HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 04-22; OCEAN ESTATES; PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION; 2005-11-041
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL
INVESTIGATION
For the Proposed
Ocean Estates Project
Southeast Corner of Beech Avenue
and Ocean Street
Carlsbad, California
L \
Prepared for:
Urbitecture Platform
1761 Hotel Circle South, Suite 350
San Diego, California 92108
d
Prepared by:
Testing Engineers - U S Laboratories, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, California 92111
Contract No. 74525
November 4, 2004
CIE oLfr22
I
I 828
I 'i?I1J1.11 I
I1!Jd ILL':I1 I _
I
Urbitecture Platform
I 1761 Hotel Circle South, Suite 350
San Diego, CA 92108
November 4, 2004
Proposal No. P2004-2204
Contract No.: 74525
Subject: PRELIMINARY GEOTEC}INICAL INVESTIGATION
I Project: Proposed Ocean Estates Project
Southeast Corner of Beech Avenue and Ocean Street
I
Carlsbad, California
Dear Mr. Jorge Osorno:
In accordance with our agreement, Testing Engineers - US Laboratories, Inc. ("TE-USL") has
conducted a geotechnical investigation at the project site for the proposed residential development
located at the southeast corner of Beech Avenue and Ocean Street in Carlsbad, California. The
I attached report discusses the earthwork construction and foundation design aspects of the project,
along with other recommendations for site development.
1 Based on our investigation, testing, and analyses of the subsurface soils, we conclude that the
proposed development is geotechnically feasible if the recommendations contained herein are
I incorporated into the design and planning as well as implemented during construction.
TE-USL appreciates the opportunity -0 provide geotechnical services for this important project. We
I welcome the opportunity to continue our role as geotechnical consultants. If we can be of further
assistance, please contact us at the phone number or address provided below.
Sincerely,
I Testing Engineers Laborari C.
E5 No GE-2578 rn
EXP- 6/30106
I Van W. Olin, GE 2578 Me ad Maghsoudlou
Principal Geotechnical Engineer Staff Engineering Geologist
I
I
i Distribution: (6) addressee
1E2004-2204174525
Testing Engineers - U.S. Laboratories
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 • Sar, Diego, California 92111 • (858) 715-5800 • Fax: (858) 715-5810
Offices Nationwide
I
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
I A. INTRODUCTION
A.1 General..............................................................................................................................1
Purpose.............................................................................................................................1
I A.3 Scope of Services .............................................................................................................. 1
B. PROJECT BACKGROUND
I B. 1 Site Description ................................................................................................................. 1
B.2 Proposed Development.....................................................................................................2
I C. SITE INVESTIGATION
C.1 Field Exploration...............................................................................................................2
C.2 Laboratory Testing............................................................................................................2
I D. GEOLOGY
D.1 Geologic Setting................................................................................................................3
I D.2 Soil Stratigraphy ................................................................................................................ 3
D.2.1 Quaternary Alluvium...............................................................................................3
D.2.2 Terrace Deposits......................................................................................................3
I D.2.3 Groundwater............................................................................................................3
I E.1
E. SEISMICITY
Regional Seismicity...........................................................................................................3
E.2 Seismic Analysis................................................................................................................4
I E.3
E.2.1 Seismic Design.........................................................................................................4
Seismic Hazard Assessment..............................................................................................5
E.3.1 Surface Fault Rupture...............................................................................................5
I E.3.2 Seismically-Induced Settlement...............................................................................5
E.3.2 Liquefaction..............................................................................................................5
E.3.4 Landsliding...............................................................................................................5
I E.3.5 Tsunamis and Seiches..............................................................................................5
E.4 Earthquake Design Parameters..........................................................................................5
I F. GEOTECHNTCAL EVALUATION
F.1 Conclusions........................................................................................................................6
F.2 Compressible Soils ............................................................................................................ 7
I F.3 Expansive Soils..................................................................................................................7
F.4 Soil Corrosivity .................................................................................................................7
F.5 Excavation Feasibility........................................................................................................8
I G. GRADING AND EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
G.1 General ..............................................................................................................................8
I G.2 Clearing and Grubbing......................................................................................................8
G.3 Engineered Improvement of Soils....................................................................................9
G.4 Method and Criteria of Compaction...............................................................................10
G.5 Transition between Cut and Fill ...................................................................................... 11
I
I
G.6 Temporary Slopes and Cuts .11
G.7 Erosion and Siltation ....................................................................................................... 11
H. FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
H.1 General............................................................................................................................11
11.2 Structure Foundations.....................................................................................................12
H.2.1 Footing Dimensions and Reinforcement...............................................................12
11.2.2 Allowable Bearing Capacity..................................................................................12
H.2.3 Lateral Earth Resistance........................................................................................13
11.3 Slabs-on-Grade ................................................................................................................ 13
11.3.1 Interior Slabs..........................................................................................................13
11.3.2 Exterior Slabs.........................................................................................................13
ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1 Pavement Design..............................................................................................................14
1.1.1 Driveways and Parking............................................................................................14
1. 1.2 Subgrade Preparation...............................................................................................15
1.2 Trench Backfill.................................................................................................................15
1.3 Surface Drainage...............................................................................................................15
1.4 Subsurface Drainage.........................................................................................................15
1.5 Geotechnical Observation during Construction...............................................................16
1.6 Plan Review.......................................................................................16
1.7 Monitoring of Existing Improvements.........................................................16
CLOSURE
J.1 Limits of Investigation .....................................................................................................16
FIGURES
Figure 1 - Site Location Map
Figure 2 - Boring Location Map
Figure 3 - Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4— Lateral Surcharge Loads
APPENDICES
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Boring Logs
Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D - Seismic Data
I
fl
H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
for
I Proposed Ocean Estates Project
Southeast Corner of Beech Avenue and Ocean Street, Carlsbad, California
I A. INTRODUCTION
A.1 General
I This report presents the findings of a Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed Ocean Estates
development located at the southeast corner of Beech Avenue and Ocean Street in Carlsbad,
I California. The investigation consisted of field reconnaissance and geologic mapping, limited
subsurface exploration, laboratory analysis and engineering/geologic evaluation utilized in the
formulation of the recommendations presented herein.
I A.2 Purpose
I The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the surface and subsurface conditions at the site
and provide recommendations regarding earthwork construction and suitable foundations, along
I
with other geotechnical design criteria, for the proposed residential development.
A.3 Scope of Services
The following scope of services was provided during this Geotechnical Investigation:
Review of available, published geologic and seismological reports for the region, including
I geotechnical reports and maps prepared by others that are pertinent to the project site.
Performed four (4) exploratory borings within the proposed area of development. The
Exploratory Boring Location Map, Figure 2, enclosed in the rear of this report, indicates the
approximate locations of the borings. The Logs of Subsurface Exploration are contained in
Appendix B.
Performed laboratory testing on samples representative of the sub-strata soil materials
encountered during the field investigation.
Conducted geologic and engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data, which
provided the basis for our conclusions and recommendations.
This report summarizes the results of the analysis and presents our findings, conclusions
and recommendations for site development.
B. PROJECT BACKGROUND
B.1 Site Description
The proposed residential development will consist of demolition of the existing structure and
TE-USL Ocean Estates Development Geo Inv . P2004-2204/74525 . November, 2004
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r]
construction of four single family homes. The generally rectangular-shaped parcel is located at the
southeast corner of Beech Avenue and Ocean Street in Carlsbad, California (see the Site Location
Map, Figure 1). Based on the site conceptual plan provided to us from the client, the land area for
the proposed residential development measures approximately two thirds (2/3) of an acre.
The conceptual plan provided does not present site topography. However, based on our field
reconnaissance, the subject site is flat, with an elevational difference of less than 8 feet east-west
across the span of the project site. Topographic information obtained from TOPO (1999) indicates
that the elevation at project site is approximately 45 to 53 feet above Mean Sea Level ("AMSL").
B.2 Proposed Development
According to the site plan provided, the proposed development is to consist of the following:
Construction of 4 single-family, two-story, wood frame homes (detached).
All building structures are to be supported by conventional spread footings and slabs-on-
grade floors with associated appurtenances.
Based on our experience with similar projects, maximum anticipated wall and column loads will
be about 1 to 3 kips per lineal foot and 16 to 20 kips, respectively. Tolerable total and
differential settlements of 1-inch and '/2 inch in 40 feet, respectively, were assumed for the
purpose of design.
C. SITE INVESTIGATION
C.1 Field Exploration
The subsurface exploration was performed on July 22, 2004, and consisted of excavating four (4)
exploratory borings with approximate locations plotted on the Exploratory Boring Location Map,
Figure 2. An Jngersol Rand A-300 hollow-stem drill rig was utilized to perform the exploratory
borings to depths ranging from 11 feet to 20 feet below existing ground. Logging and sampling of
the borings was performed by our staff geologist. Relatively undisturbed samples were obtained
utilizing a modified California drive and Standard Penetration Test (SPT) samplers driven 18-
inches, where possible, with a 140 pound hammer dropping 30-inches in general accordance with
ASTM Test Method D3550 and ASTM Test Method D1586, respectively. The number of blows
required for each 6 inches of drive penetration was recorded in the field. The number of blows to
achieve the last 12-inches of penetration or number of blows with sampling penetration depths was
recorded on the boring logs (Appendix B). Empirically, the number of blows generally signifies the
consistency of in-situ soils at the depths of sampling, which could be referenced for the
establishment of profile and bearing strata of in-situ soils.
