Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Municipal Golf Course Geotechnical Investigation; Municipal Golf Course Geotechnical Investigation Update; 1998-02-16& n LEIGHTONAKDASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical and Environmental Engineering Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA January 23, 1998 (Revised February 16, 1998) Project No. 4841363-006 Prepared For: P&D Technologies 401 West A Street, Suite 2500 San Diego, Califomia 92101 3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD, SUITE B205, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (619) 292-8030 • (800) 447-2626 FAX (619) 292-0771 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Geoteclinical and Environmental Engineering Consultants January 23, 1998 (Revised February 16,1998) Project No. 4841363-006 To: P&D Technologies 401 West A Street, Suite 2500 San Diego, Califomia 92101 Attention: Mr. Chuck Moore Subject: Geotechnical Investigation for the Proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course, Carlsbad, Califomia I In accordance with your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. has performed a geotechnical investigation for the proposed Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course located in Carlsbad, Califomia. The purpose of our study was to provide one comprehensive geotechnical report for the entire golf course. Our study included further evaluation of areas not previously addressed during earlier investigations on portions of the site and adjacent properties (see Appendix A). The results of previous geotechnical studies are incorporated into this report. During the most recent phase of work we concentrated our investigation on the areas proposed for stmctural improvements, including underground utilities, and the areas where remedial grading would most likely be required. This report also includes design recommendations for the proposed site development. If you have any questions regarding our report, please contact this office. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Scott C. Bums, RCE 55370 Senior Staff Engineer KAB/JGF/MRS Distribution: (6) Addressee Michael R. Stewai Director of Geology 3934 MURPHY CANYON ROAD SUITE 8205, SAN DIEGO, CA 92123 (619) 292-8030 • (800) 447-2626 FAX (619) 292-0771 4841363-006 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE i 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION ; 3 1.3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 3 1.4 CURRENT SITE INVESTIGATION : 4 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS , 5 2.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGY 5 2.2 SITE GEOLOGY 5 2.2.1 Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics (Map Symbol - Jsp) J 2.2.2 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol -Ts) 5 2.2.3 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) 6 2.2.4 Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal) 6 2.2.5 Colluvium/Slope Wash (Unmapped) 6 2.2.6 Topsoil (Unmapped) 7 2.2.7 DocumentedFill(MapSymbol-Afi) 7 2.2.8 UndocumentedFill (Map Symbol - Afu) 7 2.3 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 8 2.4 GROUNDWATER 8 2.5 MASS MOVEMENT '. 8 2.6 FAULTING AND SEISMICITY 8 2.7 SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS 9 2.7.1 Liquefaction/DynamicSettlement 9 2.8 GRADED SLOPES 10 2.8.1 Existing Slope Configurations. 10 2.8.2 Cut and Fill Slopes.. ' 11 2.8.3 Slope Stability Analysis II 2.8.4 Surficial Slope Stability. ; 12 3.0 EXPANSION POTENTIAL 14 3.1 SULFATE CONTENT, MINIMUM RESISTIVITY AND PH 14 3.2 EARTHWORK SHRINKAGE/BULKING 15 4.0 CONCLUSIONS 16 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 18 5.1 GOLF COURSE AND BUILDING STRUCTURE EARTHWORK. 18 5. /.; Site Preparation _ _ _ _ 18 5.1.2 Removal and Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils 18 & 8 L LBBHTOH AND ASSOCIA TES, INC. I I 4841363-006 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) 5.7.5 Excavations : 19 5.1.4 Fill Placement and Compaction 19 5.1.5 Stability Fills. : 20 5.1.6 Transition Lots. 20 5.1.7 Control of Ground Water and Surface Waters 20 5.1.8 Preliminary Foundation DesignConsiderationsfor Building Structures. 2/ 5.1.9 Footing Design for Building Structures 21 5.1.10 Floor Slab Design. 22 5.1.11 Foundation Setback 22 5.2 SPECIAL DESIGN AND GRADING CONSIDERATIONSFOR FILL SETTLEMENT 22 5.3 EXPANSIVESOILS/PRESOAK 23 5.4 RETAINING WALL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS 23 5.5 FOUNDATIONDESIGNANDEARTHWORKREQUIREMENTSFORBRIDGESTRUCTURES 25 5.5.7 CollegeBridge : 25 5.5.2 Eastern and Western Bridge Crossing Main Drainage Course 29 5.5.3 Deep Foundation Design, Eastern and Western Bridges 30 5.6 TYPE OF CEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION •. 33 5.7 CORROSION RESISTANCE 33 5.8 PAVEMENT DESIGN 34 5.9 WATERFEATURES 35 Tables Table 1 - Dynamic Settlement- Page 10 Table 2 - Slope Stability Analysis Parameters - Page 11 Table 3 - Equivalent Fluid Weight - Page 24 Table 4 - Estimated Allowable Single Pile Capacities (College Bridge, West Abutment - Page 27) Table 5 - Pile Group Capacity Reductions - Page 27 Table 6 - Estimated Allowable Single Pile Capacities (Westem Bridge) - Page 32 Table 7 - Estimated Allowable Single Pile Capacities (Eastem Bridge) - Page 33 Table 8 - Structural Pavement Design - Page 34 Figures Figure 1 - Site Location Map - Page 2 LEimON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Plates Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map - In Pocket Plate 2 - Geologic Cross-Section A-A - In Pocket Plate 3 - Geologic Cross-Section B-B' - In Pocket Plate 4 - Geologic Cross-Section C-C - In Pocket Plate 5 -^Geologic Cross-Section D-D' - In Pocket Appendices Appendix A - References Appendix B - Boring and Trench Logs Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results and Test Procedures Appendix D - General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix E - Slope Stability Calculations - Ill - LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope This report provides a summary of our findings, conclusions and recommendations regarding the onsite soil and geologic conditions to be utilized for site development purposes. In preparation of this report we have utilized the 200-scale site grading plans entitled "Grading Plan (based on route plan 6-2-97) City of Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course", prepared by P&D/CTE Engineers dated July 14, 1997 as a base map during this study, and the previously issued geotechnical reports relative to the proposed project (see Appendix A). The purpose of our study was specifically, to evaluate the geotechnical conditions at the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course (CMGC) site (Figure 1), and to provide conclusions and recommendations relative to site development based on the additional'data and conceptual development plans. The main objective was the further evaluation of site remedial grading with regard to areas of proposed stmctural improvements. These areas include, but are not limited to, the clubhouse area, several planned industrial golf related pads, two large lake areas, a maintenance area, associated underground utilities and three bridges. The scope of our services during the evaluation included the following: - Review of geotechnical literature and aerial photographs pertaining to the general vicinity of the site, and geotechnical reports pertaining specifically to the site. A list of the items reviewed is included in Appendix A. Field reconnaissance of the site and general vicinity. Additional subsurface investigation of the site conditions, including the drilling, logging and sampling of 5 additional small diameter borings and 10 additional backhoe trenches. All borings and trenches were logged by our geologists and backfilled upon completion. The logs of these excavations are presented as Appendix B. The logs of previously excavated borings and trenches are also included in Appendix B and were utilized in preparation of this report. Laboratory testing of representative soil samples to evaluate the pertinent engineering properties of the onsite soils. Geotechnical analysis of the data obtained, including re-evaluatiori of previously obtained data. Preparation of this report presenting our findings, conclusions and recommendations with respect to the proposed development. Our report includes the results of the previous subsurface exploration studies and laboratory data applicable to the CMGC project. As requested, our study did not include an evaluation of all alluvial areas, natural slope areas not to be graded, or the areas proposed for the Police Shooting Range or 0.8-acre Conference Center. It is understood that some settlement of alluvial areas within the golf course areas is expected and is acceptable to the City of Carlsbad. LEIBHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. BASE MAP: Thomas Bros. GeoFlnder for Windows, San Diego County, 1995, Page 1128 2000 4000 APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET I I Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course Carlsbad, California Srm LOCATION MAP PROJECT NO. 4841361-006 DATE January 1998 & 0 JL FIGURE NO. 1 4841363-006 1.2 Site Description The site is located north of Palomar Airport Road and east of Hidden Valley Road in Carlsbad, Califomia (Figure 1). The CMGC project is bounded by Palomar Airport Road on the south, the proposed extension of Cannon Road and Agua Hedionda Lagoon on the north and agricultural commercial properties to the east. The Carlsbad Ranch / Legoland projects are located west of and adjacent to the CMGC site. Topographically, the site is characterized by numerous ridges and intervening valleys that connect with a main northwest trending drainage that flows into Agua Hedionda Lagoon. Elevations of the subject site range from approximately 20 feet mean sea level (m.s.l.) at the extreme northwest comer of the site in the main drainage, to approximately 321 feet mean sea level (m.s.l.) near the ridgeline along the southeastern edge of the property. Natural slopes on the site range from relatively steep (steeper than 1:1, horizontal to vertical) to relatively gentle (less than 3:1, horizontal to vertical. Existing improvements on site are generally related to past and present agricultural activities on the site. Improvements associated with the agricultural fields include underground irrigation lines and valves, city water lines supplying the water reservoir to the west of the site, and minor cuts and fills associated with access roads. Other onsite improvements include: access roads associated with several SDG&E easements, a water main and graded pads present adjacent to the northwest side of College Avenue. These pads were created during the grading for College Avenue and the widening of Palomar Airport Road. Several deep erosional gullies were observed as the slope faces between these pads. Vegetation on site ranges from minor growth of grasses and weeds on the majority of the hillsides to shmbs and thick weeds in the ravines. Riparian trees and shrubs grow quite heavily m the main drainage trending northwest-southeast across the site. In addition, portions of the site are planted as agricultural areas. 1.3 Proposed Development Based on our review of the 200-scale grading plans prepared by P&D/CTE Engineers dated July 14, 1997, it is our understanding that future use of the site will include the constmction of an 18 hole championship golf course, including several lakes, numerous buildings, including a large clubhouse, and improvements associated with the golf course such as bridges, cart paths and parking areas. In addition, several large pad areas have been slated for industrial/golf related development. A precise grading plan for site development has not yet been prepared. Based on our conversation with the owners' representative and the City of Carlsbad, we understand that general golf-course areas will be considered non-stmctural areas and as such, can tolerate some settlement. Accordingly, as requested, we have not performed a complete evaluation of alluvial areas. Areas proposed for buildings or settlement sensitive improvements should be considered structural areas and treated accordingly. -3- LEIBHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 Based on our review of the site tentative map, proposed grading is anticipated to consist of cuts and fills creating sheet-graded areas for the building pads, parking areas and other improvements within the subject site, and cuts and fills associates with the contour grading of the course itself Cut and fill slopes are anticipated to be constmcted at slope inclinations of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. Maximum depths of cut are on the order of ±40 feet from the existing site elevations. While maximum fill is on the order of ±80 feet above existing elevations, maximum cut slope heights of ±75 feet and maximum fill slope heights of ±90 feet are proposed. While some changes from this plan are anticipated, the overall site grading is not likely to differ significantly. Previous investigations included the excavation of large- and small-diameter borings, exploratory backhoe trenches and test pits. All pertinent boring and trench logs are included within Appendix B. The approximate locations of the borings and trenches are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). Also included are the laboratory test results of representative soil samples collected during the most recent investigation as well as previous L&A subsurface investigations onsite. Laboratory test results relative to the CMGC project are included in Appendix C. The laborator>' testing included direct shear, expansion index, moisture/density determinations, maximum dry density, grain size analysis, and consolidation tests. Brief descriptions of the laboratory test procedures and the laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C. The test results of the moisture/densitydeterminationsare presented in the boring logs included in Appendix B. 1.4 Current Site Investigation The current site investigation included the drilling, logging and sampling of 5 small diameter exploratory borings and 10 exploratory trenches. The small diameter borings and trenches were excavated predominantly in existing fill areas, alluvial areas, and in areas of proposed structural improvements. The maximum depth of excavation during the most recent investigation was 52 feet below ground surface in boring B-1 a. Previous subsurface investigations reached a maximum depth of 75 feet below ground surface in boring B-1. All borings and trenches were logged and sampled by our geologists and backfilled upon completion. The small diameter borings drilled in conjunction with this study have been designated B-1 a through B-5a, the trenches have been labeled as T-1 a through T-10a. Logs of these borings and trenches, as well as those from previous studies are included as Appendix B. The locations of all exploratory excavations are indicated on Plate No. 1, Geotechnical Map. & 1—1 '11/ LEIGHTONANO ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 2.0 SUMMARY OF GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS 2.1 Regional Geology The subject site is located within the coastal subprovence of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Provence, near the western edge of the southem Califomia batholith. The topography at the edge of the batholith changes from mgged landforms developed on the batholith to the more subdued landforms which typify the softer sedimentary formations of the coastal plain. 2.2 Site Geology As encountered during our investigation(s), and our review of geotechnical reports applicable to the subject site (Appendix A), the CMCG site is underlain by bedrock units consisting of the Tertiaiy Santiago,Formation and the Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics. Surficial units consist of alluvium, colluvium, topsoil, and documented and undocumented fill soils. The approximate areal distributions of the units are shown on the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). 2.2.1 Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics (Map Symbol - Jsp) The Jurassic aged Santiago Peak Volcanics were encountered in the easternmost portion of the subject site. Typically the unit is hard and extremely resistant to erosion and forms topographic highs. Most of the rocks are dark greenish gray where fresh but weather grayish red to dark reddish brown. The soil developed on the Santiago Peak Volcanics is the color of the weathered bedrock and supports the growth of dense chaparral. If deep removals are planned in this area, localized heavy ripping or blasting may be required. 2.2.2 Santiago Formation (Map Symbol - Ts) The bedrock unit underlying the majority of the site is the Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation. In general, the unit consists of massive to weakly bedded sandstone with interbedded clayey siltstone and silty claystone. The sandstone encountered consisted primarily of light gray, light brovm, and light yellow-brown, moist, dense, silty, fine- to occasionally medium-grained sandstone. The sandstone was generally friable, slightly micaceous and weakly bedded to massive. The siltstone consisted of brown and olive- brown, moist, stiff, clayey siltstones that were fissile to indistinctly bedded and contained calcium carbonate, manganese-oxide and iron-oxide staining. The claystone typically was gray to brown, moist, stiff to hard, fine-grained, sandy to silty claystone that was moderately sheared. Where encountered, the upper 6 to 12 inches of the Santiago Formation appears to be moderately weathered, porous and potentially compressible. This layer should be removed and recompacted in areas of stmctural fill placement or settlement sensitive improvements. LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 2.2.3 Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Ot) Quatemary-aged Terrace Deposits locally overlie the Santiago Formation and were encountered in the easternmost portion of the site along an isolated ridgeline above an elevation of approximately 300 feet (msl). As encountered during our current and previous invCvStigations, these deposits generally consist of orange to red brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty fine- to medium-grained sand. The upper portion of the Terrace Deposits (generally the upper 3 to 8 feet) appeared to be highly weathered and are anticipated to be moderately to highly porous and compressible. In general, the Terrace Deposits have a very low expansion potential. With the exception of the upper weathered zone, the terrace deposits have favorable engineering properties and are suitable to receive the proposed improvements. The weathered portion of the terrace deposits will require removal and recompaction in areas of proposed stmctural improvements or fill soils. 2.2.4 Alluvium (Map Symbol - OaV) Alluvium was encountered during our investigation of the proposed development in most of the low-lying drainages and the low lying areas adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and College Avenue. As encountered the alluvium generally consisted of potentially compressible^ moist to saturated, loose to medium dense silty sands with some sandy silts and sandy clays. In the area adjacent to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and College Avenue, allluvial deposits are on the order of 15-25 feet thick. Within the main northwest trending drainage the alluvium is relatively thick as evidenced by approximately 24-45 feet of alluvium encountered in borings B-1 a and B-2a respectively. In many of the smaller side canyons, alluvium was encountered and mapped. However, these areas were not accessible with the drilling equipment utilized in this investigation. Based upon our work on adjacent properties and our experience with similar conditions alluvial depths in these areas can be expected to range from 3-10 feet Unsaturated alluvial soils are considered potentially compressible and not suitable for the support of stmctural loads of fill soils in areas of settlement sensitive improvements. These soils should be removed and recompacted in areas proposed for structural improvements as part of site grading. In golf course areas where settlement can be tolerated, these soils may be left in place, however settlement should be anticipated. 2.2.5 Colluvium / Slope Wash (Unmapped) Holocene aged colluvium / slope wash was encountered mantling the lower valley slopes, throughoutthe project site. As encountered, the colluvium / slope wash typically consisted of poorly consolidated surficial materials derived from nearby soil and decomposed bedrock sources. This reworked debris is deposited along the flanks of the lower valley slopes by the action of gravity and surface water. Generally, the material was light brown to dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty to clayey sand that was generally 2 to 10 feet in thickness although locally it may be deeper. The colluvium / slope wash was typically porous and anticipated to be potentially compressible under the load of existing -6- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 fills or improvements. In places, it was somewhat difficult to distinguish the sandier colluvial soils from the underlying weathered Santiago Formation. 2.2.6 Topsoil (Unmapped) Topsoil was encountered essentially covering the entire site but was not mapped. The topsoil was found to be generally light brown to dark brown, damp, loose to medium dense, silty sands with minor amounts of clay. The topsoil was generally ± 2 feet in thickness, contained minor amounts of decomposed organics and has been disturbed by the past and present agricultural activities on the northeastem portion of the site. This unit was evaluated to be potentially compressible under the loading of fill soils or improvements. 2.2.7 Documented Fill (Map Symbol - Af,) Documented compacted fill soils were placed on the subject site during the grading for College Avenue and the widening of Palomar Airport Road. A fill disposal site located adjacent to the northwest side of College Avenue where several graded pads are located (see Plate 1) was used as an area to place excess soil derived from the grading operations on the two streets. The disposal site was prepared to receive fill (i.e., compressible soils were removed, fill slope keys constmcted and canyon subdrains placed), after which fill soils were placed and compacted during August through October, 1986 under the observation and testing services of San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. Subsurface exploration indicated that as much as 40 feet of fill was placed during these operations. These fill soils generally consisted of clayey to silty sands and some sandy clays that were generally medium dense to dense, moist and relatively well compacted. Existing fill slopes in areas are heavily eroded and will require rework. 2.2.8 UndocumentedFill (Map Symbol - Afu) A relatively large amount of undocumented fill soil is present on the site in various locations. The major undocumented fill areas are located at the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and College Avenue and at the extreme southeastem comer of the site in the area of the proposed maintenance area. Borings completed during our earlier supplemental geotechnical investigations (see Appendix A) and trenches excavated during the latest investigation indicate that potentially compressible alluvium was left in place beneath these fill areas. In addition, our literature review did not indicate that any documentation or testing was completed for these areas. Undocumented fill soils were also noted in several other locations within the subject site. These fill soils consisted of earthen embankments for agricultural ponds, unimproved roads, end-dumped debris piles, and utility trench backfill. I LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 As encountered, the undocumented fill consisted of numerous soil types, but typically the fill soils were light brown to medium brown and gray, moist to very moist, loose, silty sands and clayey sands. 2.3 Geologic Stmcture The bedrock units encountered on the site were generally massive with no apparent bedding. However, based on our professional experience in the area, bedding of the underlying Santiago Formation is anticipated to be relatively gently dipping (i.e. 5 to 10 degrees) to the west. 2.4 Ground Water Ground water was encountered within several of tlie onsite drainages in the lower elevations of the site particularly in the main drainage and adjacent to Palomar Airport Road. The presence of ground water in these areas would most likely limit the removal of alluvium and undocumented fill that would be required for structural improvements proposed for these areas. Based upon our experience on adjacent sites and our professional experience on nearby sites with similar conditions, we anticipate that perched groundwater conditions may be encountered at the contact between the relatively impemieable Tertiary Santiago Formation and the relatively porous overlying soils. However, ground water is not anticipated to be a constraint to site development provided the recommendations of this report are adhered to. 2.5 Mass Movement Based on our review of the previous geotechnical reports, available geologic literature and maps, and aerial photographs, no indication of mass movements (such as landslides, surficial slumps, etc.) were observed within the areas proposed for development. In the northem portion of the site an area has been mapped as a possible landslide based on topographic expression. Because this feature is localized in predominantly an open-space area, it is not considered a major constraint to site development. Geologic mapping of all excavating in this area should be performed during site grading. Localized zones of weak claystone material are present in the Santiago Formation and may create localized areas that are prone to slope instability if exposed in a cut slope. Accordingly, all cut slopes should be mapped by an engineering geologist during site grading. Additional recommendations for slope stabilization can be provided as needed during site grading. 2.6 Faulting and Seismicity Our discussion of the faults on the site is prefaced with a discussion of California legislation and state policies concerning the classification and land-use criteria associated with faults. By definition of the Califomia Mining and Geology Board, an active fault 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) but that has not been proven to be active or inactive. This definition is used in delineating Fault Rupture Hazard Zones as mandated by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault -8- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 Zoning Act of 1972 and most recently revised in 1994. The intent of this act is to assure that unwise urban development does not occur across the traces of active faults. Base on our review of the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones, the subject site is not located within any Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone as created by the Alquist-Priolo Act (Hart, 1994). However, several inactive fault zones have been mapped in a numberof places within and adjacent to the subject site. These inactive fault zones are not considered to be a constraint to site development. The location of the proposed development can be considered to lie within a seismically active region, as can all of southem Califomia. The. Rose Canyon Fault Zone which is located approximately 3.5 miles to the west of the site is considered to have the most significant seismic effect at the site from a design standpoint. A maximum probable earthquake of moment magnitude 5.9 on the fault could produce a peak horizontal ground acceleration of approximately 0.30g at the site. 2.7 Seismic Considerations The principal seismic considerations for most structures in southem Califomia are surface mpturing of fault traces, damage caused by ground shaking and/or seismically induced liquefaction or dynamic settlement. The probability of damage due to ground mpture is considered minimal since active faults are not known to cross the site. Ground lurching due to shaking from distant seismic events is not considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility throughout the southern Califomia region. 2.7.1 Ground Shaking The seismic hazard most likely to impact the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake on one of the major regional faults. As discussed above, a maximum probable event on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone (considered the design earthquake for this site) could produce a peak horizontal acceleration at the site of 0.30g. A site coefficient (S factor) of 1.2 may be used for design-purposes (ICBO, 1994, Table 16-J). The site is located within Seismic Zone 4 of the Uniform Building Code (ICBO, 1994). 2.7.2 Liquefaction/DynamicSettlement Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motion due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose granular soils underlain by a near-surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability of most silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. The Santiago Formation is generally not considered liquefiable due to its high density characteristics. The onsite identified documented fill soils are also not considered liquefiable due to their generally unsaturated condition, fine-grained nature and relatively dense characteristic. -9- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 From our preliminary field study, it appears that the only region susceptible to liquefaction is the main drainage area. Accordingly, improvements and golf course fills in those areas may be subject to settlement in the event of an earthquake. In addition, the two bridges proposed in this area may be affected. From our observations during our field study, the alluvial sediments appear to be interbedded with sand lenses and fine sandy silty lenses. Therefore, based on our analysis, it is our professional opinion that the main drainage region has a moderate potential for liquefaction in isolated areas. Accordingly, we estimate the following total and differential dynamic induced settlements resulting from the design earthquake for the east and west bridges. Table 1 Dynamic Settlement Area Most Susceptible Total Dynamic Differential Settlement (feet bgs) Settlement Over 100 feet Horizontally (inches) (inches) West Bridge 7'6"-30' 4 2 East Bridge 9'-20' 2 1 It should be recognized, however, that many of the parameters used in liquefaction evaluation are subjective and open to interpretation. It should also be understood that much of Southem Califomia is an area of moderate to high seismic risk and is not generally considered economically feasible to build stmctures totally resistant to earthquake related hazards. However, current state-of-art standards for design and constmction are intended to reduce the potential for major stmctural damage. 2.8 Graded Slopes 2.8.1 Existing Slope Conditions A number of existing graded slopes have been constmcted along Palomar Airport Road, College Avenue, and the fill disposal areas discussed above. These slopes have inclinations ranging from 2:1 to 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The slopes consist of both cut and fill slopes. Existing fill slopes are limited to the fill disposal area and adjacent to the southem portion of College Avenue. The stability of existing cut and fill slopes adjacent to College Boulevard was previously addressed at the time of constmction. We understand that portions of the existing slopes are temporary and will be reconfigured to reflect the elevations shown on the project grading plans. Based on the As-Graded Geotechnical Report of the Fill Disposal Site (San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, 1987), the fill slopes for this area were constmcted with fill slope keys, but the temporary slope faces were not compacted. As a consequence, severe erosion was observed within the south facing temporary fill slope near the intersectionof Palomar Airport Road and College Avenue. This slope will require remedial grading in addition to the design grading to mitigate these deep erosional features. & D r JL •10- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 2.8.2 Cut and Fill Slopes Based on our review of the site grading plans, (Appendix A) fill slopes up to ±90 feet in height at <2:1 (horizontal to vertical) and cut slopes up to ±75 feet in height at <2:1 (horizontal to vertical) are proposed. Geotechnical analysis indicates that the proposed cut slopes will be stable against deep-seated failure if adverse geologic (i.e., clay seams, or out- of-slope-bedding)conditions do not occur in the cut slopes. Where adverse conditions are exposed during grading, replacement or buttress fills may be required to provide stable slope conditions. Fill slopes less than 75 feet in height were analyzed to have an adequate factor of safety (>1.5) against deep-seated failure. For fill slopes greater than 75 feet and less than 90 feet, a 10-foot horizontal trench shall be constmcted at least 35 feet vertically from toe of slope. We recommend that all excavations-and cut slopes be observed and mapped by a geologist from our firm during grading operations to verify that the soil and geologic conditions encountered do not differ significantly from those assumed in our analysis. Oversteepening of existing slopes should be avoided during fine-grading and constmction unless supported by appropriately designed retaining stmctures. Cut and fill slopes should be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped with drought-tolerantvegetation as soon as possible after completion of grading lo minimize the potential for erosion. In slopes where seepage is present, drainage should be provided as shown in Appendix D. Slopes which require special drainage features can be evaluated and recommendations provided by the geotechnical consultant during grading operations. 