HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 11-11; GUGLIELMO RESIDENCE; LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2011-06-17EAST COUNTY SOIL CONSULT
A
T
I
O
N
AND ENGINEERING, INC.
10925 HARTLEY ROAD, SUITE "
I
"
SANTEE, CALIFORNIA 92071
(619) 258-7901
Fax 258-7902
B. A. Worthing, Inc.
June 17,2011
P.O. Box l041
Project No. 11-1106E7(2)
Carlsbad, California 92018
Subject: Limited Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Single-Family Residence (G
u
g
l
i
e
l
m
o
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
)
Juniper Avenue, APN 204-232-06
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Worthing:
In accordance with your request,
w
e
h
a
v
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
t
t
h
e
subject site to discuss the geotech
n
i
c
a
l
a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
proposed development.
Our investigation has found that the
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
a
d
i
s
u
n
d
e
r
l
a
i
n
b
y
a
n
1
8
-
i
n
c
h
l
a
y
e
r
o
f
topsoil and dense terrace depos
i
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
p
l
o
r
e
d
.
d
e
p
t
h
o
f
1
2
f
e
e
t
.
I
t
i
s
o
u
r
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
development of the proposed reside
n
c
e
i
s
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
l
y
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
herein are implemented in the design
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Should you have any questions with
r
e
g
a
r
d
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
,
p
l
e
a
s
e
d
o
n
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
a
t
e
t
o
contact our office.
Respectfully submitted,
No. CE 2704 rn
Mamadou Saliou Diallo, P.E.
RCE 54071, GE 2704
MSD\md
c1e i
B.A. WORTHING/GUGLIELMO/ JUNIPER AVENUE PROJE
C
T
N
O
.
1
1
-
1
1
0
6
E
7
(
2
)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3
SCOPEOF SERVICES ..........................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.....................................................3
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONSTRUCTI
O
N
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
........................................ 3
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......................................... 4
GEOLOGY............................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
GeologicSetting ........................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
............... 4
SiteStratigraphy .................................................................................................................................... 4
SEISMICITY...............................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
RegionalSeismicity .................
.
...................................................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
SeismicAnalysis .........................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2010 CBC Seismic Design Criteria .........................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
............................... . ............. 5
Geologic Hazard Assessment..................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION ........................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
................................................................... 6
CompressibleSoils .................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
ExpansiveSoils ...........................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
............................................ 7
Groundwater.............................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.................................... 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.......... 7
GRADINGAND EARTHWORK ...........................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
Clearingand Grubbing ..........................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
Structural improvement of Soils ..................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
......................... .............. 8
Transitions Between Cut and Fill...........................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
Method and Criteria of Compaction.......................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
ErosionControl..............................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
StandardGrading Guidelines ...................................................
........................................................... ....9
FOUNDATIONSAND SLABS ................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
SETTLEMENT.......................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
................................................................. 10
PRESATURATION OF SLAB SUBGRADE.......................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
0
RETAININGWALLS ..............................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
0
TEMPORARYSLOPES ...............................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
TRENCH BACKFILL .........
1
DRAINAGE..................................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
1
FOUNDATIONPLAN REVIEW........................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
LIMITATIONSOF INVESTIGATION ....................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
2
ADDITIONALSERVICES .........................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
3
PLATES
Plate 1- Location of Exploratory Boreholes
Plate 2 - Summary Sheet (Exploration Borehole Logs)
Plate 3 - USCS Soil Classification Chart
PAGE L-1, LABORATORY TEST RESULTS .........................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
................................................... is
REFERENCES..........................................................................
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1
6
B.A. WORTHING/GUGLIELMO/JUNIPER A VENU
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
1
-
1
1
0
6
E
7
(
2
)
INTRODUCTION
This is to present the findings and conclusions
o
f
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
proposed two-story, single-family residence over a b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
g
a
r
a
g
e
t
o
b
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
of Juniper Avenue, in the City of Carlsbad, Californ
i
a
.
The objectives of the investigation were to evalua
t
e
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
o
i
l
s
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
recommendations for the proposed development.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The following services were provided during this in
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
:
0 Site reconnaissance and review of published geologi
c
,
s
e
i
s
m
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
and maps pertinent to the project area
0 Subsurface exploration consisting of three (3) borehole
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
l
i
m
i
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
r
e
a
of development. The boreholes were logged by our S
t
a
f
f
G
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
.
