The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1915 CALLE BARCELONA; RET WALL; CB030441; PermitCity of Carlsbad 1635 Faraday Av Carlsbad, CA 92008 Building Inspection Request Line (760) 602-2725 06-04-2003 Retaining Wall Permit Permit No: CB030441 Job Address: Permit Type: RETAIN Status: ISSUED Parcel No: Lot #: 0 Applied: 02/13/2003 Valuation: $50,400.00 Construction Type: NEW Entered By: SB Reference #: Plan Approved: 06/04/2003 Issued: 06/04/2003 Project Title: THE FOURM 3200 SF LOEFFEL WALL Plan Check#: Inspect Area: 191 5 CALLE BARCELONA CBAD AT SOUTH EAST CORNER OF LOT Applicant: VRATSINAS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY P 0 BOX 2558 LllTLE ROCK, AR 72203-2558 501-376-001 7 Owner: Building Permit Add'l Building Permit Fee Plan Check Add'l Plan Check Fee Strong Motion Fee Renewal Fee Add'l Renewal Fee Other Building Fee Additional Fees TOTAL PERMIT FEES $357.91 $0.00 $232.64 $0.00 $5.04 $0.00 $0.00 $0.41 $0.00 $596.00 Total Fees: $596.00 Total Payments To Date: $232.64 Balance Due: $363.36 Clearance: NOTICE: Please take NOkE ihat approval of your project includes the sIm~ositionnbf fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions hereafter collectively referred to as "feeslexactions." You have 90 days from the date this permit was issued to protest imposition of these feeslexactions. If you protest them, you must follow the protest procedures set forth in Government Code Section 66020(a), and file the protest and any other required information with the City Manager for processing in accordance with Carlsbad Municipal Code Section 3.32.030. Failure to timely follow that procedure will bar any subsequent legal action to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul their imposition. ' PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF CARLSBAD BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 ..\ FOR OFFICE USE ONLY I PLAN CHECK NO. C.B o-?csw/ I EST. VAL. q- Crsnrta!a c Propose Use bescription of Work SQ. FT. #of Stories # of Bedrooms V9-w Assessor's Parcel # Existing Use I DG k of Bathrooms GFcL'' \IWDURQ'' WSLL 3,200 S-67, + S,,+L oc La+ ec. 7031.5 Business and Professions Code: Any City or County which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish or repair any structure, prior to its issuance, also requires tho applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the Contractor's License Law [Chapter 9, commending with Section 7000 of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code1 or that he is exempt therefrom, and the basis for the alleged Address City StatelZip Oesigner Name Address ' tity ' State/Zip Telephone S tl Workers' Compensation Declaration: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury one of the following declarations: 0 of the work for which this permit is issued. issued. My worker's compensation insurance carrier and policy number are: Insurance Company 3 CDR u - 5.7%~~ ~tkcr t ~RI- Policy NO. -q [THIS SECTION NEED NOT BE COMPLETED IF THE PERMIT IS FOR ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS [$IO01 OR LESS) 0 CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION: I certify that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to the \Yorkers' Compensation Laws of California. WARNING: Failure to secure workers' compensation coverage is unlawful, and shall subject an employer to criminal penalties and civil fines up to one hundred thousand dollars ~$100.0001. in addition to the cost of compensation, damages as provided for in Section 3706 of the Labor code, interest and attorney's fees. I have and will maintain a certificate of consent to self-insure for workers' compensation as provided by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance have and will maintain workers' compensation, as required by Section 3700 of the Labor Code, for the performance of the work for which this permit is WVKqJo2042 Expiration Date SIGNATURE DATE 0 I, as owner of the property or my employees with wages as their sole compensation, will do the work and the structure is not intended or offered for sale (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and who does such work himself or through his own employees. provided that such improvements are not intended or offered for sale. If, however, the building or improvement is sold within one year of coinpletion, the owner-builder will have the burden of proving that he did not build or improve for the purpose of sale). 0 I, as owner of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed contractors to construct the project (Sec. 7044, Business and Professions Code: The Contractor's License Law does not apply to an owner of property who builds or improves thereon, and contracts for such projects with contractor(s) licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law). 0 1. 2. 3. 4. am exempt under Section personally plan to provide the major labor and materials for construction of the proposed property improvement. 0 YES ON0 (have / have not) signed an application for a building permit for the proposed work. have contracted with the following person (firm) to provide the proposed construction (include name / address / phone number / contractors license number): plan to provide portions of the work, but I have hired the following person to coordinate, supervise and provide the major work (include name I address I phone Business and Professions Code for this reason: number I contractors license number): 5. of work): I will provide some af the work, but I have contracted (hired) the following persons to provide the work indicated (include name / address / phone number / type PROPERTY OWNER SIGNATURE DATE Is the applicant or future building occupant required to submit a business plan, acutely hazardous materials registration form or risk management and prevention program under Sections 2'5505, 25533 or 25534 of the Presley-Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act? 0 YES 0 NO Is the applicant or future building occupant required to obtain a permit from the air pollution control district or air quality management district? Is the facility to be ConstriJcted within 1,000 feet of the outer boundary of a school site? 0 YES NO IF ANY OF THE ANSWERS ARE YES. A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY MAY NOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE APPLICANT HAS MET OR IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE iDFFlCE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. I hereby affirm that there 11s a construction lending agency for the performance of the work for which this permit is issued (Sec. 3097(i) Civil Code). 0 YES NO N FUNDING AGEN LENDER'S NAME LENDER'S ADDRESS I certify that I have read the application and state that the above information is correct and that the information on the plans is accurate. I agree to comply with all City ordinances and State9 laws relating to building construction. I hereby authorize representatives of the Citt of Carlsbad to enter upon the above mentioned property for inspection purposes. I ALSO AGREE TO SAVE, INDEMNIFY AND KEEP HARMLESS THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AGAINST ALL LIABILITIES, JUDGMENTS. COSTS AND EXPENSES WHICH MAY IN ANY WAY ACCRUE AGAINST SAID CITY IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE GRANTING OF THIS PERMIT. OSHA: An OSHA permit IS required for excavations over 5'0" deep and demolition or construction of structures over 3 stories in height. EXPIRATION: Every permit issued by the building Official under the provisions of this Code shall expire by limitation and become null and void if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within 180 days from the date of such permit or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time after the work is commenced for a period of APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE Uniform Building Code). WHITE: File YELLOW: Applicant PINK: Finance Sent By: VCC CARLBBAD; 760479061 3; Feb- 13-03 10: 34AM; Page 616 The Forum at Carisbad /Job 1491 1935 Calk Barcellona Carlsbad, CA 92000 Phone: 760-479-0570 FAX: 760-479-0613 DATE: Y1312003 TO: FROM: John Allan City of Carlsbad Building Departme nt... Scott ..- NO. OF PAGES (INCLUDING COVER SHEET] 1 MESSAGE This fax serves as authorization for Carolyn Schumacher of Mayers and Associates to pick up the pennit for the Block Wall @ €he West Entrance. AtlantlC Statlon Jobsite: 1297 Mecaslln Street NW . Atlanu, GA 3031 8 rel: 404-81 7-0725 fax: 404-81 7-8097 LOS Angcltr I LIttlc Rock .Atlanta v c c 2 00 0. coy 86-04-' 03 12: 34 FROM- M T-238 P01/01 U-767 \ June 4,2003 To Whom It May Concern: VCC authoriza Cwlyn Shoemaker to pick up perm8s for Tbe Forum at Carbbad Tbc Forum at Clrftbad - 1935 Calk Barcelona, Cnrlsbad, CA 92009 Phone: 760-4799570 Fax: 760-479-0613 Inspection List Permit#: CB030441 Type: RETAIN THE FOURM 3200 SF LOEFFEL WALL AT SOUTH EAST CORNER OF LOT Date Inspection Item Inspector Act Comments 04/13/2004 69 Final Masonry PS AP final wall 06/12/2003 65 Retaining Walls PS AP FOUNDATION Wednesday, April 14,2004 Page 1 of 1 City of Carlsbad Bldg Inspection Request For: 06/12/2003 Permit# CB030441 Title: THE FOURM 3200 SF LOEFFEL WALL Description: AT SOUTH EAST CORNER OF LOT Type: RETAIN Sub Type: Job Address: 1915 CALLE BARCELONA Suite: Lot 0 Location: APPLICANT VRATSINAS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY Owner: Remarks: Total Time: Inspector Assignment: Phone: 7604790570 Inspector: E Requested By: JOHN ALLEN Entered By: CHRISTINE CD Description 65 Retaining Walls Associated PC Rs/CVs Date Inspection History Description Act lnsp Comments - Civil, Engineering, Inc. PLANNING * ENGINEBRMG SURVEYING June 12,2003 CITY OF CARLSrnAD la5 Faraday Carlsbad, CA 92008-731 4 Attention: Mr. Paul Smith Regarding: City Building Inspector The Pavilion at La Costa Rough Grade CeMicatlon Reference: Verdura Retaining Wall Plans for The Pavlllon at La Costa Permit No. C8030441 Dated June 4.2003 Oear Mr. Smith: I hereby certify that the line and grade for the Southeast Verdura" Retaining Welt Footing have been completed and are in conformance with the grades shown on the approved plans. Very truly youre, MAVERS a ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. Brlan Midcekon, PLS 7320 CC: John Allen, VCC Construction, by FAX (760) 479-0613 BWCS 1.n. 016004-01 19 *urn Peinre Drive. Suire CPEJ bke Forsc, CA 92630 (949) 599-0670 &a (949) 599-0880 fax ..A - - \ San Diegohmperial County. Inland Empire: 731 3 Carroll Road, Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 '\ Corporate: 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Tel: 858.537.3999 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 714.632.2974 Fax: 858.537.3990 Fax: 909.653.4666 14320 Elsworth Street, Suite C101 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 FIELD REPORT INSPECTION ADDRESS WHEN A DEE1CIENC'Y. YOURS OR A PREVIOUS INSPECTORS, IS CORRECTED, SO NOTE ON THE ORIGINAL DEFICIENCY REPORT AND PFRCENT PRWCT COMPLETION: WEATHER. SAMPLES TAKEN. TEMPERATURE TESTS REOUIRED. SITE TIME START: l_l_ LUNCH PERIOD: ___ SITE TIME FINISH: TED ABOVE AND THAT THIS WORK COMPLIES WITH THE SOIL INVESTtGATION RECOMMENDATIONS. ION OF THE BUILDING CODE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED IN THE DEFICIENCY REPORT ICBO Certification Number L I /LI Q3 Date of Report Prih Name / City I County Certification Number / n-... 7-7 Client: A Age (Days) 7 28 28 Corporate Office Branch Office 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A 73 13 Carroll Road, Suite G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92 12 1 Tel: (714) 632-2999 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Date Nominal Actual Area Load Strength 71 14/03 2x4 3.14 16.350 5.204 8/4/03 2x4 3.14 12.600 4.01 1 8/4/03 2x4 3.14 12.600 4.01 1 Size (Sq. Inch) (Ibs.) (Psi) Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH-MORTAR ** CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEFT. I635 FARADAY AVENUE CARLSBAD. CA 92008 THOMAS ENTERPRISES Set No.: 3-10910 Project No.: 3 1 15G02 Project Name: THE FORUM AT CARLSBAD-SITE WORK CALLE BARCELONA CARLSBAD, CA BP / DSA No.: 43MiWY2 Plan File No.: ASTM C39/1231 A Specified Strength: 4,000 PSI Cast By: ORAN MARKSBURY Location: SOIL RETENSION WALL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE PIER # 52 Concrete Supplier: Mix No.: Ticket No.: Water added at Site: 0.00 gal. By Cement Type: 1I/V Mix Time: min. Slump: in. ASTMC143 Remarks: ON SITE BATCH PLANT Distribution: THOMAS ENTERPRISES VCC (CARLSBAD) NADEL ARCHITECTS. INC. (SD) MAYERS ASSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS CITY OF C.ARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. **LAB COPY** on 7/7/03 Date Received: 7/9/03 Air: % ASTMC231 Unit Weight: PCF ASTMC138 Concrete Temp: "F ASTMC1064 Admixture: Ambient Temp: 79 "F Respectfully Submitted, 4,011 28-day test complies with specified strength. Corporate Office Branch Office 2992 E. La Palma Ave., Suite A 73 13 Carroll Road, Suite G Anaheim, CA 92806 San Diego, CA 92 12 I Tel: (714) 632-2999 Tel: (858) 537-3999 Fax: (714) 632-2974 Fax: (858) 537-3990 Date 7/ 14/03 8/4/03 8/4/03 Report of: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH-MORTAR Strength Nominal Actual Area Load Size (Sq. Inch) (Ibs.) (psi) 2x4 3.14 16,350 5.204 2x4 3.14 2x4 3.14 Client: n ** CJTY OF CARLSHAD-BLDG INSPECTJON DEPT. 1635 FARADAY .4VENUE CARLSBAD, CA 9200X THOMAS ENTE.RPRISES Set No.: 3-10910 Project No.: 3 1 15G02 Project Name: THE FORUM AT CARLSBAD-SITE WORK CALLE BARCELONA CARLSBAD, CA BP / DSA No.: CB030132 Plan File No.: ASTM C39/1231 h Specified Strength: 4,000 PSI Cast By: ORAN MARKSBURY Location: SOIL RETENSION WALL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SITE PIER # 52 Concrete Supplier: Mix No.: Ticket No.: Water added at Site: 0.00 gal. By Cement Type: II/V Mix Time: min. Slump: in. ASTM C143 Remarks: ON SITE BATCH PLANT Distribution: THOMAS ENTERPRISES VCC (CARLSBAD) NADEL ARCHITECTS. INC. (SD) MAYERS .4SSOCIATES CIVIL ENGINEERS CITY OF CARLSBAD-BLDG INSPECTION DEPT. **L.4B COPY** on 717103 Date Received: 7/9/03 Air: % ASTMC231 Unit Weight: PCF ASTMC138 Concrete Temp: "F ASTMC1064 Admixture: Ambient Temp: 79 "F Respectfully Submitted, c%?- EsGil Corporation In Purtnership .with goucrnmcnt for Building Sufety DATE: February 26,2003 J U RI SDI CTl ON : Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 03-441 0 FILE SET I PROJECT ADDRESS: 1915 Calle Barcelona PROJECT NAME: Retaining Wall: The Pavilion at La Costa 0 0 o w 0 w 0 w 0 The plans transmitted herewith have been corrected where necessary and substantially comply with the jurisdiction’s building codes. The plans transmitted herewith will substantially comply with the jurisdiction’s building codes when minor deficiencies identified below are resolved and checked by building department staff. The plans transmitted herewith have significant deficiencies identified on the enclosed check list and should be corrected and resubmitted for a complete recheck. The check list transmitted herewith is for your information. The plans are being held at Esgil Corporation until corrected plans are submitted for recheck. The applicant’s copy of the check list is enclosed for the jurisdiction to forward to the applicant contact person. The applicant’s copy of the check list has been sent to: Mayers & Assoc. 19 Spectrum Pointe Dr. Lake Forest, CA 92630 Esgil Corporation staff did not advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Esgil Corporation staff did advise the applicant that the plan check has been completed. Person contacted: Carolyn Shoemaker (q Date contacted: z/z(j[o3 (by: & ) REMARKS: By: Kurt Culver Enclosures: Telephone #: (949) 599-0870 Fax #: Mail Aelephone’ Fax In Person Esgil Corporation 0 GA u MB 0 EJ 0 PC 2/18/03 tmsrntl.dot 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208 + San Diego, California 92123 + (858) 560-1468 + Fax (858) 560-1576 ' C'lsbad 03-441 February 26, 2003 PLAN 'REVIEW CORRECTION LIST COMMERCIAL DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY JURISDICTION: 2/13/03 I DATE PLANS RECEIVED BY ESGIL CORPORATION: 2/18/03 DATE INITIAL PLAN REVIEW COMPLETED: February 26,2003 PLAN REVIEWER: Kurt Culver FOREWORD (PLEASE READ): This plan review is limited to the technical requirements contained in the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, National Electrical Code and state laws regulating energy conservation, noise attenuation and access for the disabled. This plan review is based on regulations enforced by the Building Department. You may have other corrections based on laws and ordinances enforced by the Planning Department, Engineering Department, Fire Department or other departments. Clearance from those departments may be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. Code sections cited are based on the 1997 UBC. The followirig items listed need clarification, modification or change. All items must be satisfied before the plans will be in conformance with the cited codes and regulations. Per Sec. 106.4.3, 1997 Uniform Building Code, the approval of the plans does not permit the violation of any state, county or city law. To speed up the recheck process, please note on this list (or a copv) where each correction item has been addressed, Le., plan sheet number, specification section, etc. Be sure to enclose the marked up list when you submit the revised plans. Carlsbad 03-441 February 26,2003 GENERA? 1, Please make all corrections on the original tracings and submit two new complete sets of prints, to: Esgil Corporation, 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123, (858) 560-1468. 0 PLANS 2. All sheets of the plans are required to be signed by the California licensed architect or engineer responsible for the plan preparation. Please include the California license number, seal, date of license expiration and the date the plans are signed. Business and Professions Code. THIS APPLIES TO THE “PLATES” AT THE END OF THE BOOKLET BY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA G EOTECHNICAL. 3. On the cover sheet of the plans, specify any items requiring special inspection, in a format similar to that shown below. REQUIRED SPECIAL INSPECTIONS In addition to the regular inspections, the following checked items will also require Special Inspection in accordance with Sec. 1701 of the Uniform Building Code. ITEM REQUIRED? REMARKS SOILS COMPLIANCE PRIOR TO FOU N DATION I NS PECTION YES - VENDURA WALL CONSTRUCTION YES FOUNDATION 4. Please provide to EsGil Corporation a complete copy of the site soils report for review (as required by the ICBO report for the wall). 5. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated into the plans (when required by the soil report). 6. The calculations for the wall used the “8x7 geogrid. The ICBO report for the wall, though, only addresses the “5XT” and “1 OXT” grids. Please revise the design to use one of those two grids. The “allowable” value used in the calculations for the “8XT” cannot be verified. Building departments rely on ICBO to evaluate any new products, so please do not submit documentation for review. ' Carlsbad 03-441 February 26,2003 ADDITIONAL 7. To speed up the review process, note on this list (or a copy) where each correction item has been addressed, Le., plan sheet, note or detail number, calculation page, etc. 8. Please indicate here if any changes have been made to the plans that are not a result of corrections from this list. If there are other changes, please briefly describe them and where they are located in the plans. Have changes been made to the plans not resulting from this correction list? Please indicate: 0 Yes 0 No 9. The jurisdiction has contracted with Esgil Corporation located at 9320 Chesapeake Drive, Suite 208, San Diego, California 92123; telephone number of 858/560-1468, to perform the plan review for your project. If you have any questions regarding these plan review items, please contact Kurt Culver at Esgil Corporation. Thank you. Carlsbad 03-441 February 26,2003 Air Conditioning Fire Sprinklers TOTAL VALUE VALUATION AND PLAN CHECK FEE JURISD l CTl ON: Carlsbad PLAN CHECK NO.: 03-441 50,400 PREPARED BY: Kurt Culver BUILDING ADDRESS: 1915 Calle Barcelona BUILD I NG OCCUPANCY: Wall TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: Conc. DATE: February 26,2003 Plan Check Fee by Ordinance ________ 7 Jurisdiction Code Icb IBy Ordinance Bldg. Permit Fee by Ordinance 1 1 7 I $348.91 1 Type of Review: I3 Complete Review u Repetitive Fee [-GI Repeats I $226.791 0 Structural Only Other 0 Hourly -1 Hour * Esgii Plan Review Fee I $195.391 Comments: Sheet1 of 1 rnacvalue.doc City - of ---v, Carlsbad approved. -The approval is based on plans, information andlor specifications provided in your submittal; therefore, any changes to these items after this date, including field modifications, must be reviewed by this office to insure continued conformance with applicable BUILDING PLANCHECK CHECKLIST RETAINING WALL CB 03 - 044/ BUILDING PLANCHECK NUMBER: BUILDINGADDRESS: 176 Cde '& c~e/ on4 marked with 0. Make necessary corrections to plans or specifications for compliance with applicable codes and standards. Submit corrected plans and/or specifications to this office for review. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Retaining Wall ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER: EN GIN E ERI NG DE PARTME NT APPROVAL DENIAL The item you have submitted for review has been I Please see the attached report of deficiencies codes. Please review carefully all comments attached, as failure to comply with instructions in this report can result in sypension of permit to build. By: Date: Date: AlTAC H ME NTS Right-of-way Permit Application ENGINEERING DEPT. CONTACT PERSON NAME: Taniya Barrows City of Carlsbad ADDRESS: 1635 Faraday Ave Carlsbad, CA 92008 PHONE: (760) 602-2773 H:\Deve)opmmm Sewicss\MASTERSFORMS -\CHECKLISTS -WILDING PLANCHECK CKLIST FORM. RETAINING WALLS.doc Rev. WWW 1635 Faraday Avenue - Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 - (760) 602-2720 - FAX (760) 602-8562 @ PLANNINGIENGINEERING APPROVALS PERMIT NUMBER CB 0 3 0% \ DATE ADDRESS RES1 D ENTIA1 TENANT IMPROVEMENT RESIDENTIAL ADDITION MINOR PLAZA CAMIN0 REAL (< $10,000.00~ CARLSBAD COMPANY STORES VILLAGE FAlRE COMPLETE OFFICE BUlLDlNC ENGINEER " -v W Office Locations Orange County Los Angeles Corporate Branch: 2992 E. La Palma Avenue Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Tel: 714.632.2999 Fax: 714.632.2974 San Diego Imperial County 731 3 Carroll Road Suite G San Diego, CA 92121 Tel: 858.537.3999 Fax: 858.537.3990 Inland Empire 14320 Elsworth Street Suite C101 Moreno Valley, CA 92553 Tel: 909.653.4999 Fax: 909.653.4666 Central Dispatch 800.491.2990 www.mtg1inc.com March 13,2003 Thomas Enterprises 3604 Carleton Street !<an Diego, California 92 106 ,4 ttent ion: SUBJECT: Reference: E!,L \ Geotechnical Engineering Construction lnspecfion Materials Tes fing 1 L‘ +yq Mr. Me1 Kuhnel Response to Plan Review 19 15 Calle Barcelona Retaining Wall, The Pavilion at La Costa Carlsbad, California 92009 Project No. 3 1 15-A01 Log NO. 03-305 1 Southern California Geotechnical, 200 1, “Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation, Proposed Retail ’ Development, The Pavilion at La Costa, Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08, Lot 4, Carlsbad, California”, Project No. 0 1 G2 16- 1, Dated November 8,200 1 2. MTGL, Inc. 2002, “Recommendation for Verdura Wall Design Parameters”, The pavilion at La Costa” Project No. 3 1 15-AOl, dated December 30,2002 3. EsGil Corporation, Plan Review Correction List, Commercial, Carlsbad 03-441, dated February 26,2003 Dear Mr. Kuhnel: In accordance with the request of Mr. Bob Edwards with Soil Retention Systems we have completed our response to reference corrections. Correction comments are repeated for convenience. 4. Please provide the EsGil Corporation a complete copy of the site soils report for review (as required by the ICBO Report for the wall). Copy included. 5. Provide a letter from the soils engineer confirming that the foundation plan, grading plan and specifications have been reviewed and that it has been determined that the recommendations in the soil report are properly incorporated into the plans (when required by the soil report). The Pavilion at La Costa Retaining Wall Project No. 3 1 15-A01 Log NO. 3-305 I have reviewed the foundation plans, grading plan, and specifications and the recommendations and conclusions from Reference 1 and 2 have been properly addressed. The opportunity to be of service is appreciated. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. very truly yours, ThoGas C. Hare Chief Geotechnical Engineer E:xpiration Date: December 3 llistribution (1) Addressee (1) (1) Soil Retention Systems EsGil Corporation, Include Reference 1. Office Locations t'erdura Wall Design Parameters Project: Geotecluiicd Engineer of Record The Pavilion a1 La Costa Project No. 3 I 15-A01 Lwaliori: 1935 Callc Barccloria. CrrrIbbaJ. Califumia Lug Nu. 2- 1a2-_84 Thoinas C, H*ue ii- 0.27 2 Seal of Kegisrered Civil Or Gcotcchnical Engiriccr 4, ,- ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc. 5360 WORKMAN MILL ROAD WHITTIER, CALIFORNIA 90601-2299 A subsidiary corporation ofthe International Conference of Building Officials EVALUATION REPORT Copyright 0 2000 ICBC) Evaluation Service. Inc. ER-5515 Issued March I, 2000 Filing Category: DESIGN-Masonry (038) .- VERDURA AND CANDURA SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS SOIL RETENTION PRODUCTS, INC. 1907 APPLE STREET, SUITE 8 OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92054 1.0 SUBJECT Verdura and Candura Segmental Retaining Wall Systems. 