HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 2018-0002; AVIARA APARTMENTS EAST; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2022-10-24REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
AVIARA APARTMENTS – EAST PARCEL
6145 LAUREL TREE LANE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92009
Prepared for
BRIDGE HOUSING
4142 Adams Avenue, Suite 103-627
San Diego, California 92116
Prepared by
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.
9245 Activity Road, Suite 103
San Diego, California 92126
Project No. SD722
October 24, 2022
GR □UP
DELTA
9245 Activity Road, Suite 103, San Diego, CA 92126 TEL: (858) 536-1000
Anaheim – Irvine – Ontario – San Diego – Torrance
www.GroupDelta.com
October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing
4142 Adams Avenue, Suite 103-627
San Diego, California 92116
Attention: Mr. Jeff Williams, Senior Project Manager
SUBJECT: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel
6145 Laurel Tree Lane
Carlsbad, California 92009
Mr. Williams:
Group Delta Consultants (Group Delta) is submitting this geotechnical investigation report to
support the design and construction of a 70 unit, four story “tuck under” apartment complex on a
2.31-acresite (1.49 acres for development). Group Delta prepared this report per the referenced
proposal (Group Delta, 2022).
We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued professional service. Please contact us with
questions or comments, or if you need anything else.
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS
Allison Bieda, P.G. 10048, E.I.T.James C. Sanders, C.E.G. 2258
Project Geologist/Engineer Principal Engineering Geologist
Charles Robin (Rob) Stroop, G.E. 2298
Associate Engineer
Distribution: Addressee – Jeff Williams (jwilliams@bridgehousing.com)
GR □UP DEL TA
Allison Bieda, P.G. 10048, E
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page i
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Scope of Services ....................................................................................................1
1.2 Site Description.......................................................................................................1
1.3 Project Description .................................................................................................2
1.4 Previous Geotechnical Studies................................................................................2
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION.................................................................... 3
3.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS...................................................................3
3.1 Artificial Fill – Undocumented (afu) and Roadway (afr)............................................3
3.2 Young Alluvium (Qya)..............................................................................................4
3.3 Santiago Formation (Tsa)........................................................................................4
3.4 Groundwater...........................................................................................................4
4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS .................................................................................................... 5
4.1 Strong Ground Motion............................................................................................5
4.2 Earthquake Surface Fault-Rupture Hazard..............................................................5
4.3 Liquefaction and Secondary Effects........................................................................6
4.4 Seismic Compaction................................................................................................6
4.5 Landslides and Slope Instabilities............................................................................6
4.6 Seiches and Tsunamis.............................................................................................6
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS .......................................................................................7
5.1 Compressible Soils..................................................................................................7
5.2 Expansive Soils........................................................................................................7
5.3 Reactive Soils..........................................................................................................7
5.4 Stormwater Infiltration...........................................................................................7
6.0 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................. 8
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS...................................................................................................9
7.1 General ...................................................................................................................9
7.1.1 Design Groundwater Elevation ...................................................................9
7.1.2 Seismic Design.............................................................................................9
7.1.3 Surface Drainage.......................................................................................10
7.2 Earthwork .............................................................................................................10
~ GROUP DEL T .L\.
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page ii
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
7.2.1 Site Preparation ........................................................................................11
7.2.2 Remedial Earthwork..................................................................................11
7.2.3 Fill Compaction..........................................................................................12
7.2.4 Reuse of Existing Soils...............................................................................12
7.2.5 Import Soil.................................................................................................12
7.3 Foundation Recommendations.............................................................................13
7.3.1 Post-Tensioned Slabs ................................................................................13
7.3.2 Conventional Shallow Foundations – Accessory Structures......................13
7.3.3 Settlement ................................................................................................14
7.3.4 Lateral Resistance .....................................................................................14
7.4 On-Grade Slabs .....................................................................................................14
7.4.1 Subgrade Support and Preparation...........................................................14
7.4.2 Slab Thickness and Reinforcement............................................................14
7.4.3 Moisture Protection for Interior Slabs.......................................................15
7.5 Earth Retaining Structures....................................................................................15
7.5.1 Free Standing Gravity or Cantilever Retaining Walls.................................15
7.5.2 Temporary Shoring....................................................................................15
7.6 Exterior Surface Improvements ............................................................................16
7.6.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavements....................................................................16
7.7 Interlocking Concrete Pavers................................................................................16
7.7.1 Exterior Concrete Slabs.............................................................................17
7.7.2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation ..............................................................17
8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 17
9.0 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION................................................... 18
10.0 LIMITATIONS.............................................................................................................. 18
11.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 20
~ GROUP DEL T .L\.
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page iii
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
FIGURES
Figure 1 – Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Exploration Location Map
Figure 3A – Cross Section A-A’
Figure 3B – Cross Section B-B’
Figure 4 – Geologic Map
Figure 5 – Regional Fault Map
Figure 6 – Shallow Foundation Dimension Details
Figure 7 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Yielding Retaining Walls
Figure 8 – Wall Drainage Detail
Figure 9 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Cantilever Temporary Shoring
APPENDICES
Appendix A – Previous Subsurface Exploration
Appendix B – Current Subsurface Exploration
Appendix C – Current Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Appendix D – Calculations
~ GROUP DEL T .L\.
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 1
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a geotechnical investigation by Group Delta Consultants
(Group Delta) for a proposed 70 unit, four story “tuck under” apartment complex on a 2.31-acre
site (1.49 acres for development)in Carlsbad,California. Thesite isnortheast of the intersection of
Laurel Tree Lane with Avia Parkway. Figure 1, Site Vicinity Map, shows the location of the site.
The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and
construction. GroupDeltadeveloped therecommendations using informationfrom the previous
geotechnical studies referenced in this report, recent subsurface exploration and laboratory
testing, geologic and geotechnical engineering interpretation and analyses, and our previous
experience with similar geologic conditions.
1.1 Scope of Services
Group Delta prepared this report per the referenced proposal (Group Delta, 2022). We provided
the following scope of services.
Desk study review of the referenced previous geotechnical studies. Appendix A provides
relevant information.
A site reconnaissance and fieldinvestigationconsisting of oneexploratoryboringand three
cone penetrometer tests. Figure 2, Exploration Location Map, shows the approximate
locations of these explorations. Appendix B provides relevant information.
Geotechnical laboratory testing of soil samples collected from the borings. Appendix C
provides the test results.
Engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data to develop geotechnical parameters
and preliminary recommendations for design and construction.
Preparation of this report with our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
1.2 Site Description
The entitlement package (KTGY Architecture + Planning, 2020) refersto the project site as the “East
Parcel”.The siteisnortheastof the intersection of Laurel Tree Lane with Avia Parkway, and slopes
descend from the roadways down to the parcel on the west and south sides. The East Parcel is
lightly vegetated, relatively level land with elevations ranging fromwest to eastof about 90 to 100
feet (NGVD 27). A natural channel with abundant vegetation borders the northern perimeter.
•
•
•
•
•
GROUP DEL T .L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 2
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
1.3 Project Description
Earthwork to form the site will require an estimated 3,140 cubic yards of import to establish a
finished subgrade elevation of approximately 97feet.Cut and fill depths are less than 5 feet, except
in the retained areas as described below.
There will also be five perimeter retaining walls withexposed heights ranging from 1.5 to 10feet.
Most of these walls will be constructed within the existingroadway embankment slopes (i.e., “cut”
retaining walls).The wall along the northern perimeter will retain about 5 feet of new fill. Four of
the walls will conform to SanDiego Regional Standard Drawings C-1, C-4, C-5,and C-6. The highest
wallhas a site specific designbythe Structural Engineer, VCA. Exterior surface improvements will
consist of asphalticconcrete paving drive areas and concrete sidewalks. New underground utilities
will be storm drain, sewer, and domestic and fire water.
The proposed apartment buildings totaling21,097 square feet(ground level)will be 4-story wood
framed with 12-inch thick post-tensioned mat slab foundations. The edge of the post tensioned
mat slab will be 12 inches below the bottom of the mat slab. There will also be 32 carports
supported on conventional shallow foundations.
We have based our understanding of the project from a review of the grading plans (Hunsaker &
Associates, 2022) and the structural plans (VCA, 2022).
1.4 Previous Geotechnical Studies
A previous preliminary geotechnical evaluation (GeoSoils, 2016 and 2018) indicated that 17 to 20
feet of undocumented fill, roadway fill and alluviumoverlie sandstone mappedas belonging to the
Santiago Formation. The geotechnical evaluation report encountered perched groundwater at a
depth of about 21 feet. The report opined that the fill, alluvium and weathered sandstone were
compressible and unsuitable for support of the improvements. The report provided preliminary
recommendations for removal and recompaction, deep foundations, or ground improvement
alternatives.
Thesubsurface exploration within the East Parcel comprised one hollow stem auger test boring to a
depth of 50 feet with associated laboratory testing of soil samples, two Cone Penetration Tests
(CPT) to a depth of 50 feet with shear wave velocity measurements at 5- to 10-foot depth
increments, and one 44-inch-deep percolation test. The Categorization of Infiltration Conditions
Checklist, Form I-8 concluded that full or partial infiltration was not possible. The grading plans
included with the entitlement package show stormwater detention basins.
An earlier geotechnical investigation completed for the Cobblestone Sea Village offsite
improvements (Geocon, 1989), included explorations within Aviara Parkway directly adjacent to
site. The explorations indicate approximately 50 feet of alluvium overlie the Santiago Formation,
~ GR□UP DELT.L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 3
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
however, the soil descriptions and CPT outputs match the information from GeoSoils’investigation.
Therefore, Geocon may have logged the upper weathered Santiago Formation as Alluvium.
An additional 20 feet of roadway fill was placed for the development of what is now Aviara
Parkway.Cross-Section E-E’(Geocon, 1989) indicates that Geocon recommendeda minimumof 5
feet of removal and recompaction below the roadway embankment. They further recommended
extending the removal and recompaction at horizontal distance outside of the toe of the
embankment that is equal the depth of the removal and recompaction.
2.0 FIELD AND LABORATORY INVESTIGATION
The field investigation included a site reconnaissance and advancing one exploratory boring and
three CPT soundings. The field explorations were completed on March 14, 2022. The maximum
depth of exploration was approximately 52 feet. Figure 2, Exploration Location Plan, shows the
approximatelocationsof these explorations.Figures 3A and 3Bare the cross-sections A-A’andB-B’
showing the subsurface conditions encountered. Appendix B provides relevant information.
Soil samples were collectedfrom the borings for laboratory testing. Thetesting program included
sieve analyses and plasticity index testing to classify the soil using the Unified Soil Classification
System. Index tests were also completedto evaluate the soil expansion potential and corrosivity.
The laboratory test results are provided on the Boring Records in Appendix B and in Appendix C.
3.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The site islocated within the PeninsularRanges geomorphic province of California. This province is
characterized by rugged north-south trending mountains separated by subparallel faults and a
coastal plain of subdued landforms underlain by sedimentary formations. The site is within the
coastal region in Carlsbad within a natural drainage underlain by youngalluvium (map symbolQya)
andEocene-aged Santiago Formation(map symbolTsa). Figure 4, Geologic Map, shows the mapped
limits of these geologic units relative to the site.
There are also local areas of fill above these units that is not shown on the geologic map. We
considerthis fill to be “undocumented”since there are norecordsof observation and testing bya
Geotechnical Engineer available for review. This fill stems from prior grading at the site and
development of the adjacent roadways.
3.1 Artificial Fill – Undocumented (afu) and Roadway (afr)
Undocumented artificial fill soils were encountered in all the exploratory borings. The fill soils
typically ranged from about 5 to 13 feet in thickness. The fill soils were primarily observed to
consist of clayey sand (Unified Soil Classification System - SC) and sandy clay (CL). The relative
density and consistency based on drive sampler resistance was loose to medium dense sand and
medium stiff to stiff clay.
~ GR□UP DELT.L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 4
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
Fill associated withthe roadway constructionalso underlies the site. This fill may have been placed
under the observation and testing of a Geotechnical Engineer. While record requests by Group
Delta and GeoTek (GeoTek, 2021) to the City of Carlsbad for as-built geotechnical reportsdid not
provide report(s) of the grading observations for review, an earlier geotechnical investigation
completed for the Cobblestone Sea Villageoffsite improvements (Geocon,1989)has a crosssection
(Section E-E’) for the portion of Aviara Parkway that borders the site. This cross section shows a
recommended minimum of5 feet of removal and recompaction below thecontact of the roadway
embankment with the original ground surface, which is shown to be at an elevation of about 85
feet. Geocon recommended extending the removal along a 1:1 projection beyond the toe of the
embankment to the bottom of removal. Group Delta and Geosoils (Geosoils 2016) did not have
subsurface explorations within this fill for the geotechnical investigation of the eastern site.
However, GeoTek (GeoTek, 2021) locatedsubsurfaceexplorations within this fillin the western site
and reported “The road fill was sufficiently dense enough to cause auger resistance and slight
chatter during field operations, however, blow counts indicate moderate compaction of these fill
soils”.
3.2 Young Alluvium (Qya)
Beneath the undocumented fill in each boring,young alluvium was encountered. The alluvialsoils
primarilyconsisted of sandy clay(CL)andclayey sand (SC), and silty sand (SM). These young alluvial
soils varied in thickness fromabout 4 to 15feet. Therelativedensitiesand consistencies based on
drive sampler resistance was medium dense sands and stiff to very stiff clays.
3.3 Santiago Formation (Tsa)
Sandstone and claystone mapped as the Santiago Formation was encountered in all the borings
and CPTs below the alluviumto the maximumdepth explored, as summarizedbelow. The depth to
this material varied from about 11 feet to 22 feet below the current ground levels.
This material is very weathered, and samples obtained using driven split barrel samplers were
observed to mostly consist of fine to medium grained clayey sand (SC) and silty sand (SM), with
some occasional sandy clay (CL). The relative density based on drive sampler resistance was
medium dense to dense, becoming very dense at depth.
3.4 Groundwater
During our explorationin March 2022, groundwaterwasencountered in the Group Delta boringsat
depthsof about16feet below the existing ground surfaceduring drilling(approximate elevationof
79 feet). This is generally consistent with the groundwater elevation encountered by GeoSoils
during their 2016 investigation, which was at depths of about 17 feet to 21½ feet below grade
(approximate elevations of 79 to 80 feet).
~ GR□UP DELT.L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 5
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
Changes in rainfall, irrigation, or site drainage may produce seepage or perched groundwater at
any location underlying the site. Such conditionsare difficultto predict and are typically mitigated
if and where they occur. Groundwater production wells could influence groundwater levels in
some areas.
4.0 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
The primary geologic hazard is the potential for strong ground motion from a nearby or distant
earthquake. Secondary, but relatively low geologic hazards include soil liquefaction that could
occur from strong ground motion or potential for slope instability. We did not find evidence of a
potential earthquake surface fault rupture, tsunamis or seiches. Geologic hazards are further
described below.
4.1 Strong Ground Motion
The site is in an area of high seismicity, with many faults in the area capable of producing strong
ground motion. The closest active fault to the site is the Rose Canyon fault, located about 8
kilometers (km) to the west. Rose Canyon is generally considered to be capable of producing
earthquakes with a maximum magnitude (MW) of 7. Other regional faults include numerous
offshore faults, including Carlsbad (Mw = 6.7) which is located about 18 km west of the site,
Oceanside (Mw =7.2) which is about 30 km west of the site, Coronado Bank (Mw = 7.4) located
about 34 km west of the site. One of the most active regional faults is the Elsinore fault system,
which consists of a series of sections that are estimated to be capable of producing earthquakes
with a maximum magnitude of 7.8 when theyrupture incombination. The Julian sectionis located
about 36 km northeast of the site. Regional faults are presented in Figure 5, Fault Map.
The site could be subject to moderate to strong ground motion from a nearby or more distant,
largemagnitude earthquakeoccurring during theexpected life spanofthestructure. Thishazard is
managedby structuraldesign usingthe latest editionof the CaliforniaBuildingCode. Seismic design
parameters are provided in the Recommendations section. For the Maximum Considered
Earthquake(MCE) hazard level, the PGAis the geometricmean (MCEG) peak ground acceleration
of 0.52g.
4.2 Earthquake Surface Fault-Rupture Hazard
The potentialfor surface fault rupture isvery low. Surface rupture is the resultof movementon an
active fault reaching the ground surface. The site is not crossed by a Holocene-active fault and
structures intended for human occupancy as defined by the California Geological Survey (CGS,
2018) are located outside of Earthquake Fault Zones. Figure 5, Fault Map, indicates the closest
known Holocene-active fault is the Rose Canyon fault zone that is approximately 5 miles (8
kilometers)westof the site.Small, unnamed faults are closerto the site (Figure 4,Geology Map);
however,thesesmall faults have notruptured within Holocene time and are not consideredactive
by the State of California or the United States Geological Survey (USGS).
~ GR□UP DELT.L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 6
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
4.3 Liquefaction and Secondary Effects
The potential for liquefaction and secondary effects to occur should generally be very low. The
potential for liquefaction may be higher within the southwest portion of the site that may have
originally been a confluence of channels, due to the interpretation of older topography maps and
thepresence of thickeralluvial sands in CPT-03. Thepotential for liquefaction should bevery lowin
the northern and eastern portions of the site, where the groundwater is typically located below the
alluvial soils within the Santiago Formation. In our opinion, mitigation of liquefaction is not
needed.
Liquefaction is the sudden loss of soil shear strength within saturated, loose to medium dense,
sands and non-plastic silts. Liquefaction is caused by the build-up of pore water pressure during
strong ground motion from an earthquake. The secondary effects of liquefaction are sand boils,
settlement, and instabilities within sloping ground. Of these, liquefaction-induced settlement
should be the most likely to occur given the site surface and subsurface conditions.
Group Delta assessed the potential for liquefaction using current cone penetration test data, the
results of laboratory indextesting on soil samples, and the earthquake magnitude and peak ground
acceleration required by the California Building Code and the current standard of practice. The
liquefaction-induced settlementwas estimated to range fromnegligibleto 1.5inches. Appendix D
provides the calculations.
4.4 Seismic Compaction
An additionaleffect of strong ground motionis the potential for densification of looseto medium
granular soils that are above groundwater, referredto as seismic compaction. This hazard should
be low at the site based on our evaluation.
4.5 Landslides and Slope Instabilities
Based on the relatively flat topography of the site, landslides and large-scale slope instability are
not significant design considerations. However, our observations of the slopes ascending the
roadway to Laurel Tree Lane andAviara Parkway suggest that they are susceptible toerosion and
shallow slump failures in the upper foot or two of soils. We understand that part of the site
development includes theplacement of retaining wallsalong these areas, and it is anticipatedthat
theslopes above these walls would be regraded to accommodatethe construction. Assumingsite
grading and preparation follows the Recommendations section of the report, the risk of adverse
slope instability is low.
4.6 Seiches and Tsunamis
Seiches are standing waves that develop within rivers, reservoirs, and lakes from strong ground
motion. There arenot any nearby bodies of water, therefore the risk of seiches is nil.Tsunamis are
sea waves created by the sudden uplift of the sea floor. They are not a design consideration
because of the site elevation above sea level and the distance of the site from the coast.
~ GR□UP DELT.L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 7
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
The primary geotechnical condition at the site requiring engineering mitigation is the
compressibility and low soil shear strength of the undocumented artificial fill and alluvial soils.
5.1 Compressible Soils
The undocumented artificial fill has a potential for adverse differential settlement and/or shear
strength failure due to the variable physical characteristics and relative densities that stem from
the uncontrolled placement and compaction of the fill. The alluvial soils are also potentially
compressible. The loads imposed on these soils from additional fill and shallow foundations are
likely to generate short- and long-term total and settlement.
5.2 Expansive Soils
GeoSoils(2016)reportedthe soils they sampledand tested for Expansive Indexexhibiteda“low”
potential for expansion when tested per ASTM D4829 at the eastern site. Group Delta tested a
clayey soil sample of undocumented fill that also resulted in a “low” potential for expansion.
However, samples of the clay in the western parcel,onthe other sideof Aviara Parkway,indicate a
“medium” expansion potential (GeoSoils, 2016).
5.3 Reactive Soils
One corrosion suite (pH, resistivity, soluble sulfate, and chloride) was conducted at the site using
soil samples obtained within the upper 5 feet of the existing ground level. Appendix C provides
these data.
The samples were tested for water-soluble sulfate content to assess the sulfate exposure of
concrete in contact with the site soils. The test results indicate the on-site soils should have a
negligible potential for sulfate attack. The sulfate content of the finish grade soils should be
evaluated at the completion of earthwork.
Thesamples weretestedforpH,resistivity,and chloride contentto assess the reactivity of the site
soils withburied metals.The test resultsindicatethe on-site soilsmay beverycorrosiveto buried
metals in some portions of site. A Corrosion Consultant may be contacted for specific
recommendations.
5.4 Stormwater Infiltration
The previous study by GeoSoils (2016) performed one percolation test and concluded that the site
does not support either full or partial infiltration. We concur with their assessment.
