HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 03-06; BLACKRAIL 16; GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION; 2012-11-30I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ ~~~hnical. Inc.
To:
Attention:
Subject:
November 30, 2012
The New Home Company
95 Enterprise, Suite 325
Aliso Viejo, California 92656
Mr. John Sherwood
Project No. 12115-01
DEC 1 , 1 2D1?
,_.. ''"
/':"';\ 5 ,} . .,,·,,~ :'·-. ,·
---..... :_.,,,,i il'"'o.~ ,, i ~ .:::·i"') f'1\ il ~.h· J j \: \/G
Geotechnical Exploration and Review of Precise Grading Plan for Carlsbad 16
Project, Lots 1 through 16 of Map 15521, Carlsbad, California
In accordance with your request, NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (NMG) has performed a geotechnical
exploration and review of the precise grading plan for the subject property located in Carlsbad,
California (Figure 1 ). The site consists of a total of 16 lots along Zephyr cul-de-sac, east of
Black Rail Road, south of Poinsettia Lane and water tank site (Figure 1 ).
A preliminary geotechnical investigatio11 for the site was performed by Vinje & Middleton
Engineering in May 2003. The grading of the site was performed by Trans West Housing, Inc.,
under the geotechnical observation and testing of GeoTek, Inc. from March 5 to July 9, 2007.
During this study, NMG reviewed these reports and other published data, made site visits to
perform geologic mapping, and prepared maps and cross-sections to evaluate the current graded
conditions of the site and the adjacent eastern slope. NMG then performed a geotechnical
exploration within the eastern portion of the site consisting of excavation, logging and sampling
of two large diameter, bucket-auger borings to confirm the conditions of the existing fill and
underlying native earth units near the slope. Laboratory testing was performed on several soil
samples to confirm the engineering properties of the fill, terrace and bedrock materials. We also
reviewed the precise grading plan prepared by Fuscoe Engineering consisting of Sheets 1
through 4 of 4 sheets, received by NMG on November 26, 2012. This precise grading plan
depicts the proposed grading and improvements within the 16 lots. Geotechnical analysis and
evaluation was performed in light of the proposed grading and construction of the proposed
improvements.
This report presents our findings, conclusions and recommendations for the proposed grading
and development. Based on our study, the proposed residential development is considered
geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations of this report are implemented during
design, grading and construction.
17991 Fitch• Irvine, California 92614 • PHONE (949) 442-2442 • FAX (949) 476-8322 • www.nmggeotechnical.com
N
• 0 z
~
(.) w :c
0
z
<(
..J
~
12115-01
November 30, 2012
~ If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact our office. We appreciate the
opportunity to provide our services.
• Respectfully submitted,
E
I
I
I
C
I
NMG GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
~jc~(q-
Principal Geologist
RS/TW/grd
Distribution: (2) Addressee
~~
Reza Saberi, RCE 74678
Project Engineer
(3) Mr. Greg Lang, Fuscoe Engineering Inc.
(2) Mr. Ted Schidlovsky, NTS Associates
121130
TERRI T. WRIGHT
No.1342
CERTIFIED
ENGINEERING
GEOLOGIST
11
NMG
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
C
" •
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
12115-01
November 30, 2012
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction and Purpose ............................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Scope of Services ........................................................................................................................ I
1.3 Site Location and Conditions ...................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Site History and Previous Geotechnical Reports ........................................................................ 3
1.5 Proposed Precise Grading and Development.. ............................................................................ 3
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Regional Geologic Setting .......................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Earth Units .................................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 Geologic Structure and Faulting ................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Laboratory Testing and Results .................................................................................................. 6
2.5 Evaluation of Existing Artificial Fill .......................................................................................... 8
2.6 Seismicity and Seismic Hazard Zones ........................................................................................ 8
2. 7 Groundwater and Surface Water ................................................................................................. 9
2.8 Mass Movement. ......................................................................................................................... 9
2.9 Slope Stability ............................................................................................................................. 9
2.10 Settlement ................................................................................................................................. 10
2.11 Earthwork Shrinkage/Bulking and Subsidence ........................................................................ 11
2.12 Existing Utilities ....................................................................................................................... 11
2.13 Erosion Potential ................................................................................................................... 11
3.0 CONCLUSION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 12
3.1 General Conclusion and Recommendation ............................................................................... 12
3.2 Remedial Removals .................................................................................................................. 12
3.3 General Earthwork and Grading ............................................................................................... 12
3.4 Lot Capping/Overexcavation .................................................................................................... 13
3.5 Slope Stability ........................................................................................................................... 13
3.6 Groundwater ............................................................................................................................. 13
3. 7 Settlement Potential .................................................................................................................. 13
3.8 Foundation and Structural Slab-on-Grade Design Parameters ................................................. 13
3.9 Moisture Mitigation for Concrete Slabs ..................................................................................... 14
3 .10 Seismic Design ......................................................................................................................... 15
3 .11 Erosion Repair ...................................................................................................................... 16
3 .12 Lateral Earth Pressures ............................................................................................................. 16
3 .13 Foundation Setbacks ................................................................................................................. 17
3 .14 Residential Exterior Concrete (Non-Structural) ......................................................................... 17
3 .15 Asphalt Pavement Repair and Cap Pave ................................................................................... 19
3.16 Cement Type ............................................................................................................................. 19
3 .17 Soil Corrosivity ......................................................................................................................... 20
3.18 Improvements near Tops of Slopes ......................................................................................... 20
3 .19 Surface Drainage ...................................................................................................................... 21
3.20 Maintenance of Graded Slopes ................................................................................................. 21
3 .21 Utility Construction .................................................................................................................. 22
3.22 Geotechnical Review of Future Plans ....................................................................................... 22
3.23 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Grading ........................................................... 22
121130 11l
NMG
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----------------------------~-
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.d)
Figure
Figure 1 -Site Location Map-Rear of Text
Figure 2-Retaining Wall Drainage Detail-Rear of Text
Appendices
Appendix A -References
Appendix B -Boring and Trench Logs
Appendix C -Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D -Seismicity Data
Appendix E -Slope Stability Analysis
Appendix F -General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Plates
Plate 1 -Geotechnical Map -In Pocket
Plate 2-Geologic Cross-Sections A-A', B-B', C-C' -In Pocket
121130 lV
12115-01
November 30, 2012
NMG
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..
i
I
I
1.0
1.1 Introduction and Purpose
INTRODUCTION
12115-01
November 30, 2012
NMG Geotechnical, Inc. (NMG) has conducted a geotechnical exploration and review of the 20-
scale precise grading plan for the proposed 16 Lot Development of Map 15521 in Carlsbad,
California. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the planned grading and construction in
light of the existing geotechnical conditions at the site in order to provide recommendations for
design, grading and construction of the proposed residential development. The 20-Scale Precise
Grading Plan, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, received by NMG on November 26, 2012, was
also reviewed for this study. This grading plan was used as the base map for the Geotechnical
Map (Plate 1).
1.2 Scope of Services
The scope of services for this study included the following tasks:
• Background Research: We performed a review of available published and unpublished
geotechnical reports, including reports by Vinje & Middleton Engineering (V &M, 2003) and
GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek, 2007). We compiled data onto the 20-scale preliminary grading plan.
Historic aerial photographs dating back to 1990's were also reviewed to evaluate geomorphic
features and past cultural activities at the site. References are listed in Appendix A.
• Site Reconnaissance and Field Mapping: Several site reconnaissance were made to collect
near surface soil samples for preliminary geotechnical design report and document the
existing site conditions. The proposed boring locations were reviewed with The New Home
Company and Underground Service Alert prior to subsurface exploration. Geologic mapping
was performed within the site and along the slope within the eastern portion of the site to
further assess the geologic conditions and structure in the area.
• Subsurface Exploration: Our geotechnical exploration included excavation, soil sampling
and logging of two large diameter bucket-auger borings to depths of 45 feet within the
eastern portion of the site. These borings were downhole logged by an engineering geologist
to evaluate the conditions of the fill and the stability of the adjacent slope. Geotechnical logs
of the borings from this study and trenches from prior studies are included in Appendix B.
Boring and trench locations are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1 ).
• Laboratory Testing: Laboratory testing included in-situ moisture and density, maximum
dry density and optimum moisture content to determine the relative compaction of the
existing fill materials, consolidation testing, direct shear, grain size distribution (sieve and
hydrometer), Atterberg Limits, corrosivity testing and expansion potential. Results of these
tests are included in Appendix C. In-situ moisture content and dry densities are presented on
the geotechnical boring logs (Appendix B). Pertinent laboratory test results from prior
geotechnical exploration were also reviewed and are included in Appendix C.
• Plan Review and Geotechnical Analysis: Data from this and prior studies were compiled
and the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) and Geologic Cross-Sections (Plate 2) were prepared to
illustrate the geotechnical conditions. Geotechnical review of the grading plan and analysis
121130 1
NMG
I
1111 Iii
I
I
r ..
C
"" •
• • .. I
I
I
C
12115-01
November 30, 2012
of the collected data, including stability evaluation of the existing slope along the eastern
perimeter of the site and settlement evaluation, was performed in light of the proposed
grading and construction. Remedial grading measures were also determined as presented in
this report.
• Preliminary Geotechnical Design Memorandum: A memorandum dated September 10,
2012 was prepared to provide preliminary geotechnical and seismic design parameters for the
site.
• Report Preparation: Preparation of this geotechnical report with the accompanying
illustrations and appendices. This report summarizes our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations for the planned grading and provides design information for the proposed
site development.
1.3 Site Location and Conditions
The site consists of a total of 16 lots along Zephyr cul-de-sac, east of Black Rail Road, and south
of Poinsettia Lane and water tank site (Figure 1). The subject site is roughly rectangular in shape
with existing pad elevations varying from 357 feet above mean sea level (msl) within the eastern
lots to 375.5 feet above msl within the northwestern lot. A descending slope, up to
approximately 40 feet in height, is located along the eastern perimeter of the site. The slope
extends down to a natural open space area to the east that is heavily vegetated. There is a fence
and silt fence along the toe of the slope and we understand the property below the fence is a
protected habitat.
Based on our site visit, the cul-de-sac street is paved and the lots are graded. Some of the lots
have existing modular block walls up to 3 or 4 feet high. Utility lines, including storm drain
lines, sewer and water lines, appear to be in place within the cul-de-sac and the storm drain
outlets were observed within the existing descending slope along the eastern perimeter of the
site. Utility laterals and irrigation pipes are also on the lots. A concrete paved access road is
located along the southeastern perimeter of the site where the sewer line extends to a manhole in
the southeastern comer of the site. It appears the sewer line extends easterly from this point
through the residential development beyond the property line.
It is not clear that the eastern fill slope was completely rebuilt or whether the agricultural fill had
been entirely removed and recompacted. Rather, it appears the lower portion of the slope had
been laid back at 2H: 1 V exposing the older fill materials and that only the upper slope (20 to 25
feet high) was recently rebuilt with the tract grading. Also, the prior grading plan shows that the
limits of grading did not extend down to the toe of slope.
There is currently minor erosion and/or slumping on the fill slope behind the onsite storm drain
outlet structure. There is also minor erosion locally on the perimeters of the lots and in the
driveway areas. Additionally, there is erosion and downcutting of the canyon below the onsite
storm drain riprap and below the storm drain outlet for the adjacent water tank property.
121130 2
NMG
--
-
-....
,.,.
-
1.4 Site History and Previous Geotechnical Reports
12115-01
November 30, 2012
Based on historic aerial photographs, the subject site was used for an agricultural operation, and
as early as 1994 there appears to be a graded pad with a significant amount of fill near the east
end of the property. Between 2002 and 2006, it appears that there was stockpiling of soils in the
eastern fill area as part of agricultural operations. The majority of the site was used for row
crops, except in the northwest area where there was a farm house or sheds.
NMG was able to obtain prior pertinent geotechnical reports for the site from either The New
Home Company or the city of Carlsbad. The reports did not have the accompanying oversize
plates showing the locations of the prior investigation, geologic mapping, density tests or
removal bottom/key limits and elevations. We were able to obtain the illustrations for the prior
geotechnical investigation from Vinje & Middleton Engineering (V &M); however, were not able
to obtain the as graded maps from GeoTek, Inc. (GeoTek)
In 2003, a geotechnical investigation was performed by V &M. Their investigation consisted of
geologic mapping of local exposures and excavation of 6 test trenches. During this study, they
documented the uncertified fill in the eastern portion of the site up to 30 feet thick and sloping at
1 H: 1 V. They recommended removal of this undocumented fill and fill slope during grading for
the 16 lots, and that the slope be rebuilt to provide a "safe and stable fill embankment."
In 2007, the site was rough graded under the geotechnical observation and testing of GeoTek.
Based on our review of their report dated July 25, 2007, Lots 1, 2, and 4 through 16 are underlain
by a minimum of 3 to 5 feet of artificial fill. Lot 3 was a cut-lot which the upper 12 inches of
soil were moisture-conditioned and compacted during grading. The removal and re-compaction
during grading generally varied from 3 to 18 feet with the thicker removal being performed
within the eastern portion of the site. The removal bottom elevations are not available at this
time, but were reportedly shown on Plate 1 of the GeoTek report. Their report indicated the
keyway and fill slopes associated with Lots 8 and 9 were constructed in accordance with the
recommendations provided in the report by V &M (2003); however, since we were not able to
obtain a copy of the GeoTek final as-graded map, it is not clear where the key was constructed.
NMG obtained a copy of the staking plan from Excel Engineering that indicated the toe of the
rebuilt slope was staked near elevation 340 feet msl; at the daylight line shown on their grading
plan and not at the toe of the fill slope.
1.5 Proposed Precise Grading and Development
The proposed development consists of 16 single-family residential lots along Zephyr cul-de-sac.
Based on review of the subject precise plans, elevations across the subject pads will range from
357 above msl to 375 feet above msl. Precise grading within the subject site should consist of
relatively minor cuts and fills. By comparing the current precise grading plan to the prior grading
plan, Lot 4 has a planned cut of 2 feet. The other lots are essentially at the same elevations of the
prior grading plan by Excel Engineering, which we believe are the existing grades. Precise
grading will include cutting of drainage swales on the lots.
The precise grading plan reviewed for this report consists of Sheets 1 through 4 of 4 sheets.
Sheet 1 is the title sheet and contains a vicinity map, grading notes, sheet index, erosion control
notes, project information and earthwork quantities. Sheet 2 contains typical sections and
121130 3
NMG
------
12115-01
November 30, 2012
details. Sheets 3 and 4 depict the proposed precise grading for residential units. The precise
grading plan provides the following information:
• Building footprint locations and exterior improvements;
• Finish grades for the building pads and house-finish floor;
• Lot surface drainage is to be carried towards the street or storm-drain facilities by various
combinations of sheet flow, swales and area drains;
• Location of retaining walls; and
• Storm drain, sewer and water lines.
We understand that the existing block walls within the site will be removed and replaced with
new masonry walls. Also, as described previously, the precise grading is generally minor at the
site. However, some remedial grading and over-excavation are recommended since the site has
remained vacant for more than five years.
12Jl30 4
NMG
----------
-
--
-
2.0 GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS
2.1 Regional Geologic Setting
12115-01
November 30, 2012
The project site is located within the Peninsular Range geomorphic province of California. The
subject site lies on the coastal upland approximately 2 miles east of the Pacific Ocean.
Pleistocene-age marine terrace deposits cap the hillside and overlie Miocene-age marine and
non-marine sandstone and silty sandstone of the Santiago Formation. This terrace deposit
referred to as the Clairemont Terrace, is believed to have been deposited on one of the older
wave cut benches with a shoreline elevation of near 315 feet msl and an age of between 500,000
to 800,000 years (Eisenberg, 1992). The closest seismically active fault is the Newport-
Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone, which is located westerly of the site (offshore).
2.2 Earth Units
The subject site is underlain by two generations of compacted fill overlying marine terrace
deposits and at depth bedrock of the Santiago Formation. These units are described below and
listed from youngest to oldest in age.
Artificial Fill: There appears to be two generations of artificial fill at the site. Based on prior
studies and aerial photographs, there is an undocumented fill (Map Symbol: Afu) that was
placed in the eastern portion of the site during the prior agricultural uses. This material was
investigated by V &M and found in two trenches (T-1 and T-2 in Appendix B) excavated prior to
grading of the lots. This older fill consisted of reddish brown to gray sand and clay mix that was
generally moist and loose to medium dense, and contained pieces of concrete, brick, asphalt, and
various deleterious materials.
The certified compacted fills (Map Symbol: Afc) placed at the site are a result of grading of the
16 lot project (GeoTek, Inc., 2007). These fill materials were encountered in our two bucket-
auger borings to depths of approximately 15 feet below existing grade. They consist of reddish-
brown silty sand and sand that was generally dense to very dense. The fill materials were
generally dry in the upper 1 to 2 feet and slightly moist to moist with depth. The lower portions
of these fills contained some concrete, asphalt and brick pieces; were generally moist; and
appeared to be well compacted. The basal contact of the fill appeared irregular and flat lying,
with scarification of the underlying native soils.
Terrace Deposit (Map Symbol -Qt): Quaternary-age marine terrace deposits cap the prior
hillside in the vicinity of the site. Our two borings encountered these deposits and exposures
exist in the central portion of the site and on Lot 3 (Plate 1 ). The terrace deposits consist of
reddish-brown, silty and clayey sands that are generally very dense and moderately cemented.
There are irregular silty sand lenses within the cleaner sand deposits exposed at grade. In the
borings, these deposits were very massive with no bedding.
Santiago Formation (Map Symbol -Tsa): This bedrock unit is a late Eocene-age marine and
non-marine sedimentary formation and was encountered in both of the borings at the site. At a
depth of approximately 30 feet below existing pad grade, the contact between the terrace deposit
121130 5
NMG
---------
-----
-
-
-
-
12115-01
November 30, 2012
and the fill was slightly irregular and appeared erosional. The upper portion of the bedrock is
somewhat questionable (Tsa?), consisting of reddish brown fine to coarse sandstone and silty
sandstone with pebbly and cobbly beds. This material was generally very dense, moderately
friable, and very micaceous. This upper material was bedded, unlike the massive nature of the
marine terrace deposits above. Below approximately 40 feet in each boring, the color changed to
the more typical light gray silty sandstone of the Santiago Formation.
2.3 Geologic Structure and Faulting
The overall geologic structure at the site consists of flat lying, massive terrace deposits overlying
very low angle bedding Santiago Formation. The bedding attitudes had strikes of north 10 to 35
west and dips of 5 to 9 degrees northeast and southwest. The bedding was generally defined by
sandstone on silty sandstone or pebbly/cobbly layers, and there were no weak clay or siltstone
beds observed to depths of 45 feet. The upper 10 feet of the native terrace materials had some
fractures that were typically very tight. The bedrock had little to no fracturing noted during
downhole logging. No evidence of faulting was observed during this investigation, or by prior
work at the site.
2.4 Laboratory Testing and Results
We performed laboratory testing on representative samples of onsite soils collected during our
field exploration to characterize their engineering properties. Laboratory tests performed on
selected relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples included:
• Moisture content and dry density;
• Atterberg limits;
• Hydrometer and grain size distribution;
• Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content;
• Consolidations;
• Direct shear (undisturbed samples);
• R-Value;
• Expansion potential; and
• Soil corrosivity.
Laboratory tests were conducted in general conformance with applicable American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard test methods. Laboratory test results for this study and
test results by others are provided in Appendix C. In-situ moisture content and dry density data
are included on the geotechnical boring logs (Appendix B). The following includes a summary
of the laboratory test results:
Soil Classification: The grain size distribution tests show that the soil samples have fine
contents (Passing No. 200 sieve) in a range of 20 to 37 percent with clay content of 14 to 28
percent. The Atterberg limit test results show that the sample have liquid limits in the range of 25
to 29 percent with plasticity index on the order of 8 to 14. Also, our laboratory test results
indicate that fill materials have maximum dry densities in the range of 125 to 129 pounds per
cubic foot (pcf) at optimum moisture contents of 10 to 10.5 percent. The prior laboratory testing
121130 6
NMG
-----------
-
---
12115-01
November 30, 2012
by GeoTek show maximum dry densities varying from 119.5 to 133.5 pcf at optimum moisture
contents varying from 8.5 to 13 percent.
Consolidation: Based on our laboratory testing, subsurface soils have relatively low
consolidation potential. Also, upon the addition of water to the samples at a load of 3 .2 ksf, the
samples showed minor collapse on the order of less than a quarter of a percent.
Direct Shear: Direct shear testing was conducted on three relatively undisturbed ring samples
collected from the site. The results indicate that the artificial fill materials have ultimate internal
friction angle of 32 degree at 100 pounds per square foot (psf) cohesion. The peak value for
internal friction angle and cohesion were at 34 degrees and 100 psf, respectively. The sample
representative of terrace materials exhibited ultimate and peak friction angles of 32 and 39
degrees at cohesions of 100 and 500 psf, respectively. The direct shear results on bedrock
materials show ultimate and peak friction angles of 30 and 35 degrees with cohesions of 170 and
50 psf, respectively.
