HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 2020-0046; KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION; UPDATED GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION; 2020-03-06Updated Geotechnical Evaluation
Kelly Elementary School Modernization
4885 Kelly Drive
Carlsbad, California
Carlsbad Unified School District
6225 El Camino Real | Carlsbad, California 92009
March 6, 2020 | Project No. 108741005
Geotechnical | Environmental | Construction Inspection & Testing | Forensic Engineering & Expert Witness
Geophysics | Engineering Geology | Laboratory Testing | Industrial Hygiene | Occupational Safety | Air Quality | GIS
Geotechntcat & Environmental Sciences Consultants
Updated Geotechn ica l Eva luation
Kelly Elementary School Modernization
4885 Kel ly Drive
Carlsbad, California
Mr. Derrick Anderson, PE, CCM
Carlsbad Unified School District
6225 El Camin o Real I Carlsbad, Cali fornia 92009
March 6 , 2020 I Project No. 108741005
-
·"'", . re, ' '\;::)
No. 2650
.. :~::::: . ./
Christina A. Tretinjak, PG, CEG
Senior Project Geologist
f!tW-
Jeffrey T. Kent, PE, GE
Principal Engineer
BRH/CAT /KAV /JTl</gg
',I •
Distribution: (1) Addressee (via e-mail)
Kai Vedenoja, PE
Senior Project Engineer
5710 Ruffin Road I San Diego, California 92123 1 p. 858.576.1000 I www.ninyoandmoore.com
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 i
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2 SCOPE OF SERVICES 1
3 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
4 SUBSURFACE EVALUATION 2
4.1 Borings 2
4.2 Cone Penetration Tests 3
5 LABORATORY TESTING 3
6 GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3
6.1 Regional Geologic Setting 4
6.2 Site Geology 4
6.2.1 Encountered Pavement Sections 4
6.2.2 Fill 5
6.2.3 Alluvium 5
6.2.4 Santiago Formation 5
6.3 Groundwater 5
6.4 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards 5
6.5 Landsliding 6
6.6 Faulting and Seismicity 6
6.6.1 Strong Ground Motion 7
6.6.2 Ground Rupture 8
6.6.3 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement 8
6.6.4 Lateral Spread 10
6.6.5 Tsunamis 11
7 CONCLUSIONS 11
8 RECOMMENDATIONS 12
8.1 Earthwork 13
8.1.1 Site Preparation 13
8.1.2 Ground Improvement 13
8.1.2.1 Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM) 16
8.1.3 Excavation Characteristics 18
8.1.4 Excavation Bottom Stability 18
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 ii
8.1.5 Temporary Excavations 19
8.1.6 Remedial Grading - Building Pad 19
8.1.7 Remedial Grading – Site and/or Retaining Walls 20
8.1.8 Remedial Grading – Vehicular Pavements 20
8.1.9 Remedial Grading – Exterior Flatwork 21
8.1.10 Materials for Fill 21
8.1.11 Compacted Fill 22
8.1.12 Utility Pipe Zone Backfill 23
8.1.13 Utility Trench Zone Backfill 23
8.1.14 Lateral Pressures for Thrust Blocks 24
8.1.15 Drainage 24
8.2 Seismic Design Considerations 24
8.3 Foundations 25
8.3.1 Shallow Foundations 25
8.3.4 Shallow Foundation Tie Beams 26
8.4 Site and/or Retaining Walls 27
8.5 Interior Slabs-On-Grade 27
8.6 Concrete Flatwork 28
8.7 Light Pole and Canopy Foundations 28
8.8 Preliminary Pavement Design 29
8.8.1 Preliminary Flexible Pavement Design 29
8.8.2 Preliminary Rigid Pavement Design 30
8.9 Corrosion 31
8.10 Concrete 32
9 PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE 32
10 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION 32
11 LIMITATIONS 33
12 REFERENCES 34
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 iii
TABLES
1 – Principal Active Faults 7
2 – Historical Earthquakes that Affected the Site 7
3 – 2016 California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria 25
4 – Recommended Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections 30
5 – Recommended Preliminary Rigid Pavement Sections 31
FIGURES
1 – Site Location
2 – Exploration Locations
3 – Geology
4 – Geologic Cross Section A-A’
5 – Geologic Cross Section B-B’
6 – Geologic Cross Section C-C’
7 – Fault Locations
8A – Ground Improvement Layout – MPR Building
8B – Ground Improvement Layout – Modular Buildings
8C – Ground Improvement Layout – Building A Addition
9 – Thrust Block Lateral Earth Pressure Diagram
10 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Yielding Retaining Walls
11 – Lateral Earth Pressures for Restrained Retaining Walls
12 – Retaining Wall Drainage Detail
APPENDICES
A – Boring Logs
B – CPT Logs and Seismic CPT Data (Gregg, 2020)
C – Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
D – Liquefaction and Lateral Spread Analysis
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 1
1 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request and authorization, we have prepared this updated geotechnical
evaluation report for the proposed modernization improvements to the Kelly Elementary School
campus located at 4885 Kelly Drive in Carlsbad, California (Figure 1). Our geotechnical
evaluation was performed in general accordance with Chapter 18A of Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1
and 2 of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC), and California Geological Survey (CGS)
Note 48. This report presents the results of our field explorations and laboratory testing as well
as our conclusions regarding the geotechnical conditions at the site and our recommendations
for the design and construction of this project.
2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Our scope of services included the following:
• Reviewing readily available published and in-house geotechnical literature, previous geotechnical reports, topographic maps, geologic maps, fault maps, and stereoscopic aerial photographs.
• Performing a field reconnaissance to observe the existing site conditions and to mark the locations of our exploratory borings.
• Coordinating with the Carlsbad Unified School District to gain access to the site. Additionally, we used a private utility locator service and notified Underground Service Alert (USA) to locate underground utilities near our exploratory borings.
• Performing a subsurface exploration consisting of the drilling, logging, and sampling of eight exploratory borings using a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with hollow-stem augers and manual techniques. Relatively undisturbed and bulk soil samples were obtained at selected intervals from the borings. The collected samples were transported to our in-house geotechnical laboratory for testing.
• Performing geotechnical laboratory testing on representative soil samples to evaluate design parameters and soil characteristics.
• Reviewing data from four cone penetration tests (CPTs) and one seismic CPT performed by Gregg Drilling (Gregg Drilling, 2020).
• Compiling and performing an engineering analysis of the data obtained from our background review, field activities, and geotechnical laboratory testing, as well as the data provided by Gregg Drilling (Gregg Drilling, 2020).
• Preparing this updated report presenting our findings, conclusions, and recommendations
regarding the geotechnical aspects of the design and construction of the project.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 2
3 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is situated within the existing campus of Kelly Elementary School in Carlsbad,
California (Figure 1). In general, the campus is located on a generally rectangular-shaped parcel
that fronts on Kelly Drive to the east and is bounded by Hillside Drive to the north, the Keiller
Neighborhood Park to the south, and an approximately 50-foot-high slope that ascends to
single-family residential properties to the west. The campus generally consists of school
buildings, facilities, an asphalt concrete (AC) paved parking lot, AC athletic courts, and grass
playfields (Figure 2). Elevations at the main part of the school campus generally range from
approximately 24 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the southeastern portion to approximately
34 feet above MSL in the northwestern portion of the site with elevations up to approximately
80 feet MSL at the top of the western slope (LPA, 2019b). The global coordinates of the project
site are approximately 33.1474°N Latitude and -117.3121°W Longitude.
Based on our discussions with you and a review of a provided site plan (LPA, 2019a) the project
plans (LPA, 2019b), the modernization improvements at the site may include removal of existing
relocatable buildings, construction of an approximately 7,800 square foot Multi-Purpose Room
(MPR) building, new relocatable buildings, a shade structure, and new retaining walls. Ancillary
improvements will include the addition of fire lanes, concrete flatwork, and associated
underground utilities. Figure 2 shows the approximate locations of the proposed improvements.
4 SUBSURFACE EVALUATION
The subsurface exploration for this project was performed in several phases. These phases
included two separate mobilizations to perform eight exploratory borings and one mobilization by
Gregg Drilling to perform four CPTs and one seismic CPT.
4.1 Borings
Ninyo & Moore’s subsurface exploration program included the performance of eight exploratory
borings that were drilled in two phases. The first phase of drilling was performed on July 1 and
July 2, 2019, and included the drilling, logging, and sampling of seven small-diameter borings (B-1
through B-7). The second phase of drilling was performed on September 19, 2019, and included
the drilling, logging, and sampling of one small-diameter boring (B-8). Prior to commencing each
phase of borings, Underground Service Alert was notified and a private utility locator was utilized
to clear our work locations of underground utility conflicts. The purpose of the borings was to
evaluate the subsurface conditions and to collect soil samples for laboratory testing.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 3
Borings B-1 through B-3, B-5, and B-6 were drilled to depths up to approximately 71½ feet using
a truck-mounted drill rig equipped with 8-inch diameter hollow-stem augers. Borings B-4, B-7,
and B-8 were manually excavated to depths up to approximately 5 feet using 4-inch and 6-inch
diameter hand augers. Ninyo & Moore personnel logged the borings in general accordance with
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and ASTM International (ASTM) Test Method
D 2488 by observing cuttings and drive samples. Representative bulk and in-place soil samples
were collected at selected depths from within the exploratory borings and transported to our
in-house geotechnical laboratory for analysis. The approximate locations of the borings are
presented on Figure 2. The boring logs are included in Appendix A.
4.2 Cone Penetration Tests
Gregg Drilling performed four CPTs (CPT-01 through CPT-04) and one seismic CPT (CPT-05) at
the site on February 22, 2020 to depths ranging from approximately 60.4 feet to 96 feet. During
advancement of CPT-05, shear wave velocity soundings were taken at approximately 5-foot
intervals within the upper 96 feet of the subsurface soil profile. Using the analysis method
presented in Chapter 20 of ASCE 7-10, the weighted average shear wave velocity in the upper
100 feet (Vs100) was estimated to be approximately 814 feet per second. The approximate
locations of the CPTs are presented on Figure 2 and the report prepared by Gregg Drilling is
included in Appendix B (Gregg Drilling, 2020).
5 LABORATORY TESTING
Geotechnical laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples collected from our
subsurface exploration. Testing included an evaluation of in-situ dry density and moisture content,
gradation, gradation by 200 wash, Atterberg limits, shear strength, expansion index, soil corrosivity,
and R-value. The results of the in-situ dry density and moisture content tests are presented at the
corresponding depths on the boring logs in Appendix A. The results of the other laboratory tests that
we performed and a description of the procedures used are presented in Appendix C.
6 GEOLOGIC AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Our findings regarding regional and site geology at the project location are provided in the
following sections.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 4
6.1 Regional Geologic Setting
The project site is situated in the coastal foothill section of the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic
Province. The province encompasses an area that extends approximately 900 miles from the
Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the southern tip of Baja California
(Norris and Webb, 1990; Harden, 2004). The province varies in width from approximately 30 to
100 miles. In general, the province consists of rugged mountains underlain by Jurassic
metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks, and Cretaceous igneous rocks of the southern
California batholith. The portion of the province in western San Diego County that includes the
project area consists generally of uplifted and dissected coastal plain underlain by Upper
Cretaceous-, Tertiary-, and Quaternary-age sedimentary rocks.
The Peninsular Ranges Province is traversed by a group of sub-parallel faults and fault zones
trending roughly northwest (Jennings, 2010). Several of these faults are considered active. The
Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas faults are active fault systems located northeast of the
project area and the Rose Canyon, Coronado Bank, San Diego Trough, and San Clemente
faults are active faults located west of the project site. Major tectonic activity associated with
these and other faults within the regional tectonic framework consists primarily of right-lateral,
strike-slip movement. Specifics of faulting are discussed in the following sections of this report.
6.2 Site Geology
Geologic units encountered during our subsurface exploration included fill soils and alluvium
(Kennedy and Tan, 2007). Generalized descriptions of the earth units encountered during our
field reconnaissance and subsurface exploration are provided in the subsequent sections.
Additional descriptions of the subsurface units are provided on the boring logs in Appendix A.
The geology of the site is shown on Figure 3 and geologic cross sections are shown on
Figures 4, 5, and 6.
6.2.1 Encountered Pavement Sections
AC pavements were encountered at the surface in borings B-1 through B-7. AC was not
encountered in boring B-8. As encountered, the pavement sections generally included
approximately 3½ to 6 inches of AC. The AC was underlain by approximately 4 to 10 inches
of base materials in borings B-1 through B-6. Base materials were not encountered in
boring B-7. As encountered, the base materials generally consisted of gray and brown,
moist, medium dense, sandy gravel and silty sand.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 5
6.2.2 Fill
Fill material was encountered underlying the pavement sections and extended to depths up
to approximately 12 feet below the ground surface. As encountered, the fill material
generally consisted of various shades of brown, gray, and yellow, moist, very loose to
medium dense, silty to clayey sand, and firm to stiff, lean clay. Documentation regarding
placement of these fills was not available for review.
6.2.3 Alluvium
Materials mapped as alluvium were encountered underlying the fill material in borings B-1
through B-3, B-5, and B-6, and extended to the total depths explored of up to approximately
71½ feet. The alluvium was not encountered in borings B-4, B-6, or B-8. As encountered,
the alluvium was observed to consist of various shades of brown, gray, and yellow, moist to
wet, very loose to very dense, sandy silt, silty to clayey sand, well graded sand with silt, well
graded sand with clay, poorly graded sand, and poorly graded sand with clay, along with
layers of firm to hard, lean clay.
6.2.4 Santiago Formation
Although not encountered in our exploratory borings, materials of the Santiago Formation
are mapped in the western portion of the campus (Kennedy and Tan, 2007).
6.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in our borings B-1 through B-3, B-5, and B-6 at depths ranging
from approximately 10 to 18 feet. Groundwater was not encountered in borings B-4, B-7, or B-8.
Fluctuations in the level of groundwater may occur due to variations in ground surface
topography, subsurface stratification, seasonal rainfall, irrigation, and other factors which may
not have been evident at the time of our field evaluation. Additionally, perched water conditions
may be present at the site due to the presence of trench backfill and bedding materials for
underground utilities, as these materials tend to act as a conduit for perched water conditions.
6.4 Flood and Dam Inundation Hazards
Based on review of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Mapping Information
Platform website (2019), the site is not located within mapped floodplains, flood zones, or
active floodways. Our review of the City of Carlsbad’s General Plan (Carlsbad, 2015) indicates
that the Kelly Elementary School Campus is not located within a mapped dam inundation
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 6
zone. Based on our review, the potential for dam inundation and significant flooding at the site
are not design considerations.
6.5 Landsliding
Per Tan (1995), the majority of the site is mapped as “marginally susceptible” to landsliding.
Based on our review of referenced geologic maps, literature, topographic maps, and
stereoscopic aerial photographs, as well as our subsurface evaluation, no landslides or
indications of deep-seated landsliding were noted underlying the project site.
Graded slopes up to approximately 50 feet in height ascend from the north and east property
line of the school campus. Our review of the original geotechnical report for the school campus
(Woodward-Clyde-Sherrard, 1967) indicates that the slopes were constructed during earthwork
associated with development of the school site in the late 1960s. Our recent observations of the
slopes indicate that they are performing well and no signs of instability are evident. As such, the
existing slopes are not expected to adversely affect or be affected by the proposed school
improvements. Consequently, the potential for significant large-scale slope instability at the site
is not a design consideration.
6.6 Faulting and Seismicity
Based on our review of the referenced geologic maps and stereoscopic aerial photographs, as
well as on our geologic review, the site is not underlain by known active or potentially active
faults (i.e., faults that exhibit evidence of ground displacement in the last 11,000 years and
2,000,000 years, respectively). The site is not located within a State of California Earthquake
Fault Zone (EFZ) (formerly known as an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone) (Hart and
Bryant, 2007). However, like the majority of Southern California, the site is located in a
seismically active area and the potential for strong ground motion is considered significant
during the design life of the proposed structure. Figure 7 shows the approximate site location
relative to the major faults in the region. The nearest known active fault is the Rose Canyon
fault, located approximately 5.7 miles west of the site. Table 1 lists selected principal known
active faults that may affect the site and the maximum moment magnitude Mmax calculated from
the USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters website (USGS, 2008).
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 7
Table 1 – Principal Active Faults
Fault Approximate Fault-to-Site Distance miles (kilometers)1
Maximum Moment Magnitude (Mmax)
Rose Canyon 5.7 (9.2) 6.9
Newport-Inglewood (Offshore Segment) 6.9 (11.0) 7.0
Coronado Bank 21.6 (34.8) 7.4
Elsinore (Temecula Segment) 22.0 (35.5) 7.1
Elsinore (Julian Segment) 22.0 (35.5) 7.4
Elsinore (Glen Ivy Segment) 33.1 (53.3) 6.9
Palos Verdes 36.3 (58.4) 7.3
San Joaquin Hills 37.4 (60.2) 7.1
Earthquake Valley 42.1 (67.8) 6.8
San Jacinto (Anza Segment) 46.5 (74.8) 7.3
San Jacinto (San Jacinto Valley Segment) 48.1 (77.4) 7.0
Newport-Inglewood (LA Basin Segment) 48.2 (77.6) 7.2
Chino 48.9 (78.7) 6.8
Whittier 49.7 (79.9) 7.0
San Jacinto (Coyote Creek Segment) 49.7 (79.9) 7.0
San Jacinto (Clark Segment) 51.9 (83.4) 7.1
Elsinore (Coyote Mountain Segment) 57.8 (93.0) 6.9
San Jacinto (San Bernardino Valley Segment) 60.1 (96.7) 7.1
Puente Hills (Coyote Hills Segment) 60.9 (98.0) 6.9
6.6.1 Strong Ground Motion
Based on our review of background information, data pertaining to the historical seismicity
of the San Diego County area are summarized in Table 2 below. This table presents
historic earthquakes within a radius of 62 miles (100 kilometers) or the site with a
magnitude 6.0 or greater.
Table 2 – Historical Earthquakes that Affected the Site
Date Magnitude (M) Approximate Epicentral Distance miles (kilometers)
November 22, 1800 6.3 33.0 (53.2)
October 23, 1894 6.1 38.2 (61.4)
May 15, 1910 6.0 38.5 (62.0)
May 27, 1862 6.2 42.3 (68.1)
April 21, 1918 6.8 45.4 (73.0)
December 25, 1899 6.7 48.5 (78.1)
March 11, 1933 6.4 55.1 (88.6)
September 23, 1923 6.2 59.0 (95.0)
February 9, 1890 6.8 61.0 (98.2)
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 8
The 2016 CBC specifies that the Risk-Targeted, Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER)
ground motion response accelerations be used to evaluate seismic loads for design of
buildings and other structures. The MCER ground motion response accelerations are based
on the spectral response accelerations for 5 percent damping in the direction of maximum
horizontal response and incorporate a target risk for structural collapse equivalent to
1 percent in 50 years with deterministic limits for near-source effects. The horizontal peak
ground acceleration (PGA) that corresponds to the MCER for the site was calculated as
0.47g using a web-based seismic design tool (SEAOC/OSHPD, 2019).
The 2016 CBC specifies that the potential for liquefaction and soil strength loss be
evaluated, where applicable, for the Maximum Considered Earthquake Geometric
Mean (MCEG) peak ground acceleration with adjustment for site class effects in accordance
with the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 7-10 Standard. The MCEG peak
ground acceleration is based on the geometric mean peak ground acceleration with a
2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The MCEG peak ground acceleration with
adjustment for site class effects (PGAM) was calculated as 0.46g using a web-based
seismic design tool (SEAOC/OSHPD, 2019) that yielded a mapped MCEG peak ground
acceleration of 0.43g for the site and a site coefficient (FPGA) of 1.069 for Site Class D. The
Site Class D was selected based on evaluated Vs100 of 814 feet per second from the shear
wave velocity measurements form CPT-05 and the presence of an existing 10-foot-thick
layer of non-liquefiable soils at the surface.
6.6.2 Ground Rupture
Based on our review of the referenced literature and our site reconnaissance, active faults
are not known to cross the project vicinity. Therefore, the potential for ground surface
rupture due to faulting at the site is considered to be low. However, lurching or cracking of
the ground surface as a result of nearby seismic events is possible.
