HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 2021-0026; 3805 ALDER AVE; GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION AND SLOPE EVALUATION; 2021-02-26
February 26, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15939G
Tony Jaramillo
3805 Alder Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92024
Telephone: 267-847-4045 Via Email: tony.jaramillo@gmail.com
Subject: Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Evaluation
Jaramillo Residence
3805 Alder Avenue
Carlsbad, California
Mr. Jaramillo:
As requested, Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. (CTE) has completed a limited
geotechnical investigation and slope stability analysis for the existing slope at the subject site in
Carlsbad, California (Figure 1).
Based on information provided by the client, it is our understanding that the existing slope has
experienced significant erosion and minor failures resulting from stormwater flowing down
Alder Avenue and entering the site from the driveway and over the descending slope. The client
also reported that the lower portion of the slope slid or flowed over the retaining wall at the base
of the slope and onto El Camino Real during the significant rain events that occurred in April,
2020. This work has been performed in substantial accordance with the terms of CTE proposal
no. G-5219, dated January 11, 2021.
1.0 SCOPE OF WORK
The following summarizes the scope of services that we agreed to perform:
• Review available geotechnical documents pertaining to the subject site.
• Obtaining boring permits from the County of San Diego Department of Environmental
Health (DEH).
• Geologic reconnaissance of the site.
• Excavation of exploratory borings and soil sampling utilizing truck-mounted drill rig and
limited-access manual excavation equipment.
• Collect select soil samples for laboratory analysis.
• Perform an evaluation of the geotechnical stability.
• Provide this summary report presenting the work performed to date, and provide
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
Inspection I Testing I Geotechnical I Environmental & Construction Engineering I Civil Engineering I Surveying
1441 Montiel Road, Suite 11 5 I Escondido, CA 92026 I Ph (760) 746-4955 I Fax (760) 746-9806 I www.cte-inc.net
Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Evaluation
Jaramillo Residence
3805 Alder Avenue, Carlsbad, California
February 26, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15939G
S:\Projects\10-15939G (Alder Ave)\Ltr_Slope Evaluation & Recs.doc
Page 2
geotechnical engineering conclusions and recommendations regarding the slope stability,
and mitigation recommendations, as appropriate.
2.0 PREVIOUS SITE DEVELOPMENT/CONDITIONS
The site area was developed in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, which resulted in construction
of the existing residential building pad. Recent minor grading was performed to create terraces
in areas that experienced minor failures during previous rain events. As indicated above, we
understand that a significant amount of erosion as well as slope failures occurred during a
significant rain event that occurred between April 5 and 10, 2020. According to the San Diego
Weather Center records, the rain event resulted in approximately 6.14 inches of precipitation in
the city of Carlsbad during that time period. According to the client, one of the slope failures
overran the existing retaining wall at the base of the slope and flowed onto El Camino Real.
Original site topography in the subject area consists of a mesa eroded by a southeast trending
drainage with minor northeast trending drainages. Previous site grading does not appear to have
dramatically altered the general site topography.
3.0 FIELD EXPLORATIONS, SAMPLING, AND LABORATORY TESTING
CTE performed a site reconnaissance and subsurface investigation on February 1, 2021 that
consisted of surface mapping and the advancement of one deep boring and one shallow limited
access borings. The deep boring was advanced with a CME 75 truck-mounted drill rig equipped
with eight-inch diameter hollow-stem augers that extended to a depth of approximately 60.5 feet
below the ground surface (bgs). The shallow limited access boring was advanced with a
manually-operated auger that extended to a depth of approximately 12 feet bgs. Bulk samples
were collected from the cuttings, and relatively undisturbed samples were collected by driving a
Modified California (CAL) sampler.
Surface mapping and borings were logged by a Certified Engineering Geologist and were
visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS).
The field descriptions have been modified, where appropriate, to reflect laboratory test results.
The boring logs, including descriptions of the soils encountered, are included in Appendix B.
The approximate locations of the explorations are presented on Figure 2.
3.1 Reconnaissance Mapping and Observations
The scarp from the slope failure that extended onto El Camino Real covers an area of
approximately 2,200 square feet, with an approximate length of 70 lineal feet and typical width
of approximately 40 feet. The headwall, or upper portion of the slide, day-lighted mid-slope at
an approximate elevation of 250 feet above mean sea level (msl). Remnants of the previous
slope failure currently exist in the concrete “V” ditch behind the retaining wall at the base of the
slope. The approximate elevations are based on the site topographic map provided by
Fitzmaurice Consulting and Civil Engineering.
Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Evaluation
Jaramillo Residence
3805 Alder Avenue, Carlsbad, California
February 26, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15939G
S:\Projects\10-15939G (Alder Ave)\Ltr_Slope Evaluation & Recs.doc
Page 3
The exposed slide scarp was observed to be scallop shaped with an inclination ranging from
approximately 35 to 50 degrees to the east.
The slide consists of a shallow surficial slump failure with a slight rotational component
primarily caused by stormwater flowing over the slope causing saturation and erosion. This
resulted in oversteepened conditions with added weight and reduced shear strength causing
further slope instability.
3.2 Laboratory Sample Analysis
Bulk samples were collected from the cuttings, and relatively undisturbed samples were
collected by driving Standard Penetration Test (SPT) and Modified California (CAL) samplers in
general accordance with applicable ASTM methods. Collected samples were carefully placed in
water-tight containers and transported to CTE’s geotechnical laboratory for further
observation/review and testing, as necessary.
Samples were laboratory tested in accordance with applicable ASTM and California Building
Code (CBC) methods and standards for Direct Shear, Expansion Index, and Modified Proctor.
Laboratory test results are presented in Appendix C.
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL STABILITY ANALYSES
The data collected from document review, field mapping, exploratory borings and sample
analysis were used to construct a geologic cross-section (Figure 2A) that was in turn utilized for
the slope stability analyses. The slope stability analysis was conducted to evaluate safety factors
relative to the existing failure conditions, and the suggested post-slope failure remediation. The
results of the analyses are presented herein and in Appendix E.
Based on the analyses performed, the current site conditions are considered marginally stable
with safety factors generally greater than 1.0. The portion of the slope that failed appears to
primarily consist of loose surficial soils and weathered formational material. Repeated rain
events saturated these soils, adding weight and reducing friction, likely resulting in ongoing
slope movement and eventual failure. The existing slope and building pad are generally
considered grossly stable against deep-seated failure, with estimated static factors of safety
greater than 1.5. However, continued calving from the top of slope may be anticipated with
future rain events if stabilization measures are not employed.
Based on slope stability analyses, it is anticipated that site slope remediation can occur provided
proposed recommendations presented below are incorporated into design and construction of
retaining structures and/or reinforced buttressing. However, additional evaluation of site slope
stability could be required if the proposed site geometry or improvements are modified
appreciably from the current conditions or the conditions modeled herein. CTE should review
future proposed grading plans, or similar, and provide additional update evaluation or
recommendations, as appropriate.
Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Evaluation
Jaramillo Residence
3805 Alder Avenue, Carlsbad, California
February 26, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15939G
S:\Projects\10-15939G (Alder Ave)\Ltr_Slope Evaluation & Recs.doc
Page 4
5.0 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is intended to briefly summarize the recommended or suggested mitigation
measures for the current degraded slope.
Based on the results of our evaluation/design, it is considered appropriate and feasible to
construct 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) engineered fill slope extending from above the existing
retaining wall at the base of the slope. The buttress would require subdrains in the natural
drainages and other internal drains in general accordance with Appendix D and as directed or
modified by CTE during grading plan development and/or construction. Details provided in the
attached Appendix D are anticipated to be appropriate as modified herein and as recommended
by CTE in the field during grading. In addition, proper planting and various surface and/or
drainage improvements will likely be necessary during or following construction of the buttress
fill. Site drainage should be designed to direct water away from site slopes to minimize
saturation of slope subgrade, and to discharge to an appropriate offsite location.
5.1 Remedial Earthwork
Slope areas that are to undergo remedial grading will require clearing and grubbing of all
existing vegetation. Remedial grading will likely require the proper removal and replacement of
landscaping, irrigation systems, and other associated improvements. This material should be
removed from site to avoid high soil organic content in reconstruction of the slope buttress fills
and retaining wall backfill, if proposed.
The existing loose, desiccated, surficial soils that are not considered suitable in their present
condition will require removal to the depth of suitable underlying formational material. This is
generally anticipated to require three to five feet of removal along the slope surface; however,
larger or wider localized removals may be necessary in order to remove unsuitable material and
to provide proper workspace for buttress fill and slope construction.
5.2 Lateral Resistance and Earth Pressures
While retaining wall construction on the site slope areas is generally not recommended, properly
designed and constructed retaining walls may be feasible. Lateral loads acting against structures
may be resisted by friction between the footings and the supporting soil or passive pressure
acting against structures. If frictional resistance is used, allowable coefficients of friction of 0.30
(total frictional resistance equals the coefficient of friction multiplied by the dead load) for
concrete cast directly against compacted fill or native material is recommended. A design
passive resistance value of 250 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (with a maximum value
of 2,000 pounds per square foot) may be used. The allowable lateral resistance can be taken as
the sum of the frictional resistance and the passive resistance, provided the passive resistance
does not exceed two-thirds of the total allowable resistance. Footings should be properly
embedded to maintain a minimum distance to daylight of 10 feet.
Retaining walls backfilled using select granular soils may be designed using the equivalent fluid
unit weights given in Table 5.2 below.
Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Evaluation
Jaramillo Residence
3805 Alder Avenue, Carlsbad, California
February 26, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15939G
S:\Projects\10-15939G (Alder Ave)\Ltr_Slope Evaluation & Recs.doc
Page 5
Lateral pressures on cantilever retaining walls (yielding walls) up to ten feet high due to
earthquake motions may be calculated based on work by Seed and Whitman (1970). The total
lateral earth pressure against a properly drained and backfilled cantilever retaining wall above
the groundwater level can be expressed as:
PAE = PA + ΔPAE
Where PA/b = Static Active Earth Pressure = GhH2/2
ΔPAE/b = Dynamic Active Earth Pressure Increment = (3/8) kh γH2
b = unit length of wall (usually 1 foot)
kh = 1/2* PGAm (PGAm given in Table 5.4)
Gh = Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight (given in Table 5.2)
H = Total Height of the retained soil
γ = Total Unit Weight of Soil ≈ 135 pounds per cubic foot
*It is anticipated that the 1/2 reduction factor will be appropriate for proposed walls that are not
substantially sensitive to movement during the design seismic event. Proposed walls that are more sensitive
to such movement could utilize a 2/3 reduction factor. If any proposed walls require minimal to no
movement during the design seismic event, no reduction factor to the peak ground acceleration should be
used. The project structural engineer of record should determine the appropriate reduction factor to use (if
any) based on the specific proposed wall characteristics.
The static and increment of dynamic earth pressure in both cases may be applied with a line of
action located at H/3 above the bottom of the wall (SEAOC, 2013).
These values assume non-expansive backfill and free-draining conditions. Measures should be
taken to prevent moisture buildup behind all retaining walls (Figure 5). Drainage measures
should include free-draining backfill materials and sloped, perforated drains. These drains
should discharge to an appropriate off-site location. Waterproofing should be as specified by the
project architect.
