1993-3475 FM/G/I
Street Address
~/&O
I
.t4B12J
Serial #
Category
1m q()/ 200;.
Name
Description
Plan ck. #
Year
HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC REPORT
FOR
ITO--_cc,",~
TM 90-209
PREPARED BY:
PASCO ENGINEERING, INC.
535 N. HIGHWAY 101
SUITE A
SOLANA BEACH, CA
92075
"
(619) 259-8212
"
DECEMBER 1992
.....
WAYN:!:~ it: ~577
DATE:
~/~/93
/ t-
c'
o ~ @ ~ ~ \il \i~
\M ~PR '2. '\ W~7J
G SERVICES
ENG\NE~~NC\N\TI'S
.~ C\1'(
--
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
I INTRODUCTION
II DISCUSSION
III CONCLUSION
I
IV HYDROLOGY CALULATIONS
(SEE EXHIBITS "A", "B" & "C")
V
)
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
HYDRAULICS CALCULATIONS .
. . .
STREET DEPTH OF FLOW CALCS
INLET SIZING CALCULATIONS
DITCH DEPTH AND VELOCITY CALCS
H.G.L. CALCULATIONS
1) NODE 6 TO 14 (SEE
2) NODE 14 TO 18 (SEE
. . .
EXHIBIT "C")
EXHIBIT "C")
RIP-RAP SIZING CALCS & TABLES
. . .
VI APPENDIX
VII EXHIBITS
PAGE
1
1 - 3
3
4 - 19
20 - 51
20 - 23
24 - 28
29 - 32
33 - 40
41 - 42
43 - 54
FOLDOUT
Page 1
I. INTRODUCTION
The subject property, known as APN 258-130-01-56 is geographically
located at N 33002'58" Latitude and W 117016'45" Longitude.
The purpose of this report is to analyze the subject property with
respect to storm runoff in the developed condition. The analysis
shall account for all on-site and off-site drainage area tributary
to the proposed drainage structures and discharge point.
The data generated by the analysis and contained in this report
shall then be used to design a drainage system adequate to
intercept, contain and convey Q 100 to the historic point of
discharge. See Exhibit "A" attached.
I
II. DISCUSSION
The rational method for San Diego County was used to determine Q
100. The program that was utilized in preparing this report is by
Advanced Engineering Software (AES).
)
In order to better follow the hydrology portion of this report
please see Exhibit "A" located in the foldout section of this
report. Use the "Hydrologic Node Numbers" indicated by 10. The
process will begin with the most upstream area and proceed
downstream, through points of confluence to the ultimate point of
discharge. Mainstream Node Numbers are, typically, the numbers in
multiples of 10. Numbers such as 11, 12, and 21, 22 are the upper
reaches of the basin, relating to the Mainstream Node Number,
(i.e., Mainstream Node No. 30, numbers of Nodes within reach are
31, 32, 33, etc.).
Soil classifications are specified in each subarea; and together
with the type of development proposed in each subarea determine the
runoff coefficient "c".
The runoff generated by the northerly off-site drainage is
intercepted along the northerly boundary of the subject property by
a Type "B" concrete brow ditch per SDRSD D-75. Runoff from the
above mentioned drainage area flowing east is also intercepted by
Quail Gardens Drive. Once collected in the D-75 brow ditch the
..,
~.
Page 2
storm water is conveyed easterly to the top of a proposed AC
driveway and directed along the proposed AC dike. The AC dike
conveys this flow easterly down the proposed SDG&E driveway and out
to the street. (See Node 91, Exhibit "A"). Q 100 at Node 91 is
4.83 cfs.
The storm water is then conveyed southerly along a 6" concrete curb
and gutter to the proposed cross gutter at Node 80. This is a
point of confluence between on-site and off-site storm water. The
on-site storm water for this stream originates on Lot 19 at Nodes
81 and 82 and flows east along the concrete curb gutter to the
above mentioned point of confluence, Node 80. Q 100 for this
stream is 4.22 cfs. Approximately 40 feet further south this
mainstream ~gain comes to a point of confluence with on-site storm
water at node 70. This time the on-site storm water originates at
Nodes 72 and 71 and flows east along a concrete curb and gutter to
confluence with the mainstream at Node 70. The storm water then
flows south along concrete curb and gutter to a proposed 20 foot
Type "B-1" inlet at Node 40. Q 100 in the street at Node 40 is
11. 14 cfs.
The proposed 21 foot inlet is only able to intercept 8.7 of the
11.14 cfs leaving 2.44 cfs as flowby. Node 40 is another point of
confluence combining the 8.7 cfs that passes through the opening of
the proposed 21 foot curb inlet with storm water originating on-
site. This on-site storm water originates on Lot 16 at Nodes 62
and 61 and flows along concrete curb and gutter to an 8 foot 'rype
"B-1" inlet at the sump at Node 60. Q 100 at Node 60 is 7.21 cfs
which requires only a 4.54 foot wide opening with 0.7 feet: of
headwater. However, since this is a sump condition near two
downward sloping driveways, the inlet opening length was increased
to 7 feet.
~
Once the on-site storm flow enters the system at Node 60 it is
conveyed in an 18" Rep to Node 50 to a Type "c" inlet, an
intermediate point of confluence. The upper ends of the drainage
and area's tributary to Node 50 are identified by Nodes 51 and 52.
The proposed Type "C" inlet is oversized in case the inlet at Node
60 becomes blocked by debris causing storm water to overflow the
curb and flow down the common driveway of Lots 3 and 4. From Node
50, 18" RCP conveys Q 100 to a 21 foot "B-1" inlet, another point
of confluence where it combines with 8.7 cfs of the 11.14 cfs in
-
Page 3
the street that passed into the inlet. 18" RCP then conveys Q 100
to Node 30, another Type "B-1" inlet. The length of the opening of
this inlet is 11 feet. The flowby from Node 60 is 100% intercepted
by this inlet. A 12 PVC enters the west wall of 11 foot "B-1"
inlet at Node 30 to accept Q 100 being conveyed in a Type "B" brow
ditch along the southerly boundary of the subject property. From
Node 30 and 18" RCP then conveys Q100 southerly to Node 20, a
temporary CSP inlet, and the final confluence point in the system.
(Q100) 9.78 cfs which originated on the Cam-Mar property south of
and adjacent to the subject property, flows into a AC apron that
provides an available headwater depth of 0.8 feet. Once Q100 is
totally contained in the system it flows east in an 18" RCP under
Quail Gardens Drive and outlets into a Type "B" Brow Ditch that
serves as a fown drain to deliver the storm flow into the proposed
earthen trapezoidal channel (See EXhibit"C"). Q100 is contained
and conveyed in this channel at a maximum depth of 1.18 feet and a
maximum velocity of 10.9 Ft.jSec. Q100 is ultimately discharged
onto a rip-rap energy dissipator; then into the existing stream bed
north of Encinitas Boulevard.
III. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this report shows that the storm drain system as
proposed on the improvement plans is adequate to intercept, contain
and convey Q 100 originating from on-site tributary areas as well
as from off-site areas to the historic point of discharge.
Page 4
IV HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS
j:.-
--::>
****************************************************************************
RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-90 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 5.8A Release Date: 8/28/90 Serial # 8638
Analysis prepared by:
PASCO ENGINEERING
535 NORTH HWY 101, SUITE A.
SOLANA BEACH, CA. 92075
PHONE: (619) 259-8212 FAX (619) 259-4812
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* DEVELOPED BASIN HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS. * ITO PE 351 *
* 100 YEAR STORM. DISCHARGE IN EXIST. STREAM. * 10-22-92 MS *
* SEE EXHIBITS "A" & "B", AND IMPROVEMENT PLANS. * REV. 11-20-92 MS *
**************************************************************************
FILE NAME: C:\351DEV.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUpy: 13: 8 11/20/1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.600
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 4.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE = .85
SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED
NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
93.00 TO NODE
91. 00 IS CODE =
2
--------------------------------------------------------------------.--------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------.--------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION
WITH 10-MINUTES ADDED = 11.94 (MINUTES)
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 466.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 256.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 195.30
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 60.70
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.907
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.83
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.75 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.83
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
91. 00 TO NODE
80.00 IS CODE =
6
.
-
Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. lrnbriglio
w. Lee Vanderhurst
January 11, 1993
Mr. Doug 110
CiO Mr. Mike lto
3002 Gopher Canyon Road
Vista, California 92084
Project No. 0066-001-00
Doc #3-0011
SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL GRADING PLAN REVIEW
TM 90.209, Qt,;aH Gaidens Drive
Encinitas, California
References: "Geotechnical Investigation, 7.5 Acre Site, Quail Gardens Drive,
Encinitas, Canfornia", by ICG Incorporated. January 22, 1990.
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
"Grading Plan for TM 90-209, City of Encinitas", Sheets 1 through 5,
30-Sc8Ie, by Pasco Engineering.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the referenced Geotechnical investigation ,md
the project grading plans for the TM 90-209 site, located in Encinitas, California. Our review
indicates that the geotechnical recommendations contained in the referenced investigation remain
valid for the site developmer.L as shown on the grading plans. The grading plans as reviewed,
are in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. If changes to the grading
plans are made, a review of those changes should be performed by Geotechnics Incorporated.
If you have any questions, please contact this office.
w~~~uw~t]J
MAR 17 1993
Very truly yours,
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
ENGINEERING SEFIVICES
CITY OF ENC\NlfAS
~tE~,v4,
/? 7&aJ' . ,"'~~ F. B((~,-::: A~
~ ;t: ''<' ....~. oi
.... J.:::.I~"'~ ~1\. I
/' . .~,"" 3 JI-7> '" lR~'; 'Jl,I./I.-v(..{. (L .
Anthony F Belfast P. E. C 43494,~, ':0. C 040~33 I~~neth \IV Shaw C.E G 1251
Pnnclpal . ,~~~~, _" /,;!'i..:>Ject Geologist
.<-1"~~I.IV~..-<'~r~/
,( On!),~\~~;;'
Distribution: (1) Addressee .".:-=:"..-'
(3) Pasco Engineering
P.O. Box 26500-224 . San Diego California . 92196
Phone (619) 536-1000 . Fax (619) 536-8311
/,..-;:~:;;~:~!~~~7~~,~_,,_~
.~ ;'~' " l.),.., \
/Q.'I ~.E:.t~''''_:H'',~-;1;\
/- l/ 1~~;~-i~;~l \/ \
~ ",' C~fnlr:ED l...j
\. f'IJGnJ:'::.RfNG' l
\ \ {,'-r,' OC~I<T,' !
\. ' ""t. l' .> I I
\< \... / '. I
.~.;, '-... ____<,c.>j
'. ..:.~-:_-;~.~\,-~~,.. '
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
==================================================~~==============:==========
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 195.30 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 189.57
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 151.55 CURB HEIGTH(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00 STREET CROSSFALL(DEClMAL) = .0200
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9000
**TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 5.01
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .32
HALF STREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 9.88
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.57
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.48
STREET FLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = .55 TC(MIN) = 12.49
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.795
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .9000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .34
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 2.85 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.18
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH (FEET) = .34 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 10.46
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.27 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 1.43
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
91. 00 TO NODE
80.00 IS CODE =
1
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.49
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.79
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.85
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.18
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
82.00 TO NODE
81. 00 IS CODE =
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 222.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 220.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW (MINUTES) = 8.572
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.838
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .65
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .27 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = .65
.
***************************************************~************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
81. 00 TO NODE
80.00 IS CODE =
6
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
=============================================================================
7
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 219.30 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 189.57
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 405.00 CURB HEIGTH(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 STREET CROSSFALt(DECIMAL) = .0200
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALF STREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
**TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 2.45
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .25
HALF STREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 6.40
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.64
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.18
STREET FLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 1.46 TC(MIN) = 10.03
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.373
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.63 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.56
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 1.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.22
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH (FEET) = .29 HALF STREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 7.95
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.63 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 1.60
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 81.00 TO NODE 80.00 IS CODE = 1
------------------~----------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.03
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.37
TOTAL STREAM AREA (ACRES) = 1.90
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.22
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK
STREAM
NUMBER
1
2
FLOW RATE
RUNOFF
(CFS)
8.71
8.84
TABLE **
TIME
(MIN.)
10.03
12.49
INTENSITY
(INCH/HOUR)
4.373
3.795
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
TOTAL AREA (ACRES) =
ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
= 8.84 TC(MIN.) =
4.75
12.49
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
80.00 TO NODE
70.00 IS CODE =
5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL-CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
.
===================================================================:=========
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 189.57
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 187.38
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA (FEET) = 49.60
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = .00 "Z" FACTOR = 66.670
MANNING'S FACTOR = .015 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 1.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 8.84
s
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) =
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .20
4.17 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) =
TC(MIN.) = 12.69
.18
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
80.00 TO NODE
70.00 IS CODE =
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 12.69
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.76
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.75
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 8.84
.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
72.00 TO NODE
71. 00 IS CODE =
2
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH (FEET) = 120.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 202.20
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 198.80
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 3.40
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 8.361
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.917
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .49
TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = .20 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = .49
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
71. 00 TO NODE
70.00 IS CODE =
6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 198.10 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 187.38
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 135.00 CURB HEIGTH(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 STREET CROSSFALL(DEClMAL) = .0200
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALF STREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7000
**TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 1.11
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .20
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 3.82
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.19
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .85
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = .54 TC(MIN) = 8.90
.
.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.723
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .37 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.22
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = .57 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.72
END OF SUBAREA STREET FLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH (FEET) = .22 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 4.85
q
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.85
DEPTH*VELOCITY =
1.08
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
71.00 TO NODE
70.00 IS CODE =
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.90
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.72
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .57
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.72
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK
STREAM
NUMBER
1
2
FLOW RATE
RUNOFF
(CFS)
8.74
10.~0
TABLE **
TIME
(MIN.)
8.90
12.69
INTENSITY
(INCH/HOUR)
4.723
3.756
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
TOTAL AREA (ACRES) =
ESTIMATES ARE
= 10.20
5.32
AS FOLLOWS:
TC(MIN.) =
12.69
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
70.00 TO NODE
40.00 IS CODE =
6
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 187.38 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 172.40
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 270.00 CURB HEIGTH(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 27.00 STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .0200
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALF STREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7400
**TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 10.67
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .39
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 13.05
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.85
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 2.27
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = .77 TC(MIN) = 13.46
.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.617
*USER SPECIFIED(SUBAREA):
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7400
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .35 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .94
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 5.67 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 11.14
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH (FEET) = .39 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 13.05
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.11 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 2.37
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7400
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .7400
.
****************************************************************************
/0
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
70.00 TO NODE
40.00 IS CODE = 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK #1 <<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
62.00 TO NODE
61.00 IS CODE =
2
------------------------------------------------------------------,----------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH (FEET) = 120.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 245.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 239.10
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 5.90
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 6.958
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.535
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .58
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .21 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = .58
.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
61.00 TO NODE
60.00 IS CODE =
6
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 238.40 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 196.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 682.50 CURB HEIGTH(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00 STREET CROSSFALL(DEClMAL) = .0200
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALF STREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
**TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 3.92
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .29
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 7.95
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.22
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.49
STREET FLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 2.18 TC(MIN) = 9.13
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.644
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.86 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.63
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 3.07 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 7.21
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH (FEET) = .34 HALF STREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 10.52
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.88 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 1.98
c
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
60.00 TO NODE
50.00 IS CODE =
3
.
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 12.0 INCH PIPE IS 8.3 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.4
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 191.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION =
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH)
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) =
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .13
184.00
MANNING'S N = .013
= 12.00 NUMBER. OF PIPES =
7.21
TC(MIN.) = 9.27
(I
1
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
60.00 TO NODE
50.00 IS CODE =
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.27
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH(HR) = 4.60
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.07
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.21
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
52.00 TO NODE
50.00 IS CODE =
2
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
>>>>>RATIONAL M~THOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 191.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 189.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW (MINUTES) = 8.572
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH(HOUR) = 4.838
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .44
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .18 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = .44
. <~
******************************************************************~.*********
',/
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
52.00 TO NODE
50.00 IS CODE =
1
-------------------------------------------------------------------,---------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
===================================================================;=========
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.57
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH(HR) = 4.84
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .18
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = .44
.
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
51.00 TO NODE
50.00 IS CODE =
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
,
=============================================================================
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 191.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 189.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW (MINUTES) = 8.572
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.838,
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .58
TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = .24 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = .58
12
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
51.00 TO NODE
50.00 IS CODE =
1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 3 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 8.57
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.84
TOTAL STREAM AREA (ACRES) = .24
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = .58
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
** PEAK
STREAM
NUMBER
1
2
3
FLOW RAT~
RUNOFF
(CFS)
7.87
7.87
8.18
TABLE **
TIME
(MIN.)
8.57
8.57
9.27
INTENSITY
( INCH/HOUR)
4.838
4.838
4.600
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
TOTAL AREA (ACRES) =
ESTIMATES ARE
= 8.18
3.49
AS FOLLOWS:
TC(MIN.) =
9.27
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
50.00 TO NODE
40.00 IS CODE =
3
-------------------------------------------------------------------,---------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 9.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.1 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 25.6
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 184.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 165.40
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 42.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 9.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 8.18
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .03 TC(MIN.) = 9.30
- ****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
50.00 TO NODE
40.00 IS CODE = 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------,---------
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
** PEAK
STREAM
NUMBER
FLOW RATE
RUNOFF
(CFS)
TABLE **
TIME
(MIN.)
INTENSITY
(INCH/HOUR)
/3
1
2
16.95
17.58
9.30
13.46
4.592
3.617
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) =
ESTIMATES ARE
= 17.58
9.16
AS FOLLOWS:
Tc(MIN.) =
13.46
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
40.00 TO NODE
30.00 IS CODE =
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 13.4 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.4
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 165.40
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 162.60
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 70.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 17.58
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .09 TC(MIN.) = 13.55
I
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
40.00 TO NODE
30.00 IS CODE =
1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.55
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.60
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.16
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 17.58
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
33.00 TO NODE
32.00 IS CODE =
2
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 110.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 220.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 217.80
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.20
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW (MINUTES) = 8.991
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) = 4.692
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .45
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .19 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = .45
-****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
32.00 TO NODE
31. 00 ;rS CODE =
4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE<<<<<
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
14
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 4.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.1 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.7
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 215.80
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 212.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 20.00 MANNING'S N = .012
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER (INCH) = 4.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA (CFS) = .45
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .03 TC(MIN.) = 9.02
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
31. 00 TO NODE
30.00 IS CODE =
4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE<<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.4 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.0
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 212.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 169.60
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 310.00 MANNING'S N = .015
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER (INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = .45
TRAVEL TIME (MIN .,) = .86 TC (MIN.) = 9.88
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
31. 00 TO NODE
30.00 IS CODE =
8
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------~----------
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.414
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .43 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .95
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .62 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.39
TC(MIN) = 9.88
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
31. 00 TO NODE
30.00 IS CODE =
1
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 9.88
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.41
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = .62
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.39
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
. - CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE **
STREAM RUNOFF TIME INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 15.73 9.88 4.414
2 18.71 13.55 3.600
/5
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
TOTAL AREA (ACRES) =
ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
= 18.71 Tc(MIN.) =
9.78
13.55
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
30.00 TO NODE
20.00 IS CODE =
3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.8 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 12.2
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 162.60
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 156.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 190.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER (INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 18.71
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .26 TC(MIN.) = 13.81
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FRQM NODE
30.00 TO NODE
20.00 IS CODE =
1
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 13.81
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.56
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.78
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 18.71
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
102.00 TO NODE
101.00 IS CODE =
2
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH(FEET) = 250.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 212.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 195.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 17.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW (MINUTES) = 9.014
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY (INCH/HOUR) = 4.684
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.29
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = .55 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.29
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 101.00 TO NODE 100.00 ~S CODE = 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------,---------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING USER-SPECIFIED PIPESIZE<<<<<
=============================================================================
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 24.0 INCH PIPE IS 2.9 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.9
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 195.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 167.50
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 550.00 MANNING'S N = .015
GIVEN PIPE DIAMETER (INCH) = 24.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 1.29
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = 1.56 TC(MIN.) = 10.57
/~
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
101.00 TO NODE
100.00 IS CODE =
8
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.226
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 3.97 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.39
TOTAL AREA (ACRES) = 4.52 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.68
TC(MIN) = 10.57
******************~*********************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 100.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 167.50 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 161.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 140.00 CURB HEIGTH(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 15.00 STREET CROSSFALL(DEClMAL) = .0500
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALF STREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
**TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 9.73
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .45
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 7.30
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.87
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 3.06
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = .34 TC(MIN) = 10.91
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.140
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .05 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .10
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 4.57 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.78
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH (FEET) = .45 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 7.30
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.90 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 3.08
*******************************************************************,*********
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
100.00 TO NODE
20.00 IS CODE =
1
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.91
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.14
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 4.57
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 9.78
/7
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
** PEAK
STREAM
NUMBER
1
2
FLOW RATE
RUNOFF
(CFS)
25.86
27.12
TABLE **
TIME
(MIN.)
10.91
13.81
INTENSITY
( INCH/HOUR)
4.140
3.557
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS)
TOTAL AREA (ACRES) =
ESTIMATES ARE
= 27.12
14.35
AS FOLLOWS:
TC(MIN.) =
13.81
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
20.00 TO NODE
10.00 IS CODE =
3
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 21.0 INCH PIPE IS 14.6 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCIT~(FEET/SEC.) = 15.2
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 156.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 154.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 40.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 27.12
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .04 TC(MIN.) = 13.86
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE
10.00 TO NODE
9.00 IS CODE =
5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>COMPUTE TRAPEZOIDAL-CHANNEL FLOW<<<<<
>>>>>TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------~---------
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 154.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 136.00
CHANNEL LENGTH THRU SUBAREA(FEET) = 263.00
CHANNEL BASE(FEET) = 2.00 "Z" FACTOR = 2.000
MANNING'S FACTOR = .030 MAXIMUM DEPTH(FEET) = 2.00
CHANNEL FLOW THRU SUBAREA (CFS) = 27.12
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC) = 8.63 FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .85
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) = .51 TC(MIN.) = 14.37
****************************************************************************
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 9.00 IS CODE = 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
============================================================================
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.468
. SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "C"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5000
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = .25 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = .43
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 14.60 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 27.55
TC(MIN) = 14.37
=============================================================================
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) =
TOTAL AREA(ARCES) =
27.55
14.60
TC(MIN.) =
/9
14.37
=============================================================================
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
Page 20
V HYDRAULICS CALCULATIONS
A) STREET DEPTH OF FLOW CALCS
.-
Z.(
****************************************************************************
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: 5: 2 10/23/1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* STREET DEPTH OF FLOW CALCULATION. * ITO PE 3:;1 *
* 100 YEAR STORM. *
* SEE EXHIBIT "A". * 10-23-92 MS *
**************************************************************************
I
*******************************************************************~~********
>>>>STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------.--------
CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET/FEET) = .045000
CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 11.14
AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR (MANNING) = .015000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF-WIDTH(FEET) = 26.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DEClMAL) = .020000
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DEClMAL) = .020000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = .50
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-LIP(FEET) = .03125
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-HIKE(FEET) = .12500
FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET ON ONE SIDE, AND THEN SPLITS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------.--------
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .39
HALF STREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 13.37
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.85
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 2.30
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* STREET DEPTH OF FLOW CALCULATION. *
* 100 YEAR STORM. NODE 20. *
* SEE EXHIBIT "A". *
**************************************************************************
- **** * *** * ** * * * * * * ** * ** * * * *** * ** * ***** * * * * * ****** * * ** * * * * * ** * *.* * * * * * *,* **** * * *
>>>>STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
--------------------------------------------------------------------.--------
CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET/FEET) = .052000
CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 9.78
~z
AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR (MANNING) = .015000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF-WIDTH(FEET) = 18.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 1.00
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DEClMAL) = .050000
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DEClMAL) = .050000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = .50
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-LIP(FEET) = .03125
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-HIKE(FEET) = .12500
FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET ON ONE SIDE, AND THEN SPLITS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .43
HALFSTREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.04
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEETjSEC.) = 7.38
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 3.20
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
23
I'
****************************************************************************
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: 5:27 10/23/1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* STREET DEPTH OF FLOW CALCULATION. *
* 100 YEAR STORM. 100% INTERCEPTION OF FLOW BY FROM NODE 40. *
* SEE EXHIBIT "A", NODE 30. *
**************************************************************************
I
****************************************************************************
>>>>STREETFLOW MODEL INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANT STREET GRADE(FEET/FEET) = .038000
CONSTANT STREET FLOW(CFS) = 2.44
AVERAGE STREETFLOW FRICTION FACTOR (MANNING) = .015000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL STREET HALF-WIDTH(FEET) = 18.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK(FEET) = 2.00
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020000
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020000
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL CURB HEIGHT(FEET) = .50
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-WIDTH(FEET) = 1.50
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-LIP(FEET) = .03125
CONSTANT SYMMETRICAL GUTTER-HIKE(FEET) = .12500
FLOW ASSUMED TO FILL STREET ON ONE SIDE, AND THEN SPLITS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
STREET FLOW MODEL RESULTS:
--------------------------------------------------------------------.--------
STREET FLOW DEPTH(FEET) = .27
HALF STREET FLOOD WIDTH(FEET) = 7.43
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.64
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.00
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 24
B) INLET SIZING CALCULATIONS
2'3
****************************************************************************
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: 11:34 10/23/1992
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* INLET SIZING CALCULAITONS. *
* SUMP INLET AT NODE 60. 0.7 FT. OF HEADWATER AVAILABLE. *
* SEE EXHIBIT "A".] *
**************************************************************************
,
****************************************************************************
>>>>SUMP TYPE BASIN INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of
Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins.
BASIN INFLOW (CFS) =
BASIN OPENING(FEET) =
DEPTH OF WATER(FEET) =
7.21
.50
.70
>>>>CALCULATED ESTIMATED SUMP BASIN WIDTH(FEET) =
4.54
============================================================================
20
****************************************************************************
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: 5:18 10/23/1992
-------------------------------------------------------------------,---------
-------------------------------------------------------------------,---------
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* INLET SIZING CALCULATIONS. *
* 100 YEAR STORM. NODE 40. FLOW-BY TO BE IINTERCEPTED BY INLET AT NODE 30 *
* SEE EXHIBIT "A". *
**************************************************************************
I
****************************************************************************
>>>>FLOWBY CATCH BASIN INLET CAPACITY INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of
Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins.
STREETFLOW(CFS) = 11.14
GUTTER FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .39
BASIN LOCAL DEPRESSION(FEET) = .30
FLOWBY BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 20.00
>>>>CALCULATED BASIN WIDTH FOR TOTAL INTERCEPTION =
31.1
>>>>CALCULATED ESTIMATED INTERCEPTION (CFS) = 8.7
Z1
****************************************************************************
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: 5:30 10/23/1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* INLET SIZING CALCULATION. 100% INTERCEPTION OF FLOW-BY FORM NODE 30. *
* 100 YEAR STORM. *
* SEE EXHIBIT "A". NODE 30. *
**************************************************************************
,
****************************************************************************
>>>>FLOWBY CATCH BASIN INLET CAPACITY INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curb Inlet Capacities are approximated based on the Bureau of
Public Roads nomograph plots for flowby basins and sump basins.
STREET FLOW (CFS) = 2.44
GUTTER FLOWDEPTH(FEET) = .27
BASIN LOCAL DEPRESSION(FEET) = .30
FLOWBY BASIN WIDTH(FEET) = 10.00
>>>>CALCULATED BASIN WIDTH FOR TOTAL INTERCEPTION =
10.1
>>>>CALCULATED ESTIMATED INTERCEPTION (CFS) = 2.4
============================================================================
I .
PASCO ENGINEERING
(619) 259-6212
535 NO. HIGHWAY 101
SUITE A
SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075
1.8
HYOR/lt/C:/C UC:Ct/Ul70;U S
OlEa: Olmc/lY Or 7i?~c /l' CSP NCeT~ A/~ to
FO-RMt/("f.-
/J ,c D /. -:5
LK'A-P :- 5. 0 -;:::
p~ 7':42,cT
V'" 0 80 R:
(/)U,P:: ~ 0
.)(- - AtLtJtUS ,co,e GeAlC,
o 4-z /.5
-Z- CJ,8o == /(7. // c.c.s
C"CWC'-U..:5{ON:
6/.vce &/1',0 /;J,// eN ;> Moo 9,78 cYs ;' !7/e
h'pe /9' C.5,P /,{/CCT A5 pRaPa::;c"O #/95..5VI"?'lC/cA/7
U?"A"C/ff TZJ /ill,7CRce,..or &-m.
C) DITCH DEPTH AND VELOCITY CALCULATIONS
Page 29
30
****************************************************************************
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: 13:46 11/20/1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* CAPACITY CALCULATION OF PROPOSED DRAINAGE DITCH. * *
* 100 YEAR STORM. 0.9 FT. OF FREEBOARD AT MIN. * *
* SLOPE OF 2.50%. SEE EXHIBIT "A" & IMP. PLANS. * 11-20-92 MS *
**************************************************************************
I
****************************************************************************
>>>>CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANNEL Zl(HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL) = 2.00
Z2(HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL) = 2.00
BASEWIDTH(FEET) = 2.00
CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE (FEET/FEET) = .025000
UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) = 27.55
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .0350
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) =
FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) =
FLOW AREA (SQUARE FEET) =
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = .77
FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) =
UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER = 1.071
PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) =
AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) =
SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 1.625
1.18
6.74
5.17
5.32
440.91
.440
~============================================================================
CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 6.91
CRITICAL FLOW AREA (SQUARE FEET) = 5.46
CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = .79
CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.04
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 1.23
CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 439.93
AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = .395
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 1.622
============================================================================
:3;
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *,* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
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: 8:35 11/27/1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* MAXIMUM VELOCITY CALCULATION FOR EARTHEN * *
* DITCH. 100 YEAR STORM. *
* SEE EXHIBIT "c" FOR NODE INFO. NODE 1 TO 2 * 11-27-92 MS *
**************************************************************************
I
****************************************************************************
>>>>CHANNEL INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANNEL Zl(HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL) = 2.00
Z2(HORIZONTAL/VERTICAL) = 2.00
BASEWIDTH(FEET) = 2.00
CONSTANT CHANNEL SLOPE(FEET/FEET) = .057100
UNIFORM FLOW(CFS) = 27.55
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .0200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = .73
FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 4.92
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 2.53
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = .51
FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 10.90
UNIFORM FROUDE NUMBER = 2.679
PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 631.27
I. AVERAGED VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 1.844
SPECIFIC ENERGY (FEET) = 2.574
============================================================================
CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 6.91
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 5.46
CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = .79
CRITICAL FLOW AVERAGE VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.04
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 1.23
CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 439.93
AVERAGED CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = .395
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 1.622
============================================================================
8Z
****************************************************************************
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: 10:41 11/27/1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY **************************
* FLOW VELOCITY CALCULATION FOR TYPE "B" BROW DITCH * ITO PE 351 *
* FROM NODE 10 TO THE BEGIINNING OF THE EARTHEN * *
* DITCH. 100 YEAR STORM. SEE EXHIBIT "C". * 11-27-92 MS *
**************************************************************************
I
*******************************************************************~~********
>>>>PIPEFLOW HYDRAULIC INPUT INFORMATION<<<<
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PIPE DIAMETER(FEET) = 2.000
PIPE SLOPE(FEET/FEET) = .5000
PIPEFLOW(CFS) = 27.12
MANNINGS FRICTION FACTOR = .015000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRITICAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
-------------------------------------------------------------------.---------
CRITICAL DEPTH(FEET) = 1.81
CRITICAL FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = 2.991
CRITICAL FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 1.171
CRITICAL FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 636.56
CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 9.068
CRITICAL FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 1.28
CRITICAL FLOW HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = 2.55
CRITICAL FLOW SPECIFIC ENERGY(FEET) = 3.09
=============================================================================
NORMAL-DEPTH FLOW INFORMATION:
-------------------------------------------------------------------,---------
NORMAL DEPTH(FEET) = .60
FLOW AREA(SQUARE FEET) = .79
FLOW TOP-WIDTH(FEET) = 1.833
FLOW PRESSURE + MOMENTUM(POUNDS) = 1811.86
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 34.240
FLOW VELOCITY HEAD(FEET) = 18.205
HYDRAULIC DEPTH(FEET) = .43
FROUDE NUMBER = 9.179
SPECIFIC ENERGY (FEET) = 18.80
=============================================================================
Page 33
D) H. G. L. CALCULATIONS
I .
