HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 2022-0019; HOM RESIDENCE; LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND COMPACTION TEST REPORT; 2022-12-16LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION AND COMPACTION
TEST REPORT
HOM PROPERTY
2170 TWAIN AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR
MR. ROBERT HOM
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
DECEMBER 16, 2022
PROJECT NO. G2826-32-01
CDP 2022-0019
DWG 543-8A
Project No. G2826-32-01
December 16, 2022
Mr. Robert Hom
2170 Twain Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Subject: LIMITED GEOTECHNCIAL INVESTIGATION
AND COMPACTION TEST REPORT
HOM PROPERTY
2170 TWAIN AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Dear Mr. Hom:
In accordance with your request, we have performed a limited geotechnical investigation of the rear yard
slope and Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls located along the western margin of the
subject property. The initial purpose of our study was to evaluate the global stability of the overall slope
configuration that was created after retaining walls were constructed on the western slope of the
property. Subsequently, we performed random exploratory test pit excavations, in-situ density testing,
and laboratory testing within the reinforced zone of the accessible MSE walls.
The subject property is Lot No. 68 of Carlsbad Tract 97-16A (Kelly Core) and was graded in 2003.
Geocon Incorporated provided geotechnical services during project development. The applicable
geotechnical report is entitled Final Report of Testing and Observation Services During Site Grading,
Kelly Core; CT97-16A, Single Family Lot Nos. 1 through 76 and 84 through 155, Carlsbad, California,
prepared by Geocon Incorporated, dated March 3, 2003.
A review of the report indicates that the subject property is a cut lot underlain by natural Terrace
Deposits. The soils consist of fine to medium grained silty sand. The slope excavation along the west
margin of the lot was originally graded at a ratio of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) with a 5-foot-high retaining
wall at the base. The total slope height is approximately 25 feet. In 2021, the slope was modified by the
construction of a series of stepped Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) retaining walls to create level
terraces. A stairway and observation deck were also constructed as part of the rear yard improvements.
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
G E OT E CHN I CAL ■E NV I RONMENTA L ■ MA T ER I A L S
6960 Flanders Drive ■ Son Diego, California 92121-297 4 ■ Telephone 858.558.6900 ■ Fax 858.558.6159
Geocon Project No. G2826-32-01 - 2 - December 16, 2022
GLOBAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
A topographic survey of the existing slope configuration was prepared by O’Day Consultants. We
generated four cross-sections based on the survey for the purpose of evaluating global slope stability.
The locations of Cross-Sections A-A’ through D-D’ are shown on the Geologic Map, Figure 1. The
cross sections and output files that show the calculated factor of safety considering static and pseudo-
static conditions for each section is presented in Appendix A, Figures A-1 through A-9.
The computer program SLOPE/W distributed by Geo-Slope International was utilized to perform the
slope stability analyses. This program uses conventional slope stability equations and a two-dimensional
limit-equilibrium method to calculate the factor of safety against deep-seated failure. For our analysis,
Spencer’s Method was used. Spencer’s Method satisfies both moment and force equilibrium. The soil
strength parameters for the Terrace Deposits used in our analysis were derived from laboratory testing
during the site investigation and our studies performed nearby.
Based on the results of the global slope stability analyses, a minimum static and pseudo-static factor of
safety of at least 1.5 and 1.1, respectively, is present along each cross section analyzed. With respect to
the potential for soil erosion, the hillside has been generally terraced with walls and flat planter surfaces.
As a result, the exposure of potentially erosive soils has been reduced compared to the originally graded
slope. Therefore, we conclude that the conditions are more favorable now compared to the 2:1 graded
slope with respect to surficial soil erosion.
