Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 07-12; SEARS RESIDENCE; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2007-09-18S . .. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. SOIL & FOUNDATIONENGINEERING,' ENGINEERING GEOLOGY HYDROGEOLOGY -S ' ,September 18, 2007' Project No. 5979.1 - '. S ' Log No. 11087 - Mr. Tom Sears . -1387 CynthjaLane •. : Carlsbad, California 92008 . •- . Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Proposed Single-Family Residence 5 4015 Sunnyhill Drive . Carlsbad California References:, Attached 5 S.. S • 5 , Dear MrSears: . .5 - In accordance with your request, Hetherington Engineering, Inc. has performed 5geotechnical investigation for a proposed single-family residenée to be located at the subject site. Our work was performed inAügust and September 2007. The purpose of. the investigation was to' evaluate geologic and soil conditions within the areas intended for new constructioii, and to provide grading and foundation recommendations for the proposed residential structure. With ,the above in mind, our scope of work included th following: . Research and review of available plaii.s and geologic literature peftinent to the site vicinity (see References). 5..-. Subsurface exploration consisting of three hand-excavated exploratory test pits for soil, sampling and. geologic observation. • I Laboratory testing of samples obtained from the subsu'rface exploration. -. Engineering and geologic analysis..- Preparation of this report prviding the results of our field and laboratoiy work, analyses, and our conclusions and recommendations. . H • I 5205 Avenida Encias, Suite A' Carlsbad, CA 92008-4369 '(760) 931-1917. Fax (760) 931-0545 - 32242 Paseo Adelanto, Suite C 'San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675-3610 • (949) 487-9060 • Fax (949) 487-9116 -. •' . . . www.hetheringtonengineering.com - - - - IS - 4 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 5979.1 LogNo.- 11087 - September 18, 2007 Page 2 ', '• S . 4 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject property is located at 4015 Sunnyhill Drive within the city of'Carlsbad,, California (see Location Map, Figure 1). The site 'Consists of a roughly triangular-shaped, approximately 0.5-acre undeveloped lot. Minor cut and fill grading has been performed in the past, creating a level pad area across the majority of the lot Minor amounts of fill S appear to have been placed in' the west-central part of the lot, 'ovr ,a natural 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) slopC that descends to the west. The property is bounded by - similar residential parcels to- the south and'west, by a 'private driveway to the north, and by Sunnyhill Drive to the east. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT' Although no detailed development plans were avãi-lale at the time of this repo, we understand that the proposed construction consists of a two-story, single-family residence.' with attached garage. We anticipate the-structure will be of relatively light wood-frame. onstruction, founded on Conventional continuous/sjxead footings with slab-on-grade, S ground floors. It is anticipated that the structure will :be,constructed at existing site grade., and that grading will consist of minor remedial earthwork SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4' Subsurface conditions' were explored by excavating three hand-excavated test pits to, S depths ranging from 2 to 5-feet below existing site grades.. The appr'oxirnate locations of the test, pits are shown on the' attached Plot-Plan, Figure 2.' - The subsurface exploration was supervised by a geologist from this office, who ";. classified the soil and bedrock materials, and obtained bulk and relatively undisturbed'. samples for laboratory testin'g. The soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Soil classifications are shown on the -attached Logs of Test Pits, Figures 3 and 4 -. LABORATORY TESTING ' ,• .5.' 4..' - I . ;. ' .5 LabOrtory testing was performed on samples obtained-during the subsurface expIortion. Tests performed consisted of thefollowing:. . 4k' Dry Density and Moisture Content (ASTM D 2216 and D 2937) ..Sulfate Content (EPA 9038).. ..•' 5 ' -' , -- - • ': .HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC.- -" . I . •5_ 5 • - -. . S . ii call vffryl - PL AZA s - J12 4- L-- '— ' RO Lj 0,111. 510 I - CARL 41 RR Lq rr vr( HILL szo 4 ss- '. •- l \ ci DR - • VI8 , •ç• • ° LAS ; FLORES /4- ! V 14 STA \" -' ' \ -64( AV Lk !:i QIr — VvZI~7. 0 - 5° ' ci S1P surrta O p NO \ o SO cn r ' --' > ':' — '• coot rllp CH RD SIT Y, XN E\ JR VY pt US IA .5 I 4_ 7 C4,7 HILLSIDE,' I A~Jcf 40 V. ST - - ADAPTED FROM: The Thomas Guide, San Diego County, 2006 Edition, Page 1106 - - I - * SCALE: V -2000", - - - - (1 Grid = 0.5 x 0.5 miles) - LOCATION MAP - - : 4015 Sunnyhil! Drive - - - - HETHERNGTON. ENGINEERING, INC. -. - - - Carlsbad, California - GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO. 5979.1 FIGURE NO.' 1 - . - •, S .-- :-- .- - - - e f - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PrjectNo5979.1-. . LogNo 11087 September 18, 2007 Page Direct Shear (ASTM: D 3080) • Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829) Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM: D 1557-02) Results of the dry density and moisture content 1eterminations are presented on the Logs of Test Pits, Figures 3 and 4 The remaining laboratory test results are presented on the Laboratory Test Results, Figure 5. SOIL AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 11 GeTologic Setting 41 The subject site is located within the coastal plain region of northern San Diego County, California The site region is characterized by moderately to gently sloping hillsides and coastal bluffs composed of Eocene sedimentary bedrock that is capped at various elevations by relatively level to gently westward sloping Pleistocene regressive marine terraces The subject property is contained within the southwestern portion of the U S G S San Luis Rey 7-1/2 minute quadrangle As observed in the subsurface excavations, the site is underlain by fill and Quaternary sedimentary marine and non-marine terrace deposits No evidence of adverse geologic structure, faulting, or groundwater was observed in the test pits 2 Geologic Units a. Fill/Topsoil - Approximately 2 feet- of fil1/topoiI is present within the, central portion of the lot, consisting of brown, damp, loose, slightly gravelly silty fine sand The fill is not considered suitable for support of the proposed improvements in its existing condition b Topsoil'- Up to approximately 2 feet of topsoil covers the entire site and consists of loose to medium dense, porous, light t6dark brown silty fine sand The topsoil is not considered suitable for the support of the proposed improvements in its existing condition - C. Terrace Deposits - Encountered in all test pits below the fill and topsoil was . - terrace deposits consisting of damp, dense to very dense, orange brown silty fine -- • sand The dense terrace deposits are considered suitable for support of structures and fill placement . -. I. - HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC Maximum 'Probable ' Fault ' Earthquake Slip-Rate- - . Fault (moment'-- (mm/year) Type 'Magniiude) - S Newport-Inglewood/Rose Canyon . (9-kilometers SW) . ' 7.2 ' . 1.5 B : Elsinore (Julian Segment) (37-kilometers NE).7.1 - '5A, Coronado Bank (407kilometers SW) 7.6 3 . B I - GEOTECHNICAL [NVESTIGATION -- ProjectNo 59791 1 Log No 11087 September 18, 2007 - Page4 I 3 Groundwater. . I 1 No seepage or static groundwatr was encountered in the exploratory test pits It - should be noted, however, that fluctuations in the amount and level of groundwater may occur due to variations in rainfall, irrigation, and other factors that might not 1 .. have been evident at the time of our field investigation. . SEISMICITY The site is located within the seismically active southern California region There are, however, no known active or potentially active faults presently mapped that pass through the site nor is the site located within the presently defined limits of anAiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Active or potentially active fault zones within the site region include the Rose Canyon, Coronado Bank and Elsinore (Julian Segment) Strong ground niotion could also be expected from eartl '4uakes occurring along the San Jacinto and San • Andreas fault zones, which lie northeast of the site at greater distances, as well as a number of other offshore faults The following table lists the known active, faults that would have the most significaiit 1 impact on the site I SEISMIC EFFECTS 1 1 Ground Accelerations S - -. ' - . •, .5 _• . I t The most significant probable earthquake to 'affect Ahe site would be a 7.2 magnitude earthquake on the Rose Canyon fault zone Depiction of probabilistic seismic hazarc analysis utilizing a consensus of histoncal seismic data and the respective regional geologic conditions that are shown on the "Probabilistic Seismic Hazards Assessment S HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. -• ':• . - •- ..