Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3455; Coastal Rail Trail - Geotechnical Design Report; Coastal Rail Trail - Geotechnical Design Report; 2002-10-23DIAZ* YOURMAN & ASSOCIATES RECEIVED OCT 2 3 2*32 FILE # DOKKEN ENGINEERING October 23, 2002 Project No. 296-02 Mr. Kirk Bradbury, P.E. Dokken Engineering 9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 435 San Diego, California 92123 Subject: Geotechnical Design Report Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Bradburry: Attached are one original and five copies of our report for the subject project. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our services to you on this challenging project. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, Diaz»Yourman & Associates Christopher M. Diaz, P.E. Associate Engineer CMD:lmw RECEIVED stf *° rrpAIT CACT 17th CTDPCT QAMTAAMA PA QOTHK-QKnO TCI n-\A\ O/tK.OQOn PAY /714\ DIAZ • YOURMAN & ASSOCIATES A Report Prepared for: Dokken Engineering 9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 435 San Diego, California 92123 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT CARLSBAD COASTAL RAIL TRAIL CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Project No. 296-02 By Jorge Sandoval Project Engineer ChristophefM. Diaz Civil Engineer 56514 Diaz»Yourman & Associates 1616 East 17th Street Santa Ana, CA 92705 (714)245-2920 October 23, 2002 1616 EAST 17th STREET SANTA ANA. CA 92705-8509 TEL (714) 245-2920 FAX (714) 245-2950 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 2.0 EXISTING FACILITIES AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 8 2.1 EXISTING FACILITIES 8 «* 2.1.1 Concrete Storm Drain 8 2.1.2 Timber SDNR Railroad Bridge 8 2.1.3 Utilities 8 * 2.1.4 Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Over The SDNR Railroad Tracks 9 2.2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 9 *" 2.2.1 Palomar North Drainage Bridge 9 m 2.2.2 AHL Retaining Wall * 9 2.2.3 AHL Bridge 9 2.2.4 CBB Retaining Wall 10 2.2.5 Asphalt Concrete Pavement 10 3.0 PERTINENT REPORTS AND INVESTIGATION 11 4.0 PHYSICAL SETTING 12&**~s 4.1 CLIMATE 12 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE 12 4.3 MAN-MADE AND NATURAL FEATURES OF ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CONSEQUENCES 13 4.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 13 ^ 4.4.1 Regional Geology 13 "** 4.4.2 Seimicity 14 4.5 SOIL SURVEY MAPPING 14 5.0 EXPLORATION 16 5.1 'DRILLING AND SAMPLES 16 5.2 GEOLOGIC MAPPING 16 5.3 GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES 17 5.4 INSTRUMENTATION 17 5.5 EXPLORATION NOTES 17 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING 18 6.1 IN SITU TESTING 18 6.2 LABORATORY TESTING 18 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 19 7.1 SITE GEOLOGY 19 *" 7.2 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 19 7.2.1 Surface Conditions 19 7.2.2 Subsurface Conditions 21 - 7.3 WATER 22 7.3.1 Surface Water 22 "• 7.3.2 Groundwater 23 7.4 PROJECT SITE SEISMICITY 23 7.4.1 Ground Motions 23 7.4.2 Ground Rupture 25 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc 8.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 27 8.1 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS 27 8.1.1 Parameter Selection 27 8.1.2 Mitigation of Earthquake Effects 27 8.1.3 Analysis 27 8.2 EARTHWORK, CUTS AND EXCAVATIONS 28 8.2.1 Low Expansive Soils in Approach Embankment 28 8.2.2 Temporary Excavations 29 8.2.3 Slope Stability 30 8.2.4 Rippability 30 8.2.5 Grading Factors 31 8.2.6 Dewatering 31 8.3 EMBANKMENTS/SETTLEMENTS - 31 8.3.1 Settlement of AHL Approach Embankment Fill 31 8.4 EARTH RETAINING SYSTEMS 31 8.5 FOUNDATION DESIGN 33 8.5.1 Palomar North Drainage 33 8.5.2 AHL Retaining Wall 35 8.5.3 AHL Bridge 35 8.5.4 CBB Retaining Wall 38 8.6 RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS AND LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES 38 8.7 UTILITY TRENCHES 42 8.8 PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN 43 8.9 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL 43 9.0 MATERIAL SOURCES 44 10.0 MATERIAL DISPOSAL 45 11.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 46 11.1 CONSTRUCTION ADVISORIES 46 11.2 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS THAT INFLUENCE DESIGN 46 11.2.1 CBB Retaining Wall : 46 11.2.254-inch Diameter Sewer 47 11.3 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS THAT INFLUENCE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS 47 11.3.1 Design Considerations for CIDH Piles Based on Pile Installation Methods 47 11.3.2 CIDH Pile Installation 48 11.4 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND INSTRUMENTATION 50 11.5 HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSIDERATIONS 51 12.0 RECOMMENDATION AND SPECIFICATIONS 52 13.0 LIMITATIONS 53 14.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 54 APPENDIX A-FIELD INVESTIGATION A-1 APPENDIX B-LABORATORY TESTING B-1 APPENDIX C - LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT ANALYSES C-1 in K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc LIST OF TABLES Table 1 -AVERAGE CLIMATIC CONDITIONS 12 Table 2 - SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROFILE AND PARAMETERS 21 Table 3 - GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENTS 23 Table 4 - ACCELERATION SPECTRA COORDINATES 25 Table 5 - SUMMARY OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION 28 Table 6 -SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES 30 Table 7 - RETAINING WALL ALTERNATIVES 32 Table 8 - 36-INCH CIDH PILE DATA 36 Table 9 - SUMMARY OF 36-INCH CIDH PILE LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE 38 Table 10-CORROSION POTENTIAL 43 Table 11 - GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS SUMMARY 52 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 - VICINITY MAP 2 Figure 2 - SITE PLAN A 3 Figure 3 - SITE PLAN B 4 Figure4-SITE PLANC 5 Figure 5 - SITE PLAN D 6 Figure 6 - REGIONAL FAULT MAP 15 Figure 7 - CORRECTED ARS CURVE 26 Figure 8 - LOW EXPANSIVE SOILS IN BRIDGE EMBANKMENT 29 Figure 9 - GRADING/FOUNDATION DETAILS 34 Figure 10-36-INCH AXIAL PILE CAPACITY 37 Figure 11 - LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR TEMPORARY STRUCTURES 39 Figure 12 - LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR PERMANENT STRUCTURES 40 Figure 13 - RETAINING OR BASEMENT WALL DRAINAGE 41 Figure 14 - PIPELINE BACKFILL SCHEMATIC 42 Figure 15-CIDH PILE INSPECTION PIPES 49 IV K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation performed by Diaz»Yourman & Associates (DYA) for the proposed Coastal Rail Trail (CRT) project in Carlsbad, California. Dokken Engineering authorized this work on January 14, 2002. The complete CRT project is comprised of two phases, Phase I and Phase II, and it is proposed as a non-motorized trail to extend for 42 miles from the transit station in Oceanside to the Santa Fe Depot in San Diego. The proposed CRT alignment is generally within the San Diego Northern Railroad (SDNR) approximately 100-foot wide right-of-way (ROW) and generally on the eastern side and parallel to the railroad tracks of the SDNR, except at selected locations to avoid environmentally sensitive areas. Segments of the CRT are proposed to consist of 12-foot wide multi-use Class I bike paved paths, 5-foot wide Class II bike paths, and Class III bike routes within existing roadways. Phase I of the CRT consists of approximately 17.6 miles through the Cities of Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Encinitas. This report addresses the portion of the CRT in and around the City of Carlsbad. The proposed CRT for the City of Carlsbad project is located within the SDNR ROW approximately from south of the Poinsettia Coaster Train Station to north of the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge in the City of Carlsbad, California, as shown on the Vicinity Map, Figure 1. The project will consist of: • a 50-foot long span 12-foot wide bridge to cross an existing storm drain inlet structure (Palomar North Drainage Bridge); • an 800-foot long 12-foot high retaining wall south of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel (AHL Retaining Wall); • a single 140-foot long span 15-foot wide concrete bridge (with abutment retaining walls) over the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel (AHL Bridge); • an approximately 200-foot long 8-foot high retaining wall underneath the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge at the SDNR railroad tracks (CBB Retaining Wall); • approximately 3.7 miles of 12-foot wide non-motorized multi-use roadway Class I bike path to be paved with asphalt concrete (AC). The approximate layout of the proposed project is shown on the individual site plans and is presented on Figure 2 through Figure 5. K:\dataHs\PROJECTS\200V296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc Figure 1 - VICINITY MAP K:\daIafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc Scale 0 100 200 feet B-1 P-1 EXPLANATION Boring location (structures) Boring location (pavement) ^B Boring location (structures) Boring location (pavement) Reference: Electronic base map provided by Dokken Engineering, May 2002. Figure 2 - SITE P 296-02\CAD\SITE PLAN 296-02.DWG Boring location (staictures) Boring location (pavement) Boring location (structures) Boring location (pavement)Scale 0 100 200 feet Reference: Electronic base map provided by Dokken Engineering, May 2002. Figure 3 - SITE PLAN 296-02\CAD\SITF Boring location (structures) Boring.Jocalion pavement)Scale 0 100 .-200 feet Boring location (structures) Boring location (pavement) Reference: Electronic base map provided by Dokken Engineering, May 2002. Figure 4 - SITE PLAN 296-02\CAD\SITE PLAN 296-02.DWG oo (OCN LLJ O _, . • j ^ P-1 EXPLANATION- ........ ' - — Boring location (structures) Boring location (pavement)Scale 0 100 200 feet WASHINGTON STATE ST UJm HIin UJ•z. _l o Boring location (structures) Boring location (pavement) Scale 0 100 200 feet Reference: Electronic base map provided by Dokken Engineering, May 2002. Figure 5 - SITE PLAN The purpose of DYA's investigation was to provide geotechnical input for the design of the proposed project. The scope of our services consisted of: • reviewing data; • conducting a field investigation; • performing laboratory tests on selected soil samples; • performing engineering analyses to develop conclusions and recommendations regarding; - site conditions; - geologic and seismic hazards; - foundation type and design criteria; - stability of existing and proposed slopes/retaining walls; - lateral earth pressures and resistance to lateral loads; - AC pavement thickness design; - soil corrosion potential; • preparing this report. This report documents subsurface geotechnical conditions, provides analyses of anticipated site conditions as they pertain to the project described herein, and recommends design and construction criteria for the new improvements and roadway portions of the project. This report also establishes a geotechnical baseline to be used in assessing the existence and scope of changed site conditions. K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\ReporttCartsbadGDR3.doc 2.0 EXISTING FACILITIES AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 2.1 EXISTING FACILITIES 2.1.1 Concrete Storm Drain A 5-foot deep 20-foot long concrete storm drain inlet structure was located near Station 78+70 between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road. No structural distress of the inlet structure was observed. The storm drain appears to transfer run-off waters from an industrial area located on the east side of the proposed bike alignment to the west. The ground surface surrounding the inlet is near elevation +42 feet mean sea level (MSL). 2.1.2 Timber SDNR Railroad Bridge An approximately 120-foot long timber SDNR trestle bridge with north and south approaches supported on fill embankments crossed the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel and was located approximately 30 and 60 feet west of the south and north sides of the proposed Class I bike alignment, respectively. The trestle bridge with approaches location corresponded to approximately Stations 50+00 and 52+00. The trestle bridge was aligned in a north-south direction and was approximately 30 feet above the Agua Hedionda Lagoon water surface. The 120-foot long trestle bridge was supported on numerous intermediate bents, each supported on timber piles. No distress of the timber trestle was observed. The bridge embankments consisted of approximately 25-foot high fill slopes with an approximate slope inclination of 1H:1V (horizontal to vertical). The slopes faced the inlet channel and showed signs of erosional rills and gullies. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel slopes near the water level were covered with riprap. 2.1.3 Utilities Two known pipelines, a 42-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe sewer and a 12-inch diameter steel gas pipeline, were located along the proposed Class I bike alignment and crossed the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel, approximately between Stations 50+00 and 52+00. The sewer pipeline was supported over the lagoon by a single 100-foot long span steel bridge supported on timber piles located in the channel. Both abutments were located on fill embankments on the bluffs located on the north and south sides of the inlet channel. The gas pipeline was also supported on two intermediate bents of timber piles located in the channel. Overhead utility lines were observed 8 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGOR3.doc east of the pipelines. The top of the embankment and bluff were near elevation +26 feet MSL. The inlet channel is described in Section 2.1.2. 2.1.4 Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge Over The SDNR Railroad Tracks *&*# The Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge, located near Station 18+00, was 25 feet high (above SDNR tracks) with single 165-foot long span. The 50-foot wide bridge was constructed of reinforced concrete and•<«• supported by four bents and two end abutments, each on shallow spread footings. Some of the .-«s concrete beams of the bridge were cracked. The elevations at the top of the bridge and the ground surface at the railroad tracks were approximately +50 feet and +25 feet MSL, respectively. An approximately 20-foot high approach embankment fill slope with slope inclination of 2H:1V was observed underneath of the east bridge abutment. The fill slope showed signs of erosion. On the west, the bridge abutment was on a near vertical cut. 2.2 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS 2.2.1 Palomar North Drainage Bridge ^Si A 50-foot long span 12-foot wide timber bridge founded on concrete seat type abutments near Station 78+70 (between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road) will cross the existing concrete ** storm drain inlet structure described in Section 2.1.1. Retaining walls will be required at the * approaches to the proposed bridge because the bike path will be approximately 6 feet above «* existing grade that is approximately elevation 42 feet MSL. 2.2.2 AHL Retaining Wall ••an ** An approximately 800-foot long 12-foot high retaining wall for the project will be constructed between Stations 41+00 and 49+00 near the south end of the proposed AHL bridge over Agua * Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel. 2.2.3 AHL Bridge .-•** '* A single span 140-foot long 15-foot wide concrete bridge will be constructed over the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel between approximately Stations 50+00 and 52+00. Because of K:\datafis\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc 4.0 PHYSICAL SETTING 4.1 CLIMATE The range of average climatic conditions for the site area is shown in Table 1. The climate conditions were obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center web site. Table 1 - AVERAGE CLIMATIC CONDITIONS Average Max. Temperature (8F) Average Min Temperature (°F). Average Total Precipitation fmffi) Jan 63.9 44.5 2.18 Feb 64.0 45.7 1.98 Mar 64.0 47.4 1.83 Apr 65.4 50.3 0.96 May 66.8 54.7 0.22 Jun 68.7 58.2 0.09 Jul 72.5 62.1 0.03 Aug 74.5 63.3 0.08 Sep 74.8 60.9 0.28 Oct 71.8 55.7 0.30 Nov 68.3 48.8 1.1 Dec 65.1 44.6 1.24 Annual 68.3 53.0 10.29 Notes: • Climatic conditions for reporting station at Oceanside Marina, approximately 5 miles northwest of the project. • Period of Record - 1/1/1953 to 12/31/2001. 4.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE The ground surface elevation of the project site ranged from approximately 24 feet to 46 feet MSL. The project site consisted mostly of a coastal topography with flat areas sloping gently from north to south. Relatively high natural terrace deposits with almost vertical eroded cuts along the flanks of the Class I bike path alignment south of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel to the end of the project's southerly boundaries were observed. The natural continuity of the bluffs is interrupted by natural drainages and by landslides; the distance from the CRT to the bluffs varies. The bluffs range in height from a few tens of feet to nearly 100 feet, rising in places at near vertical angles. The primary drainage crossing was the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel. At the locations where the SDNR tracks crossed these drainages, the drainage bluffs vary up to about 50 feet in height. The stability of the coastal bluffs and the drainage (canyon) walls is affected by both natural and man-made influences. The project alignment crosses the inlet of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The inlet, near elevation +4.5 feet MSL, drained the immediate surrounding area. Where the project alignment crosses the existing Carlsbad Boulevard bridge, a fill slope inclined at 2H:1V was present. 