1998-5536 EX/FM/G/I
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Capital improvement Projects
District Support Services
city of
Field Operations
Encinitas
Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
January 25, 2002
Attn: The American Insurance Company
777 San Marin Drive
Novato, California 94998
RE: Barratt American
TM 97-263 Quail Hollow
Grading Plan 5536-G
Final release of security
Permit 5536-G authorized grading, earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all
needed to build the described project. The Field Operations Division has approved the
rough grading. Therefore, release of the security deposit is merited.
Performance Bond 11141361219, in the amount of $358,364.00, is hereby fully
exonerated. The document originals are enclosed.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-
2779 or in writing, attention this Department.
Sincerely, r
Al
eslie Suelter
Masih Maher
Senior Civil Engineer Financial Services Manager
Financial Services
Cc: Leslie Suelter, Financial Manager
Barratt American
file
enc.
recycled a paper
P P
TEI. -60-(i33-3600 FAX 760-633-262- ~O~ S. Vulcan Avenue. Encinitas. California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2-,00
ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Capital Improvement Projects
city of District Support Services
Encinitas Field Operations
Sand Replenishment/Stormwater Compliance
Subdivision Engineering
Traffic Engineering
January 24, 2002
Attn: The American Insurance Company
777 San Marin Drive
Novato, California 94998
RE: Barratt American
TM 97-263 Quail Hollow
Grading Plan / Improvement Plan 5536-G/I
Final release of security
Permit 5536-GI authorized grading, earthwork, storm drainage, and erosion control, all
needed to build the described project can be released in full. Permit 5536-I for site
improvements have been complete and can be released in full and the monuments have
been set per the approved map so the Monumentation bond can be released in full.
Performance Bond 11133440476, in the amount of $180,602.00, is hereby fully
exonerated. Performance Bond 11119454491, in the amount of $150,755.00, is
hereby fully exonerated and Monumentation Bond 11119454509, in the amount of
$4900.00 is hereby fully exonerated. The document originals are enclosed.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact Debra Geishart at (760) 633-
2779 or in writing, attention this Department.
Sincerely,
Leslie Suelter
Masih Maher
Senior Civil Engineer Financial Services Manager
Financial Services
Cc: Leslie Suelter, Financial Manager
Barratt American
file
enc.
recycled a paper
TEL 760-633-2600 r FAX -,(,o-633-262- 505 S. Vulcan Avenue. Encinitas. California 92024-3633 TDD 760-633-2700 P P
Geotechnics
Incorporated
' Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. Imhriglio
f w. Lee Vanderhurst
' August 12, 1998
t E
Cornerstone Communities Corporation Project No. 0196-003-01
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600 Document No. 8-0613
' San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Jack Robson
' SUBJECT: GEOTECHNICAL UPDATE LETTER AND GRADING PLAN REVIEW
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch
' Encinitas, California
References: (1) Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc., 1998, Grading Plans for Encinitas
' Ranch, Quail Hollow TM No. 97-263:WO 2020-07, 8 sheets, dated May 12.
(2) Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996, Geotechnical Investigation, Encinitas Ranch,
' Encinitas, California: ProjectNo. 0054-002-00, DocumentNo. 5-0588, dated January
19.
' (3) Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998, As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Encinitas
Ranch, Encinitas, California: ProjectNo. 0054-002-02, DocumentNo. 6-0620, dated
' March 31.
Dear Mr. Robson:
' In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the referenced grading plans (Reference 1) and
are providing updated geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Quail Hollow development
' in Encinitas, California. These recommendations update the recommendations provided in the
preliminary geotechnical report (Reference 2), and the as-graded report (Reference 3). The
' recommendations provided in this letter are based on review of the project plans, a geologic
reconnaissance of the site and subsurface exploration which was conducted August 4, 1998, and
' engineering analysis of the site conditions.
9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B San Diego California • 92131
Phone (619) 536-1000 Fax (619) 536-8311
1 Project No. 0196-003-01
Cornerstone Communities Corporation Document No. 8-0613
' August 12, 1998 Page No. 2
' Conditions at the site appear to be generally similar to those described in the referenced as-graded
geotechnlcal report. Some erosion of the surface has occurred in relatively confined areas.
Significant changes to the site were not noted.
Based on our review of the geotechnical conditions and the grading plans, it is our opinion that the
t proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint provided appropriate construction
practices and the recommendations of the referenced geotechnical reports, and the recommendations
included herein, are followed. Where a conflict of recommendations occurs, this report should
supersede recommendations of previous reports. No geotechnical conditions were encountered that
' would preclude the proposed construction. Additional recommendations for specific aspects of the
project are as follow.
COMPRESSIBLE SOIL
Lots 1, 2, and 3, situated along or near Swallowtail Road, are partially underlain at depth by
pre-existing fill and alluvial soils. To keep from undermining the existing street, these
' materials were not removed during the rough grading of the site. We recommend that
structures not be constructed where underlain by compressible alluvial soils. The resulting
' set back is approximately 50 east of Swallowtail Road, and approximately 60 feet south of
the storm drain easement. As an alternative to the set backs, foundations for these lots may
' include thickened, structural slabs or deep foundations. Additional geotechnical evaluation
of the subsurface conditions should be conducted to evaluate alternative foundation designs.
SLOPE STABILITY
The stability of the existing slopes was evaluated as presented in the referenced as-graded
geotechnical report (Reference 3). The proposed slopes include cut slopes up to
approximately 30 feet high and inclined at 1.8:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter, and fill
' slopes up to approximately 65 feet high and inclined at 2:1 or flatter. Our analysis indicates
that the proposed slopes meet or exceed a factor-of-safety of 1.5 for gross stability, with the
exception of the proposed fill-over-natural slope in Lots 10 and 11, and the proposed fill
' slope along the alignment of Quail Gardens Drive between approximate Station Nos. 46+00
' and 50+50.
Geotechnics Incorporated
Project No. 0196-003-01
Cornerstone Communities Corporation Document No. 8-0613
' August 12, 1998 Page No. 3
The proposed fill-over-natural slope west and northwest of Lots 10 and 11 was evaluated for
potential planes of weakness in the formational material (Santiago Formation) underlying
' the slope. As indicated in the attached boring log (Figures B-1 through B-3), a soft clay
seam and a thin layer of discontinuous polished surfaces were encountered at approximate
' elevations of 306 feet and 302 feet, respectively. Based on an analysis of the stability of the
proposed slope using the computer program PCSTABL5, the clay seam and the layer of
discontinuous polished surfaces should be removed from the face of the slope for a width of
at least 20 feet and be replaced with compacted fill in order for the proposed slope to achieve
' a minimum 1.5 factor-of-safety. We recommend that the keyway for this buttress be
excavated at approximate elevation 300 feet where sandstone is anticipated to be
encountered. The keyway for this buttress should be 20 feet wide and generally extend the
length of the proposed fill slope along Lots 10 and 11. The actual extent of the keyway and
buttress should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading.
' The grading plans indicate that the existing slope along Quail Gardens Drive, between
approximate StationNos. 46+00 and 50+50 (original Station Nos. 117+50 and 122+00), will
be steepened to an inclination of approximately 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). The existing
' slope is underlain by siltstone and sandstone of the Santiago Formation. Thin, partially
sheared clay seams and groundwater seepage were noted in this slope during the rough
grading. Based on an analysis of the stability of the proposed slope using the computer
program PCSTABL5, a keyway in from the face of the slope, a minimum of 40 feet wide,
' should be excavated to remove the siltstone near the base of the slope at an approximate
elevation of 286 feet. The excavated material should be replaced with compacted fill. In
' addition, the buttress should be at least 20 feet wide at approximate elevation 308 feet in
order for the proposed slope to achieve a minimum 1.5 factor-of-safety. The extent of the
' keyway and buttress should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading.
' We further recommend that geocomposite panel drains be installed as shown in the attached
Figure 1. The panel drains should be placed along the backcut over any zones of exposed
groundwater seepage, or zones of possible groundwater seepage, and as evaluated by the
' geotechnical consultant during grading.
Geotechnics Incorporated
1
Project No. 0196-003-01
Cornerstone Communities Corporation Document No. 8-0613
August 12, 1998 Page No. 4
SUBSURFACE DRAINS
Groundwater seepage was observed along the contact between the Santiago Formation and
the overlying terrace deposit in the area of Lots 8, 9, and 10. We recommend that a subdrain
be installed, as shown in Figure 2, to direct the seepage into appropriate storm drain devices.
' Groundwater seepage may also appear in the planned cut slopes behind Lots 12 through 18.
Panel drains, as shown in Figure 1, may be installed to reduce the potential for seepage
appearing in finished slopes.
' DIFFERENTIAL SETTLEMENT
To reduce the potential for differential settlement beneath a structure's foundation, we
recommend that the underlying fill thickness generally not exceed a ratio of 2 to 1. Over-
excavation of the pads, entailing replacement of some part of the formational material with
compacted fill, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading.
PRELIMINARY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
' These recommendations are considered generally consistent with methods typically used in
southern California. Other alternatives may be available. The foundation recommendations
herein should not be considered to preclude more restrictive criteria of governing agencies
or by the structural engineer. The design of the foundation system should be performed by
the project structural engineer, incorporating the geotechnical parameters described in the
following sections.
The following recommendations are provided for structures underlain either entirely by
' relatively undisturbed formational materials or by compacted fill, and that the subgrade
materials exhibit a low potential for expansion. Lot-by-lot testing of expansive soils should
' be performed during grading of the site. If expansive soils are encountered, modified
foundation recommendations will be warranted.
Geotechnics Incorporated
Project No. 0196-003-01
Cornerstone Communities Corporation Document No. 8-0613
August 12, 1998 Page No. 5
' Allowable Soil Bearing: 2,500 lbs/ft2 (allow a one-third increase for short-term
wind or seismic loads)
' Minimum Footing Width: 12 inches
Minimum Footing Depth: 18 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade
Minimum Reinforcement: Two No. 4 bars at both top and bottom in continuous
' footings.
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 lbs/ft3 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.
Settlement resulting from the bearing loads recommended for shallow foundations are not
' expected to exceed 1 inch and 3/4 of an inch for total and differential settlements, respec-
tively, across the length of each structure.
PRELIMINARY CONCRETE SLAB RECOMMENDATIONS
1
Building slabs should be supported by compacted fill or formational material. Slabs should
be designed for the anticipated loading. If an elastic design is used, a modulus of subgrade
' reaction of 250 kips/ft' should be suitable. As a minimum, slabs should be at least 5'/2 inches
in thickness and be reinforced with at least No. 3 bars on 24-inch centers, each way.
Concrete slabs resting on soil ultimately cause the moisture content of the underlying soils
to rise. This results from continued capillary rise and the ending of normal
evapotranspiration. As concrete is permeable, moisture will eventually penetrate the slab
' unless some protection is provided. To decrease the likelihood of problems related to damp
slabs, suitable moisture protection measures should be used where moisture sensitive floor
' coverings or other factors warrant. A commonly used moisture protection consists of about
four inches of clean sand covered by'visqueen' plastic sheeting. In addition, 2 inches of sand
Geotechnics Incorporated
1
Project No. 0196-003-01
Cornerstone Communities Corporation Document No. 8-0613
' August 12, 1998 Page No. 6
are placed over the plastic to decrease concrete curing problems associated with placing
concrete directly on an impermeable membrane. It has been our experience that such
systems will transmit from approximately 6 to 12 pounds of moisture per 1,000 square feet
per day. This may be excessive for some applications. If more protection is needed, we
'
recommend that the slab be underlain by at least 6 inches of minus 3/4-inch crushed rock,
' with no plastic membrane. In addition, it is recommended that a low water-cement ratio (0.5
maximum) be used for cement, and that the slab be moist-cured for at least five days in
accordance with methods recommended by the American Concrete Institute. On-site quality
control should be used to confirm the design conditions.
EARTH RETAINING STRUCTURES
Retaining walls should be backfilled with soil having an expansive index of 20 or less.
' Cantilever retaining walls should be designed for an active earth pressure approximated by
an equivalent fluid pressure of 35 lbs/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 50 lbs/ff should be used, based
on at-rest soil conditions with level backfill. The above pressures do not consider any
' 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. Walls
should contain an adequate subdrain to eliminate any hydrostatic forces. Alternative
retaining wall drain details are given in Figure 3.
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 equipment which could cause distress to walls should
' not be used.
The recommendations presented herein are considered generally consistent with methods typically
' used in southern California, and have been developed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or
Geotechnics Incorporated
Project No. 0196-003-01
Cornerstone Communities Corporation Document No. 8-0613
' August 12, 1998 Page No. 7
' similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and
professional opinions included in this letter.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of professional service. Please do not hesitate to call us with
' any questions you may have.
' GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
Dick Roberts Robert A. Torres, P.E. 43077
Project Geologist Senior Engineer ~~DQ$QofESS/pN~
A. T ~y
w O,p
Ix M
EXP, 3 3_q2
&thon. Belfast, PE 40333
`
' Principal F OF CA
DR/RAT/AFB
' Distribution: 5 Addressee
(2) Mr. Ray Martin, Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc.
Attachments: Figure 1, Slope Subdrain Detail
Figure 2, Subdrain Detail
Figure 3, Wall Drain Detail
Figures B-1 through B-3, Log of Exploration Boring No. B-1
Geotechnics Incorporated
MINIMUM 6-INCHES OF
SOIL COVER -
RECONSTRUCTED
SLOPE
2
000
DIRECTION OF
SEEPAGE FLOW
COMPOSITE PANEL DRAIN
(FABRIC SIDE FACING WATER SOURCE)
4-INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED
PVC PIPE
y c _A
MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED ROCK
tf
2-INCHES OF CRUSHED ROCK
BELOW PERFORATED PIPE
KEYWAY BOTTOM ~ (1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAL FOOT)
12-INCHES, MINIMUM
' CONSTRUCTION NOTES
1) The drainage panels should consist of prefabricated geocomposite drain such as Miradrain
6000, Tensar DC1200, TerraDrain 201, or TerraDrain 402.
2) Splices in panels should be as recommended by the manufacturer. Interlocking type panels
should be overlapped at least 6 inches. Non-interlocking type should overlap at least 12 inches.
' 3) Subdrains should outlet by a solid 4 inch PVC pipe to a storm drain system. Perforated pipe
and outlet pipe should have a fall of at least 1 percent.
' 4) As an alternative, a one foot thick, continuous, blanket of minus 3/4 inch crushed rock may
be used in place of the composite panel drain. The rock should be completely surrounded by
filter fabric.
G e o t e c h n i c s SLOPE SUBDRAIN DETAIL Project No. 0196-003-01
_ Quail Hollow Document No. 8-0613
I n c o r p o r a t e d Cornerstone Communities Corp. FIGURE 1
Finish Grade--,,,
Terrace
' See details below - Deposit
000 ~ SEEPAGE
Santiago Formation
Geocomposite Panel Drain,
Mirafi 6000, J-Drain 400,
Supac DS-15, or similar n
I
2-foot minimum
Filter Fabric surrounding v - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
cruched rock. Mifafi 140NL,
Supac 4NP, or similar
Geologic Contact
4-foot min.
4-inch perf. Sch.40 PVC
V-ditch, 60 to 90 degrees
Minimum of 1 cubic feet per lineal foot
of minus 3/4-inch crushed rock
SUBDRAIN DETAIL Project No. 0196-003-01
G e o t e c h n i c s Quail Hollow Document No. 8-0613
Incorporated Cornerstone Communities Corp. FIGURE 2
1
AML
t DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER-
PROOFING AS REQUIRED
ROCK AND FABRIC
ALTERNATIVE COMPACTED
.BA, KFILL .
12-INCH
• MINIMUM
MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED ROCK
' ENVELOPED IN FILTER FABRIC
(MIFAFI 140NL, SUPAC 4NP, OR
APPROVED SIMILAR)
DAMP-PROOFING OR WATER- 4-INCH DIAM. ADS OR PVC
' PROOFING AS REQUIRED PERFORATED PIPE
GEOCOMPOSITE : 12" ' a
PANEL DRAIN
COMPAGTED• ;
BACKFILL' PANEL DRAIN
1 CU. FT. PER LINEAL FOOT OF : • . • ALTERNATIVE
MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED
' ROCK ENVELOPED IN
FILTER FABRIC.
' 4-INCH DIAM. ADS OR PVC
PERFORATED PIPE
' NOTES
1) Perforated pipe should outlet through a solid pipe to a free gravity outfall. Perforated pipe and outlet
' pipe should have a fall of at least 1%.
2) As an alternative to the perforated pipe and outlet, weep holes may be included in the bottom of the
wall. Weepholes should be at least 2 inches in diameter, and be spaced no greater than 8 feet.
' 3) Filter fabric should consist of Mirafi 140N, Supac 5NP, Amoco 4599, or similar approved fabric.
Filter fabric should be overlapped at least 6-inches.
' 4) Geocomposite panel drain should consist of Miradrain 6000, J-DRain 400, Supac DS-15, or
approved similar product.
5) Drain installation should be observed by the geotechnical consultant prior to backfilling.
' WALL DRAIN DETAIL Project No. 0196-003-01
G e o t e chn i c s Document No. 8-0613
' I n c o r p o r a t e d Quail Hollow FIGURE 3
Cornerstone Communities Corp.
REV. I- 6
Logged by: JAA LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. B-1
Date: 814/98
' Drilling Method: 30-inch diameter bucket auger Elevation: 318' MSL
~ w w
H LL J J U o
LL W 2 a z
' a N N ~ D DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS
x ~
a 0O > N
~ _5 z O
m p m ~ ~
TERRACE DEPOSITS: Silty sandstone, orange-brown, fine to medium grain,
moist, moderately cemented, massive, few gravel.
' 2
3
' 4
SANTIAGO FORMATION: Silty sandstone, pale gray, fine to coarse grain,
5 moist, moderately cemented.
Grades to clayey siltstone, gray with iron-oixde staining, low to medium
7 plasticity, moist, moderately indurated.
8
9
10
' 11 2 CAL
12 Clay seam approximately 114-inch thick, olive gray, high plasticity, saturated,
soft, somewhat polished surface, dipping N80E/8N, slight seepage.
13
14
' 15
16 Discontinuous, semi-polished surfaces, undulating.
17
18
' 19
Silty sandstone, pale orange-brown, fine to medium grain, moist, moderately
20 cemented, trace of sub-rounded gravel.
' 21 2 CAL.
22 Weakly cemented, few cobbles.
23 Grades to siltstone, gray with iron-oxide staining, low plasticity, moist,
' moderately indurated.
24
' 25
26
' 27
Moderately to strongly indurated.
28
' 29
Dark olive gray, non-plastic, massive, few fossil fragments.
30
PROJECT NO. 0196-003-01 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-1
i
' LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. B-1 (continued)
Date: 8/4/98
Logged by: JAA Elevation: 318' MSL
' Drilling Method: 30-inch diameter bucket auger
~ J J U o
a
LL w a- W
DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS
' a n N
r
m m
a
W 0 > :3 w o
m o m ❑ ~
31 10 CAL SANTIAGO FORMATION(continued): Siltstone, dark olive gray, non-plastic,
moist, moderately to strongly indurated, few fossil fragments, massive.
' 32
33
' 34
35
36
' 37
38
39
40
Grades to silty sandstone, gray, fine grain, moist, moderately cemented.
' 41 10 CAL
42 Contact: N67W/3N
' 43 TORREY SANDSTONE: Silty sandstone, orange-gray, fine to medium grain,
moist, moderately cemented, massive.
44
45 Ligth gray with iron-oxide staining.
46
Strongly cemented concretion.
' 47
48
' 49
50
' 51 10 C` L
52
' 53
54
' 55
56
' 57
58
59
60
PROJECT NO. 0196-003-01 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-2
' LOG OF EXPLORATION BORING NO. BA (continued)
Date: 8!4!98
Logged by: JAA Elevation: 318' MSL
' Drilling method: 30-inch diameter bucket auger
F- LL J J U_ o
o: a
DESCRIPTION LAB TESTS
N aN N
~ 3 > _j z o
o
o m o m o
' 61 21 ' AL TORREY SANDSTONE(continued): Silty sandstone, light gray with iron-oxide
staining, fine to medium grain, moist, moderately cemented with some strongly
62 cemented concretions, massive.
' 63
' 64
65
' 66
67
' 68
69
70
71 25 4
72
' 73
74
' 75
76
77
78
79
80
' 81
Total depth: 80 feet
82 Groundwater seepage at 12 feet
No caving
83 Backfilled: 8/4/98
84
' 85
86
87
88
89
90
PROJECT NO. 0196-003-01 GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED FIGURE: B-3
e ~ •
Geotechnics
A bib- Incorporate
I Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. imbriglio
W. Lee Vanderhurst
August 13, 1998
Project No. 0196-003-01
Cornerstone Communities Corporation Document No. 8-0616
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600
San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Jack Robson
SUBJECT: GRADING PLAN NOTE
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch
Encinitas, California for En References: (1) Hunsaker & Associates San Diego O 202007,,8 madding Plan May 12cinitas
Ranch, Quail Hollow TM No. 97-263.W sheets, dated .
(2) Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996, Geotechnical Investigation, Encinitas Ranch,
Encinitas, California: ProjectNo. 0054-002-00, DocumentNo. 5-0588, dated January
19.
(3) Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998, As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Encinitas
Ranch, Encinitas, California: ProjectNo. 0054-002-02, DocumentNo. 6-0620, dated
March 31.
(4) Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998, Geotechnical Update and Grading Plan Review,
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch, Encinitas, California: Project No. 0196-003-01,
Document No. 8-0613, dated August 12.
Dear Mr. Robson:
Number 2 of the General Notes on Sheet 2 of the referenced grading plans (Reference 1), indicates
that the "Geotechnical Investigation Ranch Northridge Encinitas, California" should be considered
as part of the grading plans. The Northridge geotechnical investigation pertains to the property just
north of the subject site. We recommend that the geotechnical investigation, as-graded report, and
update letter (References 2, 3, and 4) be considered as part of the grading plans. The "sampling and mmn~
9951 Busi Phone (619) 536-1000 Fax (619) 536-8311a 92131
wmm~
•
Project No. 0196-003-01
•
Cornerstone Communities Corporation Document No. 8-061
Page No.
13, 1998 2
study of the soil conditions" under the Soils Engineer's Certificate should include dates from
November 1, 1995, through August 4, 1998.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of professional service. Please do not hesitate to call us with
any questions you may have.
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
Dick Roberts Anthony F. Belfast, PE 40333
Principal
Project Geologist
DR/AFB
Distribution: (2) Addressee
(1) Mr. Ray Martin, Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc.
~Pr~ F E5 a
t
< C040333 -
LU
Exp.--
C 1\1
~rF OF CA~~FC
Geotechnics Incorporated
.99011hil Geotechn*
Incorporated
Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. Imbriglio
W. Lee Vanderhurst
November 8, 1998
Project No. 0196-003-02
Cornerstone Communities Corporation Document No. 8-0848
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600
San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Mike Reynolds
SUBJECT: RETAINING WALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch
Encinitas, California
Dear Mr. Reynolds:
As you requested, we have reviewed Information Bulletin 222 from the City of San Diego Building
Inspection Department. We understand the site retaining walls will be constructed in accordance with
the requirements of that bulletin. We also understand the maximum wall height will be 8 feet, and
will be retaining slopes inclined at 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) or flatter.
As indicated in the bulletin, the wall requirements are based on an active earth pressure with an
equivalent fluid pressure of 30 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This is appropriate for walls retaining
level backfill, and for walls retaining slopes with a maximum height of 4 feet. Retaining walls
supporting 2:1 sloped backfill, where the height of the retained slope is in excess of 4 feet, should be
designed using an equivalent fluid pressures of 43 pcf for the on-site soils.
Footings for the proposed walls may be designed using a bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square
foot (psf). Lateral loads may be resisted using a passive pressure of 300 pcf, and be embedded a
minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. For footings on or adjacent to slopes, the
footings should be embedded a sufficient depth to provide a minimum of cover of 5 feet between the
top of the footing and the slope face.
Drainage consisting of gravel and weep holes should be provided as indicated in the details attached
to the bulletin. We recommend that the 12-inch thick gravel drain noted on the details be wrapped
with filter fabric (Mirafi 140 NS, or equivalent) to prevent the washing of the finer on-site soils into
9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B San Diego California • 92131
Phone (619) 536-1000 Fax (619) 536-8311
Project No. 0196-003-02
r Cornerstone Communities Corporation Document No. 8-0848
November 8, 1998 Page No. 2
the voids of the gravel, which may lead to settlement at the surface. As an alternative, the wall may
be drained using a drainage panel such as N iradrain 6000, or equivalent, installed in accordance with
the manufacturer's requirements. An alternative to weep holes would be to provide a 4-inch-diameter
perforated PVC pipe at the base of the wall. The pipe should be sloped to drain to a suitable
discharge area toward the front of the lot, or be outlet at the curb face. Only the portion solid. ththe pipe
e also
the discharge portion should
behind the retaining wall should be perforated,
recommend that the walls be waterproofed or damp-proofed to reduce the likelihood of efflorescence.
The recommendations presented herein are considered generally consistent with methods typically
used in southern California, and have been developed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily
exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants practicing in this or
similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and
professional opinions included in this letter.
We trust this letter meets your current needs. Please call if you have any questions or require
additional information.
Sincerely,
Geotechnics Incorporated
Joseph A. Adler Robert A. Torres, P.E. 43077
Project Geologist Senior Engineer ~O~FESS~ON
A.
