HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 16-07; MARJA ACRES; SECOND UPDATE REPORT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2021-05-26
Marja Acres Mixed-Use Development
4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA
cemene
Second Update Report
Geotechnical Investigation
NUWI Carlsbad, LLC 2001 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 401
Santa Monica, CA 90403
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B San Diego, California 92123 858.292.7575 944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F San Clemente, CA 92673 949.388.7710 www.usa-nova.com
NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B San Diego, CA 92123 P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com 944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F San Clemente, CA 92673 P: 949.388.7710
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION DVBE SBE SDVOSB
NUWI Carlsbad, LLC May 26, 2021
Jason Han, Partner NOVA Project 2021026
2001 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 401
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Subject: Second Update Report
Geotechnical Investigation
Marja Acres Mixed-Use Development
4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA
Dear Mr. Han:
NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) is pleased to present herewith the above-referenced report. This
report is an update to the project report by NOVA dated March 10, 2021. This report presents
the findings of a supplemental geotechnical investigation performed in May 2021, which
included downhole logging of large diameter borings and excavation of additional exploratory
test pits for the purpose of understanding and incorporating geologic structure and data into the
slope stability analyses along the western slope of the project. In addition, at the request of the
City of Carlsbad third party reviewer, several global slope stability analyses have been
performed and are reported herein. Additional remedial grading recommendations have been
added as a result of the findings of the supplemental investigation.
NOVA appreciates the opportunity to be of continued service on this project. Should you have
any questions regarding this report or other matters, please do not hesitate to call us at
858.292.7575 x 409.
Sincerely, NOVA Services, Inc.
_________________________ ________________________ Wail Mokhtar Melissa Stayner, PG, CEG
Senior Project Manager Senior Engineering Geologist
_________________________ _________________________ John F. O’Brien, PE, GE Giovanni Norman, GIT Principal Geotechnical Engineer Staff Geologist
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
Page i of viii
SECOND UPDATE REPORT
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Marja Acres Mixed-Use Development 4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA ____________________________________________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Terms of Reference .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Previous Reporting by NOVA ................................................................................... 1
1.3 Geotechnical Work by Others ................................................................................... 2
1.4 Objective, Scope, and Limitations of This Work ........................................................ 2
1.4.1 Objective ...................................................................................................... 2
1.4.2 Scope ........................................................................................................... 2
1.4.3 Limitations .................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Understood Use of This Report ................................................................................ 4
1.6 Report Organization ................................................................................................. 4
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION .................................................................................. 5
2.1 Site Description ........................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1 Location ....................................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Site Use ....................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Planned Development .............................................................................................. 7
2.2.1 General ........................................................................................................ 7
2.2.2 Structural ...................................................................................................... 8
2.2.3 Earthwork ..................................................................................................... 8
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ...................... 9
3.1 Overview .................................................................................................................. 9
3.2 NOVA Engineering Borings .................................................................................... 10
3.2.1 Drilling .........................................................................................................10
3.2.2 Logging and Sampling .................................................................................10
3.2.3 Closure .......................................................................................................11
3.3 CPT Soundings ...................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Test Pits ................................................................................................................. 12
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
Page ii of viii
3.4.1 Excavation ..................................................................................................12
3.5 Large Diameter Borings .......................................................................................... 12
3.5.1 General .......................................................................................................12
3.6 GSI Subsurface Exploration ................................................................................... 13
3.6.1 GSI Test Pits ...............................................................................................13
3.6.2 GSI Engineering Borings .............................................................................13
3.7 Laboratory Testing by NOVA .................................................................................. 14
3.7.1 General .......................................................................................................14
3.7.2 Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture ...................................................14
3.7.3 Gradation ....................................................................................................14
3.7.4 Direct Shear ................................................................................................15
3.7.5 Plasticity and Expansion Potential ...............................................................16
3.8 GSI Laboratory Testing .......................................................................................... 16
3.8.1 General .......................................................................................................16
3.8.2 Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture ...................................................16
3.8.3 Gradation ....................................................................................................17
3.8.4 Expansion Potential and Plasticity ...............................................................17
3.8.5 Direct Shear ................................................................................................17
3.8.6 Compressibility Testing ...............................................................................18
3.8.7 Chemical Testing ........................................................................................18
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 19
4.1 Geologic Setting ..................................................................................................... 19
4.1.1 Regional ......................................................................................................19
4.1.2 Site Specific ................................................................................................19
4.2 Surface, Subsurface, and Groundwater .................................................................. 20
4.2.1 Surface .......................................................................................................20
4.2.2 Subsurface ..................................................................................................23
This unit thins out ...................................................................................................24
4.2.3 Groundwater ...............................................................................................27
4.2.4 Surface Water .............................................................................................28
4.3 Planned Site Grading ............................................................................................. 28
5.0 REVIEW OF GEOLOGIC, SOIL, AND SITING HAZARDS ................................ 30
5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 30
5.2 Geologic Hazards ................................................................................................... 30
5.2.1 Strong Ground Motion .................................................................................30
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
Page iii of viii
5.2.2 Fault Rupture ..............................................................................................30
5.2.3 Ground Lurching .........................................................................................31
5.2.4 Landslide .....................................................................................................31
5.3 Soil Hazards ........................................................................................................... 33
5.3.1 Embankment Stability..................................................................................33
5.3.2 Seismic .......................................................................................................33
5.3.3 Expansive Soil.............................................................................................34
5.3.4 Hydro-Collapsible Soils ...............................................................................34
5.3.5 Corrosive Soil ..............................................................................................35
5.4 Siting Hazards ........................................................................................................ 35
5.4.1 Effect on Adjacent Properties ......................................................................35
5.4.2 Inundation ...................................................................................................35
6.0 EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATIONS ................................................................ 37
6.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 37
6.1.1 Review of Site Hazards ...............................................................................37
6.1.2 Site Suitability .............................................................................................37
6.1.3 Review and Surveillance .............................................................................37
6.2 Seismic Design Parameters ................................................................................... 38
6.2.1 Site Class ....................................................................................................38
6.2.2 Seismic Design Parameters ........................................................................38
6.3 Corrosivity and Sulfates .......................................................................................... 38
6.3.1 General .......................................................................................................38
6.3.2 Metals .........................................................................................................39
6.3.3 Sulfate Attack ..............................................................................................40
6.3.4 Limitations ...................................................................................................40
6.4 Earthwork ............................................................................................................... 40
6.4.1 General .......................................................................................................40
6.4.2 Select Fill for Buildings and Exterior Improvements .....................................40
6.4.3 Site Preparation ..........................................................................................41
6.4.4 Remedial Grading in Fill Areas ....................................................................42
6.4.5 Remedial Grading in Cut Areas ...................................................................42
6.4.6 Remedial Grading for Walls, Pavements and Flatwork ................................43
6.4.7 Subgrade Stabilization ................................................................................43
6.4.8 Grading of Fill and Cut Slopes .....................................................................44
6.4.9 Earthwork Near the Kinder Morgan Pipeline ................................................44
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
Page iv of viii
6.4.10 Settlement of New Fills ..............................................................................45
6.4.11 Subdrains ..................................................................................................48
6.4.12 Trenching and Backfilling for Utilities .........................................................49
6.5 Shallow Foundations .............................................................................................. 49
6.5.1 Bearing Unit ................................................................................................49
6.5.2 Post-Tensioned (PT) Slabs in Expansive Soils ............................................49
6.6 Moisture Barrier Beneath Slabs .............................................................................. 50
6.6.1 Capillary Break ............................................................................................50
6.6.2 Vapor Barrier ...............................................................................................51
6.6.3 Limitations of This Recommendation ...........................................................51
6.7 Conventional Retaining Walls ................................................................................. 51
6.7.1 Shallow Foundations ...................................................................................51
6.7.2 Select Fill for Conventional Retaining Walls ................................................51
6.7.3 Lateral Earth Pressures ...............................................................................52
6.7.4 Seismic Increment .......................................................................................52
6.7.5 Foundation Uplift .........................................................................................52
6.7.6 Wall Drainage .............................................................................................52
6.8 MSE Walls ............................................................................................................. 53
6.8.1 Select Granular Wall Backfill .......................................................................53
6.8.2 Strength of the Select Backfill ......................................................................54
6.8.3 MSE Wall Foundations ................................................................................54
6.8.4 MSE Wall Drainage .....................................................................................54
6.8.5 Wall Design Strength Parameters ...............................................................54
6.8.6 Limitations ...................................................................................................54
6.8.7 Design Review ............................................................................................54
6.9 Permanent Soldier Pile Walls ................................................................................. 55
6.9.1 General .......................................................................................................55
6.9.2 Wall Pressures ............................................................................................55
6.9.3 Wall Construction ........................................................................................56
6.9.4 Wall Drainage .............................................................................................56
6.10 Embankment and MSE Wall Stability ..................................................................... 56
6.10.1 Overview ...................................................................................................56
6.10.2 Embankment Stability................................................................................56
6.10.3 Global Stability of MSE Walls ....................................................................58
6.11 Temporary Slopes .................................................................................................. 59
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
Page v of viii
6.11.1 Conformance with OSHA and Cal/OSHA ..................................................59
6.11.2 Excavation Planning and Control ..............................................................59
6.11.3 Backcuts for MSE Walls ............................................................................59
6.11.1 Flatwork ....................................................................................................60
7.0 STORMWATER INFILTRATION ........................................................................ 61
7.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 61
8.0 PAVEMENTS ..................................................................................................... 62
8.1 Design Basis .......................................................................................................... 62
8.2 Drainage and Moisture Control ............................................................................... 62
8.3 Preventative Maintenance ...................................................................................... 62
8.4 Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................................ 63
8.4.1 Proof-Rolling ...............................................................................................63
8.4.2 Timely Base Course Construction ...............................................................63
8.5 Flexible Pavements ................................................................................................ 63
8.6 Rigid Pavements .................................................................................................... 63
8.6.1 General .......................................................................................................63
8.6.2 Jointing and Reinforcement .........................................................................64
8.7 Concrete Pavers ..................................................................................................... 64
8.7.1 General .......................................................................................................64
8.7.2 Bedding and Joint Sand Gradation ..............................................................64
8.7.3 Base and Subgrade ....................................................................................65
8.7.4 Installation ...................................................................................................65
8.7.5 Control of Infiltration ....................................................................................65
8.7.6 Edge Restraint ............................................................................................66
8.7.7 Maintenance ...............................................................................................66
9.0 CONSTRUCTION REVIEW, OBSERVATION, AND TESTING ......................... 67
9.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 67
9.2 Design Phase Review ............................................................................................ 67
9.3 Construction Observation and Testing .................................................................... 67
9.3.1 General .......................................................................................................67
9.3.2 Continuous Soils Special Inspection ............................................................67
9.3.3 Periodic Soils Special Inspection .................................................................68
9.3.4 Testing During Inspections ..........................................................................68
10.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 69
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
Page vi of viii
10.1 Site Specific............................................................................................................ 69
10.2 Design .................................................................................................................... 69
10.3 Site Setting ............................................................................................................. 70
List of Plates
Plate 1 Geotechnical Map
Plate 2 Cross-Sections A-A’ through H-H’
Plate 3 Remedial Removals and Limits of Remedial Grading
Plate 4 Slope Stability Cross Section Locations and Temporary Slope Map
List of Appendices
Appendix A Use of the Geotechnical Report
Appendix B Logs of Subsurface Explorations
Appendix C Logs of CPT Soundings by NOVA
Appendix D Records of Laboratory Testing by NOVA
Appendix E GSI Stormwater Evaluation and Worksheets
Appendix F Outline Specifications for Earthwork
Appendix G Stability Analyses of MSE Walls and Embankments
List of Tables
Table 3-1. Abstract of the NOVA Engineering Borings
Table 3-2. Abstract of the NOVA CPT Soundings
Table 3-3. Abstract of the NOVA Test Pits
Table 3-4. Abstract of the NOVA Large Diameter Borings
Table 3-5. Abstract of the GSI Test Pits
Table 3-6. Abstract of the GSI Borings
Table 3-7. Abstract of the Moisture-Density Testing, ASTM D1557
Table 3-8. Abstract of the Soil Gradation Testing
Table 3-9. Abstract of Direct Shear Testing
Table 3-10. Abstract of the Testing to Determine Atterberg Limits
Table 3-11. Abstract of the Expansion Index Testing
Table 3-12. Abstract of the GSI Soil Gradation Testing
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
Page vii of viii
List of Tables (continued)
Table 3-13. Abstract of the Testing to Determine Expansion Index and Plasticity
Table 3-14. Abstract of the GSI Direct Shear Testing
Table 3-15. Abstract of Compressibility Testing by GSI
Table 3-16. Abstract of Chemical Testing by GSI
Table 5-1. Qualitative Descriptors of Expansion Potential Based Upon EI
Table 6-1. Seismic Design Parameters, ASCE 7-16, Site Class D
Table 6-2. Abstract of Chemical Testing
Table 6-3. Soil Resistivity and Corrosion Potential
Table 6-4. Exposure Categories and Requirements for Water-Soluble Sulfates
Table 6-5. Geotechnical Parameters for Post-Tensioned Slab with Thickened Edge
Table 6-6. Wall Lateral Loads from Soil
Table 6-7. Soil Strength Parameters for MSE Retaining Walls
Table 6-8. MSE Wall Global Stability Analysis Matrix
Table 8-1. Preliminary Recommendations for Flexible Pavements
Table 8-2. Recommended Concrete Requirements
Table 8-3. Gradation of Sand for Paver Systems
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2-1. Site Location and Limits
Figure 2-2. Kinder Morgan Fuel Line Location
Figure 2-3. 1967 Aerial Image
Figure 2-4. Generalized Planning for Areas of Cut and Fill
Figure 3-1. Locations of the Subsurface Explorations
Figure 3-2. Drilling Operations February 2021
Figure 4-1. Regional Geology Map
Figure 4-2. Northwest Nursery Area Looking West
Figure 4-3. Central Paved Area Behind Retail/Restaurant Structure
Figure 4-4. Northeast Portion of Site, as Viewed to the West
Figure 4-5. Upper Mesa Portion of Site, as Viewed to the East
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
Page viii of viii
List of Figures (continued)
Figure 4-6. 1947 Aerial Photo Depicting the Morphology of Pre-Existing Drainages at the Site
Figure 4-7. Quaternary Older Alluvium in Boring B-4
Figure 4-8. Paleosol Overlying Santiago Formation in Boring B-5
Figure 4-9. Massively Bedded Santiago Formation in LD-1
Figure 4-10. Seepage Along Western Property Boundary/SDG&E Access Road
Figure 4-11. Section G-G’ Presenting Proposed Grading from North to South
Figure 5-1. Faulting in the Site Vicinity
Figure 5-2. Landslide Risk in the Site Area
Figure 5-3. Flood Mapping of the Site Area
Figure 6-1. Subsurface Conditions Along the Kinder Morgan Pipeline
Figure 6-2. Average Stiffness of the Alluvium, CPT-1 through CPT-7
Figure 6-3. Elastic Settlement Estimated at CPT-1
Figure 6-4. Conceptual Design for Wall Drainage
Figure 6-5. Seismic Stability of the Tallest Site Embankment, F = 1.18, kh = 0.15
Figure 6-6. Static Stability of a 20-Foot Tall Backcut, FS = 1.3
Figure 8-1. Design to Control Infiltration
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Terms of Reference
The work reported herein was completed by NOVA Services, Inc. (NOVA) for NUWI Carlsbad,
LLC in accordance with NOVA’s proposal dated December 18, 2020, as authorized on February
11, 2021 with a supplemental geotechnical investigation authorized on May 14, 2021.
This report provides the findings of an updated geotechnical investigation for the Marja Acres
mixed-use community, planned for the City of Carlsbad along El Camino Real east of Kelly
Drive. The development will be nominally located at 4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA
(hereinafter, ‘the site’). Figure 1-1 provides a graphic that depicts the site vicinity.
Figure 1-1. Vicinity Map
1.2 Previous Reporting by NOVA
This report revises and supersedes prior reporting by NOVA for this same site. That reporting
was provided in Report, Update Geotechnical Investigation, Marja Acres Mixed-Use
Development, 4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, NOVA Services, Inc., Project
2021026, March 10, 2021 (hereinafter ‘NOVA 2021’).
S1\
. M°""' ktlly 105m I ,I
"""'"" ,. .... . _-,,;),~...,
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
2
1.3 Geotechnical Work by Others
This site and the planned development thereon have been the object of a prior geotechnical
reporting by Geosoils, Inc., as listed below.
1. GSI 2016. Geotechnical Evaluation of Marja Acres, APN 207-101-35 & -37, 1910 El
Camino Real, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, Geosoils, Inc, W. O. 6971-A-SC,
July 8, 2016.
2. GSI 2018a. Addendum to Geotechnical Evaluation of Marja Acres, APN 207-101-35 &
37, 1910 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, GeoSoils, Inc., WO 6971- A-SC, January 4, 2018.
3. GSI 2018b. Update of the Geotechnical Update for Marja Acres, APN 207-101-35 & -37,
1910 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, Geosoils, Inc, W. O.
6971-A-SC, June 11, 2018.
The work reported herein utilizes the indications of the subsurface exploration completed by
GSI. The recommendations provided herein supersede those provided in GSI 2018.
1.4 Objective, Scope, and Limitations of This Work
1.4.1 Objective
The objective of the work reported herein is to utilize the findings of subsurface characterization
by others and additional subsurface characterization by NOVA to provide updated
recommendations for geotechnical-related design, including foundations and related earthwork.
1.4.2 Scope
In order to accomplish the above objectives, NOVA undertook the task-based scope of work
described below.
• Task 1, Background Review. Reviewed readily available background data regarding the
site area, including prior geotechnical reporting (GSI 2016, GSI 2018a, and 2018b),
geologic data, fault maps, and planning level civil design drawings.
• Task 2, Subsurface Exploration. A NOVA Geologist directed a subsurface exploration
that included the subtasks listed below.
o Subtask 2-1, Reconnaissance and Utility Clearance. Prior to undertaking any
invasive work, NOVA conducted a site reconnaissance and layout of engineering
borings and cone penetration test (CPT) soundings. Underground Service Alert
and a utility location contractor were notified for underground utility mark-out
services.
o Subtask 2-2, Subcontracting. NOVA retained specialty contractors to conduct
engineering borings and CPT soundings.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
3
o Subtask 2-3, Engineering Borings. Five (5) hollow-stem engineering borings were
extended to depths between 26.5 and 41.5 feet bgs (below ground surface). The
Geologist directed the drilling and conducted logging and sampling using ASTM
methods.
o Subtask 2-4, CPT Soundings. Nine (9) CPT soundings (ASTM D 5778) were
extended to depths between 20 and 40 feet bgs.
o Subtask 2-5, Test Pits. Six (6) test pits were excavated by a tracked mini
excavator to depths of up to 7.5 feet. The Geologist directed sampling and
maintained a log of the subsurface materials that were encountered.
o Subtask 2-6, Large Diameter Borings. Two (2) 30-inch geologic borings were
drilled using bucket auger techniques. The borings were of sufficient diameter to
allow entry by an appropriately experienced Certified Engineering Geologist,
providing direct observation and logging/mapping of geologic materials and
structure exposed on the walls of the borings.
• Task 3, Laboratory Testing. Laboratory testing was completed to address soil index
characteristics, utilizing these data for both soil classification and correlation with soil
mechanical characteristics (i.e., strength and compressibility).
• Task 4, Engineering Evaluations. Utilizing the data developed by the preceding tasks,
NOVA completed geotechnical, global slope stability, and stormwater infiltration-focused
engineering evaluations.
• Task 5, Reporting. Preparation of this report presenting NOVA’s findings and
recommendations completes the scope of work described in NOVA’s proposal.
1.4.3 Limitations
Assessment of the subsurface in geological and geotechnical engineering is characterized by
uncertainty. Opinions relating to environmental, geologic, and geotechnical conditions are based
on limited data, such that actual conditions may vary from those encountered at the times and
locations where the data are obtained, despite the use of due professional care. The judgments
provided in this report are based upon NOVA’s understanding of the planned construction, its
experience with similar work, and its judgments regarding subsurface conditions indicated by
the methods of subsurface exploration described in the report.
Conditions exposed by construction may vary from those disclosed by the subsurface
exploration points. NOVA should be retained for design review and for surveillance to observe
subsurface conditions revealed during construction. NOVA cannot assume responsibility for the
recommendations of this report if NOVA does not perform construction observation. Section 8 of
this report addresses this consideration in more detail.
This report addresses geotechnical and stormwater considerations only. The report does not
provide any environmental assessment or investigation of the presence or absence of
hazardous or toxic materials in the soil, soil gas, groundwater, or surface water within or beyond
the site.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
4
Appendix A to this report provides important additional guidance regarding the use and
limitations of this report. This information should be reviewed by all users of the report.
1.5 Understood Use of This Report
NOVA expects that the findings and recommendations provided herein will be utilized by NUWI
Carlsbad, LLC and its Design Team in decision-making regarding geotechnical-related design
and construction.
1.6 Report Organization
The remainder of this report is organized as abstracted below.
• Section 2 reviews available project information.
• Section 3 describes the field exploration and laboratory testing.
• Section 4 describes the site physical setting, including the geologic setting and
subsurface conditions.
• Section 5 reviews geologic and soil hazards common to the San Diego County region,
considering each for its potential to affect the site.
• Section 6 provides preliminary recommendations for earthwork, ground improvement,
and foundation design.
• Section 7 provides recommendations for pavement design.
• Section 8 provides recommendations for geotechnical observation during construction.
Section 9 lists the principal references utilized in the development of the report.
Figures and tables intended to amplify the discussions in the text are embedded therein. Plate 1
provided immediately following the text of the report provides the Geotechnical Map, depicting
the locations of borings, trenches, and the CPT locations. Plate 2 provides geologic cross-
sections throughout the property.
The report is supported by seven appendices.
• Appendix A provides guidance regarding the use and limitations of this report.
• Appendix B presents logs of the subsurface explorations on-site.
• Appendix C provides records CPT soundings by NOVA.
• Appendix D records of geotechnical laboratory testing by NOVA.
• Appendix E GSI Stormwater Evaluation and Worksheets.
• Appendix F outlines requirements for earthwork.
• Appendix G provides detail regarding global MSE wall stability analyses and
embankment stability analyses.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
5
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Site Description
2.1.1 Location
The approximately 20-acre site is nominally located at 4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad. The site
includes APNs 207-101-35 and 207-101-37. The irregularly shaped site is located on the south
side of El Camino Real, east of Kelly Drive. Residential development bounds the site to the
south, and east. On the west, the site is bounded by an SDG&E powerline easement and a
drainage channel.
Figure 2-1 depicts the location and approximate limits of the site on a recent aerial view.
Figure 2-1. Site Location and Limits
2.1.2 Site Use
Current
The site is largely undeveloped and is split into two main areas: a topographically lower
portion that extends along El Camino Real, and to the south of this area, a steeply
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
6
ascending hillside with a flat area on top, which was primarily used for agricultural
purposes.
Lower Area
The western edge of the lower area served as a plant nursery. The majority of the
central and eastern portion of the lower area is a paved parking lot serving the
businesses in the two commercial structures that occupy the site. Behind the larger
structure located along the north-central edge of the property along El Camino Real, are
small structures that serve as part of the cell relay tower infrastructure currently at the
site. There is a large CMU block wall behind these structures that retain the ascending
slope to the south.
There is a 10-inch Kinder Morgan fuel line that enters and exits the site from El Camino
Real. It crosses from El Camino Real to the site in two locations. The first is in the
northwestern corner of the site, the second is in front of the central commercial structure.
It is NOVA’s understanding that this line has not actively been used for fuel transport
since the mid-1980s. Figure 2-2 presents the line and the pothole locations.
Figure 2-2. Kinder Morgan Fuel Line Location (Line is Highlighted)
Upper Area
A large slope ascends from the nursery and parking areas of the lower portion of the site
up to the higher portion of the site. This portion of the site has been graded to be roughly
flat, and used in the past for agricultural purposes. There is an existing residence with
some smaller appurtenant structures.
NOVA
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
7
At the crest of the slope, there are some large cellular relay stations in the configuration
of palm trees.
Historic
Review of aerial photography dating to 1925 indicates that the majority of the site has
largely remained undeveloped. The residence and agricultural facilities in the upper
portion of the site appear in the 1953 photo, and the commercial structure fronting El
Camino Real appears in the 1967 photo. By 1980, the site appears to be in its current
configuration. Figure 2-3 provides a 1967 aerial image of the site.
Figure 2-3. 1967 Aerial Image
2.2 Planned Development
2.2.1 General
Marja Acres will primarily be developed for the purpose of constructing market-rate townhomes.
However, development will also include senior affordable housing, retail and restaurant space
located along El Camino Real, and a variety of green spaces and pocket parks.
There is an extensive system of retaining walls proposed at this site that will adapt the existing
sloping landform to that required for the proposed building pads, interior drives, and stormwater
BMPs.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
8
2.2.2 Structural
No structural information is available, but it is NOVA’s understanding that the maximum height
of the proposed structures will be 35 feet. Based upon experience with similar developments,
NOVA expects that the new residential structures will be relatively light wood-framed, founded
atop ground supported floor slabs.
2.2.3 Earthwork
NOVA’s understanding of the potential for earthwork across the site is based upon review of
grading depicted in HWL 2021a and HWL 2021b.
Earthwork associated with development of the site will be considerable. Cut from the upper
portion of the site will be used as fill in the topographically lower portion of the site. Based on the
grading plans, earthwork is comprised of about 265,000 cubic yards of cut in the upper portions
of the site and a related 185,000 cubic yards of fill in the lower-lying alluvial areas. Maximum
cuts may extend to about 25 feet, with maximum heights of fill on the order of about 20 feet.
Figure 2-4 provides an early mapping of the planning for areas of cuts and fill.
Figure 2-4. Generalized Planning for Areas of Cut and Fill
Extensive earthwork across the site will result in graded slopes that extend to about 25 feet
height, inclined at 2H:1V, or flatter. Development of the new groundform will be supported by
the use of a variety of retaining walls across the site, principally mechanically stabilized earth
(MSE) walls that will range to about 26 feet in height. A variety of smaller, conventional concrete
masonry unit (CMU) walls, and both temporary and permanent shoring walls will also be
employed.
Section 4.3 addresses this consideration in more detail. Section 6.4 provides guidance for
earthwork.
14.25
13.30
12.35 11.40
10.45 g,_50
8,.!i5
7.60
5.66
!H O
.75
3.80
2.85
1.00
0.96 ±.100
0.96
1.00
2.85
3.80
.75
5.70
5.66
1.60 8,.!i5
g,_50
10.45
11.40
12.35
13.30
14.25
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
9
3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
3.1 Overview
GSI 2016 and GSI 2018a report the findings of three (3) engineering borings (‘B-1’ through ‘B-
3’) and ten (10) test pits (‘TP-1’ through ‘TP-10’). In addition to this work, NOVA completed two
supplemental explorations in February and May 2021 that included five (5) engineering borings
(‘B-1’ through ‘B-5’), nine (9) cone penetration test soundings (‘CPT-1’ through ‘CPT-9’), six (6)
exploratory test pits (‘TP-1’ through ‘TP-6’), and two (2) large diameter bucket auger borings
(LD-1 and LD-2).
Figure 3-1 provides a plan view of the locations of subsurface exploration. Plate 1, provided
immediately following the text of this report, locates these exploration points in larger scale.
Figure 3-1. Locations of the Subsurface Explorations
B-5 GEOTECHNICAL 8 BORING (NOVA)
CPT-9 CONE PENETRATION @ TEST(NOVA)
TP-6 TEST PIT (NOVA) IE!I
LD-2 LARGE DIAMETER
9 GEOTECHNICAL
BORING (NOVA)
8-3 GEOTECHNICAL B BORING (GSI 2016)
TP-10 TEST PIT H (GSI 2016)
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
10
3.2 NOVA Engineering Borings
3.2.1 Drilling
A NOVA geologist directed drilling and sampling of five (5) engineering borings, referenced as
‘B-1’ through ‘B-5’, on February 12, 2021
The borings were advanced by a truck-mounted drilling rig utilizing hollow-stem auger drilling
techniques. Figure 3-2 (following page) depicts the drilling operations. Table 3-1 provides an
abstract of the engineering borings.
Table 3-1. Abstract of the NOVA Engineering Borings
Boring
Reference
Approx. Ground
Surface Elev. (feet, msl)
Total Depth Below
Ground Surface (feet)
Elevation at Completion (feet, msl) 1
Approx.
Depth to Older Alluvium (feet)
Approx. Depth to Santiago
Formation (feet)
B-1 +107 41.5 65.5 At Surface 27
B-2 +104 31.5 72.5 At Surface 11
B-3 +91.5 31.5 60 At Surface 20
B-4 +108 26.5 81.5 At Surface Not Encountered
B-5 +97 31.5 65.5 At Surface 25
3.2.2 Logging and Sampling
The Geologist directed sampling and maintained a log of the subsurface materials that were
encountered. Disturbed samples were recovered from the borings. Sampling of soils is
described below.
1. The Modified California sampler (‘ring sampler’, after ASTM D3550) was driven using a 140-
pound hammer falling for 30 inches with a total penetration of 18 inches, recording blow
counts for each 6 inches of penetration.
2. The Standard Penetration Test sampler (‘SPT’, after ASTM D1586) was driven in the same
manner as the ring sampler, recording blow counts in the same fashion. SPT blow counts
for the final 12 inches of penetration comprise the SPT ‘N’ value, an index of soil strength
and compressibility.
3. Bulk samples were recovered from cuttings from the borings, and surficial exposures of the materials.
The NOVA Geologist maintained a log of all sampling, as well as a depiction of the subsurface
materials based on the indications of the samples and observation of the drilling itself. The
recovered samples were transferred to NOVA’s geotechnical laboratory for visual inspection
and laboratory testing.
Records of the engineering borings are provided in Appendix B.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
11
Figure 3-2. Drilling Operations, February 2021
3.2.3 Closure
Upon completion, the borings were each backfilled with soil cuttings to match the existing
surfacing. The areas of the borings were restored to pre-drilling conditions to the degree
practical.
3.3 CPT Soundings
A series of nine (9) static cone penetrometer test (CPT) soundings were completed after ASTM
D 5778 at the locations shown in Figure 3-1.
As employed in this application, the CPTs were undertaken with the intent of providing a
continuous indication of soil type, strength, and compressibility of the alluvial deposits. One (1)
CPT (CPT-8) was also advanced in the upper site area, through the older alluvium and
underlying Santiago Formation. Logs of the CPT soundings are provided in Appendix C. Table
3-2 (following page) abstracts the soundings.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
12
Table 3-2. Abstract of the CPT Soundings
Sounding Approx. Elevation (feet, msl)1 Total Depth (feet) Tip Elevation (feet, msl)1
CPT-1 +52 40 12
CPT-2 +52 25* 27
CPT-3 +48 40 8
CPT-4 +48 20 28
CPT-5 +48 20 28
CPT-6 +48 20 28
CPT-7 +49 33* 16
CPT-8 +103 40 63
CPT-9 +57 20 37
*Indicates Refusal of CPT
3.4 Test Pits
3.4.1 Excavation
A NOVA Geologist directed excavation and sampling of six (6) test pits (TP-1 through TP-6) to
depths between 4 feet and 7.5 feet below ground surface (bgs) on May 10, 2021. The test pits
were excavated using a mini-excavator. Excavation locations were selected in unexplored
alluvial areas along the western portion of the site. The Geologist maintained a log of the
subsurface materials that were encountered. Table 3-3 provides an abstract of the test pits.
Appendix B presents the test pit logs.
Table 3-3. Abstract of the NOVA Test Pits
Test Pit
Reference
Approx. Ground
Surface Elev.
(feet, msl)
Total Depth
Below Ground
Surface (feet)
Elevation at
Completion
(feet, msl)
Approx. Depth
to Santiago
Formation (feet)
TP-1 +74.0 7.0 +67.0 6.0
TP-2 +69.0 4.5 +64.5 1.25
TP-3 +49.0 6.0 +43.0 Not Encountered
TP-4 +42.0 7.5 +34.5 3.0
TP-5
+55.0 4.0 +51.0 4.0
TP-6 +51.0 6.5 +44.5 6.0
3.5 Large Diameter Borings
3.5.1 General
NOVA completed the drilling and downhole logging of two (2) 30-inch large diameter boreholes
to depths of 43 and 44 feet bgs. Subcontractors provided a truck-mounted drill rig with a two-
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
13
man crew and downhole logging equipment. The fieldwork was conducted over the period of
May 18 and 19, 2021.
The objective of the large diameter boreholes was to allow assessment of the geologic structure
along the western slope of the subject property, with specific concern for occurrences of
adverse bedding, rock quality, weakened bedding planes, etc. that could be evidence of
dormant or active landsliding, or potential slip planes. A NOVA Certified Engineering Geologist
logged the borings.
Table 3-4 provides an abstract of the large diameter borings.
Table 3-4. Abstract of the NOVA Large Diameter Borings
Boring
Reference
Ground
Surface Elev.
(feet, msl)
Total Depth
Below Ground
Surface (feet)
Elevation at
Completion
(feet, msl)
Geologic Unit
Encountered 1
Depth to
Groundwater
(feet)
LD-1 +75.0 44.0
+31.0 Tsa 44
LD-2 +75.0 43.0
+32.0 Qoa Not Encountered
Note 1: the referenced geologic units are the Santiago Formation (Tsa) and Older Alluvium (Qoa)
3.6 GSI Subsurface Exploration
3.6.1 GSI Test Pits
GSI 2016 reports the findings of a series of backhoe-excavated ten (10) test pits. Table 3-5
(following page) is an abstract of the test pits.
Table 3-5. Abstract of the GSI Test Pits
Test Pit Reference
Approx.
Ground Surface Elev. (feet, msl)1
Total Depth
Below Ground Surface (feet)
Elevation
at Completion (feet, msl) 1
Approx. Depth to Older
Alluvium (feet)
Approx. Depth to Santiago
Formation (feet) 2
TP-1 +109 11 +98 2.5 Not Encountered
TP-2 +95 9 +86 7 Not Encountered
TP-3 +98 8 +90 6 Not Encountered
TP-4 +105 10 +95 3 Not Encountered
TP-5 +86 8 +78 Not Encountered 1
TP-6 +98 15.5 +82.5 3 Not Encountered
TP-7 +86 9 +77 Not Encountered 7
TP-8 +99 10 +89 2.5 Not Encountered
TP-9 +84 7 +73 5 Not Encountered
TP-10 +88 7 81 2 5.5
3.6.2 GSI Engineering Borings
GSI 2016 reports the findings of a series of three (3) engineering borings completed to support
the objectives of that work. Table 3-6 (following page) is an abstract of the engineering borings.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
14
Table 3-6. Abstract of the GSI Engineering Borings
Boring Reference
Ground Surface Elevation (feet, msl)1
Total Depth Below Ground Surface (feet)
Elevation at Completion (feet, msl) 1
Approx. Depth to Groundwater (feet)
Approx. Depth to Formation (feet) 2
B-1 +47 41 +6 15.5 35
B-2 +46 51.5 -5.5 14 36
B-3 +52 26 +26 17 20
Note 1: The referenced geologic unit is Tertiary Santiago Formation (Tsa)
3.7 Laboratory Testing by NOVA
3.7.1 General
Soil samples recovered from the engineering borings and exploratory trenches were transferred
to NOVA’s geotechnical laboratory where a Geotechnical Engineer reviewed the soil samples
and the field logs. Representative soil samples were selected and tested in NOVA’s materials
laboratory to check visual classifications and to determine pertinent index characteristics.
Records of the testing are provided in Appendix D.
3.7.2 Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture
Four (4) tests after ASTM D1557 (the ‘modified Proctor) were undertaken to determine the
moisture density relationship of the underlying soils. This testing indicates the behavior of the
soil as a construction material. Table 3-7 provides an abstract of this testing.
Table 3-7. Abstract of the Moisture-Density Testing, ASTM D1557
Boring Reference Depth (feet) Soil Description
Maximum Dry Density
Optimum Moisture Content (%)
B-1 20-22.5 Olive Brown Sandy Clay 122.6 12.0
B-2 15-17.5 Olive Brown Clayey Sand 119.3 11.7
B-3 15-20 Gray Brown Sandy Clay 118.2 12.7
B-5 15-20 Gray Brown Silty Clay/Clayey Silt 124.7 11.5
3.7.3 Gradation
The visual classifications were further evaluated by determinations of grain size distribution.
Table 3-8 (following page) provides a summary of this testing.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
15
Table 3-8. Abstract of the Soil Gradation Testing
Sample Reference Percent Finer than the U.S. No 200 Sieve Classification after ASTM D 2488 Boring Depth (feet)
B-1 7-10 59 ML
B-1 12.5-15 62 CL
B-1 20-22.5 66 CL
B-1 22.5-24 58 CL
B-1
25-26.5 80 CH
B-2 5-10 66 CL
B-2 10-11.5 81 CL
B-2 15-16.5 38 SC
B-2 30-31.5 81 CL
B-3 0-3 65 CL
B-3 4-10 72 ML
B-3 10-15 63 CL
B-3 15-16.5 81 CH
B-3 17.5-19 60 CL
B-5 15-20 64 ML/CL
B-5 20-25 66 CH
LD-2 11-12 11 SP-SM
LD-2 28 10 SP-SM
Note: ‘Passing #200’ is percent by weight passing the U.S. # 200 sieve (0.074 mm), after ASTM D6913.
3.7.4 Direct Shear
The mechanical characteristics (strength and compressibility) of the soils were tested as
described below. One (1) sample of the Santiago Formation was tested in direct shear after
ASTM D3080. The results of this testing are provided on Table 3-9.
Table 3-9. Abstract of the Direct Shear Testing
Sample Reference Peak Ultimate
Location Depth Cohesion (Psf)
Friction angle (Degrees)
Cohesion (Psf)
Friction angle (Degrees)
Outcrop Along Driveway(remolded) Surface 215 33 135 32
Note: referenced sample is remolded at 8% moisture
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
16
3.7.5 Plasticity and Expansion Potential
The plasticity of soils potentially dominated by cohesive soil behavior was tested for Atterberg
limits after ASTM D4318. Atterberg Limit testing was completed on representative clay samples.
Results are tabulated on Table 3-10.
Table 3-10. Abstract of the Testing to Determine Atterberg Limits
Boring Depth (feet) Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Natural Moisture (%) USCS Soil Type
B-1 20-22.5 46 16 30 15 CL
B-1 25-26.5 52 19 33 19 CH
B-2 5-10 49 16 33 15.7 CL
B-3 15-16.5 51 22 29 22.5 CH
B-5 20-25 53 19 34 18.5 CH
LD-2 6-7 29 17 12 13 CL
LD-2 16.3 85 26 59 32 CH
LD-2 23-24 67 17 50 21 CH
LD-2 34.7 65 23 42 26 CH
Representative samples of the underlying soils were tested to determine expansion index (EI),
after ASTM D4829. Table 3-11 abstracts the indications of this testing.
Table 3-11. Abstract of the Expansion Index Testing
Sample Ref Expansion Index Expansion Potential Boring Depth (feet)
B-1 20-22.5 124 High
B-1 25-27.5 98 High
B-2 5-10 103 High
B-3 15-20 92 High
The Atterberg and Expansion Index testing indicate that some of the clay soils on-site are a high
plasticity clay and highly expansive. This consideration is discussed in more detail in Section
5.3.
3.8 GSI Laboratory Testing
3.8.1 General
GSI 2016 reports the findings of laboratory testing conducted on representative soils recovered
from the test pits and the borings. The following subsections abstract this testing.
3.8.2 Maximum Density and Optimum Moisture
One (1) composite sample of the near-surface soil (TP-1 @ 6 feet depth) was tested to
determine its moisture-density relationship after ASTM D1557 (the ‘modified Proctor’). This
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
17
testing indicated an optimum dry density (γdry) of γdry = 124 lb/ft3 at an optimum moisture
content (w) of w = 11.5 %.
3.8.3 Gradation
GSI completed determinations of grain size distribution as summarized on Table 3-12.
Table 3-12. Abstract of the GSI Soil Gradation Testing
Sample Reference Percent Finer than the U.S. No 200 Sieve
Classification after ASTM D 2488 Boring Depth (feet)
B-1 15 31.3 SC
B-2 25 53.3 CL
# 200 sieve (0.074 mm), after ASTM D6913.
3.8.4 Expansion Potential and Plasticity
Three representative samples of alluvial and colluvial soils recovered from the test pits were
tested to determine expansion index (EI), after ASTM D 4829. Table 3-13 abstracts the results
of this testing. Further testing was conducted to assess related plasticity after ASTM D 4318
(‘Atterberg Limits’).
Table 3-13. Abstract of the Testing to Determine Expansion Index and Plasticity
Sample Reference Expansion index Expansion Potential
Atterberg Limits Soil Type Test Pit Depth (feet) LL PI
TP-1 6 17 Very Low -- -- ML/CL
TP-4 1.5 128 High 70 23 CH
TP-8 5.5 76 Medium 49 19 CL
Note: 1. ‘Expansion Potential’ is his in conformance with ASTM D 4829 2. ‘LL’ indicates ‘liquid limit’; ‘PI’ indicates ‘plasticity index’ after ASTM D 4318
3.8.5 Direct Shear
A single sample of remolded alluvium was tested in strain-controlled direct shear after ASTM
D3080. Table 3-14 provides a summary of this testing.
Table 3-14. Abstract of the GSI Direct Shear Testing
Sample Location Primary Residual
Test Pit Depth (feet) Cohesion (Psf)
Friction angle (Degrees)
Cohesion (Psf)
Friction angle (Degrees)
TP-1 (remolded) 6 47 32 29 32
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
18
3.8.6 Compressibility Testing
One (1) ring sample was tested in one-dimensional consolidation after ASTM D2435. This
testing was modeled to emulate conditions, saturating the soil at slightly above the existing
effective overburden stress.
1. Recompression. The samples were loaded to at or above the existing effective overburden stress.
2. Inundation. The samples were inundated, recording the soil response to wetting.
3. Continued Loading. Following stabilization after inundation, the samples were loaded to
above 8,000 psf at a Load Increment Ratio (LIR) of 1, recording continued soil
compression.
4. Rebound. The samples were unloaded and the rebound recorded.
Table 3-15. Abstract of Compressibility Testing by GSI
Sample Ref As Sampled Strain on Saturation Overburden Pressure (psf)
Maximum Past Pressure (psf)
Soil Type Boring Depth (feet)
Natural Moisture (%)
Dry Unit Weight (pcf)
Saturation Pressure (psf)
Strain on Saturation (%)
B-1 5 15.6 100.0 1,000 -0.4 600 2,500 SC
B-2 15 18.5 104.7 1,000 -0.2 1,600 3,000 CL
B-2 25 19.9 109.4 500 -2.5 2,700 3,000 CL
3.8.7 Chemical Testing
Resistivity, sulfate content and chloride content testing of a representative sample of the near-
surface soils was used to address the potential for the soils to corrode unprotected metals and
the potential for sulfate attack to embedded concrete. Table 3-16 abstracts the chemical testing.
Indications of this testing are discussed in more detail in Section 6.3.
Table 3-16. Abstract of Chemical Testing by GSI
Sample Ref pH Resistivity (Ω-cm) Soluble Sulfates (percent by weight) Soluble Chlorides (ppm) Test Pit Depth (feet)
TP-1, TP-4, TP-5 composite 1 - 6 9.2 1,200 0.0237 112
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
19
4.0 SITE CONDITIONS
4.1 Geologic Setting
4.1.1 Regional
The project area is located in the coastal portion of the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic
province. This geomorphic province encompasses an area that extends approximately 900
miles from the Transverse Ranges and the Los Angeles Basin south to the southern tip of Baja
California. The province varies in width from approximately 30 to 100 miles.
The western portion of the Province has undergone several episodes of marine inundation and
subsequent marine regression (coastline changes) throughout the last 54 million years. These
events have resulted in the deposition of a thick sequence of Cretaceous and Tertiary marine
and nonmarine sedimentary rocks along the western edge of basement igneous rocks of the
Southern California Batholith and the metamorphic rocks into which they intruded. Quaternary
marine and nonmarine beach, fluviatile, and alluvial fan deposits cover the Cretaceous and
Tertiary units in much of the western portion of the province.
4.1.2 Site Specific
As mentioned in Section 2 the site consists of two areas, the flat-lying, topographically lower
area adjacent to El Camino Real, and the upper area located to the south, composed of steeply
ascending slopes up to a flat mesa area at the top of the site. These two areas have different
underlying geology.
Lower Area
The lower portion of the site is underlain by undocumented artificial fill (Afu) which varies
in thickness between 4 and 9 feet. This fill was placed on top of Quaternary-aged
younger alluvium (Qal), which was found to extend to a maximum depth of 36 feet below
ground surface at this site. This alluvium also is found within an active drainage channel
located along the western boundary of the site adjacent to the SDG&E access road. The
young alluvial unit thins moving from west to east along the site, and also thins moving
southward from El Camino Real toward the ascending bedrock slope.
Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation (Tsa) was encountered below the younger alluvium at
depths ranging between 36 feet bgs in GSI Boring B-2 on the west, to 12 feet bgs within
CPT-2.
Upper Area
Within the upper portion of the site, the flat-lying upper mesa is composed of 15 to 40+
feet of older alluvial flood plain deposits (Qoa), overlying Santiago Formation. The
slopes ascending from the lower portion of the site to the upper portion, are mostly made
up of the Santiago formation, which is mantled by a thin layer of clayey colluvium,
approximately 1 to 5 feet in thickness. Figure 4-1 (following page) reproduces mapping
of the surface geologic units in the site area.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
20
Figure 4-1. Regional Geology Map
4.2 Surface, Subsurface, and Groundwater
4.2.1 Surface
Lower Area
The northwest portion of the site where the plant nursery formerly operated has fill soils
exposed at the surface and the perimeter of this area is lined with tall palm trees. The
central portion of the lower area supports a large paved parking area, serving the
commercial businesses and restaurants. The eastern portion of the site has a small
structure serving as a garden pottery shop. The area surrounding the shop is
unimproved, with soil exposed at the surface.
Figure 4-2 (following page) depicts the condition of the portion of the property used as a
nursery. Figure 4-3 (following page) depicts the central paved area, and Figure 4-4
(following page) depicts the portion of the site used as a pottery shop.
KEY TO SYMBOLS
~ OLD ALLUVIAL FLOOD-PLAIN ~ SANTIAGO FORMATION I Qvop13 I VERY OLD PARALIC
DEPOSITS, UNDIVIDED DEPOSITS, UNIT 13
~ ALLUVIAL FLOOD-PLAIN I Qop2-4 I OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS, I QvOP12 I VERY OLD PARALIC
DEPOSITS UNIT 2-4, UNDIVIDED DEPOSITS, UNIT 12
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
21
Figure 4-2. Northwest Nursery Area Looking West
Figure 4-3. Central Paved Area Behind Retail/Restaurant Structure.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
22
Figure 4-4. Northeast Portion of Site, as Viewed to the West.
Upper Area
There is a palm tree-lined paved driveway that rises from the lower area, providing
access to the upper area. At the top of the driveway on the western portion of the upper
area, there is a single-family residential structure with some sheds, landscaping, and
other improvements. This residence is supported by a septic system. The location of the
leach field is not known.
The majority of the upper area is the flat-lying mesa, which was used in the past for
agricultural purposes. There is a moderate to dense cover of grasses and trees on the
western edge. In the central portion of the upper area, cellular relay stations that look
like palm trees are placed along the crest of the slope. The slope is covered by a dense
layer of grasses and weeds.
Figure 4-5 (following page) depicts the upper mesa area.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
23
Figure 4-5. Upper Mesa Portion of Site, as Viewed to the East.
4.2.2 Subsurface
The geologic units described in Section 4.1.2 are presented below by relative age.
1. Unit 1, Undocumented Fill (Afu): The lower-lying areas of the site are covered by a
veneer of undocumented fill that ranges from 4 feet to 9 feet in thickness. The fill is
comprised of light brown to brown sandy clay to clayey sand.
The previous consultant classified these soils as loose/soft and compressible in their
existing condition, and recommended full remedial removal within the lower portion of
the site, prior to placing the approximately 10 feet of fill required to reach proposed
grade. NOVA performed a CPT investigation consisting of eight (8) CPTs within the
lower area. CPT soundings indicate that this unit has good bearing values, and is
appropriate for support of the proposed fill and subsequent construction of structures
within that area.
Undocumented fill was also identified in GSI 2016 in the upper portion of the site below
the existing residence and along the crest of the eastern portion of the slope. This fill at
the crest of the slope was identified to be brown to dark brown sandy clay and clay of
soft consistency. NOVA anticipates that undocumented fill in the upper portion of the site
will be removed as part of the grading operations to achieve the design grades.
2. Unit 2, Young Alluvium (Qal): Young alluvium is located in the lower portion of the site
below the undocumented fill. The thickness of the young alluvium varies considerably
across the lower portion of the site due to the geomorphology of the series of drainages
that existed prior to any site improvements. Figure 4-6 (following page) depicts a
----------
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
24
drainage that once flowed from east to west in the lower portion of the site, and fed into
a larger south-southwesterly flowing drainage located to the west of the site.
Figure 4-6. 1947 Aerial Photo Depicting the Morphology of Pre-existing Drainages at the Site
This unit thins out moving from west to east along the lower area, with a maximum depth
of 36 feet, bgs within GSI Boring B-2. It pinches out moving southward from El Camino
Real toward the contact with the Santiago Formation where the bedrock slope begins to
ascend to the upper area of the site.
This unit is composed of interbedded lenses of clay, sandy clay, and clayey sand. The
mechanical characteristics of this unit are discussed in Section 6. Data developed from
the CPT soundings indicates the unit is relatively stiff, with minimal risk of settlement
from new loads by fills, walls, and residential structures.
3. Unit 3, Colluvium (Qcol): Within the test pits performed on or near the slopes supporting
the upper mesa area, colluvium was identified. This unit ranged in thickness from 1 to
7.5+ feet in thickness, with the thicker layers infilling the natural swales of the hillside.
The unit is described as dark brown to gray brown low and highly plastic clay, sandy
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
25
clay, and clayey sand of soft/loose consistency near the surface, and generally
increasing to medium dense to dense below about 3 feet.
4. Unit 4, Older Alluvial Flood Plain Deposits (Qoa): This unit is found capping the mesa
area of the site. As encountered within NOVA’s geotechnical Borings B1 through B5, this
unit was found to be orange-brown, olive-brown, and light grayish brown silty sand and
clayey sand interbedded with olive-brown to grayish brown sandy clay and clay, of
dense/very stiff consistency. Figure 4-7 depicts the highly variable nature of the bedding
within this unit.
Boring LD-2 was found to be entirely within this unit from El +32 to +75. This unit
increases in depth from the northern portion of the upper area moving toward the
southern site boundary.
Figure 4-7. Quaternary Older Alluvium in Boring B-4
5. Unit 5, Tertiary Santiago Formation (Tsa): This unit underlies the young and older
alluvium at depth, and is found at the near surface in several areas along the slope. This
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
26
unit varied in color and composition with depth. GSI reported that during the test pit
investigation in the upper portion of the site, this unit was overlain by a paleosol (map
symbol Tsa-BK) 2 to 4 feet in thickness, described as very dark gray clay with carbonate
on the faces of the blocky peds, and in some areas containing gravel-sized carbonate
nodules. This was described as highly plastic clay of stiff consistency.
Within NOVA’s geotechnical borings, this clay was also encountered above the Santiago
Formation, and was primarily identified by its color, caliche content, and highly plastic
nature. This material was tested by both labs and found to be highly expansive with EIs
ranging from 92 to 124. Within NOVA Boring B1, the paleosol was 7 feet in thickness.
Figure 4-8 depicts this unit, with the characteristic dark gray-brown color and caliche
blebs.
Figure 4-8. Paleosol Overlying Santiago Formation in Boring B-5
Below the paleosol, the Santiago Formation consists of grayish brown, light grayish
brown, and light yellowish-brown silty fine-grained sandstone interbedded with dark
grayish brown sandy and silty clay. Orange iron oxide staining was commonly
encountered within this unit, and generally decreased with depth. The consistency was generally found to be medium to very dense.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
27
During the downhole logging of LD-1, the bedding of the Santiago Formation was
massive, and difficult to find a reliable location for measuring bedding attitudes. The
bedding within this unit appears horizontal within the hole. Highly plastic clay beds were
observed within the unit, however most did not extend around the entirety of the hole. A
clay bed extending around the hole was encountered at approximately 40 feet bgs that
appeared horizontal, and showed no visible signs of shearing.
Figure 4-9 presents the Santiago Formation as encountered in the geotechnical borings.
Figure 4-9. Massively Bedded Santiago Formation in LD-1
4.2.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in the lower portion of the site within GSI Borings B1 through
B3 14 to 17 feet below existing ground surface, or at a rough elevation of approximately +31 to
+35 feet, msl. Groundwater is not anticipated to be encountered during construction of this
project. However, zones of perched water may be encountered during the grading operations.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
28
4.2.4 Surface Water
Evidence of surface water was encountered along the SDG&E access road just south of the
area formerly used as a plant nursery. There is a small drainage channel located at the Young
Alluvium/Santiago Formation contact, which forms the boundary between the lower area and
upper area. The drainage is a relic feature caused by perched water flowing along the contact.
This channel extends from just east of the driveway, westward to the property boundary.
It appears that when the access road was built between 1967 and 1980, the flow from the
drainage was dammed by the fill for the road, and the road is saturated in the vicinity of the
drainage. At the location of the wet soil, there was a very large cattail plant, which are found in
areas where the water table is high, or perched groundwater exists. Section 6.4 contains
recommendations for subdrain installation in this area.
Figure 4-10 presents this area as viewed northward from the SDG&E access road. The trees in
the photo, are the trees lining the boundary of the nursery area.
Figure 4-10. Seepage Along Western Property Boundary/SDG&E Access Road
4.3 Planned Site Grading
Plate 2 of this report provides cross-sections through the planned development. Section G-G’,
shown in Figure 4-11 (following page), presents a section of the project from north to south.
As may be seen by review of this figure, grading to create finished grades for the planned
development will generally involve excavation of soils near the higher, upper portion of the site
and placement of new fill across the lower portions of the site to the south.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
29
Cuts will extend to a maximum of about 26 feet in depth within the mesa area. The thickest fills
will range to about 15 feet in height.
Figure 4-11. Section G-G’ Presenting Proposed Grading from North to South
G G' ,., "'
"'' J--PROPOSED TOWNttOl.fES --1
FG,.11· FG,.71..!!I'
" t::::=--=:t::~=°7"==A~lu~=i ~=::.::==-=~~~ TN
,Jt=-1=:~=~~~-,-_....,.. __ ,_ -....,.. __ ,_ -....,.. -_,_ -....,.. -_, __ ....,.. _
TN "
TN
_., .__.._ _ _._ _ _.__...._ _ __. _ _. _ _..__.__.._ _ _._ _ _.__ ..... _ __. _ _. _ _..__.__.._ _ _._ _ _.__ ..... _...., _ _. _ _..__.__..__.._ _ _.__ ...
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
30
5.0 REVIEW OF GEOLOGIC, SOIL, AND SITING HAZARDS
5.1 Overview
This section provides a review of geologic, soil, and siting-related hazards common to this
region of California, considering each for its potential to affect the planned development. Two
hazards were identified by this review, as are described below.
1. Strong Ground Motion. The site is at risk for moderate-to-severe ground shaking in
response to large-magnitude earthquakes generated during the lifetime of future
development. While strong ground motion could affect the site, there is no risk of
liquefaction or related seismic phenomena. The expectation of strong ground motion is
common to all civil works in this area of California.
2. Expansive Soils. As characterized by testing after ASTM D 4829 (Expansion Index) the
alluvial soils that underlie the site have low to high expansion potential.
The following subsections review the geologic, soil, and siting hazards considered for this site.
5.2 Geologic Hazards
5.2.1 Strong Ground Motion
The site is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone. No known
active faults are mapped on the site area. The nearest known active faults are within the
Oceanside section of the Newport-Inglewood-Rose Canyon fault zone, aligned off-shore
approximately 6.4 miles west of the site. This system has the potential to be a source of strong
ground motion. The system is reported to be capable of generating a Magnitude 6.9 earthquake.
The seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing a web-based analytical tool provided by The
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). This evaluation, discussed in more detail in
Section 6, indicates that the design basis earthquake would be associated with a risk-based
Peak Ground Acceleration (PGAM) of PGAM ~ 0.505 g.
5.2.2 Fault Rupture
No evidence of faulting was observed during NOVA’s geologic reconnaissance of the site.
Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site
is considered very low. Shallow ground rupture due to shaking from distant seismic events is not
considered a significant hazard, although it is a possibility at any site.
Figure 5-1 (following page) reproduces published mapping of active faulting in the site vicinity.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
31
Figure 5-1. Faulting in the Site Vicinity
5.2.3 Ground Lurching
Seismically induced ground lurching occurs when weaker soil masses move at right angles to a
cliff or steep slope in response to seismic waves. Structures built on these masses can
experience significant lateral and vertical deformations if ground lurching occurs.
The phenomenon is usually associated with soft, unconsolidated soils with low cohesion
adjacent to a slope. The stiffer clayey subsurface of this site is not at risk for ground lurching.
5.2.4 Landslide
As used herein, ‘landslide’ is intended to describe downslope displacement of a mass of rock,
soil, and/or debris by sliding, flowing, or falling. Such mass earth movements may be greater
than about 10 feet thick and larger than 300 feet across. Landslides typically can include
cohesive block glides and disrupted slumps that are formed by translation or rotation of slope
materials along one or more slip surfaces. These mass displacements can also include similarly
large, but more narrowly confined, modes of mass wasting such as rock topples, ‘mud flows,’
and ‘debris flows’.
Pacific Ocean
NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD FAULT ZONE
KEY TO SYMBOLS
ACTIVE WITHIN 150 YEARS
ACTIVE <15,000 YEARS
LATE QUATERNARY <130,000 YEARS
UNDIFFERENTIATED QUATERNARY <1.6 MILLION YEAR
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
32
The causes of classic landslides start with a preexisting condition - characteristically, a plane of
weak soil or rock - inherent within the rock or soil mass. Thereafter, movement may be
precipitated by earthquakes, wet weather, and changes to the structure or loading conditions on
a slope (e.g., by erosion, cutting, filling, release of water from broken pipes, etc.). Rainfall is the
most common trigger for landslide events. In the San Diego area, landsliding has also been
precipitated by earthwork and grading, destabilizing slopes by cutting and/or filling on existing
adverse geologic structure.
Geologic reconnaissance and review of aerial photography indicated no evidence of active or
dormant landsliding. Further clues to landslide hazards can also be obtained by review of
mapping that depicts both historic landslides and landslide-prone topography. Figure 5-2
reproduces such mapping for the site area. The mapping indicates that the site is in an area
judged to be ‘generally susceptible (3-1)’ to landsliding.
Figure 5-2. Landslide Risk in the Site Area (source: adapted from Tan 1995)
In consideration of the horizontal geologic structure observed in the large diameter borings, and
review of published information, NOVA considers the site to be at low risk for landsliding in its
current or planned configuration.
<:> c:. <" ~ .
..,
7 . 0 ..,
C>
.,, .,. .,. ..,.
0
"' .. _..,, .,.
...., 0 <" -;. c-, .,.
"" .,.
;. .,.,
\
'> ,.
