The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD 2020-0017; REAGAN ADU; REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2020-06-15 REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REGAN RESIDENCE ADU 2451 TORREJON PLACE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR JACK REAGAN 2451 TORREJON PLACE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009 PREPARED BY CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 3980 HOME AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92105 CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E E R I N G 3 9 8 0 H o m e A v e nu e S a n Di e g o , C A 9 2 1 05 6 1 9 -5 5 0- 1 7 00 F A X 61 9 - 55 0 - 17 0 1 June 15, 2020 Jack Reagan CWE 2200260.01 2451 Torrejon Place Carlsbad, California 92009 Subject: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Reagan Residence ADU, 2451 Torrejon Place, Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Reagan: In accordance with your request and our proposal dated January 31, 2020, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the proposed residential project to be constructed at the subject property. We are presenting herewith a report of our findings and recommendations. It is our opinion and judgment that no geotechnical conditions exist at or in the vicinity of the subject property that would preclude the construction of the subject project, provided the recommendations included in this report are implemented. If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING Daniel B. Adler, RCE #36037 Daniel J. Flowers, CEG #2686 DBA:djf ec: krazy4aero69@sbcglobal.net tlentii@msn.com CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E E R I N G 3 9 8 0 H o m e A v e nu e S a n Di e g o , C A 9 2 1 05 6 1 9 -5 5 0- 1 7 00 F A X 61 9 - 55 0 - 17 0 1 CWE 2200260.01 Reagan Residence ADU 2451 Torrejon Place Carlsbad, California TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction and Project Description .............................................................................................................................. 1 Scope of Services ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Site Description ............................................................................................................................................................... 3 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................................ 3 Geologic Setting and Soil Description ..................................................................................................................... 3 Artificial Fill ............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Santiago Formation ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Geologic Considerations ............................................................................................................................................ 4 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................................................ 4 Tectonic Setting ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Geologic Hazards ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 General.......................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Landslide Potential and Slope Stability .................................................................................................................... 5 Slope Stability Analyses .............................................................................................................................................. 5 Stability Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Strength Parameters ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Method of Analyses ................................................................................................................................................ 6 Results of Stability Analyses .................................................................................................................................. 7 Results of Surficial Stability Analysis ................................................................................................................... 7 Liquefaction .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Flooding ........................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Tsunamis ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Seiches ........................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Other Potential Geologic Hazards ........................................................................................................................... 8 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 Grading and Earthwork ................................................................................................................................................. 9 General .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Pregrade Meeting ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Observation of Grading ............................................................................................................................................. 9 Clearing and Grubbing .............................................................................................................................................10 Site Preparation .........................................................................................................................................................10 Compaction and Method of Filling .........................................................................................................................10 Surface Drainage .......................................................................................................................................................10 Temporary Cut Slopes ..................................................................................................................................................11 Foundations ...................................................................................................................................................................11 General ........................................................................................................................................................................11 Dimensions ................................................................................................................................................................11 Bearing Capacity .........................................................................................................................................................12 Footing Reinforcing ...................................................................................................................................................12 Lateral Load Resistance .............................................................................................................................................12 Foundation Excavation Observation .......................................................................................................................12 Settlement Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................12 Expansive Characteristics ..........................................................................................................................................12 Foundation Plan Review ...........................................................................................................................................13 Soluble Sulfates ..........................................................................................................................................................13 Seismic Design Factors ................................................................................................................................................13 On-Grade Slabs .............................................................................................................................................................14 General ........................................................................................................................................................................14 CWE 2200260.01 Reagan Residence ADU 2451 Torrejon Place Carlsbad, California Interior Floor Slabs ....................................................................................................................................................14 Under-Slab Vapor Retarders ...................................................................................................................................14 Exterior Concrete Flatwork.....................................................................................................................................14 Earth Retaining Walls ...................................................................................................................................................15 Foundations ...............................................................................................................................................................15 Passive Pressure .........................................................................................................................................................15 Active Pressure ..........................................................................................................................................................15 Waterproofing and Wall Drainage Systems ............................................................................................................15 Backfill .........................................................................................................................................................................15 Limitations ..........................................................................................................................................................................16 Review, Observation and Testing ...............................................................................................................................16 Uniformity of Conditions ............................................................................................................................................16 Change in Scope ............................................................................................................................................................16 Time Limitations ...........................................................................................................................................................16 Professional Standard ...................................................................................................................................................17 Client's Responsibility ...................................................................................................................................................17 Field Explorations .............................................................................................................................................................17 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................................................................................18 ATTACHMENTS FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 PLATES Plate 1 Site Plan & Geotechnical Map Plate 2 Geologic Cross Section A-A’ Plate 3 Typical Retaining Wall Subdrains APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Exploration Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Appendix C Gross Slope Stability Analyses Appendix D Surficial Slope Stability Analysis Appendix E References Appendix F Recommended Grading Specifications-General Provisions PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION REAGAN RESIDENCE ADU 2451 TORREJON PLACE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of a preliminary geotechnical investigation performed for the proposed residential project to be constructed at 2451 Torrejon Place, Carlsbad, California. The following Figure Number 1 presents a vicinity map showing the location of the property. We understand that the subject project will consist of constructing a single-story accessory dwelling unit (ADU) at the rear of the lot. To accommodate for the ADU a masonry retaining wall up to approximately 9- feet high will be built into the existing slope. It is anticipated that the proposed structure will be of wood- frame construction, supported by shallow foundations, and will incorporate a conventional concrete on-grade floor slab. Grading to accommodate the proposed construction is expected to consist of cuts and fills up to about 9 feet from existing grades. To aid us in the preparation of this report, we were provided with a site plan prepared by KL Drafting and Design, dated April 8, 2020 and an undated topographic survey prepared by Stewart Design & Engineering. These plans were overlaid to create our Site Plan and Geotechnical Map which is included herein as Plate No. 1. We have also created a geologic cross section A-A’ to depict the proposed construction, topography, and subsurface conditions at the subject site. The geologic cross section is included on Plate No. 2 of this report. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Jack Reagan, and his design consultants, for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be modified, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should be reviewed by Christian Wheeler Engineering for conformance with our recommendations and to determine whether any additional subsurface investigation, laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, expressed or implied. CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E E R I N G 3 9 8 0 H o m e A v e nu e S a n Di e g o , C A 9 2 1 05 6 1 9 -5 5 0- 1 7 00 F A X 61 9 - 55 0 - 17 0 1 REAGAN RESIDENCE ADU 2451 TORREJON PLACE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE:JUNE 2020 BY: SRD JOB NO.: 2200260.01 FIGURE NO.: 1 CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E E R I N G SITE VICINITY 2SHQ6WUHHW0DSFRQWULEXWRUV PROJECT SITE t,o'>,s, ~- ,1~ ~l"' ■ ,.· \ \ ·. • . .- ______ san""' ··• ,, •' '' ' ...... --·--· ··-1 .. . ·. :i• ·-.:· · .. Levante Street 1:.s<.C,.{,ccO 1 race ~e.