HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 04-26; ROBERTSON RANCH EAST VILLAGE PA 16, 17, & 18; SUPPLEMENTAL PAVEMENT DESIGN REPORT WIND TRAIL WAY; 2010-01-13ç) c-roLfr24
'-' Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal ° Environmental
5741 Palmer Way Carlsbad, California 92010 (760),438-3155 - FAX (760) 931-0915
January 13, 2010
W.O. 5949-E-SC
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc.
12865 Pointe Del Mar, Suite 200
Del Mar, California 92014
Attention: Mr Greg McDonnell
Subject: Supplemental Pavement Design Report, Wind Trail Way. (Stations 16 to
18+L6), Alander Court (Stations 12+00 to 19+20 ), and Cascade Street (Stations
12 to 15), Portion of Planning Area 16-of Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California
Dear Mr. McDonnell:
In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has prepared this supplemental
pavement design report for asphalt *concrete (AC) pavement at the subject site, to include
recommendations forthe use of subgrade enhancement geotextiles (SEG's) and subgrade
lime treatment, as well as a modified, conventional asphaltic concrete over aggregate
base section. 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.
0
PAVEMENT DESIGN
Pavement section evaluation was based on traffic index (TI) values provided by (O'Day
Consultants, personal communications). Pavement sections were evaluated in general
accordance with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Highway Design
Manual of Instructions and the City of Carlsbad Standard Drawings (see the Appendix).
Pavement sections presented are based on the aforementioned criteria and resistance
value (R-value) data (see the attached Figures 1 through 6), evaluated from soils exposed
at, or near, final subgrade elevations within the subject areas. R-value testing was
performed in general accordance with the latest revisions to the Department of
Transportation, State of California, Material & Research Test Method No. 301. The results
of additional laboratory testing, including pH •(ASTM C977) and sulfate (Caltest
Method 417) evaluations, are included in the attached Figures 7 and 8.
ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Structural Section
Traffic Indices (TI) were provided.by the project.civil engineer.(O'Day Consultants, personal
communication) as 5.0 for the subject Itraffic areas Untreated R-values (see attached
Figures 1 through 4) ranging from 5 to 16 were evaluated for representative subgrade soils
onsite and used in pavement design presented in 'GSl (2009)..
Where "un-treated" R-values are less than 12 (Wind Trail Way and Alander Court),
alternative pavement design using subgrade treated with quicklime was requested by the
City (Carlsbad., 1993). R-values for lime treated subgrade (see attached Figures 5 and 6)
ranging from 61 to 78 were obtained for representative subgrade soils onsite and used in
the supplemental pavement design presented herein.
In addition to lime treated subgrade, and in consideration of cost, as well as environmental
concerns regarding the long term durability and field implementation with the use of lime
additional methodologies to improve the performance of low R-value subgrades are
therefore presented for consideration on this project without regard.to orderof preference,
or performance The methods included in our supplemental evaluation consist of the
following,:
Increase the minimum untreated 'aggregate base section to exceed the minimum
criteria for both Carlsbad (1993) and State of California (2008) for pavements on
subgrades with R-values.less than 12. See Table 1 below.
Design pavement sections using SG's per section 614.5 of the Highway Design
Manual (State of California, 2008), the. State of California (2009), and Mirafi (2005).
See Table 2 below:
Design pavement :sections using a lime treated sub per Carlsbad (1593),, Section 614.4 of the Highway Design Manual (State of California,2008). See Table
3 below.