Also, the prior laboratory test results by V &M (2003) show internal friction angle of remolded
samples varied from 29 to 31 degrees and the cohesion was in the range of 115 to 285 psf.
Expansion Potential: Based on our laboratory testing, the onsite soils have a "very low"
expansion potential. The prior laboratory testing by GeoTek (2007) and V &M (2003) also
indicate "very low" to "low" expansion potential. The expansion index (EI) of the collected soil
samples from this and prior studies were in the range of 1 to 42.
R-value: The laboratory tests on the near surface soil samples show R-value of 16 and 22. For
design purposes, we have used an R-value of 15.
Soil Corrosivity: The corrosivity testing of the onsite soil samples included electrical resistivity,
pH, soluble sulfate, chloride content and redox potential. The following table shows the test
results:
Soil Corrosion Test Test Results
Resistivity -Saturated (ohm-cm) 880 and 1,120
pH 7.2 and 6.9
Soluble Sulfate Content (ppm) 411 and 258
Chloride Content (ppm) 64 and 65
The electrical resistivity test indicates that onsite soils are severely corrosive to ferrous metals.
Sulfate contents indicate that soils have "negligible" sulfate exposure to concrete. The corrosion
protection recommendations provided by HDR Schiff are included with the laboratory test
results in Appendix C. The prior laboratory testing by GeoTek (2007) also indicates that the
sulfate content of the onsite soils varies from 100 to 770 ppm which indicates negligible
exposure.
121130 7
NMG
--
-
-
----
-
2.5 Evaluation of Existing Artificial Fill
12115-01
November 30, 2012
During our exploration, the existing artificial fill materials were encountered in both of our
borings to depths of 14 to 15 feet. During downhole logging, pocket penetrometer readings on
the compacted fill were mostly 4.5+ tons per square foot (tsf), with a couple thin layers of 4.0
and 3.75 tsf. We also sampled and tested the existing artificial fill materials for in-place dry
density and moisture content. The fill materials encountered in our borings consist primarily of
silty sands that had dry densities varying from 117.4 to 127.7 pcf and moisture contents of 6.5 to
14.0 percent. As discussed previously, the maximum dry density of onsite soils varied from
119.5 to 133.0 pcf from this and prior studies.
Based on our subsurface exploration, laboratory test results and review of the rough grading
report by GeoTek (2007), the existing fill has adequate compaction and is suitable to support the
loads from the proposed building foundations and improvements.
2.6 Seismicity and Seismic Hazard Zones
Regional Faults: The site is not located within a fault-rupture hazard zone as defined by the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act (CDMG, 1999) and no evidence of active faulting was
observed during this investigation, or by prior work at the site. Also, based on mapping by the
State (CDMG, 1996, County of San Diego, 2007 and Jennings, 2010), there are no active faults
mapped at the site.
Using the USGS computer program (2002, updated 2008) and the site coordinates of 33.1112
degrees north latitude and 117.2867 degrees west longitude, the closest major active faults to the
site are the Rose Canyon Fault located 8.7 km (5.4 miles) west of the site (offshore), the Newport
Inglewood Offshore Fault located approximately 14.6 km (9.1 miles) to the northwest of the site
and the Coronado Bank Fault located 33.8 km (21 miles) to the south of the site.
Seismicity: Properties in southern California are subject to seismic hazards of varying degrees
depending upon the proximity, degree of activity, and capability of nearby faults. These hazards
can be primary (i.e., directly related to the energy release of an earthquake such as surface
rupture and ground shaking) or secondary (i.e., related to the effect of earthquake energy on the
physical world which can cause phenomena such as liquefaction and ground lurching).
Since there are no known major or seismically active faults mapped at the site, the potential for
primary ground rupture is considered nil. The primary seismic hazard for this site is ground
shaking due to a future earthquake on one of the major regional active faults, such as Rose
Canyon, Newport Inglewood, Coronado Bank, San Andreas Faults and numerous other
regionally active faults. The seismic design parameters presented in the recommendations
section of this report are based on the 2010 California Building Code (CBC), and were obtained
for the site using the computer programs Seismic Hazard Curves and Uniform Hazard Response
Spectra version 5.1.0 (USGS, 2011) and the 2002 Interactive Deaggregations (USGS, 2002
updated 2008). The maximum moment magnitude for the Controlling Fault is 7.1 Mw, which
would be generated from the Rose Canyon Fault.
121130 8
NMG
-
-
-.--
-
--
-
12115-01
November 30, 2012
Secondary Seismic Hazards: The subject site is not located within an area of potential
liquefaction, as defined by the County of San Diego (2007). Based on the depth of groundwater
and the density of the earth units, the liquefaction potential at the site is considered very low.
The site is located at elevation of 357 to 375 feet near the top of a hillside, and therefore, is not
subject to tsunami hazard. There is a slight potential for seiche hazard due to the adjacent water
reservoirs; however, if the water did overtop the tank we anticipate it would flow through their
storm drain system.
2. 7 Groundwater and Surface Water
Groundwater was not encountered in either of our borings drilled to depths of 45 feet below
existing topography. The groundwater table is believed to be deep below the site.
Surface water intermittently flows within the v-ditches and streets through the site and the
drainage channels to the northeast of the site during and following rainfall. During our site
visits, it was not raining so no surface water was observed.
2.8 Mass Movement
Based on the geologic hazard mapping by the County of San Diego (2007), areas of potential
seismically induced landslides are not mapped within the subject site. Based on mapping by the
State (CDMG, 1986), the site lies within a "marginally susceptible area" for landslides; defined
as an area with gentle to moderate slopes underlain by relatively competent material considered
unlikely to remobilize under natural conditions. Based on our geologic mapping and aerial
photograph review, there were no landslides or mass movements observed at the site. Geologic
mapping by the state (CDMG, 1996) also did not identify landslides at the site.
2.9 Slope Stability
As discussed previously, there is a descending slope, approximately 40 feet in height, along the
eastern perimeter of the site. Several minor slopes, on the order of less than 5 feet, will also be
constructed within the site along lot boundaries.
The computer program GSTABL7, Version 2 was used for this analysis. Seismic slope stability
was verified using a "pseudostatic" method by applying a seismic coefficient of 0.15. Based on
consideration of all the data, the following shear strengths were selected for static and pseudo-
static slope stability analyses. These values are consistent with our experience in this formation
and similar bedrock formations and with sufficient inherent factors of safety based on the
available data. Shear strengths used for pseudostatic slope stability analysis are based on the
peak direct shear test results and are typically 20 percent higher than the design static strength
parameters.
121130 9
NMG
--....
--
--
12115-01
November 30, 2012
Summary of Static Design Soil Strength Parameters
Earth Unit
Artificial Fill Compacted (Afc)
Artificial Fill Undocumented (Afu)
Terrace Deposit (Qt)
Cross-Bedding (Tsa Bedrock)
Cohesion
(C)
200
200
100
200
Friction
Angle (phi)
30
28
32
30
Summary of Pseudostatic Design Soil Strength Parameters
Earth Unit
Artificial Fill Compacted (Afc)
Artificial Fill Undocumented (Afu)
Terrace Deposit (Qt)
Cross-Bedding (Tsa Bedrock)
Cohesion
(C)
200
200
120
120
Friction
Angle (phi)
32
28
34
34
Cross-Sections A-A' through C-C' (Plate 2) were drawn to evaluate the stability of the existing
slope along the eastern perimeter of the site. The cross-sections and downhole logging of
borings show that the bedding within the bedrock unit is gently sloping and defined by grain size
in the sandstone and pebbly/cobbly layers. Based on our slope stability evaluation the existing
slope has an adequate factor of safety for gross stability. Our slope stability analysis is included
in Appendix E of this report and shows the factor of safety of 1.91 for static condition and 1.43
for seismic condition. Also, we anticipate that the slope will be surficially stable provided that it
is landscaped and maintained in accordance with Section 3.20.
2.10 Settlement
Based on our subsurface exploration, laboratory testing and analysis, and review of prior data,
the onsite soils including the artificial fill and underlying terrace and bedrock units are generally
dense and competent.
The planned and remedial grading (provided in Section 3 .2 of the Conclusions and
Recommendations) will remove the weathered near surface soils prior to placement of
compacted fill and construction of the improvements. The proposed grading within the subject
site will generally consist of minor cuts and fills, with the exception of Lot 4 which has 2 feet of
cut planned. At the completion of the proposed and remedial grading, the site should be
underlain with a minimum of 3 feet of compacted fill materials.
Based on our review of the geotechnical site conditions, laboratory test data and our prior
experience with similar residential type developments, we anticipate the total settlement after
grading to be on the order of 1 inch or less.
121130 10
NMG
--
--
-
2.11 Earthwork Shrinkage/Bulking and Subsidence
12115-01
November 30, 2012
The shrinkage and bulking (reduction or increase in volume of excavated materials on
recompaction as fill) varies by soil type and location. The volume changes depend primarily on
in-situ density and the maximum dry density of the soil type. We anticipate the upper 1 foot of
the existing compacted fill soils will have minor shrinkage on the order of one percent and
negligible subsidence. The shrinkage/bulking of the onsite existing compacted fill soil below a
depth of 1 foot are anticipated to be negligible.
2.12 Existing Utilities
The majority of the utility pipelines were constructed with the prior grading of the site. At this
time, the water, sewer and storm drain lines and laterals connections are constructed. The storm
drain outlet structure is also located within the eastern slope and several catch basins are located
along the cul-de-sac. Utility laterals and irrigation lines also exist on the lots.
2.13 Erosion Potential
The earth units at the site are generally dense and not prone to erosion. The fill and terrace
materials are exposed at the surface and very little erosion has occurred over the past 5 years.
Minor gullies have occurred locally along the perimeter of some of the lots and in the steeper
driveway areas. There is also a minor erosion gully forming on the lower portion of the eastern
slope behind the storm drain outlet. This gully is approximately 1 to 2 feet deep and about 3 to 5
feet wide.
Along the northeast side of the property, there is a storm drain outlet that drains surface water
from reservoir property. The surface water flows easterly through grouted rip rap and ends at a
natural slope below the adjacent property. The water flow is eroding the natural earth materials
as it turns 90 degrees to the south, where it joins with the flow from the onsite storm drain outlet.
121130 11
NMG
-
-
------
---
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
12115-01
November 30, 2012
3.0 CONCLUSION AND PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
3.1 General Conclusion and Recommendation
Based on our findings, the site is considered geotechnically feasible for the proposed residential
development, provided the recommendations of this report are implemented during grading and
future design and construction. Our recommendations are considered minimum and may be
superseded by more stringent requirements of others. The grading and construction should be
performed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Grading Code and the grading specifications
provided in Appendix F, except as superseded below.
3.2 Remedial Removals
At minimum, prior to construction, vegetation and deleterious material (if any) should be
removed. We recommend the upper weathered fill materials be removed to a minimum depth of
12 inches. The removal bottom should expose competent material and should be evaluated and
accepted by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of compacted fill. The removal
bottom should be scarified to depth of 6 inches; moisture-conditioned and recompacted prior to
placement of fill. Fill should be placed in accordance with the recommendations provided in the
following section.
3.3 General Earthwork and Grading
Grading and excavations should be performed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad Grading
Code and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications, which is included in Appendix F of
this report. Miscellaneous trash, debris, vegetation (if any) should be removed prior to remedial
grading operations. Fill materials should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry
density, as determined by ASTM Test Method D1557. Fill materials should be placed in loose
lifts, no thicker than 8 inches. Materials should be moisture-conditioned and processed, as
necessary, to achieve uniform moisture content that is within moisture limits required to assure
adequate bonding and compaction. We recommend that moisture contents of the fill be placed at
above optimum moisture content ( approximately 2 to 3 percentage points), as a result of the
expansive nature of the materials and in order to facilitate the time required for presaturation of
subgrades for foundation and concrete improvements. The design slopes will also require a
minimum 90 percent relative compaction out to the slope face.
Existing buildings, improvements and utilities that are to be protected in place should be located
and visually marked prior to demolition and grading operations. Excavations adjacent to
improvements to be protected in-place or any utility easement should be performed with care, so
as not to undermine existing foundations or destabilize the adjacent ground.
Stockpiling of soils (more than 5 feet in height) over utility lines should not be allowed without
review by the geotechnical consultant. If deeper removals are required, shoring or other special
measures for safety (i.e., setback or laybacks) and to mitigate the potential for lateral/vertical soil
movements may be required.
121130 12
NMG
-
-
-• -
---
-
-
-
-
-------
3.4 Lot Capping/Overexcavation
12115-01
November 30, 2012
Lot 3 is an existing cut lot exposing terrace deposits that are dense to very dense and locally
cemented. Based on our conversations with representatives of The New Home Company, this lot
should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and fill should be placed to finish grade in order to
provide a uniform fill cap under the lot. This would not only facilitate utility and building
construction, but would help with future landscaping of the lot .
Based on the as-graded report by GeoTek, Inc., the other lots were provided with a minimum of
3 feet of compacted fill. Lot 4 is proposed to be lowered 2 feet below existing grade which
would remove the lot cap. Therefore, Lot 4 should also be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet to
provide a new lot cap of uniform compacted fill.
3.5 Slope Stability
As discussed previously, based on our review of the prior grading report by GeoTek (2007), our
subsurface exploration at the site and slope stability analysis, the slope along the eastern
perimeter is considered grossly stable. The slope should be provided with landscaping and
proper maintenance as discussed below in Section 3.20.
3.6 Groundwater
Groundwater is deep below the site and should not be encountered during the
grading/construction. No special subdrainage is considered necessary.
3. 7 Settlement Potential
Following completion of the precise grading and construction of the proposed structures, we
anticipate that the total and differential settlement at the site to be approximately 1 inch and
Y:z inch over a span of 30 feet, respectively.
3.8 Foundation and Structural Slab-on-Grade Design Parameters
Expansive soil conditions are expected to govern foundation and slab-on-grade design from a
geotechnical standpoint.
A net allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 psf may be assumed for a 12-inch-wide footing
embedded 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The allowable bearing pressure may be
increased by 300 psf for every additional foot of width and/or embedment depth up to a
maximum of 4,000 psf. The allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for wind
and seismic loading. We recommend that strip and isolated footings have a minimum
embedment depth of 24 inches.
For lateral resistance against sliding, a friction coefficient of 0.38 may be used at the soil-
foundation interface.
121130 13
NMG
-
-
----
,;!11,ij
-
-
12115-01
November 30, 2012
The footings of freestanding and isolated structures, such as walls and pilasters, should have a
minimum embedment depth of 24 inches into approved soils.
The following table provides our general guidelines and recommendations for design of post-
tensioned foundations and slabs on expansive soil in accordance with the 2010 CBC and Post-
Tension Institute (PTI) 3rd Edition provisions.
GEOTECHNICAL GUIDELINES
FOR DESIGN OF POST-TENSIONED SLABS*
Parameter
Center Lift
* Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em
* Center Lift, Ym
Edge Lift
* Edge Moisture Variation Distance, em
* Edge Lift, Ym
Subgrade Modulus, k
Modulus of Elasticity of Soils, Es
Presaturation, as needed, to obtain the minimum
moisture down to the minimum depth
*Based on method in CBC 2010 and PT! 3rd Edition
Recommendation
9.00 feet
0.63 inches
4.90 feet
0.83 inch
75 pci
1,500 psi
1.2 x optimum down to
12 inches
For foundation designed based on Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI) method as indicated by
the 2010 CBC, we recommend an effective Plasticity Index of 15 be used for soils in the upper
15 feet. For conventional slabs, we recommend a minimum embedment of 18 inches below the
lowest adjacent grade for the perimeter footings.
For uniform thickness post-tensioned slabs, we recommend that the slabs have a thickened edge
such that the slab is embedded a minimum of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. The
thickened edge should be tapered and have a minimum width of 12 inches. If non-uniform
(ribbed) post-tensioned slabs are used, we recommend a minimum embedment of 18 inches
below adjacent grade for the perimeter thickened edges.
The slabs should also be designed to satisfy the settlement criteria presented in Section 3.7 of
these recommendations.
3.9 Moisture Mitigation for Concrete Slabs
In addition to geotechnical and structural considerations, the project owner should also consider
moisture mitigation when designing and constructing slabs-on-grade.
The intended use of the interior space, type of flooring, and the type of goods in contact with the
floor may dictate the need for, and design of, measures to mitigate potential effects of moisture
emission from and/or moisture vapor transmission through the slab. Typically, for human
occupied structures, a vapor retarder or barrier has been recommended under the slab to help
121130 14
NMG
-
-
12115-01
November 30, 2012
mitigate moisture transmission through slabs. The most recent guidelines by the American
Concrete Institute (ACI 302. lR-96) recommend that the vapor retarder be placed directly under
the slab (no sand layer). However, the location of the vapor retarder may also be subject to the
builder's past successful practice. Placement of 1 or 2 inches of sand over the moisture retardant
has been common practice by builders in Southern California. Specifying the strength of the
retarder to resist puncture and its permeance rating is important. These qualities are not
necessarily a function of the retarder thickness. A minimum of 10-mil is typical but some
materials, such as 10-mil polyethylene ("Visqueen"), may not meet the desired standards for
toughness and permeance.
The vapor retarder, when used, should be installed in accordance with standards such as
ASTM E 1643-98 and/or those specified by the manufacturer.
Concrete mix design and curing are also significant factors in mitigating slab moisture problems.
Concrete with lower water/cement ratios results in denser, less permeable slabs. They also "dry"
faster with regard to when flooring can be installed (reduced moisture emissions quantities and
rates). Rewetting of the slab following curing should be avoided since this can result in
additional drying time required prior to flooring installation. Proper concrete slab testing prior to
flooring installation is also important.
Concrete mix design, the type and location of the vapor retarder should be determined in
coordination with all parties involved in the finished product, including the project owner,
architect, structural engineer, geotechnical consultant, concrete subcontractors, and flooring
subcontractors.
3.10 Seismic Design
The seismic design criteria based on the 2010 California Building Code (CBC) is as follows:
Selected Seismic Design Parameters
from 2010 CBC
Latitude
Longitude
Controlling Seismic Source
Distance to the Controlling Seismic Source
Site Class per Table 1613.5.2
Spectral Acceleration for Short Periods (Ss)
Spectral Accelerations for I-Second Periods (S 1)
Short-Period Site Coefficient, 0.2 s-period (Fa)
Long-Period Site Coefficient, 1.0 s-period (Fv)
Five-percent damped Design Spectral Response
Acceleration at Short Periods (Sos) from
Equation 16-39 (Site Class D)
Five-Percent Damped Design Spectral Response
Acceleration at I-Second Period (Sm) from
Equation 16-40 (Site Class D)
121130 15
Seismic Design
Values
33.1112 North
117.2867 West
Rose Canyon Fault
5.4 Miles (8.7 km)
D
1.201 g
0.453 g
1.02
1.547
0.817 g
0.467 g
Reference
USGS, 2008
USGS, 2008
USGS, 2011
USGS, 2011
USGS, 2011
USGS, 2011
USGS, 2011
USGS, 2011
USGS, 2011
NMG
-
-
-
3.11 Erosion Repair
12115-01
November 30, 2012
As discussed in Section 2.13, there is minor erosion on the lots that should be repaired with
reprocessing of the lots during precise grading. The erosion gulley on the slope behind the storm
drain outlet should be repaired by removing the fill and recompacting it, or possibly by adding
some soil cement in this area.
For the offsite drainage to the northeast of the site (Plate 1), consideration should be given to
extending the rip-rap down-gradient to reduce the future erosion in this area. If the surface water
is not controlled, this may result in further downcutting of the canyon below the subject slope
and outlet structure. This area is located within the adjacent habitat area. The repair should be
made by the property owner or the governing agency.
3.12 Lateral Earth Pressures
The onsite native soils may be used as backfill materials. The recommended lateral earth
pressures for the onsite native soils are as follow:
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (psf/ft.)
Conditions Level 2:1 Slope
Active 40 65
At Rest 60 85
Passive 360 135 (if sloping in front of wall)
Seismic + 14 (see text below)
To design an unrestrained retaining wall, such as a cantilever wall, the active earth pressure may
be used. For a restrained retaining wall, such as a vault or at restrained wall comers, the at-rest
pressure should be used. Passive pressure is used to compute lateral soils resistance developed
against lateral structural movement. Future landscaping/planting and improvements adjacent to
the retaining walls should also be taken into account in the design of the retaining walls.
Excessive soil disturbance, trenches (excavation and backfill), future landscaping adjacent to
footings and over-saturation can adversely impact retaining structures and result in reduced
lateral resistance. For walls with narrow trench footings (IO-inches or less) that are located in
areas likely to be landscaped, we recommend neglecting the passive resistance in the upper 2
feet.
For sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of 0.38 may be used at the concrete and soil interface.
This value may be increased to 0.55 for any keyway below the wall base. The passive resistance is
taken into account only if it is ensured that the soil against embedded structure will remain intact
with time. The retaining walls may also need to be designed for additional lateral loads if other
structures or walls are planned within a lH: 1 V projection.
