HomeMy WebLinkAbout2331 CARLSBAD VILLAGE DR; ; 86-390-W; PermitDECLARATIONSLENDERWORKER S COMPENSATION OWNER/BUILDER CONTRACTORl r gD • 3-^3 ?'§3 3 — 35 2 * D01 i CL=; H ^«Or1!isQ L^S|H 3JJ(•ftr)C1C
c
<
cc
crCc
F
C
^
<
1
i
cc
T)
IOZrn
aISTRUCTION WHETHER SPECfFIED HEREIN OR NOT I AL£KEED HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL L0 AGREE TO SAVE INDEMt>ABILITIES JUDGMENTS CO£o5i?E CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE COFY UNDER PENALTY OF PEPJUFARATIONS ARE TRUE AND CORRED TO COMPLY WITH ALL CITY CvlPLETEO APPLICATION AND PbRMITY THAT ALL INFORMATION HEREONCT AND 1 FURTHER CERTIFY AND AGR,OUN1Y AND STATE LAWS GOVERNIWC Tl Oo
i o a •* </• m <
i\i
$*
^o
zm
a
ooz-1
o-1o
) 1
c •<
\ x>Expiralion Every perrm! issuedCode shall eipire by iimiiation aauthorized by such permit is notpermit or if the building or we*• at i erS_ c 3 <t ft
" 53S ffl
' S £ 3 -
! S * 3 ^; a. ^c_ta
Blunder thevoid II the80 dayslrorrucn permilirovtstonsoMfiiS>uilding or workIhedateol suchs suspended or*N OSMA PERM T IS REQUIREDD DEEP AND DEMOLITION OTRUCTURES OVER 3 STOflPESI*FOR EXCAVATIONS OVEHR CONSTRUCTION OFIN MEH3HTr-
o
TOTAL FEES PAYABLEV/^CREDIT DEPOSIT*
snTJ
\
C31Oc;TJ -oOoo REMODEL ALTtR PER CIRCUIT-n-n
fa
o
ID
TD
r~
Om
Z
m
H
X
<=>o
CD
CO EXIST BLOC EA AMP/SW!,'BKRGARAGE-n
-n
TJTl
1
oofl—1
-H
-n
CO
O
o
inOinm1-cb33
n
3D
O
33—1
~n
LJ
CO
O
OO
<Z>
CO
O-iELECTRICAL PERMIT ISSUE\J\
O
H
MOBILE HOME SETUPT?
"5
tn
O
-nm
eno
o
oo
oo
CD
o 10TAI P[ UMBINLTOTAL MECHANICALc:
DJ
-n
m
C/5
-n
m
o
ocu
Co
o
-n
-a
C/l
oo
CO
o
oCJ
oo
CO
Tlo3133OON (i^SIDL)o31
33
— i
— 135a
en
a—i
CO
O
•^
5s
—i3oTlm
RELOCATION OF EA FURNACE/HEATERenO
ID
O
CD
o
oo
o
(J>
it
ooJUM BREAKERMECH EXHAUST HOOD/DUCTSoCD
:ro
oo
CD
o
o
oo
mn—i;n35m533-D
m
-n
ir
m
o
n
oz
o
o
CO
O
oo
o
n:rClt/3C/lOo3Dn
-n
33m"C
om
o
o
CO
o
oo
o
rr*oX01o—1
BOILER/COMPRESSOR 3 IS HPo—Is-
13
c:
01
C5
a
Co
o
o
§
oSm33— 13)O33
BOILER/COMPRESSOR UP TO 3 HPo
mo;*;
oo
CO
o
o
C3O
Co
\
?EACH BUILDING SFWERo
ni33
£3
O
CD
C
C/l
2
-om
33
O
ca
CJ
CJ
C?
03
kS
-nX:om
INSTALLFURN DUCTS UP TO 100 000 BTUBUILDING PERMoo
CO
o
oo
oCS
CD
IV)O
\(J
oHT)f—CmNG PERMITencm
^OH
MECHANICAL PERMIT ISSUEfe
SUMMARY/ACCOUNT NUMBER/ r-S*uNC, SPACEHES UNITSGRADING PERMIT ISSUEDY D N DREDEVELOPMENTAREAvQ NDTYPECONSTJ OCC LOAD-< -
D *
a 5
0008 06/11 0101 02EldPmt 26tor l/a/irf i/n/wr Machine Certified\\V-*s<;(>1<
< ja ^
z
D
B
m
NOSTORIESOOnou
ma
fV^^
fc~
^IDESCRIPTION OF WORK ,DESIGNER S ADDRESSI STATE LICENSE NOO s*Sk 2•5*- ct lAvXJ
0
(/)
S•^
a "m iU! •
z
0.-
^ •
"Tl/1
A .
^r5l
/DESJGNER S PHONEIOWMERSNAMf- *S *MuCrt-fgctf* f>e&x&n£?&.#£6/ --£?£•3NOHd S b3NMO3P § •
I ?
Mlm jr> w >? "v£5
t 2
** f
B 1 ^i-
r|ii1 v
STATE LICENSE NO*v~ ,?<te>/"y_c-t-ozo
v:O
8>Clm
r0-tBLOCKl/i^1^i<<jcn
9|
^ s
IN
^
2.
O
^* >
rT
j CONTRACTORS PHONE «\4&&4%s-cMOzm
rntrtrin
L-^ >
Q^ f
O
P
O
BUSINESS LICENSE Kot
0
>^^CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT' 2075yJ_as Palmas Dr/Carlsbad, CA 920094859 (619) 438 1161APPLICATION &PEPZ
H
h USE BALL POINT PEN ONLY & PRESS HARD APPLICANT TO FILL IN INFORMATION WITHIN SHADED AREA AND DECLARATIONSWhile — Inspector Green — (1) Finance Yellow — Assessor Pink — Applicant Gold — Temporary File
\N SPECIAL CONDITIONSV1^-\\1 BUILDING••*•»Vi^^*r»«k.k.^JV^1£:\\
\
\
\
I f
,
>
-
O>COf/,W-..•^>fc-fc^^w1jh/(-I
(
t
—
„
:MECHANICAL J-',i
>f
-*s
*
,
1
T-
J
-*
,"-
/
'i
i ELECTRICAL;,*«*"ft\.
>
^-
's~\
i
•
,.
•
,
-
s PLUMBING '+
'ITEMS ABOVE HAFINAL i-^TICDmm^tT~.XO<mO
-
'CALL FOR FINAL INSPECi3OS53:>.f^.iP^i»•nO3m •VENTILATING SYSTEMS li,-''"^
~HEAT — AIR COND SYSTEMS i1!p^J-^i
^
-.
aocop°mam~n-"D-rrOX2C
o
o
•M
• t
C I
L'l1 H
1 "l
1
f)
I >
/u D BONDING D POOL ,'f,r
•
•D ELECTRIC SERVICE a TEMFJORAF1Y,
;
f
3CCC3nrnC3C
*•
\
3))11>1)D ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND [ji_iC"nTim33
,'ELECTRICAL 1^
a|-m333:m-m33nc1—33<Z^^_m3;
1
COHmCOHL ~— __"0m
Q
(/3
O TUB AND SHOWER PAN i^»
"UNDERGROUND D WASTE DTOP OUT a WASTE D jgsH >m Hzc m33c/-T;mn
>r~
^
oz
5
'
aenmm33ZaCDoOao0CD ;r^ cr_< i"^ w
-n
nZClHT*PLUMBING |-mOf
m
„
ZO INTERIOR LATH & DRYWALLiO "Q002 ^o ^X -Irr "i
n '/i
OZnQ INSULATION 1i~ -O -•'<£ 7~'n LJ3 -nrn n
m comO EXTERIOR LATH io j)< ^"i -^j] ^
VI ^"jo '
o ~,
"3 ^>if r~
Ci
O
ZO
""
rr SHEATHING D ROOf D Sl|FRAME '>- -DO j^~ G* m
3 -H- O
oz
z
~c SUB FRAMC D FLOOR D CEI!-j}c- 'Or~ij>
riVJ
s 1
>
nm
*MASONRYGUNITE OR GROU1—
uT-£mO
5z
o
m
00
m^O
2
^^
°Hl|
O
Mm
,
j '
t REINFORCED STEEL11mOQ
5mO
t/)
mO
_
Z
mOH
O
en
ZC/)
mOH
O
w
Z
O
m
C/l
,
-
1 FOUNDATION22nr~
O
—"~:
-amO—i
O
I]m
O10
D BUILDING"
11
"
1HT!mf 11l*D>-im„n"Tl H3 8oj3i
.%* ,
f ^
-
tt
.-
f j
•
,
v
!
)
\
1
-'
V .'
11
C/ty of Carlsbad
1200 ELM CARLSBAD CA 92008 • TEL (619)4385525
MISCELLANEOUS
RECEIPT
Mailing
City Zip
Cilv Zip
Sldtf Lie
S Classif
Crly
Lie No
LEGAL DESCRIPTION dr<V*»n,*«r A?/»P
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO /£,*?-
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
t\E-_T& / /-j, fj G V^ALA. S
r'rrrrvC -A-£"J.JI -J—
PLAN ID NO 5 tO ' /I &
CONTACT PERSON
ADDRESS / ~?£>EL
ZIP PHONE
MISCELLANEOUS FEE RECEIPT
G PLAN CHECK FEE. 001 810 00 00 8821
D VALUATION
n.
•WARNING PLAN CHECK FEES WHERE NO ACTION IS TAKEN BY THE
APPLICANT IN 180 DAYS AND NO BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED ARE
FORFEITED TO THE CITY
COMMENTS _
White — Applicant Yellow — File Pink — (1) Finance (2) Data Process Gold — Assessor
Citp of Carlsimb
REQUEST FOR INSPECTION RECORD
INSPECTOR
OWNER
ADDRESS
REQUESTED BY
- £73 TIME
.DATE
BUILDING
D FOUNDATION D FOOTING D SLAB
D REINFORCING STEEL
fX; MASONRY
D GROUT GUNITE
D FLOOR AND CEILING SUB FRAME
D SHEATHING d ROOF D SHEAR
D FRAME
D EXTERIOR LATH
D INSULATION
D INTERIOR LATH OR DRYWALL
D FINAL
ELECTRICAL
D TEMPORARY SERVICE
G UFFER GROUND
D ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND
D ROUGH ELECTRIC
D POOL BONDING
D ELECTRIC SERVICE
D FINAL
PLUMBING
D UNDERGROUND PLUMBING
O SEWER AND PL/CO
Q TOP OUT PLUMBING
D TUB OR SHOWER PAN
D GAS TEST
D WATER HEATER
D SOLAR WATER
D FINAL
MISCELLANEOUS
D CONDITIONED AIR SYSTEMS
D SOLAR HEAT
D PATIO
n POOL a SPA
a SIGN
D GRADING
D DRIVEWAY
D FINAL'
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS
Ready For Inspection D Monday
CTS^M n PM
D Tuesday D Wednesday
CORRECTION NOTICE
ADDRESS:
D APPROVED PLANS SHALL BE ON JOB SITE
BUILDING
!D FOUNDATION
D REINFORCING STEEL
D MASONRY
D GROUT-GUNITE
D FLOOR AND CEILING FRAME
D SHEATHING
a FRAME
D EXTERIOR LATH
D INSULATION
D INTERIOR LATH OR DRYWALL
PLUMBING
a UNDERGROUND PLUMBING
D UNDERGROUND WATER
D ROUGH PLUMBING
D TOP OUT PLUMBING
Q SEWER AND PUCO
D TUB OR SHOWER PAN
D GAS TEST
D WATER HEATER
ELECTRICAL
D TEMPORARY SERVICE
D ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND
D ROUGH ELECTRIC
D POOL BONDING
D ELECTRIC SERVICE
a UFER GROUND
D GFI
D SMOKE DETECTOR
-—
MISCELLANEOUS
D PLENUM AND DUCTS
O COMBUSTION AIR
O CONDITIONED AIR SYSTEMS
D SOLAR
D GRADING
D POOL
D PATIO
a SIGN
D OTHER
TIME
DATE
INSPECTOR
CITY OF CARLSBAD
BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
PHONE 4385525 -
Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc.
SPECIAL INSPECTION SERVICE
IMPICTOR'I WIIKLY HI PORT
•2*0 RIVCREMLE tT.. P O VOX 20*27
MM MEM, CAUF tM» • PHONE 2MM121
ron •«««•MOIM* ON If
COVIRM6 WMK PERFORMED
WHICH REQUIRED APPROVAL RV
THC SPECIAL INSPECTOR OP
REINFORCED CONCRETE Q STRUCT STEEL ASSCMRLY QQLUC.LAM FAMlCATION
PRE.STRESSED CONCRETE O REINFORCED GYPSUM Q OTHER
REINFORCED MASOMtY fl PILE DRIVING
INSP'N
OATC
LOCATIONS OF WORK INSPECTED TEST SAMPLES TAKEN WORK REJECTED. JOt PROtLEMi, PROGRESS, REMARKS, ETC
IMCLUDX* mroMMATtON ABOUT _ AMOUN TIOFMATCKI^I- »u*cco o« WOHK ^cnroftwco MUMBIM TV»K * *O*HT MO'»
CERTIFICATION OP COMPLIANCE
t HEREBY CHTIFY THAT I HAVE INSPECTED ALL Of THE AtOVE tEPOtTED
WOtK UNLESS OTHEtWIS* NOTED, I HAVE FOUND THIS WOtK TO
COMPLY WITH THE APPtOVED PLANS, SPECIfICATIONS, AND APPLICABLE
StCTIONS OP THE GO V It NINO BUILDING LAWS
ESGIL CORPORATION
9320 CHESAPEAKE OR . SUITE 208
SAN DICGO, CA 92123
(619) 5(>0-14<J8
DATE :
JURISDICTION: C&Y
PLAN CHECK NO:2(0 -o vTT >
PROJECT ADDRESS: <L\yY) d y/g.,
PROJECT NAME:
D
D
D
D
D
["[APPLICANT
CQ JURISDICTION
QPLAN CHECKER
QFILE COPY
DUPS
[J DESIGNER
U
The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where
necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction's
building codes.
The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply
with the jurisdiction's building codes when minor deficien-
cies identified •_ are resolved and
checked by building department staff.
The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies
identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected
and resubmitted for a complete recheck.
The check list transmitted herewith is for your information.
The plans are being held at Esgil Corp. until corrected
plans are submitted for recheck.
The applicant's copy of the check list is enclosed for the
jurisdiction to return to the applicant contact person.
The applicant's copy of the check list has been sent to:
D Esgil staff did not advise the applicant contact person that
plan check has been completed.
Esgil staff did advise applicant that the plan check has
been completed. Person contacted: L.& r*y Mt?rt> man C '1*44
Date contacted: ;/-^*4
REMARKS:
Telephone t
Enclosures):
ESGIL CORPORATION
PLAN CHECK NO.
i-
<DzOJo ia:
ADDRESS
ZONE:
DATE
TYPE OF PROJECT AND USE:
SCHOOL DISTRICT: SAN DIEGUITO
SETBACKS: FRONT /£>£-
DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS
ENCINUAS
SIDE
CARLSBAD SAN MARCOS
REAR
REDEVELOPMENT PERMIT REQUIRED:: J. I
LANDSCAPE PLAN COMMENTS:
ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIRED :1/JW <7' ~7 *=-CxP-^
V
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: &\ &•u •v
OK TO ISSUE:
/ /
ENGINEERING
LEGAL DESCRIPTION VERIFIED"?
PARK-IN-LIEU QUADRANT; M&:__, FEE PER UNIT:
P.F.F.: A//A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PER UNIT:
APN CHECKED1?
TOTAL FEE:_
TOTAL FEE:
FACILITIES MGMT, FEE:.
IMPRDVCMENfS:
BRIDGE & THOROUGHFARE FEE
FIELD CHCCK DAIE & INITIALS:
DRIVEWAY:
E.D.U.:
RIL.H I -OP-WAY:
EASEMENTS:
/^L
SEWER:
INDUS FHJAL WASTE PERMIT.
GRADING PERMIT:
LATERAL:—^- ' •»
DRAINAGE:
GRADING COMPLETION CERTIFIED
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
OK TO ISSUE.
DPD2:DPD6:07/17/86
DATE
SUBJECT ___
CHKD .DATE _____ £NO .
VI^
x- I -h
F T6.S A
_ »
3^:54: 6
SYSTtrT PROFESSIONAL rjij
WAL
-CONCRETE - STRENGTH DESISrv (1977 PCI), BLOCK - WORKING STRESS (1973 USD)
WALLS PT NORTH SIDE OF ELM
* **•*•-*-* *-#***•*•** It-****-***-*****-*****-**-***** -***-** $ * « *-*-**
ALL INFORr^TIO^ DRE5E\TED is FOR REVIEU, ft?3F3VW_, INTERPRETATION AM,
ftPPLICATION BY ft REGISTERED ENGINEER
COPYRIGHT BY SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL. 198E
***•*-•*•***•*-*•*•***•-*•**-**
INPUT FOR BLOCK WflLL
TOTAL
HEIGHT
(FT)
6. 75
WIN FTNG
DEPTH
(IN)
1£.00'
FOOTING
DIMENSION (IN)
TOE HEEL
18.00 VARY
ACTUAL
BLOCK
WIDTH
UPPER= 7.6£
LOWER= 11.65
BLGCX
WEIGHT
(LBS/SO FT)
84.00
133.00
STEEL YIELD STRESS
FY (KSI)
ULTIMATE BLOCK
STRENGTH (KSI)
1.50
SOIL
PRESSURE (KS-)
CONCRETE STRENGTH
F'C (KSI)
3.00
INSPECTION, BLOCK WflLL
0=NQ, 1=YES
0
EOUIVflLENT FLUID
PRESSURE (LBS CU/FTj
35.00
REQUESTED WALL REINFORCING,
RUN VALUE H OR
MAX. OMEGA SOIL SLOPED
P*(FY/FC) 1=N0, 0=YES
0.£5 1.00
MODULUS OF ELASTICITY,
WflLL STEEL (KSI)
£9000.
VERTICAL PLANE FRICTION
1=NO FRICTION, e=FRICTtONl
i.0
NO REQUESTS)
STEEL BAR NO. STEEL SPACING (INCHES)
VERTICAL
HORIZONTAL
SURCHARGE
( PSF )
£50. 00
0 0.
0 0.
SHEAR FORCE
TOWARDS TOE
(KIPS)
0. 00
0
0
MOMENT ON WALL
TOWARDS TOE
(KIP-FT)
0. 00
OUTPUT 0^ DESISN VALUES
FTNG SOIL
WIDTH
(FT) TOE
4.30 1.34
FTNG DEPTH (IN)
PRESSURE M = BY MOMENT
(KSF) S = BY SHEAR
HEEL REDD USED
0,01 S- 5. 93 . 1£.00
SLIDE FACTOR
COEFF SAFETY
OF OVER-
FRICT TURNING
0. 48 £. 100
Ti
SI
Li
Hi
1
AXIAL
FORCE
(KIPS)
-SLIDING FRICT, COEFF EXCEEDS
TOTAL
SERVICE
LOAD (KIPS)
: VERT
1.39 £.89
PROVIDE KEY OR EQUATE LATERAL FORCE
UPPER= 7.6£
BLOCK
LOWER= 11. £5
BLOCK
THICK- SHEAR MAXIMUM
NESS HEIGHT STRESS MOMENT
(IN) (FT) (PSI) (KIP-FT)
7.6£ £.08 4.33 0.24
3.67 11.
REDD STEEL SELECTED STEEL
(SO IN/FT) BAR SPACE
CODE BEND NO. (IN)
0.0£6 4 AT. 3£.0
4 OT 3£.0
VERT=0.098 0.178 6 AT 3£. 0
HORZ=0.098 4 AT £4.0
— (UPPER BLOCK STEEL/GROSS AREA ) IS LESS THAN . 8B2
SU CHANGE OF VERTICAL STEEL TO NO. 5 AT INCHES
FAC.MOMENT (KIP-FEET)
REQD.STEEu (SO.IN/FT) CALC.=
FLEX. STEEL (SO. IN/FT) 202i/FY =
TEMP.STEEL (SO.IN/FT) 0.0018=
C1. 8022 =
FOOTING TOE
2. 60
0.07
0. 34
0. 26
FOOTING HEEL
£. 72
12. 06
0.380. as
0, £9
SECOND PASS OMIT IMPOSED LOADS TO VERIFY EFFECT ON SIZE
FTNG
WIDTH
(FT)
3. 30
SOIL PRESSURE
(KSF)
TOE HEEL
1.05 0.01
FTNG DEPTH (IN)
M = BY MOMENT
S - BY SHEAR
PEOD USED
M= 5. 29 12. 00
SLIDE
COEFF
OF
FRICT
0. 46
FACTOR
SAFETY
OVER-
TURNING
£.072
-SLIDING FRICT. COEFF EXCEEDS
TOTAL
SERVICE
LORD (KIPS)
HORZ VERT
0.80 1.74
PROVIDE KEY OR EQUATE LATERAL FORCE
THICK-SHEAR MAXIMUM
NESS HEIGHT STRESS MOMENT
UPPER=
BLOCK
LOWER=
BLOCK
(I
7.
11.
N)
62
6£
(FT)
5.
5.
75
75
(PSI)
10.
5.
57
74
(KIP
1.
1.
-
1
1
FT)
1
1
REDD STEEL SELECTED STEEl
(SO IN/FT) BAR SPACE
CODE BEND NO. (IN)
VERT=0.064 0.207 6 AT 24.0
HQRZ=0.064 4 AT 32.0
VERT-0. 098 0.06B 4 AT £4.0
HORZ=0. 098 4 AT 24.0
(LOWER BLOCK STEEL/GROSS AREA ) IS LESS THAN .002
SUGGEST CHANGE OF VERTICAL STEEL TO NO. 6 AT 32.0 INCHES
/// NEW DEVELOPMENT LENGTH OF LOWER BLOCK STEEL IS= 1.54 FEET
/// SUGGEST ft RERUN WITH THE NEW LOWER STEEu TQ DETERMINE
/// ACTUAL BLOCK HEIGHTS F03 THE NEW STEEL
**•* EITHER BLOCK SIZE IS ADEQUATE FOR FULL HEIGHT OF WALL,
*** HOWEVER DESIGN IS BASED UPON1 WEIGHT OF LOWER BLOCK
***
FAC. MOMENT (KIP~F£ET>
REQD.STEEu (SO. IN/FT)
FOOTING TOE
1.84
CfiLC. - 0.05
FOOTING HEEL
i?.. 57
FLEX. STEEL (SO. IN/FT) 20>2/FY= 0.34
TEMP, STEEL (SO. IN/FT) 0.0018= 8.26
C. 0020= 0. 29
6
0. 2
ot-.
**+ SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM NO. 15.£ REV-£l3~.GP ***
RETAINING WALL DESIGN
CONCRETE - STRENGTH DESIGN (1977 ftCI), BLOCK - WQRKINS STRESS (1979 UBC)
RISING GLEN-RET, WALLS AT NORTH SIDE Or EL fo AVENUE
****•*-* fc*+****** ********#***>*+************ X***^*********** «***•* **-***•*"*•*#
ALL INFORMATION PRESENTED IS FOR REVIEW, APPROVAL. INTERPRETATION
APPLICATION BY ft REG^S^ERED ENGINEER
T BY SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL, 19B£
INPUT FDR BLOCK WPLL
TOTAL
HEIGHT
(FT)
7.75
MIN FTNG
DEPTH
(IN)
1£. 80
FOOTING
DIMENSION UN)
TOE HEEL
10.00 VARY
ACTUA..
SLOCK
WIDTH
UPPER- ?.££
(I
LOWEf<« 11.62
BLOCK
WEIGHT
(LPS/SQ FT)a A. ee
133. en?
STEEL YIELD STRESS
FY (KSI)
60. 00
ULTIMATE BLOCK
STRENGTH (KSI)
1.50
ALLOWAPLE SOIL
PRESSURE (KSF)
CONCRETE STRENGTH
F'C (KSI)
3.00
RUN VALUE H OR
MftX. OMESfl SOIL SLOPED
P*(FY/FC) 1=N0,0
0.E5 1.00
INSPECTION, BLOCK WALL MODULUS OF ELASTICITY,
1=YES
0
WALL STEE
39000.
(KSI)
EQUIVALENT FLUID
PRESSURE (LBS CU/FT)
35. 0^
VERTICAL PLflKE FRICTION
]=MQ FRJCTIOM,0=FRICTTOM
1. 0
REQUESTED WPLL REINFORCING. (0 = NO REDUESTS)
STEEL BflR NO. STEEL SURGING (INCKE5)
VERTICftL
HORIZONTAL
SURCHARGE
(PSF)
£50. 00
OUTPUT OF DE
FTNG SOIL
WIDTH
(FT) TOE
A. 37 1.50
0 0.
0 0.
SHEAR FORCE
TOWARDS TOE
(KIPS)
0. 00
SIGN VALUES
FTNG DEPTH (IN)
PRESSURE M = BY tfO^ENT
(KSF) S = BY SHEAR
HEEL REDD USED
0.07 S= 6.41 18.00
0
tf
MOMENT ON WALL AXIAL
TOWARDS TOE
(KIP-FT)
0. 00
SLIDE FACTOR
COEFF SAFETY
OF OVER-
FRICT TURNING
0. 44 £. £67
FORCE
(KIPS^
0.®e
TOTAL
SERVICE
LOAD (KIPS)
HOR? VERT
1.73 3.90
-SLIDING FRICT. COEFF EXCEEDS . j^, PRpVIDE KEY OR EQUATE LATERAL FORCE
THICK- SHEAR MAXIMUM REOD STEEL SELECTED STEEL
NESS HEIGHT STRESS MOMENT (SQ IN/FT) BAR SPACE
(IN) (FT) (PSI) (KIP-FT) CODE BEND NO. UN)
UPPER= 7. 6£ 3.4£ 6.77 0.74 VERT=0. 064 0.079 4 AT 3£. 0
BLOCK ^-—-^HOR2=0. 064 4 AT 32. d
LOWER= 11.62
BLOCK
3. 33 i 0.584
HORZ=0.098
6 AT 16.0
4 AT £4,0
CUPPER BLOCK STEEL/GROSS AREA ) IS LESS THAN . 0ei£
SUGGEST CHANGE 0^ VERTICAL STEEL TO NO. 5 AT 38.0 INCHES
FOOTING TOE FOOTING HEEL
FAC.MOMENT (KIP-FEET) 3.04 4.68
REDD. STEEL (S3. IN/FT) CALC. = 0.08 0. 11
rLEX.STEEL (SO-IN/FT) £0S/FY= 0.34 0.38
TEMP.9TEEL (SO. IN/FT) 8.eai8= 0. ££ 0. £6
e.esae- 0. £9 e. £9
SECOND PASS OMIT IMPOSED LOADS TO VERIFY EFFECT ON SIZE
FTNG DEPTH (IN) SLIDE FACTOR TOTAL
FTNG SOIL PRESSURE M = BY MOMENT CDEFF SAFETY SERVICE
WIDTH (KSF) S = BY SHEAR OF OVER- LOAD (KIPS)
(FT) TOE HEEL REQD USED FRICT TURNING HORZ VERT
3.97 1.18 0.05 S= 5. 57 ia.ee 0.43 £.£43 1.05 £.45
-SLIDING FRICT. COEFF EXCEEDS .35, PROVIDE KEY OR EQUATE LATERAL FORCE
THICK- SHEAR MAXIMUM REOD STEEL SELECTED STEEL
NESS HEIGHT STRESS MOMENT (SO IN/FT) BAR SPACE
(IN) (FT) (PSI) (KIP-FT) CODE BEND NO. (IN)
UPPER= 7.6£ 3.75 4.16 0.31 VERT=0. 064 0.033 4 AT 3£. 0
BLOCK HORZ=0.iZifc4 4 AT 3£. i2
LOWER= 11. 6£ 3.00 8.04 1.79 VERT=0. 098 0.111 5 AT 3£. 0
BLOCK HORZ=0.096 4 AT £4.0
(UPPER BLOCK STEEL/GROSS AREA ) IS LESS THAN . 00£
SUGGEST CHANGE OF VERTICAL STEEL TO NO. 5 AT 3£.0 INCHES
(LOWER FLOCK STEEL/GROSS AREA ) IS LESS THAN . 00£
SUGGEST CHANGE OF VERTICAL STEEL TO NO. 6 AT 3£. 0 INCHES
/// NEW DEVELOPMENT LENGTH OF LOWER BLOCK STEEL 13= £.49 F
/// SUGGEST ft RERL'M WITH THE NEW LOWER S"EEL TO DETERMINE
/// ACTUAL BLOCK HEIGHTS F0=v THE NEW STEEu
FOOTING TDE FOOTING HEEL
FAI.M3^£NiT (KIP-FEET) £.£3 1,53
RE9D.3TEEL (SO. IN/FT) Cfi^C.= tf.£6 8. fc4
FLEX. STEEL 'Su1. IK./CT) £0(5/F^= 0.34 0.36
"•""tv*""! C—r i— r~ i /r~>n Th./Cr"r\ I?! [^'TrHD— IT; 1>C. |7) ~>Ci C-^f-. b i C.C-L. (but, IfV/r i ) ti. lii^il D— \f\. cb ti, cb
0. iZ'^c'i?- 0. £9 0. £9
6? o
9/14/86 - 16: 3:15
*** SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL P^OG^Y MO. 15. £ REV-211F.G.E ***
RETAINING WALL DESIGN
rGNCRETE - STRENGTH PESIGN (1S77 PCI), BLOCK - WORKING STRESS (1979 UPC)
************************************************************************
RISING GLENN-RET. WAULS AT NORTH BIDE ELK AVENU
****•***•*•*•*-#• ***-*-* *##•*••#-* ****** ******* **-*•#•*#•*•*! **•##* •*••*#* **-*-*#*-#-*..*+-*.*.*
HLL INFORMATION PRESENTED IS FOR REVIEW, APPROVAL, INTERPRETATIQ\ AND
APPLICATION BY ft REGISTERED ENGINEER
Ca2YRI6HT BY SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL, 198?
