Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
W. O. 1415G-SD; Kelly Property Geotechnical Assessment; Kelly Property Geotechnical Assessment; 1994-09-06
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT KELLY PROPERTY, APN 212-040-32 & 36 CITY OF CARLSBAD, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA FOR MR. ROBERT P. AND RICHARD C. KELLY TRUSTEES OF THE KELLY, UDT 8-31-82 2770 SUNNY CREEK ROAD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008 W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 Note: On March 22, 1995 the ownership of the property changed from Kelly to MSP California, LLC. The project name also changed to Emerald Ridge West and the number of units reduced 1 to 61 single-family units and 10 affordable 2nd dwelling units for a total of 71. MAY 2 6 1235 \ --vx RECEIVED SEP 0 7 1994 LADWIG DESIGN Gft Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 SITE DESCRIPTION ' 1 SITE DEVELOPMENT 2 FIELD EXPLORATION 2 Field Testing 2 EARTH MATERIALS 3 Artificial Fill 3 Surficial Soils (topsoil-colluvium) 3 Alluvium 3 Terrace Deposits 3 Bedrock: Santiago Formation 4 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE 4 MASS WASTING 5 GROUNDWATER 5 SURFACE DRAINAGE 6 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY 6 Secondary Seismic Hazards 7 Liquefaction 7 Subsidence 8 Other Hazards Considered 8 LABORATORY TESTING 9 General 9 Field Moisture and Density 9 Laboratory Standard-Maximum Dry Density 9 Expansion Tests 9 Direct Shear Tests 9 Consolidation Tests 9 Particle Size Analysis 10 CONCLUSIONS 10 Natural Slopes 10 Cut Slopes 11 Fill Slopes 11 GeoSoils, Inc. n Table of Contents (continued) RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION 12 Site Preparation 12 Demolition 12 Removals ..; 12 Settlements and Monitoring 13 Subdrainage 14 Lot Capping 14 Shrinkage - Bulking 14 PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS 14 Design 14 Construction 15 Low Expansive Soils 15 Medium Expansive Soils 15 Highly Expansive Soils 16 Retaining Wall Design 16 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA RECOMMENDATIONS 17 Landscape Maintenance and Planting 17 Site Improvements 18 Drainage 18 Footing Trench Excavation 18 Trenching 18 Utility Trench Backfill 18 Grading Guidelines 19 PLAN REVIEW 19 LIMITATIONS 19 GeoSoils, Inc. Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (619)438-3155 • FAX (619) 931-0915 September 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD MR. ROBERT P. AND RICHARD C. KELLY Trustees of the Kelly, UDT 8-31-82 2770 Sunny Creek Road Carlsbad, California 92008 Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment Kelly Property, APN 212-040-32 & 36 City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, California INTRODUCTION In accordance with your authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) has performed a soil engineering and geologic evaluation of the subject property, specifically regarding the geotechnical conditions associated with the proposed residential development. The purpose of our study was to evaluate geotechnical site conditions and their effects on proposed site development from a geotechnical viewpoint. This report presents our findings, conclusions, and provides recommendations for site preparation, foundation design/construction and other soils related development criteria. SITE DESCRIPTION The irregularly shaped property, roughly 56 acres in size. The property is located south of Palomar Airport Road, between Paseo Del Norte and Cobblestone Road in the City of Carlsbad. Current access to the site is from the south, off Camino De Las Ondas. This dirt road also provides access to other agricultural developments in the immediate area. Canyon de las Encinas, an ephemeral stream (i.e., flows in direct response to precipitation) is situated directly north of the property. The property is basically surrounded by agricultural and undeveloped properties, except for a small residential development along the northeastern property boundary. The site consists of an undeveloped, northerly draining canyon between two ridges. Topographically, existing slopes on the western portion of the property are steeper than existing slopes on the eastern portion. North facing slopes, descending to Canyon de las Encinas, are relatively steep on both ridges. Vegetation on the relatively level western ridge consists of recently planted crops. Subsurface irrigation lines were noted along a system of well maintained dirt roads on the western half of the property. Slopes are covered with relatively undisturbed, native KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 2 vegetation. A dirt road, descending through the east-facing slopes of the western ridge, provides access to the eastern half of the site. Thin dry grasses appear to have mantled the slopes on the eastern ridge, which has been recently disced. Native brush in the canyons on the eastern half of the property suggest vegetation has been undisturbed in these limited areas. SITE DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that typical cut/fill earthwork techniques will be utilized to grade the site into the desired configuration(s) for residential development, including the southern extension of Hidden Valley Road from Palomar Airport Road. We anticipate structures to utilize wood-frame construction, with typical spread footings and slab-on-grade foundation. Relatively light loads are expected. Currently proposed development and existing topography of the site are shown on the enclosed Geotechnical Map, Plate 1 which utilities a 1"=100' scale plan provided by Ladwig Design Group, Inc. Although the enclosed plan is in the conceptual stage regarding information on proposed elevations, areas of cut and fill are designated. Engineering analyses herein are based upon these conceptual grades. FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions were evaluated by advancing two hollow stem auger borings (B-1 and B-2) one large diameter exploratory boring (B-3), and excavating thirty test pits (TP-1 through TP-30) with a rubber tired backhoe and small trackhoe. The hollowstem borings were advanced to analyze subsurface conditions along the proposed extension of Hidden Valley Road. Boring depths ranged from 27 to 60 feet. Tests pits were excavated to a maximum depth of 16 feet within the development area. Logs of the borings and test pits are included with this report in Appendix I. Field exploration was performed on August 5 and 10,1994 by our staff geologists who logged the excavations and obtained samples of representative earth materials for laboratory testing. The approximate location of the borings and test pits are indicated on the enclosed Geotechnical Map (Plate 1). Field Testing During field exploration, standard penetration tests (SPT) were performed in the hollowstem borings, in accordance with ASTM Test Method D-1586-84. In addition, drive-tube samples were collected from all three borings, to determine in-situ density and moisture contents. Bulk samples were collected from the borings and test pits. The primary purpose of performing the field testing was to assess some of the general engineering properties of the soils, for the purpose of performing engineering analyses in conjunction with the site evaluation. Results of the standard penetration tests are indicated on GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 3 the boring logs included in this report as Appendix I. Results of the in-situ density and moisture determinations are also presented in Appendix I and were utilized to determine the shrinkage potential for site soils. EARTH MATERIALS Earth materials encountered onsite consist of surficial soils (topsoil, slopewash and colluvium), alluvium, terrace deposits and bedrock of the Eocene age Santiago Formation. Artificial fills were also present to a lesser extent in the vicinity of existing improvements, and as fill for various dirt roads. Artificial Fill (map symbol af) Artificial fill materials encountered consisted of brown silty sand, with occasional to common deleterious materials (i.e., wood, plastic, etc.). These materials were dry to moist, and loose. Where encountered, fill material was approximately 2± feet thick. Previously placed fill materials are not considered suitable for structural support unless the debris is removed, and the soils are moisture conditioned and placed as compacted fill. Surficial Soils (topsoil-colluvium) (not mapped) A weakly developed surficial layer (1'± thick) occurs throughout the western portion of the site; however, sections of the order of 3 to 9 feet of topsoil and colluvium mantle the eastern half of the property, possibly contributing to some of the localized surficial slumps observed. These materials typically consist of brown to dark brown silty sands and very fine sands and are dry, porous and loose. Where observed in canyon areas, surficial soils are distinguished from the underlying alluvium by its blocky structure and many roots. Colluvium, represents topsoil/slopewash deposits that have accumulated near the bottom of slopes and in swales. Localized areas of creep may exist in the eastern canyons. Creep, or deposits that thicken at the toe of slopes due to gravitational forces acting on weak surficial soils, were also noted onsite. Surficial materials are not considered suitable for structural support unless they are removed, moisture conditioned and placed as compacted fill. Alluvium (map symbol Qal) Where encountered, alluvial materials consist of silty to uniform fine sand in various shades of brown and gray. Based on test pit observations, alluvium grades locally from silty fine sand to clayey sand. Typically, these materials are dry to wet and loose to medium hard. Resistance to penetration (proportionally related to density) generally increases with depth; however, some relatively loose zones were encountered between layers of denser materials. Recommendations for site preparation, treatment and removal of the existing alluvium for the purpose of providing structural support for proposed improvements are presented in the "Earthwork Recommendations" section of this report. Terrace Deposits (map symbol Qt) Terrace deposits were encountered on the western half of the site. These materials consisted of medium dense, orange brown to brown silty sands, grading to sandstones with depth. This GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 4 unit is considered suitable for structural support in its present condition, provided the upper, highly weathered/disturbed portion of the material is removed and reprocessed. Cut slopes exposing terrace materials are anticipated to perform well. Bedrock: Santiago Formation (map symbol Ts) Bedrock encountered in our excavations onsite consisted of sedimentary members of the Eocene age Santiago Formation. This formation typically consists of medium dense, massive sandstone beds interbedded with siltstones and claystones (Reference 1). Bedrock is considered suitable for structural support in its present condition, provided the upper, highly weathered portion of the material is removed and reprocessed. Cut slopes exposing claystone beds do not typically perform well, and are susceptible to slumping whenever seepage forces are present. Cut slopes on the eastern half of the site are anticipated to require stabilization with granular materials approved by the soils engineer. While the sandstone sections of the bedrock are typically low to medium expansive in nature, the claystones are anticipated to be highly expansive. We recommend that claystones, or fill materials derived from claystones, be not situated on the face of slopes or within 3 feet of finish grade. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE Bedrock within the property consists of a massive white to gray-white, non-marine, friable sandstone overlying interbedded marine claystones and sandstones of the Eocene age Santiago Formation (Reference 1). Bedrock onsite has been mapped by various authors as the Delmar Formation, Friars Formation, Scripps Formation and/or Torrey Sandstone (References 2 and 3). While these formations all represent sedimentary units deposited during the classic regressive/transgressive Eocene age sequence in San Diego County, differences may be attributed to geographic nomenclature. Basically, regressive/transgressive sequences are characterized by interfingering/interbedding of repetitive sandstone (transgressive) and claystone (regressive) beds. Terrace deposits (Quaternary age) were found to overly bedrock on the western ridge only. The absence of terrace deposits on the east, coupled with the absence of the upper sandstone bedrock member on the west, suggests an unconformity (erosional) existing on the western half of the site, created along what may have been a local ancient shoreline. The contact between Terrace deposits and the underlying Santiago Formation encountered in Boring B-1, exhibited trends dipping at very low angles to the northwest and northeast (see Plate 1). Claystones encountered below the terrace deposit were locally highly sheared. The majority of these shears were discontinuous in nature. Where discernable, shears were found to dip in an easterly or westerly direction (see Plate 1). This type of shearing is typically characteristic of internal shearing, related possibly to regional stresses (i.e., faulting). Bedding within the massive claystones was not detected in our field exploration. GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 5 Bedding altitudes, although poorly developed in the bedrock unit as a whole, were locally detected in the sandstones onsite, typically dipped to the west to southwest at angles varying from 10 to 22 degrees. Regional mapping (by others) indicate similar trends to the north and east. Random interbeds of relatively thin clayey siltstones/claystones should be anticipated throughout the property, as noted in Test Pit TP-21. MASS WASTING Regional mapping of slopes in the area (Reference 3) indicate north-facing natural slopes along the south side of Canyon de las Encinas are moderately susceptible to landslide; however, no landslides are mapped in the vicinity of the project. Surficial slumps were detected on the property during our field investigation, as shown on the enclosed Plate 1. Slumps, or shallow (thin) landslides, are typically associated with claystone beds which are exposed in, or adversely orientated (daylighted) to slopes. Slumps may also have been caused by water seepage or direct saturation of surficial materials by precipitation or irrigation. Slumps were also noted in the canyons on the eastern half of the property, were thick sections of surficial and alluvial soils were encountered. The conceptual grading plans indicate that all areas where surficial slumps were observed on site will be graded, (i.e., removed) Other areas of slumping may be detected during grading. Cut slopes should be monitored during grading by a geologist for adverse structures (i.e., bedding) that may necessitate stabilization or buttressing. Natural slope stability is discussed in the natural slopes section of this report (page 10). GROUNDWATER Subsurface water seepage, or perched groundwater, was encountered in the exploratory borings excavated for the proposed Hidden Valley Road extension. Depth to water seepage was encountered at approximately 9 feet in Boring B-1 and at 11 and 50 feet in boring B-2. In addition, water seepage was observed in Boring B-3 at roughly 24 feet. In general, the regional groundwater table is anticipated to have a westward regional flow gradient. 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. Subsurface seepage on the western ridge (Boring B-1 at 24 feet) may be related to irrigation. GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 6 SURFACE DRAINAGE In general, surface drainage on the property consists of sheet flow from seasonal precipitation which collects in minor swales or gullies, flowing in easterly and westerly directions toward the drainage channel which intersects Canyon de las Encinas in the northern portion of the property. Phreatophytes were observed in the southern end of the north flowing canyon, and in the upper section of a drainage swale along the access road, as well as on the north facing slope below Lots 82 through 84. These plants, which typically require higher amounts of water to exist, may be established in response to irrigation runoff and/or may be evidence of springs or seeps that are perennial in nature. Since the proposed alignment of Hidden Valley Road is in a relatively low lying area, there is a potential for flooding or ponding of water in poorly drained areas during significant storm periods. Development plans should address this issue. FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY No known active faults, or major potentially active faults are shown on published maps on or adjacent to the site (Reference 4), and no evidence for active or potentially active faulting was encountered in any of our exploratory excavations. One fault, however, has been documented directly east of the property, at Laurel Tree Road and Palomar Airport Road. Published maps (by others) indicate that the northeast trending, west dipping fault does not offset Quaternary Terrace deposits. In addition, a 1972 report (Reference 1) infers a northeast trending fault on the property. The lineation, not exhibited on other recent published maps, intersects the northwestern corner of the eastern ridge, no offset Quaternary Terrace deposits of the western ridge is shown. No evidence of this fault was detected during our field investigation. 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 Fault Zone. 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 approximate location of these and other major faults relative to the site are indicated on Figure 1. Peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined, based on the random mean attenuation curve developed by Campbell (Reference 5) for horizontal-deep soil and soft rock sites. The largest probable and credible peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site would be 0.250g and .390g assuming maximum probable and credible events of magnitude 6.0 and 7.0, respectively, on the Rose Canyon Fault zone which is located 5± miles west of the site. It should be noted that to date there is no published or unpublished consensus on the relative seismic activity of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone. Recent studies at one location in Rose Canyon GeoSoils, Inc. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 50 '00 SCALE (Wiiesi \ SAN FRANCISCO ^ A ! ! *~C} Q N M~ LEGEND NI-Newport-Inglewooxd CB-Coronado Bank SA-San Andreas E-Elsinore SJ-San Jancinto - 33.1180 Longitude - 117.3020 W Ke'i W.O. 1715-SD GEOSOILS, INC GeoSoils, Inc.FIGURE 1 JcELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 7 have indicated Holocene activity along one strand of The Rose Canyon Fault Zone (Reference 6 and 6a). As a result of these studies the State of California has classified portions of the fault in the City of San Diego as active. Unfortunately, there is still limited information that would indicate relative fault activity for offshore segments of the Rose Canyon Fault Zone west of the site. The acceleration-attenuation relations of Campbell (1991) for horizontal-deep soil and soft rock sites have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Reference 7). EQFAULT is a computer program for the deterministic evaluation of horizontal accelerations from digitized California faults. Results of the computer file search and computations are enclosed in Appendix IV. Secondary Seismic Hazards Liquefaction: Liquefaction 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 of loose sediments, sand boils, and other damaging deformations. