HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 04-11; Poinsettia Commons; Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation; 2004-01-09CT
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
RECORD COPY
Initial .Date
Teak Investors, LLC
c/o Mr. David A. DiRienzo
Urban West Strategies
42 IN. Main Street
Santa Ana, CA 92701
January 9, 2004
J.N. 1286.00
>ECE1VED
MAY 11 200*1
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PLANNING DEPT.
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Carlsbad Transit Village, City
of Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. DiRienzo;
Pursuant to your request, Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc. is pleased to present to you our
Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation report for the proposed project referenced above. This report
presents the results of our review of available geologic publications and seismic data, subsurface
explorations, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analyses, and conclusions and
recommendations pertaining to the proposed site development.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. If you have any questions regarding the
contents of this report, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.
Douglas TT Abernathy
Senior Engineer
Distribution: (3) Addressee
(1) MVE Architects - Mr. Tim Smallwood
(1) Product Design Consultants - Mr. Curtis Turner
(1) Urban Arena - Mr. Michael Schrock
(1) Hofinan Planning Associates - Mr. Mike Howes
7403 North Batavia Street, Suite 115, Orange, CA 92867 (714) 744-9760 FAX (714) 744-9750
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1
1.3 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 1
2.0 INVESTIGATION 3
2.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION 3
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING 3
3.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS 4
3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS 4
3.2 GROUNDWATER 4
4.0 ANALYSES 4
4.1 SEISMICITY 4
4.2 SETTLEMENT 5
5.0 CONCLUSIONS 6
5.1 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 6
5.2 SEISMIC HAZARDS 6
5.2.1 Ground Rupture 6
5.2.2 Ground Shaking 6
5.2.3 Liquefaction 6
5.2.4 Landsliding 6
5.3 SETTLEMENT 6
5.4 SHRINKAGE AND BULKING 7
5.5 MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS 7
5.6 SOIL EXPANSION 7
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 7
6.1 EARTHWORK 7
6.1.1 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications 7
6.1.2 Pre-Grade Meeting and Geotechnical Observation 7
6.1.3 Site Clearing 8
6.1.4 Ground Preparation (Removals and Overexcavations) 8
6.1.5 Temporary Excavations 9
6.1.6 Fill Placement 9
6.1.7 Fill Slopes 9
6.1.8 Cut Slopes 10
6.1.9 Import Material 10
6.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 10
6.3 FOUNDATIONS 11
6.3.1 General 11
6.3.2 Soil Expansion 11
6.3.3 Settlement 11
6.3.4 Allowable Bearing Value 11
6.3.5 Lateral Resistance 11
6.3.6 Footings and Slabs on Grade 11
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
6.3.7 Footing Observations 12
6.4 MASONARY RETAINING WALLS 13
6.4.1 General 13
6.4.2 Bearing Capacity, Lateral Resistance, and Reinforcement 13
6.4.3 Earth Pressures 13
6.4.4 Drainage and Moisture-Proofing 13
6.4.5 Retaining Wall Backfill 14
6.5 CEMENT TYPE 14
6.6 EXTERIOR SLABS AND FLATWORK 14
6.7 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 14
6.7.1 Subgrade Preparation 14
6.7.2 Preliminary Pavement Design 15
6.7.3 Pavement Materials 15
6.8 POST GRADING CONSIDERATIONS 16
6.8.1 Erosion Protection 16
6.8.2 Site Drainage 16
6.8.3 Utility Trenches 16
6.9 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 16
7.0 LIMITATIONS , 17
REFERENCES 18
PLATES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Plate 1 - Boring Location Plan (pocket)
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Subsurface Explorations
Boring Logs, Plates A-0 through A-6
APPENDIX B - Laboratory Test Program
Direct Shear Test Plots, Plates B-l and B-2
APPENDIX C - Seismicity Analysis
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIA TES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Pagel
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purposes of our investigation were to evaluate the nature of subsurface soil conditions, to
evaluate their engineering characteristics, and to then provide geotechnical recommendations with
respect to site earthwork, design and construction of structural foundations, and design and
construction of associated site improvements. This report is based on our recent subsurface
investigation. The scope of our work included the following:
• Review of published geologic and seismic data
• Review of the referenced conceptual site plans
• Exploratory drilling and soil sampling
• Laboratory testing
• Engineering analyses of data
• Preparation of this report
1.2 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
We understanding the site will be developed to accommodate a mixed-use, transit-oriented
development including approximately 51, 3-story townhomes, roughly 30 condominiums and
apartments over commercial space, 3 or 4 retail buildings with offices, one level of underground
parking, and a day care center. These structures are anticipated to consist of masonry block and/or
wood frames with structural steel. The proposed site improvements also include associated surface
and underground parking, underground utilities, landscaping, and hardscape. Though rough grading
plans are not yet available, we estimate that only minor cuts and fills will likely be required to
achieve the proposed building pad elevations within the development. We anticipate future
foundation loads will be light to moderate. We also assume that masonry retaining walls may be
required in some locations within the development.
1.3 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The 4.2-acre subject site is situated southwest and southeast of the intersection of Avenida Encinas
and Embarcadero Way, within the City of Carlsbad. The site is located just east of the
Carlsbad/Poinsettia train station (North County Transit District, NCTD) and west of an existing
apartment complex. Access to the site is available immediately south of Avenida Encinas. The
approximate site location and its relationship to the surrounding areas are shown on the Site
Location Map (Figure 1). The site is currently vacant and covered with sparse grasses and
occasional shrubs. The southwestern most portion of the site is relatively flat and drainage in this
area is generally directed by sheet flow towards the southwest. The northeastern (triangular) portion
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page 2
» W I V "t*ir"S."'fa " w> i ««'*
\H/j r^ r»- ^Nc.Ai1!/ -UJ. /I- -r '
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION MAP
Proposed Development
Carlsbad Transit Village
City of Carlsbad, California
From U.S.G.S 7.5 Minute
Encinitas Quadrangle
1965 (Photo-revised 1975)
NOT TO SCALE
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9,2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page 3
of the site is slightly depressed in relationship to the surrounding property and may have been
utilized as a detention basin or as a borrow source for adjacent cut and fill grading operations.
2.0 INVESTIGATION
2.1 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
Subsurface explorations were conducted on December 12, 2003 and consisted of drilling four soil
borings. Three of these borings reached depths of approximately 16 feet below the existing ground
surface while the fourth boring reached a depth of about 44 feet. The borings were drilled utilizing a
truck-mounted, continuous-flight, hollow-stem-auger drill rig. The exploratory excavations were
logged by a representative of Albus-Keefe and Associates, Inc., for engineering analyses.
Descriptions of the subsurface conditions observed within the borings are presented in the Boring
Logs provided on Plates A-0 through A-6, in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the borings
are shown on the enclosed Boring Location Plan provided as Plate 1 (pocket enclosure).
Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were obtained at selected depths for subsequent laboratory
testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained using a 3-inch O.D., 2.5-inch I.D., California
split-spoon soil sampler lined with twelve, 1-inch-high, brass rings at the bottom, followed by one 6-
inch-long, brass sampler sleeve at the top. Samples were also obtained from the borings using a
standard SPT soil sampler. During the boring program, the California and SPT samplers were
driven 18 inches with successive drops of a 140-pound "cat-head" hammer. The number of blows
required to advance the sampler was recorded for each six inches of advancement, for a total sampler
advancement of 18 inches per sample. The total blow count for the lower 12 inches is recorded on
the boring logs. All soil samples were placed in sealed containers and transported to our laboratory
for analyses. The shallow borings were backfilled with soil cuttings upon completion whereas the
deep boring was backfilled with bentonite grout and chips. A boring permit [LMON101840] was
also obtained from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health for the deep
boring as required.
2.2 LABORATORY TESTING
Samples obtained from the borings were tested in a soil laboratory. Tests consisted of in-place
moisture content and dry density, maximum dry density, optimum moisture content, percent of
grain-size <#200 sieve determination, direct shear, R-value, expansion index, Atterberg limits, and
soluble sulfate. A description of laboratory test criteria and summaries of the test results are
presented in Appendix B and in the boring logs, provided in Appendix A.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page 4
3.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
3.1 SOIL CONDITIONS
Soil materials observed at the site typically consist of fill materials overlying Pleistocene-age marine
terrace deposits. Fill soils typically consisted of light brown and gray, sandy silt (ML) having a soft
consistency in a desiccated state. The fill appeared to be free of debris. The thickness of fill was
observed to be roughly 1 foot thick at boring location B-3.