C.2 Laboratory Testing
Following completion of the field exploration, a laboratory-testing program was conducted to
evaluate pertinent geotechnical engineering characteristics. Laboratory testing included visual
classification, undisturbed direct shear, Expansion Index, particle size analysis, soluble sulfate
and chloride, pH-value & resisitivity, consolidation, and in-situ moisture-density tests. All
TE-USL Ocean Estates Development Geo Inv . P2004-2204/74525 • November. 2004
2
phases of the laboratory testing program were conducted in general accordance with applicable
ASTM specifications or other accepted test method(s). Appendix C summarizes pertinent test
procedures and derived results.
D. GEOLOGY
D.1 Geologic Setting
The subject site is located within the southern portion of what is known as the Peninsular Ranges
Geomorphic Province of California. The coastal areas of the province in the Carlsbad area typically
made up of Pleistocene age marine terrace deposits and Eocene age marine sedimentary rocks, as
reflected in Figure 3, Regional Geologic Map.
D.2 Soil Stratigraphy
The subsurface descriptions provided are interpreted from conditions that were exposed during the
field investigation and/or inferred from the geologic literature. As such, all of the subsurface
conditions at the site may not be captured and represented. Detailed descriptions of the subsurface
materials encountered during the field investigation are presented on the Logs of Field Exploration,
presented in Appendix B of this report. The following paragraphs provide general descriptions of
the encountered soil materials.
D.2.1 Quaternary Alluvium
The alluvium encountered on-site generally consist of light brown to yellow brown, damp to moist,
loose to medium dense silty sand to sand. The alluvium is not suitable for support of new fill and/or
surface improvements. The clean alluvium may be re-used as compacted fill.
D.2.2 Terrace Deposits
Terrace Deposits were encountered underlying the alluvium and generally consisted of orange
brown to yellow brown, damp, medium dense to dense, fine to medium grained sand. The Terrace
Deposits are considered suitable for support of new fill and/or surface improvements.
D.2.3 Groundwater
No trace of groundwater or seepage was observed in our exploratory borings and test pit. However,
it is possible that groundwater perching or seepage flow may develop in low-lying area along
contacts of earth materials with contrasting permeabilities after prolonged period of irrigation or
rainfall.
E. SEISMICITY
E.1 Regional Seismicity
The portion of southern California where the subject site is located is considered seismically active.
Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time
TE-USL Ocean Estates Development Geo by • P20042204/74525 . November, 2004
3
I
I
I
I
I
I
PJ
I
I
I
[1
I
1
I
I
I
Ll
I
I
I
I (approximately the last 11,000 years) and/or have been included within any of the state-designated
Earthquake Fault Zones (previously known as Alquist-Priolo Special Study Zones). Faults are
I
considered potentially active if they exhibit evidence of surface displacement since the beginning of
Quaternary time (approximately 1.6 million years ago) but not since the beginning of Holocene
time (i.e. 11,000 years ago). Inactive faults are those that have not had surface movement since the
I beginning of Quaternary time.
It should be noted that the earthquake design requirements listed in the 2001 CBC and other
governing standard apply only for faults classified as "active" in accordance with the most recent
fault listing as per the United States Geological Survey (USGS) or the California Division of Mines
and Geology.
The subject site is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zones. The closest known active faults
to the site are the Newport-Inglewood (offshore) fault, located approximately 4.4 miles (7.1 km)
I west of the site, and the Rose Canyon fault, located approximately 4.5 miles (7.2 km) southwest of
the site.
I E.2 Seismic Analysis
E.2.1 Seismic Design
I Our site-specific seismic assessment, which included a literature and map search and seismic
software analysis (Blake, 2000a, 2000b, 2000c and 2000d), indicated that, due to its close
I proximity, the site is subject to a Maximum Probable Earthquake of 6.9 Mw (moment magnitude as
per USGS) along the Newport Inglewood (offshore) fault. All probable earthquakes likely to take
place along known active and potentially active faults in southern California are tabulated in
I Appendix D, Seismic Data, in the rear of this report. The Maximum Probable Earthquake is defined
as the maximum earthquake that is considered likely to occur during a 100-year time interval.
I The seismicity of the site was evaluated utilizing probabilistic analysis available from California
Geological Survey ("CGS"). As described in References 4 and 14, the CGS analytical method
considers two earthquake sources, i.e. fault sources and area sources, together with geologic and
soil characteristics and tectonic movements, for quantifying peak ground acceleration ("PGA") of
bedrock that carries a 10% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. It is known that site-specific
ground conditions, i.e. soft rock and alluvium, might cause attenuation or amplification to PGA's
I derived from bedrock, CGS further incorporates recommendations proposed by NEHRP
(References 8 and 9) that modify bedrock-based PGA's for both soft rock sites and alluvium sites.
I
For structural design purposes, for a damping ratio of 5%, two spectral acceleration ("Sa") values
representing structural periods of 0.2 second (typically for low-rise building) and 1.0 second
(typically for multi-story building) have also been analyzed. Based on CGS's probabilistic anaysis
I
and the classification of SD as the site is underlain by thick alluvium, the site is subject to a PGA of
0.34g, a Sa(0.2 sec) of 0.82g, and a Sa(1.0 sec) of 0.41g, as shown in Appendix D, Seismic Data, in
the rear of this report.
1 Additionally, we have also evaluated the site seismicity utilizing a probabilistic analysis with
FRISKSP (Blake, 2000c). The resultant earthquake—induced (a 6.9 event on the Newport
Inglewood (offshore) fault) PGA for a 10% exceedance probability within a 50-year interval has
TE-USL Ocean Estates DeveIoment Geo Inv • P2004-2204/74525 . November. 2004
1 4
been assessed to range from 0.27g to 0.30g depending on the weighted attenuation relations and soil
correction factoring. Detailed tabulation of the analytical results from FRISKSP is appended in
Appendix D, Seismic Data.
E.3 Seismic Hazard Assessment
E.3.1 Surface Fault Rupture
I The potential for surface fault rupture at a particular site is correlated with the presence of an active
fault beneath the site that is capable of generating surface rupture. Our evaluation of surface rupture
potential consisted of a review of published geologic information and our site visit. Based on our
I review, no active faults cross the site. The closet mapped fault is 4.4 miles from the site as
discussed in Section E. 1. Therefore the potential for surface rupture is considered to be remote.
E.3.2 Seismically-Induced Settlement
The as-graded soil condition of the site is anticipated to result in supporting soils generally
exhibiting dense consistency. Based on the anticipated earthquake effect, the current stratigraphy of
the site and the proposed structure and surface improvements, seismically-induced settlement is
expected to be low and less than Yz inch. Such settlement is expected to affect relatively large pad
areas such that differential settlement over short distances is likely to be very low.
E.3.3 Liquefaction
Liquefaction involves the substantial loss of shear strength in saturated soil, usually taking place
within a soil medium exhibiting a uniform fine-grained characteristic, loose consistency, and low
confining pressure when subjected to impact by seismic or dynamic loading. Based on the
geotechnical evaluation, including area seismicity, on-site soil conditions, and absence of near-
surface groundwater in the areas of proposed development, the site is considered to have a low
potential for soil liquefaction.
E.3.4 Landsliding
There was no indication that recent landslides or unstable slope conditions exist on or adjacent to
the project site that would otherwise result in an obvious geologic hazard to the proposed
development or adjacent properties. As no permanent slope has been planned within the limits of
the proposed development, the potential for seismically-induced landsliding on site as a result of the
proposed development is non-existent.
E.3.5 Tsunamis and Seiches
The subject site is located in the vicinity of the Carlsbad coastline and cannot be precluded from
the possibility of being affected by tsunamis. In addition, seismically-induced seiches (tidal
waves within confined bodies of water caused by seismic event) are unlikely to impound the
project site as there is no known nearby confined body of water.
TE-USL Ocean Estates Development Geo Inv • P2004-2204/74525 • November. 2004
5
I
I
Li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
Li
E.4 Earthquake (UBC) Design Parameters
I
As shown in Appendix D, Seismic Data, the proposed building should be designed in accordance
with seismic design requirements of the 2001 edition of the California Building Code ("CBC")
using the following criteria:
I TABLE 1
CBC SEISMIC FACTORS
Parameter Value CBC Reference
Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.4 Table 16-I
Soil Profile Type SD Table 16-J
Seismic Coefficient, Ca ( 0.44 Na) 0.44 Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient, C (= 0.64 N) 0.71 Table 16-R
Near-Source Factor, Na 1.1 Table 16-S
Near-Source Factor, N 1.0 Table 16-T
Seismic Source B Table 16-U
I Seismic-resistant design of structures should comply with the requirements of the governing
building codes. If site-dependent earthquake response spectra or other specific design parameters
are considered necessary by the project structural engineer or are required by the local government
I agency with jurisdiction over the project, the TE-USL geotechnical engineer should be promptly
contacted for further evaluation.
F. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
F.1 Conclusions
Based on a review of data collected during our investigation, we conclude that the proposed
development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations contained
herein are to be properly implemented during construction.
The proposed earthwork is directed at preparing a competent building pad and will require the
complete over-excavation and re-compaction of undocumented fill and limited over-excavation and
re-compaction of alluvial soils at depth within the extent affected by the proposed development.
It is our opinion that conventional spread footings are appropriate for structures at this site. All
foundations should be supported entirely by properly engineered fill materials. Recommendations
and criteria for foundation design are contained in the Foundation and Slab Recommendations
section.