~ c,ol.l~ \ \, f% CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES Our preliminary geotechnical investigation consisted of surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, obtaining representative soil samples, laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data, and review of relevant geologic literature. Our scope of service did not include assessment of hazardous substance contamination, recommendations to prevent floor slab moisture intrusion or the formation of mold within the structures, evaluation or design of storm water infiltration facilities, or any other services not specifically described in the scope of services presented below. More specifically, the intent of our proposed investigation was to:  Observe and geologically log the existing cut slope and 3 trench excavations.  Evaluate, by laboratory tests and our past experience with similar soil types, the engineering properties of the various soil strata that may influence the proposed construction, including bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and settlement potential.  Describe the general geology at the site including possible geologic hazards that could have an effect on the proposed construction, and provide the seismic design parameters in accordance with the 2019 edition of the California Building Code.  Discuss potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater or geologic hazards, and provide geotechnical recommendations to mitigate identified construction difficulties.  Provide temporary cut slope recommendations.  Perform a slope stability analysis on the existing and proposed, site configurations.  Provide site preparation and grading recommendations for the anticipated work, as necessary.  Provide foundation recommendations for the type of construction anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation designs.  Provide earth retaining wall design recommendations.  Provide a preliminary geotechnical report presenting the results of our investigation, including a plot plan showing the location of our subsurface explorations, excavation logs, laboratory test results, and our conclusions and recommendations for the proposed project. Although a test for the presence of soluble sulfates within the soils that may be in contact with reinforced concrete was performed as part of the scope of our services, it should be understood Christian Wheeler Engineering does not practice corrosion engineering. If a corrosivity analysis is considered necessary, we recommend that the client retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 3 matter. The results of our sulfate testing should only be used as a guideline to determine if additional testing and analysis is necessary. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site consists of trapezoidal-shaped los located at 2451 Torrejon Place, Carlsbad, California. The site presently supports a single-family residential structure. The property is bounded on the north by Torrejon Place and is otherwise bounded by single-family residential properties. Topographically, the lot is near flat- lying; however, an ascending cut slope about 24 feet high at an approximate inclination of (1:1, horizontal to vertical), exists at the southern property line. According to the topographic survey the house pad is at an elevation of about 190 feet. At the time of our investigation a near vertical temporary cut slope about 9 feet high had been graded at the rear of the lot. GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located within the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County. Based on the results of our subsurface explorations, and analysis of readily available, pertinent geologic literature, it was determined that the site is generally underlain by artificial fill and the sedimentary deposits of the Santiago Formation. These materials are described below: ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf): Artificial fill was encountered in trench T-1 extending up to a depth of about 1 foo below existing grade. Deeper fill soils may exist in areas of the site not investigated. These materials generally consisted of yellowish-brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty sand (SM). The artificial fill was judged to have a low Expansion Index (EI between 21 and 50). In addition, stockpiled fill generated form excavations for the proposed retaining wall covered portions of the proposed ADU building pad. SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): Tertiary-age sedimentary deposits of the Santiago Formation sandstone facies were encountered underlying the artificial fills and at grade throughout the proposed building pad. These materials were also exposed in the cut slope associated with proposed retaining wall construction. The sandstones of the Santiago Formation generally consisted of grayish white, moist, dense, very dense, silty sand (SM). Approximately the upper 2 feet of the formational soils in trench T-2 were found to be disturbed with roots and loose to medium dense. The Santiago Formation was judged to have a low Expansion Index (EI between 21 and 50). CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 4 GEOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS: The available exposures of the formational materials at the site indicate that the Santiago Formation dips to the northeast at inclinations ranging from approximately 2 to 4 degrees. These attitudes correlate with the geologic structure of the area presented on the regional geologic map (Kennedy and Tan, 2007). Such bedding orientations are considered to be unfavorable with regards to the stability of the northerly sloping topography on-site. GROUNDWATER: During our site visit minor seepage was observed in the southeast ascending cut slope. The seepage was observed to be within the upper approximately 6” of soils as exposed in retaining wall backcut. Purportedly the seepage is a result of a broken irrigation line on the adjacent property to the south. It is our understanding that the irrigation line has been repaired. The slope should be monitored and if the seepage persists, we should be notified and additional geotechnical recommendations maybe warranted. It should be recognized that minor groundwater seepage problems might occur after construction and landscaping are completed, even at a site where none were present before construction. These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an alteration in drainage patterns and/or an increase in irrigation water. Based on the anticipated construction and the permeability of the on-site soils, it is our opinion that any seepage problems that may occur will be minor in extent. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when they occur. TECTONIC SETTING: No faults are known to traverse the subject site. However, it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones that consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zone) are classified as “active” according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years). The Division of Mines and Geology used the term “potentially active” on Earthquake Fault Zone maps until 1988 to refer to all Quaternary-age (last 1.6 million years) faults for the purpose of evaluation for possible zonation in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and identified all Quaternary-age faults as “potentially active” except for certain faults that were presumed to be inactive based on direct geologic evidence of inactivity during all of Holocene time or longer. Some faults considered to be “potentially active” would be considered to be “active” but lack specific criteria used by the State Geologist, such as sufficiently active and well-defined. Faults older than Quaternary-age are not specifically defined in Special Publication 42, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology. However, it is generally accepted that faults showing no movement during the Quaternary period may be considered to be “inactive”. Regionally, guidelines of the City of San Diego indicate that since the beginning of the Pleistocene Epoch marks the CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 5 boundary between “potentially active” and “inactive” faults, unfaulted Pleistocene-age deposits are accepted as evidence that a fault may be considered to be “inactive.” A review of available geologic maps indicates that the nearest active fault zone is the Newport-Inglewood- Rose Canyon Fault Zone (RCFZ), located approximately 6½ miles to the west of the site. Other fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Bank fault zones to the south west, the San Diego Trough and San Clemente fault zones to the west, the Palos Verdes fault zone to the northwest, and the Elsinore, Earthquake Valley, San Jacinto, and San Andreas fault zones to the northeast. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS GENERAL: No geologic hazards of sufficient magnitude to preclude the redevelopment of the site are known to exist. In our professional opinion and to the best of our knowledge, the site should be suitable for the proposed construction, provided sound engineering, construction, and site maintenance procedures are followed. LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL AND SLOPE STABILITY: As part of this investigation we reviewed the publication, “Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area" by Tan, 1995. This reference is a comprehensive study that classifies San Diego County into areas of relative landslide susceptibility. The subject site is located in Relative Landslide Susceptibility Area 3-1. Area 3 is considered to be “generally susceptible” to slope movement; Subarea 3-1 classifications are considered at or near their stability limits due to steep slopes and can be expected to fail locally when adversely modified. Sites within this classification are located outside the boundaries of known landslides but may contain observably unstable slopes that may be underlain by weak materials and/or adverse geologic structure. The steep cut slope at the site is comprised of relatively competent sandstones of the Santiago Formation which, in our opinion are considered to possess a low potential for global slope instability. It is our opinion that the proposed construction will not significantly affect the stability of the existing slope if the recommendations presented herein are implemented. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS STABILITY ALALYSIS: In consideration of the proposed retaining wall and relatively steep cut slope along the southerly perimeter of the site, we have performed a series of quantitative slope stability analyses to determine the factors-of-safety against deep-seated slope failures. The analyses were performed on the current and proposed site configurations. As presented on our Site Plan and Geotechnical Map, included herein as Plate No. 1, we have created geologic cross section A-A’ to depict CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 6 the topography and subsurface conditions at the subject site. The geologic cross section is included on Plate No. 2 of this report. It is our professional opinion that the cross section modeled in our stability analyses (A-A’), was drawn, and subsequently analyzed, to depict the steepest topography at the site. Based on the configuration of the site and the composition of the underlying Santiago Formation, circular-type failure mechanisms were modeled in our analyses. We have also performed a surficial stability analysis to determine the minimum factor-of-safety against surficial failure. Descriptions of our stability analyses are presented in the following “Gross Stability Analyses” and “Surficial Stability Analyses” sections of this report. STRENGTH PARAMETERS: The strength parameters for the earth materials underlying the subject site were estimated by the direct shear test method and our experience and judgment with similar soil types. The results of our direct shear testing are presented in Appendix B of this report. The unit weights of the earth materials that underlie the subject site and adjacent areas utilized in our stability analyses were chosen based on the results of our laboratory testing and our experience with similar materials in the vicinity of the subject site. Based on the out-of-slope orientation of the bedding of the Santiago Formation, anisotropic soils strength parameters were modelled in our analyses with along bedding shear strength parameters reduced by one-third from the across bedding strength parameters. It is our professional opinion that the strength parameters and unit weights presented below and utilized in our stability analyses provide for conservative slope stability analyses. Soil Type Unit Weight,  Phi,  Cohesion, c Artificial Fill (Qaf) 125 pcf 33 250 psf Santiago Formation (Tsa) Across Bedding 125 pcf 34° 350 psf Along Bedding 125 pcf 22° 233 psf METHOD OF ANALYSES: The analyses of the gross stability of the existing and proposed site topography were performed using Version 2 of the GSTABL7 computer program developed by Garry H. Gregory, PE. The program analyzes circular, block, specified, and randomly shaped failure surfaces using the Modified Bishop, Janbu, or Spencer’s Methods. The STEDwin computer program, developed by Harald W. Van Aller, P. E., was used in conjunction with this program for data entry and graphics display. The existing and proposed topography of the subject site along geologic cross section A-A’ was analyzed for circular-type failures and each failure analysis was programmed to run at least 500 random failure surfaces. The most critical failure surfaces were then accumulated and sorted by value of the CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 7 factor-of-safety. After the specified number of failure surfaces were successfully generated and analyzed, the ten most critical surfaces were plotted so that the pattern may be studied. RESULTS OF STABILITY ANALYSES: The short-term (during construction) site topography was modeled through the 9-foot high temporary cut slope along our geologic cross section A-A’. We have also modeled the proposed site configuration incorporating a 9-foot high retaining wall. Appendix C of this report presents the results of our gross stability analyses. As demonstrated on the printouts of these analyses, the site topography along our geologic cross section A-A’ for the existing and proposed site configurations demonstrate a minimum factor-of-safety against static failure of 1.28 and 2.24, respectively. Typical minimum factor-of-safety values for static short-term (during construction) stability are 1.25 and 1.5 for static long-term (end of construction) slope stability. The long-term and short term factor-of-safeties meet the minimum values