HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 81-10; KOLL BUSINESS PARK; SUPPLEMENTAL PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 1982-08-311-.,,"''''-/.,
,"' ,/ / ./
/: ~.', 1
.I
I'
d,'
C-.1' 21-1 ()
e T f« -09
Ct I-r--<-V
C-r rrS"-:1.6
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
1
.I
j
.,;" ~, -----~------~--~------------------------:---, ,,-, -,
'\ .,
.' I ~ .. ~~
/
)1
;,-
"I
,I
I
,I
I
I
II
.1
I
"I,
,\1 .,. ,
I
~,I'
/·1
~I
11
II
~··o
S·UPPLEMENTAL P·RELIMI NARY'
. GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER,:,
COLLEGE BOULEVARD:AND
"D" STREET ALIGNMENTS, .
CARLSBAD." CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
CARLSBAD RESEARCH 'CENTER
7330 ENG I NEER ROAD.
SAN DIEGO" CALIFORNIA 92111
. t , . i
PREPARED B'Y
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING" INC .
4891 MERCURY STREET
SAN DIEGO" CALIFORNIA 92111
'AUGUST 31" 1982"
JOB NO: SD1163-00
LOG NO: SD2-2484
I
"I
I
I
I
I x.
'I
'I
I
,I
I
I' ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF' CONTENTS
(continued)
B. Remedial Grading. . • . . .-. .,. .
1.
2.
3.
unsuitable Soils.
Stabilization
Slopes . '.
C. Expansive Soiis . . • •
CONCLUSIONS ANV RECOMMENVATI0NS . . . . . .
A.
B.
'General
Slope Stability .
1. Fill Slopes
2. Cut Slopes ..
. '.
a. Santiago Peak Volcanics
b.
c.
Point Lorna Formation.
Santiago Formation.·.
. . . ... . .
d. Quaternary Terrace Deposits . . . .
3. Fill-Over-Cctt Slopes .••...•• w •
4. Stabilization/Buttress Fills •..•
5.
6.
Construction Slopes • • .
Natural Slopes. .
. -. .. .
C. Treatment of Alluvium • .. . . .
D. Grading and Earthwork
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Inspection. •. • .
Clearing and Grubbing
Site Preparation. • . •
a. t.,
Tre,atment of Surface Soils. . • •. . .
b. Existing 'Fill Soils . .' • '. .
c. Treatment of Alluvium ~ •• . . . .
d. Scarif.;i.cation and Processing of
Surface Soils . • . • . . • • ~ .
Compaction anq Method of Filling.
Selective Gra~ing • • . •
Import Fill Material. '.
Shrinkage, Bulking and Subsidence .
8. Transition ~ots . . . . . . ~ . . .
'Page
1'8
1~8'
, 18
J:9
19
20
20
20 . ,.
~O' ,
21-
2],
22
23
24
24
2.4
2.5
25
25
2:6'
2:6
27'
27 ,
27
27
28
28'
28
29
)'0
31,
3'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS .
( continued)
E.
F.
~.
H .•
I.
J.
K.
L.
Page
Restriction on Future Construction.. • • •.. " 32
Surface and Subsurface Drainage • .•.
Retaining Walls . • • • . •.. • • •.• •
Type of Cement for Construction • •• • • •
APPENVIX A
Pavements • • • • . . • •
Utility Trench Backfill
Grading Plan Review • .
Limitations of Investigation.
REFERENCES
APPENVIX B -SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
APPENVIX C ~ LABORATORY TESTING
APPENVIX V·-SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
. . . . . .'.
. .-.
APPENVIX E -STANVARV GUIVELINES FOR GRAVING PROJECTS
PLATES 1 & 2 -GEOTECHNICAL MAPS
PLATE 3 GEOLOGIC CORSS SECTIONS
33
34
35
36
36
36
;)7
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
August 31, 1982
Carlsbad Research Center
7330 Engineer Road
San Diego, California 92111
Attention: -Mr. -Michael J. Dunigan
Job No: --SDll63-00
Log No: SD2-2484
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL lNVES_TIGAT:}:ON _
Carlsbad Research Center
Gentlemen:
College Boulevard and "D" Street Alignments
Carlsbad, California
We are pleased to present the results of our Supplemental
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation of College Boulevard
and "D" Street alignments, for the Carlsbad Rese-arch CenterJ
Carlsbad, California. The accompanying report pre-sents the
results of our evaluation of the on-site geotechnical conQitions
and recommendations for the development-of the site.
The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreci~ted. If
you have any questions, please contact this office.
Very truly yours,
:?G?,LS /E"""N~~Gf:,..Ic;..N_E7ERING , INC.
gc:;r. Sto~ey
President
GFS:tm
SUBSIDIARY OF IRVINE CONSULTING GROUP, INC.
4891 MERCURY STREET • SAN DIEGO, CA 92111 • (714) 268-8266
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
1.
SUPPLEMENT PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
CARLSBAD RESEARCH' CENTER
COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND "D" STREET ALIGN}1ENTS
CARLSBAD, CALIFORN~A
INTROVUCTI0N
This report presents the results of our Supplemental' Pre-
liminary Geotechnial Investigation of College Bol.il~va:td
and liD" Street alignments for the Carlsbad Research,Cent.er.:
, "
development, located in Carlsba¢i, California~ Our, investi-
gation was performed to provide geote,chnical data to.· aid,
in the' planning and development of College Boulevard in
Phase IV and "D" Street offsite, south of Phase III.
We were provided with 80 scale and 100 scale· Grading 'Plans
vrepared by Rick Engineering Company~ These grading pians
were utilized as the base map for the attached 'Geotechnical
Maps, Plates 1 and 2. Our investigation was directed towCird,
development as shown on the grading plans.
11. SITE VEVELOPMENT
The proposed development consists of grading in th,e ,9.reas·
of the street alignments, utilizing conventional cut,and
..' . fill grading techniques •. The purpos~,of th:j:s grading is
to develop through streets to the north and south ,of·
Carlsbad Research Center, Phase 'rI' apd III'. Several -buil'd-
ing pads in Phase IV will be partially graded in coniuhcti9n
with the northern extension of Cqllege'Boulevard.
The locations of the proposed streets a're shown on the
attached Geotechnical Maps, Plates 1 and 2, and Location
11ap, Figure 1.
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I'
.1: ,
o 2000 4000
SCALE IN~FE=E=,~~!!i --- -
Adapted from U.S.G.S. 7.5w Encinitas and San Luis Ray
Quadranglee 1975
loeA liON MAP-COllEGE BLVD. AND "0" STREET-CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
801163-00 AUGUST 1982
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
Carlsbad Research Center
August 31, 1982
Job No:
Log :No:
S 1;) 11 6 3--OO~ ..
Sp2;';'2484
Page Two
111. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services provided during the preparation of
this Supplemental Preliminary ·Geote'chnical Investigq;t~on
included:
A. Review of previous geologic, soil,s engineering Cl,nd.
seismological reports and maps pertinent to the pro-
ject area (See Appendix A);
"B. Analysis of stereographic aerial photographs to evaluate
the topography and geologic structure of the area
C.
D •.
E.
(See Appendix A);
Geologic mapping of existing exposures and outcrops;
Subsurface exploration, including ten" bucket auger
borings to a maximum depth of 70 feet, 3:5 backhoe
test pits excavated to a maximum depth of 15 :i;eet and
three dozer pits;
Logging and sampling of explora~oiy excavations to'
evaluate the geologic structure and to obtain ring
and bulk samples for laboratory testing;
F. Laboratory testing of samples representative of those
obtained during the field investigation;
G." Geologic and soils engitleeringanaly~is of field
and laboratory data which provide" the basi-s for o.u,:t
con~lusions and recommendations;
H. . Preparation of this report and accompanying maps,cr,6ss·.
sections and other graphics presenting our findings, "
"conclusions and recommendations.
... '. ' ~ .
I
I
I
,I
1
1
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
Cqrlsbad .:Re.search Center
August 31, 1982
'IV~ SITE VESCRIPTI0N
Jeb NO': SDl163-00
Leg No: .sD2~2484
. Page Three'
The street alignments invel ved ',in this i:r:v~st~gati6n censist
ef twO' separate sites. The nerthern site is a pertien ef the
prepesed Phas,e IV, Carlsbad :Research Center. The southern
si te is lecated $euth ef the prepesed Phase, III, 'Ca:rlsbaq .-
Research Center and is Cj. pertien ef the prepesed Airport
, ,Business Center. The appreximate lec'atiens and tepog·raphy
ef the sites are shewn en t.he attacneq;Locatien Map,'
Figure 1.
Tepegraphically, the I)erthern street alignment area Cens·i.s~ts
ef a number ef ridges with mederate, to' steep ~elief near
the base ef the ridges. Letterbex Canyen is the major
drainage ceurse east ef and adjacent 'to' the ridges and
prepesed street alignment. This canyen trends north;-$eut:h ,.
draining tewards El C?-mine Rea],. to' the nerth •. ' Previo,us
brick manufacturing and clay mining have medif.ied ene: ;ef Uie
nerth-west ridges and left seme cencrete st~uctutesi Access"
to' this area is by dirt reads frem El Carnine Real .near ,
Letterbex Canyen and by dirt read$ frem Carlsbad Research
Center, Phase I.
The seuthe.rn street alignment tepegraphy cen:sists et r;Ld'ge$
. and relatively small canyens, with gently to' mederately
sleping terrain. Lecally st'eep ter17'ain exists in the
canyen in the vicinity ef "D" Street. Acces~'~6 this area
is by dirt reads frem Palemar AirpertRea,d anc1 f:reinCq,rlsbad ,"
Research Center, Phase I. Undergreund pipelines are present.
in existing easements cressing the site.
I
I
I
I
,I
'I
1
1
I
I
1
I
1
I·
I
1
I
Carlsbad Research Center
August 31, 1982
"
'Job N.o:. SDl16.3-'OO'
Log No: SD2-2484
Page FoUr
, At the time of our 'investigation, a heavy growth of tal;!.
grasses and high weeds covered most of thE;! northern site.
The southern site, is covered by low grasses and cnaparral.
I
·1
I
I
I
I
:1
I,
I·
I
I
Carlsp.ad. Re.search Center
August· 31, 1982
J6b No: SDl163~aO
Log. No: 8D2.,..2484···
Page Five
v. fIELV INVESTIGATION
The ~i.eld investigation pe.rformed. during the c<;rurse of
this investigation consisted of ~eologic reconnaissance~
mapping and subsurface investigation consisting of ten
drilled bucket anger borings, thirty~five backho~ test
pits and three bulldozer trenches. .The field investigation
was conducted under the direct supervision of ·our Engineerlng "
Geologist.
A truck-mounted bucket aUger drill. rig was· us.e:d to' drill
ten 24-inch diameter borings to a maximum depth of 7'0 feet •.
The borings were sampled, downhole logged' and back-filled,
with samples returned to the laboratory for testing. Logs.
of the borings are presented in Appendix·B.
A tracto.r-mounted backhoe and a bul.ldozer were used to
excavate thirty-five test pits and three dozer t$st
.trenches respectively. The backhoe pits wer,ee~cavated
to' a ~aximum depth of fifteen feet and the dozer trenches
were excavated to a maximum depth ofs:ix :f;eet and a, :max-
imum length of 24'0 feet. The backhoe pits· .and dozer.·
trenches were logged and the excavati6ns were :Qack.,..filled.
Logs of the excavations are presented in App'endi~ B.
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I.
I
I
I
1
I
1
Carlsbad Re$earch Center
August 3'1, 1982
Vl~ LABORATORY TESTING
Job No:' 'SDl163-0~
Log N6:' 8D2-2484
Page' 8i~'
8.amples representative of the earth materials encoun'tered
during our field investigation were .returned to the labor-
atory for testing. The test;i.pg program consit:;ted 6f IItois-..
ture-densi ty determinations, direct shear testing of'
rinq and remolded samples, maximum densi ty-optirl1urri'
moisture determinations, Atterberg Limi, ts, expansion tests:,
consolidatiQn tests and particle size analyses.
Results and descriptions of the laboratory tests.performed
are included in Appendix C.
\
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
Carisbad Research Center
Augus't' 31, 1982
Job No: ,SD1l63-00
Log No: SD2-2484 ,
Page'Eight
2.
3.
Excavation in the .Santiago Peak Volcanics is
difficult:. The weathered material'within about
three feet of.the existing ground surfac~can
generally be excavated with co~venti6nal heavy
earth-moving equipment. Below that,depth he~vy
ripping and blasting would be antic'ipated. Heavy
ripping or even blasting would generally produce
oversize materials which can be consiCi~re'd addi-" .
tional cost items because of diffitultyin.handling.
Point Loma Formation (map sYmbo'l-Kpl)
The Cretaceous Age Point Lorna Formation consists
of a marine interbedded fossiliferous siltstone
and claystone with locally cemen.ted sahdstone
lenses. The Point Lorna Formation observed en-·site
is generally flat lying:with local dips, of up to
five, degrees. The siltstone ahd claystone .. ar~
stiff to very stiff, but weather readiiy to a
loose mass. Point Lorna Formation materials
underlie most of the northern st·r~et. alignment area.
Excavation, in the Point Lorna Formation can be·
accomplished with c.pnventional heavy. earth-movi:r:·g
equipm~nt. Heavy ripping may be required in some
of the very stiff materials at depth. The soils
produced are reusable as fill material and are
moderately to highly expansive.
Santiago Formation (map symbol-Tsa)
The Eocene Age Santiago-Formation consists of
interbedded fine sandstone, sil ts.:tone 'aha ciay"::
, '
stone. It is generally stiff or dense and massive
I
'I
I
·1
1
1
'1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
-, ' .-
'Carlsbad Research Center
August 31, 1982
Job No :. SDli63-00
Log No:. SD7'""2484
Page Nine
4.
to poorly bedded. The Santiago F·ormationoverlies
both the Point Loma Format'ion and the' Santiago
Peak Volcanics. The corttact with these units
appearp to be irregular~, .', The beqding is 'usually
horizontal with locai dips as high as ten qegrees.
In the southern stree't· alignment area the 'fine
sandstone a~pears to be the predominantlith61ogy,
with clayey and silty lenses. The northerp exten-
sion of College Boulevard a~.rea co:r:tains' S·ai1tiago
Formation that is predominantly a siltston~, with
clayey and sandy lenses,.
Excavation in the Santiago Formation can be accom~
lished with conventional' heavy earth-movih<;requip-
mente No significant cemented zones ytereencountered
in the borings or test pits, therefore, heavy
ripping or blasting are not an'ticipated; When
utilized ,as. fill mater.ial·s,. tpe ~~p~nsiQn P9tentl.al'
'will range from low to' ~igh.
Quaternary Terrac~ Deposits .(map ,symbo:I-Qt~.
Quaternary Terrace Depo'sits overlie the'Santiago
Peak Volcanic;; and the Santiago Fo;rmation, on the,
upper elevation ridges of the sout.hern COll$g:e
Boulevard an4 "D" Street are'7-0 ,The terrac::~ qeposits
are relatively thin and consist of a reddish sand
with cobbles.
Excavation in the terrace dep.osits can be a·Gcom..,.
plished with convent.ional heavy earth-moying,equip-'
mente
I
I
I
'1
,I
I
I
I
1
'1
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
Carlsbad Research Center
August 31, 1982
Job No,:·
Log No:
SDl163-00
Sp2-2484'
5.
6.
Page Ten
Alluvium (map symbol-Qal)
Alluvium is present in th,e canyon areas of both'
the northern and southerp ~ites. The most exten-
sive alluvial area, Letterbox Canyon, is loc?lted
adjacent to the northern extension of Co:j..lege
Boulevard. Minor amounts of alluvi:um a+"elocated , .
in the small canyon in the vicinity of "'DII Street,
in the southern site.
The alluvium .in Letterbox Canyon and. it's tr.ibu..-
taries .consists of a mO'ist, soft sandy and silty
clay, with saturation occuring just abov~ the bed-
rock contact below. The alluvium was observed to
a maximum depth of 24 feet in Boring 7. "
Landslide
A previous geotechnical investigation of the site '
indicates a landslide in the vicirti,!=-Y 0,£. the' north-
ern ridge, in the College Boulevard· nQrthernext.en-,
sion. Based on ~ur <;Jeotechn,ical investigat.ion,-
we have concluded that a landslide does 'not exis,t
in that area, located.' along Cross S'ection A:;-A'
(Geotechnical Map, Plate 1) and Geolo9ic Cross
Sections, Plate 3. The conditions found .inour
subsurface explorations i~dicate that -t;:he ,ridge ,is
,underlain by the Santi'ago Formation and tl1e Poin~
Lorna Formation, wi'tb a 'fau), t trend,irig northeast
across the ridgeline. Aerialphotograpps, taken
before the brjck manUfacturing haq begun in the
area, show that some grading has ta~,~n place' on
the ridge.
"
I
1
:1
·1
I
,I
I:
I
. 1,
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
Carlsbad Research Center
August 31, 1982
Job No: S.ol163-00
Log No: SD2-2494
_ Page Eleven
C.
D.
7. Fill
Fill is present in the rt.orthern alignment at
College Boulevard. The fill. is' associ'ated with
previous minor grading for str1;l~tures'and ro~ds
used in a brick manufacturing operation;
Structural Geology
-The predominant structural feat1;lres within ,t~is portion
of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, -are a'ss'oc-
iated with pre-Tertiary folding. along north-southa~es.
The post-Cretaceous sequences have been fo;tded.and
tilted generally to the west •
Discontinuous northeast trending faulting is associated
with the post-Cretaceous folding. Faulting' has been
mapped in the north College Boulevard areas ~ .. The
faulting observed in o'ur tes.t-' pits does : not off.set. '
topsoil materials, and no topographic surface, ·6ffse.ts·
were observed. The faulting, as mapped by others ~hd
ourselves, is considered inactive and does not pose a
significant hazard to t~e proposed developtnen.t.: The
'_ 1 ~ •
closest active fault is the Elsinore Fault Z'one located
22 miles to· the northeast. Locations of the faulting
on-site are shown on the Geotechnical Map,Plate 1.
Ground Water
Ground water was encountered in alluvial areas and in the
bedrock. In the alluvial areas, specific-ally Letterbox
Canyon, ground water was encountered perched above the,
bedrock contact. Borings into the bedrock en~ountered'
ground water seepage perched above very massive,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carlsbad Research Center
August 31, 1982
Job No: 8Dl163-00
Log No: SD2-2484
Page Tw~lve
unweathered strata. Bo~h of these ground water
conditions represent loc~lly perched condition~ and
do not reflect regional ground water conditions ~ ..
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carlsbad Research Center
August 31,' 1982
Job No;Sbl163-00
Log No:' SD2-2484
Page Thirte~n
VIII.SEISMICITY
A.
B.
Regional Seismicity
The site can be considered a 'seismically q.c.t;ive area"
as can all of southern California. There are,,. .however,
no active faults on or adjacent to the site,. Seismic
risk is considered low, as compareo, to other areas ,of
southern California, due to the distance f+:,om ~ctive
faults.
Seismic hazards within the ~ite can be attribuued
to ground shaking resulting from events' on .dis~~nt
active faults. Listed on Table I are the active
faults which can signific;::antly affect the site •.
Figure 2 shows the geographic relq.ti~I1ship of the' site'
to these faults.
Earthquake Effects
1 .. Earthquake Accelerations
We have analyzed the possible, earthquake acc.el-'
erations at tpe si'te ahd, in pur opinion, f6r the
intended use, the most signi{icartt ~vent is.a
7.0 Magnitude earthquake located on the Elsinore·
Fault Zone. The accele?=,at.;i.ons. produce51 at the
site by s'u~h an event would exceed' those events,
, , '
which might occur on other known activ¢ fal.;l,lts.,
A Magnitude 7.0 earthquake on the Elsinore Fault'
Zone could 'produce a peak ground acceleration. o'f'
0.22g at the subject site with thE; duration of,
strong shaking exceeding ,3D seco'rids. Peakaccel-
- -.. - - - - - - - - - - ------ -
TABLE I
SEISMICITY FOR MAJOR FAULTS
ESTIMATED
DISTANCE MAXIMUM PROBABLE I PEAK BEDROCK 2 FAULT FROM SITE EARTHQUAKE ACCELERATION
Elsinore 22 Miles NE 7.0 0.22g
Newport-Inglewood 40 Miles NW '6.5 0.06g
San Jacint.o 45 Miles NE 7.5 O.llg
San Andrea's 66, Mi1es:NE . 8.0 0.09g
1. Seismic Sa,fety Study, city of San Diego (1974 and Bonilla 1970)
2. Schnabel and. Seed (19'7'~)
,," ,
I'
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~.
M7 •.
IU
Q
7
o
,~_~/.
~
ASSOCIATIOH OF ErtG.NEERIN4I GEOlOGISTS 1973 I
K 1 H G S
~
T u L A It E
........
' . ......•
...•......
.. so 10' 100 r zoo I ~ ...
K I L 0 .. E T E R S I-a:::: .. ~ 194i •
.. , 0 50 '00 ~CJIIIS.'-S' I .. I L E S I '" I 1~10 1200 119" ••••
MAJOR EARTHQUAKES AND RECENTLY ACTIVE FAULTS I' "1!~.
IN THE SOUTHERN CALifORNIA REGION ..... .
ACTIVE FAULTS --". Total length of faull zone that breaks Holocene deposits
or that has had seismic activity.
Faull segment with surface rupture during an historic
earthquake, or with aseismic laull creep.
(I . Holocene yolcanic activity
(Amboy, Pi$gah, Cerro Prieto <J1d Salton ~utt~)
EXPLANATIOW
EARTHQUAKE LOCATIONS
1117+ 11910
Approximate epicenlral area of earlhquak~ that
occurred 1769-1933. Magnitudes not recorded
by instruments prior to 1906 were estimated from damage reports assigned an Intensity VII
(Modified Mercoli scale) or ~ter; this is roughly
equivalent to Richter M 6.0. 31 moderate""
earthquak~. 7 major and one great earthquake
(1857) were reported in the 164-year period
1769-1933.
1117.1 19520 Earthquake epicenters sil!ce 1933, plotted from
imprMd instruments. 29 moderate-and three
maior earthquakes were recorded in !he 4Q-yeor
period 1933-1973.
SH LaNr, Mtrifi.I., Proctor "ptf hlrtfn for odddlOMI IIplanatioli of raa,.
Co6o ~lIon. by lilt SI'll.e1 ... 1 Engln,," Assoclotloo,oI C.llfornla oIt!,nt 0 greG! 1"lhq .. to OS OM that has 0 Richter M.gnll .... of 7't4 ~r 9"01,,; • mojor tarthq •• to r 10 1 %; • _oil I<Irthqdkl 6 10 1.
Complied bot Rlcha<d J. ProcIor malnl, !rom publisMd ~ unpublished dota of the ColifomM Oi,isioll of Mill'S OM ~tow; Colilomitt ~I 01 Itol" htSDrJIrn Bu/l"ill 116-2 (1964)L~\ection.·lo'om bUllltins of !hi ~/ogiCt11 and Slis6I()/ogicr1l $«i"I's of Ammca; from C. F. Rich1tr, £M""lIlorr ~ismology (1958);· and the lW1TiDIIof AliaS, p.66.
Q
'. ... '. ' .
SITE
......
... ...
\
.~ ", ''':J.~'f~ \ "-
yl ~, ____ ~,
'ISOI ~___ "-, ---~ ,
-';~ ".~ ~ ~X~~ "!!I/!,T --,..... ~~4 -,.'--. ~,
r---
S o E
Adapted from; GeologY; Seismicity and
En\'lror:Jmentat Impact, Specla! Publication
,of the Association of, Engln,eerlng,
Geologist, 1973
.. (
f \ I t (
" ,~
• \ r ... , .. ----~------,.j'
,
-----
\
<)
\ )
\
A (-i\ \ ("'--, " 330 :, irS 'I
.... --1 --' -'-J ,
I
1143
(---
f".... ---, -~'i!?ON4 ' SONOR4"--__
.,. \ .. ' ........ \~' t "" \ ~ \
". " . ... ". "-.~ • 32
1
0
""" \~'"" ""-. ~~n~
~
~
11'0 1170 -<t>: 115"
REGIONAL FAULT MAP
~ SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC. ,~~ SOIL ENlilNEElIlNli a EHIIINEERIH~ GEOLOGY
J08 ·NO.:
801163-00
DAn:
JULY 1982
FIGURE NO.:
2
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carlsbad Research Center
August 31, 1982
Job No: SDl163 ... 00
Log No: SD2-:248.4
Page .Fourteen
2.
3.
4.
erations are not, however ,representat;i:ve of iihe
accelerations for which 'structuresare actu~lly
designed. Design of st.~uctures snouldbe com-.
pleted in complicmce with the requirements o"f .
< ' •• '
the governingjul;'isdiction~ and standard pr.?ctices ...
of the Structural Engineers Association of .'
California.
Settlement of Soils
The earth materials underlying the 'S?ite consist
primarily of firm sedimentary bedrock whichshbul,d
not be subject to seismically' induced .set,tl-ement'.
Topsoil and areas of uncompacted fill. will. be
removed and compacted during ·9rading. Eemedial
treatment of'alluvial soi.l~ will also· be recom"'"
mended.
Liquefaction
The bedrock.materials underlying the site have a
very low to non-existent 'po"tential for lique:-~" '
faction. Alluvial areas will be treated· duri·ns.
grading.
Lurching and Shallow Groupd Rupture ..
Breaking of the ground bec~use 'Of active fa\lltirig
is not likely to occur on the site due to the ..
absence of active faults. Cracking .. due' to shaking
from c;iistant events is J;1ot considered a significant
hazard, although it is a possibility at any site.
,,-;
" ' . I
.. I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carlsbad Research Center
AU<;fust 31, 1982
Job No:, 5'01163 ... 0'0
Log No: SD2~24B4
Page Fifteen
IX. ENGINEERING CONSIV~RATIONS
A. General Descriptio~ of Soils/Bedrock
Our investigation indicates that mq.terials at the
subject site consist of Santiago Peak Volcanics,
Point Lorna Formation and Santiago Formation bedroc;k
overlain with clayey topsoil or alluvium~ Fill
derived from the Point Lorna Formation and Santiago
Formatio~ bedrock will be the pred'ominantmat~!l;:-<ials
encountered during grading. Brief discussions of
the significant engineering characteristics of the
various material ,types are pr~s\ented below:·
1. Si;mtiago Peak Volcanics
2.
Santiago Peak Volcanics underlying the site
consist of hard, 'non-rippable rock. Howeve~,
the Santiago Peak Volcanics are located in . . ,
proposed fill areas and ~ock 6ardness should
significantly effect grading operations.
Point Lorna, Formation
n.ot
The Point Lorna Formation bedt'ock consists pre,-
dominantly of interbedded silts,tone and clay-.
stone. Typical index and engineering propertiel:?
are,presented in Table 2~ Remolded Point Lorna
Formation bedrock typically has a high ex·~ans.ion
index and low shear strength .para~~ters _: '"The
engineering characteristics of this material will
re~ult in flatter slopes and heavy pavement
sections.
,: ......
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 2
Typical Index and Engineering ~roperties
of Point Loma Formation SiltstoI1e/Claystone
Index properties
. Natural Total Un,i.t Weight ·(pcf) 125 + $
-, -'
Natural Dry Density (pcf) 105 + 5. "
Water Content (%) 20 + ·2
-.. -. ..
Unified Soil Classification __ C.l?J.Y. of Low Plas.t,ici,ty' .. " (Remolded Siltstone) (eL)
Engineering Properties
Remolded Drained Shear g·trength Cohesion (ps,f) ,.. 400 " c ,.
(Siltstone) * Friction Angle ¢ ..... 2·4
(degrees)
,..
Int<;l.ct Shear Strength Goh,esion (psf) ·c· ::: 400
(siltstone/claystone) ,Frictiqp Angle .¢ = .32 :
(degrees)' .. ,
~ -_ ..
Expansion Potential
(Remolded Siltstone) , H~gh
.. . ~.--
* Applicable to normal stress range ,of 1000-4000 psf and',
remolded at 90% maximum dry den,si ty. .'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
Carlsbad Research Center
Au'gust 31, 1982
Jop No: 801163-00
Log No:. 'Sq2-24-8-4
Page ,Sixteen
3.
It is expected that Point Loma Formation bedrock
may be excavated utilizlng conventional ~q~ip~
ment. The fill material ,derived from excavation.
should'be generally blocky requiring considerable
effort to break the material down i'pto a uriiform
compacted fill. During <Jrading ofthe.:t:irst·
phase of the Carlsbad Research Center 1?roj,ect,
a Cat-825.steel-wheel compacto'r or a 08 d.ozer
and 5,x5 sheepsfoot, in combination 'wi,th ru.bber -t
tire earth-moving equipment" worked. reasonably
well in breaking down the b~pcky' ,material' and
creating a relatively uniform compacted fill
condition.
Santiago Formation '
As mentioned, the Santiago Formation overlies
both the Poi'nt Loma' Formation apd the S'a~tiago
Peak Volcanics. The S'antiago Formation ,.·.QonS?ists
of interbedded fine sandstone" siltstone'~nd
claystone. Along the "0" street alignmen.t, the
exposed material is antic~pat~d to ~e p~edominantly
fine sandstone. In the northern extensiOh -of
College Boulevard, the ~xl?osed. material .i,8
anticipated to be predominantly siltstone.
Typical grain size curves' for the Santi~go Clay-
stone and Sandstone are ,~hown in Figures C-l and'
, ,
C-2 (Appendix C) respectively. Index a·nd Engi-
neering properties of the S,antiago ',Formation bed...:·
rock are presented in Ta'ble 3. Remolded' Santiago
Formation siltstone/claystone typically bas a '
high expansion potential and low sn,ear .s.trEmgth,
.... ~
I
I,
I
I
I
I:
1
I,
I'
I
I
I
I,
I'
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 3
Typical Index and Engineering Pr6perties
of Santiago Formation
Index Properties
+ -Natural Total Unit Weight (pcf) 124 5' " . , .'
, Natural Dry Density (pc.f) 110 + 5 ,!
Water Content (%) 13 + 2 -
. Unified s6il Classification
..
Remolded Sandstone Silty F.j.ne Sand. ( S-r.1)
..
Remo·lded Claystone Clay o·t High Plastici.ty (Cli)
-" --
Engineering Properties
Peak Shear Strength Cohesion (pSf) C"::: 6'50
(In'tact Sandstone) Friction Angle· . .-~. '= .310 . ,. , .. -Remolded Drained Shear. Cohesion (psf) c 200
Strength (Sandstone) * Friction Angle ¢ = 320
. ' " .
Remolded Shear Strength Cohesion (psf) c= 850 ,
(Claystone) * Friction Angle " ~.= 170
" .
Expansion Potential Remolded ClaystQne/SiltstQ~e High
Remolded Sandstone Low ... Medium
*Applicable to normal stress range of 1000-.4000 psf' and
remolded to 90% maximum dry density.
..
.'
..
,.
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carlsbad Research ,Cente,r
August 31, 1982
Job No: SDl163-~O'
Log No: '$:D2-2484
Page Sevent'een
4.
5.
. . parameters which wi,).l result in :f;latter; sl'Opes
and heavy pavement sections. Remo,lded ~,antiago
Formation sandstone typically has, a low 't.o ", . '.
medium expansion potential ~rrd higher shear
strength. It is expected that thinIler pavetnen:i{
sections will be needed for thos~ portions of .
the roads constructed in the sandstone.
Topsoil
Over1.ying the 1:;>edrock is typically a two to five
foot thick layer, of clayey topsoil. The top-,
soil is generally loose or soft, in the ~ppertwo
+' .' (-) feet and bec~mes .firmer with depth. T~e -topsoil is c1assifi,ed asa clay, of high pla'stici ~y
(CH) , with low shear strength qnd a ye,ry hi<Jh:
expansion potential. Topsoil material iscoh~
sidered an undesirable bearing mat.eria1 due to
its engineering properties. Recommendations for
remedial grading of the topsoil will be provide.d.
Alluvium
At some locations, especially in the canyon areas,
alluvium overlies bedrock. A typical grain size
curve for alluvium is presented, in Figur.eC-4 .
(Appendix C) and the material is c1as.sifie9-as
a clay of low plasticity (CL). TWo ~bns61idation
tests performed on al·luvium (Figures C-8and
C-9) indicate that it is highly compressible. -The alluvium is considered an undesirable material
requiring remedial grading. Removal of alluvium
will be recommended except-for the alluvi~tn
.1
I
I
I
I,
I.
I .,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Carlsbad Research Center,
.August 31, 1982
Job No~. 9b1163-00
Log No: SP2~2484
Page.Eighteen
located in a portion of Letterb6x Canyon .. One'
method to improve the enginee;ring performance Of
the in-place alluvium wO'ulct'be to su~charge it.
The surcharge would compress the alluvium .and
mitigate the potential for ~uture settlements.
resulting from foundation loads.
B. Remedial Grading
1. . Un"sui table Soils
:,
with the exception of the alluvium in "Ll?t.terbo"x
Canyon, topsoil .and alluvi~m will 'have "over-"
excavation recommended, alon~ with ~elective"·."
replacement as compact"ed fill. AlluviuIn materials
were encountered during. our "fie'ld exploration
and are approximate.ly delineated on the "aqcompanying
plan. The depths of the alluvium are indicated
in the excavation logs. Moist. to' saturated con-
ditions were encountered within the alluv~al s6ils
and may be expected during grading. Moisture:
conditioning of wet alluvium and/or dry topsoil
may require special equipment. and can bee?{pected "
to slow production in the early, s.tages of gra.<iing.
2. Stabilization Fills
Stabilization fills are typiC?ally reqomrtlended to
enhance the stability of' 10callyadverSiegeologic
condi tions. St"abilization cons"ists of overex'"
cavating the slope face and replacement with a
uniform compacted fill. Stabilization" ,rec6mmenda~ , -~ .
tions can be expected for cuts withl~ the Point
Lorna Formation and Santiago Formation..
I
'1·
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
Carlsbad· Research Center
August 31, 1982
Job No: SDl163-0'O
Log No: S,D2 ..,.2.484
Page Nineteen
C.
3. Slopes
Slope stability analyses were performed ~.or the
proposed cut and .fill slopes.. Results of slope
stabili ty analyses (Appendix D) indicate', that
2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slopes would possess
an acceptable factor of safety ~gainst gro'ss' .
instability. However, 2:1 (horizcmtal:vertical) .
slopes comprised of Point Lorna Formation s.ilt-, ~. -
stone or Santiago Formation siltstone/c.laystone
would not possess an acceptable_factoro~ ~afety
against surficial instability. options. ~o
improve the s'urficial stability include laying
the slope ·back to a flatter slope ratio (i.e. 2.5:1)
or facing the outer.portion of slopes (i.e. 12
feet) with select materiais. The suitability o:f
indi vidual sourceS of propos'E;d se.lect material
would require evaluation. Suitable ,sourQes·are
expected to be comprised of predominantlsgranular
soil with minor fraction::? of s'ilt and clay. The
Santiago Formation sandstone or D.G. would be
appropriate.