TE-USL Ocean Estates Development Geo Inv P2004-2204/74525 • November. 2004
6
l~
LI
I
I
F.2 Compressible Soils
I
Our field observations and testing indicate that on-site alluvium materials generally exhibit a loose
to medium dense consistency with depths ranging from 2 feet below the existing grade at boring B-
3 to 9 feet at boring B-4, as shown in Figure 2, Boring Location Map. The alluvial soils are
I underlain by medium dense to very dense Terrace Deposits materials to a maximum explored depth
of 20 feet below the existing grade, as indicated in boring B-i.
I Tt is assessed that on-site soils, in particular the alluvium, at their present state within the extent that
might be affected by the proposed development are prone to excessive compressibility as a result of
the superimposed structural loadings. Uneven compression and settlement as a result of the likely
I transitional condition spanning across the compressible alluvial soils and the relatively denser
Terrace Deposits materials within the extent of the proposed development poses a second aspect of
potential problem that might be caused by on-site soils' compressibility. It is, therefore, essential
that the over-excavation, re-compaction and replacement of these soils meets the requirements of
engineered improvement and structural fill as stipulated in Sections G.3, Engineered Improvement
of Soils, and G.4, Method and Criteria of Fill Compaction, of this report.
Following implementation of the earthwork recommendations presented herein, which includes
over-excavation and re-engineering of the underlying alluvium soils and Terrace Deposits materials
in areas to receive surface improvements, new building structure and underground utilities
installation, the potential for excessive soil compression resulting from the new development has
been estimated to be low. The low settlement assessment assumes installation of a well-planned
and maintained surface drainage system.
I
F.3 Expansive Soils
Analysis of soils sampled on-site, as shown in Appendix C, indicates that the alluvial soils possess
I
very low expansion potential, i.e. El of less than 20. Typically soils exhibiting such a low expansion
potential do not cause unfavorable swelling and shrinking or exert additional expansive earth
pressure when subject to fluctuation of subsurface soil moisture or introduction of additional
I
moisture during remedial grading. However, it is not uncommon that soils possessing higher
expansion potential may be present in the other geologic units on site and are dependent upon the
elevation after depth of over-excavations made into earth unit.
F.4 Soil Corrosivity
I Corrosivity testing of the on-site soils consisting of soluble sulfate content, soluble chloride content,
pH-value and resistivity value, as shown in Appendix C, suggests the following assessments:
I o The soluble sulfate content of 4 ppm indicates a negligible corrosive potential against
concrete, Per Uniform Building Code ("UBC"), 1997 Edition, for structural features to be in
direct contact with on-site soils, the tested negligible soluble sulfate content indicates that
I there should be no special geotechnical restriction imposed on the type of Portland Cement
or water-cement ratio to be used.
1 o The soluble chloride content of 140 ppm exhibited in our limited laboratory test, however,
TE-USL• Ocean Estates Deve1otment Geo Inv • P2004-2204/74525 . November, 2004
1
is in between the threshold values of 100 and 200 ppm imposed by Federal Highway
Administration Standards (FHWA), 2002 and Caltrans Standards, 1999, respectively.
Although no special measure in terms of rebar protection against chloride corrosion is
recommended herein due to the marginal soluble chloride content, pertinent
preventive/remedial measures as stipulated in UBC (1997) and FHWA (2002) should be
considered, as well as the criteria for structural fill materials as tabulated in Table 3.
o The pH-value of 5.42 and the resistivity value of 3847 ohm-cm classify the on-site alluvial
soils to be moderately corrosive to buried ferrous metals. Based on California Test 643, the
year to performation for 18-gauge steel in contact with soils of similar pH-value and
resistivity is approximately 15 years. In lieu of additional testing, alternative piping
materials, i.e. plastic piping, may be used instead of metal. In addition, pertinent
preventive/remedial measures as stipulated in the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building
Code should be followed accordingly, as well as the criteria for structural fill materials as
tabulated in Table 3.
As variation in soil properties is not uncommon on any site, it is further recommended that, upon
completion of site grading, additional soil sampling and testing be conducted in areas where
reinforced concrete footings and slabs and metal piping are to be in direct contact with on-site soils
to re-verify soil corrosivity. If the soils are found to be corrosive after grading and subsequent
testing, it might be advisable that a corrosion engineer should be consulted to provide more
elaborated recommendations for reinforced concrete and metal piping in contact with the on-site
soils.
F.5 Excavation Feasibility
For areas to receive earthwork improvements, the grading work in alluvium and Terrace Deposits
materials within the expected extent of structural improvements is anticipated to be accomplished
using conventional earthmoving equipment.
G. GRADING AND EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
G.l General
I
1
I
I
I
LI
Li
I
I
1
I
Li
I ' Based upon our understanding of the development plans and information obtained from the field
investigation and laboratory testing, we recommend the structures to be founded on continuous
spread footings supported entirely by compacted structural fill. The following grading and
I earthwork recommendations are based upon the limited geotechnical investigation performed and
should be verified during construction by geotechnical representative from TE-USL.
G.2 Clearing and Grubbing
All areas to receive new improvements should be cleared of surface obstructions and vegetation.
The subgrade in areas to receive improvements should be thoroughly inspected for any possible
buried objects that need to be rerouted or removed prior to the inception of, or during grading. All
holes, trenches, or pockets left by the removal of these objects should be properly backfilled with
compacted fill materials as recommended in section G.4, Method and Criteria of Engineered
TE-USL Ocean Estates Development Geo Inv • P2004-2204/74525 . November, 2004
8
Li
I
I
I
I
I Compaction, of this report. Debris from the clearing operations should be properly disposed of off-
site.
G.3 Engineered Improvement of Soils
I Based on information assembled in the course of this study, the subject development is considered
geotechnically feasible, provided recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the
project plans and specifications and implemented during construction. In view of minimizing the
I potential for excessive or differential settlement to develop underneath the proposed buildings and
driveways, as well as to ensure uniform foundation competency for the proposed structure, over-
excavation and re-compaction is recommended as follows:
In the area of the proposed development, the on-site alluvium and Terrace Deposits within
the extent to be affected by the proposed development should be removed and re-compacted
in accordance with the special criteria stipulated in Table 2 and Sections G.6 and G.7. The
removal and over-excavation should extend at least 5 feet laterally beyond the foundation
limits or the limits of the building pad, whichever is greater.
TABLE 2
OVER-EXCAVATION CRITERIA
Structural Element - Over-Excavation Depths (feet)
Interior and Exterior Slabs for 3 BSG(13 or 2(2) or total removal of alluvium,
Building area whichever is greater
Continuous & Isolated Spread 4 BSG' or 3(3) or total removal of alluvium,
Footings whichever is greater
Pavement & Parking 2 BSGW or 1.5111 or total removal of
alluvium, whichever is greater
BSG- Below existing site grades;
Measured below the applicable design sections; (i.e., AC, PCC, concrete and aggregate base).
Measured below lowest building footing bottom
The bottom of all over-excavations should be scarified to a minimum depth of 8 inches and
re-compacted as per required in section G.4, Method and Criteria of Engineered
Compaction. The bottom of the over-excavation should be inspected, tested and approved
by geotechnical representative from TE-USL prior to the placement of fill materials or
construction of footings.
All fill materials to be used for re-compaction and re-placement purposes should comply
with criteria listed in Table 3.
Soils in all other secondary structural areas including all hardscape, asphaltic concrete and
PCC pavement or other surface improvements should be over-excavated to a minimum
depth as stipulated in Table 2 and should extend a minimum lateral distance of 3 feet
beyond the perimeter of these secondary improvement areas.
TE-USL• Ocean Estates Deve1oment Geo Inv • P2004-2204/74525 • November. 2004
9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1 o Although unlikely, any expansive soil, if encountered, should be removed totally and re-
used only in areas to receive landscaping or non-structural improvements.
G.4 Method and Criteria of Engineered Compaction
I Compacted fills should consist of approved soil material that is free of trash or debris, roots,
vegetation or other deleterious materials. Structural fill is considered fill placed within four feet
of finish grade to a lateral distance of 5 feet beyond the foundation perimeter. Fill soils should be
I compacted by suitable compaction equipment in uniform loose lifts not exceeding 8 inches. All
fill soils should be moisture-conditioned to 0 to 3 percent over the optimum moisture content and
re-compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction per ASTM test method ASTM D-1557.
I Soil materials used as fill should conform to the criteria stipulated in Table 3. Placement of
materials greater than 6 inches in diameter should be in accordance with the recommendations of
I
the geotechnical engineer.
Should any importation of fill be planned, the intended sources of importation should comply with
requirements as listed in Table 3, and should be evaluated and approved by the geotechnical
I engineer prior to importation to the site.
TABLE 3
SPECIFICATIONS OF FILL MATERIALS
Category Parameter Requirement
Expansion Index (UBC 18-2) 20 or less
Fraction finer than 6" 100%
Structural fill placed Fraction finer than #200 sieve 30% or less
within 4 feet from Water Soluble Sulfate (SO4) (Cal Test 417) 150 ppm or less
finish grade Water Soluble Chloride (Cl) (Cal Test 422) 200 ppm or less
Resistivity (Cal Test 643) > 5,000 ohm-cm
Plasticity Index (ASTM D4318-84) 25 or less
Expansion Index (EJBC 18-2) 50 or less
General fill placed Fraction finer than 12" 100%
below and beyond the Fraction finer than #200 sieve 40% or less
structural fill(') Water Soluble Sulfate (SO4) (Cal Test 417) 150 ppm or less
Resistivity (Cal Test 643) ? 5,000 ohm-cm
(1) The use of rocks or earth particles of greater than 3 inches in diameter within utility trench backifil should
I not be permitted.