KEY TO SYMBOLS LANOSUDES
RELATIVE LANDSLIDE SUSCEPT1fflUTY AREAS -<.,--,-..,..
f_..J_ ..1... .1... ,._ ~ URBANIZED AREA BOUNDARY
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
33
5.3 Soil Hazards
5.3.1 Embankment Stability
As used herein, ‘embankment stability’ is intended to mean the safety of localized natural or
man-made embankments against failure. Unlike landslides as described above, embankment
stability can include smaller scale slope failures such as erosion-related washouts and more
subtle, less evident processes such as slope ‘creep.’
The proposed groundform for this site will not be at risk for generalized embankment instability.
As is discussed in Section 2, development of the site will include construction of several
mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls. These walls will be constructed to adapt the
sloping ground to a profile suitable for development of building pads for the various residential
structures. Retaining walls will be developed to varying heights. Based upon the indications of
the subsurface explorations reported herein, and as is discussed in more detail in Section 6,
MSE walls will be readily adapted to this site.
The walls, fill slopes, and temporary cuts have been evaluated for global stability by NOVA
(Appendix G). MSE walls will all be developed with a factor of safety (FS) against global
instability of FS ≥ 1.5. Backcuts within the Santiago Formation and Older Alluvium will be safely
developed for short-term stability at slopes of 1H:1V.
In accordance with OSHA, any temporary construction slope greater than 20 feet in height will
need to be evaluated and analyzed by NOVA prior to construction. Internal global stability will
likely be performed to determine the stability of such excavations.
During construction each MSE wall backcut should be observed by a Certified Engineering
Geologist for adverse or daylighted bedding conditions within the bedrock that may threaten the
embankment stability.
5.3.2 Seismic
Liquefaction
‘Liquefaction’ refers to the loss of soil strength during a seismic event. The phenomenon
is observed in areas that include a shallow water table and coarse-grained (i.e., ‘sandy’)
soils of loose to medium dense consistency. The ground motions increase soil water
pressures, decreasing grain-to-grain contact among the soil particles, causing the soil
mass to lose strength. Liquefaction resistance increases with increasing soil density,
plasticity (associated with clay-sized particles), geologic age, cementation, and stress
history.
The geologically older, dense soil and rock at this site is not at risk of liquefaction. The
dominantly clayey alluvium is not at risk of liquefaction.
Seismically Induced Settlement
Ground shaking associated with a seismic event can affect settlement of unsaturated
soils. However, this phenomenon is only observed in cohesionless (sandy) soils.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
34
Neither the alluvium not the formational sandstones are at risk for seismic settlement.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which large blocks of intact, non-liquefied soil
move downslope on a liquefied soil layer. Lateral spreading is often a regional event. For
lateral spreading to occur, a liquefiable soil zone must be laterally continuous and unconstrained, free to move along sloping ground.
Due to the absence of a potential for liquefaction, there is no potential for lateral
spreading.
5.3.3 Expansive Soil
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes
(shrinking or swelling) due to variations in moisture content, the magnitude of which is related to
both clay content and plasticity index. These volume changes can be damaging to structures.
Nationally, the annual value of real estate damage caused by expansive soils is exceeded only
by that caused by termites.
As is discussed in Section 3, the alluvium has been characterized by testing to determine
Expansion Index (‘EI’ after ASTM D 4829). Originally developed in Orange County in the 1960s,
EI is a basic soil index property, comparable to indices such as the Atterberg limits of soils. EI
has been adopted by the California Building Code (‘CBC’, Section 1803.5.3) for characterization
of expansive soils. Table 5-1 tabulates the qualitative descriptors of expansion potential based
upon EI.
Table 5-1. Qualitative Descriptors of Expansion Potential Based Upon EI
Expansion Index (‘EI’), ASTM D 4829 Expansion Potential, ASTM D 4829 Expansion Classification, 2013 CBC
0 to 20 Very Low Non-Expansive
21 to 50 Low
Expansive 51 to 90 Medium
91 to 130 High
>130 Very high
With reference to Table 5-1, testing of representative samples of the alluvium (see Section 3)
indicates EI values of clayey alluvium that range from ‘Low’ to ‘High.’ These highly expansive
soils will require select grading for wall backfill, pavements, and flatwork as well as supporting
the buildings on PT slabs in order to mitigate the effects of the expansive soils on proposed
improvements. Section 6 discusses mitigation considerations in more detail.
5.3.4 Hydro-Collapsible Soils
Hydro-collapsible soils are common in the arid climates of the western United States in specific
depositional environments - principally in areas of young alluvial fans, debris flow sediments,
and loess (wind-blown sediment) deposits. These soils are characterized by low in situ density,
low moisture contents, and relatively high unwetted strength. The soil grains of hydro-collapsible
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
35
soils were initially deposited in a loose state (i.e., high initial ‘void ratio‘) and thereafter lightly
bonded by water sensitive binding agents (e.g., clay particles, low-grade cementation, etc.).
While relatively strong in a dry state, the introduction of water into these soils causes the binding
agents to fail. Destruction of the bonds/binding causes relatively rapid densification and volume
loss (collapse) of the soil. This change is manifested at the ground surface as subsidence or
settlement. Ground settlements from the wetting can be damaging to structures and civil works.
Human activities that can facilitate soil collapse include irrigation, water impoundment, changes
to the natural drainage, disposal of wastewater, etc.
The consistency and geologic age of the on-site geologic units is such that these units are not
potentially hydro-collapsible.
5.3.5 Corrosive Soil
Concentrations of water-soluble sulfates are an index of the potential for sulfate attack to
embedded concrete. Electrical resistivity, chloride content, and pH level are all indicators of the
soil’s tendency to corrode ferrous metals. Laboratory testing indicates that the on-site soils will
not be corrosive to embedded concrete and ferrous metals due to sulfate and chloride content,
but maybe severely corrosive to metals based on resistivity testing. This consideration is
discussed in more detail in Section 6.
5.4 Siting Hazards
5.4.1 Effect on Adjacent Properties
The proposed project will not affect the structural integrity of adjacent properties or existing
public improvements and street rights-of-way located adjacent to the site if the
recommendations of this report are incorporated into project design.
5.4.2 Inundation
Tsunami
Tsunami describes a series of fast-moving, long-period ocean waves caused by
earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. The elevation and distance of the site from the ocean
preclude this threat.
Seiche
Seiches are standing waves that develop in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of
water such as lakes, reservoirs, and harbors and inlets. The site is not located near a
body of water that could generate a seiche.
Flood
The site is not located within a FEMA-designated flood zone. Flood mapping by FEMA
(May 16, 2012) designates the site as “Zone X,” an area of minimal annual flood
hazard. Figure 5-3 (following page) reproduces flood mapping by FEMA of the site area.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
36
Figure 5-3. Flood Mapping of the Site Area
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Cro11-Sect10ns
CoanalTransects
B.Mi=loodElevat,om
Flood Haurd Zones
1%Annue1Chenc~Aood H$urd
Reguilnory Floodwey
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
37
6.0 EARTHWORK AND FOUNDATIONS
6.1 Overview
6.1.1 Review of Site Hazards
Section 5 provides a review of geologic, soil, and siting-related hazards common to this region
of California, considering each for its potential to affect the planned development. Geologic and
soil-related hazards to this site identified by that review are abstracted below.
1. Strong Ground Motion. The site is at risk for moderate-to-severe ground shaking in
response to large-magnitude earthquakes generated during the lifetime of future
development. While strong ground motion could affect the site, there is no risk of
liquefaction or related seismic phenomena. The expectation of strong ground motion is
common to all civil works in this area of California.
2. Expansive Soils. The expansion potential of the clayey alluvium (see Section 3) was
found to range from ‘Low’ to ‘High.’ The highly expansive soils will require remedial
removals; select grading for wall backfill, pavements, and flatwork; as well as supporting
the buildings on Post-Tension (PT) slabs in order to mitigate the effects of the expansive
soils on proposed improvements.
This section provides design guidance for development of the site, including guidance for design
and construction of foundations, retaining walls, roadways and utilities. Section 6.2 provides
seismic parameters for design of structures. Section 6.4 provides guidance for earthwork.
6.1.2 Site Suitability
Based upon the indications of the field and laboratory data developed for this investigation, as
well as review of previously developed subsurface information, it is the judgment of NOVA that
the site is suitable for proposed development, provided the geotechnical recommendations
described herein are followed.
Development as presently envisioned will not affect the structural integrity of adjacent properties
or existing public improvements and street rights-of-way located adjacent to the site if the
recommendations of this report are incorporated into project design.
6.1.3 Review and Surveillance
It is intended that the recommendations provided herein be sufficient to develop the project in
general accordance with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC) requirements.
NOVA should review the grading plans, foundation plans, and geotechnical-related
specifications as they become available to confirm that the recommendations presented in this
report have been incorporated into the plans prepared for the project. All earthwork related to
site and foundation preparation should be completed under the observation of NOVA.
Section 9 design addresses review and construction surveillance in more detail.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
38
6.2 Seismic Design Parameters
6.2.1 Site Class
The Site Class has been determined from ASCE 7, Table 20.3-1. The depth of soil information
available for this site is limited. However, based on SPT blow counts collected during the NOVA
and GSI geotechnical borings, the site may be classified as Site Class D per ASCE 7-16 (Table
20.3-1).
6.2.2 Seismic Design Parameters
Table 6-1 provides seismic design parameters in accordance with ASCE 7-16.
Table 6-1. Seismic Design Parameters, ASCE 7-16, Site Class D
Parameter Value
Site Soil Class D
Site Latitude (decimal degrees) 33.15109
Site Longitude (decimal degrees) -117.3074262
Site Coefficient, Fa 1.103
Site Coefficient, Fv 1.938
Mapped Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SS 0.991
Mapped One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, S1 0.362
Short Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted for Site Class, SMS 1.094
One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration Adjusted for Site Class, SM1 0.702
Design Short Period Spectral Acceleration, SDS 0.729
Design One-Second Period Spectral Acceleration, SD1 0.468
Site modified peak ground acceleration (PGAM) 0.505
Source: ASCE 7 Hazard Tool, found at: https://asce7hazardtool.online/
6.3 Corrosivity and Sulfates
6.3.1 General
Electrical resistivity, chloride content, and pH level are all indicators of the soil’s tendency to
corrode ferrous metals. Levels of water-soluble sulfates are correlated with the potential for
sulfate attack to concrete. These chemical tests were performed on representative samples of
the near-surface soils. The results of the testing are tabulated in Table 6-2.
Table 6-2. Abstract of Chemical Testing
Sample Ref pH Resistivity (Ω-cm) Sulfates Chlorides
Boring Depth (feet) ppm % ppm %
TP-1, TP-4,
TP-5
0 - 4 9.2 1,200 48 0.005 112 0.011 I I
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
39
6.3.2 Metals
Caltrans considers soil to be corrosive if one or more of the following conditions exist for
representative soil and/or water samples taken at the site:
• chloride concentration is 500 parts per million (ppm) or greater,
• sulfate concentration is 2,000 ppm (0.2%) or greater, or
• the pH is 5.5 or less.
Based on the Caltrans criteria, the on-site soils would not be considered ‘corrosive’ to buried
metals. Appendix D provides records of the chemical testing that include estimates of the life
expectancy of buried metal culverts of varying gauge.
In addition to the above parameters, the risk of soil corrosivity affecting buried metals is
considered by determination of electrical resistivity (ρ). Soil resistivity may be used to express
the corrosivity of soil only in unsaturated soils. Corrosion of buried metal is an electrochemical
process in which the amount of metal loss due to corrosion is directly proportional to the flow of
DC electrical current from the metal into the soil. As the resistivity of the soil decreases, the
corrosivity generally increases. A common qualitative correlation (cited in Romanoff 1989,
NACE 2007) between soil resistivity and corrosivity to ferrous metals is tabulated below.
Table 6-3. Soil Resistivity and Corrosion Potential
Minimum Soil Resistivity (Ω-cm) Qualitative Corrosion Potential
0 to 2,000 Severe
2,000 to 10,000 Moderate 10,000 to 30,000 Mild Over 30,000 Not Likely
Despite the relatively benign environment for corrosivity indicated by pH and water-soluble
chlorides, the resistivity testing suggests that design should consider that the soils may be
severely corrosive to embedded ferrous metals.
Typical recommendations for mitigation of such corrosion potential in embedded ferrous metals
include:
• a high-quality protective coating such as an 18-mil plastic tape, extruded polyethylene,
coal tar enamel, or Portland cement mortar;
• electrical isolation from above grade ferrous metals and other dissimilar metals by
means of dielectric fittings in utilities and exposed metal structures breaking grade; and,
• steel and wire reinforcement within concrete having contact with the site soils should
have at least 2 inches of concrete cover.
If extremely sensitive ferrous metals are expected to be placed in contact with the site soils, it
may be desirable to consult a corrosion specialist regarding choosing the construction materials
and/or protection design for the objects of concern.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
40
6.3.3 Sulfate Attack
As shown in Table 6-2, the soil samples tested indicated water-soluble sulfate (SO4) content of
48 parts per million (‘ppm,’ 0.005% by weight) for the on-site soils which will be used as fill. With
SO4 < 0.10% by weight, the American Concrete Institute (ACI) 318-08 considers the soil to
have negligible potential (S0) potential for sulfate attack to embedded concrete.
Table 6-4 reproduces the Exposure Categories considered by ACI.
Table 6-4. Exposure Categories and Requirements for Water-Soluble Sulfates
Exposure Category Class
Water-Soluble Sulfate (SO4) In Soil
(percent by weight)
Cement Type (ASTM C150) Max Water-Cement Ratio Min. f’c (psi)
Not Applicable S0 SO4 < 0.10 - - -
Moderate S1 0.10 ≤ SO4 < 0.20 II 0.50 4,000
Severe S2 0.20 ≤ SO4 ≤ 2.00 V 0.45 4,500
Very severe S3 SO4 > 2.0 V + pozzolan 0.45 4,500
Adapted from: ACI 318-08, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
6.3.4 Limitations
Testing to determine several of the chemical parameters that indicate a potential for soils to be
corrosive to construction materials are traditionally completed by the Geotechnical Engineer,
comparing testing results with a variety of indices regarding corrosion potential.
Like most geotechnical consultants, NOVA does not practice in the field of corrosion protection,
since this is not specifically a geotechnical issue. Should you require more information, a
specialty corrosion consultant should be retained to address these issues.
6.4 Earthwork
6.4.1 General
Based upon the design concept that is currently understood, NOVA expects that earthwork will
include (i) grading to create the new building pads, (ii) excavations for foundations for walls and
structures, and (iii) excavation/backfill for utilities.
Earthwork should be performed in accordance with Section 300 of the most recent approved
edition of the “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” and “Regional
Supplement Amendments.”
6.4.2 Select Fill for Buildings and Exterior Improvements
Materials
Soils used for engineered fill should be free from trash, roots, and rock greater than 6
inches in maximum dimension.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
41
When the highly plastic/expansive clay is encountered during fill operations, the grading
contractor should mix the clay with other on-site materials, to provide a homogeneous
mix of soils.
We expect that clayey soil with a medium to high expansion index will be encountered
during the proposed grading. If it is desired to reduce the potential for heave damage to
exterior improvements, the areas to support said improvements should be capped with
at least two-foot-thick layer of nondetrimentally expansive (E.I. ≤ 50) material. This cap
should extend at least two feet outside the improvement area. The client should
determine if this select grading operation will be performed prior the start of the final
mass grading operations.
Placement
All fill and backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction after
ASTM D1557 (the ‘modified Proctor’) following moisture conditioning to at least 2%
above the optimum moisture content.
Fill should be placed in loose lifts no thicker than the ability of the compaction equipment
to thoroughly densify the lift. For most self-propelled construction equipment, this will
limit loose lifts to on the order of 10 inches or less. Lift thickness for hand-operated
equipment used in constrained spaces (e.g., walk-behind compactors used in utility
trenches) will be limited to about 4 inches or less.
6.4.3 Site Preparation
Establish Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Construction-related erosion and sedimentation must be controlled in accordance with
Best Management Practices, as well as current city and state requirements. These
controls should be established at the outset of site disturbance.
Demolition and Clearing
The site will be required to be cleared prior to construction, including demolition of the
existing concrete slabs, walls, and related pavements. Disposal of all demolition debris
should be in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations. Any existing utilities
that are not planned to be reused should be removed, along with any unsuitable backfill
materials, and capped at the property lines, or rerouted around the property and
reconnected.
If a septic system is located for the existing single-family residence, the system should
be removed in accordance with County of San Diego Department of Environmental
Health Guidelines.
Following demolition operations, the exposed ground surface should be cleared of any
soft or unsuitable materials or debris. Where possible, the stripping of the proposed
building areas should be extended at least 5 feet beyond the planned limits of the
proposed new structure (including pavements).
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
42
6.4.4 Remedial Grading in Fill Areas
Based on HWL 2021b, about 185,000 cubic yards of new fill will be placed in the lower-lying
fill/Young Alluvial areas with maximum heights of fill on the order of about 20 feet. Prior to
placement of new fills, the existing soils may be managed by the step-wise sequence of
remedial grading described below.
1. Excavation. The existing soils in the lower area should be removed to 2 feet below the
existing grades. A representative of NOVA should observe and document the removal
bottoms. Any loose materials encountered at the bottom of the removal should be
removed. Deeper removals may be required to address soft areas.
2. Redensification. Prior to placement of fill, the exposed soils should be examined to
identify any localized soft, yielding, or otherwise unsuitable materials by a representative
of NOVA. The areas to support fill should be scarified 12-inch, moisture-conditioned to at
least 3% above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative
compaction after ASTM D1557.
3. Placement. Soils placed as engineered fill should have a minimum of 90% relative
compaction and be moisture-conditioned to at least 2% above the optimum moisture
content.
Care should be taken in areas of fill to be placed over the exiting slopes, that the compressible
colluvium should be removed or benched out prior to fill placement.
Plate 3 presents the recommended remedial removals anticipated across the site.
6.4.5 Remedial Grading in Cut Areas
Based on HWL 2021, earthwork is comprised of about 265,000 cubic yards of cut in the upper
portions of the site. Maximum cuts may extend to about 25 feet. Damage to structures due to
their expansive potential may be managed by the step-wise sequence of remedial grading
described below.
1. Excavation of Building Pads. Pads should be undercut by 4 feet, extending this
excavation a minimum of 5 feet laterally beyond the building footprint.
2. Transition Condition. Transition pads are pads in which part of the pad is in cut, and part
is in fill. All lots should be graded to ensure foundations are bearing entirely on
engineered fill. The cut portion of the lot should be undercut such that the resulting
minimum fill thickness below the pad is ⅓ the maximum depth of the fill below the pad,
or 4 feet below pad grade, whichever is greater. The pads with anticipated transition
conditions are identified on Plate 3.
3. Redensification. Prior to placement of fill, the exposed soils should be examined to
identify any localized soft, yielding, or otherwise unsuitable materials by a representative
of NOVA. The areas to support fill should be scarified 12 inches, moisture-conditioned to
at least 3% above the optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 90% relative
compaction after ASTM D1557.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
43
4. Placement. Soils placed as engineered fill should have a minimum of 90% relative
compaction and be moisture-conditioned to at least 2% above the optimum moisture
content.
6.4.6 Remedial Grading for Walls, Pavements and Flatwork
Pavements
Remedial grading for paved areas should consist of removing the upper 2 feet of soil
below subgrade level, compacting the bottom of the removals to at least 90% relative
compaction after ASTM D 1557. The removed soils should be replaced with “Select” fill
in conformance with Section 6.4.2.
Construction should be managed such that preparation of the subgrade immediately
precedes placement of the base course. Proper drainage of the paved areas should be
provided to reduce moisture infiltration to the subgrade.
Flatwork
Non-structural areas outside of building pads that include sidewalks and other flatwork,
etc., should be over-excavated a minimum of 24 inches below finish grade then replaced
with Select Fill after Section 6.4.2. The over-excavation should extend at least 2 feet
outside of the limits of the flatwork. We expect that clayey soil with a medium to high
expansion index will be encountered during the proposed grading. If it is desired to
reduce the potential for heave damage to exterior improvements, the areas to support
said improvements should be capped with at least two-foot-thick layer of
nondetrimentally expansive (E.I. ≤ 50) material.
Retaining Walls
In general, the remedial grading for perimeter and interior retaining walls should
generally consist of over-excavating 3 feet below bottom of wall foundations. However,
in the vicinity of the planned outfall structure and associated MSE wall, deeper alluvial
deposits were encountered that will require deeper removals of up to 8 feet. This
removal should extend 2 feet along each side of the wall. The excavated soil should be
replaced with Select Fill as specified within the Conventional Wall and MSE Wall
Sections of this report. Some localized deeper removals may be required to ensure that
compressible colluvium has been removed from below the walls.
6.4.7 Subgrade Stabilization
The excavations may expose stiff, clayey soils that are sensitive to construction disturbance and
to moisture. It is possible that removals may be associated with the exposure of wet soils at the
bottom of the excavations. Construction should plan for the contingency that in certain instances
the near-surface saturated soils or areas of perched, seeping water may require use of ground
stabilization to provide a base for subsequent backfilling. In such instances, these areas may be
stabilized by use of 12 inches of ¾-inch crushed rock or aggregate based placed over a biaxial
geo-grid such as Tensar TX 140, or equivalent. The crushed rock should be covered with a
segregation geotextile - a nonwoven fabric such as Mirafi 140N or equivalent.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
44
6.4.8 Grading of Fill and Cut Slopes
General
In review of the grading plans of the area, it appears that new permanent fill slopes up to
25 feet in height may be developed. The following subsections address development of
these slopes.
Stability Fill
A stability fill keyway should be established at the base of new sloped areas on the
western site boundary that are not supported by a retaining wall. The keyway should be
at least 10 feet wide at the bottom and extend to at least 3 feet into competent material.
In certain instances, the keyway may need to be wider to accommodate compaction
equipment. The base of the keyway should be sloped back at an inclination of about 2%
into the slope. The location of the recommended keys/stability fills are presented on
Plate 1 and Plate 3.
Fill Slopes
Permanent slopes developed in fill should be constructed no steeper than 2H:1V. Faces
of fill slopes should be densified either by (i) rolling with the vibratory roller, or (ii)
overfilling and cutting back to design grade. Fills should be benched into temporary
slopes when the natural slope is steeper than 5H:1V.
Cut Slopes
Permanent cut slopes should be constructed no steeper than 2H:1V. All cut slopes
should be observed by a Certified Engineering Geologist during grading to ascertain that
no unforeseen, adverse conditions are exposed, requiring revised recommendations.
Slope Maintenance
All slopes are susceptible to surficial slope failure and erosion. Design of new slope
should include a provision for control of surface water flow over slopes or along the toe,
as well as provision of drought-resistant planting that will reduce the potential for
erosion.
6.4.9 Earthwork Near the Kinder Morgan Pipeline
As is discussed in Section 2, an inactive steel 10-inch diameter fuel pipeline formerly operated
by Kinder Morgan runs within the site limits along the north side of the site. The area was
potholed to determine the depth of the pipe (reference, Potholing Report, Carlsbad Liquid Fuel
Line Abandonment, Utility Locating and Pothole an Area: 4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA
92008, AIRX Utility Surveyors, Inc., February 12, 2021, hereinafter ‘AIRX 2021’).
AIRX 2021 determined that the depth to the top of the steel pipeline ranged from about 5 feet to
10 feet below ground surface. NOVA completed a series of CPT soundings (CPT-1, CPT-3,
CPT-4, CPT-5) along the alignment of the pipeline. Figure 6-1 (following page) summarizes the
indications of the CPT soundings.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
45
Based on the CPT data, the fill above the pipeline is relatively dense. With this consideration, it
is recommended that the inactive pipeline be properly capped in place and slurry filled in
accordance with the standard requirements of the appropriate agencies and municipalities. It is
NOVA's opinion that the fill above the pipeline may be allowed to remain in place. Excavating
this fill and replacing it with new fill would not improve mechanical characteristics.
Figure 6-1. Subsurface Conditions Along the Kinder Morgan Pipeline
6.4.10 Settlement of New Fills
General
As is indicated on figure 3-1, NOVA completed a series of nine cone penetration test
(CPT) soundings after ASTM D 5778 at locations across the Marja Acres site. Seven of
the soundings (CPT-1 through CPT-7) were completed in areas previously identified to
include alluvial soils and which are planned to receive fills up to 25 feet in thickness.
When used in conjunction with engineering borings and test pits, the CPT is useful in
providing a detailed view of the subsurface, developing relatively continuous data that
can be correlated with both soil type and a variety of parameters related to soil behavior.
At the Marja Acres site, in situ testing associated with the CPT soundings indicates that
both the existing undocumented fill and alluvium are relatively stiff, suitable to support
the planned fills. Figure 6-2 (following page) abstracts these data.
Norm. c:one resistan ce
O.'
--------·-----...... ·----,--------
1.' .••••••••••••...••. ···•········
2 --------,-----·: -------1--------
~: :=: I::J~::
£ C. 2: 5 .
6 .
7
7 .
0
.. r ·· ·t······
f 1
f ·1
~ ~
-····••t:::::1·:-·
100 200 J-00 40
Qtn
Norm,. friction ratio
5.
6.
7
7 .
8 .
9 . ·····-r····•·
0 2 'I 6 El
Fr (%)
0 .
1.
[
10
Mod. Norm,. SBTn
••r-••••T••••,••••-.----..,,.••••
t··t···<···· ......... . _ rr -=~
·t·•··rra..,~··IJil3fiia••·r···· F~LL. ··; ,ndF·.-00a..,,~·-····-··
l ra .. r )~:llilatr. ..
:Sandiil:e.lJilatr.'O --r t
tfransitmal• llilatr.,. r i
flay!~· ~latr.-.
ITra ltma1 -llilatr. ..
f •nd~-llilalire
i i r-r-
~l•y4:e · [)latr.-.
, l --: ransF"J.IJilalrte
-r i
·t •t·llilatr.'8
0 2 4 6 El 1 0 1 2 1416 18
Mod . SBT n (Robertso n 201 6)
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
46
Figure 6- 2. Average Stiffness of the Alluvium, CPT-1 through CPT-7
NOVA believes analyses of settlement for this site are more appropriately completed
using elastic analyses and parameters derived from the CPT testing. NOVA estimated
settlements were calculated using the constrained modulus (M) estimated by the CPT
data. These data indicate that the elastic settlement will be on the order of 2 inches to 4
inches.
Figure 6-3 (following page) provides the estimate of 3-inch elastic settlement indicated
by the data from CPT-1.
~
£ ...,
D. a, 0
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4 -
Cone li,esiista nee qt -----~ --_______ .., _____ _
' ' ' ---------t ---------:------: : ------.---------f---------,------' . ' . ------.. ---------i ----------------
-----..----------.. ---------.-------' ' ' . ' . ___ .. _______ --;---------;------
: : ____ .. ______ ---t---------~------
: : ---------t---------t-------
' . ---------f---------•------' . ' . ' . ----~ ·----·-----,-----·-: : ' . ~ .......... i ........... ..
' ' ' '
f
-•---------f----·----•--= : :
---------------t ---------
so, 100 150
liip Resistanoe (tsf)
2
3
3
3
3
3
Soiil Behaviour Type
----:--'S:ap.dX si . sand ________ _
: : s saoo ,& sand;' s --1-----+-------+--------
' ' ' ----~----i--!:~-~!f¥Jllla): ___ _
! ! C~y ----~----i----.,-----""·---.------,------! ! c~ : -,-----r----t--m ---""·----------,-----
: : Clay ---+--+--cJiy-hl~d!y---------! : s . saoo & sa~it, s ----r----r--c~y-----·----·---------
·-·--r----t--eit:r&-alW~----"'·----
--·--~-.. --t--~y-------------.#..----
: : Cla¥ ---~---+--Gl3¥-------i---..---: : c~ --r .. -t t
. r·•· t sir sw & sanit,.sJ
. r··· 1 :t::•:
S : sa.J ,& sand;' s
!, ' San &si .· sanil
t
••••• -!., •••• ----•• --i-: l ' '
:.:, Sar h sanil
' ~ ...... ··-..
f I O I -__ ., ______ ............... -+ ................... ~
~ : : : ,
I I O I
' ' ' 4 -·----r-------- ►---:----:---►----·----... --
0 2 4 6 B 1 0 1 2 1 4· 16 18
SBT (Roberts o n 2010)
Const1ra i n.ed Miod u I u1s:
' ' -f--------------------f-----------: : ·f--------------------f-----------' '
-~--------------------•---------' ' ' . ' ' '
-~-l-------------------1----------
1 ' ' r , r 1
1
1
1 }
2 ,.
2
2 -
2 !" ............................ ..
2 ·--------------
: . E:::::::::::---..----
3 ! ll 2,000
3 L M(CPT) (ts[::
JL.-------........ ~=--___i
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
2
2
2
2
2
OCR
'
.• ••••••• [ .. r··:::: ...... .
...... ,. ...... _____ .,.
' ' ' ' ' ' r r--····-~-------
1 !
.I.-... · I-··
-----r--------r--
--------r----------------r--------
.. ---.. -f --------f--------,--------' ! /
,a, 5 l O 1 5 2
OCR
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
47
Figure 6-3. Elastic Settlement Estimated at CPT-1
Settlement Rate
As to time rates of settlement, NOVA expects that the vast majority of the settlement -
about 80% or more - will occur during the grading. Of relevance to this judgment is that
the settlements will be elastic, occurring approximately as new load is applied. As is
noted in NOVA 2021, settlements will be monitored throughout earthwork and beyond.
No construction will be started until it is established by monitoring that settlement
effectively completed.
NOVA’s judgment that settlements will occur rapidly is affected by the evident over
consolidation ratio (OCR) indicated by the CPT. The soundings fairly represent the
stress history of the finer-grained alluvial soils. The elastic analyses by NOVA consider
the indications of the CPT soundings that the OCR of the finer-grained alluvial soils are
never less than about OCR = 4 and often much higher. The CPT is well-established as a
tool for estimating OCR. The time rates of settlement will be governed by the coefficient
Cone 1resistance qt
' ' ·----------------..L------ ----- - -----
. ------------------,------------------
' ' --------------------------------
' ' ---------------------------------
200
Tip resistance (tsf)
0,-f""--=::::::;;;;;;;::-------:-----,
3
3
7
' ' ' ' ' '
' '
' ' ' -······· .. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' •·••------1.•-------•L•••• •• •• ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·t········ ·······t·······
' ' -...------------------.--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---------------------.---------. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' __ ...... ________ ---------~--------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
I•••••I:•II•••••••
---------r-------
------.. --------
' .
1,007 2,007 3,007 4,
M(CPT) (tsf)
CumulaU ve settlement
0,-r-----------.---,,
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
t
····--:-:1:~:::~-I--------
········-··-t·--··-··-··-......... .
: : :~:~:f :::::::-:_1: __ ::::::::
------------""---------'------------
------------T -________ T __________ _
' ' '
----------------------.. -----------
' ' -----------+ ----------+-----------' ' ' ' ' ' ---------------------"------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
4 ..., ___________ ..,
0 2
Settlement (in)
-End □f Primary
-OvE!'fall
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
48
of consolidation associated with recompression, at least an order of magnitude greater
than normally consolidated compression. Recompression settlement will occur quickly.
Settlement Monitoring
Despite the expectation of low settlements for new fills, development of new fills should
be associated with settlement monitoring to establish the performance of the fill. New structures should not be constructed until fill settlement has ceased.
Proposed locations of the settlement monuments are presented in NOVA 2021a and 2021b. NOVA concurs that prior to the start of construction it should provide a written
Settlement Monitoring Plan (SMP). The SMP will provide a narrative description of the objective and scope of ground settlement monitoring. At a minimum, the SMP will provide for the elements of ground settlement monitoring described below. 1. Establish Settlement Monitoring Points. The settlement monitoring points will be established once rough grading in those areas is complete at the planned locations indicated on Plate 1: Geotechnical Map of the project geotechnical report. The settlement plates will be located such that construction traffic in the vicinity is minimized.
Plate installations and riser pipes will be clearly and adequately marked to protect the riser pipes from impact or obliteration during construction activities that will be ongoing during the monitoring period.
2. Baseline Survey. Upon installation of the settlement monuments, a baseline survey will be used to establish the elevations of all surface settlement measurement points.
3. Load-Settlement Assessment. The settlement monuments will be read on a weekly basis. The GEOR will complete review of the load settlement behavior indicated by the surveyed data to establish if settlement is complete. It is expected that this condition will be evidenced by the load-settlement curve showing less than 0.02 foot/week movement for a four-week period following the completing of filling. Once this level of ground movement has been established, the building pads will be released for construction.
6.4.11 Subdrains
NOVA has identified three areas that will likely require subdrain installation. These should be
placed in the existing drainage channels along the western portion of the project. Plate 1
Geotechnical Map presents the recommended locations. Prior to subdrain placement, the
channels should be cleaned of loose alluvial/colluvial material, and a subdrain placed at the
invert of the drainage to intercept water.
The location of the drains and outlets should be surveyed to ensure an adequate slope of the
pipe for drainage. The drainage of the water at the subdrain outlet is the purview of the Civil
Engineer.
The subdrain should be a ‘burrito’-type drain, constructed with filter fabric, wrapped around a
12-inch diameter layer of ¾-inch gravel, with 4-inch perforated Schedule 40 PVC pipe, with the
holes pointed downward, in the center of the burrito.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
49
6.4.12 Trenching and Backfilling for Utilities
Excavation for utility trenches must be performed in conformance with OSHA regulations
contained in 29 CFR Part 1926.
Utility trench excavations have the potential to degrade the properties of the adjacent soils.
Utility trench walls that are allowed to move laterally will reduce the bearing capacity and increase settlement of adjacent footings and overlying slabs.
Backfill for utility trenches is as important as the original subgrade preparation or engineered fill
placed to support either a foundation or slab. No utility should be aligned beneath footings within
a projected 2H:1V limit from the edge of the footing to the base of the utility trench.
Backfill for utility trenches must be placed to meet the project specifications for the engineered
fill of this project. Unless otherwise specified, the backfill for the utility trenches should be placed
in 4 to 6-inch loose lifts and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction after ASTM D
1557 (the ‘modified Proctor’) at soil moisture +2% of the optimum moisture content. Up to 4
inches of bedding material placed directly under the pipes or conduits placed in the utility trench
can be compacted to 90% relative compaction with respect to the Modified Proctor.
Compaction testing should be performed for every 20 cubic yards of backfill placed or each lift
within 30 linear feet of trench, whichever is less.
Backfill of utility trenches should not be placed with water standing in the trench. If granular
material is used for the backfill, the material should have a gradation that will filter protect the
backfill material from the adjacent soils. If this gradation is not available, a geosynthetic non-
woven filter fabric should be used to reduce the potential for the migration of fines into the
backfill material.
6.5 Shallow Foundations
6.5.1 Bearing Unit
Ground bearing slabs for the residences may be supported by engineered fill prepared as
described in Section 6.4.
6.5.2 Post-Tensioned (PT) Slabs in Expansive Soils
Due to the highly expansive nature of the on-site soils, NOVA recommends supporting the
planned buildings on PT slabs. If expansive soils are replaced as compacted fill, then NOVA
recommends that the structures underlain by expansive clays be supported on uniform
thickness ground-bearing PT slabs.
In accordance with Section 1808.6.2 of the 2019 California Building Code, PT slabs should be
designed in accordance with the PTI requirements for design of shallow post-tensioned
concrete foundations on expansive soils (reference, Post-Tensioning Institute, Design of Post-
Tensioned Slabs-on-Ground, 3rd Edition with 2008 Supplement, PTI DC10.1-08, hereafter “PTI
2008”). Table 6-5 (following page) provides the geotechnical-related parameters for this design.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
50
Successful construction of foundations in expansive soil environments requires vigilance in both
design and long-term maintenance. Therefore, it is important that information regarding site
conditions - with the related demand for care regarding site maintenance, trees, control of
irrigation, settlements, and the potential negative effects of expansive soils be passed on to all
future interested/affected parties.
Table 6-5. Geotechnical Parameters for Post-Tensioned Slab with Thickened Edge
Parameter Units Value Note 1
Center Lift
edge moisture variation distance, em
differential soil movement (shrink), ym
feet inches
8.5 0.66
Edge Lift
edge moisture variation distance, em
differential soil movement (swell), ym
feet inches
4 1.7
Modulus of subgrade reaction, ‘k’ pci 80 Note 2
Minimum perimeter footing/thickened edge embedment below finished grade inches 24
Minimum slab thickness inches 6 Note 3
Allowable Soil Bearing psf 1,500
Under-slab moisture retarder Min. 15-mil Note 3
Notes to Table 6-5:
1. These parameters are assumed for preliminary design purposes, taken from limited laboratory testing. Further evaluation may be needed at the completion of grading.
2. Recommendations for foundation reinforcement and slab thickness are the responsibility of the Structural Engineer based upon geotechnical criteria and structural engineering design considerations.
3. Recommendation for sand below slabs are traditionally included with geotechnical foundation recommendations, though these requirements are primarily the responsibility of the Structural Engineer or Architect. The sand layer requirements
be finally determined in accordance with ACI Publication 302 “Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction.”
4. The design parameters on this table consider not only on the existing soil conditions, but also anticipated changes in moisture conditions. The table assumes conformance with the recommendations for drainage control contained in Section 6.
6.6 Moisture Barrier Beneath Slabs
6.6.1 Capillary Break
NOVA recommends that ground supported slabs include a capillary break. The requirements for
a capillary break (‘sand layer’) be determined in accordance with ACI Publication 302 Guide for
Concrete Floor and Slab Construction.
A “capillary break” may consist of a 4-inch-thick layer of compacted, well-graded sand that
should be placed below the floor slab. This porous fill should be clean, coarse sand or sound,
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
51
durable gravel with not more than 5% coarser than the 1-inch sieve or more than 10% finer than
the No. 4 sieve, such as AASHTO Coarse Aggregate No. 57.
6.6.2 Vapor Barrier
Ground-supported slabs beneath moisture-sensitive equipment or enclosures should include a
vapor membrane. Membranes set below floor slabs should be rugged enough to withstand
construction. If a vapor barrier is desired, a minimum 15-mil polyethylene membrane should be
placed over the porous fill to preclude floor dampness.
NOVA recommends that a minimum 15-mil low permeance vapor membrane be used. For
example, Carlisle-CCW produces the Blackline 400® underslab, vapor and air barrier, a 15-mil
low-density polyethylene (LDPE) rated at 0.012 perms after ASTM E 96.
6.6.3 Limitations of This Recommendation
Recommendations for moisture barriers are traditionally included with geotechnical foundation
recommendations, though these requirements are primarily the responsibility of the Structural
Engineer or Architect. If there is particular concern regarding moisture-sensitive materials or
equipment to be placed above the slab-on-grade, a qualified person (for example, such as the
flooring subcontractor and/or Structural Engineer) should be consulted to evaluate the general
and specific moisture vapor transmission paths and any impact on the proposed construction.
NOVA does not practice in the field of moisture vapor transmission since this is not specifically a
geotechnical issue.
6.7 Conventional Retaining Walls
6.7.1 Shallow Foundations
Conventionally designed and reinforced concrete retaining walls should be developed on
ground prepared in accordance with criteria provided in Section 6.4. Continuous shallow
foundations may be designed in accordance with the criteria provided in Section 6.5. Retaining
wall foundations should not be permitted to span cut and fill transitions. Foundations should
bear entirely on formational soils or entirely on engineered fill.
6.7.2 Select Fill for Conventional Retaining Walls
Materials
All engineered fill placed during the remedial grading for retaining walls, described in
Section 6.4.7 and backfill soils within 3 feet of the walls should be Select Fill, a mineral
soil free of organics or regulated constituents, with the characteristics listed below:
• at least 40% by weight finer than ¼ inches in size,
• maximum particle size of 4 inches, and
• expansion index (EI) less than 50 (i.e., EI < 50, after ASTM D 4829).
The sandy portions of the Santiago Formation will conform to the above criteria. Other
on-site soils can be processed by mixing to conform to the above criteria. However, the
paleosol that overlies the Santiago Formation and the colluvium that mantles the slopes
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
52
were found to be highly plastic and highly expansive. This material will likely not be
suitable for use as retaining wall backfill.
6.7.3 Lateral Earth Pressures
Lateral earth pressures to walls are related to the type of backfill, drainage conditions, slope of
the backfill surface, and the allowable rotation of the wall.
Table 6-6 provides recommendations for lateral soil and groundwater wall loading to below-
grade walls for varying conditions of wall yield.
Table 6-6. Wall Lateral Loads from Soil
Condition
Equivalent Fluid Pressure (psf/foot)
Level Backfill 2:1 Backfill Sloping Upwards
Active 45 61
At Rest 60 80
Passive 350 330
If footings or other surcharge loads are located a short distance outside the wall, these
influences should be added to the lateral stress considered in the design of the wall.
6.7.4 Seismic Increment
Walls less than 6 feet in height need not include a seismic load.
Cantilevered walls taller than 6 feet should consider an incremental lateral seismic thrust, ΔPE ,
expressed as:
ΔPE = 0.4 khH2γ where,
ΔPE is the incremental seismic thrust
kh is the pseudostatic horizontal earthquake coefficient, is equal to SDS/2.5
H is the height of the wall in feet from the footing
γ is equal to the unit weight of the backfill material, in pcf (about 125 pcf)
The resultant dynamic thrust acts at a distance of 0.3H above the base of the wall.
6.7.5 Foundation Uplift
A soil unit weight of 120 pcf may be assumed for calculating the weight of soil over the wall
footing in design of cantilevered retaining walls.
6.7.6 Wall Drainage
The recommended equivalent fluid pressures provided in the preceding subsection assume that
constantly functioning drainage systems are installed between walls and soil backfill to prevent
the uncontrolled buildup of hydrostatic pressures and lateral stresses in excess of those stated.
Figure 6-4 (following page) depicts a conceptual wall design in this regard.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
53
Figure 6-4. Conceptual Design for Wall Drainage
Design for wall drainage may include the use of pre-engineered wall drainage panels or a
properly compacted granular free-draining non-expansive backfill material (EI <50). The use of
drainage openings through the base of the wall (weep holes) is not recommended where the
seepage could be a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the ground adjacent to the base of
the wall.
Numerous alternatives are available for collection of water behind retaining walls. The intent of
Figure 6-2 is to depict the concepts described in this subsection.
6.8 MSE Walls
6.8.1 Select Granular Wall Backfill
Backfill in the reinforced zone should be comprised of a select granular soil that meets the
parameters listed below:
• at least 40% of the material less than ¼-inch in size,
• a maximum particle size of 4 inches, and
• an expansion index (EI) of less than 30 (as determined by ASTM D 4829).
All fill/backfill placed as part of the MSE retaining wall system should be compacted to at least
90% relative compaction determined in accordance with ASTM D1557.
RETAINING
WALL
FINISf-lED
GRADE
CONCRETE
BROWDITCf-1
GROUND SURFACE
ATER PROOFI G
FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE l=L.--------(MIRAFII 1140N OR APPROVED
EOUIVA:LENT)
12" 3l4"CRUSHED ROCK
___ I /"c,nITT J
:.;·• .,:;A/~ __..ILTER FABRIC
t------11=1 ;;: ,; : • ·. } ENVELOPE
.. ·. . .•. MIRAFII 140N O'R
'. EQUIVALENT
-""""""'""""'"'°""""'"""'-----,--.,_ __ -c:_ 4" DIA. SCf-lEDULE 40
PEHFORATED PVC PIPE
OR TOTAL DRAIN
'.A'\:,'-Vl-~ EXTE.NDEDTO
APPROVED OUTLET
COMPETENT BEDROCK
OR MATERIAL AS
EVALUATEID BY THE
GEOTECf-lNIICAL
CONSULTANT
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
54
6.8.2 Strength of the Select Backfill
Selection of the design parameters for the wall backfill is the responsibility of the wall designer.
Prior to placing the wall fill/backfill soil, the selected material should be sampled and tested to
verify conformance with the minimum soil strength design parameters presented on Table 6-6.
All fill/backfill placed as part of the MSE retaining wall system should be compacted to at least
90% relative compaction determined in accordance with ASTM D1557. If the wall is not
designed to withstand compaction equipment within a few feet of the face of the wall, the grid
length embedment should be increased to account for the difference.
6.8.3 MSE Wall Foundations
Retaining walls should be developed on ground prepared in accordance with criteria provided in
Section 6.4.7.
6.8.4 MSE Wall Drainage
The above recommendations assume a wall drainage panel or a properly compacted granular
free-draining backfill material. The wall designer should indicate if the wall will require use of
filter fabric.
6.8.5 Wall Design Strength Parameters
Table 6-7 provide recommended design basis geotechnical parameters for the design of the
MSE retaining walls.
Table 6-7. Strength Parameters for MSE Retaining Walls
Parameter Reinforced Zone Retained Foundation Internal Friction Angle,
32 29 29
Cohesion, psf 100 100 100
Wet Unit Weight, pcf 125 125 125
6.8.6 Limitations
Improvements within the reinforced and retained zones may experience movement as the
geosynthetic material elongates, developing full tensile resistance. The amount of movement is
a function of the height of the wall and the type of geosynthetic grid. The estimated movement
should be calculated by the MSE wall contractor and wall designer.
6.8.7 Design Review
The plans for the MSE retaining walls should be submitted to NOVA to verify the design
parameters included herein are incorporated and reflected on the project plans. The intent of
NOVA’s review of the planned documents will be to verify the plans are consistent with provided
geotechnical recommendations and to determine if additional recommendations are necessary.
Responsibility for wall design will remain with the wall designer.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
55
6.9 Permanent Soldier Pile Walls
6.9.1 General
Construction of a taller cantilevered, conventionally reinforced retaining walls or MSE walls near
cut slopes or near the property line may be difficult and relatively expensive. As an alternative to
these walls, soldier pile walls may be considered.
Soldier pile walls are widely used in the San Diego area for support of temporary excavations.
These walls may also be developed as permanent walls. With the usual soldier pile wall, H-piles
are drilled or driven at regular intervals (typically 7 to 8 feet on center) along the planned
excavation perimeter. As the ground in front of the wall is removed, a ‘lagging’ material is
inserted behind the front pile flanges. The lagging resists the load of the retained soil and
transfers it to the piles.
While commonly developed with wood lagging for temporary solutions, these walls can be
developed as permanent cantilever walls, using concrete panels in lieu of wood. A final fascia
may be applied as the wall is completed.
6.9.2 Wall Pressures
Active Earth Pressure
Design for the cantilevered wall utilizing active earth pressures developed from the unit
parameters provided on Table 6-6.
Wall design must also include consideration for the effects of loading on the
embankment and wall by any planned construction (for example, by cranes, trucks, etc.).
Slopes above the wall should be maintained against erosion by stormwater.
Walls taller than 8 feet should add a seismic force increment to the “active” (wall rotation
allowed) earth pressure, utilizing the criteria provided in Section 6.7.3.
Passive Resistance to Soldier Piles
It is assumed that soldier beams will be set in pre-drilled holes set in the alluvium and
backfilled with concrete or a sand-cement slurry.
Passive soil resistance for embedded portions of soldier piles can be calculated using an
equivalent passive soil fluid weight of 400 lb/ft3, ignoring the first 2 feet of penetration.
The passive resistance can be assumed to act over a width of 2.5 pile diameters.
The means and methods of placement of this slurry mix will be the responsibility of the
wall contractor. In the event drilling for soldier piles encounter water, NOVA expects that
the slurry mix can be readily placed by the tremie method.
Miscellaneous Wall Design Considerations
Soldier piles may be set in drilled holes. Placed as such, bearing will be negligible and
should not be considered. The soil-pile bond will be on the order of 600 psf or greater.
The coefficient of friction (µ) between the wall and retained soils will be about µ = 0.35.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
56
6.9.3 Wall Construction
Walls will be constructed by first setting the soldier beams. Thereafter, the pace of the
excavation will be limited by the establishment of lagging, as described below.
Excavation should not be advanced deeper than about 2-3 feet below the bottom of the lagging
at any time. These gaps of up to 2-3 feet should only be allowed to stand for short periods of
time in order to decrease the potential for sloughing/caving. Backfilling should be conducted
when necessary between the back of the lagging and excavation sidewalls to reduce any
sloughing in this zone.
6.9.4 Wall Drainage
Similar to the requirements for cantilevered, conventionally reinforced walls described above,
design should include features to eliminate the potential for buildup of water behind the wall. If
such features cannot be incorporated into wall design, a hydrostatic load of 60 lb/ft3 should be
added to the active pressure described above.
6.10 Embankment and MSE Wall Stability
6.10.1 Overview
NOVA’s analyses have considered the global stability of soil embankments and MSE walls.
Details and records of the above analyses are provided on in Appendix G to this report. The
following subsections provide review of the analyses of embankment stability and the global
stability of MSE walls.
6.10.2 Embankment Stability
To the knowledge of NOVA, currently planning does not include permanent cut slopes beyond
relatively short cuts (i.e., cuts less than about four feet). Such cuts will be stable if completed in
conformance with the guidance provided in Section 6-11.
The gross and surficial stability of fill slopes to ±20 feet height have been considered. Figure 6-5
(following page) provides a graphical summary of an evaluation of what NOVA believes is the
tallest embankment at the site - a 20-foot-tall fill embankment at the southwest corner of the
site.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
57
Figure 6-5. Seismic Stability of the Tallest Site Embankment, F = 1.18, kh = 0.15
As may be seen by review of this graphic, the fill embankment will be developed In Older
Alluvium atop about 25 feet of existing sloping ground.
As may be seen by review of Figure 6-5, the evaluation of gross stability for the seismic case
(FSseismic, assuming kh= 0.15) indicates FSseismic = 1.2. The factor of safety for the static case
(FSstatic) is FSstatic = 1.7. Attachment 1 to this submittal provides more detail regarding this
analysis, detailing the analytical procedures, the selection of soil strength characteristics, slope
geometries, and related information.
As is discussed in Appendix G and in NOVA 2021, MSE walls and fill embankments can be at
risk for other modes of failure controlled by factors not amenable to embankment stability
modeling (most significantly, erosional processes). Relatively localized failures can also occur
(for example, shallow-seated sliding of an embankment or descending ground outside an MSE
wall) if fills and ground around the walls are not maintained.
Safety Factor
0.000
0. 500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6. 000+ 80
60
40
20
20 40
FS (deterministic)= 1.187
FS (mean) = 1.189
PF= 8.800%
RI (normal) = 1.306
RI (lognormal) = 1.367
60 80 100
Olde, Alluvium (Qoa)
120 140 160 180
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
58
Of particular consequence in this regard is the potential for erosion of the exposed embankment
surfaces as a consequence of stormwater runoff. Design should consider measures to stabilize
slopes against surface erosion.
Regular maintenance is essential to the continued stability of all the MSE walls and
embankments. While the stability of the embankments against deeper-seated slope failure is
high, localized surficial sloughing related to erosion may occur. Such instabilities may be
managed by implementation of routine maintenance of the embankments.
The greatest threat to embankment stability is a loss of control of surface drainage. Surface
water should be designed to be collected in catchment facilities, and be drained under the site
by storm drains which outlet away from the slope. As necessary, berms, curbs, gutters, swales,
or other devices may need to be added to prevent an excessive amount of concentrated runoff
from draining over the crest of the embankments and creating erosion problems. The ground
around MSE walls and the fill embankments should be inspected on a regular basis, observing
signs of surface erosion, loss of vegetative/ground cover, sloughing, etc. Loss of ground can
affect stability. Repairs should be made as appropriate.
NOVA’s review of the finalized grading plans will focus on assessment of control of surface
drainage.
6.10.3 Global Stability of MSE Walls
NOVA completed global stability analyses of MSE walls at three representative locations. Table
6-8 summarizes this evaluation. Appendix G of this report provides detail regarding this analysis, detailing the analytical procedures, the selection of soil strength characteristics, slope geometries, and related information.
Table 6-8. MSE Wall Global Stability Analysis Matrix
Case Location Wall Height
(feet)
Formation
Factor of Safety
Notes Static Seismic kh=0.15
1
Wall 4 Sta 1+00 15 Older Alluvium (Qoa) 1.8 1.3
2 Wall 1 Sta 8+95 12 Santiago Fm. (Tsa) 1.7 1.15 Adds clay seam
3A Wall 9 Sta 1+90 12 Santiago Fm. (Tsa) 1.5 n/a Adds clay seam
3B Wall 9 Sta 1+90 12 Santiago Fm. (Tsa) 1.5 1.08 Adds clay seam
4 Wall 1 Sta 7+15 20 Santiago Fm. (Tsa) 1.3 n/a Backcut stability
5 Wall 1 Sta 5+69 20 Santiago Fm. (Tsa) 1.3 n/a Backcut stability
As may be seen by review of Table 6-8, assessments of global stability included assessment of
the effect of unanticipated or undiscovered weakened planes of clay beneath the MSE walls.
The analyses global stability indicate that all of the MSE walls have adequate stability for both
the static and seismic cases.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
59
6.11 Temporary Slopes
6.11.1 Conformance with OSHA and Cal/OSHA
Temporary slopes may be required for excavations during grading. All temporary excavations
should comply with federal, state, and local safety ordinances. The safety of all excavations is
the responsibility of the Contractor and should be evaluated during construction as the
excavation progresses.
Based on the data interpreted from the borings, the design of temporary slopes in soils may
assume California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) Soil Type B for planning purposes.
In accordance with OSHA, any temporary construction slope greater than 20 feet in height will
need to be evaluated and analyzed by NOVA prior to construction. Internal global stability will
likely be performed to determine the stability of such excavations.
6.11.2 Excavation Planning and Control
The face of temporary excavations should not be steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical). In
accordance with OSHA, any temporary construction slope greater than 20 feet in height will
need to be evaluated and analyzed by NOVA prior to construction. Internal global stability will
likely be performed to determine the stability of such excavations.
Surcharge loads to temporary slopes should not be permitted within a distance equal to the
height of the excavation measured from the top of the excavation. Excavations (i) steeper than
those recommended, or (ii) closer than 15 feet from an existing service improvement should be
shored in accordance with applicable OSHA regulations and codes.
The faces of temporary slopes should be inspected daily by the Contractor’s competent person
before personnel are allowed to enter the excavation. Any zones of potential instability,
sloughing, or raveling should be brought to the attention of the Engineer and corrective action
implemented before personnel begin working in the excavation. Excavated materials should not
be stockpiled behind temporary excavations within a distance equal to the depth of the
excavation.
6.11.3 Backcuts for MSE Walls
The stability of temporary backcut slopes to ±19 feet height have been considered. Such slopes will be developed in ‘backcuts’ associated with MSE wall construction. Two of the “worst cases” of backcut stability were considered: Wall #1 Sta. 7+15 with a backcut in the Santiago Formation, and Wall #4 Sta 5+69, with a backcut in the Older Alluvium. The following descriptions abstract each of the stability analyses.
1. Wall 1, Sta 7+15. The stability analysis addresses a 19-foot tall backcut in the Older Alluvium (Qoa). This case tests the stability of a wall backcut slightly steeper than 1:1. The cut has a static factor of safety on the order of F = 1.3. This factor of safety is suitable for the short-term wall stability condition associated with building the MSE walls.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
60
2. Wall 1, Sta 5+69. This stability analysis addresses a 20-foot tall backcut in the Santiago formation (Tsa). The analysis indicates FS = 1.3 for the static case, the suitable factor of
safety for the short-term that this embankment will be exposed.
Attachment 3 to this submittal (see Plate 8 and Plate 9 of Attachment 3) provides more detail regarding the above analyses.
Note also that NOVA 2021 recommends that an engineering geologist monitor all temporary backcuts for adverse bedding conditions, or signs of failure. Should adverse bedding be discovered, the area of concern would be laid back to a shallower slope inclination, generally parallel with existing natural slopes, which have proven to be grossly stable over time.
Figure 6-6 provides a graphical summary of the evaluation of a 20-foot tall backcut at Wall 1,
Sta 5+69.
Figure 6-6. Static Stability of a 20-Foot Tall Backcut, FS = 1.3
6.11.1 Flatwork
Exterior concrete slabs for pedestrian traffic or landscape should be at least 4 inches thick.
Weakened plane joints should be located at intervals of about 6 feet. Control of the
water/cement ratio can limit shrinkage cracking due to excess water or poor concrete finishing
or curing. Exterior slabs and sidewalks should be reinforced with No. 3 bars on 18-inches
centers, each way. We expect that clayey soil with a medium to high expansion index will be
encountered during the proposed grading. If it is desired to reduce the potential for heave
damage to exterior improvements, the areas to support said improvements should be capped
with at least two-foot-thick layer of nondetrimentally expansive (E.I. ≤ 50) material.
Safety Factor
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2 .000
2.500
3.000
3.500
4 .000
4 .500 80
5.000
5.500
6. 000+ 60
40
I Young Alluvium (Qya)I
20
20 40 60 80 100
FS (deterministic)= 1.331
FS (mean)= 1.344
PF = 2.600%
RI (normal)= 1.930
RI (lognormal) = 2.173
w ..
120 140 160
ISsntiago Fm(Tss)I
180 200 220 240
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
61
7.0 STORMWATER INFILTRATION
7.1 Overview
At the time that NOVA took over as Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record (GEOR) for the Marja
Acres project, the project had been approved as a ‘no infiltration’ condition based on reports by
the previous GEOR. Their stormwater evaluation is provided in Appendix E along with infiltration
Worksheet I-8.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
62
8.0 PAVEMENTS
8.1 Design Basis
The structural design of pavement sections depends primarily on anticipated traffic conditions,
subgrade soils, and construction materials. NOVA has assumed a Traffic Index (TI) of 5.0 for
passenger car parking, 6.0 for the driveways, and 7.0 for fire lanes. These traffic indices should
be confirmed by the Civil Engineer prior to final design.
The pavement sections provided herein for the fire lanes are intended to support of a firetruck
weighing up to 75,000 pounds.
8.2 Drainage and Moisture Control
Similar to the requirements for control of moisture beneath floor slabs and flatwork, control of
surface drainage is important to the design and construction of pavements for this site.
Moisture must be controlled around and beneath pavements. Moreover, where standing water
develops either on the pavement surface or within the base course, softening of the subgrade
and other problems related to the deterioration of the pavement can be expected. Furthermore,
good drainage should minimize the risk of the subgrade materials becoming saturated and
weakened over a long period of time.
The following should be considered to limit the amount of excess moisture which can reach the
subgrade soils:
• maintain surface gradients at a minimum 2% grade away from the pavements;
• seal all landscaped areas in or adjacent to pavements to minimize or prevent moisture
migration to subgrade soils;
• planters should not be located next to pavements (otherwise, subdrains should be used to
drain the planter to appropriate outlets);
• place compacted backfill against the exterior side of curb and gutter; and
• concrete curbs bordering landscaped areas should have a deepened edge to provide a
cutoff for moisture flow beneath pavements (generally, the edge of the curb can be
extended an additional 12 inches below the base of the curb).
8.3 Preventative Maintenance
Preventative maintenance should be planned and provided for. Preventative maintenance
activities are intended to slow the rate of pavement deterioration and to preserve the pavement
investment.
A plan for preventative maintenance should be comprised of both localized maintenance (e.g.,
crack sealing and patching) and global maintenance (e.g., surface sealing).
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
63
8.4 Subgrade Preparation
8.4.1 Proof-Rolling
After the completion of compaction/densification, areas to receive pavements should be proof-
rolled. A loaded dump truck or similar should be used to aid in identifying localized soft or
unsuitable material.
Any soft or unsuitable materials encountered during this proof-rolling should be removed,
replaced with an approved backfill, and compacted.
8.4.2 Timely Base Course Construction
Construction should be managed such that preparation of the subgrade immediately precedes
placement of the base course. Proper drainage of the paved areas should be provided to
reduce moisture infiltration to the subgrade.
