revised or modified to meet the project requirements. 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc 16 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California 10. LIMITATIONS November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 The iield evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this geotechnical report have been conducted in general accordance wi`:h current practice and the standard of care exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions pre- sented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition, Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through addi- tional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, or the pres- ence of hazardous materials. This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. This report is intended for design putposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant per- form an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the pxoject areas. The independent evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing. Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site con- ditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our office should be notified, and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon re- quest. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government ac- 105951001 R Geo Eval.doc 17 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 tion or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control. This report is intended exclusively for u�e by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclu- sions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said parties' sole risk. 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc 18 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Brid,�,es Carlsbad, California 11. SELECTED REFERENCES November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 California Building Standards Commission, 2001, California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2003, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1.0, Division of Engineering Services, Materials Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion Technology Branch: dated September. California Department of Transportatian (Caltrans), 2006, Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.4: dated June. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2006, Standard Specifications: dated July. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California: Open File Re- port 95-04. California Geological Survey (CGS), 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: International Conference of Building Offi- cials. Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J., California Geological Sur- vey (CGS), 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps. County of San Diego, 1973, Topographic Survey (Orthotopographic), Sheet 390-1665, Scale 1" = 2000'. Ensoft, Inc., 2000, LPILE Plus (ver. 4.0): A Program for the Analysis of Piles and Drilled Shafts Under Lateral Loads. International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Uniform Building Code (UBC). International Code Council, Inc. (ICCI), 2003, International Building Code (IBC). Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Division of Mines and Geology, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000. Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2005, Geology of the Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, Scale 1:100,000. Mualchin, L., and Jones, A.L., 1992, Peak Acceleration from Maximum Credible Earthqualces in California: California Division af Mines and Geology, Open File Report 92-1. Mualchin, L., 1996, California Seismic Hazard Detail Index Map (and text): Caltrans. Ninyo & Moore, 2004, Limited Geotechnical Evaluation, Rancho Carlsbad Channel and Basin Project, Carlsbad, California: dated January 7. 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc 19 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges November 30, 2006 Carlsbad, California Project No. 105953001 Norris, R.M., and Webb, R.W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Owen Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., 1985, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and Grad- ing Plan Review, Phase 1 Grading, Kelly Ranch, Carlsbad, California: dated July 19. Tan S.S., and Kennedy M.P., 1996, G�ologic Maps of the ]Vorthwestern Part of San Diego County, California, Plate 1: Geologic Maps of the Oceanside, San Luis Rey and San Mar- cos 7.5' Quadrangles alid Plate 2: Geologic Maps of the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Ge- ology, Open-File Report 96-02. Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthqualce Shaking, Journal of the Geoteclmical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp. 861-878. United States Geological Survey, 1968 (photo-revised 1.975), San Luis Rey Quadrangle, Califor- nia, San Diego County, 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic): Scale 1:24,000. AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Source Date Fli ht No. Photo No. Scale USDA 4-11-53 AXN-8M 101 and 102 1:20.000 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc 20 r@ O � ��' ' . �1P ,- 2�, � ..�' �,':.. . .. �8 � � � , •� �s.i� a � .� �': ��, / �i,y . � � .'i�'�� J b� �� $ . � 1 . ,�� 6�Y � ��l\� �- )� � �� ,�j� �'� �� l � \`�v. /� �Q , , �� ' � o ;' �: . , �.,; o •; �'� �� .: i �,: �f e' '; .. � �,�. �, �y� �, �' . �$ : � _ . ' F,9'I � ,:��' /. � �I �t � � ' . .�� / � } . �' o . .%�� . � . , i A�:. � � . � .. R w- � ��) �� , .�� .. . , �� ..� r�hi�s . . .. .. I y I �� ' . � �: ,n I �� I � : . ,:'' .., i , . ., �... . i. . � i �� ..:; . � �i, I � � �; . �' � �� " M"°� 1"I� v� �. _ I , �o �� `� �A �j % �„ ,. ,`\ � t-'' , , �s w.i.:. � t - � � � � � � ,� .;:,� �,�' ' 'I : � , �� 1„ ; � � � � ' � �� ,$ ! , , �>, , �. " �� .� �, � �� '` "'' ' a w� , � _ a� � � ; � �� i � � � ' �� , > �� a < f �� y� $ � !M : `' ...'�� , � • � � \ . � � ir: �, � a ; ( � �,/ .' ' ' � - ��\/ �`N� r c� YI� p I �. � � . � ,�. N � .�.; �. i � w � ��`� , � m o �� i, � � � ' ; � . � `\ f�' I i I � i @$.��.�� .. . � � I � �� , n.` � �'�, • � w� r" I. I i ', ��.�� /., \ �� ` �� , ro -�. . , � " - �.. iAi ' .�� :i �� .��` � \ .. . �-� �. �fiy � i . . `� �r.. � �, i .I � � � . . t i ., i . . �n ;' � ; � `�� (A �` � i : __ � r . � . � .. � "tg�� `' �\ � : � . „i. � � . \ i i .. �:,\ . ,. 1 i.� . # ' a�x ` �1` ; ai; . � . . - ,;,nr. \ s \ . � ,� ,�s . _ . . � 5 1 1 \ L 1 ' , � ' ` k 1 y \ � `1 �� ` i � IS� 3/�08tl 33S'3NIlHO1VW � r'�'� 1 ` � �1 �� t�j � '� � �� I$ � ' �I ��'j" �;j1i� IA�I,�;: i �. �� !�� Qg� � L.�,,,', .� '(yC§�� . � l `l ii;;'�i�� i . - �. "J,.� ��/.`��5• 1�,^ / /('(,., � mo ' ' m��r�. ��#';. �i \{ �/��i� /� / ` a� �� / �% 's 1 / ti� � ! � . /� / . . � �C.,� � �' ` � � . � t � -.\ ��\. , f t £3i1f1'J1�33S'3NI�H�IVW , . � 'i��l,"; ., 'il�•.,. W.. � . 1 �. , I � . . . I I 1 1, 4 . � �1 �i, � '' I _ .r � s,,, �, W'' .. . ' ' �.. � ; � ,,. �i: : �' . jS I . S i .. �: � � �� j �, � = ' � 7B - � s:l I :�ar' - k�4 i �i f I qi 1 � i � ' pi � ' � � � b w , � � �; �' � �� i � ; �� . �I � j $3 �' i I w, ,, ; '�- i J i W. �' 0 �" Np $ � ,� dl�' i � N i � _ � �� 0 0 0 ¢ N J H O LL O Orn w1O u�io Wo w� Og O� O� OZ �p� Op O� Ow <�LL Q� Q� QO U�� U� c,7 � UW Oal� O� Om OC� W�a W� w� ww Q?O Q� ~Z � iz g? �Z �O X�� XW X� X� �� a �? �� I a0o a� �'o �O �dm� ¢tn °dm °dm 2 N A N� v1 ^ W �'��' � �� J w � � N LL W � n. m 1Q� J G ¢ �'Z Z zo Q U U J Q W O 4� X o cai UJ � 0 Z U V Q � O o � C � d � Z o � U m \ W � ` � N a � � � w �a w LL & J � ¢ F ti �5 Fw- 5 �2 � � aq ¢ � t w a � M W A M � N � OH✓"' � � �D � f _�aa �g�17� . i � � �� I ��I � �� I . N � �� n ; \ � N m 'o' ' I � L�i� ' , �- f „41: li .o � b � �.' N , : � ? �H �. j �O. � q. o �� 9;- � g z �� ( S T ) �. Q Q � f; -' � �:: ` ''� '� �'.. 1". ��- I'� �.: . ''� I � :I . �i . I' I:, � I4 � . 1 i .�', � _. I II : ��' ��' I � ( . �� I �. i� 11 A1 '- �'�'�� , �� ,'�` � � '� ��`�� t � �� , � � , :, , , - , , , �. � ' �� ,�� , ' �� , bG:�� .I,. Ei:... , � .�r R .i_„ �I � � ` � ��_ ,..� �� 2� � � A��. r �� i.. , ".�� i I ,' � � ,�:� i.- I � .� r 4 � � � I C � ` �� . � �. � _ ;�� . � �:� I'. i �.; �i�i �- , �. I � .ttE4 i I', N" , i p „ i '.. (r� j .. 'A,i ._ - �li�.:- �.� � � t�21/1`JI��S, i . " � ��.�.� . 3N��H�lb� �-. , � .� . Z N W (9 O Q m �C �Q c p,' Z O zo F' � U Q J � y ❑ (m J �� X o� W � z 0 z z ¢ U W � � � LL W N 0 z w w J W ��o ❑ z � � o U n w � O o � a � � W W LL O O N W � U y W a o � o X O C a a a 0 � � � LL \` � . `\.��,..�:.��.: � `�� \ � �� 9 �� g ��s. �� l� , , ' ��i ;d ��/�yJ '� � \!� . - /S '... • �b�b \ ,� ��' � ; / i;,�: �� , k; �. ;;' �� i` '�. �.: � � �� .�� i� _� �� ^ � J� . ,�<►°� / � .i�� '►�: `� ;. �'i I . I � ( ``� F�G�R�S �,��.� �� MPS�H1,\N�'S�� ` `r � � � ' � � ,�:� �� s" � ; �� , ` '1' ��. �,�� . � �; � ' : ; �� `�' � ` .� � �� .. . � . . ``i �� ` S . � , �\ �,�� . � � � ` `.p'�� a �'�-� �� , � � � � `, � � : . �� i� ` � � '�j �� ;� � , , �� a� �, ��:'` � . ' - ��. � � 1� � �'.�.... ` �.. �� `` � ,' �� ', � � � , , c �, }, << � � � , r: � �c r ` 1 �` ��J 1_ ' , , ��'�. � � ; ; f �y `��, ; ; � � i� , , � ; I ' �, .. � � I �� { 1 � � � :-', , i r i i �. . �.� ' � � �� I . � � 1- ' . � I 1�,.��. -_ � � i� . � .i.:j; � ; .. .. . � i ii ,., i � �� • i � �I Fi ��i, i ��i �, �k ; -- i �� -i i { .; .-.- i ' ' I i �...! ,�, � <, i �'�I � � ' ; j i ) ,� i�Sl ..; / I � � . �. �� i :,�� C �;�9 rt� .. �� W � 'r I % �� I � � � 1 : Y� . �@�.-�� ,; � � , � � �q g , � ,�, - � .7K I i -� . � I 1 A:' �... i' , \ / � (, p l � 1,, iJ \\ y� /_ , �, ; �� f � �'', . .- ' ] �S� � /� ' .� � i� e k�3i � �- ��,- � � ' �€9 ," ' ,t/ x % j' , ,� r. ...... . �/ y -;� , % �r' �� OBb ��.� �/ _ �' ' d�s �� 4 _ R��lI� . ] ��.'... ��/,yJ1' � j &� � � . �h' ' ,. "�E4:'.' �." :'. �� N a � LL N Z � � LL y W C� G a m a Q � �Z z Zo O Q� � UU WD O Om ¢� W �� 0 z U ¢ � 0 z .- � � W m b o a � W LL 0 N � � � i y i � ' ¢ o ' O ! a °d � �, �, : i ,� �$� i i �'._�8� � � ,� � � V ' r , j � ,, � ,, � � � , � �3�k'> � , � I �� i ��. 1 � �t 1 ; _ . .. - . I I I 1' '�1 1, - � - '': � I 'I . . . 1 � j.:' ',I. .I � �� . . i I. . I �' 1� � �1' , i ' `� � . . 1 I I i 1 . I � � �<� � � ,; , � �,.5�� I> � � ,, n ��:i i � � i n., ��a: , �.-_� ii-�. _ � �'ri . �. i. � i S . f; � . � j �. � -_ . ..'.; -, i �.1 : � j�l. i i'; - :� i'. . 'I .. � �� ; . 1 �' .I .:i ..�� 1. . .. .' i I : �'."' . ' : 1..�� I1� . i 1' t 1 Y ; ' -`_ �I �t d �'� � i y'�'lR �.�I : i P . . � � i ; _; � . -+ i ,, �., i 1, ; r . 'i � i:: i � ... �, � - i _, . �.�� ,: i .- . . ... . � � „ ''i' :. i i ': � , � '. 1 ' I . . I ��i , � ., � �� I � i I 1-.=. I . �. . ..11 d I, I i -. ' . . 4 3Lif1'Jld 33S '3NIlH�1VW � 1 i i � �� F 11 I ' �a ,: . . �� r �� ' , , , , , � , , �� ,: , ,�. �, � � ,�, � � �� - i �� ^ '� � _� `: � \ � ( �� _ `� �� , ��.#„' 5��, . .� 4� � . � ' � �D � ' ' � . �� . .. • Y' .. .. . i. , , /��_: ' � � ... � /{/� : /:.�/ 1 . -- � � �. � ei Y:/ �pPA a . / i j: r ., , .�� .,%r � � . � �i � � `i i� � � ./ // . / f � / -.:�/ � �/� ' .. / / / � � - . . . . ,... i.:. � - ��r,� �r r 3A08V 33S '3N11H�1WV O� Q U �J �� g� <; ��' ��'�.� � �. � �� rc � � LL N C � � � LL W K � � LL N W � O a m a �a � �z z Zo O Q� F� U U wo O � N J o '' X o� W � � a � o � 0 Zo �m W� 00 a � g e F W LL 0 N U w � o 0 0 a ¢ 0 r -. .. . �f � � � .� , �� , ; �.� '``� ' 1 L... i,,, �.,,,� , � 1 x�,r,r ra._ _ _ _ �..1 . ._._.-� , � � �--�--�--- �' � , � � '4� s�,r sFa�rs�ea�xa ro. /v�'r'' ,� � \ ;AN JEtNAxD/MO CD;J�`" R/YfRS1Df l0. ....—.----r-� �9 sAn► c� xscAu� � m � Afler Nortis and Webb, 1990. m � /�/iayo&/�j►oore � 0 PROJECT NO. DATE 105953001 11/06 �SITE� .; �.ti ♦ 1 ` �' � � � �' �''�� \ �S/Df C0. � _ IAflFRlA1 C0. t �� '1 � ` � � , .