Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
CDP 15-45; Abdi Residence; Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation; 2015-11-08
.. w CHR.ISTIAN WH EELER. ENG I NEE R.I NG PECORDCOPY _\)~~/~31 Initial 1,/2./, 2 Date REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ABDI RESIDENCE ADDITION 5263 SHORE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA SUBMITTED TO MR. AND MRS. BEHROOZ ABDI 5263 SHORE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 920008 PREPARED BY CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 3980 HOME A VENUE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92105 RECE!~'~D Ft O 9 2017 LANO DEVt:L O?MENT ENGINEEklNG 3980 Home 1\venue + San Diego, C.-\ 92105 + 619 -550 -1 7 00 + F .-\X 619 -550-1 7 01 ( \__ '" -, November 8, 2015 Mr. and Mrs. Behrooz Abdi 5263 Shore Drive Carlsbad, California 92008 w CHR.ISTIAN WHEELER. ENGINEER.ING Subject: Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation CWE21S0264.01 Proposed Abdi Residence Addition, 5263 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. and Mrs. Abdi: In accordance with your request and our proposal dated June 17, 2015, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical investigation for the subject project. Our findings and recommendations are provided in the attached report. It is our opinion that no geotechnical conditions exist that would preclude the construction of the currently proposed construction and that the proposed construction will not create not contribute -----~__to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of the site or surrounding areas, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. H you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. DBA:drr cc: rckarch@gmail.com 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction and Project Description ..................................................................................................... 1 Project Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Findings .................................................................................................................................................. 4 Site Description ................................................................................................................................... 4 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions ...................................................................................... 4 Geologic Setting and Soil Description ............................................................................................. 4 Artificial Fill ................................................................................................................................ 4 Old Paralic Deposits ..................................................................................................................... 4 Santiago Formation ....................................................................................................................... 5 Geologic Structure ........................................................................................................................... 5 Groundwater ................................................................................................................................... 5 Tectonic Setting ............................................................................................................................... 5 Geologic Hazards ................................................................................................................................ 6 General ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Surface Rupture ............................................................................................................................... 7 Ground Shaking .............................................................................................................................. 7 Liquefaction ..................................................................................................................................... 7 Flooding .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Tsunamis ......................................................................................................................................... 8 Seiches ............................................................................................................................................. 8 Landslide Potential and Slope Stability ................................................................................................. 8 General ............................................................................................................................................ 8 Bluff Stability Analyses .................................................................................................................... 8 Strength Parameters ......................................................................................................................... 9 Method of Analyses ......................................................................................................................... 9 Results of Bluff Stability Analyses ................................................................................................... 9 Bluff Erosion ..................................................................................................................................... 10 General .......................................................................................................................................... 10 Bluff Edge Retreat ......................................................................................................................... 11 ~~mended Bluff Top Setback ................................................................................................. 12 Conclusions~·----... .,_., . .,_ ..... ., .................................................................................................... 12 ,'--_ _ _/ Recommendations ........................................ :-....................................................................................... 13 Earthwork and Grading .................................................................................................................... 13 General .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Site Preparation ............................................................................................................................. 13 Processing of Fill Areas .................................................................................................................. 13 Compaction and Method of Filling ............................................................................................... 13 Surf ace Drainage ............................................................................................................................ 14 Grading Plan Review ..................................................................................................................... 14 Temporary Cut Slopes .................................................................................................................. 14 Temporary Shoring ........................................................................................................................... 15 General .......................................................................................................................................... 15 Drilling Characteristics .................................................................................................................. 15 Foundations ...................................................................................................................................... 16 CWE 2150264.01 Proposed Abdi Residence Addition 5263 Shore Drive Carlsbad, California ( ~-- TABLE OF CONTENfS (continued) Page General .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Shallow Foundations ..................................................................................................................... 16 Foundation Dimensions ............................................................................................................. 16 Bearing Capacity ........................................................................................................................ 16 Footing Reinforcement .............................................................................................................. 16 Lateral Load Resistance ............................................................................................................... 16 Underpinning ................................................................................................................................ 17 Expansive Characteristics .............................................................................................................. 17 Settlement Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 17 Soluble Sufates ............................................................................................................................... 17 Foundation Plan Review ............................................................................................................... 17 Foundation Excavation Observation .............................................................................................. 18 Seismic Design Factors .................................................................................................................. 18 On-Grade Slabs ................................................................................................................................. 19 General .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Under-Slab Vapor Retarders .......................................................................................................... 19 Exterior Concrete Slabs-on-Grade ................................................................................................. 19 Earth Retaining Walls ....................................................................................................................... 20 Foundations ................................................................................................................................... 20 Passive Pressure ............................................................................................................................. 20 Active Pressure .............................................................................................................................. 20 Waterproofing and Wall Drainage Systems .................................................................................... 20 Backfill ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Limitations ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Review, Observation and Testing ...................................................................................................... 21 Uniformity of Conditions ................................................................................................................. 21 Change in Scope ................................................................................................................................ 22 Time Limitations ............................................................................................................................... 22 Professional Standard ......................................................................................................................... 22 Client's Responsibility ....................................................................................................................... 23 Field Explorations ................................................................................................................................ 23 ----------Labor:rtory Testing ............................................................................................................................... 24 TABLES Table I Table II ATTACHMENTS Proximal Fault Zones, Page 7 Seismic Design Factors, Page 18 CWE 2150264.01 Proposed Abdi Residence Addition 5263 Shore Drive Carlsbad, California ATIACHMENTS (continued) FIGURES Figure 1 PLATES Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 Site Plan and Geotechnical Map Geologic Cross Sections A-A' and B-B' Plate 1 Plates 2-3 Plate 4 Typical Cantilever Retaining Wall Drainage Systems APPENDICES Appendix A Subsurface Explorations Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Appendix C References Appendix D Recommended Grading Specifications-General Provisions Appendix E Results of Bluff Stability Analyses CWE 2150264.01 Proposed Abdi Residence Addition 5263 Shore Drive Carlsbad, California J • CHRJSTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING REPORT OF PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED ABDI RESIDENCE ADDffiON 5263 SHORE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation for the subject residential addition to be constructed at 5263 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California. The location of the project site is shown on the following Figure Number 1. We understand that the subject project will consist of lateral and second story additions to the existing residence and the relocation of the southern edge of the home as much as about 10 feet shoreward. In addition, a basement will be constructed under the entire new house footprint. New structural loads associated with the additions are expected to be supported by new conventional, shallow foundations and the basement will incorporate a conventional concrete slab-on-grade floor system. We anticipate that the above grade additions will be of conventional, wood frame construction. The basement will be of concrete or masonry construction. Grading is anticipated to consist of cuts up to about 11 feet below existing grade for proposed basement construction. To ai in e preparation of this report, we were provided with a set of miscellaneous plans for the proposed project prepared by Harcourt & Kaufman Architects, dated October 27, 2015 as well as a preliminary grading plan for the project, prepared by LGS Engineering, Inc., dated November 1, 2015. A copy of the grading plan was modified to show our geologic mapping and the locations of our subsurface explorations, and is included herewith as Plate Number 1. The plan was also used to prepare the geologic cross-sections included as Plate Numbers 2 and 3 of this report. 3980 Home Avenue+ San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 DATE: NOVEMBER 2015 BY: SRD SITE VICINITY o OpcnStreetMap contributors ABDI RESIDENCE ADDITION S263 SHORE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA JOB NO.: FIGURE NO.: 215026'4.0l CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. 2 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Mr. and Mrs. Behrooz Abdi and their design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be modified, the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report should be reviewed by Christian Wheeler Engineering for conformance with our recommendations and to determine if any additional subsurface investigation, laboratory testing and/ or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been pedormed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied. PROJECT SCOPE Our preliminary geotechnical investigation consisted of surface reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, obtaining representative soil samples, laboratory testing, analysis of the field and laboratory data and review of relevant geologic literature. Our scope of service did not include assessment of hazardous substance contamination, recommendations to prevent floor slab moisture intrusion or the formation of mold within the structure, evaluation or design of storm water infihration facilities, or any other / ( services not specifically described in the scope of services presented below. More specifically, the intent \,_ -/ of this analysis was to: • Obtain a waiver from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. to _ conduct the proposed subsurface investigation. ----.1...LUJUJ..1~,o exploratory borings at the site to depths ranging from ± 20 to 50 feet below existing --grades using both a conventional truck-mounted drill rig and a limited access, tripod-mol¥).ted drill rig, in order to explore the existing soil conditions at the site. • Backfill the boring holes using a grout or a grout!bentonite mix as required by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. • Excavate a hand-dug test pit to measure the dimensions of the footing supporting the existing residence at one location. • Backfill the test pit with the removed soil. • Evaluate, by laboratory tests and our past experience with similar soil types, the engineering properties of the various soil strata that may influence the proposed construction, including bearing capacities, shear strengths, expansive characteristics and settlement potential. CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. 3 • Describe the general geology at the site, including possible geologic hazards that could have an effect on the proposed construction, and provide the seismic design parameters as required by the current edition of the California Building Code. • Identify the location of the "edge of the bluff" along the shoreward side of the site. • Perform computer-assisted slope stability analyses of the proposed lot configuration in order to quantify the minimum, global factor-of-safety of the proposed site development, and as necessary, to determine the approximate location of the 1.5-factor of safety line. • Evaluate the historical rate of bluff top recession at or adjacent to the site. • Recommend a minimum setback, based on the geologic and geotechnical conditions, from the edge of the bluff for the proposed improvements. • Address potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater or geologic hazards, and provide geotechnical recommendations to deal with these difficulties. • Provide site preparation and grading recommendations for the anticipated work. • Provide shored and un-shored temporary cut slope recommendations. • Provide foundation recommendations for the type of construction anticipated and develop soil engineering design criteria for the recommended foundation designs. • Provide earth retaining wall design recommendations. • Provide a preliminary geotechnical report presenting the results of our investigation including a plot plan showing the location of our subsurface explorations, excavation logs, laboratory test results, and our conclusions and recommendations for the proposed project. ~~~ for: the presence of soluble sulfates within the soils th~ may be in contact with reinforced concrete were performed as part of the scope of our services, it should be understood Christian Wheeler Engineering does not practice corrosion engineering. If a corrosivity analysis is considered necessary, we recommend that the client retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter. The results of our sulfate testing should only be used as a guideline to determine if additional testing and analysis is necessary. \ ,_ ( I \ _: \ "-/ CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. 4 FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a developed residential lot located at 5263 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California. The site currently supports a one-and two-story, single-family residence and other normally associated improvements. Topographically, the subject lot relatively level. A moderately to steeply sloping coastal bluff approximately 39 feet high descends from the southwest perimeter of the subject lot down to the adjacent coastal beach. The bluff face is covered with gunite, which we understand was first placed along the lower ±20 feet of bluff face in or around 1962. Review of the referenced aerial photographs indicates that the upper bluff ace was covered with gunite sometime between January of 1989 and 1993. GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDffiONS GEOLOGIC SETI1NG AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The project site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County and is underlain by fill materials, Quaternary-age old paralic deposits, and Tertiary-age sedimentary deposits of the Santiago Formation. The geologic units that underlie the subject site are described below in order of increasing age: ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf): Artificial fill materials were encountered in our borings and test it, extending to an approximate depth of 1 foot below the existing site grades. The fill materials gene y consisted of brown and dark brown, moist, loose, silty sand (SM). The fill materials were judged to have a very low Expansion Index (EI< 20). OLD PARAllC DEPOSITS (Qop): Quaternary-age old paralic (marine terrace) deposits were encountered in borings underlying the artificial fill and were measured to extend to a depth of 301h feet within our Boring B-1. The uppermost ± 17 feet of the old paralic deposits (upper terrace) were noted to consist of orangish-brown, fine to coarse grained silty sands (SM) that were generally moist and medium dense to very dense in consistency. As noted within both of our borings, below an approximate depth of 17 feet, the old paralic deposits Qower terrace) generally consist of light brown, fine to medium grained, slight silty sands (SM-SP) that were generally damp to moist and medium dense to very dense inconsistency. Approximately the lower 3 feet of CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. 5 the old paralic deposits consisted of light brown, moist, dense to very dense, sandy gravd with sih (GM). The old paralic deposits were judged to have a very low Expansion Index (EI< 20). SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa~ Tertiary-age (Eocene) sedimentary deposits of the Santiago Formation were encountered in boring B-1 at a depth of about 30~ feet below existing grade. The Santiago Formation consisted of light brown to gray, very dense, silty sand with clay (SM). These deposits were moist to a depth of about 37 feet below existing grade and saturated below said depth. These formational soils were judged to have a low Expansion Index (EI between 21 and 50). GEOWGIC STRUCTURE: Review of local geologic maps indicates that the bedding of the Santiago Formation at the site dips gently to moderately (10°) to the east-southeast in the vicinity of the subject site (Kennedy and Tan, 2007). GROUNDWATER: Unlike many coastal bluff top sites within the north county San Diego region, perched groundwater was not encountered within the lower portions of the old paralic deposits, above ~ /: the contact with the less permeable sediments of the Santiago Formation. Free groundwater was encountered in borings B-1 at a depth of about 37 feet below existing site grade. Due to the site's close proximity to the Pacific Ocean, variations in the groundwater table should be expected. It is our opinion that groundwater related issues should not affect the proposed construction. It should also be recognized that minor groundwater seepage problems might occur after construction and landscaping are completed, even at a site where none were present before construction. these are usually minor phenomena an are often -th! ~~ of an alteration in drainage patterns and/ or an increase in irrigation water. Based on the anticipated construction and the permeability of the on-site soils, it is our opinion that any seepage problems that may occur will be minor in extent. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when they occur. TECTONIC SE1TING: No faults are known to traverse the subject site. However, it should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones that consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults --. CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. 6 within the zone) are classified as "active" acc~rding to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years). The Division of Mines and Geology used the term "potentially active" on Earthquake Fauh Zone maps until 1988 to refer to all Quaternary-age (last 1.6 million years) faults for the purpose of evaluation for possible zonation in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act and identified all Quaternary-age faults as "potentially active" except for certain faults that were presumed to be inactive based on direct geologic evidence of inactivity during all of Holocene time or longer. Some faults considered to be "potentially active" would be considered to be "active" but lack specific criteria used by the State Geologist, such as sufficiently acti.ve and well-defined. Faults older than Quaternary-age are not specifically defined in Special Publication 42, Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology. However, it is generally accepted that faults showing no movement during the Quaternary period may be considered to be •inactive". A review of available geologic maps indicates that the active Rose Canyon Fauh Zone is located approximately 4 miles southwest of the subject site. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Newport-Inglewood and Palos Verdes Fault Zones to the northwest, the Coronado Bank and San Clemente Fault Zones to the southwest and the Elsinore, Earthquake Valley, San Jacinto, and San Andreas Fault Zones to the northeast. GEOLOGIC HAZARDS GENERAL: As part of our investigation, we have reviewed the San Diego County Muhi-Jurisdiction Hazard Mitigation Pan. ·· study is the result of a comprehensive investigation of the county, which identifies potential geotechnical hazards, and is further described in the sections included below. Other than the potentials for seismically induced ground shaking, the site should be safe from geologic hazards at the conclusion of construction, provided the recommendations contained herein are implemented and sound construction and site maintenance and landscaping practices are followed. It is our professional opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed development and that the proposed construction will not create not contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of the site or surrounding areas, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. ' ~. CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. 7 SURFACE RUPTURE: No active or potentially active faults are known to underlie the subject site. As such, the site is not considered subject to surface rupture. GROUND SHAKING: A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as result of movement along one of the major active fauh zones mentioned above. The maximum magnitude earthquakes occurring along the nearest fault segments of selected fault zones that could affect the site are summarized in the following Table I. TABLE I: PROXIMAL FAULT ZONES Fault Zone Distance Maximum Magnitude Earthquake Rose Canyon 6'h km 7 .2 Magnitude N ewport-lnglewood 17 km 7 .1 Magnitude Coronado Bank 28 km 7.6 Magnitude Elsinore Oulian) 45 km 7 .1 Magnitude It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the remaining economic life of the existing improvements and the life of any proposed future improvements. It should be recognized that Southern California is an area that is subject to some degree of seismic risk and that it is generally not considered economically feasible nor technologically practical to build structures that are totally resistant to earthquake-related hazards. New construction in accordance with the minimum requirements of the most recent edition of the California Building ~~~~~~~~~~- Co de should minimize damage due to seismic events. UQUEFACTION: The native materials at the site are not subject to liquefaction due to such factors as soil density, grain-size distribution, and the absence of shallow groundwater conditions. FLOODING: As delineated on the referenced Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the site is located outside of the 100-year and 500-year flood zones. CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. 8 TSUNAMIS: Tsunamis are great sea waves produced by a submarine earthquake, submarine landslides or volcanic eruption. Historically, the San Diego area has been relatively free of tsunami- related haz.a.rds and tsunamis reaching San Diego have generally been well within the normal tidal range. It is thought that the wide continental margin off the coast acts to diffuse and reflect the wave energy of remotely generated tsunamis. The largest historical tsunami to reach San Diego's coast was 4.6 feet high, generated by the 1960 earthquake in Chile. A lack of knowledge about the offshore fault systems makes it difficult to assess the risk due to locally generated tsunamis. The developed portions of the site are above the Tsunami Inundation area and Inundation Line as presented on the Oceanside and San Luis Rey Quadrangles of the Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning (CalEMA, 2009). Furthermore, given the elevation of the develop portions of the site approximately of 39 to 40 feet above, the risk of damage to the proposed site improvements rom tsunamis is considered to be low. SElCHES: Seiches are periodic oscillations in large bodies of water such as lakes, harbors, bays or reservoirs. Due to the site's location, the site is not considered subject to seiche hazards. LANDSLIDE POTENTIAL AND SLOPE STABII11Y GENERAL: The Relative Landslide Susceptibility and Landslide Distribution Map of the Oceanside and San Luis Rey Quadrangles prepared by the California Division of Mines and Geology indicates that the site is situated within Relative Landslide Susceptibility Area 2. Area 2 is considered to be "marginally susceptible" to slope failures. However, as described hereinafter, our evaluation of the stabiITtyof the bluff top site indicates that the coastal bluff demonstrates minimum factors-of-safety that are generally considered to be stable. BLUFF STABII.lTY ANALYSES: To analyze the stability of the bluff top site, we utilized the topography and geology presented on the geologic cross sections A-A' and B-B', include herein as Plate Nos. 2 and 3, respectively. The on-site earth materials incorporated in our stability analyses are described in detail in the "Geologic Setting and Soil Description" section of this report. CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. 9 , Given the above described geologic structure of the site, our bluff stability analyses have modeled I "'- ---- circular-type modes of bluff failure. Our analyses have modelled failures originating within the lower, middle, and upper bluff face. Both static and pseudo-static (incorporating a kh value of 0.15g) analyses were performed. STRENGlH P ARAMEI'ERS: The strength parameters for the earth materials underlying the subject site were estimated by the direct shear test method and our experience and judgment with similar soil types. It is our professional opinion that the strength parameters and unit weights presented below and utilized in our stability analyses provide for conservative bluff stability analyses. Soil Type Unit Weight, y Phi, cj, Cohesion, c Marine Beach Deposits 100 pcf 27 degrees 0 psf Upper Paralic Deposits (Qopl) 120 pcf 35 degrees 250 psf Lower Paralic Deposits (Qop2) 115 pcf 33 degrees 200 psf Santiago Formation (fsa) 125 pcf (moist) 36~ degrees 500 psf 130 pcf (saturated) METHOD OF ANALYSES: The analyses of the gross stability of the subject site and adjacent bluff areas were performed using Version 2 of the GST ABU© computer program developed by Gary H Gregory, PE. The program analyzes circular, block, specified, and randomly shaped failure surfaces using the Modified Bishop, Janbu, or Spencer's Methods. The STEDwin© computer program, developed by Harald W. Van Aller, P. E., was used in conjunction with this program for data entry and graphics display. The topography of the site and adjacent bluff areas was analyzed for circular-type failures, originating within the lower, middle and upper bluff face, and each failure analysis was programmed to ~run-200CLrandom failure surfaces. The most critical failure surfaces generated in each analysis were accumulated and sorted by value of the factor-of-safety. After the specified number of failure surfaces were successfully generated and analyzed, the ten most critical surfaces were plotted so that the pattern may be studied. RESULTS OF BLUFF STABILITY ANALYSES: Appendix E of this report presents the results of our static and pseudo-static bluff stability analyses. As demonstrated on the printouts of these analyses, the proposed site topography along our geologic cross sections A-A' and B-B' demonstrate minimum factors-of-safety against static failure of 1.8 and 1.9 respectively, which are above the ------ CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 PagcNo.10 minimum that is generally considered to be stable of 1.5. The proposed site topography along our geologic cross sections A-A' and B-B' demonstrate minimum factors-of-safety against pseudo-static failure of 1.4, which is above the minimum that is generally considered to be stable of 1.1. Accordingly, Plate Nos. 1-3 of this report do not delineate what portions of the site demonstrate minimum factors-of-safety of 1.5 and 1.1 against static and pseudo-static bluff failure, as portions of the site do so. BLUFF EROSION GENERAL: As presented on Plate Nos. 1-3 of this report, the bluff edge is defined as the line of intersection between the steeply sloping bluff face and the flat or more gently sloping bluff top. Coastal bluff recession is a process which is presently occurring in much of coastal San Diego County. Typically, coastal recession occurs through five modes which include: 1) undercutting of the base of the cliff by wave action and subsequent blockfalls falls of the overlying materials; 2) undercutting of the old paralic (terrace) deposits or other surficial material, initiated by water seepage conditions at the formational contact, and subsequent slumping of the overlying materials; and 3) deep-seated rotational- type failures. Review of the referenced literature, photographs, and maps indicates that the mode of historical recession over the last century at the subject site proper and in the immediate vicinity appears to be manifested primarily by human-induced erosion and subaerial erosion of the old paralic (terrace) deposits that comprise the middle and upper bluff areas caused by severe storm conditions and/ or drainage conditions. The rate of erosion is variable with periods of very little recession alternating -;,iilf epi.sodes in which substantial surficial erosion occurs. Although covered with gunite, the potential for small blockfalls falls caused by erosion of the Santiago Formation along the base of the sea cliff cannot be ruled out in the future. It is also worth noting that unlike other coastal areas in northern San Diego County area, significant groundwater seepage along he contact with the old paralic deposits and underlying materials of the Santiago formation, which commonly contributes to accelerated erosion along lower bluff areas, was not encountered within our boring B-1, drilled on-site. CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 PageNo.11 The Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region prepared by the California Department of Boating and Waterways and San Diego Association of Governments in 1994 indicates that the "Encina" segment of shoreline adjacent to the subject site possesses a generally high risk assessment due to inadequate coastal setbacks, a narrow beach, and inadequate design of protective devices along the coastline. It is worth noting that the Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas does not label this section of coastline as demonstrating unfavorable geology with regards to bluff stability and shoreline risk. Within the vicinity of our site, the lower bluff face, which extends to an elevation of about 8 to 9 feet, is comprised of sandstones of the erosion resistant, Eocene-aged Santiago Formation where the bedding is considered favorable and without significant joints, fractures, or faulting. The upper portion of the bluff is approximately 30 to 32 feet thick and is comprised of upper and lower old paralic (terrace) deposits. BLUFF EDGE RETREAT: In order to quantify the rate of bluff top retreat of the exiting coastal bluff in the vicinity of the subject site, we have obtained and reviewed a copy of the County of San Diego aerial photograph, Packet 30, Dl, which was taken in 1928. This photograph was enlarged to an approximate scale of 1 inch to 510 feet. Our estimation of the approximate scale of the enlarged photographs was performed by scaling the distances between previous and existing geomorphic features and rail line locations on the enlarged aerial photograph and recent County of San Diego 200- scale topographic maps. Utilizing the previous and current location of the rail line that exists approximately 1315 to 1370 feet to the east of the subject site, we estimate that that in 1928 the edge of the bluff top along the w~ of ~te was located approximately 1470 feet and 1410 west of the rail line along the azimuths of cross ------ sections A-A' and B-B', respectively. As such, we calculate that the edge of the bluff top adjacent to the subject site has retreated between approximately 11 feet and 13 feet over the past 87 years. Such distances of bluff top retreat equate to an approximate mean annual rate of retreat of between 0.13 feet/year to 0.15 feet/year. This measured range of mean annual bluff top retreat correlates with previous studies performed in the area, including the referenced study of the effects of material properties and physical processes on long term erosion rates of approximately 4.3 cm/year (0.14 feet/year) by Benumof and Griggs. CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. U Considering the calculated rates of mean annual bluff top retreat at the site, we anticipate that over the design life of the proposed project (taken as 75 years), the edge of bluff along the southwest side of the subject site should be considered susceptible to approximately 11 feet of erosion. It should be understood that the mean annual rate of bluff top retreat represents an average rate of bluff top/ sea cliff retreat. As such, year to year variations in the rate of bluff top recession should not only be anticipated but also expected. RECOMMENDED BLUFF TOP SETBACK: Based on the results of our quantitative bluff stability analyses, the anticipated bluff edge retreat over the design life of the proposed construction (taken to be 75 years), and the fact that the remodeled, and slightly re-located, residence will be sited 20 to 31 feet shoreward of the edge of bluff, no additional setbacks are considered warranted. CONCLUSIONS No geotechnical conditions were encountered which would preclude the construction of the proposed structure or would contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability or destruction of the site or r ) surrounding areas, provided the recommendations presented in this report as well as sound site ,. maintenance, landscaping, and drainage procedures are implemented and followed. The main geotechnical conditions affecting the subject project are the presence of potentially compressible fill soils underlying the existing building pad and temporary cut slopes associated with proposed basement construction. The existing fill materials are considered unsuitable, in their present condition for the support of settlement sensitive improvements. These materials were noted to extend to only about 1 foot below existing site grades. However, they may be deeper in areas of the site not investigated. This condition will require that proposed on-grade foundations be deepened such that they bear entirely on the underlying competent old paralic deposits. In addition, it is recommended that existing footings not be used for the support of additional structural loads unless they are underpinned. It is anticipated that the foundation soils at proposed basement elevation will consist of competent old paralic deposits. CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 PageNo.13 The proposed basement construction will require temporary cuts up to about 11 feet deep {without considering proposed footing excavations). This condition will likely require shoring of temporary cut slopes as well underpinning of portions of the existing structure. The site is located in an area that is relatively free of geologic haz.ards that will have a significant effect on the proposed construction. The most likely geologic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking due to seismic activity along one of the regional active faults. However, construction in accordance with the requirements of the most recent edition of the California Building Code and the local governmental agencies should provide a level of life-safety suitable for the type of development proposed. RECOMMENDATIONS EARTIIWORK AND GRADING GENERAL: All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in the California Building Code, the minimum requirements of the City of Carlsbad, and the recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions attached hereto, except where specifically supers'eded in the text of this report. SITE PREPARATION: It is recommended that all existing fill soils underlying proposed improvements be removed in their entirety. All excavated areas should be approved by the geotechnical engineer or his representative prior to replacing any of the excavated soils. The excavated ~can be .replaced as properly compacted fill in accordance with the recommendations presented in the uCompaction and Method of Filling" section of this report. PROCESSING OF FILL AREAS: Prior to placing any new fill soils in areas that have been cleaned out to receive fill and have been approved by the Geotechnical Consultant or his representative, the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. No other special ground preparation is anticipated at this time. COMPACTION AND METHOD OF FILLING: All structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density as determined by CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 PageNo.14 ASTM Laboratory Test D1557. Fills should be placed at or slightly above optimum moisture content, in lifts six to eight inches thick, with each lift compacted by mechanical means. Fills should consist of approved earth material, free of trash or debris, roots, vegetation, or other materials determined to be unsuitable by our soil technicians or project geologist. Fill material should be free of rocks or lumps of soil in excess of six inches in maximum dimension. Based on our subsurface observations and laboratory testing, we anticipate the removed fill will be suitable for use as structural fill. All utility trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its maximum dry density. SURFACE DRAINAGE: The drainage around the proposed improvements should be designed to collect and direct sudace water away from proposed improvements toward appropriate drainage facilities. Rain gutters with downspouts that discharge runoff away from the structure into controlled drainage devices are recommended. The ground around the proposed improvements should be graded so that sudace water flows rapidly away from the improvements without ponding. Sudace drainage should be collected and diverted away from the edge or face of the coastal bluff. GRADING PLAN REVIEW: The final grading plan, if one is necessary, should be submitted to this office for review in order to ascertain that the recommendations of this report have been implemented, and that no additional recommendations are needed due to changes in the anticipated development plans. -----___:__rnw ORARY CUT SWPES: We anticipate that temporary excavation slopes up to about 13 feet high may be requireaforilie grading and construction of the proposed basement. The excavations required for footing construction are considered as part of the temporary slopes. In general, temporary cuts can be excavated at an inclination of 1:1 or flatter. The use of an un-shored, temporary cut slope along the south side of the proposed basement is not recommended. We recommend that our firm be contacted to have an engineering geologist observe any temporary cut slopes during construction to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions exist. H adverse conditions are identified, it may be necessary to flatten the slope inclination. No surcharge loads such as soil or equipment stockpiles, vehicles, etc. should be allowed within a distance from the top of temporary slopes equal to half the slope height. ( '\_ CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 PageNo.15 The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and may need to shore, slope, or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of the excavation sides where the friable sands are exposed. The contractor's "competent person", as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety process. In no case should slope height, slope inclination, or excavation depth, including utility trench excavation depth, exceed those specified in local, state, and federal safety regulations. Christian Wheeler Engineering should be immediately notified if zones of potential instability, sloughing or raveling develop, and mitigation measures should be implemented prior to continuing work. TEMPORARY SHORING GENERAL: Shoring is anticipated to be nee~ for the construction of the proposed basement. It is anticipated that the shoring system will utilize soldier beams with wooden lagging. The following design parameters may be assumed to calculate earth pressures on shoring. Shoring design should take into account over-excavation depths. 