•.S- . Si _5 S 4 r - VV ..• V V * I L V 4 .V V VV V GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No 59791 LogNo 11087 September 18, 2007 -. 4 V Page 5 - ,VVV :Model"(April. 2003) and the, The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic-, V V - Hazard Maps" indicate that peak ground accelerations of about 0.27,to 0.29g are. possible with a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50-years (References 2 and 4) 2 Ground Cracks The risk of fault surface rupture' due to active-.faulting is considered low due to the absence -of known active faulting on site Ground cracks due to shaking from seismic events in the region are3ossible, as with all of southern California -V. V 'a V,t V j V • '' V 3... Lands1iding Due to the absence of slpes 1.in the immediate sitevicinity, the risk of landshding considered negligible - 4 V SV V VV V V V L V V 4 Liquefaction' V. The risk of seismically induced liquefaction within the site is considered low due to - lack of shal10 ground vater and the dense nature of the underlying terrace deposits V -::.-. :. •:- V V V VI V 5 Tsunamis ?'V Due to the elevation of the property and its distance to the coast, the potential for - seismically generated ,ocean waves impacting the site isconsidered negligible 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS * .4 L General - V V V •4•V V I V V V ' V V • V V S The proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint Grading and foundation plans should take into account the appropriate geotechnical .. features of the site The proposed construction is not anticipated to adversely impact the adjacent properties' from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations presented in this report and good construction practices are implemented during - desin and construction * C I ,. •4V - t- V • V V - :1 •V - V -HETHERINGTON EN GINEERING1 INC. V - -. . V - - V •VVV V V 4 4 1. t. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 5979.1 LogNo 11087 September 18'2007 . Page 2 Seismic Parameters for Structural Design Seismic considerations that should be used for structural design at the site include the following: . a Ground Motion - The proposed structure should be designed and constructed to' resist the effects of seismic ground motions as provided in Chapter 16, Division IV-Earthquake Design of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC) The basis for the design is dependent on and considers seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy, configuration, structural system and building height b Soil Profile Type - In accordance with CBC Section 1629.3. 1, Table 164, and the underlying geologic conditions, a site Soil Profile of Type SD is considered appropriate for the subject property. 'S . c Seismic Zone - In accordance with CBC Section 1629 4 1 and Figure 16-2 the subj . ect site is situated within Seismic Zone 4 ' .. ... .• d Seismic Zone Factor (z) - A Seismic Zone Factor of 0.40 is assigned based on CBC Table 16-I Since the site is within Seismic Zone 4, CBC Section 1629 4 2 requires a Seismic Source Type and Near Source Factors e. Near-Source Factors (Na and Nv) - Based on the known active faults in the . region and distance of the faults from the site, a Seismic Source Type of B per CBC Table 16-U, and Near Source Factors of Na LO per Table 16-S and Nv 1.04 per Table 16-T are provided f Seismic Coefficients (Ca and Cv) - Using the Soil Profile Type and Seismic Zone Factor along with CBC Tables 16-Q and 16-R, the Seismic Coefficients Ca = 0 44 (Na) and Cv 0 64 (Nv) are provided, or Ca 0;4 and Cv = 0 67 3. Slope Stability The site is relatively flat and no significant cut or fill slopes are anticipated 4 Site Grading - a Clearing and Grubbing - Existing vegetation and miscellaneous debris within the limits of proposed grading should be removed to an appropriate offsite disposal area. - Holes resulting from the removal of buried obstructions, which extend -. . HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 5979.1 LogNo. 