0 Collection of representative soil samples at selecte
d
d
e
p
t
h
s
.
T
h
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
w
e
r
e
s
e
a
l
e
d
in moisture-resistant containers and transported to the
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
f
o
r
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
.
0 Laboratory testing of samples representative of the typ
e
s
o
f
s
o
i
l
s
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
i
e
l
d
investigation
0 Geologic and engineering analysis of the field and la
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
d
a
t
a
,
w
h
i
c
h
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
t
h
e
b
a
s
i
s
for our conclusions and recommendations
0 Production of this report, which summarizes the res
u
l
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
a
b
o
v
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
s
o
u
r
findings and recommendations for the proposed develo
p
m
e
n
t
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED CONST
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
The subject site is a rectangular-shaped residential l
o
t
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
s
i
d
e
o
f
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
,
in the City of Carlsbad, California. The property
,
w
h
i
c
h
e
n
c
o
m
p
a
s
s
e
s
. aref. approximately
6,300 square feet, is vacant and relatively level with
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
w
e
s
t
.
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
consisted of trees and grass. Site boundaries include
J
u
n
i
p
e
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
a
n
d
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
parcels to the remaining directions.
The architectural drawings prepared by Brooks De
s
i
g
n
o
f
C
a
r
l
s
b
a
d
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
proposed construction will include a 2-story singl
e
-
f
a
m
i
l
y
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
o
v
e
r
a
b
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
g
a
r
a
g
e
.
T
h
e
structure will be wood-framed and founded on co
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
f
o
o
t
i
n
g
s
w
i
t
h
r
a
i
s
e
d
-
w
o
o
d
a
n
d
s
l
a
b
-
o
n
-
grade floors.
3
* B.A. WORTHING/GUGLIELMO/JUNIPER AVENUE PROJECT NO. 11-1106E7(2)
FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
On June 1, 2011, three (3) boreholes were excavated to a maximum depth of appr
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
1
2
f
e
e
t
below existing grade with a hand auger. The approximate locations of the bor
e
h
o
l
e
s
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
the attached Plate No. 1, entitled "Location of Exploratory Boreholes". A c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
o
g
o
f
t
h
e
soils encountered was recorded at the time of excavation and is shown on Plate
N
o
.
2
e
n
t
i
t
l
e
d
"Summary Sheet". The soils were visually and texturally classified accordin
g
t
o
t
h
e
f
i
l
e
d
identification procedures set forth on Plate No. 3 entitled "USCS Soil Classificat
i
o
n
"
.
Following the field exploration, laboratory testing was performed to evalua
t
e
t
h
e
p
e
r
t
i
n
e
n
t
engineering properties of the foundation materials. The laboratory-testing progr
a
m
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
moisture and density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, par
t
i
c
l
e
s
i
z
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
and expansion index tests. These tests were performed in general accordan
c
e
w
i
t
h
A
S
T
M
standards and other accepted methods. Page L-1 and Plate No. 2 provide a
s
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
laboratory test results.
GEOLOGY
Geologic Setting
The subject site is located within the southern portion of what is known as the Pe
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
r
R
a
n
g
e
s
Geomorphic Province of California. The geologic map pertaining to the area indicates
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
i
s
underlain by Pleistocene marine terrace deposits (Qt).
Site Stratigraphy
The subsurface descriptions provided are interpreted from conditions exposed du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
i
e
l
d
investigation and/or inferred from the geologic literature. Detailed descriptions of
t
h
e
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
materials encountered during the field investigation are presented on the exploration
l
o
g
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
o
n
Plate No. 2. The following paragraphs provide general descriptions of the encounter
e
d
s
o
i
l
t
y
p
e
s
.
Topsoil
Topsoil is the surficial soil material that mantles the ground, usually containing roo
t
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
materials, which supports vegetation. Topsoil was observed in all boreholes with
a
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
o
f
approximately 18 inches. It consisted of dark brown, silty sand that was damp to m
o
i
s
t
,
l
o
o
s
e
a
n
d
porous in consistency with some organics (roots and rootlets).
Marine Terrace Deposits (Q)
Marine terrace deposits were observed below the topsoil layer. They generally consist
e
d
o
f
r
e
d
d
i
s
h
brown, silty sand that was moist and medium dense to dense in consistency.