2.1 General: The Verdura anld Candura wall systems utilize segmental concrete blocks For construction of gravity and soil-reinforced retaining walls. C:onstruction of soil-reinforced retaining walls is achieved by a combination of the block units, geosynthetic reinforcement, and compacted soil. The wall system is as- sembled in running bond without mortar or grout and, if appli- cable, with horizontal layers of geosynthetic reinforcement in the backfilled soil mass. 2.2 Materials: 2.2.1 Block Units: The Verdura and Candura concrete blocks are trough-shaped and vary in dimension and weight. A summary of block types, dimensions, and weights is pre- sented in Table 1. Schematics of thevarious blockgeometries are shown in Figures 1 through 7. Block units and their dimen- sional tolerances must comply with UBC Standard 21-4, with a minimum 28-day compressive strength of 4,000 psi (27.6 MPa) on the net area, and a maximum water absorption of 6 percent. Prior to construction, evidence of compliance with this report and UBC Standard 21-4 must be furnished to the building official For approval. 2.2.2 Geosynthetic Reinforcement: Geosynthetic rein- forcements described below are to be stored at temperatures not lower than -10°F (-23°C); must not be subjected to pro- longed exposure to sunlight, to prevent UV degradation: and must not be put in contact with mud, wet cement, epoxy or other adhesive materials. 2.2.2.1 Geogrids: Miragrid, grades 5XT and 1OXT. geogrids manufactured by Mirafi, Inc., are compatible with the Verdura and Candura soil-reinforced retaining wall systems. Miragrid 5XT and 10XT are geogrids consisting of polyester yarns with acrylic latex coating, formed into a grid shape. Applicable de- sign properties are shown in Table 2. Shear stress interaction and connection capacities are addressed in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. 2.2.2.2 Geosynthetic Fabric: Mirafi HS667, manufactured by Mirafi, Inc., is a woven polyester geosynthetic fabric used specifically in the Posi-Dura connection system described in Section 2.2.3 of this report. Mirafi HS667 geosynthetic fabric is supplied either with or without a prefabricated sewn sleeve, 2.0 DESCRIPTION depending on the method of attaching the PVC pipe to the geosynthetic fabric, as described in Section 2.2.3. Applicable design properties are shown in Table 2. Shear stress interac- tion and connection capacities are shown in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. 2.2.3 Posi-Dura Reinforcement Connection System: The Posi-Dura is a proprietary supplemental positive connection system used in conjunction with the primary soil reinforce- ment connection between the geogrids described in Section 2.2.2.1 and any Verdura or Candura segmental concrete blocks. The system may be used as the primary soil reinforce- mentforverdura 30 wall systems having a height of less than 8.0 feet (2438 mm), or Candura 25 and Candura 35 retaining wall systems having a height of less than 6.0 feet (1829 mm). The Posi-Dura system consists of a Schedule 80 PVC pipe with a minimum I-inch (25 mm) outside diameter and a mini- mum wall thicknessof 0.24 inch (6 mm), and the Mirafi HS667 geosynthetic fabric described in Section 2.2.2.2. The pipe is either inserted into the prefabricated sleeve of a minimum 7-inch-wide (178 mm)stripofgeosyntheticfabric. orthe fabric strip is looped around the pipe: both components are then in- serted into the inner gusset walls of the concrete blocks, and are embedded with the appropriate infill material. The PVC pipe must be long enough to fit snuggly between the inner width of each block, with a maximum gap of I/zinch (12.7 mm) between the wall and the end of the pipe. If the fabric is looped around the pipe, the overlapped length extending to the back- fill soil is equal to the required embedment length for the rein- forced soil zone. See Figure 8for details of the Posi-Dura con- nection system. 2.3 Design: The system is designed as a gravity or soil-reinforced retain- ing wall system, and depends upon its weight and geometry to resist lateral earth pressures and other lateral forces. Later- al earth pressures must be determined using the Coulomb theory. The design must include evaluation of both external and internal stability, along with consideration of external loads generated by surcharges and seismic activity. While ex- ternal stability analyses are to be similar to those required for conventional gravity retaining walls, internal stability analy- ses of reinforced walls must consider the block-to-block shear, the allowable reinforcement tension pullout resistance behind the active failure zone, and the reinforcement connec- tion strength at the facings. Also, the assessment ofthe global stability must be evaluated. The minimum factor of safety is 1.5 for sliding, 2.0 for overturning, and 2.0 for bearing capac- ity. The required seismic safety factors are 75 percent of the minimum allowable static safety factors. A foundation investigation in accordance with Section 1804 of the Uniform Building CodeTM (UBC) is required for each site. The investigation determines the soil properties and the Evaluation reports of ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc., are issued solely to provide information to Class A members of ICBO, utilizing the code upon which the report is based. Evaluation reports are not to be construed as representing aesthetics or any other attributes not specificaUy addressed nor as an endorsement or recommen- dation for use of the subject report. This report is based upon independent tests or other technical data submitted by the applicant The ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc., technical staffhas reviewed the test results andlor other data, but does notpossess test facilities to make an independent verification. There is no warran@ by ICBO Evaluation Service, Inc., express or implied, as to any ‘%indingnor other matter in thereport oras to anyproduct covered by the report This disclaimer includes, but is not limitedto, merchantabili& Page 2 of 12 ER-5515 values for design. The design method must be based on ac- cepted engineering principles and judgment. Design details are noted in the National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls (Sec- ond Edition, 1997); the FHWA publication entitled “Mechani- cally Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes De- sign and Consideration Guidelines” (I 997); and Section 8.5 of the 1997 Interim Revisions to the Standard for Highway Bridges, Sixteenth Edition, 1996 (AASHTO, 1997). For those situations in which the Verdura and Candura wall systems use the Posi-Dura reinforcement connection system described in Section 2.2.3 as part ofthe internal soil reinforce- ment, the design of the wall systems must also comply with Soil Retention Products’ design supplement titled “Design Guidelines for the Posi-Dura Reinforcement Connection Sys- tem for Use with theverdura and Candura Segmental Retain- ing Wall Systems,” dated July 13, 1998 (revised March 1, 2.4 Structural Analysis: Structural calculations must be submitted to the building offi- cial for each wall system design. The structural analysis must be based on accepted engineering principles; the NCMA De- sign Manual; either FHWA Publication No. FHWA-SA-96-071 or Section 8.5 of the 1997 Interim Revisions to the Standard for Highway Bridges, Sixteenth Edition, 1996 (AASHTO, 1997); and Soil Retention Products’ Supplemental Design Manual for the Verdura and Candura Segmental Retaining Walls, dated March 1,2000. A summary of the overall design process is presented in Figure 9. All contact surfaces of the units must be maintained in compression. The compression stress is limited to a maximum of 100 psi (690 kPa). A net re- sultant tension force is prohibited in any portion of the retain- ing wall. The service shear resistance between block units is determined using the following equation: where: Vu = Service shear resistance, poundslfoot. W, = Weight of wall above interface, poundslfoot. 2.5 Installation: For walls more than 3.3 feet (1 .O m) in height, the wall systems require geosynthetic reinforcement for wall stabilization. The Verdura Segmental Retaining Wall Systems are inclined 70 to 74 degrees from the horizontal. The Candura Segmental Retaining Wall Systems also provide a vertically inclined wall face. The in-place wall must be constructed so as to be within the tolerances specified by the manufacturer or the NCMA design manual, whichever is more restrictive. Backfill used in the soil-reinforced mass must consist of ap- proved materials placed in compacted lifts. Recommenda- tions for the wall drainage system, including drain pipe use and depth of backfill blanket, are to be provided by the soils engineer of record for the project. Ordinarily, a blanket of co- hesionless backfill is placed behind the wall. In cases in which the segmental retaining wall units are placed in an open con- dition and the reinforced soil is cohesionless and free-drain- ing, the use of a blanket of cohesionless backfill may be omitted upon the recommendation of the soils engineer. If the soils are found to have poor drainage qualities, a perforated drain-line system must be installed to prevent hydrostatic pressure build-up behind the wall. After backfilling the bottom course, blocks in subsequent courses are laid with the desired inclination and simulta- neously backfilled. Maximum spacing between blocks is 9 inches (229 mm). With the maximum spacing of the blocks, the wall system may be placed with tighter concave or convex horizontal curves, with a minimum radius equal to one-half the wall height. To conform to the inclination curves. and de- pending on the intended cu&ure of the wall, the spacings 2000). Vu = 115 + W, tan 39” 3.0 4.0 are to be adjusted at the front or the back, but are not to ex- ceed 9 inches (229 mm) between the blocks. For soil-reinforced retaining wall systems, geogrids are placed at elevations specified by design. The backfill surface must be laced and compacted to a level flush with or approx- which placement of the geosynthetic reinforcement is re- quired. The geogrid is fully embedded between coursesof the blocks, and the blocks are filled with appropriate infill material in accordance with the block manufacturer’s recommenda- tions. After unrolling, the geogrid is hand-pulled until it is taut, flat, and free of wrinkles, and is anchored to the compacted backfill prior to backfilling over the grid. Adjacent geogrid rolls are butted side-by-side without overlap, and splices must be avoided. The roll (machine) direction is the direction of the principal reinforcement. Where the Posi-Dura Connection System is used, installation must be in accordance with Sec- tion 2.2.3. 2.6 Special Inspection: Special inspection during installation must be performed in accordance with Section 1701 of the UBC. The inspector’s re- sponsibilities include verifying: 1. Unit dimensions. 2. Unit compliance with UBC Standard 214, including com- pressive strength and water absorption as described in Section 2.2.1 of this report. 3. Foundation preparation. 4. Unit placement, including alignment and inclination. 5. Geosynthetic reinforcement, and placement with respect to elevation and orientation. 6. Installation of Posi-Dura System components, when used. 7. Backfill placement and compaction. 2.7 Identification: The manufacturer’s name (Soil Retention Products, Inc.), the product name and the evaluation report number (ICBO ES ER-5515) are noted on a label affixed to the shipping pallet of the concrete blocks. Each roll of Mirafi geogrid and Mirafigeo- synthetic fabric reinforcement is labeled with the manufactur- er’s name and address, and the product designation. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED Design manuals, test data and calculations, descriptive litera- ture, and a quality control manual. FINDINGS That theverdura and Candura retaining wall systems de- scribed in this report comply with the 1997 Uniform Building CodeTM, subject to the following conditions: imately 8’ /4 inch (19.1 mm) below the top block-elevation to 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 The system is designed and installed in accor- dance with this report, the manufacturer’s instruc- tions, and accepted engineering principles. All units comply with this report and UBC Standard 21-4, with evidence of compliance submitted to the building official. Special inspection is provided in accordance with Section 2.6 of this report. The wall design procedures and manuals are sub- mitted to the building official for approval. A foundation investigation in accordance with Sec- tion lb04 of the code is provided for each project site. Details in this report are limited to applications in areas outside of groundwater. For applications in which free-flowing groundwater is encountered, or where wall systems are submerged, the installa- tion and design of such systems must comply with 1 J WIDTH (Inches) 17.9 Verdura 40 17.9 17.9 Page 3 of 12 ER-5515 APPROX WEIGHT HEIGHT, TO TOP OF RAIL HEIGHT, TOTOP OF UP DEPTH (inches) (Inches) (Inches) (pounds) 6.5 9.5 12 58 8 11.0 12 82 6.5 9.5 17.9 I10 the appropriate sections of the NCMA Design Manual (1997) and the recommendations of the project soils engineer. Footings in groundwater are analysis reports being submitted to the building of- ficial for approval. 4.7 Calculations demonstrating that the structural de- sign complies with this evaluation report are sub- mitted to the building official for approval. contingent On appropriate and engineering This report is subject to re-examination in one year. 17.9 I 8 11.0 17.9 132 8 11.0 17.9 132 6 NIA 12 55 TYPE MASSAREA LONG-TERM ALLOWABLE GRADE (=W2) TENSION LOAD, MD (poundshot) For SI: I inch = 25.4 mm, 1 pound = 0.45 kg. NIA = Not applicable. Geogrid TABLE 24EOSYNTHETIC REINFORCEMENT PROPERTIES 5XT 6 1.733 Geogrid I OXT 12.5 4,116 For SI: 1 mil = 0.254 mm, 1 pound = 4.45 N, I oz./yd? = 33.9 g/mZ, I poundfoot = 1.49 kg/m. Geosvnthetic fabric TABLE 3-COEFFICIENT OF SHEAR STRESS INTERACTION* ,p r MANUFACTURER I GRADE I SOIL TYPE I COEFFICIENT I HS667 I 12 I 3.79s Mirafi 5XT IOXT ML, CL ~ 0.7 SM, SP, SW 0.8 0.9 ML, CL 0.7 SM, SP, SW 0.8 GP, GW i I Soil Retention product^^.^ For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm. 'The Coefficient of interaction was determined by testing the interface coefficient of friction of HS667 on top of IOXT. Silty sand (SM) was placed 2The Posi-Dura is a proprietary connection system described in Section 2.2.3 of this report. 3The coefficient is based on a 9-inch spacing between the blocks. 4Refer to Table 18-I-A of the -1997 UBC for definitions of soil types. above and below the two geosynthetic grades. GP, GW 0.9 HS667 over IOXTI SM 0.7 Posi-Dura over IOXT SM I 0.18 CONNECTION Mirafi 5XT Geogrid Candura 25,35 I Verdura 50.60 I Mirafi IOXT Geomid I P. = 560 + N tan 11" S I500 I SERVICE CONNECTION STRENGTH, Pr (pounddfoot) fs = 490 + N tan 9" 5 750 Candura or Verdura Posi-Dura' 1 .ooo 1 Page 4 of 12 ER-5515 For SI: I inch = 25.4 mm. FIGURE 1VERDURA 30 - Page 5 of 12 ER-5515 1 17.9" For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm. FIGURE 2-VERDURA 40 Page 6 of 12 ER-5515 I 1 II I II I II I II c For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm. FIGURE IVERDURA 50 c Page 7 of 12 ER-5515 I I 7 17.9' For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm. r 17.9' t FIGURE 4-VERDURA 60 Page 0 of 12 ER-5515 ). 17.9' I 1. For SI: I inch = 25.4 mrn. FIGURE SVERDURA 60W ER-5515 Page 9 of 12 I . - L 179 r I i For SI: 1 inch = 25.4 mm. FIGURE CANDURA 25 Page 10 of 12 ER-5515 17.9' I I 12' I For SI: I inch = 25.4 mm. FIGURE 74ANDURA 35 Page 11 of 12 ER-5515 NOTE: VERWRA BLOCK SCHEDULE 80 PVC CONNECTION STRENGTH BETWEEN -7 FABRIC AND BLOCK IS OBTAINED BY SIMPLE LOAO TRANSFER.FROM THE Hs8gl FABRIC TO THE PIPE. THEN LOAO TRANSFER OCCURS FROM THE PIPE TO THE INNER GU§SEl?3 OF BLOCK, AND THEN FROM THE BLOCK TO THE BACKFILL SOILS. THE BLOCK IS HELO TO ME THE BACKFILL SOILS. CONNECTON OF HS667 TO PlPE CAN BE MADE BY SLIDING THE RPE THROUGH A PREFABRICATED SLEEVE OR BY LAPPING THE FABRIC AROUND THE RE THE PIPE MNG TECHNIC IS SHOWN BELOW. GEOS("EIIC FABWC Hs867 G-C FABRIC - J FIGURE &THE POSI-DURA REINFORCEMENT CONNECTION SYSTEM: THE POSITIVE GEOSYNTHETIC CONNECTION SYSTEM FOR THE VERDURA AND CANDURA SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALL SYSTEM Page 12 of 12 ER-5515 1. INVEWIWTION OF SOIL CONDITIONS 2. DETERMINE WALL HEIGHT 3. EVALUATE EXlEFtNAL STABIW OF REINFORCED SOIL MASS 4. EVALUATE INTERNAL STABIUTY OF REINFORCED SOIL MASS 5. EVAlUAE. STABlW OF FACING UNITS INCLUDING CONNECTION S'IRENGTH AN0 LOCAL BULGING 6. SOILS ENGINEER OF RECORD EVALUATES GLOBAL STABILITY OF SLOPE 7. CONSTRUCT SRW SYSTEM INCLUDING 0EOSY"ETIC REINFORCEMENT, P0SH)URA REINFORCEMENT CONNECTION SYSTEM FIGURE WUTLINE OF DESIGN PROCEDURE Sent By: VCC CARLSBAD; 760479061 3; Feb - 1 3 - 03 1 0 : 32AM; Page 316 ..__ ..,. Southern California Geotechnical Thomas Enterprises, Inc. 3604 Carleton Street San Diego, California 921 06 January 29,2002 Project No. 0lG216-3 Attention: Subject: Reference: Mr. Me1 Kuhnel Vice President, Development Foundation Plan Review Proposed Retail Development The Pavilion at La Costa, Building 2 Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08, Lot 4 Carlsbad, California Geotechnical lnvestiqation and Liquefaction Evaluation, Proposed Retail Development. The Pavilion at La Costa, Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08. Lot 4, Carlsbad, California, prepared far Thomas Enterprises, Inc. by Southern California Geotechnical, Inc., dated November 8, 2001, SCG Project No. 01E216-1. Dear Mr. Kuhnel: In accordance with the request of Mr. Steve Kohn of Nadel Architects, inc., we have reviewed the foundation plans for the above referenced project. These plans have been reviewed for conformance with the conclusions and recornmendations contained within the above referenced geotechnical report. The plans provided to our office for the purposes of this review are identified as follows: Sheet S-1, General Notes, Building 2, dated December 3, 2001. 0 Sheet S-2, Typical Details, Building 2, dated December 3,2001. Sheet S-5, Foundation Plan, Building 2, dated December 3,2001. + Sheet 5-7, Structural Details, Building 2, dated December 3, 2001. + Sheet S-9, Structural Details, Building 2, dated December 3, 2001. In general, these plans are considered to have been prepared in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations presented in the above referenced geotechnical report. Comments generated during our review as well as any exceptions to this conclusion are documented below: The structural engineer has specified that the floor slab reinforcement consist of No. 3 bars at 46-inches on-center in both directions. This reinforcement exceeds . the minimum reinforcement presented in the above referenced geotechnical report and is considered suitable from a geotechnical standpoint. . .. 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 141 Anaheim, California 92807-1951 (774) 777-0333 Fax (7'14) 777-0398 0 Reinforcement within the perimeter foundations consists of four No. 5 bars (2 top and 2 bottom) with the exception of the grade beam footing along Column Line A, which is reinforced with six No. 7 bars (3 top and 3 bottom). This reinforcement exceeds the geotechnical recommendations and is considered suitable. Detail 3 on Sheet 5-7 indicates that all exterior patio slabs will be connected to the building footings using No. 4 bars at 24-inches on-center, 18-inches long. This detail is considered to satisfy the recommendation presented in Section 6.5 of the geotechnicaf report. Based on our review, the above referenced plans are considered to have been prepared in conformance with the conclusions and recommendations of the geotechnical report. It should be noted that this review was limited to the geotechnical aspects of the plans and no representation as to the suitability of the structural design is intended. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of any further assistance in any manner, please contact our office. Respectfully Submitted, lifocnla Geotechnlcal, Inc. -- Mitchell, GE 2364 Distribution: (I 1 Addressee {I 1 Mayers and Associates, Atfn: Dru Mayers (3) Nadel Architects, Inc. The Pavilion at La Costa. Building 2 - Carisbad, CA Page 2 Project NO. OlG21B-3 1 I a t 1 R I II I I I f E I I I 8 t 1 GEOTECHNICAL IWESTIGATION AND LIQUEFACTION WALUATION PROPOSED RETAIL DEUELOPMEMT The Pavilion at La Costa Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08, Lot 4 Carlsbad, California for Thomas Enterprises, Inc. Southern California Geotechnical - Thomas Ehterprises, Inc. 3604 Carleton Street San Diego, California 921 06 November 8,2001 Project No. 01 G216-1 Attention: Mr. Me1 Kuhnel Vice President, Development Subject: Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation Proposed Retail Development The Pavilion at La Costa Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08, Lot 4 Carlsbad, California Dear Mr. Kuhnel: In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation of the subject si,te. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and recommendations developed from our investigation. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office. Respectfilrlly Submitted, So%ern Callfornla Geotechnical, Inc. ' - (4) Mayers and Associates, Attn: Dru Mayers 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 1111 Anaheim. California 92307-1951 (714) 777-0333 Fax (714) 777-0398 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 .O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 $CDP€ OF SERVICES 3 3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTlON 4 3.1 Site Conditions 3.2 Propoised Development 3.3 Background and Previous Studies 4 5 5 4.0 SUBSURFAC.UXPLORATION a 4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sarnpllng Methods 4.2 Geotechnlcal Conditions 4.3 Geologic Conditlons 8 8 9 5.0 MBORATORV TESTING 10 6.0 CONCtUSIONS AW 0 RECOMMENDATIONS 13 6,l Seismic Design Considerations 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations 6.3 Sfte Grading Recommendations 6.4 Construction Considerations 6.5 Foundlation Design and Construction 6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction 6.7 Retainling Wall Design and Construction 6.8 Exterior Flatwork Design and Construction 6.9 Pavement Design Parameters 13 16 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 30 8.0 REFERENCES 31 The Pavlllon at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Projoct No. 01 G216-1 APPENDICES A Plate I: Site Location Map Plate 2: Boring Location Plan Plate 3: Site Geologlc Map B Boring Logs C Laboratory Test Results D Grading Guide Specifications E UBCSEIS and FRISKSP Output F Liquefaction Analysis Spreadsheets _. The Pavilion at La Casta - Carlsbad. CA Project No. CllG216-1 1.0 iEXECUTIYE SUMMARY Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation. Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete context with the entire report. Ceotechnical Design Considerations The subsurface profile at the subject site consists of engineered fill soils extending to depths of 8 to 30-t- feet. These fill soils were placed during recent grading operations, as monitured by leighton and Associates, and generally consist of medium dense to dense sands and silty sands. The fill soils are underlain by medium dense alluvium comprised of silts and sands and/or sandstone of the Torrey Sandstone. We have reviewed the final as-graded report of rough grading prepared for this site by Leighton and Associates. During previous mass grading of the subject site, the previously existing cuf/fill transitions were mitigated, by overexcavating the cut portions of the site to depths of at least 8 to IO* feet. All fill soils on the site have reportedly been compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-7557 maximum dry density. A large ascending fill slope is located along the south half of the western property line and near the eastern end of the south property line. This fill slope was reportedly constructed as a stability fill, not as a buttress fill. Based on the geologic conditions reported by Leighton, as well as geotechnical research performed by SCG, no adverse geologic bedding is present in this area. The proposed development will include segmental retaining walls along the south portion of the west property and along some areas of the south property line. A detailed analysis and design of these walls will be presented in an addendum report. Subsurface Conditions and Site Preparation Initial site preparation should consist of removal of the existing vegetation. Based on canditians observed at the time of the subsurface exploration, stripping will require removal of the existing grass, weeds and brush. These materials should be disposed of off-site. L The existing soils within the proposed building area should be overexcavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade, to remove the existing weathered and softened fill soils. No significant overexcavation is recommended for the proposed parking areas. Subgrade preparation in these areas may be limited to scarification to a depth of IO to 12 inches. moisture conditioning and recornpaction. Once the overexcavation depths have been achieved, the resulting subgrades . should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to identify any additional soils that should be removed to a level of competent subgrade soils. The excavated soils may be replaced as compacted structural fill. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01 (2216-1 Page 1 Building IFoundations Conventional Shallow Foundations supported in existing or newly placed structural fill. 2,500 (psf maximum allowable soil bearing pressure, Minimrim Reinforcement in Strip Footings: Four No. 5 bars (2 top and 2 bottom) additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. Bullding Floor Slabs Conventional Slabs-on-Grade, 5-inch minimum thickness Minimum Reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18-inches on-center, in both directions, additialnal reinforcement may bo necessary for structural considerations. Pavements + Asphaltic Concrete (Assumed R=30): Auto Traffic Only: 3 inches asphaltic concrete, 3 inches aggregate base. 0 Auto Drive Lanes: 3 inches asphaltic concrete, 6 inches aggregate base Light Truck Traffic: 3% inches asphaltic concrete, 7 inches aggregate base. Malderate Truck Traffic: 4 inches asphaltic concrete, 10 inches aggregate base. Less than 4 trucks per day (TI = 6.0): 5.