Below the fill, and at all other boring locations on site, we encountered marine terrace deposits to the
total depths explored. The terrace deposits generally consist of light reddish to grayish brown, sandy
silt and silty sand (with trace to little clay) that are typically dense to very dense and moist to a depth
of roughly 12 to 17 feet. Below the sandy silt and silty sand layers, we encountered a light brown,
fine to coarse grained sand containing trace to little silt. Perched ground water was observed locally
within this sand unit at boring location B-l. Below this sand layer we encountered light reddish-
brown and gray silty clay having a very hard consistency in a moist state. This silty clay material
extended below the depths of the explorations (roughly 44 feet).
A 5 foot thick clayey sand layer was encountered locally near the ground surface at boring B-4
(containing some caliche lenses). This clay layer was not typical of the soils encountered elsewhere
on site.
3.2 GROUNDWATER
At the time of our investigation, perched ground water was observed within the sandy unit
encountered between approximately 18 and 24 feet below the existing ground surface at boring
location B-l. The ground water appears to be perched above a very hard, silty clay layer that
extends to at least the maximum depths explored during this investigation.
4.0 ANALYSES
4.1 SEISMICITY
We have performed integrated historical and deterministic seismic hazard analyses for the site
utilizing computer programs EQSEARCH (Blake, 1989b, updated 2000) and EQFAULT (Blake,
1989a, updated 2000), as well the referenced publications. A brief description of the computer
program functions are discussed below:
EQSEARCH performs a historical seismic analysis that computes estimated ground motions at the
site using a catalog of historical earthquake data within a 62-mile (100-km) radius of the site and a
selected attenuation relation to model subsurface earth materials similar to the site. The results of
the analysis can be utilized to estimate how historical earthquakes may have shaken the site.
EQFAULT performs a deterministic seismic analysis that computes estimated ground motion of the
site using a selected attenuation relation to model earth materials similar to the site and a catalog of
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
PageS
up to 250 digitized, 3-D, California faults as earthquake sources within a 62-mile (100-km) radius.
The results of the analysis can estimate how future earthquakes may shake the site.
FRISKSP performs a probabilistic seismic analyses that computes estimations of peak accelerations
at the site using a selected attenuation equation to model earth materials similar to the site, a
magnitude weighting factor, and a catalog of up to 250 California faults utilized as earthquake
sources within a 62-mile (100-km) radius. The results of the analyses provide estimated site
accelerations for 25, 50, 75, and 100-year exposure periods.
Pertinent results from our seismic hazard analyses are provided below:
Most significant seismic event to impact the site since 1800: An earthquake in 1800 located 7.6
miles away from the site produced maximum ground accelerations estimated to be approximately
0.28g at the site. This earthquake was estimated to have a moment magnitude of 6.5.
Fault capable of producing the most significant seismic event at the site (deterministic
perspective): The Rose Canyon Fault located approximately 6.2 kilometers from the site. An
earthquake on this fault could produce an estimated moment magnitude 6.9 earthquake and could
produce peak ground accelerations of approximately 0.43g at the site.
Probabilistic site acceleration having a 10% chance of exceedance in 50 years: The computer
program FRISKSP predicts that the site could experience a peak horizontal ground acceleration
(PGA) of 0.34g when averages of three attenuation relationships are used (without a magnitude
weighting factor). Vertical peak ground accelerations may be estimated as 2/3rds of the horizontal
accelerations estimated for the site.
Additional results of our seismicity evaluation for the site are also included in Appendix C.
4.2 SETTLEMENT
Existing non-engineered artificial fill materials and near surface deposits are anticipated to undergo
significant settlement due to the weight of new fills, foundation loads and/or introduction of water.
Post-construction settlement of these materials in their current state could likely exceed 1 inch.
The underlying terrace deposits are typically very dense/hard and demonstrate qualities of low
compressibility. Post-construction settlement of these materials due to the weight of new fill
materials, foundation loads, and introduction of water is not anticipated to exceed approximately %-
inch.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page 6
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
5.1 FEASIBILITY OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
From a geotechnical point of view, the proposed site development is considered feasible. The most
significant geotechnical issue effecting design and construction of the project is the existence of very
moist sandy conditions and groundwater observed below an elevation of approximately 34.0 feet.
Conclusions regarding this issue and others are further discussed in the following sections.
5.2 SEISMIC HAZARDS
5.2.1 Ground Rupture
No active faults are known to project through the site nor does the site lie within the bounds of an
"Earthquake Fault Studies Zone" as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. As such, the potential for ground rupture due to fault displacement
beneath the site is considered remote.
5.2.2 Ground Shaking
The site is located in a seismically active area that has historically been affected by moderate to
occasionally high levels of ground motion. The site lies in close proximity to several active faults;
therefore, during the life of the proposed development, the property will probably experience
moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from these fault zones, as well as some background
shaking from other seismically active areas of the southern California region. Design of proposed
structures in accordance with the current UBC is anticipated to adequately mitigate concerns with
ground shaking.
5.2.3 Liquefaction
The site is not included in areas mapped as being potentially liquefiable by the California Division of
Mines and Geology (CDMG). Based on in-situ blow count data, the zone of sandy soil and ground
water observed between 18 and 24 feet below the ground surface should not trigger liquefaction on
site. As such, the potential for liquefaction is considered to be very low.
5.2.4 Landsliding
The subject site is positioned at the top of a wide, flat, terrace feature. As such, geologic hazards
associated with landsliding are not anticipated at the subject site.
5.3 SETTLEMENT
Provided that grading is performed in accordance with the recommendations provided herein, and
based on the anticipated foundation loads, total and differential settlement is not anticipated to
exceed 1 inch and 1A inch over 30 feet, respectively. The estimated magnitudes of settlement are
considered within tolerable limits for the proposed structures.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page?
5.4 SHRINKAGE AND BULKING
The volume change of excavated materials upon recompaction is expected to vary with material
types, in-situ density, and compaction effort. Based on our experience with similar projects, existing
fill and terrace materials within the upper 3 to 5 feet of the current ground surface are anticipated to
shrink approximately 2 to 8 percent following compaction. Shrinkage of the native terrace soils
below depths of approximately 5 feet is anticipated to be negligible. Ground subsidence due to
scarification and recompaction of removal bottoms is anticipated to be negligible.
Estimates of shrinkage, bulking and ground subsidence are intended as an aid for project engineers
in determining earthwork quantities. However, these estimates should be used with some caution
since they are not absolute values. Contingencies should be made for balancing earthwork quantities
based on actual shrinkage that occurs during site grading.
5.5 MATERIAL CHARACTERISTICS
The onsite earth materials are anticipated to be easily excavated with conventional heavy
earthmoving equipment. The site earth materials are generally considered suitable for reuse as fill
provided they are cleared of deleterious debris and satisfy the requirements of the environmental
consultant. Portions of the soils are relatively dry while other portions are relatively moist. As such,
the addition of water as well as some drying will likely be required to prepare site soils for
compaction.
5.6 SOIL EXPANSION
Laboratory test results of representative near-surface soil collected within the site indicate these
materials possess a Very Low expansion potential.
6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 EARTHWORK
6.1.1 General Earthwork and Grading Specifications
All earthwork and grading should be performed in accordance with all applicable requirements of
CALOSHA, applicable specifications of the Grading Code of the County of San Diego and the City
of Carlsbad, California, in addition to recommendations presented herein.
6.1.2 Pre-Grade Meeting and Geotechnical Observation
Prior to commencement of grading, we recommend a meeting be held between the land developers,
grading contractor, civil engineer, shoring contractor (if used), and geotechnical consultant, to
discuss proposed work and logistics.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
PageS
We also recommend that a geotechnical consultant be retained to provide soil engineering and
engineering geologic services during site grading. This is to observe compliance with the design
specifications and recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface
conditions differ from those anticipated. If conditions are encountered that appear to be different
than those indicated in this report, the project geotechnical consultant should be notified
immediately. Design and construction revisions may be required.
6.1.3 Site Clearing
All existing structures, pavements, vegetation, irrigation, utility lines, and other deleterious materials
should be removed from the site. The project geotechnical consultant should be notified at the
appropriate times to provide observation services during clearing operations to verify compliance
with the above recommendations. Voids created by clearing should be left open for observation by
the geotechnical consultant. Should any unusual soil conditions or subsurface structures be
encountered during site clearing and/or grading that are not described or anticipated herein, these
conditions should be brought to the immediate attention of the project geotechnical consultant for
corrective recommendations as needed. If existing structures cannot be removed from the site and
are anticipated to be protected in place (i.e. storm drains, sewer lines, etc.), these features should be
accurately located and the geotechnical engineer notified as additional recommendations will be
required.