~
*******************************************************************,*********
PRESSURE PIPE-FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: LACFD,LACRD,& OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1982-92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 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 **************************
* H.G.L. ANALYISIS FROM NODE 6 TO NODED 14 AT PEAK * ITO PE 351 *
* FLOW DURING 100 YEAR STORM. * *
* SEE EXHIBIT "c" FOR HYDRAULIC NODE LOCATION. * 11-27-92 REV 4-8-93 *
**************************************************************************
FILE NAME: 351PIP.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:54
4/ 8/1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD-LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA
DESIGN MANUALS.
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 6.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION
PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 24.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) =
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 149.440
147.44
27.12
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NODE
6.00 : HGL= < 149.440>;EGL= < 150.597>;FLOWLINE= < 147.440>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 6.00 TO NODE 7.00 IS CODE = 1
UPSTREAM NODE 7.00 ELEVATION = 150.65
---------------------------------------_____________________L________________
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 27.12 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 49.53 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
SF=(Q/K)**2 = (( 27.12)/( 226.224))**2 = .0143715
HF=L*SF = ( 49.53)*( .0143715) = .712
NODE 7.00 : HGL= < 150.152>;EGL= < 151.309>;FLOWLINE= < 150.650>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST
LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL
NODE 7.00: HGL= < 152.650>;EGL= <
HGL AND EGL
= 2.50
153.807>;FLOWLINE= <
150.650>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 7.00 TO NODE
UPSTREAM NODE 8.00 ELEVATION = 150.90
8.00 IS CODE = 5
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES:
NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA
1 27.0 24.00 3.142 8.601 76.700
HV
1.149
2
3
4
5
27.1 24.00
.0 .00
.0 .00
.1===Q5 EQUALS
3.142 8.633
.000 .000
.000 .000
BASIN INPUT===
35
1.157
.000
.000
LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED:
DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTA1)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)_
Q4*V4*COS(DELTA4))/((A1+A2)*16.1)
UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300
DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300
UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = .01427
DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = .01437
AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .01432
JUNCTION LENGTH (FEET) = 3.00 FRICTION LOSS = .043
ENTRANCE LOSSES = .231
JUNCTION LOSSES = DY+HV1-HV2+(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES)
JUNCTION LOSSES = 1.786+ 1.149- 1.157+( .043)+( .231) = 2.052
NODE 8.00 : HGL= < 154.710>iEGL= < 155.859>iFLOWLINE= < 150.900>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 8.00 TO NODE
UPSTREAM NODE 9.00 ELEVATION = 153.62
9.00 IS CODE = 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW PIPE-BEND LOSSES (OCEMA) :
PIPE FLOW = 27.02 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
CENTRAL ANGLE = 8.840 DEGREES
PIPE LENGTH = 48.77 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
PRESSURE FLOW AREA = 3.142 SQUARE FEET
FLOW VELOCITY = 8.60 FEET PER SECOND
VELOCITY HEAD = 1.149 BEND COEFFICIENT (KB) = .0784
HB=KB*(VELOCITY HEAD) = ( .078)*( 1.149) = .090
PIPE CONVEYANCE FACTOR = 226.224 FRICTION SLOPE(SF) = .0142657
FRICTION LOSSES = L*SF = ( 48.77)*( .0142657) = .696
NODE 9.00 : HGL= < 155.496>iEGL= < 156.645>iFLOWLINE= < 153.620>
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL
LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = .12
NODE 9.00 : HGL= < 155.620>iEGL= < 156.769>iFLOWLINE= < 153.620>
I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.00 TO NODE
UPSTREAM NODE 9.10 ELEVATION = 159.16
9.10 IS CODE = 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW PIPE-BEND LOSSES(OCEMA):
PIPE FLOW = 27.02 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 24.00 INCHES
CENTRAL ANGLE = 9.679 DEGREES
PIPE LENGTH = 99.16 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
PRESSURE FLOW AREA = 3.142 SQUARE FEET
FLOW VELOCITY = 8.60 FEET PER SECOND
VELOCITY HEAD = 1.149 BEND COEFFICIENT(KB) = .0820
HB=KB*(VELOCITY HEAD) = ( .082)*( 1.149) = .094
PIPE CONVEYANCE FACTOR = 226.224 FRICTION SLOPE(SF) = .0142657
FRICTION LOSSES = L*SF = ( 99.16)*( .0142657) = 1.415
NODE 9.10 : HGL= < 157.129>;EGL= < 158.277>iFLOWLINE= < 159.160>
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST HGL AND EGL
LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL = 4.03
NODE 9.10: HGL= < 161.160>iEGL= < 162.309>iFLOWLINE= < 159.160>
~
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------.-----------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 9.10 TO NODE
UPSTREAM NODE 10.00 ELEVATION = 159.49
10.00 IS CODE = 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES:
NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA
1 18.7 18.00 1.767 10.588 .000
2 27.0 24.00 3.142 8.601
3 8.3 24.00 3.142 2.645 90.000
4 .0 .00 .000 .000 .000
5 .0===Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT===
LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED:
DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTA1)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)_
Q4*V4*COS(DELTA4))/((A1+A2)*16.1)
UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300
DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300
UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = .03173
DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = .01427
AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .02300
JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 4.00 FRICTION LOSS = .092
ENTRANCE LOSSES = .000 .
JUNCTION LOSSES = DY+HV1-HV2+(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES)
JUNCTION LOSSES = .434+ 1.741- 1.149+( .092)+( .000) = 1.118
NODE 10.00: HGL= < 161.686>iEGL= < 163.427>iFLOWLINE= < 159.490>
HV
1.741
1.149
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE
UPSTREAM NODE 11.00 ELEVATION = 161.94
11.00 IS CODE = 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW PIPE-BEND LOSSES (OCEMA) :
PIPE FLOW = 18.71 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES
CENTRAL ANGLE = 28.998 DEGREES
PIPE LENGTH = 45.54 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
PRESSURE FLOW AREA = 1.767 SQUARE FEET
FLOW VELOCITY = 10.59 FEET PER SECOND
VELOCITY HEAD = 1.741 BEND COEFFICIENT (KB) = .1419
HB=KB*(VELOCITY HEAD) = ( .142)*( 1.741) = .247
PIPE CONVEYANCE FACTOR = 105.043 FRICTION SLOPE(SF) = .0317257
FRICTION LOSSES = L*SF = ( 45.54)*( .0317257) = 1.445
NODE 11.00: HGL= < 163.378>iEGL= < 165.118>iFLOWLINE= < 161.940>
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST
LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL
NODE 11.00: HGL= < 163.440>iEGL= <
HGL AND EGL
= .06
165.181>iFLOWLINE= <
161.940>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE
UPSTREAM NODE 12.00 ELEVATION = 162.28
12.00 IS CODE = 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES:
NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY
1 15.1 18.00 1.767 8.545
2 18.7 18.00 1.767 10.588
DELTA
9.410
HV
1.134
1.741
3
4
5
1. 1 12.00
.0 .00
2.5===Q5 EQUALS
.785 1. 401
.000 .000
BASIN INPUT===
90.000
.000
'31
LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED:
DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTA1)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)_
Q4*V4*COS(DELTA4))/((A1+A2)*16.1)
UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300
DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300
UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = .02066
DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = .03173
AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .02619
JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 4.00 FRICTION LOSS = .105
ENTRANCE LOSSES = .348
JUNCTION LOSSES = DY+HV1-HV2+(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES)
JUNCTION LOSSES = 1.244+ 1.134- 1.741+( .105)+( .348) = 1.090
NODE 12.00: HGL= < 165.137>;EGL= < 166.271>;FLOWLINE= < 162.280>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------.-----------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE
UPSTREAM NODE 13.00 ELEVATION = 165.47
13.00 IS CODE = 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 15.10 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 63.72 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
SF=(Q/K) **2 = (( 15.10)/( 105.043))**2 = .0206642
HF=L*SF = ( 63.72)*( .0206642) = 1.317
NODE 13.00: HGL= < 166.454>;EGL= < 167.588>;FLOWLINE= < 165.470>
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST
LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL
NODE 13.00: HGL= < 166.970>;EGL= <
HGL AND EGL
= .52
168.104>;FLOWLINE= <
165.470>
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE
UPSTREAM NODE 14.00 ELEVATION = 165.80
14.00 IS CODE = 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES:
NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY DELTA
1 6.4 18.00 1.767 3.622 68.760
2 15.1 18.00 1.767 8.545
3 .0 .00 .000 .000 .000
4 .0 .00 .000 .000 .000
5 8.7===Q5 EQUALS BASIN INPUT===
LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED:
DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTA1)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)_
Q4*V4*COS(DELTA4))/((A1+A2)*16.1)
UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300
DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300
UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = .00371
DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = .02066
AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .01219
JUNCTION LENGTH (FEET) = 4.00 FRICTION LOSS = .049
ENTRANCE LOSSES = .227
JUNCTION LOSSES = DY+HV1-HV2+(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES)
JUNCTION LOSSES = 2.120+ .204- 1.134+( .049)+( .227) = 1.465
NODE 14.00: HGL= < 169.365>;EGL= < 169.569>;FLOWLINE= < 165.800>
HV
.204
1.134
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM
38
****************************************************************************
PRESSURE PIPE-FLOW HYDRAULICS COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
(Reference: LACFQ,LACRD,& OCEMA HYDRAULICS CRITERION)
(c) Copyright 1982-92 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 4.5A Release Date: 2/20/92 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 **************************
* H.G.L. ANALYSIS FORM NODE 14 TO NODE 18 AT PEAK * ITO PE 351 *
* FLOW DURING 100 YEAR STORM. * *
* SEE EXHIBIT "e" FOR HYDRAULIC NODE LOCATIONS. *11-27-92 REV 4-8-93 MS *
****************************************************************~k*********
FILE NAME: 351PIPB.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 14:29
4/ 8/1993
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: STEADY FLOW HYDRAULIC HEAD-LOSS COMPUTATIONS BASED ON THE MOST
CONSERVATIVE FORMULAE FROM THE CURRENT LACRD,LACFCD, AND OCEMA
DESIGN MANUALS.
DOWNSTREAM PRESSURE PIPE FLOW CONTROL DATA:
NODE NUMBER = 14.00 FLOWLINE ELEVATION =
PIPE DIAMETER (INCH) = 18.00 PIPE FLOW(CFS) =
ASSUMED DOWNSTREAM CONTROL HGL = 169.370
165.80
8.18
------------------------------------------------------------------~----------
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
NODE
14.00 : HGL= < 169.370>;EGL= < 169.703>;FLOWLINE= < 165.800>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE
UPSTREAM NODE 15.00 ELEVATION = 182.88
15.00 IS CODE = 1
-----------------------------------------------------------~----_._---------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES (LACFCD) :
PIPE FLOW = 8.18 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 41.48 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
SF=(Q/K)**2 = (( 8.18)/( 105.043))**2 = .0060642
HF=L*SF = ( 41.48)*( .0060642) = .252
NODE 15.00: HGL= < 169.622>;EGL= < 169.954>;FLOWLINE= < 182.880>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST
LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL
NODE 15.00: HGL= < 184.380>;EGL= <
HGL AND EGL
= 14.76
184.713>;FLOWLINE= <
182.880>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE
UPSTREAM NODE 16.00 ELEVATION = 183.17
16.00 IS CODE = 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION LOSSES:
NO. DISCHARGE DIAMETER AREA VELOCITY
1 7.2 18.00 1.767 4.074
DELTA
4.629
HV
.258
2
3
4
5
8.2 18.00
.0 .00
.0 .00
1.0===Q5 EQUALS
1.767 4.629
.000 .000
.000 .000
BASIN INPUT===
.333
3~
.000
.000
.
LACFCD AND OCEMA PRESSURE FLOW JUNCTION FORMULAE USED:
DY=(Q2*V2-Q1*V1*COS(DELTA1)-Q3*V3*COS(DELTA3)_
Q4*V4*COS(DELTA4))/((A1+A2)*16.1)
UPSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300
DOWNSTREAM MANNINGS N = .01300
UPSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = .00470
DOWNSTREAM FRICTION SLOPE = .00606
AVERAGED FRICTION SLOPE IN JUNCTION ASSUMED AS .00538
JUNCTION LENGTH(FEET) = 4.00 FRICTION LOSS = .022
ENTRANCE LOSSES = .067
JUNCTION LOSSES = DY+HV1-HV2+(FRICTION LOSS)+(ENTRANCE LOSSES)
JUNCTION LOSSES = .152+ .258- .333+( .022)+( .067) = .165
NODE 16.00: HGL= < 184.620>;EGL= < 184.877>;FLOWLINE= < 183.170>
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST
LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL
NODE 16.00: HGL= < 184.670>;EGL= <
HGL AND EGL
= .05
184.928>;FLOWLINE= <
183.170>
------------------------------------------------------------------.----------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 16.00 TO NODE
UPSTREAM NODE 17.00 ELEVATION = 183.37
17.00 IS CODE = 1
------------------------------------------------------------------,----------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW FRICTION LOSSES(LACFCD):
PIPE FLOW = 7.20 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = 18.00 INCHES
PIPE LENGTH = 1.88 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
SF=(Q/K)**2 = (( 7.20)/( 105.043))**2 = .0046982
HF=L*SF = ( 1.88)*( .0046982) = .009
NODE 17.00: HGL= < 184.679>;EGL= < lS4.937>;FLOWLINE= < 183.370>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST
LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL
NODE 17.00: HGL= < lS4.S70>;EGL= <
HGL AND EGL
= .19
lS5.12S>;FLOWLINE= <
183.370>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 17.00 TO NODE
UPSTREAM NODE 18.00 ELEVATION = 192.55
lS.00 IS CODE = 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALCULATE PRESSURE FLOW PIPE-BEND LOSSES (OCEMA) :
PIPE FLOW = 7.20 CFS PIPE DIAMETER = lS.00 INCHES
CENTRAL ANGLE = 20.750 DEGREES
PIPE LENGTH = 87.44 FEET MANNINGS N = .01300
PRESSURE FLOW AREA = 1.767 SQUARE FEET
FLOW VELOCITY = 4.07 FEET PER SECOND
VELOCITY HEAD = .258 BEND COEFFICIENT(KB) = .1200
HB=KB*(VELOCITY HEAD) = ( .120)*( .25S) = .031
PIPE CONVEYANCE FACTOR = 105.043 FRICTION SLOPE(SF) = .00469S2
FRICTION LOSSES = L*SF = ( 87.44)*( .0046982) = .411
NODE lS.00: HGL= < 185.312>;EGL= < lS5.570>;FLOWLINE= < 192.550>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESSURE FLOW ASSUMPTION USED TO ADJUST
LOST PRESSURE HEAD USING SOFFIT CONTROL
NODE 18.00: HGL= < 194.050>;EGL= <
HGL AND EGL
= 8.74
194.30S>;FLOWLINE= <
192.550>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
~
END OF PRESSURE FLOW HYDRAULICS PIPE SYSTEM
Page 41
E) RIP-RAP SIZING
PASCO ENGINEERING
(6'9) 259-82'2
535 NO. HIGHWAY 101
SU ITE A
SOLANA BEACH. CA 92075
42
hYoe4C/UC Ut'CtI'Uli'ON5 :
Kl,P -~,P Si;ZF DC7C;C1:1//Vh'/7G?/C/
;(/Q?C @ (" See ~/6/7 'C,:)
Q/co = 27, 55 CF:S
tlCD = /0.:3 F/C5
I
7M';Rc:5"t:::'eC / F,eL)# /1?.A5U,o/): ~."e- :5'2- /- tY..se
(/6#/ CUS5 ,E/.P-lk?7/~1 Z',PT. T#/C"e" Mm aJE
tAyc,e C),c abl/eIV Rc:JCk? r"'4.8e/C tY/V~ "q~.e.
."I3::4/f/,eo;
;(/o?Jc
@ G <.xe 6#/&7S A''' E C' ')
cr -:;
'27/2 CP5_ = 8. (P3 F/s X/.'5 (llJ BectJPqWI1T1r/e )
5./4 SF ~ 1'2 .Cf(P Fls
//~rc;ec/ /:::;P&,-W' ~.PA5Vo/k: ?.46e" 62- >' t/~
% 7lJN ,el?-,R,.?~ 8.4 FT. 7#'ICk". /?Ace j?;'p-~'p //..JelJ.e~
B'/1SI,(J/ /JT Be-6/,<J,{)/A..)G "I"" mE l)RdM..HGE ~7LH
CIIUED JVI77{ C'7U/</fMrlr 70 -/0 O/?Z;:o/'?/~?,A:: I
C7i2 {/ I' t/ /1 Ce/lJT:
Q//m -=
!J/CJO -
,[;7 I~
~~
Page 43
VI APPENDIX
\'
, i\
;'
\
\,
~
~.~
Co';.;,'}
..-
?-
~
!--
-
~~
.......
~
r,L,J
~
~
~
~
o
:t:
,
C'.C
~
lS::t
!.U
>-
I
o
Q
....
\
<=>
c--.J
~
"
':.J-
:>
'"
,.
'^
'"
:~
z i~
0<
-w
!(::t
W ~;~ .
U Vl .~
n:: Z()
w ~;:
~ 0"':
::i; < ..:
<, 0 u >:
, U i (l
>- u.. :: :~
.t:J 0;: 0
"C (flll:'
", "- 0 c;
. z
, ~ w :-::::
. .. .,.. < l1.
0. ~ Cl C 0
Ct:; Z"-l C""\
< U
< U-
Q. - ~
W Z 4.
o ~ 0
.U:t
Vl 0 U
::) .J Z
< <
Z ~
o
i:~
< -
z 0
"
...
~
..l
<
U
'"
~
~
4S
(n
-,^
o
'"
-
o
'"
~
-
CO
II-A-7
tf/t7
.--,' 0
'0
, .....::>:;
e::::
0 =:J
- 0
I- - ll\
-'-
~ I
~
l- N
-
n. c::
~ or::::
(..:l L.l.J
LU >- ,0
t::: I ""
C-
O;:
-
0 ,ll\
-:T
--
-'-
I
"'*
N 0
r--
0:::
c::
l.t..J
>- "I
I
0 =
0 C"'-l ll\
- \
<4
z
.0
....
f-
oj:;
t:l....
Wz
H<(
Ot/)
ZlL..J
<(00
t/) cr:
lL.!2:l--
owZ5
>-~'-'
f-cr:o
Z<(O
::>n.o
Ow.J
'-'0lL.
u
z
<(
v>
ll\
..:T
~~
~ ~
~~
~~
o
M
M,
o
M
ll\
ll\
-:T
'"
U
S'
~
'"
~
~
'"
J:
Z ~
0<
-'"
~~
W ~ ~
U !::! z
n:: % 0
W::::;:
20<(
::;2<2';
o u >~
u i:Z 0
>. ~ ~:3
.D 00;0
" Vl:l::
, ~ 0 Q
l: %7-~
~ W:-::::-
.. ...... <.
0.. ~ ~ ~
0::' z:..l
<e: < U
0.. u,";'
W % t.<.
Cl~~ 0
""
en g G
::i ..17-
< <
Z ~
OlD
;: ~
< ~
Z "
"'
~
~
~
<
u
'"
~
~
o
.""
ll\
-:T
o
ro
II-A"}3
41
TABLE 2
RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONAL METHOO)
NOTES:
(I) Obtain soi 1 type from Appendices IX-Cl thru IX-C4.
(2)Where actual conditions deviate significantly from the tabulated impervious-
ness values of 80% or 90%. the values given for coefficient 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 0.50. For example: Consider commerci aJ property on 0 soi I.
I .
Actual imperviousness
= 50%
Tabulated imperviousness = 8iflo
Revised C = 50 x 0.85 = 0.53
80
IV-A-9
APPENDIX IX-B
169000CFEET
1170
N
Cooperating Agencies
]""........:.....~ T'\____J..__ _uJ..
40
TADLE 11. --INTERPRETATIONS FOR LAND ~IANAGEMENT--Continued
ap
ymb01
Soil
D2
Calpine coarse sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopesJ
eroded.
Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes--____
Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 5 to 9 percent slopes--____
Carls a rave carny san J to ercent slo es-----
arlsbad gravelly loamy sand, 15 to. 30 percent slopes---_
arlsbad-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes---____
arlsbad-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes---___
arrizo very gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes----____
hesterton fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes--______
hesterton fin sa loam,S to 9 percent slopes----____
es e 0 0 0 er
eroded.
hesterton-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes:
Chesterton-------________________________________~___
Urban land-----------________________________________
hino fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 pexcent slopes----_________
hino fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes-----________
hino silt loam, saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes-----______
ieneba coarse sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes,
eroded. I
ieneba coarse sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes,
eroded.
ieneba coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes,
eroded.
ieneba rocky coarse sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent
slopes, eroded.
ieneba very rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 7S percent
slopes.
ieneba-Fal1brook rocky sandy loams, 9 to 30 percent
slopes, eroded:
Cieneba----------____________________________________
Fallbrook---------___________________________________
ieneba-Fallbrook rocky sandy loams, 30 to 65 percent
slopes, eroded:
Cieneba--------______________________________________
Fallbrobk-------_____________________________________
layey alluvial land--------_____________________________
oastal beaches------____________________________________
orralitos loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes--_____~_____
orralitos loamy sand,S to 9 percent slopes----_________
orralitos loam sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes----________
rouch coarse sandy loam, to 0 percent slopes-________
.rouch coarse sandy loam, 30 to SO percent slopes---_____
rouch rocky coarse sandy loam, 5 to 30 percent
. slopes.
rouch rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 70 percent
slopes.
rouch stony fine sandy loam, 30 to 75 percent
slopes.
Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes-______________________
Diablo clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes-_____________________
Diablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes---__________________
Diablo clay, 15 to 30 percent slopes, eroded----_________
Diablo clay, 30 to SO percent slopes----_________________
B
bc
D
E
C.
E
C
B.
'C
:D2
:c
A
B
A
D2
E2
G2
E2
rG
:2-
;2
2
f~otnotes at end of table.
Limi tations for
Hydro- Erodibility conversion
logic from brush ;:0
group grass
D Moderate 2--- Slight. it'
C Severe 2-__h Slight.
C Severe 2----- Sri ht.
Seve re 2----_ Sli ht.
C Severe 2----- Slight.
D
D
A Severe 2
D Severe 9_h__ Slight. ~
D Severe 9----- Slight.
D
D
C Severe 16---- Slight.
C Severe 16---- Slight.
C r-<foderate 2--- ~1oderate .
S Severe 16---- Severe.
D Severe 16-_h Severe.
D Severe 1----- Severe.
D Severe 16---- Severe.
D Severe 1----- Severe.
D Severe 16---- Severe.
C Severe 16---- Severe.
D Severe 1----- Severe.
C Severe 1----- Severe.
D Moderate 2--- Slight.
A Severe 2
A Severe 2----- Slight.
A Severe 2----- Slight.
A Severe 2n___ Sli ght.
evere 19 t.
D Severe l-nn Moderate.
D Severe 16_h_ Moderate.
D Severe l_nn Moderate.
S Severe 1----- Moderate.
D Slight---_n__ Slight. 1/
D Slight_n__n_ Slight. 1/
D Moderate-~---- Slight. Y
D Moderate 1--- Slight. 1/
D Severe 1----- Moderate :- 1/
.33
TABLE 11. --INTERPRETATIONS FOR LANI) MANAGEMENT--Continued
,
~Iap
symbol
Soil
RaA
RaB
RaC
RaC2
RaD2
Rep
ReE
RdC
ReE
Ri'F
Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes-__________~_____
Ramona sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes----_____________
Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 9 percent slopes-________________
Ramona sandy loam,S to 9 percent slopes, eroded--_______
Ramona sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes, eroded----____
Ramona gravelly sandy loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes-un__
Ramona gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes--____
Redding gravelly loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes--___________
<edding cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes---___________
Redding cobbly loam, dissected, 15 to SO percent
slopes.
Redding-Urban land complex, 2 to 9 percent slopes:
Redding--------______________________________________
Urban land---------__________________________________
~edding-Urban land complex, 9 to 30 percent slopes:
Redding---------_____________________________________
Urban land---------__________________________________
~eiff fine sandy loam I 0 to 2 percent slopes----_________
Reiff fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes--___________
Reiff fine sandy loaml 5, to 9 percent slopes------_______
~iverwash-------------_-----------_______________________
~ositas fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes--_______________
IKositas fine sandI hummocky,S to 9 percent slopes-----__
IKositas loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes-----____
~ositas loamy coarse sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes----_____
~ositas loamy coarse sand, 9 to 15 percent slopes----~---
ouoh broken land--------________________________________
alinas clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes--_______________
alinas clay loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes---______________
alinas clay, 0 to 2 percent slopes--____________________
Salinas clay, 2 to 5 percent slopes----__________________
San Miguel rocky silt loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes-----__
~an Miguel-Exchequer rocky silt loams, 9 to 70 percent
slopes:
San ;Iiguel---- --- --- -- --- _____ _ ___ __h ____ ____ ___ ____
Exchequer-------_____________________________________
Sheephead rocky fine sandy loam, 9 to 30 percent
slopcsl eroded.
~hecphead rocky fine sandy loaml 30 to 65 percent
5 lopes I eroded.
Sloping gUllied land---------____________________________
Soboba stony loamy sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes-----_____
Steep gullied land----------_____________________________
Stockpen gravelly clay loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes---____
Stockpen gravelly clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes-----__
Stony land-----------____________________________________
T~~~~c~l:~~~~:~~~~======================================
Tollhouse rocky coarse sandy loam, 5 to 30 percent
s lopes I eroded.
Tollhouse rocky coarse sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent
slopes.
Tujunga sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes-_____________________
Urban land---------______________________________________
Visalia sandy loarn, 0 to 2 percent s1opes--__________.____
RhC.
RhE
RkA
RkB
RkC
Rm
RoA
RrC
RsA
RsC
RsD
RuG
5bA
ShC
SeA
SeB
SmE
3nG
ipE2
;pG2
;rO
isE
itG -
;j1A
;uB
;vE .
eF
f
'oE2
oG
uB .
r
aA
ee footnotes at end of table.
Hydro- Erodibility
logic
group
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
o
o
o
Severe 16----
Severe 16----
Severe 16----
Severe 16----
Severe 16----
Severe 16----
Severe 16----
Severe 9-----
Severe 9-----
Severe 1-----
o
o
I)
o
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
o
C
C
C
C
o
Severe 16----
Severe 16----
Severe 16----
Severe 2, 4--
Severe 2
Severe 2
Severe 2
Severe 2
Severe 2
Severe 1-----
Moderate 2---
;loderate 2---
Slight------_
Slight-----__
Severe 9-----
0 Severe 1-----
I) Severe 1-----
C Severe 16----
C Severe 1-----
B Seve re 2-____
A Seve re 2-----
0 Severe 1-----
I) Moderate 2---
0 Moderate 2---
A Severe 1-----
0 Severe 1_____
0 Severe 2, 4
C Severe 9-----
C Severe 1-----
A Severe 2-----
I)
B Se'{~re 16----
EO
Limitations for
conversion
from brush to
grass
SI ight.
Slight.
Slight.
Slight.
Slight.
Slight.
Slight.
~loderate.
~loderate .
Moderate.
Slight.
Slight.
Slight.
Severe.
Severe.
Slight. 1/
Slight. Ii
Slight. T!
Slight. l/
Moderate~:-
Severe.
Severe.
;Ioderate. y
Moderate. y
Severe. 4/
Moderate ~-
Severe.
Slight.
Slight.
Severe.
Severe.
Severe.
Severe.
Slight.
Slight.
37
1I-70
..............
Sf
180- 10,000 (I)
168 8,000 EXAMPLE
6,000 0:36 inches (3.0 ftel) (2)
156 6.
5,000 0.66 cfs (3)
144 4,000 5. 6.
HW' HW
132 3,000 0 (fee') 6.
5.
~ (I) I.a ,..
ti
120 2,000 (2) 2.1 .., 5.
"'
~ 4.
~ 13' 2.2 ...
108 ~ 4.
~ 3.
~ 'D in feet
~
96 "' 1,000 3.
0
~ 3.
u 800
0
"'
~
84 '" 600 2.
500
./" --- ---
400 2. 2.
72 ../ a
'" 300
w ../ ~
:c 1.5
'-' '" ./ :s
;: "-
'-' 200 .\.~/ 1.5
60 '" 1.5
;: ;: ~i-~ a:
/' w
a 54 ~ l-
../ w
l- W 100 /' ::l;
a: lO }O../ '"
w 48 a: 0
> '"
...J :c-
oo /g 60 1.0
'-' :c 1.0
42 50
"- ./ Ci l-
0 40 "- 1.0
../ w
a: 0
w ---3'6 30 HW SCALE a:
l- W
W 0 l- .9
::l; 33 '"
'" 20 Hurclwall 3: .8 .8
0 0
30 Mitered 10 conform '"
W
:; to.lope :c .8
ti
c 27 (3) Proj1ctlno
"' .7 .7
~
c
z 24 .7
~
~
'" 5
Tou",cole(2)or{3)projIC!
21 4 horizontally to Hol. (I), then .6
uustrolghlincllnldlinelhrou\lh .6
3 D ond 0 lea In, or reverse o. .6
illustrated.
2
- 15 .5
1.0 crt> .5
12 tJ(,AfJ ~'1 0 HEADWATER DEPTH FOR
C. M. PIPE CULVERTS
WITH INLET CONTROL
BUREAU Of' PUBLIC ROADS JAN. 196?
C/lP/lCIT'f Or 8!:i7;tk:: IS V.C/WP
(ItJQUIHC OA7UJeU5 [)e;t7e=-,
f
/111/110, lito DC'P1H.;=. Z.O
..
;-
,
~, .
~~B~-;:;:::
-+-~ :::l
~c::"Q..8~.=
.D- >
----0
+-ClU-"01V
..r::.)I:::JIOC+-
t:n O"O..c - VI
-~- VI _
aJlIl> ......_
;J: - C 0
+"00 dl
c- 1::_ l- N
e-+- 0)_
1:::_ 1.1..0 VI
O-mOE
_......:J......
"l:l 1%1 +- 0 c:: VI
(1) C'l L. 0
c:: 10_ c..~_
-+- 0 __
s c: 0 +- lC
L.ltllflC- E
lD U (1) 0_ VI
+-L.N-O
{:&:;;l'Io~ .
~-1-"
...!~~g~c:~
~""''='-L.1;I-
Cl +- - U
+-f oo~-:;:: +-
0-_ +-c..CI
.c )1:- Il'l IV'::::
.,... I:l lI'l >- O)~
o lIJ.o L
.::gbo"O~b
.- e
"0- >OCCfI
~o...!i5E So!
~8.J:J 1.. ltloC
- c_ -0
- +- 0 ~ a.+
.
'-
.
.c
....
o
--
(
e
>
....
.
....
C
.
~
.
'-
0.
e
0:
~
-'-
o
....
o
.
'-
....
C
o
u
e
.c
>-
'-=
.c-
0.>-
".c "
....."