Expansive Soils
Resul ts of expansion tests ind'icate that f.ill derived
from the on-site materials could cause l1eaving/cracking'
of concrete walks, driveways, roads, etc. The pre-
dominance of expansive soils will res~it.in heavy
pavement sections in most areas.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·.1
Carlsbad Resea~ch Center
,August 31, 1982
Jcib No~ SDl163-00
Log No: SD2-2484
Page Twenty
CONCLUSIONS ANV RECOMMtNvATIONS
A. General
B.
Based on the .results of our Supplemental Preliminary
. Geotechnical Investigation., we conclude that the
. project is feasible from a geotechnical s'bandpoint.
There are, however, two salient geotechnical conditions
which will require special treatment: stability of
proposed cut ~nd fill slopes and the presence of
deep alluvial deposits in. the canyon bot.tom$:· Al though
these·conditions will necessitate special remedial
measures, they can be sucessfully treated during the
mass grading of the site .. We .conclude that thE;:! .
proposed qevelopment.is feasible, from a geotechnical
standpoint, provided the following conclusions and
recommendations are incorporated into the projec.t
plans apd specifications.
Slope Stability
1. Fill Slopes ,'I
Permanent fill slopes are .proposed on-site to
a maximum height o.f about 55 feet. A fifty-
five foot high fill siope constructed at a slope
ratio o·f 2:1 (horizontal :vertical) should
posses gross stability in excess of the .generally
accepted minimum engi.neering crj.teria.2:1 .
(horizontal :vertical) fill sl.opes constructed
of predominantly Point Loma Formation derIved'
fill material will be.' subj.ect' tosurfi.cial
instability. Fill slope!? in excess often feet
ip height should be provided with at least ten
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ca~lsbad Research Center
Augupt 31, 1982
Job No: SDl163-00
Log No: SD2":24B'4
Page Twen'ty-One
2·.
feet of select mat'erial on the slope face' or,
laid back t.o' 2.5: 1 (horiz·ontal :yertical) or
fl~tter to enhance surficia+ slope stability.
Proposed slopes subject to this recommenda-pibn
are indicated on the attached Fj.,gure 3 & 3A.
Fill slopes more than thirty f,eet in heig:tl"t
shall have drainage terraces·provided at vertical
intervals not . exceeding tweIlty.,..f,ive (25) feet •.
For fill slopes in exceps of one hund+"ed .(100)
feet, a terrace drain not less ~han twenty (2Q)
feet wide shall. be required near mid-he.ight.
Temporary fill s,lopes at 3: 1 (horizontal:.,
vertical) are proposed along the extension of
"D" Street. Because these temporary slope~ may
be subjected to several winters before grading
is completed, they should be built to 'the sa.me
standard~ as .permanent slopes.
Fill slopes shouldb~ constructed in accordance
with the recommendations herein and tl1e Standard
Guidelines for Grading Projects which are
attached as Appendix E. It is recommended that
fill slopes at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) less
than tem . (10) jifeet in height be constructed by
overfilling and cutting back to the compacted, c.o~e.
cut Slopes
a. Santiago Peak Vqlcanics .
No"significant cut-slopes are proposed in
the Santiago PeQ,k Volcanics.
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
/
I
o
.... "
, ," -" ...... , , --"<::: '
....
Approximate scale 1-: 325"
Slopes subject to surficial
stabilization or 2.5:1 layback
AREAS SUBJECT TO SURFICIAL STABILIZATION OR LAYBACK
JOB NO.: 1163-00 FIGURE: DATE: AUGUST 1982 3
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
-----------
I
J (,
)
('
\
I (
Y
o Slopes subject to surficial
stabilization or 2.5: 1 iayback
Approximate scale
AREAS SUBJECT TO SURFICIAL STABILIZATION OR LAYBACK
JOB NO.: 1163-00 FIGURE: DATE: AUGUST 1982 3A
SAN DIEGO SO.ILS ENGINEERING, INC.
1
1
,I
1
1
I
1
1
I
I. '
I
I
I
Carlsbad Research Center
Aug~st 31, 19~2
Job No: SDl163-00
Log NO: Sb2-24S4'
Page Twenty-Two
b. I
,
Point Loma )?ormatiort
The orientat~ons of propo~edcut-slopes in
the Point'Loma Formation are generally
favorable with respect to the geOlogic
structure' and bedding planef? .It is ant,ic-
ipate,d that ground water conditions will,
however, necessitate remedial grading in
the fOJ;m of sta,bilization fills 'for most
cut-slopes in Point Lorna Formation materials.'
Final determination of the need for stabili-
zation will be made by the, Geotechnical
Consul:tant during grading. Continuous
observation of the cuts in progress is
essent;i.a,l. The stabiliz~tion.fills will
be const'ructed with a: key width equal to
one-half o·f the slope height. Orainage
. devices will be required behind the stabil,i-
'zation fills. Typical details for stabili-
zation fills and drainage devices are
presented in the attached 'Appendix E,
Standard Guidelines for Geotechnical Proj'ects.
weathering characteristics of the Point r
Loma Formation materials will necessitate
special treatment to mitigate surficial
stabilitydonCeJ;ns on crit-slopes. The Point
Lorna Formation materials weather or slake
rapidly, 'geperall¥ loosing :l.n,tegri ty when
exposed in,excavations. The rapid deteri-
oration of the cut-slope face will necessitate
.. I'
I
I
'1
.1
I'
I
·1
I'
I
I
I
I
'I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
Carlsbad .Research Center
August 31, 19·82
Job No: $D1.;1.63-00
LogNb: SD2-2484
Pag~ TweF1ty-Three
c.
mitigation measures identical to those
previously recommended for fill slopes
made of Point Loma Forma,tion materials,
(e. g. blanket stabilization fills of select
materials or reduced slope ratios).
Saptiago Formation
Subsurface exploration indicates that the
I
proposed one hundred (100) foot hig:h cut-
slope near 'the intersect:ioIf of College
:soulevard and El Camino 'Real' 'will expose
materials which. are cons'idered unsuitable
from. a long term slope stability standpoint.
It is anticipated that a stabilization fill
'with a key width equal to one-half. the slope
height will be recommendeq at this location.
The stabilization fill, shou'ld be constructed
with backdrains in accordance. with the
typical details in the attached Appendix E,.
Standard ,Guidelines for Geotechnical Pro~
jects. final deterrtlination·of the rE:quire-
tnent for stabilizatioriwillbe ~ade by the
Geotechnical Consul tantd\lrin·g 9-rading.
Continuous geologic obs~rvation of the cuts
in' progress is essential;
Minor cut-slopes in santiago Formation
materials aJ;:"e proposed along the" southerly
extension of College Boulevaro and "0"
St.reet. It is not anticipa.ted that, these
slopes will need any type of stabilization.
Final determination of the reguiretnent for
stapiliz,at,ion will be made during grading.
I
-I
1
I·
1
,I
1
1
1
I
1
I: "
I
1
Carlsbad Research Center
Aug.list 31, 1982
Job-No: 501163-00
Log No:. SD2...,.2484
Page Twenty-Four
3.
4.
d. Quaternary T~rr~ce Deposits
-The Quaternary 'l'err~ce Deposits will be
eJ{Posed in the uppe,r portion of slopes
proposed along the extensiom of "b~ Street.
It is not anticipa.ted that stab~li?atiom
measures will be required in these areas.
Final determination of the. need for stabili-
,zation will be made in the field by the
-Geotechnical Cons.ult.ant during grading.
Fill-:-0ver";Cut Slopes
Where fill.-over-cut slopes 9,re proposed, it is
recommended that the cut portion be completed
prior to fill placement. An equipment width.
minim~ key'should be constr?cted at the cut/fill
conta.ct. A typical fill~over-cut detail is.
presented in the Stano.ard Guidelines f6'r Grading
Proj ects which accompany __ this report as Appendix E.
Stabilization/Buttres·s Fills
Blanket stabilization fills are recommended for
cut and fill slopes -over 10 feet in hei~ht con-:
struct.ed of Point Loma Formation and of Santiago
Formation siltstones and claystones where
laying-back the slopes to 2.5:1 is not· adopteq.
It should be noted that the wide stabilization
fills recommended to mitigate seepage.on unsuit-
able geologic conditions will also receive the
eq~ipment;. wid.th cap of selec't? material to min:'"
imize ·fu·ture surficiaistabili ty p:ropl~ms.
Anticipated buttresses and $tabilization fills
are indicated on the attached ,Figure 4.
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I I / F
/
i . )''''''-j, . ',,' i: ( , ell, ,':) '/ ') ?\ --, ,~ ~=-. I,; ".
/ .
I I
_ ... ----( '-1
, ' I -'
~ -. -.
~ I;
Approximate scale 1" : 325-
Anticipated areas ofJ:>uttr~ssing
and stabilization
ANTICIPATED LOCATION OF BUTTRESS AND STABILIZATION FILLS I JOB NO.: 1163-00 DATE: AUGUST 1982 FIGURE~ 4
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
,
Carlsbad Resear'ch Center
Augus.t:. 31, "1982
Job No: SDL1.63·-00
Log No: $02-2484
Pas~ Twenty-Five
5.
6.
CQnstruction Slopes
Construction slopes in th~ Point ~bma Formation' "
and Sant'iago Formatioh are recommended at slope
ratios of 1.5:1 to heights upt9 30 teet~ Above
that height, Qonstruction slop~s are recommended
at slope ratios of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical).
These recommended ratios can be steepened if tb:.e
possibility of construction sliding is acceptaple.
Natural Slopes
The proposed grading virtually elimihat~a natural
slopes adjacent to College Boulevard and "D"
Street.
C. Treatment of Alluvium
Alluvium is present in the canyon bottom areas on-site
and will require remedial treatment prior to fill
placement •.. In the Qanyohs along College Boulevard
and "D" Street south of Carlsbad Research Center and
in the tributaries of Letterbox Canyon along the
n~rthern extension of College Boulevard, it is ·rec.om-
mended that loose, porous or saturated alluvium be
removed to firm ground prior to fill placement. For
buo.geting ptirposes,.it slioul<;1 be considered that all
alluvium will be removed to bedrock.
Alluvium was observed to depths of about 25 f.ee1;. in
the major northern thread of Letterbox Canyon. If
a delay between the completion of grading and future
·.1
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
Car1sbCid Re'search Center
Augupt 31, 1982
Job No: SD116·3-00
Log No: SD2-2:48·4
Page Twenty-Six
. D.
construction is acceptable, surcharging is an
acceptable alternative to alluvial removal in this
area. Our analysis indicat~s that a surcharge of
about 15 feet would resu1t;i.n about six ,months of.
delay after grading before construction of buildings
could proceed.
The surcharge operation will require fill placement
to an e1evati0I?-of 15 feet above'propdsed'finished
\
grade. The surcharge fill should be compacte.d to
two (2) feet above proposed finiph grade and then
placed as stockpi;I.e. Settlement markers should be
installed for monitoring after grading.
Our preliminary calculations ,indicate that ~pough
c;:onso1io.ation should occur within six months of
the end of grading to allow construction to proceed
in the' surcharge area. Final determin~tion of the
settlemen.t period will, of coUrse , be determined by
analysis of the settlement.
The limits' of anticipated alluvial removals and area
of proposed surcharging are indicateq on the attached
Figure 5.
Grading and Eafthwork
1. ;Inspection
Con.tiIluous inspection by a geotechnical' team
(Soil Engineer and Engineering Geologist) during
grad-ing is essential to confirm' conditiqns
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
/
F
I
J.
,,~~~~,~~: " , ... <::;>
'. I
~ I
Approximate scale 1-:" 325·
(8 Propos~d surcharge area
o Anticipated areas of alluvJal removals
AID-:AS OF ANTICIP.ATED ALLUVIUM AND RECOMMENDED TREATME1"lT
JOB NO.: 1163-00 DATE: AUGUST 1982 FIGURE: 5
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING; INC.
.-1
'1.
I
I'
I
-I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
Carlsbad Research Center Job No: SDl163-00
Log No: £D2~2484
Page Twenty~Seven
Augu~t 31, 19-82 /
2.
3.
anticipated by the pl;'elini'ina,ry investigation
. and to provide d~ta to adjust designs to actual
conditions encountered during gl;'ading.
Cl~aring and Gl;'ubbing
Prior to grading" the site should be cleared
of surface ·obstructions and stripped o£ brush
and vegetation. Vege.tation from the clearing
operations :shQUld be removed from the site. Ob~
structions ext~nding 'below finish grade should
be removed and replac~d w,ith compacted ·fill.
Site Preparation
a. Treatment of Surface Soils -
b~
Test excavations indicate ,i that three to
four feet oj surficial soils are present
on-site. The upper portions of the sUrface
soils are generally ~ry and .porous.
It is recommended that in fillarea's' flatter
thi;tn 5:1 (horizontal:vert,i.cal)' the
upper two.feet of surface soils be over-
excavated in areas to receive ~ilL. In
areas steeper than 5:1: (horizontal:
vertical) all topsoil will be remove~. 9-uring
the benching operation. Final determination
of removal depths will be made by·the Geo-
technial Consultant during grading.
Existing Fill Soils
It is recommended that a,ll areas o£ uncon ....
trolled fl.11 be overexcavated in area~ to
receive fill.-
·1
I
·1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
'I
I
I
I
.1
Carlsbad Research Center
.Aug~st 3]., 1982
Job No: SOl163-'00
Log No: . SD2-24e4
Page Twenty-Eight
4.
c.
d.
, ,
Tr,eatment of AlJ,uvium
It is recommended. that alluvi~rn be removed
or surcharged in accordance with the afore-
mentioned recommendations.
Scarification and Processing o£ Surface
Soils
Following overexcavation of unsuitable
materials, areas to receive 'fill and/or
other improvements should be scarified to
a depth of 6 to 8-inches, 1:;>rbught'to near
optimum moisture conditions andl compacted
to at least ninety percent relative cotn-
paction~
Compaction and Meth99. of F;illing
Fill placed at the site should be compacted to
a minimum relative comp'action of 90 'percent,
based on ASTM Laboratory Test. Designation 0 1557-70,.
Fill should be compacted by meChanical means in
uniform lifts of 6 to 8-inches in' thicknes's.
Fills constructed on natural slopes steeper than
5:1 (horizontal:vertical) should be keyed and
be'nched ihto be9rockor competent natura.-J:; ground.
Compaction of slope.s should be achieved by , . ,
overbuilding the slopes laterally apd then
cutting back to the comp.acted core at design
line and' grade. Al'though ov~r1:;>uilding and
cutting back if:? the preferred method, fill slopes
may be back rolled at intervals not greater than
:1
~,I'
,I
~ '1\
I
I
,I
1
"I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I'
, "
. \
Carlsbad Research Center
August 31, ,1982
Job No: SDI163.-;OO
Log.No~ SD2-2484
Page Twenty-Nine
5.
four feet as the fill is placed, followed by
final compaction of the entire slopes. Feathel:"ing
of fill over the tops of slopes should not be
permitted.
Fills should also be placed and all ~g,rading per ...
formed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad's
Grading Ordinance and the requirements of the
Uniform Building Code.
S$lective ~rading
As ,an alternc;tive tp laying-back siopes to a
ratio of 2.5:1, slope faces may bec9hptructe~
wIth sel~ct ~aterials at ,a J:"atip' of 2,:.1. Select'
materials should consist of generally~ well-gJ:"aded
granular materials with minor silt arid cla~
fractions. $elect materials should be nonexpapsive.
Suitability of proposed select material sources
should be determined ,upon evaluation of the
engineering pl:"operties of the materials. Some
select mat:erial is located o,ff-site a~ong the
alignment of "0" Street. The material consists
of a silty fine sand generated from the Quaternary
Terrace deposits.
In faoing'slopes with select material, it is
recommended that a width of, not less than 10 feet
be maintained. unless the minimum width is
increased to provide working area for conventiona'i
slope compaction eqUipment, it isrecorru,nended
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I~
I
I
I
I
I
Carlsbad Research Center
August 3.1, 1982
,Job No :8Dl163-0'O
tog No: BD2-2484
Page Thirty
6.
that, the slopes be overfilied and cut-back to
the, compacted inner cOJ;:e. If the source of -. . .
silty fine sand to the south is utilized. for
facing of' slopes, dverf:illing and cutting-back
is strongly recommended.
From discussions with tt,he Project Civil Engineer,
it is our understanding that some slopes will be
laid back t~ 2.5:1 in lieu of utilizing Sel~ct·
materiaL A few slopes _ in more favorable material
types in the southern portion of the project are
n,o't a.nticipa ted to -pe .affected by th~'· selective '
grading recommendations. Also, the selective
, .
gradingreco~endations shQuld not be considered
applicable to slopes Qften feet in h~ight Or less.
Slopes presently anticipated to be affected by
this selective grading recommendations have been
indicated on the accompanying Figur~ 3.,
Due to the undesirable -engineering p~Qperties of
topsoil and alluvial soils, placement on the
interior offill masses is recommended rather
than placement near slop~ faces.
Import Fill M~terial
Presently it is ariticivated that import fill
materials may be required for selective grading
operations. The type of material considered
most deSirable for import is a nonexpansive well-
graded granular material with minor silt and
clay fractions. The Geotechnibal Con$qltant
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'Carlsbad Research Center
August 31, 1982
Job No: Spl163-0n
Log No: SD2-~4a4
Page Thirty-One
7.
8.
should be contacted fOb evaluation o'f. individual
import sources well in advance of planned import .
operations.
Shrinkage, Bulking and Subsidence
volumetric'shrinkage for the topsoil is estimated
to be f~om 15 to 20 percent. Shrinkage in the
alluvium is estimated to be from l~to IS per-.
cent. Bulking in the Point Lorna Formation
materials is e~pected to be trom 5 to 10 percent.
Bulking in the Santiago p'eak Volcanics' is esti-
-mated to be from 15 to 20 perc~nt,. Santiago
Formatio~ bedrock is expected to bulk from 0 to
5 perc~nt.
Because alluvium and porous topsoil are being
removed in most of the canyon 'areas, subsidence
there due to equipmep:twill be negligible. Sub-
.'
sidence will occur in the surcharge area, and
adjustments 'will be made during future grad'ing.
Due to the fact that shrinkage andsubs.idence
can vary with many factors, it i$ recommended
that the above values only be used for preliminary
planning purposes. To provide for unforeseen
variations in actual quantities a "balance area"
should be designated by the Proj~ct Civil Engineer.
Transition Lots
Several building pads.in Phase IV will be par-
tially graded in conjunction with the northern
I
,I
I
I
I'
I·
I
I
I
I
I
Carlsbad Research Center
August· 31, 1~r82
Job No: SDl163-ob
Log No: SD2-2484'
Page Thirty-Two
E.
extension of College Boulevard. Because the
grading will not reach finish grade elevations
at this time, and because the pads are. large
industrial and cottunercial sitE7s with building
locations as yet undetermined I no ov:erexcavation"
of transition lots is required. Overexcavation
to eliminate 'the cut/fill transition may be a
future recommendation when building location
and foundation designs are known.
Restriction,on Future Constr\;lction
An eight (8)-inch diameter, high ~ressure'pet~oleum
line located along El Ca~ino Real may create a
restric~ion on future construction on, a' portion of ,
'Carlsbad Research Center, Phase IV. The petroleum
pipeline is located in fill' placed during the con-. .
struction of El Camino Real., 'rypically, recommendations
for placing fill adj~cent .tooff-site road fiils
includ~ heavy benching into the road £i'lls, which
sometimes results in minor disturbance to the pave-
ment surface. Discussion w:Lth the pipeline company
,indicates that thE! high pressure pipE!line will not
tolerate any disturbance. Due to the generally non-
uniform condition of the existing roadway fill, any
grading in the inuried"iate area of the pipeline will
cause some disturban'ce.· ,It is our 'opinon that the
only practical way to avoid disturbance at the pipe-
line is to· minimize or avoid grading near, the
petroleum pipeline.
More detailed \analysi~, of 'this', 'ConditiQn is re¢ommeI),ded
when grading plans are,finalized. The additional
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
'I
.1
I
I
Carlsb~d Research Center
. August 31,. 1982
Job No:SDl163-00
Log No: Sb2~2484
~age Thirty-Three
F.
\
analysis shou.l.d help determine the solution which
will least impact the future building -pad are·as. No
other significant gedtechnicalrestrictions are
·anticipated on future construction if grading is
performed in accordance with the recommendations
presented herein. These recommendations will not,
however, preclude set-backs from buried utilities,
ea,sements, etc.
~urface.alld Subsurface Drainage
Surface run-~ff into downslope natural areas ahd
graded areas should be minimized. Where possible,
drainage should be directed to suitable disposal
are'as via non-erodible devices (e. g. paved swa..l.es
and storm drains).
Subdrains should b~ placed under all fills placed in
drainage courses and at' identified or potential seep-
age areas.· Their specifi.c locations will be deter-
mined in the f:i,eld during grading. General subdI:'ain .
locations will be indicated on the approved grading
" plan. The subdrain inst·allation should be reviewed.
, ,
by the Engineering Geologist prior to fill placement.
Typical subdrain details are presented in Apl?rendix
E, Standard Guidelines for Grading projects. Sub-
drain piI;?e may be coated ,metal, P.V.C.,' or approved
equival~nt (crush strength of 1000 pOUnds/foot or
greater).
Drainage devices will be recorilIn~nc1ed behind buttresses
and/or stabilization fills·to minimize the build-up
·1
I-
I-
-I
'I
I
I
-I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
)
I
I
I
I
I
• (
Carlsbad Res-earch Center
August 31, -1982
Job No: SDl163~aO
Log No: SD2.,..2484
Pa~e Thirty-Four
of hydrostatic and/or seepage for-ces,. The details
and recommend~d locations of these back drainsar~
presented in Append_ix E, Standard Guidelines _ 'for
Grading Projects. 'Depending on sl?pe height, mQre
than one ti-er of drains may be required. 'Drains may
also be recommended, at contacts between pe-rmeable
and nonpermeable formations.
G. Retaining Walls
-J
The developmeI?-t of geotechnical design cri t.e~ia ~'Qr
retaining walls. can be bestdevelop~d following
review of the proposed wall configurations and :r;eview
of the site spe~ific geotechnical conditions.Ov~r
most of the site; however, the following criteria --
.may be util:i,zed for prelimihary design purposes.
Where free...,standing walls are'proposed to retain
granular backfill, equ'ivalent. fluid weight for static
,act:i,ve lateral earth loadings of 45, 70 arid 90
pounds per cubic foot may be utilized for walls
retaining level, 2.5;1 and 2:1 backfill conditions
respectively. Appropriate allowances should be made
for .. anticipated surcharge concli tions, unless walls
are also designed to resists~epage and/or hydro-
static forGes. Walls should be provided.with designed
drainage systems.
It should be, noted that the use of heavy compaction
equipm~nt in close prox:i,mity to retaining walls. can
resu1t in excess wall movement (stra~ns greater than
those normally associated with the development of
active conditions) and/or soil p:r:ess.tire$ exceed'ing
'I
I
',1
I
I
'·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
Carlsbad Research Center
August 31, 1982
Job .No: SDl163-00
Log No: SD2-2484
Page Thirty-Fiye
design values~ .In this regard, care should be taken
during back-filling operations.
H. ~ype of Cement for Construction
Evaluation of soluabie sulfate conten't of s·amples
considered representative of the predominate material,
types on site suggest that Type V concrete is not
a requirement for use in constructiQn~ Type I or II
cement sho1,lld be ut'ilized • Cement type recornrnendation~
should be verified ~ollowing site specific investi-
gations on individual streets.
I. Pavements
Due ,to general,Iy poor subgrade characteristics of
the predominant soil types, generally heavy pavement
,sections can be anticipated. For traf~ic index
values of 7.0, 8.0 and 8.5 which are expected for the
street areas, ,the following preliminary pavement
sections can be utilized for planning pUrposes.
Traffic Index )
R-Value
Pavement Thickness
Aggregate Base
Total Thickness
7.0
7.0
4"
15"
19"
8.0
7.0
4"
18"
22"
.8.5
7.0
From review of the above sections, it is appa~ent that
stre~t areas during, rough grading should be kept about
two feet low to accomodate the pavement sections~
Pavement recornrn~ndations should be reviewed as final
grades are achieved.
I
I
I:
,I
I
I,
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
Carlsbad Research Center
August 31, 1982
Job No: SDII-6'3-00
Log No: SD2-2484
Page ThJrty-Six
J.
I,f practical, selective grac;ling in stre,et areas may' be
consid_ered for the purpose of reducing pavement
section requirements. If it is c0nsidered practical to
place about one_-foot of good gra~'Ular material i,n
street subgrade, areas, tb:e requi~ed aggr~'ga:te base'
material section couldl:;le reduced substantially.
utility TrenchB~ckf~ll
utility trench ,backfill should, unless otherwise'
recommended, be compqcted by meqnanical means. Unless
otherwise recommend~d, the degrt2E: of compac,tion should
be a minimum of 90% of the laboratory maxi'mum den~ity.
As an alternative, granular material (Sand ~quivalent
greate:r; than 30) may ,betho,rougn1y jetted, in-piac~~
Jetting should only be considered to apply to trenche~
no greater than two-feet. in width and four-feet in·
depth. FollQwing jetting 'operations, trench backfill'
should be thoroughly mechanically cbmpacted and/or
wheel rolled from the' surface.
,K. ,Gradin,g Plan R~view
When final grading plans for the proposed ,development
,are completed" the plans should' be reviewed by th~
Geotechnical Consul ta'nt to determine compliaIicewi th
the recommendation,s presented h~reih. Substantial
changes from the present plan may necessitate addi tion-al
investigation and analYses.
t.
'.,
I
I
'I
'I'
I
I
",I'
I
I
I
I
.; :1
'I
,
I
\1
I
I
I
,I·
"
Carlsbad R~search Center
August 31, '1982
Job No: SDll.63-00
Log No: SD2-2484
Page Thirty-s'ev£7n
L. Limitations of Investigation
Our investigation was performed using the, degre~ of
dare and skill ord~narily exercised, under similar
circums"t::ances, by reputable Soils Engineers and Geo-
logists practicing in thi,s or similar localities. No
other warranty, express or ;implied, is made as to the
q:onclusions and profes'l;>ional advice included in this
report.
The samples taken and useq for testing anq the obser-
vations made are believed representative of the entire
area. However, soil and geologic conditions can
vary significantly between borings, test pits and
surface outcrops.
As in most major grading projects, conditions revealed
by', excavation may be at variance with preliminary
findings. I f thiS 'occurs, the cl1emged con'di tl.ons must
be evaluated by the ~eotechnical Consultant and designs
adjusted or alternate designs recommended.
Very truly yours,
SAN DI GO SOILS ENG~N~NC.
R.C.E. 26098
GWA:SWJ:tm
r
J.b L .. filJ . ~w.~ C~E.G. 1074
Manager, Geologic Serviqes
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1.· "Eocene and Related Geology ofa Portion of the San Luis
Rey and Encinitas Quadrangles, San Diego County, 'I December,
1972: University.of California, Revierside, Masters
Thesis prepared by K. L. Wiison;
, ,
~. . Min~sahd Mineral Resources.of'SanDiego County, 1963:
California Division of Mines and Geology, County Report 3;
3. Crustal Strain and Fault Movement Investigation, January
1964: California Departmen't of water Resources Bulletin
No. 116-2;
4. "Accel.erations in Rocks for .Earthquakes in the Western
United Stages," Bulletin.of the SeisI1\qlogicalSocietY of
Am~rica, Vol. 63, No.2, Schnabel and Seed, April 1973;
5. Fault Hazard zones in California; Revised January 1977:
california Division of Mines and 'G~Qlogy, Special Publi-
cation 42;.
6~ "Fault Map of California," 1975: California Division of
Mines and, Geoiogy, Geologic Data Map N.o. 1;
7.. "Repeatable High Ground Accelerations from Earthquakes, ,I
Cal·ifornia Geology, California I?ivision of Mines and
~eo1ogy, P10esse1 and SlossQn, September 1974;
8. Clay M~nera10gy and Slope Stab~lity, Special Report 133,
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1977;
9. Seismicity of the Southern California Eegion 193,2-1'972,
1973: " California Institute of, Tecfinolog.y, seismological
Labbra.torYi
10. "Preliminary Soil and Geologic Investigation, Carlsbad
Research Center, Carlsbad , California" April 1981, Woodward ....
Clyde Consultants; .
11. ."Additiona1 Studies, Car1sbad'Research Center, Carl.sbad,
California" August 1981, Woodwarp.-Clyde Consultan.ts;
12. "Addendum to Additional Studies, Carlbad Research Center',
Carlsbad, California" S~ptember 19.81, Woodward-Clyde
Consultants;
13. "Aerial Photographs," USDA Flight AXN-8M, 1953, Photo
Nos. 11-73, 99-101.
I
I
I
I'
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
SUBSURF~~~ EXPLORATION
Tnesubsurface exploration consisted: of '10 b9rings to a maximum
. depth of 70 feet, 35 backhoe test pits excavated to a maxirnum
depth of 15 feet and three bulldozer trenches excavated to·a
maximum d~pth of 6 feet and maximum' length of 2'40 feet; The
borings were drilled with a truck-mounted bucket auger drill
rig, the ,test 'pits were excavated w~tha tract9r~mounted pack~
lJpe and the dozer trenches were excavp,ted with a D-8 buJ,ldo?er.
The subsurface ~xploration was' conducted under the direction of
the Engineering Geologist. The' borings and pits were logged',
sampled and, backfilled. Samples, of, the materialS encoun.ter.ed
were returned to the l'aboratory for testing.
Logs of our bor.il}gs are presented as Figures B-2 thro\1gh B.-19.
The logs of test pits are presented as Figures:e-~O throug.h
B-55. The logs of the three dozer trenches are'presented as . ,. "-
Figures B-56 through B-59. 'The locations of tl1'eborings,
pits and trenches included in this appendix are shown on the
attached Geotechnical Maps, Plates 1 and 2.
cal~;fornia Sampler blow counts were obta,ined by driving a 2.625
inch, inside diameter s-amp,ler with a hammer dropping through a
l2-inch free fall. A 1600 pOl,lnd hammer was used at depthslef3s
t,han 25 feet and an 800 pound hammer was used at depths'g~eater
than' 25 feet. Unless othe.rwise shown', the blows per foot
recorded on the Boripg-Logs represent 'the number of. blows 'used
to d~iye the sampler 12 inches. Samples shown on the Borcing
Logs as "UNDISTURBED SAMPLES" were obtained with the Cal;i.fornia·
'Sampler.
1
1
'I
1
1
:1
1
1
'I
1
,I
1
--
\ . GROUP " .
PRIMA,RY' DIVISi.DNS SYMBOl SECONDARY DIVISIONS
, ' CLEAN Well graded gravel~ 9,,,vl!l-s.itI>d ""Il:ult::. IItlie 0; no'
...I GRAVELS GRAV~LS GW f,nes '
en ,~ MORE THAN HALF nESS lHAN Poorl." 9,adl!dg'hels 01 g'lYf:l-und ftl,.tures. hille Ot 0:::0 GP . ..J Wo 5~ FINES) no 'lnes, ' (5 ~N OF COARSE
en '~ . FRAC.TlON IS . GRAVEL GM Silly grlYl!ls. glilVel-sand-s,1t mi~Ir,.r'cs. non-plastIc 'IFles
C .,,-~ W LARGER THAN . WITH --w O 2 N :FINES GC ' Clayey grallels,. gra\lt!l-sand-clay mi.tures. plastIC .,nes ·z r.LC en NO, 4 SIEVE ~ -'x .. ---~ c· ... ~ SANDS CLEAN SW Well gr~ sands.grallelly Unds~ Irttle or no finel. C) % '" SANDS a: en w Z.W .MQRE THAN HAlf (LESS THAN .~ ~i SP Poorly graded sandi or g'avelly ~Ilds, 1i,lIe or no ilr.es ... < OF COARSE 5% FIN~S)
...I . '
§~ fRACTION .IS SANOS 'SM . Silly lands. sand-.sill mixtures.non-plaltic fines.
SMALLER THAN WITH
NO.4 SIEVE 'FINES SC : Clayey san,ds., und-clay mi.lures~ pI~stic tina.
...,
SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inor~anic 11115 and lIery fine salids rock flour Si'ty or en N c ay~ f,ne"SI~s or' clayey .5'11~ with shght. P"~hclly. ..J &&:0::: en Ow 'Inor8!:c ClaVs of low to m~d,um plasticity. 'gravelly' 6 . ...I CL' ...I "" LIQUID LIMIT IS en r.L c :> c . san~y ,clays. 1,IIy clays. lean clays . '. ~~ !!! LESS THAN SO" C en en OL Organic silts and organic silty cliys 0' low plasticity ! w Z i eno -0 . ~ -,N SILTS AND 'CLAYS MH Inorf.mic sillS rTllcaceQUs ", ,diillorrilceous ftile sanely or
... C • ,lly soils"~I~slic SIlts .' .
C) wffii w '~'i z LIQUID LIMIT IS ' CH 'Inorganic clays of high plastici,y. fat clays.
Z ~ GREATER. THAN 50% ti: ... Ot.f OrganiC Clays 0' .mtdll.Hn to high plasticity. organic: silts.
-
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PI Peat and other highly organIc sOtls
.J
DEFINITION OF TERMS ..
U.S. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE CLEAR sa~ SIEVE OPENI~
200 40 10 4 3/4' 3". 12"
SAND GRAVEL
$fLTS AND CLAYS -. COBBLES BOULDERS
fiNE I MEDIUM COARSE fiNE I C~RSE, .. ..
-GRAIN S.IZES
-.
SANDS.GRAVELS NSJ B~OWSIFOOT t CLAYS' AND sTRENGTH· t
NON-PLASTIC SILTS PLASTIC SILTS BlOWS/FOOT .
.
VERY LOOSE 0-" VERY SOFT 0 -1/4 o -2
LOOSE 4-10 SOFT ," -1/2 2 -4
FIRM 112 -1 4 '-• MfOIUM DENSE I 10 -30 STIFF
,
1 - 2 • ... ,.
DENSE 3O-SO VERY STIFF 2 -.. 11 -32'
VERY QENSE OlEA' SO HARD ()"I£R 4 OVER 32 . ..
RELATIVE DENSITY CONSISTENCY
t Number Of blows 0' 140 pound har)'WNr tailIng 30 inches to ~id • 2 inch 0 D U-lIIrnch I.D.'