El
B.A. WORTHJNG/GUGLIELIv1O/JUNIPER AVENUE PROJECT NO. I1-1106E7(2)
SEISMICITY
Regional Seismicitv
Generally, Seismicity within California can be attributed to the regional tectonic movement taking
place along the San Andreas Fault Zone, which includes the San Andreas Fault and most parallel
and subparallel faults within the state. The portion of southern California where the subject site is
located is considered seismically active. Seismic hazards are attributed to groundshaking from
earthquake events along nearby or more distant Quaternary faults. The primary factors in
evaluating the effect an earthquake has on a site are the magnitude of the event, the distance from
the epicenter to the site and the near surface soil profile.
According to the Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones Act of 1994 (revised Alquist-Priolo Special Studies
Zones Act), quaternary faults have been classified as "active" faults, which show apparent surface
rupture during the last 11,000 years (i.e., Holocene time). "Potentially-active" faults are those faults
with evidence of displacing Quaternary sediments between 11,000 to 16,000 years old.
Seismic Analysis
Based on our evaluation, the closest known "active" fault is the Rose Canyon Fault located
approximately 4.4 miles (7 kilometers) to the west. The Rose Canyon Fault is the design fault of the
project due to the predicted credible fault magnitude and ground acceleration.
The Seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing deterministic methods (Eqseachl Eqfault ver 3.0,
Blake, 2008) for active Quaternary faults within the regional vicinity. The site may be subjected to
a Maximum Probable Earthquake of 6.9 Magnitude along the Rose Canyon fault, with a
corresponding Peak Ground Acceleration of 0.47g. The maximum Probable Earthquake is defined
as the maximum earthquake that is considered likely to occur within a 100-year time period.
The effective ground acceleration at the site is associated with the part of significant ground
motion, which contains repetitive strong-energy shaking, and which may produce structural
deformation. As such, the effective or "free field" ground acceleration is referred to as the
Repeatable High Ground Acceleration (RHGA). It has been determined by Ploessel and Slosson
(1974) that the RHGA is approximately equal to 65 percent of the Peak Ground Acceleration for
earthquakes occurring within 20 miles of a site. Based on- the above, the calculated Credible
RHGA at the site is 0.30g.
2010 CBC Seismic Design Criteria
A review of the active fault maps pertaining to the site indicates the existence of the Rose Canyon
Fault Zone approximately 7 km to the west. Ground shaking from this fault or one of the major
active faults in the region is the most likely happening to affect the site. With respect to this
hazard, the site is comparable to others in the general area. The proposed residential structure
should be designed in accordance with seismic design requirements of the 2010 California Building
Code or the Structural Engineers Association of California using the following seismic design
parameters:
61
B. A. WORTHJNG/G UGLIELMO/ JUNIPER AVENUE PROJECT NO. 11-1106E7(2)
PARAMETER VALUE 2010 CBC REFERENCE
Site Class D Table 1613.5.2
Mapped Spectral Acceleration For
Short Periods, S,
1.339 Figure 1613.5(3)
Mapped Spectral Acceleration For a
1-Second Period, S1
0.502 Figure 16 13.5(4)
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.0 Table 1613.5.3(l)
Site Coefficient, F 1.5 Table 1613.5.3(2)
Geologic Hazard Assessment
Ground Rupture
Ground rupture due to active faulting is not considered likely due to the absence of known fault traces
within the vicinity of the project, however, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out. The
unlikely hazard of ground rupture' should not preclude consideration of "flexible" design for on-site
utility lines and connections.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in saturated soils, usually sandy soils with a
loose consistency when subjected to earthquake shaking. Based on the absence of shallow
groundwater and consistency of the underlying terrace deposits, it is our opinion that the potential for
liquefaction is low.
Landsliding
There is no indication that landslides or unstable slope conditions exist on or adjacent to the project
site. There are no obvious geologic hazards related to landsliding to the proposed development or
adjacent properties.
Tsunamis and Seiches
The site is not subject to inundation by tsunamis due to its elevation. The site is also not subject to
seiches (waves in confined bodies of water). -
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
Based on our investigation and evaluation of the collected information, we conclude that the proposed
construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations provided herein
will be properly implemented during structural development.