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying, non-saturated soil, as excess pore water pressures dissipate. 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 a large amount of cementation: 2) sediments generally consist of medium to fine grained relatively cohesionless sands; 3) the sediments must have low relative density; 4) free ground water 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, most of the conditions which are necessary for liquefaction to occur exist within the alluviated valley (Canyon de las Encinas) along the northern margin of the property. One of the primary factors controlling the potential for liquefaction is depth to ground water. Liquefaction susceptibility generally decreases as the ground water depth increases for two reasons: 1) the deeper the water table, the greater normal 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 with depth. Thus, as the 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, boring logs and proposed development of Hidden Valley Road across Canyon de las Encinas, two soil profiles were established to represent existing and the anticipated as-built conditions in this area. These soil profiles were constructed using boring B-2 as an information base, representing existing site conditions, and certain assumptions (i.e., proposed fill soil density and thickness) regarding the anticipated as-built GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 8 conditions. The depth to subsurface water encountered within boring B-1 and B-2 was used in the analysis and modified with respect to anticipated developed grades. If the groundwater surface rises above existing levels, the calculated factors of safety against the potential for liquefaction will decrease. The "Faulting and Regional Seismicity" section of this report presents the major fault systems that could produce strong ground motion at the site. Based on a review of this data and considering the relative seismic activity of this area of southern California, a ground acceleration of 0.250g was selected for use in the liquefaction analyses. Selection of this level of ground shaking corresponds to a Richter magnitude 6.0 event on the Rose Canyon Fault system; therefore, that was the selected magnitude of event used in the liquefaction analyses. Computer printouts of the analyses performed are presented in Appendix III. A review of the analyses indicates that the soil deposits evaluated display a 1.25 or greater factor of safety against liquefaction (note: a factor of safety of 1.25 is recommended by Seed and Idriss, 1982). Potential damage to any settlement sensitive structures would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of the structure's mass, than from those induced by dynamic settlements or liquefaction. Considering the subsurface soil conditions, site seismicity, and the discussion presented above; it is estimated that the site has a very low risk associated with the potential for liquefaction or dynamic settlements to occur and adversely affect surface improvements. This potential would be no greater than that for other structures and improvements developed on the alluvial materials in this vicinity. Subsidence: Subsidence is a phenomenon whereby a lowering of the ground surface occurs as a result of a number of processes. These include fault activity or fault creep as well as ground water withdrawal. The primary possible cause of subsidence onsite, is from groundwater withdrawal or a natural lowering of the existing ground water level. It is important that groundwater resources be managed to avoid significant water table fluctuations. Other Hazards Considered: The following list includes other potential seismic related hazards that have been evaluated with respect to the site. In our opinion, the potential for these hazards to affect the site is considered negligible. • Surface Fault Rupture • Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture • Tsunami GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 PAGE 9 LABORATORY TESTING General Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials in order to evaluate their physical and engineering characteristics. The test procedures used and results are presented below. Field Moisture and Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for relatively "undisturbed" samples of the earth materials. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot and the field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. Results of these determinations are presented on the boring logs in Appendix I. Laboratory Standard-Maximum Dry Density To determine the compaction character of a representative sample of onsite soil, laboratory testing was performed in accordance with ASTM test method D-1557-91. The test result are presented in the follow table: Location TP-1 @ 2-4' B-3 @ 15' TP-6 @ 6 Maximum Density (pcf) 130.5 127.0 128.0 Optimum Moisture Content (%} 9.5 12.0 11.0 Expansion Tests Expansion index tests were also performed on selected soil samples in accordance with the Standard 29-2 of the Uniform Building Code. The test results ranged up to 10, which would be classified very low in expansive potential. We anticipate fill materials generated from the claystone to be highly expansive. Direct Shear Tests Testing was performed in accordance with ASTM test method D-3080-90, on "undisturbed" soil samples from B-3 at 15', B-3 at 25' and B-3 at 50'. Samples tested were saturated prior to shearing. The test results are plotted on the enclosed Shear Test Diagram, Plates SH-1 through SH-3. Consolidation Tests Consolidation tests were performed on relatively undisturbed soil samples in accordance with ASTM test method D-2435-90. Test results are included in this report as Plates C-1 through C-3. GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 10 Particle Size Analysis Sieve analyses, ASTM test method D-422-72, were performed on selected soil samples. The results are included as plates G-1 and G-2. CONCLUSIONS Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analyses, it is our opinion that the project site is suited for development from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint. The recommendations presented herein should be incorporated into the final design, grading and construction phase of development. The primary geotechnical conditions affecting proposed site development are as follows: • The presence of relatively deep, loose and compressible surficial and alluvial soils in the canyon areas; • Depth of removals in canyon areas within the property; • Natural slope stability; • Graded slope stability; and, • The possibility of seismic shaking to occur at the site, as a result of an earthquake. The recommendations provided herein or in prior discussions consider these as well as other aspects of the site. The engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation and the recommendations presented below, have been completed using the information provided to us regarding site development. In the event that the information concerning the proposed development is not correct, or any changes in the design and location of the proposed structures are made, the conclusion and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. Natural Slopes Overall, natural slopes to remain on the project are 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter in gradient. It appears that natural slopes will remain on the perimeter of the western ridge, and below the graded slopes at the north edge of the eastern ridge. Natural slopes are not planned above graded pads or streets. Localized surficial instability of the existing slopes has been noted (i.e., surficial slumps). Slumps appear to be associated with highly weathered/eroded claystone beds and/or seeps (page 6). Generally, natural slopes are proposed below graded pads and streets. The exception to this is along the southeastern boundary, east of Lots 4 and 5, where ascending slopes appear to be Ceo Soil Sj Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 11 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter in gradient. Dependant upon graded conditions, debris protection (i.e., swales, berms, debris fences, etc.) way be recommended in this area. In all other cases, natural slopes (as noted on the existing plans) should be grossly stable, provided recommendations regarding surface drainage and mass grading presented within this report are incorporated into final design and construction. Gross stability of the slopes was analyzed, by limit equilibrium methods, using a computer program (XSTABL). The user may choose between two analysis procedures: Janbu's Method or Bishop's Simplified Method. XSTABL is used for analysis of circular slip surfaces and has the capability to search for the critical circle. The results are provided in Appendix IV. Overall, natural slopes to remain are grossly stable except for the steep slope at the bottom of the north end of the eastern ridge. Trimming this slope to a 2:1 would stabilize conditions, however a portion of the upper pad would be eliminated (15 to 20 feet). Alternatively, a stabilization fill could be designed to replace this slope area. Cut Slopes Proposed cut slopes are to constructed at a gradient of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter. The highest cut slope, planned east of "C" Street, ranges from twenty (20) to thirty (30) feet in height. Smaller cut slopes are planned east of Lots 4 and 5, and along the rear of Lots 80 through 83 and Lots 64 through 67. Graded slope stability analyses are provided in Appendix IV. Generally speaking, cut slopes as designed, are grossly stable. Test pits along the eastern boundary of the project encountered sandstone bedrock in the areas where the highest cut slopes are proposed; however, random claystone interbeds are typical in the Santiago Formation, and should be anticipated. If claystones are exposed during grading of cut slopes, stabilization may be recommended and should be anticipated depending upon their structure, thickness, and extent. Smaller cut slopes should be evaluated during grading. Stabilization fill keys should be a minimum of twenty (20) feet in width. Key depths would vary dependant upon slope height and bedrock materials excavated in the key. Where claystone is encountered in the key, depths equal to roughly half the slope height, to a maximum of ten (10) feet is recommended. Where sandstones are encountered in keyways, key depths of one third the slope height are recommended, to a maximum height of five (5) feet. These may be modified based upon actual field conditions. Guidelines for select fill placement for slopes are provided in the "Fill Slope" section below. Stabilization fills should be provided with backdrainage, as prescribed in the grading guidelines. Fill Slopes The highest fill slopes, planned at a gradient of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), range from ten (10) to fifteen (15) feet in height, and are situated below (west) of Lots 57 - 62. Smaller fill slopes are proposed along the rear of Lots 68 - 79, and below (west) of Lots 23 - 34. In addition, fill slope up to ten (10) feet in height are to be constructed along the northern section of Hidden Valley Road, near Palomar Airport Road. Fill slopes, constructed above natural descending slopes, should have keyways extended vertically through any highly weathered materials, and be GeoSoils, Inc. 1 KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 12 founded in competent bedrock materials. Based upon existing field data, we anticipate fill keys along the rear of Lots 47, 68 - 79 and 84 to be at least five feet in depth; however, dimensions may be increased or decreased based upon actual field conditions exposed during grading. Fill materials derived purely from claystone should not be placed on fill slopes, or within ten (10) feet of the fill slope face. This material may be used, if it is mixed to the satisfaction of the soils engineer, with other granular materials. Fill slopes as planned, should be grossly stable provided they are constructed in accordance with recommendations provided herein. RECOMMENDATIONS-EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION Site Preparation All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in Appendix V, Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, and the requirements of the City of Carlsbad, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report and approved by the City of Carlsbad Engineering Department. During earthwork construction, all removals and the general grading procedures should be observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GeoSoils, Inc. If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. All applicable requirements of the California Construction and General Industry Safety Orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Debris, vegetation and other deleterious material should be removed from areas proposed for structural fill prior to the start of construction. Demolition 1. All existing structures (not intended to remain), within the area to be developed, should be razed and moved off site. 2. All subsurface structures (not intended to remain), such as appurtenant utilities should be removed. Removals Removals within the development should include all existing fill, surficial soils, alluvium, slump debris and highly weathered bedrock. Partial removal of alluvial soils for construction of Hidden Valley Road is recommended in the main canyon offsite. Removal depths in this area are discussed further in the section on Settlements and Monitoring (see below). GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 PAGE 13 As Hidden Valley Road extends into the development (north of Lot 62), total removal of alluvial soils is recommended for structural support of the overlying residential fill pads. We anticipate removals in this area to be on the order of nine (9) to sixteen (16) feet. Test Pits TP-9 through TP-14 should be reviewed to estimate removal quantities and characteristics. Alluvial materials in the canyons may be "wet" during seasonal precipitation. Air drying and/or mixing of these materials may be necessary prior to, or during placement as compacted fill. Settlements and Monitoring Ground settlement after grading should be anticipated within the Hidden Valley Roadway alignment where it crosses Canyon de las Encinas, due to primary consolidation and secondary compression. 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 (i.e., approximately 10± feet) are not generally prone to excessive settlement. However, settlement of the underlying, alluvium is expected under that loading condition. Settlement calculations indicate that with minimal removals or reprocessing of alluvial materials, surface settlements could approach 2.5 inches. The majority of this settlement would likely occur rather rapidly (i.e., during grading). Any post grading settlement is expected to occur within 60 to 90 days following construction. In order to reduce this potential, a combination of alluvial removals and settlement monitoring is recommended. The following table summarizes the options for alluvial removals within this area: Depth of Removal (feet) 4 6 8 10 Anticipated Settlement (inches) 2.49 2.21 1.97 1.76 Settlement monitoring should be accomplished using surface survey points. Readings should be taken on a bi-weekly basis to verify the completion of alluvial settlement. It would be prudent to delay the placement of the utilities for at least 90 days following completion of rough grading. Subsequent to completing the recommended removals and ground preparation, excavated onsite soils may be placed in thin (4± to 8± inch) lifts, cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D-1557-91. GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 14 If fill material is to be imported to the site for use as compacted fill, a sample of the import should first be proyided to the projects soil engineer to evaluate its compatibility with on site material. Subdrainage Subdrain systems should be provided in all canyon bottoms, and within buttress and stabilization fills prior to placing fill. Subdrains should conform to schematic diagrams GS-1, GS-3 and GS-4 provided in the General Grading Guidelines of this report. In addition, subdrains (pipe and gravel) should be wrapped in a filter fabric approved by the soils engineer. A six (6) inch perforated pipe may be used for canyon subdrains less than 500 feet in length. Runs in excess of 500 feet, should have minimum eight (8) inch perforated pipe at the lower end. Lot Capping Lots exposing a cut/fill transition, as well as cut lots exposing claystones, should be over- excavated to a depth of three (3) and five (5) feet respectively. These lots should be capped with less expansive materials. Expansive materials (i.e., claystone derived fill materials) should not be placed within three (3) feet of finish grade if feasible. Shrinkage - Bulking Bedrock materials on the project are anticipated to bulk on the order of three (3) percent. Surficial soils and alluvium are anticipated to shrink approximately ten (10) percent. PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our observations and preliminary test results, onsite soils appear to vary from low to highly expansive in nature. We anticipate both cut and fill lots will be constructed. Preliminary recommendations for foundation construction are presented below. The specific criteria to use for each lot or building pads should be based on evaluation and expansion testing performed after grading is complete. Consideration should be given to placing low expansive soils within three feet of pad grade. Design 1. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot may be used for the design of continuous footings with a minimum width of 12 inches and depth of 12 inches. The bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for seismic or other temporary loads. 2. An allowable coefficient of friction between concrete and compacted fill or bedrock of 0.4 may be used with the deadload forces. 3. All footings should maintain a minimum horizontal distance of seven feet from the outside bottom edge of the footing to the face of any adjacent descending slope. This is not intended to supersede any required building clearance from slopes as set forth by the City of Carlsbad or the Uniform Building Code. GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY ' SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 15 Construction The following recommendations may be applied to construction of foundations for typical one and two story residential structures. Low Expansive Soils 1. Footings may be constructed according to standard building code requirements regarding width and depth. It is recommended placing two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one near the top and one near the bottom, of footings be used. 2. Concrete slabs, where moisture condensation is undesirable, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of six mil polyvinyl chloride or equivalent membrane with all laps sealed. This membrane should be covered with a minimum of one inch of sand to aid in uniform curing of the concrete. 