IIPlit spoon (ASTM 0-1586). ,'. .
tU1cOnfined complessive strength in tons/sQ. h. as determined by laboratory testrng or ~o.ilNted
by the standard penetration lest (ASTM 0-1586): pocket penetromeler. tor vane. Of visual.observation .
..
, KEY TO EXPLORATORY BORNi loGs I
UnHied Sol Classification. System (ASTM D"'!'2487),
JOINO.: 601163-00 IDATE: , August 1982 ' FIGURE: B-1'
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I
I
·1
'1'
I
I
I
,I
I
1
-I
I
I
1
I
I'
1
1
DATE' OBSERVED:
LOGGED BY: KS
Z t-o W E ,0
~ 0 w -' 0 CDW A-W· 2i ~ U ~ a:-, .... i&: .... :::I A-'C
:z: ,t/) 1-2i .t/) ii' ~ ~C I-~ A-t/) O. 00 -' ,W C -' ,~ :::I 0 cj .CD CD
-0
-,
-
..,'
-3 rx X
5 .... ·
.:
-
-,
4 -12 -S 2 METHOD OF DR iLLING: _' __ -=-2.;;;!i4_IJ--"'B.u.u~c""k.&le"'"t""'__;.Aa.\oIjl~q.loiie"",r~_..,...-
+ GROUND ELEVATION; 2'S 2 I .... LOCATION: SeeMp.p
.>~. ,..
wit a:(;) a: .... OA-
:::II-W .... ... Z u> t/)W Ct: -l-Oz -'0
2i0 A-Z
U ZW -0
24 97
BORING NO.. 1
DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL: Brown CLAY,Moist t9
Wet, 'Firm
SOIL TEST . . ...
BEDROCK: POINT LOMA. FORMATION; ,DIRECT SHEAR"
Green Gray Clayey SILTSTONE,
r-1O'ist, Stiff to Very Stiff, wi.th
Orange Sta'ining, Fractqred and
Weathered to $1 ·Jointeo.
@7'-10" Joints with Minor Slicks
N3SoW 3S NE· NS40E 7SoSE· '0 ' 0' ,'0 ,'" E-W, 62 Si NIO E,SO Ei AT'I'ERBERG LIMIT
lOS
10.,-
-: 9 ~IX 22
NSoW, 90°; N700E6 '3SoN EXPAN$ION TEST
@13"J8ints, N-S,. 6S, Ei N400E, DIRECT SHEAR
-
-
-
16-
'--
~o""
..::
-
-,
... '
26-'
IS NW '
@14' Less Jointed, More Massive
@17' Cemented Layer, 2" Thick,
Horizontal
@lS' "SOo 62° Jo~nt, N, E, N
,@20 I. Cemented Layer, S" Thick
Siltstone Fractu~ed above
.20 I; More Massive Below
@20 '-311 Seepage of Ground Water
-S tg. IS 109 @261-30~ Increasing Saepage in
Joints \
@29 1 Joints, N200E,4:29 W;N200E,
SoW . 30-
+--+----f-,----I--~ -----' ------~ - -
Black Grl?yC1a,yey .S:tLTSTONE",
Moist, Very Stiff to Ha'rd,
Massive'
-
',.
35-
40...,
JOB NO.: S[)1163-001 LOG OF BORING IFI~l,IRE: B-2
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERIN~, INC.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
1
·'1
·1:
I:
1
I
. -
.QATE Or5SERVED: 4-12-82 METHOD OF DRILLING: 24" Bucket Aug:el:
LOGGED BY: KS GROUND ELEVATION: 252' ± LOCATION: See Ma};2
z ... Q W >-~ ;: 0 ....
~ 0 W ..J w# a:o BORING NO. 1 w 0 IIlw 0.. a:'" Qo.. w 2 &I.. 0 &&. a:..J ~ ... w'" (CONTINUED) .... ii: .... ~o.. < ... z 0> SOI.L TEST :c (I) "'2 (I) u)w <t: c;; ~ !!3< -... , ... ~ Oz ..JU) Q.i (I) ·0 QU)' ..J o..z W < . ..J z ~ 20 Zw DESCRIPTION
'Q E III ~ III 0 -Q
4: ~ --
-
-~ 45-,
-,
-
--
50
-,
-Total pepth 50'
": Water at 20' ... 31'
-No Caving
55-
·
·
eo-
·
, 85-·
·
70-.
·
· ..
75-
·
·
80-
JOB NO·:SDl163-00 r , LOG OF BO'RING -.. I FIGU,RE: 13..,. 3
. SAN DIEGO S9IL$ ENGINEERING, INC.
I
I·
:1 " ,
I
I
I
I
I'
I,.
'I
'Ii
I
I
I
I··
I
DATE OBSERVED: __ 4.:..-...:1::..3=--_8::..2~ ___ M~THOD OF DRILLING:_=2~,4_"--==B:..:::u~c~k~e::..llt'i-, __ A~u6.l<;lof..leiii.or",--___ ............ .,--_
. +\
LOGGED BY: KS GROUND ELEVATION: 2.34'''' LOCATION: See Map
z p :0
ttl ~ !!; u ~
::z:: i) t: ~
...
0
0 LI. .... ~ ~
0 ... CD
c w w ... .CDw A. :I a: ... '
::)A. <
"':1 ~ ~< ~ Q0 ... z ::)
::) CD
.,.. >~
w! a:u BORING NO. 2 CA. a: .. ::)!Z .... w> "'w u ... ~ ... <-Oz .~~ DESCRIPTION :10 Zw U
SOIL TEST
w c c ~ ~O~~V~~ __ ~~ __ ~ __ ~ __ ~ ____ --~--------------------;-----~----~~ -c
:
-,
-
5'-
--
--
10-
--
--
15-
-
: j XIX 12 li2
11~: 9 124
TOPSOIt.: Brown CLAY, !v1.oist to
Wet., Soft with Organics.
BEDROCK: . SANTIAGO FORMATION:
White 'GJ;'ey Sandy Cr"AYSTONE/Clayev
SANDSTONE, Moist;, Very S·tiff,
!-1ass,ive, with Reddish Staining.
IATTERBERG LIMITS
-+---+,----f--r---I--1--.-----~ -~---~
--
20-
-
25-
Light Green "CLAYSTONE, Moist,
Stiff, ReO. Staining, Jointed and r,. .. I
Slightly Fractured. ~X~ANSION TEST
X i'./" I '. 0 0 ~IEVE ANALYS'IS
8 ~ 16 112 @18 Joint N63 E, 90 ~YDROMETER 'TES,'l' '
@' 25'Green Remold~d'CLAY Seam,
1" Thick N30 E ISO W . , . , "
Wet and Soft •
·1AXIMUM DENSI.TY . ~ONSOLIDATI()N .
DIRECT SHEAR
(Remolded) ,-'
.....-, ......... -I---f--I----I---~ -..;,-.. ----..------.~ - -----,~
30-
--.
35-
-
.
POINT LOMA FORMATION: Green G,re'
C.layey SILTSTONE ,Moist, Very
1.5 ~ 18 Stiff, Jointed 0 0
@ 28' J8ints N30 W6 40 Ni E-W,
85 S, E-W, 68 N.
@ 29' Cemented bayer, 8" Thick
@ 32' Joint N70 E, 62 S
@ 34' Less JbintingMore Massive
Gypsum Seams
,40 -f--f--'---f---f---' '-' ---' -----------
JOB NO~: S1)1163-00 I LOG. OF BORING'
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERIN~ INC,
I.
1
I
'1
I:
1
1
1
'·1
1
,I,
I
I'
I·
I
I
1
1
I
)
-"
DATE O~SERVED: 4-13-82 METHOD OF DRILLING: , ,
,24.11 Bucket AUg€J;"
,
LOGGED BY: ' KS GROUND ELEVATION: 2 3 ~ , ± LOCATION: See Ha};l
" z p 0 I-,C W ->~
~ 0 W .... w-' eto BORING NO . 2 . W 0 CDw a. a: .... Co. W :E "" ·0 .,. a: .... ;:)1-w .... (CONTINUED)
~ Ai:
..... ;:)0.' C I-z o~ ,SOIL TEST
.% ;. I-:E en en w (i) 'en,c -I-c_
I-een ~ Oz .... en a. en 0 .... :EO a.z DESCRIPTION W c ...... z ;:) 'zw C ~ CD ~ CD 0 -c
4-[X C:><: "
-15 15 106 Black Grey Clayey, SILTSTONE,
-Moist, Very Stiff Massive
@ 42' JObnts with Gyps~~ NS o E, , 0 45 Ei ~15 W, 56 E -
45-@ 45' Cern~nted Laye,:r.-, 3" Thic)c
· Horizontal
· -
·
50--~ ,
.
-
Total Depth 51'
No Water,
55-NOcCaving
--
"-
80-
-, ·
· , '.
85-r "J
.. -
70-,' --
75-
.
, " ,
~ '.
80-
JOB NO.: SDl163-001 LOG OF BORING 'IF,iGURE: B-5
$AN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I
-I·
I
I
I
I
,I
-I.
-I.
I
I·
'1
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
DATE OBSERVED: 4-14-82 'METHOD OF DRILLING:_~2,.;;4i..:.!_' .... Bo/.J-uoI.lc ..... ko..le ... tI.....Ac,.lJ.j.l!!j.rg.we.r ___ -'--
+ . LOG'GED ~Y: _KS . GROUND ELEVATION:. 308' -LOCATION: . See. Map
Z ~ 0
W -~ .. W -~ 0 . -~ :z: l-e;;
a. 0
W < Q' 5 1-0 -
I-0 0
"'" .... 0 .~
0 -' CD
~ ~ >~ -.. ' £1:0 a. W_ Qa. BORING NO.-:E £1:1-_
< ~ffi ~> o ~I-<!:: ~ Oz -'0 -' :E 0 a. z DESCRIPTION :;:) ,,, ZW CD .., . _Q
3 . _
SOIL TeST
--
'l'OPSOIL: Light Brown Clayey EXPANSION TES·T .
1--....... ---1--....... -+---+-.....-4...1'... SAND, _ Dry, Loose STEVE AN:t\J,:..YSIS
: B ..... E-D-R-O-C;-.K--· -: ";;"'S;-'A-N-T-I-A-G-O-F-O-RMA--T-I--O-N-"': --....... DIRECT SHEAR
-
5..;:
10-
15-
25-
--
.
.30-
-. -
18 X X 10 109 Li.ght Ye;Llow-Green Fine-MEldium
SANDSTONE, Moist, Medium Dense
with Orange -Staining.
12 ~
@6.5' Green Clay' s~am, 1/4~' ThicJ
Horizontal; Not continuous
@10' Cross Bedding Approxitnat(~l~PIRECT ,SHEAR
7 110 Horizontal <
9 XX 13 113 221' Clayey Layer, 2" Thick,
Undul-ates
'~XIMUM pENSITY
CONSOLIDATION
DIRECT SHEAR
(Remoldedr
DIRECT _ SltEAR.
l5~ 9 05
fcl24' Clayey Layel:', 8" Thick,
Undulates
DIRECT SHEAR
-1---4--I'--- --I------ - ---. -----. --------------
Light Green CLAYSTONE, Moist, 1
_ Very Stiff, Massive
40 -I--f--I---I--~ ------------------..-...-...---
·J.C)B NO.: SDl163-00 I "LOG OF BORING _.
SAN DIE(iO SOILS ENGINE~RING. INC.
,
,I
1
1
1
I,
'I
1
I
I
-I
I
1
1
DATE OBSERVED: 4:-14-S2
, -METHOD OF DRILLING: 24': Bucket Auger
l:OGGED BY;. KS GROUND -ELEVATIO~: 30B'±' LocATION: See Map
'z ~ 0 w >~ -~, 0 it t;. 0 W ..I rto BORING NO._ 3 w 0 CDw I),. w_ 01),. w iC :E rt ... ~ 0 ~ .rt..l ~z 1iJ-(CONTINUED) .... , -:0... ~Q; C' 0> SOIL TEST LI. (I) '''':E (I) "'w % 'w ~ ~c ~ ... ct:: ... =-:: Oz ..1(1) I),. (I) 0 0(1) ..I :Eo I),.z DESCRiPTION w -c ..I Z ~ zI.U 0 5 CD ~ CD 0 -0
4 ... --
~ '< -16 13 110 -
',--@42' Green CLAYSTONE l;..ayer,
-: l' Thick, Approximately
-Horizontal, Mass~ve
-@43.5 ' Bec1ding_N-S, S W
45-@44' Green CLAYSTONE Layer., 1-'
· Thi'ck" Mass-ive, N-S, Sow
'.
· :
..,
50-,
.: 16 D< [X-' a 109
..
"
'---
55
--
-Total Depth 55' .
'.,. No Water "
8t;)-No Caving
.' -
..,
..,
85-· -... \
\
70 ....
..,
'"
~ ,
.75"'"
·
. 80-
JOB NO.:SPl163-00 I lOG OF BORING , -I F:,IGURE: ~:-7
. SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
'I
DATE 08SERVED: _____ 4-..... 1., _. !)"-o' -_·.8_2 ________ METHOD OF DRILLING:' ___ 2,....~ 4 ...... _B_U_c .... 'k_e_' _t___.A..;;.:u...::f.g...;:;$..:;r _____ --'--'-
, LOGGEp BY:, KS
Z .1-0 W ;::: 0 ~ 0 w. .... W 0 m'w .D. . 'W .a: .... :E LI. (,) Lt. -~, .... .:;:, D. c·
X ·tn I-:E tn ,~ !!lc I-tn .~
D. tn 0 .. otn 5 ,w, c .... ,z 0 6 m ;:) ~
1-0. ..
-
-
-
6 ....
..
-'
10 ...
-
-
-
.GROUND ELEVATION:. 182 I ± L()¢ATION: O:ffsi -ee
>'~ ,..
wit a:(,) a: ..... OD.
:;:,1-..,
w> t-z
tnW (,)1--I-c_
Oz .... tI) D.z :EO ZW (,) -0
BORING NO.4
DESCRIPTION
BEDROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION;
whi tE~~-Light Green Silty, Fine
SANDSTONE ,Mois·t, 'Medium bense
Massive, with ReQ, Staining
@ 8 '-9 '. Light Green Silty CLAY-
STON~, Moist, Very §tiff
.@13 '-14' Li.ght Green Ciayey SILT-
STONE, M:oist, Hard
15:'"
15 !XX 11 110 -
-
20-
'-.
-.
-
26-
-
.'
: 30-' .
--
•
~23 I Green Clay Seam, 1/2" Thick,. Horizontal
12 ~ll
~27' Horizontal Bedding
.' ~281-30' Green Brown Silty CLAY-
STONE
36-t--... ·· ...... ~....;f---~-1--1---- ---~ -----:--'
.'
~ight Green Silty CLAYSTONE, with
Pine Sand Lenses, Moist, Very
~tiff, Occasional Fractures w~th
18 110 ~mall Slicks, Massive
LOG OF BORING
SOIL TE$T
IFIGURE: B-:13
SAN, DIEGO SOILS ENGI,.EERING. INC.
I·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I·
I
I
I
I. '.,
I
I
I
I.
.DATE OS'SERVED: 4-15-82 . METHOD OF DRILLING: 2·4 " Bucket. Auger
KS 18-2 ' + Offsite ' ,
LOGGED BY: -' GROUND ELEVATION: ,LOCATION,:
·z .
p 0 I-0 W 'ii >G:
.~ 0 W ...I a:o BOR'ING NO. 4 W 0 ~~, a. w_ Oo. W 2 a: w ..... (CONTINUED) II. 0 '" :':)0-e :':)1-...... 'u: ... I-z 0> SOIL TEST UJ 1-2 CI) UJW .::r: 0; ~ UJe' -l-e!: I-laII: Oz ...IUJ '0-CI) 0 'QUJ ...I O-z ,DESCRIPTION W e ...I z :':) 20 ZW 0 ~, CD :':) CD 0 -~ ~ ... : ' '
.' --, -"
-.
45-
-
-
-
-I--.... : I--I----.-----------....:.--f-.-f-O. -f----50-15 [X [X 10 109 Light Green Medium SANDSTONE, -iMoist, !-1edium Dense, MC!.ssive -
@53'&55' Cemented Zones, 61! Thick
Horizontal, with Gypsum Seams
55 .-1---,---~-f----~--------~--iBlue Grey Silty Fine-Medium SAND-~TONE, Moist,' Medium Dense, .-Massive "
80-: 19 ~ 119
,
10
,
. '
., "-
;85..,.
I -..
10 .
--. -
, -Total Deptb 70'
No Water , No Caving
75-
o.
-,
-
80-
'JOBNO;: SDl163-001 LOG OF' BOR~NG , . (FIGURE: B-9
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I
I
I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
:DATE OBSERVED: ,,4 -16":' 8 2 2 4" ,Bu, cket Auger MET·HOD OF DRILLING: ______ .-...:., .o..-__ -:...:.~~ ___ ....,.-. __
LOGGED BY:" RG ,. GROUND ELEVATION: 18'0' ± LOCATIO~: See Map
·z ~ 0 W >~ ;::: 0 .-~ 0 'W -' wit a:o BORING NO., 5 W 0 CDW· Q. a: .... OQ. W 2 u,.' . (.) u.. a:.-, ~t-w .... -i&: .... ~Q. < t-z 10.> ::t: (I) ~2 (I) (l)w' <!:: it) ~ ~.< -t-~ ... ~ Oz '~~ Q. (I) '0 0(1) -' DESCRIPTION W < -' . z, ~ 20 Zw )
~ cj CD :::;I CD '0 ~o , .
~O
'-B:g!DROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION;
-White'to Light Yellow SANDS.r;rONE t
Mottled; Moist; Medium Dens~ . -.
18 106
-
-+--~-..:.---I----t--f--'------:-------~ --. _ . Grey SILTSTONE, Moi$t, Sof·t,
Fractured . . .
10-t---~5 -Ir-"" .• I-~ -. ---I------' ----------,.. ,~ - -~ 27 95 Dark Reddi.sh Brown CLAYSTONE, ' :
Moist to Wet, Firm to Stiff,
Fractured, with slight Seepage, '
4---"iI--....... --..-I---+-....... I-----l1\ in Fr acture s
~------~--~~------------~
15 ....
20-
-.
25,:"
-
-
:i
-
30-
. ~
co
-
-
35-
~
-
.
·40-
POINT LOMA FORMATIONi 'Green-
Ye.110w Gray SILTSTONE, Mo;ist to
Wet, Stiff, Massive @ 13' Contact,
, ---t--f.-o.----r\N690E t ·SoSE. '. --------------Gray CLAYSTONE t. Moist to Wet,
Stiff, Fractured with Seepage in
, 14 XIX 12 120 'Fractures, Gypsum Seams '
16~. 12. 105
@22' Color grades to Purple arid
Grey, Seepage Confined to
North Side ,of Hole
@30' Seepage Ends
@38' Grey SahdySILTSTONE, Joint, :N65~W, 24 oNE
SOIL 11;ST
'.
DIRECT SHE.AR
JOB NO~:SDi163-00 I LOG OF BORING 'lFIGURE: B~ld
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. -INC.
I
I
I
.1
I
'1
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
..
DATE OBSERVED: 4"';lb""'~2 . METHOD oF' DRILLING: -24" -Bucket
RG 180' + See MaE LOGGi:D BY: GROUNDELEVAT'Ot.f: LOCATION:
-f: -z-... 0 w >~ 0 # -t= 0 w -' a:() BORING NO. 5 w '0 .alw G.-w ..... OG. W i( ~ a: ... LI. () LI. a:-, jz w ..... (CONTINUED) .... i:i: " jG. < "'w ()~ :r: m ... ~ m
i.i ~ !2< !!l ... <-t-~ Oz -'m G. m 0 -om -,. :EO G.z DESCRIPTION w < -' z j Zw ..
0 6 al j al () -0. ~4.,.. '18 ~ ~10 -17 ' .
...
.... ~--f----I---,-"-- - ---, -.----:" ---------. _ Dark Grey to Black SILTSTONE,
, ~oist, Hard, Massive. . ° .
-
-
-
-
50.-6 '!XI>< 14 102
55-
-
14 t5< -14 107
80-
-
80-,
JOB NO.:SDl163-00 I '.
~ontact E-W 4 Ni Seepage at Con-
~act. ~oint N400W, 90°
Total Depth 58'
Se~page at 10'-30'&43'
No Caving
LOG OF BORING
"
Auger.
.
SOIL TEST
.'
t)IRECT SH~AR
IFIGURt;: B-:-11
SAN DIEGO SOilS ENGINEERIN(i, INC.
I
DATE OBSERVED: 4 -16 -S 2 MET.ffOD OF DRILLING: . -2·4" Bucke.t Auger I
I
I
I
LOGGEpBY: KS GRQOND, ELEVATION: 160' ± LOCATION: See :Map
I'
I
I
I'
I-
I"
I
I~
I
I
--
--
5-
-
-
--
·
10-
-
--
-
16-
-
· --
. 20 .....
-
· ·
·
25-
--
·
·
:30-
I 35'""
-
~
40-
19 106
10 rz IS ~10
16 g lS 1L11
23~ IS I-OS
I-
I JOB NO.: SOll63-001
BORING NO. ---::.,6_
DESCRIPTION
BEDROCK: POINT LOi-fA, ,FORMATION;
Green Grey Clayey SILTSTONE,
Moist, Stiff to Very Stiff, with
Orange Staining, Slightly
Fractured
@7' Joint N150E, 5SoE
@S' Joint N22oW, 5SoNE
@13' Gypsum Seam ~" Thick
Horizontal
@17' More Massiv~, Very Stiff
@23 ,'-26' Many Gypsum Seams l/S"
to 1/2"
LOG OF BORING
SOIL TEST
STEVE-ANALYSES
HYDROMETER TEST
ATTERBERG LIMITE
DIRECT SHEAR
IFIG,URE: .. B-12.
SAN DIEGO SOIL$ ENGINEERING. INC.
I'
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
I
'I
, '
DATE OBSERVED: , 4-16-8.2 METHOD OF DR,ILLiNG: 24"-Bucket Auger
+
LO~GED BY: KS GROUN,b ELEV~TION: 160' -LOCATION: S,ee Ma:r;2
z I-0 'w >~' r:: 0 .....
w ~ 0 w .;A w! a:o BORING, NO. 6 0 CDw ~ o~ w :E ' a: .... 1.1. 0 '" a:'-, ::;)z w .... (CONTINUED) .... .... ::;)~ c -
:t Ai: 0 I-:E (I.) ,I-w 0> SOIL TEST
;; ~ !ec ~I-c!: , 'I-:.= Oz -'(I.) ~ 0 0 00 -', :EO ~z DESCRIPTION w C -' Z ::;) '0 ~, CD ::;) CD 0 Zw -0
4 ~ · 23 18 ~O~ DIRECT,' SHEAR ~ "-.,,-
.'
-@43'-47' Seep9-ge in Joints 'to
Contact @ '47'
45-
.-~-t---1---~ --~~------:--Grey Black SILTSTONE, Moist, -Hard, Massive -' .. ' -,
60 ....
.
65-
Total ,Depth 51'
Seepa~e at·43'-47'
No Caving
'.
-"
80-
-
· ,
85-
· --
70-'
:
75-
, .
-
, .
80-
JOB NO':SDli63-:00 I , LOG OF BQRING IFIGURE:, B-13
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
I
:1
I
I
.DATE OB$ERVED:--,-.;;.. . ..:. 6, ,_-..;..7 ..... -..;;.8.;...2 ___ -.-METHOD QFDRILLING; _' ____ -2_~4_--rr_'_B_u_c_k_e_t..;;.. _. A_u~q __ e __ r ______ _
'lOGGE,p BY: KS GROUND ELEVATION: 104' ± LOCATIOl!l: See Map,
z ... P .. 0 w ~ '0 w 0 .101. u· LIo -i&: ....
%. en ... ,;; ~ .Q. en 0 w <. ..I 0 (j' III
~O
-
-
-CL
-
5-2 -
0 w -W ..I wit CDw Q.' G:-G:..I. 2 :::) ... :::)Q. '< ... z 1'-2 en et)w ~< -.... !II: Oz oen ..I 20 Z :::)
:::) 'CD (,)
[XX 20,
>~ a:u OQ. w, ....
u> <!:: ..let) Q.'z
ZW -0
BORING NO. 7
DESCRIPTION
ALLUVIUM: Dark Olive Brown
Silty CLAY, Moist, Soft
SOIL TEST
100 MAXIMUM DENSITY
-+--+ _I--....... _ ... _,_1-.-_1--__ -...:.. __________ ' ______ CO:NSOLIDATION
. Reddish Bro"!u Silty CLAY, MO'ist S,IEVE ANALYSlS -
-'
10--:-
..:
-
--
15-
--
-
20-
-
25-
..
30-
..
·
35-
·
·
5 ~ ,20 lQ6
5 XIX21 103
21 104
6 ~. p'9, 105
D..S' . X rx 20 ~02
Soft . HYDROMETER "
ATTERBERG LIMlT[;
!BEDROCK: POINT LOMAFORMATION;
Dark Grey Sandy SILTSTONE I !I~ottle a .
~ith Red-Brown Staining, Moist,
Firm to Stiff, Fractured. ~27' Less Weathered
@38' Cemented Layer
~--+_-+---I_-+-_"""_~V Total Depth 3 9.' No Wat~r
40 .... No Cavl.ng
JOB NO.: SDl163-00f. LOG OF BORING . I FIGuRE: B-14.
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEeRING. INC.
. i
I,
I
I
I
I'
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
'1
DATE OBSERVED:
'LOG~ED· BY: KS
, . ,z t-e p 0 0 W W ~ 0 IDw w "" ,() "". 0:..1 .... ii: .... jG,.
::c 0 "':1
t-e;; 3: ~< .G,. 0' 0 .00
W C ..I Z 0 ..I CD. j
1-0 .() ..
-
-
-
-
5-eL ~ 5
-
10.,-
-
w,
..I. G,.
:E c VJ
:ill:: ..I j
ID
6 -7 -8 2 METHOD OF DRILLING: _-=2-=4_"-=B:..:u::.;c:;k.:.;e=-.t.::.....;A:..:.;:u:.02g.=e:,:r:....;.'--__ .,...-
-+ GROUND ELEVATION: 106 I -LOCATION: See Map.
-..... >-~ ~~~f BORING NO. --:;,8 _____
jt-w ....
I-ffi () >-~t-ct:-
Oz ..10 :I 0 G. z DESCRIPTION () ZW -0
18 ~Ol
!ALLUVIUM: Brown'Silty CLAY, Moist,
Soft
SOIL TEST
~ontact App;roximately N6S oE, loo:r:m
-+--+ -h--f---I----I---~ -' --.--------:. ----'-. -~ight Olive Brown Silty CLAY,
~ottled, Moi'st, Soft
15-
3 X X 24 93 GONSOLIQATION
-
20-
--.
25-
-
--
-
30-
-
~
35-.~
I _
-
40-
JOB ~O.: SD1163:"'001
110
~EDROCK: POINT LOMA FOR~TIONi
par],c Grey-B+ack Silty. SA~DSTONE ~
~oist, Medium Dense to Dense,
~ith.Orange Staining
@23 1 Cemented Lens, 3" Thick,
Dense Below r
~30 I
@36 1
Seepage begins
water Standing in Hole
lOG OF eORING . IFIGURE:B-:-15 . '1
, SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC._.~
I
. -
I' DATE 9BSERVED: 6-7-82 METHOD OF DRILL,ING: 24" Bucket Auger, .
~S 106' + Ma12 LOGGeD BY: GRO,UNO ELEVATION: -LOCATIO,N: See
I
I.
z ... 0 ·W >ti: ~. 0 ,..
w ~ 0 W .i.I w! Ito BORING NO. 8 w 0 IIIw' G. It ... OG.
&I. 0 &I. It...l ~ -(CONTINUED) :;)G. < :;)z w> -iA: .... "'w SOIL TEST
l: ; "':E 0 .0 ...
iii ~< ~ ... <-... lI: Oz ...10 G. 0 0 a(/) ...I :EO G.z I)ESCRIPTION w < ...I Z :;) Zw ,0 ~ III :;) III 0 -0
<4 I Dark Grey ,Black Silty SANDSTON;E
Moist, Medium Dense to Dense --~
I J!
<45-
'I Total ,Depth 43'
Water at 3'0 '
I,
, -No Caving ., .-
1 -50-
I
I ,55..,. -<.
I ·
-\
I 80-,
-
I -,
85--
I -
.:.
· I .,
70~ .
,
I -
I 75""
'I · ,
:
I 80-..
JOB NQ.:SDl163-00 I LOG OF BORING , , ,-, ' ... IlnGURE: B,..16
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
·1
·1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'1
I
I·
I
I
'I
I
I
I
~
b '~":"~2 ..
DATE OB.SERVED:. METHQI;) OF DRILLING: 2·4" :eucke.t Aug:er
~OGGED ElY: 'kS GROUND ELEVATION:· 125' + :2fl!iil MaL!
. , -LO~ATION:
,z t-'0 W >~ P 0 .....
~ 0 W ,.;I we 0:0 BORING NO. 9 w 0 /XIw ~ OCL ,w ~ 0: .... &I.. 0 &I.. 0:..1: ::)z 'w .... .... i&: ..... ::) CL, < t-w 0> 'SOIL TEST :t 0 t-~. 0 ;; ~ ~< !2t-<I: t-:.:: Oz ..10 'CL 0 0 ,00 ..I CLZ W < ..I Z ::) ~o Zw DESCRIPTION
0 cJ /XI ::) /XI Q -0 -0
-ALLUVIUM: BrQwn Silty-CLAY,
" Moist'" 80ft -
---
5,-tx 3 20 105
.,~
-
l
10-~ BEDROc:::K: POINT LOMA FORMA;TION;
6 21 103 Dark Green Brown Clayey SILT-
STONE, Moist, Stiff to Very Stif . -. Fractured
@ll' Less Weathered
15-, :~ @15' Wet
6 19 106
.
t
20-
',"'" f,---~ fo----...:.-----..--------
.,. Dark Grey Black SILTSTONE,
Saturated, Very ?ti.ff, Fractured
25. .' --Total Depth 25'
30-Water at 22'
No Caving .-
I '. f
-. ,.
35'-
-
40-
JOB NO.: SDI i'6 3-0 0 I LOG OF BORING I~IGURE: B-,17
SAN' DIEGO' SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
,I
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
IjATE OBSERVED: . ,6 -1 0 - 8 2 METHOD OF DRILLING: _~--=2::.,' 4.=..'_' ""'" B=u.:::c;::.:k~e:..:t:...,· ~A.=.:u~g:;t;e::::..r=--_.....o----.,.
+ ~ROUND ELEVATION: 180' -LOCATION: ' See :G$btechnical Map LOGGED BY: SWJ,
z. P 0 ~ 'HI &&.. () -ii: " :t, t-ii' a. (IJ
W C, Q ~, ~o "
,.
-
-,
5-
-
~ ,Q
0 w
,~ 'CDw' G: ... .... :::>a.,
(IJ t-:E ~ !ec
0 Q(IJ
-' Z CD ,:;:)
W ;..I a. :E c (IJ
~ ..I: :)
CD
BORING NO. 10
DESCRIP,TION
3 Fe,et of Topsoil and 3 Feet of
Bedrock Removed. Boring Drilled
in Bulldozer Excavation
BEDROCK: SANTIAGQ FORMATlON;'
Yellow Brown to, Rust Medium SAND
-STONE
• . , @9 t Abrupt ,Color Change to Grey.
10-' v • White . ,
15-
-
~o
-: -
25-
@9 .. S,t arm1n Oxidized Bed NSOoW,
I-.-I--i'------,....I--10 sw
@lo' Brown SANDSTONE ,L--____ --.,;. -----. _'_ -. -'-------
I---f--+.--J.--.-+---I---I @11. 5 i She ared Grey S J;:LTSTCiNE .
\ with Stain~ng
BEPROC,K: PO:INT LeMA' FORMATION; .
, Grey CLAYSTONE, Wi t.h Yellow
Staining, Firm to Medium Stiff,
, Moist
Brown Sheared CLAY, N3SoW,
7SoSW. . °
Sheared CLAYSTONE,' N30' W ,
600 SW
@14'
@17'
Seepage on North Side of Borihg
@27' Shear Surface E-W' 220 S
@28' Shear Surface N806E,420S
. ,
30-
@31' Bedding E-W, 380 S
'"
@33'-39' vertical Joint; E-W
35-
@38'Seepage,, __ , ______ -"-V D~rk Grey SILTSTONE ~ Massive.
40 . -I--~-+---I---Stiff to Ver'i St;iff
JOB NO~:S,Pl163-00 I lOG OF BORING
80lL TE8T
. I FIGURE:e.-18
.SAN DIEGO SOI,LS ENGINEERING. INC.
I
'1
1
I
1
-I
1
. --I
I
I
1
-I
I
,-'1
I
1
·1
.. -
'DATE OBSEBVED:_~6_--.:!:1~O_-...l::8~2=---___ METHOD OF DRILLING: _--=2~4,--"--=B~u.:..:c::.:k~e:::.· -=t-:..;Au.u~g~e .... r_~~ ___ _
LOGGt:D BY~ SWJ
Z I-Q t:: 0 j::. 0 W w 0 mw w i( a:..1 ~ 0 LI.--u:: .... :;) 0. . (I) I-::E ~ ;;; ~ ~<C I-G. (I) 0 Qet)
W < ..I Z Q 5 m :;)
.-
~
-
---
45-
-"
;,.
-
50 ....
.~
. -
, --
55-
'-. --
.;
. 80-
7b-
75-
10-
W ..I 0. ::E
<C (I)
:.::. ..I :;) m
+ GROUND ELEVATION:. 18 0' -L,OCATlO~:
..... w~ .a:'1-:;)z I-w ~I-oz :Eo
0
I
>~ a:o Qo. w ....
0> <!:: ..let) G.z Zw _.Q
BORING NO. 10
(CONTINUED) "
DESCRt~tION
'Dark Grey SIL'l'STONE,Massive,
Stiff. to Very Stiff
Total pepth 4·8'
Seepage 17' -38'
No caving
SOIL TEST
JOB NO·:SDJ.,163-00 I LOG OF BORING I FIGURE: B-19
SAN DIEGO SQILS ENGINt:ERING, INC.