In order to provide a uniform support for the proposed structure, footings should be excavated into
properly compacted fill soils or extended to the dense terrace deposits. The new foundations may
consist of reinforced continuous and/ or spread footings with the proposed raised-wood and slab-on-
ON
B.A. WORTHING/GUGLIELMO/ JUNIPER AVENUE PROJECT NO. 11-1106E7(2)
grade floors. Recommendations and criteria for foundation design are provided in the Foundation and
Slab recommendations section of this report.
Compressible Soils
Our field observations and testing indicate low compressibility within the terrace deposits, which
underlie the site. However, loose topsoil was typically encountered to a depth of approximately 18
inches below surface grades. These soils are compressible. Due to the potential for soil compression
upon loading, remedial grading of these loose soils, including overexcavation and recompaction will
be required unless footings are extended to the dense terrace deposits.
Following implementation of the earthwork recommendations presented herein, the potential for soil
compression resulting from the new development has been estimated to be low. The low-settlement
assessment assumes a well-planned and maintained site drainage system. Recommendations
regarding mitigation by earthwork construction are presented in the Grading and Earthwork
recommendations section of this report.
Expansive Soils
An expansion index test was performed on a representative sample of the formational soils to
determine volumetric change characteristics with change in moisture content. An expansion index
of 0 was obtained which indicates a very low expansion potential for the foundation soils.
Groundwater
Static groundwater was not encountered to the depths of the boreholes. The subject site is located
at an elevation of approximately 50 feet above Mean Sea Level. We do not expect groundwater to
affect the proposed construction. Recommendations to prevent or mitigate the effects of poor
surface drainage are presented in the Drainage section of this report.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions and recommendations are based upon the analysis of the data and
information obtained from our soil investigation. This includes site reconnaissance; field
investigation; laboratory testing and our general knowledge of the soils native-to the site-The site is
suitable for the proposed residential development provided the recommendations set forth are
implemented during construction.
GRADING AND EARTHWORK
Based upon the proposed construction and the information obtained during the field investigation,, we
anticipate that the proposed structure will be founded on continuous and/ or spread footings, which are
supported by properly compacted fill or dense sandstone of the Terrace Deposits Formation. The
following grading and earthwork recommendations are based upon the limited geotechnical
investigation performed, and should be verified during construction by our field representative.
7
B. A. WORTHJNG/GUGLIELMO/ JUNIPER AVENUE PROJECT NO. 11-11 0
6
E
7
(
2
)
Clearing and Grubbing
All areas to be graded or to receive fill and/or structures should be cleared of
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
and the debris from the clearing operation should be properly disposed of of
f
-
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
a
r
e
a
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
thoroughly inspected for any possible buried objects, which need to be rerou
t
e
d
o
r
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
the inception of, or during grading. All holes, trenches, or pockets left by the re
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
o
b
j
e
c
t
s
should be properly backfilled with compacted fill materials as recommen
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
M
e
t
h
o
d
a
n
d
Criteria of Compaction section of this report.
Structural Improvement of Soils
Information obtained from our field and laboratory analysis indicates th
a
t
l
o
o
s
e
t
o
p
s
o
i
l
c
o
v
e
r
s
t
h
e
building pad to a depth of approximately 18 inches below existing grade. T
h
e
s
e
s
u
r
f
i
c
i
a
l
s
o
i
l
s
a
r
e
susceptible to settlement upon loading. Based upon the soil characteristic
s
,
w
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
t
h
e
following:
* All topsoil and other loose natural soils should be completely removed from are
a
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
a
r
e
planned to receive compacted fills and/or structural improvements. The bo
t
t
o
m
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
area should expose competent materials as approved by ECSC&E geotechnical r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
.
Prior to the placement of new fill, the bottom of the removal area should b
e
s
c
a
r
i
f
i
e
d
a
minimum depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned within 2 percent abov
e
t
h
e
o
p
t
i
m
u
m
moisture content, and then recompacted to at least 90 percent relative com
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
(
A
S
T
M
D1557 test method).
* Overexcavation should be completed for the structural building pads to a m
i
n
i
m
u
m
d
e
p
t
h
o
f
3 feet below finish pad grades. The limit of the required areas of overexcav
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
extended a minimum of 5 feet laterally beyond the perimeter footing (building f
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
)
.