3. Concrete slabs should be reinforced with 6x6-WL4 x W1.4 (six inch by six inch, No. 10 by No. 10) welded wire mesh. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure proper positioning during placement of concrete. Garage slabs should be poured separately from the residence footings. A positive separation should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. 4. No specific presaturation is required; however, footing trenches and soil at pad grade should be well watered prior to pouring concrete. Medium Expansive Soils 1. Exterior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface. Interior footings may be founded at a depth of 12 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface. All footings should be reinforced with two No. 4 reinforcing bars, one placed near the top and one placed near the bottom of the footing. 2. A grade beam, reinforced as above, and at least 12 inches wide should be provided across garage entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of adjoining footings. 3. Concrete slabs, where moisture condensation is undesirable, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of six mil polyvinyl chloride or equivalent membrane with all laps sealed. This membrane should be covered with a minimum of one inch of sand to aid in uniform curing of the concrete. 4. Concrete slabs should be reinforced with 6x6-WL4 x W1.4 (six inch by six inch, No. 10 by No. 10 welded wire mesh. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the concrete. 5. Garage slabs should be poured separately from the residence footings and be quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 16 6. Presaturation is recommended for these soil conditions. The moisture content of the subgrade soils should be equal to or greater than optimum moisture to a depth of 18 inches below grade in the slab areas and verified by this office within 48 hours of pouring slabs and prior to placing visqueen or reinforcement. Highly Expansive Soils 1. Exterior footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface. Interior footings may have a minimum embedment of 18 inches below the top of the lowest adjacent concrete slab surface. However, a minimum penetration of 12 inches into the soil is required. Interior isolated piers are not recommended. All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two near the top and two near the bottom. Exterior post supports should be founded at a depth of 30 inches below adjacent grade and tied to the main foundation. 2. A grade beam, reinforced as above and at least 12 inches wide should be utilized across garage entrances. The base of this grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjoining footings. 3. Concrete slabs, where moisture condensation is undesirable, should be underlain with a vapor barrier consisting of a minimum of six mil polyvinyl chloride or equivalent membrane with all laps sealed. This membrane should be sandwiched between a minimum two inch lower and one inch upper layers of sand to aid in uniform curing of the concrete and to decrease the potential for puncture. 4. Concrete slabs, including garages, should be reinforced with 6x6-W2.9xW2.9 (six inch by six inch, No. 6 by No. 6) welded wire mesh or its equivalent. All slab reinforcement should be supported to ensure placement near the vertical midpoint of the concrete. Pulling or hooking up the reinforcement during concrete placement is not considered an acceptable method of positioning the steel. 5. Garage slabs should be poured separately from the residence footings and be quartered with expansion joints or saw cuts. A positive separation from the footings should be maintained with expansion joint material to permit relative movement. 6. Presaturation is recommended for these soil conditions. The moisture condition of each slab area should be equal to or greater than 120 percent of optimum to a depth of 18 inches below slab grade and verified by this office within 48 hours of pouring slabs and prior to placing visqueen or reinforcement. 7. Alternatively, a post tensioned foundation and slab system may be used. Design parameters are provided below. Retaining Wall Design (up to 15 Feet high) 1. Active earth pressure may be used for retaining wall design, supporting cuts and backfilled with low expansive soils, provided the top of the wall is not restrained from minor deflections. For convenience, an equivalent fluid approach may be used to GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 17 compute the horizontal pressure against the wall. Appropriate fluid unit weights are given below for specific slope gradients of the retained material. These do not include other superimposed loading conditions such as traffic, structures, or geologic conditions. SLOPE RETAINED MATERIAL ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE (HORIZONTAL TO VERTICAL) POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT Level 30 2 to 1 45 2. An allowable bearing capacity of 1,500 pounds per square foot in compacted fill and 2,500 psf in bedrock may be used for retaining wall footing design provided the footing is at least twelve inches below the ground surface at the toe. Increases may be allowed in certain areas. 3. Passive earth pressure may similarly be computed using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 250 pounds per cubic foot with a maximum earth pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot. 4. An allowable coefficient of friction between soil and concrete of 0.4 may be used with dead load forces. 5. When combining passive earth pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. 6. The above criteria assumes that hydrostatic pressures are not allowed to build up behind the wall. Positive drainage must be provided behind all retaining walls in the form of gravel and exit pipes or adequate weep holes. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA RECOMMENDATIONS Landscape Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil materials and cause expansion. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Graded slopes constructed within and utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover as soon as possible after construction. Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types which require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. The soil materials should be maintained in a solid to semi-solid state as defined by the material's Atterberg Limits. Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over watering the landscape areas could adversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 18 that any proposed open bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, .closed bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments they should be recompacted to 90 percent compaction. Site Improvements Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and construction can be provided upon request. 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 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 retaining wall backfills. Drainage Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations systems and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area. Roof gutters and down spouts should be considered to control roof runoff. Down spouts should outlet a minimum of five feet from the proposed structure or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. Footing Trench Excavation All footing trench excavations should be observed by a representative of this office prior to placing reinforcement. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent if not removed from the site. Trenching All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and minimally conform to CAL-OSHA and local safety codes. Ravelling (or plucking) of clasts in conglomeratic layers during trenching should be anticipated. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. As an alternative for shallow (12± inches) under slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized and jetted or flooded into place. Observation/probing/testing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 19 2. Exterior trenches in structural areas, beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used adjacent to perimeter footings or in trenches on slopes. Compaction testing and observation, along with probing should be performed to verify the desired results. Grading Guidelines Grading should be performed in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Grading Code of the City of Carlsbad, Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code, and the General Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix V of this report. 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 addition, foundation excavations and earthwork construction performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. LIMITATIONS The materials 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 mass grading, site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GeoSoils, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing or recommendations performed or provided by others. Since our study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and engineering analysis, the conclusion and recommendations are professional opinions. These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 PAGE 20 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. Edward P. Lump, RG 5975 Project Geologist 3rt RT Kfeist, FTCE 16351 Principal Engineer Paul L McClay, CEG Principal Geologist EPL/ARK/PLM/mb Enclosures: Plate 1, Geotechnical Map Plate 2, Geotechnical Cross-Sections Appendix I, Boring and Test Pit Logs Appendix II, EQFAULT Data Appendix III, Liquefaction Analysis Appendix IV, Slope Stability Analysis Appendix V, Grading Guidelines Plates G-1 and G-2, Gradation Curves Plates C-1 through C-3, Consolidation Test Results Plates SH-1 through SH-3, Shear Test Diagrams xc: (2) Addressee (4) Ladwig Design Group GeoSoils, Inc. REFERENCES 1. Eocene and Related Geology of a Portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas Quadrangles, San Diego County, California, by Kenneth Lee Wilson, Master of Arts in Geological Sciences, University of California Riverside, December, 1972. 2. On the Manner of Depositions of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County, Patrick L Abbott, Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University San Diego, April 13, 1985. 3. Landslide Hazards in the Encinitas Quadrangle, San Diego County, California, Landslide Hazard Identification Map #4, Department of Conservation California Mines and Geology, 1986. 4. Jennings, Charles W., 1992, Preliminary Fault activity of California, CDMG Open File Report 92-03 Scale 1:750,000 5. Campbell, K.W. (1991), Deterministic Estimates of Strong Ground Motion for the Proposed Low-Level Radioactive Waste Repository, Hudspeth County, Texas, Draft, Consultant Report Prepared by Dames & Moore for the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority, dated January 15, 1991, 67 pp. 6. Lindvall, S., Rockwell, T. and Lindvall, E., 1989, The Seismic Hazard of San Diego Revised: New Evidence for Magnitude 6+ Holocene Earthquakes on the Rose Canyon Fault Zone, in Roquemore et. al. eds., Proceedings from a Workshop on "The Seismic Risk in the San Diego Region: Special Focus on the Rose Canyon Fault System", 106 pp. 6a. Rockwell, T.K., and Lindvall, S. 1990, Holocene Activity of the Rose Canyon Fault in San Diego, California, Based on Trench Exposures and Tectonic Geomorphology, Geological Society of America, Abstracts with programs v. 22 no. 3 p. 78. 7. Blake, T. F., 1989, with 1993 revisions. GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX I BORING AND TEST PIT LOGS GeoSoils, Inc. GEOSOILS, INC. BORING LOG CLIENT KELLY PROPERTY WORK ORDER NO.1715G-SD 8-5-94APN 212-040-32 & 36, CARLSBAD DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD HOLLOW STEM AUGER BORING NO. B-l SHEET _A_ OF 1 #140 HAMMER r Q.»a SAMPLE I T3n a••• _C TJ L C 3 (0 CD o U E D M 3 LQ 0C DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL 5- ilO SM 14 CL 95.8 22.3 TOPSOIL; Brownish gray, silty very fine SAND; loose, porous, upper 12" cultivated, few roots, dry. @1.5' Becomes moist. @2' ALLUVIUM (Qal): Brown fine SAND, loose, slightly moist. @5.57 Dark brown sandy lean CLAY; firm, very moist. @9' Water seepage into boring. 125- 30- 35- 34 NO RECOVER @10' BEDROCK (Tsm); Light yellowish brown, sandy CLAYSTONE; stiff, no seepage, very moist. 50 39 30 NO RECOVER 30 @247 Light yellowish brown, clayey SANDSTONE; dense, very moist. @26' Becomes sandy CLAYSTONE; stiff, very ffloist. Total depth= 26.5 feet Seepage from 9 to 10 feet Hole backfilled FORM 88/9 Ceo Soils y Inc. GEOSOILS, INC. BORING LOG CLIENT KELLY PROPERTY WORK ORDER NO.1715G-SD 8-5-94APN 212-040-32 & 36, CARLSBAD DATE EXCAVATED BORING NO. B-2 SHEET 1_ OF 2SAMPLE METHOD HOLLOW STEM AUGER #140 HAMMER •1-q- r•»- 0. 0o 5- T nJ.U 15- 20- ?•=>- JO 35- SAMPLE ^ 3m • 1 T3 10 II "D L C 3 O-t- m W m 'W w, ^ ^ S B 1 ous/6"20 10 20 20 40 30 25 35 usesSumbo 1SM SP CL CL CL +• 3 i!a~ La 95.3 97.8 100.6,,n £ 112.3 ft NO R 97.3 0 L 3 N+• cn oc 7.6 22.5 23.93 4 17.0 ^ ECOVER 24.2 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL — r —=; ^= ^ | == TOPSOIL: Light brownish gray, silty fine SAND, loose, porous, few roots, cultivated,\dry . r @2' ALLUVIUM (Qal) : Light brown( fine SAND with some silt, loose, porous, moist. @4' Dark brown, sandy CLAY; soft to firm, porous, very moist. @11' Becomes wet, zones of seepage encountered between 11' and 20' from apparent sandy zones. @15' Dark brown, sandy CLAY; firm, slightly porous, very moist to wet. @19' SAND? lens, water seepage. @20' Dark brown, sandy CLAY; stiff, very moist. BEDROCK (Tsm) : Licrht yellowish brown. clayey fine SANDSTONE; dense, very moist to wet. @35' Olive gray, sandy CLAYSTONE, stiff, very moist. FORM 88/9 Ceo Soils, Inc. GEOSOILS, INC. BORING LOG CLIENT KELLY PROPERTY WORK ORDER NO.1715G-SD 8-5-94APN 212-040-32 & 36, CARLSBAD DATE EXCAVATED BORING NO. B-2 SHEET _2 OF 2SAMPLE METHOD HOLLOW STEM AUGER #140 HAMMER ^1 1- £ +• 0. OQ 45- C f\ou cc - - 60- 65- 70- 75- SAMPLE ^—3 03 1 TJ« a TJ Lc : O-l- ft m (0 B 3 O —ffi 33 25 ov> au ev> y3 V> +- 3 ••-« C»D 0 3La 104 -4^ 0ti « •'-ia ^ —0c 23.0•* DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ^ ^ ^ ^ @50' Olive gray, sandy CLAYSTONE; dense, very moist. @50.57 Brown, clean fine SANDSTONE; medium dense, water bearing, wet . @527 Light yellow brown, sandy CLAYSTONE; stiff, very moist. Total depth= 55 feet Seepage zones from 11-20 feet and 50.5-52 feet Hole backfilled FORM 88/9 GeoSoils, Inc. GEOSOILS, INC. BORING LOG CLIENT KELLY PROPERTY WORK ORDER NO. APN 212-040-32 & 36, CARLSBAD DATE EXCAVATED SAMPLE METHOD DRIVE TUBE I 0-30' 5742 LB HAMMER 30'-58' 4302 LB BORING NO.B-3 1715G-SD 8-8-94 SHEET 1 OF 2 •t-"*• r+-a0a 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- SAMPLE ^ 3 ffi ' i -o » 0— .0 T) L C 3D-l- m m W. m y///s m (D a 3 0 ffi r/10 9 4 3 5 10 usesSumbo 1SM i +• 3 i! 3>~La 119.2 114.0 113.5 115.7 ^ 117.1 120.2 0 L3 Q+- « M O £ 5.5 7.5 6.2 10.2 & 10 . 2 15.6 1AMMER DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ___ ^=^^ ^ = ^ 0-2 ' TOPSOIL: Brown, silty SAND (SM) , brittle and blocky, porous, crumbly, ^slightly moist. /~ 2/-24' TERRACE (Qt) : Orange brown, silty fine SANDSTONE, medium dense, medium hard, brittle, moderately to slightly friable, slightly moist to moist with depth. @157 Orange brown, silty fine to coarse ?rain SANDSTONE, medium dense, moderately riable, massive, slightly moist. @217 Grading downward to coarse - very coarse grain SANDSTONE with oxide staining, moist. ~\@24' Free water at along contact N65E/5 NW. r \N40W/2 - top of claystone. / 24'-60' BEDROCK (Tsm) : Gray brown clayey SILTSTONE interbedded with silty CLAYSTONE, medium dense, gradational contacts, dense, massive, slightly moist. @31' Highly sheared zone in claystone. at 31r: N14W/33SW shear N2E/31W shear N45W/30NE N5E/10W generalized shear @32.57 prominent shear N24E/23SE and N2W/22E Localized concretions in claystones at 32 ' -36.5' shear zone in claystone at 36. 5'. @36.57 N25E/26NW shear in brown claystone FORM 88/9 GeoSoils, Inc. GEOSOILS, INC. BORING LOG CLIENT KELLY PROPERTY APN 212-040-32 & 36, CARLSBAD SAMPLE METHOD DRIVE TUBE; BORING NO. 0-30' 5742 LB HAMMER 30'-58' 4302 LB WORK ORDER NO. DATE EXCAVATED B-3 1715G-SD 8-8-94 SHEET 2 OF 2 ! SAMPLE r•t-o. D I T3 • 0 — .0 •0 t_C 3 10 \n 3 0 o M XI U E 10 3D V> 3 LQ HAMMER oz: DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ^4/3 127.4 8.1 45- 50- 55- 60- 13 122.9 11.9 overlying caliche bed. @39.57 N18E/35NW - shear. @42' Common caliche banding. @44' Sandy CLAYSTONE @517 Gradational contact sandy CLAYSTONE/silty SANDSTONE. @54' Interbedded/gradational zone brown sandy CLAYSTONE and silty fine-grain SANDSTONE, medium dense to dense, medium hardt locally highly shearer, massive, moist to slightly moist. 70- Total depth= 60 feet Slight seepage at 24 feet Hole backfilled FORM 88/9 GeoSoils, Inc. DATE EXCAVATED: AUGUST 5, 1994 AND AUGUST 10, 1994 EXCAVATION METHOD: BACKHOE CASE 580K/450B TRACKHOE LOGGED BY: EHL/EPL LOG OF TEST PITS Test Pit Depth (ft.) Material Description TP-1 0-1.5 TOPSOIL Light to medium yellow brown, silty fine SAND (SM), loose to medium dense, dry, slightly porous, occasional small rootlet, (ped structure toward bottom). 1.5-4 TERRACE MATERIAL (Qt): Mottled Light yellow orange gray silty SANDSTONE, medium dense, massive structure, slightly moist. Total depth = 4 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-2 0-2 ± ARTIFICIAL FILL (af): On east end of trench is a wedge of fill (up to 2± feet thick): Medium brown, silty SAND (SM) with roof tile fragments and miscellaneous debris, loose, moist. 0-3 TERRACE MATERIAL (Qt): Medium brown, silty SAND, loose to medium dense, (some topsoil development down to 1.5'), occasional pebble, moist. 3-4.5 Light to medium yellow brown, silty fine SANDSTONE, medium dense, slightly moist. Level to undulatory contact with above. Total depth = 4.5 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -1- GeoSoils, Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.) Test Pit Depth (ft.)Material Description TP-3 0-1.5± 1.5±-5.5 TOPSOIL/HIGHLY WEATHERED TERRACE MATERIAL (Qt): Medium yellow brown, silty SAND (SM), loose to medium dense, slightly porous, occasional rootlets (slight ped like structure development), slightly moist. TERRACE MATERIAL: Mottled, light yellow orange-gray silty SANDSTONE with clay, medium dense, slightly moist. Total depth = 5.5 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-4 0-1 ± 1±-5 WEATHERED TERRACE MATERIAL (Qt): Light yellow brown, silty SANDSTONE, medium dense, slightly porous, dry. TERRACE MATERIAL: Light gray brown, SANDSTONE with silt, dense, slightly moist, appears moister with depth. Total depth = 5 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -2- GeoSoils, Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.) Test Pit Depth (fU Material Description TP-5 0-1,5± 1.5±-5.5 TOPSOIL/HIGHLY WEATHERED TERRACE MATERIAL (Qt): Mottled light to medium yellow brown silty SAND (SM), loose to medium dense, porous, ped structure toward bottom, slightly moist. TERRACE MATERIAL: Light to medium orange brown, silty SANDSTONE, medium dense, massive, occasional shell fragment (scallop), slightly moist to moist at depth. Total depth = 5.5 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-6 0-1,5± 1.5-5 TOPSOIL: Medium brown, silty SAND (SM), loose to medium dense, slightly porous, occasional rootlets (very irregular bottom), dry. TERRACE MATERIAL (Qt): Medium orange brown, silty SANDSTONE, medium dense, friable, slightly moist to moist with depth. Total depth = 5 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -3- GeoSoils, Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.) Test Pit TP-7 Depth (ft.) Material Description 0-2 ARTIFICIAL FILL (af): Medium brown, silty SAND (SM) with plastics, trash, etc., loose, dry. 2-3.5 TERRACE MATERIAL (Qt): Medium brown, silty SAND (SM), loose, slightly moist. 