In consideration of Mirafi '(2005),, increasing, the overall base section thickness, or using
SEG's are preferred as an alternative to lime treatment, have been evaluated and approJed
by Caltrans in similar applications. GSI has used asimilar approach (i.e., with SEG), for
a.major roadwaywith low strength subgrades in the City Of Oceanside, and with the City's
review and approval. The recommended pavement sections, provided in general
accordance with the City guidelines (City of Carlsbad, 1993'), and the State of California
(2008 2009) are presented as follows
Brookfieid San Diego Builders, Inc
' W.0. 5949-E-8C Portion of PA 16 of Robertson Ranch January 13, 2010 File: e:\wpl2\5900\5949e:spdr GeoSoils, Inc.. Page 2
/ ARPROXIMrATE¼ TI SUBGRADE THICKNESS BASETHlCKNESS 41k
Wind Trail Way Sta 16 to 18 (Sample
29
5A 5
It. obtained from Sta 18
AlanderCourt Sta 12to1942 (Samples 50 11 40 ' obtained from Sta 14 and
Cascade Street Sta 1'2,tL5 to 15 5 0 16 4.6 (Sample obtained from Sta 13)
Per -O Day Consultants (improvement plans)
Exceeds design per State of California (2008)
Per Carlsbad (1993)
(4) Denotes Class ass'? Base R.,> SE '25)
.4
Vt
4
.J.
VI V
V VT
4; VI
••V V -
V
V •V This alternative includes increasing the minimum untreated aggregate base section to
exceed the minimum criteria for both Carlsbad (1993) and State of California (2008) The
aggregate base thickness has been increased relative to sections shown in GSI (2009) and
are approximately 125 percent of the minimum design per Caltrans (2008) for Wind Trail
Way and Alander, Court
Pavement with Subgrade Enhancement Geotextile (SEG), Option B
&
V
V 4
I
V V
gm Mm 11@1iAelF 'PJ jr J1'PROXIMATE i SCJBGRADE THICKNESS BASE THICKNESS (Callrans,., j (2) Iche% '. 20O9t
Wind Trail Way Sta. 16 to }V5Ot 20 4.0 5O ;B1 (5 18 (Sample obtained from V
Sta. 189)
Alander Court, Sta. 12 to 8.,Oi 20 40
V
V / 61, 8215 19.2 (Samples obtained from
V V Sta. 14 and 17 2) V
Per O'Day Consultants, (Improvement plans) V
V Effective R-value when üsihg SEG HP570, or equivnt (Stat6bf CAR ârnia, 2008, 2009)
Exceeds Cit' minimum, design per State of California (2008)
Denots Class V2VAggregate Base R.>78, S >25)
Class. 6.1, Mirafi HP 5701 or equivalent; Class 62, Mirafi FW500, Or eUivälent. -
V I 'VI
V)
VII .
Vt
V .. V
V' •V . : - Brookfield San Diego Builders Inc W 0 5949 E SC Portion of PA 16 of Robertson Ranch January 13j, 2010 Fi1ee\wp12\5900\5949espdr Page3 GeoSoils, inc.
V
This alternative includes design pavement sections Uing SEG's per Section 614.5 of the
Highway Design Manual (State of California, 2008) the State of California (2009) and Mirafi
(2005) Within Wind Trail Way, subgrade enhancement geotextile (SEG) used shall be
Mirafi HP 570 or equivalent Within Alan der- Court subgrade enhancement geotextile
(SEG) used shall be either Mirafi HP 570 (Class Bi) or FW500 (Class B2), or equivalent
All SEG's shall be placed per the manufacturers guidelines
Pávement.with LimeTreated Subgráde, Option C.
41TRAJE4 TRAtEDI1 'A4& IGdREàATE 4 kt APPROXlMATE'1 1 TI(1)I. UBGRADE4 SUBGRADE' THICKNESS BASETHICKNESS
ihes)
Wind Trail Way. Sta. 16 to 5.0 5 4.0 4.0 18 (Sample obtained from
Sta. 1-8"-')
Alander Court, Sta:. 12' to 5.0 11 78' 4.0 4.0 19 (Samples obtained from
Sta. 14+22 and 17)
Per O'Day Consultants, (Improvement plans) -
3 percent Quicklime by weight.
2 percent Quicklime by weight.
