HomeMy WebLinkAbout1950 CALLE BARCELONA; ; CB031380; PermitCity of Carlsbad
1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008
07-03-2003 Retaining Wall Permit Perm,.
Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725
Job Address:
Permit Type: RETAIN Status:
Parcel No: 2550121500 Lot #: 0 Applied:
Valuation: $7,875.00 Construction Type: NEW Entered By:
Reference #: Plan Approved: Issued: Project Title: LACOSTA GLEN HEALTH CENTER Plan Check#:
1950 CALLE BARCELONA CBAD
ADD 500 SF TO EXISTING RETAINING WALL
lo: CB031380
ISSUED
0511 a2003
CB
07/03/2003 07/03/2003
Inspect Area:
Applicant:
RICHARD BISHOP
1950 CALLE BARCELONA
CARLSBAD CA
92009
704-6300
Owner:
CONTINUING LIFE COMMUNITIES CHC L L C
C/O RICHARD ASCHENBRENNER
800 MORNINGSIDE DR
FULLERTON CA 92835
Building Permit
Add'l Building Permit Fee
Plan Check
Add'l Plan Check Fee
Strong Motion Fee
Renewal Fee
Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee
Additional Fees
TOTAL PERMIT FEES
$84.29
$0.00
$54.79
$0.00 $1 .oo $0.00
$0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$140.08
Total Fees: $1 40.08 Total Payments To Date: $0.00 Balance Due: $1 40.08
7-1
PERMIT APPLICATION
CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT
issuance, also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law
[Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code] or that he IS exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged
exemption. Any violation of Section 7031.5 by any applicant for a permit subjects the applicant to a civil penalty of not more than five hundred dollars [$5001).
Name Address City Statelzip Telephone #
State License # License Class City Business License #
Designer Name Address City StatelZip Telephone
Workers' compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations
0
of the work for which this permit is issued.
0 issued. My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are:
Insurance Company Policy No. Expiration Date
(THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$lo01 OR LESS)
CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as
to become subject to the Workers' Compensation Laws of California.
WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to crlminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars ~$100.000). in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees.
I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance
I have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
PLAN CHECK NO(,@09/3
EST. VAL. 7fi-7
Plan Ck. Deposit
SIGNATURE DATE
I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the Contractor's License Law for the following reason:
1. as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale
(Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does
such work himself or through his own employees, provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of completion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale).
Dd;cas owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The
Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed
pursuant to the Contractor's License Law).
0
1.
2.
3.
I am exempt under Section
I personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. YES UNO
I (have I have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work.
I have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name I address I phone number / contractors license number):
Business and Professions Code for this reason:
4.
number I contractors license number):
I plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name I address I phone
eROPERTY OWNER SIGNAT
program under Sections 25505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? 0 YES 0 NO
Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district?
Is the facility to be constructed within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? 0 YES 0 NO
IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES, A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT.
0 YES 0 NO
I hereby affirm that there is a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(i) Civil Code).
LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS
I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all
City ordinances and State laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the Citt of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned
property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE. INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES,
JUDGMENTS, COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT.
OSHA: An OSHA permit is required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height.
EXPIRATION: Every permit
authorized by such permit is
at any time after the work is
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE
isions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work
of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned 106.4.4 Uniform Building Code).
8
WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance
Inspection List
Permit#: CB031380 Type: RETAIN LACOSTA GLEN HEALTH CENTER
ADD 500 SF TO EXISTING RETAINING WA
Date Inspection Item Inspector Act Comments
12/18/2003 69 Final Masonry PS AP OK TO FINAL PER PAUL SMITH
08/18/2003 66 Grout PS AP
08/14/2003 61 Footing PS AP
0811 112003 61 Footing PS CA
Thursday, December 18,2003 Page 1 of 1
EsGil Corporation I
In Partnetship with Govemmmt forBuiHing Safety
DATE: 5/22/03
JURISDICTION: City of Carlsbad 0 PLAN REVIEWER
0 FILE
PLAN CHECK NO.: 03-1380 SET: I
PROJECT ADDRESS: La Costa Glen
PROJECT NAME: Retaining Walls (L4 C0s-P Wd)
The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply
0 The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction’s building codes
when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff
The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list
The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil
0 The applicant’s copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant
with the jurisdiction’s building codes.
and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck.
contact person.
The applicant’s copy of the check list has been sent to:
Richard Bishop- Carlsbad, CA 92009 rqqo LG‘\1AdW
u Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed.
Person contacted: Richard Bishop 6 .-
Date contacted: S /~z/oj (by: IC-- )
Telephone #: (760)704-6300
Fax #:
Mail --TelephoneJ Fax In Person 0 REMARKS:
By: DavidYao
Esgil Corporation 0 GA c] MB c] EJ 0 PC
Enclosures:
511 3 tmsmtl.dot
9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 San Diego, California 92123 (858) 560-1468 Fax (858) 560-1576
Continuing Life Comm [7601 479-0574 P- 1 Jul 02 03 07:59a
' ' JUL'O1-2003 TUE 1O:OO AM CITY OF ChRSlBAD FF\X NO. 760 6U2 85% u4
City of Carlsbad 03-1380
51 32 /03 BPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM
ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 1950 Calle Barcelona Carlsbad CA 92009
PLAN CHECK NUMBER CEO31 380
I. as the owner, or agent of the owner (contractors may
or the architect/engineer of record, will be responsible for employing the special inspector(s) as required
by Uniform Building Code (UBC) Section 1701.1 for the conslruction project located at the site listed above. UBC Section 106 3.5
OWNER'S NAME: Continuing Life Cammities Lu:
employ the special mspecbr), certify that 1.
I, as the cngineerhrchitect of record, ctnlfy that 1 have prepad the following special inspection program ES
requtred by VnC Section 106.3.5 for the consmiction projecr locattd at the site listed
mm> 0;e Le9nc
1. List of work requiring speclal Ins
a Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection a Structural Concrete Over 2500 PSI 0 Prestressed Concrete 8 Designer Specified Other
2. Name(s) of lndividual(s) or firm@) responsible for the special lnspections listed above:
A,
Field Wetding D High Strength Boklng ExpansionlEpoxy Anchors
Structural Masonry Sprayed-On Fireproofing
Testing hgineers - San Diem
3. Duties of the special inspectors for the work listed above:
1 ,
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
RETAINING WALL
BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER: CB 0.3 1 0
BUILDING ADDRESS: &h.Q &A<&[-
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Retaining Wall
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER:
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
APPROVAL
The item you have submitted for review has been
approved. The approval is based on plans, information andlor specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these items after this date,
including field modifications, must be reviewed by this
office to insure continued conformance with applicable
codes. Please review carefully all comments attached,
as failure to comply with instructions in this report can
resultin_suspension of permit to build.
ATTACHMENTS
Right-of-way Permit Application
DENIAL
plans and/or specifications to this office for review.
Date: &/n
Date:
I BY: Date:
ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON
NAME: JOANNE JUCHN I EW ICZ
City of Carlsbad
ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad. CA 92008
PHONE: (760) 602-2775
kdTCA Fgiy8-7314 - (760) 602-2720 FAX (760) 602-8562 @
. -- ~ ~__ -
BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST
RETAINING WALLS
lSTJ 2NDJ 3RDJ
CI u Q 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan drawn to scale. Show:
A. North Arrow D. Easements
B. Existing & Proposed Structures E. Retaining Wall
C. Property Lines
(dimensioned from street) (location and height) /--
Q Q 0
CI 0 ci 3. Include on title sheet: 5WQd Olcc-rr LLLK
A.
B.
C.
D.
Site Address
Assessor’s Parcel Number
Legal Description
Grading Quantities Cut Fill ImpotVExport
(Grading Permit and Haul Route Permit may be required)
D D Q 4. Project does not comply with the following Engineering
for Project No.
Conditions were complied with by: Date: ‘&-Bu.lB’
&d
&.\r_sh/U&C..l
< DT &a
D 5. A RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT is required to do work in City Right-of-way
and/or private work adjacent to the public Right-of-way.
A separate Right-of-way issued by the Engineering Departmen
for the following:
Q CI
A‘’
Please obtain an application for Right-of-way permit from the Engineering
Department.
.v-IQ-21’CkJb5
L
\\LASPAU(AS\SYS\LIBRR~NG\WORMWCS\CHKL Wail Eukltng RDnchkk CkM Form JJ &IC Rev 8128198
PLANNINCIENGINEERING APPROVALS
PERMIT NUMBER CB 63;r !spx> DATE 9-13-83
ADDRESS \qm
RESIDENTIAL TENANT IMPROVEMENT
RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR PLAZA CAMINO REAL
(< $.ro,ooo,oo,
CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES
VILLAGE FAIRE
COMPLETE OFFICE BUILDING
OTHER
ENGINEER OATE
REVISED STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS
FOR
LA COSTA GLEN
RETAINING WALL
REVISIONS AT SNF
h
Job No. 5425.04
Consulting Structural Engineers
4452 Glacier Avenue Phone : (619) 260-9307 San Diego, CA 92 l20-33O4 Fax : (619)2-3 www. libby-lei. corn
5/33/2003 Libbv Enuineers. Inc.
RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESlGN
n A" -
1 Of5
Written by DBT
Latest revision - 1/22/01
'Active Pressure assumed to be at bottom of footing, wall and footing designed for 1 foot strip
'Per 1997 UBC
Wall ID- Revision to SNF-West Wall - 4'Retained Design- ET
Soil and Wall Parameters;
Ppasslve= Pactwe=
Coefficient of Fnction =
Unit Weight of Soil (gammQ=
Allowable beanng pressure (a)= wt of Concrete;:
Wt of wall below the soil=
Wt of wall above soil=
p + L Lo& Panmet ers;
Surcharge SDL=
Surcharge LL-
Surcharge SDL=
Surcharge LL=
Ka=
Additional LL moment=
Additional LL sheat=
Height of LL sheat=
0 psf (unlfonn lateral pressure) 0 psf (unform lateral pressure)
0 R (equmlent ht of soil)
0 R (equmlent ht of soil)
0.3 0 R-lb
0 Ib
0 R above top of footing
Wa// and Footha plorensm
Retained so11 heght (h& 4R Wldth of wall and key &)= 0.67 R
Height abow soil (hk)= on Length of heel (I.,,)= 2R
Thickness of footing (tm3= 1.25 R Length of toe (I.& OR
Thickness of key (&)= OR Helght of soil above toe (he)= 1R
Vind
Ht exposure, 8 gust weff (C.)=
Pressure Coeff (CJ=
Importance factor, wnd (I&
Wind stagnation pressure (qJ=
Oestgn Wind Pressure (P)=
Wnd and Seismic Load PaIametem;
1.39
1.4
1.0
16.4 psf
32~ -.c~r,
0 Ib
0 R-lb
Shear Q top of retained sol1 =
Moment Q top of retained soil =
Seismic Due to Soil (Factored)
Earthquake Peq actbe=
Importance factor, sesmic (Is)=
Seismic Due to Wall (Factored)
ap=
RP=
IP= Ca=
Seismic force from soil=
Seismic force from wall (full ht)=
Shear Q top of retained soil =
Moment Q top of retained soil =
Controlling Load (Wind or Seismic)
Fnctional
Resistance
Resistance
I ForceDiaaram
Opcf 1.0
1 FP = [~*C.*lD(l+3*(~,))~~Wo 3 not less than 0 7C.IoWo
1.0 not more than 4C.IDW,
0.44 Take k-0 0 for retaining walls
0.308 Wp below grade
0.308 Wp above grade
0 Ib (assuming inverted tnangular distnbution)
0 Ib
0 R-lb
69 Ib (assuming unlfonn distnbution)
0 Ib
R-lb (Consldenng wall above grade only) ax inear in VMII Q top of retained soil=
:lax moment in wall Q top of retained soil=
ax lateral load= 69 Ib (either due to mnd on wall above grade or
due to seismic load from wall and soil)
5/30/2003 Libby Enaineers. Inc.
: T +
Sliding Force:
P- = 758 Ib (lR)*Qam~*(h,,, + W"2
P-= 0 Ib
Laterah,,= 69 Ib
Addltional shear= 0 Ib 827 Ib Total Sllding Force on wall =
Sliding Resistance due to passive + (trictlon coeffklent x dead load):
"Passive restricted to 213 of friction + passive
P- = 1178 Ib (I/2)'P-'1 3*(a + + L))Y
sol1 at toe= 0 Ib
0 Ib
312 lb
concretefooting= 501 Ib
concrete key = 0 Ib 960 Ib
Wall above grade =
Wall bekw grade =
SMI at heel + Surcharge DL=
Sliding Res~stance = 620 Ib (W ) + 1178 Ib (pass ) = 1799 Ib
CHECK PERCENTAGE OF PASSIVE TO TOTAL= 0 666 OKAY
Factor of safety against sliding = 1799 = 2t76 OKAY
827 rn seetlllc badlng
0 +
MOMENT MOMBJT 0 ITEM FORCE(lb) ARM (ft)
P- 758
Surcharge pressure 0 Additional LL Shear 0
Late~hldw,. 49
Seiimih 0
Additional LL Moment
WallDL 312
FootingDL 501
Key DL 0
Heelm 960 Toe Soil DL 0
1.75
2.625 1.3
3.3
3.50
1326
0
0
0
158
0
TOTAL 0.T.M.= 1466 nw
0.34
1.34
0.34
1.67
0. M)
105 668
0
1803 0
TOTAL RESlSTlNQ mmpcTI 2376 R-lb
I Factor of Safety = 2376 1.599 OKAY - -
1486 with seismic Wing
Sliding Force: Wi= 758Ib Additional shear= 0 Ib
P surcharge (DL+LL)= 0 Ib 758 Ib Total Sliding Force on wall =
Sliding Resistance due to passive + (friction codlcknt x dwd load):
'~i~ctedtoznofItktton+parhn
Ppassk= 886Ib
SOilattoec Ob
0 Ib
312 Ib concretefooting= 500.625 Ib
wncrete key = 0 Ib 960 Ib
Wall above grade =
Wall b&W glade =
Soil at heel + Surcharge DL=
Sliding Resistance = 620 Ib (M.) + 886 Ib (pass.) = 1506 Ib
CHECK PERCENTAGE OF PASSIM TO TOTAL= 0.588 OKAY
Factor of safety against sliding = 1506 = 1.987 OKAY
758 w/o secsmic loadlng
5/30/2003 Libbv Enuineers. Inc.
CHFCK OVFRTURNING STAB11 ITY FOR 0 +I
MOMENT MOMENT
ITEM FORCE(1 b) ARM (R) (R-lb)
P- 758 I 75 1326
Surcharge pressure 0 2 625 0
Additional LL Shear 0 13 0
Additional LL Moment 0
TOTAL O.T.M.9 1326 R-lb
Wall DL 312 034 105
Footing DL 500625 134 668 Key DL 0 034 0 HeelDL 960 1 67 1603
Toe Soil DL 0 000 0
TOTAL RESISTING MOMENT= 2376 ft-lb
FactorofSafety= 2376 = 1791 OKAY
1326 w/o Seismic loading
CHECK SOIL PRFSSURE A T THE EA SE OF FOOTING
n
LOAD CASE #1 e < U6 M w
-LJ- qnm=PR + 6M/(L2)
LOAD CASE #2 e > U6
qm=4P/(3(L - 2e))
LOAD CASE: DEAD + LIVE + LATERAL (WIND OR SEISMIC)
M,W= 2376 R-lb
Mhn= 1486 R-lb
MM= 890 R-lb
Pw= 1773 Ib
e = M,dP,- 0.498 R > U6= 0.333R
Therefore, casedl2 governs
q-= 2353 psf
Ora.= 3325 psf OKAY
Libbv Enuineers. Inc.
F.= 366 psi Fb= 500 pd
f,= 3.4 psi fb= 660 psi
LOAD CASE DEAD + LIVE
Mresist= 2376 A-lb Motm= 1326 A-lb
Mnet= 1050 R-lb
Ptotal= 1773 Ib
e = Mnet/Ptotal= 0.408 R 5 m=
Therefore, cas& governs
%= lssspsf
-- 2500pSf OKAY
bYASONRYDESlGN t-
CMU type 8 in n= 25.8
t= 7.625 in I= 2.20 in
fb = albmble bendi strepd len considering interadion dfiexure and axial loads dw to
seismic orwind bads. assuming special
inspedion provided. i.e. full albwable
d= 5.25 in
f',= 1500 psi
WIF 21.81
0.333 n
Max moment at base of wall= 605 A-lb
From Masonry Engineenng Handbook (Table E-&): nr 0.001 p (V)= 0.00016 Ulk 26581 J= 0.971 minimumfordes@n
p min per '97 UBC= 0.00102 YSE MINIMUM STEEL FOR VERTICAL BARS
AS min (v)= o 0641 n'nt Bartypeusedf4 0 24 in = 0.1 in%
AS min (HI= o 0830 in'nt Bartypeused#4 0 24 in = 0.1 in%
Check Steel Stress f,= 16.1 ksi F*= 32 ksi (due to D+L+seiSmic or Wind)
Check Shear in wall V= 509 Ib
f? 12.1 psi FF 51.5 psi
Check Shear transfer between wncrete footing arid CMU wall Vu= 0.76 kip Phiv.= 3.06 kips
Factored Soil Pressure: ql~=
(factom 7) %l=
Max Moment due to 0 max
re= 3ksi
d= 11.5 in
OM kv$hotBearing= 1.51 R
mw
USE CASE2
Case 1: Length of bearing is less than length of toe Case2 Lengthofbearingislongerthan
lengMdtoeoreCU6
qait= OW MU= 0 R-lb
VU= 0 Ib Check Heel
'Comparing factored shear and moment on heel with shear and moment on toe and desigrnng for maximum
Mu= 1344 A-lb
Vu= 1344 Ib
4of5
5/30/2003 Libbv Enuineers. Inc.
Flexural Design
Mu= 1344 R-lb Assuming J= 0.9 As req= 0 029 In'/ft
Bar type used # 4 0 16 in = 0 150 inzR
a= 0294 in
In' 0987 Moment Capacrty of Toe= 7663 R-lb a= 4442 470 2 K o\IER DEMAND
Check Shear
Vu= 1344 Ib
Phi-V,= 15117 Ib
Phi-Vn= 7650 Ib SHEAF2 OK
* Checkmg shear capacrty of concrete and steel separately
-N OFKW KEY NOT NEEDED, IGNORE FOLLOWING SECTION
Designing key for resistance of full passrve pressure. Assuming Same As as in toeheel of footing as default value
Factored passive pressure=1.7' 350
I I1 I
595 Pcf
t.d: iff Vu= 0 Ib
t,= 1.25 R M.= 0 R-lb
t a= OR &= 0.150 in%
PI= 1338.75 pif d= 4 in
*assuming steel in center of key
P2= 1338.75 pif
Check flexural capacrty
a= 0.294 in In= 0.963 Moment Capacw of Key= 2601 R-k/R a= 4.335 MOMENT OK
Check shear capacrty
*Checking shear capacty of concrete and steel separately
Phi-V,= 5258 Ib
Phi-V,= 7650 Ib SHEAR OK
5 Of 5
5/30/2003 Libbv Enaineers. lnc.
RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Writtan by DBT
Latest revision - 1/22/01
*Active Pressure assumed to be at bottom of footing, wall and footing designed for 1 foot rbip
*Per I S97 UBC
Wall ID- Revision to SNF-West Wall - B'Retained Design- =T
ppassive= P actwe =
Coefficient of Fnctim =
Unrt Weight of Soil (gam-)=
Allowable beanng pressure (a)=
Wt of concrete=
Wt of wall belm the soil=
Wt of wdll abow soil=
D+I
surcharge sDL=
surcharge u=
surcharge SIX=
surchacge u=
Ka= AdditioMlUmoment=
Addiil usheal=
HeigMdUsheaF
0 psf (uniform lateral Pressure) 0 psf (uniform lateral pressure) o n (equivalant M ob soil) o n (equivalent M ct soil)
03 0 n-lb
Ob 0 nabovetopoffooting
Retained soil height (ha SR wattdwaliand~sy(t,.p wn
Height ab soil (h*)= on Lenath~~(w= 2.6n
Thickness offootlng (t& 2n LenethOfb(l3= in
Thickness of key (&)= on Height dsoil abova toe (h& in
Wind
Ht, emure. & gust d. (C&
Pressure coeff. (Cap
Importance factor, wind (I,,)=
Wind stagnation pressure (qJ=
mign Wind Pressure (P)=
Shear Q top of retained soil =
Moment Q top of retained soil =
Selsrnic Due to Soil (Factored)
Earthquake Peq active=
Importance factor, seismic (Is)=
Seismic Due to Wall (Factored)
ap.
RF
IF ca=
Seismic force from soil=
Seismic force from wall (full ht)=
Shear Q top of retained soil =
Moment Q top of retained soil =
Controlling Load Wnd or Seismic)
1.39
1.4
1 .o
16.4 psf
=psf -.%L
0 Ib
0 Flb
OW 1 .o
1 = k%qD(1+3m))fl?DpD
3 nd lescl than 0.7CJDWD
1 A
0.44 nd Inore than 4CJ,WD
Take M.0 fw retaining wallet
0.acrswpbdowgrclk 0.308Wp.barngrxk
0 Ib (assuming inverted triangular disbibutjon)
0 Ib
0 R-lb
103 Ib (assuming unrlorm distriknion)
Max shear in wall atop of retained soil= 0 Ib Max moment in wall @top of retained soil= R,b (-ng -11 above grade only)
Page 1 of 5
Max lateral load= 103 Ib (either due to wind on wall above grade OT
due toseismic bad hmnW and soil)
5/30/2003 Libb w Enuineers. lnc.
84 ;-I
Page 2 of 5
aFCK WG STAR11 INFOR D+I + I ATFRAI
Sliding Force:
P, = 1760 Ib (l/2)T'-*(hm + tA"2
P-= 0 Ib me*,-= 103 Ib
Addltlonal shear= 0 Ib
1863 Ib Total Sliding Fm on wall =
Sliding Reststance due to passive + (ftidon coefttckmnt x dead load):
"Passive restricted to 213 of Mdon + passive
P- = 2095 Ib (lR)T'-'l 33'(h, + tcS. + t&2
Sal at toe- 120 Ib
0 Ib
468 Ib
mcretefoobing= 1251 Ib
concrete key = 0 Ib
1800 Ib
Wall above grade =
Wall Mow grade =
Soil at heel +Surcharge DL=
Sliding Resistance = 1274 Ib (fnct ) + 2095 Ib (pass ) = 3368 Ib
CHECK PERCENTAGE OF PASSIVE TO TOTAL= 0 622 OKAY
Factor of safety against sliding = 3368 = 1808 OKAY
1863 wth seismic loading
OVFU77J-G STAR-/ + I OAD
MOMENT MOMENT
ITEM FORCE(lb1 ARM (ft) (It-lb)
P, 1760
Addltional U Shear 0
Laterah,- 103
Seismic= 0
Surcharge pressure 0
Addltional LL Moment
Wall DL 468
FmtingDL 1251
Key DL 0
HeelDL 1800
ToeSoilDL 120
2.67
4
2.0
5.0
5.33
4693
0
0
0
51 5
0
TOTAL O.T.Y.= 5208 ft-lb
1.34
2.09
1.34
2.92 0.50
625
2608
0
5256
60
TOTAL RESISTING MOMENTS 8549 ft-lb
I Factor of Safety = 8549 - 1.641 OKAY -
5208 wth setsrnic loading
Sliding Force: Pact&= 1760 Ib
Additional sheat= 0 Ib
P surcharge (DL+LL)= 0 Ib
1760 lb Total Sliding Force on wall =
Sliding Resistance due to passive + (trktlon coamCiant x dead load):
'Pasrive rertrlctcd to 2l3 offtiction + passive
Ppassive= 1575 Ib
Soil at toe= 120 Ib
0 Ib
468 Ib concrete footing= 1251 Ib
concrete key = 0 Ib
1800 Ib
Wall above grade =
Wall below grade =
Soil at heel +Surcharge DL=
Sliding Resistance = 1274 Ib (M.) + 1575 Ib (pass.) = 2849 lb
CHECK PERCENTAGE OF PASSIVE TO TOTAL= 0 553 OKAY
Factor of safety against sltding = 2849 = 1619 OKAY
1760 w/o seismic loading
5/30/2003 Libbv Enaineers. lnc.
G STAR11 f7Y-
MOMEM MOMENT
ITEM FORCE(lb) ARM (ft) (ft-lbl
P- 1760 2.67 4693
Surcharge pressure 0 4 0
Additional LL Shear 0 2.0 0
Additional LL Moment 0
TOTAL 0.T.M.S 4693 ft-lb
Wall DL 468
FootingDL 1251
Kw DL 0 HeelDL 1800
Toe Soil DL 120
1.34
2.09
1.34
2.92 0.50
625
2608 0
5256 80
I Factor of Safety = 8549 - 1.822 OKAY -
4693 w/o seismic loading
SO// PRFSSURF AT WF OFFOOm
LOAD CASE #I : e e U6 A
kl- q,=P/L + 6M/(L2)
LOAD CASE #2: e =. U6
q-=4P/(3(L - 2e))
LOAD CASE DEAD + LIVE + LATERAL (WIND OR SEISMIC)
M- 8549 ft-lb
M,= 5208 R-lb
Me 3341 R-lb
P- 3639 Ib
e= MnJPod 0.832 R > u6= 0.583R
Therefore, case#Z gumns
q,- 2642 psf
&,,,= 3325 psf OKAY
Page 3 of 5
Rwall-SNF-West-rev3
b30I2003 ' Libbv Enaineers. lnc.
LOAD CASE: DEAD + LIVE
Mresist= 8549 R-lb
Motm= 4693 R-lb
' MW= 3856 R-lb
Ptotal= 3639 Ib
e=MneVPtotal= 0.69OR > L/6= 0.583 R
-re,- Qovwns
qm= 229opsf
&+v= 2500psf OKAY
CMU type 8 in n= 25.0
t= 7.625 in I= 2.20 in
d= S.26 in h'k 32.71
f',= I500 psi
F.= 355 psi Fb= 500 psi
fa= 5.1 psi fb= 658 psi
Max moment at bse ofwall= 2289 R-lb
From Masonry Engineering Handbook (Table E-9a): np= 0.064 p (V)= 0.00209
2&= 7.921 j= 0.W7 minimum for design
p rnin per97 US 0.00102
As min (V)= 0.1320 in% Bartypeused#S 0 16 in = 0.233 in%
As rnin (H)= 0.0641 in% Bartypeused#4 0 24 in = 0.1 in%
Check Steel Stress f== 24.8 ksi F*= 32 ksi (due to D+L+Seismic or Wind)
Check Shear in wall V= 1093 Ib Fs 26.0 psi F.= 51.5 psi
Check Shear ttamfer between conaete fooling and CMU wall Vu= 1.64 kips
Phi-V,= 7.11 kips
Factored Soil Pressure: q-=
q .= (facto~1.7) rml
Max Moment due to Q max ' egEldl
Case 1
Case 1 ' Length of beanng IS less
than length of toe
rc= 3 ksl
4492 psf d= 205 in
opsf Length dBeanng= 2.75 R
USE CASE2
# 1R Cnt sect
I 1
Case 2: Length of bearing is longer than
length of toe or -If6
qCW- 1631 pSf Mu= 1769 R-lb
Vu= 3062 Ib
Check Heel
'Companng factored shear and moment on heel with shear and moment on toe and designing for maximum
Mu= 3150 R-lb
Vu= 2520 Ib
lo q
Page 4 of 5
Rwall-SNF-West-rev3
5/30/2003 Libbv Enaineers. Inc.
