HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 04-26; ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE PA 16, 17, & 18; PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT MASTODON COURT; 2012-11-16ry
Geotechnical. Geologic . Coastal. Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 ,- www.geosoilsinc.com
November 16, 2012
- W.O. 5949-E17-SC
t - -
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. :
12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200
Del Mar, California 92014 yL
Attention Mr. Greg McDonnell
I . • -p
Subject: Pavement Design Report, Mastodon Court (AllStatiôns), and Four Peaks
(Stations 17+00 to 37), Portion of Planning Area 17 of Robertson Ranch,
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. McDonnell
In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSl) has prepared this supplemental
pavement design report for asphalt concrete (AC) pavement at the subject site. This report
also includes alternative recommendations for the use of subgrade enhancement
geotextiles (SEG's), if desired. The scope of services provided in preparation of this report
• include a review of the referenced reports and documents (see the Appendix), an
evaluation of the pavement section for the subject area, and preparation of this report
PAVEMENT DESIGN
Pavement section evaluation was based on traffic index (TI) values provided by O'Day
- Consultants (2006). Pavement sections were evaluated in general accordance with the • -.
- California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design Manual of Instructions p
. •••
- and the City of Carlsbad Standard Drawings (see the Appendix). Pavement sections -
presented are based on the aforementioned criteria and resistance value (A-value) data
,(see the attached Figures 1 through 3), evaluated from soils exposed at, or near, final
subgrade elevations within the subject areas R-value testing was performed in general T '
accordance with the latest revisions to the Department of Transportation, State of
California, Material & Research Test Method No 301 The collection of representative
subgrade samples was performed by a representative from this office The number of
samples to be collected for the enclosed design was determined by the City inspector. -.- .
e S ... ..
,. ..•--
- - •. . .
4 1 - ' -
-•. '- - S . • S • - - . . - • - .- - _.'p
•
.• -
: -
- S_ '• .4 •.. -I •
I -S ' - -. •I ,• • S
- -• - . S .
• -
'5
.5
4_ .4 •9_ .4
-- 4.
'4
4. • .
4 4
.4 ..
.
4
.. 4
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
:. Structural Section .
-'
A Traffic Index (TI) was provided by the project civil engineer (O'Day Consultants, 2006)
as 5.0 for the subject traffic areas. R-values (see attached Figures 1 through 3) ranging
-
•
from 6 to 12 were obtained from representative samples of subgrade soil and used in
pavement design. Where "un-treated" R-values are -less than 12, alternative pavement
'4 design is recommended by the City (Carlsbad, 1993). The alternative methods included
in our evaluation consisted of the following:
• '.4
Increase the minimum untreated aggregate base section to exceed the minimum
criteria for both Carlsbad (1993) and State of California (2012) for pavements on
subgrades with A-values less than 12 See Table 1 herein
•'-:,--
• • Design pavement sections using SEG's per Section 614.5 of the Highway Design
..
* Manual (State of California, 2012), the State of California (2009), and Mirafi (2005)
See Table 2 herein *
4) - .- ..•
.. . Design pavement sections using a lime treated subgrade per Carlsbad (1993),
Section 614.4 of the Highway Design Manual (State of California, 2012)
--
In consideration of cost, and environmental concerns regarding the use of lime, as well as
other aspects of lime use discussed in Mirafi (2005), increasing the overall base section - . •
thickness, or using SEG's are preferred as an alternative to lime treatment, and have been
evaluated and approved by Caltrans, as well as the City of Carlsbad, in similar applications.
. .
It should be noted that subgrade lime treatment was previously waived by the City for the
construction of pavement in the Calavera Hills/Robertson Ranch area (GSl; 2007a, 2007b,
2007c, 2004a, 2004b, and 2004c). It is therefore anticipated that lime stabilization will not
be performed for the current road construction. The recommended pavement sections,
provided in general accordance with the City guidelines (Carlsbad, 1993), and the State
of California (2012, 2009), are presented as follows
.. - 7_ • 4$ Pavement Section: Asphalt/Aggregate Base
4 .