11087 September 18, 2007 Page below finished site grades, should be replaced with compacted fill: In the event that abandoned cesspools, septic tanks or storage tanks are discovered during the excavation of the site, they should be removed and backfihled in accordance with local regulations. Existing utility lines to be bandoned should be removed and capped in accordance with the local requirements. - b Removal of Unsuitable Soils - In the area of proposed structures, driveways, and appurtenances; all fill and topsoil and other material deemed unsuitable by the Geotechnical Consultant should be removed io dense terrace deposits. Removals are anticipated to extend approximately 2 to 4-feet below existing site grades and should extend to at least 5-feet beyond the limits of all proposed improvements and structures. Final removal depths should be determined by the Geotechnical Consultant during site grading.- - Scarification - After the required removals haveMeen made, all areas to receive fill should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 to 8-inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1557-02). Compacted Fill - Fill soils should be moisture conditioned to about optimum moisture content and compacted by mechanical means in uniform horizontal lifts of 6 to 8-inches in thickness. Al! fill should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent based upon'ASTM:D 1557-02. The on-site materials are suitable for use as compacted fill. Rock fragments over 67inches in dimension and other perishable or unsuitable materials should be excluded from the fill. All grading and compaction should be observed and tested by the Geotechnical Consultant. 5. Foundation and Slab Recommendations The proposed structure may be supported on conventional continuous/spread footings founded at least 12-inches below adjacent grade for one-story structures and 18- inches below adjacent grade for two-story structures and bearing into approved terrace, deposits and/or compacted fill. Continuous footings should be at least 12- inches wide for one-story structures and 15-inches wide for two-story structures, and reinforced with a minimum of two #4 bars, one to and one bottom. Foundations located adjacent to 'utility trenches should extend to below a 1:1 plane projected • upward from the bottom of the trench. • HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC GEOTECI{NICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 5979.1 ' LogNo. 11087 September 18, 2007 Page 8. Foundations bearing as recommended may be designed for a dead plus live load bearing value of 2000-pounds-per-squ4re-foot. This value may be inèreased by one- third for loads including wind and seismic force. A 'lateral bearing value of 250- pounds-per-square-foot per foot of depth and a coefficient of friction between - - foundation soil and concrete of 0.35 may be assumed. These values assume that footings will be poured neat against the foundation soils Footing excavations should be observed by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to the placement of reinforcing steel in order to verify that they are founded insuitable bearing materials. Slab-on-grade floors should have a minimum thickness of 4-inches (actual) and should be reihforcel with #1 bars spaced at 18-inches, center-to-center, in two directions, and supported on chairs so that the reinforcement is at mid-height in the Slab. Floor slabs should be underlain by a 47inch layer of clean sand with at least a 10-mil visqueen vapor barrier placed in the middle of the sand layer. Consideration' should be given to providing contraction joints to control shrinkage cracking: 6. Concrete Flatwork Concrete flatwork should be at least 4-inches thick and reinforced with at least No 3 bars placed at 18-inch on center (two directions) and placed on chairs so that the reinforcement is in the center of the slab. Slab subgrade should be thoroughly ' moistened prior to placêmentof,concrete. Contraction joints to control concrete shrinkage should have a maximum spacing of 10-feet. Joints should create square panels where possible. For rectangular panels (where