Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParcel Map 35039 Geotechnical Report Nov. 30, 2006T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. Phone: (951) 894-2121 FAX: (951) 894-2122 41548 Eastman Drive, Unit G • Murrieta, CA 92562 November 30, 2006 Ms. Yvette Anthony 43135 Avenida De San Pasqual Temecula, California 92595 ' SUBJECT: AS -BUILT SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS Proposed Residential Pad and Future Pad Portion of Parcel 4 of Parcel Map 8632 Santiago Road at John Warner Road City of Temecula, Riverside County, California ' Work Order No. 650601.03 Dear Ms. Anthony: 0 E-mail: thesoilsco(q)aol.com ' In accordance with your request, we have completed a Slope Stability Analysis for the above referenced site in the city of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The purpose of our ' investigation was to determine the stability of the existing fill and cut slopes from a geotechnical standpoint. Based on our review of the 30 -scale "Precise Grading Plan", we have prepared a slope stability analysis for the approximately 47 -ft high on average 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) cut slope. ' Fill slopes were constructed at a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio on the southerly portion of the �parcel .along the.existing driveway; and pad to a maximum vertical height of 194 "pr For this investigation, we were provided with a 30 -scale "Precise Grading Plan" for the project prepared by Medofer Engineering, Inc. of Riverside, California. A reduced copy of the 30 -scale map was utilized as a base map for the Geotechnical Map (Plate 1) ' attached with this report. of the subject site, which is ACCOMPANYING MAPS, ILLUSTRATIONS, AND APPENDICES Figure 1 - Site Location Map (2,000 -scale) ' Plate 1 - Geotechnical Map (reduced 30 -scale) APPENDIX A - References APPENDIX B - Slope Stability Analysis IT.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. No. 650601.03 Ms. Yvette Anthony ' November 30, 2006 Page 2 1.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ' The subject site is an irregular-shaped 4.17 -acre parcel of land located along Santiago Road at John Warner Road in the city of Temecula in southwest Riverside County, California. The subject site is bordered on the north and west by large parcel residential development, on the east by vacant land, and on the south by Santiago Road and large parcel residential development. The geographical relationships of the site and surrounding area are shown on our Site Location Map, Figure 1. ' The subject site has been graded into two large residential 'thassociated driveways and 1.5:1 cut slopes constructed to a maximum vertical height 47-ftd 2:1 fill slopes constructed to a ' vertical height of 19 -ft. At the time of our investigatidtl,vega tion on the subject site consisted of a sparse new growth of annual weeds and grasses with minor chaparral type vegetation. ' Prior to grading, the subject site was in a relatively natural condition and topography varied from gently sloping to moderately steep terrain with natural gradients of 10 to 40 percent. Overall relief at the subject site is approximately 100 -ft. 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Based on our review of the proposed "Precise Grading Plan", proposed development of the site includes the construction of a single-family residence with attached garage, future building pad and associated driveway and landscape areas. Development includes the construction of 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) cu 1 (horizontal:vertical) fill slopes designed to maximum vertical ■ heights of approximate 47 -ft d 19 -ft, respectively. ' 3.0 SITE INVESTIGATION Our site investigation to evaluate the stability of the proposed cut and fill slopes consisted of the ' following: Review of unpublished reports, published reports (see references), and literature for the purpose of preparing this report. A complete list of the publications reviewed for this investigation is presented in Appendix A. ' Site reconnaissance and geologic mapping of the as -built cut slopes and structural features exposed at the site were performed by our geologist. ' Perform a slope stability analysis and preparation of this report presenting our findings and recommendations. The data collected during our site investigation, including general site geology and major structural features related to slope stability, are shown on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.O. No. 650601.03 -- r ------ P.w � I: japm Uebll. I" lhow: W(M FIGURE 1 ."Jos- - k- C:Z> nyo fl 7 Ir V Tem M IZ: rl00 I It cv J- %•- :._ � (ON i� I auo 9 'Pt ;i f�. 