~ GR□UP DELT.L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 8
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
In our opinion, the site is geotechnically suitable for the proposed development. However,
remedial grading or ground improvementwill beneeded to support the new structureconsidering
the geotechnical conditions at the site combined with the expected structural loads. The design
team should consider using remedial grading by overexcavating the undocumented fill and
replacing it with new structural fill. This approach may be more economical than ground
improvementsince it can be readily accomplished with conventional grading equipment and does
not require a specialty design or additional equipment mobilization. Specific conclusions are
provided below.
Compressible and low shear strength soils underlie the sites. Each site is underlain by a
sequence of undocumented fill over young alluvium that ranges from about 11 to 22 feet
thick.
Competent geotechnical materialsconsisting of very weathered sandstone and claystone
mapped asthe Santiago Formationwas encounteredin the borings below the alluvium to
the maximum depths explored. The top surface of this materialmay varyby about 10 feet
across the site.
Groundwater was encountered at a typical elevationof 79 to 80 feet across the site (about
16 to 21.5 feet below existing grades).
The potential for liquefaction to occur should be very low. The potential for liquefaction
may be higher within the southernportion of thesite due to the presence of a thicker layer
of alluvial sand in that area. The potential for liquefaction may be much lower in other
areas of thesite asgroundwateris generally within the Santiago Formation andnot present
withinthe alluvial soils or fill.Liquefaction-induced settlementwas estimatedto range from
negligible to less than 1.5 inches.
The expansion potential of thenear-surface soils was generally found to be low (EI of 20 to
32in the eastern parcel). However, testingin thenearby western parcel suggeststhat some
soils may have a medium expansion potentialwithin these soils. Additional testing should
be performed during grading to ensure that highly expansive soils are not placed within3
feet of the building slab subgrade.
Corrosion test data indicates that the onsite soils have a negligible potential for sulfate
attack of concrete but may be very corrosive to buried metals based on commonly
accepted criteria. A Corrosion Consultant may be contactedfor specific recommendations.
•
•
•
•
•
•
GR.CUP DEL T .L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 9
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The remainder of this report presents recommendations for the site development and structural
design. We have prepared them for the planned four-story tuck-under apartments that we
understand will be supported using post-tensionedmat slabfoundations, and the associated site
improvements. The recommendations consider that the site formation will require relatively
limited cut and fill earthwork (about 10 to 15 feet) and that exterior surface improvements will
primarily consist of asphalt concrete paving. If these recommendations do not address a specific
feature of the project, please contact Group Delta for additions or revisions.
We havebased these recommendations using empirical and analytical methods that are typical of
the standards of practice in southern California and the San Diego area. They will need to be
updated for the design development, and the results of field testing (e.g., ground improvement
pilot studies) or actual subsurface conditions encountered during construction.
7.1 General
7.1.1 Design Groundwater Elevation
We recommend a design ground water elevation of 80 feet. Note this elevation may differ from
groundwater levels that could be encountered during construction.
7.1.2 Seismic Design
The site classificationfor seismic design is Site Class DperChapter 20 of ASCE 7-16.Mappeddesign
acceleration parameters are presented in the tablebelow. Per Section 11.4.8 of ASCE 7-16, a site-
specific ground motion hazard analysis is requiredfor “structures on Site Class Dand E siteswith S1
greater thanor equal to0.2”, unless certain exceptions are met. The mapped design acceleration
parameters provided can only be used if Exception 2 of ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4.8 is met:
S: The value of the seismic responsecoefficient CS is determined by Eq. (12.8-2), i.e.,
SDS is used to obtain CS, or
If TL S: The value of seismic response coefficient CS is taken as 1.5 times the value
computed in Eq. (12.8-3), i.e., 1.5*SD1 is used to obtain CS, or
L: The value of seismic response coefficientCSis taken as 1.5 times thevalue computed in
Eq. (12.8-4), i.e., 1.5*SD1 is used to obtain CS.
Based on thisexception, if the fundamental period is less than or equal to 1.5TS, SDS mustbe used
to determine the seismic response coefficient, CS,with equation 12.8-2. If the fundamental period
is higher than 1.5 TS (longer period structures), then the determination of CS is increased by a factor
of 1.5.
• lfT:S 1.5 T
• 2: T > 1.5 T
• lfT>T
GR.CUP DEL T .L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 10
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
MAPPED SEISMIC DESIGN ACCELERATION PARAMETERS
(ASCE 7-16 Section 11.4)
Design Parameters Mapped Value
Site Latitude 33.12208
Site Longitude -117.30127
Ss (g)1.035
S1 (g)0.375
Site Class D
Fa 1.086
Fv 1.925
TS (sec)0.642
TL (sec)8
SMS(g)1.124
SM1 (g)0.722
SDS (g)0.7491
SD1 (g)0.4812
1: For T .5 Ts, SDS should be used only to obtain Cs using Equation 12.8-2.
2: If SD1 is used to obtain CS with either equation 12.8-3 or 12.8-4 of ASCE 7-16, the value
must be increased by a factor of 1.5. This may only be used for T > 1.5 TS.
7.1.3 Surface Drainage
Foundation and slab performance depend on how well surface runoff drains from the site. The
ground surface should be graded so that water flows rapidly away from the structures and tops of
slopes without ponding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this may depend on the planned
landscaping. Planters should be built so that water will not seep into the foundation, slab, or
pavement areas.If roof drains are used, the drainage should be channeled by pipe to storm drains
or discharge 10 feet ormore from buildings. Irrigation should be limited to that needed to sustain
landscaping. Excessive irrigation, surface water, water line breaks, or rainfall may cause perched
groundwater to develop within the underlying soil.
7.2 Earthwork
Earthwork should be conducted per the current applicable requirements of the County of San
Diego, the California Building Code, and the project specifications (that will be prepared). This
report provides the following recommendations forspecific aspects ofearthwork, which may need
to be revised based on the conditions observed during construction.
:51
GR.CUP DEL T .L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 11
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
7.2.1 Site Preparation
General site preparation should begin with the removal of deleterious materials and demolition
debris from the site, such as landscaping and topsoil, existing structures, foundations, concrete
slabs, asphalt concrete, demolition debris, and any potentially expansive soils (EI>50) located
within 24 inches of the planned finished subgrade elevations. Areas disturbed by demolition
should be restored with a subgrade that is stabilized to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical
Engineer.
Areas to receive fill should be scarified 12 inches and recompacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry
density based on ASTM D1557. In areas of saturated or “pumping” subgrade, a geogrid such as
Tensar BX-1200, Terragrid RX1200 or Mirafi BXG120 may be placed directly on the excavation
bottom, and then covered with at least 12 inches of ¾-inch Aggregate Base (AB). Once the subgrade
is firm enoughto attain compaction with the AB, the remainder of the excavationmay be backfilled.
It may be necessary to place additional AB to stabilize the subgrade sufficiently to place fill.
Existing subsurface utilities that will be abandoned should be removed and the excavations
backfilled and compacted as described below. Alternatively, abandoned pipes may be grouted
using a two-sack sand-cement slurry under the observation of the Geotechnical Engineer.
7.2.2 Remedial Earthwork
The table below provides requirements for remedial earthwork at the site for support of new
improvements. It is our opinion this remedial earthwork should provide satisfactory long term
performance of the improvements.
REMEDIAL EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS
Type of Improvement Minimum Depth of
Overexcavation
Lateral Extent of
Overexavation
beyond Improvement
Main Building Foundations ~ 10 feet (all Undocumented Fill)
1 5 feet
Accessory Building Foundations 2 feet below bottom of footing 2 feet
Exterior Surface Improvements 2 feet below finished subgrade
2 2 feet
Notes:
1. The recommended remedial grading 10 feet is an average depth. The Geotechnical Engineerand/or their field
designate will determine the actual depth during grading.
2. The Geotechnical Engineer and/or their field designate should pot-hole, and probe the bottom of retaining
wall foundations to further evaluate foundationbearing.Itmaybenecessaryto locally remove andrecompact
additional potentially unsuitable foundation soil, or replace these materials with cement-sand slurry or
compacted gravel surrounded with filter fabric.
GR.CUP DEL T .L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 12
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
The bottom of theexcavation should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation section
of thisreport. The excavationshouldbe fill with the excavatedsoils, or otheronsitesoilsor import
soils that are placed and compacted as recommended in the Fill Placement and Compaction
section.
7.2.3 Fill Compaction
All fill and backfill shouldbe placedat slightly above optimum moisture contentusing equipment
that can produce a uniformly compacted product. The loose lift thickness should be 8 inches,
unless performance observed and testing during earthwork indicates a thinner loose lift is needed,
or a thicker loose lift is possible, up to a loose lift thickness of 12 inches. The recommended
relative compaction is 90 percentor more,or 95 percentor morewhere specified,of the maximum
dry density based on ASTM D1557.
A two-sack sand and cement slurry may also be used for structural fill as an alternative to
compacted soil. It has been our experience that slurry is oftenusefulin confined areas thatmay be
difficult to access with typical compaction equipment. Samples of the slurry should be fabricated
and tested for compressive strength during construction. A 28-day compressive strength of 100
pounds per square inch (psi)or more is recommended for the sand and cement slurry. Gravel (¾-
inch)completely wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140N,or approved equivalent)may alsobe used as
backfill in confined areas.
7.2.4 Reuse of Existing Soils
Most of the existing soils at the site should be suitable for reuse. Soil with an EI greater than 20
should beplacedat depths greater than 5 feet belowfinished subgradeordisposed offsite. Rocks
or concrete fragments greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension should not be reused.
7.2.5 Import Soil
TheAvira East project plans for 3,140cubic yardsof import. In general,import for fill should consist
of granular soil with less than 35 percent passing the No. 200 sieve based on ASTM C136, a
maximum particle size of 3 inches, and an Expansion Index(EI) less than 20 based on ASTM D4829.
Imported fill sources should be observed prior to hauling onto the site. The project Geotechnical
Engineer should test samples of all proposed import to evaluate the suitability of these soils for
their planned use.
During earthwork,soil types may be encountered by theContractorthatdo notconform to those
discussed within this report. The Geotechnical Engineer should evaluate the suitability of these
soils for their proposed use.
~ GR□UP DELT.L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 13
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
7.3 Foundation Recommendations
7.3.1 Post-Tensioned Slabs
A post-tension slab foundation may be designed to bear directly on the low expansion potential
clayey soils (EI less than 50). The subgrade should be prepared following the earthwork
recommendations above. Provided below are preliminary post-tension slab foundation design
parameters. Group Delta developed these parametersusing PTI DC10.5, Standard Requirements
for Design and Analysis of Shallow Post-Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive and Stable
Soils (PTI, 2019).
Preliminary Post-Tension Slab Design Parameters:
Moisture Variation, em: Center Lift: 9.0 feet
Edge Lift: 5.2 feet
Differential Swell, ym: Center Lift: 0.4 inches
Edge Lift: 0.7 inches
Allowable Bearing: 1,000 pound per square foot (psf) at slab subgrade*
Minimum Thickness: 12 inches
* Internal bearing values within the perimeter of the post-tension slab may be
increased to 1,500 psf for a minimumembedment of 12 inches, then by 20 percent
for each additional foot of embedment to a maximum of 2,500 psf.
7.3.2 Conventional Shallow Foundations – Accessory Structures
Continuous strip and isolated spread footings for accessory structures such as carports, retaining
walls, and other minor structures, may be designed using the following geotechnical parameters
and recommendations, whichassumes site preparationand foundation subgrade is completed as
recommended in this report.
Allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf).
The above parameters assume infinite level ground in front of the footing.
Bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for short term seismic and wind loads.
Minimum width and embedment as shown in Figure 6, Shallow Foundation Dimension
Details.
Reinforcement should be provided by the Structural Engineer.
•
•
•
•
•
GR.CUP DEL T .L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 14
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
7.3.3 Settlement
Total settlement should not exceed 1 inch and the differential settlement over typical column
spacing (horizontal distance of 30 to 40 feet) should not exceed ½ inch, provided the site
preparation and grading is completed as recommended in this report. The majority of the
settlement should occur when loads are applied.
In additionto static settlement, the site mayexperiencesomedynamic settlement, withtotal and
differential dynamic settlements on the order of 1 ½ inches and ¾ inches or less, respectively.
7.3.4 Lateral Resistance
Lateral loads against the structure may be resisted by friction between the bottoms offootingsand
slabs and the underlying soil, as well as passive pressure from the portion of vertical foundation
members embedded into compactedfill. A coefficient of friction of 0.25and a passive pressure of
250 psf per foot of depth may be used.
7.4 On-Grade Slabs
Conventional concrete slabsshould have slab thickness, control joints, and reinforcementdesigned
by the project structural engineer and should conform to the requirements of the current California
Building Code.
7.4.1 Subgrade Support and Preparation
We recommend removing the upper 24 inches of soils below finished subgrade elevation and
properly recompacting these soils as recommended in this report. Where expansive soils are
encountered in the upper 24 inches of subgrade, which are soils with an EI greater than 20, we
recommend removing and replacing them with properly compacted non-expansive soils (EI less
than 20).
7.4.2 Slab Thickness and Reinforcement
There are several chart solutions (ACI, 2006) to complete analyses to develop the slab-on-grade
thickness and reinforcement for preliminary evaluation. These charts use modulus of subgrade
reaction (k). We recommend using 100 pounds per cubic inch (pci). Where software is used, the
GeotechnicalEngineershould review the specific input parameter neededandhow it isapplied in the
software used by the Structural Engineer. The slab thickness, control joints, and reinforcement
should be designed by the Structural Engineer considering the type of support (structural or
subgrade) and should conform to the requirements of the current California Building Code.
~ GR□UP DELT.L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 15
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
7.4.3 Moisture Protection for Interior Slabs
Moisture protection should comply with requirements of the current CBC, American Concrete
Institute (ACI 302.1R-15), and the desired functionality of the interior ground level spaces. The
Architect typically specifies an appropriate level of moisture protection considering allowable
moisture transmission rates for the flooring or other functionality considerations.
Moisture protection may be a “Vapor Retarder” or “Vapor Barrier” that use membranes with a
thickness of 10 and 15 mil or more, respectively. ACI 302.1R-15provides a flow chart to determine
when and where these membranes should be used. Note the CBC specifies a Capillary Break, as
defined and installed per the California Green Building Standards, with a Vapor Retarder.
7.5 Earth Retaining Structures
7.5.1 Free Standing Gravity or Cantilever Retaining Walls
Site development may include relatively low height free standing gravity and/or cantilever retaining
wallsthat could be constructed with masonry block or cast-in-place reinforced concrete. Some of
the retaining wall designs may adopt City or County of San Diego Standards. Permanent cantilever
retaining walls should be free to yield at the top at least ½ percent of the wall height and may be
designed using the earth pressure diagram presented in Figure 7 for level backfill or 2H:1V
(horizontal to vertical ratio) sloping backfill. The lateral earth pressures provided assume the on-
site low expansive soils will be reused as backfill placed within 5 feet horizontally of the back face
of the retaining wall and within a 1:1 plane projected upand away from back of footing. Figure 8
provides recommendations for subsurface drainage behind the wall to avoid the buildup of
hydrostatic pressures from irrigation, surface runoff, or leaking underground utilities.
The toe pressures and backfill friction angles typically used for City and/or County Standard
Drawings and corresponding retaining wall designs should not exceed the allowable bearing
pressure where fill has been placed. However, there maybe a need to selectively use the existing
soil as backfill. A Geotechnical Engineer should review the requirements of the specific standard
retaining wall design and where the wall will be used.
7.5.2 Temporary Shoring
The Exploration LocationPlan shows the anticipated locations for shoring .Cantilevered temporary
retaining walls may be designed using the earth pressure diagrams and other geotechnical
parameters provided in Figure 9. Special construction methods may be needed for installation of
soldier piles.
Typical shoring systems should be designed against geotechnical failure mechanisms, such as
external stability, foundation heave, and hydraulic failure. The shoringdesigner should coordinate
with the Geotechnical Engineer during the shoring design to address these potential failure
~ GR□UP DELT.L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 16
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
mechanisms. The shoring designer is responsible for evaluating structural, facing, and internal
failure mechanisms, such as the lateraland axial capacity of the soldier pile (bending or penetration
failure), rupture of the temporary ground anchor, yielding of the lagging, headed stud failure,
facing flexure and punching shear failure, nail tensile, bending or shear failure, and nail-soilpull out
failure among others. The shoring designer should verify locations of existing foundations and
utilities to avoid anchor conflicts and should select appropriate tieback and soil nail depths and
inclinations.
7.6 Exterior Surface Improvements
7.6.1 Asphalt Concrete Pavements
Exterior surface improvements will be Asphalt Concrete (AC) paving for the new service road.
Preliminary sections are summarized below for an R-Value of 12.
PRELIMINARY ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Traffic Index Asphalt Section
(inches)
Class 2 Aggregate Base
Section
(inches)
5.0 4.0 6.0
6.0 4.0 10.0
7.7 Interlocking Concrete Pavers
Interlocking concrete paver block design was developed using Technical Specification No. 4 of the
Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI). For preliminary designpurposes, we have assumed
that the paver blocks will have a minimum nominal thickness of 80 mm. The 80 mm concrete paver
blocks were assumed to be equivalent to 3-inches of asphalt concrete. An R-Value of 12 was
assumed for preliminary design, based on the soils anticipated on site and our experience with
similar material. The following preliminary paver block pavement sections apply:
PRELIMINARY INTERLOCKING CONCRETE PAVER SECTIONS
Traffic Index Paver Section
(mm)
Class 2 Aggregate Base
Section
(inches)
5.0 80 9.0
GR.CUP DEL T .L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 17
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
7.7.1 Exterior Concrete Slabs
Exterior slabs and sidewalks should be at least 4 inches thick. Crack control joints should be placed
on a maximumspacing of 10-foot centers, each way, for slabs,and on 5-foot centers for sidewalks.
The potential for differential movements across the control joints may be reduced by using steel
reinforcement. Typical steel reinforcement would consist of 6x6 W2.9/W2.9 welded wire fabric
placed securely at mid-height of the slab or sidewalk. Expansion Index (EI) tests should be
performed on the finished subgrade and expansive soils below exterior slabs and sidewalks should
be mitigated per the Geotechnical Engineer asneeded if and where they occur during construction.
7.7.2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation
The upper 12 inches of vehicular pavement subgrade should be scarified immediately prior to
constructing the paving, brought toslightly aboveoptimum moisturecontent,andcompacted to 95
percent or more of the maximum dry density per ASTM D1557. The upper 12 inches of sidewalk
pavement subgrade should be scarified immediately prior to constructing the paving, brought to
slightly aboveoptimum moisturecontent,and compacted to 90percentormoreof the maximum
dry density per ASTM D1557.
Aggregate Base, where specified, should also be brought to slightly above optimum moisture
content and compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. Imported aggregate base
should conform to Caltrans Standard Specifications ¾-inch maximum Class 2 Aggregate Base
(Caltrans, 2018).
8.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Construction of the new structure and improvements will need to adapt to the geotechnical
conditions at the site. Summarized below are the primary geotechnical-related construction
considerations known at this time.
Existing undocumentedfill is anticipated to be on the order of5 to13 feet deep. Remedial
grading up to 10 to 15 feet in depth should be anticipated.
For the temporary slopes andshoring, the Contractor should monitorpotential horizontal
or vertical movementof the ground surrounding the excavation. Existing utilitiesto remain
in place, City of Carlsbad pavements, sidewalks and infrastructure, and structures, should
be protected in-place during construction.
Cal-OSHA Soil Type C may be assumed for preliminary planning purposeswhere site surface
and groundwater conditions allow for open cut excavation.
Analyses of the stability of the proposed temporary slopes with 1:1 (h:v) inclinations that
are shown on the grading plans indicate they should perform satisfactorily. We have
adopted a factor of safety (FS) of 1.2 as suitable for the evaluation of the short-term
stability of the temporary slopes. Appendix D provides a typical calculation.
•
•
•
•
GR.CUP DEL T .L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 18
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
9.0 GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES DURING CONSTRUCTION
Geotechnical services during construction are anticipated to consist of the following activities:
Continuous onsiteobservation andcompaction testing by a Geotechnical Technician during
earthwork with associated laboratory testing (e.g., compaction curves, physical and
engineering properties of engineered fill and import soils, confirming R-Value tests, etc.).
Full and part-time observation and compaction testing by a Geotechnical Technician as
needed during the backfill of underground utility trenches and retaining walls, the
preparation of pavement subgrade and aggregate base, and the placement of asphalt
concrete. Full time observationis needed when trenchexcavations are too deep to safely
enter for compaction testing.
Observation by a Geotechnical Technician to observe that remedial grading removal
bottoms extend to the correct depth and bearing strata is suitable.
Observation by a GeotechnicalTechnician to observethat shallowfoundationexcavations
have the correct plan dimensions and extend to the correct depth and bearing strata is
suitable.
Geotechnical observations and testing for retaining wall subdrains and hardscape
improvements, as needed to supplement the observations made by the Contractor’s
Competent Person.
