The URL can be used to link to this page

1999-6233 G �z33� ENGINEERING SERVICES DEPARTMENT APPLICATION NO. ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION ADDRESS ASSESSOR PARCEL NO �a ) V 6 o � el c c- STREET ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION CONTRACTOR INFORMATION Orloe, el NAfvJE,,,OD S. 5 h� / ,q h wa,4 jglke� NAME MA G A DIES B ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP C0 6E CLTATzP CO9E � TELEPHONE NO. TELEPHONE NO. STA LICENSE NO. & TYPE CIVIL ENGI NEER INFORMAT SOILS ENGINEER INFORMATION O! f �� i�a eB�,n q s15 fnae�a' ,`'y L_ � G NAME Zo ' � /v- . /O�,�. S arm -l!' C-�R STP�T v E ONE NO. CI �T PH ENO VIY-e4 R GISTRATION NO. REG T DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE DONE d /'ei S ®6� ia CASE NO_: (/ T1JRE � /� DATE SIGNED eweq PRIN AMV TELEPHONE NO. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) TYPE OF APPLICATION DATE COMPLETED DEPOSITS AND FEES PAID [ ] AGREEMENT, COV., DOC. —J—/— PERMIT /APPLICATION FEE: ( ] BEACH ENCROACHMENT —f—J— PLAN CHECK FEE /DEPOSIT: [ ] CONSTRUCTION _J_ /_ ADDITIONAL PLAN CHECK [ ] FINAL MAP _f/_ FLOOD CONTROL FEE: [ ] FINAL PARCEL MAP _/_J_ INSPECTION FEE /DEPOSIT: GRADING _/_/_ SECURITY DEPOSIT: _ [ ] IMPROVEMENT _/_ /_ (CIRCLE ONE OF EACH) [ ] OPERATIONS PERMIT: NEWSRACK ��_ ASSIGN /BOND ASSIGN /BOND [ ] PERMANENT ENCROACHMENT _/�_ CASH /CD /LOC CASH /CD /LOC [ J SEWER CONSTRUCTION �-J- MONUMENTATION DEPOSIT: _ ( ] STREET NAME CHANGE _/_/_ RETURN EXCESS DEPOSITS TO : [ ] STREET VACATION _f-/- [ J OWNER DATE: [ ] TEMPORARY ENCROACHMENT -/�- ( J CONTRACTOR AMOUNT: $ [ J UTILITY CONSTRUCTION _/�_ [ J ENGINEER COMMENTS: [ ] OTHER :'/ -19 -1999 FRI 06:16 ID:COASTAL COMMISSIOtJ TEL :619521 9672 P:09 STATE OF CAuroltNIA - THE MLSOURCES AGENCY GRAY 0 W11I, Gvnmw am it CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION D 0 BAN DIEGO AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, aUITE 200 9AN DIEGO, CA 921WITU (019) b11 -S03A N OV 2 / EMERGEN -' PERMI 4 ENGINEERING SERVICES CITY OF ENC� r Craig Bruce Date: HovQ�rtber1 1380 S. Kings Highway Emergency Permit No. 6- Wla§ - G St. Louis, MO. LOCATION OF EMERGENCY WORK: 630 Neptune Avenue, Enclnitas (San r ego County) WORK PROPOSED: Repairs to an existing wooden timber - -raper bluff reNining wall to include the Installation of two rows of tlebticks, 3 1 on center, capped with steel walers. Also proposed Is the installation of a b low - grade concrete reinforced supper bluff retention system in the southern -host portion of the rear yard of an existing residential structure approximately five (S) ft. inland of the bluff edge. The system consists of two caissons 7 'Ft, on center, to a depth of approximately 39 ft. with tiebacks. This letter constitutes approval of the emergenc•; work you or your representative has requested to be done at the location listed abov I understand from your information and our site inspection that an unexpected occurren in the form of erosion and bluff collapse requires immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss or damage to life, health, property or essential public services. 14 Cal. Admin. Code :'action 13009. The Executive Director of the Coastal Commission hereby finds that: (a) An emergency exists which require: action more quickly than permitted by the procedures for administrative or irdinary permits and the development can and will be completed within 3C days unless otherwise specified by the terms of this permit; (b) Public comr;ent on the prupr)s! a emergency action has been reviewed if time allows; (c) As conditioned, the work propo. would be consistent with the requirements of the California Coa: ?al Act of 1978. The work is hereby approved, subject to the co Ions listed on the attached page. Slncergly, PETER M. DOUGLAS Executive Director By: DEBORAH LEE Deputy Director r .' -13 -1999 FRI 00:19 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TEL:619S21 9672 P:10 Emergency Permit Number: 6-99-1 28-G November 16, 1999 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; 1. The enclosed Emergency Permit Acceptanc, , form must be signed by the PROPERTY OWNER and returned to our of ce within 15 days. 2. The work authorized by this permit must be :omplated within 60 days of the date of this permit (Le., by January 16, 2000). Only 'hat work specifically described In this permit and for the specific property listed ab is authorized. The construction, placement, or removal of any accessory or �-- otective structure, Including but not limited to, stairways or other access structur :3, walle, fences, etc. not described herein, are not authorized by this permit. Ar y additional work requires separate authorization from the Executive Director. If during construction, site conditions warrant changes to the approved plans, the aan Diego District office of the Coastal Commission shall be contacted immedlatelti prior to any changes to the project In the field. 3. The emergency work carried out under this -)ormit Is considered TEMPORARY work done In an emergency situation. In order tc have the emergency work become a permanent development, a regular coastal revolopment permit must be obtained. An application for a regular coastal developmer°•t permit shall be submitted within 60 days of the date of this permit (i.e., by January 1P, 2000). If a regular coastal development permit is not received from the City of Enclr1as, the emergency work shall be removed In Its entirety within 150 days of th•� date of this permit unless this requirement Is waived in writing by the Executive Director. 4. In exercising this permit, ;he applicant agreFa to hold the California Coastal Commission harmless from any Ilablllties fc ' damage to public or private properties or personal Injury that may result from the prollct. 5. This permit does not obviate the need to ob` ain necessary authorizations and/or permits from other agencies (e.g. Dept, of r & Game, U.S. Fish & Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Stato Lands r"Ar 8. Prior to the commencement of the construc !on, the applicant shall submit to the Executive Director, for review and written a -,proval, final plans for the proposed upper bluff work that have been reviewed and approved by the City of Encinitas Engineering Department. Said plans bhall be in substartial conformance with the plans submitted with this application dated 10/1199 by Soil F.iginearing Construction, Inc. 7. The seawall proposed for the base of the bi il ill is specifically N 2L authodzed with this emergency permit. The applicant should p ;rsue necessary permits through the regular permit process from the Clt of Enc—itas and the Coastal Commission. If you have any questions about th9 prcvisionE. s this emergency permit, please call Getry Cannon at the Commisslon'o San Diago ^:yes. 'rea Offico at the address and telephone number listed on the first pa.gc. -19 -1859 FRI 06:20 ID:COASTAL COMMISSIOrd TEL:619SZ1 967Z P.11 CRAV D uVl6. 40VPMOr STATS OF CALIFORNIA — THE RESOURCES AGENCY "�'� CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION DAN DIEGO AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, 6VIT3 100 SAN DIGGO. CA 02108.1126 (gig) 591 -80" EMERGENCN 1 , 3 E UP: ACCEPTANCE FORM TO: CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 3111 CAMINO DEL RIO NORTH, SUITE - 00 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 -1725 (819) 521 -8036 RE: Emergency Permit No. § -99 -1 -C INSTRUCTIONS: After reading the attaches F I,ergency Permit, please sign this form and return to the San Diego Coast Area Office ! 15 working days from the permit's date. I hereby understand all of the conditions of the jrnergency permit being Issued to me and agree to abide by them. I also understand that 3 regular Coastal Permit Is necessary to permanently authorize the emergency work. I Fi.gree to apply for a regular Coastal Permit within 60 days of the data of the emergency pe• mit (i.e., by January 16, 2000). 1 also acknowledge and understand that a regular cov..stal development permit would be subject to all the provisions of the City of Encinitas Loc it Coastal Program and may be conditioned accordingly. These conditions mal nclude provisions for long -term maintenance and monitoring of tho bluff face, E sand mitigation fee and/or a requirement that a deed restriction be placed on the propert. assuming liability for damages incurred from bluff failures, and restrictions on future construction of additional shore or bluff protection. Signature of property owner NEme Ac dress D, xa of Signing (G ;V9an Diego \EMRGENCY\6- E8 -128 -0 ,31'uor, grnprm:.�� a0V -19 -1999 FRI 09:20 ID:COASTAL COMMISSIONit 9672 rslc 9 i u N ow O =1 cn ? Lnn��N�i o D > z ao Nd3 9 �, r a V 8Q REPAIRS TO UPPER 11-U COVE 7HE67 r uc � p i � 6,70 NEPTUNE AVE. .o� 1 ENCIMTAS, cmro w I �Y8 t.. 19 -1999 FRI 06:21 ID:C0ASTAL C0MMISSIOr TEL:619SZ1 967Z P:19 :1 • Y Ir 7. .1 � t 4 fit lo ts � r ' it t :t fi i - ................. N REPAIRS TO UPPEP. BLUFF REFA1t F0 (E) T4ABEi qEi. WALL ru � coNrnwe�nou„ ax.w� crlw ° NCPN wC EHc '' i � =� 4 • EncNirws. vairoiirJn PLAN, ;cCT10NS, NOTES NOY -19 -1999 FRI 08:22 ID:COASTAL COMMISSION TE1.:619S21 9672 P.14 �a � t d O � R fai R91i t li li�' � E f a . 5b ! t } r q � r �� i frxI �� . �� 0 f REPAIRS TO UPPER BLUFF CAISSON 'WALL grr P Cp7.�fpUGIION., eft mp{�O CIRll:4 � _ 630 NEPTUNE AVE. SECTION`.'.. (DETAILS '° ENCINFAS. CAUFORMA u ' 1 i AND NC JOB SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. I I� 927 Arguello Street SHEET NO. OF REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367 -9595 CALCULATED BY DATE FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED II BY � DATE SCALE J � # �� L. Nov_ 2 Q IM _ FNGINEERINC SfRVIe,S CITY OF ENCINITAS S l TT c"° N N ,4 { Z. �f1 /,' t-4 � c <>t � �J C�T /oar ! /NC �SE- C.> ,4 o+-J - c � r,�''�T4+ c' . v CST C l QR pFESS /o4, NALO,� 9 yo c> ac Z No. GE 554 < rn Uj oc EXP. Qfi /30/01 0 F CAEI� SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC JOB - W , r F- 927 Arguello Street SHEET NO. of I REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367 -9595 CALCULATED BY t DATE _ - 2 0 FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE ............. l s ki t if.l cI N C T�'-jc c ST I H C+ , .. uc.�J LL— 4-24- .._....� -'¢S Cj !y ... -r ►\+ 1 S C--'h os T S_ i I CSC -A�L-t ►�t r T- C� Y I ��5 s °� 17 (—t-4 A-- S` -��o� �� l�Pr� -I_ (_ Cam °tQ - .. _...... .. ....... .._..... _ IT '!15 -ti' cwt Ta4�...._�._.s-r._�_S...._ •n �� T C ... t''- ..f s-?E- 1. _. _ lS��L.. ... _ fl l �_V t. .... t.... f-+ i- r,c� I N ! !-+ (7 l5t s�C�u ... So vii f �lS� r I� ftt� CrN ��_ :. N Vv Gfl l�v'h r\I 15v I (mot,. -E: T Ifs S S o'N S v S i L C --''T_ C =�OQ�: xf�l lSugH $feeg12115�1 IYa00lt� ' e ro = = N � -� V't� SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. � � E_ 16=1 927 Arguello Street SHEET NO. OF REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 ZG — (650) 367 -9595 CALCULATED BY DATE FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE �P? tzioX ro � � I�i� • L�� 'i=i'� °� O vac_ �� ...� ��t�l S� fL 1 C -p fJ S+ S 7^oN l.S T-{ti s Win+ su l �.. k ° T S�?I1. of uP F� TIZ.Llv F F . 1 F N °7 (�•_ N � l � � _ . 7-0 �� FiN S � � C�.�7 ��NTF�� l� - f?, -'t�! Lv l t G �F S ty �S S]Qf Ge) f7 f 3?0 r► � � �S(�ST i �� o Trµ c- 4t I f-�- AT4`1 G i }� � L Arti Z i a s a s>> s 2 a� 63� � w w w w w � w . ► w w • w : s t : s r . f 1. S ;i �- ui >7� �i w= ii .ice ■ • • �.�. i - .. si a 3 a b t 3 ti d a ! a 1 _ 4 M M J 11 7.2 -39 30L CDMCS+VE 30L, No FR CTX*U& WNSTAk= oo 91AMO OONESAMM AND rwCTLV W"Vi MOSLOW-3 M 9 ►+oKaoan►� � r- i Z PAILunt rc _! aj . f �j f'o / S a i1Ci Cs0 ' LFN PA luRp� ` C ' 'A [ &AaFA t f►srz —tc °A=rzTAM?(4S- *OZ},MUN PA=VE s1E33up" 2c 2 C TAM (4S**,P 0097" 1 FULIJONE as MAMACIE PIP PP ao • TAA2 I0e. *01) op =+�rz d rz +rC O*P 'rzTAM2(45►*�) +2CMW(43 ** PP _ Pro rN% P. - - r +zcH ►'P't �) V* OPAPMC SOUJTWN FM SLDPVMG dGRfK PA A � �ACi'NE B �f'ASSrVE wEDaE rE M �+ / / R � ♦ � � R 3QL3 I "H lLOPMt WOW LL. 1A LL ES Of R4 MD K*, AND''OStrlpis OF FRJLUME ARE GrV" a FINOW 3 AND 4 ferec711R1Y. ' MR 30L W M C AND #,TWI POWVIOM OR TM IwILUSK gL*pV X h CWMMUWMM dV AMALTZ= TIML MEVM � I O/TAO ""IMM "kM a % AND AMUrJM %ftM Or Pp THE wo =40" L M+TSEW.= AFK Z ' ""=ir IIM"l KU CMXW = aDSW.re SrWAMTw ON MWnM secs D C MAPUTTLT wooL=n 3. I U ■ VE'!MM-Mo AIL " PON= MR PWMWxr ON roc OF UMA.JNCMAJ lfr FMTX3s ARE NoraZD rrAL. WIM T ?Q rOss,OK9 Ara AMW AND rsNE VR MM, AND FA,nLJW :swc2 • s "I"r "w"K TWKXJM +m CF WkA.. OWWM OF 811wCi1~ AND aROUMO+erM AKWUND AM NOT FIGURE z COmputacion of Simple Active and Passive Pressures C 1. Sevicember 19Gfi 7.2 - O� OH - 0.20 - n (for m < 0.4) i0.11a +`nf7 N P - 0.5509, rewltant force N OH•1.2811Q• f at � form >0.41 P -� mt�0 retuitant force Fig. 9 - Lataal pressure due to line load (90ussinam equation modirwd by eeRerimant) (after Twznhi Strip Loads — Highways and railroads are examples of strip loads When they arIP parallel to a sheet pile wall, the lateral pressure distribution on the wall may be calculated as shown in Figure 10. i r ZQ IB - s;rtQ cos � Q 1 Ebmusp vier F* 10 - Lateral pressure dw2o strip load (Boussinesq equation modified by experiment) (after Tern ' Based on the relationships given above. Figure 11 shows plots of the lateral pressure distributions under point and line loads and gives the positions of the resultant force for various values of the parameter m. Rft dft 0 ••Ot ` •_ 1 07 \ x•0.7 0.• a 1 3 I / ...o• o� ' '000 , /11 L— - -laf L 1 A ° i sow C.. / 0- Eak 0? .rf " M 0 f Sa 0.• .re NM / n, �sn'� �.s .•s ask o ° 1 .• .t • 1.Pa k k v.wt OW 'w iQ`Y vwtut Of Fig. 11 - Horr:onnl p•essures due to point and line loads latter Navoin sit) SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. roe 927 Arguello Street SHEET NO. OF I�o REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 �H 9 - 2 (650) 367 - 9595 CALCULATED BY DATE 9 FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE N € �' l S T (f-� �' _ t� V--� ✓� _�` fit, = I.y ��L•-f - _ �L ,► � _ G ° 141 �.I 4�+� @ (. = o Imo. ............... (►u J `7 _ ................... . Go N ST �v CST � -�N o� C� J �7� . t� -t.�, I S ✓1V � tti o �-s`.� _ f�C� (�!_� l��?b 1- �Xt�� = ��°t -+T � ��I l,. A- cam I..� � � �• �� _ - I z - T� fiCL-- JOB SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. SHEET NO. OF 927 Arguello Street -{ - 42f REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY DATE (650) 367-9595 CHECKED BY DATE 20 - ff FAX (650) 367-8139 SCALE ... .. .. ... ........... ............... . .......... ........................... .. .... .. .. . ... .............. .................. ............ ... .................... ............. . ............................ ....... ...... ........... ............. . ........ .............. .......... ........................... ......... ...... .. .. ................ ... ........ . ..... . .......... . .......... ..... .. ...... T. ............... . ..... ............................. .. ..... . ..... .......... .. .......... ................ ............. . ........ .... ....... f . . . ...... ... ......... .......... t ............... . .................... . .................... ...... .. . ......... .... . . . ............... . . ................ . ..................... .... 771 ..... .................. .. ............... - .... ................. ........... ............ ... . ....... .................. ..... .............. . ......... .......... Y .... ........ . ......... ... .......... ............ ............ ............... . . ......... .......... j .......... ........ .. ... ............... . ....... ..... . ........ ............... ..... J. ... ....... . .. .. .... ............ ..................... . ....... - . . .......... .............. ....... .. ........ .................... .......... . ...... . .... . . .... - ................. . i ... ...... ....... . ........... ... .... ....... ...... ........ ............. ... ....... .. . ................. ...... . .... . . .... ............ A, ..... . ...................... ...................................................................... ........... .... ............................... . ....... ......... ....... ........ .............. . ...... ............. ................ ... ..................... . . . .... . ... .................... . ....... .......... ........ ..... ................. ....... . .. Z- ..... ........ ............. .......... n/ ................... . .. ......... .. . ....... ............. ............................................. ... ......... . . ...... .......... . .. ............................ . . .................... .... . ....... ..... . ................ . .............. ............. w ........... . .... .......................... ......... .............. .... - ......... ....... ... .... .. = . ............... ....... .. . ........ . .... . ....... 5.t��ntl ...... ......... 7 . ..... ..... . ...................... . ............. . .. .. .......... .. . . ........ . . .......................... ......... . ......... ...... .... ......... ... .......... ........ .......... ........ > .... . ............. . .................. .. ............. ........... - ..... .............. . ..... ......... 7 ............ ............ ..... . . .... . ............. . . ...... . ............ ...... .......... . ........ . .. .... ... ......... . ...................................... ... .......... ............ .............. ......... .. ... . .... ............ ........................... ........... .. .. rl L-T . ............. . .. . ......................... ce .... ............... ............ C-.- — rF- 4 - T ..... ................... ...... ............ . .................. ....... . ........... L - - ':�� ?- - "�- L- ... - .. ..... - ... ............. . ...... A --1:, 2- 1 .......... ..... . ....... .......... .. . ... .......................... ........ . ............ - ............. . . tz � - ,z , [. f ........ .. .. .. .... .............. ........... ............. ................... - It .................. .......... &<=. .............. ............ ............. . ......... ....... ... .. ................... .. ............. ..... ................ . ... .... PR0DLCT20414S-0 somas) 205-1(PWMi JOB Iv U v N Li T u L SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street SHEET NO r q OF REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 367.9595 CALCULATED BY DATE 7 G FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY DATE SCALE S I C, 7 I E- - - L t" - A4 GL � f p fk Cif w C..� c C 7 ° - T (t� J I f�1 / Z� ti — lk- c- C V s r I r1 -- t' I A C, I Utz � s r .� t,c �Y�o � �� • A s Lo►� j P c�U �� S �� I l�� L� , off- T � � � /� C� '• _ S + L2 SIL.I A sr� - Tz. � 77 '1�, (. ti g • J _I� , —33° � L NZa Ski '� (Lf?J� �iS- _�• S� .. ��+ = 27 � � 1 `�' I �ra1� -t-, Chin � ► }}� _ �' I � } �L T'o��'L. C��t -t CTJ} - LF� — U N �.� ►J ? � �� - � - oN E = Z Z (� N z;o ►�i L �� -�•ot.: € _ � ! � Table t Threadoar anchor (Tachmta/ Data) Steel Noma- Cross Utttmate Working load relative -- Y*w Working bad r elative ' Grade nal sectbn load to the Ultimate load load to the yield bad dia. area F u - F 0.7S F 0.6F I A, 1„ - A, F,111.6 F11.7 F„/1.8 F„/2.0 f • M (F (F,n.87) F015 I KSI Anal sq. in. lUP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP N MM mm _ rnm2 kN kN M _ kN M kN kN kN _ kN 150 1 0.85 127.5 79.7 75.0 70.8 63.8 104.6 78.5 62.8 59.8 835/1030 28.5 5511 568 355 334 316 284 460 345 278 263 150 i IS/*'. 1.25 187.5 117.2 110.3 104.2 93.8 153.8 115.4 92.3 87.9 835/1030 1 32.0 804 828 518 487 460 414 671 503 403 384 150 1.3/8 1.58 237.0 148.1 139.4 131.7 118.5 194.3 145.7 . 116.6 1114 835/1030 36.0 1018 1048 655 617 583 524 850 637 + S10 486 178 1 0.85 151.3 94.6 89.0 94.1 75.7 132.9 99.7 � 79.7 75.9 1080/1230 26.5 551 678 424 399 377 339 595 446 357 340 178 1 1.25 222.5 139.1 130.9 123.6 111.3 195.4 146.6 1172 111.7 1080/1230 320 804 989 618 582 549 495 868 651 S21 496 178 1 1.58 281.2 175.8 165.4 156.2 140.6 246.9 185.2 148.1 j 141.1 1080/1230 36.0 1018 1 1252 783 736 696 626 1 1099 824 659 628 Tabfo 2 Mu/tistrand anchor lvrrh 0.6 dia, 270 ksi and St 157011770 strand respectively (Tecthnrcal Data) No. of Nomi- C o3s Ultimate Working load relative Yield Working load Mature strands nal f Section load to the ultimate load load to the yield load dia. J area F = 0.75 F 0.6 F I F. � I A. I, • A FO .6 F„ /1.7 j F„ /1.8 F.12.0 f - A (17 (F F inch sq.in. KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP KIP - - -- mm - mmI kN kN - kN kN kN kN kN kN kN 1 0.6 0.217 58.6 36.6 345 32.6 29.3 49.8 37-4 29.9 28.5 1 0.6 140 248 155 146 138 124 220 165 ' 132 126 4 0.6 0.868 234.4 146.5 137.9 130.2 117.2 199.2 149.4 119.5 I 113.8 ' 4 0.6 I $60 991 819 583 557 496 879 659 527 502 9 0.6 ! 1.953 527.3 329.6 310.2 292.0 263.7 448.2 I ' 336.2 � 268.9 256.1 9 0.6 I 1260 2230 1394 1312 1239 1115 1978 1487 1187 j 1130 12 0.6 2.604 703.1 439.4 413.6 390.6 351.6 597.6 448.2 358.6 I 341.5 X12 0.6 l 1680 2974 1858 1749 1652 1487 2638 1983 1583 1507 � I i i s 0.6 f 3.255 878.9 549.3 517.0 488.3 439.5 747.0 560.3 ' 448.2 426.9 .15 0.6 i 2100 3717 2323 2186 2065 1858 3297 2479 1978 1884 19 0.6 J '' 4.12 1113.2 695.13 654.8 1 618.4 556.6 946.2 709.7 567 7 540.7 19 0.6 I 2660 4708 2943 2769 2616 ` 2354 4176 3132 2506 2386 27 0.6 5.857 1 582.2 988.9 930.7 879.0 1 791.1 1344.6 t 008.5 8068 768.3 127 06 3780 6691 4182 3936 3717 + 3346 5935 4451 3561 3391 37 0.6 8A29 2168.2 1355.1 1275 4 1204 6 1084.1 1842.6 1382.0. 1105.6 1052.9 X 37 0 -6 5180 - 9169 5731 5393 , 5094 4584 8133 6100 4880 4647 161 0 6 13.237 3574.6 2'?a.1 2102.7 1985 9 I 1787.3 3037.8 6 1 0.6 8540 t 5 ! t E 9d4a 8892 8398 ' I 7558 13408 2278 - 1822.1 1735.9 10056 8045 7662 Note By omitirnq one or mo.t• stnsncls Irexn the s .1"arrl Saes p.ven above. anchor tenoons of an Alsc .lvd.laDie are ainUrlt,r (enclons frrwn C.MerCnt s sst;~ �..rh A. n r ann n y '-+rofrngo+ate sise can bo lormeO SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. JOB 927 Arguello Street SHEET NO. I I OF.— REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 �}{ 9 - G — a9 (650) 367 -9595 CALCULATED BY DATE FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY DATE �� SCALE °2 4 j 3 / y 23 •Z ►� �� ....... ............................... U v.� _ G T, U cwt (T r S rGo7>�`l fit-! �;, T� `.1 ,h-�'S �-r JOB 4 E T SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street SHEET NO, I OF REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 CALCULATED BY DATE —2 p (650) 367 -9595 C� FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY DATE El / SCALE s t �, � �� r � � C_ SST S /�, sT �1—:� +- -(+-+ ........ ................ E— - ...... -T f'? S v° .... _ I S 1"f fz--k c� ,off ........_ ST'��., C�7 �/Tc�� T 1 � _ S ✓�C�F+-yt� C _�._ � ...... _ .._ 1 ._... ._.. .... c �� Fes 7— T.!.._ -. . C 77 P _ A Q . �. .. _ ........... ... .. ... ........ �. ........ Ste- �Z �l a) . `. �f L� ZC�G ... �.._ T� Y r ................ _ID N = 3 1 T u ........ .. . 3 Z - RODUCT 704 -1 S." Si l X61 tcaaa4a, SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street SHEET NO. OF REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 9r'i (650) 367.9595 CALCULATED BY DATE FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY 1z�17 DATE SCALE �Z,� .......... . J z L) S S 1T i L-A I I ET. A- &-S T FT? B �'E S l l -A -+- I (io ljvL N ( 2 3 I mo, ' IRM O 'p~' JOB 6 ;-.v N 1--T T SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. 927 Arguello Street SHEET NO. I � OF REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 t-44 (650) 367 -9595 CALCULATED BY DATE FAX (650) 367 -8139 CHECKED BY DATE s — 2 c SCALE 3 `� � �� < <_ �� S ��I '��-� .c cep l✓ Sl � �-- �1 v s #1=4 TICS 4 e � C E CST ! c lam} S TLA- CA, ._(fir }_ _ r t1, Q - PP , c.s-;t� N_ ..... .... .... G >? Coo Ste' = 3 S Z. � z ) ) d ZL() - (z—) ZZ C4f- *0W 201 -1 (S. m WMI 205-1 IPMdeM • s o N ��! U N � ��/ � , SOIL ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION, INC. roe C, t� 927 Arguello Street SHEET NO. f \ OF I(O REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 DATE (650) 367 -9595 CALCULATED BY FAX (650) 367 -8139 p—` 17 7 DATE - 2-0- 4 CHECKED BY SCALE - 't� s r C z 'N —F • � Gr 1 � � � �i '�.� -� s� � r� `dam _ _ - _ �L1 . .... ..... . �.3 ..__- ...... _. ....................................... . .. . ............. ...... ..... _ ..... .... .......... - ................................. _.. G \_ lC ...................._ . _ X51_ ................ . So (-� Ta, _ e s- N� 7 N F J4-iJ 1 E — SOIL ENGINEERING s„ l� or l6 CONSTRUCTION, INC. of Nonnern Csliiorny 927 Arguell Street CALCULATED ev � DAT! a cs / Z � — c REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 04FCXEDIrY p/�� / — 2-0 _ G I� (415) 367.9595 FAX (415) 367.8139 - - WALE L^oPT - t E,44- LZ-4.1 7 I 1 H ,,� c- 3. o k t i ,t c- lf. c► Es j F L Aelp r L. 1 C--T-- S U 5 r, C- CAS t $ h P V1 C4E- Q A- ?�� Q v t � (-A-r LT 57�F r N IN C--{ t- S l t = 3. — kip c- _ .o kl1 «� s o" --, i *4 . c - � A-+.., Etj H PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BOYD RESIDENCE, 630 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY CALIFORNIA FOR SKELLY ENGINEERING 619 SOUTH VULCAN, SUITE 214B ENCINITA S, CALIFORNIA 92024 ' W.O. 2296 -A -SC SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 4 N0V 2Q19� ENGINEERING SEFIVICES OF ENONITAS CIN s, Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental 5741 Palmer Way • Carlsbad, California 92008 • (760) 438 -3155 • FAX (760) 931 -0915 September 30, 1997 W.O. 2296 -A -SC Skelly Engineering 619 South Vulcan, Suite 214B Encinitas, California, 92024 Attention: Mr. David W. Skelly Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Boyd Residence, 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, San Diego County, California. Dear Sir: In accordance with your request and authorization, GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) is pleased to present the results of our preliminary geotechnical investigation on the subject property. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the onsite soils and geologic conditions of the retaining wall and upper bluff area and to evaluate the earth materials at the base of the bluff for the proposed seawall, and near the proposed upper retaining wall. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Based on our review of data (Appendix A), field exploration, laboratory testing, and geologic and engineering analyses, the proposed site appears suitable for the intended use, from a geotechnical viewpoint, provided the recommendations presented in the text of this report are implemented. The most significant elements of our study are summarized below: • Proximity of existing residential structures and improvements (walls, etc.) on the adjoining property to the northwest or southwest, should any significant excavations be proposed. No new structures are proposed at this time. If structures are proposed at a later time, they should be located at least 45 feet from the edge of the bluff and be demonstrated to be behind the identified daylight line. Should the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall be properly constructed, however, no such setback would be necessary from a geotechnical viewpoint. • Excavation of foundations and earthwork adjacent to or in close proximity to the sea cliff and /or existing structures onsite and to the northwest or southwest. • The effects of strong seismic shaking as a result of an earthquake and resulting vertical and horizontal deformation. • Potential for perched groundwater in excavations on the bluff, and depth to groundwater. • Potential for bluff retreat and associated distress to settlement sensitive improvements, should the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall not be constructed and maintained. • The proposed seawall and upper retaining wall should be constructed and maintained. Drainage of the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall should also be provided and maintained. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions pertaining to this report, please contact us at (760) 438 -3155. Respectfully submitted, GeoSoils, Inc. W aA'�� 4 L Sherry L. aton Maung Maung Gy' Project Manager GC Staff Engineer FR,� O� D QROEESSlpy gl 7 R. lirLt ' NO. 1340 n .Franklin corti Albert R. Kleist No. 476 �� Ene: ^a ©ri�c� �e Ex p. 06 -30 -01 Engineering Geologi 48 F es' Civil Engineer, RC * � OF Cr � Geotechnical Engin S LE /J P F /ARK/hs qTF OF CAUF��`� Distribution: (5) Addressee (1) Nowak - Meulmester & Associates, Mr. George Meulmester Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC File: e: \wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page Two GeoSof is, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES .................... ............................... 1 FIELDSTUDIES .......................... ............................... 1 SITE DESCRIPTION ...................... ............................... 1 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ............... ............................... 3 REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................... ............................... 3 COASTAL BLUFF GEOMORPHOLOGY ....... ............................... 3 GEOLOGIC UNITS ........................ ............................... 4 Pleistocene -age Lindavista Formation (Map Symbol - Qlv) ................. 4 Eocene -age Torrey Sandstone (Map Symbol - Tt) ........................ 5 GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE .................. ............................... 5 GROUNDWATER ......................... ............................... 5 FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY ...... ............................... 6 Faulting............................ ..............................6 Seismicity.......................... ..............................8 LONG -TERM SEA -LEVEL CHANGE .......... ............................... 9 COASTAL -BLUFF RETREAT ................ ............................... 9 Marine Erosion .................... ............................... 10 Mechanical and Biological Processes ........................... 10 Water Depth, Wave Height, and Platform Slope ................... 10 Marine Erosion at the Cliff - Platform Junction ...................... 10 Subaerial Erosion .................... .............................11 Groundwater .................. .............................11 Slope Decline ................. .............................11 OTHER GEOLOGIC DEVELOPMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS .................... 11 LABORATORY TESTING .................. ............................... 12 Classification ........................ .............................12 Moisture/ Density .................. ............................... 12 Laboratory Standard .................. .............................12 Shear Testing ....................... .............................13 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES ............. ............................... 13 Slope Setbacks .................... ............................... 13 GeoSoils, Inc. Gross Stability Analysis ............. ............................... 13 Surficial Slope Stability .............. ............................... 15 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 15 DESIGN OF UPPER RETAINING WALL ...... ............................... 16 Bearing Value of Upper Wall ......... ............................... 16 Lateral Pressure ..................... .............................16 Tieback Skin Friction in Upper Wall .... ............................... 17 DESIGN OF LOWER SEAWALL ............ ............................... 17 Bearing Value of Lower Wall ......... ............................... 17 Lateral Pressure ..................... .............................17 Tieback Skin Friction in Lower Seawall . ............................... 17 WALL AND BACKFILL DRAINAGE .......... ............................... 18 SHORING AND BRACING ................. ............................... 18 Temporary Excavation /Shoring ....... ............................... 22 Excavation Observation (All Excavations) .............................. 24 Field Observation .................. ............................... 25 CAISSON CONSTRUCTION .............. _ ............................... 26 LATERAL DEFLECTION OF EXCAVATION - ALLOWABLE DESIGN LIMITS ......... 26 Conventional H -Pile Walls with Tieback Anchors ........................ 