HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 16-03; Beach Village Life 1 Mixed Use; GEOTECHNICAL RESPONSE TO CITY OF CARLSBAD THIRD-PARTY PLAN CHECK AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS; 2018-05-30GEOTECHNICAL RESPONSE TO
CITY OF CARLSBAD THIRD-PARTY PLAN CHECK
AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REVIEW COMMENTS
BEACH VILLAGE LIFE 1, LLC
C/0 KARNAK PLANNING AND DESIGN
381 CHRISTIANSEN WAY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008
W .0. 6942-A 1-SC MAY 30, 2018
•
•
Geotechnical • Geologic • Coastal • Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92010 • (760) 438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915 • www.geosoilsinc.com
Beach Village Life 1, LLC
c/o Karnak Planning and Design
381 Christiansen Way
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Hobert Richardson
May 30, 2018
W.O. 6942-A1-SC
Subject: Geotechnical Response to City of Carlsbad Third-Party Plan Check and
Engineering Department Review Comments, Planned Mixed-Use Hotel, Spa,
and Condominiums, Christiansen Way, Carlsbad, San Diego County,
California, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 203-173-02-00, City of Carlsbad
Project No.: CT 16-03
Dear Mr. Richardson:
In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI} is providing this
geotechnical response to the May 11, 2018 redline plan check comments prepared by
Mr. Rick St. John of NV5 (City of Carlsbad Third-Party Reviewer) and the May 11, 2018
review comments prepared by Mr. Jason Gelder! (City Engineer for Carlsbad, California).
NV5's redline plan check comments and Mr. Geldert's review comments were
electronically transmitted to our office on May 11, 2018. The services performed by GSI
included a review of the referenced documents (Appendix A), stability analyses of
temporary slopes (i.e., backcuts) and slot excavations (Appendix B), and the preparation
of this response letter. Unless specifically superseded herein, the conclusions and
recommendations contained in GSI (2015, 2016, 2017, 201 Ba, and 2018b) are still
considered valid and applicable, and should be appropriately implemented during project
design and construction.
RESPONSE TO NV5 REDLINE PLAN CHECK COMMENTS
Based on our review of the redline plan check comments prepared by NV5, GSI
understands that it is our responsibility to respond to the comment on Sheet 6 of the
precise grading plans (Spear and Associates, 2018b) pertaining to the surcharge setback
shown behind the planned temporary slope and permanent shoring, adjacent to the
northerly property line. In addition, GSI understands that we must address the comment
regarding the temporary slope configuration shown in Details 3 and 4 on the
aforementioned plan sheet. These plan check comments are repeated below in italics,
followed by GSl's response.
Plan Check Comment No. 1
Surcharge requirement may not be necessary when excavations are performed as indicated
below. Verify w/ geotech.
GSI Response to Plan Check Comment No. 1
As indicated in GSI (2015 and 2018a), we recommended that soil and building materials,
and/or heavy construction equipment, should not be stockpiled, stored, nor operated
within "H" feet from the top of temporary slopes where "H" equals the height of the
temporary slope. It is the opinion of GSI that this is a reasonably conservative approach
to protect life and safety and reduce damage to nearby, existing improvements that are to
remain in serviceable use. As demonstrated by slope stability analyses, included herein,
the highest planned temporary slope has static short-term (temporary) factors-of-safety
(FOS) of approximately 1.24 when a 300 psf/ft surcharge is modeled at a distance of at
least "H" feet from the top of the slope, where "H" equals the height of the slope. Thus,
GSI does not recommend a reduction in the recommended surcharge nor setback
distance.
Plan Check Comment No. 2
Vertical cut is permitted @ bottom of excavation only in accordance with soils report
recommendations. From top of vertical cut must be laid back.
GSI Response to Plan Check Comment No. 2
GSI respectfully disagrees with the temporary slope configuration the reviewer is requiring.
It is our opinion that the construction of a 4-foot high vertical cut at the bottom of the
temporary slope with a 1 :1 (horizontal:vertical [h:v]) slope above is less stable then
constructing a 4-foot high vertical cut at the top of the excavation with a 1 :1 (h:v) slope
below.
