HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP 00-10; THE PAVILION-THE FORUM; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION; 2001-11-08CEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND
LIQUEFACTION EVALUATION
PROPOSED RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
The Pavilion at La Costa
Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08, Lot 4
Carlsbad, California
for
Thomas Enterprises, Inc.
RECEIVED
JAN z2.. 2002
E GINENG
DEPPR1M
Southern California Geotechnical
Thomas Enterprises, Inc.
3604 Carleton Street
San Diego, California 92106
Attention: Mr. Mel Kuhnel
Vice President, Development
November 8, 2001
Project No. 01G216-1
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation
Proposed Retail Development
The Pavilion at La Costa
Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08, Lot 4
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. Kuhnel:
In accordance with your request, we have conducted a geotechnical investigation of the
subject site. We are pleased to present this report summarizing the conclusions and
recommendations developed from our investigation.
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. We look
forward to providing additional consulting services during the course of the project. If
we may be of further assistance in any manner, please contact our office.
Respectfully Submitted,
California Geotechnical, Inc.
Mitchell, GE 2
ara, CEG 2125
fOFES
K.
Si0
No. 2364
Exp. 09/30/04 jm
OFC
No. 2125 CERTIFIED
ENGINEERING
,.GE0L0G!ST
Distrib't4j: (2) Addressee
(4) Mayers and Associates, Attn: Dru Mayers
1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101 • Anaheim, California 92807-1951 • (714) 777-0333 • Fax (714) 777-0398
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES 3
3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4
3.1 Site Conditions 4
3.2 Proposed Development 5
3.3 Background and Previous Studies 5
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION 8
4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods 8
4.2 Geotechnlcal Conditions 8
4.3 Geologic Conditions 9
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING 10
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS S 13
6.1 Seismic Design Considerations 13
6.2 Geotechnlcal Design Considerations 16
6.3 Site Grading Recommendations 19
6.4 Construction Considerations 21
6.5 Foundation Design and Construction 22
6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction 23
6.7 Retaining Wall Design and Construction 24
6.8 Exterior Flatwork Design and Construction 26
6.9 Pavement Design Parameters 27
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS 30
0.0 REFERENCES 31
Southern California Geotechn!ca! The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 014G216-1
I
r
4f44~11
I
Li
0 APPENDICES
A Plate 1: Site Location Map
.
Plate 2: Boring Location Plan
Plate 3: Site Geologic Map
B Boring Logs
C Laboratory Test Results
D Grading Guide Specifications
E UBCSEIS and FRISKSP. Output
F Liquefaction Analysis Spreadsheets
El
Southern California Geotechnical
. The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Presented below is a brief summary of the conclusions and recommendations of this
investigation. Since this summary is not all inclusive, it should be read in complete
context with the entire report.
Geotechnical Design Considerations
The subsurface profile at the subject site consists of engineered fill soils extending
to depths of 8 to 30± feet. These fill soils were placed during recent grading
operations, as monitored by Leighton and Associates, and generally consist of
medium dense to dense sands and silty sands. The fill soils are underlain by
medium dense alluvium comprised of silts and sands and/or sandstone of the
Torrey Sandstone. We have reviewed the final as-graded report of rough grading
prepared for this site by Leighton and Associates.
During previous mass grading of the subject site, the previously existing cut/fill
transitions were mitigated, by overexcavating the cut portions of the site to depths of
at least 8 to 10± feet. All fill soils on the site have reportedly been compacted to at
least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. A large ascending fill
slope is located along the south half of the western property line and near the
eastern end of the south property line. This fill slope was reportedly constructed as
a stability fill, not as a buttress fill. Based on the geologic conditions reported by
Leighton, as well as geotechnical research performed by SCG, no adverse geologic
bedding is present in this area.
The proposed development will include segmental retaining walls along the south
portion of the west property and along some areas of the south property line. A
detailed analysis and design of these walls will be presented in an addendum report.
Subsurface Conditions and Site Preparation
Initial site preparation should consist of removal of the existing vegetation. Based
on conditions observed at the time of the subsurface exploration, stripping will
require removal of the existing grass, weeds and brush. These materials should be
disposed of off-site.
The existing soils within the proposed building area should be overexcavated to a
depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade, to remove the existing weathered and
softened fill soils.
No significant overexcavation is recommended for the proposed parking areas.
Subgrade preparation in these areas may be limited to scarification to a depth of 10
to 12 inches, moisture conditioning and recompaction.
Once the overexcavation depths have been achieved, the resulting subgrades
should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to identify anyadditional soils that
should be removed to a level of competent subgrade soils. The excavated soils
may be replaced as compacted structural fill.
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 1
Building Foundations
Conventional Shallow Foundations supported in existing or newly placed structural
fill.
2,500 psf maximum allowable soil bearing pressure.
Minimum Reinforcement in Strip Footings: Four No. 5 bars (2 top and 2 bottom)
additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations.
Building Floor Slabs
Conventional Slabs-on-Grade, 5-inch minimum thickness
Minimum Reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18-inches on-center, in both directions,
additional reinforcement may be necessary for structural considerations.
Pavements
Asphaltic Concrete (Assumed R=30):
Auto Traffic Only: 3 inches asphaltic concrete, 3 inches aggregate base.
Auto Drive Lanes: 3 inches asphaltic concrete, 6 inches aggregate base
Light Truck Traffic: 31/a inches asphaltic concrete, 7 inches aggregate base.
Moderate Truck Traffic: 4 inches asphaltic concrete, 10 inches aggregate base.
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC):
Less than 4 trucks per day (TI = 6.0): 5.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete
Less than 14 trucks per day (TI = 7.0): 6.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete
Less than 42 trucks per day (TI = 8.0): 7.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete
I
I
I
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G211
Page 2
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of services performed for this project was in accordance with our Proposal
No. 01P269, dated August 24, 2001. The scope of services included a visual site
reconnaissance, subsurface exploration, field and laboratory testing, and geotechnical
engineering analysis to provide criteria for preparing the design of the building
foundations, building floor slabs, and parking lot pavements along with site preparation
recommendations and construction considerations for the proposed development.
Based on the location of the subject site, this investigation also included a site specific
liquefaction evaluation. The evaluation of environmental aspects of this site was beyond
the scope of services for this geotechnical investigation.
Southern CailforoVa Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 3
1
3.0 SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Site Conditions
The subject site is located on the south and east sides of Calle Barcelona,
approximately 1,000 feet north of Leucadia Boulevard, in Carlsbad, California. Calle
Barcelona forms a 90 degree curve at the northwestern corner of the site, and bounds
the subject site on the west and north sides. The site has been identified as Lot 4 of
Carlsbad Tract No. 92-08. The site is bordered to the south by a wildlife undercrossing
and a drainage easement, with an Expo Design Center located further to the south.
Calle Barcelona borders the site to the north and west, and a drainage easement
borders the site to the east.
The subject site is approximately 18.3 acres in size, and is a portion of the La Costa
Glen Development in Carlsbad, California. The subject site is generally rectangular in
shape. At the time of the subsurface exploration, the site consisted of a vacant parcel
that appears to have been sheet graded to its present topography.. Ground surface
cover consists of exposed soil with sparse to moderate native grass, weed and brush
growth. Other than the appearance that. the site was previously graded, no evidence of
previous development was observed.
Topographic data for the project was provided by Mayers and Associates, the project
civil engineer. This data indicates that site topography generally consists of gently
sloping terrain, dropping from southwest to northeast. Site grades within the sheet
graded portion of the site range from El. 106± near the southwestern property corner to
El. 92± at the northeastern corner. Large ascending slopes are located along the south
portion of the east property line and east portion of the South property line. These
slopes are up to 30± feet in height and possess inclinations of 2 horizontal to I vertical
(2h:1v). These ascending slopes are located within the property boundary. A
descending slope is also located within the property boundary along the east portion of
the south property line. This slope possesses an inclination of 2h:1v± and a height of 10
to 15± feet. A descending slope is also located on the easterly adjacent site, bordering
most of the eastern property line. This slope ranges from 20 to 30± feet in height and
possesses an inclination of approximately 2h:1v. Other topographic features noted
during the site reconnaissance include a desilting basin 1ocated in the northeastern
region of the subject site, descending to El. 84.5. This desilting basin was dry at the
time of the subsurface exploration.
It should be 'noted that the topography illustrated on the provided plan, in the vicinity of
Building 6, including the area of Boring B-10, does not represent the currently existing
site conditions. Apparently, the topographic survey was performed at a time when a
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 4
large stockpile was present in this area of the site. This stockpile is no longer present,
and site grades in the area of Boring B-6 are consistent with those of the surrounding
area.
3.2 Proposed Development
Preliminary site plans depicting the proposed development have been provided to our
office by Mayers and Associates. These plans indicate that the proposed development
will consist of eight (8) new retail buildings. These buildings will range in size from
6,000± ft2 to 58,523± ft2. These buildings are indicated to be I to 2 stories in height.
One or two of the larger buildings will also include loading dock areas. Although not
specified on the site plan, it is assumed that the proposed structures will not include any
significant below grade construction.
Detailed structural information regarding the new buildings has not been provided.
However, it is assumed that most of the larger buildings will be of concrete tilt-up or
masonry block construction. Based on the assumed construction, maximum column
and wall loads are expected to be on the order of 75 kips and 5 kips per linear foot,
respectively. Some of the smaller out buildings may be of wood frame construction,
and maximum column and wall loads on the order of 30 kips and 2 kips per linear foot
are assumed for these buildings. All of the floor slabs are assumed to be subjected to
loads of less than 150 psf.
Preliminary grading information is included on the site plan provided to our office. This
plan indicates that grading for the new development will generally require maximum
cuts and fills on the order of I to 3± feet. The plan also indicates that new retaining
walls will be located along the south portion of the east property line as well as most of
the south property line. These walls will be up to 25± feet in height. Consideration has
been given to the use of a segmental retaining wall system in these areas. This report
presents preliminary information for design of conventional retaining walls. However, a
supplementary report is currently being prepared to address the design of segmental
retaining walls.
The site plan indicates that most of the areas outside of the proposed buildings will be
developed with asphaltic concrete pavements. Limited areas of these pavements will
be subjected to heavy truck traffic.
3.3 Background and Previous Studies
Prior to preparation of this geotechnical report, we obtained a copy of a previous
grading report with coverage of the subject site. This report is identified as follows:
Final As Graded Report of Rough Grading, Green Valley, CT 92-08 (Proposed La
Costa Glen), Carlsbad. California, prepared by Leighton and Associates for
Southern California GeotechnIcal The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 5
Continuing Life Communities, LLC, dated January 28, 1999, Leighton Project No.
4960134-002.
This report presents a summary of observations, field and laboratory test results, and
the geotechnical conditions encountered and created during rough grading of the
subject site. This grading generally was performed to achieve sheet graded pads as
well as the widening of a portion of El Camino Real. Rough grading operations for the
subject site were performed during the period of August 1998 through January 1999.
As stated by Leighton, rough grading operations generally included the removal of
potentially compressible soils and undocumented fill soils to a depth of competent
material, the preparation of areas to receive fill, placement of new fill soils, the
construction of fill slope keys, the excavation of formational material to achieve design
grades, overexcavation of transition lots, and subdrain placement.
Prior to grading, the areas of proposed development were reportedly stripped of surface
vegetation and organic debris. Removals of unsuitable and potentially compressible
soil, including undocumented fill, topsoil/colluvium/alluvium, slopewash and weathered
formational material were made to a depth of competent material in all areas proposed
for new structural fill. Removal areas with slopes flatter than 5h:lv or within 1 foot of the
encountered water table were scarified to a depth of 12 inches and moisture
conditioned as needed, to obtain a near optimum moisture content, and then
recompacted at least 90 percent of relative compaction. The steeper natural hill sides
were benched to expose competent material prior to fill placement. The geotechnical
maps included within the Leighton report identified the overexcavation bottom
elevations throughout the proposed development. Removals of the
topsoil/colluvium/alluvium and weathered formational materials were generally on the
order of 5 to 10 feet in thickness, as recommended in the original Leighton geotechnical
report. Any existing undocumented fill was removed to a depth of competent
formational materials and/or competent engineered fill.
Prior to construction of new fill soils, including fill over cut slopes, fill slope keys were
constructed. The keys were excavated at least 5 feet into competent material along the
toe of slope, at least 15 feet wide, angled a minimum of 2 percent into slope. The
locations of the fill slope keys are indicated on the Leighton geotechnical maps. One of
these fill slope keys was located along the extreme western end of the south property
line as well as along the southern one-half of the western property line. The location of
this fill slope is indicated on Plate 2 included in Appendix A of this report.
New fill soils were placed in 6 to 8 inch thick lifts of loose soil, compacted to at least 90
percent of the ASTM D-1 557 maximum dry density.
Due to the presence of a steep alluvium/bedrock transition in many areas of proposed
development, an overexcavation was made where the transition was encountered. This
overexcavation generally consisted of a 10-foot removal and recompaction in order to
reduce the effects of differential settlement, due to the differing engineering
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 6
characteristics of the alluvium versus the bedrock. Such an excavation was performed
in the western region of the subject site, including Buildings 1, 4, 5, 6 and 8. As such,
the entire site is generally underlain by at least 8 to 10± feet of compacted structural fill.
In their report, Leighton presents a preliminary discussion of the liquefaction potential of
the on-site soils. Leighton indicates that within the western portion of the project,
shallow groundwater conditions were not encountered. As such, the potential for
seismically induced liquefaction in this area of the site was considered to be very low.
However, the alluvial soils in the eastern portion of the subject site generally were
identified to consist of loose, clean, silty fine to medium grained sands with groundwater
present at depths of 2 to 10 feet below the previously existing ground surface. As a
result of their liquefaction analysis, Leighton concludes that no special foundation
design considerations are warranted, based on the presence of a layer of surficial
compacted fill that will overly the potentially liquefiable soils. This recommendation is
also made on the basis that the proposed structures will be relatively lightly loaded.
During the grading operations on the La Costa Glen site, Leighton performed eight (8)
expansion index tests, in accordance with UBC Standard 18-2. These tests indicated
very low to low expansion potentials.