2.8.3 Slope Stability Analysis The proposed slopes were analyzed for their deep-seated and surficial stability. Slope stability analysis were performed using the PC software program XSTABLE. The values used in the analysis are provided below: Table 2 Slope Stability Analysis Parameters Soil Type Friction Angle (degrees) Cohesion (psf) Santiago Formation* (composite) 30 250 Santiago Formation (Claystone) 25 250 Santiago Formation (Sandstone) 32 175 Clayseam 10 100 Artificial Fill for Buttresses (Claystone/Sandstone Mix) 28 175 -11- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 * Due to the interbedding of the sandstone and claystone materials in this unit, the friction angle and cohesion values were estimated from these respective values obtained from the claystone and sandstone units themselves. This composite value must be confirmed prior to placement of the mixed fill to verify our assumptions. Cut slopes in the Santiago Formation and fill slopes derived from the predominant on site materials were analyzed for inclinations up to 2 to 1 (horizontal to vertical). Where adverse geologic conditions such as clayseams do not exist, a factor of safety of 1.5 or greater was calculated for the proposed slopes. However, our laboratory tests indicate that slopes derived from the Santiago Formation claystone possess deep-seated stability (when constmcted at an inclination of 2:1 [horizontal to vertical]) to a maximum height of only 20 feet (less than the maximum proposed slope heights). Therefore, we recommend that the Santiago Formation claystone be utilized only in deeper fills or thoroughly mixed with onsite sandy soils in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. We recommend that the fill material be tested during grading to evaluate the strength parameters of the fill. With information obtained from our referenced report dated September 24, 1991, our most recent field study and the referenced grading plan by P&D Technologies, Cross-Sections A, B, C and D were developed. These cross-sections are provided at the end of this report. From our analyses, buttressing will be necessary at a portion of Cross-Section A-A' given the proposed configuration. The buttress shall be constmcted in accordance with Geologic Cross Sections A-A' and Appendix D. Our analysis indicates Cross-Section C-C is stable given its proposed configuration; however, due to the presence of a clay seam, we recommend a stability fill also be constmcted for this slope due to a potential for future surficial instabilities. Minor design changes may be made based on in-grading inspection. Accordingly, we strongly recommend geologic mapping of all cut slopes to verify our assumptions. In addition, laboratory testing of the cut and fill materials during grading should be performed to verify the strength parameters used in our analyses. Special precautions shall be taken for grading operations performed in the area of the SDG&E metal towers. Buttress cuts or other excavations next to the poles or towers should start at least 2 0 feet from the stmcture and not be steeper than 1-1/2:1 (horizontal to vertical). 2.8.4 Surficial Slope Stability Our calculations of surficial stability (Appendix E) show a calculated factor of safety of 1.5 or greater for the proposed slopes. The strength parameters presented in Table 2 were used for our analysis. Erosion and/or surficial failure potential of fill slopes may be reduced if the following measures are implemented during design and constmction of the subject slopes. -12- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 Selective Grading of Fill Materials We recommend against the exclusive use of either highly expansive clayey soils or poorly graded sands of the Santiago formation. Highly expansive soils are generally known to be subject to surficial failures when exposed in slope faces. Clayey soils of the Santiago Formation weather, generally losing integrity when exposed on slope faces. Poorly graded sands utilized in slope faces may be subject to excessive erosion and rilling. A mixture of clayey soils and sandy soils is recommended to reduce overall expansion potential and slope erosion and increase surficial slope stability. We recommend that mixture of soils be approved by the project geotechnical engineer prior to placement in fill slopes. Slope Landscaping and Drainage Cut and fill slopes should be provided with appropriate surface drainage features and landscaped with drought-tolerant, slope-stabilizing vegetation as soon as possible after grading to minimize potential for erosion. Berms should be provided at the top of all slopes and lot drainage directed such that surface mnoff on slope faces is minimized. & n -13- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 3.0 EXPANSION POTENTIAL The expansion potential of the soils encountered within the subject site are described as follows: Undocumented Fill: Low expansion potential for the majority of the soils. Minor amounts of silty sand/clayey sand soils may have a moderate expansion potential. Alluvium and Colluvium: Low expansion potential for sandy soils to high for clayey soils. Topsoil: Low expansion potential for sandy soils to high for clayey soils. Santiago Formation: Low expansion potential for silty sandstone, medium to high for sandy to clayey siltstones and high to very high for the silty claystones. Expansion testing of representative finish grade soils in proposed building areas should be performed upon completion of rough grading to better assess the expansion potential of the finish grade soils so that final foundation recommendations can be provided. 3.1 Sulfate Content Minimum Resistivity and pH The test results from site investigations performed on the adjacent Carlsbad Ranch and other nearby projects indicate the onsite soils possess a negligible to high soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates, if present in significant amounts, can be damaging to conventional Type I/II cement. Therefore, as a preliminary recommendation, sulfate resistant cement (Type II or V) should be used. In addition, laboratory testing of finish grade soils at grade or in contact with concrete and/or buried metal conduits should be performed once grading operations are completed. Our minimum resistivity test results indicate that the onsite soils do possess a very corrosive potential to buried, uncoated metal conduit. A corrosion engineer should be consulted to address this condition. & H n -14- LEICHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 3.2 Earthwork shrinkage/Bulking The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon recompaction as fill is expected to vary with material and location. Typically, the surficial soils and bedrock material vary significantly in natural and compacted density; and therefore, accurate earthwork shrinkage/bulking estimates cannot be determined. However, the following factors, based on the results of our geotechnical analysis and our experience grading the adjacent Carlsbad Ranch project, are provided as guideline estimates. If possible, we suggest an area where site grades can be adjusted be provided and utilized as a balance area. Topsoil: UndocumentedFill Colluvium/Slope Wash Alluvium Terrace Deposits 5-10 percent shrinkage. 5-15 percent shrinkage 0-2 percent shrinkage 5-15 percent shrinkage 3- 5 percent shrinkage upper 2-3 feet 0-3 percent bulking below 3 feet in depth 4- 7 percent bulking (assuming the majority of the Santiago Formation is sandstone, bulking may be greater in areas of siltstone or claystone). Santiago Peak Volcanics 15-20 percent bulking Santiago Formation & n •15- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 4.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on our review of the 200-scale project grading plans and the results of our geotechnical investigations and review of pertinent data, it is our opinion that the proposed development of the Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the following conclusions and recommendations are incorporated into the design and constmction of the project. The following is a summary of the geotechnical factors which may affect developmentof the site. • Based on subsurface investigations, the site is underlain by alluvium, colluvium/slope wash, undocumented fill soils, the Santiago Formation, and the Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics. • The topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, weathered formational material and undocumented fill soils are porous and/or potentially compressible in their present state and will require removal and recompaction in areas of proposed structural improvements. If complete removals are not made, settlement should be anticipated. • Based on the our subsurface investigations of the formational soils and surficial soils present on the site, we anticipate that these materials will be rippable with heavy-duty constmction equipment. However, localized concretions and cemented layers within the Tertiary Santiago Formation if encountered, may require heavy ripping during excavation. In addition the Jurassic Santiago Peak Volcanics that outcrop in the southeastem portion of the site are extremely hard and may require localized heavy ripping and/or blasting for removal should design plans change in this area. Significant amounts of oversized material should be anticipated if such measures are required. • Undocumented fill soils are present on the site at various locations. Removal of these deleterious materials will be required in areas proposed for stmctural improvements • Laboratory test results of representative soil samples from our investigations onsite the and our previous experience on adjacent sites indicate the soils present on the site have the following soil engineering characteristics: very low to high expansion potential negligible to considerable sulfate content adequate shear strength in both existing formational soils or as properly compacted fill soils mild to high potential for corrosion to buried metal conduits • The existing onsite soils appear to be suitable for use as fill material provided they are free of organic material, debris, and rock fragments larger than 6 inches in maximum dimension. Ground water was observed in several of the borings excavated in the alluvial areas onsite. It is anticipated that groundwater will limit the extent of required removals in the area adjacent to the intersection of Palomar Airport Road and College Avenue, and in the immediate vicinity of the main drainage onsite. Perched ground water conditions were encountered within the tract in a number of places. Ground water is not considered a constraint to development, however, ground water seepage or shallow ground water conditions may occur in areas where ground water did not previously exist. This is especially tme where a relatively impermeable material such as a claystone or a cemented layer (i.e. -16- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 the Santiago Formation) underlies a relatively permeable material such as sandstone or sandy fill soils. After removal of undocumented fill and alluvium, canyon subdrains should be installed to avoid a future buildup of water. Additional subdrains may be required based upon our review of final developmentplans and conditions encountered during site grading. Active or potentially active faults are not known to exist on the CMGC project. However, inactive faults and other seismic features have been mapped and/or observed transecting the site. The impact of these faults will depend on their location and relation to the proposed cut slopes and structural improvements. The observed sheared material associated with the faulting may affect the stability of the cut slopes and, in pad areas, juxtapose materials with differing engineering characteristics at pad grade. The exact location of the faulting can best be determined during grading operations. Mitigative measures may include overexcavation and recompaction or special foundation recommendations in pad areas and stabilizationfills for impacted proposed cut slopes. The peak horizontal ground acceleration on the site diie to the design earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone of moment magnitude 5.9 is estimated to be 0.30g. Based on our evaluation, the potential for liquefaction of the majority of site soils is considered very low. However, due to the perched ground water conditions and presence of relatively loose alluvium in isolated areas of the main drainage region, the potential for liquefaction is considered moderate. Grading of the subject site may result in a transition condition (cut/fill) in several of the proposed building areas. Section 5.1,6 provides recommendationsto mitigate these conditions. Proposed fill slopes between 75 and 90 feet or greater in vertical height will require benching or reinforcement for inclinations of 2 to 1. Several of the planned cut slopes in the southeastem portion of the site require construction of a stability fill. & 0 • JL -17- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Golf Course and Building Stmcture Earthwork We anticipate that earthwork at the site will consist of site preparation, excavation, removal and recompaction of potentially compressible soils, fill placement, and backfill. We recommend that earthwork on the site be performed in accordance with the following recommendations, the City of Carlsbad grading requirements, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications included in Appendix D. In case of conflict, the following recommendations shall supersede those in . Appendix D. 5.1.1 Site Preparation Prior to grading, all areas to receive stmctural fill or engineered stmctures should be cleared of surface and subsurface obstmctions, including any existing debris, potentially compressible material (such as topsoil, colluvium, alluvium, weathered formation materials, and undocumented fill soils), and stripped of vegetation. Holes resulting from removal of buried obstmctions which extend below finish site grades should be replaced with suitable compacted fill material. All areas proposed to receive stmctural fill or slopes with inclinations greater than 3 to 1 should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method Dl557-91) prior to the placement of any additional fill soils. All areas proposed to receive non-stmctural fill soils (golf course areas, including the practice range and slopes with inclinations less than or equal to 3 to 1) should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 85 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91) prior to the placement of additional fill soils. 5.1.2 Removal and Recompaction of Potentially Compressible Soils In general, alluvium, colluvium, topsoil, weathered formational soils, and undocumented fill soils in areas of proposed stmctural fill,'should be excavated, moisture conditioned or dried back to obtain a near optimum moisture content, and then compacted prior to placing any additional fill. These soils are anticipated to be porous and potentially compressible in their present state, and may settle appreciably under the surcharge of fills or foundation loading. Removals in areas of proposed stmctural improvements should be projected downward at a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) to competent formational material (where applicable) prior to the placement of additional fill soils. In areas proposed to receive non- stmctural fill, these potentially compressible soils should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches, brought to near optimum moisture condition, and recompacted to at least 85 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91) prior to the placement of additional fill soils. •18- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 In general, we estimate that the alluvial removals in the commercial area located in the southwestem portion of the site, (adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and Hidden Valley Road) to be up to 18-20 feet in depth, and will be limited by the depth of ground water in this area. The colluvial removals will in general range from 3 to 7 feet, while removals of topsoil and near-surface soil will be on the order of 2 to 4 feet. It should be noted that deeper removals may be required in areas proposed for structural improvements due to localized thicker zones of compressible soils. In the central canyon area alluvial depths of approximately 50 feet were encountered. Other areas of undocumented fill although limited in extent may require complete removal and recompaction if structural improvements are proposed. 5.1.3 Excavations Excavations of the onsite materials may generally be accomplished with conventional heavy-duty earthwork equipment. It is not anticipated that blasting will be required or that significant quantities of oversized rock (i.e. rock with maximum dimensions greater than 6 inches) will be generated during grading (excluding Santiago Peak Volcanics). However, if oversized rock is encountered, it should be placed as fill in accordance with the details presented in Appendix D. Due to the relatively high density characteristics and coarse nature of the onsite soils, temporary excavations such as utility trenches with vertical sides in the onsite soils should remain stable for the period required to construct the utility, provided they are free of adverse geologic conditions. Trench operations should be performed in accordance with the most recent OSHA requirements. For excavations deeper than 15 feet, specific recommendations can be made on a case by case basis. 5.1.4 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. Fill soils placed in areas of proposed stmctural improvements and/or slopes within inclinations greater than 3 to 1 should be brought to near-optimum moisture content and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 90 percent relative compaction based on laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D15 57-91. The 90 percent relative compaction should extend a minimum often feet outside the stmctural improvement footprint and downward at a 1:1 projection (horizontal to vertical) to competent material. In areas proposed to receive non- stmctural fill soils (i.e. general course areas including the proposed practice range and fills with inclinations less than or equal to 3 to 1), fill soils should be brought to near-optimum moisture content and compacted in uniform lifts to at least 85 percent relative compaction 'based on laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D1557-91. 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 thickness. & r -19- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in general accordance with the current City of Carlsbad grading ordinances, sound construction practice, and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications presented in Appendix D. 5.1.5 Stability Fills Two proposed cut slopes will require the constmction of stability fills due to the presence of adverse geologic conditions that will be exposed in the slope face. As shown on Geologic Cross-Sections A-A' and C-C, stability fills are recommended for these slopes. Stability fills should have a minimum width at the top of slope of 20 feet and a key depth of 5 feet below the toe of slope. The width of the bottom of the stability fill key shall be 20 feet for the slope shown on Cross-Section C-C and 70 feet for Cross-Section A-A'. The base of stability fill key shall slope toward the back of the key at a minimum of 2 percent. In addition, a subdrain should be provided at the base of the key. A typical detail for stability fill constmction is included as part of Appendix D, General Earthwork and Grading Specifications. The lateral extent of the stability fills should be determined after review of final grading plans. In order to minimize the potential for instability of the stability fill backcuts during constmction, work should be planned such that the backcuts remain exposed for only the minimum amount of time possible. As previously noted, special precautions shall be taken for grading operations performed in the area of the San Diego Gas and Electric metal towers. Buttress cuts or other excavations next to the poles or towers should start at least 20 feet from the stmcture and not be steeper than 1-1/2:1 (horizontal to vertical). 5.1.6 Transition Lots We recommend the areas of proposed stmctural fill be planned such that they are entirely underlain by competent formational soils or underlain by a uniform thickness of properly compacted fill. If this is not possible, in order to help minimize the potential for differential settlements, the entire cut portion of the area planned for structures in daylight areas should be overexcavated to a minimum depth of 3 feet below the bottoms of proposed foundations and replaced with properly compacted fill. The overexcavations should laterally extend at least 10 feet beyond the building pad. Depth of overexcavation should be deepened when necessary to provide a uniform thickness of fill beneath the stmcture(s). 5.1.7 Control of Ground Water and Surface Waters Based on previous preliminary investigations, it is our opinion that except for alluvial areas adjacent to Palomar Airport Road and the main canyon drainages, a permanent shallow ground water table does not currently exist at the site. The control of ground water in a hillside development is essential to reduce the potential for undesirable surface flow or seepage, hydrostatic pressure and the adverse effects of ground water on slope stability. I I -20- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 We recommend that measures be taken to properly finish grade each sheet-graded area, such that drainage water is directed away from top-of-slopes. No ponding of water should be permitted. Drainage design is within the purview of the design civil engineer. Even with these provisions, our experience indicates that shallow ground water conditions can develop in areas where no such ground water conditions existed prior to site development, especially in areas where a substantial increase in surface water infiltration results from landscape irrigation. We recommend that an engineering geologist be present during grading operations to observe and record possible future seepage. Canyon subdrains should be installed in the canyon bottoms that will be infilled and in the removal bottom of the undocumented fill removal areas in order to collect subsurface water and minimize the saturation of the fill soils. The locations for recommended subdrains should be made after review of final grading plans. Additional subdrains may be recommended based on observations made during site grading and review of final developmentplans. If seepage conditions occur in cut slopes or other areas of the tract, shallow subdrains may be installed to collect the ground water and minimize problems associated with saturated soil. The subdrains should be installed in accordance with the details presented in Appendix D. 5.1.8 Preliminary Foundation Design Considerationsfor Building Stmctures Proposed building types, final locations, and foundation loads were unknown at the time this report was prepared. For planning purposes, we anticipate the proposed stmctures will vary from one to two stories in height and will utilize both stmctural steel and concrete tilt- up constmction. Assuming the pad grade soils have a very low to low expansion, the following foundation recommendations may be utilized. Final foundation plans should be reviewed by this office. 5.1.9 Footing Design for Building Stmctures The proposed buildings may utilize a combination of continuous perimeter footings and conventional interior isolated-spread footings for building support. Footings bearing properly compacted fill should extend a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent compacted soil grade (24 inches for two stories). At this depth, footings may be designed using an allowable soil-bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The allowable soil bearing pressure may be increased by 250 psf for each additional foot of foundation embedment below 18 inches to a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration including wind or seismic forces. Continuous perimeter footings should have a minimum width of 15 inches and should be reinforced by placing at least one No. 5 rebar near the top and one No. 5 rebar near the bottom of the footing, and in accordance with the stmctural engineer's requirements. We recommend a minimum width of 24 inches for isolated spread footings. Utilizing these recommendations, total and differential settlement are not anticipated to exceed 1 inch and 1/2 inches, respectively, approximately one-half of this settlement is expected to occur during construction. Also see Section 5.1.6 for undercut/transitionlot recommendations. -21- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 5.1.10 Floor Slab Design All slabs should have a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced at slab midheight with No. 3 rebars at 18 inches on center or No. 4 rebars at 24 inches on center (each way). Additional reinforcement and/or concrete thickness to accommodate specific loading conditions should be designed by the structural engineer. We emphasize that it is the responsibility of the contractor to ensure that the slab reinforcement is placed at midheight of the slab. Slabs should be underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand (sand equivalent greater than 30) to aid in concrete curing, which is underlain by a 10-mil (or heavier) moisture barrier which, in turn, underlain by a 2-inch layer of clean sand to act as a capillary break. All laps and penetrations in the moisture barrier should be appropriately sealed. The spacing of crack-control joints should be designed by the structural engineer. Our experience indicates that use of reinforcement in slabs and foundations will generally reduce the potential for drying and shrinkage cracking. However, some cracking should be expected as the concrete cures. Minor cracking is considered normal; however, it is often aggravated by a high water/cement ratio, high concrete temperature at the time of placement, small nominal aggregate size, and rapid moisture loss due to hot, dry, and/or windy weather conditions during placement and curing. Cracking due to temperature and moisture fluctuations can also be expected. The use of low slump concrete (not exceeding 4 inches at the time of placement) will reduce the potential for shrinkage cracking. A slip sheet or equivalent should be used if crack-sensitive floor coverings (such as ceramic tile, etc.) are planned directly on the concrete floor. Moisture barriers can retard, but not eliminate moisture vapor movement from the underlying soils up through the slab. We recommend that the floor coverings contractor test the moisture vapor flux rate prior to attempting application of moisture sensitive flooring. "Breathable" floor coverings should be considered if the vapor flux rates are high. 5.1.11 Foundation Setback We recommend a minimum horizontal setback distance from the face of slopes for all improvements (such as flatwork, retaining walls, building footings, bridges abutment footings, etc.). 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 have a distance of H/2 where it is the height of the slope with a minimum of 10 feet and a maximum setback of 20 feet. 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. Potential distress to such improvements may be mitigated by providing a deepened footing to support the improvement. The deepened footing should meet the setback recommendations described above. 5.2 Special Design and Grading Considerationsfor Fill Settlement Due to their inherent characteristics, fill soils tend to settle due to their own weight and increase in moisture content. The amount of settlement is proportional to the depth of fill and its relative compaction. Based on laboratory testing of the materials anticipated to be used as fill (Appendix C) & r~] 1^ -22- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 and our experience with similar materials, we estimate these soils (when compacted to ±90 percent relative compaction) may settle on the order of 0.35 percent of the total fill thickness. In terms of differential settlement, 3/4 inch of settlement should be anticipated for each 20 feet of differential fill thickness. Relatively deep fill areas, placed on steep existing topography, are most likely to be impacted by the effects of differential settlement. In areas where the proposed structures cannot tolerate the amount of anticipated differential settlement mentioned above, special design and grading considerations may be required. These considerations may include: • The proposed stmctures may be planned such that they are entirely founded into competent formational material. This may be accomplished by constructing the structure on the cut portion of the lot or by deepening foundation into the formational soils by the use of a pier and grade beam system or deepened footings.. Geotechnical recommendations for these foundation systems may be provided based upon the proposed location and design of the stmctures. • The proposed stmctures may be located in areas of uniform fill thickness such that the anticipated differential settlement is within tolerate limits. In daylight areas, the cut portions should be overexcavated and replaced with properly compacted fill. The depth of the overexcavation will be based upon the amount of differential fill thickness and stmctural requirements. • The potential differential settlements may be decreased by compacting the fill to a higher relative compaction (i.e., greater than 90 percent). Tentatively, if this alternative is chosen, the fill should be compacted to 95 percent relative compaction (ASTM Test Method Dl 557-91) in areas where the differential fill thickness is greater than 10 to 20 feet • Additional stmctural consideration such as post-tensioned foundation and slab systems and additional concrete slab-on-grade/foundation depth and reinforcement may be required to mitigate the effects of differential settlement. We recommend the stmctural engineer consider the effects of differential settlement on the design of the proposed sthictures. 5.3 Expansive Soils/Presoak Based on laboratory testing of representative soils during the previous investigations, the majority of the soils on site have a low to very low expansion potential (Appendix C). Expansion testing of the actual soils placed at finish grade and recommendations concerning potentially expansive soils should be made after site grading has been completed. If soils other than very low (less than 20 per UBC 18-2) expansion potential are placed at pad grade, presoaking of slab subgrade soils will be recommended prior to concrete placement. 5.4 Retaining Wall Design Considerations Embedded structural walls should be designed for lateral earth pressures exerted on them. The magnitude of these pressures depends on the amount of deformation that the wall can yield under load. If the wall can yield enough to mobilize the fiill shear strength of the soil, it can be designed -23- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 for "active" pressure. If the wall cannot yield under the applied load, the shear strength of the soil cannot be mobilized and the earth pressure will be higher. Such walls should be designed for "at rest" conditions. If a stmcture moves toward the soil, the resulting resistance developed by the soil is the "passive" resistance. For design purposes, the recommended equivalent fluid pressure for each case for walls founded above the static ground water table and backfilled with soils of very low to low expansion potential (less than 50 per UBC 18-2) is provided below. Soils with medium to very high expansion potential shall not be used as retaining wall backfill. Table 3 Equivalent Fluid Weight (pcf) Condition Level 2:1 Slope Active At-Rest Passive 35 55 350 (maximum =3 ksf) 55 65 The above values assume free-draining conditions. If conditions other than those assumed above are anticipated, the equivalent fluid pressure values should be provided on an individual-case basis by the geotechnical engineer. All retaining wall structures should be provided with appropriate drainage. The outlet pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable outlet. Typical drainage design is illustrated in Appendix D. Wall back cut excavations less than 4 feet in height can be made near vertical. For back cuts greater than 4 feet in height, but less than 15 feet in height, the back cut should be flattened to a gradient of not steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope inclination. For back cuts in excess of 15 feet in height, specific recommendations should be requested from the geotechnical consultant. Soil resistance developed against lateral stmctural movement can be obtained from the passive pressure values in the previous table. Further, for sliding resistance, a 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 of the frictional and passive resistances provided the passive portion does not exceed two-thirds of the total resistance. -24- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 5.5 Foundation Design and Earthwork Requirements for Bridge Structures At the time of this report, stmctural plans and exact locations of the three bridges were not available. Our recommendations are based upon the borings and trenches indicated on plate 1 and the Grading Plan prepared by P&D/CTE Engineers dated August 7, 1997. Final plans shall be reviewed by this office to verify our assumptions. Once final plans are completed, additional borings may be necessary for final site design recommendations. 