6.1.4 Ground Preparation (Removals and Overexcavations)
All existing artificial fill is considered unsuitable for support of proposed structural fills and
structures in its current state and should be removed and replaced as compacted fill. Estimated
depths of such unsuitable materials are not anticipated to extend deeper than approximately 2 to 4
feet below existing grades. Unsuitable materials should be removed laterally beyond the limits of
proposed site development a horizontal distance of at least 5 feet beyond the limits of structural areas
or a distance equal to the depth of removal, which ever is greater. Removal of unsuitable soils may
be restricted at the property lines if offsite grading cannot be permitted. Specific recommendations
to mitigate these conditions should be provided by the geotechnical consultant during review of the
final grading plans.
In order to provide uniform bearing conditions, cut lots exposing differing soil types and cut/fill
transition building pads should be overexcavated at least 2.5 feet below bottom of footings. The
overexcavation should extend a distance of at least 5 feet beyond the outside edge of the footing
and/or a distance equal to the depth of overexcavation below bottom of footing, whichever is greater.
Cut lots exposing uniform soil conditions across the entire building pad should be evaluated by the
geotechnical consultant on a lot by lot basis to determine if overexcavation is necessary.
All removals and overexcavation bottoms should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during
grading to confirm the exposed conditions are as anticipated and to provide supplemental
recommendations as needed. Additional removals may be required depending on exposed
conditions.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page 9
6.1.5 Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations may be cut vertically up to a height of 5 feet provided that no adverse
geologic conditions or surcharging of the excavations are present. Temporary excavations in soil
materials that are greater than 5 feet in height should be laid back at a maximum gradient of 1H:1V
provided there are no adjacent structures, stockpiles, heavy equipment, or other loadings located
within 5 feet of the excavation. If such excavations cannot be laid back due to adjacent property
lines, structures, pavements, and/or loadings, shoring and/or rakers may be required. If shoring
and/or rakers are required, the geotechnical engineer should be notified as additional
recommendations will be required.
The project geologist or soil engineer should observe all temporary excavations to confirm that
conditions are as anticipated herein, the excavations are stable, and to provide specific
recommendations in the event conditions differ. All temporary excavations should conform to the
requirements of CAL OSHA.
6.1.6 Fill Placement
In general, materials excavated from the site may be used as fill provided they are free of deleterious
materials and particles greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension. Following removal of
unsuitable materials, the exposed ground should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, brought to a
uniform moisture content of 100 to 125 percent of optimum, then compacted to at least 90 percent of
the laboratory standard.
Fill materials should be placed in lifts no greater than approximately 8 inches in thickness. Each lift
should be watered or air dried as necessary to achieve a uniform moisture content slightly greater
than optimum, and then compacted in place to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Each
lift should be treated in a similar manner. Subsequent lifts should not be placed until the project
geotechnical consultant has approved the preceding lift. Lifts should be maintained relatively level
and should not exceed a gradient of 20H:1V. When placing fill on ground sloping steeper than 5:1
(H:V), vertical benches should be excavated into competent native earth materials.
The laboratory standard for maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for each change in
soil type should be determined in accordance with Test Method ASTM D 1557-98.
6.1.7 Fill Slopes
Fill slopes should be constructed with a keyway having a minimum width of 15 feet and a minimum
embedment of 2 feet into competent materials. Where practical, fill slopes should be constructed by
over filling and trimming to a compacted core. The face of slopes that are not over-built should be
backrolled with a sheepsfoot roller at least every 4 vertical feet of slope construction. The process
should provide compacted fill to within 12 inches of the slope face. Finished slopes should be track-
walked with a small dozer in order to compact the slope face. The slope face materials will tend to
dry out prior to final face compaction. As such, the addition of water to the slope face will likely be
required prior to compaction to achieve the required degree of compaction at the time of slope face
compaction.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page 10
6.1.8 Cut Slopes
Cut slopes into terrace deposits should be inspected at intervals not exceeding 10 feet during rough
grading by an engineering geologist, to evaluate the competency of the slope and to identify any
local adverse geologic conditions (i.e. friable or running sands) that may be encountered during
slope construction. If local adverse geologic conditions are encountered during cut slope
construction, portions of the slope may require replacement with a stabilization fill or other
acceptable alternative. Corrective measures should be made as the slope is being constructed.
6.1.9 Import Material
If earth materials are imported to the site to balance the cut and fill rough grading, the proposed
import soil should have Very Low Expansion Index (<20) and Plastic Index (PI) less than 15.
Samples of all import sources should be provided to the geotechnical consultant prior to hauling the
materials to the site so that appropriate testing and evaluation of the proposed fill material can be
performed in advance.
6.2 SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
Based on the 1997 UBC, the closest known Type A active fault is the Elsinore-Julian Fault located
approximately 41.0 kilometers away from the site. The closest known Type B fault is the Rose
Canyon Fault located approximately 6.2 kilometers away from the site.
For design of the project in accordance with the 1997 U.B.C., seismic design factors as defined by
Chapter 16 are presented in Table 6.1.
TABLE 6.1
UBC Seismic Design Parameters
Parameter
Seismic Zone Factor, Z
Soil Profile Type, S
Near Source Factor , Na
Near Source Factor , Nv
Seismic Coefficient, Ca
Seismic Coefficient, Cv
Value
0.4
Sc
1.0
1.2
0.40
0.65
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page 11
6.3 FOUNDATIONS
6.3.1 General
The following recommendations are presented for preliminary design and estimating purposes.
These recommendations have been based on typical site materials exposed within the site during our
field investigation. Final recommendations should be provided by the project geotechnical
consultant following observation and testing of site materials during grading. Depending upon
actual site conditions, the recommendations contained herein may require modification.
6.3.2 Soil Expansion
The recommendations presented herein for foundations and slabs on grade are based on soils with
Very Low expansion potentials (EI<20). Based on the very low expansion potential, special design
for expansive soils in accordance with Section 1815 of the 1997 UBC is not required. Following site
grading, additional testing of site soils should be performed by the project geotechnical consultant to
confirm the basis of these recommendations. If site soils with a higher expansion potential are
encountered, the recommendations contained herein will require modification.
6.3.3 Settlement
Total and differential settlement is not anticipated to exceed 1 inch and 1A inch over 30 feet,
respectively. The estimated magnitudes of settlement should be considered by the structural
engineer in design of the proposed structures.
6.3.4 Allowable Bearing Value
Provided site grading is performed as recommended herein, a bearing value of 2500 pounds per
square foot may be used for continuous and isolated footings founded at a minimum depth of 12
inches below the lowest adjacent grade and having a minimum width of 12 inches. The bearing
value may be increased by 200 psf and 500 psf for each additional foot in width and depth,
respectively up to a maximum value of 3500 psf. Recommended allowable bearing values include
both dead and live loads, and may be increased by one-third for wind and seismic forces.
6.3.5 Lateral Resistance
A passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth up to a maximum value of
2500 pounds per square foot may be used to determine lateral bearing for footings. A coefficient of
friction of 0.37 times the dead load forces may also be used between concrete and the supporting
soils to determine lateral sliding resistance. An increase of one-third of the above values may also
be used when designing for wind and seismic forces.
The above values are based on footings placed directly against competent native soils or compacted
fill. In the case where footing sides are formed, all backfill against the footings should be compacted
to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard.
6.3.6 Footings and Slabs on Grade
Exterior building footings may be founded at the minimum depths indicated in UBC Table 18-I-C
(i.e., 18-inch minimum depth for two-story construction, and 24-inch minimum depth for three-story
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page 12
construction). Interior bearing wall footings for both two-story and three-story construction may be
founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finish grade. All continuous
footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two No. 4 bars, one top and one bottom. The
structural engineer may require different reinforcement and should dictate if greater than the
recommendations herein.
Interior isolated pad footings should be a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at minimum
depths of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade for two-story and three-story construction.
Exterior isolated pad footings intended for support of patio covers and similar construction should be
a minimum of 24 inches square and founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest
adjacent final grade.