necessary), the long dimeñsion should be no more than 1.5 times the short dimension. Joint depth should be at least 0.25 the flatwork thickness. Flatwork subgrade should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8-inches, brou jht to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90-percent relative compaction (ASTM: D 1551-02). All subgrade shOuld exhibit a firm and unyielding conditiOn. prior to the placement of the concrete 7. Soluble Sulfate •. Representative samples of the on-sit& soils were submitted for sulfate analyses,. The results of the soluble sulfate tests per EPA 9038 methods are presented', on the• attached Laboratory Test Results, Figure 5. The sulfate content of the on-site soils is consistent with a negligible sulfate exposure classification per Table 19-A-4 of the HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. S GEOTECHNICAL [NVESTIGATION Project No. 5979.1 LogNo 11087 - September18, 2007 Page 2001 California Building Code Consequently, special provisions for sulfate resistant êoncrete are not considered necessary, . 8 Retaining Walls Retaining walls free to rotate (cantilevered walls) should be designed for an active pressure of 35-pounds-per-cubic-foot (equivalent fluid pressure) assuming level backfill consisting of the granular on-site soils and 43-pounds-per-cubic-foot for backfill sloping at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Walls restrained from movement at the top should be designed for an additional uniform soils pressure of 8xH pounds per square foot where H is the height of the wall in feet Any additional surcharge pressure behind retaining walls should be added to these values Retaining wall footings. should be designed in accordanèe with the previou's building foundation recommendations Retaining walls should be provided with adequate drainage to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressure and should be adequately waterproofed. The subdrain system behind the retaining wall should consist of at least 4-inch diameter Schedule 40 (or equivalent) perforated (perforations down) PVC pipe embedded in at least 1-cubic-foot of 3/4 inch crushed rock per lineal foot of pipe all wrapped in approved filter fabric Recommendations for wall waterproofing should be provided '. by the project Architect and/or Structural Engineer. 9. Trench and Retaining Wall Backfill All utility trench and retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (ASTM D1557-02) and tested by the Geotechnical Consultant. 10 Site Drainage The following recommendations are intended to minimize the potential adverse effects of water on the structure and appurtenances Surface drainage should be designed by the project Architect and/or Civil Engnieer a Consideration should be given to providing the structure with roof gutters and downspouts that discharge to an area drain system and/or to suitable locations away from the structure. b All site drainage should be directed away from the structure The on-site soils are generally sandy in nature and considered moderately erodible if exposed to -' concentrated drainage . HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC . •4: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION . 4 1• • . ..--. .-. I I Project No.5979.1 : • . . - • . Log No. 11087 4 September, 18, 2007t , Pàgelo .- c No landscaping sh6u1d be allowed against the structure Moisture accumulation or watering adjacent to foundations can result in deterioration of wood/stucco and may affect foundation performance. d Irrigated areas should riot be over-watered Irrigation should be limited to that 1. : required to maintain the vegetation. Additionally, automatic -systems must b -seasonally adjusted to minimize over-saturation potential particularly in .the winter (rainy) season. - e. All yard and roof drains should, be1periodically checked to verify they are clear and flow properly. This may be accomplished either visually or; in the case of subsurface drains, by placing a hose at the inlet and checking the outlet for flow. - . 11. Recommended Observations and Testing During Construction . The following, tests and/or observations by the.* Geotecimical Consultant are4 recommended: • ;- - a. Observation and testing of all fill bott0.m cleanoits and grading. b. Foundation excavations prior to placement of foms and reinforcing steel. c Interior and exterior utility trench backfill .. d,. Platwork subgrade.; - e. Retaining wall backfill and drain placement.