***** ***>**** * »
TCTfiL
HEIGHT
(FT)
6.75
KIN FTNG
DEPTH
(IN)
FOOTING
DIMENSION (IN)
TOE HEEL
18.00 VARY
THICK
(IN)
STEEL YIELD STRESS
FY (KSI)
SI?. 02.
CONCRETE STRENGTH
F' C (KSI)
MRX. OKEGP
P*(FY/FC)
RUN VA^UE H OR
SOIL SLOPED
1=N!0, 0=YES
SOIL
PRESSURE KSF)
EDUIV^'.EM FLUID
PRESSURE (LB3 CU/F
35. el?
VERTICAL PLANE FRICT ION
1=NQ FRICTION. 0-FRICTION
1.0
SHEAR FORCE
(P5F)
I =",."1; "•! ~'U- 1.J "t ' T t 1 '
" t *«! ^r ZH-' J. L
^r^T7> 1.77
cir PS)
?. i?1-?
FTr^" DEPT-. (TW,
KS="> S ~ BY SHEAR
e. 77 s- e. &7 ia. &$
*L P 'i '-, '
1 — . T T" <*""" F™" ~^ —ELIDE F£L-ro="-r SAF
OF OVE
FRICT TUR
:r'T CN' WALL QXIAL
'07 rCrnVE
t,_' me\ ' X J !-_
r, |? 7•i > t
n^ TOT 01.
TV SERVICE
^.OPD (KIPS)
ING HOFZ VERT
-:8 £.11 S. »£
:C-CE
*.'P'_L "HTCK (IN-
* - pv MO<IN-T
F - Pv t H ^ A R
^?.G'I' USED
K= 6. ec lc, iZ'P
'FOR —
1/3 WALL MOMENT
FAC.MOMENT (KIP-FEET)
REGD.STEEL (SO.IN/FT) CALC.=
FLEX.STEEL (SO. IN/FT) £00/FY =
TEMP.STEEL (SO. IN/FT) 0.0012-
0.0015=
SHEPR PT
PDIKT(FPC)
c. 30
5TE
AT
0. 1A
0. 07
FOOTING TOE FOOTING HEEL
£'.80 £.09
0. 07 0. 14
. 39 0. 3A 0. 38
0.17 0.0018= C. £6 0- c'6
0. pp a. a0p0= .a. £9 0.1-9
SECOND POSE OMIT IMPOSED LOSDS TO VERIFY F^FECT DN SIZE
FPC^GR
FTN3 SOIL PRESSJRE
U'IDTH (KSF)
'FT) TOE HEEL
- 4P 33 1. 49 0. 00
FTNE DEPTH (IN)
K = BY MOMENT
S = BY SHEftR
REGT USED
5= 5. 97 18.CK?.
Si_ID£
COEFF
OF
FRICT
12. 41
SAFETY SERVICE
OVER- LOClD (KIPS.
TURNING HORZ VERT
a. 198 1.34 3. £2
-SLIDIN3 FRICT. COEFF EXCEEDS .35, PROVIDE KEY OR EOJfiTE uflTERftL FQRCi
Wfi^L THICK (IN1)
X = BY MGMFN.1^
S - BY SHEPR
Rt^D L'BED
M= 5. #3 IE. £.?
FOR--
2/3 U'fii^L MOMENT
1/3 WflLL MOMENT
L SHEftF (FftC)
(KIPE/FT)
1. 73
DISTANCE FROM
BOTTOM OF FTG.
1.93
•?> 77
MOMENT ftT
POINT(FftC)
3. 15
1.58
ShEflR ftT STEEL
POINT(FftC) ftT POINT
0.071. 39
0.88 0. 04
WftLL ftT FTNG FOOTING TOE FOOTING HEEL
FftC.MOMENT (KIP-FEET) 4.6£ £.23 d.04
REDD,STEEL (SO.IN/FT) CfiLC.= 0.11 0.0& 0.05
FLEX.STEEL (SO. IN/FT) £00/FY= 0.39 0.34 0. 3fl
TEMP. STEEL. (SO. IN/FT) 0.0018= 0.170.0018^ 0. Z& 0. £&
$• 0015:= 0. c'c! 0. 00cl0= 0. c!9 I?. 83
7 &
9/14/S£, - 16: ^:i5
*** SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM N^. j 5. c1 REV-£nr.GE ***-
RETAINING WALL DESIGN
"CONCRETE - STRENGTH DESIGN (1977 ACI), BLOCK - WORKING STRESS (1979 UPC)
RISING GLENN-RET. WALLS AT NORTH SIDE ELM AVENUE
****** ********************************************************** ********
PLL INFORMATION PRESENTED IS FOR REVIEW,APPROVAL,INTERPRETATION AND
APPLICATION BY P REGISTERED ENGINEER
COPYRIGHT BY SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL, 1983
**************************•*****************************•**********-**•*-****
CONCRETE WALL
TOTAL
HEIGHT
(FT)
FTNG
DEPTH
(IN)
FOOTING
DIMENSION (IN)
TOE HEEL
18.00 VARY
MINIMUM
WALL THICK
(IN)
STEEL YIELD STRESS CONCRETE STRENGTH
FY (KSI)F'C (KSI)
3.00
RUN VALUE H OR
MAX. OMEGA SOIL SLOPED
P*(FY/FC) i=N8, 0
0.55 1.00
ALLOWABLE: SOILPRESSURE (KSF)EQUIVALENT FLUID
PRESSURE (LBS CU/FT)
VERTICAL PLANE FRICTION
i=N!0 FRICTION, 0=FRICTION
1.0
SURCHARGE
FORCE
TOWARDS TOE
(KIPS)
T OK' WPL!
DS TpE
(KIP-FT)
0. 0i?
OJTPL'T OF DESIPN VALUES
FTNG
UITTH
SOI URE
(KSF)
FT) TCE HEEL
6. 17 j . 95 0. l:
FTNG DEPTH
in = Pv
S = PY
REb-D
F^ 7. 10
T EXCEEDS .35, PROVIDE ^EV OR EG'LIGTE LPTERAl
SLIDE FPCTOR TOTQLCCEFF SAFETY SERVICE
OF OVER- LOAD (HIPS)
FRICT TURNING HORZ VERT
£. 5£ 6, 3B
sALi. THICK (IN)
f. - BN MI'MENT
? - BY SHEA^ WALL SHEAR
^E^D USED (KIP5/F-
^1= fc.8G 3t.00 3.58
DISTnTvCE FROM
>OR— BOTTOM OF FTG.
£/3 WALL MOMENT 2. £:4
j/3 WALL MOMENT 4.09
MOMENT AT
POINT(FAC)
6. 39
4. 17
SHEAR AT
2. 79
1.79
AT POINT
0. £0
0. 10
WAL_
FPC. MOMENT (KIP-FEET)
REDD. STEEL (5Q. IN/FT) CALC. =
FuEX. STEEL (SO. IN/FT) £iZie/FY=
TE*iD. STEEL (SO. IN/FT) i?.00ia=
FTNG FOOTING TOE FOOTING HEEL
3,16 9.13
0.08 0. ££ "
0.39 0.34 0.38
0.17 0.0018= 0.26 0.26
rjw,IT I |v. DOSED TO VEDIirY E-FECT ON SI7E ?
F TNG SDIL PRESSURE
U'IDTH <K5F>
(FT) TOE HEEL
5. Jf I. £>5 0. 05
FTMS DEPTH (IN) SLIDE
M - BY MOMENT COEFF
S = PY SHEftR OF
REDD USED FPICT
£= 6. 37 1c'. iZ.2 e, 3S
FflCTQR TOTfiL
SAFETY SERVICE
OVER- LOfiD CkJPB)
TURNING KOR? VERT
L. 35:7 1. &£, 4. £5
--SLIDIWS FRICT. COEFF EYCEEDS .35, PROVIDE KEY OR EOUPTE LfiTERQL FORCE
WQLL THICK (IN)
M - PY MOMENT
5 = BY S-.ESR
REDD USED
WPLL BHEfiR (FRO
(KIPS/FT)
PR
FOR—
2/3 WflLL MOMENT
1/3 WflLL MOMENT
DISTANCE FROX
BOTTOM OF FTG.
£.85
3.61
MOMENT ftT
POINT (FP.C)
4.53
SHEflR PT
POINT(FflC)
1.77
1. 12
STEEL flREP.
ftT POINT
0. 10
0.05
WP.LL RT FTNG FOOTING TOE FOOTING HEEL
FRC. MOMENT (KIP-FEET) 6.64 £.56 3. 7G
PEOD.STEEL (SQ.IN/FT) CQLC.= 0.15 0.07 0.09
FLEX. STEEL (SO. IN/FT) £08/FY= 0.39 0.34 0.38
1EMP.STEEL (SQ. IN/FT) 0.0012= 0.170.0016= 0. £& 0. £6
e.0015= 0. ££ 0.00£0= 0.£9 0. £S
9/14/B& - i&: 7:14
* ** SVSTE^S PROFESSIONS PROGRAM NO. :I5,£ REV-.P t iF. G_- * + *
RETfllNJNS WftLL DESIGN
CONCRETE - STRENGTH DESIGN (3977 fid), BLOCK - WORKING STRESS (.979 L1BC)
**************************************************j, it*.*,.**.****.^ **.*.*. jf.*^.^u
RISING GLENN-RET. WALLS ft" NORTH SIDE ELK $VEVUF
************-X-*-K-S-K ******** ******** ******** >XH-K**>-)fsX-!-!i-*-**X*K*-??-i s-^i v , *-><•*••*•
P_L INFORMATION PRESENTED IS FOR REVIEW, PPPRDV^L, iNTE.-vr =£-P-j :,x p,-,-,
ftPPLICftTION PY ft REGISTERED ENGINEER
COPYRIGHT PY SYSTEMS 3RCFE53IOM-._, 19SE
INPUT FOR CONCRETE U'PuL
t LJ i -4^_ P. 11\ r i Nu r LJo * i (Vj i^l I iV I fV_lrr,
HcIEt-IT DEPTH DIMENEION (IN) Wft^L Ti-ic^
t^T) (INT 70H HEEL (IN)
STEEL YIELD STRESS CONCRETE STRENGTH,
FY (K£I) F'C (KSI)
PRESSURE 'H,SF) ^RISSJRE C_B~. Cj/FT' , =( ! F PICTTHN. e=F PI PT: nw
OF CVER-
,-'r _ T-ir1 r :\)
- - ;-v G'-:r^^'
PET" 'c~^
DISTftNC- FRG^ MOMENT PT SHE^F ftT STEEL PR!
FOR— EOTGt*1 Oc FTG, POINT(FPC) POIMT(^PC) fiT POINT
1/3 Wfti_L MOrlEMT 4.41 5. 5£' E. 14 0.13
WQL^L^flT ^TNG FOOTING TOE FOOTING HEEL
FftC.MOMENT (KIP-FEET) /16.££^0 3. £S 13.45
REQD. STEEL (SO. IN/FT) CflLC. = ^ erS3— 0.09 0.33
FLE*. STEEL (SO. IN/FT) 2d0/FY= 0.39 C. 34 0. 3S
TEMP. STEEL (SO. IN/FT) 0.0015= 0.170.0018= 0. c'6 0. £6
0. 13015= 0. c.'E 0. 00E'PJ=: 0. c.'9 0. 59
LJI'I i I U VCIP J r I tr «- c.w t U v D I £ C
FTNG
WIDTH
SOIL PRESSURE
(KSFJ
TOE HEEL
1.88 C.0£
FTNG DEPTH (IN)
M = PY MOMENT
S = BY SHERR
REDD USED
S= 6. 86 12.0J21
SLIDE
COEFF
OF
FRICT
"i -?CL
FACTOR TOTAL
SP-ETY SER'v ICE
CVER- LOAD (KIPS)
TURNING HOR2 VERT
ii!.j!/Ji] c!» It" c! ij»c!j-
SLIDING FRICT. COEFF EXCEEDS .
K (IN)
WftLL SHEOR (FPC)
(KIPS/FT)
DISTANCE FROM
BOTTOM OF FTG.
£. 15
3.98
PROVIDE KEY OP EQ'JSTE LPTERflL FORCE
WOLL
M = BY
5 = BY SHEOR
REOP USED
{*-= 6, £5 i£. Cii?
d/3 WflLL MOMENT
1/3 WOLL MOMENT
MOMENT RT
POIN^fFPC)
£.31
SHEAR fiT STEEL AREA
PCINT(FflC) AT POINT
£. 80 C. 15
1.36 0,07
FftC.MOMENT (KIP-FEET)
REDD.STEEL <SO. IN/FT)
FLEX.STEEL (SO. IN/FT)
TEMP.STEEL (SQ. IN/FT)
WftLL AT FTNG FOOTING TOE FOOTING HEEL
9. 19 a.98 5.68
0.£i 0.08 0. 14
0.39 0.34 0,38
0.17 0.0018= 0.£6 0. £6
0.0015=0. ££ 0. 00£'0:0. £
:5t
*** SYSTEMS PROFESSIONPL PRQGRR* NO, 15. £ REV-21JF.G£ ***
RETPINING WPLL DESIGN'
-CONCRETE - STRENGTH DESIGN (1977 PCI), BLOCK - WORKING STRESS M979
UwwUl/wUt-Fl-ri^-L. U U- w w v. -.- ^ ,_.,_. .J Vi U-VWVVVk/WVVWWbUVWWVWVUUVvV. V ^Uwwi.
RISING GLENN-RET. WRLLS PT NORTH SIDE ELM flVENU:
fiLL INFORMATION: PRESENTED IS FOR REVIEW, RPPROVflu, INTERPRETATION
P.PPLICPTION' BY ft REGISTERED ENGINEER
COPYRIGHT BY SYSTEMS PRO-ESSIONPL, 19S2
INPJT FDR CONCRETE WALL
TO" PL
HEIGHT
(Fl )
1 ~~ -•i^"I t~ r £L^
MIN FTNS
DEPTH
(IN)
15.00
FOOTING
DIMENSION (IN)
TOE HEEL
34.00 VPRY
MINIMUM
WRLL THICK
(IN)
15.00
STEIEL YIELD STRESS
FV (KSI)
PL! OWPBLE SOIL
PRESSURE (KSF)
CONCRETE STRENGTH
F'C (KSI)
3.00
EQUIVALENT FLUID
PRESSURE (LBS CU/FT)
35. 00
MQX. OMEGft
P*(FY/FC)
0. £5
RUN VOLUE H OR
SOIL SLOPED
1.00
VERTICPL PLftNE FRICTION
1=NOi. e
SHEQP FORCE
TQWPRD5 TOE
(^IPS)
o
T }
0,
OUTPUT OF DE1 N VPLUES
FTN3 DEPTH (IN)
FTNS
WIDTH
(FT>
8. 75
SOIL
TOc
j, 9P,
PRESSURE
(KSF)
huEL
'2 B 5 f .
M - BY
S = PY
RECTO
S= 8. 4
MOMENT
SHEQR
USED
£ 15. 00
SL.IDE
COEFF
OF
FRICT
*£! . W JJ
FPCTOR
SPFETY
Ov'EP-
TURK IMG
~ 3i?'t:r
TOTR!
SERV
LOPD
HDRZ
3, 70
ii_
1C
(
S - BY BHZPR
REGD L'SED
K-~ 8. 46 15. 00
FDR —
£/3 WftLL MOMENT
1/3 WPLL MOMENT
WPLL E-iEPR (FDC)
(KIPS/FT)
5. E'4
DI5TPNCE FROT.
BOTTOM OF FTG.
£.8£
MOMENT PT
PQINT(FPC)
14.94
7. 63
FPC.MOMENT (KIP-FEET)
REQD.STEEL (SO. IN/FT)
FLEX.STEEL (SO. IN/FT)
TEMP.STEEL (SO. IN/FT) 0-
CPLC.=
SSEP-' PT
POINT(FftC)
4.05
EL PREP
POINT
WPLL fl
"§£7a0
FOOTING TO
5.68
0. 11
0.4S
0. 3d
/
SECOND PPSS DMT INDEED LD^DE ID VEPIF'* Er~ErT O
FTNG
WIDTH
(FT)
6. 4£
-SLID
SOIL PRESSURE
(K£
TOE
1. 96
ING FRICT.
• r)
HEELe. 14
CuEFF.
FTNG DEPTH (ItO ELIDE FftlTQP TDTftL
ft - P/ KDMENT COEFF S^ ETY SERVICE!
S = BV SHEPF 0- Ov'LR-- LO-:- (^IDS^
REDD USEu FF JCT TL'^MINr HO ^7 V7FT
S= 6.04 15. 0t' C". 2r- c'.-^If c.t:, L.TI
EXCEEDS ^S<. JUitiii^fil ni'p mi "III '"'T-.TTH — r^lll^aaL^lJrjr!lL'^g.A
WftLL T-iICK (IK1)
M = PY NOMENT
S = BY SHEfiR
REDD UEED
M= 7.CA is. eie
FOR—
8/3 WftLL MOMENT
1/3 WftLL MOMENT
WPLL BHEPR (FPC)
(KIPS/FT)
3. 6i2
DISTANCE FROM
BOTTOM OF FTG.
£.57
A. 53
NT ftT
POINT(FftO
B.99
4.56
SHEPR PT STEEL PREfi
POI\'T (FftC) RT POINT
£. 79 0. 16
1.77 0.08
WPLL PT FTNG FOCfING IDE FOOTING HEEL
FPC.MOMENT (KIP-FEET) 13.£8 5.4^ 7. £3
REQD,STEEL (SD.IN/FT) CflLC.= 0.£2 0.1 0.13
FLEX. STEEL CSC. IN/FT) £00/FY= 0.51 0. 4f. 0, 5^
TEMP. STEEL (SO. IN/FT) 0. 00I£= 0. ££' 0. 0018- 0- 5." 0. 3£
B.0f?l5= 0. £7 0.01??!?- 0. r^fi- 1?. 36
3, 3i/£c - 1C:18: 1
•* ** SYSTEMS PROCESS - U'\M'__ H r\uorT'Htr' f\d._f, j z». ti
RETAINING WfiLL DESIGN
CONCRETE - STREN3TH DESIGN <j977 QCI) . ELOCK - WORKING STRESS O979 UFO
RieiN'G GLfNM-PfT. WPLLC QT NOP"ri SIDE E_^ ftVENL'E
X^TIQM PRESEMTE" IS FOR REVIEW,
' BY Q REGISTERED ENGINEER
INPUT FGR CONCRETE WQLL
HEIGHT
( FT )
KIN FTNG
DEPTH
(IN)
FOOTING
DIMENSION (IN)
TOE HEEL
£4.0i2i VARY
MINIMUM
WflLL THICK
(IN)
YIELD STRESS CONCRETE STRENGTH
FY (KSI)
fiLLOWQBLE SOIL
PRESSURE (KSF)
F'C
3.012
EOUIVPLENT FLUID
PRESSURE (LBS CU/FT)
35. 03
FORCE
5 TOE
RUN VPLUE H OR
MRX, OMEGQ SOIL SLOPED
P*(FY/FC) i=N0,0-YES
e. £'5 i. 00
VERTICAL PLPtNE FRICTION
1=N'0 FRICTION, 0=FRICTION
1.0
PVTO.
FG^IE
c^:^£)
0. C7t
ir" VfiLJbr)
^"NS DEPTH fIN
rTN!G SOIL PRESSURE EV =r £y MOMENT
UIID'H (KSr) S ~ BY SHF.fiR
(r""i TOE HEEL REC~> UC-ED
iP, £5 3 . 99 i?i 8^ !v- 6, SS -vS.'-TiC.
K'/FT) CH'_C. =
S~.^3 VD " ~ -
I
• ' >•-!_' i~ t-J
l-TD^-l
(FT) T C
-7 c-,0r * ^JO J. t
T' i — LJ T r1
f> J~i i_ i_ 1 ' J (_
K - £• i (v "'
5 - BY SK
REGD
mi T T -I~. — / . '1
FOR —
3/4 WPlL-L
l/£ WfiLL
1/4 W3LL
FflC. FOMENT
REDD. STEEL
FLEX.f.TEEL
TEMP. -jTEEL
*"• ~<? v T " ^ !"* "' c
"" i K "~ J. ' "" |"
fKS~J
r HI EL
9R 0,3b
K (TN^
.<LM-
r~- f-> n ( i /i i iL^n w*-JuL
U3ED t
- C I"* ">-4 ^, It *?
DIET
BOTT
MDWENT
f^G^CNT
MOMENT
(KIP-FEET)
(SO. IN/FT)
(SO. IN/FT)
CSD. IN/FT)
EH- L^Q^
F """ !\ 7,
•- x P
S ^ E
REQD
S= 8.
£r-!EMr\
KIPS/FT
/ "in4. cB
fcMCE FR
0< OF F
c!. ^5
3. 71
5. 57
CflLC. =
£0P/FY=
0.001£=
0. 0015-
i TC VcR JF" Eu - Er^
rEP"">- ( IM r^iDE
' VIT £ ' " rcrrr
Y EHEftR 0^
USED ^RICT
30 15.00 2.35
, r- m i- tf r MU ^
)
Of*1, KOrlZNT t,T
TG. POINT (PPC)
13. 19
6. 61
4.50
WflLL PT FTNG FOOT
17. 14
0. 31
0.51
0. £c' 0. 0018 =
0. £7 0. 00£0=
r— <• i. i j— i T "r f"_.' \ t J / C
P P C """ 0 r
SP'ETY
OVER-
$tt
TOTft^
SERVICE
LOhiD (f-
TURNING HORZ
£.9i?'3
i
SHEAR &:
POINT (FR
3.60 *
£. 7i
1.76
ING TOE
5.61
0. 11
0.4&0. 3a
0.36
3.i?7
STEEL
C) fH PD:
0. £;
c. :J
0. 0^
FOOTING HE
11. 46
0. £1
0.50
0. 3£
0.36
VEPT
B.87
' 9/14/8^ - !&:£(?: 19
*** SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL PROGRAM NO. 15. £ REV-£11'".G£
RETAINING WALL DESIGN
CONCRETE - STRENGTH DESIGN (1977 ACI), BLOCK - WORKING STRESS (1979 UBC)
.**#•*• *--**-**
RISING GLENN-Ri WfiLLS AT NORTH SIDE ELK PVENUE
**>*-**•* ft**-** **-*-**-***-*•*•*•*#--*-**-*•* **•**•*•##***-****•**#*-*•*#-**-* #-*#-#-.*
RLL INFORMATION PRESENTED IS FOR REVIEW, APPROVAL, INTERPRETATION AND
APPLICATION BY A REGISTERED ENGINEER
COPYRIGHT PY SYSTEMS PROFESSIONAL, 19S£
INPUT FOR CONCRETE
TOTRL
HEIGHT
(FT)
14.55
WIN FTNS
DEPTH '
(IN)
15.00
FOOTING
DIMENSION (IN)
TOE HEEL
£4.08 VftRY
MINIMUM
WftLL THIC'I
(IN)
15. 00
STEEL YIELD STRESS CONCRETE STRENGTH
FY (KSI)
60. 00
F5C (KSI)
3.80
RUN VPLUE H OR
MAX. OMEC,} SOIL SLOPED
P*(FY/FC) i=N0, I2=YES
0.85 1.0!?
ftLLOWflBLE SOIL
PRESSURE (KSF)
EQUIVALENT FLUID
PRESSURE (LBS CU/FT)
35. 00
VERTICAL PLSNE FRICTION
1=WQ FRICTION,0=FRICTION
1.0
SHEP.R FORCE
TOWQRD5 TOE
v K:PS)
jTPbT OF DESIGN VflLUEE
FTNG DEPTH (IN) SLIDE FACTOR
M = BY MOV,E\T COEFF SAFETY
S - BY SHEAR OF
RESD USED TRICT
U'P,_L S-iE-i^ (-A7%*
(KIP5/FT)
£, 3£
TOTAL
SERVICE
LOAD (KID9)
4.6^ IS. £5
1/4 WCL^
DIB'RNCE F
EOTTOK DP FTG.
£.56
FQC.MOMENT (KIP-FEET)
RESD.STEEL <SD. IN/FT) CALC, =
FLEX.STEEL <s^. IN/FT) £e.e-/FY=
(SO. IN/FT) 0.0315-
Wfli_L
AT PGINT
j"7 "? "t
*. 16
JN3f FOOTING TOE FOOTING HEEL
5. 9£ 3iZi. 94
it -. -J _
SOIL 2RE5SJRC p. s- IV
f-^9^' S - F<YTJF r=^'_ Rirr1
1. 5S ?. 5S 9 - S, 5,
SEID LO-D.~ Tr; V
EOTTOn
3/4 WALL MOMENT
3/£ WflLL MOMENT
j./4 WPLL t^OWENT
3.65
5.93
l£.4.
ll.l£
5. CiZ
4. Ifo
3.35
£.. 83
FC(C. MOMENT (KIP-FEET)
RtC?r. STEEL (SO. IN/FT) O3LC. =
( PLEX,STEEL (SO.IN/FT) a0£/FY=
j TEivo. STEEL (3D. IN/FT) 0.0£1£~
• 8.8015-
WftLL flT FTN3 F03TIIMG TOE FOOTING HEE
£1.73 5.78 16. ££<
0.33 0,11 0.^0
0,51 8.46 0.52
0, ££ 0. 8818= 8. 3£ W, 3d
8.57 e..80c8= 8.36 8. 3&
1.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-\f r r
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
Geotechmcal Engineers and
Engineering Geologists
File No: D-2981-M03
May 8, 1986
MULTITECH PROPERTIES, INC.
5820 Miramar Rd., Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92121
Attention: Mr,._Helmut_Kif fman_S
Subject: RISING GLEN, (cHL5BABSTRACT 83-20
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
GRADING PLAN REVIEW
Gentlemen: F
.Following your request, we have reviewed sheet //6 of the Grading Plans for
Carlsbad Tract 83-20 prepared by HCH & Associates, dated August 26, 1985.
The purpose of our review was to evaluate the stability of the cut slopes
proposed near the central section of the northern property boundary and
to assess their potential effect on the nearby apartment complex (Carlsbad
Tract 83-7), It is our understanding that the subject slopes will have
inclinations of 2.0 to 1.0 (horizontal to vertical) and an approximate
height of 65 and 35 feet, respectively. We also understand that the high-
est existing slope will be significantly lowered following construction of
the Elm Avenue extension.
In order to analyze the stability of the subject slopes, we have reviewed
the contents of our "Soil and Geologic Investigation for Rising Glen, Carls-
bad, California" dated December 20, 1984. The log of the nearest boring
(Boring No. 14) drilled approximately midway between the two proposed cut
slopes, indicates that the general area is underlain by undisturbed soils
of the Santiago Formation. Lithologically, the dominant soil type is fine
to medium grained silty sandstone, which typically exhibits good to excellent
stability. Weak, sheared zones were not encountered in the subject boring.
During our investigation, a representative soil sample was obtained from
the boring at 15 feet below existing ground level and it was subsequently
tested for shear strength parameters. The test results indicate an angle
of internal friction of 40° and 747 psf cohesion. For a more conservative
approach in the stability analysis, these values were reduced.
The stability of the proposed cut slopes was analyzed by utilizing Taylor's
Charts. As shown on Figure 1, Slope Design, attached, the calculated factor
of safety for a cut slope inclined at 2.0 to 1.0 (horizontal to vertical),
having 65 feet in maximum height and the indicated shear strength parameters
(0=30° and C=250psf) would be in excess of 1.5, which is considered satis-
factory.
9530 Dowcfy Dnve
San Diego, CA 92126
619 695-2880
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I * * r c
I ' •
I
_ If you have questions or if we can be of further service, please do not
• hesitate to contact the undersigned.
file No: D-2981-M03
May 8, 1986
Very truly yours,
, INCORPORATED
Michael W. Hart Andrew E. Farkas
CEG 706 CEG 1185
• (4) addressee
(2) HCH & Associates, Attn: Joe Gerry
AF:mam
I.? ..:<
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
I1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l/l
I LU
Q
0-
O
en «-i TJ
CO O c
ra
r-l >,-u in
M~l,a> *
O 4-1 fH
(TJ
>i U) 4-1
4-J O
0) M-t
M-l O >i
ra -P
w i-i cu
O 4-1
4-J J-J f{j
0 U 01raV-l 4-t 4-1
o o-u ro
U U)ra M-J ^m o o
4Jro CD uw rom 3 iwO
0)
OJ J5
XS A -
ra u
u o ro
^-P >iTD Cto ro c: ro•-t EH ra-j cr>ro TI m co-u c • •co ro fH •—i w
,C T3 4J jZI U U
JJ OJ Q) ro H Hr^ r^ J_> |j g C
^: -u w x o co 10jj ro crii—i H H
H O T3 H rH OJ (U5 Jj —• ^ ra U] [fl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
GEOCON
c
INCOHPORATKD
Geotecfimcaf Engineers and
Engineering Geologists
File No. D-2981-M03
April 10, 1985
Multitech Properties, Inc.
5820 Miramar Road, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Helmut Kiffman
Subject: RISING GLEN
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
Gentlemen:
Following your request, we have reviewed the grading plan for Lot 74 of
Carlsbad Tract 83-20, Rising Glen prepared by HCH & Associates. The purpose
of our review was to evaluate the potential geotechnical constraints which
may be associated with the excavation of an approximately 10-foot deep
storm drain trench, near the toe of the 50-foot high 2 to 1 fill slope
proposed along the eastern margin of the subject lot 74.
