Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
106434002; Geotechnical Evaluation Camino Hills Drive Slope; Geotechnical Evaluation Camino Hills Drive Slope; 2009-05-29
vironmental Sciences Consultants L r PM to r GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 PREPARED BY Ninyo & Moore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants 5710RuffinRoad San Diego, California 92123 May 29, 2009 Project No. 106434002 RTF" H 1 5710 Ruffin Road • San Diego, California 92123 • Phone (858) 576-1000 • Fax (858) 576-9600 San Diego • Irvine • Rancho Cucamonga • Los Angeles • Oakland • Las Vegas • Phoenix • Denver • El Paso • Tucson oore Geotechnical and Environmental Sciences Consultants May 29, 2009 Project No. 106434002 c mL Mr. Jacob Moeder, RE. Associate Engineer City of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Camino Hills Drive Slope Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Moeder: In accordance with your authorization, we have performed a preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the slope failure on the south side of Camino Hills Drive at Jackspar Drive in Carlsbad, Cali- fornia. This report presents our geotechnical findings, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the slope failure. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Sincerely, NINYO & MOORE Emil Rudolph, P.E., G.E. Senior Engineer m m >nathan Goodmacher, C.E.G. anager/Principal Geologist 6N/ER/FOM/JG/kh Distribution: (5) Addressee CERTIFIED ENGINEERS GEOLOGIST Francis O. Moreland, C.E Senior Geologist 57 1 0 Ruffin Road • San Diego, California 921 23 • Phone (858) 576-1000 • Fax (858) 576-9600 San Diego • Irvine • Rancho Cucamonga • Los Angeles • Oakland • Las Vegas • Phoenix • Denver • El Paso • Tucson Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29, 2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 •"• TABLE OF CONTENTS m 1. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................|^M m 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................................................................................................ 1 3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................ 2 * 4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING .................................... 2 4.1. Explorations .................................................................................................................. 3 E 4.2. Laboratory Testing ........................................................................................................ 3 4.3. Slope Inclinometers ...................................................................................................... 3 p 5. SURVEY MONITORING ........................................................................................................ 3 M 6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................................................. 4 6.1. Site Geology ................................................................................................................. 4 f 6.1.1. Fill ....................................................................................................................... 4 fc 6.1.2. Landslide Deposits .............................................................................................. 4 6.1.3. Santiago Formation ............................................................................................. 5 P 6.2. Groundwater ................................................................................................................. 5 7. SLOPE STABILITY ................................................................................................................. 5 f 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................... 5 "* 8.1. Slope Stabilization ........................................................................................................ 6 8.2. Corrosion ...................................................................................................................... 7 [ 8.3. Concrete Placement ...................................................................................................... 7 ^ 8.4. Plan Review .................................................................................................................. 8 8.5. Pre-Construction Conference ........................................................................................ 8 8.6. Construction Observation ............................................................................................. 8 IM 9. LIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 8 r 10. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 7 Figures i Figure 1 - Site Location Map Figure 2 - Site Plan p, Figure 3 - Geologic Cross Section L Figure 4 - Repair Plan p, Appendices L Appendix A -Boring and Test Pit Logs Appendix B - Laboratory Testing p Appendix C - Slope Inclinometer Survey Plots L Appendix D - GSTABL7 Slope Stability Analysis Output 106434002 R doc Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 »• 1. INTRODUCTION 1^In accordance with your request and our proposal dated August 1, 2008, we have performed a prelimi- ^ nary geotechnical evaluation of the slope located on Camino Hills Drive at Jackspar Drive in Carlsbad, Ita California (Figure 1). Our preliminary evaluation was requested following observations by City of Carls- m bad staff of potential slope movement at this location. This report presents our conclusions regarding them . . geotechnical conditions at the subject site and our preliminary recommendations regarding the slope. p 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES fc Ninyo & Moore's scope of services for this project included review of pertinent background data, p previous geotechnical reports, performance of a subsurface evaluation, and engineering analysis • with regard to the subject