250 125 Active pressures can be applied to shoring that is capable of rotating 0.002 radians. At-rest pressures should be applied to a shoring system that is unyielding and not able to rotate. These values do not -----1ioc!ffilini:iro~~lko~ads~Construction surcharge loads should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Vertical and lateral movemen~ of ilie-temporary shoring are expected to be small assuming an adequate lateral support system. DRillING CHARACTERISTICS: Based on our findings, it is our opinion that drilling for shoring construction may be performed with conventional, heavy duty drilling equipment in good working order. CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 PageNo.16 ( ~· FOUNDATIONS ~ .... _ / GENERAL: Based on our findings, it is our opinion that the proposed additions be supported on new foundations extending into competent old paralic deposits. The new foundations may consist of conventional shallow footings. The following recommendations are considered the minimum based on soil conditions and are not intended to be lieu of structural considerations. All foundations should be , designed by a qualified structural engineer. SHALLOW FOUNDATIONS FOUNDATION DIMENSIONS: Conventional spread footings supporting the proposed additions should have a minimum embedment of 24 inches below the finish pad grade and should also extend at least 12 inches into competent old par.we deposits, whichever is more. A minimum width of 12 inches and 24 inches is recommended for continuous and isolated footings, respectively. A minimum depth of 24 inches and a minimum width of 24 inches are recommended for retaining walls. BEARING CAPACITY: Spread footings with the aforementioned minimum dimensions may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by 700 psf for each additional foot of embedment depth and 300 psf for each additional foot of width, up to a maximum of 4,000 psf. The soil bearing pressures may be increased by one- third for combinations of temporary loads such as those due to wind or seismic loads. -------c~G REINFORCEMENT: The project structural engineer should provide reinforcement requirements for founcfuions. However, based on soil conditions, we recommend that the minimum reinforcing for continuous footings should consist of at least two No. 5 bars positioned near the bottom of the footing and two No. 5 bars positioned near the top of the footing. LATERAL LOAD RESISTANCE: Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of the footing and the supporting soil, and by the passive pressure against the footing. The coefficient of friction between concrete and soil may be considered to be 0.30. The passive resistance may be considered to be equal to an equivalent fluid weight of 300 pounds per cubic foot. These values are based on the assumption that the footings are poured tight against CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 PageNo.17 undisturbed soil. If a combination of the passive pressure and friction is used, the friction value should be reduced by one-third. UNDERPINNING: Underpinning of portions of the existing structure will be necessary for the construction of the proposed basement. Underpinning recommendations should be provided by the project structural designer based on the aforementioned foundation recommendations .. EXPANSIVE CHARACTERISTICS: The foundation soils were judged to have a low expansive potential (EI< 51). The foundation recommendations presented in this report reflect this condition. SETTLEMENT CHARACTERISTICS: The anticipated total and differential foundation settlement is expected to be less than about 1 inch and 1 inch in 40 feet, respectively, provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. It should be recognized that minor cracks normally occur in concrete slabs and foundations due to shrinkage during curing or redistribution of stresses, therefore some cracks may be anticipated. Such cracks are not necessarily an indication of excessive vertical movements. However, it should be recognized that there is a higher potential for differential settlements for additions, and partially underpinning existing footings may result in increased differential settlements detrimental to the existing and proposed improvements. It is further our opinion that these conditions may result in cosmetic distress that may be relatively easily repaired, and not result in significant structural distress to the structure. SOLUBLE SULFA TES: The water soluble sulfate content of two selected soil samples from the site --was determined in accordance with California Test Method 417. The test results indicate that the soil samples had a soluble sulfate content of 0.012 and 0.004 percent. Soils with a soluble sulfate content of less than 0.1 percent are considered to be negligible. Therefore, no special requirements are considered necessary for the concrete mix design. Nevertheless, Type II modified Portland cement is recommended for concrete in contact with soil. FOUNDATION PLAN REVIEW: The final foundation plan and accompanying details and notes should be submitted to this office for review. The intent of our review will be to verify that the plans used for construction reflect the minimum dimensioning and reinforcing criteria presented in this section and that no additional criteria are required due to changes in the foundation type or layout. It is not our .,-"' CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 PageNo.18 intent to review structural plans, notes, details, or calculations to verify that the design engineer has correctly applied the geotechnical design values. It is the responsibility of the design engineer to properly design/ specify the foundations and other structural elements based on the requirements of the structure and considering the information presented in this report. FOUNDATION EXCAVATION OBSERVATION: All footing excavations should be observed by Christian Wheeler Engineering prior to placing reinforcing steel to determine if the foundation recommendations presented herein are followed and that the foundation soils are as anticipated in the preparation of this report. All footing excavations should be excavated neat, level, and square. All loose or unsuitable material should be removed prior to the placement of concrete. SEISMIC DESIGN FACTORS The seismic design factors applicable to the subject site are provided below. The seismic design factors were determined in accordance with the 2013 California Building Code. The site coefficients and adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response acceleration parameters are presented in the following Table IL . TABLE II: SEISMIC DESIGN FACTORS Site Coordinates: Latitude, 33.129° Longitude -117.335° Site Class D Site Coefficient F. 1.066 · Site Coefficient Fv 1.580 ~ , 112 ---nse Acceleration at Short Periods S, 1.086 g .., Spectral Response Acceleration at 1 Second Period S1 0.420 g SMS=F.S. 1.157 g SM1=FTS! 0.664 g Sns=2/3*SM.5 0.771 g Snt-2/3*Sw 0.443 g Probable ground shaking levels at the site could range from slight to moderate, depending on such factors as the magnitude of the seismic event and the distance to the epicenter. It is likely that the site will experience the effects of at least one moderate to large earthquake during the life of the proposed improvements. / ,/ ! CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 PageNo.19 ON-GRADE SLABS GENERAL: It is our understanding that the floor system of the proposed basement will consist of a concrete slab-on-grade. The basement concrete slab should have a minimum thickness of least 5 inches (actual) and should be reinforced with at least No. 4 reinforcing bars placed at 18 inches on center each. Slab reinforcement should be supported on chairs such that the reinforcing bars are positioned at mid-height in the floor slab. The slab reinforcement should extend into the perimeter foundations at least 6 inches. UNDER-SLAB VAPOR RETARDERS: Steps should be taken to minimize the transmission of moisture vapor from the subsoil through the interior slabs where it can potentially damage the interior floor coverings. Local industry standards typically include the placement of a vapor retarder, such as plastic, in a layer of coarse sand placed directly beneath the concrete slab. Two inches of sand and two inches of sand are typically used above and below the plastic, respectivdy. This is the most common under-slab vapor retarder system used in San Diego County. The vapor retarder should be at least 15- mil Stegowrap® or equivalent with sealed seams and should extend at least 12 inches down the sides of the interior and perimeter footings. The sand should have a sand equivalent of at least 30, and contain less than 10% passing the Number 100 sieve and less than 5% passing the Number 200 sieve. The membrane should be placed in accordance with the recommendation and consideration of AO 302, "Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction" and ASTM E1643, "Standards Practice for Installation of Water Vapor Retarder Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs". Exterior concrete slabs-on-grade should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches and be reinforced with at least No. 4 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way {ocew). Driveway slabs should have a minimum thickness of 5 inches and be reinforced with at least No. 4 bars placed at 12 inches ocew. Driveway slabs should be provided with a thickened edge a least 18 inches deep and 6 inches wide. All slabs should be provided with weakened plane joints in accordance with the American Concrete Institute {ACI) guidelines. Special attention should be paid to the method of concrete curing to reduce the potential for excessive shrinkage cracking. It should be recognized that minor cracks occur CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. 20 r,,--'1 normally in concrete slabs due to shrinkage. Some shrinkage cracks should be expected and are not "' ;1 necessarily an indication of excessive movement or structural distress. EAR'IH RETAINING WAI.LS FOUND A TIO NS: Foundations for proposed basement retaining walls should be constructed in accordance with the foundation recommendations presented in the referenced report. PASSIVE PRESSURE: The passive pressure for the anticipated foundation soils may be considered to be 300 pounds per square foot per foot of depth. The upper foot of embedment should be neglected when calculating passive pressures, unless the foundation abuts a hard surface such as a concrete slab. The passive pressure may be increased by one-third for seismic loading. The coefficient of friction for concrete to soil may be assumed to be 0.30for the resistance to lateral movement. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the friction should be reduced by one-third. ACTIVE PRESSURE: The active soil pressure for the design of unrestrained and restrained earth retaining structures with level backfill may be assumed to be equivalent to the pressure of a fluid weighing 48 and 68 pounds per cubic foot, respectively. These pressures do not consider any surcharges. If any are anticipated, this office should be contacted for the necessary increase in soil pressure. These values are based on. a drained backfill condition and assume a granular backfill. It should be recognized that no such soils are anticipated to be encountered during grading and imported _ select soil will be necessary. ~- J Seismic lateral earth pressures may be assumed to equal an inverted triangle starting at the bottom of the wall with the maximum pressure equal to SH pounds per square foot (where H = wall height in feet) occurring at the top of the wall. WATERPROOFING AND WALL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS: The need for waterproofing should be evaluated by others. If required, the project architect should provide (or coordinate) waterproofing details for the retaining walls. The design values presented above are based on a drained backfill condition and do not consider hydrostatic pressures. Unless hydrostatic pressures are incorporated into the design, the retaining wall designer should provide a detail for a wall drainage system. Typical CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. 21 () retaining wall drain system details are presented as Plate Number 4 of this report for informational purposes. Additionally, outlets points for the retaining wall drain system should be coordinated with the project civil engineer. /,--"\ BACKFILL: All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction. Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material. The wall should not be backfilled until the masonry has reached an adequate strength. LIMITATIONS REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with the California Building Code. It is recommended that Christian Wheeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. -----UNIFORMITY OF CONDffiONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the pedormance of the foundations and/ or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. 22 CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. It should be verified in writing if the recommendations are found to be appropriate for the proposed changes or our recommendations should be modified by a written addendum. TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the ~ of time, whether they are due to natural p~ or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/ or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD In the performance of our prof~onal services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our prof~on currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. ,,--'-.., CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. 23 CLIENT'S RESPONSIBIIJTY It is the responsibility of the clients, or their representatives, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifi~ions. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. FIElJ) EXPLORATIONS Three explorations were made at the locations indicated on the site plan included herewith as Plate Number 1 on July 16, 2015. These explorations consisted of one boring drilled utilizing a truck- mounted drill rig, one boring drilled utilizing a portable drill rig, and one hand dug test pit. The fiddwork was conducted by or under the observation of our engineering geology personnel The borings and test pit were carefully logged when made. The subsurface exploration logs are presented J. in the attached Appendix A. The soils are descnbed in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are provided. The density of granular soils is given as either very loose, loose, medium dense, dense or very dense. The consistency of silts or clays is given as either very soft, soft, medium stiff, stiff, very stiff, or hard. ______ Rekti-qejy-undisturbed drive samples were collected using a modified California sampler. The sampler, with an external diameter of 3.0 inches, is 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 falling 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 3550-84. The driving weight is permitted to fall freely. The number of blows per foot of driving, or as indicated, are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the sampled materials. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, and sealed. Bulk samples of the earth materials encountered were also collected. Samples were transported to our laboratory for testing. ,---' , I I ' \__ __ /' .J CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Page No. 24 LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed and the subsequent results are presented in Appendix B. ------8------8 ------ SHOflE DR. ---------- - PREPARED BY: PROJECT CONSTRA!NTS Pl.AN FOR: , LGS ENGINEERING. INC. ABDI RESOENCE REMODEL ,~, 128 N. ECKHOff Sl'RE£T (;,. I OfWrilCE. CA 92&U 52113 SHORE DRIVE 1~-f;:!l ~ggg -r~ CARI.SIWl, CAI.JFORNI,\ 92006 I""' -c A' EDGE OF BLUFF Qmb SHEET NO. C-2.3 OF 3 SITE PLAN AND GEOTECHNICAL MAP 10' 20' SCALE• 1' = 10" O'ELECFND s~ AM'lOXU,IAW.M'IIIINC.IJ"l(".A'nON 5I P-2 APl'I.OXJM.\11!:TBSTFITux:ATION ~ GEOLOGIC CONTACT Qw l,(AJUN£ !£ACH DEPOSITS q., OLD PAI.Al.JC DEPOSITS .UDI UIIIOBNCB ADl>rl10N UUSH01Ui0lJV! LA}OUACAUPOL'lU NOVELOll!k:015 .IOIINO.: 21Sl'.l21M.OI • OIU<llANWHE!La ENCINEU.INC /'~" /' \ -I \ " ~ / \ "' / N 4S"E A I A' SW NE Q) IIO 112 ~---~ r--PL I -I ll'NW I -- I ! PATIO P.P 1!L •41' I 40 .. V / 1W ~ P.• _Vv -:m :m V Q,p / /• ...... . .,.,, ... ;.., ....... -~ -...... V 11w ~ ___/ 11w v 0 0 V ·-r----· -~ ~ . -r--r--.. -30 :m <II 611 IO IOI 1lll l40 l!0-30 CWELBG1'1'1> Q,,lo === Q,p OlD PARAUC DRl'OSITS 11w SANTIAGO FOl<MATION G • 41' a hl'PAIIBNr DIP t....-I I SCAJ.E: 1" = 'JfJ' .um IIESIDENCB.wornoN !l2ISl SHa.R mIVll " =~ GEOWGIC CROSS SECTION A-A' Ohm. NOvo= 2015 I JOBNO., 21502IS(.lll CHJl15Th\N ~ IIY, SD I = NO., 2 RNGl).BBJ.ING ----:~ J / N!3~0 E B SW A ! • I JI )GIi OP UJJl'F I 112 ~~ DI[] 31 I /v ~/ le'¥ :II V V •• .i... ... .. ,., _.;y;i-;,.,.; •• J.. .. ·-V n. • :_/' -Q9 ~ t---_._ n. ·-- -D • APPAARNT D1P GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B' v ~ r"-. F.F.EL •41' --- ., ·~ r--. '-- lit~ L--- -1--.. :tDD 1JI /.,.--------------,, \._ __ B' NE • Ill 72'1E PL t-,...... I ...._ : i i I i :_ In.. l:it: - - l40 0 'JSJ' 1/(J' t....-I I SCAIE: 1" -lO' DAm NOVr.MBllJl 2013 JOB NO., 2150264 01 =w~ .B.MOIN!.g1JJQO PU.TENO., ' ) "'---- I . \__ / Appendix A Subsurface Explorations ~ !'. " • .. LOG OF TEST BORING B-1 o..tc Logged: LoggcdBy: Existing Elmtion: Proposed Elevatioo: 7/16/15 DRR 40 feet 40 feet Equipment: Auger Type: Drive Type: Depth to Water: CME55 3 X inch Hollow Stem 140lbs/30 inches 37 feet WD Mu: Dcmity S04 5oloble St,lmc, M 5in-c AmJ,..;, HA Hydromfflr 51! Smd Equinlmt Pl Pluticity lad.. O' Coll,poe Pot=i,l § ~ ~j ~ l u ~ SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (bwd=Umfkdsorn,_...aoo.,_) ~] ~ ~ §§ (.!) ~ ll-<e <I) =i ::s8 Cal 6.9 DS Dim:t 51-, Cm CmFOOCkioo El l!>p<mion l,m R-V al Roaunc< V aloe a,J Soloble Chloride, Ra pH It Rantmty 10.1 SM &.r'fi"" , J.IJ,U ...... .a.a.u;;o~u.u. ~~ ..v1 ............. M u;.,..:-ti c: Tr. -rn IV <:1 .T'r I c:.t.1L!n. 56 Cal 45 lt06. ,-,, 4.2 02. · .,';f, 1 l.IGtill[Y Sl,..1 ISAl~lJ. 36 Cal 3.5 ~.o Isa!, • C.al Symbol Legend ABDI RESIDENCE ADDITION • Groundwlltel' i..eTel During Drilling 5263 SHORE DRIVE Groundwater i..eTel After Drilling CARLSBAD,CAilFORNIA Apparent Seepage DS SA DS DS SA DATE: NOVEMBER 2015 JOB NO.: 2150264.01 CHJU5TlAN WHE8..ER No Somple Recovery FNC.INFFR ING ~Blow Count BY: SRD APPENDIX A:. A-1 l..v-1.......-1 Samcle T~ and Labo1atory Tert I~ LOG OF TEST BORING B-1 ~~~\J,I ex Chunk Dcimty DR. D<mhy ll,z ST Shel,y Toho Date Logged: 7/16/15 Equipment: CME55 MD Ma:Dcuity DS DirO<t si-- 3 X inch Hollow Stem 504 Soh,bl, !ulfom Ca, Comollclmoo LoggedBy: ORR Auger Type: 5A Si<TcAmlym EI E.pami<m loda Existing Elevation: 40 feet Drive Type: 1401W30 inches HA Hydromete< R-V al R.oisuDc. V olue SI! Sand Equin!em a,J Soloblc Chloride, Proposed Elewtion: 40 feet Depth to W atcr: 37 feet Pl Plorticity Judo,: ks pH &: Reoistmty CP ColJapoc Potell!ial g § ,-l z-~ ( g ~ ~ ~ I SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDffiONS ~] ~i ~ g u u ~i § !E (based on Unified Soil Claaifkatioo Symm) I ~I ~ ~ ~ i is ~ ~Bl ~~ Q µ;;i c., ;:) i:i..e Q D l rm"' at l!U'l.! -----I -... n .. ·-• D . . -, . sri TY SM ith ( CLAY. B ~ ics II bfu Ind lnse lo dt lisc. ~6 Cal SA --J t B icoJI e, .. lturt bl.1 37 '-. 'D/4~ • Cal 11.2 115. l OS • 15 VJ~· Cal 14J 116. lsof,. lea 14J 11417 ---; U:irinP ~50 feet. l,.~..-1114H i= -k --J ,. " l'I rnt-, ·--~ ~ Svmbo Leecnd ABDIRESIDENCEADDffiON 2: Groundwater Le.,.J During Drilling .5263 SHORE DRIVE • y Grotmdwstcr LeTcl After Drilling CARLSBAD,CAllFORNJA ~ Apparent Sccpoge DATE: NOVEMBER 2015 JOB NO.: 2150264.01 CHRISllAN WHEHER. * No Sample Reco-ttry FNC.INFFR INC. ** Non-Reprc,c,,tnive Bia... Count (rocb-1 BY: SRO APPENDIXfu A-2 LOG OF TEST BORING B-2 Sample Type and Laboratory Test Legend Cal Modified California Sampler CK Chunk Density SPT Standard Penetrotion T e1t DR Density Ring ST Shelby Tube Date Logged: 7/16/15 Equipment: CME55 MD Mu Density DS DinctShear 3 X inch Hollow Stem 504 Soluble Sulfates Coo Consolidatioo Logged By: DRR Auger Type: SA Sieve Analysis El Exp,nsionlnda Existing Elevation: 39~ feet Drive Type: 140lbs/30 inches HA Hydrometer R-V al Resistance Value SE Sand Equivalent Chi Soluble Chlorides Proposed Elevation: 39~ feet Depth to Water: 3.9 feet Pl Plasticity Inda Res pH lie Resistivity CP CoUapsc Potential -§ ~,.:;-~ ~ ~ ~ ...i ~ ~ ~ 0 i: j !~ ~~ ~ = SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS "' g u ~ ~~ ~c;:- =1 ~ i: !E (based on Unified Soil Classification System) ~ Q~ 5 ~ "' ...i 0~ ~ "' l>l ~ ~ ~ ~ :i ~ -3~ =1 ~ ~! ~ Q ~ ;:) "' = ~s Q ~u~ I s ,1 A rtifi• bl] ill(, \:ofl h'oi =ii Di rkb OWi ,me ist, I bose SIL TY (ANb. OdP: rali D~ """' 1. {(' nn\: Ligl tor !DgiS '1-br wn, ldm ~ to moi t,m bdiuin ~ ,, UC se 1 !Jue se, lDC-~O C ars ri;,"' µ,;u, )!LI 11 .,, "-'"-• ; IDl ace< us. 28 Cal 9.5 126.11 27 Cal 8.8 117. 38 Cal 8.1 108. CP •-~.4-W~~-+-+-l--l-H-l-+-++-t-t-+-t--t-+-+-t-t-t+-Ht~-t-ttt~~~:1-t-t-·111~ 6s ca1 6.1 moo . .. . J ---- ~ ~ " * ** SM-I ightlbro, rn, dame to I oist m"liurr den e to klem~. SIUGf [TL' snlTY 1r ! 1.6.Nlv. ttlJ l lorirt te: lmin ted at 20 feet. , ,o g oun 'fwa er o see •age •nco11mc ·cu. Sl'.!!!bol Legend ABDI RESIDENCE ADDITION Groundwater uvel During Drilling 5263 SHORE DRIVE Groundwater Level After Drilling CARLSBAD, CAIJFORNIA Apparent Seepage DATE: NOVEMBER 2015 JOB NO.: No Sample Recovery Non-Representative Blow Count frocks nresentl BY: SRD APPENDIX A: 45 Cal 2150264.01 A-3 3.6 94.' CHRISTIAN WHEELER F.NC.INF.F.R INC. LOG OF TEST PIT P-1 Sample T~ and Laboratory Test 1 l'#!ld Cal Mod1fied ColifOIDia 5anplor cr Chwik o.mitr SPT Stadard p.......,;.,, To,t DR Dcmity~ ST Sbolby Tabo Date Logged: 7/16/15 Equipment: Hand tools MD l4lx D<mlty D5 Dir=5heor 504 Sol.hie Su.ates Coo Ccmc&la!oo LoggedBy: DRR Auger Type: NIA 5A Sim: Amly,i, l!I E,pomiw, lodm. Existing Elevation: 40 feet Drive Type: NIA HA Hydro.,.,,,. Jl-V al .Rcmuucc Valuo 5E s....lJ¥valcn a,J Soluble Chlorides Proposed Elevation: 40 feet Depth to Water: NIA Pl P!o,ticity Inda: Rn pHA::-.ity GP Coll,poe Potabll g § ..:I z-~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ I SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDffiONS Bl ~~ ~ g I u ~]: ~ i:::: (based on Unified Soll Claniflcatlon System) ~ J h i ~ ~ i ~ ~~l Cl ::> ~e <I) ~s Cl ,r SIA ... l+m. :.1 J Im -l= Th tkb ~ ~ Ill< d.st,l pose Sil TY! WlD. ~· clu ,rerv Old IPari in .. , ),,v, Inn 1cm .,, : ~. ,_,, iloo1 m .. limn ,I,.,. ~-fih. ~~ -...: .... ~-SIL t'Ys j\N] ). -est it ' . '. :at2 IHeo ,u ,,,_ 7l . >CC' pagt: E!risti 111: fc kiti.a ~ ... ., ., 1 *' h< low j.dj .. lent b-,,cu Ex ptin: ifoo ~ ""w Ide. . •• ,, -.. , __ ----- -i; -J .... r~+. la. -- - Svmbol Lceend ABDI RESIDENCE ADDffiON • 2 Groundwater Level During Drilling 5263 SHORE DRIVE y Groundwater L=I After Drilling CARLSBAD,CAIJFORNTA " App,.rcnt Sccpagc DATE: NOVEMBER 2015 JOB NO.: 2150264.01 CHRISTIAN WHfB...ER. * No Sample Recovery F.NC.INFF.R INC. ** Non-Ropretentative Blow Count BY: SRD APPENDIXk A-4 ,_i....;__,., Appendix B Laboratory Test Results I-;;::..