The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-6025 G Street Address -----.-----------.-- I &qC)3~ Serial # 3/(ç;5" Category Go) ,5-- G 7:-, Name Description Plan ck. # Year ~~~,.¡~c--~" ~eotechnics Incorpora ted . REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1009 HURSTD ALE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA prepared for Ms. Mary P. Wonner 1009 Hurstdale Avenue Encinitas, California, 92007 by GEOTECH}fiCSINCORPORATED Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 June 29, 1998 9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B . San Diego California. 92131 Phone (619) 536-1000 . Fax (619) 536-8311 Principals: Anthony F. Belfast Michael P. Imbriglio W. Lee Vanderhurst 8 . ~eotechnics Incorpora ted Principals: Anthony F. Belfast Michael P. Imbriglio W. Lee Vanderhurst June 29, 1998 Ms. Mary P. Wonner 1009 Hurstdale Avenue Encinitas, California, 92007 Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 Attention: Ms. Mary P. Wonner SUBJECT: REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1009 Hurstdale Avenue Encinitas, California Dear Ms. Wonner: In accordance with your request, we have completed a geotechnical investigation for repairs to the failed slope at 1009 Hurstdale Avenue, Encinitas, California. In general, the proposed slope repairs are feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. Our conclusions and recommendations regarding the observed site conditions, earthwork construction, design of slope repairs, retaining walls, and deck are presented in the attached report. We appreciate this opportunity to provide professional services. If you have any questions or require additional services, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTEC~CSINCORPORATED ~/?4:- John R. Theissen, P.E. Senior Engineer Distribution: (4) Addressee 9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B . San Diego California. 92131 Phone (619) 536-1000 . Fax (619) 536.8311 REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1009 HURSTDALE A VENUE ENCINIT AS, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES .................................................... 1 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ...................................................... 2 4.0 SLOPEDISTRESS........................................................2 5.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ...............................3 5.1 Fill...............................................................3 5.2 Colluvium, Residual Soils ............................................3 5.3 Torrey Sandstone ....................................................4 5.4 Groundwater ....................................................... 4 6.0 CONCLUSIONS..........................................................4 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 6 7.1 Plan and Specification Review """""""""""""""""""'" 6 7.2 Excavation and Grading Observation .......................,............ 6 7.3 Earthwork ......................................................... 7 7.3.1 GeneralSitePreparation ......................................7 7.3.2 SiteExcavation .............................................7 7.3.3 Temporary Excavations .......................................8 7.3.4 Fill Compaction ............................................8 7.3.5 MaterialforFill .............................................9 7.3.6 Construction Dewatering ......................................10 7.3.7 Subsurface Drainage Systems ..................................10 7.3.8 SurfaceDrainage ...........................................10 7.4 SlopeStabÜity......................................................11 7.5 Foundations.......................................................12 7.5.1 General....................................................13 7.5.2SpreadFootings .............................................13 7.5.3 LateralLoadResistance.......................................14 7.6ReinforcedEarthRetai~gStructures ...................................14 Geotechnics Incorporated REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1009 HURSTDALE AVENUE EN COOT AS, CALIFORNIA TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) 8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION.. .. .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. ... 16 APPENDICES SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION....................................... AppendixA .LABORATORY TESTING........................................... AppendixB SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS .......................... ... ........ ... AppendixC ILLUSTRATIONS SITE LOCATION MAP .................................................. Figure 1 SITE CROSS SECTION .................................................. Figure 2 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figures3a through 3f LOGS OF EXPLORATION BORINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figures A-I through A-2 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS(#200 Sieve,) "'.""."."'." Figures B-1 through B-3 MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT ............,..... FigureB-4 DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figures B-5 through B-8 Geotechnics Incorporated REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION 1009 HURSTDALE AVENUE ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for repairs to the failed slope at 1009 Hurstdale Avenue, Encinitas, California. The location of the site is presented on the following Site Location Map, Figure 1. The purpose of this investigation was to provide geotechnical design parameters for slope repairs, retaining walls, deck foundations, and geotechnical recommendations for conducting the earthwork at the site. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, our experience with similar soils and geologic conditions. This investigation was authorized by Ms. Mary P. Wonner. The scope of services provided during this investigation were consistent with those outlined in our Proposal No. 8-057 dated March 11, 1998. 2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES To evaluate subsurface geotechnical conditions and geotechnical design parameters for the proposed slope repairs, and to provide geotechnical design criteria and recommendations, the following services were performed: . Geologic reconnaissance of the subject site. . Subsurface exploration consisting of 2 borings drilled to a depth of about 11 feet below current grades. Each boring was logged by our field engineer and then backfilled upon completion. Samples of the soils encountered in the borings were collected for laboratory testing. The approximate boring locations are shown on the attached Site Cross Section, Figure 2. . Laboratory testing of selected soil samples retrieved during the subsurface exploration. The testing included in-situ moisture content/dry density, maximum dry density and optimum moisture content, particle size analysis, Atterberg limits and shear strength. Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29, 1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO.2 . Engineering analysis of the site conditions with regards to slope stability, slope stabilization, foundations, reinforced earth fill, and retaining wall design. . Preparation of this report presenting the results of our subsurface exploration and laboratory testing, our conclusions regarding the geotechnical aspects of the proposed slope repair, and recommendations regarding earthwork construction, wall foundation design, and parameters for Keystone wall design. 3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the south side of the cul-de-sac at the west end of Hurst dale Avenue, west of Freda Lane in Encinitas. Existing single family residences border the site on the east and west. A natural drainage is located to the south of the property. The site is currently occupied by a single story residence. The site is relatively level in the location of the existing residence, but slopes downward steeply behind the back patio area. The upper portions of the slope are terraced by a series of three 2-foot high timber landscaping walls and a concrete masonry unit (cmu) retaining wall about four feet high. Details on the construction of the wall are not known. The terraced slope above the cmu retaining wall appears to have a slope of about 1 Y2: 1 (horizontal to vertical). The slope below the cmu wall has failed, resulting in movement and cracking of the cmu wall in two locations. Based on a field survey line across the back of the property, elevations across the site drop about 40 feet ttom the back of the patio to the back of the property. The slope behind the cmu retaining wall is estimated to have had a slope prior to failure of about 1 Y2: 1, flattening to a slope of about 3: 1 near the south portion of the site. 4.0 SLOPE DISTRESS Based on our examination of the site, a portion of the existing slope about 15 to 20 feet wide and 50 feet long has experienced a shallow slide estimated to be approximately 3 feet deep immediately below the existing cmu wall. This slide has undennined approximately 15 feet of the existing cmu wall resulting in some movement and damage to the existing wall. The wall, however, has not experienced collapse. Examination of the exposed wall foundation indicated that the foundation is only about two feet wide. Slide debris indicates the slide probably began as a movement of Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29, 1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO. 3 saturated to nearly saturated soil and apparently progressed to a mudflow after the initial soil movement. Little remaining soil debris was observed below the slide scarp. 