2.5-3.5 Thinly bedded light gray SANDS (SW), loose, very friable, moist. 3.5-6 Mottled Light yellow orange brown, silty SANDSTONE with clay, medium dense, moist (toward top) to dry and dense at bottom. Total depth = 6 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-8 0-1 to 1.5 ± 1.5±-4 TOPSOIL/HIGHLY WEATHERED TERRACE MATERIAL (QT): Medium brown, silty SAND (SM), loose to medium, dense, slightly porous, occasional rootlet (up to 1/4" diameter) dry. TERRACE MATERIAL: Light orange brown silty SANDSTONE, dense, massive, slightly moist. Total depth = 4 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -4- GeoSoils, Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.) Test Pit Depth (ft.)Material Description TP-9 0.5-9 8-9 9-9.5 9.5-10 ALLUVIUM/COLLUVIUM (Qal): Dark brown, clayey SAND (SC), loose to medium dense, occasional rootlets (top 0.5 ft. recently disced and loose) moist. @5' Becomes medium brown clayey SAND to SAND with clay, moist, loose (to medium dense). Becomes olive green brown, sandy CLAY (CL), soft to firm, moist. Caliche: Light gray, hard. BEDROCK (Ts): Light olive green, silty SANDSTONE, dense, slightly moist to dry. Total depth = 10 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-10 0-2 2-2.5 2.5-6 6-16 ALLUVIUM (Qt): Dark brown, clayey SAND (SC), loose, moist. Light gray, SAND with silt (SM), loose, slightly moist. Medium to dark brown, clayey SAND to sandy clay (SC,CL) loose, moist. Light to medium gray, SAND with silt to clayey SAND (SM.SC) loose, slightly moist to moist. Total depth = 16 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -5- Ceo Soils, Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.) Test Pit Depth (ft.)Material Description TP-11 0-7 7-8 8-9 ALLUVIUM (QaO: Medium to dark brown, silty SAND (SM), loose, slightly moist to moist, not visibly porous. BEDROCK (Ts): Light gray brown, SANDSTONE, medium dense, slightly moist. BEDROCK: Light gray brown, silty SANDSTONE with cobble, dense, (cobble 1/4" to 4" diameter, dry to slightly moist. Total depth = 9 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-12 0-7 7-8.5 ALLUVIUM (Qal): Medium brown, silty SAND (SM) with some clay, loose, becomes lighter brown with depth, rootlets at depth, moist (top 6" dry). BEDROCK (Ts): Light brown, silty SANDSTONE, dense, friable, slightly moist. Total depth = 8.5 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -6- GeoSoils, Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.) Test Pit Depth (ft.)Material Description TP-13 0-13 13-14 ALLUVIUM (Qal): Medium brown silty SAND with clay (SM), loose (to medium dense), occasionally porous, occasional cobble, slightly moist to moist. @8' Slightly porous silty SAND (SM) with clay and occasional rootlets, slightly moist, occasional cobble, increasing cobble with depth. BEDROCK (Ts): Light yellow brown, silty SANDSTONE, dense, dry to slightly moist Total depth = 14 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-14 0-3 3-14 14-16 ALLUVIUM (Qal): Dark gray brown, silty SAND (SM), loose, slightly moist. Medium brown silty SAND with clay and occasional cobble (SM), loose, slightly moist to moist. Light to medium gray brown, silty SAND (SM) with some light olive green clayey SILT (ML) with SAND zones, loose to medium dense, moist. Total depth = 16 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -7- GeoSoils, Inc. THE K'ELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.) Test Pit TP-15 Depth (ft.) Material Description 0-1.5± TOPSOIL: Medium brown silty SAND (SM), loose, dry. 1.5-5 BEDROCK (Ts): Mottled medium green orange-brown silty SANDSTONE with clay, medium dense, one 4±" diameter cobble at 3', slightly moist. Total depth = 5 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-16 0-3 3-3.2 3.2-6 6-6.5 TOPSOIL: Medium brown silty clay (CL) with SAND, moist to very moist, soft, (top 0.5' dry). Cobble zone, in clayey SAND, soft, moist. BEDROCK (Ts): Light orange brown, silty SANDSTONE with clay, dense, slightly moist. Light gray, silty SANDSTONE, dense, friable, slightly moist. Total depth = 6.5 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -8- GeoSoils, Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.) Test Pit Depth (ft.)Material Description TP-17 0-5 5-6 TOPSOIL/ALLUVIUM (Qal): Dark brown, sandy CLAY with silt (SC) (with silty clay or clayey silt with SAND zones), loose (soft), moist. BEDROCK (Ts): Light gray, silty SANDSTONE, dense, slightly moist. Total depth = 6 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-18 0-1.5 1.5-4 TOPSOIL: Dark gray brown, silty SAND (SM), loose, porous, dry. BEDROCK (Ts): Light yellow gray, silty SANDSTONE, dense, slightly moist. Total depth = 4 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -9- GeoSoils, Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.) Test Pit Depth (ft.)Material Description TP-19 0-0.5 0.5-3 TOPSOIL: Dark brown, silty fine sandy CLAY, loose to medium stiff, locally very porous (disced to -1/2'±), common organics, moist to slightly moist. HIGHLY WEATHERED BEDROCK (Ts): Tan to light gray, SANDSTONE, medium dense, hard, brittle, slightly to locally moderately friable, occasional dark brown, vertical lineations (fracture infilling?), slightly moist. Total depth = 3 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-19A 0-2 2-3 TOPSOIL: Dark brown, clayey silty fine SAND, loose (disced) to 1/2'±, medium hard and brittle to 2'±, locally porous, occasional open vertical fractures, slightly moist. WEATHERED BEDROCK (Ts): Tan grading to light gray, SANDSTONE, medium dense, hard, moderately to slightly friable with depth, common dark brown vertical lineations (fracture with depth, common dark brown vertical lineations (fracture infilling?), extending into overlying topsoils, slightly moist. Total depth = 3 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -10- GeoSoils, Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.l Test Pit Depth (ft.)Material Description TP-19B 0-3 3-5 TOPSOIL: Dark brown, clayey silty fine SAND, loose (disced) to 1/2'±, medium hard and brittle to 2'±, locally porous, occasional open vertical fractures, slightly moist. SLIDE DEBRIS (Qls) - WEATHERED BEDROCK (Td): Tan grading to light gray, SANDSTONE, medium dense, hard, moderately to slightly friable with depth, common dark brown vertical lineations (fracture with depth, common dark brown vertical lineations (fracture infilling?), extending into overlying topsoils, slightly moist. Total depth = 5 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-20 0-0.5 1.5-3.5± 3.5-9 TOPSOIL: Dark brown, silty fine sandy CLAY, loose to medium stiff, locally very porous (disced to -1/2'±), common organics moist to slightly moist. HIGHLY WEATHERED BEDROCK (Ts): Gray mottled with orange and brown, silty SANDSTONE, medium dense, medium hard, moderately friable, traces of relict rootlets to 3'±, massive slightly, moist. Light gray, silty fine grained SANDSTONE, medium dense, medium hard, decreasingly friable, slightly weathered with occasional mottling, massive, slightly moist. Total depth = 9 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -11- GeoSoils, Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.) Test Pit Depth (ft.)Material Description TP-21 0-1 1-4.5 TOPSOIL: Dark brown, silty fine sandy CLAY, loose to medium stiff, locally very porous (disced to -1/2'±), common organics moist to slightly moist. WEATHERED BEDROCK (Ts): Light brown grading to light gray, silty fine to medium grain SANDSTONE, medium dense, medium hard, moderately friable, locally finely laminated, slightly moist. Total depth = 5.5 Feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-22 0-1.5 1.5-7 TOPSOIL: Dark brown, silty fine sandy CLAY, loose to medium stiff, locally very porous (disced to -1/2'±), common organics moist to slightly moist. WEATHERED BEDROCK (Ts): Light gray, SANDSTONE, medium dense, medium hard, moderately friable, moderately fractured with occasional relict rootlets and oxidations along fractures, slightly moist. Total depth = 7 feet No caving No groundwater -12- , Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 W.O. 1715G-SD LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.) Test Pit Depth (ft.) Material Description TP-23 0-11 TOPSOIL: Dark brown, silty fine sandy CLAY, loose to medium stiff, locally very porous (disced to -1/2'±), common organics moist to slightly moist. 1-3 WEATHERED BEDROCK CTsY. Tan, SANDSTONE, massive, medium hard and friable, massive, moist to slightly moist. 3-4 Light greenish brown-gray, clayey SILTSTONE bedded @ 3.5' with silty SANDSTONE, dense, hard, brittle, common dark brown black inclusions (organics?), discontinuous in trench, slightly moist. 4-5.5 Yellowish gray and orange gray, SANDSTONE, dense, hard, slightly, moderately friable, platey drainage brittle, slightly moist. Total depth = 5.5 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-24 0-6 TOPSOIL/ALLUVIUM (Qal): Dark brown, clayey sandy SILT, loose (disced) to 1/2'±, moderately stiff, pliable, slightly sticky, locally very porous, occasional organics, moist. 6-9 ALLUVIUM: Medium brown, silty SAND, slightly dense, locally porous, friable, locally common white caliche mottling, moist. Total depth = 9 feet (maximum reach) No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -13- Geo Soils y Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS fCONT.) Test Pit Depth (ft.)Material Description TP-25 0-6 6-9 TOPSOIL/SLOPEWASH: Dark brown, clayey sandy SILT, loose (disced) to 1/2'±, moderately stiff, pliable, slightly sticky, locally very porous, occasional organics, moist. SLOPEWASH: Medium brown, silty SAND, slightly dense, locally porous, friable, locally common white caliche mottling, moist. Total depth = 9 feet (maximum reach) No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-26 0-2.5 2.5-4.5 4.5-6 6-8 TOPSOIL/SLOPEWASH: Light gray, silty SAND, loose (disced to 1/2'±), porous, crumbly, abundant organics, dry. SLOPEWASH: Dark brown, silty fine to medium grain SAND, slightly dense, crumbly, common light gray rock fragments, moist. HIGHLY WEATHERED BEDROCK (Ts): Green and white and brown and red, highly decomposed/weathered SANDSTONE, medium dense, common caliche staining, moist. Green and brown with white, silty CLAYSTONE/clayey SILTSTONE, medium dense, medium hard, brittle, small blocky, cleavage, common caliche highly fractured, moist. Total depth = 8 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -14- GeoSofls, Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.) Test Pit Depth (ft.)Material Description TP-27 0-0.5 0.5-2.5 2.5-4.5 TOPSOIL: Dark brown, silty fine SAND, loose, porous, abundant roots and deleterious debris, slightly moist. SLOPEWASH: Dark brown, silty clayey SAND, soft, occasional rootlets, slightly moist. WEATHERED BEDROCK (Ts): Light gray, SANDSTONE, medium dense, moderately friable, blocky cleavage, slightly moist. Total depth = 4.5 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-28 0-0.5 0.5-2.5 2.5-4 TOPSOIL: Dark brown, clayey silty SAND, loose, porous, abundant roots and deleterious debris, slightly moist. SLOPEWASH: Dark brown, silty clayey SAND, soft occasional roots, moist. HIGHLY WEATHERED BEDROCK (Ts): Orange brown, SANDSTONE, highly weathered/decomposed, medium dense, medium friable, moist. Total depth = 4 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -15- , Inc. THE KELLY PROPERTY W.O. 1715G-SD SEPTEMBER'S, 1994 LOG OF TEST PITS (CONT.) Test Pit Depth (ft.)Material Description TP-29 0-0.5 0.5-2.5 2.5-4 TOPSOIL: Dark brown, clayey silty SAND, loose, porous, abundant roots and deleterious debris, slightly moist. SLOPEWASH: Dark brown, silty clayey SAND, soft occasional roots, moist. WEATHERED BEDROCK (Ts): Green and brown, CLAYSTONE/SILTSTONE, medium dense, brittle, highly fractured with discontinuous, trenches, oxidized locally, crumbly, moist. Total depth = 4 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled TP-30 0-0.5 0.5-6± 6-7 TOPSOIL: Dark brown, clayey silty SAND, loose, porous, abundant roots and deleterious debris, slightly moist. SLOPEWASH/SLIDE DEBRIS (Qls): Multi-colored, silty SAND and sandy CLAY, medium hard, to stiff, irregular lithology, locally very crumbly, moist. HIGHLY WEATHERED BEDROCK (Ts): Green and brown, CLAYSTONE/SILTSTONE, medium dense, brittle, highly fractured with discontinuous, trenches, oxidized locally, crumbly, moist. Total depth = 7 feet No caving No groundwater Trench backfilled -16- GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX II EQFAULT DATA GeoSoils, Inc. rr1clay . August: 12. ! 9Q Estimation of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Digitized California Faults) K e 1 1 v P r o o e r t y M ] I jyt p p n NAME. Kelly Property E COORDINATES. LATITUDE ; 33.118 N LONGITUDE. 117.302 Vv T F K! ! ! A T T C1- ^-' Of--! A T T C\ N! "7 ^ *PWI ^.UNCERTAINTY fM=Wean. S=Mean •<- 1 --Si cma ) : COMPUTE PEAK. HORIZONTAL ACCELERATION -W ! T .... n A T A !•- T ! F ! - 5^ P H r* »I*! T F-! T H & T r- _ c. ~ . , 1 4- n .e< T T F P A P A iVI F T F P F> !MAX. CREDIBLE EVENT! iMAX. PROBABLE EVENT A P P ROX.. ' ABBREVIATED !DISTANCE ! MAX.! PEAK ! SITE ! FAULT NAME : rn-; (km) !CRED.! SITE ITNTENS! ! ! Mir i tr-.r. n i MM i'•••'- - ! : ... I ' 81 (131)! 7.00! 0.0141 MAX.! PFAK ' SITE ' P R n 8 ! SIT E l T N T F N S ! MAG.!ACC. a! MM ' 8.00! 0.008!T t "^ , _ l _ i .._ i | i | i i j BOHREGO MTN. (San Jacinto)! 55 (105)! 5.50! 0.015! IV !! 5.75! 0.008! Ill ;._ _ _ _ i _ _ I l i | i i j i" ' ' I < ' ' i : i ... . jp" «yni P p n c*.K... F M F PV — r* o P P F P M T \! i Q F- (i ^ ^ ^ i 7 n n t n n i n ! T ^ T ' \ s 7 *-. ! r\ r\ n ^ * T : I > I I It! ! IliM " • ~ ! ~ "" : 1 ! ! j ; : p o c i v / ii c "7 c: i n nor.i.1 i_> ; i_i _ l_i ._> ;_• . w ;:'_', : -J '. U . 'J J '_' I I ' I I t"•I i • : t A ! T N A F 9. C A Q P W F N! T i T 7 f R P; > I 7 0 fM f) 0c,"', ' V T ! ! f, ? S i f; (~\ ~{ 'l r* j..j T KJ f> t f r, / n n ~x j "7 n n ; r. n /i ^ i CC—OIF CREEK. (San Jacinto): 51 ( 82)! 7.00! 0.033! V M 5.75! 0.013! Ill _ _ __ ( __ _ _ ! I ! _ ] I 1 ! CUrfl AMON Q A. ' 73 f118V; 7.00! 0.021' IV !! 5.25! 0_012! Ill _ „ _ ! j j J I j _ .... j ._ } _.. . pt^TMpjprr i nc/^n^i ^trni n^io-ii VTTf |1 R 7 c- ! f!07P' V T T f~! ^'''AN PAPK f^FTf^MTr1 7 n W P ! 7C !r107>i! 7 Ofi! H filR! TV !' c> 7C, ! f! f!( ^^ _ _ •• ; i i I i i n n [ n n rj ^ j \f i j p cr n j n rj ' T T i i..) ^MrrOTiTArsx/Aticv ' nc ^ic^\i ^crn1 nn-ici TV/ ii /t nni nnni: is i ^_|giMi: •— i i_.a. i.' V .".'~ •— L. : ; r -_: :. :•-'**,•; f . •- '_• , u . '-.' ) -—' i j- v ! i **.'_' '_< i 'J . •-• -~ •• ; "" ; i ___ ___ t __ f ! i i i __ ! i HCfr S--8UCK RDG.fS.Jacin'to')! 51 ( 82)! 7.00! 0.033! V ! i 8.00! 0.015! IV ! I _ _ ! I I I | I 1 ( j C**N SON v ALL E^ ! ^ - ~ 14 2 ^' 7,5 o \ o . o 18 \ i v ! • 5.251 o . o o 3 i i '- ' i I ___ i I i I i ! LA N! AC ICN ! 21 ( 34)! 5.50! 0.0331 VII '! 4.25; 0.020! IV __ I I i ) | ! I ! i LF WOOD-OLD WOMAN SPRINGS ! 32 (149)! 7.30! 0.014! Ill !! 5.25! O.OC3I •••• ! _ _ ; ; | i | | ! I i MA.i IBIJ COAST ! 96 (154)! 7.50! 0.018! IV '! 8.50! 0.008! Ill ! i _ l i _ I l i _ i ._ l j NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD-OFFSHORE! 3 ( 15)' 7.00! 0.259! IX j! 5.75! 0.119! VII !l _. i l I i i I i | NO^TH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE ! 80 (123)! 7.70! 0.028! V |i 5.75! 0.005! II ! _ ! _ _ I ._ | _. _ j _. .._ .._ I | _ I _ ._ .... | | PALOS VERD-CORON .8 . -A.BLAN ! 21 ( 34)! 7.50! 0.159! VIII ']} 5.75! 0.097! VII ! _ _ _ i ._ I j I I i , I i PI TO MOUNTAIN - MORONGO I 74 (120)! 7.30 I 0.021J IV j| 5.75! 0.005! II RAYMOND . | 82 (132)! 7.50! 0.025j V jj 4.00! 0.001! _ _. _ _ | _ | -. ! | _ | j ._. | i _ ! ROIPE CANYON | 5 ( 8)| 7.00J 0.39GJ X jj 6.001 0.250! IX ! _. _. _ _ __ _ _.._ _ i _ | | _ I _ _ _ ... i i .._ _ ._ _ | _ I I SA."* ANDREAS (Coache"! 1 a V.)! 74 (119)! 8.00! O.Q37J V |! 7.00! 0.017! IV ! _ i i i i ii i i _._. lM """ '' : ~ i i " I i I "' ~ i i i F f\ M 7 N! T ° T' "^ P '-\ T T F P « P A Vt ^ T P P ^ C" ... r? .._ °, tt c? F, C* - ^ S c G v >! •• « • .ft K 'W: Ift ,tl .-M ... AND •• - y AN! « t**T •H i ' - :'\ (••»"- 'E ."* .... .'PE [«-D *»"T ABBREVIATED ! FAULT NAME ! , ' t _ ! ANDREAS (Mojave) ! „ ! ANDREAS (S. Bern.Mtr,.)! _. - „. i CLEMENTE - SAN ISIDRO ! ! HILLS ! l D I EGO TRGH . -BAH I A. SOL . ! GABRIEL i 1 i G 0 R G 0 N 1 0 •- B A. N N ING ! - | A MONICA - HOLLYWOOD | i | RA MADRF-.-SAN FERNANDO ! i R S T I T I 0 N H L S . ( 3 . J a c "i ~ ) ! : RSTITION MTN . (S. Jacin) ! ! JGO ! TIER - NORTH ELSINCRE l i Ar DIS mi 81 59 C fl•_' ••*• 94 31 RS 52 87 75 84 79 84 4 7 *- is U A ! f £ M C. F ! M £ y ! P F A !< / i .. |TI "\ [ r^ r> p n t o T ~r p ! MAG . I ACC . c. ! ] (131)! 8.30! 0 . 040i i /'-i-io'xl p A A i A n*io{'.'.£.)< U . '_' 'J i U . U <+ C. t ! I f P7%i o nni A AC*I\ O ! ! : '-> . u '-' i '_• . '-' >.; H- i 1 ! 1 (151)! 8.00! 0.024! t i t / *Ti>l n CA! A -)AA1', •+ r ; : ; . -j •_' i u . i >_• >_' f *1 O A "\ t *7 O A ' A A 1 A 1 i 1 1 (100)' 7.50! 0.043 - ! ! 1 (141)! 7.50! 0.022! 1 i | ' ' ! (123")' 7,50! 0.023 1 ! 1 f-]oc^! 7 p fi i p HIT i t i f -i o r» -\ i 7 r , r, ; n p -i c ! ! J ! / -^ o c ^ i c *? n i r. n i o t 1 ! ( 75)! 7.50! 0.054! i i - ; \ SITE ! ! MAX. . ' T M -r p M o j l p rOB . ! MM ! ! Mir, ! 1 ! V ! ! 8t i VI ! ! 6 ! 1 VI j ! 6 1 1 IV ! ! 6 i i VII j ! 5 T T T 1 ! =; 1 1: i VT ! ! 7 ! 1 IV I ! 5 I Ij j V ! ! F, ; i T T T || C ' | T \l I ! C ^ 1 T T T j t A I l V I ! ! S 1 ! i .00 ! 1 .75 ! ! tr A ] i . 75 1 .25 ! . 75 . 00 ! l .25 ! .00 ! ! . 25 ! l . 25 i i SO ! ! .00 ! l PEAK ! S AC nu n 0 0 A n 0 0 n'_• n Ti p 0 T T ^ ! r- „ i^-' - y ; ! .031 ! _ ... | .016 ! - ! n o A i. '-' £. '_' ! | .008! i .041! . 004 I 1 .029 ! I! .004 | 1 1 .009! 1 .007; l f\ O O t 1 O <**! O 1 i n i 7 ! 1 ••" SITE I NT ENS MM V IV T -1 /1 Y T T T v T V t III T T I I I .... ... -. ... IV 1 t ! ! I I 1 1 ! i 1 | 1 1 !i! i i ! ! • 1 - \ f. p <^, F A n? Ci !~! •••• ~S P. • |.j p p /-) c; p p JK i>j y /"> KJ F i ! ! ! T T °, C: ! O F. F F. T T O T !••! F F, T T F- .' T "™S ABOUT 4.9 MILES AWAY. m .ARGEST MAXIMUM- CREDIBLE SITE ACCELERATION; 0.390 g .AF. EST MAXIMUM-PROBABLE SITE ACCELERATION: 0.250 a H ^ F i P f. ! •! P i f! T ! I °. i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i r i i i i i i i i i i i • i i i i i i i OMPARSON OF IVAXIMJM EARTHQUAKE 2 O F- ir: - J LiJo OM O:r uia. MAXIMUM CREDIBLE EARTHQUAKES TnTnmpTT nrnr ~ ri mirif---\--\~ \--\\\ *•• o.oi ...I. Jj.U.lilL -i. .1.11J.I.IL..... L I I.I I illl ... l_.l . ..I. .III. i 10 100 ioocDISTANCE (mi) MAXIMUM "J-^Of^AB..E EARTHQUA<F:S •VTTnm[ " T" T TTTTHf" ~TTTnrmp"T TT'TflT UJ-J UJoC.)<j; _j<; O a: ~L UJa. ,1 - O.D1 0.001 . _!...u mill i._i.LmjiL j_jj.iiJiiL...i.