HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 00-02; CALAVERA HILLS II; PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION; 2001-01-24^^oy ri JLPBEUMINARYGEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
^ 0^" ^ \CALWERAH|U^COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND-
- CANNONIOAD BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE
DISTRICT NO. 4 (B&TD), CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
FOR
CALAVERA HILLS li, UC
2727 HOOVER AVENUE
NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA 91950
W.O. 2863-A-SC JANUARY 24, 2001
cr"cx)'o2
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbaci, California 92008 • (760)438-3155 • FAX (760) 931-0915
January 24, 2001
W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II, LLC
2727 Hoover Avenue
National City, California 91950
Attention: Mr. Don Mitchell
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation. Calavera Hills II, College Boulevard and
Cannon Road Bridge and Thoroughfare District No. 4 (B&TD), City of
Carlsbad, California
Dear Sir:
In accordance with your request, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a geotechnical
evaluation ofthe Calavera Hills II B&TD, consisting ofthe future alignments of portions of
College Boulevard and Cannon Road. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the
nature of earth materials underlying the planned alignment and to determine the feasibility
of roadway construction, from a geotechnical viewpoint. Based on our findings and
analyses, preliminary recommendations for site preparation, earthwork and pavement
construction are provided for preliminary planning purposes. When site development
plans are finalized, the preliminary recommendations contained herein will need to be
reviewed by this office with respect to planned development, and if warranted, changed
or appropriately modified in writing. Dependent upon the specific nature of any revisions
to the currently proposed construction, additional field studies, laboratory testing, and
engineering and geologic analyses may be warranted.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Based on our review of the available data (Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory
testing, and geologic and engineering analysis, roadway construction appears to be
feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the
text of this report are properiy incorporated into the design and constmction of the project.
The most significant elements of this study are summarized below:
Soils unsuitable for the support of structures and/or compacted fill generally consist
of colluvial soil, near surface alluvium and near surface weathered formational earth
material (i.e., sedimentary and/or igneous earth material). Near-surface removals
within alluvial areas are anticipated to be on the order of approximately 5 to 6 feet.
Removals including colluvium and near surface weathered formational earth
material are anticipated to be on the order of 2 to 3 feet thick throughout the
majority of the site.
An evaluation of rock hardness and rippability indicates that up to medium ripping
difficulty should be anticipated within approximately 5 to 10 feet of existing grades
in areas underlain by metavolcanics/granitics. Rock requiring blasting to excavate
will likely be encountered below these depths.
Any planned cut and fill slopes are considered to be generally stable, assuming that
these slopes are maintained and/or constructed in accordance with
recommendations presented in this report. An analysis of cut and fill slope stability
is presented in this report.
l-iquefaction analyses indicate that alluvial soils are generally susceptible to
liquefaction. However, damaging deformations should be essentially mitigated by
maintaining a minimum 10- to 15-feet thick, non-liquefiable soil layer beneath any
proposed improvement. Groundwater was generally encountered at depths on the
order of 9 to 14 feet. Based on a review of the attached geotechnical map (Plate
1) and the anticipated remedial earthwori< in this area, a minimum non-liquefiable
soil layer of at least 15 feet in thickness will likely be provided.
A settlement analysis of alluvial soil to be left in place indicates that approximately
50 percent of the primary consolidation will occur within 2 to 5 months. The
expected total settlement after 50 percent consolidation is anticipated to be on the
order of 4 to 13± inches. Differential settlement on the order of 2 to 6± inches
should be anticipated.
Maximum settlement/deformation ofthe existing sewer line near the intersection of
Cannon Road and College Boulevard is anticipated to be on the order of 6 inches.
Our laboratory test results and our experience in the vicinity, Indicate that alluvial
soils are represented by an R-value of 12, terrace deposits by an R-value of 19 and
granitic bedrock by an R-value of 45. Soils onsite have a generally low expansion
potential, have a negligible sulfate exposure to concrete and are highly corrosive
(when saturated) to ferrous metals.
Based on the representative R-values determined, pavement sections will range
from 5 inches asphaltic concrete (AC) over 8 inches aggregate base (AB) within
terrain underiain by granitic/volcanic bedrock and/or subgrades derived ft'om these
materials, to 5 inches AC over 18 inches AB for subgrades derived from
alluvialAerrace soils.
Calavera Hills II, LLC - W.O. 2863-A-SC
File:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Pagg J^Q
GeoSoils, Itic.
The geotechnical design parameters provided herein should be considered during
construction by the project structural engineer and/or architect.
The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions
concerning this report or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to
contact any of the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoSoils, Inc.
Robert G. Crisman
Engineering Geologist, CEG
bhn P. Franklin
:ngineering Geologist, CEG
RGC/JPF/DWS/mo
Distribution: (4) Addressee
David W. Skelly
Civil Engineer, RCE
Calavera Hills II. LLC
File:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge
GeoSoils, Inc.
w.o. 2863-A-SC
Page Three
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE OF SERVICES
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1
FIELD EXPLORATION 3
REGIONAL GEOLOGY 3
EARTH MATERIALS 3
Colluvium (not mapped) 4
Alluvium (Map Symbol - Qal) 4
Terrace Deposits (Map Symbol - Qt) 4
Santiago Formation (not mapped) 4
Undifferentiated Igneous Bedrock (Map Symbol - Jsp/Kgr) 4
GROUNDWATER 5
REGIONAL SEISMICITY 5
MASS WASTING 8
LABORATORYTESTING 8
Classification ^ 8
i-aboratory Standard-Maximum Dry Density Q
Expansion Index Testing 8
Sieve Analysis/Atterberg Limits 9
Direct Shear Tests 9
Consolidation Testing ^ *' 9
Soluble Sulfates/pH Resistivity 9
ROCK HARDNESS EVALUATION 10
Field Exploration
Rock Hardness and Rippability ' * ^ . ^ . 10
LIQUEFACTION AND DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS 11
Liquefaction '11
Dynamic Settlements 12
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS 12
Existing Sewer Pipe 13
SUBSIDENCE 13
SLOPE STABILITYANALYSIS 13
Fill Slope Stability Analysis 13
Gross Stability 13
GeoSoils, Inc.
Surficial stability 14
Cut Slope Analysis-Fractured Rock " ^ ^14
Plane and Wedge Failure Analysis 14
SUMMARY
10
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 15
General ! 15
Earth Materials ^ " ^
Subsurface and Surface Water 1 e
Rock Hardness ..g
Slope Stability 17
Liquefaction 17
Alluvial Settlement Potential 17
Other Seismic Hazards 17
RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION I9
General 19
Site Preparation 19
Removals ^!" ^'"20
Overexcavation 20
Fill Placement and Suitability 20
Rock Disposal 20
Materials 8 Inches in Diameter or Less ' '." 21
Materials Greater Than 8 Inches and Less Than 36 Inches in Diameter" 21
Materials Greater Than 36 Inches in Diameter 22
Rock Excavation and Fill 23
Subdrains 23
Earthwork Balance 23
Shrinkage/Bulking ^ ^ ^ ^23
Erosion Control 24
Slope Considerations and Slope Design ^ ".''. 24
Graded Slopes 24
Stabilization/Buttress Fill Slopes 24
Temporary Construction Slopes 24
CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS 25
General 25
Restrained Walls 25
Cantilevered Walls 26
Wall Backfill and Drainage 26
Retaining Wall Footing Transitions 27
Top-of-Slope Walls 27
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN 28
Calavera Hills II. LLC Tabie of Contents
File:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge p^gg ^
GeoSoils, Inc.
PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS 29
General 29
Subgrade 29
Base 29
Paving 29
Drainage 30
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 30
Exterior Flatwork 30
Additional Site Improvements 31
Landscape Maintenance and Planting 31
Drainage 31
Trench Backfill 32
PLAN REVIEW 32
LIMITATIONS 33
FIGURES:
Figure 1 - Site Location Map 2
Figure 2 - California Fault Map 6
Figure 3 - Liquefaction Induced Surface Damage 18
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A - References Rear of Text
Appendix B - Boring and Test Pit Logs Rear of Text
Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results Rear of Text
Appendix D - Rock Hardness Evaluation Rear of Text
Appendix E -Liquefaction Data Rear of Text
Appendix F - Slope Stability Analysis Rear of Text
Appendix G - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines Rear of Text
Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map Rear of Text in Pocket
Plate 2 - Geologic Cross Section A-A' & B-B' Rear of Text
Plate 3 - Geologic Cross Section C-C Rear of Text
Plate 4 - Geologic Cross Section D-D' Rear of Text
Plate 5 - Geologic Cross Section E-E' Rear of Text
Calavera Hills II. LLC Table of Contents
File:e:\wp7\2800\2B63a.pge Page iii
GeoSoils, Inc.
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
CALAVERA HILLS II, COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND
CANNON ROAD BRIDGE AND THOROUGHFARE
DISTRICT NO. 4 (B&TD), CITYOFCARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our services has included the following:
1. Review of available published geologic literature, private consultants reports in the
region, and stereoscopic aerial photographs of the site and vicinity (Appendix A).
2. Geologic field reconnaissance mapping.
3. Subsurface exploration consisting of the excavation of nine small diameter hollow
stem auger borings and 11 backhoe test pits to determine the soil and geologic
profiles, obtain samples of representative materials, and delineate soil and geologic
parameters that may affect the proposed construction (Appendix B).
4. Perform laboratory testing on representative samples collected during our field
exploration program (Appendix C).
5. Completion of 11 seismic refraction profiles to determine the hardness and
rippability characteristics of granitic/metavolcanic bedrock (Appendix D).
6. Analysis of data, including seismic (see text), liquefaction (Appendix E), settlement
analysis (see text), and slope stability (Appendix F).
7. Preparation of this report with a summary of findings, conclusions, and
recommendations.
SITE DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed alignments for the subject roadways traverse rolling hills and relatively flat
alluviated valley terrain within the northeastern portion of the City of Carlsbad, California
(Figure 1). Existing terrain is generally undeveloped along the future College Boulevard
between stations 63-HOO to 1074-00. College Boulevard, Stations 107-1-00 to 118+00 and
Cannon Road, stations 124+00 to 165+00, occupy areas currently used for agricultural
purposes. A seasonal drainage is located within the alluviated areas and carries runoff
south and southwestward to Agua Henionda Vista Lagoon.
It is our understanding, from a review ofthe tentative map, prepared by O'Day Consultants,
Inc., cut and fill grading techniques will be utilized to complete the roadway alignments.
Plans Indicate that cut slopes up to approximately 50 feet in height, and fill slopes up to
approximately 30 feet in height, will be constructed at gradients on the order of 2:1
(horizontal to vertical).
GeoSoils, Inc.
Topographic base from the 7.5 min. San Luis Rey Quadrangle Map, USGS (1975)
Site Location Map
scale 1:24,000
n^TF 8/00 wo. NO. 2863-A-SC
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
Figure 1
FIELD EXPLORATION
Subsurface conditions were explored for this study in May 2000 by excavating nine
exploratory small diameter hollow stem auger borings and 11 exploratory test pits with a
backhoe. to determine the soil and geologic profiles, obtain samples of representative
materials, and delineate soil and geologic parameters that may affect the proposed
development. Boring and excavation depths ranged from 2 feet to 51 feet below the
existing ground surface. The logs of the borings and test pits are presented in Appendix
B. and the approximate locations ofthe borings are indicated on the attached Geotechnical
Map, Plate 1. Plate 1 uses the 1"=300' scale E.I.R. Exhibit, prepared by O'Day
Consultants, Inc., as a base. In addition to our subsurface exploration, field mapping of
earth material and a seismic refraction survey was performed. A discussion of seismic
reft-action field procedures is presented in a later section of this report.
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province is one of the largest geomorphic units in
western North America. It extends ft-om the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province and
the Los Angeles Basin, south to Baja California. This province varies in width from about
30 to 100 miles. It is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the south by the Gulf
of California and on the east by the Colorado Desert Province. The Peninsular Ranges are
essentially a series of northwest-southeast oriented fault blocks. In the Peninsular Ranges,
relatively younger sedimentary and volcanic units discontinuously mantle the crystalline
bedrock, alluvial deposits have filled in the lower valley areas, and young marine
sediments are currently being deposited/eroded in the coastal and beach areas.
Three major faults zones and some subordinate fault zones are found in this province. The
Elsinore fault zone and the San Jacinto fault zones trend northwest-southeast and are
found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas fault zone borders the
northeasterly margin ofthe province, whereas, a fault related to the San /^dreas Transform
Fault System, the Newport-Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone exists near the westem
margin and Continental Borderiand geomorphic province.
EARTH MATERIALS
Earth materials within the site consist predominantly of colluvium, alluvium. Pleistocene-
age terrace deposits, sedimentary bedrock belonging to the Eocene-age Santiago
Formation and undifferentiated Jurassic- to Cretaceous-age metavolcanicgranitic/
metavolcanic bedrock. Preliminary recommendations for site preparation and treatment
of the earth materials encountered are discussed in the earthwork recommendations
section of this report.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 2863-A-SC
Caiavera Hiils il, College and Cannon January 24,2001
File:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 3
GeoSoils, Inc.
Colluvium (not mapped)
Where encountered, colluvium is on the order of 2 to 3 feet thick and consists of silty to
clayey sand and sandy clay. These materials are typically dry to moist, loose to medium
dense (sands), stiff (clays) and porous. Colluvium is not considered suitable for structural
support unless these materials are removed, moisture conditioned and placed as
compacted fill.
Alluvium (Map Svmbol - Qal)
Where encountered, alluvial materials consist of sandy clay and clayey sand with minor
amounts of sand. Clayey sands are typically loose to medium dense while sandy clays are
stiff. Alluvial materials are generally damp to wet above the groundwater table then
saturated at and below the groundwater table. The uppermost 5 to 6 feet of alluvium is not
considered suitable for the support of structures and/or engineered fill and should be
removed and recompacted. Alluvial materials were encountered to the maximum depth
explored of 51 Vz feet below existing grades. The distribution of alluvial materials is shown
on Plate 1.
Terrace Deposits (Map Svmbol - Qt)
Mid- to late-Pleistocene ten-ace deposits encountered onsite consist of earth materials
which vary fi-om silty sandstone to sandy siltstone. These materials are typically yellowish
brown to brown, slightly moist to moist and medium dense. Terrace deposits are generally
considered suitable for the support of structures and engineered fill.