5.0 GEOLOGY AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS The subject site is located within the coastal plain section of the Peninsular Range Geomorphic Province of California. The coastal plain consists generally of subdued landforms underlain by sedimentary bedrock. The site is 11Ilderlain by Eocene deposits of Torrey Sandstone. Logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered are given in Appendix A. The approximate locations of the borings are shown on the Site Cross Section, Figure 2. Generalized descriptions of the subsurface conditions and the specific units observed during drilling are as follow. 5.1 Fill Minor amounts of fill soils were observed in the slide plane around the existing cmu wall within the upper approximately 1 foot below grade. The fill consisted primarily of brown silty fine sand, apparently derived from the underlying natural soils. We were not provided with documentation of the fill compaction. However, the fill appears generally medium dense and moist. 5.2 Colluvium, Residual Soils Underlying the fill soils we observed colluvial materials and residual soils which are derived from the underlying Torrey Sandstone deposits. As observed in our borings, the colluvial soils and residual soils consist ofloose to medium dense, silty medium to fine-grained sands, with some pockets of stiff sandy clay. The upper loose colluvial soil is poorly consolidated, and is not suitable in its present condition for support of structural loads. The denser sand below a depth of about 5 to 7 feet is suitable for support of foundations without improvement. Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29,1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO. 4 5.3 Torrey Sandstone The Eocene age Torrey Sandstones were observed at the base of the colluvial deposits and in outcrops around the site. These deposits consist oflight brown, moderately hard to hard, sandstones. The sandstone was encountered in the borings at an estimated depth of about 11 feet below the existing grade in boring 1 and at a depth of 8 feet in boring 2. Drilling refusal was encountered at, or near, the estimated rock contact. 5.4 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered in the borings drilled at the site. Seepage may be encountered, however, during periods of rainfall, especially in areas of surface drainage or in zones of fractured rock or on top of the unweathered rock surface. 6.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on our examination of the current site conditions and the results of our laboratory testing and engineering analysis, it is our opinion that the existing slope and cmu wall will not be stable in the long term in their present condition. We recommend that the existing slope be flattened to a maximum slope inclination of no more than 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) and that the existing damaged cmu wall be replaced with an engineered wall; or alternatively, that the existing wall damage be repaired in place and the repaired wall be buried so that no more than two feet of the wall is exposed above fmal grade. This latter recommendation is made because the existing wall foundation is not sufficient to support a cantilevered wall 4 feet high. The existing wall should not be used to retain more than 2 feet of soil. Because the existing slope extends downward to the back property line, it does not appear practical to flatten the existing slope to 2: 1 without the use of a retaining wall to support the toe of the reconstructed slope. Because firm soils were not encountered in the borings at a reasonable foundation depth, we do not recommend the use of traditional cantilevered retaining walls which would generate high toe bearing pressures. We recommend the use of a reinforced earth retaining wall which would not require as. high a bearing pressure for wall stability. There are several Geotecbnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER lln'ffi 29, 1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO.5 proprietary reinforced earth wall systems in use today. This report uses a design based on the "Keystone" reinforced earth retaining wall system. Based on the results of this investigation, it is our opinion that the proposed slope repair is feasible from- a- geotechnical standpoint provided the following recommendations and - appropriate construction practices are followed. No geotechnical conditions were encountered that would preclude the proposed construction. The primary geotechnical concern at the site is the presence of loose surficial colluvial soils that could settle upon placing high structural wall loads. Other geotechnical considerations for the design and construction of the project include the following: . In general, excavations at the site should be achievable by hand or using lightweight earthmoving equipment. . Standing groundwater and groundwater seepage was not encountered in the borings drilled at the site. Seepage may be encountered in slopes in the area during the rainy season. . In general, the material encountered at the site is considered suitable for reuse in compacted fills. However, any debris or organic matter encountered in the eXisting soils is not considered suitable for reuse at the site and should be disposed of off-site or in an area of the site outside of the area of the proposed slope repair. Expansive clays are not considered suitable for use within the proposed earthwork. Materials exhibiting an expansion index exceeding 20 and a plasticity index exceeding 10 and a liquid limit exceeding 30 are not considered suitable for use within the proposed earthwork. . All earthwork and foundation construction should be observed and tested by personnel of our fIrm for conformance with the intent of our recommendations and the requirements of the City of Encinitas. Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29, 1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO.6 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS The remainder of this report presents recommendations regarding earthwork construction and foundation design. These recommendations are based on empirical and analytical methods typical of the standard of practice in southern California. If these recommendations appear not to cover any specific feature of the project, please contact our office for additions or revisions to the recommendations. 7.1 Plan and Specification Review We recommend that foundation and grading plans and the proj ect specifications be reviewed by Geotechnics Incorporated prior to plan fmalization to evaluate conformance with the intent of the recommendations of this report. Significant changes in the location and foundation elevations of the proposed structures may require additional geotechnical evaluation. 7.2 Excavation and Grading Observation Foundation installations, excavations, and site grading operations should be observed by Geotechnics Incorporated. Geotechnics Incorporated should provide observation and testing services continuously during grading. Such observations are considered essential to identify ñelå conditions that differ from those anticipated by our investigation, to adjust designs to actual field conditions, and to determine that the earthwork construction is accomplished in general accordance with the recommendations of this report. Recommendations presented in this report are contingent upon Geotechnics Incorporated perfonning such services. Our personnel should perform sufficient testing and observation of the earthwork construction to support our professional opinion as to compliance with compaction recommendations. Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29,1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO. 7 7.3 Earthwork Earthwork for the proposed slope stabilization is anticipated to include remedial compaction of existing loose surficial colluvial soils, excavation of retaining wall pad, excavation of slopes for reinforced earth fill, and placement of reinforced earth fill, slope fill, and backfill. Grading and earthwork should be conducted in accordance with the Grading Ordinance of the City of Encinitas, Appendix Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, and the recommendations of this report. The following recommendations are provided regarding specific aspects of the proposed earthwork construction. These recommendations should be considered subject to revision based on the conditions observed by the geotechnical consultant during grading operations. 