Distribution: (2) Addressee ~ ~ Cc _0
Nr, EXP. 31 ?
OF C A
Geotechnics Incorporated
01/24/1994 19:09 E19-536-6311 C OTEO-NICS INC. PACE 02
•
Aiobi• Geotechnics
~i■~w~~''' Incorporated
Principals-
(?Z Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. Imbriglio
W. Lee Vanderhursf
r February 17, 1998
te. - 4i~NCl S~ TASES
Cornerstone Communities Corporation ET~`,,ir~ ENS roject No. 0196-003-00
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600 Document No. 8-0103
San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Jack Robson
SUBJECT: GRADING PLAN REVIEW
Encinitas Ranch, Quail Hollow East
Encinitas, California
References: (1) Hunsaker & Associates, 1998, Tentative Map, Encinitas Ranch, Quail Hollow
East, City of Encinitas, California: Job No. 2020-3, Scale: 1"=100', Sheets 1 and
2, stamped January 23.
(2) Geoeechnics Incorporated, 1996, Geotechnical Investigation, Encinitas Ranch,
Encinitas, California: Project No. 0054-002-00, Document No. 5-0588, dated
January 19.
Dear Mr. Robson:
In accordance with your request, we have reviewed the referenced tentative map (Reference 1)
for general conformance with the geotechnicai recommendations presented in Reference 2, and
for geotechnicai feasibility based on our observations during the rough grading of the site. The
plans show the proposed grades for 42 single-family lots at the north end of the Encinitas Ranch
development.
Based on our review, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a
geotechnicai standpoint. No geotechnical conditions were encountered that would preclude the
proposed construction. Specific geotechnicai design and construction considerations for the
proposed development include the following:
• A portion of the existing slope along the north side of Quail Gardens Drive, between
approximate Station Nos. 117+50 and 122+00, was inclined at 3:1 (horizontal to vertical)
based on conditions observed during the rough grading of the site. Thin beds of sheared
clayey siltstone were exposed In the slope face at several locations. The proposed grades
99S1 Business Park Ave., Ste. B • San Diego California , 92131
Phone (614) 536-ION - Fax (619) $36-8311
PAC£ 03
619-536-8311 GEOTE~I~ IIJC '
• ~ 1,
01%24/1994 19:09 i
v Project No. 0196-003-00
cornerstone communities corporation Documant No. 8.0103
February 17, 1998 Page No. 2
indicate that the slope will be steepened to 2:1. The stability of the existing 3:1 slope and
the proposed 2:1 slope was analyzed using PCSTABL5 software. Based on the analysis,
the existing 3:1 slope is stable with a factor-of-safety exceeding 1.5. The proposed 2:1
slope should include a keyway at least 40 feet wide at the toe of the slope. The sheared
clayey siltstone seams exposed in the existing slope should be over-excavated at least 20
feet ll from the face of the proposed 21 he attached slope. We also
to reduce the potential efor seepage t nsthe
installed as shown in In
slope and possible hydrostatic pressures.
• Lots 1, 2, and 3, situated along Swallowtail Road, are partially underlain at depth by pre-
these materials
existing fill and alluvial soils. To keep from undermining the existing street,
were not removed during the rough grading of the site. We recommend that structures not
be constructed where underlain by compressible alluvial soils. The resulting set back is
apprrnamately 50 east of Swallowtail Road, and approximately 60 feet south of the storm
drain easement. This set back significantly impacts Lot 3. As an alternative to the set
backs, we recommend that the compressibility of the soil underlying the site be evaluated
in order that foundation recommendations specific to each subject lot may be provided.
The evaluation would entail excavating one hollow-stem auger boring in the northwestern
portion Lot 3 collect
l is may ncludethickened, structural slabs or deep fo ndations.
Foundations for these
• The plans indicate additional fill slopes will be constructed at the western end of Lots 10
and 11. The keyway of these fill slopes are anticipated to expose sittstone associated with
the Santiago Formation. Bedding in this formation, exposed in the area of Lots 6 and 7,
was inclined to the northwest which may impact the stability of the proposed slopes. We
recommend that the stability of this proposed slope be evaluated prior to finish grading of
the site by excavating a 30-inch diameter boring, located along the property line between
Lots 10 and 11.
• Groundwater seepage was observed along the contact between the Santiago Formation
and the overlying terrace deposit in the area of Lots B, 9, and 10. We recommend a
in theater into appropriate
subdrain be installed, as shown in Figure 2, to direct subsurface
storm drain devices. Additional seepage may also appear
be installed to reduce
behind Lots 12 through 18. Panel drains, as shown in Figure 1, may
the potential for seepage appearing in finished slopes.
• To reduce the potential for differential settlement beneath a structure's foundation, we
recommend that the fill thickness generally not exceed a ratio of 2 to 1. Over-excavation
of the pads, entailing replacement of some part of the formational material with compacted
fill, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant during grading.
The recommendations presented in this letter have been developed using the degree of care and
skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable geotechnical consultants
Geotechnics Incorporated
PAGE 04
GEOTECI-NICS INC.
01'/24/1994 19:09 619-536-8311 •
• J
Project No. 0196-003-00
I Comerstone Communities Corporation Document No. B-0103
February 17, 1998 Page No. 3
i
practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the
conclusions and professional opinions Included in this letter.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of professional service. Please do not hesitate to call us if
you should have any questions or require additional information.
GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
Robert A. Torres, P. E. Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. 43077
Senior Engineer Principal
DR/RAT/AFB
. Q~gFE3S p
Distribution: (5) Addressee ~~~9 p~~ F BF~.~(F~
Attachments: Figure 1 - Slope Subdrain Detail t C040333 -m
Figure 2 - Subdrain Detail w
s~ Exp 'I-fl-
P. C1V%V
~ OF CALtFQ
Geotechntics Incorporated
GEOTEC NICS INC. PAGE 05
01/24/1994 19:09 619-536-8311
MINIMUM 6-INCHES OF ,
SOIL COVER
- r
RECONSTRUCTED - ` - ' T
SLOPE
fir'
- - DIRECTION OF
COMPOSITE PANEL DRAIN - SEEPAGE FLOW
(FABRIC SIDE FACING WATER SOURCE) -
4-INCH DIAMETER PERFORATED
PVC PIPE
MINUS 3/4-INCH CRUSHED ROCK
L 'o:o'•c.
2-INCHES OF CRUSHED ROCK
KEYWAY BOTTOM BELOW PERFORATED PIPE
(1 CUBIC FOOT PER LINEAL FOOT)
12-INCHES, MINIMUM
CONSTRUCTION NOTES
1) The drainage panels should consist of prefabricated geocomposite drain such as Miradrain
6000, Tensar DC1200, TerraDrain 201, or TerraDrain 402.
2) Splices In panels should be as recommended by the manufacturer. Interlocking type panels
should be overlapped at least 6 Inches. Non-interlocking type should overlap at least 12 Inches.
3) Subdrains should outlet by a solid 4 inch PVC pipe to a storm drain system. Perforated pipe
and outlet pipe should have a fall of at least 1 percent.
4) As an alternative, a one foot thick, continuous, blanket of minus 314 Inch crushed rock may
be used in place of the composite panel drain. The rock should bo completely surrounded by
finer fabric.
-A"- ~GeO t e c h n i c s SLOPE SUBDRAIN DETAIL Project No. 0196-003-00
Incorporated Quail Hollow East Document No. B-0103
Cornerstone Communities FIGURE NO.1
GEOTECHNICS INC. PAGE 06
01-/24!1994 19:09 619-536-8311
Finish Grade--,
Qt
See details below -.I. 1°I
SEEPAGE w r
u!i'l
opt N ~n 1111 '''S
1
+m lac = la+
. ac+~` rni ~ nr+?-
• I
I.
Geocomposlte Parcel Drain,
Mirafl 6000, J-Draln 400,
Supac DS-15, or similar
2-foot minimum
Fitter Fatxic surrounding
cruched rock, Mlfatl 140NL _ - - - - - - - - -
Supac 4NP or similar
Geologic Contxt
4-foot min.
+
J
V
4-Inch pert. Sch.40 PVC
V-ditch, 60 to 90 degrees
Minimum of 1 cubic feet per lineal foot
of minus 3/4-inch crushed rock
G e o t e c h n z c s SUBDRAIN DETAIL Project No. 0196-003-00
T n c o r orated Quail Hollow East Document No. 8-0103
P Cornerstone Communities FIGURE NO.2
AMEMNbAh: Geo echnicS
Incorporated
Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. Imbriglio
W. Lee Vanderhurst
December 28, 1998
Cornerstone Communities Corporation
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600 Project No. 0196-003-02
San Diego, California 92122 Document No. 8-0979
Attention: Mr. Mike Reynolds
SUBJECT: AS-GRADED LETTER
Model Lots - Lots 1,2 and 3
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch
Encinitas, California
Reference: Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996, Geotechnical Investigation, Encinitas Ranch,
Encinitas, California: Project No. 0054-002-00, dated April 16, 1996.
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your request, we have provided geotechnical observation and testing services
during the fine grading of Lots 1, 2 and 3 in the Quail Hollow residential development. The results
of our testing and observation during rough grading of the site in general, were previously
documented in the above referenced report.
Fine grading was performed by Perry and Shaw Incorporated, General Engineering Contractor.
Typical cut and fill grading techniques were employed using heavy earth-moving equipment. On site
soil materials were used to bring the subject lots to planned grade. Laboratory tests were conducted
to evaluate the maximum density and optimum moisture content in genreal accordance with ASTM
D1557-91, and the expansion potential in general accordance with ASTM D4829-95. The results
of the laboratory testing are attached as Figure 1.
P.O. Box 26500-224 • San Diego California • 92196
Phone (619) 536-1000 0 Fax (619) 536-8311
NoText
NoText
NoText
Amik
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
(ASTM D1557-91)
SAMPLE MAXIMUM OPTIMUM
NO. DESCRIPTION DENSITY (PCF) MOISTURE
-T
1 Light brown to brown silt sand (SM) 120.5 13.5
2 Light gray silty sand (SM) 119.0 13.5
3 Brown clayey sand (SC) 113.0 16.0
EXPANSION INDEX TESTS
(ASTM D4829)
SAMPLE SAMPLE EXPANSION EXPANSION POTENTIAL
NUMBER LOCATION INDEX
1 Lot 1 71 Medium
2 Lot 2 61 Medium
3 Lot 3 46 Low
0-20 Very Low
21-50 Low
51-90 Medium
91-130 High
Above 130 Very High
=G e o t e c h n i c s Laboratory Test Results Project No. 0196-003-02
Incorporated Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 8-0979
Cornerstone Communities Figure 1
DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-003-02
=n i c sQuail Hollow Development Document No. 8-0979
rporated Cornerstone Communities FIGURE 2
Test Test Elevation Location/ Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest
No. Date [ft] Station Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number
Lot No. [pctl [pcq
1 10/14/98 184 1 1 120.5 16.3 110.2 91 90 2 10/14/98 186 1 1 120.5 17.4 109.8 91 90
90
3 10/14/98 189 1 1 120.5 17.3 110.6 92 90
4 10/14/98 190 1 1 120.5 16.9 108.7 90 90
5 10/14/98 192 1 1 120.5 17.4 109.5 91 90
6 10/15/98 195 1 1 120.5 17.1 110.3 92
7 10/15/98 198 1 1 120.5 17.0 111.0 92 90
8 10/15/98 200 1 1 120.5 17.8 109.9 91 90
9 10/15/98 202 1 1 120.5 17.9 110.5 92 90
10 10/15/98 201 2 2 119.0 15.2 111.1 93 90 11 10/15/98 205 2 2 119.0 15.5 110.4 93 90
90
12 10/16/98 211 3 2 119.0 14.4 109.4 92 90
13 10/16/98 204 2 2 119.0 13.9 111.7 94
14 10/16/98 206 2 2 119.0 14.2 109.2 92 90 15 10/16/98 209 2 2 119.0 15.2 110.1 93 90
16 10/16/98 212 3 2 119.0 14.0 110.7 93 90 17 10/19/98 211 2 2 119.0 12.4 107.3 90 90
18 10/19/98 207 1 2 119.0 11.7 111.6 94 90 19 10/20/98 209 1 2 119.0 15.4 108.4 91 90
20 10/26/98 205 2 3 113.0 11.4 103.7 92 90 21 10/26/98 207 2 3 113.0 10.6 99.0 88 90 26
22 10/26/98 210 1 3 113.0 10.9 102.7 91 990
0
23 12/16/98 213.5 1 2 119.0 15.0 109.5 92
24 12/16/98 213.5 3 2 119.0 12.6 112.7 95 90
25 12/16/98 213.5 2 2 119.0 10.4 111.3 94 90 26 12/17/98 207 2 3 113.0 16.5 108.8 96 90
90
27 12/17/98 209 1 2 119.0 16.1 107.9 91
Geotechnics
Incorporated
Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. Imbriglio
W. Lee Vanderhurst
June 28, 1999
Project No. 0196-003-02
Cornerstone Communities Corporation Document No. 9-0191
4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600
San Diego, California 92121
Attention: Mr. Jack Robson
SUBJECT: FINE GRADING COMPACTION REPORT
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch
Encinitas, California
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of the testing and observation services provided during the fine
grading of Quail Hollow Development at Encinitas Ranch. The purpose of the observation and
testing services was to gain information on which to base our opinion of the conformance of the
earthwork construction with the project plans and specifications. In our opinion the grading and
compaction observed and tested to date was performed in general accordance with the intent of the
project geotechnical recommendations and with the requirements of the city of Encinitas. Our
services were provided in accordance with our Proposal No. 8-212 (Geotechnics Incorporated,
1998), and with Cornerstone Communities Contract No. 24-070, dated October 1, 1998.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Field personnel were provided for this project to observe and test the fine grading. The observation
and testing assisted us in developing professional opinions regarding the earthwork construction and
the suitability of the materials used. 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 fine grading, including ground preparation prior to fill placement and remedial
grading for transitions between formational/fill contacts exposed at finish grade.
9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B San Diego California • 92131
Phone (619) 536-1000 Fax (619) 536-8311
PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
` CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
JUNE 28. 1999 PAGE 2
• Performance of field density testing for evaluation of relative compaction.
• Laboratory testing to determine pertinent engineering characteristics of the soil and to supplement
those performed during past investigations. The results are summarized in Appendix C.
• 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
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch is a planned residential neighborhood located along the eastern side
of Swallowtail Road and immediately north of the proposed Quail Gardens Drive, in the city of
Encinitas, California. The approximate area is shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The tract
is roughly rectangular in shape and will consist of 42 single-family residences aligned along two cul-
de-sacs. Elevations at the site range from approximately 190 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in
the southwest corner of the site, to approximately 400 feet MSL in the northeast corner of the site.
The pads are separated by slopes and retaining walls, with slope heights up to 60 feet along the south
portion of the site, and retaining wall heights up to 8 feet.
The site was previously rough graded in 1996 through 1998 as part of the Encinitas Ranch
Development. The earthwork was conducted under the observation and testing of Geotechnics
Incorporated (1998).
4.0 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 Santiago Formation, Torrey Sandstone, Quaternary-age terrace deposits, and
compacted fill soil consisting primarily of silty sand and clayey sand. Minor amounts of
alluvial/colluvial soils and fill placed by others also exist at the site.
Geotechnics Incorporated
Now
` N ~0) r
o
00 w
o 0)
0
rn Z ti
v t\
so~~~,d~ Ia\ Ga~~a/ yip Z E
s I >l
I
I I E
I -
IJ.~ I
_ -O - - - - o - R m
V f. W ~y I l ( a
Q ff~ C
s _
I .i s
E
dls~~~t,3e Z c
~ - O
ti O v E
n-ia a 3 N09 i it I W .
1I 03 0 .O NJ
VOIAMO,
M31q )WIYIH ~ PAgSI ORA _ ~ _ ~
T '~o v
- - 7"O"Vs CY
I I ~Ngow -'r`
1 1r I ~ ,~y ..y1Nb2in I
LPt gURGUNDY.~-~~li r
.MN" 1~1 sICY LOFT s I-
vtLil 31NOW - e7- 80'QiS6~ - O~yMP~' ~IIH A0NVW210N
i
VS U ~
~p O
hOb'°~ ad ~ yi ?a ~~t Q~.~t S n
866 sdew 'soJ9 sewoy, woj} poldepy
•
CORNERSTONE COMMUNIT®R PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
JUNE 28, 1999 PAGE 3
The as-graded geologic conditions are depicted on the attached As-Graded Geotechnical Maps,
Plates 1 and 2. Generalized descriptions of the geologic units are as follow:
4.1 Santiago Formation
The Santiago Formation was primarily exposed during grading in the northern and central
portions of the site, and generally at elevations beneath 320 feet MSL. As observed at the
site, this formation consisted generally of yellow-brown and gray, silty fine grained
sandstone and siltstone. This formation was not exposed in the finish grades at the site.
4.2 Torrey Sandstone
The Torrey Sandstone was primarily exposed during grading in the southern area 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. This
formation was not exposed in the finish grades at the site.
4.3 Terrace Deposits
The ridge and bluff area in the eastern part of the site is underlain by terrace deposits. This
formation is exposed at finish grades in Lots 14, 15, 16, 24, and 25 and in the cut slopes
behind Lots 12 to 18 and 22 to 25. As observed at the site, this formation consisted generally
of reddish brown, clayey to silty, fine to medium grained sandstone. Expansion index testing
conducted in this material indicated a very low potential for expansion.
4.4 Alluvium and Undocumented Fill
During the rough grading of the site, pre-existing fill and alluvial soils were encountered east
of Swallowtail Road and beneath portions of Lots 1, 2 and 3 (Figures 2 and 3). The fill was
placed by others for the alignment of Swallowtail Road and portions of the area east of
Swallowtail Road. As observed during the rough grading, not all the alluvium underlying the
roadway alignment was removed prior to the placement of fill for Swallowtail Road.
Geotechnics Incorporated
16 i6 -I
salllunwwoz) ouolsiawoo a3an~td palEaodaoiui
youeltl sel!ulDu3 le MOIIOH IIeno s l u 11 J 2 10 2! w
~6W-6 'ON luawnoop , NOLLSSSOa~
ZO-£00-96W 'ON loafad d-d
0 O 0 0 O
N O r
N N O
Q co
N
tO
O N
N
r
d
A
n 0
N
°
N
N
C
O
N
C N
U) N
T
N
O
H
O
N
!'7
H
Q
J
ro
O
A
fU
C ~
LL ~
O
r
m
O) O
W
Q) =
r
oVM
LL
Co
Z N
LL C
N
O E O
C 7 O
O O 1
E O
L) '
N
0 I 1 co
J
LL
N ' 1 O
C f `
N
E
O I O
N
C
D C <
m
I En
T
1 O
J ' 0
F Q E 1 C.
300 7
Q ~ O
cl,
N O OD r
N N r
£ 32 new sa!l!unwwoo ouolsiawoo p 21 E a o d.i o-)u i
youeb sel!u!3u3 le mo110H !!enp s l u ll 3 210 2 J
L6 W-6 'ON luawnoop
ZO-COO-96 L O 'ON loa(ad WS N01133S-SSOND
0
p O O ~ ~ N
N O CD
N N O
O
N
O
O m
N
N
~ C ~
O
o _d
V A
C f0 (n O
LL U)
N
O
r
V
O
N
W
co
co
O u- a
~ c
c a~
E
E
O
O p
II
O
I { t0
O
I I V
N
O
I1 fn
1
tot
E 2 N
a
O v I ? ,o
_ o
J 0
10 Q r
1
0
Cl p m tpD a
C4 Q
N N
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
JUNE 28, 1999 PAGE 4
It was not possible to remove the alluvium and old fill without undermining the road and
adjacent improvements. Removals were made to within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical)
projection from the edge of the road. Compacted fill was then placed to the rough design
grades over the previously placed fill and alluvium.
The alluvium consisted primarily of brown, silty fine sand. The sand was generally loose and
compressible. This material was not observed elsewhere during the fine grading phase of this
project.
4.5 Documented f ill
Documented fill soils placed during the rough grading were encountered over much of the
the fill consisted primarily of brown
subject property. As observed during the fine grading,
and yellow-brown, silty to clayey fine sand. Additionally, minor amounts of imported fill
material generated from a nearby off-site source was used in the compacted fills. This
material generally consisted of greenish gray, sandy clay. Placement of the fill is
documented in the As-Graded Geotechnical Report for Encinitas Ranch (Geotechnics,
1998b). The fill soils were generally dense and considered suitable for the support of
structural loads. Expansion tests in the fill soils indicate that the expansion potential is in the
low to medium range.
4.6 Groundwater
Groundwater seepage was observed along the face of the cut slope located behind Lot 13
Dylan Way at approximately 324 MSL, and below the rear portions of Lots 16 and 17 Dylan
Way, at approximately 312 MSL. Additionally, groundwater seepage was also observed near
Lot 8 Dylan Way at approximately 314 MSL. The source of the observed seepage has not
been evaluated, but is likely associated with the irrigation from the adjacent property to the
east. Remedial measures for handling the observed groundwater seepage are described in
Section 5.7.
Geotechnics Incorporated
PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
JUNE 28. 1999 PAGE 5
4.7 Seismici
No faults were observed during the fine grading of the site. The closest active fault 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 produce peak
horizontal ground accelerations of approximately 0.4g.
5.0 SUMMARY OF GRADING OPERATIONS
In general, the earthwork consisted of the fine grading of the house pads, slopes, and street
Plates 1 and 2. The
subgrades. The site grades are shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map,
project grading plans, prepared by Hunsaker and Associates (1998), serve as base maps for the As-
Graded Geotechnical Map.
Fine grading was performed by Perry and Shaw Construction Incorporated. Typical cut and fill mass
grading techniques were employed using heavy earth-moving equipment. Site grading began with
clearing and grubbing of vegetation, and the removal of the existing loose surficial soils from the
site. Fill soils were placed to bring areas up to design grades.
5.1 Preparation of Existing Ground
The site was cleared of surface obstructions and stripped of vegetation. In general, the
existing loose surficial soils, were removed to expose competent bedrock and/or previously
placed compacted fill materials. Prior to the placement of fill during this phase of grading,
the exposed surfaces were scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, brought to approximately
optimum moisture content, and compacted.
5.2 Fi11 Soil Types
The various materials used as fill are tabulated in Figure C-2 of Appendix C "Laboratory
Test Results." Embankment fill materials were derived from on-site or designated borrow
sites. The maximum densities and optimum moisture of the soils were determined in the
laboratory in general accordance with ASTM method D1557-91 (Modified Proctor).
Geotechnics Incorporated
PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
JUNE 28, 1999 PAGE 6
Based on our expansion test
The fill soils vary from silty sand (SM) to sandy clay (CL).
results, figures C-1.1 and C-1.2, the fill soils placed at finished grade beneath proposed
buildings appear to have a very low to medium expansion potential.
5.3 Fill Placement and Compaction
Fill soils for site grading were primarily generated from on-site excavations, but some fill
material was imported from various off-site sources. The imported material generally
consisted of minor amounts of soil being disposed of from a nearby project.
Fill soils for site grading were typically placed in 6- to 8-inch thick lifts, brought to
approximate optimum moisture content, and compacted. The equipment used
blades, water
compaction consisted of rubber-tire compactors, sheepsfoot rollers, bulldozers,
trucks, and scrapers.
In-place moisture and density tests were made in general accordance with ASTM D2922-91
and D3017-88 (Nuclear Gauge Methods). The results of these tests are tabulated in
Appendix D, "Field Density Test Results." The locations and elevations indicated for the
tests presented on the Geotechnical Maps, Plates 1 through 2, 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.
5.4 Fill Slopes
Fill slopes of up to 60 feet high were constructed in general accordance with the project plans
and specifications at a slope ratio of approximately 1.8:1 to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical).
Keyways and benches for fills slopes were mapped by our geologist to evaluate adverse
geologic conditions which could affect the stability of the slope.
Geotechnics Incorporated
•
PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
` CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
JUNE 287 1999 PAGE 7
5.5 Cuter es
Cut slopes were graded at a slope ratio of approximately 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter
to a maximum height of approximately 25 feet. Sections of the observed cut slopes were
mapped during grading by our geologist to evaluate geologic conditions. Buttress fills were
constructed where necessary, and are described in Section 5.6.
5.6 Slope Buttresses
Slope Buttresses were constructed in cut and/or fill slopes where adverse geologic conditions
were observed during slope excavation. Buttresses were constructed along
and n50 +50, orth side
and
the future Quail Gardens Drive, between approximate Station Nos. 46+00
along the toe-of-slope below Lots 10 and 11 on Dylan Way. The buttresses were
recommended to increase slope stability where a continuous clay seam and water seepage
were observed in the proposed slopes. The location of the buttresses and the key elevations
are shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps, Plates 1 and 2.