I
I
I
I·
I
1
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I,
I
DATE ·OBSERVED:___._---=4 ...... -..::2:.::8:...-..,::8-:.,:.2==--__ METHOD OF. DR'LLlNG: ______ 2.:;1.4r,.,.,"-· ...IBO!.IailJc""kE:l..hu.:Q~e __ ~_-__ ---
'LO~GED BY: KS
z ,0
~ ..
o u:: ~. en a. t/) w c
t-O W
() W ...I
0 CDw' a.
LL. a:...1 :Ii " '
:)0. C t/) ,t-:Ii t/)
·it ~c lie: 0 Ot/) ...I ...I z .. :)
:)
20'4' ± ~ROUND ELEVATION: LOCAtiON: See, Map
.... >~ walt a:o TEST PIT NO., 1 'a:-00. :)t-w ....
t-ffi 0> SOIL TEST ~t-ct:: Oz ...It/)
:Ii 0 o.z DESCRIPTION Zw 0 ~. CD -0' '.0 ...I _o··~·~o~.--~..._~~--_+----~-----...---------------------...----.-..----------------~----------------~
'.
,;..
..
6-
-
10-
15-
BEDROC;K: SANTIAGO FORMATION;
Bro.wnMo.ttl,ed SILTSTONE, Moist;.
Firm, Fractured, w·ith Yellow
Staining and GypSUIu Seams ~.,.~II •
@5'
@6'
@7'
Jo.int: o.' , NBO E, 85o.S'
Black Organic Seams (2),
Sh.ell Debris, NS, 4o.W
Hassive, Less Fractured,
To.·tal Depth 9. 5 '
Water No.
No. Caving'
witt
Stir If
, '.
• , ..
, 20-
.'
·
"
" ..
26-
-
·
30-
35-
-
.. 40-
JOB NO.: SDl163-ocl LOG 0'1= TEST· ,PIT !FIGURE: B-2 ()
SAN DIEGO $OILS ENGINEERING. INC.
I
I
I
'I
I
·1
I
I
I'
I
I
1
.1
I
1
I
I
DATE OB$ERV~D; __ ~~~-..::2:..::8:...-....:8:...:' 2=---:-___ MeTHOD . OFDRILLING: ___ ~2","4L.;1_' -,B~a~c!.<.Ak.uh~Q~e,-,, __ . __.----'--
LOGGED BY:' , KS
z I-0 ~ 0 0 W W ;= 0 CDW W c· iio.. 0 LI. 0:-, .... ,~ .... , :;) Q.'
:1:, f/) 1-::1
l-f/) ';c ~<
Q. f/) 0 Of/)
W < -' z a .... CD ':;)
1-0 0
-
-
W ..I Q. ::I < f/)
li: ..I :;)
CD
, +
GRQUNQ ELEV~TION: 226' -LOCATI9N: See ,Map -wljt,
0:"'" :;)1-
I-Z f/)W -I-Oz ::10 o
>tL 0:0 OQ.
LIJ-
0> <t::: ..If/)
AoZ
ZW -0
TEST PIT NO.· 2
DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL:' Light Brown CLAY, wet,
\., Soft
BEDROCK: SANTIAGO FbRMATIONi
Light Green Grey, with Yel10w .
-+--+-f--,4~..--+-----(Staining, Clayey Sandy SILTSTONE,
6-~ \ Moist, Stiff., Massive with '
,. \ Fractures, and Gypsum' Seams'
-+---~-f,o--"""--f--I---t - - --' - - -----
-
-
10-
~
,-
-
-
16-
'-:
--
-
20-
--
-
25-
-
-
, .
30-,
.
-
-
35-,'
-
-.
40-
JOB NO':SD i163-00 I
~ight Green White' Fine Sandy' " I \SILTSTONE, Moist, Stiff', MassivE'
Total Depth 7'
No Water
No Caving
LOG' 'OF TEST Pit
SOIL TEST
'IFIGURE: B-2l
.SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING,INC.
-,
I
I
I
I,
I,
I
I
I
I
'I
I
1
DATE oBSERVED: _____ 4_-_2_B_-_B_2_-_---METHOD OF DRILLING: __ !:.2~4.-."",-. =B:,l::a~·c::.-!.k~h~o::!.!e""-' '_..,._-----'----"--
~OGGEp· BY: KS G~OUND ELEVATIQN: 168' :t l,:OCATION:: S'ee Map,
z ~ :0
W ~ W
"" (.) .... ,ii: :c I-,en
A-U)
W C
I-0 w 0' w ....
0 CDw A-
U;, It .... ~ .... ;:)A-c'
(I) I-:E U)
~ ,~-<, !-' 0 0(1)' .... .... z ;:)
TEST PIT~ NO._·3:::-
DESCRIPTION
0 .... '
~o (.) CD ;:) 'CD
TOPSOIL: Red-Brown Silty CLAY, -~-+~+-~--~---+--~~'Moist, Soft '-----~--------------------~----~ -
~ ..
5
BEDROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION;
Light Green Siity CLAYSTONE,
Moist to Wet, Firm to Stiff
--
----r-~"--r--i'.weather~ith ~w~ottlin~ ',"
~Light Green Clayey SILTSTONE;
-+---+ __ -r-. _,.--I-__ Moist, Stiff to Very Stiff
~~ --------. """'"':----,-
10..;-~ Brown SILTSTON;E, Moist 1;:.0 Wet,
~ Firm with Yellow Staining,
+--If--...... -I'-~--+--ll'\.. Hor izontally Bedded. -
--
15...,.
-'
w
'w
-
,,20':"!'
-'
·
25-
·
·
30 ...
35-
Total Depth II'
No Water
No Caving
"
JO~N.O.: S,D 1163 -0 0 I LOG OF TESt PIT
SOil TEST
]FIOURE:, B .... 2Z
SAN 011;00 SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DATE OBSERVED: 4-28:....82 ~ETHOD OF DRILLING: 24" BackhOe. -.
-+ LpGGED BY: KS GROUND ELEVATION: 160' -LOCATION: See Ma12
.--. z· ,p-O I-0 w .... >~
~ 0 W ..I wilt a:(,) TEST PIT NO. 4 w. 0 ~,~ a., a: .... Oa. w :I . &., .(,) .... :;)1-"' .... ~ -~ " ::la., < I-Z (,»' SOIL TEST ':I: 0 1-:1 ct) ct) w .' <~ , ,
'~ ~!C -I-,..,. 0 lI: Oz ..10 .. . :a. 0 0 oct) ..I a.z , w < ..I' Z ,:;) :10 !* DESCRIPTION
0 '5 'CD .:::1 CD (,)
-0' TO'PSO'I;L: Brown C:{:,AY, Wet, SQft . -, BEDRO'CK: SANTIAGO' FORMATIO'N; -Light Green Grey CLAYSTO'NE, wi:th -Occasional Sand, Moist, 'Stiff,
Blocky, with O'range Staining
'5--
-@7' Massive, Very Stiff . .,' ,
, .
. " -'
~, -
10
..,
-
.: Total Depth 10'
15-No Water
-. No Caving
--
--
: 20-'
'. ,
,
25-.,
..
"-.
,
30-
,
, ,
" ' \'
:35-
-
. 40-
JO~ NO':SDl163-00 r . LOG OF tesT PIT , I.FIGURE: B-23
SAN DIEG.O SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I
I
I
1
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DATE OBSERVED:-'. _____ --=:4-'"-:'..::2:..::8:...-;.;;.8:..:2::........_~ ....... METHOD OF DRILLING: __ .;:·2:...,:4:...;.1_1 ~B:::.:a:::.;c:::.;k=h.:=:o..>=:e'---_~ ____ -'. ___ _
LOGGED BY: .KS + GROUND ELEVATION: . 1.5 5 I -LOC~TION.: 'See M<;lp
Z' ;:: 0
'W ~ W .&/" 0 -. ii: :t
I-m 'Q, UJ
W ...: 0 . ...1
1-0 0
-
-
-
-
I-0 0 w
0 ~w &/" . ...1 ... :;)Q,
UJ I-~ ~ ~< 0 ,OUJ
...I z m· :;) ..
> .... a: 1.1. of
'W-
0>· <!:: ...IUJ Q,z
ZW -0
tesT PIT NO.--=.5 ____
DESCRIPTION
BEDROCK: POINT LOUA FORMATION;'
Dark'Green-Black Grey, Fine Sandy
SILTSTONE, !-1oist, Very stiff to
Hard, Blocky.with Dark ~Gd'
5
.~ Staining and Gy~sgm Sea@s
~ __ +--+ __ ~~ __ ~~~'@41 Joint:. N72 E, 75 NW
-"
'"
·
10-
'.
·
15.,..
20-
--
· : -
25 ....
---.
30-
·
35-'
"
".
-
-
40-
JOB NO.: SDl163-00 I
Total Depth 51
No Water
No Caving
SOIL TE$T
\ '
I FIGU~E: B-2 4
~AN DIEGO SOILS~ ENGINEERING. INC.
I
I'
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
, DAtE OBSERVED: 4-2-8-82 METHOD OF DRILLING: 24", Backhoe .. ,
+
LO,G~ED BY: KS GROUND .ELEVAT!ON: 178 '. -LOCATIO~: See MaE
" z t-o w > .... . ,
'P 0 ....
j:; 0 ,W ..I W#. 0:"" TEST PIT NO. w 0 .. lIlw a.. 0:-o~ .' 6 w '< ,~ LI.. Q "" 0:..1 ;:).t-w--. u: .... ;:)0.. t-Z Q> SOIL TEST .0 t-:I 0 0 w :c iii ~ ~< -t-<t-.... ~ Oz ..1-a.. 0 0 00 ..I o..~ DESCRIPTION w < ..I Z ;:) :10 ~~ ,
Q ' ..... III ';:) III Q
~o Q .. '. "-
-BE,iDROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION;
Light Green Grey, Sandy CLAY-' -STONE, Moist, Ver,y Sti~f, Red -Sta·ins, Mass.ive ' .
-
5-
,
-
" ,
. ,
10-
-. Total. D'epth 7 '
No Water
No Caving
,15-
· -
20-
-
"
"
25-
,"
"
30-
·
35-
,
-
·
4Q-'.
JOB NO.: SDl163-00 LOG OF TESt PIT IFIGURE: B-25 --SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I
'I-
I
I:
I
I
I'
I'
I
I
I
I
I
,I
'I
I
I
,.-. 4-28-82 24" Backhoe DATE 'OB~ERVED: METHOD of' DRILL}NG:
KS 115' + ' ,
~OGGEI;) ,~Y: GROUND ELEVATION: .., LOCATION: See Map
¢ ,z t-o W >~ 0 'it ~ 0 W -' a: ' TEST PIT NO. 7 W ·0 CDw. Q. w,_ of W a:t-lot.. u ~ a:..;I ~ ::)'Z w--ii: ' ~ . ::) Q.' < t-, . u·> SOIl;. TEST l: tn 't-~ tn tn W 0 ~ ~< -t-<!: t-~' Oz -'tn Q. tn 0 otn -' Q.z W < -' z ::) ~o ZW DESCRIPTION
0 -' CD ::.') CD U u. ,. -0 -Q -
ALLUVIUM: Brown CLAY, Moist, . -Firm, with OrgaI).ics and Root -Ho1~s '--
5-
~ ~ ,
~
10 .. ' -
BEDROCK: POINT LOMA FO~TtON;
~
~ark BrQwn SILTSTONE, Moist,.
. ard, Massive~ Blocky
~
15-
Total Depth 11'
No Water -No Caving
~o-
---
, ~
25-..
,30-
-
. .
,35-·
--
.
40-
JOB NO.: SD11.63-00 ! LOG OF TEST Pit !F,IGURE: '13-26
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
-I
·1
I
I
I
I
I
·1
'1
I
I
DATE OBSERVED: __ ....; 4._--_~:s-_-_8_2-,. ___ METHOD OF DRILlING:_....,.. ____ · ::.2.:.4_II--=:::B·.::::a:.:::c;!.!k:.:..:h:!::o~e=---___ --",-
LQGGED BY:
..... I-W W ~, ....
::t ....
G. W 0
1-0
-
-
-
-
, 5-
-
:-
--
10-
-
-
-
-
15'
,..
20-
-
*.
'.
25-
--
-,
:JO-
-
35-
-
-
40-
z. I-0 ~ O·
0
U "" u: .... 0 (;) ~ th 0 C -I -I CD u_
KS
0 W ,W -I
IIlW G. :I: a::-I' :::>G. c 1-:1: 0 ~c lII:: 00 -I Z :::> ::» . III .
;,
GRQUNO'ELEVATION: 106' ± 'LOCATION: See -Map
> ....
a::"" O~ W .... u> c!: ...10 G.z
ZW -0
TEST PIT NO. 8.
DESCRIPTION .
-ALLUVIUM: Brown Clayey Fine
,SAND, Moi~,t, Loqs'e/Sil ty C:LAY,
Moist, Soft to Firm.
Total Depth 15'
No Water
No Caving.
SOIL TE'ST
JOB NO.: SDl16.3:--ool ' LOG. OF TEST PIT '. IFIGURE:' B-2?
SAN DIEGO, SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
1
I
I
'I
1
I
:1,
~I
I
'I
I,
I
I
4-28_-82 DATE OBSERVED:_---=~"_!.L="'"_ __ _ METHOD OF DRILLING: 24 11-Backho.e
LOGGED BY: KS GROUND ELEVATION: 128' + -'LQCATION: See Map
..... '>~ wit -a:o TEST PIT NO. 9 a:-OA-:)~ w ..... ~z 0> (/)w ct: -~ Oz, .... (/)
::EO A-z -DESCRIPTION
.... ' z .0 'w 0 ~ ~ 0 'W' .... ' III ~ 0 mw A-w a: .... ::E "-0 I&. -.... ii: .... :)A-C
it 0 I'-::E ,f/i ,-~ 0 I'-(/) _c lie: A-(/) 0 00 .... w c .... z :)
0 .... m ::;) CD 0' zw, " -0
A~LPVIUM: GreY,Bro.wn Silty CLAY, -Q 0
-Moist'to. Wet" So.ft '-
-
-
5 ....
WEATHERED BEDROCK: POINT L014A
~ 1M II'ORMATIONi Bro.wn Grey SILTSTONE, 10~,-~-+-+-~-~----+-~ I\Mo.ist, So.ft ,
............ I--+-....... +---+-....... I-"""""t ' , ~BEDIWCK: 'POINT LOMA FORMATJON;
15':"
· -
20-
--,
·
25-
-
.'
30-
I,
·
,35-'
-
40-
JOB NO.: SDl163-0Q
~rey SILTSTQNE, Mo.ist, Hard
To.tal Depth II' _
Cemented, Refusal
No. Water
No. Caving
LOG O-F TEST PIT
SQIL TEST
I FIGURE: , B~28
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
,
"
DATE QBSERVED: 4-2'8-82 METHOD OF p'RiLLING: 24" Backhoe', . , ,
~ " ,+ LOGGED BY: KS GROUND: ELEVATION: 1'18 ' LOCATION: Se~ Mag
,p z .-0 > .... ,
0 w .. ,~ 0 W ;.J, a;:&L., TEST PIT NO~ w 0 CDw Q. W ... of 10 'w ~ a:.-Lt.. &L. 'a:..I ~; ... () .... ':;) Q. 'C, :;)z ,ir: ' 0 ,~~ rn '-w ;SOIL TEST l: ii5 ~ ~< !(l.-<!: . .-' ~ Oz ..10 ,Q. 0 0 00 ..I 20 Q.z DESCRIPTION' w -.: ..I z :;) Zw 0 ..I 'CD ,':;) CD ()
() -0
~o .
ALLUVIUM: Brown Grey Silty CLAY, -, ' Moii3t to Wet, Soft"to Firm -
:
,
5-
~'
: .., -.
10-"
~
" ;
..
15'""
, , Total Del?th 14'
No Water .
. 20-' No caving
-'
.
'25-
30-
/
"
"-
. ' 35-
..
40..,. -..
JOB NO.: SDl163-00 I LOG OF tEst PIT ~, IFIGURE: B-29
$AN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
'I
I'
1
I
I
DATE OBSERVED: 4-28-8'2 METHOD OF DRILLING: 24" Backhoe ...
+ LOGGED BY: KS GROUND Et,I;VAT~ON: 153' -LOCATION.: See MaE ..
Z .... Q W' >~ S 0 -~ '0 W .J' w~, IXU TEST P'IT NO., 11 w 0 :lIlw ~ IX .... Q~
LI. U LI. IX.J ~. ::;)1-w .... ..... iA: .... ::;)~ < I-Z u> SOIL TEST :t I/) 'I-~ ft.) 'ft.)w iii ~ !!l< o~ <!:: I-:.= .J.ft.). ~ I/) 0 QI/) .J ~z DESCRiptiON ,w lie .J Z ::;) ~o !:"~ Q ..I III :;) III U U 1-0 .. ..
ALLOVIUl'1: Grey Brown Silty CLAY,
-~oist, Soft-
,
-
6-
-
-'
-.. , : -:
10-
-@11' Seepage
.. ;
-
-
16-
-
• Total Dept'h 12'
Seepage @ 11'-12'
" No Caving -
. 20-
-
·
·
26-
, ,:
-
30-,
--..
,
35-
I
·
·
, 40-,
JOB NO.: S'D1163-0ol
.. OF TeST IFIG~RE: :13-30 LOG. PIT ..
$AN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC .. '
I:
,I:
I,
I,
'I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I,
,I
DATE OBSERVED: 4 ... 28-82 METHQQ ~FQRILLING: . 24" Backhoe ---,
lOGGED BY: KS 165' + , See Map GROUND ELEVATION: -L9C~TION:
z' t-C UJ >~ -. 0 -. t-o W ..J w-a:o P'IT
,
W ~ 0 G'1w 0. a: .... Co. TEST NO. 12 ·w ~ LI. 0 ' . 'LI. a:..J ::;)t-w ....
, .... Li: ' ' .... ::;)0. < t-Z 0> SOIL TEST l: t/) t-~ t/) t/)w ' ,
iii ~ ~< -t-<t: t-~ Oz ..Jt/) ,0. t/)' 0 ,Ct/) ..J, A.;z W < ..J 'z ::i) ~O ZW DESCRIPTION
~ ..J G'1 ::;) G'1 0 0' -C t-P . ,
"
ALLUVIUM: Grey Brown Silty CLAY .,
, ,. -, Moist., Soft -"
-
-
5-c
, .
. -
-BEDROCK: POINT LOMA FORMATION;
-~ Grey SILTSTONE,. Wet, Stiff,
.' , Blocky @~' Seepage . , ,
10-
-
-.
, -
-
16~, Total Depth 7 •. 5'
: Water @ 6'-7.5 1
'-No Caving -
-
-
20-
:
' , -1
~6-
-
-~
, '
30-
-
-
-
36-
.
,
.
40-I
..
JOB NO.: SDl163-001 LOG OF TE,ST PiT 1 FIGURE: B-31
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
I
I , DATE OBSERVED: 4:-28-.82 METHOD OF DRILLING: 2~" Eackhoe
LO(3G~D BY; KS ~ROUND ,EL~VATIQN: 165' . ;!: ~OCATIO~: S~~· Ma.~ , .
.'1
I
'1
Z t-' 0 ,w >ti: i= 0 ....
~ "
0 W' ... w~ IXU . TE;ST Pit NO . 13 w 0 IDw a. IX .... Oa. ,~ .... ' ·IX....,· ,::E ~t-.... U w> .... i&: .... ~,a. .< t-Z $OIL TEST X 0 t-::E' 0 ~.~ Ut-i) ~ .~< <-t-~ Oz "'0 a. 0 0 00, ... a.z DESCRIPTION w < ' ... .Z :0 ::EO ZW 0 ... ID '~ ID U U -0 -0 ALLUVIU11.: Silty ,Brown Grey
\. CLAY, Moist, Soft -. -
BEDROC~: Green Grey SILTSTONE;
I -. \MOist, "Stiff, Blocky
5-
I . , --,
I -Dl:!pth Total 3'
10--NO Water
-No Caving
I.
I' 15-
I . ,"
-
-.' ,
I 20-
--
I --25-
I -:
~
.'
:1 -
30~
I
I 35-,
'I
' . , .
I .,.
40-
JOB NO.: SD-], 16':? -,00 ,I LQG OF TEST PIT I,FI~URE: B-32
SAN DIEG() SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I-
I,
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
, -
:DATE OBSERVED: .4-48~S2 METHOD OF DRI .... LING:', 24" Backhoe,
--" + LOGGED BY: KS GROUND ELEVA110N: 168' ,-LOCATION: See MaE
z ,t-o w >~ ,f: 0 ..... '
~ 0 W ..I wilt a:(,) TEST PIT NO. 14 w 0 .CDw a. a: .... oa. w ,a: ... ,~ ::It-.... LI. (,)' LI. ~'> .... Li: .... ::10;. < t-z SOIL TEST (/) t-~ (/) (/)w :c-Ui ~ ,~< -t-~'~ -,t-:.c:' Oz 'fh (I)' 0 0(1) ..I < ..I Z ::I ~O ZW DES-CRfPTION
0 ... CD ::I CD (,)
(,) -0 ~o ----.. ALLQVIUM: Bl;'own Silty CL~Y, Mois
Fi'rm -
-
5-
-
-,
-' ' -,-
10-
BEDROCK: POINT LOMA FORMATIQN; 1'J1ack Grey SILTSTONE, Moist,
Hard, Cemented
-, , -
15-
;.
-Total Depth-12' -, Refusal
"20-No Water
No Caving
---
--
25'-
-I -.
30-
\
;35-
, . -
40-"
JOB NO.: 8Dl163-001 LOG Of TEST PIT IFIGUR,e.: B-33
-' SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I
I
'I
I·
'I:,
I
I
I
I'
I ';.
I
I
I,
I'
I
I
'I
I
I,
DATE ,OBSERVED: __ ..::4 ..... -,=2..::;8_-..::;8=2 __ ...,.-METHOD OF DRILLING: __ "....:2=-' 4:...'_' ..,:B:::..a:::,c;:;k:.:,.:,:h.,:::;o.=e _____ ---.,.,...
'LOG$ED BY:
z '~ '0 i= W W iC "" U .... ,&&: :J: t-, (;)
a. t/)
W 0(
0 ....
1-0 U
-
-
5-
,-
10-
-
-
-:
-'
15-
-
20-,
-
·
·
2$-
· ,
·
30-
,35 .... ,
-
t-'0 0 "" .... t/),
:t ',0 .J
CD
"
KS
O W W .J
CDw a. :::E, 0: .... :;)a. < t-:::E' t/)
~<, lII: O't/) '5 Z :;) CD
. '
GROUND ELEVATION, 19 i' :!: LOCATION: See Mar>,
TEST PIT NO. 15
.
, DESQRIPTION
TOPSOIL: Brown CLAY, Moist,Soft
,~---------~---~~~---~~---~ BEDROCK: POINT LOMA FORMATI,ON i
Green Grey SILTSTONE, Moist, Ver
Stiff, Blocky, gOinteg
@3' Join·ts: N35 E, 80, Ei N70oW,·
7S0W "
~. ,Gypsum seam~, ~" TSick'
@5' Joint, N60 E, 15 W
I ':
Total 'Depth 7'
No Water
No Caving
-
SOIL TEST
"
, .
,
JOB NO.: SDllf?3-:00 I 'LOG OF TEST ~Ir I FIGURE: B-3 4
SAN DIEGO: SQILS ENGINEERING, INC.
,~
..".
~ 'S:: ti (l)
tp
I 'w In
--' ,-- -.'-' ---.. - -.. -... ' ... ' -... -PRoJECT NAME: Cq,risbid ,neseaich C<?rite~TRENCH NO.: l6~NGINEERI_lIG PROP,!R,TIE. . z
. 0 III Q ~ £ JOB NO.: SDl163-00 . DATE: 4-29-82 -... III C 0 , , , . . ~ L. L , " ' ' , "+ iC~ 2 c~ III ...-EQUIPMENT: ,?~ J3q,ckhoe '. ELEVATION: ,.212' -,,~o,~ ~~ § ~
•-tIS ._ ~ _ . ~ --. . LoeaED BY: KS LOCATION: See Map , . :=» ~ i· 0 =
D~.CRIPTION -d·::t' 2 c:a ,-
Tsa -BEDROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION;
Light Green Grey CLAYSTONE, Moist To wet, Firm' to Stiff, Fractured. >< @5"
Orange Staining, Most Common North of Fault.
00' Fault: N50 E, 72 NW, 1/8"-1/4" Brown Remolded Clay and Gypsum in
Fault Zone.
, ,~
, ,
aCALE: 1"= l' TOPOGRAPHY: TRENCH O .... NT-ATIO..: N100W
~ ...-
r -~
I-1--
f-Fault .., i-' -
,', • , " 1 1 ' '.1 l' ," \ , , 'I, '\' I, ;'\ Ii" " ... ,,' • "
I". "I ' I' ' 'I""" ',I ,. '" , "'\,1 .,,~' '. '. '".' ."
f-~ \' . ~ -I--r-
I-, , ~, ' -i\ Tu '. : Tea, -~
f-. , ".;
1\
-~" 1\,/ I--'.' . '
-~I-
-I--I--
-~I--,
TRENCH LOG IAN IHEeo IOILI 1NtI.!'II,.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
1
1
'I
"
DATE OBSERVED: 4-29",,82 METt:tOD OF DRILLING: ' 2~" Baqkboe , ,
260' + "
,LOGGED BY: ~S GROUND ELEVATION: -. LOCATION: Qffsite -
z 't-O W >'~ t=: 0 ....
S 0' ,W ;,J, w~ ,a:u TEST PIT NO., 17 W 0 ' ,mw, D. a:-QD. ' W ::E &0;. U 'II. ' ,a:..J :;)t-w .... .... u: .... :;)D. 41( t-Z u> SOIL TESt ft) t-:E-ft) ft)W ::z:: (;) ~ 0' -t-4I(e t-_41( ~' Oz ..J0 G. 0 0 Q0 ..J D.z DESCRIPTION W 41( ..J Z J :EO ZW 0 ..J CD J 'm u u -Q
-0 ' ,
-'FILL: :erown Fine-Med.i,.um SAND,
, Moist ' '
-to Wet, Moderate,ly Com-
pact', Some Gravel .. ,
...
5--,~ '. • ; ·
·
"
10 TOPSOIL: Dark Brown CJ;jAY, l-loist,
,,-Stiff, Roots in Place · ,
' . ;
. ..
15-.
Total bepth 10'
No Water
" No, Caving
"
. 20-
-
" .. '
"
25-
" ,
~
, ..
30-
.
35-
, -
.-
40-, "
~OB NO.: SDl163-001 LOG· OF TEST PIT IFIGURE: 'B-,36
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
, ,
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I,
I
,'I
I
I
I
I
I
.. 'I
DATE OBSERVED:...;.' ___ 4_-_· 2_9_-_8;.,...2 ___ METHOD OF DRILLING:--..:.-_---=2:.,.4:.,.1_1 ....:B::::.;a:::::.c=k~h~o~e~_:-:--__ ..,..,_
LOGGE!) ~Y: K~ GROUND ELEVATION: 240,:t LOCATI()N: See Map
z .... 0 ... 'W ~ W '1.1,; 0 .... La: :c ... Ui D. r/)
W C q ... 0
TEST PIT NO. 18
... '0 w .... >~ 0 w ... .#. 0:0
0 IDw D. w .... OD.
'\I. ' :0:..1 :E 0: ... w .... .... ' ::;:)D. C :;:)z 0> 0 ,t):E en "'w ~. ~ ... C!: ,_C :.:: ,oz ..10 0 00 ..I :Eo D.z ..I Z :;:) ZW ID :;:) ID '0 -0
DESCRIPTION
~-+~~~~-r--+--~ TOPSOIL: B~own SAND, Dry, Loose, ~~~-----------------~-----~~
~o
-
-+---I--f---If---f---f--.... BEDROCK: SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICf;
-
-
, 6-
, '
--
10-
-
-
16-
-
-
20--
-I \. -
"
-
26-
-
-
-
30-
-
40-
JOB NO.; 80'1163-00 I
1\ Dark Green Metavolcanic, Ve,ry
I~ard
'.
Total Depth 2'
Re,fusal
No Water
No 'Caving
,
I
LO~ ,OF TEST PJ,.
'SOIL TeST
-'!FIGURE: B-37
SAN DIEGO ,SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
I'
.'1
1
1
1
1
1
1
"1
1
1
'1
1
1
1
'.1:
I
'DATE OBSERVED: __ --!4c..,.-...::2:,.:9:...-...,:8::.,!2:::...-__ . METHOD OF DRILL.ING: _-"----=2::..,;4::..,;·"_' -,B~a=c!!:k~h:.:::o:.:;e~ __ -,--..:.-_
LO~GED. BY: 1\S.
;:
W W
II. .....
-'
-
10-
-
-
-:
15-
20-
...;.
-
-
25-
-
-.
30-
Z
0 ~.
0 i&: iii 0 ~ .0'
-.'
35-
-
-
40-..
I-0 W 0 ·w ....
0 'CDW' 0.
II. a: ..... ~ ... ::::>0. 4(
0. I-~ '0
~ ~< :It: 0 e0 .... .... z ;:)
CD ::::> CD
305' :!: GROUND ELEVATION: LOCATION:
>-~ -. w~ a:o a: ...... ,00.
::::>1-. 'w"" I-:Z '0>-0 W <t: -I-Oz .... 0') . o.z ~·O ZW 0 -0
TEST PIT NP·
<' DESCFUPTioN
..
Total Depth 8'
No Water
~o Caving
19
LOG OF TeST PIT
See.Map
soil r·i:sr
' . -
!FIGURE: B-38
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, ,INC.
I
I
.1
I
I
'I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
.,1,'
1
I
I.
.
DATE OBSERVED: A-29-82 METHOD OF DRILLING: ~~" Bac;~hQe
KS 314' + See MaQ LOGGED BY: 'GROUND ELEVATION: -LPCATION:
,~ z ~ 0 w >~ 0 ' ....
~ 0 .w ... wilt a:o· TEST PIT' NO. 20 w 0 IlIw G. a:-OG. w =: "' 0' 11..' a: ... , ;:)~ w-~ .!!; " ;:)G. < '~z 0> SOIL TEST l: ; ,~=: . t/) t/)w <t::: t/) !2< -~ ~ ~' Oz "'t/) G., t/) 0 Ot/) ... =:0 G.z DESC.RIPTION, w 'C, ... z ;:) " ZW 0 .... III ;:) III CJ -0, ~O 0
TOPSO,IL: Brown sandy CLAY, pry .,. to Moi'st, Firm, O+gapics .,. .
BEDROCK: SANTlAGO FORMATION;
Yellow White, Fine .... MediurnSAND-.
5.~ . STONE, Moist, Medium Dense, Cro!: s·
Bedded
@6' Bedding Horizontal ' ,
\ -,
10-
-
Total Depth 9 ' ' i
. -No Water
15-No Caving
--
',20-
-
-
-,
25 .... \ -
-, -
'30-
--.
, -
35-
.
>
40 ..
JOB NO·:SDl163,-00 I LOG OF TEST PIT [FIGURE: B-3~
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:DATE OBSERV:ED: .... · _4..:..--=.2'.::.9_-.;::8:.;:2:----,. __ METHOD OF DRILLING: __ -=2~4:....II----.::B:::.:a~c:::.:k~h=o!::::e_' ~'--"""---:-___ ~I
.\~ ... T'
GROUND ELEV~TION: 240' . ":":'~OCATION: l,.OGGED BY: ',1(S $,ee Map
z .... ;0 t-O ,w t-O W -' W ~ 0 mw a. w ~ "" Q ~ a: ...
---ii: ..... ~a. <
:z: en ~~' en
t-t;; ~ ~< lII:: a. en 0 oen ,-, w < -' z ~
TEST PIT NO. 21
SOIL TEST
DE~CRIPTION
0 m ~ ~ ,1-0 5
trOPSOIL: Brown Silty SAND; Dry
to' Moist, Loope
-
-
~~--~~~~--~--~~~,E~D~R~O~C~K: SANTlAGO PEAK VOLCANICS; ~.rown Green Metavolcanic, Very
,
, , ,
-
5-'
-
-
..;
-
10':'"
·
-.,
-
15-
--
·
·
20-
·
·
25-
.;
30-
'.
3S-
"
. 40-
JOB NO·:~H;>11,63 .... 00 I
Hard, .Jointed ' " -.
Total Depth 3'
Refusal
No Water
No 'Caving
LOG OF TEST Pit JFIGURE: B-4 0
SAN DIEGO SOilS eNGINEERING. INC.
"
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
-I
,I
1
DATE ()BSER~ED: ____ 4=--..;.;2:..:9=--~8.:;;.2_'_ __ ..... METHOD OF DRI,LLING:' __ -=-2-=4_"--:B;..::.3.::.:c::.:;.k.::h:;.;o::.;e::.'_-_-----.,...,1
LO~GEDBY:, KS ,.~~OUND ELEVATI9t-1,:. 185' ± LOc:Al'ION: Offsite
z ~ Q P 0 ~ 0 w, 'w' 0 CDw w "-0 "-a:..1 -ii: .... ::::>0..
l: t/) 1-2
l-e;,; ~ ~c
0.. t/) , g,: ~t/) w c 0 ..I CD :::I
1-0 0
-
-
W --" w! a.. ::E a: I-j:z c t/) t/)w
~ o·~ ..I '::EO' :::I CD, 0
>~ .a: 0
00.. w-
0> c!:: ..It/) o..z
ZW -0'
TEST PIT·NO. 22
DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL: Brown Silty Sandy CLAY,
~oist, Firm
BEDROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION;
Light Yellow Green, Fine-Medium
:-+-....-If,-.. -1---h-_I-_ ...... _ SANDSTONE, Moist, Me'dium Dense
'-
-
5'
-1\ Massive __ , __ '_ ____ _
Green CLAYSTONE, Mo.ist, Stiff,
4-~~~~~-+---+--~~~ss~ve, Fractured. Contact
I\.HorJ.zontal
-
-
10-
-
-
15-
-
20-
--
25-
,:
30-
~
,35-
.
40-
, Total Depth 8'
No water
No Caving
SOIL TEST
.,
JOB NO.: S'Dl163-00 I LOG OF Test PIT IFIGURE: B-41'
8AN DIEGO 801,,"8 ENGINEERING, INC.
, ,
, '
1
1
:1
,I
1
1
1
I
·1
I
1
I
I
DATE OBSERVED: 4'-29-82 METHOD OF,:DRILLING: 24" Bac.kl1o~ . . .. . ' .
LOGGED BY: KS GR()UND ElEVATIO~: 172 I + LOCATION: Off~:;ite
z .,.. ,0 > .... .j .... 0 w, ...... ... 0 W .J wit a::~ 'w . ~ 0 ·CDw 0.. a:: .... .0'0.. TEST PIT NO . 23 w ::E '" U '" a:: .J. j'" w'" ... &&: ..... ',j,o.. , < ... z u> SOIL TEST i 0, "'::E t/) ~~ % (;) ~ .~< ,<t:: ... ~ Oz .Jt/)' 0.. ft) 0 Oft) . .J A.z W < .J Z 0 ::EO Zw DESCRIPTION
'0. . .J. CD j .CD U
U -0 i
~O ..