7.3.1 General Site Preparation General site preparation should include the removal of deleterious materials, existing structures, or other improvements from areas that will be subjected to structural or fill loads. Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of vegetation including brush, grass, weeds, woods, stumps, trees, tree roots, and otherwise deleterious materials from areas to be graded. Clearing and grubbing should extend to outside the limits of grading and improvements. Deleterious materials, including vegetation, trash, and debris, generated by the clearing and grubbing should be removed from the site and disposed of at a legal landfill or disposed of onsite in an area outside of the limits of the proposed slope repair, such that the slope repair construction is not adversely affected by the disposed material. It is anticipated that the tree located in the area of the existing slide will have to be removed unless a separate wall is constructed around the tree base for grade separation. 7.3.2 Site Excavation To reduce the amount of potential settlement beneath wall footings and foundations, we recommend the existing colluvial materials be excavated to a minimum depth of 1 foot below subgrade elevations and replaced with compacted fill soils. The removal of the existing colluvial materials should be conducted under the Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29, 1998 PROÆCT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO.8 observation of the geotechnical consultant to evaluate the competency of the exposed materials for support of structural loads. The excavation of unsuitable materials should be conducted in a way that minimizes the disturbance of competent materials. Excavated material that is ftee of deleterious or oversize materials may be reused in compacted fills upon evaluation by the geotechnical consultant. Areas where removals are completed should be scarified to approximately 8 inches deep, brought to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted, unless the excavation extends into firm undisturbed formational materials or bedrock. 7.3.3 Temporary Excavations Temporary excavations less than 6 feet in depth are expected to be generally stable during the dry season provided they are properly laid back or shored. Temporary excavations up to 6 feet in height should be laid back no steeper than 1; 1 (horizontal to vertical), or shored. Any deeper excavations should be reviewed by a representative of our fIrm. Shallow excavations up to 4 feet deep may be made vertical without shoring, provided stockpiles and equipment are setback at least 5 feet. All excavations should conform to Cal-OSHA guidelines,. 7.3.4 Fill Compaction All reinforced earth fill, soil fill, and backfill, to be placed in aSsociation with slide repairs and wall construction should be accomplished at slightly over optimum moisture conditions and using equipment that is capable of producing a uniformly compacted product throughout the full depth of the fill lift placed. It should be noted that, depending on the time of year of construction, portions of the excavated soil may have moisture contents above optimum, and may require some drying prior to inclusion in compacted fills. Fill materials at less than optimum moisture content should have water added and the fill mixed to result in material that is uniformly slightly above optimum moisture content. Fill materials that are too wet should be aerated or mixed with dryer material to achieve uniformly moisture-conditioned soil. The fill and backfill should be placed in horizontal lifts at a thickness appropriate for the equipment spreading, mixing, and compacting the material, but generally should Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29,1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO.9 not exceed 8 inches in loose thickness. The Il1lIllIIlum relative compaction recommended for reinforced earth fill, soil fill and backfill is 90 percent of maximum density based on ASTM D1557. Rocks or hard clumps greater than 4 inches in dimension should not be used in reinforced earth fill, soil fill, backfill for reinforced earth walls, or general backfill. Sufficient observation and testing should be performed by Geotechnics Incorporated so that an opinion can be rendered as to the compaction achieved. Where fill is to be placed on surfaces inclined steeper than 5: 1 (horizontal to vertical), benches should be excavated to provide a relatively level surface for fill placement. The benches should extend through any loose, unsuitable materials to expose competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. The bench width should generally be adequate to expose 1 to 2 feet of competent material in the vertical wall of the bench. Unless the excavation extends into finn undisturbed formational materials or bedrock, the exposed benches should be scarified to a depth of approximately 8 inches, brought to slightly above optimum moisture content, and compacted prior to placing fill. Excavated material that is free of deleterious or oversize materials may be reused in compacted fills upon evaluation by the geotechnical consultant. 7.3.5 Material for Fill The on-site sands and silty sand soils, less clay, organic material, and debris, may be re-used for compacted fill material and reinforced earth fill material. Any rocks greater than 4 inches in size should not be used in the fill material. Imported fill sources should be observed prior to hauling onto the site to detennine the suitability for use. Representative samples of imported materials and on site soils should be tested by Geotechnics Incorporated to evaluate their appropriate engineering properties for the planned use. Imported fill soils should have an expansion index of no more than 20 based on UBC Test Method 29-2 or ASTM D4829. Imported fill soils used for reinforced earth fill should consist of relatively free draining silty sands, sands, gravel, or crushed rock having an expansion index of no more than 20 based on UBC Test Method 29-2 or ASTM D4829 and a plasticity index not Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29, 1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO. 10 exceeding 10 and a liquid limit not exceeding 30. During grading operations, soil types other than those analyzed in the geotechnical reports may be encountered by the contractor. Geotechnics should be notified to evaluate the suitability of these soils for use as fill and as reinforced fill materials. 7.3.6 Construction Dewatering Groundwater is not generally anticipated at the site, but seepage may occur during periods of rainfall and associated runoff. We anticipate that the excavations for the reinforced earth wall may be dewatered by sumping the water from the bottom of the excavations. If the base of an excavation becomes saturated, it may be stabilized using coarse gravel or lean concrete. The bottom should be dewatered sufficiently to provide a stable working surface. 7.3.7 Subsurface Drainage Systems To reduce the potential for water related distress to the proposed improvements, we recommend that sub drains be installed in the back of the retaining wall, below the cmu wall in the area of the prior slope failure, and wherever seepage is encountered. In general, subdrains should be constructed and insta11edas shown in Figure 2. The location and extent of subdrains should be evaluated during grading by the geotechnical consultant. Where seepage is observed in cut or fill slopes, or conditions indicate potential for seepage, we recommend that composite panel drains be installed as shown in Figure 3. The panel drain should be placed so that it covers the areas where seepage is observed or anticipated. The location and extent of the drain should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. 7.3.8 Surface Drainage Although the proposed slopes appear stable with regard to deep-seated failure, they may be susceptible to erosion and spalling. Surficial slope stability may be Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29,1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO. 11 improved by providing proper site drainage. Slope and wall performance will depend greatly on how well the runoff waters drain from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire design life of the slope. The ground surface around the slope should be graded so that water is not directed to flow over the slope face. The surface gradient needed to achieve this depends on the prevailing landscape. In general, we recommend that patio and landscape areas within 1 0 feet of the reconstructed slope be sloped away fÌ'om the construction at gradients of at least two percent and be directed to area drains which connect to downslope solid pipe drains discharging to the existing drainage downslope of the repairs. Given the construction of the existing upper slope above the damaged cmu wall it may be more practical to construct a patio deck above the terraced area to direct the runoff to the existing area drain. The existing area drain should be examined to make certain the drain is operating properly and does not leak excessively. Ifnecessary the existing drain should be repaired or replaced. Roof drainage should be channeled by pipe to storm drains, or should be piped to discharge at least 10 feet below the slope repairs. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, surface water intrusion, water line breaks, or unusually high rainfall occur, saturated zones or "perched" groundwater may develop in the underlying soils. It is recommended that slopes be planted with vegetation that will increase their stability. Ice plant is not recommended. We recommend that vegetation include woody plants, along with ground cover, such as dwarf coyote bush. All plants should be adapted for growth in semiarid climates with little or no irrigation. A landscape architect should be consulted in order to develop a specific planting palate suitable for slope stabilization. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain landscaping plants. 7.4 Slope Stability The pertinent slope stability analyses are summarized in Appendix C. The surficial stability of the proposed slopes was analyzed using an idealized infInite slope composed of a Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29, 1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO. 12 cohesive, frictional material, with steady state down slope seepage forces applied parallel to the slope surface (Abrahamson et al, 1996). The analysis is presented in Appendix C. The gross stability of the site was analyzed using PCST ABL5 software. The results of these analyses are presented in the remaining figures in Appendix C. In general, our analysis indicates that the existing slopes at the site have a factor of safety ofless than 1.5. Our analysis also indicates that fill slopes, constructed at inclinations of2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, will generally meet or exceed a factor-of-safety of 1.5. We recommend that fill slopes be constructed at inclinations no steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical). Our analysis indicates that slopes inclined at inclinations greater than 2: 1 may be more susceptible to surficial failure and erosion. Surficial slides typically occur when the soil along the face of a slope becomes saturated as a result of heavy rainfall or irrigation. These slides generally involve the outer three to five feet of slope material as measured perpendicularly to the slope face. Erosion is more likely on slopes where vegetation has not been established. All slopes are subject to some creep, whether the slopes are natural or man-made. Slope creep is the very slow, down-slope movement of the near surface soil along the slope face. The degree and depth of the movement is influenced by soil type and the moisture conditions. This movement is typical in slopes and is not considered a hazard. However, it may affect structures built on or near the slope face. 7.5 Foundations The following recommendations are considered generally consistent with methods typically used in southern California. Other alternatives may be available. The foundation recommendations herein should not be considered to preclude more restrictive criteria of governing agencies or by the structural engineer. The design of the foundation system should be performed by the project engineer or designlbuild contractor, incorporating the geotechnical parameters described in the following sections. Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29, 1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO. 13 7.5.1 General The loose surficial colluvial soils should not be relied upon for foundation support for deck piers or retaining walls without compaction. 7.5.2 Spread Footings The reinforced earth wall is anticipated to be founded on a continuous gravel bedded wall foundation while the patio deck front and back foundations are anticipated to be founded on spread footings. The following parameters are provided for footings founded completely in compacted fill material. Allowable Bearing: 2,000 Ibs.!ft2 (allow a one-third increase for short-term wind or seismic loads) Ultimate Bearing: 6,000 Ibs.!ft2 Minimum Footing Width: 24 inches Minimum Footing Depth: 24 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade or 18 inches below a line rising at a slope of 2: 1 from toe ot" slope or top of reinforced earth wall, whichever is deeper. Minimum Reinforcement: Two No.4 bars at both top and bottom in continuous footings. Estimated Settlement: ~ inch Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29,1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO. 14 7.5.3 Lateral Load Resistance Lateral loads against structures may be resisted by friction between the bottoms of footings and the supporting soil and passive pressure against vertical foundation members founded in compacted fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.4 may be used between the bottoms of footings and the underlying compacted fill soils. A passive pressure of 300 lbs.lft3 may be used for compacted fill. A one-third increase in the passive value may be used for wind or seismic loads. The passive resistance of the soils or formational materials may be combined with the frictional resistance without reduction in evaluating the total lateral resistance. 7.6 Reinforced Earth Retaining Structures In order to provide a stable slope and restrain the damaged cmu wall, we recommend that a reinforced earth wall be placed approximately 30 feet downslope of the existing cmu wall. A back slope should then be constructed at a slope not steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical) to intercept and support the existing cmu wall 2 feet below the top of the cmu wall. The cracked section of wall should be grouted using either a cement grout or epoxy grout to close the existing cracks. The proposed reinforced earth wall is estimated to be approximately 9 feet in total height, and should be buried at least 1 Y2 feet below the lowest adjacent grade. A 5-foot wide level work pad constructed of compacted fill should be placed in front of the wall to improve stability of the slope. The wall may be supported on a 6-inch thick pad ofCaltrans Class II aggregate base or %-inch crushed stone after the subgrade soils have been compacted as recommended in this report. The gravel pad should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. A 4-inch perforated drain pipe should be provided at the heel of the wall and a permeable drain at least 6 inches wide consisting of Caltrans Class II permeable drain material or %-inch crushed rock or gravel should be placed behind the wall. If a "KeystOne" reinforced earth wall system is used either "compac" or "standard" wall units may be used for wall construction. All reinforced earth fill and backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent of maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM Test Method D 1557. The west side of the wall should be turned back into the existing slope to provide a transition and wall closure. A side slope of2:1 may be used in the fill soils to reduce the amount offill Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29,1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO. 15 required. The east wall should be terminated in the firmer Torrey Sandstone to the east of the site and the fill brought up to the midpoint of the existing cmu wall at a slope not steeper than 2:1. Keystone Retaining Walls are typically a designlbuild system. Internal stability is a function of the soil used for backfill and the reinforcing zone, and the strength properties of the reinforcing geogrids. Global stability depends on the profile geometry ( height, level or sloped backfill), bearing stratum, and surcharge. The design values are a function of the shear strength of the soils used for backfill and the reinforcing zone. Some alternative wall designs are presented in Figures 3a through 3f as design guides for the designlbuild contractor. Those designs are based on the engineering soil parameters presented below. If the on site soils are used as backfill and in the reinforced zone, the following recommendations may be used, provided those soils are compacted to at least 90 percent of the laboratory maximum density in accordance with ASTM D 1557: Angle of Internal friction Cohesion Total Unit Weight Bearing Pressure = 34 degrees = 50 psf = 125 pcf = 2,000 psf If imported soils are used, they should be tested by Geotechnics Incorporated to compare the shear strength and unit weight values of the imported soils to design values. We recommend the soils used as backfill and in the reinforcing zone be predominantly granular and free draining cohesionless soils having an Expansive Index of 20 or less, a plasticity index not exceeding 10 and a liquid limit not exceeding 30, and that those soils be free of organic and clay materials. Backfillingretaining walls with expansive soils can increase lateral pressures well beyond the active pressures anticipated in design. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction, based on ASTM D1557. Heavy compaction equipment which could cause distress to walls should not be used. Adequate drainage should be provided to relieve hydrostatic pressures. Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29, 1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO. 16 8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION This investigation was perfonned using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional opinions included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the project site; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between borings. As in most projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant and additional recommendations made, if warranted. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the infonnation and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the necessary design consultants for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors carry out such recommendations in the field. Changes in the condition of a property can occur with the passage of time, whether due to natural processes or the work of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards of practice may occur from legislation or the broaderiing 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. *** GEOTECHNICSINCORPORATED ~ø.~ John R. Theissen, P.E. 28313 Senior Engineer Geotechnics Incorporated Il~ c. ,. .,.. ..; ~~ '." ',1"--1 1,¡~"~ J¡;',::,o '.'. := :Z{fi~y. ~~;~~""""""""""'" t\6..~ - ~ :WI:LL~:.,::h2"....,.",.¡.. '",:,:.. ,:,,:~.;:,; ..'.',;.:10 - ~ERRc.;:; ~'I .--( -;<;:fi? '£ò: 'i .~ ~ ~~' '., .,.,._,i~~j~ ~:~:~~ ;;;..II~~;'A; if; ~ ,~. ~ SANTAFE',;c,.";.¡ ';1 ~ ?~ ,', .b~eV\, .!F~.,."::::;?;:,,~,,.,q, .'," ""'WlLL,' '.,., .' ~, \ .' -. .,'.,'.' I...,,!.M,:..','~~.:~.'.:,'-.',:,~ '., ' "", '~L~' :~~" 0': ~\:CATHY,,:::ID', i,"'"PEAC"" Ii ',<".. 'OCEANCREST ~C1 "~ ?~ ~c:~~)::,i~~~.:", ,~ORE'n ,,',: Ji+,::' ,:,'.,:...,:'. "'" '"",(5.'.p . :., ' :: , c>' B!II" ....: " ;"'~: ---:- 1 C.",t ,--- ,I, If '::," L b----Y I; " ~"~"~,.:,. SUMMITC O\r1' " ~¡~,~~::;J:""'.., ~<I,;-l-. ~:,::""" :"", , 'H;';ö' <-'~.ARET A ";":1 w~ CK :,,-g 'SHEFl'iELr ,8 :t.O"X'~r-(j ',:" ~Bïu1TOL :~<:.,: '~"~:,\.~B~~' 'C::-,o::J ,is' FF'\:': ,,:,' /ST :,;\:\ S'j "" ~~,',~, ?~:~> :~ ~I'\" ' ,....0 1'\ ': ,,:,,: ~.' \ ,;It" ".~~ VA;:> '\ '~ Q-J,~ ~' ~ \p",i,:~? ;;;,~:>.":::¿':':;::,, \,:,,'è"í, ;:-:'1 .~;\ :,,' <y ,'\. :'i,:: ':~; """, , 2 2 z\,;;:, ", '" ,': '-'J:'" ','" "":~,',::"",,,,: \" ,',C, , ,,' ',', ' "r,' Jf V ",,"" '~:,:: ",I'e,: ',' EL~ " _r~ ,:\'~" , :i;.êTËV~TA ,',;. [; C ",,':.. ",,:':~:.':'" ,", ""':;~',','",',':,' ",:1,":"'-;"'" ,,:.. ,0"", './"I.."", ,,""" i~~f ptr~-e;') >, ':' ,':; ,',,' :'r,;:;: ,,:'.:::.:..'.........[¿~4t~ø~, " "",,:.:~'i~~~~4~~r:: ":>:'/0 ,:"""C{'? ,:,," :., ,;,', ,'c,' ,": I;: , " 'W ",,", -'a w ..~ ,< '0 "w ,,""' :" '" 3 ',',"', :~::~ ",'~ :'!E "1",, Wi /,:,j'::{!i'\:,::¡- , 3 "', '" c,', " ',C, :, 4 ,4 'c ,', ,.... 'C' ,," ~¡:;!' " , ".. .-'" ',' :," , .' II F"~\:- 15 , ~I (j oJ 0 .;;: --.r' ,~ ~l//æ i~U "IT 5 'C", ":,C",, ," , ,:..i,~ "',\:',;", "~' c-;, ',c" "C f," , ~;:",' I' .. \3~~} If; t: 1009 Hurstdale Avo Encinitas, 92007, Page & Grid 1167 E3 -,', ",:, ,,""",- :---,,';' y,'.."':-, /,"'" ,; , c, ',~:>,: &,0 r Geotechnics Incorporated SITE LOCATION MAP Wonner Residence-1009 Hurstdale Encinitas. California Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 FIGURE 1 HORIZONTAL DISTANCE IN FEET 60 I 50 40 I 30 20 10 I ~ ~ II-INCHES OF SOIL COVER FILTER FABRIC COMPLETELY SURROUNDING CRUSHED ROCK OVERLAP II-INCH MlN, AT TOP NEW DECK 4-INCH PERFORATED DRAIN PIPE (SEE DETAIL). TIMBER GARDEN ~ WALLS I\- \..CMU WALL MIINUS 3I4-INCH CRUSHED ROCK //' 2 /- 1/ /7 '~' /' ,--;-;-:- REINFORCED / ,"! '-z. EARTH WALL- ,/ ~OMPACTED ~ \ ¿ - - ) FILL' "----..) '. ':"," :,"3 C COLLUVIUM/RESIDUAL SOIL- WORK BENCH J ;.'~::.::,:~ .,-..1 - ------ p; , ' , 'ò I REINFORCED ,/ 2 5 F.. ,<. "..\: I EARTH FILL / ---' ./ -::- , ". ..---- 1 I./""/' ? . \'_": -'.J - BORING 1 ~ / \.. ~ -4-INCH PERFORATED .-" DRAIN PIPE A. PROXIMATE EXISTING ------ (SEE DETAIL) G OUND SURFACE ----- --- BORING 2 ~ATED SURFACE OF TORREY SANDSTONE ---- 1 CU. FT. PER LINEAL FOOT OF MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED . .' . ROCK ENVELOPED IN ~." ,",'" . FILTER FABRIC. ".".'.'., ~, '. '. . 4-INCH DrAM. ADS OR PVC .'.' "\ '. PERFORATED PIPE ~-, ~ , . . ',' ~...:,;.'A"1,' Geotechnics Incorporated SITE CROSS SECTION Wonner Residence-1009 Hurstdale Encinitas, California Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 FIGURE 2 0 0 10 I- W W LL ~:::<' 2: w (.) z -- ;t~) <t: I- tIJ Õ 30 -I <t: (.) ¡:: -55ffi > 40 -50 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Methodology KeyWall Ver 1a, July 11, 1997 Geotechnics Incorporated Project: Wonner Residence-1009 Hurstdale Proj. No.: 0445-001-00 Design Parameters Date: 7/9/98 By: J. Theissen Soil Parameters ~ Reinforced Fill: 34 Retained Fill: 34 Foundation Fill: 34 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus .Q...Q§f 0 0 0 Ü Dcf 125 125 125 Factors of Safety Sliding: Pullout: Connection Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: 1.50 1.50 2.00 1.50 1.50 Bearing: 3.00 Serviceability: 1.00 Reinforcing Parameters: Generic Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Gen-15+ 2503 1.67 1.20 Gen-20+ 3337 1.67 1.20 RFid 1.10 1.10 LTDS 1135 1514 ~ 757 1009 ~ 1.00 1.00 ~ 1.50 1.50 Analysis: Retaining Wall Unit Type: COM PAC Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 9.00 ft embedment: 1.50 ft BackSlope Geometry: 26.60 deg. slope 14.50 ft high Surcharge: LL - 50 psf uniform surcharge Slidinq 1.59 1787 psf page - of - Cds 1.00 1.00 Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. Results: DL - 0 psf uniform surcharge Overtuminq BearinQ Shear 2.11 6.67 3.14 Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: Eccentricity at base: 1.11 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibslft) Laver Heiaht Lenath 3 6.67 7.00 2 4.00 5.50 1 * 1.33 5.50 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Gen-20+: 0.61 sy/ft Gen-15+: 1.39 sy/ft Reinf. Gen-15+ Gen-15+ Gen-20+ Td 406 559 720 Tension Tconn 259 406 * 514 559 * 788 « 720 * Bendina 1.77 FSpo 2.68 3.02 6.35 NOTE: THESE CALCULA TIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. 4444 West 78th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 Figure 3a page - of - KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Methodology KeyWall Ver 1a, July 11,1997 . Geotechnics Incorporated Project: Wonner Residence-1009 Hurstdale Proj. No.: 0445-001-00 Design Parameters Soil Parameters Û Reinforced Fill: 34 Retained Fill: 34 Foundation Fill: 34 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus .£....I2§f 0 0 0 Factors of Safety Sliding: Pullout: Connection 1.50 1.50 Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Mirafi Geogrids Tult RFcr Miragrid 5T 2698 1.67 Miragrid IT 3897 1.79 RFd 1.10 1.10 RFid 1.18 1.17 Analysis: Retaining Wall Unit Type: COM PAC Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 9.00 ft embedment: 1.50 ft BackSlope Geometry: 26.60 deg. slope 14.50 ft high Surcharge: LL - 50 psf uniform surcharge Slidinq 1.59 1787 psf LTDS 1244 1691 ü pcf 125 125 125 2.00 1.50 1.50 --EL 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/9/98 By: J. Theissen Bearing: 3.00 Serviceability: 1.00 --IêL 830 1128 ~ 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. Results: DL - 0 psf uniform surcharge Overturninq Bearinq Shear 2.11 6.67 3.14 Bendinq 1.77 Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: Eccentricity at base: 1.11 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs/ft) Layer Heiqht Lenqth 3 6.67 7.00 2 4.00 5.50 1 * 1.33 5.50 einforcing Quantities (no waste included): Miragrid IT: 0.61 sy/ft Miragrid 5T: 1.39 sy/ft Reinf. Miragrid 5T Miragrid 5T Miragrid IT Td 406 565 858 Tension 259 514 788 Tconn 406 * 565 * 858 * FSpo 2.68 3.02 6.35 NOTE: THESE CALCULA nONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. 4444 West 78th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 Figure 3b page - of - KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Methodology KeyWall Ver 1a, July 11, 1997 Geotechnics Incorporated Project: Wonner Residence-1009 Hurstdale Proj. No.: 0445-001-00 Design Parameters Date: 7/9/98 By: J. Theissen Factors of Safety Sliding: Pullout: Connection 1.50 1.50 Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: 2.00 1.50 1.50 Soil Parameters û Reinforced Fill: 34 Retained Fill: 34 Foundation Fill: 34 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus .£..J2§f 0 0 0 --.JLJ& 125 125 125 Bearing: 3.00 Serviceability: 1.00 Reinforcing Parameters: Tensar Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd RFid UX0750SB+ 2198 2.93 1.00 1.05 UX1100SB+ 2663 2.96 1.00 - 1.05 LTDS 714 857 .£L 1.50 1.50 Tal 476 571 ~ 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Analysis: Retaining Wall Unit Type: COMPAC Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 9.00 ft embedment: 1.50 ft BackSlope Geometry: 26.60 deg. slope 14.50 ft high Surcharge: LL - 50 psf uniform surcharge Slidina 1.62 1787 psf Wall Batter. 