HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 00-20; Fox Miller Property; Tentative Map (CT) (4)# AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UPDATE
FOX-MILLER PROPERTY
ADJACENT AND SOUTHWESTERLY OF
EL CAMINO REAL, NORTH OF
FARADAY AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Submitted To:
MR. DEAN MILLER
C/O FLUOR CORPORATION
1 ENTERPRISE DRIVE
ALISO VIEJO, CALIFORNIA 92656
Submitted By:
AGRA EARTH & ENVIRONMENTAL
16760 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92127
July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400
AGRA Earth &
Environmental, Inc.
16760 W. Bernardo Dr.
San Diego, CA 92127
Tel (619)487-2113
Fax (619) 487-2357
Recycled Paper
RECEIVED
V L. 13 2CuQ
LADWIG OESIoN GR ,0'
V
^ AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
AGRA Earth &
Environmental, Inc.
16760 W. Bernardo Dr.
San Diego, CA 92127
Tel (619) 487-2113
Fax (619) 487-2357
July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation
1 Enterprise Drive
Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
RE: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UPDATE
FOX-MILLER PROPERTY
ADJACENT AND SOUTHWESTERLY OF EL CAMINO REAL
NORTH OF FARADAY AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
APN 212-020-23
Dear Mr. Miller:
This letter transmits our geotechnical report by AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. (AGRA), an
AMEC Company, describing the results of our geotechnical update and fault investigation for the
Fox-Miller Property located adjacent and southwesterly of El Camino Real and North of Faraday
Avenue, Carlsbad, Califomia. Based on the results of our update investigation, it is our opinion
that the proposed development of the site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the
recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the design and construction of the
proposed improvements.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of servio
report, please feel free to contact the under
Respectfully submitted,
AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc.
JosephJG. Franzone, GE
Supep/ising Engineer
189
have questions concerning this
Recycled Paper
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page 0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 GENERAL 1
1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK 1
2.0 DATA ACQUISITION 3
2.1 DOCUMENT REVIEW 3
2.2 SITE RECONNAISSANCE 3
2.3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 4
2.4 LABORATORY TESTING 4
3.0 SITE AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 5
3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING 5
3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS 5
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6
3.3.1 Residual Soil 6
3.3.2 Alluvium: (Map Symbol: Qal) 8
3.3.3 Point Loma Fomiation: (Map Symbol: Kpl) 8
3.4 GROUNDWATER 8
3.5 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 9
3.6 FAULTING 9
4.0 ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY 11
4.1 REGIONAL SETTING 11
4.2 LOCAL FAULTING 11
4.3 SEISMICITY/GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 11
5.0 CONCLUSIONS 15
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 16
6.1 EARTHWORK 16
6.1.1 Site Preparation 16
6.1.2 Excavations and Oversize Material 16
6.1.3 Fill Placement and Compaction 17
6.1.4 Removal and Recompaction 17
6.1.5 Transition Areas 18
6.1.6 Expansive Soils and Selective Grading 18
6.1.7 Shrinkage/Bulking 18
6.2 SLOPE STABILITY 19
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6,2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (ii)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued) Page
6.2.1 Deep-Seated Stability 19
6.2.2 Slope Maintenance 22
6.3 SUBDRAINS 22
6.4 ROCK PLACEMENT 22
6.5 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND EROSION 23
6.6 FOUNDATION AND SLAB CONSIDERATIONS 23
6.6.1 Footings 23
6.6.2 Floor Slabs 24
6.6.3 Settlement 24
6.6.4 Moisture Conditioning 25
6.7 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES 25
6.8 GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS 26
6.9 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 27
6.10 CLOSURE 28
7.0 REFERENCES 30
Table
Table 1 - Seismic Parameters for Active Faults 8
Figures
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map 2
Figure 2 - Regional Geologic Map 6
Figure 3 - Fault Map 11
Appendices
Appendix A Boring and Test Pit Logs
Appendix B Laboratory Data Analysis
Appendix C Seismic Analyses
Appendix D General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
Appendix E Slope Stability Analysis
Plates
Plate 1 Geotechnical Map
Plate 2 Fault Trench Logs
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (1)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
This report presents an update of the results and recommendations of a preliminary geotechnical
investigation of approximately fifty-four (54) acres located southerly of El Camino Real and north
of Faraday Avenue in Carisbad, Califomia (Figure 1). The preliminary geotechnical investigation
was performed by AGRA Earth & Environmental, Inc. (fomierly known as Moore & Taber
Consulting Engineers and Geologists in 1989. The property is an irregularly-shaped parcel of
undeveloped, steep relief land.
The preliminary geotechnical investigation provided information regarding the distribution and
physical properties of the local soil and bedrock materials, and evaluated the potential impact of
observed geotechnical features on the former proposed development.
The purpose of this updated report was to evaluate whether site conditions had changed
significantly since the preliminary geotechnical investigation was performed to evaluate the
presence of onsite faulting and to provide recommendations for use in the preparation of current
project Plans and Specifications.
1.2 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
Based on preliminary plans prepared by Ladwig Design Group, Inc. (scale 1" = 100'), we
understand that development will involve cut and fill grading to produce a series of industrial lots
and access roads. Final determination of the earthworks design has not been made at this time.
In general, proposed grading schemes will consist of excavating ridge lines to generate fill for
placement in natural drainage courses and on lower-lying hillside terrain to create usable building
sites. Natural slopes will remain below proposed fill slopes and daylight cuts along the westeriy
property line. Cut and fill slopes ranging in heights to 40 and 70 feet, respectively, are proposed
to create the four finished pads (Lots 1-4).
Because designs and loads of buildings are not known at this time, maximum column loads of 100
kips and wall loads on the order of 7 kips/linear foot were assumed, and are used in the
preliminary analyses for foundation design recommendations. Once actual designs and loads are
established, AGRA should be consulted as to whether modifications to the recommendations
contained herein are required.
1.3 SCOPE OF WORK
The present geotechnical update included subsurface exploration, limited laboratory testing,
engineering analyses, development of design recommendations, and preparation of this report.
_ AGRA
I Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
_ . 0.1 mi 0.2 mi 0.3 mi 0.4 mi „ _ . 0 mi 0.5 mi
Approximate Graphic Scale
1 in = 0.25 mi Approx. North
Reference:
StreetsQS, Microsoft Expedia, Version 6.0
FOX - MILLER PROPERTY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map
AGRA Engineering Global Solutions
AIF
0*TI
7100
-\ JMM.—
10-252-101400
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000 Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (3)
The scope of this wori< included the following:
• Reviewing geological maps and previous geotechnical investigations for the site.
• Stereoscopic analysis of aerial photographs of the site area.
• Reconnaissance of site conditions and observations of site modifications, if any, since
preliminary geotechnical investigation perfonned.
• Excavating two (2) exploratory trenches across projected traces of faults identified on the
City of Carisbad's Geotechnical Hazard Analysis and Mapping Study, Sheet No. 10 of 23.
• Performing expansion index tests on samples of soil and fonnational material to
supplement the basis of design recommendations presented in the preliminary
geotechnical investigation.
• Preparing a written geotechnical report documenting the work performed, physical data
acquired and geotechnical conclusions and recommendations with respect to the proposed
grading plan (Ladwig, 2000).
An evaluation of hazardous materials was not within our scope of study. Such an evaluation can
be performed, if requested.
2.0 DATA ACQUISITION
2.1 DOCUMENT REVIEW
Available geologic and geotechnical literature pertaining to the project site and sun'ounding areas
was reviewed. Materials reviewed included published topographic and geologic maps, reports,
seismologic studies, and aerial photographs. Specific documents and photographs reviewed are
listed under Section 7.0; References, following the text.
2.2 SITE RECONNAISSANCE
AGRA geologists made several visits to the site forthe present geotechnical update investigation
to observe and map geologic conditions, select locations for the exploratory trenches, and
evaluate access routes for exploration equipment. Surface conditions noted during the
reconnaissance included the general geologic and topographic setting, characteristics of surface
soils and areas of exposed bedrock.
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
I Recycled Paper
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July .6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (4)
2.3 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
AGRA'S subsurface exploration forthe updated geotechnical investigation consisted of excavating
two (2) exploratory trenches across the projected traces of faults depicted on the City of
Carisbad's Geotechnical Hazard Analysis and Mapping Study, Sheet No. 10, and observing site
conditions with respect to site changes since the prior geotechnical investigation. The exploratory
trenches were excavated with a conventional backhoe to a maximum depth of 7 feet. The
trenches were logged by the undersigned AGRA engineering geologist and then backfilled prior
to leaving the site.
The preliminary geotechnical exploration that was performed in 1989 consisted of drilling five (5)
24-inch diameter bucket auger borings and excavating ten (10) backhoe test pits. The borings
were drilled to depths ranging between 16 to 39 feet below ground surface and were downhole
logged to obtain geologic structure data at depth. The test pits were primarily excavated in and
adjacent to the canyon drainages to aid in estimating the thickness of the residual soil mantling
the hillslopes and the alluvial deposits in the canyon bottoms. The geologic data obtained during
both the preliminary geotechnical investigation and the geotechnical update investigation,
including all boring, test pit, and trench locations, are shown on Plate 1.
Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples of subsurface materials were retrieved at selected depths
from both the test pits and borings for visual classification and laboratory testing. The undisturised
samples were obtained by driving a 2.5-inch diameter ring sampler with a 2400-pound kelly-bar
dropping approximately 12 inches. Disturbed (bulk) samples were collected from the cuttings
retumed to the surface by the bucket auger as well as the backhoe bucket.
Logs of the borings and test pits are presented in Appendix A. The log of the two trenches
excavated to evaluate the presence of faulting are shown in Plate 2. Soils were classified
according to the Unified Soil Classification System which is explained in Appendix A. Bedrock (i.e.,
formation underiying surficial deposits) was described in terms of its physical properties.
2.4 LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed for the preliminary geotechnical investigation to provide
geotechnical parameters for engineering analyses. Selected samples from the borings were tested
to evaluate in-situ moisture content and dry density, direct shear strength, consolidation
characteristics, corrosivity, soluble sulfate content, and expansion index. Two additional expansion
index tests were perfonned for the geotechnical update. In-situ moisture content and dry density
test results are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A. Brief descriptions of the laboratory
testing procedures and the remaining test results are presented in Appendix B.
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
I Recycled Paper
Mr. Dean Miller c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (5)
3.0 SITE AND GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
3.1 GEOLOGIC SETTING
The project site is located in the coastal plain section bordering the westem margin of the
Peninsular Range province of southem Califomia. The coastal plain section of northem San Diego
County is largely underiain by Cretaceous and younger Tertiary-age fonmations. These bedrock
formations were originally deposited in marine, near shore-lagoonal, and nonmarine sedimentary
environments that fonned during episodes of marine inundation and subsequent, marine
regression. Tectonic uplift of the coastal plain province during the Pleistocene has produced a
series of elevated marine tenraces that were cut into the older fomiations.
The regional geology ofthe site vicinity has been mapped by H. F. Weber (1982) and S. S. Tan
and M.P. Kennedy (1996) as open-file reports published by the Califomia Division of Mines and
Geology (CDMG). The open file map of S. S. Tan and M.P. Kennedy (1996) illustrates the areal
geology of the region (Figure 2).
3.2 SURFACE CONDITIONS
The project site is situated southwest of El Camino Real, approximately one mile north of Palomar
Airport Road and comprises approximately fifty-four acres of gently to moderately sloping hillside
tenrain. Site topography consists of northeriy to northwesteriy trending ridgelines that are incised
by a series of drainages that flow toward the northwest. The main drainage course that traverses
the entire project site is refenred to as Letterbox Canyon on the U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute
quadrangle map (San Luis Rey Sheet, photorevised 1982).
The natural slopes descend from rounded ridge tops at inclinations that vary between
approximately 7:1 (horizontal to vertical) near the top of slope to 2:1 at the base of slopes adjacent
to the drainages. Site elevations range from approximately 310 feet above mean sea level (msl)
along the ridge-tops to a low of 146 msl at the mouth of Letterbox Canyon at the westem property
line. Total site relief is approximately 164 feet.
Man-made, modified slopes include an approximate 800-foot long 1:1 cut slope adjacent to El
Camino Real, constructed during road widening in the 1960's, and a fill slope prism descending
partly downslope from El Camino Real toward the head of Letterbox Canyon. The cut slope varies
in height up to approximately 30 feet and has an approximate 5-foot wide bench above the
midpoint of the slope. Minor concrete and metal debris were observed scattered on the north-
facing slope on planned Lot 2 at the southeast portion of the project site.
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (6)
Surface drainage is by sheet flow over the natural slopes toward natural drainage courses along
the canyon bottoms. Runoff within Letterbox Canyon is directed toward a 48-inch concrete culvert
pipe, located at the westem property boundary. Active erosion features on site include surficial
sloughing of the upper portions of the El Camino Real road cut and an incised gully that has
eroded into bedrock below El Camino Real and above the eastem end of Letterbox Canyon.
Some evidence of surficial soil creep was observed along the more steeply sloping areas of the
site. The soil creep appeared to be related to the fine-grained (silty clay) nature of the residual
soil, steepness of the slopes, active rodent bun'owing, seasonal fluctuations in soil moisture
content, and typical slope creep caused by gravitational forces acting on the slope.
Vegetation is comprised of coastal sage scrub along the lower elevations bordering Letterbox
Canyon and one of it's tributaries, in addition to sparse annual grasses and annis covering the
ridges and natural slopes. The preliminary grading plan/topographic map indicates the location
of the Thread-Leaved Brodiaea plant on approximately 11 acres of the open space designated
area.
3.3 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Earth materials exposed at the ground surface and encountered during subsurface exploration
consisted predominantly of residual soil mantling the Cretaceous-age Point Loma Formation. The
preliminary geotechnical exploration (Moore & Tabor, 1989) encountered alluvial deposits in the
canyon bottoms and reported minor fill in one test pit. The preliminary geotechnical investigation
refen-ed to the bedrock underiying the site as Del Mar Formation; however, regional geologic
mapping by geologists for the CDMG indicate that the Point Loma Formation underiies the entire
site, and therefore, this fonnational name is used herein for the onsite bedrock materials (Figure
2). Geologic conditions and data obtained from the subsurface exploration and mapping are
illustrated on Plate 1. The salient features ofthe earth materials encountered during exploration
are presented below.