. Denotes Class 2 Aggregate Base R >78. SE >25)
This alternative includes design pavement sections using a lime tieated subgrade per
Carlsbad (1993), and section 614.4 of the Highway Design Manual (State of California
2008) Within Wind Trail Way and Alander Court the percent (by weight) of quicklime used
in subgrade treatment shall be at least 3 percent for Wind Trail Way and 2 percent for
Alander Court The minimum treated subgrade thickness shall be 8 inches per Carlsbad
(1993) Lime treatment shall be per the standard of practice, and the National r Research Council (1987).
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
vai IQIJIU 1JQVI P II IL 0.LRJI 10 QI u 4.Jl lOLlUULI, II lI QOU II 1Q11 lLI IQI IL. QJ PP.1 I epah II Ic2y ue needed. The recommended pavement sections provided above are intended as a minimum guideline If thinner or highly variable pavement sections are constructed
Broôktie!d San Diego Builders, Inc.. W.0.5949-E-SC Portion of Planning Area 16, Robertson Ranch.
. January 13, 2010 File:e:\wp9\5900\5949e.spdr GeoSoils, Inc. Page4
increased maintenance and repair could be expected. If the ADT (average daily traffic) or
ADTT (average daily truck traffic) increases beyond that intOndedi 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.
PAVEMENTGRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
General
All section changes shall be properly transitioned.' 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 depbsitsof 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
desigriationD 1557
Deleteriousmaterial, 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.
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.
Brookfield San Diego Builders, inc. W.0. 5949-E-SC Portion of Panning Area 16, Robertson Ranch January 13, 2010
Fi1e:e:\w159\5900\5949e.spdr GCOSOIJS Inc. Page 5
Paving
Prime coat may be omitted if 'aH ofthe 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 the
time between completion 'of base and paving is reduced to three days, 'providedthe base
is free of loose soil or debris Where prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs, traffic
is routed over base cours; 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, Otto an approved drainage channel. Positiv.e'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 R-values, wet subgrade conditions
could significantly reduce'the'life of the pavement. Therefore', it is imperative that subgrade
materials are not allowed to become wetor saturated or allow water to flow, into trenches
or behind curbs.
OTHER DESIGN PRO.FESSIONALSICQNSULTANTS
The design 'dVil engineer shall review the recommendations provide.d'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-E-SC Portion of Planning Area 16, Robertson Ranch January 13, 2010
Fi1e:e:\wp9\5900\5949espdr GeoSoIls, Inc Page'6
liMITATIONS
The materials encountered on tha projet 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 asour studyis based Upon our review and:engihèering 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 practibe 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 maybe in place In addition this report maybe* subject to
review by the controlling authorities
Brookfield San Diego Builders, inc. W.D.5949-E-SC Portion of Planning Area 16 Robertson Ranch January 13 2010 File e \wp9\5900\5949e spdr GeoSoils, Inc. Page ,7
The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please
do not hesitate to call our office.
Respectfully submitIec-.... 0
çOFESSio, LQE.\
GeoSoils, Inc
rn
yf/c\ (/Ø?
G23?O No. 1934 I \ Exp.ji/ii 1 Certified EnginerIng
d). Gagipg1st: CH
Robert G. Crism ii Andrew T. Guatelli
Engineering Geolo iA34 Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320
RGC/ATG/J PF/jh
Attachments: Figures 1 through 4 - Untreated Fl-value Test Results
Figures 5-and, 6 Treated. R-value Test Results
Figure 7 - pH Evaluation
Figure 8 - Soil Sulfate Evaluation
Appendix - References
Distribution: (4) Addressee
Brookfield San Diego Builders, Inc W'0. 5949 E Sc Portion of Planning Area 16i. Robertson Ranch January 13, 2010 FiIe:e:\wp9\5900\5949e.spdr GEOSOUS Inc.-0
Page 8
TEST SPECIMEN A B C 0
Compactor air pressure PSI 170 50
Water added 3.8 8.1
Moisture at compaction % 18.1 .23.0
Height of sample IN 2.52 2.65
Dry density PCF 109.2 .99.5
R-Vàlue by exudation 10 4
R-Value by exudation, corrected 10 4
Exudation pressure, PSI 784 424
Stability thickness FT 1-151 1.231
Expansion pressure thickness .FT 1 A01 0.10
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA SAMPLE INFORMATION
Traffic index, assumed 5.0
Gravel equivalent factor, assumed 1.25
Expansion, stability equilibrium 1.18
R-Value by expansion .