* Soils utilized as fill should be moisture-conditioned and recompacted in conform
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
following Method and Criteria of Compaction section of this report. The dept
h
a
n
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
o
f
any overexcavation and recompaction should be evaluated in the field by a
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
o
f
ECSC&E.
* An alternative to the overexcavation and recompaction of subgrade is to extend
t
h
e
f
o
o
t
i
n
g
s
to the dense terrace deposits. Foundation excavations should b
e
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
b
y
a
representative of this firm to verify competent bearing soils.
Transitions Between Cut and Fill
The proposed structure is anticipated to be founded in either properly compa
c
t
e
d
f
i
l
l
o
r
d
e
n
s
e
t
e
r
r
a
c
e
deposits. Cut to fill transitions below the proposed structure should be com
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
the earthwork construction as required in the previous section.
B.A. WORTHING/GUGLIELMO/JUNIpER AVENUE PROJECT NO. 11-1106E7(2)
Method and Criteria of Compaction
Compacted fills should consist of approved soil material, free of trash debris, roots, vegetation or other
deleterious materials. Fill soils should be compacted by suitable compaction equipment in uniform
loose lifts of 6 to 8 inches. Unless otherwise specified, all soils subjected to recompaction should be
moisture-conditioned within 2 percent over the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least
90 percent relative compaction per ASTM test method D1557.
The on-site granular and non-expansive soils, after being processed to delete the aforementioned
deleterious materials, may be used for recompaction purposes. Should any importation of fill be
planned, the intended import source(s) should be evaluated and approved by ECSCE prior to delivery
to the site. Care should be taken to ensure that these soils are not detrimentally expansive.
Erosion Control
Due to the granular characteristics of the on-site soils, areas of recent grading or exposed ground may
be subject to erosion. During construction, surface water should be controlled via berms, gravel/
sandbags, silt fences, straw wattles, siltation basins, positive surface grades or other method to avoid
damage to the finish work or adjoining properties. All site entrances and exits must have coarse
gravel or steel shaker plates to minimize offsite sediment tracking. Best Management Practices
(BMPs) must be used to protect storm drains and minimize pollution. The contractor should take
measures to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control
measures have been installed. After completion of grading, all excavated surfaces should exhibit
positive drainage and eliminate areas where water might pond.
Standard Grading Guidelines
Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the standard-of-practice methods for
this local, the guidelines of the current edition of the Uniform Building Code, and the requirements of
the jurisdictional agency. Where the information provided in the geotechnical report differs from the
Standard Grading Guidelines, the requirements outlined in the report shall govern.
FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS
a. Continuous and spread footings are suitable for use and should extend to a minimum depth of 24
inches below the lowest adjacent grade for the proposed two-story structure over a basement
garage. An embedment depth of 18 inches will be required for the non-basement portion of the
building. Continuous footings should be at least 18 and 15 inches in width respectively and
reinforced with four #4 steel bars; two bars placed near the top of the footings and the other two
bars placed near the bottom of the footings. Isolated or spread footings should have a minimum
width of 24 inches. Their reinforcement should consist of a minimum of #4 bars spaced 12 inches
on center (each way) and placed horizontally near the bottom. The minimum reinforcement
recommended is based on geotechnical considerations and is not intended to supercede the
structural engineer requirements.
P
B.A. WORTHING/GUGLJELMO/ JUNIPER AVENUE PROJECT NO. 11-1106E7(2)
The garage floor slab should be a minimum 5 inches thick. Reinforcement should consist of #3
bars placed at 16 inches on center each way within the middle third of the slab by supporting the
steel on chairs or concrete blocks "dobies". The slab should be underlain by 2 inches of clean sand
over a 10-mil visqueen moisture barrier. The effect of concrete shrinkage will result in cracks in
virtually all-concrete slabs. To reduce the extent of shrinkage, the concrete should be placed at a
maximum of 4-inch slump. The minimum steel recommended is not intended to prevent shrinkage
cracks.
Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are anticipated over the slab, the 10-mil plastic
moisture barrier should be underlain by a capillary break at least 2 inches thick, consisting of
coarse sand, gravel or crushed rock not exceeding 3/4 inch in size with no more than 5 percent
passing the #200 sieve.
