HomeMy WebLinkAboutMS 05-08; GARFIELD HOMES; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION UPDATE; 2005-06-23TE-USL
U.S. LA BS
RECORD COPY
~ ~f.1>lb]
Initial Date
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
INVESTIGATION
Fo r the Proposed
Garfield Street Residential
Development
3 981 Garfield Street
Carlsbad, Ca lifornia
Prepared for:
Urbitecture Platform
1761 Hotel Circle South, Suite 350
San Diego, California 92108
Prepared by :
Testing Engineers -U S Laboratories, Inc.
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, California 92111
Contract No. 74523
November 15, 2004
Urbitecture Platform
1761 Hotel Circle South, Suite 350
San Diego, CA 92108
June 23, 2005
Contract No.: 74523
Attention:
Subject:
Project:
Mr. Jorge Osorno
Geotechnical Investigation Update
Proposed Garfield Street Residential Development
3981 Garfield Street
Carlsbad, California
References: 1. "Geotechnical Engi,neering Investigation", Proposed Garfield Street
Residential Development, by TE-USL, Contract No. 74523, dated November
15, 2004.
2. "Second Review of Minor Subdivision, MS 05-08 for completeness and
initial issues (Garfield Project, APN 206-013-19), by City of Carlsbad, dated
June 6, 2005.
Dear Mr. Osorno:
Pursuant to our review of Reference No. 2 above, included herein is the requested update
for the above project site ..
Based on our review it is concluded that the proposed basement and below grade carports
are geotechnically feasible provided the recommendations contained in Reference No. 1 are
incorporated into the design and planning, as well as implemented during construction, (i.e.
H.2.2. Allowable Bearing Capacity, page 13, Table 4).
TE-USL appreciates the opportunity to provide geotechnical services for this project and
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 be::l~o====~
~~afcSSia,v~ ~ ~~tl OLJN '< ~ ~ ~ (;; ~
Smcerely,
Testing Engineers -US Laboratories, Inc.
/-6 G ~
::0
Van W. Olin, GE Aaron Portilla
Staff Engineer Principal Geotechnica ngmeer
Distribution: ( 1) Addressee
(3) Alta Consultants (Beth Reiter); fax: 858.581.6138
* Includes copy for City of Carlsbad submitted.
T:\Geotechnical FileslProjects\Contract Numbers\74523 \Update Letter.doc
7895 Convoy Court. Suite 18
San Diego, California 92 111
(858) 715-5800 • Fax: (858) 715-58 10
Testing Engineers -U.S. Laboratories
41146 Elm Street. Suite A
Murrieta, California 92562
(95 1) 677-0366 • Fax: (95 1) 677-576 1
820 Research Drive. Suite 2
Palm Springs. California 92262
(760) 325-8378 • Fax: (760) 325-7-180
Offices Nationwide
2001 East First Street
Santa Ana. California 92705
(714) 568-7300 • Fax: (7 14) 66-1-0252
Urbitecture Platform
1761 Hotel Circle South, Suite 350
San Diego, CA 92108
November 15, 2004
Proposal No. P2004-2206
Contract No.: 74523
Subject: GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION
Project: Proposed Garfield Street Residential Development
3981 Garfield Street
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 3981 Garfield Street in Carlsbad, California. The attached report discusses the earthwork
construction and foundation design aspects of the project, along with other recommendations for
site development.
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
incorporated into the design and planning as well as implemented during construction.
TE-USL appreciates the opportunity to provide geotechnical services for this important project. We
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.
Distribution: ( 6) addressee
IE2004-2206/74523
r(!J' { '( i y,, fo,
Mehrzad Maghsoudlou
Staff Engineering Geologist
Testing Engineers -U .. '. Laboratories
7X'i'i (",>11\tl) Cllul'I. 'iuilc IX • Sa11 i)1ci-'o. C.1 li1'(,rn1 a ')2 111 • 1X:'iX1 7 1:'i--i};()II • hi\. 1X"iX1 l ;,-:'it:111
<)nice, >ial!ll1111 1dc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. INTRODUCTION
A.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 1
A.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 1
A.3 Scope of Services .............................................................................................................. 1
B. PROJECTBACKGROUND
B.1 Site Description ................................................................................................................. 1
B.2 Proposed Development ..................................................................................................... 2
C. SITE INVESTIGATION
C. l Field Exploration ............................................................................................................... 3
C.2 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................................ 3
D. GEOLOGY
D.1 Geologic Setting ................................................................................................................ 3
D.2 Soil Stratigraphy ................................................................................................................ 3
D.2.1 Topsoil ..................................................................................................................... 3
D.2.2 Pleistocene-Aged Alluvial-Fan Deposits ................................................................ 3
D.2.3 Groundwater ............................................................................................................ 4
E. SEISMICITY
E.1 Regional Seismicity ........................................................................................................... 4
E.2 Seismic Analysis ................................................................................................................ 4
E.2.1 Seismic Design ......................................................................................................... 4
E.3 Seismic Hazard Assessment .............................................................................................. 5
E.3.1 Surface Fault Rupture ............................................................................................... 5
E.3.2 Seismically-Induced Settlement ............................................................................... 5
ti
E.3.2 Liquefaction .............................................................................................................. 6
E.3.4 Landsliding ............................................................................................................... 6
E.3.5 Tsunamis and Seiches .............................................................................................. 6
E.4 Earthquake Design Parameters .......................................................................................... 6
F. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
F.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 7
F.2 Compressible Soils ............................................................................................................ 7
F.3 Expansive Soils .................................................................................................................. 8
F.4 Soil Corrosivity ................................................................................................................. 8
F.5 Excavation Feasibility ........................................................................................................ 8
G. GRADING AND EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
G. l General .............................................................................................................................. 9
G.2 Clearing and Grubbing ...................................................................................................... 9
G.3 Engineered Improvement of Soils .................................................................................... 9
G.4 Method and Criteria of Compaction ............................................................................... 10
G.5 Transition between Cut and Fill ...................................................................................... 11
-
G.6 Temporary Slopes and Cuts ............................................................................................ 11
G. 7 Lateral Pressures ................................................................................. 11
G.8 Erosion and Siltation ....................................................................................................... 12
H. FOUNDATION AND SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
H.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 12
H.2 Structure Foundations ..................................................................................................... 13
H.2.1 Footing Dimensions and Reinforcement.. ............................................................. 13
H.2.2 Allowable Bearing Capacity .................................................................................. 13
H.2.3 Lateral Earth Resistance ........................................................................................ 13
H.3 Slabs-on-Grade ................................................................................................................ 14
H.3.1 Interior Slabs .......................................................................................................... 14
H.3.2 Exterior Slabs ......................................................................................................... 14
I. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
1.1 Free-Standing Boundary Block Walls .............................................................................. 15
1.2 Pavement Design .............................................................................................................. 15
1.2.1 Driveways, Loading/Unloading Bays, Firelane and Parking .................................. 15
1.2.2 Sub grade Preparation ............................................................................................... 15
1.3 Trench Backfill ................................................................................................................. 16
1.4 Surface Drainage ............................................................................................................... 17
1.5 Subsurface Drainage ......................................................................................................... 17
1.6 Geotechnical Observation during Construction ............................................................... 17
I. 7 Plan Review ....................................................................................... 17
1.8 Monitoring of Existing Improvements ........................................................ .17
J. CLOSURE
J.1 Limits oflnvestigation ..................................................................................................... 18
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Site Location Map
Figure 2 -Plot Plan
Figure 3 -Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4 -Lateral Surcharge Loads
APPENDICES
Appendix A -References
Appendix B -Field Exploration Logs
Appendix C -Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D -Seismic Data
■
•
-
A. INTRODUCTION
A.1 General
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
for
Proposed Garfield Residential Development
3981 Garfield Street, Carlsbad, California
This report presents the findings of a Geotechnical Investigation for the proposed Garfield Street
residential development located at 3981 Garfield Street in Carlsbad, 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.