'a.y `�'eF A \.' _ v .aiy�� /,/ •tom A MD T Cam"W -- r ------ P.w � I: japm Uebll. I" lhow: W(M FIGURE 1 0 30 W 90 120 Medofer Engineering, Inc. 28610 Midsummer Lane Men'rfee, CA 92584 909-816-5830/951-301-6792 fax mgM.tivpwmaocmt Coll: lIXL EREE CagM 1-800 227-2600 TWD NdbIMO OATS BFTDIE You pG P..G. QEtf-FNOD9II+Nm PB1 Qp-SEDWEIrrA Y BEDROCK OP TREE PAUBA FORMATION i> Es —^-AFPROKWYATE I.Of:ATIW3 OF GEOLOGIC MWACR II-APPRO]CDAATE IaCA]ION OF OEOLOOIC CROSSSEC M T.H.E. SOILS COMPANY INC. CEOTE CAL MAP IROPUSEO sxsys 33AL PAD ANO FVrOft6 PAD PORTION OFPARCEL AOOPARCELMAPAD 6ANTTAOTJOBN WARNER ROAD CITY OPTKMECULA,ULA� RNIA WORKORDEII: §�Oblxf DAfE: (jQV. 3006 TE:I OF _J BENCH NANK SEAL pYN ,FOILRae�,_ A SEE SHEET 1 f - 30' 2a , Y.l. . w.tl-SWI ; — tIN l 6yP NA?gGyt R.D.E YAY YAY =W�Nh+q 2. TO OBSERRAE GRAEWIC � M CONWENm�uiT OF My WAR WREN THE OAS COMPANY EASEMENT. RECOMMENDED BY: OATS: ACCEPhV BY: DME: P@VM1 PIm.'NR R R�IRC 1iWq RCE IG ry,yp YM/6! M. CONMR TON NOTES & ouwmg © YLSIALL W CRATED AREA DRAW 1 EA Q INSTALL 6- POC MR 35 ORM PIPE w tF AT WN. SLOPE - 0,020 o CON511NCT RW RAP DISSIPATER PER 1 EA OEEWL ® CONSTRUCT 3' WOE Be= MaN PER 162 tF CO.T. SM. NO. 2106 (TYPE 'Al ® CONSTRUCT TERRACE XPCH 2106 IF COT. SOY, N0. 306 (TYPE'C) i� CONSTRUCT MASONRY RETADAIO MALL 329 SF PER Gam. BIDC DEPT. M. WDID NO. 9 33C341201 LD06—M(3R TY OF TEMECULA DIEPMTNAM Or PUBLIC WORxS �O9 N. ftlPORDON OF PARCEL 4 OF PM 6632 PRMSE GRADING PLAN SAYYe 2 er 3 Ms. Yvette Anthony ' November 30, 2006 Page 3 4.0 LABORATORY TESTING Representative samples of the onsite sedimentary bedrock materials were T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. (2006) during our subsurface soils engineering subject site. We have incorporated the previous laboratory testing, where preparation of our slope stability analysis. 5.0 GEOLOGY 5.1 Geologic Setting previously tested by investigation of the applicable, into the The site is located within the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province of Southern California. The Peninsular Ranges, which extend southward from the Los Angeles Basin through Baja California, are characterized by Mesozoic age intrusive rock masses flanked by volcanic, metasedimentary, and sedimentary rock. The Peninsular Ranges have a general northwest -trending structural grain that includes such geologic features as faults, bedding and foliation trends, and geologic contacts. Locally, sedimentary bedrock units of the late Pleistocene -age Pauba formation are exposed within the existing 1.5:1 cut slope (Kennedy, 1977 & Tan & Kenned 2000 & T.H.E. Soils ■ Company, Inc., 2006b>. MPy'V-L, ,L / 9 ' 5.2 Structural Geology��Ij, Y Based on our site reconnaissance and geologic mapping, the sedimentary units exposed ' within the slope face generally consisted of Silts (Unified Soil Classification —.WL ) and fine silty Sands (SM) with minor lenses of coarse Sand (SW) on the westerly portion of e s ope. a se imentary units were generally massive with no distinct bedding or ' fracture pattern. This unit can generally be described as olAe brown, massive, clayey in part, grading to part to a silty sand, dense, stiff with no apparent distinct bedding or ' fracture pattern: Fill slopes were constructed at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratios to a maximum vertical height'of 19 -ft on the southerly portion of the subject site along the existing driveway and /pad. Existing fill slopes were properly keyed and benched into dense sedimentary bedrock during rough grading operations (T.H.E., 2006a). Materials utilized to construct the fill jAdditi ved from onsite alluvial and colluvial soils and sedimentary bedrock units. constructed along the north and east sides of the existing pads atel .5:1 orizontal:vertical) slope ratio to a maxim nvertical height of 47- —rte L %111�kT.H.E. SoW.O. 650601.03 ' Ms. Yvette Anthony November 30, 2006 Page 4 5.3 Groundwater Groundwater was not encountered during our previous subsurface exploration (T.H.E., 2006b) to the maximum depth explored of 50 -ft below the ground surface within exploratory boring B-1. The silty sands were damp between 25 to 35-11 bgs above the silts encountered from approximately 40 to 50 -ft bgs. However, no free water was encountered within the exploratory borings. Based cn our'review of historic groundwater data (Rancho Water District, 1984), historic high er 1s to be a minimum of 60 -ft below the lower elevations of- •subjeC t site.