�, c,dv,�,�� I � ��*�' ��1 r. � c \-`Or FAULT LOCATION MAP \ CANNON ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL BRIDGES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA � � �, rr,r r FIGURE ��l� APPROXIMATE SCALE 0 30 60 MILES MID-SLOPE SUBDRAIN (FOR SLOPES HIGHER THAN 30 FEE'n 1 � 12 INCHES � / �� 4 FEET OR MORE FEET OR MORE NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE FAILURE SURFACE—� � 2% 20� KEY �.� SUBD SUBDRAIN DETAIL � � w u � � t c u a 0 0 M N 01 � PERFORATED PIPE, 4 INCHES OR LARGER SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR EQUAL WI'I'H CRUSH STRENGTH OF 1000 PSI OR MORE INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN. FILTER MATERIAL (3 CUBIC FEET PER LINEAR FOOT, SEE DETAIL) T-CONNECTION (SEE DETAIL) � - � - 12 INCHES OR MORE :,Y � �� _ . ' OUTLET PIPE 4 INCHES OR MORE 2%� OR� � BENCH INTO BEDROCK OR COMPE'fENT MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BENCH INCLINED SLIGHTLY INTO SLOPE FILTER MATERIAL FILTER MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL PER STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. SIEVE SIZE PERCENT PASSING 1 INCH 100 3/4 INCH 90-100 3/8 INCH 40-100 No. 4 25-40 No. 8 18-33 No. 30 5-15 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 NOTE: AS AN ALTERNATIVE, THE FILTER MATERIAL MAY CONSIST OF 3/4-INCH OPEN-GRADED GRAVEL WRAPPED IN AN APPROVED GEOFABRIC. /�/�n�/o�/�oore PROJEGT NO. DATE 105953001 11/06 T-CONNEC"fION DETAIL PERFORATED PIPE SLOPED AT 1% OR MORE TOWARD OUTLET PIPE 10 FEET OR MORE EACH SIDE CAP I NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE — BENCHING DETAILS CANNON ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL BRIDGES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE 7 Acceleration Response Spectrum for Soil at 5 percent Dampinq Site: Cannon Road and EI Camino Real Bridges Location: Carlsbad, California Project No.: 105953001 Soil Type: D Site Latitude: 33.150 Site Longitude: 117.298 Design Cfltefia: Seismic Design Criteria, Caltrans, June 2006, Version 1.4 PBA: 0.40 g Magnitude Group: 7.25±0.25 Period Spectral Acceleration Period Spectral Acceleration (Second) (g) (Second) (g) 0.010 0.4402 0.240 1.1204 0.020 0.4402 0.300 1.1292 0.030 0.4402 0.400 1.0982 0.050 0.4402 0.500 1.0257 0.075 0.6049 0.750 0.8296 0.100 0.7475 1.000 0.6601 0.120 0.8445 1.500 0.4039 0.150 1.0030 2.000 0.2621 0.170 1.0397 3.000 0.1368 0.200 1.0869 4.000 0.0843 SPECTRAL ACCELERATION VS. PERIOD (5% DAMPING) 1.2 1.0 ,,. � 0.8 � � � 0.6 L � V Q„ 0.4 � 0.2 �� , /'/i�r�o�/�oore PROJECT NO. DATE 105953001 11/06 2.0 2.5 3.0 Period (s) CALTRANS ARS CURVE CANNON ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL BRIDGES CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 3.5 4.0 FIGURE 8 705953001 Spectrum.xls Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California APPENDIX A BORING LOGS November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samules Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method. Bulk Samples Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing. Field Procedure for the Collection of Relativelv Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method. The Split-Barrel Knocker Bar Sampler The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameter of approximately 2.4 inches. The sampler was manually driven into the ground with a hammer weighing approximately 35 pounds. The samples were re- moved from the sampler barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc � � H a � ,a��i � O � � �� W Y C � � .> m � w � � � 0 � �` z a O _' Q cn � m U CJ � o � �_ � g 0 BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET Modified split-barrel driv� sampler. No recovery with modified split-ba�rel drive sampler. Sample retained by others. Standard Penetration Test (SPT). 5 No recovery with a SPT. XX/XX Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in rnches. No recovery with Shelby tube sampler. Continuous Push Sample. lo � � s Seepage. Groundwater encountered during drilling. Groundwater measured after dr-illing. SM ALLUVIUM: Solyd line denotes unit change. -- ----------r ----------------------- Dashed I ine denotes material change. 15 Attitudes: Strike/Dip b: Bedding c: Contact j: Joint f: Fractur. F: Pault cs: Clay Seam s: Shear bss: Basal Slide Surface sf: Shear Fracture sz: Shear Zone sbs: Sheared Bedding Surface The total depth lme is a solid line that is borrng. ,� BORING LOG �� '� EXPLANATION OF BORING LOG SYMBOLS .�� PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE Rev. O 1/03 U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOtL CLASSIFICATION MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES ' ,_. GW Well graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, ��,, !`;.:,ii ; little or no fines GRAVELS ••.'� Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand � � •• GP �� (More than 1/2 of coarse .; •• mixtures, little or no fines �'o N fraction GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures q o'�, > No. 4 sieve size) W � - �� GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures .� �� o �� Well graded sands or gravelly sands, little or W� N �� S W no fin e s 0 Q� Z SANDS �iI�, fi� SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or O (More than 1/2 of coarse `��h, �;:-; no fines �.i�.,l�'t1i:: �::,:::_:,: � .� ...... y , fraction SM Silt sands sand-silt mixtures �No. 4 sieve size) ::/ SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, � silt or cla e fine sands or cla e silts with ��o ,-, SILTS & CLAYS / CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, � o.� Liquid Limit <50 ravell cla s, sand cla s, silt cla s, lean q�„ � �L Organic silts and organic silty clays of law � � ��, lasticit r� �� MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous � fine sand or silt soils, elastic silts z � Z SILTS & CLAYS �, Liquid Limit >50 CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH Organic clays of inedium to high plasticity, or anic silt cla s, or anic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils GRAIN SIZE CHART RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE CLASSIFICATION L1.S. StandarJ Grain Sizc in Sieve Size Millimeters BOULDERS Above 12" Above 305 COBBLES 12° to 3" 305 to 762 GRAVEL 3" to No. 4 76.2 to 4.76 Coarse 3" to 3/4" 76.2 to 19.1 Fine 3/4" to No. 4 19.1 to 4.76 SAND No. 4 to No. 200 4.76 to 0.075 Coarse No. 4 to No. 10 4.76 to 2.00 Medium No. l0 to No. 40 2.00 to 0.420 Fine No. 40 to No. 200 0.420 to 0.075 SILT & CLAY Below No. 200 Below 0.075 '►�� ' PLASTICITY CHART 60 � � a � 40 � 30 � 20 � a ,,, ..■... �... .....�..., ....�.�... ..■�..,... . ��.,.�. . �........ I��■■■■■ �� i U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION USCS Soil Clnssification Updated Nov. 2004 � � DATE DRILLED ]0/03/06 BORING NO. B-1 ' GROUND ELEVATION 38'± MSL SHEET 1 OF ] � � 0 v a o � � v o w � p Qvi � a � � W g �� METHOD OF DRILLING Manual o>> m � } � J= DRIVE WEIGHT DROP mp � U � SAMPLED BY MAH/TQ LOGGED BY MAH REVIEWED BY RDH DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION � SC ALLUVIUM: Brown, moist to wet, medium dense, clayey SAND. Total Depth = 2.6 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Backfilled shortly after drilling on 10/03/06. 5 10 15 �� 0� oore BORING LOG � Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 105953001 ll /06 A-1 � � � DATE DRILLED l0/03/06 BORING NO. B-2 �, � p � °�-- � GROUND ELEVATION 38'±(MSL) SHEET 1 OF 1 v o w � o avi � c?> > Z � LL� METHOD OF DRILLING Hand Auger a o m.> m � } � ¢= DRIVE WEIGHT DROP p � U � SAMPLED BY MAH/TQ LOGGED BY MAH REVIEWED BY RDH DESCRIPTION/IN'f ERPRETA'I'ION � SP ALLUVIUM: Dark brown, wet, medium dense, fine to coarse SAND. � - Saturated. Total Depth = 2.6 feet. Groundwater encountered during drilling at approximately 1.5 feet. Backfilled shortly after drilling on 10/03/06. 5 10 is � BORING LOG ,��0 � oore Cannon Road and EI Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 105953001 I1/06 A-2 � � DA"fE DRILLED 12/12/03 BORING NO. B-1 � a p � a J � GROUND ELEVATION 52'±(MSL) SHEET 1 OF t v � � � p Utn � cn � Z � �� METHOD OF DRILLING 8"DiameterHollowStemAuger(Tri-CountyDrilling) c � } � o�,> � 0 � � � DRIVE WEIGHT 1401b. Spooling Cable DROP 30" m� m � � U � SAMPLED BY EP LOGGED BY EP REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION SC FILL: Dark gray to dark brown, moist, loose, clayey, fine to medium SAND; some gravel and cobbles; abundant rootlets. 18 15.0 114.5 18 10.8 Decrease in clay content. CL ALLLTVIUM: 10 Brown, moist, very stiff, fvne sandy CLAY; scattered white streaks. 34 18.1 114.9 � — Saturated. gM Brown, light brown, and light gray, saturated, medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND; few gravel; scattered iron oxide staining. 29 20 54 Fine-grained. Total Depth = 21.5 feet. Groundwater encountered during drilling at approximately 12 feet. Backfilled with bentonite gzout on 12/12/03. 30 BORING LOG �� O oor e �NCHO CARLSBAD CHANNEL AND BASIN PROJECT � � CARLSBAD, CALiFORN1A PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 105132001 O1/04 A-1 � � DATE DRILLED 12/12/03 BORING NO. B-2 � „ � z �, � p � a � GROUND ELEVA"I�ION 45'±(MSL) SHEET 1 OF 1 � O w � p ¢vi LL aY� o � Q � � j METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Tri-County Drilling) o m Q m � � U DRIVE WEIGHT 1401b. SpoolingCable DROP 30" � SAMPLED BY EP LOGGED BY EP REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION SC FILL: Dark brown to light brown, moist, loose, clayey, fine SAND; abundant rootlets. 19 26.9 94.4 SM+ML ALLUVIUM: 38 13.2 109.0 Light yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND interlayered with gray, moist, medium dense, fine sandy SILT with iron oxide staixving. 10 4 Loose. � — Saturated. ML Gray and brown (mottled), saturated, loose, fine sandy SILT•, abundant rootlets. ' 5 20 11 Medium dense; increase in sand content. Total Depth = 21.5 feet. Groundwater encountered during drilling at approximately 12 feet. Backfilled with bentonite grout on l2/12/03. 30 �� O OO�� BORING LOG � D RANCHO CARLSBAD CFIANNEL AND BASIN PROJECT OL CARLSBAD, CALIFORMA Pf20JECT NO. DATE FIGURE 105132001 O1/04 A-2 QWEN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, 1NC. OWEN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. OWEN GEOTECHN/CAL CONSULTANTS, INC. OWEN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. 1 1 � 1 OWEN GEOTECHNICAL CQNSULTANTS, INC. OWEN GEOTECHNfCAL CONSULTANTS, INC. _� : i ; ;` OWEN GEOTECHNlCAL CONSULTANTS, INC. " b OWEN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. :; i , T _I : n 'S ; 1 � : � �I :'" t � l I .r ) � 1 � b , ;QWEN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. i 1 OWEN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. ��. ; 1 � �, i �. 1 .I r : Y � F � :� ; T, :, ; _�, i ; 1 J I� i' OWEN GEQTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS, INC. Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488-00. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A. Gradation Analysis Gradation analysis testing was performed on selected representative soil samples in general ac- cordance with ASTM D 422-63 (02). The grain-size distribution curves are shown on Figures B- 1 through B-6. These test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the USCS. Atterber� Limits Tests were performed on a selected representative fine-grained soil sample to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318-05. The test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the USCS. The test re- sults and classifications are shown on Figure B-7. Direct Shear Test A direct shear test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample in general accordance with ASTM D 3080-04 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of the selected material. The sam- ple was inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The test results are shown on Figure B-8. Soil Corrosivity Tests Soil pH and minimum resistivity tests were performed on a representative sample in general ac- cordance with California Test (CT) 643. The chloride content of the selected sample was evaluated in general accordance with CT 422. The sulfate content of the selected sample was evaluated in general accordance with CT 417. The test results are presented on Figure B-9. 