As previously noted, our evaluation did not consider the stability of the MSE retaining walls and their
zone of influence. We have no opinion in that regard. With that said, it is our opinion that the slope is
grossly stable with respect to the potential for deep-seated failure.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The scope of our services also consisted of excavating four exploratory test pits behind the existing MSE
retaining walls at random locations, observing the location of the geogrid reinforcement, and performing
in-place density tests to evaluate the relative compaction of the soil within the reinforced zone. The
exploratory trench locations are shown on Figure 1. Figure 2 presents the logs and a conjectured geologic
cross section based on the trench information and our estimated subsurface conditions. It is not known
if the geologic or geotechnical conditions encountered within the trenches, or our conjectured
interpretation is representative of the entire wall system. In addition, we have no knowledge of how the
foundation zones were prepared.
We performed in-place density testing using a nuclear gauge in substantial conformance with ASTM
D 6938. Tests were taken at approximately one-foot vertical intervals within the backfill materials. The in-
place density tests indicate that the soil at the locations tested possess a relative compaction ranging from
Geocon Project No. G2826-32-01 - 3 -December 16, 2022
approximately 83 to 86 percent of the laboratory maximum dry density. The results of the field tests are
summarized in Table I. We also performed laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content
tests (ASTM D 1557) and direct shear strength tests (ASTM D 3080) on representative soil samples for use
in our analysis. Shear strength tests were conducted on samples remolded to 85 percent and 90 percent
relative compaction. The results of our laboratory tests are summarized in Tables II through IV.
The soils encountered during our study consisted of silty sand derived from Very Old Paralic Deposits
(i.e. Terrace Deposits, formerly identified as Lindavista Formation). The recommended shear strength
properties for the retained and foundation zones (phi angle of 33-degrees) were provided based on
previous laboratory testing and our experience in the area. Specifically, we considered two shear strength
test results on undisturbed Terrace Deposits from our report entitled Soils Investigation for Cablevision
Communication Facilities, Carlsbad, California, dated March 13, 1979. This site is located
approximately 1,000 feet south of the subject property. These test results are also summarized on Table
IV. A 30-degree phi angle is recommended for the reinforced zone to consider the lower relative
compaction of the soils identified during our study.
CONCLUSIONS
1.Based on the results of our analyses, the global stability of the slope at the rear of the subject
property exceeds a static and pseudo-static factor of safety of 1.5 and 1.1, respectively, against
deep-seated failure.
2.Trench excavations within the reinforced zone of the MSE retaining walls, at four random
locations, indicate that the geogrid reinforcement layers are generally spaced twelve inches apart
and extend approximately four feet behind the face of the wall.
3.In-place density tests performed in soil within the reinforced zone of the MSE wall resulted in
an average relative compaction of approximately 85 percent.
4.Laboratory shear strength testing on a soil sample from the reinforced zone, remolded to 85
percent relative compaction, yielded a friction angle of approximately 30 degrees with zero
cohesion. We understand that a friction angle of 30 degrees was used in the MSE wall design
engineer’s calculations.
5.A photograph taken during wall construction indicates that a backdrain outlet pipe was placed
at the base of the lowest wall. During the field investigation, a 4-inch diameter, PVC subdrain
pipe was slightly visible in front of the lower wall. We have no opinion regarding whether a
complete backdrain system was constructed.
6.We understand that the internal wall stability is being analyzed by M3 Civil Engineering, Incorporated to facilitate a retroactive permit for the existing wall system and the information
contained herein will be used in this analysis. In this regard, Geocon has no opinion regarding
the internal MSE wall stability or soil placed within the retained zone.
7.It is our opinion that construction of the MSE retaining walls do not impact improvements on
the adjacent properties.
Geocon Project No. G2826-32-01 - 4 - December 16, 2022
If there are any questions regarding this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the
undersigned at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
GEOCON INCORPORATED
Trevor E. Myers
RCE 63773
David B. Evans
CEG 1860
TEM:DBE:am
(e-mail) Addressee
AA'
B'B
CC'
D'D
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Qv
o
p
10
Qv
o
p
10
Qp
f
Qp
f
T-
1
T-
2
T-
3
T-
4
69
6
0
F
L
A
N
D
E
R
S
D
R
I
V
E
-
S
A
N
D
I
E
G
O
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9
2
1
2
1
-
2
9
7
4
PH
O
N
E
8
5
8
5
5
8
-
6
9
0
0
-
F
A
X
8
5
8
5
5
8
-
6
1
5
9
SH
E
E
T
O
F
PR
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
SC
A
L
E
DA
T
E
FI
G
U
R
E
Plo
t
t
e
d
:
1
2
/
1
5
/
2
0
2
2
1
0
:
2
3
A
M
|
B
y
:
R
U
B
E
N
A
G
U
I
L
A
R
|
F
i
l
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
Y
:
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
G
2
8
2
6
-
3
2
-
0
1
H
o
m
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
\
S
H
E
E
T
S
\
G
2
8
2
6
-
3
2
-
0
1
G
e
o
M
a
p
.