-85"
~
> >- '-
o " ~
'-.c 0
0..... .c
-.::.
.- ON
,,-
.c .c "
~ ~ e
L..~t
e . .
o ....
C '- C
- e 0
"'.D 0
C E
w ~.8
"
_0>-
. C .
o E
ll-E.o
.... >
0--
".....
'-0"
....0....
C- C
o 0
0" ~
e
".c '-
.c+-o.
>--e
= )I,L.
.c
0.
.
'-
'"
.
'-
"
0.
'"
C
~
o
o
-
'l'
....
.8
....
"
"
<
n
.~
,
,
r '- '-
e.- I I , '0 '0 " "
': > >-<0 , , I I c c C c
o,,~ I " " "
...J...J " "
" " "
n <:> <:> <:> oN CD CD
oN oN
- a a , , ,
n +-'" a "-CD "-CD ~-ai . 0
~ 0. 0.
CY , . , , >- >-
.... - 0 n-c.. n-c.. n-c.. >- e-
o ~ "I I
'" -
C '- . u 0.... "I n
" 0 +-Q)O~ 0 '" I I I I I
- >- &(.I)'"<l"'..... I I I
i'" '" " ,
~ ...J
'- I
0 '- '" I I =
- 0 . 1.10.... =
- - .. '" N = "I
0. +-OQ'"l:" , , .. ::: N
- 0. &VJN.... n , , , /~
"- => - n - n
-
- ;..
c., <0 0 ..
"'" . . 0 .... .. n ..
'- 0 ~ - - N , ,.; .;
0._ ~ "I I ..
-'::::0
o:>-C
~ n I "I I I I
"'~- '" -ll 0'1 b '" I ~I C ~
0,,"1 . 0 '" "c "I = ,E
o_~ o " - S<"C '0 ., 0
0:0 " -
-c.:: _CD_ ~.= ->- -e-
o -I "I
-=Jl- '" - n '" 1:(
. 0
.... CD o, ., ., "I
",- r I
>....- <0 I r '" - J I
.... c:> n ....
"- a, - - 1"- -
8
'-
.f'
"-
"0
C
"
"-
"
'-
0.
0:
-
o
C
~
n
..;
,
8
"I
*
I-
e-
"00
o
~ 0.
" ~
"
0.
o
~
.::.
"I
>-
0:
<
"-
Ul
...J
<
0:
W
>-
<
z
15
Ul
...J
<
0:
W
e-
<
Z
'"
U
o
0:
I
= ~
Ul~
o
~5~
>- 0
>- 0-
,,~
I 0-
~ >
~ ~ 0
'-
~~o..
'-
e >-"
-,,-
"EO
Z e
~8bf
0..
o c
o:c-
iIl~"'O"
-;;tl
ce-
'-Ul'"
e
+-c.c
-- 0
< '-
= '"'0' a.
e
.D >-
,,'--
"0"
<~O
"
e ,.
~'"
~ C
~ ~
"'0
0_
0-
'-2
-
o e
.c
~+-
e
~ 0
~+-
.
-e
0,-
o
--
"c
-il8
"-
"
'-
"-
0:
'-
o
>-
o
=>
0:
e-
Ul
5
o
8
"I
is
>-
u
w
Ul
"
'-
o
c
~
o
c
o
T-
v>
'"
.
.,
o
o
"I
I
o
,0
"I
*
z
<
i=
'" 0
nc "'0
- "'....-
.", 6 I I
,g~ "'0
NO,
CD
'" ",8
NC
- "'....-
.'" I I I
,g:; 0"'0
NO>
CD
0 0
0 IJ
"c "'-
'0 I I
->- 00
'" o,
v>
w 0 0
Ul 0 I~
Ul NC "'-
< '0 I I
...J ->- 00
u '" o,
C 0 0
0 0 I 0
>- "'- .,
I I
- 00 '"
'" o,
C I 00
0 00
>- "'--
"I 6 I I
0'"
"' '"
.c:c:c: c: c:: .
~ 00000..0..0.0.0.0
"'.0 I-l-t-I-I------
ON
0- "<l'N_N~O\t"\\t"\\t"\__
0: v> ...........Or--N
__"I
0:
w
<:>
0:
:s
"
0.
o
+-~....
~ -
0'" E
-0-
"e-
~- &
0"
~VI~
+- ~ "
" 0
C- '-
" 0"
.c 0.
+->-
\;~l
-'-
-0"
,,- 0
E "
'" "0
-x
-.DO
" "
-+--
'- 0
00 C
+-.=
,,+--
E
C"
__.c
o '"
"0
~~ 8
~~-
o-+-
e- 0
" 0
o+-
!.!:: e
1- l/'I a..
.
>-
""
c.c
-~
w
<:>
<
>-
z
w
U
0:
W
"-
~g
>--
= +-
o
.
.. +-
"0
,,'-
<0.
l..
~
t&)-
,
<J
af
1.-..1
r
Nt
,
,
Qf:\j
l{j! ~
~
~
62
("'.
~
r....-..
'"
~
(\
"'-
,
Page 53
.
VII EXHIBITS
.
.,' \';"
..J '~_:.'.',..;_~J-'
/\>~.~.._~~; -
,/
1-,-
.,Y/9 _ ft,~ .7
\
X /45. ;>
.0
0
+
l' I
I
~ J
~ ~
~
/ ~
~ ,1\
14 ~ ~/43. 0
.....h.
~~ "
~
G~Q
\"!~llJ
-Jg Q ~
~ ~ x 142. .
O:~!J ~ X
iQ~ ~ 1}} II
I ~ /(
Cl
~
~ 141.0
X
,
,
.. ;'I,fIHliilH!
"." , "1""1""11 . "
' .: II;,,:::;! :illi:;:: I!:,;':i'i
.,.."...,. ,.'..clll...i.,.'lj'+<I.....
; :1:;:: ii'lll: 'il!: li!II;;:;
::III:li:::II,j'II]I:IIII:;: 0
W~r Illntl~II'I'ltlli'l:j il'
I ::: rill: I : i ~ i !: I I,! I: Ii: I ~ I!! 0
, , 11,1, :'1'111 II, I ','~7] +
I 1"'111"'1,1111111'111,1110
:~~ 1:-'-111"1~~~-1J; .,-l-~ 1'''':1 tt~i! :1 C\J
II: I ill' :111 il III 1,1 ,I
I II !I:I II:: I'll :illl'll:j I '
t'~ -n t ...ll r' .-1',.1 [I r . I, I, . I t t'"
, 'II I' 1'1 "1' ',' I I'"
I 11:,1 I I "I l'lilll':: ,I, ::1
J"'ill .Ii L I' i' 1IIII I
.... h'r r"I'--"'~1 .H[--'I' .'~11'"
I ::, II1I :'::1: '1 i ':Iillll ,I
I I I" 11',11 rl'!I:j,1 11111111"
- '---"'cW~ - '""1""1'''' ''',
~ I I I ' 'I 'i I i I i I i j I III I I i I I I I '
,i I I Iliill~1 II!'II 11'11111
"""-'1 "1""' '1,1" ,. , 'f"1
' I : 1111[111 I ,1['11, I,ll
, '1'11,1' I [,I: II I II
, . . - 1 '1~ r 1 tL~ ,-, d'"1 '
:::::I!i!:!ii!:I:::lI1il:! :! I
::i::!!:I'I::,!'I: :11:: ::: "
"~ i' i: :T::;tll-Jr:I!'lli-;-r'~ :". : 1'::': I
i ';:1'<1, III '1111:':1 I; I
:-i;~:-:r+j-!-rH~+--!~+H!:::i Ii:' , :'-,
" "'II",I.",!""" "
. ,.:; ,-::~--i-:-i :'!1l~:;-~:;-t-: ,: H :.;.:. ,,;,10
,'\ ::!:::',:i,;::I:i:;li" 10
'. ';,;,:: _'I'I"I:il':I'1 , ,I
.--------~~-~:~-~~--__---o._, +
. .,' 'I." I I' :" I ! (J)
I ': I; '!:': I;' '-,:, :: ,',lor-
1 j, ,:: , ,) ,I
":';
...j.. 'I
:,... ,..I
,
.,
,
,
,'j
,
,
,
i
"',' .:
8
+
OJ
.--
/'
"-
-.
.S-J
~
~
~
l
'V~
~~
t:X~
.
~
~,
,
I
leG]
,
,-.
,',
'-'
--;
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
'1:
~ ~ ~
~~ ~ ~
\S~ ~ ~
-
X 158.2
Gro
~
<Jl
"
Q:
<(
2:
w
Q:
I
I-
<.9
Z
W
..J
<Jl
;:)
0
<(
Q:
--
\ )1\- /
~ ./ III
~ \ --7-
" r 1_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~eotechnics
Incorporated
May 27, 1997
Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. Imhri~li()
W. Lee Vanderhurst
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
4365 Executive Drive Suite 600
San Diego, California 92121
Project No. 0196-002-01
Doc. #7-0327
Attention:
Mr. Jack Robson
SUBJECT:
COMPACTION REPORT
Improvements for Quail Run (TM 90-209)
Encinitas, California
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of the testing and observation services provided during the
construction of the utility and street improvements for the Quail Run residential development. The
purpose of the observation and testing services was to evaluate the compaction of the retaining
wall backfill, trench backfill, curb/sidewalk subgrade, and street pavement construction. Our
services were provided in accordance with our Proposal No. 6-228 (Geotechnics Incorporated,
1996), and your Contract No. 24-070.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Field personnel were provided for this project to observe and test the backfill related to the
improvement construction at the subject site. The observation and testing assisted us in
developing professional opinions regarding the geotechnical aspects of the construction. Our
services did not include supervision nor direction of the actual work of the contractor, his
employees, or agents. Our services included the following:
. Observation of the trench and wall backfill placement.
Observation of the sidewalk and street subgrade preparation and pavement section
placement.
. Performance of field density and moisture testing for evaluation of relative compaction.
9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B . San Diego California . 92131
Phone (619) 536-1000 . Fax (619) 536-8311
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
May 27, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Doc. #7-0327
Page 2
. PerfDrmance of laboratory tests on materials used for the trench backfill and pavement
sections.
. Preparation of daily field reports summarizing the day's activity with regard to earthwork,
and documenting hours spent in the field by our technicians.
. Preparation of this report which summarizes our observations and presents the results of
the field and laboratory testing.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Quail Run residential development is located along the west side of Quail Gardens Drive in
Encinitas, California. Access to the site is provided from Quail Gardens Drive.
City street improvements were constructed along Quail Gardens Drive from stations 17+00 to
24+00. Improvements within the subject property were constructed along Kristen Court and
Lindsey Lane. Underground utilities at the site included storm drains, water and sewer mains,
and joint-use trenches for electrical, gas, and telephone. Retaining walls were constructed
separating several of the lots. The storm drain, water and sewer improvements were installed
by Cass Construction Company. The joint-use trenches were constructed and backfilled by Steel
Mountain Corporation.
4.0 TRENCH AND WALL BACKFILL
Pipe bedding materials were imported to the site and included clean sand and silty sand. Trench
backfill materials consisted generally of on-site soils generated from the trench excavations.
Generally, materials used for bedding and trench backfill were brought to approximate optimum
moisture content prior to placement in the trenches. Backfill lifts were generally 8 to 18 inches
in thickness. Compactive effort was applied using sheepsfoot rollers mounted on backhoes,
loaders, walk-behind rollers, and hand-held whackers. Wall backfill materials were imported to the
site and included crushed rock. This material does not require compactive effort, therefore, no
tests were conducted on this material.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
June 2, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Doc. #7-0327
Page 3
5.0 SUBGRADE PREPARATION AND PAVEMENT SECTION
The curb-and-gutter and sidewalk subgrades were prepared by Hand D Concrete. The
subgrades were prepared using a water truck, vibratory roller, and hand-held whackers to apply
compactive effort.
The construction of the street sections was performed by Marathon General Incorporated.
Subgrades were prepared by blading the existing surfaces to approximate subgrade elevations
and applying moisture with a water truck. Compactive effort was applied by vibratory steel drum
rollers.
Materials used for the aggregate base course were imported. Aggregate base materials were
moisture conditioned, and compactive effort was applied by vibratory steel drum rollers.
Asphalt concrete was used to complete the street section. The asphalt concrete included 3/4-inch
Type III mixes. Breakdown and finish rollers were used during the placement of the asphalt for
compactive effort.
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The various materials used for trench backfill, subgrade and base are tabulated in Figure B-1
of the Appendix B, "Laboratory Test Results". Brief descriptions of the soil types used are
included in Figure B-1. The maximum densities and optimum moistures of the soils were
determined in the laboratory by ASTM method D1557-91 (Modified Proctor). The trench backfill
and subgrade materials generally consisted of silty sand (SM).
7.0 FIELD DENSITY TESTING
In-place moisture and density tests were made in accordance with ASTM D2922-91 and D3017-
88 (Nuclear Gauge Method). The results of these tests are tabulated in the figures of Appendix
C, "Field Density Test Results". Appendix C also presents the relative compaction of the
subgrade and pavement section materials as compared to the respective maximum density
(ASTM D1557-91).
The approximate locations of the density tests are shown on the attached Geotechnical Site Plan
(Plates 1 through 4). The project plans, prepared by Pasco Engineering (1996), serve as base
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
June 2. 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Doc. #7-0327
Page 4
maps for the site plan. The locations and elevations indicated for the tests presented on the site
plan 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.
The City of Encinitas did not require tests on the placement of asphaltic concrete on Quail
Gardens Drive, Kristen Court, and Lindsey Lane. Therefore, as directed by Cornerstone
Communities Corporation, no tests were performed on the placement of the asphaltic concrete.
8.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
In our opinion, compaction was performed in general accordance with the intent of the project
geotechnical recommendations (Geotechnics lncoporated, 1996), and with the requirements of
the City of Encinitas. Based upon our observations and testing, it is our professional opinion that
the fill and backfill and curb/sidewalk subgrade soils were placed in substantial accordance with
the compaction criteria of 90 percent of the maximum density as evaluated by ASTM 01557-91.
The street subgrade and base materials were placed in substantial accordance with the
compaction criteria of 95 percent of the maximum density. The conclusions contained herein are
based on the observations and testing performed between November4, 1996, and May 16,1997.
No representations are made as to the quality and extent of materials not observed.
9.0 LIMITATIONS
Our services were performed 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 performed are believed representative of the project; however, soil and
geologic conditions can vary significantly between tested or observed locations.
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
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
June 2, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Doc. #7-0327
Page 5
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
~25~
Anthony F. Belfast P.E. C 40333
Principal
W. Lee Vanderhurst C.E.G. 1125
Principal
AFBIWL V/jcm
Distribution: (5) Addressee
Attachments: Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Laboratory Testing
Appendix C - Field Test Results
Plates 1 through 4, Geotechnical Site Plan.
Geotechnics Incorporated
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; Geosynthetics, ASTM,
Philadelphia, PA, 1296 p.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996, Proposal for Geotechnical Services, Testing and Observation
of Grading and Construction of Improvements, Quail Gardens, Encinitas TM 90..209,
Encinitas, California; Proposal No. 6-228, dated October 21.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996, Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations, Quail Run,
Encinitas, California; Document No. 6-0702, dated October 30.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996, Interim As-Graded Report, Quail Run, Lots 1, 22, ami 23,
Encinitas, California; Document No. 6-0770, dated December 17.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997, Pavement Recommendations, Kristen Court and Lindsey Lane,
Quail Run, Encinitas, California; Document No. 7-0124, dated February 24.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997, Pavement Recommendations, Quail Gardens Drive at Quail
Run, Encinitas, California; Document No. 7-0149, dated March 6.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997, As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Quail Run (TM 90-;W9),
Encinitas, California; Document No. 6-0773, dated March 28.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997, Lot 7 As-Graded Letter, Quail Run, Encinitas, California;
Document No. 7-0274, dated May 6.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997, Lot 8 As-Graded Letter, Quail Run, Encinitas, California;
Document No. 7-0288, dated May 9.
Geotechnics Incorporated
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 performed 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 Content The maximum density and optimum moisture for
representative soil samples were determined by using test method ASTM D1557-78, modified
Proctor. The test results are summarized in Figure B-1.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
(ASTM D1557-91)
SAMPLE I I MAXIMUM OPTIMUM
NUMBER DESCRIPTION DENSITY MOISTURE
(PC F) (%)
1 Orange brown silty fine SAND 119.0 13.0
2 Brown silty fine SAND 119.0 11.5
3 Yellowish brown silty fine SAND 116.5 12.5
4 Brown silty fine SAND 117.5 10.0
5 Brown silty fine SAND 121.5 11.0
6 Yellowish brown silty fine SAND 121.5 10.0
7 Fine to medium grained sand with gravel 135.0 7.0
yellowish brown aggregate BASE
8 Import brown silty to poorly graded SAND 130.0 8.0
9 Fine to medium grained sand with gravel 136.5 7.0
gray aggregate BASE
10 Fine to medium grained sand with gravel 134.0 7.5
dark yellowish brown aggregate BASE
Laboratory Test Results
Quail Run
Cornerstone Communities
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document NO.7 -0327
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. 01557 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 01556 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.
Explanation
NU Nuclear Test Method
SO Storm Drain Trench Backfill
S Sanitary Sewer Trench Backfill
W Water Main Trench Backfill
JT Joint Utility Trench Backfill
SG Subgrade
SW Sidewalk
B Base
CGS Curb and Gutter Subgrade
CGB Curb and Gutter Base
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I ~ Geotechnics DENSITY TEST RESULTS Projecl No. 0196-002-01
Incorporated Quail Run Document No. 6-0773
Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-1
I Test Test Elevation Location/ 80il Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
No. Dale [It] 8tation Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
[pef) [%J [pcf] [%j [%j
I 80-1 1/9/97 158 16+63 5 121.5 14.1 111.7 92 90
80-2 1/9/97 160 16+63 5 121.5 13.6 111.7 92 90
I 80-3 1/9/97 157 16+63 3 116.5 15.5 105.1 90 90
80-4 1/9/97 160 16+63 3 116.5 15.5 104.6 90 90
80-5 1/10/97 160 17+00 3 116.5 15.6 106.6 92 90
I 80-6 1/10/97 161 16+90 3 116.5 16.7 105.4 90 90
80-7 1/10/97 158 16+78 3 116.5 12.8 108.8 93 90
80-8 1/10/97 159 16+65 3 116.5 11.5 109.3 94 90
80-9 1/17/97 162 17+50 3 116.5 14.9 105.1 90 90
I 80-10 1/17/97 165 18+25 3 116.5 15.7 104.7 90 90
80-11 1/17/97 166 18+47 3 116.5 14.7 105.1 90 90
80-12 1/17/97 168 18+73 3 116.5 14.0 107.5 92 90
I 80-13 1/21/97 170 19+07 3 116.5 12.9 108.5 93 90
80-14 1/21/97 170 19+35 3 116.5 12.9 104.7 90 90
I 8-1 1/20/97 192 18+60 3 116.5 13.9 108.2 93 90
8-2 1/20/97 190 18+60 3 116.5 13.9 109.7 94 90
8-3 1/20/97 185 18+60 3 116.5 15.1 107.5 92 90
8-4 1/20/97 180 18+60 3 116.5 14.7 109.4 94 90
I 8-5 1/21/97 167 18+60 3 116.5 15.2 105.1 90 90
8-6 1/22/97 219 6+00 5 121.5 12.4 110.2 91 90
8-7 1/22/97 221 6+32 5 121.5 12.2 109.8 90 90
I 8-8 1/22/97 222 6+36 5 121.5 12.8 111.2 92 90
8-9 1/22/97 226 6+84 5 121.5 112 112.3 92 90
8-10 1/22/97 230 7+26 5 121.5 11.6 112.6 93 90
8-11 1/22/97 225 7+20 5 121.5 11.7 111.5 92 90
I 8-12 1/22/97 218 5+74 3 116.5 15.1 108.6 93 90
8-13 1/22/97 216 5+60 3 116.5 14.1 108.9 93 90
8-14 1/22/97 217 5+25 3 116.5 15.0 105.7 91 90
I 8-15 1/22/97 210 4+59 3 116.5 16.0 105.2 90 90
8-16 1/24/97 185 2+30 3 116.5 16.7 103.0 88 90 8-33
8-17 1/24/97 186 1+50 3 116.5 16.1 104.2 89 90 8-30
I 8-18 1/24/97 189 1+99 3 116.5 16.4 103.0 88 90 8-31
8-19 1/24/97 190 2+10 3 116.5 16.6 103.4 89 90 8-32
8-20 1/24/97 191 2+55 3 116.5 14.4 103.1 88 90 8-34
8-21 1/24/97 193 3+00 3 116.5 13.0 105.2 90 90
I 8-22 1/24/97 194 3+43 3 116.5 11.6 108.3 93 90
8-23 1/24/97 195 3+60 3 116.5 15.6 106.1 91 90
8-24 1/28/97 231 7+45 5 121.5 13.2 108.9 90 90
I 8-25 1/28/97 234 7+47 5 121.5 10.7 109.7 90 90
8-26 1/29/97 230 7+42 5 121.5 12.7 112.8 93 90
8-27 1/29/97 228 7+51 5 121.5 13.3 111.6 92 90
8-28 1/29/97 227 7+50 5 121.5 13.5 109.3 90 90
I 8-29 1/29/97 231 7+39 5 121.5 14.1 109.8 90 90
8-30 3/12/97 186 1+50 5 121.5 15.9 112.9 93 90
8-31 3/12/97 189 1+99 5 121.5 16.8 110.5 91 90
I 8-32 3/12/97 190 2+10 5 121.5 12.3 110.6 91 90
8-33 3/12/97 185 2+30 5 121.5 17.3 110.8 91 90
I
I
I ......... Geotechnics DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-002-01
Incorporated Quail Run Document No. 6-0773
Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-2
I Test Test Elevation Location/ Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
No. Date [ftJ Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
[pc~ [%J [pc~ [%J [%J
I S-34 3/12/97 191 2+55 5 121.5 14.7 109.1 90 90
I W-1 2/24/97 200 3+30 8 130.0 7.0 113.4 87 90 W-9
W-2 2/24/97 191 2+52 8 130.0 7.5 113.3 87 90 W-10
W-3 2/24/97 185 1+60 8 130.0 4.9 107.8 83 90 W-11
I W-4 2/24/97 226.5 6+22 8 130.0 9.2 126.4 97 90
W-5 2/24/97 231 6+87 8 130.0 9.7 123.7 95 90
W-6 2/24/97 211 4+30 8 130.0 9.7 117.3 90 90
W-7 2/24/97 208.5 1+25 8 130.0 10.2 116.6 90 90
I W-8 2/24/97 198.5 2+00 8 130.0 11.4 118.0 91 90
W-9 2/25/97 200 3+30 8 130.0 9.4 117.0 90 90
W-10 2/25/97 191 2+52 8 130.0 9.7 116.5 90 90
I W-11 2/25/97 185 1+60 8 130.0 9.4 118.5 91 90
W-12 2/25/97 234 7+45 8 130.0 9.4 118.6 91 90
W-13 2/25/97 238.5 8+00 8 130.0 8.8 118.1 91 90
I W-14 2/25/97 193 2+08 6 121.5 10.9 112.4 93 90
W-15 2/25/97 191 1+68 6 121.5 11.3 111.5 92 90
W-16 2/25/97 200 2+95 6 121.5 12.6 113.5 93 90
W-17 2/26/97 187 1+09 8 130.0 7.4 118.7 91 90
I W-18 2/26/97 187 1+35 8 130.0 6.3 120.9 93 90
W-19 2/26/97 240 8+38 8 130.0 9.2 117.6 90 90
W-20 2/26/97 240 8+81 8 130.0 9.4 118.9 91 90
I W-21 2/26/97 239.5 9+28 8 130.0 9.1 119.5 92 90
W-22 3/3/97 196 2+20 5 121.5 12.0 116.8 96 90
W-23 3/3/97 205 1+69 5 121.5 12.9 110.1 91 90
W-24 3/3/97 207 1+17 5 121.5 112 112.0 92 90
I W-25 3/3/97 235 7+30 5 121.5 11.7 111.5 92 90
W-26 3/3/97 230 6+55 5 121.5 12.7 114.0 94 90
W-27 3/3/97 222.5 5+85 5 121.5 10.0 110.2 91 90
I W-28 3/3/97 222 5+60 5 121.5 15.0 112.8 93 90
W-29 3/3/97 216 4+84 5 121.5 15.7 113.2 93 90
W-30 3/3/97 210 4+00 5 121.5 13.3 116.7 96 90
I W-31 3/5/97 243.5 8+30 5 121.5 12.1 112.8 93 90
W-32 3/5/97 245 9+36 5 121.5 11.3 112.7 93 90
W-33 3/5/97 244 9+82 5 121.5 13.1 111.7 92 90
I JT-1 3/14/97 218 5+08 6 121.5 14.9 112.6 93 90
JT-2 3/14/97 213 4+45 6 121.5 15.4 112.0 92 90
JT-3 3/14/97 237 7+65 5 121.5 12.3 113.3 93 90
I JT-4 3/14/97 238 7+84 5 121.5 10.4 115.2 95 90
JT-5 3/14/97 237 7+77 5 121.5 10.3 112.6 93 90
JT-6 3/14/97 238 7+44 5 121.5 10.9 111.5 92 90
JT-7 3/14/97 219.5 6+75 5 121.5 9.9 110.2 91 90
I JT-8 3/14/97 225 6+00 5 121.5 10.6 108.9 90 90
JT-9 3/15/97 224 5+86 5 121.5 11.4 114.7 94 90
JT-10 3/15/97 223 5+70 5 121.5 11.7 115.3 95 90
I JT-11 3/15/97 207 3+70 5 121.5 10.8 117.1 96 90
JT-12 3/15/97 201 3+08 4 117.5 9.6 106.6 91 90
I
I
I ....... Geotechnics DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-002-01
Incorporated Quail Run Document No. 6-0773
Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-3
I Test Test Elevation Location/ 80il Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
No. Date [It] 8tation Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
[pef] [%] [pef] [%J [%j
I JT-13 3/15/97 201 3+00 4 117.5 9.3 106.5 91 90
JT-14 3/18/97 202 1+84 6 121.5 10.0 114.4 94 90
I JT-15 3/18/97 196 3+20 6 121.5 10.5 112.4 93 90
JT-16 3/18/97 191 1+88 6 121.5 9.3 109.0 90 90
I 8G-1 1/29/97 159 16+63 7 135.0 7.5 133.5 99 95
8G-2 1/29/97 160 16+63 7 135.0 7.5 134.0 99 95
8G-3 1/29/97 159 16+63 7 135.0 6.6 134.3 99 95
8G-4 1/29/97 160.5 16+55 5 121.5 10.2 117.8 97 95
I 8G-5 1/29/97 161 16+40 5 121.5 9.9 117.6 97 95
8G-6 3/3/97 189 22+37 5 121.5 9.7 116.1 96 95
8G-7 3/3/97 189 22+37 5 121.5 10.6 116.0 95 95
I 8G-8 3/24/97 217 4+80 5 121.5 9.9 112.3 92 95
8G-9 3/24/97 227 6+21 5 121.5 10.6 115.7 95 95
8G-10 3/25/97 236 7+28 5 121.5 9.4 115.3 95 95
8G-11 3/25/97 236 7+28 5 121.5 7.7 115.2 95 95
I 8G-12 3/25/97 229 6+63 5 121.5 7.5 113.4 93 95
8G-13 3/25/97 228 6+38 5 121.5 8.3 108.3 89 95
8G-14 3/25/97 223.5 5+83 5 121.5 9.3 111.7 92 95
I 8G-15 3/25/97 220 5+38 5 121.5 8.9 113.9 94 95
8G-16 3/26/97 190 1+66 5 121.5 10.6 116.0 95 95
8G-17 3/26/97 206 1+45 5 121.5 9.4 118.0 97 95
I 8G-18 3/26/97 198 2+10 5 121.5 8.9 118.2 97 95
8G-19 3/26/97 196 2+35 5 121.5 12.4 116.0 95 95
8G-20 3/26/97 181 20+85 5 121.5 10.1 116.3 96 95
8G-21 3/26/97 189 22+42 5 121.5 9.9 115.0 95 95
I 8G-22 3/26/97 194 23+60 5 121.5 10.3 115.4 95 95
8G-23 3/27/97 171.5 19+.30 5 121.5 11.2 118.3 97 95
8G-24 4/14/97 193 23+40 6 121.5 7.4 115.4 95 95
I 8G-25 4/14/97 189 22+25 6 121.5 7.2 115.6 95 95
8G-26 4/14/97 185 21+55 6 121.5 5.0 119.7 99 95
8G-27 4/14/97 179 20+45 6 121.5 9.5 113.8 94 95 29
8G-28 4/15/97 174 19+70 6 121.5 5.1 116.2 96 95
I 8G-29 4/15/97 170 19+00 6 121.5 6.8 120.9 100 95
8G-30 4/15/97 167 18+15 6 121.5 9.9 117.0 96 95
8G-31 4/15/97 163.5 17+30 6 121.5 10.5 116.2 96 95
I 8G-32 5/17/97 222 5+76 9 136.5 7.0 129.8 95 95
8-1
1/29/97 161 7 135.0 6.4 133.2 99 95
I 8-2 1/29/97 161 7 135.0 6.8 134.2 99 95
8-3 1/29/97 161 7 135.0 7.8 133.2 99 95
8-4 4/16/97 169 18+45 9 136.5 6.4 129.0 95 95
8-5 4/16/97 178 20+25 9 136.5 5.2 128.3 94 95 8-5
I 8-6 4/16/97 187 21+85 9 136.5 6.2 128.5 94 95 8-6
8-7 4/16/97 193 23+20 9 136.5 5.2 126.0 92 95 8-7
8-8 4/16/97 237 7+40 9 136.5 6.1 130.9 96 95
I 8-9 4/16/97 235.5 7+17 9 136.5 5.2 134.0 98 95
8-10 4/16/97 231 6+70 9 136.5 5.3 131.1 96 95
I
I
I ......... Geotechnics DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-002-01
Incorporated Quail Run Document No. 6-0773
Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-4
I Test Test Elevation Location! Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
No. Date [It I Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
[pet] [%J [pet] [%J [%J
I 8-11 4/16/97 225.5 6+00 9 136.5 6.7 130.2 95 95
8-12 4/17/97 217.5 1+25 9 136.5 5.3 126.1 92 95 8-15
I 8-13 4/17/97 201.5 1+92 9 136.5 5.2 128.3 94 95 8-16
8-14 4/17/97 196 2+52 9 136.5 6.4 128.4 94 95 8-17
8-15 4/17/97 217.5 1+25 9 136.5 6.0 133.2 98 95
I 8-16 4/17/97 201.5 1+92 9 136.5 6.7 132.5 97 95
8-17 4/17/97 196 2+52 9 136.5 4.6 132.4 97 95
8-18 4/17/97 169 18+45 9 136.5 6.0 129.7 95 95
8-19 4/17/97 178 20+25 9 136.5 5.6 132.0 97 95
I 8-20 4/17/97 187 21+85 9 136.5 5.6 133.5 98 95
8-21 4/17/97 193 23+20 9 136.5 4.7 132.3 97 95
8-22 4/17/97 190 1+52 9 136.5 5.3 129.8 95 95
I 8-23 4/17/97 199.5 2+67 9 136.5 5.3 131.4 96 95
8-24 4/17/97 213.5 4+25 9 136.5 5.6 131.9 97 95
8-25 4/17/97 220.5 5+25 9 136.5 5.3 132.4 97 95
I 8-26 5/12/97 223 5+76 9 136.5 6.0 130.0 95 95
CGS-1 3/24/97 236 7+38 5 121.5 9.9 112.3 92 90
CGS-2 3/24/97 235.5 7+30 5 121.5 10.6 115.7 95 90
I CGS-3 3/25/97 232.5 6+90 5 121.5 9.4 115.2 95 90
CGS-4 3/25/97 227 6+20 5 121.5 9.8 113.0 93 90
CGS-5 3/25/97 224 5+83 5 121.5 7.5 113.4 93 90
I CGS-6 3/25/97 222 5+65 5 121.5 9.3 111.7 92 90
CGS-7 3/25/97 212 4+35 5 121.5 8.9 113.9 94 90
CGS-8 3/25/97 209.5 4+00 5 121.5 9.4 112.0 92 90
CGS-9 3/26/97 202 3+15 5 121.5 8.0 117.4 97 90
I CGS-10 3/26/97 196 2+38 5 121.5 9.2 116.0 95 90
CGS-11 3/26/97 189 1+40 5 121.5 8.4 115.3 95 90
CGS-12 3/26/97 206 1+45 5 121.5 10.6 110.8 91 90
I CGS-13 3/26/97 203 1+70 5 121.5 10.9 112.0 92 90
CGS-14 3/26/97 195 2+62 5 121.5 11.3 113.8 94 90
CGS-15 3/26/97 170 18+93 5 121.5 9.1 114.5 94 90
I CGS-16 3/26/97 178 20+45 5 121.5 10.6 110.6 91 90
CGS-17 3/26/97 190.5 21+80 5 121.5 10.9 113.0 93 90
CGS-18 3/26/97 193 23+40 5 121.5 117 113.3 93 90
CGS-19 3/27/97 175 19+80 5 121.5 11.0 117.6 97 90
I CG8-1 3/27/97 207 3+67 9 136.5 7.1 130.2 95 95
CG8-2 3/27/97 227 6+26 9 136.5 7.1 132.1 97 95
I CG8-3 3/27/97 192 1+93 9 136.5 6.7 125.3 92 95 CG8-8
CG8-4 3/28/97 230 6+50 9 136.5 5.4 129.8 95 95
CG8-5 3/28/97 223 5+70 9 136.5 8.0 130.6 96 95
CG8-6 3/28/97 215 4+55 9 136.5 7.0 133.4 98 95
I CG8-7 3/28/97 197 2+45 9 136.5 7.7 133.3 98 95
CG8-8 3/28/97 193 1+93 9 136.5 6.5 131.5 96 95
CG8-9 3/28/97 234.5 7+49 9 136.5 4.5 129.3 95 95
I CG8-10 3/28/97 234.5 7+12 9 136.5 4.7 131.6 96 95
CG8-11 3/28/97 201 1+85 9 136.5 5.5 129.5 95 95
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
........ Geotechnics DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-002-01
Quail Run Document No. 6-0773
Incorporated Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-5
Test Test Elevation Locationl Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
No. Date [ftJ Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
[pel] [%J [pel] [%J [%J
CGB-12 3/26/97 199 2+00 9 136.5 4.5 129.3 95 95
CGB-13 3/26/97 196 2+60 9 136.5 5.8 131.2 96 95
CGB-14 3/26/97 173 19+55 9 136.5 5.6 132.3 97 95
CGB-15 3/26/97 179 20+85 9 136.5 5.6 129.6 95 95
CGB-16 3/26/97 166 22+15 9 136.5 6.4 129.6 95 95
CGB-17 3/26/97 191.5 23+00 9 136.5 7.5 130.3 95 95
SW-1 5/16/97 172.5 19+10 5 121.5 6.6 107.3 66 90 SW-6
SW-2 5/16/97 161.5 20+70 5 121.5 10.4 107.5 68 90 SW-9
SW-3 5/16/97 194.5 23+35 5 121.5 6.6 110.7 91 90
SW-4 5/16/97 169.5 6+65 5 121.5 6.2 113.0 93 90
SW-5 5/16/97 197.5 2+25 5 121.5 7.6 112.4 93 90
SW-6 5/16/97 194.5 2+15 5 121.5 6.5 111.6 92 90
SW-7 5/16/97 191 1+40 5 121.5 5.9 1171 96 90
SW-6 5/16/97 172.5 19+10 5 121.5 9.9 115.9 95 90
SW-9 5/16/97 161.5 20+70 5 121.5 6.6 112.5 93 90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
7.5 ACRE SITE
QUAIL GARDENS DRIVE
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
leG
incOJporated
ill f!! I!! Ii U \iJ Iff/]
MAR 1 7 J993
ENgiNEERING SERVICES
ITV OF ENe/NIT AS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
7.5 ACRE SITE
. QUAIL GARDENS DRIVE
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED FOR:
MIKE ITO
3002 GOPHER CANYON ROAD
VISTA, CALIFORNIA 92084
PREPARED BY:
ICG INCORPORATED
9240 TRADE PLACE, SUITE 100
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92126
JANUARY 22, 1990
JOB NO. 04-5801-001-00-00
LOG NO. 0-1058
I
I
I San Diego
County Office:
9240 Trade Place,
, Suite 100
I San Die90, CA 92126
619/536-1102
, fax: 619/536-1306
I~ Corporate Office:
5 Mason
I/Vine, CA 92718
, 714/951-6666
fax: 714/951-6813
Ii Inland Empire Office:
11906 Orange Tree Lane,
Suite 240
_ Reelands, CA 92374
714/792-4222
fax: 714/798-1844
Orange County Office:
115 Mason
Irvine, CA 92718
714/951-8686
fax: 714/951-7969
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
ICG
,. incorporated
January 22, 1990
Mike Ito
3002 Gopher Canyon Road
Vista, California 92084
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Attention: Mr. Mike Ito
SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
7.5 Acre site
194 Quail Gardens Drive
Encinitas, California
Gentlemen:
As requested, we have completed our geotechnical investigation
for the site of the proposed residential development. Our
findings and recommendations are presented herein.
