1995-4376 G
c:¡j / Ct; ~
--- _._------ u_- ---
Category
Jf3'ìfo 9
Name
--~----------------- _.------- - ----
Street Address
I
4(¿L/;¡Lj
Serial #
Description
- -- --..J -- - -, .
Plan ck. #
Year
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
: I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
,/
//
/
~
/"
".....
~
/.
/
../.
/""
~
" .
------
. . .
EXPLANATION:
17 Appoximate Location of Density Test
SCALE:
1 INCH = 40 FEET
Geotechnics
Incorporated
SITE PLAN
Copper Creek Estates, Lot 8
Bruce D. Weigand, Inc.
PROJECT NO. 0007-003-02
DOCUMENT NO. 5-0529
FIGURE 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Bruce D. Wiegand, Inc.
October 19, 1995
Project No. 0007-003-02
Doc. #5-0529
Page 3
moistures of the soils were determined in the laboratory by ASTM method D1557-91, (Modified
Proctor). The on-site fill soils generally consisted of a fine to medium grained sandy clay (CL).
In-place moisture and density tests were made in accordance with ASTM D 2922-91 and D 3017-
88 (Nuclear Gauge Method). The results of these tests are tabulated in Figure C-1 in the
appendix, "Field Density Test Results". The actual test locations are shown on the Site Plan,
Figure 1. The locations and elevations indicated for the tests are based on field survey stakes
and estimates from the grading plan topography, and should only be considered rough estimates.
The estimated locations and elevations should not be utilized for the purpose of preparing cross
sections showing test locations, or in any case, for the purpose of after-the~fact evaluating of the
sequence of fill placement.
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The slab subgrade soils include highly expansive sandy clay, as indicated by the test results
presented in Figure B-1. The soils were moisture conditioned during grading in order to decrease
expansion. However, we recommend that a structurally designed, post-tensioned slab-on~grade
be used to mitigate an additional effects of soil expansion. We recommend the following
parameters, based on criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute.
Edge Moisture Variation, em
Center Lift:
Edge Lift:
6.0 feet
3.0 feet
Differential Swell, Y m
Center Lift:
Edge Lift:
5.5 inches
1.1 inches
Differential Settlement:
0.5 inches
Allowable Bearing Capacity
at Slab Subgrade: 2,000 Ibs/fe
Geotcchnics Incolvorated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Bruce D. Wiegand, Inc.
October 19,1995
Project No. 0007-003-02
Doc. #5-0529
Page 4
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
In our opinion, grading and compaction of the site was peñormed in general accordance with the
intent of the project geotechnical recommendations, project specifications, and with the
requirements of the City of Encinitas. Based upon our observations and testing, it is our
professional opinion that fill soils were placed in substantial accordance with the compaction
criteria of 87 percent of the maximum density (ASTM D1557). The conclusions and
recommendations contained herein are based on our observations and testing peñormed between
October 11 and October 13, 1995. No representations are made as to the quality and extent of
materials not observed.
6.0 LIMITATIONS
Our services were peñormed using the degree of care and skill 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.
The samples taken and used for testing, the observations made, and the in-place field testing
peñormed are believed representative of the project; however, soil and geologic conditions can
vary significantly between tested or observed locations.
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 architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and
the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such
recommendations in the field.
This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the
contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the
site; therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should
notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe.
Gcotcchnics Inco'1)()mtcd
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Bruce D. Wiegand, Inc.
October 19, 1995
Project No. 0007-003-02
Doc. #5-0529
Page 5
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 be 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.
Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside
our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not be relied upon after a
period of three years.
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
~;?~
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333
Principal
AFB/maf
Distribution:
(4) Addressee
Gcotcchnics Incolvol"nted
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials, 1992, Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 4,
Construction, Volume 04.08 Soil and Rock: Dimension Stone: Geosvnthetics, ASTM,
Philadelphia, PA, 1296 p.
Geotechnics Incorporated, July 12, 1995, Geotechnical Update, Lot 8 at Cpoper Creek, Encinitas,
California, Project No. 0007-003-00, Doc. #5-0405.