The seismic lateral earth pressure for level backfill may be estimated to be an additional 14 pcf for
active and at-rest conditions. The seismic soil pressure has a triangular distribution and is added
121130 16
NMG
--
-
-
-
-
'1"''1
12115-01
November 30, 2012
to the static pressures. For the active and at-rest conditions, the additional seismic loading is zero
at the top and maximum at the bottom of the wall.
Drainage behind retaining walls should also be provided and typical recommendations for wall
drainage are provided on the attached detail (Figure 2). The waterproofing and drainage systems
for the retaining walls that are located between the future residential lots may require additional
measures to minimize the potential for nuisance seepage. Specific drainage connections, outlets
and avoiding open joints should be considered for the retaining wall design.
3.13 Foundation Setbacks
The footings of structures located above descending slopes should be set back from the slope
face in accordance with the minimum requirements of the city of Carlsbad and CBC criteria,
whichever is greater. The setback distance is measured from the outside edge of the footing
bottom along a horizontal line to the face of the slope. For the subject site, the descending slope
height is approximately 50 feet.
The table below summarizes our mm1mum setback recommendations for structures above
descending slopes:
Structural Setback Requirements for
Footings Above Descending Slopes
Slope Height [H] Minimum Setback
(feet) from Slope face (feet)
Less than 10 5
10 to 20 Yi H
20 to 30 10
More than 30 'lj H (maximum of 40')
Top-of-slope walls (freestanding) or other structures that are sensitive to lateral movement
should also comply with these footing setback requirements or be provided with other additional
design measures to mitigate slope creep and lateral fill extension phenomena.
3.14 Residential Exterior Concrete (Non-Structural)
Exterior concrete elements such as curb and gutter, driveways, sidewalks and patios are
susceptible to lifting and cracking when constructed over expansive soils. With expansive soils,
the impacts to flatwork/hardscape can be significant, generally requiring removal and
replacement of the affected improvements. Please also note that reducing concrete problems is
often a function of proper slab design; concrete mix design, placement, and curing/finishing
practices. Adherence to guidelines of the American Concrete Institute (ACI) is recommended.
Also, the amount of post-construction watering, or lack thereof, can have a very significant
impact on the adjacent concrete flatwork.
For reducing the potential effects of expansive soils, we recommend a combination of pre-
saturation of subgrade soils; reinforcement; moisture barriers/drains; and a sub layer of granular
121130 17
NMG
-
12115-01
November 30, 2012
material. Though these types of measures may not completely eliminate adverse impacts,
application of these measures can significantly reduce the impacts from post-construction
expansion of soil. The degrees and combinations of these measures will depend upon:
• The expansion potential of the subgrade soils;
• The potential for moisture migration to the subgrade;
• The feasibility of the measures (especially pre-saturation); and
• The economics of these measures versus the benefits.
These factors should be weighed by the project owner determining the measures to be applied on
a project-by-project basis, subject to the requirements of the local building/grading department.
The following table provides our recommendations for varying expansion characteristics of
subgrade soils. Additional considerations are also provided after the table. For preliminary
design purposes, we recommend that the "low" category be used.
TYPICAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
CONCRETEFLATWORK/HARDSCAPE
Expansion Potential
ilndex}
Recommendations Very Low Low Medium High Very High
(<20) (20-50) (51-90) (91-130) (> 130)
Slab Thickness (Min.):
Nominal thickness except 4" 4" 4" 4" 4" Full
where noted.
Subbase: Thickness of sand or
gravel layer below concrete NIA NIA Optional 2"-4" 2"-4"
Pre-saturation: Degree of Pre-wet 1.1 X opt. 1.2 X opt. ) .3 X Opt. 1.4 X opt. optimum moisture content
( o~t.} and de~th of saturation Only to 6" to 12" to 18" to 24"
Joints: Maximum spacing of
control joints. Joint should be 10' 10' 8' 6' 6'
1/i of total thickness
Optional No. 3 rebar,
Reinforcement: Rebar or 24" O.C. both No. 3 rebar,
equivalent welded wire mesh NIA NIA (WWF6x6 ways or 24"0.C.
placed near mid-height of slab Wl.4xW1 .4) equivalent both ways
wire mesh
Restraint: Slip dowels across Across cold Across cold
cold joints; between sidewalk NIA NIA Optional joints joints (and
and curb into curb)
The more expansive soils, because they are clayey, can take significantly longer to achieve
recommended pre-saturation levels. Therefore, the procedure and timing should be carefully
planned in advance of construction. For exterior slabs, the use of a granular sublayer is primarily
intended to facilitate pre-saturation and subsequent construction by providing a better working
surface over the saturated soil. It also helps retain the added moisture in the native soil in the
121130 18
NMG
12115-01
November 30, 2012
event that the slab is not placed immediately. Where these factors are not significant, the layer
may be omitted.
The above recommendations typically are not applied to curb and gutter, but should be
considered in areas with highly expansive soils.
3.15 Asphalt Pavement Repair and Cap Pave
The existing pavement section within the cul-de-sac is not known. Based on our laboratory test
results the R-value of the onsite soils varies from 16 to 22. Using a design R-value of 15 and a
traffic index of 5.0, we recommend that the pavement section within the cul-de-sac consist of a
minimum of 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 6 inches of aggregate base. The existing pavement
section should be cored at two or three locations to verify the existing section is adequate.
We anticipate that upon the completion of the grading and construction, the existing pavement
will need to be cap paved. At minimum, we recommend that the cracked areas (if any) be milled
down at least 1.5 inches and overlaid with new asphalt concrete (AC). The milled area should
extend laterally at least 12 inches beyond the cracks being repaired. The AC overlay should be
placed over a paving fabric designed to mitigate crack reflection. The cap pave should consist of
a minimum 1.2 inches of asphalt concrete placed over tack-coated pavement.
Pavement sections should be placed in accordance with the requirements of Section 301 and 302 of
the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction (The Green Book). Prior to construction
of pavement sections, the subgrade soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches,
moisture-conditioned as needed, and recompacted in place to a minimum of 90 percent relative
compaction per ASTM D1557. Subgrade for the proposed pavement areas should be firm and
unyielding.
AB materials should be crushed aggregate or crushed miscellaneous base in accordance with The
Green Book. The materials should be free of any deleterious materials. AB materials should be
placed in 6-to 8-inch loose lifts, moisture-conditioned as necessary, and compacted to a minimum
of95 percent relative compaction per ASTM D1557.
Moisture and root barriers should be considered along the street pavements that are adjacent to
unpaved medians and parkways with landscape and irrigation in order to minimize the potential
for wetting of the street subgrade soils and pavement distress
3.16 Cement Type
Soluble sulfate test result indicates "negligible" sulfate exposure level in accordance with
Table 4.3.1 of ACI-318. Cement type and mix design for structural concrete with respect to
sulfates should conform to the ACI recommendations. The ACI and Greenbook do not have
specific strength, cement type and water-cement ratio requirements for concrete in contact with
soils have "negligible" soluble sulfate content.
121130 19
NMG
I
C:
C:
r ..
,.. ..
,.. ..
12115-01
November 30, 2012
3.17 Soil Corrosivity
The low resistivity indicates the soils are severely corrosive to buried metals. The pH and
chloride exposure determined for the onsite soils do not result in special requirements.
Specific recommendations pertaining to corrosion protection are provided in the report prepared
by HDR Schiff included in Appendix C.
3.18 Improvements near Tops of Slopes
Both manufactured and natural slopes can undergo small deformations over time due to changes
in moisture content and gravitational forces. Hillside lots are subject to soil phenomena referred
to as slope creep and lateral fill extension (LFE). In the past, this has also been called "lot
stretching" due to the associated horizontal component of earth movement.
These phenomena are expected to some degree or another with all graded fill slopes. The exact
mechanisms of these natural processes are not entirely understood but most geotechnical
professionals agree that LFE is associated with expansive soil and an increase in the moisture
content of the fill over time. As the fill gets wetter and the soil expands, the slope area moves
outward with surface displacements that can range from fractions of an inch to several inches.
At some point, LFE is thought to reach an equilibrium point and movements either cease or
greatly diminish. If rear yard improvements are not designed and built with this in mind, tilting,
cracks, separations and other distress may occur.
Slope creep is the result of the pull of gravity on a slope and the tendency of the soil near the top
of slope and on the slope face to very slowly move down hill as the soil expands and contracts
with seasonal variations in soil moisture. The magnitude of slope creep is generally thought to
depend on factors such as the height of the slope, its steepness, the type of soil, and the degree of
moisture variation. Slope creep may continue indefinitely. The movement of the side yard
fencing and tilting of improvements like the pools that are closer to the top of slope may be due
to slope creep, as well as LFE.
While it is generally not practical or economical to eliminate the effects of LFE and slope creep,
many measures can be incorporated into the design and construction of rear yard improvements
to mitigate the effects of these phenomena. Some measures include:
121J30
• Setting improvements back from the edge (top) of slope.
• Deepening foundations.
• Reinforcing concrete.
• Including "soft" landscape zones in hardscape areas where soil movements will be
buffered and have less impact.
• Tying improvements together to resist movements.
• Not tying improvements together (de-coupling) to allow for soil movements without
causing damage to the improvements (e.g., expansion joints, flexible connections, slip
dowels).
• Using adjustable types of improvements such as concrete pavers and wood fencing.
20
NMG
-
-
---
-
---
-
-
-
---
• Incorporating adjustable hardware for gates hinges, latches, etc.
12115-01
November 30, 2012
Pools, spas, or other water features built close to tops of slopes in highly expansive soil have a
high potential for tilting and lateral movement. Pool shells, plumbing connections, and
coping/decking must be designed to account for these movements and the associated forces.
Even, then, while their function may not be compromised, aesthetic impacts should be factored
into the architectural designs.
Homeowner education and expectations of performance of rear yard improvements at tops of
slope are also very important for loss prevention.
Since the onsite soils generally low to very low expansion potential, the creep zone for the lots
adjacent to slopes is estimated to extend 7 to 15 feet from the edge of the slope top and to a depth
of 2 feet. Lateral movements on the order of 1 inch should also be considered. The design of
building foundations and walls should follow the minimum setback guidelines provided in this
report.
3.19 Surface Drainage
Surface drainage should be carefully taken into consideration during all grading, landscaping,
and building construction. Positive surface drainage should be provided to direct surface water
away from structures and slopes and toward the street or suitable drainage devices. Ponding of
water adjacent to the structures should not be allowed. Paved areas should be provided with
adequate drainage devices, gradients, and curbing to reduce run-off flowing from paved areas
onto adjacent unpaved areas.
The performance of foundations is also dependent upon maintaining adequate surface drainage
away from structures. The minimum gradient within 5 feet of the building will depend upon
surface landscaping. In general, we recommend that unpaved lawn and landscape areas have a
minimum gradient of 2 percent away from structures immediately adjacent to structures and a
minimum gradient of 1 percent for devices such as swales to collect this runoff and direct it
toward the street or other appropriate collection points.
3.20 Maintenance of Graded Slopes
To reduce the erosion and slumping potential of the graded slopes, all permanent manufactured
slopes should be protected from erosion by planting with appropriate vegetation or suitable
erosion protection should be applied as soon as is practical. Proper drainage should be designed
and maintained to collect surface waters and direct them away from slopes. A rodent-control
program should be established and maintained as well, to reduce the potential for damage related
to burrowing. In addition, the design and construction of improvements and landscaping should
also provide appropriate drainage measures.
121130 21
NMG
-• --
-
-
-----
--
--
3.21 Utility Construction
12115-01
November 30, 2012
Shoring: Utility excavations should be stabilized per OSHA requirements (shoring or laying
back of trench walls) for Type B soils and locally for Type C soils due to possible adverse
bedding conditions or running sands.
Pipe Bedding and Sand Backfill: Pipe should be placed on at least 6 inches of clean sand or
gravel. The area around the pipe (at least one foot over top of pipe) should be backfilled with
clean sand, having a minimum sand equivalent of 30 or better. The sand could be jetted with
water below the springline to ensure filling of voids beneath the pipe (if allowed by local
agency). Otherwise, sand along the side of the pipe should be placed in small lifts and
compacted with small hand-held compactors (e.g., powder-puffs). Depending on the size of the
pipe, higher sand equivalents may be required if jetting is not permitted. Jetting should be
performed in moderation to minimize the amount of water introduced into the surrounding native
soils.
Trench Backfill: Backfill materials should be moisture-conditioned as needed to within the
compactable range and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent.
3.22 Geotechnical Review of Future Plans
Any revisions/changes in the current plan for the site should be reviewed and accepted by the
geotechnical consultant prior to grading. Foundation and retaining wall plans should also be
provided to NMG for review.
3.23 Geotechnical Observation and Testing During Grading
The findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report are based upon interpretation of
data and data points having limited spatial extent. Verification and refinement of actual
geotechnical conditions during grading is essential, especially where slope stabilization is
involved. At minimum, geotechnical observation and testing should be conducted during
grading operations at the following stages:
• During and following remedial removals to evaluate and accept the removal bottom;
• Upon completion of any foundation and retaining-wall-footing excavation prior to placement
of reinforcement or concrete;
• During slab-and flatwork-subgrade preparation, prior to placement of concrete;
• During pavement subgrade or AB compaction and AC paving;
• During placement of backfill for utility trenches and retaining walls; and
• When any unusual soil conditions are encountered during construction subsequent to the
issuance of this report.
121130 22
NMG
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
SITE LOCATION MAP
BASE: U.S.G.S. 7.5 MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC MAP,
ENCINITAS QUADRANGLE
Dated 1968, Photorevised 1975
CARLSBAD 16 PROJECT
LOTS 1 THROUGH 16, TRACT 15521
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Scale 1 "=2000'
Project Number: 12115-01
Project Name: TNHC/Carlsbad
Date: 11-30-12 Figure No. 1
N
i
NMG
Gc?Otechnical. Inc.
--
-
-
"""
Provide proper surface drainage
(drain separate from subdrain}
:-::-+ 1' to 2' Cover ____i_
Retaining wall
Waterproofing (optional)
Provide proper surface drainage
(drain separate from subdrain}
Retaining wall
NOTES:
OPTION 1:
AGGREGATE SYSTEM DRAIN
~-Native backfill
"··:::-:~ !~:<~;;"-f -Clean sand vertical drain having sand equivalent t -;-; · .: ;'.: ·'l of 30 or greater or other free-draining granular
t*-1. ~, material 1·:m1n·.·
1i1r.,tr , ..... · .. , .. ~ !·.:.-·./:.) .. ,... ~:·,·:,:
Minimum 1 ft. 3/ft. of 1 /4 to 1 1 /2" size gravel
or crushed rock encased in approved
Filter Fabric
4-inch diameter perforated pipe with proper
outlet. (See Notes below for alternate discharge
system}
Alternative: Class 2 permeable
filter material (Per Caltrans
specifications} may be used for
vertical drain and around
perforated pipe (without filter fabric)
OPTION 2:
Wrap filter fabric
flap behind core
COMPOSITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
Mirafi G100N, Contech C-Drain 15K, or equivalent
drainage composite.
Cut back of core to match size of
weep hole. Do not cut fabric.
4-inch diameter perforated pipe with proper outlet.
Peel back the bottom fabric flap,place pipe next to core,
wrap fabric around pipe and tuck behind core. (See Notes
for alternate weep hole discharge system}
1. PIPE TYPE SHOULD BE PVC OR ABS, SCHEDULE 40 OR SDR35 SATISFYING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM TEST STANDARD
D1527, D1785, D2751, OR D3034.
2. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE APPROVED PERMEABLE NON-WOVEN POLYESTER, NYLON, OR POLYPROPYLENE MATERIAL.
3. DRAIN PIPE SHOULD HAVE A GRADIENT OF 1 PERCENT MINIMUM.
4. WATERPROOFING MEMBRANE MAY BE REQUIRED FOR A SPECIFIC RETAINING WALL (SUCH AS A STUCCO OR BASEMENT WALL).
5. WEEP HOLES MAY BE PROVIDED FOR LOW RETAINING WALLS (LESS THAN 3 FEET IN HEIGHT) IN LIEU OF A VERTICAL DRAIN
AND PIPE AND WHERE POTENTIAL WATER FROM BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL WILL NOT CREATE A NUISANCE WATER
CONDITION. IF EXPOSURE IS NOT PERMITTED, A PROPER SUBDRAIN OUTLET SYSTEM SHOULD BE PROVIDED.
6. IF EXPOSURE IS PERMITTED, WEEP HOLES SHOULD BE 2-INCH MINIMUM DIAMETER AND PROVIDED AT 25-FOOT MAXIMUM
SPACING ALONG WALL. WEEP HOLES SHOULD BE LOCATED 3+ INCHES ABOVE FINISHED GRADE.
7. SCREENING SUCH AS WITH A FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR WEEP HOLES/OPEN JOINTS TO PREVENT EARTH
MATERIALS FROM ENTERING THE HOLES/JOINTS.
8. OPEN VERTICAL MASONRY JOINTS (I.E., OMIT MORTAR FROM JOINTS OF FIRST COURSE ABOVE FINISHED GRADE) AT 32-INCH
MAXIMUM INTERVALS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR WEEP HOLES.
9 THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT MAY PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RETAINING WALLS DESIGNED FOR
SELECT SAND BACKFILL.
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL NMG
Gczotczchnlcal, Inc.
3/05 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE.ai
FIGURE 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-..
,. ..
-
APPENDIX A
--
-
-
-
-
-----..
--
-
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
12115-01
November 30, 2012
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1986, Landslide
Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California; Landslide Hazard
Identification Map #4, Open File Report 86-8.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1996, Geologic
Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California; Plate 2 Geologic Maps of
the Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7.5' Quadrangles; Open File Report 96-02.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1997,
Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special
Publication 11 7.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 1999, Fault-
Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1997, 1 and 2
added 1999.
County of San Diego, 2007, Guidelines for Determining Significance, Geologic Hazards, Land
Use and Environment Group, Department of Planning and Land Use, Department of
Public Works, dated July 30, 2007.
Eisenberg, L. I., 1992, Pleistocene Faults and Marine Terraces, Northern San Diego County, in The
Regressive Pleistocene Shoreline Coastal Southern California, South Coast Geological
Society, Inc. Annual Field Trip Guidebook No. 20, pgs. 49-53.
Excel Engineering, 2006, Carlsbad Tract 03-06 Grading Plans for Black Rail -16, Sheets 1
through 6 of 6.
Jennings, C. W., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, with Locations and
Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions, California Department of Conservation, Division
of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6.
GeoTek, Inc. 2007, Interim Report of Geotechnical Testing and Observation Services during
Earthwork Construction, Lots 1 through 16, Black Rail TM No. 2-206, Carlsbad,
California, Job No. 3103SD3, dated July 25, 2007.
Vinje and Middleton Engineering, Inc. 2003, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed
17-Lot Subdivision, Black Rail Road, Carlsbad, California, Job No. 03-236-P, dated
May 22, 2003.
US Geological Survey, 2012, Earthquake Hazards Program, Complete Report for Newport-
Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone, south Los Angeles Basin Section (Class A) No. 127b;
http://geohazards.usgs.gov/cfusion/qfault/qf web disp.cfm?disp cd=C&gfault or=303&i
ms cf cd=cf
12rno A-1
-
...
-----
-
---
---
-
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES(Cont)
12115-01
November 30, 2012
U. S. Geological Survey, 2008, 2002 Interactive Deaggregations Program, Updated August 19,
2008; web site address: http://eqint.cr.usgs.gov/deaggint/2002/.
U. S. Geological Survey, 2011, Seismic Hazards Curves, Response Parameters and Design
Parameters, Version 5.1.0, dated February 10, 2011; web site address:
http:// earthquake. usgs. gov /research/hazmaps/ design.
121130 A-2
-
-
-
-
,...
....
....
-
-
-
-
-...
-... -
APPENDIX B
--
-
-
-------------
-
-
-
BORING LOGS
BYNMG
---NMG Ge;ota:chnlcal, Inc. Page 1 of 2
DATE STARTED: 11/19/12 DATE ENDED: 11/19/12 Boring No. B-1 -DRILLING COMPANY: B!g Johnnll Orilll!'.!Q N
j EQUIPMENT USED: Bucket Ausmr GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 358 ft
~ HOLE DIAMETER (In.) 24" DATUM: MSL
! DRIVE DROP (In.) 12" LOCATION: -DRIVE WEIGHT (lbs.) 0-25'=2500bs, 2S-46'=1 !iOOlbtl COORD/STATION:
8 u DESCRIPTION E -g ! Ji l!!i l I g
t I ~ff Logged By: AP/LY ~ lj j -! ~ ~ I!! < ll !i Sampled By: AP a: C) a z -' t "" fl . ' . . . Artlflclal FIii (Af) -! ..... @Surface: Yellowish brown, silty fine SAND with some pebbles, dry to ---?.: SM ~ ----sllghtty damp. B-1@ . . . .. . . ... @1' Medium to deli< brown, silty SANO, dry, very dense, mottled, no visible 0-5Feet. -"i ---& -. . . . . pores . ---Pocket Pen: @2' Reddish brown, silty fine SAND with scattered gravel, mottled. •• ~ •• 0 •• 4.6+ B-1 SM @2.5' SAMPLE: Yellowish brown, silty fine to medium SANO with pebbles, 126.2 6.5 ----l,j . . . .. D-1 11 damp, very dense.
i . . ... @3' Medium to dark brown, silty fine SAND. .... . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . -~ . " ... @4.5' Slightly clayey SAND. j_ ---~ .. o•. 4,5+ SM @5' SAMPLE: Dark yellowish brown, silty clayey fine to medium SAND 117.4 10.6 -I .~.,O• with some pebbles, dense, moisL ---0-2 5 -. . . . ' @5' Piece of plastic encountered • ..... • D. . . . . .
