geotechnical evaluation blue line lrt …€¦ · table 5 – recommended parameters for brom’s...

GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION BLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTS

SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

401 B Street San Diego, California 92101

PREPARED BY: Ninyo & Moore

Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants 5710 Ruffin Road

San Diego, California 92123

March 3, 2011 Project No. 104804040

March 3, 2011 Project No. 104804040

Mr. Anthony Podegracz, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. 401 B Street San Diego, California 92101

Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Blue LRT Station Improvements San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California

Dear Mr. Podegracz:

In accordance with your request and authorization, we have performed a geotechnical evaluation for the Blue Line LRT Station Improvements project in San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California. The purpose of this evaluation was to provide recommendations regarding the geotechnical aspects for design and construction of the project. This report presents our findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed project.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project.

Respectfully submitted, NINYO & MOORE

Chet E. Robinson, P.E., G.E. Senior Project Engineer

Soumitra Guha, Ph.D., G.E. Principal Engineer

Jonathan Goodmacher, C.E.G. Manager/Principal Geologist

CER/SG/JG/gg

Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail) (1) Mr. Mark Bishop; Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (via e-mail)

Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040

104804040 R Blue Line.doc i

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES............................................................................................................1

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.......................................2

4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING....................................3

5. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................................................4 5.1. Regional Geologic Setting............................................................................................4 5.2. Site Geology .................................................................................................................5

5.2.1. Fill .......................................................................................................................5 5.2.2. Alluvium .............................................................................................................5 5.2.3. Old Paralic Deposits............................................................................................6

5.3. Groundwater .................................................................................................................6

6. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................................7

7. RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................................7 7.1. Earthwork and Site Preparation ....................................................................................8

7.1.1. Site Preparation ...................................................................................................8 7.1.2. Remedial Grading ...............................................................................................8 7.1.3. Temporary Excavations ......................................................................................8 7.1.4. Compacted Fill ....................................................................................................9 7.1.5. Fill Soils ............................................................................................................10 7.1.6. Slopes ................................................................................................................10

7.2. Slabs-on-Grade ...........................................................................................................11 7.3. Shelter Foundations ....................................................................................................12 7.4. Seismic Design Parameters.........................................................................................13 7.5. Retaining Walls ..........................................................................................................15 7.6. Soldier Pile and Lagging Walls ..................................................................................16 7.7. Track Reconstruction..................................................................................................18 7.8. Pavements ...................................................................................................................20 7.9. Soil Corrosivity...........................................................................................................20 7.10. Concrete......................................................................................................................21 7.11. Site Drainage ..............................................................................................................22 7.12. Construction Observation and Testing .......................................................................22

8. LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................................23

9. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................25


104804040 R Blue Line.doc ii

Tables Table 1 – Planned Improvements along the Blue Line ....................................................................2 Table 2 – GPS Locations of Borings................................................................................................3 Table 3 – Depth to Groundwater as Encountered During Drilling ..................................................6 Table 4 – Recommended CIDH Pier Depths for Shelter Foundations ..........................................12 Table 5 – Recommended Parameters for Brom’s Method .............................................................13 Table 6 – Seismic Design Factors: Barrio Logan to Bayfront/E Street Stations ...........................14 Table 7 – Seismic Design Factors: H Street to Beyer Boulevard Stations.....................................14 Table 8 – R-Value Test Results ......................................................................................................20

Figures Figure 1 – Project Location Figure 2A – Boring Locations - Barrio Logan Station Figure 2B – Boring Locations - Pacific Fleet Station Figure 2C – Boring Locations - 8th Street Station Figure 2D – Boring Locations - 24th Street Station Figure 2E – Boring Locations - Bayfront/E Street Station Figure 2F – Boring Locations - H Street Station Figure 2G – Boring Locations - Palomar Street Station Figure 2H – Boring Locations - Palm Avenue Station Figure 2I – Boring Locations - Iris Avenue Station Figure 2J – Boring Locations - Beyer Boulevard Station Figure 3 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Yielding Retaining Walls Figure 4 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Restrained Retaining Walls Figure 5 – Retaining Wall Drainage Detail Figure 6 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Soldier Pile Walls

Appendices Appendix A – Boring Logs Appendix B – Laboratory Testing Appendix C – Input Parameters for Lateral Pile Capacity Analysis Appendix D – Kimley-Horn Review Comments


104804040 R Blue Line.doc 1

1. INTRODUCTION

In accordance with your request and authorization, Ninyo & Moore has performed a geotechnical

evaluation for the Blue Line Light Rail Transit (LRT) Station Improvements project, in San Diego,

National City, and Chula Vista, California (Figure 1). This report presents data from our background,

field, and laboratory evaluations, provides conclusions regarding the geotechnical conditions at the

sites, and provides geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the project.

During drilling at the Harborside station, potentially contaminated materials were encountered.

The borings were abandoned. A separate geotechnical evaluation will be conducted at a later

date. Recommendations for the Harborside station are not included in this report.

Incorporated into this report are responses to review comments received from Kimley-Horn fol-

lowing review of a draft version of this report. The Kimley-Horn review comments form is

included in Appendix D of this report.

2. SCOPE OF SERVICES

Our scope of services included the following:

• Review background information including readily available geotechnical reports, geologic maps, utility maps, stereoscopic aerial photographs, documents provided by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn), and in-house data.

• Perform a field reconnaissance of each station to observe and document current conditions.

• Coordinate with Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) and Kimley-Horn to identify suitable locations for our subsurface explorations.

• Obtain a Right of Entry permit from MTS.

• Obtain boring permits, as required, from the County of San Diego Department of Environ-mental Health (DEH).

• Notify Underground Service Alert of the subsurface exploration and retain a private utility locator to clear proposed boring locations of potential conflicts with underground utilities.

• Core the concrete platform slabs to allow drilling of exploratory borings.



• Log and sample 24 exploratory borings using limited-access drill rigs and manual methods. Obtain and transport bulk and relatively undisturbed samples from the borings to our in-house geotechnical laboratory for analysis.

• Perform geotechnical laboratory testing on selected samples from the exploratory borings.

• Compile and perform an engineering analysis of the data obtained.

• Prepare this report presenting our findings and conclusions regarding geotechnical condi-tions at each of the stations, and providing geotechnical recommendations regarding the proposed construction.

3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

The project is composed of 11 LRT stations along the current Blue Line route. The stations in

this evaluation included the Barrio Logan, Harborside, Pacific Fleet, 8th Street, 24th Street, Bay-

front/E Street, H Street, Palomar Street, Palm Avenue, Iris Avenue, and Beyer Boulevard LRT

stations. The locations are active trolley stations. They generally consist of concrete slabs or as-

phalt pavements abutting the tracks for the loading and unloading of passengers. Other

improvements include underground utilities, retaining walls, tree wells, and shelters. The station

platforms are generally flat.

We understand that the proposed improvements to the platforms will include the construction of

new shelters supported on cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) foundations and raising of the platforms to

allow direct access into new trolley cars. Additional station improvements will include the con-

struction of new retaining walls and re-paving of selected parking lots. A summary of the

improvements at the various stations is provided in Table 1.

Table 1 – Planned Improvements along the Blue Line

LRT Station Raise Platforms New Shelters Retaining Walls Pavements

Barrio Logan X X Harborside X X X

Pacific Fleet X X X 8th Street X X X

24th Street X X X Bayfront/E Street X X X



Table 1 – Planned Improvements along the Blue Line

LRT Station Raise Platforms New Shelters Retaining Walls Pavements

H Street X X X X Palomar Street X X X X Palm Avenue X X X Iris Avenue X X X

Beyer Boulevard X X X X

4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING

Our subsurface exploration consisted of the excavation, logging, and sampling of 24 small-

diameter borings. 26 borings (B-1 through B-26) were designated to be drilled for this project;

however, borings B-3 and B-4 at the Harborside station were deleted due to environmental is-

sues. To maintain consistency with permits, the originally designated numbering was retained.

The borings were drilled to depths of up to approximately 16½ feet below the existing ground

surface, with limited-access drill rigs and manual methods. The borings were advanced through

the existing concrete slabs or asphalt pavements using a concrete coring machine with a diamond

tip core barrel. Relatively undisturbed, modified split-barrel drive samples and bulk soil samples

were obtained from the borings. The samples were transported to our in-house geotechnical labo-

ratory for testing. The excavations were backfilled in general accordance with the San Diego

County DEH standards. Logs of the borings are included in Appendix A. The approximate loca-

tions of the borings are shown on Figures 2A through 2J.

The locations of the borings were recorded with a Trimble GeoXH 2005 Series GPS receiver.

The latitude and longitude of the borings are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 – GPS Locations of Borings

Station Boring Latitude Longitude Barrio Logan Station B-1 32.698367 -117.146987 Barrio Logan Station B-2 32.697803 -117.146361 Pacific Fleet Station B-5 32.685884 -117.124433 Pacific Fleet Station B-6 32.686221 -117.125141

8th Street Station B-7 32.674470 -117.112821 8th Street Station B-8 32.674869 -117.113160 24th Street Station B-9 32.662368 -117.107583 24th Street Station B-10 32.661574 -117.107756



Table 2 – GPS Locations of Borings

Station Boring Latitude Longitude 24th Street Station B-11 32.661860 -117.108090

Bayfront/E Street Station B-12 32.638936 -117.098898 Bayfront/E Street Station B-13 32.639401 -117.099317

H Street Station B-14 32.630100 -117.095093 H Street Station B-15 32.630366 -117.095554 H Street Station B-16 32.629660 -117.095522

Palomar Street Station B-17 32.602793 -117.084739 Palomar Street Station B-18 32.603343 -117.085237 Palm Avenue Station B-19 32.584223 -117.083745 Palm Avenue Station B-20 32.584921 -117.083876 Iris Avenue Station B-21 32.569443 -117.066602 Iris Avenue Station B-22 32.569745 -117.067362

Beyer Boulevard Station B-23 32.557449 -117.046467 Beyer Boulevard Station B-24 32.557867 -117.047695 Beyer Boulevard Station B-25 32.557368 -117.046694 Beyer Boulevard Station B-26 32.557356 -117.046705

Geotechnical laboratory testing of representative soil samples obtained during our subsurface

exploration included in-situ moisture content and dry density, gradation, Atterberg limits, direct

shear, expansion index, corrosivity, and R-value. The laboratory tests were performed in our in-

house laboratory. The results of the in-situ moisture content and dry density tests are shown at

the corresponding sample depths on the boring logs in Appendix A. The results of the other labo-

ratory tests performed are presented in Appendix B.

5. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS

Our findings regarding regional and site geology, and groundwater conditions are provided in the

following sections.

5.1. Regional Geologic Setting

The project is situated in the western San Diego County section of the Peninsular Ranges

Geomorphic Province. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends ap-

proximately 900 miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the

southern tip of Baja California (Harden, 1998; Norris and Webb, 1990). The province varies

in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles. In general, the province consists of rugged



mountains underlain by Jurassic metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous

igneous rocks of the southern California batholith. The portion of the province in San Diego

County that includes the project area consists generally of uplifted and dissected Eocene-age

and Quaternary-age sedimentary rocks.

The Peninsular Ranges Province is traversed by a group of sub-parallel faults and fault

zones trending roughly northwest. Several of these faults are considered active faults. The

Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults are active fault systems located northeast of

the project area and the Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough, San Clemente, and Rose Can-

yon faults are active faults located west of the project area. Major tectonic activity

associated with these and other faults within this regional tectonic framework consists pri-

marily of right-lateral, strike-slip movement.

5.2. Site Geology

Earth units encountered during our subsurface evaluation included fill, alluvium, and old paralic

deposits. Additional descriptions of the earth units encountered are provided on the boring logs

in Appendix A, and generalized descriptions are provided in the subsequent sections.

5.2.1. Fill

Fill materials were encountered in our exploratory borings to depths of up to approxi-

mately 14 feet below the existing ground surface. Depending on the station, the fill

material generally consisted of damp to wet, loose to dense, silty sand, silty gravel,

clayey sand, sandy silt, and firm to very stiff, sandy clay and silty clay, with fine to

coarse gravel and cobbles. Scattered debris and roots were encountered in the fill.

5.2.2. Alluvium

Alluvium was encountered beneath the fill at the Pacific Fleet, 24th Street, and H Street

stations and extended to the bottom of the borings. The alluvium material generally

consisted of brown, reddish brown, and dark brown, damp to saturated, medium dense



to very dense, silty sand, clayey sand, and very stiff to hard, sandy clay, silty clay with

fine to coarse gravel and cobbles.

5.2.3. Old Paralic Deposits

Old paralic deposits were encountered beneath the fill at the Barrio Logan, 8th Street,

Bayfront/E Street, Palomar Street, Palm Avenue, Iris Avenue, and Beyer Boulevard sta-

tions and extended to the bottom of the borings. As encountered, the old paralic deposits

generally consisted of brown, grayish brown, and reddish brown, damp to wet, medium

dense to very dense, silty sand, clayey sand, and very stiff to hard, sandy clay, with

gravel and cobbles.

5.3. Groundwater

Groundwater was encountered in the borings during drilling at the Pacific Fleet and 8th

Street stations at approximately mean sea level (MSL). We emphasize that groundwater lev-

els are expected to fluctuate due to seasonal variations and prolonged climatic conditions.

Accordingly, higher groundwater levels should be anticipated during construction. For de-

sign and construction purposes, the anticipated groundwater conditions at each station are

listed in Table 3. The information is based on data provided by the Geotracker website (Geo-

tracker, 2011) and the moisture contents of analyzed samples,

Table 3 – Depth to Groundwater as Encountered During Drilling

Station

Approximate Elevation of

Platform (feet above MSL)

Measured Depth to Groundwater

During Drilling (feet)

Recommended Design Elevation of Groundwater

During Construction (feet above MSL)

Barrio Logan Station 25 Not Encountered 19 Pacific Fleet Station 13 13 5

8th Street Station 10 11 5 24th Street Station 24 Not Encountered Not Anticipated

Bayfront/E Street Station 35 Not Encountered Not Anticipated H Street Station 25 Not Encountered 15

Palomar Street Station 50 Not Encountered 40 Palm Avenue Station 45 Not Encountered Not Anticipated Iris Avenue Station 75 Not Encountered Not Anticipated Beyer Boulevard 105 Not Encountered Not Anticipated



6. CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of our geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed project is fea-

sible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the following recommendations are incorporated

into the design and construction of the project. Geotechnical considerations include the following:

• Depending on location, the stations are underlain by fill, alluvium, and old paralic deposits. The fill is generally not considered suitable in its current state for support of the proposed improvements. Where slabs are removed, remedial grading should be performed to remove loose fill soils and replace them with compacted fill.

• Excavations in soil layers should be generally feasible with heavy earthmoving equipment in good working order. Debris, gravel, and cobble layers were encountered at several stations, which will present difficult drilling and excavating conditions. Heavy ripping or rock exca-vation techniques should be anticipated for the site excavations at those locations and coring should be anticipated during installation of the shelter foundations.

• We anticipate that the earth materials generated from the excavations in soil layers should be generally suitable for use as compacted fill, unless impacted by environmental contamina-tion. Excavations into cobbly soils may generate oversize materials that may not be suitable for use as backfill. Some of the site soils have little cohesion. These materials may be prone to caving in drilled holes and the contractor should anticipate the need to mitigate caving during construction.

• Deep foundations are planned for the shelters, and consequently groundwater is a design and construction consideration. Our measurements during drilling and evaluation of the moisture contents obtained from the borings indicate that the groundwater will likely be encountered in the excavations for the drilled piers at the Barrio Logan, Pacific Fleet, 8th Street, H Street, and Palomar Street stations.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on our understanding of the project, the following recommendations are provided for the

design and construction of the station platforms, retaining walls, shelters, and parking lots. The

proposed site improvements should be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the

applicable governing agencies. The analyses were conducted based on engineering parameters

obtained from our subsurface exploration and geotechnical laboratory testing as well as our pro-

fessional experience.



7.1. Earthwork and Site Preparation

For the various stations, earthwork is anticipated to consist of excavation for pier founda-

tions, and subgrade preparation for the new concrete slabs. Earthwork should be performed

in accordance with the requirements of applicable governing agencies and the recommenda-

tions presented in the following sections.

7.1.1. Site Preparation

Site preparation should begin with the removal of existing improvements, deleterious

matter, tree roots, and other vegetation in areas to receive new concrete slabs. Demoli-

tion debris and other unsuitable material generated from on-site operations should be

removed off the property. This includes rocks or debris greater than approximately

4 inches in diameter. Underground utilities located within the proposed limits of the

construction should be removed or abandoned, capped off or relocated so as not to inter-

fere with earthwork operations.

7.1.2. Remedial Grading

To create a uniform bearing surface for the new slabs, we recommend that the existing fill

soils be overexcavated to provide a 2-foot thick zone of compacted fill below the planned

grades. To create a uniform bearing surface for parking lot pavements, we recommend

that the existing fill soils be overexcavated to provide an 18-inch thick zone of compacted

fill below the planned subgrades. The extent and depths of removals should be evaluated

by Ninyo & Moore’s representative in the field based on the materials exposed. Addi-

tional remedial grading may be required depending on the exposed materials. The

contractor should take precautionary measures not to damage the existing improvements.

7.1.3. Temporary Excavations

The subsurface soils should generally be excavatable by standard, heavy-duty earth-

moving equipment, however, construction debris, cobbles, and hard rock layers were

encountered which will be difficult to excavate and require heavy ripping or rock break-

ing equipment and coring equipment for the shelter foundations.



For temporary excavations, we recommend that Occupational Safety and Health Ad-

ministration (OSHA) Type C soil classification be used. Upon making the excavations,

the soil classifications and excavation performance should be evaluated in the field by the

contractor in accordance with the OSHA and California Division of Occupational Safety

and Health (Cal-OSHA) regulations. Temporary excavations should be constructed in ac-

cordance with OSHA and Cal-OSHA recommendations. For trench or other excavations,

OSHA and Cal-OSHA requirements regarding personnel safety should be met using ap-

propriate shoring (including trench boxes) or by laying back the slopes to a slope ratio no

steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical). Excavations encountering groundwater or seep-

age should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. On-site safety of personnel is the

responsibility of the contractor.

7.1.4. Compacted Fill

Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor should request an evaluation of the

exposed ground surface by Ninyo & Moore. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed

ground surface should then be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches and watered

or dried, as needed, to achieve moisture contents near the laboratory optimum. The scari-

fied materials should then be compacted to 90 percent of their modified Proctor density as

evaluated in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test

method D 1557. The evaluation of compaction by Ninyo & Moore should not be consid-

ered to preclude any requirements for observation or approval by governing agencies.

Prior to placement of additional compacted fill material following a delay in the grading

operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill should be prepared to receive

fill. Preparation may include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction.

Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose

thickness. Prior to compaction, each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve

a moisture content generally near the laboratory optimum, mixed, and then compacted

by mechanical methods to 95 percent of its modified Proctor density as evaluated by



ASTM D 1557. Successive lifts should be treated in a like manner until the desired fin-

ished grades are achieved.

7.1.5. Fill Soils

The soils encountered at the project site should be generally suitable for reuse as fill or

backfill provided they are free of organic material, contaminated material, clay lumps,

and rocks or debris greater than 4 inches in diameter. Cobbles or rock chunks, if gener-

ated during excavation, may be broken into acceptably sized pieces or disposed of off

site. Based on the field exploration, the potential for expansive conditions of on-site

soils was evaluated to be generally low. However, pockets of expansive materials (ex-

pansion index greater than 50) may be encountered. We recommend that expansive

materials, if encountered, be removed from the site.