Geotechnics Incorporated, July 12, 1995, Post-tensioned slabs, lot 8, Copper Creek Estates,
Encinitas, California, Project No. 0007-003-00, Doc. #5-0340.
ICG Incorporated, June 8, 1989, Slope stability evaluation, 8 lot subdivision, Lone Jack Road,
Encinitas, California, Job No. 04-3867-002-01-00, Log No. 9-1721.
Santa Fe Soils, Inc., January 12, 1987, Geologic and soils engineering investigation, 25 acre
hillside parcel, Lone Jack Road, Encinitas, California, SF-661.
Gcotcchnics Inc(Hvomtcd
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING
Selected representative samples of soils encountered were tested using test methods of the
American Society for Testing and Materials, or other generally accepted standards. A brief
description of the tests peñormed follows:
Classification: Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
Visual classification was supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples and clas-
sification in accordance with ASTM D2487.
Maximum Density Optimum Moisture: The maximum density and optimum moisture for
representative soil. samples were determined by using test method ASTM D1557, modified
Proctor. The test results are summarized in Figure B-1.
Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected soils was characterized by using the test
method ASTM D 4829. Figure B-2 provides the results of the tests.
Geotcchnics IncOl1>orntcd
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MAXIMUM DENSITY TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D1557)
Sample Description Max. Dry Moisture
No. Density Content
(pcf) (%)
1 Dark brown fine to medium grained sandy clay (CL). 118.3 13.5
2 Dark arav-brown fine to medium arained sandv clav (CU. 118.7 13.3
EXPANSION TEST RESULTS
(ASTM D4829)
SAMPLE
I
I
102
EXPANSION INDEX
Sample #2
UBC TABLE NO. 29-C, CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION
0-20 Very low
21-50 Low
51-90 Medium
91-130 High
Above 130 Verv hiah
-
Laboratory Test Results
Copper Creek Estates, Lot 8
Bruce D. Wiegand, Inc.
Project No. 0007-003-02
Document No. 5-0529
Figure B-1
Geotechnics
Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
FIELD TEST RESULTS
-Elevations and locations of field tests were determined by hand level and pacing relative to field
staking done by others.
-The precision of the field density test and the maximum dry density test is not exact and
variations should be expected. For example, the American Society for Testing and Materials has
recently researched the precision of ASTM Method No. D1557 and found the accuracy of the
maximum dry density to be plus or minus 4 percent of the mean value and the optimum moisture
content to be accurate to plus or minus 15 percent of the mean value; the Society specifically
states the "acceptable range of test results expressed as a percent of mean value" is the range
stated above. In effect, an indicated relative compaction of 90 percent has an acceptable range
of 86.6 to 92.8 percent based on the maximum dry density determination. The precision of the
field density test ASTM D1556 has not yet been determined by the American Society for Testing
and Materials; however, it must be recognized that it also is subject to variations in accuracy.
Geotechnics Incol'pol"ated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Test Test Elevation/ Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest Test
No. Date Location Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number Method
[ft] [pct] [Ok] [pct] [Ok] [Ok]
1 10/11/95 150 1 118.3 26.2 99.1 84 87 2 NU
2 10/11/95 150 1 118.3 22.1 106.1 90 87 NU
3 10/11/95 151 1 118.3 19.9 107.4 91 87 NU
4 10/11/95 152 1 118.3 23.0 104.8 89 87 NU
5 10/12/95 152 1 118.3 21.8 103.7 88 87 NU
6 10/12/95 152 1 118.3 24.4 105.1 89 87 NU
7 10/12/95 153 1 118.3 25.2 104.1 88 87 NU
8 10/12/95 154 2 118.7 23.8 104.0 88 87 NU
9 10/12/95 154 2 118.7 24.6 103.7 87 87 NU
10 10/13/95 154 2 118.7 24.1 104.9 88 87 NU
11 10/13/95 155 2 118.7 23.2 104.2 88 87 NU
12 10/13/95 156 2 118.7 24.6 101.4 85 87 17 NU
13 10/13/95 156 2 118.7 24.2 102.6 86 87 16 NU
14 10/13/95 156 2 118.7 23.8 101.3 85 87 15 NU
15 10/13/95 156 2 118.7 22.9 104.6 88 87 NU
16 10/13/95 156 2 118.7 23.4 105.2 89 87 NU
17 10/13/95 156 2 118.7 22.1 103.6 87 87 NU
LEGEND:
AC = Asphaltic Concrete
B = Base
CG = Curb & Gutter
FF = Finish Floor
FG = Finish Grade
JT = Joint Trench
NU = Nuclear Gauge
P = Plumbing Tie-In
SG = Subgrade
SS = Sanitary Sewar
CompactionTest Results
Copper Creek Estates, Lot 8
Bruce D. Wiegand, Inc.