5.5.1 CollegeBridge From our field study and review of the referenced grading plan, it appears that the westem abutment will be underlain by approximately 16 feet of alluvium and the east abutment will be underlain by cut formational materials. With regard to a possible center span support founded in the medium, no subsurface exploration has been performed. Based on the pregrading topography, it appears that this is a cut area. However, it is also probable that fill soils of 2 to 3 feet in depth were placed during the roadway constmction. It is also possible that underground utilities exist at this location. As a result, an additional boring will be necessary in the area of mid-span foundation if this design is selected. For preliminary design purposes, the pile capacities for the westem abutment may be used for the mid-span support foundation. Earthwork Grading and earthwork for the westem abutment should be performed in accordance with the following recommendations and the General Earthwork and Grading Specifications for Rough Grading included as Appendix D. • Site Clearing Prior to grading, areas below and within 5 feet of the westem abutment should be cleared of surface and buried obstmctions. Voids resulting from removal of buried obstmctions which extent below finished site grades should be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. Asphalt and concrete should not be disposed of below the proposed abutments. • Site Preparation and Removals Due to the relatively loose nature of the near surface onsite soils, we recommend that the alluvium to a depth of 3 feet below existing or proposed grade (whichever is greater) to be removed and recompacted to provide a uniform mat of compacted fill soils below the proposed westem abutment. This removal and recompaction should be performed to a minimum of 10 feet (horizontally) outside the perimeter of the roadway and the abutment, we recommend that the removal be performed to at least 20 feet in the roadway direction. The removal bottom and replaced fill soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91). Even with these recommendations, ongoing differential settlement between the bridge abutment and approach soils (due to -25- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 vibrational loading) may most likely occur and will require ongoing maintenance. All grading should be performed under the testing and observation of a qualified geotechnical consultant. Stmctural Fills The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic materials, asphalt concrete, and debris. The abutments should be underlain by a minimum depth of 5 feet by soils within an expansion index of less than 51 (UBC 18-I-B). 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 uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Materials greater that 6 inches in maximum dimension should not be utilized in fills. Fill soils should be placed at or above optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91) below and within the areas specified above in the previous section. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with the City of Carlsbad grading ordinances under the observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical consultant. Pile Design We recommend that precast, prestressed concrete piles be used to support the bridge loads. The west abutment of the bridge should derive its support for the piles only. These piles will derive end bearing and friction resistance in the alluvial deposits and underlying Santiago Formation. We recommend a minimum pile depth of 20 feet below the existing ground surface (or a minimum pile tip elevation of 90 feet msl). Based on the soil data obtained during the investigation, we have made preliminary estimates of downward (axial) and lateral capacities for 12 and 14 inch square precast prestressed concrete piles. Our calculations were performed in accordance with U.S. Navy Specifications, 1982. Estimated allowable single pile capacities are presented in Table 4. & 1—1 1. n -26- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIA TES, INC. 4841363-006 Table 4 Estimated Allowable Single Pile Capacities (College Bridge, West Abutment) Pile Type (inches) Allowable Single Pile Axial Capacity (tons) Allowable Lateral Capacity for 0.5 inch of Displacement(kips) Point of Fixity for Lateral Loads (Feet Below Existing Ground Surface) Design Tip Elevation (Feet) (Mean Sea Level) 12 45 28 12 90 12 70 28 12 85 12 100 28 12 80 14 60 40 13 90 14 95 40 13 85 14 120 40 13 80 NOTES: (1) The above values are for piles spaced greater than 7 pile diameters. Axial and lateral capacity for piles spaced less than 7 pile diameters should be reduced by the capacity reduction provided on Table 5. In no case should the piles be closer than 3 pile diameters (center-to-center). (2) Lateral loads are based on a minimum 28-day (pile) concrete compressive strength of 5,000 psi. Table 5 Pile Group Capacity Reductions Pile Spacing (Center-to-Cenfer) Reduction in Axial and Lateral Capacity (Percent) 7 pile diameters 100 6 pile diameters 95 5 pile diameters 90 4 pile diameters 85 3 pile diameters 75 Recommended allowable single pile vertical loads may be used for dead loads plus frequently occurring live loads and may be increased one-third to resist transient components such as wind or seismic loads. Uplift capacity may be taken as 40 percent of axial capacity. Total and differential settlement of piles or pile groups (with appropriate reductions, if necessary) upon loading may be taken as 0.75 and 0.5 inches, respectively. Pile settlement calculations do not consider pile concrete shortening. -27- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 Piles should be driven in a continuous operation to the required depth. Jetting is not recommended. Predrilling may be accomplished but not within 10 feet of the design tip elevation. In the event heaving should occur, the piles should be redriven. We suggest that the bidding contractors be required to bid on the design pile tip elevations and include add and deduct unit costs for pile lengths longer and shorter than those estimated utilizing the design tip elevations. The actual lengths for payment should then be determined subsequent to the installation of the indicator piles. The vibration associated with pile driving is anticipated to have an adverse affect on adjacent stmctures within 100 to 200 feet. The vibrations will cause differential settlement of the underlying sandy soils and settlement of the adjacent stmctures and improvements. The magnitude of this settlement is based on the proximity to existing stmctures and the type of equipment used to drive piles. Based on the many variables, we recommend that the pile driving contractor evaluate and address the anticipated settlement. It is recommended that the soil engineer review the final foundation plans and specifications to assure that the intent of the recommendations presented in this report have been incorporated into the contract documents. In addition, all pile driving operations should be performed under the observation of the soil engineer. College Bridge, Eastem Abutment For the eastem abutment formation, a deepened footing may be utilized. We recommend that a deepened continuous foot extend a minimum depth of 3 feet below lowest adjacent grade into undisturbed formational materials. We provide the following allowable bearing capacity for spread footings founded into competent formational material Allowable Bearing Capacities - Spread Footings College Bridge-Eastem Abutment Embedment below Lowest Adjacent Grade in Cut Formational Material Allowable Bearing Capacity 36 inches 3,500 psf 48 inches 4,500 psf 60 inches 6,000 psf 72 inches 8,000 psf I I These values may be increased by one-third for loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. The above bearing capacity is based on a total and differential settlement of 3/4 and 1/2, respectively across the structure. This footing should be reinforced per the stmctural engineers requirements/recommendation. -28- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 5.5.2 Eastem and Westem Bridge Crossing Main Drainage Course As previously mentioned, dynamic settlement resulting from liquefaction is a distinct possibility in the area of the proposed westem and eastem bridge locations in the main drainage course. If the total and differential settlements provided in Section 2.7.2 Table 1, are acceptable or the risk is considered acceptable to the owner or owner's representatives, we provided herein shallow foundation recommendations for the eastem and westem bridges over the main drainage course. Shallow Foundation Design We recommend that the foundation be designed in accordance with stmctural considerations and design differential settlement of 2 inches in 100 feet horizontally for the westem bridge and 1 inch in 100 feet for the eastem bridge. Continuous footings (ribs or thickened edges) with a minimum width of 18 inches and a minimum depth of 36 inches below adjacent grade may be designed for a maximum allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot if founded into property compacted fill soils compacted and reinforced as recommended by the project stmctural engineer. The allowable pressure may be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces. Earthwork • Site Clearing Prior to grading, areas below and within 5 feet of the abutments should be cleared of surface and buried obstmctions. Voids resulting from removal of buried obstmctions which extent below finished site grades should be backfilled with properly compacted fill soils. Utilities should be properly abandoned in accordance with appropriate local codes. Asphalt and concrete should not be disposed of below the proposed abutments. • Site Preparation and Removals Due to the relatively loose nature of the near surface onsite soils, we recommend that the existing soils to a depth of 5 feet below existing or proposed grade (whichever is greater) be removed and recompacted to provide a uniform mat of compacted fill soils below the proposed abutments. This removal and recompaction should be performed to a minimum of 10 feet (horizontally) outside the perimeter of the abutments. This removal bottom and replaced fill soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91) below the abutments. To help reduce the potential for vertical offset between the roadway and the abutment, we recommend that the removal be performed at least 20 feet in the roadway direction. The removal bottom and replaced fill soils should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test method D1557-91). Even with these recommendations, ongoing differential settlement between the bridge abutment and approach soils (due to vibrational loading) may most likely occur and will -29- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 require ongoing maintenance. All grading should be performed under the testing and observation of a qualified geotechnical consultant Due to the low in-place density of the alluvial soils, special procedures will be necessary in preparing the removal bottom for the placement of fill soils. Upon removal of the upper 5 feet of soil, the removal bottom should be rolled with a roller. Vibration may or may not be helpful depending on the actual conditions encountered. This preparation shall be performed in all areas. Once the removal bottom has been processed, the geotechnical consultant shall evaluate the results prior to placement of fill. To reduce the potential for differential settlement, sand boils, and/or lateral spreading under the footprint of the abutments, we recommend two layers of a geotextile such as AMOCO 2016 or Mirafi HP565 be placed on the removal bottom. If an equivalent material is used, it shall have a greater tensile strength and lower permeability. Once placed, backfill operations may proceed. Caution should be taken such that track-mounted compaction equipment does not damage the geotextile material. Utilities should be planned to be above the uppermost geotextile layer. Stmctural Fills The onsite soils are generally suitable for use as compacted fill provided they are free of organic materials, asphalt concrete, and debris. The abutments should be underlain by a minimum depth of 5 feet by soils within an expansion index of less than 51 (UBC 18-I-B). 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 uniform lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. Materials greater that 6 inches in maximum dimension should not be utilized in fills. Fill soils should be placed at or above optimuni moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91) within 5 feet vertically and 10 feet horizontally of the stmcture. Placement and compaction of fill should be performed in accordance with the local grading ordinances under the observation and testing of a qualified geotechnical consultant. 5.5.3 Deep Foundation Design. Eastem and Westem Bridges If the design differential settlement of 1 inch and 2 inches for the eastem and westem bridges respectively, or the potential damage resulting from liquefaction are considered unacceptable, we provide herein deep foundation design recommendations. & 1— r -30- mcmON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 Earthwork All earthwork shall be performed in accordance with Section 5.5. Pile Design. Westem Bridge We recommend that precast, prestressed concrete piles be used to support the westem bridge loads. The abutments of the bridge should derive their support from the piles only. These piles will derive end bearing and friction resistance in the alluvial deposits and Santiago Formation. We recommend a minimum pile depth of 55 feet below the existing ground surface (or a minimum pile tip elevation of -13 feet msl). As previously noted, the pile depth provided herein are based on. our exploratory borings in close proximity to the proposed westem bridge. Actual pile depth may increase or decrease once the final abutment locations and final grades are determined. Final plans shall be reviewed by this office to verify our assumptions. Based on the soil data obtained during the investigation, we have made preliminary estimates of downward (axial) and lateral capacities for 12 and 14 inch square precast prestressed concrete piles. Our calculations were performed in accordance with U.S. Navy Specifications, 1982. Estimated allowable single pile capacities are presented in Table 6. -31- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 Table 6 Estimated Allowable Single Pile Capiacities (Westem Bridge) Pile Type (inches) Allowable Single Pile Axial Capacity (Tons) Allowable Lateral Capacity for 0.5 inch of Displacement (kips) Point of Fixity for Lateral Loads (Feet Below Existing Ground Surface) Design Tip Elevation (Feet) (Mean Sea Level) 12 28 30 14 -13 12 32 30 14 -18 12 40 30 14 -23 14 38 50 16 -13 14 43 50 16 -18 14 54 50 16 -23 NOTES: (3) The above values are for piles spaced greater than 7 pile diameters. Axial and lateral capacity for piles spaced less than 7 pile diameters should be reduced by the capacity reduction provided on Table 5. In no case should the piles be closer than 3 pile diameters (center-to-center). . (4) Lateral loads are based on a minimum 28-day (pile) concrete compressive strength of 5,000 psi. Pile Design, Eastem Bridge We recommend that precast, prestressed concrete piles be used to support the eastem bridge loads. The abutments of the bridge should derive their support from the piles only. These piles will derive end bearing and friction resistance in the alluvial deposits and Santiago Formation. We recommend a minimum pile depth of 35 feet below the existing ground surface (or a minimum pile tip elevation of 19 feet msl). Actual pile lengths should be determined after a review of final design grades. Based on the soil data obtained during the investigation, we have made preliminary estimates of downward (axial) and lateral capacities for 12 and 14 inch square precast prestressed concrete piles. Our calculations were performed in accordance with U.S. Navy Specifications, 1982. Estimated allowable single pile capacities are presented in Table 7. & [— L LJL -32- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 Table 7 Estimated Allowable Single Pile Capacities (Eastem Bridge) Pile Type (inches) Allowable Single Pile Axial Capacity (tons) Allowable Lateral Capacity for 0.5 inch of Displacement (kips) Point of Fixity for Lateral Loads (Feet Below Existing Ground Surface) Design Tip Elevation (Feet) (Mean Sea Level) 12 25 30 12 19 12 30 30 12 14 12 35 30 12 9 14 34 50 13 19 14 41 50 13 14 14 48 50 13 9 NOTES: (5) The above values are for piles spaced greater than 7 pile diameters. Axial and lateral capacity for piles spaced less than 7 pile diameters should be reduced by the capacity reduction provided on Table 5. In no case should the piles be closer than 3 pile diameters (center-to-center). (6) Lateral loads are based on a minimum 28-day (pile) concrete compressive strength of 5,000 psi. 5.6 Type of Cement for Constmction Representative samples of the soils anticipated to be near finish grade should be obtained and tested for soluble sulfate content upon completion of rough grading in order to determine the type of cement for constmction. However, tests performed on samples from adjacent sites indicated the soil possess a negligible to severe soluble sulfate exposure to concrete. As a result, for preliminary planning purposes concrete in contact with the onsite soils should be designed with Type II or V cement (or equivalent). 5.7 Corrosion Resistance Tests performed on similar soils during previous investigation on an adjacent site indicate that the soils have a mild to high potential for corrosion to buried uncoated metal conduits. A corrosion engineer should be consulted for further evaluation of this potential if buried uncoated metal conduit is utilized. & r- : r 11 -33- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 5.8 Pavement Design Final pavement recommendations should be provided based on R-value testing of roadway subgrade soils as final grades are achieved. For planning purposes, we have assumed the sandy onsite soils will have an R-value of 40. Utilizing assumed traffic indices of T.I. = 5.O., T.I. = 6.0, and T.I. = 7.0, the following structural pavement sections can be assumed for planning purposes. Tables Structural Pavement Design Use ' Assumed Traffic Index Design R-Value Recommended Structural Pavement Design Parking and light auto traffic T.L = 5.0 R = 40 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 4 inches of Caltrans Class 2 base Drive Areas T.L = 6.0 R = 40 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 5 inches of Caltrans Class 2 base Truck areas and fire lanes T.L = 7.0 R = 40 4 inches of asphalt concrete over 7 inches of Caltrans Class 2 base The upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction based on ASTM Test Method D1557-91. If fill is required to reach subgrade design grade, fill placement should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented in Section 4.1. The aggregate base material should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction. Untreated Class 2 aggregate base should meet the requirements of Caltrans specifications. We recommend that the curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and cart paths be designed by the civil engineer or stmctural engineer. We suggest control joints at appropriate intervals as determined by the civil or stmctural engineer be considered. We also suggest a minimum thickness of 4 inches for sidewalk slabs. To minimize cracking of cart paths in non-stmctural golf course areas, we recommend the cart path subgrade be proof rolled the upper 12 inches and compacted to at least 90 percent of the soils maximum dry density. In accordance with City of Carlsbad guidelines, concrete improvements within city right of ways should be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of Caltrans Class 2 aggregate base. If pavement areas are adjacent to heavily watered landscape areas, we recommend some measures of moisture control be taken to prevent the subgrade soils from becoming saturated. It is recommended that the concrete curbing 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 and subgrade. Concrete swales should be designed in roadway or parking areas subject to concentrated surface runoff. For loading areas subject to impact loading (i.e., trash trucks, delivery frucks bays, loading docks, etc.), we recommend a minimum 7 inch Portland Cement concrete pavement section. The Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) should be provided with appropriate steel reinforcement and crack- -34- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 control joints as designed by the project structural engineer. We recommend that crack-control joints be spaced no more than 12 feet on center each way. If sawcuts are used, they should be a minimum depth of one-quarter the slab thickness and made within 8 hours of concrete placement. We recommend that sections be as nearly square as possible. A 3,250 psi mix may be utilized. Asphalt Concrete (A.C.), Portland Cement Concrete (P.C.C.) and base 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. 5.9 Water Features We understand the proposed CMGC will incorporate several lakes/ponds into the design. The location and extent of these features are shown on Plate 1. For preliminary design purposes, we recommend that the ponds be lined with gunite lining having a minimum thickness of 4 inches and be reinforced with a minimum of 6x6-10/10 welded wire mesh. Stmctural considerations may increase the thickness and reinforcement of gunite/concrete. A 2 to 4-inch layer of clean sand (S.E. > 30) should be placed below the gunite to aid in curing. The sand layer should be underlain by a synthetic pond liner (60 to 80 mil) which is underlain by a layer of geofabric such as Mirafi HON or equivalent to protect the liner. A subdrain or sump system should also be constmcted below the lake liner to collect seepage water, to inhibit uplift forces during pond cleaning, and to reduce the potential for infiltration of water into the subsurface soils. Final recommendations can be provided after completion of project plans. We note that the proposed lakes may be in non-stmctural areas where differential fill settlement is anticipated, and, thus additional reinforcement recommendations or deeper removals may be necessary. If settlement of pond areas or in general golf course areas (i.e. non-structural ) cannot be tolerated, we recommend that the pond be treated as a stmctural improvement and the grading performed accordingly. -35- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 6.0 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONS The conclusions and recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by widely spaced exploratory borings, trenches and test pits. The interpolated subsurface conditions should be checked in the field during construction by a representative of Leighton and Associates. We recommend that all cut areas and cut slopes be geologically mapped for the presence of potentially adverse geologic conditions and potential ground water seepage zones by an engineering geologist from Leighton and Associates during grading. All grading operations should be observed by a representative of this firm so that constmction is performed in accordance with the recommendations of this report. Final grading and developmentplans should also be reviewed by this office. -36- LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 4841363-006 APPENDIX A REFERENCES Abbott, P.L., ed., 1985, On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County; SanDiego Association of Geologists Fieldtrip Guidebook, April 13,1985. Albee, A.L., and Smith J.L., 1966, Earthquake Characteristics and Fault Activity Southem Califomia in Southem Califomia, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication, dated October 1966. Bodas Engineering, Undated, GradingPlan, Carlsbad Tract No. 85-17, Scale 1"=80'. Bolt, B.A., 1973, Duration of Strong Ground Motion, Proc. Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Rom, Paper No. 292, pp. 1304-1313. dated June 1973. Bonilla, M.J., 1970, Surface Faulting and Related Effects, inWiegel, R., Ed., Earthquake Engineering, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall,Inc., pp. 47-74. Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, 1975, Fault Map of Califomia, Scale 1"=750,000'. Eisenberg, L.I., 1983, Pleistocene Terraces and Eocene Geology, Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe Quadrangles, San Diego County, Califomia, San Diego State University Master's Thesis (unpublished), p. 386. , 1985, Pleistocene Faults and Marine Terraces, Northem San Diego County in Abbott, P.L., Editor, On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northem San Diego County, San Diego Association of Geologists, Field Trip Guidebook, pp. 86-91. Geotechnics, 1992, Phase 1 Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Ranch, Carlsbad, Califomia, Project No. 0054-0001-00, dated September 25,1992. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Accelerations from Earthquakes in Califomia, Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. Hannan, D.L., 1975, Faulting in the Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Vista Areas, Northem San Diego County, Califomia in Ross, A. and Dowlen, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology of Camp Pendleton and Westem San Diego County, Califomia, San Diego Association of Geologists Field Trip Guidebook, pp. 56-60. Hart, 1988, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in Califomia, Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication42. Hart, E.W., 1992, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Special studies Zones Act of 1972 with Index to Special Study Zones Maps: Department of Conversation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication42. A-1 4841363-006 APPENDIX A (Continued) Hileman, J.A., Allen, C.R., and Nordquist, J.M., 1973, Seismicity of the Southem Califomia Region, 1 January 1932 to 31 December 1972: Califomia Institute of Technology Seismology Laboratory, Pasadena, Califomia. ICG, Inc., 1988, Geotechnical Map and Cross Section A-A', Plates 2 and 3, Job 05-7379-002-00-00, dated January 1988. Intemational Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), 1991, Uniform Building Code. : , 1994, Uniform Building Code, Volume I-Administrative, Fire- and Life-Safety, and Field Inspection Provisions; Volume Il-Stmctural Engineering Design Provisions; and Volume Ill-Material, Testing and Installation Provisions: ICBO. Jennings, C.W., 1975, Fault Map of Califomia: California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Map No. 1, Scale 1:750,000. , 1992, Preliminary Fauh Activity Map of Califomia: Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 92-03, Scale 1:750,000. Joyner, W.B., and Boore, D.M., 1982, Prediction of Earthquake Response Spectra, in Proceeding 51" Annual Convention, Structural Engineers Association of Califomia; Also U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 81-977, p. 16. Lamar, D.L., Merifield, P.M., and Proctor, R.J., 1973, Earthquake Recurrence Intervals on Major Faults in Southem Califomia, in Moran, D.E., Slosson, J.E., Stone, R.O., and Yelverton, C.A., Eds., 1973, Geology, Seismicity, and Environmental Impact, Association of Engineering Geologists, Special Publication. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1985, Preliminary Geoteclinical Investigation, Proposed Huntington Palomar Business Park, Carisbad, Califomia, Project No. 4841363-02, dated April 5,1985. , 1987, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Portion of Lot H of Rancho Agua Hedionda, Partition Map No. 823, Northeast Comer of Interstate 5 and Cannon Road, Carlsbad, Califomia,ProjectNo. 8870059-01,datedFebmary 17,1987. 1989a, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Carltas Rancho Agua Hedionda Regional Shopping Center, Northeast of Interstate 5 and Cannon Road, Carlsbad, Califomia, ProjectNo. 8891551-01,dated September29,1989. 1991, Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluation, Proposed College Business Park, Carlsbad Tract 85-17, Carlsbad, Califomia, Project No. 8841363-04, dated January -16, 1991 revised September 24,1991. 1992, City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, 84 Sheets, dated November, 1992. A-2 4841363-006 APPENDIX A (Continued) -, 1993, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Units I and II (Lots 1 through 7), Carlsbad Ranch, Phase 1, Carlsbad, Califomia, ProjectNo. 4930489-01, dated July 22,1993. , 1994a, Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Carlsbad Ranch Phase II, Carlsbad, Califomia, ProjectNo. 4930489-03, dated March 23,1994. , 1994b, Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation for Tentative Map Purposes, Carlsbad Ranch, Carisbad, Califomia, ProjectNo. 4930489-04, dated July 5,1994. , In-house unpublished data. Lindvall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Lindvall, C.E., 1990, The Seismic Hazard of San Diego Revised New Evidence for Magnitude 6+ Holocene Earthquake on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone: Proceedings of Fourth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Volume 1, pp.679-688. Moore and Taber, 1987, Report of Geotechnical Services, Carlsbad Tract No. 81-46, Airport Business Center UnitNo. 1, City of Carlsbad, Califomia, Job No. 285-256, dated February 25,1987. Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E., 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations From Earthquakes - Important Design Criteria, Califomia Geology, V. 27. Reichle, M.S., and Kahle, J.E., 1990, Planning Scenario for a Major Earthquake, San Diego-Tijuana Metropolitan Area: CalifomiaDivision of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 100. Rick Engineering, 1987, Site Development Plan, College Business Park, Carlsbad Tract No. 85-17, Scale 1 "=100', Job No. 8495C, dated May 1, 1985, Revised September 4,1987. , 1985, Site Development Plan, College Business Park, Carlsbad Tract No. 85-17, Scale 1"=100', Job No. 8495C, dated May 1,1985, Revised September 4,1987. San Diego Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., 1987, As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Fill Disposal Site - College Boulevard Extension, Carlsbad, Califomia, Job No. 05-6657-001-00-10, dated May 12,1987. Schnabel, R., and Seed, H.B., 1973, Accelerationis in Rock from Earthquakes in the Westem United States, Bulletin of the SeismologicalSociety of America, V. 63, No. 2, pp. 501-516. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., 1982, Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction During Earthquakes, Monogram Series, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, Califomia. Seed, H.B., and Idriss, I.M., and Kiefer, R.W., 1968, Characteristics of Rock Mofions During Earthquakes, Joumal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, V. 95, No. SMS, Proc. Paper 6783, pp. 1199-1218. A-3 4841363-006 APPENDIX A (Continued) Singh, A., 1970, Shear Strength and Stability of Man-Made Slopes, in Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divisions, ASCE, No. SM6,pp. 1879-1892. , 1982, Recent Slope failures, Ancient Landslides and Related Geology of the North-Central Coastal Area, San Diego County, Califomia, Califomia Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 82-12, LA. , 1963, Geology and Mineral Resources of San Diego County, Califomia California Division of Mines and Geology, County Report 3, 309p. U.S. Departmentof the Navy, 1969, Civil Engineering, DM-5. , 1982, Foundations and Earth Stmctures, DM 7.2. , 1986, Soil Mechanics, DM 7.1. United States Department of the Interior Geologic Survey, 1968, 7.5-Minute Encinitas Quadrangles, Scale 1:24,000, Photo Revised 1975. Wilson, K.L., 1972, Eocene and Related Geology of a Portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas Quadrangles, San Diego, Califomia. Ziony, J.I., and Yerkes, 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. Date Source Flight No. Photo No. Scale 1978 San Diego County 210-15B 30and31 1"=1000' 4-11-53 USDA AXN-8M 99,100,101 and 102 1"=2000' 1928 San Diego County 30 Dl,D2,ElandE2 1"=1100' A-4 Date Project GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG KEY Drilling Co. _^ Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole +/- KEY TO BORING LOG GRAPHICS Drive Weight ft. Ref. or Datum Sheet 1_ Project No. Type of Rig of Drop in. c UJ o x:o) ao fO-J c ID 10- 15- 20- m 01 25 1^ Q. E n tn 03 31 4- c CM-0) U Q Q. w 3» L o Q u GO GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By Sampled By CL CH 1 hdicate SPT Sample] indicate Cal Sample atesj^-dund waterkevel I time ondriihg OL-OH ML MH CL-ML ML-SM CL-SC SC-SM SW tnoTganicclay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay; sandy clay; silty clay; lean | Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay Organic clay, silt or silty clay-clayey silt mixtures Inorganic silt; very fme sand; silty or clayey fine sand; clayey silt with low plasticityl Inorganic silt; diatomaceous fme sandy or silty soils; elastic silt Low plasticity clay to silt mixture Sandy silt to silty sand mixture Sandy clay to clayey sand mixture SP SM SC GW GP GM GC Clayey sand to silty sand mixture Well graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines Pooriy graded sand; gravelly sand, little or no fines Silty sand; pooriy graded sandnsilt mixture Qayey sand; pooriy graded sand-clay mixture Well graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines Pooriy graded gravel; gravel-sand mixture, little or no fines Silty gravel; gravel-sand-silt mixture Clayey gravel; gravel-«and-day mixture Sandstone Siltstone Claystone Breccia (angular gravel and cobbles or matrix-supported conglomerate) Con^omerate (rounded gravel and cobble, clast-supported) Igneous granitic or granitic type rock Metavolcanic or metamoiphic rock Artificial or man-made fill Asphaltic concrete Portland Cement Concrete !505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-la Date_ 11-17-97 Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development • • • F&C Drilling . Sheet 1 of 2 ProjectNo. 