Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCMWD 85-401; North Batiquitos Force Sewer Main Geotech; North Batiquitos Force Sewer Main Geotechnical; 1996-02-14p m m m A report prepared for: KLEINFELDER m Carlsbad Municipal Water District 5950 El Camino Real Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Mr. Bill Plummer m m LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION NORTH BATIQUITOS FORCE SEWER MAIN CMWD PROJECT NO. 85-401 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA m m m Kleinfelder Project No. 51-4413-01 Prepared by: KLEINFELDER, INC. [odd L. Jorgenson Staff Engineer KLEINFELDER, INC. 9555 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 101 San Diego, California 92123 February 14,1996 Rick E. Larson, GE 2027 Senior Associate 51-4413-01/517RG033.DOC 1997 Kleinfelder, Inc. Page ii of iii February 14. 1997 KLEI NFELDER to TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page m 1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................ 1 *" 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................................. 1 *• 1.3 AUTHORIZATION .................................................................................................... 2 «• 2.0 INVESTIGATIVE METHODS ...................................................................................... 3 in 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................ 3 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ....................................................................................... 4«* to 3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................. 5 3.1 SITE CONDITIONS .................................................................................................. 5 "» 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................................. 5 m 3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ............................................................................ 6 PI 4.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. 7 to 4. 1 SOIL PARAMETERS FOR USE IN BURIED PIPE AND THRUST BLOCK DESIGN ............................................................................................................................ 7 •" 4.2 CUT-AND-COVER CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ................................ 8 m 4.2.1 Dewatering ........................................................................................................ 8 4.2.2 Temporary Trench Excavations ........................................................................ 8 m. 4.2.3 Pipe Bedding And Trench Backfill .................................................................. 9 * 4.2.4 Unstable Trench Bottom ................................................................................... 9 4.2.5 Rock in Trench Bottom .................................................................................. 10 i<M 4.2.6 Concrete Slope Anchors ................................................................................. 10 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES .......................................................................................... 11«•» M 6.0 LIMITATIONS .............................................................................................................. 12 FIGURES Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Boring Location Map APPENDICES Appendix A Logs of Borings Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Appendix C ASFE Insert 51-4413-01/517RG033.DOC Pageiiiofiii February 14. 1997 1997Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER 1.0 INTRODUCTION — Kleinfelder Inc. (Kleinfelder) was retained by Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD) to conduct a limited geotechnical investigation for the proposed North Batiquitos Force • Sewer Main, in Carlsbad, California. The site location is presented as Figure 1, Vicinity am Map. The scope of sen-ices was presented in our proposal entitled, "Proposal for Limited "• Geotechnical Exploration, North Batiquitos Sewage Force Main, CMWD Project No. 85- m 401, Carlsbad, California, dated December 24, 1996. m „ 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION m The project is located in Carlsbad in the general vicinity north of the Batiquitos Lagoon. The m, proposed construction will consist of installing approximately 1,670 lineal feet of 14" sewage force main from about project Station 10+00 to Station 26+69. The force main will ^^ m be installed by conventional cut and cover methods; the pipe material will consist of PVC. Appurtenant