HomeMy WebLinkAbout; 2202 Highland Dr 3-Acre Lot Split; 2202 Highland Dr 3-Acre Lot Split; 1989-02-17i
i
1
1
^H
GBOTECHNICAL ^INVESTIGATION
att PROPOSED LOT SPLIT
• THREE-ACRE SITE
2202 HIGHLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
iH
PREPARED FOR:
^B Karen H* Blunienshine
2202 Highland Drive
« Carlsbad, California 92028
PREPARED BY:M
Ron Gutter (C.E.G.)
^^ and
• Erik J. Nelson (P.E.)
CITY OF CARLSBAD
DEVELOP. PROG. SERV. DIV>
Job No. GN-1
Log No. 1
February 17, 1989
I
I
GEOTECBNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED LOT SPLIT
THREE-ACRE SITE
2202 HIGHLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF
Page
1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ............. * • .......... 1
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION ........................ 2
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING .... ................... 2
3.1 Classification ....................... 2
3.2 Particle Size Analysis ................... 2
3.3 Expansion Index ....... ...... ....... , . 2
3.4 Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content .......... 2
3.5 Direct Shear ........................ 2
3.6 Consolidation ................ ....... 2
4.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ...... .... .............. 4
4.1 Geologic Setting ...................... .4
4.2 Proposed Development ......... .... ....... 5
4.3 Geology and Soils Engineering ............... 5
4.4 Seisaicity ......................... 6
5.0 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . ................. ..... 8
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................... 8
6.1 Earthwork ........ ........ .... ..... 8
7.0 SLOPE STABILITY ............. . ........... 9
7.1 Existing Slopes ...................... 9
7.2 Constructed Slopes ..................... 10
7.3 Temporary Slopes .................. ..... 10
7.4 Settlements ........................ 11
7.5 Surface and Subsurface Drainages . . ............ 12
7.6 Foundations and Slab Recommendations ............ 12
7.6.1 General ..................... 12
7.6.2 Foundations ................... 13
7.6.3 Slabs On-Grade .................. 13
7.6.4 Retaining Walls ................. 14
7.6.5 Reactive Soils .................. 15
7.6.6 Plan Review ................... 15
8.0 LIMITATIONS . ...... .................... 15
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED LOT SPLIT
THREE-ACRE SITE
-2202 TTT<rFTrATan DRIVE
BAD, CALIFORNIA
TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued
I Figure
1 Location Map
Tables
.1
2
Seisnicity for Major Faults
Equivalent Earth Pressures (Ib/ft*)
Plates
1
2
Geologic Map
Cross Sections
APPENDIX A
References
APPENDIX B
Field Exploration
Figures B-l through B-4
Figures TP1 through TP5
Log of Borings
Logs of Test Pits
APPENDIX C
Laboratory- Testing
Table C-l Particle Size Analysis
Table C-2 Expansion Index
Table C-3 Maxima Density/Optimum Moisture Content
Table C-4 Direct Shear
Table C-5 Consolidation
I
I
I
February 17, 1989
Dr. Karen Blrmenshine Job Not GN-1
2202 Highland Drive (. Log No: 1
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Dr. Karen Blunenshine
SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
PROPOSED LOT SPLIT
THREE-ACRE SITE
2202 HIGHLAND DRIVE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Dr. Blunenshine:
This report presents the results of our Preliminary Soils Investigation at the
subject site. Our investigation was performed from October 1987 through February
1989 and consisted of field exploration, laboratory testing , engineering analysis
of the field and laboratory data, and the preparation of this report.
1«0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services provided during the preparation of this Preliminary Geo-
technical Investigation included: •
t(a) Review of previous geologic, soils engineering, and seisnologieal
reports pertinent to the -project area (See Appendix A);
(b) Analysis of sterographic aerial photographs to evaluate the topography
and geologic structure of the area;
(c) Geologic napping of existing exposures and outcrops}
(d) Subsurface exploration including 2 bucket auger borings to a mfly1nnim
depth of 85 -feet* and 10 backhoe test pits;
(e) Logging and sampling of exploratory excavations to evaluate the geo-
logic structure and to obtain ring and bulk samples for laboratory
testing?
Dr. Karon Blumenahine • 'ob Nos GN-1
February 17, 1989 log Ho» 1
Page 2
(f) Laboratory tasting of samples representative of those ancounterad
during the field investigation;
(g) Geologic and engineering analysis of field and laboratory data, which
provide the basis for our conclusions and recommendations.
(h) Preparation of this report and accompanying napsr and other graphics
presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations.
2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION
Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling 2 bucket auger borings to depths
of 34 and 85 feet, the approximate locations of the borings are shown on the
Geologic Map, Plate 1. The -borings were drilled with a truck-mounted 30-inch
diameter bucket auger. In addition, eleven test pits were excavated to a maximum
depth of 25 feet using a track-Mounted backhoe.
Drilling of the test pits and borings was supervised by a registered geologist
who logged the geologic materials and obtained bulk and relatively undisturbed
samples for laboratory testing.
3.0 LABORATORY TESTING
3.1 Classification
»
Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification
System. Classification was supplemented by index tests, such as Particle Sice
Analysis, Hydrometer Tests, and Atterberg Limits. Moisture content and dry
density determinations were made for representative undisturbed samples.
Results of moisture-density determinations, together with, classifications, are
shown in Appendix C.
1
1I
1
I
1
1
11
1
Dr. Karen Blumenahine
February 17, 1989 '
3.2 Particle Size Analysis
Particle size analyses were performed on representative samples
subgrade soils in accordance with ASTM D 422-63. Test results are
C-l.
3.3 Expansion Index
Expansion Index tests were performed on representative samples
soils remolded and tested under a surcharge of 144 pounds per
Job Not GN-
Xiog No: 1
Page 3
of the site's
shown in Table
4
of the on-site
square foot in
accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard No. 29-2. The test results
are summarized in Table C-2.
3.4 Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Content
The maximum dry density/optimum moisture content relationship was determined for
typical samples of the onsite soils. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D
1557-78. The test results are summarized in Table C-3.
3.5 Direct Shear
•
Direct shear strength tests were performed on representative undisturbed and
|•
1
1
|m
1i
remolded (to 90 percent compaction) samples of the on-site soils To simulate
possible adverse field conditions, the samples were saturated prior to shearing.
The tests results are presented in Table C-4.
3.6 Consolidation
t
A Consolidation test was performed on a representative remolded
existing *in aaiia *^> fxijp ^ffimin^ w3«pr*BfflbUity charaeterii
sample of the
itics at a 90%
relative compaction. The sample was saturated at the beginning of the test to
I * i. J»_« _• ft - r. .. . --simulate possible adverse rleia conditions. The test results an
Table C-5.
e presented in
!