Based on the measured in-situ dry densities and moisture contents, as tabulated in Appendix C, an
I average existing relative compaction of 80 to 85 % has been estimated for on-site alluvial soils
within 2 to 9 feet from the existing grade that is expected to be affected by the proposed remedial
grading. As such, in order to achieve a minimum relative compaction of 90%, a volumetric
I shrinkage factor of 10 to 12 percent has been estimated for engineered improvement of on-site
alluvial soils.
I
TE-USL• Ocean Estates Development Geo Inv • P2004-2204/74525 . November. 2004
1 10
I
1
1
I
I
I
G.5 Transition between Cut and Fill
I Based upon the above recommendations, we anticipate that all structures within the proposed
development will be founded entirely in properly compacted fill. In any case, no transition between
cut and fill should exist at the base of continuous foundation members or significant improvements.
I Tt is advised that a geotechnical representative from TE-USL be on-site to inspect actual exposed
ground condition and re-evaluate and, if necessary, revise pertinent earthwork/foundation
recommendations.
I Utilities may span across subsurface transitions or geologic contacts provided they are tolerable to
transitional differential settlement and varying seismic responses. The utility designers should
consider the effects of subsurface transitions on settlement sensitive conduits
G.6 Temporary Slopes and Cuts
Due to the variety of soil conditions within the site, trench wall conditions for any proposed
temporary slopes should be reviewed by geotechnical representative from TE-USL during
construction. For planning purposes of the utility trenches, temporary vertical cuts to a maximum
of 3 feet and 2 feet may be conducted in compacted fill and alluvial soil, respectively. Any
temporary cuts beyond the above height constraints should be shored or further laid back following
a 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) slope ratio, and should not exceed a total height of 8 feet unless
approved by geotechnical representative form TE-USL, and at all times, regional OSHA safety
measures should be enforced. TE-USL does not consult in the area of safety engineering.
G.7 Erosion and Siltation
Due to the characteristics of the on-site soils, areas of recent grading or exposed ground may be
subject to erosion. The contractor should take remedial measures to prevent erosion of recently
graded areas and cut slopes and until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures
or permanent improvements have been installed. After completion of grading, all excavated
surfaces should exhibit positive drainage (per code) and eliminate areas where water might pond.
H. FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
H.1 General
The foundation and soil design recommendations presented herein are "minimums" in keeping with
the current standard-of-practice. They do not preclude more restrictive criteria of the governing
agency(s) or structural considerations. The Structural Engineer should evaluate the foundation
configurations and reinforcement requirements for structural loading, concrete shrinkage and
temperature stresses. All design and site development criteria should conform to the minimum
foundation design requirements provided in the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The design
recommendations contained herein are based upon the assumption that all subgrade soils within the
proposed area of improvements will be removed and re-engineered strictly in accordance with
recommendations stipulated in Section G, and all adverse ground conditions encountered during
site grading will be inspected and re-evaluated by geotechnical representative from TE-USL prior to
proceeding of any balance earth work.
TE-USL- Ocean Estates Development Geo Inv P2004-2204/74525 • November, 2004
11
I
I
I
1
I
LI
I
I
1
I
1
LI
I
H
I 11.2 Structure Foundations
I Continuous spread footings are suitable for use at the proposed project site. All footings should be
founded entirely in properly compacted structural fill.
I 11.2.1 Footing Dimensions and Reinforcement
For foundations supporting the proposed 2-story structures, continuous footings should be a
I minimum 15 inches wide and embedded at least 18 inches below lowest adjacent exterior grade.
Geotechnically, it is recommended that continuous (interior and exterior) footings be reinforced
with four (4) No. 4 rebar (horizontal), two near the top and two near the bottom. Any isolated
I spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches (square) and a depth of 24 inches.
Reinforcement for isolated footings should be applied in a biaxial manner.
I H.2.2 Allowable Bearing Capacity
Footings bearing into dense, well-compacted structural fill should be designed for an allowable
U bearing pressure of 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf). Allowable bearing may be increased by
twenty percent per UBC for each additional foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per
square foot (psf). No increase in bearing for footing width should be utilized. The calculated
I bearing pressure may be increased one-third (1/3) when subject to transient loading conditions such
as seismic impact or wind loads.
Table 4 summarizes relevant earth pressure design parameters for foundation system to be
constructed at the subject site provided remedial site grading is implemented according to
recommendations stated in Sections G.1 through G.7 of this report.
TABLE 4
EARTH PRESSURE DESIGN PARAMETERS
Design Parameter Value
Allowable Bearing Capacity for
Continuous Footings 2,000 f(l) PS
Active Pressure (level backfill) 36 pcfEFP 2
At-rest Pressure (level backfill) 58 pcf EFP 2
Passive Pressure (per foot of depth) 300 psf
Coefficient of Friction
Minimum Footing Depth(4) 12 inches
Minimum Footing Width(4)
Minimum Reinforcement
12 inches
4No. 4rebar
2 near top and 2 near
bottom of footing
Based on compliance with above earthwork recommendations;
Design values assuming a drained condition with non-expansive
materials (El less than or equal to 20) within 3 feet from the footings
and no surcharge loading conditions;
TE-USL• Ocean Estates Development Geo Inv • P2004-2204/74525 • November. 2004
12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
I
I
Passive lateral resistance may be combined with frictional resistance
provided the passive bearing component does not exceed two-thirds of
the total lateral resistance;
Wall footings should be poured "neat" against dense, well-compacted
structural fill as per placed in accordance with recommendations
stipulated in Section G.4.
H.2.3 Lateral Earth Resistance
Lateral loads against foundations may be resisted by friction between the bottom of footings and the
supporting structural fill material using a coefficient of friction of 0.35. Alternatively, an allowable
passive earth pressure of 300 psf per foot of depth (i.e., 300 pcfEFP) to a maximum lateral bearing
pressure of 2000 psf may be used provided that the footings are poured "neat" against compacted
fill materials. Frictional resistance and passive pressure may be combined, provided the passive
pressure component does not exceed two-thirds of the total lateral resistance. A one-third increase
in the lateral resistance may be considered for transient loads, such as seismic impact or wind loads.
H.3 Slabs-on-Grade
The following slab recommendations are based upon our evaluation of the existing site soils and the
assumption that the subgrade soils below the bottom of all exterior and interior slabs possess
characteristics as per stipulated in Table 3 of this report.
H.3.1 Interior Slabs
Interior slabs-on-grade may consist of conventional reinforced concrete. Interior slabs should be
a minimum 4 inches thick, and should be underlain by a moisture barrier consisting of a
minimum of 2 inches of clean sand (ie., ASTM C33 concrete sand) and 10-mil visqueen sheet. A
minimum 3-inch thick layer of free-draining coarse sand, or 4-inch gravel, crushed rock or
recycled material should further underlie moisture-sensitive slabs (below visqueen). The
capillary break materials should meet the following specifications:
Sieve Size Percent Passing
1/2-inch 100
No. 16 50-85
No. 200 <15
Sand Equivalent >30
I Minimum reinforcement should consist of 6 x 6-inch W1.4 x W1.4 welded wire mesh.
Alternatively, No. 3 rebar may be utilized, placed at 24-inch centers (both ways) and located
above mid-height within the slab section. All reinforcement will be adequately secured prior to
I concrete placement.
I
H.3.2 Exterior Slabs
We recommend that exterior slabs for walkways and patios should have an minimum thickness of 4
inches. Exterior slabs should be properly jointed to limit the number of concrete shrinkage cracks.
I For long/thin sections, such as sidewalks, expansion or control joints should be provided at spacing
TE-USL• Ocean Estates Development Geo Inv • P2004-2204/74525 • November. 2004
I 13
n
L
I
I
I
I
I
Li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I intervals equal to the width of the section. Slabs between 5 and 10 feet in minimum dimension
should have a control joint at centerline. Slabs greater than 10 feet in minimum dimension should
I have joints such that unjointed sections do not exceed 10 feet in maximum dimension. Where
flatwork adjoins structures, it is recommended that a foam joint or similar expansion material be
utilized. Joint depth and spacing should conform to the ACI recommendations.
I I. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
I.! Pavement Design
The following presents preliminary recommendations for flexible asphalt concrete (AC) pavement
I for driveways. The pavement section requirements have been based on in-situ soils encountered in
the test pits at near surface elevations and utilizing standard Caltrans pavement design procedures.
The recommendations are not intended to supersede any stricter requirements that may be imposed
I by the jurisdictional agency. If Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) driveway if preferred upon
finalization of building plans, TE-USL should be consulted for adequate PCC pavement
U
recommendations.
1.1.1 Driveways and Parking
For the purpose of preliminary pavement section design, an R-value of 30 has been estimated for
the properly compacted fill materials prepared in accordance with criteria stipulated in section G.4
of this report. The resultant Asphalt Concrete (AC) pavement section recommendations are shown
I in Table 5.
It is essential that the recommended pavement sections be reviewed and, if necessary, revised by
geotechnical engineer of TE-USL based upon additional R-value analysis of soil materials exposed
at the subgrade within the upper 2 feet of finish grade prior to the completion of site grading. It is
not unusual that, as a result of the observed variation of soil properties on-site, the pavement
sections recommended herein might become partially or fully inadequate at that time. It is also
recommended that the asphalt mixture have a minimum Viscosity Grade of AR4000. The base
materials should conform to Caltrans specifications for Class II aggregate base or the Greenbook
Standard specifications for Crushed Miscellaneous Base (200-2.4.1).