Interior concrete slabs constructed on grade should be a nominal 4 inches thick and should be
reinforced with 6-inch by 6-inch, W2.9 X W2.9 (No. 6 by No. 6) reinforcing wire mesh or No. 3
bars spaced 24 inches each way. Care should be taken to ensure the placement of reinforcement at
mid-slab height. The structural engineer may recommend a greater slab thickness and reinforcement
based on proposed use and loading conditions and such recommendations should govern if greater
than the recommendations presented herein.
Interior concrete floor slabs should be underlain with a moisture vapor barrier consisting of a poly-
vinyl chloride membrane such as 6-mil Visqueen, or equal. The membrane should be properly
lapped and protected with at least 2 inches of sand. Special consideration should be given to slabs in
areas to receive ceramic tile or other rigid, crack-sensitive floor coverings. Design and construction
of such areas should mitigate hairline cracking through the use of additional reinforcing and careful
control of concrete slump as recommended by the structural engineer.
Garage floor slabs should have a nominal thickness of 4 inches and should be reinforced in a similar
manner as living floor slabs. Garage floor slabs should also be poured separately from adjacent wall
footings with a positive separation maintained with 3/8-inch minimum felt expansion joint materials,
and quartered with saw cuts or cold joints. Consideration should be given to providing a vapor
barrier below the garage slab to mitigate the potential for effervescence on the slab surface.
Block-outs should be provided around interior columns to permit relative movement and mitigate
distress to the floor slabs due to differential settlement that will occur between column footings and
adjacent floor subgrade soils as loads are applied.
Prior to placing concrete, subgrade soils below slab-on-grade areas should be thoroughly moistened
to provide a moisture content that is equal to or greater than 100% of the optimum moisture content
to a depth of 12 inches.
6.3.7 Footing Observations
All footing trenches should be observed by the project geotechnical consultant to verify that they
have been excavated into competent bearing soils and to the minimum embedments recommended
above. These observations should be performed prior to placement of forms or reinforcement. The
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page 13
excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square. All loose, sloughed or moisture-softened
materials and debris should be removed prior to placing concrete.
6.4 MASONARY RETAINING WALLS
6.4.1 General
The following design and construction recommendations are provided for general masonry retaining
walls. The structural engineer and architect should provide appropriate recommendations for sealing
at all joints and water proofing material on the back of the walls.
6.4.2 Bearing Capacity, Lateral Resistance, and Reinforcement
Retaining walls may utilize the bearing capacities and lateral-bearing values provided for residential
foundations as discussed in Section 6.3.
All continuous footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 bars, two top and two
bottom.
6.4.3 Earth Pressures
Conventional retaining walls should be designed for the pressures as indicated in the table below. The
values are based on typical onsite materials as well as on drained backfill conditions and do not consider
hydrostatic pressures. Relatively clayey materials should not be used for wall backfill. All walls should
be designed to support any adjacent structural surcharge loads imposed by other nearby walls or
footings in addition to the earth pressures provided in Table 6.2 below.
Table 6.2
Retaining Wall Earth Pressures
Backfill Condition
Level
2 to 1 slope
Active Pressure
Wall Height up to 5 feet
(pcf)
30
65
Restrained Walls
all Heights
(pcf)
65
100
6.4.4 Drainage and Moisture-Proofing
All retaining walls should be constructed with a perforated pipe and gravel subdrain to prevent
entrapment of water in the backfill. The perforated pipe should consist of 4-inch-diameter, ABS
SDR-35 or PVC Schedule 40 with the perforations laid down. The pipe should be embedded in %-
to IVi-inch open-graded gravel wrapped in filter fabric. The gravel should be at least one foot wide
and extend at least one foot up the wall above the footing. Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi
140N, or equal. Non-perforated drain outlets should be provided at a minimum of every 100 lineal
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page 14
feet. Outlet pipes should be directed to positive drainage devices, such as graded swales, and/or area
drains.
The use of weepholes may be considered in locations where aesthetic issues from potential nuisance
water are not a concern. Weepholes should be 2 inches in diameter and provided at least every 6 feet
on center. Where weepholes are used, perforated pipe may be omitted from the gravel subdrain.
Retaining walls supporting backfill should also be coated with a waterproofing compound or
covered with such material to inhibit infiltration of moisture through the walls. The project structural
engineer should provide specific recommendations for water proofing, water stops, and joint details.
6.4.5 Retaining Wall Backfill
Onsite, granular soils may generally be used for backfill of retaining walls. Relatively clayey
materials should not be used for wall backfill. The project geotechnical consultant should approve all
backfill used for retaining walls. All wall backfill should be brought to a uniform moisture slightly
over optimum, placed in lifts no greater than 12 inches in thickness, and then mechanically
compacted with appropriate equipment to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Flooding or
jetting of backfill material is not recommended.
6.5 CEMENT TYPE
Based on laboratory testing of selected soil samples obtained from the site, onsite soils are
anticipated to contain less than 0.10% soluble sulfate concentrations. As such, we recommend that
the procedures provided in U.B.C. Section 1904.3 and Table 19-A-4, 1997 Edition, for concrete
exposed to sulfate-containing solutions be followed for Negligible Sulfate Exposure. We further
recommend that additional testing for soluble sulfate content be performed on site soils subsequent
to rough grading and prior to construction of foundations and other concrete work.
6.6 EXTERIOR SLABS AND FLATWORK
Exterior flatwork should be a nominal 4 inches thick. Cold joints or saw cuts should be provided at
least every 10 feet in each direction. Subgrade soils below flatwork should be moistened to a
moisture content of at least 100 percent of the optimum to a depth of 12 inches. Moistening should
be accomplished by lightly spraying the area over a period of a few days just prior to pouring
concrete.
6.7 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
6.7.1 Subgrade Preparation
Prior to placement of pavement elements, the upper 12 inches of subgrade soils should be moisture-
conditioned to lOOt to 120 percent of the optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90
percent of the laboratory standard. Areas observed to pump or yield under vehicle traffic should be
removed and replaced with firm and unyielding compacted soil or aggregate base materials.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
IN.: 1286.00
Page 15
6.7.2 Preliminary Pavement Design
Based on the soil conditions present at the site and estimated traffic indexes, preliminary pavement
sections are recommended in the table below. Pavement design sections listed below were
determined based on a tested R-value of 16 for the subgrade soils and an assumed average number of
5-axle trucks per day. The sections provided below are for planning purposes only and should be re-
evaluated subsequent to site grading. Final pavement sections should be based on actual R-value
testing of in-place soils and details concerning anticipated traffic on site.
TABLE 6.3
Preliminary Pavement Design
Location
Parking Bays
All Drive Areas
Traffic
Index
—
5.5
6.0
6.5
Asphalt Concrete
(AC) (inches)
3
4
4
4
Aggregate Base
(AB) (inches)
6
8
10
12
Portland Cement
Concrete (PCC)
(inches)*
5.5
6
6.5
7
* PCC using 4 inches of aggregate base material.
6.7.3 Pavement Materials
Aggregate base should be placed in lifts no greater than 6 inches in thickness, brought to a uniform
moisture slightly over optimum, then compacted to at least 95 percent of the laboratory standard
(ASTM D1557). Aggregate base materials should be either Crushed Aggregate Base, Crushed
Miscellaneous Base, or Processed Miscellaneous Base, conforming to Section 200-2 of the Standard
Specification for Public Works Construction (Greenbook). Paving asphalt should be either AR 4000
or AR 8000 conforming to the requirements of Section 203-1 of the Greenbook. Asphalt concrete
materials should conform to Section 203-6 and construction should conform to Section 302 of the
Greenbook. Portland cement concrete, including aggregates and reinforcement, should conform to
Section 201 of this standard. Pavement concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of
3500 psi at 28 days. Reinforcement and jointing of concrete pavement sections should be designed
according to the minimum recommendations provided by the Portland Cement Association (PCA).
For rigid pavements, transverse and longitudinal contraction joints should be provided at spacing no
greater than 15 feet. Contraction joints may be constructed with saw cutting to a depth of 1A of the
slab thickness. Expansion joints may be used in lieu of contraction joints. All joints should be
properly sealed.
For trash truck loading pads (areas in front of the trash enclosures), the rigid pavement structural
section should be reinforced with a minimum of No. 4 bars paced at 16 inches center each way.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page 16
6.8 POST GRADING CONSIDERATIONS
6.8.1 Erosion Protection
The site should incorporate temporary erosion protection during grading. Protection may include silt
fencing, sandbags, landscape elements or other methods as required by local authorities. The
temporary measures should be maintained until permanent site improvements have been
incorporated within the development to sufficiently provide erosion protection.