'. _I
i
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
Dr. Karen Blumenahine Job Hot GH-1
February 17, 1989 * ' Log Hoi 1
Page 4
4.0 SUB UESCtUrTll
The sits consists of an irregularly-shaped 3-acre parcel of land located at the
northern terminus of Highland Drive in Carlsbad, California (see Location Map,
Figure 1). A wooden frame, single-family dwelling and garage presently exist on
a ridge -top-in -the eastern portion of the parcel. Vegetation consists of scrub
brush and cactus over most of the site, although eucalyptus ±rees are present on
slopes in the northern portion of the property. Topography over the site varies
from relatively flat in the east, to locally vertical in the canyon which bisects
the parcel -in the north-south direction.
A large culvert functioning as a part of the City of Carlsbad storm drain system
is buried at the head of the canyon in the center of the site. This culjrert
empties into ^the bottom of the canyon, although the pipe appears to have broken
at some time prior to this investigation, causing ffon>idinr<iM^ subsidence ffnd
erosion of surrounding fill soils.
4.1 Geologic Setting
The site is situated near the western margin of the peninsular ranges batholith.
Topography within the area of the batholith, which outcrops in the eastern
portion of San Diego County, is steep and mountainous. Topography within the
western portion of the county, where the site is located, is wVn-lMft by imirimt
and non-marine sediments of Cenocoic age*, and is more subdued.
Specifically, the site is underlain by sandstone and conglomerate of the Linda
Vista and Santiago formations. The sandstone is poorly bedded (massive) and well
indurated. An approximately 5-foot thick cobble conglomerate unit locally exists
at the base of the Linda Visa Formation.
•*>.••• v^^rT1 ?••• \ • • s- i
ADAPTED PROM U.8.Q.8. 7.6*
BAN LUIS REV CALIFORNIA 1976
TOPOGRAPHIC OUADRANQLE
LOCATION MAP
FEBRUARY 1989
Dr. Karen Blumenahine Job No: GN-1
February 17, 1989 • Log No: 1
Page 5
4.2 Proposed Development
The site is to be developed into three parcels. The existing home and appurte-
nant structures are located on what is to become the easternmost lot. Two
additional building sites are to be developed on the two new lots proposed for
the central portion of the site.
Proposed grading will include removal of the existing nonengineered fill on the
site and replacement as properly engineered compacted fill. Some elevation
changes may also occur as a result of this grading. At the time of this report,
final grades and site topography had not yet been determined.
4.3 Geology and Soils Engineering
Red sandstone and conglomerate of the Quaternary age Linda Vista formation covers
ridgetops throughout the site and surrounding area. White sandstone, cobble and
pebble conglomerates, and minor' siltstones of the Santiago formation underlie the
Linda Vista formation and crop out at lower elevations. A distinctive cobble
conglomerate unit marks the base of the Linda Vista formation throughout much of
the region. Numerous surficial slope failures exist on the site. In addition,
one relatively large landslide and an area of bedrock downslope creep were
observed to the west of the area of proposed grading.
Colluvium covers natural slopes to maximum depths of under four feet and is
absent on steeper slopes. The colluvium'consists of silts and sands in a loose
condition. In addition, nonengineered fill has been dumped over slopes and into
canyon heads in the south central portion of the site. This fill consists of
silts and sands in a loose to moderately dense condition, and contains considera-
ble amounts of a cable, pipe, and other types of debris in some areas. As much
as 2-feet of settlement has been noted on portions of this fill since its place-
ment. In addition, the fill was not properly benched into bedrock and is not
considered suitable to support foundations in its present condition.
Dr. Karen Blunenahine . Job No: GN-1
February 17, 1989 Log No: 1
Page 6
• 4.4 Seismic!ty
No active or potentially active faults exist on or adjacent to the site. There-
fore, the potential for fault rupture is extremely low. However, as is all of
Southern California, the site is in a seismically active area and will likely
experience varying degrees of ground shaking as a result of movement along active
faults in the region.
Based on work by Greensfelder (1974) and others, the most significant active and
potentially active faults in the region are the Whittier-Elsinore, San Jacinto,
San Andreas, Coronado Banks, and Rose Canyon faults. The greatest impact on the
site would moat likely result from movement along the active Whittier-Elsinore
fault or along the potentially active Rose Canyon fault.
For events along the Whittier-Elsinore, Coronado Banks, or Rose Canyon faults, we
estimate a peak bedrock acceleration at the site of approximately 0.15 g for a
maximum probable event of 7.0m on the active Whittier-Elsinore fault, a 6.5m on
the Coronado Banks fault, or 6.0m on the potentially active Rose Canyon fault.
We do not expect fill accelerations at this site to differ significantly from
bedrock accelerations.
The repeatable high bedrock acceleration is about 65 percent of the peak accel-
eration and is used as a design value for events occurring within 20 miles of the
site. Beyond 20 miles, the peak acceleration is the recommended design value
(Ploessel and Slosson, 1974).
Because the Coronado Banks fault is more than 20 miles from the site, we recom-
mend the use of .15g for a repeatable acceleration on the design of structures at
the site.
1
1
i•
iI .
ji
i•
1
Dr. Karen Blumenahine
February 17, 1989
Fault
ffltittier-Elslnore
San Jaclnto
San Andreas
San CleMOte
Hevport-lpglcNOod
Rose Canyon
Coronado Banks
Table 1.
Distance
From Site
(•lias)
19
45
65
50
40
8
21
Seismicity
Maxima
Probable
Earthquake
7.0
7.5
8.0
7.3
6.5
6.0
6.5
for Major Faults
Estimated
Peak Bedroc*2
. Acceleration
.15g
.09g
.09?
.060.
.04g
.15g
.15g
Job No: GN-1
Log No: 1 *
Page 7
Repeatable
High Bedrock
Acceleration
.10g
.09g
.09g
.06g
.04g
.10g
•isg
Seismic Safety Study City of San Diego (1974) and Bonnilla (1970)
2Seed and Indrlss (1982)
3Ploessel and Slosson (1974)
4Potentlally active
NOTE: Accelerations are based on anticipated bedrock accelerations and do not take Into consideration
topography, loose topsail and alluvial deposits.
We do not consider proposed constructed slopes to be susceptible to failure under
the design earthquake loading, provided the grading recommendations herein are
incorporated into design. However, some minor sloughing of the existing canyon
walls nay occur. The bedrock under this site does not appear likely to undergo
significant settlement as a result of seismic shaking. However, the loose and
medium dense fill soils are presently considered compressible. Any measures
taken to mitigate the compressibility of the fill during grading would also
affect the potential for seismically induced settlement. Recompaction during
grading should reduce the potential for seismically induced settlement to accept-
able levels. In the event of a significant seismic event, liquefaction within
fill soils at -this site is not considered likely due to the high relative density^
of proposed recompacted fill and the absence of groundwater.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dr. Karen Blumenahine Job No: GN-1
February 17, 1989 • ' Log No: 1
Page 8
The site is not subject to inundation by tsunamis or seiches because of its
elevation and distance from a major body of water. No reservoirs currently exist
that are capable of flooding the property.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the soil exploration and testing, it is concluded that
slope and site soil modifications will be necessary for the proposed develop-
ments. Modifications which have been recommended are:
(a) Removing and replacing the existing uncompacted fill soils with uni-
formly compacted structural fill.