27 Drilled Pier Walls /H -Piles Walls without Tiebacks ........................ 27 Allowable Settlement (Total and Differential) ........................... 27 Fill Placement ..................... ............................... 27 Slope Construction ................... .............................28 General...................... .............................28 Cut Slopes - Temporary ....... ............................... 28 DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 28 Landscape Maintenance and Planting . ............................... 28 Site Improvements ................... .............................29 Drainage........................... .............................29 Footing /Pier Excavations ............ ............................... 29 Trenching.......................... .............................29 Utility Trench Backfill ............... ............................... 30 Grading Guidelines .................. .............................30 Corrosive Potential ................. ............................... 30 PLANREVIEW .......................... ............................... 30 LIMITATIONS ........................... ............................... 31 Skelly Engineering Table of Contents File: e: \wp7\2200 \2296a.pgi Page ii GeoSoiids, Inc. FIGURES: FIGURE 1 - Site Location Map ......... ............................... 2 FIGURE 2 - California Fault Map ....... ............................... 7 FIGURE 3 - Geologic Cross Section X -X' .............................. 14 FIGURE 4 - Schematic of Site Wall Drain Option A ....................... 19 FIGURE 5 - Schematic of Site Wall Drain Option B ....................... 20 FIGURE 6 - Schematic of Site Wall Drain Option C ....................... 21 ATTACHMENTS: APPENDIX A - References ... ............................... Rear of Text APPENDIX B - Boring Logs .. ............................... Rear of Text APPENDIX C - EQSEARCH, and FRISK89 Data ................. Rear of Text APPENDIX D - Slope Stability Analyses ....................... Rear of Text APPENDIX E - General Earthwork and Grading Guidelines ........ Rear of Text APPENDIX F - Homeowners Maintenance Guidelines ............ Rear of Text APPENDIX G - Procedures for Tieback Soldier Beam Installation ... Rear of Text PLATE 1 - Geotechnical Map ........................ Rear of Text in Pocket Skelly Engineering Table of Contents File: e:\wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgl Page iii GeoSoiils, Inc. PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION BOYD RESIDENCE, 630 NEPTUNE AVENUE ENCINITAS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of our services includes the following: 1. Review of readily available soils and geologic data for the area, documents provided by you, and stereoscopic aerial photographs of the site (Appendix A). 2. Geologic mapping of exposed conditions, including sea cliff bedding and joint /fracture attitudes. 3. Subsurface exploration consisting of the drilling of one hollow- stem -auger boring and geotechnical logging and sampling. 4. Pertinent laboratory testing of representative soil samples collected during our subsurface exploration program. 5. Evaluation of potential areal site seismicity and secondary seismic hazards. 6. Slope stability evaluation. 7. Appropriate engineering and geologic analyses of data collected and preparation of this report. FIELD STUDIES Site specific field studies conducted by GSI consisted of geologic mapping of the existing geologic conditions in the bluff, and the drilling of one hollow- stem -auger boring for evaluation of near - surface soil and geologic conditions. The boring was logged by a geologist from our firm who collected representative bulk and undisturbed samples from the boring for appropriate laboratory testing. The log of the boring is presented in Appendix B. The locations of the boring is presented on Plate 1. SITE DESCRIPTION The study area is a coastal bluff located on the beach in Encinitas, California (see Site Location Map, Figure 1). A single - family, wood -frame residence exists on a rectangular - shaped parcel that fronts on the beach. Access to the bluff on the site is via public stairs from a parking area on Neptune Avenue, about 1000 feet north of the site. GeoSoils, Inc. 1 o I 1�1 _nU 'I,•. to „1� • • '\ , 1 11 j�� .� 11 1.. ;i N \ Al ter ( I r,. ; ` ,4r�. �� mi ti l ,1 • •� � • � .1 ::��;� � s � ! �� J % �� ,I 1 _ _ i• ::� �(( --,�• ( ^! � S •.�•• '� ....� � e;;r 4• !S_ °: _ AGE � ! A I � � � r � JJ ll' �~ , � 1 . r•. � � �qll. �l/ � � ^ � '7 / - �J, All .,, -•Tank >► .. ' • _ '. V�� S•• _ FOR l�.•o • I • .. r ./ / t _ ' � �~ / `s' sm Leucadia' �J ,•�; Ni r• 1 9 ' G ,,'�,a �'. PO 1 G ' Cus r • - ..� � _i ,'"l1, , 4 •, 4', Jrl U`\% 1 VIA :+.\' C : 1 • . '. � : . • 1 ��• r • ' I Y � it � C ' r - '�_ -- Ilz � •- •• y. - _ i1 ��_�•_�� •� 4 [N--Ev � �_ I . r: � ' i�� 411 \ 1 �'1� . :I• a; 4114 V E 11.17 W i O IICI • >>,!'. I• = =T±�L Tank Enamtas CejC N 'i:. County Park ,�.!ao „• %�s`� . i.. 1 \� II I N_ !�: J — • < I r , i_� f '' X11 n LL U ^, ` I , ' �� \ %Ps% � � p � // � �/qq a.- � �, u • I o��,, C"��I �t ��'' � ' " '„�`) Tr Seasldr Gard en • SC o \\ �� z F%lO.�J`i I E:kC "• / /'• . yr�S i r 1.t� F SC Q County Park" :r � rte--• �`t P3' - ��r.,r'`6:'y.� �\ _ 1 ` q1 �� Quail P3i.rc i 1• '�-� _ ,�Y. .,. 1 1 1 1 \ :• apt ILd �� ( ®t , > NNW -STATE BEACH � 16 • Y \ I � �� gi'.,\ f I � • I Li 1 � :' "\ � :!�' ail �� ' ' .�, I ;; H. '� •� a I ;i� -'1� ill �� • ',1�' � •/ Encinitas' (— It 1 ;. _'\ j •u I ch 'REOUEIa ism 911 a 1 1 .l \ — ••; } -i .� -. L! = :.1 , 1�•II 1. j ,111 ••- •Y �$ I Base Map: Encinitas Quadrangle, California - -San Diego Co., 7.5 Minute Series (Topographic), 1968 (photo revised 1975), by USGS. I n W.O. 2296 -A -SC SITE LOCATION MAP 0 2000 4000 Scale Feet Figure 1 Stairs that provided access from the residence to the beach previously existed from the residence to the beach. The lower portion of the bluff and the access stairs have failed and been removed by erosion of the coastal waters. Rip -Rap materials have been placed on the beach in the failed bluff area. Slope gradients of the bluff range up to about 55 degrees in the upper portions of the bluff and 75 degrees in the lower portions of the bluff (Torrey Sandstone), with localized steeper areas in both portions of the bluff. Slight seepage was observed in the bluff face within the Torrey Sandstone. This seepage is much greater in the bluff face at neighboring properties (within 300 feet of the site). PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that the proposed development consists of a seawall in the lower portion of the bluff (at beach level) and a retaining wall in upper portions of the bluff to stabilize the cliff and, therefore, the existing structure and related improvements. Inasmuch as the client will provide the seawall design and recommendations, based on our report, no further information about the proposed seawall is available at this time. REGIONAL GEOLOGY The site is located in Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province of California. The Peninsular Ranges are characterized by northwest- trending, steep, elongated ranges and valleys. The Peninsular Ranges extend north to the base of the San Gabriel Mountains and south into Mexico to the tip of Baja California. The province is bounded by the east -west trending Transverse Ranges geomorphic province to the north and northeast, by the Colorado Desert geomorphic province to the southeast, and by the Continental Borderlands geomorphic province to the west. In the Peninsular Ranges, sedimentary and volcanic units discontinuously mantle the crystalline bedrock, alluvial deposits have filled in the lower valley areas, and young marine sediments are currently being deposited /eroded in the coastal and beach areas. COASTAL BLUFF GEOMORPHOLOGY The typical coastal -bluff profile may be divided into three zones; the shore platform, a lower near - vertical cliff surface termed the sea cliff, and an upper bluff slope generally ranging in inclination between about 35 and 65 degrees. The bluff top is the boundary between the upper bluff and the coastal terrace. Offshore from the sea cliff is an area of indefinite extent termed the near -shore zone. The bedrock surface in the near -shore zone, which extends out to sea from the base of the sea cliff, is the shore platform. As pointed out by Trenhaile (1987), worldwide, the shore platform may vary in inclination from near horizontal to as steep as 3:1 (horizontal to vertical). The boundary between the sea cliff (the lower vertical and near - vertical section Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e: %wpT,220012296a.pgi Page 3 GeoSoiils, d>i>tc. of the bluff) and the shore platform is called the cliff - platform junction, or sometimes the shoreline angle. Within the near -shore zone is a subdivision called the inshore zone, beginning where the waves begin to break. This boundary varies with time because the point at which waves begin to break changes dramatically with changes in wave size and tidal level. During low tides, large waves will begin to break further away from shore. During high tides, waves may not break at all or they may break directly on the lower cliff. Closer to shore is the foreshore zone, that portion of the shore lying between the upper limit of wave wash at high tide and the ordinary low water mark. Both of these boundaries often lie on a sand or cobble beach. In this case of a shoreline with a bluff, the foreshore zone extends from low water to the lower face of the bluff. Emery and Kuhn (1982) developed a global system of classification of coastal bluff profiles, and applied that system to the San Diego County coastline from San Onofre State Park to the southerly tip of Point Loma. Emery and Kuhn (1982), designated this portion of the coast area as "active" and "Type C (c)," as the surficial deposits are relatively thick with respect to the underlying bedrock. The IetteF "C" designates coastal bluffs having a resistant geologic formation at the bottom of the bluff and less resistant cap on the remaining height of the bluff. The relative effectiveness of marine erosion compared to subaerial erosion of the bluff produces a characteristic profile. Extremely rapid marine erosion compared to subaerial erosion produces a steep overall bluff, whereas slower marine erosion produces a more gently - sloping upper bluff. The letter "(c)" indicates that the long -term rate of subaerial erosion is about equal to that of marine erosion. GEOLOGIC UNITS Two major geologic units were observed and /or encountered on the site. Mappable units are shown on the Geologic Map, Plate 1. These units are described, from youngest to oldest: Pleistocene -age Lindavista Formation (Map Symbol - Qlv) Our mapping and research (Wilson, 1972) indicate that the upper portion of the sea bluff is composed of Pleistocene -age terrace deposits termed the Lindavista Formation. This unit encountered on the site was brownish orange in color and is composed of fine- to coarse - grained, slightly silty sandstone. The deposits continuously make up the sea bluff from near the existing top of the bluff, to an elevation of about 20 feet. This unit was observed to be generally massively to thickly bedded. The Lindavista deposits are moderately consolidated, poorly indurated, and unconformably overlie the older sedimentary bedrock. This unit includes near -shore marine sands. Previous studies have indicated an age range for this unit of approximately 27,000 ( ±2,600) to perhaps as much as 220,000 to 500,000 ( years old. This unit is also lithologically similar to Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e: \wp7\2200 \2296a.pgi Page 4 GeoSoils, Inc. sand dune deposits, dated by some as 15,000 years old and possibly younger (Cooper, 1959). This unit is, therefore, likely Late Pleistocene in age (Artim and Streiff, 1981). Eocene -age Torrey Sandstone (Map Symbol - Tt) The Eocene -age Torrey Sandstone underlies the Lindavista Formation on the site. These materials were observed in the lower portions of the coastal bluff and were encountered in our boring B -1 at 68 feet in depth. The materials encountered consisted of slightly silty, fine- to coarse - grained sandstone. The materials were moderately cemented and micaceous. This formation is described (Kennedy and Peterson, 1975) as an arkosic sandstone, subangular, and moderately well indurated. The Torrey Sandstone is believed to have been formed along a submerging coast on an arcuate barrier beach. This beach enclosed and later transgressed over lagoonal sediments. Its deposition ceased when submergence slowed and the shoreline retreated. GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE The Lindavista Formation is generally massively to thickly- bedded, and relatively flat lying to gently inclined to the southwest. The Torrey Sandstone is generally well bedded and cross bedded, and gently inclined in a northwesterly direction. Steeply inclined jointing was mapped within this unit, dipping steeply easterly, into slope. In addition, a southeast - dipping fault was mapped in the Torrey Sandstone, which did not appear to offset beds of the Lindavista Formation. GROUNDWATER An important contributor to the erosion of coastal bluffs is the flow of groundwater along the contact between the pervious, moderately - consolidated coastal Lindavista Formation, and the well - consolidated, less pervious bedrock that underlies the Lindavista Formation, and subsequent migration of this water into joints /fractures of the bedrock/Torrey Sandstone. The likely sources of this groundwater are; a) natural groundwater migration from highland areas upgradient of the Lindavista Formation, and b) infiltration of the Lindavista Formation and /or formational surface by rainfall, and by residential irrigation water. Typically, the volume of groundwater exiting the bluff face in the site area varies from season to season, even during drought years. This is probably occurring at the area of onsite seepage, which was observed in the bluff face. Groundwater seepage exiting the bluff face on top of the bedrock and within the beds of the bedrock unit tends to cause spring sapping and solution cavities along fractures, joints, and bedding planes, locally accelerating marine erosion where these conditions exist. In addition, groundwater may infiltrate bluff - parallel joints, which form naturally behind and parallel to the bluff face as a result of near - surface, stress - relief. Hydrostatic loading of Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e:\wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 5 Geoff oils, Inc. bluff - parallel (and sub - parallel) joints within the bedrock may contribute to block - toppling failures. FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY Faulting The site is situated in an area of active as well as potentially- active faults. Our review indicates that there are no known active faults crossing the site within the areas proposed for development (Wilson, 1972), and the site is not within an Earthquake Fault Zone (Hart, 1994) . There are a number of faults in the southern California area that are considered active and would have an effect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the source of an earthquake. These include - -but are not limited to - -the San Andreas fault, the San Jacinto fault, the Elsinore fault, the Coronado Bank fault zone, and the Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone. The location of these and other major faults relative to the site are indicated on the California Fault Map, Figure 2. The possibility of ground acceleration or shaking at the site may be considered as approximately similar to the southern California region as a whole. The following table lists the major faults and fault zones in southern California that could have a significant effect on the site should they experience significant activity. ABBREVIATED APPROXIMATE DISTANCE FAULT NAME MILES KM Coronado Bank -A ua Blanca 18 (29) Elsinore 28 45) La Nacion 18 (29 Newport-In lewood- Offshore 10 (16) Rose Canvon 3 (5) San Diego Trough-Bahia Sol. 1 28 (46 Northeasterly trending faults have been mapped previously in the site vicinity. In addition, our review revealed the presence of other northeasterly trending faults within the Torrey Sandstone in the site vicinity. These faults belong to a group of relatively short northeasterly trending faults and would be characteristic of extensional faulting between right stepping, right lateral faults. As pointed out by Treiman (1984), the northeast- trending Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e:\wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 6 GeoSoiis, Inc. 1 o so 100 SCALE (Miles) SAN FRANCISCO L G ES SITE LOCATION ( +): Lctitude — 33.0601 N Longitude — 117.3018 W 630 Neptune Avenue CALIFORNIA FAU W.O. 2296 -A -SC Figure 2 GeoSoils, Inc. faults appear to have died out around 120,000 years ago as the dominant northwest - trending regional faulting became established. In addition, these faults apparently do not displace the Late Pleistocene terrace deposits of the Lindavista Formation, which have been dated as likely older than about 15,000 years. Seismicity The acceleration- attenuation relations of Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and others (1989) have been incorporated into EQFAULT (Blake, 1997). For this study, peak horizontal ground accelerations anticipated at the site were determined based on the random mean and mean plus 1 sigma attenuation curves developed by Joyner and Boore (1982), Campbell and Bozorgnia (1994), and Sadigh and other (1989). These acceleration- attenuation relations have been incorporated in EQFAULT, a computer program by Thomas F. Blake (1997), which performs deterministic seismic hazard analyses using up to 150 digitized California faults as earthquake sources. The program estimates the closest distance between each fault and a user - specified file. If a fault is found to be within a user - selected radius, the program estimates peak horizontal ground acceleration that may occur at the site from the "maximum credible" and "maximum probable" earthquakes on that fault. Site acceleration as a percentage of the acceleration of gravity (g) is computed by any of the 14 user - selected acceleration- attenuation relations that are contained in EQFAULT. Based on the above, peak horizontal ground accelerations from a maximum credible event may be on the order of 0.58 g to 0.88 g, and a maximum probable event may be on the order of 0.43 g to 0.54 g. Historical site seismicity was evaluated utilizing the computer program EQSEARCH (Blake, 1997). This program performs a search of historical earthquake records, for magnitude 4.0 to magnitude 9.0 within a specified radius (e.g., 100 miles), between the years 1800 to 1996. Based on the selected acceleration- attenuation relation, a peak horizontal ground acceleration is estimated, which may have affected the site during the specific seismic event listed. In addition, site specific probability of exceeding various peak horizontal ground accelerations and seismic recurrence curves are also estimated /generated from the historical data. The maximum horizontal acceleration experienced by the site during the period of 1800 to 1995 was found to be about 0.81 g corresponding to an earthquake of about M 6.5 approximately 6 miles away, that occurred on November 22, 1800. A probabilistic seismic hazards analyses was also performed using FRISK89 (Blake, 1997), which models earthquake sources as lines and evaluates the site specific probabilities. Printouts generated from EQSEARCH and FRISK89 are included in Appendix C. Based on a review of these data and considering the relative seismic activity of the southern California region, a repeatable ground acceleration of 0.19 to 0.21 g was obtained. This value was considered as it corresponds to a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e:%wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 8 GeoSoiils, Inc. years (or a 475 year return period). Selection of this design event is important as it is the level of risk assumed by the Uniform Building Code minimum design requirements. This level of ground shaking corresponds to a Richter magnitude event of about 7.5. Our review of "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California (Davis, 1997) indicates the State of California recommends using a seismic coefficient (k) of 0.15 for design earthquakes of M 8.25 and using 0.10 for earthquake magnitudes of M 6.25, with an acceptable factor of safety in the range of 1.1 to 1.15. During a 50 -year span, a structure on the project site will likely be subjected to an earthquake of at least Richter magnitude of 6.0. Horizontal acceleration induced by an earthquake may affect earth structures and /or embankments. LONG -TERM SEA -LEVEL CHANGE Long -term (geologic) sea -level change is likely the major factor determining coastal evolution. Three general sea -level conditions are recognized: rising, falling, and stationary. The rising and falling stages result in massive sediment release and transport, while the stationary stage allows time for adjustment and reorganization toward equilibrium. Major changes in sea level of the Quaternary period were caused by worldwide climate fluctuation resulting in at least seventeen glacial and interglacial stages in the last 800,000 years and many before then. Worldwide sea -level rise associated with the melting of glaciers is commonly referred to as "glacio- eustatic" or "true" sea -level rise. During the past 200,000 years, eustatic sea level has ranged from more than 350± feet below the present to possibly as high as about 31 ±feet above. Sea -level changes during the last 18,000 years have resulted in an approximately 400 -foot rise in sea level when relatively cold global climates of the Wisconsin ice age started to become warmer, melting a substantial portion of the continental ice caps. Sea -level data show a relatively rapid rise of about 1 meter per century from about 18,000 years before present to about 8,000 years ago. About 8,000 years ago, the rate of sea -level rise slowed, ultimately to a relatively constant rate of about 10 centimeters per century since about 6,000 years ago (Inman, 1976). More importantly, the world coastline, including that of California and the subject site, has been shaped largely within this 6,000 -year period, with the sea at or within about 16 feet of its present level. COASTAL -BLUFF RETREAT Most of San Diego County's coastline has experienced a measurable amount of erosion in the last 20 to 30 years, with more rapid erosion occurring during periods of heavy storm surf (Kuhn and Shepard, 1984). The entire base of the sea cliff portion of the coastal bluff is exposed to direct wave attack along most of the coast. The waves erode the sea cliff by impact on small joints/fractures and fissures in the otherwise essentially massive bedrock Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e:1,wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi GeoSoils, Inc. Page 9 units, and by water - hammer effects. The upper bluffs, which often support little or no vegetation, are subject to wave spray and splash, sometimes causing saturation of the outer layer and subsequent sloughing of over - steepened slopes. Wind, rain, irrigation, and uncontrolled surface runoff contribute to the erosion of the upper coastal bluff, especially on the more exposed over - steepened portions of the friable sands. Where these processes are active, unraveling of cohesionless sands has resulted along portions of the upper bluffs. Marine Erosion The factors contributing to "Marine Erosion" processes are described below. Mechanical and Biological Processes Mechanical erosion processes at the cliff - platform junction include water abrasion, rock abrasion, cavitation, water hammer, air compression in joints /fractures, breaking -wave shock, and alternation of hydrostatic pressure with the waves and tides. All of these precesses are active in backwearing. Downwearing processes include all but breaking - wave shock (Trenhaile, 1987). Backwearing and downwearing by the mechanical processes described above are both augmented by bioerosion, the removal of rock by the direct action of organisms (Trenhaile, 1987). Backwearing at the site is assisted by algae in the intertidal and splash zones and by rock - boring mollusks in the tidal range. Algae and associated small organisms bore into rock up to several millimeters. Mollusks may bore several centimeters into the rock. Chemical and salt weathering also contribute to the erosion process. Water Depth, Wave Height, and Platform Slope The key factors affecting the marine erosion component of bluff- retreat are water depth at the base of the cliff, breaking wave height, and the slope of the shore platform. Along the entire coastline, the sea cliff is subject to periodic attack by breaking and broken waves, which create the dynamic effects of turbulent water and the compression of entrapped air pockets. When acting upon jointed and fractured rock, the "water- hammer" effect tends to cause hydraulic fracturing which exacerbates sea cliff erosion. Erosion associated with breaking waves is most active when water depths at the cliff - platform junction coincide with the respective critical incoming wave height, such that the water depth is approximately equal to 1.3 times the wave height. Marine Erosion at the Cliff- Platform Junction The cliff - platform junction contribution to retreat of the overall sea cliff is from marine erosion, which includes mechanical, chemical, and biological erosion processes. Marine erosion operates horizontally (backwearing) on the cliff as far up as the top of the splash zone, and vertically (downwearing) on the shore platform (Emery and Kuhn, 1980; Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e:,,wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi GeoSoils, Inc. Page 10 Trenhaile, 1987). Backwearing and downwearing typically progress at rates that will maintain the existing gradient of the shore platform. Subaerial Erosion "Subaerial Erosion" processes are discussed as follows. Groundwater The primary erosive effect of groundwater seepage upon the formations at the site is spring sapping, or the mechanical erosion of sand grains by water exiting the buff face. Chemical solution, however, is also a significant contributor (especially of carbonate matrix material). As indicated previously, as groundwater approaches the bluff, it infiltrates near - surface, stress - relief, bluff - parallel joints /fractures, which form naturally behind and parallel to the bluff face. Hydrostatic loading of bluff parallel (and sub - parallel) joints /fractures is an important cause of block - toppling on steep- cliffed lower bluffs (Kuhn and Shepard, 1980). Slope Decline The process of bluff slope decline consists of a series of steps, which ultimately cause the bluff to retreat. The base of the bluff is first weakened by wave attack and the development of wave cut niches and /or sea caves, and bluff parallel tension joint /fractures. As the weakened sea cliff fails by blockfall or rockfall, an over - steepened bluff face is left, with the debris at the toe of the sea cliff. Ultimately, the rockfall /blockfall debris is removed by wave action, and the marginal support for the upper bluff is thereby removed. Progressive surficial slumping and failure of the bluff will occur until a condition approaching the angle of repose is established in the terrace deposits of the Lindavista Formation. This process is repeated over time. Upper bluffs with slope angles in the 35 to 40 degree range may indicate ages in the 75 to 100 year range. Steeper slopes indicate a younger age. Slopes at the site vicinity indicate a relatively young age, which are generally typical of active erosion. OTHER GEOLOGIC DEVELOPMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Other potential secondary seismic related hazards have been evaluated with respect to this site are ground rupture due to faulting, liquefaction, dynamic settlement, and seiche. Inasmuch as no active faults are known to cross the site, the potential for ground rupture is considered very low. Based on review of available data, the potential for liquefaction to affect the residence is considered low to nil. The potential for dynamic settlement to affect the site is considered low. The potential for seiche to affect the site is not considered pertinent to development, however, the potential for tsunami to impact the site is considered moderate to high. This should be further evaluated by the coastal engineer. Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e: \wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi GeoSOils, Inc. Page 11 Although currently generally unstable, in general, the possibility of slope instability within the site is considered low, provided all slopes are maintained and the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall, when constructed are maintained. Although the exposed materials are granular in nature and lightly indurated, they may recede if left exposed to weathering and are in an unconfined condition (slope face). The slope faces, if left untreated, will continue to progressively erode and may accelerate during strong seismic shaking or severe storm events. LABORATORY TESTING Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of representative site earth materials in order to evaluate their physical characteristics. Test procedures used and results obtained are presented below. Classification Soils were classified visually according to the Unified Soils Classification System. The soil classifications are shown on the boring logs, Appendix B Moisture/ Density The field moisture content and dry unit weight were determined for each selected undisturbed sample (modified California sample) of the soils collected in the boring. The field moisture content was determined for each selected standard penetration sample collected in the boring. The dry unit weight was determined in pounds per cubic foot (pcf), and the field moisture content was determined as a percentage of the dry unit weight. The results of these tests are shown on the boring logs (Appendix B). Laboratory Standard The maximum density and optimum moisture content was determined for the major soil type encountered in the boring. The laboratory standard used was ASTM D -1557. The moisture - density relationship obtained for this soil is shown below: MAXIMUM DENSITY OPTIMUM MOISTURE LOCATION SOIL TYPE (PCF) CONTENT °'o) B -1 @ 20 -22' SAND, Brownish orange 124.0 10.5 (Lindavista Formation) Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e: \wpT,2200 \2296a.pgi GeOSoils, Inc. Page 12 Shear Testing Shear tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM test method D -3080 in a Direct Shear Machine of the strain control type. The samples were tested in their natural condition. Test results are presented in the following table. LOCATION COHESION (s INTERNAL FRICTION B -1 @ 10' 395 29 B -1 @ 40' 365 32 B -1 @ 70' 570 30 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Analyses were performed utilizing the two dimensional slope stability computer program "XSTABL." The program calculates the factor of safety for specified circles or searches for a circular, block, or irregular slip surface having the minimum factor of safety using the Janbu or general limit equilibrium (Spencer). Additional information regarding the methodology utilized in these programs are included in Appendix D. Computer print -outs of calculations and shear strength parameters used are provided in Appendix D. A representative cross section were prepared for analysis, utilizing data from our investigation and the map that depicts the existing slope. This cross section is provided as Figure 3. The location of the cross section is shown on Plate 1. Analyses were also performed using the geometry of the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall. Slope Setbacks Based on slope stability analysis, the slope setback should be 45 feet away from the top of the slope, without the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall. With the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall, such setbacks would not be warranted from a geotechnical viewpoint. Gross Stability Analysis Based on the available data, the constraints outlined above, and our stability calculations of the most critical slopes shown in Appendix D, calculated factors -of- safety less than code have been obtained for the existing slope on the subject site. This assumes that the slope remains in its current condition as depicted on the cross section shown on Figure 3. When analyzed with the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall, however, calculated factors of safety greater than code were obtained. Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e: \wp7 \2200 \2206a.pgi GeOSOIlS, Inc. Page 13 Boring B -1 X Projected 6' NW X , 100 100 80 80 J 2 60 60 �, .. Q1v w o _... 40 40 a� ED 20 - TD70' /2' 1 t 20 0 0 20 0 20 LEGEND " =Y Scale Feet Q 1 v Quaternary Lindavista Formation ^- -'� ,�"'� LOS ANGELES CO. Tertiary Torrey Sandstone ` i RIVERSIDE CO. T t G� SoiIS, Inc ORANGE CO. '_-2) SAN DIEGO CO. Approximate location of geologic contac GEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION Fig ure 3 W.O. 2296 -A -SC DATE 9/97 SCALE V =20' Surficial Slope Stability The surficial stability of the slope has been analyzed utilizing the shear strength parameters in Appendix D. Calculations are shown in Appendix D, which indicate a static surficial safety factor less than code for the existing Lindavista Formation slopes. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing, engineering and geologic analyses, it appears that the site is marginally stable and the overall stability will likely decrease with time as coastal erosion continues. The construction of the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall will likely extend the design life of the residence (as impacted by slope stability) on the order of 75 years. It is our opinion that the project site appears suited for the proposed seawall from a geotechnical engineering and geologic viewpoint, and upper retaining wall will have no adverse effect on the stability of the bluff, will not endanger life or property, and any proposed structure or facility is expected to be reasonably safe from failure over its life time. Our analyses indicate that the project can be designed or located so that the project will neither be subject to nor contribute to significant geologic instability throughout the life span of the project. The recommendations presented herein should be incorporated into the final design, grading, and construction phase of development. The primary geotechnical conditions affecting proposed site development are as follows: • Proximity of existing residential structures and improvements (walls, etc.) on the adjoining property to the north or south, should any significant excavations be proposed. No new structures are proposed at this time. If structures are proposed at a later time, they should be located at least 45 feet from the edge of the bluff and be demonstrated to be behind the identified daylight line (per code). Should the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall be constructed; however, no such setback would be necessary from a geotechnical viewpoint. • Excavation of foundations and earthwork adjacent to or in close proximity to the sea cliff and /or existing structures onsite and to the north or south. • The effects of strong seismic shaking as a result of an earthquake and resulting vertical and horizontal deformation. • Potential for perched groundwater in excavations on the bluff, and depth to groundwater. Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e:\wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 15 GeoS ®ils, Inc. • Potential for bluff retreat and associated distress to settlement sensitive improvements, should the proposed seawall and upper retaining wall not be constructed and /or maintained. The proposed seawall and upper retaining wall should be constructed and maintained. Should the bluff areas not be mitigated, ultimately distress to the improvements and residence will likely occur. Drainage of the proposed seawall should also be provided and maintained. The surface drainage of the lot needs to be directed away from the bluff face to an appropriate inlet, utilizing non - erosive devices. This may require a moisture - activated sump pump in order to get the drainage to flow to a suitable outlet. The recommendations provided herein or in prior discussions consider the above factors as well as other aspects of the site. The engineering analyses performed, concerning site preparation and the recommendations presented below, have been completed using the information provided to us regarding site development. In the event that the information concerning the proposed development is not correct, or any changes in the design and location of the proposed structures are made, the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office. DESIGN OF UPPER RETAINING WALL Bearing Value of Upper Wall 1. An allowable vertical bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot (psf) should be used for design of continuous footings a minimum 15 inches wide and 18 inches deep and for design of square footings 24 inches wide and 24 inches deep, bearing in properly compacted fill material. Per UBC code, this value may be increased by 20 percent, 300 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in depth of embedment (no increase should be utilized for footing width) to a maximum value of 2,000 pounds per square foot. The above values may be increased by one -third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. Lateral Pressure 1. Passive earth pressure of the Lindavista Formation may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 100 pounds per cubic foot per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 1,500 pounds per square foot. 2. An allowable coefficient of friction between compacted fill soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces. Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e: \wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 16 GeoSoiils, Inc. 3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one - third. 4. Active pressure of the upper wall should be computed as a uniformly undistributed rectangular pressure of 30H. Tieback Skin Friction in Upper Wall The tieback should be designed with skin friction of 150 psf. Tiebacks in the Lindavista Formation material would need to founded below the failure plane (inclination of about 30 degrees downward and to the coast from the 45 -foot setback from the top of the slope). DESIGN OF LOWER SEAWALL Bearing Value of Lower Wall 1. An allowable vertical bearing value of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf) should be used for design of continuous footings a minimum 15 inches wide and 18 inches deep and for design of square footings 24 inches wide and 24 inches deep, bearing in the Torrey Sandstone. Per UBC code, this value may be increased by 20 percent, 400 pounds per square foot for each additional 12 inches in depth of embedment (no increase should be utilized for footing width) to a maximum value of 3,000 pounds per square foot. The above values may be increased by one -third when considering short duration seismic or wind loads. Lateral Pressure 1. Passive earth pressure of the Torrey Sandstone may be computed as an equivalent fluid having a density of 300 pounds per cubic foot per foot of depth, to a maximum earth pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot. 2. An allowable coefficient of friction between compacted fill soil and concrete of 0.35 may be used with the dead load forces. 3. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure component should be reduced by one - third. 4. Active pressure of the lower wall should be computed as a uniformly distributed rectangular pressure of 55H. Tieback Skin Friction in Lower Seawall Tiebacks should be designed with a skin friction of 400 psf in the Torrey Sandstone. Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e: \wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 17 GeoSoiils, Inc. WALL AND BACKFILL DRAINAGE All retaining walls should be provided with an adequate backdrain and outlet system (a minimum two outlets per wall and no greater than 100 feet apart), to prevent buildup of hydrostatic pressures and be designed in accordance with minimum standards presented herein. See site wall drain options (Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6). Drain pipe should consist of 4 -inch diameter perforated schedule 40 PVC pipe embedded in gravel. Gravel used in the backdrain systems should be a minimum of 3 cubic feet per lineal foot of 3 /8- to 1 -inch clean crushed rock wrapped in filter fabric (Mirafi 140 or equivalent) and 12 inches thick behind the wall. Where the void to be fitted is constrained by lot lines or property boundaries, the use of panel drains (Mirafi 5000 or equivalent) may be considered with the approval of the project geotechnical engineer. The surface of the backfill should be sealed by pavement or the top 18 inches compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with native soil. Proper surface drainage should also be provided. Weeping of the walls in lieu of a backdrain is not recommended for walls greater than 2 feet in height. For walls 2 feet or less in height, weepholes should be no greater than 6 feet on center in the bottom coarse of block and above the landscape zone. A paved drainage channel (v -ditch or substitute), either concrete or asphaltic concrete, behind the top of the walls with sloping backfill should be considered to reduce the potential for surface water penetration. For level backfill, the grade should be sloped such that drainage is toward a suitable outlet at 1 to 2 percent. SHORING AND BRACING Temporary excavations in the Lindavista Formation may not be stable at a gradient of 1:1 and will likely require a shoring system. The shoring configuration for the uphill portion of the planned excavation may be achieved using one of several options: A. Drilled cast -in -place reinforced concrete piers. B. Pier supported H -piles lagged with concrete elements or gunite walls. C. Combinations of options A and B. D. Option B with a system of tiebacks and whalers'. Driving of shoring elements (H- piles) is not recommended. Jetting of site soils to achieve compaction behind or adjacent to shoring or for the placement of piers /piles is not recommended. The use of shoring and bracing with tiebacks may not be practical due to the structures adjacent or in close proximity to the property line. Settlement from drilled, cast - in -place piers or H -pile and lagging shoring system would be on the order of to 1 inch and will be discussed under the section of pier /pile capacity. Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: eAwp712 2 0 012 2 9 6a.pgi Page 18 GeoSoils, Inc. I , b 1 Ccc drain (cut off) 2 r 1 8" beicw sail line `Ncterprocfinc Site retcininc wail (structurci desicn Manufactured drainace by others) Geccomposite drain ( Mira drain 5C00 or equivalent ) Note: Filter fabric wrcos completely Fcverr:ent section per -- around perforated pipe cnd GSI reccmmerdaticns behind care material, core rnctend wrcos beneath Finished lot surface bot;em cf pipe. i T T • � �• o b �, ° a a � �^- Gfl, 4" did. min. perforated 0 0 pipe placed with holes down and slcoed ct — tc suitable outlet o 1 1 C u V Q c u ° u 4' min. cranulcr material o ' d ° °/ a� ° r ° (class 2 per, or 3/8-1" clean crushed rock wrapped in c j . filter fabric) L INCH foctinc (cesicr,ed by others) SCHEMATIC OF SITE WALL DRAIN OPTION A Figure 4 G IS nc. DATE 9/97 w. 0. N0. 2296 -A -SC Geotechnical - Geologic - Environmental FORM 99/22 Cop drain (cut off) 18" be!cw soil lire 2 waterproofing 12" thick (min.) drain rock Site retainine wcll (class 2 permeable) or • , = (structural design other acceptable granular :: ;'•' ' :�,• by others) material, 1/8 -1" clean crushed rock wrapped in • .V,• -,f• a filter fabric (Mirafi 140 Pavement section per or equivalent) : , GSl recomendations 4" dia. min. perforated Finished lot surface pipe placed with holes = down and sloped at 1 -2% — T to a suitcble outlet 1 11 _Iz 1; we' Q O in .o M in 1 1 ° I I ... .4 • . . do \-- Ii c. L L =c min S (desicned by ct;^ers) SCHEMATIC OF SITE WALL DRAIN OPTION B Figure 5 � v 7 I DATE 9 W. 0. NO 2296 -A -SC Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental FORM 39/22 i i F C o drain ( , t ' c� off) below soil lire If finished surface is within Z rj'��,, S" of top of foocinc wall dreins shell be at F' intervals a the length of the wall and located at the level of the bottom course of black. The drains shall be 4" in diameter. ;' i -ice reteinina wail (structural design by others) 2 thick (min.) dreir. rock I Paveme s e ction per —, (class 2 permeable) cr „`, other acceptable arar.ulcr I i Uzi recomendcticns � mctericl, 1 /8— clean crushed rock wrapped in e filter fabric (Mircfi 140 d,• die. pipe or e-uivclent) i i ' Finished lot surface Waterproofing � I 11 � 1 ' ° 1 — ° °� � v • e i i • o I • °� � I I I r I •° I 1 O r 1 0 • °' 1 r 1 r r ° . • a 1 I s O 1/ O o .9 . i O I O 1. I,• a a• 1 I, O • a . r Ir, a 1; �� ' • 1 , G • 1 • • ° •a� ° •I, . •- 1 0 •� 1a \__ r c c ring <desigred oy c '.:rers: SCHEMATIC OF SITE WALL DRAIN OPTION C Figure 6 Ge �S e DATE sis7 W. NO 2296 - -SC Geotechnical • Geologic • Environmental FARM 8 9/22 The excavated surface of the back cut, if not retained by lagging between elements, may be temporary exposed without lagging elements provided that the duration is during the dry period of the year (April to October) and a permanent wall system is installed. Gunite should be sprayed on any exposed excavation face soon after excavation is made, during any season of the year, in order to reduce the potential for drying and /or relaxation of the slope face. Gunite may be incorporated into the final wall configuration if a drain system is provided. Due to the proximity of the adjacent structures, a pre- construction survey should be conducted to document existing conditions of the structures roadways and appurtenances and establish a basis for lateral and vertical control. The pre- construction survey work should also include photographic documentation of the existing improvements. Temporary Excavation /Shoring Where there is enough space, a temporary slope could be excavated at a gradient of 1:1. Considering the depth of the proposed excavation and the locations of the property lines relative to the public ways, the temporary excavations probably cannot be laid back at a gradient steeper than 1:1 and will likely require a shoring system. Because the laid back excavation is not entirely feasible for this site, a shoring system such as cantilevered soldier piles with tiebacks, lagging, or internal bracing (i.e., rakers) may be required to support the temporary excavation. Based upon the engineering properties of onsite soils, the recommended maximum depth of vertical unsupported excavations in the near - surface soils with minimum risk is about 5 feet. For temporary excavations more than 5 feet in height, a shoring system shall be designed to support the vertical excavation to the depth necessary to construct the retaining walls. If soldier piles with lagging and /or drilled piers are used, care should be taken to fill all void spaces between the excavation face and the lagging. This may be achieved with 1 12 to 3 /4 inch clean crushed rock and may be part of the permanent drain system. Also, all timber lagging, must be removed prior to permanent construction. GSI recommends all permanent lagging be concrete or gunite. Placement of gunite walls on exposed cut faces is an acceptable wall alternative and may lead to easier construction methods. Maximum spacing of soldier piles (H -piles or drilled piers) shall be no more than 8 feet on center. To obtain a factor of safety for permanent excavation equal to or greater than 1.5, with pile spacing at 8 feet, the excavation may be allowed to proceed to 10 feet with only the support of the cantilevered soldier beams. If cantilevered soldier piles are spaced at 6 feet on center, the excavation may be allowed to proceed to 12 feet with only the support of the cantilevered soldier beams. For deeper temporary conditions a raker placed at 0.25H down from the top of the wall should be employed. Machine drilled, cast -in -place caissons reinforced with (W or HP) beams and spaced no greater than 8 feet on- centers may be used as soldier piles. In drilling the vertical holes, Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e: \wp712200 \2296a.pgi Page 22 GeoSoiils, Inc. slough accumulated in the bottom of the holes should be properly cleaned to provide for firm bearing. Drilled, cast -in -place pier installation techniques to achieve foundation and support of the earthwork cut may be performed in a multiple stage process. • Stage 1: Construction of a level, temporary fill working area. This soil pad will be used to drill pier holes and unload materials from roadway. • Stage 2: Placement of upper level and lower level piers and /or H -piles (2 rows) and grade beams along lower row. • Stage 3: Excavation of proposed cut with intermediate support during excavation with raker beams extending from the top of the lower drilled piers to the upper row of piers at approximately 0.25 H of the exposed excavation face. Rakers may be added or adjusted based on the daily monitoring data. If H -piles are used, progressive installation of lagging elements will be needed. • Stage 4: Installation of additional grade beams across base of cut. • Stage 5: Placement of final walls backfill (shotcrete) along with first and second stories and braced frame structure. If H -pile and lagging walls are used to support the cut, a tieback system may be utilized to reduce wall loads that will be transferred to the structure. When substantial excavations are made before placing a tieback, or when the bracing effect of the tieback is not yet fully utilized, movement of the soldier pile, considered flexible, is greatest at the top, and soil pressure will approach active values. Anchor loads will be carried by adhesion (frictional resistance) in the bedrock. The length and diameter of the anchor required to transfer the load to the appropriate material can be approximated by determining the overburden loading and selecting corresponding shear strength values from the design shear strength curves. The selected anchor installations will be subjected to proof testing and other Code requirements. The anchor holes should be drilled in a manner that will minimize loss of ground and not endanger existing utilities or previously installed anchors. The holes are to be drilled at a negative angle of about 15-- degrees to the horizontal. The upper sand layers, as described earlier in this report, are relatively low in cohesion and may be subject to caving. Casing or other methods to prevent loss of ground and collapse of the hole may be required. Less change of collapse or caving will occur with smaller diameter anchor holes. Failure planes shall be determined in accordance with Rankine (45 analysis and mapped in the field. Anchor loading is assumed to start behind the failure plane in determining penetration length. A minimum penetration length of 10 feet beyond the failure plane is recommended. Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30. 1997 File: e: \wp712200 \2296a.pgi Page 23 GeoSoiils, Inc. Attachment of the anchor to the H -pile or caisson must be done in such a way so as not to cause torque in the soldier pile. These recommendations assume the tieback system is permanent shoring. If tiebacks are proposed as part of the permanent earth support system, additional special recommendations must be developed including corrosion protection. No surcharge loads may be permitted within 5 feet of the top of the excavation. Of particular concern is the possibility of heavy construction equipment (i.e., cranes, stockpiles of steel or other materials, etc.) being placed close to the excavation. Additionally, before placement of equipment close to the excavation edge, GeoSoils, Inc. must be notified so that any potential change in the lateral soil pressure distribution may be reviewed. Since the proposed temporary excavation may remove lateral support adjacent building, the designed shoring systems should be approved by the City of Encinitas. The contractor should be solely responsible for safety during construction. All applicable requirements of the California Construction and General Industry Safety Orders, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Where slope or supported vertical excavations are used, the top of the excavation should be barricaded to prevent equipment and heavy-storage loads within 5 feet of the top of the slope. Berms should be constructed along the top of the excavation to prevent runoff water from eroding the slope faces. The soils exposed in the cut slopes should be observed during excavation by the geologist and geotechnical engineer so that modifications of the excavations or support system can be made if variations in the soil conditions occur. Excavation Observation (All Excavations) When excavations are made adjacent to an existing improvements (i.e., utility, road, wall, etc.), there is a potential for damage to that structure even if a well designed system of excavation and /or shoring is planned and installed. We recommend, therefore, that a systematic program of observations be made during construction to determine the effects of construction on the existing structures. We believe that this is necessary for two reasons: 1) if excessive movements are detected early enough, remedial measures can be taken which could possibly prevent serious damage to existing improvements; 2) the responsibility for deformation impacts to existing structures can be readily evaluated if the cause and extent of the deformation can be determined more precisely. Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e: \wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 24 Geoff oils, Inc. We recommend that the shoring system and adjacent area be monitored for horizontal and vertical deformation during the period of construction. Monitoring should include the measurement of any horizontal and vertical movements of both the existing structures and the shoring and /or bracing. Locations and type of the monitoring devices should be selected as soon as the total shoring system is designed and approved. The monitoring system should include surface monuments, subsurface monuments, and inclinometer casings. The program of monitoring the wall should be agreed upon between the owner, the contractor, the site surveyor and GSI rp for to excavation for the walls or slopes. The measuring system should have an accuracy of at least 0.01 inch. Reference points should be installed and read initially prior to excavation. The readings should continue until all construction below ground has been completed and the backfill has been brought up to final grade. The frequency of readings will depend upon the results of previous readings and the rate of construction. Weekly readings could be assumed throughout the duration of construction with daily readings during rapid excavation near the bottom and at critical times during the installation of shoring or support. The readings should be plotted by the surveyor and then reviewed by the geotechnical engineer. In addition to the monitoring system, it would be prudent for the owner and the contractor to make a complete inspection of the existing adjacent improvements both before and after construction. The inspection should be directed toward detecting any signs of damage, particularly those caused by settlement. Notes should be made and pictures should be taken where necessary. Field Observation It is recommended that all foundation excavations be inspected by the geologist or geotechnical engineer prior to placing forms, concrete, or steel. Any fill which is placed should be approved, tested, and verified if used for engineered purposes. Cut slopes and temporary wall excavations should be observed by the geologist or geotechnical engineer. Should the observation reveal any unforeseen hazard, the geologist or geotechnical engineer will recommend treatment. GSI would request at least 24 hours notice prior to any required site observation. Approved by the foundation engineer, 10 percent of tieback anchors shall be tested to 200 percent of the design load. In addition, a representative sample of these tieback anchors shall be tested for a time period of 24 hours. The foundation engineer shall specify the number and location of these anchors in an addendum report. GSI should observe and approve the testing of all anchors. GSI will keep a record of all test loads and total anchor movements and evaluate their accuracy. This record shall be kept on the jobsite and shall be available for review by the building inspector. Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e:.wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 25 GeoSoiils, Inc. CAISSON CONSTRUCTION Caissons should be constructed in accordance with Section 305 -1.3 of the 1994 Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction. Caisson excavations should be observed and periodically down hole logged by a representative of GSI prior to placement of steel or concrete. Concrete should not be allowed to drop from heights in excess of 5 feet during placement. Therefore, the tremie method of concrete placement will be necessary. Prior to the placement of concrete, all loose material at the bottom of the caisson excavation should be removed. If the caisson excavation has had standing water for 12 hours or more, prior to concrete placement, the bottom should be redrilled at least 2 more feet, and /or cleaned of all loose debris. In lieu of removing standing water prior to placing concrete (i.e., pumping water), the concrete may be placed by using the tremie method to displace collected water. The solid tremie tube shall be long enough to reach the bottom of the excavation. When concrete is being placed, the solid tremie tube must be kept full of concrete at all times, with the lower end emersed in the concrete just deposited. The concrete shall at no time be placed through the water. Adjacent piers should be spaced no closer than 8 feet apart (approximately 2.6 diameters apart for 36 -inch piers), as measured center to center and should be drilled and cast prior to working on an adjacent pier. However, a drilling system of primary and secondary holes may be proposed if sequencing does not install adjacent piers simultaneously. Pier holes should be drilled straight and plumb. Locations (both plan and elevation) and plumbness should be the contractors responsibility. Concrete and steel reinforcement should be placed in each pier hole the same day that the hole is drilled. If caving soil conditions occur, during or after drilling, the pier hole should be cased. The bottom of the casing should be at lease 4 feet below the top of the concrete as the concrete is poured and the casing withdrawn. Steel reinforcement cages, if used, should have spaces to allow for minimum spacing of steel from the side of the pier excavation. All materials used for foundation elements should be inspected and tested, as needed, by a qualified materials testing consultant for strength and mix , as needed. If H -pile reinforcement is used, built - up H -piles may be fabricated on -site, and materials used for the fabrication, as well as methodologies should also be approved by the project structural engineer and inspected prior to placement into excavations. LATERAL DEFLECTION OF EXCAVATION - ALLOWABLE DESIGN LIMITS Most deep excavations tend to exhibit a certain amount of excavation (cut face) wall deflection during construction in a direction toward the excavation. The ground movements associated with a shored excavation depend on many factors including the contractor's procedures and schedule, and, therefore, the distribution and magnitude of ground movements are difficult to predict. Based on shoring performance data for Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e:\wp71,2200 \2296a.pgi Page 26 GeoSoiils, Inc. documented excavations combined with our engineering judgment, we estimate that the ground movements associated with properly designed and carefully constructed shoring system will be as follows: Conventional H -Pile Walls with Tieback Anchors The maximum horizontal wall deflection will equal about 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of the vertical depth. The maximum horizontal movement should occur near the top of the wall and decrease with depth. The maximum settlement behind the wall should be equal to about 50 percent to 100 percent of the maximum horizontal movement and will probably occur at a distance behind the wall equal to about 25 percent to 50 percent of the excavation depth. Drilled Pier Walls /H -Piles Wails without Tiebacks The maximum horizontal wall deflection will equal about 0.5 percent to 1 percent of the vertical depth. The maximum horizontal movement should occur near the top of the wall and decrease with depth. The maximum settlement behind the wall should be equal to about 50 percent to 100 percent of the maximum horizontal movement and will probably occur at a distance behind the wall equal to about 25 percent to 50 percent of the excavation depth. The above estimate of wall movement and settlements assumes the use of raker system during construction. Allowable Settlement (Total and Differential) It is generally agreed that bearing -wall structures and plaster partitions are first cracked at an angular distortion of approximately 1/300. It is recommended that the angular distortion be limited to one -half of this amount, or 1/600 and that the absolute settlement of any column or footing be limited to 1 inch. Fill Placement All grading should conform to the guidelines presented in the current and adopted City of Encinitas Grading Code , and the requirements of the governing agencies, except where specifically superseded in the text of this report. Subsequent to completing the recommended removals and ground preparation, excavated onsite soils may be placed in thin (4± to 8± inch) lifts, cleaned of vegetation and debris, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard ASTM Test Method D -1557. If fill material is to be imported to the site for use as compacted fill, a sample of the import should first be provided to the project geotechnical engineer with enough lead time to evaluate its suitability with on site material. Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e:\wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 27 GeoSoiils, Inc. Slope Construction General All slopes should be constructed in accordance with the minimum requirements of the City of Encinitas. Slopes are anticipated to perform adequately in the future with respect to gross stability, if the soil materials are maintained in a solid or semi -solid state. Cut Slopes - Temporary Any proposed temporary cut slopes adjacent to existing buildings or against the shoring system are anticipated to be graded at gradients (horizontal to vertical) of 1:1 or flatter. Due to the anticipated removals (5 feet) and limited utility work, this is not anticipated to significantly limit site work. All cuts should be identified on the plans and reviewed by an engineer or an engineering geologist from this office prior to and during grading to allow for amendments to recommendations. The adjacent improvements (walls, utilities, etc.) elevations) should be reviewed from the City records (if available) and the plan location(s) and cross section(s) included in the project plans. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA RECOMMENDATIONS Landscape Maintenance and Planting Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of soil materials and cause expansion. Slope stability is significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Plants selected for landscaping should be light weight, deep rooted types which require little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. The soil materials should be maintained in a solid to semi -solid state as defined by the material's Atterberg Limits. Only the amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over watering the landscape areas could adversely affect proposed site improvements. We would recommend that any proposed open bottom planters adjacent to proposed structures be eliminated for a minimum distance of 10 feet. As an alternative, closed bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet placed in the bottom of the planter, could be installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. From a geotechnical standpoint leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the purpose of adding amendments they should be recompacted to 90 percent compaction. For additional information refer to the Homeowner Maintenance Guidelines included in Appendix F. Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e:\wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 28 GeoSoils, Inc. Top -of -bluff stability may be effected by the landscape configuration installed by the owner, architect and /or landscape architect. Native plants should be selected with deeper taproots, which may improve the stability of the upper portion of coastal bluff and reduce the potential for subaerial erosion. If irrigation systems are utilized surface the schedule should be reviewed by the landscape architect and should include moisture sensors (or other override devices) embedded into the soil. Landscape work should comply with AB325 and Ordinance 195. Within a period of seven years, existing landscaping should be reviewed and renovated as deemed necessary by the landscape architect. Hand planting on the bluff face should be minimized or eliminated. Site Improvements If in the future, any additional improvements are planned for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This office should be notified in advance of any additional fill placement, regrading of the site, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed. This includes any grading, utility trench, and retaining wall backfills. Drainage Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Drainage should not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations systems and not allowed to pond and /or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street or other approved area. Roof gutters and down spouts are recommended to control roof runoff. Down spouts should outlet or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to irrigation or heavy rainfall. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop, recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request. For additional recommendations about maintenance of site drainage refer to Appendix F. Footing /Pier Excavations All footing trench excavations and /or pier excavations should be observed by a representative of this office prior to placing reinforcement. Footing trench or pier spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM test method D -1557) if not removed from the site. Trenching All excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and minimally conform to CAL -OSHA and local safety codes. Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: eAwp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 29 GeoSoiis, Inc. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed to the following standards: 1. All interior utility trench backfill should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM test method D- 1557). As an alternative for shallow (12-t inches) under slab trenches, sand having a sand equivalent value of 30 or greater may be utilized. Jetted or flooded backfill as a method of placement is not recommended. Observation /probing /testing should be accomplished to verify the desired results. 2. Exterior trenches in structural areas, beneath hardscape features and in slopes, should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the trench, should not be used adjacent to perimeter footings or in trenches on slopes. Compaction testing and observation, along with probing should be performed to verify the desired results. Grading Guidelines Grading should be performed in accordance with the minimum requirements of the Grading Code of the City of Encinitas, and applicable and adopted chapters of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), and the General Grading Guidelines presented in Appendix E of this report. Corrosive Potential Corrosivity testing of the site soils was not performed for this study. Such testing can be performed, preferably subsequent to final site improvements /grading, at the client's request. Foundation excavations will encounter wet or saturated soils and will likely require the use of Type V concrete due to the brackish nature of the foundation environment. The water /cement ratio may also be modified (or admixtures used) at the structural engineers discretion to further reduce the potential for corrosion. Consideration my be given to consultation with a corrosion specialist. PLAN REVIEW Final foundation plans should be submitted to this office for review and comment as the plans become available, for the purpose of minimizing any misunderstandings between the plans and recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and earthwork construction performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. Skelly Engineering W.O. 229E -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e: \wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Pace 30 GeoSoiits, Inc. If conditions are found to differ substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time. The plans should indicate site elevations and canal embankment elevations as well as high low tide. LIMITATIONS The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are believed representative of the area; however, soil and bedrock materials vary in character between excavations and natural outcrops or conditions exposed during grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors. GSI assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or provided by others. Inasmuch as our study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing, and engineering analysis, the conclusions and recommendations herein are professional opinions. These opinions'have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice, and no warranty is expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time. Skelly Engineering W.O. 2296 -A -SC 630 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas September 30, 1997 File: e: \wp71,2200 \2296a.pgi Page 31 GeoSoils, Inc. APPENDIX A REFERENCES Appendix A REFERENCES Artim, Ernest R., 1995, Supplement to third party review of geotechnical information prepared by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc., relative to 620 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, Project No. 94 -96b, September 1. Artim, E.R., and Elder - Mills, D., 1982, The Rose Canyon fault: a review, in Abbott, P.L., ed., Geologic Studies in San Diego: San Diego Association of Geologists, April. Artim, E.R., and Streiff, D., 1981, Trenching the Rose Canyon fault zone, San Diego, California, in Woodward -Clyde Consultants Final Technical Report, contract no. 14- 08- 0001 - 19824, September. Bartling, W.A., Kies, R.P., and Abbott, P.L., 1981, Upper Cretaceous sedimentary rocks, northwestern San Diego County, in O'Dunn, S. and Abbott, P.L., eds, Geologic Investigation of the San Diego Coastal Plain: San Diego Association of Geologists. Blake, T.F., 1996, EQFAULT, EQSEARCH, and Frisk89, Computer programs Bowles, J. E., 1988, Foundation analysis and design: McGraw -Hill Book Company, New York. Campbell, K.W., 1993, Empirical prediction of near - source ground motion from large earthquakes, in Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. 1985, Strong motion attenuation relations, a ten -year perspective, in Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, T.F., eds., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. Clarke, S.H., Green, H.G., Kennedy, M.P., Vedder, J.G., and Legg, M.R., 1987, Geologic map of the inner - southern California continental margin, in Green, H.G., and Kennedy, M.P., eds., California Continental Margin Geologic Map Series: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Cooper, W.S., 1959, Coastal sand dunes of California: Geological Society of America Memoir. Curran, S.A., and Abbott, P.L., 1994, Fire history of organic fragments Cretaceous Point Loma Formation at La Jolla Bay, in Rosenberg, P.S., ed., Geology and Natural History, Camp Pendleton, United States Marine Corps Base, San Diego County, California: by the San Diego Association of Geologists. Davis, James F., 1997, Guidelines for evaluating and mitigating seismic hazards in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 117. GeoSoils, Inc. Earth Systems Design Group, 1992, Geotechnical and geologic investigation, Clayton sea bluff, 638 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, October 26. Eisenberg, L.T., 1985, Pleistocene faults and marine terraces, northern San Diego County, in Abbott, P.L., ed., On the Manner of Deposition of the Eocene Strata in Northern San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologists. Elder - Mills, D., and Artim, E.R., 1982, The Rose Canyon fault; a review, in Abbott, P.L., ed., Geologic Studies in San Diego: San Diego Association of Geologists. Emery, K.O., and Kuhn, G.G., 1980, Erosion of rock shores at La Jolla, California, in Marine Geology, v. 37. 1982, Sea cliffs: their processes, profiles, and classification: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 93, no. 7. Fisher, P.J., and Mills, G.I., 1991, The offshore Newport- Inglewood - Rose Canyon fault zone, California: structure, segmentation, and tectonics, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental Perils - San Diego Region: San Diego Association of Geologists. Flick, R.E., 1994, Shoreline erosion assessment and atlas of the San Diego region, V. I and II, December. Fulton, K., 1981, A manual for researching historical coastal erosion in Kuhn, G.G., ed., California Sea Grant Report No. T -CSGCP -003. Group Delta Consultants, Inc., 1993, Shoreline erosion evaluation, Encinitas coastline, San Diego county, California, project no. 1404 -EC01, November 3. Hart, E.W., 1994, Fault rupture hazard zones in California: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42. Hausmann, M. R., 1990, Engineering principles of ground modification: McGraw -Hill, Inc., New York. Holtz, R. D. and Kovacs, W. D., Undated, An introduction to geotechnical engineering: Prentice -Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Horrer, P.L., 1984, Wave action and related factors for proposed seawall at 6000 Camino de la Costa, dated November 28. Howell, D.G., Stuart, C.G., Platt, J.P., and Hill, D.J., 1974, Possible strike -slip faulting in the southern California Borderland: Geological Society of America Geology, v. 2, no. 2. Skelly Engineering Appendix A File: e:\wp7'2200 \2296a.pgi Page 2 GeoSoiils, Inc. Inman, D.L., 1976, Summary report of man's impact on the California coastal zone; prepared for the Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, State of California. Ishihara, K., 1985, Stability of natural deposits during earthquakes: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering: A.A. Balkema Publishers Rotterdam, Netherlands. Jenkins, S. and D. Skelly, 1986, Oceanographic considerations for the proposed seawall at 6040 Camino De La Costa. Jennings, C.W., 1994, Fault activity map of California and adjacent areas, scale 1:750,000: California Division of Mines and Geology, California Data Map Series, map no.6. Joyner, W.B, and Boore, D.M., 1982a, Estimation of response - spectral values as functions of magnitude, distance and site conditions, in Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. 1982b, Prediction of earthquake response spectra, in Johnson, J.A., Campbell, K.W., and Blake, eds., T.F., AEG Short Course, Seismic Hazard Analysis, June 18, 1994. Kennedy, M.P., 1973, Sea -cliff erosion at Sunset Cliffs, San Diego: California Geology, v. 26, February. Kennedy, M.P., and Peterson, G.L., 1975, Geology of the San Diego Metropolitan Area, California: Del Mar, La Jolla, Point Loma, La Mesa, Poway and SW' /4 Escondido 7 1 /2 minute quadrangles: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 200. Kern, J.P., 1977, Origin and history of upper Pleistocene marine terraces, San Diego, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin 88. Kuhn, G.G., and Shepard, F.P., 1984, Sea Cliffs, beaches and coastal valleys of San Diego County: some amazing histories and some horrifying implications: University of California Press, Berkeley, California, and London, England. 1983, Newly discovered evidence form the San Diego County area of some principles of coastal retreat: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Shore and Beach, January. 1981, Should southern California build defenses against violent storms resulting in lowland flooding as discovered in records of past century: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Shore and Beach, October. Skelly Engineering Appendix A File: e: \wp7 \2200 \2206a.pgi Page 3 GeoSoils, Inc. 1980a, Greatly accelerated man - induced coastal erosion and new sources of beach sand, San Onofre State Park and Camp Pendleton, northern San Diego County, California: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Shore and Beach, October. 1980b, Coastal erosion in San Diego County, California, in Edge, B.L., ed., Coastal Zone '80, Proceedings of Second Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management held in Hollywood, Florida, on 17 -20 November, 1980: American Society of Civil Engineers, v. III. 1979a, Accelerated beach -cliff erosion related to unusual storms in southern California: California Geology, March. 1979b, Coastal erosion in San Diego County, California, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Earthquakes and other perils San Diego region. Lambe, T. W., 1951, Soil testing for engineers: John Wiley & Sons, New York. Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V., 1969, Soil mechanics: John Wiley & Sons, New York. Lee, L.J., Schug, D.L., and Raines, G.L., 1990, Seacliff stabilization, Seacliff Park (Swami's), beach access stairway, Encinitas, California, in Geotechnical Engineering Case Histories in San Diego County: San Diego Association of Geologist, October 20 Field Trip Guide Book. . Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1983, City of San Diego Seismic Safety Study, June. Legg, M.R., 1985, Geologic structure and tectonics of the inner continental borderland offshore northern Baja California, Mexico, unpublished doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of California, Santa Barbara. 1989, Faulting and seismotectonics of the inner continental borderland west of San Diego, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, Workshop on The Seismic Risk in the San Diego Region: Special Focus on the Rose Canyon Fault System. Legg, M.R., and Kennedy, M.P., 1991, Oblique divergence and convergence in the California Continental Borderland, in Abbott, P.L., and Elliott, W.J., eds., Environmental Perils - San Diego Region: San Diego Association of Geologists. Lindivall, S.C., Rockwell, T.K., and Lindivall, E.C., 1989, The seismic hazard of San Diego revised: new evidence for magnitude 6+ Holocene earthquakes on the Rose Canyon fault zone, in Roquemore, G., ed., Proceedings, workshop on The Seismic Risk in the San Diego Region: Special Focus on the Rose Canyon Fault System. Masters, P.M., 1996, Paleocoastlines, ancient harbors, and marine archaeology: Geological Society of America Bulletin, Shore and Beach, July. Skelly Engineering Appendix A File: e:\wp7\2200 \2296a.pgi Page 4 GeoSoiits, Inc. Matti, J.C., and Morton, D.M., 1993, Paleogeographic evolution of the San Andreas fault in southern California: A reconstruction based on a new cross -fault correlation, in Powell, R.E., Weldon, R.J. II, and Matti, J. C., eds., The San Andreas Fault System: Displacement, Palinspastic Reconstruction, and Geologic Evolution: Geological Society of America Memoir 178. Matti, J.C., Morton, D.M., and Cox, B.F., 1992, The San Andreas fault system in the vicinity of the central Transverse Ranges Province, southern California, in Sieh, K.E., and Matti, J.C., eds., Earthquake Geology San Andreas Fault System, Palm Springs to Palmdale. Mitchell, J. K., 1976, Fundamentals of soil behavior: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Morton, D.M., and Matti, J.C., 1993, Extension and contraction within an evolving divergent strike -slip fault complex: The San Andreas and San Jacinto fault zones at their convergence in southern California, in Powell, R.E., Weldon, R.J. II, and Matti, J. C., eds., The San Andreas Fault System: Displacement, Palinspastic Reconstruction, and Geologic Evolution: Geological Society of America Memoir 178. Munk, W.H., and Traylor, M.A., 1947, Refraction of ocean waves: a process linking underwater topography to beach erosion: Journal of Geology, v. LV, no. 1. Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 1986a, Soil mechanics, design manual 7.01, Change 1 September: United States Navy. 1986b, Foundations and earth structures, DM 7.02, Change 1 September: United States Navy. 1983, Soil dynamics, deep stabilization, and special geotechnical construction, design manual 7.3, April: United States Navy. Ninyo & Moore, 1989, Limited geotechnical evaluation for feasibility of purchase, 678 Neptune, Encinitas, California, Project No. 101224 -01, April 12. Nordstrom, C.E., and Inman, D.L., 1973, Beach and cliff erosion in San Diego County, California, in Ross, A., and Dowden, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Greater San Diego Area, California: the San Diego Association of Geologists, and the Association of Engineering Geologists. San Diego, City of, 1953, San Diego, San Diego County California metropolitan area, 1 inch = 200 feet, topographic survey, complied by Fairchild Aerial Survey, Inc. Schumm, S.A., and Mosley, P.M., 1973, Slope morphology: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc. Skelly Engineering Appendix A File: e:\wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 5 GeoSoiis, Inc. Seed, H. B., 1976, Evaluation of soil liquefaction effects on level ground during earthquakes, state -of -art paper, liquefaction problem: Geotechnical Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Preprint 2753, New York. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., 1982, Ground motions and soil liquefaction during earthquakes: Earthquake Engineering Research Institute monograph. 1971, A simplified procedure for evaluating soil liquefaction potential: American Society of Civil Engineers, JSMFD, v. 197. Seed, H. B. , Idriss, I. M. and Arango, I., 1983, Evaluation of liquefaction potential using field performance data: American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, v. 109. Seed, H. B., Tokimatsu, K., Harder, L. F., and Chung, R. M., 1985, Influence of SPT procedures in soil liquefaction resistance evaluations: Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, v. 111, no. GR12, p. 1425 -1445. Shepard, F.P., and Kuhn, G.G., 1983, History of sea arches and remnant stacks of La Jolla, California, and their bearing on similar features elsewhere: Marine Geology, v. 51 Shepard, F.P., and Grant, U.S. IV, 1947, Wave erosion along the southern California coast: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 58, Shore and Beach, October. Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc., 1994, Stability of erosion control walls on bluff face, 620 Neptune Avenue, Encinitas, California, SCS &T 8921191, October 10. Streiff, D., Schmoll, M., and Artim, E.R., 1982, The Rose Canyon fault at Sprindrift Drive, La Jolla, California, in Abbott, P.L., ed., Geologic Studies in San Diego: San Diego Association of Geologists. Sunamura, T., 1977, A relationship between wave - induced cliff erosion and erosive forces of waves: Journal of Geology, v. 85. Sylvester, A.G., 1988, Strike slip faults: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 100, p. 1666 -1703 Terzaghi, K., and Peck, Ralph B., 1967, Soil mechanics in engineering practice: John Wiley & Sons, New York, second edition. Treiman, J.A., 1984, The Rose Canyon fault zone, a review and analysis: The California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Cooperative Agreement EMF -83 -k -0148. Trenhaile, A.S., 1987, The geomorphology of rock coasts: Clarendon Press, Oxford. Skelly Engineering Appendix A File: e: \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 6 GeoSoiils, Inc. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 1984a, Shore protection manual. 1984b, Nearshore bathymetric survey report, no 1, CCSTWS 84 -2. 1988, Coastal cliff segments San Diego region (1887- 1947), CCSTWS 88 -8. 1989, Historic wave and sea level data report San Diego region, CCSTWS 88 -6. 1991, State of the coast report San Diego region, CCSTWS 91. Weber, F.H., 1982, Geologic map of north- central coastal area of San Diego County, California, showing recent slop failures and pre - development landslides: California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, OFR 82 -12 LA. Wilson, K.L., 1972, Eocene and related geology of a portion of the San Luis Rey and Encinitas quadrangles, San Diego County, California: unpublished masters thesis, University of California, Riverside. Zeevaert, L., 1972, Foundation engineering for difficult subsoil conditions: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company Regional Offices, New York. Ziony, J.I., 1973, Recency of faulting in the greater San Diego area, California, in Ross, A., and Dowlen, R.J., eds., Studies on the Geology and Geologic Hazards of the Greater San Diego Area, California: San Diego Association of Geologists and Association of Engineering Geologists. Skelly Engineering Appendix A File: eAwp7\2200 \2296a.pgi Page 7 GeoSoiis, Inc. APPENDIX B BORING LOGS BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. 0. 2296 -A -SC PROJECT: SKELLY ENGINEERING BORING B -1 SHEET 1 OF 3 630 Neptune DATE EXCAVATED 8 -7 -97 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Modified Cal Sampler -- } v + a o Standard Penetration Test T } ^ L + 4j Water Seepage into hole L N vl a o n u n ( ® Undisturbed, Ring Sample + )C •- D 3 fn n a N 7 CL — 'D L O U E 3 `• •- + m c:I — v, a L o to Description of Material ❑ m ❑ + m ❑ w ❑ 1: V) P Sw LINDAVISTA FORMATION @ 0', SANDSTONE, brownish orange, moist, dense; fine to coarse, slightly silty. 5 10 34 108.4 6.2 31.0 '.: @ 10', SANDSTONE, brownish orange, damp, dense; fine to coarse, slightly silty. 15 20 j 32 98.5 3.8 14.9 @ 20', SANDSTONE, yellowish gray, dry to damp, medium dense; fine to coarse, slightly silty, micaceous. I 25 i i I 630 Neptune GeoSoils, Inc. PLATE B-1 I BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W O. 2296 -A -SC PROJECT.- SKELLY ENGINEERING BORING 8-1 SHEET 2 OF 3 630 Neptune DATE EXCAVATED 8 -7 -97 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Modified Cal Sampler ^ + •: I a o 4- St Penetration Test - + L + ® s� Water Seepage into hole ' 'a \ — C 4- ro Undisturbed, Ring Sample .0 N 0) N O M + L °' ' c' — v, a L o ro Description of Material o m + m cn o Z: V) P 54 SW NR UNDAVISTA FORMATION @ 30', SANDSTONE, yellowish gray, damp, dense; fine to coarse, slightly silty. 35 40 40, SANDSTONE, gra y 55 98.2 2.8 10.8 '� - @° ' yellowish ra dr dense; fine to coarse, silghtly silty. 45 50 65 96.6 2.0 7.5 @ 50', SANDSTONE, yellowish gray, dry, dense; fine to coarse, slightly silty. 55 I I GeoSoils, Inc. 630 Neptune PLA TE B BORING LOG GeoSoils, Inc. W. O 2296 -A -SC PROJECT. SKELLY ENGINEERING BORING B -1 SHEET 3 OF 3 630 Neptune DATE EXCAVATED 8 -7 -97 Sample SAMPLE METHOD: Modified Cal Sampler + a o ` Standard Penetration Test *- a + ® % Water Seepage into hole C - 0 m Undisturbed, Ring Sample L N d N O Z) + L + �C •- 3 (n -0 d N 7 (L - U L O U E T W ' C ' — N z L a M Description of Material ❑ m ❑ + CO ❑ w ❑ r - V) 84 SW 95.1 6.0 21.4 LINDAVISTA FORMATION @ 60', SANDSTONE, orangish yellowish gray, dry to damp, very dense; fine to coarse, slightly silty. 65 @ 68', few gravels at contact. SW TORREY SANDSTONE 70 @ 68', SANDSTONE, orangish gray, moist, very dense; fine to coarse, moderately cemented, slightly silty. @ 70', as per 68'. Total Depth = 70 1/2' No Groundwater Encountered Backfilled 8/7/97 75 I 80 85 I I I I I ! r 63 1 0 Neptune GeoSoils, Inc. e 3 PLATE APPENDIX C EQSEARCH, AND FRISK89 DATA p m rn m :: Z00 Z I o 0 0 0 o Z �`� U 00 r - _ ca d p O +: LLJ o Q z I II II II II II ¢ m Ln c I O I a �x w I O o O O O a x C C C) O J J Q z O _N r Q Q x O / x x x Q x x �x x O W x x 00 x x z x x< x � x x x x � ®x LLI x x x x Q xZ YX x x X (n �J w � X-X a z Li Q z v z W w Q ° U O zi U v Q U CL U� V7 c U n Q rn Z LL N w co w Z z p N U z a� w � a U Z � � I Q I N � z 0) N O N Q Lli O r O Z W O m W m O W N C�3 U o � U w Q z C � z > o_ W < U � z w Q J W W U xz W U X ° W L� O m V) Cl) U o Ln o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0�0 o m ao r- co Ln Id- rr� N O :]ONb'a]:]OX] A0 /kiFIGV90�id n (n � woo D �. cn o Ln o E N Ln X w M U a� a U I Q f rn N (N Z 0 z Q m � O W N — � o W U ^ Q z � o > Q o w _o -' Li � U W U r- Q 0 z I z w Q uj w o CD z Q � N w 00 0) Q O .� O O O W O Of O O O O O m C ( aoid :ld N�jnii�j iisd2�ind a Q� z w z o � �o �t U d �a a Z U Q (.n W � � Q N � z � N O O N Q o Z N � W O J � U J w Q ^ CL .� Q U > O W Q U Q:� z LLJ Q w r U W Q U X W LL- 0 m Q 00 m Q) Q) o N Ln o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 00 Q o 0 ao r cD in d r7 N .— O (�) :]3Nb'a ]1]OX]] -J 0 /1ET8d80dd W00 cn O Un 0 a. N u) X w LO U m �a U a I I rn N N O Z � z N Q O m LLJ � O J W U U Q z o > Q LLJ o w _O J w cl� U W U Cl- o Q z w CL Li Z CD w Q W N Q O a) O co 0 Y N .0 m Y N 0 oD Y O c O O O 0 O O O ¢ d7 V/ (SJDa�C� adidld Ndnl:id isddind � J d J N W Z CO a_ O :2 M ¢ co U APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS APPENDIX D SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS XSTABL Computer Program Introduction XSTABL is a fully integrated slope stability analysis program. It permits the engineer to develop the slope geometry interactively and perform slope analysis from within a single program. The slope analysis portion of XSTABL uses a modified version of the popular STABL program, originally developed at Purdue University. XSTABL performs a two dimensional limit equilibrium analysis to compute the factor of safety for a layered slope using the modified Bishop or Janbu methods. This program can be used to search for the most critical surface or the factor of safety may be determined for specific surfaces. XSTABL, Version 5.10, is programmed to handle: 1. Heterogenous soil systems 2. Anisotropic soil strength properties 3. Reinforced slopes 4. Nonlinear Mohr - Coulomb strength envelope 5. Pore water pressures for effective stress analysis using: a. Phreatic and piezometric surfaces b. Pore pressure grid c. R factor d. Constant pore water pressure 6. Pseudo - static earthquake loading 7. Surcharge boundary loads 8. Automatic generation and analysis of an unlimited number of circular, noncircular and block- shaped failure surfaces 9. Analysis of right- facing slopes 10. Both SI and Imperial units General Information If the reviewer wishes to obtain more information concerning slope stability analysis, the following publications may be consulted initially: 1. The Stability of Slopes by E.N. Bromhead, Surrey University Press, Chapman and Hall, 374 pages, ISBN 412 01061 5, 1985. 2. Rock Slope Engineering by E. Hoek and J.W. Bray, Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, London, England, Third Edition, 358 pages, ISNB 0 900488 573, 1981. 3. Landslides: Analysis and Control by R.L. Schuster and R.J. Krizek (editors), Special Report 176, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, 234 pages, ISBN 0 309 02804 3. 1978. XSTABL Features The present version of XSTABL contains the following features: 1. Allows user to calculate factors of safety for static stability and dynamic stability situations. 2. Allows user to analyze stability situations with different failure modes. 3. Allows user to edit input for slope geometry and calculate corresponding factor of safety. 4. Allows user to readily review on- screen the input slope geometry. 5. Allows user to automatically generate and analyze unlimited number of circular, non - circular and block- shaped failure surfaces (i.e., bedding plane, slide plane, etc.). Input Data Input data includes the following items: 1. Unit weight, residual cohesion, residual friction angle, peak cohesion, and peak friction angle.of fill material, bedding plane, and bedrock, respectively. Residual cohesion and friction angle is used for static stability analysis, whereas peak cohesion and friction angle is for dynamic stability analysis. 2. Slope geometry and surcharge boundary loads. 3. Apparent dip of bedding plane can be specified in angular range (i.e., from 0 to 90 degrees. 4. Pseudo - static earthquake loading (an earthquake loading of 0.25 g was used in the analysis). Seismic Discussion Seismic stability analyses were approximated using a pseudo- static approach. The major difficulty in the pseudo- static approach arises from the appropriate selection of the seismic coefficient used in the analysis. The use of a static inertia force equal to this acceleration during an earthquake (rigid -body response) would be extremely conservative for several reasons including: 1. Only low height, stiff /dense embankments or embankments in confined areas may respond essentially as rigid structures; Skelly Engineering Appendix D File: e: \wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 2 2. An earthquake's inertia force is enacted on a mass for a short time period. Therefore, replacing a transient force by a pseudo- static force representing the maximum acceleration is considered unrealistic; 3. Assuming that total pseudo- static loading is applied evenly throughout the embankment for an extended period of time is an incorrect assumption, as the length of the failure surface analyzed is usually much greater than the wave length of seismic waves generated by earthquakes; and 4. The seismic waves would place portions of the mass in compression and some in tension, resulting in only a limited portion of the failure surface analyzed moving in a downslope direction, at any one instant of time. The coefficients usually suggested by regulating agencies, counties and municipalities are in the range of 0.05 g to 0.25 g. For example, past regulatory guidelines within the city and county of Los Angeles indicated that the slope stability pseudostatic coefficient = 0.15 g. The method developed by Krinitzsky, Gould, and Edinger (1993), which was in turn based on Taniguchi and Sasaki, 1986, (T &S, 1986), was referenced. This method is based on empirical data and the performance of existing earth embankments during seismic loading. Our review of "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," (Davis, 1997) indicates the State of California recommends using a pseudo- static coefficient of 0.15 for design earthquakes M 8.25 or greater and using 0.1 for earthquake parameter M 6.5. Therefore, a seismic coefficient of 0.10 was used. Seismic Deformation Seismic deformation is estimated based on the Dr. K. Lee's method (1977), which is a modification of the original Newmark's method (1965) and which is modified by Goodman and Seed (1966). In this method, the seismic deformation is estimated based on the earthquake magnitude (M), yield acceleration (a ), and maximum horizontal ground acceleration (a .) For all ground accelerations less than yield acceleration the factor of safety against sliding is greater than 1.0 and hense these low accelerations will not induce any sliding motion to occur. The yield acceleration of 0.35 g and maximum horizontal ground acceleration of 0.39 g were used in the calculation of seismic deformation. The results indicate that the seismic deformation is on the order of 1 inch. Output Information Output information includes: 1. All input data. 2. Factors of safety for the ten most critical surfaces for static and pseudo- static stability situation. Skelly Engineering Appendix D File: e:\wp7\2200 \2296a.pgi Page 3 3. High quality plots can be generated. The plots include the slope geometry, the critical surfaces and the factor of safety. 