6.8.2 Site Drainage
Positive drainage devices, such as sloping concrete flatwork, graded swales, and/or area drains,
should be provided around the new construction to collect and direct all water to a suitable discharge
area. No rain or excess water should be allowed to pond against building walls or foundations.
6.8.3 Utility Trenches
Trench excavations should be constructed in accordance with the recommendations contained in
Section 6.1.5 of this report. All trench excavations should conform to the requirements of CAL
OSHA.
Trench backfill materials and compaction criteria should conform to the requirements of the local
municipalities. As a minimum, utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of
the laboratory standard. Trench backfill should be brought to a uniform moisture content slightly
over optimum, placed in lifts no greater than 12 inches in thickness, and then mechanically
compacted with appropriate equipment to at least 90 percent of the laboratory standard. The project
geotechnical consultant should perform density testing, along with probing, to verify adequate
compaction. Site conditions are generally not suitable for jetting of trench backfill.
Within shallow trenches (less than 18 inches deep) where pipes may be damaged by heavy
compaction equipment, imported clean sand having a Sand Equivalent of 30 or greater may be
utilized. The sand should be placed in the trench, thoroughly watered, and then compacted with a
vibratory compactor.
6.9 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
We recommend Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc., be engaged to review any future development and
foundation plans prior to construction. This is. to verify that the recommendations contained in this
report have been properly interpreted and are incorporated into the project specifications. If we are
not provided the opportunity to review these documents, we take no responsibility for
misinterpretation of our recommendations.
We recommend that a geotechnical consultant be retained to provide soil engineering services during
construction of the project. These services are to observe compliance with the design, specifications
or recommendations, and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from
those anticipated prior to the start of construction.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page 17
If the project plans change significantly, the project geotechnical consultant should review our
original design recommendations and their applicability to the revised construction. If conditions are
encountered during construction that appear to be different than those indicated in this report, the
project geotechnical consultant should be notified immediately. Design and construction revisions
may be required.
7.0 LIMITATIONS
This report is based on the proposed development and geotechnical data as described herein. The
materials encountered on the project site, described in other literature, and utilized in our laboratory
testing for this investigation are believed representative of the total project area, and the conclusions
and recommendations contained in this report are presented on that basis. However, soil and
bedrock materials can vary in characteristics between points of exploration, both laterally and
vertically, and those variations could effect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein.
As such, observation and testing by a geotechnical consultant during the grading and construction
phases of the project are essential to confirming the basis of this report.
This report has been prepared consistent with that level of care being provided by other professionals
providing similar services at the same locale and time period. The contents of this report are
professional opinions and as such, are not to be considered a guaranty or warranty.
This report should be reviewed and updated after a period of one year or if the site ownership or
project concept changes from that described herein.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Teak Investors, LLC to assist the project
consultants in the design of the proposed development. This report has not been prepared for use by
parties or projects other than those named or described herein. This report may not contain
sufficient information for other parties or other purposes.
This report is subject to review by the controlling governmental agency.
Respectfully submitted,
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC
Douglas T. Abernathy Il5l§ GE 2547 *M*J David E. Albus
Senior Engineer |«l Exp: 12/31/^4 /SI Principal Engineer
G.E. 2547 Exp. 12-31-04 VA^ $,/*/ G.E. 2455 Exp. 12-31-06
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC
Teak Investors, LLC January 9,2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Page 18
REFERENCES
Publications
Blake, T.F., 1989a, rev. 2000, EQFAULT version 3.00, A Computer Program for the Deterministic
Estimation of Peak Acceleration Using Three-Dimensional California Faults as Earthquake
Sources.
Blake, T.F., 1989b, rev. 2000, EQSEARCH version 3.00, A Computer Program for the Estimation of
Peak Acceleration from California Historical Earthquake Catalogs.
Blake, T.F., 1989b, rev. 2000, FRISKSP version 4.00, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic
Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using Three-Dimensional Faults
As Earthquake Sources.
Blake, T.F., 1989b, rev. 2000, UBCSEIS version 1.03, A Computer Program for the Estimation of
Uniform Building Coefficients Using 3-D Fault Sources.
C.D.M.G. Open-File Report 92-03, 1992, Preliminary Fault Activity Map of California.
C.D.M.G. Open-File Report 92-03, 1992, Preliminary Fault Activity Map of California, Hart, E.W.,
Revised 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, C.D.M.G. Special Publication 42.
Plans
Project Design Consultants, "Site Development Plan, Poinsettia Properties Planning Area 6", dated
December 29, 2003.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
APPENDIX A
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
EXPLORATION LOG
Project:Proposed Mixed Use Development Boring No.: LEGEND
Location:SWC & SEC of Avenida Encinas & Embarcadero Lane, Carlsbad Elevation:
J.N.:1286.00 Client: Teak Investors, LLC Date:12/12/03
Drill Method: (drill rig type)Driving Weight: (hammer wt. and drop)Logged by; DTA
Depth
(Feet)
Litho-
logy Material Description
Samples
Blows
Per
Foot
Laboratory Tests
Moisture
Content (%)
Dry
Density
(pcf)
Other Lab
Tests
EXPLANATION
Heavy solid lines separate geologic units.
Thin solid Lines separate material types within geologic unit.
Dashed lines indicate_unknown depth_o_f material type change.
Heavy double line indicates bottom of boring.
5 Solid black rectangle in Core column represents California
Split-Spoon sampler (2.5in. ID, 3in. OD).
Gray shaded rectangle in Core column represents SPT
sampler.
Cross-out rectangle in Core column represents sample not
recovered.
Light gray Rectangle in Bulk column represents large bag
sample.
Other Laboratory Tests:
MAX = Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content
SO4 = Soluble Sulfate Content
DSR = Direct Shear, Remolded
j r i DS = Direct Shear, Undisturbed
SA = Sieve Analysis (1" through #200 sieve)
PSA = Particle Size Analysis ( SA with Hydrometer)
HYD = Hydrometer Only
CON = Consolidation\Collapse
El = Expansion Index
RVAL = R-Value
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants Plate A-0
BORING LOG
Project: Proposed Mixed Use Development
Location: SWC & SEC of Avenida Encinas & Embarcadero Lane, Carlsbad
J.N.: 1286.00 Client: Teak Investors, LLC
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140 Ibs @ 30" Cathead
Depth
(Feet)
— 5 — .
—.10 —
- 15 -
- 20
Litho
logy
Qt
Material Description
TERRACE
SILTY SAND (SM): Liqht brown ; moist; very dense to medium
dense; with trace to little clay; fine grained sand; no pores.
SILTY SAND (SM): Liqht brown; moist; dense; fine grained; no
pores. Occasional pockets of fine sand.
@ 10 feet: Occasional rust-colored staining; very dense.
@ 1 5 feet: Occasional pockets of well-graded sand.
SAND (SP/SW): Liqht brown; saturated; very dense; with little
silt; fine to coarse grained sand. Perched ground water
encountered at a depth of approximately 18 feet below ground
surface,
[see next page)
Boring No.: B-l
Elevation: +/- 52.0
Date: 12/12/03
Logged by: DTA
w
a
t
e
T
\7
Samples
Blows
Per Foot
52
12
48
32
50/6"
c
o
r
e
1
1
B
u
1
k
;
«•
;
Laboratory Tests
Moisture
Content (%
10.4
4.4
11.0
Dry Density
(pcf)
119.9
104.2
116.4
Other Lab
Tests
-200
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnicai Consultants Plate A-l
BORING LOG
Project: Proposed Mixed Use Development
Location: SWC & SEC of Avenida Encinas & Embarcadero Lane, Carlsbad
J.N.: 1286.00 Client: Teak Investors, LLC
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140 Ibs @ 30" Cathead
Depth
(Feet)
2.0
— 25-
-30 —
- 35 -
- 40
Litho-
logy Material Description
Same As Above: SAND (SM)
@ 23 - 24 feet: Gravelly layer.
SILTY CLAY (CL): Liqht reddish-brown and gray; moist; hard.
