Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 2019-0015; CARLSBAD INN MITIGATION; REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2019-03-19I 2 'N CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEER!NG RECORD COPY eta. /i113, s.J1 'J! - Initial Date REPORT OF LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE SHORING CARLSBAD INN 3075 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA RECEIVED OCT 012019 LAND DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERING PREPARED FOR GRAND PACIFIC RESORTS, CARLSBAD INN 3075 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92008. PREPARED BY CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING 3980 HOME AVENUE SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92105 3980 Home Avenue + San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 'N CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING March 19, 2019 Grand Pacific Resorts, Carlsbad Inn 3075 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, California 92008 Attention: Keith Whaley CWE 2190062.01 Subject: Report of Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Parking Garage Shoring Carlsbad Inn, 3075 Carlsbad Boulevard, Carlsbad, California Ladies and Gentlemen: In accordance with your request and our proposal dated February 1, 2019, we have completed a limited geotechnical investigation for the subject project. We are presenting herewith our findings and recommendations. In general, we did not find any geotechnical conditions that would preclude the use, of the proposed shoring system. Specific design parameters for the proposed shoring system associated with the project are presented in the attached report. If you have any questions after reviewing this report, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING EE rZ;Z ANIELJ.99FLOWERS Q 'WI No. IO to I-I Shawn C. Caya, R.G.E #2748 SCC:scc;djf ec: kwhaley@kmcgroup-llc.com Daniel J. Flowers, C.E.G. #2686 3980 Home Avenue + San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction and Project Description.....................................................................................................1 Scopeof Services.....................................................................................................................................2 Findings..................................................................................................................................................3 SiteDescription...................................................................................................................................3 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions......................................................................................3 Geologic Setting and Soil Description.............................................................................................3 Artificial Fill................................................................................................................................3 Old Paralic Deposits....................................................................................................................4 TectonicSetting...............................................................................................................................4 SeismicHazard................................................................................................................................5 Recommendations..................................................................................................................................6 TemporaryShoring.............................................................................................................................7 General............................................................................................................................................7 Shoring Design and Lateral Pressures .............................................................................................. 7 Design of Soldier Piles.....................................................................................................................7 Lagging............................................................................................................................................ 7 Deflections........................................................................ ................................................................ 