-i.i.1 i 10 100 DISTANCE, (mi') UJ 1000 JOB NO.: 1715-SD AT IIJDE:: 33.1 iso N LONGTUDE: 11 7..3020 W APPENDIX III LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS GeoSoils, Inc. ******************* * ^ **LIQUEFY2* * * ******************* EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL NUMBER: 1715-SD DATE: Tuesday, August 23, 1994 JOB NAME: Kelly L :QUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: keiiy SOIL-PROFILE NAME: b-2<m OMtOUND WATER DEPTH: H.Q ft DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.00 SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.250 g H*"" sigma BOUND: M rd BOUND: Mmm ht.0 CORRECTION: 1.00 R*ELD SPT N-VALUES < 10 FT DEEP ARE CORRECTED FOR SHORT LENGTH OF DRIVE RODS Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982). m * # ^ *LIQUEFY2* *" * * mm EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL :">B NUMBER: 1715-SD DATE: Tuesday, August 23, 1994 m JOB NAME: Kelly LIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: kelly SfilL-PROFILE NAME: b-2 GROUND WATER DEPTH: 11.0 ft [""SIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.00 •M SITE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.250 g fm H sigma BOUND: M r£ BOUND: M hWO CORRECTION: 1.00 P"ELD SPT N-VALUES < 10 FT DEEP ARE CORRECTED FOR SHORT LENGTH OF DRIVE RODS N»TE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of Giuliani and Nicoll (1982). LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY and Others [1985] Method PAGE 1 .0. Ml 1 1 1 1 Ml 1 •"1 ml 1 M! 1 M^ 1 *"l Ml 1 •"1 1 *"l *>»1 1 *«2 2 -2 ^ 2 2 M2 2•»2 2*»2 M3 3 MS .3 3 •3 3 '"a 3 -3M3 3 **3 M3 CALC . ! DEPTH! (ft) l , »i 0.25! 0.75! 1 .25! 1 .75! 2.25! 2.75! 3.25| 3.75! 4.25! 4.75! 5.25! 5.75! 6.25! 6.75! 7 .25! 7.75! 8.25! 8.75! 9 .25! 9.75! 10.25! 10.75! 11 .25! 11 .75! 12.25! 12.75! 13.25! 13.75! 14 .25! 14.75! 15.25! 15.75! 16.25! 16.75! 17.25! 17.75! 18.25! 18.75! 19.25! 19.75! 20.25! 20.75! 21 .25! 21 .75! 22.25! 22.75! TOTAL! STRESS! (tsf )! T 0.012,' 0 . 037 ', 0.061 ! 0.085! o.iio! 0.134! ' 0.158! 0.183! 0.207! 0.232! 0.256! 0.280! 0.305! 0.329! 0.353! 0.378! 0.402! 0.427! 0.451 ! 0.475! 0.500! 0.524! 0.550! 0.578! 0.606! 0.635! 0 .663! 0.691 1 0.719! 0.747! 0.775! 0.803! 0.831 ! 0.859! 0.887! 0.915! 0.943! 0.971 ! 1 .000! 1 .028! 1 .056! 1 .084! 1 .112! 1 .140! 1 .168! 1 .196! EFF. ,' STRESS! (tsf)! j. -^ 0.012! 0.037! 0.061 ! 0.085! o.iio! 0.134! 0.158! 0.183! 0.207! 0.232! 0.256! 0.280! 0.305! 0.329! 0.353! 0.378! 0.402! 0.427! 0.451 ! 0.475! 0.500! 0.524! 0.543! 0.555! 0.567! 0.580! 0.592! 0.605! 0 .617! 0.630! 0.642! 0.655! 0.667! 0.680! 0.692! 0.705! 0.717! 0.730! 0.742! 0.755! 0.767! 0.780! 0.792! 0.805! 0.817! 0.829! FIELD N (B/ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 Est.D ! r! f ii 68 ! 68 ! 68 1 68 ! 68 ! 68 ! 68 ! 68 ! 68 1 68 ! 68 1 68 ! 68 ! 68 ! 68 1 68 1 68 ! 68 ! 68 ! 68 ! 68 ! 68 ! 57 ! 1 57 [1 57 jl 57 Jl 57 ! 1 57 11 57 ! 1 57 |1 57 ! 1 57 11 77 ! 1 77 1 1 77 ! 1 77 11 77 1 1 77 ! 1 77 1 1 77 !l 77 ! 1 77 !l 77 [ 1 77 1 1 77 ! 1 77 |1 c !( N !( 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 1 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 1 8 ! @ ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! .249! .249! .249! .249! .249! .249! .249! .249! .249! .249! .136! .136! .136! .136! .136! .136! .136! .136! .136! .136! .136! .136! .136! .136! CORR . Nl )60 B/ft) 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 27.3 LIQUE. STRESS RATIO 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 0.309 0.309 0.309 0.309 0.309 0.309 0.309 0.309 0.309 0.309 Infin Infin Infin Infin Infin Infin Infin Infin Infin Infin Infin Infin Infin Infin ii ! r ! d ! 8 ! 8 1 @ ! e ! 8 1 8 1 8 1 8 ! 8 1 8 1 8 ! 8 ! 8 1 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 ! 8 10.977 10.976 10.975 10.974 10.972 10.971 J0.970 10.969 10.968 10.967 10.966 10.965 !0.964 10.963 10.961 10.960 10.959 10.958 10.957 10.955 10.954 10.952 10.951 10.949 INDUC. STRESS RATIO 8 8 8 8 8 '8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 @ 8 8 8 8 0.161 0.165 0.169 0.173 0.177 0.180 0.184 0.187 0.190 0.193 0.196 0.198 0.201 0.203 0.206 0.208 0.210 0.212 0.214 0.216 0.218 0.219 0.221 0.222 1 LIQUE. 1 SAFETY [FACTOR r A ! 8 8 ! 8 8 ! 8 8 ! 8 8 ! 8 @ ! 8 8 ! 8 @ ! 8 8 ' @ @ ! 8 8 1 8 8 i 8 8 ! 8 @ ! 8 8 ! 8 @ 1 8 8 ! 8 @ ! 8 8 1 8 @ ! 8 8 ! 8 @ ! 8 8 ! 1 .92 ! 1 .87 ! 1 .82 ! 1 .78 ! 1 .75 1 1.71 ! 1 .68 1 1 .65 ! 1 .63 1 1 .60 ! Infin ! Infin ! Infin llnfin ! Infin llnfin llnfin llnfin 1 Infin llnfin ! Infin llnfin 1 Infin llnfin and Others [1985] Method PAGE ^•.3 3 •.^ 4 •"4 -44 ••4 4 ">4 •pi4 4 ••4 4 «4 M4 4 ••4 4 ""4 4 "*4 te-4 4 •P-4 4 *"*4 -.4 4 •"•4 4•4 .4 4 -44 **4 4 "4 M4 4 •4 ^4 4 -44 "4 4 *"4 •4 4 —4^,4 CALC . ! DEPTH! (ft) ! 23.25! 23.75! 24.25! 24.75! 25.25! 25.75! 26.25! 26.75! 27.25! 27.75! 28.25! 28.75! 29.25! 29.75! 30.25! 30.75! 31 .25! 31 .75! 32.25! 32.75! 33.25! 33.75! 34 .25! 34.75! 35.25! 35.75! 36.25! 36.75! 37 .25! 37.75! 38.25! 38.75! 39.25! 39.75! 40 .25! 40.75! 41 .25! 41 .75! 42.25! 42.75! 43.25! 43.75! 44.25! 44.75! 45.25! 45.75! 46.25! 46.75! 47.25! 47 . 75 i 48.25! 48.75! 49.25! TOTAL 1 STRESS! (tsf )! 1 .224,' 1 .252! 1 .280! 1 .306! 1 .331! 1 .355! 1 .379! 1 .404! 1 .428! 1 .452! 1 .477! 1 .501 ! 1 .525! 1 .550! 1 .574! 1 .598! 1 .623! 1 .647! 1 .671 ! 1 .696! 1 .720! 1 .744! 1 .769! 1 .793! 1 .817! 1 .842! 1 .866! 1 .890! 1 .915! 1 .939! 1 .963! 1 .988! 2.012! 2.036! 2.061 ! 2.085! 2.109! 2.134! 2.158! 2.182! 2.207! 2.231 1 2.2551 2.279! 2.304! 2.328! 2.352! 2.377! 2.401! 2.425! 2.450! 2.4741 2.4981 EFF. i STRESS! (tsf)! 0.842! 0.854! 0.867! 0.877! 0.886! 0.895! 0.904! 0.912! 0.921 1 0.930! 0.939! 0.947! 0.956! 0.965! 0.973! 0.982! 0.991 ! 1 .000! 1 .008! 1 .017! 1 .026! 1 .035! 1 .043! 1 .052! 1 .061 ! 1 .069! 1 .078! 1 .087! 1 .096! 1 .104! 1 .113! 1 .122! 1 .131 1 1 .139! 1 .148! 1 .157! 1 .165! 1 .174! 1 .183! 1 .192! 1 .200! 1 .209! 1 .218! 1 .226! 1 .235,' 1 .244! 1 .253! 1 .261 ! 1 .270! 1 .279! 1 .288! 1 .296! 1 .305! FIELD N (B/ft) 24 24 24 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Est .0 77 77 77 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 i ii i r! c ! ! N 1 11 .136! 1 1 .136! ! 1 .136! ! i .005! [I .005! il .005! ! i .005! ! i .005! 1 1 .005! 11 .005! ! i .oos! il .005! ! i .005! 1 1 .005! 1 1 .005! il .0051 ! i .oos! 1 1 .005! ! i .oos! !i .oos! i 1 .005! 1 1 .005! ! i .005! 11.005! 1 1 .005! 1 1 .005! ! i .oos! ! i .005! ! i .005! 1 1 .005! i 1 .005! ! i .oos! !i .005! 1 1 .005! ! i .oos! !i .005! ! i .oos! !i .005! 1 1 .005! il .005! ! i .oos! il .005! ! i .oos! ! i.oos! ! i .oos! il .005! 11 .005! 11.005! ! i .005! 11 .005! ! i .oos! il .005! 11.005! CORR . (Nl )60 (B/ft) 27.3 27.3 27.3 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30 .2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 30.2 ILIQUE. [STRESS ! RATIO ! Infin Ilnfin 1 Infin Ilnfin ! Infin Ilnfin i Infin ilnfin ! Infin ilnfin ! Infin 1 Infin ! Infin Ilnfin 1 Infin ! Infin ! Infin Ilnfin 1 Infin ! Infin 1 Infin 1 Infin ! Infin Ilnfin ! Infin ! Infin ! Infin ! Infin ! Infin Ilnfin 1 Infin ! Infin ! Infin 1 Infin 1 Infin ! Infin ! Infin Ilnfin ! Infin Ilnfin ! Infin Ilnfin ! Infin ! Infin ! Infin ! Infin ilnfin ilnfin i Infin Ilnfin ! Infin ! Infin ilnfin ! i INDUC. ILIQUE . ! r l STRESS! SAFETY 1 d 1 RATIO! FACTOR +1 . i 10.947! 0.224!lnfin 10.946! 0.225!lnfin 10.944! 0.227!lnfin 10.943! 0.228!lnfin iO.941! 0.230llnfin 10.939! 0.23l!lnfin !0.937! 0.232ilnfin 10.934! 0.234!lnfin 10.932! 0.235llnfin 10.930! 0.236llnfin 10.928! 0.237!lnfin 10.926! 0.238llnfin 10.923! 0.239llnfin 10.9211 0.240!lnfin 10.919! 0.24l!lnfin 10.916! 0.242llnfin 10.913! 0.243!lnfin 10.910! 0.244llnfin 10.907! 0.244[Infin 10.904! 0.245ilnfin !0.902! 0.246!lnfin 10.899! 0.246llnfin !0.896l 0.247!lnfin 10.893! 0.247!lnfin 10.890! 0.248!lnfin 10.886! 0.248 Ilnfin 10.882! 0.248!lnfin 10.878! 0.248[Infin 10.874! 0.248llnfin 10.870! 0.248ilnfin 10.8661 0.248ilnfin 10.862! 0.248 Ilnfin !0.858i 0.248ilnfin 10.8551 0.248ilnfin 10.8501 0.248llnfin 10.845! 0.248llnfin [0.840! 0.247llnfin 10.836! 0.247ilnfin 10.831! 0.246[Infin 10.826! 0.246ilnfin 10.821! 0.245ilnfin 10.816! 0.245ilnfin 10.811! 0.244ilnfin 10.806! 0.244!lnfin 10.801! 0.243!lnfin 10.796! 0.242!lnfin 10.791! 0.24l!lnfin [0.786! 0.241[Infin 10.7811 0.240llnfin 10.7761 0.239ilnfin 10.7711 0.238llnfin 10.7651 0.237ilnfin J0.760! 0.237!lnfin Sfted and Others [1985] Method PAGE JO . IV 4 ""4 .4 4 «"*4 m4 4 -44 "*4 4 CALC . 1 TOTAL! EFF. DEPTH ,' STRESS 1 STRESS (ft) 1 (tsf)! (tsf) 49.75! 2.523! 1.314 50.25! 2.547! 1.322 50.75! 2.571! 1.331 51.25! 2.596! 1.340 51.75! 2.620! 1.349 52.25! 2.644! 1.357 52.75! 2.669! 1.366 53.25! 2.693! 1.375 53.75! 2.717! 1.384 54.25! 2.742! 1.392 54.75! 2.766! 1.401 FIELD N (B/ft) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Est .D r 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 82 ! CORR. C |(N1)60 N 1 ( B/ft ) 1.005! 30.2 1.005! 30.2 1.005! 30.2 1.005! 30.2 1.005! 30.2 1.005! 30.2 1.005! 30.2 1.005! 30.2 1.005! 30.2 1.005! 30.2 1.005! 30.2 LIQUE.! * STRESS! r RATIO! d Infin 10.755 Infin 10.750 Infin 10.745 Infin 10.741 Infin [0.736 Infin 10.731 Infin 10.726 Infin 10.722 Infin 10.717 Infin 10.712 Infin 10.707 INDUC . 1 LIQUE . STRESS! SAFETY RATIO! FACTOR H I 0.236! Infin 0.235! Infin 0.234! Infin 0 .233! Infin 0.232! Infin 0.232llnf in 0.231! Infin 0.230! Infin 0.229! Infin 0.228! Infin 0.227! Infin * ** SOIL PROFILE LOG * * * SOIL PROFILE NAME: B-2 L^YER # 1 «, 2 «• 3 *" 4 BASE DEPTH (ft) 11 .0 16.0 24.5 55.0 SPT FIELO-N (blows/ft ) 12.0 12.0 24.0 30.0 LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY SUSCEPTIBLE (1 ) SUSCEPTIBLE ( 1 ) SUSCEPTIBLE ( 1 ) SUSCEPTIBLE ( 1 ) WET UNIT WT. (pcf) 97.5 112.3 112.3 97.3 FINES %<#200 21 .0 21 .0 21 .0 23.0 D (mm ) 50 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.160 DEPTH OF SPT ( ft ) 3.75 15.25 20.75 31 .25 * * *LIQUEFY2* * * EMPIRICAL PREDICTION OF EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LIQUEFACTION POTENTIAL NUMBER: 1715-SD DATE: Tuesday, August 23, 1994 j"!3B NAME: Kelly LIQUEFACTION CALCULATION NAME: kelly SOIL-PROFILE NAME: asbuilt C^'OUND WATER DEPTH: 21.0 ft CJgSIGN EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE: 6.00 3TTE PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION: 0.250 g H^sigma BOUND: M rd BOUND: M h 0 CORRECTION: 1 .00•w FJELD SPT N-VALUES < 10 FT DEEP ARE CORRECTED FOR SHORT LENGTH OF DRIVE RODS N TE: Relative density values listed below are estimated using equations of ** Giuliani and Nicoll (1982). LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY and Others [1985] Method PAGE SWIL JO. ••w1 *"l «•! 1 *" 1 — 1 1i 1 m^ 1 *"l ••.1 1 ••1 1 "*1 •»! 1 *••]_ 2 *"2 »2 2 •2 2•»2 m2 "2 •2 2 •2 m2 2 m2 2 "*2 2 "*2 iw2 2 j»2 3 3 3 CALC.l TOTAL! EFF. 1 FIELD DEPTH! STRESS! STRESS! N (ft) ! (tsf)| (tsf)|(B/ft) 0.25! 0.0141 0.014! 24 0.75! 0.043! 0.043! 24 1.25! 0.0711 0.071! 24 1.75! 0.100! 0.100! 24 2.25! 0.129! 0.129! 24 2.75! 0.157! 0.157! 24 3.25! 0.186! 0.1861 24 3.75! 0.214! 0.214! 24 4.25! 0.243! 0.243! 24 4.75! 0.272! 0.272! 24 5.25! 0.300! 0.300! 24 5.75! 0.329! 0.329! 24 6.25! 0.357! 0.357! 24 6.75! 0.386! 0.386! 24 7.25! 0.414! 0.414! 24 7.75! 0.443! 0.443! 24 8.25! 0.472! 0.472! 24 8.75', 0.5001 0.5001 24 9.25! 0.529! 0.529! 24 9.75! 0.557! 0.557! 24 10.25! 0.586! 0.586! 12 10.75! 0.614! 0.614! 12 11.25! 0.643! 0.643! 12 11.75! 0.672! 0.672! 12 12.25! 0.700! 0.7001 12 12.75! 0.729! 0.729! 12 13.25! 0.757! 0.757! 12 13.75! 0.786! 0.786! 12 14.25! 0.814! 0.814! 12 14.75! 0.843! 0.843! 12 15.25! 0.872! 0.872! 12 15.75! 0.900! 0.900! 12 16.25! 0.929! 0.929! 12 16.75! 0.957! 0.957! 12 17.25! 0.986! 0.986! 12 17.75! 1.014! 1.014! 12 18.25! 1.043! 1.043! 12 18.75! 1.072! 1-072! 12 19.25! 1.100! 1.100! 12 19.75! 1.129! 1.129! 12 20.25! 1.157! 1.157! 12 20.75! 1.186! 1-186! 12 21.25! 1.2141 1.206! 12 21.75! 1.242! 1-219! 12 22.25', 1.270! 1.231! 12 Est.D r 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 54 48 48 48 C N © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ft © © © © © © @ © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © @ © © 0.877 0.877 0.877 CORR . (Nl )60 (B/ft) © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © A © ft © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 10.5 10.5 10.5 LIQUE. STRESS RATIO • — — — — © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © @ @ © © © © @ 0.212 0.212 0.212 r d - — — "——•—• © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © 0.954 0.952 0.951 INDUC. STRESS RATIO * — — — — — — © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © ft © © © © ft © © © © © © © © © © © © 0.156 0.158 0.159 LIQUE. SAFETY FACTOR © @ © © © @ © © © © © © © © © © © @ © © © @ © © © @ © © © © © © © © © © © © © © © @ © © © © © © © © © © © @ © © © © © © © © © © © @ © © © @ © © © @ © © © © © © © © © © 1 .36 1 .34 1 .33 eed and Others [1985] Method PAGE OIL ^0. 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 '4 4 '4 ,4 4 • 4 4 '5 5 *5 • 5 5 •5 5 *5 .5 5 '5 5 *5 .5 5 •5 5 "5 .5 5 •5 5 "5 ,5 5 .5 5»,- 5 CALC. ! DEPTH! (ft) 1 4, — _ , -__»™,i. 23.25! 23.75! 24.25] 24.75! 25.25! 25.75! 26.25! 26.75! 27.25! 27.75! 28.25! 28.75! 29.25! 29.75! 30.25! 30.75! 31 .25! 31 .75! 32.25! 32.75! 33.25! 33.75! 34.25! 34.75! 35.25,' 35.75! 36.25! 36.75! 37.25! 37.75! 38.25,' 38.75! 39.25! 39.751 40.25! 40.75! 41 .25! 41 .75! 42.25! 42.75! 43.25! 43.75! 44.25! 44.75! 45.25! 45.75J 46.25! 46.75! 47.25! 47.75! 48.25! 48.75', TOTAL! STRESS 1 (tsf)! 1 .327! 1 .355! 1 .383! 1 .411 ! 1 .439! 1 .467! 1 .495! 1 .523! 1 .551 1 1 .579! 1 .607! 1 .635! 1 .663! 1 . 692 1 1 .720! 1.748! 1 .776! 1 .804! 1 .832! 1 .860! 1 .888! 1.916! 1 .944! 1 .970! 1 .995! 2.019! 2.043! 2.068! 2.092! 2.116! 2.141 1 2.165! 2.189! 2.214! 2.238! 2.262! 2.287! 2.311! 2.335! 2.360! 2.384! 2.408! 2.433! 2.457! 2.481! 2.506! 2.530! 2.554! 2.579! 2.603! 2.627! 2.651', EFF. ! STRESS! (tsf)! 1 .256,' 1 .269! 1 .281! 1 .294! 1 .306! 1 .319! 1 .331 ! 1 .344! 1 .356! 1 .369! 1 .381 ! 1 .394! 1 .406! 1 .419! 1 .431 1 1 .443! 1 .456! 1 .468! 1 .481 ! 1 .493! 1 .506! 1 .518! 1 .531 ! 1 .541 1 1 .550! 1 .559! 1 .568! 1 .576! 1 .585! 1 .594! 1 -602[ 1 .611 ! 1 .620! 1 .629! 1 .637! 1 .646! 1 .655! 1 .6641 1 .672! 1 .681 ! 1 .690! 1 .698! 1 .707! 1 .716! 1.725! 1 .733! 1 .742! 1 .751 1 1 .760! 1 .768! 1 .777! 1 .786! FIELD N (B/ft) 12 12 12 12 12 12 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 !Est . 48 48 48 48 48 48 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 67 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 D 1 ! CORR. 1LIQUE. ! ,' INDUC . | LIQUE . r! C |( Ml )60l STRESS! r ! STRESS ! SAFETY !, N !(B/ft)l RATIO! d ! RATIO! FACTOR 10.877! 10.5 ! 0.21210.947! 0.163! 1.30 10.877! 10.5 ! 0.21210.946! 0.164! 1.29 10.877! 10.5 ! 0.21210.944! 0.166! 1.28 10.877! 10.5 ! 0.21210.943! 0.167! 1.27 10.877! 10.5 ! 0.21110.941! 0.168! 1.26 10.877! 10.5 ! 0.21110.939! 0.170! 1.25 10.862! 20.7 llnfin 10.937! 0.171|Infin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin ,'0.934! 0.172jlnfin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin 10.932! 0.173|Infin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin 10.930! 0.174|Infin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin 10.928! 0.175|Infin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin 10.926! 0.177|Infin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin 10.923! 0.178|Infin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin |0.92l! 0.179|Infin [0.862! 20.7 llnfin |0.919| 0.179jlnfin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin 10.916! O.lSOlInfin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin 10.913! 0.181|Infin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin |0.910| 0 .182 ! Inf in [0.862! 20.7 llnfin 10.907! 0.182jlnfin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin |0.904! 0.183|Infin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin 10.902! 0.184|Infin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin 10.899! 0.184|Infin 10.862! 20.7 llnfin 10.896! 0.185|Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.893! 0.186|Infin 10.813,' 24.4 llnfin [0.890! 0.186|Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.886! 0.186|Infin [0.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.882! 0.187|Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.878! 0.187',Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.874! 0.187llnfin [0.813! 24.4 [Infin [0.87Q! 0.188llnfin ,'0.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.866! 0.188llnfin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.862! 0.188|Infin JO. 813! 24.4 llnfin 10.858! 0.189|Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.855! 0.189llnfin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.850! 0.189|Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.845! 0.189|Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.840! 0.189[Infin [0.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.836! 0.189|Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin |0.831j 0.189,'Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.826! 0.188|Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin |0.821| 0.188[Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.816! 0.188|Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin JO.Sll! 0.188|Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.806! 0.188|Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin JO. 801! 0.187!lnfin [0.813! 24.4 llnfin [0.7961 0.187llnfin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.791! 0.187!lnfin [0.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.786! 0.186[Infin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.781,' 0.186llnfin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin 10.776! 0.186llnfin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin !0.77l! 0.185ilnfin 10.813! 24.4 llnfin [0.765! 0.185[Infin 5*oed and Others [19SJ5] Method PAGE JO . JML 5 ""5 w 5 5 i.5 5 m 5 5 **5 • 5 5 -5..5 5 ..5 5 -55 "5 ••5 5 *~5 5 **5 *-.5 5 »• 5 5 ""•5 ^ 5 """5 CALC . DEPTH (ft) 49.75 50.25 50.75 51 .25 51 .75 52.25 52.75 53.25 53.75 54.25 54.75 55.25 55.75 56.25 56.75 57.25 57.75 58.25 58.75 59.25 59.75 60.25 60.75 61 .25 61 .75 62.25 62.75 63.25 63 .75 64.25 64.75 1 TOTAL! 1 STRESS! ! (tsf)l ! 2.700! ! 2.724! 1 2.749! 1 2.773! ! 2.797! ! 2.822! 1 2.846! 1 2.870! ! 2.895! ! 2.919! 1 2.943! ! 2.968! ! 2.992! ! 3.016! ! 3.041! ! 3.065! ! 3.089! ! 3.114! ! 3.138! ! 3.162! 1 3.187! ! 3.211! 1 3.235! 1 3.260! ! 3.284! ! 3.3081 ! 3 . 333 1 1 3.357! 1 3.381! 1 3.406! 1 3.430! EFF. 1 STRESS! ,(tsf )! 1 .803! 1 .812! 1 .821! 1 .829! 1 .838! 1 .847! 1 .855! 1 .864! 1 .873! 1 .882! 1 .890! 1 .899! 1 .908! 1 .917! 1 .925! 1 .934! 1 .943! 1 .951 ! 1 .960! 1 .969! 1 .978! 1 .986! 1 .995! 2.004! 2.013! 2.021 ! 2.030! 2.039! 2.047! 2.056! 2.065! FIELD N (B/ft) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Est .C 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 > ! ! r! C 1 ! N ! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! !0.813| 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! [0.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.8131 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10 .813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! 10.813! CORR. 1LIQUE. 1 ! INDUC. 1LIQUE .(NI )6oi STRESS! r l STRESS! SAFETY (B/ft)! RATIO! d 1 RATIO! FACTOR — — — — _ ™ -I, — _™4,__— . — — 4.-, — — — _ U— . -.— , _ — __ 24.4 llnfin 10.755! 0.184|Infin 24.4 llnfin [0.750! 0.183[Infin 24.4 llnfin 10.745! 0.183|Infin 24.4 llnfin [0.741! 0.182|Infin 24.4 llnfin 10.736! 0.182|Infin 24.4 llnfin |0.731| 0.182|Infin 24.4 llnfin |0.726| O.lSllInfin 24.4 llnfin [0.722! 0.181|Infin 24.4 llnfin 10.717! 0.180|Infin 24.4 llnfin 10.712! O.lSOlInfin 24.4 llnfin 10.707! 