First, the temporary slope configuration the reviewer is requiring does not conform to
Cal-OSHA guidelines for temporary slopes constructed in Type "B" soil conditions, as
indicated in BNI, Building News (1995). Second, the temporary slope configuration the
reviewer is requiring would create a vertical cut in a relatively dense, albeit dry and
somewhat friable sand lense, within the old paralic deposits, that was encountered in
Borings B-1 through B-3, advanced in preparation of GSI (2015). Third, slope stability
analyses indicate that the maximum height temporary slope, constructed to a similar
configuration as shown in Detail 4 of Sheet 6 (Spear and Associates, 2018a), would have
an adequate static short-term FOS, provided our recommendations for surcharge and
setbacks are properly implemented.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
File:e:\wpl 2\6900\6942\6942a1 .grt2 GeoSoils, Inc.
W.0. 6942-A1-SC
May 30, 2018
Page 2
There is potential for the 4-foot high vertical cut at the top of the temporary slope to
undergo raveling and sloughing. However, this potential can be reduced by covering the
vertical cut with plastic tarp and not allowing foot traffic within 4 horizontal feet of the top
of the vertical cut by the placement of construction fencing. Worker safety in the
excavation could also be enhanced by constructing a minimum 3-foot high pipe and
lagging board wall along the toe of the 1 :1 (h:v) backcut slope (i.e., outside of the grade
beam trench and 2-foot wide work bench (see Detail 4 on Sheet 4 of Spear and Associates,
Inc. [2018a]) .
RESPONSE TO CITY ENGINEER REVIEW COMMENTS
The City Engineer's review comments are repeated below in italics, followed by GSl's
response.
Review Comment No. 1
Please describe the "dredge line" as mentioned in the report. This is for city staff
clarification and understanding.
GSI Response to Review Comment No. 1
In geotechnical practice, the dredge line refers to the elevation of the bottom (interior) of
the planned excavation subgrade in front of the shoring (Winterkorn and Fang, 1975). For
the subject project, the dredge line is defined as the bottom of the grade beam excavation.
Temporary dredge elevation would include the remedial grading or the recommended 2-
foot overexcavation below the bottom of the grade beam.
Review Comment No. 2
Please provide the maximum allowed height of unsupported vertical cut within the area of
the shoring. Also, please provide the maximum amount of time that the unsupported vertical
cut can remain prior to placement of Jagging and grouting. Please note that the City will
require that a maximum of 5-feet can be exposed and must be Jagged and grouted the
same day and no unsupported vertical cuts will be allowed to remain overnight (unless there
are stricter geotechnica/ requirements).
GSI Response to Review Comment No. 2
In accordance with Cal-OSHA guidelines, the maximum allowed height of an unsupported
vertical cut within the area of the shoring shall be 4 feet. The maximum amount of time that
the unsupported vertical cut can remain exposed, prior to placement of lagging, shall be
an entire work day when construction crews are present and actively placing lagging.
Grouting of the shoring wall is not recommended from a geotechnical perspective since
Beach VIiiage Life 1, LLC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .grt2 GeoSolls, Inc.
W.O. 6942-A1-SC
May 30, 2018
Page 3
such practices would essentially negate back drainage for the permanent building walls,
and potentially subject them to full hydrostatic pressure. In addition, depending on the
volume of grout used, the lagging boards may not be able to tolerate the equivalent fluid
pressure of wet grout during its placement.
Review Comment No. 3
Please provide the maximum vertical cut allowed for alternating slot grading as described
on page 17 of the referenced report [geotechnical update report dated February 15, 2018].
GSI Response to Review Comment No. 3
The maximum vertical cut allowed for alternating slot grading should be 4 feet high by
7 feet wide, adjacent to the bottom of the shoring. This assumes a 1 foot deep scarification
in-place. The recommended slot width and depth is based on the cast-in-drilled-hole
(CIDH) pile spacing; the soil strength properties; and calculations of slope stability and
shoring support for the two cases with shoring and without (layback). GSI recommends
straddling each pile with one (1) excavation slot (i.e., pile positioned in the center of the
open slot excavation).