structures such as thrust blocks, cutoff walls, and concrete slope anchors will be ^B! M included. Paving is not anticipated on this project. * The site is generally flat from Station 18+00 to 26+69. The approximate elevation of this • section is six to ten feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL). Steep terrace escarpments with |^approximately 100 foot differences in elevation and one low hill exist from Stations 10+00 <P to 18+00. The proposed depth of burial of the force main will be approximately five feet, m but will approach burial depths of eight to twenty-two feet between Stations 12 and 18. * 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES m ^ The purpose of this study was to evaluate the geotechnical characteristics of the proposed force sewer main site with respect to site preparation and force main design. We explored the BW H subsurface conditions at the site, performed laboratory tests and engineering analyses, and pi developed conclusions and recommendations regarding underground structures, lateral earth H* pressures, and construction considerations including earthwork. 5M413-01/517RG033.DOC Page 1 of 12 February 14, 1997 1997 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER IP m s^g w m pm The recommendations contained within this report are subject to the limitations presented in Section 7.0. An information sheet prepared by ASFE (the Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in the Geosciences) is also included as Appendix C. We recommend that all individuals utilizing this report read the limitations along with the attached document. 1.3 AUTHORIZATION Our work was authorized by a signed agreement with Mr. Bill Plummer of CMWD. Our field work was delayed several weeks due to the winter rains and our ability to access the site with truck-mounted equipment. 5I-4413-01/517RG033.DOC Page 2 of 12 February 14, 199~ 1997Kleinfelder, Inc. m KLEINFELDER 2.0 INVESTIGATIVE METHODS 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION The geotechnical field exploration was conducted on January 22, 1997 and consisted of drilling three exploratory test borings and performing a dynamic cone penetrometer sounding. Two of the test borings were drilled with a truck-mounted drill rig using 8-inch diameter hollow stem auger to depths of 10 and 15 feet below the existing ground surface. The dynamic cone sounding was completed to a depth of 5.5 feet. Due to site access limitations, the third boring was a hand-auger boring completed adjacent the cone sounding to a depth of three feet. The approximate locations of the test borings and cone sounding are indicated on the Site Plan, Figure 2. The soil borings (machine and hand augered) were logged by our staff engineer. The materials encountered in the soil borings were visually classified in the field in accordance with generally accepted standards of practice. The logs of the borings are found in Appendix A. IP At the time of the investigation, the pipeline between Stations 10+00 and 12+00 was already under construction. The cut had been made, the pipe had been placed, and backfill material had been placed in some locations. Our staff engineer walked along the length of the open m trench and noted the soils found on the walls of the trench. • _ Representative soil samples were obtained by collecting cuttings from the drilling operation ?WIH and by taking driven samples using California samplers (3-inch O.D.; 2.5 inch I.D.). The samples were labeled, sealed, and returned to our laboratory for testing. m The machine augered boreholes remained open for a period of time to better assess the W ground water level within the boreholes. On February 1, 1997, the groundwater levels within the boreholes were recorded and the boreholes were backfilled using soil cuttings. m The groundwater level measurements are found on the respective boring logs found in Ml Appendix A. p m 51-4413-01/517RG033.DOC Page 3 of 12 Februi-y 14. 