12 K:\dalafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc 4.3 MAN-MADE AND NATURAL FEATURES OF ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION CONSEQUENCES The main natural feature for this project was the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel. The channel provides a natural access channel of tidal waters from the Pacific Ocean to the lagoon. The channel sides were covered with riprap. There were three existing bridges (crossings) over the inlet: SDNR timber trestle; six-span timber trestle supporting a 42-inch diameter sewer pipe;, and a three-span support for 12-inch diameter steel pipes. Other features include the fill abutment under the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge, existing natural and fill slopes that will be cut to provide a level surface for the bike path. 4.4 REGIONAL GEOLOGY AND SEISMICITY 4.4.1 Regional Geology The project is located on the western coastal margin of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province of California. The Peninsular Ranges Province is developed on an extensive uplifted north-south trending fault block in Southwestern California that extends south to include the Baja Peninsula of Mexico. Most of San Diego County is within this geomorphic province. The coastal plain section is characterized by Tertiary sedimentary bedrock beveled by wave-cut marine terraces and interrupted by westward flowing stream valley and estuaries draining the inland highlands. A thin veneer of Pleistocene-age alluvium commonly covers the terraces. Bedrock formations in the project area are Eocene-age relatively soft formations locally known as the Santiago Formation, Del Mar Formation, and Torrey Sandstone. The nature of the geologic units does the most to control the foundation and slope stability of the drainage and coastal bluffs; generally the softer, less consolidated and uncemented units are the least stable in terms of landsliding and erosion. Bedrock exposed in the bluffs, including seacliffs and drainage crossings, varies in composition between massive to bedded sandstone, conglomerate, and thickly bedded claystone. Where the thin-bedded claystone/siltstone/sandstone sequences are found, the bluffs are less stable. Where the massive sandstones and thick-bedded claystone predominates, the slopes tend to be more stable. This is the usual condition along the CRT. Younger terrace deposits cap the bedrock in most areas and make up the full height of the bluffs in many areas. These are marine and non-marine terrace deposits (Linda Vista Formation) composed 13 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc of sand, gravelly sand, and silty sand that range in thickness from a few feet to about 50 feet in the bluff face. Erosion and slumping of over steepened slopes are the main concerns for these semi- consolidated and weakly to moderately well-cemented deposits. These materials are generally very permeable with infiltration often moving down to the underlying bedrock and then laterally along the buried bedrock surface to the nearest exposed bluff face. Excavation characteristics are generally such that the more difficult a material is to excavate the more stable it is in slopes. In general, the geologic units are ranked as follows in decreasing difficulty of excavation; sandstone, claystone, terrace deposits (gravelly sand and sand), siltstone, and alluvium/colluvium. 4.4.2 Seimicity The project area is not known to be crossed by active faults and has not experienced numerous earthquake events over magnitude 4.0 (Figure 6). The nearest significant known earthquake faults are the offshore Rose Canyon (from the project area to the south) and Newport-lnglewood (from the project area to the north) fault zones. 4.5 SOIL SURVEY MAPPING Soil survey mapping was not performed for this project by DYA. 14 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc I 1 I I I i I i i Ol (O (3 O> 73mo Oz * San Ctonwnte Fault PtlcwVerdee Fault Row Canyon Fault N»*|»rt-lngl«wood Fault WbiHtarFauH Santa Cruz Fault Mtttbu Coast Fault S«nl« Monka Fault Raymond Hi FwH Sierra Medre Fault EMnore Fault SufwraMian Mountain Fault SuperaHtion Ms Fault Imperial Fault Banning Fault San Jaanto Fault Pinto Mountain FauH Blue Cul Fault Ludlow Fault Pisyali Fault Calico Fault WM! Calico Fault Emsrson Fault Camprock Fault Lockhart Fault Lermood Fault Old Woman Springs Sierra Frontal Fault San Andreas Fault Harper Fault Blackwattr Fault Oarlock Fault ! So. Death Valley Fault I Panamxit Vatay Fault I Sierra Nevada Fault I Kern Front Fault I White Wotl FauK I Pteito Fault I Hmconada Faufl I San Juan Fault I Ozena Fault } Santa Ynaz Fault ) Big Pirn Fault I Pine Mountain Fault I San Caystano Fault ) Sail Gabriel Fault | Arroyo Panda Fault ) Oakridge Fault I Santa Susara FauH ) North Frontal Fault 5.0 EXPLORATION 5.1 DRILLING AND SAMPLES The field exploration, conducted between March 13 and 19, 2002, consisted of drilling 15 soil borings at the locations shown on the Site Plans, Figure 2 through Figure 5. The boring locations were chosen to provide coverage of the project site for pavement and data for foundation design for structures. The boring depths, ranging from approximately 3 feet to 79 feet, were selected to extend to the depth of significant influence of the proposed loads and to investigate liquefaction potential. Details of the field investigation, including sampling procedQres and boring logs are presented in Appendix A. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) style log of test boring (LOTB) is provided in Appendix A. 5.2 GEOLOGIC MAPPING Detailed geologic mapping was not performed for this project by DYA. However, bedrock formations in the project area are Eocene-age relatively soft formations locally known as the Santiago Formation, Del Mar Formation, and Torrey Sandstone. Based on the information obtained from our field investigation the encountered subsurface soils helped to identify formational materials from the Linda Vista Formation (Qlv), the Santiago Formation (Ts), Artificial Fill (Qap), and Lagoonal Deposits (Ql). Materials from the Linda Vista and Santiago Formations were encountered during our field exploration along the Class I bike alignment; from approximately the Carlsbad Boulevard bridge, Station 18+00, near the northerly boundary of the project, to the north side of the Agua Hedionda inlet channel (Station 52+00) and from the south side of the inlet channel (Station 50+00) to approximately near the end of the southerly boundary of the project, Poinsettia Coaster Train Station. Mostly, the Linda Vista Formation appeared to overlay the Santiago Formation. Fill and lagoonal deposits were encountered on the north and south sides of the Agua Hedionda inlet channel (Stations 50+00 and 52+00). The nature of the geologic units did the most to control the foundation and slope stability of the drainage and coastal bluffs; generally the softer, less consolidated and uncemented units are the least stable in terms of landsliding and erosion. 16 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc The excavation of artificial fill should be much like alluvium except where large imported bedrock blocks (often hard rock such as riprap) are present; it then becomes difficult to excavate. 5.3 GEOPHYSICAL STUDIES Geophysical studies were not performed for this project by DYA. 5.4 INSTRUMENTATION Instruments were not installed during the field exploration by DYA. 5.5 EXPLORATION NOTES No unusual conditions were observed or noted during the field investigation. 17 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\2%-02\Report\Carlsbad GDR3.doc 6.0 GEOTECHNICAL TESTING 6.1 IN SITU TESTING In situ testing consisted of standard penetration tests (SPT) in the borings as discussed in Appendix A. 6.2 LABORATORY TESTING Soil samples collected from the borings were reexamined irj the laboratory to substantiate field classifications. Selected soil samples were tested for moisture content, dry density, grain-size distribution, percent passing the No. 200 sieve, Atterberg limits, shear strength, compaction characteristics, pavement-supporting capacity, and corrosion potential (pH, electrical resistivity, soluble chlorides, and soluble sulfates). The soil samples tested are identified on the boring logs. Laboratory test data are summarized on the boring logs in Appendix A and presented on individual test reports in Appendix B. 18 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc 7.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 7.1 SITE GEOLOGY The bluff/terrace area of the CRT is immediately underlain by Pleistocene-age Linda Vista Formation that is typically rust-brown, dirty, and medium- to very coarse-grained sand. A silty or clayey sand soil of varying thickness may cap the Linda Vista depending upon past grading activity. Linda Vista Formation typically varies in thickness from a few tens of feet to several tens of feet. Bedrock underlying the Linda Vista in the area of Agua Hedionda Lagoon is likely the Santiago Formation/Torrey Sandstone of Eocene age. This is a light tan to gray white medium to coarse- grained sand with possible clay beds associated with the Del Mar Formation exposed east of Interstate 5. Bedding dip in these deposits is typically less than 10 degrees. The drainage between the bluffs has been eroded and later infilled. The thickness of the infill areas varies considerably. The infill is likely potentially liquefiable while the formational materials are likely not liquefiable. Fill and lagoonal deposits were encountered on the north and south sides of the Agua Hedionda inlet channel (Stations 50+00 and 52+00). 7.2 SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 7.2.1 Surface Conditions The surface conditions are described below for four major structure locations. Between these major structures, the bike path alignment was generally level with coastal bluffs located to the west of the CRT. 7.2.1.1 Palomar North Drainage Bridge Approximately 10 feet south of Boring B-9, a rock drainage inlet structure with wing walls with a 5- foot deep concrete storm drain inlet was observed. The wing walls were approximately 1-foot thick. The bottom elevation of the inlet structure was unknown. (The proposed single 50-foot long span 12-foot timber concrete bridge will be constructed over the storm drain inlet structure.) Approximately 10 feet south of the storm drain inlet some thick vegetation was observed. On the 19 K:\datafls\PROJECTSV200\296-02\Repott\CarlsbadGDR3.doc north side of the storm drain inlet structure, some vegetation and riprap filled a small drainage ditch. Approximately 20 feet east of the storm drain inlet structure and outside of the ROW there was a light industrial area. 7.2.1.2 AHL Retaining Wall On the south side of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel bluff edge is a proposed retaining wall location. The top of the bluff was relatively level near elevation +24 feet MSL with thick vegetation and trees. To the north was an approximately 25-foot high eroded bluff. A water treatment plant was east of the project. To the west were the-railroad tracks near elevation +28 feet MSL. The surface sloped down from south to north. 7.2.1.3 AHL Bridge South of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet, a 25-foot high slope inclined near 2H:1 V extended down to an intermediate level bench near elevation 5 feet MSL. The 10-foot wide bench then sloped down to the lagoon. The lower slope was covered with riprap. On the north side of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet was a fill embankment with the top near elevation +26 feet MSL. The slope inclination appeared to be approximately 2H:1V. Light vegetation and landscaped slopes were identified to the east and west sides. It appeared that the embankment was constructed to provide line and grade and support a 42-inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe and a 12-inch diameter steel gas pipeline. An intermediate bench, near elevation 12 feet MSL, was located at the toe of the fill slope. 7.2.1.4 CBB Retaining Wall The retaining wall will extend from Station 18+60 to Station 20+60. The toe of the wall will be located near elevation +24 feet MSL, on the slope of the approximately 25-foot high Carlsbad Boulevard bridge eastern slope approach embankment. Outside of Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge, the fill slope continued both north and south. The embankment had an approximate slope inclination of 2H:1 V. A residential area on the far-west side and a water treatment plant on the east side were observed. 20 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc 7.2.2 Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions along the project alignment were based on the results of our data review and field investigation. Idealized soil profiles and selected engineering parameters are presented in Table 2. Descriptions of the subsurface are presented below. Table 2 - SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL PROFILE AND PARAMETERS ELEVATION, MSL (feet)SOIL TYPE SPTN TOTAL UNIT WEIGHT (pcf) • SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS Cohesion (psf) Friction Angle (degrees) PALOMAR NORTH DRAINAGE BRIDGE +42 to +37 +37 to +24 SM Ts — ' 18to>50 115 129 100 250 35 37 AHL RETAINING WALLS +46 to +40 SM 28 to >50 115 100 35 AHL BRIDGE +26 to 0 Oto-18 -18 to -50 SM SP Ts 4 to 31 12 to 31 28 to >50 110 102 128 200 0 200 28 30 36 CBB RETAINING WALL +24 to +18 +18 to +15 SM Ts 11 7 to 50 115 115 0 0 35 35 Notes: Unified Soil Classification System, see Plate A1 in Appendix A. Field uncorrected SPT N values, see Appendix A. Simplified soil types, pcf = pounds per cubic feet psf = pounds per square feet 7.2.2.1 Palomar North Drainage Bridge The subsurface soils consisted of 5-foot thick layer fine- to medium-grained silty sands with gravel (Linda Vista Formation) overlying, medium dense, fine- to medium grained sandstone of the Santiago Formation. The sandstone was somewhat weathered at its interface with the Linda Vista formation and lightly weathered below. 7.2.2.2 AHL Retaining Wall Subsurface soils based on Borings B-7 and B-8, consisted of medium dense to dense, fine- to medium-grained silty sands from ground elevation to the bottom of borings, approximately 12 feet. 21 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc 7.2.2.3 AHL Bridge On the south abutment, the subsurface soils from elevation +12 to +3 feet MSL, consisted of very loose to loose, fine- to medium-grained silty sands (fill), underlain by loose to medium dense, fine- to medium-grained poorly graded sands and silty sands (likely lagoonal deposits) to a depth of 30 feet (elevation -18 feet MSL). Relatively unweathered dry dense sandstone (Santiago formation) was then encountered to the bottom of the boring, 61 feet. The north abutment subsurface material was similar to that of the south except the loose fill was 22 feet thick (extending to elevation -1 foot MSL) at Boring B-2. .A 7-foot thick layer of medium dense silty sands (likely lagoonal deposits) overlaid the very dense sandstone near elevation -8 feet MSL. The sandstone was very dense to the bottom of the boring, 79 feet. 7.2.2.4 CBB Retaining Wall The subsurface soils from elevations +25 feet MSL to +18.5 feet MSL consisted of medium dense, fine- to medium-grained silty sands with few gravel (Linda Vista formation), underlain by very dense, fine- to medium-grained sandstone (Santiago formation) to a depth of 10 feet (elevation +15 feet MSL). 7.3 WATER 7.3.1 Surface Water Two sources of surface water were identified on the project site during the field investigation. The Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel (between Stations 50+50 and 51+30) through which tidal waters from the Pacific Ocean recharge the lagoon is the largest body of surface water along the alignment. A drainage inlet structure near Station 78+70, between Cannon Road and Palomar Airport Road, also had standing water. The storm drain captured run-off waters from an industrial area on the east and conducted the run-offs to the Pacific Ocean on the west. 7.3.1.1 Scour The soils along the walls of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel were considered potentially subject to scour. Currently, the channel was erosion protected with riprap. Actual scour is dependent on the stream hydraulics and is outside the scope of this investigation. 22 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc 7.3.1.2 Erosion Erosion was not expected to have a major impact on the proposed project due to the topography of the site. Some of the existing material and fill slopes outside the project alignment show signs of erosion. However, the proposed project will not modify these slopes. 7.3.2 Groundwater Shallow groundwater accumulates from surface runoff and percolation into the permeable soils and sand deposits. Lateral migration occurs and is accentuated where these permeable materials overlie less permeable bedrock units. Along bluffs (especially seacliffs) this is evidenced by seeps usually issuing from the area of this geologic contact. At any given location this seepage is usually much less than one gallon per minute; this can be enough moisture to reduce the strength of the materials and their resistance to slope failure. Groundwater was encountered in several borings during drilling as noted in Table 3. Table 3 - GROUNDWATER MEASUREMENTS BORING B-1 B-2 B-3 B-4 B-4A B-7 B-8 B-9 DATE PERFORMED 3/13/02 3/19/02 Not performed 3/18/02 3/14/02 3/15/02 3/15/02 3/15/02 BORING DEPTH (feet) 9.5 79 - 61.5 26.5 10.5 11.5 18.3 DEPTH TO GROUNDWATER (feet) N.E. 22 - 7 22 N.E. N.E. 12 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION (feet, MSL) N.E. 5 - 5 7 N.E. N.E. 30 Notes: • Depth to groundwater measured immediately after drilling and may not have stabilized. • N.E. = Not encountered 7.4 PROJECT SITE SEISMICITY 7.4.1 Ground Motions The project site, like most of Southern California, will be subjected to strong ground shaking during major earthquakes. The project site design peak horizontal ground acceleration (PHGA) and acceleration response spectrum (ARS) curve required for the seismic design were evaluated based 23 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Seismic Hazard Map (Caltrans SHM 1996) and the Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (Caltrans SDC). According to Caltrans SHM and SDC, the project's site horizontal peak bedrock acceleration (PBA) was estimated to be 0.55g. The estimated maximum credible earthquake (MCE) magnitude of the corresponding controlling fault, Newport-lnglewood-Rose Canyon/E, was 7.0. This fault is identified as a strike-step fault. The project site design ARS was derived by modifying the average Caltrans SDC report ARS curves for Soil Type C/D, PBA between 0.5g and 0.6g, and an earthquake magnitude of 7.25 ± 0.25 as follows: * • near fault effects which include: - 20 percent increase in response spectra for periods equal to and greater than one second; - no additional changes for periods less than 0.5 second; and - a linear interpolation in between periods of 0.5 and 1 second. The ARS coordinates are presented in Table 4. The final corrected site design ARS curve is shown on Figure 7. 