Review Comment No. 4
Please review the shoring plan and provide comments, if necessary, on the gap between
the bottom most Jagging member and the pad elevation. This is illustrated on sheet 9 of the
plans. There is a note regarding use of alternating slot excavations for the over-ex portion,
however, it appears that the gap is to remain unsupported.
GSI Response to Review Comment No. 4
GSI refers the reviewer to Sheet 7 of the latest revised precise grading plans prepared by
Spear and Associates, Inc. (Spear and Associates, Inc., 2018a), which include the shoring
plans prepared by Sun Structural Engineering, Inc. (Sun Structural Engineering, Inc.,
2018). The revised shoring design now shows the lagging extending down to the bottom
of grade beam elevation. Thus, eliminating the 24-inches of unsupported vertical cut the
reviewer is referencing.
TEMPORARY SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
GSI performed quantitative slope stability analysis to evaluate the static short-term
(temporary) FOS of the maximum planned temporary slope along the northerly property
line with and without the recommended alternating slot excavations for remedial earthwork.
Based on our review of Sheet 4 of Spear and Associates, Inc. (2018a), GSI understands
that the aforementioned temporary slope will occur approximately 84 feet easterly of the
Beach Village Life 1, LLC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .grt2 GeoSoils, Inc.
W.0. 6942-A1-SC
May 30, 2018
Page 4
northwesterly property corner. The analyzed slope configuration has a gross overall height
of approximately 17 to 19 feet without and with the recommended overexcavation,
respectively.
For the temporary slope case without the recommended overexcavation, the analyzed
slope includes a 4-foot high vertical cut near the top of the slope with a 1 :1 (h:v) slope that
descends to the bottom of planned grade beam elevation. For the temporary slope case
with the recommended overexcavation, the analyzed slope includes a 4-foot high vertical
cut near the top of the slope with a 1: 1 (h:v) slope that descends to the bottom of planned
grade beam elevation. From this point, the analyzed slope includes a 2-foot wide
horizontal bench and then a 2-foot high vertical cut that extends to the bottom of the
recommended overexcavation.
Slope stability analyses were performed with the aid of the two-dimensional slope stability
computer program "GSTABL? v.2," developed by Gregory (2003). For a complete
discussion on the GSTABL? program, please refer to Appendix B. GSI analyzed slope
stability using the Modified Bishop's Method and modeled the mechanics of a global gross
failure of the slope. The analysis was then checked using Spencer's Method to satisfy both
force and moment equilibrium.
The soil shear strengths, applied to the earth units considered in the analyses, were
adopted from laboratory tests performed in preparation of GSI (2015) as well as our
experience with similar soil conditions on this and other sites in the near vicinity. The soil
shear strengths, used in our analyses, are listed in Appendix B. In order to model
surcharge, imparted by heavy axle load (HS20) vehicles within the nearby Christiansen
Way right-of-way, a 300 pounds per square feet (psf) load was placed within "H" feet of the
top of the temporary slope, where "H" equals the gross height of the slope.
Slope Stability Summary
Our analyses indicate that the static short-term FOS of the maximum height planned
temporary slope without an open slot is 1.25. The analyses show that the static short-term
FOS of the maximum height planned temporary slope with an open slot for the
recommended overexcavation is 1.24. For comparison purposes, the minimum static
short-term FOS, recognized by the City of San Diego (City of San Diego, 2011) is 1.25.
Whereas, the City of Oceanside regards this temporary slope FOS to be 1.2 (personal
communication with Mr. Jim Knowlton, 2018). As such, the analyzed slope configurations
have adequate temporary FOS when considering that open slots for the recommended
overexcavation will be backfilled prior to the end of each work day. The output data of the
slope stability analyses are presented in Appendix B.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a 1 .grt2 GeoSoils, Inc.