TABLE 5.2
EQUIVALENT FLUID UNIT WEIGHTS (Gh)
(pounds per cubic foot)
WALL TYPE LEVEL BACKFILL
SLOPE BACKFILL
2:1 (HORIZONTAL:
VERTICAL)
CANTILEVER WALL
(YIELDING) 45 75
Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Evaluation
Jaramillo Residence
3805 Alder Avenue, Carlsbad, California
February 26, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15939G
S:\Projects\10-15939G (Alder Ave)\Ltr_Slope Evaluation & Recs.doc
Page 6
5.3 Global Stability Earthwork
Following removal of unsuitable material, an engineered fill buttress is to be constructed. The
buttress fill should extend to elevations coincident with the current top of the slope. The
following preliminary recommendations are to be implemented:
Option No. 1: Upon removal of the organic matter and unsuitable surficial deposits, the slope
areas to be remediated can be reconstructed as a typical engineered fill buttress at a maximum
2:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter. The buttress fill should extend to elevations coincident with
the current top of the slope. If the 2:1 buttress fill option is employed, internal geogrid
reinforcement is not necessarily required. However, if necessary, it is possible to construct
localized portions of the slope at a 1.75 to 1.5:1 ratio with geogrid reinforcement as
recommended below. If Option No. 1 is employed, the following preliminary recommendations
are also to be implemented:
• The buttress fill should be overexcavated to produce a minimum 15 feet wide keyway
placed entirely into suitable formational material. The toe of the keyway would underlie
the proposed toe of slope and should be angled back into slope at an approximate
minimum two percent gradient.
• The reconstructed slope should be benched into the existing slope with a minimum 10-
foot horizontal distance to daylight.
• The keyway and backslope should be equipped with subdrain devices. The subdrain
outlet should be via a non-perforated pipe that provides an approximate two percent flow
gradient to daylight. Details provided in the attached Appendix D are generally
anticipated to be appropriate as modified per the figures attached herewith and as
recommended by CTE in the field during excavation and grading.
Option No. 2: Upon removal of the organic matter and unsuitable surficial deposits, local slope
areas to be remediated can be reconstructed as a geogrid-reinforced, engineered fill buttress at a
1.75 to 1.5:1 (horizontal: vertical) maximum inclination, where necessary, and with added risk of
long-term slope surface degradation. The buttress fill should extend to elevations coincident
with the current top of the slope. If Option No. 2 is employed, the following preliminary
recommendations are also to be implemented:
• The buttress fill should be overexcavated to produce a minimum 15 feet wide keyway
placed entirely into suitable formational material. The toe of the keyway would underlie
the proposed toe of slope and should be angled back into slope at an approximate
minimum two percent gradient.
• The reconstructed slope should be benched into the existing slope with a minimum 10-
foot horizontal distance to daylight.
• The keyway and backslope should be equipped with subdrain devices. The subdrain
outlet should be via a non-perforated pipe that provides an approximate two percent flow
gradient to daylight. Details provided in the attached Appendix D are generally
Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Evaluation
Jaramillo Residence
3805 Alder Avenue, Carlsbad, California
February 26, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15939G
S:\Projects\10-15939G (Alder Ave)\Ltr_Slope Evaluation & Recs.doc
Page 7
anticipated to be appropriate as modified per the figures attached herewith and as
recommended by CTE in the field during grading.
• Localized 1.75:1 fill slope should be reinforced by Mirafi 3XT (or superior) uniaxial
geogrid to provide the required surficial slope stability. Care should be taken to ensure
that the uniaxial geogrid is placed properly (rolled perpendicular to the slope face). An
equivalent biaxial geogrid could also be used, which would provide superior protection
against shallow surficial failures.
• The recommended geogrid should extend to within the top six inches of the proposed
finished slope face to maximize protection against shallow slope surface failures, and
extend back into the slope at least 10 feet, or to the back of the buttress fill backcut
(whichever results in greater lengths of geogrid being used).
• Geogrid reinforcement panels should abut neatly without a space between them;
overlapping of panels is acceptable.
• The near horizontal geogrid layers should be placed approximately two vertical feet
above the bottom of the slope keyway and be placed every two vertical feet thereafter to
within two vertical feet of the top of slope.
• The highest geogrid layer should be held down no more than two vertical feet below the
rough graded top of slope, and closer spacing of geogrid layers is acceptable anywhere
within the slope.
• Strength for soil placed within the geogrid reinforced zone should be equivalent to or
greater than a phi angle of 30 degrees and cohesion of at least 200 pounds per square feet
(psf) with a compacted moist unit weight of at least 120 pounds per cubic foot (pcf).
Such soils are anticipated to be present onsite.
• Particle size placed in the geogrid reinforced zone should generally be no greater than
three inches in maximum dimension and free of sharp edges.
• Compaction requirements of Appendix D should be maintained, and no fill should be
compacted to less than 90% of the maximum dry density (per ASTM D-1557) at moisture
contents a minimum two percent above optimum.
• The geogrid reinforced backfill material should be observed and tested by CTE.
• Preliminary testing indicates that site near surface materials are generally adequate for
use in the reinforced slope. However, some select grading could be required.
• Planting of the fill slope face should not penetrate geogrid unless reviewed by CTE.
However, planting of larger, approved deep-rooted plants and shrubs is anticipated to be
appropriate. CTE may provide additional recommendations regarding slope face
disturbance, depending upon the observed conditions. In general, drought tolerant deep-
rooted vegetation is typically best practice and recommended. However, all planting
materials and details should be provided by a qualified Landscape Architect or other
qualified professional.
• In general, irrigation pipes should be above ground so as to not penetrate geogrid material
in fill slopes, and to allow inspection and repair (as needed) by maintenance personnel
during the project useful life.
Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Evaluation
Jaramillo Residence
3805 Alder Avenue, Carlsbad, California
February 26, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15939G
S:\Projects\10-15939G (Alder Ave)\Ltr_Slope Evaluation & Recs.doc
Page 8
• Maintenance of the fill slope face should be anticipated due to differential erosion
potential between the slope face exposed geogrid material and soil particles, and the
generally oversteepened nature of the slopes.
A Conceptual Remedial Earthwork plan for Option 1 is attached as Figure 2B and Appendix D:
Standard Grading Recommendations provide information on grading and materials. Information
and calculations demonstrating a minimum 1.5 safety factor for the recommended earthwork, as
well as additional details of our analysis, are provided in Appendix E.
In order to permit and perform the recommended remedial measures indicated above, we
anticipate it will be necessary to retain a qualified licensed Professional Land Surveyor and/or a
Professional Civil Engineer to perform and prepare a precise topographic survey and
grading/landscape/drainage plan. Such plans are also anticipated to be submitted, approved, and
permitted through the appropriate divisions of the City of Carlsbad.
Once the above documents have been prepared, CTE (or other qualified geotechnical consultant)
should review and provide appropriate update geotechnical recommendations for the proposed
work.
5.4 Seismic Design Criteria
The seismic ground motion values listed in the table below were derived in accordance with the
ASCE 7-16 Standard that is incorporated into the 2019 California Building Code. This was
accomplished by establishing the Site Class based on average anticipated resistance for the upper
100 feet. Site coefficients and parameters were calculated using the SEAOC-OSHPD U.S.
Seismic Design Maps application. Seismic ground motion values are based on the approximate
site coordinates of 33.1599° latitude and -117.3193° longitude. These values are intended for the
design of structures to resist the effects of earthquake ground motions.
Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Evaluation
Jaramillo Residence
3805 Alder Avenue, Carlsbad, California
February 26, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15939G
S:\Projects\10-15939G (Alder Ave)\Ltr_Slope Evaluation & Recs.doc
Page 9
TABLE 5.4
SEISMIC GROUND MOTION VALUES (CODE-BASED)
2019 CBC AND ASCE 7-16
PARAMETER VALUE 2019 CBC/ASCE 7-16
REFERENCE
Site Class C ASCE 16, Chapter 20
Mapped Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, SS 1.010 Figure 1613.2.1 (1)
Mapped Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, S1 0.368 Figure 1613.2.1 (2)
Seismic Coefficient, Fa 1.200 Table 1613.2.3 (1)
Seismic Coefficient, Fv 1.500 Table 1613.2.3 (2)
MCE Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, SMS 1.212 Section 1613.2.3
MCE Spectral Response
Acceleration Parameter, SM1 0.552 Section 1613.2.3
Design Spectral Response
Acceleration, Parameter SDS 0.808 Section 1613.2.5(1)
Design Spectral Response
Acceleration, Parameter SD1 0.368 Section 1613.2.5 (2)
Peak Ground Acceleration PGAM 0.531 ASCE 16, Section 11.8.3
6.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
The field evaluation, laboratory testing and geotechnical analysis presented in this report have
been conducted according to current engineering practice and the standard of care exercised by
reputable geotechnical consultants performing similar tasks in this area. No other warranty,
expressed or implied, is made regarding the conclusions, recommendations and opinions
expressed in this report. Variations may exist and conditions not observed or described in this
report may be encountered during construction. This report is prepared for the project as
described. It is not prepared for any other property or party.
The recommendations provided herein have been developed in order to reduce the post-
construction movement of graded slopes and site improvements. However, even with the design
and construction recommendations presented herein, some post-construction movement and
associated distress may occur.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in the conditions
of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they are due to natural processes or the
works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate
standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge.
Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Evaluation
Jaramillo Residence
3805 Alder Avenue, Carlsbad, California
February 26, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15939G
S:\Projects\10-15939G (Alder Ave)\Ltr_Slope Evaluation & Recs.doc
Page 10
Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes
outside CTE’s involvement.
CTE’s conclusions and recommendations are based on an analysis of the observed conditions. If
conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, CTE should be notified
and additional recommendations, if required, will be provided subject to CTE remaining as
authorized geotechnical consultant of record.
Respectfully submitted,
CONSTRUCTION TESTING & ENGINEERING, INC.
Dan T. Math, GE #2665 Jay F. Lynch, CEG #1890
Principal Engineer Principal Engineering Geologist
Aaron J. Beeby, CEG #2603
Senior Geologist
AJB/DTM/JFL:ajb
Geotechnical Investigation and Slope Evaluation
Jaramillo Residence
3805 Alder Avenue, Carlsbad, California
February 26, 2021 CTE Job No. 10-15939G
S:\Projects\10-15939G (Alder Ave)\Ltr_Slope Evaluation & Recs.doc
Page 11
FIGURES:
Figure 1 Index Map
Figure 2 Geologic/ Exploration Location Map
Figure 2A Cross Section A-A’
Figure 2B Cross Section A-A’ (Option 1 Repair)
Figure 3 Regional Geologic Map
Figure 4 Retaining Wall Detail
APPENDICES:
Appendix A References
Appendix B Exploration Logs
Appendix C Laboratory Results and Methods
Appendix D Standards Specifications for Grading
Appendix E Slope Stability Analysis
SITE
APN: 2070632500
.I-,,, ,5
CT£~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~c 1441 Mootiel Rd SIB 115, Escond;do, CA 92026 Ph (760) 7464955
SITE INDEX MAP
PROPOSED ALDER AVENUE SLOPE EVALUATION
3805 ALDER AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA.
SCALE: DATE:
AS SHOWN 2/21
CTE JOB NO.: FIGURE:
10-15939G 1
B-1
B-2
Qudf
Qudf
Qudf
Qsw
Qsw
Qvop
Qvop
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa
Tsa Qudf Qls
A
A'
12
29
12
52
38
12
Qudf
Qvop
B-2 APPROXIMATE BORING LOCATION
LEGEND
QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION
Qudf
Tsa
APPROXIMATE GEOLOGIC CONTACT
QUATERNARY SLOPEWASHQsw
QUATERNARY VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITSQvop
QUATERNARY LANDSLIDE DEPOSITSQls
CROSS SECTION A-A'A A'
APPROXIMATE JOINT ATTITUDE52
12
APPROXIMATE BEDDING ATTITUDE
O'l 3: "O N
(I) I.. ::J O'l § ,,....._
~ <(
I.. (I) "O < '-"
(.!) Ol I")
Ol
LO ~
I 0
/ en .... 0 (I) ·o I..