The buttresses were constructed in substantial accordance with our design recommendations.
field mapping and the
These recommendations were based on subsurface exploration,
recommendations contained in a letter dated August 12, 1998. The width of the buttress
located along Quail Gardens Drive was constructed at 40 feet, and the width of the buttress
located below Lots 10 and 11 was constructed at 20 feet. The buttress keys were constructed
with an approximate 2 percent gradient into the slope, and the recommended backdrains were
installed. Each backdrain consisted of a 4-inch diameter perforated plastic pipe, surrounded
by 3/4-inch crushed rock and a geofabric wrap, in conjunction with geofabric-composite
drain panel placed on the back-cut. The backdrain was placed along the slope back-cut for
the entire length of the buttress, with the panels placed in a manner as to provide coverage
of any exposed areas of groundwater seepage. The outlet pipe located adjacent to Quail
Gardens Drive is temporary and will require a permanent connection to an appropriate storm
drain device. The outlet pipe located below Lots 10 and 11 Dylan Way was day-lighted out
of slope to an offsite natural drainage. The approximate limits of the buttress slopes and
backdrains are shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps, Plates 1 through 2.
Geotechnics Incorporated
PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
JUNE 28. 1999 PAGE 8
5.7 Subdrains
A subdrain was constructed during grading at the base of the cut slope located behind Lots
13 to 17 on Dylan Way. The subsurface toe drain was constructed in accordance with our
design recommendations. These recommendations were based on field mapping and the
1998. The subsurface drain
recommendations contained in a letter dated January 13,
consisted of a 4-inch diameter perforated plastic pipe, surrounded by 3/4-inch crushed rock
and a geofabric wrap, in conjunction with geofabric-composite drain panel placed on the
back-cut. The drain was placed along the slope back-cut from Lots 13 to 17 on Dylan Way,
with the panels placed in a manner as to provide coverage of any exposed areas of
groundwater seepage. The subdrain location is shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps,
Plates 1 through 2. The subdrain discharges below pavement grade on Ravean Court. The
outlet pipe will require future connection to an appropriate storm drain device.
5.8 Cut/Fill Transition Lots
To reduce the potential for differential settlement beneath structures, lots with both
formational materials and fill soils exposed at finish grade were remediated by
overexcavating the bedrock portion, and replacing it with compacted fill to provide uniform
bearing conditions. The lot location and depths of overexcavation are presented in Figure
B-1, of Appendix B, "Transition Lot Overexcavation".
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The various materials used as fill are tabulated in Figures C-2, of Appendix C, Laboratory 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 using ASTM method D 15 57-91 (Modified
Proctor) as a guideline. The fills generally consisted of silty, fine-grained sand (SM) and clayey
sand (SC). To evaluate materials for conformance with project specifications, e Goanion index, p
and resistivity, and soluble sulfate content testing was conducted on samples
finish-graded pads. ASTM D4829 was used as a guideline to evaluate the expansion index and
SMEWW 4500 S04 E and Caltrans 643 as a guideline were used to evaluate the soil corrosivity
content. The results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C.
Geotechnics Incorporated
PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
CORNERSTONE COMMLNITIES DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 9
JUNE 28, 1999
7.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In our opinion, grading and compaction were performed in general accordance with the intent of the project geotechnical recommendations, and with the requirements of the City ofoE s i n tas. The
g
on the observatin ad testin
conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based
are m de as to the quality
performed between October 1998 and March 1999. No representations
and extent of materials not observed.
7.1 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 D1557-91. Where field testing indicated less than 90
percent relative compaction, the pertinent fill soils were reworked until testing indicated the specified compaction was achieved.
7.2 Slope Stability
Fill and cut slopes were constructed as discussed in Sections 6.3 to heights up to 60 feet.
Slope stability was evaluated based on the referenced geotechnical update letter grading
plan review (Geotechnics Incorporated 1998c), 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 experience minor
Geotechnics Incorporated
PROJECT NO. 0196-003-0
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
JUNE 28, 1999 PAGE 10
down-slope creep over the years. While it is not possible to completely eliminate this 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 that is adapted to semi-arid climates and therefore requiring minimal irrigation.
7.3 Subdrains
Temporary subdrain outlets are located near station number 45+50 Quail Gardens Drive, and
below grade near station number 21+00 Ravean Court. The outlet pipes will require future
connections to appropriate storm drain devices.
7.4 Removal of 12-Inch Water Line
A 12-in ACP water line underlies Lots 19, 31, and 32, that will be abandoned upon
installation of a new water line along Ravean Court. Within the lots, the water line will need
to be completely removed and replaced with compacted fill.
7.5 Site Drainage
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 5 feet
of buildings slope away at gradients of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas should
have minimum gradients of at least 5 percent away from buildings within 5 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 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, water line breaks, or unusually high rainfall
occur, saturated zones or "perched" groundwater may develop in fill soils. This condition
Geotechnics Incorporated
' CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0 196-003-02
DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
JUNE 28. 1999 PAGE 11
may result in excessive moisture migration into and through foundations and slabs. Damage
to landscape may also occur.
7.6 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.
The following recommendations assume that all foundations bear completely in formational
materials or compacted fill prepared as previously described. In general, the expansion index
testing indicated that the soils exhibit low and moderate expansion potential. The following
parameters assume an expansion index of less than 90.
Post-Tensioned Slabs
Edge Moisture Variation, em Center Lift: 5.3 feet
Edge Lift: 2.6 feet
Differential Swell, Ym Center Lift: 1.7 inches
Edge Lift: 0.6 inches
Differential Settlement: 1 `/4 inches for Lots 1, 2 and 3
Differential Settlement: 3/4-inch all other lots
Allowable Bearing Capacity: 2,000 lbs/ft2 at slab subgrade
Geotechnics Incorporated
PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
JUNE 28. 1999 PAGE 12
Conventional Foundations
Allowable Soil Bearing: 2,500 lbs/ft' (allow a one-third increase for
short-term wind or seismic loads)
Minimum Footing Width: 12 inches
Minimum Footing Depth: 18 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade
Minimum Slab Thickness: 5 inches
Differential Settlement: 1'/o inches for Lots 1, 2 and 3
Differential Settlement: 3/4-inch all other lots
To reduce the effects ofsettlement from the alluvium and undocumentedfill left beneath Lots
1 through 3, the above noted recommendations specific for these lots have been provided
only for the building foundations. Any additional settlement sensitive structures such as
pools, decks, and retaining walls constructed on Lots 1, 2, and 3 should be evaluated on a
case by case basis by a geotechnical consultant in order to develop specific
recommendations for the new types of structures.
7.6.1 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
formational soil or compacted fill. If friction and passive pressure are
combined, the passive pressure value should be reduced by one-third.
Geotechnics Incorporated
PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
JUNE 28. 1999 PAGE 13
7.6.2 Foundation Setback
Footings adjacent to slopes should be founded at a depth such that the
distance between the lower outside edge of the footing and the face of any
slope is at least 8 feet.
7.7 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 2 inches of clean sand covered by a 20-mil moisture barrier covered
by another 2-inches of clean sand. The sand should have a minimum sand equivalent of at
least 50 when tested in accordance with ASTM test method D2419. 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 following 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.
Another alternative would be to place a moisture barrier with a thickness greater than 20 mil
directly on the subgrade, covered with at least 2 inches of clean sand. The moisture barrier
should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements, and any joints or
laps should be throughly sealed in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements to
provide a thorough seal. The concrete should have a low water-cement ratio of no greater
than 0.5, and be moist-cured for at least 5 days in accordance with the methods
Geotechnics Incorporated
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
JUNE 28, 1999 PAGE 14
recommended by the American Concrete Institute. Additionally, the project architect
based on the
a waterproofing consultant should evaluate the moisture
also recommend that a special registered
anticipated floor coverings and proposed use
inspector test and inspect the concrete placement and slab construction to confirm the
recommendations herein are implemented in the field.
7.8 Exterior Slabs
Reinforcement and the use of crack control joints should help reduce random
and should be
differential movement. Slabs should be at least 4 inches in thickness
reinforced with at least 6-inch by 6-inch, W 1.4 by W 1.4 welded-wire fabric. no Slabs may bear han
directly on compacted subgrade. Crack control joints should be provided greater
5-foot centers for sidewalks, and not greater than 8-foot centers each way for exterior slabs
or concrete decks.
7.9 Reactive Soils
Sulfate content of the on-site soil indicates that Type II cement should be suitable for use in
concrete which will be in contact with the soil. The sulfate values are shown fn Figure re metals.
Resistivity and pH values indicate the subgrade soils are severely corrosive to
A corrosion consultant should be utilized to provide corrosion protection for underground
utilities.
7.10 Earth Retaining 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: 30 lbs/ft3
Equivalent Fluid Pressure with 2:1 sloping backfill: 43 lbs/ft3
Geotechnics Incorporated
PROJECT N0.0196-003-02
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 15
JUNE 28, 1999
Allowable Soil Bearing: 2,500 lbs/ft'
Passive Pressure: 3001bs/ft3
Coefficient of Friction, soil to concrete: 0.3
The equivalent fluid pressures are based on the active soil state, assuming the walls surcharge are free
loads,
to rotate at least l percent of the wall height. The pressures do not
drained to prevent hydrostatic
hydrostatic pressure, or seepage forces. Walls should be fully p
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
due to at site
retaining walls frequently develop high moisture or free water in the bac 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
to atde in addition t t
having aback-drain. Retaining wall backfill should be compacted
placed until walls have
relative compaction (ASTM D1557-91). Backfill should not
achieved adequate structural strength. Heavy compaction equipment which could cause
distress to walls should not be used.
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.
8.0 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
f eld
in this report. The samples taken and used for testing,
the observations made and t in-place testing performed are believed representative of the project; however, soil and geologic conditions
can vary significantly between tested or observed locations. This report es to issued with the
ensure that the
understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative,
information and recommendations contained herein are brought to the attention of the architect and
Geotechnics Incorporated
PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
JUNE 28. 1999 PAGE 16
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
the event of subsequently
provided by Geotechnics relieve the contractor of responsibility
discovered defects in his work.
The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However, changes in thconditions
he works
a property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be due to natural processes or
of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards y, th may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. Ace our colntr le
findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or paally be elied upon changes period of three years.
Therefore, this report is subject to review and should not b Pon after a
~'D
OQQ'n'FEF s/0't'( GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED W LEE i
Q~ ONE ef(,p Fy VANDERHURST
No. 1125
`CD ~ C040333 ~ rt • CERTIFIED •
N ENGINEERING Q
W m
W /•0,3
Exp ;A GEOLOGIST
Cr. 33
OF CA~~FO
i
i
Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. C 40333 W. Lee Vanderhurst, C.E.G. 1125
Principal Principal
Distribution: (4) Addressee
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Transition Lot Overexcavation
Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D - Field Density Tests
Plates 1 and 2 -As-Graded Geotechnical Maps
Geotechnics Incorporated
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
American Society for Testing and Materials. 1992, Annual Booof AST 1 St anda d , SeASTM, Stone; Construction, Volume 0=1.08 Soil and Rock; Dimension
Philadelphia, PA, 1296 p.
County of San Diego, 1929, Aerial photograph: 37 FA and B, Scale 1:20,000
Hunsaker & Associates Inc. 1998 Grading Plans for Encinitas Ranch Qu aiillHollmber M No. 97-
263;Work Order 2020-07, 10 Sheets, Scale : 1 inch = 40 feet, dad -
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996,GeotechnicalInvestigation, Encinitas Ranch, Encinitas, California
Project No. 0054-002-00, Document No. 5-0588, dated January 19.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997a, Slope Stability Analysis> Quail Gardens Drive, 002 02, DocumentlNoN7--02325
117+50 and 122+00, Encinitas Ranch: Project No0054
dated April 17.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997b, Slope Stability Analysis, Quail Gardens Drive, Between
Approximate Station Numbers 117+50 and 122+00, 0168, dated Maroh 13nt,
Encinitas California: Project No. 0054-002-02,
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998a, Updated Recommendations for Subsurface Area Drains, Quail
Hollow at Encinitas Ranch, Encinitas California. Project No. 0196-003-02, Document No.
9-0025, dated January 13.
dated March 31 Ranch, Encinitas
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998b, As-Graded Geot h is l Report,
California, Project No. 0054-002-02, Document ,
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998c, Geotechnical Update Letter and Grading Plan Review, Quail
Hollow at Encinitas Ranch, Encinitas California. Project No. 0196-003-02, Document No.
8-0613, dated August 12.
tion
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998d, Proposal for Geotch Hollow at Encitn as Ranh, Encanitas
during Grading and Improvement Construction, Quail
California: Project No. 0196-003-02, Document No. 8-0720, dated September 22.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998e, Preliminary Recommendation No. 01Post-Tensioned 96-003 02, Document QNo.
Hollow at Encinitas Ranch, Encinitas California Project 8-0812, dated October 22.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998f, As-Graded Letter, Model Lots 1, 2,3, Quail Hollow at Encinitas
Ranch, Encinitas California: Project No. 0196-003-02, Document No. 8-0979, dated
December 28.
Geotechnics Incorporated
APPENDIX B
TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION
LOT OVEREXCAVATION
NUMBER ELEVATIONS (ft.)
4 264
5 275
7 299
11 326
12 326
13 325
18 334
19 346
20 353
21 356
22 365
23 368
26 380
27 368
28 362
31 346
The elevations shown are based on field survey measurements by Hunsaker and Associates.
o technic s Transition L:=:nc on Project No.0196-003-0;
G e Quai l Holloh Document No. 9-019
I n c o r p o r ate d CornerstoFIGURE B-~
APPENDIX B
TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION
(Continued)
LOT OVEREXCAVATION
NUMBER ELEVATIONS (ft.)
32 341
33 335
34 328
35 322
37 310
38 290
39 268
40 255
41 241
42 228
The elevations shown are based on field survey measurements by Hunsaker and Associates.
Transition Lot Overexcavation Project No. 0196-003-,
=G e o t e c h n i c s Document No. 9-01
I n c o r p o r 7ated Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch FIGURE E
Cornerstone Communities
• APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
Selected samples of soils encountered during the investigation were tested using generally
ally representative accepted the
variations may occur in the soils
testing standards. The soils she investigation atesting are believed to t on at the site; however be
materials encountered during t g
at the site, and the materials tested may not be representative of the materials encountered during
construction.
ily
conditions and ordinar
Laboratory testing was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care
same
exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under
ty of
locality. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the correctness oratory or s rvi e abli method
the test results or the conclusions derived from these tests. Where n specific the
has been referenced, such as ASTM, Caltrans, or AASHTO, the reference opPlies es only to and the
specified laboratory test method and not to associated referenced
document fort edgeneral performance of
test method referenced has been used only as a guidance
the test and not as a "Test Standard." A brief description of the tests performed follows: charac Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected soilsCw1 1 and Ct lr2 ed by using the test
method ASTM D4829. The results are presented in Figures
Maximum Densi /O timum Moisture: The maximum densities and optimum method ASTM D1557 91r modicontents
of representative soil samples were determined by using test Proctor. The test results are summarized in Figure C-2.
pH and Resistivity: To assess their potential for reactivity 643 etal pipe, results are listed on samples
were tested for ph and resistivity using CALTRANS method
C-3. representati
les were
Sulfate Content: To assess their potential for reactivity SMEWW4500 SO E The esualtspare listed
tested for content of water-soluble sulfate minerals using
on Figure C-3.
Geotechnics Incorporated
APPENDIX C
EXPANSION INDEX TESTS
(ASTM D4829)
SAMPLE LOCATION EXPANSION
NUMBER INDEX
1 Lot 3 71
2 Lot 2 61
3 Lot 1 46
4 Lot 42 55
5 Lot 41 68
6 Lot 40 36
7 Lot 39 40
8 Lot 26 0
9 Lot 22 0
10 Lot 29 0
11 Lot 6 76
12 Lot 38 0
13 Lot 7 10
14 Lot 11 6
15 Lot 12 56
16 Lot 13 49
17 Lot 36 44
18 Lot 37 73
19 Lot 35 9
20 Lot 34 21
21 Lot 4 27
22 Lot 5 29
23 Lot 33 14
24 Lot 32 33
25 Lot 18 47
Expansion Index Tests =De =_G e o t e c h n i c s Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch M MIN.- Incorporated Cornerstone Communities
EXPANSION INDEX TESTS (Continued)
(ASTM D4829)
SAMPLE LOCATION EXPANSION
NUMBER INDEX
26 Lot 19 26
27 Lot 8 21
28 Lot 9 35
4
30 Lot 15 17
31 Lot 16 16
32 Lot 17 45
33 Lot 20 5
34 Lot 21 0
35 Lot 23 2
36 Lot 24 7
37 Lot 25 5
38 Lot 27 0
39 Lot 28 0
40 Lot 30 1
41 Lot 31 15
42 Lot 10 21
UBC TABLE NO. 29-C, CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION
0-20 Very Low
21-50 Low
51-90 Medium
91-130 High
Above 130 Very High
Expansion Index T=chD 0196-003-0
=_G o t e c h n i c s Quail Hollow at Encinitnt No. 9-019
e
Incorporated Cornerstone CommuGURE C-1.
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
(ASTM D1557-91)
MAX. DRY OPTIMUM
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION DENSITY MOISTURE
NO. [PCF] [%l
120.5 13.5
I Grayish brown clayey sand (SC)
119.0 13.5
2 Light gray silty sand (SM)
113.0 16.0
3 Gray sandy clay (CL)
119.0 14.0
4 Light gray sandy clay (CL)
126.0 11.5
5 Light reddish brown silty sand (SM)
112.0 18.5
6 Dark greenish gray sandy clay (CL)
106.5 21.5
7 Dark greenish gray sandy clay (CL)
131.0 9.0
8 Reddish brown silty sand (SM)
lay (CL) (Import) 116.0 14.5
g Greenish gray sandy c
G e o t L=echnics MaximumDensity/1vloisture Project No. 0196-003-02
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
Iated Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-2
CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
(Caltrans Test Method 643 and SMEWW4500 SO,E)
SULFATE PH RESISTIVITY
SAMPLE LOCATION CONTENT (ohm-cm)
(PPM)
326 7.6 488
1 Lot 1
373 8.2 377
2 Lots 2 to 6
590 7.2 195
3 Lots 19 to 26
1325
377 7.8
4 Lots 40 to 42
732 8.1 279
5 Lots 27 to 33
6 Lot 7 354
7 Lot 34 140
8 Lots 8 to 10 152
9 Lot 11 245
10 Lots 12 to 18 296
11 Lots 35 to 36 524
12 Lot 37 642
Corrosivity Tests Project No. 0196-003-0:
`G e o t e c h n i c s Document No. 9-019
Incorporated Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch IGURE C-
Cornerstone Communities F
-Wommob
•
APPENDIX D
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
moisture and density tests were made in accordance with ASTM D2922-91 and DD3017-88
In-place D-6,
(Nuclear Gauge Method). The results of these tests are tabulated in t presented on the attached As-
Graded Density Test Results". The approximate test locations are pr tests Geotechnical Map, Plates 1 and 2. The locations and elevations indicaa esfor es from stakes presented on the As-Graded Geotechnical Map are based on field o survey h estimatesn The estimated
the grading plan topography, and should only be considered g
tions and elevations should not be utilized for the purpose of preparing cross sections showing
loca
test locations, or in any case, for the purpose of after-the-fact evaluating of the sequence of fill
placement.
densi testis not exact and variations
The precision of the field density test and the maximum dry ty
old be ex ected. For example, the American Society for Testing and Materials has recently
sho p aximum researched the precision of ASTM Method No. DI 557 and found the accuracy of the content to be
density to be plus or minus 4 percent of the mean value and the optimum moisture
orate to plus or minus 15 percent of the meanvalue; the Society specifically states th In cc epta l
accurate range of test results expressed as a percent of mean value" is the ran 86t6dto above. 92 8 percent based
indicated relative compaction of 90 percent has an acceptable rang of
on the maximum dry density determination. The precision of the field density test M D1556
has not yet been determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials; however, be recognized that it also is subject to variations in accuracy.
Geotechnics Incorporated
•
' Project No. 0196-003-02
DENSITY TEST RESULTS Document No. 9-0191
FIGURE D-1
~ G e O t e C hn i C s Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch
Inc o rpo r at e d Cornerstone Communities
Relative Required Retest Test
Test Elevation Location Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry
Test Content Density Compaction Compaction Number Method
No. Date [ft] Lot # Type Density
[Pct/ [Pct- [%J
NU
16.3 110.2 91 90 NU
1 10/14/98 184 1 1 120.5 91 90
17.4 109.
1 1 120.5 90 NU
2 10/14/98 186 1 1 120.5 17.3 110.6 92 NU
3 10/14/98 189 90
1 1 120.5 16.9 108.7 90 90 NU
4 10/14!98 190 17.4 NU
5 10/14/98 192 1 109.5 91
1 120.5 110.3 92 90
6 10115/98 195 1 1 1 1 112020.5.5 1717.1 .0 111.0 92 90 NU
NU
7 10!15/98 198 1 17.8 109.9 91 90 90 NU
1 120.5 110.5 92
8 10/15/98 200 1 1 120.5 17.9 90 N U
111.1 9
g 10/15/98 202
NU
10 10/15/98 2 2 119.0 15.2 90 NU
201 2 2 119.0 93
15.5 110.4 90
14.4 109.4 90 NU
11 10/15/98 205 3 2 119.0 92
12 10!16/98 211 2 2 119.0 13.9 111.7 94 NU
13 10/16/98 204 109.2 92 90
2 2 119.0 14.2 90 NU
14 10/16/98 206 2 2 119.0 15.2 110.1 93 NU
15 '10!16/98 209 3 2 119.0 14.0 110.7 93 90 90 NU
16 10/16/98 212 90 NU
17 10/19198 211 2 19 94 90 NU
2 1119.0 19.0 1112.4.7 1 11107.3 .0 15.4 108.8.4 91 90 21 NU
18 10/19/98 207 1 2 1 2 119.0
105.1 88 90
19 10!20/98 209 42 2 119.0 14.8 90 NU
20 10/20!98 223 42 2 119.0 14.5 108.8 91 NU
21 10/20/98 223 103.5 92 90
42 3 113.0 17.8 90 NU
23 22 10/20/98 10/20198 22 229 42 3 113.0 19.9 101.9 90 NU
24 10/20/98 231 1 41 42 3 3 111133.0 .0 19.4 102.8 91 90
11.0 105.8 94 90 N U
NU
90
25 10/20/98 227 42 3 113.0 94 NU
11.9 106.1 90
26 10120/98 228 42/41 3 113.0 12.5 108.5 96 NU
27 10/21/98 229 113.0 17.8 102.0 90 90 NU
28 10/21/98 230 42/41 3 93 90 NU
9.7 110.
30 10121!98 231 42 2 119.0 92 90
29 10/21/98 228 46+00 2 119.0 9.9 109.0 NU 49+00 2 119.0 91 90 NU
12.4 108. 91 90 NU
11.4 108.8
31 10121/98 229 42 2 119 0 90
32 10/21 /98 232 42 2 119.0 14.6 111.4 94 90 NU
33 10/21/98 233 42 2 119.0 13.5 108.6 91 NU
34 10/21/98 235 42 2 119.0 11.0 112.1 94 90
90 NU
35 10/21/98 236 41 4 119.0 14.9 109.9 92 NU
36 10/22/98 235 41 4 4 1 11199.0.0 10.5 115.5 97 90 NU
37 10122/98 237 41 12.6 108.8 91 90 NU
39 38 10/22/98 10/22/98 237 238 41 4 119.0 17.5 107.8 91 90 NU
40 4 119.0 12 .2 113. 96 90
92 90 NU
126.0 7.7 116.4 NU
41 40 10/22/98 10/23/98 240 276 34 5 94 90
11.2 117.