W.0. 6942-A1-SC
May 30, 2018
Page 5
SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Open slot excavations for the recommended overexcavation should be backfilled prior to
the close of each work day. If there is insufficient time to backfill an open slot before the
end of the work day, the open slot may be temporarily backfilled with loose soils such that
soil occurs below a 2:1 (h:v) plane projected down from the bottom outer face of the
lowermost lagging board or toe of the 1: 1 (h:v) temporary slope.
LIMITATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations presented herein are professional opinions. These
opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no
warranty, either express or implied, is given. Standards of practice are subject to change
with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work or testing performed by
others, or their inaction; or work performed when GSI is not requested to be onsite, to
evaluate if our recommendations have been properly implemented. Use of this report
constitutes an agreement and consent by the user to all the limitations outlined above,
notwithstanding any other agreements that may be in place. In addition, this report may
be subject to review by the controlling authorities. Thus, this report brings to completion
our scope of services for this portion of the project. All samples will be disposed of after
30 days, unless specifically requested by the Client, in writing.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp1 2\6900\6942\6942a 1.grt2 GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 6942-A1-SC
May 30, 2018
Page 6
If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to
contact the undersigned.
~dl~i
Geotechnical Engineer, GE 2320
~B~er -
Project Geologist
RBB/JPF/ATG/jh
Attachments: Appendix A -References
Appendix B -Slope Stability Analyses
Distribution: (2) Addressee (via email and US mail)
(1) Spear and Associates, Inc., Attn: Mr. Josh Ziegler (via email)
(1) Sun Structural Engineering, Attn: Mr. Changua Sun (via email)
Beach VIiiage Life 1, LLC
APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp12\6900\6942\6942a1 .grt2 GeoSolls, Inc.
W.O. 6942-A1-SC
May 30, 2018
Page 7
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
City of San Diego, 2011, Guidelines for geotechnical reports.
BNI Building News, 1995, CAL OSHA, State of California Construction Safety Orders,
reprinted from State of California Code Regulations, Title 8, Industrial Relations,
Chapter 4, Division of Industrial Safety, Subchapter 4, Construction Safety Orders,
as amended, October 1.
GeoSoils, Inc., 2018a, Geotechnical update evaluation, planned mixed-use hotel, spa, and
condominiums, Christiansen Way, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 203-173-02-00, W.O. 6942-A 1-SC, dated
February 15.
, 2018b Revised cast-in-drilled-hole {CIDH) pile recommendations, planned
mixed-use hotel, spa, and condominiums, Christiansen Way, Carlsbad, San Diego
County, California, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 203-173-02-00,
W.O. 6942-A1-SC, dated February 5.
__ , 2017, Supplemental geotechnical recommendations, proposed mixed-use hotel,
spa, and condominiums, Christiansen Way, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California,
Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 203-173-02-00, dated October 23.
__ , 2016, Geotechnical response to City of Carlsbad Engineering Department plan
check comments, Beach Village Life 1 Mixed Use, APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California, CT 16-03/RP 16-09/CDP16-16, W.O. 6942-A1-SC,
dated June 20.
__ , 2015, Preliminary geotechnical evaluation, APN 203-173-02-00, Carlsbad,
San Diego County, California, W.O. 6942-A-SC, dated September 11.
Gregory, G.H., 2003, GSTABL7 with STEDwin, slope stability analysis system;
Version 2.004.
Spear and Associates, Inc., 2018a, Precise grading plan for: Beach Village Life, 300
Christiansen Ave, 12 sheets, various scales, City of Carlsbad Project No.: CT 16-03,
Drawing No.: 508-9A, dated May 30.
__ , 2018b, Precise grading plan for: Beach Village Life, 300 Christiansen Ave,
12 sheets, various scales, City of Carlsbad Project No.: CT 16-03, Drawing
No.: 508-9A, dated February 9.
Sun Structural Engineering, Inc., 2018, Shoring plans for: Beach Village Life, Christiansen
Way, 6 sheets, various scales, plot dated May 29.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Winterkorn, H.F., and Fang, H.Y., 1975, Foundation engineering handbook.