CL /
en
""'"
, __ __
1------1
/
20' 0 10' 20'
t-----...--1
I I
\
c~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
~~r
GEOLOGIC/EXPLORATION LOCATION MAP I n n-~-~ I
PROPOSED SLOPE EVALUATION enc.
3805 ALDER AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 2
100
DISTANCE (FEET)
CROSS SECTION A-A'
0 50
170
160
170
160
150 200 250 300 350 400
210EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
190
180
200
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
210
190
180
200
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
A A'
B-1
Tsa (sand)
Tsa (Clay)
Tsa (sand)
TD=60.5'
TD=12'
B-2
Qvop
Qudf/Qya
Existing Profile
Existing Residence
Qudf
Qudf
Qudf
Tsa (Clay)
Tsa (sand)
LEGEND
QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION
Qudf
Tsa
APPROXIMATE GEOLOGIC CONTACT
QUATERNARY VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITSQvop
QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL FLOODQya
PLAIN DEPOSITS
o> ;,;:
"O
......... <(
I <(
C: 0 :;:;
0 (/)
en
en 0 L u .........
<( N
(I)
L ::J o> §
.........
~ <(
L (I) "O < .........
(.!) Ol I")
Ol
LO ~
I 0
/ en .... 0 (I) ·o
L
CL /
en
I---. 1 1 v ~ ,~~ "' ~
~ ---1-1 -a ....J. -I-..L J... L Fl-~ 1= 79 =r =t-=r-r -r F ----7
J_ -L 1_ 1-1 __J --4 --L ..J_ J... J_ ~ l-l---1 --1 --~ ~
~-~-+-1-~-~-~~-~-~~-+-1-~-~~~-~-~~-+-1-~-~~~-1 I I I I I I I
"'----~ C~c
~
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
T
,__-..J....
,-..... ,..._ ;,.._
I i-1--
CROSS SECTION A-A'
JARAMILLO RESIDENCE SLOPE EVALUATION 3805 ALDER AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 2A
2:1 (H:V) Fill Slope
100
DISTANCE (FEET)
CROSS SECTION A-A'
0 50
170
160
210EL
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
(
F
E
E
T
)
190
180
200
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
B-1
Tsa (sand)
Tsa (Clay)
Tsa (sand)
TD=60.5'
Qvop
Qudf/Qya
Existing Residence
Qudf
Back-cut to be benched into suitable material
Typical Backdrain
Per Appendix D Slope ~2%
Into Slope
Min 3'
Keyway to extend down into suitable formational material
150 200 250 300 350 400
170
160
210
190
180
200
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
A A'
Tsa (Clay)
LEGEND
QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION
Qudf
Tsa
APPROXIMATE GEOLOGIC CONTACT
QUATERNARY VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITSQvop
QUATERNARY YOUNG ALLUVIAL FLOODQya
PLAIN DEPOSITS
O'>
3:::
"O ,...:..
L ·o a.
Q)
a::::
Q) a. 0
en
C 0 :;::; a. 0 .__,
[Il N
Q)
L ::J
O'> § ,,....._
~ <(
L
Q) "O < .__,
(.!) Ol I")
Ol
LO ~ I 0
/ en .... 0 Q) ·o
L
CL /
en
-
..... __ _,,,.
r---
-.r ~..!.,_-
Ii-■----
-·----• -
I
I I I I 71~~ r--"4----,
--_J_ -L -=-b_: --· _, ---r ---,--r-- . ----~ -~ -/
~ ------. -· ----
--------·---·---·------
.....___
r---...
..... IL-.J-, f"-.....,, ---
-
---
T7-17
f----~--
~ C~c
" I"-. L_ ~ L.----I~
=fi9 --I ~ ~n_ I
7 1 -~ ~ --------• -----A .....
l'----1"--.. ~7
..... ~ l"r---.. ' -~ I I I I / I \ ,_ -----;..... ·r---·r---'
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. CROSS SECTION A-A' (Option 1 Repair) 1 n n-~-~ 1
JARAMIILO RESIDENCE SLOPE EVALUATION enc.
1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 3805 ALDER AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 2B
APPROXIMATE
SITE LOCATION
NOTE: Base Map by Kennedy and Tan, 2007, Geologic Map of the
Oceanside 30' x 60' Quadrangle, California.
LEGEND
Young Alluvial Flood Plain DepositsQya
Qop Old Paralic Deposits
Very Old Paralic DepositsQvop
Torrey StandstoneTt
Paralic Estuarine DepositsQpe
Del Mar FormationTd
Santiago FormationTsa
Metavolcanic RockMzu
O'l ~ "'C .,...:.. a. C
~
0 (I)
(!)
'-"
I"')
(I) I,_
::J
O'l 5 ......... ~ <(
I,_
(I)
"'C <(
'-"
(!)
0)
I"')
0)
LC) ......
I 0
/ en +' 0
-~ 0 I,_ ~
cii
CT£~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc .
~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115. Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
JAIWOLLO RESIDENCE SLOPE EVALUATION
3805 ALDER AVENUE
CARI8BAD, CAIJFORNIA
SCALE: DATE:
1 " ... 4,000' 2/21
CTE JOB NO.: FIGURE:
10-15939G 3
APPROXIMATE
SITE LOCATION
LEGEND
HISTORIC FAULT DISPLACEMENT (LAST 200 YEARS)
HOLOCENE FAULT DISPLACEMENT (DURING PAST 11,700 YEARS)
LATE QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACMENT (DURING PAST 700,000 YEARS)
QUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT (AGE UNDIFFERENTIATED)
PREQUATERNARY FAULT DISPLACEMENT (OLDER THAN 1.6 MILLION YEARS)
>7.0
6.5-6.9
5.5-5.9
5.0-5.4
PERIOD 1800- 1869- 1932-
1868 1931 2010
LAST TWO DIGITS OF M > 6.5
EARTHQUAKE YEAR
MA
G
N
I
T
U
D
E
>-
,:.
,,.. __ >-:,, '.\
\ \ .. ,
~ ..
'> "''
\
>--
'\,\\
\ ' \ \'
'><-,~
~",, r \\ -,
~'--\ ' \_ ' ., l!!!I ' ~ ' ~ ''t \ ' '>-i~~~ \ ~ ,"\\\ ', \
\ \ '\'' ,,, '\" / 'L. ' '\\ ', \ .,, ~ "-"'
~~
..... ___
.... ,
'),.__ '
~
\ '\ ,,
\ " \ \:
\
'\
'·
i\ ', ,,
'\ '\ I \ "\ \ . ~ '\
I
I
\
' \
~ ''< \ \\ \' \\ \'-:e \ ~ \, '~\. .. 1 \
--------.i...._~~ ••
'======:=:::=::===:--::.::-.... -?-•
.......• ?.,g
== , ... z::r..12, --······· ?-
~. C ' ~. , "¼~-~\_~1BI...-..-':J~rr ~. ~ Rth.,drd'I,. :• • ..,_ ~~.-Wi.,~~
;:_...,.,.111 ,/
12 0 6 12
~ -~ I I --1 inch = 12 mi.
@
0
0
0
0 • •
0
0
0
0
~
-~ ---------···-.. ~,:. ···1~-~ i. • .• ~' • ~-··-~ • --~-. } . . '
I •,•,•,r : •, ~ ••••• •-",.,: •'\ .. • I 1 · . • ,;j ,; '\\ ;t ,'' 'I .. • . '• I / • , •
'ljl-._ I ~ ~--~ >
,... ~'..,\
••· ...
'•\,
'··· ••• .i-.
·"'.'~~ ·•.
···• ..... .
~ •• ..
\' ' \
Jr.1 ··-•• ~ M' q\, m ·-,!~_
! Z'
~
1
l ,t
f t <
!
' '~\
\ \
'.,.._ \ \
\ \.., \ \ ,, I\
\~\I
\~ \
\' \
I 1{ I \
;p E R
J.
" I • • • · i ~ 1
~ ' • ~ .1. ·o •\ • \ j M E X / I --C ~ ,'\"' I ,\ \ ~ ., '?+. \ I
;i; NoTEs: FAULT AC'lfflTY KAP oF CALIFORNIA, 2010. CALIFORNIA GE010G1c DATA KAP SERIES KAP No. 6: ~ . . . . REGIONAL FAULT AND SEis111cITY KAP rL-ro-159311G 1
~ EPICENTERS OF AND AREAS DAllAGED BY 11>5 CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKES, 1eoo-1999 ADAPTED CT£~\\ Construction Testing & Eng1neenng, Inc. JARAMILLO RESIDENCE SLOPE EVALUATION ~· • f = Jf:P:, ,:RANUII, PETERSEN, HAUS'l'ORM, CRAIIER, AND REICHLE,
2666• '-!J..Y'f. 1441 Monbel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955 3805 ALDER AVENUE _
~ RBFIRINCI FOR ADDmONAL BXPLANATION: MODIFIED me CISN AND usGs s1IS111c KAPS ~ CARISBAD CAIJFORNIA , -, ---• • Ill
1' MIN
3/4" GRAVEL SURROUNDED
BY FILTER FABRIC (MIRAFI
14O N, OR EQUIVALENT)
-OR-
PREFABRICATED
DRAINAGE BOARD
RETAINING WALL
FINISH GRADE
4" DIA. PERFORATED PVC
PIPE (SCHEDULE 40 OR
EQUIVALENT). MINIMUM
1% GRADIENT TO SUITABLE
OUTLET
WALL FOOTING
12" TO 18" OF LOWER
PERMEABILITY NATIVE
MATERIAL COMPACTED TO 90%
RELATIVE COMPACTION
SELECT GRANULAR WALL
BACKFILL COMPACTED
TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION
WATERPROOFING TO BE
SPECIFIED BY ARCHITECT
CTE JOB NO:
DATE:FIGURE:
SCALE:
2/21
NO SCALERETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL
10-15939G
5
V • <
> -
'
---,-,-,.--....-,.-..,...........,.......,..,,..........,..-.,......,...1 A
~ >
'
% ' > .
t::..
CT~ Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. ~c 1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
S:\Projects\10-15939G (Alder Ave)\Ltr_Slope Evaluation & Recs.doc
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
S:\Projects\10-15939G (Alder Ave)\Ltr_Slope Evaluation & Recs.doc
REFERENCES
Kennedy, M.P., Tan, S.S., and others, (2007) Geologic Map of the Oceanside 30’X60”
Quadrangle, USGS/CGS, Regional Geologic Map No. 2, 1:100,000 Scale.
National Geographic, 2000; Seamless USGS Topographic Maps on CD-ROM, California, Disk
11 of 11, San Diego.
Tan, S.S. “Landslide Hazards in the Southern Part of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, San
Diego County, California” dated 1995, CDMG Landslide Identification Map No. 33.