=-." ' ', ~ Laboratory tests were pedormed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials {ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. Brief descriptions of the tests pedormed are presented below: a) CIASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A. a) MOISTURE-DENSITY: MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for selected soil samples in accordance with A TM D 2937. The results are summarized in the boring logs presented in Appendix A. b) c) d) e) Q GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION: The grain size distributions of selected samples were determined in accordance with ASTM C136 and/or ASTM D422. DIRECT SHEAR: Direct shear tests were pedormed on selected samples of the on-site soils in accordance with ASTM D 3080. COLI.APSE POTENTIAL: Collapse potential test was pedormed on a selected undisturbed soil sample. The test was pedormed in accordance with ASTM D 5333. MAXIMUM DENSITY & OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical soils were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D-1557, Method A. SOLUBLE SULFATE CONTENT: The soluble sulfate content was determined for representative samples in accordance with California Test Methods 417. -----1-------" ; •. . ' .'' . ··-... ·: ABDI RESIDENCE LAB SUMMARY CHRISTIAN WHEB..,ER. ENGINEER.ING BY: DBA I DA TE: Nov. 8, 2015 I REPORT N0.:215026-4.01 I APPENDIX: B-1 / ~ I ' LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PROPOSED ABDI RESIDENCE 5263 SHORE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557) Sample Location Sample Description Maximum Density Optimum Moisture Boring B-10 1'-4' Brown Silty Sand, SM 133.2 pcf 7.9% DIRECT SHEAR (ASTM D3080) Sample Location Sample Type Friction Angle Cohesion Boring B-10 1'-4' Remoldcd to 90 % 30° Boring B-1 0 61/z' Undisturbed Boring B-1 0 14W Undisturbed Sample Location Sample Type Friction Angle Cohesion 150 psf Boring B-1 0 20' Undisturbed 33° 250 psf GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION (ASTM 0422) 37° 250 psf Boring B-1 G 391h' Undisturbed 36'7i 0 500 psf 35° 300 psf Sample Location Boring B-10 1'-4' Boring B-1 0 13'-17' Boring B-1 O 20'-25' Sieve Size Percent Passing Percmt Passing Percent Passing #4 100 100 100 18 90 100 100 116 99 99 100 130 91 81 89 150 56 40 43 #100 ----------;3s---22 13 #200 27 17 7 COLI.APSE POTENTIAL (ASTM D 5333) Sample Location Initial Moisture Content Initial Density Consolidation Before W atcr Added Consolidation After Water Added Final Moisture Boring B-2010' 8.1 % 108.2 pcf 4.8% 5.0% 16.7% SOLUBLE SULFATES (CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417) Sample Location Soluble SuHate CWE 2150264.01 Boring B-1 G 1'-4' 0.012 % (SO•) Boring B-1@ 13'-17' 0.004 % (SO•) November 8, 2015 Boring B-1035112' Percent Passing 100 100 100 96 77 50 31 Appendix B-2 Appendix C References -,-' CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Appendix C-1 REFERENCES Benumof, Benjamin T., and Griggs, Gary B., 1999, The Dependence of Seacliff Erosion Rates on Cliff Material Properties and Physical Processes: San Diego County, California: in Shore & Beach, Volume 67, No. 4. California Department of Boating and Waterways and San Diego Association of Governments, 1994, Shoreline Erosion Assessment and Atlas of the San Diego Region, Vols. I & IL California Emergency Management Agency-California Geological Society-University of Southern California, 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Oceanside and San Luis Rey Quadrangles, scale 1:24,000, dated June 1, 2009. Emery, K.. 0. and Kuhn, G. G., 1982, Sea cliffs: their processes, profiles, and classification: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 93, pp. 644-654. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2012, San Diego County, California and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map, Pand 06073C0764G. Harcourt & Kaufman Architects, 2015, Architectural Plans, The Abdi Residence, 5263 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008, dated October 27, 2015. Inman, D. L., 1954, Beach and nearshore processes along the southern California coast; in Geology of ------Southern -California: California Division of Mines Bulletin, v. 170, Chapter 5, pt. 4, pp. 29-34. Jennings, C.W. and Bryant, W. A., 2010, Fault Activity Map, California Geological Survey, Geologic Data Map No. 6, http://www.quake.ca.gov/ gmaps/F AWfaultactivitymap.html Kennedy, Michael P. and Tan, Siang S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30'x60' Quadrangle, California, California Geologic Survey, Map No. 2. Kuhn, G. G. and Shepard, F. P., 1979, Accelerated beach-cliff erosion rdated to unusual storms in , , southern California; in California Geology, v. 32, pp. 58-59. \-/,' / CWE 215026'4.01 :N'oven1ber8,2015 Appendix C-2 REFERENCES (continued) LGS Engineering, Inc., Preliminary Grading Plan For: Abdi Residence Remode~ 5263 Shore Drive, Carlsbad, California 92008, dated November 01, 2015. Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 95-04. U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Seismic Design Maps Web Application, http:/ I geohazards. usgs.gov I designmaps/ us/ application.php U.S. Geological Survey, Quaternary Faults in Google Earth, ' http:/ I earthquake. usgs.gov /hazards/ qfaults/ google. php TOPOGRAPIIlC MAPS City of San Diego, 1975, Topographic Map Sheet 350-1665; Scale: 1 inch .. 200 feet. City of San Diego, 1975, Ortho-Topographic Map Sheet 350-1665; Scale: 1 inch -200 feet. PHOTOGRAPHS -------Aenal_E_o.t_obanklnc., 1996, County of San Diego Aerial Foto-Map Book, Page 1126. California Coastal Records Project -Aerial Photographs of the California Coastline, Oblique Aerial Photographs 201312017 (2013), 201003639 (2010), 200804212 (2008), 200604194 (2006), 200407479 {2004), 9056 (2002), 199300000112 {1993), 8920231 {1989), 8702145 (1987), 198610253 {1986), 197954106 (1979), and 7240103 (1972), http://www.californiacoastline.org. Lenska's Aerial Atlas, 1994, The Thomas Guide, Sheet 1126. San Diego County, 1928, Flight 30, Photograph D-1; Scale: 1 inch -1000 feet (approximate). I CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Appendix C-3 PHOTOGRAPHS (continued) San Diego County, 1970, Flight 2, Photographs 1 and 2; Scale: 1 inch = 1500 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1973, Flight 36, Photographs 2 and 3; Scale: 1 inch-1000 feet. San Diego County, 1973, Flight 35, Photographl; Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet. San Diego County, 1978, Flight 13B, Photograph 22; Scale: 1 inch"" 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1978, Flight 14B, Photograph 25; Scale: 1 inch= 1000 feet (approximate). San Diego County, 1983, Photographs 255,256,257; Scale: 1 inch-2000 feet (approximate) San Diego County, .1989, Flight 3, Photographs 5 and 7; Scale: 1 inch= 2000 feet (approximate). United States Department of Agriculture, 1953, Photograph AXN-14M-19, Scale: 1 inch -1700 feet (approximate). ---- / ... ' Appendix D Recommended Grading Specifications -General Provisions ______ ,_ ( CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Appendix D, D-1 RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS -GENERAL PROVISIONS GENERAL INTENT PROPOSED ABDI RESIDENCE ADDffiON 5263 SHORE DRIVE CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing, compacting natural ground, preparing areas to be filled, and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report and/ or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict. These specifications shall only be used in conjunction with the geotechnical report for which they are a part. No deviation from these specifications will be allowed, except where specified in the geotechnical report or in other written communication signed by the Geotechnical Engineer. OBSER.VA TION AND TESTING Christian Wheeler Engineering shall be retained as the Geotechnical Engineer.to observe and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications. It will be necessary that the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative provide adequate observation so that he may provide his opinion as to whether or not the work was accomplished as specified. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the Geotechrucal Engineer and to keep him apprised of work schedules, changes and new information and data so that he may provide these opinions. In the event that any unusual conditions not covered by the special provisions or preliminary geotechnical report are encountered during the grading operations, the Geotechnical Engineer shall be contacted for further recommendations. If, in the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer, substandard conditions are encountered, such as questionable or unsuitable soil, unacceptable moisture content, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., construction should be stopped until the conditions are remedied or corrected or he shall recommend rejection of this work. CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Appendix D, D-2 Tests used to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with the following American Society for Testing and Materials test methods: Maximum Density & Optimum Moisture Content -ASTM D 1557 Density of Soil In-Place -ASTM D 1556 or ASTM D 6938 All densities shall be expressed in terms of Relative Compaction as determined by the foregoing ASTM testing procedures. PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE Fill All vegetation, brush and debris derived from clearing operations shall be removed, and legally disposed of. All areas disturbed.by site grading should be left in a neat and finished appearance, free from unsightly debris. After clearing or benching the natural ground, the areas to be filled shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the specified minimum degree of compaction. All loose soils in excess of 6 inches thick should be removed to firm natural ground which is defined as natural soil which possesses an in-situ density of at least 90 percent of its maximum dry density. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 20 percent (5 horizontal units to 1 vertical unit), the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent -----~ -formatiorial soil. The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide or 1-1/2 times the equipment width, whichever is greater, and shall be sloped back into the hillside at a gradient of not less than two (2) percent. All other benches should be at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein for compacted natural ground Ground slopes flatter than 20 percent shall be benched when considered necessary by the Geotechnical Engineer. Any abandoned buried structures encountered during grading ,operations must be totally removed All underground utilities to be abandoned beneath any proposed structure should be removed from within 10 feet of the structure and properly capped off. The resulting depressions from the above described procedure should be backfilled with acceptable soil that is compacted to the requirements of CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Appendix D, D-3 ' \ (\.. the Geotechnical Engineer. This includes, but is not limited to, septic tanks, fuel tanks, sewer lines or / ' leach lines, storm drains and water lines. Any buried structures or utilities not to be abandoned should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may determine if any special recommendation will be necessary. All water wells which will be abandoned should be backfilled and capped in accordance to the requirements set forth by the Geotechnical Engineer. The top of the cap should be at least 4 feet below finish grade or 3 feet below the bottom of footing whichever is greater. The type of cap will depend on the diameter of the well and should be determined by the Geotechnical Engineer and/ or a qualified Structural Engineer. FILL MATERIAL Materials to be placed in the fill shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances. Granular soil shall contain sufficient fine material to fill the voids. The definition and disposition of oversized rocks arid expansive or detrimental soils are covered in the geotechnical report or Special Provisions. Expansive soils, soils of poor gradation, or soils with low strength characteristics may be thoroughly mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material, but only with the explicit consent of the Geotechnical Engineer. Any import material shall be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer before being brought to the site. PLACING AND COMPACTION OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill in layers not to exceed 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Each layer shall be uniformly compacted to the specified minimum degree of compaction with equipment of adequate size to economically compact the layer. Compaction equipment should either be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability. The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the preliminary geotechnical investigation report. CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Appendix D, D-4 t\,..,/ When the structural fill material includes rocks, no rocks will be allowed to nest and all voids must be carefully filled with soil such that the minimum degree of compaction recommended in the Special Provisions is achieved. The maximum size and spacing of rock permitted in structural fills and in non- structural fills is discussed in the geotechnical report, when applicable. Field observation and compaction tests to estimate the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative. The location and frequency of the tests shall be at the Geotechnical Engineer's discretion. When the compaction test indicates that a particular layer is at less than the required degree of compaction, the layer shall be reworked to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer and until the desired relative compaction has been obtained. Fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepsfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction by sheepsfoot roller shall be at vertical intervals of not greater than four feet. In addition, fill slopes at a ratio of two horizontal to one vertical or flatter, should be trackrolled. Steeper fill slopes shall be over-built and cut-back to finish contours after the slope has been constructed. Slope compaction operations shall result in all fill material six or more inches inward from the finished face of the slope having a relative compaction of at least 90 percent of maximum dry density or the degree of compaction specified in the Special Provisions section of this specification. The compaction operation on the slopes shall be continued until the Geotechnical Engineer is of the opinion that the slopes will be surficially stable. J?.~ tests in the slopes will be made by the Geotechnical Engineer during construction of the --------------slopes to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Where failing tests occur or other field problems arise, the Contractor will be notified that day of such conditions by written communication from the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative in the form of a daily field r . "-__j report. If the method of achieving the required slope compaction selected by the Contractor fails to produce the necessary results, the Contractor shall rework or rebuild such slopes until the required degree of compaction is obtained, at no cost to the Owner or Geotechnical Engineer. CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Appendix D, D-5 \_ , , CUT SLOPES The Engineering Geologist shall inspect cut slopes excavated in rock or lithified formational material during the grading operations at intervals determined at his discretion. If any conditions not anticipated in the preliminary report such as perched water, seepage, lenticular or confined strata of a potentially adverse nature, unfavorably inclined bedding, joints or fault planes are encountered during grading, these conditions shall be analyzed by the Engineering Geologist and Geotechnical Engineer to determine if mitigating measures are necessary. Unless otherwise specified in the geotechnical report, no cut slopes shall be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of the controlling governmental agency. ENGINEERING OBSERVATION Field observation by the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative shall be made during the filling and compaction operations so that he can express his opinion regarding the conformance of the \\, . . grading with acceptable standards of practice. Neither the presence of the Geotechnical Engineer or his representative or the observation and testing shall release the Grading Contractor from his duty to compact all fill material to the specified degree of compaction. SEASON LIMITS -----~F~iU,._,,,i.halu!Pt be placed during unfavorable weather conditions. When work is interrupted by heavy ---------=-------- rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill materials can be achieved. Damaged site conditions resulting from weather or acts of God shall be repaired before acceptance of work. RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS -SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATIVE COMPACTION: The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacted natural ground, compacted fill, and compacted backfill shall be at least 90 percent. For street and \\ ' ,, __ / CWE 2150264.01 November 8, 2015 Appendix D, D-6 parking lot subgrade, the upper twelve inches should be compacted to at least 95 percent relative compaction. EXPANSIVE SOILS: Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as clayey soil which has an expansion index of 50 or greater when tested in accordance with the American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) Laboratory Test D4829-95. OVER.SIZED MATERIAL: Oversized fill material is generally defined herein as rocks or lumps of soil over six inches in diameter. Oversized materials should not be placed in fill unless recommendations of placement of such material is provided by the Geotechnical Engineer. At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U.S. Standard Sieve. TRANSffiON LOTS: Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad, the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of one foot below the base of the proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill. In certain cases that would be addressed in the geotechnical report, special footing reinforcement or a combination of special footing reinforcement and undercutting may be required. APPENDIXE RESULTS OF BLUFF STABILITY ANALYSES 60 30 di Residence -CWE 2150264 A-A' -Clrcular 11\desktop\abdl stabnlty\a-a~' circularqop1 .pl2 Run By: DRR 11 /B/2015 03:25PM # FS Soll SoU Total Saturated eslon Friction Pfez. a 2.6 Dase. Type Unit VVt. Unit 'M. I b 2.5 No. (pcf) (pcf) (paf) C 2.5 Qmb 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 Angle Surface (deg) No. 27.0 0 d 2.5 Qop1 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 35.0 0 e 2.5 Qop2 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 33.0 0 f 2.5 Tsa 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 36.5 W1 g 2.51~---------./----------' h 2.5 I 2.5 J 2.5 3 3 I ) 2 2 2 3 4 / . _j 2 2 2 4 ------------------ 0 ~----------'-----------_.L_--------~---------~--------~ 0 30 60 90 120 150 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmlna2.5 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method \ C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circularqopl.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water SUrfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: larqopl.in 11/8/2015 03:25PM DRR C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circu output Filename: larqopl.OUT C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circu Unit System: English Plotted·OUtput Filename: opl.PLT C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abtability\A-A'\a-a' circularq PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 A-A' -Circular BOUNDARY COORDINATES 13 Top 16 Total Boundary No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Boundaries Boundaries X-Left (ft) 0.00 17.00 21.20 27.50 42.23 52.50 66.80 77. 00 96.00 96.10 Y-Left (ft) 10.00 12.00 18.00 24.00 33.00 40.00 49.00 49.50 49.60 39.00 11 130.40 39.00 12 130.50 49.60 13 142.50 50.00 14 42.00 33.00 15 21.20 18.00 16 0.00 5.00 X-Right (ft) 17.00 21.20 27.50 42.23 52.50 66.80 77. 00 96.00 96.10 130.40 130.50 142.50 150.00 150.00 150.00 17.00 Y-Right (ft) 12.00 18.00 24.00 33.00 40.00 49.00 49.50 49.60 39.00 39.00 49.60 50.00 51. 00 33.50 19.00 12.00 Soil Type Below Bnd 1 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 ~~~~~~~~---Lu;u:a-ult Y-Origin • O.OO(ft) Defau~us Value• O.OO(ft) Default Y-Plus Value• O.OO(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Friction Angle (deg) 27.0 35.0 33.0 36.5 Pore Pressure Piez. Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water c 62.40 (pcf) Param. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor~ 0.50 Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 9.00 2 20.00 12.00 3 150.00 13.50 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. No. 0 0 0 1 C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circularqopl.OU'r Page 2 200 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X 42.30(ft) and X a 52.30(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X 67.00(ft) and X • 90.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y ~ O.OO(ft) 4.00(ft) Line Segments .Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered -Most Critical First. **Safety Factors Are calculated By The Modified Bishop Method** Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated 2000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max c 12.921 FS Min= 2.465 FS Ave= 4.202 Standard Deviation a 1.050 Coefficient of Variation a 24.99 \ Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.28 32.61 3 50.27 32.80 4 54 .19 33. 62 5 57.93 35.03 6 61.41 37.01 7 64.53 39.50 8 67.23 42.46 9 69.44 45.79 10 70.99 49.21 Circle Center At X = 47.06 Y 58.14 and Radius 25.54 Factor of Safety *** 2.465 *** Individual data on the 13 slices Wate~ Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 0.4 7.9 0.0 0.0 0. o. 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 3.6 738.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 4.0 2108.2 0.0 0.0 0. o. 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 1.2 822.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 1.1 836.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 1. 7 1436.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 3.7 3555.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 3.5 3543.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~~~~~~~~~~~__jc...._.l,.~~3~1~2~6~.o o.o o.o o. o. o.o 10 2.3 2052.0 o.o o._o_ o. o. o.o 0.0 0.0 r '\ 11 0.4 351.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 12 2.2 1309.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 13 1.6 310.9 0.0 0.0 0. o. 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.26 32.52 3 50.26 32.59 4 54.20 33.28 5 57.99 34.56 6 61. 54 36 .41 7 64.77 38.77 8 67.60 41.60 9 69. 96 44. 83 10 71. 81 11 72.11 Circle Center At X = Factor of Safety *** 2.466 *** 48.38 49.26 47.75 Y = 58. 62 and Radius Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-SUrf No. (ft) (ft) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.15 C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circularqopl.OUT Page 3 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.26 32.50 3 50.26 32.60 4 54.19 33.35 5 57.95 34. 