Geologic observations of temporary slopes.
Consultation by the Geotechnical Engineer for unforeseen conditions, responding to
Requests for Information and Submittals, and attending construction coordination
meetings.
Preparation of an As-Built Geotechnical Report.
10.0 LIMITATIONS
The recommendations in this report are preliminary and subject to revision from changes that
occur during design development orfromthe results of fieldtesting or actual subsurface conditions
encountered during construction. Group Delta needs to continue to be part of the project design
and construction for these recommendations to remain valid. If another geotechnical consultant
provides these services, they should prepare a letter indicating their intent to assume the
responsibilities of the project Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record. This letter should also indicate
their concurrence with the recommendations in the reportor revise them as neededto assume the
role of the project Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record.
This report was prepared using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing insimilarlocalities.No warranty,
express or implied,ismade as to theconclusions and professional opinions includedin thisreport.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
GR.CUP DEL T .L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 19
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
The findings ofthis report are valid as of the present date. However,changesin theconditionofa
property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of
humanson this or adjacent properties. In addition,changesin applicable or appropriate standards
of practice may occurfrom legislation or the broadeningofknowledge. Accordingly, the findings of
this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this
report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.
~ GR□UP DELT.L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 20
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
11.0 REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (2015). ACI 302.1R-15 Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab
Construction.
American Concrete Institute (2006). ACI 360-06 Design of Slabs-on-Ground.
American Society for Testing and Materials (2018). Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4,
Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock (I); Volume 04.09 Soil and Rock (II);
Geosynthetics, March.
California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), (2016). 2016 California Building Code (CBC),
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, dated: July 1.
California Emergency Management Agency (2009). Web Hazard Mitigation Portal, FEMA
California Specific Flood Areas.
CAL/OSHA (2018). Title 8 Regulations, Subchapter 4. Construction Safety Orders, Article 6.
Excavations. https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/1541_1.html
Google, Inc. (2021). Google Earth Pro application, https://www.google.com/earth/desktop/:
accessed August.
Geocon (1989).Addendum Geotechnical Investigation for Offsite Improvements; Cobblestone
Road and College Boulevard; Cobblestone Sea Village 1 and 2.June 1989.
GeoSoils, 2018.Geotechnical Response to City of Carlsbad Comments, Aviara Apartments, 6145
Laurel Tree Road, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. November 26.
GeoSoils, 2016. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, 9.2 Acres, APN 212-040-56-00, Laurel Tree
Lane at Aviara Parkway, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California. July 7.
GeoTek, 20121. Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Aviara Apartments Development, 6145 Laurel
Tree Lane, Carlsbad, California 92009. November 11.
KTGY Architecture & Planning, 2020. Aviara Apartments, Carlsbad, CA, Conceptual Design.
Group Delta Consultants, Inc. (2022). Proposal for Geotechnical Services, Aviara Apartments –
East Parcel, 6145 Laurel Tree Lane, Carlsbad, California 92009, Proposal No. SD21-066,
dated January 20.
Hunsaker & Associates (2022). Grading Plans for Aviara Apartments East, Draft 7/15/22.
Kennedy, M. P., and Tan, S. S. (2008). Geologic Map of the San Diego 30’x60’ Quadrangle,
California: California Geologic Survey, Scale 1:100,000.
KTGY Architecture & Planning, 2020. Aviara Apartments, Carlsbad, CA, Conceptual Design
Plans. January 24.
GR.CUP DEL T .L\
Report of Geotechnical Investigation Project No. SD722
Aviara Apartments – East Parcel October 24, 2022
BRIDGE Housing Page 21
2022-10-24 BRIDGE Aviara East GeoRpt (Group Delta).doc
Post-Tensioning Institute, 2019. Standard Requirements for Design and Analysis of Shallow
Post-Tensioned Concrete Foundations on Expansive and Stable Soils,June 19.
Structural Engineers Association of California and Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development (SEAOC/OSHPD, 2019).Seismic Design Maps Online Tool,
https://seismicmaps.org/, accessed August 18.
~ GR□UP DELT.L\
_..___
0
I REFERENCE: SAN LUIS REY AND ENCINITAS QUADRANGLES (USGS, 2018)
AVIARA APARTMENTS-EAST PARCEL 6145
LAUREL TREE LANE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SITE VICINITY MAP
R□UF DELTA
PROJECT NUMBER: FIGURE NUMBER:
S0722 1
I l I i l i
h ,.
ll ii ,~ '~ H
0 •
0
40' --80'
-1
LEGEND:
♦s-1 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
• CPT-1 APPROXIMATE CPT LOCATION
A A" L...__...J CROSS SECTION LOCATION
D. CPT-1 CPT LOCATION (GEOSOILS, 2018)
t8C1 BORING LOCATION (GEOSOILS, 2018)
1-1 INFILTRATION TEST (GEOSOILS, 2016)
.t. CPT-2 CPT LOCATION (GEOCON, 1989)
QB-14 BORING LOCATION (GEOCON, 1989)
l!!:)T-36 TRENCH LOCATION (GEOCON, 1989)
95.S0TW
94.10TF
TW = TOP OF WALL ELEVATION
TF = TOP OF FOOTING ELEVATION
P = PAD ELEVATION
FF= FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
97.60TW
93.40 TF
ARTIFICIAL UNDOCUMENTED FILL I ARTIFICIAL ROADWAY FILL'
'FOR CLARITY, a.t SHOWN ON CROSS SECTIONS ONLY
X 96.4 SPOT ELEVATION OF EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' \ _,t¥,~ ' d-'-",p;,,11
\ ;i~;,f~1
\ //~~ct
\ /
'~ETAINING WALL
P!,R SDRSD C-4
\ X 97.2
\ 97.60TW
\ 94.B0TF
RETAINING WALL
PER SDRSD C-5
RETAINING WALL PER HUNTSAKER AND ASSOCIATES (2022)
DETAILS. PAGE20AND21.
X 99.0
RETAINING WALL
PER SDRSD C-1
REFERENCE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OBTAJNEO FROM HUNTSAKER &ASSOCIATES, {2022). GRADING PLANS ANO ONSITE
IMPROVEMENTS FOR: AVIARAAPARTMENTS EAST, 6145 LAUREL TREE ROAD, CARLSBAD, CA. SHEETS 1 THROUGH 21. DATED JULY 15.
AVIARA APARTMENTS-EAST PARCEL ,A GR□UP DEL TL\
6145 LAUREL TREE LANE EXPLORATION LOCATION PLAN
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SD722 2
PROPOSED FINISHED FLOOR PROPOSED BUILDING LIMIT PROPOSED PAD
I I i l i
h ,.
EXISTING GRADE
A
100
90
-?-
80
i=' !:!:,
z 0 70 ?-~ ;;
UJ ....J UJ
60
50
40 LEGEND:
N22E
Tsa
I I
10 500
MAXJMUM DEPTH: 51.71 (ft)
~ -80RINGL0G BULKSAMPLER -?-~~~:~~E~iO~i;~~~~)TACT
10 500
MAXIMUM DEPTH· 25.46 (ft)
500
MAXIMUM DEPTH: 46.06 (ft)
A'
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
i=' !:!:,
z 0 ~ ;;
UJ ....J UJ
V
]
b H
D' 10' 20'
REFERENCE: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OBTAJNEO FROM HUNTSAKER &ASSOCIATES, {2022). GRADING PLANS ANO ONSITE
IMPROVEMENTS FOR: AVIARAAPARTMENTS EAST, 6145 LAUREL TREE ROAD, CARLSBAD, CA. SHEETS 1 THROUGH 21. DATED JULY 15.
Joi: f;~-~-,. ',I :::... .. • .. ~--uscs/sc~_--.-·:~1/sPTSAMPLER NOTES: _ -SOIL Cl ~ 37--......,BLOWCOUNTS. N -~I!! 8.0 4.0 0 200 400 TYPE CL B<ODCALSAMPLER eo 1) ~pe;;~~~~E,ANDLOCATIONSARE AVIARAAPARTMENTS-EASTPARCEL A GR□UP DEL TL\
;~ rricflon llp 2) EXISTING GRADES ARE TAKEN FROM PRELIMINARY 6145 LAUREL TREE LANE CROSS SECTION A-A' ~1 ... __ .... _<Xl __ 'i_~ _______________________ AI._T_A_'"-·-·•-LAN--D-TIT_L_•_•u_R_ve_v_(_RE_c_.201_•_i _____ c_A_RL_s_s_AD_._c_A_LI_Fo_R_"_'A ___________________ s_D1._22 __ .... ___ 3_A.__
110
100
90
[ 80 z 0 ~ > ~ 70 w
60
50
~ § ~ ~ '°¥ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ tlj
>-~! B !!~
PROPOSED BUILDING LIMIT .-~ / N68W § •§ ~§
EXISTING GRADE -b ·-Co ";, 0 o, ~. ~~ ~~ PROPOSED FINISHED FLOOR ..... ~.., B' ~ ~[~ ~ ~~
~---------I~==-±=_=~~~=--=-=====---~, ~~--, ... ,r:·~I I~ ---:N;:U,::T::F:~:~-r------->--/ROADWAY FILL (a,)
~~
I
~ :u ~i i~ ii 110
100
I
"
---~1----~?----+,/'-?-,tlffb-90
Qal
.. b .
SCAI.EIFT):
80 [
z 0 ~
70 > ~ w
60
50
MAXJMUMDEPTH,ro.~ift)
40
REFEREMCE,.-DDITl0MM.,.FORMATION08TNIEDf-Hl..tfTSMEJl6ASSOCl,\TE8,(2022).CllWll'IGP!Hl8N<OO'ISITE NPI\O',El,IEJITSfl:lll;--Tl,l81lSEAS'l,.1 .. lAIREl'IREEROOD,<:Ml.88,0D,<:A.a!EE'lll'IH-:11.DATEO,a,,Lf1f. "~:~~~~~EL cRossSECTIONB-B' A u~□UF'DELT"
CARLSS,,,O,CAUFORl'-IA
0 4000'2000'
SD722
FIGURE NUMBER:PROJECT NUMBER:
AVIARA APARTMENTS-EAST PARCEL6145 LAUREL TREE LANE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA GEOLOGY
REFERENCE: CGS, 2007, GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE OCEANSIDE 30' X 60' QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA
FILE PATH: \\192.168.10.4\files$\Projects\SD\SD700\SD722 Bridge Housing Aviara Apts Geotechnical Investigation\11. Drafting\SD722 Figure 5.dwgPLOTTED DATE: 4/11/2022 10:57:33 AM SAVED BY: josemigueltPROJECT SITE
ABBREVIATED EXPLANATION
Approximate stratigraphic relationships only;
Alluvial flood-plain deposits (late Holocene)
Young alluvial flood-plain deposits (Holocene and late Pleistocene)
Old paralic deposits, undivided (late to middle Pleistocene)
Unit7 10oP7-sl Units7-8 I OoP5-7 I Units6-7
Unit6 I Oop4.5 I I Oop2.e I Units4-6 Units2-6
Unit4
1 Oop2.4 I Uni!s2-4
Unit3 I Oop1.2 I Units 1-2 [§ Units Qop1 Unit 1 -Qvop13 '
Very old paralic deposits, undivided (middle to early Pleistocene)
Unit 13
Unit 12
Unit11
Unit 10
Unit9
UnilR
Unit?
Unit5
Unit4
Unit3
Unit2
Unit1
lovoP11-12I Units 11-12
10vop,0-,, I Units 10-11
lavo1>s--10I Uni!s9-10
I Ovops-9 I Uni!s8-9
I Ovll!>r-s I Units 7-8
I Ovopz.3 I Uni!s2-3
lavop10-1JI Units 10-13
Strike and dip of beds
...1!!. Inclined
~ Overturned
Vertical
EB Horizontal
Santiago Formation (middle Eocene)
Point Loma Formation (Upper Cretaceous)
Lusardi Formation {Upper Cretaceous)
Metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks, undivided (Mesozoic)
Fault -Solid where accurately located; dashed where
approximately located; dotted where concealed. U = upthrown
block, D = downthrown block. Arrow and number indicate
direction and angle of dip of fault plane.
Slump -Solid where well defined, dashed where inferred. Arrows
indicate direction of movement
0 ·-·-
MAP
11 E~ o .~
• >M6EQ
(@)
M6-M5
~
M5-M4
Seismic Faults
Historical <lSOyrs
< 15,000 yrs
< 130,000 yrs
~ ~ REFERENCE: ~o ~ ~ GOOGLE EARTH, IMAGERY DATE, 8/5/2021 USGS, EARTHQUAKE CATALOG, ~~ ACCESSED 11/26/2019 H USGS & CGS, QUATERNARY FAULT AND FOLD DATABASE, ACCESSED 3/4/2020 u ~~ ! ~ AVIARA APARTMENTS-EAST PARCEL
.a~ 6145 LAUREL TREE LANE FAULT MAP
~ GR□UP DEL T~
PROJECT NUMBER: FIGURE NUMBER: ~ ~ CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA i~ ____________________________ ._ _____________ ._....,s_o_1_2_2_.., __ s ___ _
II II II 1
1111 1111 1111
' "
I ,1,1
•
r
l • L
MINIMUM FOOTING WIDTH = 24 INCHES
SQUARE FOOTING
•
CONCRETE SLAB
✓.-..~--;,:~.:(-.::~~-:::.';,:~.;,-.:,:;~~-:::.
111111111 ~ " " " VAPOR MEMBRANE ANO SAND 1•1111 II
11 II ,,"" FINISHEO PAD SUBGRADE
MINIMUM
FOOTING
DEPTH = 24 INCHES
CONCRETE SLAB
II II ,,I'' II 111
FINISHED PAD SUBGRADE
l,11 I I' tll Ill 1
II II II 11
' '
CONCRETE SLAB
FINISHED PAD
SUBGRADE VAPOR
MEMBRANE
AND SAND
1111 11
"' MINIMUM
FOOTING
DEPTH
I ~INl~~M ~~OTING· I
WIDTH = 18 INCHES
INTERIOR CONTINUOUS FOOTING
~ VAPOR MEMBRANE AND SAND
FINISHED PAD SUBGRADE
MINIMUM
FOOTING
I ~INl~U~
FOOTING
WIDTH
= 18 INCHES
'"
=24 INCHES
DEPTH
=24 INCHES EXTERIOR CONTINUOUS FOOTING
~
1) FOUNDATION REINFORCING AND SIZING PER STRUCTURAL ENGINEER (SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY).
2) VAPOR MEMBRANE AND SAND PER ARCHITECT
(SHOWN FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY).
NO SCALE
AVIARAAPARTMENTS
EAST PARCEL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SHALLOW FOUNDATION
DIMENSIONS DETAIL
A GROUP DEL T LI.
SD722 6
RETAINING
WALL
1/
____ _._ __ .;aLE"'V'"E=.L.=G:..:.RO;:;;UaaN.:::D'------1/,1/
1'MIN
q
f--P.---j
T
H/2
1
NO SCALE
LEVEL BACKFILL
H
AVIARAAPARTMENTS
EAST PARCEL
CARLSBAD. CALIFORNIA
1.
NOTES:
PASSIVE PRESSURES MAY BE INCREASED BY½
DURING SEISMIC LOADING. THE UPPER 12 INCHES
OF MATERIAL NOT PROTECTED BY CONCRETE SLABS
OR PAVEMENTS SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE
ESTIMATION OF PASSIVE RESISTANCE.
2. ASSUMES NO HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE. A WALL
BACK DRAIN SHOULD BE INSTALLED AS
RECOMMENDED IN THE WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
FIGURE.
3. SURCHARGES FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT.
4.
EXCAVATED SOIL. TRAFFIC LOADING OR OTHER
UNIFORM LOADING ABOVE THE WALL SHOULD BE
CALCULATED USING THE SURCHARGE LATERAL
EARTH PRESSURE, P ,. POINT LOADS OR OTHER
SURCHARGES CAN BE EVALUATED UPON REQUEST.
SEISMIC INCREMENT LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE
(IIP ,) IS BASED ON A DE LEVEL PEAK GROUND
ACCELERATION OF 0.35g . SEISMIC INCREMENT
SHOULD BE APPLIED TO WALLS SIX FEET OR
GREATER IN HEIGHT.
5. HAND DARE MEASURED IN FEET.
6. PRESSURES ASSUME EXISTING LOW EXPANSION
SOIL (El < 50) USED FOR COMPACTED BACKFILL. AS
RECOMMENDED IN THE REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION.
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
LATERAL EARTH EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE (PSF) PRESSURE TYPE
ACTIVE. P,
LEVEL BACKFILL !2H:1V SLOPING BACKFILL
45H I 60H
SEISMIC 15H INCREMENT. t:.P,"
PASSIVE, PP** LEVEL GROUND
250D
SURCHARGE. P, 0.3q
*SEISMIC PRESSURE, PAE.= PA+/J,,PE
""PASSIVE RESISTANCE VERSUS DISPLACEMENT CURVES CAN
BE PROVIDED UPON REQUEST.
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES A GROUP DEL T LI.
FOR YIELDING PROJECHIUMBE.R FIGUREf\lUMSER
RETAINING WALLS SD722 7
ROCK AND FABRIC
ALTERNATIVE
MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED ROCK
ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAFI 140NL, SUPAC 4NP, OR
APPROVED SIMILAR)
NOTES:
4-INCH DIAM. PVC
PERFORATED PIPE
DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER-
PROOFING AS REQUIRED
~~-,...., ,u+,+----12-INCH
MINIMUM
WEEP-HOLE
ALTERNATIVE
DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER-
PROOFING AS REQUIRED
GEOCOMPOSITE
PANEL DRAIN
1 CU. FT. PER LINEAR FOOT OF
MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED
ROCK ENVELOPED IN
FILTER FABRIC
PANEL DRAIN
ALTERNATIVE
WEEP-HOLE
ALTERNATIVE
1) PERFORATED PIPE SHOULD OUTLET THROUGH A SOLID PIPE TO A FREE GRAVITY OUTFALL. PERFORATED PIPE AND OUTLET PIPE SHOULD HAVE A FALL OF AT LEAST 1 %.
2) AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE PERFORATED PIPE AND OUTLET, WEEP-HOLES MAY BE CONSTRUCTED. WEEP-HOLES SHOULD BE AT LEAST 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER, SPACED
NO GREATER THAN 8 FEET, AND BE LOCATED JUST ABOVE GRADE AT THE BOTTOM OF WALL.
3) FILTER FABRIC SHOULD CONSIST OF MIRAFI 140N, SUPAC 5NP, AMOCO 4599, OR SIMILAR APPROVED FABRIC. FILTER FABRIC SHOULD BE OVERLAPPED AT LEAST 6-INCHES.
4) GEOCOMPOSITE PANEL DRAIN SHOULD CONSIST OF MIRADRAIN 6000, J-DRAIN 400, SUPAC DS-15, OR APPROVED SIMILAR PRODUCT.
5) PERFORATED PIPE SHOULD BE SCHEDULE 40 OR SOR 35.
NO SCALE
AVIARAAPARTMENTS
EAST PARCEL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RETAINING WALL
DRAINAGE DETAIL
A GROUP DEL TL\
SD722 8
GROUND SURFACE
1.
2.
3.
NOTES:
ASSUMES LEVEL BACKFILL AND NO HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE.
H IS MEASURED IN FEET.
FIGURE SHOULD BE USED WITH GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
4. FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN.
5. DGWL: DESIGN GROUNDWATER LEVEL PER
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT.
6. SURCHARGES FROM CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, EXCAVATED
SOIL. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, TRAFFIC LOADING OR OTHER
UNIFORM LOADING (q) ABOVE THE WALL SHOULD BE
CALCULATED USING THE SURCHARGE LATERAL EARTH
PRESSURE. P,. POINT LOADS OR OTHER SURCHARGES CAN BE
EVALUATED UPON REQUEST.