105953001 R Geo Eval.doc GRAVEL SAND FINES Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY �•-� r-• � � � �� ;; Ilqlll�pl��llll�i�lllllllll�l�llqllll��lllllll��lllllll� :,, Ilqlll�al�qllll�l�ii��l.11ll�l�llqllll�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII� „ Iiqlll�al�qllll�l��lllir�ll�i�liqllll��lllllll��llillll� .,, Ilalll�al�allll�l��lllllll��l�llallll��lllllll��lllllll� � „ Ilalll�al�allll�l��llllllll111�llallll�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�� . , , Ilblll�bi�bllll�l��llllllll�►i�llbllll��llllill��lllllli�� , „ Ildlll�dl�dllll�l�■11111111�6illdllll��lllllll��lllllll�� ., IlNlll��l�dllll�l�■IIIIIIII�B'Idllll�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�� „ Ilaili�a�Bllll�l��lilllll�alldllli��lllllll��lllllll�� „ IINIII�AI�NIIII�I��1111111111�IIRII11��1111111��1111111�� 100 10 1 0.1 �:7•��►F��►� ��1��ar�:� 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Sample Depth Liquid Plastic Plasticity Passing Symbol Location (ft) Limit Limit Index �'o �ao �so C� C� No.200 U.S.C.S (%) • S-1 0.0-0.5 -- — -- — — -- -- -- 19 SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63 (02) /�/ieyo&/�oore PROJECT NO. DATE 105953001 11/06 105953001 SIEVE- S-1 @ 0.0-0.5.ds GRADATION TEST RESULTS Cannon Road and EI Camino Real Bridges Carisbad, Califomia FIGURE B-1 GRAVEL SAND FINES Coa�se Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY �•-� �-• � � r �� ;; Ilqlll�ql�pllli�ii��lll�l�llqllll��lllllll�■IIIIIII� :,, Ilqlll�ql�qllll�l��llllllll�l�llqllll��lllllll��lllllll� , , Ilalll�al�qllll�l��lllllll��l�llallll��lllllll��lllllll� .,, Ilalll�al�allll�l��lllllllllll�llallll��lllllll��lllllll�� : „ Ilalll�al�allll�l�■illlllll�l�ll�llll��lllllll�■IIIIIII� . , , Ilblll�bf�bllll�l��illlllll�l�llbllll��lllllll��llllill� , „ Ildlll�dl�dllll�l��11111111�11�11�1111��lllllllO�lllllll�� „ Ildlll�dl�dllll�l�■IIIIIIII�I�i�Nllll��lllllll�■IIIIIII�� ., iiaiii�a��iiii��ii�iii��aiiaiii��iiiiii��iiiiii�� ., iifliii�A�Niiii��iiiiii��iiAiii��iiiiii��i�iiii�� 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Sample Depth Liquid Plastic Plasticity Passing Symbol Location (ft) Limit Limit Index �'o �30 �eo C� C� No.200 U.S.C.S (%) • S-2 0.0-0.5 — -- -- -- -- — -- — 21 SM PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63 (02) /�/inyo�/�oore PROJECT NO. DATE 105953001 11/06 105953001 SIEVE- S-2 � 0.0-O.S.�ds GRADATION TEST RESULTS Cannon Road and EI Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, Califomia FIGURE B �� GRAVEL SAND FINES Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY �� • � � � �� ;; Ilqlll�pl�qllll��llllllll�l�llqllll�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII� :,, Ilqlll�ql�qllll�li►�Illlllll�l�llqllll��lllllll��lllllll� „ Ilqlll�al■qllll�l�\alllllll�l�llqllll�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ ., , Ilalll�al�allll�l��lllllll�l�llallll�■IIIIIII��IIIIIII� .� „ Ilalll�al�allll�l��1►111111�1�llallll�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ . , , Ilblll�bl�bllll�l��llllllll�l�llallll��lllllll��lllllll� . „ IIdII1�dI�dIIII�I��IIII��I1�1�IIBlll1�■IIIIIII��IIIIIII�■ � „ IINIII�dI�NIIII�1��11111111�1�IINll11�■IIIIIII��IIIIIII�■ „ IIBIII�B�91111�1��111111�laIlBllll�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII�■ „ IIRIII�AI■NIIII�1��11111111� :��IIII�■IIIIIII��IIIIIII�� 100 70 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Sample Depth Liquid Plastic Plasticity Passing Symbol Location (ft) Limit Limit Index �'o pao �so �� No.200 U.S.C.S (%) • S-4 0.0-0.5 -- -- -- 0.27 0.60 1.00 3.7 1.3 4 SP PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63 (02) /�/ieyo�/hoore PROJECT NO. DATE 105953001 11 /06 105953001 SIEVE- S-4 Q 0.0-0.5.ffi GRADAI'ION TEST RESULTS Cannon Road and EI Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, Califomia FIGURE B-3 GRAVEL SAND FINES Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY ,�.o 900 80.0 _ �o.o � w � so.o } m w 50.0 z � �- 40.0 Z W U Q' 30.0 W a 20.0 io.o � � � �� Ilqlll�pl�qllll��lllllllll�l�llqllll��lllllll��lllllll�� Ilqlll�ql�qllll�l�i�llll Ill�l�llqllll�■IIIIIII��IIIIIII� Ilqlll�af�qllll�l��lll��ll�l�llqllll��lllllll��lllllll� Ilalll�al�allll�l��llllll�l�l�llallll�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII� Ilalll�bf�allll�l��llllllliil�llallll��lllllll��lllllll�� Ilblll�al�bllll�l��llllllll� yllbllllo■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII� ��d��d�dII��1�llu��1� II�III��YIIII�1,�IIII II1,�II�II11,■IIIIIIt,■I�III11,■ II�I�I��IIIIII�1,�IIIIIl1,�ll�ll'1,■IIIII11,■IIIIIIt,■ „ IIRIII�NI�NIIII�I��IIIIIIII�I�IIRIIII��IIIIIII��IIIIIII�� 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Sample Depth Liquid Plastic Plasticity Passing Symbol Location (ft) Limit Limit Index �i° �3° �6° C° C° No.200 U.S.C.S (%) • S-5 0.0-0.5 -- -- -- — -- — -- -- 33 SC PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH AS'fM D 422-63 (02) /�/inyo�/�►oore PROJECT NO. DATE 105953001 11/06 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS ITYDROMETER GRADATION TEST RESULTS Cannon Road and EI Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, CaliEomia FIGURE : � 105953001 SIEVE-S-S Q 0.0-0.5.� GR,4VEL SAND FINES Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY ,00.o 90.0 800 s �o.o � W � so.o r m W 50.0 Z � �— 40.0 W U � 30.0 W a 20.0 ,o.o � � � �� Ilqlll�ql�pllll��llllllll�l�llqllll�■IIIIIII�■IIIIIII� Ilqlll�qf�qllll�liillllllll�l�llqllll��lllllll��lllllll�� Ilqlll�al�qllll�1�1111111111�1�llqllll��lllllll��lllllll�� Ilalll�al�allll�l�l,'llllllll�l�llallll��lllllll��lllllll�� Ilalll�al�allll�l��lllll Ill�l�llallll��lllllll�■IIIIIII� IINIII��MIIII�1,�III�II1,�IIXII11,■IIIII11,■IIII'11, IIdII1�dI�Nllll�l��llllllll�l�lldllll��lllllll��lllllll� II�III��YIII��1,�IIIIII1,�IIYII11,■IIIII11,■IIIIII1,■ 118111�a�9111I�1��1111III►811BI II I��I I Iiill��lllllll�� „ IIRIII�AI�NIIII�I��11111111�i��Qllll��lllllll��lllllll�� 10 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.001 0.0001 Sample Depth Liquid Plastic Plasticity Passing Symbol Location (ft) Limit Limit Index ��o �ao �eo C� C� No.200 U.S.C.S (%) • B-2 0.0-2.5 -- — — 0.18 0.43 1.05 5.8 1.0 4 SP PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63 (02) /`/inyo�/v►oore PROJECT NO. DATE 105953001 11/06 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS ITYDROMETER GRADATION TEST RESULTS Cannon Road and EI Camino Real Bridges Carisbad, Califomia FIGURE B-5 105953001 SIEVE- e-2 @ 0.0-2.5.ffi GRAVEL SAND FINES Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine SILT CLAY ,000 90. � 800 _ �oo � W 3 so.o � m W 50.0 Z LL I— 40.0 Z W U W 30.0 a zo.o ,00 � � � �� Ilqlll�al�qllll�l��lllllll�l�llqllll�■IIIIIII��IIIIIII�■ Ilqlll�al�qllll�ll �Illlllll�l�llqllll��lllllll��lllllll� Ilalll�al�allll�l�1�llllllll�l�llallll�■IIIIIII��IIIIIII� Ilalll�al�allll�l�l�lllllll�l�llallll�■IIIIIII��IIIIIII�� I��u��u��t,��t,��u��t,��t,��t, IIYIII��YIIII�1,�IIIIII',�IIYII11,■IIIIIIt,■IIIII11,■ IIBIII�dI�NIIII�I��III�IIII�I�IIBll11�■IIIIIII�OIIIIIII�■ IINIII�NI�NIIII�I��1111ii11�1�IINll1l��lllllll��lllllll�� 'IIBIII�B�81111�1��llll III�aIIBllll��lllllll��lllllll�■ ., IIflII1�Nl■RIIII�1��11111111�!!!!�IIII��IIIIIII��IIIIIII�� , ,o , o, GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS o.o, o oo, o 000, Sample Depth Liquid Plastic Plasticity Passing Symbol Location ��o �30 �so C� Co No.200 U.S.C.S (ft) Limit Limit Index (%) • S-6 0.0-0.5 -- — -- 0.35 0.68 1.20 3.4 1.1 2 SP PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63 (02) /�/inyo&/hoore PROJECT NO. DATE 105953001 11 /06 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS ITYDROMETER GRADAI'ION "fEST RESULTS Cannon Road and EI Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, Califomia FIGURE . • 105953007 SIEVE- S-6 Q 0.0�0.5.ds USCS SYMBOL LOCATION DEPTH LIQUID PLAS"fIC PLASTICITY CLASSIFICATION USCS (FT) LIMIT, LL LIMIT, PL INDEX, PI (Fraction Finer Than (Entire Sample) No. 40 Sieve) • S-3 0.0-0.5 42 19 23 CL CL 60 50 a W 40 0 z � 30 U H � � 2O a 10 0 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318-05 /'/�i��o &/v►oore PROJECT NO. DATE 105953001 11/06 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS Cannon Road and EI Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California FIGURE B-7 705953001 AT7ERBERG- S3 (aj 0.0-O.Sxls 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT, LL 1000 �. � � a v � � w � H � � d w T � 500 � � 500 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) 1000 Description Symbol Sample Depth Shear Cohesion, c Friction Angle, � Soil Type Location (ft) Strength (ps� (degrees) Clayey SAND ---�— B-1 2.0-2.5 Peak 190 34 SC Clayey SAIVD — X— B-1 2.0-2.5 Ultimate 150 34 SC PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 3080-04 /�/�i�yo�/r►oore PROJECT NO. I DATE 105953001 � 11/06 105953001 DIRECT SHEAR-B-7 Qa 2.0.2.5.x1s DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Cannon Road and EL Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California FIGURE . . � • 105953001 CORROSIVITV- S-7 (d1 0.0.0.S.xls 100 90 8� r 70 _ � 3 ao m W 50 Z LL � 40 w � a 30 20 ,o GRAVEL SAND FINES Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS ITYDROMETER 3' 1-1/2' 1' 3/4' 1/2' 3/8' 4 8 16 30 50 100 200 IINIIIIIIII�INIIIINIii��!I�IIII■1■IINIIII■�IIIIIII■■IIIIIII■ IIqII1�111�IqIII1�111�11111�i��1�IIp1111��lllllll��lllllll�■ ii�ii��u�diiii��d�iiiiii�►uiidiii�■�iiiiii�■■iiiiii��■ IIHIIIIINf�INIIIIfI1N�11111�11��IINll11�lIIIIIII��IIIIIII� Il�lll�lll�lqllll�lll�lllll�ll�l��lpllll■�IIIIIII�■IIIIIII■ ii�ii��u�aiiii��d�iiiiii��nii�iii��iiiii��iiiii�� II�II'��IIIIII�1��IIII�11,�III III11,■IIIII11,■IIIII11, IIAlI1�I11�1A1111�111�11111�11�1■IlAllll��lllllll�■Iilllll�� Ilalll�lll�lallll�lll�11111�11■1■Ilallll■�IIIIIII��IIIIIII�■ , IIHIIIIIIII�INIIIININ�IIIII�11■1■IIIIIIII��IIIIIII��IIIIIII�� 10 0 0, o.00, o 000, i 1 0.1 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMEfERS Depth Liquid Plastic Plasticity Passing Symbol Hole No. �ft) Limit Limit Index p'o �ao �ao C� Co No. 200 U.S.C.S (%) � B-1 0-5.0 -- -- -- -- — 48 SC PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63 • in�o& oore GRADAI'ION TEST RESULTS Rancho Carlsbad Channel and Basin Project Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 105132001 1/04 B-1 705132001 Gadation SVB1Q0-5.0.#s 4000 3000 � � a � � w � 2000 � � Q w x � 1000 NOF2MAL STRESS (PSF) Description Symbol Boring Depth Shear Cohesion Friction Angle Soil Type Number (ft) Strength (psfl (deg) Sandy CLAY �— B-1 10.0-11.5 Peak 190 33 CL • in�o� oore SHEAR STRENGTH TEST RESULTS Rancho Carlsbad Channel and Basin Project Carlsbad, California PR0.IECT NO. DATE FIGURE 105132001 1/04 B-2 105132001 Shear Strength DSB1 @t 0.0-1 t.5.xls 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 2000 1600 � a 1200 � � w � � � � W 800 x � 400 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Description Symbol Boring Depth Shear Cohesion Friction Angle Soil Type Number (ft) Strength (psfl (deg) Clayey SA�ID �--�— B-2 2.0-3.5 Peak 230 28 SC • in�o� oore SHEAR STRENGTH TEST RESULTS Rancho Carlsbad Channel and Basin Project Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO. DATE FIGIIRE 105132001 1 /04 B-3 105732001 Shear Strenglh DSB2Q23.S.xls 0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California APPENDIX C TYPICAL EARTHWORK GUIDELINES November 30, 2Q06 Project No. 105953001 105953001 Earthwork.doc Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California TABLE OF CONTENTS November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 Pa�e 1. GENERAL ................................................................................................................................1 2. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES ................................................................................................2 3. SITE PREPARATION .............................................................................................................3 4. REMOVALS AND EXCAVATIONS .....................................................................................4 5. COMPACTED FILL ................................................................................................................5 6. OVERSIZED MATERIAL ......................................................................................................7 7. SLOPES ....................................................................................................................................8 8. TRENCH BACKFILL ............................................................................................................11 9. DRAINAGE ...........................................................................................................................13 10. SITE PROTECTION ..............................................................................................................14 11. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ...................................................................................................16 Fi ures Figure A— Fill Slope Over Natural Ground or Cut Figure B— Transition and Undercut Lot Details Figure C— Canyon Subdrain Detail Figure D— Oversized Rock Placement Detail Figure E— Slope Drainage Detail Figure F— Shear Key Detail Figure G — Drain Detail 105953001 Earthwork.doc i Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Caxlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 TYPICAL EARTHWORK GUIDELINES 1. GENERAL These guidelines and the standard details attached hereto are presented as general procedures for earthwork construction. They are to be utilized in conjunction with the project grading plans. These guidelines are considered a part of the geotechnical report, but are superseded by recom- mendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could super- sede these specifications and/or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It is the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these guidelines as well as the geotechni- cal report and project grading plans. l.l. The contractor shall not vaxy from these guidelines without prior recommendations by the geotechnical consul �ant and the approval of the client or the client's author- ized representative. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant and/or client shall not be considered to preclude requirements for approval by the jurisdictional agency prior to the execution of any changes. 1.2. The contractor shall perform the grading operations in accordance with these speci- fications, and shall be responsible for the quality of the finished product notwithstanding the fact that grading work will be observed and tested by the geo- tecluiical consultant. 1.3. It is the responsibility of the grading co�-�tractor to notify the geotechnical consult- ant and the jurisdictional agencies, as needed, prior to the start of work at the site and at any time that grading resumes after interruption. Each step of the grading operations shall be observed and documented by the geotechnical consultant and, where necessary, reviewed by the appropriate jurisdictional agency prior to pro- ceeding with subsequent work. 1.4. If, during the grading operations, geotechnical conditions axe encountered which were not anticipated or described in the geotechnical report, the geotechnical con- sultant shall be notified immediately and additional recommendations, if applicable, may be providc d. 1.5. An as-graded report shall be prepared by the geotechnical consultant and signed by a registered engineer and registered engineering geologist. The report documents the geotechnical consultants' observations, and field and laboratory test results, and 105953001 Earthwork.doc 1 Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 provides conclusions regarding whether or not earthwork construction was per- formed in accordance with the geotec�inical recommendations and the grading plans. Recommendations for foundation design, pavement design, subgrade treat- ment, etc., may also be included in the as-graded report. 1.6. For the purpose of evaluating quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or locating the limits of excavations, a licensed land surveyor or civil engineer shall be retained. 1.7. Definitions of terms utilized in the remainder of these specifications have been provided in Section 11. 2. OBLIGATIONS OF PARTIES The parties involved in the projects earthwork activities shall be responsible as outlined in the following sections. 2.1. The client is ultimately responsible for the aspects of the project. The client or the client's authorized representative has a responsibility to review the findings and recommendations of the geotechnical co:�sultant. The client shall authorize the con- tractor and/or other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the client or the client's authorized representative shall remain on site or remain reasonably accessible to the concerned parties to make the decisions that may be needed to maintain the flow of the project. 2.2. The contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory comple- tion of grading and other associated operations, including, but not limited to, earthwork in accordance with the project plans, specifications, and jurisdictional agency requirements. During grading, the contractor or the contractor's authorized representative shall remaiii on site. The contractor shall further remain accessible during non-working hours tiines, including at night and during days off. 2.3. The geoteclu�ical consultant shall provide observation and testing services and shall make evaluations to advise the client on geotechnical matters. The geotechnical consultant shall report findings and recommendations to the client or the client's authorized representative. 2.4. Prior to proceeding with any grading operations, the geotechnical consultant shall be notified two working days in advance to schedule the needed observation and testing services. i05953001 Eanhwork.doc 2 Rev. 12I05 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges November 30, 2006 Carlsbad, California Project No. 105953001 2.4.1. Prior to any significant expansion or reduction in the grading operation, the geotechnical consultant shall be provided with two working days notice to make appropriate adjustments in scheduling of on-site personnel. 2.4.2. Between phases of grading operations, the geotechnical consultant shall be provided with two worlcing days notice in advance of commencement of ad- ditional grading operations. 3. SITE PREPARATION Site preparation shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the following sections. 3.1. The client, prior to any site prepaxation or grading, shall arrange and attend a pre-grading meeting between the grading contractor, the design engineer, the geo- technical consultant, and representatives of appropriate governing authorities, as well as any other involved parties. The parties shall be given two working days no- tice. 3.2. Clearing and grubbing shall consist of the substantial removal of vegetation, brush, grass, wood, stumps, trees, tree roots greater than 1/2-inch in diameter, and other deleterious materials from the axeas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing shall ex- tend to the outside of the proposed excavation and fill areas. 3.3. Demolition in the areas to be graded shall include removal of building structures, foun- dations, reservoirs, u.tilities (including underground pipelines, septic tanlcs, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, etc.), and other manmade surface and subsurface improvements, and the backfilling of mining shafts, tunnels and surface depressions. Demolition of utilities shall include capping or rerouting of pipelines at the project perimeter, and abandonment of wells in accordance with the requirements of the goveming authorities and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of demolition. 3.4. The debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations shall be removed from areas to be graded and disposed of off site at a legal dump site. Clearing, grubbing, and demolition operations shall be performed under the obser- vation of the geotechnical consultant. 3.5. The ground surface beneath proposed fill areas shall be stripped of loose or unsuit- able soil. These soils may be used as compacted fill provided they are generally free of organic or other deleterious materials and evaluated for use by the geotech- nical consultant. The resulting surface shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to proceeding. The cleared, natural ground surface shall be scari- 105953001 Earthwork.doc � Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 fied to a depth of approximately 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the specifications presented in Section 5 of these guidelines. 3.6. Where fills are to be constructed on hillsides or slopes, topsoil, slope wash, collu- vium, and other materials deemed unsuitable shall be removed. Where the exposed slope is steeper than 5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit, or where recommended by the geotechnical consultant, the slope of the original ground on which the fill is to be placed shall be benched and a key as shown on Figure A of this document shall be provided by the contractor in accordance with the specifications presented in Section 7 of this document. The benches shall extend into the underlying bedrocic or, where bedrock is not present, into suitable compacted fill as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. 4. REMOVALS AND EXCAVATIONS Removals and excavations shall be performed as recommended in the following sections. � 4.2. Removals 4.1.1. Materials which are considered unsuitable shall be excavated under the ob- servation of the geotechnical consultant in accordance with the recommendations contained herein. Unsuitable materials include, but may not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic, compressible natural soils, frac- tured, vveathered, soft bedrock, and undocumented or otherwise deleterious fill materials. 4.1.2. Materials deemed by the geotechnical consultant to be unsatisfactory due to moisture conditions shall be excavated in accordance with the recommenda- tions of the geotechnical consultant, watered or dried as needed, and mixed to a generally uniform moisture content in accordance with the specifications presented in Section 5 of this document. Excavations 4.2.1. Temporary excavations no deeper than 5 feet in firm fill or natural materials may be made with vertical side slopes. To satisfy CAL OSHA requirements, any excavation de��per than 5 feet shall be shored or laid back at a 1:1 (hori- zontal:vertical) inclination or flatter, depending on material type, if construction worlcers are to enter the excavation. 