R-Value by. exudation <5
R-Value at equilibrium <5*
* Soil pressed out of bottom of mold, stopped test..
Expansion Stability Equilibrium
2.00 . i I I I
'1.50
Sample Location: Wind Trail 16+60-18+70
Sample Description Gray Brown Clay'
Notes: FROM 18+00
06/6 Retained on314 inch sieve
Test Method: Cal-Trans Test 301
R-Value By Exudation
80
70
60
.0 (a
C')
>, .0
(0 ol.00 a)
x
I-)
I—
50
U
tv 40
30
20
10
0.00 I' 1 I ( I I I
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure (ft)
UI I
800 700 600' 500 400 300 200 100 0
Exudation Pressure (psi)
GeoSoils, Inc. R - VALUE TEST RESULTS
5741 Palmer Way Project: BROOKFIELD
J Carlsbad, CA 92008
Telephone: (760) 4383155 Number: 5949-E-SC
Fax:- (760) 931-0915
Date: , Dec-09 Figure: 1
GeoSoils, Inc.
5741 Palmer Way
ri I Carlsbad,
Telephone: (760) 438-3155
Fax: (760) 931-0915
R- VALUE TEST RESULTS
Project: 'BROOKFIELD
Number: .5949-E-SC
TEST SPECIMEN A R el n
Compactor air pressure PSI 330 230 170
Water added % 2.7 3.6 4.7
Moisture at compaction % 12.3 13.2 145
Height of sample IN 2.4 2.43 2.54
Dry density PCF 122.6 119.7 11.4
R-Value by exudation 26 15
R-Value by exUdation, corrected 24 15
Exudation pressure PSI 559 393 283
Stability thickness FT 0.951 1'.09 114
Expansion pressure thickness FT 1.871 1.20 0.37
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA
Traffic index, assumed 5.0
Gravel equivalent factor, assumed 1.25
Expansion, stability equilibrium 1.1
R-Value by expansion. 14
R-Value by exudation 11
R- Value at equilibrium 11
Expansion, Stability Equilibrium
2.00
'1.50
.0 as
U,
.0
Sn u1.00 a) c
ci
.5:
I—
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Sample Location: Alander 12+00-15+60
Sample Description: Gray Brown Sandy. Clay
Notes: FROM 14+36
0% Retained on 3/4 inch sieve
Test Method: Cal-Trans Test 301
R-Value By Exudation
80
70
60
50
30
20
10
0:00 K i I I I I I I I
0.00 0.50 100 1.50 2.00
Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure (ft)
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Exudation Pressure (psi)
TEST SPECIMEN A P F'
Compactor air pressure PSI 350 150 80
Water added % 0.0 3.4 4.7
Moisture .atcompaction 13.3 17.0 18.5
Height of sample IN 2.37 2.5 2.58
Dry density PCF 120.2 112.5 109.1
R-Value by exudation 22 11 7
R-Value by exudation, corrected 21 11 7
Exudation pressure PSI 669 303 204
Stability thickness FT 1.00 1.14 1.19
Expansion pressure thickness FT 1 3.67 0.53 0.30
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA SAMPLE INFORMATION
Traffic index, assumed 50
Gravel equivalent factor, assumed 1.25,
Expansion, stability equilibrium 1.1
R-Value,by expansion 14
R-Value by exudation 11
R-Value at equilibrium ii
Sample Location: Alander 15+60-19+20
San pie Description: Gray Biown Sandy Clay
Notes: FROM 17+60
0% Retained on 3/4 inch sieve
Test Method: Cal-Trans Test 301
R-Value By Exudation
80
70
60
50
a,
40
30
20
10.
---- - NOR
- --- -=---- ,4__
a w2.50
U, u,2.00 a, C .