APPENDIX B
EXPLORATION LOGS
DEFINITION OF TERMS
PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS
WELL GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES
LITTLE OR NO FINES
POORLY GRADED GRAVELS OR GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES,
LITTLE OF NO FINES
SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-SILT MIXTURES,
NON-PLASTIC FINES
CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES,
PLASTIC FINES
WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO
FINES
POORLY GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR
NO FINES
SILTY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES, NON-PLASTIC FINES
CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES, PLASTIC FINES
INORGANIC SILTS, VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY
OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS, SLIGHTLY PLASTIC CLAYEY SILTS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,
GRAVELLY, SANDY, SILTS OR LEAN CLAYS
ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY
INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
SANDY OR SILTY SOILS, ELASTIC SILTS
INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,
ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS
PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GRAIN SIZES
GRAVEL SAND
COARSE FINE COARSE MEDIUM FINE
12" 3" 3/4" 4 10 40 200
CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
ADDITIONAL TESTS
(OTHER THAN TEST PIT AND BORING LOG COLUMN HEADINGS)
MAX- Maximum Dry Density PM- Permeability PP- Pocket Penetrometer
GS- Grain Size Distribution SG- Specific Gravity WA- Wash Analysis
SE- Sand Equivalent HA- Hydrometer Analysis DS- Direct Shear
EI- Expansion Index AL- Atterberg Limits UC- Unconfined Compression
CHM- Sulfate and Chloride RV- R-Value MD- Moisture/Density
Content , pH, Resistivity CN- Consolidation M- Moisture
COR - Corrosivity CP- Collapse Potential SC- Swell Compression
SD- Sample Disturbed HC- Hydrocollapse OI- Organic Impurities
REM- Remolded
FIGURE: BL1
GW
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT ISLESS THAN 50
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID LIMIT IS
GREATER THAN 50
SANDS
MORE THAN
HALF OF
COARSE
FRACTION IS
SMALLER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE
GRAVELS
MORE THAN
HALF OF
COARSE
FRACTION IS
LARGER THAN
NO. 4 SIEVE
CLEAN
GRAVELS
< 5% FINES
GRAVELS WITH FINES
CLEAN
SANDS
< 5% FINES
SANDSWITH FINES
CO
A
R
S
E
G
R
A
I
N
E
D
S
O
I
L
S
MO
R
E
T
H
A
N
H
A
L
F
O
F
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
I
S
L
A
R
G
E
R
T
H
A
N
NO
.
2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
S
I
Z
E
GP
GM
GC
SW
SP
SM
SC
ML
CL
OL
MH
CH
OH
PT
FI
N
E
G
R
A
I
N
E
D
S
O
I
L
S
MO
R
E
T
H
A
N
H
A
L
F
O
F
MA
T
E
R
I
A
L
I
S
S
M
A
L
L
E
R
TH
A
N
N
O
.
2
0
0
S
I
E
V
E
S
I
Z
E
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SILTS AND CLAYSCOBBLESCOBBLESBOULDERS
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
PROJECT:DRILLER:SHEET:of
CTE JOB NO:DRILL METHOD:DRILLING DATE:
LOGGED BY:SAMPLE METHOD:ELEVATION:
De
p
t
h
(
F
e
e
t
)
Bu
l
k
S
a
m
p
l
e
Dr
i
v
e
n
T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
F
o
o
t
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
(
%
)
U.S
.
C
.
S
.
S
y
m
b
o
l
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
BORING LEGEND Laboratory Tests
DESCRIPTION
Block or Chunk Sample
Bulk Sample
Standard Penetration Test
Modified Split-Barrel Drive Sampler (Cal Sampler)
Thin Walled Army Corp. of Engineers Sample
Groundwater Table
Soil Type or Classification Change
???????
Formation Change [(Approximate boundaries queried (?)]
"SM"Quotes are placed around classifications where the soilsexist in situ as bedrock
FIGURE: BL2
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 746-4955
-0
--~ -----X ---
-5-
--
--
~'" --
--....
10--
--I ---
--I -
--
-15-
--
--~
--
--~-----------------------------------------------------------------------
20-----------------\_ --
--
--
25-
--
I
PROJECT:SHEET: of
CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:
LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:
De
p
t
h
(
F
e
e
t
)
Bu
l
k
S
a
m
p
l
e
Dr
i
v
e
n
T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
6
"
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
(
%
)
U.S
.
C
.
S
.
S
y
m
b
o
l
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
DESCRIPTION
SC
"SC"
15
36
50/5"
22
45
50/5" "SC"
21
42
50/5" "CL"
"SC"
46
50/5"
3
10-15939G HOLLOW-STEM AUGER 2/1/2021
JARAMILLO RESIDENCE SLOPE DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION 1
AJB RING, SPT and BULK ~288 FEET
BORING: B-1 Laboratory Tests
Asphalt: 0-3"QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, slightly moist, dark reddish brown tobrown, clayey fine to medium grained SAND.
MAX
QUATERNARY VERY OLD PARALIC DEPOSITS:Dense to very dense, slightly moist, reddish brown, clayey fineto medium grained SANDSTONE, oxidized, massive.Roots at five feetGravel from 6.5 to 9.0 feet MD, DS
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION:Very dense, moist, light reddish gray, clayey fine to medium SANDSTONE, oxidized, mottling, abundant medium grained sand.
Increased clay content
Hard, moist, light olive, fine grained sandy CLAYSTONE.MD, DS
Very dense, slightly moist, light olive gray, clayey fine to mediumgrained SANDSTONE, massive, abundant medium grained sand.
B-1
0
5
10
15
20
25
-
--
--
--
--
-
--I ---
--
--
---
--I .....
--
--
--
---
--I ---
--
--
--~ --
--
--
--
--
I
PROJECT:SHEET: of
CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:
LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:
De
p
t
h
(
F
e
e
t
)
Bu
l
k
S
a
m
p
l
e
Dr
i
v
e
n
T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
6
"
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
(
%
)
U.S
.
C
.
S
.
S
y
m
b
o
l
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
DESCRIPTION
29 "SC"
50/3"
"SM"
50/6"
50/5"
31 "CH"
50/2"
28
50/4"
B-1
AL
MD, DS
Hard, moist, olive, CLAYSTONE, polished surfaces, high plasticity.
SANDSTONE.Very dense, slightly moist, light gray, silty fine grained
grained SANDSTONE, massive, abundant medium grained sand.Very dense, slightly moist, light olive gray, clayey fine to medium
AJB RING, SPT and BULK ~288 FEET
BORING: B-1 Laboratory Tests
3
10-15939G HOLLOW-STEM AUGER 2/1/2021
JARAMILLO RESIDENCE SLOPE DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION 2
25
30
35
40
45
50
-I ---
--
--
--
--~
--
--
--
--
--~
--
--
--
--
---
--I_
--
--
--
-
--~
--
--
--
---
I
PROJECT:SHEET: of
CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:
LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:
De
p
t
h
(
F
e
e
t
)
Bu
l
k
S
a
m
p
l
e
Dr
i
v
e
n
T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
6
"
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
(
%
)
U.S
.
C
.
S
.
S
y
m
b
o
l
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
DESCRIPTION
50/5""CH"
32
50/5"
"SC"
50/5"
Total Depth: 60.5'No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled with Bentonite/Concrete Mix
B-1
MD, DS
moderately cemented.Very dense, slightly moist, gray, clayey fine grained SANDSTONE,
Hard, moist, olive, CLAYSTONE, polished surfaces, high plasticity.
AJB RING, SPT and BULK ~288 FEET
BORING: B-1 Laboratory Tests
3
10-15939G HOLLOW-STEM AUGER 2/1/2021
JARAMILLO RESIDENCE SLOPE DRILLER: BAJA EXPLORATION 3
50
55
60
65
70
75
... £
... -
... -
... -
... -
... --
... -L
... -
... -
... -
... -7
... -
... -
... -
... -
... -
... -
... -
... -
... -
... -
... -
... -
... -
... -
... -
I
PROJECT:SHEET: of
CTE JOB NO: DRILL METHOD: DRILLING DATE:
LOGGED BY: SAMPLE METHOD: ELEVATION:
De
p
t
h
(
F
e
e
t
)
Bu
l
k
S
a
m
p
l
e
Dr
i
v
e
n
T
y
p
e
Bl
o
w
s
/
6
"
Dr
y
D
e
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
(
%
)
U.S
.
C
.
S
.
S
y
m
b
o
l
Gr
a
p
h
i
c
L
o
g
DESCRIPTION
SC
"SC/SM"
"CL"
Total Depth: 12.0'No Groundwater Encountered
JARAMILLO RESIDENCE SLOPE DRILLER:BAJA EXPLORATION 1 1
10-15939G HOLLOW-STEM AUGER 2/1/2021
AJB RING, SPT and BULK ~263 FEET
BORING: B-2 Laboratory Tests
QUATERNARY UNDOCUMENTED FILL:Loose to medium dense, moist, reddish brown, clayey fine tomedium grained SAND.
TERTIARY SANTIAGO FORMATION:Medium dense to dense, slightly moist, light gray, clayey to siltyfine to medium grained SANDSTONE.
Becomes medium dense, severely mottled.
Becomes yellowish brown with a 1/4" diameter root
Becomes dense, very light graywith increased cementation
Becomes yellowish brown, with minor root
Becomes light gray
Hard, moist, olive CLAYSTONE.
B-2
0
5
10
15
20
25
-
--
--
--
--
---
--
--
--
--
--
--
-
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
I
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY METHODS AND RESULTS
Laboratory tests were performed on selected soil samples to evaluate their engineering
properties. Tests were performed following test methods of the American Society for Testing
and Materials, or other accepted standards. The following presents a brief description of the
various test methods used. Laboratory results are presented in the following section of this
Appendix.
Classification
Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual
classifications were supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples according to ASTM
D 2487.
Expansion Index
Expansion testing was performed on selected samples of the matrix of the on-site soils according
to ASTM D 4829.
Direct Shear
Direct shear tests were performed three samples. Two of the samples were remolded to 90
percent of maximum dry density one of the samples was a driven relatively undisturbed sample.
Direct shear testing was performed in accordance with ASTM D 3080. The samples were
inundated during shearing to represent adverse field conditions.
Modified Proctor
Laboratory maximum dry density and optimum moisture content were evaluated according to
ASTM D 1557, Method A on two samples A mechanically operated rammer was used during the
compaction process.
LOCATION EXPANSION INDEX EXPANSION
POTENTIAL
Bulk 1 55 MEDIUM
LOCATION % MOISTURE DRY DENSITY
B-1 12.1 121.9
B-1 19.2 106.3
B-1 21.9 99.5
B-1 14.1 113.3
LOCATION DEPTH LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX CLASSIFICATION
(feet)
B-1 45-50 69 41 CH
LOCATION MAXIUM DRY DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE
(PCF)(%)
B-1 131.8 (RC:133.6) 9.5 (RC: 8.9)
0-1
EXPANSION INDEX TEST
ASTM D 4829
15
IN-PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY
DEPTH
DEPTH
(feet)
(feet)
5
45
60
ATTERBERG LIMITS
MODIFIED PROCTOR
ASTM D 1557
DEPTH
(feet)
0-5
LABORATORY SUMMARY CTE JOB NO. 10-15939G
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc.