24 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\Car1sbadGDR3.doc Table 4 - ACCELERATION SPECTRA COORDINATES T (sec) 0.01 0.05 0.0788 0.0993 0.124 0.1537 0.1774 0.2078 0.2364 0.271 0.3092 0.3545 0.3864 0.4421 0.5328 0.6495 0.7866 0.8681 0.9981 1.1617 1.3074 1.4112 1.5747 1.8193 2.0678 2.5369 2.9542 3.2028 3.6428 4 Spectral Acceleration(g) 0.550 0.550 0.860 1.033 1.176 1.301 1.381 1.433 1.446 1.452 1.449 1.439 1.423 1.396 1.351 1.294 1.226 1.186 1.108 0.945 0.830 0.754 0.663 0.555 0.470 0.351 0.279 0.244 0.219 0.170 7.4.2 Ground Rupture The potential for ground surface rupture was considered low because no known active faults were mapped on the site. The nearest known active fault is the Newport-lnglewood-Rose Canyon/E, located approximately 1.9 miles west of the site. 25 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc i t i I i I i i i i I i i i I i i Soil Profile Type D MCE Magnitude : 7.25+7- 0.25 Peak Horizontal Bedrock Acceleration: 0.55 g Near Source Effect Corrections Included 0 Period (second) Reference: Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, December 2001, Version 1.2, Figure B-8: Page: B-10 Figure 7 - HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRUM, FIVE-PERCENT DAMPING K:\datafls\projects\200\296-02\ARS Curve. 8.0 GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN 8.1 DYNAMIC ANALYSIS Dynamic analysis for this project included liquefaction analysis and liquefaction induced settlement and lateral spreading. Pseudostatic and post-earthquake slope stability analyses were performed along with Newmark type slope deformation analyses. 8.1.1 Parameter Selection The following parameters were used for dynamic analyses. • Design groundwater elevation, +4.5 MSL. • PHGA, 0.55g. • MCE design magnitude, 7. 8.1.2 Mitigation of Earthquake Effects Liquefaction and liquefaction induced lateral spreading of the north slope of the proposed AHL bridge at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel should be addressed during design. On the south side of the inlet channel, less liquefaction is anticipated compared to the north side of the channel. To mitigate those liquefaction effects, the foundation for the bridge and the abutment retaining walls should be founded on firm or competent non-liquefiable soils orthe ground improved. The foundations should also be designed to withstand the effects of liquefaction induced lateral spreading. Non-liquefiable soils were encountered at approximately elevations -8 and -18 feet MSL in Borings B-2, and B-4, respectively. Therefore, bridge and abutment retaining walls should be founded on a deep foundation system. In our opinion, the deep foundation system can be designed to withstand the effects of the liquefaction induced lateral spreading. Ground improvement is not recommended for the AHL bridge. However, the existing 48-inch diameter sewer line that is not supported on the AHL bridge may be affected by liquefaction induced lateral spreading. 8.1.3 Analysis Liquefaction analyses were performed using procedures presented in the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) guidelines (1997). The potential for seismic settlement 27 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc was evaluated by procedures presented by Tokimatsu & Seed (1987). Details of the liquefaction analyses are presented in Appendix C. A summary of the liquefaction evaluation is presented in Table 5. Table 5 - SUMMARY OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION LOCATION B-2 B-4 ELEVATION OF LIQUEFIABLE ZONE (feet MSL) +4.5 to -8 intermittent -4.5 to -18 intermittent SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT (inches) <4 <6 As a result of the liquefaction, approximately 3 to 4 feet lateral spreading of the north and south slope/abutment of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet slopes was predicted using methods suggested byYoud(1994). 8.2 EARTHWORK, CUTS AND EXCAVATIONS Earthwork should be performed in accordance with Sections 6 and 19 of Caltrans Standard Specifications (1999). Site grading may generally be accomplished with conventional construction equipment. The fill should be compacted using compaction equipment suitable for the lift thickness and type of material being compacted to achieve the required degree of compaction. 8.2.1 Low Expansive Soils in Approach Embankment Low expansive soils (expansion index [El] less than 50) should be used within the approach embankment in accordance with standard Caltrans requirements shown on Figure 8. Based on review of both the logs and index properties, the sands within the near-surface soils at the site will likely meet the criteria for low expansive material. 28 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200V296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc ABUTMENT LOW EXPANSION MATERIAL EK50 SE>20 EXPANSION INDEX TO BEDETERMINED BY ASTM D4827 Figure 8 - LOW EXPANSIVE SOILS IN BRIDGE EMBANKMENT 8.2.2 Temporary Excavations Stability of temporary excavations is a function of several factors, including the total time the excavation is exposed, moisture conditions, weather, soil type and consistency, and contractor's operations. As a guideline, temporary construction excavations above the groundwater level in fill and lagoonal deposits should be planned with slopes no steeper than 1.5H:1V. Slopes should be no steeper than 1 H:1 V in the sandstone (Santiago formation). Excavations below the groundwater level should be no steeper than 2H:1V. For steeper temporary construction slopes or deeper excavations, shoring should be provided for stability and protection. The contractor should strictly adhere to the grading requirements of City of Carlsbad, SDNR, and applicable health and safety regulations. The contractor is responsible for excavation safety. Various shoring types are discussed in Section 8.4. Shoring is usually designed as either cantilever (un-braced) or braced. Cantilevered shoring is commonly constructed either by using soldier piles with lagging placed between piles or by using sheet piles. If soldier piles and lagging are used, continuous lagging will be required, except in the sandstone (Santiago formation). Difficulty in installing the lagging due to caving soils should be anticipated. Recommended minimum temporary shoring design criteria are provided in Section 8.6. 29 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc 8.2.3 Slope Stability No new slopes are proposed. However, existing slopes will be modified (cut) to construct the retaining walls. The existing approximately 25-foot high north embankment at the Agua Hedionda inlet channel that will support the proposed AHL concrete bridge with retaining walls were analyzed for slope stability. A summary of geotechnical profile and soil parameters used for analysis is presented in Table 2. The slope stability analyses were performed using the computer program PCSTABL5 for the static, pseudo-static, and post earthquake loading conditions for global (circular) failure surfaces. The PCSTABL5 program calculates the factor of safety against instability of a slope by the method of slices using a two-dimensional, limit of equilibrium method. The program is capable of handling general slope stability problems by the simplified Janbu, the modified simplified Bishop, and the Spencer methods of slices for both circular and randomly shaped failure surfaces. The modified Bishop method was used in these analyses. Slope stability analyses were performed for the embankement at approximately existing geometric conditions. The factor of safety (FS) against global (circular) sliding are presented in Table 6. The proposed AHL bridge and embankment retaining wall foundations should be designed to withstand the estimated lateral movement, see Section 8.5.2. Table 6 -SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES LOCATION AHL Bridge-North Embankment (Station 52+20) STATIC FS 1.8 PSUEDO-STATIC FS1 1.0 POST- EARTHQUAKE FS2 0.7 DEFORMATION' (feet) 3 Notes: 1 . A horizontal seismic coefficient (k) of 0.25 was used for analyses. The vertical seismic coefficient was assumed to be zero. 2. For liquefied soils, residual strength of 1.0 ksf was used for post-earthquake analysis. 3. Lateral spreading controls. 8.2.4 Rippability The site grading may be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty excavation equipment. However, to avoid over stressing walls, backfill behind retaining walls should be completed using lightweight construction equipment or shoring should be used. Blasting is not required for earthwork. 30 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\Cartsbad GDR3.doc 8.2.5 Grading Factors Based on the existing in situ dry densities and a relative compaction of 90 percent for fill and backfill, we estimate that the shrinkage from cut to fill for the existing onsite soils will be approximately 5 to 10 percent. This estimate does not include any material loss during earthwork activities. 8.2.6 Dewatering Dewatering is not anticipated. 8.3 EMBANKMENTS/SETTLEMENTS Several small fill embankments (less than 10 feet high) will be part of the improvements for the proposed project. Two new approximately 4-foot high fill embankments will be constructed for the proposed Palomar North Drainage Bridge (Station 79+00). The embankments are expected to settle less than one inch during construction. Post construction settlement is expected to be negligible. 8.3.1 Settlement of AHL Approach Embankment Fill The proposed AHL approach embankment heights will be approximately 15 feet of the north and south sides. The subsurface soils are predominantly granular and formational; therefore, the majority of the settlement will be elastic and occur rapidly. Most of the settlement is expected to occur within 15 days of completion of the approach embankment earthwork. Static settlements of the AHL approach embankment fills are expected to be less than one inch and are not expected to impose down drag forces on the proposed CIDH piles. Additional settlement may occur rapidly after seismic events. Estimates of the seismic settlement are provided in Section 8.1.3. 8.4 EARTH RETAINING SYSTEMS Various retaining wall types can be used at the site including cantilever, crib, soldier pile, MSE, and soil nailed walls. Table 7 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the different wall types. 31 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc Table 7 - RETAINING WALL ALTERNATIVES WALL TYPE Soil Nailed Walls Soldier Pile Walls Secant Walls or Soil Mixed Walls Crib Walls Cantilever Concrete Slope Block Walls Hilfiker Retaining Walls Mechanically Stabilized Earth CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE Top Down Top Down Top Down Bottom Up Bottom Up Bottom Up Bottom Up Bottom Up ADVANTAGES • No back slope excavation or earthwork • Least expensive • Conventional design/ construction • No back slope excavation or earthwork • History of satisfactory seismic performance • No back slope excavation or earthwork • Can use tie back anchors to reduce wall section • Conventional design/ construction • Potential landscaping advantages • Some performance history • Specialty contractor may not be required • Conventional design/ construction • Specialty contractor not required • History of seismic performance • Conventional design • Very flexible • Design/build option available • Conventional design • Very flexible • Design/build option available • Most flexible • History of seismic performance • Design/build option available DISADVANTAGES • Non-traditional design • Limited number of specialty contractors available • Corrosion protection required for soil nails • Limited seismic performance history • More expensive than soil nailed walls • Specialty contractors required • Permanent tie-back anchors may be required • Corrosion protection required for tie-back anchors • More expensive than soil nailed or soldier ' pile walls • Non-traditional design for soil mixed walls • Limited number of specialty contractors available • Permanent tie-back anchors may be required • Corrosion protection required for tie-back anchors • Requires temporary wall or back slope excavation • Increased earthwork compared to top down construction • Relatively expensive • Requires import fill material (sand or gravel) • Requires temporary wall or back slope excavation • Increased earthwork compared to top down construction • Relatively expensive • Requires temporary wall or back slope excavation • Increased earthwork compared to top down construction • Proprietary system • Limited seismic performance history • Requires import fill material (gravel) • Requires temporary wall or back slope excavation • Increased earthwork compared to top down construction • Corrosion protection required for reinforcing strips • Increased earthwork compared to top down construction We understand that the primary concerns for selecting the appropriate retaining wall include stability of adjacent facilities, the amount of excavation, and the extent of the affect on the adjacent property. Top-down construction techniques noted in Table 7 are the least intrusive as they can be 32 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc constructed along the existing slope such as underneath the Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge for the CBB retaining wall. Bottom-up construction methods require that the existing slope be excavated to the foundation level some distance into the existing slope. The existing slopes may require shoring or a slope cut to provide a safe work environment in which to construct the new retaining wall. A soil nailed soldier pile and secant walls can be used as either a permanent wall or as a temporary wall for the construction of a concrete cantilever wall. Providing tieback anchors can reduce the lateral forces acting on these walls underneath the abutments. Tieback anchors can be installed for both temporary and permanent conditions. For temporary conditions, corrosion protection of the steel tieback anchors is not critical if corrosion is minimal compared to the total amount of steel present. However, for permanent installation, corrosion protection is critical, particularity for connections. For permanent installations, at a minimum, dual corrosion protection is recommended. This dual corrosion protection usually consists of an epoxy-coated tieback anchor completely enclosed in a gout or concrete sheath. Corrosion protection can also consist of active catholic protection. For permanent tieback anchors, provisions should be made to install instrumentation to check on the loads of the anchors after construction has been completed. This instrumentation can consist of strain gauges, load cells, and other types of equipment to check that the tieback anchors are carrying the full design load. Also, permanent access to the tieback anchors for periodic retention, if necessary, should be provided. The retaining walls should also include survey monuments such that both the vertical and lateral positions can be checked using conventional surveying instruments. Retaining walls should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures noted in Section 8.6. 8.5 FOUNDATION DESIGN 8.5.1 Palomar North Drainage The proposed timber bridge can be founded on shallow foundations on the natural sandstone located near elevation 37 feet MSL (approximately 5 feet below existing grade) as outlined on Figure 9. 33 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc I — Select Fill Suggested, / Table 4 Subsurface Drain , / /~ Final Grade See Figure 5 \ / J Existing Grade \ -rV r_ Final Grade V \ TWeep :. 1 I Hole-^j^b ^ [ | '. 4 - / ^-Nxy y / Onsite / Material/ Weep /-Hole,' /.^clA-:-i> ;;•:::-,;. ' j —r—T- -^ °/ >J i _/jr~~T/ II • I 1 IFill Section -/ I . p • .. rj .. -• p »- Existing Grade I I I NOT TO SCALEScarify and Recompact ' LOCATION A. Footing Embedment Below Subgrade B. Footing Width C. Excavation Below Existing Grade (Footing) D. Excavation Beyond Footing E. Excavation Below Footing Static (net) Allowable Bearing Capacity (FS>3) Increase per foot of Depth Increase per foot of Width Maximum Static Bearing Capacity (FS>3) Maximum Transient Bearing Capacity (FS>2) MINIMUM DIMENSIONS (ft) Palomar North Drainage Bridge 5* 2 0* 1 0 AHUCBB Retaining Walls 2 2 1 1 1 PRESSURE (psf) 4,000 500 900 6,000 9,000 2,000 400 800 3,000 4,500 Note: * To the top of sandstone. Figure 9 - GRADING/FOUNDATION DETAILS The retaining walls for the proposed timber bridge can be supported on shallow foundations placed on a layer of compacted fill as shown on Figure 9. The static and temporary allowable bearing capacities presented on Figure 9 included factors of safety of at least 3 and 2, respectively, against shear failure. The bearing pressures noted on Figure 9 satisfy the requirements for Caltrans Types 1 and 5 walls. For properly constructed foundations supported on compacted fill, total settlement due to the proposed structural loads is estimated to be less than 0.5 inch. Differential settlements between loaded retaining wall footings are expected to be less than 0.5 inch. Most of the settlements are expected to occur as the loads are applied. 