In our opinion, the primary site conditions which are likely
to impact the proposed development include the presence of
undocumented fills and transitions from bedrock to fill across
the proposed building areas.
and other site conditions are
Recommendations regarding these
provided in the attached report.
If you have any questions after
do not hesitate to contact
convenience. This opportunity
is sincerely appreciated.
reviewing our report, please
the undersigned at your
to be of professional service
Very truly yours,
leG INCORPORATED
w
W. Lee Vanderhurst
President
RMPjWLVjlh
I Geotechnical Services, Construction Inspection and Testin9
II
I:
I,
I]
I:
I:
Ii
11
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
I
I]
II
11
II
Ii
It
Ii
II
1\
II
6.0
7.0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION . . . . .
1.1 Authorization. .
1.2 Scope of Services
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
SITE DESCRIPTION .
SITE
4.1
4.2
4.3
INVESTIGATION
General . . .
Field Exploration
Laboratory Testing Program
GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS .
5.1 Geologic Setting
5.2 Geologic Units
5.2.1 Torrey Sandstone
5.2.2 Fill. . . . . .
5.2.3 Topsoil, Alluvium and Colluvium
5.3 Groundwater
SEISMICITY . . .
6. 1 General . .
6.2 Earthquake Effects
6.2.1 Surface Fault Rupture
6.2.2 Ground Accelerations .
6.2.3 Seismically Induced
Liquefaction . . . . .
6.2.4 Other Hazards . . . .
Settlement
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General Discussion . . . . . .
7.2 Grading and Earthwork. . . . .
7.2.1 Geotechnical Observation
7.2.2 site Preparation
7.2.3 Fill Compaction:
7.2.4 Trench Backfill
7.3 Slope Stability. . . .
7.4 Site Drainage. . . . .
7.5 Foundation Recommendations
7.5.1 General . . . . . .
7.5.2 Shallow Foundations in Fill
7.5.3 Shallow Foundations bearing in Bedrock
7.5.4 Deep Foundations. . . .
7.5.5 Post-Tensioned Slabs. .
7.5.6 Settlement. . . . . . .
7.5.7 Lateral Load Resistance
"
1
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
and
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
13
14
14
15
16
16
16
17
18
18
19
19
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
7.5.8 On-Grade Slabs. . . .
7.5.9 Foundation Observation
7.6 Earth Retaining Structures
7.7 Reactive Soils
7.8 Pavements. . .
7.9 Review of Plans
19
.21
22
22
23
23
8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
ATTACHMENTS
Fiqures
1
2
Location Map
Regional Fault Map
Appendices
A
B
C
D
References
Field Exploration
Laboratory Testing Program
Standard Guidelines for Grading Projects
Plates
1
Geotechnical Map
I
I)
1\
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
7.5 ACRE SITE
194 QUAIL GARDENS DRIVE
ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA
IJ
I]
IJ
I
I
I]
II
II
II
II
I]
I]
If
I]
11
II
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our Geotechnical
Investigation performed for the proposed residential
development. The purpose of this investigation was to explore
and evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site, to provide
recommendations for site preparation, and to discuss the
geotechnical aspects of project design. The location of the
site is shown on the Location Map provided on Figure 1..
1.1 Authorization
This investigation was conducted in accordance with the
authorization of Mr. Mike Ito. . The scope of sel~ices
performed was consistent with our proposal number SDP9-
5383, dated October 30, 1989.
1.2
Scope of Services
Our scope of services for this investigation included the
following:
a. Review of maps, aerial photographs, previous
reports, and publications to outline the known site
conditions.
b. Drilling, downhole logging and sampling of four
bucket auger exploration borings.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I 0
I JOB NO.:
I 04-
~2 i (.
III
-
-
ro
'" , \'
\
-,
:,
Ie
:'>
........ --.-
\
/ 'f)
.\J g.f-
.~:(
. . ") \
.~
1]
,:.1/.
~
.
.
,
,
\
\
Q*-~
L
BL VO ...
2000
FEET
~
ADAPTED FROM U.S.G.S. 7.5'
ENClNITAS (1975) QUADRANGLE
LOCATION MAP
DATE:
FIGURE:
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-;1.058
Page 2
c. Evaluation of pertinent engineering properties of
the soil and bedrock units likely to affec1: the
development, using suitable laboratory tests made
on the samples collected during drilling.
d.
Development
preparation
of
and
geotechnical
earthwork.
criteria
for
site
e. Assessment of general seismic conditions and
geologic hazards affecting the area, and of their
likely impact on the project.
f. Recommendations of appropriate foundation systems
and suitable alternatives, including geotechnical
criteria for foundation design.
2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the
lots with associated streets.
planned for the lots. Minimal
the building pads and roadways.
site will be divided into 25
Single family houses are
grading is planned to create
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The rectangular, 7.5 acre parcel is located west of Quail
Gardens Drive north of its intersection with Encinitas
Boulevard and south of Quail Botanical Gardens, in the City
of Encinitas.
I'
I I;
Ii
II
I]
II
II
11
II
I]
I)
II
I]
I]
I]
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001'-00-00
Log No. 0-:1058
Page 3
Topographically, the site is on a gentle east-facing slope
descending from Quail Terrace which forms the highest portion'
of the property along the western boundary.
Access to the property is from Quail Gardens Drive by two
east-west trending dirt roads. One road runs along the
northern property line, the second road roughly divides the
parcel in two, intersecting another dirt road which is cut
below the terrace bluff. Limited earthwork was required to
create the existing dirt roads and building pads.
Existing structures on the lot include a single family home
on the terrace top in the northwest corner. Another wood
frame building is located below the terrace bluff in the
northwest quadrant. The remainder of the site is covered with
greenhouses. Four greenhouses cover the east-facing slope,
with an additional two located on top of the terrace.
4.0 SITE INVESTIGATION
4.1 General
II
It
11
II
Before starting the field work, we reviewed available
geotechnical literature covering the project area (see
References), and stereo pairs of aerial photographs. The
resulting information, together with our field
exploration, laboratory test results, and previous
experience in the area forms the basis for our
conclusions and recommendations in this report. The
methods used for our work conforms to generally accepted
standards of practice for geotechnical investigations in
southern California.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-.1058
Page 4
4.2 Field Exploration'
The field investigation was performed on December 7t:h and
8th, 1989 and consisted' of drilling four exploratory
borings. The borings were located in thei field by
pacing, and correlation with available maps. Further
accuracy of boring locations is not implied. The
approximate locations of the borings are shown on the
attached Geotechnical Map, Plate 1.
A truck-mounted bucket auger drill rig was used to drill
all four borings, 30 inches in diameter, to a maximum
depth of 55.5 feet. The borings were geologically
logged, bulk and relatively undisturbed samples were
taken, and the holes backfilled. The samples were
returned to the laboratory for testing. The logs of the
borings are presented in Appendix B.
4.3 Laboratorv Testinq Proqram
Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples
considered to be representative of the foundation soils.
Tests were performed in accordance with the methods of
the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) or
other accepted standards. Appendix C contains
descriptions of the test methods and summaries of the
results.
I,
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
Ii
It
.:
Ii
Ii
Ii
I,
I:
Ii
Ii
I]
Ii
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0..,1058
Page 5
5.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
5.1 Geoloqic Settinq
The site is within the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic
province of California. Most of this province consists
of rugge4 mountain ranges, aligned along structurally
controlled northwest to southwest trends. A narrow
coastal plain with terraces and a belt of foothills
follows the west edge of the province. The site is
located within the coastal belt and is underlain by
Eocene sedimentary rocks. The distribution of the
geologic units is shown on the attached Geotechnical Map
(Plate 1).
5.2 Geoloqic Units
5.2.1
Torrev Sandstone
Underlying the entire site is Mid-Eocene Age
Torrey Sandstone composed of white to light
brown, medium to coarse-grained, subangular,
and moderately well indurated arkosic sands.
On the site, weathering has produced an orange
to reddish-brown staining as a result of
oxidation of the iron rich minerals which make
up 5 to 10 percent of the sandstone.
Torrey Sandstone is generally massive
minor near horizontal bedding.
The
with
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I!
II
11
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
5.2.2
5.2.3
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 6
Fill
Previous site development included minor
grading to produce the existing level house
pads and access roads as well as gently sloping
pads for the greenhouses. This grading has
resu1 ted in shallow undocumented fill soils
throughout the site.
The fill material consists of loose to sli.ght1y
dense, dry to wet, silty and clayey sand, with
a noticeable amount of trash, debris and
organic material. This material is not
considered to be compressible and therefore not
additional loads. The estimated locations and
depths of this fill are shown on the attached
Geotechnical Map, Plate 1.
Topsoil. Alluvium and Colluvium (not mapped)
Topsoils, alluvium and colluvium are nearly
absent from the site. In general, the mat.erial
consists of loose, dry silty sand with some dry
or decaying organic material and is believed
to be less than 1 foot thick. This material
is not considered suitable for the support of
additional loads.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 7
5.3 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in any borings. However,
very wet fill soils were encountered in boring B4. A
number of factors may be contributing to this condition,
the location of B4 is topographically low and near the
area of overall site drainage. This appears to be a
perched water condition most likely the result of
irrigation in the green base areas. Excessive irrigation
or big periods of precipitation could result in the
accumulation of water at the bedrock fill contact.
Problems associated with such problems are not
predictable and can be addressed when and if they occur.
6.0 SEISMICITY
6.1 General
The site is considered to be a seismically active area,
as can all of southern California. There are, however,
no known active faults either on or adjacent te) the
project site. Figure 2 shows the known active faults and
major earthquake epicenters in the region and their
geographic relationship to the site. Because these
active faults are at a substantial distance, the seismic
risk at this site is considered to be low to moderate in
comparison to many parts of southern California.
Most seismic hazards at the site are a consequence of
ground shaking caused by events on distant, active
faults. In addition to the information on Figure 2,
Table 1 lists the active faults within 63 miles (100
0
Z
i CD
; I . 0
...
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
"
,
..
./'
.~
,
!~
I":
,
-
1.1 '
,
--I-~
! I
,
~j
b
! .! ;
;;
::
"
~:
I
-+
..
Ii
N
oil
cc
~
CI
iL
a.
<
~
I-
...J
::l
<
lL.
...J
<
Z
o
(!)
w
0:
oil
<
o
I
I riI N
:.:; :.:; .
~ CJ..:! 01010101010101
::> :':;Oril cocnr-fl!'lCOO'll!'l
()/ ~i:>:CJ Or-lr-i"l:1'oao
I :I: rilOCJ . . . . . . .
8 il<riI~ 0000000
~ m
riI
I riI
..:!
m
a'i
I to 0
~ i:>:
il<
I&l riI
E< ~ 0
I&l ::>
I :z: 8~ OOOt{)Mt{)t{)
0
..:l H H::;:: . . . . . . . ~
X Z~ \0 r---\O \0 ['['\0 0
H ~ ~ r-
..: ~ m
I 0 M
I&l ~
i:>: III
0 ,-;
Z M
I ~ .....
== C
I&l N 0
riI :.:; . m
z :.:; CJ..:! 01010101010101
0 ~ :':;Oril NMcoaoor--- ....
I z ::> ~i:>:CJ r-tNr-lLOr-lr-iO
()/ rilOCJ . . . . . . . ~
H :I: il<riI~ 0000000 ~
rI == ~ m r-
8 m
I I&l H M
..:l is
a riI ~
to riI 0
E< ..:! 01
..:l m riI Q)
I ~ H 0 .....
l'l: 0 ::> . 0
rz. riI 8 LOlOCOOLOIOO
~ i:>: H . . . . . . . C
0 CJ Z \.Ot'\Of"'-.l'!'C""'- III
~ tIl
I ~ ::;:: ~
r:l ~ ""'
0
i:>: H
X >.
I 0 ~ .j.l
rz. .....
>< riI 3:ril3:3:3:ril3: CJ~
ril8 tIlZ ZtIlZZ N
Eo< CJH >.<0
H ~tIl . . . . . . . 'Om
I C) .,...-r-t..-t.r-t-l""'Io.-to,-i ::lMQ)
H 8::;:: aeeaeee .j.l~>
:z: tIlO tIl .....
to Hi:>: \OLOr-lll'lNr-l\D 1Il.j.l
H 0"- NNN t{)t{)t{) >'IIlU
I&l .j.l.....~
I to Q)'"
""' '0 >.
IllH,-;
tIl ,-; '0
'0 III Q)
I '0 U C..... .j.l
0 ..... Ill.j.l III
0 a C a
III :3: III '0 Q) .....
.!< Q) ..... Q).j.l .j.l
I C Q) ,-; Q) Q) 0 III
III C.j.lOOl tIltllil< riI
m '" o C.j.l C
C >'Q)CH
0 Q) 0 ca..... I
'0 ,....... III Q) U.j.l
I III 0 UCJ,-; Ill,.. MNM '"
C C III CJ"JO
0..... Z Q) 0-
,.. III III C s:: :.
0,-;Ill0llllllQ)
I CJriI..:!i:>:tIltllZ
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 8
kilometers) of the site and the maximum probable and
credible earthquakes on those faults. By definition, the
maximum probable earthquake for a given fault is the
largest earthquake likely to occur within a 100 year
interval. The maximum credible earthquake is the largest
event that appears capable of occurring under the
presently known tectonic setting. Generally, the ma.ximum
probable earthquake is used in the design of non-
critical structures.
6.2 Earthauake Effects
6.2.1
Surface Fault Rupture
In our opinion, no credible risk of surface
rupture exists at the project site. No known
active faults or potentially active faults
cross the site.
6.2.2
Ground Accelerations
I
11
II
In our opinion, based on information now
available, the most significant event likely
to affect the project will be a 7.0 magnitude
event on the Rose Canyon Fault. For the Rose
Canyon Fault event, we estimate a peak bedrock
acceleration within the project area of about
0.50g. Design of structures should conform to
the requirements of the governing agencies, as
well as to the standard practices of the
Structural Engineers Association of California.
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
6.2.3
I
I
I
6.2.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 9
Seismicall v Induced Settlement and Liquefaction
Because of the high relative densities of the
bedrock which underlies the site, liquefecction
or seismically induced settlements are not
considered a hazard.
other Hazards
Because of the high relative densities of the
bedrock at the site and because of the site's
elevation above sea level, hazards such as
seismically induced slope failures, tsunamis,
or seiches are not considered hazards.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 10
7.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 General Discussion
No geotechnical conditions were apparent during our
investigation which would preclude the site development
as planned. The site condition which should have the
greatest impact on the proposed development is the
possibility of cut/fill transitions being created below
building pads during grading, and the presence of
undocumented fill soils located across the site.
We recommend that the undocumented fill soils and topsoil
currently located at the site be removed down to
competent bedrock and replaced as compacted fill. The
on-site soils should be suitable for reuse as fill
provided all organics and deleterious material are
removed.
One of the following alternatives may be employed to
decrease the risk of movement of foundations and slabs
due to differential settlement where structures straddle
cut/fill transitions. They are given in order of
increasing risk.
a. In areas where the fill depth is relatively shallow,
footings can be extended through the fill to bear
directly on the underlying bedrock. Where fill
depths are deeper, the portions of the structure
placed over fill can be supported on a deep
foundation system such as drilled caissons.
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 11
I
I
I
I
I
b. Use a post-tensioned slab or other structurally
designed system able to tolerate the expected
differential settlements (placed directly on
compacted soils or bedrock). The design should be
based upon differential settlement estimates provided
herein.
c. Over excavate the cut portion of the pad to a depth
of at least 3 feet below the bottom of the footing
and replace it with compacted fill. Typical shallow
foundations can be used to support the structures
under these conditions.
I
I
I
I
d. In areas where structures will not cross a cut fill
transition typical shallow foundation recommendations
may be used.
I
I
I
I
I
I
The remainder of Section 7.0 presents our recommendations
in detail. These recommendations are based on empirical
and analytical methods typical of the standard of
practice in southern California. If these recommenda-
tions appear not to cover any specific feature o:E the
project, please contact our office for additions or
revisions to our recommendations.
7.2 Gradinq and Earthwork
7.2.1 Geotechnical Observation
During grading, San Diego Geotechnical Consul-
tants, Inc. should provide observation and testing
services continuously. Such observations are
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hike Ito
January 22, 1990
7.2.2
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 12
considered essential to identify field condi.tions
that differ from those anticipated by the
preliminary investigations, to adjust desigrns to
actual field conditions, and to determine that the
grading is in general accordance with the
recommendations of this report. Our pers:onnel
should perform sufficient testing of any fill
placed to support our opinion as to wh.ether
compaction recommendations have been complied
with.
Site Preparation
a. General: Site preparation should begin with
the removal of all topsoil, vegetation and
deleterious material. Areas of existing
undocumented fills should be removed and
replaced as compacted fill. Prior to beginning
fill placement the exposed soils should be
scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches,
brought to near optimum moisture content and
recompacted to 90 percent of maximum density.
In general, the on-site soils should be
suitable for use as fill in the excavation.
In the unlikely event that large boulders or
localized areas of hard rock are encountered,
rocks greater than 12 inches in dimension
should not be incorporated into the fill.
b. Deepened footinqs: If structures on transition
lots are supported on deepened footings or
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January:.. :1990
7.2.3
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 13
drilled piers, no special site preparation is
considered necessary.
c. Post-Tensioned Slabs: If post-tensioned slabs
are used to mitigate the cut fill transition
conditions, no special site preparation of the
building area is considered necessary.
d. Over-excavation: If deepened footings or
drilled piers bearing in bedrock are not used
to support structures on transition lots, then
the following alternative is recommended. The
building area, and five feet beyond the
perimeter, should be over-excavated so that all
bedrock materials are removed to a depth of at
least 3 feet below proposed finish grade. The
excavation bottom should then be observed by
our representative to determine that subsurface
conditions are as expected and that the Clver-
excavation is of sufficient depth. The
excavation should then be brought to the
proposed finish grade using compacted lif1:s of
soil.
Fill Compaction
All fill and backfill placed in association with
site development should be accomplished at
slightly over optimum moisture conditions and
using equipment that is capable of producing a
uniformly compacted product. The minimum relative
compaction recommended for fill is 90 percent of
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-.1058
Page 14
maximum density based on ASTM D1557 (modified
Proctor) . Sufficient observation and testing
should be performed by the geotechnical consultant
so that an opinion can be rendered as to the
degree of compaction achieved.
Representative samples of imported materials and
on site soils should be tested by the geotechnical
consultant in order to evaluate the maximum
density, optimum moisture content, and where
appropriate, shear strength, consolidation" and
expansion characteristics of the soil.
During grading operations, soil types other than
those analyzed in the geotechnical reports may be
encountered by the contractor. The geotechnical
consul tant should be notified to evaluate the
suitability of these soils for use as fill and as
finish grade soils.
7.2.4 Trench Backfill
All trench backfill should be compacted by
mechanical means in uniform lifts of 8 t.o 12
inches. The backfill should be uniformly
compacted to at least 90 percent of ASTM D1557.
7.3 Slope Stabilitv
Although no grading plans were available at the time of
this report the site topography suggests that both cut
and fill slopes will be created during site grading.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ita
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 15
Our calculations indicate that fill slopes should be
stable up to a height of 40 feet at a slope ratio of 2:1
(horizontal:vertical). Cut slopes should be stable at
a slope ratio of 2:1 up to heights of 70 feet.
7.4 Site Drainaqe
Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how
well the runoff waters drain from the site. This is true
both during construction and over the entire life of the
structure. The ground surface around structures should
be graded so that water flows rapidly. away from the
structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed
to achieve this depends on the prevailing landscape.. In
general, we recommend that pavement and lawn areas within
five feet of buildings slope away at gradients of at
least two percent. Densely vegetated areas shoUld have
minimum gradients of at least five percent away from
buildings in the first five feet. Densely veget:ated
areas are considered those in which the planting type and
spacing is such that the flow of water is impeded.
Planters should be built so that water from them will
not seep into the foundation, slab, or pavement areas.
Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum
necessary to sustain landscaping plants. Should
excessive irrigation, waterline breaks, or unusually high
rainfall occur, saturated zones or "perched" ground"later
may develop in fill soils.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 16
7.5 Foundation Recommendations
7.5.1 General
The possible transition conditions at the site
create the risk of future differential movement
of foundations and. interior slabs. The previously
discussed recommendations will serve to mitigate
the future movements. Our recommendations are
considered generally consistent with methods'
typically used in southern California. other
alternatives may be available. Except in areas
where deep or deepened foundations are used,
typical shallow foundations may be used to support
the proposed structures. 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 proj ect structural engineer,
incorporating the geotechnical parameters
described in the following sections.
7.5.2 Shallow Foundations in Fill
If the is located such that all footings will bear
entirely in fill soils the following foundation
design parameters should be applicable.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Allowable Soil Bearing:
Minimum Footing Width:
Minimum Footing Depth:
Minimum Reinforcement:
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 17
2000 psf (allow a one-
third increase for short-
term wind or seismic loads)
12 inches
18 inches
1. No. 4 bar at both top
and bottom in continuous
footings, or design as
simply supported beam
capable of supporting the
applied loads over a span
of 4 feet, whichever is
greater.
7.5.3 Shallow Foundations bearinq in Bedrock
If the is located such that all footings will bear
entirely in bedrock, the following foundation
design parameters should be applicable. These
recommendations will also apply to deepened
footings on transition lots.
Allowable Soil Bearing:
Minimum Footing width:
Minimum Footing Depth:
Minimum Reinforcement:
3500 psf (allow a one-
third increase for short-
term wind or seismic loads)
12 inches
18 inches
1 No. 4 bar at both top
and bottom in continuous
footings, or design as
simply supported beam
capable of supporting the
applied loads over a span
of 4 feet, whichever is
greater.
I;
Ii
Ii
Ii
I]
II
I
I
Mike Ita
January 22, 1990
7.5.4
I
I
11
I
II
7.5.5
II
I)
II
I
Il
I]
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 18
Deep Foundations
For structures which are situated across a deeper
cut fill transition the use of a deep foundation
system may be considered. Caissons can be used
to support the portion of the structure located
over bedrock while conventional spread footings
are used to support the cut portion. The
following recommendations are for the design of
drilled caissons. Resistance to lateral loads can
be provided if necessary, once pile diameters and
lengths are calculated.
Caisson tip pressure:
10,000 psf
3 feet (into undis-
turbed bedrock)
Minimum tip embedment:
Minimum caisson diameter:
18 inches
Post-Tensioned Slabs
A structurally designed, post-tensioned slab-on
grade may be used to mitigate the effects of
settlement due to the transition condition. The
system consists of a slab reinforced with tendons
which are tensioned after the concrete is cured.
This method is typically used in conjunction with
conventionally reinforced stiffening beams" We
recommend the following design parameters, based
on criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
7.5.6
7.5.7
7.5.8
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-.1058
Page 19
Differential Settlement: 1 in.
Allowable Bearing Capacity: 2000'psf
Settlement
The anticipated total and differential settlement
for the proposed structure should be within
tolerable limits provided that the recommendations
of this report are followed. In general, total
settlements are estimated to be less than 1 inch,
and differential settlement is expected to be less
than ~ inch. It is recommended that we review the
actual foundation plans to evaluate the footing
configurations and loading conditions.
Lateral Load Resistance
Lateral loads against structures may be resisted
by friction between the bottoms of footings and
the supporting soil. A coefficient of friction
of .4 is recommended for both fill and bedrock
materials. Alternatively, a passive pressure of
250 pcf is recommended for both fill and bedrock
materials. If friction and passive pressure are
combined, the passive pressure value shoUld be
reduced by one-third.
On-Grade Slabs
a. Interior slabs: Slabs should be designed by
a structural engineer for the anticipated
loading based on a modulus of subgrade reaction
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 20
of 150 kips/ft3 for slabs on the native on-
site soils. Slabsshould be at least 4 inches
thick and should be reinforced with at least
#3 reinforcing bars on 24 inch centers, each
way. Crack control joints should be provided
in all slabs, spaced on 15 to 20 foot centers.
b. Moisture Protection for Slabs: Concrete slabs
constructed on soil ultimately cause the
moisture content to rise in the underlying
soil. This results from continued capillary
rise and the termination of normal evapotrans-
piration. Because normal concrete is perme-
able, the moisture will eventually penetrate
the slab unless some protection is provided.
This may cause mildewed carpets, lifting or
discoloration of floor tile, or similar
problems.
To minimize these problems, suitable moisture
protection measures should be used. Various
alternatives exist, such as concrete toppings
or additives, or synthetic moisture-resistant
membranes. Information on the usage, instal-
lation, and warranty should be obtained from
the manufacturer if these products are used.
The effectiveness of such measures can be
improved by installing a capillary break under
the membrane or damp-proofed slab. For a
capillary break with a minimum thickness of
four inches, the following criteria should be
observed:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
7.5.9
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 21
1)' It 'should consist of sand,
gravel, or crushed rock having a
maximum particle size of 3/4-inch or
less;
2) Not more that 10% (by weight)
should pass the No. 16 U.S. Standard
Sieve:
3) Not more than 5%
should pass the No. 200
Sieve.
(by weight)
U.S Standard
If waterproofing membranes are installed bene-
ath concrete slabs, at-least one inch of sand
should be placed between the membrane and the
slab to decrease the likelihood of curing
problems in the concrete.
Foundation Observation
All foundation excavations should be observed by
the geotechnical consultant prior to placement of
forms, reinforcement, or concrete. The observa-
tion will confirm that the soil conditions are as
anticipated and that the intent of our recommen-
dations have been complied with. The excavations
should be trimmed to design dimensions and should
be clear of all loose slough.
Ii
I
I
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 22
7.6 Earth Retaininq structures
Cantilever retaining walls backfilled with non-
expansive soil should be designed for an active earth
pressure approximated by an equivalent fluid pressure of
38 Ibs/ft3. The active pressure should be used for
walls free to yield at the top at least 0.1 percent of
the wall height. For walls restrained so that such
movement is not permitted, an equivalent fluid pressure
of 60 Ibs/ft3 should be used; based on at-rest soil con-
ditions. The above pressures do not consider any
sloping backfill, surcharge loads, or hydrostatic
pressures. If these are applicable, they will increase
the lateral pressures on the wall and we should be
contacted for additional recommendations.
Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least
90 percent relative compaction, based on ASTM D1557.
Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved
adequate structural strength. Heavy compaction equip-
ment which could cause distress to walls should not be
used.
7.7 Reactive Soils
Our testing program indicated that the soils on-site
contain sulphate contents high enough to be detrimental
to type I portland cement. Therefore, we recommend that
Type II cement be used in all concrete which will be in
contact with soil.
..
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 23
7.8 Pavements
In designing a suitable pavement section for the
proposed residential streets we have used an R-Value of
17. A Traffic Index of 4.5 was assumed in our design.
The project civil engineer should review these values to
determine if they .are appropriate. Based on these as-
sumptions, the recommended pavement section is as
follows:
Asphaltic Concrete Aggregate Base
Thickness Thickness
Internal Residential
streets, T.I.=4.5
3 inches
6 inches
,The upper 12 inches of pavement subgrade should be scar-
ified, brought to approximately optimum moisture con-
tent, and compacted to at least 95 percent of ASTM D-
1557. Aggregate base should conform to Section 26 of the
California Department of Transportation Manual, and
should be uniformly compacted to at least 95 percent
relative compaction.
7.9 Review of Plans
When the grading plans and foundation plans are devel-
oped, they should be forwarded to the geotechnical
consultant review. The recommendations of this report
are based on assumptions regarding the proposed develop-
ment. Our review will confirm these assumptions and
evaluate if the intent of the recommendations of this
report have been complied with.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 24
8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INvESTIGATION
Our investigation was performed 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 in-
cluded in this report.
The samples taken and used for testing and the observations
made are believed representative of the project site; how-
ever, 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 information 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.
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.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I)
Mike Ito
January 22, 1990
Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00
Log No. 0-1058
Page 25
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date.
However, 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 broadening of knowledge.
Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated
wholly or partially by changes outside our control. There-
fore, this report is subject to review and should not be
relied upon after a period of three years.
***
ICG INCORPORATED
~~
~;?~~
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E.
Vice President, Principal Engineer
w~~
W. Lee Vanderhurst, C.E.G. 1125
Registration Expires: 6-30-90
President, Principal Geologist
Erik J. Nelson, P.E. C 44102
Expiration Date: 6-30-93
Project Engineer
~j;~
Victoria stocker
Staff Geologist
EJN/AFB/VS/WLV/en/lh
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX A
References
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1.
Bowles, J. E. 1982, "Foundation Analysis and Design", McGraw Hill.
2.
Ploessel and Slosson, 1974, "Repeatable High Ground
Acceleration From Earthquakes", California Geology, California
Division of Mines and Geology, September~
Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., 1982, "Ground Motions and Soil
Liquefaction During Earthquakes", Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute, Berkeley, California.
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX B
Field Exploration
.... GRAVELS
CI:l ~ MORE THAN
~ a: 0
- "" Q HALF OF
01-'"
CI:l., COARSE
Q :< ~ FRACTION IS
Uo-W
W 0 z !:! 1 LARGER THAN
~ Yo ~.. NO.4 SIEVE
c(.J-J.IJ
a:~;->
,.. -a:w
..., ...-
W;::ltl)
CI:l:%:.:J:
a:1-~
<w0
Oa:-
og
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
SILTS AND CLAYS
I
I
-
-
I
-
-
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CI:l :::1
..J I.i,. c:_.
(5 0 ~ "'I
Cf.Ju.-J,lU
....; < >f
o. ~!!!!
w=.:ocn
Z%c:lQ
-<l!lC-Q
< '1:....'"
a:1-. .
ClWiC~1
a:w
wO......
Z~c.
--~%
II. ...
-;.
J
[]
I
IJ
I
DEFINITION OF TERMS
PRIMARY DIVISIONS ISYMSOLSI SECONDARY DIVISIONS
CLEAN
GRAVELS
(LESS THAN
5.. FINESl
::_ G W W.II ar.a.d ar.nill. g..v.l....ana mIlUur... IIltl. or no
....:... fine..
GP I Poorly ar.o.d arav... or ar.v.t-oana mllttW'll" 1I1t1. or
I no f.....
GM ISDty ar.nl.. granH-.1It mllttur... non-,tla.tlc
IIn...
GC Clav.y ar.v.... gr.nt-oand-elay m'Uur... Dlaatl~
line..
W.II arad.d .and.. grav.'1y .ana.. IIttl. cr no fln...
GRAVEL
WITH FINES
SANDS
MORE THAN
HALF OF
COARSE
FRACTION IS
SMALLER THAN
NO.4 SIEVE
CLEAN
SANDS
(LESS THAN
5,. FINESl
s P PoOrly grad.d ._. or gr.v.lly und.. little or no fin...
SANDS
WITH FINES
8M Silty unda. .an_llt mlxtur... noft-lllaallO f.....
SILTS AND CLAYS
L.IQUIO L.IMIT IS
L.ESS THAN 50,.
Clay.., ..nd.. a.nd-etay mlxtur... Illaallc line..
ML jlnorg.n,o aUI. .nd v.,., fin. aana.. rook 11our. aUI., or
Clav.., fin. aana. or clay.y alll. w'tll alight ala.tlCllv.
CL Inara.nlo cl.va of law to m.alum olullclly. gr.nllyl
ct..,.. sanay ct.y.. te.n ctava.
OL lorg.nlo allta .na arg.nic aUty cl.ya of 10. ala.tlclly.1
InOrGaniC .ilh. mia.c.aua or dlatomacaoua fln. ..nay
or .d.y .0.... .....te ad...
SILTS AND CLAYS
LIQUID L.IMIT IS
GREATER THAN 60,.
Inarg.nlc clay. 01 high pla.tlclly, tal clay..
Organtc cl.y. of m.dlum to high plaatlOlty. org.nlO
aliI..
P t P.al .nd alh.r highly arg.nlc .0U..
GRAIN SIZES
200
COBBLES BOULDERS
SAND
FINE MEDIUM COARSE
.0 10 .
U.s. STANDARD SERIES SIEVE
GROUNDWATER L.EVEL AT TIME OF DRILLING:
GRAVEL
COARSE
3/~. 3. 12"
CLEAR SQUARE SIEVE OPENINGS
GROUNDWATER LEVEL MEASURED L.ATER IN STANDPIPE.
L.OCATION OF SAMPLE TAKEN USING A STANDARD SPLIT TUBE SAMPLER.
2-INCH 0.0.. I-SIB-INCH 1.0. DRIVEN WITH"A UOPOUND HAMMER FALLiNG
30-INCHES.
L.OCATION OF SAMPLE TAKEN. USING A MODIFIED CALIFORNIA SAMPLER.
3-1/1I-INCH 0.0.. WITH 2-1/2-INCH 1.0. LINER RINGS. DRIVEN USING THE
WEIGHT OF KELLY BAR (LARGE DIAMETER BORINGSl OR USING A 140 POUND
HAMMER FALLING 3D-INCHES (SMALL DIAMETER BORING):
L.OCATION OF SAMPLE TAKEN USING A 3-INCH 0.0. THIN-WALLED TUBE SAMPLER
(SHELBY TUBE) HYDRAULICALLY PUSHED.
LOCATION OF BULK SAMPLE TAKEN FROM AUGER CUTTINGS.
KEY TO LOGS - UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM 0-2487)
JOB NO.: DATE: FIGURE'
04- JAN ARY 1990 B-1
I
DATE OBSERVED: 12-7-S9 METHOD OF DRILLING: 30" Bucket Auger
I LOGGED BY: VS GROUND ELEVATION: 253' LOCATION: See MaD
~ 0 UJ ~ >-IL
l- I- UJ ...J UJX 11:0 LOG OF BORING NO. 1
UJ 'z 0 mUJ n. On.
I UJ lLo 0 II:...J E II:~ UJ~
IL H.... IL :JI-
~ " :In. << 0>- Sheet I of 2
"'I- '" I-z
"'<< '" I-E "'UJ <<I- SOIL TEST
I: <<0 3 "'<< " ....1- ...J....
I- c:J.... 0 8'" ...J Oz n.",
n. ...J Z :J EO Zz OESCRIPTION
I UJ m :J m 0 ....UJ
0
0 0
" TORREY SANDSTONE (Tt): Reddish
I , 1 brown SANDSTONE, fine to medium
: grained, subangular, moist, medium
-' dense to dense, moderate to well
- indurated, massive, occasional
I 5- , pockets of unweathered gray
- SANDSTONE. Some areas contain
higher percentage of dark minerals
- >5%
I - '
- ,
I 10-
- ,
I -
15- 10 =-
I -
- ,
-
I - ' ,
20-
- Small noddules of dark clayey SILT
I I,:' '
- J<
I 25- Clay seams with roots as deep as 40'
-
I -
- ,,' Very occasional small rounded gravel
- " '.
I 30-
- " 18~
::,
I
35- :',
I ' '
-
I - .' , ' From 3S' to 40', Thin bedding to laminated
- , 2" to I/S" dipping to south 3
. . ~. "or"
~~Bio' .: ,I leG Incorporated I :
II I04-5Svl-001-OO-OO. B-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
I
I
-I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DATE OBSERVED: 12-7-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: 30" Bucket Auger
LOGGED BY: VS GROUND ELEVATION: 253' LOCATION: See Map
~ 0 UJ ~ >-IL
l- I- UJ .J w~ "'0 lOG OF BORING NO. 1
UJ 'z 0 mUJ 0. 00.
UJ 1L0 0 '" "'~
IL HH IL "'.J ([ :>1- UJ~
~ Ull- , :>0. Ul I-z 0>- Sheet 2 of 2
Ul([ Ul 1-", UlUJ ([I- SOIL TEST
J: ([0 " Ul([ '" HI- .JH
I- 5H 0 ~Ul .J Oz o.Ul
0. .J DESCRIPTION
UJ m z :> "'0 Zz
0 :> m 0 HUJ
40 0
minerals such as micas & hematite
- . @ Contact: Slightly undulating near
r
-. . \ horizontal yellow seam below ,
,
- I occasional small rounded quartz ,
... J
,
- .. gravel ,
, ,
45- t____~______~_______________.
- .. Color change: unweathered light gray
.. SANDSTONE, fine grained
-. subangular, moist, dense
- . .. Well indurated, Biotite and other dark
-. CI minerals make for a salt & pepper I.
40/ -.
50 6"
Total Depth 50'
No Water
- No Caving
-
- ,.
55-
-
-
-
-
60-
- .
-
-
-
65-
-
-
-
-
70-
-
75-
-
-
-
-
NB~L.: leG Incorporated IF :
04-5801-001-00-00 B-3
-,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-.
i
i
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
DATE OBSERVED:
LOGGED BY: VS
~
I-
W
W
11.
~
J:
I-
a.
w
o
o
- '.
-
- '..'
-
5- .......
- ..'
-. ....
20
-
-
-
25-
-
-
30-
-
-
-
-
35-
'z
11.0
HH
'"I-
'"<I
<Io
;jH
.... fa ~
o OJ w a.
o II:.J >:
11. ::Ja. <I
" I- E: (()
~ 00 <I ~
o tj UJ ...J
.J Z ::J
OJ::J OJ
.. .
<. u ~
20/ =:J
10"
'~,=,B.: ^^
04-5801-001-00-uO
12-7-89
GROUND ELEVATION: 230' LOCATION: See Map
METHOD OF DRILLING: 30" Bucket Auger
UJX
II:~
::JI-
I-z
lOW
HI-
Oz
>:0
o
>-11.
11:0
Oa.
W~
0>-
<II-
.JH
a.,"
ZZ
HW
o
LOG OF BORING NO.2
Sheet I of 2
DESCRIPTION
TORREY SANDSTONE (Ttl: Reddish
brown SANDSTONE, fine to medium
grained, subangular, well indurated,
moist, dense, massive
-----------------------------
Crossbedding: Reddish Brown
SANDSTONE with concentrations of ;
black minerals in bands io 1/4" I
,
,
,
,
;.. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -'.-
i Reddish brown and black silty ,
"
: SANDSTONE very fine grained "
" medium to well indurated, moist, "
I (
;', occasional cobbles to 3", well ,,,
I If
I,' rounded "I
'I ,
------------------------____.1\
I, 't
',Nearly all black SANDSTONE, very fine, 'I
:: friable "
, I,
L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _'I
:COBBLE CONGLOMERATE: Matrix ,
,
: composed of black SANDS, @ 20', ,
, grading downward to a reddish :
: brown silty SANDSTONE, cobbles ,
, from <2" to 6". Most cobbles dark :
: volcanics, well rounded ,
, .
----------------------------\
:Orange brown SANDSTONE, fine to '
I medium grained, moderate to well "
.
I indurated, moist, dense, massive I
~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --~
Gray brown and orange brown
SANDSTONE, fine to medium
grained well indurated, massive
(;, '"
, onrl . ,
leG Incorporated
SOIL TEST
I tJl.>UJH.: B-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DATE OBSERVED: 12-7-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: 30" Bucket Auger
LOGGED BY: VS GROUND ELEVATION: 230' LOCATION: See MaD
^ 0 W ^ >-IL
.... .... W -l w~ Il:u LOG OF BORING NO.2
W 'z 0 lOW IL OIL
W 1L0 0 Il:Y
IL IL Il:-l " ::I.... wY
Y HH "- ::IlL <I u>- Sheet 2 of 2
"'.... "' ....z
"'<I "' ...." "'w <I.... SOIL. TEST
:c <Iu 3 "'<I '" H.... -lH
.... 5H 0 8"' -l Oz IL",
IL -l Z ::I "a Zz DESCRIPTION
w 10 ::I 10 U
0 HW
"40 0
SANDSTONE, fine to medium
- grained, moist, well indurated,
- dense, massive
@ 40', 1/4" thick lens of gray SILTSTONE
(ML) horizontal, not continuous
45- around the boring, moist, very stiff
-----------------------------
- NOTE: Drilled to 50' 12/07/89
- continued to 55' 12/08/89
50- @ 48', 1/4" to 4" thick lens of gray
- Slightly clayey SILTSTONE (ML),
moist, very stiff horizontal,
discontinuous around boring
-
-
55-
- Total Depth 55.5'
- No Water
- No Caving
-
60-
-
65-
70-
-
-
-
75-
-
-
-
-
NB}~lJ.: leG Incorporated I J<!ljUKE:
04-5801-001-00-00 B-5
I
Ii
II
I]
Ii
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I]
I!
II
II
I]
I]
DATE OBSERVED: 12-8-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: 30" Bucket Auger
LOGGED BY: VS GROUND ELEVATION: 202' LOCATION: See MaD
~ 0 W ~ >-..
,.. ,..
W 'z 0 W .1 wX "'u lOG OF BORING NO. 3
W "0 0 mOl a. "'~ 00.
.. .. "'.1 " ",.. w~
~ HH , "a. 0: u>- Sheet I of I
.,,.. ., "'z
"0: ., ,.." "w 0:,.. SOIL TEST
:c O:u 3 "0: " H,.. .1H
,.. dH 0 8" .1 Oz a..,
a. .1 z " "0 zz DESCRIPTION
w m " m u
0 HW
0 0
TOPSOIL: Dark brown silty SAND,
- dry to slightly moist, medium dense
- .. . TORREY SANDSTONE (TO: Light
5- ...... gray brown and orange brown
..:. SANDSTONE (broad cross bedding
-. up to 2') fine to medium grained,
.. . =-
12/ \ moderate to well indurated, moist, \
- \ dense, massive \
10" I I
- :... ----~-----------------------,
10- More gray than orange brown
- ....
_. I" .
...... -----------------------------
: .. Occasional brown horzontal clay seams
- .
15- containing roots
-
-
- Orange brown cross bedding, massive
-
20- <.
- tI
- 12/
......:. 10"
-----------------------------
.\. More orange
25 -----------------------------
- :... Slightly darker gray and orange
-.
-
-
30
- Total Depth 30'
No Water
No Caving
-
-
35-
NB nj~~ .: leG Incorporated IF1GUHt.: B-6
04-5801-001-00-00
I
DATE OBSERVED: 12-8-89 METHOD OF DRILLING: 30" Bucket Auger
I, LOGGED BY: VS GROUND ELEVATION:~ LOCATION: See Map
~ 0 "' ~ >-IL
.... .... "' J WX "'0 LOG OF BORING NO.4
"' 'z 0 00.
I' "' 0 IDOl a. "'~
1L0 "'J " "'~
IL HH U. :J....
" :Jo. <I 0>- Sheet I of I
"'.... ...." '" ....z SOIL TEST
"'<I '" "'"' <I....
!: <Io 3 "'<I '" H.... JH
.... ;:jH 0 8'" J Oz a.",
a. J DESCRIPTION
Ii "' ID z :J "0 Zz
0 :J ID 0 H"'
0 0
FILL: Brown silty SAND (SM),
Ii contains debris. Wet to very damp,
lose to slightly dense
Ii 5 2
Ii Contact determined from cuttings
No down hole logging below fill
I 10 TORREY SANDSTONE ITt): Gray
orange brown SANDSTONE, fine to
medium grained. Moderate to well
I indurated, moist, dense formation,
massive. Occasionally silty or clayey
15 pockets
I 14/
10"
II 20
I
II 25
Ii
I] 30
Ii Total Depth 32'
No Water but very moist @ surface
35 Minor caving in FILL zone
II
Ii
leG Incor orated I
I] B-7
I
I
I
I
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
Laboratory Testing Program
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
Selected representative samples of soils encountered were tested
using test methods of the American Society for Testing and Mater-
ials, or other generally accepted standards. 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 samples and clas-
sification in accordance with ASTM 02487. The soil classifi.cat-
ions are shown on the Boring Logs.
Particle Size Analvsis: A particle size analysis was performed in
accordance with ASTM 0422. The grain size distribution was used
to determine presumptive strength parameters used to develop foun-
dation design criteria. The results are provided on the following
Figures C-l.
EXDansion Test: Expansion tests were performed using Uni.form
Building Code Test Method 29-2. Test results are provided on the
following Table C-l
Direct Shear Tests: Unconsolidated, undrained direct shear t.ests
were performed in accordance with ASTM 03080. The remolded sa.mple
was remolded to 90 percent of the modified proctor density and
tested in a saturated condition using normal loads of 1 ksf, 2
ksf, and 4 ksf. The results of the tests are presented in the
attached Figure C-2.
Moisture-Densitv RelationshiD: Laboratory tests were performed in
accordance with ASTM D1557. A mechanically operated rammer was
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I]
used during the compaction process. Test results are presented on
Table C-2.
In-situ Moisture/Densitv: Thein-place moisture content and dry
unit weight of selected samples were determined using rela"tively
undisturbed' samples from the liner rings of a 2.5 inch 1D Modified
California Sampler. The dry unit weight and moisture content are
shown on the attached Boring Logs.
Sulfate Content and Resistivitv: The sulfate content and
resistivity of selected samples were, conducted to determine the
reactivity potential of the soil with portland cement. Results of
these tests are presented in Table C-3.
R-value: R-Value tests were performed in
California test method 301, to calculate the
characteristics of the subgrade soils. Results
presented on Figure C-3
accordance with
pavement support
of this te~;t are
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sample
Location
B-3 @ 9-10'
TABLE C-l
Results of expansion Index tests
Sample
Descriotion
Gray Brown SAND
TABLE C-2
Expansion
Index
o
Results of Moisture Density Relationships
Sample
Location
B-2 @ 4'
Samole
B-4 @ 0-4'
Sample
Description
Lt. Red Brown SAND
TABLE C-3
Maximum
Densitr,
(lb/ft )
127.7
Results of Sulfate tests
Sulfate content (porn)
Between 400 and 800
UBC 29-2
Expansion
Potential
Non-Expansive
ASTM D-1557
Optimum
Moisture
Content (%)
9.8
Resistivitv (ohm-em)
2134
II
I >-
<
...
I t.l
I
I
0-
I ...
0;
I
I
I
I III
~
...
I
0
I z
<
r/) ~
=
0
I III
~
I III
r/)
a:
<
0
I t.l
I ...
w
~
a:
"
I
I
I
o
o
-
PERCENT PASSING
o
'"
o
III
o
..
o
CD
o
'"
o
..
o
'"
o
'"
~
,
/ /
./ V ~ V
~ ,/ V
... .....
~ ~
/' .... ---
, ~ I'"
I
1
~
o
a:
<
00
Zo
<'"
0-
0)
.;
:)8
,-
r/)
w
~
0)
w
>
III
0;0
..
o
'"
o
-
..
:.,.
...
-
c.
...
-
:.,.
...
"'0
~
o
'"
o
III
o
..
o
..
o
'"
o
..
o
'"
o
'"
o
-
PERCENT PASSING
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
o
0-
o
q
0
~
r/)
~.
z '"'
0 0; i
i= 0
w <(
< 0 '"
t.l ~ ~
~
'" Cl 0;
<II ~ I
< ~ :I
...
t.l '"
I
:I
'"
...
A-
'"
x
W
0
~
>-
0- I
t.l I
i=
'"
<
...
A-
!:
~
:i
0 I I
:;
Q
...
...
0
III ~
:Ie
>-
f1)
-
0-
W
W
...
- - ..
:c ... I
0- 0
A-
W
0
ci
z
" '" ...
~ III III
a:
0
III
-
q
r/)
a:
w
0-
w
~
_:i
....
0_
~
I
III
~
r/)
III
...
2
0-
a:
<
...
q
-
o
o
-
I BORING DEPTH COHESION, ANGLE OF SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
NO. (FEET) (PSF) FRICTION,o
82 0-4 c e SILTY SAND(REMOLOED SAMPLE)
I 4000
I
3000
I ~
LL
(/) PEAK
0..
- e=33.5'
::E: c=275psf
I ....
C!l
Z
W
c: 2000
....
I (/)
C!l
~
c:
'"
I w
::E:
(/)
1000
I
I 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 8000
NORMAL LOAD (PSF)
I BORING DEPTH COHESION. ANGLE OF SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
NO. (FEET) (PSF) FRICTION 0
83 21 c e POORLY GRADED SILTY SAND
4000
I
I 3000
u:
(/)
I 0.. PEAK
- e=49.8'
::E:
.... c=o
C!l
z
I w
c: 2000
....
(/)
C!l ULTIMATE
~
I c: e=34.2'
'" c=230psf
w
::E:
(/)
I 1000
I
I 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 8000
NORMAL LOAD (PSF)
1- SHEARING STRENGTH TEST
I
II
I
il
!I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SAMPLE:
TEST SPECIMAN A B C D
DATE TESTED 12/29/89 12/29/89 12/29/89
ZI Compactor Air Pressure psi 150 275 350
~ QI Inittal Moisture "lo 6.4 6.4 6.4
::;:c
-u MOIsture at Compaction "lo
u_
wa: BnQuette Height in. 2.39 2.37 2.38
Q.m
CIl<( Density pet I
u.
---I
EXUDATION PRESSURE psi 294 332 550 I
EXPANSION PRESSURE DIAL 0 2 3 I
I :., a: L Pll ~t llXXl pounds -
pBI 1
. ai ~ i Ph at 20:0 pounds psi 116 90 80
, w~
! ~ ~ Displacement turns 4.67 4.57 4.5
cf.) 0 ~alue 17 30 36
CORRECTED "R ' VALUE 16 29 35
"R" VALUE AT 300 PSI EXUDATION PRESSURE = 17
100
80
::; ..-. -:-e:: .". --:: ...,!~. :: "J": . 1 I:
..... .. -. ._=: l:H :-.:.: u'.:..f:.' ._.... .:
.~ 3::::: =.:U:. r:::r : I.. ,I :: I:
:+-.: - . ..t:~.- -... I'" - ,
..:t:: -..- .-. t:::-::: .. ". . ...' I.. 1
-::E=i-=:' =;~:r:::: - .:,:::T":i.-:. :',.
no'. ': .::.:.;1--: :OO:.. I i' .
7_...' --=::--;: __ -.1 ,:' : i
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
: SIEVE I AS RECEIVED AS TESTED
3 '
i'l
2
1Y:
,
90 ~
=4
=8
=16
=30 :
I =50 I
I #100 I
I #200 I
.05mm I
i,OOS",,,,i
.001.......
L L10UID LIMIT
PLASTIC LIMIT
PLASTICITY INDEX I
I SAND EQUIVALENT I
100
96.8
94.5
84.4
50.9
30.3
22.5
70
60
w
::;)
..J
:1' 50
)>:
40
30
20
10
.... '::":'f.::.:t::=- .... l' I
- _.:': "::...t -.:':::::"': ..- : ..:i':: :..
--+.-- -+--..- _.-. 't.....I..
.=.-..-~~ -" -- =-
,
,
o
,
:~.T:=j:::~ '.. l'.:~::~:t::
. ._. ..:..:.=.i::-.:::J:.:: __ .... _. ::t:::: :.:...
=::=:'~C:-:+=-I-:;1::,J::::Yc:J:,"-.:t:.:.= ._::;'n -.:.
==::=-=::t:::.:-t- ..~t:"""_'~_4_"_-+--=-____ _,.. .., I
. ..:t::~+::.~:_~~~__::.f: :_ :r':::~::=-:~~i~::~t::::
I" :1-_:,::;::1 -:+::.::"'~::l::'-J ':. n .
- =+.- <-+-+==:t....;.: __ _.~ s:-:::- .. - u:
~. .:_.:t-F:.:::r- .:::~ .4=: -_.._=~. :~I::
~. ::::1~:-":=C:: .. .....:=-~..:t:.
. .'\,_.:: . c:::::: -. - ...;,' .
..:.: :1:" '--::c:= :t.,,:. ._d .
:=::r:", -::-:t"'s;:-'.:=-.. - -- .. ,-- ':._.-1._
-'::r"-- '=Tm":, =-tn..t"-:i:~ ....-
.: ::::1::-::t:=-:t:= - n' _ =~:-:-::1:~::-t::: :. ..t~~.~=
:~:I:~:t-===lO:. :,'=1::':+: -....>.;...=
.__et.. _ _ :::1::=:t::. ...'1.._.1 I ...,1
f +... =r::~::::.tF..t;,.,:::+ .t:.
. =-:" .:,. E:::t=1::" E _::t:::::::'::1::.::'j:."
. . =:,"-'J" ..:t:-.-.-t:J." "::::.1:::"--
::=-::::+ :lee .. . -=x-::::t.:::'t',' ,:~~:J~:1.:-
-"':-.:..--r.:-::1=. , .,,---.-: ::.:=L:+- ,,:.:..:+.:::1: '~i'::::::i
.- ..--+--t- hL:]
:,1=:-:-1.;..:1:.:1: ,t:..j::.l>:F~k::lC: .;:':~
6 10 500 400 300 200 100 0
o====~. .
800 700
EXUDATION PRESSURE psi
R-VALUE
JOB NO'
Q~';::"9aOl,..()Q1.;:9.Q-;:_QQ
DATE:
FIGURE:
C-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1\
II
APPENDIX D
standard Guidelines for Grading Projects
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.
STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR GRADING PROJECTS
1 .
GENERAL
1.1 Representatives of the Geotechnical Consultant should
be present on-site during grading operations in order
to make observations and perform tests so that
professional opinions can be developed. The opinion
will address whether grading has proceeded in
accordance with the Geotechnical Consultant's
recommendations and applicable project specifications;
if the site soil and geologic conditions areas
anticipated in the preliminary investigation; and if
additional recommendations are warranted by any
unexpected site conditions. Services do not include
supervision or direction of the actual work of the
contractor, his employees or agents.
1,2 The guidelines contained herein and the standard
details attached hereto represent this firm's standard
recommendations for grading and other associated
operations on construction projects. These guidelines
should be considered a portion of the report to which
they are appended.
1.3 All plates attached hereto shall be considered as part
of these guidelines.
1.4 The Contractor should not vary from these guidelines
without prior recommendation by the Geotechnical
Consultant and the approval of the Client or his
authorized representative.
1.5 These Standard Grading Guidelines and Standard Details
may be modified and/or superseded by recommendations
contained in the text of the preliminary geotechnical
report and/or subsequent reports.
1.6 If disputes arise out of the interpretation of these
grading guidelines or standard details, the Geotech-
nical Consultant should determine the appropriate
interpretation.
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
2.1 ALLUVIUM -- Unconsolidated detrital deposits resulting
from flow of water, including sediments deposited in
river beds, canyons, flood plains, lakes, fans at the
foot of slopes and estuaries.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 2
2.2 AS-GRADED (AS-BUILT) -- The surface and subsurface
conditions at completion of grading.
2.3BACKCUT -- A temporary construction slope at the rear
of earth retaining structures such as buttresses,
shear keys, stabilization fills or retaining walls.
2.4 BACKDRAIN -- Generally a pipe and gravel or similar
drainage system placed behind earth retaining
structures such buttresses, stabilization fills, and
retaining walls.
2.5 BEDROCK -- A more or less solid, relatively undis-
turbed rock in place either at the surface or beneath
superficial deposits of soil.
2.6 BENCH -- A relatively level step and near vertical
rise excavated into sloping ground on which fill is to
be placed.
2.7 BORROW (Import) -- Any fill material hauled to the
project site from off-site areas.
2.8 BUTTRESS FILL -- A fill mass, the configuration of
which is designed by engineering calculations to
retain slope conditions containing adverse geologic
features. A buttress is generally specified by
minimum key width and depth and by maximum backcut
angle. A buttress normally contains a backdrainage
system.
2.9 CIVIL ENGINEER -- The Registered Civil Engineer or
consulting firm responsible for preparation of the
grading plans, surveying and verifying as-graded
topographic conditions.
2.10 COLLUVIUM -- Generally loose deposits usually found
near the base of slopes and brought there chiefly by
gravity through slope continuous downhill creep (also
see Slope Wash).
2.11 COMPACTION -- Is the densification of a fill by
mechanical means.
2.12 CONTRACTOR -- A person or company under contract or
otherwise retained by the Client to perform
demolation, grading and other site improvements.
I
I
I
Ii
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 3
2.13 DEBRIS -- All products of clearing. grubbing,
demolition, contaminated soil material unsuitable for
reuse as compacted fill and/or any other material so
designated by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Ii
2.14 ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST -- A Geologist holding a valid
certificate of registration in the specialty of
Engineering Geology.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
2.15
2.16
2.17
2.18
2.19
2.20
2.21
2.22
2.23
I
I,
I
I
ENGINEERED FILL '-- A fill of which the Geotechnical
Consultant or his representative. during grading, has
made sufficient tests to enable him to conclude that
the fill has been placed in substantial compliance
with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Consultant and the governing agency requirements.
EROSION -- The wearing away of the ground surface as a
result of the movement of wind, water, and/or ice.
EXCAVATION
materials.
The mechanical removal of earth
EXISTING GRADE -- The ground surface configuration
prior to grading.
FILL -- Any deposits of soil, rock, soil-rock blends
or other similar materials placed by man.
FINISH GRADE -- The ground surface configuration at
which time the surface elevations conform to the
approved plan.
GEOFABRIC -- Any engineering textile utilized in
geotechnical applications including subgrade
stabilization and filtering.
GEOLOGIST -- A representative of the Geotechnical
Consultant educated and trained in the field of
geology.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT -- The Geotechnical Engineer-
ing and Engineering Geology consulting firm retained
to provide technical services for the project. For
the purpose of these guidelines, observations by the
Geotechnical Consultant include observations by the
Geotechnical Engineer, Engineering Geologist and those
performed by persons employed by and responsible to
the Geotechnical Consultants.
'.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 4
2.24 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER -- A licensed Civil Engineer who
applies scientific methods, engineering principles and
professional experience to the acquisition, inter.-
pretation and use of knowledge of materials of the
earth's crust for the evaluation of engineering
problems. Geotechnical Engineering encompasses many
of the engineering aspects of soil mechanics, rock
mechanics, geology, geophysics, hydrology and related
sciences.
2.2S. GRADING -- Any operation consisting of excavation,
filling or combinations thereof and associated
operations.