Bedding structure obsen/ed within these materials was generally obsen/ed to be massive
to a weakly developed subhorizontal orientation. The general relationship between ten-ace
deposits, alluvium and the underiying bedrock is shown in cross section on Plates 2
through 6.
Santiaqo Formation (not mapped)
Claystone and clayey sandstone sedimentary bedrock belonging to Eocene-age Santiago
Formation does not occur at the surface within the study area, but was encountered at
depth beneath alluvial soils within our hollow stem auger borings. These materials are
considered suitable for structural support. The relationship between the Santiago
Formation and other earth materials is shown in cross section on Plate 2 and Plate 3.
Undifferentiated laneous Bedrock (Map Svmbol - Jsp/Kgr)
Undifferentiated igneous bedrock onsite consists of metavolcanic rock belonging to the
Jurassic age Santiago Peak Volcanics and/or granitic rock belonging to the Peninsular
Ranges Batholith. Where encountered in our exploratory test pits and obsen/ed in outcrop,
Calavera Hills II. LLC ~~~ ~ W.O. 2863-A-SC
Caiavera Hiils II, College and Cannon January 24, 2001
Flle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 4
GeoSoils, Inc.
these materials consisted of dense, fractured rock mantled with an irregular weathered
zone (up to 2 Va feet thick) consisting of dry, medium dense materials breaking to silty sand
and angular gravel to cobble size rock fragments. Reftjsal depths to hard rock generally
ranged from 2 to 4 feet, using a rubber tire backhoe but were locally as deep as 10 feet.
Fractures observed within this material are typically high angle (i.e. 45 degrees or steeper)
and closely spaced on the order of 1 to 30 inches. Fracture orientations appear to vary
ft-om east-northeast to northwest to north-south.
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered in our test borings within alluvial materials at depths
ranging from 9 to 14 feet below the existing ground surface. The presence of relatively drier
bedrock materials beneath the alluvium suggest that groundwater is generally perched
within the alluvial section. Groundwater was not encountered in any of our exploratory test
pits completed throughout the remainder of the site. These observations reflect site
conditions at the time of this field evaluation and do not preclude changes in local
groundwater conditions in the future from heavy irrigation or precipitation.
REGIONAL SEISMICITY
No known active or potentially active faults are shown crossing the site on published maps
(Jennings, 1994). No evidence for active faulting was encountered in any of the
exploratory excavations performed during this evaluation.
There are a number of faults in the southern California area which are considered active
and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the
source of an earthquake. These include, but are not limited to: the San Andreas fault, the
San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank fault zone and the Rose Canyon -
Newport-Inglewood (RCNI) fault zone. The approximate location of these and other major
faults relative to the site are shown on Figure 2. The possibility of ground acceleration, or
shaking, at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California
region as a whole.
The acceleration-attenuation relatbns of Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and
Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989) have been incorporated into EQFAULT
(Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site
were detennined based on the random mean plus 1 - sigma attenuation cun/es developed
by Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Borzorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others
(1989). These acceleration-attenuation relations have been incorporated in EQFAULT, a
computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1997), which performs deterministic seismic
hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 2863-A-SC
Caiavera Hilis II, College and Cannon January 24.2001
File:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 5
GeoSoils, Inc.
SAN FRANCISCO
SITE LOCATION (+):
Latitude - 33.1535 N
Longitude - 117.2897 W
calavera Inills
CAUFORNIA FAULT
W.0.2863-A-SC
GeoSoils, Inc.
Figure 2
The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a user-specified file.
If a fault is found to be within a user-selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal
ground acceleration that may occur at the site ft-om the upper bound ("maximum credible")
and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration (g) is computed by
any of the 14 user-selected acceleration-attenuation relations that are contained in
EQFAULT. Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations ft-om an upper
bound (maximum credible) event may be on the order of 0.31 g to 0.36 g, and a maximum
probable event may be on the order of 0.17 g to 0.19 g. The following table lists the major
faults and fault zones in southern California that could have a significant effect on the site
should they experience significant activity.
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
APPROXIMATE DISTANCE
MILES (KM)
Catalina Escarpment 38 (61)
Coronado Banlt-Agua Bianca 23 (37)
Eisinore 22 (36)
La Nacion 23 (37)
Newport-lnglewood-Offshore 10(17)
Rose Canyon 7(11)
San Diego Trough-Bahia Sol 33 (53)
A probabilistic seismic hazards analysis was performed using FRISK89 (Blake, 1997) which
models earthquake sources as lines and evaluates the site specific probabilities. A range
of peak horizontal ground accelerations ft-om 0.19 to 0.28 g should be used for seismic
design. This value was considered as it con-esponds to a 10 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years (or a 475 year return period). Selection of this design event is
important as it is the level of risk assumed by the Unifomn Building Code (UBC. 1997)
minimum design requirements. This level of ground shaking corresponds to a Richter
magnitude event in the range of approximately 6.9.
Ground lurching or shallow ground rupture due to shaking could occur in the site area
ft-om an earthquake originating on other nearby faults. Such lurching could possibly cause
cracking of paved areas, with limited damage to structures. This effect is similar to other
portions of southern California.
Caiavera Hills II, LLC
Caiavera Hilis il, College and Cannon
Flie:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge
W.O. 2863-A-SC
January 24, 2001
Page 7
GeoSoils, Inc.
MASS WASTING
Field mapping did not indicate the presence of any existing significant mass wasting
features onsite. Indications of deep seated landsliding were not noted during our review
of available documents (Appendix A).
LABORATORY TESTING
Laboratory tests were performed on samples of representative site earth materials in order
to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are
presented below.
Classification
Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil
classification of onsite soils is provided in the exploration logs in Appendix B.
Laboratorv Standard-Maximum Drv Densitv
To determine the compaction characteristics of representative samples of onsite soil,
laboratory testing was performed in accordance with ASTM test method D-1557. Test
results are presented in the following table:
1 LOCATION MAXIMUM DENSITY (pcO OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (%) 1
TP-10 @ 7 120.5 13.0 1
B-2 @ 5' 128.0 10.0 1
1 B-6 @ 4' 126.0 11.0 1
Expansion Index Testinq
Expansion index testing was performed on representative soil samples of colluvium and
terrace deposits in general accordance with Standard No. 18-2 ofthe Uniform Building
Code (UBC). The test results are presented below as well as the expansion classification
according to UBC.
Calavera Hills II. LLC
Calavera Hilis II, College and Cannon
Flle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge
W.O. 2863-A-SC
January 24, 2001
Page 8
GeoSoils, Inc.
LOCATION SOIL TYPE EXPANSION
INDEX
EXPANSION
POTENTIAL
TP-1 @ 1-2" Siity SAND 1 Very iow
TP-10 @ 7-8' Sandy CLAY 102 High
B-2 @ 5" Sandy CLAY 32 Low
B-6 @ 4' Siitv SAND 19 Very Low
Sieve Analvsls/Atterberg Limits
Sample gradation for various representative samples was determined in general
accordance with ASTM test method D-422. Atterberg Limits were determined in general
accordance with ASTM test method D-4318. Test results are presented as Plates C-1
through C-5 in Appendix C.
Direct Shear Tests
Shear testing was performed on a remolded sample of site soil in general accordance with
ASTM test method D-3080. Results of shear testing are presented as Plates C-5 throuoh
C-11 in Appendix C.
Consolidation Testinq
Consolidation tests were perfomned on selected undisturbed samples. Testing was
performed in general accordance with ASTM test method D-2435 Test results are
presented as Plates 12 through 20 in Appendix C.
Soluble Sulfates/pH Resistivity
A representative sample of soil was analyzed for soluble sulfate content and potential
corrosion to ferrous metals. Based upon the soluble sulfate test results, site soils appear
to have a negligible potential for corrosion to concrete per table 19-A-4 of the Uniform
Building Code (1997 edition). The results of pH testing indicates that site soils are neutral
to slightly acidic. Resistivity test results indicate that site soils are highly corrosive to
ferrous metals when saturated. Highly corrosive soils are considered to be generallv in the
range of 1.000 to 2,000 ohms-cm.
Calavera Hills II. LLC
Calavera Hills li. College and Cannon
Rle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge
W.O. 2863-A-SC
January 24, 2001
Page 9
GeoSoils, Inc.
ROCK HARDNESS EVALUATION
Field Exploration
Our seismic refraction survey was performed during May 2000 by GSI staff. A total of 11
profiles were obtained from seismic lines of approximately 100 feet in length. An EG&G
Geometries SmartSeis SI 2. 12 channel seismograph system was used to measure the
travel time ft-om an energy source to each of 12 geophones located at specific inten/als
along a given seismic line. For this site, a 10 pound sledge hammer sft-iking a metal plate
was used as an energy source. Energy sources were located at both ends of the seismic
line, resulting in tfie production of two (2) profiles per line. Upon completion of field work,
reduction and analysis of the data was performed. It should be noted that the seismic
profiles are speciflc to the location of the seismic line and variations should be expected
at other locations. Time/distance data obtained during the sun/ey is presented in Appendix
D. Calculated seismic velocities and the corresponding depth variations are presented in
Appendix D. The approximate locations of each profile are indicated on the enclosed
Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). In addition to the profiles obtained by this office, seismic
velocity profiles were obtained in the vicinity by Southem California Soils and Testing and
are presented in their report (SCS&T. 1983) for a ftjture subdivision adjacent to College
Boulevard. The results of these profiles are presented in Appendix D. The approximate
locations of each profile are shown on Plate 1.
Rock Hardness and Rippability
Field mapping and subsurface exploration indicate the presence of undifferentiated
metavolcanic/granitic bedrock at or near the surface within the fijture alignment of College
Boulevard, near approximate station number 108+00, to the northern limit ofthe study
area, throughout the property. Based on our analysis and reduction of the seismic velocity
data obtained ft-om each of the 11 profiles, and profiles performed by others (SCS&T,
1983), the following conclusions regarding rock hardness and rippability are provided.
1) In general, little ripping to soft ripping to process and excavate earth material should
be anticipated within approximately 2 to 3 feet of existing grades.
2) In general, soft to medium ripping to process and excavate earth material should
be anticipated within approximately 5 to 10 feet of existing grades.
3) Undifferentiated metavolcanic/granitic bedrock requireing extremely hard ripping
to blasting in order to excavate will be encountered below depths on the order of
5 to 10 feet below existing grades.
However, it should be anticipated, ft-om the presence of dense outcrops throughout the
area, that isolated boulders or hard spots will be encountered at any depth during grading
and trenching. These hard zones will likely require specialized equipment such as rock
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills il. College and Cannon January 24, 2001
Flle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 10
GeoSoils, Inc.
breakers or rock saws to excavate and blasting may not be entirely precluded in areas
where it was not previously anticipated nor at any depth or location on the site.
Comparisons of seismic velocities and ripping performance, developed by Church (1982)
and the Caterpillar Tractor Company (1983) are presented in Appendix D. The
relationships presented by Church (1982) are recommended in the evaluation of ripping
performance for this project (Appendix D).
LIQUEFACTION AND DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
Liquefaction
Uquefaction describes a phenomenon in which cyclic stresses, produced by earthquake
induced ground motion, create excess pore pressures in relatively cohesionless soils.
These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral
movement sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils, and other
damagirig deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but after
liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overiying, non-saturated soil, as
excess pore water dissipates.
Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following conditions must
exist for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age and not have
developed large amount of cementation: 2) sediments must consist mainly of medium to
fine grained relatively cohesionless sands; 3) tine sediments must have low relative density;
4) free groundwater must be present in the sediment; and 5) the site must experience
seismic event of a sufficient duration and large enough magnitude, to induce straining of
soil particles. At the subject site, all ofthe conditions which are necessary for liquefaction
to occur exist.
One ofthe primary factors controlling the potential for liquefaction is depth to groundwater.
Liquefaction susceptibility generally decreases as the groundwater deptii increases for two
reasons: 1) the deeper the water table, the greater nonnal effective stress acting on
saturated sediments at any given depth and liquefaction susceptibility decreases with
increased normal effective stress; and 2) age. cementation, and relative density of
sediments generally increase witfi depth. Thus, as tfie depth to the water table increases,
and as the saturated sediments become older, more cemented, have higher relative
density, and confining normal stresses Increase, the less likely they are to liquefy during
a seismic event. Typically, liquefaction has a relatively low potential where groundwater
is greater than 30 feet deep and virtually unknown below 60 feet.
Following an analysis of the laboratory data and boring logs, representative soil profiles
were established to evaluate the potential for liquefaction to occur in the subsurface soils.
The depth to groundwater encountered in our borings was used in the analyses (i e 9 to
14 feet).
Calavera Hills II. LLC ~ W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hilis ii. College and Cannon January 24, 2001
File:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 11
GeoSoils, Inc.
The liquefaction analyses were performed using a peak site acceleration of 0 28 g for an
upper bound event of 6.9 on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. A review of the analyses
indicates that portions of the site underiain by alluvium have soil deposits that display a
factor of safety of 1.25 or less against liquefaction (note: a factor of safety of 1 25 is
recommended by Seed and Idriss. 1982). The results of our liquefaction analysis are
presented in Appendix E.
Dynamic Settiements
Ground accelerations generated ft-om a seismic event (or by some man made means) can
produce settlements in sands both above and below the groundwater table. This
phenomena is commonly referred to as dynamic settlement and is most prominent in
relatively clean sands but can also occur in other soil materials. The primary factor
controlling earthquake induced settlement in saturated sand, is the cyclic stress ratio In
dry sands earthquake induced settlements are controlled by both cyclic shear strain and
volumetric strain control. On site, the alluvial materials are loose and could generate
volumetric consolidation during a seismic event. An analysis of potential dynamic
settlements, due to the occurrence ofthe identified maximum credible seismic event on
the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, has been performed. Based on this analysis, Vz to 1 inch of
settlement could occur during a maximum credible seismic event.
SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS
GSI has estimated the potential magnitudes of total settlement, differential settlement, and
angular distortion. The analyses were based on the laboratory test results (Appendix C),
and ft-om subsurface data collected ft-om borings onsite. Site specific conditions affecting
settlement potential include depositional environment, grain size and lithology of
sediments, cementing agents, sft-ess history, moisture history, material shape, densitv void
ratio, etc.