It is our understanding that the City of Carlsbad expressed concern over
potential difficulties which may be encountered during future maintenance
work, should it become necessary, along this section of the storm drain.
The concern expressed by the City of Carlsbad was related to the presence
of mudflow debris and a high fill slope in the proximity of the trench.
The alluvial soils and mudflow debris that presently underlie the proposed
storm drain locations are to be removed and recorapacted during the
construction of a deep fill key in this area. It is our opinion that after
this remedial work has been performed, that standard shoring commonly
utilized for construction of trenches of similar size and purpose will
be sufficient.
9530 Dowdy Drive
Sar\ Diego, CA 92126
619 695-2880
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
File No. D-2981-M03
April 10, 1985
If you have &ny questions please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned
Very truly yours,
GE»CONXINCORPORATED
Michael W. Hart
706
Andrei Farcas
CEG 1185
le faWesley pan
RCE 38789
AF:MWH:mr
(1) addressee
(2) Mr. Walter Brown
City of Carlsbad
,,4 j, - v>
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
GEOCQN
INCORPORATED U_J
Geotechnical Engineers and
Engineering Geologists
File No. D-2981-M03
March 28, 1985
Multitech Properties, Incorporated
5820 Miramar Road, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Helmut Kiffman
Subject: RISING GLEN
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
Gentlemen:
Following your request, we have reviewed the "Soil and Geologic Investiga-
tion" report for the subject project prepared by Geocon, Incorporated dated
December 20, 198&* We have also reviewed the Site Plan for Rising Glen
Apartments prepared by by Steven S. Paschall and Associates. The purpose
of our review was to re-analyze the stability of the approximately 30- to
50-foot-high fill slope east of the proposed Rising Glen Apartments along
El Camino Real.
According to the above referenced Site Plan, the height of the slope will
vary from approximately 30 feet within the southern portion of the slope to
approximately 50 feet near its northern end. Within a limited area at the
northernmost corner of the site, the height of the slope will increase to
approximately 60 feet. It appears that no major changes have occurred
since our initial investigation, hence, recommendations presented in our
referenced soil and geologic report are still applicable.
9530 Dowdy Drive
San Diego, CA 92126
619 695-2880
I
I
•
(File No. D-2981-M03
March 28, 1985
™ For the present analysis, we have used soil strength parameters obtained
• from laboratory testing on granular soils recommended to be utilized for
construction of fill slopes. These parameters are as follows:
Angle of internal friction 41 = 32°
I Cohesion C = 350 psf
The results of the analysis indicate that 2:1 fill slopes constructed as
• recommended in our report possess an indicated factor of safety of at least
1.5 for heights in excess of 60 feet. The attached "Slope Design Chart"
• (Figure 1) presents the allowable slope height for the proposed slope
condition and assumes that a minimum factor of safety of 1.5 is required
and that a pseudostatic seismic force of 0.Ig is incorporated.
• For settlement analysis in our initial report, we have assumed a fill
thickness on the order of 25 feet. As indicated by the new plans provided,
• in some areas the depth of the fills proposed to be placed over the mudflow
• debris/alluvial/colluvial complex may be on the order of 30 feet or more.
It should be anticipated that the settlement for the areas having
approximately 30+ feet of structural fill overburden will increase from the
approximately calculated 4 inches to approximately 5 inches. It is our
opinion that settlement will essentially be complete after a period of 6
months from completion of filling operations . Estabishment and periodic
monitoring of settlement monuments thorughout the subject area, as
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
March 28, 1985 •
indicated in our previous report, is essential for determining when
construction may commence.
As presently proposed, several one- to two-story structures are proposed
along the upper edge of the fill slope. In order to provide adequate
support for the footings within the sloping portion of building locations,
it is recommended that the top 15 feet of the fill slope be overfilled at
an inclination of 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical and after the completion
of the grading, the oversteepened section of the slope be cut back to the
proposed ratio of 2.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical. The fill slope should be
^
backroiled at maximum 4-foot height intervals during construction and
should be track-walked upon completion. It is recommended that all
foundations located near slopes be extended in depth so that the base of
the foundation lies at least 9 feet from the face of slope.
Should you have any questions or if we can be of further service, please do
not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON, INCORPORATED
Michael W. Hart Andrei E. Farcas
CEG 706 CEG 1185
AEF:MWH:lm
(4) addressee
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
File No. D-2981-M03
JIarch 28, 1985
o
LO
LU
Q
UJ
OL
O
O O QJ •U A
H > aj ro -P O
-P U U 0) Hro 3 O a: ^ -P— H= a, . a
OJ BI *^. <U O •—
U > -P E
O QJ H !-i O
4-1 E D U) -Ptn ro tn u .P -P
H H = O
C V4 QJ U
QJ
> O CD (1)H ^ ^t ^: rC cCn QJ O -p ra
CL4H 0)CD ro o-P X3 O U
-P Ql ro H H
,C -P 5 E E-P w x o tn tn-P ra tJ>rH H H
O t) H H 0) 0)ro to to
' "V \ \\ "*"\ '\ \\" x " N> ^ *-\. ^V-:iyy-:^;N^^X^X
^:\_.\:-Vs—X—X
Figure 1
C C
GEOCON
INCORPORATED \L ---
Geotechnical Engineers and
Engineering Geologists
File No. D-2981-M03
March 28, 1985
Multitech Properties, Incorporated
5820 Miramar Road, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Helmut Kiffman
Subject: RISING GLEN
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
Gentlemen:
Following your request, we have reviewed the "Soil and Geologic Investiga-
tion" report for the subject project prepared by Geocon, Incorporated dated
December 20, 1984. We have also reviewed the Preliminary Grading Plans
for Carlsbad Tract 83-20 prepared by HCH and Associates.
As presently anticipated, grading will consist of creating several cut and
fill slopes up to approximately 30 feet in height on both north and south
sides of the future Elm Avenue. Several retaining walls and a cribwall up
to 22 feet in height are also anticipated. Slope ratios for both cut and
fill slopes will be 2.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical.
Our soil and geologic investigation report indicates that mudflow and
landslide debris may exist in the vicinity of the easternmost end of Elm
Avenue extension. Therefore, stabilization measures in the form of a
9530 Dowdy Drive
San Diego, CA 92126
619 695-2880
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
March 28, 1985
buttress fill, as recommended in our report, will be necessary. The length
of the buttress should be approximately 150 feet. Beyond this point, the
road elevation increases gradually from approximately 215 feet MSL to
approximately 260 feet MSL at the western end of the extension. According
to the findings from our initial study and the findings from a more recent
geologic reconnaissance within the subject area, soils prevailing above 220
feet MSL in elevation along the proposed Elm Avenue extension consist of
massive sandstones belonging to the Santiago Formation and Marine Terrace
Deposits. It is our experience that cut slopes constructed at inclinations
of 2.0 horizontal to 1.0 vertical within these sandstones should possess
good to excellent stability.
In conclusion, since no significant unfavorable geologic conditions are
known to occur in the general area of the proposed Elm Avenue extension, Jt
is our opinion that the project can be developed as proposed.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON, INCORPORATED
Michael W. Hart
CEG 706
AEF:MWH:lm
(4) addressee
Andrei E. Farcas
CEG 1185
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
FOR
RISING GLEN
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For
I MULTITECH PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED
San Diego, California
I
| By
GEOCON, INCORPORATED
| San Diego, California
I
December, 1984
I
I
1
}\
1
1
•
1
1
1
GEOCON f
INCORPORATED ' ' \
Geotechnical Engineers and
Engineering Geologists
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
Multitech Properties, Incorporated
5820 Miramar Road, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Helmut Kiffman
Subject: RISING GLEN
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your authorization and our proposal of October 17,
SID=3Sju
1984,
we have performed a soil and geologic investigation for the subject
project. The accompanying report presents the findings from our study and
our recommendations based on those findings relative to the geotechnical
I
1
1
l
1
engineering aspects of developing the project as presently proposed.
Should you have questions concerning our report or if we may be of further
service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON-^JrwmPORATED
KNKVvmH ^7%/s/ (luA^f iSJ\\V^A*A^ C^ r /$&U??fr? Uw*-*Wit-i^Micnael W. Hart Thomas V. Lai>$pa]/ Andrei E. Farcas
CEG 706 RCE 20427 CEG 1185
AEF:MWH:lm
(4) addressee
(2) HCH and Associates
Attn: Mr. Tat Wai
9530 Dowdy Drive
San Diego, CA 92126
619 695-2880
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
Purpose and Scope 1
Site and Project Description 1
Figure 2, Vicinity Map 3
Preliminary Reconnaissance, Review and Research 4
Soil and Geologic Conditions 5
Santiago Formation 5
Marine Terrace Deposits 6
Landslide Debris 6
Mudflow Debris 7
Ancient Colluvium 7
Alluvium 7
Topsoil 8
Fill Soils 9
Groundwater 9
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 10
Faulting and Seismicity 10
Liquefaction 10
Landsliding 10
Bedrock Creep 11
STABILITY ANALYSES 12
Cases Analyzed 13
Assumed Soil Paameters 13
Results of Stability Analysis 14
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General 17
Excavation Characteristics , 18
Slope Stability 18
Settlement Considerations , 21
Grading. 22
Foundations 24
Concrete Slabs-on-Grade 26
Lateral Loading 26
Retaining Walls 26
Site Drainage 27
Grading Plan Review 28
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS 29
Figure 1, Geologic Plan (Map Pocket)
Figure 3, Cross-Section A-A'
Figure 4, Cross-Section B-B'
Figure 5, Cross-Section C-C'
Figure 6, Cross-Section D-D'
Figure 7, Cross-Section E-E1
Figure 8, Cross-Section
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
Figures A-l - A-44, Logs of Test Borings
Figures 45-50, Logs from Previous Investigation
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Table I, Moisture Density and Direct Shear Test Results
Table II, Compaction Test Results
Table III, Expansion Index Test Results
Figures B-l - B-9, Consolidation Curves
APPENDIX C
Figures C-l - C-18, STABILITY ANALYSIS
Figure C-19, Slope Design Chart
APPENDIX D
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
I
I
I
I
^1
IK
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
• Purpose and Scope
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation of the
• Rising Glen project in Carlsbad, California. The purpose of the investiga-
_ tion was to examine and sample the soil and geologic conditions encountered
™ and to provide recommendations pertaining to the geotechnical aspects of
B developing the project as presently proposed.
M - The field investigation consisted of site geologic mapping and the
excavation of 19 large-diameter borings. Previous geotechnical studies
• performed for the property were reviewed. Stereoscopic aerial photographs
dated 1953 and topographic maps were also analyzed to aid in the
f preparation of this report. Laboratory tests were performed on selected
— representative soil samples obtained at various depths in the test borings
™ to evaluate pertinent physical properties. A more detailed description of
• the procedures and methods utilized during the field and laboratory
investigation are presented in Appendices A and B, respectively
conclusions and recommendations that follow are based on an analysis
The
of the
data obtained and our experience with similar soil and geologic conditions
I
Site jmd Project Description
The subject property encompasses approximately 50 acres of essentially
undeveloped land and it is located between El Camino Real and Rising Glen
-1-
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
Drive, approximately one-half mile south of Highway 78 in the City of
fl Carlsbad, California (see Geologic Map, Figure 1, pocket, and Vicinity Map,
Figure 2).I
The site is bordered to the west and north by existing residential
• developments. The eastern limit of the property is formed by El Camino
Real, while to the south the site is bounded by undeveloped land.I
Topographically, the property consists of gently to steeply sloping
• hillside terrain with elevations ranging from a high of approximately 320
feet (MSL) near the middle of the western property line to a low of
approximately 95 feet (MSL) at the property *s northernmost corner.
| Existing man-made improvements consist of numerous dirt roads which cross
• the property and one residential structure with adjacent facilities,
™ corrals, etc. Site drainage is presently accomplished through a generally
fl northeasterly trending network of ravines and ultimately through controlled
drainage facilities along El Camino Real. Vegetation consists of dense
stands of wild grasses over the majority of the site and chaparral along
the eastern margin of the property covering the steeper portions of the
^
site. Numerous eucalyptus trees exist within the western and southern
portions of the property.
For our study, we have been provided with a Tentative Map for Rising Glen,
Carlsbad Tract 83-20, scale 1"=100', dated August 12, 1983 prepared by HCH
-2-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
November 20, 1984
SOURCE SAN LUIS REY QUAD MAP, 1968
RISING GLEN
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Figure 2
-3-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
and Associates (Figure 1). It is our understanding that it is proposed to
develop the site to receive 73 single-family residential lots. Five large
pads totaling approximately 9 acres, designated for apartment buildings are
also anticipated within the northernmost portion of the property. A 9-acre
open space is contemplated in an area of steeply sloping hillside within
the eastern portion of the property. Grading, as presently proposed, will
result in cut slopes of approximately 90 feet (maximum) in height and fill
slopes in excess of 100 feet maximum in height. Slope ratios of 2.0
horizontal to 1.0 vertical are anticipated.
Preliminary Reconnaissance, Review^Lnd Research
A geologic reconnaissance and review of available geotechnical and
geological reports and maps pertaining to the site was performed prior to
the field investigation. In particular, the following were reviewed:
"Soil and Geologic Reconnaissance for Alanda EIR, Carlsbad,
California" by Geocon, Incorporated dated July 13, 1983.
"Limited Geologic Investigation for Alanda Property, Carlsbad,
California" by Geocon, Incorporated dated August 11, 1983.
"Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, El Camino Real and
Rising Glen Drive, Carlsbad, California" by San Diego Soils
Engineering, Incorporated dated November 24, 1980.
"Fault map of California," California Division of Mines and
Geology by C. W. Jennings, 1972.
"Seismic Safety Element for the San Diego County, California."
Unpublished reports, aerial photographs and maps on file with
our firm.
-4-
I
1
1w
1
1
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
'
Soil and Geologic Conditions
HUH!CD
The site is underlain by the Eocene Santiago Formation, by Marine Terrace
Deposits and by late Quaternary
and mudflow debris, colluviuin,
surficial deposits which include landslide
alluvium, topsoil and fill soils. Each of
these soil conditions is described as follows:
Santiago Formation. The Santiago Formation underlies the entire site.1
1
The stratigraphic column compiled from the boring logs indicates that the
Santiago Formation comprises a sequence of sandstones, claystones and
siltstones. The upper portion of this sequence is predominantly medium-
grained to coarse, weakly cemented, whitish-tan sandstone, while the lower
sections are primarily fine-grained sediments ranging from sandy siltstones1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
to claystones.
The Santiago Formation commonly contains weak clay stone beds and generally
requires slope stabilization measures for cut slopes in the clay-rich
portions . As indicated on
landslides have been mapped
possessing relatively low shear
formation are highly expansive
specially designed foundations
Figure 1 , several mudf lows and ancient
within this formation. In addition to
strength, the more clayey portions of this
and typically require selective grading or
to mitigate the potential adverse effects.
Excavation within this formation should encountered little difficulty with
conventional grading equipment.
-5-
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-MQ3
December 20, 1984
Generally, bedding within the Santiago Formation is relatively massive and
• well cemented sandstone beds are not uncommon. These sediments are
horizontally bedded or gently dipping to the north and northwest.I
Marine _Terrace Deposits. Overlying the Eocene sediments along a
• nonconformable contact, Pleistocene-aged Marine Terrace deposits were found
to border the western limits of the property above approximately 270 feet
V in elevation. The Terrace Deposits are composed of dense, reddish-brown,
M silty sandstones interbedded with weakly cemented to cohesionless cobble
conglomerates and sands.
The Terrace Deposits exhibit excellent bearing characteristics in both
undisturbed and well compacted states. However, the cohesionless sandsI
within the Terrace Deposits are highly prone to erosion when exposed on cut
slopes.
• La.nd s 11 de Debris. The landslide debris is composed of relatively
loose, clayey sands and cobbles and numerous fractured sandstone and
• siltstone blocks. The thickness of the slide debris within the area
_ investigated by Boring 11 apparently does not exceed approximately 30 feet.
• It is our understanding that it is proposed to construct an approximately
• 100-foot-high cut and fill slope over the slide area. In order to provide
adequate overall stability to the proposed fill slope, complete removal and
• recompaction of the landslide debris will be required. The removal should
I
-6-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
be observed and approved by an engineering geologist from Geocon,
Incorporated.
Mudflow Debris. Relatively large areas underlain by a thick sequence
of mudflow and related alluvial deposits were encountered within the site
• limits, particularly within the northern half of the property. These soils
in limited areas exceed 50 feet in thickness and represent a succession of
M clays, sandy clays, silts, cohesionless sands, etc. Apparently the
— deposition of these sediments occurred as a result of minor slope failures
" and subsequent mudflows alternating with common stream deposition episodes.
ft As a result, a relatively thick sequence of relatively clean, cross-bedded
sands and cobbles and highly disturbed mudflow debris was generated. In
• order to mitigate the potential adverse effects of potential settlement of
these soils, partial removal and recompaction will be required (see
fl Conclusions and Recommendations).
Ancient Colluvium. A significant portion of the site is blanketed by a
•
relatively thick layer of weakly cemented sands and cobbles. These soils
have originated from the Terrace Deposits which comprise the hilltops to
B the west. The upper portion of the ancient colluvium deposits appear to be
poorly consolidated, therefore, partial removal and recompaction and deep
• benching and keying into the slope will be required during grading in all
areas where the colluvial deposits are present.
— 7 —
I
I
I
I
I
I File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
Alluvium. Alluvial soils composed primarily of loose, clayey sands
• occur in the bottom of the ravine along El Camino Real. The depth of these
soils may exceed 30 feet and saturated conditions may be encountered below
£ 20 feet in depth. During the wet season, however, nearly total saturation
« of the alluvium is likely to develop for a limited period of time,
therefore, complete removal and recompaction of these deposits should be
scheduled for the end of summer when the water table should be the lowest.
Topjigil. The majority of the site was found to be covered by looseI
topsolls. In general, the topsoils possess low to moderate expansion
• potential and average approximately 2 feet in thickness. Due to the loose
unconsolidated condition of the topsoils, as well as their expansive
| potential, remedial grading measures such as recompaction, deeper than
JH normal side slope fill keys and undercutting of transition (cut-fill) pads
will be necessary.
Fill Soils. Fill soils located on the site are limited to the El
• Camino Real Road embankment along the eastern property boundary. Minor
amounts of fill soils also exist north of the existing structure (see
• Geologic Map, Figure 1). In addition, scattered piles of trash and end-
dump fill were noticed throughout the property. The fill soils are not
I considered adequate for support of structural improvements in their present
f condition and will require remedial grading. All deleterious debris
considered to be unsuitable to be used in structural fill will require
• exportation from the property.
1
1
1
1
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
Groundwater
There are two primary
inuiCD
sources of groundwater within the project limits;
lateral subsurface mitigation of water from adjacent developed areas , and1
1
direct infiltration of rainfall and surface runoff during the wet season.
The groundwater flow and distribution appears to be closely controlled by
the geologic structure.
borings drilled in the
Very heavy seepage was encountered in some of the
upper northwestern portion of the property where a
significant perched water table has developed along an unconf ormable1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
contact within the Santiago Formation at approximately 230 to 240 feet in
elevation. The groundwater occurs in weakly cemented to cohesionless ,
coarse sandstones which
Very heavy seepage and
the property (Borings
overlie hard, impermeable siltstones.
caving was encountered within the lowest portions of
12 and 19) in the mud flow debris /alluvial complex.
Because of its depth (approximately 50 feet below existing ground level),
the groundwater will not adversely affect the project in this area.
It is possible that after periods of intense rainfall, the groundwater
pattern may change and seeps may develop along fractures within the
Santiago Formation in
investigation. It is,
areas where they were not encountered during this
therefore, recommended that periodic inspection be
made either by the soil engineer or engineering geologist during grading
and /or construction for the presence of groundwater.
-9-
1
1
1
1V
1
1
1
1
1•
1
_
1
i
File No. D-2981-M03 [
December 20, 1984
i
GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
D
Faulting and Seismicity. It is our opinion, based on our site
reconnaissance and a review of published geologic maps and reports
the site is not located on any known fault trace. The nearest known
fault is the Elsinore Fault zone which lies approximately 23 miles
northeast.
It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to
, that
active
to the
severe
ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along any of the Southern
California's active faults, however, the seismic risk at the site is not
significantly greater than that of the surrounding developments and the
Carlsbad area in general.
Liquefaction. It is our opinion that soil deposits present on the site
-are generally not susceptible to seismically-induced liquefaction.
is a remote possibility that liquefaction could occur within
There
loose
saturated landslide and/or mudf low debris and associated colluvium1
1
1
1
1
deposits. However, following grading operations and placement of compacted
fill soils, the risk of liquefaction at the site should be very low.
Landsliding. The most significant geologic hazard to the
development is the potential for lands liding and slope instability
by the presence of ancient landslides and weak clay stone beds
future
caused
of the
Santiago Formation. Ancient landslides have been dated by radiocarbon
-10-
1
1
1
1
(Hn
File No. D-2981-M03 1 ]
December 20, 1984
methods as being 8 to 30 thousand years old in the Southern California area
by Stout (1969) and others. They are believed to have occurred primarily
as a response of weak claystones to intense rainfall and high water table
1
I
1
1
I
1
1
conditions in slopes during late Pleistocene and early Holocene time.
The results of our investigation confirmed the presence of one small
landslide within the east-central portion of the property. In addition,
several mudflow and possible shallow undetected slides may exist within
property limits. It is recommended that the landslide encountered south
proposed Elm Street and west of El Camino Real be entirely removed prior
placing structural fill. Cut slopes proposed in areas underlain
mudflows and/or unconsolidated colluvial deposits should be buttressed
shown on the geologic map and cross-sections .
the
of
to
by
as
Periodic observation during grading will be required in order to determine
if additional landslides exist within the property limits. Should such
landslides be encountered, further recommendations will be provided.
Bedrock Creep. The subsurface investigation revealed that highly
fractured and weathered soils which apparently have undergone slow creep
conditions in a limited area exist within the southern portion of
property. Several randomly oriented minor shear zones were found to
the
be
associated with the bedrock creep in Boring 8. The soils affected by creep
1
1
1
1
are unstable and should therefore, be removed during grading operations.
-11-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I• The computer-generated cross-sections included herein represent the
A simplified section configurations actually analyzed. The cross-sections
presented on Figures 4 through 7 are the original geologic sections from
M which the computer generated sections were derived.
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
STABILITY ANALYSES
Computer analyses of landslide and slope stability were performed utilizing
two computer programs based on Bishop's Simplified Method of Slices
executed on an IBM Computer. One of these programs has been developed in
our office. The second is called STABL and was developed at Purdue
University.
The complexity of the site geology, results of our subsurface investigation
and laboratory testing, existing and future topography and groundwater
conditions were considered in performing the stability analyses.
The geometry of landslide sections were developed by extrapolation of
conditions encountered in the exploratory borings. Groundwater conditions
were also evaluated in a similar manner.
A number of analyses were performed based on proposed grading conditions.
Additional analyses were performed to determine appropriate corrective
measures, including construction of earth buttresses, shear keys and
dewatering systems.
-12-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
Cases Analyzed ]
Four geologic cross-sections were prepared for stability analyses utilizing '
the results of the geologic reconnaissance and subsurface exploration of
1
the site. The soils underlying the site were previously discussed under [
1
soil and Geologic Conditions. Sections B-B' and C-C' (Figures 4 and 5) were f
analyzed for failure along the basal shear zone under proposed conditions.
I
Back-calculations were not performed. The deposition of deep colluvial ,
soils subsequent to the initial failures apparently have significantly I
changed the original topography and also improved the stability under
existing conditions. Therefore, it was our opinion that soil strength '
\parameters obtained from back-calculations would not be characteristic for
the actual conditions following the failures. f
Assumed Soil Parameters
The soil strength parameters utilized for the stability analysis were I
tobtained from laboratory testing or were assumed based on previous '
experience with similar conditions. The soil strength parameters selected \
f
were as follows:*
Cross-Sections B-B' and C-C'
Shear Zone
Angle of Internal Friction 0=8°
Cohesion C = 100 psf
Wet Soil Density yw = 120 pcf
Saturated Soil Density ys = 130 pcf
-13-
1
1VI
1
1
1
•
1
1
1•
1
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
Mudflow Debris
Angle of Internal Friction
Cohesion
Wet Soil Density
Saturated Soil Density
Buttress Fill
Angle of Internal Friction
Cohesion
Wet Soil Density
Saturated Soil Density
Cross-Sections D-D1 and E-E1
Santiago Formation
'
Angle of Internal Friction
Cohesion
Wet Soil Density
Saturated Soil Density
Seepage forces were assumed only for
where groundwater was encountered in
15
<f> = 15°
C = 200 psf
Yw = 120 pcf
Ys = 130 pcf
* = 30« & 350
C = 350 psf
Yw = 125 pcf
Ys = 135 pcf
4> varies from 25° to 35°
^
™=^J
C varies from 250 to 450 psf
Yw varies from 115 to 125 pcf
Ys varies from 125 to 135 pcf
analysis of Sections D-D' and E-E1
the borings. An increase in the
groundwater table after the development is completed was not considered.
1
1
1
1
1
1
It is our opinion that if recommendations presented herein are implemented
within design and construction, the potential for groundwater buildup
within the cut slope areas should be insignificant.
Results of Stability Analysis
The grading as proposed would significantly reduce the general stability
within the area where some of the mudflows have originated and reactivation
could occur unless remedial grading measures are incorporated. Following
the construction of buttresses and/or
-14-
stability fills within areas where
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
cut slopes are proposed, the factor of safety could be increased to the
desired 1.5. The slope stability analysis indicates that the buttress
material proposed for Section B-B' should have an angle of internal
friction and cohesion of approximately 35 degrees and 350 psf, respec-
tively. All other stability fills and buttresses should have a minimum
angle of internal friction of 30 degrees and a cohesion of 350 psf. It is
our opinion that if selective grading is performed, these types of material
can be readily obtained from an area nearby.
As a conclusion to this discussion of landsllding and stability analysis,
certain comments are in order. Development on ancient landslides involves
some inherent risks which are often impractical to eliminate completely.
Examples of this would be the risk of initiating a landslide while making a
buttress excavation. These risks occur primarily as a result of the highly
variable characteristics of soil which has been subjected to landsliding.
Planes of weakness and zones of shearing or highly loosened soil are
unpredictable and may easily go undetected. Except in the case of very
small landslides, the elimination of the risk is usually uneconomical.
Therefore, the recommendations presented in this report are intended to 1)
provide increased overall stability to the known slide areas and zones of
weakness, and 2) to reduce the potential for structural distress due to
undetected zones of potentially compressible soil within the slide mass. It
is our opinion that if these recommendations are carefully followed, the
-15-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
site will be suitable for the proposed development, provided that the
inherent risks previously discussed can be tolerated.
-16-
1
1•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
m^cn^4 — J
1. It is our opinion that the site is suitable for the development of the
proposed residential subdivision, provided the recommendations presented
herein are implemented within design and construction.
2. The geologic units and surficial deposits present on the site are the
Santiago Formation, Marine Terrace Deposits
alluvium, ancient colluvium, topsoil, and
, landslide and mudflow debris,
some fill soils. It is our
opinion that soils belonging to the Santiago Formation and the Marine
Terrace Deposits exhibit good to excellent
both natural or properly compacted state.
geo technical characteristics in
The surficial deposits are
relatively unconsolidated and, in some areas , unstable , therefore , removal
and recompaction and stabilization measures will be required as discussed
hereinafter.
•
3. The Santiago Formation and the Marine
the primary material to be used in fills.
Terrace Deposits will represent
As indicated by our exploratory
borings, the majority of these soils exhibit low expansion characteristics,
therefore, it is anticipated that there will be sufficient quantities of
low expansive soils to cap all building pads.
4, Perched groundwater was encountered
elevation within the Santiago Formation.
-17-
at approximately 230 feet in
If not mitigated, its presence
1
1^^J
1
I
fFile No. D-2981-M03 ^
December 20, 1984
Urn
— S^J
may adversely impact the proposed 90-foot-high cut slope proposed along the1
I
•
western property line. Saturated conditions were also encountered within
the northeastern portion of the property at approximately 50 feet
existing ground level.
Excavation Characteristics
below
5. In our opinion, the majority of the soil units on the site can be
excavated with light to moderate effort with conventional heavy-duty
1
1
1
i
•
grading equipment .
Slope Stability
6. The results of the stability analyses are presented in Appendix C and
Figures 4 through 7 . The conditions for tbe analysis were discussed
previously. In summary , the analyses indicate calculated static factors of
safety under proposed conditions without stabilization measures from 0.87
to 2.2. Proper stabilization measures in the form of buttress fills and
dewatering would significantly improve the stability of the proposed slopes
1
1
1
1
1
and will be required where f actors-of-saf ety are less than 1.5.
approximate configuration of such buttresses, proposed dewatering and
The
other
mitigative measures are presented in the following paragraphs and on the
attached Figures 1 and 4 through 7.
7. It is our opinion that pseudostatic analysis of landslide stability
does not closely approximate conditions experienced during episodes of
-18-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11. All fill slopes should be properly benched into the natural ground and
• adequate shear keys should be provided. It is recommended that total
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
seismic loading since parameters such as frequency and duration of seismic
shaking and dynamic shear strength are not considered. Hence, seismic
loads were not considered.
8. In order to minimize the risk for slope failures due to water seepage
within the 90-foot-high cut slope behind Lots 4 through 9, we recommend the
installation of 1,5-inch-diameter slotted PVC drains. These drains should
be drilled near horizontally approximately 40 feet into the slope along the
geologic unconformity which retains the perched groundwater. The distance
between the drains should be approximately 15 to 20 feet. Final design of
such devices can be provided when grading plans are fully developed.