36 5 126.0 90 NU
42 10/23/98 259 38 4 119.0 15.9 107.4 90 90 NU
43 10/23198 255 39 4 119.0 13.8 109.0 92 NU
44 10/23/98 250 39 3 113.0 16.5 105.6 93 90
90 NU
45 10/23/98 252 35 4 119.0 13.0 109.3 92
46 10/26198 277
•
•
Project No. 0196-003-02
DENSITY TEST RESULTS Document No. 9-0191
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch FIGURE D-2
=_G e o t e c hn i eo rate d Cornerstone Communities
I n c o r p Retest Test
Dry Relative Required Method
Soil Max. Dry moisture Compaction Number
Test Elevation Location Content Density Compaction Come
Test ft Lot # Type Density [%l
No. Date [ ] [pct] [pct/ [%l
90 N U
4 119.0 12.8 108.0 91 90 NU
92 90 NU
47 10/26198 280 33 5 126.0 8.6 1 11165.42 91 NU
10.3
48 10/26/98 288 92 90 NU
49 10126/98 266 37 126.0 3 113.0 11.4 103.7 90 89
50 10/26198 Slope 2 2 3 113.0 10.6 99.0 91 88 90 NU
NU
51 10/26/98 Slope 3 113.0 10.9 102.7 91 90
52 10126/98 Slope 1 11.1 114.9 NU
90 NU
92 90 90
53 10/27198 257 36 5 126126.0 .0 10.4 116.3 113.8 NU
54 10/27/98 270 91 90 NU
56 55 10/27198 10127198 273 292 33 5 126126.0 .0 11.4 .4 114.4 90
36 5 126.0 10.4 116.3 92 90 NU
57 10/27/98 295 33 5 126.0 10.7 115.7 92 90 NU
58 10127/98 284 35 5 5 126.0 11.0 118.6 94 90 61 NU
10127/98 279 36 .0 9.2 112.4 91 89 NU
59 90
60 10/27198 274 38 38 5 5 126126.0 10.4 115.2 90
92 NU
61 12/11198 274 NU
5 126.0 10.8 115.4 90
62 12/11/98 302 33 5 126.0 9.9 1 11317.9.8 90 93 NU
63 90 NU
12/11/98 290 34 92 90
64 12/11/98 280 37 5 5 126126.0 .0 1 100.3 .4 116.0 90 NU
65 12/11/98 308 32 5 126.0 10.5 115.5 92 90 NU
66 12/11/98 300 33 5 126.0 9.8 114.5 91 90 NU
67 12/11!98 291 35 126.0 11.0 116.0 92 90 NU
68 12/11/98 287 36 5 5 126.0 10.4 1 11515.0.2 91 91 NU
69 90 NU
12114!98 311 32
70 12/14198 314 32 5 3 1 12613.0 .0 1111.2 .0 102.5 91 90 90 NU
103.3 91 NU
71 12/15/98 239 41 240 41 3 11313.0 .0 15.2 105.0 93 90
75 NU
72 12/15198 988.1 .1 87 90 NU
73 12/15198 242 41 3 1 15.2
74 12/15198 246 41 3 198.3 .2 103.3 91 90 NU
12115/98 246 41 3 113.0
15.5 106.1 94 90 NU
75
76 12/15/98 244 41 3 113.0 113.0 1.0 13 113.0 17.6 101.2 90 90 90 NU
12/15198 247 41 3 13.0 16.4 103.9 92 NU
77 249 41 3 1
40 3 113.0 19.6 101.8 90 90 NU
78 12/15/98 90
79 12115/98 252 3 113.0 15.2 103.9 92 NU
90
93 NU
80 12/15/98 255 40 3 113.0 14.0 105.5 90
81 12/16/98 257 119.0 12.3 110.4 93 90 NU
82 12/16/98 259 40 2 2 119.0 11.2 112.3 94 90
83 12/16198 260 40 NU
119.0 12.9 109.6 92 90 NU
84 12/16198 261 40 2 2 119.0 13.2 111.4 94 90 NL
85 12/16/98 263 40 2 119.0 15.0 109.5 92 90 NL
86 12/16/98 FG 1 3 2 119.0 12.6 112.7 95 Nl
90
12/16/98 FG 10.4 111.3 94 N1
87 2 2 119.0 108.8 96 90 NI
88 12/16/98 FG 2 3 113.0 16.5 95 90
89 12/17/98 Slope 3 113.0 16.1 107.9 90 Ni
90 12/17/98 Slope 1 3 113.0 14.4 101.9 90 N
103.3 91 90
91 12/17/98 268 39 3 113.0 15.2
92 12/17/98 270
•
Project No. 0196-003-02
DENSITY TEST RESULTS Document No. 9-0191
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch FIGURE D-3
G e o t e c h n i co r a t e d Cornerstone Communities Test
I n c o r p Required Retest
Moisture Dry Relative Number Method
action
Elevation Location Soil Max. Dry Content Density Compaction ComP8
Test Test ft Lot # Type Density [pcfJ [%1
No. Date [ [ [p fl NU
17.8 102.7 91 90 NU
90
39 3 113.0 103.7 92 NU
93 12117/98 272 39 3 113.0 16.1 92 90 NU
94 12117198 274 39 3 113.0 16.0 103.4 93 90
98 6 NU
95 12/17/98 276 4 7 106.5 18.4 91 90
.2 115.0 NU
96 12117198 262 35 5 5 126.0 10 .4 92 88 90 NU
97 12/17/98 294 126.0 9.8 115 90 100
33 104.5 NU
98 12/17198 309 38 4 119.0 17.2 91 90
0 108.5 NU
99 12118198 282 38 4 119.0 17 7 94 90 NU
100 12118198 282 38 7 106.5 20.2 99 94 90
NU
.7 99.9 90
101 12118/98 28 38 7 106.5 19 105.6 93 NU
102 12118/98 3 113.0 14.9 90
297 35 16.2 108.3 91 90 106 NU
103 12121/98 38 4 119.0 88 NU
104 12/21198 288 5 126.0 8.9 110.5 90
12/21/98 323 32 5 126.0 10.3 113.5 90 90 NU
105 323 10.8 113.9 90 90 NU
106 12/21198 344 31 5 126.0 114.6 91 NU
107 12/21198 31 5 126.0 10.4 91 90
108 12122198 344 10.3 114.2 90 NU
5 126.0 118.4 90 NU
347 31 9
109 12122/98 381 26 8 131.0 .1 91 90
9.1 118.7 90 NU
110 12/23/98 382 26 8 131.0 115.5 92 NU
111 12/23198 26 5 126.0 13.0 92 90
110.7 NU
112 12/23198 346 31/30 1 120.5 122 1137 90
94 NU
113 12/23/98 37 1 120.5 12.2 95 90
8.5 124.2 90 NU
114 12/23/98 320 33 8 131.0 112.6 93 NU
90
115 12/23/98 1 120.5 13.0 91 NU
116 12123198 292 34 38 4 119.0 15.5 1 118.3 .3 94 90 NU
117 12/24/98 38 5 126.0 9.8 92 90
116.4 NU
10.8 90
118 12/24198 390 38 5 126.0 114.4 91 NU
119 12124198 5 126.0 10.2 90 90
11.6 113.9 90 NU
120 12128/98 295 38 297 38 5 126.0 115.6 92 NU
121 12/28/98 312 33134 5 126.0 11.0 93 90
10.8 117.4 90 NU
122 12128/98 294 10 5 126.0 8.2 94 NU
123 12/28198 5 126.0 11.0 11 90
10 115.3 92 NU
124 12/28/98 297 10 5 126.0 10.4 92 90 NU
125 12128198 299 7 5 126.0 10.6 116.4 90
116.1 92 NU
126 12/28198 300 7 5 126.0 10 .3 90 90 NU
127 12/28/98 300 7 5 126.0 10.2 115.0 91 90
115. 131 NU
128 12129/98 301 10 5 126.0 gg 89 90 NL
129 12/29/98 301 10 5 126.0 9.4 112.6 90
303 11.6 114.8 91 NL
130 12/29/98 10 5 126.0 92 90 Nl
131 12/29/98 303 27 5 126.0 10.4 115.6 90
11.0 115.1 91 135 NI
132 12/29/98 371 28 5 126.0 88 90 Ni
133 12/30/98 367 10 5 126.0 8.2 110.4 90
10.7 113.5 90 N
134 12130198 305 10 5 126.0 91 90 N
135 12/30/98 305 10 5 126.0 10.4 114.2 90
110.6 92 N
136 12/30/98 307 29 1 120.5 12.8 92 90
137 12130/98 361 30 1 120.5 13.0 110.8
138 12/30/98
Project No. 0196-003-02
DENSITY TEST RESULTS Document No. 9-0191
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch FIGURE DA
In e o t e c h n i co r at e d Cornerstone Communities
I n c o r p Required Retest Test
Dry Relative Number Method
t,4ax. Dry Compaction
Test Test Elevation Location $01e Density Content Moisture Density Compaction Com[%I
No. Date [ft] Lot # TyP [Pct] [pct/
NU
31 1 120.5 13.0 109.8 91 90 90 NU
139 12/31/98 347 31 1 120.5 12.7 112.3 93 90 NU
90 NU
1 120.5 122 111016.1 .1 91
140 12/31/98 348 30 92 NU
141 12/31/98 358 23 5 126.0 11.2 93 90
142 114/99 369 126.0 10.4 116.8 90 NU
126.0 10.7 115.1 91 90 NU 23 143 1!4199 370 22 5 93 NU
144 1 /4199 364 21 4 119.0 12.9 110.4 90
145 115199 359 126.0 11.4 113.6 90 NU
90
146 115199 360 21 4 119.0 13.2 111.9 94 90 NU
1/5!99 366 22 14.0 109.4 92 90 NU
148 147 115/99 353 20 4 119.0 93 90 NU
1/5199 355 20 4 119.0 13.4 111016.6 .0 92 NU
149 10 5 126.0 9.9 92 90
150 1/6199 310 126 0 9.7 115.8 90 NU
116/99 312 10 5 114.2 91 NU
151 10 5 126.0 10.6 92 90
152 1/6/99 314 5 126.0 9.9 116.0 90 NU
1/6199 309 36 9.2 116.4 92 NU
153 37 5 126.0 90 90
154 116/99 303 2 119.0 16.8 107.0 90 NU
1/6/99 306 37 10.8. 116.4 92 NU
155 39 5 126.0 91 90
156 118199 295 126.0 9.4 115.2 90 NU
1/8199 290 39 5 14.2 112.1 94 NU
157 40
273 4 119.0 110.8 93 90 NU
158 1!8199 41 4 119.0 12.6 95 90
113.6 NU
159 118199 260 41 4 119.0 13.3 90
160 118199 258 119.0 13.7 113.4 95 NU
111.2 93 90 NU
161 118/99 247 45 2 119.0 14.3 92 90
162 118/99 230 2 119.0 13.9 110.0 90 165 NU
163 1!8!99 227 45 5 126.0 10.5 111.4 88 NU
91 90
164 1115199 314 11 5 126.0 9.8 1 14.9 89 90 167 NU
165 1/15199 314 10 5 126.0 10.2 112.3 90 NU
166 1!15199 316 126.0 10.6 113.9 90 NU
167 1!15199 316 10 5 5 126.0 8.4 113.9 90 90 90 NU
1/15199 318 11 9.3 114.7 91 171 NU
168 112.0 89 90 NU
169 1/15199 320 10 5 5 126126.0 .0 9.0 90
1/15199 322 .0 9.2 114.2 91 NU
170 106.6 90 90 NU
171 1115199 324 10 5 4 1 12619.0 16.3 91 90
172 1118199 324 10 5 126.0 10.4 115.2 92 90 NU
173 1118199 326 5 126.0 10.0 116.0 90 176 NU
174 1118199 328 11 3 113.0 16.8 98.8 87 NU
175 1118199 326 13 3 113.0 17.1 102.7 91 89 90 90 178 NU
176 1/18/99 326 3 113.0 18.0 100.7 90 NU
177 1118/99 327 12 3 113.0 15.4 102.9 91 NU
178 1118/99 327 12 3 113.0 15.0 103.2 91 90 NU
90
179 1/18/99 308 37 5 126.0 10.5 114.5 91 NU
30 117.6 93 90 NU
180 1119/99 5 126.0 10.3 90
181 1/19199 311 36137 16.2 112.1 94 NL
318 34 4 119 0 105.1 94 90
182 1/19/99 6 112.0 17.4 90 Nt
183 1/22/99 315 116 5 6 112.0 18.0 103.7 93
184 1/22/99 318
• DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-003-02
=G e o t e c h n i c S Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
FIGURE D-5
Incorporated Cornerstone Communities
Relative Required Retest Test
Test Test Elevation Location Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry
No. Date [ft] Lot # Type Density Content Density Compaction Com[pa tion Number Method
[pcfl [Pcf] 1%)
90 NU
185 1/22/99 320 13 5 126.0 10.1 114.8 91 90 NU
186 1/22/99 317 17 5 126.0 10.4 115.4 92 90 NU
187 1/22/99 324 14 5 126.0 9.6 118.9 94 90 NU
188 1/22/99 327 14 5 126.0 10.1 115.3 92 NU
189 1/22/99 322 16 4 119.0 13.5 109.8 92 90 90 N U
190 1/22/99 325 15 4 119.0 13.4 109.2 92 90 NU
191 1/22/99 315 36 4 119.0 14.0 107.6 90 90 NU
192 1/22/99 318 36 4 119.0 13.2 108.2 91 90 NU
193 2/16199 318 36 9 116.0 13.2 111.7 96 90 NU
194 2/16/99 323 34 9 116.0 14.0 113.9 98 90 NU
195 2/16/99 320 36 9 116.0 13.0 111.2 96 90 NU
196 2/16/99 322 35 9 116.0 12.7 110.0 95 90 NU
197 2/17/99 306 9 3 113.0 16.3 103.4 92 90 NU
198 2/17/99 324 35 9 116.0 10.6 106.8 92 90 NU
199 2/17/99 309 9 9 116.0 14.3 108.0 93 90 NU
200 2/17/99 327 35 5 126.0 10.9 114.8 91 90 NU
201 2/17/99 308 8 9 116.0 13.4 107.3 93 90 NU
202 2/18/99 312 9 9 116.0 12.8 108.8 94 90 NU
203 2/18/99 310 8 9 116.0 14.4 110.0 95 90 NU
204 2/18/99 328 34 9 116.0 13.9 109.7 95 90 NU
205 2/18/99 330 34 9 116.0 14.2 113.2 98 90 NU
206 2/19/99 332 34 9 116.0 12.8 110.9 96 90 NU
207 2119/99 334 33134 9 116.0 12.9 108.1 93 90 NU
208 2/19199 337 33 9 116.0 13.4 109.2 94 90 NU
209 2/22/99 338 32 9 116.0 13.8 113.9 98 90 NU
210 2/22199 338 33 9 116.0 14.3 113.0 97 90 NU
211 2/22/99 340 33 9 116.0 14.6 113.7 98 90 NU
212 2/22/99 343 32 9 116.0 13.9 111.8 96 90 NU
213 2/22/99 345 32 9 116.0 15.5 110.0 95 90 NU
214 2/24/99 277 5 9 116.0 14.6 111.4 96 90 NU
215 2/24/99 266 4 9 116.0 13.4 111.9 96 90 NU
216 2/24/99 290 8 5 126.0 10.4 114.9 91 90 NU
217 2/25/99 230 42 2 119.0 12.2 109.6 92 90 NU
218 2/25/99 255 40 2 119.0 13.4 107.6 90 90 NU
219 2/25199 390 38 2 119.0 11.9 108.5 91 90 NU
220 2/25/99 357 30 5 126.0 8.4 116.2 92 90 NU
221 2/25/99 346 31 5 126.0 9.0 117.0 93 90 NU
222 2/26/99 315 9 9 116.0 13.8 106.0 91 90 NU
223 2/26/99 317 8 9 116.0 14.1 107.5 93 90 N U
224 2/26/99 319 8 9 116.0 14.0 105.4 91 90 NU
225 2/26/99 346 19 4 119.0 14.6 109.4 92 90 NU
226 2/26/99 347 19 4 119.0 14.1 109.8 92 90 NU
227 3/1/99 335 18 5 126.0 10.4 113.9 90 90 NU
228 3/1/99 337 18 5 126.0 9.9 113.1 90 90 NU
229 3/1/99 320 9 5 126.0 10.3 114.8 91 90 NU
230 3/1/99 322 9 5 126.0 10.8 116.3 92
0
DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-003-02
e o t e C h n i C s Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
FIGURE D-6
Incorporated Cornerstone Communities
Test Test Elevation Location Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest Test
No. Date [ft] Lot # Type Density Content Den",, Com[pntrtion Com[p~oj tion Number Method
[pcf] [ /a)
90 NU
231 3/2/99 324 9 4 119.0 13.8 108.3 91 90 NU
232 3/3/99 326 10 4 119.0 1.8 107.6 120.7 90 92 90 NU
233 3/3/99 348 16 8 131.0 8.8 90 NU
234 3/4/99 328 10 4 119.0 13.9 108.6 91 90 NU
235 3/4/99 272 37 5 126.0 10.0 114.0 90 90 NU
236 3/4/99 285 35 5 126.0 9.4 114.7 91 90 NU
237 3/4199 292 33 5 126.0 9.5 115.0 91 90 N U
238 3!4/99 326 32 5 126.0 9.2 114.2 91 90 NU
239 3/4/99 320 34 5 126.0 10.3 114.4 91 90 NU
240 3/4/99 310 36 5 126.0 9.6 114.8 91 NU
90
241 3/8/99 FG 26 5 126.0 7.6 118.1 94 90 NU
242 3/8/99 FG 23 5 126.0 7.7 118.6 94 90 NU
243 3/8199 FG 22 5 126.0 7.1 116.4 92 90 NU
244 3!8199 FG 21 5 126.0 8.0 118.1 94 90 NU
245 3/8!99 FG 20 5 126.0 7.2 118.9 94 90 NU
246 3/8/99 FG 19 5 126.0 7.7 117.5 93 90 NU
247 3/8/99 FG 18 5 126.0 8.8 115.4 92 90 NU
248 3/8/99 FG 27 5 126.0 6.8 116.0 92 90 NU
249 3/8/99 FG 28 5 126.0 7.3 117.6 93 90 NU
250 3/8/99 FG 29 5 126.0 7.1 118.8 94 90 NU
251 3/8/99 FG 30 5 126.0 8.0 117.9 94 90 NU
252 3/8/99 FG 31 5 126.0 7.4 116.4 92 90 NU
253 3/8199 FG 32 9 116.0 10.8 112.5 97 90 NU
254 3/8/99 FG 33 9 116.0 11.0 111.4 96 90 NU
255 3/8199 FG 34 9 116.0 9.4 110.9 96 90 NU
256 3/8/99 FG 35 9 116.0 9.6 112.2 97 90 NU
257 3/8/99 FG 36 9 116.0 10.3 111.7 96 90 NU
3/8/99 FG 37 5 126.0 6.4 117.2 93 90 NU
258 259 3/8/99 FG 38 5 126.0 7.6 115.9 92 90 NU
260 318/99 FG 39 2 119.0 9.9 113.7 96 90 NU
261 3/8/99 FG 40 2 119.0 10.8 112.6 95 90 NU
262 3/8/99 FG 41 2 119.0 10.4 113.3 95 90 NU
263 3/8/99 FG 42 2 119.0 10.3 113.0 95 90 NU
264 3!8/99 FG 4 5 126.0 7.3 118.8 94 90 NU
265 3/8199 FG 5 5 126.0 7.3 118.8 94 90 NU
266 3/8/99 FG 6 2 119.0 9.4 113.7 96 90 NU
267 3/8/99 FG 7 5 126.0 6.9 117.9 94 90 NU
268 3/9/99 FG 8 9 116.0 12.4 111.7 96 90 NU
269 319!99 FG 9 9 116.0 13.6 114.4 99 90 NU
270 3/9/99 FG 10 9 116.0 12.3 108.2 93 90 NU
271 3/9199 FG 11 5 126.0 10.0 120.1 95 90 NU
272 3/9/99 FG 12 5 126.0 9.9 115.0 91 90 NU
273 3/9/99 FG 13 5 126.0 10.3 117.2 93 90 NU
274 3/9/99 FG 17 5 126.0 6.7 119.6 95 94 90 NU
275 3/9/99 320 10 9 116.0 12.8 108.5
GeotechnI*cS
Incorporated
t Principals:
Anthony F. Belfast
Michael P. Imbriglio
June 28, 1999 W. Lee Vanderhurst
1
Cornerstone Communities Corporation Project No. 0196-003-02
' 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 600 Document No. 9-0191
San Diego, California 92121
' Attention: Mr. Jack Robson
t SUBJECT: FINE GRADING COMPACTION REPORT
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch
' Encinitas, California
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of the testing and observation services provided during the fine
' grading of Quail Hollow Development at Encinitas Ranch. The purpose of the observation and
testing services was to gain information on which to base our opinion of the conformance of the
' earthwork construction with the project plans and specifications. In our opinion the grading and
compaction observed and tested to date was performed in general accordance with the intent of the
project geotechnical recommendations and with the requirements of the city of Encinitas. Our
services were provided in accordance with our Proposal No. 8-212 (Geotechnics Incorporated,
' 1998), and with Cornerstone Communities Contract No. 24-070, dated October 1, 1998.
2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Field personnel were provided for this project to observe and test the fine grading. The observation
i and testing assisted us in developing professional opinions regarding the earthwork construction and
the suitability of the materials used. 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 fine grading, including ground preparation prior to fill placement and remedial
grading for transitions between formational/fill contacts exposed at finish grade.
9951 Business Park Ave., Ste. B San Diego California • 92131
Phone (619) 536-1000 Fax (619) 536-8311
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
' PAGE 2
• Performance of field density testing for evaluation of relative compaction.
• Laboratory testing to determine pertinent engineering characteristics of the soil and to supplement
' those performed during past investigations. The results are summarized in Appendix C.
' • 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
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch is a planned residential neighborhood located along the eastern side
' of Swallowtail Road and immediately north of the proposed Quail Gardens Drive, in the city of
Encinitas, California. The approximate area is shown on the Site Location Map, Figure 1. The tract
is roughly rectangular in shape and will consist of 42 single-family residences aligned along two cul-
de-sacs. Elevations at the site range from approximately 190 feet above mean sea level (MSL) in
' the southwest corner of the site, to approximately 400 feet MSL in the northeast corner of the site.
The pads are separated by slopes and retaining walls, with slope heights up to 60 feet along the south
portion of the site, and retaining wall heights up to 8 feet.
The site was previously rough graded in 1996 through 1998 as part of the Encinitas Ranch
' Development. The earthwork was conducted under the observation and testing of Geotechnics
1 Incorporated (1998).
4.0 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 Santiago Formation, Torrey Sandstone, Quaternary-age terrace deposits, and
' compacted fill soil consisting primarily of silty sand and clayey sand. Minor amounts of
alluvial/colluvial soils and fill placed by others also exist at the site.
1
Geotechnics Incorporated
1 m
om TI,
>
09
ce-
0 0>
1
m Z ti
~~s I ~ ~ - ~JP~/ r O C
1
r
U~' o ~ 'I = to
R m
~ I
w \ Q fa E
m ~ O
- v1sln o~~3e Z C
w E
-dame 31r NOa II 0 0
W
I _
SNALLO \tL i hti ~mdodailnc) V d
\J 6~ - W
M~ p l0
.31 S
A~
.l d
H
' _ - --Je~ - - - - ,-pq-gSl~ Off'
' - ---r_-- iJ.NOX'd5~ V
RIDGE -
_ 5 - C-- VINVO
p,MpLFI Y ~ ~~~GUNDY~ _
L-
ViIIW?1NOW }IIHXCINVN60N
vvviME~i~. F-~
o y-
~'i1 % °s~~'~1` PPS S"D'~ y C~
SM sdew •so,8 sewoyl wojj paldepd
1
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 3
' The as-graded geologic conditions are depicted on the attached As-Graded Geotechnical Maps,
' Plates 1 and 2. Generalized descriptions of the geologic units are as follow:
' 4.1 Santiago Formation
The Santiago Formation was primarily exposed during grading in the northern and central
' portions of the site, and generally at elevations beneath 320 feet MSL. As observed at the
site, this formation consisted generally of yellow-brown and gray, silty fine grained
sandstone and siltstone. This formation was not exposed in the finish grades at the site.
4.2 Torrey Sandstone
' The Torrey Sandstone was primarily exposed during grading in the southern area 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. This
formation was not exposed in the finish grades at the site.
' 4.3 Terrace Deposits
' The ridge and bluff area in the eastern part of the site is underlain by terrace deposits. This
formation is exposed at finish grades in Lots 14, 15, 16, 24, and 25 and in the cut slopes
behind Lots 12 to 18 and 22 to 25. As observed at the site, this formation consisted generally
of reddish brown, clayey to silty, fine to medium grained sandstone. Expansion index testing
' conducted in this material indicated a very low potential for expansion.
' 4.4 Alluvium and Undocumented Fill
' During the rough grading of the site, pre-existing fill and alluvial soils were encountered east
of Swallowtail Road and beneath portions of Lots 1, 2 and 3 ( Figures 2 and 3). The fill was
' placed by others for the alignment of Swallowtail Road and portions of the area east of
Swallowtail Road. As observed during the rough grading, not all the alluvium underlying the
roadway alignment was removed prior to the placement of fill for Swallowtail Road.
Geotechnics Incorporated
i a
M CN 04
~ LLJ ~
O O
O
T-z
o~
c
m
zE
i5 0
00
0
CL
1
1
i A
220 SWALLOWTAIL
ROAD 220 M
M
Q ~ m
-4
O = E
U
z E
C: 0
200 200 W uj
N o
O o m
L
180 Undocumented Fill 180 U v
Alluvium MONO 4w
160 swoop 160
1
Torrey Sandstone
140 140 ~
U ~
..-IM.,
s-,
Scale: 1 "=20'
A-j H-1
0 20 40 60 240 260 280 0
1 °
L7
a
9
rn W
i 9~
°o CD
i ~z
aC
z E
i o
0
a
SWALLOWTA
220 ROAD 220
U
C N
200 200 pp
m cn'E
C
z - E
Undocument v w v
' W ~
180 180 ~ o
U) o
O o CD
2 L
Alluvium v c~ U
C~
160 160
140 Torrey S< 140
a~
4-4
O
120 120 tZ,
~ O
~ U
U ~
O
0 20 200
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
' JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 4
It was not possible to remove the alluvium and old fill without undermining the road and
' adjacent improvements. Removals were made to within a 1:1 (horizontal to vertical)
projection from the edge of the road. Compacted fill was then placed to the rough design
' grades over the previously placed fill and alluvium.
The alluvium consisted primarily of brown, silty fine sand. The sand was generally loose and
compressible. This material was not observed elsewhere during the fine grading phase of this
project.
' 4.5 Documented Fill
' Documented fill soils placed during the rough grading were encountered over much of the
subject property. As observed during the fine grading, the fill consisted primarily of brown
and yellow-brown, silty to clayey fine sand. Additionally, minor amounts of imported fill
' material generated from a nearby off-site source was used in the compacted fills. This
material generally consisted of greenish gray, sandy clay. Placement of the fill is
documented in the As-Graded Geotechnical Report for Encinitas Ranch (Geotechnics,
1998b). The fill soils were generally dense and considered suitable for the support of
' structural loads. Expansion tests in the fill soils indicate that the expansion potential is in the
low to medium range.