Ground settlement should be anticipated due to primary consolidation and secondary
compression of the left-in-place alluvium. The total amount of settlement and time over
which it occurs is dependent upon various factors, including material type, depth of fill,
depth of removals, initial and final moisture content, and in-place density of subsurface
materials. Compacted fills, to the heights anticipated, are not generally prone to excessive
settlement (on the order of to 1 inch). However, some post-construction settlement of
the left-in-place alluvium is expected, with 50% consolidation occurring within
approximately 2 to 5 montiis and 90 percent consolidation occurring within approximately
4 to 18 months after grading has been completed. The estimated total settlement that
occurs after 50 percent consolidation is anticipated to be on the order of 4 to 13± inches.
Differential settlements ranging fi-om 2 to 6± inches should be anticipated. This settlement
will be monitored and revised based on actual field data. Settlement monument locations
would be best provided during 1"=40' scale plan review.
Calavera Hills II, LLC ' - W.O 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hilis II, College and Cannon January 24 2001
Rle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge p^gg .jg
GeoSoils, Inc.
Existing Sewer Pipe
An existing sewer line, located between future Cannon Road (station 117+00) and future
College Boulevard (station 163+50) is planned to remain throughout construction ofthe
overiying embankment for the subject thoroughfare. A evaluation of anticipated alluvial
settlement due to fill loading was performed. A maximum settlement of approximately 6
inches was determined in the vicinity of the thickest planned fills in the vicinity of Cannon
Road (station 163+50).
SUBSIDENCE
Subsidence is a phenomenon whereby a lowering ofthe ground surface occurs as a result
of a number of processes. These include dynamic loading during grading, fill loading, fault
activity or fault creep as well as groundwater withdrawal.
An analysis of fill loading is presented in the previous section. Ground subsidence
(consolidation) due to vibrations would depend on the equipment being used, tiie weight
of the equipment, repetition of use and the dynamic effects of the equipment. Most of
these factors cannot be determined and may be beyond ordinary estimating possibilities.
However, it is anticipated that any additional settlement from processes other that fill
loading would be relatively minor (on the order of 1 inch or less, which should occur during
grading), and should not significantly affect site development.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Fiii Siope Stabilitv Analvsis
Analyses were performed utilizing the two dimensional slope stability computer program
"XSTABL." The program calculates the factor of safety for specified circles or searches for
a circular, block, or irregular slip surface having the minimum factor of safety using the
modified Bishop Method, Janbu or general limit equilibrium (Spencer). Additional
information regarding the methodology utilized in these programs are included in
Appendix F. Computer print-outs of calculations and shear sti-ength parameters used are
provided in Appendix F. Our slope stability analysis was performed with respect to static
and seismic conditions using the pseudostatic approach.
Gross Stability
Based on the available data, the consft-aints outiined above, and our stability calculations
shown in Appendix F, a calculated factor-of-safety greater than 1.5 (static) and 1.1
(pseudo-static or seismic) has been obtained for fill slopes up to 30 feet in height. Fill
slopes up to approximately 40 feet in height and overlying alluvial soils possess a
Calavera Hills II, LLC ' W.O. 2863-A-SC
Caiavera Hilis li, College and Cannon January 24.2001
File:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 13
GeoSoils, Inc.
fn Choi t ? ? ^^^^^ °^ ^ •^' ''"^ than 1.1 for the seismic case
for short-term stabHity. Factors of safety of 1.5 (static case) and 1.1 (seismic case) are the
currently accepted minimum safety factors applied to slope stability analysis for the
construction industry and used by local goveming agencies
The short-term gross stability in the areas of borings B-3. B-4, and B-9, where soft clay
deposits occur, was detemnined to be generally stable (i.e., factor of safety ^ 1 0) but less
than the desired factor of safety of at least 1.1. These clay deposits have low shear
strength and are potentially unstable due to the excess pore pressure generated if the
construction^process (i.e., fill placement) is not performed slowly enough to allow
dissipation For preliminary purposes, fill placement should not exceed approximatelv 10
vertical feet per week. Construction within these areas should be planned acc^rZ y
o henfl/ise sand drains or wick drains may be used to accelerate the construction process
along with accelerated consolidation settlement in these areas.
Our analysis assumes that the slopes are designed and constructed in accordance with
guidelines provided by the City of Carlsbad, the Uniform Building CoSe a^d
recommendations provided by this office.
Surficial Stability
An analysis of surficial stability was performed for graded slopes constructed of compacted
fills and/or bedrock material. Our analysis, quantified in Appendix F. indicates that slopes
exhibit an adequate factor of safety (i.e.. ^ 1.5) against surficial failure, provided that the
slopes are properly constructed and maintained.
Cut Slope Analvsls-Fractured Rock
Analyses of cut slope stability in ft-actured igneous rock was performed utilizing the
computer program "ROCKPACK II." The program calculates the factor of safety plaUe and
? 1 ^^^'"3 "''"'"'"'^ °f ^^^®ty using the limiting equilibrium
method for planes of weakness, or "discontinuities" within a given rock mass. Additional
AnnZT"^ n^^'"'^'"^ methodology utilized in these programs are included in
Appendix F. Computer pnnt-outs of calculations are provided in Appendix F.
Plane And Wedge Failure Analysis
Based on the available data, there appears to be no obvious, or significant rock jointinq
orientations tfiat would facilitate a catastrophic failure of the planned cut slopes onsite
Willie p anned cut slopes are to be constructed at gradients of 2:1, some slopes are
anticipated to be locally steepened due to line of sight restrictions and/or the presence of
hard spots at the slope face. These locally steepened areas are not anticipated to be
steeper than 1.5:1 (H:V). These conclusions assume that the slopes are designed and
constructed as depicted on the current grading plans and in accordance with GSI
guidelines and recommendations.
Calavera Hills II, LLC ' ~ "
Calavera Hills li. College and Cannon Janua^^Ttm
File:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge January 24. 2001
Page 14
GeoSoils, Inc.
SUMMARY
In summary, an analysis of slope stability onsite was performed by this office in order to
provide a more complete and comprehensive evaluation of slope stability throughout the
project, and consisted of subsurface exploration, field sampling and laboratory testing,
geotechnical review, engineering analysis and the preparation ofthis report. Based on the
site work and analysis performed, it may be concluded that planned graded slopes will be
generally stable assuming proper construction and maintenance. The following
developmental considerations are provided for review and incorporation into the general
design and construction of the project.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
General
Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical engineering analysis,
it is our opinion that the subject site appears suitable for the proposed development from
a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, provided that the recommendations
presented in the following sections are incorporated into the design and construction
phases of site development. The primary geotechnical concerns witii respect to the
proposed development are:
Earth materials characteristics and depth to competent bearing material.
Subsurface water and potential for perched water.
Rock hardness.
Slope stability.
Liquefaction potential.
Settlement potential.
Regional seismicity and faulting.
The recommendations presented herein consider these as well as otiier aspects of the site.
In the event that any significant changes are made to proposed site development, the
conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid
unless the changes are reviewed and the recommendations of this report verified or
modified In writing by this office. Foundation design parameters are considered
preliminary until the foundation design, layout, and structural loads are provided to this
office for review.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills 11. College and Cannon January 24, 2001
Rle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 15
GeoSoils, Inc.
Earth Materiais
Existing fill soils and colluvium are considered unsuitable for the support of settlement-
sensitive structures in their present condition, based on current industry standards.
Recommendations for the treatment of these materials are presented in the earthwork
section of this report.
The uppermost 5 to 6 feet of alluvial materials are generally considered to be
compressible, and do not meet the current industry minimum standard of 90 percent (or
greater) relative compaction. As such, these materials are considered unsuitable for
support of structures in their present state. Alluvial materials below this upper layer may
remain in place, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are
incorporated into the design and construction of the project. Recommendations for the
treatment of alluvium are presented in the earthwork section of this report.
Subsurface and Surface Water
Subsurface and surface water are generally not anticipated to affect site development,
provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final
design and construction, and that prudent surface and subsurface drainage practices are
incorporated into the construction plans. Perched groundwater conditions along
fill/bedrock contacts and along zones of contrasting permeabilities should not be
precluded ft-om occurring in the ftjture due to site irrigation, poor drainage conditions, or
damaged utilities. Should perched groundwater conditions develop, this office could
assess the affected area(s) and provide tfie appropriate recommendations to mitigate the
observed groundwater conditions.
The groundwater conditions obsen/ed and opinions generated were tfiose atthe time of
our investigation. Conditions may change with the introduction of irrigation, rainfall, or
other factors that were not obvious at the time of our investigation.
Rock Hardness
The recommendations presented below consider these as well as other aspects of the site.
The engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation, and the
recommendations presented herein, have been completed using the information provided
and obtained during our field wori<. In the event that any significant changes are made to
proposed site development, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this
report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and the
recommendations ofthis report verified or modified in writing by this office.
Calavera Hills II, LLC ~~ " W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II. College and Cannon January 24, 2001
File:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 16
GeoSoils, Inc.
Siope Stability
ri?rnH°fi1i°';"'^^''^ investigations, laboratory testing and engineering analysis, any planned
cut and fill slopes should be stable with respect to gross and surficial stability provided that
the slopes are constructed in accordance with the minimum requirements ofthe Countv
ZZe:?:^^^^^^^ "^"^'"^ recommendation!
While any proposed slope should be relatively stable, the exposed earth materials at the
slope face are considered erosive or subject to raveling and should be protected
appropnately. Specific recommendations are presented within a later section ofthis report.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction potential within areas underlain by alluvial soil (i.e.. Cannon Road and a
portion of College Boulevard) is considered relatively high should the site experience site
accelerations with a 10 percent probability of occurrence within 50 years.
Based on our analysis of tfie liquefaction potential within alluvial areas of the site and the
relationships of Ishihara (1985) (Figure 3). it is our opinion that damaging deformations
should not adversely affect ttie proposed roadway provided that a minimum 10 to 15 foot
layer of non-liquefiable soil material is provided beneath any given structure This also
assumes tfiat the existing groundwater table does not significantly rise above its current
level. Assuming that the recommendations presented in this report are properlv
incorporated into the design and construction ofthe project, tfie potential for damage frorn
liquefaction should be sufficiently mitigated.
Alluvial Settlement Potential
Based on our analysis, the anticipated total settlement of alluvial soil to be left in place will
be on the order of 4 to 13± inches, once approximately 50 percent of the priman/
consolidation is complete (i.e., 2 to 5 months), with an estimated differential settlement of
u- s®«'®'"ent ofthe alluvial soil to be left in place will be on the order
of 2 to 5± inches, once approximately 90 percent of the primary consolidation is complete
(I.e 4 to 18 months), with an estimated differential settlement of 1 to 2V2 inches
Settlement monuments are recommended in areas underlain by alluvial soil. Monument
locations will be determined on a preliminary basis, once tfie 40-scale plans have become
avaiiaDie.
Other Seismic Hazards
The following list includes other seismic related hazards that have been considered durina
our evaluation ofthe site. The hazards listed are considered negligible and/or completely
Calavera Hills II, LLC ~ ~ ~ •—
Calavera Hills 11, College and Cannon Janu^a^ pTpnni
Flle:e:\wp7\2800\2663a.pge ''^""^^
^ Page 17
GeoSoils, Inc.
eo
ra
ra
JC
JE tn
0)
it:
<
D)
ra E ra Q a> u
•s
3
(0 •o a> o
3 •o c c o
O
o
3
s
•>
N 1
\
\
\
I
\
»
k
\
\
\
\
\ \
\
1
\
\
\
I
V
\
\
\
I % 1 \ \
I - - - 0.3g •— —(0.4-0.5)9 \
\
V - - - 0.3g •— —(0.4-0.5)9 -1
\
I
I 1 - - - 0.3g •— —(0.4-0.5)9 1
in
CO
o
CO
CM
o
CM
o >> ra
_j
o o
•g
3 (O
M CO
c
u
tf)
o
CO
U)
CM o
CM
tfJ
(U) '(^H) sjaAei ajqeusnbn ^o ssau)|oim
W.0.2863-A-SC GeoSoils, Inc. Figure 3
mitigated as a result of site location, soil characteristics, typical site development
procedures, and recommendations for mitigation provided herein:
Surface Fault Rupture
Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture
Tsunami
It is important to keep in perspective that in the event of a maximum probable or credible
earthquake occurring on any of the nearby major faults, strong ground shaking would
occur in the subject site's general area. Potential damage to any structure(s) would likely
be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of a structure's
mass, than ft-om those induced by the hazards considered above. This potential would be
no greater than that for other existing structures and improvements in the immediate
vicinity.
RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION
General
All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix Chapter A33 of the
Uniform Building Code, the requirements of the City of Carisbad. and the Grading
Guidelines presented in this report as Appendix G, except where specifically superseded
in the text of this report. Prior to grading, a GSI representative should be present at the
preconstruction meeting to provide additional grading guidelines, if needed, and review
the earthwork schedule.
During earthwork construction all site preparation and the general grading procedures of
the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of
GSI. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in tiie field, they should be reviewed
by tills office and If wananted. modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered.
All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety
orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Constmction Safety Act should
be met.
Site Preparation
Debris, vegetation and other deleterious material should be removed from the
improvement(s) area prior to the start of construction.
Following removals, areas approved to receive additional fill should first be scarified and
moisture conditioned (at or above the soils optimum moisture content) to a depth of 12
inches and compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction.
Calavera Hiils II, LLC W.O. 2863-A-SC
Caiavera Hiils li, College and Cannon January 24, 2001
Flle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 19
GeoSoils, Inc.
Removals
Removal depths on the order of 2 to 3 feet may be anticipated within areas underiain with
terrace deposits (map symbol Qt) and igneous bedrock (map symbol Jsp/Kgr) Deeper
removal areas may occur locally and should be anticipated. Removal depths within areas
underlain by alluvial soil (map symbol Qal) are anticipated to be on the order of 5 to 6 feet
below existing grades.
Alluvial areas appear to be relatively saturated in the vicinity of ftjture Cannon Road Sta
163+00 to 165+00 and College Blvd. Sta. 115+00 to 118+00 due to the presence of an
intermittent stream and in the vicinity of Cannon Road, Sta. 125+00 to 128+00 due to
heavy imgation and a relatively shallow groundwater table. The stabilization of removal
bottoms in these areas may be necessary prior to fill placement. At this time, stabilization
methods consisting of rock blankets (12 to 18 inches of 1 Vz inch crushed rock) with
geotextile fabric (Mirafi 500x or equivalent) may being considered and subsequentiy
recommended, based on conditions exposed during grading.