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete Less than 14 trucks per day (TI = 7.0): 6,O inches Portland Cement Concrete + Less than 42 trucks per day (TI = 8.0): 7.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete Portland Cement Concrete (PCC): Southern Callforala lieotechnlcai -- The Pavilion at la Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of sewices performed for this project was in accordance with our Proposal No. 01P269, dated August 24, 2001. The scope of services included a visuat site reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnical engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing the design of the building foundations, building floor slabs, and parking lot pavements along with site preparation recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed development. Based on the location of the subject site, this investigation also included a site specific liquefaction evaluation. The evaluation of environmental aspects of this site was beyond the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 3 3.0 SITE AlJD PROJECT DESCRlPllON 3.1 Site Conditions The subject site is located on the south and east sides of Calle Barcelona, approximately 1,000 feet north of Leucadia Boulevard, in Carisbad, California. Calle Barcelona forms a 90 degree curve at the northwestern corner of the site, and bounds the subject site on the west and north sides. The site has been identified as Lot 4 of Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08. The site is bordered to the south by a wildlife undercrossing and a drainage easement, with an Expo Design Center located further ta the south, Calle Barcelona borders the site to the north and west, and a drainage easement borders the site to the east. The subject site is approximately 18.3 acres in sire, and is a portion of the La Costa Glen Development in Carlsbad, California. The subject site is generally rectangular in shape. At the time of the subsurface exploration, the site consisted of a vacant parcel that appears to have been sheet graded to its present topography. Ground surface cover ccinsists of exposed soil with sparse to moderate native grass, weed and brush growth. Other than the appearance that the site was previously graded, no evidence of previous development was observed. Topographic data for the project was provided by Mayers and Associates, the project civil engineer. This data indicates that site topography generally consists of gently sloping terrain, dropping from southwest to northeast. Site grades within the sheet graded portion of the site range from El. 106+ near the southwestern property corner to El, 92k at the northeastern corner. Large ascending slopes are located along the south portion of the east property line and east portion of the south property line. These slopes ,are up to 30k feet in height and possess inclinations of 2 horizontal to I vertical (2h:lv), A descending slope is also located within the property boundary along the east portion of the souith property line. This slope possesses an inclination of 2h:lv+ and a height of 10 to 15+ feet. A descending slope is also located on the easterfy adjacent site, bordering most of the eastern property line. This slope ranges from 20 to 30k feet in height and possesses an inclination of approximately 2h: 1 v. Other topographic features noted during the site reconnaissance include a desilting basin located in the northeastern region of the subject site, descending to El. 84.5, This desilting basin was dry at the time of the subsurface exploration. These ascending slopes are located within the property boundary. It should be noted that the topography illustrated on the provided plan, in the vicinity of Building 6, including the area of Boring 6-10, does not represent the currently existing site conditions. Apparently, the topographic survey was performed at a time when a The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. OlG218-1 Page 4 large stockpile was present in this area of the site. This stockpile is no longer present, and site girades in the area of Boring 6-6 are consistent with those of the surrounding area. 3.2 Proposed Development Preliminary site plans depicting the proposed development have been provided to our office by Mayers and Associates. These plans indicate that the proposed development will conskt of eight (8) new retail buildings. These buildings will range in size from 6,000+ fi2 to 58,523k ft’. These buildings are indicated to be I to 2 stories in height. One or tvvo of the larger buildings will also include loading dock areas. Although not specified on the site plan, it is assumed that the proposed structures will not include any significant bslow grade construction. Defailed structural information regarding the new buildings has not been provided. However, it is assumed that most of the larger buildings will be of concrete tilt-up or masonry block construction. Based on the assumed construction, maximum column and wall loads are expected to be on the order of 75 kips and 5 kips per linear foot, respectively. Some of the smaller aut buildings may be of wood frame construction, and maximum coturnn and wall loads on the order of 30 kips and 2 kips per linear foot are assumed for these buildings. All of the floor slabs are assumed to be subjected to loads of less than 150 psf. Preliminary grading information is included on the site plan provided to our office. This plan indicates that grading for the new devetopment will generatty require maximum cuts and fills on the order of I to 33- feet. The plan also indicates that new retaining walls will be located along the south portion of the east property line as well as most of the south property line. These walls will be up to 25k feet in height. Consideration has been given to the use of a segmental retaining wall system in these areas. This report presents preliminary information for design of conventional retaining walls, However, a suppl6mentary report is currently being prepared to address the design of segmental retaining walls. The site plan indicates that most of the areas outside of the proposed buildings wilt be developed with asphaltic concrete pavements. Limited areas of these pavements will be subjected to heavy truck traffic. 3.3 Backaround and Previous Studies Prior to preparation of this geotechnical report, we obtained a copy of a previous grading report with coverage of the subject site. This report is identified as follows: * Final As Graded Report of Rough Gradina Green Valley. CT 92-08 (Proposed La - Costa Glen). Carlsbad, California, prepared by Leighton and Associates for The Pavilion at La Costa - Cadsbad, CA Project No. 0lG216-1 Page 5 Continuing Life Communities, LLC, dated January 28, 1099, Leighton Project No. 49601 34-002. This report presents a summary of observations, field and laboratory test results, and the geotechnical conditions encountered and created during rough grading of the subject site. This grading generally was performed to achieve sheet graded pads as well as the widening of a portion of El Carnino Real. Rough grading operations for the subject site were performed during the period of August 1998 through January 1999. As stated by Leighton, rough grading operations generally included the removal of potentially compressible soils and undocumented fill soils to a depth of competent material, the preparation of areas to receive fill, placement of new fill soils, the construction of fill slope keys, the excavation of formational material to achieve design grades, overexcavation of transition lots, and subdrain placement. Prior to girading, the areas of proposed development were reportedly stripped of surface vegetatioin and organic debris. Removals of unsuitable and potentially compressible soil, including undocumented fill, topsoil/colluvium/alluvium, slopewash and weathered formational material were made to a depth of competent material in all areas proposed for new structural fill. Removal areas with slopes flatter than 5h:Iv or within I foot of the encountered water table were scarified to a depth of 12 inches and moisture conditionled as needed, to obtain a near optimum moisture content, and then recompacted at least 90 percent of relative compaction. The steeper natural hill sides were benched to expose competent material prior to fill placement. The geotechnicat maps included within the Leighton report identified the overexcavation bottom elevations throughout the proposed development. Removals of the topsoil/ccrlluv~um/alluvium and weathered formational materials were generally on the order of 5 to 10 feet in thickness, as recommended in the original Leighton geotechnical report. Any existing undocumented fill was removed to a depth of competent formatiorral materials andlor competent engineered fill. Prior to construction of new fill soils, including fill over cut slopes, fill slope keys were construcfed. The keys were excavated at least 5 feet into competent material along the toe of slope, at least 15 feet wide, angled a minimum of 2 percent into slope. The locations of the fill slope keys are indicated on the Leighton geotechnical maps. One of these fill slope keys was located along the extreme western end of the south property line as well as along the southern one-half of the western property line. The location of this fill slope is indicated on Plate 2 included in Appendix A of this report. New fill soils were placed in 6 to 8 inch thick lifts of loose soil, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-I 557 maximum dry density. Due to the presence of a steep alluviudbedrock transition in many areas of proposed development, an overexcavation was made where the transition was encountered. This overexcavation generally consisted of a IO-foot removal and recompaction in order to reduce the effects of differential settlement, due to the differhg engineering The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G218-1 Page 0 characteristics of the alluvium versus the bedrock. Such an excavation was performed in the western region of the subject site, inchding Buildings 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8. As such, the entire site is generally underlain by at least 8 to IO_+ feet of compacted structural fill, In their report, Leighton presents a preliminary discussion of the liquefaction potential of the on-site soils. Leighton indicates that within the western portion of the project, shallow giroundwater conditions were not encountered. As such, the potential for seismically induced liquefaction in this area of the site was considered to be very low. However, the alluvial soils in the eastern portion of the subject site generally were identified to consist of loose, clean, silty fine to medium grained sands with groundwater present at depths of 2 to IO feet below the previously existing ground surface. As a result of their liquefaction analysis, Leighton concludes that no special foundation design cctnsiderations are warranted, based on the presence of a layer of surficial compacted fill that wild overly the potentially liquefiable soils. This recommendation is also mado on the basis that the proposed structures will be relatively lightly loaded. During the grading operations on the La Costa Glen site, Leighton performed eight (8) expansiori index tests, in accordance with UBC Standard 18-2. These tests indicated very low tlo low expansion potentials. The Pavllion at casta - Cailsbad, CA Project No. 01 G216-1 Page 7 4.0 SUBSURFAGE EXPLORATION 4.1 Scope of Exploration/SarnDlinq Methods The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of sixteen (16) borings advanced to depths cf 5 to 50k feet below currently existing site grades. The number and approximate locations of the boring$ were specified by the client. These borings were logged during excavation by a member of our staff. The borings were advanced with hollow-stern augers, by a truck-mounted drilling rig. Representative bulk and in-situ soil samples were taken during drilling and trenching. Relatively undisturbed in-situ samples were taken with a split barrel “California Sampler” containing a series of one inch long, 2.416+ inch diameter brass rings, This sampling method is described in ASTM Test Method 0-3550. In-situ samples were also taken using a ll,4& inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with ASTM D-1586. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive blows of ii 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain their origiinal moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory. The approximate locations of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan, included as Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the conditions encountered at the boring locations, as well as the resutts of some of the laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B. 4.2 Geotechnical Condftions The soils encountered at and immediately below the existing ground surface at all sixteen boring locations consist of engineered fill soils. These fill soils extend to depths of 8 to at least 30+ feet below currently existing site grades. The fill soils generally consist of medium dense to dense fine sands and fine to medium sands with trace to some silt,, trace to little clay and occasional fine gravel content. The fine gravel, where encountered, generally consists of sandstone fragments. The fill soils are somewhat variable in composition, and some zones of clayey fine sand and fine sandy clay were encountered at the boring locations. The fill soils also contained occasional silt and clay clasts, Borings €3-1, B-2, B-7, B-11, B-I4 and B-16 were terminated within the engineered fill materials at depths ranging from 5 to 30 feet below grade. Most of th5 borings encountered native alluvial soils beneath the engineered fill soils. These alluvial materials generally consist of medium dense silty fine to medium sands The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Page 8 Pmjecl NO. 01 ‘321 6-1 with occasional trace clay content. Borings 8-6, 8-8, €3-9, and 8-13 were terminated within these alluvial soils at depths of 15 to 40+ feet. The remaining borings were extended into the formational bedrock that underlies the western portion of this site. This bedrock consists of the Torrey Sandstone. The sandstone was encountered at Borings 8-3, 8-4, 6-5, 8-10, 8-12, and 6-15. At these boring locations, the sandstone extends to at least the maximum depth explored of 50i feet. The Torrey Sandstone generally consists of dense to very dense light brown to white fine grained sandstone with trace silt. Occasional zones of siltstone and sandy siltstone were encountered within the Torrey Sandstone materials. Most of the borings did not encounter any free water during drilling, nor was any water observed within the open boreholes immediately after the completion of drilling. However, water was measured at a depth of 2!3.5+ feet within Boring 6-12, 24 hours after completion of drilling. However, this water may represent seepage, since the moisture contents of the Torrey Sandstone between depths of 20 and 50+ feet are not indicative of saturated conditions. No free water was encountered during or after drilling et any of the other fifteen boring locations. 4.3 Geolloqic Conditions The general geologic conditions of the subject site were determined by review of available geologic literature. The primary reference applicable to the subject site is the Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology, Department of Conservation, authored by Siang S. Tan and Michael P. Kennedy, dated 1996. The map indicates that the subject $ita is generally underlain by alluvia! deposits consisting of unconsolidated silt, clay, sand and gravel. These materials are primarily located within the Encinitas Creek drainage course. Prior to disturbance as a result of recent grading, I-eighton indicated that these soils consisted of medium to dark brown, moist to wet, loosle to medium dense, clayey to silty fine sands and fine sandy clays. The upper 3 to 5 feet of this unit was typically characterized by abundant organic debris, The Torrey Sandstone underlies the western portion of the subject site. In some areas, the Torrey Sandstone was encountered beneath the alluvial soils. The Torrey Sandstone is Tertiary aged, light brown to white, fine grained silty sandstone. Occasional interbeds of sandy siltstone and clayey sandstone are also present within this unit. Bedding attitudes within the Torrey Sandstone, as mapped by Tan and Kennedy are relatively flat lying, ranging from 5 to 10 degrees, generally dipping to the west. Plate 3, enclosed in Appendix A of this report, presents a portion of the referenced geologic map. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Page 9 Project NO. OlG216-1 5.0 LABiDRATORY TESTIMG The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our laboratory for further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties of the soils. The tests are briefly discussed below. It should be noted that the test results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at other locations and depths. All recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), in accordance with ASTM D-2488. Field identifications were then supplemented with additional visual classifications and/or by laboratory testing. The USCS classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and are periodically referenced throughout this report. In-situ Density and Moisture Content The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring sampfes. These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in ASTM 0-2937. The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot. The moisture contents are determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216, and are expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the Boring Logs, Consolidat& Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in accordance with ASTM D-2435. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one-inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and the resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are in contact with the tap and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to determine their potential for collapse or heaV8. The results of the consolidation testing are plotted on Plates C-I through C-I2 in Appendix C of this report. Soluble Wfates Representative samples of the near-surface soils were submitted to a subcontracted analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates are naturally present in soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result in degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these soils. The results of the The Pavilion 3t La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 10 soluble sulfate testing are presented below, and are discussed further in a subsequent section 01 this report. Sample Identification Soluble Sulfates (YO) UBC Classificatiorl 8-3 @ 0 to 5 feet 0.007 Negligible B-13 @ 0 to 5 feet 0.046 Negligible Expansion Index The expansion potential of the on-site soils was determined in general accordance with Uniform 13uilding Code (UBC} Standard 18-2. The testing apparatus is designed to accept a 4-inch diameter, 1 -in high, remolded sample. The sample is initially remolded to 50 * 1 percent saturation and then loaded with a surcharge equivalent to 144 pounds per square foot. The sample is then inundated with water, and allowed to swell against the surcharge. The resultant swelf or consolidation is recorded after a 24-hour period. The results of the El testing are as follows: Sample ldentiflcation Expanslon Index Expansive Potential €3-3 @ 0 to 5 feet 8-15 @ 0 to 5 feet €3-7 @ 0 to 5 feet 23 0 15 Low very Low Very Low Maximum Dn, Density and ODtirnum Moisture Content Represeritative bulk samples have been tested for their maximum dry density and optimum moisture content. The results have been obtained using the Modified Proctor procedure, per ASTM D-1557. These tests are generally used to compare the in-situ densities of undisturbed field samples, and for later compaction testing. Additional testing of other soil types or soil mixes may be necessary at a later date. The results of this testing are plotted on Plates C-13 and GI4 in Appendix C of this report. Direct Shear A direct shear test was performed on two selected soil samples to determine their shear strength parameters. The test was performed in accordance with ASTM 0-3080. The testing alpparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one- inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Three samples of the same soil are prepared by remolding them to 9O-t percent compaction and near optimum moisture. Each of the three samples are then loaded with different normal loads and the resulting shear strength is determined for that particular normal load. The shearing of.the samples is performed at a rate slow enough to permit the dissipation of excess pore water pressure. Porous stones are in cantact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The results of the direct shear tests are presented on Plate (2-15 and C-16. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01GZ16-1 Page 11 I Grain Size Analvsis Limited grain size analyses have been performed on several selected samples, in accordanm with ASTM D-1140. These samples were washed over B #200 sieve to determine the percentage of fine-grained material in each sample, which is defined as the material which passes the #ZOO sieve. The weight of the portion of the sample retained on each screen is recorded and the percentage finer or coarser of the total weight is calculated. The results of these tests are presented on the test boring logs. The Pavllion at La Costa - Carisbad, CA Project No. 01G218-1 Page 12 6.0 CONICLUSIONS AMD RECUMlVlENDATlONS Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the design, rxmstruction, and grading considerations. The recommendations are contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by the geotechnical engineer of record. The Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into the project specifications. The contractor andior owner of the development should bring to tl-ie attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development. 6.1 Seisrnlc Desiqn Considerations The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquakes. Numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the subject site. Due to economic considerations, it is not generally considered reasonable to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake damage. Therefore, significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The proposed structure should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property clamage and loss of life. Faultina a-Seismicity Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the possibility of significant fautt rupture or) the site is considered to be low. Seismic Desiqn Parameters The proposed development must be designed in accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of the Uniform Buitding Code (UBC). The UBC provides procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, seismic zoning, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the structural system and height. The seismic design parameters presented below are based on the seismic zone, soil profile. and the proximity of known faults with respect to the subject site. The 1997 UBC Design Parameters have been generated using UBCSEIS, a computer program published by Thomas F. Blake (January 1998). The table below is a compilation of the data provided by UBCSEIS, and represents the largest design values The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project NO. 01G216-1 Page 13 presented by each type of fauft. A copy of the output generated from this program is included in Appendix E of this report. A copy of the Design Response Spectrum, as generated by UBCSEtS is also included in Appendix E. Based on this output, the following parameters may be utilized for the subject site: Nearest Type A Fault: Nearest Type 6 Fault: Soil Profile Type: Seismic Zone Factor (Z): Seismic Coefkient (Ca) Seismic Coefficient {CJ: Near-Source Factor (Na) Near-Source Factor (Ny) Elsinore-Julian (4?f km) Rose Canyon (&k km) SO 0.40 0.44 0.69 1 .o 1-1 The design procedures presented by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) are intended to protect life safety. Structures designed using these minimum design procedures may experienc:e significant cosmetic damage and serious economic loss. The use of a significantly higher lateral acceleration (C, factor) such 8s 0.7 ta 0.8 would be necessary to further reduce the risk of economic loss. However, since these values are much higher than those specified by the UBC, owners and structural engineers often regard them as impractical for use in structural design and with respect to the economicx of the project. Ultimately, the structural engineer and the project owner must determine what level of risk is acceptable and assign appropriate seismic values to be used in the design of the proposed structure+ Ground Motion Parameters As pari of the liquefaction analysis performed for this study, we have generated a site specific peak ground acceleration, as required by CDMG Special Publication I 17. This probabilistic analysis was performed using FRISKSP ~4.00, a computer program published by Thomas F. Blake (2000). FRISKSP estimates probabilistic seismic hazards using three-dimensional faults as earthquake sources. The program uses a seismotectonic source model, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), to estimate seismic hazards at the subject site. The program originated from the original FRISK program (McGuire, 1978) published by the United States Geological Survey. FRISKSP generates site specific ground motion data based on generalized soil conditions (soil or bedrock), site location relative to nearby faults, accepted attenuation relationships, and other assumptions made by the geotechnical engineer. The attenuation relationships used by FRISKSP include a one standard deviation measure of uncertainty. Peak accelerations have been determined for both magnitude weighted and unweighted conditions. A magnitude weighting relationship accounts for the fact that earthquakes of lower magnitudes are considered to result in fewer cycles of strong ground motion than those of higher magnitudes. The magnitude weighting relationship used in this analysis is described by ldriss { 1998). The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Page 14 Project NO. 0lG216-1 Guidelines to determine the appropriate factor of safety against liquefaction have been presented as Table 7,l of the SCEC publication, "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California." This table is reproduced below: FACTORS OF SAFETY FOR LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ASSESSMENT Consequence, sf lNl)eo (clean sand) Factor of Safety Llquefaction S ettle me n t Su dace Manifestations Lateral Spread <=I 5 >=30 <=I 5 r=30 <=I 5 >=30 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.3 I .o The liquefaction analysis procedure is tabulated on the spreadsheet form included in Appendix F of this report. The liquefaction analysis was performed far Boring €3-1, which was drilled to a depth of 50i feet. The liquefaction potential of the site was analyzed utilizing a maximum peak site acceleration of 0.279 for a magnitude 7.5 seismic event. The analysis was performed using groundwater at 30 feet, which is expected lo be representative the average groundwater elevation at the subject site. Conclusions and Recommendations The liquefaction analysis, documented in Appendix F of this report, has not identified any potentially liquefiable zones of soil within the subsurface profile at the two analyzed boring locations. All of the encountered soils are either above the groundwater table, consist of engineered fill soils, or possess factors-of-safety in excess of 1.2. Therefore! no design considerations related to liquefaction or liquefaction induced settlements are considered warranted. 