105953001 Emthwork.doc 4 Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California 5. COMPACTED FILL November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 Fill shall be constructed as specified below or by other methods recommended by the geotechni- cal consultant. Unless otherwise speci�ed, fill soils shall be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction, as evaluated in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. 5.1. Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor shall request an evaluation of the exposed ground surface by the geotechnical consultant. Unless otherwise rec- ommended, the exposed ground surface shall then be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches and watered or dried, as needed, to achieve a generally uni- form moisture content at or near the optimum moisture content. The scarified materials shall then be compacted to 90 percent relative compaction. The evalua- tion of compaction by the geotechnical consultant shall not be considered to preclude any requirements for observation or approval by governing agencies. It is the contractor's responsibility to notify the geotechnical consultant and the appro- priate governing agency when project areas are ready for observation, and to provide reasonable time for that review. 5.2. Excavated on-site materials which are in general compliance with the recommenda- tions of the geotechnical consultant may be utilized as compacted fill provided they are generally free of organic or other deleterious materials and do not contain rock fragments greater than 6 inches in dimension. During grading, the contractor may encounter soil types other �than those analyzed during the preliminary geotechnical study. The geotechnical consultant shall be consulted to evaluate the suitability of any such soils for use as compacted fill. 5.3. Where imported inaterials are to be used on site, the geotechnical consultant shall be notified three working days in advance of iinportation in order that it may sam- ple and test the inaterials from the proposed borrow sites. No imported materials shall be delivered for use on site without prior sampling, testing, and evaluation by the geotechnical consultant. 5.4. Soils imported for on-site use shall pref�rably have very low to low expansion po- tential (based on UBC Standard 18-2 test procedures). Lots on which expansive soils may be exposed at grade shall be undercut 3 feet or more and capped with very low to low expansion potential fill. Details of the undercutting are provided in the Transition and Undercut Lot Details, Figure B of these guidelines. In the event expansive soils are present near the ground surface, special design and construction considerations shall be utilized in general accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. 5.5. Fill materials shall be moisture conditioned to near optimum moisture content prior to placement. The optimur•:i moisture content will vary with material type and other 105953001 Emthwork.doc 5 Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 factors. Moisture conditioning of fill soils shall be generally uniform in the soil mass. 5.6. Prior to placement of additional compacted fill material following a delay in the grading operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill shall be pre- pared to receive fill. Preparation may include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction. 5.7. Compacted fill shall be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thickness. Prior to compaction, each lift shall be watered or dried as needed to achieve near optimum moisture condition, mixed, and then compacted by mechani- cal methods, using sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other appropriate compacting rollers, to the specified relative compaction. Sttcces- sive lifts shall be treated in a like manner until the desired finished grades are achieved. 5.8. Fill shall be tested in the field by the geotechnical consultant for evaluation of gen- eral compliance with the recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing shall conform to ASTM D 1556-00 (Sand Cone method), D 2937-00 (Drive-Cylinder rnethod), and/or D 2922-96 and D 3017-96 (Nuclear Gauge method). Generally, one test shall be provided for approximately every 2 vertical feet of fill placed, or for approximately every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. I�z addition, on slope faces one or inore tests shall be talcen for approxi- mately every 10,000 square feet of slope face and/or approximately every 10 vertical feet of slope height. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dic- tate. Fill found to be out of conformance with the grading recommendations shall be removed, moisture conditioned, and compacted or otherwise handled to accom- plish general compliance with the grading recommendations. 5.9. The contractor shall assist the geotechnical consultant by excavating suitable test pits for removal evaluation and/or for testing of compacted fill. 5.10. At the request of the geotechnical consultant, the contractor shall "shut down" or restrict grading equipment from operating in the area being tested to provide ade- quate testing time and safe�y for the field technician. 5.11. The geotechnical consultant shall maintain a map with the approximate locations of field density tests. Unless the client provides for surveying of the test locations, the locations shown by the geotechnical consultant will be estimated. The geotechnical consultant shall not be held responsible for the accuracy of the horizontal or verti- cal location or elevations. 5.12. Grading operations shall be performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant. Testing and evaluation by the geotechnical consultant does not preclude the need for approval by or other require�nents of the jurisdictional agencies. 105953001 Eanhwork.doe G Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 5.13. Fill materials shall not be placed, spread or compacted during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rains, the filling operation shall not be resumed until tests indicate that moisture content and density of the fill meet the project specifications. Regrading of the near-surface soil may be needed to achieve the specified inoisture content and density. 5.14. Upon completion of grading a��d termination of observation by the geotechnical consultant, no further filling or excavating, including that planned for footings, foundations, retaining walls or other features, shall be performed without the in- volvement of the geotechnical consultant. 5.15. Fill placed in areas not previously viewed and evaluated by the geotechnical con- sultant may have to be removed and recompacted at the contractor's expense. The depth and extent of removal of the unobserved and undocumented fill will be de- cided based upon review of the field conditions by the geotechnical consultant. 5.16. Off-site fill shall be treated in the same manner as recommended in these specifica- tions for on-site fills. Off-site fill subdrains temporarily terminated (up gradient) shall be surveyed for future locating and connection. 5.17. Prior to placement of a canyon fill, a subdrain shall be installed in bedrock or com- pacted fill along the approximate aligmment of the canyon bottom if recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Details of subdrain placement and configuration have been provided in the Canyon Subdrain Detail, Figure C, of these guidelines. 5.18. Transition (cut/fill) lots sl:all generally be undercut 3 feet or more below finished grade to provide a generally uniform thickness of fill soil in the pad area. Where the depth of fill on a transition lot greatly exceeds 3 feet, overexcavation may be in- creased at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Details of the undercut for transition lots are provided in the Transition and Undercut Lot Detail, Figure B, of these guidelines. 6. OVERSIZED MATERIAL Oversized material shall be placed in accordance with the following recommendations. 6.1. During the course of grading operations, rocics or similar irreducible materials greater than 6 inches in dimension (oversized material) may be generated. These materials shall nat be placed within the compacted fill unless placed in general ac- cordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. 6.2. Where oversized rock (greater than 6 inches in dimension) or similar irreducible material is generated during grading, it is recommended, where practical, to waste such material off site, or on site in areas designated as "nonstructural rock disposal 105953001 Earthwork.doc 7 Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 areas." Rock designated for disposal axeas shall be placed with sufficient sandy soil to generally fill voids. The disposal axea shall be capped with a 5-foot thickness of fill which is generally free of oversized material. 6.3. Rocks 6 inches in dimension and smaller may be utilized within the compacted iill, provided they are placed in such a manner that nesting of rock is not permitted. Fill shall be placed and compacted over and around the rock. The amount of rock greater than 3/4-inch in dimension shall benerally not exceed 40 percent of the total dry weight of the fill mass, unless the fill is specially designed and constructed as a "rock fill." 6.4. Rocks or similar irreducible materials greater than 6 inches but less than 4 feet in dimension generated during grading may be placed in windrows and capped with finer materials in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical con- sultant, the approval of the governing agencies, and the Oversized Rock Placement Detail, Figure D, of these guidelines. Selected native or imported granular soil (Sand Equivalent of 30 or higher) shall be placed and flooded over and axound the windrowed rock such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized materials shall be staggered so that successive windrows of oversized materials are not in the same vertical plane. Rocks greater than 4 feet in dimension shall be broken down to 4 feet or smaller before placement, or they shall be disposed of off site. 7. SLOPES The following sections provide recommendations for cut and fill slopes. 7.1. Cut Slopes 7.1.1. Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and accepted by the building official, permanent cut slopes shall not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). The recommended height of a cut slope shall be evalu- ated by the geotechnical consultant. Slopes in excess of 30 feet high shall be provided with terrace drains (swales) in accordance with the recommenda- tions presented in the Uniform Building Code, Section 3315 and the details provided in Figure E of these guidelines. 7.1.2. The geotechnical consultant shall observe cut slopes during excavation. The geotechnical consultant shall be notified by the contractor prior to begiruung slope excavations. 7.1.3. If excavations for cut slopes expose loose, cohesionless, significantly frac- tured, or otherwise unsuitable materials, overexcavation of the unsuitable material and replacement with a compacted stabilization fill shall be evalu- ated and may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Unless 105953001 Emthwork.doc Q Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 otherwise specified by the geotechnical consultant, stabilization fill construc- tion shall be in general accordance with the details provided on Figure F of these guidelines. 