Flexural Design
Mu= 3150 R-lb Assumingj= O.S ~~req= 0.03 in%
Bartypeused#4 0 16 in = 0.150 in%
a= 0.294 in k= 0.993
&= 4.468
Moment Capacity d Toe0 13730 R-lb
336.1 % OMR DEMAND
Check Shear
Vu= 3062 Ib 'Checking shear capacity dconcrete and atea( aapamtely
Phi-Vc= 26948 Ib
PhI-Vn= 7650 Ib SHEAR OK
OFKW KEY NOT NEEDED, IGNORE FOLLOWING SECTION
Designing key for resistance of full passwe pressure, Assuming same As as in toemeel d (bating 88 &ul value
Factored passive pressurecl.7' 350 - 595 pot
t.6 in V.= 0 Ib
tm= 2R MU= 0 R-lb
twi OR A,= aiw in%
Pt= 1785 plf d= 4 in
Pp 1785pr
%ssuming sted in center d key
Check flexural capacity
a= 0.294 in
&= 4.335 MOMENT OK
j.= 0.963 ~oment~apacityd~ep 280in-m
Check shear capacrly
'clwkingshearcapacilydconaeteandsteel-
Phi-V,= 5258 Ib
Phi-V.= 7650 Ib SHEAR OK
Lib6 Y Enaineers. Inc.
RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN -bYm
Wall ID- Revision to SNFW Wd/ - 10' Retained Design-
p- Padive=
CodfidentofFriction=
Unit Weight of Soil (gamma,&
Allowable bearing pressure (a)=
wtctconuet~
wtofwanbdauthesoil=
Wtofwallabovemil=
seismicfacefrwnsoil= seismic face horn wan (full rn)= Shear @ top of retained soil =
Moment @top of retaii soil =
1.39
1A
1.0
16.4 Psf =Psf p=&%4v
0 Ib 0 R-lb
conbdllng Lord (Wlnd or &hlk)
Oib (conslderingmdlabore~arly) Max shear in well Q top of retained soil=
Max moment in wall @ top of retained soil= 0 R-lb
Libbv Enaineers. In C.
STl&f&llYFORD+I +Ut€RAI IoADIIIMiCdoFem
Sliding Force:
P- = 3960 Ib f-- (IL?)T-*(h, + k3^2
P-= 0 Ib
Lat-iu,arsk*= 172 Ib
AddRional shear= 0 Ib
4132 Ib Total Sliding Force on wall =
Sllding Resistance due to passive +(friction coellklent x dnd lad):
mive restrkW tom oftricdion +passfw
P- = 3724 Ib t- (IL?)T-*l 33.b + + t&2
Wattoe= 120 Ib
0 Ib
780 Ib
concretefwting= 2100 Ib
axlcretekey= 150 Ib 6Mo Ib
Wall above grade =
Wall below grade =
sol1 at heel + Surcharge DL=
Sllding Resistance = 3203 Ib (fnct) + 3724 Ib (pass ) = 6927 Ib
CHECK PERCENTAGE OF PASSIVE TO TOTAL= 0 538 OKAY
Factor of safety against sllding = 6927 = 1676 OKAY
41 32 m SeJmlK: kmdlng
WFCK QVFRNRMNO STA€WTYKIRD+L +
MOMENT
ITEM FORCE(Ib1 ARM (ft)
p, 3960 4.00
Surcharge pressure 0 6 Additional LL Shear 0 2.0
Laterak,, 172 7.0
Additional LL Moment
Seismi- 0 8.00
MOMENT Am-
15840
0 0
0
1201
0
Wall DL 780
FwtingDL 2100
Key DL 150
HeelDL axX, Toe Soil DL 120
TOTALO.TM= 17041 ft-lb
1.50 I170
3.50 7350 1.50 225 4.50 no00
0.50 60
TOTALRESBTlNOy#IENT= 36805R-ib
I FactorofSafety= 35805 = 2.101 OKAY 17041 with seismic Wi
CHFCK WNG STqELlynFOR O+L
Sliding Fm:
Pactwe= 3960Ib
Addrtmal shear; 0 Ib
P surcharge (DL+LL)= 0 Ib
3960 Ib Total Sllding Force on wall =
Sliding Resistance due to passive + (Won codlkhi x dad lad): 'Passive Rstrictrd tom ofliktion + passive
Ppasswe= 2800Ib
Soilattoe= 120 Ib
0 Ib 780 Ib
concretefooting- 2100 Ib
concretekey= 150ib
6oOo Ib
Wall above grade =
Wall below grade =
Soil at heel + Surcharge M=
Sliding Reststance = 3203 ib (fnd ) + 2800 Ib (pass.) = WW3 Ib
CHECK PERCENTAGE OF PASSIM TO TOTAL= 0 466 OKAY
Factor of safety against sllding = 6003 = 1516 OKAY 3960 Wb mc loading
134 !?
Page 2 of5
Libbv Enuineers. lnc.
CHECK OWRW- FOR D+L
MOMENT MOMENT
ITEM FOF?CE(lb) ARM (ft) (ft-lb)
pacm 3960 4w 15840
Surcharge pressure 0 6 0
Addltional LL Shear 0 20 0
Additional LL Moment 0
TOTAL O.T.Y= 15840 ft-lb
Wall DL 700 150 1170
FootingDL 2100 350 7360 KeyDL 150 150 225 HeelDL 6ooo 4.50 27000 ToeSoilDL 120 050 60
TOTAL RESISTINO MOMENT= 35805 ft-lb
I FactorofSafety= 35805 = 2.260 OKAY
15840 wlo Seiwnic loading
CHECK SOIL PRESSURF AT 7HF OF F0077NG
LOAD CASE #I: e < U6 A %- q,=P/L + 6M/(L2)
LOAD CASE #2: e > U6
qm=4P/(3(L - 2e))
x=3( MnetlPtotal)
LOAD CASE DEAD + WE + LATERAL (WIND OR SEISMIC)
M,= 35805 ft-lb
Mm= 17041 ft-lb
MM= 18764 ft-lb
Pw= 9150 Ib
e=Md,- 0.949R < I&= 1.000R
Therefore, case1 governs
q,= 2973 psf
Q- 3325 psf OKAY
Rwall-SNF-West-rev3
5hQW3 ' Libbv Enaineers. Inc.
LOAD CASE: DEAD + WE
Mresist= 35805 ft-lb
Motm= 15840R-lb
Mnet= 19965 R-lb
Ptotal= 9150 Ib
e = Mnet/Ptdal= 0.818 R < m= l.m R
Therefore, case1 (@vems
qnr' 2n3psf
G mpsf NO GOOD
CMU type 12 in n= 25.8
t= 11.625 in F 3.36m
d= 9 in h%= 35.76
F.= 351 psl
f',= 1500 psl
Fb= 500 psi rl fb=alluwk4ebendingsbesMconsidering dflewe and axial kade due to
f*= 5.6 psi f,= mpsi 8eiruniorw#rdkade,assumingspecial
inspedkm provided. i.e. full allowable
Max moment at base of wall= 10025 Flb
From Masonry Engineering Handbook (Table E-&): aim
2rjk 5.309 7 o.Ss2
p min per '97 UB(= O.aX)90
AS min (v)= 0.7374 in'm Bartypeusedl7
As min (H)= 0.0977 in'm Bartypeusedll4
Check Steel Stress f.= 17.4 ksi F'=
f,,= 40.6~ FV=
Check Shear in wall v= 2922tb
Check Shear transfer between concrete foobng and CMU WaN
FactoredSoilPressure: ~r=
(factoF1.7) 9nn=
Max Moment due to Q max
Retained
6.15 11
Casel: Lengthofbearingisless
than length of toe
p(v)= 0.00683
minimumfwwn
tin = 0.900 i2m
in = 0.1 i2m 6 6
32 ksi (due to D+L+Seismic or Wind)
51.5 psi
vz 4.38Ups
phiV.= 27.54 Ups
re= 3ksi
d= 20.5 in
npsf LengthOCBearitp 6.15 R
USE CASE2
II I
Check Heel
'Comparing factored shear and moment on heel with shear and moment on toe and desi~ning for mmum
Mu= 21000 ft-lb
Vu= &400 Ib
5/30/2003 Libbv Enuineers. Inc.
Flexural Design
Mu= 210M)R-lb Assuming J= 0.9 As req= 0 253 in'A7
Bartypeused#5 0 16 in = 0233 in'A7
a= 0456 in
In= 0989 Moment Capactly &Toe= 21210 R-lb
a,,= 4450 1 0 % OMR DEMAND
Check Shear
Vu= 8400 Ib
Pht-V,= 26948 Ib
Phi-V.= 11856 Ib SHEAR OK
Checkmg shear capacity of concrete and steel separately
sEsmuww
* Designing key for resistance of full pas~le pressure. Assuming same As as in tdheel of footing as default value
Factored passive pressure=1.7' 350
I 1
Check flexural cam
a= 0.456 in
jn= 0.962 Moment Capacrty of Key=
1R V.= 2083 Ib
2R Mu= 1091 R-lb
IR A,= 0.p~ in%t
2380 plr d= 6 in
1785 plf
*assuming steel in center of key
6039 R-klR
a,,= 4.329 MOMENT OK
Check shear caw
Checking shear capactly of concrete and steei separately Phi-V,= 7887 Ib
Phi-V.= 11857.5 Ib SHEAR OK
rl (6 4 i4!
Page 5of5
Rwall-SNF-West-rev3
SOLID GROUTED
-1
- C I
rt
16”
I I = lor‘ -1 1
R ETA1 N IN G WALL SECTION
N.T.S.
2 #4 CONT
8“ C.M.U.
SOLID GROUTED /
f’m = 1500 psi
16” 12” C.M.U. WAl SOLID /GROUTED f’m=1500 psi
1 I
1 R EATAI N I N G WALL S ECTlO N
N.T.S.
STRUCTURAL CALCULATIONS
FOR
LA COSTA GLEN
RETAINING WALL
REVISIONS AT SNF
Job No. 5425.04
San Diego, CA 92120-3304 Fax : (879) 284-3533 www. libby-lei. corn
., MARTIN 6 LIBBY
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS
4452 GLACIER AVE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92 120
*.
Computed By: l7 6-r Date: s's- 0 3 Checked By: Date Sheet No. - Of -
Project No. Sc1 ZS: 01( Note No. Subject LA cocr,-r/l GL&~ - EEVI IQ SdF dAU-
I. . '
3
r\
3
L
2
I
Libbv Enuineers. Inc.
RETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DESIGN Wrhn by DE1
Latest revision - 1/22/01
'Active Pressure assumed to be at bottom of tooting. wall and footing designed for 1 foot strip
'Per 1997 UBC
Wall ID- Revision to SNF;West Wall- #Retained Design- =T
Pam=
Coefficient of Friction =
Unit Weight of soil (gamma,,,,)=
Allowable bearing pressure (Q)=
WtofconaetP. wt of wall below the soil=
wt ofwall above soil=
Retained soil height (h&
Wht above soil (h-p
Thickness of footing (k3'
Thickness of key (&)=
surcharge sDL=
Surcharge LL=
Ka= Additional u l.rwmne
Additional LL shear=
Hei!Jht of LL shear=
wind
Ht. expasure, 8 gust coeff. (COP
pressure codt. (cJ=
Importance factor, wind (I& .
Wind stagnation pressure (qJ=
Design Wind Pressure (P)=
Shear@topofretainedsoil= Moment @ top of retained soil =
Sekmic Due to Soil (Faaorad)
Earthquake Peq adive=
Importance factor, seismic (Is)=
Seismic Due to Wall (Factorad)
ap=
RP
IF ca=
Seismic force fmm soil=
Seismic force from wall (full ht)=
Shear @ top of retained soil =
Moment @ top of retained soil =
0 R (equivalent M of soil)
0 R (equivalent ht of soil)
0 ft-lb
0 Ib
0 R above top of footing
0.3
0.67 R
2R
Oft
1R
1.39
1.4
1.0
16.4 psf
=psf P-CmQbL
0 Ib 0 R-lb
Opcf 1 .o
1 FP = [4-av1+3*m)wD
3 not kss than 0.7C.I*W,
18 not mare than 4C,I,W, OA4 Take M.0 for retaining walls
03oSWpklowgrnla
0.308 Wp above grpck
0 Ib (assuming imrerted triangular distribution)
0 Ib
0 R-lb
a Ib (assuming uniform dibutii)
Controlling Load (Wlnd or saiunk)
0 Ib
n-lb (Considering wall above grade only) Max shear in wall @ top of retained soil= Max moment in wall @top of retained soil=
Max lateral load= 69 Ib (either due to wind on wall above grade or
due to seismic load fmm wall and soil)
Libby Enuineers. / nc.
Sliding Fame:
P, = 758 Ib e (1/2ppmta,J(h,,, + t3y
P-= 0 Ib -Smrpu= 69 Ib
Addmal shear= 0 Ib
827 Ib Total Sllding Force on wall =
Slidlng Redstma dw to pmssiva +(Mdlon adkhtx dad kmd): m&VeFatrkt.dto2ndtrletkn+m
P-= 1178 Ib -(1/2)T-*l + + WY
SOllattO€!= 0 Ib
Wall above grade = 0 Ib
Wall bebwgrade = 312 Ib
ConnetefUJtIng= 501lb cmc&ekey= Ob sollathd+SurchargeDL= gsOIb
Sliding Reslstancs = 620 Ib fmct) + 1178 Ib (pass.) = 17s Ib
CHECK PERCENTAGE OF PASSIVE TO TOTAL= 0.655 OKAY .
FactorofMfetyagarnstddmg= 1799 = 2176 OKAY
027 withse4micbadlng
FORM 1 *-. +LA-
MOMENT MoMerr
ITEM FORCE(lq ARM (It) 0
Wall DL 312
FootingDL 501 KeYM 0 HedDL 980 Toe Soil DL 0
1.75 1328
2.625 0
1.3 0
0
3.3 159
3.50 0
TWALO.TY= 1488it-R
0.34
1.34 0.34 1.67 0. m
105
888 0 1803 0
- FactorofSafety= 2376 1.599 OKAY
1486 withsekvnic~ing
Sliding FMt.:
pactive= 758Ib
Addiilshear= Oh
P surcharge @L+u)= Olb 758 Ib Total Sliding Force on wall =
SlMlng Reslstam due to padvr +(ltMkn codkimtxdnd kd):
vasSive~to~dMction+~ -= 886Ib
Soilattoec Olb
Wall above grade = Olb Wallbebwgrade= 312lb
conaetefo&hp 500.625Ib conaetekey= Ob Soilathed+SufchatgeDL= 9EQIb
SlidingResistance= 620Ib(Md)+ 886Ib@ara)= 1506Ib
CHEW PERCENTAGE OF PASSIVE TO TOTAL= 0.588 OKAY Factor af Ssfety against sliding = 1506 = 1.987 OKAY 758 wseisnkkadin(l
'I
5/5/2003 Libbv Enaineers. Inc.
pfFCK 0- FOR D+&
MOMENT MOMENT ITEM FCRCE(lb) ARM (R) (R-lb)
prr*. Surcharge preswre Additional LL Shear Additional LL Moment
Wall DL Footing DL
Key QL Heel DL
Toe Soil M.
758 1.75
0 2.625
0 1.3
312 500.625 0 960
0
TOTAL O.TY=
0.34 1.34
0.34
1.67
0.00
TOTALREWSTIIW~~~T=
1326
0
0
0
1326 R-lb
105 66a 0
1603
0
2376 R-lb
I FactordSafety= 2376 = 1.79'1 OKAY 1326 wlo seismic loading
LOADCASE#I: e<1/6 &
LOADCASE#2: e>U6
-/(3(L - Ze)) I
LOAD CASE: MAD + UM + LATERAL (WIND OR SEISMIC)
2376 R-lb
M,= 1486R-lb
M,,,,= 890R-lb
P- 1773 Ib
e=M,,,,/P- 0.498R > LIE= 0.333R
Tk-ehxe.casadl;! gavems
%E= -psf
%w= =psJ OKAY
bibbw Enaineem. Inc.
LOAD CASE: DEAD + WE
Mresist= 2376 ft-lb
Motm= 1326R-lb
Mnet= 1050 R-lb
PtataC 1773 Ib
CMU type 8 in IF 25.8 t= 7.625 in I= 2.20kl
d= 5.2S in W/f= 21.81
f'-= 1500 psi
F,= 366 psi Fb= 500 pei
f.= 3.4 psi f,= mp8i
bgpection prcwided Le. MI albable
From Masonry Engineering Handbook (Table Ea): QOOI p(v)E 0.00016
, Zljk 26.581 7 oml nJniMmform
p min per '97 UBC= 0.00102 USE MINIMUM STEEL FOR MRTICAL BARS
AS min (vp 0.0641 in'm BElrtypeusedx4 0 24in = 0.1 in%?
AS min (H)= 0.0830 in'm Bartypeusedx4 8 ain = 0.1 in%
Checksteelstress f,= 16.1 ki Fi 32 IQi (due to D+L+seiclmii a wind)
Check Shear in wall W 509 Ib
12.1 pei F,= 51.5 p6l
Check Shear transfer between conuete foding and CMU bmll V,= 0.76 ldps
PMVp 3.osldps
FactoredSoilResaure:
(fack~1.7) Qk=
Max Moment due to Q max
casel: ~ofbearhgisks6
than length oftce
re sksi
mpsf d= 11.5 in
OW 1.51 R
USE CASE2
'comparing factored shear and moment on heelwith shearand manentontoerad designinofor maximum
My 1344 R-lb
Vp 1344Ib
Flexural Design
Mu= 1344 R-lb
EartypeW#4
a= 0.294 in
j,,= 0.987
a,,= 4.442
Assuming j= 0.B A6req= 0.029 in2R
0 16 in = 0.150 in2R
MomentCapacitydToec 7863R-lb
470.2 K OVER DEMAND
Check Shear
Vj: 1344Ib 'Checking shear capacity ofconaete and sted separately
Phi-Vp 15117 Ib
p)IiV.= 7850 Ib SHEAROK
KEY NOT NEEDED, IGNORE FOLLOWINQ SECTION
Designing key for resistance of full passire praswre. Assuming same As as in toehel of foc4ing as default value
Check flexural capacity
a= 0.294 in
j,,= 0.963 MomentCapacitydKey= 2801Rkm
a,,= 4.335 MOMENT OK
Check shear capacity
* mng shear capacity of aMorete and sta separately
F'hi-V,= 5258 Ib
Phi-V,= 76M) Ib SHEAROK
'I
mm Libbw Enaineem. Inc.
PETAINING WALL ANALYSIS AND DFSIGN
. ." .'A
Design- =T Wall ID- Revision to SNFIMsf MI/ - 8'Reteined
wall-
PpassiveE Pactive= ~ofF~=
Unit Weight of Soil (gam-=
Allanrable bearing pressure (a)= Wtofaxraetes
wtofwallbelowtllesoil=
Wtofwallabmesoil=
an wdth drmll and key&)= in
I I I+
seismiforcefmmsoi!=
Shear @ top of retained soil =
Moment@ top of retained soil =
seismic force from wall (tuw m)=
130 1A
1.0
=pss -wdhL
16A pa5
Olb 0 R-lb
COnbolUng Losd (mndor3.hmk)
. ~-0-m) Max shear in wall @top of retained soil= Olb
Max moment in wall @top of retained soit on& (-
FORM +LA-
Sliding Force:
Pa. = 2750 Ib t- (ID)T-*(h* + 4r3^2
P-= 0 Ib
Addiiil shear= 0 Ib
2887 Ib
Laterah,-= 137 Ib
Total Sliding Fm on wall =
Sliding Resktana due to passim + (Metion codWentx6rd lord): 'PPssiW resbwedto 213 of MEtlon + passiw
P- = 5819 Ib t- (lL?)'P-'l.33*(& + + t42
Sorlattoec 120Ib
624 Ib
wf~&fwting= 21W Ib concretekey= 300Ib
Soilathed+SurchargeDL= 4800 Ib
Wall abwe grade = Ob Wall bekw grade =
Sliding Resistance = 2780 Ib (frict) + 5819 Ib (pass.) = 8589 Ib
CHECK PERCENTAGE OF PASSIM TO TOTAL= 0.677 USE REDUCED PASSIM RESISTANCE
Fadorofsafetyagainstslbjing= 8509 = 2.970 OKAY
2887 with seismic loading
CK OM-G S7ll-m LOAD-
MOMENT MOMENT 0
P- 2750 3.33 9167
Surcharge preswre 0 5 0
Addii~l LL Shear 0 2.0 0
Additional U Moment 0 Latecalm,- 137 6.0 824
Seismic, 0 6.67 0
ITEM FORCE(Ib1 ARM (It)
TOTALO.TM= 9880 lt-lb
Wall DL 624
FootingDL 2100
KeyDL 300 HeelDL 4800 ToeSoilDL 120
1.50 Q36
3.50 7350
1.50 450
4.50 21600 0.50 60
TOTALSSSTIW- 30396R-ib
I FactwofSafety= 30396 = 3.043 OKAY 9990 with seismic loading
sliding Force:
pactive= 2750 Ib Additional shaar= 0 Ib P surcharge (DL+U)= 0 Ib 2750 Ib Total Sliding Force on wall =
Slidlng Resistan# due 1D passive + (frkUon colmdmt x dud load):
ppassive= 4375 Ib
Soilattoes 120Ib
624 Ib conaetefoding= 2100 Ib
concretekey= 3WIb Soilathd+SurchargeDL= 4800Ib
'~rartriQdto2l3atltlctkn+~
Wallabovegrade= Ob
Wall bek~~ gmde =
Sliding Resistance = 2780 Ib (trict) + 4375 Ib (pass.) = 7155 Ib
CHECK PERCENTAGE OF PASSIM TO TOTAL= 0.61 I OKAY
Factor of safety against sliding = 7155 = 2.602 OKAY 2750 w/o SeiMnic Wing
Libbv Enuineers. Inc.
MOMENT MOMEM
FORCE(IbJ ARM (It) mrr)
P- 2750 3.33 9167
~*rpepresw~ 0 5 0 Addiil U Shear 0 2.0 0
Additional U Moment 0
ITEM
TOTALO.TYr QlWR-lb
Wall DL 624
FootingM 2100
KCyDL 300
WDL 4800
ToeSoilDL I20
1.50 3.50 1.50 4.50
0.50
9m T350 450 21800 Bo
FactorofSafety= 30086 = 3.316 ow\Y 9167 wfo~~
LOADCASE#2: a>LEB
q,,,.=4P/(3(L - 2e))
.,
5/5/2003 L ibbv Enuineers. Inc. paoe 4d5
LOAD CASE: DEAD + UVE
Mresist= 3a396R-b Motm= 9167 n-lb
Mnet= 21229R-lb
Pto&l= 7944 Ib
e=Mnet/Ptotak 0.3288 < 1/8=
Thwebre,caSel governs
k- 1758psf
%ow= 2500Psf OKAY
1.m 8
CMU type 12 in IF 25.8 t= 11.625 in I-= 3.36 in
d= 9 in h'k 28.61
tb = alkwabk bending stress lelt Fb= -psi
fb= 659 psi inspection m. i.e. full allowab!e
f',= 15ao psi .
F.= 359 psi
f,= 4.5 psi
Max moment at base of walk 5242 it-lb
FmmMasonryEngineerin~Handbodc(TableE-Ba): np= 0- PO= O.Mx)97 +- 10.179 j= OS33 minimumfordeabn
p min per '97 LIB(=: 0.00090
As min (V)= 0.1047 in%t Bartypeusedt6
AS min (I+ 0.0977 in'm Bartypewzedt4
CheclcSteelstress fi 22.7 hi F.=
e 26.4 psi FV=
ChedcShearinwall \I= 1897Ib
Check Shearbansfw COllcRte foding and CMU wall
16 in = 0.330 in'm u in = 0.1 in'm
8
0
32 kei (due to D*L+Seismk or Wind)
51.5 psi
v.= 2.85 kips
PhW.= 10.10 kips
FactoredSoilPressure: ~li:
(factoFl.7) hI=
Max Moment due to 0 max
re= 3ksi
d= 20.5 in
753 psf Lfmgth of Bearing= 7.71 it
USE CASE2
Retained j -e 7.71 R
casel: Lengthofbeeringislees
thankngVloftoe
Check Heel
%paring factwed shear and moment on heel with shear and moment on toe and desaning for maximum
My 168M)R-lb
Vp 6720 Ib
Flexural Cesgn
Mp lssOOR-lb
Bartypeused#S
a= 0.456 in k= 0.989
&= 4.450
checkshear
bibbv Ena ineers. Inc,
Moment capecity of Toe= 21210 R-lb
28.2 K OVER DEMAND
a= 0.456 in k= 0.962
an= 4.329
Checkshearcapadty
'Cheddngshearcapacitydccmaeteandsteelseparately
PhiiV,= 7887 Ib
PhiiV.= 11857.5 Ib SHEAR OK
Apr 29 03 02:OSp Continuing Life Comrn (7601 479-0574 P.4
17-
.
__
. -- ........... ...... ~--. __ ................... ..... --- __ ..
.... ...... .... ... __ .... .,-_. ... .. - .... I -. _-- -
.. .-- ..... .................... __ __-_ ..... .-_. ....
........ . . _- ............... __ ..... I _- ... -_ -I- L
I _-...
-
...... I_ ...
. .- .......
~-
.. I
- ......
. -. ....
... _. . .
- ....... + .
...... -.-Q- .. -
.. ... -
........ - .................
....... ..... 1
....
- - .. -. ...............
.... - -+ ...... . ...
...... .. .- ......
. _- - -.
...... ...... -.- .-
. __- .... -.
....... . - - _- . -. -.-- -
...... ... -. ... ...... -
.. .- ..... ..
_-. ...... .. __ . -. . . -
.... _. ................ .. _..-
. ...... ..
...... - ..
.-.-. .... -. .....
.- __
- ..........
.... -. ..
........
... .- .
........... .- . - ..... - ....... ...
............. -
......... .... .
..... ... .- cI .- .
...
--
#4(H) 0 24”
, Go” , 6’-0” 0
1 I 7’-0” 1 1 1
MAINTENANCE BUILDING - WALL B 7
3-3
SOLID GROUTED
MAINTENANCE BUILDING - WALL C 8
s--3
c
6-5-03
6-5-03
6-5-03
6-5-03
Libby Engineers, lnc. Consultin# SmnnKal Engkreenr
5 2 Revised Structural Dwgs, stamped and signed
3 19 Revised Structural Calculations, stamped and signed
1 1 Memo in response to plan check comments
1 Soils report
TO:
Continuing Life Communities
7707 El Camino Real
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
DATE: June 5, 2003
YOUR JOB NO.: LEI JOB NO.: 5425.04
ATTENTION: Dick Bishor, IRE: La Costa Glen I
Carlsbad, CA 92009 I Revisions to SNF retainina wall I
WE ARE SENDING YOU
[XI Attached via Deliverv the following items:
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
[ ] For review
[XI For your use
[XI As Requested
[ ] Return by:
[ ] Reviewed. See each item for exceptions, if any.
[ ] Reviewed. See below.
[ ] Reviewed. No exceptions taken.
[ ] For review and comment [I
REMARKS: Dick: You will need to include a copy of the soils report when resubmitting to the City of Carlsbad. Also, the
plan checker is requiring that the plans and calcs be sent to the geotechnical engineer for him to review and then provide
a letter stating that the plans and calcs are in compliance with his report, (see comments 1 and 4 from Esgil). If you
any questions or any other obstacles that we can help with, let me know.
COPY TO: File SIGNED: David Taquino
4452 Glacier Avenue
San Diego, CA 92120-3304
Phone: (619) 280-9307
FAX: (619) 284-3533
i .
City of brwbad 03-1380
8/32/03 PPECIAL INSPECTION PROGRAM
ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PLAN CHECK NUMBER OWNER'S NAME:
I, as the owner. or agent of the Owner (oontractors may wt employ the special inspector), certify that I, or the architectlsngineer of record. will be responsible for employing the spedal inspector($) as required
by Unlfarm EuiMing Code (UEC) Section 1701.1 for the construction project located at the site listed above. UBC Section 106.3.5.
I, as the rngineeduchiteot of mor&, certify that I have prepued thc following special inspcction pro- as required by UBC Scction 106.3.5 for the consbuction project located at the site listed above. --
L
1. List of work requiring rp.cirl Inspection;
@ Soils Compliance Prior to Foundation Inspection B Dosigner Speomed 0 Other
2. Name(s) of Individual(s) or firm(8) responsible for the special inspections listed above:
Field Welding
8tructural Concmto Ovor 2500 PSI
Pnotressod Conont. ExpansiodEpoxy Anchor8
Structural Masonry 0 Sprayed-On Fireproofing
High Strength Bolting
A
8.