4. Note, that in the analysis, a minimum of 50 trial surfaces were analyzed for each section for either static or pseudo- static analyses. Results of Slope Stability Calculation Table D -1 shows the soil parameters used in slope stability calculations. Detailed output information for the most critical analyses are presented in Plates D -1 to D -55. Summaries of the fill slope analysis are presented in Table D -2. Table D -1 PEAK VALUES` SOIL MATERIALS C (PSF) (DEGREES) Lindavista Formation 390 32. Torrey Sandstone 1200 35 Table D -2 FACTORS OF SAFETY:; SLOPE SLOPE STABILITY CONFIGURATION GRADIENT .` STATIC SEISMIC REMARKS Gross Section A -A' varies from 1.340 1.127 Bishop w/o seawall 1.1:1 to 0.5:1 Gross Section A -A' 1.4:1 2.383 1.997 Bishop w/37' seawall (shallow) Gross Section A -A' 1.4:1 1.730 1.494 Bishop w/37 seawall (deep) Gross Section A -A' 1.4:1 2.018 1.721 Bishop w/27' seawall (shallow) Gross Section A -A' 1.4:1 1.694 1.452 Bishop w/27 seawall dee Skelly Engineering Appendix D File: e:\wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 4 Z SEEPAGE PARALLEL TO SLOPE I LINDAVISTA TORREY FORMATION SANDSTONE Depth of Saturation (z) = 4 4 Slope Angle (1) (for 2:1 slopes) 50 75 Unit Weight of Water (5 62.4 62.4 Saturated Unit of Soil (5sAT) 115 125 Apparent Angle of Internal Friction 25 30 Apparent Cohesion (c) = 185 600 Fs, Static Safety Factor = — L" 5 4 AT -6 ) Cos Tan ( (b) +C z (6sAT) Sin (1) Cos (1) A, ;t *, Critical Acceleration, proportion of g. _ (FS -1) Sin (1) STATIC F.S. ** DEPTH OF LINDAVISTA TORREY LINDAVISTA TORREY SATURATION FORMATION SANDSTONE FORMATION SANDSTONE 4 feet 0.99 1 4.8 0.0 3.7 *Fundamentals of Earthquake Engineering, 1993. * *Acceleration needed to induce failure. Skelly Engineering Appendix D File: e: \wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Page 5 0 N 3 ' � O M N V) O 00 O U n O _ to m �- n Z N Z_ O N � X V) Q cu U X U � o Q � V) cn — U to a Q U Z O o F— N 0 W O M a� r- rn O 0 0 0 0 0 0 M N co M N Oaaj) slxv — .l PLATE D -1 XSTABL File: S2 9 -19 -97 14:21 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 d 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.005 94 a 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 7 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 51.0 20.0 2 3 51.0 20.0 60.0 35.0 2 4 60.0 35.0 113.5 80.0 1 5 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 6 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 7 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 51.0 20.0 220.0 22.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. PLATE D -2 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 ,0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED PLATE D -3 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 77.5 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 10.0 ft and x = 70.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 160.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 9.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ (slope angle - 5.0) degrees ------------------------------------------------------------ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------------------------------ Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface PLATE D -4 is specified by 16 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 16.06 2 58.18 19.82 3 66.26 23.78 4 74.23 27.95 5 82.10 32.32 6 89.85 36.89 7 97.49 41.66 8 105.00 46.62 9 112.38 51.77 10 119.63 57.10 11 126.74 62.61 12 133.71 68.31 13 140.53 74.18 14 147.21 80.22 15 153.72 86.43 16 159.28 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.340 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.340 -93.88 339.74 354.22 50.00 159.28 6.945E +07 2. 1.353 -41.47 189.21 195.83 50.00 128.48 2.163E +07 3. 1.355 - 274.19 536.64 613.28 50.00 148.17 8.900E +07 4. 1.395 - 161.06 334.69 382.20 50.00 134.16 4.219E +07 5. 1.402 8.25 189.09 166.83 56.67 143.88 2.102E +07 6. 1.429 55.17 107.09 77.66 56.67 131.23 1.042E +07 7. 1.483 26.55 100.12 87.27 50.00 110.89 8.768E +06 8. 1.496 39.71 104.38 99.34 36.67 138.20 3.058E +07 9. 1.517 61.30 137.70 99.91 63.33 150.12 1.502E +07 10. 1.525 56.09 118.26 76.13 70.00 127.44 4.963E +06 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -5 0 N ' 3 � O N �— N � O O o0 II C O 2 (n O m Z N _ X (n Q U U X � L O V) O w N (n — Q � Q U Z } O N 0 N U � M n rn I rn I rn O O O O O O O M N O M in Oaa j) SIxv —/� PLATE D -6 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges - specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 51.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .100 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load (s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 PLATE D -8 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT'LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 77.5 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 10.0 ft and x = 70.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 160.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 9.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees ------------------------------------------------------------ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------------------------------ PLATE D -9 Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 16 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 16.06 2 58.18 19.82 3 66.26 23.78 4 74.23 27.95 5 82.10 32.32 6 89.85 36.89 7 97.49 41.66 8 105.00 46.62 9 112.38 51.77 10 119.63 57.10 11 126.74 62.61 12 133.71 68.31 13 140.53 74.18 14 147.21 80.22 15 153.72 86.43 16 159.28 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.127 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description SECTION A -A', SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.127 -93.88 339.74 354.22 50.00 159.28 6.641E +07 2. 1.152 - 274.19 536.64 613.28 50.00 148.17 8.502E +07 3. 1.173 -41.47 189.21 195.83 50.00 128.48 2.068E +07 4. 1.195 8.25 189.09 166.83 56.67 143.88 2.018E +07 5. 1.206 - 161.06 334.69 382.20 50.00 134.16 4.038E +07 6. 1.240 55.17 107.09 77.66 56.67 131.23 1.003E +07 7. 1.287 61.30 137.70 99.91 63.33 150.12 1.450E +07 8. 1.290 26.55 100.12 87.27 50.00 110.89 8.430E +06 9. 1.310 39.71 104.38 99.34 36.67 138.20 2.958E +07 10. 1.331 47.32 106.39 100.70 43.33 146.89 3.464E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -10 O N 3 M I o 00 N I II C I O O I 00 O c I o o � Z N x V x U � o a �- N V — Q U O N 0 F- o � t2 W O M rn i rn � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 LO N O M Oaaj) SIXd — .l N PLATE D -1 1 XSTABL File: S3A 9 -19 -97 15:06 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.005 94 a 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 37.0 2 3 47.6 37.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -12 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: PLATE D -13 Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 37.0 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 92.0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced F along the ground surface between x = 48.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 6.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit :_ (slope angle - 5.0) degrees ------------------------------------------------------------ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------------------------------ Factors of safety have been calculated by the : PLATE D -14 * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 22 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 48.00 37.26 2 54.00 37.39 3 59.98 37.80 4 65.94 38.49 5 71.87 39.46 6 77.74 40.71 7 83.54 42.23 8 89.27 44.02 9 94.90 46.07 10 100.44 48.39 11 105.86 50.97 12 111.15 53.80 13 116.30 56.87 14 121.31 60.18 15 126.15 63.72 16 130.82 67.48 17 135.31 71.46 18 139.61 75.65 19 143.71 80.03 20 147.59 84.60 21 151.26 89.35 22 153.12 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.383 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 2.383 48.25 165.17 127.91 48.00 153.12 3.109E +07 2. 2.462 62.70 123.28 82.57 54.00 139.06 1.661E +07 3. 2.493 71.80 147.95 110.70 51.00 167.29 3.547E +07 4. 2.497 65.00 148.53 101.50 63.00 149.28 1.836E +07 5. 2.515 53.59 167.13 122.21 60.00 149.93 2.223E +07 6. 2.571 72.09 163.64 126.20 51.00 175.77 4.338E +07 7. 2.693 80.98 96.22 52.35 63.00 133.15 9.961E +06 8. 2.720 81.03 157.89 103.19 75.00 160.42 1.750E +07 9. 2.725 26.67 180.15 143.01 51.00 139.25 2.392E +07 10. 2.729 61.79 139.93 89.26 69.00 137.04 1.105E +07 PLATE D -15 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -16 0 N 3� � � N I I � cn O O O , Cn o m � LO N z N co X vi Q a� I U X O C/) rn w cn to - - U Q L � Q V z ----- - - - - -8 O U) 0 o }— E U O w O M (') rn rn o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln N O M Cl PLATE D -17 XSTABL File: D3A 9 -19 -97 15:10 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.005 94 a 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description : SECTION A -A', SEISMIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 37.0 2 3 47.6 37.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0,,. 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit (s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -18 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .100 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed PLATE D -19 force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 37.0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 48.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 6.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees ------------------------------------------------------------ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------------------------------ PLATE D -20 Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 22 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 48.00 37.26 2 54.00 37.39 3 59.98 37.80 4 65.94 38.49 5 71.87 39.46 6 77.74 40.71 7 83.54 42.23 8 89.27 44.02 9 94.90 46.07 10 100.44 48.39 11 105.86 50.97 12 111.15 53.80 13 116.30 56.87 14 121.31 60.18 15 126.15 63.72 16 130.82 67.48 17 135.31 71.46 18 139.61 75.65 19 143.71 80.03 20 147.59 84.60 21 151.26 89.35 22 153.12 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.997 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.997 48.25 165.17 127.91 48.00 153.12 3.041E +07 2. 2.035 69.39 149.58 114.34 48.00 168.13 3.807E +07 3. 2.084 72.09 163.64 126.20 51.00 175.77 4.258E +07 4. 2.102 65.00 148.53 101.50 63.00 149.28 1.799E +07 5. 2.107 62.70 123.28 82.57 54.00 139.06 1.627E +07 G. 2.114 53.59 167.13 122.21 60.00 149.93 2.177E +07 7. 2.166 61.26 216.70 171.61 60.00 178.56 4.466E +07 PLATE D -21 8. 2.171 80.99 158.89 118.22 57.00 178.13 3.832E +07 9. 2.185 70.85 153.37 100.45 72.00 150.36 1.472E +07 10. 2.219 -31.07 427.88 397.23 51.00 179.94 9.860E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -22 0 N r 3 CD II I cn I O I 00 o (n I o m I `n z o � N oo X N Q N I U X U � 0 < 0) � N V) — a Q U O o F-- C� o U Sri W O O V) M r rn I rn i O O O O O p p LO N CO M N 0 SIXd -,� PLATE D -23 XSTABL File: S3 9 -19 -97 15:00 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 d 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * Ver. 5.005 94 d 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 37.0 2 3 47.6 37.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -24 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: PLATE D -25 Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 37.0 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 77.5 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 20.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 160.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 9.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PLATE D -26 The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 20 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 26.11 3.99 2 35.05 2.93 3 44.04 2.62 4 53.03 3.08 5 61.95 4.30 6 70.73 6.27 7 79.31 8.98 8 87.63 12.41 9 95.63 16.54 10 103.25 21.32 11 110.44 26.74 12 117.14 32.75 13 123.31 39.30 14 128.90 46.36 15 133.87 53.86 16 138.18 61.76 17 141.81 69.99 18 144.73 78.51 19 146.92 87.24 20 147.69 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.730 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.730 43.14 108.56 105.95 26.11 147.69 4.857E +07 2. 1.730 39.04 121.95 120.11 20.00 155.28 5.902E +07 3. 1.733 38.13 129.69 127.63 20.00 160.05 6.452E +07 4. 1.740 40.41 124.47 122.82 20.00 158.83 6.269E +07 5. 1.741 40.00 126.70 124.95 20.00 160.00 6.412E +07 6. 1.742 44.07 122.26 119.62 26.11 159.72 6.062E +07 7. 1.749 42.87 122.22 121.04 20.00 160.01 6.349E +07 8. 1.753 46.58 107.59 105.60 26.11 151.01 5.129E +07 9. 1.755 43.71 102.97 102.39 20.00 145.42 4.876E +07 10. 1.758 44.65 117.79 117.05 20.00 158.75 6.186E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -27 O N 3 � I o mot i N I II I cn I o o I co V) I o m I `n 4- Z N X (n Q N I U U X � � o V) rn W N V) — Q U I •� O Q U ZO o ---- - - - - -- n ~ E c� U �r W O o V) M n rn I I rn p O O O O O O M N 07 cD M (�Gej) slxv —,� PLATE D -28 XSTABL File: D3 9 -19 -97 14:27 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.005 94 a 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description : SECTION A -A', SEISMIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 40.0 2 3 47.6 40.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -29 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) F Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PHREATIC SURFACE, *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .100 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed PLATE D -30 force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 37.0 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77,5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 77.5 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 20.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 160.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 9.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees PLATE D -31 Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 22 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 3.36 2 28.95 2.40 3 37.94 2.07 4 46.94 2.37 5 55.89 3.31 6 64.75 4.88 7 73.48 7.06 8 82.04 9.86 9 90.37 13.25 10 98.45 17.22 11 106.23 21.75 12 113.66 26.82 13 120.73 32.40 14 127.38 38.46 15 133.58 44.98 16 139.32 51.91 17 144.55 59.24 18 149.25 66.91 19 153.40 74.90 20 156.97 83.16 21 159.96 91.65 22 160.05 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.494 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.494 38.13 129.69 127.63 20.00 160.05 6.374E +07 2. 1.502 40.00 126.70 124.95 20.00 160.00 6.336E +07 3. 1.503 40.41 124.53 122.88 20.00 158.89 6.202E +07 4. 1.510 42.87 122.22 121.04 20.00 160.01 6.274E +07 5. 1.513 42.86 105.71 103.09 26.11 144.95 4.565E +07 6. 1.518 45.31 109.62 107.36 26.11 151.18 5.105E +07 7. 1.521 44.66 117.85 117.11 20.00 158.81 6.122E +07 8. 1.522 46.89 116.84 114.75 26.11 158.83 5.854E +07 9. 1.522 42.89 101.82 99.26 26.11 141.62 4.280E +07 PLATE D -32 10. 1.523 44.42 112.32 111.66 20.00 154.20 5.641E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -33 N Q N 3� co { O { N N { { II { 0 ( 00 n { O { Ln { O m { � � N Z o � N X (n Q U I U X U � `;- O Q � rn V) V) — Q Q U � z N -- - - - - -8 _ o N E `� U w O rn rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 to N m c0 r4) W T r- N PLATE D -34 XSTABL File: S3B 9 -19 -97 14:42 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.005 94 a 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 27.0 2 3 47.6 27.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 1151.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -35 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit (s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface (s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) ~ Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: PLATE D -36 Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 27.0 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 77.5 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 50.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 7.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees ------------------------------------------------------- USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------------------------- PLATE D -37 Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 19 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No.. (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 28.93 2 56.98 29.52 3 63.91 30.49 4 70.77 31.85 5 77.55 33.59 6 84.23 35.71 7 90.77 38.19 8 97.17 41.03 9 103.40 44.22 10 109.44 47.75 11 115.28 51.61 12 120.90 55.80 13 126.27 60.28 14 131.38 65.06 15 136.23 70.12 16 140.78 75.43 17 145.03 80.99 18 148.96 86.78 19 152.10 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 2.018 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 2.018 42.90 154.65 125.92 50.00 152.10 3.207E +07 2. 2.091 61.30 117.01 83.81 55.56 141.29 1.885E +07 3. 2.135 59.69 147.47 107.46 63.89 151.67 2.139E +07 4. 2.137 12.09 190.80 166.26 50.00 145.76 3.376E +07 S. 2.164 67.84 105.49 70.50 58.33 136.98 1.502E +07 6. 2.170 68.97 142.30 112.30 52.78 169.37 3.920E +07 7. 2.177 70.62 137.86 105.54 55.56 165.66 3.381E +07 8. 2.190 58.51 178.41 147.36 52.78 177.51 5.091E +07 9. 2.218 79.65 112.54 71.39 66.67 147.99 1.533E +07 10. 2.228 46.21 159.56 119.00 66.67 144.11 1.819E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -38 0 N 3 • I N { o r` 1 N r- { I I { V) { o 0 { LL { r 0 { LO m { C r G ♦- z o � ® r V J X (n Q m I U U X � � o w cn vi - Q } Q U � 0 z o -- - - - - -8 N U rn i rn i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln N cD NO PLATE D -39 XSTABL File: D3B 9 -19 -97 15:21 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the *- * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.005 94 a 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description : SECTION A -A', SEISMIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 27.0 2 3 47.6 27.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -40 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PHREATIC SURFACE, Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .100 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed PLATE D -41 force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 27.0 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5, 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 92.0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 50.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 7.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit :_ -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees PLATE D -42 ------------------------------------------------------------ USER SELECTED option to maintain strength greater than zero ------------------------------------------------------------ Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 19 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 50.00 28.93 2 56.98 29.52 3 63.91 30.49 4 70.77 31.85 5 77.55 33.59 6 84.23 35.71 7 90.77 38.19 8 97.17 41.03 9 103.40 44.22 10 109.44 47.75 11 115.28 51.61 12 120.90 55.80 13 126.27 60.28 14 131.38 65.06 15 136.23 70.12 16 140.78 75.43 17 145.03 80.99 18 148.96 86.78 19 152.10 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.721 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.721 42.90 154.65 125.92 50.00 152.10 3.124E +07 2. 1.803 58.51 178.41 147.36 52.78 177.51 4.973E +07 3. 1.812 61.30 117.01 83.81 55.56 141.29 1.840E +07 4. 1.815 68.97 142.30 112.30 52.78 169.37 3.834E +07 5. 1.817 59.69 147.47 107.46 63.89 151.67 2.088E +07 6. 1.828 70.62 137.86 105.54 55.56 165.66 3.307E +07 PLATE D -43 7. 1.834 12.09 190.80 166.26 50.00 145.76 3.286E +07 8. 1.874 -92.68 492.57 485.10 50.00 179.94 1.293E +08 9. 1.887 67.84 105.49 70.50 58.33 136.98 1.468E +07 10. 1.907 79.65 112.54 71.39 66.67 147.99 1.502E +07 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -44 0 N T 3 rn I o � I N II I cn I o O I co o � I o m I `O z o �-• � N � VT < U U a X Q � cn — a Q } Q U to `2 w O o � � M n rn I I rn O O O O O O Q LO N M CO M Q T• T • PLATE D -45 XSTABL File: S3AA 9 -19 -97 15:55 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 * Interactive Software Designs, Inc. * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * * All Rights Reserved * * * Ver. 5.005 94 a 1288 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC ----------------------------- SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES ----------------------------- 6 SURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 .0 1.3 47.5 6.2 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 27.0 2 3 47.6 27.0 113.5 80.0 2 4 113.5 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 5 114.0 92.0 173.0 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 -------------------------- ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters -------------------------- 2 Soil unit(s) specified Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Water' Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Parameter Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Ru (psf) No. 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -46 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit (s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 Direction Counterclockwise c -value U -value Range No. Direction Limit (deg) (psf) (degrees) 1 .00 1200.0 35.00 2 5.00 1200.0 33.00 3 90.00 1200.0 35.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points PHREATIC SURFACE, *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 .0 NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary c 2 segments: PLATE D -47 Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 47.5 3.0 48.5 3.0 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 27.0 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 92.0 A critical failure surface searching method, using a random technique for generating CIRCULAR surfaces has been specified. 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface between x = 20.0 ft and x = 75.0 ft Each surface terminates between x = 82.0 ft and x = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, the minimum elevation at which a surface extends is y = .0 ft * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 9.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD PLATE D -48 The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 22 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 3.36 2 28.97 2.58 3 37.96 2.39 4 46.95 2.80 5 55.90 3.82 6 64.75 5.43 7 73.48 7.63 8 82.04 10.41 g 90.39 13.76 10 98.51 17.65 11 106.34 22.08 12 113.86 27.03 13 121.03 32.47 14 127.82 38.37 15 134.21 44.72 16 140.15 51.47 17 145.63 58.61 18 150.62 66.10 19 155.10 73.91 20 159.04 82.00 21 162.43 90.34 22 162.98 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.694 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', STATIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting coord x -coord x -coord Moment (BISHOP) x (ft) y (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 121.62 119.09 26.00 162.98 6.477E+0 1. 1.694 36.25 159.95 5.736E +0 2. 1.696 44.70 20-00 148.37 4.854E+07 3. 1.704 42.55 1 1 20.00 156.43 5.606E +0 4. 1.716 45 143.55 4.430E+0 5. 1.716 42.83 1 96.22 1 93.69 26.11 136.08 3.625E +0 6. 1.719 42.58 112.34 20-00 157.13 5.673E+0 7. 1.722 46.75 113.05 110.25 32.22 160.37 5.436E +0 8. 1.722 52.18 9. 1.739 48.81 155.56 153.88 20.00 177.64 8.076E + 10. 1.743 38.41 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -49 0 d N r O N N Ln I '^ 00 ( I I r O ^� I n I O I �_r I 1.n cn W +� C O z N cn X < N X U_ U II rn V) Z5 W N 07 II < } cD Q U - - - -- Z V) O O CD rj U M w O r C � / rn i rn O 0 0 PLATE D -50 XSTABL File: D3A 9 -19 -97 14:31 * X S T A B L * * * Slope Stability Analysis * using the * Method of Slices * * * Copyright (C) 1992 a 94 Inc. * Interactive Software Designs, * Moscow, ID 83843, U.S.A. * * All Rights Reserved * 94 d 1288 * Ver. 5.005 *********** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Problem Description SECTION A -A', SEISMIC SEGMENT BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 SURFACE boundary segments left x -right No. (ft) y -right Soil Unit Segment x - left Y � (ft) ( ft ) (ft) Below Segment 47.5 6 . 2 2 1 . 0 1.3 2 2 47.5 6.2 47.6 27.0 2 3 47.6 27.0 113.5 80.0 80.0 114.0 92.0 1 4 113.5 173.0 92.0 5 114.0 1 92.0 1 6 173.0 92.0 220.0 87.5 1 SUBSURFACE boundary segments left x -right y -right Soil Unit No. (ft) Segment x - left Y � (ft) ( ft) ( ft) Below Segment 1 49.0 20.0 220.0 23.0 2 ISOTROPIC Soil Parameters 2 Soil unit(s) specified Water Soil Unit Weight Cohesion Friction ParameterreConstant Surface Unit Moist Sat. Intercept Angle Ru (psf) No. No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) 1 115.0 120.0 390.0 32.00 .000 .0 1 PLATE D -51 2 120.0 125.0 1200.0 35.00 .000 .0 1 ANISOTROPIC Strength Parameters 1 Soil Unit(s) Soil Unit 2 is ANISOTROPIC Number of direction ranges specified = 3 value U -value Direction Counterclockwise c - (psf) (degrees) Range No. Direction Limit (deg) 1200.0 35.00 1 00 5.00 1200.0 33.00 2 1200.0 35.00 3 90.00 1 Water surface(s) have been specified F Unit weight of water = 62.40 (pcf) Water Surface No. 1 specified by 2 coordinate points *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** PHREATIC SURFACE, *** * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ** Point x -water y -water No. (ft) (ft) 1 49.00 20.00 2 220.00 22.00 A horizontal earthquake loading coefficient of .100 has been assigned A vertical earthquake loading coefficient of .000 has been assigned BOUNDARY LOADS 1 load(s) specified Load x -left x -right Intensity Direction No. (ft) (ft) (psf) (deg) 1 116.0 173.0 125.0 • NOTE - Intensity is specified as a uniformly distributed LATE D -52 force acting on a HORIZONTALLY projected surface. BOUNDARIES THAT LIMIT SURFACE GENERATION HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED LOWER limiting boundary of 2 segments: x -left y -left x -right y -right Segment ( ft) ( ft) (ft) No. (ft) 48.5 3.0 3.0 1 47.5 2 48.5 3.0 48.6 27.0 UPPER limiting boundary of 2 segments: Segment x -left y -left x -right y -right No. (ft) (ft) (f t) (ft) 1 113.5 77.5 114.0 77.5 2 114.0 77.5 114.1 77.5 A critical failure surface CIRCULARlsurfacesdhassbeenaspecafied. technique for generating 100 trial surfaces will be generated and analyzed. 10 Surfaces initiate from each of 10 points equally spaced along the ground surface betw x = 20. ft and x = 75.0 ft 82.0 ft Each surface terminates betw X = and x = 180.0 ft Unless further limitations were imposed, th elevation at which a surface extends is y = * * * * * DEFAULT SEGMENT LENGTH SELECTED BY XSTABL 9.0 ft line segments define each trial failure surface. ANGULAR RESTRICTIONS : The first segment of each failure surface will be inclined within the angular range defined by : Lower angular limit -45.0 degrees Upper angular limit (slope angle - 5.0) degrees PLATE D -53 Factors of safety have been calculated by the * * * * * SIMPLIFIED BISHOP METHOD The most critical circular failure surface is specified by 22 coordinate points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 20.00 3.36 2 28.97 2.58 3 37.96 2.39 4 46.95 2.80 5 55.90 3.82 6 64.75 5.43 7 73.48 7.63 8 82.04 10.41 9 90.39 13.76 10 98.51 17.65 11 106.34 22.08 12 113.86 27.03 13 121.03 32.47 14 127.82 38.37 15 134.21 44.72 16 140.15 51.47 17 145.63 58.61 18 150.62 66.10 19 155.10 73.91 20 159.04 82.00 21 162.43 90.34 22 162.98 92.00 * * ** Simplified BISHOP FOS = 1.452 * * ** The following is a summary of the TEN most critical surfaces Problem Description : SECTION A -A', SEISMIC FOS Circle Center Radius Initial Terminal Resisting (BISHOP) x -coord y -coord x -coord x -coord Moment (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft -lb) 1. 1.452 36.25 136.87 134.49 20.00 162.98 6.288E +0 2. 1.459 44.70 121.62 119.09 26.11 159.95 5.572E +0 3. 1.473 38.41 155.56 153.31 20.00 177.64 8.137E + 4. 1.482 42.55 108.09 107.13 20.00 148.37 4.718E +0 5. 1.482 52.18 113.05 110.25 32.22 160.37 5.285E +07 43 5.453E +07 5 . 1.483 45.68 113.22 112.82 20.00 156. PLATE D -54 75 112.47 112.34 20.00 157.13 5.519E +07 7. 1.488 46. 8. 1.489 40.75 154.99 153.05 20.00 179.99 8.435E +07 86 9. 1.495 47.11 142:23 145.76 20.00 178.01 8.100E +07 10. 1.497 43.39 147 * * * END OF FILE PLATE D -55 APPENDIX E GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDELINES r GENERAL EARTHWOR K AND GRADING GUIDELINES General These guidelines present general procedures and requirements for earthwork and grading as shown on the approved grading plans, including preparation of areas to filled, placement of fill, installation of subdrains and excavations. The recommendations contained in the geotechnical report are part of the earthwork and grading guidelines and would supersede the provisions contained hereafter in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during these guidelines course grading gthe a ecom may endat recommendations recommendations which could sup contained in the geotechnical report. The contractor is responsible for the satisfactory completion of all earthwork in accordance with provisions of the project plans and specifications. The project soil engineer and engineering geologist (geotechnical consultant) or their representatives should provide observation and testing services, and geotechnical consultation during the duration of the project. EART HWORK ngsERVATIONS AND TESTING Geotechnical Consultant Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant (soil engineer hwork and engineering geologist) should be employed for wi h the recommendations the procedures and testing the fills for conformance lans, and applicable grading codes and geotechnical report, the approved grading p ordinances. The geotechnical consultant should provide testing and observation so that determination may be made that the work is being accomplished as specified. It is the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultants ar pep accordingly. d work schedules and changes, so that they may schedule their All clean -outs, prepared ground to receive fill, key excavations, and subdrains should be observed and documented by the project engineering geologist and /or soil engineer prior to placing and fill. It is the contractors's onsi observation. on the engineering geologist and soil engineer when such areas are ready Laboratory and Field Tests Maximum dry density tests to determine the degree of compaction should be performed in accordance with American Standard Testing Materials test method ASTM designation D- 1557 -78. Random field compaction tests should be performed in accordance with test method ASTM designation D- 1556 -82, D -2937 or D -2922 and D -3017, at intervals of approximately 2 feet of fill height or every 100 cubic yards of fill placed. These criteria would vary depending on the soil conditions and the size of the project. The location and frequency of testing would be at the discretion of the geotechnical consultant. Contractor's Responsibility All clearing, site preparation, and earthwork performed on the project should be conducted by the contractor, with observation by geotechnical consultants and staged approval by the governing agencies, as applicable. It is the contractor's responsibility to prepare the ground surface to receive the fill, to the satisfaction of the soil engineer, and to place, spread, moisture condition, mix and compact the fill in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer. The contractor should also remove all major non - earth material considered unsatisfactory by the soil engineer. It is the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the earthwork in accordance with applicable grading guidelines, codes or agency ordinances, and approved grading plans. Sufficient watering apparatus and compaction equipment should be provided by the contractor with due consideration for the fill material, rate of placement, and climatic conditions. If, in the opinion of the geotechnical consultant, unsatisfactory conditions such as questionable weather, excessive oversized rock, or deleterious material, insufficient support equipment, etc., are resulting in a quality of work that is o rectify acceptable, an f ary, st d n stop contractor, and the contractor Is expected work until conditions are satisfactory. During construction, the contractor shall properly grade shall take remedial measures to drainage and prevent ponding of water. The contractor control surface water and to prevent erosion of graded areas until such time as permanent drainage and erosion control measures have been installed. SITE PREPARATION All major vegetation, including brush, trees, thick grasses, organic debris, and other deleterious material should be removed and disposed of off -site. These removals must be concluded prior to placing fill. Existing fill, soil, alluvium, colluvium, or rock materials determined by the soil engineer or engineering geologist as being unsuitable in -place should be removed prior to fill placement. Depending upon the soil conditions, these materials may be reused as compacted felsoiAny ne materials incorporated as part of the compacted fills should be approve y Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipelines, or other structures not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner recommended by the soil engineer. Soft, dry, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition should be over - excavated down to firm ground and approved by the soil engineer before compaction and filling operations Appendix E Skelly Engineering Page 2 File: eAwp7'2200 %2296a.pgi continue. Overexcavated and processed soils to the whic min'm en bmeelati�e c ton as moi conditioned should be re -compacted specified in. these guidelines. Existing ground which is determined to be satisfactory for support of the fills should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches or as directed by the soil engineer. After the scarified ground is brought to optimum moisture content or greater and mixed, the materials should be compacted as specified herein. If the scarified zone is grater that 6 inches in depth, it may be necessary to remove the excess and place the material in lifts restricted to about 6 inches in compacted thickness. Existing ground which is not satisfactory to support compacted fill should be over - excavated as required in the geotechnical report or by the on -site soils engineer and /or engineering geologist. Scarification, disc harrowing, or other acceptable form of mixing should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large lumps or clods, until the working surface is reasonably uniform and free from ruts, hollow, hummocks, or other uneven features which would inhibit compaction as described previously. Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to v a l) The lowest bench, which , the ground should be stepped or benched. should be a minimum of 15 feet wide and should be at least 2 feet deep into firm material, and approved by the soil engineer and /or engineering geologist. In fill over cut slope conditions, the, recommended minimum width of the lowest bench or key is also 15 feet with the key founded on firm material, as designa otherwise by the Soil Eng Weer, the a general rule, unless specifically recommended minimum width of fill keys should be approximately equal to' /2 the height of the slope. Standard benching is generally 4 feet (minimum) vertically, exposing firm, acceptable material. Benching may be used to remove unsuitable materials, although it is understood that the vertical height of the bench may exceed 4 feet. Pre - stripping may be considered for unsuitable materials in excess of 4 feet in thickness. All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and the toe of fill benches should be observed and approved by the soil engineer and /or engineering geologist prior to placement of fill. Fills may then be properly placed and compacted until design grades (elevations) are attained. COMPACTED FILLS Any earth materials imported or excavate rbe suitable by the engineer il provided that each material has been determined to These materials should be free of roots, tree branches, other organic matter or other deleterious materials. All unsuitable materials should be removed from the fill as directed by the soil engineer. Soils of poor gradation, undesirable expansion potential, or Appendix E Skelly Engineering Page 3 File: e: \wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi substandard strength characteristics may be esi as te satisfactory fill consultant mat as al unsuitable and may require blending with other soils to serve Fill materials derived from benching operations should be dispersed throughout the fill area and blended with other bedrock derived material. Benching operations should not result in the benched material being placed only within a single equipment width away from the fill /bedrock contact. Oversized materials defined as rock or other irreducible materials with a maximum dimension greater than 12 inches should not be buried approved b the soil fills unle the engine of materials and disposal methods are specifically p proved y Oversized material should be taken off -site or placed in accordance with recommendations of the soil engineer in areas designated as sui of finish r ude i (elevatioO v or s within 220 feet should not be placed within 10 feet vertically 9 horizontally of slope faces. To facilitate future trenching, rock should not be placed within the range of foundation by excavations, future utilities, or underground construction unless specifically approved the soil engineer and /or the developers representative. If import material is required for grading, representative samples of the materials to be utilized as compacted fill should be analyzed in the laboratory by the soil engineer to determine its physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, an appropriate analysis of this material should be conducted by the soil engineer as soon as possible. al Approved fill material should be placed in areas prepared es in thickness. The soihen W eer layers that when compacted should not excee d procedures are such that adequate may approve thick lifts if testing indicates the grading p compaction is being achieved with lifts of greater thickness. Ech and moistuae suitable ble for should ompact o spread evenly and blended to attain uniformity of mater) Fill layers at a moisture content less than optimum should be watered and mixed, and wet fill layers should be aerated by scarification or should be blended with drier material. Moisture condition, blending, and mixing of the fill layer should continue until the fill materials have a uniform moisture content at or above optimum moisture. After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture conditioned and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of maximum density as determined by ASTM test designation, D- 1557 -78, or as otherwise recommended by the soil engineer. Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and should be specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified degree of compaction. Where tests indicate that the density of any layer fill, or portion thereof, is evidence, the particulae or the relative compaction, or improper Appendix E Skelly Engineering Page 4 File: e:\wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi portion shall be re- worked until the required density and /or moisture content has been attained. No additional fill shall be placed in an area until the last placed lift of fill has been tested and found to meet the density and moisture requirements, and is approved by the soil engineer. Compaction of slopes should be accomplished by over - building a minimum of 3 feet horizontally, and subsequently trimming back to the design slope configuration. Testing shall be performed as the fill is elevated to evaluate compaction as the fill core is being developed. Special efforts may be necessary to attain the specified compaction in the fill slope zone. Final slope shaping should be performed by trimming and removing loose materials with appropriate equipment. A final finished f Wherec o d fil be based on observation and /or testing of e slopes are designed steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical), specific material types, a higher minimum relative compaction, and special grading procedures, may be recommended. If an alternative to over - building and cutting back the compacted fill slopes is selected, then special effort should be made to achieve the required compaction in the outer 10 feet of each lift of fill by undertaking the following: 5. An extra piece of equipment consisting of heavy placed. The be used to roll (horizontal) parallel to slopes continuously ly as fill sheepsfoot roller should also be used ti compact compaction to face of the slope. extend out over the slope to provide adequate 2. Loose fill should not be spilled out over the face of the slope as each lift is compacted. Any loose fill spilled over a previously completed slope face should be trimmed off or be subject to re- rolling. 3. Field compaction tests will be made in the outer (horizontal) 2 to 8 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical intervals, subsequent to compaction operations. 4. After completion of the slope, the slope face should be shaped with a small tractor and then re- rolled with a sheepsfoot to achiee compaction to near om act on the slopes should be to Subsequent to testing to verify p achieve compaction to the slope face. Final testing should be used to confirm compaction after grid rolling. 5. Where testing indicates less than adequate compaction, the contractor will be responsible to rip, water, mix and re- compact the slope material as necessary to achieve compaction. Additional testing should be performed to verify compaction. 6. Erosion control and drainage devices should be designed by the project civil engineer in compliance with ordinances of the controlling governmental agencies, and /or in accordance with the recommendation of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. Appendix E Skelly Engineering Page 5 File: e: \wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi SUBDRAIN INSTALLATI Subdrains should be installed in approved ground in accordance with the approximate alignment and details indicated by the geotechnical consultant. Subdrain locations or materials should not be changed or modified without approval of the geotechnical consultant. The soil engineer and /or engineering geologist may recommend and direct exposed changes in subdrain line, grade and drain material in the field, pending p conditions. The location of constructed subdrains should be recorded by the project civil engineer. EXCAVATIONS Excavations and cut slopes should be examined during grading by the engineering geologist. If directed by the engineering geologist, further excavations or overexcavation and re- filling of cut areas should be performed and /or remedial grading of cut slopes should be performed. When fill over cut byghe engineering otherwise st approved, the cut portion of the slope sh ould be prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope. The engineering geologist should observe all cut slopes and should be notified by the contractor when cut slopes are started. If, during the course of grading, unforeseen adverse or potential adverse geologic conditions are encountered, the engineering geologist and soil engineer should investigate, evaluate and make recommendations to treat these problems. The need for cut slope buttressing or stabilizing should be based on in- grading evaluation by the engineering geologist, whether anticipated or not. Unless otherwise specified in soil and geological reports, no cut slopes should be excavated higher or steeper than that allowed by the ordinances of controlling governmental agencies. Additionally, short -term stability of temporary cut slopes is the contractors responsibility. Erosion control and drainage devices should nan ces of the contro ling civil gove engineer rnmental should be constructed in compliance with the ord agencies, and /or in accordance with the recommendations of the soil engineer or engineering geologist. COMPLETION Observation, testing and consultation by the geotechnical consultant should be conducted during the grading operations in order to state an opinion that all cut and filled areas are graded in accordance with the approved project specifications. Appendix E Skelly Engineering Page 6 File: e:\wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi t have After completion of grading and after the soil o be submitted subject 9o ew finished their observations of the work, final p r by the controlling governmental agencies s o N enUneer and /o excavation ngi �eeri geolog� the undertaken without prior notification of the 9 anted in All finished cut and fill slopes should be protected od as recommended by landscape accordance with the project specifications architect. Such protection and /or planning should be undertaken as soon as practical after completion of grading. JOB SAFETY General At GeoSoils, Inc. (GSI) getting the job done safely is of primary concern. The following is the company's safety considerations for use by all employees on multi - employer construction sites. On ground personnel are at highest risk of injury a l fatality on grading and construction projects. GSI recognizes that construction on each site and that site safety is the r�lrrie responsibility of the contractor; however, everyone must be safety conscious and responsible at all times. To achieve our goal of avoiding accidents, cooperation between the client, the contractor and GSI personnel must be maintained. In an effort to minimize risks associated with geotechnical testing and observation, the following precautions are to be implemented for the safety of field personnel on grading and construction projects: Safety Meetings: GSI field personnel are directed e tings co regularly scheduled and documented Y mee . Safety Vests: Safety vests are provided o and e tof'eld worn by GSI personnel at e all times when they 9 in Safety Flags: Two safety flags are whe I on es to placed atop the affixed to the vehicle spoil pile on all test pits. Flashing Lights: All vehicles stationary in the grading area a shall ll during taall rotating flashin amber beacon, or strobe lights, on t While operating a vehicle in the grading area, the emergency flasher on the vehicle shall be activated. In the event that the contractor's representative observes any of our personnel not following the above, we request that it be brought to the attention of our office. Appendix E Skelly Engineering Page 7 File: e:\wp71,2200 \2296a.pgi Test Pits Location Orientation and Clearance The technician is responsible for. selecting test pit locations. A primary concern should be the technicians's safety. Efforts will be made to coordinate locations with the grading contractors authorized representative, and to select locations following or behind the established traffic pattern, preferably outside of current traffic. The contractors authorized representative (dump man, op erator, supervisor, grade checker, etc.) should direct excavation of the pit and safety during the test period. Of paramount concern should be the soil technicians safety and obtaining enough tests to represent the fill. Test pits should be excavated so that the spoil pile is placed away form oncoming traffic, p whenever possible. The technician's vehicle is to be placed next to the test it, opposite the spoil pile. This necessitates the fill be maintained in a driveable condition. Alternatively, the contractor may wish to park a piece of equipment in front of the test holes, particularly in small fill areas or those with limited access. A zone of non - encroachment should be established for all test pits. No grading equipment should enter this zone during the testing procedure. The zone should extend approximately 50 feet outward from the center of ich typpcally This zone is esta testbe safety and to avoid excessive ground vibration When taking slope tests the technician should park the vehicle directly above or below the test location. If this is not possible, a prominent flag should be placed at the top of the slope. The contractor's representative should effectively keep all equipment at a safe operation distance (e.g. 50 feet) away from the slope during this testing. The technician is directed to withdraw from the active portion of the fill as soon as possible following testing. The technician's vehicle should be parked at the perimeter of the fill in a highly visible location, well away from the equipment traffic pattern. The contractor should inform our personnel of all tones to haul roads, cut and fill areas or other factors that may affect site access In the event that the technicians safety is jeopardized or compromised as a result of the contractors failure to comply with any of the above, the technician is required, by company policy, to immediately withdraw and notify his /her supervisor. The grading contractors representative will eventually be contacted in an effort to effect a solution. However, in the interim, no further testing will be performed until the situation is rectified. Any fill place can be considered unacceptable and subject to reprocessing, recompaction or removal. In the event that the soil technician does not comply with the above or other established safety guidelines, we request that the contractor brings this to his /her attention and notify this office. Effective comma a s strongly e n l our l aged in order to implement mpl he representative and the soils technician above safety plan. Appendix E Skelly Engineering Page 8 File: e:\wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi Trench and Vertical Excavatio It is the contractor's responsibility to provide safe access into trenches where compaction testing is needed. Our personnel are directed not to enter any excavation or vertical cut which 1) is 5 feet or deeper unless shored or laid back, 2) displays any evidence of instability, has any loose rock or other debris which could fall into the trench, or 3) displays any other evidence of any unsafe conditions regardless of depth. All trench excavations or vertical cuts in excess of 5 feet deep, which any person enters, should be shored or laid back. Trench access should be provided in accordance with CAL -OSHA and /or state and local standards. Our personnel are directed not to enter any trench by being lowered or "riding down" on the equipment. If the contractor fails to provide safe access to trenches for compaction testing, our company policy requires that the soil technician withdraw and notify his /her supervisor. The contractors representative will eventually cen scontacted effort to subject to All backfill not tested due to safety con reprocessing and /or removal. If GSI personnel become aware of anyone working beneath an unsafe trench wall or vertical excavation, we have a legal obligation to put the contractor and owner /developer on notice to immediately correct the situation. If corrective steps are not taken, GSI then has an obligation to notify CAL -OSHA and /or the proper authorities. Appendix E Skelly Engineering Page 9 File: e:\wp7\2200 \2296a.pgi CANYO N SUBDRAIN DETAIL TYFE A CGMPACT _ P L ' -qATURAL CROUNC ' i COLLUVIUM ANO ALLUVIUM IREMOYEI��' SECIROCK BENCHING /i�ii��j� \''��•� SE= ALTERNATIVES TYPE B -------- -" -�. -- - - - - - -- C COMPACTE7 PILL ' rROPOS ' ' i \�\ — NATURAL GROUND �i / � I I _ \ loo AN A COLLUVIUM (REYovE lf\ /i ' CROC. TYPICAL SENCHINC cE_ AL NATIVES T MIN {T.NT OP =RAINS S'r.OULC 07E. T - = N..L_..NA T IVES. L ^_C TICK ANC - _ r - (N C .. ~ _ vINC= ING ..� -GIC l JUR IN0 .;rt:. G. :. -Y SC;ILS ALT ERNATE DETAIL'-. CANYON SUBDRAIN ALTERNATE _E 1: FERFORAT ED FIFE AND FILTER MATERIAL 1 2• MINIMUM FILTER MATERIAL' MINIMUM VOLUME OF ° �-� /'�'•..��: 6• INIMUM /LINEAR FT. 6' � ASS OR PVC PIPE OR APPROVED \ UM 4• PERFS. M SU65TI FUT 1N WITH BOTTOM HALF PIP .• 6• MINIMUM MINIMU LINEAR SOR 35 OR ASTM 01527, SOHO. LO /•• ASTM 02751. 8 - � ASTM 0303 SOR 35 ON EXCESS OF 500 FT � LO RUN A -1 FOR CONTINUOUS USE 8 � PIPE FILTER M R IAN PAS IN SIEVE 51 100 1 INCH g0 -100 3/1. INCH 40 -100 318 INCH G5 -4,0 NO. L 18 -33 NO. 8 b -15 N0. 30 0 -7 N0. 50 0--3 N0. 200 - ORATED FIFE, GRAVEL AND FILTER FABRIC ALTERNATE 2: PERFORATED � 6' MINIMUM OVERLAP 6' MINIMUM OVERLAP w A- : 6' MINIMUM COV ER L- MINIMUM EEOOIN:. MINIMUM 6EOOING g FT' /LINEAR FT. B - 2 A -2 GRAVEL MA i RIAL PERFORATC-D PIPE: SEE ALTERNATE 1 GRAVEL: CLEAN 3/L INCH ROCK OR APPRO SUSSTIT i E FiLTE� FAEP.IC: MIRAFI 1LO OR AP AOVEO P LA TI -- C J DETAIL AIL FOR FILL SLOPE TOEING OUT ON FLA ALLUVIA T ED CANYON _ - o� COMPACTED FiLL TG= .,L AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN ORIGINAL GROUND SURFACE TO BE pRIGiNAL GROUND SURFAC= RESTORED WITH COMPACTED FILL — — — — EACKCUT\ VARIES. FOR DEEP REMOVALS. EACKCUT ''SHOULD BE MADE NO /,�� ANTICIPATED ALLUVIAL REMOVAL STEEPER THA 1:1 OR AS NECESSARY FOR SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS � DEP PER SOIL ENGINEER. PROVIDE A 1:1 MINIMUM PROJECTION RECOMMEND O SLOPE AS SHOWN ON GRADING PLAN TO LOCAL L S LOPE S PROJECTIONS LOCAL COND REMOVAL ADJACEN T O EXISTING FILL. ADJOINING CANYON FILL PROPOSED ADDITIONAL COMPACTED FILL COMPACTED FILL LIMITS LINE i TEMPORARY COMPACTED FILL FOR DRAINAGE ONLY � Qai /Eat (TO c- REMOVED) Qcf 13 (EXISTING COMPACTED FILL] LEGEND �in� / /�/� �� TO SE REMOVED 2= ORE QCf ART1F]CIAL =ILL = LACING ADDITIONAL ALLUVIUM COMPACTED FILL Qcl FLAK • G C uu W u Z Z u ` 0- u z c cu < U J Li z W O I f- u N ` _ ►- L- u c < C _ u u - Lo U- f t7 < N Lli a z w o a z ° Z v M ru- LU a z u a w C Ul CL cm ca p a c _ Q c) z z J = p d C Q � u 11 ,, /'� W V ! Z Q O L C) -_ L. y to -X CL C ° Y � W C ? x u LU Z LL _ p C w ° Lij W LL c c z W = ui Z a n Q L c I Q U t1J Li l: Q < F — N N `� Z _ LL , N ° m ° a Q u u z IL u a c .. LIO r-, u ° a Q u 3 ° n �� c a a� P LA, I C C J C r C7 l: c �s: c L Ln w Z7; c w wt c , ,, r _ U � V) ` �=+ w Wt F— <i ` '�' ui Ln c W C l z > al - W wl c c c > wi – Z O - V C �.• -f C WI � C � C � Q al ° a n,l - - o wl 3 a v,i zJ a c c o O w GI c Q Nt U Z Z J © ~ > Q > Z O n z L11J w Q z a z NI = a N w c� ? p w Q m p J Z LL n Q m N m w �., = o w r o LLI w U. G >- L a G G G I G Q W J U C Ln O Ln LL "' w m m "' c n o a '�' t- U a= z. w_ -' _ LL. a z a a- U a - z< o? w 'n �." w o w m N m o G'" w LL n O C G Ln N Q O ° U; =. w N r F. n LL O G W c7 w w t� Q � - La Z = 2 G ° Z a U t-- n o o ° a w> a z t, 1 Z _a LL w a I U o Q G ,., CL U ° u � o ° w 1 1 1 al L1.. c> a C:) W Fr, J a , Z ` a '+ a. m LL w w Z U O w v1 m LL 3 u; _J O H ~ C Z LL w LLI 3 L 4 LL I c Z a Z z n W I-- a P w a w LL �{ G > O © �' 2 LLI O w G G w Q w w OG Ln p G I-- O = Q ( d � 4 Z W w O Ln LL z w C m = a co G ° N Q w J O Q Q o G z o tL E- z L n° :� Lu `� a n G v °- o N z a a o n G u o w o m , c� j a w w a. ° r- w I a n e w w w Z C C> Q u4 in p C U d O i w = w < C c; zt a T a ai = a o a< a '= c o d° c u N wl V W Z - -1 G1 p G _ .L W w Z 3 m C u F C W U* d �� ° Z O -j Q c r Ln z C3 c' LL m Q _ "` t o C C J C O o Z wt W U< c - G c ►- z a M r7 O C 1-{ Z ZI N Lo m t t ! O U 1 w V) V O Q ~ wnwtr+tw .z Cl� Q - nHINlw .z\ = �` � �- C LLI FLATS c c - c - LL c C C Z Ln - C LLI C = W C W C O L LLl 3 C < s ` I U L: x `^ p \ W C O Q U 1 C W d o Z / Ln C Z Cl- Y ] W Q - Q W > U - C Z a m a o a o � o = CL W w z c d c z p Lu 3 a. z Ln LLI W O d CL s �� Ul 'n -1 �W LLI d 7 Lu -1 o O W p CS C p N Z LU J ~ _ a `m Ln Q ° = W Z d C d LL! z W y . C Ln Q 7 / c O L1 LU c Ln Q ° H Ln W W LL c J W Z 0 W W J p a- j �` C O > Z F-- l� W C O O i W C LJ1 � z r Qw o z °�� Y Z ^ N L..L W C W 3 z CL CD N f 3 a N } W . u o u _ CL C Y O LL_ LrU C Ln Y- Ln = C LL. LL. - W LU LU C - C n C = v l i 1- C H W > a 3 > _ c C W u un = I L1 ~ C Q LM U Q C FD L,^, -^ Q c U.1 G Q w � Q C U ` O X Z w / _ w w G c w C LL - U /� Q Q w — C CL Q LL w c7 O a U id Z N LLI Z LU ,- w z U N �— '— O O O -1 Z C > N w F— w Z w N N LL Lj— a � z in w a ' / ° Ln C) Q A - u. o C r M ° W H V C 7 O Z Z LL. o r O in o ° a. a- CL LLI W G '�� m *- a Z U J �/ U O w Q o � j c U y w Q 1 O ry Lli Z Z w o 4 m N w _1 3 z ° Q 'r �...1... w CL Z a 1E c Q y w Q� C N CL U C C C w Z � > 1 3 3 o c c c LU j N N Q C— ` \ 1 C p � C t— L C U w Ul C C co w z C C T W �= w c: w w I ? C CL U C G �- w w C u Q � O w G Z N C w w Q G o Q Q CL Z C Z U Z U- < L-- w Z LL. w G O �- G �- Q u-1 a a. \ `` Z Z °- ► a LL uj w LLI LO cm LLI Q O Q Z �— Z O = Q r,4 H w G. u1 C Z Z Ln J Q w LU L j' N C !// � / Q Y U c c ' - LLI vi C t i i C N U in ❑ } Q Z -j N w Q - U � Q Ca lJ N O ry > l7 CG w w o m w a- y O LU w S ul Q z w w w = r , 7 7 F- Z LLI U O m N CI- S U O _ w N N L1.. O � ' 1 S C C N Q Z - I* O }— c - lu w N ti w L N S Q O Z ❑ '_ ❑ z z w 3 0 ry � Z CD LLI M I F" CL. .n o (f� a Q CD > w � w w n -L C a ►- // 3 Q m w LL � LLI X Ln z (I a a ry G I C c c rn ll C:2 _ F" P LATE EG - Lw c LL c = w c a Z W lL > W C LU C W Ul / o Y C 1L U -j ��\ / C Q ��-• W LL / C z W LU Z 0 C Z W Z \ C. G CD O LU LU LU m LU V ❑ Z ` CL UI Q O W LU � \ ? LL a G Z a l..l d \ \// Z ❑ ❑ v c7 ij C ca Z O C U; In Z l!7 tl y O L7 O LL U > C C Q C / �1 �/ N C C ►- o o c U > r co U z w �A >. Q z w >' T U �O� u c G c a L_ Ln LU w LU z u , LL G w > 0 _ a u CL \/ o o U LU Ln N Z lil CL Z (r ICLI C to '- ^' tJ7 u C C - C r G C- - C _ r LL r `L PL A�~ �r ` r 'J C \` C LL r ^ ►' % � 11.1 LU i r- U LU Ul Z a N z 1 Z Q C LL Q ,'` 1:.1 vi 11J UJ G f\� > r O Z CL C X w % p C. LLl a d� o ? �i Q z r- C Y 6 C C O Q a - O Ll LL Cl W LU LLI d C i c Z L p C. Z LL 1 � 1 Z - LL ►- t�1 LLI U U LU CL Lo I' LL! 7 111 LU 03 G p LU > L3 C7 OO 'o � a o z J i CL _ 0 ~ tn C Z LU p Z 0 0 1 LU N l:.l \ 7 / LU LJ o /O� d n // a - LU c n a , LL: 0 G G N C C i� Q Q /� cv ' Z LU LLI C Q C c w �y y = \I c� a u CL Q Q Lu a D }+� r~ Q Z Q 1-- Q o I I Y C Q cr v7 Z U Z LL 'n a- Q Z Q tJ) 11J N C Q Ln C = LU G _ } I — Q F > C C C Q Lr CO. Q r-- O U Q Q Ul U1 C C U u1 N X U G U ` L:J -' W - j � � PLA ► �= E� —'� ION LOT [DETAIL � RANSI � 1 - CUT LOT (MATERIAL ► _ T RANSI T ION) I rRANSI I ;oN) NATURAL ORAO� J PAO GRAD E � OVEREXCAVATE AND RECOMPACT u \i \ \ / / / \ \ \ / / / \\\\ /� 3 � M uM� CO MPACTED FILL \\ UNWEATHERED BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL \ \vV TYPICAL BENCHING CUT —FILL LOT (DAYLIGHT TRAN.1d.1ION) �- 5' MIwMUM NATURAL GRADE `1\ VATE PAD GRADE D NS OVEREXCA �I pFt AND RECOMPACT _S-- COMPACTED FILL p Y UNWEATHERED 2EDROCK OP. AFFROVEO MATE _ TYPICAL SENC'r.IN0 _ c:<C,:` /AOMMENDED 6Y T +E SCILS - NG -- = OEE OVE TICN MAY Ec = NOTE. ' T !_! i FANSI I ION ;.R _.�5. -=ING CLCGiS7 IN ST =_. ! — ri _ AN CiG- cNGiNE -. �-- A A OVER. S IZE ROCK 01 ,F0SAL VIE ARE OIACGKAMMAE C ROC Y SHOULD NOT TOU0' AND VOIDS SHOULD 6 VEJW NORMAL TO SLOPE FACE FINISH GRADE PROPOSE- , 110' MINIMUM (E) cfl °c Cc v� MINIMUM (A) � lG) (Bl co 20 MINIMUM C� (F} cc c� 0 15' MINIMUM Oo 5' MINIMUM (C) 8 DRO ECK R APPROVED MATERIAL VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE 10' MINIMUM lE} 100' MAXIMUM (B) • 3' MINIMUM � G 10' MINIMUM 10' MINIMUM 5' MINIMUM (C) BEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH OR A MINIMUM OF 15 FEET_ 0 TYPE OF (8) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MAY YRQF WINDRO(wGSriALL 6E N GREATER THAN 100' EQUIPMENT USED. LENGT MAXIMUM_ NG GEOLOGIST lC) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS DIRECTLY ON CGMPE ?ENT MATERIA OR BEDROCK WINDROWS MAY 8.. PLA L PROVIDED ADEO WNO ROWS MAY VARY BUT SHALL BE BE ASIRECOMMENDED BY l01 ORIENTATION OF I THE SOILS ENGINEER ANDlOR ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST. STAGGERING 0 WINDROWS IS NOT NECESSARY UNLESS RECOMMENOEJ. (E) CLEAR AREA FOR UTILITY T� LH�' • gF O FL0001N O G GRANDULAR OIL INTO PLACE - IF) VOIDS IN WINDROW SHALL 5_ GRANULAR SOIL SHALL BE ANY SOIL WHICH HAS A UNIF(E� DIAL LALLIOVER10 SYSTEM (USC 29 DES IGNATION OF G^' ''{• COM °ACTED v0 �0°bRE_AT AND AROUND ROCK WINDROW SHALL SE IM, ' COMPACTION. ROWS IS PL Cc;' A ND COMPACTc', WIT �i TAE L1 (Gi AFTER FILL BETWEEN WINO WINDROW SHALL -- ?OOF ROLL- =7 'NIT.• A D OF FILL COVE=ING WINDROW• GOCER OR EDUIV:,L =N 1 =;NEC - Gc- -,a _ . �C L=z� 7 ' A.N _ "7 Si� �O C:< I_ L n N N Sf�E. ROCK D15POSAL. PITS FILL LIFTS COMPACTEn OV — ROCK AFTER EMnEJME'J T GRANULAR MATERIAL I I - LAR ROCK ••- --- -� - -'_'_ -� I COMPACTED FILL i SIZE OF EXCAVATION TO E=' COMMENSURATE 1 1 WITH ROCK SIZE. 1 1 � I 1 i NO 1. LARGE ROCK IS DEFINED AS ROCK LARGER THAN 4. FEET IN MAXIMUM SIZE. 2. PIT IS EXCAVATED INTO COMPACTED FILL TO A DEPTH EQUAL TO 1/2 OF ROCK SIZE. GRANULAR SOIL Sc'OULD BE PUSHED INTO PIT AND DENSIFiED 2 FLOODING. USE A SHEEPSFOOT AROUND ROCK TO AID IN COMPACTION. �L. A MINIMUM OF C FEET OF REGULAR COMPACTED FILL SHOULD OVERLIE EACH PIT. S. PITS SHOULD BE SE PARATED BY AT LEAST 15 FEET HORIZONTALLY. o. PITS SHOULD NOT SE PLACED WITHIN 20 FEET OF ANY FILL SLOPE. 7. PITS SHOULD ONLY SE USED IN DEEP FILL AREAS. LA TE AND RISE= DETAIL SE i i LEM EN T - I LA S T EE_ SLATE NIPPLE V� =L ^ _ = D STANDARD � /L' PIE= TO TOP _ — OF PLATE. 3 14.' X 5' GALVANIZED PIPE. STANDARD PIPE' THREADS TOP AND °0 T TOM. EXTENSIONS THREADED ON BOTH ENOS AND ADDED IN 5' INCREMENTS. 3 INCH SCHEDULE LO PVC PIPE SLEEVE. ADD IN 5' INCREMENTS WITH CLUE JOINTS. FINAL GRADE i { � MAINTAIN 5' CLEARANCE OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT. 1 MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT IN 2'VERTICAL LIFTS. OR ALTERNATIVE SUITABLE TO AND ACCEPTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. 5 , 5 . ( I ( I MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT THE INITIAL 5' 5' VERTICAL WITHIN A 5' RADIUS OF PLATE BASE. IN • BOTTOM OF CLEANOUT • PROVIDE A MINIMUM 1' BEDDING OF COMPACTED SAND NOTE; c AND READILY 1. LOCATIONS OF SETTLEMENT PLATES SHOULD Bc CLEARLY MARK. ❑ A� VISIBLE (RED FLAGGED) TO EQUIPMENT OPERATORS. AND 2. CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAINTAIN CLEARANCE F LI 5 WITHI CLEARANCE ARE �� S WITHIN 5' (VERTICAL) FOR HEAVY EQUIPMENT. - o "T SP�C1F(CATIONS OR COMPAC PACT ED o � AL SE HAND COMPACTED TO F, OJEC c �IUc APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGINE =` cH MAINTAIN A 5 ' IS IN PLACE. CONTRACTOR GU L'D AFTER 5'(VE:iT1CAL) OF FiKLOM RI�E� �iAoL;S�ING =QUIFMENT CLEARANC= FILL P R1OR ' 0 E- Pi ACE AND MECHANICALLY HAND COMPACT INITIAL Gr THE INITIAL READING. _ EXTENSION RESULTING _ � =VENT OF DAmAGc T 0 T..E SE T TL =*tcN i PLAT= C F A NTE 10 AREA nCONTRACTC= IN i E - E IFiED CL_ARANC= FRGM UIPMENT OF= cAT1NG WITHIN THE SP C KcSrON51 =L EQ H^ COILS ENGINE =' AND S'r:OI�L. - - 5'H.OULC IMMEDIATELY NOT 1F'{ T - PLATES TO WORKING ORE=-. -r _ FCR RESTORING THE Sc T TL- � N i0LF INSTALLA MAY = �0'd10ED AT .N ALTERNATE D =SIGN AN G N -' -- I _ 1C`� = �CIL� - Ciy = =•.. f— r� LA � — TYPICAL SURFACE SETTLEMENT MONUMENT FINISH GRADE -- -- 3/8' DIAMETER X 6' LENGTH CARRIAGE 80LT OR EOUIVALENT o' DIAMETER X 3 1/2' LENGTH HOLE �--- CONCRETE BACKFILL PLATE Eo -15 TEST PIT SAFETY DIAGRAM TEST SIDE VIEW VE-WLE SPOIL PILL TEST PIT ( NOT TO SCALE ) TOP VIEW Ile F=—T w w LL O 50 FEET S0 FEET I � FLAG SPOIL rte -- YE,4cLc PILL / LU FLAG w w APPROXIMATE C!ENTcP LL C (F i PIT U' ( NOT TO SCALE ) PLATE E G- 1 6 OVEI SIZE ROCK DISPOSAL VIEW NORMAL T_0 SLOPE F ACE OPOSED FI NISH GRAOC A i10' ;^INIMUM (E) a cc 15' MINIMUM (A) 20' MINIMUM D m oa � vv C= (F) 5' MINIMUM lA cA 5' MINIMUM (C) EEDROCK OR APPROVED MATERIAL VIEW PARALLEL TO SLOPE FACE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE • 10' MINIMUM (E) 100' MAXIMUM (E 15' MINIMUM 13' M INIMUM (G) 25' MINIMUM (C) /�\\ FROM CA WALL MINIMUM (C) III \Y//\\\ �� \� / /� \Y /\ EE OROCK OR APPROVED MA NOTE: (A) ONE EQUIPMENT WIDTH YO ARYMOE=ENOIING1ONFROCK SIZE ANO TYPE OF AXIMUM. (�) HEIGHT AND WIDTH MA' 4y1N0R0YV SHALL BE NO GREATER THAN 100' EQUIPMENT. LENGTH SO AND /OR ENGINE -RING GEOLOGIG�, (C) IF APPROVED BY THE SOILS ENGiNE.R _ WINDROWS MAY BE PLACED DIRECTLY ON COMP MATERIAL OR ROVIDED ADE �UATE SPACE IS AVAILASL FOR COMPACTION. (0) ORIENTATION OF WINOROWS MAY V = BUT SG OLOGIST.AS TAGGEM NG OF J ry THE SOILS Z ; �UIiVC ANO /OR — WINDROWS IS �!OT iE= =SSARY UNLESS RECOMMENCE- C Z'�VIMMING ^'OOLS. ='!C' FOUNDATIONS a0 a ( =i CL =.aR AREA FOR U T ILI N SHALL _ CO =D T O OV=R AND AROU NC ROCK WINCRO' E MPACT (F, ALL F R AS =COMMENDED. r. T- LI =T OF COMPACTION`OINCRC`YS IS �L• -D ANC COMPACTS _ 'NIVT T lui =T ==c - -IL °_ETW =y r /INORO'N Sr CULD ' COP .,OL I r =ILL — COVERING ',YINORO W Cc: = = =.. OR = 0U1' /AL =y , HOC;- SHCUL� NO T TOUC- I`WS ARECIAC�AMMAiiC G� L v _ -iLt� I ^�. ti0 VOIDS S "r.CULC °_� C M `_ APPENDIX F HOMEOWNERS MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES GUIDELINES FOR THE HOMEOWNER Tias for the Homeowner Homesites, in general, and hillside lots, in particular, need maintenance to continue to function and retain their value. Many homeowners are u of this and allow deterioration of their property. In addition to one's own roe the of may be p subject to liability for damage occurring to neighboring properties as a result of his negligence. It is, therefore, important ake familiarize of the importance of man tenancer main of their properties an Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as construction increase the rate of erosion 200, even 2,000 times that amount. When vegetation or other objects are removed that hold soil in place, the soil is exposed to the action of wind and water and increase its chances of eroding. The following maintenance guidelines are provided for the protection of the homeowner's investment, and should be employed throughout the year. 1. Care should be taken that slopes, terraces, berms (ridges at crown of slopes), and proper lot drainage are not disturbed. Surface drainage should be conducted from the rear yard to the street by a graded swale through the side yard, or alternative approved devices. 