1997 1997Kleinfelder. Inc. p H HI KLEINFELDER m m 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING At the conclusion of our field exploration, the soil samples were transported to our San Diego laboratory for testing. The purpose of this testing program was designed to evaluate selected physical characteristics and engineering properties of the materials encountered. These tests included evaluating moisture content, dry unit weight, and particle size distribution. Test results of the moisture contents and dry unit weights are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. The remainder of the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. Hi m 1m m, M mm m m m m m 51-4413-01/517RG033.DOC Page4ofl2 February 14, 1997 1997Kleinfclder, Inc. m HI 151 KLEINFELDER m m 3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS " 3.1 SITE CONDITIONS m m The North Batiquitos Sewer Main site is located along the northern edge of the Batiquitos Lagoon. The pipeline extends down a slope with a grade of about 40% (Station 10-00 to fc Station 17+00), through a small hill (Station 17+00 to Station 18-00), and along the relatively flat northerly shore area of the Batiquitos Lagoon to the recently constructed pump station (Station 18+00 to 26+69). The course of the pipeline is from northwest to southeastHifrom Station 10+00 to Station 20+00 and is from west to east for the remainder of the line. *M ** To the north and northwest are relatively steep slopes; to the west is Interstate 5; to the south ** is Batiquitos Lagoon; and to the east is the new sewage pump station. Drainage is generally *» to the south. Bare soil covers much of the proposed construction. At the time of the site exploration, the site was covered with a shallow pond from Station 20+00 to about Station „. 21+00. "" 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONSm m In test borings 1 and 2 we encountered three to four feet of fill. From beneath the fill to ** about seven feet deep, the soils in these test borings consist of medium-dense clayey sands. m In test boring 2 we encountered a layer of loose silty sand below seven feet. However, in H test boring 1 we encountered alternating layers of medium stiff sandy clay and medium dense clayey sand. Roots encountered in the soil investigation were less than 1/8 inch in ^W — diameter. In the hand-auger boring performed adjacent to the dynamic cone-sounding, we encountered sandy-silty clays with some claystone near the surface. We encountered effective auger m refusal at a depth of three feet. The dynamic cone sounding indicated that a dense or veryi^stiff material is found three feet below the ground surface at that location. IP Hi The open trench from Stations 10+00 to 12+00 exposes a red-brown sandstone which consists of medium to fine grained sand that is weakly to moderately cemented with some m silt and clay. 51-4413-01/517RG033.DOC Page 5 of 12 Februan 14, 1997 1997 Kleinfelder, Inc. m m m. HI KLEINFELDER 3.3 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS Groundwater was encountered at the bottom of test boring 1 and at 5.5 feet below the ground surface of test boring 2. Both borings remained open for a period of several days and the water levels were measured again. The final water levels were seven feet and four feet below the ground surface for test borings 1 and 2. respectively. In the hand auger boring adjacent the cone sounding, water was encountered at a depth of two feet. Before the hole was backfilled, the water level rose to the top of the hand auger borehole and overflowed the top. This overflowing of the water suggests that the groundwater at this location may be under artesian pressure. 5M413-01/517RG033.DOC Page 6 e: 12 February 14. 1997 1997 Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER '** 4.0 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS mm ft g 4.1 SOIL PARAMETERS FOR USE IN BURIED PIPE AND THRUST BLOCK DESIGN * We recommend the following soil parameters for use in pipe or conduit design: * Total unit weight y = 130 pcf P * Modulus of soil reaction, E' = 400 psi for clays sandy clays, and clayey sandsm = 1,000 psi for undisturbed formation materials ^ = 1,000 psi for pipe provided with bedding (4-inch minimum) and gravel pipe zone to one foot over pipe We recommend the following parameters for use in design of thrust blocks: m p, * Maximum allowable soil bearing pressure, qa = 1,000 psf for clays and 3,500 psf for <i» sands. These values can be increased by one-third seismic loads. m "* 4 Equivalent fluid weight (efw) for lateral earth loads = 130 pcf for the "at rest" case. This * condition includes an allowance for hydrostatic pressure. m m 4 Estimate settlements for structures should be less than 0.5 inches. All backfill should be placed in 8 inch thick loose lifts and compacted to 90% relative compaction. The onsite soils can be used as backfill. pi M m m m m 51-4413-01/517RG033.DOC Page 7 of 12 February 14. 