3.3.1 Residual Soil / Colluvium: (Map Symbol: Qres)
Earth materials exposed at the ground surface consist of a relatively thin mantle of
undifferentiated residual soil and colluvial deposits derived from in-situ weathering of the
underiying Point Loma Formation. These deposits are undifferentiated on Plate 1 due to
their similar composition. This surficial unit is estimated to range in thickness from
approximately 1 to 3 feet along the ridges and appeared to thicken downslope along the
ridge side slopes. The residual soil and colluvium, as encountered in the exploratory
trenches, pits and borings, were comprised of dari< brown clayey silt with subangular,
siltstone fragments common near the basal contact with the underiying Point Loma
Formation. Well developed desiccation cracks and rodent burrows were observed to be
common throughout the residual soil and colluvium. The desiccation cracks are a
manifestation of the high expansion potential of the clayey silt. The colluvium appears to
have been deposited by slow gravitational downslope creep along the lower portions of the
slopes.
# AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
• Recycled Paper
Approximate Graphic Scale 1 inch = 2000 feet
North
REFERENCE:
Tan, S. S., and Kennedy, M. P., 1996, Geologic
Maps of the Northwestem Part of San Diego
County, Califomia: DMG Open-File Report 96-02,
Plate 1, map scale 1:24,000.
FOX - MILLER PROPERTY
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
Figure 2 - Regional Geologic Map
AGRA Engineering Global Solutions
AIF 7/00 lo-252-101400|
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6,2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (8)
3.3.2 Alluvium: (Map Symbol: Qal)
The preliminary geotechnical investigation reportedly encountered alluvium in most of the
test pits located in the canyon bottoms. Alluvium was described as brown clayey silt with
some scattered concretionary cobbles derived from the Point Loma Formation. Alluvium
thickness ranged from approximately 2 feet to as great as 15 feet in the canyon bottoms.
Thickness ofthe alluvium appeared to increase in the lower reaches (i.e., downstream) of
Letterbox Canyon at the confluence of the two major drainages. The alluvium and residual
soil/colluvium exhibits similar physical properties with respect to being porous,
compressible, and expansive.
3.3.3 Point Loma Formation: (Map Symbol: Kpl)
The Point Loma Fonnation underiies the residual soil at relatively shallow depths beneath
the majority of the site, and at shallow to locally moderate depths beneath the alluvium in
the canyon bottoms. The predominant lithology of the Point Loma Fonnation as
encountered in the subsurface, and also as observed in the El Camino Real ropdcuts, was
comprised of olive-gray clayey siltstone interbedded with subordinate yellow-brown fine -
to medium-grained sandstone. The sandstone beds contain common lens-shaped
calcareous cemented concretions. The siltstone was observed to be moderately to highly
weathered and well fractured (closely spaced, randomly oriented, and discontinuous joints)
to depths of at least three to four feet below the contact of the overiying residual soil.
Bedding was pooriy developed in this weathered zone due to the abundance of fractures.
Iron oxide, manganese oxide, and cartjonate were observed to have fonned common
mineral stains and thin infillings along fractures, joints, and bedding surfaces. Below the
highly weathered zone, the bedrock was observed to be less closely fractured, moderately
well indurated, and darker gray in color.
3.4 GROUNDWATER
No groundwater was encountered in the test borings. Seepage was reportedly encountered in
test pits T-5 and T-9, located in the canyon bottom, at the time of the preliminary geotechnical
investigation. The seepage was reported at depths between 5 to 10 feet in TP-9 and 15 feet in
TP-5. Although it appears that the seepage was emanating near the base of the alluvium,
seepage may also occur along joints and more permeable sandstone beds during and following
periods of rainfall. Seepage should be anticipated in the canyon bottoms during overexcavation
for the canyon clean-outs. Seepage water will need to be mitigated through the instaiiation of
subdrains. Recommendations for subdrain installation are presented in Section 6.3.
# AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (9)
3.5 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE
Structural data were obtained from downhole logging of five bucket-auger borings, two exploratory
trenches, ten test pits, and mapping of adjacent road cuts. In addition, published geological
reports of the region were reviewed for pertinent geologic structure data.
Strike and dip of bedding were measured on both pooriy developed parting surfaces in the clayey
siltstone, commonly stained by iron oxides and white carbonates, and lithologic contacts between
siltstone and interisedded sandstone. Bedding attitudes were observed generally striking between
N 30° east to N 35° west and dipping between 2° to 17° northwest to southwest, although the
majority of the dips appeared to range between 5° to 12°. Undulations in bedding reflect some
of the lenticular shaped nature of the interbedded sandstone and result in local deviations from
the general trend. These attitudes are plotted on Plate 1 and are considered fairiy consistent with
the regional structural grain of the vicinity as mapped by S.S. Tan and M.P. Kennedy (1996).
Bedding appeared adversely oriented with respect to planned west to southwest and north to
northeast facing cut slopes. Slopes that will expose daylighted (i.e. bedding planes dipping out
of slope) bedding will need to be mitigated through butress fills. Recommendations for mitigating
adversely oriented bedding is presented in Section 6.2.
Jointing in the readouts appeared to be predominantly discontinuous over lengths greater than 5
to 10 feet. Two predominant joint orientations were observed and measured at the site. One joint
set displayed a general north-south strike and approximate 50° to 80° easteriy dip. The other set
was oriented N 20° west to N 50° west and dipping between 70° northeast to vertical. Due to the
steepness of the joint sets and their apparent discontinuity over significant distance, their mutual
intersection is not anticipated to result in adversely oriented wedge blocks in the planned cut
slopes.
3.6 FAULTING
Our discussion of faults on the site is prefaced with the classification and land-use criteria
associated with faults as promulgated by Califomia legislation. An active fault, as defined by the
Califomia Mining and Geology Board, is a fault which has had surface displacement within
Holocene time (about the last 11,000 years). The state geologist has defined a potentially active
fault as any fault considered to have been active during Quatemary time (last 1,600,000 years).
This definition is used in delineating Earthquake Fault Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo
Geologic Hazards Act of 1972 and as subsequently revised in 1975,1985,1990,1992, and 1994.
The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development and certain habitable structures
do not occur across the traces of active faults. The subject site is not included within any
Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act.
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (10)
One fault was observed and mapped along the El Camino Real roadcut as part of this
geotechnical update study. This fault appeared to offset a one-foot thick concretionary sandstone
bed approximately 3 feet vertically. The orientation of the fault was measured at N 10° E /
dipping 57° northwest. The west side of the fault appeared to have moved down with respect to
the east side. This fault was depicted on the City of Carisbad's Geotechnical Hazard Analysis
and Mapping Study, Sheet No. 10, along with three other faults of discontinuous (i.e., less than
1500 feet) length. In contrast to the City of Carisbad's Geotechnical Hazard Analysis, the open
file geologic map of S. S. Tan and M.P. Kennedy (1996) indicate only two discontinuous faults
partially traversing the eastem portion of the site. The northeriy of the two faults mapped by S.
S. Tan and M.P. Kennedy (1996) along El Camino Real was not observed, periiaps due to
colluvial slough concealing the exposure.
Two exploratory trenches of approximately 525 feet combined length were excavated across the
projected traces of faults shown on the City of Carisbad's Geotechnical Hazard Analysis an^
Mapping Study, Sheet No. 10 to evaluate, if possible, the recency of faulting and also the
orientation of the faults with respect to the planned cut slopes. One fault was observed in
exploratory trench T-1. The fault observed in the trench was found to have a similar orientation
to the fault obsen/ed in the road cut. Moreover, the fault in the road cut projects along strike to
the fault observed in trench T-1 suggesting that they are the same stmcture.
The fault in the roadcut and trench T-1 were obsen/ed to offset the Point Loma Formation but not A(, R/
the overiying residual soil contact. The age of the faulting observed injhe trench, therefore, post Q/s - ijP
dates the age of the Cretaceous Point Loma Formation and is ^$b«n§er than the presumably
Holocene age residual soil. A relative age of the residual soil was difficult to estimate because only V ^
an A-C soil horizon was observed. Apparently, the residual soil had not developed on a
geomorphically stable surface for a significant period of geologic time to fomri a B-horizon, which
would have been useful in assessing the relative age of the residual soil.
Several considerations suggest that the fault observed in the trench is most likely pre-Holocene
and, thus, not active according to the criteria of the Califomia Mining and Geology Board. Firstly,
a review of aerial photographs (USDA, 1953) did not reveal any photo lineaments across the site.
Secondly, the amount of offset observed in the Cretaceous age Point Loma Fonnation (i.e., three
feet) was relatively minor. In addition, the fault surface was observed to be narrow with an
approximate one-to two-inch wide zone of very stiff to hard gouge with no slickensides observed.
Lastly, the faults, as mapped by S. S. Tan and M.P. Kennedy (1996) and as depicted on the City
of Carisbad's Geotechnical Hazard Analysis and Mapping Study, Sheet No. 10, are short,
discontinuous faults that are striking obliquely to the nearest known active faults to the site. The
geologic data obtained from the exploration perfonned for this study, and the review of geologic
literature, indicates that there are no known active faults (per Criteria of the Califomia Mining and
Geology Board) traversing the property.
_ AGRA
^ Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (11)
4.0 ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY
4.1 REGIONAL SETTING
The subject site is located within the general proximity of a number of active and potentially active
faults. Southem Califomia is known to be seismically active, and geologic and seismologic data
are readily available. The engineering seismology study for this report included examination of
local and regional faulting and the general tectonic regime, and a review of historic earthquake
data.
Earthquakes originating within approximately 60 miles ofthe site are capable of generating ground
shaking of engineering significance to the proposed structures. The project is located within the
regional influence of several fault systems which are classified as active or potentially active. The
relationships of these faults to the site are shown on Figure 3. The faults of primary concem for
this project are those identified as active. A fault is considered active if displacement across the
fault during the last 11,000 years (Holocene Epoch) has been documented. The Rose Canyon,
Newport-Inglewood (Offshore), Coronado Banks, and Elsinore Fault Zones are the most significant
faults with regard to the seismic design of the project. The Rose Canyon Fault Zone is the nearest
of these faults to the site and is considered to be the source of the strongest potential ground
shaking. Earthquakes on other faults also could affect the site, but the estimated earthquake
effects from other faults are predicted to be less severe than those which could be generated by
the Rose Canyon Fault.
4.2 LOCAL FAULTING
The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Study Zone as established by the State
Geologist around known active faults. Review of available literature and field exploration revealed
no active fault trace through or near the site. No features were noted in stereoscopic aerial pairs
which would indicate active faults beneath or near the locations of the proposed stmctures. It is
very unlikely that surface fault mpture would occur at the site.
4.3 SEISMICITY/GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
Estimates of earthquake magnitude (MJ and peak horizontal acceleration on rock at the project
site, for maximum probable and maximum credible earthquakes on the most significant faults
within a 60-mile radius, are given in Table 1. Based on a deterministic approach, these values
presented are based on the assumption that the fault in question mptures at its closest approach
to the site. From a probabilistic approach, the design earthquake for this project (as defined by
ICBO, 1997, Section 1631) is the earthquake event having a 10 percent probability of being
exceeded in 50 years. This equates to to an approximate retum period of 475 years. A maximum
credible earthquake is defined as the maximum event that might be expected to occur based on
the tectonic frameworic of the region as it is currently understood.
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation
Project No. 0-252-101400
July 6, 2000
Page (13)
Seismic Paramel
BLE1
:ers for Active Faults
Fault Name
Distance
(Miles) MMCE AMCE MMPE AMPE
Design Earthquake
(UBC, Section
1631.2)
Rose Canyon Fault Zone 7 7.0 0.37g 5.9 0.20g
0.25g
Newport-Inglewood 11 7.1 0.27g 5.9 O.llg
0.25g Elsinore Fault Zone 23 7.5 0.16g 6.6 O.OSg 0.25g
Coronado Bank Fault
Zone 23 7.5 0.16g 7.3 O.OSg
0.25g
MMCE = maximum credible earthquake magnitude
AMCE - estimated peal( horizontal rock acceleration based on M^CE
MMPE = maximum probable earthquake magnitude
AMPE = estimated p«ak horizontal rock acceleration based on Myp^
g = acceleration due to gravity
As indicated in Table 1, the Rose Canyon Fault is the active fault considered having the most
significant effect at the site from a design standpoint. A maximum credible earthquake of moment
magnitude 7.0 on the fault could produce an estimated peak horizontal ground acceleration 0.37g
at the site. The Rose Canyon Fault is considered a Type B seismic source according to Table 16-
U of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1997). From a probabilistic standpoint, the design
ground motion is defined as the ground motion having a 10 percent probability of exceedance in
50 years. This ground motion is refen'ed to as the maximum probable ground motion (ICBO,
1997). The maximum probable ground motion at the site is predicted to be 0.25g. Summary
printouts of the deterministic and probabilistic analyses are provided in Appendix C.
The effect of seismic shaking may be mitigated by adhering to the Unifonn Building code or state-
of-the-art seismic design parameters of the Stmctural Engineers Association of Califomia.
The 1997 UBC design criteria are as follows:
Soil Profile Type (Table 16-J) = SQ
Seismic Zone (Figure 16-2) = 4
Slip Rate, SR, (Table 16-U) = 1.5mm per yr (CDMG, 1996), based on the
Rose Canyon Fault
Seismic Source Type (Table 16-U) = B
N,= 1.0 (Table 16-S)
K= 1.0 (Table 16-T)
# AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (14)
Secondary effects that can be associated with severe ground shaking following a relatively large
earthquake, which include ground lurching and shallow ground mpture, soil liquefaction and
dynamic settlement, seiches and tsunamis. These secondary effects of seismic shaking are
discussed in the following sections.
4.3.1 Lurching and Shallow Ground Rupture
Soil lurching refers to the rolling motion on the ground surface by the passage of seismic
surface waves. Effects of this nature are likely to be significant where the thickness of soft
sediments vary appreciably under stmctures. Damage to the proposed development
should not be significant if the potentially compressible soils present on the site are
removed and properiy compacted in accordance with the recommendations of this report.