-TOPSOIL: Lignt Brown Sandy CLA,Y, , :h: Firm -~y,
., . BEDROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION;
., Light Green Fine Sandy SILTS'J;'ONE
5-!-1orst, Stiff/Light Yellow F.:ine-
Medium SANDSTONE, Moist ,Me,dium -Dense, Ma$$ive
N1OOE,7'O?W;
.
@1~'-8' ·Fault: ~4n. '
Brown R~molded Clay, sane -
.,'
.. ~ stone west of Fault and
10-Silstone Ea!3t of Fault
.,
'.
15-
Total. Depth 8'.
, No water -NO'CaviI)g
20-
.,
'.
25-,
"
..
30-
'.
3G":'
~ ,
-,
40-.; ..
JO~ NO.: SD116 3':' 0 0 I LOG OF TEST PIT 'IFIGURE: B"-44
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INQ.
I
I
'I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I,
I
I
I
DATE OBSERVED: 4-29-82 METHOD OF, DRILLING: 24" Backhoe
LOGGED BY: KS GROUND ELEVATION: 162' +' ---LOCATION: Offs'ite -
;: z 0 >1i: 0 I-w .... 0 W ..J '~ a:() w ~ 0. w .... TeST PIT NO. 24 w 0 CDw ~ a: I-00. .
~ () "" a:..J ::lz ·w .... . .... Ii: ... '::lo., C I-w (» SOIL TEST :E: 0 .I-~ (f.)
0 ~ :~c ~ ... c~ ... ~ OZ ..J0 0. 0 0 00· ..J ·~O o.z DESCRIPTION w c ..J' Z ::l-Zw 0 a CD ::l CD () -0 ·.~O ,
TOPSOIL: Dark Brown Silty SAND -Moist, Loose -
, , BEDROC~: SANTIAGO FORMATI.ON; -.
5-White Fine-Medium SANDSTONE,
Moist, Medium peHse'oMassive,
Cross Bedding (0. -20. ) -
~
-
10-
-
-
Total D$pth 8 '
-No Water
15-No Caving
--
-
-
20-
-
· ..
-·
25-
"
·
30-
.
."
35-
·
.
. 40-
JOB NO.: SDl163-001 LOG OF TE-ST PIT --,I·FIGUR'E: B-43
~ \ ,SAN DIEGO SOILS.ENGINEERING,INC.
I
,I,
I'
I
I
I
',I
I
I
I'
I,
I
I
DATE OBSERVED: .4..,.. 2.9 -82. 'METHOD OFD.RI"'LIN~: ___ ~2"",,4;...f'--=B;;,.;:a;:,.;· c:;.:k;,:::h:.:,o=-· .:::;e ___ . 0-' ....:.,-__ '"--
LOGGED BY: KS
Z l-e ;: 0 :fi 0 w· W 0 .,IDw w &I. 0 &&; £t-l -ii: ..... :::)0.'
:J: tIJ .... 2: ..
I-05 :r: ~<
A.. tIJ 0 QtIJ
W < ..I 'z Q .-1 ID ':I '
~o' '0
-.
-
-
-
5-,
w -I a. 2: < tIJ
~ -I :::)
ID
. + GROUND ELEVATION: 122' -LOCATION; ~Offsite
>~ £to Qo. w-(,» , <t::, ..ItIJ o.z
ZW -Q
TEST, PIT NO. 25
DESCRIPTION
ALLUVIUM: Dark Brown Clayey SAND~
Sandy Cl;JAY, Moist, Soft, O,rganic
in Top l'
. BEDROCK: SANTI~G() FORMATION,.
4-~~~--+--4----~~Light Brown' Yellow Clayey Silty
!\sANDSTONE, Moist, Medium Pense,
1'\Massive .. - -.
10-
".
15-
-
20.,...·
-
. -
·
·
25-
·
ao-
-
a6-
JOB NO;: 8Dl163-001
Total Depth 7'
No Water
N'o Cav.ing
LOG OF TEST P·IT
SOIL TEST
I FIQURE: B-44
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING,INC.
~ ....
lQ ~
(l)
OJ I ~ l:11
- -'.' ,,',--'---' ,_.-- -_: '-.' --.. -PROJECT NAME: Carlsbad 'Research Center TRENCH NO.: 2'6 : ENGtNEERINGPROPERTtE8
'z ... 'I -;: 6-23-82 0 ! JOB NO.: $DI163~OO DA.TE: i . ~ C) ~. . ... a.
176', ± -22'4' ± otl! 2 It~ .. -. 2.4" Backhoe <C :::tAo It .)io ELEVATION: -0 .:::t EQUIPMENT:
Located, in nozer II. • • ""'2: . t:' 'See Map, -. I. ... •... ~ _<C .!! •• LOGGED BV: JFK" LOC'ATION: Pit I -. --, ~ • :::t ~ c. '0 Z <C :::t Z ... ~ • :::t 2 Q D!E8CRtPrION .. 0
Tsa -BEDROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION;
Green and Greenish-B.rown Clayey SI'LTSTONE, Slightly Moist, Stiff,
Yellow S.taining, Sl;i.ghtly Fractured, Siig~tly Undulating Bedding
Brown, Light Brown and Yellow Silty SANDSTONE/SANDSTONE,
Moist to Moist, Dense, Hassive to Poorly Bedded Slightly
, ,
' SCALE: 1"= 20' TOPOGRAPHV: i TRENCH OR.NTATION: N82u E ,
I--to--to---.1-' ~,
-.~ . -
~ r-~ -, I ; I .L I '. '. I ,.L ..l 'I, I I,
". .' I 'I' I I' • •• .,1'" I • I .. :, • ' , I, 'I' I .. ' . .' . " . • , ,-'J I , .. , .. .
~ -to--.
to-I--
~Match ' : Ts,a , l-. -" ' , ~ .
-,.,. Line Sil st;one ..
'. ,.' .. :=-:--
-=:::::.: . -' -:-:-,':' ~.,
'I-'" ,'-_. ", ," '!:-:---,... , ' Tsa Sands' one' . ~ , , ~ p'oss.ilifE rous Zone .' . -:,,_. . .
Bedding: ~---:-::' . . ........ ~ N10oE,1 °NW. -, ~ ~.-.' Bed ing: ;'.:': :.-." . ..".: :.' .: .......
, . I-..-•. "', •• '., : ~~ : .. ,e •• L", ... ,:," :. :7 Nea to-aorizont I
TRENCH LOG . --, .. .. ...
t%j ....
to :~
txI I
~
0'\
_. --,._---' -,,-'-,--,'-'-'. - - -'. ': "~T Nt\IIE: ~arlsbad Research center TRENCtt NO.: 26 (Continu~d) e ....... ERINQ .. "O"'RTIE •. ,
Z MI· ,; £ .to. NO.:, $D1163 00 DATE: '6-2'3"':82 0 Q. -t. .. «) Pc., -24 if Backhoe :t -224" ± 2. -. .. ..
176 • !, -. EOUiPMENT: eLeYATION: 2d c " ,.
1:. -t: JFK ·c LGellED .• V: ,LOCATION: See MaE :S ~ is-!! • ~, .'Z
, ' c, ! 0 ..
DESCRIPTION wi -2 Q O.
, .
See. Trench tog .26
-
-
'. ~
aCALE! t~' = "20 • TOPOGRAPHY: TRaMeH ORIINTATtON: N82 E
.t-t--t--. ~ .~ -t-' .
~. -;.;:. , t-~: ~ . . . ' -
, . t-. ~ , ---., 1-: .., , .... ~-.. '. . . . . " • • • •
_.-
• • • • • • . .:...;. . . . . ' • • t . . . .. .
f I I' I , , , '" , CJ' .~ • l' '. . --..::::: i:f~ I , , ., ., II ~ . " '
t-• "7:.:..-:-::"" ~ I-,
-c::: •
I--F--~'--: '-
Tsa -'.-Fo'·_· Match .t-~..
r...;.::: • _. ~ ~.~ Si1t'ston --.0-~. Line" .... ,-,.-
I-' -F-, ~ I-' _ "
, . ._. 1---'-' -... , " ~---.~ -----
t--t-t-
t---t:-.
t-, --I-' :,'. -l-. ,
t--l-. -j ,
.... LGe . UN. ~no.OL •.. ,..1ttNI
:1'%;1
1-'-
lQ
C :11 ;CD
to I
,~ , --.J
----, - ---'_.--'---,-, :_,--,-PRo,aCT NAME: Carlsbad Research Center, TRENCHNO.;:_..:2::..,:7,-' __ ...;.,.;.. _________ _
JOB NO.: SDllG3-QO DATE: 6-2 3-8 2
, EQUIPMENT: 24" Backhoe EL~YATI.ON: ,174' ±
LOeaED BY: _---.:J~F::..;K~, ___ .......... ____ "'""_ __ LQCATION: See Map.
DE8CRI"TioN
To.PSOIL: Dark Brown Silty ~LAY, !>1oist, Soft
Tsa -BEDRo.CK: SANTIAGO. Fo.RMATIo.N; Light Brown-Yellow Brown SANDSTo.NE,
Sligp.tly r-loist, Dense, Massive to. Poorly Bedded
Kpl -BEDRo.CK: Po.INT L0.HA Fo.RMATION; Light Grey Clayey'SILTSTo.NE, Slightly
~oist, Firm to Stiff, Fractured, Massive
~ottled Grey, Red, Brown and Light Grey Silty CLAYSTo.NE,
Moist, Soft, Very Weathered, Plastic
ENGINEERING PROPERTlE8
z ... 0 a ~ 0 -~ .. u ~.' .. .... -.. a. 2 .11:.,' ... .... gd c ::)a. Ie' >-!::. e t-2 ::) t-ec t--e· lIIC • -e::) ~ is--.' z c ::) z 0 III ~ .' =t 2 ' ,0' u
I
8CALE: 'tee = 20 ' TOPOGRAI'HY: TRENCH ORIENTATION: N 6,2 dVi
~ , ,
+-+
+
f-,
+
'I'Tsa
, , I I ' ,l ' f
].
I I
~
+ +
+ .,
,..
TRENCH LOG IAN ~ .. o SOiL. !NII.IItIHl
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
:1
I
'I
"
DATE OBSERVED: 6-23:-8'2 METHOD OF DRILLING: 24" Backhoe,
" + ' '
LOGGED' BY: ' KS GROUND ELEVATiON: 172' ~OCATION: See Map
-z ''7",J -,-,
p 0 t-'Q W ->~
w ,~ 0 W ..I w" a:(J TEST PIT N,O. 28 w 0 mw ~ a:-Q~
~ (J' Uo ,a:.., :E :::;)t-w'" :
, ....... u:: .... .::)~ , < 't-Z u> SOil. TEST tn 't-:E tn tn W l: (I) ~ '~c -,t-c!:: t-,lie Oz ..Itn ,
~ tn' 0 ,Qtn ..I ~z QESCRIPTION w 'C ..I Z :::;) :Eo 'w Q ..I m :) m u ~Q I
~O U -
TO;PSOIL: Brown Silty C;LAY, Moist .--Soft ,-
-B:g!DROCK: POINT LOMA FORMATION;
Mottled Light Grey Green and Red-
5-Silty CLAYSTONE, Moist, Soft to
Firm, Massive, Weathered
, ,
-,-
" 10-
, Total pepth 7'
-No Water
-No Caving -
·
'15-
· ,
20-
-, .
;.
,
25,.-,
·
·
30-
"
35-
-
' , 40-
JOB NO'SDl163-'OQ I LOG OF TEST Pli ' ,IFIGURE:B-48
" SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
" 'I,
-I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
1
I
I
I , ,
I
'I
1
I,
I
I':
' " ..
DATE OB~ERVED: 6-23-82 ' METHOD OF DRILLING: 24: II 5a.QkhQe . ,
JFK '16'7' + See Ma:Q LOGGED BY: GROUND ELEVATION: -LOCATION: ~ .. ' . , z > .... ;: 0 t-e w .... 0 w -,. wit a:"'-T'E:ST w ~ 0 CD' A. a: .... e~ PIT NO. 29 w a:~ ~ ..... ,
"-() "'-::)t-~> .... Ii: " ::)A. < t-z SOIL TEST :i: (I) t-~ (I) (l)W < .... iii ~ ~< -t-t-~. Oz ..I-
A. (I) 0 e(l) -' A.~ DESCRIPTION W < .oJ Z ::) ~o 'zw e ~ CD ::) CD () -e -0 --,
TOPSOI:j;.: Brown Clayey SILT, -Moist, Soft
BEDROCK: POINT LOMA FORMATION; -, Grey Clayey SILTSTONE, Slightly
-: Moist, St;i.ff to Hard, Upper 4'
&-Mottled and Weathered, Harder
Fractured c;l.nd Massive B~low
) -
--,
, .,
10-
-
'Total Depth 9 '
No water
15-No Caving
-
-
20-, .-\
-,
--.-
.25-, -. .. -' -. -
30:"
, i
!
,
I ,'I -
35-
-
-
40--~--.. ,
, JOB NO.: SDl.163-0ol LOG OF TEST PIT , IFIGURE: B-,fg "
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERI~G. INC.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·1'
I
I
--_. .
. ,DATE, OBSERVED: 6-23 .... 82 METHOD OF DRllLlN(,i, 24" Backhoe
JFK 164<i + See· LOG.GEP BY:· GROUND ELEVATION: -LOC~TION: Mci.2
'z .1-a w >-~ ;:: ·0 ....
w-~ 0 'w . ...1 w-·0:0 TEST PIT NO. 30 '0 mw 0.. £1: .... a 0.. w ~ LI. 0 LI. £1:...1 jl-w .... .... &&: ·fa .jo.. < t-ffi 0>-SOIL TEST "'~' 0 :c en ~ !!2.< ~I-<I:: I-~ OZ ...10 0... 0 .0 a0 ...I ~o o..z DE~CRIPTION "W 0( ...I Z .j " a ...I m j ·m b ZW
0 -a
1-0 BEDROCK: POINT.LOMA FORMATION; -Dark Grey SILTSTONE., Sl,ightly -" Moist, Ha'rd, Fractured, Massive
5-
-' -
-
10-Total Deptn 6 '
No Water
No Caving -
I
15-
-
. ,
20'---
25-
, .. ,
30-
.
-
35-
,. ..
~
40-..
. JOB NO;: SD1163-0ol LOG OF TEST PIT 'IFIGURE:. B-50
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
I
I
'I
1
1
I
,I
I
:1 ..
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
-
DATE OBSERVED: 6-23--82' METHOD OF DRILLING: 24", Back.boE:
LOG,GED BY: JFK GROUND ELEVATION: + 155' . '-LOCATI<;)N: See MaJ2
z ~ Q . >~ ~ 0 w -~, () w ... w~ 'a: TE,ST PIT NO. '3'1 w 0 CDw 0. a~ w :E 'a: ... '" (,) '" .a:-, w .... . .... ..... ::::>0. C =>z (,» SOIL TEST ii: 0 '''':e 0 "'w ::z: iii ~ ~c !l~ c!:: ~ ~ Oz -'0 0. 0: 0 a0 ... ':EO o.z DESCRIPTION w c· ... z ::::> ZW a ... m ::::> CD (;) o. -a 1-0 TOPSOIL: Si'lty Brown SAND, -Slightly,Moist, Loose
-BEDROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION;
Brown SA,ND S TONE , Slightly Moist, ... Dense, Massive
5-0 "
-
-
"
,10-
,
-
15-
.' Total Depth, 12' . No Water .. No Caving
, 20-
-: --, " --\
25-
-
-
0 -
-,
-30.,..
1
35-:
-. .-.-
40-
JOB NO·:S 'Dl163-:-00 I LO~ OF TE'ST PlT IFIGlJRE: '13-5i
S~N DIEGO SOII..S ENGINEERING. INC.
I
I
I'
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
-
,-.,..--=:6_-..:2:..:3:---:, 8::.:2::,..;.... _...;J~.-.:., MET HOD OF DRILLING: ____ ' '.;;62..:;4L.'_' -OB"-IalooLcw,kollo. . .uh.l.lQ~e'---, ___ "'--____ 1 DATE OBSERVED:
"LOGGED BY:
z I-j:: 0 ~ 0 W 0 W 'Ll. (,) II. ..... ' ,
,(I)
JFK ..
0 w
W ..J CDw A. 2 a:..J :;)A. iC (I)
+ GROU~D ,~LE,VA'tION: 142 ' LOCATION: -wit a: .....
>~ ~~ TEST PIT NO .. 32 w .....
(,»
, See Map.
, ~ % 1-2 :t 'VJ I-(I) -<, :.::
:;)1-
I-Z
(l)W -I-Oz 20
<!:: , ..J (I) '. ,A. VJ '0
W 'OC ..J ,0 ..J CD
~O (,)
--
'--
'5-
-
-
-" ,
10-
-
-
--
oVJ Z :;)
I-
..J :;)
CD
,
(,) ~ ffi DESCRIPTION
-0
FILL: Brown Silty CLAY, Moist
Fi;rm.
1--1--I--f------:---,...------... --'-"..
preenish Brown CLAY, Moist to Wet,
,Soft to Firm:, Chunks of Green .
Silt'stone Int.erbedded.
. '
~EDROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION;
~rown SANDSTONE, Slightly Moist,
.bense '
15~--~-+--4-~~--+---~----------~--------------~----~
·
-
20-
'25-
" ·
·
·
30-
·
·
·
35-
·
, 40-
~OB NO.: SDl163-ool
Total Depth 15'
No Water
No Caving
LOG: OF TE.ST PIT
.
SO'lL TESt
'.
IFIGURE: B-52
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
I
.1
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
:1
'I
"I':
6-23-82 24" Backhoe "-
DATE OBSERVED: METHOD OF DRILLING: I
JFi< '+ ..
LQ~G~D.BY: ~ROUND ELEVATI()N: 124' LOCATION.: See Ma12
z' .... 0 w > .... "
j: 0 ,,.. IX~ W ~ 0 w .... w! o~ TEST PIT NO. 33 0 ID e. w IX~ ::E IX
"" U . ~ ':l'" w .... -ii: .... :le. c· .... z u> SOIL TEST 0' "'::E 0 w ::t en ~ ~c, ~ ... c ... ... lI!: Oz .... -e. ", 0 O'(/) .... e.~ w c .... Z :l' ::E'O Zw D~SCRIPTION
,0 .... ID ::l ,ID b. u' -0 1-0 . ..,
TO?SOIL: Brown sandy CLAY, Moist, ., Firm, Porous -
BEDROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION; -Brown -SANDSTONE, Moist, Dense '5"': Mas'sive
Contact o ' SoNW NS E, .. ' . ~ . --":' .,
POINT LOMA FORMATION; Green ~ --, Clayey SILTSTONE, Moist, Firm to "
Stiff ~
10-..
-
..
-
15-Depth 12' . Total
No Water -NQ Caving
20-
-
·
·
· , ,
, 25-
·
·
·
·
30":
· · ,
·
·
35-
..
'40-"
JOB NO.: SDl163-0ol LOG OF TEST P'll I FIGURE: B-S'3
SAN DIEGO' SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
-'I
I
I.
I
,I:
I:
.1
I
I
,I
I
I
I
,I
I
'-,1:
-
DATf; -OBSERVED: 6-23-~2 METHOD OF DRILLING: 24:'i Backhoe
JFK 104' + " , "See MaE 'LOGGEp BY: GROUNDELEVATIQN: .... LOCATION:
z, I-,0 ,W .,>~ f:' 0 ....
~ 0 ,'W ;., . walt a:o TEST PIT NO.' 34 w 0 'CDw '0. a: .... .. ~o. -'. W 1.\., a: .... :E :i),~ , .... L\. 0 w> ' .... ... 'jo. . c: SOIL, tesl % ',' U:. 0 I-:E 0' I-w' ,0 ....
0 ~ ~c: ~: .... <-t-~ Oz ' .... 0 0. 0) 0 00 .... :EO o.z DESCRIPTION w ,C: .... Z j ZW 0 .... CD 'j, CD q
0 -0
"'0 Camino ROAD FILL: El Real: Brown -, Sil~y SAND, Moist-Moderately -Compact. Contact Free of -
'-vegeta tion
-
5-ALLUVIUM:
Firm
Grey Silty CLAY, Mo.;i,.st
~
-
-
10 "
-
-
"
' , .;, "
-
15-
, -Tot!3-1 Depth 10'
No Water -, No. Caving -,
-
20-
-
0
. .
25-, ' " . 1
0
-
30-
0
-
35 ....
-. "
':' -
" -
.40-
~~B NO;:SDJ.,163-00/ LOG OF TEST PIT IFIGURE:, B-54
8ANDIE~080ILS ENGINEERING. INC.
1
I
'I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
1
I
I ',
. .
DATE OBSERVED: .6-23-82 METHOD'OF DRlllING: __ ~2!:1:.4_u---&;;Bu::;au.·c.i..l:kub.u.o..l.le:::...· _...,...,-,-_____ _
. lOGGED BY:
z . ..., 'j:: 0 .~ 0 W 0 w L!. () &&. .... iA:' ....
:z: .t/)
ii 3t ...,
a. t/) 0 W C .... Q .... () a:r
J¥K
Q •
'W
IDw 'a: .... .::Ia. . ..., ::E
t/) _c
Qt/)
Z ::)
W .... a. ::E C t/)
!:II: .... ::)
ID
+
GROUND Elt:VATION: 1 7 3' -,~OCATl.Ot.l~
>~ a:(J Qa. w .... (J> ct: .... (1) a.z
ZW -Q
TeST PIT NO. 35
DE~CRIPTION
See Map
~O " TOPSOIL: Brown Sandy SILT,
+0-....... ---................ --+---+---'1..1\8 1 ightl¥ Moist, Soft -4-~~~~~~--+-~ BEDROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION;
Yellow Brown and Light Brown
5.,. --
-
.,.. I
\:ANDSTONE, Slightly Moist,-Mediun
Dense', Massive to Poorly Bedded
Contact: N4 oE, lOo~W
POINT LOMA FORlMTION; Light Grey
10 , '~~~~ ___ ~-r ___ -r ___ ~Clayey SILTSTONE, Slightly Moist
",Firm, Fractured, Massive'
--
-
15-
,
20"':
-
·
· -
.25-
-
·
·
30-
·
35-
·
40-
.
..
o.
Total Dept'h 10'
No Water
No Caving
JOB NO.: snii63-001' LOG OF' tEST PIT
SOil TEST
IFI~URE: B--55
SAN QIEGO 801"'8 ENGINEERING. INC.
"xj ....
-0,
d ti (1)
tl1 I
V1 'J
\ ,,,, " , , - --' - - --' - - - - - - - - - --' ,-
P .... CT NAME:Carlsbad Research-Center TRENCH NO.: 1 (Con:tinued) ENGINEERING PROPERTIES
SDliQ3-00 6.,.,2-82 Z ..... -.tOe' No.: QATE: 0 ... 'a ! I&,
~. .... ... 0 + + ca. .... ca.
EQUIPMENT: D-8 Bulldozer 178' - -224' -o~ :I a: .... ... -ELEYATlOft -0 ~ ::)ca. a: > 1&,-II) t-:I ::) t-
KS
-II) !!~ -t-
L~D.Y:' LOCATION: Se,6 MaE, .,. ~ II) ' . .,::) , all) .... 6 z' , "C ::) Z ...
DESCRIPTION .... • ::) :I a 0
,
See Trench Log 1
"
I
SCALE: 1"= TOPOGRAPHY: TRENCH ORIENTATION: ..
I-:-!---l:-.
I--I-o!-
I-af-I-, ' -
I--~ I-, ,
I' • 1 1 • 1 1 I I 1 1 I I ." I I' • ' I, I. I 1 I " t, t , I I J I 1 • 1 ,I • I I , 'I T , , I -T ,I
t--!--. , -
l-I--
~' I-,-' ,
t:--.--
",=",._';' -' /Tops( il "
~.-;-~~ ,-~, " I-.--: ..,;., " - -. '
, , ' '-..:...,.;,.: I-~ ':/."~ -I-Tsa ' ... t--I-Light Gt',E
;; .. .. . .. ~ Y Tst
. .. . . .. .. ... , ... ':':'. ~':-:": ... , -'
1/' '" ! .......
I-Sandy '5.i" F-' . . .. . .. -I-,ts,tone Brc Iwn S'anih:;t-r 11'H~: ' -
, , -' T".JIICM LCHI IAN DIE80 SOIL. ",-.EltING
~
ti;!, ....
IQ
C
Ii
(I)
:tJ:I
I.
\:]:I 00
I J , , " , -', --, - - - -.-. - - --, - - --, -, --. ...... C1' NAME: Carlsbad Res~arc:q, CentE:r TRENCH'NO.: 2 ENGtNEERtNGPROPER'rtE8
z ... -~ . SDll,(i3-00 6-2-8~ O· Q "'110.: DATE: i. ~ ... -0 &. -... -. + + 2 ... &. ,D..,.8 Bulldoze,j:" CIt~ -EGURIENT: ELEVATION: 210'-.,.. 214.' -0·,·· c ::)&. CIt " -0 >-' .... • --2' . ::) -. ·c t!-. .. ••• lie • ;; La.IED ilv: KS LOCATION: '~~~,MaJ;2 . ~ ~ Q • (; z c ~ z ...
DE8CRIPTION ~ • ::) 2 Q 0
'rOP$OIL,:Mottled Brown Silty CLAY,' Moist to Wet,
,
Soft
Tsa -BEDROCK: SANTIAGO FORMATION;
Light Pale Green Fine Sandy Clayey SILTSTONE, Moist, '.
Very Stiff, Massive with Red-Orange Staining in Fractures
Light Blue Green Silty CLAYSTCNE,Moist to Wet, ..
Firm t.o
Stiff
"
\
SCALE: , .. = 20' TOPoe"APHY: TRENCH ORIENTATION: N5 2 Ow
-~ -I-, ' ~ , -
I--I--
f--
Tops.0iJ,.. vTOJi>soil -
'. . " , 'I'" .--t ,,' ,·t • • t • '. I, .. . . , ,,';. . .
", • ", I, I I', ' . ..... y . '. I • ' .. ',l ,1'1 "
-=:.:..::;;;; ... --._. ..:.... '" -------1--._. " -;/ -----. ..:.....1. t-' .. I-,\TS~ , ~ .' -Flu ---':-:: ~~ l-t: 'ria ........
."; -
I-S,;j..ltsto e N50 B,80OW -I-
, ' , Claystone , .
, . .. ,
') .. -. .:~
.' ... -~ -"
'I---~ ... . ' ':1--
TMIICII LGe UN· DIleo .OIL. 1ENOI.IItINl
I
I
,I
'I
I
I,
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
"
" , , '
6-2-82 " p-8 ~u.1ldo:zer DATE OBSERVED: METHOD OF DRIL!,.ING:
+ :
LOG~ED BY: KS GROUND ~L,EVATION: 17,0 ' -LOCATION; See 'Map
z 0' • >rL .... 0 t-W .-t-O W .... waf "0 w t= 0 IDw a.. " .... 00. TRENCH NO. : 3 w ,< 2 II. 0 iL. " .... , ;:)t-w .... .... ii: ... ;:)0. C t-z 0> SOIL TEST l: 0 t-2 (I) 0 w ~ ~ ~c -t-c!: t-:at: Oz .... 0 a.. 0 00 , .... 20 o.z DESCRIPTION w < .... z ;:) ZW 0 , .... ID ;:) ID 0 0 -0
~o , TOPSOIL: Dark Brown CLAY, Wet
Firm -
5-B1!:DRQCK: S~NTIAGO FORMATION;
Gr~en with Red B;rown Mottling
CLAY, Moist, Firm-Stiff
-
1\ "
" , ,-
0
10-
-,
Total De1?th 6 '
No Water
No Caving "
'15-
, ..
0
0
20-
-
0
0
0
25-
" -
0
-
30-
-
35-
"
0
,
~
40-• .
JOB NO.:SDl163-0o'l lOG OF TEST PIT J FIGUR,E: , B-59 . SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC .
I
I
".1
1
1
I
1
1
I·
I
I
I
1
·1
1
I
I
A.
. B.
C.
APPENDIX C
LABORATQRY T~$TING
J;nde'x T~sts
Moisture content and dry'density determinations were made
for most ring 'samples • Results of moisture-d~nsi tydeter-,.
minations are sbown on the Log.s of Bo+ings, included in
Appendix B of this report.
Results of Hydrometer Testsanc;1 Sieve Analyses performed
in accordance with ASTM: D 4i2-72, on portions of repre-
sentative samples are presented in Figures c-l through C-4.
:Results of Atterberg Limits, consisting of both liquid
limit and plastic limif an~lyses are plotted on the Plas-
ticity Chart in Figure C-S. Atterberg.Limits were p~rform~d
in accordance with ASTM:' D 423-72. The t~st results are
also recorded on the grain size curves.
Consolidation Tests
Consolidation tests were performed on,remoldeQclay!?tone
(Figure C-6), remolded Sandstone (Fig.ure C-7), and ailuvium
(Figures C-8 and C-9). Water was added to the apparatus
at the load indicated on the Consolidation curves. The
consolidation test results are· presented on Figures. C-6
through C-9.
Direct Shear Tests
Direct shear strength tests we;re performed Qn selected
in-tact ring and remolded samples. Test results for intact
I
I
1
I
1
1
I
I
1
I
,I
1
I
I'
1
1
1
I
siltston~/claystone and intact sandstone are Presented in
Figures 'C-lO and c-li respectively. Remolded siltstone,
claystone, and sandstone d~rect sbear tests are preseni;:'ed
in Fi'gures C-12, C~13 and C-14. Remolded samples were
compacted to 90% maximum dry density at optimum moisture
,content. Direct shear samples, were iIlunda,ted with water'
, and allowed to come to equilibrium prior to shea:ring.
D. 'Expansion
, Expansion tests· were perf'ormedon representative samples
of the on-site soils remolded and tested under a surcnarge
of 144 pounds per square foot in accordqncewith the Uni-
form B~iidin'g Code Standard No. 29-2.' The,test r~$ults
are summarized on Table 1, Figure C-15.
E. ~aximum pensity/Optim~~ Moisture Content
The maximum dry den'sity/optimum moisture content 'relation-
sRip was determined, for typical samples of the on-si,te
soils. The' laboratory standard u:sed was ASTM: D 1557-78.
The test results are summarized on Table 2, Fi.gure C-l'S.
, ,
. - -_. ---.--... ------ -',. --.C-o m
z o
'00 :.
o ...... .• ......
0'1 1·'W
I o o I-,...
" >-:xl
-f o ,r-m
en
N m
> z > r--< cnl C/J :. -'zC/J
o .m .. G) o
en o ;: .en
, I
SAND ,SILT QRAVEL CI,.AY MEDIUM FINE' . COARSE
:"4;" '112" 1/4"..·· 10 20 SIEVE SIZES-U.S. STANDARD
1!I0111 111111111 I ~ 1111 IIIi' II !n=if:H j II .. SI VE ' " _ til I I I roo
eb 1111 11111111 I" ""111" I I I" "" 1* " "III II leo
80 1111111111111 ~ 11111 r HII II I m II I I I "Q[l] III FI Ilea
70 II I" 11111 Illi 11111 II III I ! III !II II I I rrr*MD¥m~R 170
~--~tttt~ttt-i---i-----++~~f-~-t--i-~--1i4f~4-4--+--~----~~~~~~---t----~eo ~ ~ o m ~---II-tilrt~lHrt---t-~ir-----lHHti-r~~--1----r--t---tt~r+-+-i~i-~~--~--++~~-4--~-+~~----~ z, II ~~ ~ ,~ '> en en ~-1r1HHHH~Hi~t--i~---ttfr~~~~~-+~t--trH~~4--+~~----~~~4-+-~~~--~40 Z G)
--+-~30 ,
II I' I I I I" I' I " , III , , , II , ' 'I' II 1 , 1 .I I I 1.1 I I. I . I I ' 120
II ' I I II I II I' I II I III I I I III 1 I I II I I I· J I I I I, I I . I . I, 110 .
" " I' ',' II ." , . II . I' I'll' ' , I I I II I .'.1 II" I ,. . , ,. 10
.()01 0~1
PARTICLE SIZE-MILLIMETERS
.01' ·1.0,
BO~IN~, No.1 DEPTH (FEE1i) I. SYMBO~TLiQUID " Llt.1IT IPL~-STICITY INDEX CLASSIFICATION
4 . 2 0 1(:] 'l}:;. Santiaad Fnrm~~inn
, -,
REl-10LDEO CLAYSTONE (CH)
I
-,_._--. -.---,-,---.-.,-,-<'--'-
r
Co. o ID
z
'F!
." ;p'
;0
~.
0' r-m
.en
'. N m
>.
Z > r-oo( . 0)1 (n > -zen
c iii Q o 0)
o ;=
~ m z "" Q --Q .Z C m :0 m m ':0 .. z(")
QI • N
Z'
CLAY
'SANP GRAVEL SILT COARSE. MEDIUM FINE
SIEVE SIZES-U.$. STANDARD,
20 '4~ 100 200
t--i~rriWirl~Ir~~--=r.~~~~,--.----t--r~rr~r-~-;---~-n,,~~~~~----,100.
'0~--+-+++4~~~-+--~-----+~~~~--+-~~~--~+#~+-+--+--~--~-+~+4~-+--+-~~~~
~ ~
rn rn
. [;~...:.. E
~ ~ m eo . . . eo m
:0 . \ ' :0 o ' 0
m \' m z . z ~~, ~~ ~ ,. ~ > . , , > 0). , . , . (I)'
(I)' " (I)
Z 40, " 40 Z
Q "'I ' ' Ii)
30 1/ . ,. I I I I II I I I I 1/ I '" I I I." ,I, I lIN I I I '30
F II II I tl ,. I, I ·1
~
20 11 I 11'1111111' I II 111111, III I I I 'II flN I I I, II Hili I I I 1.20
10 II I I I' I' I II II I III I III 'I I I III I I I1II I . I I I I I I I I I I, . I I ~o
0" I I' I I" ,,' I II . II II 'II .1' '" , " , I, I I !. I, ,I . I, I 0
0.1 .01 .001 10.0 1.0
PARTICLE SIZE-MILLIMETERS
BORING NO.IDEPTH (FEET) I $YMBOL I LIqUID LIMIT I PLASTICITY INDEX CLASSIFICATION
3 "\. 3 A ' Santiago Forma'tion
RE~1QLl)Eb SILTY FINE SANDSTONE (SM.)