Overexcavation
In order to facilitate the constmction of future utilities within College Boulevard in areas
underiain by hard rock, cut areas may be overexcavated to at least 1 foot below the lowest
utl Ity invert elevation. This may be achieved by either excavating the entire right of way
°™ J°°ting along a particular utility alignment. This is not a geotechnical requirement,
Fill Placement and Suitability
Subsequent to ground preparation, onsite soils may be placed in thin (6 to 8± inch) lifts
cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to a least optimum moisture content and
compacted to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboraton/
standard ASTM Test Method D-1557-91.
ff soil importation is planned, samples oftfie soil import should be evaluated by this office
pnor to importing in order to assure compatibility with the onsite site soils and the
recommendations presented in this report. Import soils should be relatively sandy and
low expansive (i.e., expansion index less than 50).
Rock Disposal
During the course of grading, materials generated are anticipated to be of varying
dimensions. For the purpose of this report, the materials may be described as either 8
inches or less, greater than 8 and less than 36 inches, and greater than 36 inches. These
three categories set the basic dimensions for where and how the materials are to be
placed. Tentatively, disposal areas for oversized materials (i.e.. 12 inches or greater)
Calavera Hilis II, LLC ~ — w o PRR'^ A
caiavera Hilis ii. College and Cannon J^nS^a^ 24."2^^^^
File:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 20
GeoSoils, Inc.
appear to be limited to fill areas within the planned alignment for College Boulevard and
cannon Road, located within existing alluviated areas ofthe project.
Materials 8 Inches in Diameter or Less
M!!I?i'°?^ fr^9";;ents along with granular materials are a major part of the native materials
used in the grading of the site, a criteria is needed to facilitate the placement of these
materials within guidelines which would be workable during the rough gradinq post-
grading improvements, and sen/e as acceptable compacted fill.
1. Fines and rock ft-agments 8 inches or less in one dimension may be placed as
compacted fill cap materials within the building pads, slopes, and street areas as
descnbed below. The rock fragments and fines should be brought to at least
optimum moisttjre content and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90
percent of the laboratory standard.
The purpose for the 8-inch-diameter limits is to allow reasonable sized rock
fi-agments into the fill under selected conditions (optimum moisture or above)
surrounded with compacted fines. The 8-inch-diameter size also allows a greater
volume of the rock fragments to be handled during grading, while staying in
reasonable limits for later onsite excavation equipment (i.e.. backhoes) to excavate
footings and utility lines.
2. Fill materials 8 inches or less in one dimension should be placed (but not limited to)
within the upper 5 feet of proposed fill pads, the upper 3 feet of overexcavated cut
areas on cut/fill transition pads, and the entire street right-of-way width
Overexcavation is discussed later in this report.
Materials Greater Than 8 Inches and Less Than 36 Inches in Diameter
1. During the process of excavation, rock fragments or constituents larger than 8
inches in one dimension will be generated. These oversized materials, greater tfian
8 and less than 36 inches in one dimension, may be incorporated into the fills
utilizing a series of rock blankets.
2. ^ach rock blanket should consist of rock fragments of approximately greater than
8 and less than 36 inches in one dimension along with sufficient fines generated
from the proposed cuts and overburden materials generated ft-om removal areas
The blankets should be limited to 24 to 36 Inches in tfiickness and should be placed
with granular fines which are flooded into and around the rock fragments effectively
to fill all voids. ''
Calavera Hills li, LLC WO 2863 A
Caiavera Hilis II, College and Cannon Januai 24loo?
File:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge January 24, 2001 Page 21
GeoSoils, Inc.
4.
5.
Rock blankets should be restricted to areas which are at least 1 foot below the
lowest utility invert within the street right-of-way, 5 feet below finish grade on the
proposed ftll lots, and a minimum of 15 horizontal feet ft-om any fill slope surface.
Compaction may be achieved by utilizing wheel rolling methods with scrapers and
water tmcks, track-walking by bulldozers, and sheepsfoot tampers. Equipment
traffic should be routed over each lift. Given tfie rocky nature of this material sand
cone and nuclear densometer testing methods are often found to be ineffective
Where such testing methods are infeasible. the most effective means to evaluate
compaction efforts by the contractor would be to excavate test pits at random
locations to check those factors pertinent to performance of rock fills- moisture
content, gradation of rock fragments and matrix material and presence of anv
apparent void spaces. ^
Each rock blanket should be completed with its surface compacted prior to
placement of any subsequent rock blanket or rock windrow.
Materials Greater Than 36 Inches In Diameter
1. Oversize rock greater than 36 inches in one dimension should be placed in single
rock windrows. The windrows should be at least 15 feet or an equipment width
apart, whichever is greatest.
2. The void spaces between rocks in windrows should be filled with the more granular
soils by flooding them into place.
3. A minimum vertical distance of 3 feet between soil fill and rock windrow should be
maintained. Also, the windrows should be staggered fi-om lift to lift. Rock windrows
should not be placed closer than 15 feet ft-om the face of fill slopes.
4. Urger rocks too difficult to be placed into windrows may be individually placed into
a dozer trench. Each ti-ench should be excavated into the compacted fill or dense
natural ground a minimum of 1 foot deeper than the size of the rock to be buried
After the rocks are placed in the trench (not immediately adjacent to each other)
granular fill material should be flooded into the trench to fill the voids.
The oversize rock trenches should be no closer togetfier than 15 feet at a particular
elevation and at least 15 feet ft-om any slope face. Trenches at higher elevations
should be staggered and there should be 4 feet of compacted fill between the top
of one trench and the bottom of the next higher trench. Placement of rock into
these trenches should be under the full-time inspection of the soils engineer.
5. Consideration should be given to using oversize materials in open space "green
belt" areas that would be designated as non-structural fills.
Calavera Hills li, LLC ~ ' — WO 2863 A c;r
Calavera Hilis II, College and Cannon Januai 24 2001
Rle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge '^^""^'^ 2°°^
Page 22
GeoSoils, Inc.
Rock Excavation and Fili
1. If blasting becomes necessary, care should be taken in proximity to proposed cut
slopes and structural pad areas. Over-blasting of hard rock would result in
weakened rock conditions which could require remedial grading to stabilize the
building pads and affected cut slopes.
2. Decreasing shot-hole spacings can result in better quality fill materials which may
othenwise require specialized burial techniques. \i blasting is utilized it is
recommended that generally minus 2-foot sized materials is produced and that
sufficient fines (sands and gravel) to fill all void spaces are present. This procedure
would facilitate fill placement and decrease the need to drill and shoot large rocks
produced.
Subdrains
Based on a review of Plate 1, subdrains are not anticipated at this time. A subsequent
review of 40-scale plans (when available) should be performed to detennine the need for
subdrainage. If encountered, local seepage along the contact between the bedrock and
overburden materials, or along jointing patterns of the bedrock may require a subdrain
system. In addition, the placement of rock blankets and windrows should also consider
having a subdrain system to mitigate any perched water firom collecting, and to outlet the
water into a designed system, or other approved area.
Earthwork Balance
Shrinkage/Bulking
The volume change of excavated materials upon compaction as engineered fill is
anticipated to vary with material type and location. The overall earthwork shrinkage and
bulking may be approximated by using the following parameters:
Artificial Fill 5% to 10% shrinkage
Colluvium 3% to 8% shrinkage
Alluvium 5% to 10% shrinkage
Terrace Deposits 2% to 3% shrinkage or bulk
Rock (excavated) 5% to 10% Bulk
Rock (Shot) 15% to 20% Bulk
It should be noted that the above factors are estimates only, based on preliminary data.
Final earthwork balance factors could vary. In this regard, it is recommended that balance
areas be resen/ed where grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of
grading in order to accommodate any yardage imbalance for the project.
Calavera Hilis il, LLC W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II, College and Cannon January 24, 2001
Rle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 23
GeoSoils, Inc.
Erosion Control
Onsite soils are considered very erosive. Use of hay bales, silt fences, and/or sand/gravel
bags should be considered, as appropriate. Temporary grades should be constructed to
drain at 1 to 2 percent to a suitable temporary or permanent outlet. Evaluation of cuts
dunng grading will be necessary in order to identify any areas of loose or non-cohesive
matenals. Should any significant zones be encountered during earthwork construction
remedial grading may be recommended; however no remedial measures are anticipated
at this time. ^
Slope Considerations and Siope Design
Graded Slopes
All slopes should be designed and constructed in accordance with the minimum
requirements of City of Carisbad/County of San Diego, the Uniform Building Code (current
edition), and tfie recommendations in Appendix G. Our slope stability evaluation indicates
that there is a potential for temporary instability of fill slopes constructed over the native
alluvial soil. Should the fill slopes be constmcted too quickly, the bearing alluvial soils
(clay, undrained condition) could become unstable as these materials consolidate in
response to fill loading. Care should be taken to allow the underiying alluvium sufficient
time to adequately consolidate with respect to increases in the overiying fill thickness
dunng grading. Removal bottoms are observed during grading and additional enalneerina
analyses performed at that time.
Stabilization/Buttress Fill Slopes
Our slope stability analysis indicates that the construction of stabilization and/or buttress
slopes may be necessary. Such remedial slope constmction will be recommended based
upon conditions exposed in the field during grading.
Temporary Construction Slopes
Temporary construction slopes may be constructed at a minimum slope ratio of Vl
(honzontal to vertical) or flatter within alluvial soils and terrace deposits and VzH or flatter
for temporary slopes exposing metavolcanic/granitic bedrock. Excavations for removals
drainage devices, debris basins, and other localized conditions should be evaluated on ari
individual basis by the soils engineer and engineering geologist for variance fi-om this
recommendation. Due to the nature ofthe materials anticipated, the engineering geologist
should obsen/e all excavations and fill conditions. The geotechnical engineer should be
notified of all proposed temporary construction cuts, and upon review, appropriate
recommendations should be presented.
Calavera Hills li LLC — " W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hiils II, College and Cannon Januarv 24 2001
Rle:e:\wp7\2B00\2863a.pge p^g^ ^4.
GeoSoils, Inc.
CONVENTIONAL RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
General
The following parameters are provided for conventional retaining walls only. Design
parameters for special walls (i.e., crib, geogrid, Loffelstein, etc.) will be provided based on
site specific conditions. The equivalent fluid pressure parameters provide for the use of
low expansive select granular backfill to be utilized behind the proposed walls. The low
expansive granular backfill, should be provided behind the wall at a 1:1 (h:v) projection
from the heel of tiie foundation system. Low expansive fill is Class 3 aggregate baserock
or Class 2 permeable rock. Wall backfilling should be performed with relatively light
equipment witiiin the same 1:1 projection (i.e., hand tampers, walk behind compactors).
Highly expansive soils should not be used to backfill any proposed walls. During
constmction. materials should not be stockpiled behind nor in fi-ont of walls for a distance
of 2H where H is the height of the wall.
Foundation systems for any proposed retaining walls should be designed in accordance
with the recommendations presented in the Foundation Design section of this report.
There should be no increase in bearing for footing width. Building walls, below grade,
should be water-proofed or damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture
protection desired. All walls should be properly designed in accordance with the
recommendations presented below and seismically resistant per the UBC (1997).
Some movement of the walls constructed should be anticipated as soil strength
parameters are mobilized. This movement could cause some cracking depending upon
the materials used to construct the wall. To reduce the potential for wall cracking, walls
should be internally grouted and reinforced with steel. To mitigate this effect, the use of
vertical crack control joints and expansion joints, spaced at 20 feet or less along the walls
should be employed.
Vertical expansion control joints should be infilled with a flexible grout. Wall footings
should be keyed or doweled across vertical expansion joints. Walls should be internally
grouted and reinforced with steel.
Restrained Walls
Any retaining walls that will be restrained prior to placing and compacting backfill material
or that have re-entrant or male corners, should be designed for an at-rest equivalent fluid
pressures (EFP) of 65 pcf, plus any applicable surcharge loading. This restrained-wall,
earth pressure value is for select backfill material only. For areas of male or re-entrant
comers, tfie restrained wall design should extend a minimum distance of twice the height
of the wall laterally from the corner.
Calavera Hilis II, LLC W.O. 2863-A-SC
Caiavera Hills II, College and Cannon January 24, 2001
Flle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 25
GeoSoils, Inc.
Building walls below grade or greater than 2 feet in height should be water-proofed or
damp-proofed, depending on the degree of moisture protection desired. The wall should
be drained as indicated in the following section. A seismic increment of 10H (uniform
pressure) should be considered on walls for level backfill, and 20H for sloping backfill of
2:1, where H is defined as the height of retained material behind the wall. For structural
footing loads within the 1:1 zone of influence behind wall backfill, refer to the followina
section. ^
Cantilevered Walls
These recommendations are for cantilevered retaining walls up to 15 feet high. Active
earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, provided the top of the wall is not
restrained fi-om minor deflections. An empirical equivalent fluid pressure approach may
be used to compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights
are provided for specific slope gradients ofthe retained material. These do not include
other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, stmctures. seismic events,
expansive soils, or adverse geologic conditions.
SURFACE SLOPE OF RETAINED
MATERIAL (horizontai to vertlcai)
EQUIVALENT FLUID WEIGHT FOR SELECT
(Very Low to Low Expansive) SOIL*
Level**
2 to 1
42
60
*To be increased by traffic, structural surcharge and seismic loading as needed.
**Level wails are those where grades behind the wail are level for a distance of 2H
Wall Backfill and Drainage
All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrain and outlet system
(a minimum two outiets per wall and no greater tiian 100 feet apart), to prevent buildup of
hydrostatic pressures and be designed in accordance witii minimum standards presented
herein. The very low expansive granular backfill should be provided behind the wall at a
1:1 (h:v) projection fi-om the heel ofthe foundation element. Drain pipe should consist of
4-inch diameter perforated schedule 40 PVC pipe embedded in gravel. Gravel used in the
backdrain systems should be a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of %- to 1 -inch clean
cmshed rock wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) and 12 inches thick behind
the wall. Where the void to be fitted is constrained by lot lines or property boundaries, the
use of panel drains (Miradrain 5000 or equivalent) may be considered with the approval
of the project geotechnical engineer. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by
pavement or the top 18 inches compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with native
soil. Proper surface drainage should also be provided. Weeping ofthe walls in lieu of a
backdrain is not recommended for walls greater than 2 feet in height. For walls 2 feet or
Calavera Hilis II, LLC
Calavera Hills II. College and Cannon
Flle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge
W.O. 2863-A-SC
January 24, 2001
Page 26
GeoSoils, Inc.
less in height, weepholes should be no greaterthan 6 feet on center in the bottom coarse
of block and above the landscape zone. For level or sloping backfill, adequate grades
should be provided that minimize the potential for the infiltration of surface water into soils
behind the backs of the walls.