841363-06 Project Drilling Co. • ' ' F&C Drilling . Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +/- 42 ft. Ref. or Datum See Map 0)3 u Z 0) ao (0_l c CO tn 01 E n CO Ql u Q a C a CJ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By Sampled By KTS KTS 40 35- 10- 30- 15- 25- 20- 15 20- 25— •VI- 1 I 14 Bag-2 @5'-7 I 16 I 14 I 23 I 19 ML QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM rOal) @ 0': Dark brown, moist, stiff, very fine to medium sandy SILT 104.9 20.6 ) 5'-8': Bulk sample, same as above 105.8 102.6 101.5 98.8 19.9 23.1 22.8 25.2 SM/ML > 10': Dark brown, moist to wet, stiff, very fine to medium sandy SILT; mica-rich @ 15': Light brown, moist to wet, stiff, very fme to medium sandy SILT/silty SAND; some coarse grained SAND @ 20': Light brown, moist, stiff, sandy SILT to silty SAND; very fine to coarse grained sand @ 25': Light to dark brown, moist to wet, loose to medium stiff at silty portion, silty fine to medium sand grades to fine to very coarse SAND; some pebbles, iron-oxide staining 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-1a 11-17-97 Date Project Drilling Co. _ Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole + /- 42 ft. Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development F&C Drilling Sin. Sheet 2 ProjectNo. Type of Rig of 841363-06 Drive Weight Ref. or Datum 140 pounds HoUow-Steni Auger Drop 30 in. See Map r. 0) Q.O ni-l L CS in (U o OJ Q. (0 tn in-^ CM-OJ u Q Q. c • a cn- GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By Sampled By KTS KTS 30-I 10 35- 5- -5- -10' 40- 45- 50- 33 107.2 21.4 SM/ML @ 30': Light to dark brown, wet, medium dense to very stiff, silty very fine to coarse SAND with SILTSTONE clasts (clasts up to 1" diameter, consists of light gray to orange, moist to wet, very stiff siltstone) I 15 97.8 29.0 I 21 100.7 25.1 10 I 23 11 I 34 ML-CL ML @35': Light brown, wet, loose to medium dense with stiff areas, silty fine to medium SAND to SILT; layers of silt within sand, some iron-oxide staining. > 40': Light brown, moist to wet, very stiff, clayey SILT; some fine SAND, mica-rich, rolls in fingers SANTIAGO FORMATION n<\ @ 44': Brown to orangish tan, wet, very stiff, fine to medium sandy SILTSTONE; iron-oxide staining, some coarse sands, weathered bedrock SM ! 50': Brown to orangish tan, moist, hard, silty fine to medium SANDSTONE; iron-oxide staining, some gypsum 55- -15 Total Depth = 52 Feet Ground Water Encountered at 7 Feet 6 Inches at Time of Drilling Hole Backfilled: 11/17/97 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2a Date 11-17-97 Project Drilling Co. Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development F&C Drilling Sheet 1 Project No. of 841363-06 Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole +1- 54 ft. Ref. or Datum See Map c LU in (U QJ Q. m CL in^ CH-(U u Q a. w 31 C. Q ^ O u .CO tn GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By Sampled By KTS KTS 50 45 40- 15— 35- 30 25 20— 25- 12 Bag-13 @6'-9' 44 I 14 I 28 15 I 21 16 I 33 I 17 • 42 CL 108.2 18.2 1045 18.6 96.3 25.9 108.1 104.8 19.7 205 SM QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM (Oal) @ 0': Dark brown, damp, hard, silty CLAY ) 5': Dark brown, damp, hard, silty CLAY; few very fine SAND, minor organics, rolls in fingers (7'-10') Bulk sample, same as above) ML @ 10': Brown, moist, very stiff, fine to medium sandy SILT; 1/2" diameter pebble ' 15': Light brown to brown, damp to moist, very stiff, fine sandy SILT; 1" diameter rock fragment @ 20': Light brown mottled, damp to moist, hard, fine to medium sandy SILT; few pebbles up to 1/4", mottled black and orange portions TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts^ @ 25': Light orange to mottled light brown, moist, medium dense to very stiff, medium to coarse sandstone grades to fine to medium sandy SILTSTONE; gypsum, iron oxide, few organics 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-2a 11-17-97 Date Project Drilling Co. Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole + /- 54 ft. Carisbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development F&C Drilling Sheet 2 Project No. Type of Rig of 841363-06 Sin. Drive Weight Ref. or Datum 140 pounds See Map Hollow-Stem Auger Drop _M. m. c Q3 u in QJ ao +-IO_l o L z CO Q. B to in.^ (U u O Q. O Q CJ CJ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By Sampled By KTS KTS 30-18 20- 35— 15 40- 10 45- 5- 50— 55- -5- 43 96.6 25.0 ML-CL @ 30': Olive-gray, damp, hard, clayey SILTSTONE; some gypsum, iron-oxide staining Total Depth = 31 Feet Ground Water Encountered at 9 Feet at Time of Drilling Hole Backfilled: 11/17/97 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3a Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development Sheet 1 of 2 ProjectNo. 841363-06 Date 11-17-97 Project Drilling Co. F&C Drilling Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight : 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole -i-/- 120' ft. Ref. or Datum See Map c I- Ul 03 u .CD) ao rfl_I C 03 in lU a B m cn 3) in^ CH-(U u Q a C a ^ o o jcn "CJ .cn cn GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By Sampled By KTS KTS 10— 25— Bag-20i @3'-7'l 53/6" 102.8 7.9 20 I 50/3" 93.7 10.6 21 I 65/6" 99.3 18.8 Bag-23 tS15'-19 22 I 50/4" 95.1 11.2 24 I 65/4" 102.4 5.5 ML-MH SM CL SM TOPSOIL (unmapped) @ 0': Dark brown, damp, stiff to very stiff, clayey SILT; organics, clumpy, grass at top SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts^ @ 3': Light tan, damp, very dense, silty, fine to medium SANDSTONE; moderate cementation @ 10': Light gray to white, damp, very dense, silty, very fine to medium SANDSTONE; less cemented than above, include silt, few biotite crystals 115': Olive-green, dry to damp, hard, clayey SILTSTONE; moderate cementation ) 20': Light tan to gray, damp, very dense, silty, very fine to medium SANDSTONE; iron-oxide staining ) 25': Light tan, damp, very dense, silty, very fine to coarse SANDSTONE with pebbles; pebbles up to 1/3" diameter, some siltstone clasts 505A{11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-3a 11-17-97 Date Project Drilling Co. _ Hole Diameter Elevation Top of Hole -f/- 120' Carisbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development F&C Drilling Sheet 2 Project No. Type of Rig of 841363-06 8 in. Drive Weight ft. Ref. or Datum 140 pounds Hollow-Stem Auger Drop 30 in. See Map LU a3 u JZO ao L CD in (U OJ a 10 cn to ^ a. Jl in.^ m u a a j> L Q cn .tn cn GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By Sampled By KTS KTS 30-25 50/4" 98.2 75 SM I 30': Gray, damp, hard, fine sandy SILTSTONE 35- 40- 45- 50— 55- 60- Total Depth = 31 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Hole Backfilled: 11/18/97 I 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-4a Date 11-17-97 Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development F&C Drilling Sheet 1 of 1 ProjectNo. 841363-06 Project Drilling Co. F&C Drilling ] Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole + /- 295 ft. Ref. or Datum See Map c .0^ — in xro) lU ao +• nj_J o c z CD o •z at a E to cn tl. in/^ CM-QJ U Q a \^ L a c in GO _cn oB cn Logged By Sampled By GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION KTS KTS 295 290- 285-10- 280 15— 275 20- 270 25— 30- ML SM/ML TOPSOIL Bag-26 @2'-5' SANTIAGO FORMATION iTs^ @ 1': Olive-gray, damp, hard, fine sandy SILTSTONE; iron-oxide staining 27 I 62/6" 109.1 16.2 28 i 66/6" 110.5 12.5 ML 29 I 63/6" 105.1 15.2 30 I 80/5" 105.4 18.8 ML-MH ) 5': Same as above 110': Orange to gray, damp, very dense/ hard, fine to medium sandy SILTSTONE; include sand from previous, iron-oxide staining @ 15': Orangish olive-gray, damp, hard, SILTSTONE; iron-oxide staining I 20': Orangish olive-gray, damp, hard, clayey SILTSTONE; iron-oxide staining, smears between fingers Total Depth = 21 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Hole Backfilled on November 18,1997 I 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG B-5a Carisbad Municipal Golf Course/P & D Development Sheet Project No. of 841363-06 Date 11-17-97 Project DrilUngCo. ; ; F&C Drilling \ Type of Rig Hollow-Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 pounds ' Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole + /- 230 ft. Ref. or Datum See Map a"" Q3 ao ro_j L CD in QJ o a E m tn OO CH-0) U Q a o Q|5 ^ o CJ _(n cn GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged By Sampled By KTS KTS 230 • 0- 225- 220- 10- 215 210- 205- 15- 20- 25- SM/ML SANTIAGO FORMATION (Ts-) @ 0': Reddish light brown, damp, hard, fine sandy SILTSTONE; gypsum veins 31 I 93 I 103.7 175 Bag-32 @7'-10'L 33 • 93 I 114.0 14.1 34 I 87 112.5 9.1 35 91 111.9 9.1 @ 5': Same as above (Bulk sample at 7'-10' ML 110': Orangish tan, damp, hard, SILTSTONE; iron-oxide staining SM/ML 15': Reddish light brown, damp, dense to very dense, silty fine SANDSTONE ! 20': Reddish light brown, damp to moist, dense to very dense, silty fine SANDSTONE Total Depth = 21 Feet No Ground Water Encountered at Time of Drilling Hole Backfilled: 11/18/97 I 505A(11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES LOG OF TRENCH NO. T-IA o Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Project Number: 4841363-006 KAB Equi pment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Logged by: Elevation: +/-270' msl Location: Carlsbad. CA GEOLOGIC AHITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: Adjacent to S. Side of College GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. Density (pcf) TOPSOIL o A (a 0-2' Dark brown, moist, loose to medium dense, clayey, silty, fine to coarse sand, common roots and root casts throughout SANTIAGO FORMATION Qal/ Topsoil Ts SM-CL SM 0 2'-8': Light brown to tan, moist, dense to very dense, silty, fine to medium sand, scattered manganese oxide and Iron oxide staining throughout Bulk sample from +/- 3 of Ts T-IA sample #1 bulk r- or > 09 CO o o » (D CO GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Face SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 4^ TREND: N LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-2A 01 o I > o Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Project Number: 4841363-006 Equi oment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe KAB Logged by: El evati on: _!7z2321ji!si Locat1 on: Carlsbad. CA GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: Adjacent to Palomar Oaks Way GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moi St. Density (pcf) FILL A @ 0-16'6": Artificial Fill Undocumented: Moist, loose to medium dense, slightly clayey, silty, fine to medium sand, visible lifts 8"-2' in thickness, no organics visible. Lifts vary in color from light tan to dark brown TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION Afu SM-ML Ts SM B @ 16'6"-18" o 3 > (0 09 O O a (D 09 Light brown, moist, very dense, slightly clayey, silty, fine to medium sand, manganese oxide and iron oxide staining visible Bulk sample taken of Afu @ 12' T-2A Sample #1 Bulk GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall• SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 0 TREND: N LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-3A Ol o I > o Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Project Number: 4841363-006 Logged bv: KAB Equi pment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Elevation: +/-250' msl Locat1 on: Carlsbad. CA GEOLOGIC AHITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: NE Corner of Property GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. Density (pcf) ARTIFICIAL FILL UNDOCUMENTED A @ 0-6': Dark brown to light tan, moist to wet, soft to loose, soft to loose, clayey, silty fine to medium sand to sandy silt, visible lifts 8"-2' thick JURRASIC SANTIAGO PEAK VOLCANICS B 0 6'-7'6": Dark gray, crystal1ne fractured, olivine basalt Afu SM-ML Jsp Basalt o 2r w o o 09 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" =5' SURFACE SLOPE: 2°W TREND: NS LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-4A 01 o > <0 o (•' 3r o 09 O O »• >^ (D 09 Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Project Number: 4841363-006 KAB Equi pment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Logged by: Elevation: Location: Carlsbad. CA +/-222' msl GEOLOGIC AHITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: +/-100' East Hidden Valley Rd. COLLUVIUM/TOPSOIL A" (a O'-r Dark brown, moist, loose: slightly clayey, silty fine sand SANTIAGO FORMATION B 0 r-5': Light brown, damp, medium dense to very dense, slightly clayey silty fine to medium sand to sandstone, moderately fractured (random) upper 6"-10" highly weathered GEOLOGIC UNIT Qcol/ Topsoi1 Ts ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS SM-ML SM Sample No. Moist. Density (pcf) GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" =5' SURFACE SLOPE: 22°E TREND: EW LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-5A Ol o I > o CD (Q* O 3 > 09 09 O o a (D 09 Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Project Number: 4841363-006 KAB Equi pment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Logged by: Elevation: Location: Carlsbad. CA +/-240' msl GEOLOGIC AHITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: 200' E. of HVR Cul-de-Sac COLLUVIUM/TOPSOIL A . 0 0-1': Dark brown to brown, moist, loose, porous, clayey, silty, fine to medium sand, calcium carbonate visible as stringers and laths SANTIAGO FORMATION B @ r6': Brown, moist, medium dense, blocky, clayey, fine to medium sand, very clayey, lenses 6"-10" thick visible, calcium carbonate stringers throughout SANTIAGO FORMATION • C (a 6'-8': Light brown, damp, very dense, silty to clayey, fractured, sandstone GEOLOGIC UNIT Qcol/ Topsoi1 Ts Ts ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS SM-ML SM-SC SM-SC Sample No. Moist. Density (pcf) GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION East Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 0 TREND: NS 4-M-I I I I MM acol/Top50*il 4-4-MM MM MM MM TOTAL DEPTH AT 8' NO GROUND WATER BACKFILLED: 12/4/97 LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-6A Ol o > I CO o Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Project Number: 4841363-006 KAB Equi pment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Logged by:. Elevation: +/-115' msl Location: Carlsbad. CA GEOLOGIC AHITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: SW facing slope E. of River GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. Density (pcf) TERTIARY SANTIAGO A 00'-4': Light brown, damp, very dense, silty, fine to medium sandstone, upper 6" slightly to moderately weathered Bulk sample taken 0'-3' Ts SM T-6A Sample #1 Bulk 3- o 3 > 09 09 O o 5' (D 09 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 4°SW TREND: NS TOTAL DEPTH AT 4' NO GROUND WATER - BACKFILLED AND WHEELROLLED: 12/4/97 LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-7A Ol o I > CO o Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Project Number: 4841363-006 Logged by: KAB Equi pment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Elevat 1 on: +/-lir msl Locati on: Carlsbad. CA GEOLOGIC AHITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: Adjacent to S. Side of College GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Moist. Density (pcf) COLLUVIUM/TOPSOIL A @ 0-1': Dark brown, damp to moist, loose, clayey, silty fine sand . TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION B (a l'-6': Light brown, moist, dense to very dense, slightly clayey, silty fine sandstone Qcol/ Topsoi1 Ts SM-ML SM r (D o 3 > 09 0) o o 5' Q 09 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: TREND: EW MM (Jcol/tcpsoil MM MM MM MM MM TOTAL DEPTH AT 6' NO GROUND WATER BACKFILLED AND WHEELROLLED: 12/4/97 LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-8A cn o I > CO o <D IQ' 3- •f O 3 po > 09 09 O o ® 09 Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Project Number: 4841363-006 KAB Equi pment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Logged by:. Elevation: +1-112' msl Locati on: Carlsbad. CA GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: N. of River 400" TERTIARY SANTIAGO SANDSTONE A @ 0-6': Light brown, damp to moist, dense, randomly fractured . sandstone, minor calcium carbonate deposited in fractures GEOLOGIC UNIT Ts ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS SM Sample No. Moist. Density (pcf) GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 12° TREND: EW Mil II II TOTAL DEPTH AT 6' NO GROUND WATER BACKFILLED AND WHEELROLLED: 12/4/97 LOG OF TRENCH NO.: T-9A cn o > CO o Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Project Number: 4841363-006 KAB Equi pment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Logged by:. Elevation:. Locati on: Carlsbad. CA +/-265' msl GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: 75' N. of College Avenue GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS Sample No. Mo1St. a) Density (pcf) ALLUVIUM A 0 0-3': Dark brown, moist, soft, very clayey silty sand TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION B (a 3'-7': Orange-brown, damp, very dense, silty to clayey fine sand Bag sample at 0-3' of Qal Qal Ts SM-CL SM-CL T-9A Sample #1 Bulk (Q* 3- o 3 > 09 09 O o 5' (D 09 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 10°E TREND: EW I II I I II I 4-4-II M II I I II I I I II I TOTAL DEPTH AT 7' NO GROUND WATER BACKFILLED: 12/4/97 LOG OF TRENCH NO.: TlOA Ol o CO o (5' 3^ o 3 > 01 0) o o 5' (D 09 Project Name: Carlsbad P&D Project Number: 4841363-006 Logged bv: KAB Equi pment: John Deere 710D 4x4 hoe Elevation: +/-110' msl Locati on: Carlsbad. CA GEOLOGIC AHITUDES DATE: 12/4/97 DESCRIPTION: Adjacent to PAR X.College TOPSOIL A 0 0-1': Dark brown, clayey, moist, loose to soft, clayey, silty fine sand QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM B @ r-16': Mixed, dark brown to light brown, damp to moist, loose, friable silty, fine to coarse sand with channeling visible TERTIARY.SANTIAGO FORMATION C @ 16'-18': Light brown damp, dense to very dense, silty, fine to medium sandstone Bulk sample from 3'-8' in Qal GEOLOGIC UNIT Topsoi1 Qal Ts ENGINEERING PROPERTIES USCS SM-ML SW/SM SM Sample No. T-lOA Sample #1 Bulk Moist. {.%) Density (pcf) GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: 2°E TREND: EW HATF 12/IO/.:'4 Psn.iFrT. Hijnt innton/Pa lomar GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DRILL HOLE NO. _JJ__ SHEET _i__OF L DRILLING Co__klLill. HOLE DIAMETER—1^1 PROJECT NO. 484i363-o? TYPE OF RiG-t!2i!£U5— ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE DRIVE WEIGHT O-?/'. 37nnv28'-55'. 2600<'/56'-80', 1400.* REF. OR DATUM Mean Sea Level DROP 12 IN. X o Q. O QC 3 I— a. < Ul o 2 o ou_ _; cu cc IXJ •Q_ z u. LU u a a. >-ai • ca in LU - O L_J CO CO - -J - -JOO OID OT—• GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY _ SAMPLED BY SJ/HO HQ 5 — 10— 15 — 20 , 25 _ 30' C:r..;dda- tiorial XB:N42''E. I3'ri;j 19°.NW B:N70°W. 7''SW C:N25"W. 8"-:w (D TOPSOIL: SC 111.0 112.7 Medium brown, dry to damp, loose to medium dense, clayey fine sand. SANTIAGO FORMATION: SM Li.qht brownish gray, damp, medium dense, silty fine sand; abundant infilling of fractures 1/16"-1/S", random^ discontinuous, massive, moderately cementec!. 0 7' Staining along bedding, generally horizontal. 8.7 12.0 ML 0 11.5'-16' Continuous infilled fracture. 0 16' Oxidation along bedding, discontinuous, dipping 2°-3'' NW. P 21' Staining along bedding. 0 21.5' Cross-bedding, becomes fine- to medium- grained sand. P 28' Staining on bedding. Gray to light brownish gray, damp to moist, very stiff, silt to very fine sand; massive, some iron oxide staining. .^"'.SA(ll/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES DATF 12/10/84 PRQJFCT Huntinqton/Palomar GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DRILL HOLE NO. B-I DRILLING CO. Larive HOLE DIAMETER—^fil. SHEET _i__0F PROJECT NO. 4841363-02 TYPE OF RIG ^'"dei 45 ELEVATION TOP OF HoLE-l^aii DRIVE WEIGHT O-27', 37OO#/28'-55', 2600iy/56'-80', i4oo# REF. OR DATUM Mean Sea Level DROP 12 IN, UJ I cc to UJ Q 3 ca LU I— Q- < CO CO o 2 O OLl_ _I pa a: LU t- UJ o Q a. >• cc (=5 LU (O LU o sz o C_) co-co -ICO 0=3 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY _ SAMPLED BY SJ/HO HO 30 F:N35°W, vertical 35 40 — 45 50 — F:N70°E, 82''S B:Undu- latory F:N80°W, vertical N82°W, N30°W, N52°W, vertical C:Hori zontal FrNg-W, 47''ME N70°W, ez-sw 14 119.0 15.1 ML/SM 115.2 16.5 55 — 60 -f 0-0 CS:N8°W, 14°SW CD CL F:N86"'E, vertical 105.4 23.7 CH SANTIAGO FORMATION: (continued) Gray to light brownish gray, damp, medium dense, silt to very fine sand. @ 30.5' Becomes silty fine sand. @ 31' Oxidation along bedding, dipping 2°-3''SW. @ 33' Infilled fracture +2' long. @ 36' Local dark brown mottling, 6"-8" across, west side of hole. @ 38' Becomes moist. @ 38.5' Iron staining along bedding, undulating with 4" relief, near horizontal, dipping slightly NE 2''-3"'. 0 40.5' Infilled fracture. 0 44' Highly fractured zone, some slightly filled with clay, some iron stained. Gray to blue-gray, damp, very stiff to hard, silty clay; abundant iron oxide staining. 0 47'-51' Continuous fracture, several subparallel fractures. 0 51' Gray, moist, stiff, clay seam; remolded, ±1" thick. Below clay seam becomes very hard, no staining. 0 55.5'-58' Fracture, nearly continuous, surfaces polished. 0 58' Zone of calcium carbonate nodules, discon- tinuous, slightly softer +1.5" above. 0 59.5' Becomes sparsely fossiliferous to 75'. .inSA(ll/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES DATF 12/10/84 PRO.lFr.T Huntington/Palomar GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DRILL HOLE NO. B-I DRILLING CO. larive HOLE DIAMETER- SHFFT 3 OF 3 PROJECT NO. 484i363-02 TYPE OF RiG-MiI.45_ 30" DRIVE WEIGHT O-27'. 3700iii/28'-55'. 2600#/56'-80'. i4oo# ORQP IL ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE REF. OR DATUM Mean sea Level IN. o Hi 1- LU a. UJ Q. O ca Ll_ <—1 a: W E cq LU =3 _l I— D. s: < C/5 CO O 3 O CDU_ . _l CQ CH LU >• LU U ca o->-o: ca LU i- z to LU ; o to^ to - <cri _l - _ICO LOGGED BY . SAMPLED BY GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION SJ/HO ^HO 60- 65 — 70 75 S: approx, NS to N45''W, 2-4°!^/ SW S: approx. NS to N45°E, 2-4°!^/ NW 40/li-ne.5 16.7 CL I N/A 109.8 20.0 SANTIAGO FORMATION: (continued) Gray to blue-gray, damp, very stiff to hard, silty clay. 0 65' Zone of calcium carbonate nodules ±1' thick, discontinuous around hole. 0 68' Softer zone, 1/4" wide, dipping 2°-4"' W/SW, shearing across bedding. Small calcium carbonate nodules along bedding feature. 0 72' Feature similar to that at 68', dipping 2''-4° W/NW. Total Depth = 75' Geologically logged to 73' Seepage at 40" 80 _ 505A(ll/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES DATF 12/10/84 Ppn.iFPT Huntington/Palomar GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DRILL HOLE NO. B-2 DRILLING Co_kiIi^ HOLE DIAMETER- SHEET_J OF ^ PROJECT NO. ^841363-02 TYPE OF RIG 30" ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE- REF. OR DATUM Mean sea Level DRIVE WEIGHT O-27'. 3700^/28'-SS'. 260o#/56'-80'. uooi? DRQP " 12" IN, a. o a: IS) to LU Q 3 oq LU 3 _i I— D- < co o s o ou_ _i ca cc LU DL. LU LJ ca o. > cc ca to LU — H o z £Z O t_) to^ to -«-ri -loo oz 00^ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY _ SAMPLED BY HO 5 — 10 — C:Grada tional C: Grada- tional F:N60°E. vertical C: Hori- zontal FiNlB-E, vertical F:N48°E. vertical F:N75°W, vertical F:N75°E. vertical Nes-w, 18°.SW NIO-W. 47°NE 15 — 20 — 25 — B:E-W, 25°N B: Hori- zontal 1 Hori- zontal Undu- lating N7°W. i/ertical 30 0 TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM: CL/CH Medium to dark brown, damp to moist, stiff, sandy clav: abundant roots and rootlets. CL ML CL I 121.0 13.8 ML I 118.8 6.7 CL SANTIAGO FORMATION: Olive to green-gray, damp to moist, very stiff, silty clay; blocky, very fractured in random directions. Light greenish-gray, damp to moist, medium dense, silty fine sand; massive, moderately cemented. 0 4' Becomes qravish white to white. 0 5' Fracture infilled with dark minerals. Pink color in sand +2" above contact. Olive, damp to moist, stiff, silty clay; randomly oriented, parting, polished surfaces. Contact dip- ping 2°-4°NW. Highly fractured, very well develop- ed fractures with small amount of clay infilling. 0 8' Becomes highly fractured, all surfaces polished, one moderately well developed fracture, all else are parting surfaces very well developed, large, purple stained. Light gray, damp, medium dense, silty fine sand. 0 12.5'-14.5' Becomes friable. / 0 17' Dark mineral concentration along bedding, discontinuous, dipping 8°N. Becomes fine- to medium-grained sand. 0 20' Faint bedding, coarse-grained layer, stained, with small clay grains. 0 22' Clay rip-ups, 2" diameter, staining along bedding, some dark minerals along bedding. 0 22.5' Becomes fine-grained sand. 0 23' Dark mineral concentration, discontinuous, west side of hole, dipping 26°W. Green, damp to moist, very stiff to hard, clay; iron oxide staining along contact. SOSA(ll/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES DflTF 12/10/84 PRQJFCT Huntington/Palomar GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DRILL HOLE NO. B-2 DRILLING CO. Larive HOLE DIAMETER SHFFT 2 OF 2 PROJECT NO. 484i363-02 TYPE OF RiG-Mii_45_ DRIVE WEIGHT O-27'. 37oo#/28'-55'. 2600#/56'-80'. i40o^ DROP IL ELEVATION TOP OF HoLE-lZil± REF. OR DATUM Mean sea Level IN, CL LU I ca ' X IS Q- O CC iS3 LU Q ZD UJ ca UJ t— OL < CO to o X o OLJ-_l PQ CC LU o_ LU <_) ca Q. > cc ca B-5 LU a: t- z to LU — H o z ZZ O t_> to. to <co _l -<_><_> -ICO GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY _ SAMPLED BY HO .HO 30- 35 — 12 122.3 6.7 CL SANTIAGO FORMATION: (continued) >r Green, damp to moist, very stiff to hard, clay. Total Depth = 31,5' Geologically logged to 30' No ground water encountered at time of drilling .';05A(ll/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES DflTF 12/11/84 PRfi.lFr.T Huntington/Palomar GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DRILL HOLE NO; B-3 DRILLING CO, "-arive HOLE DIAMETER—521 SHEETJ 0F__i_ PROJECT NO. ^B^"63-02 TYPE OF RrG-MiL£5— ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 19S' DRIVE WEIGHT 0-27', 37oo#/28'-55', 2600#/56'-80', 1400# Q^op REF. OR DATUM Mean Sea Level 12 IN. X h-o. LU ca X 13 CL o cc cs to LU o 3 <3: CQ UJ :=> _i I— D. < CO CO o 3: o OU-_l PQ CC LU CL. ITY LU CO - CO z u_ cc •> <oo CO z u_ 3 1-_J - LU U ca Q- ^- z CO LU -loo 0 z >• sz 0 0=) ca t_3 GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY _ SAMPLED BY SJ/HO _H0 -r^y 5 — 10 — it 15 C: Grada- tional :Grada- tional F:N46''E. vertical E-W. 34°S CS:N12°E, 30°NW N2"'E, ifertical F:N49°W, i^ertical F:N16°E, (vertical N4''E, i/ertical :N22''E. vertical 3:approx E-W,35 40° S TOPSOIL: CL Medium brown, damp to moist, stiff sandy clay; abundant rootlets in upper 6". CL CL I 119.3 20 I 8/10" 122.2 25 _ 30 F:N66''E, SS'NW F:N76''E, near ver- tical CH 13.9 SC 14.0 ML COLLUVIUM: i Medium to olive-brown, damp to moist, stiff, sandy clay; scattered rootlets. SANTIAGO FORMATION: Medium red-brown, damp to moist, stiff, clay; mottled appearance. 0 5' becomes blocky, fractures randomly oriented, l/2"-2" blocks, parting surfaces, waxy appearance. 0 6.5' Fractures with rootlets. 0 8.5' Clay seam, ±l/4"-l/2" thick, green, moist, medium stiff, clay; red staining ±6" above, 4" below slightly remolded, nearly continuous. 0 9' Becomes sandy. 0 12' Becomes silty. 0 14.5' Some shearing along bedding. Gray, damp to moist, medium dense, fine sand. 0 16'-17.5' Continuous parallel banding, gray-brown, dipping 37°S. 0 18' Dark mineral concentration along bedding, dipping westerly. 0 20' Iron oxide staining along bedding, 1°-2''NW. 0 23' Abundant staining. 0 25'-28' Fracture, very well developed off-set sand against very fine sandy silt, below fracture highly stained. 0 28' Remolded clay seam, ±l/16"-l/4" thick, brown, moist, medium stiff, clay. Below fracture: Gray, damp to moist, medium stiff, very fine sandy silt; highly stained. .';oSA(ll/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES DATE. 12/10/84 PpoJErT Huntington/Palomar GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DRILL HOLE No. ^'^ DRILLING CO^ ti!2!^£- SHEET OF PROJECT NO. 484i363-02 TYPE OF RIG HOLE DIAMETER 22! DRIVE WEIGHT O-27'. 3700iif/28'-55', 26oo#/56'-80', i400# ppQp ^ i2_ IN , ELEVATION TOP OF HoLE-i^ REF. OR DATUM Mean sea Level X I-X ID a. O cc tJD a I- LU ca LU =) _l I— a. s: < CO CO o 2 o OLl- • _l CQ CC LU >- UJ o ca a. >-cc ca 6-« UJ cc •> =J t- h- Z to LU — I-o z O CJ to^ to - _J - -ICO o::3 CO— GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY _ SAMPLED BY SJ/HO HO 30" 15 119.0 14.7 ML SANTIAGO FORMATION: (continued) ;N85°E, 50°S 35- 40- 45 — 50 — SC I CS:N60''W, 49°SW 16 103.0 7.4 CH 5 B 8 112.8 8.2 Gray, damp to moist, medium stiff, very fine sandy silt; highly stained. Brown to gray, damp to moist, medium dense, fine sand massive, iron oxide staining. 0 33' Becomes reddish yellow. 0 36' Becomes pink and reddish yellow. 0 40' Dark mineral swirls. 0 47'-52' Clay seams, slightly remolded, l/16"-l/4" thick. 55 — Total Depth = 53' Geologically logged to 52' No ground water encountered at time of drilling .=;osA(ll/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I ll I DATE I2/I3/B4 pRn.iFfT Huntinoton/Palomar GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DRILL HOLE Nd. B-4 SHFFT 1 OF 2 DRILLING CO.—Larive HOLE DIAMETER—2Q1. PROJECT NO. 4841363-O2 TYPE OF RIG ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE—^72'± DRIVE WEIGHT 0-27'. 3700#/28'-55'. 2600ii'/56'-80'. i4oo# ORQP REF. OR DATUM —Mean sea Level 12 IN, X 13 CL O <_l cc to W E to Ul a LU CQ UJ 3 -I t— O. s: < CO t-to o 3 O OU--I ca cc LU lU (J ca >-cc ca 6^ LU CC V 3 l-(- Z to LU — l-O zz o t_> CO. CO -<oo -I -t_>c_> -JCO o: CO—' GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY _ SAMPLED BY HO HO C:Grada tional 0. F:N30"'E, 69''SE 10 _ N40°W. vertical F:20°W, near ver- tical 15 — ":N4''W, 85»SW 20 — 25 — 30 F:E-w, vertical -:N40°E. i/ertical I 125.0 12.2 I 122.2 13.7 CL CL ML ML TOPSOIL: i Oark to medium brown, dry to damp, medium stiff, silty clay; some rootlets, calcium carbonate blebs. SANTIAGO FORMATION: Olive-brown to medium red-brown, damp to moist, stiff silty clay; completely mixed with calcium carbonate, highly fractured, crumbly to blocky, blocks l/2"-2". 0 6' Loose calcium carbonate. 0 7' Becomes stiffer, less crumbly. @ 9' Fracture, very well developed with several subparallel fractures, becomes siltier. Becomes medium red-brown and gray, damp, very dense, very fine sandy silt; massive, some iron oxide staining. Light brown to light gray, damp, medium dense, silty fine sand. 0 13' Manganese stained fracture. 0 15' Heavy pink and iron oxide mottling, no apparent bedding. 0 18.5' Becomes siltier, harder. 0 21' Manganese stained fracture. 0 24' Becomes medium-grained sand. 0 25'-26' Completely stained layer, golden color, bottom dip 2°-3° to W. .'iOSA(ll/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES DATE izmm PRO.lFrT Huntington/Palomar DRILLING CO. GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DRILL HOLE NO. B-4 Larive HOLE DIAMETER— SHFFT 2 OF 2 PROJECT NO. ^84i363-o2 TYPE OF RIG ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE 1^^'- REF. OR DATUM Mean sea Level DRIVE WEIGHT °-^7', 3700#/28'-55', 26oo#/56'-80', i40o# ^^^^ i-2 IN, X I- LU ca u I t3 Q. o <—J cc CO W E to UJ Q UJ CQ LU 3 -I h- O. s: < CO 1-co o jSITY UJ cc <• 2 O jSITY 3 1-OU-_J CQ DC lU o ca QL 1- Z to LU — h- LU O 2 zz o C_) Q_ >-cc ca O 2 zz o C_) CO. CO <oo -I -t_>t_} -JCO CO- LOGGED BY . SAMPLED BY GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION HO HO 30-I 11 118.1 10.5 SANTIAGO FORMATION: (continued) ML Light brown to light gray, damp, medium dense, silty fine sand. 35 — Total Depth = 33.5' Geologically logged to 33' No ground water encountered at time of drilling 50SA(ll/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES DATF 12/12/84 PROJFrT Huntinqton/Palomar GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG DRILL HOLE NO. B-5'~ SHEET_J-_OF L DRILLING CO. Larive HOLE DIAMETER—22!L PROJECT NO. ^841363-O2 TYPE OF RIG ELEVATION TOP OF HoLE-Hili DRIVE WEIGHT 3700)ii to 28'/26oo# to 55' REF. OR DATUM Mean Sea Level DROP 12 X t UJ LJJ ca X 13 a. o cc cs CO LU Q O z: UJ m LU I— Q. < CO o 2 O OU--J CQ OC UJ to z u- lU (J ca a. > cc ca LU OC -31- h- Z CO LU — h-o z o <_J CO. CO <oo _J • t_i<_) -ICO o= C/O^ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY . SAMPLED BY RLW HO/RLW 5 — 10 — C:Undu lating 8:N61''E, 34°SE C:N70°E, S'SE B:N38°E, IS^SE B:N81°E, 29''SE C:N29°E, IS-SE Ne'E, 86<'SE 8:N76°W, 22°SW 3:N29°E, 21''SE 15 — 3:N44"'E, ig'SE 20 25 — 6 . . 