TABLE 5
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN RECOMMENDATION
Traffic Pavement Section
Index (TI) Remark
AB(2) ('inches) Ad (inches)
5.0 4 For areas of parking stalls
or alley(4)
6.0 4Ø(3) For areas of driveways or
local streets
Asphalt Concrete;
Class II Aggregate Base (AB II), Caltrans, compacted to at least 95% relative
compaction (ASTM D- 1557);
TE-USL- Ocean Estates Development Geo Inv • P2004-2204/74525 November, 2004
1 14
I
I
I
1
I
City of Carlsbad minimum requirement;
Alternatively 5 Y2" Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) pavement may be used per City of
Carlsbad minimum requirement.
Note: The upper 12-inches of subgrade soils should be compacted to at least 95% relative
compaction (ASTM D-1557).
1.1.2 Subgrade Preparation
The subgrade soils for the proposed parking and driveways, as a minimum, should be scarified to at
least a depth of 12 inches, moisture-conditioned within 2 percent of optimum, and recompacted to
at least 95 percent of the Maximum Dry Density per ASTM D-1557. Aggregate base materials
(where required) should also be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction
(ASTM 1557). All subgrade and base grade materials should be proof-rolled by heavy rubber tire
equipment to verify that the subgrade and base grade are in a non-yielding condition
1.2 Trench Backfill
Utilities should be properly bedded and backflhled with clean sand or approved granular
soil/recycled material to a depth of at least 1-foot over the pipe (eg. ASTM C-33 concrete sand).
This backfill should be uniformly watered and compacted to a firm condition around the pipe for
both vertical and lateral pipe support. For utilities within streets, the backfill within the pipe zone
and to within 3 feet of finish subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent (ASTM D-
1557). The remaining backfill from a depth of 3 feet to subgrade should be compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent. Trench excavations for utility lines located in structural or general fill and
other improvement areas should be properly backfllled and compacted to a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent (ASTM D-1557).
It is recommended that mechanical methods be utilized to compact soils on the sides of water pipes
under pressure to assure pipe stability. The remainder of the backfill may be typical on-site soil or
non-expansive import which should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, watered
or aerated to optimum moisture content, and mechanically compacted to at least 90 percent of the
maximum dry density (ASTM D-1557).
1.3 Surface Drainage
It is essential that surface drainage should be designed to collect and direct surface waters away
from the proposed structure and into approved drainage facilities. Drainage patterns approved at
the time of grading should be maintained throughout the life of the development. Irrigation system,
waterlines, sewer lines and swimming pool, if possible, should be inspected for any leakage on a
routine basis. Waterproofing system for the swimming pool or fountain, if any, should be specially
selected that maximizes the tolerance against any development of cracks.
1.4 Subsurface Drainage
Based on the site plan provided to us by the Owner and the anticipated grading work on-site,
subsurface drains are unlikely for the subject project. If any change of plan requires subsurface
TE-USL• Ocean Estates Development Geo Inv • P2004-2204/74525 . November. 2004
15
[I
I drains to be installed, they are typically placed in channels or drainages where the fill depth exceeds
5 feet. The drain system should be constructed with a 6-inch diameter perforated pipe enclosed in
I
open-graded crushed rock, which is in-turn wrapped with an approved filter fabric. The drain
should daylight from the fill to an approved outlet. The geotechnical consultant from TE-USL
should provide specific design recommendations when the limits of removal are determined.
I 1.5 Geotechnical Observation During Construction
I In addition to the special inspection and verification work required for monitoring the construction
of adjoining footings as stipulated in Section H.2.2, all earthworks should be observed and tested by
geotechnical representative from TE-USL to confirm that it proceeds in general accordance with the
I recommendations. This includes, but is not limited to evaluation of suitable materials for
controlled fills and monitoring and testing to verify that soil materials are properly placed and
compacted. Geotechnical representative from TE-USL should also confirm conditions anticipated
I by the Geotechnical Investigation and, where required, adjust designs to actual field conditions. In
addition, prior to the placement of forms, the geotechnical or Quality Control representative
reinforcing steel and concrete should review all foundation excavations in order to verify adequate
I bearing and conformance with the plans. All excavations should be trimmed neat, level and square,
with no loose debris prior to the placement of concrete.
1.6 Plan Review
Upon completion of site grading plans and foundation plans, it is essential that a geotechnical
I engineer from TE-USL review the plans and relevant specifications to verify their conformance
with the geotechnical conclusions with and recommendations presented in this report. if necessary,
I
pertinent revisions to construction documents will be suggested at that time.
1.7 Monitoring of Existing Improvements
The subject site is currently neighbored by significant surrounding existing improvements, it is
therefore advisable that an appropriate monitoring program consisting of, but not limited to, photo
I or video records, ground and object surveys, inspectional documentation, recording of meetings
with neighboring property owners/operators, installation of monitoring instrumentation and record
search of public or commercial registries, should be implemented prior to, during and subsequent to
I
the course of project construction. The purpose of this work is to limit a potential dispute or
litigation that might arise following the embarkation of the planned project.
I J. CLOSURE
J.1 Limits of Investigation
I Our investigation was performed using the skill and degree of care ordinarily exercised, under
similar circumstances, by reputable soils engineers and geologists practicing in this or similar
I localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional
advice included in this report. This report is prepared for the sole use of our client and may not be
assigned to others without the written consent of the client and TE-USL.
TE-USL- Ocean Estates Development Geo Inv • P2004-2204/74525 • November. 2004
I 16
The samples taken and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of
site conditions; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between borings, test
pits, and surface exposures. As in most major projects, conditions revealed by construction
excavations may vary with preliminary findings. If this occurs, a representative of TE-USL must
evaluate the changed conditions and adjust designs or provide alternate designs recommendations
as required.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to
the attention of the Project Architect and Design Engineer. Appropriate recommendations should
be incorporated into the structural plans. The necessary steps should be taken to see that the
contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
Testing Engineers-U S Laboratories, Inc.
TE-USL• Ocean Estates DeveloDment Geo mv • P2004-2204/74525 • November. 2004
17
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURES
-
HbO1 M
4
VA
P. ' PAC,FA ST
' # *,30 S:
f
-- ('EA r 1 4 4-AJ4 '
4 4 P A'
4 '
A
C4:Y CW OP
TA
C, CMIM
•IVY i LP
0, PAC
cqAST
IFIC
ivy RD '
Cue
VIST e PLAZA
PACKA
Ti P. ____________ P. TOAD
35,
PK
OE
32 V, CAk
)YT\AD DAT
VIt
*
R(,
P. -
F
qP FORFIT
LOR S
: T : ORD
P DR 'IVIV * .,t
S
— 4L : -:r
KNO W1
AV
I A IICPSThD /
NFii
P, CTR
GoIV A,
CA~ LS 'All A
&) 'NIKE SIRIMIG
it
P01 p 'A E5WD A'AEO
WSW
10
F A T1
NES T
RD
41
A 'A, Site LocationVIA
P
- I 4 C WA '3 P. '7\ C.4RLS8AL ,, 7 WA S . ' P. JA VIILSIOf5 c
TA 'A
BEACH pAA
CHAZEE
ô
VI
A
Si
• 1
'"-
0 0.25 05 lOin
SCALE
1 inch = 0.5 mile
Reference: 2004 Thomas Guide
(Testing Engineers- U.S. Labs Inc.
- 7895 Convoy court, Suite 18
I San Diego, CA 92111 Th .-w.ii. Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810
Site Location Map
Ocean Estates Project
Contract No. 74525 1 Figure No. 1
Beech Street
'/7/
buse,/
Q)
4-1 U)
0 10 20 JU 6011
GRAPHIC SCALE
1=30
- Boring Location (approx.)
B-3
NOTE This figure may contain areas of color TE-U S Labs cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information result-
ing from black and white reproductions of this figure
Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs
7895 Convoy Ccurt, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Title: Plot Plan
Project. Ocean Estates Project
Drwn: Contract No MM 74525
Date: November, 2004 Figure No: 2
Ref Digital Database of Geologic Map at California," California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology
0 1 2 5 10 20 miles
SCALE
1=10 miles
NOTE: This figure may contain areas of color. I
TE-U.S. Labs cannot be responsible for any sub-
sequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black and white reproductions of /
this figure.
SYMBOLS
Geologic Boundary
- - - Fault traces, solid when well located, dashed when approximately located,
dotted when concealed
Upthrow, Downihrow side
Arrows indicated relative or apparent direction at lateral movement
Arrows indicate direction of dip
Thrust and fault
'< Regional strike and dip
Anircirne
Syncline
* Volcano or cinder cone
Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Title. Regional Geologic Map
Project Ocean Estates Project
Drwn Contract No MM 74525
Date November, 2004 Figure No 3
GEOLOGIC LEGEND
All cvi urn lake yr eva jr iii terrace deposits U Oc onsol slated , r 1
Q semi-consolidated Mostly nonmarine hut includes marine
deposits near the coast
Sandstone siltstooi-. .1 a ,i r ci onglomeiate rr oct IL wider-
M ately cemented
0
O
L
Sandstone. shale cc rig r rr r r ti ccc fur cii ill-rate iii rirerately
iI to well consolidated
0 Sandstone, shale, conglomerate moderately to well consolidat-
ed
Shale, sandstone, conglomerate, minor limestone, mostly well
F consolidated
Undivided Mesozoic volcanic and metavolcanic rocks Andesite
7'l17v 'rid rhyolile flow rocks greenstone, volcanic breccia and other
vroclastrc rocks in part strongly metamorphosed
LrM
Mesozoic granite quart o 0i1 zoo te grariodrc i ii arid quart
Irririle
UShale sandstone. minor conglomerate. chert limestone. minor J pyroclastic rocks
0
5 Granitic and metamorphic rocks mostly gneiss aria other mete-
g-n1 morphic rocks injected by granitic rocks Mesozoic to
' Precambrian
Gabhro and dark droritic rocks. chiefly Mesozoic
Schists of various types, mostly Paleozoic or Mesozoic age,
sch some Precambrian.