(b) Regrooming of the existing slopes to a slope ratio of 2.5si horizontal
to vertical.
(c) If regrooming of the slope will not leave adequate building area at the
top of the slope, slopes may be retained with a cribwall, permanent *
soldierpile and lagging wall or other applicable retaining walls. •
(d) Foundations for proposed structures should bear entirely on bedrock or
fill, or if placed over a cut/fill transition, the cut portion of the
building pad should be excavated to a depth of at least 5 feet below
the bottom of footings and replaced with compacted fill and designed s
for a moderate bearing capacity.
I
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS \_
6.1 Earthwork *f
Earthwork and grading on the site should be performed in accordance with Chapter **70 of the Unified Building Code. Continuous observation of grading by a quali- '•
fied geotechnical engineer is essential to confirm the findings of this report f
and to confirm that grading is accomplished in accordance with the recommenda- I
tions of this report and those of local governing agencies.
Dr. Karen Blumenahine Job No: GN-1
February 17, 1989 Log No: 1
Page 9
All uncompacted fill soils located on the site should be completely removed down
to competent bedrock. Any organies or other deleterious materials encountered
should be removed and disposed of offsite. If structures are to be placed across
the cut/fill transition, the cut portion below the building 'and for 5 feet beyond
I the perimeter should be removed to a depth of 5 feet below the bottom of the
lowest footing. This excavation should then be brought back to the desired grade
I by placing fill in 8-inch thick lifts (loose) and compacting to 90% of maximum
dry density at or near optimum moisture content as calculated by ASTM test method
D-1557. All excavations should be observed by a geotechnical engineer or engi-
neering geologist, prior to placing any fill, reinforcing steel, or concrete.I
I
I
Fill soils may be derived from the onsite soils or bedrock. The existing uncom-
I pacted fill may be reused provided all organies, large rock and other deleterious
materials are removed. Sufficient observation and testing should be performed in
order than an opinion can be formed as to the degree of compaction which has been
I achieved.
I
[
[
[
[
(
[
The intent of this recommendation is to reduce differential settlements to a
minimum. Differential settlements will not be completely eliminated and some
settlements will still occur. Details regarding settlements will be presented
later in this report.
7.0 SLOPE STABILITY
7.1 Existing Slopes
As previously mentioned, the entire northern side of both lots is bounded by
steep slopes of both uncompacted fill and weakly cemented bedrock. The slope
ratio of these slopes approaches vertical in several areas and is typically
between 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), and 1:1 with total height of up to 100
feet. These slopes have been created by end dumped fill and erosion. Although
these slopes are currently showing no signs of deep-seated instability they are
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Or. Karen Blunenahine Job No: GN-1
February 17, 1989 Log No: 1
Page 10
*
most likely standing at a very low factor of safety. These slopes should be
considered unstable in this present condition. Excessive rainfall or irrigation
causing saturation of the soils, significant seismic events or even surcharge
loading, such as that resulting from placing a structure 'at the top of the slope,
could cause failure of the existing slopes.
7.2 Constructed Slopes
If the existing slopes are regroomed to a stable slope ratio, it is recommended
that a maximum slope ratio of 2.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) be used. Such a
slope may be constructed from the onsite materials provided proper compaction is
achieved. Due to the height of the slopes in question, the above slope ratio
should be used for both cut and fill portions of slopes. Any fill materials
placed on the face and/or the toe of slopes should be properly benched and keyed
into competent bedrock. All benching and keys should be observed by a geotechni-
cal engineer or geologist, prior to fill placement.
Soils on this site are generally susceptible to erosion. It is therefore recom-
mended that slopes be planted as soon as possible after construction. It is
recommended that deep-rooted plants, well adapted to a semi-arid climate, be
used. Site drainage should be directed away from the top of all slopes.
7.3 Temporary Slopes
Temporary slopes cut into the site materials should be stable for short periods
at a slope ratio of 1:1 for slopes up to 15 feet. Temporary slopes, which exceed
15 feet, should cut at 1.75:1 in order to provide adequate safety for workers and
adjacent property. If steeper slope ratios are necessary shoring or bracing may
be needed to provide A safe and stable working area.
I
Dr. Karen Blumenahine Job Not GN-1
February 17, 1989 ' Log No: 1
Page 11
Although calculations and observations indicate construction slopes should be
stable at these heights and slope ratios, local backcut failures are possible due
to variations .in onsite conditions. No warranties are made as to the stability
of temporary slopes. The contractor should proceed in such a manner as to
provide safe working conditions and to avoid impacting adjacent properties. The
contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary slopes.
Actual backslope ratios are left to the discretion of the contractor, who should
abide by the regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
7.4 Settlements
| Due to the unacceptably high settlements expected in the existing fill soils, it
has been recommended that these soils be removed and replaced with compacted
I fill. It should be noted that this will not completely eliminate settlements,
and that some settlements will still occur. It is recommended that a period of
I time of at least 6 months be allowed between placement of the fill and construc-
* tion of buildings to allow some settlements to occur without impact on struc-
S tures. It is further recommended that this settlement be monitored by survey
monuments placed at the surface of the fill. The elevation of these monuments
should be checked periodically and plotted on a graph. Once it appears that
I settlements have been mostly completed, building construction may begin with
minimal impact due to settlements.
I
I
I
I
Provided the recommendations contained in this report are completely complied
with, settlements should be less than 1 inch total and 1/2 inch differential for
structures founded on fill soils. If structures are founded entirely on bedrock,
settlements should be negligible. Although settlements are expected to be within
tolerable limits, some minor cracking of slabs and walls should be expected.
These minor cracks can be due to small differential settlements over short dis-
tances and to expansion and temperature stresses.
I
(Or. Karen Blumenahine Job No: GN-1
February 17, 1989 . Log No: 1
Page 12
7.5 Surf ace and Subsurface Drainages
' The performance of foundations is highly dependant on maintaining adequate
- surface drainage both during and after construction. The ground surface around
| structures should be graded so that surface water is directed quickly away from
the structure without ponding. It is recommended that a ™< ninnm gradient of 2
I percent be maintained in paved or lawn areas and a Biiniimm gradient of 5 percent
in heavily landscaped or areas with flow-inhibiting ground cover. Roof drain
I runoff should be carried across all backfilled areas and discharged at least 10
feet away from foundations. Planters should be constructed so that moisture is
not allowed to seep into foundation areas or beneath slabs and pavements.m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Poor drainage could result in moisture penetrating into the fill soils and
causing settlements of structures in excess of those presented in Section 7.4,
Settlements.
7.6 Foundation and Slab Recommendations
7.6.1 General
| The recommendations contained in this report are considered consistent with
standards of practice in the Carlsbad area at the time this report 'was prepared.
I Reinforcement recommendations presented are considered the minimum necessary for
the soil conditions encountered in our exploration and are not intended to super-
I sede design recommendations made by the Structural Engineer or governing
agencies.