6.6.3 Liquefaction and Seismically Induced Settlement
Liquefaction is the phenomenon in which loosely deposited granular soils with silt and clay
contents of less than approximately 35 percent and non-plastic silts located below the water
table undergo rapid loss of shear strength when subjected to strong earthquake-induced
ground shaking. Ground shaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain-to-grain
contact due to a rapid rise in pore water pressure, and causes the soil to behave as a fluid
for a short period of time. Liquefaction is known generally to occur in saturated or
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 9
near-saturated cohesionless soils at depths shallower than about 50 feet below the ground
surface. Factors known to influence liquefaction potential include composition and thickness
of soil layers, grain size, relative density, groundwater level, degree of saturation, and both
intensity and duration of ground shaking.
According to the City of Carlsbad Liquefaction Hazards (Carlsbad, 2015), the proposed site
is located within an area mapped as being potentially susceptible to liquefaction. As noted
in the previous sections, the site is underlain by fill materials and alluvium and groundwater
was encountered in our borings between approximately 10 to 18 feet. Accordingly, we have
evaluated the liquefaction potential at the project site using an assumed groundwater depth
of 10 feet, our laboratory test results, boring data, CPT data, our evaluation of the site
ground motion (described above), and our experience in the site vicinity. Deaggregation of
the probabilistic ground motion at the site was performed using the USGS interactive
webpage (web address https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive), which estimates
the modal magnitude for a given probabilistic seismic ground motion. Results of our seismic
hazard deaggregation yielded a modal magnitude of 6.71, which is the magnitude used in
our analysis. As noted above, our analysis indicates a PGAM of 0.46g based on the design
seismic event. The liquefaction analysis was based on the National Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research (NCEER) procedure (Youd, et al., 2001) using the computer
program LiquefyPro (CivilTech Software, 2008). Our analysis indicates that the granular
subsurface soils located below the design groundwater table are potentially liquefiable.
In order to estimate the amount of post-earthquake settlement that is related to seismic
shaking and/or liquefaction, the method proposed by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987) was
used, in which the seismically induced cyclic stress ratios and corrected N-values are
related to the volumetric strain of the soil. The amount of soil settlement during a strong
seismic event depends on the thickness of the liquefiable layers and the density and/or
consistency of the soils.
Based on our original evaluation (Ninyo & Moore, 2019b, 2019c, and 2019d), using the boring
information we had estimated that total dynamic settlements on the order of 6 to 12 inches at
the MPR building and on the order 6 to 8 inches could occur at the modular buildings during
the design seismic event. Differential settlements approximately one-half of the total settlement
over a horizontal span of 40 feet should be expected.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 10
To supplement the original analysis for the MPR building, we performed an evaluation of the
liquefaction potential using the CPT data collected by Gregg Drilling (2020). Based on this
additional evaluation, our analysis of the CPT data estimates that total dynamic settlements
on the order of 4 to 7 inches could result from a design seismic event at the MPR building
location. Differential settlements approximately one-half of the total settlement over a
horizontal span of 40 feet should be expected. The graphical output of the liquefaction
analyses we performed is presented in Appendix D.
6.6.4 Lateral Spread
Lateral spread of the ground surface during an earthquake usually takes place along weak
shear zones that have formed within a liquefiable soil layer. Lateral spread has generally
been observed to take place in the direction of a free-face (i.e., retaining wall, slope,
channel, etc.) but has also been observed to a lesser extent on ground surfaces with very
gentle slopes. An empirical model developed by Youd et al. (2002) is typically used to
predict the amount of horizontal ground displacement within a site. For sites located in
proximity to a free-face, the amount of lateral ground displacement is correlated with the
distance of the site from the free-face. For sites located on sloping ground, the amount of
horizontal ground displacement is correlated with the slope of the ground surface. Other
factors such as earthquake magnitude, distance from the causative fault, thickness of the
liquefiable layers, and the fines content and particle sizes of the liquefiable layers also
influence the amount of lateral ground displacement.
Review of topographic information provided on Sheet C0.02 of the referenced project plans
(LPA, 2019b) indicates that site elevations on the school campus range from approximately
24 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL) at the southeast corner of the campus to
approximately 34 feet above MSL at the northwest corner of the campus. Over the lateral
distance of approximately 680 feet, this indicates the school campus has a gentle ground
slope gradient of approximately 1.5 percent.
Additionally, we have reviewed aerial imagery (Google Earth, 2020) and topographic
information (County of San Diego, 1975) to evaluate the area to the south of Park Drive.
Based on a review of this information, the area to the south of Park Drive consists of a
gently sloping ground surface with a gradient of approximately 3 percent to the south to
southwest. The average gradient within these areas is approximately 2.7 percent.
Accordingly, the lateral spreading analysis performed is based on the gently sloping
condition as opposed to a “free face” condition.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 11
Our lateral spread evaluation indicates that several layers of saturated granular alluvial
material with corrected standard penetration test (SPT) sampler blow counts (or equivalent
SPT blow counts from the CPT data) of less than 15 (i.e., generally susceptible to
seismically induced lateral spread) are present below the site. The total thickness of these
layers is approximately 16 feet. Using the CPT data (Gregg Drilling, 2020) and the Youd
(2002) method with a sloping ground condition, we estimate that the total lateral spreading
at the site during the design seismic event may be on the order of 2 feet. Soil layers with an
interpreted Soil Behavior Type of clay or silty clay, as presented on the CPT data, are not
considered applicable to the lateral spread condition and were excluded from the
cumulative thickness of granular layers with an SPT blow count less than 15.
6.6.5 Tsunamis
Tsunamis are long wavelength seismic sea waves (long compared to the ocean depth)
generated by sudden movements of the ocean bottom during submarine earthquakes,
landslides, or volcanic activity. Based on our review of a tsunami inundation map that
includes the site (California EMA, 2009) and the inland location of the site, the potential for
a tsunami to affect the site is not a design consideration.
7 CONCLUSIONS
Based on our review of the referenced background data, subsurface exploration, and laboratory
testing, it is our opinion that construction of the proposed improvements is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint provided the recommendations presented in this report are
incorporated into the design and construction of the project. In general, the following
conclusions were made:
• The areas of the proposed improvements are underlain by varying thicknesses of fill soils
overlying alluvium.
• Groundwater was encountered in our borings at depths ranging from approximately 10 to
18 feet below the ground surface. However, fluctuations in the depth to groundwater will occur due to flood events, seasonal precipitation, variations in ground elevations, subsurface stratification, irrigation, groundwater pumping, storm water infiltration, and other factors.
Additionally, perched water conditions may be present at the site due to the presence of trench backfill and bedding materials for underground utilities, as these materials tend to act as a conduit for perched water conditions.
• The existing fill soils and alluvium encountered onsite should be generally excavatable with heavy-duty earth moving equipment in good working condition.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 12
• Loose and wet materials were encountered in our borings. Therefore, sloughing materials and caving soils including flowing sands should be anticipated for excavations that extend near or below the groundwater table. Dewatering may also be needed in such excavations.
The contractor should anticipate and be prepared to address these conditions.
• Onsite materials are generally considered suitable for reuse onsite as engineered fill,
provided they are processed to meet the recommendations provided herein. However, based on the groundwater encountered, drying back or aerating soils to near optimum moisture content prior to reuse should be anticipated.
• Wet and clayey soils were encountered during our evaluation. Therefore, the contractor should anticipate soft and yielding subgrade conditions that may need stabilization efforts.
Specific recommendations for stabilizing excavation bottoms should be based on evaluation in the field by Ninyo & Moore at the time of construction.
• The subject site is not located within a State of California Earthquake Fault Zone (Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). The closest known major active fault is the Rose Canyon Fault, which is located approximately 5.7 miles west of the project.
• Based on the results of our subsurface evaluation, the site is underlain by soils susceptible to liquefaction. Our analysis of the subsurface data indicates that total dynamic settlements
on the order of 3 to 7 inches could occur at the site during a major seismic event. Additionally, our analysis indicates that the gently sloping ground surface at the site may be susceptible to approximately 2 feet of lateral spread during a major seismic event.
• Due to the potential for seismic related settlements and displacements from liquefaction (as described above), recommendations to perform ground improvement beneath the proposed
MPR building and other structures for human occupancy are presented in the Recommendations section of this report. Additional measures will need to be employed to avoid damaging existing buildings and other existing appurtenances during performance of the ground improvement operations.
• Based on the results of our geotechnical laboratory testing, the onsite soils exhibit a very low expansion potential. Clayey onsite materials that are expansive, if encountered, are not considered suitable for reuse as backfill materials within the limits of remedial grading as outlined in this report or behind retaining walls.
• Based on the results of our limited geotechnical laboratory testing as compared to the California Amended (Caltrans, 2019) AASHTO (2017) corrosion guidelines, the onsite soils
are considered corrosive.
8 RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our understanding of the project, the following recommendations are provided for the
design and construction of the project. The proposed site improvements should be constructed
in accordance with the requirements of the applicable governing agencies.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 13
8.1 Earthwork
In general, earthwork should be performed in accordance with the recommendations presented
in this report. Ninyo & Moore should be contacted for questions regarding the recommendations
or guidelines presented herein.
8.1.1 Site Preparation
Site preparation should begin with the removal of flatwork, vegetation, utility lines, asphalt,
concrete, and other deleterious debris from areas to be graded. Tree stumps and roots
should be removed to such a depth that organic material is generally not present. Clearing
and grubbing should extend to the outside of the proposed excavation and fill areas. The
debris and unsuitable material generated during clearing and grubbing should be removed
from areas to be graded and disposed of at a legal dumpsite away from the project area.
8.1.2 Ground Improvement
Based on our review CGS Special Publication 117A - Guidelines for Evaluating and
Mitigating Liquefaction in California (CGS, 2008), the document indicates that structural
mitigation measures may be acceptable for sites with a potential for horizontal
displacements due to lateral spread less than 1 foot and vertical displacements due to
liquefaction of less than 4 inches. As described above, our analysis indicates that dynamic
settlements on the order of 6 to 8 inches could occur at the relocatable buildings, on the
order of 4 to 7 inches of dynamic settlement at the MPR building, and approximately 2 feet
of lateral spreading could occur at the site during the design seismic event. Since our
analysis indicates total dynamic settlements and lateral spreading due to liquefaction
greater than the 4 inches and 1 foot, respectively, we do not consider a structural mitigation
measure such as a deep foundation system to be appropriate for this site. Accordingly, we
recommend that ground improvement be performed at the site to mitigate the potential for
liquefaction. These recommendations are considered applicable to permanent structures
designed for human occupancy, such as the proposed MPR building. In the event the
relocatable buildings are classified as a permanent structure designed for human
occupancy, the recommendations of ground improvement would also be considered
applicable to those buildings.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 14
As described earlier, portions of the underlying alluvium are susceptible to liquefaction, with
seismically-induced settlements up to approximately 7 inches and lateral spreading up to
approximately 2 feet as a result of a design seismic event. A method that can be employed to
mitigate anticipated seismically-induced settlements, along with longer-term consolidation
settlement of the proposed building at the site, involves performing ground improvement of the
upper subsurface soil. The primary objectives of ground improvement at the site would be to
provide improved support for the new site improvements during and immediately after an
earthquake, and to reduce the potential for unacceptable damage due to liquefaction, thus
facilitating the use of a shallow foundation system for support of the proposed structures.
Ground improvement methods considered for this site included vibro-replacement (stone
columns), compaction grouting, and deep soil mixing.
Vibro-replacement (also known as stone columns) involves the insertion of a vibratory
probe into the soil on a designated grid in order to densify the loose soil. As the probe is
retracted at each location, gravel is placed as backfill into the void created by the probe.
This procedure not only “pre-liquefies” and densifies the soil, but the grid of stone columns
provides added rigidity/stiffness to the soil and also helps dissipate pore water pressures
that would normally rise during an earthquake. The stone columns are typically installed on
grids having a spacing of 6- to 10-foot centers to depths of 50 feet or less; however, vibro-
replacement can be effectively performed to depths on the order of 100 feet below ground
surface. Proper installation of stone columns can be expected to adequately reduce
potential consolidation and liquefaction-induced settlement to enable the use of a
conventional foundation system for building support.
Due to the proximity of the existing school buildings to the project site, the unknown
aspects of other nearby buildings, and the nature of the upper soils within and adjacent to
the site, vibrations associated with the installation of stone columns are anticipated to
adversely affect the existing buildings and other site improvements. Therefore, we do not
recommend the installation of stone columns at this site.
Compaction grouting is generally employed to densify loose soils to the point where liquefaction
potential is sufficiently reduced. This method typically involves the pumping of low slump,
mortar type grout under pressure into the soil. This procedure is generally performed by drilling
or driving steel pipes (usually 2-inches or greater in internal diameter) on a grid with spacings
that range from 5 to 9 feet on center. The grout is then injected at pressures ranging from 100
to 300 pounds per square inch, until the soils are sufficiently densified as they are displaced by
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 15
the grout. Where compaction grouting is properly performed, a conventional foundation system
can be expected to provide adequate building support.
Our experience with compaction grouting at similar locations, along with our review of California
Geological Survey Special Publication 117a “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California,” (CGS 2008) indicates that when performing compaction grouting,
inadequate compaction occurs when sufficient confinement (typically about 10 feet of
overburden) is not present. Heaving of the ground surface also can occur when the grout
column is installed at depths of less than 10 feet. However, lesser levels of compaction can
be experienced if the grout column extends to depths between 5 and 10 feet, provided lower
levels of grout pressure and other measures are employed within these depths to prevent
heaving of the ground surface. Such heaving would affect existing improvements, including
nearby underground utilities. Although compaction grouting is a viable option for ground
improvement at this site, it is generally considered the least economical method presented.
Deep soil mixing involves the use of a hollow-stem auger and paddle arrangement to inject
and mix cementitious grout into the potentially liquefiable subsurface materials. During
advancement of the augers into the soil, the hollow stems serve as conduits for the grout,
which is injected at the tip of the augers. Confining cells of soil cement which overlap to form
walls within the subsurface to provide adequate bearing materials and reduce shear strains
produced by the seismic event, thus mitigating liquefaction potential in the treated area.
Based on our review of the ground improvement methods discussed above, we
recommend that cement deep soil mixing (CDSM) be used to mitigate the liquefaction
potential for new settlement sensitive structures to be built at the site. CDSM is anticipated
to be a more economical method of ground improvement than compaction grouting and will
result in lower levels of ground vibration during construction, thus reducing the potential for
inducing settlement and/or damage to nearby buildings/improvements.
Because ground improvement (including the installation of stone columns) is typically
performed by a specialty contractor, we recommend that such a contractor be consulted to
evaluate whether the buildings are situated far enough away from the site where they
would not be affected by deep soil mixing operations. A specialty contractor should design
the actual size, spacing, depth, and layout of the selected ground improvement method.
However, for preliminary design purposes from a geotechnical standpoint, we recommend
that the ground improvement extend to depths of approximately 6 to 60 feet from the planned
finished subgrade elevations beneath buildings (i.e., the lower end of improved soils will be
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 16
located at a depth of approximately 60 feet below the finished building pad subgrade
elevation, and the upper end will be located at a depth of approximately 6 feet below the
finished building pad subgrade elevation). For deep soil mixing, the grouted cells should be
situated beneath proposed foundations, including continuous and spread footings located
within and outside the building footprint.
During the ground improvement operations, we anticipate that the upper soils within the
proposed building area will experience some disturbance. It has been our experience that
this disturbed zone could extend to depths on the order of 5 feet or more. Section 8.1.6
provides recommendations for remedial earthwork of building pads to mitigate
disturbance of this approximately 5-foot-thick zone of upper soils that may occur during
ground improvement. Special care should be taken while the remedial grading operations
are being performed to not disturb or damage the CDSM materials installed as part of the
ground improvement operations.
We anticipate that existing, relatively recent improvements beyond the operation will not be
adversely affected. However, monitoring and protection of the improvements should be a part
of the contractor’s work. We recommend that a pre-construction survey be conducted of
adjacent improvements to establish a baseline condition. Survey monuments should be
established on the existing structures and other locations. The survey monuments should be
monitored regularly during the ground improvement operations to evaluate whether ground
deflections develop at the existing improvements.
8.1.2.1 Cement Deep Soil Mixing (CDSM)
The primary objectives of ground improvement by means of cement deep soil
mixing (CDSM) is to improve the shear strength of the underlying subsurface soil mass and
to provide containment of the potential for liquefaction propagation. By meeting these
objectives, the purpose of the CDSM is to mitigate the anticipated total and differential
settlements and lateral spreading due to liquefaction potential of the underlying soils
beneath the new buildings. CDSM is an in-situ ground treatment in which the underlying
subsurface soils are mixed in-place with cementitious materials to improve their strength
and rigidity, lower their permeability, and reduce their compressibility characteristics. The
CDSM process may be performed by equipment possessing augers that can inject
cementitious grout materials into the underlying soils producing columns of cement-soil
mixtures that are overlapped to create subsurface walls configured in a rectangular grid or
lattice pattern to create below-ground cells of containment.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 17
The CDSM ground improvement method should be designed and installed to reduce
the potential for post-liquefaction induced total settlements to approximately 1½ inches
or less in the upper 60 feet and differential settlements to 1 inch in 40 feet in the upper
60 feet by an experienced specialty contractor. Additionally, the CDSM ground
improvement method should be designed to resist additional lateral loads that may
develop as a result of lateral spreading of the site to a gradual gradient of 2.7 percent.
To meet the performance criteria described, we recommend that the CDSM design and
construction include the following:
Depth of CDSM treatment should extend from 6 to 60 feet below the finished pad subgrade elevation for new buildings;
CDSM treatment zones should have a replacement ratio of 40 percent or more as
compared to the plan area of the building pad. CDSM treatment zones should have a replacement ratio of 100 percent beneath building foundation elements and the CDSM treatment should extend 1 foot or more beyond the lateral limits of
the foundation element;
CDSM columns should be 3 feet in diameter or larger;
Once mixed, the soil-grout mixture created for the CDSM columns should have an
average 28-day compressive strength of 150 pounds per square inch (psi) or more;
CDSM columns with a diameter of 3 feet should overlap 12 inches or more. Larger diameter CDSM columns, if used, should have an overlap to diameter ratio of 30 percent or more;
Containment walls for the CDSM column layout should have an average width of 2½ feet or more;
Grid or lattice patterns for the CDSM layout should have a center to center spacing of 16 feet or less.
Recommended layouts of the CDSM for the proposed new buildings are presented on
Figures 8A through 8C. As part of the CDSM submittal process for the project, the specialty
contractor may propose alternative CDSM layouts based on the recommendations above.
Prior to implementation and construction of the attached layouts or a proposed alternative,
the specialty contractor should submit a Quality Control Plan (QCP) to be reviewed and
approved by the Project Architect and Project Geotechnical Engineer. The QCP should
include the qualifications of the personnel to be used, equipment to be used, monitoring
program, methods for validating the CDSM installation process, and procedures for
compliance testing. The QCP should also outline a pre-production test program to validate
the proposed methods, materials, and equipment to be used for construction. The pre-
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 18
production test program should also include a field testing program to evaluate the
strengths and consistency of the CDSM columns installed.
Compliance testing should include compressive strength testing of the soil-cement
mixtures produced by the CDSM process. Compressive strength testing should be
performed on wet grab samples collected form the CDSM columns and should also be
performed on core samples retrieved from the hardened CDSM columns. Additionally,
full-depth continuous cores should be extracted from approximately 3 percent of the
CDSM columns installed.
We anticipate that existing, relatively recent improvements beyond approximately
30 feet from the operation will not be adversely affected. However, monitoring and
protection of the improvements should be a part of the specialty contractor’s work. We
recommend that a pre-construction survey be conducted of adjacent improvements to
establish a baseline.
8.1.3 Excavation Characteristics
The results of our field exploration program indicate that the project site, as presently pro-
posed, is underlain by fill soils and alluvium. The fill soils should be generally excavatable
with heavy-duty earth moving equipment in good working condition. Based on the
groundwater encountered during our subsurface evaluation, caving and sloughing of
excavation sidewall and unstable excavation bottom conditions should be anticipated.
