Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3602; PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD; REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 1998-07-28
,. KLEI N F[ DER - An employee owned company U, . . •.:. .1 .u. . I .1• . . .. - . . - - - REPORTOF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD WIDENING, EL CAMINO REAL WIDENING, AND ORION STREET RECONSTRUCTION CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA July 28, 1998 I ..... i•. . . .. I, I I .This document was prepared for use only by the client, only for the p'urpo'se stated, and within a reasonable time - from issuance. Non-commercial, educational and scientific use of this report by governmental agencies is regarded as fair use' and not a violation of copyright. The client and governmental agencies may make additional copies of this document for internal use. Copies may also be made available to the public as required by law. The reprint must acknowledge the copyright and indicate that permission to reprint has been received. 51-4838-01/5118R490.DOC Page iofiv . July 28, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. I KLEIN FELDER I A report prepared for P & D Technologies I 401 West A Street, Suite 2500 San Diego, Califorma 92101 Attn: Mr. Dan Lee I. V REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD WIDENING, EL CAMINO REAL 1 WIDENING; AND ORION STREET RECONSTRUCTION CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA I Kleinfelder Job No 51-4838-01, I Prepared by I I Rick E Larson, GE George M Binger III, RCE 57852 KLEINFELDER, INC I 9555 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 101 San Diego California 92123 (619)541-1145 V •. I I July 28, 1998 I 51-483 8 01/5118R490 DOC Page ii of iv July28 1998 ..Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. - V •. S. I • - V - - V I II TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................... ..................................................... 1 1.1 GENERAL ......................................... .................. ................................................................. 1 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES ....................................... 2 2.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING KLEINFELDER REPORTS .................................................. ...4 I 3 0 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION 5 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION .................................................................................. ...................5 I 3.2 LABORATORY TESTING ...........• . 5 4. 0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. . ....... . ............... 6 4.1 DISCUSSION ........................................ . ......................... . .................................................... 6 I 4. 1.1 Orion Street Pavement Conditions ...................................................... . ..................... 6 4.1.2 Subsurface Conditions ..................................................... .. ........................... . ............. 6 4.2 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................6 4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ....... ............................................................ ... ................................ 7 4.3.1 Site Preparationand General Earthwork Operations ................................................. 7 4.3.1.1 General .............7 .. 4.3.1.2 Sedimentation and Erosion Mitigation ........................................................... 7 4.3.1.3 Excavation 8 I 4.3.1.4 Slopes .............................................................................................................9 4.3.1.5 Fills .... . .................... .........................................................................................9 .4.3.1.6 Transition Zones .......... .......................................... ...... . .................................. 10 43.2 Trench Excavation and Backfill ..............................................................................10 4.3.3 Pavement Sections ............................. .................................. . .................................... 11 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .................................................................................................13 5.1 PROJECT BID DOCUMENTS ...... . ........................................ . .......................................... 13 5.2 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW .... .................... .. ....................... . ............. . ..... 13 5.3 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING ... . ................................................ 13 6.0 LIMITATIONS.............................................. 14 FIGURES II . ... . .• ..:,': FIGURES I Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2-4 Boring Location Maps I I 51-4838-01/51 1*8R490 DOC Page iii of iv July 28 1998 U Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc I I - KLEINFELDER I APPENDICES Appendix A Boring Logs I Appendix B Laboratory Test Data Appendix C ASFE Insert - - 51-4838-0I/5118R490.DOC Page ivofiv July 28, 1998 I Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. '9 KLEINFELDER I I . 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 GENERAL . This' report presents the results of Kleinfelder's limited geotechnical investigation for the - reconstruction of Orion Street, a southern widening of Palomar Airport Road, and an eastern. widening of El Camino Real near the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. I . A vicinity map showing the general location of the site is presented in Figure 1 at the end of this report.. I This report has been prepared asa supplemental report to our "Geotechnical Report for Palomar Airport Road Improvements, East of El, Camino Real, Carlsbad and San Marcos, California" and, H , our "Geotechnical Report for Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real Improvement in Carlsbad, California," These earlier reports were prepared as Kleinfelder's Project No. 51-1551- 01, dated September 27, 1990, and Kleinfelder's Project Number 51-1588-01, dated January 25, I ' 1991, respectively. Our previous reports covered the widening of Palomar Airport Road and the I . widening of El Camino Real. The objective of this current report is to provide the design team with findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the immediate subgrade and I . foundation areas in the vicinity at the proposed road/street improvements. Our investigation has been coordinated with Mr.