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa- Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 7
4.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
4.1 Scope of Exploration/Sampling Methods
The subsurface exploration conducted for this project consisted of sixteen (16) borings
advanced to depths of 5 to 50± feet below currently existing site grades. The number
and approximate locations of the borings were specified by the client. These borings
were logged during excavation by a member of our staff.
The borings were advanced with hollow-stem augers, by a truck-mounted drilling rig.
Representative bulk and in-situ soil samples were taken during drilling and trenching.
Relatively undisturbed in-situ samples were taken with a split barrel "California Sampler"
containing a series of one inch long, 2.416± inch diameter brass rings. This sampling
method is described in ASTM Test Method D-3550. In-situ samples were also taken
using a 1.4± inch inside diameter split spoon sampler, in general accordance with
ASTM D-1586. Both of these samplers are driven into the ground with successive
blows of a 140-pound weight falling 30 inches. The blow counts obtained during driving
are recorded for further analysis. Bulk samples were collected in plastic bags to retain
their original moisture content. The relatively undisturbed ring samples were placed in
molded plastic sleeves that were then sealed and transported to our laboratory.
The approximate locations of the borings are indicated on the Boring Location Plan,
included as Plate 2 in Appendix A of this report. The Boring Logs, which illustrate the
conditions encountered at the boring locations, as well as the results of some of the
laboratory testing, are included in Appendix B.
4.2 Geotechnical Conditions
The soils encountered at and immediately below the existing ground surface at all
sixteen boring locations consist of engineered fill soils. These fill soils extend to depths
of 8 to at least 30± feet below currently existing site grades. The fill soils generally
consist of medium dense to dense fine sands and fine to medium sands with trace to
some silt, trace to little clay and occasional fine gravel content. The fine gravel, where
encountered, generally consists of sandstone fragments. The fill soils are somewhat
variable in composition, and some zones of clayey fine sand and fine sandy clay were
encountered at the boring locations. The fill soils also contained occasional silt and clay
clasts. Borings B-I, B-2, B-7, B-Il, B-14 and B-16 were terminated within the
engineered fill materials at depths ranging from 5 to 30 feet below grade.
Most of the borings encountered native alluvial soils beneath the engineered fill soils.
These alluvial materials generally consist of medium dense silty fine to medium sands
Southern California Geoteclinical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 8
with occasional trace clay content. Borings B-6, B-8, B-9, and B-13 were terminated
within these alluvial soils at depths of 15 to 40± feet.
The remaining borings were extended into the formational bedrock that underlies the
western portion of this site. This bedrock consists of the Torrey Sandstone. The
sandstone was encountered at Borings B-3, B-4, B-5, B-10, B-I2, and B-15. At these
boring locations, the sandstone extends to at least the maximum depth explored of 50±
feet. The Torrey Sandstone generally consists of dense to very dense light brown to
white fine grained sandstone with trace silt. Occasional zones of siltstone and sandy
siltstone were encountered within the Torrey Sandstone materials.
Most of the borings did not encounter any free water during drilling, nor was any water
observed within the open boreholes immediately after the completion of drilling.
However, water was measured at a depth of 29.5± feet within Boring B-I2, 24 hours
after completion of drilling. However, this water may represent seepage, since the
moisture contents of the Torrey Sandstone between depths of 20 and 50± feet are not
indicative of saturated conditions. No free water was encountered during or after drilling
at any of the other fifteen boring locations.
4.3 Geologic Conditions
The general geologic conditions of the subject site were determined by review of
available geologic literature. The primary reference applicable to the subject site is the
Geologic Maps of the Northwestern Part of San Diego County, California,
published by the California Division of Mines and Geology, Department of
Conservation, authored by Siang S. Tan and Michael P. Kennedy, dated 1996. The
map indicates that the subject site is generally underlain by alluvial deposits consisting
of unconsolidated silt, clay, sand and gravel. These materials are primarily located
within the Encinitas Creek drainage course. Prior to disturbance as a result of recent
grading, Leighton indicated that these soils consisted of medium to dark brown, moist to
wet, loose to medium dense, clayey to silty fine sands and fine sandy clays. The upper
3 to 5 feet of this unit was typically characterized by abundant organic debris. The
Torrey Sandstone underlies the western portion of the subject site. In some areas, the
Torrey Sandstone was encountered beneath the alluvial soils. The Torrey Sandstone is
Tertiary aged, light brown to white, fine grained silty sandstone. Occasional interbeds
of sandy siltstone and clayey sandstone are also present within this unit. Bedding
attitudes within the Torrey Sandstone, as mapped by Tan and Kennedy are relatively
flat lying, ranging from 5 to 10 degrees, generally dipping to the west.
Plate 3, enclosed in Appendix A of this report, presents a portion of the referenced
geologic map.
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
- - Project No. 01G216-1
Page 9
5.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The soil samples recovered from the subsurface exploration were returned to our
laboratory for further testing to determine selected physical and engineering properties
of the soils. The tests are briefly discussed below. It should be noted that the test
results are specific to the actual samples tested, and variations could be expected at
other locations and, depths.
Classification
All recovered soil samples were classified using the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS), in accordance with ASTM D-2488. Field identifications were then
supplemented with additional visual classifications and/or by laboratory testing. The
USCS classifications are shown on the Boring Logs and are periodically referenced
throughout this report.
In-situ Density and Moisture Content
The density has been determined for selected relatively undisturbed ring samples.
These densities were determined in general accordance with the method presented in
ASTM D-2937. The results are recorded as dry unit weight in pounds per cubic foot..
The moisture contents are determined in accordance with ASTM D-2216, and are
expressed as a percentage of the dry weight. These test results are presented on the
Boring Logs.
Consolidation
Selected soil samples have been tested to determine their consolidation potential, in
accordance with ASTM D-2435. The testing apparatus is designed to accept either
natural or remolded samples in a one-inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in
diameter. Each sample is then loaded incrementally in a geometric progression and
the resulting deflection is recorded at selected time intervals. Porous stones are in
contact with the top and bottom of the sample to permit the addition or release of pore
water. The samples are typically inundated with water at an intermediate load to
determine their potential for collapse or heave. The results of the consolidation testing
are plotted on Plates C-I through C-12 in Appendix C of this report.
Soluble Sulfates
Representative samples of the near-surface soils were submitted to a subcontracted
analytical laboratory for determination of soluble sulfate content. Soluble sulfates are
naturally present in soils, and if the concentration is high enough, can result in
degradation of concrete which comes into contact with these soils. The results of the
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
-
- Project No. 01G216-1
Page 10
soluble sulfate testing are presented below, and are discussed further in a subsequent
section of this report.
Sample Identification Soluble Sulfates (%) UBC Classification
B-3 @ 0 to 5 feet 0.007 Negligible
B-13@ 0to5feet 0.046 Negligible
Expansion Index
The expansion potential of the on-site soils was determined in general accordance with
Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standard 18-2. The testing apparatus is designed to
accept a 4-inch diameter, 1-in high, remolded sample. The sample is initially remolded
to 50± 1 percent saturation and then loaded with a surcharge equivalent to 144 pounds
per square foot. The sample is then inundated with water, and allowed to swell against
the surcharge. The resultant swell or consolidation is recorded after a 24-hour period.
The results of the El testing are as follows:
Sample Identification Expansion Index Expansive Potential
B-3@0to5feet 23 Low
B-7 @ 0 to 5 feet 0 Very Low
B-15 @ 0 to 5 feet 15 Very Low
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content
Representative bulk samples have been tested for their maximum dry density and
optimum moisture content. The results have been obtained using the Modified Proctor
procedure, per ASTM D-1557. These tests are generally used to compare the in-situ
densities of undisturbed field samples, and for later compaction testing. Additional
testing of other soil types or soil mixes may be necessary at a later date. The results of
this testing are plotted on Plates C-13 and C-14 in Appendix C of this report.
Direct Shear
A direct shear test was performed on two selected soil samples to determine their shear
strength parameters. The test was performed in accordance with ASTM 0-3080. The
testing apparatus is designed to accept either natural or remolded samples in a one-
inch high ring, approximately 2.416 inches in diameter. Three samples of the same soil
are prepared by remolding them to 90± percent compaction and near optimum
moisture. Each of the three samples are then loaded with different normal loads and
the resulting shear strength is determined for that particular normal load. The shearing
of the samples is performed at a rate slow enough to permit the dissipation of excess
pore water pressure. Porous stones are in contact with the top and bottom of the
sample to permit the addition or release of pore water. The results of the direct shear
tests are presented on Plate C-15 and C-16.
Southern California Geotechnlcai The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 11
Grain Size Analysis
Limited grain size analyses have been performed on several selected samples, in
accordance with ASTM D-1 140. These samples were washed over a #200 sieve to
determine the percentage of fine-grained material in each sample, which is defined as
the material which passes the #200 sieve. The weight of the portion of the sample
retained on each screen is recorded and the percentage finer or coarser of the total
weight is calculated. The results of these tests are presented on the test boring logs.
Southern California Geotechnicat The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 12
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of our review, field exploration, laboratory testing and geotechnical
analysis, the proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical
standpoint. The recommendations contained in this report should be taken into the
design, construction, and grading considerations. The recommendations are
contingent upon all grading and foundation construction activities being monitored by
the geotechnical engineer of record. The Grading Guide Specifications, included as
Appendix D, should be considered part of this report, and should be incorporated into
the project specifications. The contractor and/or owner of the development should
bring to the attention of the geotechnical engineer any conditions that differ from those
stated in this report, or which may be detrimental for the development.
6.1 Seismic Design Considerations
The subject site is located in an area which is subject to strong ground motions due to
earthquakes. Numerous faults capable of producing significant ground motions are
located near the subject site. Due to economic considerations, it is not generally
considered reasonable to design a structure that is not susceptible to earthquake
damage. Therefore, significant damage to structures may be unavoidable during large
earthquakes. The proposed structure should, however, be designed to resist structural
collapse and thereby provide reasonable protection from serious injury, catastrophic
property damage and loss of life.
Faulting and Seismicity
Research of available maps indicates that the subject site is not located within an
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, the possibility of significant fault
rupture on the site is considered to be low.
Seismic Design Parameters
The proposed development must be designed in accordance with the requirements of
the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The UBC provides procedures
for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for on-site soil
conditions, seismic zoning, occupancy, and the configuration of the structure including
the structural system and height. The seismic design parameters presented below are
based on the seismic zone, soil profile, and the proximity of known faults with respect to
the subject site.
The 1997 UBC Design Parameters have been generated using UBCSEIS, a computer
program published by Thomas F. Blake (January 1998). The table below is a
compilation of the data provided by UBCSEIS, and represents the largest design values
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
- Project No. 01G216-1
Page 13
presented by each type of fault. A copy of the output generated from this program is
included in Appendix E of this report. A copy of the Design Response Spectrum, as
generated by UBCSEIS is also included in Appendix E. Based on this output, the
following parameters may be utilized for the subject site:
Nearest Type A Fault:
Nearest Type B Fault:
Soil Profile Type:
Seismic Zone Factor (Z):
Seismic Coefficient (Ca):
Seismic Coefficient (Cu):
Near-Source Factor (Na)
Near-Source Factor (Ny)
Elsinore-Julian (41± km)
Rose Canyon (8± km)
SD
0.40
0.44
0.69
1.0
1.1
The design procedures presented by the Uniform Building Code (UBC) are intended to
protect life safety. Structures designed using these minimum design procedures may
experience significant cosmetic damage and serious economic loss. The use of a
significantly higher lateral acceleration (Ca factor) such as 0.7 to 0.8 would be
necessary to further reduce the risk of economic loss. However, since these values are
much higher than those specified by the UBC, owners and structural engineers often
regard them as impractical for use in structural design and with respect to the
economics of the project. Ultimately, the structural engineer and the project owner
must determine what level of risk is acceptable and assign appropriate seismic values
to be used in the design of the proposed structure.
Ground Motion Parameters
As part of the liquefaction analysis performed for this study, we have generated a site
specific peak ground acceleration, as required 'by CDMG Special Publication 117. This
probabilistic analysis was performed using FRISKSP v4.00, a computer program
published by Thomas F. Blake (2000). FRISKSP estimates probabilistic seismic
hazards using three-dimensional faults as earthquake sources. The program uses a
seismotectonic source model, published by the California Division of Mines and
Geology (CDMG), to estimate seismic hazards at the subject site. The program
originated from the original FRISK program (McGuire, 1978) published by the United
States Geological Survey. FRISKSP generates site specific ground motion data based
on generalized soil conditions (soil or bedrock), site location relative to nearby faults,
accepted attenuation relationships, and other assumptions made by the geotechnical
engineer. The attenuation relationships used by FRISKSP include a one standard
deviation measure of uncertainty. Peak accelerations have been determined for both
magnitude. weighted and unweighted conditions. A magnitude weighting relationship.
accounts for the fact that earthquakes of lower magnitudes are considered to result in
fewer cycles of strong ground motion than those of higher magnitudes. The magnitude
weighting relationship used in this analysis is described by ldnss (1998).
Southern California Geotochnlcal The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad. CA
-- Project No. 01G216-1
Page 14
The peak ground acceleration at the site was determined using an appropriate-
attenuation relationship (Campbell, K.W., 1997) using parameters for a "deep soil" site,
which is considered appropriate for the subject site.
Appendix E of this report contains the peak acceleration results, in graphical form. The
graphical output consists of four plots: a probability of exceedence plot for 25, 50, 75
and 100 year return periods; and an average return period vs. peak acceleration plot,
for both magnitude weighted (M = 7.5) and unweighted analyses. The UBC requires
that the selected return period should have at least a 10 percent chance of exceedence
in 50 years, which is equal to a 475-year return period. Based on the plot included in
Appendix E, this would be 0.27g for the subject site, weighted to a magnitude 7.5
earthquake. Appendix E also contains the tabulated results of the FRISKSP analysis.