Potential fill soil imported to the site should consist of granular material with a low po-

tential for expansion as evaluated by ASTM D 4829 and a low corrosivity potential.

Ninyo & Moore should evaluate materials before importation.

Fill and backfill should be compacted to the density recommended herein, and moisture

conditioned to a moisture content which is near optimum as evaluated by ASTM D 1557.

Lift thickness for fill and backfill will depend on the type of compaction equipment used,

but fill should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Earth-

work, including removals and recompaction, should be observed by Ninyo & Moore to

assess conformance with the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report.

7.1.6. Slopes

Permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Ninyo &

Moore should observe cut slopes during excavation. If excavations for cut slopes ex-

pose loose, cohesionless, or otherwise unsuitable materials, overexcavation of the

unsuitable material and replacement with a compacted stabilization fill should be evalu-

ated and may be recommended by Ninyo & Moore.



Permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Slopes in

excess of 20 feet high are not anticipated but should be evaluated on an individual basis

should they be needed.

When placing fill on slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), topsoil and other

materials deemed unsuitable should be removed. Near-horizontal keys and near-vertical

benches should be excavated into firm fill material. Keying and benching requirements

should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore during construction based on the extent of the

new fill slopes.

Compacted fill slopes should be overbuilt and cut back to grade, exposing firm com-

pacted fill. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. Care

should be taken by the contractor to provide mechanical compaction as close to the

outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface as practical.

Positive drainage should be established away from the top of slope. This may be ac-

complished using a berm and pad gradient of 2 percent or steeper at the top-of-slope

areas. Site runoff should not be permitted to flow over the tops of slopes.

7.2. Slabs-on-Grade

The new concrete slabs should be 5 inches thick and reinforced with No. 3 steel reinforcing

bars placed at 24 inches on center, both ways or as detailed by the project structural engi-

neer. A design modulus of subgrade reaction of 160 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used

for design of the concrete slabs-on-grade. The reinforcement should be located in the middle

one-third of the slab height. We recommend that “chairs” be utilized to aid in the proper

placement of the reinforcement.

We recommend that the new slab be connected to the existing slabs with epoxy dowels. Ex-

pansion joints and crack control joints should be constructed as detailed by the project

structural engineer. Drainage considerations should be incorporated into the new slabs.



7.3. Shelter Foundations

The following recommendations provide design criteria for the proposed foundations for the

new shelters. Foundations for the shelters should be designed in accordance with structural

considerations and the following recommendations. In addition, requirements of the appro-

priate governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes should be considered in the

design of the structures.

Depending on the location, the stations are underlain by fill and native soils consisting of al-

luvium and old paralic deposits. Due to the variable depth and consistency of the on-site

fills, we recommend that the shelter foundations be supported on native alluvial soils or old

paralic deposits rather than on fill.

We anticipate that CIDH concrete piers will be used for support of the proposed, new shelters.

Conceptual drawings of the piers are provided in the project plans by Kimley-Horn (Kimley-Horn,

2010). The various stations are generally underlain by fill over alluvium or old paralic deposits.

We recommend that the shelter foundations be embedded 2 feet or more into native soils (i.e., al-

luvium or old paralic deposits). The recommended pier foundation depths are summarized in

Table 4. The piers may be designed using an allowable end bearing capacity of 2,000 pounds per

square foot (psf). The weight of the pier may be neglected when evaluating the end bearing.

Table 4 – Recommended CIDH Pier Depths for Shelter Foundations

LRT Station Bearing Material

Deepest Observed

Depth of Fill (feet)

Recommended Pier Length* (feet)

Barrio Logan Old Paralic Deposits 5.5 7.5 Pacific Fleet Alluvium 8.0 10.0

8th Street Old Paralic Deposits 14.0 16.0 24th Street Alluvium 4.0 6.0

Bayfront/E Street Old Paralic Deposits 4.0 6.0 H Street Alluvium 2.0 5.0

Palomar Street Old Paralic Deposits 11.0 13.0 Palm Avenue Old Paralic Deposits 1.0 5.0 Iris Avenue Old Paralic Deposits 4.0 6.0

Beyer Boulevard Old Paralic Deposits 11.0 13.0 Note: *Pier foundation length to provide recommended embedment into bearing soils. Lateral capacity may control actual pier design. Depth of bearing material should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore during construction.



We understand that the lateral capacity of the piles will be evaluated by Kimley-Horn using lateral

pile analysis software, Brom’s method, or Section 1805.7.2 of the 2007 California Building Code

(CBC). Input parameters for lateral pile analyses are presented in Appendix C. For evaluating the lat-

eral capacity of piles using Brom’s method, the parameters in Table 5 may be used in design of the

foundations. For evaluating the lateral capacity of piles using Section 1805.7.2 of the 2007 CBC, an

allowable lateral soil bearing pressure (i.e., passive) of 750 psf per foot of depth may be used.

Table 5 – Recommended Parameters for Brom’s Method

LRT Station Unit Weight of Soil

Internal Friction Angle of Soil

(degrees)

Passive Soil Pressure

(psf per foot of depth)*

Barrio Logan 120 28 (0 to 5.5’) 32 (5.5’ and below) 750

Pacific Fleet 120 28 750

8th Street 120 28 (0 to 10’) 30 (10’ and below) 750

24th Street 120 30 750

Bayfront/E Street 120 28 (0 to 4’) 30 (4’ and below) 750

H Street 120 28 (0 to 8’) 30 (8’ and below) 750

Palomar Street 120 32 750

Palm Avenue 120 28 (0 to 1’) 32 (1’ and below) 750

Iris Avenue 120 28 (0 to 4’) 30 (4’ and below) 750

Beyer Boulevard 120 28 (0 to 11’) 30 (11’ and below) 750

Note: *The passive soil pressure may be used up to a value of 7,500 psf.

Concrete debris, loose soils, cobbles, boulders, and hard rock encountered in the excavations

will present difficult drilling conditions. Some of the site soils have little cohesion and caving of

drilled holes should be anticipated. The contractor should plan for the difficult drilling condi-

tions and may consider the use of casing or similar techniques to mitigate these conditions.

7.4. Seismic Design Parameters

The proposed improvements should be designed in accordance with the requirements of

governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes. Tables 6 and 7 present the seismic de-



sign parameters for the site in accordance with CBC (2007) guidelines and mapped spectral

acceleration parameters (USGS, 2011).

Table 6 – Seismic Design Factors: Barrio Logan to Bayfront/E Street Stations

Factors Barrio Logan

Pacific Fleet

8th Street

24th Street

Bayfront/ E Street

Site Class D D D D D Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Site Coefficient, Fv 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.518 Mapped Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SS 1.584 1.436 1.354 1.317 1.265

Mapped One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, S1

0.630 0.558 0.520 0.504 0.482

Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted For Site Class, SMS 1.584 1.436 1.354 1.317 1.265

One-Second Period Spectral Accelera-tion Adjusted, SM1

0.945 0.837 0.780 0.756 0.731

Design Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SDS 1.056 0.957 0.903 0.878 0.843

Design One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, SD1

0.630 0.558 0.520 0.504 0.448

Long-period Transition Period (ASCE 7, Figure 22-15) 8 8 8 8 8

Table 7 – Seismic Design Factors: H Street to Beyer Boulevard Stations

Factors H Street Palomar Street

Palm Avenue

Iris Avenue

Beyer Boulevard

Site Class D D D D D Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0 1.008 1.009 1.034 1.061 Site Coefficient, Fv 1.521 1.529 1.528 1.554 1.585 Mapped Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SS 1.257 1.231 1.227 1.165 1.097

Mapped One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, S1

0.479 0.471 0.472 0.446 0.415

Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted For Site Class, SMS 1.257 1.241 1.238 1.205 1.164

One-Second Period Spectral Accelera-tion Adjusted, SM1

0.729 0.720 0.721 0.692 0.658

Design Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SDS 0.838 0.827 0.826 0.803 0.776

Design One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, SD1

0.486 0.480 0.481 0.462 0.439

Long-period Transition Period (ASCE 7, Figure 22-15) 8 8 8 8 8



7.5. Retaining Walls

We understand that retaining walls are proposed at the Harborside, Pacific Fleet, H Street,

Palomar Street, and Beyer Boulevard stations. For the design of retaining walls that are not

restrained against movement by rigid corners or structural connections, an active pressure

represented by an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) may be

used. Restrained walls (non-yielding) may be designed for an at-rest pressure represented by

an equivalent fluid unit weight of 60 pcf. These pressures assume low-expansive, level back-

fill and free draining conditions. Yielding and restrained walls retaining sloping backfill

inclined at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) may be designed using equivalent fluid weights of

64 pcf and 90 pcf, respectively. Wall friction was not considered in our evaluation. Sur-

charge pressures caused by vehicles or nearby structures are not included. The recommended

lateral earth pressure values and considerations applicable for the subject project are summa-

rized on Figures 3 and 4. We understand that the retaining walls do not exceed 12 feet in

height, so seismic lateral earth pressures are not required for design of the walls.

A drain should be provided behind the retaining wall, and the drain should be connected to

an appropriate outlet. Drainage design should incorporate free-draining backfill materials

and perforated drains as depicted on Figure 5.

The retaining walls may be supported on continuous footings founded in compacted fill, al-

luvium, or old paralic deposits. The foundations may be designed using an allowable bearing

capacity of 2,500 psf. This allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one third when

considering loads of a short duration such as wind or seismic forces. Footings should be

founded 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Continuous footings should have a

width of 18 inches or as detailed by the project structural engineer.