0.179|Infin 24.4 llnfin ',0.7031 0.178|Infin 24.4 llnfin 10.6981 0.178|Infin 24.4 llnfin 10.694! 0.177llnfin 24.4 llnfin 10.689! 0.177|Infin 24.4 llnfin !0.684| 0.176|Infin 24.4 llnfin 10.680! 0.176|Infin 24.4 llnfin [0.675| 0.175|Infin 24.4 llnfin |0.671| 0.174|Infin 24.4 llnfin [0.666! 0.174|Infin 24.4 llnfin |0.66l! 0.173|Infin 24.4 llnfin 10.657! 0.173[Infin 24.4 llnfin JO. 654! 0.172|Infin 24.4 llnfin 10.650! 0.172|Infin 24.4 llnfin |0.646l 0 .171 ! Inf in 24.4 llnfin 10.643! 0.171|Infin 24.4 llnfin 10.639! 0.170[Infin 24.4 llnfin 10.635', 0.170|Infin 24.4 JInfin [0.6321 0.170|Infin 24.4 llnfin [0.6281, o.l69|Infin 24.4 llnfin |0.624| 0.169|Infin * ** SOIL PROFILE LOG * * * ***** ##**:*##:*#**##*##### -50IL PROFILE NAME: asbuilt TAYER. * «• i - 2H 3 mf 4 _ 5 BASE DEPTH (ft) 10.0 21 .0 26.0 34.5 65.0 SPT FIELD-N (blows/ft ) 24 .0 12.0 12.0 24.0 30.0 LIQUEFACTION SUSCEPTIBILITY SUSCEPTIBLE ( 1 ) SUSCEPTIBLE ( 1 ) SUSCEPTIBLE ( 1 ) SUSCEPTIBLE ( 1 ) SUSCEPTIBLE (1) WET UNIT WT. (pcf) 114.3 114 .3 112.3 112.3 97.3 FINES %<#200 23.0 21 .0 21 .0 21 .0 23.0 D ( mm ) 50 0.160 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.160 DEPTH OF SPT (ft) 5.25 13.75 25.25 30.75 41 .25 APPENDIX IV SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS GeoSoils, Inc. XSTABL File: 1715A1 8-19-94 5:59 XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using Simplified BISHOP or JANBU methods Copyright (C) 1992 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. All Rights Reserved GeoSoils, Inc. Van Nuys, CA 91406 Ver. 4.02 1071 Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION A-A'STATIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 x-left (ft) .00 60.00 162.00 211.00 285.00 y-left (ft) 146.00 173.00 172.00 172.00 200.00 x-right (ft) 60.00 162.00 211.00 285.00 350.00 y-right (ft) 173.00 172.00 172.00 200.00 200.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 1 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 1 type(s) of soil Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 135.0 135.0 150.0 40.0 .000 .0 0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 125 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 5 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = .00 ft and x = 20.00 ft Each surface terminates between x = 60.00 ft and x = 100.00 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 140.00 ft 5.00 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit Upper angular limi't -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : ***** MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD ***** The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 16 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 x-surf (ft) .00 4.99 9.99 14.97 19.92 24.79 29.58 34.25 38.78 43.14 47.32 51.28 55.02 58.52 61.74 62.26 y-surf (ft) 146.00 145.67 145.71 146.10 146.85 147.95 149.40 151.19 153.32 155.76 158.51 161.55 164.87 168.44 172.27 172.98 **** Modified BISHOP FOS = 2.615 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION A-A1 STATIC 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS (BISHOP) 2.615 2.632 2.643 2.747 2.780 2.797 2.797 2.810 2.844 2.847 Circle Center Radius x-coord y-coord (ft) (ft) (ft) Initial Terminal Driving x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 7 1 -6 9 21 18 15 20 17 23 .02 .89 .39 .96 .63 .80 .31 .74 .67 .56 215. 240. 259. 235. 202. 195. 214. 200. 204. 207. 19 88 20 83 45 00 53 57 60 95 69. 94. 113. 85. 50. 48. 70. 48. 61. 53. 54 90 38 33 14 74 22 16 21 07 10 15 5 15 20 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 62 68. 67. 67, 62. 62, 71. 60. 70. 63. .26 .12 .15 .57 .14 .21 .81 ,15 .01 .40 1. 2. 2. 1. 6. 1. 2. 5. 2. 5. 535E+06 235E+06 231E+06 382E+06 678E+05 167E+06 404E+06 611E+05 175E+06 461E+05 END OF FILE 1715A1 8-19-94 8:59 250 _ 25 1715G-SD SECTION A-A' STATIC 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 2.615 45 —i— 90 135 180 225 X-AXIS (feet) 270 315 360 XSTABL File: 1715A2 3-19-94 9:37 XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using Simplified BISHOP or JANBU methods Copyright (C) 1992 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. All Rights Reserved GeoSoils, Inc. Van Nuys, CA 91406 * Ver. 4.02 1071 Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION A-A' SEISMIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 x-left (ft) .00 60.00 162.00 211.00 285.00 y-left (ft) 146.00 173.00 172.00 172.00 200.00 x-right (ft) 60.00 162.00 211.00 285.00 350.00 y-right (ft) 173.00 172.00 172.00 200.00 200.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 1 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 1 type(s) of soil Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 135.0 135.0 150.0 40.0 .000 .0 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .250 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 125 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 5 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = .00 ft and x = 20.00 ft Each surface terminates between 60.00 ft ancP x = 100.00 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 140.00 ft 5.00 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit Upper angular limit -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD ***** The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 17 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 x-surf (ft) .00 5.00 9.99 14.96 19.89 24.78 29.59 34 .34 38.99 43.54 47.97 52.28 56.44 60.46 64.31 67.99 68.12 y-surf (ft) 146.00 146.03 146.33 146.89 147.70 148.78 150.11 151.70 153.53 155.61 157.92 160.46 163.23 166.21 169.39 172.78 172.92 "* Modified BISHOP FOS = 1.534 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION A-A' SEISMIC 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS (BISHOP) 1.534 1.542 1.553 1.597 1.623 1.624 1.657 1.659 1.670 1.672 Circle Center x-coord y-coord (ft) (ft) Radius Initial Terminal Driving x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1 -6 7 9 4 15 21 17 17 23 .89 .39 .02 .96 .15 .31 .63 .29 .67 .01 240. 259. 215. 235. 272. 214. 202. 213. 204. 206. 88 20 19 83 09 53 45 64 60 68 94 113 69 85 126 70 50 69 61 57 .90 .38 .54 .33 .15 .22 .14 .81 .21 .67 10 15 10 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 68 67 62 67 81 71 62 73 70 69 .12 .15 .26 .57 .92 .81 .14 .91 .01 .69 3 3 2 2 6 3 1 4 3 2 .550E+06 .535E+06 .393E+06 .206E+06 .811E+06 . 868E+06 .043E+06 .180E+06 .470E+06 .213E+06 END OF FILE * * 1715A2 8-19-94 9:37 250 ^ 25 1715G-SD SECTION A-A' SEISMIC 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.534 135 180 225 X-AXIS (feet) 270 315 360 XSTABL File: 1715A3 8-19-94 9:03 XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using Simplified BISHOP or JANBU methods Copyright (C) 1992 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. All Rights Reserved GeoSoils, Inc. Van Nuys, CA 91406 Ver. 4.02 1071 Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION A-A' STATIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 x-left (ft) .00 60.00 162.00 211.00 285.00 y-left (ft) 146.00 173.00 172.00 172.00 200.00 x-right (ft) 60.00 162.00 211.00 285.00 350.00 y-right (ft) 173.00 172.00 172.00 200.00 200.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 1 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 1 type(s) of soil Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 135.0 135.0 150.0 40.0 .000 .0 0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technigue for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 125 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 5 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 211.00 ft and x = 231.00 ft Each surface terminates between x = 285.00 ft and x = 350.00 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 170.00 ft 5.00 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit Upper angular limit -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 18 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 x-surf (ft) 211.00 215.99 220.99 225.99 230.96 235.91 240.82 245.66 250.44 255.14 259.74 264.24 268.62 272.87 276.98 280.93 284.73 288.10 y-surf (ft) 172.00 171.70 171.65 171.87 172.33 173.06 174.03 175.26 176.73 178.44 180.39 182.58 184.99 187.63 190.48 193.54 196.79 200.00 Modified BISHOP FOS =2.969 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION A-A' STATIC FOS (BISHOP) Circle Center x-coord y-coord (ft) (ft) Radius Initial Terminal Driving x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 .969 .032 .039 .041 .045 .048 .056 .065 .081 .082 219 219 228 208 228 217 227 223 202 228 .36 .42 .08 .91 .79 .14 .69 .79 .86 .49 269.19 288.26 244.01 318.55 250.47 299.48 240.45 280.26 339.65 270.73 97. 114. 74. 146. 80. 127. 70. 109. 167. 97. 54 42 01 57 46 63 46 01 84 64 211. 216. 211. 211. 211. 211. 211. 211. 211. 216. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 288.10 292.19 287.54 295.09 291.45 297.05 285.36 297.54 295.97 295.76 2.360E+06 2.473E+06 2.247E+06 3.511E+06 2.689E+06 3.653E+06 2.005E+06 3.567E+06 3.782E+06 2.769E+06 * * * END OF FILE * * * 1715A3 8-19-94 9:03 0) 250 _ 205 . 160 _ X < 115 .I 70 . 25 1715G-SD SECTION A-A' STATIC 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 2.969 45 90 135 180 225 X-AXIS (feet) 270 315 360 XSTABL File: 1715A4 8-19-94 9:39 XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using Simplified BISHOP or JANBU methods Copyright (C) 1992 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. All Rights Reserved GeoSoils, Inc. Van Nuys, CA 91406 Ver. 4.02 1071 Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION A-A' SEISMIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 x-left (ft) .00 60.00 162.00 211.00 285.00 y-left (ft) 146.00 173.00 172.00 172.00 200.00 x-right (ft) 60.00 162.00 211.00 285.00 350.00 y-right (ft) 173.00 172.00 172.00 200.00 200.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 1 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 1 type(s) of soil Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 135.0 135.0 150.0 40.0 . 0 0 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .250 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 125 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 5 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 211.00 ft and x = 231.00 ft Each surface terminates between x 285.00 ft and x'J= 350.00 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 170.00 ft 5.00 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := Upper angular limit := -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 18 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 x-surf (ft) 211.00 215.99 220.99 225.99 230.96 235.91 240.82 245.66 250.44 255.14 259.74 264.24 268.62 272.87 276.98 280.93 284.73 288.10 .33 .06 .y-surf (ft) 172.00 171.70 171.65 171.87 172. 173. 174.03 175.26 176.73 178.44 180.39 182.58 184.99 187.63 190.48 193.54 196.79 200.00 Modified BISHOP FOS =1.664 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION A-A1 SEISMIC FOS Circle Center (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord (ft) (ft) Radius Initial Terminal Driving x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 664 665 669 676 680 683 685 693 704 712 219. 217. 208. 223. 219. 224. 202. 228. 228. 225. 36 14 91 79 42 75 86 49 79 18 269 299 318 280 288 280 339 270 250 290 .19 .48 .55 .26 .26 .23 .65 .73 .47 .60 97. 127. 146. 109. 114. 109. 167. 97. 80. 114. 54 63 57 01 42 10 84 64 46 89 211 211 211 211 216 211 211 216 211 221 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 288 297 295 297 292 298 295 295 291 295 .10 .05 .09 .54 .19 .68 .97 .76 .45 .83 3.930E+06 6.254E+06 5.973E+06 6.108E+06 4.169E+06 6.361E+06 6.463E+06 4.724E+06 4.508E+06 4.158E+06 1715A4 8-19-94 9:39 250 _ 205 . 0) 160 .0> C/D X 115 . 70 . 25 1715G-SD SECTION A-A' SEISMIC 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.664 45 90 135 180 225 X-AXIS (feet) 270 315 360 XSTABL File: 1715B1 8-19-94 9:56 XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using Simplified BISHOP or JANBU methods Copyright (C) 1992 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. All Rights Reserved GeoSoils, Inc. Van Nuys, CA 91406 Ver. 4.02 1071 Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION B-B' STATIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 x-left (ft) y-left (ft) x-right (ft) y-right (ft) .00 76.00 109.00 139.00 194.00 236.00 90.00 122.00 142.00 153.00 172.00 180.00 76.00 109.00 139.00 194.00 236.00 340.00 122.00 142.00 153.00 172.00 180.00 178.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 x-left (ft) 139.00 76.00 y-left (ft) 153.00 122.00 x-right (ft) 340.00 340.00 y-right (ft) 153.00 122.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 2 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 3 type(s) of soil Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 135.0 2 135.0 3 120.0 135.0 135.0 120.0 150.0 560.0 500.0 40.0 32.0 28.0 .000 .000 .000 .0 .0 .0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 275 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 11 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = .00 ft and x = 140.00 ft Each surface terminates between x = 200.00 ft and x = 340.00 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 90.00 ft 10.00 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the ***** MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 24 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 x-surf (ft) .00 9.95 19.88 29.76 39.61 49.40 59.14 68.82 78.43 87. 97 97.42 106.78 116.05 125.21 134.27 143.22 152.04 160.74 169.31 177.74 186.03 194.17 202.15 209.89 y-surf (ft) 90.00 90.98 92.21 93.71 95.46 97.47 99.73 102.25 105.02 108.04 111.31 114.82 118.57 122.57 126.81 131.28 135.98 140.91 146.06 151.44 157.04 162.85 168.87 175.03 "** Modified BISHOP FOS 2.297 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION B-B1 STATIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Driving (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1.2.297 -32.43 471.62 382.99 .00 209.89 6.320E+07 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2* 345 352 356 357 379 381 405 41-8 -10. -18. -70. -58. 13. -106. -38. -128. 26. 89 38 72 47 17 81 71 42 32 419.88 481.45 615.97 594.49 403.59 709.69 561.82 712.57 411.62 330. 391. 530. 507. 307. 628. 468. 635. 309. ,06 ,88 .71 .87 .69 ,83 .89 68 83 14 14 28 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 210.54 230.79 230.32 234.58 221.57 230.40 232.47 211.31 231.00 6.185E+07 8.344E+07 9.087E+07 9.421E+07 5. 921E+07 9.648E+07 7 . 667E+07 7.400E+07 5.569E+07 END OF FILE I715B1 8-19-94 9:56 230 _ 185 . 0) 140 0) X<I>* 50 _ 1715G-SD SECTION B-B' STATIC 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 2.297 45 90 135 180 225 X-AXIS (feet) 270 315 360 XSTABL File: 1715B2 8-19-94 9:57 XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using Simplified BISHOP or JANBU methods Copyright (C) 1992 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. All Rights Reserved GeoSoils, Inc. Van Nuys, CA 91406 Ver. 4.02 1071 Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION B-B' SEISMIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 x-left (ft) .00 76.00 109.00 139.00 194.00 236.00 y-left (ft) 90.00 122.00 142.00 153.00 172.00 180.00 x-right (ft) 76.00 109.00 139.00 194.00 236.00 340.00 y-right (ft) 122.00 142.00 153.00 172.00 180.00 178.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 2 2 3 3 3 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 x-left (ft) 139.00 76.00 y-left (ft) 153.00 122.00 x-right (ft) 340.00 340.00 y-right (ft) 153.00 122.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 2 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 3 type(s) of soil Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 135.0 135.0 150.0 40.0 .000 2 135.0 135.0 560.0 32.0 .000 3 120.0 120.0 500.0 28.0 .000 .0 .0 .0 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .250 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 275 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 11 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = .00 ft and x = 140.00 ft Each surface terminates between x = 200.00 ft and x = 340.00 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 90.00 ft 10.00 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD ***** The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 25 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 .00 90.00 2 9.99 90.48 3 19.96 91.27 4 29.90 92.35 5 39.80 93.74 6 49.66 95.42 7 59.46 97.41 8 69.20 99.68 9 78.86 102.26 10 88.44 105.12 11 97.93 108.28 12 107.32 111.72 13 116.60 115.44 14 125.77 119.44 15 134.81 123.72 16 143.71 128.27 17 152.47 133.08 18 161.09 138.17 19 169.54 143.50 20 177.83 149.10 21 185.95 154.94 22 193.88 161.02 23 201.63 167.35 24 209.18 173.90 25 210.54 175.15 **** Modified BISHOP FOS = 1.334 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : 1715G-SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. FOS (BISHOP) 1.334 1.334 1.340 1.341 1.344 1.355 1.356 1.356 1.361 1.375 Circle x-coord (ft) -10.89 -32.43 -18.38 -58.47 -70.72 -29.52 13.17 -38.71 -106.81 -97.84 Center y-coord (ft) 419.88 471.62 481.45 594.49 615.97 570.95 403.59 561.82 709.69 755.46 SECTION Radius (ft) 330.06 382.99 391.88 507.87 530.71 481.86 307.69 468.89 628.83 668.98 B-B' SEISMIC Initial x-coord (ft) .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 14.00 14.00 .00 14.00 Terminal x-coord (ft) 210.54 209.89 230.79 234.58 230.32 251.73 221.57 232.47 230.40 243.04 Driving Moment (ft-lb) 9.858E+07 1.007E+08 1.355E+08 1.536E+08 1.476E+08 1.939E+08 9.562E+07 1.253E+08 1.568E+08 1.707E+08 END OF FILE * 1715B2 8-19-94 9:57 230 _ 1715G-SD SECTION B-B' SEISMIC 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.334 45 90 135 180 225 X-AXIS (feet) 270 315 360 XSTABL File: 1715C1 ^ 8-19-94 10:20 XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using Simplified BISHOP or JANBU methods Copyright (C) 1992 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. All Rights Reserved GeoSoils, Inc. Van Nuys, CA 91406 * Ver. 4.02 1071 Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION C-C' STATIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 x-left (ft) y-left (ft) x-right (ft) y-right (ft) 50. 85. 180. 250. 275. 320. 350. 420. ,00 .00 .00 00 00 00 00 00 00 72, 74, 81. 121. 151. 156. 172. 177. 181. .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 .00 50. 85. 180. 250. 275. 320. 350. 420. 500. 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 74, 81. 121, 151. 156. 172. 177. 181. 181. .00 .00 .00 .00 ,00 ,00 .00 ,00 .00 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 x-left (ft) 275.00 180.00 y-left (ft) 156.00 121.00 x-right (ft) 500.00 500.00 y-right (ft) 156.00 121.