9. All cut slopes excavated within the rnudflow and/or landslide debris are
considered potentially unstable and should be properly stabilized as shown
on the Geologic Map, Figure 1, and Geologic Cross-Sections. Final design
of the buttress and stability fills can be provided by this office when the
grading plans are fully developed. In addition, stability fills are recom-
mended in many areas where colluvial soils will be exposed on cut slopes.
10. Fill slopes should be stable to the proposed maximum heights of
approximately 100 feet if constructed at a ratio no steeper than 2.0
horizontal to 1.0 vertical and if recommendations contained herein are
implemented in the design and construction of such slopes.
I -19-
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
I
alluvium removal be performed within the southern portion of the property
I in all areas where structural fills are proposed. For the fill slope
bordering Lot 74 to the east, complete removal of the unconsolidated
™ mudflow debris/alluvium complex is not practical and, therefore, it is
• recommended that the shear key be extended a minimum of 5 feet below the
El Camino Real embankment as shown on Figure 1, Geologic Map, and Figure 3,
• Geologic Cross-Section A-A1.
• 12. Alluvium removal should be scheduled for late summer or early fall
when the groundwater level is the lowest. Perched groundwater may develop
I during the wet season within the alluvial deposits and, hence, the removal
_ and recompaction operations may be severely hampered.
13. It is recommended that the outer zone of fill slopes, equal to atIleast the height of the slope or 20 feet, whichever is less, be composed
primarily of well compacted granular material. All fill slopes should be
backrolled at maximum 4-foot fill height intervals during construction and
each fill slope should be track-walked upon completion.
14. All cut slopes should be inspected by an engineering geologist fromI
Geocon, Incorporated during grading to verify that the exposed soil and
• geologic conditions do not differ significantly from those anticipated.
fl| 15. To reduce the potential for erosion and slope sloughing, all slopes
should be planted, drained and properly maintained.
I
I
I -20-
I
I
I
I
I
I File No. D-2981-M03
* 'December 20, 1984
I
16. Due to the potential for slide reactivation during the buttress
I construction, it is recommended that the associated remedial grading be
performed as expeditiously as practical. The grading should be planned
H such that temporary buttress cut slopes are backfilled without delay. In
flj addition, consideration should be given to constructing the buttress(es) in
segments to reduce the risk of slide reactivation.
17. No buttressing is recommended at this time for the southwestern
• portion of the property where an approximately 40-foot-high cut slope is
anticipated. The upper portion of this cut slope (approximately 20 feet)
I will expose poorly consolidated ancient colluvium deposits which may
require slope stabilization measures. It is our opinion, however, that the
need for buttresses and/or stability fills in this area can be best
determined during grading.
Settlement Considerations
18. Analysis of the consolidation tests performed on undisturbed samples
• of the mudflow debris/alluvial/colluvial complex indicates that the maximum
calculated settlements under the proposed fill loads will be on the order
• of 3.5 to 4 inches. This estimate is based on excavation and recompaction
_ of the upper 10 feet of the mudflow debris/alluvial/colluvial complex and
' maximum new fill heights on the order of 25 feet. The test borings also
• indicate that the majority of the alluvial/colluvial soils and associated
mudflow debris are relatively granular, free draining materials. Experience
I
-21-
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
I
I
I
with these materials suggests that the majority of the settlement will
|| occur rapidly, typically during the construction phases. Analysis indicates
_ that settlement will essentially be complete after a period of 6 months
from completion of grading.
m 19. Upon completion of grading, it is recommended that at least four
• settlement monuments be established throughout the subject area within the
northeastern portion of the property. The monuments should be monitored
I for vertical movement on a weekly basis by a licensed land surveyor for a
period of at least 8 weeks or until such time that significant movement has
| ceased. Itis recommended that construction in these areas be delayed
M until all significant settlement has occurred.
Grading
• 20. All grading should be performed in accordance with the "Recommended
• Grading Specifications" contained in Appendix D. Where the recommendations
of Appendix D conflict with this section of the report, the recommendations
of this section shall take precedence.
• 21. Site preparation should begin with removal of all deleterious matter
and vegetation. The depth of removal should be such that material to be
• used in fills is free of organic matter. Material generated during
stripping operations and/or site demolition should be exported from the
I site.
-22-
I
I File No. D-2981-M03
• December 20, 1984
I
22. All existing fill soils, loose topsoils and loose mudflow or slide
I -debris materials not removed by planned grading should be removed to firm
natural ground and properly compacted to at least 90 percent relative
• compaction,
| 23. Laboratory tests and field observations indicate that the mudflow
. debris/colluvial and alluvial soils within the northeastern portion of the
— property consist of medium dense, silty to clayey sands and sandy clays of
I generally a relative compaction in excess of 86 percent. It is, therefore,
recommended that the upper 10 feet of the mudflow debris/alluvium/colluvium
complex be removed and properly recompacted. Where only partial removal is
performed, the base of the exposed excavation should be tested to confirm a
• relative compaction of at least 90 percent prior to replacing the material.
• Areas encountering less than 90 percent relative compaction may require a
deeper removal depth.
24. To reduce the potential for future groundwater or seepage problems, it
• is recommended that subsurface drains be installed in the ravines to be
filled. The recommended location of the subsurface drains are shown on
J Figure 1. A typical detail of the drain system is presented as Figure 9.
The actual location and depth of the subsurface drains should be evaluated
• by the geotechnical engineer during grading. The subsurface drains should
• be "as-built" for location and elevation by the project civil engineer.
I
I
-23-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
25. The upper 3 feet of soil in cut or fill lot areas should be composed
of "very low" to "low" expansive soil available on-site. "Very low" to
"low" expansive soil is defined as soil having an Expansion Index of 50 or
less when tested in accordance with UBC Standard 29-2.
26. To reduce the potential for differential settlement, it is recommended
that structures not be placed on cut-fill transition lines. Therefore, The
cut portion of lots containing cut-fill transition lines should be undercut
at least 3 feet below the proposed finish grade, the excavated material
should then be watered as required, replaced and properly compacted.
Highly expansive material should be replaced as recommended above. It is
also recommended that large and/or settlement sensitive structures should
not be constructed on Lot 74 which is underlain by very deep unconsolidated
mudflow debris and alluvium without further recommendations which will be
provided when grading and building plans are completed.
27. It is recommended that a preconstruction conference be held at the
site with the owner or developer, contractor, civil engineer, and soil
engineer in attendance. Special soil handling and/or the grading plans can
be discussed at that time.
Foundations
28. The following recommendations are for single-family detached structures
and assume that low expansive soils (Expansion Index of 50 or less) will
-24-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
I exist at finish grades. If this is not feasible, further recommendations
I will be provided by this office following grading operations on a lot-by-
lot basis. Recommendations for multi-family structures (Lot 74) will beIprovided at a later date after review of grading and building plans.
• 29. The site is suitable for the use of isolated spread footings or
continuous strip footings if graded as recommended above. Such footings
should be at least 12 inches in width and should extend at least 12 inches
below lowest adjacent pad grade. Footings located near the top of a slope
should be deepened such that the bottom outside edge of the footing is at
• least 7 feet horizontally from the face of the slope.
I 30. It is recommended that minimum continuous strip footing reinforcement
consist of two No. 4 steel reinforcing bars placed horizontally in the
• footings, one near the top and one near the bottom.
I 31. The above minimum reinforcement is based on soil characteristics and
is not intended to be in lieu of reinforcement necessary for structuralIconsiderations
I 32. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be used for foundations
constructed as recommended above. The allowable bearing capacity is for
dead plus live loads and may be increased by one-third for transient loads
due to wind or seismic forces.
-25-
I
I
I
•
I
i
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
Concrete Slabs-on-Grade
H 33. Concrete slabs should have a nominal thickness of 4 inches and be
underlain by at least 2 inches of clean sand. Reinforcement should consist
• of 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh throughout. Where moisture sensitive floor
fl| coverings are planned, the an impervious membrane vapor barrier should be
utilized and a 2-inch layer of clean sand should be placed between the base
• of the slab and the membrane to minimize shrinkage cracking and allow
proper curing of the concrete.I
Lateral Leading
• 34. Lateral loads may be resisted by a passive earth pressure equivalent
to a fluid weight of 350 pcf for footings or shear keys poured neat against
^w properly compacted granular soils or undisturbed formational soils. The
• upper 12 inches of material in areas not protected by floor slabs or
pavement should not be included in design for passive resistance.
35. If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, a coefficient of
• friction between soil and concrete of 0.40 is recommended.
• Retaining Walls
36. It is recommended that retaining walls be designed for an active soil
pressure equivalent to a fluid weight of 35 pcf. This value assumes that
the walls are unrestrained from movement at the top, have a drained
granular backfill and a level backfill surface. For walls with backfill
-26-
I
I
I
I
I
I File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
I
surfaces inclined at no steeper than 2.0 to 1.0, an active pressure of 45
• pcf is recommended. For walls restrained from movement at the top, such as
basement walls, a uniform horizontal pressure of 7H psf (where H is the
height of the wall in feet) should be applied in addition to the active
pressures recommended above.
37. All retaining walls should be provided with a backfill drajnage system
™ adequate to prevent the buildup of hydrostatic forces.
^urface Drainage
38. Adequate drainage provisions are imperative. Under no circumstances
should water be allowed to pond adj acent to footings. The lots and
• building pads should be properly finish graded after buildings and other
improvements are in place such that surface drainage is directed away from
| foundations, floor slabs and the top of slopes to controlled drainage
— structures.
39. Our experience indicates that even with these provisions, a groundwater
• condition can and may develop as a result of increased irrigation,
• landscaping and upslope surface runoff, particularly in residential
developments.
I
I
I
I
-27-
I
I File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
I
Grading Plan Review
AO. The soil engineer and engineering geologist should review the grading
^ plans as they are developed. Additional engineering analysis and/or field
™ investigation may be required.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I -28-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
LIMITATIONS AND UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS
1. The recommendations of this report pertain only to the site
investigated and are based upon the assumption that the soil conditions do
not deviate from those disclosed in the investigation. If any variations
• or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the
proposed construction will differ from that planned at the present time,I Geocon, Incorporated should be notified so that supplemental recom-
mendations can be given.
2. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the
W responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the
A information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the
attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated
• into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the
contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.I
3. The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However,
• changes in the conditions of a property can occur with the passage of time,
whether they be due to natural processes or the works of man on this or
B adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate
• standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening
of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated
• wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report
is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of threeIyears
-29-
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
1V3H ONIWVO 13
LU
_J
CD
Oz
CO
cc
NOI1VA313
Figure 3
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
\
0=1-
ox
UJ
o
UJ
OQ
ooIO
o
O
PJ
"oo
CVJ
oto
QQ
CO
2
O
I-o
UJ
CO
en
CO
Ocro
S ft. H
< 2
NOIJ-VA3H3
Figure 4
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
LU
_l
O
oz
CO
CE
a:CD
UJ
tro
UJ
0=1
CO
O,
o
O .to
.to
O
O
oo
IO
om
CJ
OoCJ
o
Io
o
Ho
UJ
COI
COenOtro
oO
O
01 —
< DJ
O 5 < =•
o °EH Q uj<« 5
y Z fOpfi := < O^8^2o ^: j.
A UJ > COft< Q - O)
« 9 S ^
r,U
o -J
Figure 5
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
III
_l
CD
O
Z
CO
tr
Q
i
Q
o
h-
O
UJ
CO(/}occo
u 3Z ^ ifs s a>u a>
o- •* o< £5
UJ "a *H <£ Z
vi a:£ pz u. to
woo
O
Q
ooto
om
NOI1VA313
ooCM
5 2
5 o
•<; « Q
_ wi zKo 5
O -J *O UJn w >
K S Q
< >O "> Q
O S o
roO
Figure 6
File No.
December
D-2981-M03
20, 1984
UJ_J
O
C5
Z
w
DC
LJ
LJ
oo10
oo
CO
LU
i
L±J
O
H
O
LU
CO
i
CO
CO
Ooro
U4 *• —
i
OOo
< £
o
E r*-
o 8
>-» u 5; u.
Figure 7
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
UJ_1
CD
CD
C/D
DC
IJL
UJ
oX UJa. K
< 2
£ z[/) OS
Z £ »
- - e>
W
OO
O
HO
05
z oo o
(J uj
£ 5 «
S < 2
O u
Cfi
O
o
2 5
g S
u.
Figure 8
ooIO
oo oo
IUC3 o _J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• APPENDIX A
iii
iiiii
I GEOCON
•i INCORPORATED
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
APPENDIX A
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on October 1 and December 4, 1984 and
consisted of geologic mapping by our engineering geologist and the excava-
tion of 19 large-diameter exploratory borings to depths ranging from 35
feet to 96 feet. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the
Geologic Map, Figure 1. Drilling was accomplished by a truck-mounted
caisson-type drill rig equipped with a 30-inch-diameter bucket auger. As
drilling proceeded, relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained by
driving a 3-inch-diameter split-tube sampler equipped with 1-inch-high
brass rings into the undisturbed soil. The sampler was driven by dropping
the Kelly bar with sampler attached at a distance of 12 inches. The weight
of the Kelly bar varies according to the depth of the sample. The following
indicates the Kelly bar weights for each sampling interval.
Kelly Bar
Depth Weight (Ibs)
0-26 3430
26-47 3459
47+ 1530
For Boring Nos, 20 and 21, a Mobile B-53 drill rig equipped with 8-inch-
diameter hollow stem has been utilized. The sampler was driven by dropping
a 140-pound hammer with sampler attached at a distance of 30 inches.
I
I File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
I
During the excavation, the soils encountered were continuously examined,
• visually classified and logged. Logs of the test borings are presented on
Figures A-l through A-40 in Appendix A. The logs depict the depth and
• description of the various soil types encountered and include the depths at
• which samples were obtained, as well as the penetration resistance of the
sampler.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
x K
uj-H»
0 -
•
- 2-
- 4-
- 6-
ft -o
- 10-
- 12-
.
• 14-
- 16-
. 18.
.
. 20 _
- 22.
-
. 24-
. 26-
- 28-
O
LLt_JCL
^*:<W
UO1oI
tJ
•
1
'
/
'
,
crLJJi~
g
Q213
Oo:CD
COc/)^ —
— ifi
"I
0^w
BORING 1
ELEVATION 135 ' DATF DRILLED 10/1/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Very dense, humid, grayish-tan, weakly
cemented, coarse SANDSTONE
_ grades into very dense, moist, light brown,
/ weakly cemented, massive, fine SANDSTONE
;
_ becomes very dense , moist , whitish-gray,
j weakly cemented, well graded SAND
1
/ / Unconformity, dips approximately 10° toward
| west. Stiff, fractured, moist, dark gray
/ CLAYSTONE wtih shiny parting surfaces
_/ erades into very dense, massive, moist,
// tan, fine SANDSTONE_/
, becomes hard, light gray Sandy SILTSTONE
7
t Bedding Plane Fault, poorly developed,
/ thickness 1/8' , attitude N80°W/5°S
Very dense, moist, whitish-gray, weakly
cemented, coarse SANDSTONE with yellowish
iron oxide staining
f— numerous SILTSTONE rip-up clasts
j
£MJJ-—
-oiT
<<w
KCO|
I = ™
-
•
.
•
-
•
.
m
.
.
-
•
-
-
•
-
1-
W
2H.
UJQ
ccQ
**
^^LiJ
%*i§^0
Figure A-l, Log of Test Boring 1 Continued next page
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [J SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
[3 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
U — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
B — CHUNK SAMPLE
B — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
i WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOG OFSUBSURFACECONDITIONSSHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHESPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED IT1S NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVEOF SUBSUHFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONSANO TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
X ,_
- 30.
• 32-
• "
- 34-
-
- 36-
• 38-
- 40-
• 42-SAMPLE NO•
>-CD
O_i
OX1-_J
;
rc
aROUNDWATECO
1CO
BORING 1 CONTINUED
Fl FVATION DATF DRILLED 10/1/84
FOUIPMENT Bucket RIR
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Very stiff, humid, light gray STILSTONE
Bedding attitude N30°W/6°SW
~v
\ grades into very dense, moist to wet,
~\ light gray, coarse SAND
\\* light , general seepage
Very dense, wet, light gray, massive, fine,
Silty SANDSTONE/ SILTSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 41.0 FEET
J.PENETRATIOf)RESISTANCEBLOWS/FT\•DRY DENSITYPCFMOISTURECONTENT, %Figure A-2, Log of Test Boring 1 Continued
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D _ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
C3 _ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
B.
IS.
.STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
.CHUNK SAMPLE
H — DFIIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
?• —. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREONAPPLIESONLYATTHE SPECIFIC BORING ORTRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
r. K
Isff
. 0
-
_ 2 .
. 4 .
-
. 6 .
. 8 .
.10 .
.12 .
. 14 .
. 16 ._
. 18 -
•
- 20 -
-
- 22 -
• 24 -
- 26 -
- 28 -
30
oz
SAMPLE>Oo—iOX1-—1
/
y
/.
/
/
/
yf
/
/
•
/
/
/
LU
<
S
\QNnOHOenCO —<co
d«
CO
BORING 2
ELEVATION 1 1U ' DATE DRILLED 10/1/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Soft, humid, dark gray, Sandy CLAY
/SANTIAGO FORMATION
-* Fractured, calichef led , humid , light bro'wn,
Clayey SILTSlOH£
grades into hard, brittle, purplish-light
brown CLAYS TONE
/ Very dense, humid, massive, light grayish-
brown, weakly cemented, r uie SANDSTONE
/ Hard, fractured, moist, mottled purplish-
/ brown CLAYSTONE with shiny parting surfaces
/ and randomly oriented minor shear olanes ,
black manganese oxide staining
becomes light grayish-brown, fractured
CLAYSTONE
, — grades into very dense, humid, whitish-
' gray, weakly cemented, fine SANDSTONE,
j bedding attitude approximately horizontal
becomes medium-grained to coarse withi — °1 occasional rip -up clasts
1
1jj
-
Zut— -OQH
t2lt2£gk£§-r UJ 1
l^
•
•
.
m
.
•
•
;
-
-
H.
^
•
-
-
-
t
CO2U-wo
>(LQ
LU tP
CCK-i|o^
2°^0
Figure A-3, Log of Test Boring 2 Continued next page
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LJ - SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
K™ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
tJ ..STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
.CHUNK SAMPLE
B _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
5- — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
cTHE L°G °F SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHEDATE INDICATED ITIS NOT WARRANTED TOBE REPRESENTATIVE OFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
• File No. D-2981-M03 ifFTTrTi
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
December 20, 1984 pp=^j
r ,__
uj — |f*Q
-30 .
-32 -
-34 -
-36 -
-38 -
-40 -
-42 -
-44 -
-46 -
•48 -
• 50 -
-
-
-i
-i SAMPLE NOLITHOLOGY•
/
•
y
•
Figure A-4, Log GROUNDWATERSOIL CLASS(USCS)r
BORING 2 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATE DRILLED 10/1/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Ri2
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Unconformity , dips approximately 25°
toward SW
Hard, humid, light brown, massive SILTSTONE/
SANDSTONE
t — grades into very hard, humid, massive,
' pruplish-brown, Clayey SILTSTONE/CLAYSTONE
Very dense , moist , light brown, weakly to
moderately cemented, fine, Silty SANDSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 50.0 FEET PENETRATION-RESISTANCE—BLOWS/FT^•
.
•
•
•
•
-
-
•
•
•
-
-DRY DENSITYPCFMOISTURECONTENT, %of Test Boring 2 Continued
SAMPl F <5VMRni Q ^ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 1J ... STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 9 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED!
^ DISTURBED OPI BAG SAMPLE kl — CHUNK SAMPLE ?• — WATEH TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHESPECIFIC SORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
AT THE DATE INDICATED ITIS NOT WARHANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANDTIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
£ fc
uj-uJ
Q
0
-
9 -' £. ~
- 4 -
- 6 -
- 8 -
-
- 10-
- 12 -
• 14-
-
- 16 -
• 18-
- 20-
- 22-
• 24-
-
' 26"
30 SAMPLE NOLITHOLOGYv 00 f
(o
/
/
/
/
./
0°//
O/ 0** f \J/0 /
, /
•
•3ROUNDWATER|^<SOIL CLASS(USCS)•^X
>e
/
f
X
>-
BORING 3
ELEVATION 215 ' DATE DRILLED 10/1/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOP SOIL
Very loose, dry, blackish-gray, Silty SAND
with shells
\
ANCIENT COLLUVIUM DEPOSITS
Dense, humid, reddish-brown, fine- to
medium-grained, weakly cemented to cohesion-
less SAND
r — grades into dense , moist , mottled , gray,
' Sandy CLAY/reddish-brown, Clayey SAND
/
1
1
1 dense, wet, mottled gray-brown, Clayey
/ SAND/COBBLES, attitude approximately
' N80°W/7°N
/
J
/SANTIAGO FORMATION
/ Very dense, moist, whitish-gray, Silty,
J weakly cemented, coarse SANDSTONE, contact
slightly sheared, dips approximately 25°
toward south
_ moderate, general seepage
i
'/ Very dense, wet, light gray, fine, Silty
. SANDSTONE/ SILTSTONE PENETRATIOfHRESISTANCE!BLOWS/FT \|•
•
•
•
-
•
.
•
.
•
-
-
-DRY DENSITYPCFMOISTURE 1CONTENT, % 1Figure A-5, Log of Test Boring 3 Continued next page
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LJ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
S DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
—.STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
CHUNK SAMPLE
0 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
?. — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
x K
&5K
- 30 -
- 32-
- 34-
-
- 36-
- 38-
• 40-
- 42-
- 44-
- 46-
^SAMPLE NOLITHOLOGYi 1
i 1
•
•
<r
jROUNDWATESOIL CLASS\USCS>— .
s
BORING 3 CONTINUED
El FVATIDN HATE DRILLED '10/1/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
grades into very dense , moist , whitish-
gray, weakly cemented, well graded SANDSTONE
\
moderate , general seepage
BORING TERMINATED AT 48.0 EEET
LI
PENETRATIOtxRESISTANCEBLOWS/FT \•
•
-
-
•
-
•
•
•
™
zu.
cc
Q MOISTURECONTENT, %Figure A-6, Log of Test Boring 3 Continued
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LJ . SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
S .— DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
U — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
6u CHUNK SAMPLE
a — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
?• _. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACECQNDITIONS SHOWN HEHEON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING ORTRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED IT IS NOTWAflRANTEP TO8E REPRESENTATIVEOF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
I File No. D-2981-M03
December 20,1 —•
1 * £•I &-£
!- 0 .i
n~ 2 ~
I••
_ 4 -
-
- 6-
- 8-
-
- 10-
.
- 12-
it-
1
I
^^
"
- 16-
- 18-
.
-20-
• 22-
- 24-
1- 26-
•1- 34-
O2
LLJ
—1D_
CO
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
^
>oO
— 1OXb
n o
Oo
o! o
~7 0°
VA 0 C
70 ^
•
1a
•
H
S
1
°^x ^/ 0 0o° /
'
=- — :
H
LU
t—<
5Q
2Z)
Ocr
*•
enCO —^. c/5
^j
CO
BORING 4 ,
ELEVATION 2^0' DATE DRILLED 10/2/84
EQUiPMENT RnrkPt- RIP
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Very loose, dry, blackish-gray, Silty SAND
with rock fragments and shells
. becomes loose , drv , mottled , reddish-.— > , >
i brown-black, Silty SAND, numerous animal
J burrows
ANCIENT COLLUVIUM DEPOSITS
Dense, humid, reddish-brown, weakly
cemented, fine- to medium-grained SAND
\\ — becomes medium cemented
s — becomes well cemented
grades into dense , moist , mottled ,
reddish-brown, coarse SAND with gray,
soft, Clayey zones disseminated within
the Sandy mass; clayey zones approximately
l"-2' in diameter
, — becomes soft, moist, mottled light gray-
/ reddish-brown, Clayey SAND with some
1 cobbles
J
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Very dense, moist, whitish-gray- weakly
cemented, well graded SANDSTONE, contact
erosional , approximately horizontal ,
slightly sheared
Break in log
BORING TERMINATED AT 35.0 FEET
^cuL-
_ O f~
<<co
fc^o
gJ8|m
-
-
•
•
-
-
' 10
-
.
•
•
' 4
-
"
•
.
2
.
•
.
"
-
-
C^—CO
ZL-
LUQ
crQ
BULK
110.9
116.1
111.1
LU 3*
^£«Hs§
5AMPLE
6.1
8.9
14.0
Figure A-7, Log of Test Boring 4
-...„. _ „,,.,„ D —. SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL C—.STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 9 _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBISAMPLE SYMBOLS
El .— DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE iJ .„ CHUNK SAMPLE ?• -. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGEI
JOTE
^TTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWAHRANTEDTO BE REPflESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ATOTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
x h
|sg
• 0 -
-
- 2 -
- 4 -
'. 6~-
-
- 8 -
-
- 10 -
•
- 12 -
-
• 14 -
- 16 -
- 18 -
» , "
- 20-
• 22-
- 24-
-
• 26-
• 28-
30
uecem
SAMPLE NO5-1
5-2
5-3
-
ner zu
LITHOLOGYI1
i
>3
/
/ V0 y' /
.
m
• / °
/00° /
0 /o
/
f
/
/
,/
/
/
/
1/
/
/
/
-i
cc
3ROUNDWATEv^
y(W
toCO —<todg
o—CO
^-^^
/
^>-
~^~
ffl — ^.J
BORING 5
FLFVATION 275' DATF DRILLED 10/9/84
FOIIIPMENT Bucket Rie
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Very loose, dry, reddish-brown, Silty SAND
ANCIENT COLLUVIUK DEPOSITS
Dense , humid , reddish -brown , weakly cemented ,
medium-grained SANDSTONE
\
Dense, humid, reddish-brown, medium to well
cemented, medium-grained, poorly graded
SANDSTONE
/ some pebbles and clayey zones
/
1J
. dense, moist, mottled light gray-reddish-
| brown, Clayey SAND with cobbles
11iJ
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Very dense, whitish-gray, moist, well graded,
Clayey SANDSTONE
~ contact erosional, attitude of contact
N45°W/30°NE
medium stiff, dark gray, Clayey zones
r within massive SANDSTONE, diameter approx-
J mately 6n-18" on west wall, rip-up clasts
_L
PENETRATIOISRESISTANCEBLOWS/FT \•
-
.
•
•
•
-
-
•
•
•
•
-
"
-
•
'
-
-
"
•
t-
co
crQ
112.4
BULK !
113.4 MOISTURECONTENT, %6.0
A^IPLE
7.2
Figure A-8, Log of Test Boring 5 Continued next page
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LJ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
.STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
.CHUNK SAMPLE
Bt — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
?- _, WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARRANTEDTO B£ REPRESENTATIVE OFSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
1 ^m File No. D-2981-M03 iQTrn
_ December 20, 1984 f^p^j1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
x K
g-ffi
- 30-
- 32-
- 34-
*"> C.- 3o -
-
. 38-
- 40-
. 42-
- 44-
-
.
.
.
-
-
-
Oz
111_1D_
2
<CO
>-too_loX1-
_J
/
' /
.DWATER |z
ID
ODZr f\\-j
-
WC/5-~
<COd°?ien
BORING 5 CONTINUED
ELFVATION DATE DRILLED 10/9/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rie
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Very dense , moist , whitish-gray, massive,
well graded, weakly cemented to cohesionless
SANDSTONE
t
I Unconformity, attitude irregular , dips
/ approximately 15°-20° toward NE, stiff,
/ moist, gray CLAYSTONE below the contact
grades into very dense, moist, grayish-
tan, well graded, weakly cemented SANDSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 44.0 FEET
'
-
^LJOOH-
tz^
S£g
^o|s«
fc
.
•
•
-
-
•
•
•
•
-
-
-
-
-
u>1-to
2 u_
IllfJ
<r
Q
LU^
1-^LU«KO^so•^o
Figure A-9 , Log of Test Boring 5 Continued
1 „. . _ n SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL BJ — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 9 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
oAn/iPLt SYMBOLS
S DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE B — CHUNK SAMPLE ^= — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
INOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING ORTRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWAHRANTEDTOBE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANDTIMES.
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03 . i|JjT[1
December 20, 1984 ^^
x i_
n, — LLJ
n ^LJ
- 0
™ ~
- 2 -
. 4 -
-
- 6 -
- 8 -_
• 10 -
- 12 -
- 14 -
- 16 -
" ™
- 18 •
- 20 -
,
- 22 •
.
• 24 -
-
- 26-
-
• 28-
30
O
UJ_jQ.
>
6-1
oo
oX
/
"Of ,' /O
o°o
o
0°
0
Go °
° 00 o.
g
,
£CUJ
£
5Q
Z
IDO£C
C/D
1
"«
W
"~~"-.»_
^•^
.
-^_
•"""
BORING 6
ELEVATION 285* DATE DRILLED 10/9/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ANCIENT COLLUVIUM DEPOSITS
Dense , dry , reddish-brown , weakly to
moderately cemented , medium-grained SANDSTONE
t dense , moist , mottled reddish-br own-gray,
/ Clayey SAND with cobbles
/J
MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS
Very dense, moist, orange-brown, coarse,
weakly cemented SANDSTONE/PEBBLE CONGLOMERATE
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Erosional contact, attitude N15°W/15°W,
\ very dense, humid, light gray, massive,
\ Silty, very fine SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE\
\ — grades into very dense, moist, whitish-
gray, well graded , weakly cemented SANDSTONE
•\\ — reddish-brown, iron oxide staining
rip-up clasts, black manganese oxide
staining
\
\
Unconformity, dips approximately 5°-8° west,
very dense, stiff, moist, light gray, Silty
SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE~\i
\
\ grades into very stiff to hard, humid,
gray, massive, Sandy SILTSTONE
_k__
<?~7i
^io^tO^j
•
-
-
-
,
-
•
.