Additional processing and handling of these materials, including drying and aerating, should
be anticipated prior to reuse of these materials as engineered fill.
8.1.4 Excavation Bottom Stability
Due to the unknown nature of the fill materials, we anticipate that the bottoms of the
excavations may encounter unstable bottom conditions, particularly if perched water or
zones of seepage are encountered. In order to provide a stable excavation bottom for
structures and/or to facilitate the placement of compacted fill in areas where
yielding/pumping conditions are encountered as a result of seepage or perched water, we
recommend that the excavation be overexcavated to a depth of approximately 2 feet below
the proposed subgrade elevation. The overexcavated material should then be replaced with
gravel wrapped with a geosynthetic filter fabric. Additional recommendations for stabilizing
excavation bottoms may be necessary, based on evaluation in the field by the project
geotechnical consultant at the time of construction.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 19
8.1.5 Temporary Excavations
For temporary excavations, we recommend that the following Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) soil classifications be used:
Fill and Alluvium Type C
Upon making the excavations, the soil classifications and excavation performance should
be evaluated in the field by the geotechnical consultant in accordance with the OSHA
regulations. Temporary excavations should be constructed in accordance with OSHA
recommendations. For trench or other excavations, OSHA requirements regarding
personnel safety should be met using appropriate shoring (including trench boxes) or by
laying back the slopes to no steeper than 1.5:1 (horizontal to vertical) in fill and alluvium.
Excavations encountering seepage should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Onsite
safety of personnel is the responsibility of the contractor.
8.1.6 Remedial Grading - Building Pad
During the ground improvement operations, we anticipate that the upper soils within the
proposed building area will be disturbed. It has been our experience that this disturbed zone
could extend to depths on the order of 5 feet or more. In order to provide consistent bearing
conditions for the proposed building, we recommend that the existing disturbed soils be
removed to a depth of 5 feet below finished subgrade elevations beneath buildings and other
settlement-sensitive improvements are planned. It should be noted that the actual depth of
remedial earthwork could be affected by the depth to groundwater at a particular location. The
extent and depths of removals should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore’s representative in the
field based on the materials exposed. Based on our field representative’s observations, deeper
or shallower removals in some areas may be recommended. The removed soils may be reused
as compacted fill materials provided they meet the criteria for fill materials.
The resulting removal surface should be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches,
moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated
by the ASTM International (ASTM) Test Method D 1557 prior to placing new compacted fill.
Once the resulting removal surface has been recompacted, the overexcavation should be
backfilled with onsite soils that possess a very low to low potential (i.e., an expansion
index [EI] less than 50). These compacted fill soils should be placed at a relative
compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Additional processing and
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 20
handling of these materials, including drying and aerating, should be anticipated prior to
reuse of these materials as engineered fill.
Special care should be taken while the remedial grading operations are being performed to
not disturb or damage the CDSM materials installed as part of the ground improvement
operations.
8.1.7 Remedial Grading – Site and/or Retaining Walls
If site and/or retaining walls not connected to buildings are planned, we recommend that
the existing fill materials not removed during grading be removed down to a depth of
2 feet below the bottom of footings. This over-excavation should extend to the horizontal
limits of the retaining wall foundations plus a horizontal distance of 2 feet. The lateral
extents of the overexcavation may be modified in the field based on site constraints such
as existing structures and property lines. The extent and depths of removals and
overexcavations should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore’s representative in the field
based on the materials exposed.
The resulting removal surface should be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches,
moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated
by the ASTM D 1557 prior to placing new compacted fill. Once the resulting removal
surface has been recompacted, the overexcavation should be backfilled with onsite soils
that possess a very low to low potential (i.e., an expansion index [EI] less than 50). These
compacted fill soils should be placed at a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by
ASTM D 1557. Additional processing and handling of these materials, including drying and
aerating, should be anticipated prior to reuse of these materials as engineered fill.
8.1.8 Remedial Grading – Vehicular Pavements
In the proposed vehicular pavement areas, we recommend that the on-site soils be
overexcavated to a depth of 1 foot below the planned subgrade elevation for the pavement. The
proposed overexcavations should extend outward horizontally 2 feet from the exterior limits of
the pavement, where feasible. The extent and depth of removals should be evaluated by
Ninyo & Moore’s representative in the field based on the material exposed. The resulting surface
should be scarified 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a relative compaction of
90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The removals should then be filled with onsite soils
suitable for reuse as compacted fill. The upper 12 inches of the subgrade materials should be
compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor density as evaluated by the current version of
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 21
ASTM D 1557. Additional processing and handling of these materials, including drying and
aerating, should be anticipated prior to reuse of these materials as engineered fill.
8.1.9 Remedial Grading – Exterior Flatwork
In the proposed exterior flatwork areas, we recommend that the on-site soils be overexcavated
to a depth of 1 foot below the planned subgrade elevation for the flatwork. The proposed
overexcavations should extend outward horizontally 2 feet from the exterior limits of the
flatwork, where feasible. The extent and depth of removals should be evaluated by Ninyo &
Moore’s representative in the field based on the material exposed. The resulting surface should
be scarified 8 inches, moisture conditioned, and recompacted to a relative compaction of
90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. The removals should then be filled with onsite soils
suitable for reuse as compacted fill. The subgrade materials should be compacted to
90 percent of the modified Proctor density as evaluated by the current version of ASTM D 1557.
Additional processing and handling of these materials, including drying and aerating, should be
anticipated prior to reuse of these materials as engineered fill.
8.1.10 Materials for Fill
Granular materials (e.g., sand, silty sand, sandy silt, clayey sand) generated from onsite
excavations are generally considered suitable for reuse as engineered fill provided they
meet the following recommendations. Fill soils should possess an organic content of less
than approximately 3 percent by volume (or 1 percent by weight). In general, fill material
should not contain rocks or lumps over approximately 3 inches in diameter, and not more
than approximately 30 percent larger than ¾ inch. Fill materials placed in accordance with
the remedial grading recommendations presented herein should possess an expansion
index (EI) of 50 or less.
Imported fill material, if needed, should generally be granular soils with a very low to low
expansion potential (i.e., an expansion index of 50 or less). Import fill material should be
considered non-corrosive as defined by the Caltrans (2018) corrosion guidelines. Non-corrosive
soils are soils that possess an electrical resistivity more than 1,100 ohm-centimeters (ohm-cm),
a chloride content less than 500 parts per million (ppm), less than 0.15 percent sulfates, and a
pH more than 5.5. Materials for use as fill should be evaluated by Ninyo & Moore’s
representative prior to filling or importing. To reduce the potential of importing contaminated
materials to the site, prior to delivery, soil materials obtained from off-site sources should be
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 22
sampled and tested in accordance with standard practice (DTSC, 2001). Soils that exhibit a
known risk to human health, the environment, or both, should not be imported to the site.
Additionally, concrete and AC materials generated from the demolition of the existing
improvements may be crushed and reused within the fill materials, provided they are free of
rebar and painted surfaces. These materials are considered suitable, provided they are
processed and mixed with onsite soils to meet the gradation recommendations provided
above. However, materials containing crushed AC should not be placed within building
pads. In areas of landscaping, the landscape architect should be consulted regarding the
use of recycled AC and concrete materials within the fill.
8.1.11 Compacted Fill
Prior to placement of compacted fill, the contractor should request an evaluation of the
exposed ground surface by Ninyo & Moore. Unless otherwise recommended, the exposed
ground surface should then be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches and watered
or dried, as needed, to achieve moisture contents generally at or slightly above the
optimum moisture content. The scarified materials should then be compacted to a relative
compaction of 90 percent as evaluated in accordance with ASTM D 1557. The evaluation of
compaction by the geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude any
requirements for observation or approval by governing agencies. It is the contractor's
responsibility to notify this office and the appropriate governing agency when project areas
are ready for observation, and to provide reasonable time for that review.
Fill materials should be moisture conditioned to generally at or slightly above the laboratory
optimum moisture content prior to placement. The optimum moisture content will vary with
material type and other factors. Moisture conditioning of fill soils should be generally
consistent within the soil mass.
Prior to placement of additional compacted fill material following a delay in the grading
operations, the exposed surface of previously compacted fill should be prepared to receive
fill. Preparation may include scarification, moisture conditioning, and recompaction.
Compacted fill should be placed in horizontal lifts of approximately 8 inches in loose
thickness. Prior to compaction, each lift should be watered or dried as needed to achieve a
moisture content generally at or slightly above the laboratory optimum, mixed, and then
compacted by mechanical methods, to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by
ASTM D 1557. The upper 12 inches of the subgrade materials beneath vehicular
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 23
pavements should be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent relative density as
evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Successive lifts should be treated in a like manner until the
desired finished grades are achieved.
8.1.12 Utility Pipe Zone Backfill
The pipe zone backfill should be placed on top of the pipe bedding material and extend to
1 foot or more above the top of the pipe in accordance with the recent edition of the
Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”). Pipe zone backfill
should have a Sand Equivalent (SE) of 30 or more, and be placed around the sides and top
of the pipe. Silts and clays should not be used as pipe zone backfill. Special care should be
taken not to allow voids beneath and around the pipe. Compaction of the pipe zone backfill
should proceed up both sides of the pipe.
It has been our experience that the voids within a crushed rock material are sufficiently
large to allow fines to migrate into the voids, thereby creating the potential for sinkholes and
depressions to develop at the ground surface. If open-graded gravel is utilized as pipe zone
backfill, this material should be separated from the adjacent trench sidewalls and overlying
trench backfill with a geosynthetic filter fabric.
8.1.13 Utility Trench Zone Backfill
Based on our subsurface evaluation, the on-site materials should be generally suitable for
reuse as trench zone backfill provided they are free of organic material, clay lumps, debris,
rocks more than approximately 3 inches in diameter and not more than approximately
30 percent larger than ¾ inch. Trench zone backfill should be moisture-conditioned to
generally at or slightly above the laboratory optimum. Trench zone backfill should be
compacted to a relative compaction of 90 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557, except for
the upper 12 inches of the backfill beneath vehicular pavements that should be compacted
to a relative compaction of 95 percent as evaluated by ASTM D 1557. Lift thickness for
backfill will depend on the type of compaction equipment utilized, but fill should generally be
placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness. Special care should be exercised
to avoid damaging the pipe during compaction of the backfill.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 24
8.1.14 Lateral Pressures for Thrust Blocks
Thrust restraint for buried pipelines may be achieved by transferring the thrust force to the
soil outside the pipe through a thrust block. Thrust blocks may be designed using the lateral
passive earth pressures presented on Figure 9. Thrust blocks should be backfilled with
granular backfill material and compacted in accordance with recommendations presented in
this report.
8.1.15 Drainage
Roof, pad, and slope drainage should be directed such that runoff water is diverted away
from slopes and structures to suitable discharge areas by nonerodible devices (e.g., gutters,
downspouts, concrete swales, etc.). Positive drainage adjacent to structures should be
established and maintained. Positive drainage may be accomplished by providing drainage
away from the foundations of the structure at a gradient of 2 percent or steeper for a distance
of 5 feet or more outside building perimeters, and further maintained by a graded swale
leading to an appropriate outlet, in accordance with the recommendations of the project civil
engineer and/or landscape architect.
Surface drainage on the site should be provided so that water is not permitted to pond. A
gradient of 2 percent or steeper should be maintained over the pad area and drainage
patterns should be established to divert and remove water from the site to appropriate outlets.
Care should be taken by the contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage
terraces, interceptor swales or other drainage devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to
the property. Drainage patterns established at the time of final grading should be maintained for
the life of the project. The property owner and the maintenance personnel should be made
aware that altering drainage patterns might be detrimental to foundation performance.
8.2 Seismic Design Considerations
Design of the proposed improvements should be performed in accordance with the
requirements of governing jurisdictions and applicable building codes. Table 3 presents the
seismic design parameters for the site in accordance with the CBC (2016) guidelines and
adjusted MCER spectral response acceleration parameters (SEAOC/OSHPD, 2019).
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 25
Table 3 – 2016 California Building Code Seismic Design Criteria
Seismic Design Factors Value
Site Class D1
Seismic Design Category D
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.059
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.576
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, Ss 1.103g
Mapped Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, S1 0.424g
Spectral Acceleration at 0.2-second Period Adjusted for Site Class, SMS 1.168g
Spectral Acceleration at 1.0-second Period Adjusted for Site Class, SM1 0.668g
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 0.2-second Period, SDS 0.779g
Design Spectral Response Acceleration at 1.0-second Period, SD1 0.446g
Note:
1Based on a weighted average Vs100 of 814 feet per second, evaluated using seismic CPT data (CPT-05).
8.3 Foundations
As noted above, ground improvement of the soil that underlie the proposed building areas are
recommended to mitigate the potential for liquefaction and seismically-induced settlement.
Remedial earthwork of the upper 5 feet of soil is also recommended to address disturbance of
these soils that could occur during ground improvement. The following sections present
recommendations for shallow foundations that are bearing upon compacted fill soils, which are
in turn underlain by improved ground.
8.3.1 Shallow Foundations
We anticipate that shallow foundations will be utilized to support the proposed MPR
building. Shallow, spread or continuous footings supported on compacted fill over ground
improved subsurface soils or on ground improved soils may be designed using an allowable
bearing capacity of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). This allowable bearing capacity may
be increased by one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic
forces.
We recommend that shallow foundations be founded 18 inches below the lowest adjacent
grade. Continuous footings should have a width of 18 inches and spread footings should be
24 inches in width. The footings should be reinforced in accordance with the recommendations
of the project structural engineer.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 26
8.3.2 Lateral Resistance
For resistance of footings to lateral loads, bearing on compacted fill, we recommend an
allowable passive pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth be used with a value of up to
3,000 psf. This value assumes that the ground is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet, or
three times the height generating the passive pressure, whichever is more. We recommend
that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement or a concrete slab be neglected
when calculating passive resistance.
For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.3 be
used between soil and concrete. The passive resistance values may be increased by
one-third when considering loads of short duration such as wind or seismic forces.
8.3.3 Static Settlement
We estimate that the proposed structures, designed and constructed as recommended herein,
and founded in compacted fill over ground improved subsurface soils or on ground
improvement soils will undergo total static settlements on the order of ¾ inch. Differential static
settlements on the order of ½ inch over a horizontal span of 40 feet should be expected.
8.3.4 Shallow Foundation Tie Beams
As presented earlier in this report, we recommend that ground improvement using the
CDSM method be implemented beneath new buildings to be mitigate the potential for
liquefaction. We recommend that the CDSM method be designed and constructed to
mitigate the upper 60 feet of subsurface soils beneath buildings to meet a post-liquefaction
performance criterion with seismically-induced total settlements of approximately 1½ inches
and differential settlements of approximately 1 inch in 40 feet. Additionally, our liquefaction
analysis of CPT-05, which extends to a depth of approximately 96 feet, indicates that layers
of subsurface soils below a depth of 60 feet at the site may be susceptible to liquefaction
and further seismically induced settlements. Specifically, the analysis of CPT-05 indicates
that an additional 1 inch of total settlement and ½ inch of differential settlement may occur
between the depths of 60 and 96 feet depth. Combining the differential settlements for
static and seismic loading conditions, we estimate a cumulative differential settlement due
to building loads and liquefaction may be on the order of 2 inches in 40 feet.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 27
Based on guidance from our meeting with the Division of the State Architect (DSA) for this
project, the project design falls under the 2016 CBC; however, DSA suggested that
differential settlements for the MPR building should be evaluated using Section 12.13.9 of
ASCE 7-16. Per our review of the project plans (LPA, 2019b), the new MPR building falls
under Risk Category III and is classified as an “other single story structure.” Table 12.13-3
in ASCE 7-16, indicates that the differential settlement threshold is 0.010L, or approximately
4¾ inches over 40 feet. However, since the recommended ground improvement using the
CDSM method is not anticipated to meet the threshold of one-fourth of the cumulative
differential settlement (approximately 1¼ inches over 40 feet), we recommend that tie
beams be incorporated into the design and construction of the new MPR building shallow
foundations. The tie beams should extend to the bottom of the proposed foundations, be
12 inches or more in width, and should be provided with reinforcement in accordance with
the structural engineer’s requirements.
8.4 Site and/or Retaining Walls
Site and/or retaining walls that are not a part of or are not connected to the buildings may be
supported on continuous footings bearing 2 feet or more of compacted fill. The continuous
footing should have a width of 24 inches or more and be embedded a depth of 18 inches or
more. An allowable bearing capacity of 2,500 psf may be used for the design of site and/or
retaining wall foundations. The allowable bearing capacity may be increased by one-third when
considering loads of short duration, such as wind or seismic forces.
For the design of a yielding retaining wall that is not restrained against movement by rigid
corners or structural connections, the design lateral earth pressures are presented on Figure 10.
Restrained walls (non-yielding) may be designed for the lateral earth pressures presented on
Figure 11. These pressures assume low-expansive backfill and free draining conditions.
Measures should be taken to reduce the potential for build-up of moisture behind the retaining
walls. A drain should be provided behind the retaining wall as shown on Figure 12. The drain
should be connected to an appropriate outlet.
8.5 Interior Slabs-On-Grade
We recommend that conventional, interior concrete slab-on-grade floors be underlain by compacted
fill materials of generally very low to low expansion potential (i.e. an expansion index of 50 or less).
The depth of the compacted fill beneath the slab-on-grade should be in accordance with the
applicable remedial grading recommendations presented in this report. Interior concrete
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 28
slabs-on-grade should be 5 inches thick. If moisture sensitive floor coverings are to be used, we
recommend that slabs be underlain by a vapor retarder and capillary break system consisting of a
10-mil polyethylene (or equivalent) membrane placed over 4 inches of medium to coarse, clean
sand or pea gravel. The slabs-on-grade should be reinforced with No. 4 reinforcing bars spaced
18 inches on center each way. The reinforcing bars should be placed near the middle of the slab. As
a means to help reduce shrinkage cracks, we recommend that the slabs be provided with
crack-control joints at intervals of approximately 12 feet each way. The slab reinforcement and
expansion joint spacing should be designed by the project structural engineer.
8.6 Concrete Flatwork
We recommend that exterior concrete flatwork underlain by 1 foot or more of compacted fill
materials possessing generally very low to low expansion potential (i.e., an EI of 50 or less) be
4 inches in thickness and should be reinforced with No. 3 reinforcing bars placed at 24 inches
on-center both ways. A vapor retarder is not needed for exterior flatwork. To reduce the potential
manifestation of cracking in exterior concrete flatwork due to movement of the underlying soil,
we recommend that such flatwork be installed with crack-control joints at appropriate spacing as
designed by the civil engineer. Before placement of concrete, remedial grading should be
performed as recommended previously. Positive drainage should be established and maintained
adjacent to flatwork.
8.7 Light Pole and Canopy Foundations
We recommend that light pole and canopy structures be supported on cast-in-drilled-
hole (CIDH) piles. Light pole and canopy structures typically impose relatively light axial loads
on foundations. Although we anticipate that pile dimensions will be generally controlled by the
lateral load demand, we recommend that such drilled foundations have a diameter of 18 inches
or more. The pile dimensions (i.e., diameter and embedment) should be evaluated by the
project structural engineer.
The drilled pile construction should be observed by Ninyo & Moore during construction to
evaluate if the piles have been extended to the design depths. It is the contractor's responsibility
to (a) take appropriate measures for maintaining the integrity of the drilled holes, (b) see that the
holes are cleaned and straight, and (c) see that sloughed loose soil is removed from the bottom
of the hole prior to the placement of concrete. Drilled piles should be checked for alignment and
plumbness during installation. The amount of acceptable misalignment of a pile is approximately
3 inches from the plan location. It is usually acceptable for a pile to be out of plumb by 1 percent
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 29
of the depth of the pile. The center-to-center spacing of piles should be no less than three times
the nominal diameter of the pile. If the CIDH piles extend into groundwater or seepage, the
contractor should consider appropriate measures during construction to reduce the potential for
caving of the drilled holes, including the use of steel casing and/or drilling mud. In addition, we
recommend concrete be placed by tremie method, to see that the aggregate and cement do not
segregate during concrete placement, on the same day the CIDH piles are drilled.