2. In general, roof and yard runoff should be conducted to either the street or storm drain by nonerosive devices such as sidewalks, be ateaed without expert consultation. onsultation. driveways. Drainage systems should gutters and 3. All drains should be kept cleaned to ditches should be kept free downspouts. Terrace drains or gun debris to allow s proper drainage. During heavy rain periods, performance of the drainage system should be inspected. Problems, such as gullying and ponding, if observed, should be corrected as soon as possible. 4. Any leakage from pools, water lines, etc. or bypassing of drains should be repaired as soon as possible. 5. Animal burrows should be filled inasmuch and they may cause shallow I runoff, promote accelerated erosion, 6. Slopes should not be altered without expert consultation. Whenever a homeowner plans a significant topographic modification of the slope, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be contacted. 7. If plans for modification of cut, fill or natural slopes within a property are considered, an engineering geologist should be consulted. Any oversteepening may result in a need for expensive retaining devices. Undercutting of the bottom of a slope might possibly lead to slope instability or failure and should not be undertaken without expert consultation. 8. If unusual cracking, settling, or earth slippage occurs on the property, the homeowner should consult a qualified soil engineer or an engineering geologist immediately. g. The most common causes of slope erosion and shallow slope failures are as follows: • Gross neglect of the care and maintenance of the slopes and drainage devices. • Inadequate and /or improper planting. (Barren areas should be replanted as soon as possible). • Excessive or insufficient irrigation or diversion of runoff over the slope. • Foot traffic on slopes destroying vegetation and exposing soil to erosion potential. 10. . Homeowners should not let conditions on their property create a problem for their neighbors. Cooperation with neighbors could prevent problems, and also increase the aesthetic attractiveness of the properties. Winter Alert It is especially important to "winterize" your property by mid - September. Don't wait until spring to put in landscaping. You need winter protection. Final landscaping can be done later. Inexpensive measures installed by mid - September will give you protection quickly that will last all during the wet season. • Check before storms to see that drains, gutters, downspouts, and ditches are not clogged by leaves and rubble. • Check after major storms to be sure drains are clear and vegetation is holding on slopes. Repair as necessary. • Spot seed any bare areas. Broadcast seeds or use a mechanical seeder. A typical slope or bare area can be done in less than an hour. • Give seeds a boost with fertilizer. • Mulch if you can, with grass clippings and leaves, bark chips or straw. • Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes. Check with your landscape architect or local nursery for advice. Page 2 e: \wp7` (orms\hmeown 1.gde • Prepare berms and ditched to drain surface runoff water away from problem areas such as steep, bare slopes. • Prepare bare areas on slopes for seeding by raking the surface to loosen and roughen soil so it will hold seeds. CONSTRUCTION 1. Plan construction activities during spring and summer, so that erosion control measures can be in place when rain comes. 2. Examine your site carefully before building. Be aware of the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site design will help ypu avoid expensive stabilization work. 3. Preserve existing vegetation as much as possible. Vegetation will naturally curb erosion, improve the appearance value of your property, and reduce the cost of landscaping later. 4. Use fencing to protect plans from fill material and traffic. If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable asphalt or porous paving blocks. 5. Minimize the length and steepness of slopes by benching, terracing, or constructing diversion structures. Landscape benched areas to stabilize the slope and improve its appearance. 6. As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation on all areas that are not paved or otherwise covered. TEMPORARY MEASURES TO STABILIZE SOIL Grass provides the cheapest and most effective short-term erosion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground completely. To find the best seed mixtures and plants for your area, check with your local landscape architect, local nursery, or the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection from rain damage. They also provide a favorable environment for starting and growing plants. Easy -to- obtain mulches are grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips, and straw. Straw Mulch is nearly 100 percent effective when held in place by spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber (tackifliers), by punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tacking a netting over it. Page 3 eAwpT forms hmeovm1.gde Commercial applications of wood fibers combined with various seeds and fertilizers (hydraulic mulching) are effective in stabilizing sloped areas. Hydraulic mulching with a tackifier should be done in two separate applications: the first composed of seed fertilizer and half the mulch, the second applicators composed who also provide other erosion control Commercial hydraulic mulch apple services — are listed under "landscaping" in the phone book. Mats of excelsior, jute netting, and plastic sheets can be effective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with the soil and fastened securely to work effectively. Roof drainage can be collected in barrels or storage containers or routed into lawns, planter boxes, and gardens. Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mosquitos. Excessive runoff should be directed away from your house. Too much water can damage trees and make foundations unstable. STRUCTURAL RUNOFF CONTROLS . Even with proper timing and planting, you may need to protect disturbed areas from rainfall until the plants have time to establish themselves. Or you may need permanent ways to transport water across your property so that it doesn't cause erosion. To keep water from carrying soil from your site and dumping it to nearby lots, streets, streams and channels, you need ways to reduce its volume and speed. Some examples of what you might use are: 1. Rip -rap (rock lining) - to protect channel banks from erosive water flow. 2. Sediment trap - to stop runoff carrying sediment and trap the sediment. 3. Storm drain outlet protection - to reduce the speed of water flowing from a pipe onto open ground or into a natural channel. 4. Diversion dike or perimeter dike - to divert excess water to places where it can be disposed of properly. 5. Straw bale dike - to stop and detain sediment from small unprotected areas _ (a short term measure). 6. Perimeter swale - to divert runoff from a disturbed area or contain runoff within a disturbed area. 7. Grade stabilization structure - to carry concentrated runoff down a slope. Page 4 e:`,wP7 Iorms \hmeown1 .gde APPENDIX G PROCEDURES FOR TIEBACK SOLDIER BEAM INSTALLATION APPENDIX G PROCEDURES FOR TIEBACK SOLDIER BEAM INSTALLATION 1. Caissons are to be machine drilled. Caissons are to be accurately located so that the soldier beams are in the proper relation to the face of the new retaining wall. Protection shall be provided against sloughing or caving as required. 2. Place soldier beams or reinforced steel cage as required. 3. Fill caissons with concrete (lean for wood lagging or as designed for gunite lagging). 4. Start excavating and placing lagging between beams in lifts. 5. Excavate down to level of the top tieback. Drill anchor hole to design depth, install hollow stem rod or strands, pour or inject concrete to anchor penetration length, and backfill above grout to back of shoring beam with lean slurry. 6. When anchor grout in penetration length has attained minimum design compressive strength, stress rod to 150 percent of the required loads per structural design. a. Anchors shall be stressed straight and true. Kinking or sharp curvature in anchors under tension shall be cause for rejection. b. Road (or strand) shall show no excessive movement during testing, and the testing jack shall be capable of holding the test load with no excessive bleeding off of pressure. 7. Unless otherwise approved by the Foundation Engineer, 10 percent of the anchors shall be tested to 200 percent of the design load. In addition, a representative sample of these tie -back anchors shall be tested for a time period of 24 hours. The Foundation Engineer shall specify the number and location of these anchors in an addendum report. 8. The Foundation Engineer shall inspect and approve the testing of all anchors. He shall keep a record of all test loads and total anchor movements and certify to their accuracy. This record shall be kept on the job -site and shall be available for inspection by the Building Inspector. 9. Report Steps 4 to 6 next tieback below, as needed. 10. Continue excavating and placing lagging in lifts until bottom of excavation has been reached. Acceptan Criteria for Temporary Tieback Earth Anchors All tieback anchors shall be installed and tested conforming to the criteria presented in this section. Installation Tieback anchors shall be installed at the angle of declination and alignment indicated in the approved shoring plans with a tolerance of 3 degrees at the bearing plate ans within 300 millimeters (12 inches) of the planned point of entry. The contractor shall provide all equipment and instrumentation necessary for the inspector to verify placement of concrete within the anchor zone. • The grout pump shall be equipped with a pressure gauge capable of measuring pressures of at least 1,000 kPa (150 psi). • The quantity of grout and the grout pressure shall be recorded by the contractor. • The grout shall be injected from the lowest point of the drill hole. Backfilling the unbonded zone of the tieback shall be accomplished by a method acceptable to the geotechnical engineer. • Grout placed above within the unbonded zone shall not be placed under pressure. • The grout at the top of the drilled hole shall stop 150 mm (6 inches) from the back of the shoring. Tiebacks spaced closer than 2'/2 diameters center -to- center shall be drilled and placed alternatively. Testin The allowable design capabilities of all tiebacks shall be verified by a program of proof tests and performance tests. The contractor shall provide all equipment and instrumentation necessary for the inspector to verify the adequacy of the tiebacks. • A dial gauge or vernier scale capable of measuring displacements to 0.0254005 mm (0.001 inches) precision shall be used to measure tieback anchor movement. It shall have 152 mm (6 inches) travel. Appendix G Skelly Engineering Page 2 File: e: \wp7 1,2200 \2296a.pgi • A hydraulic jack and pump shall be used to apply the test load. The jack and calibrated pressure gauge shall be used to measure the applied load. The pressure gauge shall be graduated in 500 kPa (100 psi) increments or less. The load shall be raised or lowered from one increment to another immediately after anchor movement is recorded unless noted otherwise therein. • The stressing equipment shall be placed over the tieback anchor tendon in such a manor that the jack, bearing plate, and stressing anchorage are axially aligned with the tendon and the tendon is centered within the equipment. A minimum of 3 percent of all tiebacks shall be performance tested to 200 percent of the design load for 24 hours by the following pressure. • A nominal alignment load not exceeding 10 percent of design load shall be applied and axial elongation with respect to a fixed reference independent of the shoring established. • The axial load shall be applied in increments of 25 percent of the design load. Each incremental load shall be maintained for a period of 1 minute with the axial elongation measured at the beginning and end of this period, and the load released to the alignment load and the axial elongation shall be measured following each successive maximum. For example, the load sequence as a percentage of design load would be: alignment load, increase to 25 percent of design load, release to alignment load, increase to 25 percent of design load, increase to 50 percent of design load, release to alignment load, increase to 25 percent of design load, increase to 50 percent of design load, increase to 75 percent of design load, release to alignment load, etc. • Upon reaching 200 percent of design load, the load shall be maintained for a period of 24 hours. The axial elongation from the time of application of the 200 percent load to conclusion of the 24 hours shall not exceed 0.50 inch. Total axial elongation from the initial alignment load application to the conclusion of the test shall not exceed 4 inches. • If movement exceeds 0.50 inch after 24 hours, the tieback may be rejected or the load may be reduced starting with 150 percent of the design load or lower and maintained for additional 15- minute increments at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer until a load resulting in a movement of less than 0.10 inch during a 15- minute interval is determined. Once the geotechnical engineer has determined the sustainable load, the down -rated design load shall be taken as the sustainable load divided by 1.75. • Upon completion of the test period, the load shall be incrementally reduced while taking measurements. Appendix G Skelly Engineering Page 3 File: eAwp7112200\2296a.pgi In addition to the above - performance tests, a minimum of 10 percent of all tiebacks shall be proof tested to 200 percent of design load for 30 minutes by the following procedure: • A nominal alignment load not exceeding 10 percent of design load shall be applied and axial elongation with respect to a fixed reference independent of the shoring established. Axial load shall be applied in increments of 25 percent of design load. The load sequence as a percentage of design load would be: alignment load, increase to 25 percent of design load, increase to 50 percent of design load, increase to 75 percent of design load, increase to 100 percent of design load, increase to 125 percent of design load, increase to 00e nt 150 percent o design load c design d, increase to 175 percent of design load, Increase t p • Upon reaching 200 percent of design load, the load shall be maintained for a period of 30 minutes. The axial elongation from the time of application of the 200 percent load to the conclusion of the 30 minutes shall not exceed 0.25 inch. Total axial elongation from the initial alignment load application to the conclusion of the test shall not exceed 4 inches. • If movement exceeds 0.25 inch after 30 minutes, the tieback may be rejected or the load may be reduced starting with 150 percent of the design load or lower and maintained for additional 15- minute increments at the discretion of the geotechnical engineer until a load resulting in a movement of less than 0.10 inch during a 15- minute interval is determined. Once the geotechnical engineer has determined the sustainable load, the down -rated design load shall be taken as the sustainable load divided by 1.75. Upon completion of the test period, the load shall be incrementally reduced while taking measurements. All remaining anchors shall be proof tested to 150 percent of design load for 15 minuted by the following procedure: • A nominal alignment load not exceeding 10 percent of design load shall be applied and axial elongation with respect to a fixed reference independent of the shoring established. - • Axial load shall be applied in increments of 25 percent of design load. The load sequence as a percentage of design load would be: alignment load, increase to 25 percent of design load, increase to 50 percent of design load, increase to 75 percent of design load, increase to 100 percent of design load, increase to 125 percent of design load, increase to 150 percent of design load. • Upon reaching 150 percent of design load, the load shall be maintained for a period of 15 minutes. The axial elongation from the time of application of the 150 percent Appendix G Skelly Engineering Page 4 File: e:\wp7 \2200 \2296a.pgi load to the conclusion of the 15 minutes ahaii application tot a O con O clus on of the . ei elongation from the initial alignment loa d pp shall not exceed 4 inches. If movement exceeds 0.10 inch after 15 minutes, the tieback may be rejected or the the load may be reduced and maintained d load relsulting 15-minute increments movement of discretion of the geotechnical engin eer until a than 0.10 inch during a 15- minute interval adt he down- rated des design load shall be engineer has determined the sustainable , taken as the sustainable load divided by 1.75. If the deflection measurements are acceptable tort g the rated design n load. a tieback anchor shall be locked -off at no less than 110 pe en The anchor may be completely unloaded prior to lock -off. After transferring the load and prior to removing the jack, a lift -off reading shall be made. The lift -off load shall be within 10 percent of the required lock -off load (110 percent • of the design load). If not, the anchorage shall be reset and the lift -off measurement repeated until a satisfactory reading is obtained. Appendix G Skelly Engineering Page 5 File: eAwp7\2200\2296a.pgi SOIL Enclni-c-lnc consiRucaon. October 1, 1999 �I t TO: Mr. Lee McEa chern , NOV _ California Coastal Commission -- FROM: Mr. Bob Mahony & John Niven f Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. RE: Updated Geotechnical Review / Plan for Emergency Construction Proposed Lower Bluff Seawall & Upper Bluff Repairs I- Bruce Residence, 630 Neptune Avenue Encinitas California Soil Engineering Construction (SEC) has prepared the following, updated geotechnical review in response to recent upper bluff failures at the subject site. As noted in the conclusions of this review, the sudden and unexpected failures occurring during the past 120 days have promoted a level ofbluff instability, which places the residence on this property under imminent threat of failure. _- This review includes the results of our bluff stability analyses, conclusions and recommendations for the lower bluff seawall, repair of the existing upper bluff retaining wall and the installation of a new buried upper bluff retention system located on the southern portion of the property. This review utilizes, as a base for substantiating revised changes in overall bluff stability, information L - presented in the existing geotechnical report prepared by GeosoiLs, Inc., dated September 30, 1997 Some geotechnical information presented in that report is not included herein; therefore, the prior L _ report should be utilized in conjunction with this review. Specific recommendations provided under the purview of this review supersede those presented in the referenced document. Page 1 927 Arguello Street, Redwood City, California 94063 -1310 (650) 367 -9595 • FAX (650) 367 -8139 SITE DESCRIPTION The P roject site is located at 630 Neptune Avenue in Encinitas. The site consists of relatively level pad area (El. +93 + / -) occupied by a single story wood frame residential dwelling of standard that the structure is founded on shallow foundations and is with appurtenant improvements. It appears to an existing upper bluff retaining situated within a couple of feet at its closest Point northern portion) ---° wall which is approximately 18 feet in height. The project site is bounded the 93 foot high, steeply e east by Neptune Avenue, single family residences to the north and south, and on the west, by a pproximately sloping westerly facing sea bluff. Along the toe of the coastal bluff are riprap materials, which were placed 1996 (Emergency Permit No wooden under a temporary emergency permit in of the coastal bluff The stairway exis from the rear of the building pad area and extends down a portion portion of the bluff and the stairway have previously failed. It is our understanding that the riprap was placed on the beach in front of failed areas of the lower bluff. Based on our observations of the subject site, an d the results this updated evaluation, it appears that the site conditions have degraded significantly: to the south, an ongoing upper bluff As observed at the site and on a portion of the adjacent property waportionof failure is occurring. A substantial failure of the upper bluffterrace depo sits has occurred below onto the the upper bluff retaining wall located on the southern half of the property and has migrated neighboring property to the south. It is estimated that the failure below has resulted in a vertical failure scarp of in excess of 8 feet in height. - PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project will consist of approximately 50 lineal feet of lower bluff seawall consisting of steel reinforced, poured -in- place /shotcrete wall with two rows of tiebacks. At this time, the height of the proposed lower seawall is anticipated to be +32' M.S.L. In addition, emergency repairs to the existing upper bluff retaining system, utilizing tiebacks and steel walers, and the emergency installation of an buried upper bluff retention system on the southern most portion of the property. The proposed lower bluff seawall will be built in a similar fashion to the existing lower bluff sea be located adjacent to the site, on the north, and the repairs to the existing 60 Ne t wall une.. T'he buried upper similar to that approved north of the subject property at 656 through P bluff retention system will be built in a similar fashion as those previously constructed by SEC on other properties on Neptune Avenue. The project plans, `Repairs to the Lower Bluff ` and `Repairs to the Upper Bluff dated September 20, 1999 should be reviewed for more detailed information. Page 2 PROJECT TIMING Soil Engineering Construction, Inc. has notified the property owner that it would be hazardous to initiate replacement of the rip -rap on the lower coastal bluff with a permanent solution until such time as the upper bluff repairs are completed. Initiating such work on the lower bluff prior to stabilizing -- the upper bluff would: ➢ Allow the upper bluff to experience continued failure for a period of months, resulting in the loss of portions of the primary residential structure, and; ➢ Place construction crews on the lower bluff in a perilous and unsanctionable threat of personal danger. Based on the imminent threat of failure to the primary residential structure posed by the ongoing upper bluff failure, the repairs to the existing upper bluff retaining wall and the development of the upper bluff retention system, as proposed in the `project description', must be implemented immediately. SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES Presented herein are the results of our bluff slope stability analyses for the subject site. The purpose of the analyses was to find the minimum factors of safety with respect to sliding for the existing bluff _ u conditions. The analyses were performed for both static and seismic conditions utilizing the Modified Bishops Method of Slices (STABL5M computer program) and the results are discussed herein. The location of the assumed most critical bluff cross - section A -A, shown on sheet 1 of 3 of the plans titled `Repairs to the Lower Bluff, and represents the bluff slope used in our analyses. The computer printouts are included in this review and are attached. Assumed design soil parameters used for our analysis are presented in the table on the following page: Page 3 Material Total Unit Weight Cohesion Friction Angle (Pcf) (Psn (degrees) Terrace Deposits (Upper- 120 100 32 Blum - Torrey Sandstone (Lower- 126 1000 35 Bluff) a pseudo Seismic criteria are included in the slope stability analyses. The s analysis afety with respect static method with a Seismic Coefficient of 0.15 gravity. The calculated facto to sliding for each load case are presented below: Bluff Condition Minimum Calculated g- Section A-A' Factor of Safety Existing Bluff Analysis Before Seawall Construction Static Analysis- 1 28 Pseudo-Static 05 tic Analysis - 1 Bluff Analysis After Construction of Seawall Static Analysis- 1.50 Pseudo-Static Analysis- 1.18 Upper Bluff Analysis Before Upper Bluff Repairs Static Analysis- 1.16 Pseudo-Static Analysis- 0.92 FUpp:erBlu:ff Bluff Repairs Static Analysis- 1.5 Pseudo-Static Analysis - 1.22 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the findings presented above, it is recommended that emergency repairs and the installation of an upper bluff retention system be performed immediately. Our engineering analyses, supported by Page 4 the recent observations of upper bluff failures on the southern half of the property, indicates that the recommended upper bluff construction proceed immediately and it's presence is imperative to prevent imminent substantial failure of a degree sufficient to impact the residential structure on the site. As presented on cross - section A -A' (Drawing Sheet 1 of 3), the section depicts the estimated existing bluff conditions with the proposed lower bluff seawall and a projected slope configuration assuming that the upper terrace sands lay at their angle of repose, approximately 33 degrees. It is our opinion that if the upper bluff construction repairs proposed are not carried out, imminent failure ofthe upper bluff will occur and loss of the existing residence will also occur. In regards to the repair of the lower bluff, it is recommended that the construction of the seawall proceed as soon as possible. It is recommended that the existing rip rap materials remain in Place until construction activities for the lower seawall commence. During construction ofthe lower emain there is recommended that the rip rap be moved in front of the construction work area until construction is completed. At that point the owner should proceed in receiving the necessary permits to remove the riprap from the intertidal areas to an approved location. It is recommended that the bottom of the lower seawall extend to a depth of approximately —4' M.S.L. Tiebacks for the seawall and the upper bluff repairs should be designed using a minimum bond stress of 15 pounds per square inch. The minimum length of the proposed tiebacks should be 40 feet. Caissons for the emergency installation of the upper bluff retention system should be a minimum of 39 feet in depth. Caissons should not be spaced greater than eight feet on center. Minimum diameter of the caissons should not be less than 24 inches. Based on the findings presented above, it is recommended that a lower bluff seawall, repairs to the existing upper bluff retaining wall and the installation of an oup observations of the upper bluff constructed at the site. Our engineering analyses, supported by u failures at the property as well as previous failures of the lower bluff, indicates that the recommended construction of the upper bluff repair work proceed immediately followed by the construction of a lower bluff seawall. It is our opinion that their presence is imperative to prevent substantial failure of a degree sufficient to impact the residential structure on the site. If the proposed project is delayed, we recommend that the California Coastal Commission provide SEC and the property owner assurance that these present site conditions will not adversely effect the subject property as well as the neighboring properties. Page 5 Thank you, in advance, for providing your immediate attention, review and comments to this review. _ If you have any questions, require additional materials, or would desire an on -site meeting, please call us at (760) 633 -3470. Sincerely, S ENGINE NG CONSTRUCITON, Inc. John W. Niven, R.C.E. 57517 Robert D. Mahony, G. .554, C.E.G. 847 1 : 1? v pFESS /0 f.. Q �nfESSfON �O �pO AA[D,yj9lF �, \NEER /NC I e- _01 � No. GE 554 S2 N0. C5751 rn c� w. E V . 1IVO " a EXP.06/30/0 d L[C;. Na $47 co? � FO EXP. 08 /31/00: i crv\ \- oQ� 9l TECH F OF CA�� OF CALIF �" �1,�'TF• ..... •�FO�.: � FC� Page 6 I I m I I+a I O I INN — N ,� •�� ::: I� d Qw IA I ms« lb IA aN aaO° -4 �` •" ¢I �= x 3m I oa z a I .qx H as ao PAN A4 %0 V4 c r+ O ,,,, W V IA 0►N �� PC • PIMW4 N , V N W . .•I �P a ac V 40^ to In ) a MN a a P4%0 I P �o a Oz H UJ 00 O N N t+9 !h If9 IA IA Y7 t7 w Nmmmm m NNNm U- 4mC+74mor-mmo Im a m m Im N d' "I N N N •• 4+ ri W4 w V I I � I M I I ti N >E N N Q� 0� I N � � I N aG a 3 � ccl Z04 . 4+ 3� In x a I x lb N N w� cry IA o� a In a G �+ N N v I In N N N w v ** PCSTABLSM ** by Purdue University - -Slope Stability Analysis - Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 09 -27 -99 Time of Run: 9:12am Run By: Input Data Filename: C:B22.DAT Output Filename: C:B22.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:B22.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BRUCE RES. LOWER NO WALL BOUNDARY COORDINATES NOTE: User defined origin was specified. Add 00.00 to X values and 60.00 to Y values listed. 10 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 38.00 150.00 38.00 2 2 150.00 38.00 156.00 65.00 2 3 156.00 65.00 159.00 75.00 1 4 159.00 75.00 168.00 86.50 1 5 168.00 86.50 189.00 103.00 1 6 189.00 103.00 189.10 107.00 1 7 189.10 107.00 204.00 116.00 1 8 204.00 116.00 204.10 132.00 1 9 204.10 132.00 221.00 132.00 1 10 221.00 132.00 321.00 132.00 1 11 156.00 65.00 321.00 65.00 . .--------------------------------- ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface (deg) Param. (Psf) No. No. (pcf) (pcf) (Psf) 1 120.0 120.0 390.0 32.0 •00 .0 1 .0 1 2 125.0 130.0 1200.0 35.0 .00 ------------------------- 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points a Point X -Water Y -Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 321.00 65.00 - •------------------------- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 625 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 125 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 150-00 ft. and X = 155.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 221-00 ft. and X = 321.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 9.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -5.0 And .0 deg. ------------------------------- Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) ( ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.91 3 167.97 38.69 4 176.81 40.34 5 185.46 42.85 6 193.82 46.19 7 201.81 50.32 8 209.36 55.21 9 216.41 60.82 10 222.87 67.08 11 228.69 73.94 12 233.82 81.34 13 238.20 89.20 14 241.80 97.45 15 244.57 106.01 16 246.50 114.80 17 247.57 123.74 18 247.74 132.00 Circle Center At X = 155.5 ; Y = 130.1 and Radius, 92.3 * ** 1.283 * ** Individual data on the 25 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge - -Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) .0 .0 .0 .0 1 6.0 10552.5 23295.8 10119.3 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2 3.0 11547.3 .0 5068.8 .0 .0 . 0 .0 3 9.0 45648.1 .0 14994.4 .0 .0 .0 ,0 .0 4 .0 195.7 .0 57.0 .0 .0 . 0 .0 5 8.8 53343.4 .0 14253.5 .0 . .0 .0 .0 6 8.6 57282.3 .0 13142.9 .0 . .0 .0 '7 3.5 24681.0 .0 5104.1 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 8 .1 728.6 .0 139.2 • .0 .0 .0 .0 9 4.7 35754.9 .0 6259.3 •0 .0 . .0 .0 10 8.0 61408.8 .0 9405.3 .0 11 2.2 16895.4 .0 2274.0 • p . .p .0 12 .1 866.8 .0 98.4 •p . ,-13 5.3 49591.1 .0 . • p .0 4498.5 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ,p .0 14 7.0 62521.6 .0 3923.4 .o .0 .0 .o 15 4.3 35794.4 .0 784.88 . .o 16 .3 2213.0 .0 .0 ,p .0 17 1.9 14770.7 .0 • • .