d
w
g
GE
O
T
E
C
H
N
I
C
A
L
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
1"
=
GE
O
L
O
G
I
C
1
A
P
HO
M
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
CA
R
L
S
B
A
D
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
5'
1
2
-
1
6
-
2
0
2
2
G2
8
2
6
-
3
2
-
0
1
1
1
1
T-
4?
GE
O
C
O
N
L
E
G
E
N
D
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
P
R
E
V
I
O
U
S
L
Y
P
L
A
C
E
D
F
I
L
L
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
T
E
S
T
P
I
T
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
G
E
O
L
O
G
I
C
C
R
O
S
S
-
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
D
D
'
Qp
f
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
V
E
R
Y
O
L
D
P
A
R
A
L
I
C
D
E
P
O
S
I
T
S
Qv
o
p
10
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
G
E
O
L
O
G
I
C
C
O
N
T
A
C
T
(
Q
u
e
r
i
e
d
W
h
e
r
e
U
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
)
i Q g l::rj ~o
~Q
■1~0 ~z
•
~
c::,
<.n ·-
"' Q
r;;~ -11'
<.n -• c::,
~
~ ~ -<.n
,_.,
c::,
r~
)
~I
CON/PAVERS
325.00',
20101
CON/PAVERS
CON/PAVERS BTM STP
325.1 8•
20102
BG
3L._-.,,.
20296
I
::i::
~
-0
vi 0
s;i
R
BG 3~
20298
200~
1/) !
I~
11111
Pp % 'Cq,
,0"6
-
J'
:\," ~(;,
~
FND ND LS 527E3a
328.Sc;-
2006
1 1111
&co,
~!'
-
-4'" ,-\,~ ~~\,"' "
\\~' ,(<\::->"'"'
~
CON PVRS/BW
20237
,6·11
CON
11111 ,,·6
-
:/ff..,,<,
4/i<>'?ill'l'
.9.!)
&en ':,N'c Yp'§°'f' <rr
-.,c;;,
"'""' ~',," ·~:\,c,,-,
,62
?· .-0,
~""'" ii> ,,c;;,
~
,cc;
g.
d,
8l *
-~&9 • '.f'· q,. -0, /}!'
)
c.. t;
{'~<iJ %--7' 6,,
· "'~ II t-1/ ,"' ('" j
¥:-,
I/
,Jo rn-11,
Ol"O,t
~<'-
"b~!'I ~
I!,
~
~i l'v,
ftr'i;<;_
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
DISTANCE (FEET)
SCALE: 1" = 5' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION B-B'
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
M
S
L
)
DISTANCE (FEET)
SCALE: 1" = 5' (Vert. = Horiz.)
GEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION D-D'
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
315
320
325
330
335
340
345
350
355
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
B B'
D D'
EXISTING
GRADE
EXISTING
GRADE
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
Qvop10
Qvop10
Qvop10
Qpf
Qpf
Qpf
T-2
(Projected 8' south)
T-3
(Projected 23' south)
T-4
(Projected 25' south)
?
?
?
?
?
?