' 4.6 Groundwater
' Groundwater seepage was observed along the face of the cut slope located behind Lot 13
Dylan Way at approximately 324 MSL, and below the rear portions of Lots 16 and 17 Dylan
Way, at approximately 312 MSL. Additionally, groundwater seepage was also observed near
Lot 8 Dylan Way at approximately 314 MSL. The source of the observed seepage has not
' been evaluated, but is likely associated with the irrigation from the adjacent property to the
east. Remedial measures for handling the observed groundwater seepage are described in
' Section 5.7.
1
1
Geotechnics Incorporated
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 5
4.7 Seismicity
No faults were observed during the fine grading of the site. The closest active fault 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 produce peak
' horizontal ground accelerations of approximately 0.4g.
5.0 SUMMARY OF GRADING OPERATIONS
' In general, the earthwork consisted of the fine 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 Hunsaker and Associates (1998), serve as base maps for the As-
Graded Geotechnical Map.
' Fine grading was performed by Perry and Shaw Construction Incorporated. Typical cut and fill mass
grading techniques were employed using heavy earth-moving equipment. Site grading began with
' clearing and grubbing of vegetation, and the removal of the existing loose surficial soils from the
site. Fill soils were placed to bring areas up to design grades.
' 5.1 Preparation of Existing Ground
The site was cleared of surface obstructions and stripped of vegetation. In general, the
existing loose surficial soils, were removed to expose competent bedrock and/or previously
' placed compacted fill materials. Prior to the placement of fill during this phase of grading,
' the exposed surfaces were scarified to a depth of 6 to 8 inches, brought to approximately
optimum moisture content, and compacted.
5.2 Fill Soil Types
' The various materials used as fill are tabulated in Figure C-2 of Appendix C "Laboratory
Test Results." Embankment fill materials were derived from on-site or designated borrow
' sites. The maximum densities and optimum moisture of the soils were determined in the
laboratory in general accordance with ASTM method D1557-91 (Modified Proctor).
1
Geotechnics Incorporated
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
' JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 6
The fill soils vary from silty sand (SM) to sandy clay (CL). Based on our expansion test
' results, figures C-1.1 and C-1.2, the fill soils placed at finished grade beneath proposed
buildings appear to have a very low to medium expansion potential.
5.3 Fill Placement and Compaction
' ite were generated from excavations, but
F111 soils for s grading primarily on-site some fill
' material was imported from various off-site sources. The imported material generally
consisted of minor amounts of soil being disposed of from a nearby project.
' Fill soils for site grading were typically placed in 6- to 8-inch thick lifts, brought to
' approximate optimum moisture content, and compacted. The equipment used for
compaction consisted of rubber-tire compactors, sheepsfoot rollers, bulldozers, blades, water
trucks, and scrapers.
In-place moisture and density tests were made in general accordance with ASTM D2922-91
' and D3017-88 (Nuclear Gauge Methods). The results of these tests are tabulated in
Appendix D, "Field Density Test Results." The locations and elevations indicated for the
tests presented on the Geotechnical Maps, Plates 1 through 2, 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.
' 5.4 Fill Slopes
Fill slopes of up to 60 feet high were constructed in general accordance with the project plans
' and specifications at a slope ratio of approximately 1.8:1 to 2:1 (horizontal to vertical).
Keyways and benches for fills slopes were mapped by our geologist to evaluate adverse
' geologic conditions which could affect the stability of the slope.
Geotechnics Incorporated
1
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 7
5.5 Cut Slopes
Cut slopes were graded at a slope ratio of approximately 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter
1 to a maximum height of approximately 25 feet. Sections of the observed cut slopes were
mapped during grading by our geologist to evaluate geologic conditions. Buttress fills were
' constructed where necessary, and are described in Section 5.6.
5.6 Slope Buttresses
' Slope Buttresses were constructed in cut and/or fill slopes where adverse geologic conditions
were observed during slope excavation. Buttresses were constructed along the north side of
the future Quail Gardens Drive, between approximate Station Nos. 46+00 and 50 +50, and
' along the toe-of-slope below Lots 10 and 11 on Dylan Way. The buttresses were
recommended to increase slope stability where a continuous clay seam and water seepage
were observed in the proposed slopes. The location of the buttresses and the key elevations
are shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps, Plates 1 and 2.
The buttresses were constructed in substantial accordance with our design recommendations.
' These recommendations were based on subsurface exploration, field mapping and the
recommendations contained in a letter dated August 12, 1998. The width of the buttress
located along Quail Gardens Drive was constructed at 40 feet, and the width of the buttress
located below Lots 10 and 11 was constructed at 20 feet. The buttress keys were constructed
with an approximate 2 percent gradient into the slope, and the recommended backdrains were
I installed. Each backdrain consisted of a 4-inch diameter perforated plastic pipe, surrounded
' by 3/4-inch crushed rock and a geofabric wrap, in conjunction with geofabric-composite
drain panel placed on the back-cut. The backdrain was placed along the slope back-cut for
the entire length of the buttress, with the panels placed in a manner as to provide coverage
of any exposed areas of groundwater seepage. The outlet pipe located adjacent to Quail
Gardens Drive is temporary and will require a permanent connection to an appropriate storm
drain device. The outlet pipe located below Lots 10 and 11 Dylan Way was day-lighted out
of slope to an offsite natural drainage. The approximate limits of the buttress slopes and
backdrains are shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps, Plates 1 through 2.
Geotechnics Incorporated
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 8
5.7 Subdrains
A subdrain was constructed during grading at the base of the cut slope located behind Lots
13 to 17 on Dylan Way. The subsurface toe drain was constructed in accordance with our
design recommendations. These recommendations were based on field mapping and the
' recommendations contained in a letter dated January 13, 1998. The subsurface drain
consisted of a 4-inch diameter perforated plastic pipe, surrounded by 3/4-inch crushed rock
and a geofabric wrap, in conjunction with geofabric-composite drain panel placed on the
back-cut. The drain was placed along the slope back-cut from Lots 13 to 17 on Dylan Way,
with the panels placed in a manner as to provide coverage of any exposed areas of
groundwater seepage. The subdrain location is shown on the As-Graded Geotechnical Maps,
' Plates 1 through 2. The subdrain discharges below pavement grade on Ravean Court. The
outlet pipe will require future connection to an appropriate storm drain device.
' 5.8 Cut/Fill Transition Lots
To reduce the potential for differential settlement beneath structures, lots with both
formational materials and fill soils exposed at finish grade were remediated by
' overexcavating the bedrock portion, and replacing it with compacted fill to provide uniform
bearing conditions. The lot location and depths of overexcavation are presented in Figure
B-1, of Appendix B, "Transition Lot Overexcavation".
6.0 LABORATORY TESTING
The various materials used as fill are tabulated in Figures C-2, of Appendix C, "Laboratory 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 using ASTM method DI 557-91(Modified
' Proctor) as a guideline. The fills generally consisted of silty, fine-grained sand (SM) and clayey
sand (SC). To evaluate materials for conformance with project specifications, expansion index, pH
1 and resistivity, and soluble sulfate content testing was conducted on samples collected from the
finish-graded pads. ASTM D4829 was used as a guideline to evaluate the expansion index and
1 SMEWW 4500 S04 E and Caltrans 643 as a guideline were used to evaluate the soil corrosivity
content. The results of the laboratory testing are presented in Appendix C.
Geotechnics Incorporated
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 9
7.0 GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1
In our opinion, grading and compaction were performed in general accordance with the intent of the
' project geotechnical recommendations, and with the requirements of the City of Encinitas. The
conclusions and recommendations contained herein are based on the observations and testing
' performed between October 1998 and March 1999. No representations are made as to the quality
and extent of materials not observed.
7.1 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 D1557-91. Where field testing indicated less than 90
percent relative compaction, the pertinent fill soils were reworked until testing indicated that
the specified compaction was achieved.
7.2 Slope Stability
' Fill and cut slopes were constructed as discussed in Sections 6.3 to heights up to 60 feet.
Slope stability was evaluated based on the referenced geotechnical update letter and grading
plan review (Geotechnics Incorporated 1998c), 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
r 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.
1 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 experience minor
Geotechnics Incorporated
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
' PAGE 10
down-slope creep over the years. While it is not possible to completely eliminate this 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 that is adapted to semi-arid climates and therefore requiring minimal irrigation.
' 7.3 Subdrains
Temporary subdrain outlets are located near station number 45+50 Quail Gardens Drive, and
below grade near station number 21+00 Ravean Court. The outlet pipes will require future
connections to appropriate storm drain devices.
7.4 Removal of 12-Inch Water Line
A 12-in ACP water line underlies Lots 19, 31, and 32, that will be abandoned upon
' installation of a new water line along Ravean Court. Within the lots, the water line will need
to be completely removed and replaced with compacted fill.
7.5 Site Drainage
Foundation and slab performance depends greatly on how well the runoff waters drain from
1 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 5 feet
of buildings slope away at gradients of at least two percent. Densely vegetated areas should
' have minimum gradients of at least 5 percent away from buildings within 5 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 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, water line breaks, or unusually high rainfall
occur, saturated zones or "perched" groundwater may develop in fill soils. This condition
Geotechnics Incorporated
r
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
r JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 11
may result in excessive moisture migration into and through foundations and slabs. Damage
r to landscape may also occur.
r 7.6 Foundations
r 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
r 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
r parameters described in the following sections.
The following recommendations assume that all foundations bear completely in formational
r materials or compacted fill prepared as previously described. In general, the expansion index
testing indicated that the soils exhibit low and moderate expansion potential. The following
r parameters assume an expansion index of less than 90.
r Post-Tensioned Slabs
r Edge Moisture Variation, em Center Lift: 5.3 feet
Edge Lift: 2.6 feet
r Differential Swell, Ym Center Lift: 1.7 inches
' Edge Lift: 0.6 inches
Differential Settlement: 1'/4 inches for Lots 1, 2 and 3
Differential Settlement: 3/4-inch all other lots
' Allowable Bearing Capacity: 2,000 lbs/ft2 at slab subgrade
1
1
Geotechnics Incorporated
1
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 12
' Conventional Foundations
Allowable Soil Bearing: 2,500 lbs/ft2 (allow a one-third increase for
short-term wind or seismic loads)
Minimum Footing Width: 12 inches
' Minimum Footing Depth: 18 inches below lowest adjacent soil grade
Minimum Slab Thickness: 5 '/z inches
Differential Settlement: 11/4 inches for Lots 1, 2 and 3
Differential Settlement: 3/4-inch all other lots
To reduce the effects ofsettlementfrom the alluvium and undocumented fill left beneath Lots
1 through 3, the above noted recommendations specific for these lots have been provided
only for the building foundations. Any additional settlement sensitive structures such as
pools, decks, and retaining walls constructed on Lots 1, 2, and 3 should be evaluated on a
case by case basis by a geotechnical consultant in order to develop specific
' recommendations for the new types of structures.
7.6.1 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
t recommended for the portion of vertical foundation members embedded into
formational soil or compacted fill. If friction and passive pressure are
' combined, the passive pressure value should be reduced by one-third.
Geotechnics Incorporated
1
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 13
7.6.2 Foundation Setback
Footings adjacent to slopes should be founded at a depth such that the
t distance between the lower outside edge of the footing and the face of any
slope is at least 8 feet.
7.7 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 2 inches of clean sand covered by a 20-mil moisture barrier covered
by another 2-inches of clean sand. The sand should have a minimum sand equivalent of at
' least 50 when tested in accordance with ASTM test method D2419. 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 following alternative:
t 2 inches of clean sand (sand equivalent of 30 or more), over
10 mil. plastic sheeting, over
t 4 inches of minus 3/8-inch crushed rock over subgrade.
Another alternative would be to place a moisture barrier with a thickness greater than 20 mil
' directly on the subgrade, covered with at least 2 inches of clean sand. The moisture barrier
should be installed in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements, and any joints or
' laps should be throughly sealed in accordance with the manufacturer's requirements to
provide a thorough seal. The concrete should have a low water-cement ratio of no greater
' than 0.5, and be moist-cured for at least 5 days in accordance with the methods
Geotechnics Incorporated
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 14
recommended by the American Concrete Institute. Additionally, the project architect and/or
a waterproofing consultant should evaluate the moisture barrier requirements based on the
anticipated floor coverings and proposed use. We also recommend that a special registered
' inspector test and inspect the concrete placement and slab construction to confirm the
recommendations herein are implemented in the field.
' 7.8 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, W IA by W IA 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 for exterior slabs
or concrete decks.
' 7.9 Reactive Soils
Sulfate content of the on-site soil indicates that Type II cement should be suitable for use in
' concrete which will be in contact with the soil. The sulfate values are shown in Figure C-3.
Resistivity and pH values indicate the subgrade soils are severely corrosive to ferrous metals.
' A corrosion consultant should be utilized to provide corrosion protection for underground
utilities.
' 7.10 Earth Retaining Structures
1 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: 30 lbs/ft3
Equivalent Fluid Pressure with 2:1 sloping backfill: 43 lbs/ft3
Geotechnics Incorporated
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
' PAGE 15
Allowable Soil Bearing: 2,5001bs/ft2
1 Passive Pressure: 3001bs/ft3
L 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.
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.
8.0 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. 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
Geotechnics Incorporated
CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES PROJECT NO. 0196-003-02
JUNE 28, 1999 DOCUMENT NO. 9-0191
PAGE 16
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.
1 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.
1 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.
OQPpFESS/pN
' Q~ ONE F. B 19~F' GEOTECHNICS INCORPORATED
~4r t`Z' F 9 y~y~ W. LEE ~N
C040333 N' ~C VANDERHURST
' • No. 1125
* Exp _T_5/_ 03 * CERTIFIED •
ENGINEERING
N~ GEOLOGIST
cfA C1V1\- Z•31.99 OQ~
OF CAOF C
' Anthony F. Belfast, P.E. C 40333 W. Lee Vanderhurst, C.E.G. 1125
Principal Principal
1
Distribution: (4) Addressee
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Transition Lot Overexcavation
Appendix C - Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D - Field Density Tests
' Plates 1 and 2 -As-Graded Geotechnical Maps
Geotechnics Incorporated
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1 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.
County of San Diego, 1929, Aerial Photograph: 37 FA and B, Scale 1:20,000
Hunsaker & Associates Inc. 1998 Grading Plans for Encinitas Ranch Quail Hollow, TM No. 97-
' 263;Work Order 2020-07, 10 Sheets, Scale : 1 inch = 40 feet, dated December 23.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1996,GeotechnicalInvestigation, Encinitas Ranch, Encinitas, California
I Project No. 0054-002-00, Document No. 5-0588, dated January 19.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997a, Slope Stability Analysis, Quail Gardens Drive, Station Numbers
' 117+50 and 122+00, Encinitas Ranch: Project No. 0054-002-02, Document No. 7-0232,
dated April 17.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1997b, Slope Stability Analysis, Quail Gardens Drive, Between
Approximate Station Numbers 117+50 and 122+00, Encinitas Ranch Development,
Encinitas California: Project No. 0054-002-02, Document No. 7-0168, dated March 13.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998a, Updated Recommendations for Subsurface Area Drains, Quail
' Hollow at Encinitas Ranch, Encinitas California. Project No. 0196-003-02, Document No.
9-0025, dated January 13.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998b, As-Graded Geotechnical Report, Encinitas Ranch, Encinitas
California, Project No. 0054-002-02, Document No. 6-0620, dated March 31.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998c, Geotechnical Update Letter and Grading Plan Review, Quail
Hollow at Encinitas Ranch, Encinitas California: Project No. 0196-003-02, Document No.
8-0613, dated August 12.
Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998d, Proposal for Geotechnical Services, Testing and Observation
during Grading and Improvement Construction, Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch, Encinitas
California: Project No. 0196-003-02, Document No. 8-0720, dated September 22.
' Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998e, Preliminary Recommendations for Post-Tensioned Slabs, Quail
Hollow at Encinitas Ranch, Encinitas California. Project No. 0196-003-02, Document No.
8-0812, dated October 22.
' Geotechnics Incorporated, 1998f, As-Graded Letter, Model Lots 1, 2,3, Quail Hollow at Encinitas
Ranch, Encinitas California: Project No. 0196-003-02, Document No. 8-0979, dated
' December 28.
Geotechnics Incorporated
I APPENDIX B
TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION
' LOT OVEREXCAVATION
NUMBER ELEVATIONS (ft.)
' 4 264
5 275
' 7 299
' 11 326
12 326
1 13 325
' 18 334
19 346
' 20 353
' 21 356
' 22 365
23 368
26 380
27 368
28 362
' 31 346
The elevations shown are based on field survey measurements by Hunsaker and Associates.
G e o t e c h n i c s Transition Lot Overexcavation Project No. 0196-003 -02
Incorporated Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
Cornerstone Communities FIGURE B-1
' APPENDIX B
TRANSITION LOT OVEREXCAVATION
' (Continued)
' LOT OVEREXCAVATION
NUMBER ELEVATIONS (ft.)
' 32 341
' 33 335
34 328
' 35 322
' 37 310
38 290
39 268
' 40 255
41 241
' 42 228
' The elevations shown are based on field survey measurements by Hunsaker and Associates.
AMbb- G e o t e c h n i c s Transition Lot Overexcavation Project No. 0196-003-02
' Incorporated Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
Cornerstone Communities FIGURE B-2
APPENDIX C
LABORATORY TESTING
1 Selected samples of soils encountered during the investigation were tested using generally accepted
testing standards. The soils selected for testing are believed to be generally representative of the
' materials encountered during the investigation at the site; however variations may occur in the soils
at the site, and the materials tested may not be representative of the materials encountered during
construction.
Laboratory testing was conducted in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily
I exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in same
locality. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the correctness or serviceability of
the test results or the conclusions derived from these tests. Where a specific laboratory test method
has been referenced, such as ASTM, Caltrans, or AASHTO, the reference applies only to the
specified laboratory test method and not to associated referenced test method(s) or practices, and the
test method referenced has been used only as a guidance document for the general performance of
the test and not as a "Test Standard." A brief description of the tests performed follows:
Expansion Index: The expansion potential of selected soils was characterized by using the test
method ASTM D4829. The results are presented in Figures C-1.1 and C-1.2.
' Maximum Densit /Optimum Moisture: The maximum densities and optimum moisture contents
of representative soil samples were determined by using test method ASTM D1557-91, modified
' Proctor. The test results are summarized in Figure C-2.
pH and Resistivity: To assess their potential for reactivity with metal pipe, representative samples
' were tested for ph and resistivity using CALTRANS method 643. The results are listed on Figure
C-3.
Sulfate Content: To assess their potential for reactivity with concrete, representative samples were
tested for content of water-soluble sulfate minerals using SMEWW4500 SO4E. The results are listed
on Figure C-3.
1
Geotechnics Incorporated
' APPENDIX C
' EXPANSION INDEX TESTS
(ASTM D4829)
SAMPLE LOCATION EXPANSION
' NUMBER INDEX
1 Lot 3 71
2 Lot 2 61
3 Lot 1 46
' 4 Lot 42 55
5 Lot 41 68
6 Lot 40 36
7 Lot 39 40
8 Lot 26 0
9 Lot 22 0
10 Lot 29 0
' 11 Lot 6 76
12 Lot 38 0
' 13 Lot 7 10
14 Lot 11 6
' 15 Lot 12 56
16 Lot 13 49
17 Lot 36 44
18 Lot 37 73
19 Lot 35 9
20 Lot 34 21
21 Lot 4 27
' 22 Lot 5 29
23 Lot 33 14
i 24 Lot 32 33
25 Lot 18 47
G e o t e c h n i c s Expansion Index Tests Project No. 0196-003-02
Incorporated Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-1.1
EXPANSION INDEX TESTS (Continued)
(ASTM D4829)
SAMPLE LOCATION EXPANSION
NUMBER INDEX
' 26 Lot 19 26
' 27 Lot 8 21
28 Lot 9 35
1 2 L 14 1
30 Lot 15 17
31 Lot 16 16
32 Lot 17 45
33 Lot 20 5
' 34 Lot 21 0
35 Lot 23 2
' 36 Lot 24 7
37 Lot 25 5
38 Lot 27 0
39 Lot 28 0
40 Lot 30 1
' 41 Lot 31 15
42 Lot 10 21
UBC TABLE NO. 29-C, CLASSIFICATION OF EXPANSIVE SOIL
EXPANSION INDEX POTENTIAL EXPANSION
' 0-20 Very Low
21-50 Low
51-90 Medium
91-130 High
Above 130 Very High
1
Ge o t echn i c s Expansion Index Tests Project No. 0196-003-02
AMENEb6z ' I n c o r p o r a t e d Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-1.2
MAXIMUM DENSITY/OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT
(ASTM D1557-91)
' SAMPLE DESCRIPTION MAX. DRY OPTIMUM
NO. DENSITY MOISTURE
' [PCF]
1 Grayish brown clayey sand (SC) 120.5 13.5
' 2 Light gray silty sand (SM) 119.0 13.5
3 Gray sandy clay (CL) 113.0 16.0
' 4 Light gray sandy clay (CL) 119.0 14.0
' 5 Light reddish brown silty sand (SM) 126.0 11.5
6 Dark greenish gray sandy clay (CL) 112.0 18.5
' 7 Dark greenish gray sandy clay (CL) 106.5 21.5
8 Reddish brown silty sand (SM) 131.0 9.0
9 Greenish gray sandy clay (CL) (Import) 116.0 14.5
~G e o t e c h n i c s Maximum Density/Moisture Project No. 0196-003-02
' Incorporated Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-2
' CORROSIVITY TEST RESULTS
(Caltrans Test Method 643 and SMEWW4500 SO4E)
' SAMPLE LOCATION SULFATE pH RESISTIVITY
CONTENT (ohm-cm)
' (pPm)
1 Lot 1 326 7.6 488
' 2 Lots 2 to 6 373 8.2 377
3 Lots 19 to 26 590 7.2 195
4 Lots 40 to 42 377 7.8 1325
5 Lots 27 to 33 732 8.1 279
' 6 Lot 7 354 - -
' 7 Lot 34 140 - -
8 Lots 8 to 10 152 - -
9 Lot 11 245 - -
10 Lots 12 to 18 296 - -
' 11 Lots 35 to 36 524 - -
' 12 Lot 37 642 - -
~G e o t e c h n i c s Corrosivity Tests Project No. 0196-003-02
Incorporated Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
Cornerstone Communities FIGURE C-3
APPENDIX D
FIELD DENSITY TEST RESULTS
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 D-1 through D-6,
"Field Density 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. D 1557 and found the accuracy of the maximum dry
density to be plus or minus 4 percent of the mean value and the optimum moisture content to be
accurate to plus or minus 15 percent of the mean value; the Society specifically states the "acceptable
range of test results expressed as a percent of mean value" is the range stated above. In effect, an
indicated relative compaction of 90 percent has an acceptable range of 86.6 to 92.8 percent based
on the maximum dry density determination. The precision of the field density test ASTM D1556
has not yet been determined by the American Society for Testing and Materials; however, it must
be recognized that it also is subject to variations in accuracy.