I lnrfivided pre-Cenn7nir'. metasedimentary and metajrnloarrrr'
m rocks of great variety Mostly slate. quartzite homtels chert
phyllite, mylonite, schist, grieiss, and minor marble
0
02
04
C
IL 0
LU m 0.6
06
10
0
.TTEf
7
LINE LI IN
L
LOAD
Ph hP
O7 0.48 H
02 04 06 08
VALUE OF h ()
I I I I I
N
POINT
- LOAD -, -
8 () -
- m
02 0.78 0.59H
/ - - 04 078 0.59H
/ ---- 03
-
045 0.48H I,
I I
1.0 0 05 10 1.5 2.0
VALUE OF m8 (O2
H2
)
POINT LOAD Op
4
x=mH
Zfi1
Ph
H
FOR mS 04
rp
I H2\ 0 28 n2
:ii Ii \O (016 r12)3
OCR 11 > 04
(H25 177m2n2 uh )m2 + 12)3
h cos 2)1 10
:~Qlh' DID
S
/ x=lrH
SECTION a —a
PRESSURE FROM POINT LOAD 0
)BOUSSINESQ EQUATION MODIFIED BY EXPERIMENT)
LINE LOAD °L
4
FOR m 3 04
0201 , ----1"" uh 0 16
H
/
Ph FOR m 04
PH6 55 0L
1 28 m2n
h (UL ) (m2 + 32)2
RESULTANT PH = 0640L
+ 1)
PRESSURE FROM LINE LOAD 0L
)BOUSSINESQ EQUATION MODIFIED BY EXPERIMENT)
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
Ref Navfac. DM 7.02, Chapter 3, Analysis of Walls and Retaining
Structures Figure 11, Horizontal Pressures on Rigid Wall from
Surface Loads, pg. 7.2.74, September, 1986.
NOTE This figure 11105 Contain areas of Color TE-U S Labs cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the Information result-
ing from black and white reproductions of this figure
.0. Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
__ San Diego, CA 92111 ____
Title: Lateral Surcharge Loads
Project. Ocean Estates Project
Drwn: Contract No:
MM 74525
Date: November, 2004 Figure No: 4
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 1998, Documentation for Egsearch and Egfault Versions 2.20 Update, Thomas
F. Blake Computer Services and Software, Newbury Park, California, p. 79 and appendices.
Blake, T.F., 2000a, EOSEARCH, Version 3.00a, A Computer Program for the Estimation
of Peak Horizontal Acceleration From Southern California Historical Earthquake Catalogs,
Users Manual, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software, Newbury Park,
California, 94.pp., with updated data, 2000 Version 4.0.
Blake, T.F., 2000b, EOFAULT, Version 3.00B, A Computer Program for the Deterministic
Prediction of Peak Horizontal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, Users Manual,
Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software, Newbury Park, California, 77pp.
Blake, T.F., 2000c, FRISKSP, Version 4.00, A Computer Program for Determining the
Probabilistic Horizontal Acceleration, Users Manual, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services
and Software, Newbury Park, California, 99pp.
Blake, T.F., 2000d, UBCSEIS, Version 1.00, A Computer Program for Evaluating the
Seismic Parameters in accordance with the 1997 UBC, Users Manual, Thomas F. Blake
Computer Services and Software, Newbury Park, California, 53pp.
Bonilla, M.G., 1970, Surface Faulting and Related Effects, in Wiegel, R. L., Earthquake
Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p. 47-74.
Cao, T., Bryant, W.A., Rowshandel, B., Branum, D., and Wills, C.J., June 2003, The
Revised 2002 California Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Maps, California Geological Survey.
I
9. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alguist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act of
1972, Special Publication 42, California Department of Conservation, Division of mines
and Geology, Revised 1994.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1994, NE}IIRP Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Washington D.C., FEM 222A
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997, NIEHRP Recommended Provisions f
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures, Washington D.C., FEM 302
Federal Highway Administration, 2002, Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties,
Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, Washington, DC, 385 pp.
Foundations and Earth Structures Design Manual 7.2 (Navfac DM-7.2), 1982, Department
of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
Hunt, R.E., 1986, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Manual, New York, NY,
McGraw-Hill, 983 p.
REFERENCES (Continued)
Hunt, R.E., 1984, Geotechnical Engineering Techniques and Practices, New York, NY,
McGraw-Hill, 729 p.
Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas, California
Division of Mines and Geology, Map No. 6, Scale 1:750,000.
Lee, K.L., and Albaisa, A., 1974, Earthquake Induced Settlements in Saturated Sands,
ASCE, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 100, No. GT4, pp.387-406.
Peterson, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M., Frankel, A.D.,
Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment for the State of California, California Department of Conservation, Division of
Mines and Geology, Open-File Report 96-706.
Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E., 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations for I Earthquakes: California Geology, v. 27, No. 9, pp. 195-199.
I 20. Proceedings, Seminar on New Developments in Earthquake Ground Motion Estimation and
Implications for Engineering Design Practice, January 1994, Applied Technology Council
and U.S. Geologic Survey, Redwood City, CA, 18 Chapters.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M., and Arango, I., 1983, Evaluation of Liquefaction Potential Using
Field Performance Data, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 3, p.
1 458-482.
Soil Mechanics Design Manual 7.1 (Navfac DM-7.1), 1982, Department of the Navy, Naval
I Facilities Engineering Command, p. 347.
Tokimatsu, A.M. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to
I Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, p. 861-
878.
I 24. Uniform Building Code, 1997 Edition: Whittier, CA, International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
Urbitecture Platform, 2004, Site Plot Plan, no-scale, dated June 14, 2004.
Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, Earthquakes, Ouatemary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California,
1 Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, pp. 2587-2631.
Winterkorn, H.F., and Fang, H.Y., 1976, Foundation Engineering Handbook: New York,
I NY, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 751 p.
I
I
APPENDIX B
BORING LOGS
DATE DRILLED 7/22/04 BORING NO. BI
o GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF
A METHOD DRILLING lngersol-RandA-300
5 LOGGED BY CM DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30 inches I
0 W 75 02
(I) Cl)
0 DESCRIPTION
T , SM ALLUVIUM:
:Iji. Silty SAND
--- - - - - 1 Light brown, damp, loose. Fine grained, non-plastic, rootlets in upper 6-inches.
\At1'becornesrnediurndense.j
. . SAND -
29 2.8 104.1 Light brown, damp, medium dense.
. .. Fine grained, non-plastic. -
1.5
SM TERRACE DEPOSiTS:
21 Silty SAND
Light orange brown, damp, medium dense. -
- Very fine to fine grained, slightly porous, slightly friable.
10Q..
P-SI Silty SAND to SAND
-
73 6.1 108.0 : Becomes very dense moist, contains specs of dark manganese.
-
15-4.6 -
-
- Al Becomes dense, damp, fine to medium grained.
-. 30
SP SAND
- Off-white to light gray, damp, dense.
47 Fine grained (salt and pepper appearance), contains thin layers of light orange-red rust -
- staining.
20
Total Depth = 20.0 feet
Groundwater not encountered
- Backfilled on 7/22/2004 - -
5 25 t7:6 n --
BORING LOG
Testing Engineers-San Diego Ocean Estates Project
Carlsbad, California
PROJECT NO. REPORT DATE FIGURE
74525 November, 2004 A-I
Di
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Z DATE DRILLED 7/22/04 BORING NO. B3 C.)
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF
METHOD DRILLING Ingersol-Rand A-300 U)
>- LOGGED BY CM DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30 inches Cl) U)
0 0 DESCRIPTION
SM ALLUVIUM:
Silty SAND
Yellow-brown, dry to damp, loose. Scattered rootlets in upper 6 inches.
- I -
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: 35 4.6 104.7 Silty SAND X. Light brown, damp, dense. Fine grained, slightly friable, weakly cemented. - -
Becomes light orange-brown, slightly porous. 16
10- 3.0 : Becomes very dense, weakly cemented, friable. 71 6.6 109.9
Total Depth = 11.0 feet
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled on 7/22/2004 -
- -
15-4.6
20 6.1
BORING LOG
Testing Engineers-San Diego Ocean Estates Project
Carlsbad, California
_
PROJECT NO. REPORT DATE FIGURE
74525 November, 2004 A-3
DATE DRILLED 7/22/04 BORING NO. B2
b è. GROUND ELEVATION SHEET 1 OF
METHOD DRILLING Ingersol-RandA-300 I Cl) 3 (1)
5 LOGGED BY CM DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30 inches I (1)
DESCRIPTION
SM ALLUVIUM:
Silty SAND
Brown, damp to moist, loose. Scattered rootlets in upper 6 inches. - - -
At 2' becomes medium dense.
Becomes light orange-brown, becomes moist.
- 20
1.5
SM TERRACE DEPOSITS: 27 6.7 114.5
. Silty SAND S. Light orange-brown, moist, medium dense. - -
-
phi=391, C0
SP SAND:
3.0 :. Light orange brown to light brown, damp, medium dense.
10 Fine grained.
25
Total Depth = 11.5 feet
Groundwater not encountered -
-
Backflled on 7/22/2004
20.6-1
LI
I) U
25 7.6
BORING LOG
Testing Engineers-San Diego Ocean Estates Project
Carlsbad, California
PROJECT NO. REPORT DATE FIGURE
74525 November, 2004 A-2
I
I
I
Li
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LI
I
I
I
I
I
[1
0 C
C C
C
a C a
I
ii—I
III
b
CO D
C
0
()
0
C/)
Z
5 C/)
DATE DRILLED 7/22/04 BORING NO. B4
GROUND ELEVATION SHEET I OF
METHOD DRILLING Ingersol-Rand A-300
LOGGED BY CM DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30 inches
DESCRIPTION
10
15
15
32
20
49
20
6.8
3.7
116.3
-----...