7.2 7.1.4. If, during the course of grading, adverse or potentially adverse geotechnical conditions are encountered in the slope which were not anticipated in the pre- liminary evaluation report, the geotechnical consultant shall evaluate the conditions and provide appropriate recommendations. Fill Slopes 7.2.1. When placing fill on slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:vertical), topsoil, slope wash, colluvium, and other materials deemed unsuitable shall be re- moved. Near-horizontal keys and near-vertical benches shall be excavated into sound bedrock or firm fill material, in accordance with the recommenda- tion of the geotechnical consultant. Keying and benching shall be accomplished in general accordance with the details provided on Figure A of these guidelines. Compacted fill shall not be placed in an area subsequent to keying and benching until the area has been observed by the geotechnical consultant. Where the natural gradient of a slope is less than 5:1, benching is generally not recommended. However, fill shall not be placed on compressi- ble or otherwise unsuitable materials left on the slope face. 7.2.2. Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more sepa- rate fills, temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a temporary slope, benching shall be conducted in the manner de- scribed in Section 7.2.1. A 3-foot or higher near-vertical bench sha11 be excavated into the documented fill prior to placement of additional fill. 7.2.3. Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and by the building official, permanent fill slopes sha11 not be steeper than 2:1 (horizon- tal:vertical). The height of a fill slope sha11 be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Slopes in excess of 30 feet high shall be provided with terrace drains (svvales) and backdrains in accordance with the recommendations pre- sented in the Uniform Building Code, Section 3315 and the details provided in Figure E of these guidelines. 7.2.4. Unless specifically recommended otherwise, compacted fill slopes shall be overbuilt and cut back to grade, exposing firm compacted fill. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If the desired re- sults are not achieved, the existing slopes shall be overexcavated and reconstructed in accordance with the recornmendations of the geotechnical consultant. The degree of overbuilding may be increased until the desired compacted slope face condition is achieved. Care shall be taken by the con- 10595300I Earthwork.doc 9 Rev. 17J05 Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges November 30, 2006 Carlsbad, California Project No. 105953001 tractor to provide mechanical compaction as close to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface as practical. 7.2.5. If access restrictions, property line location, or other constraints limit over- building and cutting back of the slope face, an alternative method for compaction of the slope face may be attempted by conventional construction procedures including backrolling at intervals of 4 feet or less in vertical slope height, or as dictated by the capability of the available equipment, whichever is less. Fill slopes shall be baclarolled utilizing a conventional sheeps foot-type roller. Care shall be taken to maintain the specified moisture condi- tions and/or reestablish the same, as needed, prior to bacla�olling. . 7.2.6. The placement, moisture conditioning and compaction of fill slope materials shall be done in accordance with the recommendations presented in Sec- tion 5. of these guidelines. 7.2.7. The contractor shall be ultimately responsible for placing and compacting the soil out to the slope face to obtain a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557 and a moisture content in accordance with Sec- tion 5. The geotechnical consultant shall perform field moisture and density tests at intervals of one test for approximately every 10,000 square feet of slope face and/or approximately every 10 feet of vertical height of slope. 7.2.8. Backdrains shall Ue provided in fill slopes in accordance with the details pre- sented on Figure A of these guidelines, or as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 7.3. Top-of-Slope Drainage 7.3.1. For pad areas above slopes, posi�ive drainage shall be established away from the top of slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm and pad gradient of 2 percent or steeper at the top-of-slope areas. Site runoff shall not be per- mitted to flow over the tops of slopes. 7.32. Gunite-lined brow ditches shall be placed at the top of cut slopes to redirect surface runoff away from the slope face where drainage devices are not oth- erwise provided. 7.4. Slope Maintenance 7.4.1. In order to enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting shall be accom- plished at the completion of grading. Slope plants shall consist of deep- rooting, variable root depth, drought-tolerant vegetation. Native vegetation is generally desirable. Plants native to semiarid and arid areas may also be ap- propriate. Large-leafed ice plant should not be used on slopes. A landscape 105953001 Earthwork.doc lo Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Caxlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 architect shall be consulted regarding the actual types of plants and planting configuration to be used. • 7.4.2. Irrigation pipes shall be anchored to slope faces and not placed in trenches excavated into slope faces. Slope irrigation shall be maintained at a level just sufficient to support plant growth. Property owners shall be made aware that over watering of slopes is detrimental to slope stability. Slopes shall be moni- tored regularly and broken sprinlcler heads and/or pipes shall be repaired immediately. 7.4.3. Periodic observation of landscaped slope areas shall be planned and appropri- ate measures taken to enhance growth of landscape plants. 7.4.4. Graded swales at the top of slopes and terrace drains shall be installed and the property owners notified that the drains shall be periodically checked so that they may be kept clear. Damage to drainage improvements shall be repaired immediately. To reduce siltation, terrace drains shall be constructed at a gra- dient of 3 percent or steeper, in accordance with the recommendations of the proj ect civil engineer. 7.4.5. If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant shall be contacted immedi- ately for field review of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair. 8. TRENCH BACKFILL The following sections provide recommendations for backfilling of trenches. 8.1. Trench backfill shall cons:st of granular soils (bedding) extending from the trench bottom to 1 or more feet above the pipe. On-site or imported fill which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant may be used above the granular bacicfill. The cover soils directly in contact with the pipe shall be classified as having a very low expansion potential, in accordance with UBC Standard 18-2, and shall contain no rocks or chunks of hard soil larger than 3/4-inch in diameter. 8.2. Trench backfill shall, unless otherwise recommended, be compacted by mechanical means to 90 percent relative compaction as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Backfill soils shall be placed in loose lifts $-inches thick or thinner, mois- ture conditioned, and compacted in accordance with the recommendations of Section 5. of these guidelines. The backfill shall be tested by the geotechnical con- sultant at vertical intervals of approximately 2 feet of backfill placed and at spacings along the trench of approximately 100 feet in the same lift. 105953001 Earthwork.doc 11 Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges November 30, 2006 Carlsbad, California Project No. 105953001 8.3. Jetting of trench backfill rr�aterials is generally not a recommended method of den- sification, unless the on-site soils are sufficiently free-draining and provisions have been made for adequate dissipation of the water utilized in the jetting process. 8.4. If it is decided that jetting may be utilized, granular material with a sand equivalent greater than 30 shall be used for backfilling in the areas to be jetted. Jetting shall generally be considered for trenches 2 feet or narrower in width and 4 feet or shal- lower in depth. Following jetting operations, trench backfill shall be mechanically compacted to the specified compaction to finish grade. 8.5. Trench bacicfill which underlies the zone of influence of foundations shall be me- chanically compacted to 90 percent relative compaction, as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The zone of influence of the foundations is generally defined as the roughly triangular area within the limits of a 1:1 proj ection from the inner and outer edges of the foundation, projected down and out from both edges. 8.6. Trench backfill within slab areas shall be compacted by mechanical means to a relative compaction of 90 percent relative compaction, as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 1557. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be omitted ar spot testing may be performed, as deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consult- ant. 8.7. When compacting soil in close proximity to utilities, care shall be taken by the grading contractor so that mechanical methods used to compact the soils do not damage the utilities. If the utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close proximity to a buried conduit, then the grading con- tractor may elect to use light mechanical compaction equipment or, with the approval of the geotechnical consultant, cover the conduit with clean granular ma- terial. These granular materials shall be jetted in place to the top of the conduit in accordance with the recommendations of Section 8.4 prior to initiating mechanical compaction procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review by the geotechnical consultant and the utility contractor, at the time of construction. 8.8. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding materials are not recommended for use in slope areas unless provisions are made for a drainage system to mitigate the poten- tial for buildup of seepage forces or piping of backfill materials. 8.9. The contractor shall exercise the specified safety precautions, in accordance with OSHA Trench Safety Regulations, while conducting trenching operations. Such precautions include shoring or laying back trench excavations at 1:1 or flatter, de- pending on material type, for trenches in excess of 5 feet in depth. The geotechnical consultant is not responsible for the safety of trench operations or stability of the trenches. 105953001 Emthwork.doc 12 Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California 9. DRAINAGE November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 The following sections provide recommendations pertaining to site drainage. 9.1. Canyon subdrain systems recommended by the geotech7nical consultant shall be in- stalled in accordance with the Canyon Subdrain Detail, Figure C, provided in these guidelines. Canyon subdrains shall be installed to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on project plans. The actual subdrain location shall be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant iil the field during grading. Materials specified in the attached Canyon Subdrain Detail shall not be changed or modified unless so recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrains shall be sur- veyed by a licensed la�Zd surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the surveys prior to commence- ment of filling over the subdrains. 