I . . .. " -. . .. .. @7' Fragment of plastic pipe encountered. -3®_ o:-.• SM @7.5' SAMPLE: Dari< yellowish brown to brown and gray, clayey silty 118.1 13.4 iJl ---o -4 w SAND, mottled, moist, dense, some fragments possibly bedrock derived. ~ --· 0-3 4 -• • • u •• @7.5-8' Fragment of concrete, 6" in diameter . ---~ . . . . . -----. . . . . 1.Q_ ---J . . . .. SM @10' SAMPLE: Dark brown, silty fine to medium SAND with some pebbles, 127.7 8.7 -. " ... moist, dense, black and reddish brown staining locally. . . . . . 4.25 0-4 9 ---@10' Thin decomposed wood fragments. . . . . . @10-10.5' Trace organics. -. . . . . . .. .. .. . I-@11' Friable SAND, grades to dark brown, silty SAND with scattered -. .. . . . gravel, moist, medium dense to dense • ---@12' Grades to light reddish brown, silty SAND, moist, dense, mottled. ---SM 122.9 6.3 -@12.5' SAMPLE: Dark yellowish brown to grayish brown, silty fine to ---0-5 5 medium SAND to silty CLAY, moist, mediooi dense. ---.. -------15 i----. . .. ... 4.5+ SM Terrace (Qt) 122.3 10.4 -@14.9-15.2' Contact belWeen artificial fill and underlying terrace, . . .. .. 0-6 6 -. . O, undulatory, terrace scarified. -.o ..... @15' SAMPLE: Strong brown, silty fine to medium SAND, gray, silty fine to . . . . medk.m SAND in tip, slightly moist, dense, cemented in places, pockets of -. . . . >-gray sand locally. -. . . . . @15' Medium brown, silty SAND with trace CLAY and scattered gravel, 34JL -. . . . . >-moist, dense, bedrock fragments. -•• C', .... . . ...
• c;, • O• -@19' White to light yellowish brown SANDSTONE fragments in terrace. -. . . ..
2..!l .. . .... -. .... SM @20' SAMPLE: Streng brown, silty fine to medium SAND, moist, very 126.2 10.4 ....... 0-7 14 dense, coarsens down sample. -. . .. .. . @21' SIity SAND with trace CLAY, terrace is uniform, massive . . . ......
'--......... .......
-._ . .. .. .. . @23' Clayey silty SAND, micaceous . -.. .. . .. -• . .. .. . .
21. . ....... -GEOTECHNICAL 12115-01 ~ -LOG OF BORING TNHC/Black Rail Road NMG -
-------•
-• -• -• ---•
--..
--------• -• ·--
NMG Gczotachnlcal, Inc. Page 2 of ..L
DATE STARTED: 11/19/12 DATE ENDED: _ __,_11"'"11..,.9.:..:11=2-Boring No. B-1 DRIWNG COMPANY: Big Johnny Drilling
EQUIPMENT USED: Bueket Auger
24"
12"
HOLE DIAMETER (In.)
DRIVE DROP (In.)
DRIVE WEIGHT (Iba.) 0-25'=25001bs. 25-45'=1500lbs
33.Q_
32.Q_
-
-
lw « .. . .. .. .. . . . . ......... . . . . . . .. ... " .. . .... . .. .. . . ...... . .. .. . .. . . ...
••J • ;'!~ GB: N40W,
30 •• • '"' ', 5SW ~...:;_ . .. . . . . . . . .. . . ~ . · .... " . .. .. . . ,,. · .... .. . · .... ·" . (1' IJI 0 .o·'!· -..... . . . . ...... . . . .
3.§_ •• :.,·,; (, " ..
. .
-.. . . .
' • 9 • f) GB: N10W,
• fl :0 •,. 9SW .o• . . -. . ..
a• •c:>,
~ .. " ...
tJ" " u. . . -........ . . .
..... 0" oo~ •. ...........
0-8 16
0-9 16
1)..10 18
0-11 14
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 358ft
DATUM: ~M=S=L~--~---~-
LOCATION: ~~~--~------~-~~~
COORDISTATION:
SM
SM
DESCRIPTION
Logged By: ~A~P"'"'/L"""Y ______ _
Sampled By: ~A""'P ________ _
@25' SAMPLE: Strong brown, silty fine to medium SAND, moist to wet.
dense, micaceous.
Santiago Fonnatlon (Tu?)
@29.2' Biotite-rlch SANDSTONE laminations.
@29.5' Grades to yellow, silty fine SANDSTONE, moist. dense, friable,
micaceous .
@30' SAMPLE: Strong brown to yellowish brown, silty fine to medium
SANDSTONE, wet, dense, mlcaceous.
@30.5-31' Manganese staining •
@32' Medium to coarse SANDSTONE with scattered gravel.
SM @35' SAMPLE: Strong brown to gray, silty fine SANDSTONE with
scattered pebbles, very moist, dense, micaceous.
SM
@36' Silty fine to medium SANDSTONE, slightly friable, micaceous •
@37 .3' Silty fine SANDSTONE with minor cross-bedding.
@37.5' Medium to coarse SANDSTONE with gravel .
@38.5' Silty fine SANDSTONE •
@39' Medium to coarse SANDSTONE with scattered gravel, well rounded
cobbles, very friable.
@40' SAMPLE: Yellowish brown, fine to medium SANDSTONE, moist,
dense, micaceous, friable •
@42' Thin layer of cobbles.
116.7 11.5
114.1 15.9
115.5 10.7
111.5 5.2
.. .. . -?: h1Bl43.5' Layer of biolite-rlch silty SANDSTONE, 6" thick. 1
• .. • • -SanU•go Fonnltlon (Tn)
-
4~ : • ', ., • t-----t----,..----1""-1:!'!rr-h@43. T Light yellowish brown, silty vey fine SANDSTONE.
<>M @45' SAMPLE: Yelowish brown, fine to medium SANDSTONE, slighUy 101.e a.s
0-12 40/6"
31.Q_
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
moist, very dense, micaceous, friable.
\ Gray, silty fine SANDSTONE at bottom of sample. I
Notes:
Total Depth: 45 Feet.
No Groundwater Encountered.
Downhole Logged to 45 Feet.
Backfilled With Cuttings and Tamped.
12115-01
TNHC/Black Rail Road
~ NMG
--
-
----
----
-
-----
-
------• -• -•
NMG Gczotczchnlcal, Inc. Page 1 of 2
DATE STARTED: 11/15/12 DATE ENDED: -~11~/1=5/~1=2-Boring No. B-2 DRILLING COMPANY: Big Johnny Drilling
EQUIPMENT USED: Bucket Auger
24"
12"
HOLE DIAMETER (In.)
DRIVE DROP (In.)
DRIVE WEIGHT (lbs.) l).25'=2500lbs, 25-45'=1500lbs
-
35.Q_
-
34.Q.__
. . . . --------. . . . ---• , , , Pocket Pen: ·7-" :-:~ 4.5+ . . . . . . .. . . ---. . . . . . . ... ...... ---. . . .. . . ... " 5 •••••
...:a.-• • • • • -----..... ---. . . . . . . ...
-_,,_ ------. . . . . . . ... . . . . . -..,..,., ...... : c::,=·a ---. . . . . . . ...
1Jl : ·:: : ·. ---.-=> •• : ·---.::-.. -· . . ... ---. . . . . . . ... ' ------.....
4.5+
4.5+
4.0
3.75
4.5+
4.D-4.5+
• • • • • 4.5+ ---
2..2_ • • • •• . . . .
-. . . . . . . . . . . .. -. . . . . . . . . . -. . . . .
25 ' • • •
IM
D-1
D-3
D-10
t-
t-
t-
t-
t-
GEOTECHNICAL
LOG OF BORING
7
11
5
4
5
13
11
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 357 ft
DATUM: ~MS~L~--------
LOCATION: ~---------------~ COORD/STATION:
DESCRIPTION
Logged By: __,_A~P~fTW~-------
Sampled By: __,_A..,,.P.,_fTW~-------
Artlftcl1I Fiil lAf)
SM @SLllface: Reddish brown to strong brown, silty SANO with small rounded
pebbles, weathered, dry and powdery near surface, smaa cemented pieces
of terrace.
@1' Primarily silty SAND with small fragments of asphalt and concrete.
@2' Reddish brown, sllty SAND, damp, dense.
SM @2.5' SAMPLE: Strong brown, silty SAND, slightly moist, dense. 121.1
@3' Mottted and slighUy moist
8.3
@4' Reddish brown, silty SAND to slighUy clayey silty SAND, moist, dense,
some small fragments of asphalt
SM @5' SAMPLE: Da~ brown to red brown, silty SAND, very dense, slightly 123.2 6.9
moist.
@5.5' Lifts of fill are 6-8" thick, contain some small pieces of plastic.
@7' Asphalt and concrete fragments up to 3" in diameter .
SC-SM @7 .5' SAMPLE: Gray to reddish brown, silty clayey SAND, damp, dense,
motued, small pieces of asphalt and concrete.
@6' Small fragments of brick and concrete up to 6" In diameter.
@6-8. 7' Lift of light gray to reddish brown, mottled, slightly clayey sandy
SILT, possibly bedrock derived.
@9' Small fragments of light gray clayey, SILTSTONE.
SM-SC @9.5-10' Lift of gray, clayey SILT and light gray, SAND mixed with reddish
brown, clayey sandy SILT, less dense than material above.
@10' SAMPLE: Brown, slighUy clayey silty SAND, slighUy moist, less
dense than previous sample, wood pieces, old concrete pieces up to 6" in
diameter.
SM-SC @10' Reddish brown, clayey SAND with small rounded cobbles and
bedrock derived fragments.
@11' Reddish brown to gray, motUed, clayey SAND with pebbles and
fragments of asphalt, small piece of twine/rope.
@12' SAMPLE: Oa~ yellowish brown, silty clayey fine to medium SAND
1with some pebbles, slightly moist, medium dense, some plastic and paper ~~• I
Terrace (Qt)
SM @14' Reddish brown, silty SAND with gray silt nodules, moist, dense,
friable.
@15' SAMPLE: Reddish brown to strong brown, silty SAND with some dark
gray SILT, 1/4" layers, moist to very moist, dense, massive, slightly
cemented pieces locally.
@15.6' Irregular joint with da~ brown coating, discontinuous, very tight
@16.6' Similar Irregular joint, very Ught
@17.5' Near vertical joint, very light.
SM @20' SAMPLE: Reddish strong brown, silty fine to medium SAND, moist,
dense, massive .
@22' Clayey silty fine to coarse SAND, well graded, slightly friable.
123.7 10.1
118.7 14.0
122.6 11.4
119.4 11.7
121.3 11.9
8-1@
o.5 Feet.
12115-01 ~
TNHC/Black Rail Road NMG
-
-
--
--
-
-
NMG Gaota;chnlcal. Inc. Page 2 ot 2
DATE STARTED: -~11~/1=5/~1=2-DATEENDED:_~11~/1=5/~1=2-
DRILLING COMPANY: __,B=i ... g.:.Joh=n=ny~Dr~il=llng _________ _ Boring No. B-2
EQUIPMENT USED: _,B=,u,.,.ck,,,e..,.t""'A,.,.uger~-----------GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION: 357 ft
HOLE DIAMETER (In.) ~2"-'4-" __ _
DRIVE DROP (In.) .... 1=2" ___ _
DRIVE WEIGHT (lbs.) 0-25'=2500lbs, 25-45's1500lbs
33..Q_
-
-
-
32..Q_
. . . . . . . . . . .
" ...
. \: .. . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .
3J!_ -• • • •• ..... ,.
:•.• •••• : GB: N35W,
-.:._ '..,:. &NE ,, •. -... • ••• • . . .. . . . ... . ---·-. . .. ---. .. . . . . . .. -............. _ . .. " ..
3~ : : •• : • . . . . . . . .. ... .. ---. . .. '
. . : ---Ooa, • • • C, . ': .... 0 •• - . ·•·o .. • • 0
-
~ ..... ---. . . . ---.. ., .... . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . ---. .. .. :......:-... . .. -. . .. -:-·.:...~
D-7 9
B-2
-
16
D-9 15
-
DATUM: ....,M=S=L,,__ ______ _
LOCATION:~---------------~
COORDISTATION:
DESCRIPTION
Logged By: ~A~P~/TW~-------
Sampled By: ~A~P~/TW~-------
SM @25' SAMPLE: Reddish strong brown, silty fine to medium SAND, moist, 115.B 13.2
dense, massive .
@27.5' Black staining along vertical joint. very dense, stable.
SM @30' SAMPLE: Reddish strong brown, silty fine to medium SAND, moist, /
\dense, massive, siighUy coarser sand near bottom.
S1ntl1go Formation (T .. ?)
Yellowish brown, medium to coarse SANDSTONE inlefbedded with
SILTSTONE to light gray to white, silty fine SANDSTONE .
@30-31. 7' Minor bedding, gredational fine to coarse SANDSTONE and
SILTSTONE layers, approximately 1" thick.
@30.5' Medium to coarse SANDSTONE.
@34' Fine to coarse sHty SANDSTONE.
@36' Yellowish brown, medium SANDSTONE with pebbles and cobbles.
@36' Contact between yellowish brown, coarse SANDSTONE and gray,
fine silty SANDSTONE.
@37.5' Becoming sandier wiUl scattered rounded pebbles.
@38.5' Near horizontal cobble bed, 4" Ulick , cobbles up to 4" in diameter,
slightly Irregular .
I\ Below: Fine SANDSTONE, very mlcaceous. r
123.3 11.3
S1nt11go Formation (Taa)
SM @40' SAMPLE: Top: Yellowish brown, medium to coarse SANDSTONE 126·7 6·7
with cobbles, moist, dense .
Bottom: Very light gray to white, silty fine SANDSTONE, moist, dense .
B-2 C11
25-28
Feel
.............
4..§_ • • ~ • 1-----+----11-+--+---11-----------------------+--+---t-----.
--Notes:
31.Q_ Total Depth: 45 Feel
f-No Groundwater Encountered.
Downhole Logged to 45 Feet
f-Backfilled Wl1h Cuttings and Tamped.
-f-
60
GEOTECHNICAL 12115-01 ~ LOG OF BORING TNHC/Black Rail Road NMG
--
-
--
-
-
-
-
BORING LOGS
BY OTHERS
--
-
..
---
-
-
-.+!<;;iii
-
-
-
-
Date: 4-30-03 Logged by: SJM
T-1 DRY RELATIVE
DEPTH SAMPLE uses MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION
(ft) SYMBOL (%) (pct) (%) DESCRIPTION
- 0 -FILL:
--Silty sand. Locally sand/clay mix. Red-brown to gray color.
--0 Very moist in upper 3', moist below. Generally loose to very 21.7 100.6 80.5 --loose to locally. SM
--• - 5 -0 Scattered 6" minus rock (<1%). 13.6 94.1 75.3
--ST-1
--0 Clayey sand. Dark brown color. Moist. Medium dense. 19.6 101.1 84.1
--Below 1 O', scattered pieces of concrete (24" minus). SC
-10 -ST-2
--\ --o• I Sandy silt to silty/clayey fine sand. Gray to rust colored. 31.2 88.6 73.7
Very moist. Loose. AC. brick at 14%' (Up to 40%) -SC
--primarily 18" minus.
-15 -
--At 16', 50%+ AC. Concrete fence post at 16%'.
\ ST-2
--
--End Test Trench at 17'. Extent of backhoe.
-20-
No caving. No groundwater.
Date: 4-30-03 Logged by: SJM
T-2 DRY RELATIVE
DEPTH SAMPLE uses MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION
(ft) SYMBOL (%) (pct) (%) DESCRIPTION
--FILL:
-1 ' Silty sand. Red-brown color. Moist. Loose. SM
--ST-1 J
- 2 -Mix of class two and clay sand. Gray color. Moist. SW/SC
Medium dense. ST-3
- 3 -0 - -Silty fine sand. Locally trace of clay. Tan to red-brown SM 9.8 104.08 83.9
- 4 -color. Loose to medium dense. ST-1 --
- 5 -TOPSOIL:
--Silty to clayey sand. Red-brown color. Moist. Somewhat SM/SC 7.4 -sample
- 6 -0 blocky. Loose. ST-1 disturbed
--
-7 j TERRACE DEPOSIT: \ 17.0 102.3 81.8 o• Sandstone. Fine to medium grained. Gray to red-brown SP
- 8 -
0 color. Well cemented. Refusal. 16.5 105.2 -
' ST-4 I
- 9 -End Test Trench at 8Y2. (Ketusal.)
No cavinq. No qroundwater.
VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC
2450 Vineyard Avenue, Suite 102
Escondido, California 92029-1229 17-LOT SUBDIVISION, BLACK RAIL ROAD
Office 760-743-1214 Fax 760-739-0343 PROJECT NO. 03-236-P PLATE 5
T Groundwater • Bulk Sample 0 Nuclear Test 0 Driven Rings
i
-
-
-
-
-
-
---
~~,'111
11,;l,,.;,J!I,
Date: 4-30-03 Logged by: SJM
T-3 DRY RELATIVE
DEPTH SAMPLE uses MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION
(ft)
DESCRIPTION SYMBOL (%) (pct) (%)
--FILL:
- 1 -Silty fine sand. Red-brown color. Very moist. Loose. SM
--ST-1
-2
--Sandy clay. Olive color. Very moist. Plastic. Soft. ST-5 CL
-3 \ --TERRACE DEPOSIT:
- 4 -Sandstone. Fine to medium grained. Dark brown near
--upper contact, red-brown below. Very moist. Weakly SP
- 5 -0 cemented. Weathered friable. Porous. Massive. 12.7 110.6 -
--Becomes blocky and hard at 5W. Cemented to well
- 6 -o• cemented. Very hard digging. ST-4 7.5 117.6 -
-I I
- 7 -End Test Trench at 6%'. (Refusal.)
--No caving. No groundwater.
- 8 -
- -
- 9 -
Date: 4-30-03 Logged by: SJM
DEPTH SAMPLE T-4 DRY RELATIVE
uses MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION
(ft) DESCRIPTION SYMBOL (%) (pcf) (%)
FILL:
-1 Silty sand. Trace of clay. Red-brown color. Moist. SM
Loose. ST-1
- 2 -0 TOPSOIL: 93.3
- 3 -0 Silty sand. Red-brown color. Moist to very moist. Loose.
ST-1
SM
- 4 -
TERRACE DEPOSIT:
- 5 -Sandstone. Fine to medium grained. Red-brown color. SP
Massive. Blocky. Well-cemented. (Refusal.)
- 6 -
End Test Trench at 3W.
- 7 -No caving. No groundwater.
- 8 -
- 9 -
VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC
2450 Vineyard Avenue, Suite 102
Escondido, California 92029-1229 17-LOT SUBDIVISION, BLACK RAIL ROAD
Office 760-743-1214 Fax 760-739-0343 PROJECT NO. 03-236-P PLATE 6
T Groundwater • Bulk Sam le 0 Nuclear Test 0 Driven Rin s
---Date: 4-30-03 Logged by: SJM -T-5 DRY RELATIVE
DEPTH SAMPLE uses MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION
(ft) SYMBOL (%) (pct) (%) DESCRIPTION
--FILL/TOPSOIL:
- 1 -Silty sand. Brown color. Very moist. Loose. ST-1 SM
- 2 -0 TERRACE DEeOSIT: --Sandstone. Fine to medium grained. Red-brown color. SP -- 3 -0 Moist. Weathered friable. Weakly cemented. Massive. 7.9 125.4 --- 4 -
1 At 3W, becomes blocky and well-cemented. Refusal at 3W. ---J
- 5 -End Test Trench at 3W. (Refusal.) ---
- 6 -No caving. No groundwater.
--
- 7 ---
- 8 -
---- 9 -
Date: 4-30-03 Logged by: SJM -T-6 DRY RELATIVE
DEPTH SAMPLE uses MOISTURE DENSITY COMPACTION
(ft) SYMBOL (%) (pct) (%) DESCRIPTION ---FILL/TOPSOIL:
-1 -Silty sand. Brown color. Moist. Loose. Scattered shell SM
' fragments. ST-1
-2 -0 --TERRACE DEPOSIT:
-3 -Sandstone. Fine to medium grained. Red-brown color. SP 11.1 117.5 ----Weathered friable. Weakly cemented. Massive at 3',
-4 -becomes blocky. Moderately cemented. Locally clay.