1441 Montiel Rd Ste 115, Escondido, CA 92026 Ph (760) 7 46-4955
SHEAR STRENGTH TEST - ASTM D3080
Job Name:
Project Number: 10-15939
Lab Number: 31755
Sample Location: Tested by:
Sample Description:
B-1 @ 5'
Sample Date:
Test Date:
2/1/2021
Moderate Brown (SC) Angle Of Friction: 36.4
Cohesion:
Alder Ave
990 psf
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 121.9
Initial Moisture (%): 12.1
Final Moisture (%): 17.7
JH
2/8/2021
0.017
0.0175
0.018
0.0185
0.019
0.0195
0.02
0.0205
0.0210.1 1 10 100
ST
R
A
I
N
(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
TIME (minutes)
PRECONSOLIDATION
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 2 4 6 8 101214161820
SH
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
STRAIN (%)
SHEARING DATA
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
SH
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
VERTICAL STRESS (psf)
FAILURE ENVELOPE
dr=0.0800 mm./min
VERTICAL STRESS
1000 psf
3000 psf
5000 psf
I
• I I I I 11 I I 11 r I I
I\
[I
l l l l 1 J 1 I I J
I J llJlJI J l I I J J J I I J J J
I I= ~I J
1 l================================-====-L.:.=-----==----==~~====-~----
I I I
L 1 1
I
I
,,
l
I
I
I ~ CTE JNC ~
SHEAR STRENGTH TEST - ASTM D3080
Job Name:
Project Number: 10-15939G
Lab Number: 31755
Sample Location: Tested by:
Sample Description:
JH
2/8/2021
Angle Of Friction: 19.5
Cohesion:
Alder Ave
1310 psf
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 106.3
Initial Moisture (%): 19.2
Final Moisture (%): 22.9
B-1 @ 15'
Sample Date:
Test Date:
2/1/2021
Moderate Brown (SC)
0.026
0.028
0.030
0.032
0.034
0.036
0.038
0.040
0.0420.1 1 10 100
ST
R
A
I
N
(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
TIME (minutes)
PRECONSOLIDATION
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 2 4 6 8 101214161820
SH
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
STRAIN (%)
SHEARING DATA
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
SH
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
VERTICAL STRESS (psf)
FAILURE ENVELOPE
dr=0.0800 mm./min
VERTICAL STRESS
1000 psf
3000 psf
5000 psf
I
• I I I I 11 I I 11 r I I I 1 I I I 7
' ,
~ l l l l -1 J 1 I I J
I J llJlJI J l I I J J I I J J J
I I= ~I J
1 l================================-====-L.:.=-----==----==~~====-~----
I I I
0
L 1 1
I
I I
l
I I
7
I
7 ~ CTE JNC ~
SHEAR STRENGTH TEST - ASTM D3080
Job Name:
Project Number: 10-15939G
Lab Number: 31755
Sample Location:Tested by:
Sample Description:
B-1 @ 20'
Sample Date:
Test Date:
2/2/2021
Moderate Brown (SM)Angle Of Friction: 36.3
Cohesion:
Alder Ave
1440 psf
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 115.3
Initial Moisture (%): 11.7
Final Moisture (%): 17.2
JH
2/19/2021
0.024
0.025
0.026
0.027
0.028
0.029
0.030
0.031
0.1 1 10 100
ST
R
A
I
N
(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
TIME (minutes)
PRECONSOLIDATION
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 2 4 6 8 101214161820
SH
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
STRAIN (%)
SHEARING DATA
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
SH
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
VERTICAL STRESS (psf)
FAILURE ENVELOPE
dr=0.0800 mm./min
VERTICAL STRESS
1000 psf
3000 psf5000 psf
I I
I I I I 7 1-1 I I I 7
---, f'\ -" -~
" "' ... "" ~ -~ ' ~
~
-/"\
1
-/ -
~
y
1'1111 -. ~ -
I I J I I I I ~ I I .-~
I 11 I I I 111 I 11 I I -
1-I== J
'--------J
r I I I I I 7
'
•
-
4. -
-
J l I J C
I I I I ,-----
--
----
----
-----
I ---I
SHEAR STRENGTH TEST - ASTM D3080
Job Name:
Project Number: 10-15939G
Lab Number: 31755
Sample Location: Tested by:
Sample Description:
JH
2/12/2021
Angle Of Friction: 37.1
Cohesion:
Alder Ave
200 psf
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 99.5
Initial Moisture (%): 21.9
Final Moisture (%): 26.4
B-1 @ 45'
Sample Date:
Test Date:
2/1/2021
Light Gray (CH)
0.018
0.020
0.022
0.024
0.026
0.028
0.030
0.032
0.034
0.036
0.0380.1 1 10 100
ST
R
A
I
N
(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
TIME (minutes)
PRECONSOLIDATION
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 2 4 6 8 101214161820
SH
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
STRAIN (%)
SHEARING DATA
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
SH
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
VERTICAL STRESS (psf)
FAILURE ENVELOPE
dr=0.0800 mm./min
VERTICAL STRESS
1000 psf
3000 psf
5000 psf
I
I 11 I I 11 r I I I 1 I I I 7
-(
,
L
,-
, v,-
Y1 l l l l l 1 I I J
I J l I J I J l I I J J J I I J J J
I I= ~I J
1 l================================-====-L.:.=-----==----==~~====-~----
I I I I I 7
L-i--t--114~
,,
l 7
L 1 1 I I
I
~ CTE JNC ~
SHEAR STRENGTH TEST - ASTM D3080
Job Name:
Project Number: 10-15939G
Lab Number: 31755
Sample Location: Tested by:
Sample Description:
JH
2/16/2021
Angle Of Friction: 39.1
Cohesion:
Alder Ave
760 psf
Initial Dry Density (pcf): 113.3
Initial Moisture (%): 14.1
Final Moisture (%): 21.3
B-1 @ 60'
Sample Date:
Test Date:
2/1/2021
Light Gray (CL)
0.015
0.016
0.017
0.018
0.019
0.02
0.0210.1 1 10 100
ST
R
A
I
N
(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)
TIME (minutes)
PRECONSOLIDATION
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 2 4 6 8 101214161820
SH
E
A
R
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
STRAIN (%)
SHEARING DATA
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
SH
E
A
R
I
N
G
S
T
R
E
S
S
(
p
s
f
)
VERTICAL STRESS (psf)
FAILURE ENVELOPE
dr=0.0800 mm./min
VERTICAL STRESS
1000 psf
3000 psf
5000 psf
I
I r I I I I I I 7 -' r-
I L
I -
-,
l l l l J J I I J
I J llJlJI J l I I J J I I J J J
I I= ~I J
1 l================================-====-L.:.=-----==----==~~====-~----
I I I
l •
L 1 1
I
I
l
l
I
I
I
7
4
~ CTE JNC ~
APPENDIX D
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 1 of 26
Page D-1
Section 1 - General
Construction Testing & Engineering, Inc. presents the following standard recommendations for
grading and other associated operations on construction projects. These guidelines should be
considered a portion of the project specifications. Recommendations contained in the body of
the previously presented soils report shall supersede the recommendations and or requirements as
specified herein. The project geotechnical consultant shall interpret disputes arising out of
interpretation of the recommendations contained in the soils report or specifications contained
herein.
Section 2 - Responsibilities of Project Personnel
The geotechnical consultant should provide observation and testing services sufficient to general
conformance with project specifications and standard grading practices. The geotechnical
consultant should report any deviations to the client or his authorized representative.
The Client should be chiefly responsible for all aspects of the project. He or his authorized
representative has the responsibility of reviewing the findings and recommendations of the
geotechnical consultant. He shall authorize or cause to have authorized the Contractor and/or
other consultants to perform work and/or provide services. During grading the Client or his
authorized representative should remain on-site or should remain reasonably accessible to all
concerned parties in order to make decisions necessary to maintain the flow of the project.
The Contractor is responsible for the safety of the project and satisfactory completion of all
grading and other associated operations on construction projects, including, but not limited to,
earth work in accordance with the project plans, specifications and controlling agency
requirements.
Section 3 - Preconstruction Meeting
A preconstruction site meeting should be arranged by the owner and/or client and should include
the grading contractor, design engineer, geotechnical consultant, owner’s representative and
representatives of the appropriate governing authorities.
Section 4 - Site Preparation
The client or contractor should obtain the required approvals from the controlling authorities for
the project prior, during and/or after demolition, site preparation and removals, etc. The
appropriate approvals should be obtained prior to proceeding with grading operations.
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 2 of 26
Page D-2
Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation such as brush, grass, woods,
stumps, trees, root of trees and otherwise deleterious natural materials from the areas to be
graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed excavation and fill
areas.
Demolition should include removal of buildings, structures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities
(including underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields, seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts,
tunnels, etc.) and other man-made surface and subsurface improvements from the areas to be
graded. Demolition of utilities should include proper capping and/or rerouting pipelines at the
project perimeter and cutoff and capping of wells in accordance with the requirements of the
governing authorities and the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant at the time of
demolition.
Trees, plants or man-made improvements not planned to be removed or demolished should be
protected by the contractor from damage or injury.
Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or demolition operations should be wasted from
areas to be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing and demolition operations should be
performed under the observation of the geotechnical consultant.
Section 5 - Site Protection
Protection of the site during the period of grading should be the responsibility of the contractor.
Unless other provisions are made in writing and agreed upon among the concerned parties,
completion of a portion of the project should not be considered to preclude that portion or
adjacent areas from the requirements for site protection until such time as the entire project is
complete as identified by the geotechnical consultant, the client and the regulating agencies.
Precautions should be taken during the performance of site clearing, excavations and grading to
protect the work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor or improper surface drainage.
Temporary provisions should be made during the rainy season to adequately direct surface
drainage away from and off the work site. Where low areas cannot be avoided, pumps should be
kept on hand to continually remove water during periods of rainfall.
Rain related damage should be considered to include, but may not be limited to, erosion, silting,
saturation, swelling, structural distress and other adverse conditions as determined by the
geotechnical consultant. Soil adversely affected should be classified as unsuitable materials and
should be subject to overexcavation and replacement with compacted fill or other remedial
grading as recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 3 of 26
Page D-3
The contractor should be responsible for the stability of all temporary excavations.
Recommendations by the geotechnical consultant pertaining to temporary excavations (e.g.,
backcuts) are made in consideration of stability of the completed project and, therefore, should
not be considered to preclude the responsibilities of the contractor. Recommendations by the
geotechnical consultant should not be considered to preclude requirements that are more
restrictive by the regulating agencies. The contractor should provide during periods of extensive
rainfall plastic sheeting to prevent unprotected slopes from becoming saturated and unstable.
When deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant or governing agencies the contractor
shall install checkdams, desilting basins, sand bags or other drainage control measures.
In relatively level areas and/or slope areas, where saturated soil and/or erosion gullies exist to
depths of greater than 1.0 foot; they should be overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in
accordance with the applicable specifications. Where affected materials exist to depths of 1.0
foot or less below proposed finished grade, remedial grading by moisture conditioning in-place,
followed by thorough recompaction in accordance with the applicable grading guidelines herein
may be attempted. If the desired results are not achieved, all affected materials should be
overexcavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with the slope repair
recommendations herein. If field conditions dictate, the geotechnical consultant may
recommend other slope repair procedures.
Section 6 - Excavations
6.1 Unsuitable Materials
Materials that are unsuitable should be excavated under observation and
recommendations of the geotechnical consultant. Unsuitable materials include, but may
not be limited to, dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible natural soils and fractured,
weathered, soft bedrock and nonengineered or otherwise deleterious fill materials.
Material identified by the geotechnical consultant as unsatisfactory due to its moisture
conditions should be overexcavated; moisture conditioned as needed, to a uniform at or
above optimum moisture condition before placement as compacted fill.
If during the course of grading adverse geotechnical conditions are exposed which were
not anticipated in the preliminary soil report as determined by the geotechnical consultant
additional exploration, analysis, and treatment of these problems may be recommended.
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 4 of 26
Page D-4
6.2 Cut Slopes
Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the
regulating agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:
vertical).
The geotechnical consultant should observe cut slope excavation and if these excavations
expose loose cohesionless, significantly fractured or otherwise unsuitable material, the
materials should be overexcavated and replaced with a compacted stabilization fill. If
encountered specific cross section details should be obtained from the Geotechnical
Consultant.