8.5 Flexible Pavements
The structural design of flexible pavement depends primarily on anticipated traffic conditions,
subgrade soils, and construction materials. Table 8-1 provides preliminary flexible pavement
sections using an assumed R-value of 20. The recommended pavement sections are for
planning purposes only. Additional R-value testing should be performed on actual soils at the
design subgrade levels to confirm the pavement design.
Table 8-1. Preliminary Recommendations for Flexible Pavements
Area Subgrade R-Value Traffic Index Asphalt Thickness (in) Base Course Thickness (in)
Auto Parking 20 5 4.0 6.0
Driveways 20 6 4.0 9.0
Fire Lane 20 7 4.0 12.0
The above sections assume properly prepared subgrade consisting of at least 12 inches of
subgrade densified to a minimum of 95% relative compaction at about 2% above the optimum
moisture content.
The aggregate base course should also be placed at a minimum of 95% relative compaction.
Construction materials (asphalt and aggregate base) should conform to the current “Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction” (‘Green Book’).
8.6 Rigid Pavements
8.6.1 General
Concrete pavement sections consisting of 7 inches of Portland cement concrete over 6 inches
of base. The concrete pavement section should be supported by compacted subgrade that
meets select fill requirements. It is further recommended that in areas where heavy traffic or
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
64
point loads are anticipated, including areas in front of trash enclosures, the slab be reinforced
with at least No. 4 bars placed at 18 inches on center each way.
Where rigid pavements are used, the concrete should be obtained from an approved mix design
with the minimum properties of Table 8-2.
Table 8-2. Recommended Concrete Requirements
Property Recommended Requirement
Compressive Strength @ 28 days 3,250 psi minimum
Strength Requirements ASTM C94
Minimum Cement Content 5.5 sacks/cu. yd.
Cement Type Type I Portland
Concrete Aggregate ASTM C33 and Caltrans
Section 703
Aggregate Size 1-inch maximum
Maximum Water Content 0.50 lb/lb of cement
Maximum Allowable Slump 4 inches
8.6.2 Jointing and Reinforcement
Longitudinal and transverse joints should be provided as needed in concrete pavements for
expansion/contraction and isolation. Sawed joints should be cut within 24-hours of concrete
placement and should be a minimum of 25% of slab thickness plus ¼-inch. All joints should be
sealed to prevent entry of foreign material and doweled where necessary for load transfer.
Load transfer devices, such as dowels or keys are recommended at joints in the paving to
reduce possible offsets. Where dowels cannot be used at joints accessible to wheel loads,
pavement thickness should be increased by 25% at the joints and tapered to regular thickness
in 5 feet.
8.7 Concrete Pavers
8.7.1 General
Concrete paver units should be at least 80 millimeters (3⅛ inches) thick for vehicular concrete
pavers. Interlocking concrete pavement can be constructed by placing the concrete paver units
over a 1-inch bedding sand layer generally conforming to ASTM C-33 sand. Pavers selected for
the project should be able to support a firetruck weighing up to 75,000 pounds. The vehicular
paver recommendations provided here are designed for fire lanes.
8.7.2 Bedding and Joint Sand Gradation
Table 8-3 (following page) summarizes bedding sand gradation recommendations and
recommended joint sand gradation. The joint sand should comply with ASTM C144 with a
maximum 100% passing the No. 16 sieves and no more than 5% passing the No. 200 sieve.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
65
Bedding sand may be used as joint sand; however, additional effort may be required due to its
coarser gradation.
Table 8-3. Gradation of Sand for Paver Systems
Sieve Size Percent Passing
Bedding Sand Joint Sand
3/8 – inch 100 -
No. 4 95 - 100 100
No. 8 80 - 100 95 - 100
No. 16 50 - 85 70 - 100
No. 30 25 - 60 40 - 75
No. 50 5 - 30 20 - 40
No. 100 0 - 10 10 - 25
No. 200 0 - 1 0 - 5
8.7.3 Base and Subgrade
The bedding sand should be underlain with at least 14 inches of Class II base compacted to at
least 95% of the maximum dry density at or slightly above optimum moisture content as
determined by ASTM D1557.
The upper 12 inches of the subgrade soil should be scarified, moisture conditioned as
necessary, and compacted to a dry density of at least 95% of the laboratory maximum dry
density at or slightly above optimum moisture content as determined by ASTM D1557.
8.7.4 Installation
Concrete paver installation should be performed in accordance with the manufacturer's and
ICPI guidelines. Stable edge restraints such as concrete edge bands and curbs are essential to
maintain horizontal interlock while the paver units are subjected to repeated vehicular loads.
8.7.5 Control of Infiltration
An impermeable liner (e.g., 30-mil PVC or equivalent) should be placed surrounding the pavers
to prevent soil subgrade saturation and lateral water migration. The liner should extend up to the
top of the aggregate base layer and adhered to the edge restraint.
Water retained by the liner can be collected by a subdrain. The lined subgrade soils should be
sloped at least 1% towards the subdrain. A 4-inch diameter, Schedule 40, perforated PVC pipe
encapsulated with Caltrans Class II permeable base (or equivalent) should be suitable as a
subdrain. This piping should connect to solid PVC pipe to convey the stormwater to a suitable
outlet structure, i.e. area drain or storm drain structure.
Figure 8-1 (following page) depicts a design to control infiltrating surface water that reflects the
above recommendations.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
66
Figure 8-1. Design to Control Infiltration
8.7.6 Edge Restraint
The edge restraint may consist of a concrete pavement section. Other edge restraint
recommendations can be found in the ICPI technical guidelines.
A concrete edge restraint pavement section may be designed in general conformance with the
procedure recommended by the American Concrete Institute report ACI 330R-08 Guide for
Design and Construction of Concrete Parking Lots using the following parameters:
Modulus of subgrade reaction, k = 100 pci
Modulus of rupture for concrete, MR= 500 psi
Traffic Category = B
Average daily truck traffic, ADTT (assumed) = 30
Concrete pavement should consist of a minimum of 7 inches of PCC placed over subgrade soil
compacted to a dry density of at least 95% of the laboratory maximum dry density near to
slightly above optimum moisture content. This pavement section is based on a minimum
concrete compressive strength of 3,250 psi (pounds per square inch).
No reinforcing steel will be necessary within the concrete for geotechnical purposes.
8.7.7 Maintenance
A maintenance schedule consisting of inspecting the pavement sections should be established.
Periodic removal, replacement, and re-leveling of individual pavers may be required.
A
I JA
LFmlll Ii~
EDGE RESTRAINT,
AS RECOMMENDED BY
MANUFACTURER.
TYPICALLY 6" THICK
CONCRETE BORDER
3)1e" PAVER
UNITS
6"
(;)O MIN.
;:;,;;,:-,,;;~~~cii,;;m:;;m;-;,r:;::;:i
DULE 40 PVC SUBDRAIN
E SURROUNDED BY 1 CU,
. OF CLASS II PERMEABLE
BASE.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
67
9.0 CONSTRUCTION REVIEW, OBSERVATION, AND TESTING
9.1 Overview
As is discussed in Section 1, the recommendations contained in this report are based upon a
limited number of subsurface exploration locations (borings, CPTs, and test pits) and an
assumption of general continuity of subsurface conditions between investigation exploration
points.
The recommendations provided in both NOVA’s proposal for this work and this report assume
that NOVA will be retained to provide consultation and review during the design phase, to
interpret this report during construction, and to provide construction monitoring in the form of
testing and observation.
9.2 Design Phase Review
The recommendations of this report are based upon NOVA’s current understanding and
assumptions regarding planning for project development.
As is provided in its proposal for this work, NOVA should review the final design. Such review is
important for both (i) conformance with the recommendations provided herein, and (ii)
consistency with NOVA’s understanding of the planned development.
9.3 Construction Observation and Testing
9.3.1 General
Special inspections should be provided per Section 1705 of the California Building Code. The
soils special inspector should be a representative of NOVA as the Geotechnical Engineer-of-
Record (GEOR).
NOVA should be retained to provide construction-related services abstracted below.
• Surveillance during site preparation, grading, and foundation excavation.
• Inspection of the ground improvement described in Section 6.
• Soil special inspection during grading.
A program of quality control should be developed prior to the beginning of earthwork. It is the
responsibility of the Owner, the Contractor and/or the Construction Manager to determine any
additional inspection items required by the Architect/Engineer or the governing jurisdiction.
9.3.2 Continuous Soils Special Inspection
The earthwork operations listed below should be the object of continuous soils special
inspection.
• Site grading, including scarification and engineered fill placement.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
68
• Ground preparation as described in Section 6.
• Pavement subgrade preparation and base course compaction.
9.3.3 Periodic Soils Special Inspection
The earthwork operations listed below should be the object of periodic soils special inspection,
subject to approval by the Building Official.
• Site preparation and removal of existing development features.
• Placement and compaction of utility trench backfill.
• Observation of foundation excavations.
9.3.4 Testing During Inspections
A preconstruction conference among representatives of the Owner, Contractor and/or
Construction Manager, and Geotechnical Engineer is recommended to discuss the planned
construction procedures and quality control requirements.
The locations and frequencies of compaction test should be determined by the Geotechnical
Engineer at the time of construction. Test locations and frequencies may be subject to
modification by the Geotechnical Engineer based upon soil and moisture conditions
encountered, the size and type of compaction equipment used by the Contractor, the general
trend of compaction test results, and other factors.
Of particular concern to NOVA during earthwork operations will be good practices in moisture
conditioning, loose soil placement, and soil compaction. In particular, NOVA will be vigilant with
regard to the use of compaction equipment appropriate to the full lift thickness of the type of soil
being compacted. Reliance on construction traffic (for example, loaders or dump trucks) to
achieve compaction will not be approved.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
69
10.0 REFERENCES
10.1 Site Specific
AIRX Utility Surveyors, Inc., 2021, Potholing Report, Carlsbad Liquid Fuel Line Abandonment, Utility Locating and Pothole an Area: 4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, CA 92008, Project X210061, February 12, 2021.
Geosoils, Inc. (GSI), 2016, Geotechnical Evaluation of Marja Acres, APN 207-101-35 & -37,
1910 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W. O. 6971-A-SC, July 8, 2016.
GSI, 2018a, Addendum to Geotechnical Evaluation of Marja Acres, APN 207-101-35 & 37, 1910 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, WO 6971- A-SC, January 4, 2018.
GSI, 2018b, Update of the Geotechnical Update for Marja Acres, APN 207-101-35 & -37, 1910
El Camino Real, Carlsbad, San Diego County, California, W. O. 6971-A-SC, June 11, 2018.
Hetherington Engineering, 2021, Review Comments Regarding Marja Acres (Project ID: CT16-
07), To: Allison McLaughlin, From: Mark D. Hetherington, Civil Engineer, dated March 26, 2021.
Howes|Weiler|Landy (HWL), 2021a, Rough Grading Plans for Marja Acres (Progress Set), Received March 1, 2021.
Howes|Weiler|Landy (HWL), 2021a, Rough Grading Plans for Marja Acres (Second Progress Set), Received May 25, 2021.
NOVA Services, Inc (NOVA), 2021a, Report, Update Geotechnical Investigation, Marja Acres
Mixed-Use Development, 4901 El Camino Real, Carlsbad, California, Project 2021026, March 10, 2021.
Red One Engineering, Inc., 2021a, Marja Acres Anchor Retaining Wall Plans, WO# 870-21015, May 25, 2021.
Red One Engineering, Inc., 2021b, Anchor Retaining Wall Structural Calculations, Marja Acres, City of Carlsbad, California, Red One Engineering, Inc., WO# 870-21015, May 25, 2021.
Regional Shoring Design, 2021a, Temporary Shoring, Marja Acres – Site Wall #4, Carlsbad, CA, May 14, 2021.
Regional Shoring Design, 2021b, Calculations for Temporary Soldier Beam Excavation Shoring
at Wall #4, Marja Acres, Carlsbad, CA, May 20, 2021.
Regional Shoring Design, 2021c, Permanent Retaining Wall Marja Acres – Wall @ East P/L,
Carlsbad, CA, May 18, 2021.
Regional Shoring Design, 2021d, Calculations for Permanent Soldier Beam Retaining Wall at East P/L, May 24, 2021.
10.2 Design
American Concrete Inst., 2002, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-02.
American Concrete Inst., 2015, Guide to Concrete Floor and Slab Construction, ACI 302.1R-15.
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
70
ASCE, Minimum Design Load for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE 7-16.
APWA, 2015 Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (‘Greenbook’).
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, 2019 California Building Standards Code.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2003, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 1.0, available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/ttsb/corrosion/pdf/2012-11-19-Corrosion-Guidelines.pdf.
Carlsbad 2016. City of Carlsbad BMP Design Manual, February 2016.
10.3 Site Setting
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), 2008, Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating
Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.
California Geological Survey (CGS), Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/, accessed February 2021.
Historic Aerials website, 2021, www.historicaerials.com: accessed in February 2021.
Kennedy, M.P. and Tan, S.S., 2007, Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle,
California, Scale 1:100,000.
Norris, R. M. and Webb, R. W., 1990, Geology of California, Second Edition: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
SANGIS, 2009, Liquefaction County of San Diego Hazard Mitigation Planning Map.
Tan and Giffen, 1995, Landslide Hazards in the Northern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San Diego County, Relative Landslide Susceptibility, Oceanside and San Luis Rey
Quadrangles, Landslide Hazard Identification Map No. 35, Open-File Report 95-04.California Geologic Survey, 1995.
United States Geological Survey and California Geological Survey, 2011, Quaternary Fault and
Fold database for the United States, http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/.
United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1949, Topographic Map of San Luis Rey Quadrangle,
California, 7.5-Minute Series: Scale 1:24,000.
Weber Jr, Harold F., 1982, Recent Slope Failures, Ancient Landslides, and Related Geology of the North-Central Costal Area, San Diego County, California: California Department of
Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 82-12, 1982.
Wilson, K.L., 1972, Eocene and Related Geology of a Portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas Quadrangles, San Diego County, California; Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of California, Riverside.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
PLATES
8S 6S
22S
68S
25S
108S
185L
90S
7S
5S 3S4S
14S
2S
15S
1S
169L
13S
11S
12S
18S
21S
19S
20S
17S
75S
16S
74S
76S
77S
78S
84S
83S
82S
81S
79S
80S 73S
72S
71S
28S
70S
69S
26S
24S
27S
23S
67S
65S
66S
64S
63S
62S
61S
60S
59S
58S
57S
56S
34S
33S
32S
31S
30S
29S
39S
37S
38S
36S
35S
55S
54S
53S
52S
51S 49S
50S
48S
46S
47S
45S
44S
43S
42S
41S
40S
94S
93S
92S
91S
98S
97S
96S
95S
102S
101S
100S
99S
106S
105S
104S
103S
110S
109S
107S
114S
112S
113S
111S
116S
117S
115S
118S
122S
121S
120S
119S
134L
133L
132L
131L
130L
129L
128L 141L
127L
139L
140L
136L
138L
137L
135L
147L
146L
145L
144L
143L
142L
152L
151L
150L
149L
148L
158L 157L 156L 155L 154L 153L
181L180L179L178L177L176L175L174L173L172L171L170L168L167L166L165L164L163L162L161L160L159L
126L
125L
124L
123L
184L
183L
182L
189L
188L
187L
186L
193L
192L
191L
190L
197L
196L
195L
194L
201L
200L
199L
198L
205L
204L
203L
202L
209L
208L
207L
206L
213L
212L
211L
210L
217L
216L
215L
214L
229L
228L
226L
227L
225L
224L
233L
232L
231L
230L
236L235L234L
87S
86S
85S
89S
88S
222L221L220L219L218L 223L
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
1CL
2CL
3CL
13CL12CL11CL10CL9CL
8CL 7CL 6CL 5CL
4CLADA
(EV)(EV)
EV
EV
EX. 24" CMP
(EV)(EV)
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
0.1%
1
.
0
%
1
.
0
%
1
.
2
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
0
%
2
.
0
%
1.5%
BIO-FILTRATION BASIN
BIO-FILTRATION BASIN
BIO-FILTRATION
BASIN - BMP 7
BIO-FILTRATION
BASIN - BMP 4
BMP 6
BMP 3
BIO-FILTRATION BASIN - BMP 1
1.8%
1.8%
4.7%
1.4%
0.5%
10
.
0
%
1.2
%
2.8
%
0.0%
ACTIVE
REC. AREA 2
ACTIVE
REC
AREA 3
PASSIVE
RECAREA 9
PASSIVE
REC
AREA 4
ACTIVERECREATIONAREA 1
PASSIVE
REC. AREA 6
BMP 5
0.5%0.5%
0.5%
LO
O
P
R
O
A
D
LO
O
P
R
O
A
D
LOOP
R
O
A
D
LOOP R
O
A
D
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
PR
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
2.0%
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
PR
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PR
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PRIVATE
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
7.0%6.4
%
6.9
%
0.8
%
2.0
%
1.0
%
3.0
%
1.9%
5.0%
5
.
5
%
2.
0
%
10
.
0
%
3.7%
2.6%
2.4%
2.0%
1.3%
5.
9
%
3.
5
%
3.
5
%
4.1%
2.
2
%
2.
1
%
0.6%
0.4%
1.5%
6.5%
0.
6
%
1.0%0.9%
1.
0
%2.
0
%
1.2%
1.6%
0.
3
%
1
.
2
%
2
.
0
%
1
.
3
%
1
.
2
%
2.0%
2.1%
2.0%
1.5%
2
.
0
%
1.0%2.
0
%
4.0%
0.5%1.2%
2.
0
%
1.
5
%
0.5%
1
.
9
%
1
.
7
%
2
.
1
%
3
.
8
%
1.9%
1.6%
2.8%
1.0%
1.6%
2
.
4
%
2
.
0
%
2.0%
1
.
2
%
1
.
0
%
1
.
5
%
1.5%
LOOP ROAD
LOOP R
O
A
D
LOOP R
O
A
D
PASSIVEREC. AREALOT 8
LOOP R
O
A
D
LO
O
P
R
O
A
D
PASSIVE
REC. AREA 5
1.1
%
1.0%
7060
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
60626466
62646668
70
62646668
70
62646668
56
58
62
64
66
68
60
70
62646668
70
68
72
74
76
727476
80
82
80
82
84
86
84
86
86
88
88
90
8688
929496
90
100
9294 9698
100
949698
102104106
1009698
102104106
10098
102104106108
10098
102104106108
7068
72747678
70
72
74
90
82848688
62
64
66
72
74
76
9088929496
100
949698
102104
84
86
88
88
84
2:1
MAX
2:1
MAX
2:1
MAX
2:1
MAX
7066
68 72
LO
O
P
R
O
A
D
4
.
1
%
P=87.0
P=85.0
P=87.0
P=88.5
P=88.5
P=90.0
P=90.0 P=88.8
P=88.8 P=88.8
P=87.2
P=87.2
P=88.8
P=88.0
P=87.5
P=87.0
P=87.0
P=87.5
P=88.0
P=88.5
P=87.0
P=88.0
P=88.5
P=87.0
P=87.5
P=88.0
P=87.5
P=86.0
P=85.5
P=85.0
P=82.0
P=81.5
P=85.5
P=85.0
P=86.0
P=85.5
P=86.0
P=85.0
P=71.5
P=87.2
P=86.5
P=86.5
P=86.0
P=85.5
P=82.0
P=83.5
P=84.0
P=83.0
P=83.5
P=83.0
P=82.5
P=81.0
P=81.5
P=82.0
P=85.0
P=82.5
P=82.5
P=77.0
P=77.5
P=78.0
P=77.5
P=77.0
P=78.0
P=79.5
P=79.5
P=78.0
P=78.5
P=79.0
P=79.0
P=78.5
P=79.0
P=79.5
P=80.0
P=82.0
P=81.5
P=81.0
P=78.5
P=78.0P=77.5
P=77.0
P=83.0P=71.0
P=71.0
7
7
.
0
F
G
77.0FG
77.5
FG
7
7
.
5
F
G
82.5
FG
82.5
FG
82
.
5
FG
82.5
FG
P=82.5
85.0
FG
87.0
FG
86.0
FG
88.5
FG
90.0
FG
88.8
FG
87.2
FG
86.5
FG
86.0
FG
85.
0
FG
87
.
0
FG
88
.
5
FG
90
.
0
FG
88.
8
FG
87
.
2
FG
86
.
5
FG
82
.
1
FG
85.0
FG
87.0
FG
88.5
FG
90.0
FG
88.8
FG
87.2
FG
86.5
FG
85.5
FG
85
.
0
FG
87
.
0
FG
88
.
5
FG
90
.
0
FG
88
.
8
FG
87
.
2
FG
86
.
5
FG
86.
0
FG
82
.
0
FG
82.0
FG
83
.
0
FG
82.0
FG82
.
0
FG
84.5
FG85.0
FG
85.0
FG
77.0
FG
77.5
FG
78.0
FG
78.5
FG
77
.
0
FG
77
.
5
FG
78
.
0
FG
78
.
5
FG
85
.
0
FG
85.
0
FG
84.
5
FG
71
.
0
FG71
.
0
FG81.5FG81.0FG
71.5FG
71.5
FG
71.0
FG81.0F
G83.0F
G
83
.
5
FG
83
.
0
FG
82
.
5
FG
86
.
0
FG
85
.
5
FG
85
.
0
FG81.5FG79
.
5
FG
79
.
0
FG
82
.
0
FG
81
.
5
FG
81
.
0
FG
84
.
0
FG
83
.
5
FG
83
.
0
FG
80
.
0
FG
79
.
5
FG
79
.
0
FG
79.0
FG
79.5
FG
82.0
FG
81.5
FG
81.0
FG
84.0
FG
83.5
FG
80.0
FG
79.0
FG
81
.
0
FG
82
.
0
FG
81.5
FG
82.0
FG
85.0
FG
85.5
FG
86.0
FG86.0
FG
85.5
FG
85.0
FG
82.0
FG
81.0
FG
83.0
FG
79.5
FG
81
.
5
FG
82
.
0
FG
85
.
0
FG
85
.
5
FG
86
.
0
FG
87
.
0
FG
87
.
5
FG
88
.
0
FG
88
.
5
FG
88.0
FG
87.0
FG
87.0
FG
87.5
FG
88.0
FG
86.0
FG85.5
FG
86.0
FG
87
.
0
FG
87.
5
FG
88.
0
FG86.0FG87
.
0
FG
87
.
5
FG
87.0
FG
87.5
FG
87.5
FG
88
.
0
FG
88
.
5
FG
88
.
0
FG
87
.
5
FG
87
.
0
FG
87.0
FG
87.5
FG
88.0
FG
88.5
FG
78.0
FG
7
8
.
0
F
G
77.0
FG
77.5
FG 78.0
FG 7
8
.
0
F
G
7
7
.
5
F
G
7
7
.
0
F
G
78.0
FG
78.5
FG
78.5
FG
79.0
FG
79.5
FG
78
.
0
FG
78.
0
FG 78.5
FG
78.5
FG
79.0
FG
79.0
FG
79.5
FG
82.5
FG
83.0
FG
83.5
FG
88.0
FG
71.0
FG
P=79.2
P=79.0
P=84.5
P=85.0
P=81.0
P=81.5
P=60.0
87.8
FSBVC
P=78.2
P=78.5
P=79.5
P=79.7
P=78.2
P=79.8
P=80.2
P=80.8
P=81.2
P=81.5
P=83.8
P=84.0
P=81.5
P=82.0
P=82.2
P=82.8
P=85.2
P=85.7
P=83.8
P=84.0
P=84.5
P=85.0
P=82.5
P=82.0
P=81.8
P=81.2
P=79.2
P=79.5
P=80.0
P=80.2
P=80.5
P=81.0
P=83.2
P=83.0
P=83.2
P=83.5
P=78.0
P=77.7P=77.5P=77.2P=77.0P=76.7
P=76.5P=77.0P=77.2P=77.5 P=78.0
P=78.5
P=78.5
P=78.0
P=78.5
P=70.0P=70.0 P=70.2 P=70.2
P=70.0 P=70.0 P=70.2 P=70.2
P=70.0
P=70.5
P=70.5
P=70.5
P=70.5
P=82.2 P=82.2P=82.5P=82.5
P=81.2
P=81.2
P=81.0
P=81.0
P=81.0P=84.5P=84.5 P=84.5P=84.5P=84.5P=84.5P=84.2P=84.2P=84.7P=84.7
P=85.0P=85.2 P=85.2P=85.0 P=84.8 P=84.5P=84.2
P=86.2
P=86.7
P=87.0
P=87.5
P=77.2
P=77.5
P=77.8
P=78.0
P=78.2
P=78.5
P=77.5
P=77.8
P=78.4
P=86.5
P=87.7
P=86.0
P=86.2
P=86.8
P=87.2
P=87.5
P=80.2 P=80.5 P=80.8 P=81.0P=81.2 P=81.5
P=84.5
P=84.5
P=85.8
P=85.8
P=86.5
P=84.8
P=85.0
P=85.5
P=85.0
P=85.2
P=85.5P=86.0
P=86.0
P=86.2
P=86.2
P=86.8P=86.5
P=86.8
P=88.4
P=88.2
P=88.2
P=88.4
P=89.7
P=89.5
P=89.2
P=89.2
P=89.5
P=89.7
P=88.0
P=88.0
P=86.0
P=86.0 P=86.2
P=86.2 P=86.2
P=86.2 P=86.5
P=86.5
P=84.0
P=84.0 P=84.2
P=84.0 P=84.2
P=84.2 P=84.5
P=84.5
P=81.0
P=80.8 P=81.2
P=81.2 P=81.5
P=81.5 P=82.0
P=82.0
P=76.0
P=76.0
P=76.5
P=76.5
P=77.0
P=77.0
P=84.7P=84.7
P=84.7
P=88.0
P=88.0
P=88.2
P=85.7
P=85.5
P=85.0
P=84.5
P=79.0
P=78.8
P=87.7
P=86.5
88.7
FSHI PNT
75.4
FSEVC
74.1
FSLOW PN
T
.
74.2
FSBVC
77.7
FSEVC
77.9
FSHI PNT
76.9
FSBVC
64.90
FSEVC
61.9
FSBVC
56.7
FSEVC
52.1
FSBVC
88.1
FS
EVC
69.0
FG
69.0
FG
69.0
FG
69.0
FG
72.0
FG
72.0
FG72.0FG
72
.
0
FG
68.9
FG
69.0
FG
67.0
FG
66.9
FG
67.0
FG
67.0
FG
P=69.0
6
0
.
0
F
G
6
0
.
0
F
G
60.0
FG
60.0
FG
60.0
FG
60.0
FG
60.0
FG
6
0
.
0
F
G81.0FG81.0
FG
82.0
FG
86
.
5
FG
87.
2
FG
88
.
8
FG
90.
0
FG
90.0
FG
88.8
FG
87.2
FG
86.5
FG
84
.
6
FG
88
.
5
FG
88.5
FG72.90
FG
63.50
FG
63.00
FG
73.85
FG
72.40
FG
69.80
FG
69.30
FG
68.60
FG
81.5
FG
68.53
FG68.50
FG
54
.
0
FG
82.5FG
6
6
.
0
F
G
5
8
.
0
F
G
5
8
.
0
F
G
57.0
FG
68.9FG
71.7
FG
71.9
FG
72.3
FG
69.8
FG
79.2FG
80.7FG
80.0FG
7
5
.
7
F
G
76.8
FG
77.5
FG
79.5
FG
88.4
FG
84.1
FG
83.7
FG
87
.
0
FG
80.9
FG
84.8
FG
86.1
FG
87
.
8
FG
87.4
FG
86.0
FG
83
.
1
FG
82
.
3
FG
82.4
FG
69.0
FG
97.9
FL
77.5
FL
88.5
FG
67.8
FS
BVC
77.2
FS
EVC
84.9
FS
BVC
82.8
FS
EVC
79.5
FS
BVC
76.1
FSEVC
73.4
FSBVC
68.4
FSEVC
66.1
FS
BVC
65.59 FS
8
2
.
5
F
G
P=87.2
P=90.0
P=88.5
P=79.5
P=85.0
P=85.0
P=85.0P=85.0
85.
5
FG
85
.
5
FG
53.50
FG 83.0FG
68.3FG
F
'
SM
SM
SM
TD=31.5'
B-3
TD=41.5'
TD=26.5'
TD=31.5'
TD=31.5'
B-5
B-4
B-2
B-1
CPT-4
TD=20'
CPT-6 TD=20'
TD=40.25'
TD=20'
TD=20'
TD=40.25'
TD=25.5'
TD=40'CPT-9
CPT-8
CPT-5
CPT-3
CPT-2
CPT-1
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Afu
Afu
Afu
Afu
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
Afu
Afu
B-2
TD=26'
B-3TD=41'
B-1
TD=51.5'
C'
E'
E
F
C
B'
B
A'
A
H
'
H
G
'
G
I'
I
D'D
C
B'
B
A'
A
LD-2
LD-1
SM
KINDER MORGAN
FUEL LINE
TD=33.25'
CPT-7
TD=4.5'
TD=6'
TD=7.5'
TD=4'
TD=6.
5
'
TD=7'
TP-2
TP-3
TP-5
TP-4
TP-6
TP-1
TD=7'
TD=7'
TD=15
.
5
'
TD=9'
TD=8'
TD=9'
TD=11'
TD=10'TD=10'
TD=7'
TP-10
TP-5
TP-6
TP-7
TP-3
TP-1
TP-4
TP-8
TP-9
TP-2
Tsa
00 60'120'
EW
S
N
N
NOVA
MA
R
J
A
A
C
R
E
S
49
0
1
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CA
R
S
L
B
A
D
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL
INSPECTION
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:
2021026
MAY 2021
AJS
MS
GEOTECHNICAL MAP
DRAWING TITLE:
SCALE:1"=60'
PLATE NO.1 OF 4
SBEDVBE SLBESDVOSB
10' STABILITY KEYS AT BOTTOM OF WEST SLOPES
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Afu
Qal
UNDOCUMENTED FILL
YOUNGER ALLUVIUM
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
B-5
CPT-9
TD=20'
B-3
TD=26'
TP-10
TD=7'
TEST PIT (GSI 2016)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING (GSI 2016)
CONE PENETRATION TEST (NOVA)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING (NOVA)
Qoa OLDER ALLUVIUM
Tsa SANTIAGO FORMATION
TEST PIT (NOVA)
TP-6
TD=20'
TD=41.5'
LD-2 LARGE DIAMETER GEOTECHNICAL BORING (NOVA)
APPROXIMATE SUBDRAIN LOCATION
SETTLEMENT MONUMENTSM
*BASE MAP: COMBINED EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND PRELIMINARY
GRADING PLANS PROVIDED BY HWL PLANNING AND ENGINEERING
MARCH 2021.
CROSS-SECTION ALIGNMENTII'
/
~\'-ls
...._
( ~~~ -
eB"'7•• --
/ ,,.,,
) I
,,, ,,, ,,, "'~ \'-ls
~-;;;,,,,,-, 'g._~ v ___ 6~
( ,.,,,,.,,,,e;~:;;i \ @
'
e
' '
I·. I
0
i-----11
=
---= =E ~a -- --\
,,.,..---/ ~
-✓ \1;r-:o,.,.+~.,, I
\
\\!'.J,---
"\ ~\
\\ r1---=...,
I\
\
• •
EXISTING
TOPOGRAPHY60
100
140
20
-20
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
60
100
140
20
-20
PROPOSED SENIOR BUILDING
PROPOSED
GRADEPROPOSEDMSE WALL
PROPOSED
CMU WALL
PROPOSED BMP
A A'
Afu
Qal
Tsa
Afu
Qal
TsaTD=51.5'
B-2
TD=20'
CPT-5
TD=20'
CPT-4FG=60'
FG=53.5'
60
100
140
20
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
60
100
140
20
PROPOSED PARKING AREA AND DRIVEWAY
B B'
EXISTINGTOPOGRAPHY
PROPOSEDMSE WALL
PROPOSED
GRADE
-20 -20
Qal
Tsa
FG=60'
Qcol
60
100
140
20
-20
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
C
360
60
100
140
20
-20
C'
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY
PROPOSEDTOWNHOMES
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING
TOPOGRAPHY
PROPOSED
MSE WALL
TsaQal
Afu Qcol
Qoa
FG=81.5'
?????
60
100
140
20
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
60
100
140
20
D D'
360 400 440 480 520
PROPOSED TOWNHOMESEXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
PROPOSED MSE WALL
PROPOSEDGRADE
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY
TP-8
TD=10'
FG=77'
FG=83'FG=84'
Qoa
Tsa
FG=81.5'
Tsa-BK
Qal
Qcol
???????
Tsa
Tsa
540
PROPOSEDMSE WALL
60
100
140
20
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
60
100
140
20
F F'
360 400 440 480 520 560 600
PROPOSED TOWNHOMES EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
PROPOSEDGRADE
PROPOSED
TOWNHOMES TP-8TP-6
TP-5*
TP-10 TD=10'
TD=15.5'TD=7'
TD=7'
Tsa
Tsa Tsa
Qoa
Qoa Qoa
FG=78'FG=81'FG=81.5'FG=85'FG=85.5'FG=86'FG=87'
TD=31.5'
B-5
TD=31.5'
B-2
TD=40'
CPT-8
Tsa-BK
PL
????????
EXISTING
TOPOGRAPHY
60
100
140
20
60
100
140
20
I I'
PROPOSED TOWNHOMES PROPOSED TOWNHOMES
PROPOSED
CMU WALL
PROPOSED
RETAINING WALL
PROPOSEDGRADE TP-2
TD=9'Qcol
Qcol
Tsa Tsa
?????
?
?
PL
FG=84.5'
FG=76.4'FG=81'FG=81.5'
EXISTINGSTRUCTURE
Qoa
Tsa-BK
STREET
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480
??????
60
100
140
20
-20
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
60
100
140
20
-20
G G'
360 400 440 480 520 560
PROPOSED TOWNHOMES
PROPOSED TOWNHOMES
PROPOSED
TOWNHOMES
PROPOSEDGRADE
EXISTINGTOPOGRAPHY
EL CAMINOREAL B-3*
TD=26'
TP-1*
Afu
Tsa
Qal
TD=11'
Tsa
Tsa
Qoa
????
?
?????
TD=26'
CPT-2
FG=71'FG=71.5'
FG=84.5'
TD=41.5'
B-1*
PL
FG=86'Tsa-BK
Tsa-BK ?
?PL
?????
EXISTINGTOPOGRAPHY
60
100
140
20
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
60
100
140
20
H H'
360 400
PROPOSED TOWNHOMES
PROPOSED
TOWNHOMES
EL CAMINOREAL
PROPOSED
GRADE PROPOSED
MSE WALL
PROPOSEDRETAINING WALL
TP-2*
Tsa
Tsa
FG=78.9'FG=82.7'
PL
PL
TD=20'
CPT-9
FG=81'
TD=41.5'
B-1*
Tsa
Afu
Qal
TD=9'
QoaQoa ?
?
??
Tsa-BKTsa-BK
Qcol
?????
60
100
140
20
0 40 80 120 160 200 240 280 320
E
360 400
60
100
140
20
E'
440 480 520 560 600 640 680 720 760 800 840 880 920 960 1000
PL
SENIOR HOUSING
FG=60'
PROPOSED
TOWNHOMES
PROPOSED TOWNHOMES
PL
TD=41.5'
B-3
TP-5
TD=7'
TD=20'
CPT-6
TD=20'
CPT-4 Tsa
Tsa-BK
QoaQoa
?
PROPOSED
TOWNHOMES
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Qaf
Qal
Tsa-BK
Qoa
Qcol
Qcol
??????????
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
PROPOSEDGRADE
00 60'120'
NOVA
MA
R
J
A
A
C
R
E
S
49
0
1
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CA
R
S
L
B
A
D
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL
INSPECTION
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:
2021026
MAY 2021
DTJ
MS
CROSS-SECTIONS
DRAWING TITLE:
SCALE:1"=60'
PLATE NO.2 OF 4
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Afu
Qal
UNDOCUMENTED FILL
ALLUVIUM
SBEDVBE SLBESDVOSB
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
Qoa OLDER ALLUVIUM
Tsa SANTIAGO FORMATION
TD=20'
CPT-9
TP-10
TD=11'
TEST PIT (GSI 2016)
CONE PENETRATION TEST (NOVA)
B-3
TD=26'
GEOTECHNICAL BORING (NOVA)
Qcol COLLUVIUM
B-3
TD=26'
GEOTECHNICAL BORING (GSI 2016)
---------?----'v--------'v-
-----------------------
i-----:,L_---,-------------:r---....,6::---=---1/
-_T _--'v-----'7-------y--__ _,,,._ ____ _,,,._ ____ _,,,._ ____ _,,,._ ____ _,,,._ ____ _,,,._ ____ _,,,._ ____ _,,,._ ____ _,,,._ ____ _,,,._ __ ---
--------------
I-
I--I
I
==-~=±[= -=-=-=-=-==-=~=-==~ _1/
----'v------'v------'v------'v------'v--
I-
--
-
~-------------1._-_-_-~11
~ =-
------_/---=-~
---------=-=-~---
1---
---------
-=-
.L
.L
J_
- -
I
r -
- -
8S 6S
22S
68S
25S
108S
185L
90S
7S
5S 3S4S
14S
2S
15S
1S
169L
13S
11S
12S
18S
21S
19S
20S
17S
75S
16S
74S
76S
77S
78S
84S
83S
82S
81S
79S
80S 73S
72S
71S
28S
70S
69S
26S
24S
27S
23S
67S
65S
66S
64S
63S
62S
61S
60S
59S
58S
57S
56S
34S
33S
32S
31S
30S
29S
39S
37S
38S
36S
35S
55S
54S
53S
52S
51S 49S
50S
48S
46S
47S
45S
44S
43S
42S
41S
40S
94S
93S
92S
91S
98S
97S
96S
95S
102S
101S
100S
99S
106S
105S
104S
103S
110S
109S
107S
114S
112S
113S
111S
116S
117S
115S
118S
122S
121S
120S
119S
134L
133L
132L
131L
130L
129L
128L 141L
127L
139L
140L
136L
138L
137L
135L
147L
146L
145L
144L
143L
142L
152L
151L
150L
149L
148L
158L 157L 156L 155L 154L 153L
181L180L179L178L177L176L175L174L173L172L171L170L168L167L166L165L164L163L162L161L160L159L
126L
125L
124L
123L
184L
183L
182L
189L
188L
187L
186L
193L
192L
191L
190L
197L
196L
195L
194L
201L
200L
199L
198L
205L
204L
203L
202L
209L
208L
207L
206L
213L
212L
211L
210L
217L
216L
215L
214L
229L
228L
226L
227L
225L
224L
233L
232L
231L
230L
236L235L234L
87S
86S
85S
89S
88S
222L221L220L219L218L 223L
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
1CL
2CL
3CL
13CL12CL11CL10CL9CL
8CL 7CL 6CL 5CL
4CLADA
(EV)(EV)
EV
EV
EX. 24" CMP
(EV)(EV)
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
0.1%
1
.
0
%
1
.
0
%
1
.
2
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
0
%
2
.
0
%
1.5%
BIO-FILTRATION BASIN
BIO-FILTRATION BASIN
BIO-FILTRATION
BASIN - BMP 7
BIO-FILTRATION
BASIN - BMP 4
BMP 6
BMP 3
BIO-FILTRATION BASIN - BMP 1
1.8%
1.8%
4.7%
1.4%
0.5%
10
.
0
%
1.2
%
2.8
%
0.0%
ACTIVE
REC. AREA 2
ACTIVE
REC
AREA 3
PASSIVE
RECAREA 9
PASSIVE
REC
AREA 4
ACTIVERECREATIONAREA 1
PASSIVE
REC. AREA 6
BMP 5
0.5%0.5%
0.5%
LO
O
P
R
O
A
D
LO
O
P
R
O
A
D
LOOP
R
O
A
D
LOOP R
O
A
D
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
PR
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
2.0%
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
PR
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PR
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PRIVATE
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
7.0%6.4
%
6.9
%
0.8
%
2.0
%
1.0
%
3.0
%
1.9%
5.0%
5
.
5
%
2.
0
%
10
.
0
%
3.7%
2.6%
2.4%
2.0%
1.3%
5.
9
%
3.
5
%
3.
5
%
4.1%
2.
2
%
2.
1
%
0.6%
0.4%
1.5%
6.5%
0.
6
%
1.0%0.9%
1.
0
%2.
0
%
1.2%
1.6%
0.
3
%
1
.
2
%
2
.
0
%
1
.
3
%
1
.
2
%
2.0%
2.1%
2.0%
1.5%
2
.
0
%
1.0%2.
0
%
4.0%
0.5%1.2%
2.
0
%
1.
5
%
0.5%
1
.
9
%
1
.
7
%
2
.
1
%
3
.
8
%
1.9%
1.6%
2.8%
1.0%
1.6%
2
.
4
%
2
.
0
%
2.0%
1
.
2
%
1
.
0
%
1
.
5
%
1.5%
LOOP ROAD
LOOP R
O
A
D
LOOP R
O
A
D
PASSIVEREC. AREALOT 8
LOOP R
O
A
D
LO
O
P
R
O
A
D
PASSIVE
REC. AREA 5
1.1
%
1.0%
7060
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
60626466
62646668
70
62646668
70
62646668
56
58
62
64
66
68
60
70
62646668
70
68
72
74
76
727476
80
82
80
82
84
86
84
86
86
88
88
90
8688
929496
90
100
9294 9698
100
949698
102104106
1009698
102104106
10098
102104106108
10098
102104106108
7068
72747678
70
72
74
90
82848688
62
64
66
72
74
76
9088929496
100
949698
102104
84
86
88
88
84
2:1
MAX
2:1
MAX
2:1
MAX
2:1
MAX
7066
68 72
LO
O
P
R
O
A
D
4
.
1
%
P=87.0
P=85.0
P=87.0
P=88.5
P=88.5
P=90.0
P=90.0 P=88.8
P=88.8 P=88.8
P=87.2
P=87.2
P=88.8
P=88.0
P=87.5
P=87.0
P=87.0
P=87.5
P=88.0
P=88.5
P=87.0
P=88.0
P=88.5
P=87.0
P=87.5
P=88.0
P=87.5
P=86.0
P=85.5
P=85.0
P=82.0
P=81.5
P=85.5
P=85.0
P=86.0
P=85.5
P=86.0
P=85.0
P=71.5
P=87.2
P=86.5
P=86.5
P=86.0
P=85.5
P=82.0
P=83.5
P=84.0
P=83.0
P=83.5
P=83.0
P=82.5
P=81.0
P=81.5
P=82.0
P=85.0
P=82.5
P=82.5
P=77.0
P=77.5
P=78.0
P=77.5
P=77.0
P=78.0
P=79.5
P=79.5
P=78.0
P=78.5
P=79.0
P=79.0
P=78.5
P=79.0
P=79.5
P=80.0
P=82.0
P=81.5
P=81.0
P=78.5
P=78.0P=77.5
P=77.0
P=83.0P=71.0
P=71.0
7
7
.
0
F
G
77.0FG
77.5
FG
7
7
.
5
F
G
82.5
FG
82.5
FG
82
.
5
FG
82.5
FG
P=82.5
85.0
FG
87.0
FG
86.0
FG
88.5
FG
90.0
FG
88.8
FG
87.2
FG
86.5
FG
86.0
FG
85.
0
FG
87
.
0
FG
88
.
5
FG
90
.
0
FG
88.
8
FG
87
.
2
FG
86
.
5
FG
82
.
1
FG
85.0
FG
87.0
FG
88.5
FG
90.0
FG
88.8
FG
87.2
FG
86.5
FG
85.5
FG
85
.
0
FG
87
.
0
FG
88
.
5
FG
90
.
0
FG
88
.
8
FG
87
.
2
FG
86
.
5
FG
86.
0
FG
82
.
0
FG
82.0
FG
83
.
0
FG
82.0
FG82
.
0
FG
84.5
FG85.0
FG
85.0
FG
77.0
FG
77.5
FG
78.0
FG
78.5
FG
77
.
0
FG
77
.
5
FG
78
.
0
FG
78
.
5
FG
85
.
0
FG
85.
0
FG
84.
5
FG
71
.
0
FG71
.
0
FG81.5FG81.0FG
71.5FG
71.5
FG
71.0
FG81.0F
G83.0F
G
83
.
5
FG
83
.
0
FG
82
.
5
FG
86
.
0
FG
85
.
5
FG
85
.
0
FG81.5FG79
.
5
FG
79
.
0
FG
82
.
0
FG
81
.
5
FG
81
.
0
FG
84
.
0
FG
83
.
5
FG
83
.
0
FG
80
.
0
FG
79
.
5
FG
79
.
0
FG
79.0
FG
79.5
FG
82.0
FG
81.5
FG
81.0
FG
84.0
FG
83.5
FG
80.0
FG
79.0
FG
81
.
0
FG
82
.
0
FG
81.5
FG
82.0
FG
85.0
FG
85.5
FG
86.0
FG86.0
FG
85.5
FG
85.0
FG
82.0
FG
81.0
FG
83.0
FG
79.5
FG
81
.
5
FG
82
.
0
FG
85
.
0
FG
85
.
5
FG
86
.
0
FG
87
.
0
FG
87
.
5
FG
88
.
0
FG
88
.
5
FG
88.0
FG
87.0
FG
87.0
FG
87.5
FG
88.0
FG
86.0
FG85.5
FG
86.0
FG
87
.
0
FG
87.
5
FG
88.
0
FG86.0FG87
.
0
FG
87
.
5
FG
87.0
FG
87.5
FG
87.5
FG
88
.
0
FG
88
.
5
FG
88
.
0
FG
87
.
5
FG
87
.
0
FG
87.0
FG
87.5
FG
88.0
FG
88.5
FG
78.0
FG
7
8
.
0
F
G
77.0
FG
77.5
FG 78.0
FG 7
8
.
0
F
G
7
7
.
5
F
G
7
7
.
0
F
G
78.0
FG
78.5
FG
78.5
FG
79.0
FG
79.5
FG
78
.
0
FG
78.
0
FG 78.5
FG
78.5
FG
79.0
FG
79.0
FG
79.5
FG
82.5
FG
83.0
FG
83.5
FG
88.0
FG
71.0
FG
P=79.2
P=79.0
P=84.5
P=85.0
P=81.0
P=81.5
P=60.0
87.8
FSBVC
P=78.2
P=78.5
P=79.5
P=79.7
P=78.2
P=79.8
P=80.2
P=80.8
P=81.2
P=81.5
P=83.8
P=84.0
P=81.5
P=82.0
P=82.2
P=82.8
P=85.2
P=85.7
P=83.8
P=84.0
P=84.5
P=85.0
P=82.5
P=82.0
P=81.8
P=81.2
P=79.2
P=79.5
P=80.0
P=80.2
P=80.5
P=81.0
P=83.2
P=83.0
P=83.2
P=83.5
P=78.0
P=77.7P=77.5P=77.2P=77.0P=76.7
P=76.5P=77.0P=77.2P=77.5 P=78.0
P=78.5
P=78.5
P=78.0
P=78.5
P=70.0P=70.0 P=70.2 P=70.2
P=70.0 P=70.0 P=70.2 P=70.2
P=70.0
P=70.5
P=70.5
P=70.5
P=70.5
P=82.2 P=82.2P=82.5P=82.5
P=81.2
P=81.2
P=81.0
P=81.0
P=81.0P=84.5P=84.5 P=84.5P=84.5P=84.5P=84.5P=84.2P=84.2P=84.7P=84.7
P=85.0P=85.2 P=85.2P=85.0 P=84.8 P=84.5P=84.2
P=86.2
P=86.7
P=87.0
P=87.5
P=77.2
P=77.5
P=77.8
P=78.0
P=78.2
P=78.5
P=77.5
P=77.8
P=78.4
P=86.5
P=87.7
P=86.0
P=86.2
P=86.8
P=87.2
P=87.5
P=80.2 P=80.5 P=80.8 P=81.0P=81.2 P=81.5
P=84.5
P=84.5
P=85.8
P=85.8
P=86.5
P=84.8
P=85.0
P=85.5
P=85.0
P=85.2
P=85.5P=86.0
P=86.0
P=86.2
P=86.2
P=86.8P=86.5
P=86.8
P=88.4
P=88.2
P=88.2
P=88.4
P=89.7
P=89.5
P=89.2
P=89.2
P=89.5
P=89.7
P=88.0
P=88.0
P=86.0
P=86.0 P=86.2
P=86.2 P=86.2
P=86.2 P=86.5
P=86.5
P=84.0
P=84.0 P=84.2
P=84.0 P=84.2
P=84.2 P=84.5
P=84.5
P=81.0
P=80.8 P=81.2
P=81.2 P=81.5
P=81.5 P=82.0
P=82.0
P=76.0
P=76.0
P=76.5
P=76.5
P=77.0
P=77.0
P=84.7P=84.7
P=84.7
P=88.0
P=88.0
P=88.2
P=85.7
P=85.5
P=85.0
P=84.5
P=79.0
P=78.8
P=87.7
P=86.5
88.7
FSHI PNT
75.4
FSEVC
74.1
FSLOW PN
T
.
74.2
FSBVC
77.7
FSEVC
77.9
FSHI PNT
76.9
FSBVC
64.90
FSEVC
61.9
FSBVC
56.7
FSEVC
52.1
FSBVC
88.1
FS
EVC
69.0
FG
69.0
FG
69.0
FG
69.0
FG
72.0
FG
72.0
FG72.0FG
72
.
0
FG
68.9
FG
69.0
FG
67.0
FG
66.9
FG
67.0
FG
67.0
FG
P=69.0
6
0
.
0
F
G
6
0
.
0
F
G
60.0
FG
60.0
FG
60.0
FG
60.0
FG
60.0
FG
6
0
.
0
F
G81.0FG81.0
FG
82.0
FG
86
.
5
FG
87.
2
FG
88
.
8
FG
90.
0
FG
90.0
FG
88.8
FG
87.2
FG
86.5
FG
84
.
6
FG
88
.
5
FG
88.5
FG72.90
FG
63.50
FG
63.00
FG
73.85
FG
72.40
FG
69.80
FG
69.30
FG
68.60
FG
81.5
FG
68.53
FG68.50
FG
54
.
0
FG
82.5FG
6
6
.
0
F
G
5
8
.
0
F
G
5
8
.
0
F
G
57.0
FG
68.9FG
71.7
FG
71.9
FG
72.3
FG
69.8
FG
79.2FG
80.7FG
80.0FG
7
5
.
7
F
G
76.8
FG
77.5
FG
79.5
FG
88.4
FG
84.1
FG
83.7
FG
87
.
0
FG
80.9
FG
84.8
FG
86.1
FG
87
.
8
FG
87.4
FG
86.0
FG
83
.
1
FG
82
.
3
FG
82.4
FG
69.0
FG
97.9
FL
77.5
FL
88.5
FG
67.8
FS
BVC
77.2
FS
EVC
84.9
FS
BVC
82.8
FS
EVC
79.5
FS
BVC
76.1
FSEVC
73.4
FSBVC
68.4
FSEVC
66.1
FS
BVC
65.59 FS
8
2
.
5
F
G
P=87.2
P=90.0
P=88.5
P=79.5
P=85.0
P=85.0
P=85.0P=85.0
85.
5
FG
85
.
5
FG
53.50
FG 83.0FG
68.3FG
SM
SM
SM
TD=31.5'
B-3
TD=41.5'
TD=26.5'
TD=31.5'
TD=31.5'
B-5
B-4
B-2
B-1
CPT-4
TD=20'
CPT-6 TD=20'
TD=40.25'
TD=20'
TD=20'
TD=40.25'
TD=25.5'
TD=40'CPT-9
CPT-8
CPT-5
CPT-3
CPT-2
CPT-1
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Afu
Afu
Afu
Afu
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
Afu
Afu
B-2
TD=26'
B-3TD=41'
B-1
TD=51.5'
LD-2
LD-1
SM
KINDER MORGAN
FUEL LINE
TD=33.25'
CPT-7
TD=4.5'
TD=6'
TD=7.5'
TD=4'
TD=6.
5
'
TD=7'
TP-2
TP-3
TP-5
TP-4
TP-6
TP-1
TD=7'
TD=7'
TD=15
.
5
'
TD=9'
TD=8'
TD=9'
TD=11'
TD=10'TD=10'
TD=7'
TP-10
TP-5
TP-6
TP-7
TP-3
TP-1
TP-4
TP-8
TP-9
TP-2
Tsa
00 60'120'
EW
S
N
N
NOVA
MA
R
J
A
A
C
R
E
S
49
0
1
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CA
R
S
L
B
A
D
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL
INSPECTION
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:
2021026
MAY 2021
AJS
MS
REMEDIAL REMOVALS AND
LIMITS OF REMEDIAL
GRADING
DRAWING TITLE:
SCALE:1"=60'
PLATE NO.3 OF 4
SBEDVBE SLBESDVOSB
10' STABILITY KEYS AT BOTTOM OF
WEST SLOPES
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Afu
Qal
UNDOCUMENTED FILL
YOUNGER ALLUVIUM
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
B-5
CPT-9
TD=20'
B-3
TD=26'
TP-10
TD=7'
TEST PIT (GSI 2016)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING (GSI 2016)
CONE PENETRATION TEST (NOVA)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING (NOVA)
Qoa OLDER ALLUVIUM
Tsa SANTIAGO FORMATION
*BASE MAP: COMBINED EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANS PROVIDED BY HWL
PLANNING AND ENGINEERING MARCH 2021.
SETTLEMENT MONUMENTSM
TEST PIT (NOVA)
TP-6
TD=20'
TD=41.5'
LD-2 LARGE DIAMETER GEOTECHNICAL
BORING (NOVA)
APPROXIMATE SUBDRAIN LOCATION
TRANSITION LOTS : OVEREXCAVATION TO BE
DETERMINED IN THE FIELD AND
OVEREXCAVATED TO 1
3 H
2' - 3' REMOVE AND RECOMPACT
REMOVAL OF COMPRESSIBLE COLLUVIUM
OVERLYING Tsa (~1'-5')
4.0' OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT
/
~
I _...,er ~ ,
-1'--t/ 1: / / -
f_i
@
/'\./
/V
0
D
D
D
D
• •
-"'j__
--
\ \ \
H--___J ,, )-
l, •
8S 6S
22S
68S
25S
108S
185L
90S
7S
5S 3S4S
14S
2S
15S
1S
169L
13S
11S
12S
18S
21S
19S
20S
17S
75S
16S
74S
76S
77S
78S
84S
83S
82S
81S
79S
80S 73S
72S
71S
28S
70S
69S
26S
24S
27S
23S
67S
65S
66S
64S
63S
62S
61S
60S
59S
58S
57S
56S
34S
33S
32S
31S
30S
29S
39S
37S
38S
36S
35S
55S
54S
53S
52S
51S 49S
50S
48S
46S
47S
45S
44S
43S
42S
41S
40S
94S
93S
92S
91S
98S
97S
96S
95S
102S
101S
100S
99S
106S
105S
104S
103S
110S
109S
107S
114S
112S
113S
111S
116S
117S
115S
118S
122S
121S
120S
119S
134L
133L
132L
131L
130L
129L
128L 141L
127L
139L
140L
136L
138L
137L
135L
147L
146L
145L
144L
143L
142L
152L
151L
150L
149L
148L
158L 157L 156L 155L 154L 153L
181L180L179L178L177L176L175L174L173L172L171L170L168L167L166L165L164L163L162L161L160L159L
126L
125L
124L
123L
184L
183L
182L
189L
188L
187L
186L
193L
192L
191L
190L
197L
196L
195L
194L
201L
200L
199L
198L
205L
204L
203L
202L
209L
208L
207L
206L
213L
212L
211L
210L
217L
216L
215L
214L
229L
228L
226L
227L
225L
224L
233L
232L
231L
230L
236L235L234L
87S
86S
85S
89S
88S
222L221L220L219L218L 223L
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
ADA
1CL
2CL
3CL
13CL12CL11CL10CL9CL
8CL 7CL 6CL 5CL
4CLADA
(EV)(EV)
EV
EV
EX. 24" CMP
(EV)(EV)
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
2.0%
1.8%
0.1%
1
.
0
%
1
.
0
%
1
.
2
%
0
.
9
%
1
.
0
%
2
.
0
%
1.5%
BIO-FILTRATION BASIN
BIO-FILTRATION BASIN
BIO-FILTRATION
BASIN - BMP 7
BIO-FILTRATION
BASIN - BMP 4
BMP 6
BMP 3
BIO-FILTRATION BASIN - BMP 1
1.8%
1.8%
4.7%
1.4%
0.5%
10
.
0
%
1.2
%
2.8
%
0.0%
ACTIVE
REC. AREA 2
ACTIVE
REC
AREA 3
PASSIVE
RECAREA 9
PASSIVE
REC
AREA 4
ACTIVERECREATIONAREA 1
PASSIVE
REC. AREA 6
BMP 5
0.5%0.5%
0.5%
LO
O
P
R
O
A
D
LO
O
P
R
O
A
D
LOOP
R
O
A
D
LOOP R
O
A
D
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
PR
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
2.0%
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
PR
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PR
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PRIVATE
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
P
R
I
V
A
T
E
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
7.0%6.4
%
6.9
%
0.8
%
2.0
%
1.0
%
3.0
%
1.9%
5.0%
5
.
5
%
2.
0
%
10
.
0
%
3.7%
2.6%
2.4%
2.0%
1.3%
5.
9
%
3.
5
%
3.
5
%
4.1%
2.
2
%
2.
1
%
0.6%
0.4%
1.5%
6.5%
0.
6
%
1.0%0.9%
1.
0
%2.
0
%
1.2%
1.6%
0.
3
%
1
.
2
%
2
.
0
%
1
.
3
%
1
.
2
%
2.0%
2.1%
2.0%
1.5%
2
.
0
%
1.0%2.
0
%
4.0%
0.5%1.2%
2.
0
%
1.
5
%
0.5%
1
.
9
%
1
.
7
%
2
.
1
%
3
.
8
%
1.9%
1.6%
2.8%
1.0%
1.6%
2
.
4
%
2
.
0
%
2.0%
1
.
2
%
1
.
0
%
1
.
5
%
1.5%
LOOP ROAD
LOOP R
O
A
D
LOOP R
O
A
D
PASSIVEREC. AREALOT 8
LOOP R
O
A
D
LO
O
P
R
O
A
D
PASSIVE
REC. AREA 5
1.1
%
1.0%
7060
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
60626466
62646668
70
62646668
70
62646668
56
58
62
64
66
68
60
70
62646668
70
68
72
74
76
727476
80
82
80
82
84
86
84
86
86
88
88
90
8688
929496
90
100
9294 9698
100
949698
102104106
1009698
102104106
10098
102104106108
10098
102104106108
7068
72747678
70
72
74
90
82848688
62
64
66
72
74
76
9088929496
100
949698
102104
84
86
88
88
84
2:1
MAX
2:1
MAX
2:1
MAX
2:1
MAX
7066
68 72
LO
O
P
R
O
A
D
4
.