\Dan Lee, Project Manager with P & D Technologies. I 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION I Palomar Airport Road Widening I This portion of the project will consist of adding dual left turn lanes into El Fuerte Drive on the - . south side of Palomar Airport Road. The widening will be about 4,100 lineal feet in length and will start at the intersection of El Camino Real with Palomar Airport Road and extend to about - 1,500 feet east of El Fuerte Drive. 51-4838-01/5118R490.DOC - Page I of 14 1 July-M, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. -. El Camino Real Widening ' This portion of the project will consist of adding one lane to the east side of El Camino Real between its intersections with Palomar Aiiport Road and Orion Street, a length of about 960 feet To add a lane along this. east side, it will benecessary to add fill along the existing unimproved frontage road. I ' 4'" - ' - . F ,.• ' - I Orson Street Reconstruction - ' I Orion Street will be completely reconstructed and widened between its intersections with El Carnino Real and Faraday Avenue, a distance of about 1,920 feet. I 1.3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES I The purpose of this. geotechnical investigation was to supplement4 our 1990 and 1991 reports in .1 order to provide additional geotechnical recommendations for the design of the proposed improvements. Our scope of services consisted of the following tasks: . Palomar Airport Road Widening Task - •' U Review the two previous reports completed by Kleinfelder in 1990 and 1991 for possible I application to the new project 4 I Task Perform a geotechnical site reconnaissance for the Palomar Airport Road Widening to review existing site conditidns and evaluate whether the two existing reports can be used for this portion - - , of the project. ' - • ' - • I 1 51-48' )8-01/5118R490. , Page 2 o4 ' • , July 28, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleirifelder, Inc. I I Task Provide documentation that the reports can be used for the Palomar Airport ROad Widening .1 either (1) without modification, (2) with minor modification in the form of a minor addendum. (assuming no further subsurface investigation or laboratory work is required), or (3) with significant modification (assuming additional subsurface investigation and/or. laboratory work is required). Our scope of work did not include additional subsurface investigation, laboratory , I work, or significant modification of our previous reports.. Our opinion: is that significant I modification to our reports (with additional subsurface investigation and/or laboratory work) is unlikely.- El Camino Real Widening and Orion Street Reconstruction I Task c I .Preparation of a traffic control plan and providing required traffic control for the borings within the existing roadway and shoulders. .. : I - ) . . - - - . ; - •, A Task IL I Exploration Of the general subsurface conditions along Orion Street and the east side of El Camino Real with five test borings. A Kleinfelder staff 'member maintained a log of the soils . encountered and obtained samples for visual classification and testing.. • , .4 '-' •' .- -. -..-, - Task Perforrii laboratory*tests on selected soil -samples to evaluate the strength;, density, swell I potential, plasticity, subgrade quality and gradation characteristics for the, El Caniino Real and, - Orion Street portions of the project.. I Task-7 - - T.-. •• . . ... .. Preparation of this geotechnical report. - •. - . . . - 51-4838-01/5118R490.DOC . Page 3oH4 . - - . - ' July 28. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder Inc I II KLE I N F EL D ER I ... 2.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING KLEINFELDER REPORTS As part of our, services we reviewed our 1990 getechnical report entitled "Geotechnical Report I for Palomar Airport Road Improvements East of El Camino Real, Carlsbad and San Marcos, California" and our 1991 geotechnical report entitled "Geotechnical Report for Palomar AirpOrt Road and El Camino Real Improvement in Carlsbad, California" to evaluate whether-they are still valid for the new improvements for, the widening for Palomar Airport Road and El Camino I , Real. Based-oh our site reconnaissance and the additional subsurface information we obtained, it: is our opinion that these reports are still, valid for the., propoed idethng improvements for I • Palomar Airport Road and El Camino Real; I . . S I I I I I .,,. , . '. ' - .' I I I I . 51-4838-0I/5118R490.DOC 'Page 4ofl4 July 28. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc.,, I. H - -':. ;•-•':, - 'IiI KLE•INFflDR. 30 METHODS OF INVESTIGATION I 3.1 FIELD EXPLORATION I We explored the subsurface conditions along Orion Street and the unimproved frontage road east " of El Camino Real by drilling five test borings at the approximate locations shown on the boring I location maps, Figures 2, 3, and 4. The borings Were drilled with a truck-mounted CME 55 I ,drilling rig using 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. The borings were completed to nominal. depths of 10 feet. The borings' were logged by an engineer: from ,our office, who also obtained samples of the materials for identification and laboratory testing. In-place samples were obtained within the test borings by driving a California sampler (3-inch O.D.,'2.4-inch I.D.) into undisturbed soil. The I ' -. sampler was, driven with a' 140-pound hammer with a 30-inch drop operated by a CME autohammer. The blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches are noted on the boring logs as blows per foot. Bulk samples were also taken from the auger cuttings. . I The logs of the borings are presented on Figures A2 through A6 Soils are'.described according to the Unified Soil Classification 'System, which is explained in Figure Al. Pavement and base I ' ' thicknesses were also recorded for each borehole location within the Orion' Street portion of the project I I 32 LABORATORY TESTING I ' Laboratory testing was performed on representative bulk, samples to substantiate field. classifications and provide engineering parameters for geotechmcal design Testing consisted of I , ' sieve analyses, soil plasticity, and R-value tests.* The test results are presented in Appendix B. I - 51-4838-0I/5II8R490.DOC ' Page 5 o 14 ' ' ' . ' Ju1y28. 1998 Copyright 1998, Kleinfelder, Inc. I V V •V• V KIV.EI NFELDER 4.