A.2 Purpose
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
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:
o Review of available, published geologic and seismological reports for the region, including
geotechnical reports and maps prepared by others that are pertinent to the project site.
o Performed three (3) exploratory borings and (1) exploratory test pit within the proposed area
of development. The Plot Plan, Figure 2, enclosed in the rear of this report, indicates the
approximate locations of the test pit and borings. The Logs of Subsurface Exploration are
contained in Appendix B.
o Performed laboratory testing on samples representative of the sub-strata soil materials
encountered during the field investigation.
o Conducted geologic and engineering analysis of the field and laboratory data, which
provided the basis for our conclusions and recommendations.
o This report summarizes the results of the analysis and presents our findings, conclusions
and recommendations for site development.
IE-I 1ST • Garfield Street Residential Deve)aproeot Oen Inv • P2Q04-22Q6/74523 • September 7004
1
B. PROJECTBACKGROUND
B.1 Site Description
The proposed residential development will consist of demolition of the existing structure and
construction of four single family homes. The generally rectangular-shaped parcel is located at 3981
Garfield Street in Carlsbad, California (see the Site Location Map, Figure 1). Based on the site
plans provided to us, the land area for the proposed residential development measures
approximately ¼ of an acre.
The site plans provided do not present site topography. However, based on our field
reconnaissance, the subject site was observed to be relatively flat. Topographic information
obtained from TOPO (1999) indicates that the elevation at project site is approximately 66 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:
o Construction of 4 single-family, two-story, wood frame homes (detached).
o 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 ½ 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 three (3)
exploratory borings and one (1) exploratory test pit with approximate locations plotted on the Plot
Plan, Figure 2. An Ingersol Rand A-300 hollow-stem drill rig was utilized to perform the
exploratory borings to depths ranging from 10 feet to 20 feet below existing ground. An additional
hand-dug test pit was also performed to a depth of 5 feet. Logging and sampling of the borings and
test pits 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 were noted 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).
IE-I 1ST • Garfield Street Residential Development Gen Inv • P2QQ4-22Q604523 • September 2QQ4
2
-
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, Atterberg Limits, particle size analysis,
soluble sulfate and chloride, pH-value & resisitivity, consolidation, and in-situ moisture-density
tests. All 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 Undocumented Artificial Fill
Undocumented Artificial Fill was observed at all exploratory borings and the test pit to an
approximate depth of 4 to 7.5 feet begs (blow existing ground surface). The undocumented
fill generally consists of light brown to brown, damp to moist, loose to medium dense silty
sand to sand with scattered construction debris and rootlets. The undocumented fill at this
site is not suitable for support of new fill and/or surface improvements. The clean
undocumented fill may be re-used as compacted fill.
D.2.2 Quaternary Alluvium
The alluvium encountered on-site generally consist of light brown, damp to moist, loose to
medium dense silty sand to sand. Some of the alluvium is not suitable for support of new
fill and/or surface improvements. The clean alluvium may be re-used as compacted fill.
IE-I ISi • Garfield Street Residential Development Geo Iov • P2QQ4-2206D4523 • September, 2004
3
•
-
-
D.2.3 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.2.4 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
(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
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
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 5.0 miles (8.1 km)
west of the site, and the Rose Canyon fault, located approximately 4.3 miles (7.0 km) southwest of
the site.
E.2 Seismic Analysis
E.2.1 Seismic Design
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 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
IE-JJSI • Garfield Street Residential Development Geo Inv• P2DQ4-22Q6/74523 • September, 2QQ4
4
-
California are tabulated in 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.
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 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. 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 and
the classification of So 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(l.0 sec) of 0.41g, as shown in Appendix D,
Seismic Data, in the rear of this report.
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 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
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 review, no active faults cross the site. The closet mapped fault is 4.3
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 ½ inch. Such settlement is expected
to affect relatively large pad areas such that differential settlement over short distances is
likely to be very low.
IE-J ISi • Garfield Street Residential Development Geo Jnv • P2QQ4-22Q6/74523 • S'4)1erober 2004
5
I
-
-
-
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 are no nearby confined body of water.
E.4 Earthquake (UBC) Design Parameters
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:
TABLE 1
CBC SEISMIC FACTORS
1 ~~ ~~~----· ~ -· ................ -.. ~~----. , ·•··. . . . .. ' ~ ! ' . . r . , , ( . (..(;
L.,4. •• ;,; • ~ , • • .l ..... _: ,, . ..._;_ .. -... ,. ----...... -. • ~-~-,_ . .1l.. .• .. :I
Seismic Zone Factor, Z 0.4 Table 16-1
Soil Profile Type So Table 16-J
Seismic Coefficient, Ca(= 0.44 Na) 0.44 Table 16-Q
Seismic Coefficient, Cv (= 0.64 Nv) 0.72 Table 16-R
Near-Source Factor, Na 1.0 Table 16-S
Near-Source Factor, Nv 1.0 Table 16-T
Seismic Source A Table 16-U
Seismic-resistant design of structures should comply with the requirements of the goverrnng
IE-I ISJ • Garfield Street Residential Development Geo Inv • P2QQ4-22Q6/74523 • September, 2QQ4
6
-
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
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 competent building pads 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 re-engineered fill materials.
Recommendations and criteria for foundation design are contained in the Foundation and Slab
Recommendations section.
F.2 Compressible Soils
Our field observations and testing indicate that on-site undocumented fill generally exhibit a loose
consistency to an average depth of 4 feet below the existing grade, followed by medium dense
alluvium to an average depth of 8 feet below the existing grade. Soils within the Terrace Deposits
unit that underlies the alluvium layer typically exhibit a dense consistency in their natural state. It is,
therefore, assessed that on-site soils 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. The undocumented fill in its current condition is not suitable for geotechnical
application purposes. Soils within this soil unit would, however, become suitable for re-application
purpose following over-excavation and re-engineering into engineered fill materials. It is essential
that the blending, re-compaction and replacement of these soils on the average of 5 to 7 feet below
existing grade 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 undocumented fill and underlying alluvial 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.