1
%
P=87.0
P=85.0
P=87.0
P=88.5
P=88.5
P=90.0
P=90.0 P=88.8
P=88.8 P=88.8
P=87.2
P=87.2
P=88.8
P=88.0
P=87.5
P=87.0
P=87.0
P=87.5
P=88.0
P=88.5
P=87.0
P=88.0
P=88.5
P=87.0
P=87.5
P=88.0
P=87.5
P=86.0
P=85.5
P=85.0
P=82.0
P=81.5
P=85.5
P=85.0
P=86.0
P=85.5
P=86.0
P=85.0
P=71.5
P=87.2
P=86.5
P=86.5
P=86.0
P=85.5
P=82.0
P=83.5
P=84.0
P=83.0
P=83.5
P=83.0
P=82.5
P=81.0
P=81.5
P=82.0
P=85.0
P=82.5
P=82.5
P=77.0
P=77.5
P=78.0
P=77.5
P=77.0
P=78.0
P=79.5
P=79.5
P=78.0
P=78.5
P=79.0
P=79.0
P=78.5
P=79.0
P=79.5
P=80.0
P=82.0
P=81.5
P=81.0
P=78.5
P=78.0P=77.5
P=77.0
P=83.0P=71.0
P=71.0
7
7
.
0
F
G
77.0FG
77.5
FG
7
7
.
5
F
G
82.5
FG
82.5
FG
82
.
5
FG
82.5
FG
P=82.5
85.0
FG
87.0
FG
86.0
FG
88.5
FG
90.0
FG
88.8
FG
87.2
FG
86.5
FG
86.0
FG
85.
0
FG
87
.
0
FG
88
.
5
FG
90
.
0
FG
88.
8
FG
87
.
2
FG
86
.
5
FG
82
.
1
FG
85.0
FG
87.0
FG
88.5
FG
90.0
FG
88.8
FG
87.2
FG
86.5
FG
85.5
FG
85
.
0
FG
87
.
0
FG
88
.
5
FG
90
.
0
FG
88
.
8
FG
87
.
2
FG
86
.
5
FG
86.
0
FG
82
.
0
FG
82.0
FG
83
.
0
FG
82.0
FG82
.
0
FG
84.5
FG85.0
FG
85.0
FG
77.0
FG
77.5
FG
78.0
FG
78.5
FG
77
.
0
FG
77
.
5
FG
78
.
0
FG
78
.
5
FG
85
.
0
FG
85.
0
FG
84.
5
FG
71
.
0
FG71
.
0
FG81.5FG81.0FG
71.5FG
71.5
FG
71.0
FG81.0F
G83.0F
G
83
.
5
FG
83
.
0
FG
82
.
5
FG
86
.
0
FG
85
.
5
FG
85
.
0
FG81.5FG79
.
5
FG
79
.
0
FG
82
.
0
FG
81
.
5
FG
81
.
0
FG
84
.
0
FG
83
.
5
FG
83
.
0
FG
80
.
0
FG
79
.
5
FG
79
.
0
FG
79.0
FG
79.5
FG
82.0
FG
81.5
FG
81.0
FG
84.0
FG
83.5
FG
80.0
FG
79.0
FG
81
.
0
FG
82
.
0
FG
81.5
FG
82.0
FG
85.0
FG
85.5
FG
86.0
FG86.0
FG
85.5
FG
85.0
FG
82.0
FG
81.0
FG
83.0
FG
79.5
FG
81
.
5
FG
82
.
0
FG
85
.
0
FG
85
.
5
FG
86
.
0
FG
87
.
0
FG
87
.
5
FG
88
.
0
FG
88
.
5
FG
88.0
FG
87.0
FG
87.0
FG
87.5
FG
88.0
FG
86.0
FG85.5
FG
86.0
FG
87
.
0
FG
87.
5
FG
88.
0
FG86.0FG87
.
0
FG
87
.
5
FG
87.0
FG
87.5
FG
87.5
FG
88
.
0
FG
88
.
5
FG
88
.
0
FG
87
.
5
FG
87
.
0
FG
87.0
FG
87.5
FG
88.0
FG
88.5
FG
78.0
FG
7
8
.
0
F
G
77.0
FG
77.5
FG 78.0
FG 7
8
.
0
F
G
7
7
.
5
F
G
7
7
.
0
F
G
78.0
FG
78.5
FG
78.5
FG
79.0
FG
79.5
FG
78
.
0
FG
78.
0
FG 78.5
FG
78.5
FG
79.0
FG
79.0
FG
79.5
FG
82.5
FG
83.0
FG
83.5
FG
88.0
FG
71.0
FG
P=79.2
P=79.0
P=84.5
P=85.0
P=81.0
P=81.5
P=60.0
87.8
FSBVC
P=78.2
P=78.5
P=79.5
P=79.7
P=78.2
P=79.8
P=80.2
P=80.8
P=81.2
P=81.5
P=83.8
P=84.0
P=81.5
P=82.0
P=82.2
P=82.8
P=85.2
P=85.7
P=83.8
P=84.0
P=84.5
P=85.0
P=82.5
P=82.0
P=81.8
P=81.2
P=79.2
P=79.5
P=80.0
P=80.2
P=80.5
P=81.0
P=83.2
P=83.0
P=83.2
P=83.5
P=78.0
P=77.7P=77.5P=77.2P=77.0P=76.7
P=76.5P=77.0P=77.2P=77.5 P=78.0
P=78.5
P=78.5
P=78.0
P=78.5
P=70.0P=70.0 P=70.2 P=70.2
P=70.0 P=70.0 P=70.2 P=70.2
P=70.0
P=70.5
P=70.5
P=70.5
P=70.5
P=82.2 P=82.2P=82.5P=82.5
P=81.2
P=81.2
P=81.0
P=81.0
P=81.0P=84.5P=84.5 P=84.5P=84.5P=84.5P=84.5P=84.2P=84.2P=84.7P=84.7
P=85.0P=85.2 P=85.2P=85.0 P=84.8 P=84.5P=84.2
P=86.2
P=86.7
P=87.0
P=87.5
P=77.2
P=77.5
P=77.8
P=78.0
P=78.2
P=78.5
P=77.5
P=77.8
P=78.4
P=86.5
P=87.7
P=86.0
P=86.2
P=86.8
P=87.2
P=87.5
P=80.2 P=80.5 P=80.8 P=81.0P=81.2 P=81.5
P=84.5
P=84.5
P=85.8
P=85.8
P=86.5
P=84.8
P=85.0
P=85.5
P=85.0
P=85.2
P=85.5P=86.0
P=86.0
P=86.2
P=86.2
P=86.8P=86.5
P=86.8
P=88.4
P=88.2
P=88.2
P=88.4
P=89.7
P=89.5
P=89.2
P=89.2
P=89.5
P=89.7
P=88.0
P=88.0
P=86.0
P=86.0 P=86.2
P=86.2 P=86.2
P=86.2 P=86.5
P=86.5
P=84.0
P=84.0 P=84.2
P=84.0 P=84.2
P=84.2 P=84.5
P=84.5
P=81.0
P=80.8 P=81.2
P=81.2 P=81.5
P=81.5 P=82.0
P=82.0
P=76.0
P=76.0
P=76.5
P=76.5
P=77.0
P=77.0
P=84.7P=84.7
P=84.7
P=88.0
P=88.0
P=88.2
P=85.7
P=85.5
P=85.0
P=84.5
P=79.0
P=78.8
P=87.7
P=86.5
88.7
FSHI PNT
75.4
FSEVC
74.1
FSLOW PN
T
.
74.2
FSBVC
77.7
FSEVC
77.9
FSHI PNT
76.9
FSBVC
64.90
FSEVC
61.9
FSBVC
56.7
FSEVC
52.1
FSBVC
88.1
FS
EVC
69.0
FG
69.0
FG
69.0
FG
69.0
FG
72.0
FG
72.0
FG72.0FG
72
.
0
FG
68.9
FG
69.0
FG
67.0
FG
66.9
FG
67.0
FG
67.0
FG
P=69.0
6
0
.
0
F
G
6
0
.
0
F
G
60.0
FG
60.0
FG
60.0
FG
60.0
FG
60.0
FG
6
0
.
0
F
G81.0FG81.0
FG
82.0
FG
86
.
5
FG
87.
2
FG
88
.
8
FG
90.
0
FG
90.0
FG
88.8
FG
87.2
FG
86.5
FG
84
.
6
FG
88
.
5
FG
88.5
FG72.90
FG
63.50
FG
63.00
FG
73.85
FG
72.40
FG
69.80
FG
69.30
FG
68.60
FG
81.5
FG
68.53
FG68.50
FG
54
.
0
FG
82.5FG
6
6
.
0
F
G
5
8
.
0
F
G
5
8
.
0
F
G
57.0
FG
68.9FG
71.7
FG
71.9
FG
72.3
FG
69.8
FG
79.2FG
80.7FG
80.0FG
7
5
.
7
F
G
76.8
FG
77.5
FG
79.5
FG
88.4
FG
84.1
FG
83.7
FG
87
.
0
FG
80.9
FG
84.8
FG
86.1
FG
87
.
8
FG
87.4
FG
86.0
FG
83
.
1
FG
82
.
3
FG
82.4
FG
69.0
FG
97.9
FL
77.5
FL
88.5
FG
67.8
FS
BVC
77.2
FS
EVC
84.9
FS
BVC
82.8
FS
EVC
79.5
FS
BVC
76.1
FSEVC
73.4
FSBVC
68.4
FSEVC
66.1
FS
BVC
65.59 FS
8
2
.
5
F
G
P=87.2
P=90.0
P=88.5
P=79.5
P=85.0
P=85.0
P=85.0P=85.0
85.
5
FG
85
.
5
FG
53.50
FG 83.0FG
68.3FG
SM
SM
SM
TD=31.5'
B-3
TD=41.5'
TD=26.5'
TD=31.5'
TD=31.5'
B-5
B-4
B-2
B-1
CPT-4
TD=20'
CPT-6 TD=20'
TD=40.25'
TD=20'
TD=20'
TD=40.25'
TD=25.5'
TD=40'CPT-9
CPT-8
CPT-5
CPT-3
CPT-2
CPT-1
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Qoa
Afu
Afu
Afu
Afu
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Qal
Qal
Qal
Qal
Afu
Afu
B-2
TD=26'
B-3TD=41'
B-1
TD=51.5'
LD-2
LD-1
SM
KINDER MORGAN
FUEL LINE
TD=33.25'
CPT-7
TD=4.5'
TD=6'
TD=7.5'
TD=4'
TD=6.
5
'
TD=7'
TP-2
TP-3
TP-5
TP-4
TP-6
TP-1
TD=7'
TD=7'
TD=15
.
5
'
TD=9'
TD=8'
TD=9'
TD=11'
TD=10'TD=10'
TD=7'
TP-10
TP-5
TP-6
TP-7
TP-3
TP-1
TP-4
TP-8
TP-9
TP-2
Tsa
FILL SLOPE
WALL #9
STA. 1+90
WALL #1
STA. 8+95
WALL #1
STA. 7+15
WALL #4
STA. 1+00
WALL #4
STA. 5+69
00 60'120'
EW
S
N
N
NOVA
MA
R
J
A
A
C
R
E
S
49
0
1
E
L
C
A
M
I
N
O
R
E
A
L
CA
R
S
L
B
A
D
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL
INSPECTION
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
PROJECT NO.:
DATE:
DRAWN BY:
REVIEWED BY:
2021026
MAY 2021
AJS
MS
SLOPE STABILITY
CROSS-SECTION LOCATIONS
AND TEMPORARY SLOPE MAP
DRAWING TITLE:
SCALE:1"=60'
PLATE NO.4 OF 4
SBEDVBE SLBESDVOSB
APPROXIMATE MSE WALL CALCS
APPROXIMATE BACKCUT CALCS
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF STABILITY FILL SLOPE
TEMPORARY SLOPE AREAS
10' STABILITY KEYS AT BOTTOM
OF WEST SLOPES
KEY TO SYMBOLS
Afu
Qal
UNDOCUMENTED FILL
YOUNGER ALLUVIUM
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
B-5
CPT-9
TD=20'
B-3
TD=26'
TP-10
TD=7'
TEST PIT (GSI 2016)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING (GSI 2016)
CONE PENETRATION TEST (NOVA)
GEOTECHNICAL BORING (NOVA)
Qoa OLDER ALLUVIUM
Tsa SANTIAGO FORMATION
*BASE MAP: COMBINED EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLANS PROVIDED BY HWL
PLANNING AND ENGINEERING MARCH 2021.
SETTLEMENT MONUMENTSM
TEST PIT (NOVA)
TP-6
TD=20'
TD=41.5'
LD-2 LARGE DIAMETER GEOTECHNICAL
BORING (NOVA)
'-:.i. i -v ' , ' ~ tr-', C:..__· ...Lf-\ _L_...,L_l'J\\
--
~--:::..~ == - - ---=--~-:::;:::-::---=-= -----==--=-
F ~~~~ ~·~ ----~ ~~._,-,;;;=~~~D ~ ,,,~ ;,'a ~~~~~~~::;.-:::::.3
-.
-·---· ----
'
\
. \
./ / A
,,,~'
. -.
@
/
0
/V /V /V
,,...---/ ~ / \ !>,c.a.J--..,_,,,~
/ -\ \
\
• •
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
APPENDIX A
USE OF GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Im ortant Information About Your
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes.
The following information is provided to help you manage your risks.
Geotechnical Services Are Performed for
Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects
Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of
their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engi-
neer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another
civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each
geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solelyfor the client. No
one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without
first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one
-not even you -should apply the report for any purpose or project
except the one originally contemplated.
Read the Full Report
Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical
engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary.
Do not read selected elements only.
A Geotechnical Engineering R~port Is Based on
A Unique Set of Project-Specific Factors
Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific fac-
tors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the
client's goals, objectives, and risk management preferences: the general
nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration: the location of
the structure on the site: and other planned or existing site improvements,
such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the
geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates oth-
erwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was:
• not prepared for you,
• not prepared for your project.
• not prepared for the specific site explored, or
• completed before important project changes were made.
Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical
engineering report include those that affect:
• the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed from a
parking garage to an office building , or from a light industrial plant
to a refrigerated warehouse,
• elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the
proposed structure,
• composition of the design team, or
• project ownership.
As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project
changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their impact.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems
that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which
they were not informed
Subsurface Conditions Can Change
A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at
the time the study was performed. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineer-
ing reportwhose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of
time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site;
or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctua-
tions. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report
to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or
analysis could prevent major problems.
Most Geotechnical Findings Are Professional
Opinions
Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where
subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engi-
neers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional
judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the
site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ-sometimes significantly-
from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer
who developed your report to provide construction observation is the
most effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated
conditions.
A Report's Recommendations Are Not Final
Do not overrely on the construction recommendations included in your
report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engi-
neers develop them principally from judgment and opinion. Geotechnical
engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
APPENDIX B
LOGS OF SUBSURFACE
EXPLORATIONS BY
NOVA AND GEOSOILS
BORING LOG B-1
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
BL
O
W
S
PE
R
1
2
-
I
N
C
H
E
S
EQUIPMENT:FEBRUARY 12, 2021
6-INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE ANALYSISRESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT
CORROSIVITYMAXIMUM DENSITY
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
REMARKSBU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
ELEVATION:
DATE EXCAVATED:
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MDDS
EIALSA
RVCN
SE
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CRCME 75
GPS COORD.:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
N/A
± 107 FT MSL
OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoa): SANDY CLAY; LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN, MOIST, SOFT
FIRM
LOGGED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE: MAY 2021
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
#
*
KEY TO SYMBOLS
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
MS
APPENDIX B.1
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
SANDY CLAY; GRAYISH BROWN WITH ORANGE STAINING; MOIST, VERY STIFF,
SCATTERED CALICHE
ML 45
16
53
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
PROJECT NO.: 2021026
GN
CL
SANDY CLAY/CLAYEY SAND; OLIVE BROWN, MOIST, FIRM/MEDIUM DENSE, FINE
GRAINED
SILTY SAND; LIGHT ORANGE BROWN TO BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE
GRAINED
SILTY SAND; LIGHT GRAYISH BROWN WITH ORANGE STAINING, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
DENSE, FINE GRAINED, WITH SOME CALICHE
CL/SC
CL 34
CL
SM
SANTIAGO FORMATION - PALEOSOL (Tsa - Bk): SANDY CLAY; OLIVE BROWN, MOIST,
HARD, WITH ABUNDANT CALICHE
LIGHT GRAYISH BROWN WITH ORANGE MOTTLING31
HIGHLY PLASTIC CLAY; BROWN, MOIST, VERY STIFF, WITH CALICHECH26
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): SILTY SANDSTONE; LIGHT GRAYISH BROWN, MOIST,
MEDIUM DENSE, FINE GRAINED, WITH CALICHESM31
SA
SA
MD
SA
AL
EI
15% MOISTURE CONTENT
19% MOISTURE CONTENT
SA
SA
AL
EI
~2 FT OF DISTURBED
ALLUVIUM
98 HIGH
124 HIGH
---
------tffl,.,,......_iii,......,&-- -... - -
"'111"'/"SZ
IZI
IZI
□
----------~--------------
----------------------------------~-------------
----------------------------------~-------------
- - - - ------------------------------~-------------
----------------------------------~-------------
"'
CONTINUED BORING LOG B-1
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
BL
O
W
S
PE
R
1
2
-
I
N
C
H
E
S
EQUIPMENT:
6-INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
35
40
45
50
55
60
30
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE ANALYSISRESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT
CORROSIVITYMAXIMUM DENSITY
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
REMARKSBU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
ELEVATION:
DATE EXCAVATED:
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MDDS
EIALSA
RVCN
SE
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CRCME 75
GPS COORD.:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
N/A
CL
LOGGED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
#
*
KEY TO SYMBOLS
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
GN
MS
APPENDIX B.2
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
SILTY SANDSTONE; LIGHT GRAYISH BROWN WITH ORANGE MOTTLING; MOIST,
MEDIUM DENSE, FINE GRAINED17
24
20
SM
BORING TERMINATED AT 41.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING.
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): (CONTINUED) SILTY CLAYSTONE; DARK GRAYISH
BROWN WITH SOME ORANGE MOTTLING, MOIST, VERY STIFF, WITH SOME CALICHE
SILTY CLAYSTONE; GRAYISH BROWN, MOIST, VERY STIFFCL
DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
PROJECT NO.: 2021026
FEBRUARY 12, 2021
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ± 107 FT MSL
~ 111. -~ -w,
-~ -~' ½ - -'-- -----------------------------------I--------------
-,!._
-
-
-~ - - - - -----------------------------------1---------- - - - -
-~ f½ V
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"'111"'/"SZ "' IZI . . .
IZI -
□ -
BORING LOG B-2
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
BL
O
W
S
PE
R
1
2
-
I
N
C
H
E
S
EQUIPMENT:FEBRUARY 12, 2021
6-INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE ANALYSISRESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT
CORROSIVITYMAXIMUM DENSITY
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
REMARKSBU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
ELEVATION:
DATE EXCAVATED:
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MDDS
EIALSA
RVCN
SE
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CRCME 75
GPS COORD.:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
N/A
± 104 FT MSL
ALLUVIUM (Qoa): SANDY CLAY; BROWN, MOIST, SOFT
FIRM
LOGGED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE: MAY 2021
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
#
*
KEY TO SYMBOLS
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
MS
APPENDIX B.3
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): SILTY SANDSTONE; GRAYISH BROWN WITH ORANGE
STAINING, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE GRAINED, WITH SOME CALICHE
ORANGE BROWN, WITH SOME SMALL SANDY CLAY LENSES
21
15
23
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
PROJECT NO.: 2021026
GN
SM
SANTIAGO FORMATION - PALEOSOL (Tsa - Bk): SANDY CLAY BROWN, MOIST, VERY
STIFF, SCATTERED CALICHE BLEBS
CLAYEY SANDSTONE; OLIVE BROWN WITH ORANGE STAINING, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
MEDIUM DENSE, FINE GRAINED, WITH LENSES OF OLIVE BROWN TO GRAYISH
BROWN SANDY CLAY, WITH CALICHE
31
CL
SC
LIGHT GRAYISH BROWN, DENSE
CLAYEY SANDSTONE; MEDIUM BROWN WITH ORANGE STAINING, MOIST, MEDIUM
DENSE, FINE GRAINEDSC29
BROWN WITH ORANGE-RED STAINING, STIFF, WITH PINHOLE POROSITY
18
POORLY GRADED-SILTY SANDSTONE; LIGHT BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE,
MEDIUM GRAINED
SP-SM
SILTY SANDSTONE; LIGHT BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED
19
SM
105.4pcf15.4%
15.7% MOISTURE CONTENTSA
AL
EI
SA
MD
SA
~2 FT OF DISTURBED
ALLUVIUM
103 HIGH
"'111"'/"SZ
IZI
IZI
□
L .....
......
~----1-- -... - -
- - - - ------------------------------~-------------
----------------------------------~-------------
----------------------------------~-------------
----------------------------------~-------------
"'
CONTINUED BORING LOG B-2
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
BL
O
W
S
PE
R
1
2
-
I
N
C
H
E
S
EQUIPMENT:
6-INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
35
40
45
50
55
60
30
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE ANALYSISRESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT
CORROSIVITYMAXIMUM DENSITY
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
REMARKSBU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
ELEVATION:
DATE EXCAVATED:
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MDDS
EIALSA
RVCN
SE
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CRCME 75
GPS COORD.:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
N/A
CL
LOGGED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
#
*
KEY TO SYMBOLS
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
GN
MS
APPENDIX B.4
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
18
BORING TERMINATED AT 31.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING.
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): (CONTINUED) SILTY CLAYSTONE; GRAYISH BROWN
WITH ORANGE STAINING, MOIST, VERY STIFF, WITH SOME CALICHE
DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
PROJECT NO.: 2021026
FEBRUARY 12, 2021
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ± 104 FT MSL
SA~ -0 V
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"'111"'/"SZ "' IZI . . .
IZI -
□ -
BORING LOG B-3
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
BL
O
W
S
PE
R
1
2
-
I
N
C
H
E
S
EQUIPMENT:FEBRUARY 12, 2021
6-INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE ANALYSISRESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT
CORROSIVITYMAXIMUM DENSITY
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
REMARKSBU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
ELEVATION:
DATE EXCAVATED:
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MDDS
EIALSA
RVCN
SE
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CRCME 75
GPS COORD.:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
N/A
± 91.5 FT MSL
OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoa): SANDY CLAY; BROWN, MOIST, SOFT
FIRM
LOGGED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE: MAY 2021
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
#
*
KEY TO SYMBOLS
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
MS
APPENDIX B.5
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
SANDY CLAY; GRAYISH BROWN TO WHITISH GRAY, MOIST, HARD, WITH ABUNDANT
CALICHE
22
52
20
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
PROJECT NO.: 2021026
GN
CL
DARK BROWN
SOME ORGANICS
SANTIAGO FORMATION - PALEOSOL (Tsa - Bk): HIGHLY PLASTIC CLAY; GRAYISH
BROWN WITH ORANGE STAINING, MOIST, VERY STIFF, WITH ABUNDANT CALICHE
29
CL
CH
INTERBEDDED SANDY CLAYSTONE, SILTY CLAYSTONE AND SILTY SANDSTONE;
GRAYISH BROWN WITH ORANGE STAINING,MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE GRAINED,
WITH TRACE CALICHE
CL+SM 21
SANDY CLAY; BROWN WITH ORANGE STAINING, MOIST, VERY STIFF, FINE GRAINED,
WITH SOME CALICHE
CL 34
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): POORLY GRADED-SILTY SANDSTONE; ORANGE
BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED,
INTERBEDDED WITH DARK BROWN SANDY CLAY, WITH CALICHE
SP-SM
CLAYEY SANDY SILT; OLIVE BROWN MOTTLED WITH ORANGE AND LIGHT GRAY,
MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE
ML
SA
SA
SA
MD
SA
AL
EI
SA
22.5% MOISTURE CONTENT
108.9pcf18.2%
~2 FT OF DISTURBED
ALLUVIUM
92 HIGH
"'111"'/"SZ
IZI
IZI
□
----------------------------------~--------------
----------------------------------~-------------
----------------------------------~-------------
----------------------------------~-------------
"'
CONTINUED BORING LOG B-3
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
BL
O
W
S
PE
R
1
2
-
I
N
C
H
E
S
EQUIPMENT:
6-INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
35
40
45
50
55
60
30
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE ANALYSISRESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT
CORROSIVITYMAXIMUM DENSITY
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
REMARKSBU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
ELEVATION:
DATE EXCAVATED:
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MDDS
EIALSA
RVCN
SE
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CRCME 75
GPS COORD.:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
N/A
CL
LOGGED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
#
*
KEY TO SYMBOLS
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
GN
MS
APPENDIX B.6
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
18
BORING TERMINATED AT 31.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING.
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): (CONTINUED) SILTY CLAYSTONE; GRAYISH BROWN
WITH LIGHT GRAY AND ORANGE MOTTLING, MOIST, VERY STIFF
DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
PROJECT NO.: 2021026
FEBRUARY 12, 2021
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ± 91.5 FT MSL
~ -0 V
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"'111"'/"SZ "' IZI . . .
IZI -
□ -
BORING LOG B-4
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
BL
O
W
S
PE
R
1
2
-
I
N
C
H
E
S
EQUIPMENT:FEBRUARY 12, 2021
6-INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE ANALYSISRESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT
CORROSIVITYMAXIMUM DENSITY
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
REMARKSBU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
ELEVATION:
DATE EXCAVATED:
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MDDS
EIALSA
RVCN
SE
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CRCME 75
GPS COORD.:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
N/A
± 108 FT MSL
OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoa): SANDY CLAY; BROWN, MOIST, SOFT
FIRM
LOGGED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE: MAY 2021
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
#
*
KEY TO SYMBOLS
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
MS
APPENDIX B.7
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
SILTY SAND; LIGHT BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
12
15
25
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
PROJECT NO.: 2021026
GN
SM
DARK BROWN
INTERBEDDED SILTY SAND AND CLAYEY SAND AND SANDY CLAY; LIGHT BROWN
MOTTLED WITH LIGHT GRAY AND ORANGE AND MEDIUM BROWN MOTTLED WITH
ORANGE BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
26
CL
SM+SC
+CL
SANDY CLAY; LIGHT BROWN MOTTLED WITH ORANGE BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
VERY STIFFCL21
SANDY SILT/SANDY CLAY WITH LENSES OF SILTY SAND; LIGHT BROWN MOTTLED
WITH ORANGE BROWN AND LIGHT BROWN MOTTLED WITH LIGHT GRAY AND ORANGE
BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO COARSE GRAINED
ML+CL
+SM
INTERBEDDED SILTY SAND AND SANDY CLAY; LIGHT BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE
OR STIFF, FINE GRAINED
SM+CL
BORING TERMINATED AT 26.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING.
~2 FT OF DISTURBED
ALLUVIUM
--~~ .... X...1-7...J_ --... --
"'111"'/"SZ
IZI
IZI
□
--------------
----------------------------------~-------------
- - - - ------------------------------~-------------
----------------------------------~-------------
----------------------------------~------------
"'
BORING LOG B-5
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
BL
O
W
S
PE
R
1
2
-
I
N
C
H
E
S
EQUIPMENT:FEBRUARY 12, 2021
6-INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE ANALYSISRESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT
CORROSIVITYMAXIMUM DENSITY
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
REMARKSBU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
ELEVATION:
DATE EXCAVATED:
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MDDS
EIALSA
RVCN
SE
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CRCME 75
GPS COORD.:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
N/A
± 97 FT MSL
OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoa): SILTY SAND; BROWN, LOOSE, FINE GRAINED
LOGGED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE: MAY 2021
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
#
*
KEY TO SYMBOLS
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
MS
APPENDIX B.8
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
SANDY CLAY; GRAYISH BROWN, MOIST, VERY STIFF
40
20
45
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
PROJECT NO.: 2021026
GN
ML/CL
INTERBEDDED SILTY SAND AND SANDY CLAY; LIGHT BROWN, MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE,
FINE GRAINED
LIGHT BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
SM+CL
28
SM
22
SANTIAGO FORMATION - PALEOSOL (Tsa - Bk): HIGHLY PLASTIC CLAY WITH SAND;
GRAYISH BROWN WITH ORANGE STAINING, MOIST, VERY STIFF, WITH CALICHECH
CLAYEY SILT/SILTY CLAY; GRAYISH BROWN MOTTLED WITH DARK BROWN AND
ORANGE, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE/VERY STIFF, FINE GRAINED
CL
105.1pcf19.6%
18.5% MOISTURE CONTENT
MD
SA
SA
AL
~2 FT OF DISTURBED
ALLUVIUM
LIGHT GRAYISH BROWN
SM SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): SILTY SANDSTONE, GRAY, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM
DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
-)
JI - - - -'-- -----------------------------------... -------------r:; J -/ I
-[/
~
-V IJ ---- - - -'-- -----------------------------------... -------------'.0 X -V5 ~ - - - - -----------------------------------L---------- - - - -r/ )ii. ·~ -
-/
-~
-~,
~ -V
-[/
I/ , __
I/
-[/
-~
IJ j -[/ V
-)II-
-
-
-J
Jlf , _
-
-
-I'
"'111"'/"SZ "' IZI . . .
IZI --
□ -
CONTINUED BORING LOG B-5
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
BL
O
W
S
PE
R
1
2
-
I
N
C
H
E
S
EQUIPMENT:
6-INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
35
40
45
50
55
60
30
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE ANALYSISRESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT
CORROSIVITYMAXIMUM DENSITY
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
REMARKSBU
L
K
S
A
M
P
L
E
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
CA
L
/
S
P
T
S
A
M
P
L
E
ELEVATION:
DATE EXCAVATED:
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MDDS
EIALSA
RVCN
SE
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CRCME 75
GPS COORD.:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
N/A
SM
LOGGED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
#
*
KEY TO SYMBOLS
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
GN
MS
APPENDIX B.9
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
35
BORING TERMINATED AT 31.5 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING.
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): SILTY SANDSTONE, GRAY, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM
DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
PROJECT NO.: 2021026
FEBRUARY 12, 2021
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED ± 97 FT MSL
-V
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"'111"'/"SZ "' IZI . . .
IZI -
□ -
LARGE DIAMETER BORING LOG LD-1
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
AT
T
I
T
U
D
E
S
EQUIPMENT:MAY 18, 2021
30-INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
44 FT
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE ANALYSISRESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT
CORROSIVITYMAXIMUM DENSITY
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
ELEVATION:
DATE EXCAVATED:
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MDDS
EIALSA
RVCN
SE
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CREARTH DRILL
GPS COORD.:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
N/A
± 75 FT MSL
OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoa): @0-3.3': CLAYEY FINE TO COARSE GRAINED SANDSTONE, DENSE, TOP 6" CONTAINS CALICHE
STRINGERS
LOGGED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE: MAY 2021
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
#
*
KEY TO SYMBOLS
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
MS
APPENDIX B.10
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
PROJECT NO.: 2021026
MS
@6.6': INTERBEDDED VERY FINE SILTY SANDSTONE WITH LENSES OF COARSE BLACK SAND AND ORANGE SAND
SC
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): @3.3': SILTY FINE GRAINED SANDSTONE WITH CLAY, PALE YELLOW BROWN WITH
ABUNDANT ORANGE STAINING, DENSE, MASSIVELY BEDDED
@8.2': SANDY CLAYSTONE, GRAY BROWN, DENSE, NOT CONTINUOUS AROUND HOLE
@8.5': INTERBEDDED SILTY VERY FINE SANDSTONE AND FINE TO MEDIUM SANDSTONE LENSES, BOTH ARE PALE
YELLOW GRAY TO PALE GRAY WITH OCCASIONAL 2" SANDY CLAYSTONE LENSES, PALE GRAY, NOT CONTINUOUS
AROUND HOLE
@11.1': SANDY CLAYSTONE, MEDIUM BROWN WITH ORANGE STAINING, VERY STIFF
@12.3': SILTY VERY FINE GRAINED SANDSTONE, PALE GRAY WITH SOME PALE ORANGE STAINING, MASSIVE
@15.3': SILTY FINE GRAINED SANDSTONE, LESS SILT THAN ABOVE, PALE GRAY TO WHITE, FRIABLE, SOME CROSS
BEDDING
@21.6': SLIGHTLY CLAYEY VERY FINE GRAINED SANDSTONE, PALE GRAY BROWN
@23': COARSE GRAINED SANDSTONE, PALE ORANGE, YELLOW TO MEDIUM GRAY, SOME PEBBLES
@24.8': SILTY VERY FINE SANDSTONE, PALE GRAY TO WHITE
@27.9': 1" BED OF CLAYEY SANDSTONE, MEDIUM BROWN, CONTINUOUS AROUND HOLE, ROUGHLY HORIZONTAL
@27.9': SILTY VERY FINE SANDSTONE, PALE GRAY BROWN WITH OCCASIONAL PALE ORANGE STAINING, MASSIVE,
GRADES DOWN TO MEDIUM GRAINED SANDSTONE BY 29'
@18': PEBBLE BED
@17': FINE TO VERY COARSE SANDSTONE WITH PEBBLES, INTERBEDDED LENSES OF YELLOW BROWN, PALE GRAY,
AND MEDIUM GRAY, LENSES ALTERNATE BETWEEN FINE TO VERY COARSE WITH PEBBLES, FRIABLE
@20.7': SAND CHANNEL, FINE TO VERY COARSE SANDSTONE, PALE ORANGE TO GRAY, FRIABLE SAND WITH SOME
GRAVEL
SM
CL
SM/SP
CL
SM
SM/SP
SP
SC
SP
SM
SC
SM
HORIZONTAL
~-------
------------~ - - - -
..... ----------------
--------
L--------
-L-----------
-----------
-L-----------
-~-=--=--=--=----..... .....
L.,__ - - -
"'111"'/"SZ
IZI
IZI
□
--------
--------------- - - - - - - -_.__
-
------------------1--
--------- - - - - - - - - -I--
- - - - -
- - - - --------------1--
----------
-
"'
CONTINUED LARGE DIAMETER BORING LOG LD-1
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
AT
T
I
T
U
D
E
S
EQUIPMENT:MAY 18, 2021
30-INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
44 FT
35
40
45
50
55
60
30
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE ANALYSISRESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT
CORROSIVITYMAXIMUM DENSITY
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
ELEVATION:
DATE EXCAVATED:
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MDDS
EIALSA
RVCN
SE
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CREARTH DRILL
GPS COORD.:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
N/A
± 75 FT MSL
LOGGED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE: MAY 2021
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
#
*
KEY TO SYMBOLS
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
MS
APPENDIX B.11
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
PROJECT NO.: 2021026
MS
@34.8': SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED SANDSTONE, PALE ORANGE BROWN
SP SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa): @30' (CONTINUED): PALE GRAY BROWN VERY FINE SANDSTONE WITH VERY LITTLE
STAINING
@35.7': SLIGHTLY CLAYEY SANDSTONE LENSE APPROX. 2" THICK, MEDIUM BROWN, CONTINOUS AROUND HOLE
@38': CLAYEY FINE TO COARSE GRAINED SANDSTONE WITH WELL ROUNDED GRAVEL AND PEBBLES, PALE
YELLOW BROWN, MOIST
SC
SC
SM
@35.9': SILTY FINE TO COARSE GRAINED SANDSTONE, PALE ORANGE BROWN TO ORANGE GRAY, SUBTLE CROSS
BEDDING
SM
@39.6': 0.1' CLAY LENS, DARK BROWN GRAY, HIGHLY PLASTIC, EXTENDS 2/3 AROUND HOLE, NO SHEARSCH
@39.7': SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, PALE GRAY, VERY MOISTSM
@40': 0.1' SOUTH SIDE OF HOLE, CLAY LENSE, HIGHLY PLASTIC, DISCONTINUOUS AROUND HOLE, NO SHEARSCH
BORING TERMINATED AT 44 FT. VISUAL LOG ENDS AT 44 FT. GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED AT 44 FT. NO CAVING.
@40': SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED SAND, PALE GRAY, VERY MOIST
SM
HORIZONTAL
--------
--------- - - ------ - --
------------
:.-=.-=.-:.-:.::: - - - - --=====I', ..... -.... _ - - -, ..... ' ~ - - -
' - - - -
------ - - - - - - - -1---
-
--------------------------
-
""l"'rr-r-1---------_u
""11"'/"SZ
IZI
IZI
□
"'
LARGE DIAMETER BORING LOG LD-2
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
AT
T
I
T
U
D
E
S
EQUIPMENT:MAY 18, 2021
30-INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE ANALYSISRESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT
CORROSIVITYMAXIMUM DENSITY
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
ELEVATION:
DATE EXCAVATED:
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MDDS
EIALSA
RVCN
SE
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CREARTH DRILL
GPS COORD.:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
N/A
± 75 FT MSL
OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoa): @0': CLAYEY FINE GRAINED SAND, OLIVE BROWN WITH ABUNDANT ORANGE STAINING AND
ABUNDANT CALICHE, MOIST, DENSE TO VERY DENSE
LOGGED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE: MAY 2021
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
#
*
KEY TO SYMBOLS
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
MS
APPENDIX B.12
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
PROJECT NO.: 2021026
MS
@5.9': SILTY VERY FINE SAND, PALE YELLOWISH GRAY BROWN, MOIST, DENSE
SC
@8.3': ABUNDANT ANGULAR BLACK ROCK FRAGMENTS
@8.9': SLIGHTLY SANDY CLAYSTONE, OLIVE GRAY WITH ABUNDANT ORANGE STAINING, MOIST, STIFF TO VERY
STIFF
@11.2': SILTY FINE SANDSTONE, WHITE GRAY, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE, FRIABLE
@12.5': ABUNDANT ORANGE STAINING
@21.8': WITH GRAY TO BLACK SUBANGULAR PEBBLES
@22.5': SANDY CLAY GRADING DOWN TO CLAY, GRAY BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, VERY STIFF
@25': CLAYEY SAND, PALE REDDISH BROWN
@27': SILTY SAND/SANDSTONE CHANNEL DEPOSIT, GRAY BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
FRIABLE
@16.3': HIGHLY PLASTIC CLAY BED, CONTINUOUS AROUND HOLE, MEDIUM GRAY WITH ABUNDANT STAINING, NO
SIGNS OF SLIP, VARIES MEDIUM THICKNESS BETWEEN 0.15' AND 0.5', STIFF
@18.9': GRADES TO FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
CL
SM
SM
CL
CL
SC
SM
@5': DECREASE IN STAINING AND CALICHE
@5.8': ROOT
@6.9': ROOT
@16.7': SILTY FINE SAND, PALE GRAY WITH ABUNDANT ORANGE STAINING, SLIGHTLY MOIST, VERY DENSESM
@19.5': GRADES TO FINE TO COARSE GRAINED
@25.4': CLAYEY SAND/CLAYEY VERY FINE SANDSTONE, GRAY BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, VERY STIFF/VERY DENSE
---------
i-------
-----------
~----------
_'-----i-,.
.......... - - --
~----------
-~-------
-~----------
"'111"'/"SZ
IZI
IZI
□
- - - - -
- - --I--
- - - - -
- - - -1--
---------1--
"'
CONTINUED LARGE DIAMETER BORING LOG LD-2
DE
P
T
H
(
F
T
)
SO
I
L
C
L
A
S
S
.
(U
S
C
S
)
AT
T
I
T
U
D
E
S
EQUIPMENT:MAY 18, 2021
30-INCH DIAMETER AUGER BORING
GROUNDWATER NOT ENCOUNTERED
35
40
45
50
55
60
30
DIRECT SHEAR
EXPANSION INDEX
ATTERBERG LIMITSSIEVE ANALYSISRESISTANCE VALUE
CONSOLIDATIONSAND EQUIVALENT
CORROSIVITYMAXIMUM DENSITY
GR
A
P
H
I
C
L
O
G
SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
(USCS; COLOR, MOISTURE, DENSITY, GRAIN SIZE, OTHER)
LA
B
O
R
A
T
O
R
Y
ELEVATION:
DATE EXCAVATED:
EXCAVATION DESCRIPTION:
GROUNDWATER DEPTH:
MDDS
EIALSA
RVCN
SE
LAB TEST ABBREVIATIONS
CREARTH DRILL
GPS COORD.:
SOIL DESCRIPTION
N/A
± 75 FT MSL
LOGGED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
DATE: MAY 2021
BULK SAMPLE
SPT SAMPLE ( ASTM D1586)
CAL. MOD. SAMPLE (ASTM D3550)
ERRONEOUS BLOWCOUNT
NO SAMPLE RECOVERY
GEOLOGIC CONTACT
SOIL TYPE CHANGE
#
*
KEY TO SYMBOLS
GROUNDWATER / STABILIZED
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
MS
APPENDIX B.13
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite F
San Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
PROJECT NO.: 2021026
MS
@34': CLAYEY VERY FINE SANDSTONE, PALE GRAY, SLIGHTLY MOIST, VERY DENSE
SM OLD ALLUVIUM (Qoa): @30' (CONTINUED): SILTY SAND/SANDSTONE, GRAY BROWN, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED,
SLIGHTLY MOIST, FRIABLE
SC
CL
SC
CL
BORING TERMINATED AT 43 FT. VISUAL LOG ENDS AT 43 FT. NO GROUNDWATER ENCOUNTERED. NO CAVING.
@31.7': GRADES TO FINE TO COARSE GRAINED, SUBTLE CROSS BEDDING, INDURATED
@31.9': CLAY BED, MEDIUM BROWN GRAY, DISCONTINUOUS AROUND HOLECL
@32.2': SILTY FINE TO COARSE SANDSTONE, GRAY BROWN WITH YELLOW BROWN LENSESSM
@32.7': ROOTLETS
@34.3': PALEOSOL: HIGHLY PLASTIC CLAY, GRAY BROWN, VERY STIFFCH
@35.1': CLAYEY SANDSTONE, DARK GRAY BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, VERY DENSE
SC
OLDER TERRACE DEPOSITS (Qoa2): @36.2': SANDY CLAYSTONE, GRAYISH BROWN WITH ORANGE STAINING,
VERYSTIFF@37.3': CLAYEY SANDSTONE, GRAYISH BROWN WITH ORANGE STAINING
@38.2': SANDY CLAYSTONE, GRAY BROWN INTERBEDDED WITH LENSES OF CLAY, DARK GRAY BROWN WITH
ORANGE STAINING, CLAY LENSES VARY IN THICKNESS BETWEEN 1-2"@39': ROOTLET@39.8': CLAYSTONE, GRAY BROWN WITH ORANGE STAINING, SLIGHTLY MOIST, VERY STIFF, VARIES IN THICKNESS
BETWEEN 0.2' AND 0.3'
@40': SANDY CLAYSTONE/CLAYEY SANDSTONE, MEDIUM BROWNSC/CL
HORIZONTAL
-----------
- --t--.. --~ - - -
-- ---
- -------
--
-~ - - - - - --
------,
"'111"'/"SZ
IZI
IZI
□
' ' ' -- --
- - - - -
- - - - -
-
-
-----------------------------------------------1--
---------1--
-
"'
SE
NWQcol
Qoa
Tsa
CaCo3
LAYER
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NO.:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
DATE:TEST PIT NO.:
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW:SOIL DESCRIPTION:USCS LAB
ELEVATION:
TREND:
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL
INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB
SURFACE SLOPE:
GROUNDWATER:
SCALE:
CL/SC
APPROVED BY:
MARJA ACRES
2021026
CATERPILLAR 303.5C CR
5/10/21
MS
MS
TP-1
74-71
SE-NW
-
-
1"=5'
0'-2'
2'-3'
COLLUVIUM (Qcol):
SANDY CLAY/CLAYEY SAND; MEDIUM
BROWN, MOIST, VERY STIFF/DENSE,
FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED, ABUNDANT
ROOTS, LARGE PORES
7'TOTAL DEPTH = 7 FT. NO
GROUNDWATER, NO CAVING.
YOUNGER ALLUVIUM (Qoa):
SANDY CLAY; MEDIUM ORANGE
BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST, VERY STIFF,
VERY FINE ROOTLETS, POORLY DEV.
PED STRUCTURE
TOTAL DEPTH: 7
BACKFILLED: YES
COMPACTED: YES
3'-6'CLAYEY SAND; PALE TO MEDIUM
ORANGE BROWN, MOIST, VERY
DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
CL
SC
6'-7'SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa):
SILTY SANDSTONE WITH CLAY; PALE
OLIVE BROWN MOTTLED WITH
ORANGE BROWN, MOIST, DENSE, VERY
FINE GRAINED, PINHOLE POROSITY
SM-SC
E
W
WEATHERED
Qcol
Tsa
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NO.:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
DATE:TEST PIT NO.:
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW:SOIL DESCRIPTION:USCS LAB
ELEVATION:
TREND:
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL
INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB
SURFACE SLOPE:
GROUNDWATER:
SCALE:
SM-SC
APPROVED BY:
MARJA ACRES
2021026
CATERPILLAR 303.5C CR
5/10/21
MS
MS
TP-2
69-67.5
E-W
-
-
1"=5'
0'-1.25'
1.25'-2.25'
COLLUVIUM (Qcol):
SILTY SAND WITH CLAY; MEDIUM
GRAYISH BROWN, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
VERY LOOSE, FINE TO COARSE
GRAINED, PEBBLES OF CaCo3
4.5'TOTAL DEPTH = 4.5 FT. NO
GROUNDWATER, NO CAVING.
SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa):
SILTY SANDSTONE; PALE OLIVE
BROWN WITH ABUNDANT CALICHE,
SLIGHTLY MOIST, LOOSE TO MEDIUM
DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED,
HIGHLY WEATHERED
TOTAL DEPTH: 4.5
BACKFILLED: YES
COMPACTED: YES
2.25'-4.5'SILTY SAND; MEDIUM TO PALE OLIVE
BROWN AND GRAY WITH ABUNDANT
ORANGE STAINING, SLIGHTLY MOIST,
VERY DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED, VERTICAL TO SUBVERTICAL
JOINTING, LESS WEATHERED,
MASSIVE BEDDING
SM
SM
1, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------
------
------
------
1, I ' I I ' ' ' I I I ' ' I I I ' ' ' I I
I I I ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' I I I I ' ' I I
------
------
------
------
I ' ' I ' ' ' I I I ' ' I I I ' ' ' I I
I I T I I 6 • T I I I I T I I I I T T I I
" --~ -~ b c, ·+ 0 o u -~ ~
' --'~ ~ -~. (J O ~ • ~ ~
I-- - - - - -~-~ -0
~
-I-• ' ' -, ---
. ' -t .. --
1, ' ' ' I I ' ' ' I I I ' ' I I I ' ' ' I I
II I T I I I I I T I I I I T I I I I T T I I
------
------
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1, ' ' ' I I ' ' ' I I I ' ' I I ' ' ' I I
II I ' I I I I ' I I I I ' I I I I ' ' I I
------
------
------
------
I , ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' ' I I ' ' ' I I ' ' ' I I I ' ' I I I ' ' ' I I ,a,
. .
NE
SWQcol
ROOT
Qcol
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NO.:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
DATE:TEST PIT NO.:
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW:SOIL DESCRIPTION:USCS LAB
ELEVATION:
TREND:
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL
INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB
SURFACE SLOPE:
GROUNDWATER:
SCALE:
SM
APPROVED BY:
0'-1.25'
1.25'-4'
COLLUVIUM (Qcol):
SILTY SAND; PALE GRAYISH BROWN,
DRY, LOOSE, FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAINED, VERY POROUS
6'TOTAL DEPTH = 6 FT. NO
GROUNDWATER, NO CAVING.
CLAYEY SAND; MEDIUM BROWN,
SLIGHTLY MOIST, DENSE, FINE TO
MEDIUM GRAINED, SOME POROSITY
TOTAL DEPTH: 6
BACKFILLED: YES
COMPACTED: YES
4'-5'SILTY SAND; PALE YELLOWISH
BROWN, DRY, DENSE, FINE TO
MEDIUM GRAINED, FRIABLE, WITH
ABUNDANT CROSS BEDS
SC
SM
MARJA ACRES
2021026
CATERPILLAR 303.5C CR
5/10/21
MS
MS
TP-3
49-48
NE-SW
-
-
1"=5'
5'-6'CLAYEY SAND; DARK BROWN,
SLIGHTLY MOIST, VERY DENSE, FINE
TO MEDIUM GRAINED
SC
C'\ <J , o
- -• ~(> 0 ----
--. -
Qya
H2O @ 4'
Tsa
NE SW
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NO.:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
DATE:TEST PIT NO.:
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW:SOIL DESCRIPTION:USCS LAB
ELEVATION:
TREND:
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL
INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB
SURFACE SLOPE:
GROUNDWATER:
SCALE:APPROVED BY:
0'-3'
7.5'TOTAL DEPTH = 7.5 FT.
GROUNDWATER @ 4'
YOUNG ALLUVIUM (Qya):
SILTY SAND; PALE GRAYISH BROWN,
MOIST TO WET, VERY LOOSE, FINE
GRAINED, ACTIVE ALLUVIAL CHANNEL.
TOTAL DEPTH: 7.5
BACKFILLED: YES
COMPACTED: YES
4'-5'SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa):
SILTY SANDSTONE; PALE GREEN, WET
TO SATURATED, LOOSE, FINE TO
MEDIUM GRAINED
SM
SM
MARJA ACRES
2021026
CATERPILLAR 303.5C CR
5/10/21
MS
MS
TP-4
42
NE-SW
-
-
1"=5'
4'WATER AND HEAVY CAVING
7'MEDIUM DENSE
I I I I I I _J _J I I I I I I I _J _J _J I I I I I II I I I I I I ' I I I I I I ' ' ' I I I I I ------
------
------
------
11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _J I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I ------------------------
11 I I I I _J _J I I I I I I I I I _J I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I ----------' ----------~ ~7 ~ ---_v ._ _V -.I ' j 11 I I I I I I I 'I I I ' I I I I I I I I
II I I I I "--I I I. I I :J I I I ' I I I I I ---------------------------------
11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I ------------
.... .... .... .... .... ....
.... .... .... .... .... ....
11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I ,a,
. .
SE
NW
Qcol
Tsa
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NO.:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
DATE:TEST PIT NO.:
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW:SOIL DESCRIPTION:USCS LAB
ELEVATION:
TREND:
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL
INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB
SURFACE SLOPE:
GROUNDWATER:
SCALE:APPROVED BY:
0'-4'
9'TOTAL DEPTH = 9 FT. NO
GROUNDWATER, NO CAVING.
COLLUVIUM (Qcol):
CLAYEY SAND; MEDIUM BROWN, MOIST,
LOOSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED,
ABUNDANT ROOTLETS, VERY POROUS,
THINS MOVING DOWN SLOPE
TOTAL DEPTH: 9
BACKFILLED: YES
COMPACTED: YES
4'-9'SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa):
SILTY SANDSTONE; LIGHT OLIVE GRAY,
SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM DENSE,
FINE GRAINED, MASSIVE BEDDING
SC
SM
MARJA ACRES
2021026
CATERPILLAR 303.5C CR
5/10/21
MS
MS
TP-5
55-50
SE-NW
-
-
1"=5'
I I I I I I _J _J I I I I I I I _J _J _J I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I I I o o o I I I I I
11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _J I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o I I I I I
11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I _J I I I I I II I I I I I I ' I I I I I
11 I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I ' I I I I I
11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o I I I I I
.... .... ....
.... .... .... .... .... ....
11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o I I I I I
SE
NWQcol
Qal
Tsa
COBBLES @ 3'
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NO.:
EQUIPMENT:
LOGGED BY:
DATE:TEST PIT NO.:
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION BELOW:SOIL DESCRIPTION:USCS LAB
ELEVATION:
TREND:
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL
INSPECTION
SBEDVBE SDVOSB
SURFACE SLOPE:
GROUNDWATER:
SCALE:APPROVED BY:
0'-2'
6.5'TOTAL DEPTH = 6.5 FT. NO
GROUNDWATER, NO CAVING.
COLLUVIUM (Qcol):
CLAYEY SAND; MEDIUM BROWN, DRY,
LOOSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
TOTAL DEPTH: 6.5
BACKFILLED: YES
COMPACTED: YES
6'-6.5'SANTIAGO FORMATION (Tsa):
SILTY SANDSTONE; PALE YELLOWISH
GRAY, SLIGHTLY MOIST, MEDIUM
DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED,
MANGANESE STAINING
SC
SM
MARJA ACRES
2021026
CATERPILLAR 303.5C CR
5/10/21
MS
MS
TP-6
51-49.5
SE-NW
-
-
1"=5'
2'-6'ALLUVIUM (Qal):
CLAYEY SAND; DARK BROWN,
SLIGHTLY MOIST, DENSE TO MEDIUM
DENSE, FINE TO MEDIUM GRAINED
SC
I I I I I I _J _J I I I I I I I _J _J _J I I I I I II I I I I I I ' I I I I I I ' ' ' I I I I I ------
------
------
------
11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _J I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I ------------------------
11 I I I I _J I I I I I I I I I I _J I I I I I II I I I I I I b I I I ' I I I I I -- ---r-------""""-,_ -/, ---
-[?=>c;::i=o ----
11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
II I I I I I I I I y 1 I I I I I ' I I I I I ----~ ------------------
11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I ------------
.... .... .... .... .... ....
.... .... .... .... .... ....
11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' I I I I I ,a,
. .
GeoSoils, lne.
TEST ELEV. DEPTH GROUP
PIT NO. (ft.) (ft.) SYMBOL
TP-1 109' 0-½ SC
MSL
½-1½ CH
1½-2½ SC
2½-4 CL
4-9 SC
9-11 SM
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
W.O. 6971-A1-SC
Marja Acres, LLC
4901 El Camino Real
Logged By: RGC
May 12, 2016
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
MOISTURE FIELD DRY
DENSITY DESCRIPTION (%) (pcf)
COLLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, brown to dark brown, slightly moist,
few roots, cultivated.
CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; few roots.
CLAYEY SAND, mottled olive gray brown and brown, moist, medium
dense; abundant carbonate mottlings, porous.
OLDER ALLUVIUM: CLAY, olive brown and strong brown, moist,
very stiff; sub-horizontal basal contact.
CLAYEY SAND, brown, slightly moist, dense; few carbonate filled
random fractures.
SIL TY SAND, gray brown, moist, medium dense to dense.
Total Depth = 11'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-12-2016
PLATE B-2
✓
GeoSoils, lne.
TEST ELEV. DEPTH GROUP
PIT NO. (ft.) (ft.) SYMBOL
TP-2 95' 0-4 CL
MSL
4-7 CH
7-9 SM/SC
TP-3 98' 0-3½ CL
MSL
3½-6 CH
6-8 SM
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
Ring@ 7
W .O . 6971 -A1 -SC
Marja Acres, LLC
4901 El Camino Real
Logged By: RGC
May 12, 2016
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
MOISTURE FIELD DRY
(%) DENSITY DESCRIPTION
(pcf)
UNDOCUMENTED FILL: SANDY CLAY, brown to dark brown, moist,
soft; some plastic debris, porous.
COLLUVIUM: CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft to firm; porous, some
carbonate mottling, porous.
11 .1 113.7 OLDER ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND with CLAY, light brown, moist,
medium dense; thickly bedded (sub-horizontal)
Total Depth = 9'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-12-2016
UNDOCUMENTED FILL: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft;
some plastic debris, porous.
COLLUVIUM: CLAY, dark brown to dark gray brown, moist, soft;
porous.
OLDER ALLUVIUM: SILTY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense;
thick sub-horizontal bedding.
Total Depth = 8'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-12-2016
PLATE B-3
GeoSoils, lne.
TEST ELEV. DEPTH GROUP
PIT NO. (ft.) (ft.) SYMBOL
TP-4 105' 0-1 ½ CH
MSL 1 ½-3 CL
3-5½ CL
5½-6 SM
6-8 CL
8-10 SM
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
Bulk@ 1
Bulk@ 9
W .0. 6971 -A 1-SC
Marja Acres, LLC
4901 El Camino Real
Logged By: RGC
May12,2016
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
MOISTURE FIELD DRY
DENSITY DESCRIPTION (%) (pcf)
COLLUVIUM: CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; porous, few roots.
SANDY CLAY, mottled brown and olive brown, moist, loose to
medium dense; highly fractured, few carbonate and manganese
cuttings on fracture faces.
PARALIC DEPOSITS: CLAYEY SAND to SANDY CLAY, Dark Brown,
moist, medium dense/stiff; manganese coatings on fracture faces,
sub-horizontal basal contact.
SIL TY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense.
CLAYEY SAND, brown and olive brown, moist, medium dense.
SILTY SAND with CLAY.
Total Depth = 1 0'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-12-2016
PLATE B-4
/
GeoSoils, lne.
TEST ELEV. DEPTH GROUP
PIT NO. (ft.) (ft.) SYMBOL
TP-5 86' 0-1 CL
MSL
1-2 SM
2-7 SP/SM
TP-6 98' 0-1 ½ CH
MSL
1 ½-3 CL
3-12 SC
12-14 CL
14-15½ SP
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
Bulk/Ring @ 2
W.O. 6971-A1-SC
Marja Acres, LLC
4901 El Camino Real
Logged By: RGC
May12,2016
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
MOISTURE FIELD DRY
DENSITY DESCRIPTION (%) (pcf)
COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; porous, few
roots along basal contact.
SANTIAGO FORMATION: SANDSTONE, brown and light grayish
yellow, slightly moist, loose/dense.
10.3 112.6 SANDSTONE, light grayish yellow, moist, dense; fine grained.
Bedding: N30°W, 2-3° SW.
Total Depth = 8'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-13-2016
COLLUVIUM: CLAY, dark grayish brown, moist, soft; porous, few
roots.
SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, firm to stiff; porous.
OLDER ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, grayish brown, olive brown,
moist, medium dense.
CLAY, dark brown, moist, stiff.
SAND, brown, moist, loose.
Total Depth = 15½'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-12-2016
PLATE B-5
GeoSoils, lne.
TEST ELEV. DEPTH GROUP
PIT NO. (ft.) (ft.) SYMBOL
TP-7 86' 0-1 ½ CL
MSL 1 ½-3 CH
3-7 CH
7-9 SC
TP-8 99' 0-1 CL/CH
MSL
1-2½ CH
2½-3½ SC
3½-5½ SM
5½-8½ CL
8½-10 SM
SAMPLE
DEPTH
(ft.)
Bulk@ 4
Bulk@ 5'h
W.O. 6971-A1-SC
Marja Acres, LLC
4901 El Camino Real
Logged By: RGC
May 12, 2016
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
MOISTURE FIELD DRY
(%) DENSITY DESCRIPTION
(pcf)
COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, brown, moist, soft; porous, few roots.
CLAY, dark brown, moist, stiff; porous.
PALEOSOL/COLLUVIUM? CLAY, very dark gray, moist, stiff;
randomly fractured with up to¾ inch carbonate modules.
SANTIAGO FORMATION: CLAYEY SANDSTONE, grayish brown,
moist, medium dense; slightly weathered.
Total Depth = 9'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-12-2016
COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; porous, few
roots.
CLAY, very dark brown, moist, soft.
OLDER ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, brown, moist, medium dense.
SIL TY SAND, brown, wet, medium dense.
CLAY, grayish brown to olive brown, moist, stiff.
SAND with SILT, brown, moist, medium dense.
Total Depth = 1 O'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-12-2016
PLATE B-6
GeoSoils, lne. W.O. 6971-A1-SC
Marja Acres, LLC
4901 El Camino Real
Logged By: RGC
May 12, 2016
LOG OF EXPLORATORY TEST PITS
TEST ELEV. DEPTH GROUP SAMPLE MOISTURE FIELD DRY
DEPTH DENSITY DESCRIPTION PIT NO. (ft.) (ft.) SYMBOL (ft.) (%) (pcf)
TP-9 84' 0-2 CL COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft; porous, few
MSL roots.
2-5 CH CLAY, very dark grayish brown, moist, stiff; blocky structure,
abundant caliche stringers and coatings on blocky faces.
5-7 SC OLDER ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, brown and light olive bornw,
moist, medium dense.