An allowable soil bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of
continuous and spread footings at least 12 inches wide and founded a minimum of 12 inches into
the dense terrace deposits as set forth in the 2010 California Building Code, Table 1804.2. This
value may be increased by 400 psf for each additional foot of depth or width to a maximum value
of 4,000 lb/ft2.
Lateral resistance to horizontal movement may be provided by the soil passive pressure and the
friction of concrete to soil. An allowable passive pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot
of depth may be used. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 is recommended. The soils passive pressure
as well as the bearing value may be increased by 1/3 for wind and seismic loading.
SETTLEMENT
Settlement of compacted fill soils is normal and should be anticipated. Because of the type and
minor thickness of the fill soils anticipated under the proposed footings and the light building loads,
total and differential settlements should be within acceptable limits.
PRESATURATION OF SLAB SUBGRADE
Because of the granular characteristics of the existing soils, presoaking of the subgrade prior to
concrete pour is not required. However, subgrade soils in areas receiving concrete should be
watered prior to concrete placement to mitigate any drying shrinkage, which may occur following
site grading.
RETAINING WALLS
Cantilevered retaining walls should be designed for an "active" lateral earth pressure of 35 psf!ft (35
pcf EFP) for approved granular backfill and level backfill conditions. Where cantilevered walls
support 2:1 (hor:vert) sloping backfill, the equivalent active fluid pressure should be increased to
45pcf. Cantilever walls subject to uniform surcharge loads should be designed for an additional
uniform lateral pressure equal to one-third (1/3) the anticipated surcharge pressure.
10
B.A. WORTHING/GUGLIELMO/ JUNIPER AVENUE PROJECT NO. 11-1106E7(2)
Restrained walls such as basement walls should be designed utilizing an "at-rest" earth pressure of 60
psf/ft (60 pcf EFP) for approved granular and level backfill. Restrained walls subject to uniform
surcharge loads should be designed for an additional uniform lateral pressure equal to one-half (1/2)
the anticipated surcharge.
Retaining walls that are to be located near the top of slopes should be designed to allow a minimum
daylight distance of 7 feet laterally from the outside edge of the footing to the slope face.
Soil design criteria, such as bearing capacity, passive earth pressure and sliding resistance as
recommended under the Foundation and Slab Recommendations section, may be incorporated into the
retaining wall design.
Footings should be reinforced as recommended by the structural engineer and appropriate back
drainage provided to avoid excessive hydrostatic wall pressures. As a minimum we recommend a
fabric-wrapped crushed rock and perforated pipe system. At least 2 cubic feet per linear foot of free-
drainage crushed rock should be provided.
The remaining wall backfill should consist of approved tD granular material. This fill material should
be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent as determined by ASTM D-1557
test method. Flooding or jetting of backfill should not be permitted. Granular backfill should be
capped with 18 inches (minimum) of relatively impervious fill to seal the backfill and prevent
saturation. It should be noted that the use of heavy compaction equipment in close proximity to
retaining structures can result in wall pressures exceeding design values and corresponding wall
movement greater than that associated with active or at-rest conditions. In this regard, the
contractor should take appropriate precautions during the backfill placement.
TEMPORARY SLOPES
For the excavation of foundations and utility trenches, temporary vertical cuts to a maximum height of
4 feet may be constructed in fill or natural soil. Any temporary cuts beyond the above height
constraints should be shored or further laid back following a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical) slope ratio.
OSHA guidelines for trench excavation safety should be implemented during construction.
TRENCH BACKFILL
Excavations for utility lines, which extend under structural areas should be properly backfilled and
compacted. Utilities should be bedded and backfilled with clean sand or approved granular soil to
a depth of at least one foot over the pipe. This backfill should be uniformly watered and
compacted to a firm condition for pipe support. The remainder of the backfill should be on-site
soils or non-expansive imported soils, which should be placed in thin lifts, moisture-conditioned
and compacted to at least 90% relative compaction.