IE-I TST • Garfield Street Residential Development Gen Iov • P2QQ4-2206/74523 • September 2004
7
-
-
F.3 Expansive Soils
Analysis of soils sampled on-site, as shown in Appendix C, indicates that the undocumented fill
material possesses very low expansion characteristic, i.e. EI of 1. 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 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
Corrosivity testing of the on-site soils reveals a moderate corrosive characteristic (i.e. soluble
sulfate content of 110 ppm, see Appendix C, Laboratory Test Results), which indicates that Type II
Portland Cement should be used together with a concrete mix reflecting a water-cement ratio of
0.50 (per UBC, 1997 and Caltrans, 1999). Also the resistivity value of 2609 ohm-cm classifies the
on-site soil to be moderately corrosive to buried ferrous metals. 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.
On the other hand, the chloride content exhibited in our limited laboratory test indicates a low
corrosive potential of 160 ppm compared against the threshold value of 200 ppm to be considered
moderately corrosive (Caltrans Standards, 1999). It is, however, due to the chloride content's close
proximity to the threshold value of 200 ppm, incorporation of possible remedial measures such as
increased concrete cover, low water-cement ratio, corrosion inhibitor admixture, silica fume
admixture etc., as stipulated in the 1997 edition of the Uniform Building Code, maybe considered.
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 in-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 onsite
soils.
F.5 Excavation Feasibility
For areas to receive earthwork improvements, the grading work in undocumented fill and alluvial
materials within the expected extent of structural improvements is anticipated to be accomplished
using conventional earthmoving equipment.
G. GRADING AND EARTHWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
G.1 General
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
IE-1 ISJ • Garfield Street Residential Development Gea Jnv • P2QQ4-22Q604523 • September, 2004
8
-
l..J
spread footings supported entirely by compacted structural fill. The following grading and
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
Compaction, of this report. Debris from the clearing operations should be properly disposed of off-
site.
G.3 Engineered Improvement of Soils
Based on information assembled in the course of this study, the subject development is considered
geotecbnically feasible, provided recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the
project plans and specifications and implemented during construction. In view of minimizing the
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:
o In the area of the proposed development, the on-site undocumented fill 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.
TABLE2
Interior and Exterior Slabs for
Buildin area
Continuous & Isolated Spread
Footin s
Pavement & Parking
(1) BSG-Below existing site grades;
3 BSG or 2 or total removal of
undocumented fill whichever is reater
5 BSG<1> or 4<3> or total removal of
undocumented fill whichever is reater
2 BSG<1> or 1.s<2> or total removal of
undocumented fill whichever is reater
(2) Measured below the applicable design sections; (i.e., AC, PCC, concrete and aggregate base).
(3) Measured below lowest building footing bottom
o 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.
IE-I ISI • Garfield Street Residential Development Geo lov • P2Q04-22Q6/74523 • Sr.pterobec 2004
9
-
o All fill materials to be used for re-compaction and re-placement purposes should comply
with criteria listed in Table 3.
o 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.
o Any expansive soil, if encountered, should be removed and blended according to
recommendations mentioned in Section F.3, and re-placed and compacted as described in
section G.4, Method and Criteria for Engineered Compaction.
G.4 Method and Criteria of Engineered Compaction
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
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.
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
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
engineer prior to importation to the site.
Structural fill placed
within 4 feet from finish
Qrade
General fill placed below
and beyond the
structural fi11<1>
TABLE3
Expansion Index (UBC 18-2)
Fraction finer than 6"
Fraction finer than #200 sieve
Water Soluble Sulfate (SO4) (Cal Test 417)
Plasticity Index (ASTM D4318-84)
Expansion Index (UBC 18-2)
Fraction finer than 12"
Fraction finer than #200 sieve
Water Soluble Sulfate (SO4) (Cal Test 417)
50 or less
100%
30% or less
150 ppm or less
25 or less
90 or less
100%
50% or less
500 ppm or less
(I) The use ofrocks or earth particles of greater than 3 inches in diameter within utility trench backfill should
not be permitted.
Based on the measured in-situ dry densities and moisture contents, as tabulated in Appendix C, an
average existing relative compaction of 80 to 85 % has been estimated for on-site undocumented
fill within 4 to 7 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 shrinkage factor of 10 to 15 percent has been estimated for engineered improvement of
IE-I 1ST • Garfield Street Residential Development Geo Tnv • P2QQ4-22Q6f74523 • Sr.pteroher, 2004
IO
-
on-site soils.
G.5 Transition between Cut and Fill
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.
It 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.
Utilities may span across subsurface transitions. 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 may be conducted in compacted fill and natural soil. 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 10 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 Lateral Pressures
For design of cantilevered shoring, a triangular distribution of lateral earth pressure may be used.
It may be assumed that the drained soils, with a level surface behind the cantilevered shoring,
will exert an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. Tied-back or braced shoring should be designed
to resist a trapezoidal distribution of lateral earth pressure. The recommended pressure
distribution, for the case where the grade is level behind the shoring, is illustrated in the
following diagram with the maximum pressure equal to 24H in psf, where H is the height of the
shored wall in feet.
H • Height of Shored Wall
(feet)
0.2H
T
0.6H
l
0.2H
IE-J ISi • Garfield Street Residential Development Gen Jnv • P2QQ4-22Q6/74523 • September 2DQ4
11
-
Any surcharge (live, including traffic, or dead load) located within a 1: 1 (H: V) plane drawn
upward from the base of the shored excavation should be added to the lateral earth pressures. The
vertical loads imposed by existing structures should be determined by the structural engineer.
The lateral load contribution of uniform surcharge and/or point loads located across the 1: 1
(H:V) zone behind the basement wall may be calculated in accordance with Figure 4, Lateral
Surcharge Loads. Lateral load contributions of surcharges located at a distance behind the shored
wall should be confirmed by TE-USL once the load configurations and layouts are known. As a
minimum, a 2-foot equivalent soil surcharge is recommended to account for nominal
construction loads.
G.8 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.
H.2 Structure Foundations
Continuous spread footings are suitable for use at the proposed project site. All footings should be
founded entirely in properly compacted structural fill.
H.2.1 Footing Dimensions and Reinforcement
For foundations supporting the proposed 2-story structures, continuous footings should be a
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 spread footings should have a minimum width of 24 inches (square) and a
IE-I ISi • Garfield Street Residential Development Gen Jay • P2QQ4-22Q6/74523 • September 2QQ4
12
I
-
depth of 24 inches. Reinforcement for isolated footings should be applied in a biaxial
manner.
H.2.2 Allowable Bearing Capacity
Footings bearing into dense, well-compacted structural fill should be designed for an
allowable 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 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.
TABLE4
Allowable Bearing Capacity for Continuous
Footin s
Active Pressure level backfill
At-rest Pressure level backfill
Passive Pressure er foot of de th
Coefficient of Friction
Minimum Footing Width<4>
Minimum Reinforcement
2,000 psf <1>
36 pcf EFP<2>
58 pcf EFP<2>
300 psf
12 inches
12inches
4 No. 4 rebar
2 near top and 2 near
bottom of footin
(1) Based on compliance with above earthwork recommendations;
(2) Design values assuming a drained condition with non-expansive
materials (EI less than or equal to 20) within 3 feet from the footings
and no surcharge loading conditions;
(3) Passive lateral resistance may be combined with frictional resistance
provided the passive bearing component does not exceed two-thirds of
the total lateral resistance;
( 4) 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 0.30.