slope. Specifically, we performed the following tasks: | • Reviewing readily available published geotechnical literature, including geologic maps, geo- technical reports, engineering plans, and aerial photographs. f*I • Performing a field reconnaissance to observe site conditions and to mark the locations of our subsurface explorations. • Contacting Underground Service Alert to clear the proposed subsurface exploration location for conflicts with buried utilities. ! • Obtaining City of Carlsbad Right-of-Way permits. • Performing subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation, logging and sampling of ;, two exploratory test pits, two exploratory borings, and installation of two inclinometers. Soil samples were obtained at selected intervals from the test pits and borings. IP L • Performing geotechnical laboratory testing on selected samples. p • Performing three site visits to collect inclinometer survey readings at approximately one-month Lj intervals. _ • Reviewing survey monitoring data of the hardscape below the slope.P m • Compiling and analyzing the data obtained. E • Preparing this report presenting our preliminary geotechnical findings, conclusions, and rec- ommendations for the stabilization of the subject slope. r jm 106434002 R doc j L Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 •• 3. SITE DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUNDHi In 2008, distress features were noted by City staff in the hardscape on the south side of Camino ** Hills Drive, just west of Jackspar Drive, in Carlsbad, California. The observed features consistedinof bulges in the sidewalk, curb and gutter, and pavement at the toe of an approximately 30-foot P high, 2:1 (horizontal:vertical), northwest-facing slope. Observed distress features included an ap- proximately 3-inch bulge in the street pavement and sidewalk, and approximately 3 inches of I lateral movement of the sidewalk and curb. • p The elevation of the project site varies from approximately 140 feet above mean sea level (MSL)n at the toe of the slope to approximately 170 feet above MSL at the top of the slope. The slope is P heavily vegetated with a moderate to dense growth of ground cover shrubs and moderately-sizedny^ trees. Access above the slope was not available during our evaluation. As a consequence, our P evaluation of the subject slope failure was restricted to the Camino Hills Drive right-of-way. hi jpt Based on the reviewed documents (Southern California Soil & Testing [SCST], 1985), during to grading for the adjacent mobile home park in the mid-1980s, landslide deposits underlying the p» subject slope were left in place and an engineered buttress was constructed beneath Camino Hills **" Drive (Figure 2). Additional fill was placed over the landslide deposits to create the graded pads *" above the slope for the mobile home park. Based on a review of the observation and testing re- ^port for the mobile home project (SCST, 1985), the buttress beneath Camino Hills Drive extends *" to a depth of more than 23 feet. Although the geotechnical report for the project is not available, the buttress depth would suggest a slide plane depth on the order of 18 feet. • 4. SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING Our subsurface explorations were conducted on September 17, 2008 and January 9, 2009 and consisted of excavating logging and sampling two exploratory test pits to a depth of approxi- mately 8.5 feet, and installation of two slope inclinometers in small-diameter soil borings advanced to depths of up to approximately 30.5 feet. Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed on samples collected from the test pits and borings. ] 06-434002 R doc o /Wffli/O& Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29, 2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 4.1. Explorations A John Deere 410 backhoe was used for excavating two test pits on September 17, 2008 to depths of 8.5 feet deep. The borings were advanced using a limited access solid-stem auger drill rig on January 1, 2009 to depths of up to 30.5 feet deep. The approximate locations of the test pits and borings are shown in Figure 2. The test pit and boring logs are presented in Appendix A. y 4.2. Laboratory Testing Laboratory testing of representative soil samples included moisture content, in-situ moisture f!|| and density, gradation, Atterberg limits, maximum dry density and optimum moisture con- tent, shear strength, and soil corrosivity (pH, resistivity, sulfate, and chloride content). The P || results of the laboratory tests performed are presented in Appendix B. f ™ 4.3. Slope Inclinometers p Two slope inclinometers were installed within the borings excavated on January 1 , 2009 in the •* City of Carlsbad right-of-way to further define subsurface conditions and the geometry of the f" subject slope failure. The slope inclinometers provide information on the depth and rate of soil jj^^movement. Inclinometer survey readings were measured monthly for a period of three months P" on January 17, February 13, March 24, 2009. Slope inclinometer survey plots are presented in te Appendix C. The plots indicate that distinct movement may be developing approximately 7 to f* 9 feet below the sidewalk. m p. to 5. SURVEY MONITORING p We reviewed survey monitoring data provided by the City of Carlsbad of select points on the sidewalk, • curb, and street. The data was collected monthly for a period of 4 months from October 10, 2008 to p January 10, 2009. Review of the data indicated that movement has occurred during the monitoring pe- • nod. However the actual magnitude of the movement cannot be assessed due to the inherent error in p measuring small movements (i.e. on the order of 1/1 0 inch) with standard surveying equipment. 