Geotechnics Incorporated
_ Geotechnics DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-003-02
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
Incorporated Cornerstone Communities FIGURE D-1
Test Test Elevation Location Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest Test
No. Date [ft] Lot # Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number Method
[pct] [pcq
1 10114/98 184 1 1 120.5 16.3 110.2 91 90 NU
' 2 10/14/98 186 1 1 120.5 17.4 109.8 91 90 NU
3 10/14/98 189 1 1 120.5 17.3 110.6 92 90 NU
4 10/14/98 190 1 1 120.5 16.9 108.7 90 90 NU
5 10114198 192 1 1 120.5 17.4 109.5 91 90 NU
' 6 10/15/98 195 1 1 120.5 17.1 110.3 92 90 NU
7 10/15/98 198 1 1 120.5 17.0 111.0 92 90 NU
8 10/15/98 200 1 1 120.5 17.8 109.9 91 90 NU
9 10/15/98 202 1 1 120.5 17.9 110.5 92 90 NU
10 10/15/98 201 2 2 119.0 15.2 111.1 93 90 NU
11 10/15/98 205 2 2 119.0 15.5 110.4 93 90 NU
' 12 10/16/98 211 3 2 119.0 14.4 109.4 92 90 NU
13 10/16/98 204 2 2 119.0 13.9 111.7 94 90 NU
14 10/16/98 206 2 2 119.0 14.2 109.2 92 90 NU
15 '10/16/98 209 2 2 119.0 15.2 110.1 93 90 NU
' 16 10/16/98 212 3 2 119.0 14.0 110.7 93 90 NU
17 10/19/98 211 2 2 119.0 12.4 107.3 90 90 NU
18 10/19/98 207 1 2 119.0 11.7 111.6 94 90 NU
' 19 10/20/98 209 1 2 119.0 15.4 108.4 91 90 NU
20 10/20/98 223 42 2 119.0 14.8 105.1 88 90 21 NU
21 10/20/98 223 42 2 119.0 14.5 108.8 91 90 NU
22 10/20198 229 42 3 113.0 17.8 103.5 92 90 NU
' 23 10/20/98 226 42 3 113.0 19.9 101.9 90 90 NU
24 10/20/98 231 41 3 113.0 19.4 102.8 91 90 NU
25 10/20/98 227 42 3 113.0 11.0 105.8 94 90 NU
26 10/20/98 228 42 3 113.0 11.9 106.1 94 90 NU
27 10/21/98 229 42/41 3 113.0 12.5 108.5 96 90 NU
28 10/21/98 230 42/41 3 113.0 17.8 102.0 90 90 NU
29 10/21/98 228 42 2 119.0 9.7 110.1 93 90 NU
1 30 10/21/98 231 46+00 2 119.0 9.9 109.0 92 90 NU
31 10/21/98 229 49+00 2 119.0 12.4 108.2 91 90 NU
32 10/21/98 232 42 2 119.0 11.4 108.8 91 90 NU
33 10/21/98 233 42 2 119.0 14.6 111.4 94 90 NU
34 10/21/98 235 42 2 119.0 13.5 108.6 91 90 NU
35 10/21/98 236 42 2 119.0 11.0 112.1 94 90 NU
36 10/22/98 235 41 4 119.0 14.9 109.9 92 90 NU
37 10/22/98 237 41 4 119.0 10.5 115.5 97 90 NU
38 10/22/98 237 41 4 119.0 12.6 108.8 91 90 NU
39 10/22/98 238 41 4 119.0 17.5 107.8 91 90 NU
' 40 10/22/98 240 40 4 119.0 12.2 113.9 96 90 NU
41 10/23/98 276 34 5 126.0 7.7 116.4 92 90 NU
42 10/23/98 259 36 5 126.0 11.2 117.9 94 90 NU
43 10/23/98 255 38 4 119.0 15.9 107.4 90 90 NU
' 44 10/23/98 250 39 4 119.0 13.8 109.0 92 90 NU
45 10/23/98 252 39 3 113.0 16.5 105.6 93 90 NU
46 10/26/98 277 35 4 119.0 13.0 109.3 92 90 NU
' A=`G e o t e c hn i c s DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-003-02
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
Inc o r p orate d Cornerstone Communities FIGURE D-2
Test Test Elevation Location Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest Test
No. Date [ft] Lot # Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number Method
' [Pcfl 1%] [Pcfl 1%]
47 10/26/98 280 34 4 119.0 12.8 108.0 91 90 NU
48 10/26/98 288 33 5 126.0 8.6 116.4 92 90 NU
49 10/26/98 266 37 5 126.0 10.3 115.2 91 90 NU
50 10/26/98 Slope 2 3 113.0 11.4 103.7 92 90 NU
51 10/26/98 Slope 2 3 113.0 10.6 99.0 88 90 89 NU
52 10/26/98 Slope 1 3 113.0 10.9 102.7 91 90 NU
53 10/27/98 257 39 5 126.0 11.1 114.9 91 90 NU
54 10/27/98 270 36 5 126.0 10.4 116.3 92 90 NU
I 55 10/27/98 273 36 5 126.0 10.6 113.8 90 90 NU
56 10127/98 292 33 5 126.0 11.4 114.4 91 90 NU
57 10/27/98 295 33 5 126.0 10.4 116.3 92 90 NU
58 10/27/98 284 35 5 126.0 10.7 115.7 92 90 NU
1 59 10/27/98 279 36 5 126.0 11.0 118.6 94 90 NU
60 10/27/98 274 38 5 126.0 9.2 112.4 89 90 61 NU
61 12/11/98 274 38 5 126.0 10.4 115.2 91 90 NU
' 62 12/11/98 302 33 5 126.0 10.8 115.4 92 90 NU
63 12/11/98 290 34 5 126.0 9.9 113.9 90 90 NU
64 12/11/98 280 37 5 126.0 10.3 117,8 93 90 NU
65 12/11/98 308 32 5 126.0 10.4 116.0 92 90 NU
' 66 12/11/98 300 33 5 126.0 10.5 115.5 92 90 NU
67 12/11/98 291 35 5 126.0 9.8 114.5 91 90 NU
68 12/11/98 287 36 5 126.0 11.0 116.0 92 90 NU
69 12/14/98 311 32 5 126.0 10.4 115.0 91 90 NU
70 12/14/98 314 32 5 126.0 11.2 115.2 91 90 NU
71 12/15/98 239 41 3 113.0 17.0 102.5 91 90 NU
72 12/15/98 240 41 3 113.0 15.2 103.3 91 90 NU
' 73 12/15/98 242 41 3 113.0 15.2 105.0 93 90 NU
74 12/15/98 246 41 3 113.0 19.3 98.1 87 90 75 NU
75 12/15/98 246 41 3 113.0 18.2 103.3 91 90 NU
76 12/15/98 244 41 3 113.0 15.5 106.1 94 90 NU
77 12/15/98 247 41 3 113.0 17.6 101.2 90 90 NU
78 12/15/98 249 41 3 113.0 16.4 103.9 92 90 NU
79 12/15/98 252 40 3 113.0 19.6 101.8 90 90 NU
' 80 12/15/98 255 40 3 113.0 15.2 103.9 92 90 NU
81 12/16/98 257 40 3 113.0 14.0 105.5 93 90 NU
82 12/16/98 259 40 2 119.0 12.3 110.4 93 90 NU
' 83 12/16/98 260 40 2 119.0 11.2 112.3 94 90 NU
84 12/16/98 261 40 2 119.0 12.9 109.6 92 90 NU
85 12/16198 263 40 2 119.0 13.2 111.4 94 90 NU
86 12/16/98 FG 1 2 119.0 15.0 109.5 92 90 NU
' 87 12/16/98 FG 3 2 119.0 12.6 112.7 95 90 NU
88 12/16/98 FG 2 2 119.0 10.4 111.3 94 90 NU
89 12/17/98 Slope 2 3 113.0 16.5 108.8 96 90 NU
90 12/17/98 Slope 1 3 113.0 16.1 107.9 95 90 NU
91 12/17/98 268 39 3 113.0 14.4 101.9 90 90 NU
92 12/17/98 270 39 3 113.0 15.2 103.3 91 90 NU
1
G e o t e Chn i c s DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-003-02
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
Incorporated Cornerstone Communities FIGURE D-3
Test Test Elevation Location Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest Test
No. Date [ft] Lot # Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number Method
[pctl [°io] [pct!
93 12/17/98 272 39 3 113.0 17.8 102.7 91 90 NU
94 12/17/98 274 39 3 113.0 16.1 103.7 92 90 NU
' 95 12/17/98 276 39 3 113.0 16.0 103.4 92 90 NU
96 12/17/98 262 4 7 106.5 18.4 98.6 93 90 NU
97 12/17/98 294 35 5 126.0 10.2 115.0 91 90 NU
98 12/17/98 309 33 5 126.0 9.8 115.4 92 90 NU
99 12/18/98 282 38 4 119.0 17.2 104.5 88 90 100 NU
100 12/18/98 282 38 4 119.0 17.0 108.5 91 90 NU
101 12/18/98 284 38 7 106.5 20.2 99.7 94 90 NU
102 12/18/98 286 38 7 106.5 19.7 99.9 94 90 NU
103 12/21/98 297 35 3 113.0 14.9 105.6 93 90 NU
104 12/21/98 288 38 4 119.0 16.2 108.3 91 90 NU
' 105 12/21/98 323 32 5 126.0 8.9 110.5 88 90 106 NU
106 12/21/98 323 32 5 126.0 10.3 113.5 90 90 NU
107 12/21198 344 31 5 126.0 10.8 113.9 90 90 NU
' 108 12/22/98 344 31 5 126.0 10.4 114.6 91 90 NU
109 12/22/98 347 31 5 126.0 10.3 114.2 91 90 NU
110 12/23/98 381 26 8 131.0 9.1 118.4 90 90 NU
111 12/23/98 382 26 8 131.0 9.1 118.7 91 90 NU
112 12/23/98 379 26 5 126.0 13.0 115.5 92 90 NU
113 12/23/98 346 31/30 1 120.5 12.2 110.7 92 90 NU
114 12/23/98 294 37 1 120.5 12.2 113.7 94 90 NU
115 12/23/98 320 33 8 131.0 8.5 124.2 95 90 NU
116 12/23/98 305 34 1 120.5 13.0 112.6 93 90 NU
117 12/24/98 292 38 4 119.0 15.5 108.5 91 90 NU
118 12/24/98 294 38 5 126.0 9.8 118.3 94 90 NU
' 119 12/24/98 290 38 5 126.0 10.8 116.4 92 90 NU
120 12/28/98 295 38 5 126.0 10.2 114.4 91 90 NU
121 _ 12/28/98 297 38 5 126.0 11.6 113.9 90 90 NU
' 122 12/28/98 312 33/34 5 126.0 11.0 115.6 92 90 NU
123 12/28/98 294 10 5 126.0 10.8 117.4 93 90 NU
124 12/28/98 297 10 5 126.0 11.0 118.2 94 90 NU
125 12/28/98 299 10 5 126.0 10.4 115.3 92 90 NU
' 126 12/28/98 300 7 5 126.0 10.6 116.4 92 90 NU
127 12/28/98 300 7 5 126.0 10.3 116.1 92 90 NU
128 12/29/98 301 7 5 126.0 10.2 113.9 90 90 NU
' 129 12/29/98 301 10 5 126.0 9.9 115.0 91 90 NU
130 12/29/98 303 10 5 126.0 9.4 112.6 89 90 131 NU
131 12/29/98 303 10 5 126.0 11.6 114.8 91 90 NU
132 12/29/98 371 27 5 126.0 10.4 115.6 92 90 NU
' 133 12/30/98 367 28 5 126.0 11.0 115.1 91 90 NU
134 12/30/98 305 10 5 126.0 8.2 110.4 88 90 135 NU
135 12/30/98 305 10 5 126.0 10.7 113.5 90 90 NU
136 12/30/98 307 10 5 126.0 10.4 114.2 91 90 NU
137 12/30/98 361 29 1 120.5 12.8 110.6 92 90 NU
138 12/30/98 356 30 1 120.5 13.0 110.8 92 90 NU
_ 6,Ge o t e c hn i c s DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-003-02
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
I n c o r p o r a t e d Cornerstone Communities FIGURE D-4
Test Test Elevation Location Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest Test
No. Date [ft] Lot # Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number Method
' [Pcfl [pcfl 1%] 1%]
139 12/31/98 347 31 1 120.5 13.0 109.8 91 90 NU
140 12/31/98 348 31 1 120.5 12.7 112.3 93 90 NU
141 12/31/98 358 30 1 120.5 12.2 110.1 91 90 NU
142 1/4/99 369 23 5 126.0 11.2 116.1 92 90 NU
143 1/4/99 370 23 5 126.0 10.4 116.8 93 90 NU
144 1/4/99 364 22 5 126.0 10.7 115.1 91 90 NU
145 115/99 359 21 4 119.0 12.9 110.4 93 90 NU
146 1/5/99 360 21 5 126.0 11.4 113.6 90 90 NU
147 1/5/99 366 22 4 119.0 13.2 111.9 94 90 NU
148 1/5/99 353 20 4 119.0 14.0 109.4 92 90 NU
149 1/5/99 355 20 4 119.0 13.4 110.6 93 90 NU
150 1/6/99 310 10 5 126.0 9.9 116.0 92 90 NU
' 151 1/6/99 312 10 5 126.0 9.7 115.8 92 90 NU
152 1/6/99 314 10 5 126.0 10.6 114.2 91 90 NU
153 1/6/99 309 36 5 126.0 9.9 116.0 92 90 NU
154 1/6199 303 37 5 126.0 9.2 116.4 92 90 NU
' 155 1/6/99 306 37 2 119.0 16.8 107.0 90 90 NU
156 1/8199 295 39 5 126.0 10.8 116.4 92 90 NU
157 1/8/99 290 39 5 126.0 9.4 115.2 91 90 NU
' 158 1/8/99 273 40 4 119.0 14.2 112.1 94 90 NU
159 1/8/99 260 41 4 119.0 12.6 110.8 93 90 NU
160 1/8/99 258 41 4 119.0 13.3 113.6 95 90 NU
161 1/8/99 247 42 4 119.0 13.7 113.4 95 90 NU
162 1/8/99 230 45 2 119.0 14.3 111.2 93 90 NU
163 1/8/99 227 45 2 119.0 13.9 110.0 92 90 NU
164 1/15/99 314 11 5 126.0 10.5 111.4 88 90 165 NU
165 1/15/99 314 11 5 126.0 9.8 114.9 91 90 NU
166 1/15/99 316 10 5 126.0 10.2 112.3 89 90 167 NU
167 1/15/99 316 10 5 126.0 10.6 113.9 90 90 NU
168 1 / 15/99 318 11 5 126.0 8.4 113.9 90 90 NU
169 1/15/99 320 11 5 126.0 9.3 114.7 91 90 NU
170 1/15/99 322 10 5 126.0 9.0 112.0 89 90 171 NU
171 1/15/99 324 11 5 126.0 9.2 114.2 91 90 NU
' 172 1/18/99 324 10 4 119.0 16.3 106.6 90 90 NU
173 1/18/99 326 10 5 126.0 10.4 115.2 91 90 NU
174 1/18/99 328 11 5 126.0 10.0 116.0 92 90 NU
175 1/18/99 326 13 3 113.0 16.8 98.8 87 90 176 NU
176 1/18/99 326 13 3 113.0 17.1 102.7 91 90 NU
177 1/18/99 327 12 3 113.0 18.0 100.7 89 90 178 NU
178 1/18/99 327 12 3 113.0 15.4 102.9 91 90 NU
179 1/18/99 328 12 3 113.0 15.0 103.2 91 90 NU
.180 1/19/99 308 37 5 126.0 10.5 114.5 91 90 NU
181 1/19/99 311 36/37 5 126.0 10.3 117.6 93 90 NU
' 182 1/19/99 318 34 4 119.0 16.2 112.1 94 90 NU
183 1/22/99 315 16 6 112.0 17.4 105.1 94 90 NU
184 1/22/99 318 14/15 6 112.0 18.0 103.7 93 90 NU
' DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-003-02
Aak,`G e o t e c h n i c s Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
I n c o r p o r a t e d Cornerstone Communities FIGURE D-5
Test Test Elevation Location Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest Test
No. Date [ft] Lot # Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number Method
[pcfl 1%] [pcfl
185 1/22/99 320 13 5 126.0 10.1 114.8 91 90 NU
186 1/22/99 317 17 5 126.0 10.4 115.4 92 90 NU
' 187 1/22/99 324 14 5 126.0 9.6 118.9 94 90 NU
188 1/22/99 327 14 5 126.0 10.1 115.3 92 90 NU
189 1/22/99 322 16 4 119.0 13.5 109.8 92 90 NU
' 190 1/22/99 325 15 4 119.0 13.4 109.2 92 90 NU
191 1/22/99 315 36 4 119.0 14.0 107.6 90 90 NU
192 1/22/99 318 36 4 119.0 13.2 108.2 91 90 NU
193 2/16/99 318 36 9 116.0 13.2 111.7 96 90 NU
194 2/16/99 323 34 9 116.0 14.0 113.9 98 90 NU
195 2/16/99 320 36 9 116.0 13.0 111.2 96 90 NU
196 2/16/99 322 35 9 116.0 12.7 110.0 95 90 NU
' 197 2/17/99 306 9 3 113.0 16.3 103.4 92 90 NU
198 2/17/99 324 35 9 116.0 10.6 106.8 92 90 NU
199 2/17199 309 9 9 116.0 14.3 108.0 93 90 NU
200 2/17/99 327 35 5 126.0 10.9 114.8 91 90 NU
201 2/17/99 308 8 9 116.0 13.4 107.3 93 90 NU
202 2/18/99 312 9 9 116.0 12.8 108.8 94 90 NU
203 2/18/99 310 8 9 116.0 14.4 110.0 95 90 NU
' 204 2/18/99 328 34 9 116.0 13.9 109.7 95 90 NU
205 2/18199 330 34 9 116.0 14.2 113.2 98 90 NU
206 2/19/99 332 34 9 116.0 12.8 110.9 96 90 NU
207 2/19/99 334 33/34 9 116.0 12.9 108.1 93 90 NU
208 2/19/99 337 33 9 116.0 13.4 109.2 94 90 NU
209 2/22/99 338 32 9 116.0 13.8 113.9 98 90 NU
210 2/22/99 338 33 9 116.0 14.3 113.0 97 90 NU
' 211 2/22/99 340 33 9 116.0 14.6 113.7 98 90 NU
212 2/22/99 343 32 9 116.0 13.9 111.8 96 90 NU
213 2/22/99 345 32 9 116.0 15:5 110.0 95 90 NU
214 2/24/99 277 5 9 116.0 14.6 111.4 96 90 NU
' 215 2/24199 266 4 9 116.0 13.4 111.9 96 90 NU
216 2/24/99 290 8 5 126.0 10.4 114.9 91 90 NU
217 2125/99 230 42 2 119.0 12.2 109.6 92 90 NU
218 2/25/99 255 40 2 119.0 13.4 107.6 90 90 NU
219 2/25/99 390 38 2 119.0 11.9 108.5 91 90 NU
220 2/25/99 357 30 5 126.0 8.4 116.2 92 90 NU
221 2/25/99 346 31 5 126.0 9.0 117.0 93 90 NU
t 222 2/26/99 315 9 9 116.0 13.8 106.0 91 90 NU
223 2/26/99 317 8 9 116.0 14.1 107.5 93 90 NU
224 2126/99 319 8 9 116.0 14.0 105.4 91 90 NU
' 225 2/26/99 346 19 4 119.0 14.6 109.4 92 90 NU
226 2/26/99 347 19 4 119.0 14.1 109.8 92 90 NU
227 3/1/99 335 18 5 126.0 10.4 113.9 90 90 NU
' 228 3/1/99 337 18 5 126.0 9.9 113.1 90 90 NU
229 3/1199 320 9 5 126.0 10.3 114.8 91 90 NU
230 3/1/99 322 9 5 126.0 10.8 116.3 92 90 NU
1
' =G e o t e chn i c s DENSITY TEST RESULTS Project No. 0196-003-02
Quail Hollow at Encinitas Ranch Document No. 9-0191
Incorporated Cornerstone Communities FIGURE D-6
' Test Test Elevation Location Soil Max. Dry Moisture Dry Relative Required Retest Test
No. Date [ft] Lot # Type Density Content Density Compaction Compaction Number Method
[Pcfl 1%] [pc fl 1%] 1%]
231 3/2/99 324 9 4 119.0 13.8 108.3 91 90 NU 232 3/3/99 326 10 4 119.0 13.3 107.6 90 90 NU
90 NU
1 233 3/3/99 348 16 8 131.0 8.8 120.7 92 NU
234 3/4/99 328 10 4 119.0 13.9 108.6 91 90 NU
235 3/4199 272 37 5 126.0 10.0 114.0 90 990 0 NU
236 3/4199 285 35 5 126.0 9.4 114.7 91 NU
i 237 314/99 292 33 5 126.0 9.5 115.0 91 90 NU
238 3/4/99 326 32 5 126.0 9.2 114.2 91 90 NU
239 3/4/99 320 34 5 126.0 10.3 114.4 91 90
NU
240 3/4/99 310 36 5 126.0 9.6 114.8 91 90 NU
241 3/8/99 FG 26 5 126.0 7.6 118.1 94 90 NU
242 3/8/99 FG 23 5 126.0 7.7 118.6 94 90 NU
243 3/8/99 FG 22 5 126.0 7.1 116.4 92 90
NU
' 244 3/8/99 FG 21 5 126.0 8.0 118.1 94 90 NU
245 3/8/99 FG 20 5 126.0 7.2 118.9 94 90
NU
246 3/8/99 FG 19 5 126.0 7.7 117.5 93 90 NU
247 318/99 FG 18 5 126.0 8.8 115.4 92 90 NU
248 3/8/99 FG 27 5 126.0 6.8 116.0 92 990
0 NU
249 3/8/99 FG 28 5 126.0 7,3 117.6 93 90 NU
250 3/8199 FG 29 5 126.0 7.1 118.8 94 NU
' 251 3/8/99 FG 30 5 126.0 8.0 117.9 94 90 NU
252 3/8199 FG 31 5 126.0 7.4 116.4 92 90 NU
253 3/8/99 FG 32 9 116.0 10.8 112.5 97 90 NU
254 3/8/99 FG 33 9 116.0 11.0 111.4 96 90 NU
255 3/8/99 FG 34 9 116.0 9.4 110.9 96 90 NU
256 3/8/99 FG 35 9 116.0 9.6 112.2 97 90 NU
257 3/8/99 FG 36 9 116.0 10.3 111.7 96 90 NU
258 3/8/99 FG 37 5 126.0 6.4 117.2 93 90 NU
259 3/8/99 FG 38 5 126.0 7.6 115.9 92 90 NU
260 3/8/99 FG 39 2 119.0 9.9 113.7 96 90 NU
261 3/8/99 FG 40 2 119.0 10.8 112.6 95 90 NU
262 3/8/99 FG 41 2 119.0 10.4 113.3 95 90 NU
263 3/8/99 FG 42 2 119.0 10.3 113.0 95 90 NU
264 3/8/99 FG 4 5 126.0 7.3 118.8 94 90 265 3/8/99 FG 5 5 126.0 7.3 118.8 94 90 NU 266 3/8/99 FG 6 2 119.0 9.4 113.7 96 90 NU
267 3/8/99 FG 7 5 126.0 6.9 117.9 94 90 NU
NU
268 3/9/99 FG 8 9 116.0 12.4 111.7 96 90 NU
269 3/9/99 FG 9 9 116.0 13.6 114.4 99 90 NU
270 3/9/99 FG 10 9 116.0 12.3 108.2 93 90 NU
271 3/9/99 FG 11 5 126.0 10.0 120.1 95 90 NU
272 3/9/99 FG 12 5 126.0 9.9 115.0 91 90 NU
273 3/9/99 FG 13 5 126.0 10.3 117.2 93 90 NU
274 3/9/99 FG 17 5 126.0 6.7 119.6 95 90 NU
275 3/9/99 320 10 9 116.0 12.8 108.5 94 90
HUN SAKER
&ASSOCIATES
' S A N D I E G O, 1 N C.
PLANNING
ENGINEERING
SURVEYING HYDROLOGY &
IRVINE
LAS
RIVERSIDE HYDRAULICS STUDY
SAN DIEGO for
ENCINITAS RANCH
QUAIL HOLLOW EAST
' pEC
' in the
City of Encinitas
1
Prepared for: Cornerstone Communities
' W.O. 2020-7
' May 11, 1998
Revised July 14, 1998
' Revised August 27, 1998
Revised October 13, 1998
Revised November 12, 1998
Revised December 3, 1998
Q~pFESs/pH
q
Cr1D L.
co
Z
C7 Z rn
' DAVE HAMMAR N 670 M
~
JACK HILL .6130/00
LEXWILLIMAN Raymond L. Martin, R.C.E. cfv1~
Project Manager ~~OFCAO
' Hunsaker & Associates San Diego, Inc.
10179 Huennekens St.
Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92121
(619) 558-4500 PH
(619) 558-1414 F X
' www.hunsaker.com
Info@HunsakerSD.com CL:kk msworoXkA2020X1998Xb15.doc
wo 2020-7 12/03/98
TABLE OF CONTENTS
' SECTION
References I
'
Introduction I
' Executive Summary I
Criteria and Methodology 11
'
100-year Hydrology Study III
Hydraulic Calculations IV
' Curb Inlet Sizing V
D-75 Nonmograph VI
Street Capacity Calculations VII
' Reference Data VIII
Hydrology Map (pocket)
Offsite Hydrology Map (pocket)
'
' CL:kd mword* \2020\199ft70.doc
wo 2020-7 07118!98
References County of San Diego Hydrology Manual
' Handbook of Hydraulics, Brater & King
' Introduction Quail Hollow East is a project proposed to consist of 42 detached
single family homes on 23.6 acres. The site has been sheet
graded into a single pad. The pad drains to an existing desiltation
basin which outlets into an existing 36" R.C.P. storm drain system
in Quail Hollow Drive
Executive
Summary Individual pads are designed to drain to the streets. Runoff travels
' in the streets to pickup into a storm drain system. Curb inlets have
been sized to intercept the 100-yr. runoff. The storm drain system
has been designed to adequately convey the 100-yr. storm peak
' runoff.
CL:kk msv rd\k:\202M1998\a70.d0c
w02020-7 07118/98
' Drainage Criteria
and Methodology
Design Storm 100-year storm
Land Use Single-family Residential
Soil Type A hydrologic soil group "D" was used for this study.
Runoff Coefficient "C" values were based on the County of San Diego
Hydrology Manual. The site is single-family residential,
therefore a "C" value of 0.55 was used.
Rainfall Intensity The rainfall intensity values were based on the criteria
' presented in the County of San Diego Hydrology Manual.
r
1 CL:kk msword\k:12020\1998ka45.doc
wo 2020-7 05112198
HYDROLOGY
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
' The computer generated analysis for this watershed is consistent with current
engineering standards and requirements of the County of San Diego. This report also
contains calculations for the proposed storm drain within the project limits.
RATIONAL METHOD
The most widely used hydrologic model for estimating watershed peak runoff rates is
the rational method. The rational method is applied to small urban and semi-urban
areas of less than 0.5 square miles. The rational method equation relates storm rainfall
intensity, a selected runoff coefficient, and drainage area to peak runoff rate. This
' relationship is expressed by the equation: Q = CIA. Where:
Q = The peak runoff rate in cubic feet per second at the point of analysis.
' C = A runoff coefficient representing the area - averaged ratio of runoff to
rainfall intensity.
' I = The time-averaged rainfall intensity in inches per hour corresponding to
the times of concentration.
A = The drainage basin area in acres.