Zhou, Y. and Pond, E.C., 2013, A simplified approach for evaluating 30 slot-cut slope
stability in American Society of Civil Engineers Geo-Congress.
Beach Village Lile 1, LLC
File:e:\wpl 2\6900\6942\6942a1 .grt2 GeoSoils, Inc.
Appendix A
Page 2
APPENDIX B
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX B
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
INTRODUCTION OF GSTABL7 v.2 COMPUTER PROGRAM
Introduction
GSTABL7 v.2 is a fully integrated slope stability analysis program. It permits the engineer
to develop the slope geometry interactively and perform slope analysis from within a single
program. The slope analysis portion of GSTABL7 v.2 uses a modified version of the
popular STABL program, originally developed at Purdue University.
GSTABL7 v.2 performs a two dimensional limit equilibrium analysis to compute the factor
of safety (FOS) for a layered slope using the Modified Bishop or Simplified Jan bu methods.
This program can be used to search for the most critical surface or the FOS may be
determined for specific surfaces. GSTABL7, Version 2, is programmed to handle:
1. Heterogenous soil systems
2. Anisotropic soil strength properties
3. Reinforced slopes
4. Nonlinear Mohr-Coulomb strength envelope
5. Pore water pressures for effective stress analysis using:
a. Phreatic and piezometric surfaces
b. Pore pressure grid
c. R factor
d. Constant pore water pressure
6. Pseudo-static earthquake loading
7. Surcharge boundary loads
8. Automatic generation and analysis of an unlimited number of circular, noncircular
and block-shaped failure surfaces
9. Analysis of right-facing slopes
10. Both SI and Imperial units
General Information
If the reviewer wishes to obtain more information concerning slope stability analysis, the
following publications may be consulted initially:
1. The Stability of Slopes, by E.N. Bromhead, Surrey University Press, Chapman and
Hall, N.Y., 411 pages, ISBN 412 01061 5, 1992.
2. Rock Slope Engineering, by E. Hoek and J.W. Bray, Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy,
London, England, Third Edition, 358 pages, ISNB O 900488 573, 1981.
GeoSoils, Inc.
3. Landslides: Analysis and Control, by R.L. Schuster and R.J. Krizek (editors), Special
Report 176, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences,
234 pages, ISBN O 309 02804 3, 1978.
4. Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation, by A.K. Turner and R.J. Krizek (editors),
Special Report 247, Transportation Research Board, National Research Board,
675 pages, ISBN O 309 06208-X, 1996.
GSTABL7 v.2 Features
The present version of GSTABL7 v.2 contains the following features:
1. Allows user to calculate FOS for static stability and seismic stability evaluations.
2. Allows user to analyze stability situations with different failure modes.
3. Allows user to edit input for slope geometry and calculate corresponding FOS.
4. Allows user to readily review on-screen the input slope geometry.
5. Allows user to automatically generate and analyze defined numbers of circular,
non-circular and block-shaped failure surfaces (i.e., bedding plane, slide plane,
etc.).
Input Data
Input data includes the following items:
1. Unit weight, cohesion, and friction angle of earth materials and bedding planes.
2. Slope geometry and surcharge boundary loads.
3. Apparent dip of bedding planes can be modeled in an anisotropic angular range
(i.e., from O to 90 degrees). For our analysis, GS! used an angular range of
5 degrees from the horizontal in both into-slope and out-of slope directions for earth
units with anisotropic properties. Parallel bed strengths were applied within these
angular ranges. Cross bed strengths were used outside these angular ranges.