1997 1997KIcinfelder,Inc. p _ ll Kl KLEI NFELDER 4.2 CUT-AND-COVER CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS p fc 4.2.1 Dewatering j^ Due to fluctuations in the water table, excavations may extend below the water table. The contractor should retain his own geotechnical engineer for design of a dewatering system.HP The dewatering system should be installed by a contractor specializing in dewatering. A system using well points should use vacuum well-points due to the high silt content in the *" soils. If sump pumping is used to remove accumulated surface water in trenches or ^l excavations, the pumping zone should be lined with filter fabric to reduce the potential of ** pumping out fines resulting in loss of stability to excavation slopes and subgrades. The ** Regional Water Quality Control Board is likely to restrict the discharge of water removed m from excavations. Temporary construction dewatering that is not pumped into the local IB sewer system will require an NPDES permit. IP 4.2.2 Temporary Trench Excavations PI All utility trench excavation work should comply with the current requirements of OSHA. The 'm onsite soils are generally classified as Type C soils for evaluating OSHA sloping or shoring * requirements.m * All discussion in this section regarding stable excavation slopes assumes minimal equipment vibration and adequate setback of excavated materials and construction equipment from the L foundation excavation. We recommend that the minimum setback distance from the near edge of the excavation be equivalent to the adjacent excavation depth. If excavated materials arep || stockpiled adjacent to the excavation, the weight of this material should be considered as a surcharge load for lateral earth pressure calculations. Configuration values presented in the fiW IB OSHA regulations assume that the soils in the cut face do not change in moisture content _ significantly. Slope configuration estimates should not be considered applicable for personnel ^w fc safety. The contractor must determine slopes for safety of personnel and meet all regulations m covering excavation stability and safety. 51 -4413-011517RG033.DOC Page 8 of 12 February 14. 1997 1997Kleinfelder, Inc. HJ Iff KLEINFELDER m 4.2.3 Pipe Bedding And Trench Backfill p M Granular pipe bedding should be sand, gravel, or crushed aggregate with a sand equivalent of *• not less than 30. Some of the onsite materials are too silty or clayey to meet this requirement. "Bl Therefore, if onsite materials are to be used for pipe bedding, their source should be identified. W sampled, and tested during construction to ensure conformance to these recommendations. &toj Bedding should be extended the full width of the trench for the entire pipe zone, which is the *" zone from the bottom of the trench to 8 inches mm above the top of the pipe. The pipe m bedding should be densified to 90 percent relative compaction prior to backfilling. The bedding should be in a firm and unyielding condition prior to commencement of any subsequent improvements. Compaction of the pipe bedding by mechanical means is acceptable provided the specifications require compacting with pneumatic "powder puffs" and periodic density testing (which will require the contractor to provide special excavation for ^ access and shoring). •» We anticipate that some of the onsite soils may be reusable as trench backfill. Trench backfill — should be placed in uniform layers not exceeding 6 inches of loose thickness, moisture *» conditioned to between 1 percent below to 3 percent above optimum, and mechanically — compacted. The relative compaction should be to at least 90 percent. The civil designer may *"* elect to reduce the relative compaction to 85 percent in open, undeveloped areas where minor "~ backfill settlement can be tolerated. "** 4.2.4 Unstable Trench Bottom ^ If a firm foundation is not encountered at the grade established due to soft, spongy, or other *. unsuitable soil, all such unsuitable soil under the pipe should be removed and replaced. The „ depth of required removal should be established by the CMWD Engineer in the field at the *» time of construction. However, if the depth of removal exceeds two feet, the geotechnical «• engineer should be notified so that additional recommendations can be provided as required. 5M-1I3-01/517RG033.DOC Page9ofl2 Februan 14, 1997 1997Kleinfelder, Inc. KLEINFELDER Prior to the removal, the contractor should have provided dewatering as required by the site conditions and should have kept water from re-entering the excavation. 4.2.5 Rock in Trench Bottom Where rock, in either ledge or boulder formation, is encountered, it should be removed and replaced with imported bedding material in accordance with Sections 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 of this report. 