8 Monitoring......................................................................................................................................8 Limitations.............................................................................................................................................8 Review, Observation and Testing.......................................................................................................8 Uniformity of Conditions...................................................................................................................8 Change in Scope..................................................................................................................................9 TimeLimitations................................................................................................................................9 Professional Standard..........................................................................................................................9 Client's Responsibility......................................................................................................................10 TABLES Table I: Proximal Fault Zones................................................................................................................5 Table II: CBC 2016 Edition - Seismic Design Parameters......................................................................6 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Vicinity Map, Follows Page 1 PLATES Plate 1 Site Plan and Geotechnical Map Proposed Parking Garage Shoring Carlsbad Inn, 3075 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, California APPENDICES Appendix A Boring Logs Appendix B Laboratory Tests Appendix C References Proposed Parking Garage Shoring Carlsbad Inn, 3075 Carlsbad Boulevard Carlsbad, California am CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING REPORT OF UMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE SHORING CARLSBAD INN, 3075 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of our limited geotechnical investigation for a proposed shoring to be constructed at the Carlsbad Inn, located at 3075 Carlsbad Boulevard, in Carlsbad, California. Figure No. 1, on the following page, presents a vicinity map showing the location of the site. We understand that it is proposed to install waterproofing and a subdrain system for the retaining walls and deck area above the parking garage. This project will include the design and installation of steel beam and wood lagging shoring along portions of the east, north and south sides of the parking garage retaining wall. Grading is anticipated to consist of cuts and backfills up to approximately 15 feet. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Grand Pacific Resorts and their design consultants for specific application to the project described herein. Should the project be changed in any way, the modified plans should be submitted to Christian Wheeler Engineering for review to determine their conformance with our recommendations and to determine whether any additional subsurface investigation, laboratory testing and/or recommendations are necessary. Our professional services have been performed, our findings obtained and our recommendations prepared in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles and practices. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, express or implied. 3980 Home Avenue + San Diego, CA 92105 + 619-550-1700 + FAX 619-550-1701 SITE VICINITY © OpenStreetMap contributors palm- Beath -, Resort - Pam \ ?' * PROJECT SITE 521 i1 Carlsbad Inn Beach r' 3353 7 'I lJ 30fJ5 i I R H I II 3C s WjM I // rchwalk Villas 1 -I I Ip im W+E PLUS Beach I View Lodge PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE SHORING, CARLSBAD INN 3075 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE: MARCH 2019 JOB NO.: 2190062.01 BY: SRD FIGURE NO.: 1 CHRISTIAN WHEELER ENGINEERING CWE 2190062.01 March 19, 2019 Page 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES Our limited geotechnical investigation generally included surface reconnaissance, analysis of the field and laboratory data from previous studies, and review of relevant geologic literature. More specifically, our services included the following items. Mark the project area out with white paint and notify Underground Service Alert (Dig Alert). Contract a private utility location firm to locate underground utility lines not identified by Dig Alert. Drill three, exploratory borings with a portable drill rig to explore existing soil conditions and obtain soil samples for laboratory testing. Backfill the boring holes using a grout or a grout/bentonite mix as required by the County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health. Evaluate, by laboratory tests and our past experience with similar soil types, the engineering properties of the various soil strata that may influence the proposed construction, including bearing capacities, expansive characteristics and shear strength. Describe the general geology at the site and provide the seismic design parameters in accordance with the 2016 edition of the California Building Code. Discuss potential construction difficulties that may be encountered due to soil conditions, groundwater or geologic hazards, and provide geotechnical recommendations to mitigate identified construction difficulties. Provide recommendations for temporary cut slopes and shoring design. Prepare this report presenting the results of our investigation, including a plot plan showing the location of our subsurface explorations, excavation logs, laboratory test results, and our conclusions and recommendations for the proposed project. The report will be provided as an electronic document in portable document format (PDF). It was not within the scope of our services to perform laboratory tests to evaluate the chemical characteristics of the on-site soils in regard to their potentially corrosive impact to on-grade concrete and below