-5 -1 Blocky. Well-cemented below 3'. ST-4 -- -
I
-6 -End Test Trench at 4W.
--
-7 -No caving. No groundwater.
---8 -----9 -
-.,
'.:f:'(@,]if:1}:/f;lt;:'~:P:illl!l1w~i~~:T ,; .. )}',.i,t:::·,\_-:;:.'s VINJE & MIDDLETON ENGINEERING, INC
2450 Vineyard Avenue, Suite 102 17-LOT SUBDIVISION, BLACK RAIL ROAD Escondido, California 92029-1229 -Office 760-743-1214 Fax 760-739-0343 PROJECT NO. 03-236-P PLATE 7 -... Groundwater • Bulk Sample 0 Nuclear Test 0 Driven Rings --
-
-
...
-
-
-
-
-
-
,.
11111
,. ..
APPENDIX C
--
-
-
-
----
-LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
BYNMG --
-
-
----------
Compacted Compacted Final Volumetric Expansion Expansive Soluble Sulfate
Sample Moisture Dry Density Moisture Swell lndex1 Class ijication2 Sulfate Exposure3
(%) (pct) (%) (%) Value/Method (%)
B-1
Bag B-1 9.0 113.5 16.1 1.4 A 14 Very Low ----
0-5' --
-
-
--
-
-
Test Method: Notes:
ASTMD4829 1. Expansion Index (El) method of determination:
[A) E.I. determined by adjusting water content to achieve a 50 ±I% degree of saturation
HACH SF-1 (Turbidimetric) [BJ E.I. calculated based on measured saturation within the range of 40% and 60%
2. ASTM D4829 (Classification of Expansive Soil)
3. ACl-318 Table 4.3.1 (Requirement/or Concrete Exposed to Su/fate-Containing Solutions)
Expansion Index Project No. 12115-01 ~ and Soluble
Sulfate Project Name: TNHC I Carlsbad
Test Results NMG
(FRMOOI Rev.5)
----..
!Mft ---------
-
---
--
-------
70
60
50 .-. ~ e...
>< w C 40 ~
~ u 30 ~ ~ a. 20
Symbol Boring Depth Sample
Number (feet) Number
0 NE Comer 0.0 3
Ill NW Corner 0.0 1
• SW Comer 0.0 2
~
Passing
No.200 LL
Sieve("/,)
30 29
20 25
37 28
~ ~
~
MH rOH
LIQUID LIMIT{%)
Pl uses Description
14 SC Brown clayey SAND
8 SM Brown clayey SAND
13 SC Brown clayey SAND
PLASTICITY CHART
TNHC/ Carlsbad
Carlsbad, CA
PROJECT NO. 12115-01
A-LINE
N~<S--==eo=t=ec=hn==ic=a=l=In=c=.=========================================================:::::.l Template: NMATT; P~ ID: 1211S-01.GPJ; Printed:9191'12
----
-
-
-------
-
-
-
-----
-
---
-
GRAVEL SAND
BOULDERS COBBLESt--~~--.-~~~-+-~-,~~~~.--~~~--1
I
36
100
coarse fine
U.S. STANDARD
SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
12 6 3 1-1/2 3/4 3/8
I II I ii
coarse medium fine
I U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS I
4 8 16 30 50 100 200
I I I II
0
SILT OR CLAY
HYDROMETER
j~ 90H+++t-+--+--+~-+1+.HH-+-1~1+-~H++-1-+;-+--+--++--++++-H-f!--,t--+-~+++.+++-+-+--+~-H++-H-+--,t--+---I Ii·\
80H++-+-1--+--+--+-~--+-++HH-+-1~+--~+++-+-+-1--+--+--+---""-N-+-+-H-+.....t--+-~+t+++-+-+---+~--+-+-+-+-+-+-+--,t--+----I \
' ' ··~ 70H++++-+-+--+~-Hf+;+-H--t-,t--i!-~+++++~-+--+~-+.i++-~,+-+-+--+~-+H#-+++-+-+-~+t++++-+-+--+~--t
·.\
~ 60+++-+-+-+-+---+~--+-+-+-+-+-+-+--,t--+-~+t++++-+-+--+~-+1-+-+-~--~+i~---+~-+1++++-+-+--+-~++++++-+---+~-1 z ' :
iii '< \ i ,, ~ 50H++-+-+...+-i,..-+~-+l-r.+-i-+-+--,t---i;-~+t++++.-+-+--+~-+l-+-+-+-t-~:T,+----~++++t++-t--t--+~--t-t-t+++-t-t---t---t
~ \ \.. .... ... \ \· .. ~ 40H+++t-+-+--+~-H++-H-+--,t--+-~++++++-+-+--+~-+t++-H-+-t--"t-~\+H-t++-t-+--+~-+t++H-+-t--+----1
\ :II ' .... ' ........ .
301++-H-!-+-+--+~-+!+.+-H-~l--+.-~++++++.-+-+--+~-+!f++-H-+-l--+-~+Hlt"t"'l'-l' .... ~~-+~·~J~,:+-l--+---I re--e. a . . • . . . . .. • ' ~b .... rE ·-:-,....~ 201+Hf+++-+-+---+++++++-+--!=----H+HK-l-+-+~-++-H+++-+--+-~-+Hl++-Hl_&la-_~~=--H+H-+-+-+--+--EL..t
~ .... ~
I -~-r11
Ou.i......_....._........__.__,._,~i....._......,11......__..~...--......................... • ............ •~ ......................... _~1~~' ........ ...._.._...,___,,...,_. ....................... ~~
1,000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Boring Sample Depth
Symbol Number Number (feet)
0 \IE Come 3 0.0
Ill ~W Come 0.0
A 'iW Come 2 0.0
iiii NMG Geotechnical Inc.
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
Field
Moisture LL
(%)
29
25
28
Pl
14
8
13
Activity
PU-21,1
Passing Passing
No. 200 2 (' Sieve (%) I.I Y,)
30 22
20 14
37 28
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
TNHC/ Carlsbad
Carlsbad, CA
PROJECT NO. 12115-01
uses
SC
SM
SC
Teffl)late: NMSIV; P~ ID: 12115-01.GPJ; Printed: 919/12
--
-
----·-..
---
-
------
---
--
----
GRAVEL SAND
BOULDERS COBBLES 1----~-----+--~---~-------i SILT OR CLAY
I
36 12
100
coarse fine
U.S. STANDARD
SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES
coarse medium fine
I U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS I
6 3 1-1/2 3/4 3/8 4 8 16 30 50 100 200
I I I I II
HYDROMETER
70H+t-+-,1-+--+--+---++-r.t--t--+-1-+----i;-----t+++++.-+-+--+---++-+-++'~l,.l-..;+--+--+----HH-it-++-+-l--+---t++-l+-i-+---+--+--~
301-1--1-1+-il-+---+--+---++-r.t--t--+-t-+----i;-----t+++++.--+-+--+---++-+-+++*--+--+--+~·'~· ++-......... 1--+---1++-1+-i-+---+--+--~
20t++-t-+-i-+--+--+---++t+t--+-t-+----i----t++++-+--+-+---+---++-+-+++-+--+--+--+H+++-+-t--+--t++-l+-i-+---+--+--~
10H+H---+--+--+---1++++-+-+-1-+--1;----++H-++.-+-+--+---++-+-++-H+-+--+--+H+-H-+-f--+--t++-H---+--+--+--~
o ........................ .....__.__1 ___ ........,.1i...._........_11...._~1-1· __ ................................. _1_, ___ 1....._. .......................... _____ 1 ......... 1~1· ...___._...._...._ __ ......................... ~~--
1,000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Boring Sample Depth Symbol Number Number (feet)
0 B-1 B-1 2.0
IZI B-1 0-5 12.5 ... 8-2 B-1 2.0
~ NMG Geotechnical. Inc.
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
Field Passing Activity Moisture LL Pl Cu Cc No. 200 Pl/-21,1 rt.>
6
Sieve(%)
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
TNHC/Black Rail Road
Carlsbad, California
PROJECT NO. 12115-01
31
29
28
Passing uses 21,1 (%)
SM
SM
SM
Template: NMSIV; Prj ID: 12115-01.GPJ; Printed: 11/30/12
-
--
-
-
,.
-------,_ --
-
-
-
---
-
140 ..-..--..,......-.--.--T---,.,,.......,......,..........-,. \ \ i\ Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 125.0
\ \ \. Optimum Moisture Content (%) 10.0
\ \ I\
t----t------<--+--+--+---1---+----+----+-----+-'\____,,,,_'\._r\......+-\\....... Zero Air Voids Curves
t-+--+---+----+--+---+--t---+---++/--+-~--Oll-t--->t-"---+-''~'-'I Gs = 2.80
120
'i -~ 110 rn z w a
~ a
100
90
~
I ~,I'\ '\ r\.'\~Gs=2.70 ~ r\. '\.. '\ " Gs - 2 60 / "o ", ~ - .
I "k'K '\
5 10 15 20
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
Boring No. B-1 Sample No. B-1 Depth: 2.0 ft
Sample Description:
Liquid Limit:
Comments: 1557A
{Afc) Reddish Brown Silty SAND
I Plasticity Index: I Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve:
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
TNHC/Black Rail Road
Carlsbad, California
PROJECT NO. 12115-01
NMG Geotechnical Inc.
25
31
30
Template: NMCOMP; Prj ID: 12115-01.GPJ; Printed: 11/30/12
---
-
-
----
.....
-
• -• --
140,---.--....--,---,-._..__,........,.....,...,...._ I\ \ ~ Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 129.0 I\ \ ..
\ I\ '\ Optimum Moisture Content (%) 10.5
\ \ i\.
t--+------l-----1f----l--+--+--+---+-V~1c+-v-i--~\.--1-f\.,._\-1-~_...r'\. Zer~ Air Voids Curves
r/ I\ '\ , Gs -2.80
t----t--+---+---+---+-+---tV-+-+---+---+---+--+--ldo -"r---1--'1..t\. \~ ~ Gs = 2. 70
120 I f\., ~ "i~V ~ Gs = 2.60
"f......-~"
90t--+--+--+--+--+--+---i~+--+--+--+--+--+--+---il--+--+--+--+--l----l---+---i~+--+--+--+---+---+--t
5
Boring No. B-2
Sample Description:
I
Liquid Limit:
Comments: 1557A
~ NMG Geotechnical Inc.
10 15 20
MOISTURE CONTENT (%)
Sample No. B-1 Depth: 2.0 ft
(Afc) Reddish Brown Silty SAND w/ Clay
I Plasticity Index: I Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve:
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS
TNHC/Black Rail Road
Carlsbad, California
PROJECT NO. 12115-01
25 30
28
Template: NMCOMP; Prj ID: 12115-01.GPJ; Printed: 11/30/12
--
-
---------
-
-
-
-
-
---
-'if. -z ~ I-"'
LEGEND
o = initial moisture
• = after saturation
% Collapse (-)
or% Swell(+) -0.12
121--~~-+~~t------+--+-+----+---+-----1--+-~~~-+-~--+-~t---+-+-t-+---+---,l--~~-+~---+~-1--+--+--I-+-+~
141--~~-+~~t------+--+-+-+---+-----1--+-~~~-+-~--+-~t--+-+-t-t--l-t--~~-+~--+~-I--+--+--+-+-+~
161--~~-+~~1------+--+-+----+---+-----1--+-~~~-+-~--+-~t---+-+-+--+-l-l--~~-+~---+~-1--+--+--+-+-+~
181--~~-+~~1------+--+-+----+---+-----1--+-~~~-+-~-t-~t--+-+-t-+---+---,l--~~-+~---t~-1--+--+--I-~
STRESS (ksf)
Boring No. B-1 Sample No. D-3 Depth: 7 .5 ft
Sample Description: (Afc) Dark Yellowish Brown Clayey Silty SAND
Liquid Limit: I Plasticity Index: Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve:
Test Moisture Dry Degree of Vold
Stage Content(%) Density (pcf) Saturation ('lo) Ratio
Initial 14.6 114.9 88.1 0.439
Final 15.9 116.6 100.8 0.418
~
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TNHC/Black Rail Road
Carlsbad, California
PROJECT NO. 12115-01
NMG Geotechnical. Inc.
Template: NMCONS; Prj ID: 12115-01.GPJ; Printed: 1213/12
--
---
-·------·--
-
-
-
-------
4
6
-8
::le e..
z ~ I-10
U)
12
LEGEND
o = initial moisture
• = after saturation
% Collapse(·)
or% Swell(+) -0.14
16t-~~-+~--+~+--t--+-+-t-+-t--~~-+~-+~+--+--+-+-+-+-l--~~--+-~-+~+--+-+-+-++-l
1 10 100
STRESS (ksf)
Boring No. B-2 Sample No. D-6 Depth: 20.0 ft
Sample Description: (Qt) Reddish Brown Silty SAND
~
Liquid Limit:
Test
Stage
Initial
Final
NMG Geotechnical. Inc.
Moisture
Content(%)
11.8
13.9
I Plasticity Index: Percent Passing
Dry
Density (pcf)
115.1
117.0
No. 200 Sieve:
Degree of
Saturation (%)
71.6
89.1
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TNHC/Black Rail Road
Carlsbad, California
PROJECT NO. 12115-01
Vold
Ratio
0.437
0.413
Template: NMCONS; Prj ID: 12115-01.GPJ; Printed: 11/30/12
-5,000 -
-
4,000
-C ! 3,000 --:c ...
'--
C> ~ z w It: ... u,
It: :; 2,000 / ~ V :c I u,
I
/ 1,000 ~ V 0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Boring No. B-1 Sample No. D-2 Depth: 5.0 ft
Sample Description: (Ate) Reddish Brown Silty SAND
Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve: -Moisture 17.6 Dry Density (pcf): 113.4 Degree of 98 Content(%): Saturation (0A,):
Sample Type: Undisturbed Rate of Shear (inJmin.): 0.05
SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS -Parameter Peak• Ultimate o
Cohesion (psf) 100 100
Friction Angle (degrees) 34 32.0
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
~ TNHC/Black Rail Road
Carlsbad, California
PROJECT NO.
NMG Geotechnical. Inc.
Template: NMDS; Prj ID: 1211~1.GPJ; Printed: 11/29/12
--
-
-
..
--
-·
•~
~,
5,000
4,000t--------+------;-----------+------+-----------t-------i
! -3,000
J: ... C> z w a:: ... u,
a:: :i 2,000
J: u,
1,000
~
1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
Boring No. B-1 Sample No. D-12 Depth: 45.0 ft
Sample Description: (Tsa) Yellowish Brown Silty SAND
Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve:
Moisture 18.3 Dry Density (pcf): 104.1 Degree of
Content(%): Saturation (%):
Sample Type: Undisturbed Rate of Shear (ln./min.): 0.05
SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS
Parameter
Cohesion (psf)
Friction Angle (degrees)
Peak• Ultimate o
50 170
35 30.0
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
TNHC/Black Rall Road
Carlsbad, California
PROJECT NO.
6,000
82
NMG Geotechnical Inc.
Template: NMDS; Prj ID: 12115-01.GPJ; Printed: 11/29/12
-
5,000
4,000
,.o
-
C / II)
Q. 3,000 -V ::c I-C) z w _,.._..,-1) 0::: I-"' /' 0::: /j ~ 2,000 i'
::c
(~
v-"'
/ 1,000 ~ /
0
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
NORMAL STRESS (psf)
-Boring No. B-2 Sample No. D-7 Depth: 25.0 ft ,-Sample Description: (Qt) Brown Silty SAND
Liquid Limit: Plasticity Index: Percent Passing
No. 200 Sieve:
Moisture 17.8 Dry Density (pcf): 112.0 Degree of 99 Content(%): Saturation (%):
Sample Type: Undisturbed Rate of Shear (ln./min.): 0.05
SHEAR STRENGTH PARAMETERS -Parameter Peak• Ultimate o
Cohesion (psf) 500 100
Friction Angle (degrees) 39 32.0
-
I DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS I TNHC/Black Rall Road ~ Carlsbad, California
PROJECT NO. -NMG Geotechnical. Inc.
Template: NMDS; Prj ID: 12115-01.GPJ; Printed: 11/29/12
-R-VALUE TEST DATA CTM 301
Project: TNHC/Carlsbad Project No: 12115-01 Date: 11/27-28/2012
Boring Trench No: B-2 Sample No: B-1 Sample Depth: 0-5'
Field Description: Fill, Red Brown Silty SAND/Sandy SILT -
Lab Description: Reddish Brown Clayey SAND (SC)
-Specimen Number 1 2 3 -Mold Number 4 5 6
Water Adjustment (g) +55 +50 +45 -Compactor Pressure (psi) 75 100 125
Exudation Pressure (psi) 251 383 479 -Gross Weight (g) 3254.4 3257.8 3258
• Mold Tare (q) 2116.1 2121.6 2117.2
Wet Weiqht (q) 1138.3 1136.2 1140.8
Sample Height (in) 2.50 2.48 2.49 -
Initial Dial Readinq 0.0615 0.0619 0.0971
Final Dial Reading 0.0615 0.0623 0.0981
Expansion (in x10"4) 0 4 10
Stability(psi) at 2,000 lbs (160 psi) 56 I 124 54 I 120 46 110 I -
Turns Displacement 3.50 3.70 3.58 -R-Value Uncorrected 17 18 24
R-Value Corrected 17 18 24
Moisture Content (%) 12.0 11.6 11 .1 -Dry Density (pcf) 123.2 124.3 124.9
Assumed Traffic Index 4.0 4.0 4.0
G.E. by Stability 0.85 0.84 0.78
G.E. by Expansion 0.00 0.13 0.33
Gt 1.25 -Moisture Content
Dish No. HH QQ EE
Weight of Moist Soil and Dish (g) 254.9 249.9 246.1
Weight of Dry Soil and Dish (g) 233.0 229.0 226.5
Water Loss (g) 21.9 20.9 19.6
Weight of Dish (g) 49.8 49.5 50.1
Dry Soil (g) 183.2 179.5 176.4
Moisture Content(%) 12.0 11.6 11.1
R-Value by Exudation = I 16 I
R-Value by Expansion = I 41 I
R-Value at Equilibrium = I 16 by Exudation I
The data above is based upon processing and testing samples as received from the field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisions to Department of Transportation.
State of California, Materials & Research Test Method No. 301
Remarks: A traffic index of 4.0 was assumed for calculation purposes. ~ ~~~hnical, Inc.
Set up by: Run by: GEH
Calculated by: GEH Checked by: Date Completed: 11/28/2012
--
-
-
-----
-
-------·-
---
--------
R-VALUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION
Project: TNHC/Carlsbad Project No: 12115-01 Date: 11 /27-28/2012
Boring Trench No: B-2 Sample No: B-1 Sample Depth: 0-5'
Field Description: Fill, Red Brown Silty SAND/Sandy SILT
Lab Description: Reddish Brown Clayey SAND (SC)
R-Value vs. Exudation Pressure
r-·---+---,-~--+--<~,............-
1---~--,-~-.--+-->--+--t
:
800 700 600
: ' ' I
500 400
Exudation Pressure (psi)
Cover Thickness by Expansion and Exudation (ft)
:·. ; ··: ......... -........ ,. ...... ···· .. ·!··-·i··· .. ···! ................... +, ... _ ..... -.... ..
-~-.-\'-:~. -+-+-+--o-+-+-.....-1-i--+-~,-..+-+--.---;-+~+--·~:····-·-··~···
I
300
40
35
30
25
QI ::,
20~ I a:
15
10
5
0
200 100
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
·······! ... ,.,j., .. ,.,1,
:,-.-!-
2.00
'.'. .. : :: .:: :: .. :: :,: : : : :: :::,:: ,:· :r)t2 ~~: ':: :: ':: : ·: ·• : :: ::::
............... , .. ··:·· .. · .. ;---
.. _;_
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
...... ,-1
5.0
····'! .. ,
7.0
....... ; .................... _ ....... •--:··"'';'''"'; ...... -+ .......... -.............. ; ....... , .... ..
........ ,.,f ... , ... • ............ ~ ......... ,; ......... , ... :,-.... : .......... --...... ' ....... : ..... ,., ..... . .. ,: ......... \ ...... · ....... : ........ : .......................... : .. ,-..... . ....... ,........ . .... + ........ ,;,-... : ............ -.... , ....... , ...... -.. .
... , .• : ...... ,j ............... , .......... i._:, ...... : ....... : .................. 1-... ··+·······-.. ..
.•.
9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0
-+-By Expansion Moisture Content(%)
~ By Exudation
0
~ 0.50 ..... r:;,V. .... .
• 1:; ...... .. u '""t:;; ............... .