Ground mpture because of active faulting is not likely to occur on site due to the absence
of known active faults. Cracking due to shaking from distant seismic events is not
considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site.
4.3.2 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement
Liquefaction and dynamic settlement of soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due
to earthquakes. Both research and historical data Indicate that loose, saturated, granular
soils are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement. Liquefaction is typified by a
total loss of shear strength in the affected soil layer, thereby causing the soil to liquefy.
This effect may be manifested by excessive settlements and sand boils at the ground
surface.
The onsite Point Loma Fonnation and compacted fill materials (after grading) are not
considered liquefiable due to their physical characteristics and unsaturated condition.
4.3.3 Tsunamis and Seiches
Based on the distance between the site and large, open bodies of water, and the elevation
ofthe site with respect to sea level, the possibility of seiches and/or tsunamis is considered
to be very low.
4.3.4 Landsliding
No ancient landslides have been mapped on the subject site. In addition, no evidence of
landsliding was encountered during our site investigation or stereoscopic aerial photograph
review.
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (15)
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation of the site, our update report,
and fault investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint, provided the following conclusions and recommendations are
incorporated into the project plans and specifications. The following is a summary of the
significant geotechnical factors that may affect development of the site.
• Active faults are not known to exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site.
• The ground motion on the site due to the design earthquake (UBC, 1997, Section 1631.2)
is estimated to be 0.25g.
• Based on the results of our study, the site soil profile is Type SQ (UBC Table 16-J). The
soil profile may be revised to S^ if the building footprints are found entirely on bedrock
materials of the Point Loma Formation.
• Based on subsurface exploration of the fonnational materials and surficial soils present on
the site, we anticipate that these materials should be generally rippable with conventional
heavy-duty earthwork equipment. However, concretionary and cemented layers within the
Point Loma Formation will likely require heavy ripping or breaking during deeper
excavations (Section 6.1.2).
• Based on our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, the undocumented fills and
the upper 1 to 3 feet of the topsoils, and the on-site alluvium are considered dry,
desiccated and potentially compressible. These soils are not considered suitable for
stmctural loads or support of fill soils in their present condition. Remedial grading
measures, such as removal and recompaction, will be necessary to mitigate this condition
(Section 6.1.4).
• Based on laboratory testing and visual classification, materials derived from the Point
Loma Formation on the site possess a moderate to high expansion potential. The topsoil
was tested to have a high expansion potential. Measures to reduce the effects of
expansive soils are included herein.
• Laboratory test results indicate the soils present on the site have a negligible potential for
sulfate attack on concrete, although soils of moderate attack potential are known in the
general site vicinity. The onsite soils are considered to have a very high potential for
conrosion to buried uncoated metal conduits. A con'osion engineer should be consulted
for appropriate recommendations to mitigate corrosion potential.
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
I Recycled Paper
Mr. Dean Miller c/o Fluor Corporation July 6,2000 Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (16)
• The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable material for use as compacted fill provided
they are relatively free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches
in maximum dimension.
• Groundwater was not encountered during our investigation, nor is groundwater anticipated
to be encountered during site excavation and constmction except possible seepage near
the deepest cuts.
• The southwest and north to northwest facing cut slopes will likely require buttresses for
stabilization of out-of-slope bedding.
• Relatively deep compacted fills are proposed on relatively steeply inclined bedrock for Lots
2, 3, and 4. Typical differential fill settlement may result. Recommendations to mitigate
this settlement are included in Section 6.6.3.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 EARTHWORK
We anticipate that earthwori^ at the site will consist of site preparation, excavation, and fill
operations. We recommend that earthwori< on the site be perfonned in accordance with the
following recommendations and the General Earthwori< and Grading Specifications for Rough
Grading included in Appendix D. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall
supersede those in Appendix D.
6.1.1 Site Preparation
Prior to grading, all areas to receive stmctural fill, engineered stmctures or hardscape
improvements should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstmctions, including any
existing debris and undocumented or loose fill soils, and stripped of vegetation. Removed
vegetation and debris should be properiy disposed off site. All areas to receive fill and/or
other surface improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought
to near-optimum moisture conditions, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557.
6.1.2 Excavations and Oversize Material
Shallow excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with
conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. Heavy ripping or breaking will likely be
required where cemented and concretionary lenses are encountered in deeper
excavations. Excavation for utilities may also be difficult in some areas.
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6,2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (17)
Due to the high-density characteristics of the onsite Point Loma Formation, temporary
excavations such as utility trenches with vertical sides in these units should remain stable
for the period required to constmct the utility, provided they are free of adverse geologic
conditions. Temporary sloping gradients should be detemiined in the field by a "competent
person" as defined by OSHA.
We anticipate that scattered amounts of oversize material may be generated during
excavation of the cemented lenses within the Point Loma Fonnation. Recommendations
for treatment of oversize material are included in the attached General Earthwork and
Grading Specifications for Rough Grading (Appendix D). In addition, oversize material
may be utilized in approved surface applications or hauled off site.
6.1.3 Fill Placement and Compaction
The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of
organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension.
All fill soils should be brought to near-optimum moisture conditions and compacted in
uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM
Test Method D1557. The optimum lift thickness required to produce a uniformly
compacted fill will depend on the type and size of compaction equipment used. In general,
fill should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in compacted thickness.
The onsite soils typically possess a moisture content below optimum and may require
moisture conditioning prior to use as compacted fill. Fills placed on slopes steeper than
5:1 (horizontal to vertical) should be keyed and benched into competent formational soils
as indicated in the General Earthwori< and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading
presented in Appendix D.
Placement and compaction of fill should be perfonned in general accordance with the
current City of Carisbad grading ordinances, sound constmction practice, and the General
Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading presented in Appendix D.
6.1.4 Removal and Recompaction^^ Ml*^<^ ^'^^^J'^f^^ ^'^^i^''^
All undocumented fill sdils, alluvium topsoil, and colluvium not removed by the planned
grading should be ejrcavated, moisture-conditioned, and then compacted priorto placing
any additional fill.4n areas that receive fill or other surface improvements, these soils
should be removed down to competent materials and recompacted. The thickness of these
soils may vary across the site. In general, however, we anticipate the depth of removals
to be on the order of 1 to 5 feet, with localized deeper areas possible.
# AGRA
@ Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6,2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 /V^n^AAfc*^'•'^ Page (18) v
All existincKfiil, residual soil, alluvium, colluvium, and weathered bedrock should be
removed^)!!! bei leail'i propusod fill and/or pad areas. The general thicknesses of soil and
alluvial deposits at test locations are indicated on the test pit and boring logs.
Depths of alluvial soil removal in the existing drainage courses will generally be in excess
of five feet. Alluvial thickness near the confluence of the two major drainage courses (test
pit No. 5) exposed alluvial deposits to a depth of 15 feet. Actual removals may be deeper.
The thickness of colluvial and residual soil removal on hillside terrain is expected to be on
the order of 2 to 5 feet, possibly thicker.
Existing, undocumented roadway fills should be removed where possible. Where removal
of the in-place fills cannot be accomplished since they may adversely impact existing
improvements, stmctural set-backs may be required.
6.1.5 Transition Areas
In order to minimize the potential for future differential settlement, we recommend all
footings for each proposed stmcture be completely founded either on formational material
or on fill soils. In areas of transitions, the cut portion of the lots should be over-excavated
a minimum of 3 feet below the pad subgrade to a minimum distance of 10 feet (horizontal)
beyond the building perimeter and all settlement-sensitive stmctures. This over-excavation
will also facilitate utility trench/footing excavations.
6.1.6 Expansive Soils and Selective Grading
It is anticipated that highly expansive soils will be encountered during site grading within
5 to 10 feet of existing grade. Based on our obsen/ation and laboratory testing, the on-site
soil materials within 5 to 10 feet of existing grade have a high expansion potential.
Expansion testing should be performed on the finish grade soils after grading has been
completed to verify their expansion potential and provide lot-specific foundation design.
We recommend, granular soils encountered be stockpiled for use as wall backfill and
compacted fill near pad grade provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock
fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension.
6.1.7 Shrinkage/Bulking
The volume change of excavated on-site materials upon recompaction as fill is expected
to vary with materials and location. Typically, the surficial soils and bedrock materials vary
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation
Project No. 0-252-101400
July 6, 2000
Page (19)
significantly in natural and compacted density; and, therefore, are accurate earthworic
shrinkage/bulking estimate cannot be determined. However, the following factors (based
on the results of our subsurface investigation, laboratory testing, geotechnical analysis and
professional experience on adjacent sites) are provided as guideline estimates. If
possible, we suggest an area be provided as a balance area where site grades can be
adjusted.
Earthwork Shrinkage and Bulking Estimates
Geologic Unit Estimated Shrinkage/Bulking
Fill 0 to 3 percent shrinkage
Topsoil/Alluvium/Colluvium/Slope Wash and
Undocumented Fill 5 to 15 percent shrinkage
Point Loma Fomiation 3 to 7 percent bulking*
*The cemented sandy soils are anticipated to bulk more than the Siltstone and claystone portions.
6.2 SLOPE STABILITY
Based on our review of conceptual site plans, the proposed cut and fill slope configurations were
analyzed for gross stability. Cut slopes at a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) inclination to a maximum
height of 40 feet and 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) to a maximum height of 30 feet are planned.
In addition, fill slopes at a 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) inclination to a maximum height of 70 feet are
also proposed.
6.2.1 Deep-Seated Stability
Analysis ofthe proposed slope configuration was perfonned using the computer program
XSTABL. Based on our field observations and previous testing of representative onsite
and similar offsite materials, the following strength parameters were used, in our analysis.
Material Cohesion Friction Angle
(degrees)
Fill Soils 250 27
Point Loma Formation 300 27
Recycled Paper
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation
Project No. 0-252-101400
July 6, 2000 Page (20)
Our analysis indicates that the proposed cut and fill slopes have a calculated factor of
safety of 1.5 or greater, with respect to potential deep rotational failure for 2:1 (horizontal
to vertical) slopes (or 1.5:1 for certain cut slopes). A summary of calculations is presented
in Appendix E.
As noted previously, local geologic stmcture produces bedding orientations which dip at
low angles to the west and north. Therefore, cut slopes facing in these directions will
undercut the dip of beds to create unstable conditions for bedding angles greater than
about five (5) degrees.
Remedial grading is recommended for some areas to provide stable slopes. The following
remedial grading recommendations are provided as an aid to project planning:
Cut Stope Location Recommended Slope Stabilization
Lot 1: Mid-lot 2:1 cut slope 15 foot wide stability fill is recommended for slope
between the upper and lower portions of Lot 1.
Lot 1 along El Camino 1.5:1 cut slope
to a maximum height of 30 feet.
Proposed cuts should be stable, no corrective
grading. Potential for additional maintenance due to
steepness of slope and type of materials exposed.
Southern portion of Lot 2: 2:1 cut
slope to a maximum height of 20 feet
Variable bedding oriented out-of-slope at up to ~11
degrees will require buttress fill. Buttress base width
of 20 feet recommended.
Southem portion of Lot 3: 35 foot high
2:1 cut slope
Variable out-of-slope bedding will require buttress fill.
Buttress base width of 30 feet is recommended.
Recycled Paper
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller c/o Fluor Corporation
Project No. 0-252-101400
July 6, 2000
Page (21)
Cut Stope Location Recommended Stope Stabilization
Between Lots 3 and 4: 2:1 cut slope
to a maximum height of 25 feet.
Variable, low angle bedding will be undercut by
northeriy to westeriy oriented cuts. Gross stability is
considered adequate, but local areas of shallow
instability are anticipated. 15 foot wide stability fill
recommended.
Westem portion of Lot 4: 1.5:1 slope
to a maximum height of 30 feet.
East-facing cut is considered stable unless adverse
bedding is exposed during grading.
We note that the 1.5:1 cut slope may be grossly stable; however, the type of materials
exposed are susceptible to soil creep and shallow surficial instability. It is not unusual for
a significant amount of soil to accumulate at the base of the slope and necessitate more
frequent maintenance. Special measures may be considered to facilitate clean-up and
maintenance of accumulated debris near the toe of the slope.
We recommend that the geotechnical consultant document and geologically map all
excavations during grading. The purpose of this mapping is to substantiate the geologic
conditions assumed in our analysis. Additional investigation and stability analysis may be
required if unanticipated or adverse conditions are encountered.
Planned fill slopes not exceeding the foregoing heights should not be prone to deep-
seated failure if constmcted at a maximum gradient of two (horizontal) to one (vertical).
Tenrace drains, in accordance with City guidelines are recommended; however, v-ditches
should have enough slope to be relatively self-cleaning.
The face of fill embankments are considered vulnerable to shallow sloughing, and long-
tenn degradation. Calculations based on steady-state seepage models for infinite slopes,
and of typical fill materials indicate surficial failure will likely occur if the outer four feet of
the slope face becomes saturated. In addition, slope landscaping should be planned to
minimize inigation using ground covers of drought-resistant (xerophytic) native varieties.
Due to the height of the proposed fill slopes on the site, lateral fill slope deformation may
occur. Fill slope deformation may cause lateral extension of near surface improvements,
such as fences, sidewalks, etc. This typically occurs near the top of the slope to an
approximate distance at least as far away from the top of slope as one half of the slope
height.
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (22)
6.2.2 Slope Maintenance
Because of the gradient, height, and type of materials in typical cut and fill slopes,
continued and close attention to slope maintenance will be required. Planting of drought-
resistant ground cover and deep-rooting vegetation should be considered. During and
subsequent to the establishment of the ground cover, a stringent schedule of nominal
irrigation should be established in order to minimize infiltration and saturation of the
underiying fills and/or bedrock materials. Im'gation procedures which result in uniform
moisture content and minimize cyclic wetting and drying (and associated expansion and
shrinkage) of the soil, should be employed (e.g. applying water for short periods of time
and at frequent inten/als is preferable to infrequent, prolonged soaking). Sprinkler systems
should be periodically checked to ensure their good working order. Where automatic
sprinkler systems are installed, watering schedules should be adjusted to weather
conditions. All slope drains and ditches should be routinely maintained.