9.2. Typical backdrains for stability, side hill, and shear key fills shall be installed in accordance with the details provided on Figure A, Figure F, and Figure G of these guidelines. 9.3. Roof, pad, and slope drainage shall be such that it is away from slopes and struc- tures to suitable discharge areas by nonerodible devices (e.g., gutters, downspouts, concrete swales, etc.). 9.4. Positive drainage adjacent to structures shall be established and maintained. Posi- tive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage away from the foundations of the structure at a gradient of 2 percent or steeper for a distance of 5 feet or more outside the building perimeter, further maintained by a graded swale leading to an appropriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the project civil engineer and/or landscape architect. 9.5. Surface drainage on the site shall be provided so that water is not permitted to pond. A gradient of 2 percent or steeper shall be maintained over the pad area and drainage patterns shall be established to remove water from the site to an appropri- ate outlet. 9.6. Care shall be taken by the contractor during finish grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales or other drainage devices of a permanent na- ture on or adjacent to the property. Drainage patterns established at the time of finish grading shall be maintained for the life of the project. Property owners shall be made very clearly aware that altering drainage patterns may be detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance. 105953001 Earthwork.doc 13 Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California 10. SITE PROTECTION The site shall be protected as outlined in the following sections. November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 10.1. Protection of the site during the period of grading shall be the responsibility of the contractor unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties. Completion of a portion of the project shall not be considered to preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the need for site protection, until such time as the project is finished as agreed upon by the geotechnical consultant, the client, and the regulatory agency. 10.2. The contractor is responsible for the stability of temporary excavations. Recom- mendations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations are made in consideration of stability of the finished project and, therefore, shall not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant shall also not be considered to preclude more restrictive requirements by the applicable regulatory agencies. 10.3. Precautions shall be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavation, and grading to protect the site from flooding, ponding, or inundation by surface runoff. Temporary provisions shall be made during the rainy season so that surface runoff is away from and off the working site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps shall be provided to remove water as needed during periods of rainfall. 10.4. During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting shall be used as needed to reduce the po- tential for unprotected slopes to become saturated. Where needed, the contractor shall install check dams, desilting basins, riprap, sandbags or other appropriate de- vices or methods to reduce erosion and provide the recommended conditions during inclement weather. 10.5. During periods of rainfall, the geotechnical consultant shall be kept informed by the contractor of the nature of remedial or precautionary work being performed on site (e.g., pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc.). 10.6. Following periods of rainfall, the contractor shall contact the geotechnical consult- ant and arrange a walk-over of the site in order to visually assess rain-related damage. The geotechnical consultant may also recommend excavation and testing in order to aid in the evaluation. At the request of the geotechnical consultant, the contractor shall make excavations in order to aid in evaluation of the extent of rain-related damage. 10.7. Rain- or irrigation-related damage shall be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, siltinb, saturation, swelling, structural distress, and other ad- verse conditions noted by the geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected shall be classified as "Unsuitable Material" and shall be subject to overexcavation and 105953001 Earthwork.doc 14 Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 replacement with compacted fill or to other remedial grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 10.8. Relatively level areas where saturated soils and/or erosion gullies exist to depths greater than 1 foot shall be overexcavated to competent materials as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Where adverse conditions extend to less than 1 foot in depth, saturated and/or eroded materials may be processed in-place. Overexcavated or in-place processed materials shall be moisture conditioned and compacted in ac- cordance with the recommendations provided in Section 5. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials shall be overexcavated, moisture conditioned, and compacted until the specifications are met. 10.9. Slope areas where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to depths greater than 1 foot shall be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the applicable specifications. Where adversely affected materials exist to depths of 1 foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture condi- tioning in-place and compaction in accordance with the appropriate specifications may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, the affected materials shall be overexcavated, moisture conditioned, and compacted until the specifica- tions are met. As conditions dictate, other slope repair procedures may also be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 10.10. During construction, the contractor shall grade the site to provide positive drainage away from structures and to keep water irom ponding adjacent to structures. Water shall not be allowed to damage adjacent properties. Positive drainage shall be main- tained by the contractor until permanent drainage and erosion reducing devices are installed in accordance with project plans. 10595300I Ea�thwork.doc 15 Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges November 30, 2006 Carlsbad, California Project No. 145953001 11. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS ALLLTVICTM: Unconsolidated detrital deposits deposited by flowing water; includes sediments deposited in river beds, canyons, flood pl�ms, lalces, fans at the foot of slopes, and in estuaries. AS-GRADED (AS-BLTILT): The site conditions upon completion of grading. BACKCUT: A temporary construction slope at the rear of earth-retaining structures such as buttresses, shear lceys, stabilization fills, or retaining walls. BACKDRAIN: Generally a pipe-and-gravel or similar drainage system placed behind earth-retaining structures such as buttresses, stabilization fills, and retaining walls. BEDROCK: BENCH: BORROW (IlVIPORT): Relatively undisturbed in-place rock, either at the surface or beneath surficial deposits of soil. A relatively level step and near-vertical riser excavated into sloping ground on which fill is to be placed. Any fill material hauled to the project site from off-site areas.. BUTTRESS FILL: A fill mass, the configuration of which is designed by engi- neering calculations, to retain slopes containing adverse geologic features. A buttress is generally specified by a key width and depth and by a backcut angle. A buttress normally contains a back drainage system. CIVIL ENGINEER: The Registered Civil Engineer or consulting firm responsible for preparation of the grading plans and surveying, and evaluating as-graded topographic conditions. CLIENT: The developer or a project-responsible authorized represen- tative. The client has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations made by the geotechnical consultant and authorizing the contractor and/or other con- sultants to perform worlc and/or provide services. COLLLTVICTM: Generally loose deposits, usually found on the face or near the base of slopes and brought there chiefly by gravity through slow continuous downhill creep (see also Slope Wash). COMPACTION: The densification of a fill by mechanical means. 105953001 Eaithwork.doc 16 Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges November 30, 2006 Carlsbad, California Project No. 105953001 CONTR.ACTOR: A person or company under contract or otherwise retained by the client to perform demolition, grading, and other site improvements. DEBRIS: The products of clearing, grubbing, and/or demolition, or contaminated soil material unsuitable for reuse as compacted fill, and/or any other material so designated by the geotecll- nical consultant. ENGINEERED FILL: A fill which the geotechnical consultant or the consultant's representative has observed and/or tested during placement, enabling the consultant to conclude that the fill has been placed in substantial compliance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant and the governing agency re- qu=rements. ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST: A geologist registered by the state licensing agency who ap- plies geologic knowledge and principles to the exploratian and evaluation of naturally occurring rock and soil, as re- lated to the design of civil works. EROSION: EXCAVATION: EXISTING GRADE: FILL: FINISH GRADE: GEOFABRIC: GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT: The wearing away of the ground surface as a result of the movement of wind, water, and/or ice. The mechanical removal of earth materials. The ground surface configuration prior to grading; original grade. Any deposit of soil, rocic, soil-rock blends, or other similar materials placed by man. The as-graded ground surface elevation that conforms to the grading plan. Ari engineering textile utilized in geotechnical applications such as subgrade stabilization and filtering. The geotechnical engineering and engineering geology con- sulting firm retained to provide technical services for the project. For the purpose of these specifications, observations by the geotechnical consultant include observations by the geotechnical engineer, engineering geologist and other per- sons employed by and responsible to the geotechnical consultant. I05953001 Ea�thwork.doc 17 Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: ' • � I LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS OPTIMUM MOISTURE RELATIVE CONIPACTIO]v ROUGH GRADE: November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 A licensed civil engineer and geotechnical engineer, regis- tered by the state licensing agency, who applies scientific methods, engineering principles, and professional experience to the acquisition, interpretation, and use of knowledge af materials of the earth's crust to the resolution of engineering prc;blems. Geotechnical engineering encompasses many of the engineering aspects of soil mechanics, rock mechanics, geology, geophysics, hydxology, and related sciences. Any operation consisting of excavation, filling, or combina- tions thereof and associated operations. Material, often porous and of low density, produced from instability of natural or manmade slopes. The moisture content that is considered optimum to compac- tion operations. The degree of compaction (expressed as a percentage) of a material as compared to the dry density obtained from ASTM test method D 1557. The ground surface configuration at which time the surface elevations approximately conform to the approved plan. SHEAR KEY: Siriilar to a subsurface buttress; however, it is generally con- structed by. excavating a slot within a natural slope in order to stabilize the upper portion of the slope without encroach- ing into the lower portion of the slope. SITE: SLOPE: ThL particular parcel of land where grading is being per- formed. An inclined ground surface, the steepness of which is gener- ally specified as a ratio of horizontal units to vertical units. SLOPE WASH: Soil and/or rock material that has been transported down a slope by gravity assisted by the action of water not confined to channels (see also Colluvium). S LOUGH: SOIL: Loose, uncompacted fill rnaterial generated during grading operations. Naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt, clay, etc., or com- binations thereof. 