0.00 ._,,
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Cover Thickness by Expansion {ft)
Cover
Thickness (ft) = 0.6
3.00
The data above is based upon processing and testing samples as received from the field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisions to Department of Transportation,
State of California. Materials & Research Test Method No. 301
Setupby. Runby: GEH NMG Remarks A traffic index of 4.0 was assumed for calculation purposes. ~
~C~a~~~~~~~d_b_r_G_E_H~~~~~~~-~-e-~~e-d-~-:~~~~~-D-~-e-C-~-p-~-~-d:~~1-1,-2-8-~-o-1-2~ ' -.. ~ Geotechnical, Inc
-R-VALUE TEST DATA CTM 301 -Project: TNHC/Carlsbad Project No: 12115-01 Date: 11/27-28/2012 -Boring Trench No: B-1 Sample No: B-1 Sample Depth: 0-5' -Field Description: SM/AF
Lab Description: Reddish Brown Clayey SAND (SC)
Specimen Number 1 2 3
Mold Number 1 2 3
Water Adjustment (g) +55 -+60 +65
Compactor Pressure (psi) 175 125 75 -Exudation Pressure (psi) 700 370 231 -Gross Weiqht (q) 3248.4 3246.1 3252.0
• Mold Tare (g) 2128.4 2116.4 2113.6
Wet Weight (q) 1120.0 1129.7 1138.4 -Sample Height (in) 2.44 2.46 2.50 -Initial Dial Readinq 0.0633 0.001 0.0436 -Final Dial Reading 0.0634 0.001 0.0436 -Expansion (in x1 o·4) 1 0 0
Stability(psi) at 2,000 lbs (160 psi) 40 I 94 48 I 110 52 118 I -Turns Displacement 3.12 3.42 3.58 -R-Value Uncorrected 36 25 20
R-Value Corrected 34 25 20
Moisture Content(%) 11.2 11.8 12.3
Dry Density (pcf) 125.1 124.5 122.8 -Assumed Traffic Index 4.0 4.0 4.0 -G.E. by Stability 0.68 0.77 0.82
G.E. by Expansion 0.03 0.00 0.00
Gt 1.25 -Moisture Content
Dish No. NN y A
Weight of Moist Soil and Dish (g) 271.4 267.6 267.1
Weight of Dry Soil and Dish (g) 249.2 244.6 243.3
Water Loss (g) 22.2 23.0 23.8
Weight of Dish (g) 50.3 49.8 50.1
Dry Soil (g) 198.9 194.8 193.2
Moisture Content(%) 11.2 11.8 12.3
R-Value by Exudation = I 22 I
R-Value by Expansion = I 78 I
R-Value at Equilibrium = I 22 by Exudation I
The data above is based upon processing and testing samples as received from the field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisions to Department of Transportation.
State of California, Materials & Research Test Method No. 301
Remarks: A traffic index of 4.0 was assumed for calculation purposes. ~ ~~~hnical. Inc
Set up by: Run by: GEH
Calculated by GEH Checked by: Date Completed: 11/28/2012
--
-
-
·-------
-
-
-----
-
-
R-VALUE GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION
Project: TNHC/Carlsbad Project No: 12115-01 Date: 11/27-28/2012
Boring Trench No: B-1 Sample No: B-1 Sample Depth: 0-5'
Field Description: SM/AF
Lab Description: Reddish Brown Clayey SAND (SC)
R-Value vs. Exudation Pressure
--• i : '
! : ' '
' ' :
:
:
! !
!
> ... I ~
: j ' i ' ' i !
j ' i : !
; ---l
! : : m $ti~
: ! -----~-·!'"---· __ .. _ _... _________ ~-----~---------------~--~-----
!
' i : :
!
l f··--~----~'-·+---t---+-·-i--~-,...--1~--+--+'-i---<---l-~-+,---i----l-+--i---<,__ ............. _,i-._..;.. ....... -....... _..---............. -+-~
800
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
'
700 600 500 400
Exudation Pressure (psi)
Cover Thickness by Expansion and Exudation (ft)
............. I ......
................ .. .................. .> .... ..
.... .-r•••:•••••H:m,.o .. Nm, ................... , •• _ ............ ..
.............. , ...... ,. .................... ; ........ _ ...... , .... •··~······+····"· ........... ~······ ................. ~ ..... .
+-----f-
3.00
5 2.50 ·.;::; ra "O :::i X LU
~
2.00
300 200 100
40
35
30
a, :,
25 ~ a:
20
15
10
····--·-0.50
040 ·""•'
::l QI
C:
1.50
~ 1.00
~
~~0~0~~~~~2~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~
t~~~~=;~~~~~~~~~~~~~j~~~~~~~~ ~ 0.50 ;~0~~ .. ···••·••••······ ... 0.00
0.30 .... : ....... : ... ···+······ ...... .;., .. ,-f ....... : ...... + .... .
0.20
.... +, ...... : ............. .
0.10
0.00 ~ .-0---'· ,---,-
5.0 7.0 9.0 11.0 13.0 15.0
...,_By Expansion Moisture Content(%)
..,._By Exudation
0.00
.... . ...... .
0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Cover Thickness by Expansion (ft)
Cover
Thickness (ft) = 0.23
3.00
The data above is based upon processing and testing samples as received from the field. Test procedures in accordance with latest revisions to Department ofTransportation,
State of California, Materials & Research Test Method No. 301
Remarks A traffic index of 4.0 was assumed for calculation purposes. ~
._s_e_t_u:...p_by:...: ____________ R_u_n_b-'"y_: _G_E_H _____________ ...,.....,...,_,....,...,_ . . .·• .
Calculated by GEH Checked by Date Completed: 11/28/2012
NMG
Gczotczchnical, Inc
-
----
-
-
-
-
-
fil~ $SCHIFF
November 29, 2012
NMG GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
17991 Fitch
Irvine, CA 92714
Attention: Mr. Reza Saberi, P.E.
www.hdrinc.com/Schiff
Corrosion Control and Condition Assessment (C3AJ Department
via email:
Re:
INTRODUCTION
RSaberi@nmggeotech.com
Soil Corrosivity Study
The New Home Company/Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California
HDR #196375, NMG #12115-01
Laboratory tests have been completed on two soil samples provided for the referenced project. The
purpose of these tests was to determine if the soils might have deleterious effects on underground
utility piping and concrete structures. HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDRISchifl) assumes that the
samples provided are representative of the most corrosive soils at the site.
The proposed construction consists of a tract of single family residences. The site is located in
Carlsbad. The water table is reportedly greater than 45 feet deep.
The scope of this study is limited to a determination of soil corrosivity and general corrosion control
recommendations for materials likely to be used for construction. Our recommendations do not
constitute, and are not meant as a substitute for, design documents for the purpose of construction. If
the architects and/or engineers desire more specific information, designs, specifications, or review
of design, HDRISchiffwill be happy to work with them as a separate phase of this project.
LABORATORY SOIL CORROSIVITY TESTS
The electrical resistivity of each sample was measured in a soil box per ASTM G 187 in its as-
received condition and again after saturation with distilled water. Resistivities are at about their
lowest value when the soil is saturated. The pH of the saturated samples was measured per
CTM 643. A 5:1 water:soil extract from each sample was chemically analyzed for the major soluble
salts commonly found in soil per ASTM D4327 and D6919. Test results were performed under
HDRISchiffnumber 12-0992SCS and are shown in Table 1.
431 West Baseline Road · Claremont, CA 91711
Phone: 909 .626.0967 · Fax: 909 .626.3316
-
--
--
-• ---..
.....
--
-
NMG GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
HOR I Schiff # 19637 5
SOIL CORROSIVITY
November 29, 20 12
Page2
A major factor in determining soil corrosivity is electrical resistivity. The electrical resistivity of a
soil is a measure of its resistance to the flow of electrical current. Corrosion of buried metal is an
electrochemical process in which the amount of metal loss due to corrosion is directly proportional
to the flow of electrical current (DC) from the metal into the soil. Corrosion currents, following
Ohm's Law, are inversely proportional to soil resistivity. Lower electrical resistivities result from
higher moisture and soluble salt contents and indicate corrosive soil.
A correlation between electrical resistivity and corrosivity toward ferrous metals is: 1
Soil Resistivity
in ohm-centimeters
Greater than 10,000
2,000 to 10,000
1,000 to 2,000
0 to 1,000
Corrosivity Category
Mildly Corrosive
Moderately Corrosive
Corrosive
Severely Corrosive
Other soil characteristics that may influence corrosivity towards metals are pH, soluble salt content,
soil types, aeration, anaerobic conditions, and site drainage.
Electrical resistivities were in the moderately corrosive category with as-received moisture. When
saturated, the resistivities were in the corrosive to severely corrosive categories. The resistivities
dropped considerably with added moisture because the samples were dry as-received.
Soil pH values varied from 6.9 to 7.2. This range is neutral.2 These values do not particularly
increase soil corrosivity.
The soluble salt content of the samples was moderate.
Ammonium was detected in low concentrations. The nitrate concentration was high enough to be
aggressive to copper.
Tests were not made for sulfide and negative oxidation-reduction (redox) potential because these
samples did not exhibit characteristics typically associated with anaerobic conditions.
This soil is classified as severely corrosive to ferrous metals and aggressive to copper.
1 Romanoff, Melvin. Underground Corrosion, NBS Circular 579. Reprinted by NACE. Houston, T)(, 1989, pp. 166-167.
2 Romanoff, Melvin. Underground Corrosion, NBS Circular 579. Reprinted by NACE. Houston, rx, 1989, p. 8.
-
-
-
--
---
-
-
-
-
--
--
NMG GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
HOR I Schiff# 196375
CORROSION CONTROL RECOMMENDATIONS
November 29, 20 12
Page3
The life of buried materials depends on thickness, strength, loads, construction details, soil moisture,
etc., in addition to soil corrosivity, and is, therefore, difficult to predict. Of more practical value are
corrosion control methods that will increase the life of materials that would be subject to significant
corrosion.
The following recommendations are based on the soil conditions discussed in the Soil Corrosivity
section above. Unless otherwise indicated, these recommendations apply to the entire site or
alignment.
Steel Pipe
Implement all the following measures:
1. Underground steel pipe with rubber gasketed, mechanical, grooved end, or other
nonconductive type joints should be bonded for electrical continuity. Electrical continuity is
necessary for corrosion monitoring and cathodic protection.
2. Install corrosion monitoring test stations to facilitate corrosion monitoring and the
application of cathodic protection:
a. At each end of the pipeline.
b. At each end of all casings.
c. Other locations as necessary so the interval between test stations does not exceed
1,200 feet.
3. To prevent dissimilar metal corrosion cells and to facilitate the application of cathodic
protection, electrically isolate each buried steel pipeline per NACE Standard SP0286 from:
a. Dissimilar metals.
b. Dissimilarly coated piping ( cement-mortar vs. dielectric).
c. Above ground steel pipe.
d. All existing piping.
4. Choose one of the following corrosion control options:
OPTION 1
a. Apply a suitable dielectric coating intended for underground use such as:
i. Polyurethane per A WW A C222 or
ii. Extruded polyethylene per A WW A C215 or
iii. A tape coating system per A WW A C214 or
iv. Hot applied coal tar enamel per A WW A C203 or
v. Fusion bonded epoxy per A WW A C213.
b. Apply cathodic protection to steel piping as per NACE Standard SPO 169.
--
-
-
-------
-
-
-
-------------
NMG GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
HDR I Schiff# 196375
November 29, 20 12
Page4
OPTION2
a. As an alternative to dielectric coating and cathodic protection, apply a %-inch
cement mortar coating per A WW A C205 or encase in concrete 3 inches thick, using
any type of cement. Joint bonds, test stations, and insulated joints are still required
for these alternatives.
NOTE: Some steel piping systems, such as for oil, gas, and high-pressure piping systems, have
special corrosion and cathodic protection requirements that must be evaluated for each specific
application.
Iron Pipe
Implement all the following measures:
1. Electrically insulate underground iron pipe from dissimilar metals and from above ground
iron pipe with insulating joints per NACE Standard SP0286.
2. Bond all nonconductive type joints for electrical continuity. Electrical continuity is
necessary for corrosion monitoring and cathodic protection.
3. Install corrosion monitoring test stations to facilitate corrosion monitoring and the
application of cathodic protection:
a. At each end of the pipeline.
b. At each end of any casings.
c. Other locations as necessary so the interval between test stations does not exceed
1,200 feet.
4. Choose one of the following corrosion control options:
OPTION 1
a. Apply a suitable coating intended for underground use such as:
i. Polyethylene encasement per A WW A C 105; or
ii. Epoxy coating; or
iii. Polyurethane; or
iv. Wax tape.
NOTE: The thin factory-applied asphaltic coating applied to ductile iron pipe for
transportation and aesthetic purposes does not constitute a corrosion control
coating.
b. Apply cathodic protection to cast and ductile iron piping as per NACE Standard
SP0169.
OPTION2
a. As an alternative to coating systems described in Option 1 and cathodic protection,
concrete encase all buried portions of metallic piping so that there is a minimum of
------
-------
-------------
NMG GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
HOR I Schiff# 196375
November 29, 20 12
Page5
3 inches of concrete cover provided over and around surfaces of pipe, fittings, and
valves using any type of cement.
Copper Tubing
Protect buried copper tubing by one of the following measures:
1. Prevention of soil contact. Soil contact may be prevented by placing the tubing above
ground or encasing the tubing using PVC pipe with solvent-welded joints.
2. Installation of a factory-coated copper pipe with a minimum 25-mil
thickness such as Kamco's Aqua Shield™, Mueller's Streamline
Protec™, or equal. The coating must be continuous with no cuts or
defects.
3. Installation of 12-mil polyethylene pipe wrapping tape with butyl
rubber mastic over a suitable primer. Protect wrapped copper tubing
by applying cathodic protection per NACE Standard SPO 169.
Plastic and Vitrified Clay Pipe
1. No special precautions are required for plastic and vitrified clay piping placed underground
from a corrosion viewpoint.
2. Protect all metallic fittings and valves with wax tape per A WW A C217 or epoxy.
All Pipe
1. On all pipes, appurtenances, and fittings not protected by cathodic protection, coat bare
metal such as valves, bolts, flange joints, joint harnesses, and flexible couplings with wax
tape per AWWA C217 after assembly.
2. Where metallic pipelines penetrate concrete structures such as building floors, vault walls,
and thrust blocks use plastic sleeves, rubber seals, or other dielectric material to prevent pipe
contact with the concrete and reinforcing steel.
Concrete
1. From a corrosion standpoint, any type of cement may be used for concrete structures and
pipe because the sulfate concentration is negligible, 0 to 0.1 percent.3•4•5
2. Standard concrete cover over reinforcing steel may be used for concrete structures and pipe
in contact with these soils due to the low chloride concentration6 found onsite.
3 2009 lntemational Building Code (/BC) which refers to American Concrete Institute (ACl-318) Table 4.3.1
4 2009 International Residential Code (/RC) which refers to American Concrete Institute (ACl-318) Table 4.3. 1
6 2010 California Building Code (CBC) which refers to American Concrete Institute (ACl-318) Table 4.3.1
-
-
NMG GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
HOR I Schiff# 196375
November 29, 2012
Page6
Post Tensioning Slabs: Unbonded Single-Stranded Tendons and Anchors
1. Soil is considered an aggressive environment for post-tensioning strands and anchors.
Protect post-tensioning strands and anchors against corrosion by implementing all the
following measures:7'8'9
a. Prior to grouting the pocket, apply a corrosion protection cap filled with corrosion
protection material to the strand end that fully encapsulates the strand end and wedge
cavity such as Tiger Industries' PocketCap or equal. Ensure the cap fully seats
against the anchor face.
b. All components exposed to the job site should be protected within one working day
after their exposure during installation.
c. Ensure the minimum concrete cover over the tendon tail is 1 inch, or greater if
required by the applicable building code.
d. Caps and sleeves should be installed within one working day after the cutting of the
tendon tails and acceptance of the elongation records by the engineer.
e. Inspect the following to ensure the encapsulated system is completely watertight:
1. Sheathing: Verify that all damaged areas, including pin-holes, are repaired.
ii. Stressing tails: After removal, ensure they are cut to a length for proper
installation of P/f coating filled end caps.
iii. End caps: Ensure proper installation before patching the pocket former
recesses.
iv. Patching: Ensure the patch is of an approved material and mix design, and
installed void-free.
f. Limit the access of direct runoff onto the anchorage area by designing proper
drainage.
g. Provide at least 2 inches of space between finish grade and the anchorage area, or
more if required by applicable building codes.
6 Design Manual 303: Concrete Cylinder Pipe. Ameron. p.65
7 Post-Tensioning Manual, sixth edition. Post-Tensioning Institute (PT/), Phoenix, AZ, 2006.
8 Specification for Unbonded Single Strand Tendons. Post-Tensioning Institute (PT/), Phoenix, AZ, 2000.
0 AC/ 423.6-01: Specification for Unbonded Single Strand Tendons. American Concrete Institute (AC/), 2001
-
-
-
----
-
-
--
NMG GEOTECHNICAI.., INC.
HOR/Schiff# 196375
CLOSURE
November 29, 2012
Pagel
Our services have been performed with the usual thoroughness and competence of the engineering
profession. No other warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, is included or intended.
Please call if you have any questions.
Respectfully Submitted,
HDR Engineering, Inc.
~~
Enc: Table 1
12..0')92SCS RPT LS
-
-·-
-
-
-
Hl~ $SCHIFF
www.hdrinc.com
Corrosion Control and Condition Assessment (C3A) Department
Sample ID
Resistivity
as-received
saturated
pH
Electrical
Conductivity
Chemical Analyses
Cations
calcium Ca2+
magnesium Mg2+
sodium Na1+
potassium Kl+
Anions
carbonate cot
Table 1 -Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples
NMG Geotechnical, Inc.
The New Home Company I Carlsbad
Your #12115-01, HDRISchif/#12-0992SCS
26-Nov-12
Units
ohm-cm
ohm-cm
mS/cm
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
B-1 B-2
B-1
@0-5'
Red Brown
8,000
880
7.2
0.30
51
21
257
13
ND
B-1
@0-5'
Red Brown
8,800
1,120
6.9
0.21
63
20
143
14
ND
bicarbonate HC031· mg/kg 122 82
fluoride Fl-mg/kg 5.6 2.9
chloride cf mg/kg 64 65
sulfate so/ mg/kg 411 258
phosphate PO/ mg/kg 2.0 1.0
Other Tests
ammonium NH41+ mg/kg ND 1.7
nitrate Not mg/kg 40 51
sulfide s2-qual na na
Redox mV na na
Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analysis were made on a 1 :5 soil-to-water extract.
mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil.
Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts
ND = not detected
na = not analyzed
431 West Baseline Road· Claremont, CA 91711
Phone: 909 .626.0967 · Fax: 909 .626.3316 Page 1 of 1
-
---
~~ LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
BY OTHERS --
----
-
----
-
"'~
{'(il>lllil
-----
.....
~
tti"!i
-
r-, . ' I i I I u
r ·: i ; r·· LJ
i ,, .. ., , I I o u
r ,
r I I i I :...J
r ·1
I I Li
r , i !. u
; ·: : ; ! ;
~
r ' I ;
i I
~
r 1
LJ
,··,· r I : '._j
r ,
! \ u
r· .. ,
t !. LJ
r ·-
1 I
~;
( 1
.....J
r i I : L....I
i'i
I ' I ; u
r ·1
LJ ( ,,
1 1 l I I..,._. u
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
81.:.ACK RAIL ROAD, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PAGE 7
MAY 22, 2003 ·
The following tests were conducted in support of this investigation:
1. Maximum Dry Density. and Optimum Moisture Content: The maximum dry
density and optimum moisture content of Soil Types 1 and 2 were determined
in accordance witn ASTM D~1557. The test results are p,resented inT~ble 4.
TABLE4
T-1 @3' 1 125.0 11.5
T-1 8' 2 120:3 13.8
2. Moisture•.Oensity Tes:fs (Undis~urbed Chu_~k Samples}: In-place dry de,nsity
and moisture content of representatiye soil deposits beneath the site were
determined from relatively undisturbed chunk samples using the water
~isplpcement test method. The test results are presented in Table 5 and
tabi:.llated on the enclosed Test Trench Logs~
TABLE5
T-1 @2' 1 21.7 100.6 1'25.0 80.5
T-1 @6' 1 13.6 94.1 125.0 75.3
T-1 @8' 2 19.6 101.1 120.3 84.-1
T-1@ 12' 2 31.2 88.6 120.3 73.7
T-2 @3' 1 9.8 104.8 125:0 83.9
T-2@61 1 7.4 125.0 sam.ple ~isturbed .
T-2@7W 1 17.0 102.3 125.0 81.8
T-2.@.8' 4 16.5 105.2
T-3@5' 4 12.7 110.6
f 1 V.INJE. & MIDDL~TON BNGl"I:l'EERING, INC. 2'f50 Vine,.,ir.i A11en~t, Esc1mdido, California .92029·1229 ~ Phone (7~0) 743-1214 • F~ (?66) 739.034-3
I I • • . . l.j G!:07.ECHNICAL-INVJ;STiGATJONS QRAOJNGSUPERVJSIO..'l PERCTESTINQ ENVIRONMENTAL INVEST!(JAT!ON
--
, ...