All excavations for foundations and overexcavation should be observed by the
soils engineer prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement, concrete or
additional fill. All excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square.
Loose-, or unsuitable materials should be removed prior to the placement of
concrete or fill. Materials from footing excavations -should not be spread in
slab-on-grade areas unless compacted.
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Dr. Karen Blumenahine Job No:. GN-1
February 17, 1989 ' • Log No* 1
Page 13
7.6.2 Foundations
It is anticipated that a shallow foundation system will be suitable to support
the proposed structures. Such a foundation system should bear either entirely on
bedrock or on at least 5 feet of compacted fill material.
Footings which bear entirely on bedrock may be designed for a maximum allowable
bearing capacity of 3000 lb/ft3. Footings which are founded on fill soils should
be designed for a i»*»tm^ allowable bearing capacity of 2000 lb/fta. All foot-
ings should be at least 12 inches wide and founded at least 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent compacted subgrade. All footings should have an equal amount of
reinforcing steel placed at the top of the stemwall and the bottom of the foot-
ing. The minimum amount of steel considered necessary is that resulting from
designing stemwalls as a simply supported beam capable of supporting the applied
loads over a span of 12 feet.
If footings are placed adjacent to slopes it is recommended that the foundations
be deepened to provide a minimum horizontal distance from the slope face of at
least 10 feet. If footings are placed which will require the implementation of
this recommendations, foundation plans should be reviewed by the geotechnical
consultant prior to construction.
Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure against the vertical faces of
foundations or by friction between footing bottoms and the underlying soils.
Passive pressures may be assumed as 200 lb/fta per foot of depth. A coefficient
of friction of 0.4 may be assumed between concrete and soil. When combining
frictional and passive resistance, the latter should be reduced by one-third.
7.6.3 Slabs On-Grade
On-grade slabs may be used in conjunction with shallow foundation systems. The
design of these slabs should be calculated by a structural engineer. This design
I
I
I
I
I
Dr. Karen Blumenahine Job No: GN-1
February 17, 1989 ' I»og No: 1
Page 14
may be based on a modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 kips per cubic foot. It is
recommended that slabs be underlain by at least four inches of crushed rock or
coarse washed sand as a capillary break. If a moisture barrier is used, it
should be overlain by at least 2' inches of sand to decrease the likelihood of
curing problems. Due to the low expansion potential of the onsite soils, special
slab recommendations regarding expansive soils are not considered necessary.
7.6.4 Retaining Walls
Lateral earth pressures bearing against the back of retaining walls or cribwalls
may be expressed as an equivalent fluid pressure (efp). This efp will vary
depending upon the type of wall constructed and backfill slope ratios. Walls
which are free to rotate at the top, up to 0.1 percent of the wall height should
be designed for the active condition. Walls which will be tied'back or re-
strained at the top should be designed for the at-rest condition. Table 2
presents equivalent earth pressures which should be suitable for the onsite
soils. If import soils are used, or soils other than those indicated in this
report are encountered, some adjustments to these earth pressures may be neces-
sary.
Table 2. Equivalent Earth Pressures (lb/ft3)
2.5:1Ball Condition Level Backfill Sloped Backfill
Active 51 62
(Unrestrained Wall)
At Rest 75 88
(Restrained Mall)
The lateral earth pressures presented above do not include allowances for addi-
tional-surcharges-at the-top of the wall or hydrostatic pressures. All backfill
placed behind walls should be completely drained to prevent the buildup of water
behind the wall. Passive pressures used to-resist..sliding were presented previ-
ously in Section 7.6.2, Foundations.
Dr. Karen Blumenahine . Job No: GN-1
February 17, 1989 Log No: 1
Page IS
7.6.5 Reactive Soils . .
Although no testing was performed to determine the corrosivity of onsite soils to
concrete, the soils in this area typically contain sulfates in quantities high
enough to be detrimental to Type I cement. For this reason the use of Type II
cement is recommended for all concrete placed in contact with soil or water on
this site.
7.6.6 Plan Review
It is recommended that all grading plans and foundation plans be reviewed by a
geotechnical engineer prior to implementation. Review of plans may necessitate
additional investigation or a change in recommendations if the project is signi-
ficantly different from the project currently proposed.
8.0 LIMITATIONS 4
*
The findings, recommendations and other information contained in this report are #
valid only for the proposed lot split at 2202 Highland Drive, in Carlsbad, Cali-
fornia. This information is not applicable to any other site regardless of v*
proximity or geographical location to this site. This investigation was per- * ,v;
formed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised in the Carlsbad I
area at the time this report was issued. As with all fields of science, tech- ||f
nological advances are made in the field of engineering daily. This report may ^
not reflect advances made after, or recent to, the date of publication. No fftwarranty either express or implied is made as to the conclusions and professional : ~||
advice included in this report. H
• • x" 4The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon geologic and
engineering inferences made from data obtained at selected locations on the site.
Geologic structures or strata may vary between borings or trenches. Therefore,
some inconsistencies may be encountered during grading. Should this occur,
additional investigation may be required for the continuance of the project.
I
11
1
Dr. Karen Blumenahine
February 17, 1989
It is the owner's responsibility
brought to the attention of the
Job No: GN-1
Log No: 1
Page 16
to ensure that the information in this report is
architect, engineer; and contractor, and that
«A«^MA A^.«*WM M«kJl ••••W.«4*«t4*w*fc.M4>«*«>« *«^IP^«B «***^ ^1*A0A *»A44^MflMAi*«4 m 4* 4 MM a
I
V WAA U-t AW US* B AUU B UWWUAA U*. CM* UWA 9 WCU. Jb JT WU *• *•**«»*» J. 9 w WWHWMMC* w^%«««9 •
The individuals responsible for this report do not practice in the field of
safety engineering. We do not direct, and may not even be aware of the con-
(
1
tractor's operations. Therefore, the safety of workers and adjacent properties
are the responsibility of the contractor.
The findings of this report may be considered accurate for a period of three
years. After this time, the report should be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer
to determine the accuracy of the findings. If significant, changes have occurred
due to time or acts of man, an additional investigation should be performed.
1
1
1
•
I
1
1
I
I
1
1
-
2~&><*e&Z-
. Erik J. Nelson
R.C.E. No. C44102
Expiration Date 6/30/89
^***"*^^
X*!2§*XAtxplx<l\
§!l^ <fiH\BHKiJ *!Jjs J
\"-** 'If iWii-X' WSjl
-v^_«^
^^^^^^&^rRon Gutier ^^
Engineering Geologist
C.E.6. 1407
Expiration Date 6/30/90
•
•
''-•
•
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REFERENCES
I
I
Greensfelder, Roger W., 1974, "Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes
I in California," CDMG Hap Sheet 23.
W*
Kennedy, M.P., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area: California
Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin 200.
Kennedy, M.P., and Welday, E. E., 1980, Character and recency of faulting offshore
metropolitan San Diego, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map
Sheet 40, 1:50,000.