@ 30 feet: Becomes Light brown,
[see next page)
Boring No.: B-l
Elevation: +/- 52.0
Date: 12/12/03
Logged by: DTA
w
a
t
e
r
Samples
Blows
Per Foo
69
50/5"
50/5"
50/6"
50/3"
c
0
r
e
1
—
I
B
u
1
k
Laboratory Tests
Moisture
Content (%
Dry Density
(pcf)
Other Lab
Tests
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants Plate A-2
BORING LOG
Project: Proposed Mixed Use Development
Location: SWC & SEC of Avenida Encinas & Embarcadero Lane, Carlsbad
J.N.: 1286.00 Client: Teak Investors, LLC
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140 Ibs @ 30" Cathead
Depth
(Feet)
40
_45_
_50_
_ 55 _
_ 60
Litho-
logy Material Description
Same As Above: SILTY CLAY (CL)
End Boring at 44.4 feet.
Perched Ground Water Encountered at 1 8 feet.
Backfill Procedures & Quantities:
Bentonite Grout (Approximately 50 gallons of Wyo-Ben
Groutwell) tremied from bottom of boring into borehole.
Bentonite chips (4.5, 50# bags) placed in borehole to a depth of
approximately 3 feet. Chips hydrated. Native soil backfilled
into borehole to ground surface.
Scott's Drill Service of Oceanside
Performed Drilling & Backfilling
Boring No.: B-l
Elevation: +/- 52.0
Date: 12/12/03
Logged by: DTA
w
a
t
e
r
Samples
Blows
Per Foo
50/5"
C
0
r
e
;
B
u
1
k
Laboratory Tests
Moisture
Content (%
Dry Density
(pcf)
Other Lab
Tests
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants Plate A-3
BORING LOG
Project: Proposed Mixed Use Development
Location: SWC & SEC of Avenida Encinas & Embarcadero Lane, Carlsbad
J.N.: 1286.00 Client: Teak Investors, LLC
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140 Ibs @ 30" Cathead
Depth
(Feet)
_ 5 _
_10_
- 15 -
- 90
Litho-
logy
Qt
Material Description
TERRACE
SILTY SAND (SM): Reddish-brown; moist; very dense; trace
clay; fine grained sand.
@ 5 feet: Becomes dense; moist; and slightly porous.
@ 10 feet: Becomes saprolitic with granitic structure; very
dense; trace pores, little clay.
SAND (SP): Liqht brown; moist; very dense; trace silt; fine
grained sand.
End of Boring @ 15.5 feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Boring Backfilled With Cuttings
Scott's Drill Service of Oceanside
Performed Drilling & Backfilling
Boring No.: B-2
Elevation: +/- 52.0
Date: 12/12/03
Logged by: DTA
w
a
t
e
r
Sam
Blows
Per
Foot
30
27
21
54
45
pies
C
o
r
e
'-
'.!
3
\
B
u
1
k
\
•-
'
-_
—
Laboratory Tests
Moisture
Content (%
M
9.8
Dry Density
(pcf)
D
115.2
Other Lab
Tests
DS
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants Plate A-4
BORING LOG
Project: Proposed Mixed Use Development
Location: SWC & SEC of Avenida Encinas & Embarcadero Lane, Carlsbad
J.N.: 1286.00 Client: Teak Investors, LLC
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140 Ibs @ 30" Cathead
Depth
(Feet)
0
_ 5 _-
_10_
- 15 -
- 20
Litho
logy
Qaf
Qt
Material Description
ARTIFICIAL FILL
SANDY SILT (ML): Liqht brown and qray; desicatted; soft.
SILTY SAND (SM): Liqht reddish-brown; moist; very dense;
with trace clay; trace small pores.
SANDY SILT (ML): Liqht reddish-brown; moist; very stiff; with
tract to little clay.
SILTY SAND (SM): Liqht brown; moist: very dense; with trace
to little clay; saprolitic/granitic structure.
SAND (SP): Liqht brown; moist; very dense; fine to coarse
grained.
End Of Boring @ 16 feet.
No Ground Water Encountered
Boring Backfilled With Cuttings
Scott's Drill Service of Oceanside
Performed Drilling & Backfilling
Boring No.: B-3
Elevation: +/- 54.0
Date: 12/12/03
Logged by: DTA
w
a
t
e
r
Samples
Blows
Per
Foot
75
25
-
46
c
0
r
e
1
1
)
B
u
1
k
I
J>
^m
1
fr
6?
*
P
'-
-
Laboratory Tests
Moisture
Content (%
3.1
9.2
Dry Density
(pcf)
116.6
112.0
Other Lab
Tests
El
MAX
ATT
SO4
RVAL
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants Plate A-5
BORING LOG
Project: Proposed Mixed Use Development
Location: SWC & SEC of Avenida Encinas & Embarcadero Lane, Carlsbad
J.N.: 1286.00 Client: Teak Investors, LLC
Drill Method: 8" Hollow Stem Auger Driving Weight: 140 Ibs @ 30" Cathead
Depth
(Feet)
-_ 5 _
_.10_
- 15 -
- 7.0
Litho-
logy
Qt
Material Description
TERRACE
CLAYEY SAND (SC): Light brown; moist; dense; with some
silt; fine grained sand.
@ 4.5 feet: 6 inch grayish-brown silty clay layer with caliche
stringers.
SILTY SAND (SM): Light brown; moist; dense; fine grained
sand.
SILTY SAND (SM): Grayish-brown; moist; verv dense; fine
grained sand.
SAND (SP/SW): Light brown; verv moist; very dense; with
trace silt; fine to coarse grained.
End Of Boring @ 15.8 feet
No Ground Water Encountered
Boring Backfilled With Cuttings; with 12 inches of bentonite
chips placed and hydrated at a depth of 3 feet below the ground
surface.
Scott's Drill Service of Oceanside
Performed Drilling & Backfilling
Boring No.: B-4
Elevation: +/- 54.5
Date: 12/12/03
Logged by: DTA
w
a
t
e
r
Samples
Blows
Per Foot
23
28
26
83/9"
c
o
r
e
' 1
• i
. I
|
; i
l i
i
B
u
I
k
:
-
Laboratory Tests
Moisture
Content (%
5.5
16.0
Dry Density
(pcf)
111.4
116.2
Other Lab
Tests
Albus-Keefe & Associates, Inc.
Geotechnical Consultants Plate A-6
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TEST PROGRAM
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Soil Classification
Soils encountered within the exploratory borings were initially classified in the field in general
accordance with the visual-manual procedures of the Unified Soil Classification System (Test
Method ASTM D 2488-93). Some of the samples were reexamined in the laboratory and the
classification reviewed and then revised, where appropriate. The assigned group symbols are
presented in the Boring Logs, Appendix A.
In Situ Moisture and Density
Moisture content and unit dry density tests were conducted on representative undisturbed samples
obtained from our exploratory borings. Test data is summarized in the Boring Logs, Appendix A.
Maximum Dry Density/Optimum Moisture Content
Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were performed on representative samples of
the site materials obtained from our field explorations. AMEC Earth &Environmental, Inc. of
Anaheim, California, performed the tests in accordance with Method A of ASTM D 1557-98.
Pertinent test values are given in Table B-l.
Percent Passing the No. 200 Sieve
Percent of material passing the No. 200 sieve was determined on selected samples to verify visual
classifications performed in the field. These tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D
1140-97. Test results are presented on Table B-l.
Direct Shear
The Coulomb shear strength parameters (angle of internal friction and cohesion) were determined
for a bulk sample and an undisturbed sample obtained from our field sampling. AMEC Earth
&Environmental of Anaheim, California, performed the tests in general conformance with Test
Method ASTM D 3080-80. The bulk sample was remolded to 90 percent of maximum dry density
and at the optimum moisture content. Three specimens were prepared for each test, artificially
saturated, and then sheared under varied loads at an appropriate constant rate of strain. Results are
graphically presented on Plates B-l and B-2.
R-value
R-value testing was performed for an existing surficial soil sample. AMEC Earth and
Environmental performed this test in general accordance with California Test Method No. 301. The
test result is included in Table B-l.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Teak Investors, LLC January 9, 2004
J.N.: 1286.00
Expansion Potential
Expansion index testing was performed by AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. on a representative
sample selected from the near-surface soils encountered on site. This test was performed in
conformance with Uniform Building Code Standard 18-2. The test result is presented in Table B-l.
Atterberg Limits
Atterberg Limits were determined for selected soil samples. AMEC Earth and Environmental
performed this test in general accordance with Test Method ASTM D 4318-00. The test result is
included in Table B-l.
Soluble Sulfate
Chemical analysis was performed by AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. on a sample to
determine soluble sulfate content. The soluble sulfate test was completed in accordance with
California Test Method No. 417. The test result is presented in Table B-l.