For resistance of light pole and/or canopy footings to lateral loads, we recommend an
allowable passive pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth be used, with an upper bound value of
up to 3,000 psf. This value assumes that the light poles are designed to tolerate ½ inch of
deflection at the surface and that the ground is horizontal for a distance of 10 feet, or
three times the height generating the passive pressure, whichever is greater. We recommend
that the upper 1 foot of soil not protected by pavement or a concrete slab be neglected when
calculating passive resistance.
For frictional resistance to lateral loads, we recommend a coefficient of friction of 0.3 be used
between soil and concrete. The allowable lateral resistance values may be increased by
1/3 during short term loading conditions, such as wind or seismic loading.
8.8 Preliminary Pavement Design
The following sections include our preliminary recommendations for the design of flexible and
rigid pavements.
8.8.1 Preliminary Flexible Pavement Design
We understand that the project will include the construction of new vehicular pavements.
Our laboratory testing of a near surface soil sample at the project site indicated an
R-value of 12. This R-value, along with estimated design Traffic Indices (TI) of 5, 6, and 7
has been the basis of our preliminary flexible pavement design. Actual pavement
recommendations should be based on R-value tests performed on bulk samples of the
soils that are exposed at the finished subgrade elevations across the site at the
completion of the grading operations. The preliminary recommended flexible pavement
sections are presented in Table 4.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 30
Table 4 – Recommended Preliminary Flexible Pavement Sections
Traffic Index (Pavement Usage) Design R-Value
Asphalt Concrete Thickness (inches)
Aggregate Base Thickness (inches)
5 (Parking Stalls) 12 3 9
6 (Drive Aisles) 12 3½ 11
7 (Fire Lanes and Bus Lanes) 12 4 14
As indicated, these values assume TIs of 7.0 or less for site pavements. If traffic loads are
different from those assumed, the pavement design should be re-evaluated. We recommend
that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent
relative density as evaluated by the current version of ASTM D 1557. Additionally, aggregate
base materials should be compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent relative density as
evaluated by the current version of ASTM D 1557.
Experience indicates that refuse truck traffic can significantly shorten the useful life of AC
sections. We recommend that in these areas, 7 inches of 600 psi flexural strength Portland
cement concrete reinforced with No. 4 bars, 18-inches on center, be placed over 6 inches
or more of aggregate base materials compacted to a relative compaction of 95 percent.
8.8.2 Preliminary Rigid Pavement Design
Our laboratory testing on a representative sample of the near-surface soils at the site
indicated an R-value of 12. Accordingly, we have used a design R-value of 12 and Traffic
Indices (TI) of 5, 6, and 7 for the basis of our preliminary design of rigid pavements for the
project. However, actual pavement recommendations should be based on R-value tests
performed on bulk samples of the soils exposed at the finished subgrade elevations
following grading operations. We recommend that the geotechnical consultant re-evaluate
the pavement design at the time of construction.
The recommended preliminary rigid pavement sections for onsite areas are presented in
Table 5 below.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 31
Table 5 – Recommended Preliminary Rigid Pavement Sections
Traffic Index (Pavement Usage) Design R-Value
Portland Cement Concrete Thickness (inches)
Aggregate Base Thickness (inches)
5 (Parking Stalls) 12 6 4
6 (Drive Aisles) 12 7.5 4
7
(Fire Lanes and Bus Lanes) 12 9 4
As indicated, these values assume TIs of 7.0 or less for site pavements. If traffic loads are
different from those assumed, the pavement design should be re-evaluated. We recommend
that the upper 12 inches of the subgrade soils and aggregate base be compacted to a relative
compaction of 95 percent relative density as evaluated by the current version of ASTM
D 1557. Additionally, we recommend that the Portland cement concrete (PCC) for rigid
pavements use concrete that possess a flexural strength of 600 psi.
8.9 Corrosion
Laboratory testing was performed on representative samples of the on-site earth materials to
evaluate pH and electrical resistivity, as well as chloride and sulfate contents. The pH and
electrical resistivity tests were performed in accordance with CT 643 and the sulfate and
chloride content tests were performed in accordance with CT 417 and CT 422, respectively.
These laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C.
The results of the corrosivity testing indicated electrical resistivities of 780 and 870 ohm-cm, soil
pH of 7.4 and 7.5, chloride contents of 55 and 295 ppm, and sulfate contents between 0.011
and 0.058 percent (i.e., 110 and 580 ppm). Based on a comparison with the California Amended
(Caltrans, 2019) AASHTO (2017) corrosion guidelines and our experience with similar soils, the
onsite soils would be classified as corrosive. Corrosive soils are defined as soil with an electrical
resistivity equal to or less than 1,100 ohm-cm, a chloride content more than 500 ppm, more than
0.15 percent sulfates (1,500 ppm), and/or a pH less than 5.5.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 32
8.10 Concrete
Concrete in contact with soil or water that contains high concentrations of water-soluble sulfates
that can be subject to premature chemical and/or physical deterioration. As noted, the soil
sample tested in this evaluation indicated water-soluble sulfate contents between 0.011 and
0.058 percent by weight (i.e., 110 and 580 ppm). Based on the American Concrete Institute (ACI)
318 criteria, the site soils would correspond to exposure class S0. For this exposure class,
ACI 318 recommends that normal weight concrete in contact with soil possess a compressive
strength of 2,500 psi or more. Furthermore, due to the potential for variability of site soils, we also
recommend that normal weight concrete in contact with soil use Type II, II/V, or V cement.
9 PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE
We recommend that a pre-construction meeting be held prior to commencement of grading. The
owner or his representative, the agency representatives, the architect, the civil engineer,
Ninyo & Moore, and the contractor should attend to discuss the plans, the project, and the
proposed construction schedule.
10 PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION
The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on analysis of
observed conditions in widely spaced exploratory borings. If conditions are found to vary from
those described in this report, Ninyo & Moore should be notified, and additional recommendations
will be provided upon request. Ninyo & Moore should review the final project drawings and
specifications prior to the commencement of construction. Ninyo & Moore should perform the
needed observation and testing services during construction operations.
The recommendations provided in this report are based on the assumption that Ninyo & Moore
will provide geotechnical observation and testing services during construction. In the event that it
is decided not to utilize the services of Ninyo & Moore during construction, we request that the
selected consultant provide the client and Ninyo & Moore with a Division of the State
Architect (DSA) 109 form indicating that they fully understand Ninyo & Moore’s recommendations,
and that they are in full agreement with the design parameters and recommendations contained in
this report. Construction of proposed improvements should be performed by qualified
subcontractors utilizing appropriate techniques and construction materials.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 33
11 LIMITATIONS
The field evaluation, laboratory testing, and geotechnical analyses presented in this report have
been conducted in general accordance with current practice and the standard of care exercised
by geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in the project area. No warranty, expressed
or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations, and opinions presented in this
report. There is no evaluation detailed enough to reveal every subsurface condition. Variations
may exist and conditions not observed or described in this report may be encountered during
construction. Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional
subsurface exploration. Additional subsurface evaluation will be performed upon request.
Please also note that our evaluation was limited to assessment of the geotechnical aspects of
the project, and did not include evaluation of structural issues, environmental concerns, or the
presence of hazardous materials.
This document is intended to be used only in its entirety. No portion of the document, by itself, is
designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein. Ninyo & Moore
should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the
content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document.
This report is intended for design purposes only. It does not provide sufficient data to prepare an
accurate bid by contractors. It is suggested that the bidders and their geotechnical consultant per-
form an independent evaluation of the subsurface conditions in the project areas. The independent
evaluations may include, but not be limited to, review of other geotechnical reports prepared for the
adjacent areas, site reconnaissance, and additional exploration and laboratory testing.
Our conclusions, recommendations, and opinions are based on an analysis of the observed site
conditions. If geotechnical conditions different from those described in this report are
encountered, our office should be notified, and additional recommendations, if warranted, will be
provided upon request. It should be understood that the conditions of a site could change with
time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or nearby sites.
In addition, changes to the applicable laws, regulations, codes, and standards of practice may
occur due to government action or the broadening of knowledge. The findings of this report may,
therefore, be invalidated over time, in part or in whole, by changes over which Ninyo & Moore
has no control.
This report is intended exclusively for use by the client. Any use or reuse of the findings,
conclusions, and/or recommendations of this report by parties other than the client is
undertaken at said parties’ sole risk.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 34
12 REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2017, AASHTO
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 8th Edition: dated September.
American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2014, ACI 318 Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2010, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-10.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2017, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and
Other Structures, ASCE 7-16.
Building News, 2018, “Greenbook,” Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction: BNI Publications.
California Building Standards Commission, 2016, California Building Code (CBC), Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2019, California Amendments to the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications (2017 Eighth Edition): dated April.
California Emergency Management Agency (California EMA), 2009, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Oceanside Quadrangle, San Luis Rey Quadrangle: dated June 1.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 1998, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada: dated February.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 1999, Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California: Map Sheet 48.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, Earthquake Shaking Potential for California (revised): Map Sheet 48.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2008, Special Publication 117a: Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California: dated September 11.
California Geological Survey (CGS), 2013, Checklist for the Review of Engineering Geology and Seismology Reports for California Public Schools, Hospitals, and Essential Services
Buildings: Note 48: dated October.
City of Carlsbad (Carlsbad), 2015, Carlsbad General Plan, dated September.
CivilTech Software, 2008, LiquefyPro (Version 5.5j), A Computer Program for Liquefaction and
Settlement Analysis.
County of San Diego, 1975, Topographic Survey, Sheets 354-1671 and 358-1671, Scale 1:2,400.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2001, Information Advisory – Clean Import Fill Material, http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/Schools/index.cfm: dated October.
Geotracker website, 2019, www.geotracker.waterboards,ca.gov: accessed in July.
Google Earth, 2020, https://www.google.com/earth/.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 35
Gregg Drilling, 2020, CPT Site Investigation, Kelly Elementary School, Carlsbad, California,
Project Number D1205027: dated February 24.
Harden, D.R., 2004, California Geology, 2nd ed.: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps: California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, with Supplements 1 and 2 added in 1999.
Historic Aerials website, 2019, www.historicaerials.com: accessed in July.
Jennings, C.W., 2010, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas: California Geological Survey, California Geological Map Series, Map No. 6.
Kennedy, M.P., and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, California, Scale 1:100,000.
LPA Design Studio, 2019a, Base Case Site Plan, Kelly Elementary School Modernization, Job Number 1828310.
LPA Design Studio, 2019b, Kelly Elementary School Modernization Project DSA Submittal Plans, Job Number 1828310: dated November 1.
Ninyo & Moore, In-house Proprietary Data.
Ninyo & Moore, 2019a, Proposal for Geotechnical Evaluation, Kelly Elementary School Modernization and New Construction, 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California, Proposal
No. 108741000: dated June 11.
Ninyo & Moore, 2019b, Geotechnical Evaluation, Kelly Elementary School Modernization, 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 108741005: dated August 21.
Ninyo & Moore, 2019c, Addendum to Geotechnical Evaluation, Kelly Elementary School Modernization, 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 108741005: dated October 15.
Ninyo & Moore, 2020, Supplemental Geotechnical Information, Kelly Elementary School Modernization, 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 108741005: dated January 17.
Norris, R. M. and Webb, R. W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
SANGIS, 2009, Draft – Liquefaction County of San Diego Hazard Mitigation Planning Map.
Structural Engineering Association of California (SEAOC), Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), 2019, U.S. Seismic Design Maps website, https://seismicmaps.org/: Accessed in July.
Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 - Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in
California, Martin, G.R. and Lew, M. eds.
Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, Plate A, Oceanside and San Luis Rey Quadrangles:
California Geological Survey, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35, Open-File Report 95-04.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 36
Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlement in Sands Due to Earthquake
Shaking, American Society of Civil Engineering Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113(8), 861-878.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Aerial Photograph, Date April 11, 1953, Flight
AXN-8M, Numbers 101 and 102, Scale 1:20,000.
United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1989, Engineering Geology Field Manual.
United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2019, FEMA Mapping Information Platform, World Wide Web, https://hazards.fema.gov/femaportal/wps/portal/: accessed in July.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2008, National Seismic Hazard Maps - Fault Parameters, World Wide Web, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/cfusion/hazfaults_2008_search/query_main.cfm/.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 2018, San Luis Rey Quadrangle, California, 7.5-Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000.
Woodward-Clyde-Sherrard & Associates, 1967, Soil Investigation for the Proposed Elementary School at Kelly Drive and Hillside Drive, Carlsbad, California, Project No. 67-156, dated June 30.
Tokimatsu, K. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlement in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking, American Society of Civil Engineering Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 113(8), 861-878.
Youd, T.L., Idriss, I.M., Andrus, R.D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J.T., Dobry, R., Finn, W.D., Harder, L.F., Hynes, M.E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J.P., Liao, S.S.C., Marcusson,W.F., Martin, G.R., Mitchell, J.K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M.S., Robertson, P.K., Seed,R.B., and Stokoe, K.H., II., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Reportfrom the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of LiquefactionResistance of Soils, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering:American Society of Civil Engineering 124(10), pp. 817-833.
Youd, T.L., Hansen, C.M., Bartlett, S.F., 2002, Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement, ASCE Geotechnical Journal Vol. 128, No. 12.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020
ix A
Photograph hic Documentation FIGURES
1_108741005_SL.mxd 3/6/2020 AOBNOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. | SOURCE: ESRI WORLD TOPO, 2019
SITE LOCATION
FIGURE 1
!o 0 1,500 3,000
FEET
SITE
"!"^$
108741005 | 3/20
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIAHillside Dr~ Ill
"'i.. q,
Aqu1
H d1on111
L:l 0011
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
[/)
"' ~ ~
Cannon Ro
':-"?_ " .. q,
'¼/!Sb §) u,J-o,.
Coi,(j"'"' ~t) e ~ ~ ~ ..
t,<, ~'b /'//Rd
~,l' '"tY. ~ ~ (l,s, ;;,I
Ill/ta 0 "11~ -
\ ':S~
'tr. 9e "lvc
f m% " f "' ? l:
::f. ~ .f Q. .s
r.ate~
Bo rde,
cies
7-~ C, i. C, ,, \ "' ~ ~ .:i,~ u,
iii
Ro Ile, Son Rd s:::: ~
~;i 0al Ct ,.,
It'.
3::
@?
@?@?
@?
@?@?@?
@A
!H
!H!H!H
!H
CPT-4TD=60.4
CPT-5
TD=96.0
CPT-2TD=60.4
CPT-1TD=60.4
CPT-3TD=60.4
B-1TD=51.5
B-2TD=71.5 B-3TD=71.5
B-4TD=5.5
B-5TD=51.5 B-6TD=20.0 B-7TD=5.0 B-8TD=5.0 %%%%80605040309020706080805030302030
2_108741005_BL.mxd 3/6/2020 AOBNOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. | SOURCE: LPA DESIGN STUDIOS, UNDATED;TOPOGRAPHIC ELEVATION CONTOURS - NOAA, 2019
EXPLORATION LOCATIONS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
!o
0 100 200
FEET
FIGURE 2
A A'
B
B'
BORING (NINYO & MOORE, 2019a)TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET
CROSS SECTION(NINYO & MOORE, 2019a)
@?
B-7TD=5.0 %%B B'
LEGEND
INDEX ELEVATION CONTOUR
INTERMEDIATE ELEVATIONCONTOUR
90
BORING (NINYO & MOORE, 2019b)TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET@A
B-8
TD=5.0
C C'
CROSS SECTION(NINYO & MOORE, 2019b)%%C C'CONE PENETRATION TEST (GREGG, 2020)TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET!H
CPT-5
TD=96.0
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
3_108741005_G.mxd 3/5/2020 AOBTsa
NOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. | SOURCE: KENNEDY, M.P., TAN,, 2007,GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE OCEANSIDE 30X60-MINUTE QUADRANGLE, CALIFORNIA
SITE
"GEOLOGY
!o
0 1,500 3,000
FEET
FIGURE 3
LEGEND
Mzu
108741005 | 3/20
Qop2-4Qop6-7
Qop6-7 Qvop12
Qvop13
Qvop10-11
Qvop10
Qvop13
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
El
Alluvial flood-plain deposits (late Holocene)
Old alluvial flood-plain deposits, undivided (late to middle
Pleistocene)
E] Old paralic deposits, undivided (late to middle Pleistocene)
I Qops.7 I Units 6-7
I Oop2-4 I Units 2-4
70 _L_~_ D
B Very old paralic deposits, undivided (middle to early Pleistocene)
I Qvop13 I Unit 13 lovop10-11 I Units 10-11
I Qvop12 I Unit 12
I Qvop11 I Unit 11
I Qvop10 I Unit 10
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
Santiago Formation (middle Eocene)
Metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks, undivided (Mesozoic)
Fault • Solid where accurately located; dashed where
approximately located; dotted where concealed. U = upthrown
block, D = downthrown block. Arrow and number indicate
direction and angle of dip of fault plane
Strike and dip of beds
Inclined
Landslide -Arrows indicate principal direction of movement.
Queried where existence is questionable
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION A-A'NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.0FEETFIGURE 4204004 108741005 CS A-A'.DWG AOB
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA108741005 I 3/20Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants4020AA'ELEVATION (FEET, MSL)
ELEVATION (FEET, MSL)40200-20-400-20-40TD=71.5'B-2(PROJECTED 20'NORTH)B-3(PROJECTED 32'NORTH)EXISTING LUNCH SHELTERPROPOSED MPRBUILDINGQafQaCROSS SECTION B-B'TD=71.5'???????LEGENDQafFILLQaALLUVIUMGEOLOGIC CONTACT,QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN?CPT-5TD=96.0'CONE PENETRATION TEST(GREGG, 2020)TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETGROUNDWATER ELEVATION-60-60TD=60.4'CPT-3(PROJECTED 18'NORTH)TD=96.0'CPT-5(PROJECTED 24'NORTH)B-3TD=71.5'BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEET; r ______ f_ ____ 1( I r--.... I I ---.... ....._ ---------~ -----7 1( I I I --- - -~ --l l CJ CJ
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION B-B'NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.0FEETFIGURE 5204005 108741005 CS B-B'.DWG AOBGeotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants4020BB'ELEVATION (FEET, MSL)
ELEVATION (FEET, MSL)40200-20-400-20-40B-3TD=71.5'B-1TD=51.5'CROSS SECTION A-A'QafQaLEGENDQafFILLQaALLUVIUMGEOLOGIC CONTACT,QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN?B-3TD=71.5'BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETPROPOSED MPR BUILDING????????KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA108741005 I 3/20GROUNDWATER ELEVATION-60-60TD=96.0'CPT-5(PROJECTED 4'EAST)TD=60.4'CPT-1(PROJECTED 10'WEST)CPT-5TD=96.0'CONE PENETRATION TEST(GREGG, 2020)TD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETI ,-------------------7 I I I I I I I ---------------~ I -----I r--~ --l l CJ CJ
GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION C-C'0FEET306006030CC'ELEVATION (FEET, MSL)
ELEVATION (FEET, MSL)60300-300-30LEGENDQafFILLQaALLUVIUMGEOLOGIC CONTACT,QUERIED WHERE UNCERTAIN?B-8TD=5.0'BORINGTD=TOTAL DEPTH IN FEETKELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA108741005 I 3/20GROUNDWATER ELEVATIONGeotechnical & Environmental Sciences ConsultantsNOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. TD=51.5'B-5(PROJECTED 40'SOUTH)TD=20.0'B-6(PROJECTED 40'SOUTH)TD=5.0'B-7(PROJECTED 40'SOUTH)TD=5.0'QafQa?????????PROPOSED BUILDINGFIGURE 6B-8(PROJECTED 10'SOUTH), ________________________ L _______________________ , I I I I I I I I -------l CJ CJ ---1 : 1 - -_J_ l -------------
M E X I C OUSA
Pacific Ocean
NEVADA
CALIFORNIA
SAN
JACINTO
ELSINORE
IM
P
E
RIA
L
WHITTIER
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD
C
O
R
O
N
A
D
O
B
A
N
K
S
A
N
DIE
G
O
T
R
O
U
G
H
SAN
CLEM
ENTE
S
A
N
TA
CRUZ-SANTACATALINARIDGE
P
A
L
O
S
VERDES
OF
F
S
H
O
R
E
Z
O
N
E
OF
D
E
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
NGARLOCKCLEARWATERS
AN
GABRIEL
SIERRAMADRE
BANNING
MISSION CREEK
B
LA
C
K
W
AT
ERHARPER
LOCKHART
LEN
W
O
O
D
CAMPROCK
CALICO LUDL
OW
PI
S
GAHBULLION
M
O
U
N
T
AIN
JO
HNSO
N
VALLEY
E
M
ERSON
P IN T O M O U NTAINMANIX
MIRAGEVALLEY
NORTHHELENDALE
FRONTAL
CHIN
O
S A N J OS ECUCAMON GA
MALIBU COAS T SA N T A MONICA
SANCAYETANO
SANTASUSANASANTAROSA
N O R T H R ID G E
C
HAR
N
O
C
K
S A W P ITCAN Y O N
SUPERSTITION
HILLS
R
O
S
E
C
ANYONPINEMOUNTAIN
W HITEW O LFSAN A
N
D
R
E
A
S
F
A
U
L
T
Z
O
N
EPLEITOWHEELER
POSOCREEK
BLUE CUT
SALTON CREEK
SA
N
A
N
D
R
E
A
S
F
A
U
L
T
Z
O
N
E
COYOTE
CREEK
CLARK
GLEN
IVY
EARTHQUAKE
VALLEY ELMORERANCHLAGUNA
SALADABR
AW
L
E
Y
SE
ISM
IC
ZON
E
San Bernardino County
Kern County
Riverside County
San Diego County
Imperial County
Los Angeles County
Inyo CountyTulare County
Ventura County
Orange County
HOLOCENE ACTIVE
CALIFORNIA FAULT ACTIVITY
HISTORICALLY ACTIVE
LATE QUATERNARY (POTENTIALLY ACTIVE)STATE/COUNTY BOUNDARY
QUATERNARY (POTENTIALLY ACTIVE)
SITE
LEGEND
7_108741005_FL.mxd 3/6/2020 JDLNOTE: DIRECTIONS, DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE.