101.8
T.
Al
:
.;P-SN
SM
--- SP
ALLUVIUM (El =1):
Silty SAND
Light brown, damp, loose.
At 2' becomes damp to moist, medium dense, fine grained.
Becomes moist, slightly friable, slightly porous.
TERRACE DEPOSITS:
Silty SAND/SAND
Light orange-brown to light brown, damp, medium dense.
Fine grained, slightly micaceous.
-- -- SAND
Off-white to yellow brown (salt & pepper appearance), damp, medium dense. Fine
grained, non-plastic, contains specs of dark manganese, some light orange-brown rust
staining.
Becomes fine to coarse grained, clean sand.
- - -
1.5 -
-
3 0
- -
- -
-
-
20i__
-
Total Depth = 20.0 feet
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled on 7/22/2004 -
-
252-----
Testing Engineers-San Diego
p . .
. O BORING LOG
Ocean Estates Project
Carlsbad, California
PROJECT NO.
74525
REPORT DATE
November, 2004
FIGURE
A-4
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
I LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
LABORATORY TESTING PROGRAM
Laboratory tests were performed on representative soil samples to determine their relative
engineering properties. Tests were performed in accordance with test methods of the American
Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief
description of the various test methods used.
Classification - Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS). Visual classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples in
accordance with ASTM D2487. The soil classifications are shown on the Exploration Logs,
Appendix B.
Consolidation - Consolidation tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 2435 to
determine the magnitude and rate of consolidation of soil when restrained laterally and drained
axially while subjected to incrementally applied controlled-stress loading. The test results are
provided herein.
Direct Shear - In order to determine geotechnical strength parameters, a direct shear test was
performed on a remolded ring sample in accordance with ASTM D 3080. The test results are
provided herein.
Expansion Index - Expansion tests were performed on representative samples of the on-site soils,
which were remolded, surcharged 144 pounds per square foot, and submerged in accordance with
Uniform Building Code Standard No. 18-2. The test results are summarized in the following
tables.
In-situ Density and Moisture - The, density of soils was determined utilizing conventional laboratory
techniques from intact "ring" samples obtained from California split-spoon sampler. The moisture
content of selected intact and bulk samples was determined in accordance with ASTM test D-2216.
The dry density and moisture content values are indicated on the attached Exploration Logs,
Appendix B.
Particle Size Analysis - Particle size analyses were performed on selected representative samples in
accordance with ASTM D422. The results are presented in the following tables.
Soil Corrosivity - Soluble sulfate, chloride, resistively and pH tests were performed in
accordance with California Test Methods 417, 422 and 643 to assess the degree of corrosivity of
the subgrade soils with regard to concrete and normal grade steel. The test results are provided
herein.
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
Ii]
I
I
I
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
RESULTS OF PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
(ASTM D-422)
U.S. Standard Percent Passing
B-3 @ Sieve Size
3/8" 100
#4 100
#10 100
#20 99
#40 79
#60 42
#100 26
#200 18
IL UScS sPIsC 11
RESULTS OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST
(ASTM D3080)
Sample Location Friction Angle (degees) Cohesion (ksf)
B3@2* 39 0
* Undisturbed Ring Sample
RESULTS OF EXPANSION INDEX TESTS
(UBC NO. 18-2)
Sample Location Expansion Index Expansion Potential
B-3@1' 1 very low
RESULTS OF IN-SITU DENSITY AND MOISTURE TESTS
(ASTM D-2216)
Sample
Location
Moisture Content
(%)
Dry Density
(pcf)
B-i @2' 2.8 104.1
B-i @ 10' 6.1 108.0
B-2@5' 6.7 114.5
B-3 @ 2' 4.6 104.7
B-3 @ 10' 6.6 109.9
B-4@5' 6.8 116.3
B-4@15' 3.7 101.8
RESULTS OF SOIL CORROS1VITY TESTS
Sulfate Chloride Resistivity*** pHVa1ue*** /
Sample Content* Content** (OHM-cm) /
Location (r,r,rn)/ (ppm)! Degree of
Degree of
Acidity Degree of Degree of Corrosivity
Corrosivity Corrosivity
B-i @ 1 4 / negligible 140 / low to
moderate 3 847/ moderate 5.42/ mildly
acidic
* California Test Method 417
** California Test Method 422
California Test Method 643
Soil Consolidation
10 100
Boring No.: B-4
Depth: 4'
Soil Classification (USCS): SM
NOTE This figure may contain areas of color. TE-U,S. Labs cannot be
responsible for any subsequent misinterpretation of the information result-
ing from black and white reproductions of this figure.
I
I
I
I
I.
U
1
01
I
U 2=
I
I
Ci) 6 -
I 8-
I
I
101
I 0.1
I
I
I
Vertical Stree (ksf)
Testing Engineers - U.S. Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Title: Consolidation Test Results
Project: Ocean Estates Project
Drwn: MM Contract No: 74525
Date: November, 2004 Figure No: B-i
...........'............ ...—.......—..—....... ••••uu•uuu•••aimu•••i•a ............mu..-.....-.......u.........—,..... •••U•IRIlU•••••••U•U•• ••••••••••••••••u•••••• ii•••••iiiuuuu••••••• •••••••••ii•uu•••u•••i•• ....................—.. ..........,...—........
......—............... •••iuuuuu•uu•u•••u•u •••••••••••••••••••••u •••u•iuuuuu•ii•i••iii
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX D
SEISMIC DATA
I
I
I
I
I
I
U
I
H
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 Site Coordinates: Longitude W -117.35350
Latitude N 33.16020
Project Site Soil Classification: Alluvium
TABLE OF DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS
(CGS Probabilistic Analvsis)
Soil Type
Design
Acceleration
Firm Rock(" Soft Rock"2 Alluvium(2)
PGA (3) 0.29 0.31 0.34
S. (0.2 second)(4 0.67 0.72 0.82
S. (1.0 second)(4 0.26 0.33 0.41
Classified by NEHRP (FEMA, 1997) as rocks having a shear wave velocity no less than 760 meters per second.
Modification factors from PGA reflecting local site soils conditions are per NEFIRP (FEMA, 1997), which are
ground acceleration-dependent.
Per Cao et al.(2003), it is defined as the peak ground acceleration for the subject site that carries a 10% probability
of being exceeded in 50 years.
Spectra acceleration derived from respective PGA with a 5% damping ratio incorporated.
(FRISKSP Probabilistic Analysis)
Model
Design Boore e (199 7) Campbell &
(2) Sadigh et aL (199 7) '3)
Acceleration Bozorgnia (1997)
PGA 0.30 0.29 0.27
For soils having a shear wave velocity of 310 ft/sec.
For alluvium soils.