72 6 61.43 36.69 7 64.55 39.19 8 67.23 42.16 9 69.38 45.53 10 70.96 49.20 Circle Center At X = 47.64 Factor of Safety *** 2.468 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.26 32.45 3 so .26 32 .47 4 54. 21 33 .10 5 58.01 34.32 6 61.59 36.12 7 64.85 38.44 8 67.71 41.23 9 70.12 44.43 10 72.00 47.95 11 72 .47 49 .28 Circle Center At X = 48.15 Factor of Safety *** 2.468 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Point X-Surf Y-SUrf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.27 32.54 3 50.27 32.60 4 54.22 33.24 5 58.03 34.44 6 61.64 36.17 7 64.96 38.40 8 67.93 41.08 9 70.48 44.16 10 72.57 47.57 11 73.32 49.32 Circle Center At X = 47.82 Factor of Safety *** 2.476 *** Failure Surface specified By 11 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.24 32.38 3 50.24 32.31 4 54. 21 32. 84 5 58. 04 33. 97 6 61.67 35.67 7 64.99 37.90 8 67.94 40.60 9 70.45 43.71 10 72.46 47.17 11 73.30 49.32 Circle Center At X -48.69 Factor of Safety *** 2.485 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.29 32.79 3 50.27 33.16 y 57.08 and Radius= 24.62 Coordinate Points y -58.45 and Radius 26.06 Coordinate Points y -60.34 and Radius 27.85 Coordinate Points y -58.65 and Radius 26.39 Coordinate Points C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circularqopl.OUT Page 4 4 54.15 34.15 5 57.82 35.75 6 61.18 37.91 7 64.17 40.57 8 66.70 43.67 9 68.70 47.13 10 69.46 49.13 Circle Center At X = 45.97 y = 57.82 and Radius= Factor of Safety *** 2.490 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.23 32.29 3 so. 23 32. 25 4 54.17 32.92 5 57.93 34.29 6 61.38 36.31 7 64.42 38.91 8 66.94 42.01 9 10 68.87 70.08 Circle Center At X - Factor of Safety *** 2.490 *** 45.52 49.16 48.47 Failure Surface Specified By 11 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.30 32.98 3 50.28 33.42 4 54.16 34.36 5 57.90 35.79 6 7 8 9 10 11 Circle 61.42 64.67 67.59 70.14 72.28 72.31 Center At X ~ Factor of Safety *** 2.503 *** 37.69 40.02 42.75 45.83 49.21 49 .27 44.86 y 54.43 and Radius= Coordinate Points y 64.19 and Radius - Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf -------------No. (ft) (ft) -----J.___ 42 .30 33. 05 2 46.21 32.19 3 50.20 32.06 4 54.16 32.67 5 57. 93 6 61. 39 7 64 .43 8 66. 93 9 68. 82 10 70.02 11 70.04 Circle Center At X = Factor of Safety *** 2.507 *** 34.00 36.00 38.61 41. 72 45.25 49.07 49.16 48.89 y = 53.64 **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT**** and Radius= 25.05 22.25 31.25 21.62 ) 60 30 c:\usera Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 A-A' -Clrcular russel\deaktop\abdl stabllty\a-a'\a-a' clrcularqop2.pl2 Run By: DRR 11/8/2015 03:26PM # FS son Soll Total Saturated healon Fr1ction Pim:. a 1.8 Desc. Type Unit Wt Unit wt. Intercept Angle Surface b 1.8 No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. C 1.8 Qmb 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 27.0 0 d 1.8 Qop1 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 35.0 0 e 1.8 Qop2 3 115.0 120.0/ 200.0 33.0 0 f 1.8 Taa 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 38.5 W1 g 1.8 h 1.8 I 1.8 j 1.8 2 2 2 3 4 !\ / ~-2---2 2 4 ------------------ 0 '--~~~~~~~~---'--~~~~~~~~___.L_~~~~~~~~---'-~~~~~~~~~_L_~~~~~~~~---' 0 30 60 90 120 150 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmln=1.8 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method " "' \ I\,., ___ ,/ J~" \ ~- C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circularqop2.0UT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, CUrved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. *****~*************************************************************************** Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: 11/8/2015 03:26PM DRR Input Data Filename: larqop2.in C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circu Output Filename: larqop2.0UT C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circu Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abtability\A-A'\a-a' circularq op2.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 A-A' -Circular BOUNDARY COORDINATES 13 Top Boundaries 16 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left (ft) 10.00 12.00 18.00 24.00 33.00 40.00 49.00 49.50 49.60 X-Right (ft) 17.00 21.20 27.50 42.23 52.50 66.80 77.00 96.00 Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0. 00 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 17.00 21.20 27.50 42.23 52.50 66.80 77.00 96.00 96.10 39.00 130.40 39.00 130.50 49.60 142.50 50.00 42.00 33.00 15 -..____ __ ___21_._20 18.00 16 0.00 5.0() Default Y-Origin c O.OO(ft) Default X-Plus Value c O.OO(ft) Default Y-Plus Value m O.OO(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil 96.10 130.40 130.50 142.50 150.00 150.00 150.00 17.00 12.00 18.00 24.00 33.00 40.00 49.00 49.50 49.60 39.00 39.00 49.60 50.00 51. 00 33.50 19.00 12.00 1 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Friction Pore Pressure Piez. . Angle (deg) 27.0 35.0 33.0 36.5 Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water m 62.40 (pcf) Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by Pore Pressure Inclination Factor c a.so Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 9.00 2 20.00 12.00 3 150.00 13.50 Param. (psf) 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 3 Coordinate Points A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. No. 0 0 0 1 .---, '? , -' \ '-- ( ' C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circularqop2.0UT Page 2 200 SUrface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X • 21.2l(ft) and X • 31.2l(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X c 55.00(ft) and X ~ 90.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y • O.OO(ft) 7.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered -Most Critical First. **Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method** Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated= 2000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max= 15.834 FS Min= 1.777 FS Ave• 2.711 Standard Deviation• 0.792 Coefficient of Variation 29.19 % Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21. 21 18. 01 2 28.17 18.71 3 35.03 20.12 4 41.71 22.21 5 48.14 24.97 6 54.26 28.37 7 60.01 32.38 8 65.31 36.94 9 70 .13 42. 02 10 74.40 47.56 11 75.56 49.43 Circle Center At X = 17.79 Y = 86.80 and Radius 68.87 Factor of Safety *** 1.777 *** Individual data on the Water Water Force Force 16 slices Tie Tie Earthquake Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Force Norm (lbs) Force Tan Hor (lbs) 0.0 0.0 Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 6.3 1937.3 0.0 0.0 2 0.7 429.0 0.0 0.0 3 6.9 5593.7 0.0 0.0 4 6.7 7281.1 0.0 0.0 348.1 0.0 0.0 6 0.2 278.9 0.0 0.0 7 5.9 7753.1 0.0 0.0 8 4.4 6297.5 0.0 0.0 9 1. 8 2635.2 0.0 0.0 10 5.7 8565.3 0.0 0.0 11 0.8 1214.7 0.0 0.0 12 4.5 6255.9 0.0 0.0 13 1.5 1.930.4 0.0 o.o 14 3.3 3518.6 0.0 0.0 15 4.3 2295.2 0.0 0.0 16 1.2 125.4 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 10 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.21 18.01 2 28.12 19.11 3 34.90 20.88 4 41.47 23.29 5 47. 77 26.34 6 53.74 29.99 7 59.33 34.20 8 64.49 38.93 9 69.16 44.15 10 72.94 49.30 Circle Center At X = 13.45 Factor of Safety *** 1.777 *** 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. (lbs) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. o. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Coordinate Points 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 y 89.24 and Radius -71. 66 C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circularqop2.0UT Page 3 ( Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points , _ __, Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.21 18.01 2 28.21 18.15 3 35.13 19.19 4 41.86 21.13 5 48.28 23.92 6 54.28 27.51 7 59.77 31. 86 8 64.65 36.88 9 68.84 42.48 10 72.27 48.59 11 72.55 49.28 Circle Center At X -23.63 y 71. 88 and Radius -53.92 Factor of Safety *** 1.783 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.21 18.01 2 28.09 19.30 3 34.81 21.27 4 41.30 23.88 5 47.51 27.12 6 53.36 30.96 7 58.82 35.35 8 63.81 40 .25 9 68.30 45.62 10 70. 73 49.19 Circle Center At X .. 11. 66 y = 88.09 and Radius -70.72 {;:,-" Factor of Safety *** 1.795 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 22.32 19.07 2 29.30 19.57 3 36.17 20.90 4 42.84 23.05 5 49.20 25.97 6 55.16 29.64 7 60.65 33.99 8 65.57 38.96 9 69.87 44.49 10 72.75 49.29 Circle Center At X ~ 21. 68 y -77.33 and Radius= 58.27 Factor of Safety *** 1. 802 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.21 18.01 2 28.11 19.19 3 34.84 21.12 4 41.31 23.78 5 47.46 27.14 6 53.19 31.15 7 58.45 35.77 8 63.16 40.95 9 67.28 46.61 10 68.70 49.09 Circle Center At X = 14.16 y 80.60 and Radius -62. 98 Factor of Safety *** 1.807 *** fl' -~,, Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf "'---No. (ft) (ft) 1 22.32 19.07 2 29.31 19.40 C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circularqop2.0UT Page 4 3 36.22 4 42. 93 5 49.37 6 55 .43 7 61. 04 8 66 .12 9 70. 58 10 74.38 11 74.54 Circle Center At X - Factor of Safety *** 1.809 *** 20.57 22.54 25.29 28.79 32.97 37.80 43.18 49.06 49.38 22.98 Failure Surface Specified By 10 Point X-SUrf Y-SUrf No. (ft) (ft) 1 22.32 19.07 2 29.28 19.85 3 36.09 21.45 4 42. 67 23. 85 5 48.91 27.01 6 54.74 30.89 7 60.06 35.44 8 64.81 40.58 9 68.91 46.26 10 70.54 49.18 Circle Center At X -19.35 Factor of Safety *** 1.810 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 22.32 19.07 2 29.32 19.20 3 36.25 20.22 4 42.99 22.09 5 49.45 24.79 6 55.52 28.28 7 61.10 32. 51 8 66.11 37.40 9 70.46 42.87 10 74.10 48.86 11 74.33 49.37 Circle Center At X -24.73 Factor of Safety *** 1.815 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 ~~~~~~~~~~--------------Point X-Surf Y-SUrf -No. --(ft) (ft) 1 21.21 18.01 2 28.21 18.26 3 35.14 19.23 4 41.93 20.91 5 48.52 23.29 6 54.82 26.33 7 60.78 30.00 8 66.33 34.27 9 71.40 39.10 10 75.95 44.41 11 79.47 49.51 Circle Center At X -22.29 Factor of Safety *** 1.820 *** y = 78 .11 and Radius - Coordinate Points Y ~ 77.48 ; and Radius Coordinate Points y = 74.77 and Radius Coordinate Points y ~ 85.73 and Radius= **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT**** 59.04 58.49 55.75 67. 73 60 30 Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 A-A' -Circular c:\userav:lave ruasell\desktop\abdl atabllty\a-a'\a-a' circulartsa.pl2 Run By: DRR 11/8/2015 03:26PM # FS Soll SoD Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Plez. a 1.8 Desc. Type Unit vvt. Unit Wt.. Intercept Angle Surface b 1.8 No. (pcf) (pcf). (psf) ( deg) No. C 1.8 Qmb 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 27.0 0 d 1.8 Qop1 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 35.0 0 e 1.8 Qop2 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 33.0 0 f 1.8 Tsa 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 36.5 W1 g 1.8 h 1.8 I 1.8 j 1.8 2 2 2 3 4 ( \ 2 2 ---------~--::::::,...--::-in-- - - - - - - - - - - - 2 0 '--~~~~~~~~-'--~~~~~~~~---'-~~~~~~~~----'-~~~~~~~~~---'------~~~~~~~~---' 0 30 60 90 120 150 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmln=1.8 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method I ' \ . "'~ C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circulartsa.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GL& Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, ~isotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: 11/8/2015 03:26PM DRR Input Data Filename: lartsa.in C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circu output Filename: lartsa.OUT C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circu Unit System: English Plotted output Filename: C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abtability\A-A'\a-a' circulart sa.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 A-A' -Circular BOUNDARY COORDINATES 13 Top 16 Total Boundary No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Boundaries Boundaries X-Left (ft) 0.00 17.00 21.20 27.50 42.23 52.50 66.80 77.00 96.00 Y-Left (ft) 10.00 12.00 18.00 24.00 33.00 40.00 49.00 49.50 49.60 10 96.10 39.00 11 130.40 39.00 12 130.50 49.60 13 142.50 50.00 14 42.00 33.00 15 21.20 18.00 16 0.00 5.00 X-Right Y-Right (ft) (ft) 17.00 12.00 21.20 18.00 27.50 24.00 42.23 33.00 52.50 40.00 66.80 49.00 77.00 49.50 96.00 49.60 96.10 39.00 130.40 39.00 130.50 49.60 142.50 50.00 150.00 51. 00 150.00 33.50 150.00 19.00 17.00 12.00 Soil Type Below Bnd 1 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 ~e.£oi.ult__y_-Origin -O.OO(ft) Default X-Plus Value -O.OO(ft) Default Y-Plus Value• O.OO(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(e) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Friction Angle (deg) 27.0 35.0 33.0 36.5 Pore Pressure Piez. Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water= 62.40 (pcf) Param. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor 0.50 Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 9.00 2 20.00 12.00 3 150.00 13.50 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular surfaces, Has Been Specified. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. No. 0 0 0 1 ---( '..._~ _./ C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circulartsa.OUT Page 2 200 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X a 15.00(ft) and X • 21.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X 67.00(ft) and X • 100.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y • O. 00 (ft) 10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered -Most Critical First. **Safety Factors Are calculated By The Modified Bishop Method** Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated• 2000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max= 5.012 FS Min= 1.802 FS Ave• 3.051 Standard Deviation• 0.776 Coefficient of Variation 25.44 t Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.00 17.71 2 30.87 19.33 3 40.44 22.22 4 49.56 26.32 5 58.07 31.57 6 65.83 37.89 7 72.70 45.15 8 75.80 49.44 Circle Center At X = 13.78 Factor of Safety *** 1.802 *** Individual data on the Water Water Y 93. 38 and Radius• 76.00 15 slices Tie Tie Earthquake Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight (lbs) 3.2 168.2 1816.6 2313.9 Force Top Force Bot (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Force Norm (lbs) Force Tan (lbs) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Hor Ver Load No. (ft) 1 0.2 2 1. 6 3 4.7 4 3.4 5 9.6 6 1.6 7 0.2 8 7.3 9 2.9 10 5. 6 11 1. 9 12 5.9 -rr-----i-.-o 14 5.9 15 3 .1 (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9039.2 0.0 0.0 1757.6 0.0 0.0 263.5 0.0 0.0 9221.6 0.0 0.0 4064.4 0.0 0.0 7865.9 0.0 0.0 2609.3 0.0 0.0 7821.0 0.0 0.0 1202.9 0.0 0.0 5028.2 0.0 0.0 770.3 0.0 0.0 Failure Point Surface Specified By 8 x-surf Y-Surf No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 (ft) (ft) 21.00 17.71 30.79 19.77 40.22 23.07 49.15 27.58 57.41 33.22 64.87 39.88 7 71.40 47.45 49.28 10.43 8 72. 60 Circle Center At X = Factor of Safety *** 1.803 *** 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coordinate Points y = 92.95 and Radius 75.98 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.00 17.71 2 30.96 18.61 3 40.67 21.02 ____ / ?' ' ) ;..__ / -------- C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circulartsa.OUT Page 3 4 49.89 24.88 5 58.41 30 .11 6 66.04 36.58 7 72 .58 44.15 8 75.90 49.45 Circle Center At X"' 20.32 y"' 82.24 and Radius= Factor of Safety *** 1.825 *** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.00 17.71 2 30.86 19.38 3 40.31 22.65 4 49.09 27.44 5 56.96 33.61 6 63.70 41. 00 7 68.95 49.11 Circle Center At X -15.89 y 77 .89 and Radius Factor of Safety *** 1.825 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 17.00 12.00 2 26.43 15.34 3 35.56 19.41 4 44.35 24.18 5 52.73 29.63 6 60.66 35.72 7 68.09 42.41 8 74.70 49.39 Circle Center At X = -20.66 Y = 133.35 and Radius - Factor of Safety. *** 1.827 *** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21. 00 17. 71 2 30.79 19.77 3 40.15 23.27 4 48.89 28.13 5 56.80 34.25 6 63.71 41.48 7 69.06 49.11 Circle Center At X = 12.23 Y 83.72 and Radius~ Factor of Safety *** 1.834 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 17.00 12.00 2 26. 74 3 36 .18 4 45. 24 5 53. 80 6 61. 79 7 69 .10 8 75. 66 9 77 .17 Circle Center At X - Factor of Safety *** 1.838 *** 14.28 17.56 21. 80 26.96 32.99 39.81 47.35 49.50 0.00 ; y -106.56 and Radius Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.33 16.76 2 30.09 18.97 3 39 .47 "22 .44 4 48.31 27.11 64 .53 60.39 127.06 66.59 96.07 C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' circulartsa.OUT Page 4 \ j 5 56.45 32.91 "'~ 6 63.76 39.74 7 70.11 47.46 8 71.19 49.22 Circle Center At X -8.79 I y -90.94 and Radius 75.07 Factor of Safety *** 1.843 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 17.00 12.00 2 26.78 14.11 3 36.23 17.38 4 45.22 21. 75 5 53.62 27.18 6 61.31 33.57 7 68.18 40.84 8 74.12 48.88 9 74.41 49.37 Circle Center At X = 4.37 ; y 94.24 and Radius= 83.21 Factor of Safety *** 1.843 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-SUrf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 17.67 12.95 2 27.16 16.09 3 36.32 20.11 4 45.05 24.98 5 53.29 30.65 6 60.96 37.07 7 67.99 44.18 .r 8 72.14 49.26 Circle Center At X --10.43 y = 114 .11 and Radius 104.99 ', ----Factor of Safety *** 1.845 *** **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT**** ( 60 30 # FS Soil a 1.9 Desc. b 1.9 C 1.9 Qmb d 1.9 Qop1 e 1.9 Qop2 f 1.9 Tsa g 1.9 h 1.9 i 1.9 j 1.9 Abd Residence -CWE 2150264 A-A' -Circular Pseudo-Static c:\users~ ruaseJ!'(jealdop\abdl stablity\a-a'\a-a' paci"cularqop1.pl2 Run By: DRR 11/8/2015 03:26PM Sol Total S Cohesion Friction Plez. Load Value Type Unit 'M. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface Peak(A) 0.310(g) No. (pcf) (pct) (psf) (deg) No. kh Coef. 0.150(g)< 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 27.0 0 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 35.0 0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 33.0 0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 36.5 W1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 ~---c2=-----2 2 4 -------------:::~:..---in-- - - - - - - - - - - 0 ~~~~~~~~~--'---~~~~~~~~------'---~~~~~~~~--'-~~~~~~~~~.,__~~~~~~~~~ 0 30 60 90 120 150 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmln=1.9 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method ', ____ / C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscircularqopl.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, CUrved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: 11/8/2015 03:26PM DRR Input Data Filename: cularqopl.in C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscir Output Filename: cularqopl.OUT C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscir Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: rqopl.PLT C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abtability\A-A'\a-a' pscircula PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 A-A' -Circular Pseudo-Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 13 Top Boundaries 16 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left (ft) 10.00 12.00 18.00 24.00 33.00 40 .00 49.00 49.50 49.60 39.00 39.00 49.60 50.00 X-Right (ft) 17.00 21.20 27.50 42.23 52.50 66.80 77. 00 96.00 96.10 Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0. 00 2 17. 00 3 21.20 4 27. so 5 42. 23 6 52. so 7 66. 80 8 77. 00 9 96. 00 10 96.10 11 12 13 130.40 130.50 142.50 ~14 ~.00 33.00 15 21.20 18.00 16 0.00 5.00 Default Y-Origin • O.OO(ft) Default X-Plus Value c O.OO(ft) Default Y-Plus Value• O.OO(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 100.0 100.0 o.o 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 130.40 130. so 142.50 150.00 150.00 150.00 17.00 Friction Angle (deg) 27.0 35.0 33.0 36.5 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED unit Weight of Water= 62.40 (pcf) 12.00 18.00 24.00 33.00 40.00 49.00 49.50 49.60 39.00 39.00 49.60 50.00 51. 00 33.50 19.00 12.00 Pore Pressure Param. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piezometric surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor c a.so Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 9.00 2 20.00 12.00 3 150.00 13.50 1 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 1 Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) = Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) = 0.310(g) O.lSO(g) O.OOO(g) : ) '~ ·- ) '--- C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscircularqopl.OUT Page 2 Specified Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor= 0.000 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 200 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X • 42.30(ft) and X • 52.30(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X • 67.00(ft) and X • 90.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y • O.OO(ft) 4.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered -Most Critical First. **Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method** Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated• 2000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max• 10.298 FS Min= 1.884 FS Ave= 2.938 Standard Deviation= 0.677 Coefficient of Variation• 23.05 % Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.27 32.54 3 50.27 32.60 4 54.22 33.24 5 58.03 34.44 6 61.64 36.17 7 64.96 38.40 8 67.93 41. 08 9 70.48 44.16 10 72.57 47.57 11 73.32 49.32 Circle Center At X = 47.82 y 60.34 and Radius -27.85 Factor of Safety *** 1.884 *** Individual data on the 14 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge -~Ca-Width Weight (lbe) 5.9 754.7 2171. 8 1727 .1 Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) 1 0 .3 2 3. 6 3 4. 0 4 2 .2 5 0 .5 6 1.2 7 3.8 8 3.6 9 10 11 12 13 14 3.3 1. 8 1.1 2.6 2.1 0.7 Failure Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 470.2 1061.4 3867.5 4031.8 3792.8 202~.6 (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1145.3 0.0 0.0 1991.4 0.0 0.0 842.8 0.0 0.0 77.0 0.0 0.0 Surface Specified By 11 X-Surf Y-Surf (ft) (ft) 42.30 33.05 46.26 32.45 50.26 32.47 54.21 33.10 58.01 34.32 61.59 36.12 64.85 38.44 67.71 41.23 70.12 44.43 72.00 47.95 72.47 49.28 (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 0. 0. 0.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 113.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 325.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 259.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 70.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 159.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 580.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 604.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 568.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 304.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 171.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 298.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 126.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 11. 5 0.0 0.0 Coordinate Points C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscircularqopl.OUT Page 3 \ '"-) Circle Center At X = 48.15 ; y = 58.45 ; and Radius= 26.06 Factor of Safety *** 1. 888 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.26 32.52 3 50.26 32.59 4 54.20 33.28 5 57.99 34.56 6 61.54 36.41 7 64.77 38.77 8 67.60 41.60 9 69.96 44.83 10 71. 