IE-TISI• Garfield Street Residential Develapmeot Geo Tnv • P2QQ4-22Q6/74523 • Sq:,terober, 2004
13
Alternatively, an allowable passive earth pressure of 250 psf per foot of depth (i.e., 250 pcf
EFP) 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
1/2-inch
No.16
No. 200
Sand Equivalent
Percent Passing
100
50 -85
<15
>30
Minimum reinforcement should consist of 6 x 6-inch 10/10-gauge 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 concrete placement.
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. For long/thin sections, such as sidewalks, expansion or control
joints should be provided at spacing 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 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. ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
IE-I ISI • Garfield Street Residential Development Geo Iov • P2QQ4-220604523 • Scwterober, 2004
14
-
1.1 Pavement Design
The following presents preliminary recommendations of structural section for driveways and
parking. The pavement section requirements have been based on in-situ soils encountered in the
borings 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 by
the jurisdictional agency.
1.2.1 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 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).
5.0
6.0
TABLES
PAVEMENT SECTION DESIGN RECOMMENDATION
4.0<3> 6.0<3>
For areas of parkini:i stalls
or alle/4>
II\
For areas of driveways or
local streets
( 1) Asphalt Concrete;
(2) Class II Aggregate Base (AB II), Caltrans, compacted to at least 95% relative
compaction (ASTM D-1557);
IE-I IS! • Garfield Street Residential Qeve)oproeot Geo Inv • P2004-22Q6/74523 • September 2004
15
-
(3) City of Carlsbad minimum requirement;
(4) Alternatively 5 ½" 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).
1.2.2 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
1.3 Trench Backfill
Utilities should be properly bedded and backfilled 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 backfilled and compacted to a minimum relative
compaction of90 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).
1.4 Surface Drainage
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.
1.5 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
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
IE-J 1ST • Garfield Street Residential Development Gen lov • P2DQ4-22Q6/74523 • September 2004
16
-
open-graded crushed rock, which is in-tum 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.
1.6 Geotechnical Observation During Construction
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
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
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
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.
I. 7 Plan Review
Upon completion of site grading plans and foundation plans, it is essential that a geotechnical
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,
pertinent revisions to construction documents will be suggested at that time.
1.8 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
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
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.
J. CLOSURE
J.1 Limits of Investigation
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
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.
The samples taken and used for testing, and the observations made, are believed representative of
IE-I ISI • Garfield Street Residential Development Gen Inv• P2QQ4-22Q6/74523 • September 2004
17
-
-
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. **********
IE·I ISJ • Garfield Street Residential Development Geo Jny • P2QQ4-22Q604523 • September 2QQ4
18
-
•
0 1000 2000
SCALE 1 :24000
1"=2000'
4000 ft
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''',•'r
~,)
•1-1111■ ••~■e-1--11
Title:
Project:
Drwn: MM
',
\ .. ·,:-•
Testing Engineers -U.S. Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 9211 1
Site Location Map
Garfield Street Project
Contract No: 74 523
Date: October, 2004 Figure No : 1
-
CHINQUAPIN AVE.
~o ~~~1~0;;;;;;.;;;;;;;:2~0~~~~~~40 ft
SCALE
1"=20'
Boring Location (approx.)
Test Pit Location (approx.)
~''.\
,.
•1••~1• ..........
Title:
Project:
Drwn: MM
Testing Engineers -U.S. Labs
7895 Convoy Court. Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Plot Plan
Garfield Street Project
Contract No:
74523
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.
Date: October, 2004 Figure No: 2
u 6 N 0 z w u
u 6 N 0 (f) w ~
GEOLOGIC LEGEND
E£J Alluvium. lake. playa. and terrace deposits. unconsolidated and
semi-consolidated. Mostly nonmarine. but includes marine
deposits near the coast.
§] Sandstone siltstone. shale. and conglomerate. mostly moder-
ately cemented.
'
~ Sandstone. shale. conglomerate. and fanglomerate. moderately LJ to well consolidated.
~ Sandstone. shale, conglomerate: moderately to well consolidat-
~ ed.
~ Shale. sandstone, conglomerate. minor limestone; mostly well
~ consolidated.
•
Undivided Mesozoic volcanic and metavolcanic rocks. Andesite
and rhyolite flow rocks. greenstone. volcanic breccia and other
pyroclastic rocks: in part strongly metamorphosed
■ Mesozoic granite. quartz monozonite. granodiorite. and quartz
diorite.
■ Shale. sandstone. minor conglomerate. chert. limestone; minor
pyroclastic rocks.
II Granitic and metamorphic rocks, mostly gneiss and other meta-
morphic rocks injected by granitic rocks. Mesozoic to
Precambrian.
Gabbro and dark dioritic rocks; chiefly Mesozoic
~ Schists of various types; mostly Paleozoic or Mesozoic age; EJ some Precambrian.
~ Undivided pre-Cenozoic metasedimentary and metavolcanic
rocks of great variety. Mostly slate. quartzite. homfels. chert.
phyllite. mylonite, schist, gneiss. and minor marble.
SYMBOLS
~ Geologic Boundary
~ _ --Fault traces. solid when well located, dashed when approximately located,
dotted when concealed
~ Upthrow, Downthrow Side
~ Arrows indicated relative or apparent direction of lateral movement
~ Arrows indicate direction of dip
~ Thrust and fault
'( Regional stnke and dip
~ Anttci1ne
~ Syncline
I
I
V s.itjt:,,
lmpen~!
'
Ref.: "Digital Database of Geologic Map of California." California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology.
0 1 2 5 10 ,v 20 miles
SCALE
1"=10 miles
NOTE: This figure may contain areas of color.
TE-U.S. Labs cannot be responsible for any sub-
sequent misinterpretation of the information
resulting from black and white reproductions of
this figure.
(I N -a!DIED
A
Trtle:
Project:
Drwn:
Date: ..
Testing Engineers -U.S. Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
Regional Geologic Map
Garfield Street Project
MM I Contract No: 74523
---. IFiAUre No:
H
0
0 2
~ 0.4
II C:
LL 0 w ::, 0.6
.....I ~
0.8
1.0
0 0.2
LINE
LOAD
0.4 0.6
VALUE OF
LINE LOAD QL
FOR m ~ 0.4
FOR m > 0.4
0.64 QL
(m2 + 1)
PRESSURE FROM LINE LOAD QL
m
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.7
(BOUSSINESQ EQUATION MODIFIED BY EXPERIMENT)
hp
0.60 H
0.60 H
0.56 H
0.48 H
0.8 1.0 0
H
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.
Testing Engineers-U.S.Labs
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, CA 92111
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' \ ' ' POINT 1,
I
LOAD
Ph (~p)
m hp
0.21 0. 78 0.59H
0.4 0. 78 0.59H
0.3 0.45 0.48H
0.5 1.0 2.0
VALUE OF
POINT LOAD Op
x=mH
SECTION a -a
FOR m < 0.4 •
(711 ( s-:) =
FOR m > 0.4
(7 1
h
PRESSURE FROM POINT LOAD Op
0.28 n2
1.77m2n2
(m2 + n2)3
(BOUSSINESQ EQUATION MODIFIED BY EXPERIMENT)
Lateral Surcharge Loads
Garfield Street Project
Tel: (858) 715-5800 Fax: (858) 715-5810 Contract No. 74523 Figure 4
-
-
-
-
1.