Liquefaction
Liquefaction is the loss of the strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when
the pore-water pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or
exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors which influence the potential for
liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain size characteristics,
relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of
ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact
surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 40 feet below the existing
ground surface. Liquefaction potential is greater in saturated, loose, poorly graded fine
sands with a mean (d50) grain size in the range of 0.075 to 0.2 mm (Seed and Idriss,
1971). Clayey (cohesive) soils or soils which possess clay particles (d<0.005mm) in
excess of 20 percent (Seed and Idriss, 1982) are generally not considered to be
susceptible to liquefaction, nor are those soils which are above the historic static
groundwater table.
The liquefaction analysis was conducted in accordance with the requirements of
Special Publication 117 (CDMG, 1997), and currently accepted practice (SCEC, 1997).
The liquefaction potential of the subject site was evaluated using the empirical method
originally developed by Seed, et al. (Seed and Idriss 1971). This method predicts the
earthquake-induced liquefaction potential of •the site based on a given design
earthquake magnitude and peak ground acceleration at the subject site. This
procedure essentially compares the cyclic resistance ratio (CFR) [the cyclic stress ratio
required to induce liquefaction for a cohesionless soil stratum at a given depth] with the
earthquake-induced cyclic stress ration (CSR) at that depth from a specified design
earthquake (defined by a peak ground surface acceleration and an associated
earthquake moment magnitude). The current version of a generally accepted baseline
chart (Youd and ldnss, 1.997) is used to determine CRR as a function of the corrected
SPT N-value (Ni)60. The factor of safety against liquefaction is defined as CRRJCSR.
The current version of a generally accepted baseline chart (Youd and Idriss, 1997) is
used to determine CRR as a function of the corrected SPT N-value (N1)60.
Southern California Geotechnical . The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 15
Guidelines to determine the appropriate factor of safety against liquefaction have been
presented as Table 7.1 of the SCEC publication, "Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Liquefaction in California." This table is reproduced below:
FACTORS OF SAFETY FOR LIQUEFACTION HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Consequence of (4) (clean sand) Factor of Safety
Liquefaction
Settlement <=15 1.1
>=30 1.0
Surface Manifestations <=15 1.2
>30 1.0
Lateral Spread <=15 1.3
>=30 1.0
The liquefaction analysis procedure is tabulated on the spreadsheet form included in
Appendix F of this report. The liquefaction analysis was performed for Boring B-I,
which was drilled to a depth of 50± feet. The liquefaction potential of the site was
analyzed utilizing a maximum peak site acceleration of 0.27g for a magnitude 7.5
seismic event. The analysis was performed using groundwater at 30 feet, which is
expected to be representative the average groundwater elevation at the Subject site.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The liquefaction analysis, documented in Appendix F of this report, has not identified
any potentially liquefiable zones of soil within the subsurface profile at the two analyzed
boring locations. All of the encountered soils are either above the groundwater table,
consist of engineered fill soils, or possess factors-of-safety in excess of 1.2. Therefore,
no design considerations related to liquefaction or liquefaction induced settlements are
considered warranted.
6.2 Geotechnical Design Considerations
General
The subsurface profile at the subject site generally consists of engineered fill soils
extending to depths of 8 to 30± feet, underlain by medium dense alluvial sands and/or
dense to very dense sandstone bedrock. Previous grading, as monitored by Leighton
and Associates, included overexcavation of the previously existing fill/bedrock
transitions. Therefore, each of the proposed building areas is underlain by at least 8 to
10± feet of recently placed compacted structural fill.
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 16
The existing engineered fill soils are considered suitable for support of the foundations
and floor slabs of the new structures. The suitability of the engineered fill soils is based
on data obtained performed from borings performed by Southern California
Geotechnical and our review of the previous grading report prepared by Leighton and
Associates. However, the existing fill soils were placed 2 to 3 years ago. Since the time
of placement, the surficial fill soils have become softened and weathered. Therefore,
limited amounts of remedial grading will be necessary to remove and replace these
near surface weathered fill soils. Significant amounts of remedial grading are not
expected to be necessary.
Grading and Foundation Plan Review
As discussed previously, detailed grading or foundation plans are not available at this
time. Numerous assumptions were made in preparing the preliminary conclusions and
recommendations presented below. Once grading and foundation plans have been
developed, it is recommended that these documents be provided to our office for review
with regard to the assumptions, conclusions and recommendations presented herein.
Near-Surface Settlements
The near surface soils at this site generally consist of engineered fill materials,
extending to depths of at least 8 to 10± feet With the exception of the near surface
zone of weathered and softened fill materials, representative samples of these soils
generally exhibit favorable consolidation characteristics when exposed to moisture
infiltration and when exposed to loads in the range of those that will be exerted by the
foundations of the new structures. Provided that the recommendations presented in
this report are implemented in the design and construction of the proposed
development, the post-construction settlements due to the near surface materials are
expected to be within the structural tolerances of the proposed buildings.
Settlement of Existing Fill Soils
As discussed above, the proposed development area is underlain by engineered fill
soils, extending to depths of 8 to 30± feet. These fill soils were monitored during
placement and have been certified by Leighton and Associates. Based on their
composition, these fill soils will be susceptible to only minor amounts of secondary
(long-term) consolidation. Furthermore, the recently completed grading has removed
any sharp transitions between relatively shallow fill soils in the deeper areas of fill,
further reducing the potential for differential settlements due to secondary consolidation.
Based on these considerations, the long-term secondary settlement of the existing fill
soils is not considered to be problematic for the proposed structures.
Expansive Soils
Expansion index testing performed by Southern California Geotechnical as part of this
study, as well as testing completed by Leighton and Associates during the previous
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
- - Project No. 01G216-1
Page 17
grading, indicates that the on-site soils possess low to very low expansion potentials.
Therefore, no design considerations related to expansive soils are considered
warranted for this project.
Shrinkage/Subsidence
The proposed development area is entirely underlain by existing structural fill soils.
Therefore, no significant shrinkage or subsidence is expected to occur during grading
operations. However, due to local variations in compaction, shrinkage and/or bulking of
o to 3 percent could occur in some areas.
Sulfates
The results of soluble sulfate testing, as discussed in Section 5.0 of this report, indicate
negligible levels of sulfates within the selected soil samples, in accordance with Uniform
Building Code (UBC) and Portland Cement Association (PCA) guidelines. Therefore,
specialized concrete mix designs are not expected to be necessary, with regard to
sulfate protection purposes. However, the soils present at finished pad grade may vary
from those encountered at the boring locationS. It is therefore recommended that
additional soluble sulfate testing be conducted at the completion of rough grading to
verify the soluble sulfate concentrations of the soils that are present at pad grade within
the building areas.
Slope Stability
The site is bordered on portions of the south and west property lines by an ascending
fill slope. Leighton indicates that the as-graded slopes are both grossly and surticially
stable from a geotechnical standpoint. These slopes currently possess inclinations of
2h:1v. Descending fill slopes are located along the east property line and portions of
the south property line. Leighton has also determined these slopes to be grossly and
surficially stable.
New fill slopes constructed with inclinations of 2h:1v or less are expected to possess
adequate stability from both a gross and surficial standpoint.
The Leighton report identifies the location of a stability fill, constructed along the
southern half of the west property line and the western end of the south property line.
The preliminary site plan indicates that some or all of the stability will be removed as
part of the proposed grading. Leighton indicates that this fill was constructed as a
stability fill, not as a buttress fill. No evidence of adverse geologic conditions are
mapped on the as-graded geotechnical map included within the Leighton compaction
report. The stability fill is therefore serving to provide adequate surficial stability for this
slope, and/or stability of any alluvium and/or slope wash materials in this area. The
proposed segmental retaining wall that is proposed to replace the stability fill will
provide a similar stabilizing effect and therefore removal of the stability fill is not
considered problematic. The geologic structure identified by Leighton, as documented
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
-- - Project No. 01G216-1
Page 18
7L
I
in the rough grade compaction report indicates that bedding on the site is flat lying to
slightly dipping to the southwest. With regard to the stability fill, this would represent
favorable (into slope) bedding. This bedding is consistent with the geology mapped by
Tan and Kennedy as referenced in Section 4.3 of this report.
6.3 Site Grading Recommendations
The grading recommendations presented below are based on the subsurface
conditions encountered at the boring locations and our understanding of the proposed
development. We recommend that all grading activities be completed in accordance
with the Grading Guide Specifications included as Appendix D of this report, unless
superseded by site-specific recommendations presented below.
Site Stripping
All surficial vegetation as well as any soils with excessive organic content should be
stripped from the site prior to the start of grading operations. Based on conditions
observed at the time of the subsurface exploration, removal of moderate grass, weed
and shrub growth will be required. No significant topsoil was encountered at the boring
locations. The actual extent of site stripping should be determined in the field, during
grading, by the geotechnical engineer.
As part of the initial grading operations, remedial grading should be performed within
the existing retention/desilting basin, located in the northeastern area of the site. No
standing water was present within the basin at the time of the subsurface exploration,
although evidence of previous standing water as well as some silt deposits were
observed. It is expected that overexcavation to a depth of 2 to 3 feet will be required in
this area to reach of level of suitable subgrade soils. This overexcavation should be
done under the observation of the geotechnical engineer.
Treatment of Existing Soils: Building Areas
The proposed building areas are generally underlain by existing structural fill soils,
extending to depths of 8 to 30± feet. Based on the time that has elapsed between the
original placement of these fill soils and the present, and the results of the
consolidation/collapse testing, some softening and weathering of these materials has
occurred. It is therefore recommended that the existing fill soils be overexcavated to a
depth of at least 2 feet below existing grade, to remove the existing weathered/softened
fill soils. The areas of overexcavation should extend at least 10 feet beyond the
building perimeters. If the proposed structures include any exterior columns, such as
for a canopy or overhang, the area of overexcavation should also encompass these
footings.
Following completion of the overexcavations, the subgrade soils within the building
areas should be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to
Southern California Geoteclinical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 19
serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the
new structure. This evaluation should include proofrolling with a heavy rubber-tired
vehicle to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable soils that must be removed.
Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if loose, porous, or low
density soils are encountered at the bottom of the overexcavation. The overexcavation
subgrade soils should then be scarified to a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned to
within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and recompacted.
Treatment of Existing Soils: Parking Areas
I Subgrade preparation in the remaining new parking areas should initially consist of
completion of cuts where required. The geotechnical engineer should then evaluate the
subgrade to identify any areas of additional unsuitable soils. Based on conditions
observed at the site at the time of drilling, additional overexcavation is expected to be
necessary at isolated locations within the new parking areas. The subgrade soils
should then be scarified to a depth of 12± inches, moisture conditioned to within 2
- percent of optimum, and recompacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557
maximum dry density.
- Fill Placement
Fill soils should be placed in thin (6± inches), near-horizontal lifts, moisture
conditioned to within 2 percent of optimum moisture content, and compacted.
On-site soils may be used for fill provided they are cleaned of any debris to
the satisfaction of the geotechnical engineer.
All grading and fill placement activities should be completed in accordance
with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the grading code of
the City of Carlsbad.
All fill soils should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1 557
maximum dry density. Fill soils should be well mixed.
Compaction tests should be performed periodically by .the geotechnical
engineer as random verification of compaction and moisture content. These
tests are intended to aid the contractor. Since the tests are taken at discrete
locations and depths, they may not be indicative of the entire fill and therefore
should not relieve the contractor of his responsibility to meet the job
specifications.
Imported Structural Fill
All imported structural fill should consist of low expansive (El <30), well graded soils
possessing at least 10 percent fines (that portion of the sample passing the No. 200
sieve). Additional specifications for structural fill are presented in the Grading Guide
Specifications, included as Appendix D. •
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 20
UtilityTrench Backfill
In general, all utility trench backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density. As an alternative, a clean sand (minimum Sand
Equivalent of 30) may be placed within trenches and compacted in place (jetting or
flooding is not recommended). Compacted trench backfill should conform to the
requirements of the local grading code, and more restrictive requirements may be
indicated by the City of Carlsbad. All utility trench backfills should be witnessed by the
geotechnical engineer. The trench backfill soils should be compaction tested where
possible; probed and visually evaluated elsewhere.
Utility trenches which parallel a footing, and extending below a I h:Iv plane projected
from the outside edge of the footing should be backfilled with structural fill soils,
compacted to at least 90 percent of the ASTM D-1557 standard. Pea gravel backfill
should not be used for these trenches.
6.4 Construction Considerations
Moisture Sensitive Subqrade Soils
Some of the near surface soils possess appreciable silt content and may become
unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by construction
traffic. In addition, based on their granular content, some of the on-site soils will also be
susceptible to erosion. The site should, therefore, be graded to prevent ponding of
.11 surface water and to prevent water from running into excavations.
Excavation Considerations
It is expected that some excavations for this project will encounter predominantly
granular soils. Such soils will be susceptible to caving. Flattened excavation slopes
may be sufficient to mitigate caving of shallow excavations, although deeper
excavations may require some form of external stabilization such as shoring or bracing.
All excavation activities on this site should be conducted in accordance with Cal-OSHA
regulations.
Special excavation considerations may be warranted during construction of the
segmental retaining walls along the south and east property lines. These
considerations will be addressed in the subsequent segmental retaining wall design
report.
Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered within only one of the borings, at a depth of 30± feet.
Based on the elevation of Boring B-I2, this would indicate a static groundwater table at
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 21
El. 71±. Based on these conditions, groundwater is not expected to impact the
proposed grading or foundation construction activities.
6.5 Foundation Design and Construction
Based on the preceding grading recommendations, it is assumed that the building pads
will be underlain by existing structural fill soils, placed during mass grading of the
subject site, or newly placed structural fill soils used to replace weathered materials or
used to raise site grades. Based on this subsurface profile, the proposed structures
may be supported on conventional shallow foundation systems.
Foundation Design Parameters
New square and rectangular footings may be designed as follows:
Maximum, net allowable soil bearing pressure: 2,500 lbs/ft2.
. Minimum wall/column footing width: 14 inches/24 inches.
Minimum longitudinal steel reinforcement within strip footings: Four (4) No. 5
rebars (2 top and 2 bottom).
It is recommended that a grade beam footing be constructed across all
exterior doorways. This footing should be founded at a depth similar to the
adjacent building foundations. Any flatwork adjacent to the exterior doors
should be doweled into this grade in a manner determined by the structural
engineer.