Note:2-to 3-foot thick fill embankment immediate northwest of pit. Total Depth = 7'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-12-2016
TP-10 0-2 CH COLLUVIUM: SANDY CLAY, dark brown, moist, soft.
2-3½ SC OLDER ALLUVIUM: CLAYEY SAND, light olive brown, moist,
medium dense.
3½-5½ CH PALEOSOL: CLAY, very dark grayish brown, moist, stiff; blocky,
abundant carbonates on blocky ped faced and nodules.
5½-7 SM SANTIAGO FORMATION: SILTY SANDSTONE, yellowish brown,
moist, medium dense.
Total Depth = 7'
No Groundwater/Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-12-2016
PLATE B-7
:!:.
.c C. QJ 0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
GeoSoi Is, Inc.
PROJECT: MARJA ACRES, LLC
4901 El Camino Real
Sample i
C u
0 -9,
'O .0 ~ QJ E -e LL >,
Cl) ·c
•~J
Cl) :::> u
:I C .Q Cl) c::-
CD :::> CD :::> 0
SC
95.6 11.1
l
l
C
.Q ~ :, iii Cl)
40 4
BORING LOG
WO. 6971-A1-SC
BORING 8-1 SHEET 1 OF 2
DATE EXCAVATED 5-23-16
SAMPLE METHOD Hollow Stem Auger
~ ~-~ ~ ~
~I ~
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
Approx. Elevation: ±47' MSL
Groundwater
Seepage
Description of Material
UNDOCUMENTED FILL:
@ 0' CLAYEY SAND, light brown to brown, slightly moist, loose.
QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM:
@ 4' CLAYEY SAND, brown, moist, loose; fine laminations of
very dark gray SILT.
10
11
12
13
14
15
SP
u C L '° t.:l = l B6.0 I
%1
@ 9' SAND, grayish brown, slightly moist, loose.
@ 10½' SANDY CLAY, dark yellowish brown, wet, soft.
~
16
17
18 ~
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
~ 25---8C
CH
I
~ 22 CL
I ~ 15 SC
I
4901 El Camino Real
1.0.6..7
107.7
. I
o. t8.2--J.-BL5 ~
~ ~
19.0 94.2 i I I I
104.-6 -2f0 96.8 ~
~ ~
_@ 15' CLAYEY SAND, brown, wet, loose. ~
@ 15½' CLAY, dark grayish brown, moist to wet, stiff; few
carbonate filaments.
@ 15½' Groundwater encountered.
@ 20' SANDY CLAY, grayish brown, wet, stiff.
@ 25' CLAYEY SAND, dark yellowish brown to yellowish brown,
saturated, loose.
GeoSoi Is , Inc. PLAT~ 8-8
1
GeoSoi Is, Inc.
PROJECT. MARJA ACRES, LLC
4901 El Camino Real
7 Sample r
C u
0 .!?; ,, .c
Q) E :l: .c >, ~ :i u'. (J)
.c iii ui (J) c
C. -"' ii 3: (.) :::i
Q) ::i C 0 (J) ~ 0 ID :::i ai :::i 0
30 CL 110 3
31 LL.L.
I
32
33
34
35 7 45 SC 105.6
36 ~~
37
38
39
40 39 103.1
41 %
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
4901 El Camino Real
f
l l C
~ .Q
:::, 1§ iii :::, ·a iii ~ (J)
19.0 100
22.3 100
22 0 96 5
BORING LOG
WO 6971-A1-SC
BORING B-1 SHEET 2 OF 2
DATE EXCAVATED 5-23-16
SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
D Standard Penetration Test
Approx. Elevation: ±47' MSL
~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample
Groundwater
Seepage
Description of Material
@ 30' CLAY, very dark grayish brown, wet, very stiff.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
@ 35' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, yellowish brown to brown,
saturated, dense.
@ 40' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, light brownish gray, wet, dense.
Total Depth = 41'
Groundwater Encountered @ 15½'
No Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-23-2016
GeoSoi Is, Inc. PLATE B-9
BORING LOG
GeoSoi Is, Inc.
WO. 6971-A1-SC
PROJECT: MARJA ACRES, LLC BORING 8-2 SHEET 1 OF~ 4901 El Camino Real
DATE EXCAVATED 5-23-16
Sample T SAMPLE METHOD: Hollavv Stem Auger
Approx. Elevation: ±46' MSL
I I C [] Standard Penetration Test u
0 .s l .
-a .0 ~ ~ ": Groundwater Ql E 0 C ~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample ~ -e Li'. >, ~ 0 Seepage :, Cl) c ·~ .c 1ii 'iii Cl) :, :J 1ii i -l ~ '6 ;: t) i :, ~ a. -0 Cl) c'.:' ·a iii Description of Material Ql :, C 0 CO :J ai :J 0 :::; Cl) -+-SC UNDOCUMENTED FILL:
/ @ O' CLAYEY SAND, brown, slightly moist, loose; few gravels.
2 ~:
3 ~ 4 ~ 5
j s)
14 110.4 15.6 83 ~ 6 ~ 7 ~ ~ QUATERNARY ALLUVIUM:
8 @ 7' CLAYEY SAND, brown, moist, loose.
9 -~ 10 7 111 3 18 2 99 ~ @ 1 O' As per 7'.
11 CH t ~ @ 11' CLAY, very dark gray, moist, soft. --l
12 ~ 13
14 ~ @ 14' Groundwater encountered.
15 ~J 15 105.5 185 86 ~ @ 15' As per 11'.
16 -~ 'SC t I @ 16' CLAYEY SAND, dark yellowish brown, saturated, loose.
17 I ~ 18 I I ~
19 t 20 -l _J. 1/1/
22 CUCH @ 20' CLAY, very dark gray, saturated, stiff
21
22
23
24
25 ~ 32 106.6 19.9 100 @ 25' CLAY, very dark grayish brown, brown, wet, stiff.
26
27 I
28
29
4901 El Camino Real GeoSoi Is, Inc. PLAT~ B-10
GeoSoi Is, Inc.
PROJECT: MARJA ACRES, LLC 4901 El Camino Real
Sample
T
"O a, -e :!':. ::,
= l ~ Ji C. -"O QJ ::, C 0 CO ::,
I I I r -
Ci:'.
ui ;;: 0 a5
22
C u
0 s .n ~ E >-(J) c (J) u ::,
(J) ~ ::, 0
CUCH
31
32
33
34
35 C
36
37
38
39
40
~ 25 . CH 107.6
SP -1-
:~ j
:: I
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
24
33 SP
4901 El Camino Real
t
l l C
I!! 0 ~ ::, in ::, 0 iii ~ (J)
195
BORING LOG
WO 6971-A1-SC
BORING B-2 SHEET 2 OF 2
DATE EXCAVATED 5-23-16
SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
D Standard Penetration Test
Approx. Elevation: ±46' MSL
~ Undisturbed, Ring Sample
-Groundwater
Seepage
Description of Material
@ 30' As per 25'.
PALEOSOL?
@ 35' CLAY, very dark gray wet stiff.
WEATHERED SANTIAGO FORMATION:
@ 36' SANDSTONE, brown, saturated, medium dense.
@ 40' SAND with CLAY, brown, saturated, medium dense.
@ 45' SAND, grayish brown, saturated, medium dense.
-t SANTIAGO FORMATION:
@ 50' SANDSTONE with CLAY, light grayish brown, wet,
~ dense.
Total Depth = 51 ½'
Groundwater Encountered@ 14'
No Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-23-2016
GeoSoi Is, Inc. PLATE_ B-11
GeoSoi Is, Inc.
PROJECT: MARJA ACRES, LLC
4901 El Camino Real
I
~ Sample ---r -I ~ I I I
l
~
.c 0. Q)
Cl
2
3
-"" "S co
-0 Q) -e it :,
vi "in
'6 3:
C: 0 ::::, iii
4 I
;~
8 1~:1
8 1
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 T
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 --;-
26 -
27
28
29
~31
-~ 33
4901 El Camino Real
SC
SM
112 3 16 7 94
107.3
109.4 "t"-18.3 I 95
-l
BORING LOG
WO. 6971-A_1_-s_c _ ____.
BORING 8-3 SHEET 1 OF 1
DATE EXCAVATED 5-23-16
SAMPLE METHOD: Hollow Stem Auger
Approx. Elevation: ±52' MSL
Standard Penetration Test
Undisturbed, Ring Sample
'l Groundwater
Seepage
Description of Material
ASPHALT PAVEMENT:
@ O' ASPHALT, 4½ inches over 2 inches of "DG."
UNDOCUMENTED FILL:
@ ½' CLAYEY SAND, brown and gray brown, moist, loose to
medium dense.
QUATENARY ALLUVIUM:
@ 5' SAND with SILT, light brown, dry, loose.
@ 6' CLAY, very dark gray, moist, soft.
@ 10' CLAYEY SAND to SANDY CLAY, very dark yellowish
brown, slightly moist, medium dense/stiff.
@ 15' CLAYEY SAND, dark grayish brown, moist, medium
dense/stiff.
@ 17' Groundwater encountered.
SANTIAGO FORMATION:
@ 20' CLAYEY SANDSTONE, grayish brown, saturated,
medium dense.
@ 25' SIL TY SANDSTONE, brownish gray, wet, medium dense
to dense.
Total Depth = 26'
Groundwater Encountered @ 17'
No Caving Encountered
Backfilled 5-23-2016
Geo Soi Is, Inc. PLATE B-12
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
APPENDIX C
LOGS OF CPT SOUNDINGS BY NOVA
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.17 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 52.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-1
Location:
Cone resistance qt
Tip resistance (tsf)
200
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Cone resistance qt Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
10
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Pore pressure uFriction ratio
Rf (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Friction ratio SBT Index
Ic SBT
4321
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
SBT Index Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Sand & silty sandClay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clayClay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soilVery dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:03 PM 1
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ----------------1---------------- -' ' ' ' ' ---------------r ---------------c ' ' ' ' ------------___ l _____ ----------·
_:: ::::: :::: ::::i::::: ::::: :::::
------------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
:.__= ~-.. _ --.... ~,. -----="r::::F::
. ----r----· ______ T _____ : __ T _____ _
: :::: :1:::: :f : :i:: :::
' _______ .,.
' ' ' ' '
-------------.. _ ----------' ' ' ' ' ---------------.. _ ----------' ' ' ' ' --------------r-----------' ' ' ' --------------r----------·
: ::::: ::::: 1:::: ::::::
_______ T __ _
' ' ' '
::i:t::::::i:::r::::::::
. ------+---------------~----
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
---------------------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I --I-----1-----+-----I-----1-----+-----I-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----r ----r-----,-----r----r-----,-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IIII:III:::
I:I::I:IiI:I::I:::
□ □ □
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.17 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 52.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-1
Location:
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
4003002001000
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Norm. cone resistance Norm. Pore Pressure
U2
1 086420-2
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Norm. Pore PressureNorm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Norm. friction ratio Mod. SBTn I(B)
I
B
1 0100
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Mod. SBTn I(B)
2232
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Mod. SBTn (Robertson 2016)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Sand like - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - DilativeSand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Clay-like - Contractive
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Mod. SBTn legend
1. CCS: ClayLike - Contractive, Sensitive
2. CC: Clay-like - Contractive
3. CD: Clay-Like: Dilative
4. TC: Transitional - Contractive
5. TD: Transitional - Dilative
6. SC: Sand-like - Contractive
7. SD: Sand-like - Dilative
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:04 PM 2
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
-----------------c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---------1--------1-------- -' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --,--------,--------r-------c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
;__=~-.. _ --.... ~~ ------r::::F::
---1-------r------t--------. ---r-----
-.... : :::1 :::: :::i: ::::: :i:: :::::. : :::::1:::: l 1:: :::
·----.----
------,
------
------
' ' ' I I I I - ----1------1 -----.. _ ----1------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----,-----.,. -----r-----r ----c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r---r---r----r----
:: ::1: ::::1 ::::: 1:::: 1::::
I I I I I I I I
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
-------------------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I -----1-----+-----I-----1-----+-----I-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --r-----,-----r----r-----,-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
IIII: III:::
l:I::I:IiI•I•:I:::
□
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.17 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 52.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-1
Location:
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Normalized Friction, F (%)
0.1 1 1 0
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
SD
SC
CCS CC
CD
TD
TC
CD=70
I =32
I =22
B
B
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Updated SBTn plots
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
Du2/sig'v
2 01 81 61 41 21 086420-2
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
TC
CC CCS
Normalized Rigidity Index
Go/qn
1 1 0 100 1,000
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Normalized Rigidity Index
K*(G) = 100
K*(G) = 330
CCS:
CC:
CD:
TC:
TD:
SC:
SD:
Clay-like - Contractive - Sensitive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Transitional - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Sand-like - Dilative
K(G) > 330:Soils with significant microstructure
(e.g. age/cementation)
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:04 PM 3
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
i
J___
' ' ' ' ' ' I : : I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.17 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 52.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-1
Location:
Permeability
Ksbt (ft/s)1x10 -9 1x10 -6 1x10 -3 1x10 +0
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
Permeability Young's modulus
Es (tsf)
2,0000
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Young's modulusSPT N60
N60 (blows/ft)
5 04 03 02 01 00
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
SPT N60 Relative density
Dr (%)
1008 06 04 02 00
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Relative density
Calculation parameters
Relative density constant, CDr: 350.0Permeability: Based on SBTn
SPT N60: Based on Ic and qt
Young’s modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Phi: Based on Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)
User defined estimation data
Friction angle
φ (degrees)
5 04 54 03 53 0
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Friction angle
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:04 PM 4
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' ➔------➔-------1-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -,------,-------,-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -.l_ ----_.J_ ----_..J_ ------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ➔------➔-------1-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---,------,------,-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
,-:::::r:: :r::::
:---+----1----::r:::::r---
_ :::::J:-::--r:::1::::1:-: __ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • ------+ ------ ➔ --- --➔ -------4-------
: ~·: : ______ j ______ J_ ___ j_ _____ J ______ _
' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I ------_.1 -----_.J -----_.J __ ---_..J __ -----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • ------+ ------ ➔ ------➔ -------1-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . ------T-------, -------, -------,-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
:: : :::1 :: : l: :::1 ::::: l: ::::
:: : :::1 :1::: :::1 ::::: l :::::
_______ (___ ? ---1------i-------
-------r------1-~ ·1------1-------
_l_ _____ J_ ____ .... J _____ J __
' ' ' ' ' ' ----------1---------1--------1---------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------r------r--------r--------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' _ ----_ --__ L_ -----__ L __ ----__ L ------__ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------1---------1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------r--------~--------~--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
: ::: : L r :: : ::+:: ::::f :::: ::::
--------~--------r-------T--------
: :::::::r:::::r:::::r:::::: ----------!--~! ________ ! _______ _
---~-~ _t ~-~~ t --_t_ ----~-
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.17 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 52.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-1
Location:
Constrained Modulus
M(CPT) (tsf)
4,0002,0000
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Constrained Modulus Shear strength
Su (tsf)
1 51 050
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2 Su peak
Su remolded
Shear strengthShear modulus
Go (tsf)
4,0002,000
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Shear modulus Undrained strength ratio
Su/σ',v
43210
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
Undrained strength ratio OCR
OCR
2 01 51 050
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
OCR
Calculation parameters
Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt: 14
OCR factor for clays, Nkt: 0.33
Go: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Constrained modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic and Qtn (Robertson, 2009)
User defined estimation data
Flat Dilatometer Test data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:04 PM 5
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
--------
]
r-----r-------r--------r--
-r-------r---------r---------r--
·r -------r-------r--------r--
f ::::::r:::::::r::::::y
·: rcf---1----------r--------t--
l I I I I I I I li --• ---------_, __ -------•---
,l _ _ ___ j__ -------J_ __ ----__ j__ -
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -r-----,----------r---------,---1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·r ------,----------,----------,---1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·r -------,----------,----------,---
' I I I I I I I I I I I +---------:---------+---------1---
: rt --cl : i 1 ~r J.
I I 1...-i,. ~
' ' ' · --------r--------r--------,---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' · --------r--------r--------r--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---------r --------r--------r
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . --------r--------,---------,--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . --------r--------r-----' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·-------r------r-------i -------
---------:---_T _______ T _______ _
r-------r------r-------
_r::: :::: r: ::::r: :::::
·-------~--------!--------
· --------r-------r -------! --------
. -------r------r------r-------
' ' ' -·--------,---------r--------,---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------r--------r--------r --------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------r--------r-----,---------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------r--------r--------r--' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------r--------r--' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·-------r-------~-------!--------
----------r--__ T _______ T _______ _
r-------r-------r--------
_:r:::: :::r:: ::::r :::: ::::
-----~--------f--------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------r ----r--------r--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -r--------r--------r--------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----r--------r--------r--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------r-------r-------i ---------·-------r------r------r-------
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.17 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 52.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-1
Location:
Shear Wave velocity
Vs (ft/s)
1,000
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Shear Wave velocity In-situ stress ratio
Ko
32.521.510.50
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
In-situ stress ratioState parameter
ψ
0.10-0.1-0.2
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
State parameter Soil sensitivity
S
1 086420
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
Soil sensitivity Effective friction angle
Peak φ (degrees)
4 03 53 02 52 0
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Effective friction angle
Calculation parameters
Soil Sensitivity factor, NS: 7.00
User defined estimation data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:04 PM 6
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
_: ::::: l ::::: ::::: ::
--------1--------------
·---------------------_ .. -----------' ' ' ' ' ' -:::>-r r
-~ ---+----------: : ::::: :::: f :::: ::::f ::::: :::: ::
: : ::::: :::: f: ::::: :::f ::::: :::: ::
: : ::::: :::: f: :::: ::::f ::::: :::: ::
: : ::::: :::: r-:~::f ::::: :::: ::
: : ::::: :::: r-~: :::r ::::: :::: ::
-·---:::::=» ( _________ ! __________ _
-~-----:----------r----------
• I
__ T ____ T_ ---T-----r -----
---i------i------i------T------
--r-----r-----r-----r-----
-1 ::::: l: :::1 ::::: l ::::
·----~ 1------1------1-------
1 I I I I I I I • -----_T _____ -------, -------,-------
0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --, ------, -------,-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---, ------, -------,-------' ' ' ----r · -~------~------~-------. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -----,------,-------,-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·---: t----t-----(-----
{"! I I I · ------r------i------1------7-------<, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 25.47 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 52.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-2
Location:
Cone resistance qt
Tip resistance (tsf)
400200
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cone resistance qt Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
0-5-10
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pore pressure uFriction ratio
Rf (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction ratio SBT Index
Ic SBT
4321
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SBT Index Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:06 PM 7
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
-____________ ._ _____________ ._ _____ c
' ' ' ' ' ' ' -----------r-------------r -----c ' ' ' ' ' ' ------------L-------------L -----c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ------------r-------------r -----c ' ' ' ' ' ' ------------L-------------L -----. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -----------~-------------~ -----C ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -----------r-------------,------c ' ' ' ' ' ' -----------~-------------~ -----c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
--------------:~ _:::::::::::r:::::
I
' ' '
···· I f
:::: --r::::r:::::
:::::, ::r+::::
I ---~------~------•
' ' ' ' ' . ---..... ------------_'" ___ ----------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' •----'--------------.1.-----------.Jc ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·---...--------------,--------------,c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' •----'--------------.1.--------____ .Jc ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' •----1--------------,I.-----------..le ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·---,-------------T------------,c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' •----1--------------,I.-----------..le ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·---,--------------T----------,c
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' •----1--------------'--------------C ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -----.--------------'"------------,-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ____ _._ _____________ ,a. ____________ .J_
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·---,--------------,-----------,c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' •----'--------____ ,a. _____________ .Jc
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----...-------------,---------------,-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' : :-: t ::::: :: ::: :: r:: :: ::: :: :::r
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
----_____ .. ____ ----------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I -----r ----'"-----,-----r----'"-----,-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --1-----L ----.L-----1-----L---_,a._ ---..I-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --,-----r ----'"-----,-----r----'"-----,-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --1-----L ----.L-----1-----L---_,a._ ---..I-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --1-----1-----.a.-----1-----~----.a.----..1-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I :t:::~::::f ::::~:::::~:::l:::r::: ---: r: :: 1: :::r: ::1: :: :1: :: :r :: :
. ::::t::::r:::~::::F::~:::::
: :~ :: :: 1: :::r: ::1: :: :1: :: :r :: :
----r----T----r----r----T----
1----------::~:::::~::::r:::r:::
.. T~TTT~i
::::~:::::~::::r:::r:::
. . .::::EfTT:::
I i I i i i I i I i I i I i I i I I
□ □ □
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 25.47 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 52.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-2
Location:
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
4003002001000
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. cone resistance Norm. Pore Pressure
U2
1 086420-2
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. Pore PressureNorm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. friction ratio Mod. SBTn I(B)
I
B
1 0100
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mod. SBTn I(B)
2232
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Mod. SBTn (Robertson 2016)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Sand like - DilativeTransitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Mod. SBTn legend
1. CCS: ClayLike - Contractive, Sensitive
2. CC: Clay-like - Contractive
3. CD: Clay-Like: Dilative
4. TC: Transitional - Contractive
5. TD: Transitional - Dilative
6. SC: Sand-like - Contractive
7. SD: Sand-like - Dilative
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:07 PM 8
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ------r-------c ' ' ' ' -·------.1--------L-------c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----,--------r--------c ' ' ' ' ' ' -----.l--------L-------. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------1--------~--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -----,--------,--------c ' ' ' ' ' ' ------1--------L-------c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -----,--------,--------c ' ' ' ' ' ' ------1--------L-------c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ------------r--------
' ' ' ---------_____ L _______ _
' ' ' ' --------------,..--------' ' ' -•----------L--------
0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------, -r--------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' -----------------' ' ' -----------------'
-----------------
' ' '
_______ ! _____ : ' -----1-------
·:::::r:::::~ :r::::: ______ l ______ ! _l _____ _
:::---i------L ' ___ :r:::::
-----r----r-----
\j~\j\~
.::::::r --r::::r:::::
::::1 --+::::
' ----______ .J ______ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -------,-------,-------' ' ' ' ' ' ·-----__ .J ______ .J ______ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -------,------,-------' ' ' ' ' ' -----__ .J ______ .J ______ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ,s=-r-~ ---~------~-------
' ' I I I I ----,-----, -----r-----r -----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
-----.J_ -----' -----'------L ----c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -,------,------, -----r-----r-----c I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I -'-----.I-----.I -----'------L ----c I I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I •----1------1------1-----1------1-----c I I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I ·---------,-----,-----r-----r-----c I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •----------1------1-----1------1-----c ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I -----,-----, -----r-----r-----c ' ' ' ' I I I I ' ' ' ' -----1------1-----1-----_._ ----c ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' - ---,-----, -----r-----r------
' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I -----.1_ ---_.1 __ ---1._ ---_L -----1 I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I ·---------,-----,-----r-----r-----c ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' -'-----.I-----.I -----1.-----L ----c ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' -,------,------, -----r-----r------
' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' :r:::r:::r::r:::r::::
■ ■ ■
' I
■ □ □
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I --r ----r-----,-----r----r-----,-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --'-----L ----1.-----'-----L----'----_.J __ ---I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --,-----r ----r-----,-----r----r-----,-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --'-----L ----1.-----'-----L----'----_.J __ ---I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --1-----1-----1------1-----1-----1------1-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I : r:: r: :: f: :::~: :: ::~: :: l :: :r :: :
--::r::r:::f ::::1::::r:::
::t::::r:::~::::F::~:::::
--~--::1::::r::r:::1::::r:::
--r----T----r----r----r----
_ T ___ -r :: :: t: :::r: :r :: l :: :r :: :
I~LFlTTT~i
_,..... -+---~----+--+--+----] . --r----r---i----r----r---
J1 --1-----,._ ----1-----1----_,._ ----1-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -i=. ! I I I ! .~r--:-7--~--~~c;1--~--
□
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 25.47 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 52.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-2
Location:
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Normalized Friction, F (%)
0.1 1 1 0
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
SD
SC
CCS CC
CD
TD
TC
CD=70
I =32
I =22
B
B
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Updated SBTn plots
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
Du2/sig'v
2 01 81 61 41 21 086420-2
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
TC
CC CCS
Normalized Rigidity Index
Go/qn
1 1 0 100 1,000
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Normalized Rigidity Index
K*(G) = 100
K*(G) = 330
CCS:
CC:
CD:
TC:
TD:
SC:
SD:
Clay-like - Contractive - Sensitive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Transitional - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Sand-like - Dilative
K(G) > 330:Soils with significant microstructure
(e.g. age/cementation)
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:07 PM 9
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' ' -r---------------------, -----. ----------· -----,-----------------------1 i 1 :1 i ]
I ' ' -I : 1
~I
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 25.47 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 52.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-2
Location:
Permeability
Ksbt (ft/s)1x10 -91x10 -61x10 -31x10 +0
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
PermeabilityYoung's modulus
Es (tsf)
2,000 0
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Young's modulus SPT N60
N60 (blows/ft)
5 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SPT N60Relative density
Dr (%)
100 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Relative density
Calculation parameters
Relative density constant, CDr: 350.0 Permeability: Based on SBTn
SPT N60: Based on Ic and qt
Young’s modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Phi: Based on Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)
User defined estimation data
Friction angle
φ (degrees)
5 0 4 5 4 0 3 5 3 0
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction angle
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:07 PM10
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
:--------r-------r-------~-
-------~-i---------i---------i--------•I-
< ' ' . ' ' ' ' ' --------~--------7--------7---------1-
--------~--------i--------i--------•I---------}------+------+-------·•-
:: :: :·::r :: :: ::r :: ::: :r ::::: ::::
:: :: :: ::r :: :: ::r :: ::: :r ::::: ::::
:: :: :: ::r :: :: ::r :: ::: :r ::::: :~: --------l _____ l _______ l _______ ... _
--------l ----l-------f--------1---------r-----r-------r-------•I-
:::::::: r :: __ ::r-: ::: :r ::: :: :~:
--------l-------f------f-------•I---------r-------1--------r------•I-:: :: :: ::r :: :: ::r :: ::: :r ::::: ::::
:: :: :: ::r :: :: ::r :: ::: :r ::::: ::::
--------1--------1--------1---------1-
--------l-------1--------1---------1-, ------u ---------•-
1 ______ t _____ ! ______ t ______ l
-r:::::;::::::;::::::r::::::
'::~: ::: :: ~: ::: :: ~: :: ::: t: :: ::: :
--::: :I:::::: I:::::: I:::::: 1: :: ::: : :: ::: :r ::: :: ~: ::::: ~: ::::: t: :: ::: :
:: ::: :~: ::: :: f: ::::: f: ::::: f: :: ::: :
------. ------r------r------r------
::: ::::( ::;: ::::r: +::::
------l------r------i -----r------
-------r------r------r--/-r------· :: ::: :r ::: :: ~: ::::: ~: ::::: r :: ::: :
::::::r\'.l\'.I'.'.'.'.I\'.'.
-------~ -i------------------il
' ' --------1-------------------1 ' ' ' '
t------------------:
---------------f '
---------------"--~--"
--------------+----------------i _______________ .J_______ _ ________ .J
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------------1-----------------t ' ' ' ' ' ' _______________ l_____________ --1
---------------1---------------,-1 : :: ::: :: :: ::::: r :: ::: :: :: ::: :: :: :i
: :: ::: :: :: ::::: i: :: ::: :: :: ::: :: :: :i
: :: ::: :: :: ::::: r :: ::: :: :: ::: :: :: :i
---------------1-----------~ -1 ·
------
I I I I -------r------r------r------y ------I I I I I I I I I I I I
:-~ ~ t I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------1-------t-------t-------+-------1 I I I I I I I
::::::l::::l:::::~:::::l:::::
-------~------~------~------+-------
1 I I I I I I I I ' ' ' --r------r------r-------
1 ' ' ' I I I I ---~ -~------t------t------+-------
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I ,----1-------t-------t-------+-------
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I --_: :: r :: :: :f: :: :: r :: :: :r: :: :·
------T------r------r------T------
.....,, I I I ....-! I I I --1-------1-------1----------------I I I I ------P ------~------f------~ I I ------~---r------r-------1
--------r--------r---y--------r· I I I I I I I I I I I I
--------L--------L-------.I. --------L. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --------t---------1------+--------t-• I I I I I I I I
:::::::l::::::l :-:):::::::l
::: :: :: :f: :: :: ::I:::_: ::t--:: ::: :1:
:::::::l::::::r:::::-t ::::::::~:
:::::::r::::::r::----f ::::::::f:
:::::::r::::::r:-:::r::::+
::: :: :: r :: :: ::r--:: _:t :: :: ::: :~:
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 25.47 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 52.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-2
Location:
Constrained Modulus
M(CPT) (tsf)
5,0000
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Constrained Modulus Shear strength
Su (tsf)
2 01 00
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Su peak
Su remolded
Shear strengthShear modulus
Go (tsf)
4,0002,0000
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shear modulus Undrained strength ratio
Su/σ',v
43210
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Undrained strength ratio OCR
OCR
2 01 51 050
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
OCR
Calculation parameters
Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt: 14
OCR factor for clays, Nkt: 0.33
Go: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Constrained modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic and Qtn (Robertson, 2009)
User defined estimation data
Flat Dilatometer Test data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:07 PM 11
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·r --------------------,-----------' ' ' ' ' • I-----------------------1-----------' ' ' ' ' ' :~ -::::::::::::::::::::r:::::::::
r
-----------,-----------' ' ' -------------t-----------' ' r::--__ ::::::::::::::r:::::::::
' ' ' ' ' -----------T--------------l" ----' ' ' ' ' ' -----------,.._ ------------_,.. ----' ' ' ' ' ' t---::::::::::t:::::::::::::r:::
----------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' · --------r--------r--------r--------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' · --------r--------r--------r--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
:: : :::::i::: :::: :1::: :::: :1::: :::::
. --------!--------!--------~--------
~ QL ~ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --------_.., ___ -----1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---------1---------1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . --------1---------1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---------r --------r--------r--------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
:: : :::i1::: :::::i::: :::::i::i::::
:: : :::+: :::+: :::+:: ::::
' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------r--------r--------r--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------r--------r--------r--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
: ::: : ::::1:::: ::::1:::: ::::1:::: ::::
----------!--------!~
~ (._:-:-' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------1---------1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------1---------1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------1---------1---------~--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------r--------r--------r --------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
: ::: : ::::1:::: ::::1:::: ::::1 :::: ::::
: ::: : ::f:: ::f :: ::+:: ::::
I I I
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 25.47 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 52.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-2
Location:
Shear Wave velocity
Vs (ft/s)
1,0000
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shear Wave velocity In-situ stress ratio
Ko
32.521.510.50
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
In-situ stress ratioState parameter
ψ
0.10-0.1-0.2
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
State parameter Soil sensitivity
S
1 086420
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil sensitivity Effective friction angle
Peak φ (degrees)
4 03 53 02 52 0
Depth (ft)
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Effective friction angle
Calculation parameters
Soil Sensitivity factor, NS: 7.00
User defined estimation data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:07 PM 12
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
+
.
'
.
'
'
'
.
'
.
.
'
'
'
'
'
.
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
.
'
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-rr
-
1
-
-
-
r
-
r
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rr
r
r
r
r
r
_! ___
i ____
t ___ t ___ t ___
t ___ t ___
t ___ t ___
t--
-
1
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
t
-
7---
-
t
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
rr
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
T
r
T
r
r
-
r
r
-
' ' ' ' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
~
i
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!✓
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
--
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
--
,
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
---
-
-
r
--
-
--
,
-
--
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
--
-
r-
--
--
.
-
--
-
-
,-
-
-
-
-T
-
-
--
-
T
-
--
--
T
-
-
-
--
.
-
-
-
--
,-
--
-
-
,
--
-
-T
-
--
-
-
--
-
--
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I_
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
I
I
I
:
:
____ T ____ f ____
T ___ r __ T ___ T ____ f ____
T ___ r __ T ___ T ___ T ___ r __ T __ _
' A
-L
.
.
!
!
-
.
,
1
~
;~
--
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
+
-
r
+--
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---
-
i
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
f
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
f
-
-
-
-
-
f
-
-
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
~--
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
.
l
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---
T
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
T
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
T
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
' ' ' ' ' ' ' +-r-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
1
+-r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
r
-
-
r
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
r
+-r-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
r
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.27 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-3
Location:
Cone resistance qt
Tip resistance (tsf)
1005 0
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Cone resistance qt Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
0.50
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Pore pressure uFriction ratio
Rf (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Friction ratio SBT Index
Ic SBT
4321
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
SBT Index Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
ClayClay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:09 PM 13
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' '
---------------c
!----------------·
__ ::: :f:::: ::::: :::::
--:::I:::::::::::::::
--:::i: ::::: ::::: :::::.
:
-----------------
---------------
' -·----------------L---------------
.., ___ --------------__ .. ------c ' ' ' ' ' -------------------I--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·-------------------------r------c ' ' ' ' ' -:------------------l------·
:: : :::;: :-::: :::: ::::: :::r::::
::::I:::: ::::::::::::I:::::
::: :::1: :::: :~~~ _ ::::: ::::i ::::::
::::::1 :::::: ::::::::: ::+::::
: ::: :: 1:: :: ::: :: ::::: :: :r: ::--·
I
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
_ _, _____ ._ ____ ----_____ ._ ____ ----------
' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --I-----+-----I-----I-----+-----I-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -----r ----T-----,-----r----T-----,-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-/T:f l:TT::r::
1::E:1::::EE:1::::1:::::
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -I -----t ----t----~-----t----t----~-----
I I I I I I
,:-. --. ---. --:~)--. _J __ . --l )::)--. --
□ □ □
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.27 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-3
Location:
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
4003002001000
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Norm. cone resistance Norm. Pore Pressure
U2
1 086420-2
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Norm. Pore PressureNorm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Norm. friction ratio Mod. SBTn I(B)
I
B
1 0100
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Mod. SBTn I(B)
2232
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Mod. SBTn (Robertson 2016)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Transitional - Contractive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - DilativeTransitional - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Mod. SBTn legend
1. CCS: ClayLike - Contractive, Sensitive
2. CC: Clay-like - Contractive
3. CD: Clay-Like: Dilative
4. TC: Transitional - Contractive
5. TD: Transitional - Dilative
6. SC: Sand-like - Contractive
7. SD: Sand-like - Dilative
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:09 PM 14
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ---1-------I-------I-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ------,-------,-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---r-----r----r-----
: :::: :(: ::r-----r:: l: :::
i~~I~~:: ----:+::::
::::::;~~~--~;;;;;;:!:;~~ -----
-___ __i_::: ::;:: --' '
-------
----1-------,
' ' ' ' ---,-------' ' ' ' : ___ :::r:::::
I I I I I I I I
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I
----~-!~_-_::i::::r::r::::i::+:::
__ T_::;::::1::::r :r:r:r:::
:1:::E:1::::EEE:1:::::
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1= _ 7 ____ -~ ----r----T----r----r----r----
F ,~j::, -in ,::;~.~t=. -+-,::~.~t=.~--I nl
□
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.27 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-3
Location:
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Normalized Friction, F (%)
0.1 1 1 0
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
SD
SC
CCS CC
CD
TD
TC
CD=70
I =32
I =22
B
B
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Updated SBTn plots
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
Du2/sig'v
2 01 81 61 41 21 086420-2
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
TC
CC CCS
Normalized Rigidity Index
Go/qn
1 1 0 100 1,000
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Normalized Rigidity Index
K*(G) = 100
K*(G) = 330
CCS:
CC:
CD:
TC:
TD:
SC:
SD:
Clay-like - Contractive - Sensitive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Transitional - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Sand-like - Dilative
K(G) > 330:Soils with significant microstructure
(e.g. age/cementation)
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:09 PM 15
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
t. ' ' ' ' ' ' -r---------------------, -----. ----------· -----,-----------------------1 i 1 :1 ~ : j :
:I
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.27 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-3
Location:
Permeability
Ksbt (ft/s)1x10 -9 1x10 -6 1x10 -3 1x10 +0
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Permeability Young's modulus
Es (tsf)
1,0000
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Young's modulusSPT N60
N60 (blows/ft)
5 04 03 02 01 00
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
SPT N60 Relative density
Dr (%)
1008 06 04 02 00
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Relative density
Calculation parameters
Relative density constant, CDr: 350.0Permeability: Based on SBTn
SPT N60: Based on Ic and qt
Young’s modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Phi: Based on Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)
User defined estimation data
Friction angle
φ (degrees)
5 04 54 03 53 0
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Friction angle
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:10 PM 16
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
·------------____ ... _____________ _. ______ -------
' ' ' I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' I I I I ' ' ' ' ' I I I I ' ' ' •-!--------+-----1---------1-----------1-------1-------1-------1 I I I ' ' ' I I I I ' ' ' I I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • F :::-l ::: :::1: :::: :::r :::: ::: ---: :1::::::1:::::r::::1:::::::
~ ·rs , _______ _:_ ________ _
: """ : ' ' -·~--------1_ -------------~ ----------! r !
~ L __ s _____________ _]_ ________ _
! ~ ! ' ' ' ' -·r---------------------~----------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' : r :::: ::::: ::::: :::: ::::1 ::::: :::::
-f----------------------1----------: r :::: ::::: ::::: :::: ::::1 :::: ::::::
-t-----------------------r---------
' ' ' • r :::: ::::: ::::: :::: ::::1 ::::: :::::
-·!-----------------------1----------
~ r :: :: ::: :: :: ::: :: :: ::::1 :: :: ::: :: :
-t-----------------------1-----------r----------------------1----------
-T-----------------------r---------
-+ 7
I I
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.27 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-3
Location:
Constrained Modulus
M(CPT) (tsf)
2,0001,0000
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Constrained Modulus Shear strength
Su (tsf)
6420
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
Su peak
Su remolded
Shear strengthShear modulus
Go (tsf)
1,0000
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Shear modulus Undrained strength ratio
Su/σ',v
43210
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
Undrained strength ratio OCR
OCR
2 01 51 050
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
OCR
Calculation parameters
Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt: 14
OCR factor for clays, Nkt: 0.33
Go: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Constrained modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic and Qtn (Robertson, 2009)
User defined estimation data
Flat Dilatometer Test data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:10 PM 17
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
---------r---------1
. ------r---------1
·r ------r---------1
! -+:::::::::::+
L --... -------------r--
----------
' ' ' · --------r--------r-------+--------
. -------_! ___ -----!---
---i-------r------r------------r ------r -------
-------r------r-------
----i-------r------r-------___ ---r------r--------------r------r-------
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.27 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-3
Location:
Shear Wave velocity
Vs (ft/s)
1,000500
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Shear Wave velocity In-situ stress ratio
Ko
32.521.510.50
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
In-situ stress ratioState parameter
ψ
0.10-0.1-0.2
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
State parameter Soil sensitivity
S
1 086420
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
Soil sensitivity Effective friction angle
Peak φ (degrees)
4 03 53 02 52 0
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Effective friction angle
Calculation parameters
Soil Sensitivity factor, NS: 7.00
User defined estimation data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:10 PM 18
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ---------------1-,
' ' ' ' -----------------,-' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --J._ --------------_ _J_ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -,.. ____ -------------1-, ' ' ' ' ' ' '
::::: ::::: :::: l :::: ::--: ::::: t
·----------------r--------7-
·---------------------_ .. -----------' _ =: _______ i-----------~-----------
-·-J_ --------t-----------t-----------~ i !
-------------~ -----------~ -----------
-____________ L. > ___ L _________ __
i _, ! ------------_i ___ -------l-----------
: : ::::: :::: F :::: ::::r ::::: :::: ::
-·----------_i ___ --------!-----------
: : ::::: :::: F :::: ::::r ::::: :::: ::
-·-----------1-----------r-----------
-------------r---------1-----------
-------------r-----------r-----------
-·-----------1 -----------r-----------
-------------r-----------r-----------
-------------r-----------r-----------
-·-----------1-----------1-----------
-------------r-----------r-----------
-: : ~ :
------------:---.........___--:------------
' I
I I I I ~ : f : I I :
I I I l_,,,..,,I ~ ~ ~ i ~
·-----~-----~-[. ~-----~-----
• I I I I
C:..' I I I
4 i i ~
. ----~--~ ------~ ------~-------' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-----r--1----r---r---r-----_t _____ -1------1------r-----
------r-----~ ---r----r---r----. i------r-----
-----r----: ---r---r---r-----i------1------1------r-----
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.18 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-4
Location:
Cone resistance qt
Tip resistance (tsf)
2001000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cone resistance qt Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
0.80.60.40.2
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pore pressure uFriction ratio
Rf (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction ratio SBT Index
Ic SBT
4321
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
SBT Index Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:16 PM 19
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1~-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
}
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
}
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
}
·1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
-
-
!
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
1~-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
+
·
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
~--
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
1-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
-
-
!
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
-
-
J
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
r
I~--
-
--t-
-
I --
-
-+
-
---t
-
-
-
-
-
t-
--
-+
-
---
+
-
-
--
t
-
--
--
t
-
--
-~
-
-
--
-t-
-
-
--
t-
--
-+
-
-
--
+
-
-
--
t
-
-
-
-
-t-
-
--
+
-
-
-
-
t
-
--
--
t
-
--
-
-
t
•1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
1~
:
:
:
~--
-
-
-
+
-
:-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
--~
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
t-l-
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
r
I
:r
l~
S!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
a
f
-
F
-
!1
1-
-
-
-
-
i
=
r
-
-
-
' ' ' ' ' '
I
I
I
I
--
-
-
-1-
-
---
-t
-
-
-
-
--
t
-
--
--
T
-
1-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,..
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
r --
-
-
t
~
I
:t
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
l-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
,
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
"
"
.
"
"
"
'
"
"
"
"
"
"
' ' ' ' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_T
____
f ____
_
f ___
_
_
i ____ r __ T ___ T ___ T ____
---
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
T
___ T ___ _
_ T ____ i _____
i ____ r_
----
--
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
:::
:
r
:
:
:
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
T
' ' '
'
'
rT
r---r
l
I,
'
'
'
'
:
t
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
'
'
~
-
~
-
~
-
~
!
!
!
I
' ' ' '
-~
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
1
,
-
---
-
i
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
t
,
--
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
r
-
r
r
-
r
-
-
r
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
1
l_
J
__ J ---~ ----
i
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
--i-
-+
-
+
-
-
-1-
-
-
--1--
---
r
-
-
-
-
1
-
--
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
r
-
r
-
r
-
-
r
---~---
-
-
,
: A_
_
'
'
:
'
'
:
'
'
'
:
'
'
:
'
i
:
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
:
'--
'
-
-
'
:
'
'
:
'
'
:
'
'
:
i
:
:
i
i
~
.
'
.
i
I
j
i
□□
□
■□□
■■■
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.18 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-4
Location:
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
4003002001000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. cone resistance Norm. Pore Pressure
U2
1 086420-2
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. Pore PressureNorm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. friction ratio Mod. SBTn I(B)
I
B
1 0100
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mod. SBTn I(B)
2232
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Mod. SBTn (Robertson 2016)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Transitional - Contractive
Clay-like - DilativeClay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Mod. SBTn legend
1. CCS: ClayLike - Contractive, Sensitive
2. CC: Clay-like - Contractive
3. CD: Clay-Like: Dilative
4. TC: Transitional - Contractive
5. TD: Transitional - Dilative
6. SC: Sand-like - Contractive
7. SD: Sand-like - Dilative
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:16 PM 20
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' -----------1------,
' ' '
' ' ' ' ' --1---------,
' ' -·-------r---___ i___.,_,,_,,,_!e'.r_:-:_:-:_:-_:: __ ::_J_
: ::: · -:~:~~::::I:::: I::::::
---_:: :::r :::: ::l ::::: T ::::: •
~ .::: ::l::: ::1: ::::: :i:: :::::
-1 ------+------+------+-------·
--------t------+------+------·
-::: :::F:: ::r:::: + :::::
:::::+:::+::::+:::::
-----------------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -1-------I-------I-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -r------,-------,-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
::::r:::1:::::
{T::::
------. ----r----r----r----
------~~~ 1 ~~~~r~~~r~~~~r~~~: J ::::r:11:::
I I I I I I I I
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I --+-----I-----1-----+-----I-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --T-----,-----r----T-----,-----
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
·t··•r:f :f +:r::r:
□
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.18 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-4
Location:
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Normalized Friction, F (%)
0.1 1 1 0
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
SD
SC
CCS CC
CD
TD
TC
CD=70
I =32
I =22
B
B
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Updated SBTn plots
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
Du2/sig'v
2 01 81 61 41 21 086420-2
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
TC
CC CCS
Normalized Rigidity Index
Go/qn
1 1 0 100 1,000
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Normalized Rigidity Index
K*(G) = 100
K*(G) = 330
CCS:
CC:
CD:
TC:
TD:
SC:
SD:
Clay-like - Contractive - Sensitive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Transitional - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Sand-like - Dilative
K(G) > 330:Soils with significant microstructure
(e.g. age/cementation)
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:16 PM 21
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
t.
' ' ' ' ' ' • ---T-----T -----, -----, -----, -----,------,------.--
' ' ' ' ' ' -r---------------------, -----. ----------· -----,-----------------------1 i 1 :1 ~ : j :
:I
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.18 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-4
Location:
Permeability
Ksbt (ft/s)1x10 -91x10 -61x10 -31x10 +0
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
PermeabilityYoung's modulus
Es (tsf)
500 0
Depth (ft)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Young's modulus SPT N60
N60 (blows/ft)
5 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SPT N60Relative density
Dr (%)
100 8 0 6 0 4 0 2 0 0
Depth (ft)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Relative density
Calculation parameters
Relative density constant, CDr: 350.0 Permeability: Based on SBTn
SPT N60: Based on Ic and qt
Young’s modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Phi: Based on Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)
User defined estimation data
Friction angle
φ (degrees)
5 0 4 5 4 0 3 5 3 0
Depth (ft)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Friction angle
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:16 PM22
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
_______ _l_ _______ J _______ __l __ i ___ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --------+---------1--------_ .. _ --------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --------.1_ -------.J_ -------_L_ ------- -' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' : :J : ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' _______ j ________ j____ _J ________ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --------------------
----u --------
' ' '(' I I I I
1-----__ j__ ----_l_ ----_j_ --_J __ ----.
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1-------+-------1--------1-------►------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
: ____ J_ ___ J_ ___ y1 _J ___ _
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
---r---r-----r------
___________ __j ) _________ ___]
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
e" ---------------L------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
------
' ' ' I I I I -------r------r------r------r-~-----
------t------r------r------(----
_______ i ______ i ______ i _____ T ____ _
:::::r::::r:::::r: ::r :--
::::::r::::r::::1::::1:::-
------+------:-----u---_t ___ --__ I
I I ~ -------~-----+-----i------t
: : : --+------r-----T-. '
---:::1:::7::::::f-!
I I I I ! : I
' ' ' ' ' ' --------L--------L-------.I. ----
0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I --------r--------,-------T-------r · I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~~~~~~I~~~~~I~~~~~~l~~~~J
: :::: :::1: :::: ::r ::::: :r :::_
t :-t ) ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
: :::: ::r:: :r:::: r:::: :r
: :::: :::1: ::::: :t-----: l ::::: l
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.18 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-4
Location:
Constrained Modulus
M(CPT) (tsf)
1,0000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Constrained Modulus Shear strength
Su (tsf)
43210
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5 Su peak
Su remolded
Shear strengthShear modulus
Go (tsf)
1,0005000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shear modulus Undrained strength ratio
Su/σ',v
43210
Depth (ft)
19.5
1 9
18.5
1 8
17.5
1 7
16.5
1 6
15.5
1 5
14.5
1 4
13.5
1 3
12.5
1 2
11.5
1 1
10.5
1 0
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
Undrained strength ratio OCR
OCR
2 01 51 050
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
OCR
Calculation parameters
Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt: 14
OCR factor for clays, Nkt: 0.33
Go: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Constrained modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic and Qtn (Robertson, 2009)
User defined estimation data
Flat Dilatometer Test data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:16 PM 23
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' _..J ______________ _
' ' ' ' ' ------------1---------------'
r:: :::: ::::: :::: r ::::: ::::: ::
T ---·::: ::::: :::: r ::::: ::::: ::
::: : :::: ::::: :::: T ::::: :::: :::
f :_:: :::: ::::: ::::: E:::: :::: :::
' ---------,---' ' ' ' _ ____________ ..J __ _
' ' ' ' ' ' +-------------1----------------1---' ' ' ' ' ' '
+---------··:: T: :::: ::::: :l
' ' ' '
-·:::: F: :::: ::::: ::f ::
.. :::::r ::::::::::::r
r ::::: :::: :::. T" ::::: ::::: :r
------------
. . .
: :::::::r::::r:::::r:::::::
--:::r: :::r: ::::r :::: ::::
·r:: :::r:: ::::r:::: ::::
-... . ·::r:::: ::::1:::: ::::1:::: ::::
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.18 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-4
Location:
Shear Wave velocity
Vs (ft/s)
500
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shear Wave velocity In-situ stress ratio
Ko
32.521.510.50
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
In-situ stress ratioState parameter
ψ
0.10-0.1-0.2
Depth (ft)
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
State parameter Soil sensitivity
S
1 086420
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
Soil sensitivity Effective friction angle
Peak φ (degrees)
4 03 53 02 52 0
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Effective friction angle
Calculation parameters
Soil Sensitivity factor, NS: 7.00
User defined estimation data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:16 PM 24
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' ---,-------------' ' ' ' • ::::: :::: ::::: :_:-: ::t ::::: ::::: ::
---------------:::: ::r::: :::: :::
::::: :::: ::::: ::::: ::r::: :::: :::
. ---------------------... ------------' ' ' ' • ::::: :::: ::::: ::::: ::t
--------------------,-------------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
::::: ::::: r:::: :::: r ::::: ::: f j ________ j _________ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
~------------l-----------. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ------------r ----------r-----------
-----------+-----} /-----------
' ' I I
; ; ; y·; -----+----+----+----+---+-----
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~
. ; ; ; -----+------ ➔------➔------+------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I ------1------1------1------1------1-------------+ ------ ➔ ------➔ -------4-------I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.18 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-5
Location:
Cone resistance qt
Tip resistance (tsf)
4 02 0
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cone resistance qt Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
0.60.40.2
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pore pressure uFriction ratio
Rf (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction ratio SBT Index
Ic SBT
4321
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SBT Index Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clayClay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:22 PM 25
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' -----------+---------' ' ' ' ' ------------r----------' ' ' '
: ::::::::::i---
-------------------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -1-------I-------I-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ------,-------' ' ' ' ' -----,-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' : ___ T _____ T _____ _
----r-----
-----r-----
' ' ' ' ------------1 ' ' ' ' ' -----------,--'
' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-------T -----t--: ::::: ::
::: ::::: l ::::: ::1::: ::::: ::
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
□ □ □
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.18 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-5
Location:
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
4003002001000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. cone resistance Norm. Pore Pressure
U2
1 086420-2
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. Pore PressureNorm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. friction ratio Mod. SBTn I(B)
I
B
1 0100
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mod. SBTn I(B)
2232
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Mod. SBTn (Robertson 2016)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Transitional - Contractive
Sand like - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - DilativeSand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Mod. SBTn legend
1. CCS: ClayLike - Contractive, Sensitive
2. CC: Clay-like - Contractive
3. CD: Clay-Like: Dilative
4. TC: Transitional - Contractive
5. TD: Transitional - Dilative
6. SC: Sand-like - Contractive
7. SD: Sand-like - Dilative
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:22 PM 26
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' ' ' --➔--------1-------- -' ' ' ' ' ' -,--------r-------c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
: :::! ::::: ::1: ::::: :i:: :::::.