2.
REFERENCES
Blake, T.F., 1998, Documentation for Eqsearch and Eqfimlt Versions 2 20 Update, Thomas
F. Blake Computer Services and Software, Newbury Park, California, p. 79 and appendices.
Blake, T.F., 2000a, EQSEARCH, Version 3 00a, A Computer Program for the Estimation
of Peak Horizantal Acceleration From Sm1thern California Historical Earthquake Catalogs,
Users Manual, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software, Newbury Park,
California, 94pp., with updated data, 2000 Version 4.0.
3. Blake, T.F., 2000b, RQFATTT,T, Version 3 GOB, A Computer Program for the Deterministic
Prediction of Peak Horizantal Acceleration from Digitized California Faults, Users Mann al,
Thomas F. Blake Computer Services and Software, Newbury Park, California, 77pp.
4. Blake, T.F., 2000c, FRTSKSP, Version 4 00, A Computer Program for Determining the
Probabilistic Horizantal Acceleration, Users Manual, Thomas F. Blake Computer Services
and Software, Newbury Park, California, 99pp.
5. Blake, T.F., 2000d, T IBCSETS, Version 1 00, A Computer Program for Rvahiating the
Seismic Parameters in accordance with the 1997 IIBC, Users Manual, Thomas F. Blake
Computer Services and Software, Newbury Park, California, 53pp.
6. Bonilla, M.G., 1970, Surface Faulting and Related Effects, in Wiegel, R. L., Earthquake
Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, p. 47-74.
7. 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.
9. Fanlt-Rnptnre Hazard Zanes in California, Alqnist-Priolo Special Studies Zanes Act of
fil2, Special Publication 42, California Department of Conservation, Division of mines
and Geology, Revised 1994.
10. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1994, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings, Washington D.C., FEM 222A
11. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1997, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for
Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Stmctures, Washington D.C., FEM 302
12. Foundations and Earth Stmctnres Design Manual 7 2 (Navfac DM-7 2), 1982, Department
of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
13. Hunt, R.R., 1986, Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Manual, New York, NY,
McGraw-Hill, 983 p.
14. Hunt, R.E., 1984, Geotechnical Engineering Techniques and Practices, New York, NY,
McGraw-Hill, 729 p.
REFERENCES (Continued)
15. 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.
16. Lee, K.L., and Albaisa, A., 1974, Earthq:nake Induced Settlements in Satnrated Sands,
ASCE, Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol. 100, No. GT4, pp.387-406.
17. 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.
18. Ploessel, M.R., and Slosson, J.E., 1974, Repeatable High Ground Accelerations for
Earthquakes: California Geology, v. 27, No. 9, pp. 195-199.
19. Proceedings, Seminar on New Deve)apments in Earthquake Ground Motion Estimation and
Tmp)icatians far Engineering Design Practice, January 1994, Applied Technology Council
and U.S. Geologic Survey, Redwood City, CA, 18 Chapters.
20. Seed, H.B., Idriss, 1.M., and Arango, I., 1983, Evaluation of Tjquefaction Potential Using
Field Performance Data, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 3, p.
458-482.
21. Sail Mechanics Design Manna) 7 1 (Navfac DM-7 J), 1982, Department of the Navy, Naval
Facilities Engineering Command, p. 347.
22. Tokimatsu, AM. and Seed, H.B., 1987, Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to
Earthquake Shaking, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, p. 861-
878.
23. Uniform Building Cade, 1997 Edition: Whittier, CA, International Conference of Building
Officials, 3 Volumes.
24. Urbitecture Platform, 2004, Site Plot Plan, no-scale, dated June 14, 2004.
Vaughan, P.R., Thorup, K.M., and Rockwell, T.K., December 1999, Paleoseismalagy of the
Elsinore Fault at Agua Tibia Mountain, Southern California, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, Vol. 89, No. 6, pp. 1447-1457.
25. Wesnousky, S.G., 1986, Earthquakes, Quaternary Faults, and Seismic Hazard in California,
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 91, No. B12, pp. 2587-2631.
29. Winterkom, H.F., and Fang, H.Y., 1976, Foundation Engineering Handbook: New York,
NY, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 751 p.
-
I ,
Cf) U:-DATE DRILLED 7/22/04 BORING NO. Bl UJ z ........ ...J 0 ........ ~ Q. f-~ e:, 0 GROUND ELEVATION 66'± SHEET 1 OF 1 a3 2 ::?E 0 ~ . i= 0 ~ ...J ~ Cl) c:x: UJ 0 (/) c:x: Ingersol Rand A-300 E Cl) LL a: ·o METHOD DRILLING u5 u5 co 0-J: ~ ,__ ::J ~ • u. f-J: s f-z (/)-LOGGED BY CM DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30 inches Q. f-Cl) UJ >-. (/)
UJ Q. ~ ~ 0 6 0 Cl) ::J Cf)
0 UJ ::, -~ ...J :5 co ::?E >-0 CD 0 a: 0 0 DESCRIPTION
L!.-SM TOPSOIL:
1---1----+------ts:>-<8xt::-p_=s!lct-,~~lty SAND/SAND. r
-t-_-•1r~---1
7
I I t!t~:= =::;;:: Fine gmlled, non-plastic.
DP-SM ALLUVIUM:
5 1.5
H 11 4.7
Silty SAND.
Light brown, damp, medium dense. Fine to medium grained, minor light orange-red rust
106.5 staining.
--i-----------r--SP--TERRACE DEPOSITS:----------------------------
SAND.
2 ro 0
-0 3 Q) ·5
Q) c:::
.... 0 ~
10 3.0
Y 28
,-
15 4.6
M 46 -1----.--.......
1-:-.
k:-Light orange-brown, damp, medium dense. Fine to medium grained, non-plastic.
• . .-.
4.9 107.8 [·. ,-.
1-::,
[·
1:·
I::-
[·.
1:.
1-· .•
I·• Color change to tan, becomes dense, minor light orange-red rust staining.
I-, ..
• . .-.
I: 1:: ..
1::· , ..
1·.-. , ..