4. Soil parameters used in the slope stability analyses are provided in the following
tables:
Beach VIiiage Life 1, LLC
File:wp12\6900\6942a1 .grt2 GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix B
Page 2
TABLE B-1 -SOIL STRENGTH PARAMETERS
SOIL UNIT STATIC SHEAR
WEIGHT (pcf) STRENGTH PARAMETERS
SOIL MATERIALS C (psi) <I> (degrees)
Moist Saturated Bedding
Cross Parallel Cross Parallel
Undocumented Artificial Fill/Disturbed
Natural Ground 100 112 0 0
(QCOL)
Weathered Quaternary Old Paralic
Deposits 104 115 30 30
(WQOP)
Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits •
Subunit 3 107 120 70 30 32 29
(QOP3)
Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits -
Subunit 2 107 120 30 32
(QOP2)
Quaternary Old Paralic Deposits -
Subunit 1 115 130 70 30 32 29
(QOP1)
Tertiary Santiago Formation 126 135 Ilsa\ 300 200 35 32
Output Information
Output information includes:
1. All input data.
2. FOS for the 1 o most critical surfaces for static and pseudo-static stability situation.
3. High quality plots can be generated. The plots include the slope geometry, the
critical surfaces and the FOS.
4. Note, that in the analysis, 4,999 trial surfaces were analyzed for each section for
either static or pseudo-static analyses.
Results of Slope Stability Calculations
The following table provides a summary of the results of our stability analyses. A computer
printout from the GSTABL7 program is included as Plates B-1 through B-4.
Beach VIiiage Life 1, LLC
File:wp12\6900\6942a1 .grt2 GeoSolls, Inc.
Appendix B
Page 3
TABLE B-2-SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
FACTOR-OF-SAFETY {FOS)
ANALYSIS EXISTING SLOPE CONDITION METHOD COMMENTS
STATIC SEISMIC
Maximum Height 1.25 Modified Bishop Adequate Static FOS for
Planned Temporary (See Plate B-1) N/A (Circular) Short-Term Conditions
Slope Without Open Slot
Maximum Height 1.25 Adequate Static FOS for Planned Temporary (See Plate B-2) N/A Spencer's Short-Term Conditions Slope Without Open Slot
Maximum Height
Planned Temporary 1.24 Modified Bishop Static FOS for Short-Term Slope With Open Slot for (See Plate B-3) N/A (Circular) Conditions* Recommended
Overexcavation
Maximum Height
Planned Temporary 1.24 Static FOS for Short-Term Slope With Open Slot for (See Plate B-4) N/A Spencer's Conditions* Recommended
Overexcavation
* • Slot excavation stability Is for a lateral distance of 7 feet. Therefore, when reviewed as an A, B, a -. .,
excavation, this will likelv be closer to an FOS of 1.25.
Beach Village Life 1, LLC
File:wp12\6900\6942a1 .grt2 GeoSoils, Inc. Appendix B
Page 4
BEACH VILLAGE LIFE 1, LLC/6942-A1-SC MAX. HEIGHT TEMPORARY SLOPE
x:\shared\word perfect data\carlsbad\6900\6942 boyle\slope stabilitylgstabMinal runs\spencers\6942a1 .max. height temp. slope.pl2 70 Run By: RBB/GeoSoils, Inc. 5/29/2018 05:25PM
# FS Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Load Value a 1.255 Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface1.____:L:.:.• __ ..:l-OO::.::..,:l":.:.r _ _J
b 1.255 No. (pcl) (pcl) (psi) (deg) Param. (psi) No.
c 1.255 QCOL 1 100.0 112.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0
d 1.255 WOOP 2 104.2 115.0 30.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 0
e 1.255 OOP3 3 107.3 120.0 Aniso Aniso 0.00 0.0 O
1 1.255 OOP2 4 107.3 120.0 30.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0
g 1.255 QOP1 5 115.0 130.0 Aniso Aniso 0.00 0.0 O
h 1.2551'--T-'-SA ___ s __ 1_2s_.0 __ 1_35_.o __ A_n_is_o __ A_ni_so __ o._o_o _...co_.o ___ o_
I 1.255
60
J 1.255
a
50 LI
61
2
9
3
40
JO
I 4
4 30 II
5
20 _____________________ __._1~2 ______________ _..;... _____ ___
6
10 L_ ___ ___Ji_ ___ ___J_ ____ ___J_ ____ _c_ ____ ...J._ ____ ..,__ ____ J.._ ____ .__ ___ __,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmln:1.255
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
70 80
W.O. 6942-A1-SC
PLATE B-1
90
BEACH VILLAGE LIFE 1, LLC/6942-A1-SC MAX. HEIGHT TEMPORARY SLOPE
x:lshar10ord perfect data\carlsbad\6900\6942 boylelslope stability\gstabl\final runslspencers\6942a1 .max. height temp. slope surface #1.plt Run By: RBB/GeoSoils. Inc. 5/29/2018 05:25PM
60
50
40
30
Soil
Desc.