that are generally considered to be stable. Also included in Appendix C, our pseudo-static stability analyses, performed incorporating a kh value of 0.15g, demonstrate minimum factors-of-safety against pseudo-static failure of 1.06 for the existing topography and 1.84 for the proposed site configuration. The proposed site configuration value is in excess of the minimum that is generally considered to be stable of 1.1 for pseudo-static analyses. It is further our opinion that upon completion of the proposed construction the stability of the existing slope will be in excess of 1.5. RESULTS OF SURFICIAL STABILITY ANALYSIS: The surficial stability of the existing cut slope along the southerly perimeter of the subject site (with an inclination of approximately 1:1 (H:V)) was evaluated using methodologies presented by Skempton, A., and Delory, F., (1957). Appendix D of this report presents the results of our surficial slope stability analysis. The existing slope was evaluated assuming a vertical saturation depth of 5 feet. Surficial slope failures are generally shallow and occur within a depth of about 4 feet, as discussed in field observations by Evans (1972). A saturation depth of 4 feet was assumed in our calculations due to of the relatively steep inclination of the slope and the estimated permeability of the on-site soils. The slope was calculated to have a minimum factor-of-safety against shallow, surficial failures of 1.7, which meets the minimum (1.5) that is generally considered to be stable. Based on our research and observations, it appears that the slope has not experienced any surficial slope failures since its construction in the 1970’s. However, care should be taken to ensure the proper drainage of all surface runoff away from the slope areas and along slope faces. Furthermore, burrowing ground squirrels and the saturation of the near surface soils along the face of slopes like the one at the subject CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 8 site often results in surficial failures where the outermost few feet of the soil mass fail roughly parallel to the slope face. Care should be taken to ensure the proper drainage of all surface runoff away from the slope areas and along slope faces. Saturation of the slopes caused by excessive or improperly channeled runoff could detrimentally affect the surficial stability of the sloping site. Irrigation on and adjacent to the slopes should be carefully monitored to make sure that only the minimum amount necessary to sustain plant life is used. LIQUEFACTION: The near-surface soils encountered at the site are not considered susceptible to liquefaction due to such factors as soil density and the absence of shallow groundwater conditions. Therefore, the risk associated with liquefaction at the site is considered to be negligible. FLOODING: As delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), map number 06073C1034H prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the site is in Zone X which is considered to be an “area of minimal flood hazard.” Areas of minimal flood hazards are located outside of the boundaries of both the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by a submarine earthquake or volcanic eruption. Review of the referenced Tsunami Inundation Map of the Encinitas Quadrangle indicates that the site is located outside of the projected tsunami inundation area (CalEMA, 2009). SEICHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays or reservoirs. Due to the site’s elevation, it is considered to have a negligible risk potential for seiches. OTHER POTENTIAL GEOLOGIC HAZARDS: Other potential geologic hazards such as, volcanoes or seismic-induced settlement should be considered to be negligible or nonexistent. CONCLUSIONS It is our professional opinion and judgment that no geotechnical conditions exist at or the general vicinity of the subject property that would preclude the construction of the proposed ADU and retaining wall provided the recommendations presented herein are followed. The main geotechnical conditions affecting the proposed construction include potentially compressible fill soils, the Santiago Formation, and the existing temporary cut slope. These conditions are discussed hereinafter. Potentially compressible fill soils and Santiago Formation deposits extending a depth of about 1 foot from existing grade were encountered in test pits T-1 and T-2. Deeper potentially compressible soils may exist in CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 9 areas of the site not investigated. These soils are considered unsuitable, in their present condition, for the support of settlement-sensitive improvements. It is our understanding that these materials will be removed to achieve finish pad grade. It is recommended that any remaining potentially compressible materials be removed and replaced as compacted fill. The near vertical temporary cut slope associated with the proposed retaining wall has been excavated at the proposed wall location. The existing temporary cut slope configuration and proposed site configuration were analyzed as past of our investigation. It is our opinion that the configurations have an adequate factor of safety. The site is located in an area that is relatively free of geologic hazards that will have a significant effect on the proposed construction. The most likely geologic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking due to seismic activity along one of the regional active faults. However, construction in accordance with the requirements of the most recent edition of the California Building Code and the local governmental agencies should provide a level of life-safety suitable for the type of development proposed. RECOMMENDATIONS GRADING AND EARTHWORK GENERAL: All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in the current edition of the California Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. PREGRADE MEETING: It is recommended that a pregrade meeting including the grading contractor, the client, and a representative from Christian Wheeler Engineering be performed, to discuss the recommendations of this report and address any issues that may affect grading operations. OBSERVATION OF GRADING: Continuous observation by the Geotechnical Consultant is essential during the grading operation to confirm conditions anticipated by our investigation, to allow adjustments in design criteria to reflect actual field conditions exposed, and to determine that the grading proceeds in general accordance with the recommendations contained herein. CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 10 CLEARING AND GRUBBING: Site preparation should begin with the removal of existing improvements slated for demolition. The resulting debris and any existing vegetation and other deleterious materials in areas to receive proposed improvements or new fill soils should be removed from the site. SITE PREPARATION: It is recommended that existing fill soils and potentially compressible formational soils underlying the proposed structure not removed to achieve finish pad grades be removed. Based on our findings, maximum removal depth anticipated is about 1 foot from existing grade. However, deeper removals may be needed in areas of the site not investigated or due to unforeseen conditions. Lateral removals limits should comprise the perimeter of the proposed structure. Potentially compressible soils underlying exterior settlement sensitive improvements should also be removed. No removals should be performed beyond property lines or within 2 feet from the existing structure. All excavated areas should be approved by the geotechnical engineer or his representative prior to replacing any of the excavated soils. The excavated materials can be replaced as properly compacted fill in accordance with the recommendations presented in the “Compaction and Method of Filling” section of this report. However, the existing fill encountered in the test pits was found to contain abundant roots and may have to be thoroughly cleaned prior to placement as compacted fill. COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING: In general, all structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of its maximum laboratory dry density as determined by ASTM Laboratory Test D1557. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content, in lifts six to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris, roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of 3 inches in maximum dimension. Utility trench backfill within 5 feet of the proposed structures and beneath all concrete flatwork or pavements should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. SURFACE DRAINAGE: The drainage around the proposed improvements should be designed to collect and direct surface water away from proposed improvements and the top of slopes toward appropriate drainage facilities. Rain gutters with downspouts that discharge runoff away from the structures into controlled drainage devices are recommended. The ground around the proposed improvements should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the improvements without ponding. In general, we recommend that the ground adjacent to structure CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 11 slope away at a gradient of at least 5 percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet. If the minimum distance of 10 feet cannot be achieved, an alternative method of drainage runoff away from the building at the termination of the 5 percent slope will need to be used. Swales and impervious surfaces that are located within 10 feet of the building should have a minimum slope of 2 percent. It is essential that new and existing drainage patterns be coordinated to produce proper drainage. Pervious hardscape surfaces adjacent to structures should be similarly graded. Drainage patterns provided at the time of construction should be maintained throughout the life of the proposed improvements. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain landscape growth. Over watering should be avoided. Should excessive irrigation, impaired drainage, or unusually high rainfall occur, zones of wet or saturated soil may develop. TEMPORARY CUT SLOPES The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and will need to shore, slope, or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of the excavation sides. The existing on-site soils exposed in the temporary cut slope consist of Type B materials. The contractor’s “competent person”, as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor’s safety process. Our firm should be contacted to observe all temporary cut slopes during grading to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions exist. No surcharge loads such as foundation loads, or soil or equipment stockpiles, vehicles, etc. should be allowed within a distance from the top of temporary slopes equal to half the slope height. FOUNDATIONS GENERAL: Based on our findings and engineering judgment, the proposed structure and retaining wall may be supported by conventional shallow continuous and isolated spread footings. The following recommendations are considered the minimum based on the anticipated soil conditions after site preparation as recommended in our geotechnical report is performed, and are not intended to be lieu of structural considerations. All foundations should be designed by a qualified professional. DIMENSIONS: Spread footings supporting the proposed structure should be embedded at least 12 inches below lowest adjacent finish pad grade and at least 6 inchers into competent formational deposits, whichever is more. Continuous and isolated footings should have a minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches, respectively. CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 12 Spread footings supporting the proposed retaining wall should be embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent finish pad grade and should be at least 24 inches wide. BEARING CAPACITY: Spread footings with a minimum depth and minimum width of 12 inches may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf). This value may be increased by 700 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of embedment and 500 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of width up to a maximum of 8,000 pounds per square foot. These values may be increased by one-third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. FOOTING REINFORCING: Reinforcement requirements for foundations should be provided by a structural designer. However, based on the expected soil conditions, we recommend that the minimum reinforcing for continuous footings consist of at least 2 No. 5 bars positioned near the bottom of the footing and 2 No. 5 bars positioned near the top of the footing. LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.30. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot. These values are based on the assumption that the footings are poured tight against undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one-third. FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: All footing excavations should be observed by Christian Wheeler Engineering prior to placing of forms and reinforcing steel to determine whether the foundation recommendations presented herein are followed and that the foundation soils are as anticipated in the preparation of this report. All footing excavations should be excavated neat, level, and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and differential settlement is expected to be less than about 1 inch and 1 inch over 40 feet, respectively, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to concrete shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses, therefore some cracks should be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The prevailing foundation soils are assumed to have a low expansion potential (EI between 21 and 50). The recommendations within this report reflect these conditions. CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 13 FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW: The final foundation plan and accompanying details and notes should be submitted to this office for review. The intent of our review will be to verify that the plans used for construction reflect the minimum dimensioning and reinforcing criteria presented in this section and that no additional criteria are required due to changes in the foundation type or layout. It is not our intent to review structural plans, notes, details, or calculations to verify that the design engineer has correctly applied the geotechnical design values. It is the responsibility of the design engineer to properly design/specify the foundations and other structural elements based on the requirements of the structure and considering the information presented in this report. SOLUBLE SULFATES: The water-soluble sulfate content of a selected soil sample from the site was determined in accordance with California Test Method 417. The results of this test indicate that the soil sample had a soluble sulfate content of 0.026 percent. Soils with a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent are considered to be negligible. However, it should be recognized that the sulfate content of surficial soils may increase with time due to soluble sulfate in the irrigation water or fertilized use. SEISMIC DESIGN FACTORS The seismic design factors applicable to the subject site are provided below. The seismic design factors were determined in accordance with the 2019 California Building Code. The site coefficients and adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters are presented in the following Table I. TABLE I: SEISMIC DESIGN FACTORS Site Coordinates: Latitude Longitude 33.086° -117.259° Site Class C Site Coefficient Fa 1.2 Site Coefficient Fv 1.5 Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods Ss 1.003 g Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 Second Period S1 0.364 g SMS=FaSs 1.203 g SM1=FvS1 0.546 g SDS=2/3*SMS 0.802 g SD1=2/3*SM1 0.364 g Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate, depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed improvements. CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 14 ON-GRADE CONCRETE SLABS GENERAL: It is our understanding that the floor system of the proposed structure will consist of a concrete slab-on-grade. The following recommendations are considered the minimum slab requirements based on the soil conditions and are not intended in lieu of structural considerations. These recommendations assume that the site preparation recommendations contained in this report are implemented. INTERIOR FLOOR SLABS: The minimum slab thickness should be 4 inches (actual) and the slab should be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars spaced at 18 inches on center each way. Slab reinforcement should be supported on chairs such that the reinforcing bars are positioned at mid-height in the floor slab. The slab reinforcement should extend down into the perimeter footings at least 6 inches. UNDER-SLAB VAPOR RETARDERS: Steps should be taken to minimize the transmission of moisture vapor from the subsoil through the interior slabs where it can potentially damage the interior floor coverings. Local industry standards typically include the placement of a vapor retarder, such as plastic, in a layer of coarse sand placed directly beneath the concrete slab. Two inches of sand are typically used above and below the plastic. The vapor retarder should be at least 15-mil Stegowrap® or similar material with sealed seams and should extend at least 12 inches down the sides of the interior and perimeter footings. The sand should have a sand equivalent of at least 30, and contain less than 10% passing the Number 100 sieve and less than 5% passing the Number 200 sieve. The membrane should be placed in accordance with the recommendation and consideration of ACI 302, “Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction” and ASTM E1643, “Standards Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarder Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs.” It is the flooring contractor’s responsibility to place floor coverings in accordance with the flooring manufacturer specifications. EXTERIOR CONCRETE FLATWORK: Exterior concrete slabs on grade should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way (ocew). All slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints in accordance with the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines. Special attention should be paid to the method of concrete curing to reduce the potential for excessive shrinkage cracking. It should be recognized that minor cracks occur normally in concrete slabs due to shrinkage. Some shrinkage cracks should be expected and are not necessarily an indication of excessive movement or structural distress. CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 15 EARTH RETAINING WALLS FOUNDATIONS: Foundations for any proposed retaining walls should be constructed in accordance with the foundation recommendations presented previously in this report. PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the anticipated foundation soils may be considered to be 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. The upper foot of embedment should be neglected when calculating passive pressures, unless the foundation abuts a hard surface such as a concrete slab. The passive pressure may be increased by one-third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.30 for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one-third. ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of “unrestrained” earth retaining structures with 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slopping backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 65 pounds per cubic foot. This pressure does not consider any other surcharge. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. These values are based on a drained backfill condition. Seismic lateral earth pressures may be assumed to equal an inverted triangle starting at the bottom of the wall with the maximum pressure equal to 10H pounds per square foot (where H = wall height in feet) occurring at the top of the wall. WATERPROOFING AND WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS: The need for waterproofing should be evaluated by others. If required, the project architect should provide (or coordinate) waterproofing details for the retaining walls. The design values presented above are based on a drained backfill condition and do not consider hydrostatic pressures. The retaining wall designer should provide a detail for a wall drainage system. Typical retaining wall drain system details are presented as Plate No. 3 of this report for informational purposes. Additionally, outlet points for the retaining wall drain system should be coordinated with the project civil engineer. BACKFILL: Retaining wall backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. If gravel is used for backfill, it should be wrapped in filter fabric and capped with at least 24 inches of compacted fill. CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 16 LIMITATIONS REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the California Building Code. It is recommended that Christian Wheeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the geotechnical engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. This should be verified in writing or modified by a written addendum. TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 17 control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations be based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY It is the responsibility of the Client, or his representatives, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to ensure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. FIELD EXPLORATIONS Four subsurface explorations were made on May 11, 2020 at the locations indicated on the Site Plan and Geotechnical Map included herewith as Plate No. 1. These explorations consisted of 3 test trenches excavated utilizing a Kubota Mini-Excavator and geologically logging the existing temporary cut slope at 1 location. The fieldwork was conducted under the observation and direction of our engineering geology personnel. The explorations were carefully logged when made. The logs are presented in the attached Appendix A. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture, and the density or consistency is provided. The density of granular soils is given as very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense. The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, or hard. CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Page No. 18 Chunk samples and bulk samples of the earth materials encountered were collected and transported to our laboratory for testing. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed and the subsequent results are presented in Appendix B. T-3TEST TRENCH LOCATIONSLOPE LOG LOCATIONARTIFICIAL FILL OVERSANTIAGO FORMATIONSANTIAGO FORMATIONGEOLOGIC CONTACT(QUERIED WHERE INFERRED)GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTIONSL-1QafTsaTsa?CWE LEGENDT-1T-2T-3SL-1QafTsaTsa??Torrejon Place PROPOSEDADUProposed Retaining WallAA'DATE: JUNE 2020BY: SRD JOB NO.: 2200260.01 PLATE NO.: 1SITE PLAN AND GEOTECHNICAL MAPREAGAN RESIDENCE ADU2451 TORREJON PLACECARLSBAD, CALIFORNIACHRISTIAN WHEELERE N G I N E E R I N G0020'40'SCALE: 1" = 20'I I I I I I I I I I / / / I I I /~.-190~ . . ·4:q·~ :~~--~-', \ \' .\ EXISTING NATURAL GROUND I 7 s1EW1Rlli 23535 PALOMIN DIAMOND BAi D~ii sum: 303 TELEPHONE• ' , 91765 EMAIL: CARL3 Rii909) 301-1017 . AGROUPOGMAIL.COM DESIGN & ENGINEER! STEWART DcSIGN ANO ENG/NffR/NG ~N~ ,-------H l!!!!'iiiiil N25°E PL A I A' -220 220-I Proposed I Retaining Wall-210 -210 r Proposed ADU~ SL-1-Existing Residence ex= 3° -----200 ------200-------------------' T-2 T-3 Projected Projected .______ East 10' East 8' 190 190 ~ .L .L Qaf ~ ------· ~ ~ ?--Tsa Tsa 180 ~ 180 170 ~ 170 160 ' I ' I ' ' I ' I ' I ' I 160 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 CWELEGEND Qaf Artificial Fill Tsa Santiago Formation 0 10' 20' ex= 3° Apparent Dip SCALE: 1" = 10' REAGAN RESIDENCE ADU 2451 TORREJON PLACE ~i CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A' DATE: JUNE2020 JOB NO.: 2200260.01 1-8 CHRISTIAN WHEELER BY: SD PLATE NO.: 2 ENGINEERING 1 3 5 5 5 1 1 3 2 2 3 4 NOTES AND DETAILS 1 GENERAL NOTES: 1) THE NEED FOR WATERPROOFING SHOULD BE EVALUATED BY OTHERS. 2) WATERPROOFING TO BE DESIGNED BY OTHERS (CWE CAN PROVIDE A DESIGN IF REQUESTED). 3) EXTEND DRAIN TO SUITABLE DISCHARGE POINT PER CIVIL ENGINEER. 4) DO NOT CONNECT SURFACE DRAINS TO SUBDRAIN SYSTEM. 4 2 3 4 5 UNDERLAY SUBDRAIN WITH AND CUT FABRIC BACK FROM DRAINAGE PANELS AND WRAP FABRIC AROUND PIPE. COLLECTION DRAIN (TOTAL DRAIN OR EQUIVALENT) LOCATED AT BASE OF WALL DRAINAGE PANEL PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 4 3 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 7 4-INCH PERFORATED PVC PIPE ON TOP OF FOOTING, HOLES POSITIONED DOWNWARD (SDR 35, SCHEDULE 40, OR EQUIVALENT). 34 INCH OPEN-GRADED CRUSHED AGGREGATE. GEOFARBRIC WRAPPED COMPLETELY AROUND ROCK. PROPERLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL. WALL DRAINAGE PANELS (MIRADRAIN OR EQUIVALENT) PLACED PER MANUFACTURER'S REC'S. DETAILS: 6 7 12" 12"12" 12" 12" MIN. 6" MIN. 6" MIN.6" MIN. 1 DETAIL 2 2 DETAIL DETAIL DETAIL REAGAN RESIDENCE ADU 2451 TORREJON PLACE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE: JUNE 2020 BY: SRD JOB NO.: 2200260.01 PLATE NO.: 3 CANTILEVER RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS CHRISTIAN WHEELER E N G I N E E R I N G □----- i~~~~ 4 . cl 4 • /•~' ,, ' ~/, ~~ cl cl ~ ~ ~---------~~ □----- 0 Q; 0 0 0 □----- ~~~~ 4 cl a « / ~ ~" /~ cl □----- 0 0 I, Appendix A Subsurface Explorations LOG OF TEST TRENCH T-1 SamI!le Trl!e and Laborato!)'. Test Legend Cal Modified California Sampler CK Chunk SPT Standard Penetration Test DR Drive Ring ST ShdbyTube Date Logged: 5/11/20 Equipment: Kubota Mini-Excavator MD Max Density DS Direct Shear Logged By: DJF Bucket Type: 18" S04 Soluble Sulfates Con Consolidation SA Sieve Analysis El Expansion Index Existing Elevation: 100' Drive Type: N/A HA Hydrometer R-Val Resistance Value SE Sand Equivalent Chi Soluble Ch1orides Assumed Pad Grade: 100' Depth to Water: N/A Pl Plasticity Index Res pH & Resistivity CP Collapse Potential SD Sample Density g ~ ~ Z,::-i:.:i ,-.. z ~ ~ z s 0 0 0 ~ ~~ 0 g 0 i:Q i::.s ;;,.t~ ~~ 0 .... u ~ SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ~[ oZ ~ ::c: E-s 5= (based on Unified Soil Classification System) ~ ii,:: Cl) (J E-s ~ ~ Cl) tl ; ~ ~ ~ ~ o~,e, s~ 0~ ~ ~ u ZS ~ .... z A ~,-.. j~ i:.:i Cl) 0 Oo ~o~ A i:.:i ~ 0 i:.:i ,tl i:Q ~u ~ '-' us:.., 0 SM Artificial Fill (Qaf): Yellowish-brown, moist, loose to mediwn dense, veriy fine- - - .. to mediwn-grained, SILTY SAND with robts. 0.5--.. - -.. 1--.. .... .. SM Santiago Formation (Tsa): Grayish-white, moist, dense, very fine-to - -.. . mediwn-graine8, SII:TY SAND . : .. 1.5--·., .. - -: . ,. ; Very dense. CK -2--, . .. ,, - -' : 2.5-- Test trench terminated at 2.5 feet. - -No groundwater or seepage encountered. 3-- - - 3.5-- - - 4-- - - 4.5-- - - 5-- - - 5.5-- - - 6-- - - 6.5 -- - - 7-- - - 7.5-- Notes: Symbol Legend REAGAN RESIDENCE ADU y Groundwater Level During Drilling 2451 TORREJON PLACE " '! Groundwater Level After Drilling CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA '' Apparent Seepage DATE: JUNE 2020 JOB NO.: 2200260.01 CHRISTIAN WHEELER. * No Sample Recovery ENGI N EEIUN G ** Non-Representative Blow Count BY: SRD APPENDIX: A-1 (rocks present) LOG OF TEST TRENCH T-2 SamI!le Trl!e and Laborato!)'. Test Legend Cal Modified California Sampler CK Chunk SPT Standard Penetration Test DR Drive Ring ST ShdbyTube Date Logged: 5/11/20 Equipment: Kubota Mini-Excavator MD Max Density DS Direct Shear Logged By: DJF Bucket Type: 18" S04 Soluble Sulfates Con Consolidation SA Sieve Analysis El Expansion Index Existing Elevation: 100' Drive Type: N/A HA Hydrometer R-Val Resistance Value SE Sand Equivalent Chi Soluble Ch1orides Assumed Pad Grade: 100' Depth to Water: N/A Pl Plasticity Index Res pH & Resistivity CP Collapse Potential SD Sample Density g ~ ~ Z,::-i:.:i ,-.. z ~ ~ z s 0 0 0 ~ ~~ 0 g 0 i:Q i::.s ;;,.t~ ~~ 0 .... u ~ SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ~[ oZ ~ ::c: E-s 5= (based on Unified Soil Classification System) ~ ii,:: Cl) (J E-s ~ ~ Cl) tl ; ~ ~ ~ ~ o~,e, s~ 0~ ~ ~ u ZS ~ .... z A ~,-.. j~ i:.:i Cl) 0 Oo ~o~ A i:.:i ~ 0 i:.:i ,tl i:Q ~u ~ '-' us:.., 0 SM Santiago Formation (fsa): Grayish-white, very moist, loose to medium dense, - -very fine-to medium-grainea, SILTY SAND, upper 9"aistui:bed \vithl oois.-t .. 0.5 --.. .... .. - -.. . Moist, very den~e . : CK .. 1--·., .. - -: . ,. 