DGWL
H
TRAFFIC AND
CONSTRUCTION
SURCHARGE
I· • I P.= 0.3q
NO SCALE
+
45 H PSF
!roE
AVIARAAPARTMENTS
EAST PARCEL
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
D. MAX = 1 INCH
A'
ALLOWABLE PASSIVE
SOIL RESISTANCE
= 350 PCF
MAINTAIN
MINIMUM 5 FEET
ALLOWABLE
PASSIVE
SOIL RESISTANCE
= 175 PCF
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES A GROUP DEL TL\
FOR CANTILEVER
TEMPORARY SHORING SD722 9
Appendix
GROUP DEL TL\
A Previous Subsurface Exploration
GeoSoils {2016}
Geocon {1989}
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSISTENCY OR RELATIVE DENSITY
Major Divisions Group
Symbols Typical Names CRITERIA
GW Well-graded gravels and gravel-
Q) (J) sand mixtures, little or no fines Standard Penetration Test
> c::-<ll Q) -~ Q) > og: -<tl Poorly graded gravels and Penetration Q) (.) ~
> cn~Uo ~ GP gravel-sand mixtures, little or no Resistance N Relative Q) 'cii Q) 0 <tl z fines (blows/ft) Density > E-= 0 <11 ~ Q) C: 0 N (501Jl0 Silty gravels gravel-sand-silt 0-4 Very loose (J) • * ~ -g Q) .c GM = 0 0 C: mixtures oz LO U °g ~ :!= (/) C:
"O 0 2? (5 :;: 4-10 Loose
-~ al GC Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay
~ -~ mixtures 10 -30 Medium ~ <tl
Q) '§ Well-graded sands and gravelly ~* SW 30 -50 Dense
00 0 Q) C: (J) sands, little or no fines ol!J C: ~ <ti 'Cl
C: Q) C: > 50 Very dense -;:RO ---<ti <tl 0 ~ en () (/) Poorly graded sands and £ (J) I!) (.) st SP Q) -gc:~O gravelly sands, little or no fines 0 <11 <1l Q) z ~ Cf)£ ~ (J) SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Q) <tl Q)
~ 0 (J) ~ J:: (/} E (.) (J) <ti C ~ ~ a. Ji ~ u::: Clayey sands, sand-clay SC mixtures
Inorganic silts, very fine sands, Standard Penetration Test
ML rock flour, silty or clayey fine
sands (J)
Q) £u :t= ~ Unconfined
> 0 ~ .!!! Inorganic clays of low to Penetration Compressive Q) 'cii -g :g 0 CL medium plasticity, gravelly clays, Resistance N Strength 0 (ti &* sandy clays, silty clays, lean 0 (blows/ft) Consistency (tons/ff) !£ N ~ ~ ffi clays 0 . (/)
Cf) ~ Organic silts and organic silty <2 Very Soft <0.25 "O (J) Q) Cl) OL clays of low plasticity C: (J) -~ (J) 2-4 Soft 0.25 -.050 <tl ~ a. m Q) Inorganic silts, micaceous or
C: 0 MH diatomaceous fine sands or silts, 4 -8 Medium 0.50 -1.00 u::: E (J) ?f.
>, 0 elastic silts 0 (ti-~ L() 8-15 Stiff 1.00 -2.00
'ifl. 0 ~ iij
Inorganic clays of high plasticity, 0 'Cl 'Cl ..c::
I!) c::: ·--CH <ti :, ~ fat clays 15 -30 Very Stiff 2.00 -4.00 O' Q) ~ :J I (/) ~ >30 Hard >4.00 OJ Organic clays of medium to high OH plasticity
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, mucic, and other highly
organic soils
3" 3/4" #4 #10 #40 #200 U.S. Standard Sieve
Unified Soil Gravel Sand Silt or Clay
Classification Cobbles I I I coarse fine coarse medium fine
MOISTURE CONDITIONS MATERIAL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS
Dry Absence of moisture: dusty, dry to the touch trace 0-5% C Core Sample
Slightly Moist Below optimum moisture content for compaction few 5 -10 % s SPT Sample
Moist Near optimum moisture content little 10 -25 % B Bulk Sample
Very Moist Above optimum moisture content some 25 -45 % -Groundwater -
Wet Visible free water; below water table Qp Pocket Penetrometer
BASIC LOG FORMAT:
Group name, Group symbol, (grain size), color, moisture, consistency or relative density. Additional comments: odor, presence of roots, mica, gypsum,
coarse grained particles, etc.
EXAMPLE:
Sand (SP), fine to medium grained, brown, moist, loose, trace silt, little fine gravel, few cobbles up to 4" in size, some hair roots and rootlets.
File:Mgr: c;\SoilClassif.wpd GeoSoils (2016) PLATE B-1
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7103-A-SC
PROJECT: SUMMERHILL HOMES BORING B-1 SHEET 1 OF 2
Laurel Tree Lane At College Boulevard, Carslbad
DATE EXCAVATED 6-15-16
Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
Approx. Elevation: 104' MSL
'E" m Standard Penetration Test
0 s ~ \__! Groundwater "O .0 ~ l Q) E C ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample ~ Seepage ~ -e it >-0 :, (f) ·c e! ~ 1n ul (f) :, '§_ -"'-u ;,; (.) :::J 1n 2 "' :i C 0 (f) c:' ·a "' Description of Material Cl CD :::J iii :::J Cl ~ (/)
ML ,-' r UNDOCUMENTED FILL: ,-' r 26 6.8 ,-' r @ O' SANDY SILT, reddish yellow to light brown, dry, medium ,-' r
,-' r dense; broken rock/concrete encountered, oxidation staining, 2 ,-' r
,-' r fine grained. ,-' r
3 CL @ 3' SANDY CLAY, yellowish brown, damp, medium stiff; fine
4 31 103.2 8.0 grained.
5
6
7
8
9 9 17.8
@ 9' As per 3', moist, stiff; traces of gravel and asphalt
10 fragments.
11
12
13 CL ALLUVIUM:
14 29 114.7 13.1 78.5 @ 13' SANDY CLAY, dark reddish brown, very moist, stiff; fine
15 grained, small pebbles encountered.
16
17 CL SANTIAGO FORMATION:
18 @ 17' CLAYSTONE, light yellow brown to yellowish gray, very
19 11 32.1 moist to wet, stiff.
20
21
22 @ 21 ½' Groundwater encountered.
23 SM ~ @ 23' SILTY SANDSTONE with trace CLAY, yellowish brown,
24 22 98.3 24.1 93.6 ~-wet to saturated, loose to medium dense: fine grained. ·.__:,-.,·
25 er -~-
26 ~
;__,,..:.,.·
27 ·,__:,--·
~
28 ~-
29 20 18.7 ~
v" @ 29' As per 17', light gray, wet, medium stiff. ~-
Laurel Tree Lane Al College Boulevard, Carslbad GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-2
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7103-A-SC
PROJECT: SUMMERHILL HOMES BORING B-1 SHEET 2 OF 2
Laurel Tree Lane At College Boulevard, Carslbad
DATE EXCAVATED 6-15-16
Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
Approx. Elevation: 104' MSL
'E" m Standard Penetration Test
0 s ~ \__! Groundwater "O .0 ~ l ~ Q) E C ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample ~ Seepage ~ -e it >-0 :, (f) ·c e! ~ 1n ul (f) :, '§_ -"'-u ;,; (.) :::J 1n 2 "' :i C 0 (f) c:' ·a "' Description of Material Cl CD :::J iii :::J Cl ~ (/)
SM ,_,.,
,_,,,-~_
31-~/,v
,_,.,
32-;_/~_
:-/~·
33-.. ,,-,.~
. '-:'"'~,
:_,h. 34-~ 30 94.2 29.7 100 ,_,,,-~-
,_,.,
35-:../~.
. ~y~-@ 35' SILTY SANDSTONE, yellowish brown, saturated,
36-,_,,,-.~ medium dense; mottled, signs of oxidation. . ;...--~,
37--:-<~-
,_,.,
;./~
38-. ~,,,.:.__ a 42 28.8
,_,,-,,~-.
39-. --:~. :../~.
40-~/~-. ._/~' @ 40' As per 35'. ;_,,-,~_ 41-. ~v~-
,_,,-.~
42-. '-(~.
:-✓.~-
43-,_,.,
<../~
44-,;_,h,
~ 46 97.5 29.4 100 ,_,,-_~-.
45-
.... ,:-~_
._,,,-~_ @ 45' As per 35', trace CLAY. ,_/v
46-. ,_;.-.~·
:_,A_'
47-. :-✓~-.. ,,-,.~ .
48-. <..('~_
._/~-
ii 22 24.9 ,_,,-,~-
49-,_,.,
.... ,,-~. @ 49' SILTY SANDSTONE with trace CLAY, light gray brown,
50 .,... saturated, medium dense; interbeds of oxidized clay_ . ·,. /-
51-Total Depth= 50'
No Caving Encountered
52-Groundwater Encountered @ 21 ½'
53-
Backfilled 6-15-2016 Per DEH Requirements
54-
55-
56-
57-
58-
59-
Laurel Tree Lane Al College Boulevard, Carslbad GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-3
I l-o.. ~g
50
Net Area Ratio .8
0
1 -sensitive fine grained
2 -organic material
I■ 3 -clay
Geosoils
Project Summerhill Homes Operator DG-RC
Job Number 7103-A-SC Cone Number DDG1366
Hole Number CPT-01 Date and Time 6/17/2016 7:50:19 AM
EST GW Depth Du=r=in=g~T~e~s=t __________ ~1~7=.2=0~ft~--------------
TIP
TSF 500 0
FRICTION
TSF
■ 4 -silty clay to clay
■ 5 -clayey sill to silty clay
■ 6 -sandy silt to clayey silt
CPT DATA
Fs/Qt
10 0 %
_-
■ 7 -silty sand to sandy silt
8 -sand to silty sand
9 -sand
8 0
Filename
GPS
Maximum Depth
SPT N
SDF(568).cpt
50.52 ft
200 ,
Cl'.'.
0 >
...J <( w
0 I 0.. w >-(/) CD I-
I■
ii
-
..
=
mm
■ 10 -gravelly sand to sand
11 -very stiff fine grained (*)
■ 12 • sand to clayey sand (*)
Cone Size 10cm squared S"Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983
Depth 4.92ft
Rer
Depth 10.01ft
Ref 4.92ft
Depth 14.93ft
Ref 10.01ft
Depth 20.01ft
Ref 14.93ft
Depth 24.93ft
Ref 20.01ft
Depth 30.02ft
Ref 24.93ft
Depth 35.1 Oft
Ref 30.02ft
Depth 40.03ft
Ref 35.10ft
Depth 44.95ft
Ref 40.03ft
Depth 50.20ft
Ref 44.95ft
CPT-01 Geosoils Summerhill Homes
Arrival 9.61 mS
Velocity• >----~~----~----~----~---------~------+----~-----~---------< Arrival 15.16mS
Velocity 712.30ft/S >-----~---+--~----~----~---------~------+----~-----~---------< Arrival 21.40mS
>-----~----~~---~----~---------~------+----~-----~---------< Velocity 711.15fVS
Arrival 28.90mS I Velocity 642.55ft/S >-----~----~-----+~----~---------~------+----~-----~---------< Arrival 34.69mS
--1--Velocity 823.70ft/S >-----~----~----~---+--~---------~------+----~-----~---------< Arrival 40.78mS
Velocity 816.22ft/S >-----~----~----~----~---------~------+----~-----~---------< Arrival 46.40mS
Velocity 889.86ft/S >-----~----~----~----~----+------~------+----~-----~---------< Arrival 51.87mS
>-----~----~----~----~---------~------+----~-----~---------< Velocity 889.24ft/S Arrival 57 .50mS
Velocity 866. 79ft/S >-----~----~----~----~--------~~------+----~-----~---------< Arrival 63.28mS
~----~----~----~----~---------~-~----+----~-----~---------< Velocity 901.28/t/S
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time(mS)
60
Hammer to Rod String Distance (fl): 5.83
• = Not Determined
GPS DATA:,,
70 80 90 100
Net Area Ratio .8
I I-0.. w~ o:S 0
0
) j
5 .. ' /
)_
10
(__ ""' .. -----
15 >
,;
20 ,·
25
30
35
Geosoils
Project Summerhill Homes Operator DG-RC
Job Number 7103-A-SC Cone Number DDG1366
Hole Number CPT-03 Date and Time 6/17/2016 8:48:57 AM
EST GW Depth Du=r=in=g~T~e~s=t __________ ~1~7=.0~0~ft~--------------
TIP
TSF 500 0
FRICTION
TSF
CPT DATA
10 0
Fs/Qt
%
---:.:...:..= 1------
/ . :: ~--
40
< ·:;:;•,
:::·
45
.....
>
50 {
1 -sensitive fine grained
2 -organic material
1113 -clay
■ 4 -silty clay to clay
■ 5 -clayey sill to silty clay
■ 6 -sandy silt to clayey silt
■ 7 -silty sand to sandy silt
8 -sand to silty sand
9 -sand
8 0
Filename
GPS
SDF(569).cpt
Maximum Depth 50.52 ft
.. \
(
SPT N
■ 10 -gravelly sand to sand
11 -very stiff fine grained (*)
■ 12 • sand to clayey sand (*)
200 ,
Cone Size 10cm squared S"Soil behavior type and SPT based on data from UBC-1983
Cl'.'.
0 >
...J <( w
0 I 0.. w >-(/) CD I-
:
=
-"
Depth 4.92ft
Rer
Depth 10.01ft
Ref 4.92ft
Depth 14.93ft
Ref 10.01ft
Depth 20.01ft
Ref 14.93ft
Depth 24.93ft
Ref 20.01ft
Depth 30.02ft
Ref 24.93ft
Depth 34.94ft
Ref 30.02ft
Depth 40.03ft
Ref 34.94ft
Depth 44.95ft
Ref 40.03ft
Depth 50.03ft
Ref 44.95ft
CPT-03 Geosoils Summerhill Homes
Arrival 6. 72mS
Velocity• >-----~----~----~----~---------~----~----~-----~---------< Arrival 14.76mS
Velocity 491.00ft/S >-----~------;-----~----~---------~----~----~-----~---------< Arrival 20.00mS
>-----~----~----~----~---------~----~----~-----~---------< Velocity 849.13ft/S __ I__ Arrival 25.47mS
Velocity 881.22ft/S >-----~----~-------'--,-L_----~---------~----~----~-----~---------< Arrival 30.78mS
Velocity 896.38ft/S >-----~----~----~----+---~---------~----~----~-----~---------< Arrival 36.33mS
Velocity 896. 70ft/S >-----~----~----~----~---------~----~----~-----~---------< Arrival 42.65mS
Velocity 765.42/t/S >-----~----~----~----~---------~----~----~-----~---------< Arrival 47.97mS
>-----~----~----~----~---------~----~----~-----~---------< Velocity 945.86ft/S Arrival 53.75mS
Velocity 843.36ft/S >-----~----~----~----~---------~----~----~-----~---------< Arrival 59.21mS
~----~----~----~----~---------~----~----~-----~---------< Velocity 922.99/t/S
0 10 20 30 40 50
Time(mS)
60
Hammer to Rod String Distance (fl): 5.83
• = Not Determined
GPS DATA:,,
70 80 90 100
Location Summerhill Homes
Job Number 7103-A-SC
Hole Number CPT-03
Equilized Pressur.~e~---~2~.9~-----
g3
Geosoils
Operator DG-RC
Cone Number OOG1366
Date and Time 6/17/2016 8:48:57 AM
EST GW Depth During Test 17.2
Time (Sec)
Page 1 of 1
GPS
1400.00
f-0
(!)
"' 'S
(/) :J
7 a. (!)
M 0 ;:::
UJ N ui
z ~ (!)
(/)
:J
U.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES I U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS I HYDROMETER
6 4 3 2 1.5 1 3/4 1/23/8 3 4 6 810 1416 20 30 40 50 60 100140200
100 I I I I I I I I I I
95 I
•. ·., ... 1·· ...
90 ·· .........
",,."-----
85 ii
r--~,
80 t
\
75 \
70 \
~
j: 65
CJ \ w6o
\\.. s i£ 55 ...
\
Ct:'. w 50 \
z \ LL
1-45 z
~40 • Ct:'.
~ 35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
100 10 1 0.1 0.01
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
I GRAVEL SAND I COBBLES
I I I I
SILT OR CLAY coarse fine coarse medium fine
Sample Depth Range Visual Classification/USCS CLASSIFICATION LL PL Pl Cc
• B-1 15.1 Sandy Clay, Qal
Sample Depth D100 D60 D30 D10 %Gravel %Sand %Silt I • B-1 15.1 9.5 0.18 2.5 52.5 40.8
GeoSoils, Inc. GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
5741 Palmer Way Project: SUMMERHILL
GeoSoils, Inc:. Carlsbad, CA 92008
Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 7103-A-SC
Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: July 2016 Plate: D -1
0.001
Cu
%Clay
f-0 (!)
ro :s
z ~ f--U)
B U) z 8
U)
=i
-0.8
It----. __
-06 ···· .......
-~
~'
-04 ',
\,\\
-0.2
\
' 0.0 \
\\\'\.
0.2 ~\ \,\ ' \,\_
' 04 ' \
\.\.,, '#. \ z·
<( 0.6 \
\.\.\ a: I-\ (/J
08 '"' '-,
1.0
',"',,, \,
~ \,\\
1.2 'l \
~ \
14 ~. \
' '~ \
1.6 " ',
['." ', ·~ \
1.8 "" \
"' ""' '•.,~. 2.0
100 1,000 10,000
STRESS, psf
Sample Depth/El. Visual Classification Y.i MC MC H20
Initial Initial Final
e B-1 15.0 Sandy Clay, Qal 117.3 13.1 15.1 1000
Stress at which water was added: 500 psf
Strain Difference: ------%
GeoSoils, Inc. CONSOLIDATION TEST
5741 Palmer Way Project: SUMMERHILL
GeoSoils, Inc:. Carlsbad, CA 92008
Telephone: (760) 438-3155 Number: 7103-A-SC
Fax: (760) 931-0915 Date: July 2016 Plate: D -2
Cal Land Engineering, Inc.
dba Quartech Consultant
Geotechnical, Environmental, and Civil Engineering
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST DATA
GeoSoils, Inc.
5741 Palmer Way, Suite D
Carlsbad, CA 92010
W .0. 7103-A-SC
Project Name: Summerhill
Client: N/A
Sample ID
B-1
B-2
Sample
Depth
(ft)
3'-7'
5'
QCI Project No.: 16-029-006n
Date: June 28, 2016
Summarized by: KA
Corrosivity Test Results
pH Chloride
CT-532 CT-422
(643) (ppm)
6.43 40
5.53 35
Sulfate
CT-417
% By
Weiqht
0.0375
0.0195
Resistivity
CT-532 (643)
(ohm-cm)
350
240
W.O. 7103-A-SC
PLATE 0-3
576 East Lambert Road, Brea, California 92821; Tel: 714-671-1050; Fax: 714-671-1090
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on representative bulk and relatively undisturbed
samples of site earth materials collected during our subsurface exploration in order to
evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are
presented below.
Classification
Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System, in
general accordance with ASTM D 2487 and D 2488. The soil classifications are shown on
the Boring Logs and CPT soundings in Appendix B.
Moisture-Density Relations
The field moisture contents and dry unit weights were determined for relatively undisturbed
samples of site earth materials in the laboratory. Testing was performed in general
accordance with ASTM D 2937 and ASTM D 2216. The dry unit weight was determined
in pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and the field moisture content was determined as a
percentage of the dry weight. The results of these tests are shown on the Boring Logs in
Appendix B.
Laboratory Standard
The maximum density and optimum moisture content was evaluated for the major soil type
encountered in the borings. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D-1557 . The
moisture-density relationships obtained for these soils are shown on the following table:
SAMPLE LOCATION
AND DEPTH (FT)
B-1 @ 3-7
B-2@ 5
Summerhill Homes
Laurel Tree Lane, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp12\7100\7103a.pge
SOIL TYPE MAXIMUM DENSITY
(PCF)
Brown , Silty SAND 123.0
Grey, Sandy CLAY 122.0
GeoSoils, Inc:.
OPTIMUM MOISTURE
CONTENT(%)
11.5
13.0
W .0. 7103-A-SC
July 7, 2016
Page 13
Expansion Index
A representative sample of near-surface site soils was evaluated for expansion potential.
Expansion Index (E.I.) testing and expansion potential classification was performed in
general accordance with ASTM Standard D 4829, the results of the expansion testing are
presented in the following table.
SAMPLE LOCATION I EXPANSION INDEX I EXPANSION POTENTIAL AND DEPTH (FT)
I
B-1@ 15
I
32
I
Low
I B-2@ 5 72 Medium
Atterberg Limits
Testing was performed on a representative fine-grained soil sample to evaluate the liquid
limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index (P.1.) in general accordance with ASTM 0-4318. The
test results are presented below:
SAMPLE LOCATION LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX AND DEPTH (FT)
I B-2 @ 5 I 45 I 16 I 29 I
Grain Size Distribution
An evaluation was performed on a selected representative soil sample in general
accordance with ASTM D 422. The grain-size distribution curve is presented in
Appendix D.
Direct Shear Test
Shear testing was performed on a representative bulk sample of site soil in general
accordance with ASTM test method D 3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control
type. Prior to testing, the sample was remolded to 90 percent of the laboratory standard
(ASTM D 1557). The shear test results are presented as follows:
Summerhill Homes
Laurel Tree Lane, Carlsbad
File :e:\wp 12\7100\7103a. pge GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O . 7103 -A-SC
July?,2016
Page 14
PRIMARY RESIDUAL
LOCATION AND
DEPTH (FT) COHESION FRICTION ANGLE COHESION FRICTION ANGLE
(PSF) (DEGREES) (PSF) (DEGREES)
B-1 @ 5 267 32 310 32 (Undisturbed)
B-2@ 5 359 29 304 29 (Remolded)
Consolidation Test
Consolidation testing was performed on a selected, relatively undisturbed sample of the
onsite soils. Testing was performed in general accordance with ASTM Test Method
D 2435. Test results are presented in Appendix D.