30 , © CL SM ML SM I 108.9 20.7 I 113.0 16.0 TOPSOIL: Mottled brown, gray and yellowish brown, damp, medium stiff, fine sandy clay; abundant rootlets, desicca- ted cracks with openings to 1/2" SANTIAGO FORMATION: Yellow-brown to gray mottled golden brown, damp to moist, silty fine sand; some calcium carbonate nodules, minor root development, scattered gypsum crystallization, minor manganese staining. Gray mottled golden brown, moist, stiff, fine sandy silt; gypsum crystallization developing along con- tact with underlying silty sand unit. Gray to light brown.mottled light golden brown, moist, medium dense, very silty fine sand; iron oxide stained joints, gypsum frequently developed along bedding surfaces, minor randomly oriented iron oxide stained closed structures. 0 13.5' Becomes more massive with less frequent bedding surfaces. 0 22.8' 6" diameter concretionary nodule. 0 25' 8" diameter concretionary nodule. 0 26' 2" diameter pod of uncemented calcium carbonate. 0 27' Discontinuous +1' thick concretionary nodule zone. .iOSA(il/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES DATF 12/13/84 PROJFr.T Huntinoton/Palomar GEOTECHNKAL BORING LOG DRILL HOLE NO. • B-5 SHEET_2 OF 2_ DRILLING CO. Larive HOLE DIAMETER—30" PROJECT NO. 484i363-02 TYPE OF RIG DRIVE WEIGHT 37001? to 28'/26oo# to 55' ELEVATION TOP OF HOLE. ii'6'± REF. OR DATUM Mean sea Level DROP -J2-IN, X o Q. O CC cs UJ Q UJ CQ UJ Z) -I I— OL < CO >-CO o 3: o OU-_l OQ OC LU D_ CO z IxJ U ca a. >-cc ca LU cc » =3 H H z CO LU >- t-o z zz o t_> CO CO <C/0 -loo 0=3 OOw GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION LOGGED BY _ SAMPLED BY RLW HO/RLW 30- 14 113.3 16.7 SANTIAGO FORMATION: (continued) 35 _ CS:N28''E. 5°NW 40 _ ::Grada- tional 45 50 — SM CL Gray to light brown mottled light golden brown, moist, medium dense, very silty fine sand. 0 33' 0.7' thick layer of wet soil, appears to be perched on underlaying clay seam. 0 33.7' ±1" thick silty clay seam, laminated. 0 36.2' 4" diameter concretionary nodule. 16 115.0 16.7 SM 0 40' 4" diameter concretionary nodule. Light brown to gray mottled light golden brown, dense, wet, silty sand; massive, no apparent bed- ding surfaces. • 20/9" 122.3 7.1 0 47.2' Continuous r-1.5' thick concretionary nodule zone. 55 Total Depth =53' Geologically logged to 51' Ground water seepage at 37.5' No caving 60 SOSAC11/77) LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES Date 12/12/84 Proj ect Huntinqton/Palomar GEOTECHNIGAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. B-6 Sheet 1 of 1 • Job No, 4R41363-02 Drilling Co. Morrison Hole Diameter 6" Drive Weight Jype of Rig B-53 HoUow Stem Auger 30 140 lbs. Drop in. Elevation Top of Hole 106'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level u I in 4) 3 •H +J < O to (0 O * O o u. rH ca u 4) Ol Q Ol Q 3 +J V) 4) •H +J (A W rt u u . r-l C/J •H O 3 00 Logged by Sampled by GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION RLW RLW 5- 1-C- 15 20. 25 - 30 ALLUVIUM: SM SC (Dil 28 99.2 16.5 SM/ SC I 21 19 105.2 13.9 (D SM I 31 19 41 41 3is.ti rbed 5 I 79 99.7 17.0 Medium brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine sand; scattered gravel size sandstone clasts. Dark brown, moist, medium dense, clayey fine sand Medium brown, moist, medium dense, silty to clayey sand. Light brown, wet, dense, slightly silty Light gray-brown, moist, medium dense, silty sand. @ 16' Gravel-size clasts, 1.5' thick. SANTIAGO FORMATION: SM 104.5 7.1 Light golden brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty fine-grained sand. Total Depth =30' No ground wate^ encountered at time nf . drilling Backfilled 12/12/84 Date 12/12/84 Project Huntington/Palomar GEOTECHNIGAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. B-7 Job No, Sheet 1 of 1 4841363-02 Drilling Co. Morrison Hole Diameter 6" Drive Weight Type of Rig B-53 Hollow Stem Auger 30 140 lbs Drop in. Elevation Top of Hole 95'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level 4-> 4-> Q< o rt M3 u I VI 4> 3 3 -I H a. CO in o > o o u. CO u 4) a, +J •H in C <« 4) O a o. u a 4) VI • 3 4J +J C W 4) i g in ^ w • rt W3 r-( • u u rH C/1 •H • O 3 Logged by Sampled by GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION RLW . RLW 5 - 10 — 15 20 - 25 30 ALLUVIUM: SM ®l| 24 IN/A (D I 31 36 I 41 28 51 30 94.8 12.8 96.6 9.7 ML 100.7 11.5 Medium brown, damp to moist, medium dense, clayey silty.sand Gray-brown, damp, very stiff, fine sandy silt. 91.5 10.9 SM SM SANTIAGO FORMATION: Medium brown, damp, medium dense, 93.4 9.8 siltv sand: slightly vfe^tMred^ Light golden brown, damp, medium dense silty sand. Total Depth =25' No ground water encountered at time of drilling No caving Backfilled 12/12/84 Date 1P/12/R4 Proj ect Huntington/Palomar GEOTECHNIGAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. B-8 Sheet 1 of 1 ^ Job No. . 4841363-02 Drilling Co. Morrison Type of Rig B-53 Hollow Stem Auger 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Hole Diameter 6" Drive Weight Elevation Top of Hole 78'+ Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level ft, 4) O 4) u cu o rt >J u o I in 4) 3 +J •H +J < O z 4> Ji 4> 3 -H 4-) M O » O o u. rH CQ U 4) 0) u u a 4-) (A tn in • rt w rH • u u rH C/3 •H • O 3 tn ^ GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged by RLW Sampled by RLW 5- 10- 15 - 20- 25- 30 ALLUVIUM: SM GL/ SC 0 I 1 I 14 108.E 19.1 I 32 Dist irbed SW/ SM si 19 Disturbed 0 SM I 4 19 106;7 18.5 Light brown, moist, sand. medium dense, silty Very dark brown, very moist, stiff, fine sandy clay to loose, clayey fine sand. @ 9' Becomes clayey sand. @ 9'-10' Lense of gravel-siize clasts to 1" in diameter. Light brown, damp, medium dense, slightly silty sand. @ 16' Becomes wet. Brown, wet, loose, silty sand. SM I 70 110.8 17.4 SANTIAGO FORMATION: Light brown to brown, wet to saturated, dense, silty sand. Total Depth =30' Ground water measured 12/13/84 7:30 a.m. at a depth of 18' No caving i Backfilled 12/12/84 Date 12/13/84 Proj ect Huntington/Palomar GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. B-9 Job No, Sheet 1 of 1 4841363-02 Dri11ing Co. Morrison Hole Diameter 6" Drive Weight Jype of Rig B-53 Hollow Stem Auger 30 140 lbs. Drop in. Elevation Top of Hole 104'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level ft< 4> 4> 0) 2 U. ^3 u C5 I tn 4> 3 •ri o z 4) Xi 4> 3 rH 4-> tn o » o o u. ca •H tn C «« 4) U a o. a 4) tn 4) •H 4J s § u in in rt V) rH • u u rH CO •H O 3 to Logged by Sampled by RLW GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION RLW 5- 10- 15- 20- 25- ALLUVIUM: SM Medium brown, moist, medium dense to dense, clayey silty sand. I 21 I 30 26 97:£ 5.5 SANTIAGO FORMATION: SM Light brown to medium brown, medium dense, silty sand. moist. 102.e 25.0 104.3 15.5 @ 17' Becomes wet. @ 19' Becomes slightly silty sand. Total Depth =21' No ground water encountered at time of drilling No caving Backfilled on 12/13/84 Date 12/13/84 Proj ect Huntington/Palomar GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. B-10 Sheet 1 of 1 Job No, 4841343-02 Drilling Co. Morrison Hole Diameter 6" Drive Weight Jype of Rig B-53 Hollow Stem Auger 30 140 lbs. Drop m. Elevation Top of Hole 108'± Ref. or Datum ^ean Sea Level JS (X, O 4) 4> u •H J: ao iH C3 I in 4> •d 3 •H +J 4-1 < O z 4> pO 4) 3 *-i CO tn o * o o u. rH ca u 4) a. •H in C <« u u a (X >» vi a 4> b • 3 4J tn 4> •H +J i § tn m rt CO rH • U U • rH to •H O 3 CO Logged by Sampled by GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION RLW RLW 5 - 10- 15 - 20 - 25 - 30 • • * I 28 I 2 I 27 3 I 23 I 24 ALLUVIUM: SC SM 102.7 9.2 117.8 12.2 102.3 9.3 106 2 16.0 SM/ SC Dark brown, moist, medium dense, clayey sand. Light brown to brown, nioist, medium dense, silty sand; slightly clayey, cal cium carbonate stringers. Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty to clayey sand. @ 10'-11' Tighter drilling. SANTIAGO FORMATION: SM Light brown, damp to moist, medium dense, silty sand. @ ±20' Becomes very moist Total Depth = 26' No ground water encountered at time of drilling No caving Backfilled 12/13/84 I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I 1 I I I Date,,, 1P/1.V84 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. B-ll Sheet 1 of 1 Project Huntington/Palomar Job No, 4841363-02 Drilling Co. Morrison Hole Diameter 6" Elevation Top of Hole _Drive Weight 120'± Type of Rig B-53 Hollow Stem Auger 30 140 lbs. JDrop in. Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level JS +j +j PL, 4) O 4) 5- 10' 15 20 u I in 4) 3 u •H 4-> +J < O Ji 4) 3 -t CO ® - tn ,o s o O Ch rH ca u 4> a, 1 I 13 +j •H tn C MH 4) U O ft, u 94.C I 20 3 liL 111.7 98.9 4} +J c in 4) •H +J 5 § 11.6 10.9 13.9 in in rt CO rH • U U • rH CO •H 0 O 3 CO SC SM SM Logged by Sampled by RLW GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION RLW ALLUVIUM: Dark brown, moist, loose, silty clayey sand. . . Dark brown to brown, moist, loose, silty sand; slightly clayey. SANTIAGO FORMATION: Light brown, moist, sand. medium dense, silty Total Depth =15' No ground water encountered at time of drilling No caving Backfilled 12/13/84 Date 12/13/84 Project Huntington/Palomar GEOTECHNIGAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. B-12 Sheet 1 of 1 Job No, 4841363-02 Drilling Co. Morrison Hole Diameter 6" Drive Weight Type of Rig B-53 Hollow Stem Auger 30 140 lbs Drop m. Elevation Top of Hole 125'± Ref, or Datum Mean Sea Level Ji 4-> 4) (U 4) Q U. O •H Ji bo u CJ5 I in 4) 3 •H o z 4) ^ 4) 3 to 4-> in o » o o u. CQ 4-> •H tn C MH 4) U Q 0< U a tn 4> •H +J I g tn in rt CO rH • u u rH to •H O 3 CO GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION Logged by RLW Sampled by RLW 5 - 10' 15 20 - 0 I 1 I 14 I 24 17 ALLUVIUM: SM 102.9 8.3 Dark brown to brown, moist, loose, silty sand; slightly clayey. @ 4' Becomes dense silty sand. 110.0 96.3 SANTIAGO FORMATION: 11.7 SM 11.6 Light brown, moist, loose to medium dense silty sand. Total Depth =15' . No ground water encountered a time of drilling No caving Backfilled 12/13/84 Date November 13, 1990 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. B-13 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Huntington/Carlsbad Project No. 8841363-04 Drilling Co. Hole Diameter GeoDrill 8 in. Drive Weight • Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole 169'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level 01 CL O i. to m Cl 3 •r— 4-> XI 0) 3 r— E 4J 5^ ca •I— tn-c «f-0) u a Q. i. 3 4J +J C Vt <U •r- 4J O C s: o o in tn Id in •f—. t/) Logged by Sampled by GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPIION JB JB 5- 10. 15- 20- 25- 30. G) H 1 123 I 2 118 3 131 4 I 23 124 SM 113,4 12.0 114.4 11.6 110.7 16.0 112.8 14.2 ML 111.8 15.4 SC ARTIFICIAL FILL: Light brown, damp, medium dense, fine- to medium-grained sand @ 5' Light brown-gray to gray, moist, medium dense, silty, fine- to medium- grained sand @ 10' Same as above @ 15' Brown-gray to off-white, very moist, medium dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained saind; trace of clayey silt @ 20' Light brown to gray, moist, medium dense, very silty, fine- to medium-grained sand; contains small chunks of clayey silt- ;stone;, moderate organic odor present (9 25' Medium gray-brown, moist, medium dense, clayey, fine- to medium- grained sand; strong organic odor present Leighton and Associates, Inc. Date November 13, 1990 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. B-13 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Huntington/Carlsbad Project No. 8841363-04 Drilling Co. Hole Diameter GeoDrill 8 in. Drive Weight Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole 169'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level (U sz cn o. o I- . cs tn tu 3 4-> lU 3 r— \- Q. E R3 in c M-(U u O CL t- 3 CO (U •I- +J o c s: o o Logged by Sampled by GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPIION JB JB 30' 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60. 35/ 50 for 120.6 2" 17.4 ML SANTIAGO FORMATION: Medium brown to gray-brown, moist, sandy siltstone; moderately well- indurated hard, Total Depth = 31 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled 11-13-90 Leighton and Associates, Inc. Date November 13, 1990 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. B-14 Sheet 1 of 2 Project Huntington/Carlsbad Project No. 8841363-04 Drilling Co. GeoDri11 Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole 164'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level 0} JZ cn o. o i- CD -a 4-> < a> .a (u 3 I— 4J tn« o 0) u 3 4-> in a> •r- +J o c in in 10 u Ui Logged by Sampled by GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPIION JB JB 5- 10- 15- '.•./.'/..•rrr 20 —;-Vv.;,?r! 25- 30. SM I 26 115.1 13.6 I 18 111.8 12.7 3 138 116.9 14.2 I 28 118.1 14.1 SC. |32 112.2 15.2 ARTIFICIAL FILL: Dark brown, damp to moist, medium dense, fine- to medium-grained sand @ 5' Dark brown-gray to light brown- gray, moist, medium dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand @ 10' Light gray, moist, medium dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand @ 15' As above; increase in density @ 20' Mediurn brown-gray, moist, mediurn dense, clayey, fine- to medium- grained sand; organic odor detectable @ 25' Dark to light gray, moist, medium dense, clayey, fine- to medium- grained sand; micaceous; organic odor detectable Leighton and Associates, Inc. Date November 13, 1990 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG brill Hole No. P-14 Sheet 2 of 2 Project Hunti ngton/Carlsbad Project No. 8841363-04 Drilling Co. Hole Diameter GeoDrill 8 in. Drive Weight Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole 164'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level Q.<U JS Oi a. o la _i L. C9 m •o 3 OJ .a <u 3 I— t- a. E KS Ui •n ca •r-in.-c t»-<u u a o. 0) L. 3 4J +J C V) O) •I- 4-» O C s: o C_> in o •r- . O, I/) Logged by Sampled by GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPIION JB JB 30' 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60. 6 128 118.8 11.7 SC ® I 27 113.9 15.8 CL- ML J 8 188 121.4 5.3 SP- SM ARTIFICIAL FILL - (Continued): @ 30' Dark brown-gray, moist, medium dense, clayey, fine- to medium- grained sand; strong organic odor @ 35' Brown, and light brown, moist, very stiff, sandy clay to sandy silt SANTIAGO FORMATION: @ 40' Saindstone: pink-gray to off-white damp, dense, slightly silty, fine to medium-grained sandstone; massive; homogeneous Total Depth = 41 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled 11-13-90 Leighton and Associates, Inc. Date November 13, 1990 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. B-15 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Huntington/Carlsbad Project No. 8841363-04 Orllling Co. GeoDrill Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger Hole Diameter 8 in. Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole i8Q'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level JC cn Q. o £ CO in 0) TJ < O z Oi .a o) 3 I— h- a. B 10 Ui o CO C H- ca a. v u 3 in a> •r- +J o c s o o in tn lO CO o = cn ^ Logged by Sampled by GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPlION JB JB 5- 10- 15- 20. 25- 30 SM 114.3 10.9 I 44 102.3 24.61 SM-ML I 39 122.0 10.5 4 I 26 107.5 4.9 111.2 18.0 SM SP- SM ML ARTIFICIAL FILL; Medium brown, damp to slightly moist, medium stiff, silty, fine- to medium- grained sand @ 5' Brown-gray, moist, medium dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand @ 10' Olive and brown-gray, very moist, medium dense, fine, sandy, clayey silt to silty, fine- to medium- grained sand @ 15' Gray to tan, moist, medium dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand with trace of silty clay nr ARTIFICIAL FILL (?): @ 20' Light gray, dajnp, medium dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand; homogeneous SANTIAGO FORMATION: Medium gray, moist, very stiff, clayey siltstone @ 25' Olive-gray, moist, hard, clayey siltstone; trace of fine-grained sand present; moderately well Indurated Total Depth = 26 Feet No Ground Water Encountered H<}m])^4 11-13-90 Leighton and Associates, Inc. Date November 13, 1990 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. B-16 Sheet of Project Huntington/Carlsbad Project No. 8841363-04 Drilling Co. _ Hole Diameter GgpDrlll 8 in. Drive Weight Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole 105'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level -c cn o. o s- CD in •o 3 4-> •r" < OJ Xi 0) 3 r-H- Q. E •0 to 4-> Q. •r- in^ c <u u o Q. o t. 3 +J •P C in <u •r-O C at O o to r— •r- , to GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPIION Logged by Sampled by JB JB 5- •'• 10- 15- 20- 25- 30 SC K UNDOCUMENTED FILL (?): Gray-brown, damp, medium dense, clayey, fine- to medium-grained sand 150 118.8 6.3 D. I 37 117.4 8.7 SM @ 5' Gray-brown, slightly moist, medium dense, clayey, fine- to medium- grained sand; contains scattered gravels @ 10' Light gray-brown, slightly moist, medium dense, silty, fine- to medium- grained sand 98.5 8.3 SC 27 106.9 10.3 SM 24/ 50 -£2J 112.0 3" 8.1 SP SM FILL/ALLUVIUM (?): @ 15' Brown-gray to gray-brown, slightly moist, medium dense, clayey, fine- grained sand ALLUVIUM 2or Light pink-gray to light tan-gray, moist, medium dense, silty, fine- grained sand SANTIAGO ~25^^ FORMATION: Off-white to light gray, damp slightly moist, dense to very dense, silty, fine- to medium- grained sandstone; homogeneous to Total Depth = 26 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled 11-13-90 Leighton and Associates. Ino. Date November 19, 1990 GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG Drill Hole No. B-17 Sheet 1 of 1 Project Huntington/Carlsbad Project No. 8841363-04 GeoDrill Drilling Co. Hole Diameter 8 in. Type of Rig Hollow Stem Auger Drive Weight 140 lbs. Drop 30 in. Elevation Top of Hole ii5'± Ref. or Datum Mean Sea Level Oi JS cn OL O lO -J t-C9 in tu 3 lU .a 0) 3 r- lO Ui S 5 CQ •r- S U o a. a 2! 3 4J tn OD •r- 4J O C z: o o in' in lO CO 5 = cn Logged by Sampled by GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPIION JB JB 5- 10- 15- 20. 25. 30- SM I 1 • 36 112.1 8.7 2 |24 108.5 10.2 SC 18 112.5 3.7 SP- SM 78 115.2 7.4 SP m ALLUVIUM; UNDOCUMENTED FILL (?): Light to medium brown-gray, damp to slightly moist, medium dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand (3 10' Light brown to gray-brown, slightly moist, medium dense, silty, fine- to medium-grained sand; trace of clay FILL/ALLUVIUM (?); @ 15' Light to medium gray-brown medium dense, clayey, fine medium-grained sand , moist, - to 020^ Light gray, damp, medium dense, slightly silty, fine- to medium- grained sand; homogeneous SANTIAGO FORMATION (?): @ 25' Sandstone; Off-white, damp to slightly moist, dense, slightly silty, fine- to medium-grained sand; homogeneous Total Depth = 26 Feet No Ground Water Encountered Backfilled 11-13-90 Leighton and Associates, Inc. cn o I . > Project Name: Huntlngton/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Logged By: Elevation: mL +39' TRENCH NO. T-1 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location: %pp GpntPrhnj^aUlap DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c CO h z. CO P3 S o ^ H- >—' r+ C H (0 1-% o O 3 Ml tn r+ tr-. rt-O 3 > in tn O o (0 tn C: Undulating ALLUVIUM (!) Medium to dark brown, moist, loose, silty sand; slightly clayey, abundant rootlets in top 2' SANTIAGO FORMATION ® Very light brown to light golden brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine to medium sand; @5' discon- tinuous lense of fine sandy silt TotaV Depth =7' No groOfid water encountered No caviiig Backfilled 1/15/85: Qal SM Ts SM GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 4 SURFACE SLOPE: Hor 1 z .TREND: N47°W Project Name: Huntinqton/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 BackhnP Logged By: Elevation; RLW ±90' TRENCH NO. T-2 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location: See Geotechnical Map DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c CO n CO CO o o W rt C H ^ o 'xi re o 3 Hi tn C:Undulating J:N78°W;65°NE B:N71°W,2°SW ALLUVIUM 0 Medium brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, silty fine to-medium sand; brush covered, abundant rootlets In top 1.5' SANTIAGO FORMATION Light to medium golden brown, mottled medium brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium grained sand; jointed, bedded surface is finely developed and generally dips to the SW 2«*-3'* Total Depth =5.1' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 Qal SM Ts SM GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION South Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' N42°E o o 11 H TO cn 2 n cc z o I fS5 cn o t—• I > -~4 r-a H-OQ 3* O 3 > in . in o o H- P9 rt (S tn Project Name: Project Number: Equipment: Huntinqton/Palomar 484136.1-0? JD-310 Backhoe Logged By: Elevation: ±26' TRENCH NO. T-3 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES C:Undulating Location:See Geotechnical Map DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: ALLUVIUM Q) Dark brown, very moist, medium dense to loosey silty fine to medium sand; roots and rootlets Very light gray-brown, very moist, loose to medium dense, silty fine sand; very friable, caving common in this unit, abundant roots and rootlets Q) Medium brown to brovi/n, very moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand; ground water seepage at a depth of 3' SANTIAGO FORMATION {3) Medium golden brown, very moist, medium dense, silty fine sand Total Depth =8.5' Ground water seepage at 3' Caving in top 1.6' Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' GEOLOGIC UNIT Qal Qal Qal Ts ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c CO o CO SM SM SM SM CO z g o xs re o c H re *T3 re o 3 Ml tn rt SURFACE SLOPE:Horiz.TREND: N53°W tr O a o TI H tn z n a: z o CO Project Name: Hunti ngton/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Logged By: Elevation: RLW ±106' TRENCH NO. T-4 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location: See Geotechnical Map DATE: 1/14/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES CAl o Cfl P z g O TS (—' re 2 o ^ H- e>\o in w rt C H re O re o 3 Ml in rt C:Undulating ALLUVIUM 0 Brown to dark brown, moist, medium dense, very clayey fine sand; abundant roots and rootlets throughout unit, very occasional gravel size clasts to 1" in diameter, clasts are generally subrounded SANTIAGO FORMATION (D Medium gray-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, clayey fine to medium sand; scattered rootlets, poorly developed bedding surfaces, randomly oriented calcium carbonate flecks, weathered Total Depth =7.0' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/14/85 Qal SC Ts SC GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = SURFACE SLOPE: TREND: N32°E tr o cn o H JO m z n a: z o i tn O I > Project Name: Project Number: Equipment: Huntinqton/Palomar 4841363-02 . JD-31Q BarkhnP Logged By: Elevation: RLW ±116' TRENCH NO. T-5 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location: See Geotechnical Map DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES cn p Z 3 O XS re o c H re XS re n 3 Mj tn ^ i-i- rt >-< tr" re % rt O 3 fin > (n tn O O te in C:Undulating ALLUVIUM 0 Dark to very dark, very moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand; clayey, abundant roots in top 2', very homogenous throughout @ Very light gray-brown to tan, moist, firm, very fine sandy silt Total Depth = 10' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 Qal Qal SM ML GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE SLOPE: 3:1 TREND: N69°E tr O CTJ O T] H ?3 m 2 n sc. § cn Project Name: Huntinoton/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Logged By: Elevation: ±128' TRENCH NO. • T-6 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location: See Geotechnical Map DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn fl cn z o cn p o ^ rt C re xs re O 3 M) Ui C:Undulating C:N-S. 8°W CS:N46°W,18''SW ALLUVIUM 0 Dark brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand; slightly clayey, rootlets to a depth of 1.5', con- tact with underlying Santiago Formation undulates but generally dips 25°-35° to the southwest SANTIAGO FORMATION (D Light tan-brown, moist, dense, silty fine sand; poorly developed bedding 0 Dark brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand; un- derlain by 2"-3" continuous medium brown, silty clay seam, clay seam is randomly fractured 0 Light gray-brown, moist, very dense, silty fine sand Total Depth =9' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 Qal SM Ts Ts Ts SM SM/CL SM GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE SLOPE: 3:1 TREND: N69°W o CD o i: H m z n a: z o I cn Project Name: Huntinoton/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 BackhnP Logged By: Elevation: RLW ±152' TRENCH NO. ^'j-/ GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location: SPP RpntPrlml^aUlap DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn o cn Z. CO P re 2 o in rt C H re ^ o XS re o 3 Ml in C:Undulating, Gradational COLLUVIUM , 0 Dark brown, very moist, loose to medium dense, clayey fine to medium sand; slightly silty, abundant roots and rootlets throughout, abundant amount of dessicated crack- ing with openings l/8"-l/2" wide SANTIAGO FORMATION 0 Medium golden brown, mottled red-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand; massive, ho apparent bedding surfaces, scattered randomly oriented closed fractures Total Depth =9.0' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 Qcol SC Ts SM GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall tr O cn o Tl :o m z CI z o I cn o I > Project Name: Huntinoton/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: Logged By: Elevation: RLW ±144' TRENCH NO. T-8 JD-310 Backhoe GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location: See GentechnlgaUlap DATE: 1/15/85. DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c=: cn n cn cn p I—-re o in ^ rt C W re ^ a X) re o 3 Ml in rt (D H-DQ =r rt O 3 > tn in O O H-P rt re tn C:Gradational C:N66''E,91°SW J:N9*'W,79°SW C:N15*E,21°NW COLLUVIUM 0 Medium to dark brown, very moist, medium dense, very clay- ey fine to medium sand; abundant roots and rootlets throughput, abundant amount of dessicated cracking with openings hairline.to 1/2" wide SANTIAGO FORMATION 0 Medium golden brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand; scattered randomly oriented clay in-filled fractures 0 Medium brown, damp to moist, stiff, silty clay; jointed, manganese oxide staining developed along majority of joint surfaces 0 Medium gray-brown, moist, very dense, very silty fine sand Total Depth =7.0' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 Qcol SC Ts Ts Ts SM CL SM GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE SLOPE: 3:1 TREND: N46°W tr-O tn o Tl H TO m z cn Z o I 00 cn o I > -~4 Project Name: Project Number: Equipment: Huntinqton/Palomar 4841363-02 JD-310 Backhoe Logged By: Elevation: RLW ±182' TRENCH NO, T-9 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location: See GentPrhnji^aUap DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn o cn Z cn P re 2 o o\= in ^ rt c ^^ re xi re o 3 Mj in •—> t-i. rt X re ^ rt O 3 aa > in in O O (-«• P rt re in C:Undulating C:N10°W,21°NE J:N48°W,54°SW J:N86'*E,75°NW TOPSOIL 0 Medium brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand; abundant roots and rootlets, minor dessicated cracking SANTIAGO FORMATION Topsoil SM 0 0 Very light gray-brown, damp, dense, silty fine to medium sand; scattered hairline clay in-filled fractures Medium gray-brown to medium brown, damp, very stiff, silty clay; jointed, manganese oxide developed on majority of joint surfaces Total Depth =6.0' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 Ts Ts SM CL GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE SLOPE: 3.5:1 TREND: N75°W tr O cn o Tl H » m z cn a: z o to cn o > I '—s Crt Project Name: Huntini;^tnn/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Logged By: Elevation: RLW ±140' TRENCH NO. ••••)• •T-10 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location:See Geotechnical Map DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn cn cn cn P o xs I—" re 2 o o\° tn ^ rt c ^i re X3 re O 3 Ml in C:Undulating re m 3* rt O : 3 aa > in tn O O H- P rt A tn ALLUVIUM 0 Dark brown, moist to very moist, dense, clayey fine to medium sand; slightly silty, abundant rootlets through- out SANTIAGO FORMATION 0 Light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand; abundant clayey sand filled fr.acture;'immediately below contact with overlaying alluvium, massive, ho apparent bedding Total Depth =5.0' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 Qal SC Ts SM GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE SLOPE:Hori Z .TREND: N87°W cn o •—' I > re «. r+ O 3 > tn in O O H-P rt O in Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Logged By; Elevation: RLW ±120' TRENCH NO. 'T-H Location: See Geotechnical Map GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES C:Undulating B:N36''W;22°SW C:N37°W; 16°SW DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: ALLUVIUM 0 Medium brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand; slightly clayey, abundant roots and rootlets thhough out, occasional shallow animal burrows SANTIAGO FORMATION 0 ' Medium to light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand; occasional iron oxide staining 0 Medium olive green, moist, stiff, silty clay; jointed, manganese oxide staining along joint surfaces, randomly oriented, poorly developed sheared surfaces, very occa- sional blebs of calcium carbonate Total depth = 8' No ground water encountered No caving; Backfilled 1/15/85 GEOLOGIC UNIT Qal Ts Ts ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn n cn SM SM CL z o cn p 2 o o\° tn w rt c H re ^ o xs re o 3 Ml tn rt GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION South Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' SURFACE SLOPE: Hor 1 z .TREND: N 3 7 ° W cn o I > re OQ 3* O 3 > in in O O H- P rt re tn Project Name: Huntinoton/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe RLW Logged By: Elevation:, Location: See Geotechnical Map ±146' TRENCH NO . 1^-12 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES C:Undulating DATE: 1/15/85 DESCRIPTION: ALLUVIUM 0 Dark brown, very moist, firm to moderately stiff, very sandy clay; abundant roots and rootlets in top 2' SANTIAGO FORMATION 0 Light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand; massive, no apparent bedding surfaces, scattered gravel size clasts at top of contact Total Depth =8' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 4' GEOLOGIC UNIT Qal Ts ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn tn cn CL SM 2. cn p SURFACE SLOPE If:1 TREND :N20°E 2 o /—\ H- o\° in ^ rt C re XS re o 3 Ml to rt O cn o Tl H ?3 m z cn a: z o tn o I > tr re r+ O 3 aa > in in O o H- P rt re in Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Logged By: Elevation: RLW ±118' TRENCH NO. 13 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES C:Gradational C;Undulating Location: See Geotechnical Map DATE: 1/15/85' DESCRIPTION: ALLUVIUM 0 Very dark brown, very moist to wet, firm, very sandy clay, abundant roots and rootlets in top 2' 0 Dark brown, very moist, medium dense, very clayey sand SANTIAGO FORMATION 0 Light gray-brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand; slightly weathered, containing scattered calcium carbonate flecks Total Depth = 12' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GEOLOGIC UNIT GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' Qal Qal Ts ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn cn cn CL SC SM cn p z g o xs I—' re SURFACE SLOPE: 1:10 .TREND:N15°W o o\° in rt C H re ^ o xs re o 3 Ml m rt -4—1—H— —1—1—1—1— —1—!—1—1— \ •. • lit • 1 t 1 - -4—1—H— —1—1—1—1— —1—!