-1.50
---
oil
.cini
0 I . ...I —.
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Exudation Pressure.(psi)
GeoSoils, Inc. R - VALUE TEST RESULTS
.•. 5741 Palmer Way Project: BROOKFIELD
?. Carlsbad, CA 92008
Telephone: (7.60) 438-3155 Number 5949-E-SC
Fax: (760) 931-0915
Date: Dec-09 Figure: 3
TEST SPECIMEN A R r n
Compactor air pressure PSI 350 280 230
Water added % 48 5.3 5.8
Moisture-at compaction % 13.0 13.6 14.2
Height of sample IN 2.5 2:53 2.55
Dry density PCF 121.3 119.3 117.7
R-Value by exudation 22 18 15
R-Value by exudation, corrected 22 18 15
Exudation pressure PSI 448 365 281
Stability thickness FT 1.00 1.05 1.09
Expansion pressure thickness FT 1.401 0.73 0.10
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA SAMPLE INFORMATION
Trafficindex, assumed q 5:0
Gravel equivalent factor, assumed 1:25
Expansion, stability equilibrium 1.03
R-Value by expansion 20
R-Value by exudation 16
R-Value at equilibrium 16
Expansion, Stability Equilibrium
'I.
'l.50
.0 (0
CI)
.0
(1) (01.00 '11 C
C,
I-
Sample.,Location: Cascade 12+25-15+40
Sample, DescriptiOn: Gray Brown Sandy Clay
Notes: FROM 13+90
0% Retained on 3/4 inch sieve
Test Method: Cal-Trans Test 301
R-Value By Exudation
80 -
70--
60
50 —
.01
40
30
0.50 20
10
0.00 0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure (ft) Exudation Pressure (psi)
GeoSoils, Inc.
5741 Palmer Way
Carlsbad, CA 92008
<- Telephone: (760) 438-3155
Fax: (760) 931-0915
R - VALUE TEST RESULTS
Project: BROOKFIELD
Number: 5949-E-SC
Date: Dec-09 Figure: 4
TEST SPECIMEN A B C 0
Compactor air pressure PSI 350 350 350
Water added % 2.5 3.8 5.5
Moisture at compaction % 14.0 15.4 17.3
Height of sample IN 2.48 2.52 2.53
Dry density PCF 114.6 113.1 110.1
R-Value by exudation 86 72 57
R-Value by exudation, corrected 86 72 57
Exudation pressure PSI 1 3621 257 189
Stability thickness FT 1 0.181 0.36 0.55
Expansion pressure thickness FT 1 0.171 0.10 0.07
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA
Traffic index, assumed 5.0
Gravel equivalent factor, assumed '1.25
Expansion, stability equilibrium 0
R-Value by expansion NA
R-Value by exudation 78
R-Value at equilibrium 78
Expansion, Stability Equilibrium
2.00
(0 CO 1.00
0.50
O.X I' I I I I I
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
Cover Thickness by Expansion Pressure (ft)
SAMPLE INFORMATION
Sample Location: Alander 17+60
Sample Description: Gray Brown Sandy Clay (W/ Lime)
Notes: 2% Lime Content (Calcium Oxide)
0% Retained on 3/4 inch sieve
GeoSoils, Inc. R - VALUE TEST RESULTS
ç-ç 5741 Palmer Way Project: BROOKFIELD
. Carlsbad, CA 92008
Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 5949-E-SC
Fax: (760) 931-0915
Date: Jan-10 Figure: 5
:i.Jii1F11Ftt1IiZ1IThHflhIiii
REM
f
1.00
TEST SPECIMEN A B C D
Compactor air pressure PSI 320 290 220
Water added % 4.7 5.7 6.9
Moisture at compaction % 19.0 20.0 21.2
Height of sample IN 2.5 2.53 2.53
Dry density PCF 108.7 106.9 105.8
R-Value by exudation 70 61 49
R-Value by exudation, corrected 70 61 49
Exudation pressure PSI 415 297 190
Stability thickness I T 0.381 0.501 0.65
Expansion pressure thickness I FT 0.371 0.071 0.03
DESIGN CALCULATION DATA SAMPLE INFORMATION
Traffic index, assumed 5.0
Gravel equivalent factor, assumed 1.25
Expansion, stability equilibrium 0
R-Value by expansion NA
R-Value by exudation 61
R-Value at equilibrium 61
Sample Location: Wind Trail 18+00