2.26 LANDSLIDE DEBRIS -- Material, generally porous and of
low density, produced from instability of natural of
man-made slopes.
2.27 MAXIMUM DENSITY -- Standard laboratory test for
maximum dry unit weight. Unless otherwise specified,
the maximum dry unit weight shall be determined in
accordance with ASTM Method of Test D1SS7.
2.28 OPTIMUM MOISTURE -- Test moisture content at the
maximum density.
2.29 RELATIVE COMPACTION -- The degree of compaction
(expressed as a percentage) of dry unit weight of a
material as compared to the maximum dry unit weight of
the material.
2.30 ROUGH GRADE -- The ground surface configuration at
which time the surface elevations approximately
conform to the approved plan.
II
2.31 SITE -- The particular parcel of land where grading is
being performed.
2.32 SHEAR KEY -- Similar to buttress, however, it is
generally constructed by excavating a slot within a
natural slope in order to stabilize the upper portion
of the slope without grading encroaching into the
lower portion of the slope.
1\
Ii
I
I
II
2.33 SLOPE -- Is an inclined ground surface the steepness
of which is generally specified as a ratio of .
horizontal:vertical (e.g., 2:1).
2.34 SLOPE WASH -- Soil and/or rock material that has been
transported down a slope by mass wasting assisted by
runoff water not confined by channels (also see
Colluvium) .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 5
2.35 SOIL -- Naturally occurring deposits of sand, silt,
clay, etc., or combinations thereof.
2.36 SOIL ENGINEER -- Lic~nsed Civil Engineer experienced
in soil mechanics (also see Geotechnical Engineer).
2.37 STABILIZATION FILL -- A fill mass, the configuration
of which is typically related to slope height and is
specified by the standards of practice for enhancing
the stability of locally adverse conditions. A
stabilization. fill is normally specified by minimum
key width and depth and by maximum backcut angle. A
stabilization fill mayor may not have a backdrainage
system specified.
2.38 SUBDRAIN -- Generally a pipe and gravel or similar
drainage system placed beneath a fill in the alignment
of canyons or former drainage channels.
2.39 SLOUGH -- Loose, noncompacted fill material generated
during grading operations.
2.40 TAILINGS -- Nonengineered fill which accumulates on or
adjacent to equipment haul-roads.
2.41 TERRACE -- Relatively level step constructed in the
face of graded slope surface for drainage control and
maintenance purposes.
2.42 TOPSOIL -- The presumably fertile upper zone of soil
which is usually darker in color and loose.
2.43 WINDROW -- A string of large rock buried within
engineered fill in accordance with guidelines set
forth by the Geotechnical Consultant.
3. SITE PREPARATION
3.1 Clearing and grubbing should consist of the removal of
vegetation such as brush, grass, woods, stumps, trees,
roots to trees and otherwise deleterious natural
materials from the areas to be graded. Clearing and
grubbing should extend to the outside of all proposed
excavation and fill areas.
3.2 Demolition should include removal of buildings, struc-
tures, foundations, reservoirs, utilities (including
underground pipelines, septic tanks, leach fields,
seepage pits, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, etc.)
and other man-made surface and subsurface improvements
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 6
from the areas to be graded. Demolition of utilities
should include proper capping and/or re-routing pipe-
lines at the project perimeter and cutoff and capping
of wells in accordance with the requirements of the
governing authorities and the recommendations of the.
Geotechnical Consultant at the time of demolition.
3.3 Debris generated during clearing, grubbing and/or
demolition operations should be wasted from areas to
be graded and disposed off-site. Clearing, grubbing
and demolition operations should be performed under
the observation of the Geotechnical Consultant.
4. SITE PROTECTION
4.1 The Contractor should be responsible for the stability
of all temporary excavations. Recommendations by the
Geotechnical Consultant pertaining to temporary
excavations (e.g., backcuts) are made in consideration
of stability of the completed project and, therefore,
should not be considered to preclude the responsibil-
ities of the Contractor. Recommendations by the
Geotechnical Consultant should not be considered to
preclude more restrictive requirements by the
regulating agencies.
4.2 Precautions should be taken during the performance of
site clearing, excavations and grading to protect the
work site from flooding, ponding or inundation by poor
or improper surface drainage. Temporary provisions
should be made during the rainy season to adequately
direct surface drainage away from and off the work
site.
4.3 During periods of rainfall, the Geotechnical
Consultant should be kept informed by the Contractor
as to the nature of remedial or preventative work
being performed (e.g., pumping, placement of sandbags
or plastic sheeting, other labor, dozing, etc.).
4.4 Following periods of rainfall, the Contractor should
contact the Geotechnical Consultant and arrange a
review of the site in order to visually assess rain
related damage. The Geotechnical Consultant may also
recommend excavations and testing in order to aid in
his assessments.
4.5 Rain related damage should be considered to include,
but may not be limited to, erosion, silting,
saturation, swelling, structural distress and other
adve~se conditions identified by the Geotechnical
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 7
Consultant. Soil adversely affected should be
classified as Unsuitable Materials and should be
subject to overexcavation and replacement with
compacted fill or other remedial grading as
recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
5. EXCAVATIONS
5.1 UNSUITABLE MATERIALS
5.1.1 Materials which are unsuitable should be
excavated under observation and recommendations
of the Geotechnical Consultant. Unsuitable
materials include, but may not be limited to,
dry, loose, soft, wet, organic compressible
natural soils and fractured, weathered, soft
bedrock and nonengineered or otherwise
deleterious fill materials.
5.1.2 Material identified by the Geotechnical
Consultant as unsatisfactory due to its
moisture conditions should be overexcavated,
watered or dried, as needed, and thoroughly
blended to a uniform near optimum moisture
condition (as per guidelines reference 7.2.1)
prior to placement as compacted fill.
5.2 CUT SLOPES
5.2.1 Unless otherwise recommended by the Geotech-
nical Consultant and approved by the regulating
agencies, permanent cut slopes should not be
steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical).
5.2.2 If excavations for cut slopes expose loose,
cohesionless, significantly fractured or
otherwise unsuitable material, overexcavation
and replacement of the unsuitable materials
with a compacted stabilization fill should be
accomplished as recommended by the Geotechnical
Consultant. Unless otherwise specified by the
Geotechnical Consultant, stabilization fill
construction should conform to the requirements
of the Standard Details.
5.2.3 The Geotechnical Consultant should review cut
slopes during excavation. The Geotechnical
Consultant should be notified by the contractor
prior to beginning slope excavations.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 8
5.2.4 If, during the course of grading, adverse or
potentially adverse geotechnical conditions are
encountered which were not anticipated in the
preliminary report, the Geotechnical Consultant
should explore, analyze and make recommen-
dations to treat these problems.
6. COMPACTED FILL
All fill materials should be compacted to at least 90
percent of maximum density (ASTM D1557) unless otherwise
recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant.
6.1 PLACEMENT
6.1.1 Prior to placement of compacted fill, the
Contractor should request a review by the
Geotechnical Consultant of the exposed ground
surface. Unless otherwise recommended, the
exposed ground surface should then be scarified
(6-inches minimum), watered or dried as needed,
thoroughly blended to achieve near optimum
moisture conditions, then thoroughly compacted
to a minimum of 90 percent of the maximum
density. -
6.1.2 Compacted fill should be placed in thin
horizontal lifts. Each lift should be watered
or dried as needed, blended to achieve near
optimum moisture conditions then compacted by
mechanical methods to a minimum of 90 percent
of laboratory maximum dry density. Each lift
should be treated in a like manner until the
desired finished grades are achieved.
6.1.3 When placing fill in horizontal lifts adjacent
to areas sloping steeper than 5:1 (horizontal:
vertical), horizontal keys and vertical benches
should be excavated into the adjacent slope
area. Keying and benching should be sufficient
to provide at least 6-foot wide benches and a
minimum of 4-feet of vertical bench height
within the firm natural ground, firm bedrock or
engineered compacted fill. No compacted fill
should be placed in an area subsequent to
keying and benching until the area has been
reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Material generated by the benching operation
should be moved sufficiently away from the
bench area to allow for the recommended review
of the horizontal bench prior to placement
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
Ii
I
I
I
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 9
fill. Typical keying and benching details have
been included within the accompanying Standard
Details.
6.1.4 Within a single fill area where grading
procedures dictate two or more separate fills,
temporary slopes (false slopes) may be created,
When placing fill adjacent to a false slope,
benching should be conducted in the same manner
as above described, At least a 3-foot vertical
bench should be established within the firm
core adjacent approved compacted fill prior to
placement of additional fill. Benching should
proceed in at least 3-foot vertical increments
until the desired finished grades are achLeved.
6,1.5 Fill should be tested for compliance with the
recommended relative compaction and moisture
conditions. Field density testing should
conform to accepted test methods. Density
testing frequency should be adequate for the
geotechnical consultant to provide professional
opinions regardings fill compaction and
adherence to recommendations. Fill found not
to be in conformance with the grading
recommendation should be removed or otherwise
handled as recommended by the Geotechnical
Consultant.
6.1.6 The Contractor should assist the Geotechnical
Consultant and/or his representative by digging
test pits for removal determinations and/or for
testing compacted fill.
6.1.7 As recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant,
the Contractor may need to remove grading
equipment from an area being tested if
personnel safety is considered to be a problem.
6.2 MOISTURE
6.2.1 For field testing purposes "near optimum"
moisture will vary with material type and other
factors including compaction procedure. "Near
optimum" may be specifically recommended i.n
Preliminary Investigation Reports and/or may be
evaluated during grading.
6.2.2 Prior to placement of additional compacted fill
following an overnight or other grading delay,
the exposed surface or previously compacted
I
I
I:
I:
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 10
II
fill should be processed by scarification,
watered or dried as needed, thoroughly blended
to near-optimum moisture conditions, then
recompacted to a minimum of 90 percent of
laboratory maximum dry density. Where wet,
dry, or other unsuitable materials exist to
depths of greater than one foot, the unsuitable
materials should be overexcavated.
I
6.2.3 Following a period of flooding, rainfall or
overwatering by other means, no additional fill
should be placed until damage assessments have
been made and remedial grading performed as
described under Section 5.6 herein.
Ii
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I'
I
I'
6.3
FILL MATERIAL
6.3.1 Excavated on-site materials which are
considered suitable to the Geotechnical
Consultant may be utilized as compacted fill,
provided trash, vegetation and other
deleterious materials are removed prior to
placement.
6.3.2 Where import fill materials are requi red for
use on-site, the Geotechnical Consultant should
be notified in advance of importing, in order
to sample and test materials from proposed
borrow sites. No import fill materials should
be delivered for use on-site without prior
sampling and testing notification by
Geotechnical Consultant.
6.3.3 Where oversized rock or similar irreducible
material is generated during grading, it is
recommended, where practical, to waste such
material off-site or on-site in areas
designated as "nonstructural rock disposal
areas". Rock placed in disposal areas should
be placed with sufficient fines to fill
voids. The rock should be compacted in lifts
to an unyielding condition. The disposal area
should be covered with at least three feet of
compacted fill which is free of oversized
material. The upper three feet should be
placed in accordance with the guidelines for
compacted fill herein.
6.3.4 Rocks 12 inches in maximum dimension and
smaller may be utilized within the compacted
fill, provided they are placed in such a manner
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Pa~e 11
that nesting of the rock is avoided. Fill.
should be placed and thoroughly compacted over
and around all rock. The amount of rock should
not exceed 4U percent by dry weight retained on
the 3/4-inch sieve size. The 12-inch and 4U
percent recommendations herein may vary as
field conditions dictate.
6.3.5 Where rocks or similar irreducible materia.ls of
greater than 12 inches but less than four feet
of maximum dimension are generated during
grading, or otherwise desired to be placed
within an engineered fill, special handling in
accordance with the accompanying Standard
Details is recommended. Rocks greater than
four feet should be broken down or disposed
off-site. Rocks up to four feet maximum
dimension should be placed below the upper 10
feet of any fill and should not be closer than
20-feet to any slope face. These recommen-
dations could vary as locations of improvements
dictate. Where practical, oversized material
should not be placed below areas where
structures or deep utilities are proposed.
Oversized material should be placed in windrows
on a clean, overexcavated or unyielding
compacted fill or firm natural ground surface.
Select native or imported granular soil (S.E.
30 or higher) should be placed and thoroughly
flooded over and around all windrowed rock,
such that voids are filled. Windrows of
oversized material should be staggered so that
successive strata of oversized material are not
in the same vertical plane.
6.3.6 It may be possible to dispose of individual
larger rock as field conditions dictate and as
recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant at
the time of placement.
6.3.7 The construction of a "rock fill" consisting
primarily of rock fragments up to two feet in
maximum dimension with little soil material may
be feasible. Such material is typically
generated on sites where extensive blasting is
required. Recommendations for construction of
rock fills should be provided by the
Geotechnical Consultant on a site-specific
basis.
I
I
I
I'
Ii
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I:
I
I
I
Ii
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 12
6.3.8 During grading operations, placing and mixing
the materials from the cut and/or borrow areas
may result in soil mixtures which possess
unique physical properties. Testing may be
required of samples obtained directly from the
fill areas in order to determine conformance
with the specifications. Processing of these
additional samples may take two or more working
days. The Contractor may elect to move the
operation to other areas within the project, or
may continue placing compacted fill pending
laboratory and field test results. Should he
elect the second alternative, fill placed is
done so at the Contractor's risk.
6.3.9 Any fill placed in areas not previously
reviewed and evaluated by the Geotechnical
Consultant may require removal and recom-
paction. Determination of overexcavations
should be made upon review of field conditiorts
by the Geotechnical Consultant.
6.4 FILL SLOPES
6.4.1 Permanent fill slopes should not be constructed
steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical),
unless otherwise recommended by the Geotech-
nical Consultant and approved by the regulating
agencies.
6.4.2 Fill slopes should be compacted in accordance
with these grading guidelines and specific
report recommendations. Two methods of slope
compaction are typically utilized in mass
grading, lateral over-building and cutting back,
and mechanical compaction to grade (i.e.
sheepsfoot roller backrolling). Constraints
such as height of slope, fill soil type, access,
property lines, and available equipment will
influence the method of slope construction and
compaction. The geotechnical consultant should
be notified by the contractor what method will
be employed prior to slope construction.
Slopes utilizing over-building and cutting back
should be constructed utilizing horizontal fill
lifts (reference Section 6) with compaction
equipment working as close to the edge as prac-
tical. The amount of lateral over-building will
vary as field conditions dictiate. Compaction
testing of slope faces will be required and
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 13
reconstruction of the slope may result if
testing does not meet our recommendations.
Mechanical compaction of the slope to grade
during construction should utilize two types of
compactive effort. First, horizontal fill lifts
should be compacted during fill placement. This
equipment should provide compactive effort to
the outer edge of the fill slope. Sloughing of
fill soils should not be permitted to drift down
the slope. Secondly, at intervals not exceeding
four feet in vertical slope height or the
capability of available equipment, whichever is
less, fill slopes should be backrolled with a
sheepsfoot-type roller. Moisture conditions of
the slope fill soils should be maintained
throughout the compaction process. Generally
upon slope completion, the entire slope should
be compacted utilizing typical methods, (i.e.
sheepsfoot rolling, bulldozer tracking, or
rolling with rubber-tired heavy equipment).
Slope construction grade staking should be
removed as soon as possible in the slope
compaction process. Final slope compaction
should be performed without grade sakes on the
slope face.
In order to monitor slope construction
procedures, moisture and density tests will be
taken at regular intervals. Failure to achieve
the desired results will likely result in a
recommendation by the Geotechnical Consultant
to overexcavate the slope surfaces followed by
reconstruction of the slopes utilizing over-
filling and cutting back procedures or further
compactive effort with the conventional
backrolling approach. Other recommendations
may also be provided which would be
commensurate with field conditions.
6.4.3 Where placement of fill above a natural slope
or above a cut slope is proposed, the fill
slope configuration as presented in the
accompanying Standard Details should be
adopted.
6.4.4 For pad areas above fill slopes, positive
drainage should be established away from the
top-of-slope, as designed by the project civil
engineer.
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 14
6.5 OFF-SITE FILL
6.5.1 Off-site fill should be treated in the same
manner as recommended in the specifications for
site preparation, excavation, drains,
compaction, etc.
I:
I
6.5.2 Off-site canyon fill should be placed in
preparation for future additional fill, as
shown in the accompanying Standard Details.
6.5.3 Off-site fill subdrains temporarily terminated
(up canyon) should be surveyed for future
relocation and connection.
I
6.6 TRENCH BACKFILL
I
I
I
I
I,
I:
I
6.6.1 Utility trench backfill should, unless other-
wise recommended, be compacted by mechanical
means. Unless otherwise recommended, the
degree of compaction should be a minimum of 90
percent of maximum density (ASTM DI557).
6.6.2 Backfill of exterior and interior trenches
extending below a 1:1 projection from the outer
edge of foundations should be mechanically
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the
laboratory maximum density.
6.6.3 Within slab areas, but outside the influence of
foundations, trenches up to one foot wide and
two feet deep may be backfilled with sand (S.E.
> 30), and consolidated by jetting, flooding or
by mechanical means. If on-site materials are
utilized, they should be wheel-rolled, tamped
or otherwise compacted to a firm condition.
For minor interior trenches, density testing
may be deleted or spot testing may be elected
if deemed necessary, based on review of
backfill operations during construction.
Ii
6.6.4 If utility contractors indicate that it is
undesirable to use compaction equipment in
close proximity to a buried conduit, the
Contractor may elect the utilization of light
weight mechanical compaction equipment and/or
shading of the conduit with clean, granular
material, (S.E. > 30) which should be
thoroughly moistened in the trench, prior to
Ii
1\
II
II
'I
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 15
Ii
initiating mechanical compaction procedures.
Other methods of utility trench compaction may
also be appropriate, upon review of the
Geotechnical Consultant at the time of
construction.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ii
6.6.5 In cases where clean granular materials are
proposed for use in lieu of native materials or
where flooding or jetting is proposed, the
procedures should be considered subject to
review by the Geotechnical Consultant.
6.6.6 Clean granular backfill and/or bedding are not
recommended in slope areas unless provisions
are made for a drainage system to mitigate the
potential build-up of seepage forces and
piping.
7.
DRAINAGE
7.1 Canyon subdrain systems recommended by the
Geotechnical Consultant should be installed in
accordance with the Standard Details.
7.2 Typical subdrains for compacted fill buttresses, slope
stabilizations or sidehill masses, should be installed
in accordance with the specifications of the
accompanying Standard Details.
7.3 Roof, pad and slope drainage should be directed away
from slopes and areas of structures to disposal areas
via suitable devices designed by the project civil
engineer (i.e., gutters, downspouts, concrete swales,
area drains, earth swales, etc.).
7.4 Drainage patterns established at the time of fine
grading should be maintained throughout the life of
the project. Property owners should be made aware
that altering drainage patterns can be detrimental to
slope stability and foundation performance.
8.
SLOPE MAINTENANCE
8.1 LANDSCAPE PLANTS
In order to decrease erosion surficial slope stability
problems, slope planting should be accomplished at the
completion of grading. Slope planting should consist
of deep-rooting vegetation requiring little watering.
A Landscape Architect would be the test party to
consult regarding actual types of plants and planting
conf~guration.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Standard Guidelines
for Grading Projects
Page 16
8.2 IRRIGATION
8.2.1 Slope irrigation should be minimized. If
automatic timing devices are utilized on
irrigation systems, provisions should be made
for interrupting normal irrigation during
periods of rainfall.
8.2.2 Property owners should be made aware that
overwatering of slopes is detrimental to slope
stability and may contribute to slope seepage,
erosion and siltation problems in the
subdivision.
Rev 5/88
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MIN.1
4" DIAMETER PERFORATED
PIPE BACXDRAIN
4" DIAMETER NON-PERFORATED
PIPE LATERAL DRAIN
SLOPE PER PLAN
H/2
PROVIDE BACKDRAIN PER BACKDRAIN
DETAIL. AN ADDITIONAL BACK DRAIN
AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR
SLOPE IN EXCESS OF 40 FEET HIGH.
KEY-DIMENSIONSPER SOILS ENGINEER
TYPICAL BUTTRESS OR STABILIZATION FILL DETAIL
DATE:
FIGURE:
1
ANUARY 1990
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
I.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
PL' . . .
ANI: . . .
OF W '.
I:AKNES'S'
NATURAL GROUND
PROPOSED GRADING
COMPACTED FILL
PROVIDE BACKDRAIN PER
BACKDRAIN DETAIL. AN
ADDITIONAL BACKDRAIN
AT MID-SLOPE WILL BE
REQUIRED FOR BACK
SLOPES IN EXCESS OF
40 FEET HIGH. LOCA-
TIONS OF BACKDRAINS
AND OUTLETS PER SOILS
ENGINEER AND/OR EN-
GNEERNG GEOLOGIST
DURING GRADING.
PLANE OF' . . .
WI:AKNESS'
BASE WIDTH 'w' DETERMINED
BY SOILS ENGINEER
JOB NO.:
04-5801-001-
TYPICAL SHEAR KEY DETAIL
DATE:
FIGURE:
2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
OVEREXCAVATE
FINAL LIMIT OF
EXCAVATION
DAYLIGHT
LINE
FINISH PAD
OVEREXCAVATE
3' AND REPLACE
WITH COMPACTED
FILL
~
~. ~
SOUND BEDROCK
TYPICAL BENCHING
OVERBURDEN
(CREEP-PRONE)
PROVIDE BACK DRAIN PER BACK DRAIN
DETAIL. LOCATION OF BACKDRAIN AND
OUTLETS PER SOILS ENGINEER ANDIOR
ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST DURING
GRADING
EQUIPMENT WIDTH (MINIMUM 15')
JOB NO.:
04-5801-001-
DAYLIGHT SHEAR KEY DETAIL
DATE:
JANUARY 1990
I
!I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BENCHING FILL OVER NATURAL
SURFACE OF FIRM
EARTH MATERIAL
/
. ----.:s::-
~I. ~'
---.-: ","1f.~~
~ ,.61.f.
.b ------O\lf. I.ll'l~ 4' TYPICAL
5' MIN. ~f.~ .
~~ --r
--- -- 10'
~ TYPICAL
I L10, MIN. (INCLINED 2'l(, MIN. INTO SLOPE)
BENCHING FILL OVER CUT
FINISH CUT
SLOPE
SURFACE OF FIRM
EARTH MATERIAL
/
FINISH FILL SLOPE
-
----
----
10'
TYPICAL
15' MIN. OR STABILITY EQUIVALENT PER SOIL
ENGINEERING (INCLINED 2'l(, MIN. INTO SLOPE)
BENCHING FOR COMPACTED FILL DETAIL
JOB NO.:
04-5801-001-00-00
DATE:
JANUARY 1990
FIGURE:
4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINISH SURFACE SLOPE
3 FT3 MINIMUM PER LINEAL FOOT
APPROVED FILTER ROCK*
A
- 2% MINIMUM GRADIENT
A
4" MINIMUM DIAMETER
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
SPACED PER SOIL
ENGINEER REQUIRE-
MENTS DURING GRADING
DETAIL A-A
COMPACTED
BACKFILL
12" MINIMUM COVER
I
12" MINIMUMJ
**APPROVED PIPE TYPE:
SCHEDULE 40 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
(P.V.C.) OR APPROVED EQUAL.
MINIMUM CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 PSI.
COMPACTED FILL
4" MINIMUM APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE**
(PERFORATIONS DOWN)
MINIMUM 2% GRADIENT
TO OUTLET
BENCH INCLINED TOWARD
DRAIN
TYPICAL BENCHING
TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL
4" MINIMUM DIAMETER
APPROVED SOLID
OUTLET PIPE
*FIL TER ROCK TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL:
SIEVE PERCENTAGE PASSING
1" 100
3/4" 90-100
3/S" 40-100
NO.4 25-40
NO.30 5"15
NO.50 0..7
NO.200 0" 3
JOB NO.: .
04-5801-001-00-00
TYPICAL BACKDRAIN DETAIL
DATE:
JANUARY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FINISH SURFACE SLOPE
MINIMUM 3 FT3 PER LINEAL
OPEN GRADED AGGREGATE*
TAPE AND SEAL AT CONTACT
COMPACTED FILL
A
~ 2~ MINIMUM GRADIENT
A
SUPAC 8-P FABRIC OR
APPROVED EQUAL
4" MINIMUM APPROVED
PERFORATED PIPE
(PERFORATIONS DOWN)
MINIMUM 2~ GRADIENT
TO OUTLET
BENCH INCLINED
TOWARD DRAIN
4" MINIMUM DIAMETER
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
SPACED PER SOIL
ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS
TYPICAL
BENCHING
DETAIL A-A
TEMPORARY FILL LEVEL
COMPACTED
MINIMUM BACKFILL
12" COVER
,L
MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER APPROVED
SOLID OUTLET PIPE
JL--12"---1
1 MINIMUM 'I
* NOTE: AGGREGATE TO MEET FOLLOWING
SPECIFICATIONS OR APPROVED EQUAL:
SIEVE SIZE
PERCENTAGE PASSING
100
5-40
0-17
0-7
0-3
1 1 J2/~
1"
3/4"
3/8"
NO. 200
BACK DRAIN DETAIL (GEOFABRIC)
DATE:
FIGURE:
JANUARY 1990
6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS
iSURF"CE OF
. FIRM EARTH
"" .-/
""",,~~ ///
'" '" . COMPACTED FILL / /
\ . /
\;", //~/
'---_/
" /
TYPICAL BENCHING
REMOVE UNSUITABLE
MATERIAL
SEE DETAILS BELOW
INCLINE TOWARD DRAIN
TRENCH DETAIL
6" MINIMUM
OVERLAP
MINIMUM 6 FT3 PER LINEAL
FOOT OF APPROVED DRAIN
MATERIAL
OPTIONAL V-DITCH DETAIL
SUPAC S-P FABRIC OR
APPROVED EQUAL
SUPAC 8-P FABRIC
OR APPROVED EQUAL
l' 24" t
MINIMUM
DRAIN MATERIAL SHOUI.D
CONSIST OF MINUS I.S",
MINUS 1", OR MINUS .75"
CRUSHED ROCK
24"
MINIMUM
MINIMUM 6 FT3 PER LINEAL FOOT
OF APPROVED DRAIN MATERIAL
600 TO 900
ADD MINIMUM 4" DIAMETER
APPROVED PERFORATED
PIPE WHEN LARGE FLOWS
ARE ANTlCIPA TED
APPROVED PIPE TO BE
SCHEDULE 40 POLY-VINYL-
CHLORIDE (P.V.C.l OR
APPROVED EQUAL. MINIMUM
CRUSH STRENGTH 1000 psi.
GEOFABRIC SUBDRAIN
DATE:
FIGURE:
T
JANUARY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
--
FILL _.--
.-"-
..- .,~O)
.,.,.,... \l.O"~ ..---
........--- l~E. .--
..-- - 1'iO~\"'\. _--
..-...-- ~,..~1~ "':._--
-..- \.~ -
..- ~,..e _
..- \)\' -
- \)~S _
..- ..-
--
-
-- -- / ,,""'"
..- A -
,u1 ___~
/ 1 ..--
---
-
-
FILL
..-
..-
-
-
..-
5"
1;2'
------ f
. 15'
MINIMUM
DOWNSLOPE
KEY DEPTH
FINAL GRADE
TOE OF SLOPE SHOWN
ON GRADING PLAN
4'
-
PROVIDE BACKDRAIN AS
REOUIRED PER RECOM-
MENDATIONS OF SOILS
ENGINEER DURING GRADING
COMPETENT EARTH
MATERIAL
10' TYPICAL BENCH
WIDTH VARIES
MINIMUM BASE KEY
TYPICAL
HEIGHT
BENCH-1
LIMIT OF KEY
EXCAVATION
WHERE NATURAL SLOPE GRADIENT IS 5: 1 OR LESS.
BENCHING IS NOT NECESSARY. HOWEVER. FILL IS
NOT TO BE PLACED ON COMPRESSIBLE OR UNSUIT-
ABLE MATERIAL.
FILL SLOPE ABOVE NATURAL GROUND DETAIL
FIGURE:
8
I W
0
<
::;
I w...
\ Ill...
\
\ ......
\ ......
I \ \ <0
::c
\ - I m....
ZZ
\ \ ... 0 OW Cl
\ ~ \ ... < . w'" -::;
I < 0 >< ....W
\ b \ 0 .. 00: er:o
~ \ .. >- er:w 0<
>- .... ...... .....
\ a:. \ .... ..< w"
I ... \ \ 0 <::0
... ;.. ~ "0
... \~ ~ er:z 0....
00 ...
\~ mer: W
".... ....~ er:
I \ c.) \ 0< :>er: ...J :>
\0 \ 00 0" Cl
er:z <( ...
\ ~ \ 0:> W I-
\ ~ \ wO .... w
I Ill... 0 0
\?.\ z
\ -; \ * w
\ 1 \ a.
I \~ 0
...J
\ .. \ T CJ) 0
\ '0 \ Cl
I I- Cl
\ ell \ ::l ~
'0\ ::; 0 >-
\ ... \ :> a:
::; <(
W :::J
I \ \ z > z
\ \ ::; 0 <(
\ ...,
. m
\ '" <(
I \ \ \J-
w
\ ~ a.
0
I \ ...J W
CJ) ....
\ <
::; 0
\ ...J
I :> ...J
> z \ -
:> ;= \ U.
"'::0 0 Z
"'0 ::c ;= \
I Oer: m 0 \ *
0... ::c W
.;... ....z m \ ..
0< 0
-< <... .... \ ...
0- ...... 0 m 8
I mer: z < \
..W Oel ..... .... I
0.... 0:; z.... rr' " 0
....< 0'" 0
::0 ...0 0:; I
... ...< ~
I .....z -er: ...1Il ::c \ 8
<W~ ~Cl ...' ... ~ \ I
w.... .... -m ~
Wer:_ :>z ...< 0
>om 00 '. < er: \ CO
o z .... er:Cl \ It)
I ::00< :>z :>0 I
wzer: 00 ...... \ ..'<1"
er:<.... <0 00
z.... z
I III
0
..,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
GENERAL GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
CUT LOT
_---ORIGINAL
-- GROUND
---
---
-
-----
--
--
--
--
--
---
--
---
S'
--
TOPSOIL, COLLUVIUM AND __----
WEATHERED BEDROCK __--
----
-- .
----
--
3'
...-........~...-
--
..---
--
.---- UNWEATHERED BEDROCK
OVEREXCAVATE AND
REGRADE
CUT/FILL LOT (TRANSITION)
--
--
--
----
------
--
__ ORIGINAL
__..--- _ GROUND
..- ~
----
----
--..-
--
--
--
..---
...-"'----
..---
TOPSOIL,
_COLLUVIUM AND __
WEATHERED __
BEDROCK __--
--
----
--
3'
~~
--
COMPACTED FILL
----
--
--
~
----
OVER EXCAVATE AND
REGRADE
UNWEATHERED BEDROCK
JOB
TRANSITION LOT DETAIL
DATE:
FIGURE:
10.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
BUILDING
FINISHED GRADE
CLEAR AREA FOR
FOUNDATION, UTILITIES,
AND SWIMMING POOLS
SLOPE FACE
0 0
0 o-r Of .t
15'
~WINDROW
o~
O~
STREET
~..
5' OR BELOW DEPTH OF
DEEPEST UTILITY TRENCH
(WHICHEVER GREATER)
TYPICAL WINDROW DETAIL (EDGE VIEW)
GRANULAR SOIL
TO FILL VOIDS
HORIZONTALLY PLACED
COMPACTION FILL
PROFILE VIEW
ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL
DATE:
FIGURE:
1
JAN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
QUAIL RUN (TM 90-209)
ENCINITAS, CAUFORNIA
prepared for
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600
San Diego, California 92121
by
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
March 28, 1997
.