----~~----.---~---.--
~' o m.
z p
(f) o I-' ~
0)
W I. I
o
~
"'0 > :tJ -t O. r m
CIJ -N m
» z' > ,....
-< (1)1 CIJ ~ ,en
0
in
G)
0
(I)
0 r= (I) mn z "'" G) -z"'~ '", :0
"' "' ':0 ••
zin PI ZW
P
."
"' :0
0
"' z ....
." > (I)
,(I)
Z
G)
S~ND SILT CLAY GRAVEL MEDIUM FIN~ COARSE
sieVE SIZES-U.S. STANDARD
2040 100 200 3/4" 1/2" 1/4" 4 . ".. . 100
100'11 I III III m= I:::i= IIII II I III 1111111 II III I I I I I I I
10
"7'11~
eo II IIIIIIIIIII II ~tlllllllllllllllllill 1.0
80 Ii i 1IIIillili i Ilillll il I Ti'J1111111 I I 11111111 I lao
7011 1 111111111 I 1111111111 I I Lf lmid Iff IIII11I I 1 170
." ~==j:=ttj=t~~~==t===~====~~fi=t=tif==t===jt==f===ttfjtt=f~~~~~======tt~~~==r==f===t====~eo ~ lOl ~§
. ."
> (I)
(I)
ER'40 Z
1'-
30 II 1111111111 I ~ 111111111 I II 1111111 I I I III f:HJ I I 1
30
~o~ 1 I111II111111 I1I1I1111 I I IIIIIIIIIHI I IHlllfl.kll~o
10" I I I I I II ,I I I I II "'1111 1'·1 I II II I III I I, I .11,111 I II I I . 110
11 '11 I' , 10 o " I I. ' I I' .' "I "I I ", " . " " , .001 0.1
PA,RTICLE SIZE';'MIl,lIMETERS
~01 1.0 10.0
"S'ORING No.1 DEPTH (FEET) I SYM~OL I LIQUID LIMITlpLASTICITY INDEX I CLASSIFICATION
6.,1 10_ 10 A I I, I Point Lorna Formation
REMOLDED SILTSTONE ,( CL)
G)
~
C-o ..
z
1?
-- --.-. --
SAND GRAYEL COARSE' MEDIUM
--.--. ----- -
FINE SILT CLAY
"§ SIEYE SIZES-U.S. STANDARD
I-' 3/4~' 112" 1/4" 40 100 200
" I-' 100 . . ' " 100
0'1
W I' o
b H: ~
10 80
70 11 I. I.. I II " il I I . ~ -> ' :.,.j.;J r-.... .
:u ." 0t-...~ -I m eo I T.V-HYDRC~IEThb 1
70
o ill' ......, ".,
.... m . . . '-. 'm
Z
' .. .' "roT . .. ... eo . ~.' 00 m
,.0 ." ,..' :JJ _ > a NCO..'.. . m m . • .' "~ z . 240 .'. .")'; .0 .... > " . . '.~ ~ . ..
z' ',il . i '. ' ~. -:. -. ' . . .. -... , ..
,.... 30 ; . ;!. . ~ ...... 40 Z -< .., . I I ',' Gl
._ . I .. CDI rn . . B::l
zrn .
, ,30
20 II ' I. I I I I" I I I " I 1.11 I I I II I I' I II I I I I I I I I I I' I 20 c iii G)
9
~.
G)
Z m m :JJ Z(1 PI z~
P, '
10 II 'I I III II I I I . II . I 'III' II I II" I' I I I I II I I III I I I, I . I I . 110
'I'" J '. I"" ,I I -10' . 0 II , . I' '" " 'I, I ' II II, I I . I . ", . .001
10.0 1.0 0.1
PARTICLE SI.~E-MILLIMETERS
891J1"G N~.I"EPTH (W:E~T)I.SY~80L I LlQUI~ LI~rr I P"ASTI~ITY INDE)(
.01'
. . C~ASSIFKCATI()~
7 5 18AI 42 30 Alluvium (eL)
-
I,
I
.'1
I
I'
I,
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
.1
I
I
I
I
'I,
, ,
:
-'# -)( w '~'
)-,
!:: () ;::
'0 < ...
G..
.
,
SYMBOL
8'
0
"
V1
'0
"
JOB NO:
,
PLASTICITY CHART
80 V 50 ,"-" ,.'r CH '?' ' " 40 ;'"
CL L ~'W 30 '. .....t: V ,
MH ~ 20 V or
OH
./ 10' oj " , '. 7 ~q"l:.-:¥~_ '/// Vd' 4 ML~r OL
0 ML 1/
100 ' ' 0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 90'
~
~ LIQUID LIMIT (%)
,
.
.. " U~IFIED ,SAMPLE NATURAL LIQUID PLAS-:-PASSING LIQUIDITY OIL BORING DEPTH WATER LIMIT' TlCITY NO.: 200 INDEX CLA~Kfr;": ' CONTENT .INDEX SIEVE lOAN, NO.: '(feet) SYMBOL CJ6 % CJ6 'CJ6 %
(
1 10 , 22 43 31 "-32 CL
~
2 10 9 21 9 --'33 CL
, ,
:
\ ~ 20' 18 4'6 31, -10 ' CL
"
7 5 20 42 30 ' 82 27 CL
, ..
SDl163-00 I DATE: Auqust 19'82 IFIGURE : C-$
" SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
I
:1
I
"I
I
I
-I,
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
..... ~ -z 0 ~
Q :::::;
0 co z -0
U
SANTIAGO FORMATION-REMOLDED CLAYSTONE
Sample compacted-at 90% maximum dry density at optimum
moisture content ..
BORING NO. DEPTH (FEET) SYMBOL EXPLANATION
2 -20 o FIELD MOISTURE
----:---..;...--SAM'PLE. S"ATURATED
REBOUND'
~ "-~ \ 1.0J-.-,..~-1--,....~,f-1\-4 ,,-+-l-I-i~--~(R~-+--+-~H-H4---+---f.~--+-~~
\ -,
'~ \
2.0
3.0
1 I
,', '
1.0
8 0 0 0 0 0 o· 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0
0 0 0 o· 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 o· ... (If C') ... 10' 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 ... (If C') ... 10 O. 0 0 0 8 ... (If C') ... 10 ...
NORMAL LQAD (PSF)
JOB NO;: . -I
SDIJ,63-00 LOAD CONSOLIDATION rEST tl<iURE: C-6--
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·a ....
Z
0 .~ a ::;
0 CD z
0
()
2.0
3 .. 0
1.0
SANTIAGO FORMATION-REMOLDED SANDSTONE
Sample compacted to 90% maximum dry densit¥ C!-t optim,um .
l1loistul;"e cont,ept.
BORIN~ NO. DEPTH (FEET) ,SYMBOL EXPLANATION
20 o FIELD MOISTURE
----------SAMPLE SATURATED
---------,REBOUND,
J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 8 g 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ·0 0 w (') .. 10 .0 0 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 0 .. w (') 'It' 10 0 0 o o· g .. w (') .. 10 ..
NO~MAL LOAD (PSF)
LOAD CONSOLIDATION TES-':· ' .IFIGU~E: C-7
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. INC.
(
: '.
I
'I
I.
'1
I
·:1
I
I·
'1
1
I
·1
I
I
'I
I
I
I
---I
ALLUVIUM
BORING NO.' DEPTH (F~ET) 'SY~BOL ~XPLANATION .
7 5·
!
FIELD M'OISTURE
----~;-----SAMPLE SATURATED
REBOUND
z o ii . 1.01----.--+--+--+"-f-+-I-+-1H-,.--+-~-~f_+__HH_I---:-...,.._f_-_+_....;"f__+_f_,_I_HH
II, ~ I w
f-0 ...... ~ ~ 1'1...
1.0'
--2.0 .. \. -z \ 0 -~ ~
D :::l 0 • z 1.0 0 0
4.0
1.0
J g '0
0 t'<I t')
, JOB NO.: . I ' SDl163-00 .
~ K \
" ~ ~
\
o 0 . o 0 ... 10'
" \
'K
\ '.
V ~~
~ ..
) ~ ~ i\~ )W7), rr'R .n rnT . 1\ .", \
. 1\
\ " .\
1'1....
,
.
" .~
" >" ......
0 g g o g ~i J 0 '0 g 0
t'<I t') ... 10 I III . I
NORMAL LOAD (P8F)
LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST IFIGURE: C-8
8AN DIEGO S91L8 ENGINEERING. INC.
I
'I
1
I:
I
I
I
1
,I-
I
'I
I.
I
I
I
1
I
I
'I
--. -
, ALLUVIUM
,---. -.
. BORING NO. DEPTH (FEEt> SYMBOL
8 15 . .0
{~,
, '1\
EXPLANATIQN
FIELD MOISTURE
----~---....,-SAMPLE SATURATeD
__ --o:~, REBOlJND'
. :I----+-I-\~-H--H\H-::~I'\J_. --+---+---+-+-+-HH-+--------+---+--I-I-4-l~
l· . 2.0~' ~-+-l-' '<-+-f~ltd_t_H_T\~f..r-t--+-+-++-++-+-~_f.__il__+_+_+.+H ~. \, \ (A,~,. .
i~~~~A~~ lDb~b 8 3.0r-~~~-+~~~++~~--~'+~+-~.-+~~~\~+++-----r-~~~r-+~-H
~.
5.0 '
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o· '0 o· 0 00 0
0 0 ·0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 '8 8 g 0 ... ell C') .... 10 ·'0 0 0 o 0 ~ 0 0 ... ell C') .... 10 0 0 0 g ~ .(1) .... 10 ..
NORMAL LOAD (PSFJ
JOB NO.: . ,I
, 8Dl163-001 LOAD CONSOLIDATION TEST IFIGURE: C-9
. SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING. ·INC.
-----'. '--, --------' - - --" -
3000 BORINQ . OEPl~ , COHE~ON. ANGLE Or: ' 8AMPLEOE8CRIPTION
NO. (FEE , (PS . FRICTIOiio POINT LOMA FORMATION
/< ~ -.400 I 32 INTACT SILTSTONE)CLAYSTONE.
. ,
" ' ( ,~ .
, ~ " L
~./ V
, . i.
2000 J K. ,
7' fJ -1.1-1
Ul ~ ,D-! ---/ ,
Ul
Ul " . '
Q) . L V S-I
+l /< til
S-I ) 'I'd
Q)
..r::: -
~ 1e)QO· .. '
V ' A-peak " Shear
~ . Stress ~ ) , o ~Ul,timat ... '
/" l rJ, ,SlWc;tr . Stres.s
~
• 0'
0 1000 2'000 3000 , 4000
. Normal stress (psf)
JOB NO.: S1)116,3-00 .IOATE:
,-
IFIGURE: Auqust, 1982 C-IO
ft&a.1 '"'.~""""" .............. _ ... _ ••• ___ ••• _ .... _
~-----~---~--------
3000 B.ORING DEPl-R COHE~,!,ON. ANGLE Of' SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
NO. (FEE, . (PS . 'FRI,CTIO~o SANTIAGO FORMATION
3 3-30 650 31 , , INT.:n.~'T' . ~ANm:;'T'ONR
"
V Peak'
,0=310 C=6 o ~sf.
,
)
2000 . , , '
/ -V Ultimate tI-I
00 V ',0=320 c=o 0.. -00, " !
00
Q) V ~ V '\.-I -1-"
CIl "
\.-I / /' ·m (!) ..c::
CIl 100,0 V ~ V D' . ,
, .
:/
'~ V V 0
0 1000 "2()"OO '3000 , 4000
Normal Stress (psf) -
.\ .,
, JOB·NQ.: '8Dl163-00 'IDATE: August, 1982 ~ '. " ' ,
IFIGURE: C-ll ..
., SAN'DI~GO-SOI(S-:-ENGjNEERTNG~-fNC.
,-,--',-'-, -, - - - - --' ---"--,' - -;C.; , ,
, ,
3000 a,ORING gEP!~ , CO~E~J,0'" ANGLE O'i, , SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
,NO. FEE , , PS FRICTION:t POTN,T LOMA FORMATION -,-t 400 ,,24 REMOLDED SILTSTONE
, ,
, '
"
,
,
/ D
2000 V ~ -\J.I
1/], V ~ -
'I/]
~ ~. s.t '
""' / CIl
s.t 'ItS ' ", OJ • .c:: ./ CIl, 1000 ' , , ' V ~
/ ItS 'j OJ Cl4' , '
"
, ,.
c
/-
/" "
, , ' " ,.
, ,
< , , , .
~ " ,. ,
0
0 inoo 2QOO 3000 40<>0
Norm~l Stress Cpsf) I .
, ,
.loa NO.: SD1163-0,0 , IDAT~: August, 1982 IFIGURE: , ' C-12
, , , , , -,I
, ' I!" .............. ~ ........... A _ •• _ .... ___ ••• _ .a. Go
-------~-----~-----" ,
300,0. BOAtNG DE,,!.:; COHE~ON. ANGLE Of' SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
. NO.' (FEE '(PS . 'FRICTIOi(° SAN'fIAGO FOR.MATION
2 20. 850. 17 . REMOLDED CLAYSTONE
"
.
' . .. " ,
-
, .
2000 ' , ~ )
. . ----~ -U-I -til \ ~ a. -
til ~ ~~ til
(1) ~ ~
~ +' C1l . ~/
~ V 11:1
10----.......-''J:: (1) . ,
..c: --• C1l 10.00. ~.......--V ~.
11:1
(1)
~
/ . '
..
. .
0 . ,
0 100.0 20.00 3000 ·4000.
Normal Stress (psf) .,
JOB NO.: SDl163-00 I DATE: August, ,1982 , . JFIGURE: C-13
, , , . l' ,< n· ..................... . ....... -_ ..... -' .... -
1
I.
'1·
,I
1
1
1
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
AJ?PE~DIX D
SLOPE STABII"ITY ANALYSES
Appendix D summarizes results o£ slope stability analyses.
Gross stability analyses were performed for compacted slopes'
(maximum height. of 80 feet) using Janbu'~ stability. chart and
the 'shear strength parameters for remolded siltstone presEmted
in Figure C-l2. Gross s-t:ability analyses were also performed
for cut-slopes (maxim,um height of 80 feet). in siltstone 'Using
the shear strength. parameters fbi intact siitston.e presented
in Fi9ure C-lO. Stability analyses a~e presented in Figures
D-land D-2.
Su.rficial stability c;fnalyses were performed assuming an ·infinite
slopewitn seepage parallel to·the slope face. TO determine
the shear strength for s.urficial stability analyses, d;t:ained
Direct Shear tests were performed on :r;:emolded siltstone samples
(compacted ·at 90%. dry qensity) at low' norma!" ,loads (75-150 psf)
and the Sal!lples were permitted to ~well prior to shearing.
Shearing of samples provided at a strain rate of on the order
of 7 percent/hour. 'The surficial stability analysis for a·
2:1 slope with three feet of seepage is preSented in Figure D-3
and the _tactor of safety vers.us· depth of seepage for· different
slope ratios are presented in tigure·D~4.
:1
I
I:
·'1
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
'I,
I
I
I
1
I
I
I'
35
:m
2S
0
0
200 ;10
0
160
t4
120
" a: w ct)
2: :;:)
!Z
~>
~ :::i ..
CD' t!
. .."
f-i 100 go
10
70
'50
"" z ....
. "
.\1"-
t\. ." 50 . '-"-
. '" "-\ ' '-' '" I~ ." '" 30
. ''"' .. ~ .
,~ '-,
. '"\..:.
2 • • 14
.~ . \
12 "' 1 0 t • 7
I
. ." ..
ru= 0 1\ "'-TOE CIRCLES ~
\ .......... to
~
~-~$ ~ ............ ., . "-~ .. -
" \ .-....... ~ -
'-\. , ........ -.:.t .'
~ ~~\ " , ~"~~ ~ ..... . . ........
.~. \~
'" ~\ ~ . . ~
1"'-' ......... . ~ t--... " ~. "
"-",,'\ "--....... ~ ~: " ---. ........... ~ 1,,,,-\ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ....15 ... .
"" ~ .~. ~ ....... ~ ~. """-
~~ ~ ,-... r-------. ~ tF= ~ r--........
'-~ " !-oo..... X ~ .... --6-== . ,~-----, . ~ ~ -~ ---, ~ ~ ~ !"" -........ io--. . ~ ll'..
\ ..........: i::) I~";' :--~ -~ ~~ ~ . .... ,~s ~-',-'" . -r---.. " ~ ~ ~
<>. ----1---· ''i " .,
':'-.. ......... ri,§~ .... ... ~ ~ ... 10....0
. -5 10 15 20 2S 30 35 40 45
SLOPE e( (DEGREES) .
SLOPE DATA:
.,
Slope Height (H) 80 feet Friction Angle' (flJ) ..,:..-0 ..... 2_4 ...... -...-degrees
. Slope' Ratio (-<) (2 i 1) 26. (,degrees Cohesion (C) ___ ~4..;..0..;..0_-"ps~
Unit·· Weight (I') 120 pci
FACTOR'OF SAFETY (F.S.):
""'\ ,./. = lfHtanflJ = -N;'P' . C 10.7 Nil = ____ 3..L.7'--...-..._~ from chart
F.g. 1.54 Fill Slope (Remolded Si+tstone)
GROSS STABILITY ANA,LYSIS(JANBU IS. CHART),
JOB NO.:·
Sp1l63-00
. FIGURE: DATE: D-1 . A~gust, 198~'
I,
I
I
I'
I
I,
I
I
I
I'
I
'1
I
I
'I
I
,I
I
I
" I
50 3
DJ
,250
200 I iO
10 1 , 40
20
1 00 go
10
70
10 ....
,
,a: . ~~ ",.
en :1:' 1\ " :)
,~ '\
> ... ~$ ,:i 'o.
iii ~ ., .", • '" \' Lao, " \ Z .... ,
~ ....... ",-.~
t\. -" ",,"
"-" , .......
..
-.
'u:ll 0 ..
"-TOE CIRCLES ,
......... ~
~
1\"-, ......... ~
\ ~ I'--......
~ -'\ --........... ,-,~ ,
............ ()~ -.......:.('~ -
""'"
.......... .. " \~ ~:
~\' ~ ~
~ -" .-........
toO \\. ,\ "'-.............. \. ..... !ooo.. -........ ~~. ~ \ '" " \" ""'"
~ ............... ,j \ ~
.'\: "-l,'\ ~ ~ ""--
.-. -..-... lis 3IJ ... .'" :"'-~~ ~ r--......... ~~ k-,.' .
. ~
\.. \ ....... ~'~ , , ~ .......... ~ ff:::: 2"' ~ ~. 4·
11 -'-., ,\.'" .. ~" ~ 10-. ~ 6 --== '-. '0. -----, , ~ ,-""""--• h.. ~
14 i'-\ ",.~ ~ ~-'" ---. -"
~ :~-:
"-~ -.....:~ 1-.. " I"-~ -:---... ,'\ " 12 ~-" ~ ~$ ~ , "'" -~ .2' ~
10 ~ ~ .... -" , '~~ --1~ • "'{' '" ...... . 'n·s==-
7 ... '-.
,
,. "' ~ .. ~·o ••
..
5 10 15 20 -25 30
SLOPE -<"DEGREES) -
40 . 45
SLOPE DA'l'A: .
Slope Height (H) 80 feet Friction Angle (~) __ ~3~2~~_degrees
,Slope Ratio (e<) (2: 1) 26. €"degrees Cohesion (C) 4aO psf
Unit Weight (I) -12,5 pef
FACTOR"OF S~FETY (F.S.):
15.6 Np -____ ~_4~9~ ____ ~' from chart
F.S. N.. C = V H = 1.96 Cut .Slope -(Si1tstdne/ClaystC?ne)
GROSS STABILITY ANALYSIS (JANBU'S CHART) . -.
JOB NO.: DATE: FIGURE: D-2 August, 1982 SDl163-00
I:
1
1
1 '-
'I
-I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I,
-I
1
1
1
I"
. -'" 't+tr
.-.. --.
r~.. ....: ~ ",' ~t:Er.t ..
100' -8 : Ho-~-' •. . . '~. .' +-IW-'o-->+'+ ~+.. . . ..--~
1-H-+H-h· .t-i-.i ~!-r
t-:-;-,+ ,+1+ :' : ~~ , -~.±~;. _ . ~ =~gfis ~ -~j:~4l-· '~~ ,:.. . :: :.~ ~~i::>'
~.'.l, ,,' ;: :.~~-~ r+rr .~~~~;:t t~ ::~ft~i r~ r' .. .. . :.:' . ~~~ .~~: : l
., .. .. ::,; .-c:Ih,*." ,,' .. ".:~l,
. :. ~I-i-~:;";'r.:-....... " '. : 1-'-
_. t-r.~ 50
o
o 50 100 150 200 250
" NORMAL STRESS(N) psf
SURFICAL STA1ULITY DATA: ..
Slope Ratio (0() ---,.....;{:.,..2..,;;' :_1~) ____ 2,....6_· ._6 ..... ___ degrees
Total unit Weight (tt,) 120 pef
Bouyant Unit Weight Of,,) 57 • 6 .pef
Deptl\ of Seepage Flow (D) . 3 ~ O' feet
FACTOR OF' S,A,FETY ('F. S • )
...
COS ~ = 138 psf . S = 153 ~rom above chart --=-=:...-----
F.S. S = = v D COS ot sin 0(. . 't
.\
1. 06 Fi:l1 Slope (Remolded
Siltstone)
SURFICAL STABILITY ~ALYSIS
FIGURE: JOB NO.:' SDl163-00 D-3 _ August, 1982
$AN DIEGO SOllSENGINFFRING. INC. '.1
1
I.
1
1
1
I·
1
1
1
1
·1
1
1
1
I
-• CIl • ~ -
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
.... -
o 1
-,
, , , .
-to" "
3
DEPTH OF SEEPAGE (feet)
'SURFICIAL 'STABILITY O,ATA:
Slope Ratio k) 2.5; 1 2:1 i. 5: 1
Total unit' Weight (YT ) 120 pc·f
Soil Type Remolded Siltstone
FACTOR OF SAFETY (F .. S.) :
F.·S. =: 2.41' 1.98 1.59 (0 =
i.32 t (0 F.S. = 1.59 1.08 =
F.S., = 1 .. 27 ,1.06 0.86 . (0 =
F.S. = 1.13 0.93" 0.75 '. (0, =
.(2.5:1) (2: 1) (1.5:1)
, ,
4
1 fOQt)
2 ·feet),
3 feet)
4 feet)
SURFICIAL STABILITY ANALYSIS: SU~RY
0108 NO.: I,IDATE: 8D1.1.'63-00 I, August,. 1982
, .
FIGURE:
I
I
1
I'.'
1
1
:1
J
~I
:0
I ~,~.
I
I
,I
I
1
I,
I
I
'I'
I
1. .,
2.
3.
4.
s.
6.
. 7.
8.
9.:
~ 10.
11.
12.
APPENDIX E
·STANDl\RD GU:r,OELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS
TABLE OF c:ONTEN'l'S
GE;NERAL • • • • • • • • .. • • • · . · . ". . . .
DEFINITION OF 'TERMS • • • • • • · . . · . . · . . .. ).
· . .
OBLIGAT.lONS OF PARTIES. • • • • · . . · . • • •
SITE PREPARATION.
SITE PROTECTION •
. . . . . . . . · . . . . .
• 1
5 . ~
6 . . --. .' . . · . . · .. · -. .
EXCAVATIONS .. • • • .. • • • • · . · . • .. a
6,.1 UNSUITABLE ~TERIALS. ./ · . . • • 8
6.2 CUT SLQPES ..... . . · . . . • .. 8
6 • 3 PAD AREAS • • • .,. -• • • • · . . • • • !l • • 9
COMPACTED FILL. • • • .. • II! • • · . . • • • · . • • 9
7.1 PLACEMENT ••• . . . ~ . . -. . . • • • -.lQ
7.2 MOISTU~ •••• af • • • • • · '. • • • • -.11
. 7. 3' FILL MATERIAL • · . . . • •••• 12-
7.4
7.5
,FILL 'SLOPES ~
OFF-SITE FILL
• e" • . . . '. . . · . . . -. . .14
DRAINAGE. .:. • • •
STA~ING •••• ' ••
· . • • • · . . • • · . . . • • • • • • · . . . . .' . . . .
.. . • • • · . . . , · . .
SLOPE MAINTENANCe ........... . · . .
.16
.16
.17 '
.11'''
10. 1 ' LANDSCAPE PLANTS. • .. • • • • • • • _. .. • 17
10.2 .IRRIGA'1'J;ON. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • .17
10.,3 MAINTENANCE. • • • • • • • • • • • • .,. • .18
10. 4 lU~:PAIRS". • • • • • • • • .• • • • _ •
TRENCH BACKFILL • • •.• • • • •. • • • • -. •
STATUS OF GRAOING ~ • .. • • • • • • • • • •
· . . .18
.. . i .19
· . . .20
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
;
I
I'
'I
I~
I
I
':1'
1.
2.,
STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING ~ROJECTS
GENERAL
1.1
1.2
1.3
'1.4
1.5
The guidelines contairied herein and the standard
details attached pereto represent this firm's stan-
dard recommendations for grading and other associated
operations on construction projects. These guide-
lines should be considered a portion of the project
speci fica tions •.
All plates attached hereto shall be considered as'
part of the,se guide~in~s.
The -Contractor should not vary from these guidelines
without prior recommendation by the Geotechnical Con-.
sultant and the approval of the Client or his auth-
orized repres~ntative. Recommendation by the Geo-
technical Consultant and/or Client should not be
conside'red to preclude requirements for approval by
the controlling agency prior to the execution of any
changes. '
These Standard Grading Guidelines and Starida,rd De-
tails may be modified and/or superseded by re'cOmmen-
dations contained in the text of the p~eliminary
geotechnical report and/or subsequent reports. '
If disputes arise out of the interpretation of .these
grading g:uidelines or standard details, the Geotech-
nical Consultant shall provide the gove~ning inter~
pretation. '-
D~F!NlTIONS OF_ TERMS
2.1 ALLUVIUM -unconsolidated detrital deposits resulting
from flow' of water, ,incl,uQ.ing' sediments deposited in
river beds, canyons', flood' plains, lakes, fans ,at the
foot of slopes' and estuaries.
2.2 AS-'GRADED (AS-BUILT) -the surfa6e and ~,ubsurf~ce con-
ditions at completion of grading.
2.3. BACKCUT - a temporaryconstructibn slope at the rear
()'f -earth retaining st.ructures such as buttresses,
shear }c-eys, stabilization fills or retaining, wa~ls.
2.4 BACKDRAIN'-generally a pipe and gravel or similar
'drainage'systemplaced behi~d earth retaining struc-
tures such as ~buttresses, stabilization fills and
retairiing ~al~s. ' ,
I
I'
I
I
I
I'
I
2.5
2'.6
'1..7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
, 2.13
. 2.14
2.15
Page Two
BEDROCK - a more or' less solid, relatively uhdis:'"
turbed rock in place either at the Surface 'or be~
neath superficial· deposits of soil.
aENCR - a relatively level step and ne:ar vertical
'rise excavated ilito sloping ground on whi.ch fi~l is
to be placed.
SORROW (Import) -any .f,ill material hauled, to the
:project site from off'-site .areas.
1:1 BUTTRESS~ILL '-a fill mass, the .conf.igura.tion . of
which is designed by engineering calculations to
retain slope conditions containing adverse geologic
feAatures.. A buttres:s is generally speci,fied by min-
imUm key width anq depth and by maximum backcut angle.
A buttress normally contains a backdrai~age system.
CIVIL E'NGINEER -the Regis tered Civil Engineer or
consulting firm responsible for preparation of the
grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded
topographic conditions.
CLIENT .... the Developer or h'is authorized representa-
t:i.v~ who' is chiefly in charge of the project. He
shall 'have the responsibility of reviewing the find-
ings apd recommendations made by the Geotechnical
Consultant and' shall authorize the Contraqtor and/Or
other consultants to perform work and/or provi~e .
Services.
COLLUVIUM ... generally loose deposits usually found
near the base o,f slopes and brough,t there chiefly by
gravity through slow continuous downhill creep .. (also
'see S lope Wash). .
COMPACT'ION ... is the densi-ficati..on of a £111 by mech-
'ani..cal means"
CONTRACTOR - a person or comp~ny under contract or
o,therwise retained by the Client to perform demoli-
tion, grading and other site improvernent:s.
DEBRIS'-all products 9f clearing, grubbing, demoli:-
tion~ contaminated soil material unsuitable for reuse
as cqmpu.cted f'ill and/or any other material so desig-
,hated by ,the Geotechnical Consultant.,
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST - a Geo~ogist holding a valid
certif:l.cateof reg,istration in the specialty of
Eng,ineerin9 Geology.
I
I
I
I
I
, 'I'
'I
I
il
:1
'I
1
Page Three,
2.16 ENGINEERED FILL - a fill of which the· Geotechnical
Consultant or his representa~ive~ during grading,
has made sufficient tests to enable him to cqnclude
, that the fil.1 has been placed in substantial com-
pliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
'Consul tant and th~ governing agency reqUirements.
2.17 EROSION -the wearing away of the ground surface as
a result of. the movement of wind, water and/or ice.;
2'!18 EXCAVATION"", the mechanical removal ,of earth materials.
2.19 EXISTING, GRADE -the ground-surface conf-igura tion
prior to grading.
2.20 FtLL -any deposits of soil, rock, soil-rock blends
or other similar materials placed by. man.
2.21 FINISH GRADE -the, gro:und surface configuration at
which time' the surface elev'a tions conform to the
approved-plan.
2.22 GEOFABRIC -any engineering textile utilized in geo"",
technical applications including sUbgradestabiliza-
tion and filtering.
2.23 ,GEOLOGIST - a representative of the Geotechnical Con-
sultant educated and trained in the field of geol09¥ •
. ~.24 'GEOTE~HNICAL CONSULTANT -the Geotech:nical Engineering
and Engineering Geology consui'ting firm retained to
prqvide technical ,services for the project. Forthe
purpose of these specifications, Observations by the
Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the
Soil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering
Geologist and those perf6~ed by persons employed by
and responsible to the Geotechnical Consultants.
2.25 GE;OTECHNICAL ENGINEER - a licensed Civil Eng'ineer who
applies sc~entific methods, enginee~ing principles and
professional experience to the acquisition, interpre-
tation and u~e of knowledge of materials of the earth's
crust for the evaluation. of engineering problems. Geo-'
technical Engineering encompasses many of the engi-
neering aspects of' soil mechanics, rock mechanics,
geolOgy, geop~ysics, hydrolqgy an4 related science$.
. ,
. 2.26 GRAQING -any operation consisting of excavation,
filling or combinations thereofand'associated opera-
tions .•
2.27 LANDSLIDE DEBRIS -material, genetally porous and of
row density, produced from,instab:i,lity of natural or
man-made slopes.
2.28 MAXIMUM' DENSI1'Y,-·standard labo,ratory test for maximum'
. dry uhi t ·w~ic:Jht. Unle:;·s otherwise specitied, the
maximuTTI dry .uni t weiqh.t sl1all he det~rmined in accor-
1
1
:1
1
:1
I
I
I
t
I
I
1
I
I
I
Page F,our
, ': 2.29 OPTIMUM MOISTURE -t~st mois,ture content at the
'Jilaximum density. ' ) , .
'2.30 RELATIVE COMP,ACTION -the degree of compaction
(expressed as a perceI1,tage) of dry ~nit weight of
a mat~ri?ll as compared to the maximum dry unit weight
of the rna ter,ii:ll!>
2.31 ROUGH GRADE'" the ground surfa·ce configuratiq.n at. which
time the '..;urfaceel~vations approximately conform to
,the approved plan.' ,
2~32 SITE -the particular parcel of' land where grading
is being, performed.
2.3,3 SHEAR KEY -similar to buttress, however, it, is gen-
erally constructed by excavating a slo't within a
, natural slope in order to stabilize the upper por-
,tion of tQe slope without grading encroaching into
the lower ~ortion of the slope. '
2.34' SLOPE'-is ap,inclined ground surface the steepness
of which is generally spec!i'fied as a ratio of hori~
zont~l: vertical (e.g., 2:1). ' . .
, ,
2.35 SLOPE WASH -soil and/or rock material that has peen
transported down, a slope by mass wasting assisted'by
,runoff water not confined by channels (also see,
Colluvium). '
'2.36 SOIL -natural1Y'occur,ting' deposits of sand, Silt,
clay, etc. or combinations thereof.'
.2.37 SOIL ENGINEER -licensed Civil Engineer' experienced
in ,soil mechanics (also see, Geo.technical Engine!!r).
2.38 STABILIZATION FIL~ --a fill mass"the configuration
of which is typically rel~ted to, s.lc;>pe height and is
specified by the standard·s of practice for enha·ncing
the stability of locally adverse cQnditions., A sta~
bilization fil,l, is normally specified QY minimum key
width and depth and 'by maximumba~kcut angle. A
stabil[zation'fill mayor may not have 3. back drainage
system specified.
2.39 tSUBDRAIN -cjene~ally a pipe and ,gravel or ,similar
'drainage system'placedp~neath a fill in the' align-
ment of can}"onsor former drainage chan~el$.
2.40 SLOUGH -loose, noncompacted f.ill material gene,rated
,during grading opera t,ions.
2.41" TAILING'S -nonengineerec;I fill which accumulates on
or'adjacent to equipment haui-roads.
2.42 TERRACE';" relatively' level: step co,Ii.~tructed in the
face' ,o·f a graded$lope su~face .fordrainage control
':>nn "''''; n+-""n,.::\'nl"'P' ,",1'l"'nnc::i:><:: ..
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
,',
'I
I
I
-,I
I
I
I
I
I
I
...
Page Five
2.43 TOPSOIL -the -pre~umi!bIy fert'i Ie upper' zone of ~oil
wh~ch is usually darker' in ~olor and loose.
2.4ii WINDROW - a string of large rock buried within en-
gineered fill in accordance with guidel~n~s set forth
by . the Geotech,nical Consultant.
3., OBL!GATIONS OF PARTIES
3.1 The Geotechnical~nsultan,t· should provide observa-
tion ~nd te'sting services 'and, sl)ould make eva'lua-
tions in order to a,dvise the Client on geotechnical
matters. The Geotechnical Consultant should report
his findings and recommendations to the Client OJ;'
his authorized representative.
3.2 The Client should be chiefly responsible for all
aspects of the project. He or his authorized rep-
resentative has the responsibility of review'ing the
findings and recommendations of th~ Geotechnical
Consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have
authorized the Contractor and/or otner consultants
to perform work 'and/or provide services. During
grading t.he Client or his authorized representative
should remain on-site or should remain reasonab:lY
accessible to all concerned parties in order to make
de~isions Iiecess~ryto m~intain the'flow of the
project.