Project No. 0007-003-02
Document No. 5-0529
Figure C-1
Geotechnics
Incorporated
~ 08/09/95 09:49
~ 02/29/1994 05:21
'8'619 942 1327
619-53&-8311
B D WIEGAND INC.
GEOTECHNICS INC.
- )/l) 002
,,'p"""ç;' CJ':
a'I?- ~ ..p-
-
P.;r.ciP8lr-
Anthony P. BeIrut
Mldlael P.ImN;,JÑ)
VI. I.- V ancIøhutc
August 8, 1895
Bruce D. 'Megand Inc.
1060 Wiegand Street
OØvenhain, CA 9202.
Project No. 0007.003-00
Ooc. ,5p0405
Attentton: Mr. Bruce Wiegand
SUBJECT:
Geoteeløllca1IJpda18
lot . .t Copper Crwk
E1K1n1ta8. C.øromla
REfERENCES:
Oeotechnlc5 Incorporated. Juty 12. 1995. Post.(el1sioned stabs. lot 8,
cooper Cree It Estates, fnc;n"a~, C.lifomiø. Project No. 0007pOOJ.OO. Dec.
1S-0340.
ICG rncorporated. June 8, 1989. Slope stability evaluation, I lot
subdivisiors. Lone Jack Road, etlc¡"ifu, Celífomia, Job No. 0.4-3861-002-
01-00. lOO No. 9-1721.
Sante Fe Soils, Inc.. JaF1u8fY 12. 1987. Geologic IImJ soils engineering
in"-stigatiolt. 25 ac~ hillside PItre'. Lone Jack Road, Eflcinit8$, Califomil.
SF-6e1.
De. Bruce:
As requested. we "eve reviewed the project grøding plans and existing reports for the proposed
development of Lot 8 .t Copper Creek Eslates. In our opinion, the reference reports remein
applicable to sile de"efopment The geotechnical aspects of the grading plan! conform 10 the
reco"""end8tions of the applicable reports.
Please call at your eonvenience if you should have any questions regarding this correspondence.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued setVfce.
~:2 ~~
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATEO
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E" 40333
Prt"eipal
P.O. Øox26S00-224 . S8Ø D.c.Jifomia . 92196
Phl)ne (619) 536-1000 . Fu (619) 536-8311
08/09/95 09:48
I-
02/29/1994 05:21
'a'619 942 1327
619-53&-8311
B D WIEGAND INC.
GEOTEOiNICS IN(;.
1lJ001
""A~ tI~
r
Geotechnics
Incorporate d
P.o. Box 26SGO-2¡4
Sa Diep. CA 92196
pboDc; (619) 536-1000
f^,,= (619) 516-8311
LETTER. Of TAAN§MXTIAJL
TO:
Bruce D. WIegand Inc:.
1050 Wiegand Street
Olivenhlin. CA 92024
DATe: August 8, 11'5
ATTENTION: Mr. Bruce Wiegand
REGARDING: Lot 8. Copper C...ek
GEOTECHNICS PROJ. NO. 0007~OO
L
w. ... _118m'" the following attached 1Ce,"8 by.