6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations General The subsurface profile at the subject site generaIly consists of engineered fill soil? extending to depths of 8 to 30+ feet, underlain by medium dense alluvial sands and/( dense to very dense sandstone bedrock. Previous grading, as monitored by Leighf and Associates. included overexcavation of the previously existing fill/bedr transitions. Therefore, each of the proposed building areas is underlain by at least IO+ feet of recently placed compacted structural fill. The Pavilion at La Costa - Project 1 I The peak ground acceleration at the site was determined using an appropriate attenuation relationship (Campbell, K.W ., 1997) using parameters for a "deep soil" site, which is considered appropriate for the subject site. Appendix E of this report contains the peak acceleration results, in graphical form. The graphical output consists of four plots: a probability of exceedence plot for 25, 50, 75 and 100 year return periods; and an average return period vs, peak acceleration plot, for both magnitude weighted (M = 7.5) and unweighted analyses. The UBC requires that the selected return period should have at least a IO percent chance of exceedence in 50 years, which is equal to a 475-year return period. Based on the plot included in Appendix E, this would be 0.279 for the subject site, weighted to a magnitude 7.5 earthquake. Appendix E also contains the tabulated results of the FRISKSP analysis, Liquefaction Liquefaction is the loss of the strength in generally cohesiontess, saturated soils when the pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for liquefaction irtclude groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics, relative density of the sail, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 40 feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine sands with a mean (d50) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 02 mrn (Seed and ldriss, 1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (dr-O.OO5mm) in excess of 20 percent (Seed and idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static groundwater table. The liquefadtion analysis was conducted in accordance with the requirements of Special Publication 1 17 (COMG, 1997), and currently accepted practice (SCEC, 1997). The liquefaction potential of the subject site was evaluated using the empirical method originally developed by Seed, et al. [Seed and Idriss 1971). This method predicts the earthquake-induced liquefaction potential of the site based on a given design earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration at the subject site, This procedure essentially compares the cyclic resistance ratio (CFR) [the cyclic stress ratio required to induce liquefaction for a cohesionless soil stratum at a given depth] with the earthquake-induced cyclic stress ration (CSR) at that depth from a specified design earthquake ('defined by a peak ground surface acceleration and an associated earthquake moment magnitude). The current version of a generally accepted baseline chart (Youd and Idriss, 1997) is used to determine CRR as a function of the corrected SPT N-value (N,}~O. The factor of safety against liquefaction is defined as CRWCSR, The current version of a generally accepted baseline chart (Youd and Idriss, 1997) is used to determine CRR as a function of the corrected SPT N-value (N,)Go. The Pavllion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 15 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMIVIENDATIONS Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the design, construction, and grading considerations. The recommendations are contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by the geotechnical engineer of record. The Grading Guide Specifications, included as Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into the project specifications, The contractor and/or owner of the development should bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those staled in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development. 6,l Selsrnlc Desiqn Considerations The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to earthquak.es. Numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are located near the subject site, Due to economic considerations, it is not generally considered reasonable to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake damage. Therefore, significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large earthquakes. The proposed structure should, however, be designed to resist structural collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic property damage and loss of life. Faultim and Seismicity Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, Therefore, the possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is wnsidered to be low. Seismic Clesiqn Parameters The proposed development must be designed in accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The UBC provides pmcedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil conditions, seismic zoning, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including the struc1:ural system and height. The seismic design parameters presented below are based on the seismic zone, soil profile, and the proximity of known faults with respect to the subject site. The 199;’ UBC Design Parameters have been generated using UBCSEIS, a computer program published by Thomas F. Blake (January 1998). The table below is a compilation of the data provided by UBCSEIS, and represents the largest design values The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 13 presented by each type of fault. A copy of the output generated from this program is included iln Appendix E of this report. A copy of the Design Response Spectrum, as generated by UBCSElS is also included in Appendix E. Based on this output, the following parameters may be utilized for the subject site: Nearest Type A Fault: Nearest Type I3 Fault: Soil Profile Type: Seismic Zone Factor (2): Sei,smic Coefficient (Ca): Seismic Coefficient (C,): Near-Source Factor (Na) Near-Source Factor (N,) Elsinore-Julian (41+ kin) Rose Canyon (8+ km) SO 0.40 0.44 0.69 1 .o 1 .I The design procedures presented by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) are intended to protect life safety. Structures designed using these minimum design procedures may experience significant cosmetic damage and serious economic loss. The use of a significantly higher lateral acceleration (C, factor) such as 0.7 to 0.8 would be necessary to further reduce the risk of economic loss. Howewr, since these values are much higher than those specified by the UBC, owners and structural engineers often regard them as impractical for use in structural design and with respect to the economic:s of the project. Ultimately, the structural engineer and the project owner must detarrnine what level of risk is acceptable and assign appropriate seismic values to be used in the design of the proposed structure Ground Motion Parameters As part crf the liquefaction analysis performed for this study, we have generated a site specific peak ground acceleration, as required by CDMG Special Publication 1 17. This probabilistic analysis was performed using FRISKSP v4.00, a computer program published by Thomas F, Blake (2000). FRISKSP estimates probabilistic seismic hazards using three-dimensional faults as earthquake sources. The program uses a seismotectonic source model, published by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), to estimate seismic hazards at the subject site. The program originated from the original FRISK program (McGuire, 1978) published by the United States Gleological Survey. F RISKSP generates site specific ground motion data based on generalized soil conditions (soil or bedrock), site location relative to nearby faults, accepted attenuation relationships, and other assumptions made by the geotechnical engineer. The attenuation relationships used by FRlSKSP include a one standard deviation measure of uncertainty. Peak accelerations have been determined for both magnitude weighted and unweighted conditions. A magnitude weighting relationship accounts for the fact that earthquakes of lower magnitudes are considered to result in fewer cycles of strong ground motion than those of higher magnitudes. The magnitude weighting relationship used in this analysis is described by ldriss { 1998). The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 14 I I I I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 I I 8 a m The existing engineered fill soils are considered suitable for support of the foundations and floor slabs of the new structures. The suitability of the engineered fill soils is based on data obtained performed from borings performed by Southern California Geotechnical and our review of the previous grading report prepared by Leighton and Associates. However, the existing fill soils were placed 2 to 3 years ago. Since the time of placement, the surficial fill soils have become softened and weathered. Therefore, limited armounts of remedial grading will be necessary to remove and replace these near surface weathered fill soils. Significant amounts of remedial grading are not 8XpeCted to be necessary, Gradinq and Foundation Plan, Review As discussed previously, detailed grading or foundation plans are not available at this time. Nu,merous assumptions were made in preparing the preliminary wndusicms and recommendations presented below. Once grading and foundation plans have been developed, it is recommended that these documents be provided to our office for review with regard ta the assumptions, conclusions and recommendations presented herein. Near-Surface Settlements The near surface soils at this site generally consist of engineered fifl materials, extending to depths of at least 8 to IC)* feet. With the exception of the near surface zone of weathered and softened fill materials, representative samples of these soils generally exhibit favorable consolidation characteristics when exposed to moisture infiltration and when exposed to loads in the range of those that will be exerted by the foundations of the new structures. Provided that the recommendations presented in this report are implemented in the design and construction of the proposed development, the post-construction settlements due to the near surface materials are expected to be within the structural tolerances of the proposed buildings. Settlement of Existinq Fill Soils As discussed above, the proposed development area is underlain by engineered fill soils, exitending to depths of 8 to 30+ feet. These fill soils were monitored during placement and have been certified by Leighton and Associates. Based on their composition, these fill soils will be susceptible to only minor amounts of secondary (long-term) consolidation. Furthermore, the recently completed grading has removed any sharp transitions between relatively shallow fill soils in the deeper areas of fill, further reducing the potential for differential seldernents due to secondary consolidation. Based on these considerations, the long-term secondary settlement of the existing fill soils is not considered to be problematic for the proposed structures. Expansiye Soils Expansion index testing performed by Southern California Geotechnical as part of this study, as well as testing completed by Leighton and Associates during the previous Eouthet n Callfornla Geotechnlcal -7 The Pavilion at La Costa - Cadsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 17 grading, indicates that the on-site soils possess low to very low expansion potentials. Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered warranted for this project, Shrinkaaer'Su bsidence The proposed development area is entirely underlain by existing structural fill soils. Therefore, no significant shrinkage or subsidence is expected to occur during grading operations. However, due to local variations in compaction, shrinkage andlor bulking of 0 to 3 percent could occur in some areas. Sulfates The results of soluble sulfate testing, as discussed in Section 5.0 of this report, indicate negligible levels of sulfates within the selected soil samples, in accordance with Uniform Building Code (UBC) and Portland Cement Association (PCA) guidelines. Therefore, specialized concrete mix designs are not expected to be necessary, with regard to sulfate prcitection purposes. However, the soils present at finished pad grade may vary from those encountered at the boring locations. It is therefore recommended that additional soluble sulfate testing be conducted at the completion of rough grading to verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils that are present at pad grade within the building areas. Slope Stability The site i:3 bordered on portions of the south and west property lines by an ascending fill slope. Leighton indicates that the as-graded slopes are both grossly and surficially stable from a geotechnical standpoint. These slopes currently possess inclinations of 2h:Iv, Descending fill slopes are located along the east property line and portions of the south property line. Leighton has also determined these slopes to be grossly and surficially stable. New fill slopes constructed with inclinations of 2h:lv or less are expected to possess adequate stability from both a gross and surficial standpoint. The Leighton report identifies the location of a stability fill, constructed along the southern half of the west property line and the western end of the south property line. The preliminary site plan indicates that some or all of the stability will be removed as part of the proposed grading. Leighton indicates that this fil( was constructed as a stability fill, not as a buttress fill. No evidence of adverse geologic conditions are mapped on the as-graded geotechnical map included within the Leighton compaction report. The stability fill is therefore serving to provide adequate surficial stability for this slope, anidlor stability of any alluvium and/or slope wash materials in this area. The proposed segmental retaining wall that is proposed to replace the stability fill will provide a similar stabilizing effect and therefore removal of ths stability fill is not considered problematic. The geologic structure identified by Leighton, as documented ~ ~- ~ Southern Gallfwnla Ceotechnlcal mw The Pavlllon at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G21E-1 Dsnn +A I 1 I 1 I 1 E a I 8 E I E 1 I S I i in the rough grade compaction report indicates that bedding on the site is flat lying to slightly dipping to the southwest. With regard to the stability fill, this would represent favorable (into slope) bedding, This bedding is consistent with the geology mapped by Tan and Kennedy as referenced in Section 4.3 of this report. 6.3 Site Gradlng Recommendations The grading recornmendations presented below are based on the subsurface conditions, encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed development. We recommend that all grading activitjes be completed in accordance with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless superseded by site-specific recommendations presented below. Site Strippinn All surficial vegetation as well as any soils with excessive organic content should be stripped from the site prior to the start of grading operations. Based on conditions observed at the time of the subsurface exploration, removal of moderate grass, weed and shrub growth will be required. No significant topsoil was encountered at the boring locations. The actual extent of site stripping should be determined in the field, during grading, b'y the geotechnical engineer. As part of the initial grading operations, remedial grading should be performed within the existirig retention/desilting basin, located in the northeastern area of the site. No standing water was present within the basin at the time of the subsurface exploration, although evidence of previous standing water as well as some silt deposits were observed. It is expected that overexcavation to a depth of 2 to 3 feet will be required in this area to reach of level of suitable subgrade soils. This overexcavation should be done undw the observation of the geotechnical engineer. Treatmen,t of Existina Soils: Buildina Areas The proposed building areas are generally underlain by existing structural fill soils, extending to depths of 8 to 30L feet. Based on the time that has elapsed between the original placement of these fill soils and the present, and the results of the consolidation/collapse testing, some softening and weathering of these materials has occurred. It is therefore recommended that the existing fill soils be overexcavated to a depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade, to remove the existing weathered/softened fill soils. The areas of overexcavation should extend at least IO feet beyond the building perimeters. If the proposed structures include any exterior cotumns, such as for a canopy or overhang, the area of overexcavatian should also encompass these footings. Following completion of the overexcavatjons, the subgrade soils within the building areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to - The Pavllion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. OIG216-1 Page 19 1 8 1 I 8 1 E 4 it u E I 1 I I 1 E I 8 serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the new structure. This evaluation should include proofrolling with a heavy rubber-tired vehicle to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstabte soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if loose, porous, or low density soils are encountered at the bottom of the overexcavation. The overexcavation subgrade mils should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and recompacted. Treatment of Existina Soils: Parkina Areas Subgrade preparation in the remaining new parking areas should initially consist of completion of cuts where required. The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the subgrade to identify any areas of additional unsuitable soils. Based on conditions observed at the site at the time of drilling, additional overexcavation is expected to be necessary at isolated locations within the new parking areas. The subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12s inches, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM 0-1557 maximum dry density. Fill Placerm Fill soils should be placed in thin (6k inches), near-horizontal lifts, moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted. On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris to the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer. All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the grading code of the City of Carlsbad. All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed. Compaction tests should be performed periodically by the geotechnical engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job specifications. Imported Structural Fill A[l imported structural fill should consist of low expansive (El ~30). well graded soils possessing at least 10 percent fines {that portion of the sample passing the No. 200 sieve). Additional specifications for strucfural fill are presented in the Grading Guide Specifications. included as Appendix D. kutkiatn Callfornla Geotechnlcal -- The Pavilion at La Costa - Carisbad, CA Project No. OlG216-1 Page 20 lr I 1 I s I 1 S I I E 1 I I 1 1 I 8 8 Utility Trench Backfill In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-I557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and compacted in place (jetting or flooding is not recommended). Compacted trench backfill should conform to the requirements of the local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be indicated by the City of Carlsbad. All utility trench backfills should be witnessed by the geotechnical engineer. The trench backfill soils should be compactiori tested where possible; probed and visually evaluated elsewhere. Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and extending betow a 1 h:lv plane projected from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils, compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 standard. Pea gravel backfill should not be used for these trenches. 6.4 Construction Considerations Moisture Sensitive Subgrade S.oils Some of the near surface soils possess appreciable silt content and may become unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by construction traffic. In addition, based on their granular content, some of the on-site soils will also be susceptible to erosion. The site should, therefore, be graded to prevent ponding of surface water and to prevent water from running into excavations, Excavation Considerations It is expected that some excavations for this project will encounter predominantly granular soils. Such soils will be susceptible to caving. Flattened excavation slopes may be sufficient to mitigate caving of shallow excavations, although deeper excavations may require some form of external stabilization such as shoring or bracing. All excavation activities on this site should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA regulations. Special excavation consideratians may be warranted during construction of the segmental retaining walls along the south and east property lines. These considerations will be addressed in the subsequent segmental retaining wall design report. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered within only one of the borings, at a depth of 30k feet. Based on the elevation of Boring 6-12. this would indicate a static groundwater table at The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. OlG216-1 Page 21 El. 71f. proposed grading or foundation construction activities. Based on these conditions, groundwater is not expected to impact the 6.5 Foundation Design and Construction Based on the preceding grading recommendations, it is assumed that the building pads will be underlain by existing structural fill soils, placed during mass grading of the subject site, or newly placed structural fill soils used to replace weathered materials or used to raise site grades. Based on this subsurface profile, the proposed structures may be supported on conventional shallow foundation systems. Foundation Des icy Fa ra met e rs New square and rectangular footings may be designed as follows: Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 Ibslft2. Minimum watllmlumn footing width: 14 inched24 inches. Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Four (4) No. 5 rebars (2 top and 2 bottom), It is recommended that a grade beam footing be constructed across all exterior doorways. This footing should be founded at a depth similar to the adjacent building foundations. Any flatwork adjacent to the exterior doors should be doweled into this grade in a manner determined by the structural engineer. Minimum foundation embedment: 12 inches into suitable structural fill soils, and at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab. The allowable bearing pressure presented above may be increased by 1/3 when considering short duration wind or seismic loads. The minimum steel reinforcement recommend8d above is based on geotechnical considerations; additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations. The actual design of the foundations should be determined by the structural engineer. Foundation Cons tru ct ion The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. tt is further recommended that the foundation subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to steel or concrete placement. Within the new building areas, soils suitable for direct foundation Support should consist of existing or newly placed structural fill, compacted to at least Southern Callfotnla Geotechnlcal 7 The Pavilion at La Costa - Carisbad. CA Page 22 Project No. OlG216-1 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. Any unsuitable materials should be removed to a depth of suitable bearing compacted structural fill or medium dense to dense relative sands, with the resulting excavations backfilled with compacted fill soils. As an alternative. lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be used to backfill such isolated overexcavaticsns. The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to within 2 percent of the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 18 inches below bearing grade. Since it is typically not feasible to increase the moisture content of the floor slab and foundatiofl subgrade soils once rough grading has been completed, care s;,a-dd be taken to maintain the moisture content of the building pad subgrade soils throughout the construction process . Estimated Foundation.Settlemants Post-construction total and differential movements (settlement and/or heave) of shallow foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the previously presented recommendations are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively, Differential movements are expected to occur over a 30-foot span, thereby resulting in an angular distortion of less than 0.002 inches per inch, which is considered within tolerable limits for the proposed structures, provided that the structural design adequately considers this distortion. Lateral Load Resistance Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces: 0 Passive Earth Pressure: 350 Ibs/ft3 * Friction Coefficient: 0.35 The recommended passive earth pressure and friction include an appropriate factor of safety. A one-third increase in these values may be used for short duration wind or seismic loads, When combining filctirsn and passive resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one-third. These values assume that footings will be poured directly against suitable structural compacted fill. The maximum allowable passive pressure is 3,000 tbslf?. 6.6 Floor Slab Oesiqn and Construction Subgrades which will support new floor slabs should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Sife Grading Recommendations section of this report. Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, the floors of the new structures may be constructed as conventional slabs-on-grade supported on The Pavilion at ta Costa - Carlsbad, CA Page 23 Project NO. 01G216-1 existing or newfy placed structural fill. Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor slabs may be designed as follows: Minimum slab thickness: 5 inches Minimum slab reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18 inches on-center, in both directions. The actual flaor slab reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer, based on the imposed loading. Slab undedayment: 2 inches of dean sand overlain by a 10-mil vapor barrier, overlain by 2 inches of clean sand, Where moisture sensitive floor coverings are not anticipated, the vapor barrier and upper 2-inch layer of sand may be eliminated. Moisture condition the floor slab subgrade soils to within 2 percent of the Modified Proctor optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches. Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks. The actual design of the floor slabs should be completed by the structural engineer to verify adequate thickness and reinforcement. 6.7 Retaininq Wall Design and Construction Although not indicated on the conceptual grading and drainage plan provided to our office, some small retaining walls may be required tu facilitate site grades. The parameters recommended for use in the design of these walls are presented below. These values should not be used for design of segmental retaining walls. A site specific segmental retaining wall design will be presented in a subsequent geotechnical report. Retaininq Wall Desinn Parameters Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the following parameters may be used in the design of new retaining walls fur this site. We have provided parameters for two different types of wall backfill: on-site soils comprised of sands and silty sands as well as imported select granular material, These parameters are based on site specific direct shear testing. The Pavilion at Lr Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 24 RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS Design Parameter Soil Type Imported 1 On-Site Sands Internal Friction Angle ($1 Unit Weight 38" 32" 130 Ibs/ft3 125 Ibs/ft3 Regardless of the backfill type, the walls should be designed using a soil-footing coefficient of friction of 0.35 and an equivalent passive pressure of 350 Ibs/ft3. The structural engineer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety in the design to the retaining walls, Aggregate Base , The active earth pressure may be used for the design of retaining walls that do not directly support structures or support soils that in turn support structures and which will be allowed to deflect, The at-rest earth pressure should be used for walls that will not be allowed to deflect such as those which will support foundation bearing soils, or which will support foundation loads directly. and Silty Sands Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a "hard" surface such as a structure or pavement, the upper i foot of soil should be neglected when calculating passive resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed or degraded during the life of the structure. Equivalent Fluid Pressure: Retaininq Wall Foundation Desiun - 30 Ibs/ft3 38 Ibs/ft3 44 Ibs/ft3 58 lbs/ft3 50 Ibs/fi3 58 Ibsift3 Active Condition (level backfill) Active Condition (2h:lv backfill) At-Rest Condition (level backfill) The retaining walls should be supported within existing or newly placed compacted structural fill. Foundations to support new retaining walls should be designed in accordance with the general Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous section of this report. Backfill Material It is recommended that a minimum 1 foot thick layer of free-draining granular material (less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) should be placed against the face of the retaining walls. This material should be approved by the geotechnical engineer. If the layer of free-draining material is not covered by an impermeable surface, such as a The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Pmject NO. 01 G216-1 Page 25 structure or pavement, a 12-inch thick layer of a low permeability soil should be placed over the backfill to reduce surface water migration to the underlying soils. AI! retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions in the necessary layer thicknesses to ensure an in-place density between 90 and 93 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test (ASTM Di557-91). Care should be taken to avoid over-compaction of the soils behind the retaining walls, and the use of heavy compaction equipment should be avoided. Subsurface Dminaae As previously indicated, the retaining wall design parameters are based upon drained backfill conditions. Consequently, some form of permanent drainage system will be necessary in conjunction with the appropriate backfill material. Subsurface drainage may consist of either; A weep hole drainage system typically consisting of a series of 4-inch diameter holes in the wall situated slightly above the ground surface elevation on the exposed side of the wall and at an approximate 8-foot on-center spacing , A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 2 cubic feet of gravel per linear foot of drain placed behind the wall, above the retaining wail footing. The gravel layer should be wrapped in a suitable geotextite fabric to reduce the potential for migration of fines. The footing drain should be extended to daylight or tied into a storm drainage system. 58 Exterior Flatwork Design and Construction Subgrades which will support new exterior slabs-on-grade for patios, sidewalks and entries should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the Grading Recommendations section of this report, as recommended for the parking areas. Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, exterior flatwork will be supported by a minimum 1 foot thick tayer of compacted structural fill. Based on geotechnical considerations, exterior slabs on grade may be designed as follows: 0 Minimum slab thickness: 4 inches, 5 inches where subjected to infrequent vehicular traffic. Minimum slab reinforcement: Driveway slabs or other flatwork which may be subjected to vehicular traffic should include conventional welded wire mesh (6x6- . W1.4xWl.4 WWF) or No. 3 bars at It3 inches on center, in both directions. Reinforcement in other exterior flatwork is not required, with respect to geotechnical conditions. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01 G216-1 Page 26 The flatwork at building entry areas should be structurally connected to the grade beam that is recommended to span across the daw opening. This recommendation is designed to reduce the potential for differential movement at this joint. Moisture condition the flatwork subgrade soils to a moisture content of 2 to 4 percent above optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches. Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab curling or the farmation of excessive shrinkage cracks. Control joints should be provided at a maximum spacing of 8 feet on center in two directions for slabs and at 6 feet on center for sidewalks. Control joints are intended to direct cracking. Minor cracking of exterior concrete slabs on grade should be expected. Expansion or felt joints should be used at the interface of exterior slabs on grade and any fixed structures to permit relative movement. 6.9 Pavement Design Parameters Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The subsequent pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction monitoring, and are based on either PCA or CALTRANS design parameters for a twenty (20) year design period. However, these designs also assume a routine pavement maintenance program to obtain the anticipated 20-year pavement service life. Pavement Subgrades It is anticipated that the new pavements will be supported on existing or newly placed structural fill soils, The existing structural fill soils are expected to consist of sands and silty sands. These materials are expected to exhibit good pavement support characteristics, with estimated R-values of 30 to 50. Since R-value testing was beyond the scope of services for this project, these materials have been assigned an R-value of 30. At the completion of grading, it is recommended that R-value testing be performed in a representative number of the proposed pavement areas to determine the actual R- value of the as-graded subgrade, The R-value test results may indicate higher R-values within the as-graded pavement subgrades, resulting in a thinner pavement section. Any fill material imported to the site should have support characteristics Eaqual to or greater than that of the on-site soils and be placed and compacted under engineering controlled conditions. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 27 As D h alti c-Co ncrete Traffic Index (TI) 5.0 I Kn The pavement designs are based on the traffic indices (TI'S) indicated. The client and/or civil engineer should verify that these Tl's are representative of the anticipated traffic volumes. If the client and/or civil engineer determine that the expected traffic volume will exceed those recommended herein, we should be contacted for supplementary recommendations. The design traffic indices equate to the following approximate daily traffic volumes over a 20-year design life, assuming 5 operational traffic days per week: Number of Heavy Trucks- Per Day 1 A 8.0 9.0 I 7.0 I 14 I 42 112 Materials Asphalt Concrete For the purposes of the traffic volumes above, a truck is defined as a 5-axle tractor- trailer unit, with one %kip axle and two 32-kip tandem axles. AI of the traffic indices allow for I000 automobiles per day. Thickness (inches) Auto Parking Auto Drive Light Truck Traffic Lanes (TI = 6.0) (TI = 5.0) Heavy Truck Traffic (TI = 7.0) (TI = 4.0) 3 3 3.5 4 Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. It should be noted that the TI = 6.0 section only allows for 4 trucks per day. Therefore, all significant heavy truck traffic must be excluded from areas where this thinner pavement section is used; otherwise premature pavement distress may occur. ~ Aggregate Base Aggregate Subbase 3 6 7 10 1 I- I -^ - I I The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM b- 1557 maximum dry density, The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Marshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM D-2726. The Pavilion at La Casta - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01 G218-1 Page 28 Portland Cement Concrete The preparation of the subgrade soils within concrete pavement areas should be performed as previously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas. The minimum recornme nded thicknesses for the Portland C6ment Concrete pavement sections are as follows: Automobile Parking and Drive Areas 5 inches Portland Cement Concrete over 0 Light Truck Traffic Areas (TI = 6.0) 6.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete Heavy Truck Traffic Areas (TI = 7.0) 7.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete The concrete should have a 28day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi. Reinforcjrrg within all pavements should consist of at least heavy welded wire mesh (6x6-W2.!3xW2.9 WWF) placed at mid-height in the slab. The maximum joint spacing within all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or less than 30 times the pavennent thickness. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carisbad, CA Project No. OlG216-I Page 29 7.0 GEMERAL, COMMENTS This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client, in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design arid preparation of the project plans and specifications. This report may be provided to the contractor&) and other design consultants to disclose information relative to the project. However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect, civil engineer, and/or structural engineer. The reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc. Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party’s sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur. The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected between boring locations and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed development. It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer, and civil imgineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent with the characteristics of the proposed development, If discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention tu verify that they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations have been correctly interpreted. The analysis, conclusions, and recornmendations contained within this report have been prc)muIgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineeriing practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 01G216-1 Page 30 8.0 REFERENCES Blake, Thomas F., FtRlSKSP, A Compider Proaram for the Prubabiiisilc Estimation of Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Usins 3-0 Faults as Earthquake Sources, Version 4.00,2000. California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” State of California, Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 1 17, 1997. Campbell, K.W ., “lrnperical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo- Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra”, Seismoluqical Research Letters, Seismological Society America, Volume 68, Number 1, January/February 1997, pp. 154-1 79. National Research Council (NRC), “Liquefaction of Soils During Eadhquakes,” Committee on Earthquake Enninaerinq, National Research Council, Washington 5. C., Report No. CETS-EE-OOI, 1985. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., “Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential iusing field Performance Data,” Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Divisbn., American Society of Civil Engineers, September 1971, pp. 1249-1273. Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), University of Southern California, “Recommended Procedures for tmplementaticln of DMG Special Publication 11 7, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California,” Committee formed 1997. Tokimatsu K., and Seed, M. B., “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,” Journal of the Geotechnical Enqineering .Division, American society of Civil Engineers, Votume 113, No. 8, August 1987, pp. 861-878. Tokimatsu, K. and Yoshimi, Y., “Empi~cai Comlafions of Sod Liquefaction Based on SPT N-viilue and Fines Content, Seismological Research Letters, Eastern Section Seismological Society Of America, Volume 63, Number 1, p. 73. Youd, T. L. and Idriss, I. M. (Editors), “Proceedings of the NCEER Wotkshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils,” Salt Lake City, UT, January 5-6 1996, NCEER Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Buffalo, NY. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carfsbad, CA Project No. 01 G216-1 Page 31 APPENDIX A SITE LOCATION MAP BORIHG LOCATION PLAN SITE GEOLOGIC MAP 1' 12403 SOURCE. SAN DEW COUNrY YHOMAS GUIDE, 1986 DRAwA RB ' CHKD GKM SCG PROJECT Southern California GeotechnIcal I 1 I I 8 I I I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 SOURCE. CbM QFR BBo2 KENNEDV AN0 TAN. 19w I I SITE GEOLOGlC MAP THE PAVILION AT LA COSTA CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 1' 2m ORAWN. Southern Galifornla Geotechnici CHKL) Wh4 SCG PROJECT 016216-1 PLATE 3 Phane. (714) 7776333 Fax. (714) 7774398 1260 North Hanwck Strset, suite 101 Anaheim. CaUfornia 92807 APPENDlX B BORING LOGS BORING LOG LEGEND SAMPLE TYPE AUGER .__ GRAPHJCAL SYMBOL I - ." . SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER CUTTINGS. NO FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF SOIL STRENQTH (DISTURBED) ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN WITH A DIAMONDTIPPED CORE BnRREL TYPICALLY USED ONLY IN HIGHLY CONSOWOATED BfDROGK .--.,-a* - ."_ _- -- - CORE SML SAMPLE TAKEN WlTH NO SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM A STOCKPILE OR THE QROUND SURFACE. A 1 CALIFORNIA ShMPLER. 2-112 INCH 1.0. SPUT cs BARREL SAMPLER. LINED wiw i-imi HI& BRASS RINGS DRIVEN WTH SPT HAMMER. (RECATIVELY UNDISTURBED) NR NO RECOVERY. THE SAUPCINQ ATTEMPT DID N6f RESULT tN RECOVERY OF lvJY SIGNIFKXNT SOIL OR ROCK MATERIAL. SPT STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER IS A l.+ INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT BARREL. DRNEN 18 INCHES WlTH THE SPT HAMM€K (DtSTURBED) -- SHELBY TU5B: TAKEN WITH ATHIN WALL SAMPLE TUBE. PUSHED INTO THE SQtL AND THEN EXTRACTED. (UNOISTURBED) -I I _.- VANE VAN€ SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGTH OBTAINEQ USING A 4 BLADED SHEAR DEVICE. TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT GUY$-NO SAMPLE REGWEREV. - .-. ,-- . I- - COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS -- DEPTH: s!Yl!lE% Distance In feet below the ground surface Sample Type as depicted above. -<EN PEN.: GRAPHIC LOG: Number of blows requlred to advance the sampler 12 inches using a 140 Ib hammer with a 30-inch drop. 50/3" indicates penetration refusal (~50 blows) at 3 Inches. WH indicates that the weight of the hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 Inches or more, Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured by the packet penetrometer. Graphic soil symbol, as depicted on the following page. PRY DENSITY: - MOEW CON TENT: lrQUtlD LIMIT: PLA1STIC PAS SING #20 0 SIEVE: WONFINED SHE4P: Dry Density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample. Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a liquid. The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic. The percentage of material finer than the #ZOO standard sieve. The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured In the unconfined state. SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART SYMBOLS GRAPH LElTER MAJOR DIVISIONS GW 00" -o(-& (LITTLE OR NO FINES) $-, bL&, 0 GP TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS WELLGRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FlNES POORLY-GWED GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES. LITTLE OR NO FWES COARSE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS LARGER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE FINE GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF MATERIAL IS SMALLER THAN NO. 200 SIEVE SIZE GRAVEL AND GRAVELLY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACnON RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE SAND AND SANDY SOILS MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSING ON NO. 4 SIEVE SILTS AND CLAYS I. I SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - SILT MIXTURES GRAVELSWITH b,$$<fg GM I FINES cl Jo )I- CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND - CLAY MIXTURES WELL-GRADE0 SANDS, GRAVELLY CLEAN SANDS SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES . . . - . . . . . ....-... & . . .... . . . ... ..... POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SAND, LimE OR NO 1 '1 sp I FINES (LITTLE OR NO FINES) SANDS WITH AMOUNT Of FINES LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50 I- - - 4 SILTY SANDS. SAND - SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND - CLAY MtXTURES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR. SILTY OR CCAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICIN, GRAVELLY CLAYS. SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS ORGANlC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW pusncm SILTS, MICACEOUS OR OUS FINE SAND OR LIQUID LIMIT CLAYS OF HIGH SILTS AND CLAYS GREATER THAN 50 PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS NOTE: DUAL SYME30LS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS I I U Southern California Geotecnnical v BORING NO. 8-9 IOQ NO.: 016216 ORlLLlNG DATE: 10125101 WATER DEPTH: Dry 3ROJECT: La Casta Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: None .OCATION: Carlst IELD RESULT: 1, Califomla LOGGED BY Romeo Balbas DESCRI PTlON SURFACE ELEVATION: 94 feet MSL m: Light Brown to Brown fine to medlum Sand, @ace to some Si, tram Clay, medium dense to dense - damp Boring Terminated at 5' READiNG TAKEN: at Com6fetion LABOF TORY RES1 v) 4 2 8 z -". . TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-I I I 1 I I I Southern California GeotechnPcal T BORING NO. B-2 108 NO.: 01‘3216 PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion LOCATION: Carlsb 4ELD RESULT: DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stern Auger 1, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas DESCR I PTl ON SURFACE ELEVATtON: 96 feet MSL .; :.: m: Light 6rcm fine to medlorn Sand, some Silt, little Clay. :. :. . loose to medium dense - dry ,I -1::: FILL; Light Brown to Gray Brown Sllty fine to medium Sand, ;.:e:- tram Clay, medium dense - mokt 8. .---- I *: Boring Terminated at 5’ WATER DEPTH: Ory CAVE DEPTH: None READING TAKEN; at Corndetion 31 Y - c c -..- TEST BORllNG LOG PLATE 8-2 I I I I 1 I I i Southern California Geotechnical v BORING NO. B -3 JOB NO: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 1012YO1 WATER DEPTH. oly 'ROJECT: La Cusk Pavillon DRILLJNG METHOD: Hdlow Stem AWpf CAVE DEPTH: 16.5' -0CATION: Cads :IELD RESULT' I, c - c3 s 0 I 3 c3 7 .. ~- ... .. .. .. .. ... ... ... ... ... ... .. ... ... ... .. ... ... ., .. .. ,., .. - fomia LOGGED BY: Romeo Balb39 DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 97 feet MSL FIU: Light Brown flne Sand, little medium Sand, little to trace mrnediurn dens - dry to damp a: Brown to Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, trace Clay. occasional Sandstone fragments, medium den38 - mdSt I* .. --- - FILL: Brown to Llght Brown fine Sand, trace to SOme SI%. little Clay, medium dense to dense - moist - occasional Clayey fine Sand clasts at 7 to 8 feet TORREY SANDsTONE FORMATION: Ught Gray fine grained Sandstone, occasional iron oxlde stains, dame to very dense - moist Baring Terminated at 20' READING TAKEN: at Completion LABORATORY RESULTS TEST BORING LOG PLATE 8-3 Southern California Geotechnical v BORING NO. 8-4 JOB NO.: OIG216 ?ROJECT: La Costa Pavilion WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 11.5' DRILLING DATE: 10/25!01 DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger Carfsbetd, Callfornla LOGGEO BY: Ronieo Balbas IELD RESULTS! I I- z 13 58 2s 55 67 47 57 57 61 DESCRlPTlON SURFACE ELEVATION: 100 feet MSL occasional iron oxide shlnlng. dense - damp to moist 4.54- I I/: - weatliered SandstanelClaystone clasts at 3 to 4 feet FILL; Ligh! Gray Brown Siky fiiz and, trace Clay, occasional medium Sand, trace Iron oxkte s&ivg, dense - mdst - . .I 43 -j....:. -someSiltyClayclastsat7toBfeat ..'. , .' .... .... .. .... ... ... ' TORREY SANDSThNE FORMATION: Ught Brow fins .... .. grained Sandstone, little Silt, occasional Clayey fine Sand ..... clasts, medium dense to dense - damp b moist .... ...... .. ---I- 1 Boring Teminaled at 15' REaolNG TAKEN: at Camdelion Y RESULT3 TEST BOiRlNG LOG PLATE 8-4 BORING NO. B-5 Southern California Geotechnfcal JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE; 10125/01 PROJECT: La Costa Pavlllon DRILLING METHOD: Hdlow Stem Auger WATER DEPTH; Dry CAVE DEPTH: 36' 10CATION: 'IELD RES $ DESCRl PTlON 2% ?k I u e- 2.75 - Brown to Light Brown Silty flne Sand. ocaslonal Clay dasts, medium dense - moist at 5 to 6 feet - Dark Brown fine to medium Send, trace to some Slit, iface Clay, dense - moist at 7 lo 8 feel ..... .... .. ,. . ..... ... ... .., . . .~. . ... ,. ', '.' : -lraceClayatl$to20feet . ' .... .. .. .. ..... ... ... ..... ...... ,_.. . .. ... ... ..... .. .... .... .... ... ... ..... .... ,_'I... . '. .' ... .... - Clayey fine Sand at 24 to 25 feet . 