6.3 SUBDRAINS
Canyon subdrains are recommended in all major canyons which are to receive fill. Approximate
locations are indicated on Plate 1. Subdrains should be designed and placed in confonnance with
the schematic drawing presented in Appendix D. Where subdrains tenninate below grade at
property lines, provisions must be made to provide suitable outlet worics.
6.4 ROCK PLACEMENT
Rocks can be placed in fills if the recommendations presented below are followed.
1. Rock up to one foot in diameter can be incorporated into the fills by normal procedures
provided thatthe volume of rock, 8 to 12 inches in diameter, does not exceed 10 percent
of the total volume and rock is not placed within 10 feet of pad grade.
2. Rock between one and two feet in diameter may be placed at the base of fill slopes a
minimum of 5 feet from the slope face but outside of a 1:1 projection down from the top
of the slope.
3. Rock larger than 2 feet in diameter should not be placed in stmctural fills.
4. Excess rock which cannot be safely included in the fill, in accordance with the above
recommendations, should be stockpiled for export or used for landscaping purposes.
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (23)
6.5 SURFACE DRAINAGE AND EROSION
Surface drainage should be controlled at all times. The proposed stmctures should have
appropriate drainage systems to collect roof mnoff. Positive surface drainage should be provided
to direct surface water away from the stmctures toward the street or suitable drainage facilities.
Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing a minimum 2 percent gradient from the
stmctures. Below-grade planters should not be situated adjacent to stmctures or pavements
unless provisions for drainage such as catch basins and drains are made, in general, ponding of
water should be avoided adjacent to the stmctures or pavements.
In order to help reduce the potential for excessive erosion of graded slopes, we recommend berms
and/or swales be provided along the top of the slopes and lot drainage directed such that surface
mnoff on the slope faces is minimized. Protective measures to mitigate excessive site erosion
during constmction should also be implemented in accordance with the latest City of Carisbad
grading ordinances.
6.6 FOUNDATION AND SLAB CONSIDERATIONS
Foundations and slabs should be designed in accordance with stmctural considerations and the
following recommendations. These recommendations assume that the soils encountered within
4 feet of pad grade have a high potential for expansion.
6.6.1 Footings
The above-grade stmctures and site walls may be supported by conventional, continuous
perimeter, or isolated spread footings. Footings should extend a minimum of 24 inches
beneath the lowest adjacent finish grade. At these depths, footings may be designed for
a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 5,000 pounds per square foot (psf) if founded
into competent fonnational (Point Loma Fonnation) soils or 2,500 if founded in properiy
compacted fill soils. Footings in Point Loma Formation at a minimum depth of 30 inches
may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 6,000 psf The bearing pressure for
miscellaneous site retaining walls should be limited to 2,500 psf The allowable pressures
may be increased by one third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or
seismic forces. The minimum recommended width of footings is 18 inches for continuous
footings and 24 inches for square or round footings. Footings should be designed in
accordance with the stmctural engineer's requirements and have a minimum reinforcement
of four No. 5 reinforcing bars (two top and two bottom).
We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all
stmctural footings and settlement-sensitive stmctures. This distance is measured from the
outside edge of the footing, horizontally to the slope face (or to the face of a retaining wall)
and should be a minimum of H/2, where H is the slope height (in feet). The setback should
not be less than 10 feet (15 feet for 1.5:1 slopes) and need not be greater than 20 feet.
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (24)
Please note that the soils within the stmctural setback area possess poor lateral stability,
and improvements (such as retaining walls, sidewalks, fences, pavements, etc.)
constmcted within this setback area may be subject to lateral movement and/or differential
settlement.
6.6.2 Floor Slabs
All slabs on grade should be at least 5 inches thick and be reinforced with No. 4 rebars 18
inches on center or No. 5 rebars at 24 inches on center each way (minimum) placed at
mid-height in the slab. Slabs should be underiain by a 2-inch thick layer of clean sand or
cmshed gravel. If reduction of moisture migration up through the slab is desired, the sand
or gravel layer should be additionally underiain by a visqueen moisture bam'er underiain
by an additional 4 inches of sand or cmshed gravel. All penetrations through the barrier
and all laps should be appropriately sealed. We recommend control joints be provided
across the slab at appropriate intervals as designed by the project architect. A modulus
of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch may be used for slab designs.
The potential for slab cracking may be reduced by careful control of water/cement ratios.
The contractor should take appropriate curing precautions during the pouring of concrete
in hot weather to minimize cracking of slabs. We recommend that a slipsheet (or
equivalent) be utilized if grouted tile, marble tile, or other crack-sensitive fioor covering is
planned directly on concrete slabs. All slabs should be designed in accordance with
stmctural considerations. If heavy vehicle or equipment loading is proposed for the slabs,
greater thickness and increased reinforcing may be required. Slab subgrade is estimated
to be presoaked to a minimum moisture content of 18% to a minimum depth of 24 inches
below slab subgrade prior to placement of the slab sand to reduce the potential for
expansive soil related movement to the slab. As an altemative, a post-tensioned slab may
be designed to reduce the potential for expansive-soil related distress. We can provide
design parameters for post-tensioned slabs, as necessary.
6.6.3 Settlement
The recommended allowable bearing capacities are based on a maximum total and
differential settlement of 3/4 inch and !4 inch, respectively. Since settlements are a
function of footing size and contact bearing pressures, some differential settlement can be
expected between adjacent columns or walls where a large differential loading condition
exists. However, for most cases, differential settlements are considered unlikely to exceed
Vz inch and should generally be less than 1/4 inch. With inaeased footing depth/width
ratios, differential settlement should be less.
In addition to the immediate settlement provided above, the depth ofthe proposed fills and
the relatively steep original topography will induce long-term differential settlement of the
fill soils. Based on previous experience, we estimate a long-term differential settlement
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation
Project No. 0-252-101400
July 6, 2000
Page (25)
for the fill portions of Lots 2, 3, and 4 on the order of 3/4 inch in a horizontal distance of 50 feet.
This settlement typically takes many years to occur, as the fill becomes wet. This occurs even
though the soils are properiy compacted and subdrains are installed. We recommend that the
building design team take this long-tenn differential settlement into account when designing the
stmcture and other settlement-sensitive improvements.
6.6.4 Moisture Conditioning
Prior to the placement of the fioor slabs, the subgrade soils may need to be moistened.
Final determination will be based on the expansion of each building pad to be detemiined
at the completion of grading. Soil may be placed at a higher moisture content during
grading to shorten the presoak time. We preliminarily estimate that the soils will need to
be presoaked to a minimum moisture content of 18% to a minimum depth of 24 inches.
Actual presoaking recommendations can only be provided after grading.
6.7 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES
For design purposes, the following lateral earth pressure values for level or sloping backfill are
recommended for walls backfilled with imported soils or gravel of very low to low expansion
potential (expansion potential equal to or less than 30 per UBC Standard 18-2). We anticipate
that selective grading or import will have to be accomplished to obtain very low to low expansion
potential soils for wall backfill soils.
Static Equivalent Fluid Weight
(pcO
Conditions Level 2:1 Slope
Active 35 55
At-Rest 55 65
Passive
450*
(Maximum of 3 ksf)
150
(Sloping Down)
* If founded in undisturt)ed formaitonal material, reduce to 350 psf for fill soils.
^ AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
Mr. Dean Miller c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (26)
Unrestrained (yielding) cantileverwalls should be designed for an active equivalent pressure value
provided above. In the design of walls restrained from movement at the top (non-yielding) such
as basement walls, the at-rest pressures should be used. If conditions other than those covered
herein are anticipated, the equivalent fiuid pressure values should be provided on an individual
case basis by the geotechnical engineer. A surcharge load for a restrained or unrestrained wall
resulting from automobile traffic may be assumed to be equivalent to a uniform pressure of 75 psf
which is in addition to the equivalent fiuid pressure given above. For other uniform surcharge
loads, a uniform pressure equal to 0.35q should be applied to the wall (where q is the surcharge
pressure in psf). The wall pressures assume wails are backfilled with free-draining materials and
water is not allowed to accumulate behind walls. A typical wall drainage design is contained in
Appendix D. Wall backfill should be compacted by mechanical methods to at least 90 percent
relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557). Wall footings should be designed in accordance
with the foundation design recommendations and reinforced in accordance with stmctural
considerations. For all retaining walls, we recommend a minimum horizontal distance from the
outside base of the footing to daylight of 10 feet.
Lateral soil resistance developed against lateral stmctural movement can be obtained from the
passive pressure value provided above. Further, for sliding resistance, the friction coefficient of
0.35 may be used at the concrete and soil interface. These values may be increased by one-third
when considering loads of short duration including wind or seismic loads. The total resistance
may be taken as the sum ofthe frictional and passive resistance provided that the passive portion
does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance.
6.8 GEOCHEMICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Concrete in direct contact with soil or water that contains a high concentration of soluble sulfates
can be subject to chemical deterioration commonly known as "sulfate attack." Test for soluble
sulfate (Appendix B) indicated a soluble sulfate content of 0.018 percent indicating a negligible
potential for sulfate attack. Refer to UBC Table 19-A-4 for design requirements.
Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed on representative samples of subgrade soils
(Appendix B). Based on our results, on-site soils have a very high potential for corrosion to buried
uncoated metal conduits. Please consult a corrosion engineer/architect for further evaluation of
these test results and any recommendations to mitigate con'osion potential.
6.9 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN
The appropriate pavement section depends primarily on the type of subgrade soil, shear strength,
traffic load, and planned pavement life. Since an evaluation of the characteristics of the actual
soils at pavement subgrade cannot be made at this time, we have provided the following range
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
Mr. Dean Miller c/o Fluor Corporation
Project No. 0-252-101400
July 6, 2000
Page (27)
of pavement sections to be used for planning purposes only. The final subgrade shear strength
will be highly dependent on the soils present at finish pavement subgrade. However, based on
preliminary testing, we have assumed an R-value of 10 for pavement subgrade soils. Actual
pavement subgrade may have a lower R-value when tested and, thus, a thicker pavement section
may be necessary. In addition, in accordance with the requirements of the City of Carisbad, low
R-Value subgrade soils may have to be lime-treated prior to pavement installation. Final pavement
design should be evaluated based on R-value tests perfonned upon completion of grading and
the City of Carisbad Pavement Design Table.
Pavement Loading Condition
Traffic Index
(20-Year Life) Anticipated Pavement Sections
Paricing Areas
Cul-de-sac 4.5 4.0 inches AC over
5.0 inches Class 2 base
Local Street and Drive Areas 5.0 4.0 inches AC over
7.0 inches Class 2 Base
Collection Streets and Truck Drive 6.0 4.0 inches AC over
11.0 inches Class 2 base
For areas subject to unusually heavy tmck loading (i.e., trash tmcks, delivery tmcks, etc.), we
recommend a full depth of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) section of 7 inches with appropriate
steel reinforcement and crack-control joints as designed by the project stmctural or civil engineer.
We recommend that sections be as neariy square as possible. A 3,500 psi mix that provides a
minimum 600 psi modulus of mpture should be utilized. The actual pavement design should also
be in accordance with City of Carisbad and ACI criteria. All pavement section materials should
conform to and be placed in accordance with the latest revision of the Califomia Department of
Transportation Standard Specifications (Caltrans) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) codes
and guidelines.
Prior to placing the AC or PCC pavement section, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils and all
aggregate base should have relative compaction of at least 95 percent (based on ASTM Test
Method D1557).
If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, we recommend some
measure of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. It
is recommended that the concrete curb separating the landscaping area from the pavement
extend below the aggregate base to help seal the ends of the sections where heavy landscape
watering may have access to the aggregate base. Concrete swales should be designed in
roadway or paridng areas subject to concentrated surface mnoff.
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000 Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (28)
6.10 CLOSURE
This report is based on the project as described and the information obtained from limited
subsurface exploration at the locations indicated on the plan, field exposures and reference
documents. Our findings are based on the results of the field, laboratory, and office studies,
combined with an interpolation and extrapolation of soil and rock conditions between and beyond
the borings. The results reflect our interpretation of the limited direct evidence obtained. Our firm
should be notified of any pertinent change in the project or foundation plans. If conditions are
found to differ from those described, a revaluation of the recommendations may be required.
This updated investigation was performed to provide some general recommendations for site
development and discuss geotechnical factors that need to be considered. Additional review and
geotechnical studies may be necessary for final grading design and site-specific studies will
probably be necessary for individual stmctures after completion of rough grading.
Our recommendations for this site are, to a high degree, dependent upon proper quality control
for problematic soil removal, fill placement and foundation installation. Consequently,
geotechnical recommendations are made contingent on the opportunity for AGRA to observe
grading operations and foundation excavations. We anticipate our services will be as follows:
1. Observation of all grading operations.
2. Geologic observation of all cut slopes.
3. Geologic observation of all key cuts and fill benching.
4. Geologic observation of all retaining wall backcuts, during and following completion
of excavation.
5. Observation of all surface and subsurface drainage systems.
6. Observation of backfill wedges, drainage blankets and weep holes for retaining
walls.
7. Observation of premoistening of subgrade soils, and placement of sand cushion
and vapor banier beneath the slab.
8. Observation of all foundation excavations for the stmcture or retaining walls prior
to placing forms and reinforcing steel.
9. Observation of compaction of all utility trenches.
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
I Recycled Paper
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation
Project No. 0-252-101400
July 6, 2000
Page (29)
If parties other than AGRA are engaged to provide such services, they must be notified that they
will be required to assume complete responsibility for all phases (design and constmction) of the
project within the purview of the geotechnical engineer. They should notify in writing the owner,
designers, appropriate governmental agencies, and this office that they concur with the
recommendations in this report and any subsequent addenda, or will provide altemative
recommendations.
This document has not been prepared for use by parties or projects other than those named or
described above, as it may not contain sufficient information for other parties or other purposes.
The report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical practices and
makes no other warranties, either express or implied, as to the professional advice or data
included.
Sincerely,
AGRA Earth & Environmental, \ne:^^}^^^5lo,
' 'Co.