1.5-; ' - Test trench terminated at 1.5 feet. - -No grounclwater or seepage encounter@. -2-- - - 2.5-- - - 3-- - - 3.5-- - - 4-- - - 4.5 -- - - 5-- - - 5.5-- - - 6 -- - - 6.5 -- - - 7 -- - - 7.5-- Notes: Symbol Legend REAGAN RESIDENCE ADU y Groundwater Level During Drilling 2451 TORREJON PLACE " '! Groundwater Level After Drilling CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA '' Apparent Seepage DATE: JUNE 2020 JOB NO.: 2200260.01 CHRISTIAN WHEELER. * No Sample Recovery ENGINEEIUNG ** Non-Representative Blow Count BY: SRD APPENDIX: A-2 (rocks present) LOG OF TEST TRENCH T-3 SamI!le Trl!e and Laborato!)'. Test Legend Cal Modified California Sampler CK Chunk SPT Standard Penetration Test DR Drive Ring ST ShdbyTube Date Logged: 5/11/20 Equipment: Kubota Mini-Excavator MD Max Density DS Direct Shear Logged By: DJF Bucket Type: 18" S04 Soluble Sulfates Con Consolidation SA Sieve Analysis El Expansion Index Existing Elevation: ±101' Drive Type: N/A HA Hydrometer R-Val Resistance Value SE Sand Equivalent Chi Soluble Ch1orides Assumed Pad Grade: 100' Depth to Water: N/A Pl Plasticity Index Res pH & Resistivity CP Collapse Potential SD Sample Density g ~ ~ Z,::-i:.:i ,-.. z ~ ~ z s 0 0 0 ~ ~~ 0 g 0 i:Q i::.s ;;,.t~ ~~ 0 .... u ~ SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ~[ oZ ~ ::c: E-s 5= (based on Unified Soil Classification System) ~ ii,:: Cl) (J E-s ~ ~ Cl) tl ; ~ ~ ~ ~ o~,e, s~ 0~ ~ ~ u ZS ~ .... z A ~,-.. j~ i:.:i Cl) 0 Oo ~o~ A i:.:i ~ 0 i:.:i ,tl i:Q ~u ~ '-' us:.., 0 SM Santiago Formation (fsa): Grayish-white, moist, very dense, very fine-to SA - -medium-grainecl, SIL-ni-SAND. .. MD 0.5 --.. .... .. SO4 - -... : .. OS 1--·., .. - -: . ,. 1.5-; ' - Test trench terminated at 1.5 feet. - -No grounclwater or seepage encounter@. -2-- - - 2.5-- - - 3-- - - 3.5-- - - 4-- - - 4.5 -- - - 5-- - - 5.5-- - - 6 -- - - 6.5 -- - - 7 -- - - 7.5-- Notes: Symbol Legend REAGAN RESIDENCE ADU y Groundwater Level During Drilling 2451 TORREJON PLACE " '! Groundwater Level After Drilling CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA '' Apparent Seepage DATE: JUNE 2020 JOB NO.: 2200260.01 CHRISTIAN WHEELER. * No Sample Recovery ENGI N EEIUN G ** Non-Representative Blow Count BY: SRD APPENDIX: A-3 (rocks present) LOG OF SLOPE SL-1 Date Logged: 5/11/20 Equipment: Hand tools Logged By: DJF Auger Type: N/A Existing Elevation: 109' Bucket: N/A Assumed Pade Grade: 100' Depth to Water: N/A 0 109 -- 1-----i08 -- 2--107 -- 3--106 -- 4-----i05 -- 5--104 -- 6--103 -- 7--102 - - 8--101 - - 9--100 - - 10-- -- 11-- -- 12-- -- 13-- -- 14-- -- 15-- Notes: y '! '' * ** .... ·., .. ,:;_ . : ~: . .... •••• t -· ,. -·. ' .. .-, -·· rJ'J u rJ'J 0 SM SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS (based on Unified Soil Classification System) Santiago Formation (Tsa): Grayish-white, damp to moist, very fine-to medium-grained, SILTY SAND;-mas1ve sandstone with orangishliron staining. ½" thick siltstone bed. Bedding attitu5.e N69E 2-4°NW. Terminated slone log at toe of vertical cut for retaining wall. No groundwatet or seepage encountered. Symbol Legend REAGAN RESIDENCE ADU Groundwater Level During Drilling 2451 TORREJON PLACE Groundwater Level After Drilling CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Apparent Seepage DATE: JUNE 2020 JOB NO.: No Sample Recovery Non-Representative Blow Count BY: SRD APPENDIX: (rocks present) SamI!le Trl!e and Laborato!)'. Test Legend Cal Modified California Sampler CK Chunk SPT Standard Penetration Test DR Drive Ring ST ShdbyTube MD Max Density DS Direct Shear S04 Soluble Sulfates Con Consolidation SA Sieve Analysis El Expansion Index HA Hydrometer R-Val Resistance Value SE Sand Equivalent Chi Soluble Ch1orides Pl Plasticity Index Res pH & Resistivity CP Collapse Potential SD Sample Density Z,::-~ ,-.. z ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~~ 0 i::.s ;;,.t~ ~~ 0 ~[ ~ oZ ~ ~ ~ ii,:: rJ'J (J tl ; ~ ~ o~,e, s~ 0~ ZS ~ .... z A ~,-.. j~ ~ ,tl 0 Oo ~o~ ~ '-' ~ ~u us:.., CK 14.7 109.2 CK 16.3 110.7 " 2200260.01 CHRISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEEIUNG A-4 Appendix B Laboratory Test Results REAGAN RESIDENCE ADU 2451 TORREJON PLACE, CARLSBAD, CA LAB SUMMARY BY: DBA DATE: JUNE 2020 REPORT NO.:2200260.01 FIGURE NO.: B-1 E n g i n e e r i n g CHRISTIAN WHEELER Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. Brief descriptions of the tests performed are presented below: a) CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A. b) MOISTURE-DENSITY: MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for selected soil samples in accordance with ATM D 1188. The results are summarized in the subsurface exploration logs presented in Appendix A. c) MAXIMUM DENSITY & OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical soils were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D1557, Method A. d) DIRECT SHEAR: Direct shear tests were performed on selected samples of the on-site soils in accordance with ASTM D3080. e) GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION: The grain size distribution of a selected sample was determined in accordance with ASTM C136 and/or ASTM D422. f) SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT: The soluble sulfate content for a selected soil sample was determined in accordance with California Test Methods 417. :. I I I CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Appendix B-2 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PROPOSED REAGAN RESIDENCE ADU 2451 TORREJON PLACE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557) Sample Location Trench T-3 @ 0-1’ Sample Description Grayish-White Silty Sand (SM) Maximum Density 113.0 pcf Optimum Moisture 9.0 % DIRECT SHEAR (ASTM D3080) Sample Location Trench T-3 @ 0-1’ SL-1 @ 8’ Sample Type Remolded to 90% Remolded to IN-Situ Density and Moisture Content Friction Angle Cohesion 33° 250 psf 34° 350 psf GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (ASTM D422) Sample Location Trench T-3 @ 0-1’ Sieve Size Percent Passing #4 100 #8 96 #16 92 #30 89 #50 80 #100 39 #200 15 SOLUBLE SULFATES (CALIFORNIA TEST 417) Sample Location Trench T-3 @ 0-1’ Soluble Sulfate 0.026 % (SO4) APPENDIX C GROSS SLOPE STABILITY 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160160 180 200 220 240 Reagan Res. ADU 2200260 A-A' Circular Static Cut Slope w:\2020 jobs\2200260 - reagan res. adu, 2453 torrejon pl\reports\slope stability\a-a' circular static cut slope.pl2 Run By: DJF 6/15/2020 03:19PM 1 2 2 2 2 2 bcdefghija # FSa 1.28b 1.28c 1.28d 1.28e 1.28f 1.28g 1.28h 1.28i 1.28j 1.28 SoilDesc. QafTsa SoilTypeNo.12 TotalUnit Wt.(pcf)125.0125.0 SaturatedUnit Wt.(pcf)135.0135.0 CohesionIntercept(psf)250.0Aniso FrictionAngle(deg)33.0Aniso Piez.SurfaceNo.00 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.28Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method CI-IRISTl.1\N W°HEELER E N Glt--l'C R.I NG W:a-a' circular static cut slope.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 6/15/2020 Time of Run: 03:19PM Run By: DJF Input Data Filename: W:\2020 Jobs\2200260 - Reagan Res. ADU, 2453 Torrejon Pl\Rep orts\Slope Stability\a-a' circular static cut slope.in Output Filename: W:\2020 Jobs\2200260 - Reagan Res. ADU, 2453 Torrejon Pl\Rep orts\Slope Stability\a-a' circular static cut slope.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: W:\2020 Jobs\2200260 - Reagan ReDU, 2453 Torrejon Pl\Reports \Slope Stability\a-a' circular static cut slope.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Reagan Res. ADU 2200260 A-A' Circular Static Cut Slope BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 Top Boundaries 6 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 190.00 40.00 190.00 1 2 40.00 190.00 97.00 190.00 2 3 97.00 190.00 97.10 199.00 2 4 97.10 199.00 110.00 214.00 2 5 110.00 214.00 160.00 214.00 2 6 0.00 184.00 40.00 190.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 160.00(ft) Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft) Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 125.0 135.0 250.0 33.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 125.0 135.0 350.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type(s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 0.0 350.00 34.00 2 3.0 233.00 22.00 3 90.0 350.00 34.00 ANISOTROPIC SOIL NOTES: (1) An input value of 0.01 for C and/or Phi will cause Aniso C and/or Phi to be ignored in that range. (2) An input value of 0.02 for Phi will set both Phi and C equal to zero, with no water weight in the tension crack. (3) An input value of 0.03 for Phi will set both Phi and C equal to zero, with water weight in the tension crack. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 500 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 1 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 97.00(ft) and X = 97.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 110.00(ft) W:a-a' circular static cut slope.OUT Page 2 and X = 140.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) 1.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of 0.0 And 60.0 deg. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated = 500 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max = 2.291 FS Min = 1.275 FS Ave = 1.726 Standard Deviation = 0.313 Coefficient of Variation = 18.15 % Failure Surface Specified By 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.80 190.59 3 98.60 191.20 4 99.38 191.83 5 100.14 192.47 6 100.89 193.13 7 101.63 193.81 8 102.35 194.50 9 103.06 195.20 10 103.76 195.92 11 104.44 196.66 12 105.10 197.41 13 105.75 198.17 14 106.38 198.94 15 106.99 199.73 16 107.59 200.53 17 108.18 201.35 18 108.74 202.17 19 109.29 203.01 20 109.82 203.86 21 110.33 204.72 22 110.82 205.59 23 111.30 206.47 24 111.75 207.36 25 112.19 208.26 26 112.61 209.16 27 113.01 210.08 28 113.39 211.01 29 113.75 211.94 30 114.09 212.88 31 114.41 213.82 32 114.47 214.00 Circle Center At X = 69.07 ; Y = 228.68 ; and Radius = 47.71 Factor of Safety *** 1.275 *** Individual data on the 33 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 0.1 55.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.7 799.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 0.8 928.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0.8 942.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 0.8 951.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.8 955.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0.7 956.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.7 953.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0.7 945.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0.7 935.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0.7 920.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.7 902.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 W:a-a' circular static cut slope.OUT Page 3 13 0.6 881.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 0.6 857.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 0.6 831.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 0.6 802.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 0.6 770.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 0.6 737.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.5 701.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.5 664.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 0.2 227.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 22 0.3 390.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 0.5 545.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 0.5 473.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0.5 404.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 0.4 338.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 27 0.4 276.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 28 0.4 218.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 0.4 164.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 0.4 114.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 31 0.3 67.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 0.3 26.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 33 0.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.80 190.60 3 98.58 191.22 4 99.36 191.85 5 100.12 192.50 6 100.87 193.17 7 101.60 193.84 8 102.32 194.54 9 103.03 195.24 10 103.72 195.96 11 104.40 196.70 12 105.07 197.45 13 105.72 198.21 14 106.35 198.98 15 106.97 199.76 16 107.58 200.56 17 108.16 201.37 18 108.74 202.19 19 109.29 203.02 20 109.83 203.86 21 110.35 204.72 22 110.86 205.58 23 111.35 206.45 24 111.82 207.33 25 112.27 208.23 26 112.71 209.13 27 113.12 210.03 28 113.52 210.95 29 113.91 211.87 30 114.27 212.81 31 114.61 213.74 32 114.70 214.00 Circle Center At X = 66.85 ; Y = 230.77 ; and Radius = 50.70 Factor of Safety *** 1.275 *** Failure Surface Specified By 31 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.79 190.62 3 98.56 191.25 4 99.33 191.89 5 100.08 192.55 6 100.81 193.23 7 101.54 193.92 8 102.25 194.62 W:a-a' circular static cut slope.OUT Page 4 9 102.95 195.34 10 103.63 196.07 11 104.30 196.82 12 104.95 197.57 13 105.59 198.34 14 106.21 199.13 15 106.82 199.92 16 107.41 200.73 17 107.98 201.55 18 108.54 202.37 19 109.09 203.21 20 109.61 204.06 21 110.12 204.92 22 110.61 205.79 23 111.09 206.67 24 111.55 207.56 25 111.99 208.46 26 112.41 209.37 27 112.82 210.28 28 113.20 211.20 29 113.57 212.13 30 113.92 213.07 31 114.25 214.00 Circle Center At X = 66.00 ; Y = 230.48 ; and Radius = 50.99 Factor of Safety *** 1.276 *** Failure Surface Specified By 31 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.81 190.59 3 98.60 191.20 4 99.38 191.83 5 100.14 192.47 6 100.89 193.13 7 101.63 193.81 8 102.34 194.51 9 103.04 195.22 10 103.73 195.96 11 104.39 196.70 12 105.04 197.46 13 105.67 198.24 14 106.28 199.03 15 106.87 199.84 16 107.45 200.65 17 108.00 201.49 18 108.54 202.33 19 109.05 203.19 20 109.55 204.06 21 110.02 204.94 22 110.47 205.83 23 110.91 206.73 24 111.32 207.64 25 111.71 208.57 26 112.07 209.50 27 112.42 210.43 28 112.74 211.38 29 113.04 212.33 30 113.32 213.29 31 113.51 214.00 Circle Center At X = 72.30 ; Y = 224.67 ; and Radius = 42.57 Factor of Safety *** 1.276 *** Failure Surface Specified By 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.81 190.58 3 98.62 191.18 4 99.40 191.79 W:a-a' circular static cut slope.OUT Page 5 5 100.18 192.42 6 100.94 193.07 7 101.69 193.73 8 102.43 194.41 9 103.15 195.11 10 103.85 195.81 11 104.54 196.54 12 105.22 197.28 13 105.88 198.03 14 106.52 198.79 15 107.15 199.57 16 107.76 200.36 17 108.35 201.17 18 108.93 201.98 19 109.49 202.81 20 110.03 203.65 21 110.56 204.50 22 111.06 205.37 23 111.55 206.24 24 112.02 207.12 25 112.47 208.01 26 112.91 208.91 27 113.32 209.83 28 113.71 210.74 29 114.09 211.67 30 114.45 212.61 31 114.78 213.55 32 114.93 214.00 Circle Center At X = 69.76 ; Y = 229.05 ; and Radius = 47.61 Factor of Safety *** 1.276 *** Failure Surface Specified By 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.80 