4
:
TABLE 1 - ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (A.C.)/AGGREGATE BASE (A.B.)
APPROXIMATE TI 1 SUBGRADE A.C. A.B.
TRAFFIC AREA R-VALUE THICKNESS THICKNESS(4)
(inches) (3) (inches)
Mastodon Court, Sta. 10 to 11
(Sample [RV-1] obtained from Sta. 10) ° 38 4.0 -
Mastodon Court, Sta. 11 '22 to Cul Du Sac ° (Sample [RV-2] obtained from Sta. 14) 38(2) . 4.0 4.0w>
4.7
44 4
I 4
Brookfield San Diego Builders, inc. •. W.O. 5949-E17-SC -
- Portion of PA 17 of Robertson Ranch • • November 16, 2012 •
- . File:e:\wp12\5900\5949e1.pdr8 7 . . • .
-
Page 2
-•
4
44
--
V
-
-. . . fr -
4
• 4
.4-
4
'I .
.4
'-4
, .4
TABLE 1 - ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (A.C.)/AGGREGATE BASE (A.B.)
APPROXIMATE TIE" S UBGRADE A.C.
THICKNESS
A.B.
THICKNESS 4 TRAFFIC AREA R-VALUE (Inches)3 (inches)
Four Peaks, Sta. 37 to 33'29 (Sample
fr(
.4.0 9.5 [RV-3]obtained from Sta. 31 9)
Four Peaks, Sta. 33+29 to 25 (Sample .5 I 1
4.0 [RV-4] obtained from Sta. 29— fl
Four Peaks, Sta. 25 to 17 (Sample
[RV-5] obtained from Sta. 21 5.0 -U7 4.0 9•5(3)
(1) Per O'Day Consultants (Improvement plans)
(')Subgrade R-values extrapolated from adjacent sample areas, as tested, based on 'soil type.
(3) Minimum Per Carlsbad (1993)
Exceeds minimum Per Carlsbad (1993) by at least 20 percent. ,
Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base R .>78, SE .~t25)
'4 . ...•••
I
Alternative Pavement Section Subgrade Enhancement Geotextile (SEG)
[ TABLE 2- ASPHALTIC CONCRETE (A.C.)/AGGREGATE BASE (A.B.)/SEG
APPROXIMATE TI SUBGRADE A.C.
THICKNESS(3)
A.B.
THlCKNESS 3'4
SEG CLASS
(CalTrans, TRAFFIC AREA R-VALUE (2)
= (Inches) (Inches) 2009)
Four Peaks, Sta. 374'29 to 334'29
(Sample [RV-3] obtained from 5.0 2} 4.0 5.0(3)Bi, B25 -
Sta. 314'
Four Peaks, Sta. 334'22 to 25+L5
(Sample [RV-4] obtained from 5.0 20 4.0 B1, B2 5
Sta. 29)
Four Peaks, Sta. 25 to 17+00
- (Sample [RV-5] obtained from 5.0 4.0 5(3)
, Bi, B25
Sta. 21 +25)
Per O'Day Consultants, (Improvement plans)
Effective R-value when using SEG HP 570, or equivalent (State of California, 2008, 2009)
Per Carlsbad (1993)
Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base R >78, SE >25)
Class Bi, Mirafi HP 570, or equivalent; Class B2, Mirafi FW500, or equivalent
1,.
4
V.4
'V.
4 4
4.
'4
k
This alternative includes design pavement sections using SEG's per Section 614.5 of the
Highway Design Manual (State of California, 2012), and the State of California (2009).
. '
. Subgrade enhancement geotextile (SEG) used shall be either Mirafi HP 570 (Class Bi), or - • ,'
-- FW500 (Class 132), or equivalent. All SEG's shall be placed per the manufacturers
guidelines. 4 . •. , . , 4 . - .. . ' - V • .4
.
-. • •. -' -.
- Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
- Portion of PA 17 of Robertson Ranch
- FiIe:e:\wp12\5900\5949e1.pdr8
W.O. 5949-E17-SC
November 16, 2012 .4
.