—1—1— •r '1 I' 1 \ •. • lit • 1 t 1 - 1 • 1 1 .1 II 1 J -=-7— ^ -i"^ • ^ •* J * » , " - ' \- J -1 -4— 1 ' III' 1— —1—1—1—\— —1—1—1—1— 1 1 1 1 - ^ • / - tr o a o Tl H m z cn z o r Co Project Name: Huntinoton/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe. Logged By: RLW Elevation; ±110' TRENCH NO. Location; See Geotechnical Map 'Thl4 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/15/8? DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn cn cn CO p z g o X3 t—i re 2 o o\o in ^ rt c H re T3 re O 3 Ml tn C: Undulati ng ALLUVIUM 0 Dark brown, very moist, firm, sandy clay to sandy silt; minor desiccation cracking in top 18", well-developed roots and rootlets to a depth of 1', occasional pods of light tan silty sand SANTIAGO FORMATION 0 Light to medium tan-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine sand; clayey, massive, no apparent bedding surfaces Total Depth =7' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/X5/85 Qal Ts GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION South Wall SCALE; 1" = 4' ML SM SURFACE SLOPE: Horiz .TREND: N66°W o tn o Tl H m z n 2 O I I—' in o > I Project Name; Huntinoton/Palnmar Project Number; 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe Logged By: Elevation; RLW ±114' TRENCH NO: T-15 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES r* re «. O 3 aa > in tn O O H- P rt re tn C;Undulating & Gradational C;Undulating Location: See Geotechnical Map DATE: l/i5/85 DESCRIPTION: COLLUVIUM 0 Very dark brown, very moist, moderately firm, silty clay; sandy, minor desiccated cracking in top 6-8", well- developed root system to a depth of 18" SANTIAGO FORMATION 0 0 Medium olive-gray, moist, very stiff, clayey silt; ran- domly orientated closed fractures Light olive-gray, damp, very dense, silty fine sand; massive, no apparent bedding Total Depth =6' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/15/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION South Wall SCALE: GEOLOGIC UNIT Qcal Ts Ts 1" = 4' ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn n cn CL ML SM cn p z g o xs I—" re SURFACE SLOPE; 4:1 TREND: N82°W s o o\° in ^ rt c re ^ o Xi re o 3 Ml tn rt tr o cn o TI H pa tn 2 n 2 o I I—• cn cn o I > re rt O 3 > in tn O O re in Project Name: Huntington/Palomar Logged By: RLW Project Number: 4841363-02 Elevation: ±129' TRFMPH MO TB-1/5/ ENGINEERING PROPERTIES Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe : Location: See Geotechnical Mao c cn Sample No. 2 o /-N a re o 3 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT cn cn Sample No. o\o in >—' rt C H a> Ml in rt ALLUVIUM 0 Medium brown, very moist, medium desne^ silty fine sand; roots and rootlets to a depth of 15' Qal SM C:Gradational 0 Very dark brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, very clayey sand; silty Qal . SC C;Undulating & Gradational 0 Medium gray-brown, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand; slightly clayey Qal SM C:Undulating SANTIAGO FORMATION 0 Medium tan to light golden brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand. Ts SM Total Depth =11' No ground water encountered No caving. Backfilled 1/17/85 - SURFACE SLOPE:Horiz.TREND:N82°E c-o cn o Tl H JO tn 2 cn a: 2 O I I—» CJl cn O >—• I > Project Name: Huntlnqton/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe RLW GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Logged By: Elevation; Location; See Geotechnical Map ±146' TRENCH NO.' T-l7 DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION; GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn cn cn CO p 2 g o xs re 2 o /-^ H-o\° W ^ rt C H re xs re o 3 Ml in rt C:Undulating & Gradational C:Gradational ALLUVIUM 0 Medium to dark brown, moist to very moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand; slightly clayey; roots and rootlets, to a depth of 2' . ;-. SANTIAGO FORMATION Qal r" re H-OQ 3* rt O 3 aa > in in O o P rt re in 0 0 Medium to light gray-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine to medium sand; slightly weathered Very light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand Total Depth =9' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 Ts Ts SM SM SM GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE; Horiz.TREND: N89°E cn o I > Project Name; Huntinqton/Palomar Project Number; 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 Backhoe RLW GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES re w 3* rt O 3 an > in in O n p rt re tn C:Gradational C:Gradat1onal C: Undulating C: Undulating ALLUVIUM 0 Dark brown, very moist, firm, very fine sandy clay; slightly silty, ab.undant roots and rootlets in top 18" 0 Medium giray-brown,:moist, medium dense, silty fine sand; scattered flecks of calcium carbonate Logged By: Elevation; Location; See Geotechnical Map ±123' TRENCH NO. T-IS DATE:1/17/85 DESCRIPTION; Dark brown, moist, medium dense, very clayey fine sand; scattered flecks of calcium carbonate Medium gray-brown, moist, medium dense to dense, Silty fine to medium sand 0 0 SANTIAGO FORMATION 0 Medium to light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand; weathered Total Depth = 10', No ground water encountered No-caving,: Backfilled 1/1^/85 i GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' GEOLOGIC UNIT Qal Qal Qal Qal Ts ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn cn cn CL SM SC SM SM 2 . CO P SURFACE SLOPE: Horiz.TREND: N57°W 2 o o\o in ^ rt C H re r-^ CD Xi re o 3 Ml in rt cn o I > Project Name: Huntinqton/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: JD-310 Logged By: RLW Elevation; ±150' TRENCH N0.-T-19- GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location; See Geotechnical Mao DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn cn cn cn p 2 g o Tl re 2 o ^ rt C H re ^ o Xi re o 3 Ml tn rt C:Undulating tr-re H-w 3* rt O 3 aa > tn Ul o o H-P rt re in ALLUVIUM 0 Dark brown, very moist, moderately firm, fine sandy clay; roots and rootlets in top 12", derived from topsoil horizon SANTIAGO FORMATION D Light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine to medium sand; top 8" of this unit is slightly weathered Total Depth =7' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 Qal CL Ts SM GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPE: Horiz.TREND: N76°E ir o cn o Tl H tn Z cn zc z o I to cn o I—" I > tr re H-oq 3* rt O 3 an > in in O O H-P rt re in Project Name; Huntington/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment; RLW Logged By: Elevation: +169' TRENCH NO. T-20 JD-310 Backhoe Location: See Geotechnical Map GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: C:Undulating C:Undulating ALLUVIUM 0 Very dark brown, very moist to wet, moderately firm, very sandy clay; abundant roots and rootlets in top 12" © Light to medium brown, moist, medium dense, silty fine to medium sand SANTIAGO FORMATION Light brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty fine to medium sand; slightly weathered 0 0 Very light brown, moist, dense silty fine to medium sand. Total Depth =7' No ground water encountered No caving Backfiilled 1/17/85 GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION West Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' GEOLOGIC UNIT Qal Qal Ts Ts ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c CO cn cn CL SM SM SM CO p o Xi I—" re I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SURFACE SLOPE:10:1 TREND: N-S 2 o o\° tn V—' rt C H re ^ a Xi re o 3 Ml tn rt I I I I lilt I I I 1 o cn o Tl H pa cn z cn a: z o I ro o cn o I > Project Name: Huntinotnn/Palnmar Project Number: 4841363^02 Equipment: Logged By: Elevation: ±170' JD-310 Backhoe GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location; See GentPrhmVal M^P TRENCH NO. T-21 DATE; 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION; GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn cn cn cn p o Xi h-i re 2 o o\° U) ' rt C H re /-^ a 'T^i re o 3 Ml in .—' H-rt ALLUVIUM 0 C:Undulating Gradational re H-oq 3* rt O 3 aa > tn in O O H- P rt re in Dark brown, very moist, medium dense, silty fine clayey, roots and rootlets to a depth of 36" Medium gray-brown, very moist to wet. medium den silty fine to medium sand; water seep at a depth 6.7' Total Depth =7.0' Seepage at 6i' No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 sand; ie of Qal Qal SM SM GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION East Wall SCALE: 1" = 5 o tn o Tl H 73 m z n § I ro cn o I > Project Name; Huntinoton/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment; JD-310 Backhoe Logged By: Elevation: RLW ±141' TRENCH NO, T-22 GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location:See Geotechnical Ma? DATE; 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c cn cn CO z. CO p re 2 o o\° m w rt c H re ^ o TJ re o 3 Ml in v_/ H. rt ALLUVIUM CrUndulating C:Undulating 0 0 0 Medium golden brown to light tan, very moist, fi fine sandy silt Dark brown, very moist, medium dense, fine sandy roots and rootlets to a depth of 24" re M- oq cr rt O 3 aa > in tn o o M- p rt re in Light gray-brown, very moist, medium dense to dei|i silty fine to medium sand; no apparent bedding Total Depth =11' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 m, very silt; se. GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION East Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' Qal Qal Qal ML ML SM SURFACE SLOPE; HoriZjREND: N43°E MM III ! I M I E/) I I I I M 1 I I I I tr • o cn o Tl H :» m 2 cn a: z o I ro ro cn O > I Project Name; Huntinoton/Palomar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment; Logged By: Elevation; RLW ±121' JD-310 Backhoe GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location: See Geotechnical Map DATE; 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: TRENCH NO.-'^ ^-23 GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES , c CO cn CO CO p z g o xs 1—> re 2 o r~\ H-o\o m ^ rt C H re XS re O 3 Ml in ^ H. rt CrUndulating Fill : • 0 Light golden brown, mottled light gray-brown, loose to medium dense, very silty fine to mediun created by road bull dint to the east mci ist, sand; Fill SM re H-oq 3* rt O 3 aa > in in o o p rt re in ALLUVIUM 0 Very dark brown, moist, stiff, very sandy clay; fractioh ranges from fine to coarse, roots and lets to a depth of 20" SANTIAGO FORMATION Very light gray-brown, moist, dense, silty fine ium sand Total Depth =13' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 0 sand lioot- to med- Qal CL Ts SM GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION North Wall SCALE; 1" = 51 SUPFACE SLOPE; 3:1 TREND: N78°W o cn o Tl -a tn 2 cn ac 2 o ro CO Project Name: Huntinaton/Palnmar Project Number: 4841363-02 Equipment: Logged By: Elevation: RLW ±122' JD-310 Backhoe GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES CrUndulating Location; See Geotechnical Map TRENCH NO. T-'24 DATE; 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: ALLUVIUM 0 Medium brown, moist, medium dense, very clayey medium sand; slightly silty, scattered gravel si clasts to 3" in diameter at contact with underl lithologic unit, roots and rootlets to a depth 0 Very dark brown, moist, firm to stiff, sandy cl homogeneous Total Detph =11' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 fi ay of a/; very II 1 1 III ! 1 II 1 • • • ^ t . j- 1'!' r • • * • '/ 1 '{/ 1 U-1 1 1 1 1 1 • • 1t/ w lilt - II 1 1 III ! 1 II 1 V {•' 1 'i • • • ^ t . j- 1'!' r • • * • '/ 1 '{/ 1 U-1 1 1 1 1 1 • • 1t/ w lilt - L '. • ' • \ * *" * ** - -J • 1/ 1 1 . • 1 1 1 1 1 1 l-—1—1—1—h— —1—h—i—h- - - GEOLOGIC UNIT ne to ize ing 24" Qal Qal ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c CO cn CO SC CL 2. CO p 2 o o\° in w rt C H re ^ o V re o 3 Ml in rt Vi tr-O cn O Tl H po cn 2 cn a: 2 O I ro cn o CA Project Name: Project Number: Equipment: Huntington/Palomar 4841363-0? JD-3in Rarkhnp Logged By: Elevation: MM. :123' GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES CrUndulating tr re % rt O 3 aa > in in O O H-P rt re in Location: See Geoterhql^^Uiap TRENCH NO. ' T-25 DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: ALLUVIUM 0 Medium to dark brown, very moist, medium dense, fine to medium sand; roots and rootlets to a dep SANTIAGO FORMATION olayey :h of 12" 0 Light to medium gray, damp, very dense, silty firhe to medium sand; randomly jointed, locally sand is ciarse Total Depth =5' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 GEOLOGIC UNIT Qal Ts ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c CO tn CO SC SM CO p o xs re 2 o o\o tn ^ rt C H re ^ o Xi re o 3 Ml in rt Vi cn O Project Name: Project Number: Equipment: Huntinqton/Palomar 4841363-02 JD-310 BarkhnP Logged By: Elevation: MM. ±161' GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES Location: .See Geotechnical Mrip DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: TRENCH NO."^^ t-26 GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES tr CO tn CO 2. CO p 2 o o\° in ^ rt C H re /-V o xs re o 3 Ml m rt Vi JrN34°W,82°SW J:N68*'W,vert. BrN54'',21°SW TOPSOIL/COLLUVIUM 0 Dark brown, very moist, moderately firm, sandy roots and rootlets to a depth of 12" SANTIAGO FORMATION clay; Topsoi1/Qcol CL tr re H-oq 3* rt O 3 aa > in in O O H-P rt re in 0 Light olive-brown to light brown-gray, mottled fed-brown, damp to moist, very stiff, sandy silt; very abur|dant jointing Total Depth =6' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 Ts ML GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION East Wall SCALE: 1" = 5' I I I I 111! SUtFACE SLOPE: 10;1 TREND: N18°E III! III! I I I I tr- -I O cn o Tl I I I I ctl 2 n a: § ro CD cn O I > Project Name: Project Number: Equipment: Huntingtnn/PaTnmar 4841363-02 JD-310 Backhoe Logged By; Elevation: RLW ±164' Location: See Geotechnical Map GEOLOGIC ATTITUDES DATE: 1/17/85 DESCRIPTION: TRENCH NO.-v T-27 GEOLOGIC UNIT ENGINEERING PROPERTIES c CO o cn Z . cn p o o\° tn w rt C H re Xi re o 3 Ml in rt v; ALLUVIUM 0 Light gray-brown, moist, medium dense, sil medium sand CrUndulating JrN19*'E,vert. BrN85"'W,15°SW CrGradational ty fin r* re <§. rt O 3 aa > in in O o P rt re in SANTIAGO FORMATION 0 Medium olive-gray, moist, stiff to very stiff, c silt; very jointed, iron oxide and manganese oxi staining developed along majority of jointed sur 0 Medium gray to medium gray-brown, moist, dense dense, very silty fine sand Total D^pth =9' No ground water encountered No caving Backfilled 1/17/85 e to layey Je aces th very Qal Ts Ts SM ML SM GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION South Wall SCALE; 1" = 5' SURFACE SLOPEtioriz. TREND: N62°E tr o cn o Tl H 73 cn Z cn a: z o ro I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4841363-006 APPENDIX C Laboratory Testing Procedures and Test Results Direct Shear Tests: Direct shear tests were performed on selected undisturbed samples which were soaked for a minimum of 24 hours under a surcharge equal to the applied normal force during testing. After transfer of the sample to the shear box, and reloading the sample, pore pressures set up in the sample due to the transfer were allowed to dissipate for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples were tested under various normal loads, a motor-driven, strain-controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus. The test results are presented in the test data. Sample Location Friction Angle (degrees) Apparent Cohesion (psf) B-1 @ 15' 38 0 B-l@35' 43 0 B-2 @ 10' 29 350 B-2 @ 15' 27 230 B-2 @ 20' 28 740 B-3@5' 30 150 Expansion Index Tests: The expaiision potential of selected materials was evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 18-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation or approximately 90 percent relative compaction. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water until volumetric equilibrium is reached. The results of these tests are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sample Description Compacted Dry Density (pcf) Expansion Index Expansion Potential B-5@7'-10' Brown silty sandy clay 102.6 88 Medium B-3@3'-6' Tan silty sand 112.6 19 Very Low Moisture and Densitv Determination Tests: Moisture content and dry density determinations were performed on relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the test borings andlor trenches. The results of these tests are presented in the boring and/or trench logs. Where applicable, only moisture content was determined from "undisturbed" or disturbed samples. C-l I I i: I I I: I I I I I I t I I t I I I 4841363-006 APPENDIX C (continued) Minimum Resistivity and pH Tests: Minimum resistivity and pH tests were performed in general accordance with Califomia Test Method 532. The results are presented in the table below: Sample Location pH Minimum Resistivity (ohms-cm) Corrosivity Category B-3@3'-7' 5.73 450 Severely corrosive B-5@7'-10' 8.14 260 Severely corrosive Soluble Sulfates: The soluble sulfate contents of selected samples were determined by standard geochemical methods. The test results are presented in the table below: Sample Location Sulfate Content (%) Potential Degree of Sulfate Attack* B-Ia@5' 0.024 Negligible B-la@ 10' 0.021 Negligible B-la@30' 0.024 Negligible B-2a@ 10' 0.021 Negligible B-2a@ 15' 0.0225 Negligible B-3a@10' 0.024 Negligible B-5a(g7'-10' 0.0375 Negligible * Based on the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code, Table No. 19-A-3, prepared by the IntemationalConferenceofBuilding Officials (ICBO, 1994). C-2 I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I 1 •> m i 1 r } \ > N \^ \ . \ _ \ \ VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Test Method : ASTM 02435^90 Before Adding Water • After Adding Water B-1 a Boring No. _ Sample No. 3 Depth (feet) 5.0 Soil Type Undisturbed Dry Density (pcf) 102.9 Moisture Content (%): Before After 21.8 18.7 Type of Sample CONSOLIDATION PRESSURE CURVE Project No. 841363-06 Project Name Carlsbad Mun. Golf Course Date 1/22/98 \ 12 0.1 1 10 VERTICAL STRESS (ksf) Test Method : ASTM D2435-90 • Before Adding Water • After Adding Water Boring No. B-2a Sample No. Depth (feet) 10.0 Soil Type Undisturbed Dry Density (pcf) 103.5 Moisture Content (%): Before After 21.2 19.1 Type of Sample CONSOLIDATION PRESSURE CURVE Project No. 841363-06 Project Name Carlsbad Mun. Golf Course Date 1/22/98 4000 LL to CO CO tn cc < LU X tn 3000 2000 1000 1 ; . : i i 1 i 1 \ 1 1 j 1 11 11 1 i j j j ! 1 1 1 1 ! 1 j 1 '—(~~ 1 ; ! i 1 t i i 1 1 i : 1 ; 1 i 1 1 < 1 ; • • ' ! 1 1 ; i i •T—• 1 i 1 i ! • ; . 1 1 • i 1 f~! M i 1 ! 1 1 j ! 1 1 1 1 i ! 1 i i j I V< I i 1 K' , 1 ! i j ] ] i 1 1 ; ] • 1 1 1 1 : 1 \ 1 1 1 ; • 1 1 J'' M r- i i 1 j \ ; 1 1 ! .1 { 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 : 1 1 1 1 • • • 1 I • i 1 1 ' : 1 i ' I j 1 ! 1 • J ] i 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 j • ' ' 1 • 1— : I 1 ! i 1 , \ 1 : i 1 0 ' 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) 5000 DESCRIPTION SYMBOL eORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) COHESION (PSF) FRICTION ANGLE SOIL TYPE At or near peak • B-1 1 10 250 29 SM Santiago Formation (silty sandstone) remolded to 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM 01557-78) Project No. 4841363-02 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS C-3 LL CO tn CO UJ cc I-tn (C < Ul X CO 4000 3000 2000 1000 I : • I -1-4- 2 Z i.H ! EH •r j 7 z 2 -U. 4^ TTTTtTT Tj—T i ! : i ! i i I ! ! I XT 1000 2000 3000 NORMAL-STRESS (PSF) -U- t i i I ' I i i ' i I I -i-i- 4000 5000 DESCRIPTION SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPi£ NUMBER BEPTH (FEET) COHESION (PSF) FRICTION ANGLE SOIL TYPE At or near peak • B-1 2 20 0 47 SM Ultimate • B-1 2 20 0 36 SM In-situ Santiago Formation (silty sandstone) C Project No. 4841363-02 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 4000 u. tn O- tn tn LU cc H co (C < Ul I tn 3000 2000 1000 1 j ! i 1 1 . • • ! i ; ; 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 : i 1 —t—I— 1 ' 1 ! f ) 1 1 f 1 : ! T 1 1 'T • t I 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 j —1— ! 1 ' 1 ! 1 1 '•• 1 i j ; ' . i i 1 ; I Mi' 1 1 : i 1 : ! 1 1 I M h 1 1 1 : ' •' i M ' .' — i i i ; i I— 1 j J { 1 1— . ; 1 1 1 i i —|—I— 1 ! T I 1 i j \ i 1 i 1 I i 1 i 1 1 I —1 1 i i • 1 ; ; ! : ! i 1 j : [ 1 1 i 1 ' 1 i 1 1 ; ; 1 1 1 1 1 i i t ] 1 1—1—r—1— 1 : 1 1 1 1 ; 1 i 1 i • I ; .1 1 1 _|_, • ! ' ! j • ; i • 1 1 : t j - ! 1 1 j m 1 ! 1 - i i ! ! 1 ; 1 • 1 ^ 1 1 —1— 1 ' : J , ' : • 1 '• ! ) -. •• - \ \ • I i ; • i i ' ; ; j ! i i 1 : i 1 MM i I "T" 1 1 ! 1 . 1 i 1 1 • i ! • ' ' 1 i i 1 0 •« 0 1000 1— 2000 1 •— 3000 4000 5000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) DESCRIPTION SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) COHESION (PSF) FRICTION ANGLE SOIL TYPE At or near peak B-1 3 .51-52 225 16 CL . Santiago Formation remolded to 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM 01557-78) LEIGHTON and ASSOCIATES Project No. 4841363-02 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS C-5 I co CO CO UJ cc cc < Ul X CO 4000 3000 2000 1000 III I M I i I ' I ^ 5a ^3 :2 111 5^ 0 2 rr _1_L ! : ! i i TT -T-rr -H-rt- I • ' TT -M- TT • : i : ' I , • ' ! • i IT 1000 —I 2000 —I 3000 ^T-r 4000 5000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) DESCRIPTION SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) COHESION (PSF) FRICTION ANGLE SOIL TYPE At or near peak • B-1 5 50 1,200 41 CL Intact Santiago Formation LEIGHTON ana ASSOCIATES Project No. 4841363-02 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS u. CO & CO CO Ul cc t- (C < Ul X CO 4000 3000 2000 1000 -H-H- -H- Ti-t- "3 -I- I i i I 11 frrrr nrrr TT -I—r -r-L -t-rt J L rtr III; I M i TT -U- ii I ! -l-f-4- I I I 0 +- 0 10013 : r •—I 2000 . 3000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) 4000 5000 DESCRIPTION SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) COHESION (PSF) FRICTION ANGLE SOIL TYPE At or near peak • B-3 1 5-9 150 29 CL/CH Santiago Formation (claystone) remolded to 90 percent relative compaction (based on ASTM 01557-78) Project No. 4841363-02 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS r-7 to tn CO Ul cc H co cc < Ul X CO 4000 3000 2000 1000 1—r 2. -L-L i ; 1 7^ -!—!- -U-l. n—I ! : El TT -U- I i I TTT -rr- I I Ml! I I .' I M I.I i±t± T-r -H- I I I i J-L -i-i-i- : I I i I I I M—— -I L -!—r 1000 2000 3000 taORMAL STRESS (PSF) 1 . ! -i-i-i- 4000 5000 DESCRIPTION SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) COHESION (PSF) FRicrriON ANGLE SOIL TYPE At or near peak • B-3 1 10. 700- 1,050 29-33 CL In-situ Santiago Formation (claystone) LEIGHTON va ASSOCIATES | Project No 4841363-02 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS 0.05 0.1 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.5 (0 5,0 0.0 2 g X UJ (A CO UJ 2 O E UJ -J a < cn u. o 2' ai o cc Ui a. I 2 O < Q -J O CO 2 O o 5O0 10.0 FIELD MOISTURE SATURATED LOADING REBOUND BORING NO.: B-7 SAMPLE NO.: 2 DEPTH (FT) : 9 SOIL TYPE : SM/ML LEIGHTON «nd ASSOOATES Project No. 4841363-02 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS C-9 0.05 0.1 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.5 (0 5 0 10.0 500 FIELD MOISTURE SATURATED LOADING REBOUND BORING NO.: B-6 SAMPLE NO.: 3 DEPTH (FT) : 15' SOIL TYPE : SM Project No. 4841363-02 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS C-10 0.05 0.1 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0,5 10 50 10.0 tn 2 X cn cn UJ 2 y X H UJ < cn u. O H Z Ul o cc Ul a. I 2 g Q O cn 2 o o 50.0 10.0 FIELD MOISTURE SATURATED LOADING REBOUND BORING NO.; B-8 SAMPLE NO.: 1 DEPTH (FT) : 5' SOIL TYPE : CL/SC Project NO. 4841363.02 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS C-11 0.05 0.1 STRESS IN KIPS PER SQUARE FOOT 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 50.0 O FIELD MOISTURE • SATURATED — LOADING REBOUND BORING NO.: B-ll SAMPLE NO.: 1 DEPTH (FTI : 4 SOIL TYPE : SM Project NO-4841363-02 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS C-12 TEST NO. SAMPLE LOCATION INITIAL MOISTURE (%) COMPACTED DRY DENSITY (PCy) FINAL MOISTURE (%) VOLUMETRIC SWELL (%) EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION POTENTIAL 1 B-1, 49'-50' 14.8 94.3 35.8 15.0 150 Very High 2 B-1, 50' 25.8 119.3 30.8 5.1 51 .Medium 3 B-1, 10' 10.5 107.8 16.5 0 0 Low 4 B-3, 5'-9' 11.8 103.5 27.1 9.1 91 High Test No. 1 & 3; Test No. 2 : UBC 29-2 (remolded) Expansion test of in-situ sample with natural moisture content under 144 pounds per square foot load 1 LEKJHTON ana ASSOC^IATES Project No. 4841363-02 1 LEKJHTON ana ASSOC^IATES EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS 1 • C-13I GRAVEL SAND FINES (Silt or Clay) Coarte 1 Fine Coanal Medium I Fine FINES (Silt or Clay) U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS .3" 1 |/2"3/4" 3/8" 4 ^10 80 40 *° 200 HYDROMETER z o ca cc Ul z Z UJ o OC UJ a. 1 as 0.1 ao6 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 aoos 0.001 0.0006 SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) LiQUlO LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SOIL TYPE • B-10 2 9 SM U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 3" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 4.0 . 60 1Q0 HYDROMETER 200 60 10 6 1 GRAI 0.8 N SIZE I.N 0.1 MILLIM B.oe aoi 0.006 ETERS 0.001 0.0006 SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SOIL TYPE '• B-ll 1 1 SM LEKJHTON »id ASSOOATES I PfOject NO. .n-,-^- ^r, w l~lfl»nn~ "^Sk^ I 4841363-02 fen' GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION CURVES C-14 GRADATION TEST RESULTS GRAVEL SAND FINES (Silt or Clay) Coarie 1 Fine Coarrd Medium 1 Fine FINES (Silt or Clay) 100 •o H I BO O WEI 70 BY 60 cc Ul 60 z U. 40 1-z 30 Ul 30 o c: Ul 20 Q. 10 0 3 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 1 1/2"3/4" 3/8" 4 10 20 40 60 100 200 HYDROMETER 60 10 1 0.6 0.1 0.06 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS 0.01 0.005 0.001 o.oooc SYMBOL BORING NUMBER SAMPLE NUMBER DEPTH (FEET) LIQUID LIMIT PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX SOIL TYPE B-1 1 10'-SM MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS LOCATION MAXIMUM OPTIMUM SAMPLE LOCATION DRY DENSITY MOISTURE (PCF) CONTENT [%) 1 B-1, 10'-11' (silty sand) 118.0 12.0 2 B-1, 51'-52' (silty clay) 103.0 21.0 3 B-3, 5'-9' (clayey silt); 116.0 15.0 Project No. 4841363-02 GRADATION AND MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS C-15 I Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 1 of 6 LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS FOR ROUGH GRADING I.O General LI 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. The Geotechnical Consultant shall observe the moisture-conditioningand 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 ovraer and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. 3030.1094 Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 2 of6 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-conditioningand 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 for the site prior to 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. 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 prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of Califomia, 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. 3030.1094 Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 3 of 6 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 otherwise 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 prior to being accepted by the Geotechnical Consultant as 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 fmish 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 Section3.1. The potential import source shall be given to the 3030.1094 Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 4 of 6 , 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 Section3.0) 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. 4.2 Fill Moisture Condifioning: 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 D1557-91). 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 D1557-91). 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 of the 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 of the 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 fil Vbedrock 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. 3030.1094 Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 5 of 6 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 determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. At a minimum, two grade stakes within a 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 of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise 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 of the conduit and densified by jetting. 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. 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. 3030,1094 Leighton and Associates, Inc. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS Page 6 of 6 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. 3030.1094 PROJECTED PLAWe 1 TO 1 MAXIMUM FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO APPROVED OROCJNO NATURAL GROUND - FILL SLOPE 2'MIN. KEY DEPTH 18' MIN. LOWEST BENCH (KEY) REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL BENCH HEK2HT NATURAL GROUND 4'TVPKyU. COMPACTED—^ FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE BENCH HEIGHT REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL I—2'MIN. KEY DEPTH CUT PACE SHALL BE CON8TRUCTH) PRK)R TO FU. PLACEMB^r TO ASSURE ADEQUATE QBDtOQIC CONOmONS OUTFACE TO BE CONSTRUCTB3 PRIOR TO FLL PLACEMENTv NATURAL GROUND OVERBUILT ANO TRIM BACK PROJECTED PLANE 1 T01 MAXIMUM FROM T0EOF8LOPET0 APPROVED QROUrO}^ DESIGN SLOPE REMOVE NSUITABLE MATERIAL CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE For Subdrains See Standard Detail C 4'TYPK:AL BENCH HEIGHT 2' MIN. KEY DEPTH LOWEST BENCm B84CHNa SHAU BE OOrC WHEN SLOPES ANQLE IS EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 5:1 MMMUM BQ4CH HEIQHr SHAa BE 4 FEET MMMUM FILL WIDTH SHAa BE 9 FEET KEYING AND BENCHING GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIHCATIONS STANDARD DETAILS A • 1 1 SLOPE FACE FINISH GRADE i 110' MIN.znr^.COMPACTED FILL:--_-ir: _ "OVERSIZE — WINDROW JETTED OR FLOODED GRANULAR MATERIAL • Oversize rock Is larger than 8 inches In largest dimension. • Excavate a trench in the compacted fill deep enough to bury all the rock. • Backfill with granular soil jetted or flooded In place to fill ail the vokls. • Do not bury rock within 10 feet of finish grade. • Windrow of buried rock shaH be parallel to the finished siope m. ELEVATION A-A' PROFILE ALONG WINDROW JETTED OR FLOODED GRANULAR MATERIAL OVERSIZE ROCK DISPOSAL GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS B 4/95 NATURAL GROUND BENCHING REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL 12" MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK" (9FT.'/FT.) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC FILTER FABRIC (MIRAF1140 ORV APPROVED \ COLLECTOR PIPE SHALL EQUIVALENT) BE MINIMUM 6" DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC PERFORATED CANYON SUBDRAIN OUTLET DETAIL PIPE, SEE STANDARD DETAIL D FOR PIPE SPECIFICATION DESIGN FINISHED GRADE PERFORATED PIPE 6-<t) MIN. FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI 140 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) #2 ROCK WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC OR CALTRANS CLASS II PERMEABLE. I I CANYON SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS C f > 1 1 4/95 OUTLET PIPES 4"(|> NON-PERFORATED PIPE, 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY BACKCUT 1:1 OR FLATTER T 2' MIN. '^^.::zs^^2% MIN. —:^nxr::zd^ \ _15' MIN.__ KEY WIDTH \ / POSITIVE SEAL SHOULD BE PROVIDED AT THE JOI OUTLET PIPE (NON-PERFORATED) CALTRANS CUSS II PERMEABLE OR #2 ROCK (3FT.'/FT.) WRAPPED IN FILTER FABRIC 12- MIN. OVERLAP FROM THE TOP HOG RING TIED EVERY 6 FEET \ FILTER FABRIC (MIRAF1140 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT) / T-CONNECTION FOR COLLECTOR PIPE TO OUTLET PIPE • SUBDRAIN INSTALLATION - Subdrain collector pipe shall be Installed with perforattons down or, unless othenorise designated by the geotechnteal consultant Outlet pipes shall be non-perforated pipe. The sulxJraIn pipe shall have at least 8 perforattons uniformly spaced per foot Peiforalton shall be V** to If drilled holes are used. All subdrain 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:s, Schedule 40 Polyvinyl Chtoride Plastfc (PVC) pipe. • All outlet pipe shall be placed In a trench no wider than twtee the subdrain pipe. Pipe shall be in soli of SE>30 jetted or flooded in place except for the outside 5 feet whteh shall be native soil backfill. BUTTRESS OR REPLACEMENT FILL SUBDRAINS GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS STANDARD DETAILS 0 4/95 RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL -SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION* RETAINING WALL WALL WATERPROOFING PERARCHlfECf'S SPECiFICATidNS FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE (MIRAFI IAON OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT)** ** -SM'-l-l/a' CLEAN GRAVEL 4V(MIN.)|^METER PERFORATED PVC PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQUIVALENT) WITH PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DOWN AS DEPICTED MINIMUM 1 PERCENT GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET 3' MIN. I I I 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 D1657 **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 8HOtn.O BE COMPACTED tO Sq PERCE^ RELATIVE COMPACTION * NOTE:COMPOSITE DRAlNA(3E PRODUCTS SUCH AS MIRADRAIN OR J-DRAIN MAY BE USED AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO <3RAVEL OR CLksS a iNSTALLATK)N SHOULD BE PERFORT^ IN ACCORDANCE WTH MANUFACrrURER'S SPEQRCATlONa 4841363-006 APPENDIX E SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMED PARAMETERS • Z = Depth of Saturation =3.5 feet / = Slope Angle = 26.6 degrees y„, = Unit Weight of Water = 62.4 pcf Y, = ' Saturated Unit Weight of Soil = 130 pcf (j) = Apparent Angle of Internal Friction = 25 degrees C = Apparent Cohesion = 250 pcf C + otan 4) ^ C +(Y, - yJZ cos^i tan <{) Y, Z sin i cos i FS = 1.8 Santiago Formation (claystone) E-I 4841363-006 APPENDIX E SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMED PARAMETERS Z = Depth of Saturation - 3.5 feet / = Siope Angle = 26.6 degrees Y„ = Unit Weight of Water = 62.4 pcf y, = Saturated Unit Weight of Soil = 130 pcf (|) = Apparent Angle of Internal Friction = 32 degrees C = Apparent Cohesion = 175 pcf FS C + otan (|) ^ C +(Y, - yJZ cosH tan (j) T " Y, Z sin i cos i FS = 1.6 Santiago Formation (sandstone) E-2 4841363-006 APPENDIX E SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS ASSUMED PARAMETERS Z = Depth of Saturation =3.5 feet / = Slope Angle = 26.6 degrees Y« = Unit Weight of Water = 62.4 pcf y, = Saturated Unit Weight of Soil = 130 pcf (j) = Apparent Angle of Internal Friction = 28 degrees C = Apparent Cohesion = 175 pcf FS = C + otan (|) ^ C +(Y, - yJZ cos^i tan ^ T Y/ •Z sin i cos i FS = 1.5 Compacted fill derived from Santiago Formation (claystone and sandstone rai.x) E-3 PDSECTA1 1-22-98 16:23 335 _ • 295 CD 255 (D CO X < 215 _ I >- 175 135 0 P&D/XSECT.-A- BLK 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1.683 40 80 120 160 200 X-AXIS (feet) 240 280 320 A PROFIL FILE: PDSECTAl 1-22-98 16:23 ft P&D/XSECT.-A- BLK 12 5 . 0 220 . 0 40 . 0 221 . 0 1 4 0 0 221 0 80 . 0 230 . 0 2 80 0 230 0 160 . 0 265 . 0 2 160 0 265 0 190 . 0 277 0 1 190 0 277 0 320 . 0 290 . 0 1 40 0 221 0 44 0 217 0 1 44 0 217 0 •112 0 217 0 1 112 0 217. 0 12 0 0 226 0 1 120 0 226 0 124 0 231 0 3 124 0 231 0 160 0 265 0 1 124 0 231 0 280 0 243 0 3 120. 0 226 0 ..280 0 239 0 1 SOIL 120 . 0 130 0 250 0 30 . 00 000 120 .0 130 0 175 0 28 .00 000 120 . O' 130 0 100 0 10 . 00 000 0 1 0 1 0 1 WATER 1 62.40 .0 220.0 40.0 221.0 120.0 230.0 280.0 244.0 BLOCK 100 2 5.0 123.0 229.0 140.0 231.0 3.0 175.0 232.0 250.0 237.0 3.0 XSTABL File: PDSECTAl 1-22-98 16 : 23 ********************************** * * * * * 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 : P&D/XSECT.