FAULT LOCATIONS
FIGURE 7
!o 0 30 60
MILES
SOURCE: U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND CALIFORNIA GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2006,QUATERNARY FAULT AND FOLD DATABASE FOR THE UNITED STATES.
CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
!!"KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
"~
~,
~~~-~.......-~-~----r -~~~:::: ~ -------=----
Cleotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants
GaG6G5G3.6G3G2G1GbGdGcGeGfG7G9G10G8.3G8G4G11CF72A
CF72CF60A
CF60CF60CF84
CF48CF48AAGI.1AGI.1SPREAD FOOTING3' 0 CDSM COLUMN (TYP.)GRADE BEAMGROUND IMPROVEMENT LAYOUT, MPR BUILDINGNOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: LPA, INC., DATED 11/01/2019.0FEETFIGURE 8A20400N8A 108741005 GIL MPR.DWG AOBGeotechnical & Environmental Sciences ConsultantsKELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA108741005 I 3/20
SPREAD FOOTING3' 0 CDSM COLUMN (TYP.)CONTINUOUS FOOTINGNOT TO SCALEFOUNDATION PLAN B - 3' 0 CDSM LAYOUT EXAMPLENOT TO SCALEFOUNDATION PLAN A - 3' 0 CDSM LAYOUT EXAMPLEGROUND IMPROVEMENT LAYOUT, MODULAR BUILDINGSNOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: LPA, INC., DATED 11/01/2019.0FEETFIGURE 8B20400N8B 108741005 GIL MODULAR.DWG AOBGeotechnical & Environmental Sciences ConsultantsKELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA108741005 I 3/20143'-e¾ 11'-11~" 11·-11
;}
11·-11;}· 11'-11f 11·-11i 11'-11;
t' 11·-11¾
· 11'-11¾
· 11'-11{' 11'-11j
NOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: YEAR &
A
U
T
H
O
R
T
(E) FC-7
T(E) FC-1AAAAA1A23AA4A6A7A10A12A5A8A9A11ABABADADAFAFAGAGAEAEACACSLAB-ON-GRADESEE NOTE 6A1.5AA.01AA.01AA.04AA.04AA.08AA.08CONTINUOUS FOOTING3' 0 CDSM COLUMN (TYP.)GROUND IMPROVEMENT LAYOUT, BUILDING A ADDITIONNOTE: DIMENSIONS, DIRECTIONS AND LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. I REFERENCE: LPA, INC., DATED 11/01/2019.0FEETFIGURE 8C20400N8C 108741005 GIL BLDG A.DWG AOBGeotechnical & Environmental Sciences ConsultantsKELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA108741005 I 3/20
NOTES:
GROUNDWATER BELOW BLOCK
GROUNDWATER ABOVE BLOCK2.
1.
P = 150p (D -d )2 2 lb/ft
THRUST
BLOCK
d (VARIES)
P
Pp
p
D (VARIES)
3.ASSUMES BACKFILL IS GRANULAR MATERIAL
4.ASSUMES THRUST BLOCK IS ADJACENT TO COMPETENT MATERIAL
1
Pp2
pP = 1.3 ( D - d )[124.8 h + 58 ( D+d )]
GROUNDWATER TABLE6.
D, d AND h ARE IN FEET5.
h
lb/ft
THRUST BLOCK LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE DIAGRAM
FIGURE 9
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants9_108741005_D-TB.DWG108741005 | 3/20
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
H+
APPP
D
PASSIVE
PRESSURE
ACTIVE
PRESSURE
DYNAMIC
PRESSURE
RESULTANT
H/3
RESULTANT
D/3
RETAINING
WALL
EP
RESULTANT
H/3
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR YIELDING RETAINING WALLS
FIGURE 10
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants10_108741005_D-LEPY.DWGNOTES:
ASSUMES NO HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE BUILD-UP
BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL
1.
2.
BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL
WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SHOULD BE INSTALLED
DRAINS AS RECOMMENDED IN THE RETAINING3.
RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (lb/ft /ft)
Lateral
Earth
Pressure
Level Backfill
with Granular Soils
2 (1)
(2)with Granular Soils
2H:1V Sloping Backfill(2)
aP
pP 300 D 125 D
47 H 82 H
Level Ground 2H:1V Descending Ground
22 H
H AND D ARE IN FEET7.
SETBACK SHOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CBC8.
SURCHARGE PRESSURES CAUSED BY VEHICLES6.
OR NEARBY STRUCTURES ARE NOT INCLUDED
GRANULAR BACKFILL MATERIALS SHOULD BE USED
FOR RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
EP
DYNAMIC LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE IS BASED ON4.
A PEAK GROUND ACCELERATION OF 0.47g
AND ATIK AND SITAR (2010).
RECOMMENDATIONS OF MONONOBE AND MATSUO (1929),
P IS CALCULATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE 5.E
108741005 I 3/20
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
H+
oPPP
D
PASSIVE
PRESSURE
AT-REST
PRESSURE
DYNAMIC
PRESSURE
H/3
RESULTANT
D/3
RECOMMENDED GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (lb/ft /ft)
Lateral
Earth
Pressure
Level Backfill
with Granular Soils
2 (1)
(2)with Granular Soils
2H:1V Sloping Backfill
(2)
OP
PP 300 D 125 D
69 H 100 H
Level Ground 2H:1V Descending Ground
SLAB RESULTANT
RETAINING
WALL
EP
H/3
RESULTANT
NOTES:
ASSUMES NO HYDROSTATIC PRESSURE BUILD-UP
BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL
1.
2.
BEHIND THE RETAINING WALL
WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SHOULD BE INSTALLED
DRAINS AS RECOMMENDED IN THE RETAINING3.
H AND D ARE IN FEET5.
SURCHARGE PRESSURES CAUSED BY VEHICLES4.
OR NEARBY STRUCTURES ARE NOT INCLUDED
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURES FOR RESTRAINED RETAINING WALLS
FIGURE 11
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants11_108741005_D-RRW.DWGGRANULAR BACKFILL MATERIALS SHOULD BE USED
FOR RETAINING WALL BACKFILL
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 I 3/20
SOIL BACKFILL COMPACTED TO 90%
RELATIVE COMPACTION *
OUTLET
4-INCH-DIAMETER PERFORATED
SCHEDULE 40 PVC PIPE OR EQUIVALENT
INSTALLED WITH PERFORATIONS DOWN;
1% GRADIENT OR MORE TO A SUITABLE
3/4-INCH OPEN-GRADED GRAVEL WRAPPED
IN AN APPROVED GEOFABRIC.
3 INCHES
WALL FOOTING
FINISHED GRADE
RETAINING WALL
12 INCHES
12 INCHES
VARIESGEOFABRIC
*BASED ON ASTM D1557
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
FIGURE 12
Geotechnical & Environmental Sciences Consultants12_108741005_D-RW.DWGKELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 I 3/20
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020
APPENDIX A
Boring Logs
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020
APPENDIX A
BORING LOGS
Field Procedure for the Collection of Disturbed Samples Disturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following methods.
Bulk Samples
Bulk samples of representative earth materials were obtained from the exploratory borings. The samples were bagged and transported to the laboratory for testing.
The Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Sampler Disturbed drive samples of earth materials were obtained by means of a Standard Penetration Test sampler. The sampler is composed of a split barrel with an external diameter of 2 inches and an unlined internal diameter of 1⅜ inches. The sampler was driven into the ground with a 140-pound hammer free-falling from a height of 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D 1586. The blow counts were recorded for every 6 inches of penetration; the blow counts reported on the logs are those for the last 12 inches of penetration. Soil samples were observed and removed from the sampler, bagged, sealed and transported to the laboratory for testing.
Field Procedure for the Collection of Relatively Undisturbed Samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were obtained in the field using the following method.
The Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler
The sampler, with an external diameter of 3 inches, was lined with 1-inch long, thin brass rings with inside diameters of approximately 2.4 inches. The sample barrel was driven into the ground with the weight of a hammer in general accordance with ASTM D 3550. The driving
weight was permitted to fall freely. The approximate length of the fall, the weight of the hammer, and the number of blows per foot of driving are presented on the boring logs as an index to the relative resistance of the materials sampled. The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for testing.
Soil Classification Chart Per ASTM D 2488
Primary Divisions Secondary Divisions
Group Symbol Group Name
COARSE-
GRAINED
SOILS
more than
50% retained
on No. 200
sieve
GRAVEL more than 50% of coarse fraction
retained on No. 4 sieve
CLEAN GRAVEL
less than 5% fines
GW well-graded GRAVEL
GP poorly graded GRAVEL
GRAVEL with DUAL CLASSIFICATIONS 5% to 12% fines
GW-GM well-graded GRAVEL with silt
GP-GM poorly graded GRAVEL with silt
GW-GC well-graded GRAVEL with clay
GP-GC poorly graded GRAVEL with
GRAVEL with FINES more than
12% fines
GM silty GRAVEL
GC clayey GRAVEL
GC-GM silty, clayey GRAVEL
SAND 50% or more of coarse fraction passes No. 4 sieve
CLEAN SAND less than 5% fines
SW well-graded SAND
SP poorly graded SAND
SAND with DUAL CLASSIFICATIONS 5% to 12% fines
SW-SM well-graded SAND with silt
SP-SM poorly graded SAND with silt
SW-SC well-graded SAND with clay
SP-SC poorly graded SAND with clay
SAND with FINES more than 12% fines
SM silty SAND
SC clayey SAND
SC-SM silty, clayey SAND
FINE-
GRAINED
SOILS
50% or
more passes
No. 200 sieve
SILT and CLAY
liquid limit less than 50%
INORGANIC
CL lean CLAY
ML SILT
CL-ML silty CLAY
ORGANIC OL (PI > 4)organic CLAY
OL (PI < 4)organic SILT
SILT and CLAY liquid limit 50% or more
INORGANIC CH fat CLAY
MH elastic SILT
ORGANIC
OH (plots on or above “A”-line)organic CLAY
OH (plots below “A”-line)organic SILT
Highly Organic Soils PT Peat
USCS METHOD OF SOIL CLASSIFICATION
Apparent Density - Coarse-Grained Soil
Apparent Density
Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer
SPT (blows/foot)
Modified Split Barrel (blows/foot)
SPT (blows/foot)
Modified Split Barrel (blows/foot)
Very Loose < 4 < 8 < 3 < 5
Loose 5 - 10 9 - 21 4 - 7 6 - 14
Medium
Dense 11 - 30 22 - 63 8 - 20 15 - 42
Dense 31 - 50 64 - 105 21 - 33 43 - 70
Very Dense > 50 > 105 > 33 > 70
Consistency - Fine-Grained Soil
Consis-tency
Spooling Cable or Cathead Automatic Trip Hammer
SPT (blows/foot)
Modified Split Barrel (blows/foot)
SPT (blows/foot)
Modified Split Barrel (blows/foot)
Very Soft < 2 < 3 < 1 < 2
Soft 2 - 4 3 - 5 1 - 3 2 - 3
Firm 5 - 8 6 - 10 4 - 5 4 - 6
Stiff 9 - 15 11 - 20 6 - 10 7 - 13
Very Stiff 16 - 30 21 - 39 11 - 20 14 - 26
Hard > 30 > 39 > 20 > 26
LIQUID LIMIT (LL), %PLASTICITY INDEX (PI), %0 10
107
4
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
MH or OH
ML or OLCL - ML
Plasticity Chart
Grain Size
Description Sieve Size Grain Size Approximate Size
Boulders > 12”> 12”Larger than basketball-sized
Cobbles 3 - 12”3 - 12”Fist-sized to basketball-sized
Gravel
Coarse 3/4 - 3”3/4 - 3”Thumb-sized to fist-sized
Fine #4 - 3/4”0.19 - 0.75”Pea-sized to thumb-sized
Sand
Coarse #10 - #4 0.079 - 0.19”Rock-salt-sized to
pea-sized
Medium #40 - #10 0.017 - 0.079”Sugar-sized to rock-salt-sized
Fine #200 - #40 0.0029 - 0.017”Flour-sized to sugar-sized
Fines Passing #200 < 0.0029”Flour-sized and smaller
CH or OH
CL or OL
0
5
10
15
20
XX/XX
SM
CL
Bulk sample.
Modified split-barrel drive sampler.
No recovery with modified split-barrel drive sampler.
Sample retained by others.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT).
No recovery with a SPT.
Shelby tube sample. Distance pushed in inches/length of sample recovered in inches.
No recovery with Shelby tube sampler.
Continuous Push Sample.
Seepage.
Groundwater encountered during drilling.
Groundwater measured after drilling.
MAJOR MATERIAL TYPE (SOIL):
Solid line denotes unit change.
Dashed line denotes material change.
Attitudes: Strike/Dipb: Bedding
c: Contactj: Joint
f: FractureF: Fault
cs: Clay Seams: Shear
bss: Basal Slide Surfacesf: Shear Fracture
sz: Shear Zonesbs: Shear Bedding Surface
The total depth line is a solid line that is drawn at the bottom of the boring.
BORING LOG
Explanation of Boring Log Symbols
PROJECT NO.DATE FIGUREDEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.BORING LOG EXPLANATION SHEET
Updated Nov. 2011
BORING LOG
20
0
10
20
30
40
4
15
12
8
10
4
11
18.2
17.5
104.2
109.3
GP
CL
SC
CL
SC
SM
SC
SC
SP
SM
CL
SM
ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 6 inches thick.
AGGREGATE BASE:Gray, moist, medium dense, sandy GRAVEL; approximately 10 inches thick.
FILL:Yellowish brown, moist, stiff, lean CLAY.Yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.Grayish brown, moist, stiff, lean CLAY.Dark gray, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.Gray, moist, very loose, silty SAND.
Dark gray, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.
ALLUVIUM:Yellow, moist, loose, clayey SAND.
@ 15': Groundwater encountered.
Wet.
Yellow, wet, loose, poorly graded SAND; medium to coarse sand.
Yellow, wet, medium dense, silty SAND; trace clay.
Grayish brown, wet, firm, lean CLAY.
Yellowish gray, wet, medium dense, silty SAND.
FIGURE A- 1
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 |3/20DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-1
GROUND ELEVATION 29' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT
2
40
50
60
70
80
5
20
28
SM ALLUVIUM: (Continued)Yellow, wet, loose, silty SAND.
Medium dense.
Total Depth = 51.5 feet.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 15 feet during drilling.
Backfilled with approximately 17.9 cubic feet of cement bentonite grout and patched with
black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/12/19.
Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to
seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations
of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is
not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE A- 2
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 |3/20DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-1
GROUND ELEVATION 29' (MSL)SHEET 2 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT
2
0
10
20
30
40
5
9
4
7
2
9
8
24.8 96.3
SM
SM
CL
SC
ML
SM
SP-SC
SW-SM
ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 4 inches thick.
BASE:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; approximately 6 inches thick.
FILL:Light gray and yellowish brown, moist, loose to medium dense, silty SAND.
ALLUVIUM:Grayish brown, moist, firm, lean CLAY.
Yellow, moist, loose, clayey SAND.
Yellow, moist, medium dense, sandy SILT.
@ 14': Groundwater encountered.Yellow, wet, loose, silty SAND.
Yellowish gray, wet, loose, poorly graded SAND with clay.
Yellowish gray, wet, very loose, well graded SAND with silt.
Medium dense.
FIGURE A- 3
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 |3/20DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 7/01/19 BORING NO.B-2
GROUND ELEVATION 29' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT
2
40
50
60
70
80
26
5
9
27
32
37
22
SW-SM
SM
SC
SM
CL
ALLUVIUM: (Continued)Light gray, wet, dense, well graded SAND with silt.
Grayish brown, wet, loose, silty SAND.
Yellowish gray, wet, medium dense, clayey SAND.
Dense.
Yellowish gray, wet, very dense, silty SAND.
Yellowish gray and grayish brown, wet, hard, lean CLAY.
Total Depth = 71.5 feet.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 14 feet during drilling.
Backfilled with approximately 24.9 cubic feet of cement bentonite grout and patched with
black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/01/19.
Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to
seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only.
It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the
purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids
and design documents.
FIGURE A- 4
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 |3/20DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 7/01/19 BORING NO.B-2
GROUND ELEVATION 29' (MSL)SHEET 2 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT
2
0
10
20
30
40
16
6
17
10
16
15
15
18.2 104.5
SM
SM
CL
SC
CL
SC
SM
ML
SP
SM
ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 6 inches thick.
BASE:Brown, moist, medium dense, silty SAND; approximately 8 inches thick.
FILL:Gray, moist, loose, silty SAND.Gray, moist, firm, lean CLAY.
ALLUVIUM:Grayish brown and dark gray, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.Gray, moist, very stiff, lean CLAY.
Dark gray, moist, loose, clayey SAND.
@ 10': Groundwater encountered.
Wet.
Yellow; medium dense.
Yellow, wet, medium dense, silty SAND.
Yellow, wet, medium dense, sandy SILT.
Yellow, wet, medium dense, poorly graded SAND; medium sand.
Yellow, wet, medium dense, silty SAND; trace lenses of clayey sand.
Medium to coarse sand.
FIGURE A- 5
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 |3/20DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 7/01/19 BORING NO.B-3
GROUND ELEVATION 28' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT
2
40
50
60
70
80
31
30
18
24
9
6
24
SM
SP
ALLUVIUM: (Continued)Yellow, wet, dense, silty SAND.
Medium dense.
Trace clay.
Light gray, wet, dense, poorly graded SAND.
Medium dense.
Loose; fine sand.
Dense.
Total Depth = 71.5 feet.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 10 feet during drilling.
Backfilled with approximately 24.9 cubic feet of cement bentonite grout and patched with
black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/01/19.
Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to
seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only.
It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the
purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids
and design documents.
FIGURE A- 6
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 |3/20DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 7/01/19 BORING NO.B-3
GROUND ELEVATION 28' (MSL)SHEET 2 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT
2
0
10
20
30
40
GP
SC
SM
ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 3-1/2 inches thick.
AGGREGATE BASE:Brown, moist, medium dense, sandy GRAVEL; approximately 4 inches thick.
FILL:Yellow, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.
Yellow, moist, medium dense, silty SAND.
Total Depth = 5.5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled and patched with black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/02/19.
Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher
level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in
the report.