� 1 .0 SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS L I� d � �" 6.1 General 2� S wS4.c¢fi wQ The stability of both cut and fill slopes is dependent upon the strength characteristics of the Ir 40d a. soils and bedrock from which they are derived. Based on our site reconnalssance, and srte S appini�g the xisting 47 -ft high - roxim 1.5:,1 (horizontal:vertical) cut slope is 4) A f"s founded in sedimentary bedrock consisting-predommately of olive brown Silt and sandy ilt gAj'l (Unified Soil Classification — ML) with minor silty Sand (SI� 4ne' existing 2:1 $0)V (horizontal:vertical) fill slopes were constructed of earth materials generated from the onsite alluvial and colluvial soils and sedimentary bedrock. The approximate location of our �? geologic cross-section is presented on our Geotechnical Map, Plate 1. ? "Z c f3 When the highest slope consisting of a given soil or bedrock w termined to be grossly stable (static and seismic factors'of safety greater th 1. 1.1, espectively), s ope^]" Dile ser height, derived from the same material ma be consldere _to_be./s�table_byl infer ' • r"t (r ` � 6.2 Selection of Shear Strength Parameters 6.3 The following shear strength parameters, as determined by previous laboratory testing T.H.E., 2006b), were utilized for our slope stability analysis: Material (Engineered Fill) Friction Angle (Degree) Cohesion (psi) Silty Sand (SM) 32 439 Fill Slopes We anticipate that fill slopes constructed at a 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio, to a maximum height of approximately 30-11, will be surficially and grossly stable. Fill slopes were constructed in accordance with the recommendations presented in the referenced T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.O.650601.03 Ms. Yvette Anthony November 30, 2006 Page 5 geotechnical report (T.H.E., 2006b.) and current City of Temecula and California Building Code (CBC) guidelines. Based on our review of the "Precise Grading Plan" and observations and testing during rough grading operations, fill slopes have been constructed at 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope ratio to a maximum vertical height of 19 -ft. Fill slopes were properly keyed and benched in accordance with the CBC. Keyways were 1 established a minimum of 2 -feet into medium dense native materials at the toe and tilted a minimum of 2% into the hillside. The earth materials exposed at the keyway bottom were free of pinpoint pores and roots. Proper benching into dense sedimentary units was maintained at all times. Based on our current site investigation, the slopes have been hydro -seeded since the completion of rough grading operations. 4 Cut Slopes The stability of the cut slope is largely dependent on the structural geology of the bedrock exposed including joint structure, fracture pattern, or foliation attitudes. From a structural - - standpoint the onsite sedimentary bedrock is characterized as massive with no apparent bedding or fracture patterns. No adverse conditions were observed within the existing cut slopes during rough grading operations. To evaluate the stability of the existing onsite cut slopes, we have utilized a computer program entitled PCSTABL5 created by Purdue University to perform the slope stability analyses. The program uses the Simplified Bishop's equation for circular slip'surfaces to calculate a f or• of safety against gross arcuate failure. The program automatically searches the critical failure surface considering angle of internal friction, cohesion interce et density, and pore pressures, where applicable. These values were obtained by laboratoryepresentative soils;Oes used as fill materials VThe results of our co en r alysis indicate safety factors for static and seismic conditions in excess 1.8 and1.2, re ectively. Therefore, the existing cut slopes constructed of the onsite maten , nc coed at approximately 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter, are expected to be grossly'stable under static and seismic conditions to a maximum design height of 47-p. The results of our slope stability analysis are presented in Appendix B of this report. Minor spalling and "pop -outs" along the slope face will likely create an accumulation of eerre a ris al the'toe of slope over time This condition is not const azar , u regyi; routine c eanin an r of debris from the toe of slope. Phi `I.H. .Soils Company,Inc. ®✓��� W.O. 650601.03 �b(�51911V l rd� � �� � ' Ms. Yvette Anthony November 30, 2006 Page 6 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ' Based on the results of our slope stability analysis and field investigation, the proposed 1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) cut and 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) fill slopes should be grossly stable to the maximum vertical slope heights of 45 and 19 -ft, respectively. No adverse joint patterns, bedding, ' or other structural controls, which might produce adverse slope stability, were observed'within tthe existing cut slope. ' 8.0 LIMITATIONS OF INVESTIGATION ' Our investigation was performed using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable Geotechnical Engineers and Geologists practicing in this or similar localities. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. The samples taken and used for testing and the observations made are believed representative of the ' entire project; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between test locations. As in most projects, conditions revealed by excavation ma be at variance with preliminary findings. If this occurs, the Project Soils Engineer and/or Geologist must evaluate e changed co!nditi'ons and adjust designs, as required, or recommend alternate designs. This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are brought to ' the attention of the architect and engineer for the project and incorporated into the plans, and the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. ' This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for other than our own personnel on the site; ' therefore, the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if he considers any of the recommended actions presented herein to be unsafe. The conclusions and recommendations of this report were based upon information derived from the referenced preliminary project plans and interactions with the client and project consultantsti e project scope, plans, or specifications change from those relied upon for this report, the changes 1 mustco�aUt evain?+— mvje ils eer and eeoloeist. The conclusions and en Yrr�inmons wi a adjusted, as required, at that time. 4 The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. in the Prop erty can occur with the passage of Dulag whether due to natural processes or_ works of man ands or adjacent pro erties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur, whether they result from legislation or the broadening of knowledge. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. ��� �� ? S#' " W.Q. 65060Is W i FP 1 D �-- • �covtn ,v i "Avg e� m N g AG"ro a6AM" . Ms. Yvette Anthony ' November 30, 2006 Page 7 Accordingly, the findings of this report may be invalidated wholly or partially by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report is subject to review and revision as changed conditions are identified. We sincerely appreciate this opportunity to be of service on this project. Should you have any questions regarding this report, or require additional information, please contact our office. This opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you have any questions, please call Very truly yours, T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. i P. Frey roject Geologist ' JPF/JTRJek No. RCE 23464 E*ms 12-31-1 John T. Reinhart RCE 23464 Registration Expires 12/31/07 T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.O. 650601.03 APPENDIX A ' References T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc. W.O. No. 650601.03 REFERENCES Department of Water Resources, August 1971, "Water Wells and Springs in the Western Part of the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed, Riverside and San Diego Counties, California", Bulletin No. 91-20. Jennings, Charles W., 1994, "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas with Locations and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions", California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6, scale 1:750,000. Kennedy, Michael P., 1977, "Recency and Character of Faulting Along the Elsinore Fault Zone in Southern Riverside County, California", USGS Special Report 131. Rockwell, T.K., Lamar, D.C., et. al., 1986, "An Overview of the Tectonics of the Elsinore Fault Zone", Neotectonics and Faulting in Southern California, Guidebook. Mehofer Engineering, Inc., 2006, "Precise Grading Plan, Portion of Parcel 4 of P.M. 8632", Sheet 2 of 3, Scale: 1" = 30'. Rancho California Water District, March 1984, "Water Resources Master Plan". Rodgers, Thomas H., 1965 (fifth printing 1985), "Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet", California Division of Mines & Geology, Scale: 1:250,000. Tan, Siang S. and Kennedy, Michael, 2000, "Geological Map of the Temecula 7.5' Quadrangle, San Diego and Riverside