4.2.6 Concrete Slope Anchors Concrete slope anchors are recommended on grades over 35 percent. The slope anchor should extend a minimum of eight inches into undisturbed soil on either side of the trench and below the bottom of pipe. The top of the slope anchor should be two feet below finished ground surface. The anchor should be reinforced as required by the structural engineer and should be a minimum thickness of one foot. The maximum spacing between anchors on sloping grade of 35 percent or steeper should be 50 feet. The slope anchor found on San Diego Regional Standard Drawing S-9 should be adequate for this site. 51-4413-01/517RG033.DOC PagclOofl2 February 14. 1997 1997Kleinfelder. Inc. KLEINFELDER 5.0 ADDITIONAL SERVICES The review of plans and specifications, field observations, and testing by Kleinfelder are an integral part of the conclusions and recommendations made in this report. If Kleinfelder is not retained for these services, the client agrees to assume responsibility for any potential claims that may arise during construction. The required tests, observations, and consultation by Kleinfelder during construction includes, but is not necessarily limited to: 1. Continuous observations and testing during earthwork excavations, compaction and placement of Engineered Fill. 2. Other consultation as required during construction. 51-4413-01/51TRG033.DOC Page 11 of 12 February 14. 1997 1997 Kleinfelder, Inc. m H Iff KLEINFELDER m m m 6.0 LIMITATIONS Recommendations contained in this report are based on our field observations, data from the field exploration, laboratory tests, and our present knowledge of the proposed construction. It is possible that soil conditions could vary between or beyond the points explored. If soil conditions are encountered during construction which differ from those described herein, our firm should be notified immediately in order that a review may be made and any supplemental recommendations provided. If the scope of the proposed construction, including the proposed loads or structural locations, changes from that described in this report, we should also review our recommendations. Additionally, if information from this report is used in a way not described under the project description portion of this report, it is understood that it is being done at the designer's and owner's own risk. Our firm has prepared this report for the use of the Carlsbad Municipal Water District, on this project in substantial accordance with the generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice as it exists in the site area at the time of our study. No warranty is made or intended. The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that an adequate program of tests and observations will be conducted by our firm during the construction phase in order to evaluate compliance with our recommendations. This report may be used only by the client and only for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both on-site and offsite) or other factors may change over time, and additional work may be required with the passage of time. Based on the intended use of the report, Kleinfelder may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report be issued. Non-compliance with any of these requirements by the client or anyone else will release Kleinfelder from any liability resulting from the use of this report by any unauthorized party. 51-4413-01/517RG033.DOC Page 12 of 12 Februan 14. 1997 1997 Kleinfelder, Inc. Pacific Ocean SHORELINE 2,400 APPROXIMATE GRAPHIC SCALE (FEET) KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO. 51-4413-01 FN: V1CMAP DATE: 1/30/97 VICINITY MAP NORTH BATIQUfTOS SEWAGE FORCE MAIN CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA FIGURE 1 EXISTING NORTH BATIQUITOS SEWAGE PUMP STATION N PIOVANA COURT PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OF FORCED SEWER MAIN BATIQUIJOS LAGOON LEGEND: B1 HA1 CS1 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION APPROXIMATE HAND AUGER LOCATION APPROXIMATE DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING LOCATION KLEINFELDER 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE, SUITE 101 SAN DIECO, CALIFORNIA 92123 CHECKED BY: PROJECT NO. 51-4413-01 FN: SITEPLAN DATE: 2/11/97 80 160 AI'I'K'OXIMAII (..K'AI'IIIC SCAI I (FEET) SITE PLAN NORTH BATIQUITOS SEWAGE FORCE MAIN CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE APPENDIX A c PRCJ'CTN°51-4413-01 LOG OF BORING LEGEND SHEET 1 or 1 DrtJJNG PROJECT NAMEr^- j DijrMT NORTH BATIQUITOS SEWAGE FORCE MAIN LOCATION ci iprA^rTYPE OF err HAMMER DATA: wr. LBS. DROP INCHES ELEVATON STARTED: DRIJJNG AGENCY LJ !