-A- BLK SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 x-left (ft) . 0 40 . 0 80 . 0 160 . 0 190 . 0 y-left (ft). 220 . 0 221. 0 230 . 0 265 . 0 277.0 x-right (ft) 40 . 0 80 . 0 160 . 0 190 . 0 320 . 0 y-right (ft) 221. 0 230 . 0 265 . 0 277 . 0 290.0 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 2 2 1 1 7 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x-left y-left x-right "y-right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 40 . 0 221.0 44 . 0 217 . 0 2 44 . 0 217 . 0 112 . 0 217 . 0 3 112 . 0 217 . 0 120.. 0 226 . 0 4 120 . 0 226 . 0 124 . 0 231.0 5 124 . 0 231. 0 160 . 0 265 . 0 6 124.0 • 231. 0 280 . 0 243 . 0 7 • 120 . 0 226 . 0 280 . 0 • 239.0 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 3 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. 1 120 . 0 130 . 0 . 250 . 0 30 . 00 . 000 • . 0 1 2 120 . 0 130 . 0 175 . 0 28 . 00 . 000 . 0 1 3 120 . 0 130 . 0 100 . 0 10 . 00 . 000 . 0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water.= 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points ************************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point No. x-water (ft) y-water (ft) 1 00 220 . 00 2 40 00 221 . 00 3 120 00 230 . 00 4 280 00 2.44' . 00 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for. generating sliding BLOCK surfaces, has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 2 boxes specified for generation of central block base Length of line segments for active and passive portions of sliding block is 5.0 ft Box no. 1 2 x-left (ft.) 123.0- 175 . 0 y-left (ft). 229 . 0 232 . 0 x-right (ft) 140 . 0 250 . 0 y-right (ft) 231. 0 237 . 0 Width (ft) 3 . 0 3 . 0 ******************************************************************** -- WARNING — WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (#48) ******************************************************** Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a-slice. This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value.' ************************************************** USER SELECTED option to maintain, strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the : SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD ***** The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 19 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 106 .27 241.49 2 109 .44 240.83 3 113 . 83 238 .45 4 117 .42 234.96 5 121 .31 231.83 6 124 .87 228.31 7 186 . 14 233 . 84 8 187 58 238 . 63 9 191 05 242.22 10 193 88 246.35 11 197 28 250 . 01 12 199 79 254 . 33 13 202 08 258.78 14 205 40 262 . 52 15 208 73 266 .25 16 212 . 19 269.85 17 215 . 36 273.73 18 218 . 87 277.29 19 220 . 88 280.09 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.683 ** (Fo factor = 1.084) Failure surface No. 2 specified by 20 coordinate points oint x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107 . 03 241. 82 2 , 108 .45 240.47 3 113 .33 239.39 4 117 78 237.12 5 121 85 234 . 22 6 125 41 230.71 7 175 21 230 . 90 8 ' 177 90 235 . 12 9 180 22 239 . 55 10 183 . 75 243 . 09 11 187 . 19 246 . 71 12. 190 . 50 250 . 47 13 193 . 52 254 . 45 14 196 .37 258 . 56 15 199 . 78 262 . 21 16 203 .23 265 . 84 17 204 .68 270 . 62 18 208 . 00 274 . 36 19 209 . 91 278 . 98 20 209 . 91 278 . 99 Corrected JANBU FOS = 1 . 692 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.692 ** (Fo factor = 1.087) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 19 coordinate points Point . x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.27 241.93 2 109.22 240.10 3 112.96 236.78 4 117.92 236.12 5 122.19 233.53 6 126.27 230 . 64 7 197.22 234.18 8 200.72 237.75 9 . 204.12 .241.41 10 206 .47 245 . 83 11 209.90 249 .46 12 211.93 254.04 13 214.04 258.57 14 216.68 262 .81 15 219.33 267.05 16 221.10 271.73 17 224.64 275.27 18 228.10 278.87 19 228.99 280 . 90 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.702 ** (Fo factor = 1.084) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 101 .33 239.33 2 103 .81 237.19 3 108 . 73 236.30 4 113 73 236 .28 5 117 72 233.27 6 122 43 231.60 7 126 41 228 . 57 8 222 89 235.73 9 • 226 08 239.58 10 226 85 244.52 11 228 . 79 249.13 12 232 01 252 . 95 .13 235.46 256 . 57 14 238 .27 260 . 70 15 241.50 264 . 52 16 243.91 268 . 91 17 247.44 272 . 45 18 250.84 2 76 . 11 19 253 .49 280 . 35 20 256.54 283 65 Corrected JANBU FOS = 1. 737 (Fo factor = 1.078) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 104 -.75 240 . 83 2 105 . 58 240.50 3 109 . 81 237 .85 4 114 . 80 237.54 5 119 . 77 236.99 6 123 42 233 .58 7 127 34 230.47 8 175 75 233.24 9 178 75 237.25 10 181 85 241.16 11 185 32 244.77 12 188 . 78 248.37 13 191. 11 . 252 . 80 14 193 . 48 257.20 15 197 . 01 260 .,74 16 199 . 33 265 .17 17 199. 73 270.15 18 202 . 75 274.14 19 206 . 09 277.86 20 206 . 58 278.66 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.743 ** (Fo factor = 1.086) Failure surface No. 6 specified by 22 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100 . 70 239 . 06 2 102 . 81 236.96 3 107 . 81 236.95 4 112 . 71 235.95 5 117 09 233.55 6 122 09 . • 233.41 7 126 48 231 . 01 8 131 41 230.18 9 . 201 58 232.59 10 205 12 236.13 11 . 207 80 240 .35 12 211. 22 243 . 99 13 214 . 21 248 .00 14 217 . 15 252.05 15 220 36 2 55 .88 16 220 50 260 . 87 17 223 98 264 .46 18 227 15 268 33 19 • 230 68 271 87 20 233 59 275 94 21 235 81 280 42 22 236 62 281 66 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.744 (Fo factor = 1.082) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) . 1 100 .35 238.90 2 102 .20 238.89 3 107 . 11 237 . 95 4 112 . 07 237.33 5 116 . 01 234.25 6 119 . 97 231.18 7 124 . 87 230.21 8 180 . 14 232 . 51 9 181 . 18 237 .40 10 182 .21 242 .30 11 185 . 59 245.98 12 189 . 11 249.53 13 192 .49 253 .21 14 195 .30 257 .35 15 198 .35 261 .31 16 201 .48 265 .21 17 203 . 73 . . 269 .68 18 207 . 07 • 273.40 19 210 54 277 .00 20 212 82 279 .28 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.750 ** (Fo factor = 1.085) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 99 .89 238.70 2 101 48 237 .21 3 106 .46 236.78 4 110 .79 234 .29 5 115 .40 232 . 34 6 120 09 230.61 . 7 125 08 230.34 8 188 45 232 .80 9 190 93 237.14 10 194 39 240.74 11 195 55 245.61 12 198 73 249.47 13 202 07 253.19 14 202 14 258.19 15 203.79 262.91 16 206.03 .267.38 17 208.70 271.61 18 212.15 275.23 19 215.62 278.83 20 215.80 279.58 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.757 ** (Fo factor = 1.086) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 106 .41 241.55 2 110 .47 238 . 83 3 115 .47 238 . 70 4 120 . 03 236 . 64 5 123 . 88 233 .46 6 128 . 24 231.01 7 133 09 229.81 8 190 69 232.56 9 193 98 236.33 10 197 32 240 . 05 11 200 78 243.66 12 203 41 247.92 13 204 70 252.74 14 208 11 256.41 15 209 44 261.22 16 212 21 265.39 17 215 74 268.93 18 216 . 00 273.92 19 217 . 92 278.54 20 218 . 83 279.88 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.763 ** (Fo factor = 1.087) Failure surface No.10 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 104 . 71 240.81 2 109 .26 239.87 3 113 . 11 236 . 68 4 118 10 236 . 27 5 122 .45 233.82 6 125 99 230.29 7 130 93 229 . 50 8 202 85 234.11 9 205 94 238.03 10 208 04 242.57 11 211 37 246.30 12 213 80 250.68 13 214 67 255.60 14 218 10 259.24 15 221 05 - 263.27 16 224 22 267.14 17 18 19 20 226 . 96 230 . 24 230 .45 231 . 01 271 . 32 275 . 10 280.10 281 . 10 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.766 ** (Fo factor = 1.084! The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : P&D/XSECT.-A- BLK Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available JANBU FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1. 1 .683 1. 084 106 .27 220 . 88 1 .303E+05 2 . 1 .692 1.087 107 . 03 209 . 91 1 .215E+05 3 . 1 702 1. 084 107 27 228 99 1 .382E+05 4 . 1 737 1. 078 101 33 256 54 1 .646E+05 5 . 1 743 1 . 086 104 75 206 58 1 .173E+05 6 . 1 744 1. 082 100 70 236 62 1 .520E+05 7 . 1 750 1.085 100 35 212 82 1 .189E+05 8 . 1 757 1. 086 99 89 215 80 1 .226E+05 9 . 1 763 1.087 106 41 218 83 1 . 317E.+ 05 10 . 1 766 1. 084 104 71 231 01 1 .416E+05 * * * END OF FILE * * * PDSECTA 1-22-98 16:18 295 P&D/XSECT.-A- 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1.729 260 (D 225 a> CO X < 190 I >- 155 120 6 35 _w 1 —1 1 1 ,— 70 105 140 1 ' '—r 175 X-AXIS (feet) I ' I ' 1 210 245 280 i I I I i I I i I I I I I I I I 1 i i I I PROFIL FILE: PDSECTA 1-22-98 16:18 ft P&D/XSECT.-A- 12 5 . 0-220 . 0 40 . 0 221 . 0 1 40 . 0 221 . 0 80 . 0 230 . 0 2 80 . 0 230 , . 0 125 . 0 250 . 0 2 125 . 0 250 , . 0 190 . 0 277 , . 0 1 190 , . 0 277 , . 0 280 , . 0 290 , . 0 1 40 , . 0 221. . 0 45 , . 0 211. , 0 1 45 , . 0 211 . , 0 85 , . 0 210 . , 0 1 85 , , 0 210 . . 0 100 . . 0 225 , . 0 1 100 . . 0 225 . , 0 104 . . 0 229 . , 0 3 104 . , 0 229 . 0 125 . , 0 250 . 0 1 104 . . 0 229 . 0 280 . 0 243 . 0 3 100 . 0 225 . 0 280 . 0 239 . 0 1 SOIL 3 120.0 130.0 250.0 30.00 .000 .0 1 120.0 130.0 175.0 28.00 .000 .0 1 120.0 130.0 100.0 10.00 .000 .0 1 WATER 1 62.40 5 .0 200.0 .4 5.0 212.0 85 . 0 220.0 103.0 232.0 . 280.0 . 245.0 CIRCLE 10 10 20.0 40.0 . 195.0 220.0' 150.0 5.0 .0 .0 i I XSTABL File: PDSECTA 1-22-98 16 :18 ************************************-*--*-**-:V* * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 : P&D/XSECT.-A- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 x-left (ft) . 0 40 . 0 80 . 0 125 . 0 190. 0 y-left (ft) 220 . 0. 221. 0 230 . 0 250 . 0 277. 0 x-right (ft) 40 . 0 80 . 0 125 . 0 190 . 0 280 . 0 y-right (ft) . 221. 0 230 . 0 250 . 0 277 . 0 290 . 0 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 2 2 1 1 7 SUBSURFACE boundary segments I I I Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 x-left (ft) 40 . 0 45 . 0 8 5.0 100 . 0 104.-. 0 104 . 0 100. 0 y-left (ft) 221. 0 211. 0 210 . 0 225.0 229 . 0 229 . 0 225. 0 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 3 Soil unit (s) specified x-right (ft)- 45 . 0 85 . 0 100 . 0 104 . 0 125 . 0 280 . 0 280 . 0 y-right (ft) 211. 0 210 . 0 . 225.0 229 . 0 250 . 0 243 . 0 239 . 0 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 120.0 130 . 0 250.0 30.00 . 000 . 0 1 2 120.0 130 . 0 175.0 28.00 . 000 . 0 1 3 120.0 130 . 0 100.0 10.00 . 000 . 0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 5 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 . 00 200.00 2 45 . 00 212.00 .. 3 85 . 00 220 . 00 4 103.00 232.00 5 280 . 00 245 . 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 = 20.0 ft and X = 40.0 ft Each surface.terminates between x = 195.0 ft and X = 220.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 150.0 ft 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 JANBU METHOD * * * * * The'10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 38 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 40 .00 - 221.00 2 44 . 84 219.74 3 49 . 72 218.64 4 54 . 63 217.71 5 59 . 57 216 . 95 6 64 . 54 216 .36 7 ' 69 . 52 215 . 93 8 74 . 51 215.68 9 79 . 51 215 . 59 10 84.51 215 .68 11 89 .50 215.93 12 94.49 216 .36 13 99.45 216.95 14 104.39 217 . 71. 15 109 .30 218.64 16 114.18 219.74 17 119.02 221.00 18 123 . 81 222.43 19 128.55 224.01 20 133.24 225.76 21 137.86 227 . 67 22 142.42 229.73 23 146.90 231.95 24 151.30 234.31 25 155.62 236 . 83 26 159.86 239.49 27 164.00 242 .29 28 168.04 245 .23 29 171.98 248 .31 30 175.81 251 . 52 31 179.54 254 .86 32 183.14 258 .32 33 186.63 261.91 34 189.99 265 .61 35 193.23 269.42 36 196.33 273.34 37 199.30 277.36 38 200.04 278.45 **• Corrected JANBU FOS = 1^.729 ** (Fo factor = 1.062] Failure surface No. 2 specified by 38 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 40 . 00 221.00 2 44 . 56 218 .95 3 49 .21 217.10 4 53 . 93 215.45 5 58 .71 214.01 6 63 . 56 212 . 77 7 68 .45 211 . 74 8. 73 .38 210.93 9 78 .35 '210 . 32 10 83 .33 209.94 11 88 .33 209 . 77 12 93 .33 209 . 81 13 98 .32 210.07 14 103 .30 210.54 15 108 .25 211.23 16 113 17 212.13 17 118 05 ,. 213 .24 18 122 87 214 . 56 19 127 63 216.09 20 132 32 . 217.82 21 136 93 • 219.75 2 2 141 46 22,1. 88 23 , 145 89 224 .20 24 150 21 226.71 25 154 42 229.40 26 158 . 51 232 .27 27 162 . 48 235.32 28 166 . 31 238.53 29 170 . 00 ' 241 . 91 30 173 . 54 245 .44 31 176 . 92 249.12 32 18 0 . 14 252.95 33 183 . 19 256 . 91 34 186 . 08 260 . 99 35 188 . 78 265.20 36 191 . 30 269 . 52 37 193 . 62 273 . 95 38 . 195 . 44 277.79 ** Corrected JANBU. FOS = 1.730 ** (Fo factor = 1.074) I I I Failure surface No. 3 specified by 42 coordinate points Point- No. 1 2' 3 • x-surf (ft) 40 . 00 44 . 72 49 . 50 y-surf (ft) 221.00 219 .36 217.87 4 54 .32 216 . 55 5 • 59 . 18 215 .3 9 .6 64 . 08 214 .39 7 69 . 01 213 . 55 8 73 . 97 212 . 88 9 78 . 94 212 . 38 10 -8 3 . 93 212 . 04 11 88 . 93 211 . 87 12 93 . 93 211 .86 13 98 . 92 212 . 02 14 103 . 91 212 . 35 15 108 .89 212 .85 16 113 . 84 213 . 51 17 118 . 77 214 .'34 18 123 . 68 215 .33 19 128 . 54 216 48 20 133 .36 217 79 21 138 . 14 219 27 22 142 87 22.0 90 23 147 54 222 69 24 152 14 224 64 25 156 68 226 74 2 6, 161 15 228 99 27 165 53 231 38 28 169 84 233 . 92 29 174 06 236 . 61 30 178 19 239 . 43 31 182 . 22 242 . 39 32 186 . 15 245 . 48 33 189 . 97 248 . 70 34 193 . 68 252 . 05 35 197 . 28 255 . 52 36 200 . 77 259 . 11 37 204 . 13 262 . 81 38 207 . 36 266 . 62 39 210 . 47 270 . 54 40 213. 44 274 . 56 41 216 . 28 278 . 68 42 217 . 78 281. 01 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.741 ** (Fo factor = 1.066) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 41 coordinate points I I I I I Point x-surf y-surf No.. (ft) (ft) 1 37 . 78 220 . 94 2 42 .34 . 218 . 90 .3 46 . 98 217.03 4 51 69 215.35 5 56 45 213.84 6 61 28 212.53 7 66 15 211.40 8-71 06 210 .46 9 76 00 209.71 10 8 0 97 209.15 11 85 96 208.78 12 90 96 208 . 61 13 95 . 96 208 . 63 14 100 . 95 208 . 85 15 105 . 93 209 .26 16 110 . 90 209 . 86 17 115 . 83 210 65 18 120 . 74 211 64 19 125 . 60 212 81 20 130 .41 • 214 17 21 135 . 16 215 71 22 139 .86 217 44 23 144 .48 219 35 24 149 . 02 221 43 25 153 48 223 . 69 26 157 85 226 . 12 27 162 13 228 . 72 28 166 29 231 . 48 29 170 35 234 . 40 30 174 30 237 . 48 31 178 12 240 . 70 32 181 81 244 . 07 33 185 37 247 . 58 34 188 79 251. 23 3 5 192 . 07. 255 . 00 36 195 . 20 258 . 90 37 198 . 17 262 . 92 3 8 200 . 99 267 . 05 39 203 . 65 271 . 29 40 206 . •14 275 . 62 41 208 . 24 279 . 63 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.741 ** (Fo factor = 1.073) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 42 coordinate points I I Point x-surf .y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 35 .56 220.89 2 40 .34 219.43 3 45 . 16 218.11 4 50 . 02 216.95 5 54 . 92 215.93 6 59 . 84 215.07 7 64 . 79 214.36 8 69 . 76 213.80 9 74 . 75 213.39 10 •79 . 74 213.14 11 84 . 74 213.04 12 89 . 74 213.10 13 . 94 . 73 213.31 14 99 72 213.67 15 104 69 214.19 16 109 65 214 . 86 17 114 58 215.68 18 119 48 216.66 19 124 36 ' 217.78 20 129 19 • 219.05 21 133 9 9 220 .48 22 138 73 222.05 23 143 .43 223 . 76 24 •148 . 07 225 . 62 25 152 . 65 227 . 62 26 157 . 17 229 . 76 27 161 . 62 232 . 04 28 166 . 00 234 .45 29 170 .30 237 . 00 30 174 53 239 6 8 31 178 66 242 49 32 182 71 245 42 33 186 67 248 48 3 4 190 53 251 66 35 194 29 254 95 36 197 94 258 36 37 201 50 261 88 38 204 94 265 51 39 208 . 26 269 . 24 40 211. 47 273 . 08 41 214 . 56 277 . 01 42 217 . 49 280 . 97 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.749 ** (Fo factor = 1.063) Failure surface No. 6 specified by 44 coordinate points I I I Point . x-surf y-surf No . (ft) (ft) 1 35.56 220.89 2 40.23 219.10 3 44 . 95 217.47 4 49. 73 216.00 5 54 . 55 214.68 6 59 .42 213.53 7 64.32 212.54 8 69.25 211.71 9 74 .21 211.04 10 79 . 18 210.54 11 84.17 210.21 12 89 .17 210.04 13 94 .17 210.04 14 99.16 210.20 15 104.15 210.53 16 109.13 211.02 17 114.09 211.68 18 119.02 212 . 50 19 123.92 213 .48 20 128.79 214.63 21 133.61 215 . 93 22 138 .39 217.40 23 143.12 219.03 24 147.79 220 . 81 25 152 .41 222.74 26 156.95 224.82 27 161.42 227 . 06 28 165.82 229.44 29 . 170.13 231.97 30 174.36 234 . 64 31 178.50 . 237.44 32 182 . 54 240 .39 33 186 .48 -243 .46 34 190 32 246 . 67 35 194 05 249 .99 36 197 67 253 .45 37 201 17 257 . 02 38 204 55 260 70 39 207 81 264 49 40 210 94 268 39 41 213 94 272 39 42 216 80 276 49 43 219 53 280 68 44 219 . 92 281 32 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.751 ** (Fo factor = 1.068) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 43 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 35 . 56 220 .89 2 40 .34 219 . 44 3 45 . 17 • 218.13 4 50 . 03 216.97 5 54 . 93 215.96 6 59 .85 215 . 10 7 64 .80 214 .38 8 69 . 77 213.82 • 9 74 . 75 213.40 10 79 . 74 213.14 . 11 84 . 74 213.02 12 89 .74 213.06 13 94 .74 213 . 25 14 .99 . 73 213.59 15 104 . 70 214 . 08 16 109 . 66 214 . 72 17 114 60 215.51 18 119 51 216.44 19 124 39 217.53 20 129 24 218.76 21 134 04 220.14 22 138 81 221 .66 23 143 52 223 .33 24 148 18 225.13 25 152 79 227.08 26 157 33 229.17 27 161. 81 231.39 28 166 . 22 233.75 29 • 170 . 56 236 . 23 30 174 . 82 238 . 85 31 179 . 00 241 . 60 32 183 . 09 244 .47 33 187 . 10 247.46 34 191 . 01 250.57 35 194 . 83 253 . 80 36 198 . 55 257.14 37 202 . 16 260 . 60 38 205 . 67 264.16 39 40 41 42 43 209.07 212 .36 215.54 218.59 219 . 99 267.82 271 .59 275 .45 279 .41 281 . 33 ** Corrected JANBU FOS 1. 755 (Fo factor = 1.063) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 41 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26 . 67 220 . 67 2 31.37 218.97 3 36.13 217.44 4 40 . 94 216.07 5 45 . 79 214.87 6 50 . 68 213.83 7 55.61 212.97 8 60 . 56 212.27 9 65 . 53 211.74 10 70 . 52 211.38 11 75 . 52 211.20 12 80 .52 211.18 13 85 . 51 211.34 14 90 . 50 211.66 15 95.48 212.16 16 100 .43 212.83 17 105 .36 213.66 18 110 .26 214.67 19 115.12 215.84 20 119.94 217.18 21 124.71 218.68 22 129.42 220.35 23 134 . 08 222.17 24 138.67 224.16 25 143.19 226.29 26 147.63 228.59 27 151.99 231.03 28 156.27 233.62 29 160.45 236 .36 30 164.54 239.24 31 168.53 242.26 32 172.41 245.41 33 176.18 248.69 34 179.84 252.10 35 183 .37 255.63 36 186.79 259 .29 37 190.08 263.05 38 193 .23 266.93 39 196.26 270.91 40 199.14 275.00 41 201.55 278.67 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.757 ** (Fo factor = 1.067) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 41 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 37 . 78 220 . 94 2 42 . 66 219.85 3 47 . 57 218.90 4 52 . 50 218.08 5 57 .45 217.40 6 62 .42 216.86 7 67 .41 216 .46 8 72 .40 216.19 9 77 .40 216 . 07 10 82 .40 216.08 11 87 .39 216 .23 12 92 .39 216.53 13 97 .37 216.96 14 102 . 33 217.53 15 107 .28 218.24 16 112 . 21 219.09 17 117 . 11 220 . 07 18 121 99 221.19 19 126 83 222 . 44 20 131 63 223.83 21 136 39 225.36 22 141 11 227.01 23 145 78 228.80 24 150 40 230.71 25 154 96 232.76 26 159 47 234.93 27 163 . 91 237 . 22 28 168 . 29 239.64 29 172 . 60 242.18 3 0 176 . 83 244.83 31 180 . 99 247.61 32 185 . 07 250.50 33 189 . 07 253 . 50 34 192. 98 256.61 35 196 . 81 259 . 83 36 200 . 54 263.15 37 204 . 18 266.58 38 • 207 . 73 270.11 39 211. 17 273.74 40 214 . 51 277.46 41 217 . 50 280.97 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.757 ** (Fo factor = 1.057) Failure surface No.10 specified by 41 coordinate points Point No. x-surf (ft) y-surf (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 37 . 78 42 . 18 46.67 51.26 55 . 93 60 . 68 220 . 94 218.57 216.38 214.39 212 . 61 211.03 7 65 .48 209 . 66 8 70 .35 208 . 50 9 75 .26 207 : 5 5 10 80 .20 206 . 82 11 85 . 18 206 .30 12 90 . 17 206 . 00 13 95 . 17 205 . 92 14 100 . 16 206 .06 15 105 . 15 206 .42 16 110 . 12 206 .99 17 115 . 06 207 . 78 18 119 . 96 208 . 78 19 124 .81 209 . 99 20 129 . 60 211 .42 21 134 .32 213 . 05 22 138 97 214 89 23 143 54 216 93 24 148 01 219 16 25 152 38 221 59 26 156 64 224 21 27 160 79 227 01 28 164 80 229 99 29 168 68 233 . 14 30 172 . 43 236 . 46 31 176 . 02 239 . 93 32 179 . 46 243 . 56. 33 182 . 74 247 . 34 34 185 . 84 251. 25 35 188 . 78 255 . 30 36 191. 54 259 . 47 37 194 . 11 263 . 76 38 196 . 49 268 . 16 39 198 . 68 272 . 65 40 200 . 67 277 . 24 41 201. 20 278 . 62 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.758 ** (Fo factor = 1.078) The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : P&D/XSECT.-A- 1. 2 . 3 . 4 . 5 . 6 . 7 . 8 . 9 . 10 . Modified JANBU FOS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , 729 , 730 , 741 .741 749 751 755 75 7 757 758 Correction Factor 1.062 1. 074 1. 066 1. 073 1. 063 1 .068 1 . 063 1 . 067 1. 057 1 . 078 Initial x-coord (ft) 40 . 00 40 .00 40 .00 37 . 78 35 . 56 35.56 35 . 56 26 . 67 37 . 78 37 . 78 Terminal x-coord (ft) 200 . 04 195.44 217.78 208 . 24 217.49 219.92 219.99 201.55 217.50 201.20 Available Strength (lb) 2.OlOE+05 2.437E+05 2.850E+05 2.906E+05 2.701E+05 3.071E+05 2.771E+05 2.427E+05 2.387E+05 2.964E+05 PDSECTC1 1-21-98 14:43 200 ^ 165 _ (D 130 J 0) iV CO X < 95 I >- 60 25 0 P&D/SECTION-C-BLK 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 2.087 35 70 —1 . 1 1 1— 105 140 175 X-AXIS (feet) I r- 210 245 _w 1 280 PROFIL FILE: PDSECTCl 1-21-98 14:42 ft P&D/SECTION-C-BLK 8 6 .0 120 . 0 70 . 0 120 . 0 1 70 .0 120 . 0 83 . 0 128 . 0 1 83 . 0 128. 0 97 . 0 133 . 0 1 97 .0 133 . 0 105 . 0 135 . 0 2 105 . 0 135 . 0 160 . 0 150 . 0 1 160 . 0 150 . 0 280 . 0 160 . 0 1 105 . 0 135 . 0 280 .0 141 . 0 2 97 .0 133 . 0 280 . 0 137 .0 1 SOIL z 120 . 0 130 .0 250 . 0 30 .00 . 000 120 .0 130 . 0 100 . 0 10 . 00 . 000 \WATER 1 62.40 4 , 0 1 0 1 .0 120.0 70.0 120.0 105.0 136.0 280.0 142.0 BLOCK 100 .2 .0 105.0 134.0 110.0 135.0 2.0 150.0 135.0 240.0 136.0 2.0 XSTABL File: PDSECTCl 1-21-98 14:43 ****************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 : P&D/SECTION-C-BLK SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments jment x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below SegiTtent 1 . 0 120.0 70 . 0 120 . 0 1 2 70.0 120 . 0 83.0 128.0 1 3 83 .0 128.0 97.0 133.0 1 4 ,97. 0 133 .0 105 . 0 135.0 2 5 105.0 135.0 160.0 150.0 1 6 160 .0 150.0 280 . 0 160.0 1 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 x-left (ft) 105.0 97.0 y-left (ft) 135.0 133 .0 x-right (ft) 280.0 280.0 y-right (ft) 141.0 137.0 Soil Unit Below Segment 2 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Intercept (psf) Angle Parameter Constant Surface (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 120.0 130.0 250.0 30.00 .000 .0 1 2 120.0 130.0 100.0 10.00 .000 .0 1 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. (ft) (ft) 1 .00 120 . 00 2 70.00 120 .00 3 105.00 136.00 4 280.00 142.00 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating sliding BLOCK surfaces, has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 2 boxes specified for generation of central block base ***** DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL ***** Length of line segments for active and passive portions of sliding block is 9.0 ft Box x-left y-left x-right y-right Width no. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 105.0 134.0 110.0 135.0 2.0 2 150.0 135.0 240.0 136.0 2.0 ************************************************************************ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (#48) ************************************************************************ Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice. This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value. ************************************************************************ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ************************************************************* ** Factor of safety calculation for surface # 5 ** ** failed to converge within FIFTY iterations ** ** . • ** ** The last calculated value of the FOS was 21.1807 ** ** This will be ignored for final summary of results ** ************************************************************* The trial failure surface in question is defined by the following 5 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 103.78 134.69 2 105.17 133 .32 3 150.83 134.40 4 151.24 143.39 5 152.11 147.85 Factors of safety have been calculated by the : ***** SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD * * * * * The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 6 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 105.41 135.11 2 108.52 133.95 3 157.13 135.38 4 163.46 141.77 5 169.54 148 .41 6 170.85 150.90 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.087 ** , (Fo factor = 1.066) Failure surfa.ce No. 2 specified by 6 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 104.73 134.93 2 106.22 133.49 • 3 158.93 135.92 4 165.18 142.40 5 171.30 149 .00 6 172 .91 151.08 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2 . 091 Failure surface No. 3 specified by Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 106.73 135.47 2 109.27 134.14 3 156.07 135.81 4 162.19 142.41 5 167.70 149.52 6 168.13 150.68 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.14 0 ** (Fo factor = 1.063: ** (Fo factor = 1.068) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 6 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 104 . 87 134.97 2 105.82 134.58 3 161.43 135.11 4 166.39 142.63 5 171.60 149.96 6 171.65 150.97 Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.234 * (Fo factor = 1.070) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 6 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 105.99 135.27 2 107.33 134.71 3 152.27 134.53 4 156.51 142.46 5 162.87 148.84 6 163.03 150 .25 Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.280 * ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.280 ** (Fo factor = 1.074) Failure surface No. 6 specified by 6 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 107.14 135.58 2 109.17 133.96 3 174.15 135.63 i I I t I I I I 4 180.19 142.31 5 186.54 148.68 6 189.75 152.48 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.284 ** (Fo factor = 1.062) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 5 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 106.12 135.31 2 109.97 134 .48 3 160.38 135 .49 4 166.07 142 .46 5 168.85 150.74 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.307 ** (Fo factor = 1.072) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 5 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No-. (*t) (*t^ 1 104.99 135 .00 2 105.79 134 .44 3 160.52 136 . 08 4 164.39 144 .20 5 169.18 150.77 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.325 Failure surface No. 9 specified by Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) .1 105.48 135.13 2 107.18 133 .44 3 159.90 135.77 4 164.54 143.49 5 165.93 150.49 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2 .330 Failure surface No.10 specified by ( Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 104.32 134.83 2 106.71 134.64 3 170.29 135.83 4 176.63 142.22 5 182.14 149.33 6 184.88 152.07 I ll I . I I ** (Fo factor = 1.068) ** (Fo factor = 1.073) ** Corrected'JANBU FOS = 2.335 ** (Fo factor = 1.061) ******************************************************************** ** * * ** Out of the 100 surfaces generated and analyzed by XSTABL, ** ** 1 surfaces were found to have MISLEADING FOS values. ** ** ** ******************************************************************** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : P&D/SECTION-C-BLK Modified JANBU FOS Correction Factor Initial x-coord (ft) Terminal x-coord (ft) Available Strength (lb) —3n 2 . 007 1.0G6 105.41 ±9^ -e5— 2 .32GE+04 2 . 2 . 091 1. 063 104.73 172 . 91 2 .400E+04 3 . 2 .140 1.068 106.73 168 . 13 2.168E+04 4 . 2 .234 1.070 104.87 171. 65 2.302E+04 5 . 2.280 1.074 105 . 99 163 . 03 1. 909E-1-04 6 . 2 .284 1.062 107.14 189. 75 3 .167E-I-04 7 . 2.307 1.072 106.12 168. 85 2 .198E+04 8 . 2.325 1.068 104.99 169. 18 2 .llOE+04 9 . 2.330 1.073 105.48 165. 93 2.048E+04 10. 2 .335 1.061 104.32 184. 88 2.911E+04 * * * END OF FILE * * * PDSECTC 1-21-98 14:34 200 _ 165 (D 130 J a> tn X < 95 J I >- 60 25 0 P&D/SECTION-C-CIRC 10 most critical surfaces, MIN 35 70 105 140 X-AXIS MUM JANBU FOS = 1.954 175 210 245 (feet) _w 1 280 PROFIL ' ^ FILE: PDSECTC 1-21-98 14:35 ft P&D/SECTION-C-CIRC . 8 6 . 0 120 . 0 70 .0 120. 0 1 70 . 0 120 . 0 83 . 0 128 . 0 1 83 . 0 128. 0 97 . 0 133 . 0 1 97 . 0 133 . 0 105 . 0 135 . 0 2 105 . 0 135. 0 160 . 0 150 . 0 1 160 . 0 150. 0 280 . 0 160 . 0 1 105 . 0 135 . 0 280 . 0 141. 0 2 97 . 0 133 . 0 280 . 0 137. 0 1 SOIL 120 . 0 130 . 0 250 . 0 30 . 00 000 120.0 130 .0 100 .0 10 .00 000 WATER 1 62.40 4 .0 120.0 70.0 120.0 105.0 136.0 280.0 142.0 CIRCLE ±d ±^ 50.0 ^ 69.0 83.0 180.0 40.0 .0 .0 .0 I I I I I I . 0 1 0 1 XSTABL File: PDSECTC 1-21-98 14:34 ****************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 : P&D/SECTION-C-CIRC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments pent x-left y-left x-right y-right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 120.0 70.0 120.0 1 2 70.0 120.0 83.0 128.0 1 3 83.0 128.0 97.0 133.0 1 4 97.0 133.0 105.0 135.0 2 5 105.0 135.0 160.0 150.0 1 6 160.0 150 . 0 280.0 160.0 1. 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 x-left (ft) 105 . 0 97.0 y-left (ft) 135. 0 133.0 x-right (ft) 280.0 280.0 y-right (ft) 141. 0 137.0 Soil Unit Below Segment 2 1 „ ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) Cohesion Friction Intercept Angle (psf) (deg) Pore Pressure Water Parameter Constant Surface Ru (psf) No. 1 120.0 130.0 250.0 30.00 .000 .0 1 2 120.0 130.0 100.0 10.00 .000 .0 1 I I I 1 Water surface(s) have been specified I Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) I i I I T I i I I I I I I I I Water Surface No. 1 specified by 4 coordinate points ********************************** PHREATIC SURFACE, ********************************** Point x-water y-water No. . (ft) (ft) 1 .00 120.00 2 70.00 120.00 3 105.00 136.00 4 280.00 142.00 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 = 50.0 ft and X = 69.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 83.0 ft and X = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 40.0 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 I I Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees ***********************************************************************^ -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- WARNING -- (# 48) ************************************************************************ Negative effective stresses were calculated at the base of a slice. This warning is usually reported for cases where slices have low self weight and a relatively high "c" shear strength parameter. In such cases, this effect can only be eliminated by reducing the "c" value. ************************************************************************ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero Factors of safety have been calculated by the SIMPLIFIED JANBU METHOD ***** ***** The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 20 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 64.78 120.00 2 68.26 118.03 3 71.91 116.40 4 75.71 115.14 5 79.61 114.27 6 83 .58 113.77 7 87.58 113.67 8 91.57 113.97 9 95.51 114.65 10 99.37 115.71 11 103.10 117.15 12 106.67 118.95 13 110.05 121.09 14 113.21 123.55 15 116.10 126.31 16 118.72 129.34 17 121.02 132.61 18 122.99 136.09 19 124.61 ^ 139.74 20 124.83 140 .41 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.954 ** (Fo factor =. 1. 080) Failure surface No. 2 specified by 13 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf ^ No. (ft) (ft) " 1 69.00 120.00 2 72 . 62 118.29 1 ^ 76 .45 117.15 I 4 80.41 116.59 5 84 .41 116.64 88.36 117.29 • 92 .16 118.53 • 8 95.73 120.33 • ^ 98 .99 122.64 101.87 125.43 • 11 104 .29 128.61 106.21 132.12 1 '''^ 107.50 135.68 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.966 ** (Fo factor = 1 .080) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 22 coordinate points • Point x-surf y-surf • No. (ft) (ft) • 1 56.33 120.00 1 2 59.66 117.78 3 63.18 115.88 M ^ 66.86 114.30 1 ^ 70 . 66 113.07 • 6 74.56 112.18 7 78.53 111.65 1 ^ 82 .52 111.49 I 9 86 .52 111.69 10 90.48 11,2 .25 m 11 94.37 113.17 98 .17 114 .43 • 13 101.83 116.04 105.33 117.98 m 108.64 120.22 • 16 111.73 122.76 17 114.58 125.56 • 18 117.17 128.62 1 19 119.46 131.89 20 121.45 135.36 M 21 123.11 139.00 1 22 123.48 140.04 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.971 ** (Fo factor = 1. 081) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 23 coordinate points 1 Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) I 64.78 120.00 2 68.58 118.77 3 72.46 117.77 1 76.38 117.01 5 80 .35 116.49 6 84 .34 116.22 7 88.34 116.20 8 92 .33 116.41 9 96.31 116.88 10 100.25 117.58 11 104.13 118.53 12 107.95 119.71 13 111.69 121.13 14 115.34 122.77 15 118.88 124.63 16 122 .30 126.71 17 125.58 128 . 99 18 128.72 131.47 19 131.70 134.14 20 134.52 136.99 21 137.15 140.00 22 139.59 143.17 23 140.64 144.72 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.987 'allure surface No. 5 specified by 2^ Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 66.89 120 . 00 2 70.65 118.63 3 74 .48 117.50 4 78 .38 116.61 5 82.33 115.98 6 86.32 115.60 7 90.31 115.48 8 94 .31 115.61 9 98 .29 116.00 10 102.24 116.64 11 106.14 117.53 12 109.98 118.66 13 113.73 120.04 14 117.39 121.66 15 120.94 123.51 16 124.36 125.58 17 127.64 127.86 18 130.78 130.35 19 133.74 133.03 20 136.53 135.90 21 139.13 138.94 22 141.53 142.14 23 143.72 145.48 24 143.78 145.58 (Fo factor = 1.065) ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.991 ** (Fo factor = 1.068) Failure surface No. 6 specified by 31 coordinate points Point No. x-surf (ft) y-surf (ft) 1 58 .44 120 . 00 2 61.97 118.12 3 65.60 116.43 4 69 .32 114.95 5 73 .10 113.66 6 76.96 112.59 7 80.86 111.73 8 84 .81 111.08 9 88.79 110.65 10 92 . 78 110.43 11 96.78 110.43 12 100.78 110.65 13 104.75 111.09 14 108.70 111.74 15 112.60 112.61 16 116.45 113.69 17 120.24 114.98 18 123.95 116.47 19 127.58 118.16 20 131.11 120.04 21 134.53 122.12 22 137.83 124 .38 23 141.00 126.81 24 144.04 129.41 25 146.93 132.18 26 149.67 135.10 27 152.24 138.16 28 154.64 141.36 29 156.87 144.68 30 158.91 148.12 31 159.87 149.96 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.991 ** (Fo factor = 1.075) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 19 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 56.33 120 . 