LIBBY ENGINEERS, INC.
4452 Glacier Avenue
San Diego, CA 921 20-3304
Phone: (619) 280-9307
FAX: (61 9) 284-3533
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 5,2003
TO:
Carlsbad File #03-1380, Dick Bishop CLC, M&L File #5425.04
David Yao (Esgil Corporation) - Plan Checker subcontracted by City of
FROM: David Taquino
RE: La Costa Glen Plan Check Comments - Retaining Wall Rev’s at SNF
Questions 2, 3 and 5 pertain to structural issues, and are responded to below:
2.
3.
5.
Special Inspection requirements are per the structural notes titled “Special
Inspection” on sheet S-I. The information has been transferred to the form
furnished by the Esgil Corporation, and signed by the Engineer of Record., Jean
Libby.
Note added to plans (General Notes, Special Inspection section, 4A), requiring soils
engineer to submit in writing to the building official that the excavations, soils
expansive characteristics, and bearing capacity conform to the soils report, prior to
contractor calling for foundation inspection.
Sheet 8 of previous calculations erroneously showed a key was necessary. After
revising plans to show top and bottom elevations of wall, design height was
increased to 10’-0” Max. The revised calculations show the designs for 4’, 6’ and IO’
retained heights. Only the 10’-0” wall requires a key.
JUN 1 7 21703
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
A LEIGHTON GROUP COMPANY
June 13,2003
Project No. 9601 34-003
To: Continuing Life Communities, LLC
7707 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, California 92009
Attention: Mr. Dick Bishop
Subject: Retaining Wall Foundation Review, La Costa Glen Development, (Green Valley,
C.T. 92-08), Carlsbad, California
Reference: Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1999, Final As-Graded Report of Rough-Grading,
Green Valley, CT92-08 (Proposed La Costa Glen) Carlsbad, California, Project
No. 4960134-002, dated January 28,1999
, 2000, Revised Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation for the
Skilled Nursing and Maintenance Facilities, Green Valley, C.T. 92-08, Carlsbad,
California, dated March 9,2000
Libby Engineering, Inc., 2003, La Costa Glen, Carlsbad, California, Retaining
Wall Revisions at SNF, Sheets S-1 and S-2, dated May 6,2003
In accordance with your request, we have performed a geotechnical review of the above referenced
plans prepared by Libby Engineering, Inc. Our review was performed to identify potential conflicts
with the intent of the referenced geotechnical documents. Based on our review, we are of the
opinion that the plans were prepared in general conformance with the intent of the geotechnical
documents. The subject foundation plans are considered suitable for construction from a
geotechnical point of view as long as the recommendations of our referenced reports are
incorporated during construction.
The conclusions and recommendations in this review are based in part upon data that were
obtained from a limited number of observations, site visits, excavations, samples, and tests.
Such information is by necessity incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing
3934 Murphy Canyon Road, Suite B205 San Diego, CA921234425
858.292.8030 Fax 858.292.0771 www.leinhtonneo.com
Q
c
Leighton and Associates
7
G E OTE C H N ICA L C 0 N S U LTA NTS c A GTG Company
P SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION FOR THE SKILLED NURSING
AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
GREEN VALLEY, C.T. 92-08,
June 7,1999
(Revised March 9,2000)
Project No. 4960134-003
P
P
P
c
Prepared For:
Continuing Life Communities, L.L.C.
7707 El Camino Real,
Carlsbad, California 92009
3934 Murphy Canyon Road, #B205, San Diego, CA 92123-4425
(858) 292-8030 FAX (858) 292-0771 www.leightongeo.com
c
Leighton and Associates
A GTG Company G E OTE C H N I CA L CONSULTANTS
P t i
r
To:
June 7,1999
(Revised March 9,2000)
Project No. 49601 34-003
Continuing Life Communities, L.L.C..
7707 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, California 92009
Attention: Mr. Dick Bishop
c
c
c
c
c
r i
!--
Subject: Revised Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation for the Skilled Nursing and
Maintenance Facilities, Green Valley, C.T. 92-08, Carlsbad, California'
OSHPD #SS-992077-37
#HS-992089-37
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have performed a supplemental geotechnical
investigation for the proposed Skilled Nursing and Maintenance Facilities at the proposed La Costa Glen
Project located at Green Valley (Carlsbad Tract 92-08), in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). Leighton and
Associates, Inc., (Leighton) has previously completed several geotechnical reports for this project (see
Appendix A) and is currently providing observation and testing services during post-grading activities
onsite. This supplemental geotechnical report specifically addresses the geotechnical conditions in the area
of the Skilled Nursing Facility on Lot 6 and the Maintenance Facility on Lot 7 of the proposed
development. This investigation was completed for two main reasons: 1) the exact locations of the-
proposed Skilled Nursing Facility and Maintenance Facility were not known at the time our previous
investigationswere conducted and reports were issued and, 2) the State of California has specific guidelines
and requirements for geotechnical investigations with regard to critical structures such as the proposed
Skilled Nursing Facility and the Maintenance Facility. This Supplemental Geotechnical Report summarizes
the results of our geotechnical investigation for the Skilled Nursing Facility and the Maintenance Facility at
the proposed La Costa Glen project.
3934 Murphy Canyon Road, #B205, San Diego, CA 92123-4425
(858) 292-8030 FAX (858) 292-0771 www.leightongeo.com
49601 34-003
If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to
be of service.
Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
P
c
c
c
c
c
-2-
4960 134-003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
c
c
.
c
.
Section Paae
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 SITE DESCRIP~ON ............................................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................................................................ 2
3.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ........................................................................... 3
3.1 FIELD INVES~GA~ON ....................................................................................................................................... 3
3.2 LABORATORY TESTING ..................................................................................................................................... 3
4.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICALFINDINGS ............................................................................................... 4
4.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY ........................................................................................................................................ 4
4.2 SKE GEOL~~Y .................................................................................................................................................. 4
DocumentedCompactedFill (Map Symbol AJI ........................................................................................ 4
QuaternarySlopavasWCoIluvium(Map Symbol Qsw) ............................................................................. 5
4.2. I
4.2.2
4.2.4
4.2.3 TorreySandytone(MapSymbo1 Tt) ........................................................................................................... 5
Delmar Formation (Map Symbol Td) ....................................................................................................... 5
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
GROUND WATER AND SURFACE WATER ........................................................................................................... 5
FAULTING AND SEIS MICITU ............................................................................................................................... 6
LIQUEFACTION AND ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................... 7
DYNAMIC SE~ZEMENT .................................................................................................................................... 8
SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................... 9
PEER REVIEW ................................................................................................................................................... 9
LATERAL SPREADING ........................................................................................................................................ 9
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 10
5.1 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA'IIONS ........................................................................................................ 10 c
c
c
c
c
5.1. I Earthwork .............................................................................................................................................. 10
5.1.2 Site Preparation ..................................................................................................................................... 10
5.1.3 Removals ............................................................................................................................................... 10
5.1.4 StructuralFill ........................................................................................................................................ 10
5.1.5 Control of Ground Water and Surface Water ......................................................................................... 11
5.2 FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 11
5.2.1 Maintenance Facility ............................................................................................................................... 11
SkilledNursing Faciliv .................................................................................................................... ..... 12 5.2.2
5.3 ANTICIPATED SE-ITLEMENT-STATIC AND DYNAMIC ........................................................................................ 12 5.4 FOUNDATION SETBACK ................................................................................................................................. 13
5.5 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES AND RESISTANCE ............................................................................................. 13
5.6 GEOCHEMICAL CONCERNS ............................................................................................................................ 14
6.0 GEOTECHNICALREVIEW ............................................................................................................................ 15
6.1 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ............................................................................................................................ 15 6.2 CONSTRUCTION REVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 15
I
49601 34-003
c
c
c
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
FIGURES
FIGURE NO. I - VICINITY MAP - REAR OF TEXT
FIGURE NO. 2 - PROJECT LOCATION MAP - REAR OF TEXT
FIGURE NO. 3 - APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF SKILLED NURSING AND MAINTENANCE FACILITIES - REAR OF TEXT
FIGURE NO. 4 - BORING LOCATION MAP - REAR OF TEXT
FIGURE NO. 5 - BOFUNG LOCATION MAP - REAR OF TEXT
FIGURE NO. 6 - REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP - REAR OF TEXT
FIGURE NO. 8 - REGIONAL FAULT M.4P - REAR OF TEXT
FIGURE NO. 7 - 1898 MAP - REAR OF TEXT
TABLES
TABLE 1 - SEISMIC PARAMEERS FOR ACTIVE FAULTS - REAR OF TEXT
PLATES
PLATE NO. 1 - GEOTECHNICAL MAP - IN POCKET
RATE NO. 2 - GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTIONS - IN POCKET
APPENDICES
c
APPENDIX A - REFERENCES
APPENDIX B - GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOGS
APPENDIX c - LAgORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES .AND TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX D - GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
APPENDIX E - SEISMIC ANALYSIS
APPENDIX F - CONE PENETRATION TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX G - PEER REVIEW LEITER - LAW/CRANDALL
- I1 -
4960 134-003
1 .O INTRODUCTION c.
P
c
This revised report presents the results of our site specific supplemental geotechnical investigation for the
proposed Skilled Nursing and Maintenance Facilities at the proposed La Costa Glen development, Green
Valley Tract C.T. 92-08, located in Carlsbad, California.
The scope of our geotechnical services including the following:
Review of referenced reports, maps and aerial photographs (Appendix A).
Site reconnaissance and geologic mapping.
Preparation of composite geotechnical maps and geologic cross-sections.
Excavation, logging and sampling of ten 8-inch diameter hollow-flight auger borings. Logs of our
borings excavated as part of this investigation are presented in Appendix B.
Excavation, logging, and sampling of 2 mud rotary borings and 7 cone penetration soundings. Data is
presented in Appendix B and F, respectively.
Laboratory testing of representative soil samples. A summary of our testing procedures and test results
are presented in Appendix C.
Geotechnical evaluation of the field and laboratory data.
Peer review of our report and calculations by Law/Crandall, Inc. (Appendix G).
Preparation of this report presenting the results of our findings, conclusions, and geotechnical
recommendationsfor construction considerationsfor the proposed development.
4960 134-00 I
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION c
rc.
c
2.1 Site Descriution
The proposed La Costa Glen site is located west of El Camino Real, south of La Costa Avenue and
North of Leucadia Boulevard in the City of Carlsbad, California (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map and
Figure No. 2, Project Location Map). Prior to rough-grading operations the topography varied from
moderately sloping hillsides (IO: 1) to generally flat-lying in the central portion of the site to a series
of hills and canyons along the western perimeter. Near-vertical bluffs exist along the eastern edge of
the upper mesa, west of the project site. A natural riparian drainage course exists paralleling El
Camino Real at the eastern edge of the project (Encinitas Creek). As a result of rough-grading
operations for the proposed La Costa Glen project, the subject site presently consists of generally flat
lying sheet graded pads bordered by graded slopes with maximum heights on the order of 30 feet and
a gradient of 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical). These slopes were constructed as stability fills below the
natural slopes to the west. These natural slopes extends upward from the subject site at an overall
gradient of roughly 3: 1 (horizontal to vertical), although locally steeper areas are present. A detailed
description of the rough-grading operations was presented in the Final As-Graded Report of Rough-
Grading, prepared by Leighton (Leighton, 1999, Appendix A). Finish grade elevations in the vicinity
of the Skilled Nursing and Maintenance Facilities are depicted on Plate No. 1, Geotechnical Map,
which is a composite map prepared from the site grading plans.
2.2 Proposed Development
The rough-grading operations for the proposed La Costa Glen development, resulted in the
development of six relatively large sheet-graded parcels (Lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9), five open-space
lots, (Lots 1-3, 10 and 1 l), retainingwall structures, and associatedaccess roads and improvements.
In addition, significant road improvements including the widening the southbound shoulder of El
Camino Real, extension of Levante Street west from El Camino Real, and the construction of Calle
Barcelona are proposed to be completed during the next phase of development on site.
However, this report deals specifically with the geotechnical conditions impacting the proposed
Skilled Nursing (SNF) and Maintenance Facilities (MF) only. The approximate locations of these
proposed structures are shown on the attached Figure 2, Project Location Map, Figure 3,
Approximate Location of Skilled Nursing and Maintenance Facilities (located at rear of text) and on
Plate No. 1 Geotechnical Map (in-pocket-rear of text).
L
The Skilled Nursing Facility is proposed to be a one-story, wood-fkamed building. The portion of
the Maintenance Facility that serves the Skilled Nursing Facility will be a one-story building with
concrete masonry walls and steel beam and steel deck roof.
-2-
4960 1 34-00 1
3 .O FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
c
c
2”
3.1 Field Investigation
Between April 20-2 1, 1999, ten 8-inch diameter hollow-stem auger borings were excavated,
sampled, and logged by geologists from our office. Borings B- 1 through B-7 were excavated within
the footprint of the SkilledNursing Facility and borings B-8 through B- 10 were excavated within the
limits of the proposed MaintenanceFacility (see Figures 4 and 5 and Plate No. 1 located at the rear of
the text). During the drilling operations, relatively undisturbed samples were obtained from the
borings for laboratory testing and evaluation.
Exploratory borings were advanced using a CME-550X drill rig equipped with an 8-inch diameter,
hollow-stem auger. Disturbed samples were obtained by collecting drill cuttings in large plastic bags
and from Standard Penetration Tests (SPT). Standard Penetration Tests were performed according to
ASTM D-1586, at selected depths in the boring using an unlined, standard (1.4-inches inside
diameter, 2-inches outside diameter) split-barrel sampler. The driving hammer for the SPT was a
140-pound weight falling 30 inches. Recorded blow counts for sampler penetrations are shown on
the boring logs.
Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained from a wider diameter (2.45 inches inside diameter,
3-inches outside diameter) Modified California split-spoon sampler. The sampler was lined with
brass rings measuring 1-inch in height. Ring samples were sealed in plastic sleeves for laboratory
testing.
Logs of the borings excavated as part of this investigation are presented in Appendix B.
Approximate locations of the exploratory borings excavated during this investigation are depicted on
Figures 4,5, and Plate No. 1.
In addition to the hollow stem auger borings, cone penetration test (CPT) soundings were performed
on the SNF site. The approximate locations of the soundings are shown on Figure 4 and Plate
No. 1 as CPT- 1 through CPT-7. The CPT’s were advanced by Gregg In Situ, Inc. on January 7,2000.
Two mud rotary borings were also advanced on January 8,2000 by A&W Drilling. Samples were
obtained from these borings for grain size determination. The approximate location of the mud
rotary borings are shown on Figure 4 and Plate No. 1.
3.2 LaboratorvTestinq
Soil materials were visually classified in the field according to the Unified Soil Classification
System. Laboratory tests were performed on the representative relatively undisturbed and standard
penetration test samples to provide a basis for design parameters. Selected samples were tested for
the following parameters: in-situ moisture content and density, gradation, consolidation potential,
sulfate content, pH, minimum resistivity, chlorides, and Atterberg Limits. The results of our
laboratory testing along with summaries of the testing procedures are presented in Appendix C. In-
situ moisture and density determinationsare presented on the boring logs (Appendix B).
-3-
49601 34-001
4.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICALFINDINGS
4.1 Regional Geology
The subject site is situated in the coastal section of the Peninsular Range province, a California
Geomorphic province with a long and active geologic history throughout Southern California.
Throughout the last 54 million years, the area known as the "San Diego Embayment" has undergone
several episodes of marine inundation and subsequent, marine regression. This has resulted in a
thick sequence of marine and nonmarine sedimentary deposits on rocks of the Southern California
batholith with relatively minor tectonic uplift of the area.
c
4.2 Site Geolom
c
c
c
c-
c
Based on our experience during rough-grading, subsurface exploration (Appendix B), geologic
mapping, and review of pertinent geotechnical literature and maps (Appendix A), the proposed
location of the Skilled Nursing Facility is underlain by documented compacted fill soils, Quaternary
Slopewash deposits and formational materials of the Tertiary-aged Torrey Sandstone and the Delmar
Formation. The Maintenance Facility site is underlain by documented compacted fill soils and the
Torrey Sandstone. The approximated areal limits of each of the geologic units are'indicated on Plate
No. 1 Geotechnical Map. To illustrate the regional geologic setting, a copy of a portion of the
regional geologic map (Eisenberg, 1985) prepared at a scale of 1 :24,000 is attached as Figure No. 6.
In addition, review of an 1898 Map indicates an area historic of swampy ground to the north of the
site. Based on our review, this historic area of swampy ground does not extend into the site area. The
attached Figure Nos. 2 and 7 illustrate the location of the proposed facilities in relation to this area.
A brief description of the units encountered during our subsurface investigation is provided below.
4.2.1 Documented Compacted Fill (MaD Symbol AQ
Documented Compacted fill soils (Leighton, 1999, Appendix A) placed during rough-
grading operations for the proposed La Costa Glen were encountered at both the Skilled
Nursing Facility and the Maintenance Facility. These fill soils were placed under the
observation and testing services of Leighton as part of a recommended 10 foot
overexcavation and recompaction of these pads to mitigate an at-grade bedrockhlopewash
transition condition. Fill depths encountered in our borings varied between 10 and 12 feet in
thickness. The fill soils were derived from on site materials and are characterized by light
brown to brown, generally damp, dense, silty fine to medium sand. The fill soils were tested
to have a very low expansion potential (Appendix C).
-4-
4960 134-00 1
c
c
c
4.2.2 Quaternary Slopewash/Colluvium~Map Svmbol Qsw)
Beneath the eastern portion of the Skilled Nursing Facility the fill soils are underlain by
Quaternary Slopewash of variable thickness. The slope wash encountered is an accumulation
of silty sands derived from the adjacent hillsides by downslope gravitational creep and
sheetflow from surface runoff. The slope wash material consists of a highly variable
thickness of loose to medium dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand. As characterized in
our earlier reports, the slopewash soils were found to possess a very low to low expansion
potential.
4.2.3 Torrey Sandstone (Map Svmbol Tt)
The Tertiary-aged Torrey Sandstone was encountered in a majority of the borings
excavated as part of this supplemental investigation. In addition, the Torrey Sandstone is
exposed in the natural bluffs and ridges along the western property boundary and was
encountered underlying the documented fill soils and slopewash in areas. The Torrey
Sandstone is also the primary source material for the slopewash accumulations. The
majority of the Torrey Sandstone, as encountered, consists of light gray to light yellow-
brown, silty, fine--to coarse-grained, sandstone.
4.2.4 Delmar Formation(MaD Svmbol Td)
The Tertiary-aged Delmar Formation was found at depth across the site and underlies the
Torrey Sandstone and Slopewash deposits below an approximate elevation of 55 to 60 feet
(msl). Surface exposure of this unit does not occur in the area of the Skilled Nursing or
Maintenance facilities but can be observed at lower site elevations adjacent to El Camino
Real. As observed in our borings and nearby exposure, this unit consists of dark gray to
green stiff silty claystone to clayey siltstone with occasional interbeds of light brown sand.
The contact between the Torrey Sandstone and underlying Delmar Formation occurs at
approximate elevations between 55 and 60 feet (msl). This generally horizontal contact is
depicted on Geologic Cross-Sections A-A', B-B', and C-C' (Plate No. 2).
4.3 Ground Water and Surface Water
Ground water was encountered in our Exploratory Borings B-1, B-2, B-5, B-6, and B-7 in the
slopewash materials. Borings B-3 and B-4 did not encounter ground water to the depth explored,
although the borings were advanced at least 5 feet into the formational materials. The approximate
depths and elevations of the encounteredground water are depicted on the boring logs (AppendixB).
The depth to ground water below the Skilled Care Facility generally ranged from 30 feet to
39-1/2 feet below the existing ground surface. The cone penetration soundings generally indicated a
ground water depth of approximately 30 feet below the existing ground surface. Ground water was
not encountered in the borings advanced in the area of the Maintenance Facility. Seasonal
fluctuations of the ground water should be expected. It should be noted that ground water levels
may vary at the time of construction from those obtained in this study. In addition, significant
improvements to the drainage will be installed as part of the project. This will reduce the potential
-5-
4960 134-00 1
for water to infiltrate into the subsurface soils. Ground water is not anticipated to rise significantly
after construction due to site improvements, pavement, and drainage.
4.4 Faulting and Seismicity
Carlsbad, like the rest of Southern California, is seismically active as a result of being located near
the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. As such, the site can be
considered to lie within a seismically active region. The attached Figure No. 8, Regional Fault
Location Map depicts the location of the site to mapped regional faults. Table 1 (rear of text)
indicates potential seismic events. Site-specific seismic parameters included in Table 1 are the
distances to the causative faults, earthquake magnitudes, and expected ground accelerations.
Historic seismicity has been tabulated for the site based on EQSEARCH. The results are presented
in Appendix E. The results indicate that the maximum historical site acceleration from 1800 to 1998
has been estimated at 0.37g from an event in 1800 approximately5 miles from the site.
By definition of the State Mining and Geology Board, an active fault is one which has had surface
displacement within the Holocene Epoch (roughly the last 1 1,000 years). The State Geologist has
defined a potentiallv active fault as any fault which has been active during the Quaternary Period
(approximately the last 1,600,000 years). These definitions are used in delineating Earthquake Fault
Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Geologic Hazard Zones Act of 1972 and as most recently
revised in 1997 (Hart, 1997). The intent of the act is to require performance of fault investigations
on sites located within Special Studies Zones to preclude new construction of certain inhabited
structures across the trace of active faults. The subject site is not included within any special study
zones as created by the Alquist-PrioloGeologic Hazard Zones Act.
_-
The maximum moment magnitude of an event in the Rose Canyon Fault is estimated at (h&)=6.9
(CDMG, OFR 96-08).
From a probabilistic standpoint, the Design Basis Earthquake per CBSC, 1998, Section 1631A
(defined as a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years) could produce a peak horizontal
ground acceleration of 0.32g at the site (Blake, 1998). The upper-bound earthquake per CBSC,
1998, Section 1631A (defined as a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 100 years) could
produce a peak ground acceleration of 0.41g at the site (Blake, 1998). We have used an
attenuation relationship by Joyner and Boore for Class C sites. Our seismic analysis is presented
in Appendix E.
Secondary effects associated with severe ground shaking following a relatively large earthquake
which may affect the site include ground lurching and shallow ground rupture, soil liquefaction,
lateral; spreading, dynamic settlement, seiches and tsunamis. These secondary effects of seismic
shaking are discussed below.
The principal seismic considerations for most structures in Southern California are surface rupturing
of fault traces and damage caused by ground shaking, seismically induced ground settlement. The
possibility of damage due to ground rupture is considered low since active faults are not known to
cross the site. Lurching due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant
hazard, although it is a possibility throughout the Southern California region. The potential for
-6-
4960134-001
Boring/CPT Number
B- 1 /CPT- 1
B-2/CPT-2
B-3
B-4
B-5/CPT-5
seiches or tsunamis on the site is very low since the site is located away from the immediate coastal
area and there are no large standing bodies of water in or near the site. Other effects are discussed
below.
Liquefaction Factor of Safety
0.8-1.2
0.6-1.1
Non-Liquefiable
Non-Lique fiable
0.9- 1 .O
4.5 Liquefaction and Analysis
B-7/CPT-4
CPT-3
CPT-7
Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes.
Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils underlain by a near surface ground
water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty clays and clays
deposited in fresh water environments are not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Liquefaction
is characterized by a total loss of shear strength in the affected soil layers, thereby causing the soil to
flow as a liquid. This effect may be manifested at the ground surface by settlement and/or sand
boils.
0.7-1 .O
0.7- 1.3
Non-liquefiable
Liquefaction was evaluated below the Skilled Nursing Facility and the Maintenance Facility.
Liquefaction is not considered a concern below the maintenance facility due to the lack of a shallow
ground water table and dense nature of the formational materials below the footprint ofthe facility.
Slopewash deposits are not present below the Maintenance Facility.
The data used to evaluate liquefaction was mainly taken from the CPT sounding data since sample
disturbance of the relatively granular slope wash soils below the ground water table was a concern
when obtained by other methods. The potential for liquefaction below the Skilled Nursing Facility
was evaluated by the procedures outlined in NCEER, 1997 (Appendix E), and summarized in the
following table. The ground water table was assumed at a depth of 30 feet below the existing
ground surface for our analysis. The factor of safety against liquefaction was calculated using the
Upper Bound earthquake (PGA UBE = 0.41g) at the location of the individual boring and/or CPT
(Appendix E). The acceleration of the upper bound earthquake was scaled in accordance with
typical de-aggregation model techniques and was checked to be within the range recommended by
Figure 3 in Youd and Noble (1997) contained in (NCEER, 1997) corresponding to a design
earthquake magnitude of w=6.9 on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone.
I B-6/CPT-6 I 0.98- 1.4 I
- 7-
4960 134-00 1
portions of the saturated alluvial soils will liquefy. Based on the depth to the saturated materials and
the thickness of the overlying non-liquefiable layers, and compacted, engineered fill soils, it is our
opinion that the potential for liquefaction effects at the ground surface due to the design earthquake
is low, however, theses soils will dynamically settle under the loading of the Upper Bound
Earthquake. Other dynamically-induced factors which may affect the structures are discussed
below.
4.6 Dvnamic Settlement
Dynamic settlement of the materials below the Maintenance Facility has been evaluated to be within
static limits.
Based on the observations during site grading, results of our subsurface exploration, and dynamic
settlement calculations, the eastern portions of proposed Skilled Nursing Facility are underlain by
slopewash deposits at depth and have a potential for dynamic settlement as a result of ground
shaking by the Upper Bound Earthquake event. Dynamic settlement has been calculated for each
CPT sounding (where there was an adjacent hollow-stem boring) and in Borings B-3 and B-4 (since
CPT soundings were not performed near these two borings). Methods of analysis were in
accordance with Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987 and Gamer, 1996 for saturated sands, and Pradel, 1998
for unsaturated sands. The results are presented below for each CPT and for Borings B-3 and B-4.
The calculationsare presented in a spreadsheet format in Appendix E.
Boring/CPTNumber 1 Total Calculated Settlement
CPT- 1 1.9 inches
CPT-2 1.2 inches
CPT-3 1.7 inches
CPT-4 1.7 inches
? CPT-5 1.8 inches
CF'T-6 1.7 inches
U I
CPT-7 0.2 inch
B-3 0.3 inch
B-4 0.2 inch
-8-
49601 34-00 1
To evaluate design angular distortion, we evaluated the differential settlement values at each of the
boring/CPT points over the distances between each sampling point. The greatest angular distortion
value calculated across any one portion of the structure is recommended to be the design value for
the entire structure. Based on the above, we provide a design differential settlement value for the
Skilled Nursing Facility of one inch in a horizontal distance of 50 feet (which corresponds to an
angular distortion of 1/600).
4.7 Lateral Spreading
Due to the lack of relief across the site (from the proposed facility to the adjacent drainage), and the
non-uniform depositional environment across the site (reducing the potential for the formation of a
uniformly continuous sliding surface), the potential for lateral spreading under dynamic loading was
evaluated to be low. Our stability analysis of a cross section below the structure using a PC
program called XSTABL and a residual soil value of 500 psf (Kramer, 1996) indicates a factor of
safety in excess of 3 .O (included at the end of Appendix E).
4.8 Seismic Design Criteria
The soil parameters in accordance with the 1997 UBC and the 1998 California Building Code
(Section 1636) are as follows:
Soil Profile Type (Table 16-5) = S,,
Site Soil Profile = S, (per 1995 CBSC Table 16A-J)
Seismic Zone (Figure 16-2) = 4
Seismic Source Type (Table 16-U) = B
Slip Rate, SR, (Table 16-U) = 1 Smm per yr (CDMG, 1996) based on the Rose Canyon Fault
N, = 1 .O (per Table 16A-S, 1998 CBSC) N, = 1.08 (per Table 16A-T, 1998 CBSC)
4.9 Peer Review
Our report and calculations were provided to representatives of Law/Crandall for their peer review.
A representatives of Law/Crandall was also on site during a portion of our subsequent field
investigation. Their peer review letter is attached as Appendix G. The letter indicates concurrence
with our analysis, procedure, and results.