81 48.38 11 72 .11 49.26 Circle Center At X = 47.75 y -58.62 and Radius -26.15 Factor of Safety *** 1.888 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.24 32.38 3 50.24 32.31 4 54.21 32.84 5 58.04 33.97 6 61. 67. 35.67 7 64.99 37.90 8 67.94 40.60 9 70.45 43.71 ( 10 72.46 47.17 11 73.30 49.32 '~ Circle Center At X ~ 48.69 y = 58.65 and Radius 26.39 Factor of Safety *** 1.893 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Poii;it X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.28 32.61 3 50.27 32 .. 80 4 54.19 33.62 5 57.93 35.03 6 61.41 37.01 ---7 64.53 39.50 8 67.23 42.46 9 69.44 45.79 10 70.99 49.21 Circle Center At X = 47.06 y 58.14 and Radius= 25.54 Factor of Safety *** 1.897 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.26 32.50 3 50.26 32.60 4 54.19 33.35 5 57.95 34. 72 6 61.43 36.69 7 64.55 39.19 8 67.23 42.16 9 69.38 45.53 ( 10 70.96 49.20 \ Circle Center At X ~ 47.64 y = 57.08 and Radius -24.62 Factor of Safety *** 1.901 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points \ \, ) C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscircularqopl.OUT Page 4 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.30 32.94 3 50.28 33.29 4 54.20 34.10 5 58.00 35.36 6 61. 63 37.04 7 65.03 39.13 8 68.18 41. 61 9 71.02 44.42 10 73.51 47.55 11 74.65 49.39 Circle Center At X = 45.25 y -67.54 and Radius= Factor of Safety *** 1. 905 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.30 32.92 3 50.29 33.23 4 54.22 33.98 5 58.04 35.15 6 61.71 36.73 7 65.19 38.70 8 68.43 41.05 9 71.40 43.73 10 74.05 46.72 11 75.98 49.45 Circle Center At X = 45.46 y 69.40 and Radius~ Factor of Safety *** 1.911 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.30 32.98 3 50.28 33.42 4 54 .16 34. 3 6 5 57.90 35.79 6 61.42 37.69 7 64. 67 40. 02 8 67.59 42.75 9 70.14 45.83 10 72.28 49.21 -------------------1.±_ _ 72 . 31 49. 2 7 (_, Circle Cen~ At x -44.86 y = 64.19 and Radius Factor of Safety *** 1.914 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 42.30 33.05 2 46.24 32.35 3 50. 23 32 .15 4 54.22 32.46 5 58.14 33.27 6 61.92 34.57 7 65.51 36.33 8 68.85 38.54 9 71. 89 41.14 10 74.57 11 76. 85 12 77. 96 Circle Center At X = Factor of Safety *** 1.923 *** 44.11 47 .39 49.51 49. 79 63. 67 **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT**** and Radius= 34.62 36. 49 31.25 31.52 # FS Soll a 1.4 Dase. b 1.4 C 1.4 Qmb d 1.4 Qop1 e 1.4 Qop2 f 1.4 Tsa g 1.4 h 1.4 I 1.4 J 1.4 60 30 Abdi c:\users \da sldence -CWE 2150264 A-A' -Circular Pseudo-Static runell\desktop\abdl stabllty\a-a'\a-a' psclrcularqop2.pl2 Run By: ORR 11/8/2015 03:27PM Soi Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Plez. Load value Type Unit VVt. u~j Intercept Angle Surface Peak(:; 0.31~) No. (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. khCo . .0.150(g < 1 100.0 100.~ 0.0 27.0 0 2 120.0 125. 250.0 35.0 0 3 115.0 120.q 200.0 33.0 0 4 125.0 130.q 500.0 36.5 W1 I 2 2 2 3 4 ~- ( ',, \ ' ' / 2 2 2 4 -------------------- 0 '--~~~~~~~~-L-~~~~~~~~___J_~~~~~~~~___L~~~~~~~~~.J.._~~~~~~~~~ 0 30 60 90 120 150 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmln=1.4 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscirculargop2.0UT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, CUrved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: culargop2.in output Filename: culargop2.0UT Unit System: Plotted output Filename: rgop2.PLT 11/8/2015 03:27PM DRR C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscir C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscir English C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abtability\A-A'\a-a' pscircula PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 A-A' -Circular Pseudo-Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 13 Top Boundaries 16 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 10.00 17.00 12.00 1 2 17.00 12.00 21.20 18.00 4 3 21.20 18.00 27.50 24.00 3 4 27.50 24.00 42.23 33.00 3. 5 42.23 33.00 52.50 40.00 2 6 52.50 40.00 66.80 49.00 2 7 66.80 49.00 77.00 49.50 2 8 77.00 49.50 96.00 49.60 2 9 96.00 49.60 96.10 39.00 2 96.10 39.00 130.40 39.00 2 130.40 39.00 130.50 49.60 2 12 130.50 49.60 142.50 50.00 2 13 142.50 50.00 150.00 51.00 2 14 42.00 33.00 150.00 33.50 3 \ 15 21.20 18.00 150.00 19.00 4 16 0.00 5.00 17.00 12.00 4 Default Y-Origin c O.OO(ft) Default X-Plus Value. O.OO(ft) Default Y-Plus Value c O.OO(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (pef) No. 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 27.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 35.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 33.0 0.00 0.0 0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 36.5 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water c 62.40 (pcf) Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor 0.50 Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 9.00 2 20.00 12.00 3 150.00 13.50 Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) • 0.310(g) Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) c 0.150(g) Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) • O.OOO(g) ''-. ___ / C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a• pscircularqop2.0UT Page 2 Specified Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor c 0.000 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 200 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X -21.21(ft) and X a 31.21(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X 55.00(ft) and X a 90.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = O.OO(ft) 7.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered -Most Critical First. **Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method** Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated• 2000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max c 12.845 FS Min• 1.351 FS Ave• 2.052 Standard Deviation• 0.631 Coefficient of Variation m 30.76 % Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Slice No. 1 2 3 4 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.21 18. 01 2 28.17 18.71 3 35.03 20.12 4 41.71 22.21 5 48 .14 24. 97 6 54.26 28.37 7 60.01 32.38 8 65.31 36.94 9 70 .13 42. 02 10 74.40 47.56 11 75. 56 49. 43 Circle Center At X = 17.79 Width (ft) 6.3 0.7 6.9 6.7 Factor of Safety *** 1.351 *** Individual data on the Weight (lbs) 1937.3 429.0 5593.7 7281.1 Water Force Top (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Water Force Bot --~--------0 . 3 348.1 0.0 (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 0 .2 7 5. 9 8 4 .4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1.8 5.7 0.8 4.5 1.5 3.3 4.3 1.2 Failure Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 278.9 0.0 7753.1 0.0 6297.5 0.0 2635.2 0.0 8565.3 0.0 1214.7 0.0 0.0 6255.9 0.0 0.0 1930.4 0.0 0.0 3518.6 0.0 0.0 2295.2 0.0 0.0 125.4 0.0 0.0 Surface Specified By 10 X-Surf Y-Surf (ft) (ft) 21.21 18.01 28.12 19.11 34.90 20.88 41.47 23.29 47.77 26.34 53.74 29.99 59.33 64.49 69.16 34.20 38.93 44.15 y -86.80 16 slices Tie Tie Force Norm (lbs) Force Tan and Radius - Earthquake Force 68.87 Surcharge Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. (lbs) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Hor (lbs) 290.6 64.3 839.1 1092.2 52.2 41.8 1163. 0 944.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 395.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1284.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 182.2 0.0 0.0 0. o. 938.4 0.0 0.0 0. o. 289.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 527.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 344. 3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 18.8 0.0 0.0 Coordinate Points C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscircularqop2.0UT Page 3· \ 10 72.94 49.30 Circle Center At X = 13.45 ; y -89.24 ; and Radius= 71. 66 Factor of Safety *** 1.359 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.21 18.01 2 28.21 18.15 3 35 .13 19.19 4 41.86 21.13 5 48.28 23.92 6 54.28 27.51 7 59.77 31. 86 8 64.65 36.88 9 68.84 42.48 10 72.27 48.59 11 72.55 49.28 Circle Center At X = 23.63 y -71.88 and Radius 53.92 Factor of Safety *** 1.369 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.21 18.01 2 28.21 18.26 3 35.14 19.23 4 41. 93 20.91 5 48.52 23.29 6 54.82 26.33 7 60.78 30.00 8 66.33 34.27 9 71.40 39.10 I 10 75.95 44.41 I ' 11 79.47 49.51 Circle Center At X = 22.29 y = 85.73 and Radius~ 67.73 Factor of Safety *** 1.373 *** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X-:Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.21 18.01 2 28.09 19.30 3 34.81 21.27 4 41.30 23.88 5 47.51 27.12 6 53.36 30.96 7 58.82 35.35 8 63.81 40 .25 9 68.30 45.62 10 70.73 49.19 Circle Center At X = 11. 66 ; y -88.09 ; and Radius -70.72 Factor of Safety *** 1.379 *** Failure Surface Specified BrlO Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-SUrf No. (ft) (ft) 1 22.32 19.07 2 29.30 19.57 3 36.17 20.90 4 42.84 23.05 5 49.20 25.97 6 55.16 29.64 7 60.65 33.99 8 65.57 38.96 9 69.87 44.49 ( 10 72.75 49.29 '-.,_, Circle Center At X -21. 68 y -77 .33 and Radius~ 58.27 Factor of Safety *** 1. 380 *** C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscircularqop2.0UT Page 4 ( ', Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 22.32 19.07 2 29.31 19.40 3 36.22 20.57 4 42.93 22.54 5 49.37 25.29 6 55.43 28.79 7 61.04 32.97 B 66.12 37.80 9 70.58 43.18 10 74.38 49.06 11 74.54 49.38 Circle Center At X ~ 22.98 y -78 .11 and Radius -59.04 Factor of Safety *** 1.381 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-SUrf No. (ft) (ft) 1 22.32 19.07 2 29.27 19.93 3 36 .11 21.42 4 42.78 23.54 5 49.23 .26.26 6 55.40 29.56 7 61.25 33.41 B 66 .71 37.78 9 71.76 42.64 10 76.33 47.93 11 77.45 49.50 Circle Center At X = 16.44 y -95.04 and Radius= 76.20 1~\ Factor of Safety *** 1.381 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 22.32 19.07 2 29.25 20.07 3 36.06 21. 69 4 42.70 23.90 5 49.12 26.69 6 55.27 30.04 7 61.09 33.92 B 66.56 38.30 9 71.61 43.15 10 76.21 48.42 11 77.00 49.50 Circle Center At X = 14. 43 ; y = 97. 71 and Radius 79.04 Factor of Safety *** 1.384 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.21 18.01 2 28.21 18.18 3 35.15 19.04 4 41.98 20.59 5 48.62 22.81 6 55.01 25.67 7 61.08 29.15 B 66.78 33.22 9 72.04 37.84 10 76.82 42.95 11 Bl·. 07 48.51 ,---,, 12 81.70 49.52 Circle Center At X = 23.05 y 88.28 and Radius -70.29 \..._~ Factor of Safety *** 1.387 *** **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT**** ( / 60 30 ) c:\uaers\dave nee -CWE 2160264 A-A' -Circular Pseudo-Static uuu:iilllnAAktop\abdl stablity\a-a'\a-a' psctrcuJartsa.pl2 Run By: DRR 11/8/2015 03:27PM # FS Soil soa Total Saturated Ion Frtctlon Plez. a 1.4 Desc. Type Unit VVt. Unit 'M. pt Angle Surface b 1.4 No. (pcf) (pcf) (deg) No. C 1.4 Qmb 1 100.0 100.0 0 27.0 0 d 1.4 aop1 2 120.0 125.0 ~.o 35.0 o e 1.4 Qop2 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 33.0 0 f 1.4 lsa 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 36.5 W1 g 1.4c__ _________ _c_ _____ __, h 1.4 i 1.4 j 1.4 Load Value Peak(A) 0.310(g) kh Coef. 0.150(g)< h 2 4 2 2 3 ( \ \_ ~-2---2 2 -------------------- 0 L------------'-----------'-----------'-----------'----------~ 0 30 60' 90 120 150 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmin-=1 A Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscirculartsa.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE: Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: 11/8/2015 03:27PM Input Data Filename: culartsa.in DRR C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscir output Filename: culartsa.OUT C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscir unit System: English Plotted output Filename: rtsa.PLT C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abtability\A-A'\a-a' pscircula PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 A-A' -Circular Pseudo-Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 13 Top Boundaries 16 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 10.00 2 17.00 12.00 3 21.20 18.00 4 27.50 24.00 5 42.23 33.00 6 52.50 40.00 7 66.80 49.00 8 77. 00 49. 50 9 96.00 49.60 10 96.10 39.00 11 130.40 39.00 12 130.50 49.60 13 142.50 50.00 X-Right (ft) 17.00 21.20 27.50 42.23 52.50 66.80 77.00 96.00 96.10 Y-Right (ft) 12.00 18.00 24.00 33.00 40.00 49.00 49.50 49.60 39.00 39.00 49.60 Soil Type Below Bnd 1 14 42.00 33.00 -----~~ 21.20 18.00 ~-------0.00 5.00 130.40 130.50 142.50 150.00 150.00 150.00 50.00 51. 00 33.50 19.00 12.00 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 \ ~-- Default Y.::c5ngrn---.. 0. OOJft) Default X-Plus Value• O.OO(ft) Default Y-Plus Value= O.OO(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 17.00 Friction Angle (deg) 27.0 35.0 33.0 36.5 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED Unit Weight of water• 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pressure Param. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 1 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor• 0.50 Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 9.00 2 20.00 12.00 3 150.00 13.50 Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) m Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) ~ 0. 310 (g) 0.150(g) O.OOO(g) '~- C:\Ueere\Dave Rueeell\Deektop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pecirculartea.OU'r Page 2 Specified Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor m 0.000 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Hae Been Specified. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 200 Surface(e) Initiate(e) From Each Of 10 Pointe Equally Spaced Along The Ground Burface Between X m 15.00(ft) and X c 21.00(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X m 67.00(ft) and X m 100.00(ft) unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Burface Extends Ia Y = O.OO(ft) 10.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Moat Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered -Moat Critical First. **Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method** Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated• 2000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max• 3.648 FS Min• 1.370 FS Ave a 2.234 Standard Deviation• 0.542 Coefficient of Variation• 24.24 \ Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Pointe Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.00 17.71 2 30.87 19.33 3 40 .44 22 .22 4 49.56 26.32 5 58.07 31.57 6 65.83 37.89 7 72. 70 45.15 8 75.80 49.44 Circle Center At X = 13.78 Slice Width Factor of Safety *** 1.370 *** Individual data on the Water Force Weight Top Water Force y -93.38 and Radius 15 slices Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Norm Tan Hor Ver 76.00 Surcharge Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) Bot (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 0 .2 2 1.6 3 4. 7 4 3 .4 5 9 .6 6 1. 6 7 0 .2 7 .-3-- 9 2. 9 10 5 .6 11 1.9 3.2 0.0 168.2 0.0 1816.6 0.0 2313.9 0.0 9039.2 0.0 1757.6 0.0 263.5 0.0 9221. 6 0.0 4064.4 0.0 7865.9 0.0 2609.3 0.0 12 13 14 15 5.9 0.0 7821.0 o.o 1.0 0.0 1202.9 0.0 5.9 5028.2 0.0 0.0 3.1 770.3 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 8 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21.00 17.71 2 30.79 19.77 3 40.22 23.07 4 49.15 27.58 5 57. 41 33. 22 6 64.87 39.88 7 71.40 47 .45 8 72.60 49.28 0. 0. 0.5 0. 0. 25.2 0. 0. 272 .5 0. 0. 347.1 0. 0. 1355.9 0. 0. 263.6 0. 0. 39.5 0. 0. 1383.2 0. 0. 609.7 0. 0. 1179 .9 0. 0. 391.4 0. 0. 1173.1 0. 0. 180.4 0. 0. 754.2 0. 0. 115.5 Coordinate Pointe Circle Center At X -10.43 Y 92.95 and Radius - Factor of Safety *** 1.381 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Pointe Point X-Surf Y-Surf 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 75.98 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscirculartsa.our Page 3 ' No. (ft) (ft) '--~ 1 21. 00 17.71 2 30.72 20.07 3 40.17 23.33 4 49.2~ 27.47 5 57.96 32.43 6 66.13 38.20 7 73.73 44.70 8 78.38 49.51 Circle Center At X = 1.10 y 121. 31 and Radius 105.49 Factor of Safety *** 1.391 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21. 00 17.71 2 30.96 18.61 3 40.67 21.02 4 49.89 24.88 5 58.41 30.11 6 66.04 36.58 7 72. 58 44.15 8 75.90 49.45 Circle Center At X = 20.32 y -82.24 and Radius= 64.53 Factor of Safety *** 1.391 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 21. 00 17.71 2 30.96 18.60 3 40. 71 20.83 (-4 50.07 24.36 5 58.86 29.11 6 66.93 35.02 7 74._13 41. 96 8 80.10 49.52 Circle Center At X = 19.45 y -91. 41 and Radius -73.71 Factor of Safety *** 1.399 *** Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.33 16.76 30.16 18.64 3 ----39.70 21. 64 4 48.83 25.71 5 57.43 30.81 6 65.39 36.86 7 72.61 43.78 8 77.33 49.50 Circle Center At X -9.14 y 102.22 and Radius 86.19 Factor of Safety *** 1.403 *** Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 17.00 12.00 2 26.40 15.41 3 35.59 19.36 4 44.54 23.81 5 53.23 28.77 6 61.61 34.22 7 69.68 40.13 8 77.39 46.49 c ,-9 80.67 49.52 Circle Center At X ~ -38.34 y 179.03 and Radius 175.96 " Factor of Safety *** 1.405 *** Failure Surface Specified By 7 Coordinate Points C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\A-A'\a-a' pscirculartsa.OUT Point X-Surf No. (ft) 1 21. 00 2 30.86 3 40. 31 4 49. 09 5 56. 96 6 63. 70 7 68. 95 Circle Center At X = Factor of Safety *** 1.408 *** Y-Surf (ft) 17. 71 19.38 22.65 27.44 33.61 41. 00 49.11 15.89 y = 77.89 and Radius Failure Surface Specified By 8 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 17.00 12.00 2 26.43 15.34 3 35.56 19.41 4 44.35 24.18 5 52.73 29.63 6 60.66 35.72 7 68.09 42.41 8 74.70 49.39 Circle Center At X --20.66 Factor of Safety *** 1.409 *** 133.35 and Radius - Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 18.33 13.90 2 27. 96 16. 61 3 37.33 20.11 4 46.37 24.39 5 55.01 29.41 6 63.21 35.14 7 70.89 41.54 8 78.01 48.57 9 78.82 49.51 Circle Center At X = -8.95 y 129.58 and Radius Factor of Safety *** 1.411 *** **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT**** 60.39 127.06 118. 85 Page 4 60 40 20 I Residence -CWE 2150264 B-B' -Circular c:'iisera\dave t#MIN:taktop\abdl stablltylb-b'\b-b' clrcularqop1 .pl2 Run By: DRR 11/5/2015 02:01 PM # FS a 2.4 b 2.4 C 2.4 d 2.5 e 2.5 f 2.5 Sol Desc. Qmb Qop1 Qop2 Tsa Soll Total Saturated Co Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. I No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 100.0 100.0 2 120.0 125.0 3 115.0 120.0 4 125.0 130.0 Ion F rlctlon Plez. Angle Surface (deg) No. 27.0 0 35.0 0 33.0 0 36.5 W1 g 2.5'-----~~~~~~~~~-1-~~~~~--' h 2.5 / i 2.5 ; j 2.5 3 3 3 4 2 --------I__---:::--==?'~ -- 4 2 2 3 4 -------- 2 ---- 0 '-----~~~~--'~~~~~----'-~~~~~--'--~~~~~___J_~~~~~--'-~~~~~.L_~~~~~"--~~~~--' 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 GSTABL7 v.2 FSm1n-2A Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' circularqopl.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: 11/5/2015 02:0lPM DRR Input Data Filename: pl.in C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\b-b' circularqo Output Filename: pl.OUT C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\b-b' circularqo LT Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abtability\b-b' circularqopl.P PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 B-B' -Circular BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 Top Boundaries 15 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 10.00 17.80 2 17.80 11.00 26.00 3 26.00 18.00 33.00 4 33.00 24.00 42.00 5 42.00 28.00 51.20 6 51.20 33.00 72.50 7 72.50 48.00 95.00 8 95.00 49.60 95.10 9 95.10 39.00 146.50 10 146.50 39.00 146.60 11 146.60 49.60 155.00 12 155.00 50.50 160.00 Y-Right (ft) 11. 00 18.00 24.00 28.00 33.00 48.00 49.60 39.00 39.00 49.60 50.50 51. 00 Soil Type Below Bnd 1 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 13 51.20 33.00 160.00 -----------i-,i~ 26.00 18.00 160.00 33.50 3 19.00 4 15 0.00 5.00 17.80 Default Y-Origin c O.OO(ft) Default X-Plus Value= O.OO(ft) Default Y-Plus Value= O.OO(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil 11. 00 4 Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 27.0 0.00 0.0 0 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 35.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 33.0 0.00 0.0 0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 36.5 0.00 0.0 1 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water a 62.40 (pcf) Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor• 0.50 Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 9.00 2 20.00 11.00 3 160.00 13.50 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 200 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced I' C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' circularqopl.OUT Page 2 Along The Ground Surface Between X c 51.30(ft) and X • 61.30(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X • 71.00(ft) and X c 96.00(ft) unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y c O.OO(ft) 3.00(ft) Line Segments Define &ach Trial Failure Surface. The Factor Of Safety For The Trial Failure Surface Defined By The Coordinates Listed Below Is Misleading. Failure Surface Defined By 13 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 60.19 39.33 2 63.19 39.27 3 66.19 39.21 4 69.19 39.16 5 72.19 39.12 6 75.19 39.08 7 78.19 39.06 8 81.19 39.04 9 84.19 39.02 10 87.19 39.01 11 90.19 39.01 12 93.19 39.02 13 95.10 39.03 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface•******* The Factor Of Safety For The Trial Failure Surface Defined By The Coordinates Listed Below Is Misleading. Failure surface Defined By 13 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 61.30 40.11 2 64.22 39.44 3 67.17 38.88 4 70.14 38.43 5 73.12 38.08 6 76.11 37.85 7 79.11 37.72 8 82.10 37.70 9 85.10 37.79 10 88.10 38.00 11 91.08 38.31 12 94.05 38.72 13 95.10 38.91 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface c******* The Factor Of Safety For The Trial Failure Surface Defined ~y-~G__oordinates Listed Below Is Misleading. Failure Surface Defined By 13 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 61.30 40.11 2 64.30 40.09 3 67.30 40.07 4 70.30 40.05 5 73.30 40.04 6 76.30 40.03 7 79.30 40.02 8 82.30 40.01 9 85.30 40.01 10 88.30 40.01 11 91.30 40.02 12 94.30 40.02 13 95.09 40.03 Factor Of Safety For The Preceding Specified Surface•******* Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered -Most Critical First. **Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated Number of Trial Surfaces with Misleading Modified Bishop Method** 2000 FS • 3 Slice No. 1 2 3 4 5 I\ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abd.i Stability\B-B'\b-b' circularqopl.OUT Page 3 Percentage of Trial SUrfaces With Non-Valid FS Solutions of the Total Evaluated• 0.2 I Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max a 117.904 FS Min• 2.438 FS Ave a 5.607 Standard Deviation• 5.040 Coefficient of Variation• 89.88 \ Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.28 32.73 3 57.28 32.81 4 60.24 33.30 5 63.10 34.20 6 65.81 35.48 7 68.32 37.13 8 70.58 39.10 9 72.55 41.37 10 74.18 43.89 11 75.45 46.61 12 75.95 48.25 Circle Center At X = 55.23 Factor of Safety *** 2.438 *** Individual data on the Water Water Force Force Width Weight (lbs) 17.4 416.7 1238.9 Top Bot (ft) 0.6 2.4 3.0 1.3 1. 6 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.3 1. 9 0.0 1.6 1.3 775.0 1094.5 2275.6 2440.0 2370.3 2097.4 1637.9 36.3 1063.8 (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 444.