When extensive cut slopes are excavated or these cut slopes are made in the direction of
the prevailing drainage, a non-erodible diversion swale (brow ditch) should be provided
at the top of the slope.
6.3 Pad Areas
All lot pad areas, including side yard terrace containing both cut and fill materials,
transitions, located less than 3 feet deep should be overexcavated to a depth of 3 feet and
replaced with a uniform compacted fill blanket of 3 feet. Actual depth of overexcavation
may vary and should be delineated by the geotechnical consultant during grading,
especially where deep or drastic transitions are present.
For pad areas created above cut or natural slopes, positive drainage should be established
away from the top-of-slope. This may be accomplished utilizing a berm drainage swale
and/or an appropriate pad gradient. A gradient in soil areas away from the top-of-slopes
of 2 percent or greater is recommended.
Section 7 - Compacted Fill
All fill materials should have fill quality, placement, conditioning and compaction as specified
below or as approved by the geotechnical consultant.
7.1 Fill Material Quality
Excavated on-site or import materials which are acceptable to the geotechnical consultant
may be utilized as compacted fill, provided trash, vegetation and other deleterious
materials are removed prior to placement. All import materials anticipated for use on-site
should be sampled tested and approved prior to and placement is in conformance with the
requirements outlined.
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 5 of 26
Page D-5
Rocks 12 inches in maximum and smaller may be utilized within compacted fill provided
sufficient fill material is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock to
effectively fill rock voids. The amount of rock should not exceed 40 percent by dry
weight passing the 3/4-inch sieve. The geotechnical consultant may vary those
requirements as field conditions dictate.
Where rocks greater than 12 inches but less than four feet of maximum dimension are
generated during grading, or otherwise desired to be placed within an engineered fill,
special handling in accordance with the recommendations below. Rocks greater than
four feet should be broken down or disposed off-site.
7.2 Placement of Fill
Prior to placement of fill material, the geotechnical consultant should observe and
approve the area to receive fill. After observation and approval, the exposed ground
surface should be scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches. The scarified material should be
conditioned (i.e. moisture added or air dried by continued discing) to achieve a moisture
content at or slightly above optimum moisture conditions and compacted to a minimum
of 90 percent of the maximum density or as otherwise recommended in the soils report or
by appropriate government agencies.
Compacted fill should then be placed in thin horizontal lifts not exceeding eight inches in
loose thickness prior to compaction. Each lift should be moisture conditioned as needed,
thoroughly blended to achieve a consistent moisture content at or slightly above optimum
and thoroughly compacted by mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent of
laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift should be treated in a like manner until the
desired finished grades are achieved.
The contractor should have suitable and sufficient mechanical compaction equipment and
watering apparatus on the job site to handle the amount of fill being placed in
consideration of moisture retention properties of the materials and weather conditions.
When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:
vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches should be excavated into the adjacent slope
area. Keying and benching should be sufficient to provide at least six-foot wide benches
and a minimum of four feet of vertical bench height within the firm natural ground, firm
bedrock or engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill should be placed in an area
after keying and benching until the geotechnical consultant has reviewed the area.
Material generated by the benching operation should be moved sufficiently away from
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 6 of 26
Page D-6
the bench area to allow for the recommended review of the horizontal bench prior to
placement of fill.
Within a single fill area where grading procedures dictate two or more separate fills,
temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created. When placing fill adjacent to a false
slope, benching should be conducted in the same manner as above described. At least a
3-foot vertical bench should be established within the firm core of adjacent approved
compacted fill prior to placement of additional fill. Benching should proceed in at least
3-foot vertical increments until the desired finished grades are achieved.
Prior to placement of additional compacted fill following an overnight or other grading
delay, the exposed surface or previously compacted fill should be processed by
scarification, moisture conditioning as needed to at or slightly above optimum moisture
content, thoroughly blended and recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of laboratory
maximum dry density. Where unsuitable materials exist to depths of greater than one
foot, the unsuitable materials should be over-excavated.
Following a period of flooding, rainfall or overwatering by other means, no additional fill
should be placed until damage assessments have been made and remedial grading
performed as described herein.
Rocks 12 inch in maximum dimension and smaller may be utilized in the compacted fill
provided the fill is placed and thoroughly compacted over and around all rock. No
oversize material should be used within 3 feet of finished pad grade and within 1 foot of
other compacted fill areas. Rocks 12 inches up to four feet maximum dimension should
be placed below the upper 10 feet of any fill and should not be closer than 15 feet to any
slope face. These recommendations could vary as locations of improvements dictate.
Where practical, oversized material should not be placed below areas where structures or
deep utilities are proposed. Oversized material should be placed in windrows on a clean,
overexcavated or unyielding compacted fill or firm natural ground surface. Select native
or imported granular soil (S.E. 30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly flooded
over and around all windrowed rock, such that voids are filled. Windrows of oversized
material should be staggered so those successive strata of oversized material are not in
the same vertical plane.
It may be possible to dispose of individual larger rock as field conditions dictate and as
recommended by the geotechnical consultant at the time of placement.
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 7 of 26
Page D-7
The contractor should assist the geotechnical consultant and/or his representative by
digging test pits for removal determinations and/or for testing compacted fill. The
contractor should provide this work at no additional cost to the owner or contractor's
client.
Fill should be tested by the geotechnical consultant for compliance with the
recommended relative compaction and moisture conditions. Field density testing should
conform to ASTM Method of Test D 1556-00, D 2922-04. Tests should be conducted at
a minimum of approximately two vertical feet or approximately 1,000 to 2,000 cubic
yards of fill placed. Actual test intervals may vary as field conditions dictate. Fill found
not to be in conformance with the grading recommendations should be removed or
otherwise handled as recommended by the geotechnical consultant.
7.3 Fill Slopes
Unless otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant and approved by the
regulating agencies, permanent fill slopes should not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:
vertical).
Except as specifically recommended in these grading guidelines compacted fill slopes
should be over-built two to five feet and cut back to grade, exposing the firm, compacted
fill inner core. The actual amount of overbuilding may vary as field conditions dictate. If
the desired results are not achieved, the existing slopes should be overexcavated and
reconstructed under the guidelines of the geotechnical consultant. The degree of
overbuilding shall be increased until the desired compacted slope surface condition is
achieved. Care should be taken by the contractor to provide thorough mechanical
compaction to the outer edge of the overbuilt slope surface.
At the discretion of the geotechnical consultant, slope face compaction may be attempted
by conventional construction procedures including backrolling. The procedure must
create a firmly compacted material throughout the entire depth of the slope face to the
surface of the previously compacted firm fill intercore.
During grading operations, care should be taken to extend compactive effort to the outer
edge of the slope. Each lift should extend horizontally to the desired finished slope
surface or more as needed to ultimately established desired grades. Grade during
construction should not be allowed to roll off at the edge of the slope. It may be helpful
to elevate slightly the outer edge of the slope. Slough resulting from the placement of
individual lifts should not be allowed to drift down over previous lifts. At intervals not
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 8 of 26
Page D-8
exceeding four feet in vertical slope height or the capability of available equipment,
whichever is less, fill slopes should be thoroughly dozer trackrolled.
For pad areas above fill slopes, positive drainage should be established away from the
top-of-slope. This may be accomplished using a berm and pad gradient of at least two
percent.
Section 8 - Trench Backfill
Utility and/or other excavation of trench backfill should, unless otherwise recommended, be
compacted by mechanical means. Unless otherwise recommended, the degree of compaction
should be a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density.
Within slab areas, but outside the influence of foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and two
feet deep may be backfilled with sand and consolidated by jetting, flooding or by mechanical
means. If on-site materials are utilized, they should be wheel-rolled, tamped or otherwise
compacted to a firm condition. For minor interior trenches, density testing may be deleted or
spot testing may be elected if deemed necessary, based on review of backfill operations during
construction.
If utility contractors indicate that it is undesirable to use compaction equipment in close
proximity to a buried conduit, the contractor may elect the utilization of light weight mechanical
compaction equipment and/or shading of the conduit with clean, granular material, which should
be thoroughly jetted in-place above the conduit, prior to initiating mechanical compaction
procedures. Other methods of utility trench compaction may also be appropriate, upon review of
the geotechnical consultant at the time of construction.
In cases where clean granular materials are proposed for use in lieu of native materials or where
flooding or jetting is proposed, the procedures should be considered subject to review by the
geotechnical consultant. Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not recommended in slope
areas.
Section 9 - Drainage
Where deemed appropriate by the geotechnical consultant, canyon subdrain systems should be
installed in accordance with CTE’s recommendations during grading.
Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope stabilization or sidehill masses, should be
installed in accordance with the specifications.
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 9 of 26
Page D-9
Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away from slopes and areas of structures to
suitable disposal areas via non-erodible devices (i.e., gutters, downspouts, and concrete swales).
For drainage in extensively landscaped areas near structures, (i.e., within four feet) a minimum
of 5 percent gradient away from the structure should be maintained. Pad drainage of at least 2
percent should be maintained over the remainder of the site.
Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the life
of the project. Property owners should be made aware that altering drainage patterns could be
detrimental to slope stability and foundation performance.
Section 10 - Slope Maintenance
10.1 - Landscape Plants
To enhance surficial slope stability, slope planting should be accomplished at the
completion of grading. Slope planting should consist of deep-rooting vegetation
requiring little watering. Plants native to the southern California area and plants relative
to native plants are generally desirable. Plants native to other semi-arid and arid areas
may also be appropriate. A Landscape Architect should be the best party to consult
regarding actual types of plants and planting configuration.
10.2 - Irrigation
Irrigation pipes should be anchored to slope faces, not placed in trenches excavated into
slope faces.
Slope irrigation should be minimized. If automatic timing devices are utilized on
irrigation systems, provisions should be made for interrupting normal irrigation during
periods of rainfall.
10.3 - Repair
As a precautionary measure, plastic sheeting should be readily available, or kept on hand,
to protect all slope areas from saturation by periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall. This
measure is strongly recommended, beginning with the period prior to landscape planting.
If slope failures occur, the geotechnical consultant should be contacted for a field review
of site conditions and development of recommendations for evaluation and repair.
If slope failures occur as a result of exposure to period of heavy rainfall, the failure areas
and currently unaffected areas should be covered with plastic sheeting to protect against
additional saturation.
Appendix D
Standard Specifications for Grading
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS OF GRADING
Page 10 of 26
Page D-10
In the accompanying Standard Details, appropriate repair procedures are illustrated for
superficial slope failures (i.e., occurring typically within the outer one foot to three feet of
a slope face).
FINISH CUT
SLOPE
----
5'MIN
-----------
BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL
FILL SLOPE
10'
TYPICAL
SURFACE OF FIRM
EARTH MATERIAL
15' MIN. {INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE)
BENCHING FILL OVER CUT
FINISH FILL SLOPE
SURFACE OF FIRM
EARTH MATERIAL
15' MIN OR STABILITY EQUIVALENT PER SOIL
ENGINEERING (INCLINED 2% MIN. INTO SLOPE)
NOTTO SCALE
BENCHING FOR COMPACTED FILL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 11 of 26
--
---
MINIMUM
DOWNSLOPE
KEY DEPTH
TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
FILL __ --------------
-------~ ...... --~ ---,.,. ~'\~~~ ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. ~~ ~ ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. ~ ~~~ ,.,. ,.,. -,.,. :"\ ~~\.; ,.,. ,.,. -,.,. ~sux ~_,.,. _________ _
---\j ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. 1 O' TYPICAL BENCH
// ,.,. ,.,. ,.,. WIDTH VARIES
4'
~1 ,.,. ,.,. ,.,.