TABLE B-l
Boring No.
B-l
B-3
Sample
Depth
(ft)
15
3-8
Soil Description
Silty Sand (SM)
Silty Sand / Sandy Silt
(SM/ML)
Test Results
%<#200 Sieve: 14.6%
Maximum Dry Density: 132.5 pcf
Optimum Moisture Content: 8.3%
Expansion Index : 1 0
Soluble Sulfate: 0.0521%
R-Value: 16
LL: 22
PI: Non-Plastic
Additional laboratory test results are provided on the boring logs provided in Appendix A.
ALBUS-KEEFE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
PROJECT: Albus-Keefe #1286.00
JOB NO.: 0-212-1022
SAMPLE LOCATION: B-2 @ 4.5-6'
SAMPLE TYPE: Und./Sat
DESCRIPTION: Brown Silty Sand
Specimen No.
tormal Stress, psf
Peak Stress, psf
Displacement, in.
Ultimate Stress, psf
)isplacement, in.
Initial Dry Density, pcf
Initial Water Content, %
Strain Rate, in/min.Shear Stress (psf)I 1n
1
500
444
0.098
348
0.250
110.3
6.3
0.0083
2
1000
744
0.144
744
0.250
110.3
6.3
0.0083
3
2000
1248
0.182
1248
0.250
110.3
6.3
0.0083
f :
j
i
I
i
•
i
J;
X^ \
<
^\
\ \ I
0
S^
f
x x
1
S
2000
1500
Shear Stress (psf)^X ^
x x
i
4
000
0
X
Date: 12/19/2003
S
^'
2
x ^
:(Psf)
f/
x-'
^-~
X
s^~~
-, ^
~"~~- — 1 ksf
. [ -.L
i
4 6 8 10 12
Axial Strain (%)
,S ^
f
• Peak
• Ultimate
,,
I
Peak Ultimate
120 80
30 32
,tft°° , « 2°°°Normal Stress (psf)
_^amec^
PLATE B-1
DIRECT SHEAR TEST
PROJECT:
JOB NO.:
SAMPLE LOCATION-
SAMPLE TYPE:
DESCRIPTION:
Specimen No.
formal Stress, psf
3eak Stress, psf
Displacement, in.
Jltimate Stress, psf
Displacement, in.
nitial Dry Density, pcf
Initial Water Content, %
Strain Rate, in/min.
2000
c-
a
1010(D j nnf\Shear St1Albus-Keefe #1286.00
0-212-1022
B-3 @ 3-81
Remolded/Saturated
Brown Silty Sand
1
500
456
0.024
312
0.250
119.3
8.3
0.0083
2
1000
684
0.046
624
0.250
119.3
8.3
0.0083
3
2000
1308
0.085
1176
0.250
119.3
8.3
0.0083
j
i i
i
j
|
|
I
!
<
/ ^
X^lx"
X-//"
s'
0
i
X
s
/
/
/
X
/
/
J
^Shear Stress (psf)X
S
.
/
X
X
/-
/
t
i
i |
000
•inn
000
Date: 12/22/2003
f
^"
^—-.
i
I
I
i
— 2 ksf
I
. 1 ksf|
5k|f
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Mat Strain (%)
•^
/
x
X
^
s
,x
,x
S
x
/
/I
[• Peak i
| • Ultimate i
'
i
Peak Ultimate
;<psf) 140 40
30 30
Normal Stress (psf)
^ar/iecr^
PLATE B-2
APPENDIX C
SEISMICITY ANALYSIS
ALBVS-KEEFE& ASSOCIATES, INC.
I j t i i ,
DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM
Seismic Zone: 0.4 Soil Profile: SC
2.25 -E
2.00
CDo
1.
1.00 -E
o
CO
0.
0.
0.
0.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Period Seconds
U B C S E I S
Version 1.03
COMPUTATION OF 1997
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
JOB NUMBER: 1286.00
JOB NAME: UWS - Carlsbad
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1089
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3153
UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4
UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SC
NEAREST TYPE A FAULT:
NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN
DISTANCE: 41.0 km
NEAREST TYPE B FAULT:
NAME: ROSE CANYON
DISTANCE: 6.2 km
NEAREST TYPE C FAULT:
NAME: 00000000000000000000000000000000
DISTANCE: 99999.0 km
SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS:
Na: 1.0
Nv: 1.2
Ca: 0.40
Cv: 0.65
Ts: 0.645
To: 0.129
DATE: 12-18-2003
CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are
limited in number and have been digitized from small-
scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). Consequently,
the estimated fault-site-distances may be in error by
several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that
the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and
adjusted as needed, before they are used in design.
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page 1
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
ROSE CANYON
NEWPORT -INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
CORONADO BANK
ELSINORE- JULIAN
ELS INORE - TEMECULA
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY
PALOS VERDES
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
NEWPORT- INGLEWOOD (L. A. Basin)
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
CHINO- CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore)
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK
ELSINORE-WHITTIER
ELSINORE-COYOTB MOUNTAIN
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO
SAN JACINTO - BORREGO
SAN ANDREAS - Southern
SAN JOSE
APPROX.
DISTANCE
(km)
6.2
11.8
31.7
41.0
41.0
59.5
61.1
68.8
77.7
79.1
79.4
81.9
84.6
88.1
90.2
101.1
104.9
108.1
115.2
SOURCE
TYPE
(A,B,C)
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
MAX.
MAG.
(Mw)
6.9
6.9
7.4
7.1
6.8
6.8
7.1
6.5
7.2
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.6
7.4
6.5
SLIP
RATE
(mm/yr)
1.50
1.50
3.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
3.00
2.00
12.00
1.00
12.00
1.00
4.00
2.50
4.00
12.00
4.00
24.00
0.50
FAULT
TYPE
(SS,DS,BT)
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
DS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
DS
CO<D
-i-lc.<D
LU
<D.Q
E
Q)
£
E^
O
EARTHQUAKE RECURRENCE CURVE
UWS - Carlsbad
100
10
.1
.01
,001
I i I I I I i i
3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0
Magnitude (M)
EQSEARCH
Version 3.00
ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM
CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE CATALOGS
JOB NUMBER: 1286.00
DATE: 12-18-2003
JOB NAME: UWS - Carlsbad
EARTHQUAKE-CATALOG-FILE NAME: ALLQUAKE.DAT
MAGNITUDE RANGE:
MINIMUM MAGNITUDE: 5.00
MAXIMUM MAGNITUDE: 9.00
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1089
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3153
SEARCH DATES:
START DATE: 1800
END DATE: 2000
SEARCH RADIUS:
62.0 mi
99.8 km
ATTENUATION RELATION: 6) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Holocene Soil-Uncor
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
ASSUMED SOURCE TYPE: S3 [SS=Strike-slip, DS=Reverse-slip, BT=Blind-thrust]
SCOND: 0 Depth Source: A
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0
EARTHQUAKE SEARCH RESULTS
1
FILE [ LAT.
CODE| NORTH
1
| LONG .
j WEST
1
DATE
1
H 1 i
DMG |33.0000|ll7.3000|ll/22/1800
MGI |33.0000|117. 0000) 09/21/1856
MGI |32.8000|117. 1000)05/25/1803
TIME
(UTC)
H M Sec
2130 0.0
| | SITE
DEPTH j QUAKE j ACC .
(km) | MAG. j g
SITE
MM
INT.