190.60 3 98.59 191.21 4 99.37 191.84 5 100.14 192.48 6 100.89 193.14 7 101.63 193.81 8 102.36 194.49 9 103.08 195.19 10 103.79 195.90 11 104.48 196.62 12 105.15 197.36 13 105.82 198.10 14 106.47 198.86 15 107.10 199.64 16 107.72 200.42 17 108.33 201.22 18 108.92 202.02 19 109.50 202.84 20 110.06 203.67 21 110.60 204.51 22 111.13 205.35 23 111.64 206.21 24 112.14 207.08 25 112.62 207.96 26 113.09 208.84 27 113.54 209.74 28 113.97 210.64 29 114.38 211.55 30 114.78 212.46 31 115.16 213.39 32 115.40 214.00 Circle Center At X = 65.24 ; Y = 233.41 ; and Radius = 53.79 Factor of Safety *** 1.277 *** Failure Surface Specified By 31 Coordinate Points W:a-a' circular static cut slope.OUT Page 6 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.80 190.60 3 98.58 191.22 4 99.35 191.86 5 100.10 192.52 6 100.84 193.20 7 101.56 193.89 8 102.27 194.60 9 102.96 195.32 10 103.63 196.06 11 104.29 196.82 12 104.92 197.59 13 105.54 198.37 14 106.14 199.17 15 106.72 199.99 16 107.28 200.82 17 107.83 201.66 18 108.35 202.51 19 108.85 203.37 20 109.33 204.25 21 109.79 205.14 22 110.23 206.03 23 110.65 206.94 24 111.05 207.86 25 111.43 208.79 26 111.78 209.72 27 112.12 210.66 28 112.43 211.61 29 112.72 212.57 30 112.98 213.53 31 113.10 214.00 Circle Center At X = 71.60 ; Y = 224.44 ; and Radius = 42.80 Factor of Safety *** 1.278 *** Failure Surface Specified By 31 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.82 190.57 3 98.62 191.17 4 99.41 191.78 5 100.19 192.42 6 100.94 193.07 7 101.68 193.75 8 102.40 194.44 9 103.10 195.15 10 103.78 195.89 11 104.44 196.63 12 105.09 197.40 13 105.71 198.18 14 106.31 198.98 15 106.89 199.80 16 107.45 200.63 17 107.99 201.47 18 108.50 202.33 19 108.99 203.20 20 109.46 204.08 21 109.91 204.98 22 110.33 205.88 23 110.73 206.80 24 111.10 207.73 25 111.45 208.67 26 111.77 209.61 27 112.07 210.57 28 112.34 211.53 29 112.59 212.50 30 112.81 213.47 31 112.92 214.00 W:a-a' circular static cut slope.OUT Page 7 Circle Center At X = 75.66 ; Y = 221.44 ; and Radius = 38.00 Factor of Safety *** 1.279 *** Failure Surface Specified By 31 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.81 190.59 3 98.61 191.19 4 99.38 191.82 5 100.15 192.47 6 100.89 193.13 7 101.62 193.82 8 102.33 194.53 9 103.02 195.25 10 103.69 195.99 11 104.34 196.75 12 104.97 197.53 13 105.58 198.32 14 106.17 199.12 15 106.74 199.95 16 107.29 200.78 17 107.81 201.64 18 108.31 202.50 19 108.79 203.38 20 109.25 204.27 21 109.68 205.17 22 110.09 206.08 23 110.47 207.01 24 110.83 207.94 25 111.17 208.88 26 111.48 209.83 27 111.77 210.79 28 112.03 211.76 29 112.26 212.73 30 112.47 213.70 31 112.53 214.00 Circle Center At X = 75.07 ; Y = 221.22 ; and Radius = 38.15 Factor of Safety *** 1.281 *** Failure Surface Specified By 33 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.80 190.59 3 98.60 191.20 4 99.38 191.82 5 100.16 192.46 6 100.92 193.11 7 101.67 193.77 8 102.40 194.44 9 103.13 195.13 10 103.85 195.83 11 104.55 196.54 12 105.24 197.27 13 105.91 198.00 14 106.58 198.75 15 107.23 199.51 16 107.86 200.28 17 108.49 201.06 18 109.10 201.85 19 109.69 202.66 20 110.28 203.47 21 110.84 204.29 22 111.40 205.13 23 111.93 205.97 24 112.46 206.82 25 112.97 207.68 26 113.46 208.55 27 113.94 209.43 W:a-a' circular static cut slope.OUT Page 8 28 114.40 210.32 29 114.85 211.21 30 115.28 212.11 31 115.70 213.02 32 116.10 213.94 33 116.12 214.00 Circle Center At X = 63.43 ; Y = 236.37 ; and Radius = 57.24 Factor of Safety *** 1.281 *** **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160160 180 200 220 240 Reagan Res. ADU 2200260 A-A' Pseudo Static Cut Slope w:\2020 jobs\2200260 - reagan res. adu, 2453 torrejon pl\reports\slope stability\a-a' pseudo static cut slope.pl2 Run By: DJF 6/15/2020 03:08PM 1 2 2 2 2 2 b cdefghija # FSa 1.06b 1.06c 1.07d 1.07e 1.07f 1.07g 1.07h 1.07i 1.07j 1.07 SoilDesc. QafTsa SoilTypeNo.12 TotalUnit Wt.(pcf)125.0125.0 SaturatedUnit Wt.(pcf)135.0135.0 CohesionIntercept(psf)250.0Aniso FrictionAngle(deg)33.0Aniso Piez.SurfaceNo.00 Load ValuePeak(A) 0.528(g)kh Coef. 0.150(g)< GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.06Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method CI-IRISTl.1\N W°HEELER E N Glt--l'C R.I NG W:a-a' pseudo static cut slope.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 6/15/2020 Time of Run: 03:08PM Run By: DJF Input Data Filename: W:\2020 Jobs\2200260 - Reagan Res. ADU, 2453 Torrejon Pl\Rep orts\Slope Stability\a-a' pseudo static cut slope.in Output Filename: W:\2020 Jobs\2200260 - Reagan Res. ADU, 2453 Torrejon Pl\Rep orts\Slope Stability\a-a' pseudo static cut slope.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: W:\2020 Jobs\2200260 - Reagan ReDU, 2453 Torrejon Pl\Reports \Slope Stability\a-a' pseudo static cut slope.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Reagan Res. ADU 2200260 A-A' Pseudo Static Cut Slope BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 Top Boundaries 6 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 190.00 40.00 190.00 1 2 40.00 190.00 97.00 190.00 2 3 97.00 190.00 97.10 199.00 2 4 97.10 199.00 110.00 214.00 2 5 110.00 214.00 160.00 214.00 2 6 0.00 184.00 40.00 190.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 160.00(ft) Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft) Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 125.0 135.0 250.0 33.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 125.0 135.0 350.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type(s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 0.0 350.00 34.00 2 3.0 233.00 22.00 3 90.0 350.00 34.00 ANISOTROPIC SOIL NOTES: (1) An input value of 0.01 for C and/or Phi will cause Aniso C and/or Phi to be ignored in that range. (2) An input value of 0.02 for Phi will set both Phi and C equal to zero, with no water weight in the tension crack. (3) An input value of 0.03 for Phi will set both Phi and C equal to zero, with water weight in the tension crack. Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) = 0.528(g) Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) = 0.150(g) Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) = 0.000(g) Specified Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor = 0.000 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. W:a-a' pseudo static cut slope.OUT Page 2 500 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 1 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 97.00(ft) and X = 97.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 110.00(ft) and X = 140.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) 1.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of 0.0 And 60.0 deg. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated = 500 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max = 1.696 FS Min = 1.064 FS Ave = 1.365 Standard Deviation = 0.199 Coefficient of Variation = 14.57 % Failure Surface Specified By 33 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.80 190.59 3 98.60 191.20 4 99.38 191.82 5 100.16 192.46 6 100.92 193.11 7 101.67 193.77 8 102.40 194.44 9 103.13 195.13 10 103.85 195.83 11 104.55 196.54 12 105.24 197.27 13 105.91 198.00 14 106.58 198.75 15 107.23 199.51 16 107.86 200.28 17 108.49 201.06 18 109.10 201.85 19 109.69 202.66 20 110.28 203.47 21 110.84 204.29 22 111.40 205.13 23 111.93 205.97 24 112.46 206.82 25 112.97 207.68 26 113.46 208.55 27 113.94 209.43 28 114.40 210.32 29 114.85 211.21 30 115.28 212.11 31 115.70 213.02 32 116.10 213.94 33 116.12 214.00 Circle Center At X = 63.43 ; Y = 236.37 ; and Radius = 57.24 Factor of Safety *** 1.064 *** Individual data on the 34 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 0.1 55.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 8.4 0.0 0.0 2 0.7 799.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 119.9 0.0 0.0 3 0.8 931.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 139.8 0.0 0.0 4 0.8 948.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 142.3 0.0 0.0 5 0.8 962.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 144.3 0.0 0.0 6 0.8 972.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 145.8 0.0 0.0 7 0.7 978.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 146.8 0.0 0.0 W:a-a' pseudo static cut slope.OUT Page 3 8 0.7 981.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 147.2 0.0 0.0 9 0.7 981.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 147.2 0.0 0.0 10 0.7 977.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 146.6 0.0 0.0 11 0.7 971.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 145.7 0.0 0.0 12 0.7 961.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 144.2 0.0 0.0 13 0.7 949.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 142.4 0.0 0.0 14 0.7 934.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 140.1 0.0 0.0 15 0.7 916.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 137.4 0.0 0.0 16 0.6 896.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 134.4 0.0 0.0 17 0.6 873.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 131.0 0.0 0.0 18 0.6 849.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 127.4 0.0 0.0 19 0.6 822.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 123.4 0.0 0.0 20 0.3 418.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 62.8 0.0 0.0 21 0.3 369.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 55.4 0.0 0.0 22 0.6 717.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 107.6 0.0 0.0 23 0.6 642.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 96.3 0.0 0.0 24 0.5 568.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 85.3 0.0 0.0 25 0.5 497.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 74.6 0.0 0.0 26 0.5 428.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 64.3 0.0 0.0 27 0.5 362.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 54.4 0.0 0.0 28 0.5 299.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 44.9 0.0 0.0 29 0.5 238.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 35.8 0.0 0.0 30 0.4 180.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 27.1 0.0 0.0 31 0.4 126.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 18.9 0.0 0.0 32 0.4 74.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 11.2 0.0 0.0 33 0.4 25.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 3.9 0.0 0.0 34 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.80 190.60 3 98.59 191.21 4 99.37 191.84 5 100.14 192.48 6 100.89 193.14 7 101.63 193.81 8 102.36 194.49 9 103.08 195.19 10 103.79 195.90 11 104.48 196.62 12 105.15 197.36 13 105.82 198.10 14 106.47 198.86 15 107.10 199.64 16 107.72 200.42 17 108.33 201.22 18 108.92 202.02 19 109.50 202.84 20 110.06 203.67 21 110.60 204.51 22 111.13 205.35 23 111.64 206.21 24 112.14 207.08 25 112.62 207.96 26 113.09 208.84 27 113.54 209.74 28 113.97 210.64 29 114.38 211.55 30 114.78 212.46 31 115.16 213.39 32 115.40 214.00 Circle Center At X = 65.24 ; Y = 233.41 ; and Radius = 53.79 Factor of Safety *** 1.064 *** Failure Surface Specified By 33 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.79 190.62 W:a-a' pseudo static cut slope.OUT Page 4 3 98.57 191.24 4 99.34 191.88 5 100.10 192.52 6 100.86 193.18 7 101.60 193.85 8 102.34 194.52 9 103.07 195.21 10 103.79 195.90 11 104.49 196.61 12 105.19 197.32 13 105.88 198.05 14 106.56 198.78 15 107.23 199.52 16 107.89 200.28 17 108.54 201.04 18 109.18 201.80 19 109.81 202.58 20 110.43 203.37 21 111.04 204.16 22 111.64 204.96 23 112.22 205.77 24 112.80 206.59 25 113.36 207.42 26 113.92 208.25 27 114.46 209.09 28 114.99 209.94 29 115.51 210.79 30 116.02 211.65 31 116.51 212.52 32 117.00 213.40 33 117.32 214.00 Circle Center At X = 51.52 ; Y = 249.12 ; and Radius = 74.60 Factor of Safety *** 1.065 *** Failure Surface Specified By 34 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.81 190.59 3 98.60 191.20 4 99.39 191.81 5 100.17 192.44 6 100.94 193.08 7 101.70 193.73 8 102.45 194.39 9 103.19 195.06 10 103.92 195.74 11 104.65 196.43 12 105.36 197.13 13 106.06 197.85 14 106.75 198.57 15 107.43 199.30 16 108.10 200.04 17 108.76 200.79 18 109.41 201.55 19 110.05 202.32 20 110.68 203.10 21 111.29 203.89 22 111.90 204.69 23 112.49 205.49 24 113.07 206.31 25 113.64 207.13 26 114.20 207.96 27 114.75 208.79 28 115.28 209.64 29 115.80 210.49 30 116.31 211.35 31 116.81 212.22 32 117.30 213.10 33 117.77 213.98 W:a-a' pseudo static cut slope.OUT Page 5 34 117.78 214.00 Circle Center At X = 55.97 ; Y = 246.52 ; and Radius = 69.84 Factor of Safety *** 1.067 *** Failure Surface Specified By 33 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.81 190.58 3 98.61 191.18 4 99.41 191.79 5 100.19 192.41 6 100.96 193.04 7 101.73 193.69 8 102.48 194.35 9 103.23 195.01 10 103.96 195.69 11 104.68 196.38 12 105.40 197.09 13 106.10 197.80 14 106.79 198.52 15 107.47 199.25 16 108.14 200.00 17 108.80 200.75 18 109.44 201.51 19 110.08 202.29 20 110.70 203.07 21 111.31 203.86 22 111.90 204.67 23 112.49 205.48 24 113.06 206.30 25 113.62 207.12 26 114.17 207.96 27 114.70 208.81 28 115.23 209.66 29 115.73 210.52 30 116.23 211.39 31 116.71 212.27 32 117.18 213.15 33 117.61 214.00 Circle Center At X = 59.19 ; Y = 243.33 ; and Radius = 65.37 Factor of Safety *** 1.067 *** Failure Surface Specified By 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.80 190.60 3 98.58 191.22 4 99.36 191.85 5 100.12 192.50 6 100.87 193.17 7 101.60 193.84 8 102.32 194.54 9 103.03 195.24 10 103.72 195.96 11 104.40 196.70 12 105.07 197.45 13 105.72 198.21 14 106.35 198.98 15 106.97 199.76 16 107.58 200.56 17 108.16 201.37 18 108.74 202.19 19 109.29 203.02 20 109.83 203.86 21 110.35 204.72 22 110.86 205.58 23 111.35 206.45 24 111.82 207.33 W:a-a' pseudo static cut slope.OUT Page 6 25 112.27 208.23 26 112.71 209.13 27 113.12 210.03 28 113.52 210.95 29 113.91 211.87 30 114.27 212.81 31 114.61 213.74 32 114.70 214.00 Circle Center At X = 66.85 ; Y = 230.77 ; and Radius = 50.70 Factor of Safety *** 1.067 *** Failure Surface Specified By 34 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.80 190.60 3 98.59 191.21 4 99.37 191.84 5 100.14 192.47 6 100.91 193.11 7 101.67 193.77 8 102.41 194.43 9 103.15 195.11 10 103.88 195.79 11 104.60 196.48 12 105.31 197.19 13 106.02 197.90 14 106.71 198.62 15 107.39 199.35 16 108.06 200.09 17 108.73 200.84 18 109.38 201.60 19 110.02 202.37 20 110.65 203.14 21 111.27 203.92 22 111.89 204.72 23 112.49 205.52 24 113.08 206.32 25 113.65 207.14 26 114.22 207.96 27 114.78 208.79 28 115.32 209.63 29 115.86 210.48 30 116.38 211.33 31 116.89 212.19 32 117.39 213.05 33 117.88 213.93 34 117.92 214.00 Circle Center At X = 52.42 ; Y = 249.98 ; and Radius = 74.73 Factor of Safety *** 1.067 *** Failure Surface Specified By 