grade improvements. If requested, we can obtain and submit representative soil samples to a chemical laboratory for analysis; however, it should be understood that Christian Wheeler Engineering does not practice corrosion engineering. If such an analysis is necessary, we recommend CWE 2190062.01 March 19, 2019 Page 3 that the client retain an engineering firm that specializes in this field to consult with them on this matter. FINDINGS SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is a developed commercial lot that supports the Carlsbad Inn Beach Resort in Carlsbad, California. The lot is bound by Ocean Street to the west, Oak Avenue to the south, Carlsbad Village Drive/Elm Avenue to the north, and Carlsbad Boulevard to the East. The site currently supports a three-story hotel structure, two, two- story retail and restaurant structures, two, three-story hotel structures overlying a lower level parking garage, and an on-grade parking lot. Topographically, the site is characterized by two relatively level to gently sloping pads that have an elevation difference of approximately 14 feet to 17 feet. The eastern pad is higher than the western pad. Masonry retaining walls that are up to approximately 17 feet high are present between the two pads. According to Google® Earth, on-site elevations range from approximately 41 feet within the lower level, to approximately 60 feet in the area adjacent to Carlsbad Boulevard. GENERAL GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SOIL DESCRIPTION: The subject site is located in the Coastal Plains Physiographic Province of San Diego County. Based upon the findings of our subsurface explorations and review of readily available, pertinent geologic and geotechnical literature, it was determined that the proposed construction area is generally underlain by artificial fill and old paralic deposits. These materials are described below: ARTIFICIAL FILL (Qaf): Artificial fill associated with the existing retaining wall construction was encountered in our borings. The wall backfill wedge is expected to extend the full height of the wall, being relatively narrow at the base and widening at the top. These materials consisted of reddish-brown, grayish-brown, and light yellowish-brown, moist to very moist, medium dense to dense, silty sand (SM). Trace concrete and organic debris was observed in borings B-2 and B-3 at a depth of about 61A feet and 8 feet, respectively. Deeper fill soils may CWE 2190062.01 March 19, 2019 Page 4 exist in areas of the site not investigated. The artificial fill was judged to have a very low expansion potential (El <20). OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS (Qop): Quaternary-age old paralic deposits were found to underlie the artificial fills at subject site. As encountered in our borings, these materials generally consisted of reddish-brown, reddish-brown to light gray, moist to very moist, medium dense, silty sand (SM) and poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM). The old paralic deposits judged to have a very low Expansion Index (EI<20). GROUNDWATER: No groundwater or seepage was encountered in our subsurface explorations. We do not expect any significant groundwater related conditions during or after the proposed construction. However, it should be recognized that minor groundwater seepage problems might occur after construction and landscaping are completed, even at a site where none were present before construction. These are usually minor phenomena and are often the result of an alteration in drainage patterns and/or an increase in irrigation water. Based on the anticipated construction and the permeability of the on-site soils, it is our opinion that any seepage problems that may occur will be minor in extent. It is further our opinion that these problems can be most effectively corrected on an individual basis if and when they occur. TECTONIC SETTING: It should be noted that much of Southern California, including the San Diego County area, is characterized by a series of Quaternary-age fault zones that consist of several individual, en echelon faults that generally strike in a northerly to northwesterly direction. Some of these fault zones (and the individual faults within the zones) are classified as "active" according to the criteria of the California Division of Mines and Geology. Active fault zones are those that have shown conclusive evidence of faulting during the Holocene Epoch (the most recent 11,000 years). The Division of Mines and Geology used the term "potentially active" on Earthquake Fault Zone maps until 1988 to refer to all Quaternary-age faults for the purpose of evaluation for possible zonation in accordance with the Aiquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The Alquist-Priolo Act requires the State Geologist to zone faults that are "sufficiently active" and "well-defined" to have a relatively high potential for ground rupture. The Division of Mines and Geology no longer uses the term "potentially active." However, the City of San Diego has elected to continue to use the term CWE 2190062.01 March 19, 2019 Page 5 "potentially active" to refer to certain faults that demonstrated movement during the Pleistocene epoch (11,000 to 1.6 