-9-
4960134-001
c
c
c
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on our geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible
from a geotechnical standpoint and may be constructed provided the following recommendations are
incorporated into the design and construction. The following sections discuss the principal
geotechnical concerns affecting the Skilled Nursing Facility and the Maintenance Facility site
development and provides preliminary foundation design recommendations which should be
implemented during site development.
5.1.1 Earthwork
c
c
c
Grading and earthwork should be performed in accordance with the following
recommendationsand the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading
included as Appendix D.
5.1.2 Site Preparation
Prior to grading, areas below and within 10 feet (horizontally) of buildings and pavements
should be cleared of surface vegetation and moisture-conditioned.
5.1.3 Removals
Removal and recompaction or scarification and moisture-conditioning of the upper
approximately 1 foot of existing grade should be performed prior to the placement of
additional fill soils or improvements. The depth of removals can only be estimated and
should be based on actual field conditions and may be greater than estimated herein. The
removal bottom and replaced fill soils should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent
relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method 01557). All grading should be
performed under the testing and observation of a qualified geotechnical consultant.
5.1.4 Structural Fill
The onsite soils were tested to have a very low expansion potential (Appendix C), and are
generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic materials,
asphalt concrete, and debris. The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly
compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general,
fill should be placed in uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Materials greater
than 6 inches in maximum dimension should not be utilized in fills. Fill soils should be
placed near or above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent
relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557). Placement and compaction of
- 10-
4960 1 34-00 1
fill should be performed in accordance with local grading ordinances under the observation
and testing of a qualified geotechnical consultant.
5.1.5 Control of Ground Water and Surface Water
Our experience indicates that surface or near-surface ground water conditions can develop in
areas where ground water conditions did not exist prior to site development, especially in
areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape
irrigation. We recommend that an engineering geologist be present during grading
operations to evaluate seepage areas and provide field recommendations for mitigation of
observed seepage, if necessary. Control of surface water is imperative to the proper
performance of the development. A subdrain has already been installed approximately 10
feet below grade at the base of the stability fill on the western edge of the site.
Project build-out will reduce infiltration of water into the subsurface soils by the addition of
at-grade pavement area, subdrains, and area drains.
5.2 Foundation Design Recommendations
5.2.1 MaintenanceFacilitv
Foundations and slabs for the maintenance facility should be designed in accordance with
structural considerations and the following recommendations. Our laboratory testing
indicates that the onsite soils have a very low expansion potential (Appendix C).
Accordingly, the following recommendations assume that the soils encountered within 4 feet
of the lowest finish floor have a very low potential for expansion.
The proposed structures may be supported by conventional, continuous perimeter, or spread
footings extending a minimum of 24 inches beneath the lowest adjacent finish grade. At
these depths, footings may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500
pounds per square foot if founded in properly compacted fill soils (with an increase of 250
psf per foot of additional depth to a maximum of 3,000 psf. The allowable pressures may be
increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic
forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is 18 inches for continuous footings
and 24 inches for square or round footings. Footings should be designed in accordance with
the structural engineer’s requirements and have a minimum reinforcement of four No. 5
rebars (two top and two bottom).
All slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced at slab midheight
with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center (each way) or No. 4 rebars at 24 inches center (each
way). Additional reinforcement and/or concrete thickness to accommodate specific loading
conditionsor anticipated settlement should be evaluated by the structural engineer based on a
modulus of subgrade reaction of 200 kips per cubic foot and the anticipated dynamic
settlements outlined in Section 5.3. We emphasize that is the responsibilityof the contractor
to ensure that the slab reinforcement is placed at midheight of the slab. Slabs should be
underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand (S.E. greater than 30) to aid in concrete curing,
- II -
4960 1 34-00 1
which is underlain by a 6-mil (or heavier) moisture barrier, which is, in turn, underlain by a
2-inch layer of clean sand to act as a capillary break. All penetrations and laps in the
moisture barrier should be appropriately sealed. The spacing of crack-control joints should
be designed by the structural engineer. Sawcuts should be made within 24 hours of concrete
placement. Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations will
generally reduce the potential for drying and shrinkage cracking. However, some cracking
should be expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal; however, it
is often aggravated by a high water to cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of
placement, small nominal aggregate size and rapid moisture loose due to hot, dry, and/or
windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and
moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low slump concrete (not exceeding 4
inches at the time of placement) can reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking.
Moisture barriers can retard, but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the
underlying soils up through the slab. We recommend that the floor coverings installer test the
moisture vapor flux rate prior to attempting application of the flooring. "Breathable" floor
coverings should be considered if the vapor flux rates are high. A slip sheet should be used
if crack sensitive floor coverings are planned.
5.2.2 Skilled Nursing Facility
We have evaluated a potential for dynamic differential settlement (Section 4.6) below the
Skilled Nursing Facility due to the Upper Bound Earthquake event. The following presents
our recommended methods to design for this differential settlement:
Construct a foundation-slab system with enough stiffness to tolerate the anticipated
differential settlement presented in Section 4.6. We anticipate that the slab may be a
thickened conventional slab or other equivalent system. The structural engineer should
provide the actual foundation design based on the anticipated dynamic differential
settlement and the minimum foundation design parameters provided for the Maintenance
Facility presented in Section 5.2.1.
0 Design structural elements and connections to tolerate the design differential dynamic
settlement.
5.3 AnticiDated Settlement-Static and Dynamic
The recommended allowable-bearing capacity is generally based on a maximum static total and
differential (elastic) settlement of 314 inch and 1/2 inch, respectively, upon application of
structural loads. The majority of this static settlement is anticipated upon application of load.
Actual static settlement can be estimated on the basis that settlement is roughly proportional to
the net contact bearing pressure.
- 12-
49601 34-00 1
less than 5 feet
5 to 20 feet
c
c
c
5 feet
7 feet
c
c
c
Anticipated dynamic differential settlement below the Maintenance Facility and Skilled Nursing
Facility due to the Upper Bound Earthquake Event is estimated at less than % inch, and 1 inch in a
horizontal distance of 50 feet (angular distortion of 1 /600), respectively.
5.4 Foundation Setback
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all structural
foundations, footings, and other settlement-sensitive structures as indicated on the following
table. This distance is measured from the outside bottom edge of the footing, horizontally to the
slope face and is based on the slope height and type of soil. However, the foundation setback
distance may be revised by the geotechnical consultant on a case-by-case basis if the geotechnical
conditions are different than anticipated.
I1 Minimum Foundation Setback from Slope Faces U I Slope Height I Minimum Recommended Foundation Setback 11
greater than 20 feet
I I W3, where H is slope height; not to exceed 40 feet
Please note that the soils within the structural setback area possess poor lateral stability, and
improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.) constructed within this
setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential settlement. Potential distress
to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing or a pier and grade
beam foundation system to support the improvements. The deepened footing should meet the
setback as described above.
5.5 Lateral Earth Pressures and Resistance
Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The
magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can withstand
under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the fill shear strength of the soil, it can be
designed for “activeyy pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength
of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be
designed for “at rest” conditions. If a structure moves toward the soils, the resulting resistance
developed by the soil is the “passive”resistance.
For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure in each case for walls founifed
above the static ground water table (with level or sloping backfill) and backfilled with onsite soil
of very low expansion potential (less than 20 per UBC 18-2).
- 13-
49601 34-00 1
Conditions
Active
At-Rest
Passive
Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf)
Very Low Expansion Potential Soils
Level 2:l Slope
35 55
55 65
3 50 -_
(Maximum of 3 ksf)
The above values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions than these covered herein are
anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual case basis by
the geotechnical engineer. A surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall resulting from
automobile traffic may be assumed to be equivalent to a uniform pressure of 75 psf which is in
addition to the equivalent fluid pressures given above. All retaining wall structures should be
provided with appropriate drainage and waterproofing. Typical retaining wall drainage design is
illustrated in Appendix D. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least
90 percent relative compaction(based on ASTM Test Method D1557).
Wall footings design and setbacks should be performed in accordance with the previous
foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with structural considerations.
Soil resistance developed against lateral structural movement can be obtained form the passive
pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, a friction coefficient of 0.35 may
be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one-third for loads
of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance may be taken as the sum of
the frictional and passive resistance provided that the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds
of the total resistance.
5.6 Geochemical Concerns
We have tested the onsite soils for pH, minimum resistivity, soluble sulfate, and chloride content.
Our testing indicates a negligible soluble sulfate content (refer to Table 19-A-4 of the 1998,
CBC). The minimum resistivity values indicate a low potential for corrosion to buried, uncoated
metal conduits and a very low potential for chloride attack (City of San Diego, 1992).
c
c
c
c
c
c
- 14-
4960 134-00 1
6.0 GEOTECHNICALREVIEW c
c
c
Geotechnical review is of paramount importance in engineering practice. The poor performance of many
foundation and earthwork projects have been attributed to inadequate construction review. We recommend
that Leighton and Associates be provided the opportunity to review the following items.
6.1 Plans and Specifications
L-
The geotechnical engineer should review the project plans and specifications prior to release for
bidding and construction. Such review is necessary to determine whether the geotechnical
recommendations have been effectively implemented. Review findings should be reported in
writing by the geotechnicalengineer.
6.2 Construction Review
Observation and testing should be performed by the geotechnical engineer during construction. It
should be anticipated that the substrata exposed during construction may vary from that
encountered in the test borings or trenches. Reasonably continuous construction review during
site grading and foundation installation allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and
recommending appropriate revisions where required during construction.
Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, approval of imported earth materials, fill placement,
foundation installation and other site geotechnically-related operations should be observed and
tested.
c
c
- 15-
\SE MAP: Thomas Ems. GeoFinder for
Windows, San Diego County, 1998, Page 1147 0 2000 4000 - APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET
PROJECT No. VICINITY I Dz134403 mm MAP
Green Valley
(Proposed La Costa Glen)
Carlsbad, California
FIGURE NO. 1 I I February, 2000
e.
0 2 w
3 0
a 4 c
m
BORING LOCATION MAP
Maintenance Facility
La Costa Glen
Carlsbad, California
~~~-~ 'PROJECT NO. 9601 34-003
SCALE qq*=40*
ENGRJGEOL. JGWMRS
DRAFTEDBY KAM
DATE February, 2000 FIGURE NO. 5
Leiuhton and Associates. Inc.
c
c
BAS E MAP : Eisenberg, L.I., 1985, 1 :24,000, Pleistocene
Faults and Marine Terraces, Northern San Diego County 0 1000 2000 4000
1 "=2,000'
La Costa Glen
Carlsbad, California
REGIONAL
GEOLOGIC
MAP
PROJECT NO.
9601 34-003
DATE
February, 2000 FIGURE NO. 6
BASE MAP: Portion of Historic 1898 Oceanside, California Topographic Map: N3300 - W11715/15 (provided by Mr. Robert Sydnor, CDMG, Scale not provided)
NORTH
La Costa Glen
Ca rls bad, Ca I ifomia
PROJECT NO. SITE LOCATION MAP UTILIZING PORTION OF 960134-003
1898 OCEANSIDE DATE
15' QUADRANGLE February, 2000 FIGURE NO. 7
Faults that show displacement
during historic time (i.e. last
200 years)
Faults that show displacement
during Holocene (Le. last
10,OOO years)
Faults that show displacement
during late Quaternary (i.e.
last 700,000 years)
Faults that show displacement
during Quaternary (i.e. last 1.6
million years)
Fault without recognized
Quaternary displacement
(considered inactive faults)
Date December 1999 Rgue No. 8
Table 1
Seismic Parameters for Active Faults
La Costa Glen
* ** 10 percent change of exceedance in 50 years (CBSC, 1998)
10 percent chance of exceedance in 100 years (CBSC, 1998)
Upper Bound
Earthquake**
Peak Ground
Acceleration (8)
P
0.41
4960 134-003
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
c
c
Albee, A.L., and Smith, J.L., 1966, Earthquake Characteristicsand Fault Activity in Southern California,
Lung, R., and Proctor, R., ed., Engineering Geology in Southern California, Association of
Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, dated October 1966.
Bartlett, S.F., and Youd, T.L., 1992, Empirical Analysis of Horizontal Ground Displacement Generated by
Liquefaction-InducedLateral Spread, Technical Report NCEER-92-002 1.
Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of Strong Ground Motion, proc. Fifth World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering,Rome, PaperNo. 292, pp. 1394-1313,dated June 1973.
Bonilla, M.J., 1970, Surface Faulting and Related Effects, b Wiegel, R., ed., Earthquake Engineering, New
Jersey, Prentice-Hall,Inc., p. 47-74. -
Boore, D.M. Joyner, B.W. Funal, T.E. 1997, Equations for Estimating Horizontal Response Spectra and
Peak Acceleration from Western North American Earthquakes: A Summary of Recent
Work, b, Seismolonic Research Letters, 1997, Volume 68, Number 1, Seismological
Society of American, Pub.
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 1998, California Building Code, Volumes 1 and 2.
California Department of Conservation, 1996, Division of Mines and Geology, Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Assessment for the State of California, Open File Report 96-08.
California Division of Mines and Geology, 1997, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California, Special Publication 11 7, March 13, 1997.
Eisenberg, L.I., 1985, Pleistocene Faults and Marine Terraces, Northern San Diego County, Abbott, P.L.,
Editor, 1983, On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego
County, San Diego Association of Geologists Fieldtrip Guide, pp. 87-91.
Eisenberg, L.I., and Abbott, P.L., 1985, Eocene Lithofacies and Geologic History, Northern San Diego
County, b Abbott, P.O. Editor, 1983, On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in
Northern San Diego County, San Diego Association of Geologists Fieldtrip Guide, pp. 19-
35.
Hart, E. W., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning with
Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and
Geology, Special Publication 42.
ICG, Inc., 1989, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation Green Valley Property, Carlsbad, California, Job
No. 04-7350-002-01-00,dated October 19, 1989.
c- Ishihara, K., 1996, Soil Behaviour in Earthquake Geotechnics,Claredon Press, Oxford, 1996,350 pp.
A- 1
4960 1 34-003
APPENDIX A (Continued)
c
c
c
International Conference of Building Officials, 1994 and 1997, Uniform Building Code.
Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of California: Faults, Volcanoes, Thermal Springs, and Thermal Wells,
California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 1, Scale 1 :750,000.
, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas; California Division of Mines and
Geology, Geologic Map 6, Scale 1 :750,000.
Kramer, 1996, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall, 630 pp.
Lamar, D.L., Merifield, P.M., and Proctor, R.J., 1973, Earthquake Recurrence Intervals on Major Faults in
Moran, D.E., Slosson, J.E., Stone, R.D., Yelverton, C.A., eds.,
Association of Engineering
Southern California,
1973, Geology Seismicity, and Environmental Impact:
Geologists, Special Publication. -
Lambe, T.W., and Whitman, R.V., 1969, Soil Mechanics,New York; John Wiley and Sons, 553p.
Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1996, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Green Valley, C.T. 92-08,
Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4960 134-00 1, dated July 1 1, 1996.
, 1998, Recommendations for Stability Fill, Green Valley (Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08), Carlsbad,
California, Project No. 4960 134-002, dated August 1 1, 1998.
, 1999, Final As-Graded Report of Rough-Grading, Green Valley, C.T. 92-08, (Proposed La Costa
Glen), Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4960134-003,dated January 28, 1999.
National Research Council (1989, Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes, Report No.: CETS-EEOO1,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
NCEER, 1997, Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,
Youd and Idriss editors, Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, dated December 3 1,1997.
P&D Consultants, Inc., 1995, Green Valley Master Tentative Map, C.T. 92-08, Sheets 2 and 3, dated
October 16,1995.
Pradel, Daniel, 1998, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-InducedSettlements in Dry Sands, UGGE, April,
1998.
San Diego, City of, 1992, Program Guidelines for Design Consultants,February 1992.
San Diego Soils Engineering, Inc., 1986, Geotechnical Feasibility Investigation, Green Valley Property, San
Schnabel, B., and Seed, J.B., 1973, Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes in the Western United States,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 63, No. 2, p. 501-5 16.
A-2
c
4960 134-003
APPENDIX A (Continued)
Seed, R.B. and Harder, L.F., Jr., 1990, "SPT-Based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and
Proceedings, H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium, Undrained Residual Strength,"
BiTech Publishers, Ltd., p. 351-376.
Seed, H.B., 1979, Soil Liquefaction and Cyclic Mobility Evaluation for Level Ground During Earthquakes,
ASCE, GT2, p. 20 1, dated February 1979.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Arango, I., 1983, Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field Performance
Data, ASCE JGE, Vol. 109, No. 3, p. 458, dated March 1983.
c
c
c
Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1983, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Monograph
Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Kiefer, F.W., 1969, Characteristics of Rock Motions During Earthquakes,
Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE, V. 95, No. SM5, Proc. Paper
6783, pp. 1199- 12 18.
Southern California Chapter, American Public Works Association and Southern California Districts,
Associated General Contractors, 1997, "Green Book" Standard Specifications for Public
Works Construction with 1999 Supplement.
Tan, S.S. and Kennedy, M.P. 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County,
California, California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-02,
Scale 1 :24,000,2 Plates.
Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,
ASCE Journal of GeotechnicalEngineering,Vol. 1 13, No. 8, dated August 1987.
U.S. Geologic Survey, 1968, Encinitas 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle, Scale 1 :24,000 (photorevised
1975).
Youd and Noble, 1997, Magnitude Scaling Factors, Contained in NCEER, 1997.
AGENCY DATE FLIGHT NO.
USDA 1953 AXN
PHOTO NOS.
8M-74,75 and 76
A-3
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY
Date Sheet 1 of 1 Project KEY TO BORING UK; GRAPHICS Project No.
DrillingCo. ~ Type of Rig
Hole Diameter Drive Weight ~ Drop -in.
EleMtion Top of Hole +/- ft. Ref. or Datum
I I 1 3 t
W n L 0
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Sampled By
a Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clay, sandy clay, silty clay, lean clay
CH
OGOH
ML
MH
CGML
MLSM
Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay
Organic clay, silt or silty clay-cla~y silt mixtuns
Inorganic silt; KV fme sand; silty or daycy fine sand; dam silt with low plasticity
Inorganic silt; diatomaceous fine candy or ciIty roils; elastic silt - Low plasticity day to silt mixture
Sandy silt to dty sand mixture
u-se sandydaytodaycysandmlxture
SCSM Ch~candtosiltysandmidurc
SW Wcll graded rand; gradly rand, tittle or no fucs . I SP I Poorly graded can4 gravelly sand, little or no fmcs
GW
GP
GM Siltygavcl;gravel-mndailt*
GC Uayygrave~gravel-sandclaymixt~rt
Well graded gnvel; gravelad mlxtun, tittle or no fines
Poorly graded gravek graveland mixtuq little or no fines
srndctone
SiltStOIE
clrtyctoae
Brrccia (angular gram9 and dbks or matrixsupported conglomerate)
Coaglmerate (toundd gravcl and cobble, dastaupported)
Igneous granitic or granitic type rock
Metawlcanic or metamorphic rock
Artificial or man-made fill
Asuhaltic concrete
,-
~ 1 I Portland ament Concrete 1
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Date 4-20-99 Sheet 1 of 2
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig CME SOX
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop =in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
Project La Costa Glen/Skilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
0 z
al
Q E m cn
-
-
1
2
3
4
5
25
22
15
14
10
n +
Vln CY cuo
n L O
.-
O.!3
-
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged BY KAB
Sampled By KAB
ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCUM ENTED (Afd)
Q 0’: Light brown, damp, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND
-
@ 5’: Light brown, damp, dense, silty fine to coarse SAND
@ 10’: Same as at 5 feet __________---____-__----------__----- ARY SLOPEB!&H/COLLWIUM (Osw/Ocol) Q 11’: Brown, damp, friable to medium dense, slightly clayey, silty fme to medium SAND
@ 15’: Brown. damp, medium dense, silty fme SAND, scattered clayey sand clasts
Q 20’: Same as at 15 feet
Q 25’: Yellow-brown, damp to moist, medium dense, slightly clayey. silty fme to coarse SAND
Q 28’: Driller reports material “tightens”
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
c
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1
Date 4-20-99 Sheet 2 of 2
Project La Costa Glen/Skilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig CME 550X
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop =in.
Elevation Top of Hole + -
Ln
P) t 0 z
90 ft. Ref. or Datum -
6
7
a
9
10
15
14
16
15
45 i
-
3 4-
an CY P)0
.-
n L O
LEIG
SM
IM/ML
MiVi-L-
UIL-CL
Mean Sea Level
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Q 30’: Ground water encountered, light brown, saturated, medium dense, fine to coarse SAND with scattered gravel-sized clasts
-
Q 35’: Light brown, saturated, medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND
@ 40’: Same as at 35 feet
@ 45’: Dark brown, wet, medium dense. slightly clayey, silty fine to medium SAND to sandy SILT
..................................... RY DELMAR FORMATION (Td)
Q 51’: Driller reports abrupt change to slower auger advance rate
Q 55’: Olive green-gray, damp, very stiff silty CLAYSTONE to clayey SILTSTONE
Total Depth = 56’6” Ground Water Encountered at 30’ at Time of Drilling Backfdled: 4120199
:TON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Date 4-20-99 Sheet 1 of 2
Project La Costa Glen/Skilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
CME 550X Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop =in.
Elevation Top of Hole -t Mean Sea Level
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
90 ft. Ref. or Datum - -
v)
Q) t 0 z
-
0
Em PO mJ t a
.-
-
0 z
al
P E m v)
-
-
n +
v)n CY a0
3 t 0
.-
O.5
t 28
dllb Ok
a
22
28
18
13
15
17
ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCUMENTED (Afd)
Q 0': Light brown, damp, dense, silty fine to medium SAND
-
Q 5': Brown to yellow-brown, damp, dense, silty fine to medium SAND
101.2
89.7
5.6
8.7
DUATERNA Q 10': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, slightly clayey, silty fme to medium
-----_- --------- ------------------- RY SLOPEWASH/COL LUVIUM (Os w/ocol)
SAND, slightly moaled (gray), to sandy SILT
@ 15': Brown. damp, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND
1 0 20': Light brown. damp, medium dense, silty fine SAND
t
Q 25': Brown, damp, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND
t @ 27': Driller reports tight drilling
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
c
c-
c
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2
Date 4-20-99 Sheet 2 of 2
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig CME 550X
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop *in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
Project La Costa Glen/Skilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
-
L”
- 30 -
35 -
40-
45 -
50 -
55 -
m al
0 z
+
8
9
10
11
-
96.5
L
- SM
SM
CiiSC
CL
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
L%ged BY KAB
sampled By KAB
@ 30’: No recovery
-
@ 35’: Yellow-brown, damp, medium dense, slightly clayey, silty fine to medium SAND
@ 38’: Ground water encountered
@ 40’: Brown, saturated, medium dense, slightly clayey, fine to medium SAND
____--____--------__----------------- mTIARY DELMAR FORMATION TTdl @ 43’: Gray-green, mottled with yellow-orange mottles, stiff to dense, silty sandy CLAY to clayey SAND
@ 45’: Same as at 43 feet
@ 50’: Dark gray, moist, stiff, silty, CLAYSTONE
Total Depth = 51’6” Ground Water Encountered at 38’ at Time of Drilling - Backfilled: 4120199
JGHTON &ASSOCIATES
c
c
GE0TEC"ICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date 4-20-99 Sheet 1 of 2
Project La Costa Glen/Skilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop =in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig CME 55ox
5051\(11/77)
43
25
15
19
33
- -
98.5
.02.4
12.3
18.9
- SM
- SM
SCISM
- CM-
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCUMENTED (Afd) Q 0': Light brown, damp, dense, silty tine to coarse SAND
c
Q 5': Brown, damp, vexy dense, slightly silty fine to medium SAND
------___-_-____________ ----- ---- OUATERNARY SL OPE~XSHICOLLWIUM (OS wlocol~ Q 10': Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, slightly clayey, silty fme to coarse SAND
@ 15': Sam as at 10 feet
@ 20': Dark brown, damp, medium dense, clayey, silty. fme to medium SAND
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date 4-20-99 Sheet 2 of 2
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop =in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
Project La Costa Glen/Skilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
Type of Rig CME 550X
505A(11/77)
-
v, P) t 0 2
-
0 2
al
E In cn
- n
- 42 SM
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
hged BY KAB
Sampled By KAB
@ 30': Reddish-gray, damp, very dense, oxidized silty tine SAND I
Total Depth = 31'6" No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled" 4120199
I
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4
Date 4-20-99 Sheet 1 of 1
Project La Costa Glen/SkiIIed Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig CME 550X
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop =in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 fi. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
505A(11/77)
-
O PI t 0 z
-
0 z
P)
Q E In v)
-
27
46
52
-
n t
On CY at)
I L 0
.-
O.2
106.4 17.7
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged By KAB
Sampled By KAB
ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCUMENTED IAfd)
Q 0': Light brown, damp, silty fine to medium SAND
-.
@ 5': Brown to gray-brown, damp, dense, silty fine to medium SAND
..................................... mTIARY TORREY SANDSTO NE TTt) @ 10': Light gray. damp, dense, silty fine SAND, fractured, moderately indurated with abundant iron-oxide staining
@ 15': Light gray-green, damp, very dense, silty fine SAND to SANDSTONE
Total Depth = 16'6"
NO round Water ~ncountcred at T~A of ~riliing BacKilled: 4/21/99
- - LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
I
c
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5
Date 4-21-99 Sheet 1 of 2
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig CME 550X
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop =in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
Project La Costa Glen/Skilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
In 9) + 0 z
-
0 z
P)
a E Q v)
-
- 33
32
22
15
18
13
jot
-
n t
Inn CY P)0
.-
O,a n L 0
91.8
98.4
12.8
13.9
SM
-sM '
PWSC
sc
SM
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCUMENTED IAfd)
Q 0': Light brown, damp, dense, silty fine to medium SAND
-
Q 5': Gray-brown, damp, dense, silty, fine to coarse SAND
___________________-_________________ OUATERNARY SLOPEWASHKOL LWIUMIOS w/ocoll Q 10': Yellow-brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND
Q 15': Same as at 10 feet, material becomes silty clayey SAND
Q 20': Brown, moist, medium dense, clayey, fine to medium SAND
Q 25': Dark brown to brown, moist, medium dense, slightly clayey, silty fine to medium SAND
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5
Date 4-21-99 Sheet 2 of 2
Project La Costa Glen/Skilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
CME 550X Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Po unds Drop =in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
Type of Rig
-
VI ai 4- 0 z
I
- 7
8
9
10
11
8
18
38
98.9
:
24.0
- SM
SMISC
sc
SM
---
MUCL
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
b33ed BY KAB
Sampled By KAB
@ 30': No recovery
-
@ 35': Dark brown, wet, medium dense, clayey silty fine SAND
@ 45': Olive green-gray, damp, dense, silty fm SANDSTONE to sandy clayey SILTSTONE
Total Depth = 46'6" Ground Water Encountered at 39'6" at Time of Drilling Backiilled: 4/21/99
I LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6
Date 4-21-99 Sheet 1 of 3
Project La Costa Glen/Skilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
CME 550X Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop Bin.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
Type of Rig
Of
505A( 11 /77)
-
Cn PI t 0 z
-
d z
al
n E m cn
-
-7
31
49
15
16
12
- -
__. SM
-sM
- -
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
hgged BY KAB
Sampled By KAB
ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCUMENTED (Afd)
Q 0': Brown, damp, dense, silty fine to medium SAND
-
@ 5': Light brown, damp, dense, silty fine to medium SAND
L
@ 10': Light yellow-brown, damp, dense, silty fine SAND with sandy SILT, clasts to 114" diameter
QUATERNARY SUEEWASH /COLLUVIUM (Os w/ocol)
@ 15': Brown. damp, medium dense, silty fi SAND i
Q 20': Same as at 15 feet
Q 25': Brown, damp, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
c
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6
Date 4-2 1-99 Sheet 2 of 3
Project La Costa Glen/Skilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig CME 550X
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop Bin.