Page 3' - ' •'. I
General Installation Considerations
All pavement installation, including preparation and compaction of subgrade, compaction
of base material, and placement and rolling of asphaltic concrete, shall be done in
accordance with the City guidelines, and under the observation and testing of the project
geotechnical engineer and/or the City.
The recommended pavement sections are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly
variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair may be
needed. The recommended pavement sections provided above are intended as a
minimum guideline. If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed,
increased maintenance and repair could be expected. If the ADT (average daily traffic) or
ADTT (average daily truck traffic) increases beyond that intended, as reflected by the TI
used for design, increased maintenance and repair could be required for the pavement
section. Consideration should be given to the increased potential for distress from overuse
of paved Street areas by heavy equipment and/or construction related heavy traffic
(e.g., concrete trucks, loaded supply trucks, etc.), particularly when the final section is not
in place (i.e., topcoat). Best management construction practices should be followed at all
times, especially during inclement weather.
PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
General
All section changes shall be properly trnsitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered
during the preparation of subgrade materials, special construction methods may need to
be employed. A GSI representative shall be present for the preparation of subgrade, base
rock, and asphalt concrete.
Subgrade
Within street and parking areas, all surficial deposits of loose soil material shall be removed
and recompacted as recommended. After the loose soils are removed, the bottom is to
be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary, and
compacted to 95 percent of the maximum laboratory density, as determined by ASTM test
designation D 1557.
Deleterious material, excessively wet or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock
fragments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during grading shall be
removed. The compacted fill material shall then be brought to the elevation of the
proposed subgrade for the pavement. The subgrade shall be proof-rolled in order to
ensure a uniform firm and unyielding surface. All grading and fill placement shall be
observed by the project soil engineer and/or his representative. -
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5949-E17-SC Portion of PA 17 of Robertson Ranch November 16, 2012
File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949e1.pdr8 Page 4
Base Rock
Compaction tests are required for the recommended base section. Minimum relative
compaction required will be 95 percent of the laboratory maximum density as determined
by ASTM test designation D 1557. Base aggregate shall be in accordance with
Section 26 of Caltrans Standard specifications (California Department of Transportation,
2006), for Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base.
Paving
Prime coat may be omitted if all of the following conditions are met:
The asphalt pavement layer is placed within two weeks of completion of base
and/or subbase course.
Traffic is not routed over completed base before paving.
Construction is completed during the dry season of May through October.
The base is kept free of debris prior to placement of asphaltic concrete.
If construction is performed during the wet season of November through April, prime coat
may be omitted if no rain occurs between completion of base course and paving and the
time between completion of base and paving is reduced to three days, provided the base
is free of loose soil or debris. Where prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs, traffic
is routed over base course, or paving is delayed, measures shall be taken to restore base
course and subgrade to conditions that will meet specifications as directed by the
geotechnical consultant.
Drainage
Positive drainage shall be provided for all surface water to drain toward the curb and
gutter, or to an approved drainage channel. Positive site drainage shall be maintained at
all times. Water shall not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground. Over-watering of
landscape areas should be avoided. Due to the low A-values, wet subgrade conditions
could significantly reduce the life of the pavement. Therefore, it is imperative that subgrade
materials are not allowed to become wet or saturated or allow water to flow into trenches
or behind curbs.
OTHER DESIGN PROFESSIONALS/CONSULTANTS
The design civil engineer shall review the recommendations provided herein, incorporate
those recommendations into their plans, and by explicit reference, make this report part
of their project plans.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5949-E17-SC
Portion of PA 17 of Robertson Ranch November 16, 2012
File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949e1.pdr8 Page 5
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized for our analysis are believed
representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between
excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during mass grading. Site
conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors.
Inasmuch as our study is based upon our review and engineering analyses and laboratory
data, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions
have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is
express or implied. ,Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GSI assumes
no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by others, or their inaction, or
work performed when GSl is not requested to be onsite, to evaluate if our
recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report constitutes an
agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above, notwithstanding
any other agreements that may be in place. In addition,this reportmay be subject to
review by the controlling authorities.