106434002R.doc Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 - 6. GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Our findings regarding site geology and groundwater conditions are provided in the following *" sections. Our discussion is based on our review of geotechnical as-graded reports (referenced) forInthe site, as well as our observations and subsurface explorations. am In 6.1. Site Geology pi ^ The geologic units observed during our reconnaissance or encountered during our subsurface evaluation included fill, ancient and recent landslide deposits (Figure 2), and materials of thepi jy Santiago Formation. Generalized descriptions of the units encountered are provided in the subsequent sections. Additional descriptions are also provided on the test pit and boring logs Ij in Appendix A and on the geologic cross section in Figure 3. IP m 6.1.1. Fill Although not encountered hi our explorations, fill is mapped overlying the landslide deposits iu at the site (Figure 2), as well as underlying Camino Hills Drive as an engineered fill buttress. ^ As reported in the as-graded report for the adjacent property (SCST, 1985), the fill generally (M consisted of light brown to light gray, clayey sandy silt and clayey sand. ta 6.1.2. Landslide Deposits p, Landslide deposits were encountered in our test pits and borings from the ground sur- «i face to depths of up to approximately 20 feet. The ancient landslide deposits are derived p from the underlying Santiago Formation and were first encountered during site grading I* in the early 1980s. As encountered, the landslide deposits generally consisted of shades pi of gray and brown, soft to hard, silty clay and clayey silt. Based on engineered buttressL ™ depths reported in the as-graded report for the adjacent property (SCST, 1985), the an- P1 cient landslide deposits extend to a depth of approximately 20 feet. m 106434002 R doc A itt//lt/O& Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 *" 6.1.3. Santiago Formation Materials of the Santiago Formation were encountered underlying the landslide deposits P in our borings. The materials of the Santiago Formation generally consist of a gray anditolive, weakly indurated claystone and clayey siltstone. y 6.2. Groundwater |l Groundwater was not encountered in our test pits or borings. Fluctuations in groundwater level may occur due to seasonal variations, irrigation, groundwater withdrawal or injection, ^^|l and other factors. P m I 7. SLOPE STABILITY As part of our evaluation, we performed a slope stability analysis of the slope at the site to evaluate repair methodologies. Stability analyses were performed using the computer program GSTABL7 P (Gregory, 2003) with the slope geometry shown in the cross section presented in Figure 3. The ge- * ometry in Figure 3 was prepared based on site observations in Camino Hills Drive and inclinometer *""• data (Appendix C). Shear strength parameters used in our analyses were based on laboratory test*• results performed on samples obtained from the inclinometer borings and from backcalculations of p» the slope failure geometry. The results of the analysis indicate marginal stability, and that a resistive force of approximately 15 kips per foot of slope width is needed to obtain a factor of safety of 1 .5. • 8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Our evaluation included test pits and borings to observe and sample the underlying materials for P geotechnical laboratory testing. We reviewed survey data and collected inclinometer measurements to evaluate the geometry of the features. Our evaluation did not include a review of the condition of P utilities in Camino Hills Drive or properties above the Camino Hills Drive right-of-way. pi Based on our review of the referenced background data, geologic field reconnaissance, subsur- fci face evaluation and laboratory testing, it is our opinion that the two features observed at the site M pi ] 06434002 R doc c Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 m are the result of slope failures developing within the upper portion of an ancient landslide com- i^m prising the adjacent slope. The slope failures are up to approximately 85 feet wide at the toe of F the slope and extend approximately 8 feet laterally into Camino Hills Drive. Based on our incli- L nometer readings the bottom of the slope failures are at a depth of approximately 9 feet below the P sidewalk. The southward (upslope) extent of the failures could not be evaluated due to access H restrictions, but is assumed to daylight near the top of the slope. f* Hi Our preliminary conclusions and recommendations are provided herein for the stabilization of p the slope. We recommend that stabilization consist of drilling and installing reinforced concrete •• shear pins (piers) connected by a grade beam to provide additional lateral resistance to the slope. C These measures will provide a factor of safety of 1.5 against slope instability. These conclusions and recommendations should be checked once the properties above Camino Hills Drive are as- P sessed for distress features and when further monitoring data is available. Furthermore, wej| recommend that the utilities in Camino Hills Drive be evaluated for damage due to the ground P movement. The preliminary stabilization presented does not include mitigation for the potentialmfor slope failures developing in the slope face above the sidewalk. i In order to improve the lateral stability of the slide mass (as shown on the Repair Plan in 8.1. Slope Stabilization In order to improve the lat Figure 4) we recommend that a shear pin slope stabilization system be installed beneath the Pjy sidewalk at the base of the slope. We anticipate cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) piles will be the feasible shear pin construction option. We recommend that the structural elements of shear |W |l pins be designed in accordance with the recommendations of a structural engineer. However, we anticipate the pins will be approximately 30 inches in diameter, concrete reinforced with |^ KH steel I-beam, and spaced approximately 6 feet on center. A grade beam should tie the top of the shear pins together for additional rigidity.c The failure surface was measured in the inclinometers to be at depth of approximately 9 feet Fi below the sidewalk surface. The calculation indicates that a resistive force of 15 kips per foot of slope width is needed to obtain a factor of safety of 1.5 for the slope geometry shown F 106434002 R.doc f: A///H/O& p Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29, 2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 in Figure 3 (i.e., a force of 90 kips per pin when spaced at 6 feet). This resultant can be rep- resented by a triangular pressure distribution on the portion of the shear pin above the slide plane (i.e. above a depth of 9 feet). The passive lateral earth pressure acting on the portion of the pin below the slide plane can be assumed to be 350 D pounds per square foot (psf), where D is the depth of the pin below the failure surface. The depth of the pins should be evaluated by the structural engineer, but should not extend less than 5 feet into undisturbed formational materials (Santiago Formation). 8.2. Corrosion Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples of the on-site earth materials to evaluate pH and electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pH and electrical resistivity tests were performed in accordance with California Test (CT) 643, and the sulfate and chloride content tests were performed in accordance with CT417 and 422, respectively. These laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B. The results of the corrosivity testing indicated resistivities ranging from 280 to 520 ohm-cm, soil pH values ranging from 5.2 to 6.0, chloride contents ranging from 1 1 0 to 1 620 parts per million (ppm), and sulfate contents ranging from 0.005 to 0.490 percent (i.e., 50 to 4,900 ppm). Based on the Cal- trans corrosion (2003) criteria, the on-site soils would be classified as corrosive, which is defined as soils with more than 500 ppm chlorides, more than 0.2 percent sulfates, or a pH less than 5.5. p, 8.3. Concrete Placement !• Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of water-soluble sul- m fates can be subject to premature chemical and/or physical deterioration. As stated above, the Lm soil samples tested in this evaluation indicated a water-soluble sulfate contents ranging from p 0.005 to 0.490 percent by weight. According to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) guide- jL line 318-08, the potential for sulfate attack is severe for water-soluble sulfate content over P about 0.20 percent by weight in soils. Therefore, the site soils may be considered to have ay severe potential for sulfate attack. Based on ACI (2008) criteria, Type V cement should be 106434002R.doc to (P Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 used for concrete construction. The concrete should have a water-cement ratio no higher than 0.45 by weight for normal weight aggregate concrete and a 28-day compressive strength of 4,500 pounds per square inch or more for the project. 8.4. Plan Review M Ninyo & Moore should be provided an opportunity to review the final project grading and pnty structural drawings and specifications prior to the commencement of construction. Our of- fices should review the plans to assess whether the assumptions presented in this report have Py been adequately addressed in the design documents. P If 8.5. Pre-Construction Conference p We recommend that a pre-construction conference be held before commencement of work. • Owner representatives, the civil engineer, Ninyo & Moore, and contractor should be in at- p tendance to discuss the work plan and the project schedule. i. ^" 8.6. Construction Observation The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Ninyo & Moore will *"" provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. In the event that it is de- cided not to utilize the services of Ninyo & Moore during construction, we request that the selected | consultant provide the client with a letter (with a copy to Ninyo & Moore) indicating that they fully understand Ninyo & Moore's recommendations, and that they are in full agreement with the rec- L ommendations contained in this report. Construction of proposed improvements should be performed by qualified subcontractors utilizing appropriate techniques and construction materials. P c 9. LIMITATIONS The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this geotechnical report P have been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised by li geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, expressed or im- rL 106434002 R doc tyinyo Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 1* plied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this report. iy There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations may exist and P conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during construction. Uncer- if tainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration. P Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request. Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of the project, and did not include evaluation of P structural issues, environmental concerns, or the presence of hazardous materials. p This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore f" should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document. L This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an p, accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant per- tm form an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent P evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the •"" adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing. ^ Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site con- ditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, our |y office should be notified, and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be provided upon re- quest. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with time as a result of KM natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites. In addition, changes to p the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may occur due to government ac- • tion or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over m time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore has no control. fe This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings, conclu- Pjy sions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is undertaken at said c parties' sole risk. 106434002 R doc Q /Vl/ll/O & Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29, 2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 F 10. REFERENCES m American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete p and Commentary (ACI 3 1 8-08).y California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2007, California Building Code (CBC), Ti- p, tie 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2. ^ County of San Diego, 1 975, Topographic Survey (Orthotopographic), Sheet 354-1 677, Scale 1 " = 200'. P Gregory, G, 2003, GSTABL7 v.2: Slope Stability Analysis Program. M Kennedy, Michael P. and Tan, Siang S., 2005, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30' X 60' Quad- F rangle, California: Regional Geologic Map Series, Map No. 2. .m Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. (SCSI), 1985, Report of Field Observation and Relative p. Compaction Tests and As-Graded Geologic Report, Proposed Camino Hills Mobilehome j^ Subdivision, El Camino Real and Camino Hills Drive, Carlsbad: dated June 3. United States Geological Survey, 1 968 (photo-revised 1 975), San Luis Rey Quadrangle, Califor- ; nia, San Diego County, 7.5-Minute Series (Topographic): Scale 1 :24,000. Van Aller, H., 2003, STEDwin v.2, Interface for GSTABL7 Slope Stability Analysis Program. F If m P ll AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS Source Date Flight Numbers Scale USDA 4-11-53 AXN-8M 70 and 71 1:20,000 106434002 R.doc -7 A///II//I & r^4"; «Mq\ >y iii OCA^ '"; . >f ^iE j-5 / J> I :.i'''••^>4i€CWfU^ \»'= " \*\ •*.%. /'*A "W f<i\ m*. > j-*•« "Tl" «v lim/CA^ «« . ^ f.Sfe j- » • i :\,': 5f> VfixJV^-^M•V >• r / '**"*- / ;« ^Jim •««_,«*>^<, •* ^J ' «*. ' fHf 1> /^LSSAD <*t» -•»" •* v 1 «<»af^ o Hi —dS y t""1 rrr~^ ^^^OT ^gS^^::>ilk ^ 5^ -ttlc*--« 'V-L, REFERENCE: 2005 THOMAS GUIDE FOR SAN DIEGO COUNTY, STREET GUIDE AND DIRECTORY. APPROXIMATE SCALE IN FEET NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. Map © Rand McNally. R.L07-S-129 ty/nyo SITE LOCATION MAP CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA It I O|S RECENTANDANCIENTUk LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF 274 t ~l _ _ EDGE OF CITY OF CARLSBAD RIGHT-OF-WAY APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT I ^ ^^^SITE PLAN CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIAAPPROXIMATE SCALE f 1 ( 1 t 1 I 1 i 1 f 1 t 1 I 1 I 1 I • I 1 I 1 f I f I I 1 I 1 ? )1 * 160- LLJ LU U. 140-g £ 120- MOBILEHOME PARK A' TP-1 (PROJECTED 5' WEST) CAMINO HILLS DRIVE -160 -140 Tsa LULU LU -120 LEGEND Qaf Qls Tsa — ? — ^- FILL LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS SANTIAGO FORMATION APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GEOLOGIC CONTACT, QUERIED WHERE QUESTIONABLE INDICATES DIRECTION OF MOVEMENT NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE SCALE ^20 40 FEET PROJECT NO. 106434002 DATE 5/09 GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION FIGURE CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA Q: CAMINO HILLS DRIVE APPROXIMATE 30" DIAMETER SHEAR PMS-, AND GRADE BEAM / CAMINO HILLS DRIVE Qls / RECENT ., / I// CONCEPTUAL SECTION - SHEAR PIN A^_. d NOTE: ALL DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROBEST ORIGINALOXIMATE. ^^Rl O O O APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF RECOMMENDED SHEAR PINS Qlc RECENT AND ANCIENT LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS --- EDGE OF CITY OF CARLSBAD RIGHT-OF-WAY — — APPROXIMATE EXTENT OF RECENT SLOPE FAILURE .EFERENCE: AS-GRADED PLAN, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC DATED 7/27/89 APPROXIMATE SCALE as 40 80 FEET PROJECT NO. 106434002 DATE 5/09 REPAIR PLAN CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE APPENDIX A Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 APPENDIX A BORING AND TEST PIT LOGS Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method. Bulk Samples Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory test pits and boring logs. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Spoon Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of an SPT sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined in- ternal diameter of 1-3/8 inches. The sampler was driven into the ground 12 to 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling from a height of 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches of penetration; the blow counts re- ported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of penetration. Soil samples were observed and removed from the sampler, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing. Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method. The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a hammer or the Kelly bar of the drill rig in general accor- dance with ASTM D 3550. The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer or bar, and the number of blows per foot of driv- ing are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. *• 106434002R.doc fc» m M Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 APPENDIX A BORING AND TEST PIT LOGS Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method. Bulk Samples Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory test pits and boring logs. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing. The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Spoon Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard Penetration Test spoon sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1-3/8 inches. The spoon was driven into the ground 12 to 18 inches with a 140-pound hammer free-falling from a height of 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586-99. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches of penetration; the blow counts reported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of penetration. Soil samples were observed and removed from the spoon, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing. Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method. The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, was lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a 140-pound hammer, in general accordance with ASTM D 3550-84 (1995). The driving weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are pre- sented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing. 106434002 R doc DEPTH (feet)0 5-SAMPLES 1I1 I 1 ffi 1 _j CO XX/XX g 9 —DRY DENSITY (PCF)-SYMBOL 11 yingo* 1 FICATION.C.S.O SM BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET Bulk sample. Modified split-barrel drive sampler. No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler. Sample retained by others. Standard Penetration Test (SPT). No recovery with a SPT. Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in inches. No recovery with Shelby tube sampler. Continuous Push Sample. Seepage. Groundwater encountered during drilling. Groundwater measured after drilling. ALLUVIUM: Solid line denotes unit change. Dashed line denotes material change. Attitudes: Strike/Dip b: Bedding c: Contact j: Joint f: Fracture F: Fault cs: Clay Seam s: Shear bss: Basal Slide Surface sf: Shear Fracture sz: Shear Zone sbs: Sheared Bedding Surface The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the boring. bottom of the : BORING LOG jIVpnBlQ^^^f^lQl EXPLANATION OF BORING LOG SYMBOLS *PROJECT NO. D/>Rev.TE FIGURE 01/03 U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES COARSE-GRAINED SOILS(More than 1/2 of soil>No. 200 sieve size)00 . 1 ?TH >— ' O aj O " N</> <g '5 Q cs gW S o3 s '5 3 1 §o £ M i b ow -i £S e vu< * •* »*.* GRAVELS » •(More than 1/2 of coarse •.' fraction ' ' > No. 4 sieve size) »J & %Z•I• B SANDS (More than 1/2 of coarse fraction <No. 4 sieve size) %&' '3$Z SILTS & CLAYS ^ Liquid Limit <50 -^x^ 1SILTS & CLAYS ^> Liquid Limit >50 ^ •HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS V GW :"' GP :!' GM |GC m sw SP SM H! qrJ-%> Dv- ML §CL • OL MH ^CH ¥ OHSir Pt Well graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels or gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Well graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silty clays, organic silts Peat and other highly organic soils GRAIN SIZE CHART CLASSIFICATION BOULDERS COBBLES GRAVEL Coarse Fine SAND Coarse Medium Fine SILT & CLAY RANGE OF GRAIN SIZE U.S. Standard Sieve Size Above 12" 12" tor 3" to No. 4 3" to 3/4" 3/4" to No. 4 No. 4 to No. 200 No. 4 to No. 10 No. 10 to No. 40 No. 40 to No. 200 Below No. 200 Grain Size in Millimeters Above 305 305 to 76.2 76.2 to 4.76 76.2 to 19.1 19.1 to 4.76 4.76 to 0.075 4.76 to 2.00 2.00 to 0.420 0.420 to 0.075 Below 0.075 PLASTICITY CHART 60 s // / CL- V V L / / CL / ML / / .OL / / / CH / / ' MHf / OH y 0 10 20 30 40 5O 60 70 BO 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT (LL), % U.S.C.S. METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION Document!Updated Nov. 2004 pi if• 0>-s X mQ 0 5- 10- 15- 70 Vu <• < "3HI 1 3 J 1 Q I ) 0ou. §5 1CD 64 M fSMf ^.ma:13 W O 20.0 20.7 Wmi oQ^ £ w LUOs- OLO 105.2 101.2 fO< 0m5> w Y//t | v// v// y// y// ///. v// //y /yy y//1 y// /VV y// y// y// y// y// y// y//' y//' y// 1 v// y//!%% &j •z.o\- .<«^^\*o CL ^ ^M&" DATE DRILLED 1/09/09 BORING NO. 1-1 GROUND ELEVATION 144'±(MSL) SHEET 1 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING Mole (Pacific Drilling) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Cathead) DROP 30" SAMPLED BY PN LOGGED BY PN REVIEWED BY Rl DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS: Brown, moist, very stiff to hard, silty CLAY; abundant white (eggshell appearance) Wet; hard. Gray and brown (mottled); very stiff; gypsum crystals. Gray; hard. Gray and olive; damp. Seams of greenish yellow mineral deposits. BORING LOG •%•* ^% CAMNO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE \BM ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 106434002 5/09 A-l p m m m m it ri. c- I 111D 20 25- 30- 40 uu ^^<<J "3 - 3 J i 5 c0)0 1 p • j OOu. O CO 50/6" 50/6" m fSWi" g LUo:^ wO 12.3 171 •/ g fw UJQs- SQ 105.7 r/7. om? w = H [ 1 | 1 11 ^1 fcj o1—5<«y ou- w O ^ « VIDf DATE DRILLED 1/09/09 BORING NO. 1-1 GROUND ELEVATION 144'±(MSL) SHEET 2 OF 2 METHOD OF DRILLING Mole (Pacific Drilling) DRIVE WEIGHT 1 40 Ibs. (Cathead) DROP 30" SAMPLED BY PN LOGGED BY PN REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION SANTIAGO FORMATION: Gray and olive, damp, weakly indurated, CLAYSTONE. Total Denth ~ "?0 1 feet Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Installed 29.5 feet of 2-3/4-inch slope indicator casing and grouted annulus with bentonite/cement grout. Flush mount well vault installed on 1/09/09. Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, mav rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. BORING LOG •MMfc^% CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE l%Bm ^5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. DATE FIGURE 106434002 5/09 A-2 COLU Q. LU O O CQ LU CO O u.O Q. COzLU O o:Q O < co 3o DATE DRILLED 1/09/09 BORING NO.1-2 GROUND ELEVATION 14Q'±(MSL)SHEET OF METHOD OF DRILLING Mole (Pacific Drilling) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Cathead) SAMPLED BY PN LOGGED BY DROP 30" PN REVIEWED BY RI DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION 38 35 10-50 77 15 CL LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS: Gray and brown (mottled), moist, very stiff, silty CLAY. 22.7 98.8 Wet; hard. Clear crystalline mineral deposits. 