APPENDIX B
FIELD EXPLORATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
1
LOGS OF BORINGS
\
OATP OBSERVED! , JJ,/7/R7 UBTMOO Of DRILLING? 30 inch bucket HUBCr
4113 Ibs to 25'. 2981 Ibs to 47'. 2168 Ibs to 70'
LOGGED BY? R.G. GROUND ELEVATION- J551,,. t ORATION- See Geotechnical Map
**
UlUlu
x
h-CLUl0
5-
is-
•
20-
2S-
30-
.
-
35-
"
-
-
10 **
2o
u
u.
CO
CO
.Ju
•• IMI
^hMBIB •
•^••MB
t«
O
Ou.
M
•SO
o
7
5
» «••
-4
— —
oUlOD(jj
a"1
t-Sj
QW
a
x^^>s
X
••» <R
5?<USi
WMMM
Ul
0.2
CO
3
CD
!«•
_- •
••M
^^••M*
J° N " GN-1
^^uj»
a!;
nul
'30
i U
•^ ^MM.
)^ *••.*
««I«MMV
^ UU5°00.
Ul**
°H
a*"
5S
S
\
^^^v^
•*»
^
X
•
-*
^
__ _ '
BORING MO B-I
•
DESCRIPTION
Fill: Dark brown silty medium SAND,
wet, loose contact: erosional,
horizontal
Bedrock: Linda Vista Formation: Red,
brown medium SANDSTONE, slightly moist,
dense, becomes coarse below 5*
contact: horizontal
red pebble and cobble "CONGLOMERATE,
coarse sand matrix
contact: horizontal, gradational
below 21* becomes white
contact: N75E, 2°E, erosional, undula-
tory
Santiago Formation:. White/brown silty
fine SANDSTONE, slightly moist, dense.
grey SILTSTONE, contact: gradational, he
UnTten^ne~SANT5StoHET slightly" moist ,~3en
contact: gradational, horizontal
below 29* becomes silty
@ 31* sharp horizontal erosional contact,
iron staining
contact: gradational * horizontal
belowl2 ' becomes fine to medium sandston
contact: horizontal, gradational, undule
SOIL TEST
undisturbed direct
shear
rizontal
se
e
tory
"GreyVBreen "STETST01IE", slightly" mblsF, sHff,
1" thick discontinuous stiff clay seam at upper
contact
contact: horizontal, gradational
LOG OF BORING FIGURE: B-1
I
n*Tf np«m,crv 11/7/87 uPTwon OP nnii i iMfl. 30 inch bucket auger
&m Ibs to 25'. 2981 Ibs to 47'. 2168 Ibs to 70'
LonosB Bv-R.G. onoiiun PI GVATION- 155± LOCATION- See Geotechnical Map
1 U33J) HIa
IUo
45-
50-
55-
99-
70-
'
75-
-
80-SIFICATIOMJV)<
u WS/FOOT |Oua
9 ISTURBED 1AMPLE |o«
X K SAMPLE ]aa
X
JOB NOj GN-1
Ul£N
5=UZso.u
|uQQ.
Ul**
0
/
/
BORING MQ B-I
(CONTINUED)
DESCRIPTION
White, fine to medium SANDSTONE,
slightly moist, dense
bedding: horizontal, gradational,
undulatory
1" thick clayey silt seam
bedding: horizontal, erosional,
undulatory
5" thick siltstone bed
contacts: horizontal, gradational,
undulatory
bedding: N55W, 6°E
bedding: horizontal
contacts: horizontal, gradational
White fine sandy SILTSTONE, slightly
moist, stiff
White tine SANDSTONE, slightly moist,
dense
SOIL TEST
sieve, particle
size analysis
•
LOG OF BORING FIGURE: B.2
I
I
I
I
I
F
I
"
I
DATE OBSERVED:11/7/87 ucTwnn np DRILLING- 30 inch bucket auger
4113 Ibs to 25', 2981 Ibs to 41', 2168 Ibs to 70'
L.o<?«en BY; £:£;„. .GBOUNO ^PVATION- . 155±_ LOCATION- See Geotechnical Map
r ••0 DEPTH (FEET) |85-
90-
95-
100-
105.
110-
120-CLASSIFICATION|'BLOWS/FOOT 1UNDISTURBED 1SAMPLE |BULK SAMPLE |JOB NOJ GN-1 MOISTURE 1CONTEIIT (%) 1°Jb BORING MO B-I
(CONTINUED)
DESCRIPTION
White fine SANDSTONE, slightly moist,
dense
SOIL TEST
contacts: horizontal, undulatory, gradational
@ 83' clayey siltstone, 7" thick
Total Depth 85'
No water
'
'
LOG OF BORING (FIGURE: B_3
i
DAI-P OBSERVED: 11/7/87 uBTMon np QBiLLiMa- 30 inch bucket auger
4113 Ibs to 25;, 2981 Ibs to 47 '. 2168 Ibs to 7U1
Loooen BY- JL.fi,,,,, Gnoiiwn PI CVATION- 155± , LOCATION' See Geotechnical Map
*%
u
z
Okuo
5
_
10-
•
15-
•
•
20-
*•
•
25-
"
30-
.
•
35-
—
-
40-
zo
<0
Ik
55
(0<
u
H
0
U.•»
(02o_1
a
^
5
a
Ul
00 uiclil30.Jrs2<awz
3 •
X
<v7
^N
UJ
a2
CO
-i
09
JOB NOj GN-1
^t
IsjflUJ
Oz20U
^*£L5°Q(L
si
ig
"^>>^_
PORING MO, 87.2..
DESCRIPTION
Fill: Dark brown medium SAND, very
moist, loose
Bedrock: Linda Vista Formation; Red
brown coarse SANDSTONE, slightly
moist, dense, roots in upper 12*
below 15* red and dark brown medium
sandstone
bedding: horizontal
contact: horizontal
Santiago Formation; white, fine SAND-
STONE, slightly moist, dense
contact: horizontal, gradational
white .brown pebble Conglomerate,
slightly moist, dense, minor cobbles
contact: N10W, 4°E, undulatory, sharp
white silty fine SANDSTONE, slightly
moist, dense
cross bedding: N55W, 8°N
contacts: horizontal, gradational
•
Total Depth 34*
No water
SOIL TEST
undisturbed
•
LOG OF BORING FIGURE: B-4
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
LOGS OF TEST PITS
k
DATE OBSERVED:10/23/2.7,,, ueYunn ne non t mn- Hatachi Track Hoe
Lnr.rrFr> ?Y- R.G. ROOUNO Et F«*TlftM' , 150± , LOCATION- See Gcoteqhnical Mao
' DEPTH (FEET) j«
8-
«
20_
•*
25 CLASSIFICATION>
•••^BLOWS/FOOT 11'UNDISTURBED ISAMPLE 1BULK 8AMPLE JX
•
X MOISTURE 1CONTENT (*) 1Itl PLACE DRY IDENSITY (PCF)j* -•».