The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully submitted
a.
0AL G0N,
?/ 0
GeoSoils, Inc. ir 0.. No, 1934
Certified
Engineering
Geologist
AberismRan
Engineering Geologist, CEG 1934
RGC/ATG/J PF/j h
Ilk
&No.G
* °
c M
Exp.ti7i
Op c\0 ' ,AndrewT. Guatelli
Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320
Attachments: Figures 1 through 3 - R-value Test Results
Appendix - References
Distribution: (4) Addressee
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. W.O. 5949-E17-SC Portion of PA 17 of Robertson Ranch November 16, 2012
File:e:\wpl2\5900\5949e1 .pdr8 GeoSoUs, Inc.Page 6
R - VALUE DATA SHEET
W.O. 5949-E-SC
Mastodon Court
PROJECT NUMBER 38452 BORING NUMBER: RV-1 Sta. 10+75
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: BrownSandyClay
Item
a
SPECIMEN
b c Mold Number I 2 4 Water added, grams 80 112 59 Initial Test Water, % 13.3 16.1 11.4 Compact Gage Pressure,psi 60. 40 125 Exudation Pressure, psi 315 201 602 Height Sample, Inches 2.52 2.70 2.52 Gross Weight Mold, grams 3083 3123 3089 Tare Weight Mold, grams 1965 1969 1977 Sample Wet Weight, grams 1118 1154 1112 Expansion, Inches xl0exp-4 19 0 51 Stability 2,000 lbs (160psi) 31 I 73 56 I 130 20 I 41 Turns Displacement . 4.26 4.68 4.08 R-Value Uncorrected 41 11 64 R-Value Corrected 41 12 64 Dry Density, pcf 118.7 111.5 120.0
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA
Traffic Index Assumed: 4.0 4.0 4.0 G.E. by Stability 0.60 0.90 0.37 G. E. by Expansion 0.63 0.00 1.70
38 Examined & Checked: 11 /13/ 12 Equilibrium R-Value by
UDATION VgoFESS/
;
Gf
ilothe Uj
REMARKS: 3/4" Sieve. *
St 0659
The data above is based upon processing and testing &04es as received from the field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisions to Department of
Transportation, State of California, Materials & Research Test Method No. 301.
FIGURE 1
R -VALUE DATA SHEET
W.O. 5949-E-SC
Four Peaks
PROJECT NUMBER 38452 BORING NUMBER: RV-3 Sta. 34+50
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: _Brown Sandy Clay
Item
a
SPECIMEN
b c
Mold Number 10 11 12
Water added, grams 100 150 77
Initial Test Water, % 16.6 21.1 14.5
Compact Gage Pressure,psi 40 30 80
Exudation Pressure, psi 389 183 531
Height Sample, inches 2.55 2.53 2.55
Gross Weight Mold, grams 3.035 2977 3055
Tare Weight Mold, grams 1959 1965 1963
Sample Wet Weight, grams 1076 1012 1092
Expansion, Inches 1oexp-4 0 0 12
Stability 2,000 lbs (160psi) 59 / 130 67 I 145 34 I 87
Turns Displacement 4.21 . 4.57 3.71
R-Value Uncorrected 12 5 36
R-Value Corrected. . 12 5 36
Dry Density, pcf 109.7 100.1 113.3'
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA
Traffic Index Assumed: 4.0 4.0 4.0
G.E. by Stabiiity 0.90 0.97 0.66
G. E. by Expansion 0.00 0.00 0.40
7 Examined & Checked: 11 /13/ 12
Equilibrium R-Value by
=
EXUDATION
Gf
0.0% Retained on the
. 3 REMARKS: 3/4" Sieve.
.arvin ' 30659
The data above is based upon processing and testing samp ived from the
field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisions to Department of
Transportation, State of California, Materials & Research Test Method No. 301.