18.7 100.0 Less mottled. 80 16.6 105.2 SANTIAGO FORMATION: Gray, moist, weakly indurated, clayey SILTSTONE. 50/6" 20 BORING LOG CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 106434002 DATE 5/09 FIGURE A-3 CL LU Q Q 3m g, LUa: COo LL.o CO LL) O ceQ Oi- . ^ o o DATE DRILLED 1/09/09 BORING NO.1-2 GROUND ELEVATION 140'±(MSL)SHEET OF METHOD OF DRILLING Mole (Pacific Drilling) DRIVE WEIGHT 140 Ibs. (Cathead) SAMPLED BY PN LOGGED BY DROP 30" PN REVIEWED BY Rl DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION 50/6"15.5 104.8 50/6" m m 50/6"18.4 104.5 SANTIAGO FORMATION: (Continued) Gray, moist, weakly indurated, clayey SILTSTONE. Total Depth = 30.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered during drilling. Installed 29.5 feet of 2-3/4-inch slope indicator casing and grouted annulus with bentonite/cement grout. Flush mount well vault installed on 1/09/09. Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report. 35 40 BORING LOG CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO. 106434002 DATE 5/09 FIGURE A-4 f 1 FIGURE"^ 1l f" 1L JP~ * If » K • * '.....J.^K!!^*^!^ Explanation of Test Pit, Core, Trench and Hand Auger Log Symbols PROJECT NO. • "SJ5aB=5L£=-;.,..— jjjj DATE I"DEPTH (FEET)VJ . ? . T . <I S31dWVS^CQ i Q \II Sand Cone: 4 MOISTURE (%) 1FQ -*-> * v ^. ' T ^. xx/xx DRY DENSITY (PCF) |ZO CLASSIFICATIU.S.C.S.SM ML i i SM EXCAVATION LOG EXPLANATION SHEET FILL Dashed line denotes material change. ••" Drive sample. ~~ Sand cone performed. ~" Seepage ~ No recovery with drive sampler. Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in inches No recovery with Shelby tube sampler. ALLUVIUM Solid line denotes unit change. Attitude: Strike/Dip b: Bedding c: Contact j: Joint f: Fracture F: Fault cs: Clay Seam s: Shear bss: Basal Slide Surface sf: Shear Fracture sz: Shear Zone sbs: Sheared Bedding Surface The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the excavation log. SCALE: 1 inch = 1 foot Teslpit explanalion.xls i i ii • i r i r i • i • i • • i i i i i i TEST PIT LOG CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO DATE CO CD O Oo. cozLU Q orQ g < w9 d o DATE EXCAVATED 9/17/08 TEST PIT NO.TP-2 GROUND ELEVATION 14Q'± (MSL) LOGGED BY METHOD OF EXCAVATION JD 410 Backhoe PN LOCATION Adjacent to Sidewalk at Toe of Slope DESCRIPTION -2 -10 _L2. 21.9 20.1 CL LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS: Gray and brown (mottled), wet, stiff, silty CLAY, with roots, rootlets and crystalline gypsum. ML Gray, wet, soft, clayey SILT. Note: Bedding dipping to southwest at approximately (4:1, H:V) CL Gray and reddish brown, stiff, silty CLAY, with slickensides. Block of weakly cemented Siltstone from 6 to 8 feet. Total Depth = 8.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Backfilled on 9/17/08. SCALE = 1 in./2 ft. f i II r I I I i 1 f 1 I I I ) f 1 I I f 1 • 1 « 1 **'•• 11 t t I i i i TEST PIT LOG CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA PROJECT NO.DATE 106434002 5/09 aiaiu. a.LUQ coLU <to LUa: COo u.oa. CO LUa a:Q O < co Sfcoico _;co = O DATE EXCAVATED 9/17/08 TEST PIT NO.TP-1 GROUND ELEVATION 145'± (MSL) LOGGED BY PN METHOD OF EXCAVATION JD 410 Backhoe LOCATION Adjacent to Sidewalk at Toe of Slope DESCRIPTION oc 73m -2 -6 17.5 -10 CL LANDSLIDE DEPOSITS: Grayish brown, damp, soft to stiff, silty CLAY; with roots and iron-stained anc seams filled with yellowish white powder spaced at 1- 2 inch. Brown. Marine shells. Gray and brown (mottled) with crystalline gypsum seams up to 1/2-inch thick and slickensides. Moist to wet. Total Depth = 8.5 feet. Groundwater not encountered. Backfilled on 9/17/08. SCALE = 1 in./2 ft. APPENDIX B Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings and test pits in Appendix A. Moisture Content The moisture content of samples obtained from the exploratory excavations was evaluated in ac- cordance with ASTM D2216. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings and test pits in Appendix A. In-Place Moisture and Density Tests The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the ex- pi oratory excavations were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A. Gradation Analysis Gradation analysis test was performed on selected representative soil sample in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The grain-size distribution curve is shown on Figure B-l . The test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Atterberg Limits Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 43 1 8. These test re- sults were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The test results and classification are shown on Figure B-2. Proctor Density Test The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of a selected representative soil sample was evaluated using the Modified Proctor method in general accordance with ASTM D 1557. The results of the test are summarized on Figure B-3. Direct Shear Tests Direct shear tests were performed on undisturbed samples in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of selected material. The samples were inun- dated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are shown on Figures B-4 through B-5. Soil Corrosivity Tests Soil pH, and resistivity tests were performed on representative samples in general accordance with California Test (CT) 643. The soluble sulfate and chloride content of selected samples were evaluated in general accordance with CT417 and CT 422, respectively. The test results are pre- sented on Figure B-6. pi m 106434002 R doc GRAVEL Coarse Fine SAND Coarse Medium | U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS 3" 2" 1)4" 1" %" y,» %» 4 8 16 