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 18 5.8 42962.0 •0 .0 . .0 .0 ,p .0 19 5.1 33441.5 •0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ,p .0 _20 4.4 24573.1 •0 .0 .o .o .0 ,p .0 21 3.6 16688.5 •p .0 .o .0 .0 ,p .0 22 2.8 10081.7 •0 .0 .0 .0 .0 ,p .0 23 1.9 4998.0 •0 .0 .0 .o .0 ,p .0 24 1.1 1625.0 •0 .0 .0 .0 . ,p .0 25 .2 85.9 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.96 3 167.97 38.74 4 176.83 40.33 5 185.50 42.71 6 193.93 45.87 7 202.04 49.78 8 209.76 54.41 9 217.03 59.71 10 223.78 65.66 11 229.97 72.19 12 235.55 79.26 13 240.46 86.80 14 244.66 94.76 15 248.13 103.06 16 250.83 111.65 17 252.74 120.44 18 253.85 129.37 19 253.94 132.00 Circle Center At X = 154.9 ; Y = 137.1 and Radius, 99.2 * ** 1.297 * ** -------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.81 3 167.98 38.44 4 176.86 39.91 w 5 185.56 42.19 6 194.02 45.27 7 202.15 49.12 8 209.90 53.71 9 217.18 58.99 10 223.95 64.93 11 230.13 71.47 12 235.68 78.55 13 240.56 86.11 14 244.71 94.10 15 248.10 102.44 16 250.71 111.05 17 252.51 119.87 18 253.48 128.82 19 253.53 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.6 ; Y = 134.8 and Radius, 97.0 * ** 1.315 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 153.75 54.88 2 162.75 54.86 3 171.69 55.92 4 180.44 58.02 5 188.88 61.14 6 196.89 65.25 7 204.36 70.27 8 211.19 76.13 9 217.27 82.77 10 222.52 90.08 11 226.87 97.95 12 230.26 106.29 13 232.64 114.97 14 233.97 123.87 15 234.22 132.00 Circle Center At X = 158.4 ; Y = 130.7 and Radius, 75.9 * ** 1.319 * ** ----------------------------- - - - - -- Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points _ Point X- Surf Y ( ft) f No. ) 1 153.75 54.88 2 162.75 54.80 3 171.70 55.78 4 180.46 57.81 5 188.93 60.86 6 196.98 64.89 7 204.50 69.84 8 211.38 75.64 9 217.53 82.21 10 222.86 89.46 11 227.30 97.29 12 230.78 105.59 13 233.27 114.24 14 234.71 123.13 15 235.10 132.00 Circle Center At X = 158.9 ; Y = 130.9 and Radius, 76.2 * ** 1.329 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.88 3 167.98 38.52 4 176.86 39.94 5 185.60 42.11 6 194.11 45.02 7 202.35 48.66 8 210.24 52.98 9 217.73 57.97 10 224.76 63.59 11 231.29 69.78 12 237.26 76.52 13 242.63 83.74 14 247.36 91.40 15 251.42 99.43 16 254.77 107.78 17 257.39 116.39 18 259.26 125.20 19 260.11 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.0 ; Y = 142.6 and Radius, 104.7 * ** 1.332 * ** ------------------------------------ Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (f 1 151.25 43.63 2 160.24 43.30 3 169.23 43.86 4 178.11 45.30 5 186.81 47.60 6 195.24 50.75 7 203.33 54.71 8 210.98 59.44 9 218.14 64.90 10 224.72 71.04 11 230.67 77.79 12 235.93 85.09 13 240.45 92.88 14 244.18 101.07 15 247.09 109.58 16 249.15 118.35 17 250.34 127.27 18 250.50 132.00 Circle Center At X = 159.1 ; Y = 134.7 and Radius, 91.4 * ** 1.347 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.87 3 167.98 38.49 4 176.88 39.85 5 185.63 41.94 6 194.18 44.74 7 202.47 48.24 8 210.45 52.42 9 218.05 57.23 10 225.22 62.67 11 231.93 68.67 12 238.11 75.21 13 243.73 82.24 14 248.75 89.71 15 253.14 97.57 16 256.86 105.76 17 259.89 114.24 18 262.21 122.93 19 263.81 131.79 20 263.83 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.0 ; Y = 146.6 and Radius, 108.8 * ** 1.348 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 151.25 43.63 2 160.24 43.28 3 169.23 43.83 4 178.11 45.26 5 186.81 47.56 6 195.25 50.70 7 203.33 54.67 8 210.98 59.41 9 218.12 64.88 10 224.69 71.03 11 230.62 77.80 12 235.85 85.13 13 240.34 92.93 14 244.03 101.14 15 246.89 109.67 16 248.90 118.44 17 250.03 127.37 18 250.16 132.00 Circle Center At X = 159.3 ; Y = 134.2 and Radius, 90.9 * ** 1.348 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 151.25 43.63 2 160.24 43.31 3 169.23 43.86 4 178.12 45.28 5 186.83 47.54 6 195.28 50.63 7 203.39 54.52 8 211.10 59.18 9 218.31 64.56 10 224.98 70.60 11 231.04 77.26 12 236.42 84.47 13 241.08 92.17 14 244.99 100.28 15 248.09 108.73 16 250.36 117.44 17 251.79 126.32 18 252.14 132.00 Circle Center At X = 159.1 Y = 136.5 and Radius, 93.2 * ** 1.353 * ** C7 I j m I � I ti O q fAO+ IN N I N I fi d H aim waoo 'X s a we co I a a 00 ' a 3 • .+ a tywi Iri• -I ON ZIN GA ,., W� V M NW 94�rj,•I .i OV " z .. 3woo a •16 CA 11 PIW4.4 me 0;4& OH Wf, 3wppi a VV +'vNN I9 a WZ•�N F M VJ II� Y7 �0 N N OD 00 00 W 00 W000000000 m Is m 40 W a + In o+ N N .4 a �+ � W V � m i I � I � i I IS c� � I N .a m d' r+0+ c Im H94 ' •i I N A CD wa '� av, 3 IM IA N om � a CD � I x 3po t11 041 A* �a w t w d ca u, oz �a mo a 44 91 0 IA ., m .4 m a Im IN �a N N .. 4i .I ••I •i w •� ** PCSTABLSM ** by Purdue University ----------------- - -Slope Stability Analysis - Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 10 -01 -99 Time of Run: 10:10am Run By: T DA B22PS. Input Data Filename: CC ;B22pSDAT Output Filename: Plotted Output Filename: C:B22PS.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BRUCE OOR NO WALL PSEUDO STATIC BOUNDARY COORDINATES NOTE: User defined origin was specified. Add 00.00 to X values and 60.00 to Y values listed. 10 Top Boundaries 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 38.00 150.00 38.00 2 150.00 38.00 156.00 65.00 2 2 75.00 1 3 156.00 65.00 159.00 86.50 1 4 159.00 75.00 168.00 1 5 168.00 86.50 189.00 107.00 1 6 189.00 103.00 189.10 1 7 189.10 107.00 204.00 116.00 8 204.00 116.00 204.10 132.00 1 g 204.10 132.00 221.00 132.00 1 1 221.00 132.00 321.00 132.00 156.00 65.00 321.00 65.00 - __, - ----------11---------- ------------------------------------------------------- ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (Pcf) (Psf) (deg) Param. (Psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 390.0 32.0 •00 .0 1 .0 1 2 125.0 130.0 1200.0 35.0 .00 - --------------------------- 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X -Water Y -Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 321.00 65.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf - •---------------------------- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 625 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 125 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 150.00 ft. and X = 155.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 221-00 ft. and X = 321.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 9.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. Restrictions Have Been Imposed Upon The Angle Of Initiation. The Angle Has Been Restricted Between The Angles Of -5.0 And .0 deg. - -------------------------------- Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 18 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) ( ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.91 3 167.97 38.69 4 176.81 40.34 5 185.46 42.85 6 193.82 46.19 7 201.81 50.32 8 209.36 55.21 9 216.41 60.82 10 222.87 67.08 11 228.69 73.94 12 233.82 81.34 13 238.20 89.20 14 241.80 97.45 15 244.57 106.01 16 246.50 114.80 17 247.57 123.74 18 247.74 132.00 Circle Center At X = 155.5 ; Y = 130.1 and Radius, 92.3 * ** 1.045 * ** Individual data on the 25 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge ,Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) ~� 1 6.0 10552.5 23295.8 10119.3 •0 .0 1582.9 .0 .0 1 •0 0 1732. .0 2 3.0 11547.3 .0 5068.8 •0 . .0 .0 6847.2 •0 3 9.0 45648.1 .0 14994.4 •0 .0 4 .0 195.7 .0 57.0 .0 .0 29.4 •0 .0 8001.5 .0 .0 5 8.8 53343.4 .0 14253.5 •0 • .0 8592.3 .0 6 8.6 57282,3 .0 13142.9 •0 2 • 0 3702. .0 y` '7 3.5 24681.0 .0 5104.1 •0 . .0 8 .1 728.6 .0 139.2 .0 .0 109.3 •0 0 .0 2 5363. . g 4.7 35754.9 .0 6259.3 •0 .0 .0 10 8.0 61408.8 .0 9405.3 '0 .0 9211.3 •0 .0 2534.3 .0 .0 11 2.2 16895.4 .0 2274.0 •0 .0 12 .1 866.8 .0 98.4 .0 .0 130.0 •0 7 .0 .0 7438. 13 5.3 49591.1 .0 4498.5 •0 .0 2 •0 9378. .0 _ 14 7.0 62521.6 .0 3923.4 •0 .0 .0 15 4.3 35794.4 .0 784:8p :O .0 5369.2 •0 .0 332.0 .0 .0 16 .3 2213.0 •0 .0 2215.6 .0 .0 17 1.9 14770.7 • • ' ,p ,p .0 6444.3 .0 .0 1g 5.8 42962.0 • 19 5.1 33441.5 •0 .0 .0 .0 5016.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 ,p 3686.0 .0 .0 20 4.4 24573.1 •0 .0 .0 .0 2503.3 .0 .0 21 3.6' 16688.5 •0 .0 .0 ,p 1512.3 .0 .0 22 2.8 10081.7 •0 _._ .0 .0 .0 749.7 .0 .0 24 1.1 1625.0 .0 23 1.9 4998.0 •0 .0 .0 .0 243.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 12.9 .0 .0 25 .2 85.9 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.96 3 167.97 38.74 4 176.83 40.33 5 185.50 42.71 6 193.93 45.87 7 202.04 49.78 8 209.76 54.41 9 217.03 59.71 10 223.78 65.66 11 229.97 72.19 12 235.55 79.26 13 240.46 86.80 14 244.66 94.76 15 248.13 103.06 16 250.83 111.65 17 252.74 120.44 18 253.85 129.37 19 253.94 132.00 Circle Center At X = 154.9 ; Y = 137.1 and Radius, 99.2 * ** 1.046 * ** -------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) ( ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.81 3 167.98 38.44 4 176.86 39.91 5 185.56 42.19 6 194.02 45.27 7 202.15 49.12 8 209.90 53.71 9 217.18 58.99 10 223.95 64.93 11 230.13 71.47 12 235.68 78.55 13 240.56 86.11 14 244.71 94.10 15 248.10 102.44 16 250.71 111.05 17 252.51 119.87 18 253.48 128.82 19 253.53 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.6 ; Y = 134.8 and Radius, 97.0 * ** 1.063 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.88 3 167.98 38.52 4 176.86 39.94 5 185.60 42.11 6 194.11 45.02 7 202.35 48.66 8 210.24 52.98 9 217.73 57.97 10 224.76 63.59 11 231.29 69.78 12 237.26 76.52 13 242.63 83.74 14 247.36 91.40 15 251.42 99.43 16 254.77 107.78 17 257.39 116.39 18 259.26 125.20 19 260.11 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.0 ; Y = 142.6 and Radius, 104.7 * ** 1.066 * ** ----------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) ( ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.87 3 167.98 38.49 - 4 176.88 39.85 5 185.63 41.94 6 194.18 44.74 7 202.47 48.24 8 210.45 52.42 9 218.05 57.23 10 225.22 62.67 11 231.93 68.67 12 238.11 75.21 13 243.73 82.24 14 248.75 89.71 15 253.14 97.57 16 256.86 105.76 17 259.89 114.24 18 262.21 122.93 19 263.81 131.79 20 263.83 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.0 ; Y = 146.6 and Radius, 108.8 * ** 1.072 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.86 3 167.98 38.45 Failure Surface Specified By 20 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf - No. (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 38.00 2 159.00 37.85 3 167.98 38.41 - 4 176.89 39.70 5 185.67 41.69 6 194.25 44.38 7 202.60 47.76 8 210.64 51.79 9 218.34 56.45 10 225.64 61.72 11 232.49 67.55 12 238.85 73.92 13 244.68 80.78 14 249.95 88.08 15 254.61 95.78 16 258.63 103.83 17 262.00 112.17 18 264.69 120.76 19 266.68 129.54 20 267.03 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.5 ; Y = 149.8 and Radius, 112.0 * ** 1.081 * ** ----------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 19 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) ) 1 151.25 43.63 2 160.25 43.62 3 169.22 44.35 4 178.10 45.80 5 186.84 47.97 6 195.37 50.84 7 203.64 54.39 8 211.59 58.60 9 219.18 63.45 10 226.35 68.89 11 233.05 74.89 12 239.24 81.42 13 244.89 88.43 14 249.95 95.88 15 254.38 103.71 16 258.17 111.87 17 261.28 120.32 18 263.70 128.99 19 264.28 132.00 Circle Center At X = 155.8 ; Y = 154.4 and Radius, 110.9 * ** 1.083 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 15 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) ) 1 153.75 54.88 2 162.75 54.86 3 171.69 55.92 4 180.44 58.02 5 188.88 61.14 6 196.89 65.25 7 204.36 70.27 8 211.19 76.13 9 217.27 82.77 10 222.52 90.08 11 226.87 97.95 12 230.26 106.29 13 232.64 114.97 14 233.97 123.87 15 234.22 132.00 Circle Center At X = 158.4 ; Y = 130.7 and Radius, 75.9 * ** 1.084 * ** M I I ... .. PAM Wog ! - wa a (goo - a as In PM Is. ON Arz mm .-I I I aaa pkw n 0 f a .V 0 IMM H !gN NW V� +)ONM V 34+ OIA +' * v NN N a 5k,q,4 0 Far+ ro C '" 01 0.4m H M 000 .4•4NNNNNm n V) 11 0000non •-I N C9 d� Y7 �0 N 00 Q� 0 Hl�l y � W � �0 N N N .•� 4+ .� *� d W � m I Ig m ti z m b' dam' N o+ o► I N � PAN *� co Mm _.. w co \ w a • xN ou .'x a a I w� m x a +a w w.• oil _. x a a ca a � �a m ti d� •a a +� ca N N m � w •� ** PCSTABLSM ** by Purdue University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - -Slope Stability Analysis- - Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 09-27-99 Time of Run: 4:30pm Run By: Input Data Filename: C:B28.DAT Output Filename: C:B28.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:B28.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BRUCE RES. LOWER W/ SEAWALL BOUNDARY COORDINATES NOTE: User defined origin was specified. Add 00.00 to X values and 60.00 to Y values listed. 10 Top Boundaries _ 11 Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 38.00 150.00 38.00 2 2 150.00 38.00 156.00 65.00 2 3 156.00 65.00 159.00 75.00 1 4 159.00 75.00 168.00 86.50 1 5 168.00 86.50 189.00 103.00 1 6 189.00 103.00 189.10 107.00 1 7 189.10 107.00 204.00 116.00 1 8 204.00 116.00 204.10 132.00 1 9 204.10 132.00 221.00 132.00 1 10 221.00 132.00 321.00 132.00 1 11 156.00 65.00 321.00 65.00 1 ,---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type(s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 390.0 32.0 .00 .0 1 2 125.0 130.0 1200.0 35.0 .00 .0 1 ,..._-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points Point X -Water Y -Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 321.00 65.00 • ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X -Pos Y -Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 152.22 48.00 70000.0 8.5 20.00 40.0 2 155.33 62.00 70000.0 8.5 20.00 45.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. _------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Searching Routine Will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 1 Boundaries Of Which The First 0 Boundaries Will Deflect Surfaces Upward Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) -- 1 150.00 36.00 150.10 38.00 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 625 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 125 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along.The Ground Surface Between X = 100.00 ft. and X = 140.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 221.00 ft. and X = 321.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation -- At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 23.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 9 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 110.00 38.00 2 132.68 34.19 3 155.61 36.01 4 177.41 43.35 5 196.76 55.77 6 212.52 72.53 7 223.72 92.62 8 229.70 114.83 9 230.00 132.00 Circle Center At X = 136.8 ; Y = 127.9 and Radius, 93.8 * ** 1.496 * ** Individual data on the 18 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 1 22.7 5620.0 38214.5 41485.8 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 2 17.3 7034.6 29176.7 32655.6 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 3 5.6 10822.0 23201.4 10259.8 851.8 -59.8 .0 .0 .0 4 .4 1421.0 98.3 742.2 92.8 -9.7 .0 .0 .0 5 3.0 12008.1 .0 5601.2 842.9 15.6 .0 .0 .0 6 9.0 45451.5 .0 15606.0 2873.5 1144.2 .0 .0 .0 7 9.4 54670.3 .0 14391.7 2240.1 1848.5 .0 .0 .0 8 11.6 71471.6 .0 15412.3 2458.9 2127.5 .0 .0 .0 9 .1 650.2 .0 105.1 16.1 18.1 .0 .0 .0 10 7.7 51498.5 .0 6640.4 1016.3 1329.7 .0 .0 .0 "11 7.2 47060.7 .0 3545.8 1078.0 1144.9 .0 .0 .0 12 .1 725.8 .0 13.4 12.3 15.0 .0 .0 .0 13 1.3 10866.1 .0 86.7 158.0 198.9 .0 .0 .0 - -14 7.1 53718.7 .0 .0 672.5 974.8 .0 .0 .0 15 8.5 52798.5 .0 .0 988.5 1155.0 .0 .0 .0 16 2.7 13653.3 .0 .0 224.5 321.8 .0 .0 .0 17 6.0 20298.3 .0 .0 830.7 918.5 .0 .0 .0 18 .3 308.0 .0 .0 466.8 424.6 .0 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 110.00 38.00 2 132.77 34.78 3 155.75 35.90 4 178.10 41.30 5 199.05 50.81 6 217.83 64.08 7 233.80 80.63 8 246.37 99.89 9 255.10 121.17 10 257.31 132.00 Circle Center At X = 138.5 ; Y = 155.7 and Radius, 121.1 * ** 1.496 * ** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 110.00 38.00 2 132.51 33.28 3 155.51 33.59 4 177.89 38.89 5 198.58 48.94 6 216.58 63.26 7 231.03 81.15 8 241.24 101.76 9 246.71 124.10 10 246.87 132.00 Circle Center At X = 142.7 ; Y = 137.0 and Radius, 104.3 * ** 1.510 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 120.00 38.00 2 142.85 35.39 3 165.81 36.72 4 188.21 41.95 5 209.38 50.94 6 228.70 63.41 7 245.61 79.01 8 259.60 97.26 9 270.27 117.64 10 274.88 132.00 Circle Center At X = 146.7 ; Y = 168.6 and Radius, 133.3 * ** 1.511 * ** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 120.00 38.00 2 142.86 35.42 3 165.80 37.04 4 188.06 42.81 5 208.90 52.54 6 227.63 65.90 7 243.60 82.45 8 256.30 101.62 9 265.30 122.79 10 267.34 132.00 Circle Center At X = 145.6 ; Y = 160.3 and Radius, 125.0 * ** 1.515 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 100.00 38.00 2 122.69 34.21 3 145.68 34.79 4 168.15 39.70 5 189.28 48.77 6 208.32 61.68 7 224.58 77.95 8 237.46 97.00 9 246.50 118.15 10 249.51 132.00 Circle Center At X = 131.3 ; Y = 154.2 and Radius, 120.3 * ** 1.516 * ** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 110.00 38.00 2 132.60 33.73 3 155.60 34.03 4 178.07 38.92 5 199.13 48.17 6 217.92 61.44 7 233.69 78.17 8 245.82 97.72 9 253.82 119.28 10 255.80 132.00 Circle Center At X = 142.7 ; Y = 147.4 and Radius, 114.2 * ** 1.516 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 130.00 38.00 2 152.84 35.25 3 175.77 36.99 4 197.93 43.16 5 218.46 53.53 6 236.58 67.70 7 251.60 85.12 8 262.94 105.13 9 270.17 126.96 10 270.79 132.00 Circle Center At X = 155.5 ; Y = 152.2 and Radius, 117.0 * ** 1.517 * ** -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 120.00 38.00 2 142.80 34.98 3 165.78 36.03 4 188.21 41.10 5 209.40 50.05 6 228.68 62.59 7 245.45 78.33 8 259.19 96.78 9 269.46 117.36 10 273.76 132.00 Circle Center At X = 148.5 ; Y = 164.1 and Radius, 129.3 * ** 1.518 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 130.00 38.00 2 152.81 35.01 3 175.75 36.58 4 197.94 42.64 5 218.50 52.96 6 236.62 67.12 - -- 7 251.59 84.58 8 262.83 104.65 9 269.89 126.54 10 270.52 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.5 Y = 150.4 and Radius, 115.5 * ** 1.526 * ** I I � 1 � O � I � X17 s7 1 N kM NCW :lei y' N H i a I :'`± N Awl ° wa °° .� H IA W I _ .P4 x a,� I a 04 x� 00 '' i - w4x OAH CPA C pd wo \N ^ 0 300 V 00 00 , 34100 �u�7 +' GcgM r7 .,� 1124.4.4 as yam+" 13a OH W 0� NN w vr, F%+*a+� IA mt , C (AZ •-IN a F 0000 000*iNmmm M wwgwlNNNNNNNN *wqm m vn 0Nom0 m O ^ m 19 0 0 N e>r •� a +� as u� N 0+ � N N N •y s rl � i w u I P7 � N Y7 � N ry F0+ co FI Im 0 A� N wa i cc as I ' CO 3a wv 0 I vaa In'x w a 3 I ?4 GCS Wa N 3+i OIV A .. '' a Wa at a tq Wa In .. ., a N N N W v +•I •a �i i ** PCSTABLSM ** by Purdue University ------------------------------------------- - -Slope Stability Analysis- - Simplified Janbu, Simplified Bishop or Spencer's Method of Slices Run Date: 10 -01 -99 Time of Run: 10:05am Run By: Input Data Filename: C:B28PS.DAT Output Filename: C:B28PS.OUT Plotted Output Filename: C:B28PS.PLT PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BRUCE RES. LOWER W/ SEAWALL PSEUDO STATIC BOUNDARY COORDINATES NOTE: User defined origin was specified. Add 00.00 to X values and 60.00 to Y values listed. 10 Top Boundaries it Total Boundaries Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 100.00 38.00 150.00 38.00 2 2 150.00 38.00 156.00 65.00 2 3 156.00 65.00 159.00 75.00 1 4 159.00 75.00 168.00 86.50 1 5 168.00 86.50 189.00 103.00 1 6 189.00 103.00 189.10 107.00 1 7 189.10 107.00 204.00 116.00 1 8 204.00 116.00 204.10 132.00 1 9 204.10 132.00 221.00 132.00 1 10 221.00 132.00 321.00 132.00 1 11 156.00 65.00 321.00 65.00 1 -------------------------------------------------- ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 2 Type (s) of Soil Soil Total Saturated Cohesion Friction Pore Pressure Piez. Type Unit Wt. Unit Wt. Intercept Angle Pressure Constant Surface No. (pcf) (pcf) (psf) (deg) Param. (psf) No. 1 120.0 120.0 390.0 32.0 .00 .0 1 2 125.0 130.0 1200.0 35.0 .00 .0 1 • ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 PIEZOMETRIC SURFACE(S) HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED Unit Weight of Water = 62.40 Piezometric Surface No. 1 Specified by 2 Coordinate Points - Point X -Water Y -Water No. (ft) (ft) 1 156.00 65.00 2 321.00 65.00 A Horizontal Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .150 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of .000 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = .0 psf ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TIEBACK LOAD(S) 2 Tieback Load(s) Specified Tieback X -Pos Y -Pos Load Spacing Inclination Length No. (ft) (ft) (lbs) (ft) (deg) (ft) 1 152.22 48.00 70000.0 8.5 20.00 40.0 2 155.33 62.00 70000.0 8.5 20.00 45.0 NOTE - An Equivalent Line Load Is Calculated For Each Row Of Tiebacks Assuming A Uniform Distribution Of Load Horizontally Between Individual Tiebacks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Searching Routine Will Be Limited To An Area Defined By 1 Boundaries Of Which The First 0 Boundaries Will Deflect Surfaces Upward Boundary X -Left Y -Left X -Right Y -Right No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) 1 150.00 36.00 150.10 38.00 - •------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Critical Failure Surface Searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular Surfaces, Has Been Specified. 625 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 125 Surfaces Initiate From Each Of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between X = 100.00 ft. and X = 140.00 ft. Each Surface Terminates Between X = 221.00 ft. and X = 321.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations Were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At Which A Surface Extends Is Y = .00 ft. 23.00 ft. Line Segments Define Each Trial Failure Surface. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following Are Displayed The Ten Most Critical Of The Trial Failure Surfaces Examined. They Are Ordered - Most Critical First. * * Safety Factors Are Calculated By The Modified Bishop Method Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points - Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 120.00 38.00 2 142.85 35.39 3 165.81 36.72 4 188.21 41.95 5 209.38 50.94 6 228.70 63.41 7 245.61 79.01 8 259.60 97.26 9 270.27 117.64 10 274.88 132.00 Circle Center At X = 146.7 ; Y = 168.6 and Radius, 133.3 * ** 1.183 * ** Individual data on the 19 slices Water Water Tie Tie Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force Surcharge Slice Width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor Ver Load No. Ft(m) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) Lbs(kg) 1 22.9 3882.3 38499.4 40626.1 .0 .0 582.3 .0 .0 2 7.1 2236.5 12043.8 13139.3 .0 .0 335.5 .0 .0 3 6.0 12110.0 23299.6 10885.5 648.5 4.3 1816.5 .0 .0 4 3.0 12155.4 .0 5393.8 490.8 186.9 1823.3 .0 .0 5 6.8 35018.7 .0 12128.3 993.4 783.4 5252.8 .0 .0 6 2.2 12631.5 .0 3928.1 290.3 243.0 1894.7 .0 .0 7 20.2 133013.4 .0 32906.7 1275.6 2109.8 19952.0 .0 .0 8 .8 5748.6 .0 1226.7 39.5 62.7 862.3 .0 .0 9 .1 752.3 .0 153.8 4.9 7.9 112.8 .0 .0 10 14.9 118020.0 .0 19702.9 499.2 1012.9 17703.0 .0 .0 11 .1 903.9 .0 110.7 2.4 5.9 135.6 .0 .0 12 5.3 52075.9 .0 5434.3 113.6 294.5 7811.4 .0 .0 - -13 11.6 107795.5 .0 8897.5 285.9 566.6 16169.3 .0 .0 14 7.7 65709.3 .0 2330.8 134.5 320.8 9856.4 .0 .0 15 1.7 13996.2 .0 115.9 41.7 69.9 2099.4 .0 .0 16 15.2 109339.4 .0 .0 277.3 543.0 16400.9 .0 .0 17 14.0 73660.1 .0 .0 262.2 441.0 11049.0 .0 .0 18 10.7 31427.4 .0 .0 222.4 322.9 4714.1 .0 .0 19 4.6 3971.8 .0 .0 132.6 160.0 595.8 .0 .0 Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 120.00 38.00 2 142.80 34.98 3 165.78 36.03 4 188.21 41.10 5 209.40 50.05 6 228.68 62.59 7 245.45 78.33 8 259.19 96.78 9 269.46 117.36 10 273.76: 132.00 Circle Center At X = 148.5 ; Y = 164.1 and Radius, 129.3 * ** 1.191 * ** Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 130.00 38.00 2 152.84 35.25 3 175.77 36.99 4 197.93 43.16 5 218.46 53.53 6 236.58 67.70 7 251.60 85.12 8 262.94 105.13 9 270.17 126.96 10 270.79 132.00 Circle Center At X = 155.5 ; Y = 152.2 and Radius, 117.0 * ** 1.198 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 130.00 38.00 2 152.81 35.01 3 175.75 36.58 4 197.94 42.64 5 218.50 52.96 6 236.62 67.12 7 251.59 84.58 8 262.83 104.65 9 269.89 126.54 10 270.52 132.00 Circle Center At X = 156.5 ; Y = 150.4 and Radius, 115.5 * ** 1.206 * ** -------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 130.00 38.00 2 152.79 34.93 3 175.75 36.29 4 198.02 42.04 5 218.77 51.96 6 237.23 65.68 7 252.71 82.69 8 264.63 102.36 9 272.56 123.95 10 273.84 132.00 Circle Center At X = 157.4 ; Y = 153.2 and Radius, 118.4 * ** 1.215 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 110.00 38.00 2 132.60 33.73 3 155.60 34.03 4 178.07 38.92 5 199.13 48.17 6 217.92 61.44 7 233.69 78.17 8 245.82 97.72 9 253.82 119.28 10 255.80 132.00 Circle Center At X = 142.7 ; Y = 147.4 and Radius, 114.2 * ** 1.220 * ** ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Failure Surface Specified By 11 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 100.00 38.00 2 122.49 33.16 3 145.46 32.17 4 168.28 35.05 5 190.29 41.72 6 210.87 52.00 7 229.43 65.58 8 245.45 82.09 9 258.47 101.05 10 268.11 121.93 11 270.84 132.00 Circle Center At X = 139.8 ; Y = 168.5 and Radius, 136.5 * ** 1.225 * ** Failure Surface Specified By 10 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. ( ft) ( ft) 1 130.00 38.00 2 152.79 34.86 3 175.76 36.03 4 198.10 41.47 5 219.05 50.98 6 237.84 64.23 7 253.84 80.76 8 266.47 99.98 9 275.29 121.23 10 277.54 132.00 Circle Center At X = 158.2 ; Y = 156.5 and Radius, 121.8 * ** 1.225 * ** I _ I � I M I � '♦ I N I Q+ w 040 1 0� IA m a IA ati o goo + I N..4 aN as __ ! � mm f `' I ac (D I>a I f m 04X = aaoo__: wa ,o .� Parts NdNN . APO MM �� •I C W V M ON GM 04 . I� N NW P - 4 v ,4 a� 3w 00 0 4 N m v NN a c a O=.IN H co flJ�O�o�o�otiNOO.�N M W ••1 +a 'I rl � •i N N N . 04 04 q4 W4 �C m Is d�' •� d ++ 00 Y7 N Oti %a I } I ! i ! 'Y J � +"1 V� N JJ 1lY �"1 VJJ ao+ � a� a 3 � F Za are a W v N NM m N x a i x � N a. a IA .4 a m m N NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText NoText sirs -MM fit? 3W ecr- -M JNONd All Mtaia vo V Miote V suns *90t AM M V M ; M „ f , .� �, VINd031Ib0 SVJJNION3 v, � t �ou�ao a��aaNO�e e '" Nou3naisNOOd o 3AV 3Nnld3N 029 ro �- JPIIMNI9N3 0 . �, �$ Dios 3� ��, �� 3HS 83AOO .jAnis 83ddn 01 S8lVd38 � * 9 � cn z o z �NGINEER* b . LU Le UL o V LU O W C 1 v a v1� SPA � y Q Z LL Q Q� y W V W P W F- J s P� GE W G 0 �'— pP A � A 0 a o as A o � � a •, � AA w LL m D OLM ui a. . cn Cf) J 0 • Q Z LM a V) 0 W F-= Z �'. co Z IX W Q V C/) Z ■■�. J W < Z M Q � W a V) F— J ft ew-**. V) Q W Z J }- F- 0 J w w w �- V 3: .. = w V) V) V) to Z Z C� w 00 CL Q . V o w --� Q w o W V CL V (/) U A o . a AW w� �a w � m v, A vs W� N �, 1 HW P A S310N `S"lIV �., 134 � - V SNOLL33 VINNO.41�1VO `Sd1.INION3 M � S Nl�dld � � W '-IAV 3NrUd3N 0C9 �N 01�6�1�'tOB '" NOIlOn2�LSN00 � o `��'� � � 0 JNl2133N�9N3 ll 13 ?J 8313 W Il . • . „� �� ' jjn"ie 83ddn Ol S8lVd38 i+ _ ��3 � (3) •oi s8ryd38 � N n .rJ H O tr! V cM N C4 � /* d � M Q _- _ _ 44 J Y G ! r V a - J A - .- ' * N o P�lj ' } alo if ,: o \ • - ' . . • .. - .. - • `+ 0 -81 = tt a- L z •� N A V • r .. a - �-- a AL ' 7 N N s AN r r ` % i A 4 C4 S U t 0 jp Ov rJ t4 F - 9 2' -O (4)#9 EACH FACE TIEBACK a OR (5) #8 EACH FACE F EL 9.2 GENERAL NOTES: #4 TIES O 12" 1. Desig and construction to be in accordance with 1997 UBC and local Codes. a (4) 9 EACH FACE. 2. AN dimensions. conditions and location of • • ,.. .: � ' � ' _ • � " •. � � • � • OR 5) #8 EACH FACE facilities to be verified and determined ai .. .. •� . j..' in field. c a .. •, t #4 TIES O 12" C. w •' 38 EMBEDMENT �-� 3. Exact location of drilled piers for burled LENGTH (MIN - .) a' 45" EXTENSION retaining wail of upper bluff and (E) timber • • .. � 0 WITH 15" HOOK ` � d C.J. ret. wail repair may be adjusted i .'� s r' • ROUGH CLEAN SURFACE OR as field conditions require. 3 ♦ ' • _ PROVIDE 8 "x8 "x2" KEY (OPTIONAL) • 4. AN cast- in -pbce concrete shall have • . compressive strength of 3.000 psi at F ,, 28 days, U.N.O.. a E0. E0. ( is CTYP.) CTYP.) '' 59" EMBEDMENT LENGTH " 5. All structural steel, If any, shall be A 36. •a ' FOR 11 BAR (TYP) M `c O ' D 6. Reinforcing steel to be Gr. 60 for #4 bars • (45 SION WITH 14 HOOK) �►9 Z and above. C9 O I Z_ : EMBEDMENT LENGTH 7. All exposed steel shall be�j FOR #9 BAR (TYP.) '' •• TYP. galvanized or coated with corrosion J 24" CONCRETE � , •H PIER ( ) inhibiting point. Z ,, Tieback head at caissons to be completely _ 0 o coated with O • v� irk N epoxy grout or concrete. 6 41 . • •' 24" DIAMETER O S. S i nst a llation of drillied requ iers and tiebacks. • : i ° SEE SECTIONS FOR a DRILLED PIER STEEL DETAILS ° : (UBC SECTION 1701). 9. Section at construction joint make rough ES 4 i �� "N' or form key. pQ� � r,�, 4 TIES .) 10. Minimum 3 concrete cover required for all �" reinforced concrete imposed to soil. W No. N0• C. 554 ° � •. , � W CIE .� • ' a ' ' 11. Tieback notes: a EifP'6 -30-01 } ° a. Use Dywidog bars and Dywidaq standard LJ N +1 j hardware, or equal. % I ... op- b. Bar to be 1 dia. 2' -0 8•_0•t 2'_009 c. As alternative Multistrand anor ch with (4) 0.6" dia., 270 ksi strands could be 12' -00* utilized. • d. Tiebacks installed at every other span r . ( 9 e. Tiebac ill be ' ...! C5)I 11 covered in concrete. coated and /or GRADE BEAM DETAIL A -A f. Use ade cent O 10' -0' C.C. Q SCALE 1 /2 "= 1' m U se Tieback m in. centrali r r timber • wail repair): Tiebacks at other . O ABBREVIATIONS: ever span: • Q • M Design load DL = 35.0 It E N Test load O 150 % of DL = 52.5 k w ♦ (). () - New Lock -off load O 60 % of DL = 21.0 k M.S.L. -Mean sea level • N.I.C. -Each wa y c Design load DL = 53.4 k , � Z E.W. O C.C. - Center to center Test bad O 1 X of DL = 80.0 k Lock -off load O 60 X of DL = 32.0 k O O Z 4' tO U.N.O. - Unless noted otherwise TIEBACK AT WALER . O T.O.W. -Top of wall (For tieback load for caissons see section F -F below.) (n F= SEE SECTION F -F h. All tiebacks shall be proof tested to Q I B.O.W. - Bottom of wall teat bad. (4) #9 EACH FACE M B.O.P.W. - Bottom of pier wall i. Grout to be cement grout w /water - cement •; '� sock. r. T.O.P.W. -Top of pier wall ratio (w:c) of 0.4 to 0.5 5 gal. per Q W OR (5)�8 EACH FACE #4 TIES O 12" c,► ' �. V t!� I FOR PIER Allow up to 22.5 cf sand /yard. * SEE DETAIL D -D a ' , Allow cure time before testing r . d s BENCHMARK Provide for two sta of grouting O 6 First stage of grouting shall be for UM o : % ; testing of tiebacks. Holes to be tromie W _ k - m O THE BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS PUT IS SAN pipe grouted from bottom of hole to N , T . I •'�� ,: 4 ` ; DIEGO COUNTY VERTICAL CONTROL MONUMENT provide for bonded zone. •. •• ` F NO. O.C. 141. LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF Second stage of grouting shall be J .•r accomplished lished after accepted testa all HWY. 101, 150 SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF P P n9• 'ot EL PORTAL STREET IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, CA. way up remaining hole. • EL 63.913 M.S.L. (5) #11 ON DOWNSIOPE SIDE B.O.P.W. (IN PIER) EL. 53.50* W FOR PIER i SEE DETAIL D -D Q 2' -0 e' -0 2' - 0 1S t D Z • II 2' -0" W 0 SECTION C Q _ SCALE 1/2 it W Q WALER DETAIL B -B _o SCALE 1/2o= 1' #4 TIES O 12" O.C. � UPSLOPE ' � (4) #9 EQ. SPACED I •..'.• (4) 9 EACH FACE CL Q ON UPSLOPE SIDE s - ; ; .• ;�• OR (5) #8 EACH FACE (TYP.) W H w w w •` • 8" DIA. HOLE W BAR Z Z 6 x6 x314 •_) P ( 5) 11 INSTALL W/ 1 1 /2" GAPS STEEL LATE DYWIDAG ORE () ' MIN. ON DOWNSLOPE SIDE W/ BEVELED 1 "DID. 150 KSI OR W WASHER M Z .•:•) ; : , D. 4- 0.6"DIA. 270 KSI �/ (O W MIN. DEVELOPMENT LENGTH LAP LEAH l G 1 `��1 USE 4 HOOPS AT 12" C.C. IN INCHES (d). IN INCHES (1.3 d). FULL LENGTH. COVER PL, BAR & NUT r f'c = 3.0 ksi f'c 4.0 ksi f c = 3.0 kai f'c = 4.0 ksi PLACE #4 HOOPS AT 6" C.C. W/ CONCRETE - 3' SECTIONS (AS SHOWN SOME ADJUSTMENT TO E) TIEBACK: #4 12" 12" #4 16 16" ON SECTION C -C). PROVIDE CONCRETE WALL MAY BE �1� _ 5 15" 15" 20" 20" b =24 HOOPS W 135 HOOKS OR USE NECESSARY DESIGN LOAD =32.4 KIPS " i #3 SPIRAL AT 3 PITCH CONTINUOUS. TEST LOAD =48.6 KIPS R #9 44 38" #9 58" 50' 2 1 /2"DIA. PVC SLEEVE LO - OFF LOAD=20.0 KIPS UNBONDED #11 68" 59" #11 89" 77" BONDED ZZONE�O * , � Maw ALT. SECTION •� �, FOR LAP SPLICES USE CLASS "B 1S SPLICES. SCALE , /2 1' F- F (LAP OF 1.31d) SCALE 1/2 1 AT CONTRACTOR'S OPTION ROUND HOOPS OR SPIRAL COULD BE UTILIZED 6 233 - G 3 OF 3