105953001 Earthwork.doc 1 g Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 STABILIZATION FILL: A fill mass, the configuration of which is typically related to slope height and is specified by the standards of practice for enhancing the stability of locally adverse conditions. A stabi- lization fill is normally specified by a lcey width and depth and by a backcut angle. A stabilization fill rnay or may not have a back drainage system specified. SUBDRAIN: Generally a pipe-and-gravel or similar drainage system placed beneath a fill along the alignment of buried canyons or former drainage channels. TAILINGS: TERRACE: TOPSOIL: I � ' �]�i Non-engineered fill which accumulates on or adjacent to equipment haul roads. A relatively level bench constructed on the face of a graded slope surface for drainage and maintenance purposes. The upper zone of soil or bedrock materials, which is usually dark in color, loose, and contains organic materials. A row of large rocics buried within engineered fill in accor- dance with guidelines set forkh by the geotechnical consultant. 105953001 Eaithwork.doc 19 Rev. 12/OS Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California F'iLL SLQpE QVER NATURAL GROUND OUTLET PIPE DRAINS TO A SUITABLE OUTLET IN ACCORDANC£ WITH THE RECOMt�ENbATIONS Of THE CIVIL ENGINEER 7 NATURAL GROUND November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 5WALE AT TOP OF SLOPE ? r--COMPACTED FILL--'� � 1 � 1 � � � i i �' � � tE µa�ERtA� ~ � i uNgt5liAB / �Eµ�� i 1 BENCH INCLINED / � 4' TYP. SLIGHTLY INTO SLaPE / ./'� / — "r�--__" �s � `��_' f �-'10' TY�"� BEDROCK OR 3' �� COMPETENT �fATERIAL, � . � 2�-_ AS EVALUATED BY THE TI I BACKORAIN �GEOTEGHNICAL CONSULTANT H-1S' MIN.—�j ANU T-GONNECTION I � (SEE DRAIN DETAI�, FIGURE G) FILL SLOPE OVER GUT SWALE AT TOP OF SLOPE NATURAL GROUNO l � "' � ' �"' � ..i � � � � � �� — .�• �. � J � 20' MIN.*- OUTLET PIPE bRAINS TO A SUITABLE aUTLET IN ACCOROA�CE WITH THE RECOMMENQATIONS OF THF CIYIL ENGINEER 2 r--COMPACTED FILL--'� . � �-- i � �� .^--- � � � � � µpi�R1A� �_._.` I uN$Ul'(AgLE � i REMov� ,,,i BENCH INCUNED / 4' Np, SLIGNTLY WTO SI.OpE �-•--�o• rrR--� BEDROCK OR � COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS EVALUATED BY THE � GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT BACKDRAIN ANU T—CONNECTION (SEE DRAIN OETAIL, FIGURE G) '�"AIINIAIUM KEY WIOiH DIMENSION. ACiUAI WIDiH SHOULD BE PROVIDEO BY GEOTECHNICAI CONSULTANT BASED ON EVqLUATION OF SITE-SPEdFIC GEOTECHNICAL CONOYTIONS. NOTES: CUT SIOPE SNALL BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR Tp PLACEMENT OF i'ILL. SLOPE DRAINAGE SHOULD 13E PROVIDE� IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOMMEN�ATIONS PRESENTED ON FIGURE E aa�tnra.awe NOT TO SCALE ��j/y�p��pp� u FILL SLOPE QVER NATURAL GROUND OR CUT E1GL�iE A 105953001 Earthwork.doc Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California TRANSITIDN {CUT-FlLL) LUT _.--� ..-- _.--' '-'r' .i � November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 NATURA� GROUND � _.--� / i .---" I -+ 5' MIN.►I � �R1P .- �--- COMPACTED FILL --� � 5��,�A,�i µA� .i � 3' MiN. .-�- � _ R��'Ov� � � - - � �� OVEREXCAYATE ANp RECOMPAC7 / '� - ��,� BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MA'fERIA� - �.-- AS EVALUATED BY 1'HE f GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT UNDERGUT LOT � NA� AL GROUND � � �--�`'--� _ � � _�--- � � P� R,P j / ' �NS�,� Pe/ M i R� E � � ,f i i / / �/ -+ 5' MIN. �� / / / / � t COMPACTED FILL--� 3' MiN. T OVEREXCAVA7E AND RECOMPACT R BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL, AS EVALUATED BY THE �'� `� GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT NOTE: DIMENSIONS PROVIDED IN THE DETAILS A90VE ARE APPRQXIMATE AND MAY 6E MODIFIED IN THE FIElO BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT AS CONOITIONS DICTATE. - earlhfb.dwg NOT T� SCALE ��%/i��&�OOri�� TRANSITI�N AND UNDERCUT LOT C�ETAILS �� B 105953001 Emthwork.doc Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California NATURAL GROUND CANYON SUBdRAIN November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 �� /� � COMPACTED FILL ,/ , �� ` � f� . � � � � _ � SEE FIGURE A � � UNSUI�TABLE ~� � BEDROCK OR 11 FOR DETAILS OF BENCHES MATERIAL COMPETENT MATERIAL, 1 ''-- �"' AS EVALUATED BY THE �EOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT LOWEST BENCH INCLINED TOWARD DRAIN � ;Q.: SUBDRAIN (SEE ORAIN DETAIL, FlGURE G) DETAIL �F CANYON SUBDRAIN TERMiNATION DESIGN FINISH GRAD SUBDRAIN PIPE Ol1TLET PIPE DRAINS TO A SUITABLE tlUTLET iN ACCORDANCE WfTH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CIVIL ENGINEER � ,_ E -- � COMPACTED FILL CUTOFF WALL CONSTRUCTED Of GROUT. CONCRETE, BENTONITE, .-�- OR OTHER SUITASLE . MhTERIAL AS i'"�� EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT _MY� '+ FfLTER MATERIAL NON-PERFORATED PIPE PERFORATED PIPE 20' MIN. 5• MIN. earlhtc.dwp � ��r�� NOT TO SCA�E CANYON SUBDRAIN D�TAIL �� 105953001 Emthwork.doc Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 '�TIf�JC�Ft+C)�14f SE��'[(�hl 36 3.C. S41L (�L04DCD) 6'-�e' Rtsc�c ��"`i ,� � ..�� -" �"� � � r L _ � � .�J "Y" 4R fICCEN1GULAR TfICNGH J4 AiIN1AiUA1 4� 3 �CCT UCCP �ND � �CCT hYIL1C rxcxva�ro iuTa cauPncrrn riu. QR HhNFi�U. GR4UMD ��i� ti�f ��r��: fIN13H GRADC srRrr-r 70tif A NATfRIAL � r � � ' � � . ' ' ' � _ ' S' t11N: ' - - • . � - 1�� ki1N. � . � • ' �� . -_ ��.. . ry . ZOPIC B FAAILRUJ. � . �a v c� • �' �� P OR wiNORow �ir.t�� " � c} s� BCLGw oCCP[sr . ��N, WHIpi�Y�l'R UTILITY, IS GRF/�TPR • � ��iS' LIIM.�� BfOFOCK 8R CDIIPfIfHT YikTfFIJ1L A3 fYAW�Tf� 9Y GfY1Tf�HNIC�L CUNSl1LTANT TGN� Ae CBkiPWGirG nLL M'RH ABCK 171�GLI�NIS NO GIIMTI'q THAM ! INl911'S IN dAY,ll'i�p. i'�Nf Bh CQIAP,tCifU f1LL YfRH ROCIi fp�CIJfH18 9f7WfTN B J1ND 48 MCHf9 IH O�WfTfR k1A7 Bf PL1CfD N Si�16GfRf� 4�IMOIRM'S UP TO 190' LAHO IM THIS aOHL A110 SUf�lOUNOQI 6T OfEhNUW[ 5qL (30 5I4N� COUIY�{LLfITj OO'ISTI� BT RA401H�. R9GIG �RAQYLNTS LL95 TH�FI 6 IMGILS IH �{�lALILR YYti7 BL PL�ICm IM OOFPhCTLD fILL SOIL qOTC 51.UPL ORAMA� Sf10UL0 9C Pfd0Y1PL0 IH h.;GORONJCL WITH FmG101iiCNLUUlONS PIs5iNTLD ON flOUliL L. p,�,�y,� N�T TO SCALF (�ilER�1�EC� Rf�i�l�. ��`� P�A�E�EI�1T C��TA�IL FlGURE D 10595300I Emthwork.doc Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California MIO-SLOPE BACKCRAIN (SEE DRAIN DETAII, FIGURE G) "'--�, NON-PERFORATED OUTLET PIPE TERRACE WIDTH * � REINFORCED CONCRETE- � PA4ED 7ERRACE (SWALE)�� COMPAC7ED fILL � 1 ..c �� ^ .r?'AI��. 2Y MAXIMUM VERTICAL SLOFE HEIGhIT, II (FEE7) LESS THAN 30 November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 SWALE AT TOP OF SLOPE — �'S, I MIN. 2 � � � «� L BENCH 1NCLINED I �' SLIGHTLY INTO SLOPE H I BEDROCK OR COMPETENT MATERIAL AS EVALUA7Eq BY 7HE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT WHEN P0SSI8LE, LOWEST BACKDRAIN SHOUID BE PLACED IN THE BASE OF KEY (SEE ORAIN DETAIL, FIGURE G) * TERRACE WI�TH AND LOCATION NO TERRACE REQUIREO gp ONE 7ERRACE AT LEAS7 6 FEET WIDE AT MIDHEIGNT ONE TERRACE AT LEAST 12 FEET WIOE AT �� APPROXIA�ATELY MIDHEIGHT AND 6—f00T WIDE TERRACES CENTERED IN REMAININ6 SIOPES GREATER 7NAN 17.0 DE5lGNED 8Y CIVIL ENGINEER WITH APPROVAI OF GOYERNING AUTNORITIES NOTE5: I. Ai1D-5LOPE BACKDRAINS SHOULD BE PLACED IN FILL SLOPES IN CONJUNCTIDN W1TH FACH TERRACE. 2. TERRACES SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST A 5-PERCEN7 GRA�IENT, AN� RUN OFF SHOULO 6E 01RECTEA TO AN APPROPRIATE SURFACE DR4INACE COLLECTOR. 3. TERR4CE5 SHOULO 8E CLEANED OF DEBRIS AND YE(iETATION TO ALLOW UNRESTRICTED FLOW OF WATER. 4. TfRRACES SHOULD BE KEPT IN GODD REPAIR. 5. REFER TO U8C CHAPTER 70 FOR A�DITIONAL REOUIREMENTS. earthfs.dwg � NOT TO SCAI.E SLOPE DRAINA�E DETAIL E 105953001 Eanhwork.doc Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 PROPO5E0 GRADED SURFACE �~�- -` `, COMPACTEq FILL EXISTING GROUND 5URFACE -�... � ` ` 1 �� 'r� ',`+. UNSTABLE � `"` � MATERIAL f- SL GHTLY IN OE SLOPE `� (SEE FIGURE A) � ` PLANE OF WEAKNESS .,,,_ 1 "` ' �. � ` ' ,r,,, . BEDROCK OR � COMPETE.NT MATERIAL, � AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CQNSULTANT BACKDRAIN (SEE DR,41N DETAIL, FIGURE G) COMPACTED FILL v � - �rr% �+—KEY WIOiH� I 1.5 �i DEPTH ,� OF K£Y , r". ,� �.z� — NON—PERFORAiED OUTLET PIPE NOTES: �. THE �EPTH AND WIDTH OF KEY WII.I BE PROVIDED BY THE GEO'fECHNICAL CONSULTAHT BASED ON ANALYSIS OP SITE—SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL C�:YDITIONS. 2. AN AODITIONAL MID—SLOPE BACK�RAIN AND TERRACE DRAIN MAY BE RECOAiMFNDED FOR SLOPES OVER 30 FEEf HICH. SEE SLOPE DRAINAGE DETAIL, FIGURE E. 3. SLOPE DRAINAGE SHOULD BE PROYIOED IN ACCpRDANCE WITH RECOlAIAENOAT10N5 PRESENTED ON FIGURE E. eaMhfl.dwg NOT TO SCALE &�ODi� SHEAR KEY DETAIL FICiURE F 105953001 Etuthwork.doc Cannon Road and El Camino Real Bridges Carlsbad, California SUBDRAIN CONFIGURATION AL7ERNATIVE A* ALTERNATIVE B FILT@R MATERIAL �—{9 CUBIC fEET PER IJNEAR FOOT) � \ .. . � 24I.. MIN. � ...4._. � � F-2d" MI _ PERFORATED PIPE INSTALLED WITH — PERFORATION DOWN {SEE SCHEDU�E BELOW) * ALTERNATlVE A SUBDRAIN CONFIGURATION MAY 8E USEO IN FILLS LESS THAN 25 FEET DEEP November 30, 2006 Project No. 105953001 BACKDRAIN CONFIGURATION PILTER MAT@RIAL (3 CUBIC FEE7 PER LINEAR fUOT) T—CON NECTI ON (SEE DETAIL) � \ , 12" MIN. z � �»N _ � i NON�pE � T-CONNECT[ON DETAIL � ./ 4" MIN. � �� PERfORATEO PIPE, 4" MIN. SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR E4UIVALENT INSTALLED WITH PERfURATIONS DOWN PERFORATED PIPE SLOPED AT 1% MIN. �0' MIN 70WARD OUT�ET PIPE � �ACH SIDE� Q� ��-� END CAP NON—PERFORATED OU7LET PIPE UP 70 � 700' ON CENTER HORIZON7ALLY FILTER MATERIAL FILTER MATERiAL SHALL 9E CLASS II PERMEABLE MATERIAL PER STATE OF CALIFORNIA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVEO A�T£RNAI'E GEOFABRIC DRAIN SYSTEM. CLASS 11 GRADATIONS SIEYE SIZE PERCENT PASSING t" 100 3/4" 90-700 3/8" 40-100 No. 4 25-�SO No, 8 i 8-33 No. 30 5-75 No. 50 0-7 No. 200 0-3 NOTE: AS AN ALTERNATIVf TfiE FILTER MATERIAL MAY CONSIST OF UP TO 1" DIAfAETER OPEN-GRADED GRAVEL WRAPPED IN AN APPROVED GEOFA�RIC 1YITH 8-INCH OR MORE OVERLAP. eorlhlg.dwg r�I �,��0 �^�OO� Y�� PIPE SCHEDULE PERFORAT£D AND NON-PERFORATED PIPE SHALL 9E SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORI�E (PVC� OR ACRY�ONITRILE BUTADIENE SiYRENE (ABS OR EQUIYALENT, AND WILL HAVE A MINIMU►A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF 1000 PS� FOR DEPTHS OF FILL UP TO 50 FEET. FOR �EEPER FILLS, PERFORATED AND NON-P£RFORATED PIPE SHOULD BE DESIGNED WITH ADEQUATE CRUSHING STRENGTFI. TI;E PIPE DIAMETER WILL GENEf2ALLY ME�T THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, BUT AiAY BE MOOIFIED IN THE FIELD BY THE GEDTECHNICAL CONSULTANT AS CONDITIONS �ICTATE. THE IF.NGTH OF RUN IS MEASURED FROM THE HIGH£ST ELEVATION. LENGTH OF RUN PIPE DIAidETER Q-5U0' 4" 500-1500' 6" ? 1500' 8" NOT TO SCALE DRAIN DETAIL FlGURE G IOS953001 Eanhwork.doc