Qvop10
Qvop10
Qvop10
Qpf
Qpf
T-1
(Projected 10' north)
POOL
4'
4'Qpf
Qpf
MSE RETAINING
WALL
MIRAFI 2XT GEOGRID
4'
4'
MSE RETAINING
WALL
Qpf
Qpf
4'
4'
MSE RETAINING
WALL
Qpf
Qvop10MIRAFI 2XT GEOGRID
A
4'
4'
Qpf
Qvop10MIRAFI 2XT GEOGRID
MSE RETAINING
WALL
TRENCH T-1
APPROX. SCALE 1" = 2'
MIRAFI 2XT GEOGRID
TRENCH T-2
APPROX. SCALE 1" = 2'
TRENCH T-3
APPROX. SCALE 1" = 2'
LOCATION OF
SAMPLE #1
TRENCH T-4
APPROX. SCALE 1" = 2'
B
LOCATION OF
SAMPLE #2
Plotted:12/16/2022 11:10AM | By:RUBEN AGUILAR | File Location:Y:\PROJECTS\G2826-32-01 Hom Property\SOURCE\SECTION\G2826-32-01 Profiles-TrenchLog.dwg
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE - SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 - 2974
PHONE 858 558-6900 - FAX 858 558-6159 SHEET OF
PROJECT NO.
SCALE DATE
FIGURE
GEOTECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL MATERIALS
1" =
GEOLOGIC CROSS - SEC8IONS
HOM PROPERTY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
5'12 - 16 - 2022
G2826 - 32 - 01
1 1 2
?
GEOCON LEGEND
........PREVIOUSLY PLACED FILL
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOGRID
Qpf
........VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITSQvop10
........APPROX. LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT
(Queried Where Uncertain)
Project Name:Project No.:
Pre. No. Re.
1 05/02/22 Test Pit 2 -1 1 0 125.9 10.2 106.3 15.1 84 90
2 05/02/22 Test Pit 1 -1 1 0 125.9 10.2 107.2 11.5 85 90
3 05/02/22 Test Pit 2 -2 1 0 125.9 10.2 105.9 17.3 84 90
4 05/02/22 Test Pit 1 -2 1 0 125.9 10.2 104.9 17.6 83 90
5 05/02/22 Test Pit 1 -3 1 0 125.9 10.2 106.0 16.2 84 90
6 05/02/22 Test Pit 2 -3 1 0 125.9 10.2 107.4 18.5 85 90
7 05/02/22 Test Pit 1 -4 1 0 125.9 10.2 107.1 17.8 85 90
8 05/02/22 Test Pit 2 -4 1 0 125.9 10.2 106.1 18.2 84 90
9 05/03/22 Test Pit 3 -1 1 0 125.9 10.2 107.4 11.5 85 90
10 05/03/22 Test Pit 4 -1 1 0 125.9 10.2 107.5 17.0 85 90
11 05/03/22 Test Pit 3 -2 1 0 125.9 10.2 105.0 16.4 83 90
12 05/03/22 Test Pit 4 -2 1 0 125.9 10.2 108.1 15.5 86 90
13 05/03/22 Test Pit 3 -3 1 0 125.9 10.2 106.2 17.7 84 90
14 05/03/22 Test Pit 4 -3 1 0 125.9 10.2 107.3 17.2 85 90
15 05/03/22 Test Pit 3 -4 1 0 125.9 10.2 105.8 18.1 84 90
16 05/03/22 Test Pit 4 -4 1 0 125.9 10.2 107.6 17.5 85 90
Test No. Date
(MM/D
D/YY)
Curve
No.
>¾"
Rock
(%)
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
2170 Twain Avenue, Carlsbad, CA G2826-32-01
Location
Max.
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Opt.
Moist
Content
(%)
Field
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Field
Moisture
Content
(%)
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Required
Relative
Compaction
(%)
Elev.
or
Depth
(feet)
0G EOCON
Geocon Project No. G2826-32-01 December 16, 2022
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY
AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 1557
Proctor
Curve No. Description Maximum Dry
Density (pcf)
Optimum Moisture
Content (%)
1 Reddish-brown, Silty, fine to coarse SAND 125.9 10.2
2 Reddish-brown, Silty fine SAND 129.4 10.0
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF RECENT LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
HOM PROPERTY (G2826-32-01)
Sample No.