34 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\29e-02\Report\Carlsbad GDR3.doc 8.5.2 AHL Retaining Wall The AHL retaining wall (approximate stations 41+00 to 49+00) can be supported on shallow foundation supported on a layer of compacted fill as noted on Figure 9. The bearing factors of safety and settlement noted for the Palomar North Drainage bridge are applicable for the AHL retaining wall. 8.5.3 AHL Bridge *The AHL Bridge and wing walls can be supported on pile foundations designed to resist high lateral load demands. The bridge supports have high axial and lateral load demands (including those from lateral spreading), and the right-of-way available for construction is limited. Shallow foundations are, therefore, not appropriate for bridge or adjacent wing wall support. Several deep foundation alternatives, including driven piles, cast-in-steel-shell (CISS) piles, and, cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) piles were considered. CIDH piles were selected because they can be constructed to the desired depth regardless of the sandstone weathering. Driven piles including CISS and concrete piles were not considered appropriate because of the difficulty in predicting pile penetration in the sandstone. Our report addresses the selected CIDH pile support for the bridge and wing wall support. The primary design considerations for CIDH piles are axial and lateral capacity, and corresponding settlement and deflection. The primary construction considerations are constructability, groundwater, and effect of construction methods on estimated pile capacity. The design considerations are addressed below. Construction considerations are addressed in Section 11.3. 35 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-OZ\ReporttCarlsbadGDR3.doc 8.5.3.1 Pile Axial Capacity and Settlement For pile axial capacity evaluation, the piles were considered to be friction piles. End-bearing was neglected because of high groundwaterand likely construction techniques. Graphical summaries of axial capacity for single pile are provided on Figure 10. The minimum center-to-center spacing between the piles should be not less than three pile diameters. For piles spaced at three pile diameters or greater, a group efficiency reduction factor need not be applied. Potential downdrag because of seismic settlement is included in the allowable capacities noted on Figure 10. Specified CIDH pile tip elevations for the AHL bridge are presented in Table 8. Settlement of piles designed and constructed in accordance with the recommendations provided in this report was estimated to be less than 0.5 inch for static loading conditions. Most of this settlement should occur shortly after application of the structural loads. Differential settlement between similarly loaded pile supports was estimated to be less than 0.5 inch for static loading conditions. Settlement of pile foundation during seismic conditions was estimated to be minor because the piles extend well below the layers that may have potential for liquefaction and/or seismic settlement. Table 8 - 36-INCH CIDH PILE DATA LOCATION Abutment 1 Abutment 2 DESIGN LOADING (SERVICE LOADS) (kips) 250 250 CUTOFF ELEVATION (feet - MSL) +3 +3 DESIGN TIP ELEVATION (feet - MSL) -47 -47 SPECIFIED TIP ELEVATION (feet - MSL) -47 -47 Note: Design loads include dead plus live and were provided by Dokken. 36 KAdatafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc Seismic 60 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Ultimate Compression Capacity (kips) 36-inch DIAMETER CIDH PILE Figure 10 - 36-inch AXIAL PILE CAPACITY 8.5.3.2 Pile Lateral Capacity and Deflection The behavior of piles under lateral loads was evaluated using the p-y curve approach. A tabular summary of lateral pile analysis results is provided in Table 9. Table 9 - SUMMARY OF 36-INCH CIDH PILE LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE LOCATION AHL Bridge Abutment 1 AHL Bridge Abutment 2 PILE DIAMETER (inches) 36 36 PILE LENGTH (feet) 50 50 AXIAL LOAD (kips)1 45 45 LATERAL LOAD (kN)1 2.5 2.5 APPLIED MOMENT (kip-feet)1 146 146 MAX. PILE HEAD DEFLECTION (inches) *1.7 1.7 MAX. MOMENT (kip-feet) 660 660 MAX. SHEAR (kips) 57 57 DEPTH TO POINT OF FIXITY2 (feet) 34 34 Motes: 1 . Loading at pile head, fixed head condition. 2. Fixity = zero moment. 8.5.4 CBB Retaining Wall The proposed retaining wall can be supported on shallow foundations placed on a layer of compacted fill as shown on Figure 9. The static and temporary allowable bearing capacities included factors of safety of at least 3 and 2, respectively, against shear failure. For properly constructed foundations supported on compacted fill, total settlement due to the proposed structural loads is estimated to be less than 0.5 inch. Differential settlements between loaded retaining wall footings are expected to be less than 0.5 inch. Most of the settlements are expected to occur as the loads are applied. 8.6 RESISTANCE TO LATERAL LOADS AND LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES For shallow foundations, the lateral resistance maybe calculated using either 50 percent of passive resistance plus 50 percent of the base friction, or 100 percent passive resistance only, or 100 percent base friction only in accordance with Caltrans criteria. Temporary structures should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures on Figure 11. Lateral loads can be resisted by an allowable passive soil pressure and base friction as outlined in Figure 12 for compacted fill, applied against below-grade walls and foundation elements. Retaining and subterranean walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures with the equivalent fluid pressures as illustrated on Figure 12. Lateral earth pressures are presented for walls free to rotate and restrained walls. At-rest earth 38 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc pressures (restrained walls) should be used where the top of the wall is not expected to move laterally more than 0.001 HI (see Figure 12). The lateral earth pressures on Figure 12 are based on the backfill material consisting of natural on-site granular soils. See Figure 13 for typical sections of subsurface drains. q (Surcharge)q (Surcharge) -BRACED SHORING CANTILEVER SHORING Pp = 350H2<1500psf BRACED SHORING/TIED-BACK P = Pq + Ps = 0.5q + 50 H, CANTILEVERED SHORING P = Pq + Ps = 0.2q + 35 H3 Notes: All values of height (H) in feet, pressure (P), and surcharge (q) in psf. Value for temporary excavations using flexible walls. For traffic surcharge, assume no less than a 100 psf uniform horizontal pressure along the top 10 feet. Earth pressures assume no hydrostatic pressures. If hydrostatic pressures are allowed to build up, add hydrostatic pressures for total lateral pressures. Figure 11 - LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR TEMPORARY STRUCTURES 39 K:Watafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\Cartsba<i GOR3.doc Administration (OSHA). In accordance with OSHA regulations, the near-surface onsite soils were classified as Type C. Retaining Or Basement Wall * » 300mm Minimum Impervious Soil -Filter Fabric (Optional with Free-Draining Ganular Material Pervious Material 4-lnch-Diameter Minimum Perforated Drainpipe . 4-Inch100mm Retaining Or Basement Wall 100mmMinimum 100mm Minimum Impervious Soil Manufactured Drainage Geocomposite, Miradrain Tendrain, or Equivalent 100 mm-DiameterMinimum Perforated Drainpipe 100 mm Minimum - Granular Material MATERIAL CALTRANS SPECIFICATIONS Free Draining Granular Material 68-1.025 (Class 2) Geotextile Filter Fabric 68-1.03 Perforated Pipe 68-1.02 Notes: • Drainpipe should drain to an outlet. • Filter fabric wraps completely around perforated drainpipe and pervious materials. Figure 13 - RETAINING OR BASEMENT WALL DRAINAGE A bridge abutment response to lateral load can be estimated as recommended in Section 7.8 of Caltrans SDC. The maximum passive pressure for a wall height of 6 feet can be taken as 5 ksf. For wall heights different than 6 feet, we recommend that the maximum passive pressure be obtained by multiplying the 5 ksf value with the ratio (H/6) where H is the backwall/diaphragm height in feet. Maximum passive pressures are mobilized when the deflection of the wall reaches 0.01 xH feet. For intermediate deflection, the passive pressure mobilized maybe estimated using linear interpolation. The initial embankment fill stiffness may be assumed to be 20 kips/inch/foot for a wall height of 6 feet. The initial stiffness for wall heights different from 6 feet may be obtained proportionally as for maximum passive pressures. 41 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\ReportVCarlsbadGDR3.doc 8.7 UTILITY TRENCHES Utility trenches (either open or backfilled) which parallel structures, pavements, orflatwork should be planned so that they do not extend below a plane with a downward slope of 2H:1 V from the bottom edge of footings, pavements, orflatwork. Temporary shoring to provide footing, pavement, flatwork, or utility support is recommended unless localized settlements on the order of one percent of the trench depth can be tolerated. B 'i A PAVEMENT SECTION D Trench Zone Backfill t c Trench Zone Backfill *() See Figure 7 for "~ *~ Pavement Section Details -« Pipe Zone Backfill -« Pipe Bedding | Not to Scale MATERIAL Pipe Bedding Pipe Zone Trench Zone Trench ZoneJ MINIMUM THICKNESS (ft) A = 0.33 B = 1 C varies D=2.0 MINIMUM RELATIVE „.„„,-„, c.«r,^,r.,^A-r,^,oCOMAPCTION1 (%) BACKFILL SPECIFICATIONS 19-3.025B 19-3.025B 9Q/ 95 Notes: 1. Based on ASTMD1 557. 2. To reduce settlement, use 95 percent relative compaction. 3. D = 0 if no pavement or settlement-sensitive structures at surface. Figure 14 - PIPELINE BACKFILL SCHEMATIC Utility pipes should be placed on the bottom of a neatly cut trench, on a layer of bedding as outlined on Figure 14, or according to the manufacturer's recommendations, whichever is greater. Bedding requirements are outlined on Figure 14. Jetting should not be allowed. We anticipate that the near- surface soils will be suitable for use as bedding materials. 42 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc 8.8 PAVEMENT THICKNESS DESIGN Recommended minimum asphalt concrete (AC) pavement section is two inches in accordance with Caltrans. For a longer life and to help support maintenance vehicles, a three-inch thick AC pavement should be considered. The upper 12 inches of basement soil should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. Following Caltrans guidelines, consideration should be given to sterilization of basement soil to preclude possible weed growth through pavement. 8.9 SOIL CORROSION POTENTIAL Tests performed during this investigation indicated 137 to 335 parts per million (ppm) soluble sulfate concentrations in the near-surface soils. Based on these test results, we recommend that Type V cement be used with a maximum water/cement materials ratio in accordance with uniform building code (UBC) standard 1904.3.1. The corrosion potential on buried steel pipes can be estimated from the results of pH, soluble chloride concentrations, and soil resistivity tests performed during this investigation. The corrosion potential, as indicated by the soluble chloride and the correlation between pH and electrical resistivity is presented in Appendix B. The range of test values is summarized in Table 10. Also, presented in Table 10 are Caltrans (1999) corrosion criteria. Based on Caltrans standards and other published correlations and the chemical test results, the onsite soils are classified as severely corrosive to buried metal pipes. We recommend that protective coatings on metal pipes be considered and that a corrosion specialist be contacted for details on corrosion protection. Table 10 - CORROSION POTENTIAL Water pH Water soluble sulfate content (ppm) Water soluble chloride content (ppm) Minimum electrical resistivity (ohm-cm) CALTRANS CRITERIA FOR CORROSIVE MATERIALS <5.5 >2,000 >500 <1,000 RANGE OF VALUES 7.3-8.1 137-335 846-7427 151-1560 ••* K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200V296-02\RepomCartsbadGDR3.doc 43 9.0 MATERIAL SOURCES The identification and location of potential material sources is outside the scope of our work. However, import fill should satisfy the criteria in Section 8.3. 44 K:\datafts\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc 10.0 MATERIAL DISPOSAL There should be no disposal. Any permitting, handling, and disposal of material is outside DYA's scope of work. 45 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc 11.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 11.1 CONSTRUCTION ADVISORIES See Section 4.3 that addresses man-made and natural features that may affect construction. The following is a partial list of items that should be considered during construction. • High groundwater and sandy soils affecting CIDH pile construction. • Existing Carlsbad Boulevard bridge abutment slope and restricted working space. • Limited working and environmentally sensitive areas* near the AHL bridge. • Liquefiable soils. 11.2 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS THAT INFLUENCE DESIGN 11.2.1 CBB Retaining Wall The CBB retaining wall as currently planned will require a 6- to 8-foot high vertical cut into the existing Carlsbad Boulevard embankment 2H:1 V slope. Because shallow foundations support the existing Carlsbad Boulevard bridge structure, sloping back the excavation is not feasible. The vertical slope cut will, therefore, require shoring to provide worker safety and prevent undermining of the existing CBB abutment shallow foundations. As noted in Section 8.4, top down shoring techniques will be required due to the presence of the bridge structure. These shoring methods can be expensive. Potentially less costly alternatives to consider in lieu of the planned 6- to 8-foot high vertical cut into the existing Carlsbad Boulevard bridge embankment include one or more the following. • Move the bike path from the currently planned location to the bottom of the embankment slope by constructing a retaining wall on the down gradient side of the slope. • Raise the grade of the bike path to reduce the cut slope height. • Relocate the bike path alignment onto the abandoned tracks at the bottom of the slope. 46 K:\daUfls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\Car1sbadGDR3.doc 11.2.2 54-inch Diameter Sewer The planned 54-inch diameter sewer which will be part of the Agua Hedionda Lagoon bridge will be cased in a 60-inch diameter steel shell and supported structurally on the bridge. The portion of the planned 54-inch diameter sewer that is not supported structurally may experience distress because of seismic activity. The sewer designer should consider the following affects: • Differential settlement of the sewer pipe between the structurally supported section and the section supported on pipe bedding. • Movement of the non-structurally supported sewer pipe because of lateral spreading north and south of the Aqua Hedionda Lagoon Bridge. • Seismically-induced differential settlements of the non-structurally supported sewer pipe.-ro s 1 1 .3 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS THAT INFLUENCE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS The CIDH piles to support the AHL bridge and abutment retaining walls must be constructed using the wet method. Casing may also be required. The wet method of CIDH construction and inspection tubes (see Section 1 1.4) should be clearly outlined. 11.3.1 Design Considerations for CIDH Piles Based on Pile Installation Methods *m ** The design assumptions included that a temporary casing construction and/or wet construction *» method will be used. If the casing is not removed, the pile capacities will be negatively affected. *• The design capacities were based on a concrete-soil interface. If temporary casing was left in ',„ place, the casing-soil interface should be considered which would result in reduced capacity. m Further, note that Caltrans does not allow any capacity of the cased portion if the casing was installed by any methods other than driven methods using impact hammers. If the construction methods deviate from the assumed methods, pile tip elevations will have to be revised.•m ~m As recommended in Section 11.4.1, the contractor should submit proposed construction methods•m prior to construction for the engineer's review. The submittal should include procedures that would *** show that the casing could be extracted successfully while placing concrete. 47 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc 11.3.2 CIDH Pile Installation Construction methods will have significant effects on load-carrying capacity of the installed pile. Significant quality control and care must be exercised during construction. It is our understanding that only a few local contractors are experienced in the construction of CIDH piles below groundwater. Selection of the pile construction contractor should be based on a proven performance record on similar projects. As described in Section 7.2.2, the subsurface conditions include medium-dense to very-dense cohesionless sands above and below groundwater level: These sands (above and below groundwater level) are susceptible to caving. The piles extend a significant depth below the groundwater level. Wet method of construction will be required. The casing may also extend to the full depth. For pile design, a concrete/soil interface was assumed for skin friction. Such an interface will result from careful wet construction methods in combination with temporary casing where needed. Construction methods that would not produce a concrete/soil interface should not be allowed. For example, if temporary casing is introduced into an oversized drilled hole with slurry, slurry may settle out in between the casing and the borehole wall and could potentially impact the interface. Caving (such as that caused by initial dry method of drilling within the upper soils) or overbreak (such as that caused by slurry method of construction) should be avoided near settlement-sensitive facilities. If temporary casings are used, we recommend that a positive hydrostatic head be maintained within the casing above the surrounding groundwater level. Because of the presence of very dense sands, driving of the temporary casing may be difficult. The casing may have to be vibrated in. Care should be taken to prevent quick conditions from developing. Special drilling rigs that simultaneously excavate and rotate/push heavy-walled casings into place, keeping the base of the casing at or below the elevation of the excavating tool at all times, may be required. Removal of the temporary casing will also be difficult. Experience of the driller is very important in the removal of the temporary casing because successful recovery will depend on available equipment at the site and the methods of installation that are used. Lubricating the casing by adding uncontrolled bentonite slurry to a borehole before setting the casing should not be allowed. Effects of casing installation on the pile load-carrying capacities are addressed below. 