LINK-NODE STUDY
In performing a link-node study, the surface area of the basin is divided into basic areas
which discharge into different designated drainage basins. These "sub-basins" depend
' upon locations of inlets and ridge lines.
' SUBAREA SUMMATION MODEL
The rational method modeling approach is widely used due to its simplicity of
application, and its capability for estimating peak runoff rates throughout the interior of a
study watershed analogous to the subarea model. The procedure for the Subarea
' Summation Model is as follows:
CL:kk =.0rdkkA2020\1998\a45.doc
w 2020.7 05//2198
(1) Subdivide the watershed into subareas with the initial subarea being less
than 10 acres in size (generally 1 lot will do), and the subsequent
subareas gradually increasing in size. Assign upstream and downstream
nodal point numbers to each subarea in order to correlate calculations to
the watershed map.
' (2) Estimate a T,, by using a nomograph or overlaid flow velocity estimation.
' (3) Using T, determine the corresponding values of I. Then Q = C I A.
(4) Using Q, estimate the travel time between this node and the next by
Manning's equation as applied to the particular channel or conduit linking
the two nodes.
The nodes are joined together by links, which may be street gutter flows, drainage
swales or drainage ditches. These links are characterized by length, area, runoff
coefficient and cross-section. The Computer subarea menu is as follows:
Enter Upstream node number
Enter Downstream node number
SUBAREA HYDROLOGIC PROCESS
Code 1. Confluence analysis at node.
Code 2. Initial subarea analysis.
Code 3. Pipeflow travel time (computer estimated).
Code 4. Pipeflow travel time (user specified).
Code 5. Trapezoidal channel travel time.
Code 6. Street flow analysis through subarea.
Code 7. User - specified information at node.
Code 8. Addition of sub area runoff to main line.
Code 9. V-gutterflow through area.
' Select subarea hydrologic process
The engineer enters in the pertinent nodes, and then the hydrologic process.
Where two or more links join together, the node is analyzed by the confluence method
described as follows:
CL:kk msw rdlkA2020119Wa45.doc
wo 2020-7 05/12198
At the confluence point of two or more basins, the following procedure is used to
adjust the total summation of peak flow rates to allow for differences in basin
times of concentration. This adjustment is based on the assumption that each
basin's hydrographs are triangular in shape.
' (1). If the collection streams have the same times of concentration,
then the Q values are directly summed,
Qp=Qa+Qb;Tp=Ta=Tb
(2). If the collection streams have different times of concentration, the
smaller of the tributary Q values may be adjusted as follows:
(i). The most frequent case is where the collection stream with
the longer time of concentration has the larger Q. The
smaller Q value is adjusted by the ratio of rainfall intensities.
' Qp = Qa + Qb (la/lb); Tp = Ta
' (ii). In some cases, the collection stream with the shorter time of
concentration has the larger Q. Then the smaller Q is
adjusted by a ratio of the T values.
' +Q T/~;T =T
Qp - - Qb Q. ( b~ ' a) p b
' In a similar way, the underground storm drains are analyzed. The data obtained from
the surface model for the flow rates present at the inlets and collection points are input
' into the nodes representing those structures. The design grades and lengths are used
to compute the capacity of the storm drains and to model the travel time into the
adjustment of the times of concentration for downstream inlets.
' REFERENCE
' 1. Hydrology Manual, County of San Diego, January 1985.
2. Hromadka, Theodore: COMPUTER METHODS IN URBAN HYDROLOGY:
' Lighthouse Publications, 1983.
' CL:kk mswmdlkA2020X1998\a45.doc
m 2020-7 05/12/98
' HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
' PURPOSE
' The storm Drain Analysis program calculates the hydraulic grade line elevations of
proposed or existing storm drain system given the physical characteristics and the
discharge (Q).
Current capacity allows for either pressure flow or partial flow with cross sections being
either circular or rectangular box. A rectangular open channel can be analyzed as a
' box cross section, providing the results show that it is flowing partially full throughout
the entire system, so that the soffit does not affect the computations.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION
The program starts the computation for the hydraulic grade line by evaluating the
friction losses and the minor losses throughout the system. The junction losses are
evaluated by equating pressure plus momentum for the incoming and outgoing flows
' through the junction. This is accomplished by applying the formula developed by the
City of Los Angeles, which establishes that the summation of pressures, ignoring
friction, is equal to the average cross section flow area, multiplied by the change in the
' hydraulic gradient through the junction (see References). The basic flow elevations
used for the main lines at either end of the junction that apply to the pressure plus
momentum equation depend on the type of flow at each end of the junction. These
elevations are determined by computing the drawdown curves for each line. The
control elevation for the lateral or lateral system is taken as the average of the hydraulic
grade line elevations at both ends of the junction. If the water elevation in the lateral is
above this control, the momentum contributed by the lateral in the analysis of the
junction is decreased in proportion to the ratio of the area in the lateral below the
control to the total area of flow.
The point with greater force will be the control point and the point at the other end of the
junction is determined by satisfying the pressure plus momentum equation.
Any of these points may be overridden by the backwater curve originating at the main
' control at the downstream end of the system. If this is the case, then the pressure plus
momentum equation is applied to the point or points determined by the backwater curve
during the upstream analysis.
The above-mentioned considerations apply to both partial and pressure flow.
' CL:kk=s rd%k:12020\19981a45.doc
w 2020.7 05/12198
When the flow changes from partial to full or from full to partial, the program determines
and prints the location where this change occurs. If the flow reaches normal depth
1 within a conveyance, the program determines and prints this location. When the flow
changes from supercritical to subcritical because of downstream conditions, a hydraulic
jump occurs; the program determines the precise location of the jump by equating the
' pressure plus momentum for the two types of flow. The program prints the jump
location, pressure plus momentum at the jump and the depth of water before and after
the jump.
REFERENCES
' Highway Design Manual, Los Angeles County Road Department, 1967 revised
' Hydrology and Hydraulic Design Manual, Los Angeles County Flood Control District,
1964 Bond Issue
' Handbook of Hydraulics, King and Brater, 6th edition
Open-Channel Hydraulics, Ven Te Chow
Office Standard No. 115, City of Los Angeles
Pressure Changes at Storm Drain Junctions, University of Missouri, Engineering Series
Bulletin No. 41, October 1958.
CL:kk msw rd1k:1202011998\"5.dac
w 2020.7 05112198
' RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE
Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT
1985,1981 HYDROLOGY MANUAL
(c) Copyright 1982-93 Advanced Engineering Software (aes)
Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 7/10/93 License ID 1239
' Analysis prepared by:
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
' Irvine, Inc.
Planning * Engineering * Surveying
Three Hughes * Irvine California 92718 * (714) 538-1010
DESCRIPTION OF STUDY
* ENCINITAS RANCH-QUAIL HOLLOW EAST k
*
* 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY STUDY-REVISED 11-12-98
* WO# 2020-7
FILE NAME: H:\AES92\2020\7\Q100X1.DAT
TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 10:52 12/ 1/1998
_
USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION:
1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA
' USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00
6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2.800
SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) = 18.00
SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE _ .90
' SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED
NOTE: CONSIDER ALL CONFLUENCE STREAM COMBINATIONS
FOR ALL DOWNSTREAM ANALYSES
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO-NODE----14_00 IS CODE = 21
_
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSES<<<<<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
'
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 220.00
' UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 382.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 372.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 10.00
' URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 8.865
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.099
' SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.32
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .47 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.32
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14.10 IS CODE = 6
' >>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
340.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION 372.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 6.
STREET LENGTH(FEET) 420.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 16.50
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .083
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
**TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 2.98
' STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .26
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 6.91
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.01
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.32
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 1.40 TC(MIN) = 10.26
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.639
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.32
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 1.77 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.64
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = .30 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 8.46
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.56 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 1.64
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.30 TO NODE 14.20 IS CODE = 8
F >>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA -TO-MAINLINE -PEAK _FLOW<<«<-------------
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.639
' SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 4.80 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 12.25
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 6.57 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 16.88
TC(MIN) = 10.26
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.10 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 3
' >>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
' DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.9 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.8
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 334.00
' DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 306.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 340.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 16.88
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .34 TC(MIN.) = 10.60
1
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 10
» >>>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY-COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 1 <<«<
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 18.00 TO NODE 19.00 IS CODE = 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 130.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 335.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 330.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 5.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 7.205
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.829
' SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.15
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .36 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.15
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 19.00 TO NODE 13.00 IS CODE = 6
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 330.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 316.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 320.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 16.50
' INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) .083
' SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
**TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 3.48
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
' STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .30
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 8.46
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.17
t PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.23
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 1.28 TC(MIN) = 8.48
' 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.245
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.60 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.62
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 1.96 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.77
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) _ .34 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 10.52
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.71 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 1.59
' FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 13.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 3
' » »>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU-SUBAREA«
-_>>>>>USING-COMPUTER-ESTIMATED-PIPESIZE-(NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
' DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 7.5 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.2
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 308.00
' DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 307.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 40.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 5.77
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .08 TC(MIN.) = 8.57
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14.00 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.) = 8.57
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.21
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.96
' PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.77
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 16.00 TO NODE 17.00 IS CODE = 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
' SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
' INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 160.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 332.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 330.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 11.625
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.281
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ •73
' TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .31 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .73
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 17.00 TO NODE 14.00 IS CODE = 6
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 330.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 316.00
'
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 320.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
' STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 16.50
' INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMA.L) .083
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
**TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 1.93
' STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .25
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 6.40
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 3.67
' PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .93
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 1.45 TC(MIN) = 13.08
' 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.968
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.10 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.40
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 1.41 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.13
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) _ .29 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 7.95
' FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.18 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 1.19
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 14.00 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.) = 13.08
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.97
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.41
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 3.13
' CONFLUENCE DATA
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 5.77 8.57 5.213 1.96
' 2 3.13 13.08 3.968 1.41
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
' NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 8.15 8.57 5.213
2 7.52 13.08 3.968
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.15 Tc(MIN.) = 8.57
' TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.37
' FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 14.00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 3
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 10.4 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.7
1 UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 307.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 306.00
1 FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 60.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 8.15
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .13 TC(MIN.) = 8.69
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO-NODE----15_00-IS-CODE- 11------------
-
» >>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 1 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 8.15 8.69 5.163 3.37
2 7.52 13.21 3.942 3.37
MEMORY BANK # 1 CONFLUENCE DATA
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 16.88 10.60 4.544 6.57
PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 23.01 8.69 5.163
' 2 24.06 10.60 4.544
3 22.17 13.21 3.942
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 24.06 Tc(MIN.) = 10.60
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 9.94
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 15.00 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.) = 10.60
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.54
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 9.94
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 24.06
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 10.00 TO NODE 11.00 IS CODE = 21
F» >>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
' SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 220.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 384.00
' DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 372.00
' ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 12.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 8.342
' *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.303
' SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.46
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.46
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 11.00 TO NODE 12.00 IS CODE = 6
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 372.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 312.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 800.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 16.50
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) .083
' SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = -1
**TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) 5.47
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .31
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 8.98
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.92
' PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.81
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 2.25 TC(MIN) = 10.60
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.545
' SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 3.20 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 8.00
' SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 3.70 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 9.46
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = .36 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 11.55
' FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.51 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 2.33
' FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 3
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.1 INCHES
' PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.5
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 306.50
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 306.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 35.00 MANNING'S N = .013
' ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 9.46
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .08 TC(MIN.) = 10.67
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 15.00 IS CODE = 1
_
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
>>>>>AND COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES<<<<<
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS -
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.67
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.52
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.70
' PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 9.46
CONFLUENCE DATA
' STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 23.01 8.69 5.163 9.94
1 24.06 10.60 4.544 9.94
' 1 22.17 13.21 3.942 9.94
2 9.46 10.67 4.523 3.70
' RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 31.30 8.69 5.163
' 2 33.47 10.60 4.544
3 33.41 10.67 4.523
4 30.41 13.21 3.942
' COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 33.47 Tc(MIN.) = 10.60
' TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 13.64
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.00 TO NODE 12.10 IS CODE = 3
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 12.5 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 25.6
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 306.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 230.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 460.00 MANNING'S N = .013
' ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 33.47
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .30 TC(MIN.) = 10.90
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.10 TO NODE 12.10 IS CODE = 1
>>>>>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE<<<<<
1 TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 10.90
' RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.46
' TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 13.64
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 33.47
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.10 TO NODE 15.20 IS CODE = 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 140.00
' UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 338.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 337.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 1.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 13.104
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.963
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.09
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .50 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.09
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 15.20 TO NODE 12.30 IS CODE = 6
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 337.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 236.00
' STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 580.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00
' DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 16.50
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020
' OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .083 -
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF 1
' **TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 3.65
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .24
' HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 5.88
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.86
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.92
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 1.23 TC(MIN) = 14.33
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.740
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
' SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 2.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.14
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 3.00 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 6.23
' END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) _ .29 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 7.95
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.32 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 2.37
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.10 TO NODE 12.10 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.) = 14.33
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.74
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 3.00
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 6.23
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 21.10 TO NODE 21.20 IS CODE = 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
' SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 150.00
' UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 313.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 310.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 3.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 9.624
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.836
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .93
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .35 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .93
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 21.20 TO NODE 12.20 IS CODE = 6
_
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 310.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 236.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 340.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00
' DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 16.50
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .083
' SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
' **TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 2.96
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .22
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 4.85
' AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.37
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.87
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) _ .68 TC(MIN) = 10.30
' 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.628
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
' SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.60 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.07
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 1.95 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.00
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
' DEPTH(FEET) _ .26 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 6.91
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.39 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 2.22
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.10 TO NODE 12.10 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.) = 10.30
' RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.63
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.95
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.00
' CONFLUENCE DATA
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 31.30 9.00 5.050 13.64
1 33.47 10.90 4.463 13.64
1 33.41 10.97 4.443 13.64
' 1 30.41 13.52 3.884 13.64
2 6.23 14.33 3.740 3.00
3 5.00 10.30 4.628 1.95
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
' 1 40.50 9.00 5.050
2 42.32 10.30 4.628
3 43.52 10.90 4.463
4 43.46 10.97 4.443
5 40.61 13.52 3.884
6 39.56 14.33 3.740
r COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 43.52 Tc(MIN.) = 10.90
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 18.59
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 12.10 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 15.8 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 22.4
' UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 230.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 198.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 320.00 MANNING'S N = .013
' ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 21.00 - NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 43.52
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .24 TC(MIN.) - 11.14
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 20.00 IS CODE = 1
E INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE«
» »>DESIGNA-T-E--I-
TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 3
CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 1 ARE:
TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN.) = 11.14
' RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.40
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 18.59
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 43.52
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.10 TO NODE 20.20 IS CODE = 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
' SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 90.00
' UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 243.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 240.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 3.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 6.288
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.364
' SUBAREA RUNOFF (CFS ) _ .35
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .35
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.20 TO NODE 22.00 IS CODE = 6
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 240.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 205.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 260.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 16.50
' INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) .083
' SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
**TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 2.48
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .23
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 5.37
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.11
' PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.43
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) _ .71 TC(MIN) = 7.00
' 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.940
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.30 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.25
' SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 1.40 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.60
END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) _ .27 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 7.43
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.86 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 1.89
' FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 20.00 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.) = 7.00
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.94
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.40
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.60
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.30 TO NODE 20.40 IS CODE = 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = 5500
' INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 100.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 243.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 240.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 3.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 6.865
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
' 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 6.013
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .69
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .21 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .69
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.40 TO NODE 21.00 IS CODE = 6
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
'UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 240.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 205.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 180.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 18.00
' DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 16.50
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .083
' SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
' **TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 1.49
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .19
' HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 3.30
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.55
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.26
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = .46 TC(MIN) = 7.32
' 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.768
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.59
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) _ .71 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.28
' END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
' DEPTH(FEET) _ .21 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 4.34
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.45 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 1.59
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 20.00 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.) = 7.32
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.77
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .71
' PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.28
CONFLUENCE DATA
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 40.50 9.24 4.965 18.59
1 42.32 10.54 4.560 18.59
' 1 43.52 11.14 4.401 18.59
1 43.46 11.21 4.382 18.59
1 40.61 13.76 3.840 18.59
1 39.56 14.58 3.700 18.59
' 2 4.60 7.00 5.940 1.40
3 2.28 7.32 5.768 .71
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 40.66 7.00 5.940
2 41.60 7.32 5.768
3 46.30 9.24 4.965
4 47.65 10.54 4.560
5 48.67 11.14 4.401
6 48.58 11.21 4.382
7 45.10 13.76 3.840
' 8 43.88 14.58 3.700
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 48.67 Tc(MIN.) = 11.14
' TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 20.70
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 20.00 TO NODE 23.00 IS CODE = 3
' » »>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU-SUBAREA«
-->>>>>USING-COMPUTER-ESTIMATED-PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 27.0 INCH PIPE IS 19.2 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 16.1
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 198.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 195.00
' FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 80.00 MANNING'S N = .013
' ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 27.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 48.67
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .08 TC(MIN.) = 11.22
' FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 23.00 TO NODE 23.00 IS CODE = 10
» »>MAIN-STREAM MEMORY COPIED ONTO MEMORY BANK # 2 <<<<<
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.00 TO NODE 30.10 IS CODE = 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 140.00
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 369.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 364.00
' ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 5.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 7.664
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
' 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.601
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .31
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .31
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 30.10 TO NODE 27.00 IS CODE = 6
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 364.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 256.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 700.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00
' DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 18.50
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020
OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .083
' SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
' **TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 2.74
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .23
' HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 5.26
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.94
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.61
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 1.68 TC(MIN) = 9.34
' 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.928
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.80 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.88
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 1.90 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.19
' END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
' DEPTH(FEET) _ .28 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 7.57
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 7.50 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 2.08
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 27.00 TO NODE 27.00 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.) = 9.34
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.93
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.90
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.19
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 31.00 TO NODE 27.00 IS CODE = 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
' SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 550.00
' UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 340.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 257.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 83.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 9.396
*CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
*CAUTION: SUBAREA FLOWLENGTH EXCEEDS COUNTY
' NOMOGRAPH DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.911
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.97
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .73 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.97
L
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 27.00 TO NODE 27.00 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.) = 9.40
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.91
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ •73
' PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 1.97
CONFLUENCE DATA
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
' NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 5.19 9.34 4.928 1.90
2 1.97 9.40 4.911 •73
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
' PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 7.15 9.34 4.928
2 7.14 9.40 4.911
' COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 7.15 Tc(MIN.) = 9.34
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.63
V
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 27.00 TO NODE 28.00 IS CODE = 3
_
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
1 ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.4 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 107.5
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 549.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 250.00
' FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 10.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 7.15
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .00 TC(MIN.) = 9.35
L FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 28.00 TO NODE 28.00 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.) = 9.35
' RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.93
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.63
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 7.15
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 32.00 TO NODE 32.10 IS CODE = 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
'SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 100.00
' UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 300.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 285.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 15.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4.015
' *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 5-MINUTES
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.377
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .41
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .41
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 32.10 - TO - NODE - - - - 29.00 IS CODE = 6 - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 285.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION= 6 256.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 320.00 CURB STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00
' DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 18.50
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .020
' OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) = .083
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
' **TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 1.34
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .21
' HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 4.10
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.68
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .97
' STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 1.14 TC(MIN) = 6.14
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) - 6.462
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) _ .52 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.85
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) _ .62 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.25
1 END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) = .24 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 5.84
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.91 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 1.19
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 29.00 TO NODE 28.00 IS CODE = 3
_
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW) « <<<
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_0_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_ TO__
_1_8_.0_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_ (_INCH)___
_ INCREASED__
_ P_I_PE__
0
_DIAMETER_
ll___ESTIMATED__
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 1.2 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 46.3
' UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 549.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 250.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 41.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 2.25
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .01 TC(MIN.) = 6.16
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 28.00 TO NODE 28.00 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.) = 6.16
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.45
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) _ .62
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 2.25
CONFLUENCE DATA
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 7.15 9.35 4.928 2.63
1 7.14 9.40 4.911 2.63
2 2.25 6.16 6.452 •62
RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS.
PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 7.72 6.16 6.452
2 8.87 9.35 4.928
' 3 8.86 9.40 4.911
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
' PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 8.87 Tc(MIN.) = 9.35
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 3.25
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 28.00 TO NODE 28.00 IS CODE = 8
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.928
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 9.50 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 25.75
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 12.75 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 34.62
TC(MIN) = 9.35
PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE
STREAM RUNOFF Tc
1 NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.)
1 41.43 6.16
2 34.62 9:35
3 34.51 9.40
i NEW PEAK FLOW DATA ARE:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 41.43 Tc(MIN.) = 6.16
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 28.00 TO NODE 23.00 IS CODE = 3
t->>>>>COMPUTE-PIPEFLOW-TRAVELTIME-THRU-SU'BAREA<<<<< >>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 9.3 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 44.7
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 549.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 195.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 580.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
' PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 41.43
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .22 TC(MIN.) = 6.37
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 23.00 TO NODE 23.00 IS CODE = 11
_
>>>>>CONFLUENCE MEMORY BANK # 2 WITH THE MAIN-STREAM MEMORY<<<<<
MAIN STREAM CONFLUENCE DATA
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 41.43 6.37 6.310 3.25
2 34.62 9.57 4.853 3.25
3 34.51 9.62 4.836 3.25
MEMORY BANK # 2 CONFLUENCE DATA
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 40.66 7.09 5.892 20.70
2 41.60 7.41 5.725 20.70
' 3 46.30 9.32 4.936 20.70
4 47.65 10.62 4.537 20.70
5 48.67 11.22 4.380 20.70
6 48.58 11.29 4.361 20.70
1 7 45.10 13.84 3.825 20.70
8 43.88 14.66 3.686 20.70
' PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 79.40 6.37 6.310
2 79.35 7.09 5.892
3 79.19 7.41 5.725
4 80.34 9.32 4.936
5 80.14 9.57 4.853
6 79.87 9.62 4.836
7 80.03 10.62 4.537
' 8 79.93 11.22 4.380
9 79.71 11.29 4.361
10 72.40 13.84 3.825
11 70.19 14.66 3.686
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 80.34 Tc(MIN.) = 9.32
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 33.45
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 23.00 TO NODE 23.00 IS-CODE = 8
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.936
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) 1.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.22
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 34.45 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 82.56
TC (MIN) = 9.32
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 23.00 TO NODE 25.00 IS CODE = 3
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
' >>>>>USING_COMPUTER-ESTIMATED -PIPESIZE-(NON-PRESSURE-FLOW)<<«<-_-------_-
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 33.0 INCH PIPE IS 25.2 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 17.0
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 195.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 190.00
' FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 160.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 33.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 82.56
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .16 TC(MIN.) = 9.48
--FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 25.00 TO NODE 25.00 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.) = 9.48
' RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.88
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 34.45
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 82.56
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 34.00 TO NODE 34.10 IS CODE = 21
>>>>>RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS<<<<<
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
' SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 180.00
' UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 313.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 250.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 63.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 4.061
' *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH
DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED.
TIME OF CONCENTRATION ASSUMED AS 5-MINUTES
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 7.377
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ .41
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ .41
**FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 34.10 TO NODE 24.00 IS CODE = 6
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 250.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 193.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 700.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00
DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 18.50
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020
' OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .083
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
**TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 3.06
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH(FEET) _ .27
' HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 6.99
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 5.05
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = 1.34
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 2.31 TC(MIN) = 7.31
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 5.774
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.65 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.24
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 1.75 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 5.65
' END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) _ .30 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 8.73
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 6.42 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 1.93
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 24.00 TO NODE 25.00 IS CODE = 3
>>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW) « <<<
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 5.2 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 13.5
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 191.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 190.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 10.00 MANNING'S N = .013
' ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 5.65
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .01 TC(MIN.) = 7.32
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 25.00 TO NODE 25.00 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.) = 7.32
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 5.77
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 1.75
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 5.65
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 33.00 TO NODE 33.10 IS CODE = 21
» »>RATIONAL-METHOD-INITIAL-SUBAREA ANALYSIS«
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 150.00
' UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 240.00
DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 238.00
ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 2.00
URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) = 11.016
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.432
SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ •24
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) _ .10 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ •24
V
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 33.10 TO NODE 26.00 IS CODE = 6
_
>>>>>COMPUTE STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
' UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 238.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 193.00
STREET LENGTH(FEET) = 600.00 CURB HEIGHT(INCHES) = 6.