Elevation Top of Hole -t -
C .On
t+ 4 ’Y a- -
W
- 60
55
50
45
40
35
z
CI)
90 ft. Ref. or Datum I
15
13
17
n t
Uln CY alo
.-
O-2 n L 0
LEIGHTOI
Mean Sea Level
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Q 30’: Light brown, moist to wet, soft, clayey, silty, fine SAND
-
@I 35’: Brown, wet to saturated, medium dense, clayey, silty fine to medium SAND
Q 40’: Brown, saturated, medium dense, silty fine to coarse SAND
Q 45’: No recovery
Q 50’: Brown, saturated, medium dense, silty fme to coarse SAND
Q 55’: Same as at 50 feet
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-6
Date 4-2 1-99 Sheet 3 of 3
Project La Costa Glen/Skilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig CME 550X
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop Bin.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
505A( 11/77)
-
In al t 0 z
- 10
-
1 t
Inn CY PI0
.-
",n n L 0
SM
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
mged BY KAB
Sampled By KAB
Q 60': Green-gray, moist, very dense, fine to coarse SAND, well indurated slightly oxidized
Total Deuth = 61'6" Ground her Encountered at 3 1 ' at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 4/21/99
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7
Date 4-21-99 Sheet 1 of 2
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig CME 550X
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop *in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
Project La Costa Glen/Skilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
“t
505A(11/77)
-
0 z
al
E m tn
- a
1
2
3
4
5
~ -
21
11
10
9
7
-
n t
Inn CY alU
n c L3
.-
p2
-
96.2
96.2
17.8
20.8
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
LQgged BY KAB
Sampled By KAB
ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCU MENTED (Afd)
Q 0’: Brown, damp, dense, silty fine to medium SAND
-
Q 5’: Brown, damp, dense, silty fine SAND
..................................... OUATERNARY SLOPE WASHKOLLU VIUM (Os WlOCOl~
Q 10’: Brown, damp, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND
@ 15’: Light brown, damp, medium dense, silty fme to medium SAND
Q 20’: Brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty fme to medium SAND
Q 25’: Dark gray-brown, moist, medium dense, clayey, fine to medium SAND
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-7
Date 4-21-99 Sheet 2 of 2
Project La Costa Glen/Skilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig CME 550X
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop =in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
505A( 1 1 /77)
-
Ul a, + 0 z
-
0 z
al
a E m u)
-
- 9
14
30
-
n +
Uln CY a0
3 L 0
.-
"-2
-
95.6
- :
19.8
- sc
SClSM
- SM
:WML
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
hged BY KAB
Sampled By KAB
Q 30': No sample recovery, ground water encountered at 30'6" I
-
Q 35': Brown, wet, medium dense, clayey silty fine to medium SAND
TERTIARY D ELMAR FORMAT10 N (Td) @ 40': Green-gray, damp, dense, silty fine to coarse SAND, tight drilling
@I 45': Dark green-gray, damp, dense, silty CLAY to clayey SILT
Total Depth = 46'6" Ground Water Encountered at 30'6" at Time of Drilling Backfdled: 4/21/99
I
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-8
Date 4-21-99 Sheet 1 of 1
Project La Costa GlenBkilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig CME 550X
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 P ounds Drop *in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 79 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
5051\(11/77)
(n aJ t 0 z
-
0 z
0)
n E
(II cn
-
1
2
3
25
36
341 3
-
n t
(nn CY 0)0
.-
O,a n L 0
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged BY KAB
Sampled By KAB
ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCUM ENTED IAfd)
@ 0': Brown, damp, dense, silty fine SAND
- Q 5': Brown, damp, dense, silty fine SAND
d 10 . Grav. damD. dense. slwhtlv clavev. siltv fine SAND. visible beddine with
@ 15': Light gray, damp, very dense, silty fine SAND. moderately to well indurated
Total Depth = 16'6" No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 4/21/99
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-9
Date 4-2 1-99 Sheet 1 of 1
Project La Costa GlenlSkilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig CME 550X
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 PO unds Drop *in.
Elevation Top of Hole + 7-
15 2I
79 -
0 Z
aJ
Q E m v)
- ft. Ref. or Datum - Mean Sea Level
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
hgged BY KAB
Sampled By KAB
ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCUM ENTED (Afd) Q 0': Brown, damp, dense, silty fine to medium SAND
-
Q 5': Light gray to brown, damp, medium dense, slightly clayey, silty fine SAND fragments of silty fine sand scattered throughout
-E--lib -----___________________ -------- TERTIARYTORR YS N STONEflt) @ 10': Light gray-green, damp, very dense, silty fine SAND to SANDSTONE, parti3 ricOvCry sample disturtKd
@ 15': No recovery; sampler tip lost in excavation
Total Depth = 16'6" No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Backfiiled: 412 1/99
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-10
Date 4-2 1-99 Sheet 1 of 1
Project La Costa GlenlSkilled Nursing Facility Project No. 960134-003
Drilling Co. Tri-County Drilling Company Type of Rig CME SOX
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop =in.
Elevation Top of Hole 4-1- 79 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
"1
cn QJ
0 z
t
-
0 z
a,
Q E (II v)
-
1
2
3
-
30
2012"
w/5 "
89.3
-
15.1
-
505A( 11/77) LE
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged BY KAB
Sampled By KAB
ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCU MENTED (Afd)
Q 0': Brown, damp, dense, silty fine SAND
-
Q 5': Mixed, gray to brown, damp, dense, SILT, fine to coarse SAND
_________--________-------___-------- TERTIARY TORREY SANDSTONE (Ttl @ 10': Light gray, damp, very dense, silty fine to medium SAND, well indurated, slightly oxidized, sample disturbed
@ 15': Light green-gray, damp, very dense, silty fine SAND, well indurated
Total Depth = 16'6" No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drillh 1 Backfill&. 4/21/99
!GHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG M-1
Date 1-11-00 Sheet 1 of 2
Project LaCosta Glen SNF Project No. 960134-003
Drilling Co. A&W Type of Rig Mud Rotary
Hole Diameter 5 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop xin.
Elevation Top of Hole +
505A(11/77)
-
VI al t 0 z
90 ft. Ref. or Datum
0 z
al
E
r(l v)
- a
-
1
2
3
4
5
- -
t 38
Zk Ok
a
28
55
11
11
10
-
n t
an CLt alo
3 L O
.-
O,a
Mean Sea Level
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged BY KAB
Sampled By KAB
ARTIFICIAL FILL (Afd)
Q 0': Brown, slightly damp, dense, silty tine to medium SAND
-
Q 5': Light brown, damp, medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND
Q 10': Reddish brown, damp, very dense, silty fine to coarse SAND
@ 15': Yellow-brown, damp, medium dense. slightly silty, fine to medium SAND
Q 20': Brown, damp, medium dense, slightly silty. fine to medium SAND
Q 25': Brown, damp, loose, slightly silty. fine to medium SAND
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG M-1
Date 1-11-00 Sheet 2 of 2
Project LaCosta Glen SNF Project No. 960134-003
Drilling Co. A&W Type of Rig Mud Rotary
Hole Diameter 5 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop %in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
aged BY KAB
impled By KAB
QUATERNARY SLOPEWASH (Os w) Continued @ 30’: Brown, wet, loose, silty fine to medium SAND
Q 32.5’: Brown, wet, loose, silty fine to medium SAND
-
@ 35’: Brown, wet, loose, slightly silty. fine to medium SAND
@ 37.5’: Brown, wet, medium dense, silty fme to medium SAND
@ 40’: Brown, wet, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND
@ 42.5’: Brown, wet, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND
@ 45’: Brown, wet, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND to sandy SILT
@ 47.5’: Brown, wet, medium dense, fine sandy SILT to silty fine SAND
@ 50’: Brown, wet, medium dense, fine sandy SILT
Q 52.5’: Dark brown, moist to wet, medium dense fine sandy SILT
OA 0 DE-LMAR-F RM -~-o-N -T-d - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
@ 55’: Oxidized light blue gray, damp to moist, dense, silty fine SAND, to fine sandy SILTSTONE
Total Depth = 56.5 Feet Ground Water Encountered at 31 Feet at Time of Drilling Backfilled: 1/10/00
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG M-2
Date 1-11-00 Sheet 1 of 2
Project LaCosta Glen SNF Project No. 960134-003
Drilling Co. A&W Type of Rig Mud Rotary
Hole Diameter 5 in. Drive Weight - 140 pounds Drop *in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
505A(11/77)
28
8
12
10
14
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
bxed BY KAB
Sampled By KAB
ARTIFICIAL FILL DOCUMENTED (Afdl Q 0’: Brown, damp, dense, silty fine to coarse SAND
-
Q 5’: Light brown, damp, medium dense, fine to coarse SAND
-- .............................. OU~f&<AkY SLOPE WASH 10 sw) Q 10’: Light brown, loose, damp, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND
@ 15’: Light brown, damp, medium dense, fine to medium SAND
Q 20’: Light brown, damp, loose, slightly silty, fine to coarse SAND
Q 25’: Light brown, damp, medium dense, slightly silty, fine to coarse SAND
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG M-2
Date 1-11-00 Sheet 2 of 2
Project LaCosta Glen SNF Project No. 960134-003
Drilling Co. A&W Type of Rig Mud Rotary
Hole Diameter 5 in. Drive Weight 140 P ounds Drop =in.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
,,t
505A(11/77)
111 al t 0 z
-
6
I
8
9
10
11
12
13
8
10
10
8
7
13
31
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
QUATERNARY SLOPEWASH (Osw) Continued Q 30’: Light brown, wet, loose, slightly clayey, silty fine to medium SAND
Q 32.5’: Light brown to brown, wet, loose, slightly clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND
-
@I 35’: Bqwn, wet, loose, slightly clayey, silty, fine to medium SAND. At 35’2” a 3” thick dark brown clayey silty layer encountered
Q 37.5’: Brown, wet, loose, slightly clayey, fine to medium sandy SILT
Q 40’: Brown, wet, loose to soft, clayey, fine sandy SILT to silty fine SAND
Q 42.5’: Brown, moist, loose. fme, sandy SILT to silty fine SAND
Q 45’: Brown to dark gray, damp, medium dense, clayey, silty fine SAND to fine sandy SILT
Total Depth = 49 Feet Ground Water Encountered at 30 Feet at Time of Drilling Backfilled: I/ 10/00
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
0 m
0 w
I I
I
I
c
c
0
Y Jt-- co
0 ~
'c
I
~ i
0
L
c
c
0
u
I
0 0 0 0 0 a v) d- m cv
09( LN) 1dS
0 0 v
0 co
0 v)
0 d-
CI a, a, rc
0 c9g
n
Q a,
0 cv
0
7
0
BORING LOGS FROM PREVIOUS REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date 5-29-96 Sheet 1 of 3
Project Carlsbad/Green Valley Project No. 4960134-001
Drilling CQ. Barge’s Drilling Service Type of Rig HollowStem Auger
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 wunds Drop ain.
Elevation Top of Hole t 90 ft. Ref.orDatum -
114.2
101.9
117.4
113.3
113.9
8.6
75
14.8
13.1
L7.2
4 - - -
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged BY KBC
Sampled By KBC
Q 1’: Brown to rcd-brown, moist, loose, silty, fie to medium SAND; abundant organic material
-
@ 5’: Light brown to light rcd-brown, moist, medium de=, clayey fme to medium SAND; micaceous, medium ports common
Q 10’: Light brown, moist, medium dense, fine to medium SAND; micaceous, minor orangc-brown oxidation
@ 15’: Brown and mgc-brown, moist, medium dense, clayey, fine to medium SAND and fine to medium sandy CLAY; few fme pores
Q 20’: Li t brown to orangc-brown, moist, medium dense, slightly clayey, fine 1 meem
;:
Q 25’: Gray-brown to orange-brown, moist, medium dense, clayey fine to mediui SAND; few fine to medium pores
@ 29’2”: Ground Water Encountered
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3
Date 5-29-96 Sheet 2 of 3
Project Carlsbad/Gmn Valley Project No. 4960134-001
Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Awr
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop Bin.
Elevation Top of Hole i 90 ft. Ref.orDatum I
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
WgedBY KBC
Sampled By KBC
@ 30': Light orangc-bm, wet, dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; micaceous
@ 40': Light orange-brown, saturated, dense, medium to coarse SAND
Mean Sea Level
..................................... w, very stiff, tine gravelly, sandy CLAYSTONE
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 8-3
Date 5-29-96 Sheet 3 of 3
Project Carlsbad/Green Valley Project No. 4960134-001
Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service 'T)rpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight - 140 uounds Drop Xin.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 90 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
505A( 11/77)
-
m al t 0 z
-
n +
trim CY alc
.-
O-2 n L 0
GEOTECH NEAL DESCRl PTlON
KBC I Sampled By KBC
I fine sandy CLAYSTONE to li t oligre.cn horizontal bedding common, &vertical fractures
\@ 65': Refusal on cobble
Total Depth = 65 Feet Ground Water Encountered at 29 Feet 2 Inches
I
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5
Date 5-30-96 Sheet 1 of 1
Project Carlsbad/Green Valley Project No. 4960134-001
Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service ?Lpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Awer
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop ain.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 85 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
505A(11/77)
21
22
28
45
-
n + .-
lnrr CY 9JU p2 n L 0
99.7
105.1
102.6
109.0
9.4
9.8
11.8
145
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
Logged BY KBC
Sampled By KBC -
@ 1': Brown, moist, loose, silly fine to medium SAND
@ 3': Light brown to brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND; fine pores common -
@ 5': Light brawn, moist, medium dense, silly, fine to medium SAND
@ 10': Light brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND; few fine
Po=
Q E': Light om 1~wll, moist, medium dense, slightly clayey, silty, fiae to mdium & many fine pores
@ 20': Light gray to off-white with orangc-brown staining, moist, very dense, slightly clayey, silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE; moderately cemented
........................
@ 25 . Off-white wth yellow and orange-brown staining, damp, very dense, silty i fine SANDSTONE; wellcemented Total Depth = 25-1/2 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at 'Iime of Drilling Backfilled on May 30,1996
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG 6-10
Date 6-3-96 Sheet 1 of 3
Project Carlsbad/Green Valley Project No. 4960134-001
Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop ain.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 62 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
_. . . _. . : _.. . ..
.. . . . :. : : .. ..' 3 H
18
16
17
30
103.3
95.0
100.1
- - LE
-
10.4
7
26.i
28.3
- SP
SGCL
sc
- -
GEOTECH NEAL DESCRIPTION
h3.W BY KBC
Sampled By KBC
@ 1': Light brown, moist, loose, medium to coarse SAND; micaceous, roots common
@ 3': Light brawn, moist, medium dense, medium to coarsc SAND; micamus
-
@ 5': Orange-bmwn, ~t, stiffi medium sandy CLAY to clayey medium SAND;
@ 5'1": Ground water encountered micaceous, orgamc dcbns present
@ 10': Brown, saturated, medium dense, clayey fine to medium SAND; micamu
@ 30': Brown, wet, medium dense, clayey, medium SAND; micaceous
'GHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECH VICAL BORING LOG B-IO
Date 6-3-96 Sheet 2 of 3
Project Carlsbad/Green Valley Project No. 4960134-001
Drilling CO. Barge's Drilling Service Qpe of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 Dounds Drop xin.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 62 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
16
39
-
n +
cnh CY au
.-
O.! n L 0
-
111.4 12.6
- -
SP
sc
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
bxed BY KBC
Sampled By KBC
@y: Brown, saturated, medium dense, fine to medium SAND; micaceous
@ 40': Light brown, saturated, medium dense, slightly clayey, fine to medium SAND; micaceous
@ 50': Light brawn, saturated, dense, slightly clayey, fine to medium SAND; micaceous
505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-IO
Date 6-3-96 Sheet 3 of 3
Project Carlsbad/Green Valley Project No. 4960134-001
Drilling Co. Barge's Drilling Service Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger
Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop Bin.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 62 ft. Ref. or Datum -
505A(11/77)
- 9
10
Mean Sea Level
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
mxed BY KBC
Sampled By KBC
@ 60': Brown, saturated, medium dense, medium to coarse SAND; micaceous
@ 70': Light brown, saturated, very dense, medium to coarse SAND; micaceous
Total Depth = 80 Feet Ground Water Encountered at 5 Feet Backiilled on June 4,1%
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING L0G.B-I 1
Date 6-11-96 Sheet 1 of 4
Project Carlsbad/Green Valley Project No. 4960134-001
Drilling Co. A&W Drill Rental Qpe of Rig Rotary Wash
Hole Diameter 4 in. Drive Weight 300 uounds/Cal. 140 uounds/SPT Drop 1.an.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 65 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
505A( 11/77)
1
2
3
t-
16
28
28
- n +
(nn CY P)U
.-
O.! n L 0
109.8
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
LWedBY KBC
Sampled By EBC
@laced for drill pad) @ 1. Ltght brown, dry, loose to medium dense, silty, fine to medium SAND; chunks of clayeyer material common, organic material common
LWIUM- Q 2'4": Brown, wet to saturated, soft to medium, silty CLAx abundant organic
Q 4': Ground water encountered
material -
@ 1s': Light brown, saturated, medium deme, fine to medium SAND; organic material common
@ 20': Light brown, saturated, medium dense, fine to medium SAND; micamus
Q 25': Light brown, saturated, medium dense, tine to medium SAND; micaceous few coarser sand grains
-
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I 1
Date 6-11-96 Sheet 2 of 4
Project Carlsbad/Green Valley Project No. 4960134-001
Drilling Co. A&W Drill Rental Type of Rig Rotary Wash
Hole Diameter 4 in. Drive Weight 300 pounds/Cal, 140 pounds/SPT Drop lS/3an.
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 65 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
22
38
45
35
46 !L
n t
mr C+ at
n L 0
.-
O.!
-
110.t
-
19.4
- SP
a/sc
sw
sc
SP
G EOTECH N ICAL DESCRl PTI ON
baed By KBC
Sampled By KBC
@ 30’: Light brown, saturated, medium dense, slightly clayey, fine to medium SAND; micaceous
-
@ 35’: Light brown, saturated, medium dense, clayey, fine to medium SAND to fine to medium sandy CLAY; micaceous
@ 40’: Light brown, saturated, medium dense, medium to coarse SAND; few fm gravels, micaceous
Q 45’: Light brown, saturated, dense, medium to coarse SAND; few fme gravels micaceous
@ SO’: Li . t bm, saturated, dense, clayey, medium to coarse SAND to fine to m 2 ium sand; micaceous
@ 55’: Light brown, saturated, dense, medium to coarse SAND; micaceous
& ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-11
Date 6-11-96 Sheet 3 of 4
Project Carlsbad/Green Valley Project No. 4960134-001
Drilling Co, A&W Drill Rental Qpe of Rig Rotary Wash
Hole Diameter 4 in. Drive Weight 300 pounds/Cal, 140 pounds/SPT Drop 18/3(In.
qj P)+ 0"
Elevation Top of Hole +
0 m
(IIJ 0 L z
(3
.- 5:: z
._'..... :.
:- - . . ::.: ._.... . .- . .:,:. . . ..' :
. _. . . .- . .. ,- . .:. . .: . -
-.:. . : ; :. I-.:
-:-;-:I...;-
m--: . . .*. 7:
. . ..- .- . .. .- . .....*.- .. .... . * .*.- . . .*. _...'...* .-.-....
-.... ... .... .... .... .... .... .... :.:.:.:. .... .... -:.e.. * . . .-.
:.e.- ..
:.*.-.*
.... .... .... .... _. . . . .... .... .... .... .... 75- ; :: z::: : :.:.:.:. . .*. . ... . . ... .*.*.'..
.. . .... .... -.... .... .... .... .... .... .... .... -. . . . .... .... ... ... . . .:. .... .... .... .... .... -.... .... .... .... -..-.-.*. .... .... .... .... .... .... 80--. :- i ...
65 ft. Ref.orDatum
1
-
-.
- 101.t
,112
- -
.*. . .. ... .. . .. ... , . .. ._. . ..
-.
.-
.-. . . _. . .. . ...
Mean Sea Level
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
AOggedBY KBC
Sampled By KBC
@ 60': Mottled orangc-brown and light gray-green, wet, very stiff, fme sandy CLAY; few fine gravels, micamus
- t @ 65': Light brown to brown, saturated, dense, fine to medium SAND; few fme
gravels
@ 70': Light bmvn, saturated, medium dense, fine to coarse SAND; micaceous, clayey fand beds common
@ 75': Light brawn, saturated, very dense, fine to coarse SAND; micaceous
@ 80': fight brown, saturated, vtry dense, medium to coarse SAM) and mottkd light olive-green and orange-brown, moist, hard, clayey, fine sandy SILT; micaceous
.............................
@ 84': Drilling became more difficult (per driller)
@ 85': Olhgreen, moist, very stiff, fine sandy to silty CLAYSTONE; micaceous
505A( 11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-I 1
Date 6-11-96 Sheet 4 of 4
Project Carlsbad/Green Valley Project No. 4960134-001
Drilling Co. A&W Drill Rental ?)pe of Rig Rotary Wash
Hole Diameter . 4 in. Drive Weight 300 pounds/Cal, 140 pounds/SPT Drop 1-b.
Elevation Top $Hole +/- 65 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level I
UI al t 0 z
- 16
17
n t .-
n L 0
* GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION G”:
ou.
- sy
Z$ LoggedBy KBC GU Samplai~y KBC
CL @ 90’: Dark o1iw-gree.n to dark gray, moist, very stiff, fine sandy to silty CLAYSTONE; micaceous
-
@ 95’: Olive-green, moist, hard, fme sandy to silty, CIAYSTONE; micaceous
Total Depth = 96 Feet 6 Inches Ground Water Encountered at 4 Feet Backfilled on June 11,1996
50SA(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12
Date 6-12-96 Sheet 1 of 4
Project Carlsbad/Greem Valley Project No.
Drilling Co. A&W Drill Rental 'I)pe of Rig Rotary Wash
Hole Diameter 4 in. Drive Weight 300 pounds/Cal, 140 pounds/SPT Drop 18/3(In.
4960134401
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 65 ft.
505A(11/77)
17
12
Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
GEOTECH N ICAL D ESCRl PTlO N
LwFd BY KBC
3ampled By KBC
(placed for drill pad)
@ 1': Light brown, dry, loose to medium dense, silty fine to medium SAND; chunks of clayeyer material common, organic material common ........................... --- @ 2'6": Brown, wet to saturated, soft to medium, silty CLAY; abundant organic
@ 4': Ground water encountered material -
@ 15': Light brown, saturated, medium dense, medium to coarse SAND; micamus
@ 25': Light brown, saturated, medium dense, tine to medium SAND, few fine gravels, micaceous
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12
Date 6-12-96 Sheet 2 of 4
Project Carlsbad/Green Valley Project No. 4960134-001
Drilling Co. A&W Drill Rental Type of Rig Rotary Wash
Hole Diameter 4 in. Drive Weight 300 pounds/Cal, 140 pounds/SPT Drop 18/3(ln.
Elevation Top of Hole t
505A(
65 ft. Ref.orDatum -
i
19
80
37
34
29
Mean Sea Level
GEOTECHN ICAL DESCRl PTlON
42edBY KBC
Sampled By KBC
11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
~
@ 30’: Light brown, saturated, medium dense, fine to medium SAND; micamu
@ 35’: Light brawn, saturated, medium dense, fine to medium SAND and light orange-bmwn, wet, very stiff fine sandy CLAY, micaceous
@ 40’: Light brown, saturated, dense, fine to medium SAND; micaceous
@ 45’: Light bmwn, saturated, dense, fine to medium SAND; micaceous
@ 50’: Light brown, saturated, dense, clayey fine to medium SAND; micaceous
@ 55’: Light brown, saturated, medium dense, fine to medium SAND, micaceous
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12
Date 6-12-96 Sheet 3 of 4
Project Carlsbad/Green Valley
Drilling Co. A&W Drill Rental
Project No. 4960134-001
of Rig Rotary Wash
4 in. Drive Weight 300 pounds/Cal, 140 pounds/SFT Drop 18/3(In. Hole Diameter
Elevation Top of Hole +/- 65 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
11
12
13
14
15
39
53
75
86
35
- 1075
109.4
- 21.6
12.4
- SW
SP
X/SP
’ EL- -
GEOTECH NEAL DESCRIPTION
LWFdBY KBC
Sampled By KBC
@ 60’: Light brown, saturated, dense, fine to coarse SAND; micaceous
-
@ 65’: Light brown, saturated, dense, fine to medium SAND; micaceous, few tG clayey, sand layers
@ 70’: Light gray and light brown, saturated, very dense, fine to medium SAND; micawus
@ 75’: Reddish bm, saturated, very dense, medium to coarse SAND; micaceous
@ 80’: Gray, wet, hard, fine sandy to silty CLAY and gray to gray-bnrwn, saturated, very dense, tine to medium SAND; micaceous
505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-12
Date 6-12-96 Sheet 4 of 4
Project Carlsbad/Green Valley Project No. 4960134-001
Drilling CQ. A&W Drill Rental ")p of Rig Rotary Wash
Hole Diameter 4 in. Drive Weight 300 pounds/Cal, 140 pounds/SPT Drop lg13(In.
Elevation Top of Hole 1 65 ft. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level
,In-
-
n +
24.6 -
GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION
LwedBY EBC
Sampled By KBC
-
@ %':e moist, very stiff, fme sandy ONE; micaceous, fragments common
Total De th = 96 Feet Ground Gater Encountered at 4 Feet Backtilled on June 12,1996
W'
505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
DATE OBSERVED 9-13-89 METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Hollow Stern Auner
:LEVATION.70'~ LOCATION See Map
LOG OF BORING NO. 5
Sheet 1 of 3
DESCRIPTION
FILL Brown silty SAND, dry, loose
Orange brown, silty medium SAND, moist,
.............................
loose
@ 43, Dark gray-organic smell
@ 6'. Nail in cuttings
COLLUVIUM/ALLUVIUM (Oc ol/Oall:
-
Orange brown, medium SAND with
silt, wet, loose
gGroundwater at 12' Light brown, silty fine to medium SAND, saturated, loose
............................. Light gray-brown, silty medium to fine SAND, wet, loose
............................. Light gray-brown, medium SAND with silt, saturated, loose
Same as above
Same as above
No recovery
SOIL TEST
SIEVE AN, -LYSE5
ATTERBERG LIMITS
CONSOLIDATION
CONSOLIDATION
c
c
c
DATE OBSERVED: 9- 13-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auner
LEVATION70' LOCATION See Ma0
LOG OF BORING NO. 5
Sheet 2 of 3
DESCRIPTION
No recovery
Same as above-medium dense -
Light gray-brown, medium SAND with
Stopped at 58.5' 9/12/89, continued silt, saturated, loose
9/13/89
Same as above-medium dense
Increase in drilling resistance
Light gray-brown, medium SAND with silt, saturated, dense
SOIL TEST
c
c
c
r-
c
c
I
DATE OBSERVED 9-13-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: 8" Hollow Stem Auner
A 14- 73 SQ
LEVATION:70' LOCATION See Mat,
LOG OF BORING NO. 5
Sheet 3 of 3
DESCRIPTION
Olive gray, silty fine to medium SAND;
wet, dense, with layers of sandy silt
Gray, fine to medium SAND, wet, dense, -. with 1" layer of gray clay Total Depth 98.5'
Water at 12'
Backfilled 9/13/89
ICG lncomorated
SOIL TEST
SIEVE ANALYSIS
AT7'ERBERG LIMITS
I I-- B-6 ~- 1 FI-:
49601 34-003
Sample Location
B-l,30'
B-l,35'
B-l,40'
B-1,45'
B-2,40'
B-5,40'
APPENDIX C
% Passing the #200 Sieve
16.3
14.6
11.7
20.6
34.4
29.5
Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results
I B-6,40' 13.3
B-6,50' 25.6
c
B-7,30'
c
c
19.8
Classification or Grain Size Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis by
sieving with a #200 sieve from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM Test Method D422 or CTM 202). The
data was evaluated in determining the classificationof the materials. The percent passing the #200 sieve is
presented below:
Sample Number
E- 1
E-2
E-3
E-4
Expansion Expansion
Sample Location Index Potential
Lot 6 2 Very Low
Lot 6 0 Very Low
Lot 7 0 Very Low
Lot 7 0 Very Low
ll B-6,30' II B-6,35' I 14.7
Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion
Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 18-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to
approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90
percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an
equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The
results of these tests are presented in the table below:
c- 1
c
c
Sample Location
49601 34-003
Hydroconsolidation(%)
APPENDIX C (continued)
B-7,207-2 1 ’
Laboratory Testing Procedures
0.0 1
Hvdroconsolidation Tests: Hydroconsolidation tests were performed on selected, relatively undisturbed
ring samples. Samples were placed in a consolidometer loaded to the approximate overburden pressure, and
the percent hydroconsolidation is recorded below as the ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the
original 1-inch height.