7.10 deg. Results: DL - 0 psf uniform surcharge Overturnina Bearina Shear 2.11 6.67 4.17 Bendina 5.33 Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: Eccentricity at base: 1.11 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs/ft) Layer Heiaht Lenath 4 7.33 7.00 3 5.33 6.00 2 2.67 5.50 1 * 0.67 5.50 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): UX 11 OOSB+: 1.22 sy/ft UX0750SB+: 1.44 sy/ft Reinf. Td Tension Tconn FSDO UX0750SB+ 278 137 278 * 1.71 UX0750SB+ 406 345 406 * 2.41 UX1100SB+ 571 555 693 5.60 UX1100SB+ 571 525 801 FS>10 NOTE: THESE CALCULA TIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. 4444 West 78th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 Figure 3c page - of - KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Methodology KeyWall Ver 1a, July 11, 1997 Geotechnics Incorporated Project: Wonner Residence-1 009 Hurstdale Proj. No.: 0445-001-00 Design Parameters Soil Parameters ---1L- Reinforced Fill: 34 Retained Fill: 34 Foundation Fill: 34 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus £...Q§f 0 0 0 Factors of Safety Sliding: Pullout: Connection 1.50 1.50 Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: Reinforcing Parameters: Generic Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd Gen-15+ 2503 1.67 1.20 Gen-20+ 3337 1.67 1.20 RFid 1.10 1.10 LTDS 1135 1514 Analysis: Retaining Wall Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 9.00 ft embedment: 1.50 ft BackSlope Geometry: 26.60 deg. slope 14.50 ft high Surcharge: LL - 50 psf uniform surcharge SlidinQ 1.77 1638 psf ü pcf 125 125 125 2.00 1.50 1.50 íL 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/9/98 By: J. Theissen Bearing: ~OO Serviceability: 1.00 -.l§L 757 1009 ~ 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. Results: DL - 0 psf uniform surcharge OvertuminQ BearinQ Shear 2.26 7.49 4.38 BendinQ 3.49 Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: Eccentricity at base: 1.02 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs/ft) Layer HeiQht LenQth 3 8.00 8.50 2 4.67 6.50 1 1.33 5.50 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Gen-20+: 0.61 sy/ft Gen-15+: 1.67 sy/ft Reinf. Gen-15+ Gen-15+ Gen-20+ Td 442 749 999 Tension 137 557 868 Tconn 442 * 749 * 999 * FSpo 2.57 2.02 4.35 NOTE: THESE CALCULA TIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. 4444 West 78th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 Figure 3d page - of - KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Methodology KeyWall Ver 1a, July 11, 1997 Geotechnics Incorporated Project: Wonner Residence-1009 Hurstdale Proj. No.: 0445-001-00 Design Parameters Soil Parameters ---L.. Reinforced Fill: 34 Retained Fill: 34 Foundation Fill: 34 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus ..£...Q§f 0 0 0 Ü pcf 125 125 125 Factors of Safety Sliding: Pullout: Connection 1.50 1.50 Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: 2.00 1.50 1.50 Reinforcing Parameters: Mirafi Geogrids Tuft RFcr Miragrid 5T 2698 1.67 Miragrid 7T 3897 1.79 RFd 1.10 1.10 RFid 1.18 1.17 LTDS 1244 1691 .£L 1.50 1.50 Analysis: Retaining Wall Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 9.00 ft embedment: 1.50 ft BackSlope Geometry: 26.60 deg. slope 14.50 ft high Surcharge: LL - 50 psf uniform surcharge Slidinq 1.77 1638 psf Date: 7/9/98 By: J. Theissen Bearing: 3.00 Serviceability: 1.00 Tal 830 1128 ~ 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Wall Batter. 7.10 deg. Results: DL -- 0 psf uniform surcharge Overturninq Bearinq Shear 2.26 7.49 3.44 Bendinq 4.64 Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: Eccentricity at base: 1.02 ft Reinforcing: (ft & Ibs/ft) Laver Heiqht Lenqth 2 6.00 7.50 1 2.00 5.50 Reinforcing Quantities (no waste included): Miragrid 7T: 0.61 sy/ft Miragrid 5T: 0.83 sy/ft Reinf. Miragrid 5T Miragrid 7T Td 607 1128 Tension 482 1080 Tconn 607 * 1399 FSpo 1.99 2.65 NOTE: THESE CALCULA TIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUALIFIED ENGINEER Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. 4444 West 78th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 Figure 3e KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL DESIGN Based on Coulomb-NCMA (modified soil interface) Methodology KeyWall Ver 1a, July 11, 1997 Geotechnics Incorporated roject: Wonner Residence-1009 Hurstdale roj. No.: 0445-001-00 esign Parameters Soil Parameters ~ Reinforced Fill: 34 Retained Fill: 34 Foundation Fill: 34 Reinforce Fill Type: Silts & sands Unit Fill: Crushed Stone, 1 inch minus .LQ§f 0 0 0 Factors of Safety Sliding: Pullout: Connection 1.50 1.50 Overturning: Uncertainties: Peak: einforcing Parameters: Tensar Geogrids Tult RFcr RFd X0750SB+ 2198 2.93 1.00 X1100SB+ 2663 2.96 1.00 RFid 1.05 1.05 nalysis: Retaining Wall Unit Type: STANDARD (21.5 in) Leveling Pad: Crushed Stone Wall Ht: 9.00 ft embedment: 1.50 ft BackSlope Geometry: 26.60 deg. slope 14.50 ft high Surcharge: LL - 50 psf uniform surcharge Slidinq 1.77 1638 psf LTDS 714 857 ü pcf 125 125 125 2.00 1.50 1.50 .J:L 1.50 1.50 Date: 7/9/98 By: J. Theissen page - of - 1 Bearing: 3.00 Serviceability: 1.00 ~ 476 571 ~ 1.00 1.00 Cds 1.00 1.00 Wall Batter: 7.10 deg. esults: DL - 0 psf uniform surcharge OverturninQ BearinQ Shear 2.26 7.49 6.55 Factors of Safety: Calculated Bearing Pressure: Eccentricity at base: 1.02 ft einforcing: (ft & Ibs/ft) Layer HeiQht Lenqth 3 5.33 7.00 2 2.67 5.50 1 0.67 5.50 einforcing Quantities (no waste included): UX1100SB+: 1.22 sy/ft UX0750SB+: 0.78 sy/ft NOTE: THESE CALCULA TIONS ARE FOR PRELIMINARY DESIGN ONL Y AND SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHOUT REVIEW BY A QUAL/FlED ENGINEER Reinf. UX0750SB+ UX1100SB+ UX1100SB+ Td 476 571 571 Keystone Retaining Wall Systems, Inc. 4444 West 78th Street Minneapolis, MN 55435 Tension Tconn 482 « 667 555 1143 525 1199 BendinQ 10.00 FSpo 2.16 3.68 9.09 Figure 3f APPENDIX A SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Field exploration consisted of drilling two exploratory borings using a 6-inch-diameter, solid stem auger tripod drill rig. The depth of the exploration borings was approximately 11 feet below existing grades. Logs describing the subsurface conditions encountered are presented in Figures A-I through A-2. The soils encountered were logged by our field engineer. Bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were collected for laboratory testing. Bulk samples were sealed in plastic bags, labeled, and returned to the laboratory for testing. Relatively undisturbed samples were collected using a 3-inch outside diameter, ring lined sampler (modified California sampler). Ring samples were sealed in plastic bags, placed in rigid plastic containers, labeled, and returned to the laboratory for testing. The drive weight for the undisturbed samples was 140 pounds, with a free fall of 30 inches. The approximate depths at which samples were obtained are indicated to the left of the boring logs. Undisturbed samples are represented by "CAL" on the boring logs. For each sample, we recorded the number of blows needed to drive the sampler 12 inches and is shown on the attached logs under "blows per ft." The borings were located by visually estimating and taping distances from landmarks shown on the Cross Section. The locations shown should not be considered more accurate than is implied by the method of measurement used and the scale of the map. The lines designating the interface between differing soil materials on the logs may be abrupt or gradational. Further, soil conditions at locations between the borings may be substantially different from those at the specific locations explored. It should be recognized that the passage of time can result in changes in the soil conditions reported in our logs. Geotechnics Incorporated LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. 1 Logged by JRT Date: 5/19/98 Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Solid Stem Auger Elevation: Exist. Grd. ¡::- ¡..: w w ¡¡;- u.. ...I ...I (.) ~ w 0:: II. II. W W w :E :E e:. 0:: !:!:.. II. ~ ~ > ::I DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS :t: en en en I- I- I- ~ w !II:: iñ ~ II. 0 2! ...I :z 0 w 0:: ::I W :E 0 ...I ID 0 ID 0 ......... ......... I ...... ........ Clayey to Silty Sand (SC-SM), brown, fine grained, moist, non plastic, 1 11 99 '21.~ loose Shear, Atterberg Urn., """"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""'"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" COLLUVIUM: Silty Sand to Poorly-Graded Sand (SM-SP), brown, Sieve Analysis 2 with pocket of gray sandy clay, fine grained, moist, non plastic, medium dense 3 19 .1 99 17.2 pocket of gray silty clay (CL) Shear, Sieve Analysis 4 108 17.2 5 ~. 33 I 111 16.6 6 7 33 I 106 12.3 8 9 18 I 111 12.1 10 15 11 Æ~r~ rock encountered at 11 feet 12 BOTTOM OF BORING = 11 FEET NO GROUNDWATER, NO CAVING 13 BACKFILLED 5/19/98 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: A-1 LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO.2 Logged by JRT Date: 5/19/98 Method of Drilling: 8 Inch Solid Stem Auger Elevation: Exist. Grd. ¡::- ..,; w w ¡¡:- ';!!. LL ..I ..I W a:: c.. c.. (..) w w :: :: ~ !!:. w a:: c.. < < > ::! DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS :J: en en en .... .... .... 