:_:.: ... i ~ 36
&! 20+-'6"-'-.l:..+--1-+---+--t-----r--t----t----=---::-=----::---=--:--:--=------------------------i g Total Depth= 20.0 feet
(!) Groundwater not encountered ~ Backfilled on 7/22/2004 0 m
~ ~ <>. t;
~ f-C/)
0 ...J w ~ 25 ...... 7-'--''C.:.6--'----''--'--~~----~~-~--------------------------------l
(!)~=======================;r=======================~ ! I· Testing Engineers-US. Laboratories B~l~~~P~j~G
g 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 Carlsbad California
~ NMW•M■ San Diego, Ca. 92111 PROJECT NO. \ REPORT DATE j FIGURE
ii: l•I-WMD 74523 ~ 7/22/2004 B-~ gl'=:======================::..=======:±:======~======:===~
,._)
Cl) G:' w en ....J I--0
~ L. n. ~ ~ 2 ~ 0 ~
Q) Q) <{ 0 w >-!!:::, E Cl) LL 0:: I-
I ~ --U) :::> u5
I-I s: I-z n. I-Cl) w w n. C 0 0 0 0 w =s .~ ....J Cil ~ >-0 <D Cl 0::
z DATE DRILLED 7/22/04 BORING NO. B2
0 GROUND ELEVATION 66'± SHEET I OF ....J . i=
0 Cl)<{ METHOD DRILLING Ingersol Rand A-300 ·o Cil 0-~ • LL cn-LOGGED BY CM DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30 inches >-• Cl)
Cl) ::> Cl)
::i 0 0 DESCRIPTION
f--1>--
f---
~ 13
4.7
FILL:
Silty SAND.
Brown, moist, loose. Fined grained minor organics.
Becomes damp to moist, contains minor rootlets. l
,P-St1r
103.9
~ X
~ X ~ X ~ X
SP ALLUVIUM:
5 1.5
:·:: SAND.
Light brown, damp, loose. Non-plastic, fine to medium grained.
y 8 +---+--tt+t, 1-:·.
•. :.
10. , ..
I:.:.·
1:: ..
L··•: SP , .. TERRACE DEPOSIT:
10 3.0
(.:
1:·:
SAND.
Light orange-brown, damp to moist, dense. Fine to medium grained, non-plastic.
! M 55 8.8 112.9 k
I -~
0::
... e ,._
6 i 1
&l 0 ..J
(!) z i'i: 0 ID r-u w ..,
0 0: 0.. r-w w 0: r-(J)
0 ..J w u: 0: < (!)
M N "' ... ,._
(!) 0 ..J
(!) z i'i: 0 ID
15 4.6
20 6.1
25 7.6
I ...... ,. ■•M-001--W
1.-.
1:.-.
k
:: ...
. _ ........
:,._•:.:. :· .. Color change to tan-light brown, damp, medium dense.
·: ·:
Total Depth = 16.5 feet
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled on 7/22/2004
Testing Engineers-U.S. Laboratories
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, Ca. 92111 PROJECT NO.
74523 I
BORING LOG
Garfield Street Project
Carlsbad California
REPORT DATE I
7/W2004
FIGURE
B-l.
I
-
Cl) w en ...J --.... n. I--.s :E 0 Q) g Q) <( 0
E Cl) u... --I ....... ~-Cl)
I-I s: n. I-w n. ~ ffi 0
0 w ...J ::, .f: ro 0 co 0
~ 13
~
5 1.5
x 47
2 10 3.0
ro 0
"C 3: Q) ·5
Q) Q:'.
15 4.6
ti Q
1 Cl1 &l 20 +06<.:..a.l'-4----+~ g
(!) z ~ 0 "' ti w ~ a.
tu w a: tii
0 _,. w
G:" --() ~ e:.
w ~ a:: ci5 ::) I-z Cl) w
6 0
:E >-Ct'. 0
7.1 111.2
z DATE DRILLED 7/22/04 BORING NO. B3
0 GROUND ELEVATION 66'± SHEET 1 OF 1 . i= ...J 0 (/) <( Ingersol Rand A-300 . () METHOD DRILLING ro ()_
:E ·u... <n-LOGGED BY CM DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30 inches >-. (/)
(/) ::) (/)
~ 0
DESCRIPTION
I SP FILL:
SAND.
Light brown, damp, loose. Fined grained, non-plastic.
~
)<; Becomes damp to moist, medium dense.
)
)
~ )
~
)
)
:§ Becomes moist.
.•: SP IBRRACE DEPOSIT: I ·.
SAND. ,._:: Light orange brown, damp, dense. Fine to medium grained, non-plastic. 1::::
i:::. !·.
Total Depth = 10.0 feet
Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled on 7/22/2004
~ 25 ..L..!..;7·:o::6..L....JL.......L._..___, ____ ..,__.....___ _ _.__ _______________________________ H
~'!~======================::;-;=========================!I "' N "' ..,. ,._
(!) g
(!) z ~ 0 "'
-··•~i-··••M:f.-W
Testing Engineers-US. Laboratories
7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18
San Diego, Ca. 92111 PROJECT NO.
74523 I
BORING LOG
Garfield Street Project
Carlsbad California
REPORT DATE I
7/2212004
FIGURE
B-'3
Cl) U:-DATE DRILLED 7/22/04 TEST PIT NO. TPl w z ~ _J ~ 0
~ ~ a.. I-::,g e:, 0 GROUND ELEVATION 66'± SHEET 1 OF 1 Q) ~ 0 e..., . i= a> 0 >-_J Q) <( w 0 Cl)<( :=.. E Cl) LL a:: I-·o METHOD DRILLING Hand Test Pit en (I) CD 0-I ~ '--:::, ~ • LL -I-I ~ I-z >-Cl}-LOGGED BY CM DRIVE WEIGHT 140 lbs. DROP 30 inches a.. I-Cl) w • Cl)
w a.. ~ ~ 0 6 0 Cl) :::, Cl)
0 w _J :5 0 ~i§ CD ~ >-a:: 0 -0 DESCRIPTION
LC SM TOPSOIL:
> 6P-S:1'1
~
ilty SAND. r rown moist loose. Contains roots/rootlets.
'-l' FILL:
) Silty SAND/SAND. I Brown, moist, loose. Fine to medium grained, observed piece of concrete at -3'.
Ii
1.5 I SP ALLUVIUM:
SAND 5 ,Li11ht brown moist. medium dense. Fine to medium 1m1ined slie:htlv micaceous. r
Total Depth= 5.0 feet . Groundwater not encountered
Backfilled on 7/22/2004 -
10 3.0
jg
Ill 0
"O ,: Q) ·;;
Q)
0::
15 4.6
I
v Q ~
ti • i t, -j 20 6.1
...J
<!) z a'. 0 CD
I f-(.) w ..,
0 0:: c..
Iii w 0:: f-C/J
0 ...J w u: 7.6 0:: 25 < <!)
M N TEST PIT LOG "' I v .... Testing Engineers-U.S. Laboratories <!) Garfield Street Project 0 7895 Convoy Court, Suite 18 ...J Carlsbad California !::-San Diego, Ca. 92111 PROJECT NO. I I c.. ••••M■ REPORT DATE FIGURE f-■1►WU-i--W
B-4 C/J 74523 7/22/2004 w f-
-
-
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.
Atterherg T jmits -The procedure of ASTM D4318 was used to measure the liquid limit, plastic
limit and plasticity index of a representative soil sample. The test results are provided in the
following tables of Appendix C.
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,
AppendixB.
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.
Tn-sih1 Density and Moish1re -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.
Sail Carrasivity -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.