: __ :: :::r :::: ::l ::::: T ::::: •
------------------------c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -1-------I-------I-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ------,-------' ' ' '
: ::: -_:::r::: I::::
::::r:::l
I I I I I I I I
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
□
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.18 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-5
Location:
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Normalized Friction, F (%)
0.1 1 1 0
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
SD
SC
CCS CC
CD
TD
TC
CD=70
I =32
I =22
B
B
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Updated SBTn plots
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
Du2/sig'v
2 01 81 61 41 21 086420-2
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
TC
CC CCS
Normalized Rigidity Index
Go/qn
1 1 0 100 1,000
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Normalized Rigidity Index
K*(G) = 100
K*(G) = 330
CCS:
CC:
CD:
TC:
TD:
SC:
SD:
Clay-like - Contractive - Sensitive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Transitional - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Sand-like - Dilative
K(G) > 330:Soils with significant microstructure
(e.g. age/cementation)
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:22 PM 27
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.18 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-5
Location:
Permeability
Ksbt (ft/s)1x10 -9 1x10 -6 1x10 -3 1x10 +0
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Permeability Young's modulus
Es (tsf)
5000
Depth (ft)
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Young's modulusSPT N60
N60 (blows/ft)
5 04 03 02 01 00
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SPT N60 Relative density
Dr (%)
1008 06 04 02 00
Depth (ft)
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Relative density
Calculation parameters
Relative density constant, CDr: 350.0Permeability: Based on SBTn
SPT N60: Based on Ic and qt
Young’s modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Phi: Based on Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)
User defined estimation data
Friction angle
φ (degrees)
5 04 54 03 53 0
Depth (ft)
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction angle
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:22 PM 28
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .L----------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' .L-----------------------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·r---------------------------------
j------------/ ------
·r---------------------------------
t ::::: :_~ ::::::::::::::::
-r----------------------~-----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -------+ ------ ➔ ------➔ --' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -------+ ------ ➔ ------➔ --' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I -------+ -------1-------1 ------~-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-------l----y-l ---~------~-------• I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
____ _j; J___j __ _j _____ _
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • -----_T _____ -, ------, ------,-------
: ~: : : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ______ j _____ J ______ J ______ J ______ _
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . ------+ ------ ➔ ------ ➔ -------i-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • ------+ ------ ➔ ------➔ ------~-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
O ---H -r )-1 H HHl H HHlH ---H
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------1---------1--------1---------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------1---------1--------1---------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------1---------1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------L------L--------L--------
0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·-------r------r------r-------
---CTf------~--------~--------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------r---------i---------i---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -----r---------r---------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------1---------1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------1---------1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------~ -------r--------r--------
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.18 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-5
Location:
Constrained Modulus
M(CPT) (tsf)
1,0005000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Constrained Modulus Shear strength
Su (tsf)
210
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Su peak
Su remolded
Shear strengthShear modulus
Go (tsf)
5000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shear modulus Undrained strength ratio
Su/σ',v
43210
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Undrained strength ratio OCR
OCR
2 01 51 050
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
OCR
Calculation parameters
Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt: 14
OCR factor for clays, Nkt: 0.33
Go: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Constrained modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic and Qtn (Robertson, 2009)
User defined estimation data
Flat Dilatometer Test data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:22 PM 29
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
-------r:::::::::::::::t
--::::i:1"':_:_:-::_:_:-::_:_:_:-::~-:-:1
::: : :::: :::f: :::: ::::: ::::: :f
-------:: ::_:: :::f: :::: ::::: ::::: :f
-----:: ::::: ::r::: ::::: :::: ::1
-_::: :::: ::::: :::t: :::: ::::: :::: ::i
-----------
---------------
E: ::::: :::: ::
-----------------
-----------------.&. ' ' ' ' ' -----------------T-
O ' ' ' -----------------.&. -
-------------
' '
-------------
-------------
------------
' ' ' ' ' -.-------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' •I--------------1--------------1-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' r ~ ----q ___ :::::::::r::::
[:~-:::~-f -------------1------r _:_:: :::: :::~: :::: ::::: :::f: :::::
r:::: --'.: :::: ::::: ::r::::
1: ::::: :::: :::1: :::: : __ --:::!: :::::
f: :::: :::: ::~-____ ::::: :::f: :::::
r-------r-----------r-----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------r--------r--------r--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------1---------1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
: ::: : :::r_ ---r -::::r :::: ::::
: ::::::l~::[]::::::::
----_ :::r: :::r:: ::::f :::: ::::
: ::: : ::: : __ :: :::r: ::::r :::: ::::
: ::: : ::::1:::: _::r:: :::r:: ::::
T:::::r:::::r::::::
---r------r------r-------
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.18 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-5
Location:
Shear Wave velocity
Vs (ft/s)
600400200
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shear Wave velocity In-situ stress ratio
Ko
32.521.510.50
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
In-situ stress ratioState parameter
ψ
0.10-0.1-0.2
Depth (ft)
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
State parameter Soil sensitivity
S
1 086420
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Soil sensitivity Effective friction angle
Peak φ (degrees)
4 03 53 02 52 0
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Effective friction angle
Calculation parameters
Soil Sensitivity factor, NS: 7.00
User defined estimation data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:22 PM 30
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' '
) i ' ' ' ' '
• --: I -------:-----------L---
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --~-------~-----
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --+-----~---
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -----:--------~---
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----_i ___ -------+----------
' ' ' ' ' ' ----------F~~----------
. ' ' ' ' ' -r----------+-------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' : : ' '
i --r .------
r------r .----
-----r-------r----
' ' ' ' ' ' -----r--r -----+-----------
\' ' ' ' ' I I I • I I I I
•----I I I I :------1------i------~-------
1 I I I ---r------1------~ -----_J __ _
I I I I
·----ff : : : --I<.:---1------1------~-------
1 I I I I I I I ---r------1------~ -----_J __
:_...l.-:: ·------r--~-1------1------~-------
• I I I I I I I -r------1------➔-----_J __ _
·---1---: i i i -----1 I I I , -------1---I : : ----:-------
1 I I I
·-----1 -----+-----~------L-----. ' ' ' ' ' ----r------1------~ -----_J_ : : :
-+------J : : ,------.l I : :-------:-------
' I I I I I I I --r------1------~ -----_J __
I I I I I I I I ---r------1------~ ------L---__
I I I I I I I I
-T------~-----: : : : -T------l-----
' I I I I I I I ---r----t----+-----~----
1 I I I
----+------: : : : :------➔-------:_ I I I I ------
1 I I I I I I I --r------1------~ -----_J __ _
I I I I I I I I
-_t _____ -i------~ -----_J __ -----
' ' ' ' ' ' I : :
-----:--------r------
' ' ' ' --r--------r--------~------
' ' -------~-------+--------~------
-----~--------L : I I ------L
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --r-------~--------~----. ' ' ---r-------+-------~------
' ' ' --r-------~--------~----. ' ' ---r-------+--------~------
------!-------+--------~ --------
' ' ' -r------+--------~----. ' ' ----r-------+-------~-----. ' ' ' ' ' ---r------+--------~---. ' '
---_::r:: ::::t:: :: ::::l :::: : __ _
' ' ' --r------+--------~----. ' ' -r-----r--------~------____ --~-------+--------~---
' ' ' ----r-------+--------~-----
' ' ' ----r-------+-------~--------
' ' ' -----:--------~------__ L
' ' ' ' ' ' -------r--------~--------~----
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.19 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-6
Location:
Cone resistance qt
Tip resistance (tsf)
6 04 02 0
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cone resistance qt Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
0-1
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pore pressure uFriction ratio
Rf (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction ratio SBT Index
Ic SBT
4321
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
SBT Index Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:27 PM 31
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' ' ----------+ --------1----,
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -•--------T ---------,---c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
---------: _:: ::::ri ----r
:-::: :::r: ::::r: ::::: r
: :::: ::::):::: :-::: E :::]::
---------r--:_ -:::: E ::::: :r
I
-------------------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ------1-------I-------I-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I -,-------,-------,-------,-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r-------r------,------,-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----r------r-----r-----r------
' ' ' ' . ------,------------------' ' ' '
iiiliiiiiiiiiii~-~:
------f-----------------::: f-
:::: ___ f _
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
ili-----.. -1;-~--:r::r::: r r::i:::r ::
:r: r r+:r::r:
□ □ □
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.19 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-6
Location:
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
4003002001000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. cone resistance Norm. Pore Pressure
U2
1 086420-2
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. Pore PressureNorm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. friction ratio Mod. SBTn I(B)
I
B
1 0100
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mod. SBTn I(B)
2232
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Mod. SBTn (Robertson 2016)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Transitional - Contractive
Sand like - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Transitional - Dilative
Mod. SBTn legend
1. CCS: ClayLike - Contractive, Sensitive
2. CC: Clay-like - Contractive
3. CD: Clay-Like: Dilative
4. TC: Transitional - Contractive
5. TD: Transitional - Dilative
6. SC: Sand-like - Contractive
7. SD: Sand-like - Dilative
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:28 PM 32
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
------------------------c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -----------1---------------1---------- ---1-------I-------I-------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------,-------,--------r-------c ----r------,-------,-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I
-----:it~iiiiiiijiiii ---r::i[iiiiiii
: -----::r----::r-----r----:: ----l
I I I I I I I I
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
□
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I --+-----I-----1-----+-----I-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --T-----,-----r----T-----,-----
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
::1::::r::r::::1::::r:
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.19 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-6
Location:
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Normalized Friction, F (%)
0.1 1 1 0
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
SD
SC
CCS CC
CD
TD
TC
CD=70
I =32
I =22
B
B
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Updated SBTn plots
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
Du2/sig'v
2 01 81 61 41 21 086420-2
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
TC
CC CCS
Normalized Rigidity Index
Go/qn
1 1 0 100 1,000
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Normalized Rigidity Index
K*(G) = 100
K*(G) = 330
CCS:
CC:
CD:
TC:
TD:
SC:
SD:
Clay-like - Contractive - Sensitive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Transitional - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Sand-like - Dilative
K(G) > 330:Soils with significant microstructure
(e.g. age/cementation)
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:28 PM 33
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
t. ' ' ' ' ' ' -r---------------------, -----. ----------· -----,-----------------------1 i 1 :1 i ]
I ' ' -I : 1
~I
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.19 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-6
Location:
Permeability
Ksbt (ft/s)1x10 -9 1x10 -6 1x10 -3 1x10 +0
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Permeability Young's modulus
Es (tsf)
4002000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Young's modulusSPT N60
N60 (blows/ft)
5 04 03 02 01 00
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SPT N60 Relative density
Dr (%)
1008 06 04 02 00
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Relative density
Calculation parameters
Relative density constant, CDr: 350.0Permeability: Based on SBTn
SPT N60: Based on Ic and qt
Young’s modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Phi: Based on Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)
User defined estimation data
Friction angle
φ (degrees)
5 04 54 03 53 0
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction angle
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:28 PM 34
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I . ,--------T-------,--------,--------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
r::::r :::f :::::r: ::::
1-----::r
' ' ' ' ' ' ' -----,------,-------,-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
: ::::: ;::: :::r:::r: ::r:: ::
. --------------------------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -1---------------+------------➔-----' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -.---------------,---------____ "T ____ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' _L _____________ ...J._ ____________ .J ____ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -1---------------+-------------➔-----' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·r---------------,------------,-----' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
E::: :::: :::i:::: :::::::::I:::::
~ -: -t L_ __________ _l _____ ~ --
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·r-------------,--------------,-----' ' ' ' ' ' : : :::::::,.
r::: :::: :::J:::: ::::: :::: F:
I:::::::::: :::i:::: :::::::::I:::::
' ' ' ' ' ' ' • -----_T _____ -, ------, -----
0 ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I
:::::r:::F::1:::::r ::::
r:: :::; ::::: T :::::
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------.---------... --- ---... --------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
: :::::::r:::::r :::r ::::::
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.19 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-6
Location:
Constrained Modulus
M(CPT) (tsf)
5000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Constrained Modulus Shear strength
Su (tsf)
420
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7 Su peak
Su remolded
Shear strengthShear modulus
Go (tsf)
1,0000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shear modulus Undrained strength ratio
Su/σ',v
43210
Depth (ft)
19.5
1 9
18.5
1 8
17.5
1 7
16.5
1 6
15.5
1 5
14.5
1 4
13.5
1 3
12.5
1 2
11.5
1 1
10.5
1 0
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
Undrained strength ratio OCR
OCR
2 01 51 050
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
OCR
Calculation parameters
Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt: 14
OCR factor for clays, Nkt: 0.33
Go: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Constrained modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic and Qtn (Robertson, 2009)
User defined estimation data
Flat Dilatometer Test data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:28 PM 35
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' -1-------------,
' ' ' ·1-------------,
' ' ' _1 ____________ _
' ' ' ' ' -1-------------,
' ' '
!------::: :::: ::::r: ::::: ::::: ::
::: ::::I::::::::::::::::
t---------------::; :::: ::::: :::: :::
i----------------
1 ::: : :::: ___ ::::::I::::::::::::::::
f ::::: ::-: ::::: ::::: :::: l: :::: ::
f ::::--__ : ::::: ::::: :::: l: :::: ::
r ::::: ::-: ::::: :::::::::I:::::::
E:: :::: ::::: ::::: ::: _ +------
--------
r--------r ~
r--_::: :::: :::1: :::: ::::: :::: 1 :::::
r-
' ' ' ' ' ' '
---
___________ L ____ _
' ' ' ' ' '
-r-------·
' ' ' ' ' --------◄--------------1--------· ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ________ .J__ ----'--------L-------· ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----;+~~~~T~~~T~~~~~
• • :::: ::1:: :::: :f :: :::: F :::: •
. -------➔--------:--------~-------· ·----· et _____ __t _______ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' •--------'------------L-------• ' ' ' ' ' ' :::::T~::~r~~~+~~~~~
••::::]::::::: ;:::::r:::::•
::::: ::1:: ::'.: I: :::I ::::::
' ' ' ' ' --1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
---r: ::::1 :::: ::::1 :::: ::::
-______ l :::::r:::::r::::::
--------E; +-------+--------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------1-------1---------1---------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --,---------,---------r--------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------,-----------------,---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -•--------L------L--------L--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------,-----' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' --,---------,---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------L ----__ 1,. __ ----__ I,. ------- -' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.19 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 48.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-6
Location:
Shear Wave velocity
Vs (ft/s)
500
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shear Wave velocity In-situ stress ratio
Ko
32.521.510.50
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
In-situ stress ratioState parameter
ψ
0.10-0.1-0.2
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
State parameter Soil sensitivity
S
1 086420
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
Soil sensitivity Effective friction angle
Peak φ (degrees)
4 03 53 02 52 0
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Effective friction angle
Calculation parameters
Soil Sensitivity factor, NS: 7.00
User defined estimation data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:28 PM 36
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' _.J ______________ _
' ' ' ' ' ----1---------------' ' ' ' : r ::::: ::::: ::
------------__ ::: 1::: ::::: ::::: ::
------------------r:::::::::::::
' --------------------,----' ' ' ' . --------------------'--------' ' ' ' ' • -------------------➔-------' ' ' ' • ::::: :::: ::::: ::::: r ----
---- ---------------,---------------
' ' ' ' ' ' ·-----------r -----------r -----------, ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-------r: :::: ::::r ::::: :::: ::
___________ [ __ ;> _[_ _________ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ·-----------; -----------,------------' ' ' ' ' '
: ::::: :::: :[:::: :::1 ::::: :::: ::
: ::::: :::: F :::: :::r: :: :::: ::
' ' ' ' ' ' ------t ------ ➔ -------4-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
::i ::::: l: :::1 ::::: l: ::::
------1 ____ : l: :::1 ::::: T: ::::
------i[-!-~------~------~-------1 I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I I _______ ..,___ --1-------1------.J-------
I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I T------, ------, -------,-------
1 I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I -_.., -----_ _, -------1-----_ _. __ -----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -_T _____ -, ------, -------,-------
1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -.L ------.l ------.I -----_ ... __ -----1 I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I _T _____ -, ------, -------,-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' _.J -----_.J -----_..J __ -----' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
: ::: : ::f :: ::f :: ::f :: ::::
: ::: : :::r:: :::r:: ::::f :::: ::::
: :::::::r:::::r:::::r::::::
: ::: : ::+:: ::+:: ::::t :::: ::::
I I I
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 33.34 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 49.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-7
Location:
Cone resistance qt
Tip resistance (tsf)
4002000
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cone resistance qt Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
0-5
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pore pressure uFriction ratio
Rf (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction ratio SBT Index
Ic SBT
4321
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SBT Index Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
ClayClay & silty clay
Clay
Organic soil
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay
Clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Very dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:33 PM 37
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' r
'r
--
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
i
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
+
-
-
i
-
-
-
}
-
-
+
-
-
}
-
-
i
-
-
-
}
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
}
-
-
+
-
-
}
-
-
+
-
-
}
-
-
+
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
}
-
-
+
·1-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
~
-
-
-
L
-
-
!
-
-
-
L
-
-
!
-
-
-
L
-
-
!
-
-
j
-
-
-
L
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
L
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
L
-
-
l
-
-
-
L
-
-
l
-
-
-
L
-
-
l
-
-
-
L
-
-
L
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
L
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
L
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
L
-
-
!
-
-
-
L
-
-
!
-
-
-
L
-
-
L
-
-
.
.
.
l
-
-
l-
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
~
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
t
-
-
i
-
-
-
~
-
-
i
-
-
-
~
-
-
i
-
-
-
~
-
-
t
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
:
-
·
1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
i
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
i
-
-
-
~
-
-
i
-
-
-
t
-
-
~
-
-
-
t
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
+
-
-
i
-
-
+
-
-
t
-
-
+
-
-
t
-
-
+
-
-
t
-
-
+
-
+
-
-
i
-
-
-
~
-
-
i
-
-
+
-
-
t
-
-
+
-
-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
~
-
-
-
L
-
-
!
-
-
-
L
-
-
!
-
-
-
L
-
-
!
-
-
~
-
-
-
L
-
-
~
-
-
-
L
-
-
~
-
-
-
L
-
-
l
-
-
-
L
-
-
l
-
-
-
L
-
-
l
-
-
-
L
-
-
L
-
-
~
-
-
-
L
-
-
~
-
-
-
t
-
-
.
.
.
l
-
-
-
I
l
I
l-
-
I
I
1--i-
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1
r--
:
-
-
-
t
-
--
:
-
-
-t
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
t
-
-
i
-
--
~--i
-
-
-
t
-
-i
-
-
-t
--
t
-
--
:
-
-
-t
-
-
-:-
-
-
1
-
t-
-
-
:
-
--
t
-
--
:
-
-
-t
-
-
-
:
-
-
•
--
1-
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
IA
-
:-.
.
:--.
--
t
-
-
t
-
-
7
-
-
-
r
-
-
7
-
-
-
r
-
-
7
-
-
-
r
-
-
t
-
-
-
r
·
.-
·
·
:aT
7--
-
t
-
--l-
-:
-
:-
i---
-
-
-
-
r
~
·
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-t
-
-t-
-1-
--r
-
-
1
-
--
r
-
-
l
-
-r
-
-
t
-
-
t
-
-
:
!
i
!
:
:
:
I
I
.!
1+ r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r---r
-
r
-
-
r
-
r
-
-
r
-
r
-
-
1
-
-
-
t
i
--r
-
r
-
-
r
-
r
-
-
r
-
r
-
-
r
-
r
-
r-r
-
r
-
r
-
r
-
r
-
r
-
r
-
r
l
:c :1
--t-
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
+
-
L
·--
1
:
r1:
r
:
[
1---
r
-
!_:x_ r~
::r
:
rrI
]
J
'
1
1--
1
-
-
-
1
-
-
r
-
-
l
-
-
i
-
-
-
l
-
-
+
-
-
l
-
-
+
-
-
:
·:
'.
:
..
:
.
.
:
. f
t
.
"
.
..
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
v,
I
1
\
j
,
J
:
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
O
O
I
O
•
0
0
0
0
•
0
0
0
0
0
' ' ' ' ' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r·-
-
r
r
T
-
r
T
-
r
-
r
r
-
i
-
-
r
-
i
-
-
r
-
i
-
-
r
-
r
-
-
r
-
r
-
-
r
r
T
-
r
T
-
r
-
r
r
r---
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
i
!
!
!
!
!
i
!
!
!
!
i
!
!
!
!
!
i
,,
r
--n-r
n
-
-
1
-
r
n
T
r
n
-
-
r
r
n
-
-
1
-
r
1
-
-
-
r
T
n
-
-
-
r
-
-
•
..
J
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
:
I
I
I
,
',-
.
.
;
.
'-
!
-
"
~ .....
.
.
.
.
.
.
,
-
,
-
,
--
r
-
i""""--
1
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
I
I
I
I
--
1
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
+
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
~
-
□□
□
■□□
■■■
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 33.34 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 49.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-7
Location:
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
4003002001000
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. cone resistance Norm. Pore Pressure
U2
1 086420-2
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. Pore PressureNorm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. friction ratio Mod. SBTn I(B)
I
B
1 0100
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mod. SBTn I(B)
2232
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Mod. SBTn (Robertson 2016)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Contractive
Transitional - Contractive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Mod. SBTn legend
1. CCS: ClayLike - Contractive, Sensitive
2. CC: Clay-like - Contractive
3. CD: Clay-Like: Dilative
4. TC: Transitional - Contractive
5. TD: Transitional - Dilative
6. SC: Sand-like - Contractive
7. SD: Sand-like - Dilative
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:34 PM 38
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' '
---------+---------·
r :::+::::::f-:::
-------------------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----r------,-------,-------' ' ' ' ' ' .J ______ .J ______ _
' ' ::::r:::::
::::r:::::
: :::+---, ··: :;:::::
·:::::r::::r--
-______ f :::::r ::::~
_..J ______ _
' ' ' -,-------' ' ____ .J ______ _
' ' ' ' ' ------,-------' ' ' ' ______ .J ______ _
' ' ' ' ' ' -------1-------, ' ' ' -------1-------, ' ' ' ' ' ------,-------' ' ____ _. ______ _
' ' ' -,-------' ' ·-----_.J ______ _ ' ' ' --------,-------
' ' ---------1-------,
: __ :r::::(:::::
•-+ .::r:::r:::
-·----~/ 1----+---+---+----· -~ 1 1 t :
~: ::: :~ ::: :: ~: ::: :~ :::::
~: ::: :~ ::::: ~: ::: :~ :::::
: ::::: r:::r:::~::::r::::
------r:::r::r:::r::::
: ::::: . r:::r::r:::r::::
: ·----i ____ ~-----~-----~-----~----·
------~ 1 : : ----------1-----1-----r-----r-----
------
------
------
------
-·----
-·----;-----:::::(:::~::::{::::
: :::: f :::: ::::::,:,::::::r•, ::]~::::
------d ----
• I I I I I I I
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
□
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 33.34 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 49.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-7
Location:
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Normalized Friction, F (%)
0.1 1 1 0
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
SD
SC
CCS CC
CD
TD
TC
CD=70
I =32
I =22
B
B
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Updated SBTn plots
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
Du2/sig'v
2 01 81 61 41 21 086420-2
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
TC
CC CCS
Normalized Rigidity Index
Go/qn
1 1 0 100 1,000
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Normalized Rigidity Index
K*(G) = 100
K*(G) = 330
CCS:
CC:
CD:
TC:
TD:
SC:
SD:
Clay-like - Contractive - Sensitive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Transitional - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Sand-like - Dilative
K(G) > 330:Soils with significant microstructure
(e.g. age/cementation)
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:34 PM 39
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
-------r
--· ----r
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 33.34 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 49.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-7
Location:
Permeability
Ksbt (ft/s)1x10 -9 1x10 -6 1x10 -3 1x10 +0
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Permeability Young's modulus
Es (tsf)
4,0002,0000
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Young's modulusSPT N60
N60 (blows/ft)
5 04 03 02 01 00
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SPT N60 Relative density
Dr (%)
1008 06 04 02 00
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Relative density
Calculation parameters
Relative density constant, CDr: 350.0Permeability: Based on SBTn
SPT N60: Based on Ic and qt
Young’s modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Phi: Based on Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)
User defined estimation data
Friction angle
φ (degrees)
5 04 54 03 53 0
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction angle
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:34 PM 40
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
------·----------------------------' ' ----------------------------------' ' ' ' I I I I • -----_T _____ -, ------, -------,-------
1 I I I ' ' ' . ------+ -------1-------+ ----1 I I I . ------t------i------i------+------: ~~~ ~~ ~t ~~~~~r~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~r ~~~ ~~
~~i~f qi~~f ~iF~~:
: ::: :: :t ::::: :i ::::: :i :: ::: :r ::: ::
: ~~~ ~~ ~t ~~~~~ ~i ~~~~~ ~i ~~ ~~~ ~r ~~~ ~~
:~~~~~~1~~~~~~r~~~~1~~~~~~r~~~~~
:~~~~~1 , ::i~~~~~[~~~~[~~~~~
::::::k-t' }::::!:::::: :: : :::; ::::: l: :::; ::::: l :::::
: ::: :: :i ::::: :~ ::::: :~ ---:: :I::::::
:::::::t:::::(::::(::::r-----
::::::[:]:::::[]::::
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 33.34 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 49.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-7
Location:
Constrained Modulus
M(CPT) (tsf)
5,0000
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Constrained Modulus Shear strength
Su (tsf)
1 050
Depth (ft)
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3 Su peak
Su remolded
Shear strengthShear modulus
Go (tsf)
5,0000
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shear modulus Undrained strength ratio
Su/σ',v
43210
Depth (ft)
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Undrained strength ratio OCR
OCR
2 01 51 050
Depth (ft)
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
OCR
Calculation parameters
Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt: 14
OCR factor for clays, Nkt: 0.33
Go: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Constrained modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic and Qtn (Robertson, 2009)
User defined estimation data
Flat Dilatometer Test data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:34 PM 41
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
------------
r-1,----1._: ~I
f -\: :::-·:::: 1 ·:::· ::::: :::·
r: :: ::::: ::::: r :::: ::::: ::::
~! ---------------1----------------
f -:::: :::: ::::: :r:::: ::::: ::::
L --••• •••• + ••••• •••• • •••• t: --:::--------(-:::: :: :: ::: ::
~l_ _______ ~.¥ . _________ _
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 33.34 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 49.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-7
Location:
Shear Wave velocity
Vs (ft/s)
1,000
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shear Wave velocity In-situ stress ratio
Ko
32.521.510.50
Depth (ft)
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
In-situ stress ratioState parameter
ψ
0.10-0.1-0.2
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
State parameter Soil sensitivity
S
1 086420
Depth (ft)
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
Soil sensitivity Effective friction angle
Peak φ (degrees)
4 03 53 02 52 0
Depth (ft)
3 3
3 2
3 1
3 0
2 9
2 8
2 7
2 6
2 5
2 4
2 3
2 2
2 1
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Effective friction angle
Calculation parameters
Soil Sensitivity factor, NS: 7.00
User defined estimation data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:34 PM 42
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' . -------------------,-----' ' --------------------◄-------------' • :~~~~ ~~~~ i~:: ::::: 1::: ::::: ::-----
-·---------------------_ .. -----------' ' ' ' ·-----------r------------r------------' ' ' ' ·-----------1------------1------------' ' ·-----------~ ----------+-----------
:~ ~~-....; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
::::i~:Ji:::i:F:i:::::
.: :: ::::: :: :~ ::: :: :: ::: :~ :: ::: :: :: ::
-~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
:~ ~~ ~~~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~ r~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~
-~~~~~~~~~~~t~~~~: ~ ~~t~~~~~~~~~~~ : ::::: ::~-f ----: :::~ ::::: :::: ::
: :::: :-+: ::::: :::t ::::: :::: ::
·: :: ::::: :: :~ ::: :: :: ::: :~ :: ::: :: :: :: : ::::: :::: L :::: ::] ::::: :::: ::
------~-----~-----~----74:r-----
• I I I I I I I
•-----L -----L-----L -----L-----L-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
::::tt:TJ:::t ::
:: :::f :::::~:: : :r:: :::r: ::::f :::::
------r----r-----r----T----T-----
::::r: f :T::r::r:::
:::+:::: ::+::t::r:::
:: :::t :::::f :::: :t j ::::t :::::
_11 _______ --L-_______ t _______ _t _______ _
' ' ' ' ' '
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.31 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 103.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-8
Location:
Cone resistance qt
Tip resistance (tsf)
200100
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Cone resistance qt Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
10
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Pore pressure uFriction ratio
Rf (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Friction ratio SBT Index
Ic SBT
4321
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
SBT Index Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Clay
Clay & silty clayVery dense/stiff soil
Sand & silty sand
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Very dense/stiff soilClay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:39 PM 43
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
-------... __ ---------__ .. -----c ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---f--------------➔ ----- -' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------,-----c ' ' ' '
----------------1-----
::::::r:::
---------------t---------_-_-__ -_-___ :
---------------:-------------1--
' ' ------------~ -----c ' ' ' ' ' ------------1-----c ' ' ' ' ' ---------,------' ' ' ' ---------r-----
' ' ' ---------f--------------➔ ------' ' ' ' ' ' ---------,------'
' ' ' ' ' ' ' -------1-------1-------I------' ' ' ' ' ' ·-----+----+-----:-· --1-i--
-r----r-----
-----+"'• r:::j:::::
_T _____ T _____ _
__ :ET::::
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
□ □ □
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.31 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 103.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-8
Location:
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
4003002001000
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Norm. cone resistance Norm. Pore Pressure
U2
1 086420-2
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Norm. Pore PressureNorm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Norm. friction ratio Mod. SBTn I(B)
I
B
1 0100
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Mod. SBTn I(B)
2232
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Mod. SBTn (Robertson 2016)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - ContractiveClay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - DilativeTransitional - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Mod. SBTn legend
1. CCS: ClayLike - Contractive, Sensitive
2. CC: Clay-like - Contractive
3. CD: Clay-Like: Dilative
4. TC: Transitional - Contractive
5. TD: Transitional - Dilative
6. SC: Sand-like - Contractive
7. SD: Sand-like - Dilative
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:40 PM 44
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' -----------1-,
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' -1---------,
' ' ' ' ---r-------c ' ' ' '
---1-..... -!--.....
{::iii::::
::::: ::1: ::::: :i:: ::::: •
..... ::i: ::::: :i:: :::::.
~------::1:::::::r:::::::
I I I I I I I I
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
r
l
□
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.31 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 103.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-8
Location:
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Normalized Friction, F (%)
0.1 1 1 0
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
SD
SC
CCS CC
CD
TD
TC
CD=70
I =32
I =22
B
B
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Updated SBTn plots
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
Du2/sig'v
2 01 81 61 41 21 086420-2
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
TC
CC CCS
Normalized Rigidity Index
Go/qn
1 1 0 100 1,000
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Normalized Rigidity Index
K*(G) = 100
K*(G) = 330
CCS:
CC:
CD:
TC:
TD:
SC:
SD:
Clay-like - Contractive - Sensitive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Transitional - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Sand-like - Dilative
K(G) > 330:Soils with significant microstructure
(e.g. age/cementation)
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:40 PM 45
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
..
-1
-
1
_
1
_
1
_
1
_
1
11
1
I
I
I
I
I
11
1
1
I
I
I
I
' ' ' ' '
-
-
-
-
-1
-
-·
·
-
-·
-
-
·
•
-·
·
-
-
·--
-
-
·--
-
-
-
-
-
' ' ' '
'
'
·--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
f
:
--
-
-
-
-
-
!
!
-----------
-
-
---------
-
r
-
--r-
-
----
-
---
-
-
-
---
-
-
----
-----------
-
-
---------
-
r
-
-
-
-r-
-
---
-
-
---------
-
-
----
i--
-
-
-:
:
::
___
.
r-·
·
-
---
--·
·
-
-
·
-
-
-
-
·
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
:
p
i■■
■■-[
-h
-
1
1
I
I
I
1 ••
•
.-
.
-
.
-
-
.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.31 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 103.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-8
Location:
Permeability
Ksbt (ft/s)1x10 -9 1x10 -6 1x10 -3 1x10 +0
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Permeability Young's modulus
Es (tsf)
2,0001,0000
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Young's modulusSPT N60
N60 (blows/ft)
5 04 03 02 01 00
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
SPT N60 Relative density
Dr (%)
1008 06 04 02 00
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Relative density
Calculation parameters
Relative density constant, CDr: 350.0Permeability: Based on SBTn
SPT N60: Based on Ic and qt
Young’s modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Phi: Based on Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)
User defined estimation data
Friction angle
φ (degrees)
5 04 54 03 53 0
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Friction angle
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:40 PM 46
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' ' ' --1-------1---------1--------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
r:: r:•••r•••••
F ::f ::::r :::::
F ---r:::::r::::::
L EJ::::::::
____________ _. ______ -------
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----◄-------1-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
: : -;---::r:: ::
------' -r--::1_ ___ _
' ' ' ' _______ .L __ _
' ' ' ' ' _______ .., ___ _
' ' ' ' ' _______ T ___ _
' '
' + i i :
j
i , -----------r--------------r
-r--------------r--------------r-
-·:---------------r---------------:--
-·r-------4 -------------+-
--i---------------r---------------r-
-r----------,,r--------------r-
--~---------------t---------------1--
--~------------f>-----------+-
-f--------------r--------~-----r-
+--------------1->1---i---------------r---7 ------t-
• r••••••••••••••r•••~•••::r• --~---------------~---------------~--: : " :
--r---------------r-~ ----1--
-·r---------------r --------------r-
: f---------------1---~
I I I
-:: : :::1 ::::: l: :::1 ::::: l ~::
:------l------l-----K ------
--------r------1------1------r-----
-------T-----r _; r----r-----
: ______ l-----+4 ---+-----
--------r------1------1------l------
• I "'ti I ~ ------l-----~-~1 l------• I I I I I I I I I I I --------1"-------1-------1-----1-------1 I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I --------r------1------1------r-----
--------r------1------1------r-----
-t ~ : : I I I I I I I I I I I I --------1------1>---1------T------
--------t------~----!-------
--------t------i------i------+------
--------i-----1:::=?t------~-------' j:::::::=i-' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' --------t------i ------i------~-------
: .Ji i :
I I I I
: ::: : :::r:: :::r:: ::r: ::::
: ::::::t::::::_f 4 ::::::::
---------f-------t . ----f--------
'
: :: ::::::I::::: :I::::: :I:::::::
i ~i i ----------r-----"i ---------r--------
----------!--· ~--------!--------
-·--------~--------~-------+--------
----------~-......, !---------~--------
----------~---:?t--------~--------
: ✓: :
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.31 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 103.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-8
Location:
Constrained Modulus
M(CPT) (tsf)
4,0002,0000
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Constrained Modulus Shear strength
Su (tsf)
50
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
Su peak
Su remolded
Shear strengthShear modulus
Go (tsf)
2,0000
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Shear modulus Undrained strength ratio
Su/σ',v
43210
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
Undrained strength ratio OCR
OCR
2 01 51 050
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
OCR
Calculation parameters
Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt: 14
OCR factor for clays, Nkt: 0.33
Go: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Constrained modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic and Qtn (Robertson, 2009)
User defined estimation data
Flat Dilatometer Test data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:40 PM 47
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
r-:::::::::r :::::::::::r
• f ::: -:::: :--:: ::1:: :::: :::::::::I::
T---------------r------------r-
-1 : :::::::::I::::~~:::::::: 1::
r: ------::: :r::: ::
F:: :::: -------::: ::
r----------------
1 ::::: :::: ::::
' ' ' ' '
----
-------,--------' ' '
--------
' ' ' ' ' -'
I ~<C:-J---------------
·r-----~>-S , ·--------------
-~--------E=-L-------------
: : ----r-----~ ·r------------------r---------------
r --------------:::; ::::: ::::: :::::
,t__ __ ~ -------(---~-==r ---------·r-c:; ~:---------------
-~-------,... ~ -----
·!-----~ -p --'--------
-~------·------L---------------
' ' ' ' ' ' . --------L--------L--------L--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • --------1---------1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---------... --------;--------;--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' . --------L--------L--------L----' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---------1---------1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---------(------(--_,;..:---,
---------r--------r--------r---::: :::: F :::: F :: __ :;::: :::::
---------r--------r--------r--------
::: :::: :r::: :::: :~::: :::r: :::::
_______ J ___ d==-L-
·-------+-~------------rZF ----r--------_________ ! _____ +----r r-H
---------~--k-------+--------: : ":-
_______ --i,,-.------~--------~--------
' ' ' ' ' ' -•--------L--------L--------L--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------1---------1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------r--------r--------r --------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------L--------L----------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------1---------1---------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' _________ l _______ i_ --.---
----------r--------r-------T
: ::: : :::r:: :::r:-::::;:::: ::::
----------r--------r--------r--------
: :: ::::: ]::. ::::---r------r-------
: -------i--------f--------
----------f ~ ---------+-~-----
---------f:4-------r--------
-•--------1---• 4--,n ! ~--
-•-------+ -+-------+--------: : "'":-I I I -------~-------:---------:---------
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 40.31 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 103.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-8
Location:
Shear Wave velocity
Vs (ft/s)
1,000500
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Shear Wave velocity In-situ stress ratio
Ko
32.521.510.50
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
In-situ stress ratioState parameter
ψ
0.10-0.1-0.2
Depth (ft)
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
State parameter Soil sensitivity
S
1 086420
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
Soil sensitivity Effective friction angle
Peak φ (degrees)
4 03 53 02 52 0
Depth (ft)
4 0
3 8
3 6
3 4
3 2
3 0
2 8
2 6
2 4
2 2
2 0
1 8
1 6
1 4
1 2
1 0
8
6
4
2
0
Effective friction angle
Calculation parameters
Soil Sensitivity factor, NS: 7.00
User defined estimation data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:40 PM 48
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ---------------1-----------➔------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---------------,------------,------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ______________ ..J____ _ _______ .J _____ _
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' • --------------1-------------➔------' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
::::: :::: ::::r: :::: ::::r :::
• ::::: :::: ::::F: : __ : ::::: :------
--------------i--------------
___
::::: :::: ::::j:::: :::: :::: -,::----
·---------------------_ .. -----------' ' ' ' ' ' -·-----------1------------1------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·-----------r-----------r-----------
-;> --------r-----------r-----------
------------r----------r----------
----------r---------r----------
: ~----+-------+----------------------r-----------r-----------
-------------r-----------r-----------
-► ---------r-----------r-----------
~ : : -~------_i ___ -------t-----------
-·-----------!-----------!-----------
-------------r-----------r-----------
------:_:.::.---r----------r----------
-----~----r-----------r------------·--c:--1-----------1------------·-----------~ ----------+ -----------
-----•0 -----------~-----------
c:::::::_ i ! -·----------_i ___ --------i-----------
~ :
' I I I I I
: ::::::f ::::f ::::f ::::::
: ::: : :::r:: :::r:: ::::f :::: ::::
----------r--------r--------r--------
: ::: : ::::i:::: ::::i:::: ::::i:::: ::::
I I I
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.02 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 57.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-9
Location:
Cone resistance qt
Tip resistance (tsf)
1005 0
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cone resistance qt Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
10-1
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pore pressure uFriction ratio
Rf (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction ratio SBT Index
Ic SBT
4321
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SBT Index Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Very dense/stiff soil
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Very dense/stiff soil
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay
Clay & silty clay
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty clay
5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to clayey sand
9. Very stiff fine grained
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:46 PM 49
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
------------➔ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·----------, --------------' ' ' ' ------------1--
' ' ' ------------➔--' ' ' ' ' -------------1----,
' ' ' ' ------------,----' ' '
::::::::::r -' ' ,. _______ _
' ' ' ' ' ,---------
' ' ' ' ·--------
' ' -----'--------' ' ' ' ' ' ➔ --------------,. __ ------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -------------T-------. ' ' '
_ ___ _ ___ _ _:::: ::;: :~~;: Ii~~;:
'
--------------------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ------1--------1-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I --1-------1--------1--------1-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I --r-------r-------,-------,-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ---r-------r-------,-------,-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ------,------,------,-------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ---!-----r ----r -----
·--------------------------------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - -----+------------1---------' ' ' ' ' ' ------------------------r--------' ' ' ' . ------------. ___________ l _______ _
:::: ::::: ::::: :::: ::::: :1 ::::::
■ ■ ■
■ □ □
□ □ □
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.02 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 57.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-9
Location:
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
4003002001000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. cone resistance Norm. Pore Pressure
U2
1 086420-2
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. Pore PressureNorm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
1 086420
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Norm. friction ratio Mod. SBTn I(B)
I
B
1 0100
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mod. SBTn I(B)
2232
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Mod. SBTn (Robertson 2016)
1 81 61 41 21 086420
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Mod. Norm. SBTn
Sand like - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Dilative
Clay-like - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Sand like - Dilative
Mod. SBTn legend
1. CCS: ClayLike - Contractive, Sensitive
2. CC: Clay-like - Contractive
3. CD: Clay-Like: Dilative
4. TC: Transitional - Contractive
5. TD: Transitional - Dilative
6. SC: Sand-like - Contractive
7. SD: Sand-like - Dilative
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:46 PM 50
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1•-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
11
1~-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
}
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
}
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
}
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
}
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
}
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
~-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
~-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
tl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ir
1~--
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
~---
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
➔----
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
~1-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'I
~-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
.
.
l
-
-
-
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-
-
tl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•1-
·1
--
t
--
:
-
-
-
-
-
-t
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
-
-
-
:
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
,
-~1-
□
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
'I
11
:-
-
-
t-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
➔-
-
-
-
-
~-
'
I
I
I
I
I
'
' -
,
'I
,:
-t-
i;
il
11
1-
,-
-
r-
-
1
1
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
it
L_
_
_I_
___
_
[ ___
_
_
[ ___
_
J__
__ _J_
___
_I ____
_
[ ___
_I ___ _J_
___
_I_
__ __[
___
_
_
[ ___
_
J__
__ _J_
__ __I
___
_
_
[ ___
_I ___ _J_
___
_I_
___
_]-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r---
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
1
t-
-
t
-
-
-
-
(
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
t
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
(
-
-
r
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
(
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
t
-
-
l
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
'
'
(
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r---
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
---
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
1--
:cA:J::
:
:
c
:
:
r
:
:
:
r
:
:
:
r:
-]:
:
:
:
-
~_::-r:
:
:
]
:
:
:
:
]
:
:
:
:
:
[
:
:
:
r
:
:
:
:
r
:
:
-
{
r _:_:!
_::
1
A
-:]
::]
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
--
L
-
-
--
-L
-
--
--
'
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
L
-
-
-
-
--
_.J
-
-
-
-
_,
1
__
--
-
L-
--
-
-L
--
--
-
'
-
-
-
-
.l
-
-
-
__
,1
__
-
-
-
L
-
-
-
-.
.
I
.
.
-
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'
_,
A
:
i
:
i
i
i
:
i
i
i
i
' ' ' ,,_
' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·:v
~
:
i
t
t
:
t
i
t
:
:
i
t
t
:
t
i
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
-
-T
-
--
-
-
~-
-
-r
-
-
-
-
--
,
-
-
-
-r
-
-
-
---
~
-
-
-
-
-r
-
-
-
-
--
,
-
-
-
-
--
r
--
--
-
~-
--
-
-r
-
--
--
-
,
-
-
--
-
-r
-
--
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
--
r
-
-
--
--
,
-
-
-
--
-
r
-
-
--
-
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Il
-
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
---
;
---
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
:
--
·--
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
·
l
---
1
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J-
.
.
.
I
i
~
~
~
i
~
~
~
I
A
~
f
l
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
■□□
■■■
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.02 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 57.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-9
Location:
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Normalized Friction, F (%)
0.1 1 1 0
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
SD
SC
CCS CC
CD
TD
TC
CD=70
I =32
I =22
B
B
Modified Robertson (2016) SBTn
Updated SBTn plots
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
Du2/sig'v
2 01 81 61 41 21 086420-2
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Modified Schneider et al (2008) SBTn
TC
CC CCS
Normalized Rigidity Index
Go/qn
1 1 0 100 1,000
Normalized Cone Resistance, Qtn
1
1 0
100
1,000
Normalized Rigidity Index
K*(G) = 100
K*(G) = 330
CCS:
CC:
CD:
TC:
TD:
SC:
SD:
Clay-like - Contractive - Sensitive
Clay-like - Contractive
Clay-like - Dilative
Transitional - Contractive
Transitional - Dilative
Sand-like - Contractive
Sand-like - Dilative
K(G) > 330:Soils with significant microstructure
(e.g. age/cementation)
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:46 PM 51
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' ' -r---------------------, -----. ----------· -----,-----------------------1 i 1 :1 ~ : j :
:I
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.02 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 57.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-9
Location:
Permeability
Ksbt (ft/s)1x10 -9 1x10 -6 1x10 -3 1x10 +0
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Permeability Young's modulus
Es (tsf)
1,0000
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Young's modulusSPT N60
N60 (blows/ft)
5 04 03 02 01 00
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
SPT N60 Relative density
Dr (%)
1008 06 04 02 00
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Relative density
Calculation parameters
Relative density constant, CDr: 350.0Permeability: Based on SBTn
SPT N60: Based on Ic and qt
Young’s modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Phi: Based on Kulhawy & Mayne (1990)
User defined estimation data
Friction angle
φ (degrees)
5 04 54 03 53 0
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction angle
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:46 PM 52
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I I I I I I I I •,--------T------,--------,--------•------T-----,------,-------,-------1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
1:::: :::: 1::::] :::: :::1: :::: ::: : ::::: 1:::) :::: :1::: :::1: :::: ::
·r-------r--
' ' ' ' I I I I •------T------,------,-------,-----I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I I
-------.L -----_.J -----_.J -----_.J __ -----1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
------_ ... -------1 -------1 ------1-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ' ' ' -------1'-------1-----------1-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------y------, -----, ------,-------
' I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
:: : :::J: :::: l: :::1 ::::: l: ::::
-------1----71------1------T------
-------t--· ; ·-----i ______ i ______ _
I I I I
' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------L--------L--------L--------0 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ----------~--------~-------~--------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------1-------1---------1---------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -·--------,--------,---------,---------' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
: :::::::r:::::r:::::r::::::
----------r--~---r--------r--------______ ~ ___ ! ________ ! _______ _
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.02 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 57.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-9
Location:
Constrained Modulus
M(CPT) (tsf)
2,0000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Constrained Modulus Shear strength
Su (tsf)
6420
Depth (ft)
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1 Su peak
Su remolded
Shear strengthShear modulus
Go (tsf)
1,0000
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shear modulus Undrained strength ratio
Su/σ',v
43210
Depth (ft)
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Undrained strength ratio OCR
OCR
2 01 51 050
Depth (ft)
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
OCR
Calculation parameters
Undrained shear strength cone factor for clays, Nkt: 14
OCR factor for clays, Nkt: 0.33
Go: Based on variable alpha using Ic (Robertson, 2009)
Constrained modulus: Based on variable alpha using Ic and Qtn (Robertson, 2009)
User defined estimation data
Flat Dilatometer Test data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:46 PM 53
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
++
···
·
·
1
·
·
·
·
1
·
·
·
·
1
·
·
·
·
1
·
·
·
·
i ··
·
·
1
·
·
·
1
·
1 ···
·
1·
1
·
·
i
..
.
.
, ..
.
.
.
, ..
.
.
.
, ..
.
.
,
..
.
.
, ..
.
.
c
.
,
,
.
.
.
.
•
Ii
r --r
-
--r
-
-
-
r
-
--r
-
--r
---!
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
--r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
--
-:
~
~
L-j
-
-:
-
--
--
:
-
-
--
:
-
--
-
-:
-
-
--
-:
-
---
f
,-
-
v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
·
·
·
·
•
C
•·
·
·
·
·
r
·
·
·
r
·
·
r
r
r
T
·
·
T
~····
'
'
i
i
i
i
i
;
i
i
i
i
i
rr
r
r
rr
r
rr
r
r
r
r
---
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
--
--
t
--
---
-
-
-
--
-
+-
--
-
-
+-
-
--
--
1
-
-
-
-
-
-t
-
-
-
-
-
-
t-
-
-
-
-
--
+
-
-
-
-
--
1
-
-
-
-
--
t
-
-
-
--
-t
-
--
-
--
-t
-
--
---
-
1
-
-
--
--
1
-
-
-
-
-
-+
-
--
-
-
➔-
-
-
-
-
-+
-
--
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I✓
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'J
IT
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----
➔
-
-
I --
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
~
-
-
-;
:
1
--
I
----➔-----
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
➔ I
I
I-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If
I
I
I
I
I
--
--
-4
---
-
-
+
----
-} -----
+
-
--
--+
---
-~
-
-
-
--
-~
--
-
-
-
}
-
--
--
{
-
-
--
-~
-
-
--
--
~
-
-
-
-}
-
-
-
--4
-
--
-
-
~
-
-
--
--}
-
-
--
-+
-
--
--4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ' ' ' ' ' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
---
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
T
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
n
l · ...
1
r ··
· 1··
·
· ·!·
· ··+
+
·
·
··f
· · ···
1
··
·
+
···
·
f
···
·
·f ·· · ··!
·
· ···
t ··· ·
·f
··
· ·L
+
·
· ·f.
' ' ' ' ' ' '
---
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
r
~ i-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
1
-
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
-
7
-
-
-
-
-
-
r
-
-
-
-
-
t
-
-
-
-
-
i
-
-
-
-
-
+
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-----r-
r
+---
--r
-
---r-
--r
-
-
--r
-
----r
-
---r
---r
-
---
r
-
-
--r
-
--r
----r
-
-
---
r
----r
---r
Project:Marja Acres
NOVA Services, Inc.
4373 Viewridge Ave., Suite B
San Diego, CA 92123
Total depth: 20.02 ft, Date: 2/11/2021
Surface Elevation: 57.00 ft
Carlsbad, CA
Coords: X:0.00, Y:0.00
Cone Type: 10 cm2
Cone Operator: Kehoe Testing & Engineering
CPT: CPT-9
Location:
Shear Wave velocity
Vs (ft/s)
500
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Shear Wave velocity In-situ stress ratio
Ko
32.521.510.50
Depth (ft)
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
In-situ stress ratioState parameter
ψ
0.10-0.1-0.2
Depth (ft)
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
State parameter Soil sensitivity
S
1 086420
Depth (ft)
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Soil sensitivity Effective friction angle
Peak φ (degrees)
4 03 53 02 52 0
Depth (ft)
2 0
1 9
1 8
1 7
1 6
1 5
1 4
1 3
1 2
1 1
1 0
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Effective friction angle
Calculation parameters
Soil Sensitivity factor, NS: 7.00
User defined estimation data
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:46 PM 54
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
' ' ' • -----------------L - -' ' ' ' ' . -----------------r----' ' ' '
' --------------r------------------
' ' ' ' ' ' ·-----------r -----------r -----------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' r r
) --------------[-----------
~ ---------_i ___ --------!-----------
: ::::: :::: r: ::::: :::r ::::: :::: ::
·--------i -----------r-----------·--------· ~ _______ ! __________ _
( i i I i
::: :::1 ::::: :1::: :::i::::: :i:: :::::
· ------r------i------1------7-------
( I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I . ------T-------, -------, -------,-------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ----, 1------1------1------1-------
' I I I I I I I
::: :::1 ::::: :1::: :::1 ::::: :i: :::::
--_ ___1 ::::: l: :::1 ::::: l: ::::
<t ' ' ' I I I
This software is licensed to: JOHN OBRIEN
:: Permeability, k (m/s) ::
cI3.04-0.952cc10k then 1.00I and 3.27I
cI1.37--4.52
cc 10k then 3.27I and 4.00I
:: NSPT (blows per 30 cm) ::
cI0.28171.1268a
c60 10
1
P
qN
cI0.28171.1268tn60110
1QN
:: Young's Modulus, Es (MPa) ::
1.68I0.55
vt c100.015)σ(q
(applicable only to SBTn: 5, 6, 7 and 8
or Ic < Ic_cutoff)
:: Relative Density, Dr (%) ::
D R
tn
k
Q100
(applicable only to Ic < Ic_cutoff)
:: State Parameter, ψ ::
)log(Q0.330.56ψ cstn,
:: Peak drained friction angle, φ (°) ::
)log(Q1117.60φ tn
(applicable only to SBTn: 5, 6, 7 and 8)
:: 1-D constrained modulus, M (MPa) ::
1.68I0.55
vtCPT
c
vtCPT
tntn
tn
c
c100.0188)σ(qM
2.20I If
)σ(qαM
14Qfor Qα
14Qfor 14α
2.20I If
:: Small strain shear Modulus, Go (MPa) ::
1.68I0.55vt0 c100.0188)σ(qG
:: Shear Wave Velocity, Vs (m/s) ::
0.50
0sρ
GV
:: Undrained peak shear strength, Su (kPa) ::
kt
vtu
rkt
N
σqS
defineduser or )log(F710.50N
:: Overconsolidation Ratio, OCR ::
tnOCR
1.25
r
0.20
tnOCR
Qk OCR
defineduser or ))log(F7(10.500.25
Qk
:: Remolded undrained shear strength, Su(rem) (kPa) ::
sremufS
:: Unit Weight, g (kN/m³) ::
weightunit water g where
1.236)p
qlog(0.36)log(R0.27gg
w
a
tfw
(applicable only to SBTn: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 or Ic > Ic_cutoff)
(applicable only to SBTn: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 or Ic > Ic_cutoff)
(applicable only to SBTn: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9
or Ic > Ic_cutoff)
References
• Robertson, P.K., Cabal K.L., Guide to Cone Penetration Testing for Geotechnical Engineering, Gregg Drilling & Testing, Inc., 5th Edition, November
2012
Presented below is a list of formulas used for the estimation of various soil properties. The formulas are presented in SI unit system and assume
that all components are expressed in the same units.
• Robertson, P.K., Interpretation of Cone Penetration Tests - a unified approach., Can. Geotech. J. 46(11): 1337–1355 (2009)
:: In situ Stress Ratio, Ko ::
'sin
O OCR)'sin(1K
:: Soil Sensitivity, St ::
r
S
t F
NS
(applicable only to SBTn: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 or Ic > Ic_cutoff)
(applicable only to SBTn: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 or Ic > Ic_cutoff)
:: Effective Stress Friction Angle, φ<suπ>'
(°) ::tq
0.121
q
'logQB0.3360.256B29.5φ
(applicable for 0.10<Bq<1.00)
CPeT-IT v.2.1.1.6 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 2/15/2021, 1:45:47 PM
Project file: C:\Users\Dad\Documents\b GeoRisk\3 Projects\NOVA San Diego\3. Projects\Toll Brothers\2021025 Marja Acres CPT Investigation\e. Evaluation\Subsurface\Marja Acres CPT Subsurface.cpt
55
F
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
APPENDIX D
RECORDS OF LABORATORY
TESTING
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:
LAB TEST SUMMARY
·CLASSIFICATION: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications are in accordance with the
Unified Soils Classification System and are presented on the exploration logs in Appendix B.
·MAXIMUM DENSITY AND OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D1557 METHOD A,B,C): The maximum dry density and optimum moisture
content of typical soils were determined in the laboratory in accordance with ASTM Standard Test D1557, Method A, Method B, Method C.
·DENSITY OF SOIL IN PLACE (ASTM D2937): 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 are summarized in the
exploration logs presented in Appendix B.
·MOISTURE CONTENT (ASTM D2216): Tests were performed on selected represenative soil samples to evaluate the water (moisture) content by mass
of soil, rock, and similar materials where the reduction in mass by drying is due to loss of water. Test sample is dried in an oven at a temperature of 110°
± 5°C to a constant mass. The loss of mass due to drying is considered to be water. The water (moisture) content were determined in general
accordance with ASTM D2216.
·ATTERBERG LIMITS (ASTM D 4318): Tests were performed on selected representative fine-grained soil samples to evaluate the liquid limit, plastic
limit, and plasticity index in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. These test results were utilized to evaluate the soil classification in accordance with
the Unified Soil Classification System.
·EXPANSION INDEX (ASTM D4829): The expansion index of selected materials was evaluated in general accordance with ASTM D4829. Specimens
were molded under a specified compactive energy at approximately 50 percent saturation (plus or minus 1 percent). The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch
diameter specimens were loaded with a surcharge of 144 pounds per square foot and were inundated with tap water. Readings of volumetric swell were
made for a period of 24 hours.
·DIRECT SHEAR (ASTM D3080): Direct shear tests were performed on remolded and relatively undisturbed samples in general accordance with ASTM
D3080 to evaluate the shear stregth characteristics of selected materials. The samples were inundated during shearing to represent adverse field
conditions.
·GRADATION ANALYSIS (ASTM C 136 and/or ASTM D422): Tests were performed on selected representative soil samples in general accordance with
ASTM D422. The grain size distributions of selected samples were determined in accordance with ASTM C 136 and/or ASTM D422. The results of the
tests are summarized on Appendix D.3 through Appendix D.18.
APPENDIX: D.14373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
www.usa-nova.com
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
BY: GN PROJECT: 2021026DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
A ~--. . •
LAB TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX: D.2
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
Sample
Location Soil Description
Maximum
Dry Density
(pcf)
Optimum Moisture
Content
(%)
B - 1 Olive Brown Sandy Clay
Sample
Depth
(ft)
20 - 22.5 122.6 12.0
Maximum Dry Density and Optimum Moisture Content (ASTM D1557)
BY: GN
Sample
Location Liquid
Limit, LL
B - 1 46
Sample
Depth
(ft)
20 - 22.5 30 CL
Atterberg Limits (ASTM D4318)
16
USCS
(% Finer than
No. 40)
Plastic
Limit, PL
Plasticity
Index, PI
B - 1 5225 - 26.5 33 CH19
B - 2 495 - 10 33 CL16
B - 3 5115 - 16.5 29 CH22
PROJECT: 2021026DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
Sample
Location Soil Description
Dry Density
(pcf)
B - 2 Gray Brown Sandy Clay-Clayey Sand
Sample Depth
(ft)
12.5 - 14 105.4
Density of Soil in Place (ASTM D2937)
Moisture
(%)
15.4
B - 3 Brown Clayey Sand17 - 19 108.918.2
Sample
Location
Expansion
Index
B - 1 124
Expansion Index (ASTM D4829)
20 - 22.5
Sample Depth
(ft.)
Expansion
Potential
High
Sample
Location
Remolded TSA
Depth
(feet)
Surface 32 135
Direct Shear (ASTM D3080)Friction
Angle
(degrees)
Apparent
Cohesion
(psf)Soil Description
Gray Brown Clayey Sandstone 32
B - 2 Olive Brown Clayey Sand15 - 17.5 119.3 11.7
B - 3 Gray Brown Sandy Clay-Clayey Sand15 - 20 118.2 12.7
B - 5 Gray Brown Silty Clay/Clayey Silt15 - 20 124.7 11.5
B - 5 Gray Brown Silty/Sand Clay25 - 26.5 105.119.6
B - 2 1035 - 10 High
B - 3 9215 - 20 High
B - 1 9825 - 27.5 High
B - 5 5320 - 25 34 CH19
LD - 2 296 - 7 12 CL17LD - 2 8516.3 59 CH26
LD - 2 6723 - 24 50 CH17
LD - 2 6534.7 42 CH23
,, ~--. . .
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
APPENDIX: D.3
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
BY: GN
ML
59
PROJECT: 2021026DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
B - 1
7 - 10
C)
C: 'iii
"' ctl ll.
C:
Q)
0 "-Q) ll.
~ Size (Inches) ~""~-----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
0 0
LI:! ~ ~ £e "-=f" co ~ g ~ 0 ~
:. T"9-CV")-~ -CV) g _g _g ~ ~ _g 0 100 ,-r-,,--,--,---tl~__, ..... _____ ,..._ ..... ___ ... _......,=-=---,, -,.---r---.~,-.-~,-,-,...,,--,--,',-,--y,,----,',--,-,.,..,----,,,.,..,._,r.----,---.----.---.----.-.--,-,,-,--,---,-----,----,-------,
,-~-... I I I I I
-......... I I I I
I "i I I I
90 ++++-+-+-+--+--+'---++++-+-+'-+---+-~+---~:-+-r:+-+~••~,+---'-:t-+--1-~:--+-11-+-:+-+-+--+--+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+--+---+-------,
I I 't I I
I I I ' I I
I I I I~ I I 80 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+----++----++-+-+-+--++--+---+--+-+----+-+-+i+-+--+-+-+t--+---\~r-+-t----++-+f+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+-+------,t--+---+-----<
: : : " : :
I I I \ I I
70 ++-+-+---+-+-+----+--+.---++-+-+-+-+.-+--+--+---'---+-hl+-+--+-+--.-11--+--l--la ___ i-+-,~'+-+---+----+---+----+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+----+---+-------,
II I I : : : :, :
I I I I \
I I I I
60 ++-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+-+-+-+-+-+-+--+-~+---1--+-rl+-+--+-+---'-l+--+--1---l---+-1~,J+-+---+--+---+--+----+-+-+-a---+--+--+---+---+-------<
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I 50 ++-+-+---+-+-+----+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+>+-+--+-+-¼l--+--l---+--i-+-,f++--+-f----l-+----+-----+-+-+---+-+-1---+-+----+------,
I I
I I I I
I I I I
40 ++++-+-+-+--+--+.---++++-+-+.-+---+-~+---~:-+-h:t-++-t---.:1-+--t-~-t-+-lr.:t-+-+--+--+--+----+-t-+-,-+--+--+--+---+-------,
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
30 ++-+-+---+-+-+--+--~ll __ --+-+-+-+-+--+'l--+----+~l_,__~l--+-~l+-+--+-+--'-lt--+--1--~•---+-f-+"--I+-+---+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------<
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I 20 ++-+-+---+-+-+----+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+>+-+--+-+-¼l--+--l---+--i-+-,f++--+-f----l-+----+-----+-+-+---+-+-1---+-+----+------,
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
10 -+-++-+-+-+-+--+--+.---+-+-+-+-+-+.-+--+--+--~:--+-r.:+-+--+-t---7:t--+--t---t-+-,r.:+-+---+--+---+--+----+-+-+-a---+--+--+---+---+-------,
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I 0 +-'-~~~~~-~l•----+~~--+'•~~--+'•-t----+'1--+-~'~-+-~•~-+--~~•---+-~'~~~~-~---+--'~~~~~-~-____,
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
B - 1
12.5 - 15
APPENDIX: D.4
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
BY: GN
CL
62
PROJECT: 2021026DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
C)
C: 'iii
"' ctl ll.
C:
Q)
0 "-Q) ll.
~ Size (Inches) ~""~-----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
0 0
LI:! ~ ~ £e "-=f" co ~ g ~ 0 ~
:. T"9-CV")-~ -CV) g _g _g ~ ~ _g 0 100 ,-r-,,--,--,---tl~__, ..... _____ ,..._ ..... ______ .,........_..,.. ... k=~=-=--=----.... ..-_----',_,-.--,...,,--,--,',-,--y,,----',--,-,.,..,----,,,.,..,._,r.----,---.----.---.----.-.--,-,---,---,---,-----,----,-------,
-I I I 1, I I
I 'lJ I I
90 ++++-+-+-+--+--+'----++++-+-+'--+--+-~+--~+-+-'-1+-+-1-'r,~11--1--1-~1--+-11-+-+-+-+--+--+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+--+--+-------, I I~ I
: : ~~ :
I I \ I 80 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+--+--+t--+--~t--+---t-+-,H+-+-l--l-+---1----1-+-+-+-+-t--+-+---+----I
I I I' I
I I \1
I I ..
70 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~ll----+-++--+-+--+.l--+---+~l--+--~l---+-h:+-+--+--+--.-:t--+---l--~l-'~t-+-,f-r+-+-1--1-+---l----l-+-t-+-+-t--+-+---+----I
I I : \
1
I I I I,
I I I ~ ' 60 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+---++-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+-+-'-1+-+--+--+---'-lt--+---t---1----+-,r+'-,+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-a---+--+--+---+---+-------, I I
I I
I I
I I 50 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+--+--+t--+---l---+---t-+-,H+-+-l--l-+---1----1-+-+-+-+-t--+-+---+----I
I I
I I
I I
40 ++++-+-+-+--+--+.----++++-+-+.--+--+-~+--~t+.-:+-++-t---.:l-+--t-~-t-+-lhl-+-l--l-+---1----1-+-t-+-+---t--+-+---+----I
I I
I I
I I
30 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~ll __ --+-++--+-+--+'l--+---+~l_,__~l---+-~l+-+--+--+--'-lt--+---1--~•----+-,f-+"--l+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-a---+--+--+----+---+-------,
I I
I I
I I
I I 20 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+--+--+t--+---l---+---t-+-,H+-+-l--l-+---1----1-+-t-+-+-t--+-+---+----I
I I
I I
I I
10 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+.----++-+-+-+-+.--+--+--+---+-+--:+-+--+--+--c:t--+---t----t-+-,r.+-+-l--l-+---1----1-+-+-+-+-t--+-+---+----I
I I
I I
I I 0 +-'-~-~~--~1•----+-~~--+'·~~--+'•-t----+'•---+-~'~-+--~·~-+---~~·--+-~'~~-~-----+--'-~--~--------,
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
B - 1
20 - 22.5
APPENDIX: D.5
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
BY: GN
CL
66
PROJECT: 2021026DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
-C: Cl) (.) ... Cl) a.
~ Size (Inches) ~+~----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
0 0
'Sf" CX) ;e g ~ 0 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 100.0 TTTT,---,--,---~----,,--,----,,,T""'T---tl~i-,--. ... _;;r=:i.;: ... ,.._-_---= .. rrn:,,::::;-,--,-:,---'.~---,__::~---,,::;:;,T""'T~~---.----~~-~-----~
'"J •"'1• I I : ~ ~ : 90 .0 -tt-t-t-+-+-+-+-t'---+H--1-+-+'-f--+-----'-+---'-H-'+-+-!--+-~,--+----l--''------+++'-l--l-l---l----l---l------1--1-1--1-l--l-_j__...)____j_ __
: : ◄~ :
I I ' I I I I\. I
80 .0 ++++-+-+-+-+----++----++++-+-----+l--l--+--++---+---l----l-l:U--l-+--1------t:l----+-----l-~~----l-l--l-t+--+-+-l----+-------I--_J_.LL_l_l_L_[__J__--+-_~
I I \
70 .0 ++++-+-+-t--+----+1.-,---++++-t----fT1,-+--+---.-, +---r+,+.:+-++-t-----.:f--+---+-~,---1'·"4-+.+-+-+--+--+-+------l-l-+-+---+-l----f--+-------1--_J
I I ~ ~
I I ,
I I
60 .0 ++++-+-+-t--+----+,__--++++-+---+'--+--+-'-+---'-++'1+-++-+----'-1f--+-------I-L__-+-l----J-!-l-l---l----l--+----+---+-+-+-+---+-j_____if--_j____j, __ _J I I
I I
I I
I I
50 .0 ++t++-+-+-+-tt---+f-+-t-+--tH-f----t-+---+-Htl-+-t-+-t+-+----+---1--++-++l---t--l---l----l---l------l--l-l-+-l--l--l--l----+--____j
I I
I I
I I
40 .0 ++++-+-+-f--+----+.---++++-t-+.-+--+----.--1------..--++.:+-++-+--.-: f---1----+-~-++-h+-+--l--+--+----+---+-+-+-+-1-j_____i _ _j____j, __ _j
I I
I I
I I
30 .0 ++++-+-+-t--+---+L,_'_-+++-H----+'-1-+--+_J_' +---1L++'1+-++-J---L1f--+-------l-'L__-+.J-j..1'-l-l---l----l--+----+---+-+-+-+-l-j_____l _ _j____j, __ _J
20 .0 -tt-t-t-+-+-+-+-tt---+H--1-+--tt-f--t----l-+---+-Ht+-+-t--+--t+--+----l-----lf---++-+++--l-l---l----l---l------1--1-1--l-l--l-_j__...)____j_ __
I I
I I
I I
10 .0 ++++-+-+-+-+----+.---------++++-+---+.--+--+----;-+-----;-++.:+-++-+-----;-:f--+-----l-'------+-l----l-"+-+--1---1--+---+---+-+-_j_j__j._l----f--_j____j, __ _J
I I
I I
I I 0 .0 -t-'--'--'---'---.J__L_..L,____JI.L,_ '---+_L_L...l.......l_JJ,I I__L____L,_J_I _J_ __ 4'_j_j'LL.L_J_L...J.'L___J_____[_L__'-+J_iJ'_l_l_L_[____L _ _J_ __ _µ_.LL_L_l----L_J___l __ _J
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
B - 1
22.5 - 24
APPENDIX: D.6
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
BY: GN
CL
58
PROJECT: 2021026DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
C)
C: 'iii
"' ctl ll.