Retaining Wall Footinq Transitions
Site walls are anticipated to be founded on footings designed in accordance with the
recommendations in this report. Wall footings may transition from formational bedrock to
select fill. If this condition is present the civil designer may specify either:
a) If ti-ansitions fi-om native soil to fill ti-ansect the wall footing alignment at an angle of
less than 45 degrees (plan view), then the designer should perform a minimum 2-
foot overexcavation for a distance of two times the height of the wall and increase
overexcavation until such transition is between 45 and 90 degrees to the wall
alignment.
b) Increase of the amount of reinforcing steel and wall detailing (i.e., expansion joints
or crack control joints) such that an angular distortion of 1/360 for a distance of 2H
(where H=wall height in feet) on either side of the transition may be
accommodated. Expansion joints should be sealed with a flexible, non-shrink
grout.
c) Embed the footings entirely into a homogeneous fill.
Top-of-Slope Walls
The geotechnical parameters previously provided may be utilized for top-of-slope sound
walls, if planned, which are founded in either competent bedrock or compacted fill
materials.
The strength ofthe concrete and grout should be evaluated by the stmctural engineer of
record. The proper ASTM tests forthe concrete and mortar should be provided along with
the slump quantities. Additional design recommendations by the corrosion specialist
should be followed.
The placing of joints (expansion and crack control) should be incorporated into the wall
layout. These expansion joints should be placed no greater than 20 feet on-center and
should be reviewed by tiie civil engineer and structural engineer of record. GSI anticipates
distortions on the order of Vz to 1 ± inch in 50 feet for tfiese walls located at the tops of low
to medium expansive fill/cut slopes. To reduce tfiis potential, the footings may be
deepened and/or the use of piers may be employed.
Calavera Hilis II, LLC W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hiils 11. College and Cannon January 24, 2001
File:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 27
GeoSoils, Inc.
PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN
Pavement sections presented are based on the R-value data (to be verified by specific R
value testing at completion of grading) firom a representative sample taken from the project
area, the anticipated design classification, and the minimum requirements of the City of
Carlsbad. For planning purposes, pavement sections consisting of asphaltic concrete over
base are provided. Anticipated asphaltic concrete (AC) pavement sections are presented
on the following table.
ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT
TRAFFIC AREA TRAFFIC
INDEX**"
(Tl, Assumed)
SUBGRADE
"R'-VALUE
(Subgrade
parent
material)^
A.C.
THICKNESS
(inches)
CLASS 2
AGGREGATE
BASE
THICKNESS*"
(inches)
College/Cannon 8.5 12 (alluvium) 5.0 18.0
College/Cannon 8.5 19 (Terrace
Deposits)
5.0 16.0
College/Cannon 8.5 45-f-
(Metavolcanics/
granitics)
5.0 8.0
'^'Denotes standard Caltrans Ciass 2 aggregate base R _> 78, SE _> 22).
'^Ti values have been assumed for planning purposes herein and should be confirmed by the design
team during future pian deveiopment.
The recommended pavement sections provided above are meant as minimums. If thinner
or highly variable pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair
could be expected. If the ADT (average daily traffic) beyond that intended, as reflected by
the traffic index used for design, increased maintenance and repair could be required for
the pavement section.
Subgrade preparation and aggregate base preparation should be performed in
accordance with the recommendations presented below, and the minimum subgrade
(upper 12 inches) and Class 2 aggregate base compaction should be 95 percent of the
maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557). If adverse conditions (i.e., saturated ground, etc.)
are encountered during preparation of subgrade, special constiuction methods may need
to be employed.
These recommendations should be considered preliminary. Further R-value testing and
pavement design analysis should be performed upon completion of grading for the site.
Calavera Hills 11, LLC
Caiavera Hiils II, College and Cannon
Rle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge
W.O. 2863-A-SC
January 24, 2001
Page 28
GeoSoils, Inc.
PAVEMENT GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
General
All section changes should be properly transitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered
during the preparation of subgrade materials, special constmction methods may need to
be employed.
Subgrade
Within street areas, all surficial deposits of loose soil material should be removed and
recompacted as recommended. After the loose soils are removed, the bottom is to be
scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned as necessary and compacted to 95
percent of maximum laboratory density, as determined by ASTM test method D-1557.
Deleterious material, excessively wet or dry pockets, concentrated zones of oversized rock
ft-agments, and any other unsuitable materials encountered during grading should be
removed.
The compacted fill material should then be brought to the elevation of the proposed
subgrade for the pavement. The subgrade should be proof-rolled in order to ensure a
uniformly firm and unyielding surface.
All grading and fill placement should be obsen/ed by the project soil engineer and/or his
representative.
Base
Compaction tests are required for the recommended base section. Minimum relative
compaction required will be 95 percent ofthe maximum laboratory density as determined
by ASTM test method D-1557. Base aggregate should be in accordance to the "Standard
Specifications for Public Works Constmction" (green book) current edition.
Paving
Prime coat may be omitted if all of the following conditions are met:
1, The asphalt pavement layer Is placed within two weeks of completion of base
and/or subbase course.
2. Traffic is not routed over completed base before paving.
3. Construction is completed during the dry season of May through October.
Calavera Hills II, LLC W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hiils II, College and Cannon January 24, 2001
File:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 29
GeoSoils, Inc.
4. The base is free of dirt and debris.
If constmction is performed during the wet season of November through April prime coat
may be omitted if no rain occurs between completion of base course and paving and the
time between completion of base and paving is reduced to three days, provided thebase
IS free of dirt and debris. Where prime coat has been omitted and rain occurs traffic is
routed over base course, or paving is delayed, measures shall be teken to restore base
course, subbase course, and subgrade to conditions that will meet specifications as
directed by the soil engineer.
Drainage
Positive drainage should be provided for all surface water to drain towards tiie area swale
curb and gutter, or to an approved drainage channel. Positive site drainage should be
maintained at all times. Water should not be allowed to pond or seep into the ground If
planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas, measures should be taken to
minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section.
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS/DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Exterior Flatwork
Non-vehicular pavements (i.e., utility pads, sidewalks, etc.) using concrete slab on grade
construction, should be designed and constructed in accordance with the followina
cnteria. ^
1. Slabs should be a minimum 4 inches in thickness.
2. Slab subgrade should be compacted to a minimum 90 percent relative compaction
and moisture conditioned to at or above the soils optimum moisture content.
3. The use of transverse and longitudinal control joints should be considered to help
control slab cracking due to concrete shrinkage or expansion. Two of the best
ways to control this movement are; 1) add a sufficient amount of reinforcing steel
increasing tensile strength of the slab, and/or 2) provide an adequate amount of
control and/or expansion joints to accommodate anticipated concrete shrinkage
and expansion. We would suggest that the maximum control joint spacing be
placed on 5- to 8-foot centers or the smallest dimension of the slab, whichever is
least.
4. No traffic should be allowed upon the newly poured concrete slabs until they have
been properly cured to within 75 percent of design strength.
Calavera Hills ii, LLC — WO 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II. College and Cannon Janua^ 24 2001
Rle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge ' p^g^
GeoSoils, Inc.
5. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Adjacent landscaping
should be graded to drain into the street, or other approved area. All surface water
should be appropriately directed to areas designed for site drainage.
6. In areas directiy adjacent to a continuous source of moisture (i.e. irrigation
planters, etc.), all joints should be sealed with flexible mastic.
Additional Site Improvements
If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations
concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said
improvements could be provided upon request. This includes but is not limited to
appurtenant stmctures (i.e., utility support pads). This office should be notified in advance
of any additional fill placement, regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough
grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench and retainina wall
backfills.
Landscape Maintenance and Piantinq
VVater has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil, and slope stability is
significantiy reduced by overiy wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away ft-om graded
slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant
life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided. Onsite soil
materials should be maintained in a solid to semisolid state.
Bmshed native and graded slopes (constmcted wrthin and utilizing onsite materials) would
be potentially erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability
enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover soon after
construction. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types
which require little water and are capable of sun/ivIng the prevailing climate. \t order to
minimize erosion on the slope face, an erosion control fabric (or other suitable method)
should be considered.
From a geotechnical standpoint, leaching is not recommended for establishing
landscaping. If the surface soils area processed for the purpose of adding amendments
they should be recompacted to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Moisture
sensors, embedded into fill slopes, should be considered to reduce the potential of
ovenvatering from automatic landscape watering systems.
Drainaqe
Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow
uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away ft-om
foundations and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should
Calavera Hills II LLC - W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II. College and Cannon January 24 2001
Rle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge p^gg g.|
GeoSoils, Inc.
be directed toward the street or other approved area. Landscaping should be graded to
drain into the street, or other approved area. All surface water should be appropriately
directed to areas designed for site drainage. Drainage behind top of walls should be
accomplished along the length of the wall wrth a paved channel drainage v-ditch or
substrtute.
Trench Backfill
All excavations should be obsen/ed by one of our representatives and conform to
CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. Exterior trenches should not be excavated below a 1:1
(horizontal to vertical) projection from the bottom of any adjacent foundation system. If
excavated, these trenches would undermine support for the foundation system potentially
creating adverse conditions.
1. All utility trench backfill in slopes, structural areas and beneath hardscape features
should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain
a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard.
Obsen/ations. probing and, rt deemed necessary, testing should be performed by
a representative of this oflice to verify compactive efforts of the contractor.
2. Soils generated from utility ti-ench excavations should be compacted to a minimum
of 90 percent (ASTM D-1557) if not removed fi-om the site.
3. Jetting of backfill is not recommended.
4. The use of pipe jacking to place utilities is not recommended on tills site.
5. Bottoms of utility trenches should be sloped away from structures.
PLAN REVIEW
Final site development and foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review
and comment, as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any
misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In
addrtion. foundation excavations and any additional earthwori< constmction performed on
the srte should be obsen/ed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ
substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that
time.
Caiavera Hiils II, LLC W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hiils II, College and Cannon January 24, 2001
Rle:e:\wp7\2800\2B63a.pge Page 32
GeoSoils, Inc.
LIMITATIONS
The matenals encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are
believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character
between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during site grading and
construction. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors.
Inasmuch as our study is based upon the site materials obsen/ed, selective laboratory
testing, and engineering analysis, the conclusion and recommendations are professional
opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance wrth current standards of
practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to
change with time. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or
recommendations performed or provided by others.
Calavera Hills II, LLC ~ W O 2863-A SC
Calavera Hills II. College and Cannon January 24 2001
Rle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Page 33
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
APPENDIXA
REFERENCES
Blake. TF., 1997, EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, and FRISK 89. computer programs.
Campbell. K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y.. 1994, Near-source attenuation of peak horizontei
acceleration from worldwide accelrograms recorded from 1957 to 1993-
Proceedings. Fifth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering volume
III. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, pp 292-293.
Frankel. Arthur D.. Perkins, David M., and Mueller, Charies S.. 1996. Preliminary and
working versions of draft 1997 seismic shaking maps for the United States showinq
peak ground acceleration (PGA) and spectral acceleration response at 0 3 and 1 0-
second site periods for the Design Basis Earthquake (10 percent chance of
fM^tf^^":!^ ^^^'^^ f^atlonal Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP): U.S. Geological Sun/ey. Denver. Colorado.
GeoSoils. Inc., 1998a. Addendum to feasibility of 1:1 cut slope in lieu of approved crib wall
station n. 29+00 to 31+50, College Boulevard. Calavera Hills. City of Carlsbad'
California, w.o. 2393-B-SC. dated May 4.
, 1998b, Feasibility of 1:1 Cut Slope in lieu of Approved Cribwall. Station No 29+00
to 31 +50. College Boulevard. Calavera Hills, City of Carlsbad. Califomfa. w o 2393-
B-SC, dated April 10.
. 1998c, Preliminary review of slope stability, Calavera Hills, Villages "Q" and'T" Citv
of Carisbad. California, w.o. 2393-B-SC, dated February 16. '
Greensfelder. R. W., 1974. Maximum credible rock acceleration from earthquakes in
California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23.
Hart. E^W.. and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault-mpture hazard zones in Califomia: Califomfa
Department of Consen/ation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42.
Intemational Conference of Building Officials, 1997, Uniform building code- Whittier
California.
Ishihara K., 1985, Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes: Proceedings ofthe
Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineerinq-
A.A. Balkena Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Jennings. C.W.. 1994, Faurt activity map of Califomfa and adjacent areas: Califomia
Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet No. 6, scale 1:750,000.
GeoSoils, Inc.
Lindvall, S.C. Rockwell, T.K.. and Undivall, E.C, 1989, The seismic hazard of San Dieqo
revised: new evidence for magnitude 6+ Holocene earthquakes on the Rose
Canyon faurt zone, in Roquemore. G.. ed.. Proceedings, workshop on "the seismic
nsk in the San Diego region: special focus on the Rose Canyon faurt system.
Petersen. Mark D Bryant, W.A., and Cramer, C.H.. 1996, Interim table of faurt parameters
used by the Califomfa Division of Mines and Geology to compile the probabilistic
seismic hazard maps of California.
Sadigh, K. Egan, J.. and Youngs, R.. 1987. Predictive ground motion equations reported
in Joyner. W.B., and Boore. D.M.. 1988. "Measurement, characterization and
prediction of strong ground motion", in Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics
n. Recent Advances in Ground Motion Evaluation. Von Thun. J.L ed • American
Society of Civil Engineers Geotechnical Special Publication No. 20. pp. 43-102.
Soutfiern CaHfomfa Soil and Testing. Inc., 1988. Supplemental soil investigation, Calavera
Hills Villages Q and T, College Boulevard, Carisbad, Califomia, job no 8821142
report no. 1. dated October 6. . J • .. t^,
' of Geotechnical investigation for Village Q. Calavera Hills subdivision
Carisbad. California, job no. 14112. report no. 4. dated January 10.