Counties, California", U. S. Geological Survey in Cooperation with the California Geological Survey, Scale: 1" = 2,000'. ' T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc., 2006a, "Report of Rough Grading, Proposed Single -Family Residence and Future Building Pad, APN: 945-080-017, Santiago Road at John Warner Road, City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California", Work Order No. 650601.22, dated August 31, 2006. T.H.E. Soils Company, Inc., 2006b, "Limited Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed 3 Parcel Residential Development, Tentative Parcel Map No. 35039, Santiago Road at John Warner Road, ' City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California", Work Order No. 650601.00, dated August 3, 2006. ' U.S.G.S., 1997 "Pechanga, California, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map", Scale V = 2,000'. ' U.S.G.S., 1968 (photorevised 1975) "Temecula, California, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Quadrangle Map", Scale 1" = 2,000'. T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. No. 650601.03 APPENDIX B Slope Stability Analysis T.H.E. Soils Co., Inc. W.O. No. 650601.03 result.out ** STABL for WINDOWS by Geotechnical Software Solutions --Slope Stability Analysis -- simplified 7anbu, Simplified Bishop or spencers Method of slices Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: run.in Output Filename: result.out unit: U.S.C. Plotted Output Filename: result.plt PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 Top Boundaries 8 Total Boundaries ANTHONY - AS BUIL OPE 1.5:1 CUT SL Boundary x -Left Y -Left x -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 3 2 10.00 10.00 27.00 25.00 3 3 27.00 25.00 33.00 25.00 3 4 33.00 25.00 35.00 26.00 2 5 35.00 26.00 80.00 57.00 1 6 80.00 57.00 90.00 59.00 1 7 35.00 26.00 90.00 26.00 2 8 33.00 25.00 90.00 25.00 3 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 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. 1 139.0 147.0 450.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 132.0 145.0 250.0 35.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 129.0 135.0 439.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 Page 1 result.out A Critical Failure surface searching Method, Using A Random Technique For Generating Circular surfaces, Has Been specified. 250 Trial Surfaces Have Been Generated. 50 Surfaces Initiate From Each of 5 Points Equally spaced Along The Ground surface Between x = 10.00 ft. and x = 20.00 ft. Each surface Terminates Between x = 70.00 ft. and x = 90.00 ft. Unless Further Limitations were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At which A surface Extends Is y = 0.00 ft. 4.00 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 -25.0 And 0.0 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 26 coordinate Points Point x -surf y -surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 10.00 10.00 2 14.00 9.79 3 18.00 9.78 4 21.99 9.98 5 25.97 10.37 6 29.93 10.97 7 33.85 11.76 8 37.72 12.75 9 41.54 13.93 10 45.30 15.31 11 48.98 16.87 12 52.58 18.61 13 56.09 20.54 14 59.50 22.63 15 62.79 24.90 16 65.97 27.33 17 69.02 29.92 18 71.94 32.65 Page 2 result.out 19 74.72 35.53 20 77.34 38.55 21 79.82 41.69 22 82.13 44.96 23 84.27 48.33 24 86.24 51.81 25 88.04 55.39 26 89.59 58.92 Circle Center At x = 16.1 ; Y = 89.2 and Radius, *** 1.807 *** STATIC FACTOR OF SAFETY individual data on the 31 slices slice width weioht No. (ft) (lbs) 1 4.0 961.8 2 4.0 2838.7 3 4.0 4605.1 4 4.0 6243.5 5 1.0 1871.3 6 2.9 5379.8 7 3.1 5440.2 8 0.8 1479.4 9 1.2 2055.6 10 2.7 5138.5 11 3.8 7945.7 12 3.8 8555.2 13 3.7 9001.5 14 3.6 9285.7 15 3.5 9411.1 16 3.4 9383.5 17 3.3 9210.8 18 0.1 365.1 19 1.3 3666.1 20 1.7 4853.1 21 3.1 8383.2 22 2.9 7769.8 23 2.8 7066.5 24 2.6 6292.0 25 2.5 5465.9 26 0.2 386.1 27 2.1 4069.3 28 2.1 3277.3 29 2.0 2186.6 30 1.8 1203.8 31 1.6 347.8 79.5 water water Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force surcharge Top Bot Norm Tan Hor ver Load (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. Failure surface specified By 27 coordinate Points Point x -surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 10.00 10.00 Page 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 result.out ** STABL for WINDOWS* by Geotechnical Software Solutions --Slope Stability Analysis -- simplified 7anbu, simplified Bishop or spencers Method of slices ' Run Date: Time of Run: Run By: Input Data Filename: run.in ' Output Filename: result.out Unit: U.S.C. Plotted Output Filename: result.plt PROBLEM DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY COORDINATES 6 Top Boundaries 8 Total Boundaries ANTHONY - AS BUILT 45' HIGH 1.5:1 CUT SL OPE Boundary x -Left Y -Left x -Right Y -Right Soil Type No. (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Below Bnd 1 0.