•
.
.
.
•
-
.
-
1
ZLL
n°
ccQ
116.1
UJ#
•^t
«H
^8
15.1
Figure A-10, Log of Test Boring 6 Continued next page
.-A.,™ r- ~,,t r-,^, oSAMPLE SYMBOLb LJ — SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
£J — DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
I STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
I — CHUNK SAMPLE
3 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
?• — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
INOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARflANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS ATOTHERLOCATIONSAND TIMES
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03 U$]] ,
December 20, 1984
T h-
UJ~}^Q
- 30
-32 -
-
-34 -_
-36 -
-
- 38 -
- An -™ *-r\j •
" •
- 42 -
- 44 -
- 46 -
- 48 -
m _
• 50 -
•
o
LU_JQ.*c
^<CO
6-2
fTV— /o
— 1o
X1—
_J
/
/
/HI
I
/
/
/
y
i/l/r*
I/
ccLUK
1QZD
OCC
CO
<co^r ^o°^56^
CO
~^="-
^>-
ritj
BORING 6 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATF DRILLED 10/9/84
EQUIPMENT Rnr.kPt Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Very dense , moist , light grayish-tan ,
™\ medium-grained , weakly cemented SANDSTONE
\
\\ very light seepage
\
' Unconformity, dips l°-20 west, hard, moist,
dark gray SILTSTONE/CLAYSTONE
i1
1 grades into very dense, moist, light gray,
medium cemented, very fine, Silty SANDSTONE
Very dense, moist, massive, whitish-gray,
medium-grained, weakly cemented SANDSTONE
; seepage
_/
Unconformity, irregular surface, generally
dips approximately 10° toward N-NW, stiff,
saturated, fractured, mottled purplish-
brown CLAYSTONE with shiny parting surfaces
A\
\ — grades into very stiff to hard, moist,
massive, light brown, Silty CLAYSTONE
\
BORING TERMINATED AT 54.0 FEET
OOH"
5<^CCI— >
LU^O
-
•
-
»
10
•
•
-
•
•
-
•
•
.
H
Zli,
UJQ
CC
Q
L19.3
uj£
^&
J—V ~^Q?
2°^0
12.4
-
Figure A-ll, Log of Test Boring 6 Continued
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LJ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
E3 — DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
— STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
m — CHUNK SAMPLE
El _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED!
?• „. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPHESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
x K
"Si
• 0 -
- 2 -
- 4 -
-
- 6 -
~ *"
- 8 -
- 10 -
• 12 -
- 14 -
- 16 -
- 18-
- 90 -Z.VJ
-
- 22-
-
• 24-
• 26-
-
- 28-
30
Oz
w_iQ_
<CO
7-1
7 n-2.
0Oi
O
X
Hi
0 rr0 .u
Q° ,or
*
i
-
OO°^v O
'
0 ,^Q0:o o
«
53
trUJ
2ID
OCE
(3
CO(/).<co
J«
CO
BORING 7
ELEVATION 297 ' DAJE DRII 1 FD 10/9/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Very loose, dry, dark brown, Silty SAND
with some cobbles and angular sandstone
fragments
ANCIENT COLLUVIUM DEPOSITS
Dense , dry , dark reddish-brown , medium-
grained, medium cemented SANDSTONE
} becomes moist, fine and weakly cemented
/ to cohesionless
j
, Very dense, moist, dark reddish-brown-gray
/ COBBLE CONGLOMERATE bed, approximtely 4"-6"
/ thick with black iron oxide staining
J
MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS
Very dense, moist, orange-brown, poorly
graded, very fine, weakly cemented to
cohesionless SANDSTONE
i Very dense , moist , mottled, reddish-brown-
/ gray SAND/COBBLES and some boulders
/
/SANTIAGO FORMATION
/ Very dense, moist, gray, well graded,
/ weakly cemented SANDSTONE, contact erosional,
dips approximately 10° toward NW
.
/ grades into very dense, massive, moist,
/ whitich-gray , medium-grained , weakly
J cemented SANDSTONE
O<JK~Rz^<<coo:t->h-to>uj — O•^"•'—ig-m
"
-
•
•
•
.
' 5
•
•
•
•
-
• 5
-
•
•
t-
CO
UJO
a:
D
104.0
118.4
Uj£
g-fesf*. ~^O^-20^0
11.1
10.6
Figure A-12, Log of Test Boring 7 Continued next page
SAMPLE SYMBOLS . SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL I] .
. DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE U,
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
CHUNK SAMPLE
H — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNOISTUR0£O1
?• — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTEATTHE DATE INDICATED IT IS NOTWARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND T'M£S
•
1
1
j
•1
J
1
•
1
•1i
.1
:
:
File No. D-2981-M03 |W|
December 20, 1984 ^^J
x ,_
UJ — LU
Q "-
L 30 J. .
-32 -
-
-
-38 -
-40 J
-SAMPLE NOLITHOLOGY•3ROUNDWATERCO
CO —<CO
CO
_^>-
BORING 7 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATF DRII 1 FD 10/9/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
large rip-up clast, approximately 1' in
diameter
V
Very dense, moist , whitish-gray , weakly
cemented, well graded SANDSTONE
Unconformity, contact dips gently toward
south, very stiff, hard, dark gray SILTSTONE
\ grades into very dense,, moist , whitish-
gray , well graded , weakly cemented
SANDSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 42.0 FEET PENETRATION^RESISTANCE/ZBLOWS/FT^-
-
•
.
-
•
J
i—
CO
LLJQ
CC
Q MOISTURECONTENT, %^Figure A-13, Log of Test Boring 7 Continued
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LJ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
S __ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
•J — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
al CHUNK SAMPLE
a — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
?• _. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
II
OTE
TTHED^TE INDICATED IT IS NOT WARRANTED TO BE REPHESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONSAND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
3
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-1I03
December 20, 1984
-1- " 1-
£-£Q
0 .
-
- 2 -
- 4 -
.
- 6 -
ft_ O -
- 10 -
- 12 -
-
- 14-
-
- 16-
- 18-
1 - 20-
-
o n _• 2.2. -
- -
- 24-
• 26-
1 -
1™ J O *"*\ -1 30
O
^
LU
a
CO
8-1
8-2
>
o\mf
-JOx
Zi
/
' /
/
/
' /
/
i^^
'
'
^-^9 /"""o v W
i
/ /
a:u
>>Q
Otr
COCO —
— !*•*0°-^0^
CO
—
___.-—•
— -—
BORING 8
ELEVATION 220' DATF DRI1 1 Fn 10/10/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rl£
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Soft, moist, blackish-gray, Sandy CLAY
BEDROCK CREEP
Loose, wet, grayish-light brown, Clayey
SAND
grades into medium dense, moist, grayish-
tan, fractured , weakly cemented , well
graded SANDSTONE
becomes dense , moist , coarse SANDSTONE
i Shear zone, soft, moist,r
/ highly remolded, light gray CLAY, attitude
/ N45°W/52°NE
J
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Very dense, humid, whitish-gray, medium to
well graded, weakly cemented to cohesionless ,
massive SANDSTONE
discontinuous pebble bed
1
1
fIi i
f / Unconformity, attitude, dips approximately
I 20° toward NW, very stiff, humxd , light
-M grayish-brown, massive, Sandy SILTSTONE
' i/' Fractured, stiff, humid, purplish-brown
/ CLAYSTONE with shiny parting surfaces and
/ manganese oxide staining
I minor shear plane, discontinuous , dips
/ approximately 25° N
Qoi^~K— 2 b^*C ^r ff\cci— •>
LU;p;O
5
•
.
•
•
-
•
* 7
-
-
t
COZLL.
UiQ
05.
cc
O
121.0
m -i. 1
LjjjF
— i ' —^J ~^
~r^~?Q*~
^O
11.1
I T "7 O1 7 . j
I
I
I
I
I
Figure A-14, ,Log of Test Boring 8 Continued next page
I . SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
i DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
c.k].STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
.CHUNK SAMPLE
9 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
?• — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
•ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
I File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
1 x ,_JH
• - 30-
1 .
H 32~
J. 34-
I":1
i
I
I
I
i
- 38-
- 40-
- 42-
- 44-
- 46-
- 48-
• M"
i""
•L SAMPLE NO-
'
8-3 LITHOLOGY/
/
3
^
1
.3ROUNDWATER)SOJL CLASS(USCS.)BORING 8 CONTINUED
Fl FVATION DATE DRILLED 10/10/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Ris
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
grades into very dense, hard, humid, light
grayish-brown, Silty, very fine SANDSTONE/
SILTSTONE
poorly developed , minor shear plane dips
south approximately 20°
BORING TERMINATED AT 54.0 FEET 3ENETRATIONRESISTANCE-BLOWS/ F1^~•
•
"
.
•
•
•
•
•
"
-
-
-
«~Z. n
UJ (j
cco
'
118.8 MOISTURECONTENT, %14.3
Figure A-15, Log of Test Boring 8 Continued
ISAMPLE.SYMBOLS P SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
G..STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
.CHUNK SAMPLE
9 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
?• __ WATER TA3LE OR SEEPAGE
IATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARRANTEDTOBE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ATOTHERLOCATIONSAND TIMES
1
• File No. D-2981-M03 MMl
December 20, 1984 j^pHU1
1
1••
1
1
1
I
•
1
1
I
X .
Q ^
- 0 -
. 4 .
.
- 6 -
.
-• 8 -
T n- 1U -
• 12 -
-
• 14 -
-
- 16 -
- i ft -10
• 20 -
.
• 22 -
_ .
- 24-
•, o f~ -^26 -
- 28-
30
Oz
LU
0,
^to
9-1
9-2
9-3
>- -o
_ioI
/[ ,/
/
/
'//
/
' /
/
0 O-r,D0 CJ
s /
7
/
1I y
/
•
/
/
/
|/
/
or
LU
<
^QzIDOtr
CO
<Tf A"*• i/ J
CO
BORING 9
ELEVATION 190' DATE DRILLED 10/10/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Medium stiff, dry, blackish-gray, Sandy CLAY
\
MUDFLOW DEBRIS/COLLUVIUM
Dense, humid, dark reddish-brown, Clayey
SAND with angular sandstone fragments
' grades into medium dense to loose, mottled
/ gray-reddish-brown , Clayey SAND with rare
cobbles
Paleosol , soft, moist, blackish-brown,
\ Sandy CLAY with rare cobbles
\ \\\ Medium dense, moist, highly disturbed,
\ mottled Clayey SAND
\
), Soft, remolded, moist, gray CLAY with small
\\ random Sandy zones\\
\\ — becomes Clayey SAND
\ Highly fractured, loose, siltstone fragments
\ in Sandy matrix
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Stiff, highly fractured, grayish-brown,
Sandy SILTSTONE with black manganese oxide
I staining on fracture planes
L- grades into highly fractured, light brown
CLAYSTONE with randomly oriented minor
shear zones and shiny parting surfaces
Very dense , humid , whitish-gray, weakly
cemented, well graded SANDSTONE
2UL-—QOH
tr £w
a.0-
•
•
.
•
•
2
•
" 1
•
•
•
•
•
.
•
.
3
•
•
tri\jj
ZU-
crQ
115. 2
L07.1
-
107-4
LLJcP
Kmi
12.3
17.6
20.5
Figure A-16, Log of Test Boring 9 Continued next page
I^V
Cl_, SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL E™ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST • — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
!3~ DISTURBED OR 8AG SAMPLE kJ_ CHUNK SAMPLE ?• — - WATER TABLE OH SEEPAGE
• ATTHEOATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARRANTEOTQBEREPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONSATOTHERLOCATIONS AND TIMES
I File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 19841
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
tzSg-a
• 30-
- 32-
- 34-
- 36-
-
• 38-
.
- 40-
- 42-
- 44-
- 46-
•
-
.SAMPLE NOLITHOLOGY-
.GROUNDWATER|CO
CO —
1CO
BORING 9 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATE DRILLED 10/10/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Ria
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Bedding attitude N80°W/5°S
X
Unconformity, contact approximately
horizontal , very stiff , hard , humid , light
brown SILTSTONE
•
BORING TERMINATED AT 45.0 FEET PENETRATIONRESISTANCE^BLOWS/FT\.
-
•
.
•
-
-
-
•
'
•
.
-
-DRY DENSITYPCFMOISTURECONTENT, %Figure A-17, Log of Test Boring 9 Continued
o..,n, r- owi.nm « LJ — SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL E__ STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)bAMrLb oYMbULS
12 ™. DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE B — CHUNK SAMPLE ?• — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARRANTEDTOBEREPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDiTIONSATOTHERLOCATIONSANDTIMEa
1 ' ^• File No. D-2981-H03 Hj^TTi
December 20, 1984 f^f^s1
1
I^v
IM
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
^ i-
§Sff
- 0 -
- 2 -
- 4 -
- 6 -
-
- 8 -• i_i ™
- 10 -
- 12 -
. 14-
- 16-
• 18-
- 20-
- 22-
-
- 24-
• ~
- 26-
• 28-
30
OZ
LU_lCL
2
<CO
>
O_j .
OX
Hi
/ /
'
10-1 t~N
10-2 i
/
///
/
I0~3k
/
1•£o•z.
3
O(T
CO
CO —
— 1, 1
"«
CO
\
^>
x
>"
s
BORING 10
ELEVATION 208 ' DATE DRIL LED 1 0/1 0/84
EQUIPMENT Rnr-V^f- Rno"
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
\
Loose, dry, blackish-gray Clayey SAND
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Very dense, humid, whitish-tan, coarse, well
graded, weakly cemented SANDSTONE, yellowish-
brown iron oxide staining
V
_unconf orraity , attitude nearly horizontal
' or dips 1°-2° toward north, stiff, fractured.
1 light gray SILTSTONE with black manganese
/ oxide staining along fracture planes
J
t grades into hard, massive, humid, purplish-
j gray, Sandy SILTSTONE
J
j pinkish, stiff, fractured CLAYSTONE with
/ shiny parting surfacesii
1
I
i — very hard, highly cemented SILTSTONE1
1
'/ Hard, massive, humid, purple SILTSTONEi
°gf
<<«5
LUJ^O
•
•
-
•
:
•
•
•
•
:
.
-
•
*
-
-
CO
ZU-
o£
cr
/
114.3
121.8
117.4
iu#
^2
11
18.4
15.1
17.0
Figure A-18, Log of Test Boring 10 Continued next page
•
<5iMPI F QVMROI "3 LJ__ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL E — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 3 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
t3™ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE B_ CHUNK SAMPLE ?• — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
•ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARFIANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
I File No. D-2981-1103
December 20, 1984
1 ^ En
• Pr^3-30 .i
•r32 •
m
i
i
I
•i
i
i
ii•
i
i
i
i
-34 -
-36 -
-
-38 -
-
-40 -
-42 -
-44 -_
_46
48
_50
52
54
.56
.58
60
OZ
LLI-JCL
<CO
>CD
_i
O
h-
_j
/ /
/
/
/
/
10-4 t~
*
1
-•
1
10-5 t]m
•
tr
LU§>QZ
Ocr
enen--.
0°
0 —en
^z^- —
•
•
BORING 10 CONTINUED
FL FVATION DATE DRILLED 10/10/184
EQUIPMENT Bucket RxE
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Stiff, massive, humid, gray CLAYSTONE with
shiny parting surfaces
/ Bedding Plane Fault, soft, sheared, gray
clay seam, thickness approximately 1/4"-
"\ 1/2", attitude N15°E/4°E
\
Very dense, hard, humid, light brownish-
gray, massive, very fine, Silty SANDSTONE/
SILTSTONE
_ grades into very dense, massive, grayish-
/ tan, medium to well cemented, very fine
1 SANDSTONE
J
/ Very hard, humid, gray SILTSTONE with thin
/ whitish-gray SANDSTONE interbeds, bedding
/ attitude N70°E/5°S
I
, grades into very hard, grayish-brown,
/ massive SILTSTONE
I
I
Ii
ith-zy-
££gfc^o•7^ — i5-m
•
ii
•
--
•
.
•
.
-
-
•
-
-
~
en
WQ
CLa
120.4
123.3
UJ#CK-
Pi§^o
15.8
12.7
Figure A-19 , Log of Test Boring 10 Continued Continued next page
I „...«, r- r>,,.,nrt. t* LJ — SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL BJ — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 3 _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)SAMPLE SYMBOLo
23 __ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE Bu — CHUNK SAMPLE ^- — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
*T°;HYDHA^
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03 IlM]
December 20, 1984 fl^
i: H
jjj-K
• fin -
- 62-
- 64-
• 66-
-
- 68-
• 70-
• 72-
- 74-
- 76-
• 78'
- 80-
- 82-SAMPLE NO10-6
10-7 LITHOLOGYki •
I
'I I-
•
-
•
,
k
'
• ,
rr
3ROUNDWATESOIL CLASS(USCS)BORING 10 CONTINUED
-ELEVATION DATF DRILLED 10/10/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Very dense, hard, massive, humid, light
grayish-brown, Silty, very fine SANDSTONE
Very stiff to hard, humid, light brown,
massive Sandy SILTSTONE
X
Very dense, humid, well to medium cemented,
grayish-tan , medium-grained SANDSTONE
rVery dense, humid, whitish-gray, well
graded, weakly cemented SANDSTONE
J
BORING TERMINATED AT 81.0 FEET
1
PENETRATIONRESISTANCEBLOWS/FT^"•
"
.
.
•
.
•
•
•
.
•
-DRY DENSITYPCF126. C
127.9
f MOISTURECONTENT, %13.1
11.3
Figure A-20, Log of Test Boring 10 Continued
^.. „,,- ,,w. .,-,,-. ^SAMPLE bYMBOLS
__ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
__ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
U STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
CHUNK SAMPLE
.. DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARRANTEDTOBE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDIT1ONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
oTzk
Q tt~
• 0 -
- 2 -
. 4 .
- 6 -
- 8 -
-10 -
• 12 -
- 14 -
- 16 -
- 18 -
- 20 -
• 22 -
• 24 -
• 26 -
• 28 -
-J°-_SAMPLE NO11-1 LITHOLOGY/
X
/ x
/
•/•
/
00
Q
0
-•O
/v*
0
/
X
0
0
D
r/
•
Figure A-21,GROUNDWATERJCO
CO —
<CO
CO
BORING 11
Et EVATIONI 1 81 ' DATF DRII 1 FD 10/11/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Medium stiff to soft, dry, blackish-gray,
Sandy CLAY
/LANDSLIDE DEBRIS
Soft, humid, mottled, grayish-tan, Clayey
SAND /CLAY
1 Medium stiff, mpist, mottled, Sandy SILT/
1 CLAY with cobbles
dense, humid , light gray, clean, cohesionless
jj coarse SAND/PEBBLES
J/
I Medium dense, humid, reddish-brown,
'/ cohesionless, fine SAND, attitude of contact
if N60°E/25°NW
'U
i Shear zone , soft , remolded , moist , gray ,
/ Sandy CLAY with cobbles and pebbles,
\
M, j f ^ J _4_ L-.i--.cV, ri-r,
weakly cemented, fine SANDSTONE, fractures
\ filled with soft CLAY
\ Dense, humid, massive, whitish-tan, weakly
\ cemented, fine SANDSTONE
-ill
\ SILT STONE
Soft, fractured, sheared, highly disturbed,
T moist, mottled, grayish-light brown SILlblONh,
\\y — Shear zone, soft, moist, highly remolded
\ sheared gray, Bilty CLAY with manganese
\ oxide staining, attitude N75°E/10°N
i
OQI—
QTf- >
•
•
IO
UJQ
cc
Q
L15.9 9.5
Log of Test Boring 11 Continued next page
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D — SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
£3.__ DISTURBEDOR BAG SAMPLE
BJ
mi
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
CHUNK SAMPLE
m -.- DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
X „- WATER TABLE Ofl SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITIS NOTWARHANTEDTO BE REPHESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONSAT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
I File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
£>£g-s
- 32 -
•"i /- 34 -
-
- 36-
-
- ts -JO
~
• 40-
• 42-
-
- 44-
- 46-
- 48-
"
- 50-
.
- 64-
- 66-SAMPLE NO11-2
11-3
_=LITHOLOGY3 ,•' ,
••
•
•*
. '
•i
,•=- _:
•3ROUNDWATER|*u*
*SOIL CLASS I(USCS) 1'
— — ^
BORING 11 CONTINUED
ELEVATION HATF DRILLED 10/11/fU
EQUIPMENT Bu-l'Ct Pip
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SANTIAGO FORMATION'
Very dense, humid, whitish-tan, weakly
cemented, fine SANDSTONE
\
grades into very dense, humid, well graded
SANDSTONE, black manganese oxide staining,
bedding attitude N50°E/15°NW
N slightly sheared , very stiff , shale bed ,
thickness approximately 4"-6" , attitude
N80°E/14°N
\
\ vertical fracture (Fault7) filled with
sheared CLAY, thickness 1/8IT-1/16", offset
3"-4", attitude N10°W/vertical, bedding
attitude N70°E/10°N, numerous SILTSTONE
rip-up clasts within a whitish coarse SAND
matrix
Stiff, humid, mottled purplish-gray SILTSTONE
A
\ grades into very dense, humid, weakly
cemented, purplish-light brown, fine
SANDSTONE
Break in log
BORING TERMINATED AT 65.0 FEET PENETRATIONRESISTANCEBLOWS/FT^6
"
-
•
-
-
-
•
-
.
•
" 15
•
•
.
B
•
•DRY DENSITYPCF118.4
122.3 MOISTURE 1CONTENT, % 19.2
13.6
Figure A-22, Log of Test Boring 11 Continued
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LJ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE
.STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
.CHUNK SAMPLE
0 „ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
31 WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
I
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSU8SURFACECONDITIONSATOTHERLOCATIONSAND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
r K
Q Li-
- 0-
2 -
. 4-
- 6-
. 8-
- 10-
-
- 12-
- 14-_
- 16-
fc "
- 18-
•
- 20-
-
- 22-
• 24-
-
- 26-
- 28-
30
LU
Q.
CO
12-1
>.
Oo_Jox
11
" 0 |°
OS °'
° 10"o°
/
£° £/
v/ 0
/ 0 ,
/
V/ QO
. . . ° ,'
0° °\J Vo
° 000o
0 °
Oo°
0
/
/
/ /
^
/
/
/
' /
dLU
!<
Q2:3otr
m
^ crt
CO
O-
BORING 12
ELEVATION 142 ' DATE DRILLED 10/11/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Very loose , dry, grayish-brown, Silty SAND
\
MUDFLOW DEBRIS/ ALLUVIUM/ COLLUVIUM
Medium dense , dry, reddish-brown, Silty
SAND with pebbles
' becomes cohesionless , poorly graded SAND
J
1 Loose to medium dense, moist, mottled
/ grayish-reddish-brown, Clayey SAND with
some pebbles
i cobbles
/
'/ Medium dense, wet , reddish -brown, fine- to
/ i J n A urn .-U KU1medium grained bAWiJ witn some coDDies»
typical flow pattern, thin bedding, dips
gently east
| grades into loose to medium dense, wet,
| mottled, reddish-brown-gray , Clayey SAND
1
1i1
IJ
soft, wet, light gray CLAY seam dips
j east 2°-3°
1
J
/ Loose to medium dense, wet, mottled reddish-
/ brown SAND. gray Sandy CLAY
§tlj- — •Qo[—
<<CO
£tt>C§
5sM
"
.
•
•
• 3
-
•
.
•
•
-
-
•
•
.
-
-
-
;-t
CO
ZU-
o"
cro
119.7
-
„y -
=32
co^
s§
10.0
Figure A-23, Log of Test Boring 12 Continued next page
c-fl..n, i- r>v/nn^, o L_l — SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL BJ — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 9 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)SAMPLE SYMBOLS
^™ DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE &1 — CHUNK SAMPLE ^- — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING ORTRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTH6 DATE INDICATED ITIS NOT WARRANTED TO BE HEPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONOITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
1 1-i r—
Sj-£
- 30 -
- 32 -_
- 34 -
-
- 36 -
- 38-
— „
- 40-
- 42-
-
- 44-_
- 46-
m m
- 48-
-
- 50-
-
• 52-
SA-J H
• SR-~JQ
- 60-
62
O
UJ
0.
co
12-2
1
12-3
oo
o
Xtz
^
/
MTS
X
f
/
*
/
/
'
t
/ / s/ ' st
•
.
,
/
*m ,
m /
///
/
^»-c=
•
LLLU
t-
>
Q~z.:r>o\-fCCo
:^
COCO —<C C/5
— ' c *>
^CO
riii1
1
1
1i
BORING 12 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATF HRILLED 10/1/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Ria
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
grades into soft, wet, interbedded light
gray, Clayey SILT and reddish-brown SAND,
typical flow pattern , frequent carbonized
organics
\
Loose to medium dense, moist to wet, mottled
reddish-bronw-gray , cohesionless SAND, soft,
remolded, Clayey seam along the contact,
\ dips gently toward north
\
\ soft , remolded , gray , Clayey seam, dips
west 5°
\
Loose , wet , yellowish-tan, fine SAND
interbedded with light gray, Sandy SILT
layers
seepage , caving
' Soft, saturated, highly disturbed, mottled
1 gray, angular SILTSTOXE fragments in Clayey
I matrix, numerous carbonized organics
&
/SANTIAGO FORMATION
/ Fractured, saturated, gray SILTSTONE
/
/
Break in log
/ Dense, massive, saturated, Silty SANDSTONE/
BORING TERMINATED AT 61.0 FEET
Qo^~1 — 2 t*t <t C/)
h-CO§
^«9LU n\
-
•_
3
•
-
_
•
•
•
•
.
3
•
-
£
COZu-LU0
CC
Q
114.1
112.2
UJ#CC i— rZD 2
o^s°^0
12.2
17.4
Figure A-24, Log of Test Boring 12 Continued
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LJ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
C*3 — DISTURBED OH BAG SAMPLE
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
CHUNK SAMPLE
9 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
- _. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIESONLYATTHE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTH EH LOCATIONS ANDTIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03 | J]Tn
£X2UJ
- 0 -
. 4 .
-
- 6 -
- 8 -
-10 -_
• 12 -
- 14 -
- 16 -
• 18 -
- 20 -
- 22 -
- 24 -
• 28 -
30
December 20, 1984 [ ^SAMPLE NO13-1
13-2
-LITHOLOGY/
/
'
,
|
0 Cwo
l°l '
/,
• P/O
?'0./
///
D 0Oo OQ
°0o 0 GROUNDWATERSOIL CLASS(USCS)X
>
_
BORING 13
EL EVATION 165 ' DATE DRILLED 10/16/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Loose, dry, grayish-black, Clayey SAND
\
MUD FLOW DEBRIS/ ALLUVIUM/ COLLUVIUM
Medium dense , dry, reddish-brown, medium
cemented, medium- to coarse-grained SAND
grades into medium dense, moist to wet,
reddish-brown, Silty SAND
becomes cohesionless
/ Medium dense , moist , mottled reddish-dark
/ brown, Silty SAND with some cobbles
I thin, discontinuous CLAY seam, fine
/ bedding, attitude N80°W/5°N
J
_ medium dense, moist, reddish-brown, Clayey
j~ SAND /COBBLES
J
j — soft , irregular , discontinuous , gray CLAY
/ seam, dips 2°-4° NE
J
1 Medium dense, wet, reddish-brown mottled,
J fine- to medium-grained SAND with random
pebble and cobble concentrations , numerous
small, grayish Clayey zones, flow pattern PENETRATION-RESISTANCE—BLOWS/FT \•
.
.
-
-
2
.
•
' 2
•
•
•DRY DENSITYPCF115.6
113.5
li
12.2
12.1
Figure A-25, Log of Test Boring 13 Continued next page
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LJ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
Kl — DtSTUHBED OR BAG SAMPLE
fl]STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
CHUNK SAMPLE
El — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
5- — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING ORTRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARRANIEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANDTIMES.
I File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
2: J_
Si~S
• 30 -
- 32-
- 34-
- 36-
- 38 --j kJ
- 40-
—
- A 9 -— q. /. -
—
- 44-
- 46-
- 48-
- 50-
-
- 54-
• 56 *
o
LU
Q.
CO
13-3
>oo
— Jox
0 °0
/<90/o/
/ X .
0
1
00
0
0
J/
0
0
0
0
c
0
/
0
/
0
/
/fo^1 o
fl '
o
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
/
0,
.
'
(
•
0
0
aO
0
0
0
0
/
00
r\
*-*
0
0
3
•
UJ} —g
Oz3oa:
COCO —<co
^co
CO
"~-^-^
•-""
~— =•-
BORING 13 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATE DRILLED 10/16/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
, — medium dense to loose COBBLE bed, Clayey
J SAND matrix, dips N5°-7°
\\
\
Medium dense, wet, interbedded reddish-brown
SAND and light gray, Sandy SILT, some
pebbles and cobbles , manganese staining ,
bedding generally dips gently toward NE
Medium dense, wet , mottled orange-brown-
light gray, intermixed SAND /SILT /CLAY with
rare cobbles and pebbles
Soft, wet, mottled light-dark gray, Sandy
CLAY/SILT with pebbles and small angular
CLAYSTONE/SILTSTONE fragments, attitude of
"\ contact N60°W/7°N
> — grades into medium dense, wet, highly
disturbed, mottled, intermixed SAND/SILT
•\
\ dark gray SILT
medium dense, reddish-brown, well graded
SAND/COBBLES
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Very dense , moist , grayish-tan, weakly
cemented, well graded SANDSTONE, contact
erosional dips approximately 10°NE
\
BORING TERMINATED AT 55.0 FEET
±L~yoj-
<<CO
K«5
Q.