C:
Q)
0 "-Q) ll.
~ Size (Inches) ~""~-----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
0 0
LI:! ~ ~ £e "-=f" co ~ g ~ 0 ~
:. T"9-CV")-~ -CV) ~ _g _g ~ ~ _g 0 1 00 ,-r-,,--,--,---tl~__, ..... _____ ,..._ ..... ___ .. _k=r-._-.---, -p.---r,_-_-._~~---~:-,-,...:,--,--,',-,--y:,----,',--,----,.,..:----,,c'T,-:r,----,---,----,---,----,-,--,-,,-,--,--,-----,---,-------,
._ ---...., -~ I I I .,. I I I
90 ++++-+-+-+--+--+'---++++-+-+'-+---+-~+---~:-+-r:+-+~•,....1-+~:1-+--1-~:--+-11-+-:+-+-+--+--+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+--+---+-------,
I I 'I I
I I I '\,. I
I I I -~ I 80 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+--➔,--+-Hl+-+--+-+-+lt--+-~,t-+,--+-1--<+I+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------<
I I I ' I
I I I \ I
70 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+.---++-+-+-+-+.-+--+--+---'--+-hl+-+--+-+--.-lt--+--1--•.,,.__i-+-,~'+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------<
II I I : : : : \ :
I I I I \
I I I I ~ I
60 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+---++-+-+-+-+-+--+-~+---1--+-rl+-+--+-+---'-lt--+--t---1----+-<r-¥-I+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------< I I I I
I I I I
I
I 50 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+>+-+--+-+-+t--+--l---+--1-+-,f++--+-f----l-+----l-----l-+-+-+-+-1--+-+---+------,
I I
I I I I
I I I I
40 ++++-+-+-+--+--+.---++++-+-+.-+---+-~+---~:-+-h:t-++-t---.:1-+--t--~-t-+-lr.:t-+-+--+--+--+----+-t-+-,-+--+--+--+---+-------,
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
30 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~ll __ --+-+-+-+-+--+'l-+---+~l_,__~l--+-~l+-+--+-+--'-lt--+--1--~•--+-lf-+"--I+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------<
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I 20 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+>+-+--+-+-+t--+--l---+--1-+-,f++--+-f----l-+----l-----l-+-+-+-+-1--+-+---+------,
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
10 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+.---++-+-+-+-+.-+--+--+--~:--+-r.:+-+--+-+--c:t--+--t----i-+-,r.:+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------<
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I 0 +-'-~~~~~-~l•----+~~--+'•~~--+'•-t----+'1--+-~'~-+-~•~-+--~~•--+-1~'~~~~-~---+--'~~~~~-~------a
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
APPENDIX: D.7
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
BY: GN
CH
80
PROJECT: 2021026DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
25 - 26.5
B - 1
C)
C: 'iii
"' ctl ll.
C:
Q)
0 "-Q) ll.
~ Size (Inches) ~""~-----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
0 0
LI:! ~ ~ £e "-=f" co ~ g ~ 0 ~
:. T"9 CV") ~-CV) g _g _g ~ ~ _g 0 100 ,-r-,,--,--,---tl~__, ..... =----;-..... _-----,......,._ ........ .,.-.~-~-.-~ .. --__ -~:-,-,...:r,-'',-,--y:,----,',--,----,.,..:----,,c'T,-,r.----.---.----.---.----.-.--,-,,-,--,---,-----,----,-------,
........ I I I
I ~ •o .._ : 90 ++++-+-+-+--+--+'---++++-+-+'-+---+-~+---~:-+-rlt-+-l-t--=-k~~+l~--+-~l--+-11-+-t-+-+--+--+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+--+---+-------,
I I -......,_,_
: : I '-80 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+t--+--t--+--H~,_.:1--+-+--+---+--+----+-t-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------<
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I 70 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~11----+++--+-+--+.l--+----+~l--+--~l--+-hl+-+--+-+--.-lt--+--l--~l--+-lf-h-lt-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------<
I I I
I I
I I I
60 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+---++-+-+-+-+-+--+-~+---1--+-rl+-+--+-+---'-t--+--t---1--+-1r+'-+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------< I I
I I
I I
I I 50 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+t--+--l---+--HHf++--+-l--l-+----1-----1-+-+-+-+-t---+-+----+-----I
I I
I I
I I
40 ++++-+-+-+--+--+.---++++-+-+.-+---+-~+---~:-+-h:t-++-t---.t-+--t-~-t-+-lhl-+-l--l-+----1-----1-+-t-+-+---t---+-+-----+-----I
I I
I I
I I
30 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~ll __ --+++--+-+--+'l--+----+~l_,__~l--+-~l+-+--+-+--'-lt--+--1--~•--+-lf-+"--I+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------<
I I
I I
I I
I I 20 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+t--+--l---+--HHf++--+-l--l-+----1-----1-+-+-+-+-t---+-+----+-----I
I I
I I
I I
10 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+.---++-+-+-+-+.-+--+--+--~:--+-r.:+-+--+-+--ct--+--t----HHr.+-+-l--l-+----1-----1-+-+-+-+-t---+-+----+-----I
I I
I I
I I 0 +-'-~~~~~-~l•----+~~--+'•~~--+'•-t----+'1--+-~'~-+-~•~-+--~~•--+-~'~~~~-~---+--'~~~~~-~------a
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
APPENDIX: D.8
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673
P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
BY: GN
CL
66
PROJECT: 2021026DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
B - 2
5 - 10
C)
C: 'iii
"' ctl ll.
C:
Q)
0 "-Q) ll.
~ Size (Inches) ~""~-----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
0 0
LI:! ~ ~ £e "-=f" co ~ g ~ 0 ~
:. T"9-CV")-~ -CV) g_ _g _g ~ ~ _g 0 100 ,-r-,,--,--,--~~--,~---~~-~------T""T--.-~--~=---"'r-... ~----.......L.---4,,-,-~,,--,--,',-,--y:,----,',--,----,~:----,,c'T,-:r,----,---,----,---,----,-,--,-,,-,--,---,----,----,------,
...... I I I
90 ++++-+-+-+--+--+'---++++-+-+'-+---+-~+---~+-+-'-+-+~+t---f',~:1-+--t-~:--+-11-+-lll t-+-+--+--+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+--+--+-------,
l i' I : ~~ : :
'\. I I 80 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+t--+-----+--t-+-,H+-+-f----i-+------i-------i-+-+-+-+-t---+-+----+------i "• : I '\ I
I I '\ I 70 +++-+-+-+-+----+--~ll----+-++--+-+--+.l--+----+~l--+--~l---+-hl+-+--+-+--.-lt--+--1--~l---+.-,"f-+-..-I+-+---+----+---+-----+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+----+---+-------,
: : .
I I I
60 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+---++-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+-+-'-+-+--+-+---'-lt--+--t---1----+-,r+'-l+-+---+--+---+--+----+-+-+-a---+--+--+----+---+-------< I I
I I
I I
I I 50 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+t--+--1---+--t-+-,H+-+-f----i-+------i-------i-+-+-+-+-t---+-+----+------i
I I
I I
I I
40 ++++-+-+-+--+--+.---++++-+-+.-+---+-~+---~t+.-+-++-t---.:1-+--t-~-t-+-lr.:t-+-+--+--+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+--+--+-------,
I I
I I
I I
30 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~ll __ --+-++--+-+--+'l--+----+~l_,__~l---+-~l+-+--+-+--'-lt--+--1--~l----+-,f-+"--I+-+---+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+----+---+-------<
I I
I I
I I
I I 20 +++-+---+-+-+----+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+t--+--1---+--t-+-,H+-+-f----i-+------i-------i-+-t---+-+-t---+-+----+------i
I I
I I
I I
10 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+.---++-+-+-+-+.-+--+--+---+-+--+-+--+-+--c:t--+--t----t-+-,r.:+-+---+--+---+--+----+-+-+-a---+--+--+---+---+-------,
I I
I I
I I 0 +-'-~-~~--~1•----+-~~--+'·~~--+'•-t----+'•---+-~'~-+-~·~-+--~~·----+-~'~~-~-----+--'-~--~--------,
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
BY: GN APPENDIX: D.9
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
CL
81
PROJECT: 2021026DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
B - 2
10 - 11.5
C)
C: 'iii
"' ctl ll.
C:
Q)
0 "-Q) ll.
~ Size (Inches) ~~~----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes
LI:! ~ ~ £e ~ co ~ 0 C') 0 ID
0 0 0 0 N
Hydrometer Analysis
:. T"9-CV")-~ -CV) g_ _g _g ~ ~ _g 0 100 ,--,,,-,-11-~-r-<---•,...t--11_ ........ ....,_-,--,-___ ---.--11_...,..,~ ... _.-....... .....-., ..... ,_-,--y,,-----.,--------.----,---,--,...,-.,-,.---r----.-----r---.----,,-,-,-,-,---,----,----,------,
...... I I
1'-1~ I I
90 +++-+-+--,1-t-f-----t'---++++-+-t'---,-t--'-+-~-++-'-+-+--f-+---'-t--+---'-~:--+-t--t-'-t:-+--+-+---+----+---+-f-+-t-+--+-+--+------,-----, ,, :
I ' I
I I', ' 80 ++-+-+--+--,---+-f-----tf----++-+-+-+-+-1---<-+--1---+----+-++++-+--+-+-++---+---+---f--+-t--1'9'1--+--+-+--+----+----+-t-+-t-+--+--+--+-----<-----<
I
I
I
I 70 ++-+-+--+--,---+-f-----+.-11---++-+-+-+-~,--+---+--,......+--~,-++..+-+,--+-+--r,+---+---+-,--+-t~..+-,!-+--+---+--+---+-+-t-+-+-+--+---+---+-------<
I
I
60 ++-+-+--+--,---+-f----+'----++-+-+-+-t-'--7-+--'---+--~-++.a+-+--+-+--'-+---+---+-1--+-t--+-<-t--+--+-+--+----+----+-t-+-t-+--+--+--+-----<-----<
50 -++-+-+--+--,---+-f-----tf----++-+-+-+-+-1---<-+--1---+----+-++++-+--+-+-++---+---+---f--+-l-++l--+--+-+--+----+----+-t-+-t-+--+--+--+-----<-----<
40 +++-+-+--,1-t-f---+.---++++-+-+.--,-t--..--+-~-++.+-+-+-+---.t--+---+~--+-t-+.-t-+--+-+---+----+---+-f-+-t-+--+-+--+------,-----,
30 -++-+-+--+--,---+-f----+'-11---++-+-+-+-~1--+---+--1'-f--~1-++-"+-+1 --+--+-'-1+---+---+-1--+-1~-4-1 !-+--+---+--+---+-+-t-+-+-+--+---+---+-------<
20 -++-+-+--+--,---+-f-----+f----++-+-+-+-+-1---<-+--1---+----+-++++-+--+-+-++---+---+---f--+-t-++l--+--+-+--+----+----+-t-+-t-+--+--+--+-----<-----<
10 -++-+-+--+--,---+->-----+c---++-+-+-+-+-c--,-+--c-+----++-c+-+--+-+--c+---+---+---+-1-+-c-+--+--+-+--+----+----+-1-+-t-+--+--+--+-----<-----<
0 +-'-~~~-~~I•---+-~~~•~~-•~-~•-+-'-~•-+-~•~+-~~•--+-'~~•~~~-~--+-'-~~~~-~-----<
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
BY: GN APPENDIX: D.10
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
SC
38
PROJECT: 2021026DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
B - 2
15 - 16.5
C)
C: 'iii
"' ctl ll.
C:
Q)
0 "-Q) ll.
~ Size (Inches) ~""~-----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ co ~ g ~ 0 ~
---g _g _g ~ ~ _g ci 100 ,-r-,,--,--,---tl~__,--< _____ 11"1-.,---.-,---,--,---,--..,,---,----,~,-.-~,-,-r,1,--,--,',-,--yl,----,',--,----,.,_.,----,,c'T,-lr,----,---,----,---,----,-,--,-,,-,--,---,-----,----,-------,
I I I I I I
'--I I I I I I I,,, I I I I I I
90 ++++-+-+-+--+--+'---++ri,,.rll'--+.~-+----t~:--+--~:-+-r:+-+-1-+---'-:1--1--1-~:--+-11-+-+-+-+--+--+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+--+---+-------,
,._ .._ I I I I I
~~-.. ~ .. : : 80 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+-~,--+-----f--+-H+-~~,~--➔,t--+--t-+1--+-lf-H-t-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------<
I \I I
I 1 I
70 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~ll----+++--+-+--+.1--+----+~:--+--~l--+-hl+-+--+-+--.-:~\"-+--+-~:--+-lf-h-lt-+-+--+---+--+----+-t-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------<
I I 1• I
I I \ I
60 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+---++-+-+-+-+-+--+--:--+--~--+-+-'+-+-+--+-~:1--+--'--.t-~:--+-1r+'-t-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------<
I I ~ I
I I \I : : . 50 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+>+-+--+--t--+--1---+4',-~f++--+-t----i-+----l-----l-+-+-+-+-t---+-+----+------,
\ I I
I I
I I ' ~
40 ++++-+-+-+--+--+.---++++-+-+.-+---+-~:--+--~-+-h+-+--+-+-~:1-+--t--~-H~f'-h-,+-+-+--+--+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+--+---+-------,
I I ' I I
I I
30 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~ll __ --+++--+-+--+'l--+----+~l--+--~l--+-~l+-+--+-+--'-lt--+--1---~•--+-lf-+"--I+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+--+--+---+---+-------<
I I
I I
I I
I I 20 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+f---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+>+-+--+--t--+--1----+--~f++--+-t----i-+----l-----l-+-+-+-+-t---+-+----+------,
I I
I I
I I
10 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+.---++-+-+-+-+.-+--+-~:--+-----+-r.+-+-+--+-~:t--+--t---~r.+-+-t----i-+----l-----l-+-+-+-+-t---+-+----+------,
I I
I I
I I 0 +-'-~~~~~-~''----+~~--+'·~~--+''--+----+''--+-~'~-+-~·~-+--~~·--+-1~·~~~~-~---+--'~~~~~-~------a
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
B - 2
30 - 31.5
BY: GN APPENDIX: D.11
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
CL
81
PROJECT: 2021026DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
C)
C: 'iii
"' ctl ll.
C:
Q)
0 "-Q) ll.
~ Size (Inches) ~~~----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes
0
LI:! ~ ~ £e ~ co ~ 0 C') 0 ID
0 0
Hydrometer Analysis
:. T"9-CV")-~ -CV) g _g _g ~ ~ _g 0 100 ,--,-.-,---,-1-•~J--r--11_9-1,...--w-_,._...,_=_c-r-._,c.-e----,--_~._,-----,-_-__ __.,..-,_.,,,crr<-,-.-.-1r-',--------.-----"1..-------.~,-.--r---.----.----.---,------,--,,,---,----,------,,-----~---.----.
•-◄ .. ~ ~.._ ~ ~ : ,,
90 ++++-+-+---t--+---t~--++++-+--+'--+--+~-+--~+-r++-+-+---'-t--+---+-~1 ___.,rl-+-r:+-+-+--+--+--+---++++-+--t--1,-----t---+-----,
I 'I\ I
: ' 80 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+---++----++-+-+-+--++--+---+--+-+----+-+-+i+-+--+-+-+t--+---+-l----++-+f+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+---+-----<
I I
I I
I I
I I 70 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+---+1-,---++-+-+-+---+r,--+---+-,-+---.......+.~.+-+--+-+--.-,t--+---+-,---++-+-,,+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+---+-----<
I I
I
I I
60 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+---+----++-+-+-+---+"--+---+--+---+-+"+-+--+-+---t--+---+-1---++-+-<l+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+---+-----< I
I
I
I 50 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+---++----++-+-+-+--++--+---+--+-+----+-+-+i+-+--+-+-+t--+---+-l----++-+f+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+---+-----<
I
I
I
40 ++++-+-+---t--+---+~--++++-+--+.--+--+~-+--~++.++-+-+---..-t--+----+-~-+++.:+-+-+--+--+--+---++++-+--t-1t--+----+-----,
I
I
I
30 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+---+1_1 _--++-+-+-+---+"-l--+---+~l -+---'-+l ~l+-+--+-+--'-lt--+---+--l --++-+'l+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+---t-----<
I
I
I
I 20 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+---tf-----++-+-+-+--++--+---+--+-+----+-+-+i+-+--+-+-+t--+---+-l----++-+f+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+---+-----<
I
I
I
10 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+---+----++-+-+-+---+c--+---+--+---++-+-+--+-+-ct--+---+----++---r.:+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+---+-----<
I
I
I 0 +-'-~t----~~1-•_--+_~---+'-·--~·-+---'-+'~'~-+-~·t--+-~-t--•--+~'~----t----+-'-~~---~-----,
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
BY: GN APPENDIX: D.12
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
CL
65
PROJECT: 2021026DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
B - 3
0 - 3
C)
C: 'iii
"' ctl ll.
C:
Q)
0 "-Q) ll.
~ Size (Inches) ~""~-----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
0 0
LI:! ~ ~ £e "-=f" co ~ g ~ 0 ~
:. T"9-CV")-~ -CV) g_ _g _g ~ ~ _g 0 100 ,-r-,,--,--,---tl~__, ..... _____ ,..._ ..... ______ ~-.----................. --__ r--'o,-.--r-.,,,..',-,--y,,----,',--,-,.,..,----,,,.,..,._,r.----,---.----.---.----.-.--,-,---,---,---,-----,----,-------,
-........ ~ I I I I
l ,-.... I I I
: ••, I I 90 ++++-+-+-+--+--+'---++++-+-+'-+---+-~+---~+-+-'-1+-+-1-t---..r~--+--+-~:--+-11-+-:+-+-+--+--+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+--+--+-------,
I '1. I I
I r'\ I I
I ' I I 80 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-++l+-+--+-+-+t--+--~l,--+l--+-1e-++I+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+---+---+-------<
: ~ :
I I '\ I 70 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~11----+++--+-+--+.l--+----+~l--+--~l--+-hl+-+--+-+--.-lt--+--l--~I---H~f-h-lt-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+---+---+-------<
I I 1,1
I I I
I I I
60 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+---++-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+-+-'-1+-+--+-+---'-t--+--1---1--+-1r+'-I+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+---+---+-------< I I
I I
I I
I I 50 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+t--+--l---+--1-+-,f++--+-f----l-+----l-----l-+-+-+-+-1---+-+----+------,
I I
I I
I I
40 ++++-+-+-+--+--+.---++++-+-+.-+---+-~+---~++.-:+-++-+---.t-+--1-~-rrr.:+-+-+--+--+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+--+--+-------,
I I
I I
I I
30 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~ll __ --+++--+-+--+'l--+----+~l_,__~l--+-~l+-+--+-+--'-lt--+--1--~•--+-lf-+"--I+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+---+---+-------<
I I
I I
I I
I I 20 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+t--+--l---+--1-+-,f++--+-f----l-+----l-----l-+-+-+-+-1---+-+----+------,
I I
I I
I I
10 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+.---++-+-+-+-+.-+--+--+---+-+--:+-+--+-+--ct--+--1----1-+-,r.:+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+---+---+-------<
I I
I I
I I 0 +-'-~-~~--~1•----+~~--+'·~~--+'•-t----+'•--+-~'~-+-~·~-+--~~·--+-1~·~~-~-----+--'-~--~--------,
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
BY: GN APPENDIX: D.13
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
ML
72
PROJECT: 2021026DATE: MAY 2021
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
B - 3
4 - 10
C)
C: 'iii
"' ctl ll.
C:
Q)
0 "-Q) ll.
~ Size (Inches) ~""~-----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
0 0
LI:! ~ ~ £e "-=f" co ~ g ~ 0 ~
:. T"9-CV")-~ -CV) g_ ~ _g ~ ~ _g 0 100 ,-r-,,--,--,--~~--,~---~~-~------~--,--~-t--,----,----..-...~-=--1', .... ..-~~,,--,--,',-,--y,,----,',--,----,~,----,,,.,..,._,r.----,---.----.---.----.-.--,-,---,---,---,-----,----,-------,
... 0, I I I ....., I I
1'1~ I I
90 ++++-+-+-+--+--+'---++++-+-+'-+---+-~+---~t-t-'-t-+-f-t---'-:l--!-~'rl-,~:--+-11-+-:t-+-+--+--+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+--+--+-------,
I ~ I I
: " : 80 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+lt--+--t-+l----.,-+-1~I+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+---+---+-------<
I I I\ I
: : 1, t
70 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~ll----+++--+-+--+.l--+----+~,--+--~,--+-hl+-+--+-+--.-lt--+--1--~l--+-lf-h-lt-+-+--+---+--+----+-t-+-,f-+--+--+---+---+-------<
I I
I
I I
60 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+---++-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+-+-'-+-+--+-+---'-lt--+--1---l--+-1r+'-+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+---+---+-------< I
I
I
I 50 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+t--+--l---+--1-+-,f++--+-l--l-+----l-----l-+-+-+-+-t---+-+----+-----I
I
I
I
40 ++++-+-+-+--+--+.---++++-+-+.-+---+-~+---~t+.-+-++-t---.:1-+--t-~-t-+-lhl-+-l--l-+----l-----l-+-t-+-+---t---+-+-----+-----I
I
I
I
30 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~1, __ --+++--+-+--+''--+----+~'-t--~•--+-~'+-+--+-+--'-'t--+--l--~'--+-lf-+"--1+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+---+---+-------<
I
I
I
I 20 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+t--+--l---+--1-+-,f++--+-l--l-+----l-----l-+-+-+-+-t---+-+----+-----I
I
I
I
10 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+.---++-+-+-+-+.-+--+--+---+-+--+-+--+-+--c:t--+--1----1-+-,r.+-+-l--l-+----l-----l-+-+-+-+-t---+-+----+-----1
I
I
I 0 +-'-~-~~--~1•----+~~--+'·~~--+'•-t----+'1--+-~'~-+-~·~-+--~~·--+-~'~~-~-----+--'-~--~--------,
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
BY: GN APPENDIX: D.14
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
CL
63
DATE: MAY 2021 PROJECT: 2021026
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
B - 3
10 - 15
C)
C: 'iii
"' ctl ll.
C:
Q)
0 "-Q) ll.
~ Size (Inches) ~~~----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
0 0
LI:! ~ ~ £e "-=f" co ~ g ~ 0 ~
:. T"9-CV")-~ -CV) g_ _g _g ~ ~ _g 0 100 ,--,-.-,---,-1-•~J--r--11_9-1,...--------T""T"-r-•-t-.....-=-c-1 .... ...--.-_-_____ ,..-._.,,;;r __ ~---.-"T:r-',--------.-----",.--, -,,",-,:-,--r---,----,----,---,----,--,,,---,--,------,,-----~---.----.
0. ---:, : :
90 ++++-+-+---t--+----t~--++++-+--+'--+--+~-+--~+-r++-+-+---'-f------'~•r~--+-1~: -++r:+-+-+--+--+--+---++++-+--t--1,-----+----+-----,
\ I :
\ I I 80 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+----++----++-+-+-+--++--+---+--+-+----+-+-+i+-+--+-+-+t--+---+_____,l----++-+f+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+---+-----<
~\ :
I \ I
70 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+----+l-l ---++-+-+-+---+rl--+---+-1-+---.......+l ~l+-+--+-+--.-lt--+---+-,-1 _\44-~:+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+---+-----<
I " I
I
I I
60 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+----+----++-+-+-+---+"--+---+--+---+-+"+-+--+-+---t--+---+-1---++-+-<l+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+---+-----< I
I
I
I 50 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+----++----++-+-+-+--++--+---+--+-+----+-+-+i+-+--+-+-+t--+---+-l----++-+f+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+---+-----<
I
I
I
40 ++++-+-+---t--+----+~--++++-+--+.--+--+~-+--~++.++-+-+---..-t--+----+-~-+++.:+-+-+--+--+--+---++++-+--t-1t--+----+-----,
I
I
I
30 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+----+1_1 _--++-+-+-+---+"-l--+---+~l -+---'-+l ~l+-+--+-+--'-lt--+---+--l --++-+'l+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+----t-----<
I
I
I
I 20 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+----tf-----++-+-+-+--++--+---+--+-+----+-+-+i+-+--+-+-+t--+---+-l----++-+f+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+---+-----<
I
I
I
10 ++-+-+-+-+-t--+----+----++-+-+-+---+c--+---+--+---++-+-+--+-+-ct--+---+----++---r.:+-+--+---+---+--+---++-+-+--+--t-1t--+---+-----<
I
I
I 0 +-'-~t----~~1-•_--+_~---+'-·--~·-+---'-+'~'~-+-~·t--+-~-t--•--+~'~----t----+-'-~~---~-----,
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
BY: GN APPENDIX: D.15
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
CH
81
DATE: MAY 2021 PROJECT: 2021026
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
B - 3
15 - 16.5
~ Size (Inches) ~~ U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes ,,,,. Hydrometer Analysis '-.,, .... .,,
0 0
'I'.! :;!: ~ CX) ~ 0 0 ~ 0 "SI" CX) C') ID N
~ ~ C') ?i g _g _g ~ ~ _g ci 100 ---~ -II"' I I I I I I I --~• I I I I I I I ,.._ I I I I I I I ,...._ I I I I I I
90 I --I I I I I
I I -.. I I I I
I I ,-"1 ... ~ ... "1 ·-I I
I I I -~ I
I I I I I ..._ • 80
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I I
C) 70 I I I I I
C: II I I I I I I I
'iii I I I I I
"' I I I I I
ctl I I I I I
ll. 60 I I I I I
C: I I I I
I I I I Q) I I I I 0 "-I I I I Q) 50 ll. I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
40 I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
30 11 I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I 20
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
10 I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
0 1, I I I I I I I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
I I I I I I I
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
B - 3
17.5 - 19
BY: GN APPENDIX: D.16
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
CL
60
DATE: MAY 2021 PROJECT: 2021026
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
C)
C: 'iii
"' ctl ll.
C:
Q)
0 "-Q) ll.
~ Size (Inches) ~""~-----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
0 0
LI:! ~ ~ £e "-=f" co ~ g ~ 0 ~
:. T"9 CV") ~-CV) g _g _g ~ ~ _g 0 100 ,-r-,,--,--,---tl~__, ..... =----;-..... _-----........ -=---,, ..... ,.-,.-rt-----c~,-.-~,-.--r-.,r,-'',-,--y,,----,',--,----,.,..,----,,,.,..,._,r.----,---.----.---.----.-.--,-,---,---,---,-----,----,-------,
~-... -----I I I .,..--o-~--..,~ : :
90 ++++-+-+-+--+--+'---++++-+-+'-+---+-~+---~+-+-'-+-+-l-+---'-ll--!--'-'l-~l_-+-11-+-ll t-+-+--+--+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+--+--+-------, I \ I
: \ : 80 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+lt--+--t-+l~\~t-+-,~I+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+---+---+-------<
I I \ I
: : ' : 70 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~11----+++--+-+---+.l--+----+~l--+--~l--+-hl+-+--+-+--.-lt--+--l--~l----,l\f-h-lt-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+---+---+-------<
: : ~. :
I I I
60 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+---++-+-+-+-+-+--+--+---+-+-'-+-+--+-+---'-lt--+--1---l----+-,c--.•+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+---+---+-------< I I
I I
I I
I I 50 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+t--+--l---+--t-+-,f++--+-f----l-+----l-----l-+-+-+-+-1---+-+----+------,
I I
I I
I I
40 ++++-+-+-+--+--+.---++++-+-+.-+---+-~+---~t+.-+-++-t---.:1-+--t-~-t-+-lr.:t-+-+--+--+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+--+--+-------,
I I
I I
I I
30 +++-+-+-+-+--+--~ll __ --+++--+-+--+'l--+----+~l_,__~l--+-~l+-+--+-+--'-lt--+--1--~•----+-,f-+---I+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+---+---+-------<
I I
I I
I I
I I 20 +++-+-+-+-+--+---++---++-+-+-+--++-+--+--+-+---+-+-+++-+--+-+-+t--+--l---+--t-+-,f++--+-f----l-+----l-----l-+-+-+-+-1---+-+----+------,
I I
I I
I I
10 +++-+-+-+-+--+--+.---++-+-+-+-+.-+--+--+---+-+--+-+--+-t---7:t--+--t---t-+-,r.:+-+-+--+---+--+----+-+-+-,-+-+--+---+---+-------<
I I
I I
I I 0 +-'-~-~~--~1•----+~~--+'·~~--+'•-t----+'1--+-~'~-+-~·~-+--~~·--+-~'~~-~-----+--'-~--~--------,
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
B - 5
15 - 20
BY: GN APPENDIX: D.17
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
ML/CL
64
DATE: MAY 2021 PROJECT: 2021026
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
~ Size (Inches) -----3►~~---U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes ----➔::...,:~=-------Hydrometer Analysis
0
st" co ;e g ~ ~
100.0 m-,--r---,-,~--,~----i~.----~-----,~m---,--j .. !-,--~!h. ,......._=iiii;~:::rTTl,,:::;~:....-.,,------.:Z:;-
0
_r---=;;.----,-,::~;:;.,-~~-----,----~------
.--..i. ---•~ ... L..._ I
~I I
90 .0 -t-t--H-i-+-+-+---+----+++-t-+-t"-+--+-'-l----'--++'H-l-+--'+--+-'\~---':'----++l-'-l---f-+---1--+----l-----l--l-l-l-+--+----+-----1--+---I \1
-.. 80.0 -t-t--H-i-+-+-+----t4-----+++-t-+-a-+---+-+-1----+-++l-l-+-1-+--ll----+----l----J:l-\-\-++l-l-l-f-+---1--+----l-----l--l-l-1-+--+----+-----I--+---
\
\
g> 70 .0 tt-lH-f-+-+-+--1fr-1 --++-H-f---trl I +-+-i,.+---,, +h,H--J-+-..+-,+--+--.,r---+l\+-~J-;..111 --l---1--1----J--+-----l--+-l-\----+---l-_j__----1--__j
'in
Ill n, a. c Cl) ~ Cl) a.
60. 0 -t-H--t-+-+-+-+-----t'----+++-t-+-f'-+--+---'---.!!----'--++'-H-!-+--'l---l---+---'---++-l-'-l--l--l----l---l--l-----1-1-l-l--l----l---l-+-----1--__j
50 .0 tt-lH-t-+-+-+---+t---++-+-++-ft-+-+--+-,l------++++f-H-+-t+--+--+-+---++-J+j--J--1--1----l--l-----1--+-J-.l-...j----l---l---l-----1--__j
40 .0 -t-H--t-+-+-+-+---+.--1 ---+t+-+-+-f.-+--+----..-.f-------.---tt.1f-+-l-+-..+--+--+-~--++-h-l--l--l----l---l--l-----l-1-l-l--1----l---l-+--+--__j
30 .0 -t-H--t-t--t-+-+-----J1..__ 1 -++-,--t-+---l'--1 -+--+---'1"-+---'--1 --t--+..lj'H-!-+-.1J-----1 -l----l--_J1L__--l-1-l-.l-J1 --l--l----1---l--l-----l-l-l-l--1---+---l--l---+--__j
20 .0 -t-t--H-i-+-+-+----tt----+++-t-+-tt-+--+--+-t----+-++tl-+-i-+--t+-+--+---+---+++t-e-+-+-+---+-+----++-l-l---1----1---1--+----l---
10 .0 -t-H--t-+-+-+-+---+.-----+++-t-+-1-;-+--+__:_f-------,-+J-;-H-l-+-.;.J-+--+-__:_--+--1--Hl-+--l----l----+-+-----l-l--l-l-------l---l-+----l--__J
o .0 +'--'L.L.....l__l__j__..L___ILJ_ '-+1---L.L.....1---1.LI, _j___j____JIL.J__J_I +u'L.LJL...]_J.L_ '_L_L...]__j'L__--1-L-WI, L...]_L_[____L_L__ _ _j_LL.L_L...L_L__j___l_ _ __j
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
B - 5
20 - 25
BY: GN APPENDIX: D.18
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
CH
66
DATE: MAY 2021 PROJECT: 2021026
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
C)
C: 'iii
"' ctl ll.
C:
Q)
0 "-Q) ll.
~ Size (Inches) ~~~----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
0 0
LI:! ~ ~ £e "-=f" co ~ g ~ 0 ~
:. T"9-CV")-~ -CV) g _g _g ~ ~ _g 0 100 ,--,-,-,--,--9t-11~9-,--i1_9--il,..-9---1_ .. _.-,1=-,--,--;--frl---,-----,----",l--,---_..,..--,--ITTlrr"..---r-,,,,.----,<,------,-_...,.l_--.--r.,.,,...--r---,----,-----,---,---------,-r,-r,--,---,-----,------,-----,
'---1--11--I I I I
"°-. .. r-,. : I :
90 +++-+-+--+--+--+---t'-------,-t-+-+-+-+--+---+-~t--'---1•a-t-t-,---1-f--+-+--+----+~1--++-++-+-t-+-----,l----+---++-f-+-t-+--+---+-+--------, r , I
..._ I
H I
80 ++-+-+-+-+--+---+--++------<-++-+-+---+t---+---+---+-t---<-+-+++-+-+-➔-,--ti---+--+-➔1--++-+++--+-t-+----<f----+---++-f-t-+-+--+---+---+------<
r-1~
..._ I
70 ++;---+-,---+--+--+-----h--->-+-+--+-+--+r-+--+-----.----+---.---++.+-f-+-+---.+---+--+----...... .,.__+++.+-+---+-+-+----+-----+-+-+-+-+--+----,f----l--+------l 11 I I I I I I ', I : ~, .. '
I
60 ++-+-+-+-+--+---+---,.------<-++-+-+---+'---+---+-~t----+-+-'-t-t-+--+--"'t--+---+-1--++--t-<-t--+-t-+----<f----+---++-f-t-+-+--+---+---+------<
50 ++-+-+-+-+--+---+--++------<-++-+-+---+t---+---+---+-t---<-+-+++-+-+--+--lH---+---+---->--++-+H--+-t-+----<f----+---++-f-t-+-+--+---+---+------<
40 +++-+-+--+--+--+--+.-------,-++-+-+---+.--+---+-~t---.---t-ht-t-+--t--.rl--+----+~--+++.+-+-t-+-----,1----+---++-f-+-t-+--+---+-+--------,
30 ++-+-+-+-+--+---+-➔11+----+-+➔➔-+-~1--+---+-~1-1------+-1 ~1t-+--1-t-~1'+--+---+-1--++~1'-+--+--+--+---+--t-----+-t-+-f-+--+-+--+---+-------<
20 ++-+-+-+-+--+---+--+f------<-++-+-+---+t---+---+---+-t---<-+-+++-+-+--+--lH---+---+---->--++-+H--+-t-+----<f----+---++-f-t-+-+--+---+---+------<
10 ++-+-+-+-+--+--+--+.------<-++-+-+--+.---+---+----.--t---,---+-r.+-t-+--+--cc+--+---+~--++-+-c+-+-t-+----<f----+---++-f-t-+-+--+---+---+------<
0 +-'-~-~~-~l•+-----+-~~~•~~~•_,_ __ ,___._,~•~~~•H---+-~~•--+-+~•~~~~-H-----+-~~~~~~-------<
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
LD - 2
11 - 12
BY: GN APPENDIX: D.19
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
SP-SM
11
DATE: MAY 2021 PROJECT: 2021026
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
en C: ·;;;
Ill (0
D.
c a, 0 ... a,
D.
~ Size (Inches) ~~.::::----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes ,, '-Hydrometer Analysis
0 0 ~ ~ ~ fe 'q" CO ~ g fis O ~
'II""" 'II"""("') 'II"""("')
100 ,,--,--,.-t1-:-r<:---•;1--~:-a-r~-~-~~~---~~~-c:i~-.. ~~,""-..:;c:i~~,.---..9"---·-~""-..:;~-~_.,~0
~· ~~~~~---~~~-----~
... ll I
'-I :, 90 +++-++-+-+--+---t'-----t-+++-+---+'-+--+--'-l---'--++-'+-f-++-''+--'<+---+-----'---++-+'++-l-+---tf---+---++-1-+-+-+-+-+-+-----l : ~~
I \
80 +++-++-t--+-----af-----tt---++++-+-H---t-t--1-1----+-++f+-+-+-+-l-
1
+---+--++\-1--++-+l-l-+--l---+--l-----+---+-l-l---f-+--+--l----l------l-----a
I
: \
70 +++-++-t--+-----af-----+.-,--++++-1-~,-+--+--,.--+--~,-++1.+--+-+-+--.-~+---+---+~\~~--++~..-l-,1-+-+---+--l---+-Hf-+-+-+---I---+--+--~
I : t 60 +++-++-t--+-----af-----t'-l __ ++++-+-t'-t-t--'--t--~-++'+-+-+-+---'-l+---+----+--'~-++-+'-+-+--l---+--1-----+---+-l-l---f-+--1--l----l------l-----a : \
I \
50 ++-I---Hf-+---t---t---+l---++-+--+-+-+t-+--+--+--1---+-++1fl-+--1-+--ll+--t---+---+--'-\-+++1-1--+--+--+---+--+----++--1-+-+-1-----+------+---l------a
I \ : \
40 +++-++-t--+---t--+.---+++++-h-t-t----,.+-----.-++.+-++-+-.1f--+--+-----.--44\-+.-+-+-+-+--+---+---+-l--tif-+-+-+-+----l-----j : \
I
30 +++-++-t--+-----a----t'-1--++++-+-~1-+--+---'1'--t--~1-++'+--+1 -+-+-'-:+---+----+-'1--+'+\~-4-•1--+-+---+--l---+-H-+-+-+---I---+--+--~ I
I
I ~
20 +++-+-+-f-t-t-----#---H-++--l--ff-lf--t--f-l----+-+++H-l--1-41+--+---+-ir---Hl-ll+ll-+--l----l----l------l---+-l-l---1-1---1--l-----1--f------1
I
I
I
10 +++-+-+-f-t-t-----t.---++++-+-+.---,f--t--.---+-----.--+-+c+-t-+-+---c:+---+----+~--++---F.,;-+--+-+--+----l----++-+-+-+--+--1-----1--f------1
I I
I I
I I 0 +-'-~~~-'-----"'-11 __ -++~_c_,,_l,~__,__.......,_, _ __._,-++-<L-L'_.__,__.,L-~----'---'''-----+-'--'I-LL-,L._L__,____,_ _ _c_ __ +.-L-L.L_L.....L--+--+--+--~
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Gravel
GRADATION ANALYSIS TEST RESULTS
Sand
Coarse FineMediumCoarseFine
Silt or Clay
Sample Location:
Depth (ft):
USCS Soil Type:
Passing No. 200 (%):
LD - 2
28
BY: GN APPENDIX: D.20
NOVA
GEOTECHNICAL
MATERIALS
SPECIAL INSPECTION
4373 Viewridge Avenue, Suite BSan Diego, CA 92123P: 858.292.7575
www.usa-nova.com
944 Calle Amanecer, Suite FSan Clemente, CA 92673P: 949.388.7710
SBEDVBE SDVOSB SLBE
SP-SM
10
DATE: MAY 2021 PROJECT: 2021026
MARJA ACRES
1910 EL CAMINO REAL
CARLSBAD, CA
Cl C: "iii
(/j ca a.
c a., 0 I.. a., a.
~ Size (Inches) ~~~----U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes Hydrometer Analysis
0 0 ~ --~ ~ 22 ~ co ~ g ~ 0 ~ ---~('") ~ .g .g ~ ~ .g _o 100 ,--,-,--,--,-1-•,_1-r ... _9-1,...----:----,--,--.-•-1-r----,. ... ,_..-.r--..-------..... , • .--n,cr-r-",--.-.,,--,,------.--".----,----r,..,.,,-.---r---,----.-----r--.---..--,,--,--,--,------,------,----,
\, I
\!. 90 --t-t-+-+---t--+-+----t----t----++-+---t---1---+---+---+----t---~~~. --t-t--t-t----t--t-t---t----+----+-t-t---t---1----t----t---+----t-----t-t--t-t--;----t--t---t-------t-------j
I
80 --t-t-+-+---t--+-+----t----t+----++-+---t---1----++--+---+--+-+----+-++1kt-t--+-+-++--+----+-t----++-+1+-+--+----t---+--+-----t-t--t-t--;----t--1--+---+-------1
I
I
I ~ 70 ++-+-+-+-+-+--+---+1~,---++--+--+-+---+r,---+---+-,-+----.· ++,,+-+-H-,+--,+--+---+--,--++-+-,+-+--+--+---+--+---++-+-+--+-+--1--+---+-----<
I 0
I
I \
60 --t-t-+-+---t--+-+----t----t~---++-+---t---1---+'---+---+--+---1 ++'-t-t--+-<1.....-t--+----+--1 ---t-t--r+--+-+--t---t----+----+-t-t---t---1----t--+---+--+-------, I I
I ~ I
: \ I : 50 ++-+-+-+-+-+--+---++----++--+--+-+---++---+---+--+-+----+-++1H-+--+-~4•,·1--+---+-t----++-+1+-+--+--+---+--+---++-+-+--+-+--I--+---+-----<
I I
I I
I \ I
40 ++++-+-+--+--+---+~--++++-+-+.-+--+~-+--~: ++.++-+-+---.H\r+--+-~: -+++.+-+--+--I--+--+---++++-+-+--+--+--+-------,
I \ I
: \ :
30 ++-+-+-+-+-+--+---+l~•---++-+--+-+--+"-l---+---+-'-+---i.....+'~'-t-t--+-+---"-11--j~·~-+--~'--++-+-'+-+--+--+---+--+---++-+-+--+-+--I--+---+-----< : \
I \ I
20 ++-+-+-+-+-+--+---++----++--+--+-+---++-+---+--+-+----+-I ++l>+-+--+-+-++--+--\_,.__--+-1 -++-+1+--+-+--1--+----+----++--+-+-+--+--+---+---+-------,
I \ I
: l,
10 ++++-+-+-+--+---+---++++-+-+.-+--+--+---:++++-+-+---cl--+--+-~: -'+~+ea~l---+-+--+--+--+---++++-+--+--1--+---+-----j
I I I
I I I
I I I 0 +-'-~~~~~~l~•-----t-~~~•---•-+---i.....+'~'~-+-~•~+-~-~•_,_~•~----~--+-'--~~~~~-----<
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
Grain Size (mm)
Revised Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 25, 2021
2
APPENDIX E
GSI STORMWATER EVALUATION
AND WORKSHEET I-8
13. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Finish grade on the lot
should provide a minimum of 1 to 2 percent fall to the street, as indicated herein.
It should be kept in mind that drainage reversals could occur, including
post-construction settlement, if relatively flat yard drainage gradients are not
periodically maintained by the homeowner.
14. Air conditioning (NC) units should be supported by slabs that are incorporated into
the building foundation or constructed on a rigid slab with flexible couplings for
plumbing and electrical lines. A/C waste water lines should be drained to a suitable
non-erosive outlet.
15. Shrinkage cracks could become excessive if proper finishing and curing practices
are not followed. Finishing and curing practices should be performed per the
Portland Cement Association Guidelines. Mix design should incorporate rate of
curing for climate and time of year, sulfate content of soils, corrosion potential of
soils, and fertilizers used on site.
STORM WATER TREATMENT AND HVDROMODIFICATION MANAGEMENT
Infiltration Feasibility
In accordance with the BMP Design Manual (County, 2016), the infiltration feasibility for this
site was evaluated. A review of the United States Department of Agriculture database
(USDA; 1973, 2016) indicates that the site is underlain with clays, loamy clays, and loamy
fine sands with ~at rates ranging from 0.00 to 0.57 inches/hour. Based on our site specific
subsurface exploration, the site appears to be underlain predominantly with "clay," or the
"clay loam" as referred to in USDA (2015). Based on a review of USDA (2016), the majority
of site soils fall into Hydrologic subgroup "D."
Based on our review and analysis (see Appendix F), full infiltration does not appear
feasible. Partial infiltration may be feasible for areas of undisturbed soil, located no closer
than 10 feet of any structure. For hydromodification structures located within 10 feet of a
residential structure, storm water treatment and hydromodification management should be
designed for no infiltration. An additional discussion of infiltration feasibility is presented
in Appendix F, which contains a Categorization of infiltration feasibility condition,
Worksheet 1-8, provided by the City (2016). It should be noted that the infiltration rates
evaluated are for undisturbed, native soils. Infiltration rates for compacted fills will be
substantially less. Compacted fills are considered as belonging to Hydrologic Soil Group
"D" (no infiltration).
New Urban West, Inc.
Marja Acres, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp12\6900\6971 a1 .geo GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 6971-A1-SC
July 8, 2016
Page 43
Onsite Infiltration-Runoff Retention Systems
General design criteria regarding the use of onsite infiltration-runoff retention systems
(OIRRS) are presented below.
Should onsite infiltration-runoff retention systems (OIRRS) be planned for Best
Management Practices (BMP's) or Low Impact Development (LID) principles for the
project, some guidelines should/must be followed in the planning, design, and
construction of such systems. Such facilities, if improperly designed or implemented
without consideration of the geotechnical aspects of site conditions, can contribute to
flooding, saturation of bearing materials beneath site improvements, slope instability, and
possible concentration and contribution of pollutants into the groundwater or storm drain
and/or utility trench systems.
A key factor in these systems is the infiltration rate (often referred to as the percolation rate)
which can be ascribed to, or determined for, the earth materials within which these
systems are installed. Additionally, the infiltration rate of the designed system (which may
include gravel, sand, mulch/topsoil, or other amendments, etc.) will need to be considered.
The project infiltration testing is very site specific, any changes to the location of the
proposed OIRRS and/or estimated size of the OIRRS, may require additional infiltration
testing. Locally, relatively impermeable formations include the underlying formational
(Santiago) bedrock, which is anticipated to have relatively very low vertical infiltration rate.
Some of the methods which are utilized for onsite infiltration include percolation basins,
dry wells, bio-swale/bio-retention, permeable pavers/pavement, infiltration trenches, filter
boxes and subsurface infiltration galleries/chambers. Some of these systems are
constructed using native and import soils, perforated piping, and filter fabrics while others
employ structural components such as stormwater infiltration chambers and
filters/separators. Every site will have characteristics which should lend themselves to one
or more of these methods; but, not every site is suitable for OIRRS. In practice, OIRRS are
usually initially designed by the project design civil engineer. Selection of methods should
include (but should not be limited to) review by licensed professionals including the
geotechnical engineer, hydrogeologist, engineering geologist, project civil engineer,
landscape architect, environmental professional, and industrial hygienist. Applicable
governing agency requirements should be reviewed and included in design
considerations. The following geotechnical guidelines should be considered when
designing onsite infiltration-runoff retention systems:
• It is not good engineering practice to allow water to saturate soils, especially near
slopes or improvements; however, the controlling agency/authority is now requiring
this for OIRRS purposes on many projects.
New Urban West, Inc.
Marja Acres, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp12\6900\6971 a1 .geo GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 6971-A1-SC
July 8, 2016
Page 44
• Wherever possible, infiltration systems should not be installed within ±50feetofthe
tops of slopes steeper than 15 percent or within H/3 from the tops of slopes (where
H equals the height of slope).
• Wherever possible, infiltrations systems should not be placed within a distance of
H/2 from the toes of slopes (where H equals the height of slope).
• Wherever possible, infiltration systems should not be installed within 10 feet of a
residential structure.
• The landscape architect should be notified of the location of the proposed OIRRS.
If landscaping is proposed within the OIRRS, consideration should be given to the
type of vegetation chosen and their potential effect upon subsurface improvements
(i.e., some trees/shrubs will have an effect on subsurface improvements with their
extensive root systems). Over-watering landscape areas above, or adjacent to, the
proposed OIRRS could adversely affect performance of the system. Soil chemical
amendment could alter soil chemistry, which may affect soil corrosion and
permeability.
• Areas adjacent to, or within, the OIRRS that are subject to inundation should be
properly protected against scouring, undermining, and erosion, in accordance with
the recommendations of the design engineer.
• If subsurface infiltration galleries/chambers are proposed, the appropriate size,
depth interval, and ultimate placement of the detention/infiltration system should be
evaluated by the design engineer, and be of sufficient width/depth to achieve
optimum performance, based on the infiltration rates provided. In addition, proper
debris filter systems will need to be utilized for the infiltration galleries/chambers.
Debris filter systems will need to be self cleaning and periodically and regularly
maintained on a regular basis. Provisions for the regular and periodic maintenance
of any debris filter system is recommended and this condition should be disclosed
to all interested/affected parties.
• Where infiltration systems are located within setback areas noted above,
impermeable liners and subdrains should be used along the bottom of bioretention
swales/basins located within the influence of slopes and structures. Impermeable
liners used in conjunction with bioretention basins should consist of a 30-mil
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) membrane that is covered by a minimum of 12 inches of
clean soil, free from rocks and debris, with a maximum 4:1 (h:v) slope inclination,
or flatter, and meets the following minimum specifications:
Specific Gravity (ASTM D792): 1.2 (g/cc, min.); Tensile (ASTM D882):
73 (lb/in-width, min); Elongation at Break (ASTM D882): 380 (%, min);
Modulus (ASTM D882): 32 (lb/in-width, min.); and Tear Strength
New Urban West, Inc.
Marja Acres, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp12\6900\6971 a1 .geo GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 6971-A1-SC
July 8, 2016
Page 45
(ASTM D1004): 8 (lb/in, min); Seam Shear Strength (ASTM D882) 58.4 (lb/in,
min); Seam Peel Strength (ASTM D882) 15 (lb/in, min).
• Subdrains should consist of at least 4-inch diameter Schedule 40 or SDR 35 drain
pipe with perforations oriented down. The drain pipe should be sleeved with a filter
sock.
Based on the existing, and potential as-built soil conditions, GSI strongly recommends that
any required storm water treatment BMP is provided with impermeable liners, and
subdrains should be used along the bottom of bioretention swales/basins located within
the influence of planned improvements to direct subsurface water to a suitable outlet or
sump pump.
In practice, storm water BMP's are usually initially designed by the project design civil
engineer. Selection of methods should include (but should not be limited to) review by
licensed professionals including the geotechnical engineer, hydrogeologist, engineering
geologist, project civil engineer, landscape architect, environmental professional, and
industrial hygienist. Applicable governing agency requirements should be reviewed and
included in design considerations.
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Slope Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope
stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Positive surface drainage away
from slopes should be maintained and only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain
plant life should be provided for planted slopes. Over-watering should be avoided as it
adversely affects site improvements, and causes perched groundwater conditions. Graded
slopes constructed utilizing onsite materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be
minimized and surficial slope stability enhanced by establishing and maintaining a suitable
vegetation cover soon after construction. Compaction to the face offill slopes would tend
to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is established. Plants selected for
landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types that require little water and are
capable of surviving the prevailing climate. Jute-type matting or other fibrous covers may
aid in allowing the establishment of a sparse plant cover. Utilizing plants other than those
recommended above will increase the potential for perched water, staining, mold, etc., to
develop. A rodent control program to prevent burrowing should be implemented.
Irrigation of natural (ungraded) slope areas is generally not recommended. These
recommendations regarding plant type, irrigation practices, and rodent control should be
provided to all interested/affected parties. Over-steepening of slopes should be avoided
during building construction activities and landscaping.
New Urban West, Inc.
Marja Acres, Carlsbad
File:e:\wp12\6900\6971 a1 .geo GeoSoils, Inc.
W.O. 6971-A1-SC
July 8, 2016
Page 46
From "Engineering standards, Volume 5, Carlsbad BMP Design Manual, Appendices, dated February 2016
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Worksheet Form 1-8: Categorization oflnfiltration Feasibility Condition
Categorization of Infiltration Feasibility Condition Form 1-8
Part 1 -Full Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of the full design volume be feasible from a physical perspective without any undesirable consequences
that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria Screening Question
Is the estimated reliable infiltration rate below proposed facility locations greater
than 0.5 inches per hour? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on
a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and Appendix D.
Provide basis:
Yes No
X
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has evaluated the infiltration rate of natural surface
soils as ranging from 0.00 to about 0.57 inches/hr (Hydrologic Soil Groups C and D). Furthermore, future
development will result in the removal/recompaction of a natural surface soils, and/or the presence of cut
areas exposing relatively dense formational soils consisting of clays, sandy clays, and sandstone. The
resultant infiltration rates for these much denser (and proportionally less permeable) formation al materials
would be expected to be very near, or below the rate evaluated by the USDA. Artificial fill, created through
removal/recompaction of onsite soils would also be considered to be of a similar, very low permeability.
See text for other related discussions and references.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
2
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing
risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater mounding, utilities, or
other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to this
Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis:
X
The limited permeability of formational soils will tend to result in the lateral migration of water and saturated
conditions at, or near the surface, increasing the potential for distress to foundations, floor slabs, etc.
On site soils are expansive. Saturation of some onsite soils can likely generate adverse uplift pressures on
floor slabs, or lightly loaded foundation. There is an increased potential for the creation of perched
groundwater (mounding) conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities, including shallow cut/fill
contacts, and transitions between relatively clayey and sandy formational materials, and shallow
groundwater in low lying areas. Due to the likelihood of strong permeability contrasts between formation
and fill, utility trenches can potentially act as trench drains and provide conduits for the movement of
excessive moisture beneath the structure(s). Graded slopes in close proximity to infiltration areas can
become saturated, losing soil strength and becoming more susceptible to slope instability and failure. See
text for other related discussions and references.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
1-3 February 2016
From "Engineering standards, Volume 5, Carlsbad BMP Design Manual, Appendices, dated February 2016
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Criteria
3
Worksheet C.4.1 Page 2 of 4
Screening Question
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without increasing
risk of groundwater contamination (shallow water table, storm water pollutants
or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level? The response to
this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensible evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
Yes No
X
While this study did no include an environmental assessment, visual observation did not indicate the
presence of potential contaminants. The infiltration rate is generally less than 0.5 inches per hour. The
regional groundwater table is considered a factor in the development of this site, the creation of a shallow
"perched" water table can occur through infiltration.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
4
Can infiltration greater than 0.5 inches per hour be allowed without causing
potential water balance issues such as a change of seasonality of ephemeral streams
or increased discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface waters? The
response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of
the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
X
The infiltration rate is generally anticipated to be less than 0.5 inches per hour. The site currently drains
offsite and no runoff appears to be retained onsite. The regional groundwater table is considered a factor
in the development of this site.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative discussion
of study/data source applicability.
Part 1 If the answers to rows 1-4 are "Yes" a full infiltration design is potentially feasible. The feasibility
Result* screening category is Full Infiltration
If any answer from row 1-4 is "No", infiltration may be possible to some extent but would not generally
be feasible or desirable to achieve a "full infiltration" design.
Proceed to Part 2
*Tobe completed using gathered site information and best professional judgement considering the definition ofMEP in the MS4
Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by [City Engineer] to substantiate findings.
1-3 February 2016
From "Engineering standards, Volume 5, Carlsbad BMP Design Manual, Appendices, dated February 2016
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Worksheet C.4.1 Page 3 of 4
Part 2 -Partial Infiltration vs. No Infiltration Feasibility Screening Criteria
Would infiltration of water in an appreciable amount be physically feasible without any negative consequences
that cannot be reasonably mitigated?
Criteria
5
Screening Question
Do soil and geologic conditions allow for infiltration in any appreciable
rate or volume? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on
a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2 and
Appendix D .
Provide basis:
Yes No
X
No. On site soils are typically fine grained and clayey. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
has evaluated the infiltration rate of natural surface soils in the vicinity to be as low as 0.00. Subsequent
development of the site will likely result in the removal/recompaction/densification of a natural surface soils,
or the exposure of denser and less permeable formational soils at depth. The resultant infiltration rates for
these much denser formational materials would be expected to be very near, or below the rate evaluated
by the USDA. See text of report for other related discussions and references.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
6
Can infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without
increasing risk of geotechnical hazards (slope stability, groundwater
mounding, utilities, or other factors) that cannot be mitigated to an
acceptable level? The response to this Screening Question shall be based on
a comprehensive evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.2.
Provide basis:
X
No. The limited permeability of the relatively dense, fine grained formational soils will tend to result in the
lateral migration of water and saturated conditions at, or near the surface, increasing the potential for
distress to foundations, floor slabs, etc. On site soils are expansive, saturation of on site soils may generate
adverse uplift pressures on floor slabs, or lightly loaded foundation. There is an increased potential for the
creation of perched groundwater (mounding) conditions along zones of contrasting permeabilities,
including shallow cut/fill contacts, and transitions between clayey and sandy formational materials within
the sedimentary bedrock, and shallow groundwater in low lying areas. Due to the strung permeability
contrast between formation and fill, utility trenches can potentially act as trench drains and provide conduits
for the movement of excessive moisture beneath the structure(s). Graded slopes in close proximity to
infiltration areas can become saturated, losing soil strength and becoming more susceptible to slope
instability and failure. See text of report for other related discussions and references.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
1-3 February 2016
From "Engineering standards, Volume 5, Carlsbad BMP Design Manual, Appendices, dated February 2016
Appendix I: Forms and Checklists
Criteria
7
Worksheet C.4.1 Page 4 of 4
Screening Question
Can Infiltration in any appreciable quantity be allowed without posing
significant risk for groundwater related concerns (shallow water table,
storm water pollutants or other factors)? The response to this Screening
Question shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation of the factors
presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
Yes No
X
While the regional groundwater table is not considered a factor in the development of this site, the creation
of a shallow "perched" water table can occur and increase the potential for distress to the structure(s) due
to water vapor transmission through foundations, slabs, and any resultant corrosive effects on metal
conduit in trenches. See text of report for other related discussions and references.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
8
Can infiltration be allowed without violating downstream water rights?
The response to this Screening Question shall be based on a comprehensive
evaluation of the factors presented in Appendix C.3.
Provide basis:
X
The site currently drains offsite and no runoff appears to be retained onsite. The regional groundwater table
is not considered a factor in the development of this site.
Summarize findings of studies; provide reference to studies, calculations, maps, data sources, etc. Provide narrative
discussion of study/data source applicability.
Part 2 If all answers from row 5-8 are yes then partial infiltration design is potentially feasible. The
Result* feasibility screening category is Partial Infiltration.
If any answer from row 5-8 is no, then infiltration of any volume is considered to be
infeasible within the drainage area. The feasibility screening category is No Infiltration.
No
Infiltration
*Tobe completed using gathered site information and best professional judgement considering the definition ofMEP in the MS4
Permit. Additional testing and/or studies may be required by Agency/Jurisdictions to substantiate findings.