+ 1 1
0.0) 6.50) 0.276 IX
730 0.0| 0.0) 5.00| 0.032 V
0 0 0.0 0.0| 5.00
DMG J32.7000J117.2000 j 05/27/1862 | 20 0 0.0| 0.0| 5.90
T-A |32.6700|117. 1700)12/00/1856) 0 0 O.OJ O.OJ 5.00
T-A J32.6700J117.1700
T-A J32.6700J117.1700
10/21/1862) 0 0 0.0| 0.0| 5.00
05/24/1865) 0 0 O.OJ 0.0
0.024 V
0.041 V
0.018 IV
0.018 IV
5.00) 0.018 IV
PAS |32.9710|117.8700|07/13/1986|1347 8.2) 6.0| 5.30
DMG j 33. 2000 j 116. 7000
DMG | 32. 8000 j 116. 8000
DMG J33.7000J117.4000
DMG |33 .7000J117.4000
DMG J33.7000J117.4000
MGI J33.2000J116.6000
DMG J33.6990J117.5110
01/01/1920| 235 0.0
10/23/1894J23 3 0.0
05/13/1910| 620 0.0
04/11/1910) 757 0.0
05/15/1910J1547 0.0
10/12/1920
05/31/1938
DMG j 33. 7100 | 116. 9250 | 09/23/1963
DMG J33.7500J117. 0000)04/21/1918
DMG J33.7500J117.0000J 06/06/1918
DMG j 33. 5750
MGI j 33. 8000
DMG | 33. 8000
117.9830|03/11/1933
117.6000
1748 0.0
83455.4
144152.6
223225.0
2232 0.0
518 4.0
04/22/1918)2115 0.0
117.0000|12/2S/1899|1225 0.0
DMG j 33. 6170 | 117. 967003/11/1933 154 7.8
DMG J33.0000J116.4330 j 06/04/1940 | 1035 8.3
DMG | 33. 6170
PAS j 33. 5010
DMG | 33. 5000
DMG j 33. 9000
DMG j 33. 6830
118.0170|03/14/1933|19 150.0
116.5130
116.5000
117.2000
118.0500
02/25/1980|l04738.5J
09/30/1916
12/19/1880
03/11/1933
211 O.OJ
0 0 0.0
658 3.0)
DMG | 33. 3430 | 116. 3460 | 04/28/1969 | 232042. 9 |
DMG j 33. 7000 j 118. 0670 j 03/11/1933 |
DMG | 33. 7000 | 118. 0670 |03/11/1933 j
85457. 0|
51022. OJ
T-A |32.2500|117.5000|01/13/1877|20 0 0.0|
DMG j 34 . 0000 j 117 . 2500 | 07/23/1923 j73026. 0|
DMG |33. 4000)116. 3000)02/09/1890)12 6 0.0|
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
0.021 IV
5.00) 0.015
5.70
5.00
0.026
0.013
5.00) 0.013
6.00| 0.028
5.30J 0.016
5.50) 0.018
16.5) 5.00| 0.011
0.0) 6.80J 0.044
0.0) 5. 00 j 0.010
0.0) 5.20
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.00
6.40
6.30
5.10
5.10
5.50
5.00
6.00
5.50
5.80
5.10
5.10
5.00
6.25
6.30
0.011
0.010
0.030
0.027
0.010
0.010
0.013
0.009
0.019
0.012
0.015
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.021
0.021
IV
V
| APPROX .
| DISTANCE
mi [km]
7.6( 12.2)
19. 7( 31.8)
24. 7( 39.8)
29. 0( 46.7)
31.4 ( 50.6)
31.4 ( 50.6)
31.4 ( 50.6)
33. 5( 53.9)
36. 1( 58.1)
36. 7( 59.0)
III 41. 1( 66.1)
III
V
IV
IV
III
VI
III
III
41. 1( 66.1)
41. 1( 66.1)
41. 8 ( 67.3)
42. 3 ( 68.0)
47.2 ( 76.0)
47. 8( 77.0)
47. 8( 77.0)
50. 2( 80.8)
III) 50. 5( 81.2)
V
V
III
III
51. 1( 82.2)
51. 4( 82.7)
51. 6( 83.0)
53. 6( 86.2)
III 53. 6( 86.3)
III
IV
III
IV
III
III
II
IV
IV
54. 2( 87.3)
55. 0( 88.5)
58. 0( 93.3)
58. 3( 93.8)
59. 5( 95.8)
59. 5( 95.8)
60. 3( 97.0)
61. 6( 99.2)
62. 0( 99.7)
-END OF SEARCH- 34 EARTHQUAKES FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH AREA.
TIME PERIOD OF SEARCH: 1800 TO 2000
LENGTH OF SEARCH TIME: 201 years
THE EARTHQUAKE CLOSEST TO THE SITE IS ABOUT 7.6 MILES (12.2 km) AWAY.
LARGEST EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE FOUND IN THE SEARCH RADIUS: 6.8
LARGEST EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION FROM THIS SEARCH: 0.276 g
COEFFICIENTS FOR GUTENBERG & RICHTER RECURRENCE RELATION:
a-value= 0.668
b-value= 0.328
beta-value= 0.756
TABLE OF MAGNITUDES AND EXCEEDANCES :
Earthquake
Magnitude
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
6.5
Number of Times
Exceeded
34
34
34
14
8
2
Cumulative
No. / Year
0.16915
0.16915
0.16915
0.06965
0.03980
0.00995
125 -F
100 --
-25--
-50--
CALIFORNIA FAULT MAP
Carlsbad Transit Village
175 200 225 250 275 300 325
E Q P A 0 L T
Version 3.00
DETERMINISTIC ESTIMATION OF
PEAK ACCELERATION FROM DIGITIZED FAULTS
DATE: 06-23-2003
JOB NUMBER: 293-03
JOB NAME: Carlsbad Transit Village
CALCULATION NAME: Test Run Analysis
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGFLTE.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1089
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3153
SEARCH RADIUS: 62 mi
ATTENUATION RELATION: 6) Bozorgnia Campbell Niazi (1999) Hor.-Holocene Soil-Uncor
UNCERTAINTY (M=Median, S=Sigma): M Number of Sigmas: 0.0
DISTANCE MEASURE: cdist
SCOND: 0
Basement Depth: 5.00 km Campbell SSR: 0 Campbell SHR: 0
COMPUTE PEAK HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION
FAULT-DATA FILE USED: CDMGFLTE.DAT
MINIMUM DEPTH VALUE (km): 3.0
EQFAULT SUMMARY
DETERMINISTIC SITE PARAMETERS
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
ROSE CANYON
NEWPORT -INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
[ESTIMATED MAX. EARTHQUAKE EVENT
APPROXIMATE - -
DISTANCE MAXIMUM
mi
4.3(
7.6(
CORONADO BANK 19.8(
ELSINORE-TEMECULA 25. 5 (
ELSINORE- JULIAN 25. 5 (
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 37.0(
PALOS VERDES 38 . 1 (
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY
SAN JACINTO-ANZA
NEWPORT -INGLEWOOD (L. A. Basin)
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore)
SAN JACINTO- COYOTE CREEK
WHITTIER
ELSINORE -COYOTE MOUNTAIN
COMPTON THRUST
42. 8(
48. 3(
49. 3(
49. 3(
51. 3 (
52. 6(
54. 8 (
56. 1(
59.0 (
(km)
6.
12.
31.
41.
41.
59.
61.
68.
77.
79.
79.
82.
84.
88.
90.
94.
PEAK
EARTHQUAKE! SITE
MAG. (Mw) ACCEL, g
9) 6.9 0.429
2) 6.9 0.334
9)
1)
1)
5)
3)
9)
EST. SITE
INTENSITY
MOD . MERC .
X
IX
7.4 0.196 VIII
6.8 0.097 VII
7.1
6.8
7.1
6.5
8) | 7.2
3) j 6.9
4)
5)
6)
2)
3)
9)
6.9
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.8
6.8
0.121 VII
0.062 VI
0.075 VII
0.040 V
0.060 VI
0.046 VI
0.046 VI
0.045
0.039
0.037
0.036
0.046
VI
V
V
V
VI
-END OF SEARCH-16 FAULTS FOUND WITHIN THE SPECIFIED SEARCH RADIUS.
FAULT IS CLOSEST TO THE SITE.THE ROSE CANYON
IT IS ABOUT 4.3 MILES (6.9 km) AWAY.
LARGEST MAXIMUM-EARTHQUAKE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.4290 g
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
BOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR HS UNC 1
100
o>
>%
-^
15
CO
.QO
CDOc
05
TD
CD
CDO
X
LLJ
75 yrs 100 yrs
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (g)
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
BOZ. ET AL.(1999)HOR HS UNC 2
100
_Q
CO
_Q
O
CDOc
CO
•O
CD
0OX111
75 yrs 100 yrs
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (g)
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
CAMP. & BOZ. (1997 Rev.) AL 1
100
90
80
05
JQ
O
DL
0Oc
03•oCDCDOX
LLJ
0
75 yrs 100 yrs
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (g)
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
CAMP. & BOZ. (1997 Rev.) AL 2
100
.a
03
.Q
O
CDOc
03•o
CD
CDOX
111
75 yrs 100 yrs
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (g)
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
SADIGH ET AL. (1997) DEEP SOIL 1
100 75 yrs 100 yrs
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (g)
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
SADIGH ET AL. (1997) DEEP SOIL 2
100 75 yrs 100 yrs
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (g)