TF«T PIT NO „ 1
DESCRIPTION
Fill; Red brown silty medium SAND,
moist , loose
@ 8' tree limb
»
Topsoil?: Dark brown clayey SAND,
moist, loose, slight organic odor,
roots '
Total Depth 25': No water
SOIL TEST
LOGGED av. R.G. anni.iMp ElFVA<rt^H- ,., ,15,Q±_ lac*™*"- Sec Geotechn^cal ^ao
m
5-
10-
15-
-
JOB NO.: CN-1
^^-"•*
TEST PIT tan 2
Fill; Red brown silty medium SAND,
moist, loose
contact: N60E, 60N
Bedrock: Linda Vista Formation: Red
coarse SANDSTONE, slightly moist,
dense
bedding: horizontal
below 6* grades to light brown medium
sandstone
NOTE: Fill exposed in northern half
of pit to bottom
@ 8-10* pipe, wire and debris in fill
Total Depth 16*
No water
LOG OF TEST PIT (FIGURE: TP-l
I
IHATC DRSPRVPD- 10/23/8Z_.,, ueTunn nr npiLiiNo- Hatachi Track Hoe
Lnr.r.Fn BY- ^RJL. RPOIIWD EI F«*TIOW- JL5Q+.,, , LOCAT«ON- See Geotechnical Mao
Ku
UlIk
> DEPTH (•
•
.
8-
m
to-
*
15-
0
»-<t^CLASSIFK>-O
0it
BLOWS/Ou
S"!UNDISTUSAMPIUl.j&
<a
X.j
a
••
* •iu£
Si-
S*oz20u
- ••»>u.
S "OCL
Ul*"IN PLACDENSITYK^
NS
TFST PIT NO ...a.,.,,
DESCRIPTION
Fill: Red brown medium SAND, moist,
loose
contact: N60E, 60°N
Bedrock: Linda Vista Formation; Red
brown coarse SANDSTONE, slightly
moist, dense
bedding : horizontal
below 6' grades to light brown medium
sandstone
NOTE: Fill exposed in northern half
of test pit to bottom
@ 12' concrete pieces in fill
Total Depth 14'
No water
SOIL TEST
LOGCPD fv: _,.RjCi.., e»OMNP PIPV*TION- 150± LOCATION- See Geotechnical Map
•
•
5-
^
_s<
<
<
*
iO_
.
>
>
^>
JOB NO.: CN-1
TEST PIT NO._1_
Fill: Red brown silty medium SAND,
slightly moist, loose
Bedrock: Linda Vista Formation; Red
brown coarse SANDSTONE, slightly
moist, dense
NOTE: Fill exposed in western portion
of test pit to bottom
Fill/bedrock
contact: N35W, 50°w
contact: horizontal, undulatory
Santiago formation; white brown fine to
medium SANDSTONE, sliRhtlv moist, dense
Total Depth 21'
No water
*
LOG OF TEST PIT (FIGURE: TP-2
I
I
I
R
^ or.r.rn BY« .JLiJ&*.-, fiPQiiwn EL
Puwu.
Z1-OLuo
•
-
.
8-
-
*
10-
-
15-
5
Q
H
CLASSOOIk
9)
o
to
o
°UJe3?s
On
S
u
a2
a
a
•
y.2ec.= 55?OZsou
|oOo.
id
<c
II
VX
frx/ATirtM- 150* LQCAT'ON- g^g fjggfechnlral Map
TEST PIT NO 5
DESCRIPTION
Fill: Red brown medium SAND, moist,
loose
contact: NAOW, 75 °E
Bedrock: Linda Vista Formation; Red
brown coarse SANDSTONE, slightly
moist, dense
bedding: horizontal
below 7 ' grades to light brown medium
sandstone
Total Depth 11*
No water
.
SOIL TEST
LOGRirn nv- JUG. ABOUND BiPV^TWH- . ilQi—, IftCftTinu. See G^pt;echnical Mao
•
*
*-
15-
JOBNO-: CN-1
\
TEST PIT NO._J_
Fill: Red brown medium SAND, moist,
loose
contact: E-W, 63* S
Bedrock: Linda Vista Formation; Red
brown medium to coarse SANDSTONE,
slightly moist, dense
Total Depth 10'
No water •
LOG OF TEST PIT (FIGURE: TP-3
I
I
I
I
I
PATC nnsimvirn. , 1Q/23/87 MFTHr>n ^r npii i iwo- Hatach}. Tra9k Hoe
LOGGED HV- R.G. r.onimn EL
^
Ul
Ulu.
X.
&0
•
«
.
5-
"
10-
-
15-
zO
»-<A33IFK_i
U
»-
Oou.^»«*oj
CO
oLJ§311on
3
Ul_i
a.
«CO
x«j
CB
X
•
^u£
*£
5*oz20u
>u.£ wOa.
iu** •ss*s»UISo
\\
fVATintj- 1202 LOCATION- See G^technical Mao
TEST PIT MD 7
DESCRIPTION
Fill ; Red brown silty medium SAND,
slightly moist, dense
contact: N45E, 50°W
Bedrock: Linda Vista Formation; Red
brown coarse SANDSTONE, slightly
moist, dense
NOTE: Fill exposed in west portion of
test pit to bottom
<? 3' wire and debris
Total Depth 12'
No water
,
SOIL TEST
' " 1
sieve, particle
size analysis
to«i?FP «v- R-G. ABOUND fit POTION- , 15°*.. lfC*firiM. See Geotechnical Map
•
«
ft—
*
•
10-
•
15-
V
J08 NO.: i;N_!
TEST PIT MH 8
Fill: Dark brown silty medium SAND,
moist, loose
contact: N25E. 75W
Bedrock: Linda Vista Formation; Red
brown coarse SANDSTONE, slightly
moist, dense
below 7* grades to light brown medium
sandstone
Total Depth 14'
No water
r* onfio 1 \A&^\ nn .. T£«»
molded direct
shear expansion,
moisture density,
sieve particle
size analysis
(fill)
•
LOG OF TEST PIT (FIGURE: TP-4
f>MT nflRPBVen? JJJ/2^/87 ucTunn OP non I tun- HafarM Trai-lr Hoa
LOGGED av- R.G. ftamiMD EL
~
Ul
Ulu.
Z
Uo
"
•*
-
8-
lO—
15-
0
Jr
o
e)
^o
Koo
«
5o
o
OUl
°UI
^
2<On
u
0.2
e
X
a
"X*
•
*+
c^
«?0220U
>C
Qcf
Ul
<ts***
^UJSo
^^.^
pV^TinM- ISO* LOCATION- «?op flpnf ar.hn-(oa1 Map
TEST PIT NO. 9
DESCRIPTION
Fill: Dark brown silty medium SAND,
moist, loose contact: E-W, 60° S
Bedrock: Santiago Formation; white
brown medium SANDSTONE, slightly
moist, dense
crossbedding: horizontal
Total Depth 11'
No water
• r
SOIL TEST
LOGGED BV. R.G. eaOVHf> !M FWATION' . ,15 OS. „,, ' f»eATM>W. Ran qanrarh^-f ral Map
•
•
»-
10-
1S-
JOB NO.: (W-l
TEST PIT NO.JO
Fill; Dark brown silty medium SAND,
moist, loose contact: N40U. 75 "W
Bedrock: Linda Vista Formation: Red
brown medium to coarse SANDSTONE,
slightly moist, dense
fracture plane: N3SW, 78*W
Total Depth 11'
No water
LOG OF TEST PIT |HGURE: TP_5
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
Table C-l
Results of Particle Size Analyses
Percent Passing (Sieve No.)