* •, I * . . - - . 12. Grading and Foundatio'n Plan Review - • - • • 4 Grading and foundation plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant to confirm conformance with the recommendations presented herein or to thodify the •. - reconimthi'datibns as hécessary. . • • - - , • 4 LIMITATIONS T -• - - . . The analyses,'conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site - conditions; as they existed at the time of our investigation and further assume the excavations to be representative of tE6 subsurface conditions throughout the site. • If +;' • - *.-- HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC 5 - GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Project No. 5979.1 Log No. 11087 . September 18, 2007 Page 1.1• A. A different subsurface conditions from th6se enoüntered during our exploration are observed or appear to be resent in - excavations, the Getechnica1 Consultant should be promptly notified for review and reconsideration of the' recommendations Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, uiideir similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Consulthnts practicing in this or similar localities No other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report This opàrtunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. . If you have any quetions; ,please call this office. - -• • • .. Sincerely, Hetherington Engineering, Inc. .- . Miche oncellos Darmy Cohen Professional Geologist 793 4 EER/,vo Registered Civil Enginee Certified Engineering Ge Geoiechnical Engin gSSio, - LAJ Distribution-Addres . (expires 3/3 OF. C P' Attachments Location Map Figure 1 Plot Plan Figure 2 - .- Logsof Test Pits Figures 3 and 4 • Laboratory Test Results Figure 5 - • - A • - . t -•-. . - - i_ - . ,•, -. - A -. - - - 4_• . -. $ A -A. p - - ,I•• - A4 -, - HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC S V - S - - S V •;V ,REFERENCE'S 1. Aerial Photographs, Flight GS-VBTA,Photos 1-143 and 1-444, dated May 8, 1967:4 -. ' 2. California Geological. Survey "Piobâbi1istic Seismic Hazards Assessment Model," 2002 (Revised April 2003). . -- '3. California Division of Mines and Geology, "Planning Scenario for a Maj& V. Earthquake, San Diego Tijuaha Metropolitan Area;" Special Publication 100, dated 1990. 4 Cao, Tianging, et al 'The Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard' Maps,",dated Jun 2003. V ICBO, "California Building, Code," 2001 5'Edition. . ICBO, "Maps of Kown Active Faults Near-Source Zones in. California and Adjacenr V Portions of Nevada," dated February 1998.. . . . . I 7 Jennings, Charles W, "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas," California Data'Map Series, Map No. 6, dated 1994. V V 8. Kennedy', Michael P., '.'Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200, dated 1975: . V 9V Kennedy, Michael P.; "Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego I ' . County, California" California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96- 02, dated 1996. ..•- V V V 10. Kennedy,' Michael P., t al., "Character and Recency of Faulting, San, Diego V• V V • Metropolitan Area, California," Special Report 123, dated 1975 . V V 11• Peterson,' -M., Beeby, W., Bryant, W., et ak,5 "Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of Ca1iforrii," California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 48, dated 1999. V 12. Tan, Siang S., "Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan. V Area, Salt Diego County, California, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35", . V . dated 1995. : V . 1-3. Weber,F. Harold, "Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides and Related.Geology V of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, California" California Division - V of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 82-12, dated 1.982.' V V V V S • V V * • V V V V' I • V • • V • .. Project No. 5979.1 V V Log No. 11087 - V •• HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, -INC. V — — — ------ —.----- / - - ---- - VV - 5-.----- * . r - S is .