For resistance of footings to lateral loads, we recommend an allowable passive pressure of

300 psf per foot of depth be used up to 3,000 psf. This value assumes that the ground is

horizontal for a distance of 10 feet, or three times the height generating the passive pressure,

whichever is greater. We recommend that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement

or a concrete slab be neglected when calculating passive resistance. Passive pressures may



be considered after the wall has moved a horizontal distance equal to 0.005 multiplied by the

height of the wall. The passive resistance should be reduced to a value of 240 psf per foot of

depth up to 2,400 psf if the wall is only allowed to move a horizontal distance equal to

0.0025 multiplied by the height of the wall.

We understand that at the Beyer Boulevard station, a retaining wall is planned within the

slope along the southwest side of the platform. The new retaining wall will be constructed

along the top of the 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope, approximately 12 feet horizontally

from an existing retaining wall to the southwest. The foundation for the wall should be

deepened to meet the setback requirements of Figure 1805.3.1 of the 2007 CBC. To resist

lateral loads, the passive resistance should be reduced to an allowable passive pressure of

150 psf per foot of depth up to 1,500 psf.

For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend that a coefficient of friction of 0.35 be

used between soil and concrete. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the

frictional resistance and passive resistance provided the passive resistance does not exceed

one-half of the total allowable resistance. The passive resistance values may be increased by

one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.

For retaining walls 4 feet in height or less, we estimate that the proposed foundations, de-

signed and constructed as recommended, will undergo total settlement on the order of 1/2

inch. Differential settlement on the order of 1/4 inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet should

be expected. For retaining walls taller than 4 feet, we estimate that the proposed foundations,

designed and constructed as recommended, will undergo total settlement on the order of 1

inch. Differential settlement on the order of 1/2 inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet should

be expected. Settlements will generally be elastic and should occur relatively quickly.

7.6. Soldier Pile and Lagging Walls

We understand that a soldier-pile-and lagging wall will be constructed along the northwest

side of the new platform at the Beyer Boulevard station. The soldier-pile-and-lagging walls

will consist of wood soldier piles placed in 18-inch-diameter drilled holes with wood lag-



ging, or steel H-piles (W 12x53) placed in 24-inch diameter drilled holes with wood or con-

crete lagging. Wood piles and lagging should be appropriately treated to reduce the potential

for deterioration. Concrete lagging should be specified with consideration for the corrosive

or deleterious nature of the on-site soil materials. Use of non-corrosive wall backfill material

may reduce the potential for sulfate attack on concrete.

Soldier-pile-and-lagging walls may be designed for yielding conditions wherein the wall ro-

tates away from the retained soil and the at-rest earth pressures are reduced to active

pressures. The movement of the top of the wall to develop active pressures should be about

1/10 of 1 percent of the wall height.

Soldier-pile-and-lagging walls should be designed for the active and passive earth pressures

presented on Figure 6. Once the depth of embedment and point of rotation are selected to

meet static and moment equilibrium at the tip (base) of the soldier pile, the depth of embed-

ment should be increased by 20 to 40 percent for an approximate factor of safety of 1.5 to

2.0, respectively.

Soldier piles may be designed for an allowable side friction of 16L pounds per square foot to

resist vertical loads where ‘L’ is the pile embedment length in feet. The soldier piles may be

considered to have an effective width (with respect to earth pressures) of 3B, where ‘B’ is

the diameter of the pier, provided that the center-to-center spacing of the soldier piles is

equivalent to 3B or wider. An effective pier width equivalent to the pier spacing may be as-

sumed where the center-to-center spacing is less than 3B. On level ground, lagging should

be continued to 1 foot below grade at the bottom of the wall. On sloping ground, the lagging

should be continued to 1 foot below the point where there is 5 feet of lateral clearance be-

tween the wall and the slope face. Passive pressure should be neglected above the bottom of

the lagging. The vertical distance from the bottom of the lagging to the grade of the retained

soil should be used as the wall height for design purposes.

Should granular backfill be used to fill gaps between the cut and the wall, measures should

be taken to reduce potential for erosion and loss of the retained soil. Filter fabric (Mirafi

140NC or equivalent) should be placed against the backside of the cut to separate the granu-



lar backfill. To reduce discoloration and corrosion attack due to seepage through the wall

facing, sealant may be placed between lagging members. Drainage design should incorpo-

rate free-draining backfill materials and perforated drains as depicted on Figure 5.

Soldier piles should be installed close to the planned location. The soldier piles should not be

out of plumb by more than 5 percent over the length of the pile. Furthermore, the top of the

pile should be within 3 inches of the design location. Cast-in-drilled-hole soldier piles should

be drilled to the specified depth, and the shaft bottom should be cleaned of loose material prior

to placing concrete. Excavations may not remain stable for a significant length of time. The

contractor should be prepared to use temporary casing or drilling fluid to inhibit the shaft ex-

cavation from collapsing. Standing water should be removed from the pier excavation or the

concrete should be delivered to the bottom of the excavation, below the water surface, by tre-

mie pipe. Casing, if used, should be removed from the excavation as the concrete is placed.

Concrete should be placed in a manner that reduces the potential for segregation of the com-

ponents. The drilled hole above the placed concrete may need to be backfilled with lean

concrete to stabilize the hole while the excavation proceeds and lagging is installed.

Ninyo & Moore should be permitted to observe the drilling and construction of the soldier

piles to check that the embedment criteria are satisfied, the materials encountered match the

design assumptions, and that the appropriate construction procedures were followed. The

contractor should take precautionary measures not to damage adjacent structures during con-

struction of the retaining walls. Monitoring of structures on the site and on adjoining

properties should be performed before, during, and after construction of the retaining walls.

If significant movement is observed, the construction should be re-evaluated to reduce the

potential for movement.

7.7. Track Reconstruction

We understand that the Blue Line LRT Station Improvements project includes reconstruction

of the track structural section at each of the stations. We understand that the existing rail

lines and ballast will be removed and replaced with new tracks, ties, ballast, and subballast.



Once the existing ballast and subballast are removed, the contractor should request an

evaluation of the exposed ground surface by Ninyo & Moore. Loose or soft soils should

be removed, and the exposed subgrade should be moisture conditioned to near its opti-

mum moisture content and compacted to 95 percent of its modified Proctor density as

evaluated by ASTM D1557. The evaluation and compaction of the subgrade is needed to

mitigate loose materials that may exist beneath the tracks or have been disturbed during

removal of the ballast.

To expedite the remedial grading of loose materials beneath the tracks, a geogrid, such as a

Tensar BX 1100 or equivalent, may be used to stabilize the subgrade before placing ballast

rock. Use of the geogrid should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as the subgrade is ex-

posed. While loose conditions may occur at each of the stations, the probability for

encountering a yielding subgrade is higher at the 8th Street station where the borings en-

countered loose sands, the 24th Street, Bayfront/E Street, and H Street stations where the

subgrade material is primarily clayey in nature, and the Palomar Street station where debris

was encountered in the existing fill.

If the existing ballast is thicker than the planned excavations, the remaining ballast rock may

be left in place as the subgrade for the new tracks. Loose material should be removed, and

the exposed subgrade should be compacted to a dense, unyielding state.

To separate the subgrade soils from the open ballast, the ballast should be underlain by a

nonwoven geotextile fabric (such as a Mirafi S1600 or equivalent) with a weight of

16 ounces per square yard. The geotextile fabric should be placed upon the compacted sub-

grade, and the contractor should take precautionary measures not to damage the fabric.

Overlap of the fabric between rolls should be 24 inches. If existing ballast rock is not fully

removed during site excavations, the filter fabric should be placed between the existing ma-

terials and the new ballast after it is compacted as recommended above.



7.8. Pavements

We understand that the parking lots will be rehabilitated at the 8th Street, 24th Street, Bay-

front/E Street, H Street, Palomar Street, Palm Avenue, Iris Avenue, and Beyer Boulevard

stations. At your request, we tested the subgrade soils at selected stations for R-value to as-

sist Kimley-Horn with the design of the new pavements. The subgrade soils encountered in

the borings are listed in Table 8 along with the R-Value for pavement design. R-Value testing

is summarized on Figure B-32 in Appendix B. Variations in the subgrade conditions should

be anticipated, and final pavement sections should be based on the R-value of the subgrade

materials exposed at the time of construction.

Table 8 – R-Value Test Results Station Boring Soil Type R-Value

8th Street B-8 Clayey Sand 15* 24th Street B-10 Silty Sand 44 Bayfront/E Street B-12 Silty Clay 10* H Street B-14 Sandy Clay 12 Palomar Street B-17 Clayey Sand 17 Palm Avenue B-20 Clayey Sand 15* Iris Avenue B-21 Silty Sand 44 Beyer Boulevard B-23 Clayey Sand 17 *Recommended R-Value based on Soil Type

7.9. Soil Corrosivity

Laboratory testing was performed on samples of the on-site soils to evaluate pH and electri-

cal resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pH and electrical resistivity tests

were performed in accordance with California Test (CT) method 643, and the sulfate and

chloride tests were performed in accordance with CT 416 and 422, respectively. These labo-

ratory test results are presented in Appendix B.

The results of the corrosivity testing indicated that the electrical resistivity of the samples

tested ranged from approximately 250 to 4,000 ohm-cm. The soil pH of the samples ranged

from 5.5 to 8.5. The chloride content of the tested samples was approximately 85 to

520 parts per million (ppm), and the sulfate content was approximately 0.004 to

0.030 percent. Based on Caltrans criteria, the Harborside, Pacific Fleet, 8th Street, Bay-



front/E Street, H Street, and Beyer Boulevard stations would be classified as corrosive,

which is defined as having soils with more than 500 ppm chlorides, more than 0.20 percent

sulfates, a pH of 5.5 or less, or a resistivity of 1,000 ohm-cm or less. We recommend a cor-

rosion engineer be consulted for corrosion sensitive components of the project.