Minimum foundation embedment: 12 inches into suitable structural fill soils,
and at least 18 inches below adjacent exterior grade. Interior column footings
may be placed immediately beneath the floor slab.
The allowable bearing pressure presented above may be increased by 1/3 when
considering short duration wind or seismic loads. The minimum steel reinforcement
recommended above is based on geotechnical considerations; additional reinforcement
may be necessary for structural considerations. The actual design of the foundations
should be determined by the structural engineer.
Foundation Construction
The foundation subgrade soils should be evaluated at the time of overexcavation, as
discussed in Section 6.3 of this report. It is further recommended that the foundation
subgrade soils be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer immediately prior to steel or
concrete placement. Within the new building areas, soils suitable for direct foundation
support should consist of existing or newly placed structural fill, compacted to at least
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
- . Project No. 01G216-1
Page 22
90 percent of the ASTM 0-1557 maximum dry density. Any unsuitable materials should
be removed to a depth of suitable bearing compacted structural fill or medium dense to
dense relative sands, with the resulting excavations backfilled with compacted fill soils.
As an alternative, lean concrete slurry (500 to 1,500 psi) may be used to backfill such
isolated overexcavations.
The foundation subgrade soils should also be properly moisture conditioned to within 2
percent of the Modified Proctor optimum, to a depth of at least 18 inches below bearing
grade. Since it is typically not feasible to increase the moisture content of the floor slab
and foundation subgrade soils once rough grading has been completed, care should be
taken to maintain the moisture content of the building pad subgrade soils throughout
the construction process.
Estimated Foundation Settlements
Post-construction total and differential movements (settlement and/or heave) of shallow
foundations designed and constructed in accordance with the previously presented
recommendations are estimated to be less than 1.0 and 0.5 inches, respectively.
Differential movements are expected to occur over a 30400t span, thereby resulting in
an angular distortion of less than 0.002 inches per inch, which is considered within
tolerable limits for the proposed structures, provided that the structural design
adequately considers this distortion.
Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral load resistance will be developed by a combination of friction acting at the base
of foundations and slabs and the passive earth pressure developed by footings below
grade. The following friction and passive pressure may be used to resist lateral forces:
Passive Earth Pressure: 350 lbs/ft3
Friction Coefficient: 0.35
The recommended passive earth pressure and friction include an appropriate factor of
safety. A one-third increase in these values may be used for short duration wind or
seismic loads. When combining friction and passive resistance, the passive pressure
component should be reduced by one-third. These values assume that footings will be
poured directly against suitable structural compacted fill. The maximum allowable
passive pressure is 3,000 lbs/ft2.
6.6 Floor Slab Design and Construction
Subgrades which will support new floor slabs should be prepared in accordance with
the recommendations contained in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this
report. Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, the floors of the
new structures may be constructed as conventional slabs-on-grade supported on
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
- ---. Project No. 01G216-1
Page 23
existing or newly placed structural fill. Based on geotechnical considerations, the floor
slabs may be designed as follows:
. Minimum slab thickness: 5 inches
Minimum slab reinforcement: No. 3 bars at 18 inches on-center, in both
directions. The actual floor slab reinforcement should be determined by the
structural engineer, based on the imposed loading.
Slab underlayment: 2 inches of clean sand overlain by a 10-mil vapor barrier,
overlain by 2 inches of clean sand. Where moisture sensitive floor coverings
are not anticipated, the vapor barrier and upper 2-inch layer of sand may be
eliminated.
Moisture condition the floor slab subgrade soils to within 2 percent of the
Modified Proctor optimum moisture content, to a depth of 18 inches.
Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential
for slab curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks.
The actual design of the floor slabs should be completed by the structural engineer to
verify adequate thickness and reinforcement.
6.7 Retaining Wall Design and Construction
Although not indicated on the conceptual grading and drainage plan provided to our
office, some small retaining walls may be required to facilitate site grades.' The
parameters recommended for use in the design of these walls are presented below.
These values should not be used for design of segmental retaining walls. A site specific
segmental retaining wall design will be presented in a subsequent geotechnical report.
Retaining Wall Design Parameters
Based on the soil conditions encountered at the boring locations, the following
parameters may be used in the design of new retaining walls for this site. We have
provided parameters for two different types of wall backfill: on-site soils comprised of
sands and silty sands as well as imported select granular material. These parameters
are based on site specific direct shear testing.
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad. CA
Project No. 01 G216-1
Page 24
RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter
Soil Type
Imported
Aggregate Base
On-Site Sands
and Silty Sands
Internal Friction Angle (+) 380 320
Unit Weight 130 lbs/ft3 125 lbs/ft3
Equivalent
Fluid Pressure:
Active Condition
(level backfill)
30 lbs/ft3 38 lbs/ft3
Active Condition
(2h:1v backfill)
44 lbs/ft3 58 lbs/ft3
At-Rest Condition 50
(level backfill) T
lbs/ft3 58 lbs/ft3
Regardless of the backfill type, the walls should be designed using a soil-footing
coefficient of friction of 0.35 and an equivalent passive pressure of 350 lbs/ft3. The
structural engineer should incorporate appropriate factors of safety in the design to the
retaining walls.
The active earth pressure may be used for the design of retaining walls that do not
directly support structures or support soils that in turn support structures and which will
be allowed to deflect. The at-rest earth pressure should be used for walls that will not
be allowed to deflect such as those which will support foundation bearing soils, or which
will support foundation loads directly.
Where the soils on the toe side of the retaining wall are not covered by a "hard" surface
such as a structure or pavement, the upper 1 foot of soil should be neglected when
calculating passive resistance due to the potential for the material to become disturbed
or degraded during the life of the structure.
Retaining Wall Foundation Design
The retaining walls should be supported within existing or newly placed compacted
structural fill. Foundations to support new retaining walls should be designed in
accordance with the general Foundation Design Parameters presented in a previous
section of this report.
Backfill Material
It is recommended that a minimum 1 foot thick layer of free-draining granular material
(less than 5 percent passing the No. 200 sieve) should be placed against the face of
the retaining walls. This material should be approved by the geotechnical engineer. If
the layer of free-draining material is not covered by an impermeable surface, such as a
I Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 014G216-1
Page 25
structure or pavement, a 12-inch thick layer of a low permeability soil should be placed
over the backfill to reduce surface water migration to the underlying soils.
All retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted under engineering controlled
conditions in the necessary layer thicknesses to ensure an in-place density between 90
and 93 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the Modified Proctor test
(ASTM D1557-91). Care should be taken to avoid over-compaction of the soils behind
the retaining walls, and the use of heavy compaction equipment should be avoided.
Subsurface Drainage
As previously indicated, the retaining wall design parameters are based upon drained
backfill conditions. Consequently, some form of permanent drainage system will be
necessary in conjunction with the appropriate backfill material. Subsurface drainage
may consist of either:
. A weep hole drainage system typically consisting of a series of 4-inch
diameter holes in the wall situated slightly above the ground surface elevation
on the exposed side of the wall and at an approximate 8-foot on-center
spacing.
. A 4-inch diameter perforated pipe surrounded by 2 cubic feet of gravel per
linear foot of drain placed behind the wall, above the retaining wall footing.
The gravel layer should be wrapped in a suitable geotextile fabric to reduce
the potential for migration of fines. The footing drain should be extended to
daylight or tied into a storm drainage system.
6.8 Exterior Flatwork Design and Construction
Subgrades which will support new exterior slabs-on-grade for patios, sidewalks and
entries should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations contained in the
Grading Recommendations section of this report, as recommended for the parking
areas. Based on the anticipated grading which will occur at this site, exterior flatwork
will be supported by a minimum 1 foot thick layer of compacted structural fill. Based on
geotechnical considerations, exterior slabs on grade may be designed as follows:
Minimum slab thickness: 4 inches, 5 inches where subjected to infrequent vehicular
traffic.
Minimum slab reinforcement: Driveway slabs or other flatwork which may be
subjected to vehicular traffic should include conventional welded wire mesh (6x6-
WI.4xW1.4 WWF) or No. 3 bars at 18 inches on center, in both directions.
Reinforcement in other exterior flatwork is not required, with respect to geotechnical
conditions.
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
- Project No. 01G216-1
Page 26
The flatwork at building entry areas should be structurally connected to the grade
beam that is recommended to span across the door opening. This
recommendation is designed to reduce the potential for differential movement at this
joint.
Moisture condition the flatwork subgrade soils to a moisture content of 2 to 4
percent above optimum, to a depth of at least 12 inches.
Proper concrete curing techniques should be utilized to reduce the potential for slab
curling or the formation of excessive shrinkage cracks.
Control joints should be provided at a maximum spacing of 8 feet on center in two
directions for slabs and at 6 feet on center for sidewalks. Control joints are intended
to direct cracking. Minor cracking of exterior concrete slabs on grade should be
expected.
Expansion or felt joints should be used at the interface of exterior slabs on grade and
any fixed structures to permit relative movement.
6.9 Pavement Design Parameters
Site preparation in the pavement area should be completed as previously
recommended in the Site Grading Recommendations section of this report. The
subsequent pavement recommendations assume proper drainage and construction
monitoring, and are based on either PCA or CALTRANS design parameters for a
twenty (20) year design period. However, these designs also assume a routine
pavement maintenance program to obtain the anticipated 20-year pavement service
life.
Pavement Subgrades
It is anticipated that the new pavements will be supported on existing or newly placed
structural fill soils. The existing structural fill soils are expected to consist of sands and
silty sands. These materials are expected to exhibit good pavement support
characteristics, with estimated R-values of 30 to 50. Since R-value testing was beyond
the scope of services for this project, these materials have been assigned an R-value of
30. At the completion of grading, it is recommended that R-value testing be performed
in a representative number of the proposed pavement areas to determine the actual R-
value of the as-graded subgrade. The R-value test results may indicate higher R-values
within the as-graded pavement subgrades, resulting in a thinner pavement section.
Any fill material imported to the site should have support characteristics equal to or
greater than that of the on-site soils and be placed and compacted under engineering
controlled conditions.
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 27
Asphaltic Concrete
The pavement designs are based on the traffic indices (Ti's) indicated. The client
and/or civil engineer should verify that these Ti's are representative of the
anticipated traffic volumes. If the client and/or civil engineer determine that the
expected traffic volume will exceed those recommended herein, we should be
contacted for supplementary recommendations. The design traffic indices equate to
the following approximate daily traffic volumes over a 20-year design life, assuming 5
operational traffic days per week:
Traffic Index (Ti) Number of Heavy Trucks
PerDay
5.0 1
6.0 4
7.0 14
8.0 42
9.0 112
For the purposes of the traffic volumes above, a truck is defined as a 5-axle tractor-
trailer unit, with one 8-kip axle and two 32-kip tandem axles. All of the traffic indices
allow for 1000 automobiles per day.
Presented below are the recommended thicknesses for new flexible pavement
structures consisting of asphaltic concrete over a granular base. It should be. noted that
the TI = 6.0 section only allows for 4 trucks per day. Therefore, all significant heavy
truck traffic must be excluded from areas where this thinner pavement section is used;
otherwise premature pavement distress may occur.
ASPHALT PAVEMENTS UNDERLAIN BY ENGINEERED FILL (R = 35)
Thickness (inches)
Materials
Auto Parking Auto Drive . Light Truck Heavy Truck
= (TI 4.0) Lanes Traffic Traffic
. (TI = 5.0) (TI = 6.0) (TI = 7.0)
Asphalt Concrete 3 3 3.5 . 4
Aggregate Base 3 6 7 10
Aggregate Subbase - - - -
Compacted Subgrade 12 12 12 12
The aggregate base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM 0-
1557 maximum dry density. The asphaltic concrete should be compacted to at least 95
percent of the Marshall maximum density, as determined by ASTM 0-2726.
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 28
Portland Cement Concrete
The preparation of the subgrade soils within concrete pavement areas should be
performed as previously described for proposed asphalt pavement areas. The minimum
recommended thicknesses for the Portland Cement Concrete pavement sections are as
follows:
Automobile Parking and Drive Areas
5 inches Portland Cement Concrete over
Light Truck Traffiô Areas (TI = 6.0)
6.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete
Heavy Truck Traffic Areas (TI = 7.0)
7.0 inches Portland Cement Concrete
The concrete should have a 28-day compressive strength of at least 3,000 psi.
Reinforcing within all pavements should consist of at least heavy welded wire mesh
(6x6-W2.9xW2.9 WWF) placed at mid-height in the slab. The maximum joint spacing
within all of the PCC pavements is recommended to be equal to or less than 30 times
the pavement thickness.
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 29
7.0 GENERAL COMMENTS
This report has been prepared as an instrument of service for use by the client, in order
to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the
design and preparation of the project plans and. specifications This report may be
provided to the contractor(s) and other design consultants to disclose information
relative to the project. However, this report is not intended to be utilized as a
specification in and of itself, without appropriate interpretation by the project architect,
civil engineer, and/or structural engineer. The reproduction and distribution of this
report must be authorized by the client and Southern California Geotechnical, Inc.
Furthermore, any reliance on this report by an unauthorized third party is at such party's
sole risk, and we accept no responsibility for damage or loss which may occur.
The analysis of this site was based on a subsurface profile interpolated from limited
discrete soil samples. While the materials encountered in the project area are
considered to be representative of the total area, some variations should be expected
between boring locations and sample depths. If the conditions encountered during
construction vary significantly from those detailed herein, we should be contacted
immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein.
This report has been based on assumed or provided characteristics of the proposed
development. It is recommended that the owner, client, architect, structural engineer,
and civil engineer carefully review these assumptions to ensure that they are consistent
with the characteristics of the proposed development. If discrepancies exist, they
should be brought to our attention to verify that they do not affect the conclusions and
recommendations contained herein. We also recommend that the project plans and
specifications be submitted to our office for review to verify that our recommendations
have been correctly interpreted.
The analysis, conclusions, and recommendations contained within this report have
been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical
engineering practice. No other warranty is implied or expressed.