Sample Description: Gray Brown Sandy Clay (W/ Lime)
Notes: 3% Lime Content (Calcium Oxide)
0% Retained on 3/4 inch sieve
Test Method: Cal-Trans Test 301
R-Value By Exudation
80
70
60
50
C,
40
30
20
10 —
FINE =MMM=MMMME!Lw
Il II
0 1 1 1 I'
800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0
Exudation Pressure (psi)
GeoSoils, Inc. R - VALUE TEST RESULTS
5741 Palmer Way Project: BROOKFIELD
Carlsbad, CA 92008
--' Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 5949-E-SC
Fax: (760) 931-0915
Date: Jan-10 Figure: 6
WAA LaBelle Marvin
PAVEMENT ANALYSIS, DESIGN, TESTING, & INSPECTION SERVICES
Date i/7/2OO9 T Date Tested 7/2ö
Project No 367O4' - J TesterJG
. - Client .Geosoils, - -. •': ,: ••,, .
Project -
Eades & Grim Testing ASTM C977
Sample %Quick Lime: pH
1%- 75
i WirdTrai18+OO 122
124
I i2 45
' -. 1.245
12 45I
Sample % Quick Lime pH
c"- -•' - - 124 -;
1245
I (6% '1245
Prime Testing, 166.
41695 Elm Street Ste 201 Murrieta, CA 92862
ph (951) 894 2682 • fx (951) .894-2683
-Wôrk-.QrderNo-;: 1OA120.O
Client GeoSoils, Inc
Pro)ect No 5949-E-SC
Project Name Robertson Ranch PAI6.
Report Date January ll2010
Laboratovy Test(s) Results Summary
The subject soil samples were processed in accordance with California Test Method CTM 643
and tested for Sulfate Content (CTM 417) The test results follow
Sulfate Sulfate
Sample Identification Content Content
(rnglkg) :(%.;bywgt)
WindTrail18+50 ND ND
Alander17+60 30 0003
ND=No Detection
-SE
We appreciate the opportunity to serve you Please do not hesitate to contact us with any
questions or clanfications regarding these results or procedures
Ahmet K Kava Laboratory Manaaer.
big,WJ0,
5949 [SC
- .SOIL SULFATE •-
EVALUATION
- - FIGURE
APPENDIX
REFERENCES
California Department of Transportation, 2006, 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., 2009, Pavement, design report, Wind Trail Way (Stations 1,6 to 18),
Alander Court (Stations 12to 1'9), and Cascade Street (Statiôns.12to 15),
portion of Planning Area 16 of Robertson Ranch, Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California, W.O. 5949-ESC, dated December 2.
2008, Memo, Clarification of pavement design report, Glen Avenue.,Station 26 +10 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, Jmprovement (widening) of College Boulevard
(Stations 103to 118), and Cannon Road (Stations 127 to 159), City of
Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W.0..5'354-E-SC, dated. September 18.
2007c, Review of fl-Value data, Improvement (widening) of College BOulevard
(Stations 103 to and Cannon Road (Stations 127 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+75 , 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 2, 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, 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-0105, dated May 1.
GeoSoils, Inc.
National Resëàrch 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 95i 2009
NEWCON9O, 1991 Cori) puterprogram forthe determination of asphaltpavement sections,,
dated April 30
State of California, Department of Transportation, 2009, GUide for designing subgrade
enhancement geotextiles dated April 28
State. of California, Department of Transportation, 2008, Highway design manual of
instructions, dated. July 1,.
11
Brookfield San Diego Builders, inc Appendix File e \wp9\5900\5949e spdr GeOSOIlS, Inc Page 2