3: w ~ Cñ !!! c.. ~ ..I Z 0 W 0 a:: ::! w :: c ..I c en c en ......... ........, """ ...... ........ Iceplant over Silty Sand (SM), brown to light brown, fine grained, moist, 1 '. .~£~P.~~.~!~~!..~~.~~.~......................................................._............................................."................ """ COLLUVIUM: Silty sand to Poorly-Graded Sand (SM-SP), brown, 2 fine grained, moist, non plastic, medium dense 6 I 94 22.1 Shear, Sieve Analysis 3 4 5 11 ~: 104 13.3 Shear ~ 6 iat ~: 7 8 ""m.. ~: ...... ........ ......-. ............................................................................................................................................................. 50/ I 106 8.6 TORREY SANDSTONE: Silty sand (SM), brown with red oxidation 9 (6") stains, fine grained, moist, nonplastic, partially cemented, very dense 10 11 ~. SO/ ~ 92 11.7 12 (3'1 BOTTOM OF BORING = 11 1/2 FEET 13 NO GROUNDWATER, NO CAVING BACKFILLED 5/19/98 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: A-2 Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29, 1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO. 18 APPENDIX B LABORATORY TESTING Selected samples of soils encountered during the investigation were tested using the test methods of the American Society for Testing and Materials, or other generally accepted testing standards. The soils selected for testing are believed to be generally representative of the materials encountered during the investigation at the site; however variations may occur in the soils at the site, and the materials tested may not be representative of the materials encountered during construction. A brief description of the tests performed follows: Classification: Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Visual classification was supplemented by laboratory testing of selected soil samples and classification in accordance with ASTM test method D 2487. The classifications are shown on the Boring Logs in Appendix A. In-Situ Moisture/Density: The in-place moisture content and dry unit weight of selected soil samples were determined using relatively undisturbed samples from the liner rings of a 2.375-inch ID Modified California Sampler, or by volume determination of irregular blocks by submerging waxed soil samples. The dry unit weight and moisture content are shown on the Boring Logs in Appendix A. Particle Size Analvsis: Particle size analyses were performed in accordance with ASTM test method D 422. The grain size distribution was used to determine presumptive soil strength parameters and foundation design criteria. The results are given in Figures B-1 through B-3. Atterber~ Limits: ASTM test method D 4318 was used to determine the liquid limit, plastic limit, and plasticity index of selected fine-grained soil samples. The results are given in Figures B-1. Geotechnics Incorporated Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29,1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO. 19 APPEND IX B LABORATORY TESTING (continued) Maximum Density Optimum Moisture: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content for a selected soil sample was detennined by using test method ASTM test method D 1557, modified Proctor. The test results are summarized in Figure B-4. Direct Shear: The shear strength of selected soil samples was assessed through direct shear testing perfonned in general accordance with ASTM test method D 3080. The results are summarized in Figures B-5 through B-8. Geotechnics Incorporated 90 .1" ~"1" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 .. .-- ..--- .. ~'v...v.v. -ø- - JIll- r-t--, ...... t'.. " I~ \ \ \, , --- r-- - ----- ...... - u.s. staDg8rd Sieve H~es 100 80 .... 70 .c en 'Gj 3: 60 >- ,Q Gi 50 c ü: 1: 40 Q) l-! ~30 20 10 0 100 10 1 0.1 Grain Size in Millimeters 0.01 0.001 COARSE T FINE t COARSE I MEDIUM [ SAND FINE 1 SILT AND CLAY GRAVEL SAMPLE EXPLORATION NUMBER: B-1:1a,1b,1c SAMPLE LOCATION: 1.5' UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM A TTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT: 39 PLASTIC LIMIT: 1 7 PLASTICITY INDEX: 22 DESCRIPTION: Silty Sand, Brown, Fine Grained Geotechnics ~ncorporated SOIL CLASSIFICATION Wanner Residence Mary P. Wanner Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 FIGURE B-1 10 _1 J '}" "IIA" -.- ..~ - ..- .._~~ ,. -.y,..---. ¡oor -- --- ----- ~- -- ,11- - r--... - "" ""'" 'm.. " "l1li 1-- - -.- - 3,'°" # # #16 U.S. Staggðrd Sieve 9Jroes #100 #200 Hvd 100 90 80 .... 70 .c OJ '¡¡¡ ~60 >- J:1 ; 50 t: u:: ~40 Q) u ... £30 20 0 100 10 1 0.1 Grain Size in Millimeters 0.01 0.001 COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND GRAVEL SAND CLAY SAMPLE EXPLORATION NUMBER: SAMPLE LOCATION: UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: CL ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: B1-2a 3.7' DESCRIPTION: Sandy Clay, Brown to Gray Geotechnics --~ncorporated SOIL CLASSIFICATION Wonner Residence Mary P. Wonner Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 FIGURE B-2 ... 70 .c 01 'Qi 3: 60 >- .Q ; 50 c ü: 1: 40 Q) ~ æ30 100 u.s. Sta9gBrd Sieve Kroes 90 _i'?" ':tILl" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 .. ,~~ ~~~~ dV", VI ...acI - .... ~, , \ III \ - - "\ --- - n --- ---- - f--- \" \ \ --- 1\ '\ '\ . '" '. 80 20 10 0 100 10 1 0,1 Grain Size in Millimeters 0.01 0.001 COARSE I FINE COARSE I MEDIUM I FINE SILT AND GRAVEL SAND CLAY SAMPLE EXPLORATION NUMBER: B2-1a & 1b SAMPLE LOCATION: 2.5-3' UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: SM ATTERBERG LIMITS LIQUID LIMIT: PLASTIC LIMIT: PLASTICITY INDEX: DESCRIPTION: Silty Sand, Brown, Fine Grained SOIL CLASSIFICATION Project No. 0445-001-00 Wanner Residence Document No. 8-0488 Mary P. Wonner FIGURE B-3 MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE (ASTM D 1557-91) MAXIMUM OPTIMUM SAMPLE DESCRIPTION DENSITY MOISTURE B-1 Silty sand (SM), brown 1161/2 12 1/2 Geotechnics Incorporated Laboratory Test Results Wonner Residence Mary P. Wonner Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 Figure B-4 ! ¡- nn- -----¡ I I I ¡- -; I .................... I...." ......... I I ,! ! ...~ : I .. ¡ ~fã!JiI';*JI'IIIIJIi3~mIlElEllBliJiliUlililUI " EJElI!!lIiIiJIiiiI : I' ........., .... : : I ' , , i - 2000 U- U) e:. 1500 U) U) w g: 1000 U) ~ 500 w :I: U) I 0 II 0.0 2.0 4.0 ---------- --.--.., J 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 STRAIN [%] 20.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 -_._~ 4000 3500 ' I I I I i i I 3000 - !. ULTIMATE SHEAR: I , I ---1 IfiJ PEAK SHEAR: ' "¡--iT' : I ; , ! i I ' , I I ! 0 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] - PEAK ULTIMATE " 380 I I 380 I C' 160 PSF 160 PSF COMPACTED AS-TESTED 107.0 PCF 107.0 PCF 10.5 % 26.7 % - LL ~ 2500 - tJ) tJ) w g: 2000 tJ) a: <C ~ 1500 tJ) 1000 ! 500 I I I : m I I I I , r . -- 13 i I I ~ ì ; ¡ ., ì ! -¡ i i I I . ¡- I I SAMPLE: 8-1 @ 1A, 18, 1C : 1.5' ISilty sand (SM), brown STRAIN RATE: I 0.025 IN/MIN I (Sample was consolidated and drained) ...... Geotechnics Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Wonner Residence Mary P. Wonner Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No.8-0488 FIGURE 8-5 -_.--... - -h___, , - 2000 ' ¡ LL. ' i C/) I '0.. ; - 1500 ' 'C/) :C/) : W I , 0: 1000 ' I- C/) '0: !et ;w ::I: ¡C/) ! i ---------- ---¡ I I I ..... ~.. .1....... ....... ~.... I : ~ IllImllllllllllllllll~ IIII ¡~ 1,11,1 i. I 500 i iii II IiU!I Ii II ! mlilil. .... ~, ~ .1iI....!.. I 0 ,I 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 STRAIN [%] 14.0 '--- 4000 I 3500 . UL llMrE~HEA~ I fBI PEAK SHEAR: I I I I :, -_l.. I I . : : I ! Iii I ! ! Ii, 3000 - ~ ~ 2500 ~ ~ [ W ~ 2000 C/) 0: et ~ 1500 C/) ! ¡ I I I I I ¡ i ! I i i I I I , I I I I I I I i I I I I , i I I 1000 I r m 500 0 0 3000 3500 4000 1500 500 1000 2000 2500 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] SAMPLE: B-1 @ 2A: 3.7' Silty sand (SM),brown PEAK ULTIMATE cþ' 430 I I 400 C' 0 PSF 0 PSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED 99.2 PCF 99.2 PCF 17.2 % 31.2 % STRAIN RATe¡ 0.010 IN/MIN I (Sample was consolidated and drained) ..... Geotechnics Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Wonner Residence Mary P. Wonner Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 FIGURE 8-6 -.-----...... . - 2000 LL. en e:. 1500 en en w c:: 1 000 I- m ~ 500 w ~ m 1--~-:.1 ... ,I _.m~~ r-¡. :.. : ¡ i I I L.-: .mm~æ6æmEæ.æ~~œœœm.mEm. ! i ..!~mœ s...~............. .... .... ....~.... o.-œRilœ.. ,I I, L, I, I. L I 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 STRAIN [%] 4000 ,-- ~ ~ r 3500 ~ ~ . ULTIMATE SHEAR: I II PEAK SHEAR: ! 