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 30
8.0 REFERENCES
Blake, Thomas F., FRISKSP, A Computer Program for the Probabilistic Estimation of
Peak Acceleration and Uniform Hazard Spectra Using 3-0 Faults as Earthquake
Sources, Version 4.00, 2000.
- California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), "Guidelines for Evaluating and
Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," State of California, Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 117, 1997.
Campbell, K.W., "Imperical Near-Source Attenuation Relationships for Horizontal and
Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration, Peak Ground Velocity, and Pseudo-
Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra", Seismological Research Letters,
Seismological Society America, Volume 68, Number 1, January/February 1997, pp.
154-179.
National Research Council (NRC), "Liquefaction of Soils During Earthquakes,"
Committee on Earthquake Engineering, National Research Council, Washington D. C.,
Report No. CETS-EE-001, 1985.
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., "Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction
Potential using field Performance Data," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, September 1971, pp. 1249-1273.
Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), University of Southern California,
"Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117,
Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California," Committee formed
1997. -
Tokimatsu K., and Seed, H. B., "Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake
Shaking," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American society of Civil
Engineers, Volume 113, No. 8, August 1987, pp. 861-878.
Tokimatsu, K. and Yoshimi, Y., "Empirical Correlations of Soil Liquefaction Based on
SPT N-value and Fines Content," Seismological Research Letters, Eastern Section
Seismological Society Of America, Volume 63, Number 1, p. 73.
Youd, T. L. and Idriss, I. M. (Editors), "Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on
Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils," Salt Lake City, UT, January 5-6 1996,
NCEER Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Buffalo, NY.
Southern California Geotechnical The Pavilion at La Costa - Carlsbad, CA
Project No. 01G216-1
Page 31
APPENDIX A
SITE LOCATION MAP
BORING LOCATION PLAN
SITE GEOLOGIC MAP
W /
7O7O, !A27
900
/
'\
L
Ril
LA
35
13S
RESORT
I
T1 2S
5505
Z00O
Al
LA C
r A r
pu
55 IFI
- -
oUE.B DA
LOS
C1
:..CA
.. \\>'.' M1S0J51iA 411
SITE
PURSE
1 00 1700
VEN
1100
ES P 8 '
so less
ST
900 -
FT
t
a SEOSSO :'
110 1i4
06051 '\% V GARDEN ' J - 1500 (o,)
19
UNION
NCINITA 10
VIEW
900
"T
PARK WILL
WI.1E ST W DR
SHEi
V.
1005 c '° VID BLV 9-1 DR PLAZA' ENCINITAS BLVD,. a 05
,I
-
5 '
19
'
1400 1500 1600 4ESTssi-6{i Of LA '
a 555
85450
WALWU
0 I
cOOT S
' 05s PARK' PLAZA 4, 0 p 501 00019105 J 0
OR '5 1 p 55 8 8 REQUEZA ST 'SEST '5
15 VIEW
LN S I
H ST -T 4 650050
VIR ]IT 5j
SITE LOCATION MAP
L THE PAVILION AT LA COSTA
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SOURCE: SAN DIEGO COUNTY
1998
V 2400' I
THOMAS GUIDE, Southern California Geotechnical DRAWN: RB I SKRT
0113216-1 I 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101
Anaheim, California 92807
PLATE I Phone: (714) 777-0333 Fax: (714) 777-0398
GEOTECHNICAL LEGEND
4 APPR OXIMATE BORING LOCATION
NOTE: TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN IN THE VICINITY OF BULDING 6
MAY Not REFLECT CURRENT SITE GRADES. SEE TEXT.
NOTE: BASE MAP PROVIDED BY MAYERS AND ASSOCIATES
BORING LOCATION PLAN
THE PAVILION AT LA COSTA
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
SCALE: 1" = 50'
DRAWN: GKM Southern California Ceotechnical
SCG PROJECT
01G216-1 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101
Anaheim, California 92807 PLATE 2 Phone: (714) 777-0333 Fax: (714) 777-0398
-
eMl i
41
lul
\
/ -
\
J
I Ni
200
rd
OL
4
S.
- y :
SITE GEOLOGIC MAP
THE PAVILION AT LA COSTA
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
JUN SOURCE: CDMGOFR96-02 1"2Oo KENNEDY AND TAN, 1996
DRAWN: RB Southern California Geotechnical
CHKD: GKM
SCG PROJECT 1260 North Hancock Street, Suite 101
Anaheim, California 92807
PLATE 3 Phone: (714) 777-0333 Fax: (714) 777-0398
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
BORING LOG LEGEND
SAMPLE TYPE GRAPHICAL I SAMPLE
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM AUGER
AUGER CUTTINGS. NO FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF
I. STRENGTH. (DISTURBED)
ROCK CORE SAMPLE: TYPICALLY TAKEN
CORE WITH A DIAMOND-TIPPED CORE BARREL
TYPICALLY USED ONLY IN HIGHLY
CONSOLIDATED BEDROCK.
SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN WITH NO
GRAB SPECIALIZED EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS FROM
A STOCKPILE OR THE GROUND SURFACE.
(DISTURBED)
CALIFORNIA SAMPLER: 2-1/2 INCH I.D. SPLIT Cs BARREL SAMPLER, LINED WITH 1-INCH HIGH
BRASS RINGS. DRIVEN WITH SPT HAMMER.
(RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED)
NR (j) NO RECOVERY: THE SAMPLING ATTEMPT
DID NOT RESULT IN RECOVERY OF ANY
SIGNIFICANT SOIL OR ROCK MATERIAL
STANDARD PENETRATION TEST: SAMPLER
IS A 1.4 INCH INSIDE DIAMETER SPLIT SPT BARREL DRIVEN 18 INCHES WITH THE SPT
HAMMER. (DISTURBED)
S H SHELBY TUBE: TAKEN WITH ATHIN WALL
SAMPLE TUBE, PUSHED INTO THE SQIL
AND THEN EXTRACTED. (UNDISTURBED)
VANE SHEAR TEST: SOIL STRENGTH
OBTAINED USING A 4 BLADED SHEAR VANE
oil
DEVICE. TYPICALLY USED IN SOFT
CLAYS-NO SAMPLE RECOVERED.
COLUMN DESCRIPTIONS
DEPTH: Distance in feet below the ground surface
SAMPLE: Sample Type as depicted above.
BLOW COUNT: Number of blows required to advance the sampler 12 inches using
a 140 lb hammer with a 30-inch drop. 50/3" indicates penetration
refusal (>50 blows) at 3 inches. WH indicates that the weight of the
hammer was sufficient to push the sampler 6 inches or more.
POCKEN PEN.: Approximate shear strength of a cohesive soil sample as measured
by the pocket penetrometer.
GRAPHIC LOG: Graphic soil symbol, as depicted on the following page.
DRY DENSITY: Dry Density of an undisturbed or relatively undisturbed sample.
MOISTURE CONTENT: Moisture content of a soil sample, expressed as a percentage of
the dry weight
LIQUID LIMIT: The moisture content above-which a soil behaves as a liquid.
PLASTIC LIMIT: The moisture content above which a soil behaves as a plastic.
PASSING #200 SIEVE: The percentage of material finer than the #200 standard sieve.
UNCONFINED SHEAR: The shear strength of a cohesive soil sample, as measured in the
unconfined state.
SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
MAJOR DIVISIONS
SYMBOLS TYPICAL
DESCRIPTIONS GRAPH I LETTER
GRAVEL
AND
CLEAN
GRAVELS
'•I GW WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL -
SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
GRAVELLY
SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES) t
300 oc
GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS,
GRAVEL - SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
OR NO FINES
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
GRAVELS WITH
FINES
°
b9%b GM SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
SILT MIXTURES
RETAINED ON NO.
4 SIEVE (APPRECIABLE
AMOUNT OF FINES)
g'g-.
'
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL - SAND -
CLAY MIXTURES
SAND
AND
CLEAN SANDS :•:•:•:•:••
:::•::::::::::::;
AI " WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY
SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SP POORLY-GRADED SANDS
GRAVELLY SAND LITTLE OR NO
FINES
LARGER THAN
NO 200 SIEVE
SIZE
SANDY
SOILS (LITTLE OR NO FINES)
SANDS WITH
FINES :•:•
T 1:• SM SILTY SANDS SAND SILT
MIXTURES MORE THAN 5O%
OF COARSE
FRACTION
PASSING ONNO.
4 SIEVE AMOUNT OF FINES) SC MIXTURES
CLAYEY ' SAND - CLAY
I INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE
I
I
I I Ru lvii- SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY OR
CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY
SILTS WITH SLIGHT PLASTICITY
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
SILTS
AND LIQUID LIMIT V/'
CLAYS LESS THAN 50 CL
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO
MEDIUM PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY
SANDY CLAYS, SILTY
CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS
_-_-_--
------_ IJI ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC
SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
MORE THAN 50%
OF MATERIAL IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 200 SIEVE
MH
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR
DIATOMACEOUS FINE SAND OR
SILTY SOILS
SIZE SILTS S
AND LIQUID LIMIT
CLAYS GREATER THAN 50
u " INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH
PLASTICITY
, ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO
HIGH PLASTICITY, ORGANIC SILTS
ORGANIC SOILS
1Fl
1.1, ,
PEAT, HUMUS, SWAMP SOILS WITH
HIGHLY ,. r HIGH ORGANIC CONTENTS
NOTE: DUAL SYMBOLS ARE USED TO INDICATE BORDERLINE SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS
Southern California Geotechnical
_1tb
--------------
. --- -",w -
BORING NO.
B-I
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10125/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: 1a Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: None
LOCATION: Catisbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion
FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS
DESCRIPTION a.
SURFACE ELEVATION: 94 feet MSL . 8 8
-
- : fjjj,: Light Brown tOBrÔWn fine to medium Sand, trace to
- '. some Silt, trace Clay, medium dense to dense -damp
x46
8
44
Boring Terminated at 5'
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-I
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-2
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: None
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion
FIELD RESULTS
-j DESCRIPTION
LABORATORY RESULTS
Cl, D . w W zu'
U. 8 W z z W
ö0 99 Ow zI 0
o ci a.b o SURFACE ELEVATION: 96 feet MSL o o .
-
- FILL: Light Brown fine to medium Sand, some Silt, little Clay, ::III[ loose to medium dense -dry 9-
FILL: Light Brown to Gray Brown Silty fine to medium Sand,
trace Clay, medium dense - moist
41 .
.
Boring Terminated at 5'
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-2
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-3
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 16.5'
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas S READING TAKEN: at Completion
FIELD RESULTS
0
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 97 feet MSL
LABORATORY RESULTS
W LL
8
p
U.
8
f!LL: Light Brown line Sand, little medium Sand, little to trace
-
112/10 . : Silt, medium dense - dry to damp 93 6
- fl: Brown to Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, trace Clay.
-
66
occasional Sandstone fragments, medium dense - moist 118 11
5 80 : 9910
fl(J,: Brown to Light Brown fine Sand, trace to some Silt, little
Clay, medium dense to dense - moist
-
49 -occasional Clayey fine Sand dastsat7to8feet 110 12
43 106 10
10- -
TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: Light Gray fine
grained Sandstone, occasional Iron oxide stains, dense to very
dense - moist
0/10 ::::: 97 13
15--
50/3"
1
15
Boring Terminated at 20'
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-3
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-4
JOB NO.: 01G216 . DRILLING DATE: 10/25101 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 11.5'
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion
FIELD RESULTS
DESCRIPTION .
SURFACE ELEVATION: 100 feet MSL
0z
LABORATORY RESULTS
8
U. a. cc
co
8 ca
5 .
•
-
10-
67
4
57
70
57
61
:• .
FILL: Light Brown to Light Gray fine Sand, trace Silt,
occasional iron oxide staining, dense - damp to moist
- weathered Sandstone/Claystone dasts at 3 to 4 feet :
107
.109
104
102
106
9
12
18
22
14
12
- ::
.
FILL; Light Gray Brown Silty fine Sand, trace Clay, occasional
medium Sand, trace iron oxide staining, dense - moist
- some Silty Clay dasts at 7 to 8 feet
TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: Light Brown fine
grained Sandstone, little Silt, occasional Clayey fine Sand
dasts,mediumdensetodense - damptomolst
-
Boring Terminated at 15'
TEST BORING LOG S PLATE B-4
Southern California Geotecbnical BORING NO.
B-5
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25101 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 36'
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion
FIELD RESULTS -
SURFACE ELEVATION: 99 feet MSL
U.DESCRIPTION
LABORATORY RESULTS
8
- - -
8
•
10-
15
20-
30--
-
25
61
58
58
62
45
42
34
38
56
48
-
2.75
:•:
Y..
FILL: Light Brown to Brown fine to medium Sand, loose to
.....medium dense - dry to damp 105
114
106
107
102
104
96
96
111
108
10
13
17
14
8
13
9
17
15
17
.
22
32
42
29
N
.
:.
fIL L; Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, medium dense - damp to
:. moist
: - Dark Brown fine Sandy Clay to Silty Clay, very stiff- moist at
3to4feet
- Brown to Light Brown Silty fine Sand, occasional Clay dasts,
medium dense - moist at5to6feet
- Dark Brown fine to medium Sand, trace to some Silt, trace
Clay, dense - moist at 7 to 8 feet
-
-
:
..
:1 .•:
ALLUVIUM: Brown to Light Brown Silty fine Sand, trace
medium Sand, medium dense - moist to very moist
- trace Clay at 19 to20 feet
- Clayey fine Sand at 24 to 25 feet
- Clayey fine Sand at 29 to 30 feet - moist at 29 to 30 feet
- Clayey line Sand - moist to very moist at 34 to 35 feet
-
TEST BORING LOG . PLATE B-5a
Southern California GeotechNical BORING .NO.
B-5
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 36'
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion
HELD RESULTS
.
.
.
. DESCRIPTION .co
(Conthued)
P W
LABORATORY RESULTS
i2
rL LL
.
W
8
9
w IL
ZW
ALLUVIUM: Brown to Light Brown Silty fine Sand, trace _____
medium Sand. medium dense- moist to very moist
40-
45 -. :.
:::•.