3.3 The Contractor should be responsible for th~ safety
of the ,project and sa tis,factory comp·let.ion of all
grading and other associated operations on construc-
tion projects, including, but not limited to, earth
work in accordance with the project plans, specifi-
cations and c'ontrolling agency requirements,. Dur~ng
grading,. the ContJ;'actor or his a.uthori.zed represen ....
tative should rema~n.on-site. Overnight and on days
off, the 'ContractQr ,should remain accessible.
4. ,SITE PREPAM,TION
4.1 The Client, prior to any site preparation or grading,
sho~ld arrange and attend a meeting among the Grading
Con,tractor, the D,esign Engineer, the Geotechnical Con-
sultant, representatives of the appropriate governing
a,uthori·ties as weil as any ,other concerned parties.
All p.arties should be given at least 48 hours notice.
4.2 Cle,aring and grubbing should consist of the removal of
vegetation such as brush, grass, woods" stumps,t.rees,
roots of trees and otherwj,.s~ deleterious natural mater-
ials from the areas to be graded. Clearing' and grub-
bing should extend to the outside of all proposed
excavation' and fill areas.
I
·1'
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I·,
I
I
,', ~ .,~
5.
4.4
4.5
Page Six
-,>:. '.'.,
Demolition should inciude remqvai of buildings,
struct~re$, foundations, reservoirs, utili.ties (in-
cluding undergrounQ. pipe~ines, septic: t'anks, leach.
fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tun-
nels, etc.). and other man-made surface a'nd sub-
.surface itnprovementsfrom the areas to be graded.
Demoli.tion of utilities should include proper c:ap-
ping and/or rerouting pipelines at the project per-
i~eter aria cutoff and capping of wells in acc:ordance
with the requirements of the governing authorities·
and th~ recommendations of the Geotechnical Consul-
tan,t at the time of demolition.
't'rees, plants or man-made improvements not planned
to be removed or demolished should be protected by
, the Con.traqtor from damage or injury.
Debris generated during clearing, -grubbing arid/o~
demolition operations should be wasted fro~ are'as
to be gradeti and disposed of.f-si tee Clearing, grub...,
bing' and demolition operations should be perf.ormed·
under the observation of the Geotechnical Consultant ..
The Client or Contractor shOUld obtain the required
approvals from the controlling authorities for the
project prior, during and/or after demolition, site
preparation anti removals, etc. The appropriate ap~
provals should be obtained prior to proc.eeding with
grad~ng operations. .
.SITS·PROTECTION
. 5.1 Protect~6n ·of the site Quring the period o.f g,rading
should be the responsibility of the Contractor" Un-
less other provisions are made in writing and agreed
upon ~ong the concerneti parties, comple.tion o·f· a
portion, of the' project should not be c6~sidered. to
preclude that portion or adjacent areas from the
requirements fO.r s1 te protection until such time as
the.entire ·projec:t.is·comp~ete as identified by i:he
G'eotechnical Consultant, the Client arid the regu-
lating agencies. .
5.2 The Contracto~ should be responsible for the stability
of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the
Geotechnical Consultant pertaining to temporary exca-
vations (e.g., backcutsl are made incon~ideration of
. 'stability 'of the completed project and, therefore,
should not l:>e considered. tc> preclude the responsi-
bilities'ofthe Contractor.-Recommendations by the
Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered to
preclude more restrictive requirements by the regu--
lating agencies. .
. "
I
I
I
I,
I
'I,
I'
I
I
:,~
I
I:
,
I
I
I
I
I'
I
'I,
I
II1II
' ,.'
Page Seven,
" ': -; ~ .. : -1,~
~ -.' A _ •
. 5 ~ 3 Precautions shoula be taken, during the perfqrmance .
of site clearing, excav~tions and grading to protect.
the work site from flooding, ponding' or inundation by .
poor or' improper surface drainage'. Temporary provi~
sionsshould be made during t~e rainy se~son to ade-
quately direce surface drainage away from and off the
work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps
should. be "'~pt on hand.to continually remove water
d,uring periods of rainfall •.
5.4 ,During periods of rainfall, plastic sheeting should
'be kept reasonably: accessible ,to prevent unprotected
slopes from becoming saturated. Where necessary dur-
ing periods of rainfall, the Contrac·tor should install
checkqams, desil ting basins', rip-rap, sand hags Or other
devices or methods necessary to control erosion and
provide safe conditions.
5.5 During periQds of rainfall, the Geotechnical consultant;.
should be kept informed by the Contractor as to the
nature of remedial or preventative work being performed
(e.g., pumping, placement of sandbags or plastic sheet-
in9', other, labor, dozincj, etc.). ' '.
5.6 Following periods of rainfall, the Contractor should
contact the Geotecpnical Consultant and arrange a walk-
over of the site in order,to visually assess rain re-
lated damage. The Geotechnical Consultant may also
recommende'xcavittions and. testing .in order to a·iQ.. in
his aS$essments.At the request of the Geotechnl.cal
Consultant, the contractor shall. make excavat:i:6ns in
order to evaluate the extent of rain: relate.d-dainage.
5.7 Rain-related damage should be considered to include,
but may not be limited to, erosion, silting, saturation,
,swelling, structural distress and other adverse condi-
tioI'ls identified by the Geotecpnical Consultant. Soil
adversely af·fected should be c'lassified as Unsuitable'
Materials and should be subject·tooverexcavation and
replaceme~t with compacted fill or other r~medial grad-.
ing as recommended' .by the Geotechnical Consultant.
5.8 Relatively lev~l areas, where sat.urated soils and/or
erosion gullies exist to depths Qf greater than 1.0
fQot, should be overexcavated to unaffected~'compe-
tent material.. tihere less than 1.:0 fOot in depth, un-
suitab~e materials may be {)rocessed in-place to achieve,
near-optimum moistu,re conditions,' then thoroughly re-
co~pacted in accordance with the applicable specifica-·
tions-. If the desired results are not achieved, the
affected materials' shouid Q.e overexc.avated, then re-
placed' in acc0r.:d~nce with the applicable specifi¢atio,ns ~
~ ': '
I
I,
I,
I:
'I
1
I
, 1
I
I
:1
,I
I
,I
I
I
I
:1
II
"
" ' 5.9
Page Eight
In slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion
g\lllieS exist to depths of greater than' 1.0 foot,
they should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted'
fill in accordance ,wi th the applicable specifications. "
t"1here affected materials exist to depths of 1. a foot '
or less below'proposed finished grade, remedial grad-
ing };)y moisture conditioning in-place, followed by
thorough recompaction in accordanc4;! with theappliq-
able g~ad1jhg guidelines herein may be attempted. If'
the desired results are not achieved, all af,fected '
materfals should be ove:rexcavated and replaced as
compacted fili in accordance with ,the slope repair
recommendations herein. As field conditions d'icta'te"
other slope repair procedures may be recommended by
the' Geotechnical Consultant.
6. EXCAVAT'l;ONS '
6.1 QNSUITABLE MATERIALS
6.1.1 Materials which are unsuitable should be exca-
vated under observation and ,recommendations of
the Geotechnical Consul tan,t. Unsuitable mater-
ials include, but may not'be limited to, dry,
loose, soft, wet, organic compressible·natural
soils and fractuted, weathered, soft bedrock
and nonengineered or otherwise ~eleterious
fill materials.
6.1.2 Material identified by the Geotechnical Consul-
tant as unsatisfactory due to it's rnois'ture
conditiQns Should be overexcavated, watered or
dried., as needed, and thoroughly blend'ed ,to a
uniform near ,.optimum Illoisture condi tiort .(as per
guidelines re'ference 1. 2. 1) prior to placement
as compacted fill.
6.2 ·COT SLOPES
6.2.1. "Unless o,therwise recommended by the Geotechnical
consultant and approved, by the regulating agen-.
cies, permanent cut slopesshoQld not be steeper
than 2: 1 (horizontal:ve·rtical).,~
6.2.2 If excavations for cut clopes e~pose loose, co-
hesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise
unsuitable material, overexcavation ,and replace-
.: meht of the unsui table materials with a compacted
stabilization fill $oould be accomplished as
:recommend~d by the Geotechnical Cons.ul tanto .
Unless othe.rwisEaspecifieg by the' Geotechncial
conspl'tant, stabilization fill construction
should conform. to th~ requirements of the Stan":
dard Oetails.
I,
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
'I
I , ,
I
I
I
I
I 7.
6.2.3,
6.2.4,
6.2.5
Pag'e Nine
. The Geotechnical.Consultant should review cut
slopes during excavation. The Geotechnical
Oon~ultc:tnt should be notified by the contractor
prior to beginning slope excavations. .
I,f, during the course of grading, adverse or
potentially adverse geotechnical conditions are
encountered which were not anticipated in the p~eliminary report, the Geotechnical Consultant
should explore, analyze and make reconunenda-·
tions t·o· treat these problems.
When cut slopes are made in the direction ,of
the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diver-
sion swale (brow ditch) should be provided at
the top-of-cut.
'6.3 PAD AREAS
6.3.1 All lot 'pad' areas, including side yard terraces"
above stabiliza,tion 'fil1$ or bu.ttresses should
be overexcavated to provi~e for a minimum of
3 feet (refer to Standard Details) of compacted
fill over the entire pad area. Pad areas with
both fill, and cut materials exposed and pad
areas containing both very shallow (less than
3 feet) and deeper fill s'hould be overexcava,ted
to provide for a uniform compacted fill blanket
with a minimum .of 3 feet in thickness (refer to
Standard Details). Cut areas exposing signi-
fic;:antly varying ma.terial types snould also be
overexcavated to provide for at least a 3-foot
thick compacted fill blanket. Geotecpnical
conditions may require greater depth of" over-
excavation. The actual depth should be de-
lineated by the Geotechnical Consultant during
,grading. ' .
6.3.2 For pad areas created above cut or natural ,
·s.lopes, posit~ve drainage should be established
away from the top-of-slope. This may be accom-
plished \,ltilizing a berm anq/or an appropriate
pad grCidient. A gradient in soil areas away
from the. top-of-slopes of 2 percentol:' greater
isreconunend~d •
·COMPACTED FILL
All fill. J!laterials should: be compacted as s,pecified below
or by other methods s,peci~ically recommen'ded by the Geotech-
nicalConsul tanto Unless otherw,ise speci£:ied, the mi'nimum
degree of compaction (relative compaction) should be 90
percent, of the laboratory maximum density o.
I
.1.···
I
I
I "
I·
·1
,I
I.
I
, ~I
;1.
I'
'I,
I.
I
'1
,I
I' .
' ~,. . ~ .. ~
7.1
.. ,.
Page Ten
" .,~
PLACEMENT
7.1.1 Prior to placement of compacted fill, the'Con':"
tractor should request a' review by the, Geotech":'.
nica1 Consultant of the exposed ground surf~ce.
Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed ground'
surface should then' be. scarified (six inches mini ....
, : .. _ ~ ,J.. <. •
mum)" wa tel:'ed or dried as needed, thoroughly ,
btenaed to achieve near' optimum moisture .condi-.'
tions', then thoroughl;y q6mpacted to a .minimum
of 90 percent of the maximam density. The re-
view'by'the Geotechnical Consultaht should not
be considered. to preclude.requirementof inspec-.
tion and approval by the governing agency.
7.1.2 Compacted fill should be placed in thin hori-
zontal li.fts not ,exceeding eight inches in loose'
thickness prior to compaction. Each lift
should be wa,tered 01:' dried as needed, thoroughly
blended to achieve near optimum moisture condi-
tions then thoJ:'oughly compacted by .. mechanical
. methods to aminimu,rn of, 90 percent of laboratory
maximum ·dry density • Each lift s·hould be treated
in . a like manner until the desir.ed fini·shed
grades are achieved •.
7.1.3 The Contractor should have suitable and suffi-
cient mechanical compaytion equipment and water-·
ing apparatus on the job s~te to handle the
amount.of fill being pla~ed in consideration
of moisture retention proPerties of the mater..-
ials ~ If Q.ecessary, excavation equipmen't should
be "shut·dowI)." tempQrarily ill. order' to permit
proper compaction of fills. Earth moving egui~
ment should only' be considered a supplement" and
not substituted fol:' conventional .compaction
equipment.
7.1. 4 When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent
to areas sloping steeper than 5: 1. (horizontal:
vertical), 'horizontal keys and vertical benches.
should be excavated into 'the adjacent slope area.
Keying and ben¢hing should be suff.icient to p.ro-
vide at leastsix-foQt wide benches and a mini-
mUm of. four feet of vertical bench. height within
the firm na.tural ground,· firm bedrock orengi-
neer~d compacted till. No compacted fill should
be placed in an area subsequent to keying and
ben¢hing .until the area has been reviewed by
the G~o.technical Consultant. Material generated·
. by the benching operation .$hould be moved suf;-.
'ficiently away from the bench area to allow for
the recommended. review of the horizontal bench
prior to placement of fill. ~ypical keying and
1:?enching details have been' included wi thin the
acconl?;;:t.nying Standa,rd Detaj,ls.
" .;::
I
I
I
1
1
,I
1
~I.
1
"
'I ,
il
;1
I
1
1
I·
.1
'I
I
.-, ",:'
." ,
7 .1~5
"3 -:-:s.\, \~", ,
. ':i1: :--f -, .-. .$ .:-
Within a' single fill 'area where grading proce-:'"
dures dictate'two or ,more 'separate fills, tem-
porary slopes (falSe slopes) may be created.
~lhen placing fill adjacent to a false slope,
, benching should be conducted in the same man-
ner as above described. At least a 3-foot
vertical bench shoulqbe established within' ,
the firm core of adjacent apPl;'oved compacted
fi41 .. prior to .placement of additional f:i;ll .. , "
Benching should proceed in at least 3-foo1:'
vertical increments uptil the desired finished
grades 'are achieved.
7.1.6 Fill should be tested for compliance with the
recommended rela"tivecompaction and moisture
conqit'ions. Field density testing should. con-
. form to ASTM Method of Tes't p 1556-64, 0 2922-78
and/or 02931-71. Tests should be provided for
about every two vertical feet or 1, 000 cubic",
yards of fill placed. Actual test interval
may vary as field conditions dictate,. Fill,
found not to be in conformance with the grad-
ing recommendations should be removed or other-
wise handled as recommended by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
7 .1. 7 The contractor shOUld assist theG-eotechnical
Consultant and/or his representative by ·digging.
te$t pits for removal determinations and/or for
testing compacted fil~.
7.1.8' As recommended by the Geotechnical' Consultant,
the Con·tractor shouid ~rshut down" or remove
grading equipment from an area being tested. , .~
7.-1.9 The GeQtechnical Consultant should, maintain a
plan with estimated locations '. of field tests.
Unless the'client provides for actual surveying
of test locations; the estimated locations by
theGeot~qhnical Consultant should on~y be con-
sidered rough estimates and should not be uti-
lized for the purpose of preparing cross sec-
tions showing test locations .or in any'case for
the purpose o·f after-tbe-fact evaluating of the
sequence offill placement~
j. 2 . ~.OISTURE
7.2.1 For field testing purposes, "near optimum" mois-
ture will vary with material type and other
f.actors including' compac.tiopprocedul;'e •. "}I:lear
'optimum" maybe specifically recommended in
Preliminary Investigation Re.ports and/or may
be evaluated during grading.
I'
I"
I,
I
,1''-
I
I
,I
:1'
I
"
I
:1
I
I
I
I,
~ • .,.'\;:' ,I
" . '.:
.,' .'-' -. .. . ::," .
.. "". :
7.3
,Page Twelve
" "
7 • 2.2 Prior ,to placement of additional compaqted
, fill following an overnight or other qradinq
delay, the, exposed surface or previously com-
~acted fill should be proces~edby sc~rifica-'
tion, watered or dried ~s needed, thoroughly
blended to near-optimum m9isture conc;:iiticms~
thEm 'recompacted to a minimlml of 90 percent
o~_l.Jlbor~tory maximum dry density. Where wet
or other dry or other unsuitable materials,
exist to depths of greater than one foot, the
unsuitable materials should, beoverex~avated.
7.2.3 Following a period of flooding, rainfall or
overwatering by other means, no additional
fill should be placed until aa~age' aSsess-
ments have been made and remed'ial grading
"performed as de'scribed under Section 5. ~
,herein.
FILL MATERIAL
7.3.1 Excavated on-site materials which ,are accept-
able to the Geotechnical Consultant may be '
utilized as compacted fill, prqvidedtra!$h,
vegetation and other deleterious materials
are ,removed prior to placement.
7.3,.2 'Where import materials are. req,uired fot-use .
on-site, the Geotechnical consultant should be
notified at least 72 hours in advance ofim-
porting~ in order to sample and test materials
from proPQsed horrow sites., No import'ma"ter-
ials should be delivered for use on-site with-
out prior'sampling and testing by Geotec::hnical consultan't. ' ' , '
~ ': '.... -' ,
7.3.3 Where oversized rock or s'imilar irreducible :ma.-
terial 'is generated during grading, it is rec-
ommended, where practical, to waste such mater-
ial off-site or on-site in areas designated as
"nonstructural rock disposal areas". Rock
placed in disposal areas should be,pl~ced with
sufficient fines to fill voids. The rock should
be compacted in lifts to an unyielding condi-
tion. Th,e disposal area should be covered with
a~t least three feet o~ compa~ted fill which is
free of oversized material. The uppe,r three'
feet should be placed in accordance with the
guidelines for compacted fill h~rein.
, >
I'
:1
':1'
I'
I
,I
I
1
;1
,
:1
'I
I
1
1
, '. ,
7.,3.5
7.3.6
7.3.8
,-~ j. t' ". ...
~·I. ('" ~ . '
Page Thirteen
"-,=
fN" ;,
Rocks ],.2 inches in Iriaxim\iIn d'imensi.on and smal-
ler may be utilized within the compacted fill,
provi<;i,edthey are placed in such a manner that
nesting of the rock is avoided. Fill shO,uld
be placed and thoroughly compacted over and
around all rock. The amoun't of rock should
not exceed: 40 percent by .dry weight passing
~~~ . ..1!4-inch s'ieve size. Th'e 12';" inch and ~()
percent recommendations herein may vary as
,field conditions dictate~,
Dut;'ing tp.e course of gr~ding operations, rocks '
,or'similar irI:'educible materials greater 1;han
12 inches 'maximum dimension (oversized 'material).,
may be'generated. These rocks should not be
placed within the compacted fill unless,placed
as recommended by the Geotechnical consu],.tant.
Wher.e rocks 'or similar irreducible materials of gr~ater than 12' inches but less than four feet of
maximum dimension are gerierated during grading,
or qtherwise desired to be placed wi thin an '
engineered fill" special haridling in accord-
ance with the accompanying Stand'ard Details is
recommended., Rocks greater than four feet should
be broken dow,n or disposed off-site,. Rocks
", .... ,.
up to four feet maximum, dimension should be placed
below the, upper 10 feet of any fill and shoUld,
,not 'be closer than 20 feet to any slope face.
These recommendati,ons' COUld. vary' as locations ,
of improvements dictate. Where practical, over-
sizedmate~ial should not Qeplaced below areas,
where structures or deep utilities are proposed.
OveI:'sized material should be placed in windrows
on a clean, overexcavated or unyielding coIli-
pil.cted fi,ll or firm natural ground s,urface.
,Select native or imported granular soil (S.E. 30
or higher) should be placed and thoroughly
flooded over and around all windrowed rock, such
that voids are ,filled. Windrows of 'oversized '
material should be "staggered SQ that successive
strata of oversized material are not in tbe
same vertical plane.
It may be possible to dispose of i,ndividual
larger rock as field conditions, dic;:ta'te and as
recommended by th'e, Geotechnical Consul tant at
the time of' placement~
.Material that i·s considered unsuitable. by the
G·eotechnical Consultant should not be utilized
in the compacted fill.
I'
I '. ,' .. :
I
I
I ' ,>
I'
I
,I
I
I
;1
;1
I
I
I
I
I
·1
I
,."":
-'., '.
.7.3 •. 9
Page .Fourteen
-, " '.
, ',' J!' .,'. , .. ". t ;"'''', .",
" --.;;. : . -"
:,~ .+' ,
During gradirt<i operations, placing and mixing
the materials from the cUt and/or borrow areas
. may result in soil mixtures which possess
unique physica.l properties. Testing may be
required of samples·obtained dir.ectly from the
fill areas in order to verify conformance with
the specifications. pro'cessing of these ad-"
dt;ional samples may take two or more working
days. The Contractor may elect'to move 'the "
operation' to' other' areas within the project, .:.";"
or may continue placing compacted fill pe~ding ,
, laboratory and field test results. Should he
elect the .second alternative, fill placed is
done so at the Contractor's ris'k.
7.3.10 Any fill placed in areas not previously re-
viewed and evaluated by the Geotechnical Con-
sultant, and/or in other areas, without prior
. notification to the Geotechnical Consultant may
,require removal and recompaction at the Con-
tractor's expense. Determination of overex-
cavations should be· made upon review of field
conditions by the Geotechnicaicol'lsultant.
7. 4'FILL :SLO,PES,
7.4.1 Unless otherwise recpmmended by the Geotechnical
Consu1tant and approved by the regulating agen-
cies,' permanent fill slopes shoulf3. not be'
steeper'than 2: 1 (horizontal: vertical) •.
7.4.2 Except as specifically recommended othe~ise
or as otherwise proviqed for in these grading
guidelines (Reference 7.,4.3),' compacted -fill
slopes should be overbuilt and cut back t9
,grade, exposing the firm, compacted fill inner
core. The actual amount of overbuilding may
vary as field conditions dictate. If the de-
sired results are not aChieved, the existing
slopes should be overexcavated a'ng, reconstructed
under the guideline,s of the. Geotechnical ~nsul-,
tant. The deg~ee of overbu.ilding shall be in-
creased until the ,desired compacted,: slop~ sur-
face condition is achieved. Care should be
taken QY the Contractor to provide thorough
mechanical comp'action to the outer edge of the
overbuilt slope surface.
7'.4_,.,a c', Although no construction procedure produces a
slope free frqm risk of f~turemovement,over
filling, and c,utting back of slope 'to a compacted
, inner core, is, given no other constraints" the
most desirable procedure .• · Othe'r constraints,
however., must often be cortsidered~ These con-
strai,nts may include property :line si tuatiQns,'
I
I
I
I
I
I
, " I'
I
I
,I,
I'
I
I
I
,I
, .
" ~'." " , ,' ...
7
Page Fifteen,
,', .:-
access, ,the critical nature of the development ,",
and cost. Where such constraints are identi-
fied, slope face compa~tion may be attempted
by conventional construction "proc'edures inciud";'
ing backrolling techniques upon specific recom-'. "
niend'ation by the Geotechnical Consultant.
\ ' As a second bes t al terna ti ve for s.lopes of 2: 1 ~:---, " (liorizontal :vertical) or flatter,. slope con-
struction may be attempted as outl~ned herein.
Fill placement should proceed in ,thin li.fts, i.e.,'
six to eight inch loose thickness) • Each lift .
should be moistu~e conditione:d and thoroughly
compacted. ~he desired moisture conditiQn
should be maintained and/or re-established,
where'necessary, during the period' between
. succes'sive lifts •. Selected lifts should pe
tested to ascertain that desired compaction,is
being achi'eved ~ Ca're should be taken to ex-
tend compactive'effortto the outer edge of
the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally
to the desireq finished slope surface or more
as needed to ultimat,ely establish desired grades.
Grade during. construction should not be allow~d
to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may
be he'lpful to elevate slightly the outer edge
'of the slope. Slough resulting from the place-·
ment of individual li,fts should not be all.owed
to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals
not exceeding four feet in vertical slopeheiqht
. OJ;' the capability of available equipment, which-.
ever is less, fill slopes should' ,be thoroughly
backrolled utilizing a conventional sheepsfoot-
type roller. Care shou14 be taken to maintain
'the desired moisture conditions and/or re-
establishing same as' needed p~ior to baqkrolling.
Upon achieving final grade, the slopes should,
again be moisture conditioned and thoroughly
backroiled. The use of a,. side-bpom toller-will
probably. be'necessa+y and vibratory methods are
strongly recommended. Without delay, so as to
avoid ~if possible) fu+ther moisture {conditioning,
the slopes should then. be 9rid-rolled to achieve
a -relatively smooth su'rface and uniformly com~
pact condition.
In order to monitor slope constructionproce-
dures, moisture and density tests will be takep
at regular intervals. F·ailur~ to achieve the
desiredres,ults :"will lik'ely result in a recQm-
·mend'ation by the Geotechnical Consultant to.
i
I
I·
I
I
,I
I
I
:1 ,
ii,
I
·1·
I.
I
1
I
I'
8.
< ': ~-•• ~. "
7.4.4
Page Sixteen
_" 0'
overexcavate the slope surfaces followed by
reconstruction o~ tbe $lopesutiliz3.ng over~
filling and cutting back procedures and/or
further attempt at' the .conventional bac~
rolling approa.ch.. Other recommendai tons may
also be provided which would b~ commensurate
wi th f.leld conai tions •
.-..,.;.-...
: '> .
Where placern~nt of fill above a natural slope
or above a cut slope is. proposed, the fill . ':,:: .
7.4.5
slope configuration as presented in the ac-
companying Standard Details should be adopted.
For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drain-
age sho·ulq. be established away froin the top-
of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing
a berm and padgrc:J.dients of at least 2 percent.
"in soil areas.
-7.5 OFF-SITE FILL
7.5.1
7.5.2
7.5.3
DRAINAGE
Off-site .fill should be treated j.n the same
manner as recommended in these specifications.
for site preparation, excavation, drains, com-
paction, etc •.
Off-site canyon fillshoulq. be placed in prep-
a.r~tioIi for future additional fill', as shown
in the accompanying Standard Details.
Off-site fill subdra.ins temporarily terminated
(up canyon) should be surveyed for future re-:
location and connection.
8.1 Canyon subdrain systems specified by the Geotechnieal
Consultant should be installed in accordance with the
StanQ.~rdPetails ~.
. 8.2 Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttres·ses, slope
·stabilizations.or 'sidehill masses, should be installed
in accoI;'dancewi1;h the speci.fications of the accompany-
ing Standard De tai Is. .
8.3 Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away
from slopes and areas of structu,res. to $Q.itable d1.s-
posal areas via non-erodible devices (i.e., gut·ters,
downspouts, '. concrete .swales).
8.4 For drainage over soiiareas immediately away from
structures, (i.e., within four feet) a .min,imum of· 4 percert·t
gradient shou·ld be maintained. Pad drainage of at
least 2 percents'hould be maj,ntained over soil areas.
Pad drainage may bereduc'ed to. at least 1 percent fo.r
I
I
I
·1
.1
I
I
I
I
I
I : .
,I,
I
I·
I
I:
·1
I
I
. 9.
10.
Pc1ige Seventeen.
projects' where no slopes exist, either natural o'r man-
made, of ,greater t;.han 10 feet in height and· where no
slopes are planned, either natural or man-made,
.steeper than'Z:l(horizontai:vertical $lope ratio)-.
8.5 Drainage patterns established at the t$.me of fi-negJ:'ad-
iner should be maintained throughout theli£e 0·£ the
project. ,p~Operty owners should be mad'e aware that
altering cfrainage p~tterns can be detrimental to slope
stapility and fourt~ation performance. .
STAKING
9.1 In all fill areas, the· fil,1 should be compacted prior
to the placement of the $takes. This particularly is
important on ~ill slopes. Sl,.ope stakes should 'not be
placed until the slope is thoroughly compacted (back-
rolled).' If, stakes must be placed prior to the com-
pletionof compaction procedures, it must be recognized
that they will ge removed and/or demolished at such
time as compaction procedures res'Ume •.
9.2 In order to allow for r~medial grading operations,
which .could include overexcavations or slope.stabili-
zation, appropriate staking offsets should be provided.
For finished slop~ and sta1:;>ili~ation backcu1; areas, t,re
recommend at least. a 10'-foot setback from proposed
toes and tOps-of-,cut.
S~QP~ MAINTEN.ANCE
10.1 LANDSCAPE·' PLANTS
In order to enhance surficial slope stab~lity., slope
planting should be accomplished at the :comp1etion. 0·£
grading. Slope planting s'hauld consist o£ deep-roQting
vegetation requiring little watering. P'lants native to
the sQutbern· CalifQrnia area and pl-ants relative to
native plants are general,ly desi.rable. P1an,ts native
to other semi-arid and arid areas may also be appro-
priate. A Landscape Architect would be the ~est party
to consult regarding actual types of plants and plant-
ing configuration.
IRRIGATION
10.2.1 . Irrigation' pipes should' be anchored to slope
faces, not placed in trenches'excavated .into
slOp~ faces. .
10.2.2 .Slope irrigation should be minimized. If auto-
matic timing devices are \ltilizedon irrigation'
systems, p~ovisions should be made for inter-
r,!pti,ng normal irrigation d·urin.g periods. of
rainfall. .
, .-'~
,f: :,.. ,
1
I:
I',
.1
,.
'.1' : ;f.r,
·1
1
,I
1
I
:1·
,I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I.
Page Eighteen
" -~. : .,".' -0+ •• .-.:-.. : ... --' .
. . io. 2 .• 3 • . ,~, . . Tbough not a r~quirement, consideration s.hould
be given. tQ,. the installation of near .... slirface
moisture monitoring contro'l devices. S'tfch de-
, ... ,. . vicescana~d in the maintenance of r~lativ~ly
Qnifot'm and reasonably constant moisture
condi tions. .
10 • ~ .. :4' Property owners should .be made aware that over-
... ' . "watering o·f slop~s is detrimental to slope : .. :-,:. ;.": stability.' .
10.3 MAINTENANCE
. 10.3.1 Periodic inspections of 'landscaped slope areas·
should be planned and appropriate measuI;'es
should be taken to control weeds arid enhance
growth of the landscape·plants. Some areas
may requi:re'occasional replanting and/or
reseeding.
10.3.~ Terrace drains and downdrains should be period-
ically inspected and maintained free of debris.
Damage to d'rainage improvements should be re-
paired' immediately.
10" 3.3 Property owners should be made aware that bur-
rowing animals can be detrimental to slope sta-
bility"! ~ preventative program should beesta-
blished' to control burrowing animals,,!
lQ.3.4 As a pr~cautionary measure,'plasticsheeting
should be re'adily available, or kept on ha·nd,
to protect al.l slope areas from sa tura tion by
periods of neavy or p·rolongedrainfall. . This
measure is strongly recommended, beginning with
the. period 'of time prior tol~ndscape planting •.
10.4 REPAIRS
10.4.iif slope fail\lresoccur,·the Geotechnical Con-
sultant shQuld be contacted for a field review
.of site conditions and development of recommen-
dations.forevaluatipn and repair.,
10.4.2 If slope failures occu+ a$ a result of exposure
to periods' of heavy rainfall, the failure area
and currently unaffected areas should be covered
'with plastic sheeting to protect against addi-
tional saturation. .
. 10.4.3 . In the accompa·nying Standard Details, apprp-.
priate repa~r procedures are illustrated for
superficial.slope failures (i.e., occuring typi-
cally w·i thin the outer one foo·t to three fee,t:f:
of a slope face).
.. ' .. -
I
":1' 1,,-I, . "
I
I
, . I,:
I:
1
·1
'I
·1 l.
, ' :,1
, ,
.1
I
I,
'1.
I
I
I·
I
page Nineteen.
, .' ~ ~ .
11. TRENCH BACKFILL
" . , _"\ .. 11.1 Utility trench backfill shoulq, unle~s ptherwise
recoIllf!lended,be compacted by me'chanical means. Unless
otherwise recotnrnended, ,the degree of compaction shc;>uld'
be . a minimum of 9'0 percen~ of ·the laboratory maximiun
densi ty.
11.2 As ,an .al ternative, granUlar material (sand equivalent,,,
greater than 30) may p¢ thoroughly jetted in-place •.
Jetting should only be considered to,apply to·trenches
no greater than two feet in width and four feet in depth.
Following jetting operations, trench backfill should
be thoroughly mechanically compc;l¢ted and/or wheel-
ro~led from the surface_ \ '
11~3 Back£ill of exterior and inter~or trenches extending
below a 1:1 projection from the outer edge of founda-
tions should be mechan~cally compacted to a minimum
of 90 percent9f the laboratory ~aximumdensity.
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
Wfthin Slab ar.eas, but outside the influence of foun-
dations, trenches up to one foot ,wide and two feet deep
may be backfilled with sand and consolidated'by jet-
ting,flooding or by mechanicalmeans. If on-site
materials a;re utilized; they ,should be wheel-rolled,
tampec;l or otherwise compacte,d to a firm condition •.
For minor interior tre·nches, density testing may be'
deleted or spot testing may be elected if deemed
necessary, based on review of backfill 'operations
during construction. .
If. utility contractors indicate that it i$ undesirable
to u$e .compaction equipment in close proximity to a
buried conduit, the Contractor may elect the utiliza-
tion of light weight mechanical compaction equipment
and/or, shading of the conduit with clean., granular
mat$:tial, which should· be thoroughly jet·ted in ... plac-e
above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical com~
paction procedures. Other methods of utility tre'nch
compaction may also be appropriate, upon review-by tbe
Ge6technica~ Consultan:t at the time of construction.
. In cases where clean gr~nular materials are proposed'
for use in lieu of native materials or where flooding
or jetting is' proposed, the' procedures should be con-
sidered subject to review by the Geotechnical
Cons~l tanto
",... .. . , Clean granultar backfill and/or bedding are not recom~
mended 'in slope areas ·.unless pr.ovisions'are made for
a drainage system to mitigate the poten·tial' build--Up
of seepage forces.
-I
I'
I
I
I
1
I
"1-'-
-I
I
I ~~ t . --
I
I
'I
Page Twenty
,-..... . , .' ~.' ,
12. STATUS OF GRADING
Prior to proceeding with any grading operatio_n, the Geote'ch-
nica-l Consultant should be notified at least two wor-king days
in ~dvanc;:e in order to schedule the necessary observation
and testing services.
12.1
12~2
;Prior to a:PLsignificant expansion or cut back in the
grading_operatiQn, the Geo~echnl.ci;ll Consultant !?hou1d
be provided witll adequate notice -(i.e.,-two days) in
order' to make app.ropria'te adj-us tments in observation
and testing services.
Following completion of grading operations'and/or be-
-,tween phases 'of a grading operation, the Geotechnical
COI}$uitant should be provided with at least two working
days notice iIi: advance of commencement of additional
grading operations.
