Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1973-6987Form No~ 310 Revo 8-67 RESOLUTION NOa 6987 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING PROPOSAL OF BEMENT-DAINWOOD-STURGEON FOR FIELD INVESTIGATION OF STORM DRAIN FACILITIES ON "J" STREET The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that that certain proposal, submitted by Bement-Dainwood-Sturgeon for field investigation as contained in their letter of July 27, , 1973 , a copy of which is attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, the same as though fully set forth herein be, and the same is hereby accepted and approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to execute same for and on behalf of said City. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to expend from the unencumbered balance of Gas Tax Fund 141-A sufficient funds to cover the cost of consultants services and material testing by an independent laboratory. The Bement-Dainwood- Sturgeon cost is not expected to exceed $4,000, however, specific. approval will be requested from the City Council if the total amount for this investigation and report exceeds $8,000. Presented by Lane F. Cole, Director of Public Works Approved as to form by George Lindberg, City Attor y ADOPTED AND APPROVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 21st day of August , 1973 , by the following vote, to-wit: AYES • Councilmen Scott, Hobel, Hamilton, Hyde NAYES: Councilmen None ABSENT: Councilmen Egdahl Mayor of the City of Chu a Vista ~,-~ ,,,~ ATT E S'~~ ;~ ~~,~~ City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ~ ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I~ , City Clerk of Vista, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above correct copy of Resolution No. , and that the amended or repealede DATED the City of Chula is a full, true and same has not been City Clerk ~~ ~~~titL~.+ BEMENT - DAINWOOD -STURGEON' ' 1 ''',~~; ~~~#~'T. CIVIL ENGINEERS ' 6151 FAIRMOUNT AVE. • SUITE 1 11 • SAN DIEGO, CALIF. 92120 (714) 280-4842 July 27, 1973 Mr. William Rob ens Assistant Director of Public Works City of Chula Vista 276 Guava Chula Vista, California Subject: Engineering Investigation of 48" F, S4" CMP failure on 'J' Street between East Manor Drive and 4th Avenue. Dear Mr. Rob ens: We met with Ken Goldkamp, Dewey Hughes and Doug Dungan, of your office on July 26, 1973, and reviewed the failure of the 48" dia. and 54" dia. storm drain pipe on 'J' Street. Following is our proposal for investigating the cause of failure and preparing recommendations to correct deficiencies discovered. Step 1: Review existing data A. Review contract documents. B. Review construction reports, logs, letters and test reports. C. Discuss construction procedures and problems with the project engineer and inspector. D. Visually inspect inside of pipe. Step 2: Field Investigation A. Digging of. four test pits (2 at 48" dza pipe and 2 at 54" dia pipe) to determine the following: 1. Soil Density - Take density tests at 2' intervals from road surface to button of pips: to check compliance with project. specifications. 2. land Egaaivalett - ;~ir1;,e lr:~ckfi 11 was consolidute.d bz° floa~d~ng, take. reF~resent- a° eve ~.E.'s to c~.ec~c $°ompliance wi~~* specfi~at~cns. _ _~ ~. ~;'~ L' ! . Page Two 3. Remove (by sawing) sections of the pipe seam for observation and testing. 4. Check backfill for non-complying materials. S. Check area around pipe for voids or loose uncompacted backfill. 