48 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc When wet construction methods are used, the integrity of concrete should be checked using downhole gamma-gamma and crosshole sonic testing. PVC inspection pipes (Figure 15) should be installed within the CIDH piles to facilitate the above testing. At least one inspection should be provided for every foot of diameter of the CIDH pile. 2.5-inch OD inspection pipe 3-inch-clear Spiral 30-inch max. spacing for inspection pipes Clear spacing (2-inch clear for #25 and smaller not bundled main reinforcement; 3-inch clear for other reinforcing configurations) from outside of inspection pipe to main reinforcement Figure 15 - CIDH PILE INSPECTION PIPES The casing diameter should be selected carefully to ensure that there is enough room for tremie pipes for pile construction. CIDH piles are designed as friction piles. The bottom of the drilled hole should be cleaned out to prevent any soil inclusion into concrete. The depth of the hole should be measured carefully to ensure that the clear, unobstructed depth of the pile would be no less that the design friction length required. The contractor should be required to submit proposed construction methods priorto construction for the engineer's review. • The concrete for piles should be placed through downhole funnels and pipes or similar provisions (referred to as tremie herein) and in such a manner that the concrete does not strike the side of the 49 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc pile shaft or the reinforcing steel. If slurry is used, the bottom of the tremie should be maintained at least 10 feet below the concrete level as the concrete rises and displaces the drilling slurry. When casing is used, a minimum head of 5 feet of concrete should be maintained above the bottom of the casing as it is removed. Casing extraction should be at a slow uniform rate while maintaining a vertical course parallel to the shaft. The concrete should have good flow characteristics. If the workability of the concrete is too low, arching of the concrete will occur and the concrete will move up with casing, creating a gap into which slurry can flow. The rebar cage will also tend to move up in this case. Similar problems will occur if concrete is allowed to set inside the casing. Concrete should be on-site upon completion of drill hole clean out and placed immediately after approval by the engineer. The drill hole should be cleaned out as soon as possible after completion of drilling. A pile excavation should not be allowed to stand open overnight. In general, a minimum of 15 hours should be allowed between placing concrete in one pile shaft and drilling any nearby shafts or performing any other excavations within three pile diameters. The abutments are planned to be supported on single piles and therefore lack redundancy in pile construction. We recommend that the designer should anticipate the possibility of defective, irreparable piles and develop a pile mitigation plan in accordance with Caltrans Bridge Construction Memo 130-9.0. However, because of the right-of-way and schedule restrictions, the development of a mitigation plan is difficult. Therefore, all necessary steps should be taken to ensure that the piles are constructed correctly the first time. Construction joints should not be allowed. 11.4 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND INSTRUMENTATION DYA should be retained to review the finished grading earthwork and foundation plans and specifications for conformance with the intent of our recommendations. The review will enable DYA to modify the recommendations if final design conditions are different than presently understood. During construction, DYA should provide field observation and testing to assure that the site preparation, excavation, foundation installation, and finished grading conform to the intent of these recommendations, project plans, and specifications. This would allow DYA to develop supplemental 50 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\Carlsbad GDR3.doc recommendations as appropriate for the actual soil conditions encountered and the specific construction techniques used by the contractor. As needed during construction, DYA should be retained to consult on geotechnical questions, construction problems, and unanticipated conditions. 11.5 HAZARDOUS WASTE CONSIDERATIONS There was no evidence of hazardous waste materials on the investigated areas along the proposed Class I bike path alignment. 51 KAdatafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc 13.0 LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices common to the local area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. The analyses and recommendations contained in this report are based on the literature review, field investigation, and laboratory testing conducted in the area. The results of the field investigation indicate subsurface conditions only at the specific locations and times, and only to the depths penetrated. They do not necessarily reflect strata variations that may exist between such locations. Although subsurface conditions have been explored as pSrt of the investigation, we have not conducted chemical laboratory testing on samples obtained, nor evaluated the site with respect to the presence or potential presence of contaminated soil or groundwater conditions. The validity of our recommendations is based in part on assumptions about the stratigraphy. Observations during construction can help confirm such assumptions. If subsurface conditions different from those described are noted during construction, recommendations in this report must be reevaluated. DYA should be retained to observe earthwork construction in order to help confirm that our assumptions and recommendations are valid or to modify them accordingly. In accordance with UBC Appendix Chapter 33 Section 3317, DYA cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of recommendations if we do not observe construction. This report is intended for use only for the project described. In the event that any changes in the nature, design, or location of the facilities are planned, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report should not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report modified or verified in writing by DYA. We are not responsible for any claims, damages, or liability associated with the interpretation of subsurface data or reuse of the subsurface data or engineering analyses without our express written authorization. 53 K:\datafls\PROJECTSV200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc 14.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Society of Civil Engineers, 1994, Technical Engineering and Design Guides as Adapted from the US Army Corps of Engineers, No, 9, "Settlement Analysis", p.12-20. ASTM, 1999, Annual Book of Standards, Vol. 4.08 and 4.09, Soil and Rock. California Commission, Bridge over the Atchinson Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Near Carlsbad- Sta.478+30.69, San Diego County General Plan, dated October 1923? California Department of Public Works Division of Highways, Cannon Road Undercrossing, As Built Plans, Log of Test Borings, Bridge 57-249, drawing 5749-10, dated April 24,1973. California Department of Public Works Division of Highways.'Palomar Airport Road Overcrossing, As Built Plans, Log of Test Borings, Bridge 57-556, drawing 57556-14, dated November 16,1966. California Department of Transportation, Highway Design Manual, Fifth Edition. California Department of Transportation, 1995, Standard Specifications. California Department of Transportation, 1999, Draft Interim Corrosion Guidelines for Foundation Investigations, Corrosion Technology Section, Office of Materials and Foundation, May 1999. California Department of Transportation, 1996, California Seismic Hazard Retail Index Map. California Department of Transportation, 1996, Caltrans Seismic Hazard Map and Report California Department of Transportation, 1996, Caltrans Seismic Map and Report California Department of Transportation, 1996, Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 106-2, Groundwater Occurrence and Quality, San Diego Region, 1967. California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, 1:250,000 Series, 1966. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, Scale 1:750,000, Geologic Data Map No. 6. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication No. 42. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, Scale 1:150,000, Geologic Data Map No. 6. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California. Caterpillar Performance Handbook, 1998, Caterpillar, Inc., Edition 29. 54 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc Group Delta, 2001, Recommended Geotechnical Parameters Carlsbad Boulevard Overhead (Bridge No. 57C-134) Seismic Retrofit Project, San Diego County, California, Group Delta Project No. I- 147. International Conference of Building Officials, 2000, International Building Code. Isihara, K., 1985, Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes, Proceedings of 11th International Conference S.M. & F.E., Volume 1, pp. 321-376. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 1997, "Summary Report" - Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Technical Report, NCEER 97-002, December 1997. Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California, March 1999. Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Volume 113, No. GT8. Western Regional Climate Center, 2001, Web Page, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu. Youd, L.T., 1994, Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spreading Displacement, Seismic Short Course, Evaluation and Mitigation of Earthquake Induced Liquefaction Effects, University of Southern California. 55 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc APPENDIX A FIELD INVESTIGATION K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CarlsbadGDR3.doc APPENDIX A - FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation for the proposed project consisted of drilling 15 borings (Borings B-1, B-2, B- 4, B-4A, B-7 through B-9, and P-1 through P-8) to depths ranging from approximately 3 feet to 79 feet. Borings B-3 and B-6 where not drilled because of access restrictions. Boring B-5 was a backup location for Boring B-4 and was not drilled. The approximate boring locations are shown on Figure 2 through Figure 5. Pacific Drilling drilled 13 shallow (less than 30 feet) borings (Boring P-1 through P-8, Borings B-1, B- 4A, and B-7 through B-9) using tripod drilling equipment with solid stem auger between March 13 and 15 2002. Tri-County Drilling drilled 2 deep (greater than 30 feet) borings (Borings B-2 and B-4) on March 18 and 19, 2002, with a truck-mounted all-terrain CME-550 drill rig using hollow-stem auger/rotary wash drilling techniques. Our field engineer observed the drilling operations and collected drive samples for visual examination and subsequent laboratory testing. Drive samples were collected with a 2.4 inch-inside-diameter (3.0 inch-outside-diameter) modified California split- barrel sampler lined with brass tubes and a standard split-spoon penetrometer sampler (SPT) with dimensions in general accordance with ASTM 3550 and 1586, respectively. Both samplers were driven with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. Pacific Drilling used a cathead trip with 2 loops to lift the hammer. Tri-County Drilling used an automatic trip hammer. Blow counts were recorded for each 6-inch increment. The blows required to drive the modified California sampler were converted to equivalent SPT N-values by multiplying by 0.5 (N=0.5 x modified California blows per 12 inches). Soils encountered in the test borings were classified in general accordance with the ASTM Soil Classification System (ASTM D2487 and 2488), summarized on Plate A1. Boring logs presented on Plates A2 through A19 were prepared from visual examination of the samples, cuttings obtained during drilling operations, and results of laboratory tests. A Caltrans style log of test borings (LOTB) is also presented in this appendix. Groundwater was encountered in Borings B-2, B-4, and B-4A during the field investigation at depths between 7 feet and 22 feet. The groundwater measurements were made immediately after drilling and may not have stabilized. Shallow borings were backfilled with soil cuttings and deep borings with cement-bentonite grout. A-1 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM-ASTM D2487 MAJOR DIVISIONS COARSE-GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAr NO 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE-GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO- 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION RETAINED ON NO 4 SIEVE SAND AND SANDY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO 4 SIEVE SILTS AND CLAYS SILTS AND CLAYS CLEAN GRAVELS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) GRAVELS WITH FINES APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES CLEAN SANDS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH FINES APPRECIABLE AMOUNT OF FINES LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 LIQUID LIMIT GREATER THAN 50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS SYMBOLS GRAPH > { r f ' • J •'.•".-'.•'.•'.•'.•'. m <<"//•//'/T /y/////^^/, 'y/y///////,' -_— _— _- Himiiii 3Ha$£ LETTER GW GP GM GC sw SP SM SC ML CL OL MH CH OH PT TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS WELL-GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS. GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES. LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS. GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY SANDS. LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS. GRAVELLY SAND. LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY SANDS. SAND - SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS. SAND - CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS. ROCK FLOUR. SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS. LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS OR DlATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR SILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HK3H PLASTICITY. ORGANIC SILTS PEAT. HUMUS. SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS NOTE DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS I "Push" Sampler Split Barrel "Drive" Sampler With Liner Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler Bag Sample Concrete/Rock Core Groundwater Surface NP = Nonplastic EIT = Expansion Index Test SE = Sand Equivalent CBR = California Bearing Ratio CD = Consol. Drained Comp. CU = Consol. Undrained Comp. UU = Undrained, Unconsol. Comp. RV = R-Value CHEM = Chemical Analysis DS = Direct Shear CON = Consolidation SA = Grain size; HYD = Hydrometer COMP= Compaction Test [PID] Reading in ppm above background SPT "N" = Uncorrected equivalent blow count for last foot of driving (set to 100 for driving refusal) KEY TO LOG OF BORINGS Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE A1 BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod (Little Beaver) BORING DIAMETER (inches): 6 DATE STARTED: 3/13/02 SPT HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs LOGGED BY: JGS CHECKED BY: RAF C $sUIS. -1 20- - 15- . - 10- - 5~ - o- - -5- _£- §•« Qt 5— -I - - 15- - 20- - 25- - j_ «>n E TOW IA T o E w - ." • " " . w*VKm X//X 9J tn"• <Uen .C o .E CO CO 6 7 15 20 30 50/5" 50/6" o0u_ 8 Z n r7§co m 11 >50 >50 "ft c~ C/5 3 0S ECD 0u. O ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 24 MSL DRILLING METHOD: Solid Stem Auger BORING DEPTH (feet): 10 DATE COMPLETED: 3/13/02 DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) ^. g4 DESCRIPTION * SILTY SAND (SM); yellowish olive brown, moist, medium dense, fine- to medium-grained sand, few gravel - FILL SILTY SAND (SM); yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, fine- to medium-grained sand, few gravel - LINDA VISTA FORMATION (Qlv) SANDSTONE (Ts); pale yellow, moist, very dense, fine- to medium-grained sand, few gravel, decomposed granite - SANTIAGO FORMATION AHqht qrav, trace coarse-qrained sand /" Bottom of boring at 9.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered Boring backfilled with cuttings. during drilling. G*O :& Q Q 99 108 ^ 3 S .52 c0 05 0 15 11 , — .ss -J -1 >» ^p "o ""-' (O <U(0 -OQ. £ 0)c tf) ^*" d) <5 w | 0 0. * 19 15 en CU1- 19o £L SA DS LOG OF BORING B-1 Page 1 of 1 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 DRILLING EQUIPMENT: CME-550 BORING DIAMETER (inches): 4 DATE STARTED: 3/19/02 SPT HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs LOGGED BY: JGS CHECKED BY: SS c0 11 LU '£• 25- 20- 15- - 10- - 5- o- f.? 5— 10- - 15- ; 20- ~ 25- | a COW IM X Ifm I IA X o.a W / V V -.- •_- - .- ;". .'• .• in x:* o!