FAX X
-
FAX Ne,:
759-0558
Mal X
Messenger -
1n~1udIng nnsmittalld8r
Ex"", Mal
Client Piek-Up -
Number" pa.. FAXed:
2
-
CopIH Da.. D__pIon
4 1,.8-95 Geotechnical Update, lot 8
I R,-
Pie... ~ if you - any ~ostiol1$'
Slgnttl: +
any F. Belfast
J
Copy To:
PASCO ENGINEERING, INC.
535 NORTH HIGHWAY 101, SUITE A
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
(619) 259-8212
FAX (619) 259-4812
. ~,,/
i)L -
WAYNE A. PASCO
R.C.E. 29577
June 30, 1995
PE 645
City of Encinitas
505 So. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Attn:
Blair Knoll
RE:
WIEGAND RESIDENTIAL GRADING PLAN - HYDROLOGY
Dear Mr. Knoll:
The purpose of this report is to address the surface water runoff
as it is impacted by the proposed grading as shown on the grading
plan for the above project.
The grading project as proposed, is situated on the south side of
Wiegand Street, approximately 250 feet west of Lone Jack Road.
Wiegand street is a crowned street surfaced with AC, with a 6
inch AC berm at the edge of pavement. The offsite drainage area
upstream from the proposed grading consists of approximately 0.15
ac of undeveloped land sloping at 5% grade. Storm runoff is 0.31
cfs at Q100. (See exhibit "B" attached)
The proposed pad is drained to the west and to the east. The
easterly portion of the pad discharges 0.50 cfs at Q100 while the
westerly portion of the pad discharges 0.55 cfs. (See exhibit
"B"). This storm water will be discharged onto rip-rap energy
dissipators per S.D.R.S.D. D-40 with #2 backing 1.0 feet deep, 5'
wide by 5' long, with one layer of filter fabric.
The limits of the proposed grading extend to elevation 156. The
line of inundation by the 100 year flood is represented on the
map as the 155 foot contour perpendicular to the residence.
Within the area subject to inundation is a well defined channel.
This flowage area conveys approximately 2500 cfs at Q,oo.
It is the professional opinion of Pasco Engineering that the
drainage system a shown on the grading plan for the Wiegand
residence is sufficient to intercept, contain and convey Q,OO to
appropriate points of discharge. Also, the grading as proposed
will not be impacted by the 100 year line of inundation mentioned
above.
u [~~
L.. .
l~i i. '-
JUL 10 1995
E1\!C:if\! r:L fì::\;C:
..
C!TY OF ì.3\!CiNni\3
'-
HydrologyjPE645
June 30, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Very truly yours,
PASCO ENGINEERING, INC.
4J~? tÝ~
Wayne Pasco, President
RCE 29577
WPjjs
Encl:
PE 645
HYDROLOGY REPORT
FOR
LOT 8 - WIEGAND RESIDENCE
GRADING PLAN
PREPARED BY:
PASCO ENGINEERING, INC.
535 NO. HIGHWAY 101, STE. A
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
(619) 259-8212
JUNE 30, 1995
¿)~ r~
WAYNE PA CO, REC 29577
(;/30/6) 5
DATE / /
.
v
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.3A Release Date: 3/06/92 License ID 1388
Analysis prepared by:
Pasco Engineering, Inc.
535 North Highway 101, suite A
Solana Beach, CA. 92075
Ph. (619) 259-8212 fax: (619) 259-4812
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
hydrology analysis Wiegand residence *
q 100 *
Wayne Pasco 6/30/95 *
**************************************************************************
FILE NAME: 645.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:12
6/30/1995
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) =
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 3.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DEClMAL) TO USE
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
3.100
FOR FRICTION SLOPE =
.9-5
r
***************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
1.10 TO NODE
1. 00 IS CODE =
21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 170.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 164.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 156.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 7.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW (MINUTES) =
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.~7
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .31
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .15
10.017
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
.31
, .