It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the
purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids
and design documents.
FIGURE A- 7
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 |3/20DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-4
GROUND ELEVATION 31' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 4" Diameter Hand Auger (Manual)
DRIVE WEIGHT N/A DROP N/A
SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT
1
0
10
20
30
40
27
3
7
8
22
9
14
13.3 116.8
GP
CL
SC
SC
SM
SP
SM
ML
SM
ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 6 inches thick.
AGGREGATE BASE:Brown, moist, medium dense, sandy GRAVEL; approximately 6 inches thick.
FILL:Grayish brown, moist, stiff, lean CLAY.Yellowish gray, moist, loose, clayey SAND.Grayish brown; medium dense.
ALLUVIUM:Yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.
Very loose.
@ 15': Groundwater encountered.
Wet.Yellow, wet, loose, silty SAND.
Medium dense.
Yellow, wet, loose, poorly graded SAND.
Yellow, wet, medium dense, silty SAND.
Yellowish brown, wet, medium dense, sandy SILT.
Yellow, wet, medium dense, silty SAND.
FIGURE A- 8
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 |3/20DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-5
GROUND ELEVATION 30' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT
2
40
50
60
70
80
17
22
12
SM
CL
SM
SC
ALLUVIUM: (Continued)Yellow, wet, medium dense, silty SAND.
Yellowish brown, wet, stiff, lean CLAY.
Yellow, wet, dense, silty SAND.
Yellow, wet, medium dense, clayey SAND.
Total Depth = 51.5 feet.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 15 feet during drilling.
Backfilled with approximately 17.9 cubic feet of cement bentonite grout and patched with
black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/02/19.
Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to
seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only.
It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the
purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids
and design documents.
FIGURE A- 9
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 |3/20DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-5
GROUND ELEVATION 30' (MSL)SHEET 2 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Baja Exploration)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT
2
0
10
20
30
40
8
19
7
2
14.4 116.8
GP
CL
SC
CL
SP
ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 5-1/2 inches thick.
AGGREGATE BASE:Brown, moist, medium dense, sandy GRAVEL; approximately 4 inches thick.
FILL:Dark grayish brown, moist, stiff, lean CLAY.Gray, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.
Dark gray.
ALLUVIUM:Yellow, moist, stiff, lean CLAY.
@ 18': Groundwater encountered.Yellow, wet, loose, poorly graded SAND.
Total Depth = 20 feet.
Groundwater encountered at approximately 18 feet during drilling.
Backfilled with approximately 6.9 cubic feet of cement bentonite grout and patched with
black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/02/19.
Note: Groundwater may rise to a level higher than that measured in borehole due to
seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only.
It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the
purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids
and design documents.
FIGURE A- 10
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 |3/20DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-6
GROUND ELEVATION 29' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 8" Diameter Hollow Stem Auger (Manual) (Baja Exploration)
DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. (Auto-Trip Hammer)DROP 30"
SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT
1
0
10
20
30
40
SC
SM
SC
CL
ASPHALT CONCRETE:Approximately 3-1/2 inches thick.
FILL:Yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.Gray, moist, loose, silty SAND.Yellowish brown, moist, medium dense, clayey SAND.Grayish brown, moist, stiff, lean CLAY.
Total Depth = 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled and patched with black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 7/02/19.
Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher
level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in
the report.
It is based on our interpretations of published maps and other documents reviewed for the
purposes of this evaluation. It is not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids
and design documents.
FIGURE A- 11
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 |3/20DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 7/02/19 BORING NO.B-7
GROUND ELEVATION 29' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 4" Diameter Hand Auger (Manual)
DRIVE WEIGHT N/A DROP N/A
SAMPLED BY ZH LOGGED BY ZH REVIEWED BY CAT
1
0
10
20
30
40
SM
SC
CL
FILL:Light brown, dry to moist, dense to very dense, silty fine to medium grained SAND.
Brown to light brown, moist, loose to medium dense, clayey fine SAND; scattered lenses
of dark brown clay.
Brown to dark brown, moist, stiff to very stiff, CLAY.
Total Depth = 5 feet.
Groundwater not encountered during drilling.
Backfilled and patched with black-dyed concrete shortly after drilling on 9/19/19.
Note: Groundwater, though not encountered at the time of drilling, may rise to a higher
level due to seasonal variations in precipitation and several other factors as discussed in
the report.
The ground elevation shown above is an estimation only. It is based on our interpretations
of published maps and other documents reviewed for the purposes of this evaluation. It is
not sufficiently accurate for preparing construction bids and design documents.
FIGURE A- 12
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 |3/20DEPTH (feet)BulkSAMPLESDrivenBLOWS/FOOTMOISTURE (%)DRY DENSITY (PCF)PID READING (PPM)SYMBOLCLASSIFICATIONU.S.C.S.DESCRIPTION/INTERPRETATION
DATE DRILLED 9/19/19 BORING NO.B-8
GROUND ELEVATION 25' (MSL)SHEET 1 OF
METHOD OF DRILLING 6" Diameter Hand Auger (Manual)
DRIVE WEIGHT N/A DROP N/A
SAMPLED BY SJQ LOGGED BY SJQ REVIEWED BY CAT
1
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020
APPENDIX B
CPT Logs and Seismic CPT Data
(Gregg Drilling, 2020)
GREGG DRILLING, LLC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES
2726 Walnut Ave. Signal Hill, California 90755 (562) 427-6899 FAX (562) 427-3314
950 Howe Road. Martinez, California 94553 (925) 313-5800 FAX (925) 313-0302
www.greggdrilling.com
February 24, 2020
Erickson-Hall Construction
Attn: Andre Melancon
Subject: CPT Site Investigation
Kelly Elementary School
Carlsbad, California
GREGG Project Number: D1205027
Dear Mr. Melancon:
The following report presents the results of GREGG Drilling Cone Penetration Test investigation
for the above referenced site. The following testing services were performed:
1 Cone Penetration Tests (CPTU)
2 Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPD)
3 Seismic Cone Penetration Tests (SCPTU)
4 UVOST Laser Induced Fluorescence (UVOST)
5 Groundwater Sampling (GWS)
6 Soil Sampling (SS)
7 Vapor Sampling (VS)
8 Pressuremeter Testing (PMT)
9 Vane Shear Testing (VST)
10 Dilatometer Testing (DMT)
A list of reference papers providing additional background on the specific tests conducted is
provided in the bibliography following the text of the report. If you would like a copy of any of
these publications or should you have any questions or comments regarding the contents of this
report, please do not hesitate to contact me at 714-863-0988.
Sincerely,
Gregg Drilling, LLC.
CPT Reports Team
Gregg Drilling, LLC.
GREGG DRILLING, LLC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES
2726 Walnut Ave. Signal Hill, California 90755 (562) 427-6899 FAX (562) 427-3314
950 Howe Road. Martinez, California 94553 (925) 313-5800 FAX (925) 313-0302
www.greggdrilling.com
Cone Penetration Test Sounding Summary
-Table 1-
CPT Sounding
Identification
Date Termination
Depth (feet)
Depth of Groundwater
Samples (feet)
Depth of Soil
Samples (feet)
Depth of Pore Pressure
Dissipation Tests (feet)
CPT-01 02/22/2020 60.37 -- 51.7
CPT-02 02/22/2020 60.37 -- 36.7
CPT-03 02/22/2020 60.37 -- 60.4
CPT-04 02/22/2020 60.37 -- -
SCPT-05 02/22/2020 95.96 -- 25.3
GREGG DRILLING, LLC.
GEOTECHNICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION SERVICES
2726 Walnut Ave. Signal Hill, California 90755 (562) 427-6899 FAX (562) 427-3314
950 Howe Road. Martinez, California 94553 (925) 313-5800 FAX (925) 313-0302
www.greggdrilling.com
Bibliography
Lunne, T., Robertson, P.K. and Powell, J.J.M., “Cone Penetration Testing in Geotechnical Practice”
E & FN Spon. ISBN 0 419 23750, 1997
Roberston, P.K., “Soil Classification using the Cone Penetration Test”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27,
1990 pp. 151-158.
Mayne, P.W., “NHI (2002) Manual on Subsurface Investigations: Geotechnical Site Characterization”, available
through www.ce.gatech.edu/~geosys/Faculty/Mayne/papers/index.html, Section 5.3, pp. 107-112.
Robertson, P.K., R.G. Campanella, D. Gillespie and A. Rice, “Seismic CPT to Measure In-Situ Shear Wave Velocity”,
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE, Vol. 112, No. 8, 1986
pp. 791-803.
Robertson, P.K., Sully, J., Woeller, D.J., Lunne, T., Powell, J.J.M., and Gillespie, D.J., "Guidelines for Estimating
Consolidation Parameters in Soils from Piezocone Tests", Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4,
August 1992, pp. 539-550.
Robertson, P.K., T. Lunne and J.J.M. Powell, “Geo-Environmental Application of Penetration Testing”, Geotechnical
Site Characterization, Robertson & Mayne (editors), 1998 Balkema, Rotterdam, ISBN 90 5410 939 4 pp 35-47.
Campanella, R.G. and I. Weemees, “Development and Use of An Electrical Resistivity Cone for Groundwater
Contamination Studies”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 27 No. 5, 1990 pp. 557-567.
DeGroot, D.J. and A.J. Lutenegger, “Reliability of Soil Gas Sampling and Characterization Techniques”, International
Site Characterization Conference - Atlanta, 1998.
Woeller, D.J., P.K. Robertson, T.J. Boyd and Dave Thomas, “Detection of Polyaromatic Hydrocarbon Contaminants
Using the UVIF-CPT”, 53rd Canadian Geotechnical Conference Montreal, QC October pp. 733-739, 2000.
Zemo, D.A., T.A. Delfino, J.D. Gallinatti, V.A. Baker and L.R. Hilpert, “Field Comparison of Analytical Results from
Discrete-Depth Groundwater Samplers” BAT EnviroProbe and QED HydroPunch, Sixth national Outdoor Action
Conference, Las Vegas, Nevada Proceedings, 1992, pp 299-312.
Copies of ASTM Standards are available through www.astm.org
Revised 02/05/2015 i
Cone Penetration Testing Procedure (CPT)
Gregg Drilling carries out all Cone Penetration Tests
(CPT) using an integrated electronic cone system,
Figure CPT.
The cone takes measurements of tip resistance (qc),
sleeve resistance (fs), and penetration pore water
pressure (u2). Measurements are taken at either 2.5 or
5 cm intervals during penetration to provide a nearly
continuous profile. CPT data reduction and basic
interpretation is performed in real time facilitating on‐
site decision making. The above mentioned
parameters are stored electronically for further
analysis and reference. All CPT soundings are
performed in accordance with revised ASTM standards
(D 5778‐12).
The 5mm thick porous plastic filter element is located
directly behind the cone tip in the u2 location. A new
saturated filter element is used on each sounding to
measure both penetration pore pressures as well as
measurements during a dissipation test (PPDT). Prior
to each test, the filter element is fully saturated with
oil under vacuum pressure to improve accuracy.
When the sounding is completed, the test hole is
backfilled according to client specifications. If grouting
is used, the procedure generally consists of pushing a
hollow tremie pipe with a “knock out” plug to the
termination depth of the CPT hole. Grout is then
pumped under pressure as the tremie pipe is pulled
from the hole. Disruption or further contamination to
the site is therefore minimized.
Figure CPT
Revised 02/05/2015 ii
Gregg 15cm2 Standard Cone Specifications
Dimensions
Cone base area 15 cm2
Sleeve surface area 225 cm2
Cone net area ratio 0.80
Specifications
Cone load cell
Full scale range 180 kN (20 tons)
Overload capacity 150%
Full scale tip stress 120 MPa (1,200 tsf)
Repeatability 120 kPa (1.2 tsf)
Sleeve load cell
Full scale range 31 kN (3.5 tons)
Overload capacity 150%
Full scale sleeve stress 1,400 kPa (15 tsf)
Repeatability 1.4 kPa (0.015 tsf)
Pore pressure transducer
Full scale range 7,000 kPa (1,000 psi)
Overload capacity 150%
Repeatability 7 kPa (1 psi)
Note: The repeatability during field use will depend somewhat on ground conditions, abrasion,
maintenance and zero load stability.
Revised 2/05/2015 i
Cone Penetration Test Data & Interpretation
The Cone Penetration Test (CPT) data collected are presented in graphical and electronic form in the
report. The plots include interpreted Soil Behavior Type (SBT) based on the charts described by
Robertson (1990). Typical plots display SBT based on the non‐normalized charts of Robertson et al
(1986). For CPT soundings deeper than 30m, we recommend the use of the normalized charts of
Robertson (1990) which can be displayed as SBTn, upon request. The report also includes
spreadsheet output of computer calculations of basic interpretation in terms of SBT and SBTn and
various geotechnical parameters using current published correlations based on the comprehensive
review by Lunne, Robertson and Powell (1997), as well as recent updates by Professor Robertson
(Guide to Cone Penetration Testing, 2015). The interpretations are presented only as a guide for
geotechnical use and should be carefully reviewed. Gregg Drilling & Testing Inc. does not warranty
the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the
software and does not assume any liability for use of the results in any design or review. The user
should be fully aware of the techniques and limitations of any method used in the software. Some
interpretation methods require input of the groundwater level to calculate vertical effective stress.
An estimate of the in‐situ groundwater level has been made based on field observations and/or CPT
results, but should be verified by the user.
A summary of locations and depths is available in Table 1. Note that all penetration depths
referenced in the data are with respect to the existing ground surface.
Note that it is not always possible to clearly identify a soil type based solely on qt, fs, and u2. In these
situations, experience, judgment, and an assessment of the pore pressure dissipation data should be
used to infer the correct soil behavior type.
Figure SBT (After Robertson et al., 1986) –Note: Colors may vary slightly compared to plots
ZONE SBT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Sensitive, fine grained
Organic materials
Clay
Silty clay to clay
Clayey silt to silty clay
Sandy silt to clayey silt
Silty sand to sandy silt
Sand to silty sand
Sand
Gravely sand to sand
Very stiff fine grained*
Sand to clayey sand*
*over consolidated or cemented
Revised 02/05/2015 i
Cone Penetration Test (CPT) Interpretation
Gregg uses a proprietary CPT interpretation and plotting software. The software takes the CPT data and
performs basic interpretation in terms of soil behavior type (SBT) and various geotechnical parameters
using current published empirical correlations based on the comprehensive review by Lunne, Robertson
and Powell (1997). The interpretation is presented in tabular format using MS Excel. The interpretations
are presented only as a guide for geotechnical use and should be carefully reviewed. Gregg does not
warranty the correctness or the applicability of any of the geotechnical parameters interpreted by the
software and does not assume any liability for any use of the results in any design or review. The user
should be fully aware of the techniques and limitations of any method used in the software.
The following provides a summary of the methods used for the interpretation. Many of the empirical
correlations to estimate geotechnical parameters have constants that have a range of values depending
on soil type, geologic origin and other factors. The software uses ‘default’ values that have been
selected to provide, in general, conservatively low estimates of the various geotechnical parameters.
Input:
1 Units for display (Imperial or metric) (atm. pressure, pa = 0.96 tsf or 0.1 MPa)
2 Depth interval to average results (ft or m). Data are collected at either 0.02 or 0.05m and
can be averaged every 1, 3 or 5 intervals.
3 Elevation of ground surface (ft or m)
4 Depth to water table, zw (ft or m) – input required
5 Net area ratio for cone, a (default to 0.80)
6 Relative Density constant, CDr (default to 350)
7 Young’s modulus number for sands, α (default to 5)
8 Small strain shear modulus number
a. for sands, SG (default to 180 for SBTn 5, 6, 7)
b. for clays, CG (default to 50 for SBTn 1, 2, 3 & 4)
9 Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt (default to 15)
10 Over Consolidation ratio number, kocr (default to 0.3)
11 Unit weight of water, (default to γw = 62.4 lb/ft3 or 9.81 kN/m3)
Column
1 Depth, z, (m) – CPT data is collected in meters
2 Depth (ft)
3 Cone resistance, qc (tsf or MPa)
4 Sleeve resistance, fs (tsf or MPa)
5 Penetration pore pressure, u (psi or MPa), measured behind the cone (i.e. u2)
6 Other – any additional data
7 Total cone resistance, qt (tsf or MPa) qt = qc + u (1‐a)
Revised 02/05/2015 ii
8 Friction Ratio, Rf (%) Rf = (fs/qt) x 100%
9 Soil Behavior Type (non‐normalized), SBT see note
10 Unit weight, γ (pcf or kN/m3) based on SBT, see note
11 Total overburden stress, σv (tsf) σvo = σ z
12 In‐situ pore pressure, uo (tsf) uo = γ w (z ‐ zw)
13 Effective overburden stress, σ'vo (tsf ) σ'vo = σvo ‐ uo
14 Normalized cone resistance, Qt1 Qt1= (qt ‐ σvo) / σ'vo
15 Normalized friction ratio, Fr (%) Fr = fs / (qt ‐ σvo) x 100%
16 Normalized Pore Pressure ratio, Bq Bq = u – uo / (qt ‐ σvo)
17 Soil Behavior Type (normalized), SBTn see note
18 SBTn Index, Ic see note
19 Normalized Cone resistance, Qtn (n varies with Ic) see note
20 Estimated permeability, kSBT (cm/sec or ft/sec) see note
21 Equivalent SPT N60, blows/ft see note
22 Equivalent SPT (N1)60 blows/ft see note
23 Estimated Relative Density, Dr, (%) see note
24 Estimated Friction Angle, φ', (degrees) see note
25 Estimated Young’s modulus, Es (tsf) see note
26 Estimated small strain Shear modulus, Go (tsf) see note
27 Estimated Undrained shear strength, su (tsf) see note
28 Estimated Undrained strength ratio su/σv’
29 Estimated Over Consolidation ratio, OCR see note
Notes:
1 Soil Behavior Type (non‐normalized), SBT (Lunne et al., 1997 and table below)
2 Unit weight, γ either constant at 119 pcf or based on Non‐normalized SBT (Lunne et al.,
1997 and table below)
3 Soil Behavior Type (Normalized), SBTn Lunne et al. (1997)
4 SBTn Index, Ic Ic = ((3.47 – log Qt1)2 + (log Fr + 1.22)2)0.5
5 Normalized Cone resistance, Qtn (n varies with Ic)
Qtn = ((qt ‐ σvo)/pa) (pa/(σvo)n and recalculate Ic, then iterate:
When Ic < 1.64, n = 0.5 (clean sand)
When Ic > 3.30, n = 1.0 (clays)
When 1.64 < Ic < 3.30, n = (Ic – 1.64)0.3 + 0.5
Iterate until the change in n, ∆n < 0.01
Revised 02/05/2015 iii
6 Estimated permeability, kSBT based on Normalized SBTn (Lunne et al., 1997 and table below)
7 Equivalent SPT N60, blows/ft Lunne et al. (1997)
60
a
N
)/p(qt = 8.5
4.6
I1c
8 Equivalent SPT (N1)60 blows/ft (N1)60 = N60 CN,
where CN = (pa/σvo)0.5
9 Relative Density, Dr, (%) Dr2 = Qtn / CDr
Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9
10 Friction Angle, φ', (degrees) tan φ ' =
29.0'
qlog68.2
1
vo
c
Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8 Show’N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9
11 Young’s modulus, Es Es = α qt
Only SBTn 5, 6, 7 & 8 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9
12 Small strain shear modulus, Go
a. Go = SG (qt σ'vo pa)1/3 For SBTn 5, 6, 7
b. Go = CG qt For SBTn 1, 2, 3& 4
Show ‘N/A’ in zones 8 & 9
13 Undrained shear strength, su su = (qt ‐ σvo) / Nkt
Only SBTn 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 5, 6, 7 & 8
14 Over Consolidation ratio, OCR OCR = kocr Qt1
Only SBTn 1, 2, 3, 4 & 9 Show ‘N/A’ in zones 5, 6, 7 & 8
The following updated and simplified SBT descriptions have been used in the software:
SBT Zones SBTn Zones
1 sensitive fine grained 1 sensitive fine grained
2 organic soil 2 organic soil
3 clay 3 clay
4 clay & silty clay 4 clay & silty clay
5 clay & silty clay
6 sandy silt & clayey silt
Revised 02/05/2015 iv
7 silty sand & sandy silt 5 silty sand & sandy silt
8 sand & silty sand 6 sand & silty sand
9 sand
10 sand 7 sand
11 very dense/stiff soil* 8 very dense/stiff soil*
12 very dense/stiff soil* 9 very dense/stiff soil*
*heavily overconsolidated and/or cemented
Track when soils fall with zones of same description and print that description (i.e. if soils fall
only within SBT zones 4 & 5, print ‘clays & silty clays’)
Revised 02/05/2015 v
Estimated Permeability (see Lunne et al., 1997)
SBTn Permeability (ft/sec) (m/sec)
1 3x 10‐8 1x 10‐8
2 3x 10‐7 1x 10‐7
3 1x 10‐9 3x 10‐10
4 3x 10‐8 1x 10‐8
5 3x 10‐6 1x 10‐6
6 3x 10‐4 1x 10‐4
7 3x 10‐2 1x 10‐2
8 3x 10‐6 1x 10‐6
9 1x 10‐8 3x 10‐9
Estimated Unit Weight (see Lunne et al., 1997)
SBT Approximate Unit Weight (lb/ft3) (kN/m3)
1 111.4 17.5
2 79.6 12.5
3 111.4 17.5
4 114.6 18.0
5 114.6 18.0
6 114.6 18.0
7 117.8 18.5
8 120.9 19.0
9 124.1 19.5
10 127.3 20.0
11 130.5 20.5
12 120.9 19.0
Revised 02.05.2015 i
Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT)
Pore Pressure Dissipation Tests (PPDT’s) conducted at various intervals can be used to measure
equilibrium water pressure (at the time of the CPT). If conditions are hydrostatic, the equilibrium water
pressure can be used to determine the approximate depth of the ground water table. A PPDT is
conducted when penetration is halted at specific intervals determined by the field representative. The
variation of the penetration pore pressure (u) with time is measured behind the tip of the cone and
recorded.