- Brown Gray Clayey fine Sand, very stiff - moist to very moist
at 39 to 40 feet
109 21 36
-
- 50/3" 20 .. :::::
TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: Brown to Gray Brown
fine grained Sandstone, slightly Silty, dense to very dense -
very moist
-_. - - -
Boring Terminated at 45'
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-5b
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-6
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10125101 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 16.5'
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion
FIELD RESULTS
g SURFACE ELEVATION: 97 feet MSL
0 DESCRIPTION
LABORATORY RESULTS
8
U.
. 8
:•:•:• fJj: Light Brown fine to medium Sand, some Gravel,
- 54 Y. AsphaItic Concrete fragments, loose - dry 109 10 :: fiLL: Light Brown to Light Gray Brown Silty fine Sand.
• medium dense to dense - damp -
9/11 - Dark Brown to Brown fine Sand, lithe Silt, medium dense to 107 12
: dense - damp at 3 to 4 feet
-
42 - Dark Brown fine Sand, lithe Clay, medium dense -damp to 113 10
:•.• moist at5to6feet
-
- Gray fine to medium Sand, lithe to trace Silt at 6 to 7 feet
55 :•• - Dark Brown fine to medium Sand, little Clay, occasional Clay 104 9
dasts, medium dense - moist at 7 to 8 feet
40 - Brown to Dark Brown fine Sand, lithe Clay, trace fine Gravel, 103 13
10- medium dense - very moist at 9 to 10 feet
52 - Dark Gray Brown fine Sand and occasional fine Gravel, trace 109 14
-
15 - : Silt, trace Clay, medium dense - moist to very moist at 14 to
15 feet
ALLUVIUM: Brown fine to medium Sand, dense - moist
71 :•. - trace coarse Sand and fine Gravel at 19 to 20 feet 111 5
20- -
55
. .•_________________
103 5
- - -
Boring Terminated at 25'
- - - - - - ____
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-6
Southern California GeotechNical BORING NO.
B-7
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/26/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 22'
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: 15 minutes
FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS
-' DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 97 feet MSL . 8 8
- -
- . FILL: Light Brown fine Sand, trace silt, occasional fine
Sandstone fragments, medium dense to dense - moist
70 :
109 11
60
S
108 14
80 107 17
8/11 : - occasional Clayey fine Sand clasts, dense - moist at 7 to 8 108 11
- feet
- : fILL: Dark Brown fine Sand, trace to lithe Silt, little Clay,
66 :. dense-moist 111 11
10- -
- trace Organics (fine root fibers) at 14 to 15 feet 1101 8
map
1201 6
Elm - fine to medium Sand at 20 to 23 feet
Dark urown SiltY tine to i coarse
i, lithe Clay, dense - moist 109 1 14
I ri
50 12
-dense - very moist t0 wet at29to30feet
Boling Terminated at 30'
lEST BORING LOG PLATE B-14
SoutherN California Geotechnical
- -
I
BORING NO.
B-8
JOB NO.: 010216 DRILLING DATE: 10/26101 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 26'
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Batbas READING TAKEN: 1.5 Hour
FIELD RESULTS
0 DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 98 feet MSL
LABORATORY RESULTS
8
w I j
. 8
O-wu..
-
10-
15
20-
25
30--
-
-
--
70
49
47
40
55
58
64
30
49 :::
••
:
:::
.
-'FILL:
:
:
:
Light Brown to Light Gray to Brown fln&Safld, trace Silt
medium dense to dense -damp to moist
- occasional Clayey fine Sand clasts - moist at 3 to 4 feet
..Dark Brown Clayey fine Sand to fine Sandy Clay very moist
to moist at5to6feet
- Dark Red Brown fine Sand - moist at 7 to 8 feet
- Gray Brown Clayey One sand, occasional Sandstone
ftagments-molstat9tolofeet
- Dark Red Brown Silty fine Sand, medium dense - damp at 14
tol5feet
- Dark Red Brown Silty fine Sand, trace fine Sandy Clay
clasts, medium dense - moist at 19 to 20 feet
- Brown to Black fine to medium Sand. trace Silt, trace
Organics, strong organic odor, dense at 24 to 25 feet
108
108
113
103
107
107
111
110
106
10
14
10
8
11
6
8
9
15 32
-
-
:•:•: ALLUVIUM: Brown to Dark Brown fine to medium Sand, trace
to some Silt, medium dense to dense - very moist to wet
H
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-8a
'I
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
- -
B-8.
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/26101 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 26
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: 1.5 Hour
FIELD RESULTS
DESCRIPTION
LU
LABORATORY RESULTS
zo
L U.
4
co
g (Continued)
- - :•: ALLUVIUM: Brown to Dark Brown fine to medium Sand, trace
to some Silt, medium dense to dense - very moist to wet
32 ::: 19 30
40-
Boring Terminated at 40'
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-8b
Southern California GeotechNical
"Mr
-
BORING .NO.
B-9
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25101 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 13'
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion
FIELD RESULTS
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 101feet MSL
LABORATORY RESULTS
8
P
.
. 8
10-
ff
50/5"
5/10
77
71
58
48
fLU.: Light Brown fine to medium Sand, some Silt, loose to
\medlum dense - dry
fILL: Light Brown to Light Gray Brown fine Sand, trace to little
Silt, occasional fine Sandstone fragments, dense - damp to
moist
-trace Clay at5to6 feet -moist
- Clayey fine Sand, very moist at 9 to 10 feet
-.
100
100
109
106
9514
10
10
10
15
12
..-.
::.
-
-
-
X ALLUVIUM: Red Brown fine to medium Sand, trace Silt,
dense - moist
Boring Temilnatedat IS
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-9
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
-
-- -
B-1O
JOB NO:: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10125101 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 106 feet
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion
FIELD RESULTS
DESCRIPTION zo
SURFACE ELEVATION: 104 feet MSL
LL
LABORATORY RESULTS
8
P
W 00
-
10-
- 54
27
35
67
81
72
:•
EjJ: Light Brown to Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt,
medium dense to dense - damp to moist
- trace fine Gravel at 3 to 4 feet
- trace fine Gravel, little Silt at 7 to 8 feet
109
97
109
108
113
8
9
10
12
12
19
-
H:
TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: Light-Brown to Light
Gray Brown fine grained Sandstone, little Silt, very dense -
moist to very moist
Light Gray to White, trace Silt at 13 to 15 feet
Boring Terminated at15'
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-10
Southern California Ceotechnical BORING NO.
- t1 inL B-Il
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10126(01 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: 13 Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: None
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion
FIELD RESULTS
DESCRIPTION
LABORATORY RESULTS
LU
o >.I&. - - u) OLd
ca co (L . SURFACE ELEVATION: 106 feet MSL 8
- -
- f: Light Brown fine Sand, loose to medium dense -dry to
- _• damp 33 10 fjj: Light Brown fine Sand, little Silt, medium dense to X I. dense - damp to moist
8V8 io
Bating Terminated at 5' S
TEST BORING LOG S S PLATE B-Il
Southern California Geoteclinical BORING NO.
.
B-12
JOB NO.: 016216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25/01 WATER DEPTH: 29.5'
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 42 feet
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: 24 hours
FIELD RESULTS LABORATORY RESULTS
LU
a.
LU a.
a.b
0
o
DESCRIPTION
SURFACE ELEVATION: 101 feet MSL o. o =i a. :3.
WLL
0z 0
- - - fl: Light Brown fine to medium Sand, little to some Silt,
p2/10 .. loosetomediumdense - dry 116 8 -
55 :: - extensive Clay dasts, some Silt, dense - damp to moist at 3 106 13
to4feet
46 - Brown to Dark Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt, trace
medium Sand, dense to very dense - moist at 5 to 12 feet
114 11
48 109 12
43 106 9
10- :•: -
TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: Light Brown fine
grained Sandstone, dense to very dense - moist
15
76 ::::
:: :: - extensive Sandstone, Claystone seams at 14.5 to 15 feet -
moist to very moist
107 15
75 104 11
20
68 17
25
30
50I5
- Gray to Light Gray, trace to some Silt, very dense at 28 to 30
feet - moist 9 28
--
.
-RedBrownfinegrained Sandstone at33to35feet 19 44
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-12a
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
B-12
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25101 WATER DEPTH: 29.5'
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 42 feet
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: 24 hours
FIELD RESULTS .
DESCRIPTION
LABORATORY RESULTS
—
I j 5 a Uj
(Continued)
TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: Light Brown fine
grained Sandstone, dense to very dense - moist
Light red Brown fine Grained Sandstone at 38 to 40 feet
X
60 4.5+ .
21 56
40-
- Red Brown Siltstone, Claystone, dense to very dense at 43
82/9" to 45 feet 20 76
45
4.5+..L.. . 20 89
Toney Sandstone Formation: Dark Gray Black weathered X 64
- x-x-j very dense - moist .Claystone, 50- -
Boring Terminated at 50'
TEST BORING LOG . . PLATE B-12b
Southern California GeotechNical
------------------------ --
BORING NO.
B-13
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/25101 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 20.5'
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion
FIELD RESULTS
0
LABORATORY RESULTS
DESCRIPTION co U
SURFACE ELEVATION: 100 feet MSL . 8 8
to 01
-
10-
15
-
-
20-—
-
1/10
71
43
24
80
46
-
:-
:
:.. . flU,.: Light Brown to Brown fine Sand, trace Silt, trace
- medium Sand, occasional fine Sandstone fragments, dense 96 moist
105
Orange Brown fine Sand, dense at 5 to 6 feet 108
S 107
- Dark Brown to Brown fine Sand, trace Silt, lithe Clay - moist 104
at9tolofeet
-Dark Brown Silty fine Sand, little Clay, trace Organics, 104
medium dense - moist atl4tol5feet
7
11
10
8
10
11
9
•
Disturbed
Sample
Disturbed
Sample
H
-
-
-
::
:::
ALLUVIUM: Orange Brown fine to medium Sand, dense to
very dense - moist
1086
Boring Terminated at 25' •
TEST BORING LOG • • PLATE B-13
181 01G216.GPJ SOCALGEO.GDT 111W01
DEPTH (FEET) jjj g
>I_z
SAMPLE
- BLOW COUNT CD a
POCKET PEN. ! . °
.(1SF)
................................ GRAPHIC LOG
EL
3rCl) 'C)
2 C
1io w 0
CLm m
D
.61 3
r.m Q 0' 3
- 0 Q
q
c 30
Q. cn_I w
0 -
. U' Cl)
a
-I - DRY DENSITY -
(PCF)
MOISTURE 0 CONTENT(%)
LIQUID _Itp>> LIMIT 0 G1
PLASTIC -< LIMIT
PASSING
#200 SIEVE (%)z co
UNCONFINED —I
SHEAR (1SF) cn -
2.
COMMENTS
w
.0
z
0
Southern California Geotechnical BORING NO.
- -
B-15-
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/26101 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: 12'
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED.BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion
FIELD RESULTS
DESCRIPTION
0 SURFACE ELEVATION: 105 feet MSL
LABORATORY RESULTS
U.
. 8 8 W co at
10-
15
60/6
40
50
41
2/11
.
fjj,; Light Brown line sand, trace Silt, trace medium Sand,
occasional Sandstone fragments, medium dense to dense -
damp to moist
- trace Clay - moist at 3 to 4 feet
- trace Clay - moist at 5 to 6 feet
- Brown to Light Brown, trace Clay - moist at 7 to 10 feet
:
106
102
107
98
1129
99
7
10
10
13
9
-
N
- - .....TORREY SANDSTONE FORMATION: Light Brown to White
fine grained Sandstone, trace Silt, dense to very dense - moist
:::::
..S -
Boring Terminated at 20'
f
----__
TEST BORING LOG S PLATE B-15
SOuthern California Geotechnical
- -
BORING NO.
B-16
JOB NO.: 01G216 DRILLING DATE: 10/26/01 WATER DEPTH: Dry
PROJECT: La Costa Pavilion DRILLING METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger CAVE DEPTH: None
LOCATION: Carlsbad, California LOGGED BY: Romeo Balbas READING TAKEN: at Completion
HELD RESULTS
0
DESCRIPTION W
LABORATORY RESULTS
- - LL
SURFACE ELEVATION: 106 feet MSL . 8 8
- -
- J,: Light Brown fine Sand, trace to little Silt, medium dense
- : to dense - damp to moist
34 9
32 ::. 14
Boring Terminated at 5'
TEST BORING LOG PLATE B-16
APPENDIX C
'1T1f'ihIi
APPENDIX 0
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
Grading Guide Specifications Page 1
GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
These grading guide specifications are intended to provide typical procedures for grading
operations. They are intended to supplement the recommendations contained in the
geotechnical investigation report for this project. Should the recommendations in the
geotechnical investigation report conflict with the grading guide specifications, the more site
specific recommendations in the geotechnical investigation report will govern.
General
The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in
accordance with the plans and geotechnical reports, and in accordance with city, county,
and Uniform Building Codes.
The Geotechnical Engineer is the representative of the Owner/Builder for the purpose of
implementing the report recommendations and guidelines. These duties are not intended to
relieve the Earthwork Contractor of any responsibility to perform in a workman-like manner,
nor is the Geotechnical Engineer to direct the grading equipment or personnel employed by
the Contractor.
The Earthwork Contractor is required to notify the Geotechnical Engineer of the anticipated
work and schedule so that testing and inspections can be provided. If necessary, work may
be stopped and redone if personnel have not been scheduled in advance.
The Earthwork Contractor is required to have suitable and sufficient equipment on the job-
site to process, moisture condition, mix and compact the amount of fill being placed to the
specified compaction. In addition, suitable support equipment should be available to
conform with recommendations and guidelines in this report.
Canyon cleanouts, overexcavation areas, processed ground to receive fill, key excavations,
subdrains and benches should be observed by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to
placement of any fill. It is the Earthwork Contractor's responsibility to notify the Geotechnical
Engineer of areas that are ready for inspection.
Excavation, filling, and subgrade preparation should be performed in a manner and
sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation,
springs, and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable
working surface. The Geotechnical Engineer must be informed of springs or water seepage
encountered during grading or foundation construction for possible revision to the
recommended construction procedures and/or installation of subdrains.