Saturated Resistivity, pH, and Soluble Sulfates, and Chlorides
GSI conducted sampling of onsite earth materials for general soil corrosivity and soluble
sulfates, and chlorides testing. The testing included evaluation of soil pH, soluble sulfates,
chlorides, and saturated resistivity. Test results are presented in the following table:
SAMPLE LOCATION SATURATED SOLUBLE SOLUBLE
AND DEPTH (FT) pH RESISTIVITY SULFATES CHLORIDES
(ohm-cm) (% by weight) (ppm)
B-1 @3-7 6.43 350 0 0375 40
B-2@ 5 5.53 240 0.0195 35
Corrosion Summary
Laboratory testing indicates that tested samples of the onsite soils are: medium acid to
slightly acid with respect to soil acidity/alkalinity; severely corrosive to exposed, buried
metals when saturated; present a negligible ("not applicable" per American Concrete
Institute [ACI] 318-11) sulfate exposure to concrete; and have low to slightly elevated
concentrations of soluble chlorides. GSI does not practice in the field of corrosion
engineering. Thus, the project architect and structural engineer should evaluate the level
of corrosion protection required for the project and seek consultation from a qualified
corrosion engineer, as warranted.
Summerhill Homes
Laurel Tree Lane, Carlsbad
File :e:\wp 12\7100\7103a. pge GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 7103-A-SC
July7,2016
Page 15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
File No. D-4255-T02
June 6, 1989
er
6 ► w
X z 8 i li:zt; w ..J 0 ..J 0 w-W ... J: z 0 ... -::E ,_ ::,
~ :; ~ 0
0 -·. : "'···: ·. . ./ , --✓-.·. ••
2 -
:. ' ·, /. -. / .. . /·
"/ -··: --;~---: :_.
-4 -
. :· , ,' ....• .',! •.
. _._·,(
·./· ·. ... -/::.: .. :-... 6 -.:::::/. v · .· .. . -... -8 --JH4:-l . . .. . ). 1·~--· .... • ... .. . . ... -10. ··:·-·:.-/ .. : /; .. .. -. "/. -: ..
·{., .·.·.·: -12. · .. .: :-·_;.'.
/l'i:l· ... -.-:.rr ·· .. . . --~ : ... 14. 1314--2 ·-{+·r:
. I ·t . ... .. -··I· ·.
:·-~:1:-F -16. . ~, ["
... -:~:· L,: i :_.
. ~ -1 ·-;j : ~
lo-18-:-J J : ,. ···,-1 .. -. ·:::,.-/:·::-;_
20->r l·-f .. : . ,, ...
--Bl4-3 ·.:, -~•I J· .. :
:·H:_. 22-. . .. ·' ·"(I'' --.--: r ,. :(:.
-24-:t((
-,.~'( --.· ·.,·· ·, . i ....
-26-:814-4. :{I:-:1 J ·.: ... -=· ·Fi:: t'' ... 28-:: .,. r· :.i:-,:,·.---·.-.i:,·-i=:
".\() :J,l·.1.':
Figure A-4
SAMPLE SYMBOLS
BORING B-14 r/) ~w . ~iii _ot;: ?: wal' do 87' 3/20/89 !.:~ui r/) er,-;-
ELEVATION DATE DRILLED zu: ::,z _,<Jl ~lii~ W(j ;~ ~2. O,.;
Mayhew 1000 Rotary Wash z°'-' ► oz
EQUIPMENT wwm er ::E8 "-er 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
ALLUVIUM -Moderately dense, moist, dark brown, slight
gray cast, Very clayey, fine to medium SAND, ..
SC trace to little silt \ ..
... ..
...
medium stiff, very moist to moist, brown to
CL dark brown, slightly sandy CLAY trace silt ..
.. 7 /12
... ..
moderately dense, moist, dark brown, slightly .. SC g;ay, very clayey, fine SAND ., ., ? ..
loose, very moist to wet, brown to tan slightly ...
SM clayey, slightly silty to silty, fine to medium ._9 /12 115.0 14.8
SAND, trace of fine gravel --·-n ..
\__ fine to coarse sand, trace to little fine ..
gravel ... ------5 hours after bailing drilling mud
' ? ., ., ...
...
-
SM moderately dense, moist to wet, light brown to .. 18/ 109.4 18.6
light yellow brown, Silty to very silty, fine 12
to medium SAND, trace clay --..
-.. 14/ 101.4 23.6
12 ...
...
--·-----Hole caved at 5 hours after drilling ..
0 -SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
18J _ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
ll-sTANOARo PENETRATION TEST
liJ _ CHUNK SAMPLE
■ -DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
~ -WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE: THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHE SPECIFIC BORING OR TRENCH LOCATION ANO
ATTHEDATEINOICATEO.ITISNOTWARRANTEDTOBEREPRESENTATIVEOFSU8SURFACECONOITIONSATOTHERLOCATIONSANDTIMES
Geocon (1989)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-4255-T02
June 6, 1989
d > z C,
;%; ... 0 li:zW ~ _,
w-W Q. 0
0 IL ::i; ;%; ... ·< :; ,,,
• 30
· · 1 · " 1· · .. -:·:,}(
32 _ :: . h:··: -... : I\·: --El4-5 J!' .··
34 _ . ~,At -· ~t I · --·.:[". :.:.
-36 • ·.··. 1 ·L
El4-61.)Y·. --. · I· r·• -38 _ ·:·-r-((
·T·I· --.:fl:_f
40. --:· 1~-1.:r: --··.rT1-:·
-42 _ :.-~ ~_r.;
Bl4-7 lvtl~ --. . .. I ,.. · 1 . -.
-44 _ .. -_-,:_,:·I.:._ . . r --·):1•·.:
46. 'I· I ·I .. .. :T .1.-, -·. j:.I. --·· [ . I· I ..
48 _ ;, 1· f I: -.-.' r·
--;_. I j, ·:fi
:-U· I: -so -·1n4-. •.:,,.i-:.t·,.
--i1_:):~ ···r·I·· -§2 -.·'.(1':/·
--:\·1>1:·
-54. ·:·~·f.f:
V. V ----V .. 56 --1/ V.: --:v
er w ... i 0 z :) ~ C,
,,, ,,,_
<Ul -"<J u<Jl
:::!::; o-,,,
SM
-
BORING . · B-14 CONTINUED
ELEVATION 87' DATE DRILLED 3/20/89
EQUIPMENT Mayhew 1000 Rotary Wash
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
very soft, wet, light brown, very Sandy
CLAY to very Clayey SAND
811 Recovery
~w . _ut:
~~qj
~!ii~ z"'-' wwm G. er
..
push
• 24"
-9 i--------loose, dark grayish-brown with rust spottin§
silty ..
-
-
-
-.,._:.~, --thin lens of stiff, moist to very moist, --25
SM
dark gray-brown to gray with rust-orange
to olive, silty clay
Loose to moderately dense, moist, reddish-
gray-brown with rust inclusions, Silty fine
SAND, trace of clay
____ slower drilling
I
SANTIAGO FORMATION
-
-
--
•14
---
Hard, slightly moist to damp, deep red-brown •
to dark bluish-gray SILTSTONE and CLAYSTONE, 50/
~
!': wa'
~&&: er,-: =>z W<J >-w Oc,; ~~ > 00 er ::i;u 0
~05.1 21. 8
105.2 22.0
I 58 Bl4·".'§) V. -trace to little fine sand -10" 114.8 16.8
BORING TERMINATED.AT 58 FEET --
IFigure A-5
SAMPLE SYMBOLS □-SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL IJ _STANOARO PENETRATION TEST ■ -DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBED)
'-----------~--_0_1s_T_u_Re_e_D_o_R_e._"'_G_sA_M_P_L_e ___ ~_-_c_H_u_N_K_s_AM_P_L_£ ______ .......;~;_-_w_A_TE_R_T_A_eL_E_o_R_s_E_EP_A_G_E __ ~
0 NOTE: THE LOG OFSUBSURFACECONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHESPECIFICBORING OR TRENCH LOCATION ANO
AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOTWARRANTED TO BE REPRESENTATIVE OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-4255-TOl
J 12 1 anuar . 989
IC
Ci > w U) TRENCH T-35 Zw ~ z 8 i ~iii Qut;:: w# :r iii IC,-: !.:zt;; w 0 0 -'O 105 12/1/88 ~~iii z..: ::,z ..., UU'.I ELEVATION DATE DRILLED w-W 0.. z ~!!it wo >-w 0 ... ~ :r ::, ~::; Co; UJ,-
~ ... lf o-zUl_, > ~8 :::; U) JD 555 Track Backhoe ~~m IC C) EQUIPMENT 0
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION .. 0 l :) .. UNDOCUMENTED FILL .. -..
~ ·. . . Loose to medium dense, damp to moist, light .. 2 -~~: ). ML brown-tan, Sandy-Clayey SILT, abundant gypsum -T35-1 ~~ .. --·.·/. .. /,. ? -... 4 -.. . ; .. v. ... --/, ,• /-. .. 6 -... ✓. ~---. -~ ~> CLAY layer, dark brown .. · --wet, .. -. ,;, i----·v /·· '
,_ __
"\ .. 8 -c ••• l/ -,· L_ wood debris v· -.. -:.v . "· ; .. . . r irregular contact sloping slightly east --10 -~ ... v• ... l./ I-;;. ·.t .· .... ·.
:.1::1:Y: ALLUVIUM .. I-12 -.··°1-.".J..T·. Loose to medium, moist, alternating light ... -··I· T-"1'· SM to dark brown, Silty fine SAND ...
i-14 ::-1:.·-.,:_:,:-'. ...
--\
TRENCH TERMINATED AT 14.0 FEET .. ... -
i--i-
... -i-
TRENCH T-36 El 85 ... 0 ~f(·j·_". ALLUVIUM -... -::_i:":i:;A-l: SM-Loose to medium dense, damp, dark gray-... 2 -:.j)t\·.· SC brown, Silty-Clayey fine SAND -
... -7..,.-'1"··1 .. -..... ,/ .. 4 --:.,::.ff: -
T36-l '·: \·).:: Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown, 105.1 10.2 ... -Silty fine SAND, clay -x_::i·.:i:,: some
6 T36-2 -.. -7 .· ....
I--;:i"_..l:_l: -:·:{:C(:
I-8 ---'I:·!< 1·: --·.1: ".!:\" -
10 :-:(/:.(:: TRENCH TERMINATED AT 10.0 FEET
Figure A-41, Log of Test Trenches T-35 & T-36
SAMPLE SYMBOLS 0 -SAMPLING UNSUCCESSFUL
t8J _ DISTURBED OR BAG SAMPLE
(]_STANDARD PENETRATION TEST
~-CHUNK SAMPL-E
■ _ DRIVE SAMPLE (UNDISTURBEDI
f-WATER TABLE OR SEEPAGE
NOTE. THE LOG OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS SHOWN HEREON APPLIES ONLY ATTHESPECIFICBORING OR TRENCH LOCATION AND
AT THE DATE INDICATED. IT IS NOTWARRANTEOTO BE REPRESENTATIVEOFSUBSURFACECONOITIONSATOTHER LOCATIONS ANO TIMES
-------·-------·' --·····----l'rjr------------------------------------------------1-'•
(IQ ~ 11 ro
~ w
FRICTION RESISTANCE CONE RESISTANCE TSf IKG/CH2 l TSF IKG/CH2 I
SOIL COLUMN FRICTION RATIO m
' 0 0 -t-___._-+'__.-t--2___.___,t-o-,-..._~~-o:..:i-.J....L........._l+0:.............:.2+0~,._.:_:2 :i,::o._._._3.:.p0....._.....i3:_:i.:.0 ~....::J
10 .. --
15 ----------·
20
so -----..
,o
50
55
0 m "'1J ~ 60 ---
~ 65 ;----t------+--m -I
70 ··------·-·--------1 ----------1 --·--·-·-··----
75
80 -----·---•-·--·-
a5,---t-----i----+---l-------1----l
90
95
100
105 ---------------
110
115
10
15
20
25
so
.5
50
55
C ITI "'V
60~ .... z
65 ;::J
.... -·· ·-·-·-·----•·•·-··-·· ----·-70
·------------·--t-----+---+ 75
80
i-----+-----+--4-as
80
···-··--·---+----½-------· 85
-· -100
!-----+---+------105
---·-----------·-•·----110
---l---4----.J---------115
ITI -I
:::;--· -r------i-· _----r--_---+--_---__ -·--f-·"'T"··-T"'l·----r-+-,· ...... ---rrt1""T"'T""l--.+,-·---r--·.....,-• ·..-:.1 ...... ·-r-T-r--!-r-.-~ ........... .....L..........J ~-t---+---.. 120
t---r--+---,-......,..--.----....--1-125
8
6
PAOJECT:GEOCON/MAAIANO AD
PROJECT NUMBEA:89-230-1706
INSTRUMENT NUMBER:F15CKE087 DATE:03-16-1989
= Th, Earth Technologg .._ Corporat ,on
.coo
CONE PENETftOHETER TEST
PA(jBE: CPT-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-4255-T02
June 6, 1989
Sample
No.
T42-l
TABLE I
Summary of Laboratory Compaction Test Results
ASTM Dl557-78
Maximum Dry
Density
Description pcf
Yellowish brown, clayey, 127.1
fine to medium SAND, trace
silt, trace gravel
TABLE II
Optimum
Moisture
% Dry Wt.
10.3
Summary of Laboratory Atterberg Limits Test Results
Liquid Plastic Plasticity
Sample % Passing Limit Limit Index uses
No. No. 200 Sieve (%) (%) (%) Class.
Bl4-l 43 31 15 16 SC
Bl4-3A 38 NP NP NP SM
Bl4-5 25 15 10 CL, SC
Bl5-2 40 27 15 12 SC
Bl7-2 44 26 15 11 SC
NP indicates non-plastic
-------------------1-:rj ......
~ 1-1 CD
(')
I I.O
100
9 0
I-8
J:
0
(!)
W 70
~
>-60 m
0:: w ~o z
LL 40
1-z ~ 30 er
IJJ
Q.. 20
10
0 1000
I
SAMPLE NO.
Bl4-l
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
6 5 4 3 IN. 1.51N 3/4 IN 3/8 IN 4 10 20 40 60 100 200
I I !I : I ... ... I I
I I ' '\
I I \
I I \-
I I \ I
I \ I
I \
I I I I \ I
I I \ I l I T ' I
I I
I I I I \.
I I I
I I
I
I II I I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I !, I II
I II : I II
I II
100 IO 1.0 0.1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES I GRAVEL I SAND I
I COARSE I FINE !COARSE l MEDIUM l FINE I
DEPTH CLASSIFICATION NAT. WC LL PL Pl
8' SC Dark grayJ_clase~D ine to me ium A_ --31 15 16
race silt
GRADATION CURVE
'-~ r-----
0,01
SILT OR CLAY
0.001
I
c.... 1-:rj i:: ...... :::1 I-' CD CD
O'\ z
V 0
I-' I.O t:, 00 I
l.0./:-N
Ul Ul I H 0 N
-------------------"rj
I-'• (lQ g
CD
C)
I
I-' 0
R-105
100
9 0
.,_ 80
I
(!)
W 70
3
>-60 al
er W 50 z
IJ...
40 .... z ~ 30 a:::
UJ
0. 20
10
0
1000
I
SAMPLE NO.
Bl4-2
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
6 5 4 31N I 51N 3/4 IN 3/8 IN 4 10 20 40 60 100
I I I II : !I -----! I I
I I "i-...., I
I
'{
I I I\.
! I I \
T I \
I I \
I \
I I \
I \
I \
' I I I
! I I
I
I
'I I
I I I I
I I
100 IO 1.0 0.1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
COBBLES I GRAVEL I SANO
I COARSE I FINE !COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE
DEPTH CLASSIFICATION NAT. we LL PL
14' SC Dark grayish brown, 14.8 ,.., """" fin,=,, QAY\Tn
GRADATION CURVE
200
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ', .....
I
1,
:1
I
I
Pl
...._~ --t-__
0,01
SILT OR CLAY
;'-.....
0.001
I
c...., "rj s:: I-'• ::JI-' CD CD
°'z -0
I-' '° t, ()0 I '° .p-l'v u, u,
I t-3 0 l'v
-------------------"':1---------------------------------------------------, I-'• ~ Ii (I)
0
I ,_. ,_.
R -105
100
90
I-80
::c
(!)
W 70
~
>-60 m
a::
W 50 z
LL
40
1-z w (J 30 a:: w
a_ 20
10
0
1000
I
SAMPLE NO.
Bl4-3A
6 5 4 31N
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I I I
i
I
100
I COBBLES I
DEPTH
21'
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
I 51N 3/4 IN 3/8 IN 4 10 20 40 60 100 200
II I I ~ I I I I
I r-r--,;
: " I '\
I \
I \ II
I \ I I
I I \
I \
I \
I I '
II ~
I I
I I'
II I 1"-r-... I
I I I I I ,..._
I
I I I -r--I
I I I
I I I
I I : I
i I I
10 1.0 0.1 0,01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL I SANO I SILT OR CLAY I COARSE I FINE )COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE I
CLASSIFICATION NAT. WC LL PL Pl
SM Brown, very
-F-1~~ CAl\TT\
silty, 18.6 NP NP NP
GRADATION CURVE
c...., "':I i:: I-'• ::i t-' (I) (I)
O"I z ~ 0
t-' I..O t:;I 00 I
I..O.P-
N Ul Ul I t-3 0 N
-------------------"1j
t-'• ~ ti (D
C")
I ...... N 100
9 0
t-8
:t:
0
C)
W 70
~
>-60 m
a:: W !10 z
lJ..
40
t-z ~ 30 a:: w
0.. 20
10
0
l000
I
SAMPLE NO.
B14-8A
6 5 4 31N
I I
I
I
! I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I
100
COBBLES I
I
DEPTH
50'
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
I 51N 3/4 IN 3/8 IN 4 10 20 40 60 100
1 I I ....... .., T l I I
I I'..
\
I \
I I \
I I
l I I \
I \
I \
I \
\
I I ' I I I
II I
I I I I
11 l I
I I
' 1
I
IO 1.0 0.1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL I SANO
COARSE I FINE (COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE
CLASSIFICATION NAT. WC LL PL
SM Reddish brown, silty to verv siltv fine 22.0
SAND
GRADATION CURVE
200
\.
I ', I
I ,_ ---~ II
II --I---II
II
II
II
ii
0,01
I
I SILT OR CLAY
Pl
r----
0.001
I
c.... "1j s:: t-'• ::l I-'
(D (D
a, z ~ 0
I-'
\0 t::I 00 I \0 .j::'-N u, u,
I
f1 0 N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
..,
0
' C
File No. D-4255-TO2
June 6, 1989
SAMPLE NO. 8 I 4 -I
I
0 ~I'--,..
~ "' r--..... I I'.. r-,..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I r-... ~,.._ I
-WATER ADDED I 2 .... z ~ I 0 I j:: < I
C 3 --==-~, I :J I 0 Cl) ', I z 4 I
0 '\ I 0 fl. I I-\ I z 5 ~ w \ I 0 i, I a: I w I\ a. 6 r--I
,.....i-.. ~' I
1. i.. I --I\ I --i-..__ I\_ I 7 -t-._ , I , ..... 1-. \ '-r--r--,1 --~ 8 I
I
I I
9 I
I I
I
I
0.1 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf)
INITIAL DRY DENSITY 109.2 (pcf) INITIAL SATURATION
INITIAL WATER CONTENT 16.4 (%) SAMPLE SATURATED AT
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
COBBLESTONE SEA VILLAGE
UNIT 1 AND 2
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Figure C-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
50.0 100.0
83.5 (%)
1.0 (ksf)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
File No. D-4255-TO2
June 6, 1989
SAMPLE NO. 814-7A
I
/!'\-WATER ADDED
0 r-... r--......._
""'" I "r----
"
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' I
I
I
I
I
I
2
I', I
..,
~
' C
z 0 .:: < C :J
0 en z 0 0
I-z w 0 a: w a..
Figure C-2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.1
' I
"" I
I
"" I
I ~ I
I
l"\ I I°"':=._-I .....-:
' I
" I ~, I
I r--I\ I
I"-~. I ~-[\ I ---['\ I --\., ~-I ~-...... i~ 'I r---_~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0
APPLIED PRESSURE (ksf)
INITIAL DRY DENSITY 109.6 (pcf) INITIAL SATURATION
INITIAL WATER CONTENT 17.0 (%) SAMPLE SATURATED AT
CONSOLIDATION CURVE
COBBLESTONE SEA VILLAGE
UNIT 1 AND 2
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
50.0 100.0
85.4 (%)
Q.125 (ksf)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10 2
0
File No. D-4255-TO2
June 6, 1989
SAMPLE NO. 814-I
2450
-.!:
<t I
2 2-460 ,c
~ I
If) " (!) I'..
z , .... -0
<[
w a: 2470
...J
<[ -0
2480
0 2
SAMPLE NO. 814-I
2450
-.!:
"r
Q \
,c 2500
~
" ....