QCOL
WQOP
QOP3
QOP2
QOP1
TSA
Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Plez. Load Value
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surtace1c___;L::..1 __ ..:.l00:..:..,:;ps::..f _ _,
No. (pcf) (pcl) (psi) (deg) Param. (psi) No.
1 100.0 112.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0
2 104.2 1 I 5.0 30.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 0
3 107.3 120.0 Aniso Aniso 0.00 0.0 0
4 107.3 120.0 30.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0
5 I 15.0 I 30.0 Aniso Aniso 0.00 0.0 O
6 126.0 135.0 Aniso Aniso 0.00 0.0 O
LI
/}
2
" 3
JO
I 4
4
II
5
~ u +-------------------------'-6=-----------------------
10 L.------'------'------'-------'------'-----.J_-----'-----__J'------'
80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmln:1.251
Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0·2)
70
W.O. 6942-A1-SC
PLATE B-2
BEACH VILLAGE LIFE 1, LLC/6942-A1-SC MAX. HEIGHT TEMPORARY SLOPE W/ SLOT
x:lshared\word perfect data\carlsbad\6900\6942 boylelslope stability\gstabl\linal runslspencers\6942a 1.max. height temp. slope with slot alt. 1.pl2 70 Run By: RBB/GeoSoils, Inc. 5/30/2018 09:44AM
# FS Soil
a 1.243 Desc.
b 1.243
C 1.243
d 1.262
e 1.262
QCOL
WOOP
OOP3
QOP2
OOP1
TSA
Soil Total Saturatec Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Load Value
Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surlace1~_L_l ___ 300~ps_f_~
No. (pcl) (pcf) (psi) (deg) Param. (psi) No.
1 100.0 112.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0
2 104.2 115.0 30.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 0
3 107.3 120.0 Anise Anise 0.00 0.0 O
4 107.3 120.0 30.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0
5 115.0 130.0 Anise Anise 0.00 0.0 O 60 I 1.262
g 1.281
h 1 281 I 1.2811~-----------------------~ 6 126.0 135.0 Anise Anise 0.00 0.0 O
J 1 282
50
1a
2
II
3
40
12
4
30
l.l
~ u +------------------------'-c:6----------------------<I
10 ~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~----~
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.243
Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method
70 80
W.O. 6942-A1-SC
PLATE B-3
90
BEACH VILLAGE LIFE 1, LLC/6942-A1-SC MAX. HEIGHT TEMPORARY SLOPE W/ SLOT
x:lshared\word rorfecl dala\carlsbad\690016942 boylelslope slability\gslabMinal runslspencersl6942a 1.max. heigh I lemp. slope wilh slot alt. 1 surface #1.plt Run By: RBBIGeoSoils, Inc. 5130/2018 09:451
60
50
40
30
Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Load Value
Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface Lt JOO !"I
OCOL
WOOP
QOP3
QOP2
QOP1
TSA
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No.
1 100.0 112.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0
2 104.2 115.0 30.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 0
3 107.3 120.0 Aniso Aniso 0.00 0.0 0
4 107.3 120.0 30.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0
5 115.0 130.0 Aniso Aniso 0.00 0.0 O
6 126.0 135.0 Aniso Aniso 0.00 0.0 0
2
LI ,~
2
II
3
12
4
w u ._ ____________________ ___c6:,__ ____________________ _
10 L.._ ___ __JL._ ___ __.1. ____ __._ ____ -'----------'--------'-----L------'-----
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin:1.241
Factor Of Safety Is Calculated By GLE (Spencer's) Method (0-2)
70 80
W.O. 6942-A1-SC
PLATE B-4
90