Site Preparation
The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for all clearing, grubbing, stripping and site
preparation for the project in accordance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Engineer.
If any materials or areas are encountered by the Earthwork Contractor which are suspected
of having toxic or environmentally sensitive contamination, the Geotechnical Engineer and
Owner/Builder should be notified immediately.
Major vegetation should be stripped and disposed of off-site. This includes trees, brush,
heavy grasses and any materials considered unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Grading Guide Specifications Page 2
Underground structures such as basements, cesspools or septic disposal systems, mining
shafts, tunnels, wells and pipelines should be removed under the inspection of the
Geotechnical Engineer and recommendations provided by the Geotechnical Engineer and/or
city, county or state agencies. If such structures are known or found, the Geotechnical
Engineer should be notified as soon as possible so that recommendations can be
formulated.
Any topsoil, slopewash, colluvium, alluvium and rock materials which are considered
unsuitable by the Geotechnical Engineer should be removed prior to fill placement.
Remaining voids created during site clearing caused by removal of trees, foundations
basements, irrigation facilities, etc., should be excavated and filled with compacted fill.
Subsequent to clearing and removals, areas to receive fill should be scarified to a depth of
10 to 12 inches, moisture conditioned and compacted
The moisture condition of the processed ground should be at or slightly above the optimum
moisture content as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. Depending upon field
conditions, this may require air drying or watering together with mixing and/or discing.
Compacted Fills
Soil materials imported to or excavated on the property may be utilized in the fill, provided
each material has been determined to be suitable in the opinion of the Geotechnical
Engineer. Unless otherwise approved by the Geotechnical Engineer, all fill materials shall
be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in
the material being classified as "contaminated," and shall be low to non-expansive with a
maximum expansion index (El) of 50. The top 12 inches of the compacted fill should have a
maximum particle size of 3 inches, and all underlying compacted fill material a maximum 6-
inch particle size, except as noted below.
All soils should be evaluated and tested by the Geotechnical Engineer. Materials with high
expansion potential, low strength, poor gradation or containing organic materials may require
removal from the site or selective placement and/or mixing to the satisfaction of the
Geotechnical Engineer.
Rock fragments or rocks greater than 6 inches should be taken off-site or placed in
accordance with recommendations and in areas designated as suitable by the Geotechnical
Engineer. Acceptable methods typically include windrows. Oversize materials should not be
placed within the range of excavation for foundations, utilities, or pools to facilitate
excavations. Rock placement should be kept away from slopes (minimum distance: 15 feet)
to facilitate compaction near the slope.
Fill materials approved by the Geotechnical Engineer should be placed in areas previously
prepared to receive fill and in evenly placed, near horizontal layers at about 6 to 8 inches in
loose thickness, or as otherwise determined by the Geotechnical Engineer.
Each layer should be moisture conditioned to optimum moisture content, or slightly above,
as directed by the Geotechnical Engineer. After proper mixing and/or drying, to evenly
distribute the moisture, the layers should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum dry density in compliance with ASTM D-1557 unless otherwise indicated.
Density and moisture content testing should be performed by the Geotechnical Engineer at
random intervals and locations as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer. These tests
are intended as an aid to the Earthwork Contractor, so he can evaluate his workmanship,
Grading Guide Specifications Page 3
equipment effectiveness and site conditions. The Earthwork Contractor is responsible for
compaction as required by the Geotechnical Report(s) and governmental agencies.
After compacted fills have been tested and approved by the geotechnical engineer, the
contractor should moisture condition the soils as necessary to maintain the compacted
moisture content. Compacted fill soils that are allowed to become overly dry or desiccated
may require removal and/or scarification, moisture conditioning and replacement. Soils with
medium to high expansion indices are especially susceptible to desiccation. Sandy soils
that are allowed to dry can also lose density
Fill areas unused for a period of time may require moisture conditioning, processing and
recompaction prior to the start of additional filling. The Earthwork Contractor should notify
the Geotechnical Engineer of his intent so that an evaluation can be made.
Fill placed on ground sloping at a 5-to-1 inclination (horizontal-to-vertical) or steeper should
be benched into bedrock or other suitable materials, as directed by the Geotechnical
Engineer. Typical details of benching are illustrated on Plates G-2, G-4, and G-5.
Cut/fill transition lots should have the cut portion overexcavated to a depth of at least 3 feet
and rebuilt with fill (see Plate G-I), as determined by the Geotechnical Engineer.
All cut lots should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer for fracturing and other
bedrock conditions. If necessary, the pads should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and
rebuilt with a uniform, more cohesive soil type to impede moisture penetration.
Cut portions of pad areas above buttresses or stabilizations should be overexcavated to a
depth of 3 feet and rebuilt with uniform, more cohesive compacted fill to impede moisture
penetration.
Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide
lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure that
excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed
adjacent to below grade walls must be properly tested and approved by the Geotechnical
Engineer with consideration of the lateral earth pressure used in the design.
Foundations
The foundation influence zone is defined as extending one foot horizontally from the outside
edge of a footing, and then proceeding downward at a V2 horizontal to I vertical (0.5:1)
inclination.
Where overexcavation beneath a footing subgrade is necessary, it should be conducted so
as to encompass the entire foundation influence zone, as described above.
Compacted fill adjacent to exterior footings should extend at least 12 inches above
foundation bearing grade. Compacted fill within the interior of structures should extend to
the floor subgrade elevation.
Fill Slopes
The placement and compaction of fill described above applies to all fill slopes. Slope
compaction should be accomplished by overfilling the slope, adequately compacting the fill
in even layers, including the overfilled zone and cutting the slope back to expose the
compacted core.
Slope compaction may also be achieved by backrolling the slope adequately every 2 to 4
vertical feet during the filling process as well as requiring the earth moving and compaction
equipment to work close to the top of the slope. Upon completion of slope construction, the
Grading Guide Specifications Page 4
slope face should be compacted with a sheepsfoot connected to a sideboom and then grid
rolled. This method of slope compaction should only be used if approved by the
Geotechnical Engineer.
Sandy soils lacking inadequate cohesion maybe unstable for a finished slope condition and
therefore should not be placed within 15 horizontal feet of the slope face.
All fill slopes should be keyed into bedrock or other suitable material. Fill keys should be at
least 15 feet wide and inclined at 2 percent into the slope. For slopes higher than 30 feet,
the fill key width should be equal to one-half the height of the slope (see Plate G-5).
Al fill keys should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical inspection and
should be approved by the Geotechnical Engineer and governmental agencies prior to filling.
The cut portion of fill over cut slopes should be made first and inspected by the Geotechnical
Engineer for possible stabilization requirements. The fill portion should be adequately keyed
through all surficial soils and into bedrock or suitable material. Soils should be removed
from the transition zone between the cut and fill portions (see Plate G-2).
Cut SloDes
Al cut slopes should be inspected by the Geotechnical Engineer to determine the need for
stabilization. The Earthwork Contractor should notify the Geotechnical Engineer when slope
cutting is in progress at intervals of 10 vertical feet. Failure to notify may result in a delay in
recommendations.
Cut slopes exposing loose, cohesionless sands should be reported to the Geotechnical
Engineer for possible stabilization recommendations.
All stabilization excavations should be cleared of loose slough material prior to geotechnical
inspection. Stakes should be provided by the Civil Engineer to verify the location and
dimensions of the key. A typical stabilization fill detail is shown on Plate G-5.
Stabilization key excavations should be provided with subdrains. Typical subdrain details
are shown on Plates G-6.
Subdrains
Subdrains may be required in canyons and swales where fill placement is proposed. Typical
subdrain details for canyons are shown on Plate G-3. Subdrains should be installed after
approval of removals and before filling, as determined by the Soils Engineer.
Plastic pipe may be used for subdrains provided it is Schedule 40 or SDR 35 or equivalent.
Pipe should be protected against breakage, typically by placement in a square-cut (backhoe)
trench or as recommended by the manufacturer.
Filter material for subdrains should conform to CALTRANS Specification 68-1.025 or as
approved by the Geotechnical Engineer for the specific site conditions. Clean 3h-inch
crushed rock may be used provided it is wrapped in an acceptable filter cloth and approved
by the Geotechnical Engineer. Pipe diameters should be 6 inches for runs up to 500 feet
and 8 inches for the downstream continuations of longer runs. Four-inch diameter pipe may
be used in buttress and stabilization fills.
- ................................
-
S ; .
.•. COM;ACTED :T7.
FILL
L OVEREXCAVATE AND
RECOMPACT
tO THE SOIL ENGINEER.
COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE
3 MIN.
CUT FILL LOT (TRANSITION)
t
COMPACTED FILL
: COMPETENT MATERIAL ACCEPTABLE
TO THE SOIL ENGINEER
OVEREXCAVATE AND 3' MIN?
RECOMPACT
DEEPER OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE
RECOMMENDED BY THE SOIL ENGINEER
IN STEEP TRANSITIONS.
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL Southern California Geotechnical
1:11.
PLATE G-1
CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN -i COMPACTED FILL
ON GRADING PLAN
CUT/FILL CONTACT TO BE
SHOWN ON -AS•BuILr COMPETENT MATERIAL -
_fMlk
VAR LE NATURAL GRADE
-- MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES
IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOM
CUT SLOPE -. MENDED BY THE SOIL ENGI-
NEER
MINIMUM E TILT BACK
- 0R2%SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
CUT SLOPE TO BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR] BEDROCK OR APPROVED
TO PLACEMENT OF Flu. COMPETENT MATERIAL
KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MAT-
ERIAL MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15
FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED
BY THE SOIL ENGINEER
FILL ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL Southern California Geotechnical
PLATE G-2
ORIGINAL GROUND /
• . • a • \. I. • • • I • •
- I I . I I
- I •I •• I •
a
\ •I
I I
COMPACTED FILL
,T11 \::i:H /
• 6" MIN 'I
1 • CLEANOUT
FIRM EXCAVATION
NATURAL a of
GROUND
S
24" MIN
4 MINUS 1" CRUSHED ROCK
I COMPLETELY SURROUNDED
4" MIN BY FILTER FABRIC, OR
CLASS II PERMEABLE
MATERIAL
18" MIN 'o;'•;: -..-o;
OO
0 c Pogo 81
PO
00
'08 S
, 'c
10,
I 0 04 0tI00000• Lfl°60
(8••
MIII
6" DIAMETER PERFORATED PIPE — MINIMUM It SLOPE
PIPE DEPTH OF FILL
MATERIAL OVER SUBDRAIN
ADS (CORRUGATED POLETHYLENE 8
TRANSITE UNDERDRAIN 20
PVC OR ABS: SDR 35 35
SDR 21 100 SCHEMATIC ONLY
NOT TO SCALE
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL Southern California Geotechnical
I
PLATE G-3
COMPETENT MATERIAL
OVERFILL REQUIREMENTS
COMPACTED FILL
PER PLATE NO.4
TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN
.ON GRADING PLAN
PROJECT SLOPE
0.00
.-.. .. .
. .. RIABLE 4.
BACKCUT-VARIES .e.ALE
MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES
IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOM-
MENDED BY THE SOIL ENGI-.
1
KEYWAY IN COMPETENT MAT-
ERIAL MINIMUM WIDTH OF 15
FEET OR AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE SOIL ENGINEER. KEYWAY
MAY NOT BE REQUIRED IF FILL
SLOPE IS LESS THAN 5 IN
HEIGHT. AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE SOIL ENGINEER.
MINIMUM f TILT BACK NEER
OR 2% SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
NOTE.
BENCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED
WHEN NATURAL SLOPES ARE
EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 5:1
OR WHEN RECOMMENDED BY
THE SOIL ENGINEER.
T MINIMUM.
KEY DEPTH
PLACE COMPACTED
BACKFILL TO ORIG-
INAL GRADE
FILL ABOVE NATURAL SLOPE DETAIL Southern California Geotechnical
1:11. •-.-
PLATE G.4
3 TYPICAL
BLANKET FILL IF RECOMMENDED
BY THE SOIL ENGINEER
15' Minimum
COMPACTED FILL
\ . .
. :• :
FACE OF FINISHED SLOPE S .. : ..-''•
•
-COMPETENT MATERIAL
ACCEPTABLE TO THE
SOIL ENGINEER
10;e VARIABLE
• .. MINIMUM HEIGHT OF BENCHES
IS 4 FEET OR AS RECOM-
MENDED BY THE SOIL ENGI
2'
NEER
I MINIMUM 1. TILT BACK
1-0R2 PERCENT (%) SLOPE
(WHICHEVER IS GREATER)
15' Minimum or ½ Slope Height
STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL Southern California Geotechnical
1:1,.
PLATE G-5
I BUTTRESS I OR SIDEHILL
FILL
I.
I.MAXt
I
IT
I CLEAR
DESIGN
FINISH SLOPE
OUTLETS TO BE SPACED
AT 100 MAXIMUM INTER-
VALS. EXTEND 12 INCHES
BEYOND FACE OF SLOPE
AT TIME OF ROUGH GRAD
INC CONSTRUCTION..
1O'MIN.
25, MAX
0000 0010
.• ... .
.10
4-INCH DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED
OUTLET PIPE TO BE LOCATED IN FIELD
BY THE SOIL ENGINEER.
NKET FILL IF
RECOMMENDED
BY SOIL ENGI-
NEER
FILTER MATERIAL" TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFI-
CATION OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT* (CONFORMS TO
'EMA STD. PLAN 323)
SIEVE SUE PERCENTAGE PASSING
1" 100
3/4" 90100
3/F 40-100
NO. 4* 25-40
NO. $ 18-3
NO. 30 5-1
No. so
NO. 200 0-3
OUTLET PIPE TO BE CON-
NECTED TO SUBDPAIN PIPE
WITH TEE OR ELBOW
-NOTES.
1. TRENCH FOR OUTLET PIPES TO BE BACKFIU.ED
WITH ON-SITE SOIL
GRAVEL TO MEET FOLLOWING SPECIFICATION OR
APPROVED EQUIVALENT. MAXIMUM
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING
1%" 100
NO.4 50
NO. 200 6
SAND EQUIVALENT - MINIMUM OF 50
FILTER MATERIAL - MINIMUM OF FIVE
CUBIC FEET PER FOOT OF PIPE. SEE
ABOVE FOR FILTER MATERIAL SPECIFI-
CATION.