Joseph G. Franzone,(Q^
Supen/ijfing Engineer
JOSEPH i
FRAMZON£
!s:o. 2189 i I
Senior Engineering Geologist
2189 i hi r . I ^ 'I David L. Perry. CEG 2040
DLP/JGF/drs
Distribution:
OF Q,
(5) Addressee
(1) Buccola Engineering
Attention: Mr. John Duewel
(1) Ladwig Engineering
Attention: Mr. Bob Ladwig
drs\C:\Shared\Public\02521O14OO Fox-MillerProp\Geotech Invest-Calrsbad.rpt.wpd
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (30)
7.0 REFERENCES
Hannan, D., 1975, Faulting in the Oceanside, Carisbad and Vista Areas, Northem San Diego
County, Califomia in Ross, A. and Dowlens, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology of
Camp Pendleton and Westem San Diego County, Califomia: San Diego
Association of Geologists, pp. 56-59.
Hart, 1994, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in Califomia, Alquist-Priolo Spedal Studies Zones Act
of 1974 with Index to Spedal Study Zones Maps: Department of Conservation,
Division of Mines and Geology, Spedal Publication Map No. 1.
Intemational Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1997, Unifonn Building Code, Volume 1 -
Administrative, Fire- and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provisions; Volume II -
Stmctural Engineering Design Provisions; and Volume III - Material Testing and
Installation Provisions: ICBO.
Ishihara, K., 1983, Stability of Natural Deposits during Earthquakes, Proc. Of the Eleventh
Intemational Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San
Francisco, Vol. 1, No. 7, August 1-16, pp. 321-375.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of Califomia and Adjacent Areas, with Locations and
Ages of Recent Volcanic Emptions: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology,
Califomia Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000.
Ladwig Design Group, 2000, Preliminary Submittal, Fox-Miller Property, dated March 1, P.N.L -
1054, Scale 1"= 100'.
Leighton and Associates, 1992, City of Carisbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping
Study, 84 Sheets, dated November, 1992.
Moore and Tabor Consulting Engineers and Geologists, 1989, Preliminary Geotechnical
Investigation, Industrial Complex Adjacent and Southeriy to El Camino Real,
Northwesteriy of College Boulevard, Carisbad, CA, P.N. 689-102, dated May 19.
Schnabel, B. and H.B., 1974, Acceleration in Rock for Earthquakes in the Westem United States;
Bulletin ofthe Seismological Society of America, Vol. 63, No. 2, pp. 501-516,1974.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Arango, 1., 1983, Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using Field
Perfonnance Data, Joumal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE Vol. 109, March,
pp. 282-458.
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6,2000 Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (31)
., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Monogram
Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Bericeley, Califomia.
, 1971, Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential, Joumal
of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE Vol. 97, No. SM9, September
pp. 1249-1273.
Tan, S.S., and M.D. Kennedy, 1996, Geologic Maps of the Northwestem Part of San Diego
County, Califomia. DMG Open-File Report 96-02, Plate 1, Map Scale 1:24.000.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Kiefer, F.W., 1969, Characteristics of Rock Motions During
Earthquakes, Joumal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol. 95,
No. SM, Proc. Paper 6783, pp. 1199-1218, September 1969.
Weber, F.H., 1982 Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides and Related Geology of the
Northem-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, Califomia: Califomia Division
of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 82-12LA, 77 p.
USGS, 1982, San Luis Rey Quandrangle, Scale 1:24.000.
USDA, 1953, Aerial Photographs, Flight No. AXN - 8M, Frame No. 71 & 72.
Ziony, J.I., and Yerices, R.F., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake and Surface-Faulting Potential in
Ziony, ed., 1985, Evaluating Earthquake Hazards in the Los Angeles Region - An
Earth - Science Perspective: U.S. Geological Survey, Professional Paper 1360, pp.
43-91.
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
APPENDIX A
MOORE S. TABER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST BORING LOG
IBORING TYPE 24" 0 Buclcat Auger ELEVATION 296.0
22E
4iW
low
2W~
107
113
14.9
15.1
10
12
2.5
Bag
2.5
Bag
10
20
25
30'
35
COLLUVIUM: Red hro\m CLAYEY SILT with
minute voids and roots
DEL ^lARTFOEMATION: Poorly bedded modGrate:|:.
fractured, oxidizfed gray brovm CLAYEY
SILTSTONE
... at 7', 5-inch thick cementad SILTSTONI
CONCRETION
NOTES:
1. Refusal, at 16' dua to concrstion.
2. No caving.
3. No groundirater ancountered.
4. Backfilled and tamped 4/19/89.
5. Elavation obtained from plan.datai
3-14-89.
z
>l
51
wo cu
O
3T
u z
a. z a -< n
a. k.
-I
< _i O . COM
THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPUES ONLY AT THE TIME
ANO LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
LOGGED BY i^p DATE 4-19-89
Job Mo. 589-102 - May 8, 1989 A-1
MOORE 5t TABER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST BORING LOG
[ELEVATION 284.0 IBORING TYPE 24" 0 Bucket Auger
fI5E
2E
38W
4SW
79W
8"S
21W
2SW
N4E
3VJ
io
il wo KU
107
113
21.2
14.4
u c
I i
o
12
24
is
2.5
Bag
2.5
U X
s
a. z a -
10.
15
20
25
40
45
:
I w |_ w 0. u.
< _l r o
ML
o .
COLLUVIUM: Red bro-vn CLAYEY SILT with
minuta voids and roots
DEL MAR:^OEl^T:iaN: Poorly bedded, highly
fractured, oxidizad gray bro;m
CLAYEY SILTSTONE
at 11', 4" thick concretion
at 15', 5" thick concretion
.. at 21.5', 5" thick concretion
at 29.5', 8" thick concretion
Poorly baddad gray black CLAYEY
SILTSTONE with scattered GYPSUt'I
crystals
J 4
NOTES:
1. Refusal at 35' due to concretion.
2. No groundiratar encountered.
3. No caving.
4. Backfilled and tamped_4/20/89.
5. Elevation obtained from plan.date:
3-14-89.
THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE TIME
ANO LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO TIMES.
LOGGED BY T^l? DATE 4-19-89
Job No. 689-102 - May 8, 1989 A-7
MOORE St TABER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST BORING LOG
TYPE 24" 0 Bucket Auqar ELEVATION 268.0 IBORING
24E
mi
30E
6m<!
lOVJ
5W
22W
4SW
5W
5W
28W
5SIf
HE
5NT/7
105
110
22.2
19.0 24
2.5
Bag
2.5
10 "E
20
25
40
COLUP/IUM: Mottled broTm CLAYEY SILT
with minuta voids and roots
DEL MAR_"FORMATION: Poorly bedded, higMy
fractured oxidized, gray brovm
CLAYEY SILTSTOfNiE
...at 23', 8" thick concretion
.2" thick sand bed at 32.5'
Poorly iDedded gray blaclc CLAYEY SILTSTOME
with scattered GYPSU^^ crystals
NOTES:
1. Refusal at 35.5' due to
concretion.
2. No groundirater encountered.
3. No caving.
4. Backfilled 4/20/89.
5. Elevation obtained from plan
dated 3-14-89.
51
wo
CO
0 n
1 3
w c
2 ^ o z
w
'CM
< J o .
z
3
THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE TIME
ANO LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
LOGGED BY IMP OATE 4-20-89
Job No. 589-102 - May 8.. 1989 A-3
MOORE St TABER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST BORING LOG
TYPE 24" 0 Buclcat Auger
tz 51 wo KU
117
o «
13.5
o
18
On^
§8
Bag
2.5
Bag
J O a. z a -
M
,>-jML
10'
15'
20
25
ELEVATION 175.0
K
I w K w
0. h.
O
o .
z
IBORING 4"
COLLUVIUM: Yellow brom CLAYEY SILT
with minuta voids and roots
DEL MaR.-EORIlATION: Poorly bedded, modarat
indurated, oxidized yellow and gray
SILTY SANDSTONE,
• • • 3. u
Si!
7', 3" thick concration
.at 10', 3" concretion
.at 13', 5" thick concration
NOTES:
End of boring 19'.
No groundT/ater ancountered.
No caving.
Backfilled 4/21/89.
Elavation obtainad from plan
dated 3-14-89.
THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE TIME
AND LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS AND TIMES.
LOGGED BY ^IP DATE 4-20-89
Job No. 689-102 - May 8, 1989 A-4
MOORE S TABER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST BORING LOG
TYPE 24" 0 Bucket Auger [ELEVATION 296. o" IBORING i" 1
1
COLLUVIUM: Dark yellow brom CLAYEY SILI^
i/ith minuta voids and roots 32W
'5N3
49E
3m
72W
lis
22W
5S17
71W
8N
6N^^
78E
2N
z
51
wo cu
105
C -I
NSR
21.3
w c
I i
o
X
13 2.5
Bag
2.5
10
15
20
25
35
40
45
z
3
DEL MAR"FORMATION: Poorly bedded, highly
fractured ojcidized gray broim
CLAYEY SILTSTONE
...slightly fractured belOT,"- 10'
.13.5'; 5" thick concration
•at 20'; 4" thick concretion
J 4
NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
End of boring 39'.
No groundxrater encoiontered.
No caving.
Backfilled 4/21/89.
Elevation'obtained from plan
dated 3/14/89.
THIS BORING LOG SUMMARY APPLIES ONLY AT THE TIME
ANO LOCATION INDICATED. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
MAY DIFFER AT OTHER LOCATIONS ANO TIMES.
LOGGED BY ^ DATE 4/21/89
Job No. 589-102 - May 8, 1989 A-5
MOORE & TA B E R CONSULTINO ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE 24" Wide Buckat ELEV. ~ 270 |TP.N«
N2°tf
10
20'
CL ALLUVIUM: Brovm SILTY CLAY
DEL MAR- F0RJ-1ATI0N: Lithof iad, blocky
broi/n CLAYEY SILTSTONE with CLAY
seams
"i——f
NOTES:
1. Total depth of T.P. 6'. .
2. No ground'.ra-tar encountered.
3. No caving.
4. Backfilled 4-5-89.
5. Elevation obtained from plan
dated 3-14-89.
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE 24" Wide Bucket ELEV 220 TP. N*
Ni2°i;'
n°\-i
o
So
wo
III
Ul z M
J «.
10
15
20
CL COLLUVIUTI: Brom SILTY CLAY
X w
o
to
DEL MAR-FORI-IATION: Lithof iad, bloclcy
CLAYEY SILTSTONE with oxidation
staining
gray
Bloclq^ dar'c gray CLAYEY SILTSTONE
H h
NOTES:
1. Total dapth of T.P. 6.5'.
2. No groundv/ater anco'-intared.
3. No caving.
4. Backfilled 4-5-39.
5. Ela'/ation obtained from plan
dated 3-4-89.
LOGGED BY KGF DATE 4-5-89
Job No. 689-102 - May 8, 1989 A-5
MOORE & TA B E R CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST PIT LOG
jTP.N« 3 TYPE 24" Bucket ELEV 160
93 11.1 3.0
Bag
20'
CL COLLUVIUtI: Darlc hro\m. SILTY CLAY
RESIDUAL SOIL: Red broT/n CLAYEY SILT
DEL ms. FORMATION: Friable red broi.Ti
to madium SILTY SANDSTONE .
:ine
-i f-
NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total depth of T.P. 7.5'.
No groundTvater encountered.
No caving.
Baclcfilled 4-5-89.
Elevation obtainad from plan
datad 3-4-89.
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE 24" Bucket ELEV 145 TRN« 4
N3301J
44"S1 [
o
wo
il
13
w
N » n Q
w X
10
15
20
w
.J
<
FILL: I^Jliite fine CLAYEY SAND
ALLUVIUr-I: Dar!: brovm SILTY CLAY
RESIDUAL SOIL: Mottled bloc!"/ darlc bro-./n
SILTY CLAY
DEL MAR FORMATION: Dark broim CLAYEY
SILTSTONE with CLAY saaxns
f-NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total depth of T.P. 9'.
No groundirater ancountered.
No caving.
Backfilled 4-5-89.
Elavation obtained from plan
dated 3-4-39.
LOGGED BY KGF DATE 4_5_39
Job No. 689-102 - May 8, 1989 A-7
MOORE & TABER CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE 24" Bucket ELEV + 155 iTP.Ntt
10
15
20
ML
ALLUVIUM: Bro\m CLAYEY SILT
.scattered concretions at 5' - 12"-24"
in diameter
•seepaga
DEL flAR FORMATION: Lithof iad, bloclcy browi
SILTY CLAYSTONE
NOTES:
J.
2
3
A.
-f /-17' Total depth of T.P.
Seepage at 15'.
Caving associated with seepaga.
Backfilled 4-5-89.
5. Ela"^/ation obtainad from plan
dated 3-4-89.
TEST PIT LOG
|TP.N« 6 TYPE 24" Buckat ELEV 238
N820l
38%
wo
TO
97. 18.6
o
Bag
N ^
W X
10
15
20
a. m w o
CL
o
X
ALLUVIU?VCOLLUVIUM: Brown SILTY CLAY
...concretion 2' in diameter
RESIDUAL SOIL: Bloc]<cy mottled darlc broT/n
SILTY CLAY
DEL MAR FORMATION: Lithofiad, blocl-cy dark
bro-./n SILTY CLAYSTONE
NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
-f f-
Total dapth of T.P. 8'.
No groundv/ater encountered.
No caving.
Backfillad 4-5-89.
Elavation obtained from plan
dated 3-4-89.
LOGGED BY KGF DATE 4-5-89
Job No. 589-102 - May 3, 1989 JV-8
MOORE & TA B E R CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE 24" Wide Buckat ELEV 195 |TP.N« 7
NI 1°
14°Sir
Bag
10
20-
CL C0LLUVIUt4: Dark bro^m SILTY Clay with
SAJIDSTONS concretions
"DEL MAR. FORJ'IATIONAL: Lithofiad, bloclq/,
mottled dark bro:m SILTY CLAYSTONE
with CLAY seams
f—f
NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Total depth of T.P. 6.5'.
No groundT/atar encountered.
No caving.
Backfilled 4/5/89.
Elevation obtained from plan-
dated 3-4-89.