For deep soils.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * SUMMARY
---------------------------
OF FAULT PARAMETERS
* U B C S E I S *
* Version 1.03 *
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I APPROX.SOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT
* * ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAO. I RATE I TYPE
FAULT NAME I (km) (A,B,C) (Mw) I (mm/yr)
I
(SS.DS,BT)
COMPUTATION OF 1997 NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore)
I
7.1 I B 6.9 I 1.50 I ES
UNIFORM BUILDING CODE ROSE CANYON 7.2 I B I 6.9 I 1.50 SE
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS CORONADO BARK 33.2 B 7.4 I 3.00 I 55
ELSINORE-TEMECULA 39.3 B I 6.8 I 5.00 I ES
ELSINORE-JULIAN I 39.8 A j 7.1 5.00 ES
JOB NUMBER: 2004-2204 DATE: 08-03-2004 ELSINORE-GLEN IVY I 537 B I 6.8 5.00 I ES
PALOS VERDES 56.0 B 7.1 3.00 I SE
JOB NAME: Ocean Pacific P EARTHQUAKE VALLEY I 71.9 B 6.5 2.00 I ES
NEWPORT-INGLEW000 (L.A.Basin) 72.5 B 6.9 I 1.00 SS
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.OAT CHINO-CENTRAL AVE. (Elsinore) I 75.3 B 6.7 1.00 DS
SAN JACINTO-ARZA j 75.6 A 7.2 I 12.00 55
SITE COORDINATES: SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY 76.2 j B 6.9 I 12.00 I SE
SITE LATITUDE: 33.1602 ELSINORE-WHITTIER I 81.5 B 6.8 I 2.50 I SE
SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3535 EAR JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK I 85.3 B 6.8 I 4.00 I 55
ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN 94.8 B 6.8 4.00 SE
USC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4 EAR JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO 95.7 B 6.7 I 12.00 SE
SAN ANDREAS - Southern 104.5 I A I 7.4 I 24.00 j ES
USC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SD SAN JACINTO - BORREGO 108.0 B 6.6 I 4.00 ES
SAN JOSE 108.6 I B 6.5 0.50 I OS
NEAREST TYPE A FAULT: CUCAX4ONGA I 112.8 A I 7.0 5.00 I OS
NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN SIERRA MADRE (Central) 112.9 I B 7.0 3.00 05
DISTANCE: 39.8 km PINTO MOUNTAIN 115.8 I B I 7.0 I 2.50 I 55
NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West) I 122.3 B I 7.0 I 1.00 I OS
NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: CLEGHORN 124.2 B 6.5 I 3.00 55
NAME: NEWPORT-INGLEW000 (Offshore) BURNT MTN. 126.1 B 6.5 I 0.60 SE
DISTANCE: 7.1 km RAYMOND 127.3 B 6.5 I 0.50 DS
CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT I 128.0 B 6.5 I 0.50 DS
NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: EAR ANDREAS - 1857 Rupture j 129.0 A 7.8 I 34.00 55
NAME: EUREKA PEAR J 130.5 B j 6.5 I 0.60 I SE
DISTANCE: 99999.0 km NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) I 131.1 B 6.7 I 0.50 05
VERDUGO 131.2 B 6.7 I 0.50 I 05
SELECTED USC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: HOLLYWOOD I 134.3 B 6.5 I 1.00 05
Na: 1.0 SUPERSTITION MYW. (San Jacinto) I 134.5 I B 6.6 I 5.00 I SE
NV: 1.1 ELMORE RANCH 140.3 B 6.6 1.00 I ES
Ca: 0.44 LANDERS I 141.6 B 7.3 0.60 I 55
CV: 0.71 NELENDALE - S. LOCKHARDT I 141.9 B 7.1 I 0.60 I 55
Ts: 0.649 SANTA MONICA I 141.9 I B 6.6 I 1.00 I DE
To: 0.130 SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto) I 142.0 B 6.6 I 4.00 ES
ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA I 145.3 B 7.0 I 3.50 I SE
MALIBU COAST I 146.3 I B I 6.7 0.30 DE
* CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are * LENW000-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS I 148.6 B 7.3 0.60 55
* limited in number and have been digitized from small- * SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) I 152.0 B I 6.7 2.00 05
* scale maps (e.g.. 1:750,000 scale). Consequently. * JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) I 153.9 B 6.7 0.60 I SE
* the estimated fault-site-distances may be in error by * BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE 154.7 B 6.5 25.00 I 55
* several kilometers. Therefore: it is important that * ANACAPA-DUME I 154.9 I B j 7.3 I 3.00 DS
* the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and * SAN GABRIEL I 155.0 I B 7.0 1.00 I ES
* adjusted as needed, before they are used in design. *
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - It
--------------------------- ---------------------------
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT I APPROX.SOURCE I MAX. I SLIP FAULT
ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I MAG. I RATE I TYPE ABBREVIATED IDISTANCEI TYPE I WAG. I RATE TYPE
FAULT NAME I (kin) (A,B,C) I (Mw) I )mm/yr) (SS,DS,BT) FAULT NAME I (kin) I (A,B.C) I (MW) I (mm/yr) I (SS,DS,BT)
EMERSON SO. - COPPER MTN. 155.0 B 6.9 I 0.60 I SS DEATH VALLEY (N. of Cucamongo) I 462.7 A 7.0 5.00 I SS
PISGAN-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK 165.6 B 7.1 0.60 I SS ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) 469.1 B I 6.8 I 1.00 I OS
CALICO - HIDALGO 167.5 B 7.1 I 0.60 I SS FISH SLOUGH I 477.0 B I 6.6 0.20 OS
SANTA SUSANA I 167.5 B 6.6 I 5.00 OS HILTON CREEK 495.1 I B 6.7 I 2.50 I OS
IMPERIAL J 168.3 A 7.0 I 20.00 SS ORTIGALITA 519.1 B 6.9 1.00 I SS
HOLSER I 176.4 B I 6.5 I 0.40 I OS HARTLEY SPRINGS I 519.4 B j 6.6 I 0.50 05
SIMI-SANTA ROSA 184.0 B I 6.7 I 1.00 OS CALAVERAS )So.of Calaveras Res) I 524.6 B 6.2 I 15.00 SS
OAK RIDGE (Onshore) j 184.8 B 6.9 I 4.00 05 MONTEREY BAY - TULARCITOS 527.3 B 7.1 I 0.50 OS
SAN CAYETANO 193.2 B 6.8 I 6.00 I OS PALO COLORADO - SUM I 528.3 I B 7.0 I 3.00 I SS
GRAVEL HILLS - HARPER LAKE I 194.6 I B 6.9 I 0.60 55 QUIEN SABE I 537.8 I B 6.5 I 1.00 I SS
BLACKWATER 209.6 B 6.9 I 0.60 SS MONO LAKE 555.3 B 6.6 I 2.50 I OS
VENTURA - PITAS POINT I 212.3 B I 6.8 1.00 I OS ZAYANTE-VERGELES 556.4 B 6.8 I 0.10 I SS
SANTA YNEZ (East) I 212.9 B j 7.0 2.00 I 55 SAN ANDREAS (1906) 561.6 A 7.9 24.00 I ss
SANTA CRUZ ISLAND I 221.4 I B 6.8 I 1.00 OS SARGENT I 561.7 B I 6.8 I 3.00 SS
M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA AMA I 222.9 B 6.7 0.40 OS ROBINSON CREEK 586.6 B 6.5 I 0.50 I OS
RED MOUNTAIN I 226.3 B 6.8 I 2.00 OS SAN GREGORIO I 602.7 A I 7.3 5.00 I SS
OARLOCK (West) 229.3 A 7.1 I 6.00 55 GREENVILLE 611.4 B 6.9 I 2.00 I SS
PLEITO THRUST 234.6 B 6.8 2.00 I OS MONTE VISTA - SHANNON 611.8 I B 6.5 I 0.40 I OS
BIG PINE 240.4 I B I 6.7 0.80 I 55 HAYWARD (SE Extension) j 611.9 B 6.5 I 3.00 I SS
GARLOCK (East) 244.3 A 7.3 I 7.00 I SS ANTELOPE VALLEY I 626.9 B 6.7 I 0.80 I OS
WHITE WOLF 255.2 B 7.2 2.00 05 HAYWARD (Total Length) I 631.6 j A 7.1 9.00 I 55
SANTA ROSA ISLAND 256.3 B 6.9 I 1.00 I OS CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) 631.6 B 6.8 6.00 SE
SANTA YNEZ (West) 258.2 I B 6.9 I 2.00 SS GENOA j 652.2 B I 6.9 I 1.00 05
So. SIERRA NEVADA 268.8 I B 7.1 I 0.10 OS CONCORD - GREEN VALLEY j 679.3 B 6.9 6.00 I SS
LITTLE LAKE I 273.8 B 6.7 j 0.70 I SS RODGERS CREEK I 718.1 A I 7.0 I 9.00 55
OWL LAKE I 275.6 B 6.5 I 2.00 I SS WEST NAPA 719.0 B I 6.5 I 1.00 I 55
PANAMINT VALLEY 275.8 I B 7.2 I 2.50 I SS POINT REYES 737.0 B I 6.8 0.30 OS
TANK CANYON J 276.1 B j 6.5 I 1.00 05 HUNTING CREEK - BERRYESSA 741.4 j B 6.9 I 6.00 SS
DEATH VALLEY (South) 285.4 B 6.9 I 4.00 I SS MAACAMP. (South) 780.8 B 6.9 I 9.00 SS
LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE I 300.6 I B 6.8 I 0.70 I OS COLLAYOMI I 797.7 I B I 6.5 I 0.60 I ss
LIONS HEAD I 318.1 B 6.6 I 0.02 I OS BARTLETT SPRINGS I 801.2 A 7.1 I 6.00 I ss
DEATH VALLEY (Graben) I 325.9 I B 6.9 I 4.00 I OS MAACAMA (Central) I 822.4 A 7.1 9.00 I SS
SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin) I 327.7 B 7.0 I 0.20 I OS MAACAMP. (North) I 882.0 A 7.1 I 9.00 I SS
SAN JUAN I 328.2 B 7.0 1.00 I SS ROUND VALLEY (N. S.F.Bay) I 888.1 I B I 6.8 6.00 I SS
CASMALIA )Orcutt Frontal Fault) I 336.1 I B I 6.6 0.25 I DS BATTLE CREEK I 911.8 B 6.5 I 0.50 I OS
OWENS VALLEY I 342.0 I B I 7.6 I 1.50 ES LAKE MOUNTAIN I 946.6 I B I 6.7 I 6.00 I SS
LOS OSOS I 357.7 I B I 6.8 0.50 I OS GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 963.7 B 6.9 .I 9.00 I SS
HOSGRI I 363.8 I B 7.3 2.50 55 MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE I 1019.9 A 7.4 I 35.00 I OS
HUNTER MTN. - SALINE VALLEY I 368.9 5 7.0 I 2.50 I SS LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1026.6 I A 7.0 I 5.00 OS
INDEPENDENCE I 377.9 I B I 6.9 0.20 I OS MAD RIVER I 1029.4 I B I 7.1 I 0.70 I OS
RINCONADA 378.6 B j 7.3 I 1.00 I SS CASCADIA SUBDUTION ZONE I 1033.6 A 8.3 35.00 OS
DEATH VALLEY (Northern) I 379.2 I A I 7.2 I 5.00 I Ss McKINLEYVILLE I 1039.8 I B I 7.0 I 0.60 I OS
BIRCH CREEK 434.1 I B I 6.5 I 0.70 OS TRINIDAD 1041.4 B I 7.3 I 2.50 OS
SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) 434.7 B 5.0 I 34.00 I ss FICKLE HILL I 1041.8 B 6.9 I 0.60 I OS
WHITE MOUNTAINS I 438.7 I B 7.1 1.00 I SS TABLE BLUFF 1047.2 I B I 7.0 0.60 I OS
DEEP SPRINGS I 457.3 I B 6.6 I 0.80 I OS LITTLE SALMON (Offshore) I 1060.5 I B 7.1 I 1.00 I OS