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.76 190.65 3 98.50 191.32 4 99.24 191.99 5 99.97 192.68 6 100.69 193.37 7 101.40 194.07 8 102.11 194.79 9 102.80 195.51 10 103.48 196.24 11 104.15 196.98 12 104.82 197.73 13 105.47 198.48 14 106.11 199.25 15 106.75 200.02 16 107.37 200.81 W:a-a' pseudo static cut slope.OUT Page 7 17 107.98 201.60 18 108.58 202.40 19 109.17 203.20 20 109.75 204.02 21 110.32 204.84 22 110.88 205.67 23 111.43 206.51 24 111.96 207.35 25 112.49 208.20 26 113.00 209.06 27 113.51 209.92 28 114.00 210.79 29 114.48 211.67 30 114.94 212.56 31 115.40 213.45 32 115.67 214.00 Circle Center At X = 47.99 ; Y = 247.40 ; and Radius = 75.48 Factor of Safety *** 1.067 *** Failure Surface Specified By 32 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.81 190.58 3 98.62 191.18 4 99.40 191.79 5 100.18 192.42 6 100.94 193.07 7 101.69 193.73 8 102.43 194.41 9 103.15 195.11 10 103.85 195.81 11 104.54 196.54 12 105.22 197.28 13 105.88 198.03 14 106.52 198.79 15 107.15 199.57 16 107.76 200.36 17 108.35 201.17 18 108.93 201.98 19 109.49 202.81 20 110.03 203.65 21 110.56 204.50 22 111.06 205.37 23 111.55 206.24 24 112.02 207.12 25 112.47 208.01 26 112.91 208.91 27 113.32 209.83 28 113.71 210.74 29 114.09 211.67 30 114.45 212.61 31 114.78 213.55 32 114.93 214.00 Circle Center At X = 69.76 ; Y = 229.05 ; and Radius = 47.61 Factor of Safety *** 1.067 *** Failure Surface Specified By 33 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.00 190.00 2 97.82 190.57 3 98.64 191.15 4 99.44 191.74 5 100.23 192.35 6 101.02 192.98 7 101.79 193.61 8 102.55 194.26 9 103.29 194.93 10 104.03 195.60 W:a-a' pseudo static cut slope.OUT Page 8 11 104.76 196.29 12 105.47 196.99 13 106.17 197.71 14 106.86 198.43 15 107.53 199.17 16 108.20 199.92 17 108.85 200.68 18 109.48 201.45 19 110.10 202.23 20 110.71 203.03 21 111.31 203.83 22 111.89 204.64 23 112.46 205.47 24 113.01 206.30 25 113.55 207.14 26 114.07 208.00 27 114.58 208.86 28 115.07 209.73 29 115.55 210.61 30 116.01 211.49 31 116.46 212.39 32 116.89 213.29 33 117.21 214.00 Circle Center At X = 64.78 ; Y = 237.65 ; and Radius = 57.52 Factor of Safety *** 1.068 *** **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160160 180 200 220 240 Reagan Res. ADU 2200260 A-A' Circular Static Wall w:\2020 jobs\2200260 - reagan res. adu, 2453 torrejon pl\reports\slope stability\a-a' circular static wall.pl2 Run By: DJF 6/15/2020 03:11PM 1 2 2 2 2 2 bcdefghija # FSa 2.24b 2.24c 2.24d 2.25e 2.25f 2.25g 2.25h 2.25i 2.26j 2.26 SoilDesc. QafTsa SoilTypeNo.12 TotalUnit Wt.(pcf)125.0125.0 SaturatedUnit Wt.(pcf)135.0135.0 CohesionIntercept(psf)250.0Aniso FrictionAngle(deg)33.0Aniso Piez.SurfaceNo.00 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=2.24Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method CI-IRISTl.1\N W°HEELER E N Glt--l'C R.I NG W:a-a' circular static wall.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 6/15/2020 Time of Run: 03:11PM Run By: DJF Input Data Filename: W:\2020 Jobs\2200260 - Reagan Res. ADU, 2453 Torrejon Pl\Rep orts\Slope Stability\a-a' circular static wall.in Output Filename: W:\2020 Jobs\2200260 - Reagan Res. ADU, 2453 Torrejon Pl\Rep orts\Slope Stability\a-a' circular static wall.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: W:\2020 Jobs\2200260 - Reagan ReDU, 2453 Torrejon Pl\Reports \Slope Stability\a-a' circular static wall.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Reagan Res. ADU 2200260 A-A' Circular Static Wall BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 Top Boundaries 6 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 190.00 40.00 190.00 1 2 40.00 190.00 97.00 190.00 2 3 97.00 190.00 97.10 199.00 2 4 97.10 199.00 110.00 214.00 2 5 110.00 214.00 160.00 214.00 2 6 0.00 184.00 40.00 190.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 160.00(ft) Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft) Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 125.0 135.0 250.0 33.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 125.0 135.0 350.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type(s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 0.0 350.00 34.00 2 3.0 233.00 22.00 3 90.0 350.00 34.00 ANISOTROPIC SOIL NOTES: (1) An input value of 0.01 for C and/or Phi will cause Aniso C and/or Phi to be ignored in that range. (2) An input value of 0.02 for Phi will set both Phi and C equal to zero, with no water weight in the tension crack. (3) An input value of 0.03 for Phi will set both Phi and C equal to zero, with water weight in the tension crack. A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 500 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 1 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 97.50(ft) and X = 97.50(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 110.00(ft) W:a-a' circular static wall.OUT Page 2 and X = 140.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) 1.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated = 500 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max = 7.946 FS Min = 2.236 FS Ave = 4.101 Standard Deviation = 1.316 Coefficient of Variation = 32.09 % Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.48 3 99.50 199.55 4 100.49 199.69 5 101.47 199.89 6 102.43 200.14 7 103.38 200.46 8 104.31 200.83 9 105.22 201.26 10 106.09 201.74 11 106.93 202.28 12 107.74 202.87 13 108.52 203.50 14 109.25 204.18 15 109.94 204.91 16 110.58 205.67 17 111.18 206.48 18 111.72 207.32 19 112.21 208.19 20 112.65 209.09 21 113.03 210.01 22 113.36 210.96 23 113.63 211.92 24 113.83 212.90 25 113.98 213.89 26 113.99 214.00 Circle Center At X = 97.77 ; Y = 215.78 ; and Radius = 16.32 Factor of Safety *** 2.236 *** Individual data on the 26 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 1.0 71.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 1.0 210.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 1.0 339.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 1.0 455.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 1.0 558.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0.9 646.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 0.9 719.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 0.9 775.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 9 0.9 814.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 10 0.8 837.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 11 0.8 843.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 0.8 834.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 0.7 810.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 14 0.7 773.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 15 0.1 70.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 0.6 629.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 0.6 589.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 18 0.5 483.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 19 0.5 384.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 0.4 293.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 21 0.4 212.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 W:a-a' circular static wall.OUT Page 3 22 0.3 142.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 23 0.3 85.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 0.2 41.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 0.1 11.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 26 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.49 3 99.50 199.57 4 100.48 199.72 5 101.46 199.93 6 102.42 200.21 7 103.37 200.55 8 104.28 200.94 9 105.18 201.39 10 106.04 201.90 11 106.86 202.47 12 107.65 203.08 13 108.40 203.75 14 109.10 204.46 15 109.76 205.21 16 110.36 206.01 17 110.92 206.84 18 111.42 207.71 19 111.86 208.60 20 112.25 209.52 21 112.57 210.47 22 112.84 211.43 23 113.04 212.41 24 113.18 213.40 25 113.22 214.00 Circle Center At X = 97.66 ; Y = 215.07 ; and Radius = 15.61 Factor of Safety *** 2.240 *** Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.44 3 99.50 199.48 4 100.49 199.59 5 101.48 199.76 6 102.45 199.99 7 103.41 200.28 8 104.34 200.63 9 105.26 201.04 10 106.14 201.51 11 106.99 202.04 12 107.81 202.61 13 108.59 203.24 14 109.32 203.92 15 110.01 204.64 16 110.66 205.41 17 111.25 206.21 18 111.79 207.05 19 112.28 207.92 20 112.71 208.83 21 113.08 209.76 22 113.39 210.71 23 113.65 211.67 24 113.83 212.66 25 113.96 213.65 26 113.98 214.00 Circle Center At X = 98.36 ; Y = 215.11 ; and Radius = 15.67 Factor of Safety *** 2.241 *** Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf W:a-a' circular static wall.OUT Page 4 No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.45 3 99.50 199.49 4 100.49 199.59 5 101.48 199.75 6 102.46 199.97 7 103.42 200.24 8 104.36 200.57 9 105.29 200.96 10 106.19 201.39 11 107.06 201.88 12 107.90 202.42 13 108.71 203.01 14 109.49 203.64 15 110.22 204.32 16 110.92 205.04 17 111.57 205.79 18 112.17 206.59 19 112.73 207.42 20 113.24 208.28 21 113.70 209.17 22 114.11 210.08 23 114.46 211.02 24 114.75 211.97 25 114.99 212.94 26 115.18 213.93 27 115.18 214.00 Circle Center At X = 98.26 ; Y = 216.56 ; and Radius = 17.11 Factor of Safety *** 2.245 *** Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.53 3 99.49 199.65 4 100.48 199.83 5 101.45 200.05 6 102.41 200.33 7 103.35 200.66 8 104.28 201.04 9 105.18 201.47 10 106.06 201.95 11 106.91 202.47 12 107.74 203.04 13 108.53 203.65 14 109.29 204.30 15 110.01 204.99 16 110.70 205.72 17 111.34 206.48 18 111.94 207.28 19 112.50 208.11 20 113.01 208.97 21 113.48 209.85 22 113.90 210.76 23 114.27 211.69 24 114.59 212.64 25 114.86 213.60 26 114.95 214.00 Circle Center At X = 96.74 ; Y = 218.12 ; and Radius = 18.67 Factor of Safety *** 2.246 *** Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.55 3 99.49 199.69 4 100.47 199.88 W:a-a' circular static wall.OUT Page 5 5 101.44 200.11 6 102.40 200.39 7 103.35 200.71 8 104.28 201.08 9 105.19 201.50 10 106.08 201.96 11 106.94 202.46 12 107.78 203.00 13 108.60 203.58 14 109.38 204.20 15 110.13 204.86 16 110.85 205.55 17 111.54 206.28 18 112.19 207.04 19 112.81 207.83 20 113.38 208.64 21 113.91 209.49 22 114.41 210.36 23 114.86 211.25 24 115.26 212.17 25 115.63 213.10 26 115.93 214.00 Circle Center At X = 96.15 ; Y = 220.13 ; and Radius = 20.71 Factor of Safety *** 2.249 *** Failure Surface Specified By 25 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.51 3 99.49 199.62 4 100.48 199.79 5 101.45 200.03 6 102.40 200.33 7 103.34 200.69 8 104.24 201.11 9 105.12 201.59 10 105.96 202.13 11 106.77 202.72 12 107.54 203.36 13 108.27 204.05 14 108.95 204.78 15 109.58 205.56 16 110.15 206.37 17 110.68 207.22 18 111.15 208.11 19 111.55 209.02 20 111.90 209.96 21 112.19 210.92 22 112.42 211.89 23 112.58 212.88 24 112.67 213.87 25 112.68 214.00 Circle Center At X = 97.31 ; Y = 214.86 ; and Radius = 15.40 Factor of Safety *** 2.250 *** Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.51 3 99.49 199.60 4 100.49 199.74 5 101.47 199.93 6 102.44 200.16 7 103.40 200.45 8 104.34 200.77 9 105.27 201.15 10 106.18 201.57 11 107.07 202.03 W:a-a' circular static wall.OUT Page 6 12 107.93 202.53 13 108.77 203.08 14 109.58 203.66 15 110.36 204.29 16 111.11 204.95 17 111.83 205.65 18 112.51 206.38 19 113.15 207.14 20 113.76 207.93 21 114.33 208.76 22 114.86 209.61 23 115.35 210.48 24 115.79 211.38 25 116.19 212.29 26 116.55 213.23 27 116.80 214.00 Circle Center At X = 97.11 ; Y = 220.07 ; and Radius = 20.61 Factor of Safety *** 2.252 *** Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.49 199.62 3 99.47 199.82 4 100.44 200.06 5 101.40 200.34 6 102.35 200.66 7 103.28 201.01 8 104.20 201.41 9 105.10 201.84 10 105.99 202.30 11 106.85 202.80 12 107.70 203.34 13 108.52 203.91 14 109.32 204.51 15 110.09 205.15 16 110.84 205.81 17 111.56 206.51 18 112.25 207.23 19 112.91 207.98 20 113.53 208.76 21 114.13 209.56 22 114.70 210.39 23 115.23 211.24 24 115.72 212.11 25 116.18 212.99 26 116.60 213.90 27 116.65 214.00 Circle Center At X = 94.05 ; Y = 223.88 ; and Radius = 24.66 Factor of Safety *** 2.260 *** Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.46 3 99.50 199.50 4 100.49 199.60 5 101.48 199.75 6 102.46 199.95 7 103.43 200.21 8 104.38 200.52 9 105.31 200.87 10 106.23 201.28 11 107.12 201.73 12 107.98 202.24 13 108.82 202.78 14 109.63 203.37 15 110.40 204.01 W:a-a' circular static wall.OUT Page 7 16 111.14 204.68 17 111.84 205.39 18 112.51 206.14 19 113.13 206.92 20 113.71 207.74 21 114.25 208.58 22 114.74 209.45 23 115.18 210.35 24 115.57 211.27 25 115.92 212.21 26 116.21 213.16 27 116.42 214.00 Circle Center At X = 98.16 ; Y = 218.19 ; and Radius = 18.74 Factor of Safety *** 2.261 *** **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160160 180 200 220 240 Reagan Res. ADU 2200260 A-A' Pseudo Static Wall w:\2020 jobs\2200260 - reagan res. adu, 2453 torrejon pl\reports\slope stability\a-a' pseudo static wall.pl2 Run By: DJF 6/15/2020 03:14PM 1 2 2 2 2 2 bcdefghija # FSa 1.84b 1.84c 1.84d 1.85e 1.85f 1.85g 1.85h 1.85i 1.86j 1.86 SoilDesc. QafTsa SoilTypeNo.12 TotalUnit Wt.(pcf)125.0125.0 SaturatedUnit Wt.(pcf)135.0135.0 CohesionIntercept(psf)250.0Aniso FrictionAngle(deg)33.0Aniso Piez.SurfaceNo.00 Load ValuePeak(A) 0.528(g)kh Coef. 0.150(g)< GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin=1.84Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method CI-IRISTl.1\N W°HEELER E N Glt--l'C R.I NG W:a-a' pseudo static wall.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: 6/15/2020 Time of Run: 03:14PM Run By: DJF Input Data Filename: W:\2020 Jobs\2200260 - Reagan Res. ADU, 2453 Torrejon Pl\Rep orts\Slope Stability\a-a' pseudo static wall.in Output Filename: W:\2020 Jobs\2200260 - Reagan Res. ADU, 2453 Torrejon Pl\Rep orts\Slope Stability\a-a' pseudo static wall.OUT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: W:\2020 Jobs\2200260 - Reagan ReDU, 2453 Torrejon Pl\Reports \Slope Stability\a-a' pseudo static wall.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Reagan Res. ADU 2200260 A-A' Pseudo Static Wall BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 Top Boundaries 6 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 190.00 40.00 190.00 1 2 40.00 190.00 97.00 190.00 2 3 97.00 190.00 97.10 199.00 2 4 97.10 199.00 110.00 214.00 2 5 110.00 214.00 160.00 214.00 2 6 0.00 184.00 40.00 190.00 2 User Specified Y-Origin = 160.00(ft) Default X-Plus Value = 0.00(ft) Default Y-Plus Value = 0.00(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 125.0 135.0 250.0 33.