Sample Location
B-4,O’- 1 ’
YO Chloride Chloride Concentration
(PPm)
0.005 50
II B-2,20’-2 1 ’ I 0.02 11
Minimum Resistivitv and PH Tests:
accordance with California Test Method 643. The results are presented in the table below:
Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general
c
c
c
c
c
Minimum Resistivi
Soluble Sulfates:
geochemical methods. The test results are presented in the table below:
The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard
1 B-2,1’ I Light brown SM I <.005 I Negligible 1
I B-9,l’ I Light brown SM 1 <.005 I Negligible I
* Based on the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Table No. 19-A-4, prepared by the International
Conference of Building Officials (ICBO, 1997).
Chlorides: The chloride content of selected samples were determined by California Test ‘Method. The test
results are presented below:
C-2
Sample Density Summary Sheet-Hollow Stem Borings
B-2
8-3
B-3
B-5
Boring Number I Dry Density, pcf I Moisture Content, % I Total Density, pcf
B-2 I 101.2 I 5.6 I 107
96.5 26.7 122
98.5 12.3 111
102.4 18.9 122
91.8 12.8 104
B-5
8-7
B-7
8-7
98.9 24 123
96.2 17.8 113
96.2 20.8 116
95.6 19.8 115
I ~- I I I B-5 I 98.4 I 13.9 I 112 I
I I I I I Average = - 112
c
c
c
c
60, ,
50
10
For classification of fine-
grained coarse-arained grained fraction soils and o// soils fine-
"A LINE
CL-Y ' ML or OL
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit (LL)
I GRAVEL I SAND I FINES I I COARSE I FINE ~CRSE 1 MEDIUM I FINE I SILT I CLAY I
U.S. STD. SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER
3.0" I 1/2* 3/4 318" #4 #IO #20 #40 #60 #lo0 #200
1 00.ooo 1o.m I .ooo 0.1 00 0.010
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
0.001
Sample Depth 1 H,ode 1 N;. 1 (ft.)
M-1 32.5-34.0
LL,PL,PI
0:74:26
Sample Description:
Yellowish Brown Silty Sand (SM)
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 431 8, D 422
01 -00
c
c
c
GRAVEL
COARSE 1 FINE
c
c
SAND FINES
CRSE I MEDIUM 1 FINE SILT I CLAY
For classification of fine-
50 1 grained soils and fine-
Hole
No.
M-1
10
7
Sample Depth Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
No. (fi.1 ("/I
8 35.0-36.5 SM 0:77:23 NP
4
grained fraction of
coarse-arained soils
CL or OL 0
CH or OH
MH or OH
I ' MLorOL I Y
OV 1
0 102030405060708090100 Liquid Limit (LL)
U.S. STD. SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER
100.Ooo 1 0.Ooo 1 .Ooo 0.100 0.01 0 0.001
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
Sample Description :
Yellowish Brown Silty Sand (SM)
Proiect No.: 960134-003
... .._ La Costa Glen SNF
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318, D 422
01 -00
c
c
c
10 -
4
c
7, ML or OL U-Y
c
GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE
60
50
SAND FINES
CRSE I MEDIUM I FINE SILT I CLAY
For classifiition of line-
grained soils and fine-
grained fraction of
coarse-arained soils
MH or OH
I- o
0 102030405060708090100 Liquid Limit (LL)
Hole
No.
M-1
Sample Depth Soil Type GR: SA: FI LL,PL,PI
NO. (fit.) ("/I
12 45.0-46.5 SM 0:75:25 NP
I I I I I I I I
U.S. STD. SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER
1 oo.Oo0
lir' 314" 318"
1o.Ooo
a
1 .Oo0
t:
0.100
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
!OO
0.01 0 0.001
Sample Description:
Yellowish Brown Silty Sand (SM)
Proiect No.: 960134403 . '.. .., La Costa Glen SNF .' i
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318, D 422
01 -00
100
90
80
70
$60 9 &= K w z
I- z w
E40
+I
a
20
10
0
COARSE
60
50
e
'0 c -30 2 V E 20
h
10
FINE CRSE MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY
For classification of fine-
grained soils and fine-
grained fraction of
coarse-arained soils
MH or OH
Hole
No.
M-1
U-Y ' ML or OL
Sample Depth Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
No. (fiJ (W
14 50.0-51.5 SM 0:68:32 NP
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Liquid Limit (LL)
I I SAND FINES I GRAVEL I
3.w 1 l/r' 3l4" 3l8"
1 oO.Oo0 1 o.oO0
#4 #lo #20 #40 #60 #loo #200
1 .oO0 0.100 0.010 0.001
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
Sample Description:
Yellowish Brown Silty Sand (SM)
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 431 8, D 422
01 -00
c
GRAVEL
COARSE FINE
c
SAND FINES
CRSE MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY
60, /
Hole Sample
No. No.
M- 1 15
For classification of fine-
grained soils and fine- 50 . - grained fraction of b coarse-arained soils
U c
3
P- u .-
MH or OH I 20- h
10 -
1, ' MLorOL CL-Y d/ I
Depth Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
(R.1 (W
52.5-54.0 SM 0:69:31 NP
0102030405p60708090100 Liquid Limit (LL)
3.0' IIP 34" 2 3" #4 #IO #20 #40#60#100 #200
1 o.Oo0 I .Ooo 0.100 0.01 0 0.001
Sample Description:
Light Brown Silty Sand (SM)
AlTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 431 8, D 422
01 -00
c
GRAVEL
COARSE FINE
c
SAND FINES
CRSE MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY
c
Hole
No.
M-42
100 -
90-
80-
70 -
g60- g 250-
K w z
I- z W
h40-
i3C-
a
20-
10 -.
0-
Sample Depth Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
No. (fi.1 ("/I
6 30.0-31.5 SM 0:74:26 NP
60
50
10
For classification of fine-
grained soils and fine-
grained fraction of
coarse-arained soils
MH or OH
ML or OL CL-u
0 102030405060708090100 Liquid Limit (LL)
0 1 117 314"
E
1 00.Ooo 1 0.Ooo
c4 #IO #20
u
1 .Ooo
#40 #60 #loo #200
0.1 00 0.010 0.001
Sample Description:
Yellowish Green Silty Sand (SM)
Proiect No.: 9601 34003
La Costa Glen SNF
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318, D 422
01 -00
c
c
COARSE
.-
FINE CRSE MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY
For classification of fine- /
Hole
No.
M-02.
grained soils and fine-
grained fraction of
coarse-arained soils
MH or OH
Sample Depth Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
No. (ft-1 ("/I
7 32.5-34 .O SM 0:73:27 NP
, 7, 4, CL -MI. ' MLorOL I
7.y< t.' .*. :W!&.4.rrs, INC. I &jT', I...."- %, ..,,. '%.>
-.
0 102030405060708090100 Liquid Limit (LL)
Proiect No.: 9601 34003
La Costa Glen SNF
I GRAVEL I SAND I FINES I
U.S. STD. SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER
3.r 1 1/2" 314" 2
1 oo.Oo0 1 o.Oo0
#4 #IO
m
20 #40 #60 #I00 #:
HYDROMETER
I .Oo0 0.100 0.01 0
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
0.001
Sample Description:
Light Brown Silty Sand (SM)
60-
CJJ .
For classification of line-
grained soils and fine-
CL grained fraction of e coarse-arained soils
U C
r 0
v *-
$20-
x30-
h MH or OH
GRAVEL
COARSE I FINE
10 -
7 /' ML or OL cL-n
SAND FINES
CRSE I MEDIUM I FINE SILT I CLAY
Hole
No.
MI%
U.S. STD. SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER
3.0" 1 lP 3/4" 318" #4 #IO #20 #40 #60 #I00 #200
Sample Depth Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
No. (ftJ ("/I
10 40.0-41.5 SM 0:66:34 NP
1 00.Oo0 1 o.Oo0 1 .OOo
7-$&Ap$+ 4. ..;:;c*I*#s, ,, KVC. # --r "L*-.., I --,-
-2 ,,....
0.100 0.010
Proiect No.: 960134003
La Costa Glen SNF
0.001
Sample Description:
Light Brown Silty Sand (SM)
60-
50 .
For classification of fine-
grained soils and fine-
gained fraction of e coarse-arained soils
0 e,
e U
2
EN-
2 20- .-
E MH or OH
7
10 -
ML or OL / CL-Y
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 Liquid Limit (LL)
GRAVEL
COARSE FINE
SAND FINES-
CRSE MEDIUM FINE SILT CLAY
100.Ooo 1o.Ooo
Hole
No.
M-42
1 .Ooo 0.100 0.01 0 0.001
PARTICLE - SIZE (mm)
Sample Depth Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
11 42.5-44.0 SM 0:70:30 NP
No. (fi.1 ("/I
Sample Description:
Light Brown Silty Sand (SM)
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 431 8, D 422
01 -00
.-. . '..... .,
Moisture Content
PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS
Moisture Content After Hydrometer
ASTM D 422
U.S. Sieve Cumulative
Size Wt.of Dry Soil
Project Name: LA COSTA GLEN SNF Tested By: BCC Date: 12-JAN-00
Project No.: 9601 34-003 Data Input By: BCC Date: 12-JAN-00
Boring No.: WZ CheckedBy: Date: 18-JAN-00
Sample No.: 13 Depth (ft.): 47.5-49.0
Visual Sample Description: Liaht Brown Siltv Sand EM)
% Passing
Liquid Limit NP Gravel: 0
U.S. Sieve Cumulative Wt.
Size of Dry Soil % Passing % Total Sample
Plastic Limit NP Sand. 74
Specific Gravrty (Gs) (assumed) Wt.of Air-Dry Soil + Cont.(gm.)
No. 10
No. 30
0.00 100.0 100.0
0.00 100.0 100.0
W.of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (gm.)
Wt. of Container
Wt. of Container No.- (gm.)
Moisture Content (%)
No. 40 0.00 I 100.0 I 100.0
I Retained(gm) I
I I
318"
100.0
1'W 100.0
314" 0.00 100.0
0.00 I 100.0 I I I 1
No. 60 0.00 I 100.0 I 100.0
No. 4 0.00 100.0 No. 100
No. 200
Pan
I Retained (gm) I
I I I
0.00 100.0 100.0
74.60 26.1 26.1 No. 10
Pan
0.00 100.0
Date
Elapsed Water Composite Actual % Total Soil Particle
Time Time Temperature Correction Hydrometer Sample Diameter
Hydrometer Wt. of Air-Dry Soil (gm) 1 101.00 1 W. of Dry Soil (gm) I 101.00 1
~~
14-Jan-001 ~ 12 001 1440 1 21 01 6 0, 49 1 0 0013 I
c
c 3
:a-
U C
r 0 8 20-
E
c
MH or OH
c
c
10 -
7-
c
, ' ML or OL CL-Y
601 , I
COARSE I FINE ~CRSE I MEDIUM I FINE SILT CLAY
I Hole Sample
No. NO.
M-4Z 13
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100 Liquid Limit (LL)
Depth Soil Type GR:SA:FI LL,PL,PI
(fl.1 (%.)
47.5-49.0 SM 0:74:26 NP
I GRAVEL I SAND I FINES I
U.S. STD. SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER HYDROMETER
3.0" 1 le 34" 3r #4 #I 0 #20 #40 #60 #I00 #rn
I 00.Ooo 1 o.Oo0 I .Ooo 0.100
PARTICLE - SIZE (rnm)
0.01 0 0.001
Sample Description:
Light Brown Silty Sand (SM)
ATTERBERG LIMITS, PARTICLE - SIZE CURVE
ASTM D 4318, D 422
01 -00
Lctghton and Associates. Inc
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page I of6
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
1.0 General
I. 1 Intent These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading and
earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) andor indicated in the geotechnical
report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific recommendations in the
geotechnical report shall supersede these more general Specifications. Observations of the
earthwork by the project Geotechnical Consultant during the course of grading may result
in new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record Prior to commencement of work, the owner shall
employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical Consultant). The
Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the approved geotechnical
. report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions,
and recommendationsprior to the commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the "work
plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule sufficient personnel
to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall observe,
map, and document the subsdace exposures to verify the geotechnical design
assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the
interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the Geotechnical Consultant shall inform
the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate the observed
conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be
geotechnicallyobserved, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground
after it has been cleared for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial
removal" areas, all key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioningand processing of the
subgiade and fill materials and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the
attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical Consultant shall provide the test results to
the owner and the Contractoron a routine and frequent basis.
;
3030 1094
Lcighton and Associalcs, Inc.
GENERAL EARTH WORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 2 of 6
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified,
experienced, and knowledgeable in. earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of
ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill.
The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these
Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for performing the grading in accordance with the plans and specifications.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant a
work plan that indicates the sequence of earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of
work and the estimated quantities of daily earthwork contemplated for the site prior to
commencement of grading. The Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical
Consultant of changes in work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in
advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant is aware
of all grading operations. -
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and
methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading codes and
agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in the approved
geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Consul@t, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition,
inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in
a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant
shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until
the conditions are rectified.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearinn and GrubbinF Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious
material shall be sufficientlyremoved and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to
the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical Consultant.
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on
specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent of organic
materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of organic matter.
Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the
affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper
evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline,
diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered
to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids
onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment,
and shall not be allowed. e.
1010 IM4
Lcightoii and Associaks. Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECII-ICA'l'lONS
Page 3 of 6
2.2 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the
Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing
ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the following section.
Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or
clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that
would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy,
organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be overexcavated to
competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant during grading.
-
2.4 -Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal
to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see the Standard Details
for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet wide and
at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as
otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping
flatter than 5: 1 shall also be benched or otherwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade
for the fill.
2.5 EvaluatiodAcceDtanceof Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and
processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations
recorded, andor tested prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as suitable
to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the Geotechnical
Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for
determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and benches.
3.0 Fill Material
3.1
3.2
General Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other
deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to
placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high
expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical
Consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material.
Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum
dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location,
materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the GGtechnical
Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not
occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified
fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within IO vertical feet of finish grade or within
2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.
JO30 I04
Lcighton and Associates, lnc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SI'ECIFICATIONS
Page 4 of 6
3.3 Import If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall
meet the requirements of Section 3. I. The potential import source shall be given to the
GeotechnicalConsultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before importing begins so that
its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests performed.
4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Lavers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill (per
Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. The
Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading
procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly
and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformityof material and moisture throughout.
Fill Moisture Conditioning; Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, andor mixed,
as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum.
Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in
accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM Test Method
4.2
D 1 55 7-9 1 ).
4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moistursconditioned, mixed, and evenly
spread, it shall be uniformlycompacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density
(ASTM Test Method D 1557-9 1). Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be
either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently
achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above,
compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot
rollers at increments of 3 to 4feet in fill elevation, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon completion of
grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of
maximum density per ASTM Test Method D 1557-9 1.
4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill
soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency of tests
shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction
test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be
selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to
inadequatecompaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fiIVbedrock benches).
3010 1094
Leighton and Associates, Iiic.
GENERAL EARTHWORK ANI) GKADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 5 of 6
5 .O
6.0
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding 2 feet in
vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment. In addition, as a
guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each 5,000 square feet of slope
face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The Contractor shall assure that fill
construction is such that the testing schedule can be accomplished by the Geotechnical
Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow down the earthwork construction if these
minimum standards are not met.
4.7 Compaction Test Locations The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the approximate
elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The Contractor shall coordinate
with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the
Geotechnical Consultant can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a
minimum, two grade stakes within a horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than
5 feet apart from potential test locations shall be provided. -
Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s), the
grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend additional
subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material depending on conditions
encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by a land surveyor/civil engineer for
line and grade after installation and prior to burial. Sufficient time should be allowed by the
Contractor for these surveys.
Excavation
Excavations, as well as ' over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans
are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the Geotechnical
Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut
slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, evaluated, and accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the
slope, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
1010 1094
Lcighton and Associates. Inc.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
Page 6 of 6
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and CaVOSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations.
7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction. Bedding material
shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SJ3-30). The bedding shall be placed to 1
foot over the top of the conduit and densified by jetting. Backfill shall be placed and
densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from 1 foot above the top of the
conduit to the surface.
7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the Geotechnical
Consultant. -
7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction. At least
one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to the
Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative
compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
FILL SLOPE
/
/ 4
FILL-OVER-CUT
SLOPE
For Subdrains See
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
STANDAAD DETAILS A
KEYING AND BENCHING SPECIFICATIONS
REV. u11m
c
c Ovwstzerodcblargerthan8inche.s
inlargestdii
Excavate a trench in the compacted
fill deep enough to bury all the rodc . Bacldinwithg~sdl/ettedor flooded in place to fill all the voids
0 Donotburyrockwithin10feetd . W~rowdbwiedrocksha#be
parallel tothe firwwcl slopem
finkh grade.
ELEVATION A-A'
PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
JETTED OR FLOODED GRANUM MATERIAL
OVERSIZE
ROCK DISPOSAL
'*
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADIN (3
SPECIFlCATlOWS
STANDARD DETAILS B
4/85
c
B
NATURAL
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
ENCHING .
CALTRANS cuss II
PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK
(gFT?/FT.) WRAPPED IN
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140 OR
EQUIVALENT) BE MINIMUM C DIAMETER
APPROVED \COUECTOR’PIPE SHAU
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATEC CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL D FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION PERFORATED PIPE 6‘4 MIN.
FINISHED
FILTER FABRIC / (MIRAFI 140 OR
APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
10’ MIN. BACKFILL
I w ‘8 e. w ). Y 3 I + 201 MiN.-&d
FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION PERFORATED PIPE
FINISHED
FILTER FABRIC / (MIRAFI 140 OR
APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
10’ MIN. BACKFILL
I w ‘8 e. w ). Y 3 I + 201 MiN.-&d
NON-PERFORATED 4 5’ MIN. I- 6’4 MIN.
CANYON SUBDRAINS
#2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER
PERMEABLE.
\FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS I1
GENERAL’kARtHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD OETAllS C
4m
OUTLET PIPES 4.4 NON-PERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C. V BACKCUT 1:l
(HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET POSITIVE SEAL
OUTLETPIPE .
CALTRANS CLASS II / PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK
COLLECTOR PIPE TO
OUTLET PIPE 1 (3FT?/FT.) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC
SUBDRAIN INSTAIlATlON - Subddn collector pipe shall be lnstafled with perfocationS down Or,
pipe. The subdrain plpe shall have at least 8 perforations uniformly spaced per foot. Pedoratkm shan
be YIL to W if drllled holes are used. All subdrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2% towards the
outlet.
unless (ItmwW designated by the geotm ConSuttaflL outlet pipes shall be nongerforated
SUBDWN PIPE - Subdraln pfpe shall be ASN D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM Olm, Schedule 40, of ASTM 03034, SDR 23.5, Schedule 40 Potyvinyl Chloride Plastic (PVC) pipe.
All outlet plpe shall be placed In a trench no wider than twice the subdrain pipe. Pipe shall be In dl of SE230 jetted or flooded in place except for the outslde 5 feet which shall be native sdl backfill.
BUiTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAJLS D
4/95
RETAIN I NG WA L L D R A I NAG E DETAIL
SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO
80 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION*
WALL WATERPROOFING
PER ARCHITECT'S SPECIFICATIONS r > FlNlSH GRAOE
WALL FOOTING- fil I
.3t4*-1-1t2: CLEAN GRAVEL-
NOT TO SCALE
SPEC IF I CAT1 ONS FOR CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard Sieve Size
1 3/4" 3/8"
No. 4
No. 8 No. 30 No. 50 No. 200
X Passing
100
90- 100
40- 100 25-40 18-33
5-15 0-7
0-3
Sand Equivalent>75
\ COMPEfENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE OEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
* BASED ON ASTM D1667
**IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
(SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4'-1-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE DELETED. CALTRAFlS CLAB$ 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO Qq PERCENV~RELATIVE COMPACTION * NOTECOMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MRAMVUN
m MANUFACTURWS SPEaRcAnms.
OR J-DRAIN MAY f3€ USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO ORA= OR
CLASS 2MSTAllAm 8Houu> 6E PEfWORMED IN ACCORDANCE
c
c
0 50 100 =
SCALE -
(Miles)
SAN FRANCISCO
SITE LOCATION (+):
Latitude - 33.0740 N Lon itude - 117.2670 W La Zosto Glen Skilled Nursing Facility
_______--__
FRISKSP FAULT MAP
JOB No.: 960134.003
h
c
c
DATE: Tuesday, December 14, 1999
..................................... * * * EQFAULT *
* Ver. 2.20 * * *
* * * * .....................................
(Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration
From Digitized California Faults)
SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: JGF
JOB NUMBER: 960134.003
JOB NAME: La Costa Glen Skilled Nursing Facility
SITE COORDINATES:
LATITUDE: 33.074 N
LONGITUDE: 117.267 W
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
AlkENUATION RELATION: 3) Boore et al. (1993a) Horiz. - Random - Site Class C
UNCERTAINTY (M=Mean, S=Mean+l-Sigma) : M
SCOND: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGSCE.DAT
SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A=Attenuation File, F-Fault Data File): A
Page 1
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
MAX. CREDIBLE EVEN1 -------------------
Page 2
c
c
c
c
c
c
F
c
c
c
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
MAX. CREDIBLE EVEN7 ______---_-_______- MAX. PROBABLE EVENT1 I ___---_____________
Page 3
-END OF SEARCH- 50 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS
THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 4.9 MILES AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-CREDIBLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.358 g
LARGEST MAXIMUM-PROBABLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.190 g
e
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0 0 0 0 0 0
N
0 0 0 0 0
N 100 +
0 0 0 0
7
nm
N mm
0 0 0
c
c
c
L
/ /
/
d
I
I
0 ;o od
7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn 03 b co In* r) c\l
7
e
c
c
c
e
FR
JOB No.: 960134.03
0 50 100 - - SCALE
(Miles)
SKSP FAULT MAP
DATE: Tuesday, December 14, 1999
..................................... * * * EQFAULT *
* Ver. 2.20 * * *
* * * * .....................................
(Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration
From Digitized California Faults)
SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: JGF
JOB NUMBER: 960134.003
JOB NAME: La Costa Glen Maintenance Facility
SITE COORDINATES:
LATITUDE: 33.075 N
LONGITUDE: 117.268 W
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 3) Boore et al. (1993a) Horiz. - Random - Site Class C
UNCERTAINTY (M=Mean, S=Mean+l-Sigma): M
SCOND: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: ~~~~~~~DAT
SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A=Attenuation File, F-Fault Data File): A
MAX. CREDIBLE EVEN’: MAX. PROBABLE EVEM -------------------
Page 2
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
MAX. CREDIBLE EVENT _---_-_______------
Page 3
-END OF SEARCH- 50 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS
THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 4.9 MILES AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-CREDIBLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.358 g
LARGEST MAXIMUM-PROBABLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.190 g
00 t N 00 + 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7
7
7 -
7
(SJDaL) aOIt13d Nan138 33V83AV
r) 4
r)
0 a cn
7
..
0
m
Z
0 7,
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
000 r
0 -0 0 0 0; 0 0 0 0 0 'a 03 b (D In * M cv 'i
(%) 33NVCl3333X3 A0 AL1118V80tld
c
c
DATE: Tuesday, December 14, 1999
....................................... * * * E Q S,E A R C H *
Ver. 2.01
* .......................................
(Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration
From California Earthquake Catalogs)
c
c
SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: JGF
JOB NUMBER: 960134.003
JOB NAME: La Costa Glen Skilled Nursing/Maintenance Facility
SITE COORDINATES:
LATITUDE: 33.074 N
LONGITUDE: 117.267 W
TYPE OF SEARCH: RADIUS
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
SEARCH MAGNITUDES: 5.0 TO 9.0
c
SEARCH DATES: 1800 TO 1998
ATTENUATION RELATION: 2) Campbell (1991R) Horiz. - Deep Soil & Soft Rock
UNCERTAINTY (M=Mean, S=Mean+l-Sigma): M
SCOND: 0
FAULT TYPE ASSUMED (DS-Reverse, SS-Strike-Slip): DS
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
EARTHQUAKE-DATA FILE USED: ALLQUAKE.DAT
TIME PERIOD OF EXPOSURE FOR STATISTICAL COMPARISON: 75 years
SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A=Attenuation File, E=Earthquake Catalog): A
Page 1
FILI
COD1
DMG
MGI
DMG
T-A
MGI
T-A
MG I
T-A
MGI
T-A
DMG
T-A
T-A
T-A
T-A
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
MGI
MGI
MGI
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
MGI
DMG
MGI
JXJIG
MGI
UGI
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
LAT .
NORTH
33.00(
32.80(
34.37(
34.00(
34.10(
34.00(
33. oot
32.67t
34.00(
34 .OOC
32.70t
32.67C
32.67C
33.50C
32.25C
33.90C
34.10C
34.20C
33.40C
32.70C
33.20C
34.30C
------
32.800
34.200
34.300
33.8oa
34. ooa
34. loa
34. ooa
34 -200
33.700
33.7oa
33.500
33.750
33.700
33 -750
33.800
34.000
33.200
34.080
33 -200
34.000
34.000
34.000
34.000
32.900
34.180
34.180
33.950
33.617
33.750
33.750
33.750
33.700
33.575
33.683
33.700
33.750
LONG.
WEST - - - - - - -
117.30C
117.10C
117.65C
118.25C
118.1OC
118.25C
117. OOC
117.17C
117.50C
118.25C
117.20C
117.170
117.170
115.820
117.500
ii7.2oa
116.700
116.300
117.900
116.300
116.200
117.600
116.800
117.400
117.500
117.000
118.000
117.300
118.300
117.100
117.400
117.400
117.400
116 .SO0
117.000
117.600
117.000
118.500
116.700
118.260
116.600
117.250
116.000
118.500
116.000
115.700
116.920
116.920
118.632
117.967
118.083
118.083
118.083
118.067
117.983
118.050
118.067
118.083
DATE
- - - - - - - - - - - .
11/22/1800
12/ 8/1812
5/25/1803
9/23/1827
7/11/1855
1/10/1856
9/21/1856
12/ 0/1856
12/16/1858
3/26/1860
5/27/1862
10/21/1862
5/24/1865
5/ 0/1868
1/13/1877
12/19/1880
2/ 7/1889
8/28/1889
2/ 9/1890
2/24/1892
5/28/1892
7/3 O/ 18 9 4
10/23/1894
7/22/1899
7/22/1899
12/25/1899
12/25/1903
7/15/1905
9/ 3/1905
9/20/1907
4/11/1910
5/13/1910
5/15/1910
9/30/1916
4/21/1918
4/22/1918
6/ 6/1918
11/19/1918
1/ 1/1920
7/16/1920
10/12/1920
7/23/1923
4/ 3/1926
8/ 4/1927
9/ 5/1928
10/ 2/1928
1/16/1930
1/16/1930
8/31/1930
3/11/1933
3/11/1933
3/11/1933
3/11/1933
3/11/1933
3/11/1933
3/11/1933
3/11/1933
3/11/1933
TIME
( GMT )
H M Sec
2130 0.0
0 0 0.0
15 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
415 0.0
0 0 0.0
730 0.0
0 0 0.0
10 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
20 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
20 0 0.0
0 0 0.0
520 0.0
215 0.0
12 6 0.0
720 0.0
1115 0.0
512 0.0
23 3 0.0
046 0.0
2032 0.0
1225 0.0
1745 0.0
2041 0.0
540 0.0
154 0.0
757 0.0
620 0.0
1547 0.0
211 0.0
223225.0
2115 0.0
2232 0.0
2018 0.0
235 0.0
18 8 0.0
1748 0.0
73026.0
20 8 0.0
1224 0.0
1442 0.0
19 1 0.0
02433.9
034 3.6
04036,O
154 7.8
2 9 0.0
230 0.0
323 0.0
51022.0
518 4.0
658 3.0
85457.0
910 0.0
- - - - - - - -
-
DEPTI:
(km) _--__
3.0
7.3
3.0
7.3
3.0
7.3
7.3
7.3
3.0
7.3
4.0
7.3
7.3
3.0
7.3
3.5
6.5
5.8
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
5.0
5.8
3.0
3.0
7.3
6.5
6.5
3.5
7.3
7.3
3.5
7.3
3.0
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
6.5
3.0
5.8
7.3
7.3
7.3
6.8
7.1
6.8
3.0
7.3
7.1
7.3
7.1
6.8
5.8
7.1
7.1
3UAKE
MAG.