-
May 6, 1997
Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. Imbriglio
W. Lee Vanderhurst
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600
San Diego, California 92121
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 7-0274
Attention: Mr. Jack Robson
SUBJECT: LOT 7 AS-GRADED LETTER
Quail Run
Encinitas, California
Reference: Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997, As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Quail Run (TM
90-209), Encinitas, California: Project No. 0196-002-01, dated March 28.
Dear Mr. Robson:
In accordance with your request, we have provided geotechnical observation and testing services
during the fine grading of Lot 7 at the Quail Run development in Encinitas, California. The rough
grading of the pad, as well as the grading of the remainder of the site, was previously reported
as referenced.
In our opinion, grading and compaction of the fill soils within the subject lot were performed in
general accordance with the intent of the project geotechnical recommendations and with the
requirements of the City of Encinitas. The conclusions contained herein are based on the
observations and testing performed through April 24, 1997. No representations are made as to
the quality and extent of materials not observed. The recommendations presented in the
referenced report are appropriate for the proposed improvements for Lot 7. The compaction test
results will be presented with the test results for other improvements at the site.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide continued services on this project. Please do not
hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments.
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
~,2~
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333
Principal
DR/AFB
Distribution: (5) Addressee
9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B . San Diego California . 92131
Phone (619) 536-1000 . Fax (619) 536-8311
-
~eotechnics
Incorporated
May 9, 1997
In] ~ f~ I~ n
r '0"
J.
MAY 19 1997
Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. Imbri~lio
W. Lee Vanderhurst
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600
San Diego, California 92121
ENGINEERiNG SERVICES Project No. 0196-002-01
CITY OF ENe/NIT!\'':
- Document No. 7-0288
Attention: Mr. Jack Robson
SUBJECT: LOT 8 AS-GRADED LETTER
Quail Run
Encinitas, California
Reference: Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997, As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Quail Run (TM
90-209), Encinitas, California: Project No. 0196-002-01, dated March 28.
Dear Mr. Robson:
In accordance with your request, we have provided geotechnical observation and testing services
during the fine grading of Lot 8 at the Quail Run development in Encinitas, California. The rough
grading of the pad, as well as the grading of the remainder of the site, was previously reported
as referenced.
In our opinion, grading and compaction of the fill soils within the subject lot were performed in
general accordance with the intent of the project geotechnical recommendations and with the
requirements of the City of Encinitas. The conclusions contained herein are based on the
observations and testing performed through April 24, 1997. No representations are made as to
the quality and extent of materials not observed. The recommendations presented in the
referenced report are appropriate for the proposed improvements for Lot 8. The compaction test
results will be presented with the test results for other improvements at the site.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide continued services on this project. Please do not
hesitate to contact us with any questions or comments.
DR/AFB
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
~26~~
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333
Principal
Distribution: (5) Addressee
9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B . San Diego California . 92131
Phone (619) 536-1000 . Fax (619) 536-8311
..
~
~ Geotechnics .
~ Incorporated
Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. Imhriglio
W. Lee Vanderhurst
\\/ :'"1
August 15, 1997
AUG 26 1997
CiTY OF E\JC:f',;r:".i\::~
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600
San Diego, California 92122
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 7-0476
Attention: Mr. Jack Robson
SUBJECT: LOT 9 AS-GRADED LETTER
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
Encinitas, California
Reference: Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997, AS-Graded Geotechnical Report, Quail Run (TM
90-209), Encinitas, California: Project NO. 0196-002-01, dated March 28.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, we provided geotechnical observation and testing services
during the fine grading of Lot 9 in the Quail Run residential development. The rough grading of
the pad, as well as the grading of the site in general, was previously documented in the
referenced report.
Soil imported from an off-site source was used to bring the subject lot to planned grade.
Laboratory tests were conducted on the imported material to evaluate the maximum density and
optimum moisture content in accordance with ASTM 01557-91, gradation in accordance with
ASTM 0422, Atterberg limits in accordance with ASTM 04318-84, and the expansion potential
in accordance with ASTM 04829. The results of the laboratory testing are attached as Figures
1 and 2.
In-place moisture and density tests were made in accordance with ASTM 02922-91 and 03017-
88 (Nuclear Gauge Method). The results of these tests are tabulated in Figure 3.
In our opinion, grading and compaction of Lot 9 was performed in general accordance with the
intent of the project geotechnical recommendations, project specifications, and with the
9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B . San Diego California . 92131
Phone (619) 536-1000 . Fax (619) 536-8311
~
<
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
August 15, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 7-0476
Page 2
requirements of the City of Encinitas. Based on our observations and testing, it is our
professional opinion that fill soils in the building pad area were placed in substantial accordance
with the compaction criteria of 90 percent of the maximum density (ASTM 01557).
The soil at pad grade in Lot 9 exhibits a moderate expansion potential, and accordingly, the
foundation conditions for Lot 9 differ from the remainder of the site. The following
recommendations are based on our testing and observation of the grading, the laboratory testing
of the soil near finish grade, and 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
structural engineer incorporating the geotechnical parameters described in the following sections.
We understand that a post-tensioned slab will be used. The following parameters incorporate the
criteria of the Post-Tensioning Institute. Note that we did not provide minimum depth and width
requirements for footings and grade-beams, since these should be based on structural design.
Edge Moisture Variation, em
Center Lift:
Edge Lift:
5.3 feet
2.6 feet
Differential Swell, Y m
Center Lift:
Edge Lift:
1.5 inches
0.5 inches
Differential Settlement:
3/4 inch
Allowable Bearing Capacity:
2,000 Ibs/ft2 at slab subgrade
Lateral loads against structures may be resisted by friction between the bottoms of footings or
slabs and the supporting soil. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 is recommended. Alternatively, a
passive pressure of 300 pcf is recommended for the portion of vertical foundation members
embedded into compacted fill or formational material. If friction and passive pressure are
combined, the passive pressure value should be reduced by one-third.
The conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based on our observations and
testing performed on July 22,29 and 30, of 1997. No representations are made as to the quality
and extent of materials not observed. Our services were performed 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
Geotechnics IncolpOrated
,
;
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
August 15, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 7-0476
Page 3
conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and used for
testing, the observations made, and the in-place field testing performed are believed
representative of the project; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between
tested or observed locations.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of professional service. Please feel free to contact the office
with any questions or comments.
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
~2h'~
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333
Principal
DR/MAF/AFB
Attachments: Figures 1 and 2, Laboratory Test Results
Figure 3, Density Test Results
Distribution: (4) Addressee
(1) Mr. Beat Arnet
(1) Mr. Ray Hackebill
Geotechnics IncOlpornted
'^
MAXIMUM DENSTIY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
(ASTM 01557-91)
SAMPLE
NO.
DESCRIPTION
MAXIMUM
DENSITY (PCF)
OPTIMUM
MOISTURE
(%)
11
Orange-brown silty fine sand (SM)
121.0
9.5
EXPANSION INDEX TESTS
(ASTM 04829)
SAMPLE SAMPLE EXPANSION
NUMBER LOCATION INDEX
11 Lot 9 36
12 Lot 9 64
EXPANSION POTENTIAL
Low
Medium
UBC TABLE NO. 29-C, CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION
0-20
21-50
51-90
91-130
Above 130
Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Ve Hi h
Geotechnics
Incorporated
Laboratory Test Results
Lot 9, Quail Run (TM 90-209)
Cornerstone Communities Corp.
Project Nc.. 0196-002-01
Document No. 7-0476
Figure 1
.
,.,
..,.
..
~
I
,
I
, ,
)1
,
I ,
IT
,
, !
/
,
, ,
/" ,
)1l ,/
/'
V
1/,
/ ,
,
1/ ,
!
I
,
!
i
,
"
W
E
o
-0
>-
:r:
o
1il
..
o
o
;;;
o
'"
~..
~
N
Ui
~
>
~o
._'"
en..
1"
m
"C
c
m
05'"
uj;
::i
'"
..
02
'"
;,.
i';
t!
,
o
o
o
'"
o
co
o 0 0 0 0
r--.<OLOVC")
~41i!aM ,{q Jau!.:l ~ua"Jad
o
N
o
o
~
o
o
o
0
Z >-
"" :s
....
--' ()
Ui
LU
Z
u:
c-
o
z
""
en
::;;
:J
is
LU
::;;
-
LU
en
n:
""
0
()
LU
Z
u:
t-- --'
LU
>
""
n:
LU CJ
C/)
n:
""
0
()
~
o
o
o
'"
~
"
~
"
!
2:
.=
"
N
en
c:
.~
c.:l
o
~
o
o
z ~ ci.
-
0 '" 0
0 ()
j:: N
, <Il
<( 0 <1l
OJ '"
U ~ '"
() u:: t:- :J
C/) E
ii) c E
:J
en a:: 0
()
<( Cii <1l
...J '5 c
U 0 0
-
...J <Il
0 OJ Q;
z a
'" - c
0 -
<Il en ...J 0
Z >- ()
0 LU
;:: >-
"" :s
() ()
u:
Ui
en
:3
()
...J Z '"Cl
0 0
en ;:: (l)
0 "-
LU " .....
u: "
Z en ro
w
::> 0 '""
CI1 0
Q 0-
.....
!::: '""
,.q 0
'" Q
:: -0 Q
-' (l)!:::
ii z ....."""
LU 0 0
OJ ;::
:;; '" (l)
::> u
z 0 d
z --'
0 LU
LU ;:: --'
...J "-
"- "" :;; ~
:;; n: '"
"" 0 en
en --'
"-
X
LU
f:2 '" '" '"
:i1 '" -
::; "-' "-' X
CJ ::E ::E LU
0
n: ::; ::; ;;;
LU 0 U
'" r:
n: :; ;::
~ 0 '" u
::; :s ;::
<( "- en
:s
"-
~ (0 N
0 " w
, ...
N 0 a::
0 , ::l
0 "
, 0 C)
(0 iL
OJ Z
~
0 -
c
0 Q)
z E
tJ :J
"
<1l 0
B 0
~
0..
:-
.,.
, .
........ Geotechnics DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-002-01
Incorporated Lot 9, Quail Run (TM 90-209) Document No. 7-0476
Cornerstone Communities Corp. Figure 3
Test Test Elevation Location Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
No. Date [It] Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
[pct] ['!o] [pct] ['!o] ['!o]
1 7/22/97 222 LOT 9 4 117.5 15.3 107.0 91 90
2 7/22/97 223 LOT 9 4 117.5 9.7 109.9 94 90
3 7/22/97 223 LOT 9 4 117.5 13.4 110.2 94 90
4 7/22/97 224 LOT 9 4 117.5 13.6 111.1 95 90
5 7/29/97 224 LOT9 11 121.0 9.7 120.2 99 90
6 7/29/97 224 LOT 9 11 121.0 10.1 118.1 98 90
7 7/29/97 225 LOT 9 12 117.0 13.6 103.0 88 90 9
8 7/29/97 226 LOT 9 12 117.0 15.4 103.5 88 90 10
9 7/29/97 225 LOT 9 12 117.0 13.1 107.8 92 90
10 7/29/97 226 LOT 9 12 117.0 14.5 106.2 91 90
11 7/30/97 227 LOT 9 12 117.0 10.5 109.0 93 90
12 7/30/97 227 LOT 9 12 117.0 13.2 107.5 92 90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~eotechnics
Incorporated
March 28, 1997
Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P.lmbriglio
W. Lee Vande:rhurst
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600
San Diego, California 92121
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Attention: Mr. Jack Robson
SUBJECT: AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
Encinitas, California
Gentlemen:
This report summarizes the results of the observation and testing services provided during the
earthwork construction of the Quail Run development in Encinitas, California, with the exception
of Lots 7, 8, and 9 which have not yet been completed. In our opinion, the grading and
compaction conducted to date was performed in general accordance with the intent of the project
geotechnical recommendations and with the requirements of the City of Encinitas.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide professional services. If you have any questions or
comments regarding this report or the services provided, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
~/,#~
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 40333
Principal
DR/AFB
Distribution: (5) Addressee
9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B . San Diego California . 92131
Phone (619) 536-1000 . Fax (619) 536-8311
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
Encinitas, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
................................................ .
1
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 2
5.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS ....................................
2
5.1 Torrey Sandstone ............................................ 3
5.2 Terrace Deposits ....................................... 3
5.3 Alluvium ............................................. 3
5.4 Colluvium ............................................ 3
5.5 Fill...... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ... . . ... . . .... . ..... . . . .. 4
5.6 Groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
5.7 Seismicity ................................................. 4
6.0 SUMMARY OF GRADING OPERATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4
6.1 Preparation of Existing Ground .................................. 5
6.2 Fill ...................................................... 5
6.3 Cut and Fill Slopes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
6.4 Subdrains ................................................. 5
6.5 Cut/Fill Transition Lots ........................................ 6
7.0 LABORATORY TESTING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
8.0 FIELD DENSITY TESTING .......................................... 6
9.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................. 7
9.1 Fill Compaction ............................................. 7
9.2 Slope Stability .............................................. 7
9.3 Site Drainage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8
9.4 Foundations................................................ 8
9.4.1 Lateral Resistance .................................... 9
9.4.2 Slope Setback ....................................... 9
9.4.3 Settlement .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
9.5 Moisture Protection for Slabs ................................... 10
9.6 Exterior Slabs .............................................. 10
9.7 Earth Retaining Structures ..................................... 11
10.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................... 12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
Encinitas, California
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
ILLUSTRATIONS
Site Location Map - Figure 1
As-Graded Geotechnical Map - Plates 1 and 2
APPENDICES
REFERENCES ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Appendix A
LABORATORY TESTING ....................................... Appendix B
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS ................................. Appendix C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
AS-GRADED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
Encinitas, California
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of the testing and observation services provided during the
earthwork construction of the Quail Run residential development (City of Encinitas TM 90-209).
It should be noted, however, that Lots 7, 8, and 9 have not been completed at this time. The
purpose of the observation and testing services was to evaluate the conformance of the earthwork
construction with the project plans and specifications. Our services were provided in accordance
with our Proposal No. 6-228 (Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996), and your Contract Job No. 219.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Field personnel were provided for this project to observe the grading of the site and conduct tests.
The observation and testing assists us in developing professional opinions regarding the
earthwork construction. Our services did not include supervision or direction of the actual work
of the contractor, his employees, or agents. Our services included the following:
Laboratory testing to determine pertinent engineering characteristics of the soil. The
results are summarized in Appendix B.
. Observation of the geologic conditions exposed during excavation and grading of the site.
Geologic mapping is compiled on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map, Plates 1 and 2.
. Observation and testing of fill placement during the site grading. The field density test
results and relative compaction comparisons are summarized in Appendix C.
. Preparation of this report which summarizes our findings, opinions and recommendations.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
The site is situated along the west side of Quail Gardens Drive in Encinitas, California, as shown
on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The subject site is bound by Quail Botanical Gardens on the
north, greenhouse operations on the west and south, and Quail Gardens Drive on the east. The
area in general is occuppied by rural residences and agricultural businesses.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
~"~ ffi"";;;"\T'~,~ ."H'~' '''~3~'1r''~~~\
< D~r~ ~ -' 5~ t:, ~1;5 ~\UI~1Ilt.. ::;.\ -~~\.v: - i ~ I
I~~' 8' l ~ ~"~~' _of'" '?tlj~. .: ~ ~<>>"N If - CERRO ~~ST;F
'il~~ .: \.~ a/j~-'~~~ ~1~f.ir~1j ~1 100 _~1~
: ~l~',), ~..~ li ~'; "",;~)) ,!~l~~~ --- ",r., ~ \0_'_ f-<: ~ ~ ~'o D' ~
~ i ~!~0i0:;J"KI .... /J ~~ ln9~ro ~<S. ~;;;;:if:i':_~~!i :011;;; a: \~t.~l ~E ;:n~~) lORE~si -S UU "nl)
f::2 i! 'Ell PL -' I,,,,,, '" B!O .v-l~ ........~61J ~ '<i;,::: "~'A6 f!!'5 Tt'...... <:. "'4~ ~ ~ :;;-" f'
If:::. -' ~n~" c..., - '" L.l C\ji)l ,... ~I~ .... ~ \Y'
r '-' ~ ~:. <:J", ~~ ~ '"'-1 S '" ~ ~ TURNER A ~./)(Jl ...'oo,~c
r::-- is. G-o,.'" IIlH ----- 1.Q';1 \.I "I' ~ . ~ ,) ~
'1~11~ 'f _ ;; ~r ~\~; ~~~~i ~}l~(j~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ I ~l~ f~'"~'~1
I ~ ~ J~ ~~~-ii0"~ ~ ~ c.: c3 :::1 ~\lVI~~~ ~~~ ~g ~ ~~ r~ ~ ~ ~ :sf1 C:~ ~
111\ I\)~ ~ '.. ,. 'S ~ G ~ lA~IH n::; ;: "':! ~l;I ....~::.. :> 8 ........ lIe ~~
'. I ",<!"_",c'_ i~~ 7~\ ,d, ;t~ ' """""' : ~ -- ~ ~'"'05~. REAL".....;",~
.,IO\-..__ \;~ 0"'- :' .. - 51......HIU ./"1P!'" , l~
!~ s ~ LllTUSBLOSS ST ^'~ ""IU< ~ 100 . ...
~ - ..o:""*' ~ ~:Jr. I- ~ OR
G,A.RDEN ~IEW ~WI\\\O ","'" :.:... V> 0 ,f....~
/ CT "" ~ 1 f\\':": 1 ~ OJ.... ~;: g;'ti! ~ ~$;:
-.; ~- ~~/( So: 'i V) BEWHREE DR'"" ~
~ E~_~, ~~>i,~ti;J;:: ~il"IT"", R;;''i/--~ ,
- ',",3~~~o?;: l\.~:i c....., 1--01 .......,- ~
i.~'-"I!' ~~..."",,,,,~,,,-~ ;::; 4< R~ ""
I f lIlI\':l ! i'" ~ .1~ 7." V~l.ACj U or """'1
.c'.......1 111,;: <):V(...@ ~: -----'f;. ~ ~
< 11._1 ~~\,'~{l ;~~:V1A~ 1. !:2 >""
l:MI!lfi"'r,'" ',;;:;-" i~~l~l CANTEBRIMdiOii ~ ~ 0-'
1:0--- ::l "_ '"~,~'" lii! J' it... ~ l!
-' ~'Il'.1~II''i\'' ~~"$'~.41 VIA.../:3 : 'lollll.~ od
, j;; ~ ~I.~I. J
..---- \. EEMAN DR :.oA1UOE~:! SAIl
._..--,/ (;; ~ ~~ ~ ~ClE/tEHTE
-- -- /--T +" ,) g' "0 i'
ff---- !! ~~ /" S BONITA DR ~
II 1-;;z ~ '; :;':~:1!; oo~ ~ ~LJ~ :~CERO I j ~
I is VHIX01~ ~ j CM 0 OfttllUIA ~
,r----- ---------< ~"~'"'''n" l 8 1 f-:::-- A
i .~,\\~ ~kOEN ~ \b-t~~ "_~ I r
o "'t<1> \\J '-" -rr=<l ~".., !
r--' 1 ..... Cl ~EGAl
\i~, =:.. , ~;: ::; (,~ ,to r->REGAL Ro
\ ">g-~ ~ f' 4\ "'~ "I - Q)(;d,,~ ;:;II-J:j I
. c:I .h", - ~ ~~~ ~'~ W~ ...,
\-" PASS\\~% V _:t::;-; 0
(' ~ ~ ~ . ~~.~I~ \ . "'i,OA.".....~~ g ~
>y~ AV3IN3 ~~.... ~II
~ 0 0' AND s~;: I~~ ) 0"; 1- TRATfO.~"~'_"
<5 ^' 01'" ii. 2: I; ~ /t;; ". ARDEN ~,. OR
ca ^vooml]Ia5~<>'>< \7."" 5 ...
-.J "" ~ 10 - 11.1 " ,~6 ~ii~O SAN OfEGUlTola OR
A'rI VOVlWI '(1 0.. ,~.t 4 ~ ~ 5,..... ~ I l:t.. lOO '''''
A~ '" --L ;5 i! CORHI~ J DR
J - AV )I~ J ~~ t; nJ).ID:b:. DR -.. ~..IIt; _ ,..., 100 _1t;A~t;1
~t :Jr. Vl^~ :c:-;::~ ... ~ '-"" ~ Vl OE\llnl<.JI~
;." ^' r- ~J, ,~~. ~ "not.>;f.'coo'.j '\ p' "tA ;a... 's! ...~~ ...
~ Deft-\<. ~ :~ VIEW A~ i' ~~~ j ffi VI ~I\ ).~ U ~" /1"'1
~/..~ ~I~ ~~ ~I~ ~~I.f ~<._ ..Tl sT~
. ~ a co,,, ~ i;;\ "-
Qoocrr~-g^ s "" ---SOOt> ;::'!0~s'i-i. 2liOt;~ii tf; ..... tf;Sl~
7' 0 "'""'11 ,\\) 0'\ f}JH~ ~ i 3M..oo u..\s\f<D\_
~ V> ~ ~ ~ ~ !,-O~Jl~ \,.-~~ ,,~~l 1RD Sl "" ~ to u~lIlIl 0 4TH \: ~~
~ "".,:~ ~ <, \-~ VI ~\i.t\.. ~'J.^~""1_4H\ ~ ~.........~lj\~
\. ~ ~4f> ,'J' J.: v.\.'t>~\. t~?' ~~~~~l ~F~ !>ll\ ~ ~",' ,j: '
e. ". ~V1"'~ _______.. . '..' ..
a ~ ~'"' ~S,,-:. '-","1- <fl , ::J'~~. '.}' "::...;r:.~''';';::' )t'~
." 4. ~, t:;;;IJ' .::. , ~ ..,J"'I':".': ,.-,,'. "'~.o!jo..'*:'. '
..... --. ~,,~ \1'" . -:\~ .'.., , r . ','.. .
'f:fl v:. llJ'~... \1l"~JL -;;-'_",:,'....: _" ....} .,
l1lJ~~~ ,~~,. j./.... ~ ~ ~ ... ";;":"'</".:.,:<.','
",'lI'\.gl", ~~~ ~ ~ ':':' " "~'\.'.':'HI;":. '!"'~'\'if;F;';$~
~ ~ ~." -:< is'' .',., lI...l.' . '''.'':;';,1,.'''./
....... ~<-, 1..... _ -.... ~;:s , u" '.'- .;,},,'- f..
"'0,"" --- ~ ~ '-.) a .' ~:i "
~ 15-'..% ",'.~ " 1'1:',... . ;';:J.,
;~~;l>_".f.,I';'4;" ,.,.,'~~.i~'i+i"/i~tt ;'ff,~~;i'~~~'
:.__~:~Jt~,,:~?~h'i~-.:.; :tf{'tt:,j .: ,:~." . ':';~;{:~~{t;JY"f)~f,;; l~\k~~r.as~:.'~
I
I
I
l --'-_="~ I
I
__~--- I
---
,--
I
I
I
I
IJ HOLLOW-J./i
SlfJom ~ "'
i;;: DR
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. ~"'~
'" or-w
:i1
"! Nl:;o:::
o,=>
9<0(9
~gu:
"' 0.....
'Z
" Ow
z::2:
"! .....=>
Uu
~ ~O
00
0:::
0.
~
"'
~
o
o
0.0l<tl
<( ~--
::2:,C:
0'"
ZOlg
O::2:ro
..........U
<( - -
Uc:1/l
O:><tl
,...,.~
...Ju..c:
W ='(3
.....<tlc:
oo6w
00
0::: "'Cl
W
wI <I.l
......
I..... c<l
.....0 I-<
::2:g;j C/l 0
u 0..
000 .....
0:::<( ~ I-<
LL::2: ...c: 0
00 u u
WI J1)~
.......... ............
0.<0
<(Ol
00l
<(~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
March 26, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Page NO.2
The roughly square-shaped site encompasses approximately 8 acres situated along the east side
of a north-south trending ridge. Low bluffs bordered the ridge top. To the east, terraced pads
for greenhouses descended to Quail Gardens Drive. Elevations at the site ranged from
approximately 170 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in the southeast corner of the site, to
approximately 258 feet MSL in the northwest corner of the site.
Existing improvements included the greenhouse pads, unimproved access roads, overhead
utilities, and a single residential structure in the northwest corner of the site. Documentation
regarding past earthwork at the site was not reviewed.
4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development includes 23, single-family residences situated along two cul-de-sacs.
The pads are separated by slopes and retaining walls, with slope heights up to 20 feet in the
southwest corner of the site, and retaining wall heights up to 6 feet. The pads are relatively level
with the exception of Lot 6, which is a split-level lot that will include a retaining wall as part of the
structure.
Site improvements included the widening of Quail Gardens Drive from the north end of the
development to roughly 150 feet south of the southern end of the site. Quail Gardens Drive was
widened to the west. The two interior streets, Kristen Court and Lindsey Lane, end in cul-de-
sacs.
5.0 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
The subject site is situated in the coastal plain section of the Peninsular Range Province, and is
primarily underlain by Cenozoic sedimentary bedrock materials. Specifically, the site is underlain
by the Eocene-age Torrey Sandstone formation, Quarternary-age terrace deposits, and
compacted fill soil. Minor amounts of alluvium and colluvium also exist at the site. Previously
placed fill and alluvial/colluvial soils in structural areas were excavated during the remedial
grading of the site. The as-graded geologic conditions are depicted on the attached As-Graded
Geotechnical Map, Plates 1 and 2. Generalized descriptions of the geologic units are as follow:
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
March 26, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Page NO.3
5.1 Torrey Sandstone
The Torrey Sandstone likely underlies the entire site at depth, but was primarily exposed
during grading in the eastern part of the site and generally at elevations beneath 215 feet
MSL. As observed at the site, this formation consisted generally of yellow-brown and
gray, silty fine- to medium-grained sandstone. The sandstone was typically massive and
moderately cemented. This formation is not exposed in the finish grades at the site.
5.2 Terrace Deposits
The ridge top and bluff area in the eastern part of the site was underlain by terrace
deposits. This formation is exposed at finish grades in Lots 14 and 15, and in the cut
slope north of these lots. As observed at the site, this formation consisted generally of
reddish brown, clayey to silty, fine- to medium-grained sandstone. The sandstone was
weakly to moderately cemented, and generally massive. Expansion index testing
conducted in this material indicated a very low potential for expansion.
5.3 Alluvium
Alluvium was encountered in drainage channels that were buried beneath the greenhouse
pads at the site, and in the Quail Gardens Drive right-of-way. As observed at the site, the
alluvium consisted generally of dark brown, silty fine to medium sand with few gravel. The
alluvium was generally loose to medium dense, and typically very moist to wet. The
alluvium was removed from structural areas with the exception of the Quail Gardens Drive
right-of-way. For the road widening, the upper two feet of the road subgrade was
excavated and replaced with compacted fill. The excavated material was re-used in
compacted fills.
5.4 Colluvium
Colluvial soils were exposed in the cut slope in the northwest corner of the site. As
encountered during the grading, the colluvium consisted primarily of brown, silty fine sand.
The sand was generally loose and compressible. Except for the colluvium exposed in the
cut slope, these soils were excavated to expose the underlying formational material. The
excavated material was incorporated in the compacted fill.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
March 26, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Page NO.4
5.5 Fill
Fill soil placed previous to this subject development was encountered over much of the
eastern portion of the property. As observed during grading, the fill consisted primarily of
brown and yellow-brown, silty to clayey fine sand. These fills also included some wood,
brick, concrete and other debris. The fill soils were generally loose and considered
unsuitable for the support of structural loads. These materials were excavated and reused
in the compacted fills, except for the debris which was hauled off site.
5.6 Groundwater
Groundwater seepage was observed in the drainage channels exposed during grading.
Generally, the seepage was encountered at elevations beneath 190 feet MSL. The
source of the seepage was not determined.
5.7 Seismicitv
No faults were observed during fine grading of the site. The active fault nearest to the site
is the Rose Canyon/Offshore Zone of Deformation fault zone located approximately 3
miles to the west. A magnitude 6.5 earthquake along this fault zone could result in peak
horizontal bedrock accelerations of approximately O.4g.
6.0 SUMMARY OF GRADING OPERATIONS
In general, the earthwork consisted of the grading of the house pads, slopes, and street
subgrades. The site grades are shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map, Plates 1 and 2.
The project grading plans, prepared by Pascoe Engineering (1996), serve as base maps for the
As-Graded Geotechnical Map.
Grading was performed by Cass Construction Incorporated. Typical cut and fill mass grading
techniques were employed using heavy earth-moving equipment. Site grading began with the
removal of deleterious materials and loose surficial soils. Fill soils were placed to bring areas up
to design grades, and individual lots were graded.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
March 26, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Page NO.5
6.1 Preparation of ExistinQ Ground
The site was cleared of surface obstructions and stripped of vegetation. In general, the
existing loose surficial soils, including the colluvium, alluvium and existing fill, were
removed to expose competent bedrock materials. Colluvium was left in place in the cut
slope located in the northwest corner of the site, and alluvium was left in at depths greater
than 2 feet below subgrade for the widening of Quail Gardens Drive. The approximate
limits of removals, and the approximate elevation of the bottom of the removals, are
indicated on Plates 1 and 2. Prior to placing fill, the exposed surfaces were scarified to
a depth of 6 to a inches, brought to approximately optimum moisture content, and
compacted.
6.2 Fill
Fill soils for site grading were typically placed in 6- to a-inch thick lifts, brought to
approximate optimum moisture content, and compacted by the equipment delivering,
watering, or mixing the soil. The equipment used for compaction consisted of sheepsfoot
rollers, bulldozers, blades, water trucks, and scrapers.
6.3 Cut and Fill Slopes
Constructed slopes at the site ranged in height to up to approximately 20 feet. The slopes
were constructed in general accordance with the project plans and specifications at a
slope ratio of 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical). Adverse soil or geologic conditions were not
observed in the cut slopes. Fill slopes were back-rolled and track-walked.
6.4 Subdrains
Subdrains were constructed to intercept the seepage exposed during grading. The drains
were located in the drainage course in the southern part of the site, and beneath the fill
slope along Quail Gardens Drive in the southern portion of the site. The drains consisted
of 3/4-inch crushed rock wrapped in filter fabric. The subdrains were connected by a
tightline, composed of 4-inch diameter PVC pipe, to the storm drain inlet box located in
the southeast corner of the site.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
March 26, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Page NO.6
6.5 Cut/Fill Transition Lots
To reduce differential settlement beneath structures, lots with both formational materials
and fill soils exposed at finish grade were over-excavated to a depth of approximately 3
feet, and replaced with compacted fill. Lots 1, 2,11,12,16,19,22, and 23 were over-
excavated to eliminate cut/fill transistions beneath the structures.
7.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The various materials used as fill are tabulated in Figures B-1 of Appendix B, "L.aboratory
Testing". Brief descriptions of the soil types used are included. The maximum density and
optimum moisture content of each soil type was determined in the laboratory by ASTM method
D1557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fills generally consisted of silty, fine-grained sand (SM).
To evaluate materials for conformance with project specifications, expansion index testing was
conducted on representative samples collected from the finish-graded pads. ASTM test method
ASTM D2419 was used to evaluate sand equivalent, ASTM D422 was used to evaluate particle
sizet, and D4829 was used to evaluate the expansion index. The results of the laboratory testing
are presented in Appendix B.
8.0 FIELD DENSITY TESTING
In-place moisture and density tests were made in accordance with ASTM D2922-91 and D3017-
88 (Nuclear Gauge Method). The results of these tests are tabulated in the figures of Appendix
C, "Field Density Test Results". Appendix C also presents the relative compaction of the fill as
compared to the respective maximum density (ASTM D1557-91).