1 :_ .. ,. .... ... ..... .... READING TAKEN: al MBORATORY RESULTS TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-5a I I w k 0 I 1 1 1 6% 19; 0 833 m I I r'* f!?l -0 I I I 1 I DESGRI PTI ON Southern Californla Geotechnfcal 7 - , . . . 4 - BORING .NO. B-5 (Contiiwed) ". : Brown to Light 6rov.n Silly fine Sand. trace . $!h%%!nd, rnedlurn dense - mast to very moist . - Brown Gray Clayey fine Sand, vary stlff - moist to very mlst '- at 39 to 40 feet TORREY-gAfi6STONE FORMATION: Brw to Gray Brawn . floe grained Sandstone, slightly Silty. dense to very dense - veiy moist -I - -I I DRILLING DATE: 101251(11 DRJLLING METHOD; Hollow Stem Auger LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas Eorlng Terminated at 45' WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH; 36' READING TAKEN: a1 LABORATORY RESULTS 0 $i - I- - TEST BORllNG LOG PLATE 8-5b BORING NO. B-6 Southern California Geotechnical ~ I08 NO.: 01G216 'ROJECT: La Cos;la Paviliorl ,OCATION: Carlsl ELD RESULT! DRlLLlNG DATE: 10125J01 DRILLING METHOD; Hollow Stem Auger d. California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas 7 DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 97 feet MSL u: Lhht 8rown flne to medium Sand, some Gravel, medlum dense to dense - damp - Dark Brown to Brown I# Sand, little Silt, medium dense to dense - damp at 3 to 4 feet - Dark Brown Ane Sand, little Clay, medium dense -damp to moist at 5 (b 8 feet - Gray fine to medlutn Sand, !Me to trace Sllt at 6 lo 7 feet - Dark Brown fine to medium Sand, little Clay, occasional Clay clasts, medlum dense moist at 7 b 8 feet - Brown to Dark Brown fine Sand, little Clay, Lrace fine Grawl, mediuni dww - very moist dl 9 lo 10 feet - Dark Gray Brown fine Sand and occaslbnal fine Gravel, hca Silt. trace Clay, niediurn dense - moist to very rnolst at 14 to 15 feet VIUM: Em fine b medium Sard-dense - mdsl Sand and flne Gravel at 19 to 20 feet WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 16.6' READING TAKEN: ai Cornoletion TORY F 1- f w I 8 TEST BORllNG LOG PLATE B-6 Southern California Geotechnleal T- BORING NO. B-7 JOB NO.: 01CZIEi DRlLLlNG DATE: 1012~01 WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: La Costa Padion ORlUlNG METHOD: H~llow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 22' LOCATION: Garlsbad, CalifWnla LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: 11 ELD RESULTS BOWTORY RESULTS -._- DESCRl PTl ON - trace Organics (fine mt fibers) at 14 to 15 feet - fine to medium Sand at 20 to 23 feet rown Sllty flne to medium Sand, -dense - very mdst to wet at 29 to 30 feet &wing Terminated at 30' ?InUtes (IJ 4 8 w E E TEST BORING LOG PLATE 0-7 BORING NO. B-8 Southern California Geotechnical IOB NO.: OlGZ16 DRILLING DATE: lWZ6101 'ROJECT: La Costa Pavltlon DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger .OCATION: Cadslxid, halifornla LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas IELD RESULTS ._.*- DE SCRl PTl ON - occasional Clayey fine Sand clastS - molst at 3 io 4 feet - Dark Bwn Clayey fine Sand to fine Sarldy Clay - very moist to moist at 5 to B feet - Dark Red Brown Rne Sand - morst at 7 to 8 kef - Gray Btom Clayey Rne sand, occasional Sm&Me fragments - rnoisf a1 9 to 10 feet - Dark Red Btown Stlty tine Sand. medium dense - damp at 14 - Dark Red Brown Silty fine Sand, trace flne Sandy Clay clasts, medium dense - moist at 19 to 20 feet Sand, trace- Silt, trace MSB at 24 to 25 feet Bmwn fine to medlum Sand. trace to dense - very moist to wt WATER DEPTH; Dry CAVE DEPTH: 2U READING TAKEN: 1.5 Hwr LABOR TORY RESU - cn c Z % 8 z TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-8a 8 .- I - E Southern California Geotechnical v BORING NO. 0-8 JOE NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/26101 PROJECT: La Coota Pavilion DRlUlNG METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas -1ELI3 RES -I- DESCRIPTION $1 (Continued) mi Brown to Dark 8m1 fine to medium Sand, trace to some Silt, medium dense to dense -very mist to wet d (3 ... ..- .T...:. .. ... ..- -.. ... ... . . ... ... ... ... ... . ... I.. ... ... .., .- +-*-.-r I Borlng Tennlnated at 40' TEST BORIING LOG WATER DEPTH. Dry CAVEDEPTH: 26' READING TAKEN: 1.5 Hour L_ABORATORY RESULTS PLATE B-8b Southern California Geotechnisal BORING NO. 8 -9 JOB NO.: O1G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry 'ROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH; 13' -- j, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Baibas DESCRlPTlON SURFACE ELEVATION: I01 feet MSL u: Light Brown fine to medium Sand; he Sllt, loose to A u: Light Brow to Llght Gray Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt, occasional flne Sandstone fragments, dense - damp to . - tram Clay at 5 to 6 feel - mist . - Clayey fine Sand, very moist at D to 10 feet Boring Termineted at 15' READING TAKEN; at Cornaletion LABORATORY F TEST BORING LOG PLATE 6-9 I Southern California Geoteehnlcal BORING NO. 6-1 0 - .. JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 1&'25/of WATER DEPTH: Dry PROJECT: La costa Pavltion DRILLING METHOD: HdlW Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 106 feet LOCATION: 7ELD RES d, Callfornla LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas 0 4/ DESCRIPTION ~ 0 SURFACE ELEVATION: 104 feet MSL Llqht Brawn to Brawn fine Sand, trace to little Silt, Iul $ -. . rnedlum densa to dense -damp to mdst , :., : 111 1 - tram fme Gravel at 3 to 4 feet : - trace flne Gravel, little Silt at 7 to 8 feet -.#" .... ' TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: L3t Brown to wt .,, . Gray Brown fine grained Sandstone. little Silt, very dense - ,., ... mist to very molst ,. , .. . . .- .... ._.. .... .... .... .... .... . .. . . . . .. .... .... - Llght Gray to Whlle, trace Silt at 13 ta 15 feet t I Boring Terminated at 15' READING TAKEN: at COmplgtiw ORATORY RESULT: TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-70 8 I II Southern California Geoterhnical v BORING NO. B-I1 JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/26/01 DROJECT: La Casta Pavilion DRILLING METHOD; Hollow Stem Auger LOCATION: Carisbad. California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas WLDRES %j - I ‘lllt DESCRl PTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 106 feet MSL m: Llght Brown fine Sand, be lo medlurn dense -dry to E/I.!.! Light Brown fine Sand, little SI11, niedlurn dense ta dense - damp (0 moist ,dam Boring Termlnat8d at 5’ WATER IXPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH; None READING TAKEN: at Cornoletion LABOR TEST BORING LOG PLATE B=lI I' I I 'IELO RESULTS ' __ - 1 LABORATORY RESULTS - 1 zo fS 5;; - ur 1t; I BORING NO. B-I 2 c DESCRIPTION l3 0 w c3 SURFACE ELEVATION: 101 feet MSL f3E PA 3 $ti JOB NO.; OlG24fi DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: 29.5' 'ROJECT: La Costa Pavllion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 42 feet Light Brown One to medium Sand, little to Some Sllt, .. .. .. .. i. . I- to medlum dense - dry -. ., . * e .- I. . .. . .. ... -1. - extensive Clay clasts. some Slit, dense - damp to mdst a1 3 ... .. ._. ..-. to a feet ' .. :I:- - Brown to Dark Brown fine Sand, tram to little Silt, WaaCe .... '-. *_. -.. medium Sand, dense to very dews - mast st 5 to 12 feet ... .-.. .... ._._ ...- .... .. - 7. .- .... .. .... .. -- . .. 7' *..I *. t.,. * 1- -*a. .- -... *. . .. 110 106 114 109 106 .. .. .. 1 I -1 grained Sandstrme. dense to very dense moist 7 1. . &' TEST BORING LOG TORR-WbNDSTONE FORMATION. Light PLATE B-iZa ., I, 1. ... .. - 107 '_ - extensive Sandstone, Claystone seams at 14.5 to 15 feet - mdst to very moist - 104 L -Gray to Light Gray. trace b $me Silt, very dense at 28 lo 30 . feet-mist - Red Brown fine gralned Sandstone at 33 to 35 feet JOE! NO.: 01G216 PROJECT: La CQsia Pavilion I I Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO. B-12 LOCATION: Carlst 3ELD RESULT: DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 DRILLING METHOD; Hotlow Stem Auger 1. Califomjs LOGGED BY. Romeo Balbas OESCRI PTlON (Continued) 2 E3 ION: Light Brown fine ' ' TORREY SANDSTONE FC>RhkT . grained Sandstone, dense to very der& - motst - Ught red Brown tine Grained Sandstone at 38 to 40 feet - Red Emwn Siltstone, Claystone, dense to very dense at 43 to 45 feet I c x' ; = Tarrey"5andstane FormaUon: Dark Gray Eiad weathered :x ,Claystone. vep dense - moist Boring Terminated at 50' WATER DEPTH: 29.5' CAVE DEPTH: 42 feet READING TAKEN: 2 lours TEST BORING LOG PLATE 6-12b 1 I Southern California Geotecnnical 7 BORING NO. 8-1 3 1OB NO.; 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 1012W01 JROJECT; La Costa Pavlllon DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger -0CATION; Cadsbad. Califomla LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas :IELD RESULT: DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 100 feet MSL medium Sand. occasional fine Sandstone fragments. dense - mdst I - Orange Brown fine Sand, dense at 5 to 6 ket '. . - Dark Brown to &oMI llne Sand, trace S~lt, ltffle Clay - rnolst . - at gin 10 feet '.. '' - Dark Brow Silty flne Sand, llWe Clay. trace Organics. - medium dense - mdst at 14 to 15 feet --- I I Boring Terminalad at 25' WATER DEPTH: Rry CAE DEPTH: 20.5' READING TAKEN: at Cornoletion TORY F Distutwd Sample Disturbed Sampie TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-I3 Southern California Geotechnical v BORING NO. 8-1 4 JOB NO.: 01F216 PROJECT: La Cost3 Pavilion LOCATION: Cads1 ?IELD RESULT! DRILLING DATE; 10/26M)I DRILLING METHOD; Hollow Stern Auger d. California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas DESCRl PTlON SURFACE ELEVATION: 100 feet MSL 3 0 FILL: Light Biown to Brown fine lb medium Sand, tram Silt. medium dense - damp to moist . . - Light Brown fine Sand, medium dense - moist at 5 to 6 feet I - Light Gray Brown flne Sand, occasional Clayey fine Sand - moist at 9 to 10 feet - Brxlng Terminated at 10' I WATER DEPTH. CAVE DEPTH: 8' READING TAKEN; Rt Completion ORATORY RESULTS TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-I4 Southern California Geotechnical Y7 BORING NU. 0-1 5 JOB NO.; 01 G216 PROJECT; La Cosla Pavilion WILLING DATE 10/26/01 DRILLING METHOD: Hdlow Stem Aoger LOCATION; Callsbad. Callfornla LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas I :IELD RESULT! 0 u s/ -I- DESCRIPTION SURFACE ELEVATION: 105 feet MSL Llgiht Brown fine sand, +ace Silt; trace medlum Sand, wcasfonal Sandstone fragments. medium dense lo dense - damp to mdsl - trace Clay - molsl at 3 to 4 feet - lface Clay - moist at 5 10 6 feet llll - Brcwn to Light Brown. trlfce Uay - molst at 7 to 10 feet !--- fine grained Sandstone, baa Silt, &me to very dense - rnolst '* TORREY SANDSTONE l%kMATION. Light Brown b White I Boring Terminated at 20' WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: 12' READING TAKEN: a -. rc xnpletiwl TEST EORIING LOG PLATE 8-15 BORING NO. 8-1 6 Southern California GeotechnPcal WATER DEPTH: Dry CAVE DEPTH: None READING TAKEN: at Comptellon LABORATORY RESULTS JOB NO.; 01GZl6 DRILLING DATE: 10/26/01 PROJEW La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger 1. California LOGGED BY Romeo Balbas __ 'IELD RES c3 9 0 DESCRl PflON ~ L SURFACE ELEVATION: 106 feet MSL FILL; Light Brown flne Sand. trace (0 little Silt, medium dense . .. to dense - damp to molst 3 0 .I .. .. . .. .. . .. .. .... . .. .. . .. ... . . _. .. ~ L 3 0 SURFACE ELEVATION: 106 feet MSL ] 11, FILL; Light Brown flne Sanb. trace (0 little Silt, medium dense to dense - damp to molst I I i ! f < t i i C P i 1 8 PLATE 6-16 TEST BORING LOG APPENDIX C ~ USORATORY IESTING Consolldatlon/Collapse Test Results Iject No. 01lG216 -ATE C- I 0.1 1160 North Hmcak Slrwl. SUI. %I1 hahelm, Califomla 82807 Phom: (714) 77T-0333 Fax: (714) 72r4398 1 10 Load (ksf) 100 Classification: Light Brown to Light Gray Brown Silty fine Sand ring Number: 8-6 lmple Number: --- rpth (ft) I to 2 lecirnen Diameter {in) 2.4 lecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o Initial Moisture Content (%) io Final Moisture Content (%) 13 initial Dry Density {pcf) 104.1 Final Dry Density (pcf) 116.d Percent Collapse (%) 0.82 Costa Pavilion lrlsbad, California - .. ConsolidationlGollapse Test Results Costa Pavilion rlsbad, California 0.1 Southern Callfornia Geotechnlca fi 1 10 Load (ksf) iject No, 01G216 .ATE C- 2 100 v izdD Nom Hamcock 8Irpol. Suit0 101 -lm, calnotnlo 02807 Phone: (714) 7174393 FAX: (714) 77703S6 Classification: Dark Brown to Brown fine Sand. little Silt ring Number: 8-6 mple Number; -- IPth (ft) 3 to 4 ecirnen Diameter (in) 2.4 ecimen Thickness (in) I .o Initial Moisture Content (YO) 12 Final Moisture Content (%) 11 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 11l.E Percent Collapse (%) 0.45 final Dry Density (pcf) 123.7 ConsolldationlCollapse Test Results Costa Pavilion rlsbad, California Jject No. 0 I G2 16 ATE c- 3 0.1 la80 NMh Hamock beet, SuIW 101 hbh. Crlllomla 02807 ph-. (714) 7770338 CdX: (?14} 7774398 10 Load (ks9 100 Classification: Dark Brown fine Sand, little Clay ring Number: 8-6 mple Number: -- !pth (ft) 5 to 6 ecimen Diismeter (in) 2.4 ecimen Thlickness (in) I .O Initial Moisture Content (%) 10 Final Moisture Content (%) 10 Final Dry Density (pcf) 128.€ Percent Coilapse {%) 0.20 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 116.L ConsolidationlCotlapse Test Results .a Costa Pavilion :adsbad, California 'roject No. 01G216 'LATE C- 4 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Southern California Geotechnical 12B Nocth Hwcffik SWl. SUI& ID1 Anahelm. CalUmda 02607 Phon. (714)7774333 Fax: (714) 1774396 0.1 1 Load (ksf) ~~~~ Classification: Dark Brown fine to medium Sand, little Clay, occasional Clay clasts 3oring Number: 0-6 Sample Number: -I Iepth (ft) 7 to a jpecirnen Thickness (in) I .o specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Initial Moisture Content (%) 9 Final Moisture Content (%) 12 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 103.1 Final Dry Density (pcf) 117.0 Percent Collapse (%) 1.33 . ConsoIIdatIonlCollapse Test Results 0 2 4 A ae .- 6 E --- E c VI c 0 m 2 .- c - $8 C 0 0 10 12 14 0.1 I 10 i oa Load (ksi) I Classification: FILL: Light Brown to Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt ,ring Number: 8-1 0 mple Number: --- pth (ft) I to2 ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 ecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o Initial Moisture Content (%) 0 Final Moisture Content (YO) 12 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 109.: Final Dry Density (pcf) 119.: Percent Collapse (%) 0.97 Costa Pavilion Southern Callfornia Geatechnici rlsbad, California ConsolidationlCollapse Test Results 'reject No. 01 (3216 'LATE C- 6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 I280 Mplh H(MC.Xk 3- Sui(. 101 Anrhplm Califomla #?Bo7 Phone: (7141 7771333 FUI: (?Id) 7774388 0.1 1 10 Load (kef) 100 Classification: FILL: Light Brown to Br0wn fine Sand, trace to little Silt, trace fine Gravel 3oring Number: B-10 Sample Number: -I- lepth (ft) 3 to 4 Specimen Oiameter (in) 2.4 specimen Thickness (in) 1 .o Initial Moisture Content (%) 9 Final Moisture Content (%) 13 Initial Dry Density (pc9 98.2 Final Dry Density (pcf) 116.6 Percent Collapse (%) 2.73 -a Costa Pavilion :adsbad, California a. ConsolldationlColJapse Test Results ject No. 01G216 -ATE e- 7 0 2 4 s 1 C f6 6" + 0 - U 10 12 14 1260 Noah Hancrxk Stnot, Ws 191 hahalm. callfomh 9~507 F"; (7l4) 7779333 Fax: (714) 77743g8 0.1 1 10 Load (ksf) Classification: FILL: Light Brown to Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt Number: B-lo mple Number: -- pth (ftt) 5 to 6 ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Necimen Thickness (in) 1 .o Initial Moisture Content (%) IO Final Moisture Content (%} 12 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 113,; Final Dry Density (pcf) 126.1 Percent Collapse (%) 0.25 Costa Pavilion Irkbad, California ConsotfdatlonlCollapse Test Results 3ject No. 01G216 ATE C- 8 0.1 1260 Nwth H+nr;ock %Met. Sutte 101 hahelm. CilUfwnla 82807 Phone: (714) 7770333 Fax: (714) 7770398 I Load (ksf) 100 Classification: FILL: Light Brown to Brown fine Sand, trace fine Gravel, little Silt ring Number: B-IO imple Number: --- !pth (ft) 7 to 8 becimen Thickness (in) 1 .o lecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Initial Moisture Content (YO) 12 Final Moisture Content (%) 12 Final Dry Density (pcf) 121.1 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 105.8 Percent Collapse (%) 1.30 Costa Pavilion irlsbad, California ConsolidationlCollapse Test Results Voject No. OlG216 'LATE C- 9 0 2 4 E C f6 C 0 W x Ha - 0 0 10 12 14 1260 No* nancackstreel. Butte 101 Annhdm. Cillfbml. 92807 PhOnO: (714) 7770333 Fa! (714) 7774388 0.1 1 Load (krf) 100 Classification: FILL: Light Brown fine Sand 3oring Number: ;ample Number: kpth (ft) ipecirnen Diameter (in) 5pecimen Thickness (in B-I 2 --- I to 2 2.4 1 .o Initial Moisture Content (%) a Final Moisture Content (%) 11 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 117.f Final Dry Density (pcf) 127.E Percent Collapse {%) 0.4 1 .a Costa Pavilion :adsbad, California ConsolidationlCollapse Test Results oject No. OIG216 LATE C- 10 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 $260 Nwth Hancock 8lrsd SuUv (01 hahelm, hllfwnls 92801 Phone: (714) 777-0395 FbX: (714) 7770396 0.1 1 10 bad (ksf) 100 Classification: FILL: Brown fine to medium Sand, extensive Clay clasts, some Silt Iring Number: 0-12 imple Number: --- :pth (fi) 3 to 4 Iecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 iecimen Thickness (in) 1 .a Initial Moisture Content (%) 13 Final Moisture Content (%) 14 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 101.9 Final Dry Density (pcf) 112.6 Percent Collapse (%) 0.25 I Costa Pavilion irls bad, California Consalidati0niCollapse Test Results Costa Pavilion rlsbad, California 2 4 A c E iij a 9 C 0 '3 - 8 0 10 12 Southern Callfornia Geotechnieal 0.1 iject No. 01G216 -ATE C- 11 1 10 Load (ksf) <XM Nmm Haacodr Ltrest. Piulto io1 Anahaim. CaJiionila 921107 Phon.: (It4 7719139 Fu: (714) 7774938 100 Classification: FILL: Brown to Dark Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt, trace medium Sand ring Number: 6-1 2 mple Number: --- Pth (ft) 5 to 6 ecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 ecirnen Thickness (in) I .o Initial Moisture Content (%) I1 Final Moisture Content (%) 12 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 111.6 Final Dry Density (pcf) 123.5 Percent Collapse (%) 0.83 0 2 4 A E 2 5 -8 c -6 UJ C 0 -0 1- i 0 0 10 12 14 -a Costa Pavilion :arkbad, California 0.1 Southern California Geotechnkaf ConsolidatlodCollapse Test Results 'reject No. 01 G216 'LATE C- 12 1 10 Load (kf) 1280 North Hsncock Strosl, Sub 102 Mlm. calilmh $2607 Phone; (714) 77T-0933 Fax: (714) 3774316 100 Classification: FILL: Brown tu Dark Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt, trace medium Sand 3oring Number: e-i z Sample Number: --- 3epth (ft) 7 to 8 Specimen Diameter (in) 2.4 Specimen Thickness (in) 1 .o Initial Moisture Content (%) 8 Final Moisture Content (%) 13 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 103.9 Final Dry Density (pcf) 112.5 Percent Collapse (%) 1.04 . , . . . . . . .- .. .. 'he Pavilion at La Costa :ark bad, California 'roject No. 01 (3216 'LATE C-13 Mois?ure/Density Relationship ASTM tl-1557 Southern Callfornla Geoteehnlcal 1160 North MaClnceck %et SUI& 141 nrrshelm, Callfpmk 02807 Phone: L714177743sj Fax: l?~477?45BB 132 130 $28 126 124 122 120 118 116 114 112 1 IO 4 6 a 10 12 14 16 18 20 Molsture Content (%) Classification Sand I I (6-1 1 @ 0 to 3.5') I - . .- L Soil ID Number Optimum Moisture (%} Maximum Dly Density (pcf) MoisturdDensity Relationship ASTM 0-1557 B-I 2 9.5 129.5 146 144 142 138 136 134 132 130 128 126 124 Classification 0 2 4 8 8 10 12 14 Moisture Content {%) medium Sand (8-12 @ 5 to IO'] The Pavilion at La Costa >arkbad, California - __- -. -- ..- -. , - . -, Direct Shear Test Results 3ject No. Project No. 01 G216 ATE C-75 P t 5 P * Y 3 c u) T 12W N4rth Hancock Stred, Mtr 101 Amholm, Ccllfwrbb Wit07 PhQm: (714) 7774133 Fax: (1i4) 7IT.I)JBB 5ooo 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 0 1 Do0 2000 3000 4000 600 Normal Stress (psf) ~ %ak Jlbm -- 7 l ate] . .. _> - ,..- -- __ ~~ Sample Description: B-11 at 0 to 3.5 feet Classification: Silty fine to medium Sand Sample Data !molded Moisture Content 13 la1 Moisture Content !molded Dry Density 107.1 ial Dry Density ecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o *** rcent Compaction 0 Iecihen Diameter (in) 2.4 *** Test Results Peak Ultimate 33.0 33.0 430 200 e Pavilion at &a Costa rlsbad, California . .. . -- ___& . L -_.w_. .- he Pavilion at La Costa arlsbad, California 5000 4000 3aaa 2000 1000 a Southern Callfornla Oeotechnical Direct Shear Test Results raject No. Project No. 01 G216 'LATE GI6 0 1000 2000 3000 ruxH) 6000 Normal Stress (psr) 1260 Nnth HmCock WSt, 3UlU I01 Anaheim. CalMcmia 81eOT Plmns: (714) 7774333 Hx: vl4) 7770398 _. ".. .I . ,- Sample Description: 8-12 at 5 to 10 feet Classification: Clayey fine to medium Sand Sample Data emolded Moisture Content IO nal Moisture Content emofded Dry Density 21 6.6 nal Dry Density pecimen Diameter (in) 2.4 *** ercent Compaction 0 *a* pecimen Thickness (in) 1 .o Test Results Peak 33.0 425 Jltimate 33.0 200 APPENDIX D I GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS Grading Guide Specifications Page 1 GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading operations. They are intended to supplement the recornmendations contained in the geotechnical investigation report for this project. Should the recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report will govern. General + The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of ail earthwork in accordance wlth the plans and geotechnical reports, and in accordance with city. county, and Uniform Building Codes. The Geotechnical Engineer is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not intended to relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workrnan-like tnanner, nor is the GeotechnicaI Engineer to direct the grading equipment or personnel employed by the Contractor. The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify the Geatechnical Engineer of the anticipated work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may be stopped and redone if personnel have not been scheduled in advance. The Earthwork Contractor is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the job- site to process. moisture condition, mix and compact the amount of fill being placed to the specified compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report. Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation areas, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations, subdrains and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to placement of any fill. It is the Earthwork Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of areas that are ready for impection. Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide dralnage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation, springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working surface. The Geatechnical Engineer must be informed of springs or water seepage encountered during ~rading or foundation construction for possible revision to the recommended construction procedures and/or installation of subdrains. Site PreDaration The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site preparation for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineer. rn If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination. the Geatechnical Engineer and Owner/Builder should be notified immediately. Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off-site. This includes trees, brush, heavy grasses and any rnaterials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer. Grading Guide Specifications Page 2 Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septic disposal systems, mining shafts, tunrlels. wells and pipelines should be removed under the inspection of the Geotechnicel Engineer and recommendatians provided by the Geotechnical Engineer andlor city, county or state agencies. If such structures are known or found, the Geotechnical Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be farmulated. Any topsoil, slopewash, colluvium, alluvium and rock materials which are considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement. Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of trees, foundations basements, irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compacted fill. Subsequent to clearing and removals. areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of 10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slightly above the optimum moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing andlor discing. Comoabed Fills Soil materials imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided each material has been deterrnined to be suitable In the opinion of the Geotechnical Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. all fill materials shall be free of deleterious, organic. or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in the materlal being classified as “contaminated.” and shall be low to non-expansive with a maximum expansion index (El) of 50. The top 12 inches of the compacted fill should have a maxlmurn particle size of 3 inches, and all underlying compacted fill material a maximum 6- inch particle size, except as noted below. All soils should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer, Materials with high expansion potential. low strength, poor gradation or containing organic materials may require removal from the site or selective placement andor mlxing to the satisfaction of the Geotechnical Engineer. Rock fragments or rocks greater than 6 lnches should be taken off-site or placed in accordance with recommendatiotls and in areas designated as sultable by the Geatechnical Engineer. Acceptable methods typically include windrows. Oversize materials should not be placed within the range of excavation for foundations, utilities, or pools to facilitate excavations. Rock placement should be kept away fm slopes (miniinurn distance: 15 feet) to facilitate compaction near the slope. 