6.50
5.00
7.00
5.00
6.30
5.00
5.00
5.00
7.00
5.00
5.90
5.00
5.00
6.30
5.00
6.00
5.30
5.50
6.30
6.70
6.30
6.00
5.70
5.50
6.50
6.40
5.00
5.30
5.30
6.00
5.00
5.00
6.00
5.00
6.80
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.30
6.25
5.50
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.20
5.10
5.20
6.30
5.00
5.10
5.00
5.10
5.20
5.50
5.10
5.10
SITE
ACC .
g
0.373
0.033
0.013
0.003
0.009
0.003
0.046
0.022
0.026
0.003
0.049
0.022
0.022
0.008
0.007
0.015
0.005
0.005
0.018
0.023
0.017
0.007
0.030
0.006
0.010
0.025
0.004
0.006
0.004
0.008
0.011
0.011
0.024
0.008
0.037
0.008
0.009
0.002
0.017
0.003
0.017
0.015
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.002
0.021
0.005
0.006
0.005
0.006
0.009
0.009
0.006
0.006
--__--
- SITE
MM
INT .
IX
V
I11
I
I11
I
VI
IV
V
I
VI
IV
IV
111
I1
IV
I1
I sv
IV
IV
I1
V
I1
I11
V
I
I1
I
I11
111
SI1
V
I11
V
I11
I11
IV
I
IV
IV
I
-
- - -
I
;I
IV
I I
I1
I1
I1
I11
I11
I1
I1
APPROX.
DISTANCE
mi [kml -------____
5 [ 91
21 r 341
92 [ 1481
85 1371
86 [ 1381
85 [ 1371
16 [ 261
28 [ 461
65 [ 1051
85 [ 1371
26 [ 421
28 [ 461
89 [ 1431
58 941
52 [ 921
78 1261 .
86 [ 1381
60 [ 971
62 [ ,991
62 [ 1001
87 [ 1401
33 [ 531
78 [ 1261
86 [ 1381
52 841
77 [ 1231
71 1141
87 [ 1411
78 1261
44 [ 711
44 [ 711
44 [ 711
53 [ 861
49 791
54 [ 861
49 [ 791
96 [ 1541
34 [ 551
90 [ 1451
40 [ 641
64 1031
97 1 1561
96 [ 1541
97 1561
92 [ 1471
79 [ 1271
79 1271
99 [ 1601
55 [ 891
66 [ 1071
66 [ 1071
66 [ 1071
63 [ 1021
54 [ 871
62 [ 991
63 [ 1021
66 [ 1071
28 r 461
Page 2
c
FILE
CODE
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG - DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
DMG
PAS
PAS
PAS
_---
-
-
LAT .
NORTH
33.85C
33.75c
33.61;
33.782
32.083
34.10c
31.865
33.40E
33.695
32. OOC
32.00C
34.083
34.067
34.067
33.783
32.983
32.967
32.967
32.967
33.233
32.967
34.267
33.976
33.994
33 -217
33.000
33.950
34.017
34.017
34.017
34.017
32.500
33.933
32.200
32.200
33.117
33.117
32.983
32.817
32 - 950
33.283
33.283
33 -283
33.283
33.216
33.183
33.231
33.710
31.811
33.190
33.113
33.343
34.270
33.033
34.327
33.014
33.501
-----_
33. ooa
~ I LONG. 1 DATE
WEST 1
118.2671 3/11/1933
118.0831 3/13/1933
118.017 I 3/14/1933
118.1331 10/ 2/1933
116.6671 11/25/1934
116.800( 10/24/1935
116.5711 2/27/1937
116.261 I 3/25/1937
117.5111 5/31/1938
117.5001 5/ 1/1939
117.500) 6/24/1939
116.3001 5/18/1940
116.3331 5/18/1940
116.333) 5/18/1940
116.433) 6/ 4/1940
118.250 I 11/14/1941
115.9831 5/23/1942
116.0001 10/21/1942
116.000 I 10/21/1942
116.000( 10/21/1942
115.7171 10/22/1942
116.0001 10/22/1942
116.9671 8/29/1943
116.7211 6/12/1944
116.7121 6/12/1944
116.1331 8/15/1945
115.8331 1/ 8/1946
116.850l 9/28/1946
116.5001 7/24/1947
116.500) 7/25/1947
116.500l 7/25/1947
116.5001 7/26/1947
118.550l 2/24/1948
116.3831 12/ 4/1948
116.550) 11/ 4/1949
116.550 I 11/ 5/1949
115.5671 7/28/1950
115.5671 7/29/1950
115.733 I 1/24/1951
118.3501 12/26/1951
115.717 I 6/14/1953
116.183 I 3/19/1954
116.1831 3/19/1954
116.183 I 3/19/1954
116.183 I 3/23/1954
115.808 1 4/25/1957
115.850 I 4/25/1957
116.004 1 5/26/1957
116.925 I 9/23/1963
L17.131 I 12/22/1964
116.1291 4/ 9/1968
L16.0371 4/ 9/1968
116.3461 4/28/1969
117.5401 9/12/1970
L15.821 I 9/30/1971
116.445 I 3/15/1979
115.555 I 10/16/1979
L16.513 I 2/25/1980
TIME
(GMT)
H M Sec - - - - - _ _ _
1425 0.0
131828.0
19 150.0
91017.6
818 0.0
1448 7.6
12918.4
1649 1.8
83455.4
2353 0.0
1627 0.0
5 358.5
55120.2
72132.7
1035 8.3
84136.3
154729.0
162213.0
162519.0
162654.0
15038.0
181326.0
34513.0
104534.7
111636.0
175624.0
185418.0
719 9.0
221046.0
04631.0
61949.0
24941.0
81510.0
234317.0
204238.0
43524.0
175048.0
143632.0
717 2.6
04654.0
41729.9
95429.0
95556.0
102117.0
41450.0
215738.7
222412.0
155933.6
144152.6
205433.2
22859.1
3 353.5
232042.9
143053.0
224611.3
21 716.5
65842.8
104738.5
3EPTH
(km)
7.3
6.5
7.1
6.2
7.3
7.1
7.3
3.5
5.8
7.3
7.3
6.2
6.8
7 -3
7.1
6.2
7.3
3.0
7.3
7.3
5.8
7.3
5.8
7.1
6.5
5.0
6.2
7.3
5.8
7.3
6.8
7.1
6.5
3.0
5.0
7.1
6.2
5.8
5.4
4.0
5.8
3.0
7.3
5.8
7.1
6.8
7.1
7.3
7.3
5.4
3.0
6.8
4.5
6.2
7.1
6.8
5.8
5.8
_____
2UAKE
MAG.
5.00
5.30
5.10
5.40
5.00
5.10
5.00
6.00
5.50
5.00
5.00
5.40
5.20
5.00
5.10
5.40
5.00
6.50
5.00
5.00
5.50
5.00
5.50
5.10
5.30
5.70
5.40
5.00
5.50
5.00
5.20
5-10
5.30
6.50
5.70
5.10
5.40
S.50
5.60
5.90
5.50
6.20
5.00
5.50
5.10
5.20
5.10
5.00
5.00
5.60
6.40
5.20
5.80
5.40
5.10
5.20
5.50
5.50
--___.
SITE
ACC .
9
0.004
0.007
0.008
0.007
0.004
0.004
0.002
0.013
0.016
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.010
0.006
0.004
0.014
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.006
0.009
0.004
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.013
0.008
0.005
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.011
0.004
0.015
0.006
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.010
0.005
0.016
0.005
0.014
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.012
- - _ - _ - -
SITE
MM
INT .
I
I1
I1
I1
I
I
I11
IV
I
I
I
I
I11
I1
I
IV
I
I
I
I
I1
I1
I1
I11
I
I1
I1
I
I
I
I
I11
I1
I1
I
I
I
I11
I
IV
11
I11
I1
___.
r
1. I'
I
I11
I1
IV
I1
I11
I
I
I
I11
APPROX.
DISTANCE
mi Ikm]
79 [ 1271
66 [ 1071
57 [ 921
70 [ 1131
77 [ 1241
76 1221
93 1491
63 [ 1011
45 [ 731
--__----__-
75 [ 1211
75 [ 1211
89 [ 1431
87 [ 1401
87 [ 1401
42 [ 781
75 [ 1201
75 [ 1201
74 1191
74 [ 1191
74 1191
90 [ 1451
74 1191
84 [ 1351
70 [ 1121
71 [ 1141
66 [ 1071
83 [ 1341
65 [ 1051
79 [ 1271
79 1271
79 [ 1271
79 [ 1271
84 1361
78 [ 1261
73 1181
73 [ 1181
98 [ 1581
98 1581
89 [ 1431
65 [ 1051
90 [ 1451
64 [ 1031
64 1031
64 [ 1031
64 I 1031
85 [ 1371
82 [ 1321
74 [ 1191
48 [ 771
88 [ 1411
66 1071
71 [ 1151
56 [ 911
84 135)
84 [ 1351
99 [ 1591
99 [ 1601
53 851
c
c
Y
c
c
c
I-
-
c
Page 3
FILE
CODE
PAS
PAS
PAS
PAS
PAS
PAS
PAS
PAS
GSP
GSP
GS P
GSN
GSP
GS P
GSP
GSN
GSP
GSP
GSP
GSP
GSP
GSP
GSP
GS P
GSP
GSP
GSP
----
LAT .
NORTH
33.098
33.998
32.971
34.061
34.073
33.082
33.013
33.919
34.140
34.262
33.961
34.201
34.139
34.341
34.163
34.203
34.108
33.876
34.332
34.239
33.902
34.195
34.064
34 -340
34.369
34.029
34.268
_----_
LONG.
WEST - - - - - - -
115.632
116.606
117.870
118.079
118.098
115.775
115.839
118.627
117.700
118.002
116.318
116.436
116.431
116.529
116.855
116.827
116.404
116.267
116.462
116.837
116.284
116.862
116.361
116.900
116.897
116.321
116.402
******************a
DATE
. - - - - - - - - - - -
4/26/1981
7/ 8/1986
7/13/1986
10/ 1/1987
10/ 4/1987
11/24/1987
11/24/1987
2/28/1990
6/28/1991
4/23/1992
6/28/1992
6/28/1992
6/28/1992
6/28/1992
6/28/1992
6/29/1992
6/29/1992
7/ 1/1992
7/ 9/1992
7/24/1992
8/17/1992
9/15/1992
11/27/1992
12/ 4/1992
8/21/1993
6/16/1994
1/19/1989
'***********
TIME
(GMT)
H M Sec
12 928.4
92044.5
1347 8.2
144220.0
105938.2
15414.5
131556.5
65328.8
234336.6
144354.5
045023.0
115734.1
123640.6
124053.5
144321.0
150530.7
141338.8
160142.8
074029.9
014357.6
181436.2
204152.1
084711.3
160057.5
020857.5
014638.4
162427.5
- - - - - - - -
********(
-END OF SEARCH- 143 RECORDS F'OUND
)EPTI
(km)
5.c
5.4
6.5
4.c
6.5
4.5
3.5
7.3
6.8
6.2
2.9
3.0
7.1
6.8
6.5
3.0
6.2
6.8
6.2
6.5
7.3
6.5
6.8
6.5
6.5
7.3
7.3 ****
COMPUTER TIME REQUIRED FOR EARTHQUAKE SEARCH:
QUAKE
MAG.
5.70
5.60
5.30
5.90
5.30
5.80
6.00
5.00
5.20
5.40
6.10
7.60
5.10
5 .'20
5.30
6.70
5.40
5.20
5.40
5.30
5.00
5.30
5.20
5.30
5.30
5.00
5.00
------
******
SITE
ACC .
g
0.004
0.007
0.020
0.007
0.004
0.006
0.007
0.002
0.004
0.004
0.008
0.022
0.003
0.003
0.005
0.013
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.002
r******
0.4 minutes
- SITE
MM
CNT .
I
I1
IV
I1
I
I1
I1
I
I
I11 IV
I
I1
I11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
_--_
-
-
APPROX.
DISTANCE
mi [kml
95 [ 1521
36 [ 571
83 [ 1331
84 [ 1351
86 [ 1391
83 [ 1331
98 [ 1571
78 I 1251
92 [ 1481
82 [ 1321
91 1471
88 [ 1411
9.7 [ 1561 -
79 [ 1271
82 [ 1321
87 [ 1401
80 [ 1291
98 [ 1581
84 [ 1351
80 1291
81 1301
86 [ 1381
90 [ 1451
92 [ 1481
86 [ 1381
96 1551
-------_--_
74 [ 1201
MAXIMUM SITE ACCELERATION DURING TIME PERIOD 1800 TO 1998: 0.373g
MAXIMUM SITE INTENSITY (MM) DURING TIME PERIOD 1800 TO 1998: IX
MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE ENCOUNTERED IN SEARCH: 7.60
NEAREST HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKE WAS ABOUT 5 MILES AWAY FROM SITE.
NUMBER OF YEARS REPRESENTED BY SEARCH: 199 years
***************
TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH: 1800 TO 1998
LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME: 199 years
ATTENUATION RELATION: 2) Campbell (1991R) Horiz. - Deep Soil & Soft Rock *** TIME PERIOD OF EXPOSURE FOR PROBABILITY: 75 years
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE FOR ACCELERATION ____________________----------------------
0.011
0.021
0.031
0.041
0.051
0.061
0.071
0.081
0.091
0.101
0.111
0.121
0.131
0.141
0.151
0.161
0.171
0.181
0.191
0.201
0.211
0.221
0.231
0.241
0.251
0.261
0.271
0.29)
0.301
0.311
0.321
0.33 I
0.341
0.351
0.361
0.371
o.zel
37) 0.186
161 0.08C
61 0.03C
31 0.015
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005 11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 .0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
1) 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
11 0.005
RECURR .
INTERV .
years -------
5.378
12.438
33.167
66.333
199.000
199.000
199.000
199.000
199.000
199.000
199 .ooo
199.000
199.000
199.000
199.000
199.000
199.000
199 .ooo
199.000
199.000
199 .ooo
199 .ooo
199.000
199.000
199.000
199.000
199.000
199.000
199.000
199.000
199.000
199.000
199 .ooo
199 .ooo
199.000
199.000
199.000
in
0.5 y1
0.0888
--_---
0.0394
0.0150
0.0075
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0 - 0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
0.0025
D. 0025
D -0025
D. 0025
D. 0025
0.0025
D. 0025
D. 0025
D .0025
D .0025
D. 0025
0 .0025
D. 0025
0.0025
3.0025
3.0025
3.0025
3 - 0025
3.0025
3.0025
3.0025
COMPUTED PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
in
1 YI -----_
0.1697
0.0773
0.0297
0.0150
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050
0.0050 ------
in
10 yr
0.8442
0.5525
0.2603
0.1399
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
0 -0490
0.0490
0.0490
0.0490
__-__-
in
50 yr
0.9999
0.9820
0.7785
0.5294
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0,2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
0.2222
------
in
75 yr
1.0000
0.9976
0.8958
0.6772
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
D. 3140
0.3140
D. 3140
0.3140
0.3140
D. 3140
D. 3140
D.3140
D .3140
D.3140
0.3140
3 .-3140
3.3140
3.3140
3.3140
3.3140
3.3140
3.3140
3.3140
______
in
100 yr ------
I.. 0000
0.9997
0.9510
0.7785
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0 -3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0 -3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0.3950
0 -3950
0.3950
in
Yr
1.0000
0.9976
0.8958
0.6772
0.3140
0.3240
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0-3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
0.3140
D .3140
*** -----_
1~0.0~1 AVE.
IEXCEDJ #/yr
MAG.lTIMESlOCCUR.
__-_~_____(_~____
5.001 1431 0.719
5.501 511 0.256
6.001 261 0.131
6.501 101 0.050
7.001 31 0.015
7.501 11 0.005 -----____________
RECURR. I COMPUTED PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
INTERV. I in 1 in
years 10.5 yrJ 1 yr
1.39210.301810.5126
3.902(0.120310.2261
7.65410.063210.1225
19.900~0.0248~0.0490
66.333(0.007510.0150
199.000~0.0025~0.0050
_______(______I______
------__-_-__-_-_____
GUTENBERG & RICHTER RECURRENCE RELATIONSHIP:
a-value= 3.532
b-value= 0.740
c
c
c
in
10 yr ______
0.9992
0.9229
0.7292
0.3950
0.1399
0.0490 ______
beta-value= 1.705
in I in I in
50 yrl 75 yrllOO yr ______1_--_--1_____-
1.0000)1.0000~1.0000
1.0000~1.0000~1.0000
0.998510.999911.0000
0.918910.9769(0.9934
0.529410.677210.7785
0.222210.314010.3950
in
Yr
1.0000
1.0000
0.9999
0.9769
0.6772
0.3140
*** --____
. - - _ - _ _ -
c.
c
-
w I- Z 0 -=-
0 t-
0
U a3
cn w
N c -
m m
a
c
c
c
...
c
c
c
c
c
I.
c
t.
c 0 W
a
.8 I I .I
3
E t
I- o v)
0
c
c
c
c
N
N '6
B P
c
../ s
m m
N
N b
0 0 h
C
c
c
c
c
N
N
0 m
b
a
c
c
c
N L
c
c
c
c
N
N '6 p n
c
c
c
c
c
N L
7 m
o.
D
j ,P I;'! I Is
I I I
c
N
N 0
c
rn
n
c
c
c
c m P a
N c
0
.- ego a,m
I- -lx I I
c
W z
N c
N 8 2
i 0) L
ti
.- m
n 1
O
P .- P a
CY r
c. ....... ... .. .. I;\- ...::.>.
. ..,. -\..,
3:- m- 2-
-- .3 4
II y1 P
m n
V m L a I B E E
I
YI
e z
N
c
c-
c
:
P n
.- pz" e% n-,
cember31.1997,
Indud stress
ElastK: Cydical
Redudlon Stress
rd CSR
Total Densw. pd
0 41 lY(A18'0
0 S+004052*(A18'0 3
048)+0.001753'(A18'0 =IF(A18<DS13,0 65'
3048)"l 5)/(1- N18'($D$lO)*(A18'$
0 4177'(A10*0.3048~ D$ll)l($D$l3%D$ll
0 5+0 05729*A18'0 30 ).O 65'NW(SD$lO)Y
48- A187DS1 1)l($DS13*
FNL",J18* 0.006205'(A189 3048 $D$ll+(Al&
)"1.5+0 00121*(A180 $D$l3)3DS12))
c-
c
c
Factor
of
Safely
=IF(AlB<SD$I3,
"NL",M18/018)
c
Depth to oepvl to
oflayer of Layer Thkkness
TOP Bottom Law M~F,
(fo (fi) (fi) (fl ---
---- -~-
30 34 =B2EA28 =A28+(B2C
I
c
c
-
Law
satlement
(*)
=M28%28'12
=SUM(N26.N29)
c
e
.-
c
-
PrOjeCi
Job No.
Boring NO.
e,: s
$en =
XSTABL File: SNF 5-21-99 11:57
c
c
c
.......................................... * * XSTABL * * * Slope Stability Analysis * * using the * * Method of Slices *
* Copyright (C) 1992 A 95 * * *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * * MOSCOW, ID 83843, U.S.A. *
* All Rights Reserved * * *
* *
* Ver. 5.103 95 A 1387 * ..........................................
Problem Description : Skilled Nursing-Lateral Spread Blck .
4 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit
(ft) Below Segment No. (ft) (ft) (ft)
1 .o 100.0 236.0 100.0 2
2 236.0 100.0 298.0 124.0 1
3 298.0 124.0 964.0 132.0 1
4 964.0 132.0 1040.0 160.0 1
8 SUBSURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit
(ft) Below Segment No. (ft) (ft) (ft)
236.0
828.0
844.0
864.0 .o
760.0 .o
400.0
100.0
100.0
105.0
120.0
80.0
78.0
20.0
24.0
828.0
844.0
864.0
1040.0
760.0
828.0
400.0
760.0
100.0
105.0
120.0
120.0
78.0
100.0
24.0
78.0
c
c
c
c
c
c
4 soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water
Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf (deg) Ru (psf 1 No.
1 125.0 130.0 250.0 34.00 * 000 .o 1
2 125.0 130.0 500.0 .oo .ooo .o 1
3 125.0 130.0 250.0 30.00 .ooo .o 1
4 125.0 130.0 500.0 40.00 .ooo .o 1
1 Water surface(s1 have been specified
Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf)
Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points
..................................
PHREATIC SURFACE, ..................................
Point x-water y-water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 .oo 80.00
2 1040.00 80.00
---------------
BOUNDARY LOADS ---------------
1 load(s) specified
Load x-left x-right Intensity Direction
No. (ft) (ft) (psf 1 (deg)
1 780.0 870.0 400.0 .o
NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed
force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface.
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating sliding BLOCK surfaces, has been
specified.
The active and passive portions of the sliding surfaces
are generated according to the Rankine theory.
400 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
2 boxes specified for generation of central block base
Length of line segments for active and passive portions of
sliding block is 20.0 ft
Box x-left y-left x-right y-right Width
no. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ftl
1 236.0 80.0 640.0 80.0 20.0
2 650.0 80.0 900.0 80.0 20.0
The trial failure surface in question is
defined by the following 11 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
452.85
466.17
483.83
501.49
502.05
516.19
824.70
833.15
836.17
845.56
851.10
125.86
118.78
109.39
100.00
99.44
85.30
77.97
96.09
102.55
120.21
130.64
The trial failure surface in question is
defined by the following 11 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
282.77
299.16
316.82
323.57
337.71
350.39
895.25
903.70
912.15
913.65
919.75
118.10
109.39
100.00
93.25
79.11
71.79
80.54
98.66
116.79
120.00
131.47
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
* * * * * SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * * *
The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined
are displayed below - the most critical first
Failure surface No. 1 specified by 7 coordinate points
Point x-surf
No. (ft)
1 226.58
2 240.50
3 778.64
4 792.78
5 794.38
6 803.77
7 810.41
** Corrected JANBU FOS =
y-surf
(ft)
100.00
86.07
84.26
98.41
100.00
117.66
130.16
(PO factor = 1.034) 3.185 **
c
c
c
Failure surface No. 2 specified by 8 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
244.16
250.10
253.45
267.59
686.61
699.06
708.45
714.48
103.16
100.00
96.65
82.51
87.55
100.00
117.66
129.00
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 3.560 ** (Po factor = 1.037)
Failure surface No. 3 specified by 8 coordinate points
Point x- surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
236.23
236.39
246.96
664.12
678.26
683.76
693.15
699.08
100.09
100.00
89.43
80.36
94.50
100.00
117.66
128.82
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 3.601 ** (Po factor c 1.043)
Failure surface No. 4 specified by 8 coordinate points
Point x-surf y- surf
No. (ft) (ft)
243.10
248.26
259.29
783.79
784.49
798.57
807.96
814.63
102.75
100.00
88.97
84.42
85.92
100.00
117.66
130.21
** CorrectedJANBU FOS = 4.054 ** (Po factor = 1.034)
c
Failure surface No. 5 specified by 8 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 229.82
2 236.24
3 250.38
4 787.07
5 790.77
6 802.81
7 812.20
8 818.90
100.00
93.58
79.43
80.03
87.95
100.00
117.66
130.26
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 4.125 ** (Po factor = 1.036)
Failure surface No. 6 specified by 8 coordinate points
**
Point x-surf
No. . (ft)
1 259.24
2 276.15
3 278.06
4 292.21
5 790.73
6 801.29
7 810.68
8 817.37
Corrected JANBU FOS =
y-surf
(ft)
109.00
100.00
98.09
83.95
89.43
100.00
117.66
130.24
(Po factor = 1 4.852 **
Failure surface No. 7 specified by 8 coordinate points
Point x-surf y- surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 233.32 100.00
2 235.58 97.75
3 249.72 83.60
4 822.31 89.27
5 827.18 99.74
6 827.45 100.00
7 836.84 117.66
8 843.69 130.55
032)
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 5.027 ** (Po factor = 1.030)
Failure surface No. 8 specified by 10 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
245.49
252.40
258.98
273.12
273.30
808.19
811.81
817.05
826.44
833.23
103.67
100.00
93.42
79.28
79.18
87.00
94.76
100.00
117.66
130.43
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 5.042 ** (Po factor = 1.032)
Failure surface No. 9 specified by 8 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
256.64 107.99
271.67 100.00
281.81 89.86
708.83 84.86
722.98 99.01
723.97 100.00
733.36 117.66
739.55 129.30
** Corrected JANBU FOS = 5.440 ** (Po factor = 1.039)
Failure surface N0.10 specified by 8 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
259.77
277.07
278.74
292.89
726.80
740.05
749.44
755 -74
109.20
100.00
98.33
84.19
86.75
100.00
117.66
129.50
** Corrected JANBU POS c 5.702 ** (Po factor = 1.037)
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Skilled Nursing-Lateral Spread Blck
Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available
JANBU FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength
(ft) (ft) (lb)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
3.185
3.560
3.601
4.054
4.125
4.852
5.027
5.042
5.440
5.702
1.034
1.037
1.043
1.034
1.036
1.032
1.030
1.032
1.039
1.037
226.58
244.16
236.23
243.10
229.82
259.24
233.32
245 -49
256.64
259.77
* * * END OF FILE * * *
810.41 3.3323+05
714.48 2.6943+05
699.08 2.6483+05
814.63 3.5503+05
818.90 4.831E+05
817.37 3.3511+05
843.69 5.1733+05
833.23 4.8831+05
739.55 2.8613+05
755.74 2.9713+05
PRESENTATION OF CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
LA COSTA GLEN
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
San Diego, California
Prepared by:
GREGG IN SITU, INC.
Signal Hill, California
Prepared on:
January 12,2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- 1 .O INTRODUCTION
2.0 FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES c
3.0 CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION c
APPENDIX
- CPT Plots - Interpretation Chart - Interpretation Output - Pore Pressure Dissipation Plots - References - Computer Diskette with ASCII Files
PRESENTATION OF CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA
1 .O INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a Cone Penetration Testing (CPT) program carried out
at the La Costa Glen site located in Carlsbad, CA. The work was performed on January 7,
2000. The scope of work was performed as directed by LEIGHTON 8t ASSOCIATES
personnel.
2.0 FIELD EQUIPMENT & PROCEDURES
The Cone Penetration Tests (CPT) were carried out by GREGG IN SITU, INC. of Signal
Hill, CA using an integrated electronic cone system. The CPT soundings were performed
in accordance with ASTM standards (D3441). A 10 ton capacity cone was used for all of
the soundings. This cone has a tip area of 10 sq.cm. and friction sleeve area of 150
sq.cm. The cone is designed with an equal end area friction sleeve and a tip end area
ratio of 0.85.
The cones used during the program recorded the following parameters at 5 cm depth
in t e rva I s :
- Tip Resistance (Qc) - Sleeve Friction (Fs) - Dynamic Pore Pressure (Ut)
The above parameters were printed simultan
diskette for future analysis and reference.
usly n a printer and stored on a computer
The pore water pressure element was located directly behind the cone tip. The pore water
pressure element was 5.0 mm thick and consisted of porous plastic. Each of the elements
were saturated in glycerin under vacuum pressure prior to penetration. Pore pressure
dissipations were recorded at 5 second intervals when appropriate during pauses in the
penetration.
A complete set of baseline readings was taken prior to each sounding to determine
temperature shifts and any zero load offsets. Monitoring base line readings ensures that
the cone electronics are operating properly.