FIGURE 2
RA 0 4dIe ,
RVALUE DATA SHEET
W.O. 5949-E-SC
Four Peaks
PROJECT NUMBER 38452 BORING NUMBER: RV-5 Sta. 21+25
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION: Brown SandyClay
Item
a
SPECIMEN
b c
MoldNumber 7 _8 9
Water added,grams 100 132 182
InitialTestWater,% 13.3 16.1 20.5
CompactGagePressure,psi 70 40 30
ExudationPressure,psi 554 373 194
HeightSample,Inches 2.57 2.63 2.66
GrossWeightMold,grams 3095 3081 2874
TareWeightMold,grams 1968 1964 1789
SampleWet Weight,grams 1127 _1117 1085
Expansion, Inches x10exp-4 37 10 0
Stability 2,000lbs(l6Opsi) 39 I 103 56 I 135 64 I 145
TurnsDisplacement 3.27 4.35 5.19
R-Value Uncorrected 30 10 5
R-Value Corrected 31 11 5
DryDensity,pcf 117.2 110.8 102.6
DESIGN CALCULATIONDATA
TrafficIndex Assumed: 4.0 4.0 4.0
G.E.byStability 0.71 0.91 0.97
G.E.byExpansion 1.23 0.33 0.00
7 Examined & Checked:. 11,/13/ 12
Equilibrium R-Value by
EXUDATION
Al
Gf 1.25
0.0% Retained on the
REMARKS:3/4"Sieve.
~%,AK ,KtWHR. Marvin,30659 it
The data above is based upon processing and testing s_CIV ved from the
field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisions to Department of
Transportation,StateofCalifornia,Materials&ResearchTestMethodNo.301.
FIGURE 3
°
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation, 2010, Caltrans, Standard specifications, May
printing.
Carlsbad, City of, 1993, Standards for design and construction of public works
improvements in the City of Carlsbad.
GeoSoils, Inc., 2008, Memo, Clarification of pavement design report, Glen Avenue,
Station 26 to the Cul Du Sac, Robertson Ranch East Village, City of Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California, W.O. 5353-B-SC, dated October 31.
2007a, Pavement design report, Improvement of "loop" roads, Wind Trail Way, Glen
Avenue, and Hilltop Street, Robertson Ranch East Village, City of Carlsbad, San
Diego County, California, W.O. 5384-E-SC, dated October 31.
2007b, Pavement design report, Improvement (widening) of College Boulevard
(Stations 103+22' to 11 8'L), and Cannon Road (Stations 127 +20 to 159), City of
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 5354-E-SC, dated September 18.
2007c, Review of A-value data, Improvement (widening) of College Boulevard
(Stations 103 +35 to 118-), and Cannon Road (Stations 127 +20 to 159), City of
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 5354-E-SC, dated September 4.
2004a, Revised pavement design report, College Boulevard Stations 78 to 101 ,
Reach C, Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.O. 4028-E-SC,
dated April 19.
2004b, Revised pavement design report, College Boulevard Stations 101 to
118+10, Reach B, Calavera Hills II, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
W.O. 4029-E-SC, dated April 23.
,2004c, Third revision of pavement design report, Calavera Hills II, Cannon Road
Stations 125 to 164+50 , City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
W.O. 4030-E-SC, dated May 14.
Mirafi, 2005, Benefits of subgrade stabilization using geosynthetics versus lime treated soil,
Technical Note TN-LIME-01 05, dated May 1.
National Research Council (U.S.). Transportation Research Board, 1987, Lime
Stabilization, State of the art Report 5, Committee on Lime and Lime-Fly Ash
Stabilization, last modified September 25, 2009.
NEWCON90, 1991 Computer program for the determination of asphalt pavement sections,
dated April 30.
O'Day Consultants, 2006, Improvement plans for: Robertson Ranch East Village, City of
Carlsbad, Project no. C.T. 02-16, Drawing no. 433-6, dated December 29.
State of California, Department of Transportation, 2012, Highway design manual of
instructions, dated May 7.
2009, Guide for designing subgrade enhancement geotextiles, dated April 28.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc. Appendix
Fite:e:\wpl2\5900\5949e1.pdr8 Page 2