If) ,-
(!) ... z ....
0
<(
w 2550 a::
...J
~
0
2600
0 2
Figure C-4
I
APPLIED PRESSURE 2 ( l<sf)
4 6 8 10 12 ~ in MINUTES
APPLIED PRESSURE 4 ( ksf)
---r--.
4 6 8 10 12 ~ in MINUTES
TIME RATE CONSOLIDATION CURVES
COBBLESTONE SEA VILLAGE
UNIT 1 AND 2
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
00
5:!
I 0
File No. D-4255-T02
June 6, 1989
SAMPLE NO. B 14-1
2600
-·= <I' I
0 -2650 ,c -' ' Cl) ' (!) I' z i-... -~
0 ... <( ... uJ a:: 2700
J
<( -0
2750
0 2
SAMPLE NO. 8 14 -7A
2050
-C
<I' I
Q 2100 ,c -
(/)
(!) z -0 ' <( ' uJ 2150 I' a:: "'" -J ...
~ ...
0
2200
0 2
Figure C-5
I
APPLIED PRESSURE 8 ( ksf)
---
I
4 6 8 10 12 ~ in MINUTES
APPLIED PRESSURE 2 ( ksf)
,__ -....
4 6 8 10 12
'\[nriE in MINUTES
TIME RATE CONSOLIDATION CURVES
COBBLESTONE SEA VILLAGE
UNIT 1 AND 2
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
10
2
' C
File No. D-4255-TO2
June 6, 1989
SAMPLE NO. Bl4-7A
2300
I\.
""
--~
~
I
2 2350 >(
~
Cl)
C!) z -0
<f w a:: 2400
..J
<f -0
0 2
SAMPLE NO. B 14 -7A
2350
\
' -C " 'f I'-
2 " " >( 2400 " ~ '~
.......
Cl)
C!) -z -a
<f w 2450 a::
..J
~ 0
2500
0 2
Figure C-6
I
APPLIED PRESSURE 4 ( ksf)
4 6 8 10 12 ~ in MINUTES
APPLIED PRESSURE 8 ( ksf)
... ---
4 6 8 10 12 '\jTIME in MINUTES
TJ.J."l.r.. l<ATr.. -~·1 '"' L,UKV.c..::,
COBBLESTONE SEA VILLAGE
UNIT 1 AND 2
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Appendix B Current Subsurface Exploration
GROUP DEL TL\
APPENDIX B
CURRENT SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
Field exploration included a visual reconnaissance of the site,the drilling of 1hollowstem and mud
rotaryexploratory borings, and the advancement of threecone penetration tests (CPTs). The field
exploration was completed on March 14, 2022. The maximum depth of exploration was about
51.71feet below surrounding grades.Asummary of the explorations is included inTable B-1.The
approximate exploration locations are shown in Figure 2. Logs of the explorations are providedin
Figures B-2 through B-5, immediately after the Boring Record Legends.
HOLLOW STEM BORINGS
The hollow stem exploratory borings were advanced by Pacific Drilling using a Marl M-10 truck
mounted drill rig. Disturbed samples were collected from the borings using a 2-inch outside
diameterunlinedStandard Penetration Test (SPT) sampler. Less disturbed samples were collected
using a 3-inch outside diameter ring lined sampler (a modified California sampler). Bulk samples
were also collected. The samples were sealed in plastic bags, labeled, and returned to the
laboratory for testing.
The drive samples were collected from the exploratory boring an automatic hammer with an
average Energy Transfer Ratio (ETR) of approximately 97 percent. For each sample, the 6-inch
incremental blowcounts was recorded on the logs. The field blow counts (N) were normalized to
approximate the standard 60 percent ETR, as shown on the logs (N60). The California ring samples
were also corrected for the 3-inch sampler diameter using Burmister’s correction factor.
The exploratory borings were logged using the Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging, Classification and
Presentation Manual (2010) as a guideline. The Santiago Formation materials are described in
general accordance with Section 2.6.1.3(i.e., Description of Poorly Indurated Rock)of the Caltrans
Manual (2010).
CONE PENETRATION TESTS
TheCPTsoundings were advanced by Pacific Drillingin general accordance with ASTM D5778. The
CPT soundings were carried out using an integrated electronic cone system manufactured by
Vertek. The CPTs were advanced using a Marl M-10 truck mounted rig. The cone used during the
program was a 10cm2 cone and recorded the following parameters at approximately 2 cm depth
intervals:
Cone Resistance (qc)
Sleeve Friction (fs)
Dynamic Pore Pressure (u)
Inclination
Penetration Speed
•
•
•
•
•
GR□UP DEL T .t\
APPENDIX B
CURRENT EXPLORATION RECORDS (Continued)
Table B-1 – Explorations Summary (see Figure 2)
Exploration
ID
Latitude
[°]
Longitude
[°]
Top
Elevation
NGVD 29 [FT]
Exploration
Depth [FT]
Bottom
Elevation
NGVD 29 [FT]
Figure
No.
A-22-001 33.12210 -117.95 51.50 43.50 B-2
C-22-001 33.12211 -117.30132 95 46.06 48.94 B-3
C-22-002 33.12226 -117.30124 96 24.46 71.54 B-4
C-22-003 33.12187 -117.30147 96 51.71 44.29 B-5
30130
GR□UP DEL T .t\
AVIARA APARTMENTS EASTCARLSBAD, CA SD722
SOIL IDENTIFICATION AND HOLE IDENTIFICATION DESCRIPTION SEQUENCE Holes are identified using the following
convention:
Refer to H-YY-NNN
Cl) Section Where: CJ ,, iij C I!! H: Hole Type Code Cl) C
:I ,, ·s 0 YY: 2-digit year 0" -a; .Q 0" :;:;
Cl) I'll Cl) CL NNN: 3-digit number (001-999) U) U:: ..J 0:: 0
1 Group Name 2.5.2 3.2.2 • Hole Type
2 Group Symbol 2.5.2 3.2.2 • Code Description
Description A Auger boring (hollow or solid stem,
Components bucket)
Consistency of • R Rotary drilled boring (conventional)
3 2.5.3 3.2.3 Cohesive Soil Rotary core (self-cased wire-line,
Apparent Density RC continuously-sampled)
4 of Cohesionless 2.5.4 • Soil RW Rotary core (self-cased wire-line, not
5 Color 2.5.5 • continuously sampled)
6 Moisture 2.5.6 • p Rotary percussion boring (Air)
Percent or • 0 HD Hand driven (1-inch soil tube)
Proportion of Soil 2.5.7 3.2.4
HA Hand auger
7 Particle Size 2.5.8 2.5.8 • 0 D Driven (dynamic cone penetrometer)
Particle Angularity 2.5.9 0
0 CPT Cone Penetration Test Particle Shape 2.5.10
Plasticity (for fine-0 Other (note on LOTS)
8 grained soil) 2.5.11 3.2.5 0
9 Dry Strength (for 2.5.12 0 fine-grained soil)
10 Dilatency (for fine-2.5.13 0 grained soil)
11 Toughness (for 2.5.14 0 Descrietion Seguence Exameles: fine-grained soil)
12 Structure 2.5.15 0
13 Cementation 2.5.16 • SANDY lean CLAY (CL); very stiff;
Percent of yellowish brown; moist; mostly fines;
Cobbles and 2.5.17 • some SAND, from fine to medium; few
14 Boulders GRAVEL; medium plasticity; PP=2.75.
Description of
Cobbles and 2.5.18 • Well-graded SAND with SILT and Boulders
15 Consistency Field 2.5.3 • GRAVEL and COBBLES (SW-SM);
Test Result dense; brown; moist; mostly SAND,
16 Additional 2.5.19 0 from fine to coarse; some fine GRAVEL; Comments few fines; weak cementation; 10%
GRANITE COBBLES; 3 to 6 inches;
Describe the soil using descriptive terms hard; subrounded.
in the order shown Clayey SAND (SC); medium dense, light
Minimum Reguired Seguence: brown; wet; mostly fine sand; little fines;
uses Group Name (Group Symbol); Consistency or low plasticity.
Density; Color; Moisture; Percent or Proportion of Soil;
Particle Size; Plasticity (optional).
0 = optional for non-Caltrans projects
GR□UP GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. FIGURE NUMBER
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS B-1A Where applicable: Jl AND GEOLOGISTS
PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER Cementation; % cobbles & boulders;
Description of cobbles & boulders;
Consistency field test result
BORING RECORD LEGEND #1
Ref.: Ca/trans Soil and Rock Logging Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010) DELTA
AVIARA APARTMENTS EASTCARLSBAD, CA
SD722
GROUP SYMBOLS AND NAMES
Graphic / Symbo Group Names Graphic / Symbo Group Names --•· ~ Lean CLAY . . Well-graded GRAVEL •• GW Lean CLAY with SAND ••• Well-graded GRAVEL wnh SAND Lean CLAY with GRAVEL . . ~ CL SANDY lean CLAY Jo\l • 0000 Poorly graded GRAVEL SANDY lean CLAY with GRAVEL
0000 GP GRAVELLY lean CLAY
000 ~( Poorly graded GRAVEL wnh SAND GRAVELLY lean CLAY with SAND • Well-graded GRAVEL with SILT v SILTY CLAY
GW-GM SILTY CLAY with SAND • Well-graded GRAVEL with SILT and SAND ~ SILTY CLAY with GRAVEL . CL-ML SANDY SILTY CLAY -• i GW-GC
Well-graded GRAVEL with CLAY (or SILTY SANDY SILTY CLAY with GRAVEL CLAY) ~ GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY • • Well-graded GRAVEL with CLAY and SANO GRAVELLY SILTY CLAY with SAND . (or SILTY CLAY and SAND)
lo le Poorly graded GRAVEL wnh SILT SILT "o "" b GP-GM SILT with SAND
o< Poorly graded GRAVEL wnh SILT and SAND SILT with GRAVEL 0 ML SANDY SILT
~Q 0 Poorly graded GRAVEL with CLAY SANDY SILT with GRAVEL ~:~ GP-GC (or SILTY CLAY) GRAVELLY SILT
0 io~of1t~g~~:mN/l\' CLAY and SAND GRAVELLY SILTwnh SAND ' . SILTY GRAVEL w ORGANIC lean CLAY ct ob
1, ( 0 GM ORGANIC lean CLAY with SAND
0 C o c SILTY GRAVEL with SAND ~ ORGANIC lean CLAY with GRAVEL
~J
OL SANDY ORGANIC lean CLAY
CLAYEY GRAVEL SANDY ORGANIC lean CLAY with GRAVEL ~, ~ GC GRAVELLY ORGANIC lean CLAY
0/o CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND GRAVELLY ORGANIC lean CLAY with SAND
~ SILTY CLAYEY GRAVEL ) ORGANIC SILT
GC-GM I' ORGANIC SILT with SAND 9 SILTY, CLAYEY GRAVEL with SAND ) ORGANIC SILT with GRAVEL
0: ~ 0 ~::
OL SANDY ORGANIC SILT
Well-graded SAND SANDY ORGANIC SILT with GRAVEL ~: ~ ~ SW GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILT Well-graded SAND with GRAVEL GRAVELLY ORGANIC SILTwnh SAND
.. Poorly graded SAND ~ Fat CLAY
SP Fat CLAY with SAND
Poorly graded SAND with GRAVEL Fat CLAY with GRAVEL ..... ~ CH SANDY fat CLAY
. : '.I Well-graded SAND with SILT SANDY fat CLAY with GRAVEL
~ .. SW-SM GRAVELLY fat CLAY Well-graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL GRAVELLY fat CLAY with SAND
o: Vo Well-graded SAND with CLAY (or SILTY CLAY) Elastic SILT . · V. SW-SC Elastic SILT with SAND Well-graded SAND with CLAY and GRAVEL . / (or SILTY CLAY and GRAVEL) Elastic SILT with GRAVEL
MH SANDY elastic SILT .. .. Poor1y graded SAND with SILT SANDY elastic SILT with GRAVEL .. SP-SM GRAVELLY elastic SILT Poor1y graded SAND with SILT and GRAVEL .. GRAVELLY elastic SILT with SAND
···.1;. Poorly graded SAND with CLAY (or SILTY CLAY) t~l ORGANIC fat CLAY .·. v SP-SC ORGANIC fat CLAY with SAND ·:·: :) io~ofiL~g~-7:~J> G~VCE'{;Y and GRAVEL ~if"# ORGANIC fat CLAY with GRAVEL
.. ~if"# OH SANDY ORGANIC fat CLAY .. SILTY SAND ~if"# SANDY ORGANIC fat CLAY with GRAVEL .. SM GRAVELLY ORGANIC fat CLAY SILTY SAND wnh GRAVEL ~j GRAVELLY ORGANIC fat CLAY with SAND . . .. ~--CLAYEY SAND )) )) ORGANIC elastic SILT .0,. SC 1, I ORGANIC elastic SILT with SAND
CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL ORGANIC elastic SILT wnh GRAVEL
:::,~ I OH SANDY elastic ELASTIC SILT
SILTY CLAYEY SAND on SANDY ORGANIC elastic SILT wnh GRAVEL
SC-SM II I ( GRAVELLY ORGANIC elastic SILT . : ·:/. SILTY CLAYEY SAND with GRAVEL I ~ GRAVELLY ORGANIC elastic SILT with SAND
WW\ ~,-~ ORGANIC SOIL ;~~ PT PEAT 0 ORGANIC SOIL with SAND
t.!!t!!•' ~ °F.., ORGANIC SOIL with GRAVEL
II II OUOH SANDY ORGANIC SOIL ~ COBBLES q~ SANDY ORGANIC SOIL with GRAVEL
COBBLES and BOULDERS ~/ GRAVELLY ORGANIC SOIL BOULDERS ~ ..r., GRAVELLY ORGANIC SOIL with SAND
DRILLING METHOD SYMBOLS
[HJ Auger Drilling ~ Rotary Drilling ~ Dynamic Cone ~ Diamond Core or Hand Driven
FIELD AND LABORATORY TESTS
C Consolidation (ASTM D 2435-04)
CL Collapse Potential (ASTM D 5333-03)
CP Compaction Curve (CTM 216 -06)
CR Corrosion, Sulfates, Chlorides (CTM 643 -99;
CTM 417 -06; CTM 422 -06)
CU Consolidated Undrained Triaxial (ASTM D 4767-02)
OS Direct Shear (ASTM D 3080-04)
El Expansion Index (ASTM D 4829-03)
M Moisture Content (ASTM D 2216-05)
MD Moisture Density (ASTM D-2937 & D2216-05)
OC Organic Content (ASTM D 2974-07)
P Permeability (CTM 220 -05)
PA Particle Size Analysis (ASTM D 422-63 [2002])
Pl Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, Plasticity Index
(AASHTO T 89-02, AASHTO T 90-00)
PL Point Load Index (ASTM D 5731-05)
PM Pressure Meter
PP Pocket Penetrometer
R R-Value (CTM 301 -00)
SE Sand Equivalent (CTM 217 -99)
SG Specific Gravity (AASHTO T 100-06)
SL Shrinkage Limit (ASTM D 427-04)
SW Swell Potential (ASTM D 4546-03)
TV Pocket Torvane
UC Unconfined Compression -Soil (ASTM D 2166-06)
Unconfined Compression -Rock (ASTM D2938-95)
UU Unconsolidated Undrained Triaxial
(ASTM D 2850-03)
UW Unit Weight (ASTM D 4767-04)
VS Vane Shear (AASHTO T 223-96 [20041)
-200 Percent Passing (ASTM D-1140)
SAMPLER GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
~ Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
[I] Standard California Sampler
B Modified California Sampler
[I] Shelby Tube [ill Piston Sampler
[] NX Rock Core [] HQ Rock Core
I Bulk Sample ~ Other (see remarks)
WATER LEVEL SYMBOLS
'Sl-First Water Level Reading (during drilling)
~ Static Water Level Reading (after drilling, date)
DEFINITIONS FOR CHANGE IN MATERIAL Ref.: Ca/trans Soil and Rock Logging Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010)
Term Definition
Material Change in material is observed in the
Change sample or core, and the location
of change can be accurately measured.
Estimated Change in material cannot be accurately
Material located because either the change is
Change gradational or because of limitations in the
drilling/sampling methods used.
Soil/Rock Material changes from soil characteristics
Boundary to rock characteristics.
Symbol
GR□UP
..................
~ ,, .......... _ ........ DELTA
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. FIGURE NUMBER
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS
AND GEOLOGISTS
PROJECT NAME
B-1B
PROJECT NUMBER
BORING RECORD LEGEND #2
AVIARA APARTMENTS EAST
CARLSBAD, CA
SD722
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
Descriptor Shear Strength (tsf) Pocket Penetrometer, PP Measurement (tsf) Torvane, TV. Measurement (tsf) Vane Shear, VS. Measurement (tsf)
Very Soft < 0.12 < 0.25 < 0.12 < 0.12
Soft 0.12 -0.25 0.25-0.50 0.12-0.25 0.12 -0.25
Medium Stiff 0.25-0.50 0.50-1 .0 0.25-0.50 0.25-0.50
Stiff 0.50-1.0 1.0 -2.0 0.50-1.0 0.50-1.0
Very Stiff 1.0 -2.0 2.0-4.0 1.0-2.0 1.0 -2.0
Hard >2.0 >4.0 >2.0 > 2.0
APPARENT DENSITY OF COHESION LESS SOILS MOISTURE
Descriptor SPT ~ -Value (blows / foot) Descriptor Criteria
Very Loose 0-5 Dry No discernable moisture
Loose 5 -10
Medium Dense 10-30 Moist Moisture present, but no free water
Dense 30-50 Wet Visible free water
Very Dense > 50
PERCENT OR PROPORTION OF SOILS PARTICLE SIZE
Descriptor Criteria Descriptor Size (in)
Trace Particles are present but estimated Boulder > 12
to be less than 5% Cobble 3 -12
Few 5 to 10% Gravel Coarse 3/4-3
Fine 1/5 -3/4
Little 15 to 25% Coarse 1/16 -1/5
Some 30 to 45% Sand Medium 1/64-1/16
Mostly 50 to 100% Fine 1/300 -1/64
Silt and Clay < 1/300
PLASTICITY OF FINE-GRAINED SOILS
Descriptor Criteria
Nonplastic A 1/8-inch thread cannot be rolled at any water content.
Low The thread can barely be rolled, and the lump cannot be formed when drier than the plastic limit.
Medium The thread is easy to roll, and not much time is required to reach the plastic limit; it cannot be rerolled after
reaching the plastic limit. The lump crumbles when drier than the plastic limit.
High It takes considerable time romn1 and kneading to reach the plastic limit. The thread can be rerolled several
times after reaching the plastic imit. The lump can be formed without crumbling when drier than the plastic limit.
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS VS. N60 CEMENTATION
Description SPT N60 (blows / foot) Descriptor Criteria
Very Soft 0-2 Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or
little finger pressure.
Soft 2-4 Moderate Crumbles or breaks with considerable
Medium Stiff 4-8 finger pressure.
Stiff 8-15 Strong Will not crumble or break with finger
Very Stiff 15 -30 pressure.
Hard > 30
Ref: Peck, Hansen, and Thornburn. 1974, "Foundation Engineering", Second Edition GR□UP GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. FIGURE NUMBER
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS B-1C Note: Only to be used (with caution) when pocket penetrometer or other data on Jl AND GEOLOGISTS undrained shear strength are unavailable. Not allowed by Caltrans Soil and Rock
Logging and Classificaton Manual. 2010 PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER
Ref.: Ca/trans Soil and Rock Logging Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010), BORING RECORD LEGEND #3
with the exception of consistency of cohesive soils vs. N.,. DELTA
AVIARA APARTMENTS EASTCARLSBAD, CA
SD722
ROCK GRAPHIC SYMBOLS
~ IGNEOUS ROCK
~ SEDIMENTARY ROCK
[r2j METAMORPHIC ROCK
BEDDING SPACING
Descriptor
Massive
Very thickly bedded
Thickly bedded
Moderately bedded
Thinly bedded
Very thinly bedded
Laminated
Thickness or Spacing
> 10 ft
3to 10ft
1 to 3 ft
3-5/8 inches to 1 ft
1-1 /4 to 3-5/8 inches
3/8 inch to 1-1/4 inches
< 3/8 inch
WEATHERING DESCRIPTORS FOR INTACT ROCK
Diagnostic Features
Chemical Weathering-Discoloration-Oxidation Mechanical Weathering Texture and Solutioning and Grain Boundary >------~---~~ ..... Descriptor Body of Rock Fracture Surfacei Conditions Texture Solutioning General Characteristics
Fresh No discoloration, not No discoloration No separation, intact No change No solutioning
oxidized or oxidation (tight)
Hammer rings when crystalline
rocks are struck.
Slightly Weathered Preserved Discoloration or oxidation is Minor to limited to surface of, or short complete distance from, fractures; discoloration or some feldspar crystals are oxidation of most
No visible separation, intact (tight) Minor leaching of some soluble minerals may be noted
Hammer rings when crystalline rocks are struck. Body of rock not weakened.