6. If deemed appropriate, have a full section of pipe removed for l4.ad testing. We would supervise such a test. 7. Call for, and supervise, any additional tests that may become necessary as the investigation proceeds. B. Review and analyze data thus obtained and prepare a report on the cause of failure. Note: It is our understanding that: 1) The City will furnish any equipment and personnel necessary to dig the test pits, shore the excavation and to recover any pipe samples; 2) City Engineering personnel will be available to assist in the investigation, collect data, assist in research, etc; 3) In the event that a full size pipe test is undertaken, the City will pay for the test (We will supervise the test). Step 3: Engineering design for Corrective Action Cost Estimate Step 1: Engineering 23 Hours @ $22.00/hr = $506.00 Step 2: Engineering - 32 Hrs. Field Investigation @ $22.00/hr = $704.00 24 Hrs. Review test data $ write report @ $22.00/hr = $528.00 32 Hxs. Field Technician @ $15.50/hr = $496.00 Testing - Sar.d Equivalents 8 @ $15.00 $120.00 Moisture/Density Curves 6 @ $60.00 = $360.00 Misc. Testing - Estimate = $200.00 (Tensile test, Chemical) ---~ ,~ // varuca u. Dement JDB:ps Page Three Full Size Load Test - Engineering Supervision only 10 hrs @ $22.00/hr = $220.00 (See note 3 above. ) Step 3: Engineering - 28 hrs @ $22.OU/hr = $616.00 Drafting - 12 hrs @ $16.00/fir = $192.00 $3,St42.00 We estimate that the investigation and recommendations will cost between $3,500.00 and $4,000.00. We feel it is extremely important that a thorough study of the situation be made prior to further consolidation or the taking of any corrective action. Once the contractor begins repair work, much of the existing evidence, which may be required for future litigation may be destroyed. Engineering consultation after our investigation and recommendations have been made, will be billed per our standard fee schedule. i. e. construction supervision, consultation with the City's legal staff, etc. If you have any questions regarding the above proposal, please give me a call. Very truly yours, J'~ ~,.«:.,,, James D. Bement JDB:ps ~---, r, - ~ -~ ~ ~ - !, CIiR0iJ0I,OGICAL DESCRII'TI.GJ OF EVEa7TS May 16, 1973 A conference was l.eld between City Engineering sta~f, Hubbard Construction Company personnel and representa`ive ~ of Pacific Corrugated Company, the suppliers of the __~e. • See conference notes attached. Play 21, 1973 Hubbard Construction Company submitted a letter that tey received from Pacific Corrugated Company disclaiming any responsibility for the pipe failure and placing ~e blame on faulty construction procedure. Iiay 24, 1973 Inspector and contractor's foreman inspected full le::~t'.~~ of the 54" and 48" culvert pipes and made note of failure areas and their. approximate locations< PictL_es were also taken. June 22, 1973 A conference was held between Lane Cole, City Enrineer, and Lee Hubbard, Jr., contractor, and staff personnel. See conference notes attached. July 7, 1973 Inspector and City Sewer' foreman made detailed inspecticn of 54" and 48" pipes noting stations of each joint a:: furtrier locations of pipe failure. J111.~' l7, 17J '..1L~' Cl:y~11~Ct~ d11U 1;25pCC,LC;r SVE:IIL Lrroucrl L^. C' S4~~ a.,.c 48" pipes examining failure areas and noting new locations. On July 26, 1973, Engineers Yen Goldkarnp and Dewey Hughes met with James Bement and John Dainwood, Consulting Engineers, to discuss the failure problems. The consultants were requested to submit their proposal for investigating the pipe failure, determine the probable cause of failure and to make their re c,orlmendations as to rlethods for correcting the deficiencies discovered. r , ~ r ~ `~ ~ ~t!13E_l c l~~or,E:s Dr: E't~r,T!lE!!