DRAINAGE
Adequate measures should be undertaken to properly finish grade the site after the structure • and
other improvements are in place, such that the drainage water within the site and adjacent
B.A. WORTHING/GUGLIELMQ/ JUNIPER AVENUE PROJECT NO. 11-11 06E7(2)
properties is directed away from the foundations, footings, floor slabs and the tops of slopes via
rain gutters, downspouts, surface swales and subsurface drains towards the natural drainage for this
area. A minimum gradient of 1 percent is recommended in hardscape areas. For earth areas, a
minimum gradient of 5 percent away from the structure for a distance of at least 5 feet should be provided. Earth swales should have a minimum gradient of 2 percent. Drainage should be directed
to approved drainage facilities. Proper surface and subsurface drainage will be required to
minimize the potential of water seeking the level of the bearing soils under the foundations,
footings and floor slabs, which may otherwise result in undermining and differential settlement of
the structure and other improvements.
FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW
Our firm should review the foundation plans during the design phase to assure conformance with the
intent of this report. During construction, foundation excavations should be observed by our
representative prior to the placement of forms, reinforcement or concrete for conformance with the
plans and specifications.
LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
Our investigation was performed using the skill and degree of care ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No
other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in
this report. This report is prepared for the sole use of our client and may not be assigned to others
without the written consent of the client and ECSC&E, Inc.
The samples collected and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of
site conditions; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between exploration
trenches, boreholes and surface exposures. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by
construction excavations may vary with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions
must be evaluated by a representative of ECSC&E and designs adjusted as required or alternate
designs recommended.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the
attention of the project architect and engineer. Appropriate recommendations should be incorporated
into the structural plans. The 'necessary steps should be taken to see that the contractor and
subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
The findings of this report are valid as of this present date. However, changes in the conditions of a
property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the works of
man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may
occur from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may
be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside of our control. Therefore, this report is subject to
review and should be updated after a period of two years.
12
B.A. WORTHING/GUGLIELMO/ JUNIPER AVENUE PROJECT NO. 11-I106E7(2)
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
The review of plans and specifications, field observations and testing under our direction are integral
parts of the recommendations made in this report. If East County Soil Consultation and Engineering,
Inc. is not retained for these services, the client agrees to assume our responsibility for any potential
claims that may arise during construction. Observation and testing are additional services, which are
provided by our firm, and should be budgeted within the cost of development.
Plates No. 1 through 3, Page L-1 and References are parts of this report.
.1 B.A. WORTHING/GUGLIELMO/JUWIpER AVENUE PROJECT NO. I1-1/06E7(2)
PLATE NO.2
SUMMARY SHEET
BOREHOLE NO.1
DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION y
Surface TOPSOIL
dark brown, damp to moist, loose, porous, silty sand with rootlets
1.5' TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
reddish brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty sand
2.0' '' 115.2 6.0' bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater
borehole backfilled 6/1/11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOREHOLE NO.2
DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION y
Surface TOPSOIL
dark brown, damp to moist, loose, porous, silty sand with rootlets
1.5' TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
reddish brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty sand
4.0 '' '' '' 112.7
6.0'
7.0' bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater
borehole backfilled 6/1/11
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOREHOLE NO.3
DEPTH SOIL DESCRIPTION y
Surface TOPSOIL
dark brown, damp to moist, loose, porous, silty sand with rootlets
1.5' TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qt)
reddish brown, moist, medium dense to dense, silty sand
10.0
12.0' bottom of borehole, no caving, no groundwater
borehole backfilled 6/1/11
Y = DRY DENSITY IN PCF M = MOISTURE CONTENT IN %
14
M
5.4
M
5.7
5.8
M
7.6
B.A. WORTHING/GUGLIELMQ/JUNLPER A VENUE PROJECT
N
O
.