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 3 2 10.00 10.00 27.00 25.00 3 3 27.00 25.00 33.00 25.00 3 4 33.00 25.00 35.00 26.00 2 5 35.00 26.00 80.00 57.00 1 6 80.00 57.00 90.00 59.00 1 7 35.00 26.00 90.00 26.00 2 8 33.00 25.00 90.00 25.00 3 ISOTROPIC SOIL PARAMETERS 3 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. 1 139.0 147.0 450.0 30.0 0.00 0.0 1 2 132.0 145.0 250.0 35.0 0.00 0.0 0 3 129.0 135.0 439.0 32.0 0.00 0.0 0 Page 1 result.out A Horizontal Earthquake Loading coefficient OfO.250 Has Been Assigned A Vertical Earthquake Loading Coefficient Of0.250 Has Been Assigned Cavitation Pressure = 0.0 (psf) A Critical Failure surface Searching Method, using A Random Technique For Generating circular surfaces, Has Been specified. 250 Trial surfaces Have Been Generated. 50 surfaces Initiate From Each of 5 Points Equally Spaced Along The Ground Surface Between x = 10.00 ft. and x = 20.00 ft. Each surface Terminates Between x = 70.00 ft. and x = 90.00 ft. unless Further Limitations were Imposed, The Minimum Elevation At which A surface Extends Is Y = 0.00 ft. 4.00 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 -25.0 And 0.0 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 27 Coordinate Points Point X -Surf Y -Surf No. (ft) (ft) 1 10.00 10.00 2 13.99 9.73 3 17.99 9.66 4 21.99 9.80 5 25.97 10.14 6 29.94 10.69 7 33.87 11.44 8 37.75 12.39 Page 2 circle center At - 17 ** 1.201 ** Individual data on the ; Y = 87.8 and Radius SEISMIC FACTOR OF SAFETY 32 slices 78.2 result.out 9 41.58 13.53 10 45.35 14.87 it 49.05 16.40 12 52.66 18.12 13 56.18 20.02 14 59.60 22.10 15 62.90 24.35 16 66.09 26.77 17 69.15 29.34 18 72.08 32.07 19 74.86 34.95 20 77.49 37.96 21 79.96 41.11 22 82.27 44.38 23 84.40 47.76 24 86.36 51.24 25 88.15 54.82 26 89.74 58.49 27 89.93 58.99 circle center At - 17 ** 1.201 ** Individual data on the ; Y = 87.8 and Radius SEISMIC FACTOR OF SAFETY 32 slices 78.2 water water Earthquake Force Force Force Force Force surcharge slice width Weight Top Bot Norm Tan Hor ver Load No. (ft) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) (lbs) 1 4.0 976.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 244.0 244.0 0.1 2 4.0 2884.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 721.0 721.0 0.1 3 4.0 4683.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1170.9 1170.9 0.1 4 4.0 6356.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1589.0 1589.0 0.1 5 1.0 1897.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 474.4 474.4 0.1 6 2.9 5496.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1374.2 1374.2 0.1 7 3.1 5540.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1385.1 1385.1 0.1 8 0.9 1548.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 387.1 387.1 0.1 9 1.1 2071.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 517.9 517.9 0.1 10 2.8 5322.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1330.6 1330.6 0.1 11 3.8 8171.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2043.0 2043.0 0.1 12 3.8 8803.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2200.9 2200.9 0.1 13 3.7 9268.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2317.0 2317.0 0.1 14 3.6 9566.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2391.6 2391.6 0.1 15 3.5 9701.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2425.3 2425.3 0.1 16 3.4 9678.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2419.6 2419.6 0.1 17 3.3 9506.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2376.5 2376.5 0.1 18 0.9 2472.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 618.1 618.1 0.1 19 1.3 3802.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 950.7 950.7 0.1 20 1.0 2910.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 727.6 727.6 0.1 21 3.1 8683.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2170.8 2170.8 0.1 22 2.9 8057.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2014.3 2014.3 0.1 23 2.8 7337.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1834.5 1834.5 0.1 24 2.6 6544.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1636.2 1636.2 0.1 25 2.5 5698.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1424.5 1424.5 0.1 26 0.0 93.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.5 23.5 0.1 27 2.3 4551.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1137.8 1137.8 0.1 28 2.1 3447.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 861.8 861.8 0.1 Page 3