Geologic Unit
Symbol
(USCS Soil Type)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
Peak
[Ultimate]
Cohesion (psf)
Peak [Ultimate]
Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees)
1 * Qpf (SM) 113.7 10.2 350 [300] 30 [30]
2 ** Qpf (SM) 110.9 9.2 0 [0] 30 [30]
* Sample remolded to 90 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content.
**Sample remolded to 85 percent relative compaction at near optimum moisture content.
TABLE IV
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS LABORATORY DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
ASTM D 3080
CABLEVISION COMMUNICATION FACILITIES (D-1756-J01)
Sample No.
Geologic Unit
Symbol
(USCS Soil Type)
Dry Density
(pcf)
Moisture
Content (%)
Peak
[Ultimate]
Cohesion (psf)
Peak [Ultimate]
Angle of Shear
Resistance (degrees)
B1-1 Qvop (SM) 107.1 6.0 200 34
B2-3 Qvop (SM) 109.2 6.2 160 38
SAMPLE NO.:GEOLOGIC UNIT:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):NATURAL/REMOLDED:
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
890 2030 4300 --
10.3 10.0 10.2 10.2
113.6 113.5 113.9 113.7
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
15.5 15.8 15.3 15.5
833 1657 2897 --
795 1610 2802 --
350
30
300
30
COHESION, C (PSF)
DRY DENSITY (PCF):
AFTER TEST CONDITIONS
#1
G2826-32-01
HOM PROPERTY
COHESION, C (PSF)
FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
DIRECT SHEAR - ASTM D 3080
PROJECT NO.:
FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
ACTUAL NORMAL STRESS (PSF):
WATER CONTENT (%):
ULTIMATE
RESULTS
PEAK
Qpf
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
WATER CONTENT (%):
PEAK SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
ULT.-E.O.T. SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
INITIAL CONDITIONS
R
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
SH
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
P
S
F
)
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (IN)
1 K 2 K 4 K
1 K PEAK 2 K PEAK 4 K PEAK
1 K ULTIMATE 2 K ULTIMATE 4 K ULTIMATE
4 K
2 K
1K
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
SH
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
P
S
F
)
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)A
X
A
X
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS
A
X
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 • 297 .4
PHONE 858 558-6900 • FAX 858 558-6159
~ /~
-------PEAK
ULTIMATE
!#' /
./
;K
V
SAMPLE NO.:GEOLOGIC UNIT:
SAMPLE DEPTH (FT):NATURAL/REMOLDED:
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
890 2030 4300 --
9.2 9.2 9.1 9.2
110.8 110.8 110.9 110.9
1 K 2 K 4 K AVERAGE
15.9 15.7 15.8 15.8
824 1534 2670 --
824 1534 2660 --
0
30
0
30
COHESION, C (PSF)
DRY DENSITY (PCF):
AFTER TEST CONDITIONS
#2
G2826-32-01
HOM RESIDENCE
COHESION, C (PSF)
FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
DIRECT SHEAR - ASTM D 3080
PROJECT NO.:
FRICTION ANGLE (DEGREES)
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
ACTUAL NORMAL STRESS (PSF):
WATER CONTENT (%):
ULTIMATE
RESULTS
PEAK
Qcf
NORMAL STRESS TEST LOAD
WATER CONTENT (%):
PEAK SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
ULT.-E.O.T. SHEAR STRESS (PSF):
INITIAL CONDITIONS
R
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300
SH
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
P
S
F
)
HORIZONTAL DEFORMATION (IN)
1 K 2 K 4 K
1 K PEAK 2 K PEAK 4 K PEAK
1 K ULTIMATE 2 K ULTIMATE 4 K ULTIMATE
4 K
2 K
1K
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
SH
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
P
S
F
)
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)A
X
A
X
GEOCON
INCORPORATED
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANTS
A
X
6960 FLANDERS DRIVE • SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92121 • 297 .4
PHONE 858 558-6900 • FAX 858 558-6159
1!