The locations and elevations indicated for the tests presented on the As-Graded Geotechnical
Map 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.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
March 26, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Page No. 7
9.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In our opinion, grading and compaction was performed in general accordance with the intent of
the project geotechnical recommendations (ICG Inc., 1990), and with the requirements of the City
of Encinitas. As previoulsy noted, however, Lots 7, 8, and 9 were not completed at the time ofthis
report. An addendum letter will be provided to address the completed grading of those lots. The
conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based on the observations and testing
performed between November 4,1996, and March 21,1997. No representations are made as
to the quality and extent of materials not observed.
9.1 Fill Compaction
Based upon our observations and testing, it is our professional opinion that fill soils were
placed in substantial accordance with the compaction criteria of 90 percent of the
maximum density as determined by ASTM 01557-91. Where field testing indicated less
than 90 percent relative compaction, the pertinent fill soils were reworked to achieve the
specified compaction.
9.2 Slope Stability
Fill and cut slopes were constructed as discussed in Sections 6.3 to heights up to 20 feet.
Slope stability was evaluated based on the referenced geotechnical investigation (ICG
Inc., 1990), and site observations of conditions exposed during grading.
In general, slopes should be stable with regard to deep-seated failure with a factor of
safety of at least 1.5. Slope analysis was based on our best estimate of the prevailing
geologic conditions, groundwater conditions and soil strength characteristics. It should be
realized that site conditions can be complex and variable due to changes in stratigraphy,
geologic structure, and changes in groundwater. It is possible that conditions can differ
from those anticipated in our analysis. Any changes to constructed slope heights, ratios,
retaining walls, or addition of surcharge should be evaluated by the geotechnical
consultant.
Man-made and natural slopes will weather over time as a result of wetting and drying,
biologic forces and gravity. As a result, the outer 5 feet of slope face may undergo minor
down-slope creep over the years. While it is not possible to completely eliminate this
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
March 26, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Page NO.8
effect, it can be minimized by establishing deep-rooted vegetation on the slope,
maintaining the drainage patterns established during construction, and by rodent control.
We recommend vegetation which is adapted to semi-arid climates, therefore requiring
minimal irrigation.
9.3 Site DrainaQe
Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well the runoff waters drain
from the site. This is true both during construction and over the entire life of the structure.
The ground surface around structures should be graded 50 that water flows rapidly away
from the structures without ponding. The surface gradient needed to achieve this depends
on the prevailing landscape. In general, we recommend that pavement and lawn areas
within five feet of buildings slope away at gradients of at least two percent. Densely
vegetated areas should have minimum gradients of at least five percent away from
buildings within five feet of the structure's perimeter. Densely vegetated areas are
considered those in which the planting type and spacing is such that the flow of water is
impeded.
Planters should be built 50 that water from them will not seep into the foundation, slab,
or pavement areas. Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain
landscaping plants. Should excessive irrigation, water line breaks, or unusually high
rainfall occur, saturated zones or "perched" groundwater may develop in fill soils. This
condition may result in excessive moisture migration into and through foundations and
slabs. Damage to landscape may also occur.
9.4 Foundations
The following recommendations are based on our testing and observation of the grading,
the laboratory testing of the soil near finish grade, and 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 structural engineer incorporating
the geotechnical parameters described in the following sections.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
March 26, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Page NO.9
In general, the expansion index testing indicated that the soils exhibit a very low
expansion potential. The following parameters assume an expansion index of less than
20, and that the structure will be founded either entirely on compacted fill or entirely on
relatively undisturbed formational material. We understand that post-tensioned slabs will
be used at each of the lots.
Edge Moisture Variation, em
not expansive
Differential Swell, Y m
not expansive
Differential Settlement:
3/4 inch
Allowable Bearing Capacity:
2,000 Ibs/ff at slab subgrade.
Footing Embedment:
12 inches minimum below lowest adjecent
grade (actual based on structural design)
9.4.1 lateral Resistance
lateral loads against structures may be resisted by friction between the bottoms
of footings or slabs and the supporting soil. A coefficient of friction of 0.3 is
recommended. Alternatively, a passive pressure of 300 pcf is recommended for
the portion of vertical foundation members embedded into compacted fill or
formational material. If friction and passive pressure are combined, the passive
pressure value should be reduced by one-third.
9.4.2 SloDe Setback
Footings on slopes should be founded at a depth such that at the distance
between the lower outside edge of the footing and the face of any slope is at least
eight feet.
9.4.3 Settlement
Settlement resulting from the bearing loads recommended are not expected to
exceed 1 inch and 3/4 inch, respectively for total and differential settlements
across the length of the structure.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
March 26, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Page No. 10
9.5 Moisture Protection for Slabs
Concrete slabs constructed on soil ultimately cause the moisture content to rise in the
underlying soil. Typical moisture protection used in southern California for interior, on-
grade slabs consists of approximately 2 inches of clean sand over plastic sheeting, over
2 inches of clean sand over subgrade. It has been our experience that such systems will
transmit from approximately 6 to 12 pounds of moisture per 1000 square feet per day.
It is our opinion that soil conditions do not exist that would preclude the use of the
indicated moisture protection on this project. It should be recognized, however, that this
system relies entirely on the integrity of the visqueen membrane. Accordingly, care should
be taken to protect the visqueen against all punctures and to provide adequate overlap
at all seams.
If the above discussed moisture transmission is considered to be excessive for the types
of floor coverings planned, further protection can be realized by adding a capillary break
layer in accordance with the followng alternative:
2 inches of clean sand (sand equivalent of 30 or more), over
10 mil. plastic sheeting, over
4 inches of minus 3/8-inch crushed rock over subgrade.
If desired, further protection can be obtained by using a water-cement ratio of no greater
than 0.5 and fully curing the concrete in accordance with the guidelines of the American
Concrete Institute.
9.6 Exterior Slabs
Reinforcement and the use of crack control joints should help reduce random cracking and
differential movement. Slabs should be at least 4 inches in thickness and should be
reinforced with at least 6-inch by 6-inch, W1.4 by W1.4 welded-wire fabric. Slabs may
bear directly on compacted subgrade. Crack control joints should be provided on no
greater than 5-foot centers for sidewalks, and not greater than 8-foot centers, each way.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
March 26, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Page No. 11
9.7 Earth Retaininq Structures
Retaining walls should be backfilled with material exhibiting a low expansion potential, less
than 20 as evaluated by UBC Standard 29-2 (Expansion Index test). Materials exhibiting
a greater expansion potential would increase the lateral pressures beyond design values.
The following design parameters for earth retaining structures are provided assuming
backfill with a low potential for expansion.
Equivalent Fluid Pressure with level backfill:
35 Ibs/ft3
Equivalent Fluid Pressure with 2:1 sloping backfill:
45 Ibs/ft3
Allowable Soil Bearing:
2,000 Ibs/ft2
Passive Pressure:
250 Ibs/ft3
Coefficient of Friction, soil to concrete:
0.3
The equivalent fluid pressures are based on the active soil state, assuming the walls are
free to rotate at least 1 percent of the wall height. The pressures do not include
surcharge loads, hydrostatic pressure, or seepage forces. Walls should be fully drained
to prevent hydrostatic or seepage pressures. When combining passive pressure and
friction for passive resistance, the passive pressure should be reduced by one-third.
It has been our experience that site retaining walls frequently develop high moisture or
free water in the backfill due to heavy irrigation that commonly occurs in subdivisions.
This leads to problems such as efflorescence on the face of the wall and spalling of
stucco finishes. To decrease such problems, it is suggested that walls be moisture-
proofed on the positive side in addition to having a back-drain.
Retaining wall backfill should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction
(ASTM D1557-91). Backfill should not be placed until walls have achieved adequate
structural strength. Heavy compaction equipment which could cause distress to walls
should not be used.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
March 26, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Page No. 12
Temporary excavations in compacted fill greater than 4 feet in height should be no steeper
than 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical). Temporary excavations in formational materials should
be no steeper than 3/4: 1.
10.0 LIMITATIONS
Our services were performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar
circumstances, ioly 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 performed 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.
As in most major projects, conditions revealed by excavation may be at variance with preliminary
findings. If this occurs, the changed conditions must be evaluated by Geotechnics Incorporated
and designs adjusted as required or alternate designs recommended. Although our observations
and testing did not reveal deficiencies, we do not guarantee the contractor's work, nor do the
services provided by Geotechnics relieve the contractor of responsibility in the event of
subsequently discovered defects in his work.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
March 26, 1997
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Page No. 13
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
~2$~
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. C 40333
Principal
Iv--
W. Lee Vanderhurst, C.E.G. 1125
Principal
Geotechnics Incorporated
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; Geosynthetics, ASTM,
Philadelphia, PA, 1296 p.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996, Proposal for Geotechnical Services, Testing and Observation
of Grading and Construction of Improvements, Quail Gardens, Encinitas TM 90-209,
Encinitas, California; Proposal No. 6-228, dated October 21.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996, Supplemental Geotechnical Recommendations, Quail Run,
Encinitas, California: Project No. 0196-002-01, dated October 30.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996, Interim As-Graded Report, Quail Run, Lots 1, 22, and 23,
Encinitas, California: Project No. 0196-002-01, dated December 17.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997, Pavement Recommendations, Kristen Court and Lindsey Lane,
Quail Run, Encinitas, California: Project No. 0196-002-01, dated February 24.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997, Pavement Recommendations, Quail Gardens Drive at Quail
Run, Encinitas, California: Project No. 0196-002-01, dated March 6.
ICG Incorporated, 1990, Geotechnical Investigation, 7.5Acre Site, Quail Gardens Drive, Encinitas,
California: Job No. 04-5801-001-00-00, dated January 22.
Pascoe Engineering, undated, Grading Plan for TM 90-209: 5 sheets, signed August 30, 1993.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX 8
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 performed follows:
Classification: Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soil Classification System.
Visual classification was supplemented by laboratory testing of selected samples to determine
classification in accordance with ASTM 02487.
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture: The maximum densities and optimum moisture contents
of representative soil samples were determined by using test method ASTM 01557-91, modified
Proctor. The test results are summarized in Figure B-1.
Sand Equivalent The sand equivalent of the material imported to the site for pipe bedding was
evaluated using ASTM test medthod 02419. The test results are shown in Figure B..1.
Particle Size Analvsis: The grain size distribution of the material imported to the site for pipe
bedding was evaluated using ASTM test medthod 0422. The test results are shown in Figure
B-2.
Exoansion Index: The expansion potential of selected soils was characterized by using the test
method ASTM 04829. The results are presented in Figure B-3.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MAXIMUM DENSTIY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
(ASTM D1557-91)
SAMPLE MAXIMUM OPTIMUM
DESCRIPTION DENSITY MOISTUR
NO. (PCF) E(%)
1 Orange-brown silty fine sand (SM) 119.0 13.0
2 Brown silty fine sand (SM) 119.0 11.5
3 Yellow-brown silty fine sand (SM) 116.5 12.5
4 Brown silty fine sand (SM) 117.5 10.0
5 Brown silty fine sand (SM) 121.5 11.0
6 Yellow-brown silty sand (SM) 121.5 10.0
7 Dark yellow-brown, sand (SP) with gravel 135.0 7.0
(Imported Class II Base)
8 Gray-brown silty sand (SM) 130.0 8.0
SAND EQUIVALENT
(ASTM 02419)
I
8
59
~
SAMPLE NUMBER
SAND EQUIVALENT
Geotechnics
Incorporated
Laboratory Test Results
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
Cornerstone Communities Corp.
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Figure B-1
0
0
0
~ '" N
a ..... 0
f!! 0 ..... 00
N
a a W
:E a ,
<0 0::
::i ,:..: ,:..: ,
X <0 ci :J
~ :E :E UJ 0> Z (!)
:J :J 0 ~
w ~ a E ii:
Ol Q u ci
<>: ::> ;= ~ Q)
~ a rn Z E
::i :'i (3 U :J
;= U
.. 0.. rn Q) 0
:'i B 0
~
0.. 0..
I
I
T
-
- --
-
.!!
~
E
e
."
>-
:I:
-
8
N
..
/ ~
8 0
;;; j
'"
~
'"
00 ...
~ - '- '"
-- @
~ 1--
> :E
-~ /
rn "S
i ./ '"
N
c Cii
~
Iii "
ui "iij
=i", ~
/g" <:J
;;; ~
1/ /'
\\: "..a/
./
./
;j;
- --
~ 0
~
-
I- --- . --
- - -
-
-
0 0 0 r- 0
0> co 0 0 0
I
I
I
I
o
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
I
I
t'
,
o
o
o
o -
~fi!~Nfl\q Jat'J!:llu1:lJ9dg
o
N
I
0
z >-
.. :'i
f-
-' u
in ]
Z ci.
~
0 0
m u
:2 i= a rn
(/) "C <( N Q)
c U , :2
<11 a <::
U> u:: 0> :J
Q) ::a; E
U> lJ) l::. E
~
<11 lJ) 0
0 <( <:: U
UJ " :J
Z 0 -l 0:: Q)
u: ... U <::
Z Q) "0; .8
c
0 -= -l :J i!l
;= ,., 0 a Q)
.. '"' <::
u Ui lJ) ~
u: 0
Vi U
0
z rn
::; .. S
::> rn 0
0
UJ oJ Z
::; 5 0
rn ;=
0 0..
W ii!
u: 0 "0
UJ Z rn
w
rn :J C Q)
'"
.. .....
0
u til
lI.l '"'
<.) 0
...... 0;
UJ 0 '"'
z 0
u: ,..q
<.) <.)
Q) 0
.....,...,
-' 0
UJ co
> ~
UJ ~
rn Q)
'" "-
C5 C> ::; d
..
u rn L:
Q)
.0
E
:J
Z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Geotechnics
Incorporated
EXPANSION INDEX TESTS
(ASTM 04829)
SAMPLE
NUMBER
SAMPLE
LOCATION
REPRESENTING
LOTS
EXPANSION
INDEX
EXPANSION
POTENTIAL
2 Lot 1 1 0
3 Lot 14 13 throu h 15 0
4 Lot 11 10 throu h 12 0
5 Lot 18 16throu h 18 0
6 Lot 20 19 and 20 0 Ver Low
7 Lot 21 21 0 Ver Low
8 Lot 3 0 Ver Low
UBC TABLE NO. 29-C, CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION
0-20
21-50
51-90
91-130
Above 130
Very Low
Low
Medium
High
Ve Hi h
Laboratory Test Results
Quail Run (TM 90-209)
Cornerstone Communities Corp.
Project No. 0196-002-01
Document No. 6-0773
Figure B-3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPENDIX C
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
In-place moisture and density tests were made in accordance with ASTM 02922-91 and 03017-88
(Nuclear Gauge Method). The results of these tests are tabulated in the Figures C-1 through C-5,
"Field Oensity Test Results". The approximate test locations are presented on the attached As-
Graded Geotechnical Map, Plates 1 and 2. The locations and elevations indicated for the tests
presented on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map 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.
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. 01557 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 01556 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.
The grading, and accordingly the testing, of Unit 4 was conducted concurrently with the other
portions of EastLake South Greens, Phases 2 and 3. Individual units or street alignments were not
treated as individual projects. This resulted in non-sequential test numbering for any specific unit
or street alignment.
Geotechnic. Incorporated
I
I .......... Geotechnics DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-002-01
Incorporated Quail Run Document No. 6-0773
Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-1
I Test Test Elevation Location/ Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
No. Date [ft] Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
I [pcl] [%] [pcl] [%] [%]
1 11/6/96 202 7 2 119.0 10.7 107.9 91 90
I 2 11/6/96 208 8 2 119.0 8.9 110.9 93 90
3 11/6/96 208 8 2 119.0 11.6 107.4 90 90
4 11/6/96 202 7 2 119.0 9.2 109.0 92 90
5 11/6/96 204 7 2 119.0 6.2 113.2 95 90
I 6 11/6/96 210 8 2 119.0 8.6 108.2 91 i.O
7 11/7/96 206 7 2 119.0 10.6 113.8 96 90
8 11/7/96 212 8 2 119.0 5.2 118.5 100 90
I 9 11/7/96 208 7 2 119.0 4.3 115.2 97 90
10 11/7/96 217 9 2 119.0 10.7 110.0 92 90
11 11/8/96 214 8 2 119.0 9.2 114.0 96 ilO
I 12 11/8/96 219 9 2 119.0 7.5 113.6 95 90
13 11/12/96 196 7 2 119.0 112 114.9 97 90
14 11/12/96 190 7 2 119.0 11.9 111.6 94 iJO
15 11/12/96 198 7 2 119.0 10.2 111.9 94 90
I 16 11/12/96 186 5 2 119.0 11.7 113.2 95 90
17 11/13/96 205 7 2 119.0 10.3 111.1 93 90
18 11/13/96 197 7 2 119.0 12.7 112.2 94 90
I 19 11/13/96 202 7 2 119.0 9.1 112.7 95 90
20 11/13/96 206 7 2 119.0 8.9 110.9 93 90
21 11/13/96 204 7 2 119.0 10.9 113.4 95 90
22 11/13/96 198 5 2 119.0 7.8 112.4 94 90
I 23 11/13/96 202 7 2 119.0 7.6 108.6 91 90
24 11/14/96 205 7 2 119.0 5.4 111.8 94 ~IO
25 11/14/96 210 7 2 119.0 6.9 109.8 92 90
I 26 11/14/96 208 7 2 119.0 5.7 110.0 92 ~IO
27 11/14/96 213 7 4 117.5 4.0 103.4 88 90 28
28 11/14/96 213 7 4 117.5 5.2 105.9 90 ~IO
29 11/14/96 215 7 4 117.5 8.4 107.1 91 ~IO
I 30 11/15/96 215 8 4 117.5 9.7 110.3 94 ~IO
31 11/15/96 217 8 2 119.0 11.3 1147 96 fiG
32 11/15/96 216 7 2 119.0 10.3 113.0 95 90
I 33 11/15/96 164 4 4 117.5 13.2 110.7 94 90
34 11/15/96 167 4 4 117.5 9.3 107.6 92 90
35 11/15/96 173 4 4 117.5 10.7 105.9 90 9'0
I 36 11/15/96 175 4 4 117.5 10.9 107.4 91 90
37 11/18/96 173 4 4 117.5 8.2 106.7 91 90
38 11/18/96 172 4 4 117.5 11.6 110.1 94 90
39 11/18/96 177 3 4 117.5 12.2 111.6 95 90
I 40 11118/96 179 4 4 117.5 8.9 109.1 93 90
41 11/18/96 179 3 4 117.5 14.5 107.3 91 90
42 11/19/96 179 3 4 117.5 10.0 113.4 97 90
I 43 11/19/96 182 4 4 117.5 14.3 111.5 95 90
44 11/19/96 175 1 4 117.5 11.7 107.8 92 90
45 11/19/96 184 4 4 117.5 13.5 108.8 93 90
I 46 11/19/96 183 3 4 117.5 12.7 106.9 91 90
47 11/19/96 175 1 4 117.5 8.6 105.9 90 90
48 11/19/96 188 4 4 117.5 13.4 110.2 94 90
I
I
I ......... Geotechnics DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-002-01
Quail Run Document No. 6-0773
Incorporated Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-2
I Test Test Elevation Location/ Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
No. Date [It] Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
I [pet] [%1 [pet] [%] 1[%]
49 11/20/96 177 1 4 117.5 9.3 108.7 93 90
I 50 11/20/96 183 1 4 117.5 6.5 106.3 90 90
51 11/20/96 186 4 4 117.5 12.7 112.3 96 90
52 11/20/96 188 4 4 117.5 11.9 115.2 98 90
53 11/20/96 187 2 4 117.5 10.6 111.4 95 90
I 54 11/20/96 183 1 4 117.5 10.7 107.9 92 90
55 11/21/96 185 23 4 117.5 12.5 114.5 97 90
56 11/21/96 190 1 4 117.5 7.0 108.4 92 90
I 57 11/21/96 193 5 4 117.5 10.9 110.8 94 90
58 11/21/96 192 4 4 117.5 11.4 105.9 90 90
59 11/21/96 190 23 4 117.5 13.6 106.8 91 90
I 60 11/21/96 186 23 3 116.5 89 101.2 87 90 61
61 11/21/96 186 23 3 116.5 8.8 105.0 90 90
62 11/25/96 192 5 4 117.5 10.9 109.2 93 '30
63 11/25/96 193 5 4 117.5 12.7 109.1 93 90
I 64 11/25/96 188 1 4 117.5 11.8 109.7 93 !30
65 11/25/96 195 5 3 116.5 12.4 111.9 96 90
66 11/25/96 198 5 3 116.5 13.9 112.7 97 90
I 67 11/25/96 191 1 3 116.5 11.0 111.7 96 !30
68 11/25/96 190 1 3 116.5 11.3 112.4 96 !30
69 11/26/96 191 23 3 116.5 11.4 105.2 90 90
70 11/26/96 197 23 3 116.5 13.0 107.6 92 90
I 71 11/26/96 196 2 3 116.5 11.9 108.5 93 90
72 11/26/96 201 5 3 116.5 9.4 111.3 96 iJO
73 11/26/96 199 2 4 117.5 13.6 107.2 91 110
I 74 11/27/96 213 5 2 119.0 9.5 110.6 93 110
75 11/27/96 215 19 2 119.0 89 110.9 93 110
76 12/2/96 206 4+50 2 119.0 10.1 108.6 91 110
I 77 12/2/96 208 19 2 119.0 9.4 108.3 91 110
78 12/2/96 209 4+30 2 119.0 9.4 111.0 93 ~IO
79 12/2/96 211 111 2 119.0 8.8 111.6 94 110
80 12/2/96 212 19 2 119.0 9.9 107.5 90 ~IO
I 81 12/2/96 208 21 3 116.5 8.5 105.2 90 ~IO
82 12/2/96 210 21 3 116.5 7.9 105.0 90 110
83 12/2/96 211 21 3 116.5 6.7 106.0 91 ~IO
I 84 12/2/96 212 21 3 116.5 8.6 105.2 90 90
85 12/2/96 212 21 3 116.5 6.0 109.5 94 1:10
86 12/3/96 215 19 2 119.0 11.2 113.7 96 90
87 12/3/96 218 19 2 119.0 12.8 110.7 93 90
I 88 12/3/96 199 22 4 117.5 10.8 106.8 91 90
89 12/3/96 199 22 4 117.5 10.1 108.7 93 90
90 12/3/96 200 22 4 117.5 10.3 108.3 92 90
I 91 12/3/96 220 19 2 119.0 15.3 102.9 86 90 92
92 12/3/96 220 19 2 119.0 15.1 110.4 93 90
93 12/4/96 215 18 2 119.0 8.6 108.9 92 90
I 94 12/4/96 216 18 2 119.0 72 110.2 93 90
95 12/4/96 219 18 2 119.0 11.4 115.0 97 90
96 12/4/96 220 18 2 119.0 11.3 115.0 97 90
I
I
I ........ Geotechnics DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-002-01
Quail Run Document No. 6-0773
Incorporated Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-3
I Test Test Elevation Location/ Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
No. Date [ft] Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
I [pet] [%J [pet] [%J [%j
97 12/4/96 218 18 2 119.0 11.4 117.0 98 90
I 98 12/4/96 221 18 2 119.0 12.5 113.1 95 90
99 12/5/96 219 10 2 119.0 14.2 112.8 95 90
100 12/5/96 220 10 2 119.0 14.5 113.5 95 90
101 12/5/96 222 10 2 119.0 12.2 114.2 96 90
I 102 12/5/96 222 18 2 119.0 10.7 114.7 96 90
103 12/5/96 223 18 2 119.0 12.3 112.2 94 90
104 12/5/96 224 18 2 119.0 11.4 113.2 95 90
I 105 12/6/96 223 18 5 121.5 8.3 111.1 91 90
106 12/6/96 226 18 5 121.5 10.9 112.3 92 90
107 12/6/96 225 18 5 121.5 10.6 112.7 93 90
108 12/6/96 227 18 5 121.5 10.4 114.3 94 90
I 109 12/6/96 229 17 5 121.5 8.8 115.4 95 90
110 12/6/96 227 17 5 121.5 8.7 114.8 94 '90
111 12/6/96 228 17 5 121.5 10.0 112.5 93 130
I 112 12/13/96 223 12 5 121.5 16.1 100.9 83 !90 115
113 12/13/96 224 12 5 121.5 12.3 112.7 93 90
114 12/13/96 224 11 5 121.5 13.9 110.6 91 190
I 115 12/13/96 223 12 5 121.5 8.0 115.7 95 IlO
116 12/13/96 226 11 5 121.5 9.1 115.2 95 IlO
117 12/16/96 228 10 5 121.5 10.0 111.5 92 IlO
118 12/16/96 229 11 5 121.5 10.5 118.0 97 IlO
I 119 12/16/96 226 12 5 121.5 9.5 112.4 93 ilO
120 12/16/96 201 22 5 121.5 10.6 112.4 93 ilO
121 12/16/96 195 23 5 121.5 12.5 112.3 92 110
I 122 12/16/96 194 1 5 121.5 10.2 114.8 94 !10
123 12/16/96 225 7+00 5 121.5 11.5 118.0 97 ilO
124 12/16/96 229 6+15 5 121.5 13.1 117.0 96 ilO
125 12/16/96 232 17 5 121.5 9.3 113.2 93 !10
I 126 12/16/96 230 17 5 121.5 11.8 110.7 91 !l0
127 12/17/96 226 10 5 121.5 14.9 111.3 92 !l0
128 12/17/96 228 10 5 121.5 14.3 112.0 92 !l0
I 129 12/18/96 230 16 5 121.5 8.2 110.3 91 !l0
130 12/18/96 233 16 5 121.5 9.1 109.6 90 !l0
131 12/18/96 236 16 5 121.5 8.6 110.4 91 flO
I 132 12/18/96 238 16 5 121.5 9.0 109.7 90 flO
133 12/19/96 236 12 3 116.5 8.7 107.4 92 SID
134 12/19/96 237 12 3 116.5 8.8 106.7 92 flO
135 12/19/96 233 11 5 121.5 14.1 111.6 92 90
I 136 12/19/96 232 11 5 121.5 13.8 112.5 93 90
137 12/19/96 234 11 5 121.5 13.8 110.3 91 90
138 12/23/96 245 15 5 121.5 10.1 111.4 92 g,O
I 139 12/23/96 242 14 5 121.5 12.5 111.5 92 90
140 12/23/96 241 13 5 121.5 13.3 110.8 91 gO
141 12/26/96 238 12 4 117.5 7.6 108.4 92 90
142 12/26/96 236 SLOPE 4 117.5 9.3 109.6 93 90
I 143 12/26/96 235 11 5 121.5 8.3 112.3 92 90
144 12/26/96 231 10 5 121.5 10.4 115.7 95 90
I
I
I ....-.... Geotechnics DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-002-01
Quail Run Document No. 6-0773
Incorporated Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-4
I Test Test Elevation Location/ Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
No. Date [It] Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
I [pel] [%] [pel] [%] [%]
145 12/26/96 233 SLOPE 5 121.5 9.0 116.0 95 90
I 146 12/26/96 235 SLOPE 5 121.5 9.8 110.0 91 90
147 12/26/96 236 SLOPE 5 121.5 10.4 109.5 90 90
148 12/27/96 244 16 4 117.5 9.0 106.8 91 90
I 149 12/27/96 234 17 4 117.5 7.3 108.8 93 90
150 12/27/96 228 18 5 121.5 10.8 114.9 95 !JO
151 12/31/96 213 20 5 121.5 11.6 113.8 94 90
152 12/31/96 219 SLOPE 5 121.5 13.1 112.0 92 !JO
I 153 12/31/96 221 19 5 121.5 13.7 116.0 95 90
154 12/31/96 226 SLOPE 5 121.5 13.5 114.3 94 !JO
155 12/31/96 215 SLOPE 5 121.5 14.7 110.6 91 90
I 156 12/31/96 213 SLOPE 5 121.5 11.5 113.4 93 gO
157 12/31/96 215 SLOPE 5 121.5 12.4 112.6 93 !lO
158 12/31/96 218 21 5 121.5 12.1 112.1 92 gO
159 12/31/96 222 SLOPE 5 121.5 12.8 108.9 90 gO
I 160 1/2/97 209 SLOPE 5 121.5 15.6 109.9 90 ~IO
161 1/2/97 210 SLOPE 5 121.5 14.7 1112 92 90
162 1/2/97 228 SLOPE 5 121.5 11.2 113.2 93 90
I 163 1/2/97 225 SLOPE 5 121.5 12.5 111.7 92 ~'o
164 1/2/97 224 SLOPE 4 117.5 10.8 107.3 g1 90
165 1/2/97 220 SLOPE 4 117.5 11.3 106.1 gO 90
I 166 1/2/97 229 10 4 117.5 9.2 105.2 90 90
167 1/7/97 215 5+30 5 121.5 12.0 110.7 91 90
168 1/7/97 217 5+70 6 121.5 11.3 110.2 91 90
169 1/7/97 213 5+00 6 121.5 11.1 111.3 92 ~IO
I 170 1/7/97 212 4+35 6 121.5 12.0 109.2 90 SIQ
171 1/7/97 217 4+95 6 121.5 13.8 112.4 93 SIQ
172 1/7/97 216 4+35 6 121.5 13.4 114.4 94 610
I 173 1/8/97 213 6&7 5 121.5 12.3 117.6 97 9'0
174 1/8/97 210 6&7 5 121.5 12.5 116.8 96 90
175 1/8/97 205 5&7 5 121.5 15.0 117.3 97 90
176 1/8/97 211 5&7 5 121.5 14.3 113.6 93 90
I 177 1/9/97 198 5 5 121.5 13.7 114.5 94 90
178 1/9/97 197 5 5 121.5 13.7 113.2 93 90
179 1/9/97 200 5 5 121.5 11.3 112.0 92 90
I 180 1/9/97 199 5 5 121.5 11.8 111.3 92 90
181 1/9/97 210 6 5 121.5 11.6 115.5 95 90
182 2/3/97 231 7+35 6 121.5 14.6 114.0 94 90
I 183 2/3/97 230 7+10 6 121.5 13.6 115.2 95 90
184 2/3/97 228 6+80 6 121.5 13.0 116.1 96 90
185 2/3/97 224 6+30 6 121.5 11.8 117.5 97 90
186 2/3/97 219 5+80 6 121.5 13.1 114.7 94 90
I 187 2/4/97 183 4 6 121.5 13.0 110.3 91 90
188 2/4/97 182 4 6 121.5 12.5 111.0 91 90
189 2/4/97 187 4 5 121.5 15.1 113.2 93 90
I 190 2/4/97 196 4 5 121.5 14.0 115.4 95 90
191 2/7/97 188 1 5 121.5 10.9 118.0 97 90
192 2/7/97 183 1 5 121.5 12.8 114.8 94 90
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Geotechnics DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-002-01
Incorporated Quail Run Document No. 6-0773
Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-5
Test Test Elevation Location/ Soil M ax. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
No. Date [It] Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
[pet] [%j [pet] [%] 1%]
193 2/7/97 172 4 5 121.5 13.7 109.9 90 90
194 2/7/97 170 4 5 121.5 12.7 110.8 91 90
195 2/7/97 190 23 5 121.5 13.8 1122 92 90
196 2/7/97 191 23 5 121.5 14.7 111.2 92 90
197 2/11/97 233 7+75 5 121.5 13.4 117.2 96 90
198 2/11/97 232 6+85 5 121.5 13.1 117.3 97 90
199 2/11/97 229 6+45 5 121.5 14.7 115.9 95 90
200 2/11/97 225 6+00 5 121.5 14.9 116.3 96 90
201 2/11/97 205 1+20 6 121.5 10.9 118.0 97 90
202 2/11/97 206 1+32 6 121.5 11.3 116.4 96 90
203 2/13/97 223.5 5+80 5 121.5 9.3 111.2 92 90
204 2/13/97 221.5 5+45 5 121.5 9.7 116.2 96 90
205 2/13/97 199 2 5 121.5 12.2 115.5 95 90