• -m — - - - S._,V_,.S ._*•"_ - - I .._. . — - — .5 0 N •t - ¼ -- -'V V — ) I - c N ----V-s - -- -- s5 - I V- - -/- -- -/ /s5 - •V• - -ir f I I! A /55 / ' - DEPOSITS V-c :.;/' •._-'; 1• - •—>-. VV- 0 I - 0 10 20 30 40 TP-1 - 411 I , / /-ec N :- N\ V. / :/-:-- -*' •- 5, ./' •II.V' VV I •-./7 ,/ V • S( . • -- -: V VA - /• .5—.,- -V, K <' J TP-3 APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PIT APPROXIMATE GEOLOGIC CONTACT g;•- / N VJ• _/ . •/ \ . ¼ / / . ,/• V / V - . S PLOT PLAN 55 V V V 0 V 4015 Sunnyhill Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Carlsbad, California ___ GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO 5979.1 FIGURE NO 2 ____________________________________________________ - -. - _V_;:_ - 1 I . . . ~ . - . .. . I . - I . . . - ' ' . . . . . ~ - . 1 - V'.-.V V V -. ' 11, - ' V A' - - ' 1 I - ___,,i_J - - -.- - - '' 1 * - - - - - - 'V. : 2 1 P 11 , / 11 - V , V V V'V' V 11 . V. ,., V IV' 'V"V " V/V , V - I - / < — - / / V. . / V V ' - V / .\;' •V / '-'V -' - q V" rn -"V.'- 'V . "V - - -. r - .: - - ' )_ - = - r - r '- - - 'V - - - TP-3 iih'- - :T:-< a % VV;' aV . -.': It- '- - V •' 1 . .'. t V. I TERRACE. L - - % - 'V DEPOSITS * - FILL 'V '-'V VVV't.V'V'V_V,V i. A - 'V 1. VV iI 'V "-\ TP-2 -' 1 ' / 1 C - - - ' 'V a 1- r - - i. I _ - - 'V -V / - - -I - • -V' 'V T P-I , / - - i l " a- -1 ' "-' "''-- , / / / "' 'V V'V I - 'V --- /'- / ,'__ / - - - - '- ':. • V.'' V , - V V :-. V V'.'VT 'VI 'V V *V V.V 'V . -I 1,, - ' " - / 'V - - -, 1 / ' I - 9 p - - - - - - 4 'V " - - - - * -' 'V - - 1 . A -I - -, J - ,-' 'V -'a -r 'V 'V - / .11 ,;V'V / - A -' J '_ 'V 'V ? I 1. - •V - "V .,* - 1 ) ' / / - -Va 'V '.-, I," - V , -'V , - .V V V - V - I 'V I _-W I - _1 \ I 'V V / t I'- , V - ' " - ' V - V V - - . 'V ' ' ' . - • ' - - - - 'V - I - - - / / I - -: - P - - - * ..•, 9 BACKHOE COMPANY: HEI BUCKET SIZE: Hand Pit DATE: 08/21/07 co >4 >4 Q. 4. soiL DESCRIPTION ZE- i1)E Z 00 4 - U)4- CflE-4 ,-C/) TEST PIT NO TP-1 ELEVATION 239 + 0.0 - - SM FILL/TOPSOIL: Medium to dark brown, slightly gravelly, silty fine.. 131 3.2 \ sand, damp, medium dense, few fine root hairs, slight porosity. I TERRACE DEPOSITS Light brown silty fine sand damp medium . dense, massive, moderately weathered 1 75 Orange brown silty fine sand damp dense to very dense - 113 . 10.0 massive >r 120 89 - -- Total depth 3.5 feet - 5.0 , No groundwater ] No caving 100—-- TEST PIT NO TP-2 ELEVATION 239 -t 0.0 - -SM FILL/TOPSOIL Light brown slightly gravelly, silty fine sand - - iii 6.9 damp, loose to medium, dense few roots, slight porosity - TOPSOIL: Dark brown silty fine sand; dahip to moist, medium , - log 56 dense, fine root hairs _X1 ' - 119 19.6 TERRACE DEPOSITS: Oraige brown siltyfine sand, damp, • 5.0--- dense to very dense, massive - - - - Total depth 5feet - No groundwater No caving - .• - - 0.0 - : - - LOG OF TEST PITS - - 4015-Sunnyhill Drive HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Carlsbad, California PROJECT NO., 5979.1- FIGURE No: 3 GEOT.ECHNICAL CONSULTANTS 7.. BACKHOE COMPANY: _HE! ., BUCKET SIZE: Hand Pit DATE: 08121107: (1) ic cJ) S 5 5 .. SOIL 'DESCRIPTION 1-1--- E—'II) (1)4-4 U) E4 U) TEStPlTNO.TP-3 ELEVATION:232 - 0.0 - s , fl FILL/TOPSOIL: Light to-medium brown, slightly gravelly, silty fine .and, damp, lOose ., .. - TERRACE DEPOSITS: Orange brown silty fine sand, damp, dense to very dense, massive Total depth 2 feet No groundwater S No caving S . - 5.0-. S . S LOG OF TEST PITS . : 4.015 Sunnyhill Drive. HETHERINGTON ENGINEERING, INC. Carlsbad, California S GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS PROJECT NO 5979.1 FIGURE NO 4 H Hi . ; DIRECT SHEAR (ASTM D 3080) Sample Location Angle of Internal Cohesion Remarks Friction (°) (psi) TP-1 @15'-25' 31 100 Remolded to90%ofmaximum dry density, consolidated, saturated, draind SULFATE TEST RESULTS (EPA 9038) Sample Location Soluble Sulfate in Soil (%) TP-2@0 -05' 00289 EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM D 48 29 Sample Location Initial Compacted Final Expansion Expansion Moisture Dry Moisture Index Potential (%) Density (%) _ ___________ (pci) TP-1@15'-25' —F-10.4 104 1190 176 17 Very low TP-2 @ 05 - 1.0' 9.6 1126 14.6, 0 Very low 1' t MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D 1557-02) Sample Location Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture •• • Dehsity (pci) Content(%) TP-1 @ 1.5'—.2.5' • Orange brown silty fine sand 122.0 13.0 TP-2 @ 0 - 2' • Brown silty fine sand 125.5 • 9.5 .