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS - V I 4.1 DISCUSSION.. 4.1.1 Orion Street Pavement Conditions Pavement ndabihty is poor, and the pavement surface is very rough and uneven The pavement is in relatively poor V condition with considerable amount of slight to medium' transverse and, V V V longitudinal cracking and* several localized areas of moderate to 'severe alligator cracking. The , V , alligator cracking indicates that subgrade failure has occurred. 'Drainage is' generally poor. The V existing pavement sections vary from 3' inches of asphalt over 6 inches of aggregate base over 9 . V I ' V inches of silty sand to 3 inches of asphalt over 9 inches of brown silty sand with gravel over 6 inches of silty sand I - 4.1.2 Subsurface' Condiiions V V '• , ' V V The subsurface,conditioiis encountered in our borings beneath the pavement on Orion Street and '- V along the unimproved' frontage road on the east of El Camino Real were generally 'consistent V with the conditions described in our pr'evious reports. The soils below the pavement section' in our'test borings generally consisted of a brown sandy clay or red gray clay except in Borings I I , and 3. where the pavement is underlain by formátional siltstone and two feet of clayey sand," I 'respectively. , This clay soil generally exhibited mdiurn plasticity. The surficial soils within the upper two to three feet of the test borings were generally moist and stiff, to very stiff. V U A'- - 4.2 CONCLUSIONS I Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, and geoteclnical analyses, it is our opinion I that it is feasible from a geotechmcal perspective to construct the proposed improvements at the , site provided the recommendations presented in our September 27, 1990 report, our January 25, I I , ' 51-4838-0115118R490VD0C ' V , Pace 6orI4 , V , July 28, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleirifelder, Inc. I I . I KL'EINFE.I..DER - 1991 report, and this supplemental report are incorporated into the prcject design. and - construction. .. ., . I 43 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.3.1 Site Preparation and. General Earthwork Operations .. * 4.3.1.1 General I All site preparation, earthwork operations, and erosion control methods should be performed in accordance, with the recommendations of Kleinfelder's 1990 and 1991 reports and applicable I .codes. All references to maximuin dry density are established in accordance vith ASTM Standard.,Tet Method D-1 557. .• ... . - - .H - . . . . .• . 4.3.1.1 Sedimentation and ErosiOn Mitigation . . I . The amount of erosion for. completed fills and cut surfaces is anticipated to be extremely dependent on the care and effort exercised by the contractor. Without proper sedimentation and erosion design and mitigation measures during and immediately following construction, runoff I may carry unacceptable amount of sediments to pollute surface waters and fill adjacent low areas. .. ., . . . .* Temporary measures which the contractor can use to mitigate sediment and erosion prOblems may include, but are not limited to, the follving items or practices... Placement of spoils uphill from excavation areas Work areas at roadways and near ditches can be cleaned up and graded to the approximate finish grades at the end of each work day: . . I • Excess excavation and debris can be placed in centralized areas outside the immediate construction area which are free from flooding or wash out. ., . 51 4838 01/5118R490 DOC Page 70114 July 28, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. I KLEINFELDER Dewatering and drainage of the site can be done in such a manner that sediment from the site is not discharged to nearby surface waters or ditches Sediment mitigation measures may also include the construction of strawbale sediment barriers, diversion dikes, filter berms, or filter fences The contractor can follow other mitigation procedures as outlined in the latest edition or printing of the "Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook" prepared by the California Department of Conservation Slopes can and should be maintained in a dressed and compacted condition free of loose fill Longer term measures which can be used to mitigate sediment and erosion problems after construction include Stabilization of construction disturbed areas by planting natural grasses Proper contouring of the site with regard to final drainage paths, diversion dikes filter berms, and erosion resistant ditch linings Following other procedures as outlined in the latest edition or printing of The Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook" prepared by the California Department of Conservation 4.3.1.3 Excavation Excavations for this project can generally be accomplished by a skilled operator using conventional, heavy earthmoving equipment in good operating condition 4.3.1.4 Slopes We recommend that all slopes be constructed at slope inclinations no steeper than 2 horizontal to I vertical Slopes constructed at inclinations steeper than 2 1 are particularly susceptible to 514838 01/5118R490 DOC Page8ot14 July28 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc I . shallow sloughing in periods of rainfall and upslope runoff. Periodic slope maintenance may be required. . ,. 4.3.1.5 Fills - The on-site soils can be used as compacted fill provided they are properly.moisture-conditiohed and are free of organic material and debris. All areas, to receive' fill and/or other surface improvements should be stripped of topsoil, scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to at least 2 percent over optimum moisture content and compacted 1y mechanical means Any import soils should be predominantly granular and nonexpansive, and should be, tested for ' suitability by the geotechmcal engineer. Fill materials should be placed in successive horizontal,layérs of not more than 8 inches in loose ' ' •,' thickness for the full width of the area being filled. Prior, to rolling the material in layers, the material should be moisture conditioned to within 2 to 5% above the ASTM D-1557 optimum moisture content and compacted to at least '90% .of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density.' , Preferably, the iioisture Conditioning should take place within the' borrow area before the material is transported to the fill area. In placing and compacting fill materials, starting layers I should be placed in the deepest' portion of the fill. As placement progresses, subsequent layers should be constructed approximately parallel to the finished grade. I Fills place on natural slopes or existing compacted fill slopes steeper than 5 to 'l (horizontal to vertical) should be stripped of topsoil and keyed and benched into firm, natural ground I . - Sloughing of fill slopes can be reduced by over-building the exterior slope face by at least 3 feet and cutting back to the desired slope. To a lesser extent, 'sloughing can be , reduced by' backrolling slopes at frequent intervals As a minimum, we recommend that fill slopes be I ' ' backrolled at maximum 4-foot fill' height intervals. Additionally, we recommend that all fill slopes be trackwalked or grid-rolled so that a dozer track or grid-roller covers all surfaces at lest twice 'Feathering" of fill over the tops of slopes should not be permitted I • 51-4838-01/5118R490.DOC '' ' Pge9oH4 . ' ' ' ' July 28. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kletnfelder, Inc I I, I 4:3.1.6 Transition Zones Cut and embankment materials should be blended thoroughly at all cut to fill transitions. The larger transition zones should be 3 to 4 feet deep, feathering out in each direction for a distance of 50 feet. The shallower the fill depth, the smaller the requirement for the transition zone. . In the shallower transition zones, the cuts and fills should be scarified and blended to a depth of I 1 foot throughout. • 4.3.2 Trench Excavation and Backfill . . . . . I . Excavation of trenches in the residual clay soils and the formational material can be completed. with light-to-medium duty backhoes. Trench backfill should be compacted in uniform lifts with a thickness dependent on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general, we recommend lifts not exceeding .8 inches in loose thickness to be compacted by mechanical means to at lest 90 percent relative compaction in accordance with ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. The moisture content of compacted backfill soils. should be a minimum of 2 percent over optimum moisture. The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of backfill soils should be obtained in accordance with ASTM .D-1557. The on-site soils maybe used as trench backfill provided they are screened of organic matter. . I Walls of trenches less than 5 feet deep may be constructed at a near-vertical . inclination for I .temporary construction activities. Where trenches are extended deeper than 5 feet, the by for excavations may become. unstable and should be monitored the contractor adequate I .stability prior to personnel entering the trenches. Shoring or sloping of any deep trench or, cut may be necessary to protect personnel and provide stability. All trenches and cuts should conform to current Cal-OSHA requirements for work safety. • . • . I. . ...• . I 51-4838-01/5118R490.DOC . . Page 10o114 • . . • July 28. 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc. • . . . . I .... •••.:•. •H••.• :• I I 4.3.3 Pavement Sections For purposes of analysis and design of pavements, we performed R-value tests on selected soil I samples that are representative of subgrade materials that exist below the proposed street and road areas For design purposes, an R-value of 5 has been assumed which is consistent with our I previous reports I Pavement sections have been evaluated in general accordance with the Caltrans method for flexible pavement design P & D Technologies provided traffic design indices 9 for the two I . widening projects and 7. for Orion Street. Recommended flexible pavement sections for these conditions are given in the following table Traffic Index Asphalt Concrete Thickness (in.) Aggregate Base Thickness (in.) 7.0 : 15.5 9.0* 6.0* .20.0* * These values are consistent with our two earlier reports I The recommended pavement sections assume the following conditions 1 1.. Subgradeand base materials within 2.5 feet belowfinished grade. for the traveled way, plus 3 feet on either side, are compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of ASTM D1557 maximum I dry density, I 2 The finished subgrade is in a stable, non-pumping condition at the time aggregate base is laid and compacted, I 3 Asphalt concrete pavement and aggregate base materials conform to Section 02510 Parts 2 and 3 of the Standard Specification for Construction of Public Works (Green Book) with I County of San Diego Regional Supplement Amendments, current edition I All concrete curbs separating pavement form landscaped areas extend at least six inches into the subgrade to reduce movement of moisture into the aggregate base layer. This reduces the risk of pavement failures due to subsurface water originating for landscaped areas I 514838 01/5118R490D0C Page II of 14 July 28 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder Inc I I '9 K iLEINFELDER 50 ADDITIONAL SERVICES I 5.1 PROJECT BID DOCUMENTS'. It has been our experience that contractors bidding on the project often contact us to discuss the I . geótechnical aspects of the project. Informal contacts between Kleinfelder and an individual contractor could result in incorrect or incomplete information being provided to the contractor. I Therefore, we recommend a pre-bid meeting be held to answer any questions about the report prior to submittal of bids If this is not possible, questions or clarifications regarding this report I should be directed to the project owner or his designated representative After consultation with Kleinfelder, the project owner (or his representative) should provide clarifications or additional I information to all contractors bidding the job 52 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REVIEW I .' We recommend Kleinfelder conduct a general review of final plans and specifications to evaluate I that our earthwork and pavement recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented during design In the event Kleinfelder is not retained to perform this I recommended review, we will assume no responsibility , for misinterpretation of our, recommendations 1. 