7.10. Concrete

Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of water-soluble sul-

fates can be subject to premature chemical and/or physical deterioration. As stated above,

the soil samples tested in this evaluation indicated water-soluble sulfate contents of 0.004 to

0.030 percent by weight (i.e., about 40 to 300 ppm). According to the American Concrete

Institute (ACI) 318-08, the potential for sulfate attack is negligible for water-soluble sulfate

in soil below 1,000 ppm. However, based on the anticipated variability of the on-site soils

and the potential use of reclaimed water, we recommend the use of Type V cement, and con-

crete with a water-cement ratio no higher than 0.5 by weight for normal weight aggregate

concrete and a 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 pounds per square inch (psi).

In order to reduce the potential for shrinkage cracks in the concrete during curing, we rec-

ommend that for slabs-on-grade, the concrete be placed with a slump in accordance with

Table 5.2.1 of Section 302.1R of The Manual of Concrete Practice, “Floor and Slab Con-

struction,” or Table 2.2 of Section 332R in The Manual of Concrete Practice, “Guide to

Residential Cast-in-Place Concrete Construction.” If a higher slump is needed for screening

and leveling, a super plasticizer is recommended to achieve the higher slump without chang-

ing the required water-to-cement ratio. The slump should be checked periodically at the site

prior to concrete placement. We also recommend that crack control joints be provided in

slabs in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer to reduce the poten-

tial for distress due to minor soil movement and concrete shrinkage. We further recommend

that concrete cover over reinforcing steel for slabs-on-grade and foundations be in accor-

dance with section 1907.7 of the 2007 CBC. The structural engineer should be consulted for

additional concrete specifications.



7.11. Site Drainage

Drainage improvements, including subsurface drain lines and graded slopes and swales,

should be provided and maintained to convey surface water runoff away from structures and

off of pavement surfaces. Surface water should not drain toward the structures or pond adja-

cent to foundations. Positive drainage is defined as a slope of approximately 2 percent over a

distance of about 5 feet.

7.12. Construction Observation and Testing

The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the result of our

subsurface evaluation, laboratory testing, our site observations, and our experience with

similar materials. If conditions are found to vary from those described in this report,

Ninyo & Moore should be notified and additional recommendations will be provided upon

request. Ninyo & Moore should be provided the opportunity to review the project plans prior

to the start of construction.

Ninyo & Moore should perform appropriate observation and testing services during construction

operations, including observation of foundation excavations and evaluation of subgrade condi-

tions in areas where flatwork or settlement-sensitive improvements are to be constructed.

Ninyo & Moore should also observe and test the placement and compaction of fill soils.

The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Ninyo &

Moore will provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. In the

event that it is decided not to utilize the services of Ninyo & Moore during construction, we

request that the selected consultant provide the client with a letter (with a copy to Ninyo &

Moore) indicating that they fully understand Ninyo & Moore's recommendations, and that

they are in full agreement with the design parameters and recommendations contained in this

report. Construction of proposed improvements should be performed by qualified subcon-

tractors utilizing appropriate techniques and construction materials.



8. LIMITATIONS

The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this geotechnical

report have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care

exercised by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty,

expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions pre-

sented in this report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition.

Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered

during construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through addi-

tional subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request.

Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the

project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, or the pres-

ence of hazardous materials.

This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is

designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore

should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the

content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.

This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an

accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant per-

form an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent

evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for

the adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing.

Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site

conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered,

our office should be notified and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon

request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of

natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to

the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government ac-



tion or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over

time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control.

This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclu-

sions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said

parties’ sole risk.



9. REFERENCES

American Concrete Institute, 1991a, Guidelines for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, (ACI 302.1R).

American Concrete Institute, 1991b, Guidelines for Residential Cast-in-Place Concrete Con-struction (ACI 332R).

American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2010, ACI 318-08 Building Code Requirements for Struc-tural Concrete and Commentary.

American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-way Association (AREMA), 2002, Manual for Railway Engineering.

Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J., California Geological Sur-vey (CGS), 2003, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps.

California Building Standards Commission, 2007, California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Vo-lumes 1 and 2: dated June.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2003, Corrosion Guidelines (Version 1.0), Divi-sion of Engineering and Testing Services, Corrosion Technology Branch: dated September.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2006a, Standard Plans.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2006b, Standard Specifications.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2008, Highway Design Manual.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2003 Earthquake Fault Zones Map, Point Loma Quadran-gle, Scale 1:24,000.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2004, Seismic Shaking Hazards in California, World Wide Web, http://www.consrv.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/pshamap/pshamain.html.

City of San Diego, 1954, Metropolitan Topographic Survey, Sheet 194-1761, Scale 1:200.

City of San Diego, 1978, Topographic Survey (Orthotopographic), Sheet 194-1761, Scale 1:2,400.

City of San Diego, 2008, Seismic Safety Study, Geologic Hazards and Faults, Grids 2, 6, 13 and 17, Scale 1:9,600.

Geotracker, 2011, http://www.geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/.

Google Inc., 2010, Google Earth (Version 5.2.1.1588) [software], Available from http://earth.google.com/.

Harden, D.R., 1998, California Geology: Prentice Hall, Inc.



Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California: California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000.

Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2008, Geologic Map of the San Diego 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, Cali-fornia, Regional Geologic Map No. 3, Scale 1:100,000.

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn), 2010, Preliminary Engineering, Blue Line Trolley Station Improvements, Contract CIP - 1210030, San Diego Association of Governments, Sheet Nos. 1 through 66, dated July.

Ninyo & Moore, In-house proprietary information.

Norris, R.M., and Webb, R.W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Poulos, H. G., and Davis, E. H., 1980, Pile Foundation Analysis and Design: John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Prakash, Shamsher and Sharma, Hari D., 1990, Pile Foundations in Engineering Practice: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Public Works Standards, Inc., 2009, “Greenbook,” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), 2009, Design Criteria, Draft: dated Sep-tember 21.

Tan, S.S., Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, Landslide Hazards Identification Map No. 33, Scale 1:24,000.

Terraserver, 2011, http://www.terraserver.com/home.asp.

Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due To Earthquake Shak-ing: Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 113, No. GT8, p. 861-878.

Treiman, J. A., 1993, The Rose Canyon Fault Zone Southern California: California Geological Survey Open-File Report 93-02.

United States Geological Survey, 1967 (Photorevised 1975), National City Quadrangle, Califor-nia-Baja California, 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic), Scale 1:24,000.

United States Geological Survey, 2011, Ground Motion Parameter Calculator v. 5.0.9, World Wide Web, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/hazmaps/design/.

AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Source Date Flight Numbers Scale USDA 3-31-53 AXN-3M 42, 43, 91, 92, 93, 198 and 199 1:24,000 USDA 3-31-53 AXN-14M 108 and 109 1:24,000

SOURCE: 2008 Thomas Guide for San Diego County, Street Guide and Directory; Map © Rand McNally, R.L.07-S-129

NOTE: ALL DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

BLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTSSAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

PROJECT LOCATION FIGURE

1PROJECT NO. DATE

104804040 3/11

fig1_

1048

0404

0_sl

.mxd

AO

B

0 7,600 15,2003,800

SCALE IN FEET

BARRIO LOGAN STATIONHARBORSIDE STATION

PACIFIC FLEET STATION

8TH STREET STATION

24TH STREET STATION

BAYFRONT/E STREET STATION

H STREET STATION

PALOMAR STREET STATION

PALM AVENUE STATION

IRIS AVENUE STATION

BEYER BOULEVARD STATION

PROJECT NO.

NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. SOURCE: BLUE LINE TROLLEY STATION IMPROVEMENTS, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., DATED 7/14/10.

BLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTSSAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA

BORING LOCATIONS- BARRIO LOGAN STATION

2A104804040

fig2A

104804040 B

lue b

lm.c

dr

AO

B

DATE

FIGURE

3/11

N

SCALE IN FEET

100 FEET500

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

AB

OV

E

TD=2.7’

TD=4.0'

TD=16.5' TD=16.5'

TD=?'

TD=5.0'

TD=5.0'

B-5

B-1

B-1AB-4

B-3

B-2

B-2A

TD=16.5'

TD=16.5'

B-1

B-2

BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETTD=16.5'

LEGEND

B-2

PROJECT NO.


BORING LOCATIONS- PACIFIC FLEET STATION

2B104804040

fig2C

104804040 B

lue b

lm.c

dr

AO

B

DATE

FIGURE

N

SCALE IN FEET

100 FEET500

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

AB

OV

E

TD=2.7’

TD=4.0'

TD=16.5' TD=16.5'

TD=?'

TD=5.0'

TD=5.0'

B-5

B-1

B-1AB-4

B-3

B-2

B-2A

TD=16.5'

TD=16.5'

B-6

B-5


LEGEND

B-6

BLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTSSAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA3/11

PROJECT NO.


BORING LOCATIONS- 8TH STREET STATION

2C104804040

fig2C

104804040 B

lue b

lm.c

dr

AO

B

DATE

FIGURE

N

SCALE IN FEET

100 FEET500

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

AB

OV

E

TD=2.7’

TD=4.0'

TD=16.5' TD=16.5'

TD=?'

TD=5.0'

TD=5.0'

B-5

B-1

B-1AB-4

B-3

B-2

B-2A


LEGEND

B-8

TD=16.5'

TD=16.5'

B-8

B-7


PROJECT NO.


BORING LOCATIONS- 24TH STREET STATION

2D104804040

fig2D

104804040 B

lue b

lm.c

dr

AO

B

DATE

FIGURE

N

SCALE IN FEET

120 FEET600

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

AB

OV

E

TD=2.7’

TD=4.0'

TD=16.5' TD=16.5'

TD=?'

TD=5.0'

TD=5.0'

B-5

B-1

B-1AB-4

B-3

B-2

B-2A


LEGEND

B-11

TD=16.5'B-9

TD=16.5'

TD=16.5'

B-10

B-11


PROJECT NO.


