GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION BLUE LINE LRT …€¦ · Table 5 – Recommended Parameters for Brom’s...
Transcript of 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
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
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
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 2
• 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
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 3
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
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 4
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
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 5
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
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 6
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
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 7
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 8
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 9
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
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 10
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 11
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 12
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 13
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-
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 14
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
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 15
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
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 16
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-
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 17
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-
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 18
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 19
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 20
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-
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 21
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 22
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 23
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-
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 24
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 25
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 26
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.
NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. SOURCE: BLUE LINE TROLLEY STATION IMPROVEMENTS, KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., DATED 7/14/10.
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
BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETTD=16.5'
LEGEND
B-6
BLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTSSAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA3/11
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.
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
BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETTD=16.5'
LEGEND
B-8
TD=16.5'
TD=16.5'
B-8
B-7
BLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTSSAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA3/11
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.
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
BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETTD=16.5'
LEGEND
B-11
TD=16.5'B-9
TD=16.5'
TD=16.5'
B-10
B-11
BLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTSSAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA3/11
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.
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
BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETTD=16.0'
LEGEND
B-13
TD=16.0'
TD=16.0'
B-13
B-12
BLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTSSAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA3/11
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.
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
BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETTD=16.0'
LEGEND
B-16
TD=16.5'
TD=16.0'
TD=16.5'
B-15
B-16
B-14
BLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTSSAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA3/11
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.
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
BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETTD=16.5'
LEGEND
B-18
TD=16.5'
TD=16.5'
B-17
B-18
BLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTSSAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA3/11
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.
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
BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETTD=7.0'
LEGEND
B-20
TD=16.5'
TD=7.0'
B-19
B-20
BLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTSSAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA3/11
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.
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
BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETTD=15.5'
LEGEND
B-22
TD=16.5'
TD=15.5'
B-21
B-22
BLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTSSAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA3/11
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.
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
BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETTD=4.0'
LEGEND
B-26
TD=16.5'
TD=15.0'
TD=5.0'
TD=4.0'
B-23
B-24
B-25
B-26
BLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTSSAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA3/11
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/08/10 BORING NO. B-2
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
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.
BORING LOGBLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTS
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/09/10 BORING NO. B-5
GROUND ELEVATION 13' ± (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
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.
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.
BORING LOGBLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTS
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/09/10 BORING NO. B-6
GROUND ELEVATION 13' ± (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
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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/15/10 BORING NO. B-7
GROUND ELEVATION 10' ± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Solid Stem Auger (Tripod) (Pacific Drilling)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Cathead) DROP 30"
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.
Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater encountered at approximately 11 feet during drilling.Backfilled with approximately 3.2 cubic feet of bentonite grout and patched with concreteshortly after drilling on 11/15/10.
Note: Groundwater may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitationand several other factors as discussed in the report.
BORING LOGBLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTS
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/15/10 BORING NO. B-8
GROUND ELEVATION 10' ± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Solid Stem Auger (Tripod) (Pacific Drilling)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Cathead) DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY MJB LOGGED BY MJB REVIEWED BY JG
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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/17/10 BORING NO. B-9
GROUND ELEVATION 24' ± (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 MJB LOGGED BY MJB REVIEWED BY JG
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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/17/10 BORING NO. B-10
GROUND ELEVATION 24' ± (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 MJB LOGGED BY MJB REVIEWED BY JG
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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/17/10 BORING NO. B-11
GROUND ELEVATION 24' ± (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 MJB LOGGED BY MJB REVIEWED BY JG
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.
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.
BORING LOGBLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTS
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/05/10 BORING NO. B-12
GROUND ELEVATION 35' ± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Solid Stem Auger (Pacific Drilling)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Cathead) DROP 30"
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.
Total Depth = 16 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite and patched with concrete shortly after drilling on 11/05/10.
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.