ALTERNATIVE: IN LIEU OF FILTER MAT-
ERIAl. FIVE CUBIC FEET OF GRAVEL
PER FOOT OF PIPE MAY BE ENCASED
IN FILTER FABRIC SEE ABOVE FOR
GRAVEL SPECIFICATION.
FILTER FABRIC. SHALL BE MIRAFI 140
OR EQUIVALENT. FILTER FABRIC SHALL
BE LAPPED A MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES
ON ALL.JOINTS.
..ICH DIAMETER PC SCH 40 OR ABS CLASS SDR 35 WITH
A CRUSHING STRENGTH OF AT LEASE 1.000 POUNDS. WITH A MINIMUM
OF 6 UNIFORMLY SPACED PERFORATIONS PER FOOT OF PIPE INSTALLED
WITH PERFORATIONS ON BOTTOM OF PIPE. PROVIDE CAP AT UPSTREAM
END OF PIPE. SLOPE AT 2 PERCENT TO OUTLET PIPE.
ME
STABILIZATION FILL SUBDRAINS Southern California Geotechnical
I PLATE G-6
APPENDIX E
UBCSEIS AND FRISKSP
COMPUTER PROGRAM OUTPUT
Ri
* *
* U B C S E I S *
* *
* Version 1.03 *
* *
** * ************** * * *
COMPUTATION OF 1997
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
JOB NUMBER: 01G216 DATE: 10-26-2001
JOB NAME: The Pavilion LC
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.DAT
SITE COORDINATES:
SITE LATITUDE: 33.0710
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.2642
UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4
UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD
NEAREST TYPE A FAULT:
NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN
DISTANCE: 41.3 km
NEAREST TYPE B FAULT:
NAME: ROSE CANYON
DISTANCE: 8.0 km
NEAREST TYPE C FAULT:
NAME:
DISTANCE: 99999.0 km
SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS:
Na: 1.0
Nv: 1.1
Ca: 0.44
Cv: 0.69
Ts: 0.628
To: 0.126
* CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are *
* limited in number and have been digitized from small- *
* scale maps (e.g., 1:750,000 scale). Consequently, *
* the estimated fault-site-distances may be in error by *
* several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that *
* the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and *
* adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. *
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 1
APPROX.ISOURCE J MAX. I SLIP I FAULT
ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE
FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) I (MW) I (rnm/yr) I (SS, DS, BT)
================================== I ======== I ======= I I ========= I
ROSE CANYON 8.0 B 6.9 1.50 SS
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) I 18.0 I B I 6.9 I 1.50 I SS
CORONADO BANK I 32.1 J B 7.4 J 3.00 J ss
ELSINORE-JULIAN I 41.3 I A I 7.1 5.00 I SS
ELSINORE-TEMECULA 41.3 B I 6.8 5.00 I SS
ELSINORE-GLEN IVY 64.1 B .6.8 5.00 SS
EARTHQUAKE VALLEY 64.8 B I 6.5 2.00 SS
PALOS VERDES f 67.0 B 7.1 3.00 SS
SAN JACINTO-ANZA 78.0 A I 7.2 I 12.00 SS
SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY j 81.1 B J 6.9 12.00 SS
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK 82.5 I B 6.8 4.00 SS
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN I 84.9 B J 6.8 4.00 I ss
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (L.A.Basin) I 85.5 I B 6.9 I 1.00 I SS
CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I 87.5 I .B 6.7 I 1.00 I DS
ELSINORE-WHITTIER I93.7 B 6.8 I 2.50 SS
SAN JACINTO- BORREGO . 100.7 I B 6.6 I 4.00 SS
SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO ( 105.2 B 6.7 12.00 SS
SAN ANDREAS - Southern I 110.2 I A 7.4 24.00 I SS
PINTO MOUNTAIN J 120.8 I B J 7.0 I 2.50 SS
SAN JOSE 120.8 B I 6.5 0.5.0 I 1)5
CUCAI4ONGA 124.7 A I 7.0 5.00 ns
SIERRA MADRE (Central) 125.1 I B I 7.0 3.00 DS
SUPERSTITION MTh. (San Jacinto) 125.4 B 6.6 I 5.00 SS
BURNT MTN. ( 127.6 B 6.5 ( 0.60 f ss
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 131.4 B 7.0 I 1.00 I DS
ELMORE RANCH 131.5 B 6.6 j 1.00 I SS
EUREKA PEAK 132.0 B 6.5 0.60 I SS
SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) 133.1 J B 6.6 4.00 I SS
CLEGHORN I 133.8 B 6.5 I 3.00 SS
ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA I 134.4 B I 7.0 3.50 I SS
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) 137.5 B 6.7 I 0.50 DS
SAN ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture 140.0 A 7.8 34.00 I SS
RAYMOND f 140.1 B 6.5 0.50 DS
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT 140.4 I B 6.5 I 0.50 I DS
VERDUGO . 144.1 B 6.7 0.50 DS
LANDERS 144.9 I B I 7•3 I 0.60 I SS
HOLLYWOOD 147.3 I B J 6.5 1.00 I DS
BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE I 148.3 I B 6.5 25.00 SS
HELENDALE - S. LOCICHARDT 149.1 B 7.1 I 0.60 I SS
LENWOOD-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS 154.2 B 7.3 I 0.60 I SS
SANTA MONICA I 154.9 B 6.6 1.00 DS
EMERSON So. - COPPER MTN. 157.1 B 6.9 0.60 SS
JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 158.2 B 6.7 0.60 I SS
IMPERIAL 158.9 A 7.0 20.00 SS
MALIBU COAST 159.2 I B I 6.7 I 0.30 DS
SIERRA MADRE (San .Fernando) 165.0 B 6.7 2.00 1)5
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I APPROX. IS0T3RCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT
ABBREVIATED IDISTABCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE
FAULT NAME I (km) I (A,B,C) I (Mw) I (mm/yr) (SS,DS,BT)
PISGAB-BULLION Mm. -MESQUITE LK I 166.6 I B I 7.1 I 0.60 I SS
ANACAPA-DUME I 167.6 B 7.3 I 3.00 I DS
SAN GABRIEL I 167.9 B 7.0 1.00 SS
CALICO - HIDALGO 170.9 B 7.1 0.60 55
SANTA SUSANA 180.5 B 6.6 I 5.00 I DS
HOLSER 189.4 B 6.5 I 0.40 I DS
SIMI-SANTA ROSA I 197.0 B 6.7 1.00 DS
OAK RIDGE (Onshore) I 197.8 B 6.9 I 4.00 DS
GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE J 202.9 B 6.9 0.60 SS
SAN CAYETANO 206.2 I B 6.8 I 6.00 I DS
BLACKWATER 218.4 B 6.9 I 0.60 I SS
VENTURA - PITAS POINT I 225.1 . B 6.8 I 1.00 DS
SANTA YNEZ (East) 226.0 B I 7.0 2.00 SS
SANTA CRUZ ISLAND 233.3 B 6.8 1.00 j DS
M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ABA I 235.8 B I 6.7 0.40 I DS
RED MOUNTAIN I 239.1 B 6.8 I 2.00 I DS
GARLOCK (West) ( 242.0 ( A 7.1 6.00 ss
PLEITO THRUST 247.6 B 6.8 2.00. DS
BIG PINE I 253.4 B 6.7 0.80 j SS
GARLOCK (East) I 256.1 A 7.3 I 7.00 I SS
SANTA ROSA ISLAND I 268.0 B 6.9 I 1.00 j DS
WHITE WOLF 268.0 B 7.2 ( 2.00. DS
SANTA YNEZ (West) 270.9 B 6.9 2.00 SS
So. SIERRA NEVADA J 280.4 B 7.1 J 0.10 I DS
OWL LAKE 284.2 B I 6.5 I 2.00 SS
PANAMINT VALLEY 284.5 B 7.2 2.50 SS
LITTLE LAKE 284.6 B 6.7 0.70 I SS
TANK CANYON I 285.8 B 6.5 I 1.00 DS
DEATH VALLEY (South) I 292.4 B 6.9 4.00 SS
LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE I 313.1 B 6.8 I 0.70 DS
LIONS HEAD I 330.71 B 1 6.6 I 0.02 1 DS
DEATH VALLEY (Graben) 1 334.5 1 B 1 6.9 1 4.00 1 DS
SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) I 340.4 1 B 7.0 I 0.20 I DS
SAN JUAN I 341.2 B 7.0 I 1.00 I ss
CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) 348.8 B 6.5 I 0.25 I DS
OWENS VALLEY 353.3 B I 7.6 I 1.50 SS
LOS OSOS I 370.5 B 6.8 J 0.50 DS
HOSGRI 376.4 I B 7.3 I 2.50 I SS
BUNTER Mm. - SALINE VALLEY 379.1 B 7.0 I 2.50 SS
DEATH VALLEY (Northern) f 388.2 ( A 7.2 ( 5.00 ( SS
INDEPENDENCE I 389.2 B 6.9 0.20 DS
RINCONADA 391.5 J B . 7.3 1.00 SS
BIRCH CREEK 445.6 B 6.5 0.70 DS
SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 447.8 B 5.0 I 34.00 I SS
WHITE MOUNTAINS I 450.0 I B I 7.1 1.00 SS
DEEP SPRINGS . I 468.4 B 6.6 I 0.80 DS
---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROX. I SOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT
DISTANCE I TYPE I MAG. I. RATE I TYPE
(km) ( (AS BI C) (Mw) I (nun/yr) I (SS,DS,BT)
======== I ======= I ====== I ========= I ==========
473.2 I A I 7.0 1 5.00 ( .SS
480.8 1 B 1 6.8 I 1.00 1 DS
488.5 J B 6.6 J 0.20 J DS
506.9 B 6.7 I 2.50 I DS
531.3 B 6.6 I 0.50 I DS
532.2 B 6.9 I 1.00 SS
537.8 B 6.2 I 15.00 SS
540.4 B 7.1 0.50 1 DS
541.4 I B 7.0 I 3.00 I SS
551.0 B 6.5 I 1.00 SS
567.3 B 6.6 I 2.50 I DS
569.6 B 6.8 I 0.10 J SS
574.8 A 7.9 I 24.00 I SS
574.9 B ' 6.8 I 3.00 I SS
598.6 1 •B I 6.5 I 0.50 I DS
615.8 A 7.3 I 5.00 •I SS
624.6 B I 6.9 I 2.00 SS
625.0 B I 6.5 0.40 DS
625.1 B 6.5 j 3.00 SS
639.0 I B I 6.7 I 0.80 I DS
644.8 A J 7.1 J 9.00 J SS
644.8 I B 6.8 6.00 SS
664.4 I B 1 6.9 I 1.00 J DS
692.5 B 6.9 6.00 SS
731.3 I A 7.0 I 9.00 I SS
732.2 B 6.5 I 1.00 I SS
750.2 B 6.8 I 0.30 DS
754.6 B 6.9 6.00 I ss
794.1 B 6.9 I 9.00 I 55
811.0 B 6.5 J 0.60 SS
814.4 A 7.1 6.00 I SS
835.7 A I 7.1 I 9.00 I SS
895.2. A 7.1 9.00 I SS
901.4 B 6.8 I 6.00 I ss
924.6 B 6.5 I 0.50 I DS
959.8 I B. 6.7 I 6.00 I SS
977.0 B 6.9 9.00 SS
1033.3 A 7.4 35.00 I DS
1039.9 A 7.0 I 5.00 I DS
1042.7 B I 7.1 I 0.70 I DS
1047.0 I A I 8.3 f 35.00 I DS
1053.1 B 7.0 ( 0.60 ( DS
1054.6 B I 7.3 I 2.50 DS
1055.1 B 6.9 0.60 DS
1060.5 B 7.0 0.60 I DS
1073.9 B 7.1 1.00 DS
ABBREVIATED
FAULT NAME
DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo)
ROUND VLLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.)
FISH SLOUGH
HILTON CREEK
HARTLEY SPRINGS
ORTIGALITA I
CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) I
MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS I
PALO COLORADO - SUR I
QUIEN SABE I
MONO LAKE I
ZAYANTE -VERGELES I
SAN ANDREAS (1906) I
SARGENT I
ROBINSON CREEK I
SAN GREGORIO I
GREENVILLE I
MONTE VISTA - SHANNON I
HAYWARD (SE Extension) I
ANTELOPE VALLEY I
HAYWARD (Total Length) I
CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res)
GENOA I
CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY
RODGERS CREEK I
WEST NAPA
POINT REYES I
BUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA I
MAACAMA (South) I
COLLAYOMI I
BARTLETT SPRINGS
MAACAMA (Central) I
MAACAMA (North)
ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) I
BATTLE CREEK
LAKE MOUNTAIN
GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND I
MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE I
LITTLE SALMON (Onshore)
MAD RIVER I
CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE I
McKINLEYVILLE
TRINIDAD
FICKLE HILL I
TABLE BLUFF I
LITTLE SALMON (Offshore)
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
---------------------------
Page 4
I APPROX. SOURCE I MAX. I SLIP FAULT
ABBREVIATED IDI5TCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE TYPE
FAULT NAME (km) I (A,B,C) (Mw) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT)
================================== I ======== I ======= I ====== I ========= I
BIG LAGOON - BALD MTN.FLT.ZONE 1091.5 B 7.3 0.50 DS
100
NO ON
70
-60 Co -D 0
0
C.)
C
Cu
40
v30
20
10
[IJ
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
CAMP. & BOZ. (1997 Rev.) AL (EJNWEIGHTED)
I•] Al
25yrs 50yrs
l] vi
- - __
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (q)
0 0 0 Return Period (yrs) - - 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0
0
N.)
01
100
70
60 Co -Q 2 50
0
C)40
Cu 30
20
10
PROBABILITY OF EXCEEDANCE
CAMP. & BOZ. (1997 Rev.) AL (WEIGHTED M=7.5)
1•I S I4J
25yrs 50yrs
#%
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50
Acceleration (g) •
APPENDIX F
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
SPECIFICATIONS