Pore pressure dissipation data can be
interpreted to provide estimates of:
Equilibrium piezometric pressure
Phreatic Surface
In situ horizontal coefficient of
consolidation (ch)
In situ horizontal coefficient of
permeability (kh)
In order to correctly interpret the
equilibrium piezometric pressure and/or the
phreatic surface, the pore pressure must be
monitored until it reaches equilibrium,
Figure PPDT. This time is commonly referred
to as t100, the point at which 100% of the
excess pore pressure has dissipated.
A complete reference on pore pressure
dissipation tests is presented by Robertson
et al. 1992 and Lunne et al. 1997.
A summary of the pore pressure dissipation
tests are summarized in Table 1.
Figure PPDT
Revised 02/05/2015 i
Seismic Cone Penetration Testing (SCPT)
Seismic Cone Penetration Testing (SCPT) can be conducted at various intervals during the Cone
Penetration Test. Shear wave velocity (Vs) can then be calculated over a specified interval with depth. A
small interval for seismic testing, such as 1‐1.5m (3‐5ft) allows for a detailed look at the shear wave profile
with depth. Conversely, a larger interval such as 3‐6m (10‐20ft) allows for a more average shear wave
velocity to be calculated. Gregg’s cones have a horizontally active geophone located 0.2m (0.66ft) behind
the tip.
To conduct the seismic shear wave test, the penetration of the cone is stopped and the rods are decoupled
from the rig. An automatic hammer is triggered to send a shear wave into the soil. The distance from the
source to the cone is calculated knowing the total depth of the cone and the horizontal offset distance
between the source and the cone. To calculate an interval velocity, a minimum of two tests must be
performed at two different
depths. The arrival times
between the two wave traces
are compared to obtain the
difference in time (∆t). The
difference in depth is
calculated (∆d) and velocity
can be determined using the
simple equation: v = ∆d/∆t
Multiple wave traces can be
recorded at the same depth
to improve quality of the
data.
A complete reference on
seismic cone penetration
tests is presented by
Robertson et al. 1986 and
Lunne et al. 1997.
A summary the shear wave
velocities, arrival times and
wave traces are provided
with the report.
Figure SCPT
(S)
1
2
t 1
2
12
12
12
Revised 3/09/2015 i
Groundwater Sampling
Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. conducts groundwater
sampling using a sampler as shown in Figure GWS.
The groundwater sampler has a retrievable stainless
steel or disposable PVC screen with steel drop off
tip. This allows for samples to be taken at multiple
depth intervals within the same sounding location.
In areas of slower water recharge, provisions may
be made to set temporary PVC well screens during
sampling to allow the pushing equipment to
advance to the next sample location while the
groundwater is allowed to infiltrate.
The groundwater sampler operates by advancing
44.5mm (1¾ inch) hollow push rods with the filter
tip in a closed configuration to the base of the
desired sampling interval. Once at the desired
sample depth, the push rods are retracted; exposing
the encased filter screen and allowing groundwater
to infiltrate hydrostatically from the formation into
the inlet screen. A small diameter bailer
(approximately ½ or ¾ inch) is lowered through the
push rods into the screen section for sample
collection. The number of downhole trips with the
bailer and time necessary to complete the sample
collection at each depth interval is a function of
sampling protocols, volume requirements, and the
yield characteristics and storage capacity of the
formation. Upon completion of sample collection,
the push rods and sampler, with the exception of
the PVC screen and steel drop off tip are retrieved
to the ground surface, decontaminated and
prepared for the next sampling event.
For a detailed reference on direct push groundwater
sampling, refer to Zemo et. al., 1992. Figure GWS
Revised 02/05/2015 i
Soil Sampling
Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc. uses a piston‐type
push‐in sampler to obtain small soil samples
without generating any soil cuttings, Figure SS.
Two different types of samplers (12 and 18 inch)
are used depending on the soil type and density.
The soil sampler is initially pushed in a "closed"
position to the desired sampling interval using
the CPT pushing equipment. Keeping the sampler
closed minimizes the potential of cross
contamination. The inner tip of the sampler is
then retracted leaving a hollow soil sampler with
inner 1¼” diameter sample tubes. The hollow
sampler is then pushed in a locked "open"
position to collect a soil sample. The filled
sampler and push rods are then retrieved to the
ground surface. Because the soil enters the
sampler at a constant rate, the opportunity for
100% recovery is increased. For environmental
analysis, the soil sample tube ends are sealed
with Teflon and plastic caps. Often, a longer "split
tube" can be used for geotechnical sampling.
For a detailed reference on direct push soil
sampling, refer to Robertson et al, 1998.
Figure SS
CLIENT: ERICKSON-HALL CONST.GREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 60.37 ft, Date: 2/22/2020KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCPT: CPT-01SITE:FIELD REP: ALFREDO R.SBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)10050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)108642Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)50403020100Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 12:06:48 PM1Project file: C:\CPT-2020\205027SH\REPORT\D1205027.cpt
CLIENT: ERICKSON-HALL CONST.GREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 60.37 ft, Date: 2/22/2020KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCPT: CPT-01SITE:FIELD REP: ALFREDO R.SBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)10050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)108642Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)40200Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 12:06:48 PM2Project file: C:\CPT-2020\205027SH\REPORT\D1205027.cpt
CLIENT: ERICKSON-HALL CONST.GREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 60.37 ft, Date: 2/22/2020KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCPT: CPT-02SITE:FIELD REP: ALFREDO R.SBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)200100Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)108642Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)50403020100Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 12:06:48 PM3Project file: C:\CPT-2020\205027SH\REPORT\D1205027.cpt
CLIENT: ERICKSON-HALL CONST.GREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 60.37 ft, Date: 2/22/2020KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCPT: CPT-02SITE:FIELD REP: ALFREDO R.SBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)200100Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)108642Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)40200Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClaySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClayClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 12:06:48 PM4Project file: C:\CPT-2020\205027SH\REPORT\D1205027.cpt
CLIENT: ERICKSON-HALL CONST.GREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 60.37 ft, Date: 2/22/2020KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCPT: CPT-03SITE:FIELD REP: ALFREDO R.SBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)10050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)108642Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)50403020100Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 12:06:48 PM5Project file: C:\CPT-2020\205027SH\REPORT\D1205027.cpt
CLIENT: ERICKSON-HALL CONST.GREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 60.37 ft, Date: 2/22/2020KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCPT: CPT-03SITE:FIELD REP: ALFREDO R.SBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)10050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)108642Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)40200Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClayClayClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClaySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 12:06:48 PM6Project file: C:\CPT-2020\205027SH\REPORT\D1205027.cpt
CLIENT: ERICKSON-HALL CONST.GREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 60.37 ft, Date: 2/22/2020KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCPT: CPT-04SITE:FIELD REP: ALFREDO R.SBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)15010050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)108642Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)50403020100Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 12:06:49 PM7Project file: C:\CPT-2020\205027SH\REPORT\D1205027.cpt
CLIENT: ERICKSON-HALL CONST.GREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 60.37 ft, Date: 2/22/2020KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCPT: CPT-04SITE:FIELD REP: ALFREDO R.SBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)15010050Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)108642Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)40200Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySand & silty sandClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClay & silty claySand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 12:06:49 PM8Project file: C:\CPT-2020\205027SH\REPORT\D1205027.cpt
CLIENT: ERICKSON-HALL CONST.GREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 95.96 ft, Date: 2/22/2020KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCPT: SCPT-05SITE:FIELD REP: ALFREDO R.SBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)4002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)108642Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSPT N60HAND AUGERN60 (blows/ft)50403020100Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050SPT N60Soil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClayClaySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 12:06:49 PM9Project file: C:\CPT-2020\205027SH\REPORT\D1205027.cpt
CLIENT: ERICKSON-HALL CONST.GREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 95.96 ft, Date: 2/22/2020KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCPT: SCPT-05SITE:FIELD REP: ALFREDO R.SBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedWATER TABLE FOR ESTIMATING PURPOSES ONLYCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)4002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)108642Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionPore pressure uHAND AUGERPressure (psi)4002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Pore pressure uFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioSoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClayClaySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 12:06:49 PM10Project file: C:\CPT-2020\205027SH\REPORT\D1205027.cpt
CLIENT: ERICKSON-HALL CONST.GREGG DRILLING, LLCWWW.GREGGDRILLING.COMTotal depth: 95.96 ft, Date: 2/22/2020KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOLCPT: SCPT-05SITE:FIELD REP: ALFREDO R.SBTn legend1. Sensitive fine grained2. Organic material3. Clay to silty clay4. Clayey silt to silty clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt6. Clean sand to silty sand7. Gravely sand to sand8. Very stiff sand to clayey 9. Very stiff fine grainedCone resistance qtHAND AUGERTip resistance (tsf)4002000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Cone resistance qtSleeve frictionHAND AUGERFriction (tsf)108642Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Sleeve frictionFriction ratioHAND AUGERRf (%)1086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Friction ratioShear Wave velocityHAND AUGERVs (ft/s)150010005000Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Custom DataShear Wave velocitySoil Behaviour TypeHAND AUGERSBT (Robertson, 2010)181614121086420Depth (ft)10095908580757065605550454035302520151050Soil Behaviour TypeClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClayClaySilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sandSand & silty sandClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clayClayClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltCPeT-IT v.19.0.1.24 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/24/2020, 12:10:02 PM1Project file: C:\CPT-2020\205027SH\REPORT\D1205027.cpt
020406080100120.0 50.0 100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0Depth (Feet)Time (ms)Waveforms for Sounding SCPT-05
Geophone Offset: 0.66 Feet
Source Offset: 1.67 Feet 02/22/20
Test Depth
(Feet)
Geophone
Depth (Feet)
Waveform
Ray Path
(Feet)
Incremental
Distance
(Feet)
Characteristic
Arrival Time
(ms)
Incremental
Time Interval
(ms)
Interval
Velocity
(Ft/Sec)
Interval
Depth
(Feet)
10.17 9.51 9.66 9.66 16.1000
15.26 14.60 14.69 5.04 22.1000 6.0000 839.2 12.05
20.01 19.35 19.42 4.73 28.5500 6.4500 733.9 16.97
25.26 24.60 24.66 5.23 36.8000 8.2500 634.4 21.98
30.35 29.69 29.73 5.08 44.7500 7.9500 638.4 27.15
35.27 34.61 34.65 4.91 52.2500 7.5000 655.3 32.15
40.19 39.53 39.57 4.92 59.2500 7.0000 702.3 37.07
45.28 44.62 44.65 5.08 65.9500 6.7000 758.4 42.07
50.36 49.70 49.73 5.08 72.2000 6.2500 813.1 47.16
55.28 54.62 54.65 4.92 78.4000 6.2000 793.3 52.16
60.20 59.54 59.57 4.92 83.9000 5.5000 894.4 57.08
65.45 64.79 64.81 5.25 90.1500 6.2500 839.6 62.17
70.21 69.55 69.57 4.76 96.1000 5.9500 799.3 67.17
75.46 74.80 74.82 5.25 102.1000 6.0000 874.7 72.17
80.22 79.56 79.57 4.76 107.3500 5.2500 905.9 77.18
85.30 84.64 84.66 5.08 113.0500 5.7000 892.0 82.10
90.22 89.56 89.58 4.92 117.0500 4.0000 1230.1 87.10
95.31 94.65 94.66 5.08 120.8000 3.7500 1355.9 92.11
Shear Wave Velocity Calculations
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
SCPT-05
Sounding:Depth (ft):Site:Engineer:GREGG DRILLING & TESTINGPore Pressure Dissipation TestCPT-0151.67KELLY ELEMENTARYALFREDO R.0246810121416180 50 100 150 200 250 300Pore Pressure (psi)Time (seconds)
Sounding:Depth (ft):Site:Engineer:GREGG DRILLING & TESTINGPore Pressure Dissipation TestCPT-0236.75KELLY ELEMENTARYALFREDO R.-2024681012140 50 100 150 200 250 300 350Pore Pressure (psi)Time (seconds)
Sounding:Depth (ft):Site:Engineer:GREGG DRILLING & TESTINGPore Pressure Dissipation TestCPT-0360.37KELLY ELEMENTARYALFREDO R.05101520253035400 100 200 300 400 500 600 700Pore Pressure (psi)Time (seconds)
Sounding:Depth (ft):Site:Engineer:GREGG DRILLING & TESTINGPore Pressure Dissipation TestSCPT-0525.26KELLY ELEMENTARYALFREDO R.01234567890 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000Pore Pressure (psi)Time (seconds)
Site Class Determination
Using data from CPT‐05
Top Layer Bottom Layer Vs Layer Thickness, D D/Vs
(ft) (ft) (ft/s) (ft)
0 14.6 839.2 14.6 0.0174
14.6 19.4 733.9 4.8 0.0065
19.4 24.6 634.4 5.2 0.0082
24.6 29.7 638.4 5.1 0.0080
29.7 34.6 655.3 4.9 0.0075
34.6 39.5 702.3 4.9 0.0070
39.5 44.6 758.4 5.1 0.0067
44.6 49.7 813.1 5.1 0.0063
49.7 54.6 793.3 4.9 0.0062
54.6 59.5 894.4 4.9 0.0055
59.5 64.8 839.6 5.3 0.0063
64.8 69.5 799.3 4.7 0.0059
69.5 74.8 874.7 5.3 0.0061
74.8 79.6 905.9 4.8 0.0053
79.6 84.6 892 5 0.0056
84.6 89.6 1230.1 5 0.0041
89.6 94.6 1355.9 5 0.0037
TOTAL 94.6 0.1161
Vs30 (ft/s) 814.5
Vs30(m/s) 248.3
Site Class D
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020
APPENDIX C
Geotechnical Laboratory Testing
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020
APPENDIX C
GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TESTING
Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) in general accordance with ASTM D 2488. Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A.
In-Place Moisture and Density Tests
The moisture content and dry density of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the exploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 2937. The test results are presented on the logs of the exploratory borings in Appendix A.
Gradation Analysis Gradation analysis tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accordance with ASTM D 422. The grain size distribution curves are shown on Figures C-1
through C-9. The test results were utilized in evaluating the soil classifications in accordance with the USCS.
200 Wash An evaluation of the percentage of particles finer than the No. 200 sieve in selected soil samples was performed in general accordance with ASTM D 1140. The results of the tests are presented on Figure C-10.
Atterberg Limits Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with the USCS. The test results and classifications are shown on Figure C-11.
Direct Shear Test A direct shear test was performed on a relatively undisturbed sample in general accordance with ASTM D 3080 to evaluate the shear strength characteristics of the selected material. The
sample was inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions. The results are shown on Figure C-12.
Expansion Index Tests
The expansion index of selected samples was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D 4829. The specimens were molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and were inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were made for a period of 24 hours. The results of this testing are presented on Figure C-13 through C-14.
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020 2
Soil Corrosivity Tests
Soil pH and electrical resistivity tests were performed on representative samples in general accordance with CT 643. The sulfate and chloride contents of the selected samples were evaluated in general accordance with CT 417 and CT 422, respectively. The test results are
presented on Figure C-15.
R-Value
The resistance value, or R-value, for site soils were evaluated in general accordance with CT 301. A sample was prepared and evaluated for exudation pressure and expansion pressure. The equilibrium R-value is reported as the lesser or more conservative of the two calculated results. The test results are shown on Figure C-16.