^ COMPLETED: LC3GED BY BACKFILLED: SURFACE CONDITIONS IE §£ 1— 3— 4— 5 6— 7— 8— 9— 10— 11 — 12 — 13— 14 — 15— 16— 17,., 18— 19— 20— 21— 22— 23— 24— 25— 26— 27— 28— 29—GEOLOGICLOGnM%°%°>'.'>• >'.l5 >'••*•> f^7f\ ^0/:/S '//,y/,\ ii H ^^ I~I~I" *-4l3LOG c/5 cj <A ra GW GP GM GC SW SP QU sc ML CL OL MH CH OH PT SOIL DESCRIPTION WtLL— GKAULD GKAVtLb AND GRAVEL— SAND MIXTURES. LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED GRAVELS AND GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES. LITTLE OR NO FINES SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADED SANDS AND GRAVELLY SANDS. LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS AND GRAVELLY SANDS. LITTLE OR NO FINES CM TY ^AKin^ ^AMH ^tl T MIYTI IPFQ CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES INORGANIC SILTS. VERY FINE SANDS. ROCK FLOUR. SILTY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY. GRAVELLY CLAYS. SANDY CLAYS. SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS. MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDS OR SILTS. ELASTIC SILTS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY. FAT CLAYS ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY PEAT. MUCK AND OTHER HIGHLYORGANIC SOILS VATD WATER LEVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING * WATER 1 FVEL MFASURFD IN WFl 1 TOP OF CASING ELEVATION GROUNDWATER nA7FricvATinw UAlt WELL DETAILS _ . __ . ^— . ^_ . __._._._« . _ . — . — -— • f : ' * .- ' • * ' . • . ' • *\ ' '• • 'v •_.._. -^t ^BLOWCOUNTSX— X Q E ££v^x BENTONITE SAMPLE LJ £ CAVED r-> AREA V PCEMENT F"1 CONCRETE H NATURAL I BACKFILL • BENTONITE PACKER SAND BACKFILL SAND VOLCL GROLT PIPE SLOTT PIPE JVY •ED M V 1 ClkJCCI r»CD 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. SUITE 101NLtllNrcLUtK SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 * * * T •_*_ E NUMBER CONTINUI SAMPLER GRAB SAMPLE CALIFORh SAMPLER MODIFIED CALIFORh SAMPLER NO RECOVER PITCHER SAMPLER SHELBY TUBE SAMPLER STANDAR PENETRA SAMPLER NOTES DUS JIA JIA Y D TION FIGURE NO. A1 PROJECT NO. 51-4413-01 DRILLINGEQUIPMENT INGERSOLL RAND A-300 TYPE OF BIT 8" HSA LJ Q.LJQ 1 STARTED: 1/22/97 COMPLETED: 1/22/97 BACKFILLED: 2/1/97 tLJLu _ 2— 3— 4— 5— 6— 7 8 - 9— —10— 11 12— 13— 14— 1 <; 16 — 17 — 18— 19— 20— 21— 22— 23— 24— 25— 26— 27— 28— 29—SYMBOLXXx /fy 'Jfy yfy $$& *yytfjfot ixvv V^viffi.y/,'/////'///y/, Y/s '//// / S FN: 4413LOG ELL OLIVE BROWN LOG OF BORING 1 PROJECT NAME NORTH BATIQUITOS SEWAGE FORCE MAIN HAMMER DATA: WT. 1 40 LBS. DROP 30 INCHES DRILLING AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILLING LOGGED 3Y TLJ SURFACE CONDITIONS BARE SOIL LOG OF MATERIAL CLAYEY SAND. TRACE GRAVEL. MOIST ALLUVIUM FORMATION: MEDIUM DENSE THIN VENEER ^ ALTERNATING OF ORGANIC TOP SOIL LAYERS OF MEDIUM STIFF DARK BROWN SANDY CLAY AND MEDIUM DENSE YELLOW BROWN CLAYEY SAND BORING TERMINATED © 15' CAVING OBSERVED @ 1V HOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORED IflKLE SHEET 1 OF 1 LOCATION STATION 26+10 SURFACE , . , . ._. ELEVATION ~ ' ' M*L TOTAL DEPTH OF BORING ]~ GROUNDWATER DATE 1/22/97 T BGS 2/'/97 q i/j 13 SC CL- bC WELL DETAILS IBLOWCOUNTS |12 14 12 LJ,-orz =>LJ^-N t>£&ooso , v, r- r , n I- n 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE. SUITE 1011 N r b L U b K SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92123 >^ Q SAMPLE TYPE |KCTES yVJAI •n-*r\u••H M ••n FIGURE NO.: A2 PR"ECT 5T-4413-01 LOG OF BORING 2 )RILUNG PROJECT NAME BGERSOLL RAND A-3oo NORTH BATIQUITOS SEWAGE FORCE MAIN TYPE OF BIT 8" HSA HAMMER DATA: WT. 1 40 LBS. DROP 30 iSCHES STARTED: 1/22/97 DRILLING AGENCY SCOTT'S DRILLING 5 COMPLETED: 1/22/97 LOGGED BY TLJ BACKFILLED: 2/1 /97 SURFACE CONDITIONS BARE SOIL 1 1 — A. . .. 5 — 6— 7 8— 9— 1 n 11 — 12— 13— 14— 15— 16— 17— 18— 19— 20— 21— 22— 23— 24— 25— 26— 27— 28— 29— / /•SYMBOL•;••;••; '// % P f fa :: :: •'. FN: 4413LOG LOG OF MATERIAL FILL DARK OLIVE BROWN GRAVELLY SAND. SOME SILT YELLOW BROWN SANDY CLAY ^ ALLUVIUM FORMATION: S\DARK GRAY SILTY SAND. TRACE ORGANICS^^ MEDIUM DENSE GRAY SILTY CLAYEY SAND. TRACE ORGANICS. WET LOOSE GRAY SILTY SAND, WET BORING TERMINATED @ 10' HOLE BACKFILLED WITH SOIL CUTTINGS GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORED CAVING OBSERVED @ 6.0' SHEET 1 OF 1 LOCATION STATION 21+10 SJRFACE ilfVATION 3 M:>l-TOTAL DEPTH . n, OF BORING 10 °RSk-?^ATER 10' BGS DATE 1/22/97 i/i d t/j SM CL SM SC SM WELL DETAILS 6' BGS 1/22/97 4' BGS 2/1/97 IBLOWCOUNTS |20 10 MOISTURECONTENT(%)31 «!