30 501000 ~ 0 LLJ CD LL LU O LU 0. II I -ik~-•> "me FINES SILT 100 200 \ \ \y \ CLAY HYDROMETER j | 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS Symbol . Sample Location -2 1 Depth (ft) 8.0-18.5 Liquid Limit 43 Plastic Limit 28 Plasticity Index 15 D,0 - D30 - Dso - cu -- Cc 0.001 0.0001 Passing No. 200 66 Equivalent uses ML PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422-63 (02) BEST ORIGINAL Aflnyo&typwr* GRADATION TEST RESULTS PROJECT NO 106434002 DATE 5/09 CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-1 106434002 SIEVE INC-2 @ 18 0-18 5xls SYMBOL • • • LOCATION TP-1 TP-2 I-2 DEPTH (FT) 5.0-6.0 2.0-4.0 18.0-18.5 LIQUID LIMIT, LL 30 46 43 PLASTIC LIMIT, PL 8 32 28 PLASTICITY INDEX, PI 22 14 15 uses CLASSIFICATION (Fraction Finer Than No. 40 Sieve) CL ML ML uses (Entire Sample) CL ML ML NP - INDICATES NON-PLASTIC Q. XUJ Q ofc 60 50 40 30 20 10 CL-ML CL or OL ML or OL CH or OH -MHorOH- 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 LIQUID LIMIT, LL PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318 PROJECT NO. 106434002 DATE 5/09 ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-2 106434002 ATTERBERG Page 1 Jds 140.0 130.0 120.0 oa. LJJa 110.0 100.0 90.0 80.0 _ — \ - \ \ _ \\ \ \ \ \ \\ \\ \s \ \ \ \\ \ \ __ / \\ \ \ // \ \ ^ \ \ s" \ /\ s\ \ / / 1 \ \ \ \ < \> 's!s* Zero Air Void Line (Specific Gravity - 2.70) v \ \ / SV \ \ s \ Zero Air Void Line (Specific Gravity - 2.60) \ \ ^ S \ s \ \ \ ^s \ Zero Air Void Line (Specific Gravity = 2.50) S s> ssj \ ^ \ \s \V ^ s \ \ \ \ \ ^ s \ \ \ \ \ Sv s s \ \ s s X \ Ns X. 10 15 MOISTURE 20 25 CONTENT (%) 30 35 40 Sample Location TP-1 Depth (ft) 5.0-6.0 Soil Description Silty CLAY (CL) Dry Density and Moisture Content Values Corrected for Oversize (ASTM D 4718-87) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 110.0 Optimum Moisture Content 18.5 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH 0 ASTM D 1557-02 D ASTM D 698-OOa METHOD 0 A D B D C PROJECT NO. 106434002 DATE 5/09 PROCTOR DENSITY TEST RESULTS CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-3 106434002 PROCTOR TP-1 @ 5.0-6.0.xls 5000 1000 2000 3000 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) 5000 Description Clayey SILTSTONE Clayey SILTSTONE Clayey SILTSTONE Symbol - -X - - Sample Location I-2 I-2 I-2 Depth (ft) 15.0-16.0 15.0-16.0 15.0-16.0 Shear Strength Peak Ultimate Residual Cohesion, c (psf) 200 130 10 Friction Angle, <j> (degrees) 28 26 23 Soil Type Formation Formation Formation PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 3080-04 m m PROJECT NO. 106434002 DATE 5/09 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-4 106434002 SHEAR I-2 @ 15 0-16 Oxls 5( 4( GT CO i. 3( CO COUJ DC\-co on S5 2 i CO 1 inn inn - inn - 300- 300- 0- Description Clayey SILTSTONE Clayey SILTSTONE • •^ i^ ^ ^S ^ /^ ^< <s ^c^' 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 NORMAL STRESS (PSF) Symbol ,SamP'e ' Location I-2 - - X - - I-2 Depth (ft) 21.0-21.5 21.0-21.5 Shear Strength Peak Ultimate Cohesion, c (psf) 190 40 ^'''' 5000 Friction Angle, * (degrees) 27 Formation 26 Formation PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 3080-04 ty/ngo&typwr* DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS FIGURE PROJECT NO. 106434002 DATE 5/09 CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE B ~5 CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 106434002 SHEAR I-2 @ 21.O-2l5.xls SAMPLE LOCATION TP-1 I-2 SAMPLE DEPTH (FT) 1 .0-2.0 5.0-10.0 PH1 5.2 6.0 RESISTIVITY 1 (Ohm-cm) 520 280 SULFATE CONTENT 2 (ppm) 50 4900 (%) 0.005 0.490 CHLORIDE CONTENT 3 (ppm) 110 1620 1 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 643 2 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417 3 PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 422 PROJECT NO. 106434002 DATE 5/09 CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS CAMINO HILLS DRIVE SLOPE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA FIGURE B-6 106434002 CORROSIVITY Page l.xls APPENDIX C Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 m m m m APPENDIX C SLOPE INCLINOMETER SURVEY PLOTS 106434002R.doc 5- 10 CD **—c 15 Q. (D Q 20- 25 304 Camino INC#1, A-Axis 2/13/2009 3/24/2009 -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 Cumulative Displacement (in) from 1/17/2009 Camino INC#1, B-Axis OT~ 10 CD.2 I 15 "5. Q 20 25 304 2/13/2009 3/24/2009 -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 Cumulative Displacement (in) from 1/17/2009 Camino Hills Drive, Slope Carlsbad, CA Slope Inclinometer Survey Plot Ninyo & Moore Project No. 106434002 Camino INC#2, A-Axis Camino INC#2, B-Axis 5- 10- <D(D -~ 15-t-»a. 20 25- 304 2/13/2009 3/24/2009 -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 Cumulative Displacement (in) from 1/17/2009 5- 10- 15 Q.O) Q 20 25 30 J 2/13/2009 3/24/2009_, , 1 r- -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 Cumulative Displacement (in) from 1/17/2009 Camino Hills Drive, Slope Carlsbad, CA Slope Inclinometer Survey Plot Ninyo & Moore Project No. 106434002 APPENDIX D Iff m Camino Hills Drive Slope May 29,2009 Carlsbad, California Project No. 106434002 m m m m m m m m mm APPENDIX D GSTABL7 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS OUTPUT l06434002R.doc r i n r i r~i ri 200 106434002 Cross Section A-A' Static g:\file share\fom.temp\camino hills\gstabl\106434002_slope stability (rev1)\section a-a with piers.p!2 Run By: JTK 170 140 110 80 # FS a 1.52 b 1.52 1.53 1.53 1.53 1.54 1.54 1.55 1.55 Soil Desc. Qaf Qls Qaf (b) Tsa Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface No. 1 2 3 4 (pcf) 120.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 (pcf) 130.0 130.0 130.0 130.0 (psf) 0.0 0.0 10.0 130.0 (deg) 24.0 13.0 23.0 26.0 No. W1 W1 W1 W1 LoadLI P1 Value 100 psf 90000. Ibs Ll 14 |>1@6ft 30 60 90 120 150 GSTABLTv.2 FSmin=1.52 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Simplified Janbu Method