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 Failure Point 48.5 0.0 0.0 Surface Specified By 12 X-Surf Y-Surf No. 1 2- (ft) (ft) 51.30 33.07 54.25 32.53 3 4 5 6 7 57.25 32.43 60.23 32.75 63.14 33.50 65.90 68.48 8 70. 80 9 72. 83 10 74.52 11 75.84 12 76.74 Circle Center At X ~ Factor of Safety *** 2.443 *** 34.66 36.20 38.10 40.31 42.79 45.48 48.30 56. 49 Failure Surface Specified By 13 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.26 32.59 3 57.26 32.48 4 60.25 32.76 5 63.17 33.41 6 66.00 34.42 7 68.67 35.79 y -54.29 14 slices Tie Tie Force Norm (lbs) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Force Tan (lbs) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. and Radius Earthquake Force 21.58 Surcharge Hor Ver Load (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (lbs) (lbs) 0. 0 0. 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0. 0 0 .0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coordinate Points y -53.26 and Radius -20.85 Coordinate Points I, ---~--- C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' circularqopl.OU'l' Page 4 8 9 10 11 12 71.15 73.39 75.36 77.03 78.37 37.48 39.47 41. 73 44.23 46.91 13 78.92 48.46 Circle Center At X = 56.59 Factor of Safety *** 2.445 *** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.25 32.53 3 57.25 32.37 4 60.24 32.59 5 63.18 33.19 6 66. 02 34 .16 7 68.72 35.47 8 71.22 37.12 9 73.50 39.07 10 75. 52 11 77 .24 12 78.63 13 79.40 41.29 43.75 46 .41 48 .49 y -56.13 and Radius Coordinate Points Circle Center At X = 57.01 Y~ 56.05 and Radius= Factor of Safety *** 2.458 *** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.23 32.41 3 57.22 32.16 4 60.21 32.33 5 63.16 32.90 6 66.00 33.86 7 68.68 35.21 8 71.15 36.91 9 73.36 38.93 10 75.28 41.24 11 76.87 43.79 12 78.09 46.53 13 78.64 48.44 Circle Center At X -57.54 Factor of Safety *** 2.467 *** Failure Sur£ace Specified By 12 Point X-SUrf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.30 33.10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 57.28 60.20 63.04 65.76 68.33 70. 71 72. 89 74.84 76.54 77.50 Circle Center At X - Factor of Safety *** 2.482 *** 33.46 34.12 35.10 36.37 37.92 39.74 41. 80 44.08 46.56 48.36 52.51 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.30 33.14 Coordinate Points y 54.04 and Radius~ Coordinate Points 61.09 and Radius Coordinate Points 23.66 23.68 21.88 28.05 \'~ C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' circularqopl.OOT Page 5 3 57. 28 4 60.20 5 63. 04 6 65. 77 7 68. 36 8 70. 79 9 73. 03 10 75.06 11 76. 85 12 78.12 Circle Center At X ~ Factor of Safety *** 2.486 *** 33.52 34.19 35.15 36.39 37.90 39.67 41.66 43.88 46.28 48.40 52.08 y 62.84 and Radius - Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-SUrf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.22 32.40 3 57.22 32.22 4 60.20 32.55 5 63.09 33.37 6 65.80 34.66 7 68.25 36.38 8 70.39 38.49 9 72.14 40.93 10 73.46 43.62 11 74 .32 12 74. 52 Circle Center At X - Factor of Safety *** 2.492 *** 46 .49 48.14 56.77 Y -50.07 and Radius= Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.30 33.08 3 57.28 33.45 4 60 .19 34 .17 5 63.00 35.22 6 65.66 36.60 7 68.15 38.28 8 70.42 40.24 9 72.44 42.46 10 74.18 44.90 11 75.63 47.53 12 75.92 48.24 ________ circle Center At X = 52. 71 58.35 and Radius - Factor of Safety *** 2.498 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.30 33.15 3 57.27 33.57 4 60.17 34.34 5 62.96 35.44 6 65.60 36.87 7 68.06 38.59 8 70.30 40.58 9 72.29 42.83 10 74.00 45.29 11 75.41 47.94 12 75.52 48.21 Circle Center At X -52.17 y -58.62 and Radius - Factor of Safety *** 2.516 *** **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT**** 29.77 17.85 25.32 25.57 60 40 20 # FS a 1.9 b 1.9 C 1.9 d 1.9 e 1.9 f 1.9 g 1.9 h 1.9 i 1.9 ) 1.9 , Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 B-B' -Circular c:'ilsers\dave russell\deaktop\abdl stablliylb-b"b-b' clrcularqop2.pl2 Run By: DRR 11/5/2015 01 :57PM Soll Soll Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Plez. Desc. Type Unit 'M. Unit 'M. Intercept Angle Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. Qmb 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 27.0 0 Qop1 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 35.0 0 Qop2 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 33.0 0 Tsa 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 36.5 W1 2 2 3 4 2 4 ------------ L---::=--="'77·~ ---------- 4 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_.L._~~~~~--'-~~~~~...L-~~~~~-'--~~~~~'--~~~~-----' 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmln=1.9 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method i'f-- C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' circularqop2.0UT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.B. ** '** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, CUrved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: 11/5/2015 01:57PM DRR Input Data Filename: p2.in c:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\b-b' circularqo output Filename: p2.0UT c:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\b-b' circularqo LT Unit System: English Plotted output Filename: c:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abtability\b-b' circularqop2.P PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 B-B' -Circular BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 Top Boundaries 15 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left No. (ft) 1 0. 00 2 17. 80 3 26. 00 4 33. 00 5 42. 00 6 51. 20 7 72. 50 8 95. 00 Y-Left (ft) 10.00 11.00 18.00 24.00 28.00 33.00 48.00 49.60 9 95.10 39.00 10 146.50 39.00 11 146.60 49.60 12 155.00 so.so 13 51.20 33.00 14 26.00 18.00 15 0.00 5.00 X-Right (ft) 17.80 26.00 33.00 42.00 51.20 72.50 95.00 95.10 146.50 146.60 155.00 160.00 160.00 160.00 17.80 Y-Right (ft) 11. 00 18.00 24.00 28.00 33.00 48.00 49.60 39.00 39.00 49.60 so.so 51. 00 33.50 19.00 11.00 Soil Type Below Bnd 1 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 ~ef8J11! Y-Origin ~ O.OO(ft) Default---x-=Pl.us_Value • O.OO(ft) Default Y-Plus Value " o-. 00 (ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept No. (pc!) (pcf) (psf) 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 Friction Angle (deg) 27.0 35.0 33.0 36.5 1 PIBZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water• 62.40 (pcf) Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by Pore Pressure Inclination Factor c 0.50 Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 9.00 2 20.00 11.00 3 160.00 13.50 Pore Pressure Param. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pressure Constant (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 Coordinate Points Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 1 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 100 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi StaJ:?ility\B-B'\b-b' circularqop2.0U'r Page 2 Along The Ground Surface Between X • 26.lO(ft) and X • 46.lO(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X • 72.00(ft) and X a 110.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y c O.OO(ft) 6.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered -Most Critical First. **Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method** Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated• 2000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max• 11.081 FS Min• 1.887 FS Ave c 4.232 Standard Deviation= 1.701 Coefficient of Variation 40.19 t Slice No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point ·x-surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.10 18.09 2 32. 09 3 38. 04 4 43. 90 5 49. 62 6 55 .16 7 60.48 8 65. 55 9 70 .32 10 74.75 11 78.82 12 82.50 13 83.39 18.37 19.17 20 .47 22.28 24.58 27.35 30.56 34.20 38.24 42.65 47.39 48.77 Circle Center At X - Factor of Safety 25.84 ; Width (ft) 6.0 0.9 5.0 4.0 1.9 5.7 1.6 5.3 5.1 3.3 *** 1.887 *** Individual data on the Weight (lbs) 1673.2 540.4 3647.1 3420.8 1798.9 6056.0 1813.6 4869.0 1::rn-6-:1 7412.4 4902.4 Water Water Force Top (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Force Bot (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2172.5 0.0 0.0 2.2 3151.8 0.0 0.0 2.3 2937.5 0.0 0.0 4.1 3838.3 0.0 0.0 3.7 1568.9 0.0 0.0 0.9 70.3 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.10 18.09 2 32.08 18.59 3 37.99 19.63 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 43.78 49.41 54.82 59.99 64.85 69.38 73 .54 77.29 21.19 23.28 25.86 28.92 32.43 36.36 40.69 45.37 Y -87.51 17 slices Tie Tie Force Norm (lbs) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Force Tan (lbs) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. and Radius 69.42 Earthquake Force Surcharge Hor Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coordinate Points C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' circularqop2.0UT Page 3 ' \ -, . 12 79.35 48.49 Circle Center At X = 23.59 Factor of Safety *** 1. 893 *** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.10 18.09 2 32.08 18.62 3 38.00 19.60 4 43.83 21.02 5 49.54 22.86 6 55.09 25.12 7 60.47 27.79 8 65.63 30.85 9 70.55 34.29 10 75.20 38.08 11 79.56 42.20 12 83.60 46.64 13 85.38 48.92 Circle Center At X = 21.86 Factor of Safety *** 1.908 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 27.15 18.99 2 33.15 19.11 3 39.11 19.80 4 44.98 21. 05 5 50.70 22.85 6 56.23 25.19 7 61.51 28.04 8 66.50 31.37 9 71.15 35.16 10 75.42 39.37 11 79.28 43.97 12 82.54 48.71 Circle Center At X = 28.86 Factor of Safety *** 1.910 *** Failure Point No. 1 2 Surface Specified By 12 X-Surf Y-Surf (ft) (ft) 26.10 18.09 32.09 18.44 -------------~. 3 38.01 19.41 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Circle 43.80 21.00 49.39 23.18 54.72 25.93 59.74 64.38 68.61 72.37 75.62 76.27 Center At X - Factor of Safety *** 1.916 *** 29.22 33.02 37.27 41.95 46.99 48.27 25. 77 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 27.15 18.99 2 33 .15 19. 03 3 39.11 19.75 4 44. 95 21.12 5 50.60 23.14 6 55.99 25.78 7 8 61.05 65. 72 29.01 32.78 y = 84.31 and Radius -66.28 Coordinate Points y = 98.80 and Radius 80.83 Coordinate Points y -82.27 and Radius -63.31 Coordinate Points y 75.43 and Radius= 57.34 Coordinate Points ) \ I -...__ __ / ~- ' ' C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' circularqop2.0UT Page 4 9 69.94 37.04 10 73. 65 41.75 11 76.82 46.85 12 77.53 48.36 Circle Center At X -29.80 y ~ 72 .34 and Radius= Factor of Safety *** 1.922 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 27.15 18.99 2 33.14 18.61 3 39 .13 18.92 4 45.05 19.93 5 SO.BO 21.62 6 56.32 23.97 7 61.53 26.95 8 66.36 30.51 9 70.75 34.61 10 74.62 39.19 11 77.94 44.19 12 80.15 48.54 Circle Center At X ~ 33.44 y -70.00 and Radius Factor of Safety *** 1.922 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-SUrf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 28.21 19.89 2 34.20 19.75 3 40.18 20.28 4 46.06 21.46 5 51. 78 23.29 6 57.25 25.74 7 62.43 28.78 8 67.23 32.38 9 71.61 36.48 10 75.50 41.05 11 78.86 46.01 12 80.20 48.55 Circle Center At X = 32.51 y 73.58 and Radius - Factor of Safety *** 1.934 *** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 28.21 19.89 2 34. 21 19. 92 --3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 40.18 46.07 51.83 57.40 62.75 67.82 72.57 76.95 80.94 84.49 84.68 Circle Center At X = Factor of Safety *** 1.947 *** 20.50 21.64 23.32 25.53 28.26 31.47 35.13 39.23 43.71 48.55 48.87 30.93 y -84.13 and Radius= Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.10 18.09 2 3 4 5 32.09 38.02 43.80 49.36 18.37 19.32 20.93 23.19 53.42 51. 40 53.86 64 .29 <~~\ \ ' (~' C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' circularqop2.0UT Page 5 6 54.63 26.05 7 59.55 29.49 8 64.05 33.46 .9 68.08 37.90 10 71.58 42.78 11 74.51 48.01 12 74.56 48.15 Circle Center At X = 26.60 y -71.38 and Radius -53.29 Factor of Safety *** 1.949 *** **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT**** 60 40 20 Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 B-B' -Circular russell\desktop\abdl stabllltylb-b"b-b' clrculart8a.pl2 Run By: ORR 11/5/2015 01 :57PM # FS a 1.9 b 2.0 C 2.0 d 2.0 e 2.0 f 2.0 Soll Desc. Qmb Qop1 Qop2 Tse Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Surface SoU Total S \Cohesion Frtctlon Plez. No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. 1 100.0 100.0 \ o.o 27.0 o 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 35.0 0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 33.0 0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 36.5 W1 g 2.0 ~-----------------' h 2.0 i 2.0 j 2.0 4 L-----:::::-:==~~ --------- a 2 3 ---------- 2 --- 0 ~--------'-----------L--------'-------'-------'-------_L_-----L_----__J 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 GSTABL7 v.2 FSm1n•1.9 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method (~ C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' circulartsa.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: 11/5/2015 01:57PM DRR Input Data Filename: a.in c:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\b-b' circularts Output Filename: a.OUT c:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\b-b' circularts T Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: c:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abtability\b-b' circulartsa.PL PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 B-B' -Circular BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 Top 15 Total Boundary No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Boundaries Boundaries X-Left (ft) 0.00 17.80 26.00 33.00 42.00 51.20 Y-Left (ft) 10.00 11. 00 18.00 24.00 28.00 33.00 7 72.50 48.00 8 95.00 49.60 9 95.10 39.00 10 146.50 39.00 11 146.60 49.60 12 155.00 so.so 13 51.20 33.00 14 26.00 18.00 15 0.00 5.00 X-Right (ft) 17.80 26.00 33.00 42.00 51.20 72.50 95.00 95.10 146.50 146.60 155.00 160.00 160.00 160.00 17.80 Y-Right (ft) 11. 00 18.00 24.00 28.00 33.00 48.00 49.60 39.00 39.00 49.60 so.so 51. 00 33.50 19.00 11. 00 Soil Type Below Bnd 1 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 Default Y-Origin = O.OO(ft) Default X-Plus Value c O.OO(ft) -~--u--y-:plus Value= O.OO(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 Friction Angle (deg) 27.0 35.0 33.0 36.5 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED unit Weight of Water c 62.40 (pcf) Pore Pre11sure Pressure Constant Param. (ps!) 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor c 0.50 Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 9.00 2 :.20.00 11.00 3 160.00 13.50 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 1 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 2000 Trial SUrfaces Have Been Generated. 200 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced \.' C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' circulartsa.OUT Page 2 Along The Ground Surface Between X • 17.BO(ft) and X c 25.BO(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X • 72.00(ft) and X c 110.00(ft) unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y c O.OO(ft) 7.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial \ Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered -Most Critical First. **Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method** Total Number of Trial SUrfaces Evaluated• 2000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max= 6.359 FS Min• 1.939 FS Ave• 3.328 Standard Deviation -0.897 Coefficient of Variation• 26.95 % Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32.74 18.75 3 39.59 20.21 4 46.30 22.18 5 52.84 24.68 6 59.17 27.66 7 65.25 31.13 8 71.05 35.06 9 76.53 39.42 10 81. 65 44 .19 11 86. 04 48. 96 Circle Center At X = 17.33 Y = 108.13 and Radius• 90.69 Slice Width No. (ft) 1 0 .2 2 1.1 3 5 .6 4 0.3 5 6 .6 6 2 .4 7 4 .3 Factor of Safety *** 1.939 *** Individual data on the Weight (lbs) 1. 8 74·. 9 1928.9 Water Force Top (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Water Force Bot (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 slices Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Surcharge Norm Tan Hor Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 4. 9 ~ 1.6 153.4 4511. 9 1915.9 3767.5 4818.0 1745.B 7544.4 Bl 78~ 7 4061.1 4163.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ' I I " 10~--;-Y 0.0 0.0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 6.1 2.9 2.9 1.5 2063.1 4.0 4990.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 4098.7 0.0 0.0 4.4 1177.3 0.0 o.o Failure Surface Specified By 11 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (ft) (ft) 25.80 17.83 32.69 19.06 39.48 20.78 46.12 22.98 52.60 25.64 58.86 28.76 64.89 32.32 70.65 36.30 76.11 81.25 84.44 40.68 45.44 48.85 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Coordinate Points Circle Center At X = Factor of Safety 11. 98 ; Y ~ ll5. 07 and Radius~ 98.22 C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' circulartsa.OUT Page 3 ( *** 1.954 *** '----Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32.73 18.81 3 39.57 20.29 4 46.29 22.25 5 52.86 24.69 6 59.23 27.58 7 65.38 30.93 8 71.27 34.70 9 76.89 38.89 10 82.18 43.46 11 87.14 48.40 12 87.74 49.08 Circle Center At X = 15.52 ; y 115. 21 and Radius -97.92 Factor of Safety *** 1.957 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32.67 19.19 3 39.43 21. 01 4 46.05 23.28 5 52.50 25.99 6 58.76 29.14 7 64.78 32.69 8 70.56 36.65 9 76.05 40.98 10 81.24 45.68 I~' 11 84.29 48.84 Circle Center At X ~ 9.10 ; y 120.20 and Radius~ 103.72 Factor of Safety *** 1.969 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 24.91 17.07 2 31. 84 18.06 3 38.67 19.61 4 45.34 21.71 5 51.83 24.35 6 58.08 27.51 7 64.05 31.16 ------" 8 69.70 35.29 9 74.99 39.87 10 79.90 44.86 11 83.15 48.76 Circle Center At X -16.25 , y -102.51 and Radius= 85.88 Factor of Safety *** 1.986 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32.80 17.95 3 39.74 18.87 4 46.53 20.57 5 53.08 23.03 6 59.31 26.22 7 65.14 30.09 8 70.50 34.60 9 75.30 39.70 r -" 10 79.49 45.30 ~- 11 81.44 48.64 Circle Center At X = 28.22 y 79.31 and Radius -61.52 Factor of Safety *** 1.994 *** \,____./ C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' circulartsa.Our Page 4 Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 24.91 17.07 2 31.82 18.20 3 38.61 19.92 4 45.22 22.21 5 51.61 25.06 6 57.74 28 .45 7 63.55 32.35 8 69.01 36.73 9 74.07 41.57 10 78.69 46.83 11 79.95 48.53 Circle Center At X = 15.23 y 98.05 and Radius= Factor of Safety *** 1.996 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 24.91 17.07 2 31.89 17.63 3 38.77 18.89 4 45.50 20.83 5 52.00 23.43 6 58.21 26.67 7 64.06 30.51 8 69.50 34.92 9 74.47 39.85 10 78.92 45.25 11 81.18 48.62 Circle Center At X = 22.76 y -87.05 and Radius Factor of Safety *** 2.001 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32.78 18.30 3 39. 71 19.28 4 46.55 20.78 5 53.26 22.78 6 59.80 25.28 7 66.13 28.25 8 72.23 31. 70 9 78.05 35.58 10 83.57 39.89 11 88.75 44.59 12 93.39 49.49 Circle Center At X ~ 23.06 y 111. 68 ; and Radius Factor of Safety *** 2.015 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 24.91 17.07 2 31.85 17.96 3 38.67 19.54 4 45.30 21.78 5 6 7 8 9 10 51.68 57.73 63.40 68.64 73.39 77.60 11 78.04 Circle Center At X = Factor of Safety *** 2.019 *** 24.68 28.19 32.29 36.94 42.08 47.67 48.39 19.47 y 87.10 **** END OF GSTABL7 OU'rPU'r **** and Radius - 81.55 70.01 93.89 70.24 60 40 20 # FS a 1.9 b 1.9 C 1.9 d 1.9 e 1.9 f 1.9 SoD Dase. Qmb Qop1 Qop2 Taa c:\users\deve ldence -CWE 2150264 B-B' -Circular Psudo-Static l'desktop\abcli 1tablllty\b-b'\b-b' paclrcularqop1 .pl2 Run By: DRR 11/8/2015 03:24PM Soll Total Saturated Cbheslon Friction Plez. Type Unit 'M. Unit 'M.. I~ Angle Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) / CgsJ> {deg) No. 1 100.0 100.0 I 0.0 27.0 0 2 120.0 125.0 I 250.0 35.0 0 3 115.0 120.0 1,200.0 33.0 0 4 125.0 130.0 I 500.0 38.5 W1 Load Value Peak(A) 0.310(q) kh Coef. 0.150(g)< g 1.9~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--' h 1.9 i 1.9 J 1.9 4 3 1__----:-::--=-=?'·-in-- - 3 3 ---- 2 2 2 3 4 ------------- 2 --- 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---'-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 GSTABL7 v.2 FSm1n•1.9 Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method r I I " ---r' ' I C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pscircularqopl.OUT Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-Unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear undrained Shear Strength, CUrved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: 11/8/2015 03:24PM Input Data Filename: cularqopl.in ORR C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' PScir Output Filename: cularqopl.OUT C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' PScir Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: rqopl.PLT C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abtability\B-B'\b-b' PScircula PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 B-B' -Circular Psudo-Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 Top Boundaries 15 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 10.00 17.80 11. 00 1 2 17.80 11.00 26.00 18.00 4 3 26.00 18.00 33.00 24.00 3 4 33.00 24.00 42.00 28.00 3 5 42.00 28.00 51.20 33.00 3 6 51.20 33.00 72 .so 48.00 2 7 72.50 48.00 95.00 49.60 2 8 95.00 49.60 95.10 39.00 2 9 95.10 39.00 146.50 39.00 2 10 146.50 39.00 146.60 49.60 2 11 146.60 49.60 155.00 so.so 2 12 155.00 so.so 160.00 51. 00 2 13 51.20 33.00 160.00 33.50 3 14 26.00 18.00 160.00 19.00 4 15 0.00 5.00 17.80 11. 00 4 Default Y-Origin m O.OO(ft) Default X-Plus Value -O.OO(ft) --De-:fau-lt Y-Plus Value • o. 00 (ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) 1 100.0 100.0 o.o 27.0 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 35.0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 33.0 4 125.0 130. 0 500.0 36.5 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water a 62.40 (pcf) Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by Pore Pressure Inclination Factor~ 0.50 Point No. 1 2 X-Water (ft) 0.00 20.00 160.00 Y-Water (ft) 9.00 11.00 13.50 Param. (psf) 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 3 Coordinate Points 3 Specified Specified Specified Specified 0.310(g) O.lSO(g) O.OOO(g) Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) c Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) m Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor= 0.000 No. 0 0 0 1 / -, C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pscircularqopl.OUT Page 2 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 200 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X • 51.30(ft) and X 61.30(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X 71.00(ft) and X ~ 96.00(ft) unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Ya O.OO(ft) 3.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered -Most Critical First. **Safety Factors Are calculated By The Modified Bishop Method** Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated• 2000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max• 13.027 FS Min~ 1.888 FS Ave~ 3.279 Standard Deviation a 0.912 Coefficient of Variation• 27.81 t .