/ 1 --,.,. ,.,. COMPETENT EARTH
/ --MATERIAL -
2% MIN ---
15' MINIMUM BASE KEY WIDTH
TYPICAL BENCH
HEIGHT
PROVIDE BACKDRAIN AS REQUIRED
PER RECOMMENDATIONS OF SOILS
ENGINEER DURING GRADING
WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5:1 OR LESS,
BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY. FILL IS NOT TO BE
PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUITABLE MATERIAL.
NOT TO SCALE
FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL GROUND DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 12 of 26
U)
~ z
CJ ► Jl
CJ
U)
""CJ
""CJ m Ill(")
cc -
CD Jl
...I.(")
w ►
0 :::! -h 0
I\) z
C) U)
"Tl 0 Jl
Ci)
~
CJ
z
Ci)
-
REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM,
AND CREEP MATERIAL FROM
TRANSITION
CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
CUT/FILL CONTACT SHOWN
ON "AS-BUILT"
NATURAL __
TOPOGRAP~Y __ ------------CUT SLOPE*
--------- - ---;_? ~€.\\!lo\J€.
FILL
--
----:::-ul<l~ocl'.€ --------col.l--\)v' ...... --,o?so\\._:.. - - - - ---1 rr~----
- - ---14'TYPIGAL I
---2%MIN --
15' MINIMUM
NOTTO SCALE
10' TYPICAL
BEDROCK OR APPROVED
FOUNDATION MATERIAL
*NOTE: CUT SLOPE PORTION SHOULD BE
MADE PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FILL
FILL SLOPE ABOVE CUT SLOPE DETAIL
--
--
[
SURFACEOF
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
--~-------------~ -..... ' ,,,,,.,,,,,.
\'\ COMPACTED FILL /'/
\\ //
\ /
TYPICAL BENCHING \ \ /
\' / / ....___ , _ / A...-~
SEE DETAIL BELOW
MINIMUM 9 FT3 PER LINEAR FOOT
OF APPROVED FILTER MATERIAL
CAL TRANS CLASS 2 PERMEABLE MATERIAL
FILTER MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL:
' / REMOVE UNSUITABLE
DETAIL
14"
MATERIAL
INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN
AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM
MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE (PERFORATIONS
DOWN)
6" FILTER MATERIAL BEDDING
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING
APPROVED PIPE TO BE SCHEDULE 40
POLY-VINYL-CHLORIDE (P.V.C.) OR
APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM CRUSH
STRENGTH 1000 psi
1"
¾"
¾"
NO.4
NO.8
NO. 30
NO. 50
NO. 200
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
18-33
5-15
0-7
0-3
PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO
FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING
LENGTH OF RUN
NOTTO SCALE
INITIAL 500'
500' TO 1500'
> 1500'
PIPE DIAMETER
4"
6"
8"
TYPICAL CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 14 of 26
TYPICAL BENCHING
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS
--""' ----,, ,,,,,..,,,
[
SURFACEOF
COMPETENT
MATERIAL
,'' COMPACTED FILL / ~
\\ //
\ /
\ \ / ,, // --,_,,,,,. __ ..._ ' / REMOVE UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
SEE DETAILS BELOW
TRENCH DETAILS
6" MINIMUM OVERLAP
INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN
AT 2% GRADIENT MINIMUM
OPTIONAL V-DITCH DETAIL MINIMUM 9 FP PER LINEAR FOOT
OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL
MIRAFI 140N FABRIC
OR APPROVED EQUAL
6" MINIMUM OVERLAP --------0
24"
MINIMUM
MIRAFI 140N FABRIC
OR APPROVED EQUAL
APPROVED PIPE TO BE
SCHEDULE 40 POLY-
VINYLCHLORIDE (P.V.C.)
24"
MINIMUM
MINIMUM 9 FP PER LINEAR FOOT
OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL
OR APPROVED EQUAL.
MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH
1000 PSI.
DRAIN MATERIAL TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATION OR APPROVED EQUAL:
PIPE DIAMETER TO MEET THE
FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SUBJECT TO
FIELD REVIEW BASED ON ACTUAL
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
ENCOUNTERED DURING GRADING
SIEVE SIZE
1 ½"
1"
¾"
¾"
NO. 200
PERCENTAGE PASSING
88-100
5-40
0-17
0-7
0-3
LENGTH OF RUN
INITIAL 500'
500' TO 1500'
> 1500'
NOT TO SCALE
GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 15 of 26
PIPE DIAMETER
4"
6"
8"
FRONT VIEW
CONCRETE
CUT-OFF WALL
SUBDRAIN PIPE
SIDE VIEW
-•. . . _,.. -, .. -.. -. .-, .... , ... , l!trr.'' ltt.'' t..'' ... . ' 6" Min. .... . ' .. ----~---· ·-·-~ 6" Min.
24" Min.
6" Min.
~ 12" Min.~ 6" Min.
CONCRETE CUT-OFF WALL __ _..,• •• -:..►.-.. • . ' ... ' 6" Min . -... -...
SOILD SUBDRAIN PIPE
•.-, ., "' 'i "' ' PERFORATED SUBDRAIN PIPE . ' . ' . . . . . .
NOT TO SCALE
RECOMMENDED SUBDRAIN CUT-OFF WALL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 16 of 26
FRONT VIEW
SUBDRAIN OUTLET
PIPE (MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER)
SIDE VIEW
ALL BACKFILL SHOULD BE COMPACTED
IN CONFORMANCE WITH PROJECT
SPECIFICATIONS. COMPACTION EFFORT
SHOULD NOT DAMAGE STRUCTURE
I • '
-• I I
► -'► -'► - , ,·b.. ,·brr.. ,·brr. •
.!,. • ' .... • ' i" . '
► -'► -'►-, ,, • b. ' ' • b. • ' ' brr. •
.:i.,,6,,6,, -... . -.... -....
► - , ► - , ►-,
,, I b. I 1, I b. I ' I brr. I
.i0rr..,.i0rr..,.6..,
t---24" Min.
>----24" Min.
NOTE: HEADWALL SHOULD OUTLET AT TOE OF SLOPE
OR INTO CONTROLLED SURFACE DRAINAGE DEVICE
ALL DISCHARGE SHOULD BE CONTROLLED
THIS DETAIL IS A MINIMUM DESIGN AND MAY BE
MODIFIED DEPENDING UPON ENCOUNTERED
CONDITIONS AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS
NOT TO SCALE
24" Min.
12"
TYPICAL SUBDRAIN OUTLET HEADWALL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 17 of 26
4" DIAMETER PERFORATED
PIPE BACKDRAIN
4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED
PIPE LATERAL DRAIN
SLOPE PER PLAN
FILTER MATERIAL BENCHING
AN ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN
AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR
SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH.
KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER
(GENERALLY 1/2 SLOPE HEIGHT, 15' MINIMUM)
DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED
NOT TO SCALE
TYPICAL SLOPE STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 18 of 26
4" DIAMETER PERFORATED
PIPE BACKDRAIN
4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED
PIPE LATERAL DRAIN
SLOPE PER PLAN
FILTER MATERIAL
2%MIN 1 1
'
........,.._I I I 111 I 11-
1 I
'
BENCHING
H/2
~1 ===.. ~. IFF.:,=, ,:rr· 1 "'T""'!, ........ , • ,......,_JI" I · ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN AT
MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED
FOR SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40
FEET HIGH.
KEY-DIMENSION PER SOILS ENGINEER
DIMENSIONS ARE MINIMUM RECOMMENDED
NOTTO SCALE
TYPICAL BUTTRESS FILL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 19 of 26
20' MAXIMUM
FINAL LIMIT OF
EXCAVATION
OVEREXCAVATE
OVERBURDEN
(CREEP-PRONE)
DAYLIGHT
LINE
FINISH PAD
OVEREXCAVATE 3'
AND REPLACE WITH
COMPACTED FILL
COMPETENT BEDROCK
TYPICAL BENCHING
LOCATION OF BACKDRAIN AND
OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER
AND/OR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST
DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2%
FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE
LOCATION.
EQUIPMENT WIDTH (MINIMUM 15')
NOTTO SCALE
DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 20 of 26
NATURAL GROUND
PROPOSED GRADING
------------------COMPACTED FILL -----------------------------------------------
PROVIDE BACKDRAIN, PER
BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN
ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN
AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE
REQUIRED FOR BACK
SLOPES IN EXCESS OF BASE WIDTH "W" DETERMINED
BY SOILS ENGINEER
NOTTO SCALE
40 FEET HIGH. LOCATIONS
OF BACKDRAINS AND OUTLETS
PER SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST
DURING GRADING. MINIMUM 2%
FLOW GRADIENT TO DISCHARGE
LOCATION.
TYPICAL SHEAR KEY DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 21 of 26
FINISH SURFACE SLOPE
3 FT3 MINIMUM PER LINEAR FOOT
APPROVED FILTER ROCK*
CONCRETE COLLAR
PLACED NEAT
A
COMPACTED FILL
2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT
A
4" MINIMUM DIAMETER
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
SPACED PER SOIL
ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS
4" MINIMUM APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE**
(PERFORATIONS DOWN)
MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT
TO OUTLET
DURING GRADING TYPICAL BENCH INCLINED
TOWARD DRAIN
**APPROVED PIPE TYPE:
MINIMUM
12" COVER
SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
(P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL.
MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI
BENCHING
DETAIL A-A
OMPACTE
BACKFILL
12"
MINIMUM
TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL
MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
*FILTER ROCK TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL:
SIEVE SIZE
1"
¾"
¾"
N0.4
NO. 30
NO. 50
NO. 200
PERCENTAGE PASSING
100
90-100
40-100
25-40
5-15
0-7
0-3
NOTTO SCALE
TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 22 of 26
FINISH SURFACE SLOPE
MINIMUM 3 FT3 PER LINEAR FOOT
OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE*
TAPE AND SEAL AT COVER
CONCRETE COLLAR
PLACED NEAT COMPACTED FILL
A
2.0% MINIMUM GRADIENT
A
MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
SPACED PER SOIL
ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS
MINIMUM
12" COVER
*NOTE: AGGREGATE TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL:
SIEVE SIZE PERCENTAGE PASSING
1 ½" 100
1" 5-40
¾" 0-17
¾" 0-7
NO. 200 0-3
TYPICAL
BENCHING
DETAIL A-A
OMPACTE
BACKFILL
12"
MINIMUM
NOT TO SCALE
MIRAFI 140N FABRIC OR
APPROVED EQUAL
4" MINIMUM APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE
(PERFORATIONS DOWN)
MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT
TO OUTLET
BENCH INCLINED
TOWARD DRAIN
TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL
MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
BACKDRAIN DETAIL (GEOFRABIC)
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 23 of 26
SOIL SHALL BE PUSHED OVER
ROCKS AND FLOODED INTO
VOIDS. COMPACT AROUND
AND OVER EACH WINDROW.
10'
i FILL SLOPE 1
CLEAR ZONE __/
EQUIPMENT WIDTH
STACK BOULDERS END TO END.
DO NOT PILE UPON EACH OTHER.
0 0
0 0
~ 10' MIN O
NOT TO SCALE
0
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 24 of 26
STAGGER
ROWS
FINISHED GRADE BUILDING
10'
SLOPE FACE
0
NO OVERSIZE, AREA FOR
FOUNDATION, UTILITIE~~l
AND SWIMMING POOL:_i_
0 0
STREET 1--d 4•L-.