.' ,
,
***************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
2.10 TO NODE
2.00 IS CODE =
21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "c"
RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 170.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 162.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 155.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 6.50
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW (MINUTES) =
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.059
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .55
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .27
10.507
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
.55
***************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
3.10 TO NODE
3.00 IS CODE =
21
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
»»>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "c"
RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 120.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 161.50
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 155.50
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 6.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) =
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.997
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .50
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .21
8.072
TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) =
.~o
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) =
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
.50
.21
Tc(MIN.) =
8.07
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
.7
,-
* **************************************************************************
HYDRAULIC ELEMENTS - I PROGRAM PACKAGE
(C) Copyright 1982-92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 3.1A Release Date: 2/17/92 License ID 1388
Analysis prepared by:
PASCO ENGINEERING
535 NORTH HWY 101, SUITE A
SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075
PHONE: (619) 259-8212 FAX (619) 259-4812
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 11:16
6/30/1995
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************* DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* earthen ditch capacity calc *
* *
* *
*************************************************************************
* **************************************************************************
> »PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION««
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = 1.000
PIPE SLOPE(FEET/FEET) = .0300
PIPEFLOW(CFS) = .31
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .040000
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITICAL
CRITICAL
CRITICAL
CRITICAL
CRITICAL
CRITICAL
CRITICAL
CRITICAL
DEPTH (FEET) = .23
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = .136
FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = .841
FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) =
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 2.281
FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) =
FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) =
FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY (FEET) =
2.18
.08
.16
.31
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = .27
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = .17
FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = .883
FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) =
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) =
FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) =
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) =
FROUDE NUMBER = .750
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) =
2.27
1.§53.
---~053
.19
.32
.'
.
t!)(/ST/NG MANHOlE
R/MéZ:/fjii!.9¡¡
1£ '/5¡¡/7
d.) AVERAGE v
OF F:~.
-~ 1
\...O\
N\ p.. '?
r'.. ,~ ~~ "-
\20-
\'\ 0. r,~o) "-
"-
r'3~ "
~
/
Ð4t..l1ß 1\
ß
"
'.
J
\oUUHI J Ut- :>AN D lEGO
DE?ARTMENT OF SANITATION &
FLOOD t
() \'
'..'"
\' \
f'.. :';
. ,. i
:\ \:
. '-20./ ISOPLUVIALS
45'
. \
-\" ",
", : \
-,
-.....;..
I
15' :
!
33°
451
eo -- .---. - - ~r~;.~d by ,
u.s. DEPARTMEN1f OF COMMERCE
NATJO~AL OC£A!l:IC A."'O AT OSPUERIC AOn'lISTRATION
SPECIAL STUOI£S BRA."ICH. OFFICE OF HOROLOGY. NATJONAL WEATHER SERVICE.
301
....
....'
I.
»
I
.
118'
I
151
451:
f.
30'
IS'
117°
45'
. 30'
116°
"
""
- -
-
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
ENT OF SANITATION & .
flOOD CONTROL
45'
".
~
~
'.~'
.'
30'
15'
,330
45'
--
30'
H.
>-c
,
»
118°
45'
30'
15'
11]0
45'
30'
IS'
116°
I
I
I
\Ñ
"
..
.
. .
,
¡
'- .
-.--.- .. .. -"-... .. .. . -
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOD)
LAND USE
Coefficient, C
Soil Group (1)
B C
.3S ; 40
D
.45
Undeveloped
Residential:
Rura 1
A
.30
Single Family
..30 .35 r:v .45
.40 .45 ,SO .55
.45 .50 .60 .70
.45 .50 .55 .65
. iO . ì5 .80 .S5
.80 .85 .90 .95
Multi-Units
Mobile Homes (2)
Commercial (2)
801'6 Impervious
Industrial (2)
90% Impervious
NOTES:
(1) Obtain soil group from maps on file with the Department of Sanitation
and Flood Control.
(2) Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated
imperviousness values of 80% or 90%, the values given for coefficien:
C, may be revised by multiplying 80% or 90% by the ratio of actual
imperviousness to the tabulated imperviousness. However, in no case
shall the final coefficient be less than O. SO. For example: C'Jns~ Jer
commercial property on 0 soil group.
Actual imperviousness
= S09ó
Tabulated imperviousness = 80%
Revised C = ~ X 0.85 = 0.53
8u .
APPENDIX! X