1-3 February 2016
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
APPENDIX F
SPECIFICATIONS FOR EARTHWORK
1
APPENDIX F: Guide Specifications for Earthwork Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project 2021026 May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
GENERAL
Intent
It is intended that these Guide Specifications for Earthwork be used in conjunction with the
attached geotechnical report. These Guide Specifications are a part of the recommendations
contained in the attached geotechnical report. In case of conflict between the two documents,
the specific recommendations in the attached geotechnical report shall supersede these Guide
Specifications.
At the present time the Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record (GEOR) for this work is NOVA
Services, Inc. The GEOR shall provide geotechnical observation and testing during earthwork
and grading. Based on these observations and tests, the GEOR may provide new or revised
recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the
geotechnical report(s).
The Geotechnical Report attached to these Guide Specifications has been for the convenience
of the Contractor. The data on soil conditions is not intended as a representation or warranty of
the continuity of such conditions between borings or indicated sampling locations. It shall be
expressly understood that only the Contractor is responsible for any interpretations or
conclusions drawn therefrom. The Contractor is responsible for performing any other soil
investigations it feels is necessary for proper evaluation of the site for the purposes of planning
and/or bidding the project, at no additional cost to the Owner.
Project Organization
Owner
As used herein, Owner is intended to reference the owner of the property or the entity on whose behalf the earthwork is being performed. In the usual case, the Owner will have engaged a Contractor for execution of the earthwork.
Contractor
Responsibilities
The Contractor is the entity solely responsible for completion of the project. In some
instances, the Contractor may be a Construction Manager.
The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Guide Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely
responsible for performing grading and backfilling in accordance with the current, approved plans and specifications. The supervision of the Contractors’ construction personnel or specialty subcontractors is solely the responsibility of the Contractor.
Coordination
The Contractor shall inform the owner and the GEOR of changes in work schedules at least one working day in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and
2
APPENDIX F: Guide Specifications for Earthwork Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project 2021026 May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that the GEOR is aware of all grading operations.
Surveying
The Contractor is solely and completely responsible for the accuracy of the line and grade of all features related to earthwork. The Contractor shall engage a professional
surveyor registered in the State of California to perform the necessary layout, survey control, and monumentation
Earthwork Subcontractor
General
The Contractor will retain a number of specialty subcontractors to complete separate elements of the project. In the usual case, an Earthwork Subcontractor will be among these specialty subcontractors. Moreover, other separate specialty contractors may have their own requirements for conduct of portions of the earthwork (for example, utility installation, stormwater BMPs, foundation construction, etc.). As used herein, Earthwork Subcontractor refers to any specialty subcontractor with responsibility for the execution of earthwork for this project.
Qualifications
The Earthwork Subcontractor shall be qualified, experienced, and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-
conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill.
Unsatisfactory Work
If, in the opinion of the GEOR, unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil,
improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, the GEOR shall reject the work and may recommend to the Owner that earthwork and grading be
stopped until unsatisfactory condition(s) are rectified.
Geotechnical Engineer-of-Record (GEOR)
Project Role
The GEOR is the soil engineering and engineering geology consulting firm retained to provide geotechnical services for the project. At a minimum, the GEOR shall support the project by provision of a Soil Engineer and an Engineering Geologist. Both shall be appropriately licensed by the State of California
Responsibilities
Prior to commencement of earthwork and grading, the GEOR shall meet with the Contractor and/or the Earthwork Subcontractor to review planning for earthwork, allowing the GEOR to schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of
observation, mapping, and compaction testing.
During earthwork and grading, the GEOR shall observe, map, and document subsurface exposures to verify geotechnical design assumptions. If observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase,
3
APPENDIX F: Guide Specifications for Earthwork Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project 2021026 May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
the GEOR shall inform the Owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate these observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required.
At a minimum, subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested shall be those listed below.
• Natural ground after clearing to receiving fill but before fill is placed.
• Bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas.
• Bearing surfaces of all shallow foundations.
• All key bottoms.
• Benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. The GEOR shall observe moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials, and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained relative compaction. The GEOR shall provide Daily Field Reports to the Owner and the
Contractor on a routine and frequent basis.
EXCAVATION
General
Excavations for foundations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be
evaluated by the GEOR.
Classification
Unless otherwise specified, excavations will be classified as described below.
1. Unclassified excavation is the excavation of all materials that can be excavated,
transported, and unloaded using heavy ripping equipment and heavy rubber tired loaders or scrapers with pusher tractors. This classification includes rocks smaller than 1 cubic yard.
2. Rock excavation is the excavation of all hard, compacted, or cemented materials that require blasting or the use of unusually large ripping and excavating equipment. This classification includes the removal of isolated rocks larger than 1 cubic yard.
Variations in Excavations
Remedial and foundation removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The
actual extent of removal shall be determined by the GEOR based on the field evaluation of
exposed conditions during grading.
It is likely that variations in the subsurface may be encountered that will require excavation in
excess of the foundation lines and grades depicted on the drawings. Excavations may be varied
in depth, width, and length; or slopes increased or decreased, for the purpose of obtaining the
most stable or economical final result.
4
APPENDIX F: Guide Specifications for Earthwork Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project 2021026 May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
Disposition of Excavated Material
Topsoil
Immediately after clearing and grubbing, and before general excavation commences, topsoil
(the layer of soils high in organics and including the root zone, herbaceous vegetation, and
grasses) shall be removed as directed by the GEOR.
Topsoil to be reused for landscaping fill or other nonstructural applications shall be stockpiled at
convenient, approved locations. Stockpiled material shall be lightly compacted by several
passes of hauling and spreading equipment.
Suitable Excavated Material
In so far as it is practical, all materials resulting from site excavations that conform with the materials criteria for Select Fill identified in the attached geotechnical report shall be used for
permanent construction.
Unsuitable Excavated Material
Excavated materials which are unsuitable for use as Select Fill shall be disposed of as
designated by the Owner. In the event these materials are disposed of on-site, the unsuitable
soils shall be placed in non-structural areas. Soils disposed of on-site shall be spread and
graded in uniform layers, densified, and shaped to ensure drainage.
Any asphalt pavement material removed during clearing operations should be properly disposed
of in approved off-site facility. Concrete fragments that are free of reinforcing steel may be
placed in fills if approved by the GEOR.
Excavated expansive soils (i.e., EI > 50, after ASTM D 4829) may be disposed of on-site in non-
structural areas, as directed by the GEOR. In the usual case, this will require burial at depths
greater than 3 feet below finished site grades.
Over Excavation in ‘Cut”
In the event development of a building pad creates a circumstance of transition between
compacted fill and naturally occurring rock, the rock will be undercut as depicted in Figure 1
(following page).
5
APPENDIX F: Guide Specifications for Earthwork Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project 2021026 May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
Figure 1. Undercut in a Transition Zone
Foundation Preparation and Backfilling
Foundation Preparation
Excavations for foundations shall be made to the dimensions given in the drawings, at the
working elevations given in the drawings.
The width shall generally be of the width of the concrete and depth as shown on the drawings,
according to availability of the desired bearing capacity of soil below. Bearing surfaces in direct
contact with foundations that are disturbed by excavation shall be redensified/recompacted.
Any excavation that are taken below the specified depths and levels shall be restored by the
Contractor at his own cost.
Any adjacent structures which may be damaged by on-site excavations should be underpinned.
Backfilling
Backfilling around foundations and behind walls shall not be undertaken without consideration of the curing and strength requirements for the concrete. This information may be obtained from
the Structural Engineer.
Backfilling around foundations shall be placed symmetrically and in uniform layers in order to prevent harmful eccentric loading on a structure or foundation. No heavy hauling or compacting equipment shall be permitted closer than 3 feet to any structure or foundation during backfilling. In all areas closer than 3 feet, or where workspaces otherwise limited, smaller specialty equipment such as vibratory plates, grammars, or pneumatic tampers shall be used for densification.
Where a large number of lifts are required to complete a backfill operation and the elapsed time between placement is large, the surface of each lift should be sloped slightly to facilitate drainage and prevent ponding on the fill.
----COMPACTED Fill _.--------~,c;....., __ _.
r ,op.SC)ll, OOlLUVIUM --I
-ANDW1EATHERED --BEDROCK -_ ....... ;;.._ ___ ...11 --,..., -
----
UNWEATHERIED BEDROCK
-0 IGINAl
_,,.GROUND
OVERE:X.CAVATE:
AND REGRADE
6
APPENDIX F: Guide Specifications for Earthwork Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project 2021026 May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED
Clearing and Grubbing
General
Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots, and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently
removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the Owner, governing agencies
and the GEOR.
Care should be taken not to encroach upon or otherwise damage native and/or historic trees
designated by the Owner or appropriate agencies to remain. Pavements, flatwork, or other
construction should not extend under the "drip line" of designated trees to remain.
Clearing shall consist of complete removal above the ground surface of trees, stumps, brush,
vegetation, man-made structures, and similar debris. Grubbing shall consist of removal of
stumps, roots, varied logs, and other unsuitable material. In particular, roots and other
projections exceeding 1½ inches diameter shall be removed to a depth of 3 feet below ground
surface.
Borrow areas shall be grubbed to the extent necessary to provide suitable fill materials.
The GEOR shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions.
Earth fill material shall not contain more than 3% of organic materials (by dry weight: ASTM D
2974-00). Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed.
Hazardous or Regulated Materials
If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected
area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation
and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area.
As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline,
diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that are considered to be
hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the
ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not
be allowed.
Benching Sloped Ground
Areas where the original ground is inclined steeper than 5:1 (horizontal: vertical) or where
recommended by the GEOR, the original ground should be benched in accordance with Figure
2 (following page).
As may be seen by review of Figure 2, the lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet
wide and at least 2 feet deep into competent material as evaluated by the GEOR. Other
benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet into competent material or as otherwise
recommended by the GEOR.
7
APPENDIX F: Guide Specifications for Earthwork Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project 2021026 May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 (i.e., at less than 20% grade) shall also be benched
or otherwise over-excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill.
Figure 2. Benching for Ground to Be Filled
Processing
Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill by the GEOR shall be
scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be over-
excavated as specified in the following subsection.
Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and
the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit
uniform compaction. Thereafter, the scarified soil should be moisture conditioned to at or above
its optimum moisture content and compacted as detailed under Fill Placement and Compaction
on page 9 of this appendix.
Over-Excavation
In addition to removals and over-excavations recommended in the geotechnical report and the
grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic-rich, highly fractured, or otherwise
unsuitable ground shall be over-excavated to competent ground as evaluated by the GEOR
during grading.
All undocumented fill under proposed structure footprint(s) should be excavated as described in
the geotechnical report.
FILLSLOPE -
SIURFAC11: OF FIIRM
EARTH MATERIAL
16' MIN. (INCLI 'BD 2% MlN. INTO S1 OPE)
8
APPENDIX F: Guide Specifications for Earthwork Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project 2021026 May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
FILLING
Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas
All areas to receive fill shall be observed, mapped and/or tested, and documented with
elevations prior to being accepted by the GEOR as suitable to receive fill.
The Contractor shall obtain approval from the GEOR prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor
shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys and
benches.
Select Fill
All engineered fill should conform to the criteria for materials, placement, compaction, and timely
construction identified for Select Fill in the attached geotechnical report.
Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or
low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to the GEOR or mixed with other soils to
achieve satisfactory fill material.
Fill Slopes
Soil fill slopes must be properly compacted. In order to achieve this end, fill slopes should be
developed by one of the two means described below, or by other methods producing
satisfactory results acceptable to the GEOR.
1. Overbuild. The slope may be overbuilt by at least 3 feet and then cut to the design grade. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face,
shall be at least 90% of the ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum density.
2. ‘Back Rolling’. Slope faces may be back rolled with a heavy-duty loaded vibratory
sheepsfoot roller at maximum 4-foot height intervals. Upon completion, the slopes should then be tracked walked with a D8 dozer or similar equipment such that the dozer tracks cover all sloped surfaces at least twice. Upon completion of grading, relative
compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90% of the ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum density.
Oversize
Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension
greater than 6 inches, shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials, and
placement methods are specifically accepted by the GEOR.
Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such
that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material
shall not be placed within 10 feet measured vertically from finish grade, or within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction.
9
APPENDIX F: Guide Specifications for Earthwork Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project 2021026 May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
Import
If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the
requirements for Select Fill identified in the attached geotechnical report.
A representative sample of a potential import source shall be given to the GEOR at least four
full working days before importing begins, so that suitability of this import material can be
determined and appropriate tests performed.
Fill Placement and Compaction
Moisture Conditioning
Approved Select Fill (see the attached geotechnical report) shall be watered, dried back, and
blended and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly
over optimum.
Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance
with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 1557.
Placement
Loose zones or areas disturbed by excavation should be recompacted to at least 90% relative
compaction after ASTM D1557 (the ‘Modified Proctor’). Thereafter, exposed surface of the area
to receive Select Fill should be examined by the GEOR to identify any localized soft, yielding, or
otherwise unsuitable materials. Proof rolling may be used to quickly identify loose/soft or
yielding zones.
Approved Select Fill (see the attached geotechnical report) shall be placed in areas prepared to
receive fill, in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness.
The GEOR may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately
compact the thicker layers. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain
relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout.
Compaction
After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, each layer shall be
uniformly compacted to not less than 90% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM
Test Method D 1557 (the ‘modified Proctor’).
In some cases (for example, pavement base courses or certain subgrades) structural fill may be
specified to be uniformly compacted to at least 95% of the ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum
dry density.
Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil
compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with
uniformity.
10
APPENDIX F: Guide Specifications for Earthwork Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project 2021026 May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
Compaction Testing
General
Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by the
GEOR. Location and frequency of tests shall be at the discretion of the GEOR’s field
representative(s) based on field conditions encountered.
Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations
shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to
inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces, within trenches, etc.).
Compaction Test Locations
The GEOR shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each
density test location.
Adequate grade stakes shall be provided by the Contractor. The Contractor shall coordinate
with the Contractor’s surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that the
GEOR can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy.
Protection of Work
Protection of ongoing and completed earthwork is the sole responsibility of the Contractor. In
particular, the Contractor shall properly grade all earthwork to provide positive drainage and
prevent ponding of water. Related thereto, drainage of surface water shall be controlled to avoid
damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. The Contractor shall take
measures as appropriate to prevent erosion of newly graded areas until such time as permanent
drainage and erosion control features have been installed.
Structures or pavements atop engineered fill should be constructed as quickly as possible
following approval of fill by the GEOR. The Contractor is responsible for maintaining the
engineered fill in its approved condition (i.e., moist, free of water, debris, etc.) until foundations
or pavements are constructed.
The approval of any earthwork is contingent on proper maintenance of the completed work prior
to construction of any foundations, slabs, or other structures. Earthwork can be damaged by
construction activities and exposure to weather (i.e., disturbance, drying, wetting, etc.).
TRENCH BACKFILLS
Safety
The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench
excavations. The Contractor is solely responsible for the safety of all excavations.
11
APPENDIX F: Guide Specifications for Earthwork Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project 2021026 May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
Bedding and Backfill
General
All utility trench bedding and backfill shall be performed in accordance with applicable provisions
of the most current edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (‘Green
Book’).
Bedding
Unless otherwise specified, bedding material for pipes shall have a Sand Equivalent (SE)
greater than 30 (SE > 30). Bedding shall be placed to 1-foot over the top of the conduit, and
densified by jetting in areas of granular soils, if allowed by the permitting agency. Any jetting of
the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by the GEOR.
In the event a sand bedding is not utilized, the pipe-bedding zone should be backfilled with
Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) consisting of at least one sack of Portland cement per
cubic-yard of sand, and conforming to the requirements of the most current edition of Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book).
Placement of the sand bedding shall be observed by the GEOR.
Backfill
Backfill over the bedding zone shall conform to the requirements for Select Fill identified in the attached geotechnical report, extending this Select Fill from the top of the bedding material.
Prior to compaction, Select Fill should be moisture conditioning to at least 2% above the
optimum moisture content. Select Fill should be spread in loose lifts no thicker than the ability of
the compaction equipment to thoroughly densify the lift. For most smaller, hand-operated, or
remotely controlled equipment (tampers, walk behind compactors, etc.), lift thickness will be
limited to on the order of 4 inches or less.
Backfill above the pipe zone shall not be jetted. All backfill above the pipe zone (bedding) shall
be observed and tested by the GEOR.
CERTIFICATIONS AND FINAL REPORTING
Certifications
As work progresses, the GEOR shall furnish the Owner certifications as may be necessary
documenting that various elements of the work (for example, building lots and/or building pads)
from a geotechnical standpoint.
Such certifications will be reliant upon survey information provided by the Contractor that
establishes that the relevant earthwork has been graded to within 0.1-foot vertically of the
elevation shown on the grading plan and that the tops and toes of all slopes are within 0.5 feet
horizontally of the position shown on the grading plans.
12
APPENDIX F: Guide Specifications for Earthwork Report of Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California
NOVA Project 2021026 May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
Project Closure
Following the conclusion of all work, the GEOR will be responsible for preparation of a final as-
graded soil and geologic report that satisfies the documentation required by the appropriate
building official(s).
The final as-graded soil and geologic report will be prepared and signed by a California-licensed
Civil Engineer experienced in geotechnical engineering and by a California-licensed Certified
Engineering Geologist. The report will address the consistency of subsurface materials
disclosed by the earthwork were consistent with those identified by the geotechnical
investigation, discussing variances thereto. As supported by records of all testing of earthwork,
the report will address conformance of the earthwork with the recommendations of the attached
geotechnical investigation and with these Guide Specifications.
Second Update Geotechnical Investigation Marja Acres, Carlsbad, California NOVA Project 2021026
May 26, 2021
APPENDIX G
STABILITY OF EMBANKMENTS
AND MSE WALLS
1
Appendix G: Global Stability Analyses, MSE Walls and Embankments MSE Walls and Embankments
Carlsbad, CA May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
METHOD OF STABILITY ANALYSES
General
The global stability of MSE walls planned for the Marja Acres site was considered using the
SLIDE v5.0 (Rocscience, Inc.) computer program to calculate the factors of safety against
global failure using limit equilibrium procedures and assuming two-dimensional, plane strain
conditions. Separate, internal stability analyses have been considered by the wall designer.
SLIDE completes 2D stability calculations in rocks or soils offering the user the choice of
procedures of varying rigor. The less rigorous alternatives available with SLIDE are: Bishop
simplified, Corps of Engineers, Janbu simplified/corrected, Lowe-Karafiath and
Ordinary/Fellenius. The more rigorous choices include the Spencer and Morgenstern-Price
procedures. SLIDE allows the user to complete alternative evaluations of embankment safety,
as abstracted below.
• Deterministic. Analyses calculate the lowest factor of safety for given soil parameters
and slopes.
• Probabilistic. Analyses vary sensitive input parameters such as soil strength (e.g.,
cohesion and friction angle) to determine the probability of failure, an alternative
representation of safety.
Both deterministic and probabilistic stability analyses were undertaken. The probabilistic
analyses of embankment stability undertaken using SLIDE include two statistical parameters
with the output.
• Reliability Index (RI). RI is a statistical parameter that represents the number of standard
deviations which separate the mean FS, from the critical FS (i.e., FS = 1).
• Probability of Failure (PF). Probabilistic analyses include evaluations of the stability of
the embankment at reduced soil strengths. PF is the probability slope evaluations with
statistically reduced soil strengths that will yield instances where FS < 1.
Spencer’s Procedure
Spencer's procedure was used for this work. The differences between the many alternative
procedures of limit equilibrium analyses are largely due to varying hypotheses regarding the
location and direction of internal forces within the sliding soil mass. The assumption inherent in
all limit equilibrium procedures is that the soil is at limit equilibrium with a constant FS along the
entire slip surface.
Limited equilibrium analysis procedures currently in use do not model progressive failure
mechanisms, which can occur in materials of widely dissimilar stress-strain characteristics. This
consideration is of limited consequence for the denser, cemented soils analyzed in this
instance.
2
Appendix G: Global Stability Analyses, MSE Walls and Embankments MSE Walls and Embankments
Carlsbad, CA May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
Spencer's procedure was selected for this analysis because of its relative rigor in solution of
equations of equilibrium for both moments and forces. Duncan (1992) recommends the use of
Spencer’s procedure, assessing it to generally be within 12% of that computed by other
analyses of similar capability and within 6% of what may fairly be considered the correct
answer. Like all limit equilibrium methods of slope stability analysis, the factor of safety (FS)
calculated by the Spencer procedure uses:
FS = shear strength of the soil (resisting force)
shear stress required for equilibrium (driving force)
NUMERICAL MODEL
Slope Geometry and Groundwater
Plates 1-5, provided following the text of the attachment depict the slope profile and stratigraphy
utilized for the global stability analyses for several conditions believed to be representative of
MSE wall placements. As may be seen by review of these graphics, the MSE walls will be set in
a variety of naturally occurring formational soils, with a variety of differing conditions.
Strength of the Soil Units
Deterministic stability analyses were undertaken using the effective stress parameters listed in
Table 1.
Table 1. Effective Stress Strength Parameters Used in the Deterministic Analyses
Unit Reference
Effective Stress Parameters
Unit Wt (γ, pcf) Friction (ø’, deg) Cohesion (c’, psf)
1 Engineered Fill 120 25 200
2 MSE Wall Backfill 120 32 150
3 Undocumented Fill (Afu) 120 30 60
4 Older Alluvium (Qoa) 120 25 175
5 Young Alluvium (Qya) 115 10 100
6 Colluvium (Qcol)
115 20 120
7 Santiago Formation
120 29 125
8 ‘Clay Seam’ 115 5 130
Strength Parameters for Probabilistic Analyses
General
Probabilistic analyses were undertaken to allow for the certainty of variations from the strength
values of Table 1. Over the ±20-acre Marja Acres site is highly unlikely that each soil unit is
3
Appendix G: Global Stability Analyses, MSE Walls and Embankments MSE Walls and Embankments
Carlsbad, CA May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
properly characterized by a single strength. As is evident by review of Table 2, it is more likely
that each soil/rock unit includes a range of strengths.
Table 2. Values of Coefficient of Variation (COV) 1,2
Parameter Coefficient of Variation
Unit weight (γ) 3 – 7 %
Effective stress friction angle (ø’) 2 – 13 %
Cohesion (c) 13 – 40 %
Note 1. COV is a statistical measure of the ‘dispersion’ of data,
defined as the ratio of the standard deviation to the mean.
Note 2. Table 2 is adapted from Duncan 2000.1
It is well known that both cohesion and angle of friction can vary substantially for a given soil
unit over relatively short horizontal distances and depths. Table 2 provides an indication of this
variability, from which it can be seen that while soil unit weight and angle of friction can be
determined with confidence, soil cohesion can vary substantially. When used in probabilistic
analyses, SLIDE v5.0 varies a model parameter identified as a ‘variable about a mean value
within a defined range. The probabilistic analyses conducted for this review considered slope
geometry to be fixed, and varied the friction and cohesion about a mean value, computing the
safety factor for the global minimum slip surface. The range of strength parameters used in the
probabilistic analyses is tabulated on Table 3.
Table 3. Effective Stress Soil Strength Parameters Used in Probabilistic Analyses
Soil Unit Description
Low Parameter High Parameter
Friction (ø’) Cohesion (c’) Unit Wt (γ) Friction (ø’) Cohesion (c’) Unit Wt (γ)
1 Engineered Fill 22 150 120 28 250 120
2 MSE Wall Backfill 29 70 120 35 170 120
3 Undocumented Fill
(Af )
27 40 120 33 80 120
4 Older Alluvium (Qoa) 22 125 120 28 225 120
5 Young Alluvium (Qya) 7 50 115 13 150 115
6 Colluvium (Qcol)
17 70 115 23 170 115
7 Santiago Formation
(T )
26 75 120 32 175 120
8 ‘Clay Seam’ 3 100 115 7 160 115
1 Duncan, J. M. 2000, Factors Of Safety And Reliability In Geotechnical Engineering, Journal Of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE. Vol. 126:4. P 307-316. See also: Christian. J. T. , Ladd, C. C., and Baecher, G. B. 1994, Reliability Applied To Slope Stability Analysis, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE. Vol. 120:12. P 2180-2207.
4
Appendix G: Global Stability Analyses, MSE Walls and Embankments MSE Walls and Embankments
Carlsbad, CA May 26, 2021 September 13 2019
Strength of the Older Alluvium (Qoa)
The planned MSE walls will be embedded in a variety of formational materials, principally the
Tertiary-aged Santiago Formation (Tsa) and the older alluvium (Qoa). Evaluation of the global
stability of the planned MSE walls will largely be dependent upon the strength of these units.
This subsection addresses the strength of the older alluvium (Qoa). The subsection following
addresses the Santiago Formation (Tsa).
The strength of the Qoa was characterized by both angle of internal friction (ϕ) and cohesion (c)
as ϕ = 25° and c = 175 psf. This judgment was based upon review of previous lab testing by
Geosoils, NOVA’s experience with this formation at numerous sites in the area, as well as the
indications of CPT-8, a sounding completed by NOVA within the known limits of the Qoa.
Recognizing, as is previously discussed the inherent variability in material characteristics that
will occur over a site as large as the Marja Acres site, global stability analyses assumed that the
expected strength of the Qoa was represented by ϕ = 25° and c = 175 psf and that higher and
lower strengths of this unit were normally distributed about this mean. Analyses assumed that
friction varied ±3° and that cohesion varied ±50 psf. Stability is relatively insensitive to unit
weight, such that this parameter was not varied. Table 4 provides the limits of the analysis of the
older alluvium.
Table 4. Low and High Strength Parameters of the Older Alluvium Used for Probabilistic
Analyses
Soil Unit Description
Low Parameter High Parameter
Friction
(ø’)
Cohesion
(c’)
Unit
Wt (γ)
Friction
(ø’)
Cohesion
(c’)
Unit
Wt (γ)
4 Older Alluvium (Qoa) 22 125 120 28 225 120
Figure 1 (following page) provides the record of the analysis of CPT-8, a sounding completed in
the Qoa at this site. As may be seen by review of this graphic, the subsurface is
characteristically clayey and silty. The CPT data show that the shear strength of the unit
exceeds about 300 psf. Not shown on the figure are estimates of friction developed by the
sounding, all of which exceed 30°.
Important in the evaluation of the strength and compressibility of the Qoa is the indication that
the unit is over-consolidated, with a consolidation ratio (OCR) indicated by the CPT sounding
never less than about OCR = 4 and often much higher. The CPT is well-established as a tool for
estimating OCR.
Associated with the stiffness indicated by the OCR, the constrained modulus (M) determined by
the CPT data is commonly in excess of M = 400 tsf, further suggestive of a stiff subsoil of
moderate strength.
5
Appendix G: Global Stability Analyses, MSE Walls and Embankments MSE Walls and Embankments
Carlsbad, CA May 25, 2021 September 13 2019
Figure 1. Strength and Compressibility of the Older Alluvium, NOVA CPT-8
So'il Behaviour Type
---------------------------------1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -t----r----t--.0,Y----►----~---------
: i c1J & sil"· ,,,,. vi-~r;.:"'• ... r ~----
: Sard&sillysa . --r----i--i;r~y"& ~silly ~cilaj----,-----
: : Clay i f cit &silty •clar -+----t--~1~~----..-----
~===l _____ ~----i--~Y-&.MIJY ~ ----,----
---~-•--i--S, sa"4 & samtt sill--·--
t----i ! ! Cl~y &silly clar
-··-····-··· Cliij!-········-···--·--: : Ve!J IEllse.r, sotl
V~ry Ila w.;':!I soil
Cl~y&silly,dla\' , sari & silly-saoo
' Sac.',•&<'"'·"""
•,:::,
0
1MI ~1 _.,!M s sar.J & samtt s
S sar.!&sanll'f•
t ~y&sillyday
•
l:;
1110
~l~y sa..:l & sanit, • ,
Clay &silbi day S salld&sanit,s
Clay & silty •clar
Sapd & •ilir sa~ s sand&sanit,•.
t, Clay&silt\'day
S sand&sani•ill
.
t.'11 . Sli'f .... .i & san .ii S sai>:l&san s
S saoo & sanit, sill
. : s saoo&sanit,•
q-aa....,... ..... 1---~----i--Clay_&.sllty.da)' ____ r --
0 2 4 6 B l D 1 2 14 16 18
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
D
.Shear str·ength
5
Su (tsf)
2
.c .... CL <;I Cl
OCR
' ' ' '
, : 1:=::1::=:~::=:::
l
l
l
l
l
2 ·
2
2
2
2 ,
3
3
3,
3
3
4 ,
. ::y::·r····· ....... .
~ f I -I
~ .... r ------
_____ ---r_·_,.·_ ... r ___ ..,,,=~
. ---------------.. --------.---------
' ' ' ' ~ ------------L--------
---------~-•=---~---------
--------~-~-----
-------~-------c--------
:::::::r 7 --~--------
------~ _____ I ___ ~------------
s 1 0
OCR
l S 20
Consl:rained Modulus
' ' ------·---------------◄--
' ' ' --------------,--' ' ' ____________ ,J __
-·------------~--
-1
··--·-1
: _,...-=-~ : r 1 : : ' ' t ' ' ' ' ' r , : ~-----=~ : ~ 1 ' ' ' ' ~ 1 I -------______ J_
i ---~---------------1--_ .. _______________ 1--
-r---------- -----1--
• ---------------➔--' ···:::: :t
0 2 ,DOO 4 ,CJD
M(CPT) (tsf)
6
Appendix G: Global Stability Analyses, MSE Walls and Embankments MSE Walls and Embankments
Carlsbad, CA May 25, 2021 September 13 2019
Strength of the Santiago Formation (Tsa)
The strength of the Tsa was characterized by both angle of internal friction (ϕ) and cohesion (c)
as ϕ = 25° and c = 175 psf. This judgment was based upon NOVA’s lab testing, experience with
this formation at numerous sites in the area, as well as the indications of CPT-9.
Recognizing, as is previously discussed the inherent variability in material characteristics that
will occur over a site as large as the Marja Acres site, global stability analyses assumed that the
expected strength of the Tsa was represented by ϕ = 29° and c = 125 psf and that higher and
lower strengths of this unit were normally distributed about this mean. Analyses assumed that
friction varied ±3° and that cohesion varied ±50 psf. Stability is relatively insensitive to unit
weight, such that this parameter was not varied. Table 4 provides the limits of the analysis of the
older alluvium.
Table 5. Low and High Strength Parameters of the Santiago Fm. Used for Probabilistic
Analyses
Soil Unit Description
Low Parameter High Parameter
Friction (ø’) Cohesion (c’) Unit Wt (γ) Friction (ø’) Cohesion (c’) Unit Wt (γ)
7 Santiago Formation
(Tsa) 26 75 120 32 175 120
Figure 2 (following page) provides the record of the analysis of CPT-9, a sounding completed in
the Tsa. As may be seen by review of this graphic, the subsurface is characteristically sandy
and silty. The CPT data is characterized by higher cone tip resistance (Qc) and related higher
angles of internal friction. Estimates of friction developed by the sounding exceed 35°. As is
previously discussed in consideration of the Qoa, it was noted that the CPT is well-established
as a tool for estimating OCR. The tool does not carry the same confidence when estimating the
friction angle of cemented deposits (the Tsa likely has a low-grade cementation). With this
consideration, NOVA assumed lower values of friction for its analyses of the Tsa.
Important in the evaluation of the strength and compressibility of the Tsa is the indication that
the unit is that the unit associated with a relatively high constrained modulus (M). As suggested
by the high values of cone tip resistance (Qc), the constrained modulus is commonly in excess
of M = 600 tsf, suggesting that the unit will be relatively incompressible beneath loads from fills
and new structures.
7
Appendix G: Global Stability Analyses, MSE Walls and Embankments MSE Walls and Embankments
Carlsbad, CA May 25, 2021 September 13 2019
Figure 2. Strength and Compressibility of the Santiago Formation, NOVA CPT-9
'
~ ' ' 1----:----::--7"-.. ----~---
...,. l , :S
i ], 0
' ' ' :i-r-·--:---
. ' l t I
l : +-
' '
l ' ;---
l t----t---·
l
l
;-1 ~·' ' j '
l
l
a 2
SST ( Robert so , 2010)
l
l
l
l ·-------
!I. ------
l
5D 1D0
Tip i-esls a111ce (lsf)
l ------L ..................................... ..
l -------~-------~-------
1...-----,.--~-------. -------' ' .
' ' .
: :
t :
1 -~: -----~-------..:.-------' ' ' '
I
30 35 4D 4 ~
q:i (degrees)
].
J. , t--------------t----il
: f ::::::::::::-_______,
~-r-------
J.
l. ~------·:r-----"?--il
].
D 2,0DD
M(CPT} (!:sf)
8
Appendix G: Global Stability Analy ses, MSE Walls and Embankments MSE Walls and Embankments
Carlsbad, CA May 25, 2021 September 13 2019
Pseudo-Static Analyses
Analyses of seismic slope stability problems using limit equilibrium methods model the inertia
forces due to earthquake shaking by a constant horizontal force (equal to the weight of the
potential sliding mass multiplied by a coefficient). These analyses are commonly referred to as
“pseudo-static analyses.”
In pseudo-static slope stability analyses such as that described in this attachment, FS is
computed using a limit equilibrium method in which a static horizontal inertial force that is
intended to represent the destabilizing effects of the earthquake is applied to the potential
sliding mass. The horizontal inertial force is expressed as the product of a seismic coefficient (k)
and the weight (W) of the potential sliding mass. The pseudo-static analysis also requires the
use of appropriate material dynamic strengths. If the FS approaches unity, then the
embankment is considered unsafe. Such analyses are relatively simple to perform, appropriate
for applications such as this site, where the materials involved will not undergo a significant loss
of strength during earthquake shaking.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) manual for seismic design of new dams requires
use of a seismic coefficient of 0.1 to 0.15 in high to very high seismic areas, in conjunction with
a minimum factor of safety (FS) of FS = 1.0. Seed (1979) drew the general conclusion that for
embankments composed of materials that show no significant loss of strength as a result of
cyclic loading,
"…. it is only necessary to perform a pseudo-static analysis for a seismic
coefficient of 0.1 for magnitude 6.5 earthquakes or 0.15 for magnitude 8.25
earthquakes and obtain a factor of safety of the order of 1.15 to ensure that
displacements will be acceptably small". 2
The embankments are located in a higher risk seismic area, with an expected PGA of about
0.5g in a M = 7 event. Accordingly, seismic stability was modeled with a seismic coefficient of kh
= 0.15.
TARGET STABILITY
Static
The standards for such embankments should be in general conformance with the standards for
such analyses provided by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE 1999). USACE 2003
recommends long-term static stability for circumstances such as the permanent MSE walls
addressed herein target FSstatic ≥ 1.5. 3
2 Seed, H. B., 1979. Considerations In The Earthquake-Resistant Design Of Earth And Rockfill Dams, Geotechnique 29, 215–263. 3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Slope Stability, Engineering Manual 1110-2-1902, 31 Oct 2003. See also
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1999, Risk-Based Analysis In Geotechnical Engineering For Support Of
Planning Studies. Engineering Technical Letter No. 1110-2-556, 28 May 1999.
9
Appendix G: Global Stability Analy ses, MSE Walls and Embankments MSE Walls and Embankments
Carlsbad, CA May 25, 2021 September 13 2019
Seismic
USACE and the industry allow more judgment in the assessment of allowable factor of safety for
seismic slope stability (i.e., FSseismic). As a matter of practice, FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission) and the NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service), both federal regulators
of large embankment dams, seek seismic stability in the range FSseismic > 1 to FSseismic > 1.1 for
slopes evaluated using the pseudo-static methods described herein.
STABILITY RESULTS
Wall Conditions Considered
Analyses have considered the global stability of MSE walls in the instances tabulated below.
Table 6. Global Stability Analysis Matrix
Case Location Wall Height (feet) Formation
Factor of Safety
Notes Static Seismic kh=0.15
1 Wall 4 Sta 1+00 15 Older Alluvium (Qoa) 1.8 1.3
2 Wall 1 Sta 8+95 12 Santiago Fm. (Tsa) 1.7 1.15 Adds clay seam
3A Wall 9 Sta 1+90 12 Santiago Fm. (Tsa) 1.5 n/a Adds clay seam
3B Wall 9 Sta 1+90 12 Santiago Fm. (Tsa) 1.5 1.08 Adds clay seam
4 Wall 1 Sta 7+15 20 Santiago Fm. (Tsa) 1.3 n/a Backcut stability 5 Wall 1 Sta 5+69 20 Santiago Fm. (Tsa) 1.3 n/a Backcut stability 6 SW Corner 20 Older Alluvium (Qoa) 1.7 1.2 20 ft fill embankment
Records of the above analyses are provided on Plate 1 through Plate 12, included with this
attachment.
Permanent Wall Stability
Analyses of global wall stability indicate the design conditions considered at Wall 1 and Wall 9
are stable for the static and seismic cases. The following descriptions abstract each of the wall
analyses.
1. Case 1, Wall 4 Sta 1+00. The stability analysis addresses a 15-foot tall MSE wall
founded in the Older Alluvium (Qoa). Analyses show robust stability for both the static
and seismic cases (Plate 1 and Plate 2).
2. Case 2, Wall 1 Sta 8+95. This analysis address the global stability of the 12-foot tall
MSE wall founded in the Santiago formation (Plate 3 and Plate 4). The descending
ground outboard of the wall is a mix of weaker colluvium, young alluvium, and
undocumented fill. Modeling assumes a weak clayey inclusion in the soil profile.
3. Case 3A/3B, Wall 9 Sta 1+90. This analysis addresses the global stability of the 13-foot
tall MSE wall founded in the Santiago formation. Analysis addresses a wall with the
10
Appendix G: Global Stability Analy ses, MSE Walls and Embankments MSE Walls and Embankments
Carlsbad, CA May 25, 2021 September 13 2019
descending ground outboard of the wall comprised of colluvium. Analyses show the wall
to be stable for both the static and seismic case (Plate 5 and Plate 6).
Backcut Stability (Embankment Stability during Wall Construction)
Analyses of embankment stability were undertaken to test slopes that will be stable during
backcuts that are associated with wall construction. Two cases of backcut stability were
considered. The following descriptions abstract each of the stability analyses.
1. Case 4, Wall 1 Sta 7+15. The stability analysis addresses a 20-foot tall backcut in the
Santiago formation (Tsa). Case 4 tests the stability of a wall backcut of about 20 feet in
height, cut at slightly steeper than 1:1. As may be seen by review of Table 6 and of the
graphical output of this analysis, the wall has a static factor of safety on the order of F =
1.3. See Plate 7. This factor of safety is suitable for the short-term wall stability condition
associated with building the MSE walls.
2. Case 5, Wall 4 Sta 5+69. Similar to Case 4, the stability analysis addresses a 20-foot tall
backcut in Older Alluvium (Qoa). The analysis indicates FS = 1.3 for the static case, the
suitable factor of safety for the short-term that this embankment will be exposed. See
Plate 8.
Large Fill Stability
A final stability analysis was undertaken to address the stability of a permanent 20-foot tall fill in
the Older Alluvium (Qoa). Analyses show FSstatic = 1.7 and FS seismic = 1.3. See Plate 9 and
Plate 10.
DISCUSSION
The MSE Walls and the Unretained Embankments Are Stable
The quantitative results provided in this analysis show that the slope that descends from the
area of the proposed greenhouses to the farm pond is stable. With a view for the potential
effects of uncertainty in the subsurface information, probabilistic evaluations were used to vary
soil strength parameters sufficiently to provide a fair estimate of the global stability of the
embankments for a variety of conditions. The indications of the assessment of global stability of
the embankments are summarized below.
1. Static Stability. This modeling shows that the MSE walls and the fill embankments
are stable against a deep-seated rotational failure. Reasonable backcuts (i.e., to 20
feet tall and as steep 1H : 1V) will be stable for the construction period.
MSE walls and fill embankments can be at risk for other modes of failure controlled
by factors not amenable to this modeling (most significantly, erosional processes).
Relatively localized failures can also occur (for example, shallow-seated sliding of an
embankment or descending ground outside an MSE wall) if fills and ground around
the walls are not maintained. Of particular consequence in this regard is the potential
11
Appendix G: Global Stability Analy ses, MSE Walls and Embankments MSE Walls and Embankments
Carlsbad, CA May 25, 2021 September 13 2019
for erosion of the exposed embankment surfaces as a consequence of stormwater
runoff. Design should consider measures to stabilize the slope against surface
erosion.
2. Seismic Stability. The slopes will be safe against global rotational failure and large
displacements in a larger-scale (M ~ 7) seismic event.
Structure Setbacks
Analysis of the worst case of embankment stability indicates that the worst-case failure plane
extends to about 10 feet inside the crest of the embankment. Though still safe at this point, this
dimension cautions that new structures should be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the crest
of the embankment.
The Importance of Slope Maintenance
Regular maintenance is essential to the continued stability of all the MSE walls. While the
stability of the embankments against deeper-seated slope failure is high, localized surficial
sloughing related to erosion may occur. Such instabilities may be managed by implementation
of routine maintenance of the embankments.
The greatest threat to embankment stability is a loss of control of surface drainage. Surface
water should be designed to be collected in catchment facilities, and be drained under the site
by storm drains which outlet away from the slope. As necessary, berms, curbs, gutters, swales
or other devices may need to be added to prevent an excessive amount of concentrated runoff
from draining over the crest of the embankments and creating erosion problems. The ground
around MSE walls and the fill embankments should be inspected on a regular basis, observing
signs of surface erosion, loss of vegetative/ground cover, sloughing, etc. Loss of ground can
affect stability. Repairs should be made as appropriate.
Appendix G: Global Stability Analy ses, MSE Walls and Embankments MSE Walls and Embankments
Carlsbad, CA May 25, 2021 September 13 2019
PLATES
Plate 1
o · ;!!
ill
ij
0
-100 -SO -60
Saf ety Fact or
0 .000
-40
0 .500
1. 000
1. 500
2 .000
2 .500
3 .000
3 .500
4 .000
4 .500
5 .000
5 .500
6.000+
-20
100
80
60
40
20
□
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 4-0 60 80
FS (deterministic)= 1.776
FS (mean)= 1.793
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal)= 3.890
RI (lognormal) = 5.095
w
T
·oo
·oo
120
120
Older Alluvium {Ooa)
140 160 180
14-0 160 180 200
Project Title: Marja Wall 4, Sta 1+00. H = 16'
Analysis Methods used: Spenca
StaticP: N-o seismic coefficient
Ma terial: MSE Wall Badjill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 150 psf +/. 50 psf
Friction Angle: 32 degrees +/-3 deg
Ma terial: Engineered Fill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 200 psf +/-50 psf
Friction Angle: 25 degrees +/. 3 deg
Ma terial: Older Alluvium {Ooa)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 250 psf +/. 50 psf
Friction Angle: 28 degrees +/-3 deg
Global Minimum: Spencer FS: 1. 775910
ProbabilisticAnalysis Results {Global Minimum)
FadOJ of Safety, mean: 1. 792840
FadOJ of Safety, standard deviation: 0.203807
FadOf of Safety, minimum: 1.268140
FadOf of Safety, maximum: 2.530090
Probability of Failure: 0.000% {= 0 failed surfaces/ 1000 valid surfaces)
Reliablity index: 3.89015 {8$$uming normal distribution)
Reliablity index: 5.09543 {8$$uming log normal distribution)· best fit = Log normal
220 24-0 260 280 300 320
Plate 2
;il
ij
0
-100 .so ,6()
Safety Factor
0 .000
.40
0 .500
1.000
1. 500
2 .000
2 .500
3 .000
3 .500
4 .000
4 .500
5 .000
5 .500
6 .000+
100
80
60
40
20
·20
0 20 40 60 80
0 20 40 60 80
FS (deterministic)= 1.290
FS (mean) = 1.303
p= = 0.800%
R (normal)= 2.073
R (lognormal) = 2.311
MSE Wall Baddill
□
w
T
·oo
·oo
120 140
120 140
·--✓--------,
Older Alluvium {Qoa)
160 180
160 180 200
Project Title: M.atja Wall 4, Sta 1+00, H = 16'
Analysis Methods used: Spencer
Seismic Load Coefficient {Horizontal): 0.15
Material: MSE Wall Baddill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 150 psf +/. 50 psf
Friction Angle: 32 degrees +/-3 deg
Material: Engineered Fill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 200 psf +/-50 psf
Friction Angle: 25 degrees +/. 3 deg
Material: Older Alluvium {Ooa)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 175 psf +/. 50 psf
Friction Angle: 25 degtees +/-3 deg
Global Minimum: Spencer FS: 1.290150
ProbabilisticAnalysis Results {Global Minimum)
Factor of Safety, mean: 1.303142
Factot of Safety. standard d eviation: 0.146204
Fadotof Safety, minimum: 0.928166
Factor of Safety, maximum: 1.836140
Probability o f Failure: 0.800% {= 8 failed surfaces/ 1000 valid surfaces)
Reliablity index: 2.07342 {assuming normal distribution)
Reliablity index: 2.31150 {assuming lognormal d istribution)· best fit = Lognormal
220 240 260 280 300
Plate 3
o · "' "'·
g
"'·
"'. ...
0
·125 -100
75
50
25
-75 -50 -25
Safety Fact or
0 .000
0 .500
1.000
1. 500
2 .000
2 .500
3 .000
3 .500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5 .500
6.000+
0
0
25
25
lvoung Alluvium {Qya)I
50 75 100
50 75 100
FS (deterministic)= 1.675
FS (mean)= 1.698
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal)= 5.852
RI (lognormal) = 7.512
125 150
125 150
175 200 225 250 275
175 200 225 250 275
M.arjaAaes Wall 1 Sta 8+95
Analysis Method: Spencer
Loading: Static {no seismic ooef, Kh = 0 )
Material: MSE Wall Bactfill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 150 psf {+/-50 psf)
Friction Angle: 32 degrees{+/. 3 deg)
Material: Engineered Fill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 200 psf {+/. 50 psf)
Friction Angle: 25 degrees {+/-3 deg)
Material: Young Alluvium {Oya)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 100 psf {+/. 50 psf)
Friction Angle: 10 degrees {+/. 3deg)
Water Surface: Water Table
Material: Colluvium {Qool)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 120 psf {+/-50 psf)
Friction Angle: 20 degrees {+/. 3 deg)
Material: Santiago Fm. {Tsa)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 120 psf {+/. 50 psf)
Friction Angle: 29 degrees {+/-3 deg)
Water Surface: Water Table
Material: Fill {Afu)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 60 psf {+/. 20 psf)
Friction Angle: 30 degtees {+/-3 deg)
Material: Clay Seam
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 130 psf {+/-30 psf)
Friction Angle: 5 deg,ees {+/. 2 deg)
Water Surf.ace: Water Table
Glob.al Minimum Spencer FS: 1.674740
Prob.abilisticAn.alysis Results {Glob.al Minimum)
FactOf o f Safety, mean: 1.698302
FactOf o f Safety, standard deviation: 0.119321
FactOf o f Safety, minimum: 1.415350
FactOf o f Safety, maximum: 2.095000
Prob.ability of Failure: 0.000% {= 0 failed surfaces/ 1000 valid surfaces)
Reliablity index: 5.85227 {8$$uming nOJmal d istribution)
Reliablity index: 7.51241 {8$$uming lognormal distribution)· best fit = Lognormal
300 325 350 375 400
Plate 4
o · "' "'· Safety Factor
0 .000
0 .500
1. 000 "'. "' "' 1. 500 FS (deterministic)= 1.151
FS (mean)= 1.172
2 .000 PF = 1.300%
2 .500 RI (normal)= 2.060
0 RI (lognormal) = 2.195 0 "'· 3 .000
3 .500
4 .000 "'. ~ 4 .500
5 .000
5 .500
0 ~ 6 .000+
75
50
25
lvoung Alluvium {Qya)I
Clay Seam
0 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
·125 -100 -75 .50 -25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
:l .. .. ..
Engineered Fill
200
200
225 250 275
225 250 275
M.arjaAaes Wall 1 Sta 8+95
Analysis Method: Spencer
Loading: Seismic{seismic coef Kh = 0.15)
Material: MSE Wall Bactfill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 150 psf {+/-50 psf)
Friction Angle: 32 degrees{+/. 3 deg)
Material: Engineered Fill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 200 psf {+/. 50 psf)
Friction Angle: 25 degrees {+/-3 deg)
Material: Young Alluvium {Oya)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 100 psf {+/. 50 psf)
Friction Angle: 10 degrees {+/. 3deg)
Water Surface: Water Table
Material: Colluvium {Qcol)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 120 psf {+/-50 psf)
Friction Angle: 20 degrees {+/. 3 deg)
Material: Santiago Fm. {Tsa)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 120 psf {+/. 50 psf)
Friction Angle: 29 degrees {+/-3 deg)
Water Surface: Water Table
Material: Fill {Afu)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 60 psf {+/. 20 psf)
Friction Angle: 30 degtees {+/-3 deg)
Material: Clay Seam
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 130 psf {+/-30 psf)
Friction Angle: 5 degtees {+/. 2 deg)
Water Surface: Water Table
Glob.al Minimum Spencer: FS: 1.151400
Prob.abilisticAnalysis Results {Glob.al Minimum)
FactOf o f Safety, mean: 1.171738
FactOf o f Safety, standard deviation: 0.084394
FactOf o f Safety, minimum: 0.906713
FactOf o f Safety, maximum: 1.450300
Prob.ability of Failure: 2.200% {= 22 failed surfaces/ 1000 valid surfaces)
Reliablity index: 2.03496 {8$$uming nOJmal d istribution)
Reliablity index: 2.16736 {8$$uming log normal distribution)
-best fit = Gamma
300 325 350 375 400
Plate 5
ill
ij
0
-60 -40 -20
Safety Factor
0 .000
0 .500
1. 000
1. 500
2 .000
2 .500
3 .000
3 .500
4 .000
4 .500
5 .000
5 .500
6.000+
40
20
0
0
15 30 45 60 75 90 105
20 40 60 80 100
FS (deterministic)= 1.485
FS (mean)= 1.502
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal)= 3.948
RI (lognormal) = 4. 772
120 135
120 140
150
Engineered Fill
165 180 195
160 180 200
210
Project Title: M.arjaAaes Wall 9 Sta 1+90
Analysis Method: Spencer
Loading: Static{no seismic coef, Kh=O)
Material: MSE Wall Bad.fill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 150 psf +/. 50 psf
Friction Angle: 32 degrees +/-3 deg
Material: Engineered Fill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 200 psf +/-50 psf
Friction Angle: 25 degrees +/. 3 deg
Material: Colluvium {Qcol)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 120 psf +/. 50 psf
Friction Angle: 20 degtees +/-3 deg
Material: Santiago Fm. {Tsa)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 120 psf +/-50 psf
Friction Angle: 29 degrees +/. 3 deg
Material: Clay Seam
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 130 psf +/. 30 psf
Friction Angle: 5 degrees +/-2 deg
Global Minimum Spencer FS: 1.485400
Probabilis-ticAnalysis Results {Global Minimum)
FadOJ of Safety, mean: 1.502017
FactOJ of Safety. standard d eviation: 0.127151
FactOJ of Safety, minimum: 1.186710
FactOJof Safety, maximum: 1.881260
Probability o f Failure: 0.000% {= 0 failed surfaces/ 1000 valid surfaces)
Reliablity index: 3.94819 {assuming nOJmal distribution)
Reliablity index: 4.TT191 {assuming lognOJmal distribution)· best fit = LognOJmal
220 240 260 280 300
Plate 6
~ Safety Factor
ill
ij
0
.4-0
0 .000
0 .500
1. 000
1. 500
2 .000
2 .500
3 .000
3 .500
4 .000
4 .500
5 .000
5 .500
6 .000+
75
60
45
30
15
·20
0 15 30
0 20
45 60 75 90
60 80 100
FS (deterministic)= 1.079
FS (mean) = 1.085
PF = 12.900%
RI (normal)= 1.131
RI (lognormal) = 1.144
105 120
120
I Engineered Fill I
135 150 165 180 195 21 0
14-0 160 180 200
Project Title: Marja Acres Wall 9 Sta 1+90
Analysis Method: Spencer
Loading: Seismic (Seismiccoef, Kh=0.15)
Ma terial: MSE Wall Baddill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 150 psf +/. 50 psf
Friction Angle: 32 degtees +/-3 deg
Material: Engineered Fill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 200 psf +/-50 psf
Friction Angle: 25 degrees +/. 3 deg
Ma terial: Colluvium {Qcol)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 120 psf +/. 50 psf
Friction Angle: 20 degrees +/-3 deg
Material: Santiago Fm. {Tsa)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 120 psf +/. 50 psf
Friction Angle: 29 degtees +/. 3 deg
Ma terial: Clay Seam
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 130 psf +/. 30 psf
Friction Angle: 5 degtees +/-2 deg
Global Minimum Spencer: FS: 1.078500
Probabilis1icAnalysis Results {Global Minimum)
Fact« of Safety, mean: 1.084914
Facto, of Safety. standard deviation: 0.075086
Fado, of Safety, minimum: 0.857159
Facto, of Safety. maximum: 1.331380
Probability of Failure: 12.900% {= 129 failed surfaces / 100
Reliablity index: 1.13089 {8$$uming no,mal distribution)
Reliablity index: 1.14445 {8$$uming logno,mal distribution
220 24-0 260
Plate 7
0 ~ Safety Factor
0.000
0 .500
l. 000
"' ~ 1.500
2 .000
2 .500
0 S1 3 .000
3 .500
4 .000
4 .500 80
"' ... 5 .000
5 .500
6.000+ 60
0 "'
40
I Young Alluvium {Qya)I
20
20 40
0
-SO -60 .40 -20 0 20 40
60 80 100
60 80 100
FS (deterministic)= 1.331
FS (mean)= 1.344
PF = 2.600%
RI (normal) = 1.930
120
120
w ..
14(
140
160
160
180 200 220 240 260 280
180 200 220 240 260 280
Project Title: MarjaAaes Bad:cut 20 feet Wall 1
Sta 7+15 in Santiago Fm.
Analysis Method: Spencer
Loading: Static{no seismic coef)
Ma terial: Santiago Fm {Tsa)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 175 psf +/. 50 psf
Friction Angle: 25 degrees +/-3 deg
Water Surface: Water Table
Ma terial: Young Alluvium {Oya)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 100 psf +/. 50 psf
Friction Angle: 10 degrees +/-3deg
Global Minimum Spencer: FS: 1.331130
ProbabilisticAnalysis Results {Global Minimum)
FadOJ of Safety, mean: 1.344486
FadOJ of Safety. standard deviation: 0.178505
Facto, of Safety, minimum: 0. 738491
FadOf of Safety. maximum: 1.856400
Probability of Failure: 2.600% {= 26 failed surfaces / 1000 valid surfaces)
Reliablity index: 1.92984 {8$$uming normal distribution)· best fit = ~mal
Reliablity index: 2.17322 {8$$uming lognormal distribution)
300 320 340 360 380
Plate 8
ij
.4-0 -20
Saf ety Fact or
0 .000
0 .500
l. 000
1.500
2 .000
2 .500
3 .000
3 .500
4 .000
4 .500
5 .000
5 .500
6.000+
0
105
90
75
60
45
15
20
30
4-0
FS (deterministic)= 1.358
FS (mean)= 1.361
PF = 3.100%
RI (normal)= 1.898
~-----~-+<RI (lognormal) = 2.147
45 60
60
w •
75
80
90 105 120 135
100 120 14-0
File: Marja Wall 4 Sta 5+69 Temp 1 :1
Bad:cot No Fill
Analysis Method: Spencer
Loading: Static{no seismic ooef)
Material: Older Alluvium {Qoa)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 175 psf {+ /. 50 psf)
Friction Angle: 25 degrees {+ /. 3 deg)
Water Surface: Water Table
Global Minimum Spencer: FS: 1.357580
ProbabilisticAnalysis Results {Global Minimum)
FadOJof Safety, mean: 1.361116
Factor of Safety, standard d eviation: 0.190281
Factor of Safety, minimum: 0.810276
FadOf of Safety. maximum: 1.976440
Probability o f Failure: 3.100% {= 31 failed surfaces/ 1000 valid surfaces)
Reliablity index: 1.89780 {8$$uming normal distribution)· best fit = Normal
Reliablity index: 2.14652 {assuming lognormal distribution)
160 180 200
Plate 9
o ·
;!! Safety Fact or
0 .000
0 .500
1. 000
1. 500
2 .000
2 .500
3 .000
3 .500
4 .000
4.500
5 .000
5 .500
6 .000+
ill
ij
-100 -SO -60 .40 -20 0
80
60
40
20
FS (deterministic)= 1.702
FS (mean)= 1.705
PF = 0.000%
RI (normal)= 3.434
RI (lognormal) = 4.387
Clay Seam
w
' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' '' I ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' 20 40 ~ ~ 100 120 140 1~ 1~
Project Title: Marja 20 Ft. Fill Slope in Older Alluvium
Ana lysis Method: Spencer
Loading: Static{no seismic coef)
Ma terial: Engineered Fill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 200 psf +/. 50 psf
Friction Angle: 25 degtees +/-3 deg
Ma terial: Older Alluvium {Qoa)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 175 psf +/-50 psf
Friction Angle: 25 degrees +/. 3 deg
Water Surface: Water Table
Ma terial: Clay Seam
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 130 psf +/-30 psf
Friction Angle: 5 degrees +/. 2 deg
Global Minimum Spencer: FS: 1. 702500
ProbabilisticAna lysis Results {Global Minimum)
FadOJ of Safety, mean: 1. 704979
Factor of Safety, standard deviation: 0.205288
Factor of Safety, minimum: 1.094540
Factor of Safety, maximum: 2.443730
Probability of Failure: 0.000% {= 0 failed surfaces/ 1000 valid surfaces)
Reliablity index: 3.43410 {8$$uming normal distribution)
Reliablity index: 4.38732 {8$$uming lognormal distribution)
• best fit = Gamma
200 220 240 260 280 300
Plate 10
Safety Factor
0 .000
0 .500
1.000
1. 500
2 .000
2 .500
3 .000
3 .500
4 .000
4 .500
5 .000
5 .500
6.000+
ill
0
-120 -100 -SO -60 .40 -20 0
80
60
40
20
20 40
20 40
FS (deterministic)= 1.187
FS (mean)= 1.189
PF = 8.800%
RI (normal)= 1.306
RI (lognormal) = 1.367
60 80
60 80
100
10•)
-rr.::::=-7
Clay Seam
Older Alluvium {Ooa)
120 140 160 180
120 140 160 180
Project Title: Marja 20 Ft. Fill Slope in Older Alluvium
Analysis Method: Spenca
Loading: Seismic {seismic coef Kh = 0.15)
Material: Engineered Fill
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 200 psf +/. 50 psf
Friction Angle: 25 degrees +/-3 deg
Material: Older Alluvium {Ooa)
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 175 psf +/-50 psf
Friction Angle: 25 degrees +/. 3 deg
Water Surface: Water Table
Material: Clay Seam
Unit Weight: 120 lb/ft3
Cohesion: 130 psf +/-30 psf
Friction Angle: 5 degrees +/. 2 deg
Global Minimum Spencer: FS: 1.187140
ProbabilisticAnalysis Results {Global Minimum)
Factor of Safety, mean: 1.189171
FadOf of Safety, standard d eviation: 0.144823
Factor of Safety. minimum: 0. 752692
Fa dot of Safety, maximum: 1. 704580
Probability o f Failure: 8.800% {= 88 failed surfaces / 1000 valid surfaces)
Reliablity index: 1.30622 {8$$uming normal distribution)
Reliablity index: 1.36723 {8$$uming log normal distribution)
• best fit = Gamma
200 220 240 260 280 300 320