3000 r - r ~ 2500 ~- D.. , ;;; ~ en L ~ 2000 ' l- e/) c:: <I: W :J: e/) 1500 f- ,. L ! I B 1000 500 r 0 ; 0 ftš1 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMAL STRESS [PSF] 3500 4000 STRAIN RATE: I 0.005 IN/MIN I (Sample was consolidated and drained) PEAK ULTIMATE cþ' 380 I I 380 I C' 0 PSF 0 PSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED Yd 94.3 PCF 94.3 PCF We 22.1 % 23.0 % SAMPLE: B-2 @ 1B: 3.0' ¡Silty sand (SM), brown ~ Geotechnics Incorporated DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Wonner Residence Mary P. Wonner Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 FIGURE B-7 --- -- -- --. ----- ----- - - : - 2000 ; u. . .(/) ¡ e:. 1500 I(/) :(/) . W I , IX: 1000 'l- (/) ~ 500 W :J: (/) 0 0.0 2.0 4.0 --'- 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 STRAIN [%] 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0 4000 3500 3000 - u. ~ 2500 - (f) (/) W f= 2000 (f) IX: < ~ 1500 (f) 1000 ~ I 500 f J E1 I . I IIi, 0 500 i ---.L-- I . ULTIMATE SHEAR: i i m PEAK SHEAR: . --~--- -: fl, I I I I I I , , , , ' I I , , I " I I I I i , I 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 NORMALSTRESS[PS~ 3500 4000 SAMPLE: B-2 @ 2: 6.0' I Silty sand (SM), brown STRAIN RATE: I 0.010 IN/MIN I (Sample was consolidated and drained) ~ Geotechnics Incorporated PEAK ULTIMATE cþ' 370 I I 370 , C' 0 PSF 0 PSF IN-SITU AS-TESTED Yd 104.2 PCF 104.2 PCF We 13.3 % 19.5 % DIRECT SHEAR TEST RESULTS Wonner Residence Mary P. Wonner Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 FIGURE 8-8 Ms. MARY P. WONNER JUNE 29, 1998 PROJECT NO. 0445-001-00 DOCUMENT NO. 8-0488 PAGE NO. 20 APPENDIX C SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Surficial and gross slope stability analyses were performed using average shear strengths as summarized below. Seepage was assumed to consist of groundwater perched on existing formational materials, where present, with minor hydraulic gradients but with adequate drainage to eliminate seepage forces.. STATIC PSEUDO-ST A TIC MATERIAL DENSITY (pet) C <Þ c <Þ (pst) (degree) (pst) (degree) Torrey Sandstone 125 500 36 650 45 Alluvium/Colluvium 125 0 38 0 41 Fill 125 50 34 0 38 SURFICIAL STABILITY: Surficial stability was analyzed using an idealized infInite slope composed of a cohesive, frictional material. Steady state seepage forces were applied parallel to the slope surface using an idealized flow net. The analysis procedure is based on that presented by Abrahamson et al., 1996. Note that the factor of safety against surficial failure is plotted versus the depth of the wetted zone in Figures C-l and C-2 for fills and in Figures C-3 and C-4 for colluvium/residual soil. A factor-of-safety of 1.5 is typically deemed acceptable against surficial failure. A factor-of-safety of 1.0 would indicate eminent failure given a particular depth of wetted zone. GROSS STABILITY: The gross stability of the proposed slopes was analyzed using PCSTABL5 software. Pertinent results are presented in the remaining figures of this appendix. Gross stability of the proposed slopes was analyzed with little, or no, seepage forces from groundwater (factor-of- safety approximately 1.5). Analysis was conducted using Bishop's specified surface search routines. Geotechnics Incorporated INPUT PARAMETERS Friction Angle (CD) Cohesion (CD) Dry Unit Weight Water Content Specific Gravity Slope Angle X 34 50 105 13 2.70 2.00 [DEGREES] [PSF] [PCF] [%] CALCULATED PARAMETERS Void Ratio Moist Unit Weight Saturated Unit Weight Friction Angle Slope Angle 0.60 119 129 0.59 0.46 SURFICIAL STABILITY (After Abrahamson et. ai, 1996) 6.00 (H) [FT] F.S. 0.50 2.85 0.75 2.15 1.00 1.80 1.25 1.59 1.50 1.45 1.75 1.35 2.00 1.27 2.25 1.22 2.50 1.17 2.75 1.13 3.00 1.10 3.25 1.07 3.50 1.05 3.75 1.03 4.00 1.01 4.25 1.00 4.50 0.98 4.75 0.97 5.00 0.96 5.25 0.95 5.50 0.94 5.75 0.93 6.00 0.92 6.25 0.92 6.50 0.91 41 ... .2 ~4.00 iã 'ÿ Ie ... :::s CI) - '" .~ 3.00 CI <C >. ! øs CI) - 0 :s 2.00 'tí III ~ [PCF] [PCF] [RADIANS] [RADIANS] - c' + H(Ysat- 'YJ cos2 (ß) tan.' F.S.- YsatH sinß cosß 5.00 \ \ "- ~ I---- I 1.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 6.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Depth of Wetted Zone (H) [Feet] ~ Geotechnics Incorporated SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY Wonner Residence - 1009 Hurstdale Encinitas Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 FIGURE C-1 INPUT PARAMETERS Friction Angle (CD) Cohesion (CD) Dry Unit Weight Water Content Specific Gravity Slope Angle X 34 50 105 13 2.70 1.50 [DEGREES] [PSF] [PCF] [%] CALCULATED PARAMETERS Void Ratio Moist Unit Weight Saturated Unit Weight Friction Angle Slope Angle 0.60 119 129 0.59 0.59 SURFICIAL STABILITY (After Abrahamson et. ai, 1996) 6.00 (H) [F1] F.S. 0.50 2.21 0.75 1.65 1.00 1.37 1.25 1.20 1.50 1.09 1.75 1.01 2.00 0.95 2.25 0.90 2.50 0.86 2.75 0.83 3.00 0.80 3.25 0.78 3.50 0.76 3.75 0.75 4.00 0.73 4.25 0.72 4.50 0.71 4.75 0.70 5.00 0.69 5.25 0.68 5.50 0.68 5.75 0.67 6.00 0.66 6.25 0.66 6.50 0.65 ~ .. .2 ~4.00 iã 'ü 1:: .. ::I IJ 1ii .~ 3.00 01 « >. ! "' IJ ... 0 õ2.oo i:i "' ¡¡, 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 [PCF] [PCF] [RADIANS] [RADIANS] - c' + H(ysat' Y.,.) cos2(ß) tan4»' F.S.- ~tH sinß cosß I I \ \ I I " , r--- I 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Depth of Wetted Zone (H) [Feet] 5.00 6.00 Geotechnics . Incorporated SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY Wonner Residence - 1009 Hurstdale Encinitas Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 FIGURE C-2 INPUT PARAMETERS Friction Angle (CD) Cohesion (CD) Dry Unit Weight Water Content Specific Gravity Slope Angle X 38 0 95 22 2.70 2.00 [DEGREES] [PSF] [PCF] [%] CALCULATED PARAMETERS Void Ratio Moist Unit Weight Saturated Unit Weight Friction Angle Slope Angle 0.77 116 122 0.66 0.46 SURFICIAL STABILITY (After Abrahamson et. aI, 1996) (H) [F1] F.S. 0.50 0.87 0.75 0.87 1.00 0.87 1.25 0.87 1.50 0.87 1.75 0.87 2.00 0.87 2.25 0.87 2.50 0.87 2.75 0.87 3.00 0.87 3.25 0.87 3.50 0.87 3.75 0.87 4.00 0.87 4.25 0.87 4.50 0.87 4.75 0.87 5.00 0.87 5.25 0.87 5.50 0.87 5.75 0.87 6.00 0.87 6.25 0.87 6.50 0.87 II ... .= ~4.oo ¡¡ 'ÿ ;: ... =' en 1ñ '~3.oo '" C( >. J! ca en - 0 52.00 Ü ca u. [PCF] [PCF] [RADIANS] [RADIANS] - c' + H(Ysat-YJ cos2(ß)tan+' F.S. - YsatH sinß cosß 6.00 I I I 5.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Depth of Wetted Zone (H) [Feet] 5.00 6.00 Geotechnics . Incorporated SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY Wonner Residence - 1009 Hurstdale Encinitas Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 FIGURE C-3 INPUT PARAMETERS Friction Angle (CD) Cohesion (CD) Dry Unit Weight Water Content Specific Gravity Slope Angle X 38 0 95 22 2.70 1.50 [DEGREES] [PSF] [PCF] [%] CALCULATED PARAMETERS Void Ratio Moist Unit Weight Saturated Unit Weight Friction Angle Slope Angle 0.77 116 122 0.66 0.59 SURFICIAL STABILITY (After Abrahamson et. ai, 1996) (H) [FT] F.S. 0.50 0.61 0.75 0.61 1.00 0.61 1.25 0.61 1.50 0.61 1.75 0.61 2.00 0.61 2.25 0.61 2.50 0.61 2.75 0.61 3.00 0.61 3.25 0.61 3.50 0.61 3.75 0.61 4.00 0.61 4.25 0.61 4.50 0.61 4.75 0.61 5.00 0.61 5.25 0.61 5.50 0.61 5.75 0.61 6.00 0.61 6.25 0.61 6.50 0.61 Q .a ;f 4.00 ¡; 'ü 1;: :; en 1ii '~3.00 C) c( >. i nI en - 0 :s 2.00 ü nI U. 0.00 0.00 [PCF] [PCF] [RADIANS] [RADIANS] - c' + H('Ysat- y~ cos2 (ß) tan,' F.S.- ~tH sinß cosß 6.00 I i I 5.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 Depth of Wetted Zone (H) [Feet] 5.00 6.00 SURFICIAL SLOPE STABILITY Wonner Residence - 1009 Hurstdale Encinitas Project No. 0445-001-00 Document No. 8-0488 FIGURE C-4 ~ Geotechnics Incorporated Ten Most Critical. C:WONNERI.PL T By: J Theissen 07-02-98 2: 18pm 260 # FS 1 1.18 2 1.22 3 1.23 4 1.23 s 1.23 6 1.24 7 1.24 8 1.25 9 1.25 220LLI0 1.26 Soil "(ype No. 1 2 Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface (pet) (pcf) (pst) (deg) Paramo (pst) No. 116 122 0 38 0 0 125 130 500 36 0 0 label Colluvia Torrey S Elev. 180 (ft) 100 0 40 80 120 160 PCST ABL5 FSmin = 1.18 X-Axis (tt) 2 200 urstdale 0445-001-00 Ten Most Critical. C:WONNERI.PL T By: J Theissen 07-02-98 2:20pm 260 # FS 1 1.18 2 1.21 3 1.21 4 1.22 5 1.23 6 1.25 7 1.27 8 1.28 9 1.29 2201L 10 1.29 Soil "(ype No. 1 2 Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface (pcfl (pcf) /psfl /deg) Paramo (psfl No. 116 122 0 38 0 0 125 130 500 36 0 0 label Colluvia Torrey S Elev. 180 (ft) 100 0 40 80 120 160 PCSTABL5 FSmin = 1.18 X-Axis (ft) \lV1 2 200 Ten Most Critical. C:WONNER2.PL T By: J Theissen 07-09-98 9:06am 260 # FS 1 1.44 2 1.45 3 1.46 4 1.46 5 1.46 6 1.46 7 1.47 8 1.47 9 1.47 220LLIO 1.47 Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Pial. label Wg~ Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface (pet) (pet) (psfl (degl Paramo (pst) No. Colluvla 1 125 130 0 38 0 0 Torrey S 2 125 130 500 36 0 0 fill 3 125 130 50 34 0 0 Elev. 180 (ft) 100 0 40 80 120 160 PCSTABL6 FSmin = 1.44 X-Axis (ft) W1 2 200 Ten Most Critical. C:WONNER2.PL T By: J Theissen 07-09-98 9:26am 260 # FS I 1.91 2 1.91 3 1.91 4 1.92 5 1.92 6 1.92 7 1.92 8 1.92 9 1.93 2201LIO 1.94 Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. label TJg.e Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface (pet) (pet) (pst) (deol Paramo (pst) No. Colluvia 1 126 130 0 38 0 0 Torrey S 2 125 130 600 36 0 0 fill 3 125 130 50 34 0 0 Elev. 180 (ft) 100 0 40 80 120 160 PCSTABL6 FSmin = 1.91 X-Axis (ft) W1 . . 2 200