-
-
---
-
-
f • i i LJ .
r. ' l \ I L..)
LJ
f. l ; I
\ I ._,
r -~
LJ
( -,
J j LJ
r· .,
LJ
(
r; c· I i l_J
fl L.J
(
PRELIMINARY GEOT.ECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
BLACK RAIL ROAD, CARLSBAD, CALJFORNIA
TABLE 5 (continued)
.
T-3@S1 4 7.5 117.6 -
' . T-4@2' 1 12.2 116.7 1'25.0
T-4@6' 4 16.5 100.& -
T-5@3' 4 7.9 125.4 -
T~@2%' 4 11.1 117.5 -
*.Designated as relative compaction f~r-strucfural fills.
.
Required relative compaction for structural fill ls 90% or qreater.
PAGE 8·
-MAY 22, 2003
-
93.3
-
-
-
3. Expansion Index Test: Two expansion index tests were performed on
represenJatjye samples of Soil Types 1 and 2 iA accordance~ith the Unif9rm
Bt.Jilding Code Stqndard 18-2 .. The test results are presented !n Table 6.
TABL~6
T-1 @12' 2 11.2 49.9 24.9 42 low {" 1
-LJ ·. (Ol) = moisture content in percent
-r· 1 I , u
r ...,
I . L
i ( :, ; ......
r··• ' ' I r
L.:
r· \ ..
4. Dir~ct $hear Test: Two direct shear tests were performed on representative
samples of Soil Types 1 and 2. The prepared specimens were so\3l5ea
overnight, loaded· with normal loads of 1, 2, and 4 kips per square foot
respectively, and sheared to failure in an undrained condition. T~e test results
are pr~sented in Table 7.
TABLE7
T-1 @3' 1 remofded to 90% of Yd @% c.uopt 124.9 31 115
T-1 12'. 2 remolded to 90% of Yd % roopt 124.8 29 285
I ' i , VINJ'E & MIDDI:ETON ENG~ElHNG, me. 2450·'\lineyard Aven11e, Escondido, California 92029-1229 • PhDne (760J 743-1214 • Fax (760) 739.0343.
\,,.,,_.i • • •
(j.RADJNQ SUPERVISION PER.C TESTING ENVIRONMENT.AL JNY.ESTIGATION
f 1
-LJ (
-r' ,"°'N l l u, ,i,.'
-r,
\ : u
u ·-r· ··~ -. u -r.'
-
. l I i ~
-r ' c· .. I l
--
-....
--
-
--
---
~ ..
l ...
PRELIMINARY GEO:fECHNICAL INVEST!GATION
SLACK RAIL ROAD, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PAGE 9
MAY 22, 2003
5. Pb and Resistjvity Test; Ph and resistivity of representative samples of Soil
Type 1 collected at selected 1,acations was determined using '.' Method for
Estimating the Service _Life of Stee\ Culverts," in accordariae with the Califomla
Test 643. The test result is presented in Table 8.
TABLES
6. Sulfate Test A sulfate test w~s perfo.nned on a representati.ve $amp!~ of Soil
Type 1 in accordance with the California Test 417. The test result is presented
in Table 9.
TABLES
----
---..
----
-
-
-
-
--
Tram West Housing, Inc.
Black Rail TM No. 2-026
Interim Report of Earthwork Construction
3.2. LABORATORY TESTING
July 25, 2007
Project: 3103SD3
Page3
Laboratory testing was perfonned on representative soil samples from the site. The laboratory
testing was ~rfonned to aid in construction observation and testing services and to evaluate as-
graded building lot soil properties for use in engineering design and analysis. Laboratory tests are
presented below.
Muimum Density/Optimum Moisture
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected soil samples that
were used for grading was estimated in accordance with the laboratory procedures
O"!Jtlined in AS1M D 1557, modified Proctor. The test results are presented in the table
below.
LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 1557)
Soil Type Description Maximum Dry Optimum Moisture
Deulty (Def) Content(%)
A Red-brown clayey fine to medium SAND 123 13
B Gray-brown clayey tine SAND IL9Yz IOVi
C Brown siltv fine SAND trace clay 126 12
D Red-brown. fine SAND 123 13
E Red-brown siltv (me SAND 133Yz 8Yz
F Red-brown silty SAND 125 12Vi
Expansion Index
The expansion potential of selected soil samples obtained from the finish grade of the
building lots were estimated in general accordance with the laboratory procedures
outlined in AS1M D 4829. The expansion potential is based on classifications per Table
18-I-B of the 2001 California Building Code.
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS (ASTM D 4829)
Location Ducrlptlon Expansion Expansion
Index Potential
1-2, 6 Red-brown, silty SAND I Very Low
3,4 Dark red-brown clayey SAND 22 Low
5,1 Brown siltv SAND 13 Low
8, 16 Red-brown silty SAND 6 Very Low
9-10 Li2ht red-brown claveySAND 29 Low
12, 13 Red-brown clayey SAND 26 Low
I 1, 14-15 Orange brown silty SAND 7 Very Low
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
-
-
-
, ..
-
-
-
-
-
-
""' -
Trans West Housing, Inc.
Black Rail TM No. 2-026
Interim ReQort of Earthwork Constrt1ction
Sulfate Content
July 25, 2007
Project: 3103SD3
Pag~4
Sulfate testing was performed on selected soil samples obtained from the finish grade of
building lots. Sulfate testing was estimated in general accordance with Caltrans Test
Method 417. The structural engineer should evaluate the sulfate content along with Table
19-A-4 of the 2001 CBC and provide an appropriate cement type to be used for concrete
in direct contact with soil.
Location Sulfate Content
(% of Dry Soll Wefrht)
l, 2 6 0.027
3. 4 0.033 ....
S,7 0.033
8, 16 0.016
9, 10 0.077
11,14, IS 0.010
12, 13 0,019
---....
-
-
-.. -
-...
APPENDIX D ....
....
-..
-.. ..
-
-
----
, ... -
-
-
-
-
-
*** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard for PGA & 2 Periods of Spectral Accel. ***
*** Data from U.S.G.S. National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2002 version***
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: BlackRail long: 117.286 w., lat: 33.111 N.
USGS 2002-03 update files and programs. dM=0.2. Site descr:ROCK
Return period: 2475 yrs. Exceedance PGA =0.5031 g.
#Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs)=0.00110
DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 l<EPS<2 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O -2<EPS<-1 EPS<-2
5.8 5.05 1.483 0.542 0.941 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.2 5.05 0.390 0.390 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
5.9 5.20 2.838 0.886 1.952 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.3 5.20 0.864 0.852 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000
5.9
12.5
6.0
12.6
6.1
12.8
21. 3
6.0
12.9
22.2
5.5
12.8
22.6
5.3
12.6
22.5
7.7
13.1
22.4
7.2
13.8
22.2
8.5
13.9
22.1
8.6
14.5
8.9
14.6
33.8
33.8
5.40
5.40
5.60
5.60
5.80
5.80
5.81
6.01
6.01
6.00
6.20
6.20
6.20
6.40
6.40
6.40
6.63
6.61
6.60
6.76
6.80
6.79
6. 96
6.94
6.95
7.18
7.15
7.37
7.45
7.54
7.75
2.681
0.976
2.524
1. 097
2.345
1. 212
0. 071
2.842
1. 474
0.093
3.535
1. 978
0.138
3.607
2.189
0.202
8.412
2.752
0.260
6.374
4.427
0.259
21.933
4.563
0.224
12.229
4.055
1. 592
0.054
0.097
0.165
0.666
0.855
0.498
0.813
0.368
0.728
0.071
0.330
0. 725
0.093
0.286
0.775
0.138
0.252
0.642
0.202
0. 922
0.851
0.257
0.751
2.002
0.254
2.195
1.443
0.219
1.069
1. 454
0.139
0.012
0.097
0.165
1.863
0.122
1. 592
0.284
1.306
0.484
0.000
1.456
0.750
0.000
1. 529
1.194
0.000
1. 331
1.447
0.000
4.209
1. 794
0.002
3.039
2.183
0.005
12.360
2.954
0.005
5.920
2.557
0.882
0.042
0.000
0.000
0.153
0.000
0.435
0.000
0.670
0.000
0.000
1.056
0.000
0.000
1.704
0.009
0.000
1. 860
0.099
0.000
3.100
0.107
0.000
2. 311
0.242
0.000
7.206
0.166
0.000
5.240
0.044
0. 571
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.000
0.164
0.000
0.000
0.181
0.000
0.000
0.274
0.000
0.000
0 .171
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:
Mean src-site R= 9.3 km; M= 6.58; epsO= 0.93. Mean calculated for all sources.
Modal src-site R= 8.5 km; M= 6.96; epsO= 0.68 from peak (R,M) bin
Gridded source distance metrics: Rseis Rrup and Rjb
MODER*= 8.7km; M*= 6.96; EPS.INTERVAL: 1 to 2 sigma % CONTRIB.= 12.360
Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having >10% contribution)
Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilonO (mean values)
California shallow gridded 45.40 8.4 6.09 0.96
Calif b, SS or Thrust 54.60 10.1 6.98 0.90
Individual fault hazard details if contrib.>1%:
2 Rose Canyon 31.87 8.7 7.04 0.69
2 Newport-Inglewood offshore 7.79 14.6 7.02 1.56
2 Rose Canyon GR M-distrib 13.78 9.7 6.81 0.92
******************** Southern California****************************************
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. ROCK site: BlackRail long: 117.286 d w., lat:
33.111 N.
USGS 2002-2003 update files and programs. Analysis on DaMoYr:10/09/2012
Return period: 2475 yrs. 1.00 s. PSA =0.4532 g.
#Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PSA in 50 yrs)=0.00015
-
---
-----
-
-
-
-
-----
DIST(km) MAG(Mw) ALL EPS EPSILON>2 l<EPS<2 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O -2<EPS<-1 EPS<-2
5.1
5.3
5.3
5.21
5.41
5.61
5.61
5.80
5.81
6.01
6.01
6.01
6.20
6.21
6.21
6.41
6.40
6.41
6.41
6.60
6.61
6.61
6.60
6.74
6.78
6.80
6.79
6.79
6.98
6.96
6.95
6.94
7.19
7.16
7.17
7.22
7.33
7.45
7.36
7.43
7.33
7.55
7.53
7.57
7.69
7.74
7.77
7.86
8.06
7.92
8.20
0.132
0.257
0.415
0.130
0.591
0 .271
0.999
0.495
0.067
1. 639
0.887
0 .171
2.197
1.259
0.325
0.053
4 .145
2.484
0.757
0.264
7.020
4.228
0.877
1.108
0 .072
0.132
0.235
0.287
0.130
0.275
0.268
0.281
0.431
0.067
0.274
0.572
0 .171
0.248
0.555
0.325
0.053
0.651
1. 022
0.721
0.264
0.877
1. 462
0.687
1.108
0.072
2. 792
2.493
0.524
1.382
0.512
1.044
2.431
0.104
0 .271
0.012
0.987
0.109
0.157
0.002
1. 417
0.133
0 .455
0. 962
0.360
0.383
0.320
0.487
0.469
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.4
5.4
12.9
5.4
13.2
22.7
5.0
13.1
23.3
4.8
12.9
23.5
33.9
7.0
14.3
24.0
35.5
7.3
13.7
23.3
37.6
43.7
8.6
14 .4
23.2
37.5
8.7
14.5
38.6
63.8
8.7
14.6
35.3
63.7
75.8
8.6
33.8
108.4
117 .1
33.8
108.3
132.1
109.2
115. 9
108.3
26.401
8.996
0.827
1. 382
7.277
6.800
2.432
0.104
4.703
0.111
1.277
0.109
0.157
0.051
2.647
0.133
0.455
2.747
0.360
0.383
0.320
0.487
0.546
0.022
0.128
0.000
0.316
0.004
0. 715
0.063
0.000
1. 247
0.316
0.000
1. 256
0.704
0.000
0.000
2.547
1. 460
0.035
0.000
4.120
2.686
0.191
0.000
0.000
16.080
6.359
0.303
0.000
3.249
5.336
0.001
0.000
1.718
0.073
0.290
0.000
0.000
0.014
1. 230
0.000
0.000
1.785
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.077
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.003
0.000
0.000
0 .118
0.000
0.000
0.693
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.947
0.001
0.000
0.000
1.987
0.080
0.000
0.000
0.000
7.468
0.144
0.000
0.000
3.517
0.420
0.000
0.000
2.714
0.026
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.035
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.036
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.060
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Summary statistics for above 1.0s PSA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:
Mean src-site R= 16.6 km; M= 6.95; epsO= 1.14. Mean calculated for all sources.
Modal src-site R= 8.6 km; M= 6.98; epsO= 0.75 from peak (R,M) bin
Gridded source distance metrics: Rseis Rrup and Rjb
MODER*= 8.7km; M*= 6.98; EPS.INTERVAL: 1 to 2 sigma % CONTRIB.= 16.080
Principal sources (faults,
Source Category:
subduction, random seismicity having >10% contribution)
California shallow gridded
Calif b, ss or Thrust
Individual fault hazard details
2 Rose Canyon
2 Newport-Inglewood offshore
% contr. R(km) M epsilono (mean values)
22.26 10.1 6.49 1.17
70.41 13.3
if contrib.>1%:
33.64 8.7
13.82 14.6
7.06
7.06
7.04
1. 00
0.68
1. 25
--
-
-
--
-
-
-
-..
--
--'--------
-----
2 Coronado Bank
2 Rose Canyon GR M-distrib
2 Newport-Inglewood offshore
2 Coronado Bank GR M-distrib
SAF-All southern segments Amodl
Elsinore-18
Elsinore-17
GR
5.37
13.56
2.09
1. 71
0.97
3.09
1. 29
33.8 7.61 1. 62
10.5 6. 84 1. 04
19.9 6.85 1. 71
35.3 7.30 2.00
108.3 8.13 2.09
39.0 7.14 2.29
39.0 6.84 2.53
******************** Southern California****************************************
PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. ROCK site: BlackRail long: 117.286 d W., lat:
33.111 N.
USGS 2002-2003 update files and programs. Analysis on DaMoYr:10/09/2012
Return period: 2475 yrs. 0.20 s. PSA =1.2009 g.
#Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PSA in 50 yrs)=0.00075
DIST(km) MAG(Mw) ALL EPS EPSILON>2 l<EPS<2 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O -2<EPS<-1
6.0 5.05 1.383 0.503 0.880 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.2
6.1
12.4
6.1
12.6
6.1
12.8
21. 2
6.2
12.9
21. 8
6.0
13.0
22.7
5.4
12.9
23.0
5.3
12.7
22.9
7.7
13.6
22.7
7.2
13.5
22.8
8.5
14 .2
22.5
8.7
14.5
8.7
14.6
34.6
33.8
33.8
5.05
5.20
5.20
5.40
5.40
5.60
5.60
5.61
5.80
5.80
5.81
6.01
6.01
6.00
6.20
6.20
6.20
6.40
6.40
6.40
6.62
6.62
6.62
6.75
6.78
6.83
6.95
6.94
6.97
7.18
7.15
7.48
7.45
7.38
7.54
7.74
0.423
2.625
0.950
2.452
1.080
2.304
1. 207
0.062
2.154
1. 323
0.122
2.628
1.619
0.165
3.244
2.160
0.236
3.310
2.345
0.335
8.008
3.548
0.535
5.780
3.638
0.464
19.802
6.219
0.252
13.842
4.607
0.536
0.054
0.073
0.164
0.245
0.423
0.845
0.945
0.645
0.980
0.489
0.935
0.062
0.363
0.818
0.122
0.333
0.816
0.165
0.284
0.857
0.236
0.248
0.686
0.329
0.856
1. 302
0.512
0.635
1. 201
0.432
2.054
2.097
0.216
1.404
1. 432
0.044
0.012
0.073
0.164
0.245
0.000
1.780
0.005
1.743
0.099
1.524
0.272
0.000
1.283
0.506
0.000
1.468
0.803
0.000
1. 576
1.297
0.000
1. 357
1. 577
0.006
4.281
2.107
0.022
2.923
2.231
0.031
10.870
3.952
0.036
7.790
3.128
0.272
0.042
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.064
0.000
0.292
0.000
0.000
0.507
0.000
0.000
0.828
0.000
0.000
1. 384
0.006
0.000
1. 625
0.082
0.000
2.768
0.138
0.000
2.051
0.206
0.000
6.766
0.170
0.000
4.649
0.048
0.221
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.080
0.000
0.000
0.103
0.000
0.000
0.171
0.000
0.000
0.113
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
EPS<-2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Summary statistics for above 0.2s PSA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:
Mean src-site R= 9.8 km; M= 6.58; epsO= 1.01. Mean calculated for all sources.
Modal src-site R= 8.5 km; M= 6.95; epsO= 0.70 from peak (R,M) bin
Gridded source distance metrics: Rseis Rrup and Rjb
MODER*= 8.6km; M*= 6.94; EPS.INTERVAL: 1 to 2 sigma % CONTRIB.= 10.870
Principal sources (faults,
Source Category:
subduction, random seismicity having >10% contribution)
California shallow gridded
Calif b, SS or Thrust
Individual fault hazard details
% contr. R(km) M epsilonO (mean values)
44.93 9.0 6.10 1.08
55.06 10.4 6.97 0.95
if contrib.>1%:
-
-2 Rose Canyon 30.21 8.7 7.03 0.72
2 Newport-Inglewood offshore 9.16 14.6 7.02 1. 48
2 Rose Canyon GR M-distrib 14.02 9.9 6.80 0.96
2 Newport-Inglewood offshore GR 1.19 17.6 6.81 1. 83
******************** Southern California **************************************** -
-
-
-
-
-
---
II
•
,, ..
-
•
---
---
----------
---
USGS 2011, Seismic Design Parameters -Black Rail, Carlsbad
Conterminous 48 States
2005 ASCE 7 Standard
Latitude= 33.1112
Longitude = -117 .28669999999998
Spectral Response Accelerations Ss and 51
Ss and 51 = Mapped Spectral Acceleration Values
Site Class B -Fa = 1.0 ,Fv = 1.0
Data are based on a 0.01 deg grid spacing
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 1.201 (Ss, Site Class B)
1.0 0.453 (51, Site Class B)
Conterminous 48 States
2005 ASCE 7 Standard
Latitude = 33.1112
Longitude= -117.28669999999998
Spectral Response Accelerations SMs and SMl
SMs = Fa x Ss and SMl = Fv x 51
Site Class D -Fa= 1.02 ,Fv = 1.547
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 1.225 (SMs, Site Class D)
1.0 0.701 (SMl, Site Class D)
Conterminous 48 States
2005 ASCE 7 Standard
Latitude= 33.1112
Longitude= -117.28669999999998
Design Spectral Response Accelerations SDs and SDl
SDs = 2/3 x SMs and SDl = 2/3 x SMl
Site Class D -Fa = 1.02 ,Fv = 1.547
Period Sa
(sec) (g)
0.2 0.817 (SDs, Site Class D)
1.0 0.467 (SDl, Site Class D)
--
-
... -
-
... ... -
-
-
""' ...
,.. ..
APPENDIX E
Summary of Slope Stability Analysis
Cross-Section C-C'
-Filename Description Factor of Safety CFS)
Static Pseudostatic
01, Olp Existing Profile; Gross Stability of the Slope. 1.91 1.43 Circular Failure
-·
-
-----
--
Project No.: 12115-01 ~ Project Name: TNHC I Carlsbad
--
-NMG
P:\20121,12115--01\SUMtvlARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS C-C'.DOC
THNC/Carlsbad; C-C'; Static; Global Stability of Existing Slope; Circ. Failure
P:\2012\12115-01\STED\C-C'\01 .PL2 Run By: RS 11/30/2012 9:04AM 400 r;:::====;;======i============i===========:i=;-~~~~-,~~~~~--,~~~~~.-~~~~--,
360
320
280
240
# FS
a 1.91
b 1.91
C 1.91
d 1.92
e 1.92
f 1.92
g 1.92
h 1.92
i 1.92
j 1.92
4
Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez.
Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No.
Afc 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 30.0 W1
Afu 2 120.0 120.0 200.0 28.0 W1
Qt 3 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 W1
Tsa 4 120.0 120.0 200.0 30.0 W1
4
1
3 3 3
4
200 L_~~~~--''--~~~~-'-~~~~~-'-~~~~~-'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.91
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
~
THNC/Carlsbad; C-C'; Static; Global Stability of Existing Slope; Circ. Failure
P:\2012\12115-01\STED\C-C'\01 .PLT Run By: RS 11/30/2012 9:04AM 400 ~~~~~-----,~~~~~-,-~~~~~--.-~~~~~-r-~~~~~--.-~~~~~.--~~~~--,
360
3 ~ 3
320
4
280
240
200 L__~~~~-'-~~~~~-'-~~~~~..__~~~~---'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
~
P: \2012\12115-01 \sted\c-c' \OJ.OUT Page 1
GSTABL7 •••
•• GST1\BL1 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E . .,..
... Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.0, September 2001 ••
................. ~!!?. ~!?~;! .~~!!::~~=~~!~=~?:! !~~. ~!~ .~:~~!~! :~~! .................. .
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slice.s .
(Includes Spencer , Horgen.,tern-Price Type Analy.,is)
Inc luding Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback:,
Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope,
Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water .......... ~~==~~~~: .. ~!~~~~===~=!~ .. :~==~~~=~: .~~~.!~~=!~~ .:~=~~ .. ?~~:~~!: ................ ..
Analysis Run Date: l l /30/2012
Time of Run: 9:04AM
Run By: RS
Input Data Filename: P:01 .
Output Fi lenane: P: 01. OUT
Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P:01.PLT
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: THNC/Carlsbad; C-C'; Stat ic; Global Stab
ility of Existing Slope; Circ. Failure
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
6 Top Boundaries
l 6 Tot al Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left
No. (ft)
1 0. 00
2 28. 00
3 4 2. 00
4 102.50
5 133.50
6 140.00
7 102.50
8 112. 00
9 125. 00
10 138.00
11 145.00
12 180.00
13 190.00
14 42. 00
15 75.00
16 75. 00
I SO'TROPJ C S01 L PARAMETERS
4 Type(:,) of Soil
(ft)
312. 00
316. 00
317. 00
34 5. 00
358. 00
357. 50
345. 00
335.00
335. 00
342. 00
342. 00
347. 00
347. 00
317. 00
324. 00
324. 00
X-Rlght Y-Rlght Soil Type
(ft) (ft) Below Bnd
28. 00 316. 00 4
42. 00 317. 00 4
102. 50 345. 00 2
133. 50 358. 00
140. 00 357. 50
200. 00 357.00
112. 00 335. 00
125. 00 335. 00
138. 00 342. 00
145. 00 342. 00
180. 00 347. 00
190. 00 347. 00
200. 00 34 9. 00
75. 00 324. 00
112. 00 335. 00
200. 00 325. 00
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pre.'!lsure Piez.
Type Onit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pre!'lsure Constant
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Pa.ram. Ip.sf)
Surface
No.
l 120.0 120.0 200.0 30.0 0.00 0.0
2 120.0 120.0 200.0 28.0 0.00 0.0
3 120.0 120.0 100.0 32.0 0.00 0.0
-4 120.0 120.0 200.0 30.0 0.00 o.o
A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Ha., Been Specified.
4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
60 Surfaces Ini tiate From Each Of 80 Point., Equally Spaced
Along The Ground Surface Between X • 20.00(ft)
and X • 60.001ft)
Each Surface Terminate., Between X • 130. 00 ( ft l
and x -150.00(ft)
Onless F"urther Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y • O.OO(ftl
4.001ft) Line Segment., Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
1
• • Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated • 4800
Stati.,tical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max -3. 899 FS Min • 1. 909 FS Ave • 2. 447
Slice
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
P: \2012\12115-01 \sted\c-c' \01. OUT Page
Standard Deviation -0 .357 Coefficient of Variation -14.60 I
Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
l 42.28 317.13
2 46.28 317.05
3 50.28 317.09
4 54.27 317.27
5 58.26 317.57
6 62.24 318.01
7 66.20 318.57
8 70.14 319.25
9 74.06 320.07
10 77.9, 321.01
11 81.80 322.07
12 85.62 323.26
13 89.40 324.57
14 93 .14 326. 00
15 96.82 327.55
16 100.46 329.22
17 104.04 331.00
18 107.56 332.90
19 111.02 334.91
20 114.41 337.03
21 117.73 339.26
22 120.98 341.59
23 124.15 344.03
24 127.24 346.57
25 130.25 349.21
26 133.17 351.94
27 136.00 354. 76
28 138.67 357.60
Circle Center At X -46.8; Y • 441.3 and Radius, 124.3
Factor of Safety
.... l. 909
Individual data on the 34 .,uces
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
(ft) (lbs) (lb.,) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)
0. 3 2. 6 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 o. 0 o. 0 o. 0 o. 0
3. 7 461. l o. 0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 o.o 0 .0
4 .0 1360. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 .0 0. 0 0 .0
4 .o 2193.2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0
4 .0 2958. 4 0. 0 0.0 0 . 0 o. 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0 . 0
4. 0 3653. 4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 . 0 C. 0 0. 0
4 .0 4275.8 0. 0 0.0 o. 0 o. 0 o.o 0. 0 o. 0
3. 9 4823. 7 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0. 0
3. 9 5295. 9 o. 0 o. 0 0. 0 o. 0 0. 0 o. 0 o.o
0. 9 1344. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0.0 0.0E+OO 0. 0
2. 9 4347 .2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 o. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
3. 9 6010 .o 0. 0 o.o 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
3. 8 6251 . 7 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 o. 0 0 . 0 o. 0 0. 0
2. 4 4122. 7 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0. 0
I. 3 2294 .5 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 o.o 0. 0 3. 7 6507. 6 o. 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0. 0
3. 7 6524. 6 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0 . 0 0. 0 0. 0
3. 6 6470.3 0. 0 0.0 o. 0 o. 0 0. 0 0.0 o. 0
2. 0 3626.8 o. 0 0.0 0. 0 o. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
). 5 2714. 4 o. 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
3. 5 6098. 0 0. 0 o.o 0. 0 0. 0 o. 0 0 .0 0. 0
2. 7 4 613. 7 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0 .0 O.OE+OO o. 0
0. 7 1171. 5 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 o. 0 0. 0 o.o 0. 0
0. 7 1093. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0
2. 7 4324. 4 0. 0 0.0 o. 0 o. 0 0. 0 o.o 0.0
3. 3 5000.1 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 o. 0 0.0 0. 0
3. 2 4537 .1 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 o. 0 0. 0
-
P: \2012\12115-01 \,ted\c-c' \01. OUT Page 3
28 3. 2 4033. 9 o. 0 0 .0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0. 0
29 3.1 3496. 1 0. 0 0 .o 0.0 0. 0 o. 0 0.0 0. 0
30 3.0 2929. 4 0. 0 0 .0 0.0 0. 0 o. 0 0. 0 0. 0
31 2 .9 2340 .o o. 0 0 .0 o.o 0 .o o. 0 0.0 0. 0
32 0 .3 231.1 0. 0 0 .0 0.0 0 . 0 o. 0 o. 0 0. 0
33 2.5 1316. 7 0. 0 0. 0 o.o 0 .0 0. 0 0. 0 0 . 0
34 2. 7 486. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0
ENO OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT ••••
THNC/Carlsbad; C-C'; P-Static; Global Stability of Existing Slope; Circ. Failure
P:\2012\12115-01\STED\C-C'\01P.PL2 Run By: RS 11/30/2012 9:06AM 400 ,;::::====;-;:=======i============i===========:i=;-;::=========i:==~~~~--,~~~~~-,-~~~~-,
360
320
280
240
# FS
a 1.43
b 1.43
C 1.43
d 1.43
e 1.44
f 1.44
g 1.44
h 1.44
i 1.44
j 1.44
4
Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. I Load Value
Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface Horiz Eqk 0.150 g<
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No.
Afc 1 120.0 120.0 200.0 32.0 W1
Afu 2 120.0 120.0 200.0 28.0 W1
Qt 3 120.0 120.0 120.0 34.0 W1
Tsa 4 120.0 120.0 120.0 34.0 W1
3
3 . 3
3
4
4
200 L--~~~~----'~~~~~---'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1 .43
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
~
THNC/Carlsbad; C-C'; P-Static; Global Stability of Existing Slope; Circ. Failure
P:\2012\12115-01\STED\C-C'\01P.PLT Run By: RS 11/30/2012 9:06AM 400 .---~~~~----,~~~~~--,-~~~~~-.-~~~~~---.--~~~~~-.--~~~~~---.-~~~~---,
360
3 3
320
4
280
240
200 '--~~~~___J'--~~~~__._~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280
~
I i j I j l I I I I i i I
P: \2012\12115-01 \sted\c-c' \Olp.OUT Page 1
GSTABL7
** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** •* Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.0, September 2001 *"'·
(All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited)
* * * * * * *** * * * ... ** * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** ** ** * * .... * *** * *"' * * * * "'** * * .. * ** + ** * * * * * * * * *y * ** * * * * * * *
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM
Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices.
(Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis)
Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback,
Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope,
Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water
+ * ** * ** :~:: :;;:: * :!::~~~::;~;;; ... ::~=~T;!~'.:: * ~~~ .. ~~~! ::~ + :~:=~ + ~~;!~~:; * + + + + + + + + + + +
Analysis Run Date: 11/30/2012
Time of Run: 9: 06AM
Run By: RS
Input Data Filename: P:Olp.
Output Filename: P: Olp. OUT
Unit System: English
Plotted Output Filename: P: Olp. FLT
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: THNC/Carlsbad; C-C'; P-Static; Global St
ability of Existing Slope; Circ. Failure
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
6 Top Boundaries
16 Total Boundaries
Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd
J 0. 00 312. 00 28. 00 316. 00 4
2 28. 00 316. 00 42. 00 31 7. 00
3 42. 00 317. 00 102.50 345. 00
4 102. 50 34 5. 00 133. 50 358. 00
5 133. 50 358.00 140. 00 357. 50
6 140. co 357. 50 200.00 357.00
7 102. 50 345.00 112. 00 335. 00
8 112. 00 335. 00 125. 00 335.00
9 125. 00 335. 00 138. 00 342. 00
JO 138. 00 342. 00 145. 00 342. 00
11 145. 00 342.00 180. 00 34 7. 00
12 180. 00 347.00 190. 00 34 7. 00
13 190. 00 34 7, co 200. 00 34 9, 00
14 42. 00 317, 00 75. 00 324 .00
15 75. 00 324. 00 112. 00 335.00
16 75. 00 324.00 200.00 325.00
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
4 Type(s) of Soil
Soi 1 Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez.
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg)
1 120. 0 120. 0 200. 0 32. 0
2 120. 0 120. 0 200. 0 28. 0
3 120 .0 120. 0 120. 0 34. 0
120. 0 120. 0 l 20. 0 34. 0
A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient
OfO .150 Has Been Assigned
A vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient
Of0.000 Has Been Assigned
Cavitation Pressure "' 0.0 {psf)
Param. (psf)
0. 00 0. 0
0. 00 0. 0
0. 00 0 .0
0. 00 0. 0
A Critical Failur.e Surface Searching Method, Using A Random
Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified.
4800 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated.
60 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 80 Points Equally Spaced
Along The Ground Surface Between X = 20. 00 (ft)
and X = 60.CO(ftl
Each Surface Terminates Between X = 130.00(ftl
and X = 180.00(ft)
Unless Furt!ler Limitations were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation
At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = O.OO(ft)
No.
1
I I f I I t I I J I I
P: \2012\12115-01 \sted\c-c' \Olp .OUT Page 2
4.00 (ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface.
Slice
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
JO
11
12
13
14
15
16
J 7
18
19
20
21
22
+ * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated = 4800
Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values:
FS Max= 2.844 FS Min= 1.430 FS Ave= 2.022
Standard Deviation = O, 352 Coefficient of Variation = l 7 .43 %
Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points
Point X-Surf Y-Surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 44.30 318.07
2 48.30 318.24
3 52.29 318.53
4 56.27 318.93
5 60.24 319.44
6 64.19 320.06
7 68.12 320.80
8 72.03 321.65
9 75.91 322.60
10 79. 77 323. 67
11 83.59 324.84
12 87.38 326.12
13 91.13 327.51
14 94.84 329.01
15 98.51 330.61
16 102.13 332.31
17 105.70 334.11
18 109.22 336.01
19 112.68 338.02
20 116. 09 340.11
21 119.43 342.3]
22 122.71 344.60
23 125. 93 346. 98
24 129.07 349.45
25 132.15 352.00
26 135.15 354.65
27 138.08 357.38
28 138.33 357.63
Circle Center At X = 40.1 ; Y = 459.5 and Radius, 141.5
Factor of Safety *** 1.430 +++
Indi victual data on the 34 slices
Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake
Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge
Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load
(ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs)
3. 4 295. 5 C. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. C 44. 3 0. 0 0. 0
0. 6 106. 2 0. 0 0. 0 C. 0 0. 0 15. 9 0. 0 0. 0
4. 0 1175. 4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 176. 3 0. 0 0. 0
4. 0 1889. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 283. 4 0. 0 0. 0
4. 0 2541. 6 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 381. 2 0. 0 0. 0
4 .0 3130. 7 0 .0 0. 0 0 .o 0 .o 469. 6 0 .0 0. 0
3. 9 3655. 4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 548. 3 0. 0 0. 0
3. 9 4114. 9 0. 0 C. 0 0. 0 0. 0 6] 7. 2 0. 0 0. 0
3. 0 3412. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 511. 9 0. 0 0. 0
0. 9 1095. 6 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 l 64. 3 0. 0 0. 0
3. 9 4836. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 725.4 0.0E+OO 0. 0
1. 2 162]. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 243. 2 0. 0 0. 0
2. 6 34 7 6. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0 .0 0. 0 521. 4 0. 0 0. 0
3. 8 5293.9 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 794 .1 0. C C. 0
3. 8 5425. 4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 813. 8 0. 0 0. 0
3. 7 54 93. 5 0. C 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 824. 0 0. 0 0. 0
3. 7 5499. 5 0. 0 0. C 0. C 0. 0 824. 9 0. 0 0. 0
2. 2 334 6. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 502. 0 0. 0 0. 0
1. 4 2099.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 314. 8 0. 0 0. 0
0. 4 555. 6 0. 0 0 .0 0. 0 0. 0 83. 3 0 .0 0. 0
3. 2 4750. 6 C. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 712. 6 0. 0 0. 0
3. 5 507 3. 8 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 76], 1 0. 0 0. 0
I I
l I I I I I I I I I I I I i l t f I • I I I I I I I I i I I
P: \2012\12115-01 \sted\c-c' \Olp.OUT Page 3
23 1. 2 164 9. 8 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 247. 5 0. 0 0. 0 24 2. 3 3141.2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 471. 2 0. 0 0. 0 25 3. 4 44 61. 4 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 669. 2 0. 0 0. 0 26 3. 3 4088.2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 613. 2 0. 0 0. 0 27 3. 3 3675.2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 551. 3 0. 0 0. 0 28 3. 2 3226. 3 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 483. 9 0. 0 0. 0 29 3.1 2745. 5 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 411. 8 0. 0 0. 0 30 3.1 2237. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 335. 6 0. 0 0. 0 31 1. 4 829. 9 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 124. 5 0. 0 0. 0 32 1. 6 794. 8 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 119. 2 o. 0 0. 0 33 2. 9 613. 7 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 92.1 0. 0 0. 0 34 0. 3 4. 2 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 o. 6 0. 0 0. 0 END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT *+**
--
-
,_
---..
--z = Depth of Saturation = 4.0 ft ·--Buoyant Unit Weight of Soil 57.6 pcf 'Yb = =
-"/t = Total Unit Weight of Soil = 120.0 pcf
a = Slope Angle = 26.6 degrees -
d> = AnQle of Internal Friction = 28.0 degrees -Cohesion 200.0 psf C = = ·--Force Tending to Cause Movement: ---F0 = zytcos a sin a= 1/2 ZYt sin 2 a
·--Force Tending to Resist Movement: --FR = zyb cos2 a tan cl> + c
--Factor of Safety: --2 zyb cos2 a tan + + 2c 1.55 F.S. = --ZYt sin 2 a ---Surficial Slope Stability Analysis ~NMG Gczotczchnlcal, Inc --O:\Geotech\Surficial Stability Analysis.xis Rev. 07/2003
-
-.. -
-
-
... .. -.. -
-
APPENDIX F -
-
...
...
-..
-.. -
-
'" -• --·----
-
-
-
-
APPENDIXF
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1.0 General
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading
1.2
and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the
geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations
contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific
recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general
Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical
Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised
recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
Geotechnical Consultant: Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
employ a geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant shall be
responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the
adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and
recommendations prior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the
"work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule
sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and
compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall
observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical
design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly
different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the
Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes
in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency
where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped,
elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared
for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas,
all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and
processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction
testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical
Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a
routine and frequent basis.
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendiceslgrading Specifications.doc F-1
---------·-
-
-
-
2.0
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be
qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and
processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill,
and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans,
geotechnical report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of
grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in
accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical
Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the
number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork
contemplated for the site prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor
shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in work
schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such
changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant
is aware of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment
and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable
grading codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the
recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If,
in the opinion of the Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as
unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient
buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than
required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work
and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the
conditions are rectified.
Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other
deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a
method acceptable to the ovvner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical
Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals
depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more
than 1 percent of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more
than 5 percent of organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be
allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work
in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doc F-2
---,_ ---
...
-
-
-
-
immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials pnor to
continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products
(gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents
that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping
or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor,
punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.
2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill
2.3
2.4
2.5
by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.
Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the
following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and
free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform,
flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in
the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry,
saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground
shall be overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical
Consultant during grading.
Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5: 1
(horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see
the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a
minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as
evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a
minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended
by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1
shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for
the fill.
Evaluation/ Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal
and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped,
elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical
Consultant as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written
acceptance from the Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed
surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed
areas, keys, and benches.
O:\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doc F-3
--,.,
----
---
3.0 Fill Material
3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and
other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical
Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with
unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed
in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to
achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2
3.3
Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a
maximum dimension greater than 12 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill
unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of
oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely
surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed
within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or
underground construction.
Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import
material shall meet the requirements of Section 3 .1. The potential import source
shall be given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days)
before importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate
tests performed.
4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill
(per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose
thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing
indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each
layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of
material and moisture throughout.
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered; dried back, blended,
and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or
slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content
tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM Test Method D1557-91).
4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and
evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of
maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Compaction equipment
shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction
or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction
with uniformity.
O:\NMGDOC\Repons\Appendices\grading Specifications.doc F-4
'-------..
-
---
-
-·
-
5.0
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures
specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of
slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by
other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultant. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to
the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test
Method D1557-91.
4.5
4.6
4.7
Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of
the fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and
frequency of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions
encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a
random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction
levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close
to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding
2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils
embankment. In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope
faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height
of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing
schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor
shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards
are not met.
Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the
approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The
Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient
grade stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can determine the
test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a
horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential
test locations shall be provided.
Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical
report(s), the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may
recommend additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or
material depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be
surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to
burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.
O:\NMGDOCIReports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doc F-5
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on
geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined
by the Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions
during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope
shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement
of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise
recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
7 .0 Trench Backfills
7.1 Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of
trench excavations.
7.2 Bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction.
Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The
bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top of the conduit and densified by
jetting. Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum 90 percent of
maximum from 1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface, except in
traveled ways (see Section 7.6 below).
7.3 Jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
7.4 Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At
least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can
demonstrate to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to
the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
7.6 Trench backfill in the upper foot measured from finish grade within existing or
future traveled way, shoulder, and other paved areas (or areas to receive
pavement) should be placed to a minimum 95 percent relative compaction.
O·\NMGDOC\Reports\Appendices\grading Specifications.doc F-6
------------·-·-----
A A' B B' ------------
400 - --· --400 400 --.. ., -400
•
,, " IA
' 380 ---380 380 --[J -380
-I
-~ ~
' ' '
I 360 :. 360 360 f-. ... . . I. -· --· ' " 360 . . . . -. . . . . ' -' . .
' ' . " --"' .
' '
340 ·---c--I --340 340 --340 ~
•• "-' ' / ' .
"j -' ~ -----r --320 --320 320 320 -,,,
300 300 300 -300
~ C C' :,,
~
C
'ti --r-.----
.'Zl_
'-CQ
~ 400 -·---400 "' 6i
I
~
Q "' ,:; i I-I 380 -~ V':."' 380 " -,-r 'A . -
0 n ,, r-~ -c:, rr~
~
" "' 0 a:: 360 360
;;; ... . . . . . . . 0 c--. ~ ,-
c--.
_[ 1/1'
';:' 340 c--,-340 -/ --
~ c--
' -.
I ,.... .
"' 8 c--
c--
"' ' '
<:i c--
'" 320 -· ---' 320 ' :l? -i,ll S: '
" ~
<>:
-;;; 300 300
" ~
~ 0
~
"' ~ 2 " ~
0 • " cc; "' c! ~ ~ .'5
i
I
0 ~ ~ -:::
Q
I ~ -~ -"' cS PLATE 2 ~ a:
i> CROSS-SECTIONS Project No.: 12115-01 By: RS/TW ~ NMG -~ Project Name: TNHC/Carlsbad • ~ A-A' 8-8' & c-c· ..... ~ (•
' Date: 11 /30/12 SCALE: 1" = 20' Gl!otachnical, Inc.