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 2 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 3 type(s) of soil Soil Unit Weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) 1 135.0 135.0 2 135.0 135.0 3 120.0 120.0 Cohesion Friction Intercept Angle (psf) (deg) 150.0 560.0 500.0 40.0 32.0 28.0 Pore Pressure Parameter Constant Ru (psf) .000 .000 .000 .0 .0 .0 Water Surface . No. 0 0 0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 275 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 11 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 50.00 ft and x = 275.00 ft Each surface terminates between x = 320.00 ft and x = 500.00 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 74.00 ft 10.00 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : ***** MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD ***** The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 29 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 72.50 78.50 2 82.50 78.73 3 92.49 79.22 4 102.46 79.94 5 112,41 80.92 6 122.34 82.14 7 132.23 83.61 8 142.08 85.33 9 151.89 87.28 10 161.64 89.49 11 171.34 91.93 12 180.97 94.61 13 190.54 97.53 14 200.03 100.68 15 209.43 104.07 16 218.75 107.70 17 227.98 111.55 18 237.11 115.63 19 246.14 119.94 20 255.05 124.46 21 263.85 129.21 22 272.53 134.18 23 281.09 139.36 24 289.51 144.75 25 297.80 150.34 26 305.95 156.14 27 313.94 162.14 28 321.79 168.34 29 327.75 173.29 **** Modified BISHOP FOS = 2.488 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : 1715G-SD FOS Circle Center (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord (ft) 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 .488 .489 .502 .502 .505 .520 .531 .534 .542 .549 68. 69. 35. 41. 26. 9. 25. 30. 9. 86. 08 94 41 41 65 78 63 97 24 97 (ft) 481 477 560 550 586 656 643 655 701 484 .57 .22 .96 .90 .31 .24 .06 .49 .29 .58 SECTION Radius (ft) 403. 398. 487. 476. 512. 583. 569. 578. 628. 406. 09 73 18 97 84 63 58 48 61 34 C-C' STATIC Initial Terminal x-coord x-coord (ft) 72 72 50 50 50 50 50 72 50 72 .50 .50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .50 .00 .50 (ft) 327 328 331 334 331 340 353 356 356 352 .75 .07 .17 .16 .47 .59 .29 .58 .58 .62 Driving Moment (ft-lb) 9.094E+07 9.120E+07 1.088E+08 1.132E+08 1.094E+08 1.245E+08 1.456E+08 1.388E+08 1.542E+08 1.224E+08 END OF FILE 1715C1 8-19-94 10:30 325 _ 260 _ CD 195<u {/) X< I > 130 _ 65 _ 1715G-SD SECTION C-C' STATIC 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 2.488 65 130 195 260 325 X-AXIS (feet) 390 455 520 XSTABL File: 1715C2 S-19-94 10:21 XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using Simplified BISHOP or JANBU methods . Copyright (C) 1992 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. All Rights Reserved GeoSoils, Inc. Van Nuys, CA 91406 * Ver. 4.02 1071 Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION C-C'SEISMIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 9 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 x-left (ft) .00 50.00 85.00 180.00 250.00 275.00 320.00 350.00 420.00 y-left (ft) 72.00 74.00 81.00 121.00 151.00 156.00 172.00 177.00 181.00 x-right (ft) 50.00 85.00 180.00 250.00 275.00 320.00 350.00 420.00 500.00 y-right (ft) 74.00 81.00 121.00 151.00 156.00 172.00 177.00 181.00 181.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 x-left (ft) 275.00 180.00 y-left (ft) 156.00 121.00 x-right (ft) 500.00 500.00 y-right (ft) 156.00 121.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 2 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 3 type(s) of soil Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 135.0 135.0 150.0 40.0 .000 2 135.0 135.0 560.0 32.0 .000 3 120.0 120.0 500.0 28.0 .000 .0 .0 .0 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .250 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 275 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 11 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 50.00 ft and x = 275.00 ft Each surface terminates between x = 320.00 ft and x - 500.00 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 74.00 ft 10.00 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD * * * * * The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 32 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 72.50 78.50 2 82.47 79.30 3 92.42 80.28 4 102.35 81.43 5 112.27 82.75 6 122.15 84.24 7 132.02 85.90 8 141.85 87.73 9 151.64 89.73 10 161.41 91.91 11 171.13 94.24 12 180.81 96.75 13 190.44 99.42 14 200.03 102.26 15 209.57 105.27 16 219.06 108.44 17 228.48 111.77 18 237.85 115.27 19 247.16 118.92 20 256.40 122.74 21 265.58 126.72 22 274.68 130.85 23 283.72 135.14 24 292.67 139.59 25 301.55 144.19 26 310.35 148.95 27 319.06 153.85 28 327.69 158.91 29 30 31 32 336.23 344.68 353.03 356.58 164.11 169.46 174.96 177.38 Modified BISHOP FOS 1.401 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION C-C1 SEISMIC 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6. 7 . 8. 9. 10. FOS (BISHOP) 1.401 1.401 1.402 1.402 Circle Center Radius x-coord y-coord (ft) (ft) (ft) 402 404 1.404 406 406 Initial Terminal Driving x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1.407 30. 68. 69. 41. 25. 35. 9. 25. 26. 24. .97 .08 .94 .41 .63 .41 .24 ,54 65 .20 655 481 477 550. 643. 560. 701. 673. 586. 686. .49 .57 .22 .90 .06 .96 .29 .45 .31 ,07 578. 403. 398. 476. 569. 487. 628. 599. 512. 612. 48 09 73 97 58 18 61 95 84 61 72 72 72 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 .50 .50 .50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 356. 327, 328. 334 . 353. 331. 356. 363. 331. 366. .58 .75 .07 ,16 .29 .17 .58 51 47 36 2 1 1 1 2 J. 2 2 1 2 .337E+08 .498E+08 .503E+08 .875E+08 .444E+08 .799E+08 .596E+08 .821E+08 .810E+08 . 934E+08 * * END OF FILE * * * 1715C2 8-19-94 10:21 325 _ 1715G-SD SECTION C-C' SEISMIC 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.401 195 260 325 X-AXIS (feet) 390 455 520 XSTABL File: 1715D1 3-S9-S 11:56 XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using Simplified BISHOP or JANBU methods Copyright (C) 1992 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. All Rights Reserved GeoSoils, Inc. Van Nuys, CA 91406 Ver. 4.02 1071 * Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION D-D' STATIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 x-left (ft) .00 10.00 17.00 24.00 31.00 46.00 57.00 80.00 y-left (ft) 70.00 70.00 82.00 90.00 96.00 105, 105. 00 00 113.00 x-right (ft) 10.00 17.00 24.00 31.00 46.00 57.00 80.00 140.00 y-right (ft) 70.00 82.00 90.00 96.00 105.00 105.00 113.00 113.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 x-left (ft) 24.00 17.00 y-left (ft) x-right (ft) 90.00 140.00 82.00 140.00 y-right (ft) 96.00 87.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 2 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 2 type(s) of soil Soil Unit Weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 150.0 560.0 40.0 32.0 .000 .000 .0 .0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 275 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 11 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 10.00 ft and x = 30.00 ft Each surface terminates between x = 40.00 ft and x = 140.00 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 70.00 ft 5.00 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := Upper angular limit := -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : ***** MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD ***** The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 12 coordinate points Point No. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 x-surf (ft) 10.00 14.49 18.83 23.03 27.06 30.91 34.57 38.02 41.26 44.26 47.03 48.47 y-surf (ft) 70.00 72.21 74.68 77.40 80.35 83.54 86.95 90.57 94.38 98.38 102.54 105.00 Modified BISHOP FOS =1.395 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION D-D1 STATIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Driving (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .395 .426 .438 .439 .509 .511 .526 .539 .541 .558 -25.53 -10.61 -9.90 -35.80 -302.59 -191.48 -.24 .27 -131.00 -2007.84 147 133 134 171 508 383 116 123 245 2792 .77 .93 .81 .31 .09 .77 .48 .39 .31 .30 85. 67. 67. 111. 538. 372. 44. 51. 224. 3388. 51 17 80 18 18 89 76 32 97 60 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 10. 12. 12. 10. 10. ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 00 00 48 49 50 53 53 56 42 48 43 56 .47 .99 .98 .41 . 99 .16 .32 .18 .77 .38 2.412E+06 2.249E+06 2.369E+06 3.682E+06 1.397E+07 1.100E+07 9.197E+05 1.394E+06 3.554E+06 9.062E+07 1715D1 8-19-94 11:56 140 _ 40 1715G-SD SECTION D-D' STATIC 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.395 20 40 60 80 100 X-AXIS (feet) 120 140 160 XSTABL File: 1715D2 3-19-94 11:57 XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using Simplified BISHOP or JANBU methods Copyright (C) 1992 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. All Rights Reserved GeoSoils, Inc. Van Nuys, CA 91406 * Ver. 4.02 1071 Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION D-D' SEISMIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 8 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 x-left (ft) .00 10.00 17.00 24.00 31.00 46.00 57.00 80.00 y-left (ft) 70.00 70.00 82.00 90.00 96.00 105.00 105.00 113.00 x-right (ft) 10.00 17.00 24.00 31.00 46.00 57.00 80.00 140.00 y-right (ft) 70.00 82.00 90.00 96.00 105.00 105.00 113.00 113.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 x-left (ft) 24.00 17.00 y-left (ft) 90.00 82.00 x-right (ft) 140.00 140.00 y-right (ft) 96.00 87.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 2 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 2 type(s) of soil Soil Unit Weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 150.0 560.0 40.0 32.0 .000 .000 .0 .0 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .250 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 275 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 11 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 10.00 ft and x = 30.00 ft Each surface terminates between x = 40.00 ft and x = 140.00 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 70.00 ft 5.00 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := Upper angular limit := -45.0 degrees (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : ***** MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD ***** The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 12 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 x-surf (ft) 10.00 14 .49 18.83 23.03 27.06 30.91 34.57 38.02 41.26 44.26 47.03 48.47 y-surf (ft) 70.00 72.21 74.68 77.40 80.35 83.54 86.95 90.57 94.38 98.38 102.54 105.00 Modified BISHOP FOS .956 The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION D-D' SEISMIC 1. 2. 3. 4. FOS (BISHOP) .956 .966 .978 .984 Circle Center x-coord y-coord (ft) (ft) -25.53 147.77 -35.80 171.31 -10.61 133.93 -9.90 134.81 Radius Initial Terminal Driving x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 85.51 10.00 48.47 3.070E+06 111.18 10.00 53.41 4.802E+06 67.17 10.00 49.99 2.880E+06 67.80 10.00 50.98 3.048E+06 5. 1.000 -191.48 383.77 372.89 10.00 56.16 1.460E+07 6. 1.010 -302.59 508.09 538.18 10.00 53.99 1.834E+07 7. 1.027 -54.82 223.74 166.85 10.00 65.18 9.413E+06 8. 1.031 -2007.84 2792.30 3388.60 10.00 56.38 1.206E+08 9. 1.056 -2768.80 4174.51 4956.69 10.00 65.01 2.141E+08 10. 1.067 .27 123.39 51.32 12.00 48.18 1.793E+06 END OF FILE 1715D2 8-19-94 11:57 140 _ 120 _ OJ 100 _ GO X 80 _ 60 _ 40 1715G-SD SECTION D-D' SEISMIC 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS .956 40 r 60 80 100 X-AXIS (feet) 120 140 160 XSTABL File: 1715D3 8-19-94 14:17 XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using Simplified BISHOP or JANBU methods Copyright (C) 1992 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. All Rights Reserved GeoSoils, Inc. Van Nuys, CA 91406 * Ver. 4.02 1071 Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION D-D1 STATIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 x-left (ft) .00 10.00 35.00 52.00 95.00 y-left (ft) 70.00 70.00 82.00 90.00 113.00 x-right (ft) 10.00 35.00 52.00 95.00 140.00 y-right (ft) 70.00 82.00 90.00 113.00 113.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 2 1 1 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 x-left (ft) 52.00 35.00 y-left (ft) 90.00 82.00 x-right (ft) 140.00 140.00 y-right (ft) 96.00 87.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 2 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 2 type(s) of soil Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 150.0 560.0 40.0 32.0 .000 .000 .0 .0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 275 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 11 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 10.00 ft and x = 55.00 ft Each surface terminates between x = 95.00 ft and x = 140.00 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 70.00 ft 5.00 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : * * * * * MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD ***** The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 23 coordinate points Point No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 x-surf (ft) 10.00 15.00 19.98 24. 96 29.90 34.82 39.69 44.53 49.31 54.03 58.68 63.26 67.77 72.19 76.51 80.74 84 . 86 88. 88 92.78 96.55 100.20 103.72 105.64 y-surf (ft) 70.00 70.16 70.52 71.06 71.79 72.70 73.80 75.09 76.56 78.21 80.03 82.03 84.20 86.54 89.05 91.72 94.55 97.53 100.66 103.94 107.36 110.91 113.00 **** Modified BISHOP FOS 2.232 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION D-D' STATIC 1. 2. 3. 4 . FOS (BISHOP) 2.232 2.247 2.251 2.270 Circle Center x-coord y-coord (ft) (ft) 8.18 201.97 17.62 185.02 -2.27 221.21 1.41 199.70 Radius Initial Terminal Driving x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 131.98 112.90 151.70 129.98 10.00 14.50 10.00 10.00 105.64 104.53 104.05 98.24 6.921E+06 5.669E+06 6.672E+06 4.920E+06 5. 2.272 6. 2.278 7. 2.279 8. 2.287 9. 2.301 10. 2.306 22 15 27 29 32 .76 .31 .66 .13 .43 .69 160. 233. 196. 157. 173. 153. 63 22 64 83 99 82 88. 163. 122. 83. 97. 77. 86 51 37 90 69 89 14. 10. 19. 19. 23. 23. .50 .00 ,00 ,00 50 50 97. 111. 104. 98. 105. 98. 73 11 95 01 71 99 4 , 8. 5, 3, 4 . 3. . 097E+06 . 826E+06 .127E+06 .547E+06 .381E+06 . 155E+06 END OF FILE 1715D3 8-19-94 14:17 140 _ 40 1715G-SD SECTION D-D' STATIC 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 2.232 60 80 100 X-AXIS (feet) 120 140 160 XSTABL File: 1715D4 8-19-94 14:19 XSTABL Slope Stability Analysis using Simplified BISHOP or JANBU methods Copyright (C) 1992 Interactive Software Designs, Inc. All Rights Reserved GeoSoils, Inc. Van Nuys, CA 91406 * Ver. 4.02 1071 Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION D-D1 SEISMIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 5 SURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 3 4 5 x-left (ft) .00 10.00 35.00 52.00 95.00 y-left (ft) 70.00 70.00 82.00 90.00 113.00 x-right (ft) 10.00 35.00 52.00 95.00 140.00 y-right (ft) 70.00 82.00 90.00 113.00 113.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 1 1 2 1 1 2 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment No. 1 2 x-left (ft) 52.00 35.00 y-left (ft) 90.00 82.00 x-right (ft) 140.00 140.00 y-right (ft) 96.00 87.00 Soil Unit Below Segment 2 1 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 2 type(s) of soil Soil Unit Weight Unit Moist Sat. No. (pcf) (pcf) 135.0 135.0 135.0 135.0 Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 150.0 560.0 40.0 32.0 .000 .000 .0 .0 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .250 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 275 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 25 Surfaces initiate from each of 11 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 10.00 ft and x = 55.00 ft Each surface terminates between x = 95.00 ft and x = 140.00 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = 70.00 ft 5.00 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit := -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit := (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the : ***** MODIFIED BISHOP METHOD ***** The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 23 coordinate points Point x-surf y-surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 10.00 70.00 2 15.00 70.16 3 19.98 70.52 4 24.96 71.06 5 29.90 71.79 6 34.82 72.70 7 39.69 73.80 8 44.53 75.09 9 49.31 76.56 10 54.03 78.21 11 58.68 80.03 12 63.26 82.03 13 67.77 84.20 14 72.19 86.54 15 76.51 89.05 16 80.74 91.72 17 84.86 94.55 18 88.88 97.53 19 92.78 100.66 20 96.55 103.94 21 100.20 107.36 22 103.72 110.91 23 105.64 113.00 **** Modified BISHOP FOS = 1.354 **** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : 1715G-SD SECTION D-D' SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Driving (BISHOP) x-coord y-coord x-coord x-coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft-lb) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1 1 1 1. 1. 1. 1. 1, 1, 1, .354 .361 .368 .370 .373 .388 .394 .396 .399 .402 8 -2 17 12 15 1 1 9 22 .18 .31 .27 .62 .27 .66 .41 .61 .09 .76 201 233 221 185 214 196 199 261 242 160 .97 .22 .21 .02 .44 .64 .70 .16 .03 .63 131. 163. 151. 112. 144 . 122. 129. 191. 172. 88. 98 51 70 90 46 37 98 35 04 86 10 10 10 14 10 19 10 10 10 14 .00 .00 .00 .50 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 .50 105 111 104 104 115 104 98 122 122 97 .64 .11 .05 .53 .10 .95 .24 .66 .85 .73 1.048E+07 1.359E+07 1.008E+07 8.561E+06 1.480E+07 7.756E+06 7.3S8E+06 2.022E+07 1.942E+07 6.117E+06 END OF FILE * * * 1715D4 8-19-94 14:19 140 _ 120 _ 0) 100 _0) 00 X 80 _ 60 _ 40 1715G-SD SECTION D-D' SEISMIC 10 most critical surfaces, MINIMUM BISHOP FOS = 1.354 20 60 80 100 X-AXIS (feet) 120 140 160 APPENDIX V GRADING GUIDELINES GeoSoils, Inc. GRADING GUIDELINES ^ Grading should be performed to at least the minimum requirements of the governing agencies, Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code and the guidelines presented below: Site Clearing Trees, dense vegetation, and other deleterious materials should be removed from the site. Non- organic debris or concrete may be placed in deeper fill areas under direction of the Soils Engineer. Light, dry grasses may be thinly scattered and incorporated into the fill under direction of the Soils Engineer, provided concentrations of organics are not developed. Subdrainage 1. Subdrainage systems should be provided in all canyon bottoms and within buttress and stabilization fills prior to placing fill. Subdrains should conform to schematic diagrams GS-1, GS-3, and GS-4, approved by the Soils Engineer. For canyon subdrains, runs less than 500 feet may use six inch pipe. Runs in excess of 500 feet should have the lower end as eight inch minimum. 2. Filter material should be Class 2 permeable filter material per California Department of Transportation Standards tested by the Soils Engineer to verify its suitability. A sample of the material should be provided to the Soils Engineer by the contractor at least two working days before it is delivered to the site. The filter should be clean with a wide range of sizes. As an alternative to the Class 2 filter, the material may be a 50/50 mix of pea gravel and clean concrete sand which is well mixed, or clean gravel wrapped in a suitable filter fabric. 3. An exact delineation of anticipated subdrain locations may be determined at 40 scale plan review stage. During grading, the Engineering Geologist should evaluate the necessity of placing additional drains. 4. All subdrainage systems should be observed by the Engineering Geologist and Soils Engineer during construction and prior to covering with compacted fill. 5. Consideration should be given to having subdrains located by the project surveyors. Outlets should be located and protected. Treatment of Existing Ground 1. All heavy vegetation, rubbish and other deleterious materials should be disposed of off site. 2. All surficial deposits of alluvium and colluvium should be removed (see Plate GS-1) unless otherwise indicated in the text of this report. Groundwater existing in the alluvial areas may make excavation difficult. Deeper removals than indicated in the text of the report may be necessary due to saturation during winter months. 