-
•
•
"
-
' 2
*
-
-
*
-
-'
,
•
tr~
CO
ZU-
UJQQo_
ccQ
f
110. £
rr •IDZ
&P
§8
16.0
I
I
I
I
Figure A-26, Log of Test Boring 13 Continued
r-M ,,-,, r- ™,. .r,,-., ^bAMPLE SYMBOLS — SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
__ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
BJ-^STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
m — CHUNK SAMPLE
3 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
?• — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED IT1SNOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONSAND TIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03 ilHTrri
December 20, 1984
f K
£]-£Q
- 0 .
_
- 2 -
- 4 -
- 6 -
-
- 8 -
-
-10 -
•
-12 -
-
-14 -
-16 -
1 O- lo -
-
- 20 -
• 22 •
-
- 24 -
"
• 26 -
•
- 28 -
30
O
LU
CL
5
CO
14-1
14-2
0 '
o
o3;
y
X
•
yAi
1
,J/X/
/
.
ii
•
,1
•
1
••
'
•
i .\1 1
*
cr
LU
S
Q
Z
Occ
o
CO
CO —<c/>
"c/>
CO
X
•s.•s^_s-
/
\\Xx.>/
Pj^ljj
BORING 14
ELEVATION 210 f DATE DRILLED 10/16/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Loose, dry, grayish-brown, Clayey Silty SAND
\
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Very dense , dry , whitish-tan , weakly
cemented, well graded SANDSTONE
V
Unconformity , dips approximately 6 ° -8 °
south, stiff, humid, light gray, Clayey
^x SILTSTONE
v_ fractured, humid, light brown CLAYSTONE
\
, Very dense, hard, light gray, Silty, very
\ fine SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE with black
\ manganese oxide staining
\
~ minor fracture, manganese deposits along
the fracture plane, attitude N75°E/30°N
grades into very dense, humid, massive,
whitish-gray , weakly cemented , fine- to
medium-grained, Silty SANDSTONE
very dense , hard , humid , interbedded
/~~ whitish-tan, medium SANDSTONE, light brown-
/ gray, Sandy SILTSTONEJ
Very stiff to hard , massive , light grayish-
brown, Sandy SILTSTONE
~\
\ grades into very dense, massive, very fine,
Silty SANDSTONE
Very dense , humid , massive , whitish- tan,
weakly cemented , fine- to medium-grained
SANDSTONE
"I
§0^"
<<S
i-to5
g§"
•
-
.
•
-
-
-
•
-
' 6
"_
•
•
-
• 7
.
_
£
COZU.
Q^cco
'
ion /i1ZU . ^
125.6
LU#
|z
CO^
^o
7 Q/ . y
10.4
Figure A-27, Log of Test Boring Continued next page
! . SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
j . DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
lU_STANDARO PENETRATION TEST
tkl — CHUNK SAMPLE
3 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
5- — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED IT IS NOTWARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No . D-2981-M03 ffll
December 20, 1984 p
x ,_
LU-jfjO
• 30
- 32 -
- 34 -
- 36 -
- 38 -
-
- 40 -
- A? -HZ,
-
- 44 -
- 46 -
- 48-
• 50-
R T _J Z
• 54-
.
- 56-
-
• 60-
62
O
LU
a.
<CO
14-3
14-4
14-5
~*
>-Oo
— 1o
K-J
I
•Las
/
/
i
-
Figure A-28,
• '
•
'\1 /
///
-
-
o:LU
*5Q2— \__J
OLT
CD
-
COCO —
J
"w
o—
CO
\\\\>
/
BORING 14 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATF DRILLED 10/16/84
EQUIPMENT Rnrkpt- Ri CT*
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
' Unconformity , contact dips approximately
1 3° _5° north , very stiff , humid , massive ,
light brown, Clayey SILTSTONE/CLAYSTOKE
i — stiff , humid, fractured , grayish-light
/ brown CLAYSTONE with shiny parting surfaces
Hard, massive, humid, light brown, Sandy
SILTSTONE
grades into very dense, humid, whitish-gray
SANDSTONE
becomes weakly cemented
Break in log
BORING TERMINATED AT 62.0 FEET
—rzs,Q£
mm-•"LI-35SJJ
«cotri->1— CO^
g£*
•
Log of Test Boring 14 Continued
1 >
ff\\fj
ZLL
LUOQQ-
LXQ
BULK i
116,3
119.7
£#-Z)^
*—* ~^i§
AMPLE
16.5
15.4
QAMDI <r OWHD/-H ooAMHLE SYMBOLS
I I SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
S.— DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE
U — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
flj — CHUNK SAMPLE
3 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
?- _. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
I
MOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHESPEC1FIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
I File No. D-2981-II03
December 20, 1984
X ,_g-a
. 0 .
- 2 -
- 4 -
-- 6 -
- 8 -
- 10-
- 12-
- 14-
-
- 16-
-
- 18-
- 20-
- 22-
• 24-
• T £».Zo"
30
oz
HI-JQ.s<CO
15-1
15-2
>oO— JoXt-~-1
•
•
,
i
0
?c
3
O
0
,
,
'
'
0
0,
0
^ .
0
- o
Q
' 0
0
I<J
0
0
ft
'
Q
o
0
0
o
a:
LU
1DZIDOcc
00
<co
— !/->
<ICO
'
BORING 15
ELEVATION 298' DATE DRILLED 10/18/84
EQUIPMENT Riirkpf RIP
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Very loose, dry, blackish-gray, Silty SAND
ANCIENT COLLUVIUM DEPOSITS
Dense , dry , reddish -brown, medium cemented ,
Silty SANDSTONE
,— — becomes weakly cemented to cohesionless/
•I , — erosional contact_/
A
MARINE TERRACE DEPOSITS
Very dense , humid, reddish-brown, weakly
cemented, Silty SAND with black manganese
^ oxide stainine\ u
— grades into well graded, humid, weakly
cemented, reddish-brown SAND with pebbles
— -— becomes cohesionless
„
/ Very dense , moist , orange-red , cohesionless
/ COBBLE/SAND
i
OfJ h~
^ ^. co
5|§
f
•
•
•
-
".
"
• 3
-
-
•
"
•
*
.
.
10
•
-
>f-
coZLL
%2>cco
107.8
117.0
LU^
§£tes
i§*^o
15.4
7.3
Figure A-29, Log of Test Boring 15 Continued next page
SAMPLE SYMBOLS [J SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^-_ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
U STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
m CHUNK SAMPLE
a DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED!
•i- — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED IT1S NOTWARRAN TED TQ BE REPRESENTAT1VEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCAT1ONSAND TIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
i K
m — 11J
Q Q-
. 30
. 32.
-
- 34,
-
. 36.
. 38.
- 40-
- 42-
- 44-_
- 46-
- 48-
- 50-
- 52-
- 54-
-
- 56-
- 58-SAMPLE NO15-3
15-4
15-5
15-6 LITHOLOGYGo0 0
1
'
i
'
1
,
•
•
•
1 '
1
,
•
•
•
EC
3ROUNDWATE**s
CO
CO —<CO
CO
_^-— •"
BORING 15 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATF DRILLED 10/18/84
EQUIPMENT .. . Bucket Ri2
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
light seepage on the NW wall
\
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Very dense, moist to wet, light grayish-tan,
weakly cemented, well graded, massive,
siity SA:IDSTONE
kl. ^PENETRATIOIRESISTANCEBLOWS/ FP•
•
" 8
•
•
-
•
.
' 10
•
•
-
•
•
' 14
-
K
C/3
ZL-
UJ°
o:
Q
117.9
L21.3
120.5
BULK :MOISTURECONTENT, %10.6
'
11.2
10.2
AMPLE
Figure A-30, Log of Test Boring 15 Continued Continued next page
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LJ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^ — DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
1U — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
BJ CHUNK SAMPLE
B — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
?• _. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED
I File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 19841
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•1
1
1
1
1
X H
. 60 -
-
-62 -
-64 -
.66 -
-
-68 -
. 7O .- / U -
-72 -
-74 -
-
-76 -
„ „
- 78 -
- 80 -
• 82 -
.
- 84 •
• o a _06
- 88 -
90 SAMPLE NO15-7
15-8
15-9
>oo_)oX1—_J
*
'.
iI
'
,
ii
,
i
• '
,
•
••
, ••
^
Figure A-31 ,
1 3ROUNDWATER [•*-J
CO
<5iiCO-CO
BORING 15 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATE DRILLED in/IS/SA
FOII1PMFNT RitnL-af Rio"-1
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
moderate, general seepage
_ rare pebbles and rip-up clasts, seepage
j becomes significant
1
1i1iiJ
/ Unconformity, attitude N85°W/7°S, hard,
/ saturated, light grayish -brown, massive,
/ very fine, Silty SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE, heavy
/ seepage along the contact
•
_ grades into very dense, massive, saturated,
' light gray, medium to well cemented, very
1 fine, Silty SANDSTONE
1Ii
J
/ Very stiff, fractured, dark purplish-brown
/ CLAY STONE
/PENETRATION-RESISTANCg-BLOWS/FT\•
:
^
14
•
•
•
•
' 50/
. 8"
.
„
fc
•
-
*
•
50
-
K
zu.
cr
Q
122.2
L15.1
112.2 MOISTURECONTENT, %12.1
14.0
16.6
Log of Test Boring 15 Continued Continued next page
Q LJ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL «J — STANOAflO PENETRATION TEST H — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
S DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE BU — CHUNK SAMPLE ?• — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
• ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWAHRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONSANDTIMES
1 tfTTT^• File No. D-2981-M03 J|ill]J
December 20, 1984 fT*"^1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
I
1
1
1
l
K »-
LU-LU
. 90 ,
. 92_
-
94
. 96.
-
_
-
-
_
-
-
.
-
-
~ —
O2:
Lit
CL
5
CO
>C5O
O
X1--J
/ /
// /
/
•t
CCu—
<
^z^oa:
CO
CO
CO
BORING 15 CONTINUED
El FVAT10N DATE DRILLED 10/18/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
poorly developed shear zone , thickness
approximately 1/8", attitude N80°E/25°S
(minor fault9 )
\
Very dense, saturated, light gray, massive,
•i fine SANDSTONE
\
BORING TERMINATED AT 96.0 FEET
i^tt*""
<<CO
5j2§
•
•
-
.
-
•
•
>
t
Zli.
UJOQo_
o:o
m#
•^y^
QZ^o
m Figure A-32, Log of Test Boring 15 Continued
|D — SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL E STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 3 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)SAMPLE SYMBOLS
S._ DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE W CHUNK SAMPLE ?• _. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
_ NOTETHELOGOF5UBSURFACECONDITIONSSHOWNHEREONAPPL1ESONLYATTHESPECIFICBORINGORTRENCHLOCATIONAND
• AT THE DATE INDICATED IT IS NOT WARRANT ED TO BEREPRESENTAT1VEOFSUBSUHFACECQMDITIQNSATGTHER LQCATIQNSANO TIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
i K
LU~\¥
Q
. 0 .
. 2-
- 4-
- 6-
. 8-
- 10-
- 12-
-
- 14-
-
- 16-
- 18-
- 20-
- 22-
-
- 24-
- 26-
- 28-
20 SAMPLE NOf LITHOLOGY0
c^
^
(J q
06,
'
,
fell16-1 m
16-2
1
-'
L
1
•
<>K o
•
•
'GROUNDWATERCOCO —
dS
CO
BORING 16
ELEVATION 7RR ' DATE DRILLED 10/18/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Ris
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Very loose, dry, grayish-black, Silty SAND
with shells
.
ANCIENT COLLUVITJK DEPOSITS
Loose to medium dense, dry, dark reddish-
brown, cohesionless , Silty SAND
grades into dense , humid , weakly cemented ,
reddish-brown, Silty SAND
! — some cobbles
J
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Very dense , moist , light grayish-tan,
weakly cemented , well graded , Silty
SANDSTONE, attitude of contact N20°W/36°E PENETRATION-RESISTANCE-BLOWS/FT \•
•
•
*
.
-
-
2
"
•
•
•
-
8
-DRY DENSITYPCFLll.O
121.6 MOISTURECONTENT, %9.9
10.6
Figure A-33, Log of Test Boring 16 Continued next page
^...^, r- „„..„«, ^ LT] SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 1] — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST E9 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)oAMPLE SYMBOLo _
^ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE ftl — CHUNK SAMPLE ?• __ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
I
I
I
I
1NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACECONDITIONSSHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOT WARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 2
X 1-
• 30 -
- 32-
• 34-
- 36-
• 38-
- 40-
-
• 42-
- 44^
- 46-
- 48-
D(J-SAMPLE NO16-3
, .
3, 1984 ^LITHOLOGY•
1
1
'
'
'
'3ROUNDWATERCO
CO —<co
o—
CO
BORING 16 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATF DRIl 1 ED 10/1R/R4
EQUIPMENT RnrVpf 13 n a
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
minor seepage on the north wall
moderate seepage
significant general seepage
'
BORING TERMINATED AT 50.0 FEET PENETRATION-=5^LJ
BLOWS/FT\7
-
(_
CO
WQ
sr
Q
121.0 MOISTURECONTENT, %10.5
Figure A-34, Log of Test Boring 16 Continued
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LJ — SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
S DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
.STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 9 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
.CHUNK SAMPLE 5- — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITIS NOT WARFIANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONSAT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
£ K
LJJ — [^
Q
. 0 -
-
- 2 -
- 4 -
• 6 -
• 8 -
- 10 -
- 12 -
-
- 14-
- 16-
- 18-
.
- 20-
- 22-
- 24-
• 26-
- 28-
-
30 SAMPLE NO17-1 LITHOLOGY'
J
i^o'o
//
/ /
i
\\GROUNDWATER)SOIL CLASS(USCS)•=- —
^^--•^
BORING 17
ELEVATION 25? ' DATE DRILLED 10/23/H4
EOUIPMFNT RiirVflf RT v
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Very loose , dry, cohesionless , grayish-
brown, fine SAND
ANCIENT COLLUVIUM DEPOSITS
Very dense, dry, reddish-brown, weakly
cemented, Silty SANDSTONE
N< grades into medium dense, humid, fine,
poorly graded, cohesionless SAND
becomes weakly cemented
grades into medium-grained, x^eakly cemented
SAND
cobbles , pebbles
Dense , moist , mottled reddish-brown-gray ,
Clayey, well graded SAND, random CLAY
concentrations, rare pebbles
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Very dense , moist , grayish- tan, weakly
cemented, Silty, well graded SANDSTONE
contact erosional , attitude N75 °W/25°W
— very light seepage on the N and E wall
1
J / — rip-up clasts PENETRATIOM]RESISTANCE"BLOWS/FT\J•
•
•
-
•
-
.
.
•
. 4
•
*
•
•
-
-
-DRY DENSITYPCF103.4 MOISTURE 1CONTENT, % |6.3
Figure A-35, Log of Test Boring 17 Continued next page
LJ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL HJ .-- STANDARD PENETRATION TEST 9 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)SAMPLE SYMBOLS
^,_ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE H— .CHUNK SAMPLE ?• — . WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARRANTEDTOBEREPRESENTATIVEOF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANDT1MES
1 ^(fflT PT>>-
File No. D-2981-M03 llluliTl
December 20, 1984 jBf*^)1
1
1
v'
|W
l
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
l
x .
2i-|u
Q
_ 30
.32 .
.34 .
_
.36 .
-
. 38 .
.40 .
.42 .
_ .
- 44 -
- 46 -
• 48 -
- 50 -
~
.
-
* ~
O2
Ul_1IL
2<CO
17-2
17-3
>o
—iox.K_i
•
/
/
>/
/
^/
-
w
//
Vi
tE
LLl
|>3ROUND•^f
CO
CO--.
1 , .jlCO
X
x>
/
1
/
/
/
/
XX
BORING 17 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATE DRILLED 10/23/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rl2
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
moderate general seepage
heavy seepage
/ Unconformity, attitude approximately N10°E/
/ 10°W, very stiff, humid, light brown, slightly
/ fractured, Silty CLAYSTONE
I becomes hard
J
very dense, humid, fine, light gray, Silty
SANDSTONE
/ Very dense, noxst, light gray, fine, Silty
/ SANDSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 52.0 FEET
i i
-°t
^C <T ff\
5|§
7
•»
•
.
-
•
.
•
7
•
-
•
•
-
i—
CO
ZU.
Q°
cc
Q
UJ#cc,_-
^2
^s§•^o
Figure A-36, Log of Test Boring 17 Continued
|^B
D SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL 2] — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST B — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
^ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE B — CHUNK SAMPLE ?• — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
m NOTETHELOGOFSUBSURFACECONDITlONSSHOWNHEREONfcPPUESONLY*TTHESPEClF?CBORlNGORTRENCHLOCATIONAND
1 ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOrWARRANTEDTOBEREPHESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONSATOTHERLOCATIONSANDTIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
I ,J-. f—
Q "-
- 0 .
-
- 2 -
_ 4 .
- 6 -
- 8 -
-10 -
-
- 12 -_
- 14 -
- 16 -
- 18 -
- 20 -
-
• 22 -
- 24 -
- 26 -
-
- 28 -
-
30
oz
LU
Q.
CO
18-1
•
18-2
o
_joIK
_l
/
/
/
//
/-'/ , ,
0o0
o
0 o
0 D
00
o
o ,
nx/'' /
///^
/ <
a s'i £ •
n.LU
^Q
23Oa:O
COen —
<CO
_,co
o~
CO
"--^
BORING 18
ELEVATION 225' DATE DRILLED 10/2.3/84
EQUIPMENT Ritrkpr RIP
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
COLLUVIUM/TOPSOIL
Loose, dry, grayish-brown, Clayey SAND
\
MUDFLOW DEBRIS/ALLUVIUM/ COLLUVIUM
Dense, humid, mottled gray-dark brown,
Clayey SANDi— — j "— j «—
Dense , humid , reddish-brown , weakly cemented ,
fine- to medium-grained SAND with rare pebbles
i grades into dense, disturbed, moist, coarse,
/ light brown-tan, Clayey SAND with random
/ gray CLAY concentrations
1
J
I Stiff, highly disturbed, humid , 'mottled light
I gray-tan SANDSTONE/SILTSTONE fragments in
/ Clayey/Sandy matrix, rare pebbles1
I
-* i — dense, mottled, moist, reddish-brown SAND
J
Stiff, humid, highly fractured SILTSTONE
with heavy blacK manganese oxide staining
along fracture planes and fine CLAY films
/ — Shear zone, thickness l/4"-l/8", attitude
/ horizontalj
QoP"
J — ^ ^~
<<COCth->i-cogLU — n^coHIs-
-
•
•
*
•
-
-
-
:
•
•
-
•
.
7
-
-
-
-
£
COZLu
og
EC
Q
109.1
LU^
QI I — T
22
-^§8
7.4
Figure A-37, Log of Test Boring 18 Continued next page
SAMPLE SYMBOLS U SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL BJ — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST H__ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE I CHUNK SAMPLE i „. WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
MOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED IT ISNOT WARRANTED TQBE REPRESENTATIVEOFSU8SURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONSAND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
I K
. 30 .
.32 _
.
.34 .
-
.36 .
-
. 38 .
.40 -
-
. 42 .
.44 -
-
-46 -
•
- 48 -
- 50 -
- 52 -
-
- 56 -i
-
- 58 -
- 60 -
62 SAMPLE NO_•=:LITHOLOGY//
/
/ /
/
/
/
,
=~ -=
, , ,'3ROUNDWATER)=~SOIL CLASS(use a)BORING 18 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATE DRILLED 10/23/84
EOUIPMFNT Bucket Rie
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Very dense , humid , weakly cemented , whitish-
tan, well graded SANDSTONE
\
Unconformity, dips approximately 5° south,
stiff, fractured, grayish-light brown
~\ CLAYSTONE with shiny parting surfaces
\
Very dense, moist to wet, whitish-gray,
weakly cemented, well graded SANDSTONE with
pebbles and rip-up clasts
moderate, general seepage
Unconformity, attitude N30°W/18°SW, stiff,
slightly fractured, light brown CLAYSTONE
with shiny parting surfaces
grades into hard, massive, moist, light
grayish-brown, Clayey SILTSTONE
/ Very dense, moist, light gray, fine
J SANDSTONE
Break in log
grades into very stiff, hard, light brown
SILTSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 62.0 "FEET PENETRATION-IRESISTANCE!BLOWS/FT \ 1.
m
'
•
'
'
-
-
-
.
.
•
m
•
.
-
-
-
~
-DRY DENSITYPCFMOISTURE 1CONTENT, % 1•
Figure A-38, Log of Test Boring 18 Continued
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
E
Ekl
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
CHUNK SAMPLE
9 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
X- __ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACECONO1TIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONSAND TIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
X j_
. 0
-
. 2 _
_ 4 .
-
_ 6 .
. 8.
- 10-
- 12.
- 14-
- 16-
- 18-
- 20-
• 22-
-
- 24-
.
- 28-
— **
30
O
*-
UJ_j
D.
CO
*
OXK
V
".'
c
0
•
)°
o°
0
•
•
'o
0
V, • 'ft*
,°<
r\
0//
//
,/rX (j
cki0
/
0°
0
•aC
0
LL
UJ
5
|
8
to
< w^
^0^CO
Utr:;^,
—-^*——^1
~.^_
^^"•^-^
^^
BORING 19
ELEVATION 106; DATF HRILLED 10/23/84
EQUIPMENT Bucket Rig
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Loose , dry , blackish-gray, Clayey SAND
COLLUVIUM/ALLUVIUM/MUDFLOW DEBRIS
Dense, dry , reddish-brown, medium cemented ,
coarse SAND
soft to medium stiff, moist to wet, gray
CLAY seam
Medium dense to dense, moist to wet, mottled
reddish-gray, cohesionless , Silty SAND
/ dense, moist, reddish-brown COBBLES/SAND
;
_ Paleosol layer, poorly developed, blackish-
/ brown, Silty SAND with some cobbles
J
/ Medium dense, moist, highly disturbed,
' mottled , reddish-brown— gray , Clayey SAND
with cobbles
>
/ Medium dense , moist , interbedded grayish-
/ light brown SAND with gray SILT
, dense, moist COBBLE bed
I
J
Oc&T
Pz^S£S
I-CO>— c\m *— 'T "^-J
5-m
-
•
.
.
-
-
-
•
•
.
.
.
•
-
"
1-
CO
ZU,
UJQ
cro
UJ ^Kh_-11
§8
Figure A-39, Log of Test Boring 19 Continued next page
r-..,,-, r- ^\/t.n/-n oSAMPLE SYMtJULb — SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL U — STANDAflO PENETRATION TEST 9 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
__ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE BJ — CHUNK SAMPLE ^ — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
K *"•
Q ^
30
- 32-
- 36-
- 38-
- 40-
- 42-
- 44-
- 48-
- 50-
• 52-
- 54-
• 56-
• 58-
- 60-
62
o
W
Q.2
CO
•«;
Oo
o
t
^^--<=
. /.'A
,
-
cc
8
>•
CO
_JQ
CO
~ — —
>
BORING 19 CONTINUED
El FVATION DATF DRILLED 10/23/84
EQUIPMENT Rnr.kpt Rip
v
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Medium dense, humid, reddish-brown,
cohesionless SAND, bedding approximately
horizontal
Break in log
Disturbed, moist, gray SILT/CLAY/SAND
A\ Paleosol, soft, dark brown, Sandy CLAY,
\ dips gently north
\
-\\ — carbonized or sanies[\
i ~ soft, wet, gray, sheared CLAY seam,
1 thickness approximately 1", attitude
1 approximately horizontal
\ medium-grained, cohesionless SAND
\
Medium dense, moist, yellowish-gray,
•\ cohesionless, fine SAND with iron oxide
\ deposits along the bedding
\ highly disturbed, moist, light gray
SILTSTONE/SANDSTONE angular fragments in
coarse, Sandy matrix
heavy seepage, caving
standing water
BORING TERMINATED AT 61.0 FEET
ill
|l*
•
»DENSITYPCFccQ
rr L_T
l — in
^8
-
Figure A-40, Log o£ Test Boring-19 Continued
SAMPLE SYMBOLS D _ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
^ __ DISTURBED OP BAG SAMPLE
BJ.
Ekl.
.STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
.CHUNK SAMPLE
S — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED}
^ — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIESONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING ORTRENCH LOCATION AND
AT THE DATE INDICATED IT IS NOTWARRANTEDTOBE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANDTIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
i (-
0
•
. 2.
- 4-
-
- 6-
- 8-
- 10-
- 12 -|
- 14-
-
- 16-
-
- 18-
- 20-
• 22-
• 24-
1 (L _• 26"
- 28-
30 SAMPLE NO20-1
20-2
20-3
20-4 LITHOLOGY/
/ >
/
1
1
|
1
'
,
-
'
o
O U DI/O nYnI v
6
0- C
0,
0
/o,°°;"
^Y°°i/>/0
Q
0
D
C
0
0
0
0
DZ
3ROUNDWATE•— 'SOIL CLASS(USCS)\\\
/
/
x^_
/
BORING 20
ELEVATION DATE DRILLED 12/4/84
EOUIPMENT B-53
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Loose , moist , blackish-brown, Clayey SAND
\
MUDFLOW DEBRIS/ALLUVIUM/COLLUVIUM
Medium dense to dense, reddish-brown, Silty
SAND with random Clayey zones
-
Medium dense, moist, reddish-gray, Silty
SAND
,
cobbles, pebbles in SAND matrix
Medium dense, moist, reddish-brown to gray,
Clayey SAND with some cobbles
1 Medium dense, moist, grayish-light brown
_/ r1 A "MT> ,-»^rl r* -t- 0 ^ r CTTTbANU ana gray biL,i
cobbles
i i
PENETRATIOtvRESISTANCE.BLOWS/FTi•
-
•
-
•
' 90
•
•
' 55
.
.
.
" 32
•
-
" 33
-
^
>•
2U,
or
Q
117.:
107. 5
L12 5 MOISTURECONTENT, %13.4
8.6
14.7
Figure A-41, Log of Test Boring 20 Continued- next,,page
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LJ — SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
C3 DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
U — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
U CHUNK SAMPLE
3 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
^ — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPHESENTATIVEOF SUBSURFACECQNDmONS AT OTHER LOCATIONSAND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No.
December
x ,_
Is*
. 30 -
- 32.
- 34.
-
. 36-
.38-
- 40-
• 42-
- 44-
" "
- 48-
-
- 50-
• 52-
- 54-
• 56-
- 58-
60
Oz
UJ_1Q.
2<CO
20-5
20-6
20-7
20-8
20-9
20-10
20-11
D-2981-M03 |
20, 1984 s f
>-oo_1oXH
_i
moa
•
1S
/
a§aI
"
i
/
i
•im
1
7
/
'
•
•
*
/
»
l°-
/
'
.'
•
•
•
, •
^
•
•
1
OiLU1
3ROUND^-j
COCO —<CO
31
CO
X
>-
/
BORING 20 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATF DR1I 1 FD
EQUIPMENT
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Medium dense, humid, reddish-brown
cohesionless SAND
Soft, loose, moist, grayish CLAY, SILT, SAND
Medium dense, moist, light brown, medium-
grained SAND
Medium dense , yellowish-gry , fine SAND
SILTSTONE, SANDSTONE, angular fragments
in Clayey matrix
•
seepage, becomes saturated
BORING TERMINATED AT 60.0 FEET
ii
F2<<CC(-1-0~o
li1
DUn=iyj
H-—=E
?!
12
" 28
20
•
" 26
•
•
" 52
-
.
" 30
-
27
CO
ZLJ_
D;
Q
111.1
111.5
115.6
108.5
90. C
UJ #
^&
i§^0
12.7
16.9
13.2
18.2
32.4
Figure A-42, Log of Test Boring 20 Continued
SAMPLE SYMBOLS LJ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
S DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
BJ__STANOAHD PENETRATION TEST
ly CHUNK SAMPLE
— DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
?• „ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOT WARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS ATOTHER LOCATIQNSAND TIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
i K
uj — yo
. 0
"
2-
. 4-
-
- 6-
- 8-
- 10-
-
- 12-
-
- 14-
- 16-
- 18-
• 20-
• 22-
• 24-
-
• 26-
- 28-
30 SAMPLE NO21-1
21-2
21-3
21-4 LITHOLOGYa1
•
*
•
i'6'0''/ o
/ 0
°/0
/Q Q 0/
° /&
•
| •
/
*'/
/
&y>
/
/
/<
/ ,
cr
3ROUNDWATE•^J SOIL CLASS<USCS*BORING 21
ELEVATION DATF DRILLED 12/4/84
EQUIPMENT B-53
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
TOPSOIL
Very loose, moist, grayish-brown, Silty
SAND
\
MUDFLOW DEBRIS/COLLUVIUM/ ALLUVIUM
Medium dense, humid , reddish-brown, Silty
SAND
becomes poorly graded
Loose to medium dense, moist, grayish-
reddish-brown, Clayey SAND with some pebbles
Medium dense, wet, reddish-brown SAND
Loose to medium dense, wet, reddish-brown-
gray, Clayey SAND with gray Clayey zones
Loose to medium dense, wet, mottled reddish-
brown SAND/gray Sandy CLAY
i
PENETRATIOISRESISTANCEBLOWS/FT!-
•
.
.
•
• 46
.
•
•
.