•£ CD (O 31 33 29 6 6 6 5 6 9 4 3 4 5 4 5 4 9 15 SPTNBlows per Foot31 12 7 7 4 24 | d. "55 oilo ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 26 MSL DRILLING METHOD: Rotary Wash BORING DEPTH (feet): 79 DATE COMPLETED: 3/19/02 DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) g^. g4 DESCRIPTION * SILTY SAND (SM); brown, moist, fine- to coarse grained sand, fine-to coarse gravel - FILL dense, decreased coarse gravel content yellowish brown, medium dense, fine- to medium grained sand dark yellowish brown, loose, no coarse-grained sand dark reddish brown, increased roots v silt content, trace hairline "SILTY SAND (SM); dark brown, wet, very loose to loose, fine- to medium-grained sand, trace hair line roots - LAGOONAL DEPOSITS (?) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); dark greenish gray, wet, medium dense, fine-grained sand, micaceous - LAGOONAL DEPOSITS (?)DryDensity (pcf)111 95 119 MoistureContent (%)2 6 16 |i PlasticityIndex (%)Percent Passing#200 Sieve12 18 4 Other Tests[PIP]DS DS LOG OF BORING B-2 Page 1 of 3 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 a. cg 5 — LUfe -5- -10- -15- -20- -25- - . -30- - - . -35- -40- - - 5" Q-O)CU 8) QS 35- 40- 45- - 50- ; - - 55- ; 60- ; — -. 65- ; <D Q. Ct ¥IA X— j TA x ' — ; fIA x TA X | >, CO &&m ^7/A$<$$•M ^^^%v ^ \yx\> ^ ^ NJ6OO ^4m^x&$/>%•4mXXXVpil ^vy/k;$//A ^^$c% 1VxVxx\\X\N MWVVxI1m ^ ^Im;1x^M 1 ^w ^M1ix%<\XXxNvvcv ^^^ ^s? "o £ CO co 11 97^ i 36 14 21 24 35 50/6" 19 28 33 28 38 38 20 23 25 38 50/6" 24 31 33 t3oLL Z o)tlto co 31 45 >50 61 38 48 >50 64 c- S o •*-* ^ a.2 Ev ou. O DESCRIPTION dense SANDSTONE (Ts); dark greenish gray, wet, dense, fine-grained sand - SANTIAGO FORMATION dark greenish gray, dense * very dense decreased silt content dense fine- to medium grained sand greenish gray, very dense c-oo >» '</) £-£Q Q 102 92 95 ^__ xO0^ (J) u. 5 g5 0 26 28 28 -o5-'&!_i ~J >S>P.±i 3^.y ^ ^n Q)JD "D Q. = CDc tnUlCO <D ^ iy5 eg CU CMQ. * 6 5 5 6 (/>0) <u Q1 O t CHEM LOG OF BORING B- 2 PLATE Page 2 of 3 • - Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail i\^T Project No. 296-02 imWh 9.8 Elevation(feet)-45- -50- -55-1 -60- -65- - -70- - -75- - -80- £ —a. "35si 75— 80- - 85- - 90- - 95- - 100- - 105- _| Sampler IIm x E t,CO II11 &sa> .cto.c CO (O 50/5" 29 50/6" oou_ <uQ. Z M tlW CD >50 >50 c-s. ys => Q.2 E.0) 0u. O DESCRIPTION trace coarse-grained sand, trace marine shells trace marine shells » Bottom of boring at 79 feet. Groundwater encountered at 22 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cement-bentonite grout. 'C ^x 2> S ^£Q D MoistureContent (%)£S ~ II .^s?o '~"•~ xtn o>oj -D E S Percent Passing#200 Sieve4 8 Other Tests[PID]LOG OF BORING B-2 Page 3 of 3 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 DRILLING EQUIPMENT: CME-550 BORING DIAMETER (inches): 4 DATE STARTED: 3/18/02 SPT HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs LOGGED BY: JGS CHECKED BY: RAF c0Ifill £- 10- 5- 0- -5~ - -10- -15- O.'Sat 5— 10- 15- 20- - 25- <£a. raco Iflh X Y m\ % X on CO ':-' • ' ''•-'.'•' &$<n ^ S ID 6 6 7 push push 4 8 11 24 3 6 13 2 5 7 oou.SPTNBlows per6 4 17 19 12 I 5 d.2 £ ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 12 MSL DRILLING METHOD: Rotary Wash BORING DEPTH (feet): 62 DATE COMPLETED: 3/18/02 DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) Q^. ^4 DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND (SM); yellowish brown, moist, loose, fine- to medium-grained sand - FILL gray, loose, fine-grained sand 5Z SILTY SAND (SM); dark gray, wet, very loose to loose, fine-grained sand, 2 inches of sandy silt layer interbedded, pieces of wood - LAGOONAL DEPOSITS (?) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); greenish gray, medium dense, fine- to medium-grained sand - LAGOONAL DEPOSITS (?) dark gray, fine- to medium-grained sand, trace organic matter micaceous c & 00 96 101 MoistureContent (°/9 26 sr .i'.i (A Q)_OS "D O>C '(0 Percent PC#200 Siev23 4 3 CO Other Tes[PIP]DS CHEM LOG OF BORING B- 4 Page 1 of 2 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE A6 .4 c0 CO ^-*11 -20- -25- -30- -35- -40- • -45- - -50- • -55- f~ O.^ 35- - 40- - - 45- - - 50- - - 55- - 60- - 65- ~| SamplerW A TJk , JI• r/X E X o 1 CO ^<^§^vjyy/'}m 1 ^% 1B N*<\ o^X PB ^V?VV/vv wp ^^^^<^5:\\ P 1^XX\ p 1 ^ Ul £ CD to 15 20 25 17 50/6" 14 20 33 22 27 30 13 21 24 19 20 22 7 15 23 8LL Iz </,tlCO CQ 45 >5Q 53 28 45 42 38 g . ~" -3 d. 1§u. O DESCRIPTION SANDSTONE (Ts); gray, wet, dense, fine-grained sand - SANTIAGO FORMATION light gray, very dense, fine- to medium-grained sand, micaceous * trace marine shells greenish gray, medium dense, fine-grained sand, few marine shells wet, dense, trace organic matter, trace marine shells fine- to medium-grained sand, trace coarse-grained sand, little marine shells Bottom of boring at 61 .5 feet. Groundwater encountered at 7 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cement-bentonite grout. "GQ. £-1Q Q 98 104 s£MoistureContent (25 23 || o ~~-' '•P Xen <u a:li. enc'tn £ u 1r Wgo Q 3fc 5 10 8 to U) £ Ie 6 9i DS LOG OF BORING B-4 Page 2 of 2 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE A7 BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod (Little Beaver) BORING DIAMETER (inches): 6 DATE STARTED: 3/14/02 SPT HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs LOGGED BY: JGS CHECKED BY: RAF Elevation(feet)20- 15- - - 10- . 5- - . 0- - -5- 0.0)<D <bOS. - 5— - - 10- - - 15- - - - 20— - - 25- - - ex (0(/) TI • X Y A v A vA E <n '/Y•v> -// 1 '.• .-. ': ".-. -".-. "• Q)to -c5 o CO co / / / '/ / / /. 5 6 . 7 3 3 4 5 6 9 3 57 3 5 7 oou_ i Z (/)tlu) co 6 7 7 12 12 c* — = dS E$ o LL O ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 24 MSL DRILLING METHOD: Solid Stem Auger BORING DEPTH (feet): 26 DATE COMPLETED: 3/14/02 DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs ID- 7 4DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) QD. ^ DESCRIPTION * CLAYEY SAND (SC); brown, moist, fine- to coarse-grained sand, fine gravel - FILL light olive, moist SILTY SAND (SM); brown, moist, loose, fine-grained sand, trace roots, trace fine gravel pockets of light olive silt, oxide -FILL stained, fine-grained sand increased silt content, trace coarse-grained sand, pockets of light olive silt, trace coarse-grained gravel olive brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine- to medium-grained sand V"POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM); dark gray, wet, medium dense, fine-grained sand, trace decaying organic matter, laminated, micaceous - LAGOONAL DEPOSITS (Ql) Bottom of boring at 26.5 feet. Groundwater encountered at 22 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. Boring collapsed after drilling 26.5 feet. "Ca. i-CO ao 100 101 ~ 0) ^ .«! 13 9 4 7 "O ^""II 30 'o —•JS X JO T3 13 f to Q>ft >Percent f#200 Sie31 15 21 8 » 'to £ !QSet. SA COMP RV DS DS LOG OF BORING B-4A Page 1 of 1 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 46 MSL DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod (Little Beaver) DRILLING METHOD: Solid Stem Auger BORING DIAMETER (inches): 6 BORING DEPTH (feet): 10 DATE STARTED: 3/15/02 DATE COMPLETED: 3/15/02 SPT HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140lbs LOGGED BY: JGS CHECKED BY: RAF DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) l°^. 3 4 ^ Elevationf ' (feet)40- 35- - 30- - 25- - 20- r 5— - 10- 15- - 20- - 25- - <u Q. as CO I z X o.0 CO "- . • • ::/.- 5. <oin .c 00 (Q 12 24 14 30 30 20/1" 16 22 17 SPTNBlows per Foot19 >50 39 c- & = "2 E1) oU.O DESCRIPTION * SILTY SAND (SM); brown, dry, medium dense, fine- to medium-grained sand, trace hairline roots - LINDA VISTA FORMATION (Qlv) yellowish brown, very dense, fine-grained sand dense, decreased silt content Bottom of boring at 1 0.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. £. '5 £-5Q O 108 110 MoistureContent (%)5 4 "O ^ Si o •-'••c xen a)ra xj0- S:Percent Passing#200 Sieve29 18 tn .2 o SL SA COMP RV DS LOG OF BORING B- 7 Page 1 of 1 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod (Little Beaver) BORING DIAMETER (inches): 6 DATE STARTED: 3/15/02 SPT HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs LOGGED BY: JGS CHECKED BY: RAF c .2 IfLllS. 45- 40- 35- - - 30- - 25- - 20- £ *— Q t. - - 5- _ 10- - _ 15- - 20- - 25- - «> 1n> )?_> ¥I•t y— i Yi oXI1co /• -V • , • . " • ->• '. .-.•".-.- S <0 £> 0 0 = CQ (O 13 10g 16 20 28 15 16 20 19 18 oo 8u. <B Z ui f 8CO CO g 24 36 28 c- - 6 -fc ft(D o U- 0 ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 46 MSL DRILLING METHOD: Solid Stem Auger BORING DEPTH (feet): 12 DATE COMPLETED: 3/15/02 DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) QD. ^4 DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND (SM); brown, dry to moist, loose, fine- to medium-grained sand, trace coarse-grained sand - LINDA VISTA FORMATION (Qlv) reddish brown, moist, medium yellowish brown, dense dense medium dense, decreased silt content Bottom of boring at 1 1 .5 feet. Groundwater not encountered Boring backfilled with cuttings. during drilling. *tTQ. £-1Q D 123 108 ^o*- 3 §.«£0 050 8 7 fi-"-" 'j- '5 ^ — Xin <uCD "O Q. S- O)c (/) (0 OJ Q- $ Is 0. * 30 30 tnin |g O !L SA DS LOG OF BORING B- 8 Page 1 of 1 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE A10 BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod (Little Beaver) BORING DIAMETER (inches): 6 DATE STARTED: 3/15/02 SPT HAMMER LOGGED BY:Elevation(feet)40- 35- 30- - 25- 20- - 15- Q-'Ssi - - 10- 15- 20- - 25- - a. CO W X y A E •>? 1 I i 1 DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs JGS CHECKED BY: RAF "c 1 OT '* 1 1 I f I \ I * i I I 1 Is 10 J= 5 <o 6 8 10 15 18 22 30 50/2" 50/4" 'o£ iz «tlw ca 18 20 >50 >50 I -* d. 2 E£ oLLO ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 42 MSL DRILLING METHOD: Solid Stem Auger BORING DEPTH (feet): 18 DATE COMPLETED: 3/15/02 DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) Q^. g4 DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM); brown, moist, hard to dig, fine- to medium-grained sand, fine gravel, few coarse gravel - LINDA VISTA FORMATION (Qlv) SANDSTONE (Ts); olive gray, moist, medium dense, fine- to medium-grained sand - SANTIAGO FORMATION 2 light olive, wet, very dense, fine-grained sand ^drilling refusal at 18.3 feet Bottom of boring at 18.3 feet. Groundwater encountered at 12 feet during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. 1 "(O Q Q 111 MoistureContent (%)17 16 n 47 •^ x(0 0)(0 "OES 33 Percent Passing#200 Sieve36 19 18 Other Tests[PID]DS CHEM LOG OF BORING B- 9 Page 1 of 1 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE A11 oS 1 BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 29 MSL DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod (Little Beaver) DRILLING METHOD: Solid Stem Auger BORING DIAMETER (inches): 6 BORING DEPTH (feet): 3 DATE STARTED: 3/13/02 DATE COMPLETED: 3/13/02 SPT HAMMER LOGGED BY: Co IfLU& 25 20- - 15- - 10- - 5- - 0- o-aJ - -i 5- - 10- - 15- - 20- - 25- - ,_ "5 to03yi DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs JGS CHECKED BY: RAF DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) ^. g4 5 w 8 a $ "0 £ CD (O 8 7 7 4 5 6 . . oL_ sz « tl03 m 7 11 c-J2 ~ £55 => Q.T3 p <D oiZO DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM); brown, moist, loose, fine- to coarse-grained sand, trace fine gravel - LINDA VISTA FORMATION (Qlv) medium dense Bottom of boring at 3 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling Boring backfilled with cuttings. I5a. a a 119 ^ 0) ^ 5*•s =13 4 ~ •a^ II •&S?o — || SB encin a) a>is SOT esa> Sa. * 15 {/) 0) IQ SA COMP LOG OF BORING P-1 Page 1 of 1 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE A12 BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 37 MSL DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod (L ttle Beaver) DRILLING METHOD: Solid Stem Auger BORING DIAMETER (inches): 6 BORING DEPTH (feet): 4 DATE STARTED: 3/13/02 DATE COMPLETED: 3/13/02 SPT HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140lbs DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140lbs LOGGED BY: JGS CHECKED BY: RAF DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) QQ. 3 4 to —x II 35- 30- 25- 20- • 15- - 10- ti'Sat - - 5^ - _ 10- - 15- - 20- - 25- ; i_ 'o. roCO VI VA 1 CO ." ." . / - • • . ^Q> co"• <0CO -C 5 "O i CD co 13 14 18 6 7 oo <0 Z to tlco co 16 14 CO . ^ cCO -1 d.2 E•is DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND (SM); brown, moist, medium dense, fine- to medium-grained sand - LINDA VISTA FORMATION (Qlv) trace coarse-grained sand, trace fine gravel Bottom of boring at 4.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling Boring backfilled with cuttings. ^Q. Q Q 116 # CD ^ 3 £.2 c 15 9 *^" ~ ^ ^>-^g '~ X(A 0)CO -o Q_ S D) CL >*- <U 11CD CM CL* 17 toCD Ie SA LOG OF BORING P- 2 Page 1 of 1 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE A13 BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 38 MSL DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod (Little Beaver) DRILLING METHOD: Solid Stem Auger BORING DIAMETER (inches): 6 BORING DEPTH (feet): 4 DATE STARTED: 3/13/02 DATE COMPLETED: 3/13/02 SPT HAMMER DROP30 inches WT:140lbs DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140lbs LOGGED BY: c 5 to . — .iiUJS^ 35- - 30- - - 25- - 20- - 15- - 10- j. _ st - sH - 10- - 15- - 20- - 25- - ^0) "3 reW yXA " .' JGS CHECKED BY: RAF DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) Q^. ^4 8E (n <D yj CO £1 o £ CD CD 10 9 12 6 6 8 0ou. £ Z n (n m 10 14 JO ^ 00 D ^ "S o u. 0 DESCRIPTION * SILTY SAND (SM); brown, moist, loose to medium dense, fine- to medium-grained sand, trace fine gravel - LINDA VISTA FORMATION (Qlv) medium dense, trace clay Bottom of boring at 4.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling Boring backfilled with cuttings. c- — - .£• frgQQ 113 ^ 2 i « c13 9 --^g. •11 >% xO 'o v </) (1)(0 T3 ES D)C 0) S 0> ^* d) 5 w Is 22 (A 0)J- ^Q 0£^ LOG OF BORING P- 3 Page 1 of 1 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE A14 BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 46 MSL DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod (Little Beaver) DRILLING METHOD: Solid Stem Auger BORING DIAMETER (inches): 6 BORING DEPTH (feet): 4 DATE STARTED: 3/15/02 DATE COMPLETED: 3/15/02 SPT HAMMER LOGGED BY:Elevation(feet)45- 40- 35- 30- _ 25- . 20- f? 5- 10- - 15- 20- - 25- - Q. CO W IA ^ DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 IDS JGS CHECKED BY: RAF DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) QD. ^ 1 OT &8to ^4 O JO H CD (O 18 50/5" 50/6" ooLL. <UQ.z «tl(O CD >50 >50 z>DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND (SM); brown, dry, very dense, fine-grained sand - LINDA VISTA FORMATION (Qlv) Bottom of boring at 4.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. a. 'in Q Q 107 MoistureContent (%)4 •o ^ 11 o — '+= Xto d) CO "OES Percent Passing#200 Sieve27 Other Tests[PID]SA LOG OF BORING P-4 Page 1 of 1 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE A15 BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 48 MSL DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod (Little Beaver) DRILLING METHOD: Solid Stem Auger BORING DIAMETER (inches): 6 BORING DEPTH (feet): 4 DATE STARTED: 3/14/02 DATE COMPLETED: 3/14/02 SPT HAMMER LOGGED BY:Elevation(feet)45- 40- 35- 30- - 25- - 20- £"Q.'S Q> <l) ^ - 10- - 15- - 20- - 25- - G toW IA X DROP30 inches WT: 140lbs DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140lbs JGS CHECKED BY: RAF DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) g^. g4 "o 1 in j= m (o 6 5 3 3 4 10 SPTNBlows per Foot4 14 c-tn -^ o. "w oilo DESCRIPTION SILTY SAND (SM); brown, moist, very loose to loose, fine- to medium-grained sand, rootlets - LINDA VISTA FORMATION (Qlv) reddish brown, medium dense Bottom of boring at 4.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Boring backfilled with cuttings. c-oa. a> a a 105 MoistureContent (%)5 ,1 "w <I)OJ ^ CL £Percent Passing#200 Sieve25 Other Tests[PIP]LOG OF BORING P-5 Page 1 of 1 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE A16 BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod (Little Beaver) BORING DIAMETER (inches): 6 DATE STARTED: 3/13/02 SPT HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs LOGGED BY: JGS CHECKED BY: RAF Elevation(feet)35- 30- 25- - 20- - 15- - 10- O. <D 5- _ 10- - 15- 20- - 25- -Samplero.0 w '////////,'//'.yy/y/. to .c CO IO 0o Iz « co m I ^=> Q. <u oil O ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 37 MSL DRILLING METHOD: Solid Stem Auger BORING DEPTH (feet): 4 DATE COMPLETED: 3/13/02 DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) J^D. ^4 DESCRIPTION SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL); brown, moist, medium plasticity, fine- to medium-grained sand - LINDA VISTA FORMATION (Qlv) Bottom of boring at 4.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling Boring backfilled with cuttings. o. 'at Q Q MoistureContent (%10 II 34 'i3 X(0 0)(0 "O 5IS 22 O)c'in || 52 0) SA LOG OF BORING P-6 Page 1 of 1 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE A17 BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod (Little Beaver) BORING DIAMETER (inches): 6 DATE STARTED: 3/13/02 SPT HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140lbs LOGGED BY: JGS CHECKED BY: RAF Elevation(feet)30- 25- 20- 15- 10- Q. m Si - j 5— - 10- 15- 20- 25- JBQ. CO COfI \/A 0JO CO* ~ty/-/yy'•/// •/// •/// 0 ">D. <Bin J= O ^m JQ 16 30 26 7 7 oou_ & 2 B)tlco m 28 16 "£ '*~^ 5 d. II ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 35 MSL DRILLING METHOD: Solid Stem Auger BORING DEPTH (feet): 4 DATE COMPLETED: 3/13/02 DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) J^. j4 DESCRIPTION CLAYEY SAND (SC); grayish brown, dry to moist, medium dense, fine- to medium-grained sand, trace fine gravel - LINDA VISTA FORMATION yellowish brown Bottom of boring at 4.0 feet. Groundwater not encountered Boring backfilled with cuttings. (?) during drilling o in Q Q 122 xp MoistureContent (°8 "D " ' II 'o z-'^ Xin 10tO T3 D)C '<n % 0. ^£•ist?o0) CNQ. * 32 37 (A Other Tes[PID]SA LOG OF BORING P-7 Page 1 of 1 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE A18 BORING LOCATION (feet): See Figure 2 ELEVATION AND DATUM (feet): 35 MSL DRILLING EQUIPMENT: Tripod (Little Beaver) DRILLING METHOD: Solid Stem Auger BORING DIAMETER (inches): 6 BORING DEPTH (feet): 4 DATE STARTED: 3/13/02 DATE COMPLETED: 3/13/02 SPT HAMMER LOGGED BY: co *1LU & 35- 30- 25- 20- 15- 10- f Q-^J s— - 10- 15- 20- 25- n 0>W Ti V/\ ^ DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs DRIVE HAMMER DROP30 inches WT: 140 Ibs JGS CHECKED BY: RAF DRIVE SAMPLER DIAMETER (inches) J^D. ^4 "a p CO <'/. ^', / / / .X 5> in £ m to 12 20 2o 12 13 \6 8LL 5 z « D. °co m 22 26 V) - ci ~ => ri2 E DESCRIPTION • SILTY SAND (SM); brown, moist, medium dense, -i fine-grained sand, trace gravel - LINDA VISTA r \ FORMATION (?) / CLAYEY SAND (SC); olive gray, moist, medium dense, fine-grained sand, low plasticity clay - LINDA VISTA FORMATION (?) grayish brown, oxide stains Bottom of boring at 4.