1
1
-
1
1
0
6
E
7
(
2
)
PAGE L-1
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CO
N
T
E
N
T
(
A
S
T
M
P
1
5
5
7
)
The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the f
i
l
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
A
S
T
M
D1557, Procedures A and B which use 25 blows of 10-pound slide hammer falling from a height of 18 inches on each of 5 equal layers in a 4-inch diameter 1/30 cubic foot compaction cylinder
a
n
d
P
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
C
which uses 56 blows of a 10-pound slide hammer falling from a height of 18 inche
s
o
n
e
a
c
h
o
f
5 equal layers in a 6-inch diameter 1/13.3 cubic foot compaction cylinder are p
r
e
s
e
n
t
e
d
a
s
f
o
l
l
o
w
s
:
OPTIMUM
MAXIMUM MOISTURE SOIL TYPE! DRY DENSITY CONTENT PROCEDURE DESCRIPTION (PCF) (%) LOCATION
1/A REDDISH BROWN SILTY SAND 121.0 8.5 BH-1 @ 2.0'
EXPANSION INDEX TEST (ASTM D4829)
INITIAL SATURATED INITIAL DRY MOISTURE MOISTURE DENSITY EXPANSION CONTENT(%) CONTENT(%) (PCF) INDEX LOCATION
16.8 113.3 0 BH-1 @2.0'
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS (ASTM D422)
U.S. Standard
Sieve Size
Percent Passing
BH-1 @2.0'
Terrace Deposits
Percent Passing
BH-2@6.0'
Terrace Deposits
Percent Passing
BH-3 @10.0'
Terrace Deposits
1/2"
- -
-
#4
-
-
- #8 -
- - #16 100 100 100 #30 87 89 91 #50 37 38 39 #100 16 17 16 #200 11 12 10
USCS I SP-SM I SP-SM SP-SM
15
4 B.A. WORTHJNG/GUGLIELMO/ JUNIPER
A
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
O
.
1
1
-
1
1
0
6
E
7
(
2
)
REFERENCES
"Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Pro
p
o
s
e
d
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
a
n
d
D
e
t
a
c
h
e
d
G
a
r
a
g
e
,
1
5
0
Juniper Avenue, Carlsbad, California 9200
8
"
,
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
N
o
.
1
1
-
1
1
0
6
E
7
,
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
E
a
s
t
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
o
i
l
Consultation and Engineering, Inc., Dated Ju
n
e
1
5
,
2
0
1
1
.
"Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Propose
d
S
i
n
g
l
e
-
F
a
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
,
1
2
1
5
O
a
k
A
v
e
n
u
e
(
P
a
r
c
e
l
2), Carlsbad, California 92008", Project No.
1
1
-
1
1
0
6
F
5
,
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
E
a
s
t
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
o
i
l
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
and Engineering, Inc., Dated April 18, 20
1
1
.
"2010 California Building Code, California
C
o
d
e
o
f
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
T
i
t
l
e
2
4
,
P
a
r
t
2
,
V
o
l
u
m
e
2
o
f
2
"
,
Published by International Code
-Council.
"Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Propos
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
3
9
2
0
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
D
r
i
v
e
,
C
i
t
y
o
f
Carlsbad, California", Project No. 10-11
0
6
G
6
,
P
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
E
a
s
t
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
o
i
l
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
Engineering, Inc., Dated October 6, 2010.
"Eqfault/ Eqsearch, Version 3.0", by Blake, T.
F
.
,
2
0
0
0
,
U
p
d
a
t
e
d
2
0
0
8
.
"Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering:
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
"
,
b
y
R
o
b
e
r
t
W
.
D
a
y
,
1
9
9
9
.
"1997 Uniform Building Code, Volume 2, Str
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
"
,
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
International Conference of Building Officials
"Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Sourc
e
Z
o
n
e
s
i
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
a
n
d
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
N
e
v
a
d
a
t
o
be used with the 1997 Uniform Building C
o
d
e
"
,
P
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
o
f
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Officials.
"Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Par
t
o
f
S
a
n
D
i
e
g
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
"
,
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology
,
b
y
S
i
a
n
g
S
.
T
a
n
a
n
d
M
i
c
h
a
e
l
P
.
K
e
n
n
e
d
y
,
1
9
9
6
.
"Bearing Capacity of Soils, Technical En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
D
e
s
i
g
n
G
u
i
d
e
s
a
s
A
d
a
p
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
U
S
Army Corps of Engineers, No. 7",Publish
e
d
b
y
A
S
C
E
P
r
e
s
s
,
1
9
9
4
.
"Foundations and Earth Structures, Desi
g
n
M
a
n
u
a
l
7
.
2
"
,
b
y
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
N
a
v
y
N
a
v
a
l
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
Engineering Command, May 1982, Revalidate
d
b
y
C
h
a
n
g
e
1
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
9
8
6
.
"Ground Motions and Soil Liquefaction d
u
r
i
n
g
E
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
s
"
,
b
y
H
.
B
.
S
e
e
d
a
n
d
I
.
M
.
I
d
r
i
s
s
,
1
9
8
2
.