million years before the present) but that do not have substantiated Holocene movement. It should be recognized that the Aiquist-Priolo Act (Division 2, Chapter 7.5, Section 2624) authorizes individual cities and counties to establish policies and criteria that are stricter than those established by the Alquist-Priolo Act. TABLE I: PROXIMAL FAULT ZONES Fault Zone Distance Rose Canyon-Newport Inglewood 4 miles Coronado Bank 21 miles Elsinore 23 miles Palos Verdes 41 miles San Jacinto 47 miles San Clemente 54 Miles San Andreas 70 miles A review of available geologic maps indicates that the active Rose Canyon-Newport Inglewood Fault Zone is located approximately 4 miles to the west of the subject site. Other active fault zones in the region that could possibly affect the site include the Coronado Bank and San Clemente Fault Zones to the west, the offshore segment of the Palos Verdes Fault Zone to the northwest, and the Elsinore, San Jacinto, and San Andreas Fault Zones to the northeast. A summary of the proximal faults zones is presented in Table I. SEISMIC HAZARD: A likely geologic hazard to affect the site is ground shaking as a result of movement along one of the major active fault zones mentioned in the "Tectonic Setting" section of this report. Per Chapter 16 of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC), the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCEK) ground acceleration is that which results in the largest maximum response to horizontal ground motions with adjustments for a targeted risk of structural collapse equal to one percent in 50 years. Figures 1613.3.1(1) and 1613.3.1(2) of the CBC present MCER accelerations for short (0.2 sec.) and long (1.0 sec.) periods, respectively, based on a soil Site Class B (CBC 1613.3.2) and a structural damping of five percent. For the subject site, correlation with previous explorations in similar material indicates that the upper 100 feet of geologic subgrade can be characterized as Site Class D. It can be noted that the CPTs indicate layers of clay-like material that are nearly 10 feet in thickness. In our experience, such materials are generally clayey silts (ML) with a plasticity index around 10 or less. As such, the overall profile is not considered to be Site Class E. In this case, the mapped MCER accelerations are CWE 2190062.01 March 19, 2019 Page 6 modified using the Site Coefficients presented in Tables 1613.3.3(1) and (2). The modified MCE spectral accelerations are then multiplied by two-thirds in order to obtain the design spectral accelerations. These seismic design parameters for the subject site (33.1571°, -117.3519°), based on Chapter 16 of the CBC, are presented in Table II below. TABLE II: CBC 2016 EDITION - SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS CBC - Chapter 16 Section Seismic Design Parameter Recommended Value Section 1613.3.2 Soil Site Class D Figure 1613.3.1 (1) MCER Acceleration for Short Periods (0.2 sec), S 1.167 g Figure 1613.3.1 (2) MCER Acceleration for 1.0 Sec Periods (1.0 sec), Si 0.447 g Table 1613.3.3 (1) Site Coefficient, Fa 1.033 Table 1613.3.3 (2) Site Coefficient, F 1.553 Section 1613.3.3 Sivis = MCER Spectral Response at 0.2 sec. = (Ss)(Fa) 1.206 g Section 1613.3.3 SMI = MCER Spectral Response at 1.0 sec. = (Si)(F) 0.695 g Section 1613.3.4 Sos = Design Spectral Response at 0.2 sec. = 2/3(Srs) 0.804 g Section 1613.3.4 SDI = Design Spectral Response at 1.0 sec. = 2/3(SMI) 0.463 g Section 1803.2.12 PGAMper Section 11.8.3 of ASCE 7 0.48 g RECOMMENDATIONS TEMPORARY SLOPES Temporary excavation slopes will be required for the construction of the subject project. The excavations required for footing construction are considered as part of the temporary slopes. It is anticipated that some of the temporary cut slopes will be shored. The contractor is solely responsible for designing and constructing stable, temporary excavations and will need to shore, slope, or bench the sides of trench excavations as required to maintain the stability of the excavation sides. The contractor's "competent person", as defined in the OSHA Construction Standards for Excavations, 29 CFR, Part 1926, should evaluate the soil exposed in the excavations as part of the contractor's safety process. We anticipate that the existing on-site soils will consist of Type B material. Our firm should be contacted to observe all temporary cut slopes during grading to ascertain that no unforeseen adverse conditions exist. No surcharge loads such as foundation loads, or soil or equipment stockpiles, vehicles, etc. should be allowed within a distance from the top of temporary slopes equal to half the slope height. CWE 2190062.01 March 19, 2019 Page 7 TEMPORARY SHORING GENERAL: Where it is not possible to construct temporary cut slopes in accordance with the above criteria, it will be necessary to use temporary shoring to support the proposed excavations. For shoring systems, we considered the use of cantilevered soldier pile walls. We recommend that a specialty contractor with experience in shoring and bracing provide the shoring recommendations and plans. It is recommended that a "survey" be made of adjacent properties and structures prior to the start of grading and excavation in order to