The cones were pushed using GREGG IN SITU'S CPT rig, having a down pressure
capacity of approximately 25 tons. Seven CPT soundings were performed to depths of
approximately 30 to 60 feet below ground surface. Test locations and depths were
determined in the field by LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES personnel.
GREGG IN SITU, INC.
January 12,2000
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
La Costa Glen
Carlsbad, CA
3.0 CONE PENETRATION TEST DATA & INTERPRETATION
The cone penetration test data is presented in graphical form in the attached Appendix.
Penetration depths are referenced to existing ground surface. This data includes CPT logs
of measured soil parameters and a computer tabulation of interpreted soil types along with
additional geotechnical parameters and pore pressure dissipation data. -
The stratigraphic interpretation is based on relationships between cone bearing (Qc),
sleeve friction (Fs), and penetration pore pressure (Ut). The friction ratio (Rf), which is
sleeve friction divided by cone bearing, is a calculated parameter whieh is used to infer soil
behavior type. Generally, cohesive soils (clays) have high friction ratios, low cone bearing
and generate large excess pore water pressures. Cohesionless soils (sands) have lower
friction ratios, high cone bearing and generate little in the way of excess pore water
c
-
- pressures.
Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT's) were taken at various intervals in order to
measure hydrostatic water pressures and approximate depth to groundwater table. In
addition, the PPDT data can be used to estimate the horizontal permeability (k,,) of the soil.
The correlation to permeability is based on the time required for 50 percent of the
measured dynamic pore pressure to dissipate (so). A summary of the PPDT data is
provided in Table 2. The PPDT plots and correlation figure are provided in the Appendix.
-
-
The interpretation of soils encountered on this project was carried out using recent
correlations developed by Robertson et al, 1998. It should be noted that it is not always
possible to clearly identify a soil type based on Qc, Fs and Ut. In these situations,
experience and judgement and an assessment of the pore pressure dissipation data
should be used to infer the soil behavior type. The soil classification chart used to interpret
soil types based on Qc and Rf is provided in the Appendix.
-
c
We hope the information presented is sufficient for your purposes. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (562) 427-6899. c
Sincerely,
c GREGG IN SITU, INC.
c
Brian Savela
Operations Manager -
APPENDIX
GREGG IN SITU, INC.
I - Geotechnical and Environmental In Situ Testing Contractors
THE PIEZO CONE PENETROMETER
Triaxial Geophones I
or Accelerometer
Inclinometer (I)
Thermistor (T)
Friction Sleeve (Fs)
Pore Pressure Transducer (U)
Cone TIP (Q,)
The electrical piezocone (CPTU) is the
premier soil logging tool. The CPTU provides a rapid, reliable and
economic means of determining soil
stratigraphy, relative density, strength
and equilibrium groundwater pressures.
Gregg In Situ offers a choice of 2.5, 5,
10 and 15 ton tip (Qc) capacity cones.
Our cones also have variable capacity
friction sleeves (Fs) and pore pressure (U). The pore pressure can be
measured at one of 2 locations, either
on the face of the cone tip or behind
the cone tip. Pore pressure
dissipation data is recorded
automatically.
-
All data is displayed in real time at the ground surface, facilitating the on site decision making process. Field data
reduction, plotting and CPT
interpretation can be carried out upon
request.
t II I Geotechnical and Environmental In Situ Testing Contractors
Los Angeles San Francisco Houston Aiken
Vancouver Edmonton Salt Lake City New Jersey
Tel: (562)427-6899 9 Fax: (562)427-3314 E-mail: j-lling.com
Gregg In Situ
I Environmental and Ceotechnical Site investigation Contractors
Gregg In Situ CPT Interpretations as of January 7,1999 (Release 1.00.19)
Gregg In Situ's interpretation routine should be considered a calculator of current published CPT
correlations and is subject to change to reflect the current state of practice. The interpreted values are
not considered valid for all soil types. The interpretations are presented only as a guide for geotechnical
use and should be carefully scrutinized for consideration in any geotechnical design. Reference to
current literature is strongly recommended.
The CPT interpretations are based on values of tip, sleeve friction and pore pressure averaged over a
user specified interval (typically 0.25m). Note that Qt is the recorded tip value, Qc, corrected for pore
pressure effects. Since all Gregg In Situ cones have equal end area friction sleeves, pore pressure
corrections to sleeve friction, Fs, are not required.
The tip correction is: Qt = Qc + (1-a) Ud
where: Qt is the corrected tip load
Qc is the recorded tip load
Ud is the recorded dynamic pore pressure
a is the Net Area Ratio for the cone (typically 0.85 for Gregg In Situ cones)
Effective vertical overburden stresses are calculated based on a hydrostatic distribution of equilibrium
pore pressures below the water table or from a user defined equilibrium pore pressure profile (this can be
obtained from CPT dissipation tests). The stress calculations use unit weights assigned to the Soil
Behavior Type zones or from a user defined unit weight profile.
Details regarding the interpretation methods for all of the interpreted parameters is given in table 1. The
appropriate references referred to in table 1 are listed in taMe 2.
The estimated Soil Behavior Type is based on the charts developed by Robertson and Campanella
shown in figure 1.
Table 1 CPT Interpretation Methods
Averaged sleeve friction (Fs)
................... Averaged dynamic
............
............
.............
CPT Interpretations
c
c
c
U .w.
TStress
...................... EStress
ueq
......................
Cn
...................... NC30
...................... (Nl)ao
4N1 )so
......................
.......................
~~oaoe8
su
k
...................... 89
...................... Rh
..................... SBTn
..................... Qcl
...................... Qcl N
Unit Weight of soil determined frorn:
1 ) uniform value or 2) value assigned to each SBT zone
3) user supplied unit weight profile
Total vertical overburden stress at mid layer depth
Effective vertiil overburden stress at mid layer depth
Equilibrium pore pressure determined from: ......................................................................................................................................
1) hydrostatic from water table depth
2) user supplied profile
SPT Nsa overburden correction factor
....................................................................................................................................... SPT N value at 60% energy calculated from QUN ratii assigned to each SBT zone
SPT Nm value COITeded for mrburden pressure .......................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................. Equivalent Clean Sand Conection to (Nib
Equivalent Clean sand (N 1 )eo
........................................... .......................................................................................... Coeffident of permeabili (assigned to each SBT mne)
....................................................................................................................................... NormaczedQtforsoilBehaviorTypedassihcationssdefmedby Robertson, 1990
N~~~~aliied Rf for Soil Behavior Type dassification as defined by Robertson, 1990
Normalized Soil Behavior Type (slightly modi from that publikhed by Robertson, 1990. This version indudes all the soil zones of the original
non-normalii SBT chart - see sure 1)
.......................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
Normalized Qt for seismic anatysls
...................................................................................................................................... Dimensionless Normalized Qtl
TStress = Cy , h,
where
r.1
fi is layer unit weight
hi is layer thickness
................................................................................ LBtress = ntress - Ueq
.............. ..~B". .........................................................
Cn=(a,') where ui'isinkf
0.5 c C" c 2.0 .................................................................................
- ................................................................................. Nleo = Cn Neo
................................................................................. Y
where: Kspr is defined as:
0.0 for FC < 5%
0.5 for FC > 35% 0.0167*(FC-5) for 5%<FC<35%
FC - Fines Content in %
(Nl)ea.=(Nl)a + A(N1)SO
Au Bq=-
@-uv
U"
................................................................................ e=---;- €3-U"
f* rpsl = IW! 0 - et-0.
qd = qc (Pa/0;)0.5 where: Pa = atm. pressure
qclN = qcl I Pa where: Pa = ah. pressure
................................................................................
.....
.......
.......
.......
........ 3
....... 3
7 .......
....... 7
2 .......
........ 6
2
4
.......
.......
....... 4
....... 4
....... 5
.......
CPT Interpretations
AQclN1
........................ I Qcl Ncs
Equivalent clean sand correction
...................................................................................................................................... I Clean Sand equivalent Qcl N
.................................................................................................................. oil index for estimating grain characteristics
.............................................................................................................................. Fines content (%)
.................... .............................................
............................................
.-.-.-.-.-.- ..... ...................-.............-........ - -. ...............-.-....-.....-.....................-.......-.-.-.......-....... 1 %&- 1 Cydic Resistance Ratio ...............................................................................................................................................................
AqclN = qclN
1 - KCPI
Where: Kcm is defined as:
0.0 for FC c 5%
0.5 for FC > 35% 0.0267 (FC - 5) for 5% < FC c 35%
FC - Fines Content in %
................................................................................ qclNcs = qclN + AqclN
...................................................... 'L..5' ......... IC = [(3.47 - IogCf+&g F + 1.22) f
..................... J.2s' ..................................................... FC=1.75(7~ ) - 3.7
FC=lOO fork > 3.5 FC=O fork < 1.26 K: = 5% if 1.64 c Ic c 2.6 AND WncO.5
Campanella and Robertson DUNIKI~~U and Miichel
.................................................................................
Janbu Tiam sand
- ................................................................................
H~kk~~ndSand Schmettmann 1976 Jam!!?!!EE!!.rA!!.Sand.? ....................................
- 5
....... 5
5
8
.......
.......
....... 1
........ 1
........ 1
9
7
.......
....... ....... -
CPT Interpretations
Non-Normalized Classification Chart
'0 i 2 3 i 5 6 7 8
FrictionRatio (%), Rf
1
b z
Figure 1 Non-Normalized and Normalized Soil Behavior Type Classification Charts
c
F
c
c
c
No. - 1
............. 2
............. 3
............. 4
............. 5
............. 6
7 .............
............. 8
9 .............
..... I.x.-.
CPT interpretations
Table 2 References
Reference
Robertson, P.K and Campanella, R.G., 1986, 'Guidelines for Use, Interpretation and Application of the CPT and CPTU", UBC, Soil Mechanics Series No. 105, CMl Eng. Dept., Vancower. B.C.,
Canada
............................................................................................................................................................................................. Robertson. P.K., Campanella, R.G.. Gillespie, D. and Greig, J., 1986, 'Use of Piezometer Cone Data', Proceedings of InSi 86, ASCE Specialty Conference, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G., 1989, 'Guidelines for Geotechnical Design Using CPT and CPTU", UBC, Soil Mechanics Series No. 120, CMl Eng. Dept., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
, P.K., 1990, "Soil Classification Using the Cone Penetration T&, Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, Volume 27.
.............................................................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................... Robertson, P.K and Fear, C.E., 1995, 'Lquefactiin of Sands and its EvaWiB. Keymte Lecture, First International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Tokyo, Japan.
............................................................................................................................................................................................. Gregg In Situ Internal Report
............................................................................................................................................................................................. Robertson, P.K. and Wride, C.E., 1997, 'Cyclic LqueWon and Rs Evaluation Based tn'i SPT and CPT",
NCEER Workshop Paper, January 22,1997
............................................................................................................................................................................................. Wride, C.E. and Robertson, PK, 1997, 'Phase II Data Review Report (Massey and Kidd Sites, Fraser
Plewes, H.D., Davies, M.P. and Jeff-. M.G., 1992, 'CPT Based Screening Mure for Evaluating
.......................-. River Delta). x.-.. . .I Volume x.- 1 - .............- Data Report ........ (June 1997), UniVerrity of Alberta. - I. ~----.-.x ~....x.-.x..~.~ .
Liquefaction Susceptibility", 45th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Tmb. Ontario,
October 1992. -.-.-.-..... - .... x ..... -.-- - ......................... - ........................... _.-.-- .... --.-.- ................. -.--.-.---.--,.-...
c
c
c
c
c
0
0
0 0- m
0- ( 0 4 I
c c 0 Lo I
0 (D I
c
c
c
c
c
c
1-
0
m
0
0
..........................
OO hh-: (
...........................
! 0 0 FJ m I I
c
c
c
c
c
c
v 8
'5 L4
0 4
F
8 ............................................................ ........................................... -.
3
v) 0
E 53
Lo CJ -
_ .................................. ; ................................... > ................................... ; ................................... i ................................... ...................................
- ............................. 0-- I ViU _ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
0
Ln-
..........................................
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
PJ -4
0
I h
.............................................
0 '".''.'.'
\U
0
.................................................
0
0 0 m
0 0 0 (
-4 ( I
................................
0 Lo I
c
c
c
c
Z w J c3 Lo
+-I-
00 0
ai
cnn
..
6 -.IC 0 .. 4.l
0
U
c
CJ
0
c
c
c
-
_ .................................. ; ................................... ; ................................... ; ..........................................................................................................
7 ..................................................................................................................................................................................................
c
CJ 4
0-
0
0
0
0 0 03
0 0 0 0 0 0 I
4 C.J 03 T m I I I I I I
c
L-
c
c
c
c
c
c
m m
00
Z w
_I (.!I n
+I- ai
ma 00 0 ..
.. rf *-'
0
0
I I I I
I-
-
c
CPT Classification Chart
(after Robertson and Campanella, 1988)
1000
a, S 00 10
1. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
FridionRatio (%), Rf
Gregg In Sa, inc
m 4
.. a 0) m a
000 000 000
000 ...
0
W N
.. h E
~~OOOOOOrnrnwOrnN~hahNN~ ICY ,~000000NNm00"0Ndd-4d ,CY ,u I ,00000000000000000000
LO
WI QI -r00000000000000000000 m~o-c~oooooooooooooooooooo E I I=J~~00000000000000000000 wtn I
at sg
u: 0
~~~~;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ LE I
,(uv), .................... u Lc,~00000000000000000-I-l3
7 m >
c, e
E
z c,
m
c, m L 0 W
m
d00w100rnm0hmN~0-4-lwrn00
00000d0d0-44~dNNN4dNN .....................
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
n 4
.. 2A m a
000 000 000 ... 000
Ih
0000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000 ......................
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 ,a I ......................................
IU ,wdddddddddddddddddwdwdddddddddwwddwwww
10 ;
c
c
c
m d
V 2
0 0
d
000 000 000
000 ...
~oooooooowr.wamLnmNodr.Lnwm *M ~oooooooom~d.-iddNNRImmmm-t ,e , ......................
Iu ~0000000000000000000000
oooo1owom wO-4-a-4-awmOb*NO
NNNN~.-i4-i.-i.-i44.-id4dddOOOO
ooooabw~$mmN.-i.-ioooornrnmm ......................
0000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000
~~~~o~now~~r-.w~wwwwaamoo~ , ......................
',I,*,,, ~ooododoooooooooooooddd
c
.. aJ m
a m
.. 10000000000000000000000 10000000000000000000000
.I - .r 0 I VIS I -3, I
E v 000 B ...................... -,ac :m ~oooooooooooooooooooooo
c
c
c
c
~OmOcn*NdwOONwmNW0m00ooo.+cnoooo Ict ~OmOmdddOOdddmNNOm00ooo*.+oooo ,e , ............................ mu ~0000000000000000000000000000
c
c
c
c
c
c
~OOOOOOOOO*OOcuOO~OrT)~OOOO*OrT)rT)cu 10000000000000000000000000000
10000000000000000000000000000 I ............................
,II,JIIIII,IIIIII,I
P
c
c
u 2
0 0
~oooooood.-ir.oowwwo4mwLnm* ILL ~0000000~~~00044NN44Nd0 ,fx I ......................
10 10000000000000000000000
c
c
c
c
L
c
.. tA rrr n
c
c
10000000000000000000000 10000000000000000000000
~0000000000000000000000 I ......................
c
c
c
c
c
c
~~m~~~w~~~~~wm~~~m~~oomoooo #CY ~ONdNdddNN~~AdddNNN*00d0000 ,e I ..........................
IU 100000000000000000000000000
a 0 amm~owhmm~mmcu~.-4~oommmw~~~a wwmww~hh~h~h~hhhh~awawaww~ ...... ....... ........ 00000000000000000000000000
0 0 0 0 0000 0000 N 0 d d om cucu a cu mcutn cum0 wk-i .*m ;?; ..........................
~342~00000000000000000000000000
c
c
c
.. 8 m a
Lh =?.5
I
~OOOOOOOOOO4OO4Nc)mmc)mN**N*m '00000000000000000000000000
'00000000000000000000000000 I ..........................
IIIJI4IIIIIII
c
c
c
c
c
-.
c
a d
h E v
c, s E g ....
Y
L aJ -7 >s L <an
~0000uJ~0N~~wOw0cnrnNcnuJedm na hms ~oooocnr.u~rn ~~~d-~ooocncnmmw c,;" I ...................... ala
~NNNcuddddddddddddd00000 -I ma .r 4
LO
Q)t c11 -~oooooooooooooooooooooo 0-Y- ~0000000000000000000000 ~~~~~oooooooooooooooooooo~o
000000000
du)44d4444 .........
c
c
.. al OY
a m
c
c
c
I
U m 4
0 0
S 0
~0000000000000000000000 ~0000000000000000000000
~0000000000000000000000 I ......................
c
c
c
c
c
~c3~~~~mm~mowmw~~~~ac300000
tu ;oooooooooooooooooooooooo
#rY ~dddd~d4ddmmddddddNNooooo ,e , ........................
c
c
c
c
c
n N
.. aJ m m n
4,
WI mn N! ~OOOO4OOOOd4dNOOONN~NNONN ~000000000000000000000000
~000000000000000000000000 I ........................
S11111111111,II
c
c
c
c
a ,-I
.. 0, m a n
V m 4
0 0
h !z m w
a,
h c,
7 m .r L a, c, P
a, r c,
L 8
P, r a >
c, 0
5
t! a
c,
r a m W 3 c,
~OOOOOOOOOwOO-aIDNr9dr.wmoul ICT ~OOOOOOOOONOON444444NO* ,a , ...................... mu 10000000000000000000000
niOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO IJC 10000000000000000000000 a,v), ...................... ~c,~0000000000000000000000 VI
c
c
h ti
a Q
h c,
a
L a c,
-
.r
E
a E
c,
L 0 e
U
m
.r
l-
'!
n 4
.. a m a a
I
V 2
0 0
..
~0000000000000000000000 *oooooooooooooooooooooo
'0000000000000000000000 I ......................
n E
c, S a E
vu .. r .... auu -a uu
m 3 STT I- .rc,C, c, ma a LA mxx
~smn~nn
v
.. Z?
nv) mo o
a,z L U a, .r lv 3 >L L
.C
~mrnNOONNu3bulul000m~00Nomooooooo 8W ~NdmNNmmN~db000NN00N000000000 ,p1 I ............................
IV ~0000000000000000000000000000
w s
.r 1
...........
.. aJ cn Io n -
c
10000000000000000000000000000 :E :AAdAA~A~ddddddddddddddmdd~d~
10 ;
u- L?5
.-
~OOOOOOOOOOO,-l~dNNN~mNNm*mmdN* 10000000000000000000000000000
:00000000000++0++000000000000 ,III,IIIII,
c
c
m .-i
.. aJ rn m a
V
4
0 0
m
0
N 0
..
h E
~ooooooooooooooo*o*rrowrJ IC% ~OOOOOOOOOOOOOO*.-iNNNo.-i4 ,& I ...................... nu 10000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000 ......................
004cucu,,a~~~~~~~~s~~r~~ ocnLnowNw ............ .... .... ooooooooooooooooo4.-i4.-i4
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
.. a, rn
m n-
c
c
000 000 000
000 ... ,0000000000000000000000 10000000000000000000000
10000000000000000000000 , ......................
c
c
c
~ooooo~~~o~~~w~~~mm~mo~ 4m ~OOOOO4dNNNd~ddN400000N 4m , ...................... *u 10000000000000000000000
m 4
-. VI
..
u:
o~P3:0000o00ooooooooooooooo
I
La I
-7 t 4JW I raw I miw I 'I
al m d
0 0
d
c
000 I 000 I 000 I
000 t
. ..I
.. - E v
I ..
4-
IV I .. 'E
I wu vv-
c
c
0000000000000000000000
4 dd 0. A A A A A A A 0 A =-A A 4' A A Ui m.4. A 16 \d ICT IV '0
..
c
c
c
.-
lnL a0 s+ 0 NU aJ
aJ 2
0 0
-u s -c ax s3 00
L urn 000 000 000 ... ..
~OOOOOOd~4Odd~4ddN~Ncud~ ~0000000000000000000000
~0000000000000000000000 I ......................
,,I ,11111111111
h E v 000
c
c
c
c
I wwo(3oooo Icr lN"NOOOO ,e I ........ mu ~00000000
c
c
c
N I-. N ? m N .$! ZA cf 0 u
0-4 wm i&
c
c
c
c
1
c
c
.- ._ I
-.
I ........
OIIIIIII toooooooo
Y ..- 4
DWne - Depth of Cone
hater - Depth to Water Table
hater - Head of Water
U
U. - equilibrium pore pressure
0
Water Table Calculation
Dwater = hone - Hwater
where Hwater = Ue (depth units)
Useful Conversion Factors: 1psi = 0.704m = 2.31 feet (water)
1 tsf = 0.958 bar = 13.9 psi
Im = 3.28feet
Cregg In Situ, Inc.
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
0 N ..
In QUI =0
LrnrnrnI =I*rnQN I =0 I' u .. .. ..
.r( .. ..
O U 0 0 W a r 0 U G
z
L
# #
H
W U 3 # # W
L
W U 0 L
a
0 I 0 0 I I
0
-0 0 *
0
-0 0 m
0
-0 0 N
.
0
-0 Q I
0
0 -.
(5 U x
WE
Y
U I-
0 N I
c
L
c
c
A CI QI m
W E
c
Y
W
REFERENCES
Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G. and Wightman, A., 1983 "SPT-CPT Correlations",
Journal of the Geotechnical Division, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. GTI 1, Nov., pp. 1449-
1460.
Robertson, P.K. and Wride C.E., 1998 "Evaluating Cyclic Liquefaction Potential Using The
Cone Penetration Test", Journal of Geotechnical Division, Mar. 1998, pp. 442-459.
Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Grieg, J., 1986, "Use of
Piezometer Cone Data", Proceedings of In Situ 86, ASCE Specialty - Conference,
Blacksburg, Virginia.
Robertson, P.K. and Campanella, R.G., 1988, "Guidelines for Use, Interpretation and
Application of the CPT and CPTU", UBC, Soil Mechanics Series No. 105, Civil Eng.
Dept., Vancouver, B.C., V6T 1W5, Canada; also available from Hogentogler and
Co., P.O. Box 385, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, 3rd Edition, 197 pp.
Robertson, P.K., Campanella, R.G., Gillespie, D. and Rice, A., 1986, "Seismic CPT to
Measure In Situ Shear Wave Velocity", Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE,
Vol. 112, NO. 8, pp. 791-803.
c
c
l
'
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 cv 0 00 co Tf cv
~
0 co
0 rn
0 Tr
c, a, a,
0-
Q
rc
c.>5
8
0 N
0
7
0
c
March 7,2000
LAW
LAWGIBB Group Member A
Mr. Justin Wilson
Continuing Life Communities, L.L.C.
800 Morningside Drive
Fullerton, California 92835
Subject: Peer Review of Liquefaction Analyses
La Costa Glen Skilled Nursing Facility
Carlsbad, California
LAWCRANDALL Project 70300-0-0007
OSHPD Project 88-992077-37
Dear Mr. Wilson:
This letter presents the results of our peer review of the liquefaction studies performed by Leighton
and Associates (Leighton) for the La Costa Glen Skilled Nursing Facility project. The purpose of
our review was to evaluate the liquefaction studies performed by Leighton for conformance with
industry standards. Our services consisted of the following:
0 An independent calculation of the Upper Bound Earthquake (UBE) ground
motion;
0 An independent liquefaction analysis based upon field work and laboratory testing
performed by Leighton including, but not limited to, additional field work and
laboratory testing requested by us; and
0 A peer review of the liquefaction analyses performed by Leighton provided in the
draft report dated February I 1, 2000 entitled “Supplemental Geotechnical
Investigation for the Skilled Nursing and Maintenance Facilities, Green Valley,
C.T. 92-08, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 4960 134-003”.
0 A brief letter report summarizing our review, conclusions, analyses and
recommendations.
The information in this letter represents professional opinions that have been developed using that
degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable
geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or
implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this letter. The work performed by
LAWCRANDALL was be based upon field work and laboratory performed by Leighton and
Associates. Accordingly, Leighton and Associates is the geotechnical consultant of record for this
project.
Estimated Peak Ground Acceleration
Ground motions were postulated corresponding to the UBE, having a 10% probability of
exceedence during a 100-year time period. The site-specific peak ground acceleration for the UBE
was estimated by a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) using the computer program
FRISKSP, Version 3.0 1 b. The peak ground acceleration was developed using the ground motion
attenuation relations for a type “C” site classification discussed in Boore, et al (1993). The
estimated peak ground acceleration for the UBE is 0.4 1 g.
c
Cyntinuing Lfe Communities, L. L.C.
La Costa Glen Skilled Nursing Faciliw, Carlsbad. CA
Peer Review ofLiquefaction Analyses
March 7. 2000 LAWCRANI)AI.I. Project 70300-0-0007
Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction potential is greatest where the groundwater level is shallow, and submerged loose,
fine sands occur within a depth of about 50 feet or less. Liquefaction potential decreases as grain
size and clay and gravel content increase. As ground acceleration and shaking duration increase
during an earthquake, liquefaction potential increases.
Based on the field work performed by Leighton, the groundwater beneath the site was measured at
depths between 30 and 39% feet below the existing grade. The natural soils below the water level
consist of sand, silty sand, sandy silt, and clayey silt, underlain by bedrock material consisting of
clayey siltstone and silty claystone apparently of the Del Mar Formation.
For evaluation of the liquefaction potential, we computed the peak ground acceleration (PGA) for
the ground motion with a 10% probability of exceedence is 100 years. This ground motion, which
is designated as the UBE is corrected to be compatible with a Magnitude 7.3 earthquake. The PGA
of the Magnitude 7.5-compatible UBE was computed probabilistically using the program
FRISKSP. The PGA computed in this manner for the subject site is 0.3 lg.
We have evaluated the liquefaction potential of the soils underlying the site using the Magnitude
7.5 compatible UBE peak ground acceleration and the results of the Cone Penetrometer Tests
(CPTs) performed by Leighton. The water level was assumed to be 30 feet for this analysis. The
liquefaction potential was computed as given in the Youd and Idriss, 1997 (NCEER Technical
Report 97-0022) consensus publication on liquefaction evaluation. The results indicate that the site
has a potential for liquefaction in some of the granular natural soil deposits in the event of the UBE
level ground motion.
Based on the results of the CPTs and our engineering analyses, it is our opinion that some of the
medium dense sand, silty sand and sandy silt layers in CPTs 1, 3, and 6 could be subject to
liquefaction in the event of a major earthquake occurring on a nearby fault. Based on the factors of
safety obtained, and the thicknesses of the layers, we have estimated the liquefaction-induced
settlement could be on the order of 1 to 1 'A inches.
Peer Review
We have reviewed the liquefaction analyses provided in the February 11, 2000 Leighton report.
Based on our review, it appears that Leighton has use the predicted (N1)60 values from the CPT
results for their determination of liquefaction potential. This approach can be considered very
conservative because it does not fully account for soil type which a CPT based analysis would
reveal. We have evaluated the soil profile in CPTs 2, 4, and 5 to be non-liquefiable because of the
soil types. This is probably the difference between our two analyses. However, we are in agreement
with the magnitude of total seismic settlement estimated by Leighton in the event of the UBE level
ground motion. We are also in agreement with the estimated magnitude of differential settlement,
1 inch in a horizontal distance of 50 feet (angle of distortion of 1/600).
Cwtinuing Llfe Communities, L. L.C. La Costa Glen Skilled Nursing Facility. Carlsbad, CA
Peer Review of Liquefaction Analyses
March 7. 2000
LA WCRANIMLI. Project 70300-0-0007
We trust this information meets your needs. It has been a pleasure to be of professional service to
you on this project. Please call if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
LAWCRANDALL
A Division of Law Engineering and En- ices. Inc. -
Brh E. Crystal, P.E.
Project Engineer - -
g:/eng/prj/Continuing L fe Communiti
(2 copies submitted)
cc: (1) MHPBole & Wilson
Attn.: Mr. Frank Bole
(1) KTGY Group
Attn.: Mr. Ken Mode
(3) Leighton and Associates
Am.: Mr. Joseph Franzone
Marshall Lew, Ph.D., G.E.
Corporate Consultant
Vice President
-