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE 24" Wide Buclcet ELEV ^ 238 jXRN*
iTO-«r
5»-
51 wo CO ii
1
z
w
m
10
15
20
•VP
Z w fc- " A. U. W
o
SM
ML
o , •>•>
to z
SLOPET/JASH: Y"ellow bro-.m fina to medivr.i SILTY SAJ^ro
ALLUVIO'I: Darlc bro.m CLAYEY SILT
DSL tap F0R:'IATI0N: Fracturad lithof ia:
bloclcy dark blue/rust WEATHERED
CLAYEY SILTSTOfJE
FORJIATIGNAL: Lithofied, bloclcy, dark
brovm CLAYEY SILTSTONE
-h-i-
NOTES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Total depth of T.P. 8.5'.
No groundtratar encountered.
No caving.
Backfilled 4-5-89.
Ele-^/ation obtained from plan
datad 3-4-39.
LOGGED BY KGF DATE 4-5-89
Job No. 689-102 - May 8, 1989 A-9
MOORE & TA B E R CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE 24" Wide Bucket ELEV ± 153 TP.N«
10
20'
CL ALLUVIUM: Dark bro;m SILTY CLAY
DEL-MAR-FORMATION: • Lithofied, blocl-ry,
dark brovm CLAYEY SILTSTOME
j
NOTES:
1. Total dapth:of-tast pit -10'.
2. Seepage batvraan .5 T and 10'" (approx.
5 gal/min.)
3. Caving associated with seepaga.
4. Backfilled 4/5/89.
5. Elevation obtained from plan dated
3/4/89.
TEST PIT LOG
TYPE 24" Wide Buckat ELEV 215 |TRN» IO"
wo
CO
li o a
w
N «. .J
10
15
20- -
= o
w o
CL
o
Mm
S3
ALLUVIUM: Darlc brovm SILTY CLAY
DEL MAR FORJLATION:- • Fractured, lithofiad
blocky, light brovm l^THERED SILT^'
CLAYSTONE
-i f-
WOTES:
1. TotaL depth of test pit 4'.
2. No groundvrater encoimtered.
3. No caving.
4. Backfillad 4/5/89.
5. Elevation obtainad from plan dated
3/4/89.
LOGGED BY KGF DATE 4-5-89
Job No. 589-102 - May 3, 1989 A-10
APPENDIX B
Mr. Dean Miller
c/o Fluor Corporation July 6, 2000
Project No. 0-252-101400 Page (1)
LABORATORY TESTING
The laboratory testing was designed to fit the specific needs of this project and was limited to
testing on-site materials. A brief description of each type of test is presented below. Specific data
are shown in Appendix B.
Strength characteristics of the subsurface soil were detemained in the laboratory by direct shear
tests performed on two (2) undisturbed and two (2) remolded samples. Samples were saturated
and tested under three different nomial loads. All samples were tested in a 2.5-inch I.D. circular
shear box. One undisturbed and one remolded sample were tested using a controlled
displacement rate of 0.04-inch per minute in general accordance with ASTM D 3080.
Settlement characteristics of one undisturbed and one remolded soil sample were evaluated by
means of laboratory consolidations tests. Samples were tested in a floating ring consolidometer
using a dead weight lever system for load application in general accordance with ASTM D 2435.
Expansion tests were performed on 3 soil samples in general accordance with the standard
procedure for the Expansion Index Test (UBC Standard 18-2). In this testing procedure, the
remolded sample is compacted with an energy input of 11,300 feet - lbs. per cubic foot at 50
percent saturation. After remolding, the sample is confined under a pressure of 144 psf and
allowed to soal< for twenty-four hours. The resulting volume change due to increased moisture
content is recorded together with initial moisture content and dry density. In addition to our
previous expansion potential test, we performed 2 additional expansion tests on representative
samples of the onsite materials. The results are presented below:
Representative Material Expansion Index Expansion Potential
Pt. Loma Formation - Claystone Siltstone 98 High
Topsoil - Brown Silty Clay 94 High
The concentration of soluble sulphate was determined for one (1) soil sample in general
accordance with California Test Method No. 417.
Corrosivity tests were performed on one (1) soil sample to determine their pH and minimum
electrical resistance. Tests were conducted in general compliance with California Test Method No.
643.
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of two (2) soil samples were determined
in accordance with ASTM D 1557.
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
BORING NO. / SAMPLE NO. 1/2 2/1 3/2 5/3
DESCRIPTION
Brovm CLAYEY
SILT
Gray
SILTSTONE
Brovm CLAYEY
SILT
Gray
SILTSTONE
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION ML ML
DIRECT SHEAR TEST (type) Remolded Undisturbed Remolded Undisturb 2d
Initial Moisture Content % 19.1 19.1 19.1 21.2 21.2 21.2 20.0 20.0 20.0 21.3 21.3 ?1.3
Test Moisture Content % Sat iratec Sal urate Sal urate a S-c turat 2d
Normal Stress (lbs./sq.ft.) 1125 2159 3195 1125 2159 3195 1125 2159 3195 1125 2159 3195
Peak Shear Stress (lbs./sq.ft.) 776 1373 2111 4165 4081 5439 956 1666 2121 4119 3901 1337
Ultimate Shear Stress (lbs./sq.ft.) 776 1373 2111 994 2841 3962 767 1619 2121 1174 1723 2907
Anqle of Internal Friction (degrees) 32 6& 34 39
Cohesion (lbs./sq.ft.) 50 iSoo 0 100
EXPANSION TEST UBC 29-2
Initial Dry Density (lbs./sq.ft.) 94.7
Initial Moisture % 14.4
Final Moisture % 29.4
Pressure (lbs./sq.ft.) 144
Expansion Index I Swell % 54 1 5.4 1
CORROSIVITY TEST Calif. 643
Resistivity (ohm-cm) 330
pH 7.2
CHEMICAL TEST Calif. 417
Soluble Sulphate % 0.0183
MOORE St TABER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
CONSOLIDATION TEST - PRESSURE CURVES
1/2 Elev.-Depth 6.0' Date 5/7/89
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
• INITIAL MOISTURE
• NATURAL MOISTURE
O SAMPLE SUBMERGED
1
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
• INITIAL MOISTURE
• NATURAL MOISTURE
O SAMPLE SUBMERGED
1 1
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
• INITIAL MOISTURE
• NATURAL MOISTURE
O SAMPLE SUBMERGED
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE
• INITIAL MOISTURE
• NATURAL MOISTURE
O SAMPLE SUBMERGED
• ;
^—
\
•—-
_ i
1
in 0)
U c
I
CD
LJ
UJ
_l
Q.
<
cn
1.01
1.00-
.99
.98'
.96
.95
.94
.93
.92
CONSOLIDATION TEST - PRESSURE CURVES
Bor./ /4 Elev.-Depth 15.0' Date 5/7/89
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ?
• INITIAL MOISTURE I
• NATURAL MOISTURE |
O SAMPLE SUBMERGED 1
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ?
• INITIAL MOISTURE I
• NATURAL MOISTURE |
O SAMPLE SUBMERGED 1
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ?
• INITIAL MOISTURE I
• NATURAL MOISTURE |
O SAMPLE SUBMERGED 1
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ?
• INITIAL MOISTURE I
• NATURAL MOISTURE |
O SAMPLE SUBMERGED 1
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ?
• INITIAL MOISTURE I
• NATURAL MOISTURE |
O SAMPLE SUBMERGED 1
1
I
I
i
\ 1
C ) ~ \ 1
\ 1
\ !
\ 1
? t
( 1
t
i I
\ 1
! t »
i !
! i
1 I !
1 1 1
i
1 ! i
1 • i 1 I
0.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16
PRESSURE (tons/sq.ft.)
in
u c
I o
UJ
X
UJ
_l a.
< tn
1.00
.99
.98
.97
.96
.95
.94
.93
.92
.91
.90
.89
Job No. 589-102 - May 19, 1989 B-3
MOORE St TABER GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
CONSOLIDATION TEST - PRESSURE CURVES
Bor./Sampie N« 3/3 Elev.-Depth 25.0' Date 5/8/89
in cu
0 HT amp CS cn UJ
I (U XX
UJ u UJ
_l
a. m
•H XI SA In 1.00
.99-
.98
.97
.96
.95
.94
.93
.92
.91
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE \
• INITIAL MOISTURE
• NATURAL MOISTURE
0 SAMPLE SUBMERGED {
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE \
• INITIAL MOISTURE
• NATURAL MOISTURE
0 SAMPLE SUBMERGED {
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE \
• INITIAL MOISTURE
• NATURAL MOISTURE
0 SAMPLE SUBMERGED {
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE \
• INITIAL MOISTURE
• NATURAL MOISTURE
0 SAMPLE SUBMERGED { ( I c
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE \
• INITIAL MOISTURE
• NATURAL MOISTURE
0 SAMPLE SUBMERGED {
C
\ \ . i . \
-. \
• 1 \
\
• i
• » i 1
• 1
\
r
j i.
i
CONSOLIDATION TEST - PRESSURE CURVES
Bor., 4/1 f ilev.-Depth 3.0' Date 5/7/89 |
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ^
• INITIAL MOISTURE J
• NATURAL MOISTURE s
0 SAMPLE SUBMERGED =
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ^
• INITIAL MOISTURE J
• NATURAL MOISTURE s
0 SAMPLE SUBMERGED =
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ^
• INITIAL MOISTURE J
• NATURAL MOISTURE s
0 SAMPLE SUBMERGED =
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ^
• INITIAL MOISTURE J
• NATURAL MOISTURE s
0 SAMPLE SUBMERGED =
A OVERBURDEN PRESSURE ^
• INITIAL MOISTURE J
• NATURAL MOISTURE s
0 SAMPLE SUBMERGED =
! r
1
• i
• \ ' li
\
• t
c
^*'"^^——— ; t
e
f
• t
)
^ i f
i 1 s
1 ! i
: i \
i 1 I
! ! ^
\ i 1
i 1 \
0.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 1
PRESSURE (tons/sq.ft.) 1
in
W
O
UJ
I
UJ
_J CL
<
CO
OJ l-l
cn
TJ
QJ T) <-l
i
1.00
.99
.98
.97
.96
.95
.94
.93
.92
.91
.90
.89
Job No. 589-102 - May 19, 1989 B-4
APPENDIX C
DATE: Thursday, June 29, 2000
* *
* EQFAULT *
* *
* Ver. 2.20 *
* *
* *
*************************************
(Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration
From Digitized California Faults)
SEARCH PERFORMED FOR: JGF
JOB NUMBER: 689-102
JOB NAME: Fox-Miller Property
SITE COORDINATES:
LATITUDE: 33.1375 N
LONGITUDE: 117.2766 W
SEARCH RADIUS: 100 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 2) Campbell & Bozorgnia (1994) Horiz. - Soft Rocl<
UNCERTAINTY (M=Mean, S=Mean+l-Sigma): M
SCOND: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CALIFLT.DAT
SOURCE OF DEPTH VALUES (A=Attenuation File, F=Fault Data File): A
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page
1
1 APPROX.
DISTANCE
mi (km)
IMAX. CREDIBLE EVENT 1 IMAX. PROBABLE EVENT
1 ABBREVIATED
1 FAULT NAME
1
APPROX.
DISTANCE
mi (km)
MAX.
CRED.
MAG.
1 PEAK 1
1 SITE 1
lACC. gj
SITE 1
INTENS1
MM 1
1 MAX.
1PROB.
1 MAG.
j PEAK 1
1 SITE 1
lACC. gl
SITE
INTENS
MM
BLUE CUT 79 (128) 7 .00 1 0 .018] IV 1 1 6 .00 1 0 .0071 . II
BORREGO MTN. (San Jacinto) 63 (102) 6 .50 1 0 .0161 IV 1 1 6 .20 1 0 .0121 III
CAMP ROCK-EMER.-COPPER MTN 94 (152) 7 .00 1 0 .014 1 IV 1 1 5 .80 1 0 0051 II
CASA LOMA-CLARK (S.Jacin.) 46 ( 74) 7 .00 1 0 .0401 V 1 1 7 .00 1 0 040 1 V
CATALINA ESCARPMENT 39 ( 63) 7 .00 1 0 0511 VI 1 1 6 10 1 0 023] IV
CHINO 48 ( 77) 7 .00 1 0 0361 V 1 1 5 .40 1 0 0101 III
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 82 (133) 6 60 0 Oil! III 1 1 4 90 1 0 0031 I
CORONADO BANK-AGUA BLANCA 23 ( 37) 7 50 0 1561 VIII 1 1 6 70 1 0 0831 VII
COYOTE CREEK (San Jacinto)| 49 ( 79) 7 00 0 037 1 V 1 1 6 10 0 0161 IV
CUCAMONGA I 72 (117) 6 90 0 018 1 IV 1 1 6 10 0 0091 III
ELSINORE 1 23 ( 37) 7 50 0 157 1 VIII 1 1 6 60 0. 077 1 VII
ELYSIAN PARK SEISMIC ZONE | 79 (127) 7 10 0 018 1 IV 1 1 5 80 0. 0061 II
GLN.HELEN-LYTLE CR-CLREMNT| 50 ( 80) 7 00 0 0361 V 1 1 6 70 0. 0281 V
HELENDALE I 83 (134) 7 30 0 022 1 IV 1 1 5 50 0. 004 1 I
HOMESTEAD VALLEY 1 94 (151) 7 50 0 022! IV 1 1 4 80 0. 0021 -
HOT S-BUCK RDG.(S.Jacinto)1 49 ( 79) 7 00 0. 0361 V 1 I 6. 10 0. 0161 IV
JOHNSON VALLEY I 86 (138) 7 50 0. 0251 V 1 t 5 20 0. 0031 I
LA NACION 1 22 ( 35) 6. 50 0. 084 1 VII 1 4. 20 0. 0131 III
LENWOOD-OLD WOMAN SPRINGS I 90 (146) 7 30 0. 0191 IV 1 5. 50 0. 004 1 I
MALIBU COAST | 96 (155) 6. 90 0. 0111 III 1 5. 60 0. 004 1 I
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (NORTH) I 70 (112) 6. 70 0. 017 1 IV 1 4 . 20 0. 0021 -
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD-OFFSHORE| 11 ( 18) 7. 10 0. 2661 IX 1 5. 90 0. 114 1 VII
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE | 78 (126) 7. 70 0. 034 1 V 1 6. 00 0. 007 1 II
PALOS VERDES HILLS i 45 ( 72) i 7. 20 0. 0491 VI 1 6. 20 0. 0201 IV
PINTO MOUNTAIN - MORONGO I 72 (116)1 7. 30 0. 027 1 V 1 5. 80 0. 007 1 II
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
I Recycled Paper
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
Page
! APPROX.