BORING LOCATIONS- BAYFRONT/E STREET STATION

2E104804040

fig2E

104804040 B

lue b

lm.c

dr

AO

B

DATE

FIGURE

N

SCALE IN FEET

100 FEET500

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

AB

OV

E

TD=2.7’

TD=4.0'

TD=16.5' TD=16.5'

TD=?'

TD=5.0'

TD=5.0'

B-5

B-1

B-1AB-4

B-3

B-2

B-2A


LEGEND

B-13

TD=16.0'

TD=16.0'

B-13

B-12


PROJECT NO.


BORING LOCATIONS- H STREET STATION

2F104804040

fig2F

104804040 B

lue b

lm.c

dr

AO

B

DATE

FIGURE

N

SCALE IN FEET

200 FEET1000

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

AB

OV

E

TD=2.7’

TD=4.0'

TD=16.5' TD=16.5'

TD=?'

TD=5.0'

TD=5.0'

B-5

B-1

B-1AB-4

B-3

B-2

B-2A


LEGEND

B-16

TD=16.5'

TD=16.0'

TD=16.5'

B-15

B-16

B-14


PROJECT NO.


BORING LOCATIONS- PALOMAR STREET STATION

2G104804040

fig2G

104804040 B

lue b

lm.c

dr

AO

B

DATE

FIGURE

N

SCALE IN FEET

100 FEET500

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

AB

OV

E

TD=2.7’

TD=4.0'

TD=16.5' TD=16.5'

TD=?'

TD=5.0'

TD=5.0'

B-5

B-1

B-1AB-4

B-3

B-2

B-2A


LEGEND

B-18

TD=16.5'

TD=16.5'

B-17

B-18


PROJECT NO.


BORING LOCATIONS- PALM AVENUE STATION

2H104804040

fig2H

104804040 B

lue b

lm.c

dr

AO

B

DATE

FIGURE

N

SCALE IN FEET

100 FEET500

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

AB

OV

E

TD=2.7’

TD=4.0'

TD=16.5' TD=16.5'

TD=?'

TD=5.0'

TD=5.0'

B-5

B-1

B-1AB-4

B-3

B-2

B-2A


LEGEND

B-20

TD=16.5'

TD=7.0'

B-19

B-20


PROJECT NO.


BORING LOCATIONS- IRIS AVENUE STATION

2I104804040

fig2I 104804040 B

lue b

lm.c

dr

AO

B

DATE

FIGURE

N

SCALE IN FEET

100 FEET500

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

AB

OV

E

TD=2.7’

TD=4.0'

TD=16.5' TD=16.5'

TD=?'

TD=5.0'

TD=5.0'

B-5

B-1

B-1AB-4

B-3

B-2

B-2A


LEGEND

B-22

TD=16.5'

TD=15.5'

B-21

B-22


PROJECT NO.


BORING LOCATIONS- BEYER BOULEVARD STATION

2J104804040

fig2J

104804040 B

lue b

lm.c

dr

AO

B

DATE

FIGURE

N

SCALE IN FEET

200 FEET1000

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

BE

LO

W

MA

TC

HLIN

E, S

EE

AB

OV

E

TD=2.7’

TD=4.0'

TD=16.5' TD=16.5'

TD=?'

TD=5.0'

TD=5.0'

B-5

B-1

B-1AB-4

B-3

B-2

B-2A


LEGEND

B-26

TD=16.5'

TD=15.0'

TD=5.0'

TD=4.0'

B-23

B-24

B-25

B-26



104804040 R Blue Line.doc

APPENDIX A

BORING LOGS

Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.

Bulk Samples Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing.

Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.

The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with a weight in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resis-tance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.

0

5

10

15

20

XX/XX

SM

Bulk sample.

Modified split-barrel drive sampler.

No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler.

Sample retained by others.

Standard Penetration Test (SPT).

No recovery with a SPT.

Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recoveredin inches.

No recovery with Shelby tube sampler.

Continuous Push Sample.

Seepage.Groundwater encountered during drilling.Groundwater measured after drilling.

ALLUVIUM:Solid line denotes unit change.

Dashed line denotes material change.

Attitudes: Strike/Dipb: Beddingc: Contactj: Jointf: FractureF: Faultcs: Clay Seams: Shearbss: Basal Slide Surfacesf: Shear Fracturesz: Shear Zonesbs: Sheared Bedding Surface

The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of theboring.

BORING LOGEXPLANATION OF BORING LOG SYMBOLS

PROJECT NO. DATERev. 01/03

FIGURE

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kSA

MPL

ESD

riven

BLO

WS

/FO

OT

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

ENSI

TY (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.

BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET

M AJOR DIVISIONS TYPICAL NAM ES

GW W ell graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GP Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines

GM Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures

GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures

SW W ell graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines

SP Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines

SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures

SC Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures

M L Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with

CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean

OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity

M H Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts

CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays

OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silty clays, organic silts

HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS Pt Peat and other highly organic soils

SILTS & CLAYSLiquid Limit >50

U.S.C.S. M ETHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

GRAVELS(M ore than 1/2 of coarse

fraction > No. 4 sieve size)

SANDS(M ore than 1/2 of coarse

fraction <No. 4 sieve size)

SILTS & CLAYSLiquid Limit <50

SYM BOL

CO

AR

SE-G

RA

INED

SO

ILS

(Mor

e th

an 1

/2 o

f soi

l >N

o. 2

00 s

ieve

size

)

FIN

E-G

RA

INED

SO

ILS

(Mor

e th

an 1

/2 o

f soi

l <N

o. 2

00 s

ieve

siz

e)

GRAIN SIZE CHART

PLASTICITY CHART

RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE

CLASSIFICATION U.S. Standard

Sieve Size Grain Size in Millimeters

BOULDERS Above 12" Above 305

COBBLES 12" to 3" 305 to 76.2

GRAVEL Coarse

Fine

3" to No. 4 3" to 3/4"

3/4" to No. 4

76.2 to 4.76 76.2 to 19.1 19.1 to 4.76

SAND Coarse

Medium Fine

No. 4 to No. 200 No. 4 to No. 10 No. 10 to No. 40

No. 40 to No. 200

4.76 to 0.075 4.76 to 2.00

2.00 to 0.420 0.420 to 0.075

SILT & CLAY Below No. 200 Below 0.075

CH

CL M H & OH

M L & OLCL - M L

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

LIQ UID LIMIT (LL), %

PLA

STIC

ITY

IND

EX (P

I), %

U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION

USCS Soil Classification Updated Nov. 2004

0

5

10

15

20

58

38

56

11.4

7.3

9.3

119.7

103.3

122.1

SM

SM

CL

ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 6 inches thick.FILL:Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND.

Slightly clayey.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND.

Reddish brown; fine sand; friable.

Grayish brown, moist, hard, sandy CLAY; fine sand.Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with approximately 3.2 cubic feet of bentonite grout and patched with blackdyed concrete shortly after drilling on 11/08/10.

Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higherlevel due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed inthe report.

BORING LOGBLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTS


PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-1

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.

DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION

DATE DRILLED 11/08/10 BORING NO. B-1

GROUND ELEVATION 25' ± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF

METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Solid Stem Auger (Mini Mole) (Pacific Drilling)

DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Cathead) DROP 30"

SAMPLED BY BTM LOGGED BY BTM REVIEWED BY JG

1

0

5

10

15

20

53

51

55

14.0

11.6

7.5

107.6

114.9

104.7

SM

CL

SC

CONCRETE:Approximately 4.75 inches thick.FILL:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; scattered gravel.

Brown, moist, stiff, sandy CLAY.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.

Brown to light brown.

Reddish brown.

Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with approximately 3.2 cubic feet of bentonite grout and patched with concreteshortly after drilling on 11/08/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-2

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

35

46

18

10.5

23.9

23.1

114.2

102.4

GMSM

SP-SM

CL

SP-SM

CONCRETE:Approximately 5 inches thick.AGGREGATE BASE:Gray, damp, medium dense, silty GRAVEL with sand; approximately 6 inches thick.FILL:Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty SAND; scattered gravel.

ALLUVIUM:Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, poorly graded SAND with silt; scattered gravel.

Dark brown, moist, hard, silty CLAY.

Brown, saturated, medium dense, poorly graded SAND with silt.

Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater encountered at approximately 13 feet during drilling.Backfilled with approximately 3.2 cubic feet of bentonite grout and patched with concreteshortly after drilling on 11/09/10.

Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due toseasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.



PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-3

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

57

33

22

9.5

19.4

18.8

120.5

108.8

GMSM

GM

SM

SP-SM

ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 2.5 inches thick.AGGREGATE BASE:Gray, moist, medium dense, silty GRAVEL; with sand approximately 1 inch thick.FILL:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; scattered gravel.

Brown, moist, medium dense, silty GRAVEL; with sand.

ALLUVIUM:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND.

Saturated.

Brown, saturated, medium dense, poorly graded SAND; with silt.





PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-4

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

14

22

29

22.8

20.7

14.2

102.4

105.3

117.4

SM+GM

SM

CL

SM

SC

FILL:Dark brown, moist, dense, silty fine to coarse SAND and fine to coarse GRAVEL;contains pieces of asphalt concrete.

Grayish brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty fine SAND; abundant shellfragments; micaceous; wet.

Wet.Gray.

Dark reddish brown, moist, stiff, sandy CLAY; fine sand.

More sandy.Light reddish brown, wet, medium dense, silty fine SAND; micaceous.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Reddish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey fine SAND; micaceous; magnesium oxidestaining.

Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with approximately 3.2 cubic feet of bentonite grout and patched with black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 11/15/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-5

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.




METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Solid Stem Auger (Tripod) (Pacific Drilling)


SAMPLED BY MJB LOGGED BY MJB REVIEWED BY JG

1

0

5

10

15

20

11

35

28

12.0

18.8

24.3

114.0

112.9

101.7

SM+GMSC

SMCL

CL

CONCRETE:FILL:Medium brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND and fine GRAVEL; fewcoarse gravel.Dark grayish brown, moist, medium dense to dense, clayey fine to medium SAND; somefine to coarse gravel; scattered wood fragments; scattered gravel.

Grayish brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND; scattered shell fragments.Dark reddish brown, moist, stiff, sandy CLAY; fine sand; scattered medium to coarsesand.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Dark reddish brown, saturated, very stiff, sandy CLAY; fine sand; scattered magnesiumoxide staining; scattered medium to coarse sand.


Note: Groundwater may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitationand several other factors as discussed in the report.



PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-6

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.




METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Solid Stem Auger (Tripod) (Pacific Drilling)



1

0

5

10

15

20

28

30

32

3.8

2.8

3.2

123.5

115.7

115.3

SM

CL

SP-SM

ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 3 inches thick.FILL:Reddish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey fine to medium SAND; with some silt; fewcoarse sand and fine gravel.Reddish brown to dark reddish brown, moist, stiff, sandy CLAY; fine to medium sand;scattered coarse sand and fine gravel.ALLUVIUM:Light reddish brown to reddish brown, moist, medium dense, poorly graded fine tomedium SAND with silt; little coarse sand; scattered fine to coarse gravel; micaceous.

Fine sand; few medium to coarse sand.Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite and patched with asphalt concrete shortly after drilling on11/17/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-7

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.




METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Solid Stem Auger (Mini-Mole) (Pacific Drilling)



1

0

5

10

15

20

27

27

68

3.7

4.2

4.6

109.8

117.9

109.7

SM

CL

SP-SM

ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 4 inches thick.FILL:Medium brown to reddish brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND; fewcoarse sand and fine to coarse gravel; few clay.Reddish brown to dark reddish brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, sandy CLAY; fine tomedium sand.

ALLUVIUM:Reddish brown, moist, medium dense, fine to medium SAND with silt; few coarse sand;micaceous.

Damp.

Little coarse sand; scattered fine to coarse gravel.

Dense; some coarse sand.Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite and patched with asphalt concrete shortly after drilling on 11/17/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-8

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

23

32

43

2.3

2.6

3.7

111.4

114.9

115.8

CL

SP-SM

ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 3 inches thick.FILL:Red to reddish brown, moist, stiff, sandy CLAY; fine to medium sand and fine to coarsegravel; pieces of glass.ALLUVIUM:Light reddish brown to reddish brown, medium dense, poorly graded fine to mediumSAND with silt; little coarse sand; trace fine to coarse gravel; micaceous.

Some fine to coarse sand.

Medium dense.Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite and patched with asphalt concrete shortly after drilling on 11/17/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-9

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

50/5"

54

58/6"

14.1

18.5

12.0

120.5

95.7

95.2

GM

CL

SC

SM

CONCRETE:Approximately 3-1/2 inches thick.AGGREGATE BASE:Approximately 18 inches thick.

FILL:Brown, moist, firm, silty CLAY; few fine sand.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Reddish brown, moist, dense, clayey fine SAND; with gravel.

Brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND.

Dense.

Total Depth = 16 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite and patched with concrete shortly after drilling on 11/05/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-10

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.




METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Solid Stem Auger (Pacific Drilling)


SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY JG

1

0

5

10

15

20

29

44

51/6"

7.8

7.1

14.7

108.7

110.8

107.6

GM

SM

CONCRETE:Approximately 4 inches thick.AGGREGATE BASE:Approximately 14 inches thick.OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine SAND; slightly micaceous; scattered dark reddishbrown stains.

Some interlayers of gray; fine to medium sand.

Increase in clay content; scattered caliche stringers.





PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-11

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.




METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Solid Stem Auger (Pacific Drilling)


SAMPLED BY RTW LOGGED BY RTW REVIEWED BY JG

1

0

5

10

15

20

30

31

58

18.6

5.9

13.7

108.7

111.8

103.4

SMML

CL

SC

SP

SM

ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 3 inches thick.AGGREGATE BASE:Approximately 4 inches thick.FILL:Light yellowish brown, damp, medium dense, sandy SILT.ALLUVIUM:Brown, moist, very stiff, sandy CLAY; fine sand.

Light brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.

Light brown, moist, medium dense, poorly graded fine SAND with silt.

Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND.

Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with approximately 3.2 cubic feet of bentonite grout and patched with asphaltconcrete shortly after drilling on 11/18/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-12

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.






SAMPLED BY MJG LOGGED BY MJG REVIEWED BY JG

1

0

5

10

15

20

63/11"

28

44

10.6

11.7

8.1

116.0

112.6

110.2

SMML

CL

SM

SM

SC

ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 3-3/4 inches thick.AGGREGATE BASE:Approximately 2-1/2 inches thick.FILL:Light yellowish brown, damp, medium dense, sandy SILT; cobbles.ALLUVIUM:Brown, moist, stiff, sandy CLAY.

Light reddish brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND with gravel and cobbles.

Reddish brown, moist, very stiff, silty fine SAND.

Silty coarse.

Dark reddish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey coarse SAND.

Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with approximately 3.2 cubic feet of bentonite grout and patched with asphaltconcrete shortly after drilling on 11/18/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-13

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

56

33

50/5"

12.0

11.5

124.6

120.8

SMMLCL

SC

CL

SC

ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 3-1/4 inches.AGGREGATE BASE:Approximately 2-1/2 inches thick.FILL:Light yellowish brown, damp, medium dense, sandy SILT.ALLUVIUM:Brown, moist, stiff, sandy CLAY; some cobbles.

Olive brown, medium dense, clayey SAND with gravel.

Reddish brown, moist, very stiff, silty CLAY; some sand.

Reddish brown, moist, very dense, clayey SAND.

No recovery.Total Depth = 16 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with approximately 3.1 cubic feet of bentonite grout and patched with asphaltconcrete shortly after drilling on 11/18/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-14

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

48

47

81

11.8

17.7

8.0

109.8

110.3

108.2

SC

SMCL

SC

SM

CONCRETE:Approximately 3-5/8 to 4-1/4 inches thick.FILL:Dark brown and dark grayish brown, moist to wet, loose to medium dense, clayey fine tocoarse SAND; some fine to coarse gravel; scattered cobbles; contains pieces of trash.

Very dark grayish brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine to coarse SAND;contains pieces of old railroad tie (rubbery material) and piece of asphalt.Dark brown, moist, firm to stiff, sandy CLAY; fine sand.

Dark grayish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey fine SAND; few medium to coarsesand and fine to coarse gravel; micaceous; asphalt odor; scattered wood fragments;sampler on cobble; old tin can.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Grayish brown, moist, dense, silty fine SAND; few fine gravel.

Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite and patched with concrete shortly after drilling on 11/16/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-15

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

42

53

49

13.2

15.7

8.7

115.6

112.5

101.2

SC

SM

FILL:Medium brown, moist, loose to medium dense, clayey fine SAND; scattered medium tocoarse sand and fine gravel.

Few fine gravel.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Medium brown, damp to moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine SAND; micaceous;scattered medium to coarse sand; scattered calcium carbonate nodules and stringers.

Reddish brown; moist.

Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite shortly after drilling on 11/16/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-16

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

51

72

45

11.3

11.9

3.9

115.5

111.5

102.1

SP-SM

SM

GP

SM

SP-SM

CONCRETE:Approximately 4 inches thick.FILL:Light brown, moist, loose, poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel.OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Reddish brown, damp, medium dense, silty fine SAND.

Gray, damp, medium dense, angular poorly graded GRAVEL with sand.

Reddish brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND.

Dense.Light yellowish brown, damp, medium dense, fine SAND with silt; cohesionless.





PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-17

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

SM

SC

SM

CONCRETE:Approximately 4 inches thick.FILL:Light yellowish brown, moist, loose, silty fine to coarse SAND with gravel and cobbles.OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Reddish brown, damp, medium dense, clayey SAND.

Yellowish brown, damp, dense, silty SAND; with gravel.

Gravel and cobbles.Total Depth = 7 feet. (Refusal on cobbles)Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite and patched with concrete shortly after drilling on 11/19/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-18

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

22

50/6"

69

3.6

7.0

9.8

103.1

92.4

119.6

SMSM

SM

SP-SM

CONCRETE:Approximately 6 inches thick.AGGREGATE BASE:Gray to brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND with gravel; approximately 6 inchesthick.FILL:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty medium SAND.

@ 7': Gravel.

Gray to brown; very dense; medium to coarse; with gravel.

Materials finer at bottom end; micaceous.Brown, moist, dense, poorly graded fine to medium SAND with silt.





PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-19

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.






SAMPLED BY MBG LOGGED BY MBG REVIEWED BY JG

1

0

5

10

15

20

33

29

50/5"

9.9

14.3

13.3

119.8

117.6

105.4

SMSM

SM

SC

SM

ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 4 inches thick.AGGREGATE BASE:Gray to brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND with gravel; approximately 5 inchesthick.FILL:Brown to reddish brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND with clay.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND.

@ 6': Light brown; damp.

Brown, wet, medium dense, clayey fine to medium SAND.

Light brown, damp, very dense, silty fine SAND.

Total Depth = 15.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite and patched with asphalt concrete shortly after drilling on11/22/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-20

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

30

29

76

18.7

11.1

11.1

105.0

115.9

98.7

SM

SC

SP

CL

CONCRETE:Approximately 4 inches thick.AGGREGATE BASE:Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND with gravel; approximately 8 inchesthick.FILL:Light brown, damp, medium dense, clayey SAND; trace gravel; trace roots.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Reddish brown, moist, medium dense, poorly graded SAND; trace silt.