-
-
SUMMARY QF LARQRATQRY TEST RESULTS
B-1@ 10'
3/8"
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
uses
B-1 @5' *
RESULTS OF ATTERBERG LIMITS TESTS
(ASTM D-4318)
21 6 15
RESULTS OF PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
(ASTM D-422)
100 100
100 100
100 100
99 99
76 67
39 32
24 22
17 15
SP/SC SP/SC
RESULTS OF DIRECT SHEAR TEST
(ASTM D3080)
37
* Undisturbed Ring Sample
B-1@ 1'
RESULTS OF EXPANSION INDEX TESTS
(UBC NO. 18-2)
1
SC
100
100
100
99
75
39
25
18
SP/SC
0.05
very low
RESULTS OF IN-SITU DENSITY AND MOISTURE TESTS
(ASTM D-2216)
B-1 @5'
B-1@ 10'
B-2@ l'
B-2@ 10'
B-3@5'
4.7
4.9
4.7
8.8
7.1
106.5
107.8
103.9
112.9
111.2
RESULTS OF SOIL CORROSIVITY TESTS
B-1@ 1' 110 / moderate 160 / low 2609/ moderate
* California Test Method 417
** California Test Method 422
*** California Test Method 643
6.64
•
-
-
-
-
Project Site Coordinates: Longitude ► W -117.3427°
Latitude ► N 33.1471 °
Project Site Soil Classification: Alluvium
TABLE OF DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS
0.28 0.30
0.66 0.71
s. (1.0 secondl'> 0.26 0.32
0.34
0.81
0.40
( 1) Classified by NEHRP (FEMA, 1997) as rocks having a shear wave velocity no less than 7 60 meters per second.
(2) Modification factors from PGA reflecting local site soils conditions are per NEHRP (FEMA, 1997), which are
ground acceleration-dependent.
(3) 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.
( 4) Spectra acceleration derived from respective PGA with a 5% damping ratio incorporated.
FRISKSP Probabilistic Anal sis
Boore et al (199 7) OJ
PGA 0.30
(1) For soils having a shear wave velocity of 310 ft/sec.
(2) For alluvium soils.
(3) For deep soils.
Campbell&
BozorJ[nia (1997) f2J
0.29
Sadil!h etaL (1997)<3>
0.27
JOB NUMBER: 74523
74523U
*********************** . . • . . U B C S E I S
Version 1.03
. • . • .
***********************
COMPUTATION OF 1997 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS
JOB NAME: Gafield Proj ect
FAULT-DATA-FILE NAME: CDMGUBCR.OAT
SITE COORDINATES: SITE LATITUDE: 33 .1471 SITE LONGITUDE: 117.3427
UBC SEISMIC ZONE: 0.4
UBC SOIL PROFILE TYPE: SO
NEAREST TYPE A FAULT : NAME: ELSINORE-JULIAN
DISTANCE: 39 .9 km
NEAREST TYPE B FAULT: NAME: ROSE CANYON DISTANCE: 7.0 km
NEAREST TYPE C FAULT: NAME: DISTANCE: 99999.0 km
SELECTED UBC SEISMIC COEFFICIENTS: Na: 1.0 NV: 1.1 Ca: 0.44 cv: 0.72 Ts: 0.652
To: 0.130
DATE: 10-29-2004
********************************************************************
• CAUTION: The digitized data points used to model faults are • • limited in number and have been digitized from smal l-• • scale maps (e.g ., 1:750,000 scale). consequently, • • the estimated fault-site-distances may be in error by • • several kilometers. Therefore, it is important that • • the distances be carefully checked for accuracy and •
: ........... :~t~:;;~.:~.~:;~;~ •. ~:!~~:.;~:r.:~;.~::~.!~.~=:!i~•····=
Page 1
74523U SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page 1
ABBREVIATED FAULT NAME
:===s=--===' ROSE CANYON NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD (Offshore) CORONADO BANK
ELSINORE-TEMECULA ELSINORE-JULIAN ELSINORE-GLEN IVY PALOS VERDES EARTHQUAKE VALLEY NEWPORT-INGLEWOOD CL.A.Basin) SAN JACINTO-ANZA SAN JACINTO-SAN JACINTO VALLEY CHINO-CENTRAL AVE . (Elsinore) ELSINORE-WHITTIER
SAN JACINTO-COYOTE CREEK ELSINORE-COYOTE MOUNTAIN SAN JACINTO-SAN BERNARDINO SAN ANDREAS -southern SAN JACINTO -BORREGO SAN JOSE CUCAMONGA SIERRA MADRE (Central) PINTO MOUNTAIN NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (West)
CLEGHORN BURNT MTN, RAYMOND CLAMSHELL-SAWPIT SAN ANDREAS -1857 Rupture EUREKA PEAK NORTH FRONTAL FAULT ZONE (East) VERDUGO SUPERSTITION MTN. (San Jacinto)
HOLLYWOOD ELMORE RANCH SUPERSTITION HILLS (San Jacinto)
LANDERS HELENDALE -S, LOCKHARDT SANTA MONICA ELSINORE-LAGUNA SALADA
MALIBU COAST LENWOOO-LOCKHART-OLD WOMAN SPRGS
SIERRA MADRE (San Fernando) BRAWLEY SEISMIC ZONE JOHNSON VALLEY (Northern) EMERSON SO . -COPPER MTN. ANACAPA-DUME
APPROX · 1 SOURCE DISTANCE TYPE (km) (A ,B,C)
7.0 8.1
33.0 39.7
39.9 55 .1 57.4 71.0 74.3 76.1 76.9 77.0 83.2 85 .0 93 .5 97.1 105.4 107.1
110.3 114.5 114.6 116.6 123.6 125.6 126.4 129.1 129.7
130.5 130.8 132.1 133.0 133.4 136.1 139.2 140.9 142.1 143.0 143.7 143.9 148.1 149.5 153.8 153.9 154.6 155 .4 156.6
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B B
B
B
B
B
B
B B B
B B
B
B
B
MAX. MAG. (MW)
6.9 6.9 7.4 6.8 7.1
6.8 7.1 6.5 6.9 7.2 6.9 6.7 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.7 7.4 6.6 6.5
7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.5 6.5 6.5 6. 5 7.8 6.5 6.7 6 .7 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.6
7.3 7.1 6.6 7.0 6.7 7.3 6.7 6.5
6.7 6.9 7.3
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page 2
I
SLIP
RATE (mm/yr)
== 1. 50 1.50 3.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 2.00
1.00 12.00 12.00 1.00 2. 50 4 .00 4.00 12.00 24.00 4.00 o. 50 5.00 3.00
2.50 1.00 3.00 0.60 0.50 0.50 34 .00 0.60 0.50 0.50 5.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 0.60 0.60 1.00 3.50 0.30 0.60 2.00 25 .00 0.60 0.60 3.00
FAULT TYPE
(SS,DS,BT)
ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss ss
ss ss DS ss ss ss ss ss ss DS DS DS ss DS ss
ss DS
DS ss ss DS DS 55 DS ss
55 ss ss DS ss DS ss DS ss ss ss DS
t.