Moderately
Weathered
Intensely Weathered
dull surfaces
Discoloration or oxidation All fracture extends from fractures surfaces are usually throughout" Fe-Mg discolored or
minerals are rustv\ feldspar oxidized crystals are "cloudy'
Discoloration or oxidation All fracture throughout; all feldspars and surfaces are Fe-Mg minerals are altered discolored or to clay to some extent; or oxidized; chemical alteration produces surfaces are in situ. disaggr!)gation (refer friable to gram boundary conditions)
Decomposed Discolored of oxidized throughout, but resistant minerals such as quartz may
be unaltered; all feldspars and Fe-Mg minerals are completely altered to clay
Partial separation of boundaries visible
Partial separation, rock is friable; in semi-arid conditions, granitics are disaggregafed
Complete separation of grain boundaries
(disaggregated)
Generally preserved Soluble minerals Hammer does not ring when may be mostly rock is struck. Body of rock is leached slightly weakened.
Altered by Leaching of chemical soluble minerals disintegration may be such as via complete hydration or argillation
Resembles a soil; partial or complete remnant rock
structure may be preserved; leaching of soluble minerals
usually complete
Dull sound when struck with hammer; usuallY. can be broken with mooerate to heavy manual pressure or by light hammer blow without reference to planes of weakness such as incipient or hairline fractures or vemlets. Rock is significantly weakened.
Can be granulated by hand. Resistant minerals such as guartz mav be present as "stringers'" or "dikes".
Note: Combination descriptors (such as "slightly weathered to fresh") are used where eciual distribution of both weathering characteristics is present over significant intervals or where ctiaracteristics present are "in between" the diagnostic feature. However, combination descriptors should not be used where significant identifiable zones can be delineated. Only two adjacent descriptors shall be combined. "Very intensely weathered" is
the combination descriptor for "decomposed to intensely weathered".
RELATIVE STRENGTH OF INTACT ROCK
Descriptor
Extremely
Very Stronitrong
Strong
Medium Strong
Weak
Very Weak
Extremely Weak
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (psi)
> 30,000
14,500 -30,000
7,000 -14,500
3,500 -7,000
700-3,500
150 -700
< 150
CORE RECOVERY CALCULATION (%)
l; Length of the recovered core pieces (in.) 100
Total length of core run (in.) x
RQD CALCULATION (%)
l; Length of intact core pieces> 4 in. x 100
Total length of core run (in.)
Descriptor
Extremely Hard
f,/ery hard
Hard
Moderately Hard
Moderately
Soft
Soft
Very Soft
Descriptor
Unfractured
ROCK HARDNESS
Criteria
Specimen cannot be scratched with pocket knife or sharp pick; can only be chipped with repeated heavy hammer blows
Specimen cannot be scratched with pocket knife or sharp pick; breaks with repeated heavy hammer blows
Specimen can be scratched with pocket knife or sharp pick with heavy pressure; heavy hammer blows required to break specimen
Specimen can be scratched with pocket knife or sharp pick with light or moderate pressure; breaks with moderate hammer blows
Specimen can be grooved 1/6 in. with pocket knife or sharp pick with moderate
or heavy pressure; breaks with light hammer blow or heavy hand pressure
Specimen can be 9.rooved or gouged with pocket knife or sharp pick with light pressure, breaks with light to mocferate hand pressure
Specimen can be readily indented, grooved, or gouged with fingernail, or carved with pocket knife; breaks with light hand pressure
FRACTURE DENSITY
Criteria
Very Slightly Fractured
Slightly Fractured
Moderately Fractured
Intensely Fractured
No fractures
Lengths greater 3 ft
Lengths from 1 to 3 ft, few lengths outside that range
Lengths mostly in range of 4 in. to 1 ft, with most lengths about 8 in.
Lengths average from 1 in. to 4 in. with scattered fragmented
intervals with lengths less than 4 in.
Very Intensely Fractured Mostly chips and fragments with few scattered short core lengths
GR□UP
Jl
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC. FIGURE NUMBER
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS
AND GEOLOGISTS
PROJECT NAME
B-1D
PROJECT NUMBER
Ref.: Ca/trans Soil and Rock Logging Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010) DELTA BORING RECORD LEGEND #4
Group Delta Project No. SD722
AVIARA APARTMENTS EAST
CARLSBAD, CA
KEY FOR SOIL CLASSIFICATION #1
Figure B-1E
CLASSIFICATION OF INORGANIC FINE GRAINED SOILS (Soils with >50% finer than No. 200 Sieve)
CL: LL<50; above A-Line.
CH: LL>50; above A-Line.
ML: LL<50; below A-Line, or PI<4,
or Non-Plastic
MH: LL>50; below A-Line.
CL-ML:above A-Line and PI=4 to 7
CL/CH, ML/MH: at or near LL=50
ML/CL, MH/CH: at or near the A-Line
Laboratory Classification of Clay and Silt Field Identification of Clays and SiltsREFERENCE: Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging,
Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010).
Reference:
ASTM D 2487 and 2488
GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME
· Lean clay , -----<15% plus No. 200 %s and~%gravel ___ Lean ,::lay vvith sand
<30% plus No. 2 00---15-25% plus No. 200 -c=:::::::: %sand<%gravel ---Lean clay vvith gravel < <15% gra vel ______ Sandy lean clay _ CL < % sand;;,: % gravel -===:::::::: ;;,:15% gravel Sandy lean clay with gravel
2,:30% plus No. 200 <15% sand ------Gravelly lean clay .
% sand<% gravel -===::::::::;;,:15% sand ------Gravelly lean clay vv1th sand
Silt <15% plus No. 200 %sand2:%gravel ---Silt vvith sand
<30% plus No. 200-<: 15-25% plus No. 200-=:::::::::: %sand <%gravel Silt vvi~ gravel < <15% gravel ______ Sandy silt Iv.CL < % sand~ % gravel -==::::::=: 2:l5% gravel Sandy silt vvith gravel
2:30% plus No. 200 ,,, 1 -<15% sand Gravelly silt
% sand < -,o grave -2:l5 % sand ------Gravelly silt vvith sand
· -----------------Fat clay . _-<15% plus No. 200 %sand;;;e%gravel---Fat clay ""'.~.th.sand
<30% plus No. 200 --15-25% plus No. 200-=:::::::: %sand <%gravel ---Fat clay "':'"~'gravel , < <15% gravel ______ Sandy fat clay · CH < % sand 2: % gravel -=====: :.a,}5% gravel Sandy fat clay with gravel
=0% plus No. 200 <15% sand------Gravelly fat::clay . .
% sand < % gravel -===:::::::: ~15% sand ------Gravelly fat::clay vv1th sand
-----------------Elastic silt _-<15% plus No. 200 91' sand;;,:%gravcl ___ Elastic silt with sand <<30% plus No. 200 ---1 .:5-2.:5% plus No. 200--==:::::::: %sand <%gravel ---Elastic silt ~i~ gravel
· · <15% gavel_-::::::::: Sandy elas~c sµt . lMH'. < % sand ;;;e % gravel -==::::: 2':15% gravel Sandy elastic a,;ilt _vvnh gravel
2':30% plus No. 200 <15% sand ------Gravelly elas~c sµt: .
Classification of Fine-Grained Soil
w ~ m ~ ~ oo ro oo oo a
Liquid Limit (LL)
% sand< % gravel -===:::::::: 2:l5% sand ------Gravelly elas t:J.c silt: vv1t:h
sand
Group Symbol Ory Strength Ollatancy Toughness Plasticity
ML None to low Slow to rapid Low or thread cannot be Low to nonplastic
formed
CL Medium to high None to slO'N Medium Medium
MH Low to medium None to slow Low to medium Low to medium
CH High to very high None High High
GR □UPl-------------,
DELTA
Group Delta Project No. SD722
AVIARA APARTMENTS EAST
CARLSBAD, CA
KEY FOR SOIL CLASSIFICATION #2
Figure B-1F
Note: Values estimated to nearest 5% to be used for visual identification, values in parentheses to be
used for classification when based on laboratory grain size data.
Reference:
ASTM D 2487 and 2488
REFERENCE: Caltrans Soil and Rock Logging,
Classification, and Presentation Manual (2010).
CLASSIFICATION OF COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (Soils with <50% fines passing No. 200 Sieve)
(<5% fines)
(<5% fines)
(5-12% fines)
(>12% fines)
(>12% fines)
(5-12% fines)
Granular Soil Gradation Parameters
Coefficient of Uniformity: Cu = D60/D10
Coefficient of Curvature: Cc= D302 / (D60 x D10)
D10 = 10% of soil is finer than this diameter
D30 = 30% of soil is finer than this diameter
D60 = 60% of soil is finer than this diameter
Group
Symbol Gradation or Plasticity Requirement
SW Cu> 6 and 1 < Cc< 3
GW ...Cu > 4 and 1 < Cc< 3
GP or SP .Clean gravel or sand not meeting
requirement for SW or GW
SM or GM ...Non-plastic fines or below A-Line or PI<4
SC or GC .Plastic fines or above A-Line and PI>7
GRAVEL %GRAVEL>
%SAND
SAND
%SAND;;,,
%GRAVEL
GROUP SYMBOL GROUP NAME
< Well-graded ------------Gw-====: <15% sand -Well-graded gravel ~5%fines :2'.15% sand -Well-graded gravel with sand
Poorly graded GP -=:::::::: <15% sand --Poorly graded gravel <':15% sand --Poorly graded gravel with sarid
Fines=ML or MH--GW-GM-<:: <15% sand --Well-graded gravel with silt
· Well-graded < . · :2'.15% sand -Well-graded gravel with silt and sand < Fines=CL or CH -GW-GC-C:::::::::: <15% sand --Well-graded gravel with clay 1U%fines :2'.1-5% sand --Well-graded gravel with clay and sand
. <Fines=MLorMH--GP-GM -c::::::::::·<15% sand-. -Poorly graded gravel with.silt Poorly graded :2'.15% sand --Poorly graded gravel with silt and sand
Fines=CL or CH -GP-GC -C:::::::::: <15% sand --Poorly graded gravel with clay :2'.15% sand --Poorly graded gravel with clay and sand
--==:==:=:-_~:~~~~~~= Fines=ML or MH --GM-====:: <15% sand --Silty gravel :2'.15%fines :2'.15% sand -Silty gravel with sand
Fines=CL or CH --GC -====:: <15% sand -Clayey gravel 2:15% sand --Clayey gravel with sand . < Well-graded SW-===== <15% gravel-Well-graded sand ~5%fines 2:15% gravel-Well-graded sand with gravel
Poorly graded -----------SP -=:::::::: <15% gravel-Poorly-graded sand · :2'.15% gravel-Poorly-graded sand with gravel
< Fines=ML or MH -SW-SM -C:::::::::: <15% gravel-Well-graded sand with silt < Well-graded . :2'.15% gravel-Well-graded sand with silt and gravel
Fines=CL or CH -SW-SC -C:::::::::: <15% gravel-Well-graded sand with clay l0%fines , 2:15% gravel-Well-graded sand with clay and gravel
<
Fines=ML or MH --SP-SM -C:::::::::: <15% gravel-Poorly graded sand with silt Poorly graded 2:15% gravel-Poorly graded sand with silt and gravel
Fines=CL or CH -SP-SC -C:::::: <15% gravel-Poorly graded sand with clay 2:15% grave)-Poorly graded sand with clay and gravel
-======== Fines=ML or MH -SM -=::::::::: <15% gravel-Silty sand · 2:l5%fines , );;15%.gravcl-Silty sand with gravel
Fines=CL or CH --SC -===:: .;15% gravel-Clayey sand 2:15% gravel-Clayey sand with gravel
L
GR □UPi--------------1
DELTA
5
43
19
28
23
24
CRR
PA
EI
PI-200
C-200
-200
PA
11.8
16.6
22.8
3
40
12
26
14
22
FILL: CLAYEY SAND (SC); dark brown (10YR 3/3);moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; trace fineGRAVEL; medium plasticity; organics present.
Loose; light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3).(4% GRAVEL; 56% SAND; 40% fines)
Dense; mottled gray (2.5Y 5/1), light grayish brown
(2.5Y 6/2), and very dark gray (10YR 3/1).(EI=20)
ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense;very dark gray (2.5Y 3/1); moist; mostly fine SAND;
some fines; medium plasticity.(48% fines)
(LL=38; PL=16; PI=22)
Dark gray (2.5Y 4/1).(48% fines)
SANTIAGO FORMATION*: SEDIMENTARY ROCK
(poorly-indurated SANDSTONE): fine to mediumgrained; massive; light gray (5Y 7/2); intenslyweathered; very soft; (CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium
dense; moist; mostly fine SAND; some fines; medium tohigh plasticity).
(50% fines)
Light olive gray (5Y 6/2); (SILTY SAND (SM); wet;mostly fine to medium SAND; little fines; nonplastic).(0% GRAVEL, 85% SAND; 15% fines)
4
21
7
1822
248
79
17
777
610
12
120
100
B1
S2
R3-1R3-2
S4
R5-1
R5-2
S6
R7-1
R7-2
START
MOISTURE(%)60Aviara Apartments SD722
3/14/2022 3/14/2022
S. Narveson
FIGURE
-
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATIONOF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHERLOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATIONWITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA
PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED.OTHERTESTSSAMPLE NO.DRILLING EQUIPMENT GROUND ELEV (ft)
DRILLING METHOD
Hollow Stem Auger
95
DRILLING COMPANY
BORING
SHEET NO.
LOGGED BY
DEPTH/ELEV. GROUNDWATER (ft)TOTAL DEPTH (ft)
9245 Activity Road, Suite 103
Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in.ETR ~ 97%, N60 ~ 1.62*NSPT ~ 1.08*NMC; Latitude 33.12210°, Longitude -117.30130°SAMPLE TYPENGRAPHICLOGDESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
ELEVATION(feet)5
10
15
20 BLOW/FT "N"DRY DENSITY(pcf)PENETRATION RESISTANCE(BLOWS / 6 IN)NOTES
90
85
80
75DEPTH (feet)FINISH
A-22-001
Carlsbad, California 1 of 3
A. BiedaPacific Drilling Co
Marl M10 6
BORING RECORD
SITE LOCATION
SAMPLING METHOD
PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER
BORING DIA. (in)
51.5 16.2 / 78.8
CHECKED BY
San Diego, California 92126
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.DRILLINGMETHODGDC_LOG_BORING_MMX_SOIL_SD SD722 LOG.GPJ GDCLOG.GDT 4/4/22I I
I I
I I
I I I ~
B 2A
19
52
42
48
42
23.8
12
48
26
44
26
SANTIAGO FORMATION* (continued):SEDIMENTARY ROCK (poorly-indurated
SANDSTONE): fine to medium grained; thinly bedded;light olive gray (5Y 6/2); intensly weathered; very soft;
(CLAYEY SAND (SC); medium dense; wet; mostly fineSAND; some fines; low to medium plasticity; iron oxidestaining).
(Poorly-graded SAND with SILT (SP-SM); very dense;
mostly fine to medium SAND; few fines; nonplastic).
(Dense; little fines).
Light yellowish brown (2.5Y 6/3).
Light brownish gray (2.5Y 6/2); (Poorly-graded SANDwith CLAY (SP-SC); trace fine GRAVEL; low plasticity).
34
8
13
2325
1012
14
111925
811
15
101
S8
R9-1R9-2
S10
R11-1R11-2
S12
START
MOISTURE(%)60Aviara Apartments SD722
3/14/2022 3/14/2022
S. Narveson
FIGURE
-
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATIONOF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHERLOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATIONWITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA
PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED.OTHERTESTSSAMPLE NO.DRILLING EQUIPMENT GROUND ELEV (ft)
DRILLING METHOD
Hollow Stem Auger
95
DRILLING COMPANY
BORING
SHEET NO.
LOGGED BY
DEPTH/ELEV. GROUNDWATER (ft)TOTAL DEPTH (ft)
9245 Activity Road, Suite 103
Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in.ETR ~ 97%, N60 ~ 1.62*NSPT ~ 1.08*NMC; Latitude 33.12210°, Longitude -117.30130°SAMPLE TYPENGRAPHICLOGDESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
ELEVATION(feet)30
35
40
45 BLOW/FT "N"DRY DENSITY(pcf)PENETRATION RESISTANCE(BLOWS / 6 IN)NOTES
65
60
55
50DEPTH (feet)FINISH
A-22-001
Carlsbad, California 2 of 3
A. BiedaPacific Drilling Co
Marl M10 6
BORING RECORD
SITE LOCATION
SAMPLING METHOD
PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER
BORING DIA. (in)
51.5 16.2 / 78.8
CHECKED BY
San Diego, California 92126
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.DRILLINGMETHODGDC_LOG_BORING_MMX_SOIL_SD SD722 LOG.GPJ GDCLOG.GDT 4/4/22I I
I I
I I
I I I~
~ ~· -~· ---K --~ ij --re -ij -4 --~ H---ij -H--
11 --~ ij --H--
~· -
--z H -
R· --ti -
B 2A
5836 SANTIAGO FORMATION* (continued):SEDIMENTARY ROCK (poorly-indurated
SANDSTONE): fine to medium grained; thinly bedded;grayish brown (2.5Y 5/2); intensly weathered; very soft;
(CLAYEY SAND (SC); very dense; wet; mostly fine tocoarse SAND; little to some fines; low plasticity).
Boring terminated at target depth of 51.5 feet.Groundwater measured at 16.2 feet below ground
surface during drilling.Boring backfilled with bentonite grout and surfacerestored to match surroundings.
This Boring Record was prepared in accordance with
the Caltrans Soil & Rock Logging, Classification, andPresentation Manual (2010).*Geologic description; (USCS soil description).
1116
20
S13
START
MOISTURE(%)60Aviara Apartments SD722
3/14/2022 3/14/2022
S. Narveson
FIGURE
-
THIS SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE LOCATIONOF THIS BORING AND AT THE TIME OF DRILLING.SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS MAY DIFFER AT OTHERLOCATIONS AND MAY CHANGE AT THIS LOCATIONWITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME. THE DATA
PRESENTED IS A SIMPLIFICATION OF THE ACTUAL
CONDITIONS ENCOUNTERED.OTHERTESTSSAMPLE NO.DRILLING EQUIPMENT GROUND ELEV (ft)
DRILLING METHOD
Hollow Stem Auger
95
DRILLING COMPANY
BORING
SHEET NO.
LOGGED BY
DEPTH/ELEV. GROUNDWATER (ft)TOTAL DEPTH (ft)
9245 Activity Road, Suite 103
Hammer: 140 lbs., Drop: 30 in.ETR ~ 97%, N60 ~ 1.62*NSPT ~ 1.08*NMC; Latitude 33.12210°, Longitude -117.30130°SAMPLE TYPENGRAPHICLOGDESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION
ELEVATION(feet)55
60
65
70 BLOW/FT "N"DRY DENSITY(pcf)PENETRATION RESISTANCE(BLOWS / 6 IN)NOTES
40
35
30
25DEPTH (feet)FINISH
A-22-001
Carlsbad, California 3 of 3
A. BiedaPacific Drilling Co
Marl M10 6
BORING RECORD
SITE LOCATION
SAMPLING METHOD
PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER
BORING DIA. (in)
51.5 16.2 / 78.8
CHECKED BY
San Diego, California 92126
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.DRILLINGMETHODGDC_LOG_BORING_MMX_SOIL_SD SD722 LOG.GPJ GDCLOG.GDT 4/4/22I I
I I
I I
I I I~
~ ij_ ---r --
--
---
----
----
-----
----
--
---
----
----
---
----
----
B 2C
SBT Index
Ic SBT 4321
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 SBT IndexCone resistance qt
Tip resistance (tsf)200100
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 Cone resistance qt Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)100
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 Pore pressure uFriction ratio
Rf (%)1086420
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sandClay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
ClayClay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay & silty clayClayClay & silty clay
Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy silt
Group Delta Consultants
9245 Activity Road, Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92130
Project: Bridge Housing -Aviara Apartments
Location: Laurel Tree Lane, Carlsbad, CA
~
~
,_
g g
:5 :5 C. C. ., .,
0 0
-~
~~ -~
•!<""---
.!:.=--
.. ~-
~ =---~
r ..-
~~
• r:-
-C
:.-;;; GROUP DEL TL!\,.
-
g
:5 C. .,
0
CPeT-IT v.3.0.3.2 -CPTU data presentation & interpretation software -Report created on: 4/14/2022, 3:16:56 PM
g
:5 C. .,
0
g
:5 C. .,
0
SBTlegend
c-22-001
Total depth: 46.06 ft, Date: 3/14/2022
Surface Elevation: 95.00 ft
Coords: 33.12211, -117.30132
L -~ ..