WINDROW~
0
5' MINIMUM OR BELOW
DEPTH OF DEEPEST
UTILITY TRENCH
(WHICHEVER GREATER)
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (EDGE VIEW)
GRANULAR SOIL FLOODED
TO FILL VOIDS
HORIZONTALLY PLACED
COMPACTION FILL
PROFILE VIEW
NOT TO SCALE
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 25 of 26
GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
CUTLOT
------------
------, --UNWEATHERED BEDROCK
OVEREXCAVATE
AND REGRADE
COMPACTED FILL
~
-----TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM
,--AND WEATHERED
.,
BEDROCK ,,.-
------
CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION)
~
~ ----
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK
NOT TO SCALE
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
Page 26 of 26
_.......-:: ORIGINAL
,,. ,,. ,,. ,,. , GROUND
'MIN
3'MIN
OVEREXCAVATE
AND REGRADE
APPENDIX E
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
APPENDIX E – SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
1.0 GENERAL
Slope stability analyses were conducted in general accordance with the known City of Encinitas
and City of San Diego Guidelines. Soil strength parameters were derived from recent laboratory
testing. The calculations performed also follow the general guidelines of “Recommended
Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 A Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California (SP 117 A). Although pseduo-static evaluation was
not performed, it is not anticipated to govern the slopes at the site.
Slope stability analyses were performed using SLOPE/W GEOSTUDIO 2004, a computer
program that uses two-dimensional limiting equilibrium methods to calculate factors-of-safety
against failure. SLOPE/W is a graphical software product that operates under Microsoft
Windows. The program allows AutoCAD/LDD developed cross sections to be directly input
into the program for analyses. This results in reasonably accurate cross sections upon which
accurate geologic structural and stratigraphic modeling can be placed. Site topography and
geology from the explorations performed were utilized for the analysis.
2.0 COMPUTER FILES
Computer files containing the slope stability calculations performed are not provided herewith.
However, such files are available upon request; simply contact CTE’s office and the requested
files will be transmitted via email. A “Viewer License” of SLOPE/W is available and once
installed, the user is allowed to open each analysis and view the input information. As part of the
restriction of utilizing the “Viewer License,” the limited software application will not allow the
user to calculate the results of the analysis. For the GEOSTUDIO 2004 program, the reviewer is
directed to the website: www.geo-slope.com/downloads to download the free evaluation copy of
the software. If additional information is necessary regarding the use of SLOPE/W, CTE
encourages the user to contact the software manufacturer.
3.0 METHODOLOGY
Spencer’s Method of Slope Stability Analyses was utilized. The utilized method satisfies
pertinent conditions of equilibrium and is the stated SP 117A preferred method of analyses. The
analysis was conducted on the current and proposed as-graded site conditions. The section was
evaluated for slope stability utilizing the strength parameters described below in “Material
Properties.”
The computer program feature termed “Auto Search” was extensively utilized; this feature, as
the title implies, automatically searches the section geometry for the composite failure surface
with the lowest factor of safety. Upon locating the lowest factor of safety (using 1000 computer
generated composite failure surfaces), the program optimizes the critical failure surface using up
to an additional 2000 “optimized” surfaces. Fully specified failure surfaces were also utilized,
where deemed appropriate.
4.0 MATERIAL PROPERTY ASSUMPTIONS
Site-specific geotechnical information and material properties were utilized in the slope stability
analysis. CTE utilized the same estimated values for both ultimate and peak strengths. These
strengths are anticipated to be slightly to moderately conservative for the anticipated competent
underlying formational materials and for the existing and anticipated compacted fill materials.
As indicated, shear strength testing was performed as part of the geotechnical evaluation.
The following strength parameters were utilized in the analysis.
Slope Stability Material Properties
Material Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Ultimate
Cohesion
(psf)
Ultimate
Friction
Angle (phi)
Peak
Cohesion
(psf)
Peak
Friction
Angle (phi)
Quaternary
Compacted Fill
(Qcf)
125 200 25 200 25
Quaternary
Undocumented Fill
(Qudf)
120 200 25 200 25
Quaternary
Previously Placed
Fill/Alluvium
(Qppf/Qya)
125 200 25 200 25
Quaternary Very
Old Paralic Deposits
(Qvop)
125 900 35 900 35
Tertiary Santiago
Formation
(Tsa sand)
125 700 35 700 35
Tertiary Santiago
Formation
(Tsa clay)
125 1,000 19 1,000 19
5.0 ANALYTICAL RESULTS
Analyses were performed on the line of section to evaluate the most likely direction of
hypothetical failure as: Section A-A’ located near the midline of the impacted eastern facing
slope. This line of section was analyzed for hypothetical failures as indicated in the table below.
A summary of the calculated safety factor for these conditions is also provided on the following
table. The calculated critical surfaces and pertinent input factors are provided on the following
figures.
Slope Stability Results for Cross-Section A-A’
File Name Condition Analyzed Static
FS
A-A’.gsz Static, Auto Search for
Critical Deep Failure
(Existing Slope w/
Water)
2.538
A-A’ (Repair).gsz Static, Auto Search for
Critical Deep Failure
(Repaired Slope,
Assumes Proper
Drainage)
1.984
Based on the results of the analyses presented, the slope will provide stable as-graded conditions
with static factors of safety greater than 1.5, for hypothetical failures along the presented critical
paths. Additionally, near surface stability under saturated conditions was calculated to
demonstrate a static safety factor in excess of 1.5. As such, the designs provided herein are
considered appropriate.
2.5
3
8
Na
m
e
:
Q
u
d
f
Mo
d
e
l
:
M
o
h
r
-
C
o
u
l
o
m
b
Un
i
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
:
1
2
5
p
c
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
p
s
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
:
2
5
°
Ph
i
-
B
:
0
°
Pie
z
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
L
i
n
e
:
1
Na
m
e
:
Q
v
o
p
Mo
d
e
l
:
M
o
h
r
-
C
o
u
l
o
m
b
Un
i
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
:
1
2
5
p
c
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
:
9
0
0
p
s
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
:
3
5
°
Ph
i
-
B
:
0
°
Pie
z
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
L
i
n
e
:
1
Na
m
e
:
T
s
a
(
s
a
n
d
)
Mo
d
e
l
:
M
o
h
r
-
C
o
u
l
o
m
b
Un
i
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
:
1
2
5
p
c
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
:
7
0
0
p
s
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
:
3
5
°
Ph
i
-
B
:
0
°
Pie
z
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
L
i
n
e
:
1
Na
m
e
:
T
s
a
(
s
a
n
d
)
Mo
d
e
l
:
M
o
h
r
-
C
o
u
l
o
m
b
Un
i
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
:
1
2
5
p
c
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
:
7
0
0
p
s
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
:
3
5
°
Ph
i
-
B
:
0
°
Pie
z
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
L
i
n
e
:
1
Na
m
e
:
T
s
a
(
c
l
a
y
)
Mo
d
e
l
:
M
o
h
r
-
C
o
u
l
o
m
b
Un
i
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
:
1
2
5
p
c
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
:
1
,
0
0
0
p
s
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
:
1
9
°
Ph
i
-
B
:
0
°
Pie
z
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
L
i
n
e
:
1
Fi
l
e
N
a
m
e
:
A
-
A
'
.
g
s
z
Me
t
h
o
d
:
S
p
e
n
c
e
r
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
:
L
e
f
t
t
o
R
i
g
h
t
Sl
i
p
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
:
E
n
t
r
y
a
n
d
E
x
i
t
Fa
c
t
o
r
o
f
S
a
f
e
t
y
:
2
.
5
3
8
I I 1 I
I
I I I I I
I
I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I / I I
I
I I
I
I I I
I I
I L i I
□
I
I
I ·~
□
I
I _,~
I I A I I
I I
,~ 7
I 'l
..,,
I r 7 r . I I
,,, -· , --,
I I
I H I
I 1// I t
I
I .,, • I ~ I ,
I I I --, □
I
I .. I ,,
...
•""
--,
I
:11 l
ll I
I,
h -::::T
II ! I .,, • I .
II I I I
JI ~ □ 1
JI I 7
ll , ,, , .
I --,
t I I I
~
~
I --,
y --,
I ---, □
I ,
T I
~ 7
I 7 I I
i ,
,
.I
I I
' --,
! I
,---,
I -
I I ..,,
1.
9
8
4
Na
m
e
:
Q
c
f
Mo
d
e
l
:
M
o
h
r
-
C
o
u
l
o
m
b
Un
i
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
:
1
2
5
p
c
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
p
s
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
:
2
5
°
Ph
i
-
B
:
0
°
Pie
z
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
L
i
n
e
:
1
Na
m
e
:
Q
u
d
f
Mo
d
e
l
:
M
o
h
r
-
C
o
u
l
o
m
b
Un
i
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
:
1
2
5
p
c
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
p
s
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
:
2
5
°
Ph
i
-
B
:
0
°
Pie
z
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
L
i
n
e
:
1
Na
m
e
:
Q
v
o
p
Mo
d
e
l
:
M
o
h
r
-
C
o
u
l
o
m
b
Un
i
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
:
1
2
5
p
c
f
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
:
9
0
0
p
s
f
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
:
3
5
°
Ph
i
-
B
:
0
°
Pi
e
z
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
L
i
n
e
:
1
Na
m
e
:
T
s
a
(
u
p
p
e
r
s
a
n
d
)
Mo
d
e
l
:
M
o
h
r
-
C
o
u
l
o
m
b
Un
i
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
:
1
2
5
p
c
f
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
:
7
0
0
p
s
f
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
:
3
5
°
Ph
i
-
B
:
0
°
Pi
e
z
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
L
i
n
e
:
1
Na
m
e
:
T
s
a
(
c
l
a
y
)
Mo
d
e
l
:
M
o
h
r
-
C
o
u
l
o
m
b
Un
i
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
:
1
2
5
p
c
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
:
1
,
0
0
0
p
s
f
Eff
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
:
1
9
°
Ph
i
-
B
:
0
°
Pie
z
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
L
i
n
e
:
1
Na
m
e
:
T
s
a
(
s
a
n
d
)
Mo
d
e
l
:
M
o
h
r
-
C
o
u
l
o
m
b
Un
i
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
:
1
2
5
p
c
f
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
:
7
0
0
p
s
f
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
:
3
5
°
Ph
i
-
B
:
0
°
Pi
e
z
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
L
i
n
e
:
1
Na
m
e
:
Q
p
p
f
-
Q
y
a
Mo
d
e
l
:
M
o
h
r
-
C
o
u
l
o
m
b
Un
i
t
W
e
i
g
h
t
:
1
2
5
p
c
f
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
C
o
h
e
s
i
o
n
:
2
0
0
p
s
f
Ef
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
F
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
A
n
g
l
e
:
2
5
°
Ph
i
-
B
:
0
°
Pi
e
z
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
L
i
n
e
:
1
Fi
l
e
N
a
m
e
:
A
-
A
'
(
R
e
p
a
i
r
)
.
g
s
z
Me
t
h
o
d
:
S
p
e
n
c
e
r
Di
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
:
L
e
f
t
t
o
R
i
g
h
t
Sl
i
p
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
O
p
t
i
o
n
:
E
n
t
r
y
a
n
d
E
x
i
t
Fa
c
t
o
r
o
f
S
a
f
e
t
y
:
1
.
9
8
4
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I
I I I I I
I I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I □ : I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I
I I
I I I
I I
I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I
I I
I I I I I I I I I
□
□
□
□
□
□