53 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING I We recommend that all earthwork during construction be monitored by a qualified geotechrncal I engineer. The purpose of these services would be to provide the qualified geotechnical engineer I ,the opportunity to observe the soil conditions encountered during construction, evaluate the applicability of the plans and specifications to the soil conditions encountered, and recommend I appropriate changes in design or construction procedures if conditions indicate changes are warranted I 8-01/5118R490. DOC Page 12of 14 July 28, 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleinfelder, Inc I r , 60. LIMITATIONS . S Our firm has prepared this report for the exclusive use P & D Technologies. Kleinfelder offers I various levels of investigative' and engineering services to suit the varying needs of different clients. Although risk can. never be eliminated, more detailed and extensive investigations yield more information, which 'may help understand and manage the level of risk. Since' detailed investigation and analysis involve greater expense, our clients participate in determining levels of I •' service which provide adequate information for their purposes'as acceptable levels of risk. A brochure prepared by ASFE (Association of Firms Practicing in the Geoscience) has been I included in Appendix C of this ieport. All individuals reading this report should also read the '. attached brochure The services provided under this contract as described in this report iYiclude 'professional opinions and judgments based on the data collected. These services have been performed according to generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices that existed in the 'Carlsbad area at the' time the 'report was written. No warranty is expressed or. implied. This report is I issued with the understanding the owner chooses the risk he wishes to bear by the expenditures involved with the construction alternatives and scheduling that is chosen. I Regulations and professional standar ds applicable to Kleinfelder's servicesare continually I ' . evolving. Techniques are, by necessity; often new and relatively untried. Different professionals Tay reasonably adopt different approaches to similar problems. I The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on information obtained I ' from the review ofour" previous reports five 'b'orihgs,' observations of our enginer, our - laboratory testing program, and our experience. It is the client's responsibility., to' see that all I • partieS to the project, including the designer, .contractor, subcontractors, etc., are' made aware of this report in its entirety. I 51 4838 01/5118R490 DOC Page 13 of 14 Ju1y28 1998 Copyright 1998 Kleirtfeldër, Inc. I. I - - I * j - I I ( / I I I - I - I I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - II I •: I -. ..,.-. . 1 1T PROTECT WATER METER . - . . I . . - AND BOLLARDS . . . . cc ADJUST EX. WATER . CITY OF CARLSBA VAlVE 10 GRADE (2) - . HIRING CENTER - . . - c_ _- -'-,. • - - ----I . - . SAWcUT LINE - — - U - . CONSTRUCT 4 AC/6A8 — — . - ACCESS ROAD - — —i - — - -f' — — --- — 10 Ir --— ... I 2 U:4 A Jo, SAWCUT LINE co - . - ( / CONSTRUCT 2 AC OVERLAY I m ii ( I - 20.61.27 (MD EXISTING A 2 CONSTRUCT 4 AC/6A6 cQ• - . - . z in / • . 4 . PROTECT EXISTING AC BERM COAST WASTE 1+ 25696—JOIN EXISTING . . . .0 CURB w MANAGEMENT- co . - . . I PROTECT VERNAL POOL / / ,IP/ , / o cc I - / / •:- C' .- .- I - . . • : . . ,., - . -•, . S .' --y '''-- - .. - . . PROTECT EXISTING PCC AND AC CURB S' PCC CURB JOIN EXISTING PAVEMENT 20+38.70—JOIN EXISTING - . . . REMOVE INTERFERING PORTION I . •"-... OFrPCCCURB . . .. PROTECT EXISTING • . . - - I; ., - . - - - . . . 3 12' PALMS . . . .. . . . . - . - CONSTRUCT 4 AC/6A6 . . . - . .. . . . . I -. . H - •H •. ., y 75 I...,•. ...- .-. . .-.- I (FEEl) - .. - LEGEND:. li_El K L E 1 N F E L D E R BORING LOCATION MAP -. FIGURE -. - -- . 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. surrE 101 IMPROVEMENTS TO PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD PLANS PROVIDED BY: P & 0 / CTE ENGINEERS INC. -fJ)- APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF BORING SAN DIEGO, CAUFORNIA 92123 EL CAMINO REAL AND ORION STREET T . . CHECKED BY: ->M IFN: 4838S1TE P. & D TECHNOLOGIES _____ PROJECT NO. 51-4838701 IDATE: 7/8/98 - CARLSBAD1 CALIFORNIA ?g, 4C7,1 .00 PROTECT VERNAL POOL -- - ;- 1 3 I / I 00+ ••- / / / - AD.JST EX TELEPHONE 4 w ' •OO / , MANHOLE 10 GRADE - u 'o- / /1 ; z z , 0 / 43 m & m IL 4L ID / 8 / PROPOSED 2 AC OVERLAY ULTIMATE R/w PROPOSED R/W . ---_• o 2 PROPOSED SHOULDER — " I - SAWCUT LINE 77 v r - 4. i__13 Lj I Ln -ii 0 -1 4.Jx 1 S. 'S .4 I 5- - 0 40 80 LEGEND: 'r KLEIN FE LDER BORING LOCATION MAP 4.FIGURE 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101 IMPROVEMENTS TO PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD PLANS PROVIDED BY: P & 0 / CTE ENGINEERS, INC. (J) APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF5BORING. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 EL CAMINO REAL AND ORION STREET I CHECKED BY C.tfr =FN- 4838S11E P & D TECHNOLOGIES - - PROJECT NO. 51-4838-01 I DATE: 7/8/98 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA- .1 I I 51-4839-01 PROJECT NO. LOG OF BORING LEGEND s 1 or 1 DRILLING PROJECT NAME LOCATION EQUIPMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO ORION STREET TYPE OF BIT HAMMER DATA: WT. LBS. DROP INCHES SURFACE ELEVATION • TOP OF CASING vAnop STARTED: DRILLING AGENCY GROUNDWATER DATE ELEVATION LOGGED BY COMPLETED: _jKF1LLED: SURFACE CONDITIONS i' 0 3 V) W1_. POCKET uj SOIL DESCRIPTION DETAILS ENEOMETER 2— o 000 :------ -.-_-_-_-_ I WELL—GRADED GRAVELS AND GRAVEL—SAND GW BEN ONI CONTINUOUS 3 MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FiNES SAMPLER 4 POORLY GRADED GRAVELS AND GRAVEL—SAND GP CAVED - *0* - - 10 MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES AREA s.) GRAB A SAMPLE SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL—SAND—SILT MIXTURES GM CEMENT - CALIFORNIA 7. ,v6' CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL—SAND—CLAY MIXTURES GC ---b ._ - _ CONCRETE SAMPLER 8— - WELL—GRADED SANDS AND GRAVELLY SANDS, NATURAL CALIFORNIA MODIFIED 6S LITTLE OR NO FINES BACKFILL SAMPLER ' POORLY GRADED SANDS AND GRAVELLY SANDS,. BENTONITE - LITTLE OR NO FINES III PACKER R No ECOVERY 12— I I I SILTY SANDS SAND—SILT MIXTURES SM SAND - :::::: BACKFILL PITCHER 13— CLAYEY SANDS SAND—CLAY MIXTURES SC SAND ± SAMPLER / SHELBY rfil - INORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK. ML TUBE 15- FLOUR, SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS GROUT J. SAMPLER INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, CL PIPE . STANDARD 4 SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS PENETRATION SAMPLER I -VOLCLAY - ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OL SLOTTED - 18 i i OF LOW PLASTICITY . PIPE 19— INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS 1111 II II FINE SANDS OR SILTS, ELASTIC SILTS . MH - - INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, CH FAT CLAYS ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO OH HIGH PLASTICITY -- - PEAT, MUCK AND OTHER HIGHLY PT —: ORGANIC SOILS - 26- - VATD WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING - .- WATER LEVEL MEASURED IN WELL - 29— . FN: 4839L00 KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRNE,SUITE 101 FIGURE NO. Al PROJECT NO. 51-4839-01 . LOG OF BORING. 1 sr 1 or 1 DRIWNG PROJECT NAME LOCATION EQUIPMENT CME 55 (W/AUTOHAMMER) ii &jr y# IMPROVEMENTS IM TUV M I' I 11.1 ORIONIVtSTREET'STATION 29+10. RIGHT-2 FT. TYPE OF Bif 8" HSA HAMMER DATA WI. 140 LBS. DROP 30 INCHES SURFACE —323' TOTAL DEPTH 10 ELEVAT10N OF HOLE 6/26/98 DRILLING AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILLING GROUNDWATER DATE ELEVATION 6/26/98 LOGGED BY KRW I , / 26i98 SURFACE CONDITIONS _JCKFlLLED:6 3" AC / 90 GRANULAR BASE V o WELL z POCKET - . . LOG OF MATERIAL vi DETAILS PENETROMETER -. . 50 mo (tsf) -0- 3" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE OVER 6" AGGREGATE BASE fLL 0• 5M - BROWN SILTY SAND, MEDIUM GRAINED,. MOIST 2- ML 25 24 -96 '. FORMATION . - 3- . - BROWN WEATHERED SANDY SILTSTONE, CUTTINGS . 4- CLASSIFIED AS "MEDIUM DENSE, BROWN SANDY - SILT, DRY, MOTTLED WITH BLACK AND BROWN . STRIPES 6 — 43 7 . . . . WITH OLIVE-GRAY LAYERS 10--- 0 - 0 • - BORING STOPPED @ 10 FT NO CAVING OBSERVED ) - NO FREE WATER OBSERVED . . . 12= BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS . . * - . . . •,,- . 0 - .. . . . . ••0 24-. . . .. . .. 0 28— 29- . ...., 0 • .: ... . FN4839L00 fl KLEIN FELDER 9 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 101 IFIGURE N0 A2 NO. 51-4839-01 LOG OF BORING 2 I PRWECT s.1 OF 1. DRILLING . PROJECT NAME .. LOCAT1ONORION ST., STA. 22+50, EQUIPMENT CME 55 (W/AUTOHAMMER) IMPROVEMENTS TO ORION STREET RIGHT 7 .,: TYPE OF err 8" HSA HAMMER DATA-wi. 140 LIDS. DROP 30 INCHES SURFACE TA. EPTH 10' I HOLE STARTED: 6/26/98 DRLUNGAGENCY SCOTT'S DRILLING ,ELEVATION GROUNDWA70 DATE LOGGED BY KRW 6/26/98 3" AC / 9" GRANULAR BASE I i, 2Q/ j,CKF1LLED:6 / SURFACE CONDITIONS . ______ Li m ,YC.LL - -. . V) - z wI_. - -' W— - -. >- — LL. POCKET- LOG OF MATERIAL vi DETAILS PENETROMETER °'-' • (tsf) 3" ASPHALTIC CONCRETE OVER 9" BROWN SILT,' - • - ____________ :.::::: SAND, WITH GRAVEL -Em .EII.L; - - 25 18 111 2.0 . - / BROWN SILT( SAND, MEDIUM GRAINED, MOIST (D.G.) CL 3 /., RESIDUAL SOIL- STIFF, BROWN SILTY CLAY, MOIST 4- - • FORMA11ON: . . . ML . . - BROWN SANDY WEATHERED SANDY SILTSTONE CUTTINGS. CLASSIFIED AS "VERY DENSE. BROWN 43 - SANDY SILT. SOME CLAY, WITH . OLIVE TO OLIVE- * BROWN LAYERS MOIST : 9 WEATHERED GRANITICS (BROWN SILTY. .SAND) - FROM 8' TO 10' . . . . - BORING STOPPED © 10 rr. - NO CAVING OBSERVED . . NO FREE WATER OBSERVED . . BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS AND 13 CAPPED WITH 5" OF HOT MIXED ASPHALT 14- 15- 1.6- 17-. 18- 19- 20- 23- 24- * 1' 25- 26- 27- 28- 29- .- •0 . . 30 FN4839L00 KLEIN FELDER 9555 CHESAPEAXE DRIVE SUITE 101 FIGURE NO A3 PROJECT NO. 4839 01 LOG OF BORING 3 SHEET 1 OF 1 DRILLING QUMENT PROJECT NAME LOCATION ORION ST., STA. 16+40, ECME 55 (W/AUTOHAMMER) IMPROVEMENTS TO ORION STREET . RIGHT 11 FT.. TYPE OF BIT 8" HSA HA MMER DATA, WI. 140 LBS. DROP 30 INCHES LEVAnON -.295' TOTAL DEPTH 10' OF HOLE STARTED: 6/26/98 DRILLING AGENCY, SCOTT'S DRILLING GROUNDWATER DATEEl- ~VATION COMPLETED: 6/26/98 LOGGED BY KRW j / BACKFILLED:6 26/98 SURF/CE CONDITIONS 3" AC / 9" GRANULAR BASE '? WELL w POCKET LOG OF MATERIAL DETAILS PENETROMETER o (tsf) rr I••I••I•• " AS PHAL11C CONCRETE OVER 9 BROWN SILTY - - SAND WITH GRAVEL (FINE ANGULAR'). MOIST - 2- Xz MEDIUM DENSE, BROWN CLAYEY SAND, FINE TO SC 27 13 119 COARSE GRAINED, WITH GRAVEL, MOIST OLIVE GRAY SANDY CLAY MOIST CL 2.0 6 - - 26 . MEDIU M DENSE OLIVE-BROWN CLAYEY SAND WITH . FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, MOIST SC 7 BROWN' - 8- BROWN CLAY MOIST CL BORING STOPPED © 10 FT. NO CAVING OBSERVED - 12 NO FREE WATER OBSERVED . ... - - BOREHOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS AND' 13 CAPPED WITH 5 OF HOT MIXED ASPHALT 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21-. 22- 23- 24- . . .-.... - 25- 26- 27- 28- 29 , * FN4839L0G IIEIKLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. SUITE 1Q1 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 FIGURE NO A4 I 1 OF 1 10JECT5 4839 01 LOG OF BORING '4 IWNG PROJECT NAME LOCATION EQ M UIl UIPE 55 HE (W/AUTOHAMER) IMPROVEMENTS TO EL CAMINO REAL STATION 328+50, RIGH T 8 0 F T . OF SIT 8" HSA HAMMER DATA' Wt, 140 LBS. DROP 30 INCHES SURFACE —294' TOTAL DEPTH 10' ELEvA1N STARTED: 6/26/98 DRIWNG AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILLING ATER GROUNDW ELEVAMON DATE 6/26/98 LOGGED By KRw I /' /r,O ° SURFACE CONDITIONS ,CKF1LiED:t BARE SOIL E . ., . WELL w POCKET La IJ LOG OF MATERIAL ,i DETAILS PENETROMETER (tsf) I :nr:n SM OLIVE BROWN SILTY SAN D , F I N E G R A I N E D , W I T H — 13 19 105 0 GRAVEL. DRY CL /7 COLLLMUPJ: 7/ VERY STIFF, RED CRAY CL A Y , M O I S T , T R A C E - GRANITIC DEPOSITS CL 7/ FORMATION: HIGHLY WEATHERED, POO R L Y I N D U R A T E D , O L I V E CLAYSTONE - 6- /7 CUTTINGS CLASSIFIED AS " H A R D , O L I V E S I L T Y - 7/ CLAY, MOIST" MOTTLED WITH YELLOW DR Y W E L L C E M E N T E D 51 10— - BORING STOPPED @ 10 FT . ii- NO CAVING OBSERVED NO FREE WATER OBSERVE D 1 12- BOREHOLE BACK FILLED. W I T H S O I L C U T T I N G S 13- 14- - 24 FN:4839L0G K L El N FE L D ER 9555 CHESAPEAKE oRrv t , SUITE 101 1 FIGURE NO.: A5 PROJECT NO. 51-4839-01 LOG: OF BORING 5 SHEET . l OF 1 DRILLING QUIPMEXT PROJECT NAME LOCATION STATION 325+20 E CME 55 (W/AUTOHAMMER) IMPROVEMENTS TO EL CAMINO REAL RIGHT 90 FT. TYPE OF BIT 8" HSA HAMMER DATA.- wr 140 (BS DROP 30 INCHES RFACE nON -.295'TOTAL DEPTH 10' 5TA: 6/26/98 ELEVA I HOLE DRILLING AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILLING ,DATE ELEVAT I9JA Lij - 6/26/98, LOGGED BY KRW - I 6/26/98 SURFACE CONDITIONS fCKflLLED:Qf BARE SOIL . WELL Li POCKET CL LOG OF MATERIAL v, DETAILS !f PENETROMETER CIS - . . COLLIMum- CL OLIVE—BROWN SANDY CLAY, DRY . . 29 10 118 HARD (DRY) - - FORMATION: . . CL P' : 7,/ HIGHLY WEATHERED, POORLY INDURATED OLIVE Pp 5... CLAYSTONE. . . . 32 7— CUTTINGS CLASSIFIED AS "HARD OLIVE SILTY 8— CLAY, DRY" 10 50 - BORING STOPPED © 10 FT.11 — . NO CAVING OBSERVED . . NO FREE WATER OBSERVED . . . . V. 12— BOREHOLE BACKF1LLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS AND . . 