DISTANCE
mi (km)
IMAX. CREDIBLE EVENT! IMAX. PROBABLE EVENT
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
! APPROX.
DISTANCE
mi (km)
1 MAX.
ICRED.
1 MAG.
1 PEAK 1
1 SITE 1
lACC. gl
SITE 1
INTENS1
MM 1
1 MAX.
jPROB.
1 MAG.
1 PEAK 1
1 SITE 1
lACC. gl
SITE
INTENS
MM
RAYMOND 82 (131) 7 .50 1 0 .023! IV 1 1 4 90 1 0 .0031 I
ROSE CANYON 7 ( 11) 7 .00 1 0 .3701 IX 1 1 5 90 1 0 .197 1 VIII
SAN ANDREAS (Coachella V.) 72 (116) 8 .00 1 0 050 1 VI 1 1 6 80 1 0 017 1 IV
SAN ANDREAS (Mojave) 80 (129) 8 .00 1 0 0431 VI 1 1 7 40 1 0 0251 V
SAN ANDREAS (S. Bern.Mtn.) 68 (109) 8 00 1 0 054 1 VI 1 1 6 70 1 0 0171 IV
SAN CLEMENTE - SAN ISIDRO 56 ( 90) 8 00 0 0711 VI 1 1 6 50 1 0 0191 IV
SAND HILLS 92 (148) 8 00 0 0351 V 1 1 6 60 1 0 010 1 III
SAN DIEGO TRGH.-BAHIA SOL. 33 ( 53) 7 50 0 0991 VII 1 1 6 20 0 0331 V
SAN GABRIEL 86 (138) 7 40 0 0231 IV 1 1 5 60 0 0051 I
SAN GORGONIO - BANNING 60 ( 97) 7 50 0 038 1 V 1 1 6 60 0 018 1 IV
SAN JOSE 70 (113) 6 70 0 0171 IV 1 1 5 00 0 004 1 I
SANTA MONICA - HOLLYWOOD 88 (141) 7 00 0 014 1 IV 1 1 5 80 0 0051 II
SANTA MONICA MTNS. THRUST 89 (143) 7 20 0 024 1 V 1 1 6 30 0 0121 III
SIERRA MADRE-SAN FERNANDO 73 (117) 7 30 0 024 1 V 1 1 6 30 0 Ollj III
SUPERSTITION HLS.(S.Jacin) 83 (134) 7 00 0 017 1 IV 1 1 6 10 0 007 1 II
SUPERSTITION MTN.(S.Jacin) 78 (125) 7 00 0 018 1 IV 1 1 6. 20 0 0091 III
VERDUGO 84 (135) 6 70 0 0121 III 1 1 5. 20 0 004 1 I
WHITTIER - NORTH ELSINORE 53 ( 85) 7 10 0 0351 V 1 1 6. 00 0 013 1 III
WILSHIRE ARCH 84 (136) 5 70 0. 008 1 II 1 1 5. 00 0. 004 1 I
*****************************************************************************
-END OF SEARCH- 44 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
THE ROSE CANYON FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.
IT IS ABOUT 6.9 MILES AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-CREDIBLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.370 g
LARGEST MAXIMUM-PROBABLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.197 g
•
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
PROBABILITY: CF^ E>3CEE0AN^ vs.,rACCELERATION
^ AGRA
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX D
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING
1.0 General
1.1 Intent: These General Earthwork and Grading Specifications are for the grading
and earthwork shown on the approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the
geotechnical report(s). These Specifications are a part of the recommendations
contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the specific
recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these more general
Specifications. Observations of the earthwork by the project Geotechnical
Consultant during the course of grading may result in new or revised
recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the
recommendations in the geotechnical report(s).
1.2 The Geotechnical Consultant of Record: Prior to commencement of work, the
owner shall employ the Geotechnical Consultant of Record (Geotechnical
Consultant). The Geotechnical Consultants shall be responsible for reviewing the
approved geotechnical report(s) and accepting the adequacy of the preliminary
geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations prior to the
commencement of the grading.
Prior to commencement of grading, the Geotechnical Consultant shall review the
"work plan" prepared by the Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) and schedule
sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping, and
compaction testing.
During the grading and earthwork operations, the Geotechnical Consultant shall
observe, map, and document the subsurface exposures to verify the geotechnical
design assumptions. If the observed conditions are found to be significantly
different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, the
Geotechnical Consultant shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes
in design to accommodate the observed conditions, and notify the review agency
where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped,
elevations recorded, and/or tested include natural ground after it has been cleared
for receiving fill but before fill is placed, bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, all
key bottoms, and benches made on sloping ground to receive fill.
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioning and
processing of the subgrade and fill materials and perform relative compaction
testing of fill to determine the attained level of compaction. The Geotechnical
Consultant shall provide the test results to the owner and the Contractor on a
routine and frequent basis.
1.3 The Earthwork Contractor: The Earthwork Contractor (Contractor) shall be
qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and
processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and
compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical
report(s), and these Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The
Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing the grading in accordance with
the plans and specifications. The Contractor shall prepare and submit to the owner
and the Geotechnical Consultant a work plan that indicates the sequence of
earthwork grading, the number of "spreads" of work and the estimated quantities
of daily earthwork contemplated forthe site priorto commencement of grading. The
Contractor shall inform the owner and the Geotechnical Consultant of changes in
work schedules and updates to the work plan at least 24 hours in advance of such
changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and
accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the Geotechnical Consultant
is aware of all grading operations.
The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment
and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with the applicable grading
codes and agency ordinances, these Specifications, and the recommendations in
the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of the
Geotechnical Consultant, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil,
improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, insufficient buttress key size,
adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these
specifications, the Geotechnical Consultant shall reject the work and may
recommend to the owner that construction be stopped until the conditions are
rectified.
2.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled
2.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other
deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a
method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies, and the Geotechnical
Consultant.
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
The Geotechnical Consultant shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending
on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 1 percent
of organic materials (by volume). No fill lift shall contain more than 5 percent of
organic matter. Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work
in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed
immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials priorto continuing
to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products
(gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents
that are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping
or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor,
punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed.
2.2 Processing: Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill
by the Geotechnical Consultant shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches.
Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be overexcavated as specified in the
following section. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free
of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and
free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction.
2.3 Overexcavation: In addition to removals and overexcavations recommended in the
approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated,
spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be
overexcavated to competent ground as evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant
during grading.
2.4 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1
(horizontal to vertical units), the ground shall be stepped or benched. Please see
the Standard Details for a graphic illustration. The lowest bench or key shall be a
minimum of 15 feet wide and at least 2 feet deep, into competent material as
evaluated by the Geotechnical Consultant. Other benches shall be excavated a
minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise recommended by
the Geotechnical Consultant. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 shall also
be benched or othenwise overexcavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.
2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including removal and
processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations
recorded, and/or tested priorto being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance from the
Geotechnical Consultant prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide
the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys, and
benches.
3.0 Fill Material
3.1 General: Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and
other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by the Geotechnical
Consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with
unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed
in areas acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant or mixed with other soils to
achieve satisfactory fill material.
3.2 Oversize: Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a
maximum dimension greater than 8 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill
unless location, materials, and placement methods are specifically accepted by the
Geotechnical Consultant. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of
oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely
surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed
within 10 vertical feet of finish grade or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground
construction.
3.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material
shall meet the requirements of Section 3.1. The potential import source shall be
given to the Geotechnical Consultant at least 48 hours (2 working days) before
importing begins so that its suitability can be determined and appropriate tests
performed.
4.0 Fill Placement and Compaction
4.1 Fill Layers: Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill
(per Section 3.0) in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose
thickness. The Geotechnical Consultant may accept thicker layers if testing
indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers. Each
layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of
material and moisture throughout.
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended, and/or
mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over
optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be
performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM
Test Method Dl 557-91).
4.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and
evenly spread, it shall be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of
maximum dry density (ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91). Compaction equipment shall
be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of
proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with
uniformity.
4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes: In addition to normal compaction procedures specified
above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling of slopes with
sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation, or by other methods
producing satisfactory results acceptable to the Geotechnical Consultant. Upon
completion of grading, relative compaction ofthe fill, out to the slope face, shall be
at least 90 percent of maximum density per ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91.
4.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests for moisture content and relative compaction ofthe
fill soils shall be performed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Location and frequency
of tests shall be at the Consultant's discretion based on field conditions
encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a
random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction
levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close
to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches).
4.6 Frequency of Compaction Testing: Tests shall be taken at intervals not exceeding
2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils embankment.
In addition, as a guideline, at least one test shall be taken on slope faces for each
5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. The
Contractor shall assure that fill construction is such that the testing schedule can be
accomplished by the Geotechnical Consultant. The Contractor shall stop or slow
down the earthwork construction if these minimum standards are not met.
4.7 Compaction Test Locations: The Geotechnical Consultant shall document the
approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each test location. The
Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade
stakes are established so that the Geotechnical Consultant can detennine the test
locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
horizontal distance of 100 feet and vertically less than 5 feet apart from potential
test locations shall be provided.
5.0 Subdrain Installation
Subdrain systems shall be installed in accordance with the approved geotechnical report(s),
the grading plan, and the Standard Details. The Geotechnical Consultant may recommend
additional subdrains and/or changes in subdrain extent, location, grade, or material
depending on conditions encountered during grading. All subdrains shall be surveyed by
a land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation and prior to burial.
Sufficient time should be allowed by the Contractor for these surveys.
6.0 Excavation
Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by the
Geotechnical Consultant during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical
plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by the
Geotechnical Consultant based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during
grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be
made, evaluated, and accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of
materials for construction ofthe fill portion ofthe slope, unless othenwise recommended by
the Geotechnical Consultant.
7.0 Trench Backfills
7.1 The Contractor shall follow all OHSA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of
trench excavations.
7.2 All bedding and backfill of utility trenches shall be done in accordance with the
applicable provisions of Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction.
Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). The
bedding shall be placed to 1 foot over the top ofthe conduit and densified by jefting.
Backfill shall be placed and densified to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum from
1 foot above the top of the conduit to the surface.
7.3 The jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the
Geotechnical Consultant.
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
I Recycled Paper
7.4 The Geotechnical Consultant shall test the trench backfill for relative compaction.
At least one test should be made for every 300 feet of trench and 2 feet of fill.
7.5 Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard
Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate
to the Geotechnical Consultant that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum
relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method.
_ AGRA
Recycled Paper
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
I
I
I
__ jr^rx»«PACTiED^rir:
PnOJECTEO PIAME
1 T01 MAXIMUM FROM TOe
OF SLOPE TO APPfiOVED QflOUNO
NATURAL
GROUND
FILL SLOPE
REMOVE
UNSUrrABLE
MATERIAL
BENCH
HEIGHT
2' MIN.-
KEY DEPTH
15' MIN.
LOWEST BENCH
(KEY)
FILL-OVER^UT
SLOPE
NATURAL
GROUND
-—iF MW,—H
LOWEST BENCH'
4'TYPICAL
BENCH
HEIGHT
REMOVE
UNSUTTABLE
MATERIAL
2'MIN.
KEY DEPTH
CUT PACE
SHALL BE CONSTRUCTH) PHOR
TO FUL PlACQbe^r TO ASSURE
ADEQUATE OEOtOOIC CONOmONS
CUT FACE
TO BE CONSmUCTEO PRIOR
TO Fli. PLACEMSTTN
NATURAL
GROUND /
OVERBUILT AND
TRIM BACK
PnOJECTEO PUkNE
1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM
TOE OF SLOPE TO
APPROVED QflOUNO
DESIGN SLOPE REMOVE
NSUrTABLE
MATERIAL
CUT-OVER-FILL
SLOPE
For Subdrains See
Standard Detail C
BENCH HEIGHT
2'MIN.
KEY DEPTH LOWEST BENCH
BEHCmMi SHAa BE DONE WHEN SLOPES
ANQLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1
MINMUM BEtiCH HEIGHT SHAU. BE 4 FEET
MIfMAM FHJ. WIDTH SHAa BE 9 FEET
JKEYL
KEYING AND BENCHING GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS A
^ AGRA
I
FINISH GRADE
SLOPE
FACE
-^0• MIN.::^^nr.COMPACTED Flliunrmr:.
r-IWlNDROW
JETTED OR FLOODED
GRANULAR MATERIAL
• Oversize rock Is larger than 8 inches
in largest dimensioa
• Excavate a trerwh in the compacted
fill deep enough to bury all the rock.
• Backfill with granular soil jetted or
flooded in place to fill all the vokJs.
• Do not bury rock within 10 feet of
finish grade.
• Windrow of buried rock shafl be
parallel to the finished slope fin. ELEVATION A-A'
PROFILE ALONG WINDROW
A
JETTED OR FLOODED
GRANULAR MATERIAL
OVERSIZE
ROCK DISPOSAL
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS B
^ AGRA
NATURAL
GROUND
BENCHING REMOVE
UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
2- MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP
HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET
CALTRANS CLASS II
PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK"
(9FT.'/FT.) WRAPPED IN
FILTER FABRIC
APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAF1140 OR. . \ /
APPROVED \ COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL
DESIGN
FINISHED
GRADE
PERFORATED PIPE
6-<^ MIN.
BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED
PIPE. SEE STANDARD DETAIL D
FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION
.NON-PERFORATED
6> MIN.
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAF1140 OR
APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
#2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER
'FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS I
PERMEABLE.