/•! civicci ncn 955S CHESAPEAKE DFKVE^ sunt 101IvLcllNrtLUcK SAN DIE&D. CAUFORSA 92123 O^ M SAMPLE TYPE |: NOTES FIGURF NO.: A3 p m m m m m m m m r CREW: T. Jorgenson HOLE ft: Cone Sounding 1 FOR: Carlsbad Municipal Water District SURFACE ELEVATION: 1 0 ft. WATER ON COMPLETION: Artesian water at 1 .5 ft bgs HAMMER WEIGHT: 35 LBS. LOCATION: North Batiquitos Force Sewer Main. Station 18+00 CONE AREA: 10 SQ. CM Carlsbad. California DATE PERFORMED: DEPTH BLOWS RESISTANCE CONE RESISTANCE TESTED CONSISTENCY FT M PER 10 CM KG/CMA2 0 60 0.1 1 4.4 * 0.2 3 13.3 *** 1 0.3 1 4.4 * 0.4 2 8.9 ** 0.5 5 22.2 **** 2 0.6 6 26.6 ***** 0.7 9 40.0 *** ***** 0.8 20 88.8 ""•«"• • 3 0.9 42 186.5 ""»" • 1 36 159.8 *** 1.1 60 231.6 4 1.2 60 231.6 """" 1.3 45 173.7 1.4 45 173.7 ****** 5 1.5 70 270.2 1.6 70 270.2 100 150 N- SAND SILT CLAY 1 VERY SOFT 3 VERY SOFT 1 VERY SOFT 2 VERY SOFT 6 MED. STIFF 7 MED. STIFF H STIFF 25 VERY STIFF iiiiimiiiii.i... VERY DEN"E VERY DENSE HARD iiiiiiniii. •«• VERY DEN^E VERY DENSE HARD iiii.iiii iinii.i. linn. .*•• vruv nrw**r VTCY nrw^E HARD••••••••••••••••••• - VEKT UCniOE VEF\I WErowE n^*r%b* "" " vtKT utndt vtKT ucnac rv\ \frryv nPM**f" V/TRY ftFM^F HARDVEKT UCNOE VERT UCINOC i. .••»••••••••••••• VERY DENSE VERY DENSE HARD x" " VtKT ucnoc vtKT utnat rw\ Notes: 1 About a foot of sandy day followed by about two feet of day with daystone was encountered in HA 1 which was completed to a depth of three feet adjacent to the cone sounding. 2 Free water was encountered at a depth of about 1 .5 during the hand auger boring. The water level rose to the surface by the end of the hand auger boring. m KLEI NFELDEF 9555 CHESAPEAKE DRIVE SUITE 101 SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 9212} CHECKED BY: TL^J FN: PROJECT NO 51 -441 3-01 DATE: 02/1 3/97 j DYNAMIC CONE SOUNDING FIGURE NORTH BATIQUITOS FORCE SEWER MAIN A A CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA APPENDIX B KLEINFELDER APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING General Laboratory tests were performed on selected, representative samples as an aid in classifying the soils and to evaluate physical properties of the soils which may affect foundation design and construction procedures. A description of the laboratory testing program is presented below. Moisture and Density A moisture content and dry unit weight test was performed on a sample recovered from the test borings. Moisture content and dry unit weight was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM Test Methods D2216 and D2937, respectively. The results of this test is presented on the test boring logs in Appendix A. Sieve Analysis A sieve analysis, to include washing over the #200 sieve, were performed on one soil sample of the materials encountered at the site to evaluate the gradation characteristics of the soils and to aid in their classification. Tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method D422. The results of this test is presented on Figure Bl. 51-4413-01/517RG033.DOC B-I February 14, 1997 Copyright 1997 Kleinfelder, Inc. SIEVE ANA LYSIS HYDROMETER U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZES 3" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #16 #30 #60 #100 #200 ,„ 1 UU ..*! OAyu .«¥ QAoU mt I60 0)•"•en JE 50 UJ•KJ ^Jil 4(J _1 *5 30 M 1 np 10 i 0m m m m mm to p k" 1 ••,•>.*•«• — ("— , 10 GRAVEL coarse fine -> ^V\ \\ L \y I 0 10 20 30 a40 ^ H UJ 50 *i- UJa 60 ua. _i 70 .0 80 90 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 GRAIN SIZE (mm) SAND coarse medium Symbol Boring • Bl Depth (ft) 10.0 1H9 KLEINFELDER fine SILT CLAY Description Yellow brown clayey SAND Classification SC ^ROJECT NO. 51-4413-01 1 ( ( Sforth Batiquitos Force Sewer Main Carlsbad, California SRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION FIGURE Bl j APPENDIX C IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING RETORT As the client of a consulting geotechnical engineer, you should know that site subsurface conditions cause more construction problems than any other factor. ASFE/The 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. Geotechnical 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 about the potential for hazardous materials existing at the site. The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a geoenvironmental 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 geoenvironmental 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, and 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 be 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 publications. PROFESSIONAL FIRMS PRACTICINGIN THE GEOSCIENCES8811 COLESVILLE ROAD/SUITE G106/SILVER SPRING, MD 20910 TELEPHONE: 301/565-2733 FACSIMILE: 301/589-2017 •I m 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. HGP0294