13 CAPPED WITH 5 OF HOT MIXED ASPHALT 14- 15- 16- 17- 18- 19- 20- 21- 22- 23- 24- 25- 26- 27- 28- '29 30 FN 4839L00 fl K I E I N F E LD E R FIGURE NO A6 tm SIEVE ANALYSIS I71 HYDROMETER I U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #16 #30 #60 #100 #200 - - - -.- I I I • - - _____ - - - 100 ____ - - - 3 90 ---- ___10 80 ------- --- __20 70 --- ---- ___\ ---- -—-----30 60 ----- ----- --—---40 H U) H U) .1- Ui 50, 50 I- I- z ILl Ui 0 0 w 40 __ - Ui 0 30 --- ___ ___70 20 —80 1H 10 90 10 1 - 01 001 0.001 •, GRAIN SIZE (mm) Improvements to Orion St and El Camino Rea FIGURE k9 K L E I N F E L D E R Carsibad, California GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION BI PROJECT NO. 51-4838-01 -• GRAVEL GRAVEL SAND' SILT SILT CLAY CLAY - coarse coarse I fine I fine coarse coarse medium medium fine fine Symbol Symbol Boring No. Boring No. Depth (ft) Depth (ft) . Description . -Description Classification Classification • • Bi Bi 1 to 5 1 to 5- Brown sandy SILT Brown sandy SILT ML ML I SIEVE ANALYSIS I HYDROMETER I U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #16 #30 #60 #100 #200 I I •. 10 I I 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE (mm) Symbol Boring No. Depth (ft) Description Classification • B4 1 to 5 Red-gray sandy CLAY -. CL GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY coarse fine coarse medium I tine I 1 1. I k9 KLEINFELDER PROJECT NO. 51-4838-01 Improvements to Orion St. and El Camino Real FIGURE Carsibad, California GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION B2 60 - - - - - - CH / 50 -- .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7 40 - - - - --- .-- - CL oe z 3 0 Cn II±IIIIIiI;/IIIIII:II 20 — -:-----/---.- MH 10 1 / . OH ML r0L 0 ------- 0 . 10. 20 30 40 - 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 LIQUID LIMIT (LL) Boring No. Depth (ft) LL (%) PL (%) P1 (%) LI (-) Description B4 25 44 17 27 Red-gray sandy CLAY LL - Liquid Limit P1 - Plasticity Index PL - Plasticity Limit LI - Liquidity Index Unified Soil Classification Fine Grained Soil Groups LL<50 Inorganic clayey silts to very fine sands ML of slight plasticity Inorganic clays of low to CL medium plasticity Organic silts and organic silty clays of OL low plasticity LL> SO Ml! Inorganic silts and clayey silts of high plasticity CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity OH I Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts Improvements to Orion St. and El Camino Real FIGURE 1(1 KLEINFELDER Carsibad, California PLASTICITY CHART • • • 'B 3 PROJECT NO. 51-4838-01 • _______________________________________ _________ 1(1 El N F E L D E R LABORATORY TEST RESULTS FIGURE - 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE 101 P & 0 TECHNOLOGIES SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92123 IMPROVEMENTS TO ORION STREET CHECKED BY: FN: AND EL CAMINO REAL PROJECT NO 51-4838-01 DATE: 07-29-98 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Li I i As the client of a consulting geotechnical engineer, you should know that site subsurface conditions cause more construction problems than any other factor. ASFEII'he Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences offers the following suggestions and observations to help you manage your risks. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS Your geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsurface exploration plan designed to consider a unique set of project-specific factors. These factors typically include: the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; other improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities; and the additional risk created by scope-of-service limitations imposed by the client. To help avoid costly problems,. ask your geotechnical engineer to evaluate how factors that change subsequent to the date of the report may affect the report's recommendations. Unless your geotechnical engineer indicates otherwise, do not use your geotechnical engineering report: when the nature of the proposed structure is changed, for example, if an office building will be erected instead of a parking garage, or a refrigerated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrigerated one; when the size, elevation, or configuration of the proposed structure is altered; when the location or orientation of the proposed structure is modified; when there is a change of ownership; or for application to an adjacent site. Geotechn ical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems that may occur if they are not consulted after factors considered in their report's development have changed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE A geotechnical engineering report is based on condi- tions that existed at the time of subsurface exploration. Do not base construction decisions on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with your geotechnical consult- ant to learn if additional tests are advisable before construction starts.Note, too, that additional tests may be required when subsurface conditions are affected by construction operations at or adjacent to the site, or by natural events such as floods, earthquakes, or ground water fluctuations. Keep your geotechnical consultant apprised of any such events. MOST GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENTS Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions only at those points where samples are taken. The data were extrapolated by your geotechnical engineer who then applied judgment to render an opinion about overall subsurface conditions. The actual interface between materials may be far more gradual or abrupt than your report indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may differ from those predicted in your report. While nothing can be done to prevent such situations, you and your geotechnical engineer can work together to help minimize their impact. Retaining your geotechnical engineer to observe construction can be particularly beneficial in this respect. A REPORT'S RECOMMENDATIONS CAN ONLY BE PRELIMINARY The construction recommendations included in your geotechnical engineer's report are preliminary, because they must be based on the assumption that conditions revealed through selective exploratory sampling are indicative of actual conditions throughout a site. Because actual subsurface conditions can be discerned only during earthwork, you should retain your geo- technical engineer to observe actual conditions and to finalize recommendations. Only the geotechnical engineer who prepared the report is fully familiar with the background information needed to determine whether or not