BORING LOGBLUE LINE LRT STATION IMPROVEMENTS
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/05/10 BORING NO. B-13
GROUND ELEVATION 35' ± (MSL) SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Solid Stem Auger (Pacific Drilling)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Cathead) DROP 30"
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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/18/10 BORING NO. B-14
GROUND ELEVATION 24' ± (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 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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/18/10 BORING NO. B-15
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 MJG LOGGED BY MJG REVIEWED BY JG
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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/18/10 BORING NO. B-16
GROUND ELEVATION 26' ± (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 MJG LOGGED BY MJG REVIEWED BY JG
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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/16/10 BORING NO. B-17
GROUND ELEVATION 50' ± (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 MJB LOGGED BY MJB REVIEWED BY JG
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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/16/10 BORING NO. B-18
GROUND ELEVATION 50' ± (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 MJB LOGGED BY MJB REVIEWED BY JG
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.
Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite and patched with concrete shortly after drilling on 11/19/10.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/19/10 BORING NO. B-19
GROUND ELEVATION 46' ± (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 MJG LOGGED BY MJG REVIEWED BY JG
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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/19/10 BORING NO. B-20
GROUND ELEVATION 45' ± (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 MJG LOGGED BY MJG REVIEWED BY JG
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.
Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite and patched with concrete shortly after drilling on 11/22/10.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/22/10 BORING NO. B-21
GROUND ELEVATION 76' ± (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 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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/22/10 BORING NO. B-22
GROUND ELEVATION 74' ± (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 MBG LOGGED BY MBG REVIEWED BY JG
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.
Total Depth = 16.5 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite and patched with concrete shortly after drilling on 11/23/10.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/23/10 BORING NO. B-23
GROUND ELEVATION 105' ± (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 MBG LOGGED BY MBG REVIEWED BY JG
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.
Total Depth = 15 feet.Groundwater not encountered during drilling.Backfilled with bentonite and patched with concrete shortly after drilling on 11/23/10.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/23/10 BORING NO. B-24
GROUND ELEVATION 97' ± (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 MBG LOGGED BY MBG REVIEWED BY JG
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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/23/10 BORING NO. B-25
GROUND ELEVATION 105' ± (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 MBG LOGGED BY MBG REVIEWED BY JG
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.
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
SAN DIEGO, NATIONAL CITY, AND CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA
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
.
DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 11/23/10 BORING NO. B-26
GROUND ELEVATION 103' ± (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 MBG LOGGED BY MBG REVIEWED BY JG
1
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 2
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.
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc
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
Effective Unit Weight
(pcf)
Friction Angle (degrees)
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
Effective Unit Weight
(pcf)
Friction Angle (degrees)
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 ---
Old Paralic Deposits
14 and below Clay 120 0 500 300 0.005
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 2
Table C4 – 24th Street 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 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
Effective Unit Weight
(pcf)
Friction Angle (degrees)
Cohesion (psf)
k (pci)
e50 (%)
Fill 0 to 4 Sand 120 28 0 90 ---
Old Paralic Deposits
4 and below Sand 120 30 0 120 ---
Table C6 – H Street 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 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 ---
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc 3
Table C7 – Palomar Street 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 6 Clay 115 0 750 300 0.010
Fill 6 to 11 Sand 115 32 0 120 ---
Old Paralic Deposits
11 and below Sand 120 32 0 120 ---
Table C8 – Palm Avenue 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 1 Sand 110 28 0 25 ---
Old Paralic Deposits
1 and below Sand 120 32 0 90 ---
Table C9 – Iris Avenue 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 4 Sand 110 28 0 30 ---
Old Paralic Deposits
4 and below Sand 120 30 0 90 ---
Table C10 – Beyer Boulevard 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 11 Sand 110 28 0 30 ---
Old Paralic Deposits
11 and below Sand 120 30 0 90 ---
Blue Line LRT Station Improvements March 3, 2011 San Diego, National City, and Chula Vista, California Project No. 104804040
104804040 R Blue Line.doc
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