/
-------PEAK
ULTIMATE
/
/
y '
~v /
,J
~
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
FOR
HOM PROPERTY
2170 TWAIN AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PROJECT NO. G2826-32-01
2.5
Distance (ft)
-10-8-6-4-2024681012141618202224262830323436384042444648505254565860
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
S
L
)
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354A A'
Hom Property
Project No. G2826-32-01
Section A-A'
Name: AAc0.gsz
Date: 11/18/2021 Time: 10:21:13 AM
Color Name Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi' (°)
Qt - Terrace Deposits 125 300 30
Existing Condition
Static Analysis
Qt
Figure A-1
I I
.-
1.8
Distance (ft)
-10-8-6-4-2024681012141618202224262830323436384042444648505254565860
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
S
L
)
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354A A'
Hom Property
Project No. G2826-32-01
Section A-A'
Name: AAc0s.gsz
Date: 12/14/2022 Time: 12:18:33 PM
Color Name Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi' (°)
Qt - Terrace Deposits 125 300 30
Existing Condition
Seismic Analysis
keq = 0.15g
Qt
Figure A-2
I I
.-
2.4
Distance (ft)
-10-8-6-4-2024681012141618202224262830323436384042444648505254565860
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
S
L
)
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354B B'
Hom Property
Project No. G2826-32-01
Section B-B'
Name: BBc0.gsz
Date: 11/18/2021 Time: 10:24:12 AM
Color Name Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi' (°)
Qt - Terrace Deposits 125 300 30
Existing Condition
Static Analysis
Qt
Figure A-3
I I
.-
1.7
Distance (ft)
-10-8-6-4-2024681012141618202224262830323436384042444648505254565860
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
S
L
)
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354B B'
Hom Property
Project No. G2826-32-01
Section B-B'
Name: BBc0s.gsz
Date: 12/14/2022 Time: 12:25:22 PM
Color Name Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi' (°)
Qt - Terrace Deposits 125 300 30
Existing Condition
Seismic Analysis
keq = 0.15g
Qt
Figure A-4
I I
.-
2.3
Distance (ft)
-10-8-6-4-2024681012141618202224262830323436384042444648505254565860
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
S
L
)
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354C C'
Hom Property
Project No. G2826-32-01
Section A-A'
Name: CCc0.gsz
Date: 11/18/2021 Time: 10:25:26 AM
Color Name Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi' (°)
Qt - Terrace Deposits 125 300 30
Existing Condition
Static Analysis
Qt
Figure A-5
I I
.-
1.7
Distance (ft)
-10-8-6-4-2024681012141618202224262830323436384042444648505254565860
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
S
L
)
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354C C'
Hom Property
Project No. G2826-32-01
Section A-A'
Name: CCc0s.gsz
Date: 12/14/2022 Time: 12:27:31 PM
Color Name Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi' (°)
Qt - Terrace Deposits 125 300 30
Existing Condition
Seismic Analysis
keq = 0.15g
Qt
Figure A-6
I I
.-
1.9
Distance (ft)
-10-8-6-4-2024681012141618202224262830323436384042444648505254565860
314
316
318
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
S
L
)
314
316
318
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354D D'
Hom Property
Project No. G2826-32-01
Section D-D'
Name: DDc0.gsz
Date: 11/18/2021 Time: 10:27:11 AM
Color Name Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi' (°)
Qt - Terrace Deposits 125 300 30
Existing Condition
Static Analysis
Qt
Pool
Figure A-7
•
1.4
Distance (ft)
-10-8-6-4-2024681012141618202224262830323436384042444648505254565860
314
316
318
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
M
S
L
)
314
316
318
320
322
324
326
328
330
332
334
336
338
340
342
344
346
348
350
352
354D D'
Hom Property
Project No. G2826-32-01
Section D-D'
Name: DDc0s.gsz
Date: 12/14/2022 Time: 12:30:40 PM
Color Name Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion'
(psf)
Phi' (°)
Qt - Terrace Deposits 125 300 30
Existing Condition
Seismic Analysis
keq = 0.15g
Qt
Pool
Figure A-8
•