--
I
1:-,
, ,
I'
I
I'
I
'I
:1
;1
I
:1
, , ,
:1
I
I:'
I:
I'
,I
'I
I
CANYON, SUBDRAIN '
Dozer Trench -,
Backhoe Trench
N'()fc~ ':, "
O,.,IIJ 41,IIJ t:1I"tt''' INtlllS '
Qt I"fCtJ",WlttAtlH ;" rJJc
, ~'-IwU"lul CWII#.,,,I:
r;'sfWl ",*,.A,Co'ei ,c'
IWfI'r __ J:wi4,.m <I_1rII1.
Geofabrlc Alternative
'lJ11'IJ/~1I1 .2-3" S_,.,..;/on
" I .,-/1. I~
{J1'"",-~tI#tJI
r()~kj '.N,~~
GeofabrlC Alternative
'--: '/1,. _lulll" /Ie 4-",AlI4 d;."'e.lcr~ ", "PlIII.h,. '''11' II s"I,. ~ 1#-,1 ~ ~.""", .,r.,. rVA$' I)' /~IJ ~~ ~".f'*lh". '
z~ 1'1,. sJ,tWI~ k ~~4t III'~c .,. $1",,"""". "'$,1,.,,,, uJs sllNltt! ,H c-,,.o!
~-"'-',~ _J,,,1tI ~~~'u~,Ii~",;,/~ 'J'ptIf:_ #II ""~~I,._I-ItMS p.". FtJeI-,.eN tlf
.!J(). (J#$.I-H "1IiR.~.,ItII~ .~ '-'I"~: ";".1 ~~NI-J "toe .$,f,f'ltl ~c A'''I''VAr.luI.
1--hl/c". ",.k,.i~1 s""/" ~~ OIl,," CI#_$ 2. ~""~/c MIII.rMI.
s-Apl',..,rlt/l'c Irtldll"l-~,IJ'lIlt1 Jc.'I7J~~tI'lul ~#~d".'II,,?t!.; ~" ""''''''''VII'I'$ ,
"#~NNtI~rf;~
'-liIr ..... c ,tII./.Jt~,1C AHwIftlJ,vc1 tiM ,,,.~,.,,h ~~ tI" ., ,HtI!u;,' P',,&1IfiiI1 '
lie 4MIlV-tU/ "Mf ~c u". ,-H:. ,." "'"S ,'~ 1rHJ/1 fJtI,.., "()f)~' 1"-
"./I.,It/;', f. ~,' ';. ""tl6-I"'I"~ , ,n,~ /I w'c", ~ , $4,,,/~ ~. 1','tlJd~ ,
STANDARD DETAIL NO.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!I
I
I,
, , :1
,I
I
I
I
I'
I
'I
'I
",FILL OVER NATURAL SLOPE"
._--.. -.... ----.;.,.-,-.--~-----~--------
",.
~CI'AnIoIJ"" ~ sloj'C,
-10 d".",,, tJr H
" "",.,,;. /'IIfv-#d'
. d~/ntlf't! ~lc~ II'1t/1 til,.,,, d".,.,$ __
. FILL OVER CUT SLOPE' .
'A/,141 :
1-" 4VV/'IAA.! ttntl e,,#,~ ~ I.
. J",tlc~, ~/-:' /~ ",,11. /ill
N~,f lMry~. ,*,ve~ '" 11(1: 111111. r" 1'16 atlS~ 6J,~/d' rAt: ,till
NuN4 /Ie' 1016$ ~At'" ~ ~J~
A-iJ-41,' 1;// '_"'~"'''J.
. 2-' ~d""" ,,~ ~~N.y
.1e#1u1tIlIU/ U!~,H4A I pte,,-
'/w7l'" .. ss 1N~lcdnll1t 4e '1-, I.
4N~6,,1 ,,"" $1H,~r
~~ /1/
STANDARD 'DETAIL NO. 2
I
'I
I
I
I':
I
1
I
I
I
I'
I~
I
I,
I
I
I
I
I
:', STABILIZATION, FILL·,
'~ ___ --46"~" : v~rI~1 m. ';'/~ -11.,,"it "-I ,II. ""'1.
1St14~d"i" _'I,I-"" I~
~".lfdel~/ ;!'c"""N_' ~/*IJI" .
BUTTRESS FILL
""" m. At/". c.p (.)
/r-/ ...... ---r-/ #-, ~ ~. '8,o'~".J pI_"." .,,-"'I,,,..
// _. ~ "tII~.I"JC ~6.1.~/c .
// -~' ~",tJI, I,.". .
----a.--r----.------::"t----..&,_ 8#1W1, f lIe,.h~.1 ,,'" IIII~.
w (.) ~ 'LI"'io /I.""."'-/~H-,,,,~ ~ " -' W4 t-) &.~~ c:IIwll' d/"I,,,,,-,
~."' p.-/-",/s.
N~!4S=
"I -" ~IJ_I"NII/~ 4J1tfJ1 e"H,".1 JlleJ:. /-0 9~' t:. .t.~
. ~!. mtlf Ie I"Hkftlt#' h ItN-. .£" II .. eA$t!; I'~''''-I _
;Afi lill wl4¥J, 1M I~I ~IM" 1J4/~, ,I ... ~/III-IJ"'; nMifl"/~ •
2-A .1'-1-IIM"A./!;II $~II IJ~ p"."rNJl.ed fII,II.~. -_"-11,/,.,,1-,-,,,
~M. IN,H,,eH ,I;/Is. me ~Id.tr~, WI_y~ 9"".J~.s '
"~"'4,,-'eJ ~'1IJ.' !e, I.flt:llIi' ,"I e"''f"JI-"f.
.8" IV· d'~~'1"~ wltN4 '* iet.·
J.. Dt • dl"~"., ""~4 ,# ,fcf ttl-toe
G-OJ, • iI.pllt "' -f ",I-lJe~/; V"I", P'l1I~Y'",/SC 1,.,#!ctl ~ 04 s ~ -I-II'~
'STANDARD DETAIL' NO. 3'
.1
'1
1
I
I' ,
I
1
·1
I
,I
.~
:'1
',1
I,
I
I"·
·1
1
I·.
-I
BUTTRESS -BACKDRAIN SYSTEM
"AI,. ,II ~ t(J,~~
1tIftI,1-~1NJII1 u,,,,,. arw ... ~1f.I ~, -
IMI#tU/
"
. Conventional Backdraln
ell'l/, e_ t "'''Me.~1& -. ,.,,..,..-~ .I11.y,.
MM.
Geofrablc Altetn"tlve .
'NI)~$: , .
1-"IIC NI." lie ~/"_A Jw",-.lrcr ". . .$4"'. ,v~ .~ ,*,111".'.
J
I
i
2r~'IMI ..
l-f:wwIt!",,1r ~1tI·.· #" N ,;w.Irr.
-4 -c.,. .,1 "'~",*1fII UIIs
4-r,~s "r tJtI!t.I-I""~
:111111111 /Jc-N.~/:N*" .",.-
CIJnI~tI "./,.,c-SII,/;
r a.eklnt/~ p,pc sA,,,,V ~ -+'4 MIll,' , "".I,,.M'I ,,.,~tNI~nNW~/Ms
,N' ,_~ ~MM 30-OII' .. f ,,"
uMwsAcI • .I P'P4. 0,,11.-1-"JI'C • ~,,1tiI
."." ~"."";w~u.,
~-':-iJr -Mc.1~ftt..,c. "I/,,.~ Me
_.~~iN"',II'¥'. ~'/ /Je ~~;JI~
j'nviNti tI~ '*'f" ~#"f(l,i, 1011
. IM~ *NI~ II"flJ)l~ ,.J.,..,h4/ ,.JIC 1$ ~~.",;~ ~. J.,,,, ,,,.J.
.#lie" M~
7-4' NcJ _/~" lie. ~,.IW."/C ,-;
. A_~ H Q~;W'~ ~/.,,..,: -:. e~) til'" ~"'~JI ,,, .,<.~,.,~ ~,. :
. , -. . ~Ae~AlI,e' M~/~ N' -II~ -" .. "., ; ,
~.,~ ;.
' .. .... .. ,~
~TANDARDDETAIL NO. 4
I
I'
I
I
I
'1
1
I
I
I
'i. '
I
I
I
I:'
I'
I
I
:1
1 .
.. FUTURE CANYON FILL
Vie A ' ___ '...... W "long Canyon
~I.W of C'anyon Sid' , ewall·
,.
/t'Me", h!-Vr-c 6Y~d'C" '.
,
, '
,
STANDARD DETAIL NO.5;
I
I:,
I':
,I
I"
,I
I,
I
I
I
I ~,,! '
I
'I·,
I:,
I
I"
I
I
,TRAN,SITI,ON LOT OVEREXCA V ATION
Cut Lot .
---,
Cut-Fill Lot
~,,~ All,.,.
.1;«f,~ 1'1,,". ~ . , , ,.......-. I,~ " ~ ~ " ~q""''''''':L (J~~~Of"I.~"'~~"'W 4'.1 , , .-,Ier/lllls -"1,IIIC,-w ,.,11, .
. ~ ~-. J' t: liIdIlJllA $IJtI~,IiU!HlA ~ QC'M'A,= '~"~fl "",.. . hi ~ 4fII ,~,.c~ A1'!4~: ' 1I.',.fM I ~f#"I#'.. .',' '
1-,..~,~ "''1N1'J1~",~.1I4rM1.1a1,.«J:. tlNtI ;1.""'$' 1M,,~J,/c "".,1.,,/fiII$
, ~aN Jc ,'~ .,. -lirM "'~/"'N"d (J~ ItI#II/1IkJ/,y ""e.1./~II,ul
e#"~IN"I-..
~-r,/" "".;"""" ,111,IA "lWrl!~OI.".I""" .s4HIJ H elu'$I.61 $"'Ii~cf--h "'""ew' Jt ~c. ~",.I e."'41I1i1,,1'. Sf~cpq-.I,." .. ,,-/I."~ lII~f """'1'& ~
"~""~~CtlWlI/O" . . , ,. ,
8-11. hleitll 411i"f ~ 1J~~".1It%ItA':,.II:f/1" ~./'IIH iJe ~~ •• + iItIIIIf'."'" IN~
"""Y 1M/we ~ ~rtll'-" "I ~ '~UINI'I~lIt!Iw lit'''' e . jf!IJf_",,'~l
CM$,I/t-t/"fa . . . . .
4. -tie t'.~'",c/.". :fA~fli; ".I,/f-Hc .t:'!Ie#NlltlAleMf"//telf-l'If tNlw ••• 1-, ' IIc4~"'II.1 ~1I'1I1,,,. __ (i.~. t..'/~1I'~I:)·.""" " ~.AMIc. ~1VJtI .. /twW "~t:ol'ttwt.NlII"'..-1'S. ,4N,I,.".,1 $'1".",.1 "'~-I J-I! ,,,.,.,,,1v4I -/. ./~'" M~ ... ,
l:tM/"'iI.",." H ~.p-~"t:A"'''t'IO'' $.' -, . , 6
'STANDARD DET AtLNO ..
1
I:
·1'
1
'I· ,
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
·1
I
·1
·1
I·
I
I·
ROCK DI'SPOSAL . ~
o
_ . ' . ,J! Windrow Section
Windrow Profile
Aklts: ~-~' ~.f..,'" .I. I'I"~" u~ -I __ 1ft/.
4.~ "",,,,VA~I H. .,,~,;6I. . -....,..--
1-. AlltHAl/~ pl"(.~#11"1 .I "'k,~ J ~/~.t:IJ".J J ~""'ilf//t,,. MtI~r"~ 4"<:(
, p/«t/IIItM~ ~~ t»n~ ,1',// "Jacur;,; """t!;tN.tI, .,,~A ""''''''''IV
sAIV#V .lie H.r~,"'1 f!INI'IlNI'q.~ r,..., 'II~ ."""cc. '
2-rAcu,,~~tllc.lw-tlJ~"AilII"(Jf/-'. h,4c $e.-heA",e,/ UIIISII//'.·'" ,oAtlIf.
,,.,,.,., .~JI.~ ;II~'''~'~ -Ale. '/«4;'''' ,,~ An-'~' ,.~ .
~~/)'$,NH/ III dl,w-h .,11; M $vl:J.ed-h MWC I'~/"t;-h~ '~'~ ~,If II; ~~ .1N4'''''!J t:l1l1-rI1I""~'S.
STANDARD DETAIL NO. 7
'I
'I",'
:1,
I
-I'
I
'I
I
I·
I
I
.1
'I
·1
I
.1
1
I
I'
MINORS'LOPE REPAIR.
'JIM .f(IJI~~
I"M: Jf,If') "---
I.·N,#{-""11.
,S6,1c ,( a,,,~ t:lidSl.
I*~"JM. ~/~I, .
I~~II: .'''. .
"',,: GIl' 4/i(/,.~", 'I"'~S
41 ~'$"'''''''' 4"""'.
.' ! ~.ofabrlc Alternatlv,.
--, pl.cc",c ." ~HtiA·"'';''';;'/ MuI.~ '~"'.Nle.~ ~~rN_ r~~ .
-Drain _ a..-ard-Pipe
, j'7Nei,.~ ~r4'" t$MnI -I'!J'C .,. t$lm,., pI"~M '" ~" .. ~ ",1 ~tilu; /JI#jlN-."
, ,.U",.tfIIA;'4~ 1'W1"'4'J44lJi1c ",~;'.,/~/.6'"
,; .,.~ • tw"""'I''I*s. '
~ s , i 8 ; -~ ; STANQARD D'ETAI·L NO~.
I
-. '1' '.'
-I
'1: ,
'I:'
:1
-I-
:1-
:1
I
I
:1
'I
I
'I
I·
I
'I ..
.. 1
w-" c z
, -C .0: ",0
....
, g"
.0)
'" . ,
Q' z
, Ii
DRAFT
' ..
"
CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENT';ER
, ..
PHASE ONE,
. TEMP'ORARY
DETENTION BASIN
DESIG,N
PREPARED FOR:
THE KOLL COMPANY
SEPTEMBER 1981,
"Ii
II ·11 II
JI
1 ,
'R' ICK ENGINEERING COM'PANY Pl-ANNfNGCONSULTANT$ " , AND CIVIL ENGJNEERS . '
.RICI( ENGINEERING COMPANY I ~~~~I,~~C:~~~~~TNl~
3088 PIO PICO DR. -SUITE 202 -CARLSBAD, CA 92008
. P.O. BOX 1129 PHONE -AREA CODE 714-729-4987
The Koll Company
7330 Engineer Road
San Diego, CA 92111
September 9, 1981
Ref.#81C,...050
Attention: Mr. Bernie Fipp
RE: THE ,CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER PHASE I TEMPORARY
DETENTION BASIN (J#73S0J)
Dear Mr. Fipp:
Jt is anticipated that the development of Phase =!= wi1.1
increase the peak storm runoff from the area. peSign
considerations'must be given to storn'! runoff attenuation..
The criteria for this attenuation is the California Coastal
Commission's requirement that the runoff from the developed
area be no greater than the existing runoff' from the area in
its present condition for the 10-year, six-h01,;tr s,torm.~
. This study reports the analysis and recoIIT!Ilendations for t'he
design of a temporary detention basin to reduce the antiGipated
increased peak storm discharge. Since the out1$ts from this
project discharge into an existing canyon, the project can
readily be served with a detention basin s.ited inth.e canyon.
This basin is planned to be removed when Phase :1;:r is bui.1t.
Ultimately the' entire project will be se;r:ved by detention
basins as recommended in the Boyle Engineering Compahy Repo.rt·
titled "Drainage Study of the Carlsbad Res~arch·. Center Develop-
ment for Rick Engineering Company". dated April 1981.
This report is part of the engineering required for the
approval of the project.
Very truly yours,
June Applegate, P.. E.
JA:rh
Enclosure:
Carlsbad Research Center Phase I
Temporary Detention Basin Desigh Report
• ~I
\--..... -, ,
! ' ' --'
CARLSBAD RESE'ARCH CENTER
PHASE Of'-JE
TEMPORARY
DETENTION BASIN
DESIGN
PREPARED FOR:
THE KOLL COfvlPANY'
SEPTEMBER 1981
, .
"
F-=) r!F--r'...~ eNG INc!-R f N G CO f\ /I PA N y' PU.\NNINGCONSULTN,7S, ~ ~ l; \..-:;7 t:: ~ L L L I ~ V I . ' AND C I V IL ENG.It\ E :: ::, s
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 1
2.0 Runoff Release Criteria 1
3.0 Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
3.1 Existing B~sin . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
3.2 Proposed Development. • . . . .. 5.
3.3 Method of Analysis .' .•... 5
3.4 Result of Analyses .... ., .... -.. 6
4.0 Detention Basin Design • .. ..•.• 6
5.0
4.1 Criteria. . . .. ..' . • . . •. 6
4.2 Location. . . . . S
4.3 Temporary Detention Basin . . . •.. 8-
4.4 Discharge Structure . . . . . . . 8
4.5 The Emergency Spillway ........ 10
4.6 Protection....... "!' .10
4.7 Siltation Consideration .-.' ..... 11
Conclusions and Recommendations 12
References . . 13
i.
F.igure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
FIGURES
Viciriity Map •••.•.• . . . . -.
Carlsbad Research Center Map • •.
(T.M. fold out)
Hydrographs
Discharge Structure . . . . .
ii.
, , .. '
2
3
7
9
· 1.0 INTROPUCTION
The Carlsbad Research Center is a proposed coimnercial
development adjacent to and north of Palomar Airport,'
having El Camino Real as its easterly boundary. (See
Figure 1) The project covers 560 acres total and is com~
prised of four phases and 115 lots. The average lot size
is approximately five acres. (See ,Figure 2)
The proposed development will increas~ the storm runoff.
The ultimate mitigation of this increase will be detention
basins as proposed in the Boyle Engineering Co.rporation
Report titled IIDRAINAGE STUDY OF THE CARLSBAD RESEARCH
CENTER DEVELOPMENT" dated April 1981.
Phase I is in the most easterly and highest portion of the
project. It has two east-west streets, one north-south
street, and three cul-de-sacs as shown on Figure 2'. The
drainage collector mains will be built within the ·two e~st
west streets and discharge at the westerly bQundar1 of' Phase
I.
Being built first, the problems ass.ociated wi t,p the antici-
pated increased runoff must be tempQrarily mitigated until
the ultimate permanent drainage system can be built; w;Lth
the rest of the project.
2.0 RUNOFF RELEASE CRITER~A
The California Coastal Commission requires that the peak
runoff from a development during a six-hour IO-year storm
1 .
be no more than the peak runoff Ilfrom the 'exi,s.tin,g. basin
1.
, ,
'~
,LAKE "
SAN MARCOS
BATIQUITOS __ ~
LAGOON ~~~~~
OLlVENHAlN: RO.
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE l' , ,
'"
ogG.L..
, ,r'
.7 • .oe-..
7~4tr
~,
TENTATIVE: MAP,O'
, -J
f' , I
._1 .. , < ' _ '.:' 1 ~ .... I , r e.I.81-le I I
CARLS84D ~ ~ESEAR'CH l:CENTER . ' . \
'/
f "'-
\ ' '\" [', '~~. ,: ';1'''', .-
I (
II
_,~.<!!IZ.
If /r'l;~£;¥r?1:? .s...PG,f&'. t:'~ .. ~J1'r At.::. ,/J7r77.7 ,.,eA::ZU:-/'/''''?'? 4-<./:lft? i?.<..
I i
\
)
I t --
i 1--
LEGEND
"E..-=E'2E
--<l---5-____. .".
-..-
G" /I"
@)
~'
'";(5;' 0Ll ... --2~~--
5f.aCE'S (e:1)
smRN twAIN LINE .M4? STIf'lJCTIfiE
S4N1H<IHY sewER, -'MAY , STIi'E£T 1r'/t;Nr at-"" WAY MOl7lS CROSS' GtlTT/5f' .
WA7Ftr'HAIN
GROSS 1.0TAKEA,(/NACRC5)-If!! LOT AReA (IN ACRES)
~;~a1WMli"WO
L1NElJ OffeH'
a4YlIOHT LINe: aJr tW F(LL. AS NOTEO
F/RST-LA.:IT l.or NoNBCR
F/NI!VI~F#O £l.EmTQII
PHA5E BOUNDARY
FINI$J./,CONT()f.lR
RICK ENGINEERING .COMf\\NY 1-
. un "'!.~~D~~~" ~'~!~'=~"~~~~I·;.~~8,~W;-'~~U.7.7 .' f-11 •••• 0 "ICO •• '1'1. ClUIU ...... C,UUIUIIIA .:r •••. nU,lIo"r 1l~;.'ln •• "7
OgSl.l,·
~ ~I\IF[ET
.,~
FI'GUA,e" 2~
. 11
\'1
),
.. --) .. --
for the same storm.' This is the d,esign' criteria used in' the
design of the temporary detention ba,sin' fqr Phase I. FU:('th,er.
design considerations were also made torah emer'gency .over-
flow spillway so that the temporar-y basin will be' ab:;Le to.
safely pass the six-hour IOO-year storm.
3.0 ANALYSTS
3.1 Existing Basin
In the northerly portion of the proposed' Phase ,1:, there i,s' an
east-west ridge. South of this r;Ldge -is a wester-'ly ,flowing
canyon. In the center of the area.thatwill be Phase I, is
an earth dam, which creates a pond behind it. A portion
northerly of the east-west ridge will be diverted. into the
future basin, as noted in the April, 1981 "Drainage S:tudy.of
_.~.'."-,C",":--:.:;.the Carlsbad Research Center Development It by ;Boyre Engin~er-
,ing Corporation. The remainder ,of the basin northerly.of
this ridge will be left natural.
According to the U. S. Soil Conservation maps of the area,
the soil in the area is in the type "D" hydrologic' group.
The "D~ group soils are the least permeable soil ••
·The drainage from the northerly pOJ;"t;.ion of Palomar Airpo:t:;",t
discharges into the canyon just west of the project b01J:n<Lary.
This drainage was included in the ana'lysis of both the exist-
ing and proposed basins since it will be d,ischarg,ing into .i::he
proposed temporary detention basin.
The information regarding the drainage of the airport was
obtained from mapping provided .by~ the ~ounty of San Di"ego.,
Department of Flood Control.
4.
3.2 Proposed Developmen~
Phase I of the Carlsbad Research Center covers an area of
118 acres and is comprised of 24 lots. (See Figure ~}~ The
land use will be industrial and conunel;"cial.. T;h:ere will be
two east-west streets, one north-south street ,and three cui~,
de-sacs as shown on Figure 2. Under each-of the east-west
streets are drainage collector pipes, wh;Lchdischarge a't the
westerly boundary of Phase I. The northerly -collector dis-
charges into a trapazoidal earthen channel,which carries
the water into the westerly flowing canyon'-The southerly
collector discharges directly into the same canyon. This
storm water is then joined by'the storm water discharging
from the airport and goes into the proposed qetentio-n basin.
3.3 Method of Analysis
Hydrologic analyses were performed on the drainage, basin
upstream from the location-of the proposed det$ntibh basin .
. The first analysis was to determine the ruhoff chara-cteris,-
tics for the six-hour la-year storm in the basin's present
condi tion. Next, the same ba_sin was analyzed for both the
la-year and lOa-year frequency six-hour storms in its :fut'ure
developed condition. The 1981 version of the EEC-l Package
Program ,was used. ,The hydrologic characteristic-s were deter-~ ,
mined in accordance with the-County of San DiegoXsHydrology
Manual and the user's manual fo-r the HEC-l Program.
Precipitation data compi~ed from the Oceanside Pump Plant
and Encinitas 'gaging stations were aveiag-ed and the preci-
pitation was applied to the basins in the, HEC-l Progr.am tor-
the appropriate storms. This information was -taken from the
State of California':;; pepartment of W:a,ter Resources II Rairi--..
5.
fall Analysis for Drainage Desi9"n Volume I. Short-puratiop
PreGipitation Frequency Data" bulletin No. 195 Octobe·r 1976.
3.4 Results of Analyses
Analyses of the six-hour, 10-year storm resulted in a hydro-
graph which has a peak of 79 cubic feet per second (cfs) for
th~ existing condition, and a hydrograph for the p~oposed
developed condition which has a peak of 170 cfs before being
routed through the temporary detention basin. After being,
routed through the temporary detention bas,in I the proposeci'
developed condition hydro graph peak is~reduced to 74 cifs.
Tp,is indicates that the proposed temporaJ,:"y detention basi'n
will be effective in reducing the peak flow from the proposed
development to a level slightly less than the. peak flQw i.n
the existing basin for the six-hour 10-year storm, as shown
on Figure 3.
Fo.r the purpose of 'analyzing the emergency overflow of tbe
detention basin, the six-hour 100-year storm was also
p,nalyzed for the proposed basin. The ,calculated 'peak dis-
charge from the detention basin for this storm i$ 134 cfs.
The maximum water surface elevations in the -deten:t;,ic:m' bas.in
are calculated to be 271.1' msl in the 10-year storm and
273.2 msl in the 100-year storm.
4.0 DETENTION BASIN DESIGN~
4.1 Criteria
The criteria for the detention bas.in design is to control
the peak storm runoff from the proposed proj-ect so thq,t i,t
6.
..
I ~ ./..
J /
Q (CFS>
..".'.,1" -,',
:,r:t
-•• t ~'<';.I' _<-t,' }'1:~~
,,' ~ 1 , '
'-rJ ;'
'C). ", Ie:
:lfil
CN
200
, ·1,~
'''>:~ :;,
150
.
100 'i! .~ -l
50
o· l I 2
HYDROGRAPHS'
FOR 6 HOUR 10 YEAR STORM
'Ii
FUTURE CONDITION
WITHOUT DETENTION BASrN
,3 ' , 4 ',5 '
, TI,MEl HQ~RS.)
CONDITION
CONDITION
DETENTION 'BASIN
, "6 1 8.
','
is no greater than the existing peak flow from six-hour
lO-year storm, and to provide for emergency overflow in the
event of a six-hour lOO-year storm.
4.2 Location
The canyon into which the sto-rm collectors discharg.e at the
westerly boundary of the project provides a suitable location
for the temporary detention basin for Phase I.
Consideration was given to the possibi-lity of locating th~
detention basin upstream of 'the discharge from Pqlomar Air-
port, however, this location did not provide a bas~n witb
adequate storage. The location chosen provides aa,equ9-te
storage capacity while remaining relatively close to the
Phase I development.
4.3 Temporary Detention Basin
. 'The temporary detention basin should have a minimum top ,of
dike elevation of 274' msl. Embankments below this elevation
should be protected as recornm~nded by the' soils engineer.
4.4 Discharge ,Structure, .. ~. • T ... _ ~ •• ::
The stand pipe and outflow pipe should be constructed of -.36,"'".
inch corrogated metal pipe, with a 90° weld to join the two.
The invert of the discharge structure should be at elevation
263.5' msl, as shown on Figure 4.
Six inch holes will be located to allow a' controlled outflow
of the storm water. These holes shall be set as ,follows:
8.
~; ,<r )-
",''1"1 " --' . G') : Ie: '
;,'::0
! ,m , '
" ~
3(0 II C.!WI?
--@c,lg% ' --
WELOEO #4 REINFORCING .!37CEL
BAR, ;WIN. OF~q ON CENTER.
£'70.5' TOPOFPIPE
f" ,,;r~ .
3~" /4U I/OLES 4·CLEAR.
C.A1.P ,
j ~..E!...6>.Z5· {(;'O,c9.4tX6S c;,'0/4
00001 I/,
000 0 O~OO, _?~5.261E CJ~5~OLES~~,o/A
O~~~
v ...... ~»'~)?@'~/):§W~~~~~~
1()5' .I "
2(05.00 ti. OF
/0' Ha.ES ~" DIA.
O'ISC'HARG'E S'TRUCTURE : ' . .
NO XAL6'
Number of 6" Holes
2
9
5
9
Elevation at Centerline
of Holes
264.25'
265.00'
265.25'
266.2Si
The elevation of the top of the standplpe shall be 270.5'
msl. A cone formed of welded No. 4 reinforcing ~teel ,pars
with a maximum spacing of 6" will be :constructed at the top
of the standpipe. '
4.5 The Emergency Spillway
The emergency spillway should be at elevation 271.50' msl,
at its entrance from the detention basin. The spi11w'ay
should be trapezoidal in shape with a bottom width of 20
feet and two horizontal to one vertical side$lopes .. The
spillway should be lined with air blown mortar and have 9-.
",-,';"i.:'_: 'rrifnimum slope of 2 %.
4.6 Protection
The ground at the 'discharge of the spil'lway.shou;Ld .be .
protected with rock slope prot'ection fOT ·a Oist.ance of 40.
feet. Rock slope protection a1soneegs to .be,placedper th~
Regional County Standard Drawing No. D-40 at the 'dis'charg~s
for the above mentioned.pipes. The,rock slope protection
should have a filter blanket and the ?mbankments sh6u~d.be
protected up to elevation 274 msl~'as directed by the sQi~i:
engineer.
10.
4.7 Siltation Considerations
The basin design allows for siltation up to elevation 264.0
msl. If siltation occurs higher than tp,is elevation., then.
the sediment should be removed.
..
11.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENI;JATI-QNS
The recommended temporary detention basin for Phase I will
adequately meet the requirements for the attenuatiop of.
storm runoff peak for the six-hour 10-year storm. Further,
~ it will be able to pass the six-hour 100-year storm~
The basin should be installed prior to the rainy season as
outlined in the City of Carlsbad Gradipg Ordinance. S.ediment
levels in the basin should be kept below elevation 264 m$l.
12. ""'-'
,--I
,
..
REFERENCES
1. Department of Water Resources, B,ulletin :No. ,195 Rainfa..11
Analysis for Drainage Design Vol. 1 Short Du):,ation,Pre-,
cipitation Frequency Data, October 1976. ' ,
2. County of San Diego Department of Sanitation and Flood
Control Hydrology Manual October 1973, revised November
1975.
3. Design and Procedure Manual, San Diego County Flood
Control District. December 1969, Fi,fth printing;-~pril
,1979.
4. Handbook of Hydraulics for the So.lu,tion of ,Hydr'aulic
Engineering Problems, by: Ernest Brator and Ho.race'
Williams King, Sixth Edition.
5. Chung, J. A., on the subject of a Flood Propagation
Computation method (Muskingum Method). Journal of
Hydraulic Research Vol. 7, No.2, 1969, pp. 205-23Q.
6. Lighthill, M. J. and Whitham, G. B., "On Kinematic
Waves I Flood Movement in Long Rivers ", Procedu:t;"es of
the Roya;L Society of,London, Vol. K229, May 1955,
pp. 281-316.
7. "HEC-l Flood Hydrograph Package Users Ma'nua,l", March
1981, Hydrologic Engineering Center.
8. u.S. Department of CommerCe, National Oceanic. and Atmos-
pheric Administration, Special Studies Branch., Office
of Hydrology, National Weather Service, "Technical Paper,
No. 40 ". '
9. U.S. Department of Commerce, National 'Oceanic 'c;md Atmos'-
pheric Administration, Special Studies Branch, Office of
Hydrology, National Weather $ervices, Atlas 2, Vol. XI.,
10. U.S. Department of th~ Interior, Bureau of Reclamatiop,
Design of Small Dams, Second Edition, 1973, 'Rev:Lsed Re-
print, 1977.
13.
-,
~
(I) -
c 160-.2 ~' .>
j! w
80-
-,
-
N 81° E-----:;::..~ ..
Proposed grading
Kpl
----_._ .. __ .. --
---'--'---' --._._--_._-:-_._"-----...:.:.:-----~
Existing ground
----
------
A'
r-320
-240
i
(I) -
O-L----------------------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~O
-(I)
.!
.5
c o :;
~ iii
S
320 Existing ground
Proposed grading
----' .... -._-..
<------.~-
... ECE-------N 77° W
propos/grading "_".'
------------------===--=-=------------------". ----_ .. ---
S'
320
.j..
(I)
.(1) -.E
c .2 .-to > (I)
iii
O'~----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~-O
Horizontal and vertical scale: 1 inch =80 feet
~:. -
":--" ' -;,. fO-' ,"-""', ' ..... J.
~. :~;:-. ..;j.:-:.L~~,,~_.~i~~.~~~L:.:~~~~=~~-~j:;,,_:,,~::'~--:'·~ii~~r~~;~>_:~~~:k <>-; ~-~::~;;,.-::..~.-
o i 80
SCALE IN FEET
Refer to Plate l' for Explanation
GEOLdGlC:.,CRQSS._SECTIONS·
CARLSBAD ,.B~~~RCH,CENIER .. _,~,. -c"', OllEGE BLVD. AND . D •. ; STREET ALIGNMENTS:
. CARLSBAD"CALIFORNIA" .. -'~ .. ~.~t,-. ' . ..
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERING, INC.
SOIL ENGINEERING & ENGINEERING GEOLOGY
PLATE;'
,' ..
. :; o .
,
,,"'," ''0 -4---
, ' ,. at
,;
at
I~W~~'~{~~'~7~~~2t~~~~~:~:;;: ")'1'"
" "
---7
~~.
-;":.:.)~,; 'c"-",<,,",,_~ / r I
:... -~ \ I.
I
/ ' I -
i / ! ( .
, ! I i",;C) VE:RED LlGNMENT \.,
I
, , 1
i , \
'. \ ~, -'
, J
l .'
. ,,~ , f' , " / ' ,
i
" ,
, ........ ,
/. , !
.',
"J
,
'-,
'.
, --._---
-'--.
"
-,
\
\'-..
,
\'
'. , .
" ,,',
" ''.." ....... . ' ....... , ""
. ,
. "-.... , ... -._.-
-~-~ ----'~-
'-,
: 1
, . "
"
" \
L.',
\ .
\ ,
'.
:J?io,
.~ t
~/
" '
,/ ,
See plate 1 for Explanation
"\ / . '
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
".
I,
/ '
/ ,/
,'-"
CARLSBAD RESEARCH CENTER
COLLEGE BLVD. AND \\0" STREET ALIGNMENTS.
JOB NO,:
SD1163-o0
Tsa "
':"' ..
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA /'
" " " ,
SAN DIEGO SOILS ENGINEERIIIJJL.tNe',
SOIL ENGINEERING &-HIGINEERTNGGEOLOGY
DATE: PLATE:
,
!
/
JULY 1982
.... ,~
J / ,/
,
!
2
./
; I L_
,
.. " . ~---------
•
/ \
/ /
•
r
-'
--:-----
)
/ ; \
J ,
,
, \~ ',,-
/ I
// 1 ,
I
,
Ii 1_--1
, .,c:;ral
__ '" I
II
I
----------
-----
~ ;' ( ,
/
/'
, '
Sanfiago . ~ \ .. VolcanIcs. , " ~ \' ~;. Symbo(~ , .~
--)
Strike " , ,
-,
/
/