74S23U Page 2
ABBREVIATED DISTANCE TYPE MAG. RATE TYPE APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX. I SLIP I FAULT
===========FAULT==NAME============l==(kml== (A,B,C) =(Mw) ==(mm/yr)= (SS,DS,BT)
SAN GABRIEL PISGAH-BULLION MTN.-MESQUITE LK IMPERIAL CALICO -HIDALGO SANTA SUSANA HOLSER SIMI-SANTA ROSA OAK RIDGE (Onshore)
SAN CAYETANO GRAVEL HILLS -HARPER LAKE BLACKWATER VENTURA -PITAS POINT SANTA YNEZ (East) SANTA CRUZ ISLAND
M.RIDGE-ARROYO PARIDA-SANTA ANA RED MOUNTAIN GARLOCK (West) PLEITO THRUST BIG PINE GARLOCK (East) WHITE WOLF
SANTA ROSA ISLAND SANTA YNEZ (West) So. SIERRA NEVADA LITTLE LAKE OWL LAKE PANAMINT VALLEY
TANK CANYON DEATH VALLEY (South) LOS ALAMOS-W. BASELINE LIONS HEAD DEATH VALLEY (Graben) SAN LUIS RANGE (S. Margin)
SAN JUAN CASMALIA (Orcutt Frontal Fault) OWENS VALLEY LOS OSOS HOSGRI HUNTER MTN. -SALINE VALLEY
INDEPENDENCE RINCONADA DEATH VALLEY (Northern)
BIRCH CREEK SAN ANDREAS (Creeping) WHITE MOUNTAINS DEEP SPRINGS
1S6 .7 16S .8 167.1 168.1 169 .2
178 .1 18S.8 186.S 19S.O 19S.9 210.9 214.0
214.7 222.9 224.6 228.0 231.1 236.4 242 .2
246.0 257.0
2S7.8 2S9.9 270.S 27S.4 276.9
277.1 277.S 286.S 302 .3 319.7 327.2 329.4 330.0 337.8 343.7 3S9.4 365.S 370.3 379.S
380.3 380. 5 435.7 436.S 440.3
4S8.9
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
7 .0 7.1 7.0
7.1 6.6 6.S 6.7 6.9 6.8 6.9 6.9
6.8 7.0 6.8 6.7 6.8 7.1
6.8 6.7 7.3 7.2 6.9 6.9 7.1 6.7 6. 5
7 .2 6.S 6.9 6.8 6.6 6.9 7.0 7.0 6.5 7.6 6.8 7.3 7.0 6.9 7.3
7 .2 6.S s.o 7.1 6.6
1.00
0.60 20.00 0.60 S.00 0.40 1.00 4.00 6.00
0.60 0.60 1.00 2.00 1.00 0 .40 2.00 6.00
2.00 0.80 7.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 0.10 0.70 2.00
2.50 1.00 4.00 0.70 0.02 4.00 0 .20
1.00 0.2S 1. so 0.50 2.50 2.50 0.20 1.00 5.00 0.70 34.00 1.00 0 .80
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page 3
APPROX. I SOURCE I MAX. I SLIP Page 3
ss ss ss ss OS OS OS OS OS ss ss OS ss OS OS OS ss
OS ss ss OS DS ss OS ss ss ss OS ss OS OS OS OS ss OS ss OS ss ss OS ss ss OS ss ss OS
FAULT
74523U
ABBREVIATED DISTANCE TYPE MAG. RATE TYPE
FAULT NAME (km) (A,B,C) (Mw) (mm/yr) (SS,05,BT)
=========...:============ ===== =-==-=""' ==== =====:-== ==-====== DEATH VALLEY (N. of cucamongo) 464. 2 A 7. 0
ROUND VALLEY (E. of S.N.Mtns.) 470.7 B 6 .8 FISH SLOUGH 478.6 B 6.6
S .00 ss 1.00 DS
0. 20 DS
HILTON CREEK 496.8 B 6. 7 2. 50 DS
ORTIGALITA 520.9 B 6.9 1.00 ss HARTLEY SPRINGS 521.1 B 6. 6 0. 50 OS CALAVERAS (So.of Calaveras Res) 526.4 B 6 .2 15 .oo ss MONTEREY BAY -TULARCITOS 529.1 B 7.1 0. 50 DS PALO COLORADO -SUR 5 30 .1 B 7. 0 3.00 ss QUIEN SABE 539.6 B 6.5 MONO LAKE 557.0 B 6.6 1.00 ss 2. 50 DS ZAYANTE-VERGELES 558.2 B 6.8 0.10 55 SAN ANDREAS (1906) 563, 4 A 7, 9 SARGENT 563.5 B 6.8 24.00 55 3.00 55
ROBINSON CREEK 588. 3 B 6. 5 0, 50 DS
SAN GREGORIO 604. 4 A 7, 3 S.00 ss GREENVILLE 613.2 B 6,9 2 .00 55 MONTE VISTA -SHANNON 613, 6 B 6. 5 0.40 DS HAYWARD (SE Extension) 613. 6 B 6. S ANTELOPE VALLEY 628. 6 B 6. 7 3.00 55 0.80 OS HAYWARD (Total Length) 633 .4 A 7 .1 CALAVERAS (No.of Calaveras Res) 633.4 B 6.8 GENOA 653.9 B 6.9
9.00 55 6.00 ss 1.00 OS CONCORD -GREEN VALLEY 681.1 B 6. 9 6.00 55 RODGERS CREEK 719. 9 A 7. 0 9.00 55
WEST NAPA 720.8 B 6.5 POINT REYES 738.8 B 6.8
1.00 ss 0, 30 OS
HUNTING CREEK -BERRYESSA 743.2 B 6.9 6. 00 ss
MAACAMA (south) 782. 6 B 6. 9 COLLAYOMI 799. 5 B 6, 5
9.00 55 0.60 55
BARTLETT SPRINGS 803. 0 A 7 .1
MAACAMA (centra 1) 824. 2 A 7 .1
MAACAMA (North) 883. 8 A 7 .1 ROUND VALLEY (N, S, F. Bay) 889 , 9 B 6. 8 BATTLE CREEK 913 .6 B 6.5 LAKE MOUNTAIN 948, 4 B 6 . 7 GARBERVILLE-BRICELAND 965. 5 B 6, 9
MENDOCINO FAULT ZONE 1021. 8 A 7 .4 LITTLE SALMON (Onshore) 1028. 4 A 7. 0 MAD RIVER 1031.2 B 7 .1 CASCADIA SUBDUCTION ZONE 1035.4 A 8.3 MCKINLEYVILLE 1041. 7 B 7, 0 TRINIDAD 1043 .2 B 7,3 FICKLE HILL 1043.6 B 6.9 TABLE BLUFF 1049.0 B 7.0 LITTLE SALMON (offshore) 1062.4 B 7 .1
6.00 55 9.00 55 9.00 55 6.00 55 0, 50 OS 6.00 55
9.00 55
35.00 DS 5.00 DS 0. 70 DS 35.00 OS 0.60 DS
2. SO DS 0.60 DS 0.60 OS 1.00 OS
SUMMARY OF FAULT PARAMETERS
Page 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABBREVIATED DISTANCE TYPE MAG. RATE TYPE
1
APPROX.ISOURCE I MAX, I SLIP I FAULT
======•=~~=!==~!=========== =~:~-~!,:!,:,!;l =?=~= J::~~~ ~~!:.~~~!~ Page 4