00 2 59.99 118.37 3 63 .76 117.05 4 67.64 116.06 5 71.58 115.40 6 75.57 115.07 7 79.57 115.09 8 83.55 115.44 9 87.49 116.13 10 91.36 117.14 11 95.13 118.49 12 98 .77 120.14 13 102.26 122.10 14 105.57 124 .35 15 108.67 126.87 16 111.56 129.64 17 114.19 132.65 18 116.57 135.87 19 118.25 138.61 I I ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.000 ** (Fo factor ,= 1.072) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 22 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 54 . 22 120.00 .2 57.86 118.34 3 61.61 116.95 4 65.45 115.84 5 69.37 115.02 6 73.34 114.50 7 77.33 114.27 8 81.33 114.34 9 85 .31 114.71 10 89 .26 115.37 11 93 .14 116 .33 12 96 . 94 117.57 13 100.64 119.09 14 104.22 120.88 15 107.65 122.93 16 . 110.92 125.24 17 114.01 127.78 18 116.91 130 .54 19 119.59 133 .51 20 122.04 136 . 67 21 124 .25 140.00 22 124.41 140 .29 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.001 ** (Fo factor = 1.071) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 22 coordinate points I I Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 62 .67 120 . 00 2 65.82 117.54 3 69.21 115.41 4 72 .78 113.62 5 76.52 112.18 . 6 80.37 111.12 7 84 .31 110.44 8 88.30 110.14 9 . 92.30 110.24 10 96.27 110.73 11 • 100.17 111.61 12 103.97 112.87 13 107.63 114.49 14 111.11 116.46 15 114.38 118.76 16 117.41 121.37 17 120.17 124 .26 18 122.64 127.41 19 124.78 130.79 20 126.59 134 .36 21 22 128.03 129.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 138.09 141.54 2.010 ** (Fo factor = 1.085) Failure surface No.10 specified by 32 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 60.56 120.00 2 63.99 117.94 3 • 67.53 116.08 4 71.17 114.43 5 74 . 90 112.98 6 78.70 111.74 7 82.57 110.72 8 86.49 109.92 9 90.44 109 .34 10 94.43 108.98 11 98 .43 108.85 12 102 .43 108.95 13 106.41 109.27 14 110.38 109.81 15 114.30 110.58 16 118.18 111.56 17 121.99 112.76 18 125.73 114.18 19 129.39 115.80 20 132.95 117.63 21 136 .40 119.66 22 139.73 121.87 23 142.93 124.27 24 145.99 126.85 25 148.90 129.59 26 151.65 132.50 27 154.23 135.55 28 156.64 138.75 29 158.86 142.07 30 160.89 145.52 31 162.73 149.07 32 163.26 150.27 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 2.013 ** (Fo factor = 1.078) The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : P&D/SECTION-C-CIRC 1. 2. Modified JANBU FOS 1.954 1.966 Correction Factor 1.080 1.080 Initial x-coord (ft) 64 .78 69.00 Terminal x-coord (ft) 124.83 107.50 Available Strength (lb) 4.946E+04 2.681E+04 3 . 1. 971 1. 081 56.33 123 .48 5.585E+04 4 . 1. 987 1. 065 64 . 78 .140 . 64 5.686E+04 5 . 1. 991 1.068 66 .89 143 . 78 6.286E+04 6 . 1. 991 1.075 - 58.44 159 . 87 1.047E-H05 7. 2 . 000 , 1. 072 56.33 118 .25 4.002E+04 8 . 2 . 001 1. 071 54 .22 • 124 .41 4 . 805EH-04 9 . 2 . 010 1. 085 62 . 67 129 .00 6.586E+04 10 . . 2 . 013 1.078 60 .56 163 .26 1.174E+05 * * * END OF FILE * * * I I PDCUT 1-22-98 15:54 225 PD/CUT(Ts) 2:1 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS 1 .642 40 80 120 160 200 X-AXIS (feet) 240 280 1 320 PROFIL FILE: PDCUT 1-22-98 13:54 ft PD/CUT(Ts) 2:1 3 3 0 100 0 50 0 100 0 1 50 0 100 0 210 0 180 0 1 210 0 180 0 300 0 180 0 1 SOIL 1 120.0 130.0 250.0 30.00 .000 CIRCLE 10 10 15.0 49.0 • 211.0 280.0 50.0 10.0 .0 .0 XSTABL File: PDCUT 1-22-98 13:54 ' ****************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 : PD/CUT(Ts) 2:1 SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 3 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 • 2 3 x-left (ft) . 0 50 . 0 210 . 0 y-left (ft) 100 . 0 100 . 0 180 . 0 x-right (ft) 50 . 0 210 . 0 300.0 y-right (ft) 100 . 0 180 . 0 18 0 '. 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) 120 . 0 130 . 0 Cohesion Intercept (psf) 250 . 0 Friction Pore Pressure Water Angle Parameter Constant Surface (deg) Ru (psf) No-. 30 . 00 000 . 0 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. I 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = • 15.0 ft and X = 4 9.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 211.0 ft and X = 2 8 0.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft 10.0 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 JANBU METHOD * * * * * The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 23 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 37 . 67 100.00 2 47 56 98 . 52 3 57. 51 97 .59 4 67 51 97 .22 5 77 50 97.41 6 87 48 98 . 16 •7 , 97 39 99.47 8 107 21 101.34 .• 9 116 92 103.75 10 126 47 106.70 11 135 85 110.19 12 145 01 114.19 13 153 93 118.70 14 162 59 123.71 15 170 . 96 . 129.19 16 17 9 . 00 135.13 17 186 . 69 141.52 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.642' ** (Fo factor = 1.060) 18 194 . 02 148 . 32 19 200 . 96 155 . 53 20 207 .47 163 . 11 21 213 . 56 171 . 05 22 219 . 19 179 .31 23 219 . 60 180 . 00 )rrected JANBU FOS = 1. 642- surface No. 2 specified by 2 Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26 .33 100 . 00 2 .36 . 15 98 07 3 46 . 04 96 65 4 56 . 00 95 76 5 66 . 00 • 95 39 6 76 00 95 54 7 85 97 96 22 8 95 90 97 42 9 105 75 99 14 10 115 50 101 37 11 125 12 104 . 11 12 134 58 107 . 3 5 13 143 86 Ill . 08 14 152 93 115 . 29 15 161 76 119 . 98 16 170 . 34 125 . 11 17 178 . 64 130 . 70 18 186 . 63 136 . 70 19 194 . 30 143 . 12 .20 201 . 62 149 . 93 21 208 . 58 157 . 12 22 215 . 14 164 . 66 23 221. 31 172 . 54 24 226 . 54 180 . 00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = .1.674 ^* (Fo factor = 1.061) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 24 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) -(ft) 1 18 . 78 100.00 2 28 . 66 98 . 50 3 38.61 97.49 4 48 . 60 96 . 97 5 58 .60 96 . 95 6 68 .59 97 . 42 7 78.54 98.39 8 88 .43 99 . 85 9 98.24 101.80 10 107.94 104.24 11 117.51 107.15 12 126.92 110.53 I i I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.686 ** (Fo factor = 1.057) 13 136 . 15 114 ; 37 14 145 . 18 118 .67 15 153 . 98 123 .41 16 162 . 54 128 . 58 17 170 . 84 134 . 17 18 178 . 84 140 . 16 19 186 . 54 146 . 55 20 . 193 . 91 153-.30 21 200 . 94 160 . 42 22 207 .61 167 . 87 23 213 . 90 175 . 64 24 217 . 08 180 . 00 )rrected JANBU FOS = 1.686 : surface No. 4 specified by 2'. Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 49 , .00 100 , , 00 2 58 , . 63 97 , .30 3 68 , .42 95 , .28 4 . 78 , . 34 93 . 96 5 88 , .32 93 . 34 6 98 . ,32 93 . 43 7 108 . 29 94 . 21 8 118 . 17 95 . 70 9 127 . 93 97 . 88- 10 137 . 52 100 . 74 11 146 . 87 104 . 27 12 155 . 96 108 . 44 13 164 . 73 • 113 . 25 14 173 . 14 118 . 66 15 181 . 15 124 . 65 16 188 . 71 131. 19 17 195 . 80 138 . 24 18 202 . 37 . 145. 78 19 208 . 40 153 . 76 20 213 . 85 162 . 14 21 218 . 70 170 . 89 22 222 . 92 179 . 95 23 222 . 94 •-180 . 00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.693 ** (Fo factor = 1.071) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 25 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.00 100.00 2 24.87 98.38 3 34.80 97.22 4 44.78 96.53 5 54.77 96.31 ' 6 64.77 96 . 55 7 74.74 97.2 7 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.593 ** (Fo factor = 1.057) I I I I 8 84 . 67 98 .46 . 9 94 . 54 100 . 11 10 104 .31 ,102 .23 11 113 . 97 104 . 80 12 123 • 51 107 . 82 13 132 .89 • 111 .29 14 " 142 . 09 115 . 19 15 151 . 10 119 . 53 16 159 . 90 124 .28 17 168 .47 129 .44 18 . 176 . 78 134 . 99 19 184 . 83 140 . 94 20 192 . 58 147 .25 21 • 200 . 03 153 . 92 22 207 . 16 160 . 93 23 213 . 95 168 .27 24 220 .39 175. . 93 25 223 . 50 180 . 00 )rrected JANBU FOS = 1.593 surface No. 6 specified by 2^ Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 30 11 100 00 2 3 9 55 96 69 3 49 19 94 05 4 59 00 92 08 5 68 91 90 79 6 78 90 90 20 7 88 . 90 90 . 29 8 98 86 91 . 08 9 108 76 92 . 56 10 118 . 52 94 . 72 11 128 . 11 97. 55 12 137 . 48 101 . 03 . 13 146 . 59 105 . 16 14 155 . 39 109 . 91 15 163 . 84 115 . 26 16 171. 90 • 121. 17 17 179 . 54 127 . 64 18 186 . 70 134 . 61 . 19 193 . 37 142 . 07 2 0 199 . 50 149 . 97 21 205 . 07 158 . 27 22 210 . 05 156 . 94 23 214 . 42 175 . 93 24 216 . 06 180 . 00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.707 ** (Fo factor = 1.073) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 26 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) i I i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 15 . 00 100 .00 2 24 . 70 97 .55 3 34 . 51 95 . 51 4 44 .40 94 .19 5 54 .36 93 .28 6 64 .35 92 .89 7 74 .35 93 . 03 8 84 .33 93 .69 9 94 .26 94 . 87 10 104 . 12 96 . 56 11 113 . 87 98 . 77 12 123 . 50 101 .49 13 132 , . 97 104 . . 70 14 142 , .26 108 , .40 15 151, , 34 112 , . 58 16 160 . , 19 117 , , 23 17 , 168 . , 79 122 . . 34 18 177 . , 11 127 . , 89 19 185 . . 13 133 , , 85 20 192 . 82 140 . 25 21 200 . 18 147 . 03 22 207 . 16 154 . 18 23 213 . 77 151 . 69 24 219'. 97 169 . 53 25 . 225 . 76 177 . 69 26 22 7. 23 180 . 00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.709 ** • (Fo factor = 1.063) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 26 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No.-(ft) ' (ft) 1 15 . 00 100.00 2 •24 . 58 97.12 3 34 .30 94 . 77 4 44 . 13 92 . 95 5 54 . 05 91 . 58 6 64 . 02 90 . 95 7 74 . 02 90 . 77 8 84 . 01 91.15 9 93 . 97 92 . 06 10 103 .86 93.53 11 113 . 66 95 . 53 12 123 .33 98 . 07 13 132 . 85 101 .13 14 142 , . 19 104.72 15 151, .31 108.81 16 150 , .20 113 .39 17 • . 168 , . 82 118.46 18 177 , , 16 123.99 19 185, . 17 129.96 20 . 192 , . 85 136 .37 21 . 200 . , 16 143.19 22 207. , 09 150.41 23 213 . 61 157.99 24 219 . 70 165.92 -25 225. 35 174.17 26 228.90 180.00 *•* Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.727 ** (Fo factor = 1.065) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 25 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) . (ft) 1 26 . 33 100.00 2 35 . 69 96 .47 3 45 .25 93 . 55 4 54 . 9-9 91.26 5 64 . 85 89 . 50 5 74 .80 88.58 7 84 .79 88 . 20 8 94 . 79 88 .48 9 104 . 74 89.40 10 114 . 62 90 . 96 11 124 . 38 93 . 15 12 133 , . 97 95 . 97 13 143 , .35 99 .41 14 152 , . 51 103 .45 15 161, .38 108.07 15 169 , . 93 113.25 17 178 , . 13 118.98 18 185 , . 94 125.22 19 193 . 33 131.95 20 200 . 27 139.15 21 206 . 73 146 . 79 22 212 . 59 154.82 23 218 . 11 163.22 24 222 . 98 171.96 25 226 . 80 18.0.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.737 ** (Fo factor = 1.073) Failure surface No.10 specified by 27 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 18 . 78 100 . 00 2 28 .45 97 .44 3 38 .23 95 . 38 4 48 .10 93 . 80 5 58 . 05 92 . 72 6 58 . 03 92 . 13 7 78 . 03 92 . 05 8 88 .02 92 .46 9 97 .98 • 93.38 10 107 . 88 94 . 79 11 117 . 69 96 .69 12 127 .40 99 . 08 13 136 . 98 101. 95 14 146 , .41 105 .30 15 155 , .55 109.12 16 164 , . 69 113 .39 I i I I I I I I i I I i I I I 17 173 . 51 118 . 11 18 182 . 08 123 . 26 19 190 .38 128 . 84 20 198 .39 134 . 82 21 205 . 10 141 . 20 22 213 .47 147 . 95 23 . 220 . 50 155 . 06 24 227 . 17 152 . 52 25 233 .45 170 . 30 25 . 239 . 34 178 . 38 27 240 ..4 0 180 . 00 Corrected JANBU : FOS = 1 . 749 (Fo factor = 1. 053) The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : PD/CUT(Ts) 2:1 Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available JANBU FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1. 1 . 642 1. 050 37 . 67 219.60 3 . 120EH-05 2 . 1, . 574 1. 061 25.33 225.54 3 .596E+05 3 . 1, . 685 1. 057 18 . 78 217.08 2 . 826E+05 4 . 1, . 693 1. 071 49 . 00 222.94 4 . 123E + 05 5 . 1, . 693 1. 057 15 . 00 223.50 3 . 154E + 05 6 . 1, . 707 1. 073 30.11 216.05 4 . 084E + 05 7 . 1, . 709 1. 053 15 . 00 227.23 3 . 940E-H05 8 . 1, , 727 1. 056 15 .00 228.90 4 . 378E + 05 9 . 1. , 737 1. 073 26.33' 225.80 4 . 829E-^05 10 . 1. 749 1. 053 18.78 240 .40 4 .706E+05 * * * END OF FILE * * * PDFILL 1-22-98 16:15 215 _ 180 CD 145 CP 00 X < 1 10 I >- 75 40 0 PD/FILL SLOPE @ 2:1 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS = 1.505 35 70 105 140 175 X-AXIS (feet) 210 245 280 I 1 ; -poy-F-I-t£,----S-£OPE@-2—L PROFIL FILE: PDFILL 1-22-98 16:13 ft 1 I I I i I . 0 100 , . 0 50 . 0 100 , . 0 1 50 , . 0 100 , . 0 200 , . 0 • 175 . . 0 1 200 , . 0 175 , . 0 280 , . 0 175 , . 0 1 SOIL 1 120.0 130.0 175-.0 28.00 .000 CIRCLE 10 10 15.0 49.0 220.0 250.0 50.0 5.0 .0 .0 I I i I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I XSTABL File: PDFILL 1-22-98 16:13 *************************************** * * * * 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 : PD/FILL SLOPE @ 2:1 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 . 0 100 . 0 50.0 100 . 0 1 2-50.0 100 . 0 200.0 175 . 0 1 3 200 . 0 175 . 0 280.0 175 . 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. 1 120.0 130.0 175.0 28.00 .000 .0 1 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. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 10 Surfaces initiate from-each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface beiween x = 15.0 ft - — ~-:-.and—oc..--= ^- 4-9-.^0. f-t.- ----- — — Each surface terminates between x = • 220.0 ft and X = 250.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which-a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft 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 JANBU METHOD * * * * * The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 44 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 37 . 67 100.00 • 2 42 . 61 99.26 3 47 . 57 98 . 64 4 52 . 55 98 . 15 5 57 . 54 97 .80 5 62 . 53 97.56 7 57 . 53 97.46 •8 72, 53 97.49 9 77.53 . 97 . 64 10 82 . 52 97 . 92 11 87 . 50 98 . 34 12 92.47 98 . 87 13 97.43 99 . 54 14 102 .37 100 .33 15 107.28 101.25 16 112 .17 102.30 17 117.03 103.47 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 18 121 . 86 104 . 77 19 125 .55 106 . 19 -2-0--- 13-1-.-4-1 • -- 3rO^ .-7-3 21 136 . 12. 109 .39 22 140 .80 111 . 18 23 145 .42 113 . 08 24 149 . 99 115 . 11 25 154 . 51 117 24 26 158 97 119 50 27 163 38 121 87 28 157 72 124 35 29 171 99 126 94 30 176 20 129 64 31 180 34 132 4 5' 32 184 40 135 35 33 188 39 138 38 34 192 30 141 50 35 •195. 12 144 72 35 199 . 87 148 . 03. 37 203 . 52 151. 44 38 207 . 09 154 . 94 39 210 . 57 .158 . 54 40 213 . 95 162 . 22 41 217 . 24 165 . 99 42 220 . 43 169 . 84 43 223 . 52 173 . 77 44 224 . 43 175 . 00 -** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.505 (Fo factor = 1.055) Failure surface No. 2 specified by 47 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 18 . 78 100.00 2 23 . 72 99 .25 3 28 . 68 98 . 61 4 33 . 65 98 . 08 5 38 . 63 97 . 67 5 43 . 63 97 .35 7 48 . 62 97 .17 8 53 . 62 97 . 10 9 58 . 52 97 .13 10 • 63.62 97 .28 11 68 . 61 97 . 54 12 73 .60 97 . 91 13 78 . 57 98.40 14 83 . 54 99 . 00 15 88.49 99 . 71 16 93 .42 100.53 17 98 .33 101.47 18 103 .22 102.51 19 108 . 09 103.66 20 112.92 104 . 93 21 . 117.73 106 .30 22 122.51 107.78 23 127.25 109.37 24 131.95 111.06 I I I I I t i I I 1 I I I I I I I I I 25 136 .62 112 .87 25 141 . 24 114 . 77 • - - -14-5-T-8^2-- ----Ii5--.-"78- 28 150 .35 118 . 89 29 ' 154 . 83 121 . 11 30 159 .27 123 . 42 31 163 . 64 125 . 83 32 167 . 97 128 .35 33 172 . 23 130 . 96 34 175 .44 133 . 65 35 180 . 58. 136 .46 35 184 . 55 139 ; 35 37 . 188 .57 142 . . 34 38 192 . 62 145 , . 41 39 196 .49 148 , . 57 40 200 .29 151. .82 41 204 . 02 155 , . 15 42 207 .57 158 . 57 43 211, .24 152 . 07 44 214 , . 73 165 . 64 45 218 , . 15 169 . 30 46 221, ,47 173 . 03 47 223 , , 15 175 . 00 ** -Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.523 ** (Fo factor = 1.054) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 47 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1'., .. 25 . 33 100.00 2 ' • 31.24 99 . 03 3 35.17 98 .19 4 41.12 97.47 5 ' 46 . 08 95 .87 6 51.06 96 .40 , 7 56.04 96 . 05 8 61.04 95 . 82 9 66.04 -95.72 10 71.04 95 . 74 11 75.04 95 . 88 12 81.03 96 .15 13 86.01 • 96.55 14 90 . 99 97.06 15 95 . 95 97 . 71 16 100.89 98 .47 17 105.81 99.35 18 110.71 100 .36 19 115.58 101.49 20 120.42 102.74 21 125.23 • • 104.11 22 130.00 105.50 23 134.73 107.20 24 139.43 108.93 25 144.08 110.77 26 148.58 112.72 27 153.23 114.79 28 157-. 73 116.97 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 29 162 . 18 119.26 30 166 . 56 121.66 3-1— -.-8-9 ••--1-2-4-7-1-7 32 175 . 15 126 . 79 33 179 . 34 129 . 51 34 183 .47 132 .33 35 187 . 52 135.26 36 191 . 51 • 138 .28 37 195 .41 141 .40 38 199 .24 144.62 39 202 . 98 147.94 40 205 . 54 151 . 34 41 210 .22 154.84 42 213 . 71 158.42 43 217 . 10 152.09 44 220 .41 155.84 45 223 . 62 159 . 57 45 226 . 74 173.58 47 227 81 175.00 **' Corrected JANBU FOS ^ 1.538 ** ' (Fo factor = 1.058) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 48 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 - 15.00 100.00 2 19 . 93 99 . 19 3 24 . 88 98.48 4 29 . 85 97 . 89 5 34 . 82 97 .40 6 39 . 81 97 . 03 7 44 .80 96 . 76 8 49.80 96 . 60 9 54 . 80 96 . 56 10 59 .80 96 . 62 11 64 . 80 96 . 79 12 69 . 79 97 . 08 13 74 . 77 97.47 14 79 . 75 97 . 97 15 84 . 71 98 . 58 16 89 . 66 99 .30 17 94 .59 100.13 18 99 . 50 101.05 19 104 .39 102.11 20 109 .26 103 .25 21 114.10 104.51 22 118.91 105.88 23 123.69 107 .35 24 128.43 108.92 25 133.14 110.60 26 137.82 112.38 27 142 .45 114.25 28 147.04 115.24 29 151.58 118 . 33 30 156 . 08 120.51 31 160.53 122.79 32 164.93 125.17 I I I n I I n I 0 I I 11 I I I I 0 I 33 169 .27 127 .55 34 173 . 56 130 .22 -3-5 ~- —-1-7-7 -.-7-9 -1-3 2 -8-8- 36 181 . 96 135 . 63 37 185 . 08 138 .48 38 190 . 12 14.1 42 39 194 . 10 144 44 40 198 . 02 147 55 41 . 201 . 85 150 75 42 205 . 64 154 03 43 209 .34^ 157 39 44 212 . 95 150 83 45 216 .51 154 36 46 219 . 98 167 95 47 223 .38 171 . 63 48 226 .35 175 . 00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.543 ** (Fo factor = 1.054) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 47 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 30 . 11 100.00 2 34 . 83 98 .35 3 39 .50 96 .85 4 44 .41 . 95 . 50 5 49 .27 94 .31 6 54 . 15 93 .27 7 59 . 08 92 .40 8 64 . 03 91. 68 9 69 . 00 91.11 10 73 . 99 90 . 71 11 78 . 98 90.47 12 83 . 98 90 .39 13 88 . 98 90.47 14 93 . 97 90 . 71 15 98 96 91.11 16 103 92 91.67 17 108 87 92 .39 18 113 80 93 .27 19 118 59 94 .30 20 123 54 95.49 21 128 36 96 . 84 22 133 13 98.34 23 137 85 99 . 99 24 142 . 51 101.80 25 147 . 11 103.75 25 151. 65 105.84 27 155 . 12 108.09 28 150 . 52 110 .47 29 164 . 83 113.00 30 169 . 07 115.66 31 173 . 21 118.45 32 177 . 26 121.38 33 181 . 22 124 .44 34 185 . 08 127.52 35 188 . 83 130.92 I 11 I I I fl I II I n I 0 I s I I I I II 35 192.48 134.34 37 195.01 137.88 --3-8 3:-g-9--^.-3 ^..2.^^^2.-.5'3 ---- - - 39 202.73 145.28 40 205.91 149 . 14 41 208 . 96 153.10 42 -211.89 157.16 43 214.58 151.31 44 217.34 165.54 45 219.85 159.86 46 222.24 174.25 47 222.51 175.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.564 ** (Fo factor = 1.070) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 43 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf , No. (ft) (ft) 1 49 . 00 100.00 2 53 . 81 • 98.55 3 58 . 57 97 .45 4 53 . 55 95 .43 5 68 .49 95.57 6 73 .44 94 .87 7 78 .41 94 .33 8 83 .40 93 . 95 9 88 .39 93 . 75 10 93 .39 93 . 71 11 98 .39 93 . 83 12 103 .38 94 . 12 13 108 .35 94 . 57 14 113 . 32 95.19 15 118 .26 95 . 98 16 123 . 17 96 . 92 17 128 . 05 98 . 03 18 132 88 99.30 19 137 57 100.73 20 142 42 102 .32 21 147 10 104.06 22 151 73 105.96 23 156 29 108.01 24 160 78 110.20 .25 165 19 112.55 26 169 53 115 . 04 27 173 . 78 117.68 28 177 . 94 120.45 29 182 01 123.36 .30 185 . 97 125.40 31 189 . 84 129.57 32 193 . 60 132.87 33 197 . 24 136 .29 34 200 . 77 . 139.84 35 204 . 18 143.49 36 207 . 47 14 7 •. 2 6 37 210 . 64 151.13 38 213 . 67 155.11 3 9 216 . 57 159.18 I I i I I I I n I I I I I 1 I 1 i I 1 40 219.33 153.35 • 41 . ' 221.95 157.50 42 - 224 .43 171 . 94 43 225.05 175.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.566 ** (Fo factor = 1.067) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 49 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15 . 00 100.00 2 19 . 85 98 . 78 3 24 . 72 97.57 4 29 . 63 96.69 5 34 .55 95 . 83 5 39.50 95 .10 7 44.46 94 .48 8 49 .44 94.00 9 54.42 93 . 63 10 59.42 93 .39 11 54 .42 93 .28 12 69.42 93 .29 13 74 .41 93 .42 14 79.41 93 . 58 15 84 . 39 94 . 05 16 89.37 94 . 57 17 94 .33 95.20 18 99.27 95.95 19 104.19 95 . 83 20 109.09 97 . 83 21 113.96 98.95 22 118.81 100 .20 23 123 . 52 101.56 24 , 128.39 103.04 25 133.13 104.64 26 137.83 106.36 27 142.48 108.20 28 147 . 08 110.15 29 151.63 112 .21 30 156.13 114.39 31 160.58 116.58 32 164.97 119.08 33 169.29 121.59 34 173.55 124 .20 35 177 . 75 126.92 3 6 181.88 '• 129 . 75 37 185.93 132 . 67 38 189.91 135 .70 39 193.81 138 . 82 40 197.64 142.04 41 201 .38 145 .35 42 205.04 148.77 43 208 . 61 152 .26 44 212.10 155.85 45 . 215.49 159.52 46 218.79 163 .27 47 222.00 167.11 48 49 225 . 11 228 . 11 171.03 175 . 00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.568 ** (Fo factor = 1.060) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 46 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 41 . 44 100.00 2 46 .42 99 . 52 3 51 .41 99 . 14 4 56 .40 98,. 87 5 51 .40 98 . 70 5 56 .40 98 . 64 • 7 71 .40 98 . 69 8 76 .39 98 . 84 9 . 81 .39 99 . 10 10 86 .37 99.45 11 91 .35 99 . 93 12 95 .32 100 .51 13 101 .27 101.19 14 105 .21 101.98 15 111 .13 102 . 87 16 116' . 03 103.85 17 120 . 91 104.96 18 • 125 . 76 105.16 19 130 .59 107 .46 20 135 .39 108 . 87 21 140 15 110 .38 22 144 .89 111.98 23 149 59 113 . 69 24 154 25 115.50 25 158 87 117.40 26 163 45 119.41 27 157 99 121.51 28 172 48 123.70 2 9 176 93 125.99 30 181 32 128 .38 31 185 . 67 130 . 86 32 189 . 96 133.42 33 194 . 19 136 . 08 34 198 . 37 138.83 35 202 . 49 141.67 36 206 . 54 144.59 37 210 . 54 147.60 38 214 . 47 150.69 3 9 218 . 33 153.85 40 222 . 12 157.12 41 225 . 85 16 0 .4-5 42 229 . 50 163.87 43 233 . 08 167 .36 44 236 . 59 170.93 45 240 . 01 174.57 46 24 0 . 41 175.00 **• Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.580 ** (Fo factor = 1.050) I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 Failure surface No. 9 specified by 47 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft). 1 33 .89 100 . 00 2 38 . 78 98 . 95 3 43 .69 98 . 02 4 48 .63 97 . 22 5 53 . 58 95 . 55 6 58 . 55 95 . 00 7 63 . 53 95 . 57 8 68 . 52 95.27 9 73 . 52 95 . 10 10 78 . 52 95 . 05 11 83 . 52 95 . 13 12 • 88 . 51 95 . 34 13 93 . 50 95 .67 14 98 .48 95 .13 15 103 .45 95 . 72 15 108 .40 • • 97.43 17 • 113 .33 98 .26 18 . 118 . 23 99.22 19 123 . 12 100 .31 20 127 . 97 101.51 21 132 . 79 102.84 22 137 . 57 104.29 23 142., . 32 105.86 24 147 , . 03 107.55 25 151 .69 109 .36 26 156 , .30 111.29 27 160 , .87 ' 113.33 '28 155 , .38 115.48 29 159 , , 83 117.75 30 174 , , 23 120.14 31 178 , . 56 122.53 32 • 182. 83 125.23 33 , • 187. 04 127.94 34 191 . 17 130.75 35 195 . 23 133.57 35 199 . 22 136.69 37 203 . 12 139.81 38 206 . 95 •143.02 39 210 . 70 145 . 34 40 214 . 35 149.74 41 217 . 93 . 153 .24 42 221 . 41 155.83 43 224 . 81 160.50 44 228 . 10 164 .26 45 231. 31 168.10 4 5 , 234 . 41 172.02 47 236 . 65 175.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.585 (Fo factor = 1.059) Failure surface No. 10. specified by 50 coordinate points Point . x-surf y-surf I I 1 I I i I I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 No . (ft) (ft) 1 15 . 00 100.00 2 19 .79 -98 . 56 3 24 .61 97 .25 4 29 .47 95 ..05 5 34 .36 95.00 6 39 .27 94 . 08 7 44 .21 93 .28 8 49 . 16 92 . 61 9 54 . 13 92 . 08 10 59 . 12 91 . 58 11 - 64 . 11 91 .40 12 69 . 11 91.27 13 74 . 11 91.25 14 79 . 11 91 .38 15 84 . 10 91. 64 16 89 . 08 92 . 03 17 94 . 06 92 . 55 18 99 . 01 93 . 21 19 103 . 95 93 . 99 20 108 . 87 94 . 90 21 113 . 75 95 . 95 22 118 . 62 97 .12 23 123 .45 98.42 24 128 . . 24 99 .85 25 132 . . 99 101.40 26 • 137, . 70 103.08 27 142 , ,36 104.88 28 146 , . 98 106.81 29 . 151 , . 54 108 .85 30 156 , . 05 111 . 02 31 160 . .49 113 .31 32 164 . . 88 115.71 33 169 . ,20 118.23 34 173 . 45 120.86 35 177 . 53 123 . 60 36 181 . 74 126.45 37 .185. 77 129 .41 38 189 . 72 132 .47 39 193 . 59 135.64 40 197 . 3 7 138.91 41 201 . 07 142 .28 42 204 . 57 145.75 43 208 . 18 149 . 30 44 211 . 50 152.95 45 214 . 92 156.70 4 6 218 . 14 150 . 52 47 221 . 25 164 .43 48 , 224 . 27 168 .42 49 227 . 17 172 .49 50 228 . 86 175.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS 1.587 ** (Fo factor = 1.064) The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces I i I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I I I Problem Description : PD/FILL SLOPE •© 2:1 Modified JANBU FOS Correction Factor Initial x-coord Terminal x-coord * * * END OF FILE * * * Available Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1. 1 505 1 . 055 37 . 67 224 .43 2 .952E+05 2 . 1 523 1 054 18 . 78 223 . 15 2 . 747E-h05 3 . 1 538 1 058 26 33 227 81 3 . 240E + 05 4 . 1 543 1 054 15 00 225 35 2 914E-h05 5 . 1 564 1 070 30 11 222 61 3 900E-f05 6 . 1 566 1 057 49 00 ' 225 05 3 766E+05 7 . 1 568 1 050 15 00 228 11 3 527E-f05 8 . 1 580 1 050 41 44 240 41 3 306E+05 9 . 1 585 1 059 . 33 89 235 55 3 757E-^05 10 . 1 587 1 054 15 00 228 . 86 3 870E+05 PDFILLB 1-22-98 16:55 235 _ PD/FILL SLOPE @ 2:1, H = 90 W/BNCH 1 0 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM JANBU FOS 1.524 40 80 1 ' r 120 150 200 X-AXIS (feet) 240 280 320 PROFIL FILE: PDFILLB 1-22-98 16:53 ft D/FILL SLOPE @ 2:1,- H=90 W/BNCH 5 5 .0 100.0 50.0 100.0 1 50.0 100.0 120.0 135 . 0 1 120.0 135.0 130.0 134.0 1 130.0 134.0 240.0 190.0 1 240.0 190.0 300.0 190.0 1 . OIL 1 120.0 130.0 175.0 28.00 .000 .0 1 IRCLE 10 • 10 15.0 49.0 255.0 290.0 50.0 10.0 .0 .0 I XSTABL File: PDFILLB 1-22-98 16:53 ****************************************** * * * * * * * * * * * * 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 : PD/FILL SLOPE @ 2:1, H=90 W/BNCH SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 x-left (ft) . 0 50.. 0 120 . 0 130 . 0 240 . 0 y-left (ft) 100 . 0 100 . 0 135 . 0 134 . 0 190 . 0 x-right (ft) 50 . 0 120 . 0 130 . 0 240 . 0 300 . 0 y-right (ft) 100 . 0 135 . 0 134 . 0 190 . 0 190 . 0 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 1 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. 120 . 0 130 . 0 175 . 0 28 . 00 .000 0 A critical failure surface seaz'ching 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 = 4 9.0 ft Each surface terminates between x - 255.0 ft and X = 2 9 0.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 50.0 ft 10.0 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 JANBU METHOD * * * * * The 10 most critical of all the failure surfaces examined are displayed below - the most critical first Failure surface No. 1 specified by 27 coordinate points Point. x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 37 . 67 100.00 2 47 . 56 98 . 52 3 57 . 50 97.47 4 57 .48 96.85 5 77 48 96 . 58 6 87 48 96 . 95 7 97 45 97 . 65 8 107 39 98 . 79 9 117 26 100.37 10 127 06 102.38 11 136 76 104.82 12 145 34 107.58 13 155 78 110.96 14 165 08 114 . 65 15 174 . 20 118.75 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.524 ** (Fo factor = 1.057) 16 183.14 123 .24 17 191.86 128.12 18 200.37 133 .38 19 208 . 64 139 . 00 20 216.65 144.99 21 224 .39 151 . 32 22 231.85 157.98 23 239.00 164.97 24 245 .84 172.25 25 252 .35 179 . 85 26 258.54 187.71 27 260 .18 190.00 Corrected JANBU FOS = 1. 524 ire surface No. 2 specified by 2 Point. x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 18 . 78 100.00 2 28 . 66 98 . 50 3 38 . 60 97 .38 4 48 . 58 96 . 56 5 58 . 57 96 .34 6 68 .57 96.41 7 78 . 56 96 . 87 8 88 . 52 97.72- 9 98.45 98 . 97 10 108.31 100 .61 11 118.10 102.63 12 127.81 105.04 13 137.41 107.83 14 146 . 90 110 . 99 15 156 .25 114.53 15 155 .45 118.44 17 174.50 122.70 . 18 183 .37 127.31 19 192.06 132.28 20 200.54 137.58 21 208 . 80 143.21 22 216.84 149.16 23 224.53 155.42 24 232.17 161.99 25 239 .45 168 . 85 25 245.45 175.99 27 253 . 17 183 .40 28 258 .59 190.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.538 ** (Fo factor =1.055) Failure surface No. 3 specified by 28 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.33 100.00 • 2 36.15 98.07 3 46 . 03 96 . 56 4 55 . 97 95.48 5 65 . 95 94 . 82 5 75 . 95 94 .60 7 85 . 95 94 . 80 8 95 93 95.43 9 105 87 96.50 10 115 76 97 . 98 11 125 57 99.89 12 135 30 102 .22 13 144 92 104.97 14 154 40 108.12 15 163 75 111.68 15 172 93 115.64 17 181 94 119.99 18 190 75 124.72 19 199 35 129.82 20 207 72 135.29 21 215 85 141.11 22 223 . 72 147.28 23 231. 32 153.78 24 238 . 64 160.60 25 245 . 65 167.73 26 252 . 35 175.15 27 258 . 73 182.85 28 254 . 15 190.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.549 ** (Fo factor = 1.059) Failure surface No. 4 specified by 29 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.00 100.00 2 24.87 98.38 3 34.79 97.13 4 44.75 95.27 5 54.74 95.79 5 64.74 95.70 7 74.74 95.99 8 84.71 96.67 9 94.66 97.73 10 104.55 99.17 11 114.39 100.99 12 124.14 103.19 13 133.80 105.77 14 143.35 108.71 15 152.80 112.01 15 162.10 115.68 17 171.25 119.71. 18 180.25 124.08 19 189.07 128.79 20 197.70 133.85 21 206.13 139.23 22 214.34 144.93 23 222.34 150.94 24 230.09 157.25 25 237.60 163.86 26 244.84 170.75 27 251.82 177.92 28 - 258.51 185.35 29 262.39 190.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.551 ** (Fo factor = 1.055! Failure surface No. 5 specified by 28 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 41.44 100.00 2 51.40 99 . 03 3 61.38 98 .43 4 71.38 98 .18 5 81.38 98 .30 5 91.36 98.78 7 101. 33 99 . 62 8 111.-25 100.82 9 121.13 102 .38 10 130.95 104.30 11 140 . 69 106.57 12 150 .34 109.18 13 159.89 . 112.15 14 169.33 115.46 15 178.64 119.11 16 187.81 123.10 17 196.83 127.41 18 205 . 69 132.05 19 • 214 . 38 137.00 20 222.88 142 .26 21 231.18 147 . 83 22 239 .28 153.70 23 247.16 159.85 24 254.82 155 .29 25 252 . 23 173.00 25 269 .40 179.97 27 276 .31 • 187.20 28 278.80 190 . 00 Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.572 ** (Fo factor = 1.050) Failure surface No. 5 specified by 30 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15 . 00 100 . 00 2 24 . 70 97.55 3 34 .49 95 . 53 4 44 .35 93 . 93 5 54 29 92 . 76 6 54 27 92 . 03 7 74 26 91 . 73 8 84 26 91. 87 9 94 24 92 .44 10 104 19 93 .45 11 114 . 09 94 . 89 12 123 . 91 96 . 76 13 133 . 55 . 99 . 0.5 14 143 . 27 101 77 15 152 .77 104 . 90 15 152 . 12 108 .44 17 171 .31 112 39 18 180 . 32 115 73 19 189 . 13 121 45 20 197 . 72 126 55 21 206 .09 132 04 22 214 .21 137 88 23 222 . 07 144 06 24 229 . 55 150 58 25 236 . 94 157 43 26 243 . 93 164 58 27 250 . 60 172 04 28 255 . 93 179 77 29 262 . 93 • 187 77 30 264 .45 190 . 00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.577 ** (Fo factor = 1.062) Failure surface No. 7 specified by 27 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 49 . 00 100.00 2 58 . 53 97 .30 3 68 .39 95 . 14 4 78 .26 93 . 53 5 88 .21 92 . 47 5 98 . 19 91. 97 7 108 . 19 92-. 02 8 118 . 17 92 . 53 9 128 . 11 93 . 80 10 137 . 95 95 . 52 11 147 70 97 . 78 12 157 30 100 . 58 13 . 166 73 103.92 14 175 95 107.77 15 184 95 112.13 16 193 69 116.99 17 202 15 122 .32 18 210 30 128.12 19 218 11 134 .37 20 225 55 141 . 04 21 232 63 148.11 22 239 29 155 . 57 23 245 53 163 .38 24 251 32 171 . 53 25 256 . 55 180.00 25 261 . 50 188.74 27 252 . 11 190.00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.584 ** (Fo factor = 1.068) Failure surface No. 8 specified by 29 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 33 . 89 100 . 00 2 • 43 . 67 '97.90 3 53 . 53 95 .23 4 63 .45 94.98 5 73 .41 94 . 17 6 83 .41 93 . 79 7 93 .41 93 . 85 8 103.40 94 .33 9 113.35 95 .26 10 123 .25 95 . 51 11 133.10 98 .39 12 142 . 85 100 . 59 13 152.50 103 .22 14 152.03 106 .26 15 171.41 109.72 16 180.64 113.57 17 189 . 69 117.83 18 198 . 55 122 .47 19 207.19 127.49 20 215.62 132.89 21 223.80 138.64 22 231.72 144.74 23 239 . 37 151.18 24 246.73 157.95 25 253.79 165.03 25 260 . 54 172 .41 27 256 . 97 180.07 28 273 . 05 188.01 29 274.44 190 . 00 ** Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.586 ** (Fo factor = 1.060) Failure surface No. 9 specified by 28 coordinate points Point X-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 30 . 11 100.00 2 39 . 55 96.59 3 49 . 15 93 . 91 4 58 90 91 . 66 5 58 75 89 . 96 6 78 68 88 . 79 7 88 66 88 . 18 8 98 65 88 . 11 9 108 55 88 . 59 10 118 60 89.53 11 128 47 91.21 12 138 25 93 .32 13 147 89 95 . 98 14 . 157 37 99 . 15 15 166 . 55 102.86 15 175 . 73 107.05 17 184 . 56 111.75 18 . 193.12 116 . 93 19 201.38 122 . 57 20 209.32 128 . 65 21 215.91 135 . 16 22 224.13 142 . 08 23 230 . 95 149 . 3 8 24 237 . 37 157 . 05 25 243 .35 16-5 . 07 26 248.89 173 .39 27 253.96 182 . 01 28 258.08 190 .00 Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.592 ire surface No.10 specified by 3 Point x-surf .y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 15.00 100 . 00 2 24.58 -97 . 12 3 34 .27 94 . 68 4 • 44 . 08 92 69 5 53 . 96 91 16 6 63.90 90 08 7 73.88 • 89 47 8 83 .88 89 31 9 93.87 89 62 . 10 •• 103.84 90 38 11 113 .77 91 61 12 123.63 93 29 13 133.40 95 42 14 143 .06 98 00 15 152.59 101 02 15 161.97 104 48 17 171.19 108 . 37 18 180.21 112 . 58 19 189.03 117 . 40 20 197.51 122 . 52 21 205.95 128 . 03 22 • 214 . 04 133 . 93 23 221.84 140 . 18 24 229 . 34 -146 . 79 25 236 . 53 153 . 74 26 243 .40 161 . 01 27 249 . 92 168 . 50 , 28 256.08 176 . 47 29 261.88 184 . 52 30 265 .34 190 . 00 (Fo factor = 1.071) Corrected JANBU FOS = 1.597 ** (Fo factor =1.055; The following is,a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : PD/FILL SLOPE @ 2:1, H=90 W/BNCH Modified Correction Initial Terminal Available JANBU FOS Factor x-coord x-coord Strength (ft) (ft) (lb) 1. 1 524 1. 057 37 . 67 260 .18 3 . 937E-H05 2 . 1 538 1. 055 18.78 258.59 3 .672E+05 3 . 1 54 9 1 . 059 26.33 264 .15 4 . 360E-f-05 4 . 1 551 1. 055 15,. 00 252.39 3 . 907E-H05 5 . . 1 572 1 . 050 41 .44 2 78 . 8 0 4 . 398E + 05 6 . 1 577 1 . 062 15 . 00 264.45 4 . 772E-^05 7 . 1 584 . 1. 068 49 . 00 262 .11 5 104E-H05 8 . 1 586 1 . 060 33 .89 274.44 5 074E-F05 9 . 1 592 1. 071 30 . 11 258.08 5 323EH-05 10 . 1 597 1. 055 15 . 00 265 .34 5 255E+05 * * * END OF FILE * * *