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling Boring backfilled with cuttings. - o0. & Q O 115 "^0^ 3 5(O -p 15 8 ^_^ £ 11 X.'o" 5^ (A <D(0 ~OOL S enc m <u c to<u II 26 <n en ^®Q SA RV LOG OF BORING P- 8 Page 1 of 1 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE A19 f* p> i „ • fcj fcj tn IOo § rra •fi u 11 CL r 1 s ?! c — a. II (N1O 5.5 o i l 5 o *. E iZ m e. 1° o I m o a a £"1 o A *! sA '•I 11 HI i s su , £LI I 7 P vis ?* u, iS 3 o i yQ. o: en (/i La l! (slP - g* g EXPLANATION Boring location -0- Boring location 20 0>a•—»• co *-•CO 0>111 -20 -40 -60 30% SUBMITTAL Scale 0 100 feet BOH -2.0 ft on 3/14/02 CLAYEY SAND (SC); brown, moist, fine-.to coarse-grained sand, fine gravel - FILL light olive, moist SILTY SAND (SM); brown, moist, loose, fine-grained sand, trace roots, trace fine gravel - FILL pockets of light olive silt, oxide stained, fine-grained sand. . . . increased silt content, trace coarse-grained sand, pockets of light od've silt, trace coarse-grained gravel oHve brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense, fine- to medium-grained, sand POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT (SP-SM); dark gray, wet, fine-grained sand, trace decaying organic matter, laminated, micaceous - LAGOONAL DEPOSITS (CM) Bottom of borjng at 20.5. feet. BOH ^9.5 ft on 3/1S/02 SILTY SAND (SM); yellowish brown, moist, fine- to medium-grained sand - FILL ~\gray, loose, fine-grained sand SILTY SAND (SM); dark gray; wet, very loose, fine-grained sand, 2 inches of sandy silt layer interbedded, pieces of wood - LAGOONAL DEPOSITS (?) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); greenish gray, medium dense, fine-to medium-grained sand'- • LAGOONAL DEPOSITS (?) dark gray, fine- to medium-grained sand, trace organic matter micaceous SANDSTONE (Ts); gray, wet, dense, fine-grained sand - SANTIAGO FORMATION light gray, very dense, fine- to medium-grained sand, micaceous trace marine shells greenish gray, medium dense, fine-grained sand, few marine shells wet,-dense, -trace organic matter, • trace marine shells fine- to medium-grained sand, trace coarse-grained sand, little marine shells SILTY SAND (SM); brown, moist, fine- to coarse grained sand, fine-to coarse gravel'- FILL ' ' ' dense, decreased coarse gravel content yellowish brown, medium dense, fine- to medium grained sand dark yellowish brown, loose, no coarse-grained sand dark reddish brown, loose, • • • increased silt content, trace hairline roots _ SILTY SAND (SM); dark brown, wet, very loose to loose, fine- to medium-grained sand, trace hair line roots - LAGOONAL >50 >50 2.4 1.4 BOH -52.5 ft on3/19/02 Bottom of boring at 61.5 feet. __ ._POORLY GRADED SAND (SP); dark greenish gray, wet, medium dense, fine-grained sand, micaceous - LAGOONAL DEPOSITS (?) _ SANDSTONE (Ts); dark greenish gray, -wet, medium dense,- • • • fine-grained sand - SANTIAGO FORMATION dark greenish gray, dense very dense decreased silt content dense very dense, fine- to medium- • • grained sand greenish gray, very dense trace coarse-grained sand, trace marine shells trace marine shells Bottom of boring at 79 feet. HOCCT QC1MLS Bft nxuecT 8-2»-02 /C SHOWN JOB NO: 298-02 PLWS PREP/«ED BY: 1616 EAST 17TH STREET SANTA ANA. CA 92705-8509 BENCHMARK: PSTBS; fe^ Ac^SPc? A^C^E^POST pS^^«^SEEtM)2i<MW<SKlMy »t FOUND US.CA&S. BRASS DOC SIHMPEDtaw* mi CQMr MQN.ai^- S ^^^.Y OF EASTERN BERM UNE--- i» MPRTHPLY OF RMCHO SWfTA ~sr~MM. MMK OKMK REVISION DescwnoN "St~tac mm**o*. Tar*MK~ orrwfnw. SHU.CIT ON Y OF CARLSBADWEBIMG aepHmaa MUfFR3 LOC oriisr KMNBS POM: CARLSBAD COSTAL RAIL TRAIL MTM>» owmaBt atawr-maeam. 3190 OMC ft > to Xo0 o: a:o c su s c — £L Conii«t«ncy% ? 5 c — a. II IN 0 II 1 o r ^ CN 1 O ^- ! <f> -4-McdiumDense# o 1 o m o ¥o ?1 A II sA - si II -III .|U illi 2 S C 0 !-, o 1 1 1 I) IS)© ^ l/l 99 20 C.g*-•cc .3?LU 0 -20 30% SUBMTTTAL EXPLANATION Boring location Boring location Sca|e 100 feet BOH 20.2 ft on 3/15/02 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL (SM); brown, moist, hard to dig, fine- to medium-grained sand, fine gravel, few coarse gravel - LINDAVISTA FORMATION (QJv) SANDSTONE (Ts); olive gray, moist, medium dense-, fine- to medium-grained sand - SANTIAGO FORMATION light olive, wet, very dense, fine-grained sand drilling refusal at 18.3 feet Bottom of boring at 18.3 feetT 20 0 <D C _ LU -20 I X » » « ! » O •«:s«wy;2'n ytt-/i*m nor. 8-26-02 AS SHOHN JOB NO: 2Sfi=Q2. PLANS PREPARED BY: DIAZ 1616 EAST 17TH STREET SANTA ANA. CA 92705-8509 BENCHMARK: HWSS OOC SMMPED ~ss~MN. mmaxrin*REVISION DESCSIPnON MI MM. OMIMOTMI. TST"T5ST onwrniML »ilF CITY OF CARLSBAD O ENGMEENNG DEPMmCNT LOC OF TEST KMNCS POK CARLSBAD COSTAL RAIL *"™~ MiUHWB T TRAIL n'Mw o«P:i2-ii-oicnY*«»«tr Mf MK II nojecrw.cm ft' II 01 nn 1 — APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02Weport\CarlsbadGDR3.doc APPENDIX B - LABORATORY TESTING Diaz«Yourman & Associates (DYA) selected soil samples to be tested and the tests to be performed on the samples. Teratest Labs, Inc., performed the laboratory testing. Laboratory data are summarized on the boring logs and presented on Plates B1 through B25. A summary of the geotechnical laboratory testing is presented in Table B1. R-value and corrosion potential test results are summarized in Tables B2 and B3, respectively. Table B1 - LABORATORY TESTING SUMMARY TEST NAME Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve Moisture Content, Dry Density Atterberg Limits Grain-Size Distribution Direct Shear Compaction Resistance (R-) Value PH Resistivity Soluble Sulfates Soluble Chlorides PROCEDURE ASTM D1 140-92 ASTM D221 6-92 ASTM D-431 8-93 ASTM D422-63 ASTM D3080-90 ASTM D1 557-91 ASTM D2844-69 CTM 301 CTM 532 CTM 532 CTM417-B CTM 422 PURPOSE Classification, index properties Classification, index properties Expansion potential, classification, index properties Classification, index properties Shear strength Earthwork Pavement thickness design Corrosion potential Corrosion potential Corrosion potential Corrosion potential LOCATION Boring Logs Boring Logs Plate B1 Plates B2-B6 Plates B7-B1 6 Plate B17-B19 Plates B-20-B22 Table B3, Plates B23-25 Table B3, Plates B23-25 Table B3, Plates B23-25 Table B3, Plates B23-25 Notes: ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials CTM = Caltrans Test Method UBC = Uniform Building Code Table B2 - R-VALUE TEST RESULTS BORING NO. B-4A B-7 P-8 DEPTH (feet) Oto5 Oto5 Oto4 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION 40 66 42 Table B3 - CORROSION POTENTIAL TEST RESULTS Boring No. Depth (feet) PH Water Soluble Sulfate Content (ppm) Water Soluble Chloride Content (ppm) Minimum Resistivity/Moisture Content (ohms-cm/%) B-2 33 8.1 251 5468 202 B-4 15 8.02 335 7427 151 B-9 10 7.3 137 846 1560 B-1 K:\datafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\CartsbadGDR3.doc 3 100 " on •- sn . 7f"l . 1-IO ui en£ 60 ffl in ^n .. iZ h- LLI /in .o °a:UJa •^n •5(1 0 ,I U.S. Stan ieve Size V/2 ) I L 100 50 COBBLES Coarse dard (in.) »• < X i f 1 1 1 1 4 II U.S. Standard Sieve Numbe 8 16 30 50 I I l I 100 200 Ml l? . L _i Ii neter 10 5 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 0.01 0.005 0.001 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Rne GRAVEL Laboratory Testing by Symbol O D A O • •A * Source B-2 B-2 B-2 B-4 B-4 B-4 B-4 B-4 Coarse Medium Rne SAND SILT or CLAY : Teratest Labs, Inc. Depth (feet) 63.0 73.0 78.0 10.0 20.0 26.0 40.0 50.0 Classification SANDSTONE (Ts) SANDSTONE (Ts) SANDSTONE (Ts) SILTY SAND (SM) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) POORLY GRADED SAND (SP) SANDSTONE (Ts) SANDSTONE (Ts) Natural M. C. (%) Liquid F Limit (%) I 'lasticity ndex (%) % Passing #200 Sieve 6 4 8 23 4 3 5 10 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 100 90 80 70 H- | 60 CO UJ 50 UJ 40 UJQ. 30 20 10 0 U.S. Standard Sieve Size (in.) : 3 1X2 X 3A 4 U.S. Standard Sieve Numbers M"*" 8 16 30 50 100 200 Hydrometer - I I \ \ 100 50 10 1 0.5 0.1 0.05 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 COBBLES Coarse Fine GRAVEL Coarse Medium Fine SAND SILT or CLAY Laboratory Testing by: Teratest Labs, Inc. Symbol O D A O • Source P-5 P-6 P-7 P-7 P-8 Depth (feet) 3.0 0.0 0.1 2.5 0.0 Classification SILTY SAND (SM) SANDY LEAN CLAY (CL) SANDSTONE (Ts) SANDSTONE (Ts) SILTY SAND (SM) Natural M. C. (%) 10 Liquid Limit (%) 34 Plasticity Index (%) 22 % Passing #200 Sieve 25 52 32 37 26 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. 296-02 PLATE 2.50 0.00 0.1 0.2 Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.3 c- ^Ifl</> CO<D w /1.3VJ - 2 no . 1 nn O cn . O nn 0.00 0. n5 50 1. n 00 1. A A 50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5. Normal Stress (ksf) Normal Stress (kip/n2) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture Content (%) :£%k ^STja?**^ *x"tf'3S!'*ssTsfc/V' &RAT<E!5»T ^^. L.AISS ^%i DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM O 3080 0.550 • 0.533 0 0.493 0.0033 1.000 2.415 11.26 103.6 48.5 0.9928 17.5 1.100 m 1.057 D 0.795 0.0033 1.000 2.415 11.26 110.0 57.0 0.9818 16.4 2.200 A 1.974 A 1.565 0.0033 1.000 2.415 11.26 111.3 59.1 0.9720 15.0 Boring No.: B-1 Sample No.: 3 Depth (tt) 9.0 Soil Description! Pil>Y«lowPooriy Graded Sinn with Clay(SP-SC) Project No.: 296-02 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail 04-02 OS B-1 *3 @ S.x B7 2.00 co 0.00 0.1 0.2 Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.3 £..\J\J - <^C/5 ^ I 1.00-co COa; CO 0 50 ~ o no - 0. . 4c * C t> 00 0.50 1. f ] 00 1. i L 50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.( Normal Stress (ksf) Normal Stress (kip/ft2) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content ( Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) %) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture Content (%) S^ TT*f 3S A'!f3S'jS5>Tf%fa\? *»TW»» -&-3 :)'%\>LASS'^V DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM 0 3080 0.500 • 0.474 0 0.387 0.0033 1.000 2.415 15.84 116.8 96.4 0.9980 14.9 1.000 m 0.963 D 0.748 0.0033 1.000 2.415 15.84 120.0 105.8 0.9815 14.6 2.000 A 1.515 A 1.272 0.0033 1.000 2.415 15.84 120.5 107.1 0.9812 15.0 Boring No.: B-2 Sample No.: 5 Depth (ft) 23.0 Soil Description: Brown Silty Sand (SM) Project No.: 296-02 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail 04-02 OS B-2 #5 @ 23.X/5 0 Cf) -i nn '. _ 9 en ', • H : co 7 nn -t/5 £.UU £ : 5 1.50" CO 05JZw 1 nn n en - O nn - ^^^^^^^ /^ "*^^^. / " " -jr XH^**«***^^.. t~* •••••• •»H-^«^<^ - """-o-***-^^^****«H hB— -m.nnnnnmninnr.nilnnn r 0 o nn \ I : c/i o nn I ^ 1 so: CDco co 1 nn 0.50 - 0.00 - 0 ^ c 00 1. 0.1 0.2 0.3 Horizontal Deformation (in.) E [ > ) A 00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 Normal Stress (ksf) Normal Stress (kip/ft2) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture Content (%) 1.000 2.000 4.000 • 0.904 m 1.671 A 3.174 0 0.661 D 1.278 A 2.529 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 1.000 1.000 1.000 2.415 2.415 2.415 25.44 25.44 25.44 96.7 98.5 97.9 92.4 96.6 95.2 0.9923 0.9866 0.9775 28.4 27.8 27.2 F)IDCf*T CI-/C AD^''v iTSP^JSCT^^^T LJir\c\s i onc^ifx XyLAas'X TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained -ASTM D 3080 Boring No.: B-4 Project NO.: 295-02 Sample No.: 7[_ ,^ 0. „ Carlsbad Coastal Rail TrailDepth (ft) 35.0 SoilDescripton: Dark Gray Silty Sand (SM) 04-02 DS8-4#7@35.x/3 1.50 0.00 0.1 0.2 Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.3 1 .ou - « 1.00 - C/>(/) £ TO £ 0.50 -W 0.00 - 0. I 4 i 00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 / 2.50 3. Normal Stress (ksf) Normal Stress (kip/fta) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2) Shear Stress @ End of -Test (ksf) Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture Content (%) 0.500 • 0.443 0 0.396 0.0033 1.000 2.415 3.68 98.5 14.0 0.9846 19.7 1.000 B 0.770 D 0.714 0.0033 1.000 2.415 3.68 101.2 15.0 0.9778 16.9 2.000 A 1.232 A 1.191 0.0033 1.000 2.415 3.68 101.4 15.0 0.9687 17.6 ^kwTTaf *» ATHfltSTsjiv'v «"™«» swa :j "4\SLA8S'^V DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 Boring No.: B-4A Sample No.: 1 Depth (ft) 5.0 Soil Description: s"™* *»•» po"V <*»i«i sa^ «» » ISP-SMI Project No.: 296-02 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail 04-02 OS B-4A #1 @ 5.xls B12 2.00 CO 0.00 0.1 0.2 Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.3 <&.uu - •\ ^n - £ ^wto £ ^ nn _Shear St3n c3 CO nn - 0. ! 00 0. i I \ 50 1.00 1. t L 50 2. it 00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.I Normal Stress (ksf) Normal Stress (kip/nz) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content ( Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) %) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture Content (%) :?^Ik,^3r'S3?^S> ATSTSSSTf*:^V1 SS,-F?AJ 3£»-«> 3 ^V S &9Wt''MSbL^fit •4j»->*i'S'<u> ^V DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 0.500 • 0.449 0 0.402 0.0033 1.000 2.415 7.37 97.8 27.5 0.9894 21.1 1.000 m 0.920 D 0.720 0.0033 1.000 2.415 7.37 101.2 29.9 0.9898 19.7 2.000 A 1.821 A 1.593 0.0033 1.000 2.415 7.37 104.7 32.7 0.9770 19.3 Boring No.: B-4A Sample No.: 3 Depth (ft) 15.0 Soil Description: Y.«owhhBro«nP<K»lyGnd.<IS««iwilha(SP.SM) Project No.: 296-02 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail 04-02 2 nn CO £ 1 nn _ CO L. COCD CO 0.50 J 0 00 -i /" "~~~ ~ r "^*— _ * 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 Horizontal Deformation (in.) 2 nn ^^s 10£ 1.00- CO CO CD.cCO 0.50 - 0.00 0 f(. A A i []1 ) 00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 Normal Stress (ksf) Normal Stress (kip/ft2) 0.500 Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2) • 0.489 Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) O 0.377 Deformation Rate (in./min.) 0.0033 Initial Sample Height (in.) 1 .000 Diameter (n.) 2.415 Initial Moisture Content (%) 3.94 Dry Density (pcf) 108.9 Saturation (%) 19.4 Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) 0.9931 Final Moisture Content (%) r ^ 14.9 1.000 2.000 H 0.745 A 1.543 D 0.527 A 1.338 0.0033 0.0033 1.000 1.000 2.415 2.415 3.94 3.94 110.4 110.8 20.2 20.4 0.9950 0.9902 15.0 13.7 DIRFCT ^HEAR Boring No.: B-7 Project No.: 296-02 $®yV? 3s»TA$iT S\«nr Samnle No ' o ^VuaWV TEST RESULTS _ "J ,„ " in Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail>^_ "- Depth (ft) b.u Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 Soil Description: Strong Brawn Poorty Gnctod Sind with Sit (SP-SM) 04-02 OSS-7#2@6.x/s C/D 0.00 0.1 0.2 Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.3 c-H(/)to CO co .c(0 ^.uu - 9 no - 1 00 ~ n ^n - O nn 4 ( i > c ) 1 ] 0.00 0.50 1.00 1. i i k i 50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5. Normal Stress (ksf) »STrS,pSrv Normal Stress (kip/ft2) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Deformation Rate (in./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture ContentJ%) 0.500 • 0.751 O 0.390 0.0025 1.000 2.415 8.10 122.6 58.3 0.9980 12.5 1.000 m 1.200 D 0.689 0.0025 1.000 2.415 8.10 122.3 57.8 0.9925 11.9 2.000 A 1.977 A 1.391 0.0025 1.000 2.415 8.10 123.7 60.4 0.9883 11.7 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 Boring No.: B-8 Sample No.: 2 Depth (ft) 4.0 Soil Description: Strong Brown Clayey Sand (SC) Project No.: 296-02 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail 04-02 OS B-3 #2 @ 4.xls 2.00 1.50c- g I to u. COCD JCCO 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.1 0.2 Horizontal Deformation (in.) 0.3 £..uu - I/) g 1.00 - CO COCD CO 0.50 - 0.00 - 0. 4 C 00 0. ,1 » [ ) 50 1. ,J ] 00 1. ^ I 50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.( Normal Stress (ksf) Normal Stress (kip/ftz) Peak Shear Stress (kip/ft2) Shear Stress @ End of Test (ksf) Deformation Rate fm./min.) Initial Sample Height (in.) Diameter (in.) Initial Moisture Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Saturation (%) Soil Height Before Shearing (in.) Final Moisture Content (%) 0.500 • 0.655 0 0.412 0.0025 1.000 2.415 16.48 110.3 84.3 0.9945 19.9 1.000 m 1.013 D 0.677 0.0025 1.000 2.415 16.48 111.1 86.1 0.9921 19.0 2.000 A 1.811 A 1.219 0.0025 1.000 2.415 16.48 110.7 85.1 0.9816 18.8 £%«. TfSffSSi A*^" SSf ^SS^f;:;fcrV3 S.^-<Aa &<£) i) ^C LABS "*v.^ DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Consolidated Drained - ASTM D 3080 Boring No.: B-9 Sample No.: 2 Depth (ft) 10.0 Soil Description: Olive Clayey Sand (SC) Project No.: 296-02 Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail 04-02 DSB-9#2@10.xls COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557 •tM Project Name: Project No.: Boring No.: Sample No. : Visual Sample Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail 296-02 B-4A Bulk Description: Preparation Method: MoldV Tested By :MTR Calculated By : ESS Depth (ft.)0-5 Date: Date: Apr-12- Apr-15- Brown Clayey Sand (SC) X Moist Dry olume(ft3) 0.0 -2.5 0 )( Mechanical Ram Manual Ram 3322 Ram Weight 10 LBS 2.5 5 Drop 78 inches TEST NO. Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) Wt. of Mold (gm.) Net Wt. of Soil (gm.) Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Wt. of Container (gm.) Moisture Content (%) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) 1 3637.0 1803.0 1834.0 563.80 532.80 52.50 6.45 121.7 114.3 2 3804.0 1803.0 2001.0 515.90 477.00 52.20 9.16 132.8 121.7 3 3911.0 1803.0 2108.0 504.60 457.90 53.60 11.55 139.9 125.4 4 3877.0 1803.0 2074.0 518.00 461.00 53.80 14.00 137.6 120.7 5 6 Maximum Dry Density (pcf) PROCEDURE USED fX| Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold: 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers: 5 (Five) Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five) May be used if No.4 retained < 20% || Procedure B Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers: 5 (Five) Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five) Use if + #4 > 20% and + 3/8" < 20% [~~l Procedure C Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers: 5 (Five) Blows per layer: 56 (fifty-six) Use if + 3/8 in >20% and + 'A in <30% Particle-Size Distribution: GR:SA:FI Atterberg Limits: y(pcf) 195 n • o ,0. £ & ErQ 115.0 nn n i'P&Jtj/r Optimum Moisture Content(%) I 1 1 t 1 1 1 \l t 1t \ \ // v\v\\ \v\ y- -^V\ \Y ^ -**"^ ^ \ \\ \ V 1 1s - s :;4ljQ i i P. GR. P. GR. SP. GR. \ Av\A\*\N NNV \ A ^\ I | = 2.70 = 2.75 \A\V s. \\\ \ \ v \\ 0.0 5.0 10.0 Moisture Content 15.0 20.0 B1 COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557 Project Name: Project No.: Boring No.: Sample No.: Preparation Method: Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Tested By : 296-02 B-7 Bulk Calculated By Depth (ft.) MTR Date: ESS Date: 0-5 Apr-12-02 Apr-15-02 ription: Brown Silty Sand (SM) X Mo Dry Mold Volume (f ist )< Mechanical Ram Manual Ram t3) 0.03322 Ram Weight 10LBS Drop 18 0 2.5 5 7.5 inches TEST NO. Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) Wt. of Mold (gm.) Net Wt. of Soil (gm.) Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Wt. of Container (gm.) Moisture Content (%) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) 1 3662.0 1803.0 1859.0 585.00 563.60 51.60 4.18 123.4 118.4 2 3837.0 1803.0 2034.0 489.10 462.30 54.30 6.57 135.0 126.7 3 3934.0 1803.0 2131.0 501.40 463.80 50.50 9.10 141.4 129.6 4 3890.0 1803.0 2087.0 470.10 426.80 54.10 11.62 138.5 124.1 5 6 Maximum Dry Density (pcf) PROCEDURE USED fX) Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers: 5 (Five) Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five) May be used if No.4 retained < 20% |[ Procedure B Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers: 5 (Five) Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five) Use if + #4 > 20% and + 3/8" < 20% [ ] Procedure C Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer: 56 (fifty-six) Use if + 3/8 in >20% and + % in <30% Particle-Size Distribution: E GR:SA:FI Atterberg Limits: y(pcf) c-u ^>>*j"55 10^ n 0)Q £Q 120.0 nsn [ ta&M Optimum Moisture Content(%) / /y11I\/( /f 1/1 \\ NL \ 1 \A\\ \\ Vr\Y\\\ ^^- \\\\\ \\ ^\ \\ r;'8&. - SP. GR. = 2.65 - S - S \\vA\'\ \\ 3. GR. = 2.70 P. GR. = 2.75 \ k\VI \ \ y\ \A\y s\\\ \NA\v \v\ \ V \A 0.0 5.0 10.0 Moisture Content (%) 15.0 20.0 COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557 Project Name: Project No.: Boring No.: Sample No. : Visual Sample Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail 296-02 P-1 Bulk Description: Preparation Method: MoldV Tested By : Calculated By Depth (ft.) Brown Silty Sand (SM) ( X Moist Dry olume (ft 3) 0.0 ) MTR : ESS 0-3 I \f\ftl\ \ flXI IUUA- \j } Date: Date: <L^/(zbk Apr-12-02 Apr-15-02 'wtov C Mechanical Ram Manual Ram 3322 Ram Weight 10LBS -2.5 0 2.5 5 Drop 18 inches TEST NO. Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) Wt. of Mold (gm.) Net Wt. of Soil (gm.) Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Wt. of Container (gm.) Moisture Content (%) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) 1 3771.0 1803.0 1968.0 544.60 520.10 51.70 5.23 130.6 124.1 2 3882.0 1803.0 2079.0 486.00 455.20 52.10 7.64 138.0 128.2 3 3926.0 1803.0 2123.0 460.40 422.10 49.40 10.28 140.9 127.8 4 3863.0 1803.0 2060.0 536.80 482.00 48.30 12.64 136.7 121.4 5 6 Maximum Dry Density (pcf) PROCEDURE USED I | Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers: 5 (Five) Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five) May be used if No.4 retained <: 20% FXl Procedure B Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers: 5 (Five) Blows per layer: 25 (twenty-five) Use if + #4 > 20% and + 3/8" < 20% |\ Procedure C Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0mm) Sieve Mold: 6in. (152.4mm) diameter Layers: 5 (Five) Blows per layer: 56 (fifty-six) Use if + 3/8 in >20% and + % in <30% Particle-Size Distribution: GR:SA:FI Atterberg Limits: _,PL,HI y (pcf) Q. >, '« 125.0 • Q 120.0 115.0 C [;"<ita&ir« / / Optimum Moisture Content(%) j / / yf \\ f V\\\ > V"\ \\\\\\ ^- \\ \\\\ ^\\\\ •• 9;^, - SP. GR. = 2.65 - SP. GR. = 2.70 - SP. GR. = 2.75 \ \vA\\\\> \ A V \ v\\ VA\. \\ >\ * s\\>A\\s\ \ \ \ .0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20 Moisture Content (°/B1S TERA TEST LABS R-VALUE TEST RESULT! PROJECT NAME: Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail PROJECT NUMBER: 296-02 SAMPLE NUMBER: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: SM TEST SPECIMEN MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches DRY DENSITY, pcf COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, psf EXUDATION PRESSURE, psf EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 STABILITY Ph 2,000 Ibs (160 psi) TURNS DISPLACEMENT R-VALUE UNCORRECTED R-VALUE CORRECTED DESIGN CALCULATION DATA GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR TRAFFIC INDEX STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. SAMPLE LOCATION: B-7 TECHNICIAN: ACS DATE SAMPLED 3/27/02 a 9.8 2.48 126.4 350 434 0 31 4.11 72 72 b c 10.2 10.8 2.58 2.59 124.3 124.1 300 250 306 266 0 0 40 48 4.21 4.58 64 56 66 58 a 1.0 4.0 0.36 0.00 b c 1.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 0.44 0.54 0.00 0.00 EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART c i .::::_:::::::":: :~ ~ : ~: o 35°- ::•::::::::::: ••::::-••:::•:: :::;i !:::: 80. ::::::::::::_w j! :::::::::: :~~ 3 3.00 ,! Ul 2.50 ,!>• ::::::::::::::::::::::; .::::::::::::::: —CD ,- j!-- 60 w f I:::::::::::::::::!:::::::::::::::::::: — Ul ,t UJZ 1SO ---.j! 3 50,g 1-;;;;;;;;;;;: !!;==;;=;;;;:;;;;;;=;;;;;; | ::::::::::;::-,. ::::::::::;.::::::::::::::::::::::::::: « {= 1.00 ,! 40. ft ::::::jji!:::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::: O :::z!:::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 3° o ;i!::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::: 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in feet R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 1 00 800 700 600 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 66 EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 66 - . . — « — _ '^ . . . • — . 500 400 300 200 10' EXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) •\ 0 0 B20 TERA TEST LABS R-VALUE TEST RESULTS PROJECT NAME: Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail PROJECT NUMBER: 296-02 SAMPLE NUMBER: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: SM SAMPLE LOCATION: P-8 TECHNICIAN: ACS DATE SAMPLED 3/27/02 TEST SPECIMEN MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches DRY DENSITY, pcf COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, psf EXUDATION PRESSURE, psf EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 STABILITY Ph 2,000 Ibs (160 psi) TURNS DISPLACEMENT R-VALUE UNCORRECTED R-VALUE CORRECTED DESIGN CALCULATION DATA GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR TRAFFIC INDEX STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. a b 9.9 10 2.51 2.4 128.5 127 350 30 409 3C 32 2 52 7 4.10 4.2 56 4 56 4 a t 1.0 1 4.0 4 0.56 0. 1.07 0. C 4 10.8 [7 2.53 .0 126.7 0 250 9 282 1 15 1 82 21 4.31 3 36 3 36 > c 0 1.0 0 4.0 73 0.82 70 0.50 EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART I c I 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 'ml rTTT 'in \\lff\\ 1 3.5o. ...;..-........,....;.... ........ .... so.::::::;:::::;::: in ::..:: (i.. — 5 30° i! Q. j ' 70 UJ 2.50 ...j! - to «- 1 r - — so - « £ 2-00 ...:::::.::::::::: i:::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::: uj :: ..::...: m . 1 5 1.5Q ftttttttil 1 1 1 1 Wl II I-W4+II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 50 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 II= P Wffl * i' nit1 P 1-00 5r..| ! 40. & Hrrtiflfllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll nTTnTrnTmrr> 0.50 i !-••O :::z:::±: ::::•::::--•:::-::::-:::::::: so o -i' 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in feet R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 45 • . . . -_ ._ . • 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 42 Fxun EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 42 \TION PRESSURE (psi) 0 B21 TERATEST LABS R-VALUE TEST PROJECT NAME: Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail PROJECT NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER: SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: SC TEST SPECIMEN MOISTURE AT COMPACTION % HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches DRY DENSITY, pcf COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, psf EXUDATION PRESSURE, psf EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 STABILITY Ph 2,000 Ibs (160 psi) TURNS DISPLACEMENT R-VALUE UNCORRECTED R-VALUE CORRECTED DESIGN CALCULATION DATA GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR TRAFFIC INDEX STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft. EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft. SAMPLE LOCATION TECHNICIAN: DATE SAMPLED a b 11.9 12.8 2.46 2.51 120.4 117.4 275 200 339 251 11 0 61 91 4.09 4.57 50 29 50 29 a b 1.0 1.0 4.0 4.0 0.64 0.91 0.37 0.00 EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSUF 4 °° 1 1 | l l 1 1 i i i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i | 1 1 1 | i ii i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ill 90 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 IIC j! __ ~ "~ 1 o HillWIllllllllm BO 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 U) j! " - 0. . j * 70. - Ul 2.50 j! - -' ffl *< I1 so - -OT g 2.00 .-.,! ::::::::::::::::-:::::tn & ':111 ,!... uj ._z 1l6o.::::::::::::::ji!::::::::::::::::::::::: | s° ::::::::::::::: o i! | JE 1.00 | 40 _, • -• - -K , ---Ml . ..__._ > 0.50 ,'• -o " " i S 30 o -| !.. ..i I:::::::.::::::::::::: 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 COVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in feet R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 53 800 700 600 500 400 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 40 BunA-noi PRP EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE: 40 RESULTS : 296-02 : B-4A ACS 3/27/02 c 13.2 2.65 117.1 150 173 0 115 4.71 17 19 c 1.0 4.0 1.04 0.00 *E CHART ... . . '4 300 200 100 0 SSURE (psi) B22 SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST DOT CA TEST 532/643 Project Name: Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. : 296-02 Boring No.: B-2 Sample No.: 7 &9 Visual Soil Identification: SM Initial Moisture Content (°/ Tested By: VJ Data Input By: LF Checked By: LF Depth (ft.) : 33&43 Date: 04/09/02 Date: 04/15/02 Date: 04/15/02 Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Wt. of Container (gm.) Moisture Content (%) (MCi) 170.93 170.78 65.52 0.14 Initial Soil Weight (gm)(Wt) Box Constant: 1300.00 6.7460 MC=(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100 Remolded Specimen Water Added (ml) (Wa) Adj. Moisture Content (MC) Resistance Rdg. (ohm) Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm) Moisture Adjustments 300 23.25 44 297 400 30.96 31 209 450 34.81 30 202 500 38.66 31 209 9QO^yu 980 . 9TO**^.E . E 9RO - £ O >*250 - ^*M (rt """" 9*40(0 ^-"u Q)Q£^_,•"- o*anO ^ou (O 99O^^VJ 9in nnn 2D.O )\\\ ^\\\\' 2 \\\\ 5.0 \\\\ \\\\ .\\\> V\\\ 3 k.\\\ 10 "V^x».*- —-fl 35.0 _-^**^^" ^tJSt 40 Moisture Content (% Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm) Moisture Content (%) DOT CA Test 532/643 202 33.8 Sulfate Content (ppm) DOT CA Test 417 Part II 251 Chloride Content (ppm) DOT CA Test 422 5468 Soil pH DOT CA Test 532/643 8.1 Q@ 22.3 °C B2 SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST DOT CA TEST 532 / 643 Project Name: Carlsbad Coastal Rail Trail Project No. : 296-02 Boring No.: B-9 Sample No. : 2 Visual Soil Identification: SC/SM Tested By: VJ Data Input By: LF Checked By: LF Depth (ft.): 10.0 Date: 04/09/02 Date: 04/15/02 Date: 04/15/02 Initial Moisture Content (%) Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Wt. of Container (gm.) Moisture Content (%) (MCi) 178.74 177.90 56.90 0.69 Initial Soil Weight (gm)(Wt) Box Constant: 1168.00 6.7460 MC=(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100 Remolded Specimen Water Added (ml) (Wa) Adj. Moisture Content (MC) Resistance Rdg. (ohm) Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm) Moisture Adjustments 200 17.94 400 2698 300 26.56 240 1619 400 35.18 260 1754 2600 O 1400 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Moisture Content '°> 35.0 40.0 Minimum Resistivity (ohm-cm) Moisture Content (%) DOT CA Test 532 / 643 1560 28.5 Sulfate Content (ppm) DOT CA Test 41 7 Part II 137 Chloride Content (ppm) DOT CA Test 422 846 Soil pH DOT CA Test 532/643 7.30 @ 22.1 °C B2i APPENDIX C LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT ANALYSES K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\200\296-02\REPOR-nCARLSBADGDR3.DOC APPENDIX C - LIQUEFACTION AND SEISMIC SETTLEMENT ANALYSES C.1 LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION The liquefaction potential evaluation was generally based on the approach recommended in the National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) technical report NCEER-97-002. This report presented an update and a consensus on simplified procedures to evaluate seismic liquefaction potential of soils. The simplified liquefaction evaluation procedure involves the following three basic steps. • 1. An estimate is made of the cyclic stress ratio (CSR) caused by given earthquake ground motions at different depths using a simplified approach. The intensity of ground shaking, the duration of shaking, and the variations of induced shear stresses with depth are incorporated into the evaluation. 2. An estimate is then made of the cyclic resistance ratio (CRR), indicative of the liquefaction resistance of the site subsurface soils. Recommendations were provided to estimate CRR either from SPT blow counts or direct CRT results. 3. A comparison of the CRR and CSR is made to evaluate the potential zone of liquefaction in the soil deposit. The factor of safety (FS) against liquefaction is defined as FS = CRR/CSR. Potential zones of liquefaction correspond to soil layers where the FS is less than 1. C.2 SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES TO ESTIMATE CRR BASED ON SPT BLOW COUNT This approach uses the SPT blow count data of soils to estimate the CRR. The use of SPT blow counts in liquefaction potential evaluation is considered to be appropriate because many factors affecting the liquefaction potential of sandy soils affect the SPT blow count in a similar way. A simplified expression was presented for CRR for a magnitude 7.5 earthquake (CRR7.5) as a function of (N^eocs in the NCEER report, where (N-Oeocs is the standardized SPT blow count for clean sand. (Ni)6ocs is obtained by modifying the field SPT blow counts. The modifications included normalizing to an overburden pressure of 1 ton per square foot (tsf) and corrections for hammer energy, borehole diameter, rod length, the lining (or lack of lining) of SPT samplers, and fines content (percent passing No. 200 sieve). The CRR7.5 is then corrected for the magnitude of the given earthquake using a magnitude scaling factor (MSF), where the CRR for the given earthquake = (CRR7.5) x MSF. C-1 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\200\296-02\REPORT\CARLSBAD GDR3.DOC C.3 ANALYSES Liquefaction analyses were based on: • Subsurface data from this investigation. • SPT results • Groundwater elevation of 4 feet MSL (approximately the Agua Hedionda inlet channel tidal flow-line elevation. • National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER) guidelines (1997), • A maximum credible earthquake (MCE) peak ground acceleration (pga) of 0.55g, and • An earthquake moment magnitude of 7.0. The risk of liquefaction at the Agua Hedionda inlet above boring location was considered moderate to high because of the loose to medium dense density of the sandy soils below the groundwater level. C.4 SEISMIC SETTLEMENT Settlement of level ground under the MCE was estimated based on procedures presented by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). The results are summarized in Table C1. Seismic settlements of dry soils were estimated to be minor based on inspection of available correlations and the field SPT blow counts. Table C1 - SUMMARY OF LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL EVALUATION FOR MCE FOUNDATION LOCATION South side of ADL bridge (approximately Station 50+00) North side for the ADL bridge (approximately Station 52+00) DYA BORING B-4 B-2 Elevation of Potentially Liquefiable Layers (feet) +3 to -18 +4.5 to -8 Seismically-lnduced Settlement2 (inches) <6 <4 Notes: 1 . Design groundwater elevation = + 4.5 feet MSL. 2. Settlement at level ground surface. C-2 K:\OATAFLS\PROJECTS\200\296-02\REPORT\CARLSBADGDR3.DOC C.5 LATERAL SPREAD ANALYSIS Lateral spreading of the supporting soils was estimated based on the methodology proposed by Hasen, Barttlet, and Youd (2000). The lateral spreading of approximately 3 feet was calculated at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon inlet channel. To reduce the possibility of rotation of the abutment retaining walls, a deep foundation system founded on firm or competent materials below the potentially liquefiable soils subject to lateral spreading is recommended. C-3 K:\DATAFLS\PROJECTS\200\296-02\REPORT\CARLSBADGDR3.DOC DISTRIBUTION 6 copies: Dokken Engineering Mr. Kirk Bradbury, P.E. 9665 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 435 San Diego, California 92123 QUALITY CONTROL REVIEWER Allen M. Yourman, Jr., P.E., G.E. Vice President CMD/JGS:lmw K:Watafls\PROJECTS\200\296-02\Report\Cartsbad GDR3.doc