the report's recommendations are valid and whether or not the contractor is abiding by appli- cable recommendations. The geotechnical engineer who developed your report cannot assume responsibility or liability for the adequacy of the report's recommenda- tions if another party is retained to observe construction. GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES AND PERSONS Consulting geotechnical engineers prepare reports to meet the specific needs of specific individuals. A report prepared for a civil engineer may not be adequate for a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise, your geotechnical engineer prepared your report expressly for you and expressly for purposes you indicated. No one other than you should apply this report for its intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. No party should apply this report for any purpose other than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer. GEOENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ARE NOT AT ISSUE Your geotechnical engineering report is not likely to relate any findings, conclusions, or recommendations I * I J I I '1 I I LI I I I I I I I I I I I about the potential for hazardous materials existing at the site. The equipment, techniques; and personnel used to perform a geoenviron mental exploration differ substantially from those applied in geotechnical engineering. Contamination can create major risks. If you have no information about the potential for your site being contaminated, you are advised to speak with your geotechnical consultant for information relating to geoenviron mental issues. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Costly problems can occur when other design profes- sionals develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid misinterpretations, retain your geotechnical engineer to work with other project design professionals who are affected by the geotechnical report. Have your geotech- nical engineer explain report implications to design professionals affected by them, and then review those design professionals' plans and specifications to see how they have incorporated geotechnical factors. Although certain other design professionals may be fam- iliar with geotechnical concerns, none knows as much about them as a competent geotechnical engineer. BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE REPORT Geotechnical engineers develop final boring logs based upon their interpretation of the field logs (assembled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field samples. Geotechnical engineers customarily include only final boring logs in their reports. Final boring logs should not under any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors or omissions in the transfer process. Although photographic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does nothing to minimize the possibility of contractors misinterpreting the logs during bid preparation. When this occurs, delays, disputes, and unanticipated costs are the all-too-frequent result. To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpreta- tion, give contractors ready access to the complete geotechnical engineering report prepared or authorized for their use. (If access is provided only to the report prepared for you, you should advise contractors of the report's limitations, assuming that a contractor was not one of the specific persons for whom the report was prepared and that developing construction cost esti- mates was not one of the specific purposes for which it was prepared. In other words, while a contractor may gain important knowledge from a report prepared for another party, the contractor would be well-advised to discuss the report with your geotechnical engineer and to perform the additional or alternative work that the contractor believes may be needed to obtain the data specifically appropriate for construction cost estimating purposes.) Some clients believe that it is unwise or unnecessary to give contractors access to their geo- technical engineering reports because they hold the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming responsi- bility for the accuracy of subsurface information always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing the best available information to contractors helps prevent costly construction problems. It also helps reduce the adversarial attitudes that can aggravate problems to disproportionate scale. READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES CLOSELY Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on judgment and opinion, it is far less exact than other design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical engineers. To. help prevent this problem, geotechnical engineers have developed a number of clauses for use in their contracts, reports, ana other documents. Responsi- bility clauses are not exculpatory clauses designed to transfer geotechnical engineers' liabilities to other parties. Instead, they are definitive clauses that identify where geotechnical engineers' responsibilities begin and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their individual responsibilities and take appropriate action. Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your geotechnical engineering report. Read them closely. Your geotechnical engineer will be pleased to give full and frank answers to any questions. RELY ON THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE Most ASFE-member consulting geotechnical engineer- ing firms are familiar with a variety of techniques and approaches that can he used to help reduce risks for all parties to a construction project, from design through construction. Speak with your geotechnical engineer not only about geotechnical issues, but others as well, to learn about approaches that may be of genuine benefit. You may also wish to obtain certain ASFE publications. Contact a member of ASFE or ASFE for a complimentary directory of ASFE publicat.ons. I I I I I I I I I PROFESSIONAL AF FIRMS PRACTICING IN THE GEOSCIENCES 8811 COLESVILLE ROAD/SUITE G106/SILVER SPRING, MD 20910 TELEPHONE: 301/565-2733 FACSIMILE: 301/589-2017 Copyright 1992 by ASFE. Inc. Unless ASFE grants specific permission to do so. duplication of this document by any means whatsoever is expressly prohibited. Re-use of the wording in this document. In whole or in part, also is expressly prohibited, and may be done only with the express permission of ASFE or for purposes of review or scholarly research. IIGRO294 I I I I