.1983a. Supplementary geotechnical investigation. Calavera Hills subdivision
Cartsbad, California, job no. 14112. report no. 2. dated July 29.
, 1983b, Report of preliminary geotechnical investigation for the Calavera Hills areas
El. E2. H. I, K and P through Z2, Carisbad, Califomia, job no. 14112 report' no 1 dated January 6. ' r- . ,
Sowers and Sowers. 1970, Unified soil classification system (After U S Watenways
Expenment Station and ASTM 02487-667) in Introductory Soil Mechanics, New
Tan. S.S.. and Kennedy. M.P., 1996. Geologic maps of the northwestem part of San Diego
County. California, plate 2, geologic map oftfie Encinitas and Rancho Santa Fe 7 5'
quadrangles, San Diego County. Califomia, scale 1:24,000, DMG Open-File Report
90*02.
Treiman, J.A.. 1984. The Rose Canyon faurt zone, a review and analysis, published by the
Califomia Department of Consen/ation, Division of Mines and Geology coooerative
agreement EMF-83-k-0148.
, 1993, The Rose Canyon fault zone southem Califomia, published by the Califomia
Department of Consen/ation, Division of Mines and Geology. DMG Open-File Report
Calavera Hills II, LLC ~ " r rr-r
Rle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge Appendix A
Page 2
GeoSoils, Inc.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1953) Black and white aerial photograohs AXN-8M-76andAXN-8M-77. a H , MAIN
Weber, F.H., 1982, Geologic map of north-central coastal area of San Diego County
California showing recent slope failures and pre-development landslides: California
Department of Consen/ation. Division of Mines and Geology. OFR 82-12 LA.
Wilson, K.L, 1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and
Encinrtas quadrangles, San Diego County, California: unpublished masters thesis
University of California, Riverside..
Caiavera Hilis II. LLC ' Appendix A
Rle:e:\wp7\2800\2863a.pge p^gg g
GeoSoils, Inc.
APPENDIXB
BORING AND TEST PIT LOGS
s
S) = o e Z f -
1]
U 2
e
S
5^2
J s g i
S
* J-s
M S -»
S § 5
I 8 a
•« a.
^ It
cw
GP
Well-gndeii gnveii ind pmvel-
sand mixtures, littie or ne finet
Poorly gnded gnvels and
gravel-sand mixtures, little or no
fines
S-S
u e
u JS
-1-5 S
CM
GC
Silty gravels, gnvel-iaad-silt
mixtiires
Clayey graveli, gjavei-sand.cky
mixtiures
SW
SP
SM
sc
Well-graded sands aad gnvelly
sands. little or ao fines
Poorty graded sands and gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Silty sands, saad-sik mixtures
Clayey lands, sand-day mixtures
Siandard Penetration Te^t
Pensiration
Resisunc: N
(biows/fl)
R-elaiivc
Density
0-4
4-10
10-30
30-50
>50
Ver}' loose
LOOSE
Medium
Dense
Very dense
tn o
e 8
Jl
i§
o
s
ML
Inorganic silts, very fine sands,
rock fiour, silty or clayey fine
sands
U J Ji
'^:^ i!
• 3 ^
ut
CL
OL
U J e
• 9 >!
ia a
CO 8
MH
CH
OH
Inorganic clays of low to
medium plasticity, gnvelly
dryt, sandy tiayt, silty chqrs,
lean days
Organic sihs isid organic silty
di^ of low plasticity
Standard Peaetration Test
Penetration
Resistance N
Unconfined Compressive
iBOtgaoic silts, micaceous or
diatomaceous fine sanda or silts,
elaatk silts
Inorganic days of high plasticity,
bt days
Organic days of medium to
hi^ plasticity
(blows/ft) Consistency (tons/ft»)
<2 Very soft <0.25
2-4 Soft 0J5-0.50
4-8 Medium 0.5O-I.00
8-15 Stiff 1.0&-2.00
15-30 Very stiff 2.0Q-4.00
>30 Hard >4.00
Highly Orgaaic Solli PT Peat, muck, and odier highly
organic soils
Gravel Sond
ctxirsfl fine coarse | mediuin | fine
200 U.S. Stondonl sieve
Unified
I soil classif. Cobbles Silt or Cloy
MOISTURE CONDITIONS
Ory abMfice of aoi at; dusty, dry to ttm touch MATERAIL QUANTITY OTHER SYMBOLS
Slightly beloM optlaua •o-ieture eontant
•oiat for coiifMictlen
Mol at n«ar optlauai aolatura content
Very nol at atiova optlauai aolsture eontant
Wet vlalble free M«tar, below water table
traca 0 - S X C Cora aamole
few 5 -10 X S SPT aaiapla
little 10 -25 X B Bulk aaunpla
aoM 25 -45 X X Qroundwatar
BASIC LOQ FORMAT:
"V^bol- (Drain aiza). Color, Molature. Conalatancy or relative aenalty
Additional coaMenta: odor, preaarwe of roota, aiea, gypaua. coaraa grained oartlclee.atc.
Ined. brOMn. aolat.
few cobblaa up to 4" in size.
EXAMPLE:
Band (3PK fina to aadluai grained, brown, aolat. -jooaa. trace silt, litt-ia fine gravel
hair roots and rootlata
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
w.o. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT: CALAViRA HILLS 11, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-1
4-
0.
a
5-
10-
15-
20-
25-
Sample
I TJ
II) O
•- XI •0 L C 3
3 -I-
>2i
s-
\
ID
3 0
10
16
17
12
13
19
o
U E
VI J)
CL
CL
SC
SP
SP
L
O
104.1
106.6
111.9
0
19.9
18.4
18.4
No R jcoveiy
89.3
88.3
m
1
99
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: 140 Ib Hammer 30" drop
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
SHEET 1 OF 2
4-13-00
Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
ALLUVIUM
@ 0', SANDY CLAY, brown, damp, loose.
@ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, stiff; roots and
rootiets.
@ 5', SANDY CLAY, iight brown, wet, stiff, fine to medium
grained weil-sorted sand fraction.
@ 10', CLAYEY SAND, liglit brown, saturated, medium
dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular
sands.
@ 14', Groundwater encountered.
@ 15', SAND, light yellowisfi brown, saturated, medium
dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular.
@ 20' No recovery.
@ 25', SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, medium
dense; medium to coarse grained, well sorted, little fines.
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-1
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
w.o. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT: CALAVEHA HILLS II. LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-1
+-0. 01
a
35
40-
45
50-
55-
Sample
I TJ (0 U •- J3
\
III 3 O
1 1
1 1
15
15
•
u E M a
3 M
sc
SP
sc
sc
a
L
•
No R jcoveiy
01
L 3
O
« L 3
•1-
M
to
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: 140 Ib Hammer 30" drop
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
SHEET 2 OE 2
4-13-00
Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
/
@ 30', No recovery.
@ 35', CLAYEY SAND,light brown to tan, saturated, medium
dense; fine to medium grained, well sorted, sub-angular.
@ 40', SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated, medium
dense; fine grained.
@ 45', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium
dense; fine to medium grained.
@ 50', CLAYEY SAND, light yellowish brown, saturated,
loose; fine to medium grained.
Total Depth = 51 1/2'
Groundwater encountered @ 14'
Bacl<fiiled 04-13-00
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE 6^2
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
w.o. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-2
a. 01 a
Sample
10-
15-
20
25
I -D
ID 01
- D "0 L C 3
3 -t-
14
10
18
11
14
27
o in a u E (0 a
3 M
SC
sc
CL
CL
CL
GW
a
L Q
107.4
97.4
108.6
101.2
0
14.0
6.5
17.7
24.0
M L
3 •t-A VI
68
24.6
J<4
89.9
100
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30"drop
SHEETJ^OF 2
4-13-00
3 Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
1
%
i
O,
?0
ALLUVIUM
@ 0', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, damp, loose.
@ 2 1/2', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense;
fine to coarse grained.
@ 5', CLAYEY SAND, brown, wet, medium dense; fine to
coarse grained.
@ 10', SANDY CLAY, darl< brown, wet, stiff.
@ 14', Groundwater encountered.
@ 1 5', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff.
@ 20', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff; orange
iron oxide staining.
BEDROCK
@ 25', METAVOLCANIC BEDROCK, greenish gray to darl<
reddish brown, saturated, medium dense; weathered.
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLA TE B-3
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
W.O. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT: CAIAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-2
a 01 a
35
40-
45
50-
55
Sample
I TJ
III 01
- n
TJ L
C 3
3 H50/5.!)
\ Iff
3
O
0
U E t/) a 3 W
3
L
Q
L
3
O
M L 3 +-
Hi
CO
: 0
:•> c:
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30"drop
SHEET_2_pF 2
4-13-00
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
@ 30', METAVOLCONIC BEDROCK, greenish gray to dark
reddish brown, wet, very dense.
Total Depth = 31 1/2'
Groundwater encountered @ 14'
Baclcfilled 04-13-00
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLA TE B-4
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
w.o. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-3
OL
01
a
10-
^7
15
Sample
1
I Tl Iff 01 - JD n L
C 3 3 -t-
\
Ul
3
o
14
12
18
o
CO i] U E
CO a
3 CO
sc
CL
CL
a L o
109.0
96.7
108.4
o
10.2
25.2
18.5
n
l/l
52
94 m
il
93
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop
m
SHEET 1 OF 2
4-13-00
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample f\j Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
ft
m
ALLUVIUM
@ 0', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, damp to moist, loose.
@ 2 1/2', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense;
fine to coasre.
@ 5', SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff.
@ 10', SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, stiff.
@ 14', Groundwater encountered.
20
25
m.
Y:
10 SC
10 No Rijcove y
77-
@ 15', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose.
@ 20', No recovery, loose.
25 GW BEDROCK
@ 25', METAVOLCANIC ROCK, greenish gray to darl< reddish
brown, saturated, medium dense.
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-5
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
w.o. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-3
0.
a
35-
40-
45
50-
55-
Sample
I TJ
III 01
- XI
\
in
3 O
59
o CO n u E CO a
3 IA
a
L
O
01
L
3
O
E
M L 3 -I-10 CO
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop
SHEET 2 OF 2
4-13-00
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
@ 30', METAVOLCANIC ROCK, greenish gray to dark reddish
brown, saturated, dense.
Total Depth = 31 1/2'
Groundwater encountered at 14'
Backfilled 04-13-00
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLA TE B-6
BORING LOG
GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-4
•4-
X
-t-a e o
Sample
I -D
Iff 01 - XJ •O 1.
C 3 Z3 +•
\ Ul 3 O
O
CO n u E c/) a
3 CO
a
L
O
0 E
M
L
3 •1-«
10
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b hammer 30"dfop
SHEET_±J)F 2
4-14-00
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
5-
IO-
IS
20-
25
15
15
CL
CL
108.9
96.7
12.4
25.6
63.3
94 • 1
m CL No R }cove y
13 CL 108.4 18.5 100
'm
li
//// • 1
1 15 CL
ALLUVIUM
@ 0', SANDY CLAY, light brown, damp to moist, loose.
@ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff.
@ 5', SANDY CLAY, light brown, wet, stiff; fine to medium
grained, well sorted.
@ 9', Groundwater encountered.
@ 10', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, soft.
@ 15', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff.
@ 20', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, stiff.
28 SC @ 25', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium
dense; medium to coarse grained, no recovery.
,.'•/
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLA TE B-7
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
w.o. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-4
a.
0) a
35
40-
45-
Sample
I -D
Ul 01 — XI TJ L
C 3
3
t-\ Ul
3
O
23
14
14
O
CO n CJ E CO a
3 (/)
CL
CL
CL
a
L
O
O E
a
L 3 +-
10
CO
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b hammer 30"drop
SHEET_2_0F 2
4-14-00
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
@ 30', SANDY CLAY, olive green, saturated, very stiff;
orange iron oxide staining.
@ 35', SANDY CLAY, olive green to brown, saturated, stiff.
@ 40', SANDY CLAY, light brown to olive green, saturated,
stiff.
50-
55
19 ML BEDROCK
@ 45', CLAYSTONE, light brown to olive gray, saturated,
\very stiff.
Total Depth = 46 1 /2'
Groundwater encountered @ 9'
Backfilled 04-14-00
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-8
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
w.o. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-5
r •(-
Q.
01 O
Sample
10-
15-
20-
25-
I TJ Ul 01 - XJ
TJ L
C 3 3 +-
77^
Id 3 0
15
21
27
28
o l/l n u E 10 a
3 CO
SP
SP
sc
SC
SC
a
L
Q
O E
10 L 3 +-It CO
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30"drop
SHEET 1 OF 2
4-14-00
"TTT //,• LiZA
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
/
/
ALLUVIUM
@ 0', SAND, light brown, moist, loose.
@ 2 1/2', SAND, light brown, wet, loose; medium to coarse
grained.
@ 5', SAND, light brown, wet, loose; medium to coarse
grained.
@ 9', Groundwater encountered.
@ 10', No recovery.
@ 15', CLAYEY SAND, iight brown, saturated, medium
dense; fine to coarse grained.
@ 20', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium
dense; fine to medium grained.
@ 25', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, medium
dense.
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLA TE B-9
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
W.O. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-5
Q.
01 O
Sample
35
40
45-
50-
55-
ZZ
I TJ
Ul 01 - XI TJ L
C 3
3
\ in 3 O
35
o
Ul XI
U E
CO a
3 CO
sc
a
a o
E
10
L 3 +•
It
Ul
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30"drop
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
SHEET 2 OF 2
4-14-00
i % Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
BEDROCi< ~
@ 30', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brown, saturated, dense.
Total Depth = 31 1/2'
Groundwater encountered @ 9'
Backfilled 04-14-00
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-10
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
W.O. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-6
a. a a
Sample
I TJ
01 O
— XI TJ L C 3 3 +•
\ U
3
0
o
CO XI
CJ E
CO a
3 CO
a
L
O
o
E
It L 3 +-
It Ul
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop
SHEET 1 OF 2
4-17-00
«g Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample •///} % Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
6/5' CL
i 1
m.
ALLUVIUM
@ 0', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, loose.
@ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, wet, medium stiff;
roots and rootlets, no recovery.
10-
SM @ 5', SILTY SAND, dark brown, wet, loose, no recovery.
@ 9', groundwater encountered.