Sample Location
TP7 « 5'
TP8 § 5'
Bl § 60'
4 10 20 40 100 200
99 98 97 80 40 32
100 88 60 75 37 28
100 100 100 99 43 8
Table C-2
Expansion Index (UBC-29-2)
Sample Location Expansion Index Expansion Potential
TP8 § 5' 2 Very Low
• Table C-3
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture Contents
Maximum Density Optimum Moisture
Sample Location (lb/ft3) (%)
TP8 § 51 128.4 8.0
Table C-4
Results of Direct Shear Tests
Boring Soil Description
Peak
Phi Cohesion
Residual
Phi
Dry
Remolded/ Density Moisture
Cohesion Undisturbed (Ib/ft ) (%)
TP8 § 51
B-l @ lO1
B-2 § 33'
Dark Brown Sllty Sand
Red Brown Clayey Sand
Yellow Brown Clayey Sand
28
35
34
250
160
260
30
29
35
60
140
0
Remold
Undisturbed
Undisturbed
116
108
99
10
7
6
I
I
I
Table C-5
Results of Consolidation Tests
Boring Number B-8 at 5 Feet
Initial Void Ratio « 0.44576
Void Ratio at 0.5 ksf
Void Ratio at 0.5 ksf
Void Ratio at 1.0 ksf
Void Ratio at 2.0 ksf
Void Ratio at 4.0 ksf
Void Ratio at 8.0 ksf
Void Ratio at 0.5 ksf
Percent Consolidation
Percent Consolidation
Percent Consolidation
Percent Consolidation
Percent Consolidation
Percent Consolidation
Percent Consolidation
»
B
»
m
m
m
«
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
at 0
at 0
at
at
at
at
at
1
2
4
8
0
44200
44200 (Si
43983
43578
42971
42002
42899
.5 ksf *
.5 ksf -
.0 ksf -
.0 ksf -
.0 ksf -
.0 ksf *
.5 ksf »
it
0
0
0
0111
urat
.260
.260
.410
.690
.110
.780
.160
(Saturated)
Initial Moisture Content * 9 Percent
Final Moisture Content « 14 Percent
Initial Density - 115 pcf
Final Density - 117 pcf
March 4, 1991
Karen Blumenshine
P.O. Box 850
Carpenteria, California 93013
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO CITY REVIEW
Minor Subdivision No. 818
Carlsbad, California
Reference: City of Carlsbad, January 30, 1991, Review of Grading plans
Ron Gutier, Erik J. Nelson, February 17,1989, "Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed
Lot Split, Three-Acre Site, 2202 Highland Drive, Carlsbad, California"
Dear Karen:
I have received the city engineers comments regarding my review of the grading plans. My review
of the plans indicates that the plans shown are in conformance with the intent of the recommendations
of the referenced report. Some minor differences do exist as outlined in the city's response.
1. The slopes shown are steeper than was recommended in the original report. The
recommendations presented in that report were purposefully conservative to allow for some
flexibility in the design process. 'In addition the full height of the slope is achieved by using
two smaller 2:1 slopes which result in an overall top to bottom slope ratio of 2.3:1. I have
performed additional calculations on the slope as shown and have obtained a factor of safety
of 1.5. Copies of the calculations are included attached to this report.
2. The city does not feel that the map shows the removal of all unsuitable fill soils. It is my
opinion that reconstruction of the storm drain will result in the replacement of all
uncompacted fills in the main canyon area. No new fill should be placed over previously
uncompacted fill, and all new fills placed against slopes need to be benched into competent
soil or bedrock. This recommendation includes any fill soils located below or over the new
stormdrain pipe. Uncompacted fill soils may still remain in other areas of the site but are not
expected to have an effect on the planned structures.
There is a possibility that a minor amount of unsuitable fill will be encountered in the eastern
building area once it has been cut to the proposed grade. Since the majority of this area is
expected to be in bedrock cut, any fill soils left should be minor amounts which can be easily
removed and replaced during grading operations.
3. The proposed grading plan shows a 1 percent typical drainage for the site instead of the 2
percent recommended in the report. Due to the relatively high permeability and non
expansive nature of the on-site soils, a one percent slope should be sufficient.
Karen Bluraenshine
Subdivision No. 818
March 4, 1991
Page 2
This opportunity to be of service has been appreciated. Should any questions arise or if further
services are necessary please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Respectfully yours,
Erik J. Nelson, P.E. C 44102
Registration Expires: 6-30-93
Civil Engineer
I ** PCSTABL5 **
by
Purdue University
--Slope Stability Analysis--
Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
Run Date:
Time of Run:
Run By:
Input Data Filename:
Output Filename:
12-27-90
6:17
EJN
SECTZ-Z'
SECTZ-Z'.OUT
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION SECTION Z-Z', KAREN BLUMENSHINE, LOT SPL
IT
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
6
10
Top
Total
Boundaries
Boundaries
Boundary
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
X-Left
(ft)
.01
32.00
94.00
106.00
195.00
254.00
32.00
102.00
250.00
250.00
Y-Left
• (ft)
74.00
80.00
110.00
110.00
150.00
150.00
80.00
90.00
134.00
134.00
X-Right
(ft)
32.00
94.00
106.00
195.00
254.00
350.00
102.00
250.00
254.00
350.00
Y-Riqht
(ft)
80.00
110.00
110.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
90.00
134.00
150.00
134.00
Soi 1 Type
Below Bnd
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
3
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
1
2
3
120.0
120.0
120.0
125.0
125.0
125.0
50.0
140.0
.0
28.0
29.0
34.0
.00
.00
.00
.0.0.0
1
1
1
A Critical Failure Surf*r*3
. I I I I JL l-i vl tr »"" •-* t \_f t= t i vi i tA w A. i I Ui \- .
100 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
10 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground Surface Between X = 10.00 ft.
and X = 60.00 ft.
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 200.00 ft.
and X = 250.00 ft.
Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y - .00 ft.
17.50 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial
Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical
First.
* * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Janbu Method * *
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7a
91011
12
X-Surf
(ft)
43.33
60.65
77.83
94.81
ill. 57
128.05
144.22
160.03
175.45
190.44
204.96
207.95
Y-Surf
(ft)
85.48
87.98
91.34
95. 55
100.61
106.49
113.19
120.68
128.96
137.99
147.76
150.00
*** 1.463 ***
/•*
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 43.33 85.48
2 60.56 88.58
3 77.63 92.41
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
127.68
143.86159.75
175.31
190.52
205.35
208.09
108. 17
114.83122. 16
130. 17
138.82
148.12
150.00
**#1.473 **#
Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
X-Surf
(ft)
60.00
77.50
94.90
112.08
128.91
145.26
161.01
176.04
190.23
203. 48
205. 13
Y-Surf
(ft)
93.55
93.86
95.68
99.01
103.81
110.05
117.68
126.65
136.89
148.32
150.00
***1.476 *#*
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
X-Surf
(ft)
32.22
49.58
66.82
83.90
100.80
117.49
133.92
150.07
165.90
181.38
196.49
211.19
217.26
Y-Surf
(ft)
80.11
82.35
85.37
89. 15
93.69
98.97
104.99
1 1 1 . 74
119.19
127.35
136. 18
145.68
150.00
***1.479 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
X-Surf
<ft)
48.89
66.39
83.85
101.15
118.20
134.88
151.09
166.74
181.71
195.93
209.31
213.27
Y-Surf
(ft)
88. 17
88.03
89.26
91.86
95.82
101. 11
107.70
115.54
124.59
134.79
146.08
150.00
#*#1.492 **#
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
X-Surf
(ft)
43.33
60.62
77.80
94.84
1 1 1 . 72
128.41
144.90
161.15
177.15
192.88
208.31
223.42
224.05
Y-Surf
(ft)
85.48
88.19
91.55
95.54
100. 16
105.41
1 1 1 . 28
117.76
124.84
132.52
140.77
149.60
150.00
***1.545 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
10
X-Surf
(ft)
43.33
60.83
78.29
35.60
112.63
129.27
145.38
160.87
175.62
189.52
202. 49
">f7>7 PtQ
Y-Surf
(ft)
85.48
85.13
86.25
88.82
92.85
98.29
105. 11
113.26
122.68
133.30
145.06
1 «=:oi rani
***1.548 **#
Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
X-Surf
(ft)
60.00
77.36
94.59
1 1 1 . 66
128.51
145.11
161.43
177.41
193.04
208.26
219.44
Y-Surf
(ft)
93.55
95.76
98.81
102.70
107.41
112.94
119.27
126.39
134.27
142.91
150.00
***1.557 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
X-Surf
<ft>
37.78
55.25
72.65
89.93
107.04
123.92
140.54
156.85
172.80
188.35
203.46
218.08
228.68
Y-Surf
(ft)
82.80
83.74
85.61
88.40
92.09
96.68
102. 16
108.50
115.70
123.73
132.57
142. 19
150.00
***1.571 ***
Failure Surface Specified By 14 Coordinate Points
Point
No.
1
2
3
4
er
X-Surf
(ft)
15.56
33.04
50.53
67.93
Y-Surf
(ft)
76.92
76.23
76.83
78.69
o
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
i. (Ui- . i (u
118.68
134.81
150.40
165.37
179.64
193.14
205.79
206.75
Ow • * -/
91.79
98.58
106.52
115.58
125.71
136.85
148.94
150.00
*#*1.628 *##
.00 43.75 87.50 131.25 175.00 218.75
X .00 + --------- + ------ * — •+• --------- + -----
•
0
"" * mm
— *• • • ^»
... .0 9
43.75 + ....... 1
....... 045.
.... ...713
....... 0.4.
........... 9 .
......... 518.
A 87.50 + ........... 04 .
.......... 7.18.*
............. 0* .
............. 7 1 *
............. 054 .
"" •••»•••*••• • • 17 ••
X 131.25 + ........ .....7512 .
.............. 9 .
.............. 731 ..
............. 054 .
..... . ........ 9731..
............... 54
I 175.00+ ............... 9712
............... 54 .
.............. 9.631
................. 4. *
............... 9. .71
.............. 641
S 218.75 + ............... 94
.......... ...6
262.50
306,25
** PCSTABL5 **
by
Purdue University
--Slope Stability Analysis—
Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop
or Spencer's Method of Slices
Run Date:
Time of Run:
Run By:
Input Data Filename:
Output Filename:
12-27-90
6:26
EJN
SECTZ-Z'
SECTZ-Z'.OT2
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION SECTION Z-Z', KAREN BLUMENSHINE, LOT SPL
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
6 Top
10 Total
Boundaries
Boundaries
Boundary
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
X-Left
(ft)
.01
32.00
94.00
106.00
195.00
254.00
32.00
102.00
250.00
250.00
Y-Left
(ft)
74.00
80.00
110.00
110.00
150.00
150.00
80.00
90.00
134.00
134.00
X-Right
(ft)
32.00
94.00
106.00
195.00
254.00
350.00
102.00
250.00
254.00
350.00
Y-Right
(ft)
80.00
110.00
110.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
90.00
134.00
150.00
134.00
Soil Type
Below Bnd
3
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
2
3
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
3 Type(s) of Soil
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
1
2
3
120.0
120.0.
120.0
125.0
125.0
125.0
50.0
140.0
.0
28.0
29.0
34.0
.00
.00
.00
.0
.0
.0
1
1
1
Point
No.
X-Surf
(ft)
Y-SurfCft>
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
43.33
60.65
77.83
94.81
111.57
128.05
144.22
160.03
175.45
190.44
204.96
207.95
85.48
87.98
91.34
95.55
100.61
106.49
113.19
120.68
128.96
137.99
147.76
150.00
Spencer 's
Theta
(deg)
FOS
(Moment)
<Equil.)
FOS
(Force)
CEquil.)
12.50
18.75
24.89
20.58
19.57
21.77
20.77
20.88
21. 14
,641
,554
,250
,506
,535
,463
,500
,496
1.477
1.484
.492
,487
,485
,488
,487
,487
1.487 1.487
Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface =
Spencer's Theta = 21.14
Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By Spencer's Method of Slices
*** Line of Thrust ***
Slice
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
X
Coord.
Y
Coord.L/H
60.65
77.83
94.00
94.81
106.00
1 1 1 . 57
128.05
144.22
160.03
175.45
190.44
195.00
204.96
207.95
90.08
94.36
99.07
99.31
103.10
105.01
111.14
117.71
124.73
132.22
140.37
143.27
160.23
160. 17
.357
.278
.254
.260
.377
.370
.346
.323
.298
.266
.239
.247
5.566
.000
Side Force
Ubs)
2100.
5708.
9075.
9264.
10608.
11231.
11841.
11040.
8928.
5846.
2403.
1286.
19.
20.
A
.00 43.75 87.50 131.25 175.00 218.75
43.75 + S
S
S
87.50 +
S *
S *
131.25 + S
S
_ €2
175.00 + S
S
S 218.75 •*•
#
*
262.50 +
306.25
350.00 + * *
****** STOP - Illegal Command ******
*****************************************
Legal Commands - PROFIL
LOADS
TIES
WATER
SURFAC
EXECUT
RANDOM
CIRCLE
CIRCL2
BLOCK
BLOCK2
LIMITS
AN I SO
SURBIS
SPENCR
>L
^i
„£>ri t
Xje^aasF/
\ \
X
X "X.X
XX