CANYON SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS C
^ AGRA
OUTLET PIPES
4'<(> NON-PERFORATED PIPE,
100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY,
30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY
2' MIN
POSITIVE SEAL
SHOULD BE
PROVIDED AT
THE JOI
OUTLET PIPE
(NON-PERFORATED)
CALTRANS CLASS II
PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK
(3FT.'/FT.) WRAPPED IN
FILTER FABRIC
12" MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP
I'HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET
\
FILTER FABRIC
(MIRAF1140 OR
APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)
- /
T-CONNECnON FOR
COLLECTOR PIPE TO
OUTLET PIPE
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be Installed with perforattons down or,
unless otherwise designated by the geotechnteal consultanL Outlet pipes shaH be non-perforated
pipe. The subdrain pipe shall have at least 8 perforatkxis uniformly spaced per foot Perforalkxi shall
be y*' to %' tf drilled holes are used. All sulxJrain pipes shall have a gradient at least 2% towards the
outlet
SUBDRAIN PIPE - Subdrain pipe shall be ASTM D2751, SDR 23.5 or ASTM D1527, Schedule 40, or
ASTM D3034, SDR 23.5, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chtoride Plastte (PVC) pipe.
All outlet pipe shall be placed In a trench no wider than twtee the subdrain pipe. Pipe shall be in soil
of SE^SO jetted or flooded in place except for the outside 5 feet which shall be native soil backfilL
BUTTRESS OR
REPLACEMENT FILL
SUBDRAINS
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS
STANDARD DETAILS D
^ AGRA
I
STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL
BACK CUT
1:1 OR FLATTER
SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCH
DETAIL
LOWEST SUBDRAIN SHOULD
BE SITUATED AS LOW AS
POSSIBLE TO ALLOW
SUITABLE OUTLET
I ^ 10' MIN.
J—J EACH SIDE
"'^^^^—CAP
KEY WIDTH
AS NOTED ON GRADING PLANS
15' MIN.
T-COMNECTION DETAIL
6' MIN
OVERLAP
3/4'-1-1/2*
CLEAN GRAVEL
(3ft.3/ft. MIN.)
4-0
NON-PERFORATED
PIP&^
FILTER FABRIC
ENVELOPE (MIRAFI
140N OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT)*
SEE T-CONNECTION
DETAIL
6' MIN.
COVER
4' 0
PERFORATED
PIPE
4' MIN.
BEDDING
SUBDRAIN TRENCH DETAIL
* IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4'-l-1/2' GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC
MAY BE DELETED
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size % Passing
1" 100
3/4" 90-100
3/8" • 40-100
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No. 30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
Sand Equivalent>75
NOTES:
For buttress dimensions, see geotechnical report/plans. Actual dimensions of buttress and subdrain
may be changed by the geotechnical consultant based on field conditions.
SUBDRAIN INSTALLATIONTSubdrain pipe should be Installed with perforations down as depicted.
At locations recommended by the gootechnicaivconsuitant, nonperforated pipe should be installed
SUBDRAIN TYPE-Subdrain type should be Acrylon trtle Butadiene Styrene (A.B.S.), Polyvinyl Chloride
(PVC) or approved equivalent. Class 125,SDR 32.5 should be used for maximum fill depths of 35 feet.
Class 200,SDR 21 should be used for maximum fill depths of 100 feet. AGRA
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
.SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO
90 PERCENT,RELATIVE COMPACTION*
RETAINING WALL-
WALL WATERPROOFING
PER ARCHltECf'S
SPECIFICATIONS
WALL FOOTING [H
o6'.MIN..o
OVERLAP:
t
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE:
(MrRAFri40N OR APPROVED
EQUIVALENT);**
** -3/4'-1-1/2' CLEAN GRAVEL
4* (MIN^ DIAMETER PERFORATED
PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS
ORIENTEDrOOWN AS DEPICTED
MINIMUM f PERCENT GRADIENT
TO SUITABLE OUTLET
NOT TO SCALE
3' MIN.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR CALTRANS
CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size % Passinq
1" 100
3/4" 90-100
3/8" 40-100
No. 4 25-40
No. 8 18-33
No. 30 5-15
No. 50 0-7
No. 200 0-3
Sand Equivalent>75
COMPEfENT BEDROCK OR MATERIAL
AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL
CONSULTANT
* BASED ON ASTM D1557
**IF CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
(SEE GRADATION TO LEFT) IS USED IN PLACE OF
3/4'-1-1/2" GRAVEL, FILTER FABRIC MAY BE
DELETED, CALTRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE
MATERIAL SHOULD BE COMPACTED TO 90
PERCENtfRELATIVE COMPACTION*
NOTECOMPOSITE DRAINAGE PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN
OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO GRAVEL OR
CLASS a INSTALLATION SHOULD BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIRCATIONS. «». _ .
^ AGRA
APPENDIX E
XSTABL File: F0XHC151 7-07-** 8:59
* XSTABL *
* *
* Slope Stability Analysis *
* using the *
* Method of Slices *
* *
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 95 *
* Interactive Software Designs, Inc. *
* Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. *
* *
* All Rights Reserved *
* *
* Ver. 5.103 95 - 1387 *
******************************************
Problem Description : Fox Miller Property 1.5:1 30' Cut
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
3 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 .0 30.0 50.0 30.0 1
2 50.0 30.0 95.0 60.0 1
3 95.0 60.0 200.0 60.0 1
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
1 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water
Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No.
1 125.0 130.0 300.0 27.00 .000 .0 1
1 Water surface(s) have been specified
Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf)
Water Surface No. 1 specified by 3 coordinate points
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
**********************************
PHREATIC SURFACE,
Point x-water y-water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 .00 10.00
2 50.00 15.00
3 200.00 30.00
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 15.0 ft
and X = 45.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 100.0 ft
and x = 190.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft
***** DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL *****
4.0 ft Line segments define each trial failure surface.
ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS :
The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined
within the angular range defined by :
Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees
Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
***** SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD *****
The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 19 coordinate points W& AGRA
tNGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 45.00 30.00
2 48.95 29.37
3 52.94 29.05
4 56.94 29.03
5 60.93 29.33
6 64.88 29.93
7 68.78 30.84
8 72.59 32.04
9 76.30 33.54
10 79.88 35.32
11 83.32 37.37
12 86.58 39.68
13 89.66 42.24
14 92.53 45.02
15 95.17 48.02
16 97.58 51.22
17 99.73 54.59
18 101.61 58.12
19 102.44 60.00
**** simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.733 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Fox Miller Property 1.5:1 30' Cut
FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting
(BISHOP) X-coord y-coord X-coord X-coord Moment
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb)
1. 1.733 55.12 80.68 51.68 45.00 102.44 2.759E+06
2. 1.760 53.69 95.84 66.41 45.00 109.58 4.044E+06
3. 1.839 55.29 96.04 68.18 38.33 113.14 5.175E+06
4. 1.925 55.29 75.11 50.92 31.67 103.88 4.127E+06
5. 1.931 52.43 112.93 84.74 35.00 118.57 6.939E+06
6. 1.944 62.46 71.61 48.10 38.33 109.10 4.586E+06
7. 1.956 45.17 94.25 65.05 35.00 100.46 2.979E+06
8. 1.963 63.39 77.82 53.98 38.33 114.32 5.547E+06
9. 1.977 52.28 124.07 95.10 38.33 122.53 7.916E+06
10. 2.008 44.17 117.02 89.10 25.00 112.61 6.413E+06
* * * END OF FILE * * *
Recycled Paper
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
123
100 _
« 75
X
< 50 I >
25 .
Fox Miller Property 1.5:1 30' Qui
10 mo9t critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.733
25
I
50
T T —i '
75 100 125
X-AXIS (f««t)
1
150 175
1
200
Press ENTER to reiurn to menu
Recycled Paper
AGRA
ENGINtERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
XSTABL File: F0XMC21 7-07-** 9:23
******************************************
XSTABL
Slope Stability Analysis
using the
Method of Slices
Copyright (C) 1992 A 95
Interactive Software Designs, Inc.
Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
All Rights Reserved
* Ver. 5.103 95 A 1387 *
******************************************
Problem Description : Fox Miller Property 2:1, 40' Cut
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
3 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment
No.
1
2
3
x-left
(ft)
.0
50.0
130.0
y-left
(ft)
30.0
30.0
70.0
x-right
(ft)
50.0
130.0
200.0
y-right
(ft)
30.0
70.0
70.0
Soil Unit
Below Segment
1
1
1
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
1 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight
Unit Moist Sat.
No. (pcf) (pcf)
Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water
Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface
(psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No.
125.0 130.0 300.0 27.00 .000
1 Water surface(s) have been specified
Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf)
Recycled Paper
AGRA
ENGINEERING Gl OB AL SOLUTIONS
Water Surface No. 1 specified by 3 coordinate points
**********************************
PHREATIC SURFACE, **********************************
Point x-water y-water
No. (ft) (ft)
1 .00 10.00
2 50.00 15.00
3 200.00 30.00
A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 15.0 ft
and x = 45.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 135.0 ft
and X = 190.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft
***** DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL *****
5.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface.
ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS :
The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined
within the angular range defined by :
Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees
Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
***** SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD *****
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTION
Recycled Paper
The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 23 coordinate points
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 45.00 30.00
2 49.94 29.21
3 54.91 28.70
4 59.91 28.46
5 64.91 28.50
6 69.90 28.82
7 74.86 29.42
8 79.78 30.29
9 84.65 31.43
10 89.45 32.85
11 94.16 34.52
12 98.77 36.46
13 103.26 38.65
14 107.63 41.08
15 111.86 43.75
16 115.93 46.66
17 119.83 49.78
18 123.55 53.12
19 127.08 56.66
20 130.41 60.39
21 133.53 64.30
22 136.43 68.37
23 137.45 70.00
Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.845
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Fox Miller Property 2:1, 40' Cut
FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting
(BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb)
1. 1.845 61.65 118.43 89.98 45.00 137.45 8 .947E+06
2. 1.857 58.64 139.63 110.48 45.00 144.38 1 .168E+07
3. 1.890 63.41 129.72 102.83 38.33 147.09 1 .342E+07
4. 1.931 59.51 148.36 120.88 35.00 151.53 1 .610E+07
5. 1.953 57.77 163.43 134.84 38.33 154.96 1 .760E+07
6. 1.961 50.98 136.03 107.23 35.00 135.43 9 .329E+06
7 . 1.981 51.71 152.76 125.64 25.00 146.21 1 .529E+07
8. 1.995 66.96 98.55 77.11 31.67 138.55 1 .190E+07
9. 2.017 74.65 100.25 79.08 38.33 147.70 1 .423E+07
10. 2.023 61.93 124.19 102.44 21.67 148.86 1 .785E+07
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
123
100 .
• 75
X < 50 I >
25 .
Fox MTIIer Property 2:1, 40' Cut
10 most critical surfaces. MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.845
—I ' 1 1——I ' 1 ' 1—
25 50 75 100 125
X-AXIS (feet)
150 175 200
Press ENTER to relurn to menu
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
• Recycled Paper
XSTABL File: F0XMF21 7-06-** 14:11
XSTABL
Slope Stability Analysis
using the
Method of Slices
Copyright (C) 1992 - 95
Interactive Software Designs, Inc.
Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A.
All Rights Reserved
* Ver. 5.103 95 - 1387 *
Problem Description : Fox Miller Property 2:1, 70' Fill
SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES
3 SURFACE boundary segments
Segment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit
No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment
1 .0 30.0 50.0 30.0 1
2 50.0 30.0 190.0 100.0 1
3 190.0 100.0 250.0 100.0 1
ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters
1 Soil unit(s) specified
Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water
Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface
No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No.
1 125.0 130.0 250.0 27.00 .000 1
1 Water surface(s) have been specified
Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf)
Water Surface No. 1 specified by 3 coordinate points
Recycled Paper
AGRA
[NGINEFRING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
H **********************************
PHREATIC SURFACE,
**********************************
^ Point x-water y-water
No. (ft) (ft)
I 1 .00 10.00
2 50.00 15.00
M 3 250.00 75.00
H A critical failure surface searching method, using a random
• technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified.
U 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed.
• 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced
along the ground surface between x = 15.0 ft
and X = 45.0 ft
Each surface terminates between x = 195.0 ft
• and X = 240.0 ft
Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation
H at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft
1 ***** DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL *****
H 8.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface.
1 ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS :
The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined
• within the angular range defined by :
Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees
_ Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees
Factors of safety have been calculated by the :
• ***** SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD *****
1 The most critical circular failure surface
is specified by 25 coordinate points ® AGRA
ENGINELRING GL06AI SOIUTIONS
1 Recycled Paper
Point x-surf y-surf
No. (ft) (ft)
1 45.00 30.00
2 52.95 29.11
3 60.93 28.60
4 68.93 28.47
5 76.93 28.72
6 84.91 29.34
7 92.84 30.33
8 100.72 31.70
9 108.53 33.45
10 116.25 35.55
11 123.86 38.02
12 131.34 40.85
13 138.69 44.02
14 145.87 47.54
15 152.88 51.39
16 159.71 55.57
17 166.32 60.07
18 172.72 64.87
19 178.88 69.97
20 184.80 75.36
21 190.45 81.02
22 195.84 86.93
23 200.93 93.10
24 205.73 99.50
25 206.07 100.00
**** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.522 ****
The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces
Problem Description : Fox Miller Property 2:1, 70' Fill
FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting
(BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb)
1. 1.522 67.75 198,01 169.54 45.00 206.07 4.175E+07
2. 1.538 66.69 191.52 164.60 35.00 203.46 4.165E+07
3. 1.538 67.19 202.92 175.31 38.33 209.06 4.623E+07
4. 1.538 77.27 165.96 142.38 35.00 203.40 4.182E+07
5, 1.539 83.55 162.34 138.81 41.67 207.51 4.328E+07
6. 1.543 71.00 186.02 160.90 31.67 206.93 4.588E+07
7. 1.544 67.72 211.78 183.64 41.67 213.38 4.994E+07
8. 1.545 67.19 209.16 181.47 38.33 212.10 4.938E+07
9. 1.545 85.71 153.68 132.44 38.33 206.76 4.377E+07
10. 1.550 67.71 202.28 176.01 31.67 210.90 4.985E+07
* * * END OF FILE * * *
AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS
Recycled Paper
175
140
« 105
tA
X < 70 I >-
35 _
Fox Miller Property 2:1, 70' Fill
10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.522
-Jf'
35 —r-
70
T T ' 1—
105 140 175
X-AXIS (feet)
—I—
210 245 280
Press ENTER to return to menu
Recycled Paper
# AGRA
ENGINEERING GLOBAL SOLUTIONS