15-
20
12 CL
CL
i
•''///,
••'///.
\//^/ '////
ll
i
i
@ 10', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, saturated, stiff, fine to
medium grained, orange iron oxide staining.
@ 15', SANDY CLAY, dark brown, saturated, medium stiff.
/'. A
'•'.'fy '/..•
9y
A '/'/
25
SC
Mi
SC
@ 20', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose;
medium to coarse grained.
@ 25', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, loose; orange
iron oxide staining.
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-n
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
w.o. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-6
a. a a
35-
40-
45-
50
55-
Sample
I TJ Ul 01
— XI
TJ L C 3 OJ 3 -t-
Iff 3 O
30
o CO XI U E
CO a
3 CO
sc
a
L
•
O E
It
L
3 •I-It CO
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop
SHEET 2 OF 2
4-17-00
m Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample P\j Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
BEDROCK
@ 30', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, reddish brown to brown,
\saturated, medium dense; orange iron oxide staining. r
Total Depth = 31 1/2' ~
Groundwater encountered @ 9'
Backfilled 04-14-00
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-12
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
w.o. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT: CALAVEHA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-7
a 01 a
10-
15
20-
25
Sample
\7_
m m
I TJ Ul 01
~ XJ
13 L C 3 3 -1-
III 3
O
48
30
17
16
17
0 CO XI U E
Ul a
3 CO
CL
sc
CL
a L a
01 L
3 •1-
01
0
E
It
L 3
•t-10
CO
M
i
Ml
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
SHEET 1 OF 1
4-17-00
Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
X;
AA
A/
i
ALLUVIUM
@ 0', SANDY CLAY, light brown, dry, loose.
@ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, dry, hard.
@ 5', SANDY CLAY, brown, wet, very stiff; Calcium
carbonate and orange iron oxide.
@ 9', groundwater encountered.
@ 10', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, wet, medium dense,
manganese oxide staining.
@ 15', Groundwater encountered.
@ 15', SANDY CLAY, brown, saturated, stiff.
@ 20', SANDY CLAY, light brown, saturated, very stiff.
80 SC BEDROCK
@ 25', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, reddish brown to olive green,
"\saturated, very dense.
Total Depth = 26 11T
Groundwater encountered @ 1 5'
Backfilled 04-17-00
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-13
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
w.o. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-8
X -1-a o
Q
10-
Sample
I T) Ul 01 - XJ
TJ L
C 3
3
7^
\
Ul
3
o
31
o
to XI U E
CO a
3 CO
CL
sc
a L
•
119.8
0
E
11.1
It L 3
•I-
It
CO
77
'/•Ay AA.
/. / . /.
y.y.
y'A
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop
SHEET 1 OF 2
4-1 7-00
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
ALLUVIUM
@ 0', SANDY CLAY, brown, dry to damp, loose.
@ 2 1/2', SANDY CLAY, brown, damp to moist, very stiff,
fine to coarse grained, well sorted, sub-angular.
@ 5', CLAYEY SAND, brown, moist to wet, medium stiff.
@ 10', SANDY CLAY, brown to olive gray, wet, very stiff;
contact between sand and clay @ 1 T.
15 51
20-
25-
23 CL 109.2 16.8 86
18 CL
CL
il
A A
A
m
'//A ••'A AyA
M
VAA
@ 15', Groundwater encountered.
@ 15', CLAYEY SAND, light brown, saturated, very stiff.
@ 20', SANDY CLAY, olive gray to iight brown, saturated,
stiff.
18 CL
yy
pf
yy.yy
A/A'
@ 25', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, very stiff.
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLA TE B-14
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
w.o. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-8
Q. e o
35
40-
45
50
55
Sample
I V
U 0 - XJ
TI L
C 3 3 •^
\
Ul
3
o
19
o Ul XI U E
l/l a
3 CO
sc
a
L
•
O
E
01
L 3 •t-
a
Ul
DATE EXCAVATED
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop
SHEET 2 OF 2
4-17-00
m
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
•'A BEDROCK
@ 30', CLAYEY SANDSTONE, olive gray, saturated, medium
\dense; fine grained, orange iron oxide. r
Total Depth = 31 1/2' ~
Groundwater encountered @ 1 5'
Backfilled 04-17-00
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-15
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
w.o. 2863-A-SC
PROJECT:CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-9
DATE EXCAVATED
SHEET 1 OF 2
4-1 7-00
a. 01 o
Sample
I TJ
01 01
XI TJ L C 3
3 -t-•*•
\ Ul
3 O
o
(O XI
U E
(0 a
3 CO
a L a o
E
It L 3 •I-It CO
7^
* A%
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
10-
65 GC
GC
129.1 7.0 65
4
ALLUVIUM
@ 0', CLAYEY GRAVEL, brown, dry to damp, loose.
@ 2 1/2', CLAYEY GRAVEL, brown, damp to moist, very
dense; coarse grained sand, moderately sorted, sub-angular
gravels and sands.
@ 5', CLAYEY GRAVEL, dark brown, wet, loose; coarse
grained gravels.
20-
26-
1 SC
ryy
Ml
SC
SC
@ 10', CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, wet, loose.
./A
@ 15', CLAYEY SAND, brown, saturated, very loose.
'• y y
y
yy /./
@ 20', CLAYEY SAND, brown, saturated, very loose.
p. 1 1 CL @ 25', CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff; calcium carbonate
stains.
AA
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-16
GeoSoils, Inc.
BORING LOG
w.o. 2863-A-SC
PR OJECT: CALAVERA HILLS II, LLC
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills
BORING B-9
DATE EXCAVATED
SHEET 2 OF 2
4-17-00
a.
01 a
35
40-
45
50-
Sample
I TJ
01 01 - XI TJ L
C 3
3 -t-
m
m
1
\
Ul 3
O
10
15
16
•
CO XI CJ E
CO a
3 CO
CL
CL
CL
CL
CL
a L a 0
E
a
L 3 +-It
CO
m
A/y
m
y.y, P {'AA yyy
SAMPLE METHOD: 1401b Hammer 30" drop
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample ^ Water Seepage into hole
Description of Material
'y-Ayy
y/.yy
m,
'./A
•' y// yy,
@ 30', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff; calcium
carbonate stains.
@ 35', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff.
@ 40', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff.
@ 45', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff.
@ 50', SANDY CLAY, olive gray, saturated, stiff.
56-
Total Depth = 51 1/2'
Groundwater encountered @ 1 5'
Backfilled 04-17-00
College & Cannon Road/Calavera Hills GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-17
W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II, LLC
May 12, 2000
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
TEST
PIT
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
GROUP
SYiy/IBOL
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
MOISTURE
(%)
FIELD
DRY
DENSITY
(pcf)
DESCRIPTION
TP-1 0-10 SM BULK® 1-2' COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, liaht brown, drv. loose: roots and
rootlets, nfietavolcanic boulders.
1-2 BULK @ 2' BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC/GRANITIC ROCK, olive green,
dry, very dense; refusal @ 2': fracture N30W90.
Refusal @ 2'
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 05-12-00
TP-2 0-1 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, liaht brown, dry. loose: roots and
rootlets, metavolcanic boulders.
1-3^/2 SM/GW WEATHERED BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC/GRANITIC
ROCK, reddish brown, dry, medium dense; orange iron
oxide, breaks to silty sand and gravel.
3y2-4 BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC/GRANITIC ROCK, qrayish dry.
very dense.
Refusal @ 4'
No groundwater encountered
RarkfiiiPrin.s-ip-nn
PLATE B-18
W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II. LLC
May 12. 2000
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
TEST
PIT
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
GROUP
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
MOISTURE
(%)
FIELD
DRY
DENSITY
(pcf)
DESCRIPTION
TP-3 0-2 SM COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SILTY SANin rPrlriish hrnuin Hrytr^
damp, loose to medium dense; roots and rootlets,
metavolcanic cobbles, angular.
TP-3
2-3 GW BULK @ 2-3' BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC/GRANlTin Rnrk gray Hry
very dense; fractured, breaks to angular gravels and cobbles
upon excavation.
TP-3
Refusal @ 3'
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 05-12-00
TP-4 0-1 SM COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SILTY SANn, rfiHdl..,h hrnwn Hamp
loose; roots and rootlets, metavolcanic cobbles to boulders
TP-4
1-4 SM/GW BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC/GRANlTin Rnr^k- gray n^y
very dense; fractured breaks to silty sand and angular gravel
to cobble upon excavation.
TP-4
Refusal @ 4'
No groundwater encountered
-Backfilled 05-12-nn
PLATE B-19
W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II, LLC
May 12, 2000
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
TEST
PIT
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
GROUP
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
MOISTURE
(%)
FIELD
DRY
DENSITY
(pcf)
DESCRIPTION
TP-5 0-1 SM BULK® 1-2' COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, light hrnwn Hry innc«- rnnt.^ and
rootlets.
TP-5
1-3V2 SC WEATHERED BEDROCK: CLAYEY SANn anH r^RAVPi
reddish to olive brown, moist, medium dense; orange iron
oxide staining, some cobble size angular rock fragments.
TP-5
BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC Rnni^ gray Hry „^ry d^nee-
fractured, breaks to silty sand and angular gravel to cobble.
TP-5
Refusal ® 3Vz
No groundwater encountered
-Backfilled 05-1 ?-nn
PLATE B-20
W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II. LLC
May 12, 2000
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
TEST
PIT
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
GROUP
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
MOISTURE
(%)
FIELD
DRY
DENSITY
(pcf)
DESCRIPTION
TP-6 0-1 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, liqht brown, riry Inn..^^- rnnt« anH
rootlets.
TP-6
1-2 SC WEATHERED BEDROCK: CLAYEY SAND anri GRAVFI
orange brown, damp, medium dense; breaks to sand and
angular gravel and cobbles.
TP-6
2 BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC ROCK gray, Hry v^ry H^nc«-
fractured.
TP-6
Refusal @ 2'
No groundwater encountered
RankfillfiHn.«>-19.nn
PLATE B-21
w.o. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II, LLC
May 12, 2000
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
TEST
PIT
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
GROUP
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
MOISTURE
(%)
FIELD
DRY
DENSITY
(pcf)
DESCRIPTiON
TP-7 0-1 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, liqht brown riry InnsP- rnntc anH
rootlets.
TP-7
1-2 SC CLAYEY SAND, orange brown, moist, medium dense; orange
iron oxide staining.
TP-7
2-4 BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC ROCK gray, riry URry HpnQP-
fractured breaks to silty sand and angular gravel to cobbles,
few boulders.
TP-7
Practical Refusal @ 4'
No groundwater encountered
Rar^kfillRHn.«>-1P.nn
PLATE B-22
w.o. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II. LLC
May 12, 2000
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
TEST
PIT
NO.
DEPTH
(fl.)
GROUP
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
MOISTURE
(%)
FIELD
DRY
DENSITY
(pcf)
DESCRIPTION
TP-8 0-4 CL BULK® 0-1' COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, liaht brown, drv to damo. stiff:
porous, roots and rootlets, blocky.
4-8 CL WEATHERED BEDROCK: CLAYEY SAND, olive arav. moist,
medium dense; angular gravel to cobbles, orange iron oxide
staining, caliche.
8-9 CL SANDY CLAY, olive gray, moist to wet, medium dense; some
angular gravels and cobbles, orange iron oxide, few
boulders.
9 BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC ROCK, gray, dry. very dense.
Practical Refusal ® 4'
Total Depth = 9'
No groundwater encountered
Rar^kfiiifiri ns-ip-nn
PLATE B-23
W.O. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II, LLC
May 12, 2000
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
TEST
PIT
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
GROUP
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
MOISTURE
(%)
FIELD
DRY
DENSITY
(pcf)
DESCRIPTION
TP-9 0-4 CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown riry IOOSP- rnntQ
and rootlets, blocky
4-10 SC ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, liqht brown, damp mpHinm
dense; fine to coarse grained, well sorted, laminated clay and
sand lenses, orange iron oxide, rounded.
10 BEDROCK: METAVOLCANIC/GRANITIC RHCK nllvp gray
damp to moist, dense; fractured.
Practical Refusal @ 10'
Total Depth = 10'
No groundwater encountered
.Backfilled 05-1 ?-nn
PLATE B-24
w.o. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II. LLC
May 12, 2000
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
TEST
PIT
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
GROUP
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
MOISTURE
(%)
FIELD
DRY
DENSITY
(pcf)
DESCRIPTION
TP-10 0-2 SC COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, damp to moi.«?t,
loose; roots and rootlets.
TP-10
2-4 sc CLAYEY SAND, light yellowish brown, moist, medium dense;
fine to coarse, well sorted, rounded, caliche
TP-10
4-7 ML TERRACE DEPOSITS: SANDY SILT, liaht yellowi.qh hrnwn
moist, medium dense; fine grained, well sorted; massive
TP-10
7-10 ML BULK ® 7-8 SANDY CLAY, gray, moist, medium dense; orange iron oxide
staining, massive.
TP-10
Total Depth = 10'
No groundwater encountered
Backfilled 05-12-00
PLATE B-25
w.o. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II. LLC
May 12, 2000
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
TEST
PIT
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
GROUP
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
MOISTURE
(%)
FIELD
DRY
DENSITY
(pcf)
DESCRIPTION
TP-12 0-Vz SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, medium arav. drv. loose: manv
roots, blocky, open dessication cracks, fine grained.
Vz-V/z SW SAND, dry, medium dense; few dessication cracks, fine to
medium grained, some silt.
V/z-2Vz SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, sliahtiv moist, brown,
medium dense; weathered, few dessication cracks, fine
grained, massive
2Vz-8 SM SILTY SAND, yellow brown to olive brown, moist, medium
dense; fine grained, massive to weak subhorizontal bedding
Total Depth = 8'
No groundwater encountered
Rar^kfilleri nR-1?-00
PLATE B-27
w.o. 2863-A-SC
Calavera Hills II, LLC
May 12, 2000
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
TEST
PIT
NO.
DEPTH
(ft.)
GROUP
SYMBOL
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
MOISTURE
(%)
FIELD
DRY
DENSITY
(pcf)
DESCRIPTION
TP-13 0-2 SM COLLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, medium arav. drv. loose: many
roots, blocky, open dessication cracks, fine grained.
2-4 SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: SILTY SAND, sliahtiv moist, medium
dense; weathered, few dessication cracks, fine grained,
massive.