• 29
•
•
• 41
•
-
• 21
•
•
1
DRY DENSITYPCF118.7
L10.5
112.9 MOISTURECONTENT, %10.5
9.5
13.8
Figure A-43, Log of Test Boring 21 Continued next page
SAMPLE SYMBOLS IZ1 . SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
13 .~ DISTURBED Ofl BAG SAMPLE
U — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
ml — CHUNK SAMPLE
• — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
!• — WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITIS NOTWARRANTEDTO BE REPRESENTATIVE OFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONSAND TIMES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03 I TfTjl
December 20, 1984 - pp4j
x K
-30 -
-32 -
-
-34 -
;36:
-
-38 -
-40 -
-42 -
* •
-44 -
-
-46 -
- 48 -
- 50 -
• 52 -
-
- 54 -
• 56 -SAMPLE NO21-5
'
21-6
21-7
21-8
21-9
21-1C
oO
oX
r/
/
i
''
/
•
/
/,
/
r",
/
'
'
*
i
.
•
A
/
,.
,
1
/
/
1 GROUNDWATERCO
<t/5
CO
BORING 21 CONTINUED
ELEVATION DATE DRII LED 19/4 /R4
EQUIPMENT TWS1*
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Soft , wet , interbedded light gray , Clayey
SILT and reddish-brown, poorly graded SAND
Loose to medium dense, moist to wet,
mottled reddish-brown to gray , fine SAND
with Clayey zones
Loose , wet , yellowish- tan, fine SAND
interbedded with light gray, Sandy SILT
Soft, saturated, dark gray, Sandy CLAY/SILT
Dense , saturated , light grayish- tan,
medium-grained , weakly cemented SANDSTONE
with rip-up clasts
BORING TERMINATED AT 55.0 FEET
1
20
•
•
20
•
-
21
•
•
•
' 40
•
' 23
-
- 50/
6"
-
-
i-coZU.UJ°
or
Q
111.5
118.4
108.3
112.5 MOISTURECONTENT, %14.2
14.0
19.8
15.0
Figure A-44, Log of Test Boring 21 Continued
r- ~w. nr,, r*SAMPLE SYMBOLS
1 SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
I DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
U — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
B,CHUNK SAMPLE
3 — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
?- _„ WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
INOTE
ATTHE DATE INDICATED IT IS NOT WARRANTEDTO BE REPnESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONSAND TIMES
File No. D-2981-M02
August 11, 1983
DEPTH
IN
F££T
. o
. 2.
. 4.
- 6-
• 8-
•10-
•
. 16-
•18
•20
.22 _
-24
-26 -
•28 -
30
SAMPLE
NUMBER
LOG 8
LOCATION
OF
SAMPLE
\
A
1
)
/I
/
.
A
/
\
j/
i
•
/
•
/
•
Penetration
fffiistomf
/'
DESCRIPTION
BORING 1 (Aug 83)
TOPSOIL
Soft, moist, dark brown, Silty CLAY
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Dense, humid , grayish- tan, medium-
grained, weakly cemented SANDSTONE
becomes coarse, well graded, weakly
{ cemented SANDSTONE wiht SILTSTONE
1 rip-up clasts
1
1
' stiff, humid, light garyish -brown,
1 | Silty CLAYS10NE bed, attitude
} 1 approximated horizontal
J,1
fI
1
jj grades into whitish-gray, weakly
j cemented, well graded SANDSTONE
1
1
11
I1
1
1I
I Very stiff, massive, humid, light gray,
/ Sandy SILTSTONE
1
IN-PLACE
DRY
DENSITY
PC f
MOISTURE
CONTENT
% Or/ wt
Figure A-45, Log of Test Boring 1 Continued next paqe
File No. D-2981-M02
August 11, 1983
DOTH
IN
fEET
3n
. 32-
- 34-
- 36-
- 33-
. 40.
. 42-
. 44-
• 46-
• 48"
. 50
• 52
• 54
' 56-
. 58.
60
SAMPLE
NUMBER
LOG 3
LDCATIOH
OF
SAMPLE
,
/
//
J
'
\
/
_/
I
Penetration
Resistance
Blows/ft
•^
">
-•'
^ —^-~x
S~
s/
DESCRIPTION
BORING 1 CONTINUED
Stiff, moist, fractured, dark gray
CLAYSTONE with shiny parting surfaces
-\\\
-\^ — grades into very stiff, moist,
\ purplish-gray massive SILTSTONE
\
Very dense, humid, massive tanish-light
gray, very fine Silty SANDSTONE
. grades into very stiff, massive,
1 humid, light grayish-brown SILTSTONE,
j bedding attitude horizontal
f
ii dense, humid, light gray SANDS10NE
/ mterbed
//
J Very dense, humid , massive , weakly
cemented, light grayish-tan, fine,
Silty SANDSTONE, bedding attitude
NLO°W/6°W
1 becomes coarse
[
1
1. . stratigraphic disconf ormity
</
Jj/j — very stiff, humid, purplish-brown-
('/ gray, fractured SILfSTONE/CLAYS TONE,
Ji' slightly sheared in limited discon-
Ul tinuous areas, orientation of shearing
Jl random
II
11
\l Very stiff, hard, humid, massive, light
J/ gray SLLISIONE
IN-PL A CE
DRY
DENSITY
pet
MOISTURE
CONTENT
% Jfy ""
Figure A-46, Log of Test Boring 1 Continued Continued next page
File No. D-2981-M02
August 11, 1983
DEPTH
IN
FEET
. 60.
. 62-
- 64.
-66-
- 68-
' 70-
. 72.
. 74-
- 76-
• 78
'80
.82
-88
•90
.92
-94
SAMPLE
NUMBER
— C
LOG a
jxxnofj
or
SAMPLE
' :
•
//
=»
£\
/
T—
I
/
T
-c=I
1
rte/rafion
Resistance
Blows/ft
x
XT
/
>
DESCRIPTION
BORING 1 CONTINUED
Very dense, gray, massive, very fine,
Sandy SILTSTONE
Very hard, massive, well cemented
SILTSTONE
grades into very stiff, massive ,
light grayish-brown SILTSTONE
stiff , humid , purplish-gray, fractured
CLAYSTONE interbed with shiny parting
surfaces and numerous black manganese
stains
Very dense, humid, grayish-tan, very
fine Silty SANDSTONE
1 Break in log
1
I
i becomes very hard, very slow drilling
BORING TERMINAL ED AT 95 0 TCET
IN-PLACS
DRY
DENSITY
f>C f
MOISTURE
CONTENT
% Ory wt
Figure A-47 , Log o£ Test Bonus 1 Continued
File No. D-2981-M02
August 11, 1983
DEPTH
IN
FEET
n
•
. 2 .
- ,
. 4-
- 6-
s -o
•10-
.12 .
.14 -
•16 -
.
•18
.20
.22
•
•24
"
-26 -
.28 .
30
SAMPLE
NUMBER
'
,
LOG 8
GCATIOH
Of
SAMPLE
\ \
Ml
1
i !j 1
1
11
— 7~/
/
f////
// '// ,/
///• /
'\).V
y(^ 0
ol-l/
'/ P/ \/[Ki ' '
/ Q\Ii [/>
y**
Penetration
Resistance
Blows/ft
•
DESCRIPTION
BORING 2 (Aug 83)
SLOPEWASH
Very loose, dry to humid, dark reddish-
brown, cohesionless , Silty, very fine
SAND
grades into moist to wet, orange-red,
medium-grained , Silty cohesionless
SAND
'
LANDSLIDE (MUDFLOW) DEBRIS
Medium dense, wet to saturated,
disturbed, weakly cemented to
cohesionless , Clayey, medium-grained
SAND
. becomes very coarse, moist, grayish-
\ tan, Silty SAND with rare Silty/Clayey
/ zones, rare pebbles
/J
Soft to loose, moist, light brown- tan ,
Silty SAND and gray, slightly sheared
CLAY
/ Very fine bedded, loose to medium dense.
/ fine, light gray SAND, typical flow
/ pattern with attitude of bedding
1 contorted, highly irregular with
j / numerous clay lenses, dips approximately
/ 10° to 15° toward North
IN -PLACE
DRY
DENSITY
pc f
MOISTURE
CONTENT
% dry wt
'
Figure A-43, Log of Test Boring 2 Continued next nafie
File No. D-2981-M02
August 11, 1983
DEPTH
IN
FEET
. 30
'
. 32-
-
- 34-
.
- 36-
• 38-
*
. 40.
'
. 42-
. 44-
• 46-
• 48-
•
1 50'
.
. 52 -
•
• 54-
. 56.
-
.58-
60
SAMPLE
NUMBER
LOG a
LOCATION
Of
SAMPLE
XtiC" n s
*=&!• /
ty^Cfo
'
n\^s
/*=
0o ••
/
j
ti
**
0.
- '
/n0
•*>,
''
**'<fj/\ I
1 '11 \.1 1
0
°° 0
0°°°
,:!
f.j
'
^
r^
a>
^
Penetration
Resistance
Blowy/ft
\
V
>
f
^-*~—" "
DESCRIPTION
BORING 2 CONTINUED
i Highly disturbed CLAY/ SAND mixture
^ with numerous pebbles and cobbles
\
\ -
Shear zone, highly sheared, disturbed,
1 light gray-tan, Clayey SAND and light
gray CLAY with numerous cobbles and
pebbles within the sheared mass.
y. General attitude N65°/45°NE
ll
ll
1 large SILTSTONE fragments exceeding
1T in diameter in a coarse Clayey
1 Sandy matrix
1 shear zone approximately 1" thick,
attitude N75 E/A°S
SANTIAGO FORMATION
Very dense, moist, whitish-gray,
Siltv SANDSTONE
\
\
Very dense, saturated, coarse, weakly
! cemented, whitish-gray SANDS10NE,
general slight seepage
[
Very dense, saturated, weakly to medium
cemented, very coarse SANDSTONE with
ll rare pebbles, general moderate seepage,
|| flow increasing with depth, no caving
II — stratigraphic disconformity , light
|j grayish-brown, fractured SILTSTONE/
\\ CLAYSTONE, slightly sheared in limited
| discontinuous areas; heavy seepage
1| along the contact
il
1 very dense, wet, Light gray-tan, weakly
cemented, medium-grained SANDS'lO^E, cavir
M-PLACE
DRY
DENSITY
pc f
Cr
MOISTURE
CCKTENT
% Of/ wt
Figure A-49, Log of Test Boring 2 Continued Continued next page
File No. D-2981-M02
August 11, 1983
DEPTH
IN
FEET
. 60.
.
•
SAMPLE
NUMBER
•
LOG a
LOCATION
OF
SAMPLE
-
Penetration
Resistance
Blows/ft
DESCRIPTION
BORING 2 CONTINUED
1
II
1 light gray, very stiff SILTSTONE
BORING TERMINATED AT 60.0 FEET
IN-PLACS
DRY
DENSITY
pet
MOISTURE
CONTENT
% dry wt
Figure A-50, Log of Test Boring 2 Continued
APPENDIX B
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
I
I File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
^B
I
I
Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with generally accepted test
• methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or other
suggested procedures. Selected relatively undisturbed samples were tested
B for their dry density, and moisture content (ASTM D2937-83), drained shear
m , strength (ASTM 3080-72) and consolidation characteristics (ASTM D2435-80).
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of selected bulk
B samples were determined in accordance with ASTM Test Procedure D1557-70,
• Method A. Portions of the bulk samples were then remolded to selected
densities and subjected to drained direct shear tests and Expansion Index
I tests (UBC Standard 29-2).
• The results of our laboratory tests are presented in tabular form
hereinafter. The in-place dry density and moisture content are also
I presented on the boring logs.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
TABLE I
^umrnary of In-Place Moisture-Density and Direct jihear Test Results
Sample
No.
*4-l
4-2
4-3
4-4
5-1
*5-2
5-3
6-1
6-2
7-1
7-2
8-1
8-2
8-3
9-1
9-2
9-3
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
11-1
11-2
11-3
12-3
13-3
14-1
14-2
*!4-3
14-4
14-5
15-1
Depth
ft.
2-4
9
15
20
9
10
19
20
35
10
23
10
25
40
9
13
24
11
20
29
40
50
60
70
16
30
45
51
43
15
25
31-3
38
50
15
Dry
Density
pcf
115.4
110.9
116.1
111.1
112.4
118.4
113.4
116.1
119.3
104.0
118.4
121.0
111.1
118.8
115.2
107.1
107.4
114.3
121.8
117.4
120.4
123.3
126.0
127.9
115.9
118.4
122.3
112.2
110.8
120.4
125.6
110.8
116.3
119.7
107.8
Moisture
Content
%
8.6
6.1
8.9
14.0
6.0
9.7
7.2
15.1
12.4
11.1
10.6
11.1
17.3
14.3
12.3
17.6
20.5
18.4
15.1
17.0
15.8
12.7
13.1
11.3
9.5
9.2
13.6
17.4
16.0
7.9
10.4
10.8
16.5
15.4
15.4
Unit
Cohesion
psf
375
875
247
884
540
803
1473
915
727
312
Angle of
Shear
Resistance
Degrees
30
29
29
45
28
14
10
19
40
28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
TABLE I (Continued)
Summary of In-Place Moisture-Density and Direct Shear Test Results
Sample
No.
15-2
15-3
15-4
15-5
*15-6
15-7
15-8
15-9
16-1
16-2
16-3
17-1
17-2
17-3
18-2
20-2
20-3
20-4
20-6
20-8
20-9
20-10
20-11
21-1
21-2
21-3
21-5
21-8
21-9
21-10
Depth
_ft.
25
35
45
55
56
65
75
86
15
25
35
15
30
45
24
15
20
25
35
45
50
55
59
10
15
20
30
45
50
54
Dry
Density
pcf
117.0
117.9
121.3
120.5
114.0
122.2
115.1
112.2
111.0
121.6
121.0
103.4
120.0
106.3
109.1
117.3
107.5
112.5
111.1
111.5
115.6
108.5
90.0
118.7
110.5
112.9
111.5
118.4
108.3
112.5
Moisture
Content
%
7.3
10.6
11.2
10.2
10.7
12.1
14.0
16.6
9.9
10.6
10.5
6.3
10.4
16.3
7.4
13.4
8.6
14.7
12.7
16.9
13.2
18.2
32.4
10.5
9.5
13.8
14.2
14.0
19.8
15.0
Angle of
Unit Shear
Cohesion Resistance
psf Degrees
402 35
1008 37
370 32
423 24
547 27
0 38
629 24
*Soils remolded to approximately 90 percent of the maximum dry
density at near optimum moisture content.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
TABLE II
Summary of Laboratory Compaction Test Results
ASTM D1557-70
Sample
No.
4-1
5-2
14-3
15-6
Description
Blackish-gray, fine SAND
Reddish-brown, Siity SAND
Whitish-gray, Silty, fine
SAND
Yellow-white, Siity SAND
Maximum Dry
Density
pcf
128.0
131.5
123.3
126.6
Optimum
Moisture
% Dry Wt,
8.7
10.1
10.4
10.3
TABLE III
jmmmary of Laboratory Expansion_Injex Test Results
Sample
No.
4-1
5-2
14-3
15.6
Moisture
Before
Test
%
8.8
8.5
9.5
9.9
Content
After
Test
%
14.6
17.8
20.3
17.7
Dry
Density
pcf
114.5
115.6
111.9
109.4
Expansion
Index
0
11
12
2
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
SAMPLE N* 12-1
0
zo
Q
_l
O
-WATER ADDED
6
0 05 0 iO 50 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (in KIPS /ft2 )
Fiaure B-l
File No. D-2981-M03
December'20, 1984
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
SAMPLE N* 12-2
0
o
Ocn
\
IH
0 05 0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (in KIPS /ft2 )
Figure B-2
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
SAMPLE N* 13-1
0
zo
5
Q
cnz
O
* 4
WATER ADDED
0 05 0 10 50 100
APPLIED PRESSURE (in KIPS /ft2 )
Figure B-3
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
SAMPLE N9 13-2
APPLIED PRESSURE (in KIPS/ftz)
Figure B-4
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
APPLIED PRESSURE
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
SAMPLE 20-5 Load 4,000 psf
ICO
6 8
TIME in MINUTES
TIME-SETTLEMENT CURVE
Figure 3-5
File No D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
2
O
(J
! I I ' ' i i I •• i IIWATER 'ADDED
0 5 5 10
APPLIED PRESSURE m KIPS
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
SAMPLE N9 20-7 Load. 8,000 psf
i i I
*'o
If)oz
<
Q
TIME in MINUTES
to 12
TIME-SETTLEMENT CURVE
figure B-6
File No. D-2981-M03
'December 20, 1984
APPLIED PRESSURE
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
SAMPLE N? 21-4 Load. 4,000 psf
- 0
IOO
TIME-SETTLEMENT CURVE
Figure B-7
File No D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
APPLIED PRESSURE
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
SAMPLE N? 21-6 Load. 3,000 osf
senoz
o<UJ
(T
1
TIME in MINUTES
TIME-SETTLEMENT CURVE
10 12
Figure B-f
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1934
SAMPLE
APPLIED PRESSURE m K!PS
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
-7 Load- 3,000 psf
Z
a
50 100
6 8
TIME in MINUTES
12
TIME-SETTLEMENT CURVE
Figure D-^
0
APPENDIX C
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LANDSLIDE ANALYSIS BY SIMPLIFIED METHOD OF SLICE
PROJECT NAME: RISING GLEN
PROJECT NO.: D 2981 MO3
COMMENTS: SECTION B-B' NO BUTTRESS
I OtM
SLICE SOIL
NO. TYPE
1 1
2 1
3 J
4 1
5 2
a 2
AREA
(SOFT)
480.
1 7 1 0 .
3 7^0.
877.
893.
314.
00
oo
f If"!
5O
00
50
WEIGHT
a IPS)
57.
2O5.
2O4 .
105.
1O7.
37 .
6O
2O
OO
3O
16
74
ALPHA
(DEG)
38.
17.
1 0 -
8.
1.
A
67
57
21
43
5]
64
T( DRIVE)
O IPS)
35.
61.
36 .
15.
— r
— ^i .
98
05
14
43
82
O5
N( RES 1ST)
a IPS)
6.
27.
28,
14.
28.
1O.
T;-,
49
21
64
70
OS
L LC
(FT) O /FT)
51.
62 .
5O.
27.
38.
37 .
^
94
eo
29
01
12
5.
6.
5.*->
7.
7.
12
29
08
73
fcO
42
717. CM!)149.27 113.43
FACTOR OF SAFETY == (N+LC) /T
OIF"1 _ t_»<_*
SOIL PARAMETERS:
SOIL TYPE 1
PHI - 8 DEGREES
COH = IOO PSF
WET DENS = 120 PCF
SOIL TNPE 2
PHT = 15 DEGREES
COH = 20O PSF
WET DENS = 120 PCF
THE FOLLOWING COORDINATES DESCRIBE THE GEOMETRY OF THE
CROSS-SECTION ANALI ZED nBOVE :
SLICE Yl YGW
o
1
-~l
3
4
5
<b
0 .
40.
1 0 O .
150.
177.
215.
2^2.
0
o
0
o
o
o
o
' •'
2
'-I
-i
'—i
•~\
1
60.
r—f-i
42.
35.
26 .
12.
98.
(J
U
0
o
o
0
0
260.
22Q.
2O 9.
200.
196.
195.
198.
O
0
o
o
o
o
0
o .
l") .
0.
0 .
0.
0.
o.
0
o
o
o
0o
o
34.25
Figure Ol
NO I
Figure C-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LANDSLIDE ANALYSIS BY SIMPLIFIED METHOD OF SLICE
PROJECT NAME: RISING GLEN
PROJECT NO.: D 2981 M0~
COMMENTS: SECTI ON B~B' BUTTRESSED
SLICE SOIL
NO. TYPE
1 1
2 1
3 1
4 1
5 2
<b 2
AREA
(SOFT)
48O.
1 7 1 0 .
I"7'"1*")
877.
893.
314.
OO
00
,•>,")
5O
OO
SO
WEIGHT
(I- IPS)
57.
2O5.
2O4 .
105.
111.
39.
60
2O
OO
30
63
31
ALPHA
(DEG)
38.
17.
1O.
8.
1.
~a-
67
57
21
43
51
e>4
T( DRIVE)
G IPS)
35. 98
to 1.95
36. 14
15.43
2. 94
-7. 18
Nv RES 1ST)
a IPS)
"••* *™i
27.49
28. 21
14. 64
64. 41
£3
L
(FT)
51.
62.
50.
27.
38.
37 .
^
94
BO
29
01
12
LC
a /FT)
5.
6.
5.
13.
12.
12
29
08
73
30
99
149.
FACTOR OF SHFETY = <N+LO/T
± _
SOIL PARAMETERS:
SOIL T^^'E 1
PHI = 3 DEGREES
COH - 100 PEP
WET DENG = 120 PCF
SOIL TYPE 2
FHI = 30 DEGREES
COH = 35O PSF
WET DENS - 125 PCF
THE FOLLOWING COORDINATES DESCRIBE THE GEOMETRY OF THE
CROSS-SECT I UN ANAL I ZED ABOVE :
SLJCE Yi YGW
0 .
4O.
1OO.
15O.
17~7.
215.
252.
0
O
o
o
o
o
o
2oO.
252.
242.
235.
226.
212.
198.
0
o
o
o
o
o
0
Z6O.
228.
2O9 .
2OO.
196.
195.
198.
O
oo
o
0
o
o
45
Figure C-3
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LANDSLIDE ANALYSIS BY SIMPLIFIED METHOD OF SLICES
PROJECT NAME: RISING GLEN
PROJECT NO.: D 2981 MO3
COMMENTS: SECTION B-B' BUTTRESSED
SBEIC-T I O
SLICE
NO.
1
*-i
..,
4
5
o
SOIL
TYPE
1
i
1
i
2'-i
AREA
<SOFT^
4 BO. 00
1710.00
1"?'OO. 00
877. SO
893. OO
314.50
WEIGHT
a IPS)
57 . aO
2O5. 2O
204. OO
1 05 . 3O
111. 63
39. 31
ALPHA
(DEG)
38.67
17.57
1 0 . 2 1
8.43
1.51
-*„ t>4
T(DRIVE)
0 IPS)
3^.98
61.95
36. 14
15. 43
2.94
-3. IB
N< RES 1ST
<t IPS)
6. 32
27.49
28.21
14. 64
78. 12
27. 4 -•
) L
(FT)
51 . 22
62.94
5O. 80
27 . 29
38.01
37. 12
LC
(I- /FT)
5. 12
6.29
5.08
2.73
13. 30
12. 99
723.04 149.26 182.21 45.
FACTOR OF SAFETY = (N+LO/T
F-- d^k 0 T O Ft OF-™ S ^ F=" El "T V
SOIL PARAMETERS:
SOIL TYPE i
PHI - 8 DEGREES
COM = 100 PSF
WET DENS = 120 PCF
SOIL TYPE 2
PHI = 35.002S7 DEGREES
COM - 350 HSF
WET DENS = 125 PCF
THE FOLLOWING COORD [NATES DESCRIBE THE GEQMETFvY OF THE
CROSS-SECTION ANALI ZED ABOVE :
SLICE X Yl Y2 YGW
o
1
—1
-*;
4
5
1 j . 0
40 . O
lOO. 0
ISO. O
17"7. O
2 1 5 . O
JcO. 0
252.0
242 . 0
235. 0
226.0
212.0
Jt>0 . O
228 - 0
2O9 . 0
2OO. O
196.0
195.0
O . (J
O . O
o . o
O . u
0 . 0
0 . 0 Figure C-4
Figure C-5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LANDSLIDE ANALYSIS BY SIMPLIFIED METHOD GF SLICES
PROJECT NAME: RISING GLEN
PROJECT NO.: D 2981 M03
COMMENTS: SECTION C-C' NO BUTTRESS
or-4 e:i.
SLICE
NO.
1
*— I
—v
4
cr
SOIL
TYPE
1
1
1
1
^>
AREA
(SOFT)
315.OO
1325. CO
837 - loO
7S7. 50
700. no
WEIGHT
U IPS)
37 . BO
1 59 . GO
1OO.5O
94.50
84 . OO
ALPHA
(DEG)
38. 67
18. 78
13.50
11.31
_•-. -vty
1 (DRIVE)
U IPS)
23.61
51. IS
23 . 45
18.53
N( RES 1ST)
a IPS)
4. 15
21. 15
13. 73
1 3 . O2
^•^ 49
L
(FT)
33. 42
52.81
25.71
25 . 5u
50 . O*i
LC
(1- /FT)
3. 84
5.28
2.57
f~\ C-LT-
j_ . O J
1 O 0 1
475. BO 117.4 74.54
FACTOR OF SAFETY = ^N+LO/T
~ Q i^<:o _
SOIL PARAMETERS:
SOIL TYPE i
PHI = 8 DEGREES
COM = 1OG PBF
WET DENS = 120 PCF
SOIL TYPE 2
PHC •= 15 DEGREES
CQH - 200 PSF
WET DENS --= 120 PCF
THE FOLLOWING COURDJ NATES DESCRIBE THE GEOMETRY OF
GROGS-SECTION ANAL I ZED ABO ^E :
THE
SLICE Yl YGW
o
1
•",
~*
4
o
O . '.)
~ 0 . 0
GO. O
1O5. 0
130. u
180.0
257 . u
254. 0
248. 0
245. O
233 . O
2O7. 0
257.0
233. O
216. O
2 10 . O
2OS . O
2O 7 . 0
Fifiure C-6
Figure C-7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LANDSLIDE ANALYSIS BY SIMPLIFIED METHOD OF SLICES
PROJECT NAME: RISING GLEN
PROJECT NO.: D 2981 MO3
COMMENTS: SECTION C~C' WIDER BUTTRESS
~r x o iv
SLICE
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
SOIL
TYPE
1
1
1
-i
2
AREA
(SOF
315.
943.
1235.
1 ion
35G.
T)
GO
50
OG
on
OO
WEIGHT
0 IPS)
37.
113.
148.
137.
43.
SO
22
20
5O
75
ALPHA
(DEC)
38.
19.
34.
7.
67
36
75
13
27
T( DRIVE)
(tIP
23.
37* .
37.
17.
S)
61
53
72
O5
5O
N( RES 1ST)
(KIP
4.
15.
20.
78.
25.
•S)
15
01
14
75
21
L LC
(FT) O /FT)
38.42 3.84
39.22 3.92
39.29 3.93
4O.31 14.11
35.Go 12.27
480.47
FACTOR OF SAFETY = (N+LO/T
F7 *=s O ~T O Ft OF-" S *=* F" SEI HT V
113. 42 14"38.07
SOIL PARAMETERS:
SOIL TYPE 1
PHI - 8 DEGREES
COH == 10O PSF
WET DENS = 12O PCF
SOIL TYPE 2
PHI, = 30 DEGREES
COH - 350 PSF
WET DENS = 125 PCF
THE FOLLOWING COORDINATES DESCRIBE THE GEOMETRY OF THE
CROSS-SECTION ANALIZED ABOVL :
SLICE V 1 Y2 YGW
o
1
2
~"
4
5
0 . O
r o . o
6 / . O
105. O
145.0
180. O
257 . O
254. 0
2.50 . O
245.0
225. 0
2G 7 . O
257. 0
27 "' . O
220 . 0
2 1 O . 0
2O5 . 0
207. 0
0 . 0
0 . 0
<_> . O
0 . U
O . O
O . G Figure C-i
Figure C-9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
->•-*• -t *•
•* * Design Professionals Management Systems * *
* f 1- i rl- 1 and , Washington * •*
* •* STABL Slope Stability • * *
* -v IBM PC £/ 8086/8088 MS-DOS VI. 10 * *
* * * *
-*
—SLOPE STABILIJ\ ANALYSIS—
MODIFIED HI SHOP METHOD OF SLICES
1RREBULAR FAILURE SURFACES
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION RISING GLEN SECTION D-D
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
8 TOP BOUNDARIES
31 TOTAL BOUNDARIES
BOUND ARN
NO.
2
-;
4
cr
b
7
aL?
10
L 1
X-LEFT
(FT)
. O'"i
1O5.
] 3 8.
I 35 .
1 95.
2 5 1> .
.:os.
_i .
19r5.
US.
00
oo
ou
oo
oo
oo
0 U
OO
0 O
OO
Y-LEFT
(FT)
2 2O .
227.
235.
268.
2SS.
J'.'2 .
302.
288.
268.
227.
00
OO
00
oo
oo
oo
(_!')
0 O
oo
00
X -RIGHT
(FT)
1O5. •"""»
1 1 a ."
135.
195.
-i-'-r
256.
285.
3 1 0 .
3 1 0 .
3 1 0 .
3 1 0 .
GO
OO
O O
\ H t
OO
oo
00
00
00
GO
Y-RIGHT
(FT)
220. OO
227 .
235.
268.
288.
3O2 .
3 O2.
307.
293 .
268.
227.
0 O
OO
oo
oo
00
0 O
00
oo
OO
00
SOIL TYPE
BELOW BND
1
1
2
2
•-;
4
4
4
_•
2
1
Figure C-10
ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETER'S
1
•OMETRIC
URFACE
NO.
1
ii,iii
iiii
ii
iiii
4 IVl-'EiS) UP SOLL
Jf^SOIL TOTAL SATURATED COHESION FRICTION PORE frJRE
TYPE UNIT WT. UNIT WT. INTERCEPT ANGLE PRESSURE CON
NO. tPCF) (PCF) <PSF> ^DEG) PARAMETER (
1 120. 0 1 3O . O 450 . O 25 . 0 . 00
2 125.0 1 35 . 0 35O . O 35 . O . OO
3 125. O 1 35 . O 4OO . O 35 , 0 . 00
4 115.0 125. 0 25O . O 35 . 0 . 'JO
1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE CS) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
UN1TWEIT3HT OF WATER --= 62.40
PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE NO. 1 SPECIFIED BY 2 COORD I NA1 E POINTS
PO 1 NT X -WATER V -WATER
MO. \FT) (FT)
1 135. 00 235. OO
2 31 O. 00 240. OO
A CRJTICAL FAILURE SURFACE SEARCHING METHOD, USING A RANDOM
1ECHN10UE FOR GENERATING CIRCULAR SURFACES, HAS BEEN SPECIF1
105 TRIAL SURFACES HAVE BEEN GENERATED.
5 SURFACES IN [T I ATE FROM EACH OF 21 POINTS EQUALLY SPACED
ALONG THE GROUND SURFACE BETWEEN X - 5O.OO FT.