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 125.0 135.0 350.0 34.0 0.00 0.0 0 ANISOTROPIC STRENGTH PARAMETERS 1 soil type(s) Soil Type 2 Is Anisotropic Number Of Direction Ranges Specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise Cohesion Friction Range Direction Limit Intercept Angle No. (deg) (psf) (deg) 1 0.0 350.00 34.00 2 3.0 233.00 22.00 3 90.0 350.00 34.00 ANISOTROPIC SOIL NOTES: (1) An input value of 0.01 for C and/or Phi will cause Aniso C and/or Phi to be ignored in that range. (2) An input value of 0.02 for Phi will set both Phi and C equal to zero, with no water weight in the tension crack. (3) An input value of 0.03 for Phi will set both Phi and C equal to zero, with water weight in the tension crack. Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) = 0.528(g) Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) = 0.150(g) Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) = 0.000(g) Specified Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor = 0.000 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 500 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. W:a-a' pseudo static wall.OUT Page 2 500 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 1 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 97.50(ft) and X = 97.50(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X = 110.00(ft) and X = 140.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = 0.00(ft) 1.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method * * Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated = 500 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max = 6.927 FS Min = 1.838 FS Ave = 2.929 Standard Deviation = 0.825 Coefficient of Variation = 28.16 % Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.51 3 99.49 199.60 4 100.49 199.74 5 101.47 199.93 6 102.44 200.16 7 103.40 200.45 8 104.34 200.77 9 105.27 201.15 10 106.18 201.57 11 107.07 202.03 12 107.93 202.53 13 108.77 203.08 14 109.58 203.66 15 110.36 204.29 16 111.11 204.95 17 111.83 205.65 18 112.51 206.38 19 113.15 207.14 20 113.76 207.93 21 114.33 208.76 22 114.86 209.61 23 115.35 210.48 24 115.79 211.38 25 116.19 212.29 26 116.55 213.23 27 116.80 214.00 Circle Center At X = 97.11 ; Y = 220.07 ; and Radius = 20.61 Factor of Safety *** 1.838 *** Individual data on the 27 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 1.0 69.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 10.5 0.0 0.0 2 1.0 205.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 30.8 0.0 0.0 3 1.0 333.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 49.9 0.0 0.0 4 1.0 451.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 67.6 0.0 0.0 5 1.0 558.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 83.8 0.0 0.0 6 1.0 655.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 98.2 0.0 0.0 7 0.9 739.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 110.9 0.0 0.0 8 0.9 811.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 121.8 0.0 0.0 9 0.9 871.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 130.7 0.0 0.0 10 0.9 917.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 137.6 0.0 0.0 11 0.9 950.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 142.6 0.0 0.0 12 0.8 971.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 145.7 0.0 0.0 13 0.8 979.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 146.9 0.0 0.0 14 0.4 523.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 78.5 0.0 0.0 15 0.4 442.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 66.3 0.0 0.0 16 0.7 879.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 131.9 0.0 0.0 W:a-a' pseudo static wall.OUT Page 3 17 0.7 779.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 117.0 0.0 0.0 18 0.7 681.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 102.2 0.0 0.0 19 0.6 584.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 87.7 0.0 0.0 20 0.6 491.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 73.7 0.0 0.0 21 0.6 402.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 60.3 0.0 0.0 22 0.5 318.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 47.8 0.0 0.0 23 0.5 240.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 36.1 0.0 0.0 24 0.4 170.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 25.6 0.0 0.0 25 0.4 108.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 16.2 0.0 0.0 26 0.4 55.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 8.3 0.0 0.0 27 0.3 12.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1.8 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.49 199.62 3 99.47 199.82 4 100.44 200.06 5 101.40 200.34 6 102.35 200.66 7 103.28 201.01 8 104.20 201.41 9 105.10 201.84 10 105.99 202.30 11 106.85 202.80 12 107.70 203.34 13 108.52 203.91 14 109.32 204.51 15 110.09 205.15 16 110.84 205.81 17 111.56 206.51 18 112.25 207.23 19 112.91 207.98 20 113.53 208.76 21 114.13 209.56 22 114.70 210.39 23 115.23 211.24 24 115.72 212.11 25 116.18 212.99 26 116.60 213.90 27 116.65 214.00 Circle Center At X = 94.05 ; Y = 223.88 ; and Radius = 24.66 Factor of Safety *** 1.841 *** Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.49 199.58 3 99.48 199.73 4 100.46 199.92 5 101.44 200.16 6 102.40 200.43 7 103.35 200.74 8 104.28 201.10 9 105.20 201.49 10 106.11 201.91 11 106.99 202.38 12 107.86 202.88 13 108.70 203.42 14 109.52 203.99 15 110.32 204.59 16 111.09 205.23 17 111.84 205.89 18 112.56 206.59 19 113.24 207.32 20 113.90 208.07 21 114.53 208.85 22 115.12 209.66 23 115.68 210.48 W:a-a' pseudo static wall.OUT Page 4 24 116.20 211.34 25 116.69 212.21 26 117.14 213.10 27 117.55 214.00 Circle Center At X = 95.27 ; Y = 223.64 ; and Radius = 24.28 Factor of Safety *** 1.843 *** Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.49 199.61 3 99.47 199.79 4 100.45 200.00 5 101.42 200.25 6 102.38 200.54 7 103.32 200.86 8 104.26 201.22 9 105.18 201.61 10 106.09 202.03 11 106.98 202.48 12 107.85 202.97 13 108.70 203.49 14 109.54 204.04 15 110.35 204.62 16 111.15 205.23 17 111.92 205.87 18 112.66 206.53 19 113.38 207.23 20 114.08 207.95 21 114.75 208.69 22 115.39 209.46 23 116.00 210.25 24 116.58 211.06 25 117.14 211.89 26 117.66 212.74 27 118.15 213.61 28 118.35 214.00 Circle Center At X = 94.08 ; Y = 226.60 ; and Radius = 27.35 Factor of Safety *** 1.846 *** Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.55 3 99.49 199.69 4 100.47 199.88 5 101.44 200.11 6 102.40 200.39 7 103.35 200.71 8 104.28 201.08 9 105.19 201.50 10 106.08 201.96 11 106.94 202.46 12 107.78 203.00 13 108.60 203.58 14 109.38 204.20 15 110.13 204.86 16 110.85 205.55 17 111.54 206.28 18 112.19 207.04 19 112.81 207.83 20 113.38 208.64 21 113.91 209.49 22 114.41 210.36 23 114.86 211.25 24 115.26 212.17 25 115.63 213.10 26 115.93 214.00 W:a-a' pseudo static wall.OUT Page 5 Circle Center At X = 96.15 ; Y = 220.13 ; and Radius = 20.71 Factor of Safety *** 1.848 *** Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.49 199.62 3 99.47 199.82 4 100.44 200.04 5 101.41 200.30 6 102.36 200.60 7 103.31 200.92 8 104.24 201.28 9 105.17 201.67 10 106.07 202.09 11 106.96 202.54 12 107.84 203.02 13 108.70 203.53 14 109.54 204.07 15 110.36 204.64 16 111.17 205.24 17 111.95 205.86 18 112.71 206.51 19 113.44 207.19 20 114.16 207.89 21 114.85 208.62 22 115.51 209.36 23 116.15 210.13 24 116.76 210.93 25 117.34 211.74 26 117.90 212.57 27 118.42 213.42 28 118.75 214.00 Circle Center At X = 93.36 ; Y = 228.33 ; and Radius = 29.16 Factor of Safety *** 1.850 *** Failure Surface Specified By 28 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.49 199.58 3 99.48 199.74 4 100.46 199.93 5 101.44 200.16 6 102.40 200.43 7 103.35 200.73 8 104.30 201.06 9 105.23 201.43 10 106.14 201.83 11 107.04 202.27 12 107.92 202.74 13 108.79 203.24 14 109.63 203.77 15 110.46 204.34 16 111.26 204.93 17 112.05 205.56 18 112.80 206.21 19 113.54 206.89 20 114.25 207.59 21 114.93 208.33 22 115.58 209.08 23 116.21 209.86 24 116.81 210.66 25 117.37 211.49 26 117.91 212.33 27 118.41 213.20 28 118.84 214.00 Circle Center At X = 94.75 ; Y = 226.44 ; and Radius = 27.11 Factor of Safety W:a-a' pseudo static wall.OUT Page 6 *** 1.852 *** Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.46 3 99.50 199.50 4 100.49 199.60 5 101.48 199.75 6 102.46 199.95 7 103.43 200.21 8 104.38 200.52 9 105.31 200.87 10 106.23 201.28 11 107.12 201.73 12 107.98 202.24 13 108.82 202.78 14 109.63 203.37 15 110.40 204.01 16 111.14 204.68 17 111.84 205.39 18 112.51 206.14 19 113.13 206.92 20 113.71 207.74 21 114.25 208.58 22 114.74 209.45 23 115.18 210.35 24 115.57 211.27 25 115.92 212.21 26 116.21 213.16 27 116.42 214.00 Circle Center At X = 98.16 ; Y = 218.19 ; and Radius = 18.74 Factor of Safety *** 1.854 *** Failure Surface Specified By 27 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.45 3 99.50 199.49 4 100.49 199.59 5 101.48 199.75 6 102.46 199.97 7 103.42 200.24 8 104.36 200.57 9 105.29 200.96 10 106.19 201.39 11 107.06 201.88 12 107.90 202.42 13 108.71 203.01 14 109.49 203.64 15 110.22 204.32 16 110.92 205.04 17 111.57 205.79 18 112.17 206.59 19 112.73 207.42 20 113.24 208.28 21 113.70 209.17 22 114.11 210.08 23 114.46 211.02 24 114.75 211.97 25 114.99 212.94 26 115.18 213.93 27 115.18 214.00 Circle Center At X = 98.26 ; Y = 216.56 ; and Radius = 17.11 Factor of Safety *** 1.860 *** Failure Surface Specified By 26 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) W:a-a' pseudo static wall.OUT Page 7 1 97.50 199.47 2 98.50 199.53 3 99.49 199.65 4 100.48 199.83 5 101.45 200.05 6 102.41 200.33 7 103.35 200.66 8 104.28 201.04 9 105.18 201.47 10 106.06 201.95 11 106.91 202.47 12 107.74 203.04 13 108.53 203.65 14 109.29 204.30 15 110.01 204.99 16 110.70 205.72 17 111.34 206.48 18 111.94 207.28 19 112.50 208.11 20 113.01 208.97 21 113.48 209.85 22 113.90 210.76 23 114.27 211.69 24 114.59 212.64 25 114.86 213.60 26 114.95 214.00 Circle Center At X = 96.74 ; Y = 218.12 ; and Radius = 18.67 Factor of Safety *** 1.862 *** **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT **** Anisotropic Soil Definition so· c=350., phi=34. :::t=======--+-===========R:233., phi=22. c=350., phi=34 . . 90• Soil2 Reagan Res. ADU APPENDIX D SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ASSUMED PARAMETERS z Depth of Saturation (ft)4 a Slope Angle (H:1)1 gW Unit Weight of Water (pcf)62.4 gT Saturated Unit Weight of Soil (pcf)135 f Angle of Internal Friction Along Plane of Failure (degrees)34 c Cohesion Along Plane of Failure (psf)350 FACTOR OF SAFETY c + T (tan f)c + (gT - gW)(z)(cos a)2(tan f) T FS = 1.7 BY: DJF DATE: June 2020 JOB NO.:APPENDIX D2200091.01 REAGAN RESIDENCE ADU 2451 TorrejonPlace, Carlsbad, CA CHRISTIAN WHEELER SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY FS =FS = (gT)(z)(sin a)(cos a) E n g i n e e r i n g z SEEPAGE PARALLEL TO SLOPE a ..,,...,,...,,...,,. ,, * ,,,,' ,, ,, ,, ✓ ✓ ,, ,,' ,, ✓ --------------,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ► I I w Appendix E References CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Appendix E-1 REFERENCES American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7 Hazard Tool, https://asce7hazardtool.online California Emergency Management Agency – California Geological Society – University of Southern California, 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Encinitas Quadrangle, scale 1:24,000, dated June 1, 2009. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2019, San Diego County, California and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map, Map Panel Number 06073C1034H Gregory Geotechnical Software, 2002, GSTABLE7 v.2 Historic Aerials, NETR Online, historicaerials.com Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W. A., 2010, Fault Activity Map, California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6, http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/FAM/faultactivitymap.html KL Drafting and Design, Plot Plan, Reagan ADU, 2453 Torrejon Place, Carlsbad, CA 92009, dated April 8, 2020 Kennedy, Michael P. and Tan, Siang S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’x60’ Quadrangle, California, California Geologic Survey, Map No. 2 Stewart Design & Engineering, Topographic Survey, 2451 Torrejon Place, Carlsbad, California, undated Skempton, A., and Delory, F., 1957, “Stability of Natural Slopes in London Clay,” Proceedings 4th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, London, England, Butterworths, Vol. 2. Tan, S.S., 1995 and Giffen, D.G., Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 95-04 U.S. Geological Survey, Quaternary Faults in Google Earth, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/google.php Appendix F Recommended Grading Specifications – General Provisions CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Appendix F, Page F-1 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - GENERAL PROVISIONS REAGAN RESIDENCE ADU 2451 TORREJON PLACE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GENERAL INTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSERVATION AND TESTING Christian Wheeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechnical Engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend rejection of this work. Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Appendix F, Page F-2 Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content - ASTM D1557 Density of Soil In-Place - ASTM D1556 or ASTM D6938 All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soil which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent formational soil. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground. Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading operations must be totally removed. All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or leach lines, storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Appendix F, Page F-3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or a qualified Structural Engineer. FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks and expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non-structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Appendix F, Page F-4 two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut- back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. Density tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. CUT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the grading with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. CWE 2200260.01 June 15, 2020 Appendix F, Page F-5 SEASON LIMITS Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS - SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and parking lot subgrade, the upper six inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Standard 29-2. OVERSIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over 6 inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material are provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. TRANSITION LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required.