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2" ¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422
B-1 25.0-26.5 -- -- -- -- --SM---- -- 15
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
1½" 1"
Depth
(ft)D30 Cu USCSD60
Fine
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-1
108741005_SIEVE B-1 @ 25.0-26.5
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2" ¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
1½" 1"
Depth
(ft)D30 Cu USCSD60
Fine
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
B-1 40.0-41.5 -- -- -- -- --SM-- -- -- 15
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-2
108741005_SIEVE B-1 @ 40.0-41.5
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2" ¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
1½" 1"
Depth
(ft)D30 Cu USCSD60
Fine
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
B-2 20.0-21.5 -- -- -- 0.11 0.28 SP-SC0.58 5.2 1.2 7
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-3
108741005_SIEVE B-2 @ 20.0-21.5
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2" ¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
1½" 1"
Depth
(ft)D30 Cu USCSD60
Fine
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
B-2 25.0-26.5 -- -- -- 0.09 0.27 SW-SM0.59 6.9 1.5 9
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-4
108741005_SIEVE B-2 @ 25.0-26.5
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2" ¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422
B-3 15.0-16.5 -- -- -- -- -- SC-- -- -- 29
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
1½" 1"
Depth
(ft)D30 Cu USCSD60
Fine
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-5
108741005_SIEVE B-3 @ 15.0-16.5
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2" 1-1/2" 1" 3/4" 3/8"4 10 30 50 200
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422
Passing
No. 200
(%)
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Fine
Sample
Location CcCu
100
Depth
(ft)D30D10
16
USCS
B-3 20.0-21.5 -- -- -- -- -- -- --
D60Liquid
Limit
-- 36 SM
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-6
108741005_SIEVE+HYDRO B-3 @ 20.0-21.5
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2" ¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422
B-3 30.0-31.5 -- -- -- -- -- SM-- -- -- 16
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
1½" 1"
Depth
(ft)D30 Cu USCSD60
Fine
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-7
108741005_SIEVE B-3 @ 30.0-31.5
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2" ¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422
B-3 35.0-36.5 -- -- -- -- -- SM-- -- -- 14
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
1½" 1"
Depth
(ft)D30 Cu USCSD60
Fine
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-8
108741005_SIEVE B-3 @ 35.0-36.5
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium SILT CLAY
3" 2" ¾"½" ⅜"4 8 30 50
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 422
B-3 50.0-51.5 -- -- -- -- -- SM-- -- -- 25
Sample
Location
100
D10
16 200
Passing
No. 200
(percent)
Cc
GRAVEL SAND FINES
Symbol Plasticity
Index
Plastic
Limit
Liquid
Limit
1½" 1"
Depth
(ft)D30 Cu USCSD60
Fine
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
0.00010.0010.010.1110100PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTGRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBERS HYDROMETER
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-9
108741005_SIEVE B-3 @ 50.0-51.5
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 1140
Lean CLAY CL30.0-31.5B-1
USCSSAMPLE
LOCATION
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft)
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 200
PERCENT
PASSING
NO. 4
DESCRIPTION (TOTAL
SAMPLE)
100 89
NO. 200 SIEVE ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-10
108741005_200-WASH B-1 @ 30.0-31.5
NP - INDICATES NON-PLASTIC
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 4318
USCS
(Fraction Finer Than
NP
NPB-2
B-2
45.0-46.5
No. 40 Sieve)
PLASTICITY
INDEX
CLASSIFICATION
5.0-6.5 2040
USCS
CL
SM
CL
NP
NP
20
SYMBOL LOCATION DEPTH (ft)LIQUID
LIMIT
PLASTIC
LIMIT
CH or OH
CL or OL
MH or OH
ML or OLCL - ML
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 102030405060708090100110120PLASTICITY INDEX, PI LIQUID LIMIT, LL
FIGURE C-11
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
108741005_ATTERBERG Page 1
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 3080
Silty SAND X Ultimate5.0-6.5B-1
Cohesion
(psf)
Friction Angle
(degrees)Soil Type
SM28
28
110
SM
Description Symbol
Sample
Location
120
Depth
(ft)
Shear
Strength
5.0-6.5Silty SAND B-1 Peak
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000SHEAR STRESS (PSF)NORMAL STRESS (PSF)
FIGURE C-12
DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
108741005_DIRECT SHEAR B-1 @ 5.0-6.5
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH
Very Low20.1 0.015 1510.5 107.4
B-5
B-6
1.0-1.5
POTENTIAL
EXPANSION
FINAL
MOISTURE
(percent)
VOLUMETRIC
SWELL (in)
SAMPLE
LOCATION
B-1
SAMPLE
DEPTH (ft)
3.0-5.0
INITIAL
MOISTURE
(percent)
COMPACTED DRY
DENSITY (pcf)
EXPANSION
INDEX
117.6
110.4 21.2
8.0
10.01.0-5.0
0.015
0.012
17.4 15
12
Very Low
Very Low
UBC STANDARD 18-2 ASTM D 4829
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-13
108741005_EXPANSION Page 1
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH
Very Low
11
0.01122.010.0
INITIAL
MOISTURE
(percent)
COMPACTED DRY
DENSITY (pcf)
EXPANSION
INDEX
107.9
POTENTIAL
EXPANSION
FINAL
MOISTURE
(percent)
VOLUMETRIC
SWELL (in)
SAMPLE
LOCATION
B-8
SAMPLE
DEPTH (ft)
2.0-3.0
Low23.7 0.039 3910.0 110.8
B-8 3.0-5.0
UBC STANDARD 18-2 ASTM D 4829
EXPANSION INDEX TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-14
108741005_EXPANSION - SDx2
1 PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 643
2 PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 417
3 PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA TEST METHOD 422
SULFATE CONTENT 2
(ppm) (%)
1.0-1.5 7.5
CHLORIDE
CONTENT 3
(ppm)
pH 1SAMPLE
DEPTH (ft)
SAMPLE
LOCATION
RESISTIVITY 1
(ohm-cm)
7.4 55
295
780 110 0.011
0.058
B-3 2.5-5.0
870B-5 580
CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-15
108741005_CORROSIVITY Page 1
PERFORMED IN GENERAL ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM D 2844/CT 301
12Sandy Lean CLAY (CL)1.5-3.0B-1
SAMPLE LOCATION SAMPLE DEPTH
(ft)SOIL TYPE R-VALUE
R-VALUE TEST RESULTS
KELLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MODERNIZATION
4885 KELLY DRIVE, CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
108741005 | 3/20
FIGURE C-16
108741005_RVTABLE1
Ninyo & Moore | 4885 Kelly Drive, Carlsbad, California | 108741005 | March 6, 2020
APPENDIX D
Liquefaction and Lateral Spread Analysis
Kelley Elementary School
/-lole No.=B"1 Water Depth=10 ft Surface Elev.=29 Magnitude=6. 71
Acce/eration=0.461 g
Raw Unit Fines Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safely Se/1/emenl
(fl) SPT Weight % 0 1 0 1 5 0 (in.) 10 -0 2 123 15 --~-~----~-~--~--~-~--~-~ I TTTTl l T
~
-10 9 29
7 29
20 5 7
10 15
30 4 Nolq
11 15
40 5 15
20 15
50 28 15 fS1"1
CRR -CSR fs1-
Shadcd Zone has Liquefaction Potential
60
CivllTech Corporation Project No. 1087 41005
\
S "8.88 in.
Saturated
Unsalural. -
e 8 j
-;; -0 I
~ ::,
J ~
! 's 0
£ ,C " :,
:3"
lUJ IE 1Fi2 er~
Kelley Elementary School
Hole No.=B-3 Water Depth=10 ft Sudace Elev.=29 IV/agnitude=6. 71
Acceleratlon=0.461 g
Raw Unit Fines S/le11r Stress Ra/lo Factor of S11fety Sellfement
(fl) SPT Weight % 0 1 0 1 5 0 (in) 50 0 10 120 55 ~-~-~-----~~-~--~-~--~-~-~ -r rnT TT I rr-nTl77T
6 29
15 10 29
10 36
10 7
30 15 15
9 15
31 15
45 18 15
18 15
24 7
60 9 7
6 7
24 7 fs1=1
CRR -CSR fs1-
75 Shaded Zone has Uquefac/1011 Potential
90
105
CivilTech Corporation Project No. 108741005
v'
I
'
\
'
S = 12.78 in.
Saturated
Unsaturat. -
8
IL~ IN
Kelley Element ary School
Hole No.=B-5 Water Depth=10 ft Surface Elev.=30 IV/agnitude=6. 71
Acceleration=0.461 g
Raw Unit Fines Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safely
(fl) SPT Weight % 0 1 0 1 5 0 16 132 29 ~-~-~--~-~----~-~--~-~--I 1111111
10 3 29 -sz
4 29
20 8 15
13 15
30 9 15
14 51
40 17 15
22 NoLq
50 12 29 fs1=1 I S = 8.45 in.
CRR -CSR fs1-
~-Shaded Zo/18 has Uqu8facl/on Polen/la/
Saturated
Unsatura/. -
]
I
~ ::, 60
e ~ 0 "' ii ~ > 0
e 70 Q. ~ ~ <T J
CivilTech Corporation Project No. 108741005 Plate A-1
N
Kelly Elementary School
Hole No.=CPT-01 Water Depth=10 ft Surface Elev.=29 Magnitude=6. 71
Acce/eration=0.461 g
Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement
(ft) o 1 0 1 5 0 (in.) 10
0 ~-~~-------~--~--------~-----I I II I I I I I I I I I I 11
20
30
40
50
CRR -CSR fs1-
S/1aded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
CivilTech Corporation Project No. 108741005
~..._
\
}
S = 5.73 in.
Saturated
Unsaturat. -
Plate A-1
F N N
Ke lly Elementary School
Hole No.=CPT-02 Water Depth=10 ft Surface Elev.=29 Magnitude=6. 71
Acceleration=0.461 g
Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Setttement
(ft) O 1 O 1 5 O (in.) 10 0 ~-~--~--------.---~--~--~--~--~--~-~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
20
30
40
50
~ L'~s~1=~1-~~~-~~~~-----------------_J ::, 60 ~ CRR -CSR fs1-i Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
en
{i
~ ·;;;
0
£ 70
t :::;
CivilTech Corporation Project No. 108741005
r
"') .
\,. I
I
l I:::=,
J
S = 4.20 in.
Saturated
Unsaturat. -
Plate A-2
~
Kelly Elementary School
Hole No.=CPT-03 Water Depth=10 ft Surface Elev.=29 Magnitude=6. 71
Acceleration=0.461 g
S/Jear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Settlement
(ft) o 1 0 1 5 0 (in.) 1 0 0 ~--~-~------,.--~--~--~--~--~--~-~ I I I I I I ll I I ' T Iii iii
10 >------------"'-------------------~
20
30
40
50
«: fs1=1 ~ 60 '--,---~~ _____ __,__ _________________ _
CRR -CSR fs1-
£ 70 ~ :, er ::J
Shaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
CivilTech Corporation Project No. 108741005
I
...
'),
I
I
J
S = 6.59 in.
Saturated
Unsaturat. -
Plate A-3
E
8 -5 B
1
F N
. Kelly Elementary School
Hole No.=CPT-04 Water Depth=10 ft Surface Elev.=29 Magnitude=6. 71
Acceleration=0.461 g
S/Jear Stress Ratio Factor of Safety Selllement
(ft) 0 1 0 1 5 0 (in.) 10 0 ~----~-----+--~--~--~--~-----~-~ I I I I II II I I I 11 11 I
10 >--------~------------------~-<
20
30
40
50
fs1=1
60 ~---------_,__-----------------~ CRR -CSR fs1-
S/Jaded Zone /Jas Liquefaction Potential
J
I
S = 6.72 in.
Saturated
Unsaturat. -
0 n. 70 ,?:-<> :, .\! ..J
CivilTech Corporation Project No. 108741005 Plate A-4
~
Kelly Elementary School
Hole No.=CPT-05 Water Depth=10 ft Surface Elev.=29 Magnitude=6. 71
Acceleration=0.461 g
Shear Stress Ratio Factor of Safely Sel/lemenl
(ft) 0 1 0 1 5 0 (in.) 1 0 0 ,---------,,--------,---.---~--~--~--~--~--~-~
15
30
45
60
75
<( ~ 90
£ 105 ~ :, er :::;
fs1=1
CRR -CSR fs1-
S/Jaded Zone has Liquefaction Potential
CivilTech Corporation Project No. 108741005
I 1111 11 1
~
) .
~
J
}
S = 6.28 in.
Saturated
Unsa/ura/. -
Plate A-5
LATERAL SPREAD ANALYSISReference:Youd, T.L., Hansen, C.M., and Bartlett, S.F., 2002, Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement,ASCE Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 128, No. 12.Note:This empirical equation is only valid for 1m < ZT (m) < 10 m, where ZT (m) is the depth to liquefiable layerProject Name:Kelly Elementary School ModernizationProject No:108741005Boring Location:CPT-1Date:2/25/2020For free-face sites:log DH = -16.713 + 1.532*MW - 1.406*log R* - 0.012*R + 0.592* log W + 0.540*log T15 + 3.413*log (100 - F15) - 0.795*log((D50)15 + 0.1mm)For gently sloping sites:log DH = -16.213 + 1.532*MW - 1.406*log R - 0.012*R + 0.338*log S + 0.540*log T15 + 3.413*log (100 - F15) - 0.795*log((D50)15 + 0.11mm)DH = Estimated ground displacement in metersMW = Earthquake moment magnitude = 6.71 ( 6.0 < MW < 8.0 )R = closest horizontal distance to surface projection seismic energy source (km) = 9.2 (km)R* = distance to hypocenter of seismic energy source = R + 10(0.89M - 5.64)11.3 (km)W = the ratio of the height of the free face to the horizontal distance between the base of the free face and the point of interestW = (1.0% < W < 20% )T15 = the cumulative thickness of saturated granular layers with (N1)60 < 15 in meters =4.88 (m)( 1 m < T15 < 15 m )F15 = the average fines content for the granular layers comprising T15 in percent =18 (%)(F15 and D50 should be in the range as on Figure 5 )(D50)15 = the average mean grain size for the granular layers comprising T15 in millimeters =0.3 (mm)(F15 and D50 should be in the range as on Figure 5 )S = the ground slope in percent = 2.7 (%) ( 0.1% < S < 6% )Note: Depth to the bottom of liquefiable layer < 15 meters; Not applicable to liquefaction deeper than 15 m (50 ft)For free-face sites:DH =#NUM!meters =#NUM!inchesFor gently sloping sites:DH =0.69meters =27.2inches Ninyo and Moore/Appendix D_Lateral Spread
LATERAL SPREAD ANALYSISReference:Youd, T.L., Hansen, C.M., and Bartlett, S.F., 2002, Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement,ASCE Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 128, No. 12.Note:This empirical equation is only valid for 1m < ZT (m) < 10 m, where ZT (m) is the depth to liquefiable layerProject Name:Kelly Elementary School ModernizationProject No:108741005Boring Location:CPT-2Date:2/25/2020For free-face sites:log DH = -16.713 + 1.532*MW - 1.406*log R* - 0.012*R + 0.592* log W + 0.540*log T15 + 3.413*log (100 - F15) - 0.795*log((D50)15 + 0.1mm)For gently sloping sites:log DH = -16.213 + 1.532*MW - 1.406*log R - 0.012*R + 0.338*log S + 0.540*log T15 + 3.413*log (100 - F15) - 0.795*log((D50)15 + 0.11mm)DH = Estimated ground displacement in metersMW = Earthquake moment magnitude = 6.71 ( 6.0 < MW < 8.0 )R = closest horizontal distance to surface projection seismic energy source (km) = 9.2 (km)R* = distance to hypocenter of seismic energy source = R + 10(0.89M - 5.64)11.3 (km)W = the ratio of the height of the free face to the horizontal distance between the base of the free face and the point of interestW = (1.0% < W < 20% )T15 = the cumulative thickness of saturated granular layers with (N1)60 < 15 in meters =3.66 (m)( 1 m < T15 < 15 m )F15 = the average fines content for the granular layers comprising T15 in percent =18 (%)(F15 and D50 should be in the range as on Figure 5 )(D50)15 = the average mean grain size for the granular layers comprising T15 in millimeters =0.3 (mm)(F15 and D50 should be in the range as on Figure 5 )S = the ground slope in percent = 2.7 (%) ( 0.1% < S < 6% )Note: Depth to the bottom of liquefiable layer < 15 meters; Not applicable to liquefaction deeper than 15 m (50 ft)For free-face sites:DH =#NUM!meters =#NUM!inchesFor gently sloping sites:DH =0.59meters =23.3inches Ninyo and Moore/Appendix D_Lateral Spread
LATERAL SPREAD ANALYSISReference:Youd, T.L., Hansen, C.M., and Bartlett, S.F., 2002, Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement,ASCE Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 128, No. 12.Note:This empirical equation is only valid for 1m < ZT (m) < 10 m, where ZT (m) is the depth to liquefiable layerProject Name:Kelly Elementary School ModernizationProject No:108741005Boring Location:CPT-3Date:2/25/2020For free-face sites:log DH = -16.713 + 1.532*MW - 1.406*log R* - 0.012*R + 0.592* log W + 0.540*log T15 + 3.413*log (100 - F15) - 0.795*log((D50)15 + 0.1mm)For gently sloping sites:log DH = -16.213 + 1.532*MW - 1.406*log R - 0.012*R + 0.338*log S + 0.540*log T15 + 3.413*log (100 - F15) - 0.795*log((D50)15 + 0.11mm)DH = Estimated ground displacement in metersMW = Earthquake moment magnitude = 6.71 ( 6.0 < MW < 8.0 )R = closest horizontal distance to surface projection seismic energy source (km) = 9.2 (km)R* = distance to hypocenter of seismic energy source = R + 10(0.89M - 5.64)11.3 (km)W = the ratio of the height of the free face to the horizontal distance between the base of the free face and the point of interestW = (1.0% < W < 20% )T15 = the cumulative thickness of saturated granular layers with (N1)60 < 15 in meters =3.51 (m)( 1 m < T15 < 15 m )F15 = the average fines content for the granular layers comprising T15 in percent =18 (%)(F15 and D50 should be in the range as on Figure 5 )(D50)15 = the average mean grain size for the granular layers comprising T15 in millimeters =0.3 (mm)(F15 and D50 should be in the range as on Figure 5 )S = the ground slope in percent = 2.7 (%) ( 0.1% < S < 6% )Note: Depth to the bottom of liquefiable layer < 15 meters; Not applicable to liquefaction deeper than 15 m (50 ft)For free-face sites:DH =#NUM!meters =#NUM!inchesFor gently sloping sites:DH =0.58meters =22.7inches Ninyo and Moore/Appendix D_Lateral Spread
LATERAL SPREAD ANALYSISReference:Youd, T.L., Hansen, C.M., and Bartlett, S.F., 2002, Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement,ASCE Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 128, No. 12.Note:This empirical equation is only valid for 1m < ZT (m) < 10 m, where ZT (m) is the depth to liquefiable layerProject Name:Kelly Elementary School ModernizationProject No:108741005Boring Location:CPT-4Date:2/25/2020For free-face sites:log DH = -16.713 + 1.532*MW - 1.406*log R* - 0.012*R + 0.592* log W + 0.540*log T15 + 3.413*log (100 - F15) - 0.795*log((D50)15 + 0.1mm)For gently sloping sites:log DH = -16.213 + 1.532*MW - 1.406*log R - 0.012*R + 0.338*log S + 0.540*log T15 + 3.413*log (100 - F15) - 0.795*log((D50)15 + 0.11mm)DH = Estimated ground displacement in metersMW = Earthquake moment magnitude = 6.71 ( 6.0 < MW < 8.0 )R = closest horizontal distance to surface projection seismic energy source (km) = 9.2 (km)R* = distance to hypocenter of seismic energy source = R + 10(0.89M - 5.64)11.3 (km)W = the ratio of the height of the free face to the horizontal distance between the base of the free face and the point of interestW = (1.0% < W < 20% )T15 = the cumulative thickness of saturated granular layers with (N1)60 < 15 in meters =4.88 (m)( 1 m < T15 < 15 m )F15 = the average fines content for the granular layers comprising T15 in percent =18 (%)(F15 and D50 should be in the range as on Figure 5 )(D50)15 = the average mean grain size for the granular layers comprising T15 in millimeters =0.3 (mm)(F15 and D50 should be in the range as on Figure 5 )S = the ground slope in percent = 2.7 (%) ( 0.1% < S < 6% )Note: Depth to the bottom of liquefiable layer < 15 meters; Not applicable to liquefaction deeper than 15 m (50 ft)For free-face sites:DH =#NUM!meters =#NUM!inchesFor gently sloping sites:DH =0.69meters =27.2inches Ninyo and Moore/Appendix D_Lateral Spread
LATERAL SPREAD ANALYSISReference:Youd, T.L., Hansen, C.M., and Bartlett, S.F., 2002, Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement,ASCE Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 128, No. 12.Note:This empirical equation is only valid for 1m < ZT (m) < 10 m, where ZT (m) is the depth to liquefiable layerProject Name:Kelly Elementary School ModernizationProject No:108741005Boring Location:CPT-5Date:2/25/2020For free-face sites:log DH = -16.713 + 1.532*MW - 1.406*log R* - 0.012*R + 0.592* log W + 0.540*log T15 + 3.413*log (100 - F15) - 0.795*log((D50)15 + 0.1mm)For gently sloping sites:log DH = -16.213 + 1.532*MW - 1.406*log R - 0.012*R + 0.338*log S + 0.540*log T15 + 3.413*log (100 - F15) - 0.795*log((D50)15 + 0.11mm)DH = Estimated ground displacement in metersMW = Earthquake moment magnitude = 6.71 ( 6.0 < MW < 8.0 )R = closest horizontal distance to surface projection seismic energy source (km) = 9.2 (km)R* = distance to hypocenter of seismic energy source = R + 10(0.89M - 5.64)11.3 (km)W = the ratio of the height of the free face to the horizontal distance between the base of the free face and the point of interestW = (1.0% < W < 20% )T15 = the cumulative thickness of saturated granular layers with (N1)60 < 15 in meters =4.27 (m)( 1 m < T15 < 15 m )F15 = the average fines content for the granular layers comprising T15 in percent =18 (%)(F15 and D50 should be in the range as on Figure 5 )(D50)15 = the average mean grain size for the granular layers comprising T15 in millimeters =0.3 (mm)(F15 and D50 should be in the range as on Figure 5 )S = the ground slope in percent = 2.7 (%) ( 0.1% < S < 6% )Note: Depth to the bottom of liquefiable layer < 15 meters; Not applicable to liquefaction deeper than 15 m (50 ft)For free-face sites:DH =#NUM!meters =#NUM!inchesFor gently sloping sites:DH =0.64meters =25.3inches Ninyo and Moore/Appendix D_Lateral Spread
Ninyo & Moore | 1339 Temple Hills Drive, Laguna Beach, California | 209769001 R | April 3, 2017
5710 Ruffin Road | San Diego, California 92123 | p. 858.576.1000
ARIZONA | CALIFORNIA | COLORADO | NEVADA | TEXAS | UTAH
www.ninyoandmoore.com