AND X - 150.OO FT.
EnCH SURFACE TERMINATES BETWEEN < = 250.00 FT.
A ML- A = 3K.t.OO FT.
}J
SSUR
1
STAN
FSF)
. O
. O
. O
. 0
ED.
UNLESS FURTHER LIMITHflOiJS WERE IMPOSED, THE MINIMUM ELEVATION
AT W H J C H A S U R F A L t£ F X T F N D S I S Y -- 2 O < > . O O F T .
10. UO FT. LINE SEGMENTS DEFIHK EACH TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE.
FOLLOWING AFE DISFLm'ED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIAL
P-ATI i ic-c- ci iQc-Arpc; PY A! IT MFD. THF / ARF HRnFRI-n - MHQT PR F T T r.£
Figui
U
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
A
Y
.01
Ol +
61.41
184.21 +
24-5.61
3O7.01 +
368.41
F 429.81 +
f 4Q 1 . 2 1
SECTION D-D1
STABILITY OF SLOPE AS PROPOSED
S F T
61.41 122.31 184.21 245.s1 3O7.O1
MOSTCRITICAL
CIRCLE
PROPOSED
GRADING
. . . . 64^40. OO. .
Factor of Safety = 1.41 - 1 437
Fieure C-12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
* Design Professionals Management Systems *
r i- i r I- 1 and , Washington -*•
STABL Slope Stability * *-
* *
IBM PC ?/ 8086/8088 MS-DOS VI. 10 * *
—SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS—
MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD OF SLICES
IF REGULAR FAILURE SURFACES
PROBLEM DESCRIFTCON RISING GLEN SECTION D-D' DEWATERED
BOUNDARY COOFv'DINATES
8 TOP BOUNDARIES
11 TOTAL BOUNDARIES
BOUNDARY
NO.
1
•"i
^
4
5
/-j
-
Go/
10
i L
X-LE
(
FT
FT)
„
105.
d i
IV
lc--
-,-.
25
-,—
19
11
B .
.. j .
5.
-"
6.
--
b .
3.
0<J
G O
O 0
GO
OO
OG
Go
GO
O' )
GO
OO
Y-LEFT
/FT)
22C) .
220.
227.
' ^J •
2oB.
288.
""02.
3 O Z .
?F»0
268.
22"^ -
' j O
uO
OC1
O1")
OO
'JT;
'"tO
OO
,-u)
PI'G
OC)
X -RIGHT
(FT)
1 O5 .
1 IS.
i :.5.
L 75.
2 „' Z .
256.
^t1r:i
3 1 0 .
3 L 0 .
3 1 G .
~_ 1 0 .
OO
0 0
1 1) 0
G O
(j O
G O
(.iO
O 0
00
Go
Ou
Y-R1GHT
(FT)
22O .
2 j- / •
235.
263.
288.
3O2.
302 .
_'O/ .
-i O -; _
268 1
227.
OO
GO
O 0
OO
0 O
0 G
OO
OO
G 0
O i J
00
SOIL TYPE
BELOW END
J
1
2
•-T
-r
4
4
4
-'
•~t
1
Figure C-13
ISOTPOPIC SOIL PARAMETERS
1
•OMETRIC
URFACE
NO.
1
i
• ii
ii
ii
i
ii
•*ii
ii
4 IVPt(S) OF SOIL
SOIL TOTAL SATURATED COHESION FRICTION PORE ^PRESSURE
TYPE UN IT W T . UN I T WT . I NTERCEPT ANGLE PRESSURE CONSTANT
NO . t F CF ) v F OF ) ( PSF ) ( DEG ) PARAMETER ( PSF )
1 1 2O . O 1 3O . O 450 - O 25 . 0 . OO . 0
2 1 25 . O 1 35 . 0 350 . 0 35 . 0 . OO - O
1 25 . 0 1 35 . 0 400 . O 35 . 0 . OO . O
4 1 1 5 . O 1 25 . O 25O . O 35 . O . 00 . 0
A CRITICAL FAILURE SURFACE SEARCHING METHOD, USING A RANDOM
TECHNIQUE FOR GENERATING CIRCULAR SURFACES, HAS BEEN SPECIFIED.
105 TRIAL SURFACES HAVE BEEN GENERATED.
5 SURFACES INITIATE FFOi-1 EACH OF 21 POINTS EQUALLY SPACED
ALONG THE GROUND SURFACE BETWEEN X = 50. OO FT.
AND X = 15O.OO FT.
EACH SURFACE TERMINATES BETWEEN X = 250.00 FT.
AND X = 31O.OO FT.
UNLESS FURTHER LIMITATIONS WERE IMPOSED, THE MINIMUM ELEVATION
AT WHICH A SURFACE EXTENDS IS Y - 2OO.OO FT.
10.00 FT. LINE SEGMENTS DEFINE EACH TRIAL FAILURE SUFFICE.
FOLLOWING ARE DJ SPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIAL
FAILURE SURFACES E<,AH1NED. THE\ ARE ORDERED - MOST CRITICAL
FIRST.
,
FAILURE SUFF'-iUI nRFXIFJ E.D Pf 2^ COORljrNATE POCNTS
F ( J £ M f < -?uRF Y -SURF
UCJ. <,FT> (F"! )
L 95. '"U 27'"-. • n"»
2 J 04. 13 21rj. VO
3 113, 55 212. 56
4 ] 23 . 22 2J O. 00
5 133. 'j6 2O8. 23
<S 3 '13. 01 2O7.27
7 153.01 207. 12
S 162. OQ 2Q7. "8 Figure
S
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTION D-D'
STABILITY OF DEWATERED SLOPE
. 01 61.41
01
61.41
A 122.31 +
X 1 3 4 . 2 1
I 245,61 +
307.Ol +
.41
F -129.'.31 i-
122.31 1S4.21
T
45.6] "07.01
MOST
CRITICAL
CIRCLE
PROPOSED
GRADING
Factor of Safety = 1 581 - 1.6T8
Figure C-15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'T^^y
•-j—
#-*#-*•*•*• *"*t"*"Jt"Jl"*-*.
^ -XT-
T * * •*
* -* Design Professional s Management Systems * *•
t irl- land, Washington * *-x-
STABL Slope Stability
IBM PC S/ 8086/aOBB MS-DOS VI. 1O
-X- •*
—SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS—
MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD OF SLICES
IRREGULAR FAILURE SURFACES
PROBLEM DESCRIPTION RISING GLEN SECTION E-E
BOUNDARY COORDINATES
4 TOP BOUNDHf-;!ES
5 TOTAL BOUNDARIES
FJOUHDARY
NO .
i—i
— ;
4
LJ
X-LEFT
(FD
. <jO
95. 00
J 06. -JO
19O. Oo
1 Oo. 00
V-LE:FT
(FT)
256. oO
l_5i) . OO
1165. OO
29f3 . Ou
165. OO
X-RIGH1
(FT)
85 . OO
1 0 o . 0 0
19O. OO
245. OO
245. OO
Y-RIGHT
(FT)
256. OO
2o5.OO
298. OO
.30 5. OO
277O. OO
SOIL TYPE
BELOW BND
J
1
r~\
'—>
1
JSUTPOhLC SOIL PARAMETERS
2 TYPF.^9; OF SOIL
SOIL TOTAL SATURATED COHESION FRICTION PORE
Figure C-16
PRESSURE FIE
gjRFACE
NO.
1,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1•
1
NO. (FCF) (PCF)
1 3 15.0 125.0
2 125.0 135.0
1 PIEZOMETR1C SURFACE (S)
UNITWEIGHT OF WATER = c,
PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE NU.
POINT X-WATER
NO. (FT)
1 85. OO
2 245. OO
( PSF ) ( DEG ) PARAMETER ijfTrTT^ SF
i ^^**"i
250. 0 7-5.0 .00 ^l ' . <
300. O 32. 0 . OO . (
•
HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED
2 . 4O
1 SPECIFIED BY 2 COORDINATE! POINTS
Y-WATER
(FT)
25cj . 00
256.OO
A CRITICAL FAILURE SURFACE SEARCHING METHOD, USING A RANDOM
TECHNIQUE FOR GENERATING
75 TRIAL SURFACES HAVE
CIRCULAR SURFACES, HAS BEEN SPECIFIED
BEEN GENERATED.
3 SURFACES INITCATE FROM EACH OF 15 POINTS EQUALLY SPACED
ALONG THE GROUND SURFACE BETWEEN X = 5O.OO FT.
EACH SURFACE TERM [NATES
AND X = 12O.OO FT.
BETWEEN X = 180.00 FT.
AND X - 245. OO FT.
UNLESS FURTHER LIMITATIONS WERE IMPOSED, THE MINIMUM ELEVATION
1
i1
Al WHICH A SURFACE ExTENDS IS V = 235. OO FT.
10.00 FT. LJNE SEGMENTS DEFINE EACH TRIAL FAILURE SURFACE.
FOLLOW I NB ^PE DISPLAYED THE TEN MOST CRITICAL OF THE TRIAL
FAILURE SURFACES EXAMINED. THEY ARE ORDERED - MOST CRITICAL
FIRST.
FAILURE LUFFACE SPECIF JED BY 18 COORDINATE POINTS1
FOENT X-SURh
NG. (FT)
i c.-i=r .-i 1
S -SURF
( FT ^
Fi
•—11— / -i .-i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Y
. Ol
01 +—
1 . O 1
A 122.01 +
1 S3.O1 +
:44.01
3O5.Ol +
F 427.Ol
T 403.01 +
SECTION E-E1
A X
D
S T
61 .Oi 122.Ol 1S3.O1 244.Ol 305.Ol
MOST
CRITICAL
CIRCLE
PROPOSED
GRADING
Factor of Safety = 2 225 - 2.267
Figure C-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CD
LO
UJ
Q
UJ
CL
O
ui
File No. D-2981-M03
November 20, 1984
o^ m T3co o cro•H >,-P m
IP, 0) •
O 4-J rH
03
>i 01 >W
-P OOJ M-)
IP, Onjw ^ oO 4-1m -P roO o wros~i m mo o
4Juro IP-m o
Figure C-19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX Di
iii
i
ii
ii
I GEOCON
M I NCOHPORATE D
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M03
December 20, 1984
RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
1. General
1.1 These specifications have been prepared for grading of Rising Glen
located in Carlsbad, California. They shall be used only in conjunc-
tion with the soil report for the project dated November 20, 1984
prepared by Geocon, Incorporated.
1.2 The contractor shall be responsible for placing, spreading, watering,
and compacting the fill in strict conformance with these specifica-
tions. All excavation and fill placement should be done under the
observation of the Geocon, Incorporated. Geocon, Incorporated should
be consulted if the contractor or owner wishes to deviate from these
specifications.
1.3 The grading should consist of clearing, grubbing, and removing from
the site all material the Soil Engineer designates as "unsuitable";
preparing areas to be filled; properly placing and compacting fill
materials; and all other work necessary to conform with the lines,
grades, and slopes shown on the approved plans.
2. Preparation of Areas to be Gjraded
2.1 All trees and shrubs not to be used for landscaping, structures,
weeds, and rubbish should be removed from the site prior to
commencing any excavating or filling operations.
2.2 All buried structures (such as tanks, leach lines, and pipes) not
designated to remain on the site should be removed, and the resulting
depressions should be properly backfilled and compacted prior to any
grading or filling operations.
2.3 All water wells should be treated in accordance with the requirements
of the San Diego County Health Department. The owner shall verify
the requirements.
2.4 All vegetation and soil designated as "unsuitable" by the Soil
Engineer should be removed under his observation. The exposed surface
should then be plowed or scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches
until the surface is free from ruts, hummocks, or other uneven
features that would prevent uniform compaction by the equipment used.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.5 Where the slope ratio of the original ground is steeper than 6.0
horizontal to 1.0 vertical, or where recommended by the Soil Engi-
neer, the bank should be benched in accordance with the following
illustration.
NOTES
FINISH GRADE
ORIGINAL GROUND
SLO°E TO BE
SUCH THAT
SLOUGHING OR
SLIDING DOES
NOT OCCUR
2.6
(1) "B" should be 2 feet
wider than the com-
paction equipment,
and should be a min-
imum of 10 feet wide.
FINISHED SLOPE
SURFACE
REMOVE AS
RECOMMENDED BY
SOIL ENGINEER KEY B
(NOTE I)
(2) The outside of the
bottom key should be
below the tops oil or
(NOTE 2) slopewash and at
least 3 feet into
dense formational raa-
1 terials.
After the areas have been plowed or scarified, the surface should be
disced or bladed until they are free from large clods; brought to the
proper moisture content by adding water or aerating; and compacted as
specified in Section 4 of these specifications.
3. Materials Suitable for Use in Compacted Fill
3.1 Material that is perishable, spongy, contains organic matter, or is
otherwise unsuitable should not be used in compacted fill. Material
used for compacted fill should consist of at least 40 percent fines
smaller than 3/4-inch diameter.
3.2 The Soil Engineer should decide what materials, either imported to
the site or excavated from on-site cut areas, are suitable for use in
compacted fills; the Soil Engineer should approve any import material
before it is delivered to the site. During grading, the contractor
may encounter soil types other than those analyzed for the soil
investigation. The Soil Engineer should be consulted to evaluate the
suitability of such soils.
3.3 Any material containing rocks or hard lumps greater than 6 inches in
diameter should be placed in accordance with Section 6 of these
specifications.
3.4 The Soil Engineer should perform laboratory tests on representative
samples of material to be used in compacted fill. Such tests should
be performed to evaluate the maximum dry density and moisture content
of the samples. The tests should be performed in accordance with
accepted test methods of the American Society of Testing and
Materials (ASTM).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4. Placing, Spreading, and Compacting Fill Material
4.1 Unless otherwise specified, fill material should be compacted while
at a moisture content near the optimum moisture content and to a
relative compaction of at least 90 percent as determined by accepted
ASTM test methods.
4.2 Fill materials should be placed in layers that, when compacted, have
a relative compaction in conformance with the project specifications.
Each layer should be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to provide
uniformity of materials in each layer.
4.3 When the moisture content of the fill material is less than that
recommended by the Soil Engineer, water should be added until the
moisture content is as recommended. When the moisture content of the
fill material is more than that recommended by the Soil Engineer, the
fill material should be aerated by blading, mixing, or other methods
until the moisture content is as recommended.
4.4 After each layer is placed, nixed, and spread evenly, it should be
thoroughly compacted to the recommended minimum relative compaction.
4.5 The fill should be compacted by sheepsfoot rollers, multiple-wheel
pheumatic-tired rollers, or other types of compacting rollers that
are capable of compacting the fill at the recommended moisture
content. Each layer should be rolled continuously over its entire
area until the recommended minimum relative compaction is achieved
throughout the fill.
4.6 The fill operation should be continued in layers, as specified above,
until the fill has been brought to the finished slopes and grades
shown on the approved plans.
4.7 Fill slopes should be compacted by sheepsfoot rollers, by track-
walking with a dozer, or by other suitable equipment. Compaction
operations should continue until the slopes are properly compacted
(that is, in-place density tests indicate a relative compaction of at
least 90 percent at a horizontal distance of 2 feet from the slope
face).
5. Observation of Grading Operations
5.1 The Soil Engineer should make field observations and perform field
and laboratory tests during the filling and compaction operations, so
that he can express his opinion whether or not the grading has been
performed in substantial compliance with project recommendations.
5.2 The Soil Engineer should perform in-place density tests in accordance
with accepted ASTM test methods; such density tests should be made in
the compacted materials below the disturbed surface. When results of
tests taken within any layer indicate a relative compaction below
that recommended, that layer or portion thereof should be reworked
until the recommended relative compaction is obtained.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.
7.1
7.2
Oversize Rock Placement
"Oversize" rock is defined as material that is greater than 6 inches
and less than 4 feet in maximum dimension. Material over 4 feet in
maximum dimension should not be used in fills; such material should
be exported from the site, broken into acceptably sized pieces, used
for landscaping purposes, or placed in areas designated by the Soil
Engineer and/or approved by appropriate governing agencies.
The Soil Engineer should continuously observe the placement of over-
size rock.
Oversize rock should be placed in lifts not exceeding the maximum
dimension of the rock, and should be placed in a manner that will not
result in "nesting" of the rocks. Voids between rocks should be
completely filled with properly compacted (minimum relative com-
paction of 90 percent), fine granular material.
Oversize rock should not be placed within 5 feet of finish pad grade,
within 10 feet of street subgrade, or within 2 feet of the bottom of
the proposed utility lines, whichever is deeper.
Protection of Work
During construction, the contractor should grade the site to provide
positive drainage away from structures and to prevent water from
ponding adjacent to structures. Water should not be allowed to dam-
age adjacent properties or finished work on the site. Positive
drainage should be maintained by the contractor until permanent
drainage and erosion control facilities are installed in accordance
with project plans.
No additional grading shall be done, except under the observation of
the Soil Engineer.
ADDENDUM TO REPORT OF SOIL
AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
FOR
RISING GLEN
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• August, 1986
jI
I
FOR
MULTITECH PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
By
GEOCON, INCORPORATED
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
1
1
1
1
1
1
•1
1
1
1
1
1
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
Geotechnical Engineers and
Engineering Geologists
File No. D-2981-MOA
August 27, 1986
Multitech Properties, Incorporated
5820 Miramar Road, Suite 200
. San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Helmut Kiffman
Subject: RISING GLEN
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
ADDENDUM TO REPORT OF SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
DATED DECEMBER 20, 1984
Gentlemen:
Following a request from Mr. John Alton of Quest Construction Company,
have performed a limited geotechnical investigation within the area of
future off site Elm Avenue extension. The accompanying report presents
•--,
we
the
the
findings from our study and our recommendations based on those findings
relative to the geotechnical engineering aspects of developing the project
as presently proposed.
Should you have any questions concerning this addendum or if we may be
further service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
GB^COX^NCORPORATED .
Michael W. Hart Wesley Spang Andrew E. Farkas
CEG 706 RCE 38789 CEG 1185
AEF:MWH:wm
(3) addressee
(3) Quest Construction
(1) HCH & Associates
9530 Dowdy Drive
San Diego, CA 92126
619 695-2880
of
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-2981-M04
August 27, 1986
ADDENDUM TO SOIL AND GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
I Purpose and Scope
The purpose of this investigation was to examine the soil and geologic
| conditions with the area of proposed offsite Elm Avenue extension to
« provide recommendations pertaining to the anticipated retaining walls.
I The field investigation consisted of geologic mapping and the excavation
of four exploratory trenches. No laboratory testing was performed. The
conclusions and recommendations that follow are based on an analysis of
the data obtained and our experience with similar soil and geologic
conditions.
_
I
Site and Project Description
I The subject area is located between the Rising Glen project site and the
easterly end of Elm Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad, California (see Site
•• Plan, Figure 1, pocket).
I
Elevations range from a low of approximately 230 feet MSL along the
I northern edge of the future road, to a high of approximately 270 feet MSL
at the top of the future cut slopes. Existing man-made improvements
m consist of a water line easement and several cut slopes. The most
• significant cut slope has approximately 60 feet in maximum height with a
slope ratio of 1.5 horizontal to 1.0 vertical. The slope had been
I constructed in conjunction with an adjacent apartment complex to the north
-1-
• File No. D-2981-M04
August 27, 1986 ~^
I
It is our understanding that the stability of the existing cut slopes have
• been analyzed by others.
• Site drainage is presently accomplished through sheet flow and ultimately
• through controlled drainage facilities. Vegetation consists of wild
grasses, chaparral and some ornamental trees and bushes. Several
• eucalyptus' trees are also present within the property limits.
I
I
For our study, we have been provided with grading plans for "Carlsbad
Tract 82-20, Offsite, Elm Avenue" prepared by HCH and Associates, dated
July 1, 1986. It is our understanding that it is proposed to construct
I two cribwalls with a maximum height of 22 feet along the southern side of
the proposed extension. In addition, a concrete block wall is also
I anticipated along the northerly edge of future Elm Avenue. The maximum
• height of this wall will not exceed 8 feet. If project details differ
significantly from those outlined above, this office should be notified
I
I
I
for review and possible revision of recommendations presented herein.
I Soil and Geologic Conditions
m The general geologic conditions have been described in detail in our "Soil
™ and Geologic Investigation Report for Rising Glen" dated December 20,
• 1984.
• The subsurface exploration indicates that very loose, unconsolidated
_ colluvial deposits, uncompacted and undocumented fill soils are present
along the northerly edge of future Elm Avenue. Presented on Figure 1 the
-2-
1•P
1
File No. D-2981-MOA
August 27, 1986
approximate extent of these
.
~^-
x
soils and recommendations are presented in the„Conclusions and Recommendations section of this report.
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Based on field observations.
along future Elm Avenue
it is our opinion that cut slopes proposed
extension will be excavated in competent
sandstones of the Santiago Formation and Marine Terrace Deposits. It is
our experience that these soils possess good to excellent stability and
bearing characteristics, therefore, major difficulties in cut slope areas
are not contemplated. It
future street and adjacent
is anticipated that the lower section of the
cut slope will encroach on a landslide.
However, mitigative measures have been provided for this particular area
in our preliminary report .Presented below is a brief summary of the
colluvial and fill soil conditions existing on the site.
Colluvium. Relatively deep colluvial deposits were encountered in
some areas on the natural slopes. The colluvial deposits are in a very
loose condition and consist
sand. The maximum depth of
Complete removal of these
structural fill.
primarily of poorly graded, porous, fine silty
the colluvial deposits may exceed 10 feet.
soils will be required prior to placing
Fill. Two separate types of fill soils were encountered on the site:
A. Uncompacted Fill
B. Undocumented Fill
-3-
I
File No. D-2981-M04 * "*^
• August 27, 1986 N
• A. The uncorapacted fill soils were placed in conjunction with the
westerly "slot"-shaped excavation believed to be a water line easement.
' Their approximate extent is shown on the attached Figure 1 (pocket). It
• is recommended that the uncompacted fill soils be entirely removed and
recompacted.
I
B. Exploratory Trench Nos. 2, 3 and A indicated that a stability fill or
• buttress was placed over the existing 1.5 to 1, 60-foot-high cut slope.
• No details regarding the extent of the fill and degree of compaction were
available for our review, hence, they were designated ''undocumented fill"
• in this report. The exact purpose of the fill is not known.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-4-
I
File No. D-2981-M04
• August 27, 1986
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
I
™ It is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed Elm Avenue
I extension provided the recommendations presented herein are implemented
within design and construction.
I
2. The subsurface exploration indicates that the site is underlain
• primarily by competent sandstones of the Santiago Formation and Marine
• Terrace Deposits. In addition, surficial deposits and fill soils are also
present on the site. The surficial deposits (colluvium) are
I unconsolidated, therefore, removal and recompaction of these soils as well
as the uncompacted fill soils will be required.
m 3. The easternmost section of the offsite Elm Avenue extension will
likely be underlain by landslide debris, therefore, a drained buttress and
• possibly partial removal and recompaction will be required. Details in
this regard are contained in our preliminary report.I
_ 4. Perched groundwater is present within the Santiago Formation at
• approximately 230 feet MSL in elevation. It is, therefore, recommended
I that the future cribwall be positively drained in order to minimize the
potential for hydrostatic pressure build-up behind the wall.I
I
I
I
-5-
I
I File No, D-2981-M04 ^
August 27, 1986
I
• Crib-walls
5. Cnbwall foundations bearing in undisturbed soils of the Santiago
• Formation or Marine Terace Deposits may be designed utilizing an allowable
toe pressure of 5000 psf and an average allowable soil bearing pressure
| taken at 3000 psf, assuming a trapezoidal pressure distribution. The
_ cribwall toe foundation should bear at a minimum depth of at least 2 feet
below lowest adjacent finished grade.
I
6. The earth pressure against the proposed cribwall will depend upon the
• degree of restraint, slope inclination of the backfill and the backfill
materials. Since cribwall design assumes that the wall will act as a
• gravity wall, we assume lateral rotation will be possible, thus,
• cantilever conditions would be applicable. An equivalent fluid pressure
of 40 pcf unit weight is recommended for 2:1 sloping backfill conditions.
• Where level backfill conditions are proposed, the fluid weight may be
reduced to 30 pcf.I
g 7. Backfill materials should consist of sandy soils derived from on-site
cutting operations. Should soils be imported to the site, approval should
I be obtained from Geocon, Incorporated prior to delivery.
| 8. Lateral loads may be resisted by "passive" earth pressures. Passive
_ earth pressure against cribwall foundations in contact with properly
™ compacted backfill should be considered as being equal to the forces
• exerted by a fluid of 350 pcf unit weight. A coefficient of friction of
-6-
I
I
• File No. D-2981-M04
August 27, 1986I
0.4 may be used between the bases of foundations and cribwall headers and
I the soil for computing resistance to sliding.
• Concrete Block Retaining Wall
• 9. The northerly concrete block retaining wall will be founded entirely
in fill soils. As indicated previously, no documentation regarding the
• fill was available for review. It is our understanding that the subject
fill had been properly compacted and, hence, it should be suitable to
I _ „
support structural improvements. However, it is~recommended that, prior
•
I
I
M t'o construction the documentatTion regarding ~ grading" of the neighboring
improper ty to the north be reviewed. Should it be necessary, additional
^-"-v ""
• recommendations will be provided.
| 10. We recommend that the retaining wall footings have a minimum width of
_ 18 inches. It is recommended that retaining wall foundations be deepened
" -"such that the bottom outside edge of the footing will be at least 9 feet
I -" horizontally from the face of the slope.
• 11. Footings and retaining wall reinforcement recommendations should be
provided ,by the structural engineer.
12 . An allowable bearing capacity of 2,000 psf may be used for
foundations constructed as recommend above.
I
-7-
I
*lI
File No. D-2981-M04
• August 27, 1986
13. Lateral loads may be resisted by a passive earth pressure equivalent
• to a fluid weight of 350 pcf for footings or shear keys poured neat
against properly compacted granular soils.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
14. If friction is to be used to resist lateral loads, a coefficient of
friction between soil and concrete of 0.40 is recommended.I
I
15. It is recommended that the retaining wall proposed to be constructed
| along the north edge of Elm Avenue be designed for an active soil pressure
• equivalent to a fluid weight of 35 pcf. This value assumes that the walls
are unrestrained from movement at the top, have a drained granular
backfill and a level backfill surface.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX A
i
ii
iiii
i
I GEOCON
INCORPORATED
Jile* No. D-2981-M04
August 27, 1986
^i
T^ ZZ t~\ I Z^J1 i— ^
1_
1
I 2"r"~
T & -1I^- 8 -
J ° "
Y- 2 -
r ISAMPLE NOi
-LITHOLOGY[ ( i
I .) .
Ifl1
Ml
i t
! i 1
1 1 I
t ! l
i 1
1
I- !
1 1
i r
IT
3ROUNDWATECO
TRENCH 1
P? FVAT1DN DATE DRILLED 8/3/83
pni IIPMFNT Manual Excavation
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
UNCOMPACTED FILL
Very loose, dry mottled, Silty SAND with
sandstone fragments
COLLUVIUM
Very loose, dry, light brown, poorly graded
Silty SAND
1\
-\_ grades into loose, moist , yellowigh brown
\
SAND
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 7 . 0 FEET
TRENCH 2
UNDOCUMENTED FILL
Medium dense, humid grayish light brown,
Silty SAND with angular siltstone fragments
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 . 0 FEET 3ENETRAriONRESISTANCEBLOWS/FT/-
-
-
zu_
QQ.
Q MOISTURECONTENT, %-
rigure A-l, Log of Test Trenches 1 and 2
i SAMPLE SYMBOLS Q _ SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL El — STANDARD PENETRATION TEST m — DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE J — CHUNK SAMPLE S — WATE.R TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE
«TTMEDATE1NOICATED ITI3 NOTWARRANTPQ TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SU8SURFACECONOITIONSAT OTHER LOCATIONSAND TIMES
HFzle No. D-2981-M04
August 27, 1986
. 5|51Uj
0 -
r 2 -
E::
[•;
- o -
• 2 -
- 4 -
0
- 8 -SAMPLE NOJOLOQY;5
1
•
L
1
|
1
1
I
1
f
i
r f
-
I
1
\
I
1
1
' L 3ROUNDWATER|CO
TRENCH 3 t
ELFVATJON OATF DRILLED 8/3/86
FOINPMFNT Manual Excavation
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
UNDOCUMENTED FILL
Medium dense, moist s mottled, grayish-light
brox<rn Silty SAND with angular Siltstone
fragments
I
\
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6 . 0 FEET
TRENCH 4
UNDOCUMENTED FILL
Medium dense, moist, whitish gray, well
graded, Silty SAND with siltstone fragments
\
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 6.0 FEET 3ENETRATION IRESISTANCE IBLQWS/fT/ 1' |*
-
•
-
zu_
ccQ MOISTURE 1CONTENTS 1Figure A-2, Log of fliest Trenches 3 and 4
I
I
SAMPLE SYMBOLS SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
DISTURBED OR SAG SAMPLE
—STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
j— CHUNK SAMPLE
m _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
•?• _ WATER TABLE OH SEEPAGE
NOTE THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC SORING OH TRENCH LOCATION AND
ATTHE DATE INDICATED ITISNOTWAHHANTED TO BE REPHESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONOITIONSATOTHER LOCATIONSANO TIMES