0 Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed in areas previously prepared to receive RII and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 inches in loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optlmum moisture content, or slightly sbove, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing and/or drying, to evenly distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density in compliance with ASTM D-1557 unless otherwise indicated. Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer at random intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. These tests are intended 8s an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship, Grading Guide Specifications Page 3 equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report($) and governmental agencies. After compacted fills have been tested and approved by the Qeotechnical engineer, the contractor should moisture condition the soils as necessary to maintain the compacted moisture content. Compacted fill soils that are allowed to become overly dry or desiccated may require removal and/or scarification, moisture conditioning and replacement. Soils with medium to high expansion indices are especially susceptlble to desiccation. Sandy soils that are allowed to dry can also lose density Flll areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor snoutd notify the Geotechnical Engineer of hls Intent so that an evaluation can be made. Fill placed on ground sloping at a 540-1 inclination (horitontal-to-vertical) or steeper should be benched into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. Typical details of benching are illustrated on Plates G-2, G-4, and G-5. Cutlfill transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet and rebuilt with fjll (see Plate G-l), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. All cut lots should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fracturing and other bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration. Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture penetration. Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used in the design. Foundations The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the outside edge of a footing, and then proceeding downward at a K horizontat to 1 vertical (0.5:l) inclination. Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conducted so as to encompass the entire foundation Influence zone, as described above. Compacted fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 Inches above foundation bearing grade. Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to the floor subgrade elevation. Fill Slooes The placement and compaction of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the compacted core. Slope cornpaction may also be achleved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4 vertical feet during the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and cornpaction equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope canstmction, the Grading Guide Specifications Page 4 slops face should be compacted with a sheepsfoot connected to a sidebvorn and then grid rolled. This method of slope compaction should only be used if approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. 0 Sandy soils lacking in adequate cohesion may be unstable for a finished slope condition and therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face. All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrockor other suitable material. Fill keys should be at least 15 feet wide and inclined at 2 percent into the slope. For slopes higher than 30 feet, the fill key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slope (see Plate G-5). All fill keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection and should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and governmental agencies prior to filling. The cut portion of fill over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the GeotechnicaI Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be adequately keyed through all surficial soils and into bedrock or suitable material. Soils should be removed from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate G-2). Cut S loaes - 0 -- Subldrains a All cut slopes should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor shocrld notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope cutting is in progress at intervals of 10 vertlcal feet, Feilure to notify may result in a delay In recommendations. Cut slopes exposing loose, cohesionless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations. All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate G-5. Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdrains. Typical subdrain details are shown on Plates G-6. Subdrains may be required in canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical subdrain details for canyons are shown an Plate (3-3. Subdrains should be installed after approva! of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer. Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SDR 35 or equivalent. Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a squarecut (backhoe) trench or as recommended by the manufacturer. Filter material for subdrains should conform to CALTRANS Speclficatian 68-1.025 or as approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean %-inch crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped in an acceptable filter doth and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe diameters should be 6 inches for runs up to 500 feet and 8 inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four-Inch diameter pipe may be used in buttress and stabilization fills. CUT LOT LCOMPETEECT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE TO THE SOtC ENGINEER CUT FILL LOT (TRANSITION) TRANSITION LOT DETAIL PLATE G-I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1 I I I I I I CuflFlLL CONTACT SHOWN COMPACTED FILL ON QRAOING PUN c1IT/FILL COhTACT 10 HE SHOIHH ON 'ASWIW COUQETEHl MATERIA1 YATURAL GRADE 4- (WHICHEVER IS GREATER) CUT SLOPE TO eE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FIU KMnrliY IN COMPErENT MAT- €RIAL MINIMUM WlOTM OF 15 FEET OR AS REMMUENDEO BY THli SOIL ENGINEER FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL PLATE G-2 . 6' DiAMETER PERFORATE0 PIPE - MINIHUM 1X SLOPE PIPE DEPTH OF FILL MATER1 At OVER SUBDRAIN ADS [ CORRUfiA'ttD POLETIiY LENE' v TRANS I TE UNDERDRAIN 20 PVC OR ABS: SDR 35 35 SO! 21 100 SCHEMATIC ONLY NOT TO SCALE CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL 1 - - P PLATE G-4 I- 'FICTER MATERIAL' TO MEfl FOLLOWING SPEQFI- lCATION OR API'AOMD EQUIVALENT: (CONFORMS TO AWROWD fQUlVALEMT: U~WM '€MA STD. PUW 323) 'GMfiL* TO MEET FOLLOWlWG SPECIFlUlION OR SIM SlZE ERCENTAGE PASSING SI@€ SlZE PERCENTAGE PASSING 1" 100 1 H' I# Y4" *lOa rrb, 4 50 M' 46100 I#L 200 6 No. 4 25-40 SAW NO. I 18-33 NO. 30 5-15 NO. 50 a-7 NO. 200 63 MWVhLEN'f 1 UINIMUM QF 50 FILER WATERMI. - MINIMUM OF FIVE CUBE FEEt PER MOT OF APL SEE A8oyE WR FLLTER UAlERiAl SPEQFI- CATION. ALIERNATNE: IN UEU Of FILER MAT- ERW FM CUM FEET OF GFUVEL EA MOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASE0 IN FILTER FABRIC. SEE ABOVE FOR GRAVEL SPECIWWN. FILER FABRIC SHAU 3E MlW 140 OR EQUNALENT. FIlKfi fA8RtC SHALL aE UPPED A LIINIMW OF 12 INCHES I STA@llLIZATION FILL SUBDRAINS I - ! PLATE G-6 -. -* 3' NRCAL 8UNKET FILL If RECOUUENDED BY WE Soli €HGtHEER OUPnENT MATERM1 MIYI~UW HEGHT OF BENCHES IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOM- 15' Minimum or f; Slope Height STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL PLATE G-5 Southern California Geotechnical APPENDIX E UBCSEIS AND FRISKSP COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT I I COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS JOB NUMBER.: 010214 DATE: 10-26-2001 JOB NAME: The Pavilion LC FAULT-DATA-PILE NAME: CDMUUJ3CR.DAT SITE COOR1)INATES : SITE LATITUDE: 33,0710 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2642 UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 UBC SOIL 1?ROFILE TYPE: SD NEAREST TYPE A FAWLT: NAME: ELSINORE-JIJLIAN DISTANCE: 41.3 km NWST TfPB B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 8.0 km NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME : DISTAN2E: 99999.0 ktn SELECTED 'UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.0 Nv: 1.1 ca: 0.44 CV: 0.69 TO: 0.126 TB: 0.628 *Y***********f**f****~~~~~*******f*~~~**~~*~**R**********~*~*nkU**~* * * CAUTION: The digitized data pointsi used to model faults are * BCale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). consequently, x limited in number and have been digitized from small- * * * the estimated fault-site-distances may be in error by * * several kilometers. Therefore, it ie important that * + the distances be carefully checked €or accuracy and * * adjusted as needed, before Lhey are ueed in deeign. * *****~*****t***********R**f***~**********~~~~***~~nnu~****t~**** Page 1 _________rr-________----~-~~---------------------------~------------------~-~-- 1 APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT ABBREVLATED JDISTANCEJ TYPE J MAG. I RATE I TYPE FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C)~ (MW) I (mm/yr, I (SS,DS,ST) ====;====------r~LI==========r===1==~====~~-=l~~=====~===- -tr I .PPEI====I===&==&=== ROSE CNJYCtN ] 8.0 I B I 6.9 I 1.50 I ss NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD {Offshore) 1 18.0 I B I 6.9 I 1-50 I 66 CORONADO EANK 32.1 I E 1 7.4 I 3.00 I SS ELSINORE -JULIAN 1 41.3 } A I 7.1 I 5.00 1 SS ELSINORE -T'EMECULA 1 41.3 I B I 6.8 I 5.00 I SS ELSINORE-GLEN IVY { 64.1 I B I 6.8 I 5.00 I SS EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 1 64.8 I B I 6.5 1 2.00 I SS PALOS VERCES 1 67.0 I B 1 7.1 I 3.00 I SS S.W JACINTO-ANZA I 78.0 I A 1 7.2 I 12.00 I SS SAN JACIN'IO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY I 81,l I B I 6.9 I 12.00 I $9 SAN JACINTD-COYOTE CREEK I 82.5 I B I 6.8 I 4.00 I SS ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN I 84.9 I B I 6+8 I 4.00 I SS NEWPORT-INOLEWOOD (L .A. Baf3hi) I 85.5 I €3 I 6.9 I 1.00 I SS CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I 87.5 I B I 6,7 I 1.00 DS ELSINORE-WHITTIER I 93.7 I B 1 6,8 I 2.50 I SS SAN JACINII'O - BORREGO 1 100.7 I B I 6.6 I 4.00 I $S SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO I 105.2 1 B I 6.7 I 12.00 I SS SAN ANDREAS - Southern I 110.2 1 A I 7.4 I 24.00 I 5.5 PINTO MOUNTAIN 1 120.8 I B 1 7.0 I 2.50 I SS SAN JOSE I 120.8 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS CUCAMONGA I 124.7 I A I 7.0 1 5-00 1 DS SIERM WRE (Central) I 125.1 I E I 7.0 I 3.00 I DS SUPERSTITION MTN. (safi JaClntO) I 125.4 I B 1 6.6 I 5-00 1 SS BURNT MTN. 1 127.6 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I L31+4 I B I 7.0 I 1-00 1 DS ELMORE RANCH I 131.5 I 3 I 6.6 I 1.00 I SS EUREKA PEAK I 132.0 I B 1 6.5 I 0.60 I SS SUPERSTITION HILLS ($an Jacinto) I 133.1 I B 1 6.6 I 4.00 I SS CLEGHORN I 133.8 I B 1 6.5 I 3.00 I SS ELSINORE-LAULJNA SALADA I 134.4 I B I 7.0 I 3.50 I SS NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 137.5 I B 1 6.7 I 0.50 I DS SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture I 140.0 1 A 1 7.8 I 34.00 I SS RAYMOND I 140.1 I B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT I 140.4 I B I 6.5 1 0.50 I DS VERDUGO 1 144.1 I B I 6.7 I 0.50 I DS LANDERS I 144.9 1 B I 7.3 I 0.60 I SS HOLLYWOOD I 147.3 1 B I 6.5 I 1.00 I DS BRAWLEY SEISMTC ZONE I 148.3 1 B I 6.5 1 25.00 I SS HELENDALE - S. MCKHARDT I 149.1 I B I 7.1 1 0.60 I SS LENWOOD-LCCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS I 154.2 I B I 7.3 I 0.60 1 SS SANTA MONICA 1 154.9 I 3 f 6.6 I 1.00 I DS EMERSON SC. - COPPER MTN. 1 157.1 1 B 1 6.9 I 0.60 I SS JOH~ISON VPLLEY (Northern) I 158.2 1 B I 6.7 I 0.60 I SS IMPERIAL I 158.9 1 A I 7.0 I 20.00 I SS MALIBU COPST I 159.2 I B 1 6.7 1 0.30 I DS SIERRA WRE (san Fernando) I 165.0 I B I 6.7 1 2.00 I DS Page 2 ___*l___-r-_----___-______________l_r___--------_--- I APPROX.~SOWRCE I ABBREVIATED /DISTANCE[ TYPE I FAULT NAME I (kmf I (A,B,C) I =ES-----------l"=ll==~----------- I-_-----_---__ -----------I========I--~=~==l PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK I 166.6 1 B 1 ANACAPA-DUME I 167.6 1 B 1 SAN GABRIEL I 167.9 I B I CALICO - HIDALGO 1 170.9 I B 1 HOLSER I 189.4 1 B 1 SIMI-SANTA ROSA I 197.0 I B I OAK RIDGE (onshore) I 197.8 [ B I SAN CAYETANO ] 206.2 1 E I BLACKWATER I 218.4 I B I VENrrJRA - PITAS POINT I 225.1 1 B I SA.NTA YNEZ (East } I 226.0 I B I SANTA CRUZ ISLAND I 233.3 I E I M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA I 7-35.8 I 3 I RED MOUNTAIN I 239.1 I B I GARLOCK (West) I 242.0 I A I PLEITO THR.UST I 247.6 I B I BIG PINE I 253.4 I B I GARLOCK (E:as t ) I 256.1 I A I SANTA ROSA ISLAND I 268.0 I 3 I WHITE WOLF 1 Z6B.O I B 1 SO. SIERRA NFVADA I 280.4 I B I OWL LA= I 284.2 1 B I PANAMINT VALLEY I 284.5 I B I LITTLE LAm I 284.6 I B I DEATH VALLEY (South) I 292.4 I B I LOS A'WllOS-W. BASELINE I 313.1 B I LIONS HEN1 I 330.7 I B I SAN LUIS IWUE (S. Margin) 340,4 I B 1 sm JUAN 1 341.2 I B CASMALIA (Oxcutt Frontal Fault) I 348.8 I B 1 LOS osos I 370.5 I B I HOSGRI I 376.4 I B I HUNTER MTld. - SALINE VALLEY I 379.1 I B I DEATH VALLEY (Northern) I 388.2 I A I INDEPENDENCE I 389.2 I B I RINCONADA I 391.5 I B I BIRCH CRElEK I 445.6 1 €3 I SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 1 447.8 I B I WHITE MOUNTAINS I 450*0 I B 1 DEEP SPRINGS 468.4 I B 1 SRNTA SUSANA 1 180.5 1 B 1 QIUVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE I 202.9 I B I SANTA YNEZ (West) 1 270.9 I B I TANK CANYCIN 1 285.8 [ B I DEATH VALIJEY (Graben) I 334.5 I B I OMENS VALLEY I 353.3 I B I MAir. 1 SLXP 1 FAULT MAG. I RATE I TYPE {MW) I (rnm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT) --_--- --_--- /=rlll----(---------- --I- ---------- 7.1 1 0.60 I SS 7.3 1 3.00 1 DS 7.1 I 0.60 I SS 6.6 1 5.00 1 DS 6.5 1 0.40 1 DS 6,7 I 1.00 1 DS 6.9 [ 4.00 [ DS 6.9 I 0.60 1 SS 6.8 I 6.00 I DS 6.9 I 0,60 I SS 6.8 f 1.00 I DS 6.8 I 1-00 DS 6.7 I 0.40 I IJS 6.8 I 2.00 / DS 7.1 I 6.00 I SS 6.8 1 2.00 I DS 6.7 / 0.80 I SS 6.9 I 1.00 1 DS 7.2 1 2.00 1 DS 6.9 I 2.00 I SS 6.5 I 2.00 I SS 7.2 I 2-50 I SS 6.7 I 0.70 I SS 6.5 f 1.00 I DS 6.9 I 4.00 I SS 6*B I 0.70 1 DS 6.6 1 0.02 I DS 6.9 I 4.00 I DS 7.0 1 0.20 I DS 6+5 I 0.25 I DS 7.6 I 1-50 I SS 6.8 1 0,50 1 DS 7.3 I 2.50 SS 7.0 I 1.00 I ss 7.0 I 2.00 I ss 7.3 1 7.00 1 ss 7.1 I 0.10 I ns 7.0 I 1.00 I ss 7.0 I 2-50 J ss 7.2 I 5.00 1 ss 6.9 1 0.20 1 DS 6.5 I 0.70 1 DS 7.3 I 1.00 I ss 5.0 I 34.00 I ss 7.1 I 1.00 ss 6.6 I 0.80 I DS ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME ==II--P=ELSIEI=I=============~===~--, DEATH VALLEY (N. Of Cucamongo) ROUND VALLEY (E. Of 3. N.MtnS. ) FISH SLOUGH HILTON CREEK KnRTLEY SE'AINGS ORTIGALITA CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveraa Res) MONTEREY ELAY - TULARCITOS PAL0 COLOFADO - sm QUIEN SAEE; MONO LAKE ZAYANTE - VElRGELES SAN ANDREAS (1906) S ARGENT ROBINSON CREEK SAN GREUOFLIO GREENVJLLE: HAYWARD ($;E Extension) ANTELOPE VALLEY HAYWRRD (Total Length) CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) MONTE VISTA - SHANNON GErNOA CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY RODUERS CFtEEK WEST NAPA POINT REYEZS HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA MAACAMA {South) COLLAYOMI BARTLETT SPRINGS MnACN (Central) MAACAMA (North) ROW VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) BATTLE CREEK LAKE MOUNTAIN MENDOCIN0 FAULT ZONE LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) MAD RIVER CASC&DIA SUBDUCTION ZONE MCKINLEWTLLE GARBERVILLE -ERICELAND TRINIDAD FICKLE HILL TABLE BLUFF LITTLE SALMON (Of €Shore) AP PRQX . DISTANCE (l-4 ps;;-.==== 473.2 480.8 488.5 506.9 531.3 532.2 537.8 540.4 541.3 551.0 567.3 569.6 574.0 574.9 598.6 615.8 624.6 625.0 625.1 639.0 644.8 644 - 8 664 + 4 692.5 731.3 732.2 750.2 754 - 6 794.1 811.0 835.7 901.4 924 - 6 977 - 0 1033.3 1039.9 1047.0 1053.1 1054.6 1055.1 1060.5 1073.5 814.4 895.2 959. a 1042.7 SOURCE TYPE (A, B, C) A B B B B B B B B B B B A B B A B B B B A B B B A B E B B B A A A B B E B A A B A B B B B B -_-..I - ______ MAX. MAG. (Mw) ==mm.= 7.0 6.8 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.9 6.2 7.1 7.0 6.5 6.6 6.8 7.9 6. E 6.5 7.3 6.9 6.5 6.5 6.7 7.1 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.0 6.5 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.5 7.1 7*1 7.1 6.8 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.4 7,0 7.1 7.0 7.3 6.9 7.0 7.1 a.3 SLIP RATE (mm/yr) E======== 5.00 1.00 0.20 2.50 0.50 1.00 15.00 0.50 3.00 1.00 2.50 0.10 24 .QO 3.00 0.50 5.00 2.00 0.40 3.00 0.80 9.00 6.00 1.00 6.00 9. 00 1.00 0.30 6.00 9.00 0.60 6.00 9.00 9.00 6.00 0.50 6.00 9.00 35.00 5.00 0.70 35.00 0.60 2.50 0.60 0.60 1.00 FAULT TYPE (SS,DS,BT) SS DS DS DS DS ss ss DS ss ss DS SS ss ss ss ss DS ss DS SS SS DS ss SS ss DS ss ss ss 6s ss ss ss DS ss ss DS QS DS DS DS DS DS DS DS _______--I _______-__ ns I I I \ -..- 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 -I- 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 v- 0 0 0 7 0 0 r 0 m 7 0 Lo 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Acceleration (g) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 'F 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 rn cv 0 0 0 c U 0 0 r I I I I E I I I B E I 0 I I 1 8 I 1 I 0,OO 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 Acceleration (g) I I I 1 RHC4 BALTOU PXGP. DIBT (hm) 1.000 0.(100 UFLT NBIYE IyPRaLI MTl LLm 15 1 1 6 1 ATT Cl C2 c3 CLQ 1 -3,5126 0.5040 -1.3380 0 - ovvv IWK Am 015 c'16 C17 1 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Arr CI C2 E3 c14 0.0000 2 -3.51217 0.3040 -1,>2a0 dW C15 (16 1x7 a 0.0000 0.0009 0.0000 I CHK ATP Cl ca CZ CL4 0.0000 dlT Cl5 c'16 C17 ICW 3 0.b000 0.0000 0.0000 ATP Cl c2 c3 C14 -3.5i20 0.3040 -1.3280 0.0OdO 3 -3.51~~ 0.9040 -1.1280 am C15 C'16 C17 ICHK 4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 AlT C1 c2 c3 C14 0.0000 A7-T C15 C16 C17 b -1.5110 0.9040 1.3300 ICHX 5 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Am c1 ca CI cia 0.DOOb 6 -3.5110 0.3040 -1.i2kO c4 C5 C6 e7 CB CP c10 0.1490 0.6470 0.0000 0.0000 O.bbb0 0.0000 0-OOOG Cle. C19 c10 ca 1 Cll C2 3 gPR 0.0000 b.0uOO 0.0GUO 0.0000 0.0006 0,0000 0.0000 3.0000 c4 CS C6 Cf ce c9 no 0.1490 0.6470 1.0000 0.0000 0.0010 O.0OVO 0.0000 ClB c19 CI 0 cai cia c23 PER 0.0OVO O.OOh4 0.0000 0.9000 0.0000 O.Obb0 0.0060 3.0000 C4 D C6 c7 CB c9 ClO 0.1490 0.6470 0.0000 0.00QO 0.0000 D.OObO 0.0000 ClB Cl9 cz0 c21 c11 a3 PER 0.0000 0.0000 6.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0,bbOU 0.0000 3.0000 C* c5 C6 c7 Cb c9 Cl 0 0.1430 0.6470 1.0000 0.0000 0.blhb 0.00QO 0.0000 ClB C19 CI 0 cai C12 Ct3 PEP 0.ooao 0.bhOO 0.0000 0.VOOO 0.0000 O.bbb0 0.0000 3.0000 e4 c5 C6 c7 CB 129 c10 0.1490 0.6470 a.0o0o o.oooo 0.0000 6.0000 0-OOVQ C18 c19 c10 L-2 1 C22 C23 PER 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.6000 0.0000 0.0000 3.0000 c4 cs C6 c7 cn c9 c10 0.1490 0.6370 1.0000 O.OOd0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 c11 0.0000 MHIN 1.0006 c11 0,0440 DSHIN 1.0000 $11 0 .oooo DWIN 1.0000 c11 0.0000 -IN I.0000 Cll 0.0000 WIN 1.0000 c11 0.0000 cia h.bOO0 81M I? a2 0.0000 6 ;ah 37 cn 0. OOOO STCIP. 37 c12 0.0000 SiM 37 c12 0.0000 Slum 37 cia 0.0006 C11 0 I 0000 IRELAF 0 C13 o.oooa IRBLRP 0 c13 0 .oooo IRbtLF 0 C13 0.0060 ItltLhP 0 C13 o.ooao IRELAP 0 c13 0.0000 n I I ATT CLS C 16 C17 CLLl 09 ca o ca1 caz C23 PER uwn srm IEETAE IMK 6 O.QC00 0.0000 (r.@OtM O.OOQ@ P.0000 O.OOD0 6.6060 0.MIUO 9.0000 0.0000 7.0060 1,0000 37 0 PROBLEM DATA: CAMP. L BOZ. (1997 Rev.) AL 1 AHPLIlVDESr 15 0.100 6.300 0.300 0.400 0.500 0.660 0.700 0.800 0.900 1.000 1.100 1.200 1.301 1.aOO 1-500 HAcHI7lJ'P6 NBICHrUW FACTOLSI RNPt Q MWP WAGNLTUDEa 0.00 CA'IP. R02. (1947 UP-! AL 2 hMHPL1TIJOE~~ I5 0.100 B.3Ob 0.300 0.400 0.500 8.661 0.700 0.810 D.900 1.000 ~.iw 1.200 1.3oa 1.400 1.500 MLRIXTTVDE WEI(;tF~IW FACXORS. HWP. 3 MW NAWITUaEi '7.50 n16X6 SPECIPIED. 5 0.01oaoo 0.60%105 a. ooiooo 0.006500 SITE ~0080116~~~6 I 1 -117.2642 33-0710 FAULT IUFORMATIOfli BAULT 1 a 3 4 5 6 7 a 890KEkT WRDlNATSb' -117.1335 32 -7074 -117.1125 32.8277 -117.2610 31.6577 -117.11176 31.7642 -ai7.3078 32.9646 -117.3178 33 .OOBII -117.4a47 z.1993 -117.3763 33.0848 WV mL ATWtNIiTION CODES i 6 10 13 WIM MBTEP IWX RATE 8E7A Gcra ECDP C'XF S.b(I0 0.1000 1 1 1000 3.0'12 3.300 2.000 1.000 r(Nw:WMX PnaY 1 6.90 1,OU *. PAULT 3 FAULT NWl CORONAPO kaux MlN WUTIEP IRATE UTE BETA KTV. BCDP COEP s.000 o.iooo I 3-0000 1.0-u 9.200 a.000 1.000 rnJ3lmD.Y. PW 1 7.40 1.00 3 10 13 fdW4IlJ AMSTLP IMTE WTE BPTR EWP @3EF t.ooa o.106~ 1 S.OOOO a 072 3.700 >.ooa 1.000 ?lMAx AMW PKW. 1 7-10 1.ou FAULT SWDiT CM)RlJIDIATES 1 -111.0134 33.3770 2 -116.3620 32.9650 Wl?P 1 QRlQIdAL FhULT CROSS EECPION 1 n.0000 4.0000 a 0.~000 1s.ouoo Cwlb6utad Total Elult Area - 0.11E+Q4 __.._____..._ . .. ---. FAULT 5 IAULT M6r CLSZMORS:-l7RdECIlLA JlaShar qcbar dnpchbr' 0.56 6.30 :L.OO t' I I Ruenma AREA va. WIYI~S A-FD. E-= r~o-m -3.490 PAULT SWENT CWILDIlYATeS 1 -116.4167 13.0761 2 -116.4370 33.1113 3 ,116.L115 33.lBL7 HDP 2 ORIGINAL FAULT CEO88 SECTION i 0.OUOU O.ObO0 2 0.0010 15.0000 Cnmputed Total Fault &res - O.l@E+O3 FAULT & PAULT WBi PW VEILDEB NPP VRL ATTENUATION COUEYr 4 10 13 0.910 0.240 . UBP urn AlTWUhTrCJN CQDRSc 3 10 13 WIN AldbTEP TRA7P RATE BETA ECIR ECDP COBP 5.000 9.1000 113.0660 2.072 4.500 2.000 1.000 mAx Ahxu mnx 1 7.20 t.00 o.sia 0.240 YYP NRL ATTl?WhTlQN CQOBBx 3 ID 13 ALMIN MBTEi' IFATE UTE BBTA ECTP PCDP CUEP 5.00U 0.1003 1 12.0000 2.072 2.101 3.000 1-000 WXrnMRX FIuJ[ i 6.90 1.00 61UI.T SEmXNT CWRLIINATBY 2 -117.1333 3a.Ul67 1 -116.9170 33-7400 i -117.a170 34.0170 1mc a ORKINAL FPULT CROSS BPCTICIX 1 0.0000 0.0000 I 0.0000 1a.oooo COn@uCed 'total Fault Arcr - O177EtU3 ......................................................... GAULT 11 PAULT ICMB, W JACINTO-CQYWE WEK NFV URL AlTENUATIOW o(rDkS& a io 13 WIN AMETEP I~TE WTE BFPA sc-m Erne CCIEP 6.000 0.1000 1 4-0000 2.D72 1.000 2.000 1.000 ta4aXm PNax 1 6.00 1.00 m-nL 2 WRTURC W.m V$, MGNIV.IDE A-IU R-RA EIG-RJI -3.490 0-910 FAULT PEONEWT foOMIIAZ'E(S 1 -116.5020 31.4570 2 -116.1940 33.2000 I(0P OllUlUI\L FhVLT CPWa BECTION 1 1 a .a000 o, bo00 3 0.0800 35.0000 Computed Total YdUlt hrer I 0.61Er03 ................................. , ................................. FAULT 12 FAULT NAME, WIGINOhE-CVYOT& MQVNTAIET 0.240 .... (I .2dQ RUPTURE AWA VS. WNI’IWE A-RA B-lu SIC-M -3.430 0.310 0.240 Pn5LT SEl3lENT CUORDIWTEB 1 116.3610 36.9650 2 -116.0060 32.7791, NPP rl ORIGINW. FAULT cposa BSCVIO~ 1 U.OD0Q 0-OPOD 1 O.ODO0 15.0bUQ Ccaputcd Total Fault = 0-$?6*01 .. . NPC' URL ATIQNA'PTON COJESr a io 24 MIN AMbil'EF IRATI? PATE BETA Em ECEIP EnEP 5.000 0-1000 :l 1.0000 2.072 1.600 1.001) 1.000 mAxm;w. max 1 6.70 1.06 NUQ mL ATTENWA'TION WlXSsl 1 10 13 MMlN AH:XZP IUTX RATE BKTA ErXR ECUP COW 5.000 0.1800 :l 2.5008 2.072 1.800 2.000 1.000 UMAXYMIX PHU 1 6.80 J.00 I".=. a 0.00506 W-RA -1.49a 0.910 0.~~0 SITE 1 CUUWfNATESr -117.265: 13.0710 we. & DOZ. (1997 XllV-I AL I I I 8 I~TXIVL~ UWP. I -1.918 -1.5ia -1.156 -om7 -0.646 EETIUATED MP. (g) I 0.14690 0.21272 0.31469 0.41196 0.5tl340 I 8 I I I LD-IMiP - - . - - - - -. 8 -0 18 .o 32.1 41.3 41.3 64.1 64.8 67.1 78.0 81.1 82.5 04.9 85.6 88.U 33.7 CIIIST . . .-- a.5 18.3 32.2 41.4 41.4 64.2 64-9 67.2 79.9 81.2 82.6 114.9 95.7 88.1 93.a CLUPTL 9.9 1d.b 32.1 61,3 41.3 G4.i 64.8 t7.1 78.a 81.1 63.5 84.9 85.6 0b.l 93.7 . . . . . . -. CD-hTPQ . . . . . -. . 8.1 lul 19.1 km 32.3 km 41.3 km 41.5 km 64-9 LIP 64.4 kd 68.0 *a 18.0 kin k1.G lrrn B2.R ha 85.9 lun 89.1 km 94.3 krk 86.7 )w 8 li APPENDIX F UQUEFACTlON ANALYSIS SPEClFlCATIONS c- I I I Factor of Safely Cylclic Stress Rah Induced by Design Earthquake Cylclic Stress Ratio Liquefaction (Mz7.5) - tocause e Cylclic Stress Ratio - to Cause Liquefactioo (M=7.5) Stress Reduction - Coefficient (r,) Sffectlve Overburden Stress (a,,') (PSr) Overburden Stress (rr,) (psr) RodLength - correction I ' Depth to Midpoint (ft) I i C 2 Faclor of Safety Cyidlc Stress Ratio Induced by Design Earlhquake Cylclic Stress Ratio .Iquefadion (Mz7.5) - to Cause ?? 11 I1 I I I. Cylclic Stress Ratio Aquefaction (M=7.5) 3feetive Overburden Stress (oo') Overburden Stress 4 REVISED VERDURA 40 WALL DESIGN PAVIUON AT LA COSTA 1935 Calle Barcelona Carlsbad, California for Soil Retention Systems, Inc. Southern California Geotechnical Soil Retention Systems, Inc. 1907 Apple Street, Suite #8 Oceanside, California 92045 March 7,2003 Project No. 03G 1 16-2 Attention: Mr. Bob Edwards Subject: Revised Verdura 40 Wall Design Pavilion at La Costa 1935 Calle Barcelona Ca ris bad , California Gentlemen: In accordance with your request, this report has been prepared to present the revised design and supporting calculations for the proposed Verdura 40 segmental retaining wall to be constructed at the subject site. The previously prepared design has been revised to include the use of Mirafi 10XT geogrid reinforcement as an alternative to Mirafi 8XT geogrid. Based on a review of the grading plan prepared by Mayers and Associates Civil Engineering, Inc., the proposed Verdura wall will be constructed along the southern perimeter of the subject site. The proposed Verdura wall will be constructed along the southern perimeter of the subject site, adjacent to and below the proposed parking lot and drive areas. This wall has been designed to facilitate a maximum exposed height of 16.52 feet. The proposed wall has been designed with a minimum embedment of 1.5 feet, resulting in a maximum overall height of 182 feet. Based on the grading plans provided for our review, the topography both above as well as below the proposed wall will be level. In addition, based on the proposed parking and drive areas above the proposed Verdura wall, this wall has been analyzed with a live load surcharge of 240 psf. The proposed wall has been designed with Miragrid IOXT geogrid as the primary reinforcement. This geogrid has been assigned a long-term design strength of 41 16 Ib./ft. by the grid manufacturer, TC Mirafi. In addition, this wall has been designed with supplemental geosynthetic reinforcement utilizing the Posi-Dura connection and Mirafi HS667 geosynthetic. These designs have been prepared in general accordance with ICBO Report No. 5515. Due to the presence of geogrid reinforcement, any proposed improvements behind the proposed Verdura walls should be limited in depth to 12 inches below the proposed finished grade at the top of the wall. Any damage to the geogrid reinforcement will require removal of the segmental wall units in the damaged area and replacement of the damaged geogrid reinforcement. Recommended soil strength parameters have been provided by the geotechnical engineer of record, MTGL, Inc. Based on the recommended soil strength parameters, the proposed Verdura wall has been designed with an internal angle of friction of 33 degrees, a 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 Anaheim, California 92807-1951 (714) 777-0333 Fax (714) 777-0398 c c c cohesion of 200 psf, and a unit weight of 125 pcf, for the reinforced, retained, and foundation zones. It is recommended that these soils consist of a granular material with a maximum fines content (those materials passing the No. 200 sieve) of 30 percent by weight. The actual soil strength parameters should be verified by the geotechnical engineer of record for the project. In addition, the geotechnical engineer of record has provided a design seismic acceleration of 0.27g for use in the design and analysis of the proposed Verdura walls. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Should you have any questions regarding this information, please contact us at your earliest convenience. Respectfully Submitted, Southern Californla Geotechnical, Inc. By-*- JamekM. Kellogg " " Project, Engineer Enclo&res: \I Appendix A - References Appendix B - Stability Analysis Plate 1 - Verdura Wall Notes Plate 2 - Verdura 40 Wall Plan and Profile Plate 3 - Verdura 40 Wall Cross Section and Details Distribution: (2) Addressee (3) Esgil Corporation Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA Project No. 03G116-2 Page 2 APPENDIX A REFERENCES P F- c c REFERENCES 1) Design Manual for Segmental Retaining Walls, Second Edition, 1997, National Concrete and Masonry Association. 2) "Verdura Wall Design Parameters, The Pavilion at La Costa, 1935 Calle Barcelona, Carlsbad, California", prepared MTGL, Inc., dated December 30, 2002, Project No. 31 15-AOI. c e APPENDIX B STABILITY ANALYSIS c c Project Name Profile ID Location Project Number Date INPUT DESIGN PARAMETERS SOIL PARAMETERS Reinforced Soil VERDURA 40 WALL ANALYSIS Per NCMA Design Manual Second Edition Retained Soil Foundation Soil WALL GEOMETRY PROPERTIES Exposed Height Depth of Embedment Total Height Wall Batter Angle Backslope Angle Seismic Acceleration External Loads Input Parameters 03G116-1 V40 Wall Pavilion at La Costa V40 Wall South Perimeter 3/5/2003 03Gll6-2 Internal Angle of Friction Unit Weight Cohesion Interface Friction Angle Internal Angle of Friction Unit Weight Cohesion Interface Friction Angle Internal Angle of Friction Unit Weight Cohesion Bearing Capacity Factors: 4f = Yf = c,= N, = N, = N, = 125 pcf 200 psf 38.64 135.19) H' = 16.5 ft Hernb = ~~ H= 18.0 ft a= 14.0 O Horizontal ah = 0.27 g Vertical a, = 0.00 g Live 91 = 240.0 psf Dead qd = 0.0 psf P= Southern California Geotechnical Page 1 WALL BLOCK PROPERTIES Block Width (front to back) Block Height (top to bottom) Block to Block Shear Capacity Block Weight GRID PROPERTIES AND LENGTHS Coefficient of Direct Sliding (Note: Grids are numbered from bottom to top) Total Number of Grids Grid No. Number of Blocks Grid Grid LTDS to Grid Below Length Type 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.5 MIOXT MIOXT MIOXT MIOXT MIOXT MIOXT MIOXT MIOXT Nominal Grid Length (Minimum) L= 14.5 Notes: Minumum Grid Length is 0.6 * Wall Height Minimum Embedment: H'/20 H'/lO H'ff Input Parameters 03G116-1 V40 Wall 41 16 41 16 41 16 41 16 41 16 41 16 41 16 41 16 ft vu = Mu = (Horizontal Toe Slope) (3h: 1 v Toe Slope) (2h: lv Toe Slope) Southern California Geotechnical Page 2 c c Grid No. Grid Elev. c STATIC SEISMIC FSGo I -Po I FSSL FSGO I FspO I FSSL c c P c P c c- P SUMMARY OF FACTORS OF SAFETY: CHECK FOR MINIMUM EMBEDMENT (0.6H) OK EXTERNAL - STATIC Factor of Safety Against Base Sliding: Factor of Safety Against Overturning: Factor of Safety Against Bearing Capacity Failure: EXTERNAL - SEISMIC Factor of Safety Against Base Sliding: Factor of Safety Against Overturning: Factor of Safety Against Bearing Capacity Failure: INTERNAL 5.98 11.79 12.37 3.65 5.40 17.41 Factors of Safety Against Grid Overstress, Pullout and Internal Sliding: 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.01 12.01 14.01 16.01 Summary 03G116-1 V40 Wall Southern California Geotechnical Page 3 c EXTERNAL STABILITY CALCULATIONSSTATIC ANALYSIS CALCULATE COULOMB FAILURE ANGLES Internal 52.4 " External 51.5 " Calculate the width of reinforced zone at wall crest: L'= L-w, L'= 14.5 - 1 L' = 13.50 Calculate additional width of reinforced zone at top of backslope: L"= L' tan p tan Q 1 -(tan p *tam) L"= L"= 0.00 13.5 tan0" tanl4" / (1 - tan0" tanl4") Calculate total width of reinforced zone at top of backslope: L, = L'+y L, = 13.5 + 0 L, = 13.50 Calculate maximum height of backslope above the reinforced zone: h= L,tan$ h= 13.5 tan0" h= 0.00 (Eq. 5-1) (Eq. 5-2) (Eq. 5-3) (Eq. 5-4) Calculate the active earth pressure as the sum of the earth pressure due to retained soil plus pressure due to surcharge: Pa(H) = ps(H) + pq(H) (Eq. 5-11) (Eq. 5-6) (Eq. 5-8) cos2(+, +o) (Eq. 3-11) cos(0 -6,)coso +p) Ka(.W= COS2 0 cos(0 - 6, Ka(ext) = Ka(ext) = 0.173 cosA2(33" + 14")/{cos*2(14")cos(14" - 33") [l +sqrt [ (sin(33" + 33") *sin(33" - O"))/(cos(l 4" -33")cos(l4" + Oo))]]A2} I Output Form 03G116-1 V40 Wall Southern California Geotechnical Page 4 ps(H) = 0.5 * 0.173 * 125 * (1 8 + 0)Y * COS(33" - 14") Ps(H) = 331 8 Pq(H) = (240 + 0) 0.173 * (18 + 0) * COS(33" - 14") Pq(H) = 707.826547 Pa(H) = 3318 + 708 Pa(H) = 4026 The horizontal components of the forces Ps(H) and Pq(,,) act at distances Y, and Y, above the heel of the lowermost SRW unit. Y, = Y, = (18+0)/3 Y, = 6.00 (H + h) 13 Y, = (H+h)/2 Y, = (18 + 0) 12 Y, = 9.00 (Eq. 5-9) (Eq. 5-10) Determine Factor of Safety Against Base Sliding (Static Conditions) Calculate magnitude of the base sliding resistance. For this calculation, it is assumed that the infill soil or imported drainage layer soil will have strength parameters equal to or better than the foundation soils. where: Wr(i) = LYiH (Weight due to soil + blocks) (Eq. 5-15) Wr(i) = WNi) = 32625 14.5 * 125 * 18 Wrce, = (C yi h) 12 (Weight due to soil in backslope) (Eq. 5-16) Wrcs) = (13.5 * 125 0) 12 Wrca, = 0 cds = 1 (No grid beneath 1st course of SRW units) R, = R, = 24087 (200 * 14.5) + [(0 * 13.5) + 32625 + 01 * tan(33") Calculate Factor of Safety against Base Sliding: FS,, = Rs I Pa(H) FS,, = 24086 14025 FS,, = 6.0 > 1.5 Output Form 03G116-1 V40 Wall (Eq. 5-17) OK Southern California Geotechnical Page 5 c IC c c .c c c c Determine Factor of Safety Against Overturning (Static Conditions) Calculate the sum of the resisting moments due to weight of soil behind wail, weight of soil in backslope, and dead loads: Calculate Moment Arms; measured from toe of wall to the center of gravity of the resisting forces &(I, = &(i) = [L + (H tano] / 2 [14.5 + (18 tan 14"] 12 &(i) = 9.49 &(a) = &(e, = %e, = 14.49 [H tam + W, + (2L' 13)] [18 tan 14" + 1 + (2 * 13.5 l3)] %CP, = XqCP, = %!e, = 12.24 L + [(H + h) tano] - (LP 12) 14.5 + [(18 + 0) tan(l4"I - (13.5 / 2) M, = 32625 * 9.49 + 0 * 14.49 + 0 * 13.5 * 12.24 M, = 309740 (Eq. 5-19) (Eq. 5-20) (Eq. 5-21) Calculate the sum of the driving moments due to the horizontal forces acting at the back of the wall : c c 1c c- c c c M, = ps(H,^ys + pq(H)yq M, = M, = 26278 (3317 * 6) + (707 9) Calculate Factor of Safety against Overturning: FSd = M, 1 M, FS,t = 11.8 > 2.0 FSd = 309740 126278 (Eq. 5-22) (Eq. 5-23) OK Determine Factor of Safety Against Bearing Capacity Failure (Static Conditions) This is a conventional bearing capacity analysis with respect to the base width L of the reinforced soil mass. The mass is assumed to act as a continuous strip footing. Calculate equivalent bearing area, decreased by eccentric loading: B= L-12el Output Form 03G116-1 V40 Wall (Eq. 5-24) S outhem Cal if0 m ia Geotech nical Page 6 c IC- c Calculate eccentricity (e) of resisting foundation load: e= (3317)(6) + (707)(9) - [(32625)(9.49 - 14.5 / 2)] - [(0)(14.48 - 14.5 /2)] - [(0)(13.5)(12.23 - 14.5 / 2)] / 132625 + 0 + (0)(13.5)] e= -1.44 B= 14.5 - 2(1.44) B= 1 1.62 Calculate ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation subgrade soils: Quit = Wc + O-%f B Ny + YfHernbNq (Eq. 5-27) QM = (200)(38.64) + 0.5(125)(11.62)(35.19) + (125)(1.5)(26.09) Quit = 381 83 PSf Calculate the applied bearing pressure: Qa = Qa = 3086 PSf wri + Wrcp, + Lp(ql+ qd)l/ B Qa = [32625 + 0 + 13.5(240 + O)] / 11.62 Calculate Factor of Safety against bearing Capacity Failure: FSh = Qur 1 Qa FSh = FSb, = 12.4 > 2.0 381 83 / 3085 (Eq. 5-26) (Eq. 5-28) OK EXTERNAL STABILITY CALCULATIONSSEISMIC ANALYSIS The seismic design procedure is a pseudo-static analysis based on the Mononobe-Okabe (M-0) method. The M-0 method represents the additional loads applied to the wall by seismic forces as steeper backslope inclination and decreased wall batter. This procedure is documented by Seed and Whitman (1970). The subsequent procedure also generally follows the procedure presented in the draft version of the NCMA Segmental Wall Seismic Design Procedure. The NCMA seismic procedure is similar to the static procdure discussed above, but incorporates the seismic forces determined through the use of the M-0 equation and force distributions that have previously been recommended by the FHWA and AASHTO. Use the Mononobe-Okabe method to calculate o' and p', the modified wall batter and backslope inclinations, respectively, using 8, the seismic inertial angle: e= arctan (a,, / I-a") 0= arctan (0.27 / (1 - 0)) Output Form 03G116-1 V40 Wall Southern California Geotechnical Page 7 c c c- c- c e= 15.11 Calculate the dynamic active earth force as sum of the earth pressure due to retained soil plus pressure due to surcharge: (Eq. 5-11) c Pae(H) = Pse(H) + Pqe(H) c c c c Kaecext) = COS"2(33" + -1 .I ")/{COS(l5.1 ") COSA2(14")COS(-l .I " - 33") [l+sqrt [ (sin(33" + 33")*sin(33" - 15.1"))/ COS(-^ .la -33")~0~(-1 .la + 15.1"))]]"2} Note that the previous formula inserts a value of 0.1 degrees for the value of sin(+, - 0') if sin(+, - p') < 0. This occurs if the M-0 adjusted backslope angle exceeds the internal friction angle of the soil. Pae(H) = 0.5 0.378 * 125 * (18 + 0)*2 * COS(33" - 14") Pse(H) = 7246 Pqe(H) = (240 + 0) 0.378 (18 + 0) * COS(33" - 14") Pqe(H) = 1545.7128 Pae(H) = 7245 + 1545 c Pae(H) = 8791 The total horizontal dynamic earth force is then broken down into two components: the horizontal component of the static earth force (Pa(H)) and the horizontal component of the dynamic force increment c (APdp(H)): c c APdyn(H) = Pae(H) - Pa(H) APdyn(~)= 8791 - 4026 APdyn(~) = 4765 c Output Form 03G116-1 V40 Wall Southern California Geotechnical Page 8 c i c c For all of the external seismic analyses presented below, the total force is considered to be the sum of the static earth force and the dynamic force increment. The standard triangular distribution is used for the static force, whereas the dynamic force is applied at 0.6H from the base of the wall. Determine Factor of Safety Against Base Sliding (Seismic Conditions) Calculate magnitude of the base sliding resistance. For this calculation, it is assumed that the infill soil or imported drainage layer soil will have strength parameters equal to or better than the foundation soils. The seismic sliding resistance is equal to the static resistance (calculated in the previous section, multiplied by 1.333. This one-third increase is per the UBC for transient loading conditions. The seismic driving force is equal to the entire dynamic earth force c c c c c Pae(H) = 8791 Calculate Factor of Safety against Base Sliding: FSsIe = Re Pae(H) FSSb = 32108 18791 FS*Ie = 3.7 > 1.1 (Eq. 5-17) OK Determine Factor of Safety Against Overturning (Seismic Conditions) Calculate the sum of the resisting moments due to weight of soil behind wall, weight of soil in backslope, and dead loads: The resisting moment for seismic condtions is identical to that previously calculated for static conditions: M, = 309740 Calculate the sum of the driving moments due to the horizontal forces acting at the back of the wall, as the sum of the static moments, plus the moments due to the dynamic increment forces acting at 0.6H from the base of the wall. M, = ps(HYys + pq(H)*yq + (APs(dyn)(H))o.6(H+h) + (APq(dyn)(H))o-6(H+h) M, = M, = ps(H)% + pq(H)*yq + (pse(H) - Ps(H))O.W+h) + (Pqe(H) - Pq(H))O*G(H+h) (331 7 * 6) + (707 * 9)(7246 - 331 8)0.6(18 + 0) + (1 546 - 708)0.6(18 + 0) M, = 57385 Calculate Factor of Safety against Overturning: (Eq. 5-23) Output Form 03G116-1 V40 Wall Southern California Geotechnical Page 9 r c FSd = 309740 157385 FS,t = 5.4 > 1 .I OK Determine Factor of Safety Against Bearing Capacity Failure (Seismic Condition) This is a conventional bearing capacity analysis with respect to the base width L of the reinforced soil mass. The mass is assumed to act as a continuous strip footing. Calculate equivalent bearing area, decreased by eccentric loading: Be = L-12el (Eq. 5-24) Calculate eccentricity (e) of resisting foundation load. This calculation is identical to the static case, except for the dynamic increment applied at 0.6H. (Eq. 5-25) e, = e, = 0.14 e + (0.6)(18 + 0)*[(7246 - 331 8) + (1 546 - 708)] / (32625 + 0 + 0*13.5) Be = 14.5 - 2(0.14) Be = 14.22 Calculate the ultimate bearing capacity of the foundation subgrade soils: Qur = mc + Oa5Yf Be Ny + YfHernbNq (Eq. 5-27) Q,r = (200)(38.64) + 0.5(125)(14.22)(35.19) + (125)(1.5)(26.09) Qur = 43899 PSf Calculate the applied bearing pressure: Qa = [wri + Wr@) + Lp(qJ + qd)] 1 B Qa = [32625 + 0 + 13.5(240 + O)] / 14.22 Q, = 2522 PSf Calculate Factor of Safety against bearing Capacity Failure: FSb, = Qur 1 Qa FSW = 43899 12522 FSb, = 17.4 > 1.5 (Eq. 5-26) (Eq. 5-28) OK INTERNAL STABILITY CALCULATIONSSTATIC ANALYSIS r Output Form 03G116-1 V40 Wall Southern California Geotechnical Page 10 Calculate the total horizontal active earth force acting at the back of the SRW units: c Pla(H) = Pls(H) + P'q(H) (Eq. 5-31) where: PlS(~ = 0.5 Ka(int)x H2 cOS(Si - Q) (Eq. 5-29) cos*(()i + 0) KaOnt) = cos~ocos(o-S,) [ I+ J-]' (Eq.3-17) cos(w - 6,)cos 0 + p) Kacint) = Ka(int) = 0.177 cosA2(33" + 14")/{cosA2(14")cos(14" - 21") [l+sqrt [ (sin(33" + 21") *sin(33" - 0"))/(cos(l4" -21 ")cos(l4" + O"))]]A2} Ps(H) = 0.5 * 0.177 * 125 * 18"2 * COS(^^" - 14") PlS(H) = 3560 c P'q(H) = (240 + 0) 0.177 * 18 * ~~(21" - 14") P'q(H) = 759.425363 c- Pa(H) = 3559 + 759 Pa(H) = 431 9 Determine Factor of Safety Against Tensile Overstress (Static Conditions) c Verify that the number of reinforcing layers exceeds the minimum required number of layers: Where Ta is the long term design strength of the grid. It is conservative to use the LTDS of the lowest strength grid in this calculation. !-- i i Nmin = 431914116 r i Nmin = 1 .o C 8 OK Calculate the Applied Tensile Load (Fg(,,)) in each of the grid layers: c (Eq. 5-36) r where: Contributoly Area: Output Form 03G116-1 V40 Wall r Southern California Geotechnical Page 11 c c c c E(n) = D(n) = Elevation of Grid layer n Depth to midpoint of Contributory Area D(n) = (Eq. 5-42) D(N) = &(N) 12) (Uppermost Layer) (Eq. 5-43) H - (&(I) - 42) ..- - &(n-1) - &(n) 1 2) The elevation, depth to midpoint, contributory area, and grid stress for each grid layer is calculated in the table below. The grid stress is then compared to the LTDS for each layer. Geogrid 1 2.00 3.00 16.50 1215 MI OXT 41 16 ok 2 4.00 2.00 14.00 700 MI OXT 41 16 ok 3 6.00 2.00 12.00 61 2 MI OXT 41 16 ok 4 8.00 2.00 10.00 524 M1 OXT 41 16 ok 5 10.01 2.00 8.00 436 M1 OXT 41 16 ok 6 12.01 2.00 5.99 348 M1 OXT 41 16 ok 7 14.01 2.00 3.99 260 M 1 OXT 41 16 ok 8 16.01 2.99 1 SO 225 MI OXT 41 16 ok Determine Factor of Safety Against Grid Pullout (Static Conditions) Calculate the Anchorage Length for each of the grid layers, that is the portion of the grid which is behind the failure surface: La(n) = L - W, - En tan(90-a) + E(,,) tan Q (Eq. 5-46) Calculate the average depth of overburden above the anchorage length: The anchorage capacity is then calculated as follows: The anchorage length, depth of overburden over the anchorage length and the anchorage capacity for each grid layer is tabulated below. The grid stress calculated previously is then compared to the anchorage capacity for each layer. The minimum factor of safety is 1.5. Note: Default value of Ci is 0.85. 1 12.5 16.0 27505 1215 22.6 ok 2 11.4 14.0 22053 700 31.5 ok t Output Form 03G116-1 V40 Wall Southern California Geotechnical Page 12 e c L c c - c c c e e- c c c c c c c 3 10.4 12.0 17175 612 28.1 ok 4 9.3 10.0 12873 524 24.6 ok 5 8.3 8.0 9147 436 21 .o ok 6 7.2 6.0 5996 348 17.2 ok 7 6.2 4.0 3420 260 13.2 ok 8 5.2 2.0 1420 225 6.3 ok Determine Factor of Safety Against Internal Sliding (Static Conditions) The resistance to internal sliding is the sum of the shear resistance available at the geosynthetic surface plus the shear capacity of the block to block interface. The driving force is the sum of the active pressures from the given reinforcement layer elevation to the ground surface. is calculated for each layer using equations 5-1 through 5-1 1, substituting L's(n) for L' and (H - E(n) + h,,)) for (H + h) The sliding resistance for an individual grid layer is: Rs(n) = cds (qd Lp(n) + wr(i,n) + wr(p,n)) tan $i + L's(n) (Eq. 5-49) (Eq. 5-52) (Eq. 5-55) Vu(.) = 1651 (from full-scale shear tests) The following table presents several of the intermediate values used to calculate the factor of safety with respect to internal sliding: Grid No. AL L's(n) L"s(n) W'r(i,n) W'r(p,n) h(n) 1 1.6 11.9 0.0 2381 0 0 0.0 2 1.6 11.9 0.0 20832 0 0.0 3 1.6 11.9 0.0 17854 0 0.0 4 1.6 11.9 0.0 14876 0 0.0 5 1.6 11.9 0.0 11 898 0 0.0 6 1.6 11.9 0.0 8920 0 0.0 c Output Form 03Gi16-1 V40 Wall Southern California Geotechnical Page 13 7 1.6 11.9 0.0 5943 0 0.0 + 8 1.6 11.9 0.0 2965 0 0.0 The internal shear resistance, block to block shear capacity, and active pressure for each grid layer is calculated below. The factor of safety is equal to the resisting forces divided by the driving forces, and should be greater than 1.5. c Grid No. Rs(n) 1 16298 2 14557 3 1281 6 4 1 1076 5 9335 6 7595 7 5854 8 41 14 1651 1651 1651 1651 1651 1651 1651 1651 17949 16208 14467 12727 10986 9246 7505 5765 3250 5.5 2557 6.3 1946 7.4 1416 9.0 969 11.3 604 15.3 320 23.4 119 48.5 ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok INTERNAL STABILITY CALCULATIONSSEISMIC ANALYSIS The pressure and force distributions for the internal analysis under seismic conditions are similar to those presented previously for the external seismic analysis. The force in each grid is due to the sum of the static force (calculated previously) plus the force caused by the dynamic increment. L c For the internal analysis, the dynamic active earth pressure coefficient increment is used to facilitate the calculation of the force over the contributory area of each grid. The standard triangular distribution is used for the static force, whereas the dynamic force is applied at 0.6H from the base of the wall. The distribution of the dynamic force increment ranges from 0.2AKdyn(int)(H)Hyr at the base of the wall to 0.8AG(i,t)(H)Hy, at the crest of the stacked units. e c c c I f- - c Calculate the total dynamic earth pressure coefficient acting at the back of the back of the SRW units. This coefficient varies from that calculated for the external seismic analysis, since the internal soil parameters are utilized. cos2 (4, + 0') sin(+, + 6, )sin(+, - p' ) case cos2 o cos(d-6, ) co S(O'-6 , ) cos w'+p' ) Note: 8, p' and o' were previously calculated for the external seismic analysis Kae(int) = COSA2(33" + -1 .I a)/{COS(I 5.1 ")COSY(I~~)COS(-~ .I O - 21 O)* [l+sqrt [ (sin(33" + 21 ")*sin(33" - 15.1 '))/ (COS(-1 .lo -21 ")COS(-l.l + 15.1 o))]]A2} &,Hint) = 0.354 Note that the previous formula inserts a value of 0.1 degrees for the value of sin(+, - p') if sin(+, - p') < 0. This occurs if the M-0 adjusted backslope angle exceeds the internal friction angle of the soil. r Output Form I 03G1 16-1 V40 Wall Southern California Geotechnical Page 14 Calculate the internal dynamic active earth pressure coefficient increment: c A.Kdyn(int) = Kaecint) - Kacint) A&yn(int) = 0.354 - 0.1 77 A&yn(int) = 0.176 c c c c c c AKdyn(int)(H) = A.Kdyn(int)WGi - Q) A&yn(int)(H) = (0.176)~0~(21" - 14") A&yn(int)(H) = 0.175 P1se(H) = 0.5 * 0.354 * 125 * 18"2 * coS(21" - 14") P'se(H) = 71 05 p'qe(~) = P'qe,, = 151 5.73932 (240 + 0) 0.354 * 18 * COS(^^' - 14") P'ae(H) = 7105 + 1516 p'ae(H) = 8621 Determine Factor of Safety Against Tensile Overstress (Seismic Conditions) Verify that the number of reinforcing layers exceeds the minimum required number of layers: e Where Ta is the long term design strength of the grid. It is conservative to use the LTDS of the lowest strength grid in this calculation. c c c Nmin-e = 8621 I4116 Nmine = 2.1 C 8 OK Calculate the Applied Tensile Load (Fgcn)) in each of the grid layers. The tensile load in each grid is the sum of the static tensile load calculated previously, plus the load due to the dynamic force increment. c (Eq. 5-36) The calculations for E(,,), &(,) and D(,,) are identical to those previously presented for the static case, and the values for these terms are not seismic dependent; therefore, they are not repeated. c c Output Form 03G116-1 V40 Wall Southern California Geotechnical Page 15 The elevation, depth to midpoint, and contributory area for each grid layer is calculated below. 1 2.00 2 4.00 3 6.00 4 8.00 5 10.01 6 12.01 7 14.01 8 16.01 3.00 16.50 2.00 14.00 2.00 12.00 2.00 10.00 2.00 8.00 2.00 5.99 2.00 3.99 2.99 1 SO The static force, dynamic force increment, and the total dynamic force in each grid is calculated in the table below. The total force in the grid is then compared to the LTDS. Grid No. c c c c c c c c c c c 1215 700 61 2 524 436 348 260 225 296 263 31 5 368 421 473 526 884 1510 963 927 892 856 821 786 1109 Type of Geogrid M1 OXT M1 OXT M1 OXT M1 OXT M1 OXT MlOXT M1 OXT M1 OXT LTDS ok? 41 16 41 16 41 16 41 16 41 16 41 16 41 16 41 16 ok ok ok ok ok ok ok ok Determine Factor of Safety Against Grid Pullout (Seismic Conditions) The calculations for grid pullout under seismic loading are similar to those presented previously for static conditions. The calculations for La(,,) and dn are identical to those previously presented for the static case, and the values for these terms are not seismic dependent; therefore, they are not repeated. The anchorage capacity for the seismic case is equal to the anchorage capacity for the static case, increased by one-third. The mimimum factor of safety for pullout is 1 .l. 1 12.5 16.0 27505 1510 18.2 ok 2 11.4 14.0 22053 963 22.9 ok 3 10.4 12.0 171 75 927 18.5 ok 4 9.3 10.0 12873 892 14.4 ok 5 8.3 8.0 91 47 856 10.7 ok 6 7.2 6 .O 5996 82 1 7.3 ok 7 6.2 4.0 3420 786 4.4 ok 8 5.2 2.0 1420 1109 1.3 ok Output Form 03G116-1 V40 Wall Southern California Geotechnical Page 16 c- c c P- Determine Factor of Safety Against Internal Sliding (Seismic Conditions) The resistance to internal sliding is the sum of the shear resistance available at the geosynthetic surface plus the shear capacity of the block to block interface. The driving force is the sum of the static active force at the back of the reinforced zone plus the dynamic force increment at the given reinforcement layer elevation. The static and dynamic pressures are summed from the grid elevation up to the ground surface. Pa(H,n) is calculated for each layer using equations 5-1 through 5-1 1, substituting L',,,) for L' and (H - E(n) + h) for (H + h). The analysis for internal sliding measures the factor of safety with regard to one section of the wall sliding with respect to the section below. Therefore, the dynamic force increment for each grid layer is calculated separately, based on a unique dynamic pressure distribution. The pressure distribution for each of the grid layers is similar to that used for the external analyses (Le. trapezoidal in shape, with the net force applied at 0.6 the distance from the grid to the top of the backslope. APdyn(,,) is calculated using the following equation, and is also based on the depth from the top of the backslope to the grid elevation (H - E(,,) + h): Since the dynamic force increment causing an internal sliding failure acts at the back of the reinforced zone, the external dynamic active earth pressure coefficient increment is used in this calculation. The sliding resistance for an individual grid layer under seismic conditions is equal to the static resistance (calculated previously) increased by one-third: RWn) = Rqn) * 1.333 Vu(n) = 1651 (from full-scale shear tests) The intermediate calculations for AL, L'scn), L"S(n), VVr(i,n), VVr(p,n), h(n) are identical to those previously presented for the static case, and the values for these terms are not seismic dependent; therefore, they are not repeated. The internal shear resistance, block to block shear capacity, active pressure, and dynamic force increment for each grid layer is calculated below. The factor of safety is equal to the resisting forces Output Form 03G116-1 V40 Wall Southern California Geotechnical Page 17 divided by the driving forces, and should be greater than 1 .I. 1 21 725 2 19404 3 17084 4 14764 5 12444 6 10124 7 7804 8 5484 1651 1651 1651 1651 1651 1651 1651 1651 3250 31 03 3.7 ok 2557 2375 4.3 ok 1 946 1745 5.1 ok 1416 121 1 6.2 ok 969 775 8.1 ok 604 436 11.3 ok 320 193 18.4 ok 119 48 42.7 ok Output Form 03Gll6-1 V40 Wall Southern California Geotechnical Page 18