Total Depth = 4'
No groundwater encountered
Rankfiiifiri nfi.i?.nn
PLATE B-28
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
r
SIEUE ANALYSIS
3
100
3/4" 3/8" #4 *10 #20 »40#G0 #100 #200
0. 1 0.01 0. 001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
6RAUEL SAND
SILT CLAY coarse •r 1 ne coarse med i um f i ne SILT CLAY
EXPLORATION DEPTH
• B-01 15.0
• B-01 20. 0
• B-02 10.0
• B-02 20. 0
LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION
SeoSo ils, Inc.
PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
McMILLIN
August 2000
W.0.: 28e3-SC
PI ate: C-1
r
SIEVE ANALYSIS
#10 #20 #40#60 #100 #200
0. 1 0.01 0. 001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
SRAUEL SAND
SILT CLAY fine SILT CLAY
coarse fine coarse med i um f 1 ne
EXPLORATION DEPTH LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION
• B-03 25. 0 37 21 sc CLAYEY SAND
• B-04 10.0
• B-04 20. 0 36 19 CL SANOY LEAN CLAY
• B-05 5. 0
GeoSo ils, Inc.
PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
McMILLIN
August 2000
W.0.: 2863-SC
PI ate: C-2
r
SIEUE ANALYSIS
#10 #20 #40 #G0 #100 #200
0. 1
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
0.01 0 . 001
GRAVEL SAND
SILT CLAY f i ne med i um SILT CLAY coarse f i ne coarse med i um f i ne CLAY
EXPLORATION DEPTH
• B-05 25. 0
• B-06 15.0
• B-06 25. 0
# B-07 10.0
LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION
GeoSo ils, Inc.
PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
McMILLIN
August 2000
U.0.: 28G3-SC
Plate:C-3
SIEVE ANALYSIS
#10 #20 #40#G0 #100 #200
0. 1 0.01 0. 001
PARTICLE SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
GRAVEL SAND
SILT CLAY coarse f i ne coarse medi um •f i ne
SILT CLAY
EXPLORATION DEPTH
• B-07 25. 0
• B-0B 15. 0
• B-09 10.0
# B-09 30 . 0
LL PI CLASS ASTM DESCRIPTION
GeoSo ils, Inc.
PARTICLE SIZE
DISTRIBUTION
McMILLIN
August 2000
W.O.: 2863-SC
P I ate: C-4
r
llJ a z
H
>-
O
H
Ul
60
50
40
30
20
10
y
y'
/
/
CH
y
/
y
/
/
y"
CL
/
y
/
/ y A
/
A'
MH
• ML ML-CL / ML ML
LIQUID LIMIT (LL)
EXPLORATION •EPTH (ft) LL PL PI
• B-03 25. 0 37 16 21
• B-04 20. 0 36 16 19
GeoSo ils, Inc.
ATTERBERG LIMITS
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
Ul. 0. : 2863-SC
PI ate: C-5
r
3000
2500
2000
CO
Q.
I
CS z 111 a.
OL
<t lil I
CO
1500
1000
500
1000 1500 2000
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
Exploration: B-01 Depth (ft): 5.0
Legend:
9 Pr i mary
Test Method:
Undisturbed Ring
Sample Innundated Prior To Testing
2500 3000
Res j duaI
ResuIts:
Cohesion (psf): 635
Friction Angle: 22
Cohesion (psf): 598
Friction Angle: 21
GeoSoIls, Inc.
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
W.0.: 2863-SC
Plate: C-6
r
3000
2500
2000
CO
Q.
o
Z lU
QL
OL
<L 111 I CO
1500
1000
500
0 500 1000 1500 2000
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
Exploration: B-02 Depth (ft): 5.0
Legend:
# Pr i mary
Test Method:
Remolded to 90X of 128.0 pcf 10.0x • Residual
Sample Innundated Prior To Testing
2500 3000
ResuIts:
Cohesion (psf): 623
Friction Angle: 23
Cohesion (psf): 612
Friction Angle: 23
GeoSo ils, Inc.
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
W.0.: 28G3-SC
Plate: C-7 J
3000
2500
2000
CO
Q.
O
z
Ul OL
OL <r u
I
CO
1500
1000
500
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
Exploration: B-03 Depth (ft): 5.0
Legend:
9 Pri mary
2500 3000
Test Method:
Undisturbed Ring
Sample Innundated Prior To Testing
Resi duaI
ResuIts:
Cohesion (psf): Bll
Friction Angle: 12
Cohesion (psf): 805
FrIctI on AngIe: 12
GeoSo ils, Inc.
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
Ul. 0. : 2a63-SC
Plate: C-8
r
3000
2500
2000
to a
CO z Ul
<t UJ I CO
1500
1000
500
500 1000 1500 2000
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
Exploration: B-03 Depth (ft): 10.0
Legend:
0 Pr i mary
2500 3000
Test Method:
Undisturbed Ring
Sample Innundated Prior To Testing
Res i duaI
ResuIts:
Cohesion (psf): 684
Friction Angle: 22
Cohesion (psf): 685
Friction Angle: 22
GeoSoIls, Inc.
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
W.0.: 2863-SC
Plate: C-9
r
3000
2500
2000
U.-I/I a.
CD z UJ a:
I-
10
OL <r Ul I
Ul
1500
1000
500
500 1000 1500 2000
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
2500 3000
Exploration: B-04 Depth (ft): 5.0
Test Method:
Undisturbed Ring
Sample Innundated Prior To Testing
Legend:
% Pr i mary
• Res i duaI
ResuIts:
Cohesion (psf): 169
Friction Angle: 28
Cohesion (psf): 123
Friction Angle: 29
GeoSo ils, Inc.
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
Ul. 0. : 2863-SC
Plate: C-10
3000
2500
zaaa
u. •
CO
CL
I I-cs z
Ul
<r
hi
X CO
1500
1000
500
500 1000 1500 2000
NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
Exploration: B-06 Depth (ft): 4.0
Test Method:
Renolded to 90M of 126.5 pcf @ 11.0X
Sample Innundated Prior To Testing
Legend:
% Pr i mary
H Residual
2500
ResuIts:
Cohesion (psf)
Fr1ct i on AngIe
Cohes i on (psf)
Friction Angle
3000
431
25
481
24
GeoSo ils, Inc.
DIRECT SHEAR
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
W.O.: 28G3-SC
Plate: C-11
<£ OL
Z UJ
CJ OL Ul
a.
100 1000 2
STRESS (PSF)
10000
Exploration: B-01 Depth: 5.0'
Undisturbed Ring Sample
Dry Density (pcf): 107.5
Water Content (>S): 18.4
Sample Innundated 9 750 psf
GeoSo ils, Inc.
CONSOLIDATION
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
W.0.: 2863-SC
Plate: C-12
r
-1
z l-l <r
OL
z
Ul u tc
Ul
a.
100 1000 2
STRESS (PSF)
1 0000
Exploration: B-01 Depth: 10.0'
Undisturbed Ring Sample
Dry Density (pcf): 111.1
Water Content (x): 18.4
Sample Innundated @ 1250 psf
GeoSo ils, Inc.
CONSOLIDATION
TEST RESULTS August 2000
W.O.: 2863-SC
McMILLIN
Plate: C-13
r
CL
H Z UJ
u
UJ CL
100 1000 2
STRESS (PSF)
10000
Exploration: B-02 Depth: 10.0'
Undisturbed Ring Sample
Dry Density (pcf): 109.6
Uater Content (X): 17.7
Sample Innundated @ 1250 psf
GeoSoils, Inc.
CONSOLIDATION
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
W.0.: 2863-SC
Plate: C-14
r
z
H
I-
co z
Ul
u a.
UJ
Q.
100 1000 2
STRESS (PSF)
1 0000
Exploration: B-03 Depth: 5.0'
Undisturbed Ring Sample
Dry Density (pcf): 96.8
Water Content (X): 25.2
Sample Innundated 750 psf
GeoSo ils, Inc.
CONSOLIDATION
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
Ul. 0 . : 2863-SC
Plate: C-15
r
-1
z
H <t
QC
I-Z Ul
u
OL Ul
0.
1 00 1000 2
STRESS (PSF)
10000
Exploration: B-03 Depth: 10.0'
Undisturbed Ring Sample
Dry Density (pcf): 108.5
Water Content (K): 18.5
Sample Innundated 9 1250 psf
GeoSo ils, Inc.
CONSOLIDATION
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
W.0.: 2aG3-SC
Plate: C-16
r
z H <r
z
UJ o OL
UJ
0.
100 1000 2
STRESS (PSF)
1 0000
Exploration: B-04 Depth: 5.0'
Undisturbed Ring Sample
Dry Density (pcf): 105.9
Water Content (X): 19.4
Sample Innundated @ 750 psf
GeoSo i Is, Inc.
CONSOLIDATION
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
U.0.: 28G3-SC
Plate: C-17
X
z l-l <c
OL
CO
Ul
u
OL Ul CL
A—
\
\
—N
\
STRESS (PSF)
Exploration: B-04 Depth: 15.0'
Undisturbed Ring Sample
Dry Density (pcf): 10G.0
Water Content (x): 21.9
Sample Innundated @ 2000 psf
GeoSo ils, Inc.
CONSOLIDATION
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
Ul. 0. : 2863-SC
Plate: C-18
z
OL
z Ul u OL Ul CL
•
<
\ \
\
\
\
il
9
1 00 1000 2
STRESS (PSF)
10000
Exploration: B-07 Depth: 5.0'
Undisturbed Ring Sample
Dry Density (pcf): 118.1
Water Content (X): 14.3
Sample Innundated 9 750 psf
GeoSo ils, Inc.
CONSOLIDATION
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
W.O.: 2863-SC
Plata: C-19
r
<r
OL
y-z
Ul
u
OL UJ CL
100 1000 2
STRESS (PSF)
10000
Exploration: B-08 Depth: 10.0'
Undisturbed Ring Sample
Dry Density (pcf): 114.5
Water Content (X): 11.1
Sample Innundated 9 1250 psf
GeoSo i Is, Inc.
CONSOLIDATION
TEST RESULTS
McMILLIN
August 2000
W.O.: 2863-SC
Plate: C-20 J
APPENDIX D
ROCK HARDNESS EVALUATION
TABLE D-1
PROFILES BY GSI
GSI Seismic Line Depth interval (ft) Velocity (fps) | Rippability
1 0-3 1200-1333 None
3+ 5500-5800 Hard to blast
2 0-3 1/2 1250 None
3 1/2-22/28 3000-5000 Medium to hard
22/28+ 11000-16000 Blast
3 0-41/2 1000 None
41/2+ 6000-10000 Blast
4 0-4/10 1000-2800 None to soft
4/10+ 8000-11000 Blast
5 0-6/9 1000-3000 None to soft
6/9+ 8500-9000 Blast
6 0-3 1000-1330 None
3-16 8500 Blast
16+ 10000 Blast
7 0-2 1000 None
2-8 2500-3000 Soft
8-37 5000-10000 Hard to blast
37+ 20000-24000 Blast
8 0-3 1000-2000 None to soft
3+ 7000-10000 Blast
9 0-2y2 1000-1333 None
272-10/25 3500-4500 Medium to hard
10/25+ 7500-11000 Blast
10 0-3 1000-2000 None to soft
3-21 4300-6800 Medium to blast
21 + 10500 Blast
11 0-3 1000-1500 None
3-13/30 3200-5000 Soft to hard
13/30+ 6000-18000 Blast
TABLE D-2
PROFILES BY SCS&T (1983)
SCS&T (1983) Depth (ft.) Velocity (fps) Rippability
S73-14 0+ not avail. Blast
SW-11 0-2 not avail. None
2+ not avail. Blast
SW-12 0-2 not avail. None
2-8 not avail. Hard-blast
8+ not avail. Blast
SW-13 0-1 not avail. None
1-6 not avail. Medium
6+ not avail. Blast
7-32 Exploration of Excavation
Ripping and Blasting Zones According to Seismic Velocities
Commencing some 25 yr ago with the use of the seismic timer, it was necessary to express
results in terms of shock-wave velocities through earth-rock structures with respect to
two methocls of rock fragmentation. Concurrent with the introduction of the seismic
timer was the development of medium-weight and heavyweight tractor-rippers as eco-
nomical tools for rock fragmentation. It was then natural to express rippability of tractor-
rippers in terms of shock-wave velocities until a velocity was reached beyond which
blasting was necessary. In the ensuing years many correlative studies have been made.
Suggested guides for rippability and blasting are listed below.
1. For medium-weight tractor-rippers in the 200- to 300-engine-hp and 60,000- to
90,000-lb working-weight specification ranges:
0 to 1500 ft/s
1500 to 3000 ft/s
3000 to 4000 ft/s
4000 to 5000 ft/s
5000 to 6000 ft/s
6000 ft/s and higher
No ripping
Soft ripping
Medium ripping
Hard ripping
Extremely hard ripping or blasting
Blasting
2. For heavyweight tractor-rippers in the 300- to 525-engine-hp and 100,000- to
160,00O-lb working-weight specification ranges: '
0 to 1500 ft/s
1500 to 4000 ft/s
4000 to 5000 fl/s
5000 to 6000 ft/s
6000 to 7000 ft/s
7000 ft/s and higher
No ripping
Soft ripping
Medium ripping
Hard ripping
Extremely hard ripping or blasting
Blasting
DATE I W.O. NO. ^^^^^^
Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental
Plate D-1
D8L Ripper Performance
• Multi or Single Shank Ripper
• Estimated by Seismic Wave Velocities
Velocity in Meters Per Second x 1(X)0 L.
Velocity in Feet Per Second x 1000 0
2 3
-J I L
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
TOPSOIL
CLAY
GLACIAL TILL
IGNEOUS ROCKS
GRANITE
BASALT
TRAP ROCK
SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
SHALE
SANDSTONE
SILTSTONE
CLAYSTONE
CONGLOMERATE
BRECCIA
CALICHE
LIMESTONE
METAMORPHIC ROCKS
SCHIST
SLATE
MINERALS & ORES
COAL
IRON ORE
^^^^^^
^^^^^^ ^^^^
RIPPABLE MARGINAL C
^^^^
NON-RIPPABLE l'^^'^^''^^\V^
CatapiHar Tractor Co. (1983)
GeoSoilSf Inc, Plate D-2