3. Subsequent to removals, the natural ground should be processed to a depth of six inches, moistened to near optimum moisture conditions and compacted to fill standards. GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY ^ SEPTEMBER 6, 2994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 2 Fill Placement 1. All site soil and bedrock may be reused for compacted fill; however, some special processing or handling may be required (see report). 2. Material used in the compacting process should be evenly spread, moisture conditioned, processed, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed six inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise found acceptable by the Soils Engineer. 3. If the moisture content or relative density varies from that acceptable to the Soils Engineer, the Contractor should rework the fill until it is in accordance with the following: a) Moisture content of the fill should be at or above optimum moisture. Moisture should be evenly distributed without wet and dry pockets. Pre-watering of cut or removal areas should be considered in addition to watering during fill placement, particularly in clay or dry surficial soils. b) Each six inch layer should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum density in compliance with the testing method specified by the controlling governmental agency. In this case, the testing method is ASTM Test Designation D-1557-91. 4. Side-hill fills should have an equipment-width key at their toe excavated through all surficial soil and into competent material and tilted back into the hill (GS-2, GS-6). As the fill is elevated, it should be benched through surficial soil and slopewash, and into competent bedrock or other material deemed suitable by the Soils Engineer. 5. Rock fragments less than eight inches in diameter may be utilized in the fill, provided: a) They are not placed in concentrated pockets; b) There is a sufficient percentage of fine-grained material to surround the rocks; c) The distribution of the rocks is supervised by the Soils Engineer. 6. Rocks greater than eight inches in diameter should be taken off site, or placed in accordance with the recommendations of the Soils Engineer in areas designated as suitable for rock disposal (See GS-5). 7. In clay soil large chunks or blocks are common; if in excess of eight (8) inches minimum dimension then they are considered as oversized. Sheepsfoot compactors or other suitable methods should be used to break the up blocks. 8. The Contractor should be required to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 2994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 3 out to the finished slope face of fill slopes. This may be achieved by either overbuilding the slope and cutting back to the compacted core, or by direct compaction of the slope face with suitable equipment. If fill slopes are built "at grade" using direct compaction methods then the slope construction should be performed so that a constant gradient is maintained throughout construction. Soil should not be "spilled" over the slope face nor should slopes be "pushed out" to obtain grades. Compaction equipment should compact each lift along the immediate top of slope. Slopes should be back rolled approximately every 4 feet vertically as the slope is built. Density tests should be taken periodically during grading on the flat surface of the fill three to five feet horizontally from the face of the slope. In addition, if a method other than over building and cutting back to the compacted core is to be employed, slope compaction testing during construction should include testing the outer six inches to three feet in the slope face to determine if the required compaction is being achieved. Finish grade testing of the slope should be performed after construction is complete. Each day the Contractor should receive a copy of the Soils Engineer's "Daily Field Engineering Report" which would indicate the results of field density tests that day. 9. Fill over cut slopes should be constructed in the following manner: a) All surficial soils and weathered rock materials should be removed at the cut-fill interface. b) A key at least 1 equipment width wide and tipped at least 1 foot into slope should be excavated into competent materials and observed by the soils engineer or his representative. c) The cut portion of the slope should be constructed prior to fill placement to evaluate if stabilization is necessary, the contractor should be responsible for any additional earthwork created by placing fill prior to cut excavation. 10. Transition lots (cut and fill) and lots above stabilization fills should be capped with a three foot thick compacted fill blanket. 11. Cut pads should be observed by the Engineering Geologist to evaluate the need for overexcavation and replacement with fill. This may be necessary to reduce water infiltration into highly fractured bedrock or other permeable zones,and/or due to differing expansive potential of materials beneath a structure. The overexcavation should be at least three feet. Deeper overexcavation may be recommended in some cases. 12. Exploratory backhoe or dozer trenches still remaining after site removal should be excavated and filled with compacted fill if they can be located. GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY SEPTEMBER 6, 2994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 4 Grading Observation and Testing 1. Observation of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer during the progress of grading. 2. In general, density tests would be made at intervals not exceeding two feet of fill height or every 1,000 cubic yards of fill placed. This criteria will vary depending on soil conditions and the size of the fill. In any event, an adequate number of field density tests should be made to evaluate if the required compaction and moisture content is generally being obtained. 3. Density tests may be made on the surface material to receive fill, as required by the Soils Engineer. 4. Cleanouts, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations.subdrains and rock disposal should be observed by the Soils Engineer prior to placing any fill. It will be the Contractor's responsibility to notify the Soils Engineer when such areas are ready for observation. 5. An Engineering Geologist should observe subdrain construction. 6. An Engineering Geologist should observe benching prior to and during placement of fill. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1. Ninety percent of the laboratory standard if native material is used as backfill. 2. As an alternative, clean sand may be utilized and flooded into place. No specific relative compaction would be required; however, observation, probing, and if deemed necessary, testing may be required. 3. Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a 1:1 plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing, should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, until it is similar to the inplace fill, should not be allowed in these trench backfill areas. Density testing along with probing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. JOB SAFETY General: At GeoSoils, Inc., getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi-employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury and possible fatality on grading construction GeoSoils, Inc. KELLY PROPERTY 4 SEPTEMBER 6, 2994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 5 projects. The company recognizes that construction activities will vary on each site and that job site safety is the contractor's responsibility. However, it is, imperative that all personnel be safety conscious to avoid accidents and potential injury. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of our field personnel on grading and construction projects. 1. Safety Meetings: Our field personnel are directed to attend the contractor's regularly scheduled safety meetings. 2. Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided for and are to be worn by our personnel where warranted. 3. Safety Flags: Two safety flags are provided to our field technician; one is to be affixed to the vehicle when on site, the other is to be placed atop the spoil pile on all test pits. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Test Pits Location, Orientation and Clearance: The technician is responsible for selecting test pit locations. The primary concern is the technician's safety. However, it is necessary to take sufficient tests at various location to obtain a representative sampling of the fill. As such, efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representatives (e.g. dump man, operator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.), and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferable outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period, Again, safety is the paramount concern. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away from oncoming traffic. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test pit, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates that the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may opt to park a piece of equipment in front of the test pits, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non-encroachment should be established for all test pits (see Plate GS-7). No grading equipment should enter this zone during the test procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of the test pit. This zone is established both for safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration which typically decreases test results. When taking slope tests, the technician should park their vehicle directly above or below the test location on the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location. In the event that the technician's safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the GeoSoilsj Inc. KELLY PROPERlV SEPTEMBER 6, 2994 W.O. 1715G-SD PAGE 6 contractor's failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is directed to inform both the developer's and contractor's representatives. If the condition is not rectified, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify their supervisor. The grading contractors representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. No further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill placed in the interim can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor brings this to technicians attention and notify our the project manager or office. Effective communication and coordination between the contractors' representative and the field technician(s) is strongly encouraged in order to implement the above safety program and safety in general. The safety procedures outlined above should be discussed at the contractor's safety meetings. This will serve to inform and remind the equipment operators of these safety procedures particularly the zone of non-encroachment. Trench Safety: It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing 's needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation which 1 ) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back, 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All utility trench excavations in excess of 5 feet deep, which a person enters, are to be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with OSHA standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify their supervisor. The contractors representative will then be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. All backfill not tested due to safety concerns or other reasons could be subject to reprocessing and/or removal. GeoSoils, Inc. Final Grade Original ground Surface Deposits Suitable Material Bench where slope exceeds 5:l Suitable Material Subdrain (See Plate GS-3) Inc. TYPICAL TREATMENT OF NATURAL GROUND DATE 9/94 1715G-SD Geotechnicai Engineering • Engineering Geology OQ/99 Pt ATE GS-I TOE SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN PROJECTED I V, ' I NATURAL SLOPE 2' /^ Minimum BEDROCK OR FIRM FORMATION MATERIAL Note: Where natural slope gradient is 5:1 or less, benching is not necessary unless stripping did not remove all compressible material. TYPICAL FILL OVER NATURAL SLOP! DATE 9/94 W.O. Geotechnical Engineering • Engineering Geology FORM R9/22 PLATE GS-2 ALTERNATE 1 •SOIL - SLOPEWASH ALLUVIUM REMOVED TO BEDROCK "x-'xxBEDROCK Canyon subdrain : 6" perforated pipe with 9 cu. ft. gravel per ft. of drain wraped with filter fabric. ALTERNATE 2 6" perforated pipe with 9 cu. ft. gravel per ft. of drain wraped with filter fabric. GeoSollSj Inc. CANYON SUBDRAIN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION DATE W.O. MO 1715G-SD Geotechnical Engineering • Engineering Geology COBM RQ/22 PLATE GS-3 36" THICK FILL CAR, FINISHED SURFACE COMPACTED • ' FILL •D (See drain detail). A. Buttress slope to have a bench at every 20 to 30 feet. B. Buttress key depth varies, (see preliminary reports) C. Buttress key width varies, (see preliminary reports) D. Backdrains and lateral drains located at elevation of every bench drain. First drain at elevation just above lower lot grade. Additional drains may be required at discretion of GeoSoils, Inc. 4"perforated pipe (or approved equivalent) placed in I cu. ft. per linear ft. of graded . filter material.* Pipe to extend ' * full length of buttress. " nonperforated pipe lateral to tslope face at f 100' intervals Pipe I "above. bench Graded filter material to conform to State of Calif. Dept. Public Works standardspecifications for Class 2permeable material TYPICAL BUTTRESS SECTION DATE 9/94 W.O. MO 1715G-SD Geotechnical Engineering • Engineering Geology PI ATE 6S-4 SLOPE A CLEAR ZONE t^EQUIPMENT WIDTH-- \ /- \ Stack boulders end to end. Do not pile upon each other. •* : MO' Typical ^ Stagger rows O O O 3 mi n i mum - O <3 O N / V ^ ^--> / \~~ f N ^ ' - I I Soil shall be pushed over rocks and floodec into voids. Compact around and over each windrow. FILL SLOPE FIRM GROUND-s ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL DATE 9/94 W.O. Geotechnical Engineering • Engineering Geology FORM 89/22 PI ATE REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM AND CREEP MATERIAL FROM TRANSITION-FILL CUT SLOPE >CL .3 V Typical v 10' Typical-* BEDROCK OR FIRM FORMATION MATERIAL TYPICAL FILL OVER CUT SLOPE DATE W.O.1715G-SD Geotechnical Engineering • Engineering Geology CAP Wl PLATE TEST PIT iSAFETY DIAGRAM SIDE VIEW ( NOT TO SCALE ) TOP VIEW 100 FEET APPROXIMATE CENTER OF TEST PIT aU. a FLAG I eSojiiilnc.(NpiT TO SCALE 1 9/94 W.O. NO 1715G-SD Geotechnical Engineering • Engineering Geology FORM 89/22 i i i i II i i i i i i II i ! i ii i i i i i i i i i i I i I II 100" 90 80 PER CENT FINER BY WEIGHTSAMPLE NO. B-2 '0 .0 >0 0 SO >0 0 o< j SIEVE ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES | NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH. U S. STANDARD ^ S?^^! ^-<^r o o ° § o 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 \ \ ^ 1 1 1 _ ~~— . 1 ~— -,_ ^^ 1 1 1 I 1 L \ \ \Mm \ V\\ \ HYDROMETER ANALYSIS GRAIN SIZE IN MM §OD i£) ^~ 1^ CVI 3-(Q *t K) C\J O O O O O O OJ Q Q Q Q QQQQQQ Q^ II \\imT\\ i \\\ \• 1 1J5O O O O Q Q O o oo u> ^ ro c\J — 00 (O 1; rO og — R 8 Qfl0<0 GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS COBBLES DEPTH —FT. 5-7 COARSE FINE GRAVEL COARSE | MEDIUM FINE SAND CLASSIFICATION NAT. W. C LL 44 PL 15 PI 29 - -- 30 {Q ^f f"O OJ ^^ 00 tD ^3" t^ CVJ r ooooo ^^SR^ c FINES u 10 20 ^ I CD 30 Ul 40 OQ Ul 50 $ - 0 60 U h-zLU 70 U o: Ul 80 CL 90 -100 GRADATION CURVES KELLY W.O. 1715 B-2 @ 5-7' CeoSoilSj Inc. PLATE G-l ii li 11 ii ii t f 1 f i I i i i i i i i i i i i I i i i PER CENT FINER BY WEIGHTSIEVE ANALYSIS SIZE OF OPENING IN INCHES | NUMBER OF MESH PER INCH. U S STANDARD a0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 >0 0 f\ _ :£ sstvfl) cv.v.00^ ~ 0 O 0 2<£ ^" n) CVJ KT*-inS. ^-* 10s* i-? ^r — c\l ^" ^D — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1WO o °. o o o o o oooO O O 00 CO v" ro CMIO CM ~ SAMPLE NO. COBBLES DEPTH —FT. U> COARSE FINE GRAVEL 1 1 1 1 X IJ__L 1 \ \ \ \\ \ \l41? i i \\\\\\\\\ HYDROMETER ANALYSIS GRAIN SIZE IN MM 8 CO <D *f fO CM -cID'd'fOCM — OOOOO O CMQQQQ QQQQQQ Q^ \\\MI4l\\\ 1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 1 I 1 ^•lOCM — CO IO 1". rO f\J — : GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS ClOaD-vlCnm-blUfiJoC£00000000°PER CENT COARSER BY WEIGHTOOQQO °OOOOo § COARSE MEDIUM FINE SAND CLASSIFICATION NATw, c LL PL PI FINES GRADATION CURVES KELLY W.O. 1715 E-2 @ 30' GeoSoilSj Inc. PLATE G-2 II II I I i I i I 1 I 1 I I f 1 I 1 I 1 i i i i i I I 2 GEOSOILS, INC. •» CONSOLIDATION TEST . CLIENT _JSELLY BORINQ SAMPLE DEPTH WATER CONTENT, % HEIGHT DIA. FEET BEFORE AFTER INCHES INCHES i i i i i i II CLASSIFICATION WORK ORDER MO. 1715 0.01 0.12 3 469769 PATE 8/94 STRESS IN KIPS/SQ.FT. 2 3466789' 2 PLATE C-l II II II II II II II I i i i I i II i i i i i i i I i i i i •" 2 GEOSOILS, INC. 5 CONSOLIDATION TEST CLIENT KELLY BORINQ SAMPLE DEPTH WATER CONTENT, % HEIGHT OIA. FEET BEFORE AFTER INCHES INCHES E-2 @ 10' CLASSIFICATION WORK ORDER NO 0.01 2 34 1715 PATE 8/94 567890.1 STRESS IN KIPS/SQ.FT. 1.04 6 6 789 2 PLATE C-2 i i i 1 II i i i i i GEOSOILS, INC. CONSOLIDATION TEST CLIENT KELLY fiiiiifiiiliiifiiiiiiiiiil BORINQ SAMPLE DEPTH WATER CONTENT, % HEIQHT DIA. CLASSIFICATION FEET BEFORE AFTER INCHES INCHESB-2 @ 15' WORK ORDER NO 1715 0.01 0.12 3 4 66789 OATE 8/94 STRESS IN KIPS/SQ.FT. PLATE C-3 3.0 2.5 2.0 II zLLI CC(- CO HIz CO 1.5 1.0 0.5 PHI ANGL COHESION |E = 28° = 0.55 K$ i i 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 NORMAL PRESSURE-KSF EXPLANATION O RESHEAR - AT SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT • PEAK - AT SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT 2.5 3.0 DIRECT SHEAR REMOLDED TO 90%RELATIVE DENSITY; THEN SATURATED PCF % MOISTURE % SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT UNDISTURBED NATURAL SHEAR SATURATED 12.0% % SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT GeoSoils, Inc. SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM UNDISTURBED SHEAR, B-3 @ 15' DATE 8/94 W.O. NO.1715 Soil Mechanics • Geology • Foundation Engineering FORM 87/8-2A PLATE SH-1 4.50 3.75 3.00 COi£i Oz Ul H2.25 CO O LU I CO 1.50 .75 PHI AN COHESI ;LE = 40° )N = 0.65 ESF 0 .75 1.50 2.25 3.00 NORMAL PRESSURE-KSF EXPLANATION O RESHEAR - AT SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT • PEAK - AT SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT 3.75 4.50 DIRECT SHEAR REMOLDED TO 90% RELATIVE DENSITY, THEN SATURATED PCF % MOISTURE % SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT UNDISTURBED NATURAL SHEAR SATURATED 19.8% SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT GeoSoils, SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM UNDISTURBED SHEAR, B-3 @ 25' DATE 8/94 W.O. NO 1715 Soil Mechanics • Geology • Foundation Engineering FORM 87/8-2B PLATE SH-2 4.50 3.75 3.00 u. COX.\XI-o K2.25 CO LU I CO 1.50 .75 ^^_O»MI^7 PHI ANGL COHESIO 3 = 47' si = i.o KS: 0 .75 1.50 2.25 3.00 NORMAL PRESSURE-KSF EXPLANATION O RESHEAR - AT SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT • PEAK - AT SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT 3.75 4.50 DIRECT SHEAR REMOLDED TO 90%RELATIVE DENSITY; THEN SATURATED PCF % MOISTURE % SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT UNDISTURBED NATURAL SHEAR SATURATED 14.1% % SATURATED MOISTURE CONTENT GeoSoils, Inc. SHEAR TEST DIAGRAM UNDISTURBED SHEAR, B-3 @ 50' DATE 8/94 W.O. NO.1715 Soil Mechanics • Geology • Foundation Engineering FORM 87/8-2B PLATE SH-3