STREET HALFWIDTH(FEET) = 20.00
i DISTANCE FROM CROWN TO CROSSFALL GRADEBREAK = 18.50
INTERIOR STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .020
' OUTSIDE STREET CROSSFALL(DECIMAL) _ .083
SPECIFIED NUMBER OF HALFSTREETS CARRYING RUNOFF = 1
' **TRAVELTIME COMPUTED USING MEAN FLOW(CFS) = 1.69
STREETFLOW MODEL RESULTS:
STREET FLOWDEPTH (FEET) _ .23
HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 5.26
AVERAGE FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 4.29
PRODUCT OF DEPTH&VELOCITY = .99
STREETFLOW TRAVELTIME(MIN) = 2.33 TC(MIN) = 13.35
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) - 3.916
' SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) - 1.33 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 2.86
SUMMED AREA(ACRES) = 1.43 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 3.11
' END OF SUBAREA STREETFLOW HYDRAULICS:
DEPTH(FEET) _ .27 HALFSTREET FLOODWIDTH(FEET) = 6.99
FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.)_= 5.12 DEPTH*VELOCITY = 1.36
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 36.00 TO NODE 26.00 IS CODE = 8
>>>>>ADDITION OF SUBAREA TO MAINLINE PEAK FLOW<<<<<
100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 3.916
SOIL CLASSIFICATION IS "D"
RURAL DEVELOPMENT RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500
SUBAREA AREA(ACRES) = 1.00 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) = 1.76
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 2.43 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) = 4.87
TC (MIN) = 13.35
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 26.00 TO NODE 25.00 IS CODE = 3
' >>>>>COMPUTE PIPEFLOW TRAVELTIME THRU SUBAREA<<<<<
>>>>>USING COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)<<<<<
ESTIMATED PIPE DIp,METER(INCH) INCREASED TO 18.000
DEPTH OF FLOW IN 18.0 INCH PIPE IS 6.5 INCHES
PIPEFLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC.) = 8.5
UPSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 191.00
DOWNSTREAM NODE ELEVATION = 190.00
FLOWLENGTH(FEET) = 32.00 MANNING'S N = .013
ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 18.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = 1
PIPEFLOW THRU SUBAREA(CFS) = 4.87
TRAVEL TIME(MIN.) _ .06 TC(MIN.) = 13.41
FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE 25.00 TO NODE 25.00 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.) = 13.41
RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 3.90
TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 2.43
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE = 4.87
' CONFLUENCE DATA
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY AREA
' NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE)
1 82.24 6.53 6.211 34.45
1 82.00 7.24 5.809 34.45
1 81.77 7.57 5.648 34.45
1 82.56 9.48 4.883 34.45
1 82.32 9.73 4.802 34.45
1 82.05 9.78 4.785 34.45
' 1 82.07 10.78 4.495 34.45
1 81.90 11.38 4.341 34.45
1 81.67 11.45 4.323 34.45
' 1 74.12 14.00 3.797 34.45
1 71.85 14.82 3.660 34.45
2 5.65 7.32 5.767 1.75
3 4.87 13.41 3.904 2.43
' RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO
CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 3 STREAMS.
' PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE
STREAM RUNOFF Tc INTENSITY
' NUMBER (CFS) (MIN.) (INCH/HOUR)
1 90.54 6.53 6.211
2 90.88 7.24 5.809
3 90.35 7.32 5.767
' 4 90.66 7.57 5.648
5 91.23 9.48 4.883
6 90.98 9.73 4.802
7 90.71 9.78 4.785
8 90.70 10.78 4.495
9 90.53 11.38 4.341
10 90.30 11.45 4.323
' 11 82.45 13.41 3.904
12 82.58 14.00 3.797
13 80.00 14.82 3.660
COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 91.23 Tc(MIN.) = 9.48
' TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 38.63
END OF STUDY SUMMARY:
' PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 91.23 Tc(MIN.) = 9.48
TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 38.63
PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE
' Q (CFS ) Tc (MIN . )
1 90.54 6.53
2 90.88 7.24
3 90.35 7.32
4 90.66 7.57
5 91.23 9.48
6 90.98 9.73
' 7 90.71 9.78
8 90.70 10.78
9 90.53 11.38
10 90.30 11.45
11 82.45 13.41
12 82.58 14.00
13 80.00 14.82
END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS
1
' LA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS STORM DRAIN ANALYSIS REPT: PC/RD4412.1
(INPUT) DATE: 12/01/98
' PAGE 1
PROJECT: QUAIL HOLLOW-EAST FILE: H:\STORM\2020\7\LINEA
' DESIGNER: C.LILLY
CD L2 MAX Q ADJ Q LENGTH FL 1 FL 2 CTL/TW D W S KJ KE KM LC L1 L3 L4 Al A3 A4 J N
8 1 175.84
2 2 91.2 91.2 55.46 173.34 183.37 0.00 36. 0. 3 0.10 0.05 0.00 1 3 10 11 0. 45. 90. 4.00 0.013
2 3 82.6 82.6 145.65 183.70 193.40 0.00 36. 0. 3 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 4 12 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
' 2 4 48.7 48.7 75.77 194.40 197.60 0.00 24. 0. 3 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 5 17 18 0. 85. 85. 4.00 0.013
2 5 43.5 43.5 172.37 197.93 210.00 0.00 24. 0. 3 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 6 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.313
t 2 6 33.5 33.5 175.06 210.33 232.40 0.00 24. 0. 3 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 7 22 23 0. 90. 90. 4.00 0.013
2 7 33.5 33.5 261.21 232.73 269.60 0.00 24. 0. 3 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 8 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
' 2 8 33.5 33.5 281.58 269.93 304.00 0.00 24. 0. 3 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 9 19 20 0. 90. 90. 4.00 0.013
' 2 9 16.9 16.9 334.44 304.33 331.00 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 0 24 0 0. 90. 0. 4.00 0.013
2 10 5.7 5.7 11.84 184.87 185.34 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 3 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
' 2 11 6.6 6.6 28.25 184.87 186.00 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 3 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 '0.013
2 12 41.4 41.4 159.29 194.40 207.67 0.00 24. 0. 3 0.10 0.05 0.00 4 13 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
2 13 41.4 41.4 414.44 208.00 248.07 0.00 24. 0. 3 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 14 15 16 0. 90. 90. 4.00 0.013
2 14 25.7 25.7 378.73 248.40 279.72 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
' 2 15 2.3 2.3 42.00 248.40 248.82 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 14 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
' 2 16 7.1 7.1 6.00 248.40 248.46 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 14 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
2 17 2.3 2.3 41.51 197.93 198.35 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 5 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
' 2 18 4.6 4.6 26.84 197.93 198.20 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 5 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
2 19 9.5 9.5 26.00 304.33 304.59 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 9 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
' 2 20 8.2 8.2 34.86 304.33 304.68 0.00 18. 0. 3 0.10 0.05 0.00 9 20 0 0 45. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
' 2 21 5.8 5.8 46.53 305.00 305.46 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
2 22 5.0 5.0 26.25 233.32 233.58 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 7 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
' 2 23 5.1 5.1 8.27 233.32 233.40 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 7 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
2 24 12.2 12.2 102.40 331.33 337.79 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 9 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 4.00 0.013
1
STORM DRAIN ANALYSIS REPT: PC/RD4412.2
LA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: 12/01/98
' PAGE 1
PROJECT: QUAIL HOLLOW-EAST FILE: H:\STORM\2020\7\LINEA
'DESIGNER: C.LILLY
LINE Q D W DN DC FLOW SF-FULL V 1 V 2 FL 1 FL 2 HG 1 HG 2 D 1 D 2 TW TW
NO (CFS) (IN)(IN) (FT) (FT) TYPE (FT/FT) (FPS) (FPS) (FT) (FT) CALC CALC (FT) (FT) CALL CK REMARKS
' 1 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL 175.84
2 91.2 36 0 1.17 2.85 PART 0.01869 14.5 22.2 173.34 183.37 175.84 185.06 2.50 1.69 0.00 0.00
3 82.6 36 0 1.46 2.79 PART 0.01534 23.8 22.0 183.70 193.40 185.18 194.97 1.48 1.57 0.00 0.00
4 48.7 24 0 2.00 1.98 PART 0.04634 17.6 18.5 194.40 197.60 196.05 199.16 1.65 1.56 0.00 0.00
5 43.5 24 0 1.27 1.96 PART 0.03697 20.6 18.6 197.93 210.00 199.20 211.40 1.27 1.40 0.00 0.00
' 6 33.5 24 0 0.90 1.90 PART 0.02193 24.4 25.9 210.33 232.40 211.23 233.26 0.90 0.86 0.00 0.00
X = 0.00 X(N) = 64.83
' 7 33.5 24 0 0.87 1.90 PART 0.02193 25.5 24.6 232.73 269.60 233.60 270.50 0.87 0.90 0.00 0.00
X = 0.00 X(N) = 160.35
8 33.5 24 0 0.91 1.90 PART 0.02193 24.0 10.9 269.93 304.00 270.84 305.90 0.91 1.90 0.00 0.00
X = 0.00 X(N) = 118.83
9 16.9 18 0 0.81 1.44 SEAL 0.02588 9.6 9.7 304.33 331.00 308.49 332.44 4.16 1.44 333.97 0.00 HYD JUMP
X = 16.94 X(N) = 189.22 X(J) = 16.94 F(J) = 9.43 D(BJ) = 0.81 D(AJ) = 3.24
3 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL - 185.12
10 5.7 18 0 0.53 0.92 PART 0.00294 7.8 5.0 184.87 185.34 185.52 186.26 0.65 0.92 186.67 0.00
' 3 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 185.12
11 6.6 18 0 0.58 0.99 PART 0.00395 9.0 5.3 184.87 186.00 185.52 186.99 0.65 0.99 187.45 0.00
' 4 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 195.51
12 41.4 24 0 1.16 1.96 PART 0.03349 22.0 23.8 194.40 207.67 195.56 208.76 1.16 1.09 0.00 0.00
' X = 0.00 X(N) = 20.48
13 41.4 24 0 1.10 1.96 PART 0.03349 23.3 13.2 208.00 248.07 209.10 250.03 1.10 1.96 0.00 0.00
X = 0.00 X(N) = 185.12
14 25.7 18 0 1.06 1.49 SEAL 0.05986 14.5 14.6 248.40 279.72 252.24 281.21 3.84 1.49 284.67 0.00 HYD JUMP
' X = 27.72 X(N) = 259.71 X(J) = 27.72 F(J) = 15.95 D(BJ) = 1.06 D(AJ) = 3.20
1
ILA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS STORM DRAIN ANALYSIS REPT: PC/RD4412.2
DATE: 12/01/98
' PAGE 2
PROJECT: QUAIL HOLLOW-EAST FILE: H:\STORM\2020\7\LINEA
t ESIGNER: C.LILLY
LINE Q D W DN DC FLOW SF-FULL V 1 V 2 FL 1 FL 2 HG 1 HG 2 D 1 D 2 TW TW
NO (CFS) (IN)(IN) (FT) (FT) TYPE (FT/FT) (FPS) (FPS) (FT) (FT) CALC CALC (FT) (FT) CALC CK REMARKS
' 14 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 251.13
' 15 2.3 18 0 0.48 0.57 FULL 0.00048 1.3 1.3 248.40 248.82 251.13 251.15 2.73 2.33 251.18 0.00
14 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL 251.13
' 16 7.1 18 0 0.90 1.03 FULL 0.00457 4.0 4.0 248.40 248.46 251.13 251.16 2.73 2.70 251.42 0.00
5 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL - 199.18
' 17 2.3 18 0 0.47 0.57 PART 0.00048 1.5 2.4 197.93 198.35 199.18 199.16 1.25 0.81 199.25 0.00
5 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL - 199.18
' 18 4.6 18 0 0.69 0.82 PART 0.00192 2.9 4.0 197.93 198.20 199.18 199.14 1.25 0.94 199.39 0.00
9 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 307.20
' 19 9.5 18 0 1.12 1.19 FULL 0.00818 5.4 5.4 304.33 304.59 307.20 307.41 2.87 2.82 307.88 0.00
' 9 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 307.20
20 8.2 18 0 1.00 1.11 FULL 0.00609 4.6 4.6 304.33 304.68 307.20 307.41 2.87 2.73 0.00 0.00
' 21 5.8 18 0 0.80 0.93 FULL 0.00305 3.3 3.3 305.00 305.46 307.64 307.79 2.64 2.33 307.96 0.00
7 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL 233.43
' 22 5.0 18 0 0.73 0.86 PART 0.00227 5.7 4.8 233.32 233.58 234.06 234.44 0.74 0.86 234.81 0.00
ILA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS STORM DRAIN ANALYSIS REPT: PC/RD4412.2
DATE: 12/01/98
' PAGE 3
PROJECT: QUAIL HOLLOW-EAST FILE: H:\STORM\2020\7\LINEA
I ESIGNER: C.LILLY
LINE Q D W DN DC FLOW SF-FULL V 1 V 2 FL 1 FL 2 HG 1 HG 2 D 1 D 2 TW TW
NO (CFS) (IN)(IN) (FT) (FT) TYPE (FT/FT) (FPS) (FPS) (FT) (FT) CALC CALL (FT) (FT) CALC CK REMARKS
' 7 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 233.43
' 23 5.1 18 0 0.74 0.87 PART 0.00236 5.4 4.8 233.32 233.40 234.11 234.27 0.79 0.87 234.65 0.00
9 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 307.20
' 24 12.2 18 0 0.72 1.32 PART 0.01349 14.6 7.4 331.33 337.79 332.05 339.11 0.72 1.32 340.01 0.00
V 1, FL 1, D 1 AND HG 1 REFER TO DOWNSTREAM END
V 2, FL 2, D 2 AND HG 2 REFER TO UPSTREAM END
X - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE HG INTERSECTS SOFFIT IN SEAL CONDITION
X(N) - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE WATER SURFACE REACHES NORMAL DEPTH BY EITHER DRAWDOWN OR BACKWATER
X(J) - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS IN LINE
' F(J) - THE COMPUTED FORCE AT THE HYDRAULIC JUMP
D(BJ) - DEPTH OF WATER BEFORE THE HYDRAULIC JUMP (UPSTREAM SIDE)
D(AJ) - DEPTH OF WATER AFTER THE HYDRAULIC JUMP (DOWNSTREAM SIDE)
SEAL INDICATES FLOW CHANGES FROM PART TO FULL OR FROM FULL TO PART
' HYD JUMP INDICATES THAT FLOW CHANGES FROM SUPERCRITICAL TO SUBCRITICAL THROUGH A HYDRAULIC JUMP
HJ O UJT INDICATES THAT HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS AT THE JUNCTION AT THE UPSTREAM END OF THE LINE
HJ 0 DJT INDICATES THAT HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS AT THE JUNCTION AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE LINE
' EOJ 12/ 1/1998 10:59
LA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS STORM DRAIN ANALYSIS REPT: PC/RD4412.1
(INPUT) DATE: 12/01/98
' PAGE 1
PROJECT: QUAIL HOLLOW(F CB LATERAL) FILE: H:\STORM\2020\7\FCB
' DESIGNER: C.LILLY
CD L2 MAX Q ADJ Q LENGTH FL 1 FL 2 CTL/TW D W S KJ KE KM LC L1 L3 L4 Al A3 A4 J N
' 8 1 188.14
2 2 2.2 2.2 40.93 186.64 188.28 0.00 18. 0. 1 0.10 0.05 0.00 1 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0.00 0.013
1
1
LA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS STORM DRAIN ANALYSIS REPT: PC/RD4412.2
DATE: 12/01/98
' PAGE 1
PROJECT: QUAIL HOLLOW(F CB LATERAL) FILE: 14:\STORM\2020\7\FCB
' DESIGNER: C.LILLY
LINE Q D W DN DC FLOW SF-FULL V 1 V 2 FL 1 FL 2 HG 1 HG 2 D 1 D 2 TW TW
NO (CPS) (IN)(IN) (FT) (FT) TYPE (FT/FT) (FPS) (FPS) (FT) (FT) CALL CALL (FT) (FT) CALC CK REMARKS
' 1 HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE CONTROL = 188.14
2 2.2 18 0 0.33 0.56 PART 0.00044 1.2 3.7 186.64 188.28 188.14 188.84 1.50 0.56 189.06 0.00 HYD JUMP
X 0.00 X(N) = 0.00 X(J) = 14.90 F(J) = 0.54 D(BJ) = 0.35 D(AJ) 0.85
' V 1, FL 1, D 1 AND HG 1 REFER TO DOWNSTREAM END
V 2, FL 2, D 2 AND HG 2 REFER TO UPSTREAM END
X - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE HG INTERSECTS SOFFIT IN SEAL CONDITION
X(N) - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE WATER SURFACE REACHES NORMAL DEPTH BY EITHER DRAWDOWN OR BACKWATER
X(J) - DISTANCE IN FEET FROM DOWNSTREAM END TO POINT WHERE HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS IN LINE
' F(J) - THE COMPUTED FORCE AT THE HYDRAULIC JUMP
D(BJ) - DEPTH OF WATER BEFORE THE HYDRAULIC JUMP (UPSTREAM SIDE)
D(AJ) - DEPTH OF WATER AFTER THE HYDRAULIC JUMP (DOWNSTREAM SIDE)
SEAL INDICATES FLOW CHANGES FROM PART TO FULL OR FROM FULL TO PART
HYD JUMP INDICATES THAT FLOW CHANGES FROM SUPERCRITICAL TO SUBCRITICAL THROUGH A HYDRAULIC JUMP
HJ ® UJT INDICATES THAT HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS AT THE JUNCTION AT THE UPSTREAM END OF THE LINE
HJ 0 DJT INDICATES THAT HYDRAULIC JUMP OCCURS AT THE JUNCTION AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE LINE
' EOJ 12/ 1/1998 11: 7
QUAIL HOLLOW EAST
ENCINITAS RANCH
CURB INLET SIZING
BASED ON THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO DRAINAGE DESIGN MANUAL
INLET # NODE STREET Q(CFS) Q(BY) a(in.) y(in.) L(ft.) USE
SLOPE (CFS) (INLET SIZE (ft.)
FLOW-BY 1 14.1 8.0% 4.6 0.33 0.28 13.9 15
'
FLOW-BY 2 12 8.0/0 a 7.5 2 0.33 0.33 20.0 21
FLOW-BY 3 13 4.0% 5.8 0.33 0.34 15.1 17
' FLOW-BY 4 14 4.0% 3.1 0.33 0.28 9.4 11
FLOW-BY 5 21 4.8% 3.0 0.33 0.26 9.5 11
'
FLOW-BY 6 22 4.8% 4.6 0.33 0.29 13.5 15
FLOW-BY 7 12.3 14.0% 5.1 0.33 0.26 16.1 18
FLOW-BY 8 12.2 14.0% 6.3 0.7 0.33 0.26 19.9 21
' FLOW-BY 9 24 6.7% 5.7 0.33 0.32 15.5 17
FLOW-BYJ 10 26 6.7% 3.1 0.33 0.24 10.3 12
FROM CITY OF SAN DIEGO CHART 1-103.6C
SAMPLE FLOW-BY CALCULATION SAMPLE SUMP CALCULATIONS
' Q=11.3 CFS Q=3.6 CFS
SLOPE=4.0% H= PONDED DEPTH=10 IN.
Y=.39 h= HEIGHT OF CURB=6 in
' USING EQUATION Q=0.7L(0.33+DEPTH)^3/2
DEPTH=Y(FROM CITY OF SAN DIEGO CHART 1-104.12) SOLVING FOR L.....
SOLVING FOR L L=17' Hlh=1.7
ADD 1.OFT FOR DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS L=18' L = 5.0 feet
Q1L=H\h
' :CL EXCELM2020MINLETSZ.As
W02020-7 11/13/98
HUNSAKER & ASSOCIATES
SAN DIEGO, INC. SHEET NO. OF
10179 Huennekens Street CALCULATED BY OATE
' San Diego, California 92121
CHECKED BY DATE
Ph.6191558-4500 Fax 6191558-1414
SCALE
CAMC
.....cA.- i_c:_u
ST4
DA1WtN Cry' _ p.7
' 7
. .
_l..
2
7 i'l!
. - I . ( .
. . . *Ep 7-
0
a 1 5
. g~+
0, 1, 875 + D,I X75 z C32~2~3,5
. 'irgk Snrm TSt ;FSUaea! Nc. Grmm. Muss Otaft io Owe ~+ONE SJ~ .rEEBLGL^56360
I
CHART I-104.12
cr3
•~.OIS
i
0~0~* 013 K31DENTIA,L 1T?XrT
t ONE fiOE ONLY
1 zoto 1, V. I I
t=
1 I
10
t I I I ~ ~ 1
T N
I I 1 o I
W '
~ I I I I
N I C' : i
I I
2 \
Iu t I I I I CC I ~ \v
1
iA I ~ I S ~ ~ I \4 I Vi
L2 I
n.r. { I I I ~ I- i -
nT
- Qt I ' ~ t•
0.5 I _
04 I {
I 1 I 11 1 J I 1 I i I I
I 2 3 4 S t T 1 I t0 20 30 40 50
DISCKAR L- (C F. S.)
ONE SIDE
( EXAMPLE:
I Given: 0 = 10 ST LS%
Chart gives: Depth r Q4, velocity z 4.4 Lp.s.
SHT. N 0. {
REV. CITY OF SAN DIEGO - DESIGN GUIDE
GUTTER AND ROADWAY
DISCHARGE-VELOCITY CHART
r) n
' Maximum Capacity with 6-inch Freeboard
Plotted Curves for Circular Channel
Project escription
Project File c:\haestad\fmw\ditches.fm2
Worksheet 3-foot D-75 Type D
Flow Element Circular Channel
Method Manning's Formula
Solve For Discharge
Constant Data
Mannings Coefficient 0.016
' Depth 1.00 ft
Diameter 3.00 ft
Input Data
Minimum Maximum Increment
' Channel Slope 1.00 10.00 1.00%
Discharge vs Channel Slope
45.0 ,
I I I ' , , , 1
1 1 1 i , , , I
1 1 ~ ' , , 1 I
40.0 - 1
, I I
I , , I
, 1 I 1 i , , , I
, 1 I I I I , , I
I I I I ' , 1 I
' I
35.0 -
1 I
I I , , I I
^ I I I I , , I I
30.0 - -----L--------'--------
I 1 ~ ' , I I I
~ I I I 1 I , ,
1 I I ' , , , I
' ' ' ' I I I I I
I ; , , , I I
1
v 250 - r-------- I- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ r------ - - - _ _ _ _ _ -
1
I I i I , , , 1
I
20.0 _J-------- L-------- ________I
Z'. Slc~i E MN~ d1= te.sf5
1 I I
Ids sc
15.0 - ~ - - - - - - - - r
1 I I ' , ,
I I ~ , , 1 I
I 1 , , , 1
=-10.0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Channel Slope
01/10/97 FlowMaster v5.13
10:54:43 AM Haestad Methods, Inc. 37 Brookside Road Waterbury, CT 06708 (203) 755-1666 Page 1 of 1
- '?IEA-S>E OZE iFIE-To 9-75 Vg41O.4 6C N A F
Q o uJ s
'1--'" -t•~~.~ ~~r 1- -O~`~~~dr~ --i / ~ J'"`~ _C .\J/i ( ~~~N'~ \ J ! vrll/II I.
/ 1L~ ~ x~ ~•1 ~j x„7;70 I6~ 1"~ / O \ ~ /II;:
1 I r~ 50 l ( r~ Rd~i
i Y / \ 1'1\~ \ L~\ GOES?'. -yam 7~/~'_
II
ZY
1 9
/ 1~ 1`
"Ec
r
QUAIL HOLLOW EAST
ENCINITAS RANCH
' STREET CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
SEE CITY OF SAN DIEGO DISCHARGE-VELOCITY CHART 1-104.12
1
SLOPE(/o DEPTH Q Q max
'
' (min.) (ft.) allowable(cfs.) (cfs.)*
8 0.33 9.6 9.5
4 0.33 6.4 5.8
' 3.26 0.33 5.8 4.6
14 0.33 14 5.1
1
'PER QUAIL HOLLOW HYDROLOGY STUDY
r
r
r
r
r
r
r
CL:EXCEL\N\2020\7\Strtcap.xls
WO 2020-7 7/14/98 Page 1
1
CHART 1-104.12
O+o~* I QaS *010CMTtAL STRUT
St0£ OrrrT
Q
~ I I I I I a I I
y
N
~ I I'I l 1 I~ o I
I I I ~ 16 f I~
Lij
z 3 ( i I I' a l I I`
Y- i Q s
Z I I ~ I I f c I ~ r IA o i I
u~ I I . I~ o' i _
r '
IA
~ I I ~ I I '
a,. I I I ' I - ~ i -
c7 I .I I ~ . ? ~ I
at I r
as~ ~
. I I ~ f
~~I I l i 1.1 I I I I I I.
j ] 4 S i T • I 10 20 30 "0 50
OISCXAR c (C. F S)
ONE SLOE
EXAMPLE:
G;v*n: 0 = KO S = ZS'/.
Char[ gives: D4pln 9 Q4, Wority z 4.4 Epi
CITY OF SAN DIEGO - DESIGN GUIDE SHT. NO.
I
R E V.
GUTTER AND ROADWAY
I DISCHARGE -VELOCITY CHART
r _
~)~i
~ ~ /jam r ; ~ ~ ~ -
gxr-
Lf~
ca C-4
~r~ r i LZ eO~1
o~w i"'•r i ~ is • ~ ~ ~~-1 . - ~ •
Ef .4t
M cam. r- aJ
"1 O O ° a u ~J 1 z J ch
@52
4. I u~ t `L
v _ - / p -
¢ ~r 1 1 L~ •1. _
Iv ~J
• 1• -
may" \
N
l' (V~C~• ` v~•` ' N
L 1~r \ s YYJ a cf1
O Z a .a
j.T' c J u U <
r ~z
J
p/ V Isa ~ <
v O a < < z
U o a:
z
C)
.7 _
O ° O
~ I ~ v Q ~ 00
Lu LL\ 0. c p O O
" Z Z < ON
O N ~ p I ¢ U y,
G 0 0 M Q 0
N LZ u
Lc. Z ~ vi O z
OujO O <<
C
r_ U O H
<
131- M C) ua
C" C) O W -.1 F-
C O U- a
u
a
r <
m
l ~
II-A-7
NoText
NoText
NoText
NoText
NoText
NoText
NoText
NoText