establish the existing condition of existing neighboring structures and to reduce the possibility of potential damage claims as a result of site grading. SHORING DESIGN AND LATERAL PRESSURES: For design of cantilevered shoring a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be used. It may be assumed that retained soils having a level surface behind the cantilevered shoring will exert a lateral pressure equal to that developed by a fluid with a density of 35 pounds per cubic foot. Cantilevered shoring is normally limited to excavations that do not exceed approximately 15 feet in depth in order to limit the deflection at the tops of the soldier piles. DESIGN OF SOLDIER PILES: Soldier piles should be spaced no closer than two diameters on center. The ultimate lateral bearing value (passive value) of the soils below the level of excavation may be assumed to be 400 pounds per square foot per foot of depth from the excavated surface, up to a maximum of 6,000 pounds per square foot. The lateral bearing can be applied over a horizontal distance equal to twice the pile diameter. To develop the full lateral value, provisions should be made to assure firm contact between the soldier piles and the undisturbed soils. The concrete placed in the soldier pile excavations should be of sufficient strength to adequately transfer the imposed loads to the surrounding soils. LAGGING: Continuous lagging will be required between the soldier piles. The soldier piles and anchors should be designed for the full anticipated lateral pressure. However, the pressure on the lagging will likely be somewhat less due to arching in the soils. We recommend that the lagging be designed for a semi-circular distribution of earth pressure where the maximum pressure is 400 pounds per square foot at the mid-point between soldier piles, and zero pounds per square foot at the soldier piles. This value does not include any surcharge pressures. CWE 2190062.01 March 19, 2019 Page 8 DEFLECTIONS: We recommend from a geotechnical standpoint that the deflection at the top of the shoring not exceed about one inch. If greater deflection occurs during construction, additional bracing may be necessary. If desired to reduce the deflection of the shoring, a greater lateral earth pressure could be used in the shoring design. MONITORING: Some means of monitoring the performance of the shoring system is recommended. The monitoring should consist of periodic surveying of the lateral and vertical locations of the tops of the soldier piles approximately every 50 lineal feet. We will be pleased to discuss this further with the design consultants and the contractor when the design of the shoring system has been finalized. LIMITATIONS REVIEW, OBSERVATION AND TESTING The recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications. Such plans and specifications should be made available to the Geotechnical Engineer and Engineering Geologist so that they may review and verify their compliance with this report and with Appendix J of the California Building Code. It is recommended that Christian Wheeler Engineering be retained to provide continuous soil engineering services during the earthwork operations. This is to verify compliance with the design concepts, specifications or recommendations and to allow design changes in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to start of construction. UNIFORMITY OF CONDITIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requirements based on an evaluation of the subsurface soil conditions encountered at the subsurface exploration locations and on the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundations and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in CWE 2190062.01 March 19, 2019 Page 9 the intermediate and unexplored areas. Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. CHANGE IN SCOPE This office should be advised of any changes in the project scope or proposed site grading so that we may determine if the recommendations contained herein are appropriate. It should be verified in writing if the recommendations are found to be appropriate for the proposed changes or our recommendations should be modified by a written addendum. TIME LIMITATIONS The findings of this report are valid as of this date. Changes in the condition of a property can, however, occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in the Standards-of-Practice and/or Government Codes may occur. Due to such changes, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or in part by changes beyond our control. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after a period of two years without a review by us verifying the suitability of the conclusions and recommendations. PROFESSIONAL STANDARD In the performance of our professional services, we comply with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in the same locality. The client recognizes that subsurface conditions may vary from those encountered at the locations where our borings, surveys, and explorations are made, and that our data, interpretations, and recommendations are based solely on the information obtained by us. We will be responsible for those data, interpretations, and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretations by others of the information developed. Our services consist of professional consultation and observation only, and no warranty of any kind whatsoever, express or implied, is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to be performed by us, or by our proposal for consulting or other services, or by our furnishing of oral or written reports or findings. CWE 2190062.01 March 19, 2019 Page 10 CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITY It is the responsibility of the client, or their representatives to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the structural engineer and architect for the project and incorporated into the project's plans and specifications. It is further their responsibility to take the necessary measures to insure that the contractor and his subcontractors carry out such recommendations during construction. :4i. — _----..I Ii_J !i1L& low- Iii IJrU I #ir .II!i EL' 4 0 10' 20' L' SCALE: 1" = 10' CWE LEGEND B-3 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION 21- ARTIFICIAL FILL OVER Qo'p OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS Qop OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS - - - GEOLOGIC CONTACT I SITE PLAN AND GEOLOGIC MAP PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE SHORING, CARLSBAD INN 3075 CARLSBAD BOULEVARD CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA DATE: MARCH 2019 JOB NO.: 2190062.01 BY: SD PLATE NO.: 1 WIN CHPJS11AN WHEELER ENGINEERING Appendix A Subsurface Explorations Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) test methods or suggested procedures. Brief descriptions of the tests performed are presented below: CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System and are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix A. MOISTURE-DENSITY: In-place moisture contents and dry densities were determined for representative soil samples. This information was an aid to classification and permitted recognition of variations in material consistency with depth. The dry unit weight is determined in pounds per cubic foot, and the in-place moisture content is determined as a percentage of the soil's dry weight. The results of these tests are summarized in the exploration logs presented in Appendix A. MAXIMUM DENSITY & OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical soils were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D-1557, Method A. DIRECT SHEAR: Direct shear tests were performed to determine the failure envelope of selected soils based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accommodate a sample having a diameter of 2.375 inches or 2.50 inches and a height of 1.0 inch. Samples were tested at different vertical loads and a saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inch per minute. SOLUBLE SULFATES: The soluble sulfate content was determined for samples of soil likely to be present at the foundation level. The soluble sulfate content was determined in accordance with California Test Method 417. V CHRJS1TAN WHEELER. ENCI NEEI NC LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PARKING GARAGE SHORING 3075 CARLSBAD BLVD, CARLSBAD, CA 'Cr NO. 210062 DATE 03/19 FIGURE 1 [MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM 1)1557) ••muu•••••uuuu••••••••••••••u•••u•uu ••i••••••u•••u•uuuu••uu•••••• ••••••••UUh•••IU••••••••••••U•••RU• liDIRE T S HEAR .TESTwi is ii:o 3000 -+- 2880 psf 2500 7-44-1440 psf 2000 720 psf _ I I 1500 - - I, 1000 . . . 500 = 0.05 infinin 0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 Shear Displacement (In.) 3000 2500 a 1500 CA 500 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Normal Stress (psf): 2.375-Inch Sample Sample No. B-i ® 31/2' Sample Type: Undisturbed (Ring) LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PROJECFNO. 210062 VI DATE 03/19 FIGURE CHRJS11AN WHEELER PARKING GARAGE SHORING E N C I N E E P.. I N C 3075 CARLSBAD BLVD. CARLSBAD, CA 3 I Shear Stress @ Peak D Shear Stress @0.2 in. Peak Envelope pe 02 in Envelo - - — 2000 101, 001 1000 10, , , P 0 Normal Stress (ps 720 1440 2880 Peak Shear Stress (psf) 829 1480 2460 Shear Stress at 0.2 in (psf) 751 1237 2417 Initial Dry Density (pcf) 100.4 102.1 100.4 Initial Moisture Content C'/°) 11.4 10.8 11.2 Peak at 0.2 in Displacement Friction Angle, $ (deg): 37 35 Cohesion Intercept, c (psf): 300 225 Sample No. CALTEST 417 CALTEST 643 CALTEST 422 Sulfate Content (./'SO4) pH Resistivity (ohm-cm) Chloride Content (%) B-2 @ 0-3' 0.002 8.5 5,500 0.003 CHRJS11AN WHEELER. ENC I NEEKI NC LABORATORY TEST RESULTS PARKING GARAGE SHORING 3075 CARLSBAD BLVD, CARLSBAD, CA Cr NO. DATE FIGURE 7 Appendix C References CWE 219006201 March 19, 2019 Appendix C-I REFERENCES American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE 7 Hazard Tool, https://asceThazardtool.online Historic Aerials, NETR Online, historicaerials.com Kennedy, Michael P. and Tan, Siang S., 2008, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30'x60' Quadrangle, California, California Geologic Survey, Map No. 2. Tan, S.S., 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 95-04. U.S. Geological Survey, Quaternary Faults in Google Earth, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/google.php