~- - . -CUPdrf~RLi~C f~0~1CS°~ S u b j e c t o f F1 e e t i rt c! : r ~~S t~_~ 1~~ic2r~u~i,farilL_~..I~i_s~us_s~i_~.ia~o~l]-uri~r~.~_t~l~1c~_~~-- Corru~,ateci Metal Pi_pe_ Storm Drain Date of ~ieeti nc~:_G 27. 73 Time Started: 10:~L5 In /lttendance: ri d 111 C' Lee I~ubbard Jr. J~lax Sllel.t:on Dick Ai:i:Ller Lane Cole ]3111 RobLlls Ken Goldl:amp 'be->>ey llughes Douglas Dwlgan Dick Dysart Location : ]:n~ineerins~ Conference l:oor_, I T i m e C o m p l e t e d: ]. l: 3 0 _____.J_ ~ l~t'(1at11?1t.1011 Hubbard Consi.ruction Co. „ „ r, r, „ City of Chula Vista rr r, r, „ r, „ rr „ rt rr rr tr rr r, r, rr rt rr r, • F f1 C' !1 ~~ I.0 . COILtI"~iCt01 Project: Super_;_;~tende~ Project hore,~,::,: Dir. of Public 1;orl:s Asst. Dir. of: Pub. I,i- Senior Civil Eng. Associate Ci1~il Fang. Engr . 'I'c ch . I I Engr . 'Te ell . I I CTIOf; 7~r,l:EN ~;'~1D/OP, SUI";Ii1`,P,Y OF i~;A.T~CE.RS D1Sr„'US~;EL`: The Cit}r will determine a definite plan for correcti~re work to be perfor;.,ed b}T the contractor in about s weeks. The City will retain its own consultant. The contractor will determine how long it will take to get new pipe. The City will prepare agreement for execution by the contractor. Lane Cole opened meeting; presented general hackground of project. hen Goldkamp explained criteria for determining rejection of pipe. Based on initial measurements approximatel}' 300'+ 4S" CI`1P will have to be remover or replaced. Aiay have to remove approximately 100' + 54" CA1P depending t;~or. how serious metal cracking; is. Generally accept pipe that has factor of safety grea.tCr than 2, 12.5 0 or less dcflectio'n and minimum of 93 ~- hyclr:~:ilic capacit:}r. Replacement of additional pipe trill be dependent upon exposul; in the field allcl geometric shape. Dick Dysart discusses cracking of aspha?t lining. Cracks arc 1/S" wide or more in spots. Cracks have continued to open. Discussed shape of pipe. Lane Cole made several proposals: 1. Retaining an independent consultant to examine the pipe fai.lure.. 2. Aionitor the pipe for a period of 4 months, 6 months or a year to determine if further failures occur or will occur or to deterri~ne. if. situation has stabilized. J ~ -~ ;" ~~~ 3, City accept the project upon the co~iditi.on that t}ze contractor enter into an agreement: and Fast a gu;u•antee o:C the work pr.r:torrtecl un~I~r the contract. 'l'lii_s tz~kcs pl~lce aFt.er the co~ltractor completes i:he corrective work clcsi.gnatcd by the City. ee~ Ilubbarcl rcclticstecl a do k:finite plan from the City. ~lentioncd all. so i :l. tests, assccl, project held continuous inspect.i.on. 1'.lan sha:11 designate what orrcct:ive work must. Ue~performed. Doesn't ~~~ant to clo work p.i.e:ce~nea].. orx•cctive work ~ni 11 be p:lacecl under a separate account. 1Ji1]. take act ion o recoup costs. greeable to consultant. City retain one. 1Ie will retain one to determ:i_nc if esign or p.i.pe :Failure. g•rceable to agreement and bond. 1'~ants to do corrective work as soon as ossible to avoid next years rainy season. coup cliscussecl project as a whole.t Discussed whether failure is due to pine ant>.:F.acturer, poor performance by contractor, design, compared l,ipe with torm drain constructed from I-5 Freeway to bast Park Lane. D:iscussed soil nd trench conditions. Discussed waviness of pipe flow line. ax Shelton discussed tl~e additional probelms of removing and replacing rejected ipe. Closeness to existing water line and seiner. Commented that ~1S" l~:i_pe as helical not annular. ll(T n1111CP}lil (~iG('11~~if?C~ f:-i':1i l~lC. 7)fOi)~_Ci:~ rii! .) .l (.S~Ct C:llii.I1LT co~'.;>~ri.~,4-t.OIl• ,tl~ `~. ,tl`~_ -. Y~ .