___ __ // Slice No. 1 2 3 ---4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.26 32.59 3 57.26 32.48 4 60.25 32.76 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 63.17 66.00 68.67 71.15 73.39 75.36 77.03 78.37 78.92 33.41 34.42 35.79 37.48 39.47 41.73 44.23 46.91 48.46 Circle Center At X = 56.59 Factor of Safety *** 1.888 *** Individual data on the Width (ft) 0.4 2.5 3. 0 3.0 --1. 3 1.6 2.8 2.7 2.5 1.4 0.9 2.0 1.7 1.3 0.5 Weight (lbs) 9.0 444.6 1315.7 2037.1 1089.3 1482.3 2883.0 2966.8 2835.5 1534.2 Water Force Top (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Water Force Bot (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 954.7 0.0 o.o 1782.5 0.0 0.0 1059.3 0.0 0.0 451.5 0.0 0.0 49.1 0.0 0.0 Failure Point Surface Specified By 13 X-Surf Y-Surf No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (ft) (ft) 51.30 33.07 54.25 32.53 57.25 32.37 60.24 32.59 63.18 33.19 66.02 34.16 68.72 35.47 71.22 37.12 73.50 39.07 y -56.13 15 slices Tie Tie Force Norm (lbs) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Force Tan (lbs) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. and Radius~ Earthquake Force 23.66 Surcharge Ver Load (lbs) (lbs) Hor (lbs) 1.4 0.0 0.0 66.7 197.4 305.6 163.4 222.3 432.4 445.0 425.3 230.1 143.2 267.4 158.9 67.7 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Coordinate Points C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' \ '----/ 10 75.52 41.29 11 77 .24 43.75 12 78.63 46.41 13 79.40 48 .49 Circle Center At X = 57.01 y ~ 56.05 and Radius Factor of Safety *** 1.893 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.25 32.53 3 57.25 32.43 4 60.23 32.75 5 63.14 33.50 6 65.90 34.66 7 68.48 36.20 8 70.80 38.10 9 72.83 40.31 10 74.52 42.79 11 75.84 45.48 12 76.74 48.30 Circle Center At X = 56.49 y ~ 53.26 and Radius Factor of Safety *** 1.909 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.28 32.73 3 57.28 32.81 4 60.24 33.30 ";:~ 5 63.10 34.20 6 65.81 35.48 7 68.32 37.13 8 70.58 39.10 9 72.55 41.37 10 74.18 43.89 11 75.45 46.61 12 75.95 48 .25 Circle Center At X = 55.23 y -54.29 and Radius Factor of Safety *** 1.910 *** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf ~-----------------No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54 .23 32 .41 3 57.22 32.16 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Circle 60.21 63.16 66.00 68.68 71.15 73.36 75.28 76.87 78.09 78.64 Center At X = Factor of Safety *** 1.911 *** 32.33 32.90 33.86 35.21 36.91 38.93 41.24 43.79 46'; 53 48.44 57.54 y = 54.04 and Radius Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.30 32.98 3 57.29 33.17 4 60.26 33.64 5 63.16 34.38 pscircularqopl.OU'r Page 3 23.68 20.85 21.58 21. 88 I ' \ ,,.- 1 / C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pscircularqopl.OUT Page 4 6 65.99 35.38 7 68. 71 36.65 8 71.30 38.16 9 73.74 39.90 10 76.01 41. 86 11 78.09 44.03 12 79.95 46.38 13 81.43 48.63 Circle Center At X -53.76 Factor of Safety *** 1.913 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.30 33.14 3 57.28 33.52 4 60.20 34.19 5 63.04 35.15 6 65.77 36.39 7 68.36 37.90 8 70.79 39.67 9 73.03 41.66 10 75.06 43.88 11 76.85 46.28 12 78.12 48.40 Circle Center At X -52.08 Factor of Safety *** 1.925 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Point X-SUrf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.30 33.10 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Circle 57.28 60.20 63.04 65.76 68.33 70.71 72. 89 74.84 76.54 77.50 Center At X = Factor of Safety *** 1.929 *** 33.46 34.12 35.10 36.37 37.92 39.74 41. 80 44.08 46.56 48.36 52.51 Failure Surface Specified By 14 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.30 33.00 3 57 . .:il9 33.18 4 60.26 33.61 5 63.19 34.28 6 66.04 35.19 7 68.82 36.34 8 71.48 37.71 9 74.03 39.31 10 76.43 41.10 11 78.67 43.09 12 80.74 45.26 13 82.63 47.60 14 83.43 48.78 Circle Center At X -53.67 Factor of Safety *** 1.934 *** Failure Surface Specified By 14 Point X-Burf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) y = 65.27 and Radius= 32.29 Coordinate Points y = 62.84 and Radius= 29.77 Coordinate Points y -61.09 and Radius -28.05 Coordinate Points y ~ 68. 94 and Radius= 35.95 Coordinate Points C:\Ueere\Dave Ruseell\Deektop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pecircularqopl.OUT Page 5 \'-/ 1 51.30 33.07 2 54.30 33.22 3 57.27 33.60 4 60.21 34.20 5 63.10 35.01 6 65.92 36.04 7 68.65 37.27 8 71.29 38.70 9 73.81 40.33 10 76.21 42.14 11 78.46 44.12 12 80.56 46.26 13 82.49 48.55 14 82.61 48.72 Circle Center At X • 50.73 y -73.36 and Radius= 40.29 Factor of Safety *** 1. 936 *** **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT**** 60 40 20 # FS a 1.4 b 1.4 C 1.4 d 1.4 e 1.5 f 1.5 Sol Desc. Qmb Qop1 Qop2 lsa Abdi ~ldence -CWE 2150264 B-B' -Circular Pseduo-Static I c:\usera\dave russel\deaktop\abdl stabllty\b-b'\b-b' paclrcuJarqop2.pl2 Run By: DRR 11/8/2015 03:23PM Soll Total Saturated '!Cohesion Friction Plez.. Type Unit Wt. Unit wt. Intercept Angle Surface No. (pcf) {pcf) 1 (psf) (deg) No. 1 100.0 100.0 I o.o 21.0 o 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 35.0 0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 33.0 0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 36.5 W1 Load Value Peak(A) 0.31 O(g) kh Coef. 0.1 SO(g)< g 1.5'---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--' h 1.5 I 1.5 j 1.5 4 L----::-=3?'·wr--------- f e 2 2 3 4 ----------- /~-- 2 --- 0 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 GSTABL7 v.2 FSmln=1.4 Safety Factons Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method / C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pscircularqop2.0UT Page 1 *** QSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLB Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: 11/8/2015 03:23PM DRR Input Data Filename: cularqop2.in C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abd.i Stability\B-B'\b-b' PScir Output Filename: cularqop2.0UT C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' PScir Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abtability\B-B'\b-b' PScircula rqop2.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Abdi Residence -CWB 2150264 B-B' -Circular Pseduo-Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 Top Boundaries 15 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left X-Right Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 10.00 2 17.80 11.00 3 26.00 18.00 4 33. 00 24. 00 5 42.00 28.00 6 51.20 33.00 7 72.50 48.00 8 95.00 49.60 9 95.10 39.00 10 146.50 39.00 11 146.60 49.60 12 155.00 50.50 13 51.20 33.00 14 26.00 18.00 15 0.00 5.00 Default Y-Origin m O.OO(ft) DGfault X-Plus Value= O.OO(ft) Default" Y-Plus Value -O.OO(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s). of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 (ft) 17.80 26.00 33.00 42.00 51.20 72. 50 95.00 95.10 146.50 146.60 155.00 160.00 160.00 160.00 17.80 Friction Angle (deg) 27.0 35.0 33.0 36.5 1 PIEZOMBTRIC SURFACB(S) SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water c 62.40 (pcf) Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by Pore Pressure Inclination Factor= 0.50 Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 9.00 2 20.00 11.00 160.00 13.50 (ft) Below Bnd 11.00 18.00 24.00 28.00 33.00 48.00 49.60 39.00 39.00 49.60 50.50 51. 00 33.50 19.00 11.00 Pore Pressure Pressure Constant Param. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 Coordinate Points 1 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 Piez. Surface No. 0 0 0 1 3 Specified Specified Specified Specified 0.310(9) 0.150(9) O.OOO(g) Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) a Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) a Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) c Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor• 0.000 C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pscircularqop2.00T Page 2 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 100 Surface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 20 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X • 26.lO(ft) and X ~ 46.lO(ft) Each Surface Terminates Between X 72.00(ft) and X 110.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A ·surface Extends Is Y = O.OO(ft) 6.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered -Most Critical First. **Safety Factors Are calculated By The Modified Bishop Method** Total Number of Trial Surfaces Evaluated• 2000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max= 5.397 FS Min• 1.423 FS Ave• 2.751 Standard Deviation• 0.866 Coefficient of Variation 31.50 I "'q-', \ Slice No. 1 2 --------------__ 3 _ - 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.10 18.09 2 32.09 18.37 3 38.04 19.17 4 43.90 20.47 5 49.62 22.28 6 55.16 24.58 7 60.48 27.35 8 9 10 11 12 13 65.55 70.32 74.75 78.82 82.50 83.39 30.56 34.20 38.24 42.65 47.39 48.77 Circle Center At X -25.84 Y -87.51 Factor of Safety *** 1.423 *** Individual data on the 17 slices Water Water Tie Tie Force Force Force Force Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan and Radius Earthquake Force Hor Ver 69.42 Surcharge Load (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 6.0 1673. 2 0. 0 0.0 0. 0. 251.0 0.0 0.9 540 .4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 81.1 0.0 5.0 3647.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 547.1 0.0 4.0 3420.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 513.1 0.0 1.9--I798. 9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 269.8 0.0 5.7 6056.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 908.4 0.0 1. 6 1813.6 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 272. 0 0.0 4.0 4869.0 o.o 0.0 0. 0. 730.4 0.0 5.3 7286 .1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1092.9 0.0 5.1 7412.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1111. 9 0.0 3.3 4902.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 735.4 0.0 1. 5 2172. 5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 325.9 0.0 2.2 3151.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 472.8 0.0 2.3 2937.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 440.6 0.0 4.1 3838.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 575.7 0.0 3.7 1568.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 235.3 0.0 0.9 70.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 10.5 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.10 18.09 2 32.08 18.62 3 38.00 19.60 4 43.83 21.02 5 49.54 22.86 6 55.09 25.12 7 60.47 27.79 0.0 0.0 o.o 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a.a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ;, \_ C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pscircularqop2.0UT Page 3 8 9 10 11 12 13 65.63 70.55 75.20 79.56 83.60 85.38 Circle Center At X = Factor of Safety *** 1.429 *** 30.85 34.29 38.08 42.20 46.64 48.92 21.86 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.10 18.09 2 32.08 18.59 3 37.99 19.63 4 43.78 21.19 5 49.41 23.28 6 54.82 25.86 7 59.99 28.92 8 64.85 32.43 9 69.38 36.36 10 73.54 11 77.29 12 79.35 Circle Center At X = Factor of Safety *** 1.439 *** 40.69 45.37 48 .49 23.59 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Circle X-Surf Y-SUrf (ft) (ft) 27.15 18.99 33.15 39.11 44.98 50.70 56.23 61.51 66.50 71.15 75.42 79.28 82.54 Center At X = Factor of Safety 19.11 19.80 21.05 22.85 25.19 28.04 31.37 35.16 39.37 43.97 48.71 28.86 *** 1.443 *** _________ Failure Surface Specified By 14 -----Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.10 18.09 2 32.09 18.49 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 38.03 43.92 49. 71 55.39 60.93 66.31 71. 51 76.50 81.27 85.78 90.03 92.08 19.29 20.47 22.03 23.96 26.26 28.91 31. 91 35.24 38.89 42.83 47.07 49.39 y -98.80 and Radius= Coordinate Points y 84.31 and Radius Coordinate Points y = 82.27 and Radius~ Coordinate Points Circle Center At X = 22.92 Y = 109.97 and Radius Factor of Safety *** 1.453 *** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 27.15 18.99 2 33.15 18.86 80.83 66.28 63.31 91. 93 C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pscircularqop2.0UT Page 5 Point X-Burf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 27.15 18.99 2 33.15 19.03 3 39.11 19.75 4 44.95 21.12 5 50.60 23.14 6 55.99 25.78 7 61.05 29.01 8 65.72 32.78 9 69.94 37.04 10 73.65 41. 75 11 76.82 46.85 12 77.53 48.36 Circle Center At X = 29.80 y 72 .34 and Radius= 53.42 Factor of Safety *** 1.466 *** **** END OF GSTABL7 OUTPUT**** C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pscircularqop2.0UT Page 4 I '-3 39.14 19.26 4 45.07 20.18 5 50.89 21. 62 6 56.57 23.55 7 62.06 25.98 8 67.32 28.87 9 72.30 32.22 10 76.97 35.98 11 81.30 40.14 12 85.24 44.66 13 88.51 49.14 Circle Center At X = 31.58 y 87.53 and Radius 68.68 Factor of Safety *** 1.459 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 27.15 18.99 2 33.14 18.61 3 39.13 18.92 4 45.05 19.93 5 50.80 21.62 6 56 .32 23.97 7 61.53 26.95 8 66.36 30.51 9 70.75 34.61 10 74.62 39.19 11 77.94 44.19 12 80.15 48.54 Circle Center At X = 33.44 y 70.00 and Radius -51. 40 Factor of Safety *** 1.463 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf "' . No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.10 18.09 2 32.09 18.44 3 38.01 19.41 4 43.80 21. 00 5 49.39 23.18 6 54. 72 25.93 7 59.74 29.22 8 64.38 33.02 9 68.61 37.27 10 72 .37 41.95 11 75.62 46.99 12 ·76.27 48 .27 Circle Center At X ~ 25.77 y 75.43 and Radius -57.34 Factor of Safety *** 1.463 *** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 28.21 19.89 2 34.21 19.92 3 40.18 20.50 4 46.07 21.64 5 51.83 23.32 6 57.40 25.53 7 62.75 28.26 8 67.82 31.47 9 72 .57 35.13 10 76.95 39.23 11 80.94 43.71 12 84.49 48.55 l',,-13 84.68 48.87 Circle Center At X = 30.93 y = 84.13 and Radius 64. 29 ~---Factor of Safety *** 1.463 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points 60 40 20 # FS a 1.5 b 1.5 C 1.5 d 1.5 e 1.5 f 1.5 I ' I I { Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 B-B' -Circular Psuedo-Statlc c:\users'dave ruuel\desktop\abdi stabillty\b-b'\trb' pscirculartsa.pl2 Run By: DRR 11/8/2015 03:22PM Sol Soll Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Piez. Desc. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt.. Intercept Angle Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) No. Qmb 1 100.0 100.0 0.0 27.0 0 Qop1 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 35.0 0 Qop2 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 33.0 0 Tsa 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 36.5 W1 Load Value Peak(A) 0.310(ij) kh Coef. 0.150(g)< g 1.5'--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---' h 1.5 I 1.5 j 1.5 a 2 3 2 4 ----------------l__----:::-==37'·~ ------ 4 0 '--~~~~--'~~~~~___J_~~~~~_J_~~~~~-'-~~~~~..l.-~~~~~-'-----~~~~~'--~~~~---' 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 GSTABL7 v.2 FSm1n•1.5 Safety Factol"8 Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pscirculartsa.OU'l' Page 1 *** GSTABL7 *** ** GSTABL7 by Garry H. Gregory, P.E. ** ** Original Version 1.0, January 1996; Current Version 2.003, June 2002 ** (All Rights Reserved-unauthorized Use Prohibited) ********************************************************************************* SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SYSTEM Modified Bishop, Simplified Janbu, or GLE Method of Slices. (Includes Spencer & Morgenstern-Price Type Analysis) Including Pier/Pile, Reinforcement, Soil Nail, Tieback, Nonlinear Undrained Shear Strength, Curved Phi Envelope, Anisotropic Soil, ,Fiber-Reinforced Soil, Boundary Loads, Water Surfaces, Pseudo-Static & Newmark Earthquake, and Applied Forces. ********************************************************************************* Analysis Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: 11/8/2015 03:22PM DRR Input Data Filename: culartsa.in C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' PScir Output Filename: culartsa.OUT C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' PScir Unit System: English Plotted Output Filename: C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abtability\B-B'\b-b' PScircula rtsa.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION: Abdi Residence -CWE 2150264 B-B' -Circular Psuedo-Static BOUNDARY COORDINATES 12 Top Boundaries 15 Total Boundaries Boundary X-Left Y-Left (ft) 10.00 11.00 18.00 24.00 28.00 33.00 X-Right (ft) 17.80 26.00 33.00 42.00 51.20 Y-Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0. 00 2 17. 80 3 26. 00 4 33. 00 5 6 42.00 51.20 7 72.50 48.00 8 95.00 49.60 9 95.10 39.00 10 146.50 39.00 11 146.60 49.60 12 155.00 so.so 13 51.20 33.00 14 26.00 18.00 15 0.00 5.00 Default Y-Origin c O.OO(ft) -~-~~Default X,,_Elus Value c O. 00 (ft) Default Y-Plus Value -O.OO(ft) ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 4 Type(s) of Soil 72.50 95.00 95.10 146.50 146.60 155.00 160.00 160.00 160.00 17.80 11. 00 18.00 24.00 28.00 33.00 48.00 49.60 39.00 39.00 49.60 50.50 51.00 33.50 19.00 11. 00 1 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Friction Angle (deg) 27.0 35.0 Pore Pressure Piez. Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) l 100.0 100.0 o.o 2 120.0 125.0 250.0 3 115.0 120.0 200.0 4 125.0 130.0 500.0 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water• 62.40 (pcf) 33.0 36.5 Param. (psf) 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 Piezometric Surface No. l Specified by 3 Coordinate Points Pore Pressure Inclination Factor a 0.50 Point X-Water Y-Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 0.00 9.00 2 20.00 11.00 3 160.00 13.50 0.310(g) O.lSO(g) O.OOO(g) Specified Peak Ground Acceleration Coefficient (A) - Specified Horizontal Earthquake Coefficient (kh) ~ Specified Vertical Earthquake Coefficient (kv) • Specified Seismic Pore-Pressure Factor• 0.000 No. 0 0 0 1 "---·· / • .. ' ~. "' C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pscirculartsa.OUT Page 2 A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 2000 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 200 SUrface(s) Initiate(s) From Each Of 10 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X m 17.80(ft) and X • 25.80(ft) Each surface Terminates Between X • 72.00(ft) and X • 110.00(ft) Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which -1\ Surface Extends Is Y • o. 00 (ft) 7.00(ft) Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Evaluated. They Are Ordered -Most Critical First. **Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method** Total Number of Trial surfaces Evaluated a 2000 Statistical Data On All Valid FS Values: FS Max a 5.077 FS Min• 1.451 FS Ave c 2.380 Standard Deviation• 0.600 Coefficient of Variation• 25.22 t Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32.74 18.75 3 39.59 20.21 4 46.30 22.18 5 52.84 24.68 6 59.17 27.66 7 65.25 31.13 8 71.05 35.06 9 76.53 39.42 10 81.65 44.19 11 86.04 48.96 Circle Center At X ~ 17.33 y -108.13 and Radius -90.69 Factor of Safety *** 1.451 *** Individual data on the 17 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Nonn Tan Hor Ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 0.2 1.8 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 0.3 0.0 0.0 2 1.1 74.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 11.2 0.0 0.0 3 5.6 1928.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 289.3 0.0 0.0 4 0.3 153.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 23.0 0.0 0.0 5 6.6 4511. 9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 676.8 0.0 0.0 ·6 -·-2.4 1915.9 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 287.4 0.0 0.0 7 4.3 3767.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 565.1 0.0 0.0 8 4.9 4818.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 722. 7 0.0 0.0 9 1. 6 1745.8 0.0 o.o 0. 0. 261.9 0.0 0.0 10 6.3 7544.4 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 1131.7 o.o 0.0 11 6.1 8178.7 0.0 o.o 0. 0. 1226.8 0.0 0.0 12 2.9 4061.1 0.0 o.o 0. 0. 609.2 0.0 0.0 13 2.9 4163.5 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 624.5 0.0 0.0 14 1. 5 2063.1 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 309.5 0.0 0.0 15 4.0 4990.2 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 748.5 0.0 0.0 16 5.1 4098.7 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 614.8 0.0 0.0 17 4.4 1177.3 0.0 0.0 0. 0. 176.6 0.0 0.0 Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32.73 18.81 3 39.57 20.29 4 46.29 22.25 5 52.86 24.69 6 59.23 27.58 7 65.38 30.93 8 71.27 34.70 9 76.89 38.89 C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pscirculartsa.OUT 10 82.18 11 87.14 12 87.74 43.46 48.40 49.08 Circle Center At X -15.52 Y 115.21 and Radius Factor of Safety *** 1.457 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32.69 19.06 3 39.48 20.78 4 46.12 22.98 5 52.60 25.64 6 58.86 28.76 7 64. 89 32. 32 8 70.65 36.30 9 76.11 40.68 10 81.25 45.44 11 84. 44 48. 85 Circle Center At X = 11.98 Factor of Safety *** 1.467 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32.67 19.19 3 39.43 21.01 4 46.05 23.28 5 52.50 25.99 6 58.76 29.14 7 64.78 32.69 8 70.56 36.65 9 76.05 40.98 10 81.24 45.68 11 84.29 48.84 Coordinate Points y = 115. 07 and Radius - Coordinate Points Circle Center At X = 9.10 ; Y = 120.20 and Radius= Factor of Safety *** 1.479 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32.78 18.30 3 39.71 19.28 4 46.55 20.78 -------5 53.26 22.78 6 59.80 25.28 7 66.13 28.25 8 72.23 31.70 9 78.05 35.58 10 83.57 39.89 11 88.75 44.59 12 93.39 49.49 Circle Center At X = 23.06 Y = 111.68 and Radius - Factor of Safety *** 1.481 *** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Coordinate Points Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32.76 18.60 3 39.65 19.80 4 46.46 21.43 5 53.16 23.47 6 59. 71 25. 93 7 66.10 28.78 8 72.30 32.03 9 78.29 35.65 97. 92 98.22 103.72 93.89 Page 3 ( \'---/ C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pscirculartsa.OU'l' Page 4 10 84. 04 11 89.54 12 94.75 13 95. 01 Circle Center At X = Factor of Safety 39.64 43.98 48.65 48.91 16.85 *** 1.487 *** Failure Surface Specified By 13 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32.78 18.34 3 39.71 19.32 4 46.56 20.77 5 53.30 22.67 6 59.89 25.03 7 66.31 27.82 8 72.53 31.03 9 78.51 34.66 10 84.24 38.68 11 89.69 43.08 12 94.83 47.83 13 95. 01 48. 03 Circle Center At X -21.67 Factor of Safety *** 1.490 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 24.91 17.07 2 31.84 18.06 3 38.67 19.61 4 45. 34 21. 71 5 51.83 24.35 6 58.08 27.51 7 64.05 31.16 8 69.70 35.29 9 74.99 39.87 10 79.90 44.86 11 83 .15 48. 76 Circle Center At X = 16.25 Factor of Safety *** 1.502 *** Failure Surface Specified By 12 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32. 66 19. 24 3 39.44 20.98 4 46.12 23.06 5 6 52.69 59.14 7 65. 44 8 71. 59 9 77. 56 10 83.34 11 88. 92 12 92.50 25.47 28.20 31.24 34.60 38.25 42.19 46.42 49.42 y -130.38 and Radius Coordinate Points y -121. 72 and Radius= Coordinate Points y = 102.51 and Radius., Coordinate Points Circle Center At X ~ 0.98 ; Y -156.43 and Radius=- Factor of Safety *** 1.508 *** Failure Surface Specified By 11 Point X-Surf Y-Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 25.80 17.83 2 32.80 17.95 3 39.74 18.87 4 46.53 20.57 5 53.08 23.03 6 59.31 26.22 Coordinate Points 112.91 103.98 85.88 140. 80 C:\Users\Dave Russell\Desktop\Abdi Stability\B-B'\b-b' pscirculartsa.OU'r Page 5 7 65 .14 8 70. so 9 75. 30 10 79.49 11 81.44 Circle Center At X = Factor of Safety *** 1.518 *** 30.09 34.60 39.70 45.30 48.64 28.22 y 79.31 **** END OF GSTABL7 OU'rPU'r **** and Radius -61.52