I
l
---
i= ,__
I
I 1 1 -..J
■ 1. Sens~ive fine grained ■ 4. Clayey silt to silty clay D 7. Gravely sand to sand
■ 2. Organic material D 5. Silty sand to sandy silt D 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
■ 3. Clay to silty day D 6. Clean sand to silty sand D 9. Very stiff fine grained
Figure B-3
Project file: \\192.168.10.4\Files$\Projects\SO\SO700\SD722 Bridge Housing Aviara Apts Geotechnical Investigation\S. Field\CPT L.ogs\CPTeT -Aviara Apts.cpt
SBT Index
Ic SBT 4321
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SBT IndexCone resistance qt
Tip resistance (tsf)200100
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cone resistance qt Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)200
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pore pressure uFriction ratio
Rf (%)1086420
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
ClayClay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
ClaySilty sand & sandy silt
ClaySilty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Group Delta Consultants
9245 Activity Road, Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92130
Project: Bridge Housing -Aviara Apartments
Location: Laurel Tree Lane, Carlsbad, CA
:5 C. .,
0
2
/ __,
<.,,
(
c:......
~ <
{
) ..,
?
L
~
_/
)
}
<
7
'-< -
-
..-
-i---....
' µ--
:.-;;; GROUP DEL TL!\,.
:5 C. .,
0
~
)
<.-.
cP --:::::., ___ ,,.
----r-,.__ ..
~ .....
c::::
' -<--:,
I'--
a::-
~
F...
IC-.-, -i> ,,,,., ....
)
' -
,,..
~
:5 C. .,
0
◄
~ .---
I
c;
~
r::.,
' ....
l -
~
{
IC--
... ~
CPeT-IT v.3.0.3.2 -CPTU data presentation & interpretation software -Report created on: 4/14/2022, 3:16:57 PM
g
:5 C. .,
0
g
:5 C. .,
0
SBTlegend
c-22-002
Total depth: 25.46 ft, Date: 3/14/2022
Surface Elevation: 96.00 ft
Coords: 33.12226, -117.30124
■ 1. Sens~ive fine grained ■ 4. Clayey silt to silty clay D 7. Gravely sand to sand
■ 2. Organic material D 5. Silty sand to sandy silt D 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
■ 3. Clay to silty day D 6. Clean sand to silty sand D 9. Very stiff fine grained
Figure B-4
Project file: \\192.168.10.4\Files$\Projects\SO\SO700\SD722 Bridge Housing Aviara Apts Geotechnical Investigation\S. Field\CPT L.ogs\CPTeT -Aviara Apts.cpt
SBT Index
Ic SBT 4321
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
SBT IndexCone resistance qt
Tip resistance (tsf)200100
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cone resistance qt Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)100
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Pore pressure uFriction ratio
Rf (%)1086420
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sandVery dense/stiff soil
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClayClayVery dense/stiff soil
Group Delta Consultants
9245 Activity Road, Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92130
Project: Bridge Housing -Aviara Apartments
Location: Laurel Tree Lane, Carlsbad, CA
:5 C. .,
0
1 .....
> ,
◄
I' "\._
/
":>
~
c?..._
I~
c::--
':>
~
>
<
l"l
:5 C. .,
0
r"I ,,;.
f
(
~
--
..,_..r -
--r:;;:-
-~ -~
L.
-c::
~ -'!_...-
~ ·~ -:--I"'°"--
.2" =
~
:.-;;; GROUP DEL TL!\.
l'l-
;--,,.
"""
:5 C. .,
0
•
.r
,c -IC ...
~l'I. -
c!.
<; l..l
'-\
.!5 ~ \
~ \
\ \
J \ ,\
~
1 _,i-
~
/ ....
(.
(_
1
"";::::,
\
\
\
\
\
\
CPeT-IT v.3.0.3.2 -CPTU data presentation & interpretation software -Report created on: 4/14/2022, 3:16:58 PM
g
:5 C. .,
0
g
:5 C. .,
0
SBTlegend
C-22-003
Total depth: 51.71 ft, Date: 3/14/2022
Surface Elevation: 96.00 ft
Coords: 33.12187, -117.30147
■ 1. Sens~ive fine grained ■ 4. Clayey silt to silty clay D 7. Gravely sand to sand
■ 2. Organic material D 5. Silty sand to sandy silt D 8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
■ 3. Clay to silty day D 6. Clean sand to silty sand D 9. Very stiff fine grained
Figure B-5
Project file: \\192.168.10.4\Files$\Projects\SO\SO700\SD722 Bridge Housing Aviara Apts Geotechnical Investigation\S. Field\CPT L.ogs\CPTeT -Aviara Apts.cpt
Appendix Laboratory Testing C Geotechnical
GROUP DEL TL\
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory testing was conducted in a manner consistentwith the level of care and skill ordinarily
exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the
same locality. No warranty, express or implied, is made as to the correctness or serviceability of
the test results, or the conclusions derived from these tests. Where a specific laboratory test
method has been referenced, such as ASTM or Caltrans, the reference onlyapplies to the specified
laboratory test method, which has been used only as a guidance document for the general
performance of the test and not as a “Test Standard”. A brief description of the tests follows.
Classification: Soils were visually classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System as
established by the American Society of CivilEngineers per ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are
shown on the boring logs in Appendix B.
Particle Size Analysis: Particle size analyses were performed in general accordance with ASTM
D422andwere used to supplement visual classifications. The test results are summarized on the
Boring Records in Appendix B and are presented in detail in Figures C-2A through C-2B.
Atterberg Limits: ASTM D4318 was used to determine the liquid and plastic limits, and plasticity
index of selected soil samples. The test results are presented on Figures C-1A.
Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected soil samples was estimated in general
accordance with ASTM D4829. The test results are summarized in Figure C-1Aalong withcommon
criteria for evaluating the expansion potential based on the expansion index.
Corrosion: To assess the potential for reactivity with buried metals, selected soil samples were
tested for pH and minimum resistivity using Caltrans test method 643. To assess the potential for
reactivity with concrete, selected soil samples were tested for water soluble sulfate. The sulfate
was extracted from the soil under vacuum using a 10:1 (water to dry soil) dilution ratio. The
extracted solution was tested for water soluble sulfate in general accordance with ASTM D516.
Soil samples were also tested for water soluble chloride. The chloride was extracted from the soil
under vacuum using a 10:1 (water to dry soil) dilution ratio. The extracted solution was then tested
for water soluble chloride using a calibrated ion specific electronic probe in general accordance
with ASTM D512. The corrosivity test results along with common criteria for evaluating the
corrosion potential are summarized in Figure C-1B.
Consolidation: The one-dimensional consolidation properties of a selected sample was evaluated
in general accordance with ASTM D2435. The sample wasinundated with water under a nominal
seating load,allowed to swell, and then subjected to controlledstress increments while restrained
laterally and drained axially. The test results are presented in Figure C-3 of this appendix.
R-Value:Resistance “R” Value tests were performed by stabilometer method on selected bulk
samples of the subgrade soils. The testswereconducted in general accordance with CTM 301. The
test results are presented in Figures C-4 of this appendix.
GR□UP DEL T .t\
ATTERBERG LIMITS RESULTS
(ASTM D4318)
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTIC
LIMIT
PLASTICITY
INDEX
A-22-001 (7.5-9’) CLAYEY SAND (SC)38 16 22
EXPANSION TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D4829)
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION EXPANSION INDEX
A-22-001 (5-6.5’)CLAYEY SAND (SC)20
EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION
0 to 20 Very low
21 to 50 Low
51 to 90 Medium
91 to 130 High
Above 130 Very High
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project No. SD722
Figure C-1A
60~--------------------....------,c--/~---,c------,r-----.----,
H 50 a.
X w
0 40 z
>-
1-30
0
1-(/) < 20 ..J a.
10
For classificat ion of f ine-grained soils
and f ine-groined fraction of coarse-groined
soils.
Equation of 'A' -line
Horizontal at PI=4 to LL=25.5,
then PI~0.73 (LL-20)
Equation of "u"-line
Vertical at LL =16 to PI=7.
then PI= 0. 9 (LL-8)
MH OR OH
10 16 20 30 40 50 60 70
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
GR□UP DEL T .t\
80 90 100 110
CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D516, CTM 643)
SAMPLE pH
RESISTIVITY
[OHM-CM]
SULFATE
CONTENT [%]
CHLORIDE
CONTENT [%]
A-22-001 (0-2.5’)7.35 629 0.05 0.03
SULFATE CONTENT [%]SULFATE EXPOSURE CEMENT TYPE
0.00 to 0.10 Negligible -
0.10 to 0.20 Moderate II, IP(MS), IS(MS)
0.20 to 2.00 Severe V
Above 2.00 Very Severe V plus pozzolan
SOIL RESISTIVITY
[OHM-CM]
GENERAL DEGREE OF CORROSIVITY TO FERROUS
METALS
0 to 1,000 Very Corrosive
1,000 to 2,000 Corrosive
2,000 to 5,000 Moderately Corrosive
5,000 to 10,000 Mildly Corrosive
Above 10,000 Slightly Corrosive
CHLORIDE (Cl) CONTENT
[%]
GENERAL DEGREE OF
CORROSIVITY TO METALS
0.00 to 0.03 Negligible
0.03 to 0.15 Corrosive
Above 0.15 Severely Corrosive
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS Project No. SD722
Figure C-1B
GR□UP DEL T .t\
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND
GRAVEL SAND CLAY
SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SC ATTERBERG LIMITS
SAMPLE NUMBER: A-22-001 LIQUID LIMIT: --
SAMPLE DEPTH: S-2 (2.5-4')DESCRIPTION:CLAYEY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: --
PLASTICITY INDEX: --
SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD722
FIGURE C-2A
100 97 97 95 91
86
75
59
48
40
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Grain Size in Millimeters
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes
Percent Finer by Weight--.. ----• 'r....
" '\....
"'\
i\
\
"\ t \ .. , ...
+-4% Gravel 56% Sand+-+ 40% Fines->
._____ __ I .____I _
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE SILT AND
GRAVEL SAND CLAY
SAMPLE UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM ATTERBERG LIMITS
SAMPLE NUMBER: A-22-001 LIQUID LIMIT: --
SAMPLE DEPTH: R-7 (20'-21.5')DESCRIPTION:SILTY SAND PLASTIC LIMIT: --
PLASTICITY INDEX: --
SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. SD722
FIGURE C-2B
100
90
52
26
18 15
3'' 1½'' 3/4'' 3/8'' #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #100 #140 #200 Hydrometer
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.0010.010.1110100
Grain Size in Millimeters
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes
Percent Finer by Weight-~-..........
r'\.
\
\
'
\ t • \
' \
\
\.
\.. .. ...
+--0% Gravel 85% Sand+-+ 15% Fines->
._____ __ I .____I _
A-22-001; Sample R-5 (10-11.5')
INITIAL FINAL
1.0000 0.9686 SAMPLE HEIGHT [IN]
112.6 116.3 DRY DENSITY [PCF]
2.75 2.75 SPECIFIC GRAVITY (ASSUMED)
0.53 0.47 VOID RATIO (e)
16.5 17.3 WATER CONTENT [%]
84.9 100.0 DEGREE OF SATURATION [%]
CONSOLIDATION RESULTS Project No. SD722
FIGURE C-3
-1.0%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
100 1000 10000 100000Percent Strain [%]Stress [psf]
\
\
I\
\
\
I\
BORING NO.: SAMPLE DATE: 3/14/22
BORING DEPTH: TEST DATE: 3/24/22
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION:
LABORATORY TEST DATA
TEST SPECIMEN 1 2 3 4 5
A COMPACTOR PRESSURE 180 150 110 [PSI]
B INITIAL MOISTURE 5.3 5.3 5.3 [%]
C BATCH SOIL WEIGHT 1200 1200 1200 [G]
D WATER ADDED 135 155 170 [ML]
E WATER ADDED (D*(100+B)/C) 11.8 13.6 14.9 [%]
F COMPACTION MOISTURE (B+E) 17.1 18.9 20.2 [%]
G MOLD WEIGHT 2012.1 2078.2 2088.3 [G]
H TOTAL BRIQUETTE WEIGHT 3074.6 3111.6 3097.6 [G]
I NET BRIQUETTE WEIGHT (H-G) 1062.5 1033.4 1009.3 [G]
J BRIQUETTE HEIGHT 2.55 2.53 2.55 [IN]
K DRY DENSITY (30.3*I/((100+F)*J)) 107.8 104.1 99.8 [PCF]
L EXUDATION LOAD 7639 4865 2094 [LB]
M EXUDATION PRESSURE (L/12.54)609 388 167 [PSI]
N STABILOMETER AT 1000 LBS 39 46 54 [PSI]
O STABILOMETER AT 2000 LBS 94 116 126 [PSI]
P DISPLACEMENT FOR 100 PSI 4.40 5.65 5.96 [Turns]
Q R VALUE BY STABILOMETER 29 14 10
R CORRECTED R-VALUE (See Fig. 14)29 14 10
S EXPANSION DIAL READING 0.0032 0.0014 0.0008 [IN]
T EXPANSION PRESSURE (S*43,300) 139 61 35 [PSF]
U COVER BY STABILOMETER 0.74 0.90 0.94 [FT]
V COVER BY EXPANSION 1.07 0.47 0.27 [FT]
TRAFFIC INDEX: 5.0
GRAVEL FACTOR: 1.53
UNIT WEIGHT OF COVER [PCF]: 130
R-VALUE BY EXUDATION: 12
R-VALUE BY EXPANSION: 28
R-VALUE AT EQUILIBRIUM: 12
*Note: Gravel factor estimated from pavement section using CTM 301, Section C, Part b.
REV. 2, DATED 1/31/15
A-22-001
B-1 (0-2.5')
Dark yellowish brown clayey sand (SC)
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
CT301
GROUP DELTA CONSULTANTS, INC.
ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
9245 ACTIVITY ROAD, SUITE 103
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92126
Project No. SD722
FIGURE C-4
APPENDIX D
CALCULATIONS
GR□UP DEL TL\
1.411.41
W
250.00 lbs/ft2 250.00 lbs/ft2 250.00 lbs/ft2
1.411.41
Material Name Color Unit Weight
(lbs/3)Strength Type
Cohesion
(psf)
Phi
(deg)Water Surface
Roadway Fill (Afr)120 Mohr Coulomb 100 32 None
Young Alluvium (Qya)120 Mohr Coulomb 50 30 None
San ago Forma on (Tsa)120 Mohr Coulomb 200 36 Water Surface
Safety Factor
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00+
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
1-SH1 Slope Stability Analysis
Group Delta Consultants, Inc1:100A. Vonk
Cross Section 1-SH1.slmd10/21/2022
Aviara East Apartments
SLIDEINTERPRET 8.010
0 a,
0 co
GR □UP DELTA lys/sOesalptton t---DrawnBy--~Sca/e -~Company ___ ____,
1------~---------t Date File Name
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.52
G.W.T. (in-situ):G.W.T. (earthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Bridge Housing - Aviara Apartments Location : 1200 Laurel Tree Lane
Group Delta Consultants
9245 Activity Road, Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92130
CPT file : CPT 1
16.00 ft16.00 ft32.60Based on SBT
Use fill:Fill height:Fill weight:Trans. detect. applied:K applied:
NoN/AN/AYesYes
Clay like behaviorapplied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:MSF method:
Sands onlyYes20.00 ftMethod based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)200100
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10
1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)1086420
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading
Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground
geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening
Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity,
brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry
CLiq v.3.3.1.13 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 11:02:45 AM
Project file: \\192.168.10.4\Files$\Projects\SD\SD700\SD722 Bridge Housing Aviara Apts Geotechnical Investigation\7. Calcs\Liquefaction\Liquefaction and Dry Sand Settlement.clq
1
~ GROUP DEL TL\
g
.s:: 0. ~
--~ --
I
s:-
<'
... -------~ ,~
·~ -
..:: -
.. ~---
I~ ~-
(' -"":2.
~r
-C
J
V ,I
' / ..
/ V
~
I
I
I
I
•••
~ C:
t! -~
C: 0 :;:::; ~ .... cu C: cu a.
I:;: u
"O cu .!::! ~ 5 z
-
This software is licensed to: Group Delta Consultants, Inc.CPT name: CPT 1
CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction potential
LPI 20151050
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)0.40.30.20.10
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)0
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.3.1.13 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 11:02:45 AM 2
Project file: \\192.168.10.4\Files$\Projects\SD\SD700\SD722 Bridge Housing Aviara Apts Geotechnical Investigation\7. Calcs\Liquefaction\Liquefaction and Dry Sand Settlement.clq
F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.5216.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
16.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes20.00 ft
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low riskDepth (ft) ---◄ Depth (ft) Depth (ft) I I II I Depth (ft) ■□□□■ I ,r \ ' \ \ Depth (ft) □□■
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.52
G.W.T. (in-situ):G.W.T. (earthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Project title : Bridge Housing - Aviara Apartments Location : 1200 Laurel Tree Lane
Group Delta Consultants
9245 Activity Road, Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92130
CPT file : CPT 2
16.00 ft16.00 ft32.60Based on SBT
Use fill:Fill height:Fill weight:Trans. detect. applied:K applied:
NoN/AN/AYesYes
Clay like behaviorapplied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:MSF method:
Sands onlyYes20.00 ftMethod based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)200100
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10
1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)1086420
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading
Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground
geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening
Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity,
brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry
CLiq v.3.3.1.13 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 11:02:46 AM
Project file: \\192.168.10.4\Files$\Projects\SD\SD700\SD722 Bridge Housing Aviara Apts Geotechnical Investigation\7. Calcs\Liquefaction\Liquefaction and Dry Sand Settlement.clq
3
~ GROUP DEL TL\
g
.s:: 0. ~
~
/
~
~ < (_
~ -
C
{
)
'-"')
~
~ e
J
l
'"\
< -;>
'-c~ --' ~
~ ----
I~
)
~
er> -:::> _r --.......
~►
-;;;::»
<
' -c:;;
~
..._
.::---.....
c;,,_
c------,.
--_.
J
'--
,I
◄►♦ ♦ "•' /
/ V
~
I
I
I
I
J
V
"'.4
~ C:
t! -~
C: 0 :;:::; ~ .... cu C: cu a.
I:;: u
"O cu .!::! ~ 5 z
-
This software is licensed to: Group Delta Consultants, Inc.CPT name: CPT 2
CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction potential
LPI 20151050
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)0.10.050
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)0
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.3.1.13 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 11:02:46 AM 4
Project file: \\192.168.10.4\Files$\Projects\SD\SD700\SD722 Bridge Housing Aviara Apts Geotechnical Investigation\7. Calcs\Liquefaction\Liquefaction and Dry Sand Settlement.clq
F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.5216.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
16.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes20.00 ft
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low riskDepth (ft) ~ Depth (ft) Depth (ft) I I II Depth (ft) ■□□□■ ~it ~ ~ ~ . I Depth (ft) □□■
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORTInput parameters and analysis dataAnalysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.52 G.W.T. (in-situ):G.W.T. (earthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Project title : Bridge Housing - Aviara Apartments Location : 1200 Laurel Tree LaneGroup Delta Consultants9245 Activity Road, Suite 103San Diego, CA 92130CPT file : CPT 3 16.00 ft16.00 ft32.60Based on SBT Use fill:Fill height:Fill weight:Trans. detect. applied:K applied:NoN/AN/AYesYes Clay like behaviorapplied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:MSF method: Sands onlyYes20.00 ftMethod basedCone resistance
qt (tsf)200100
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10
1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)1086420
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading
Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground
geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening
Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity,
brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry
CLiq v.3.3.1.13 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 11:02:46 AM
Project file: \\192.168.10.4\Files$\Projects\SD\SD700\SD722 Bridge Housing Aviara Apts Geotechnical Investigation\7. Calcs\Liquefaction\Liquefaction and Dry Sand Settlement.clq
5Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*) \ 1v1rv ~,~ ,,., ~ y ~ \ ' \ It \ ' \ ~ t I ~ .. H1 • j n' ' ., ,, A r " ' ~ "' ' -..... "' --..........1'"'-. Normalized CPT penetration resistance Depth (ft) -v ~1~ ft r v V r\.~ n r,11' ~I I l "1 ~ yi ' I ~ --~ 4 "" ~ "" ~ I l ' I'\ I ~ i' '..,J p,. .) ' I [;l :;o □ C 11 a l'1 ;
This software is licensed to: Group Delta Consultants, Inc.CPT name: CPT 3
CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
CRR plot
During earthq.
L i q u e f a c t i o n a n a l y s i s o v e r a l l p l o t s
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
FS Plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction potential
LPI 20151050
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)0.80.60.40.20
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)0
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.3.1.13 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 10/24/2022, 11:02:46 AM 6
Project file: \\192.168.10.4\Files$\Projects\SD\SD700\SD722 Bridge Housing Aviara Apts Geotechnical Investigation\7. Calcs\Liquefaction\Liquefaction and Dry Sand Settlement.clq
F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value6.700.5216.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
16.00 ft32.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:K applied:Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes20.00 ft
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low riskDepth (ft) ~ '--..----~ Depth (ft) Depth (ft) 1111 Depth (ft) ■□□□■ \ \ \ Depth (ft) □□■