Dark brown, damp, hard, sandy CLAY.





PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-21

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

43

48

8.2

7.4

108.2

100.6

SMSC

ML

SM

CONCRETE:Approximately 4-1/4 inches thick.AGGREGATE BASE:Light brown, damp, medium dense, silty SAND with gravel; approximately 5- 1/2 inchesthick.FILL:Brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND; trace gravel; trace roots.

Brown and white; damp.

Dark brown; moist.

OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Light brown, damp, dense, sandy SILT.

Dark brown, moist, dense, silty SAND with gravel and cobbles.





PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-22

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

SMSC

ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 4 inches thick.AGGREGATE BASE:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; with gravel; approximately 7 inches thick.FILL:Brown, damp, medium dense, clayey SAND; trace gravel.

@ 5': Cobbles.Total Depth = 5 feet. (Refusal on cobbles)Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite and patched with asphalt concrete shortly after drilling on11/23/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-23

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1

0

5

10

15

20

SC FILL:Brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND; trace gravel; trace roots.

Total Depth = 4 feet. (Refusal on cobbled)Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite shortly after drilling on 11/23/10.




PROJECT NO.

104804040DATE

3/11FIGURE

A-24

DE

PTH

(fee

t)

Bul

kS

AM

PLE

SD

riven

BLO

WS/

FOO

T

MO

ISTU

RE

(%)

DR

Y D

EN

SIT

Y (P

CF)

SY

MB

OL

CLA

SS

IFIC

ATI

ON

U.S

.C.S

.







1



APPENDIX B

LABORATORY TESTING

Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A.

In-Place Moisture and Density Tests The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the ex-ploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A.

Gradation Analysis Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accor-dance with ASTM D 422. The grain-size distribution curves are shown on Figures B-1 through B-17. These test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the USCS.

Atterberg Limits Tests were performed on a selected representative fine-grained soil sample to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. The test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the USCS. The test results and classifications are shown on Figure B-18.

Direct Shear Tests Direct shear tests were performed on relatively undisturbed samples in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of the selected materials. The sam-ples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are shown on Figures B-19 through B-28.

Expansion Index Tests The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 4829. The specimens were molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent satu-ration (plus or minus 1 percent). The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 psf and were inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The results of these tests are presented on Figure B-29.

Soil Corrosivity Tests Soil pH and minimum resistivity tests were performed on representative soil samples in general accordance with CT 643. The chloride content of the selected samples was evaluated in general accordance with CT 422. The sulfate content of the selected samples was evaluated in general accordance with CT 417. The test results are presented on Figures B-30 and B-31.



R-Value The resistance value, or R-value, for site soils was evaluated in general accordance with Califor-nia Test Method 301. Samples were prepared and evaluated for exudation pressure and expansion pressure. The equilibrium R-value is reported as the lesser or more conservative of the two calculated results. The test results are shown on Figure B-32.



APPENDIX C

INPUT PARAMETERS FOR LATERAL PILE CAPACITY ANALYSIS

Table C1 – Barrio Logan Station

Material

Depth to Layer

Bottom (ft)

General Soil Type

Effective Unit Weight

(pcf)

Friction Angle (degrees)

Cohesion (psf)

k (pci)

e50 (%)

Fill 0 to 5.5 Sand 120 28 0 90 ---

Old Paralic Deposits

5.5 and below Sand 120 32 0 120 ---

Table C2 – Pacific Fleet Station

Material

Depth to Layer

Bottom (ft)

General Soil Type


(pcf)


Cohesion (psf)

k (pci)

e50 (%)

Fill 0 to 8 Sand 120 28 0 90 ---

Alluvium 8 and below Clay 120 0 750 400 0.005

Table C3 – 8th Street Station

Material

Depth to Layer

Bottom (ft)

General Soil Type


(pcf)


Cohesion (psf)

k (pci)

e50 (%)

Fill 0 to 6 Sand 110 28 0 50 ---

Fill 6 to 10 Clay 120 0 500 300 0.005

Fill 10 to 14 Sand 120 30 0 60 ---


14 and below Clay 120 0 500 300 0.005



Table C4 – 24th Street Station

Material

Depth to Layer

Bottom (ft)

General Soil Type


(pcf)


Cohesion (psf)

k (pci)

e50 (%)

Fill 0 to 4 Clay 120 0 500 300 0.005

Alluvium 4 and below Sand 115 30 0 90 ---

Table C5 – Bayfront/E Street Station

Material

Depth to Layer

Bottom (ft)

General Soil Type


(pcf)


Cohesion (psf)

k (pci)

e50 (%)

Fill 0 to 4 Sand 120 28 0 90 ---


4 and below Sand 120 30 0 120 ---

Table C6 – H Street Station

Material

Depth to Layer

Bottom (ft)

General Soil Type


(pcf)


Cohesion (psf)

k (pci)

e50 (%)

Fill 0 to 2 Sand 110 28 0 90 ---

Alluvium 2 to 8 Clay 120 0 750 400 0.005

Alluvium 8 and below Sand 120 30 0 90 ---



Table C7 – Palomar Street Station

Material

Depth to Layer

Bottom (ft)

General Soil Type


(pcf)


Cohesion (psf)

k (pci)

e50 (%)

Fill 0 to 6 Clay 115 0 750 300 0.010

Fill 6 to 11 Sand 115 32 0 120 ---


11 and below Sand 120 32 0 120 ---

Table C8 – Palm Avenue Station

Material

Depth to Layer

Bottom (ft)

General Soil Type


(pcf)


Cohesion (psf)

k (pci)

e50 (%)

Fill 0 to 1 Sand 110 28 0 25 ---


1 and below Sand 120 32 0 90 ---

Table C9 – Iris Avenue Station

Material

Depth to Layer

Bottom (ft)

General Soil Type


(pcf)


Cohesion (psf)

k (pci)

e50 (%)

Fill 0 to 4 Sand 110 28 0 30 ---


4 and below Sand 120 30 0 90 ---

Table C10 – Beyer Boulevard Station

Material

Depth to Layer

Bottom (ft)

General Soil Type


(pcf)


Cohesion (psf)

k (pci)

e50 (%)

Fill 0 to 11 Sand 110 28 0 30 ---


11 and below Sand 120 30 0 90 ---



APPENDIX D

KIMLEY-HORN REVIEW COMMENTS

Blue Line LRT Station ImprovementsSan Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California

Appendix DProject No. 104804040

Page No. Section Comment Response By Ninyo & Moore

2 3; Table 1

Make the following revisions to the list of planned improvements at the stations: add a wall at Harborside; remove wall from Palm Avenue, add pavement to 8th Street, H Street and Palm Ave

Revisions made to Table 1.

7 7.1Provide recommendations regarding slope stability for new permanent slopes…is a 2:1 slope acceptable or will flatter slopes be required.

Fill slopes may be constructed as steep as 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). See Section 7.1.6.

-The existing fill soils beneath new slabs should be overexcavated to provide a 2-foot thick zone of compacted fill below the planned grades. -The existing fill soils beneath new parking lot pavements should be overexcavated to provide an 18-inch thick zone of compacted fill below the planned subgrades.-Additional remedial grading may be required depending on the exposed materials.-The exposed ground surface should be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches and watered or dried, as needed, to achieve moisture contents near the laboratory optimum.-The scarified materials should be compacted to 90 percent of their modified Proctor density as evaluated by ASTM D1557.-Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose thickness. -Each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve a moisture content near the laboratory optimum, mixed and then compacted to 95 percent of its modified Proctor density as evaluated by ASTM D1557.

10 7.2 Provide design modulus of sub-grade for design of concrete slab-on-grade.

A design modulus of subgrade reaction of 160 pounds per cubic inch (pci) may be used for design of the concrete slabs-on-grade. See Section 7.2.

10 7.2Are there any special sub-grade requirements such as a layer of aggregate base (Class 2 or Class 3) required prior to placement of the concrete slab-on-grade?

Exterior slabs-on-grade may be constructed on the fill soils provided they meet the material requirements of Section 7.1.5 and have been placed and compacted in accordance with the earthwork recommendations.

14 7.5Add Harborside and remove Palm Avenue from the list of stations with proposed retaining walls in the first sentence.

Revisions made to the first sentence. See Section 7.5.

14 7.5Provide recommendations for soldier pile and lagging wall design for wall northwest of the proposed platform at Beyer.

Recommendations for soldier-pile-and-lagging walls are provided in Section 7.6.

14 7.5

Provide additional recommendations for Beyer where wall footing will be placed into existing slope and a horizontal distance of 10 feet is not valid due to proximity of another existing wall at the toe of the slope.

A reduced allowable passive resistance should be used to resist lateral loads. See Section 7.5.

14 7.5 Provide lateral earth pressure distribution for seismic loading or state that seismic earth pressure loading not required and provide reasoning.

Seismic lateral earth pressures are not required for walls less than 12 feet in height

16 7.7Add 8th Street and Palm Avenue to list of stations with pavement improvements.

Revisions made to the list of stations with pavement improvements. See Section 7.8

Figure 3Note 6 references 2001 CBC, current design code is the 2007 CBC. Update note to reference Figure 1805.3.1 of the 2007 CBC.

Note 6 has been updated. See Figure 3

Figure 4

Note 4 references a dynamic lateral earth pressure based on a peak ground acceleration that is left blank. There also is no dynamic lateral earth pressure provided…please resolve.

The reference was deleted. See Figure 4. Seismic lateral earth pressures are not required for walls less than 12 feet in height.

8 7.1.2 and 7.1.4

Create a list of subgrade prep notes (over-excavation and scarifying) that can be transferred to design plan general notes.

Kimley-Horn Review Comments

104804040 Appendix D.xls 1 of 1

geotechnical evaluation blue line lrt …€¦ · table 5 – recommended parameters for brom’s...

Documents