Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Geotechnical_3-9-2017
R IVlcCARTHY CONSULTING, INC March 9, 2017 Dave Gunderson 1419 Dolphin Terrace Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Proposed Residential Construction 409 North Bay Front Newport Beach, California File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Legal Description: Lot 5 of Block 8, Map of Resubdivision of Section One, of Balboa Island, in the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, State of california, as per map recorded in Book 6, Page 30, of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder. APN: 050-031-02 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for 409 North Bay Front in Newport Beach, California, which was performed to determine various site and regional geotechnical conditions pertinent to the residential construction currently proposed for the subject property. Analyses for this investigation are based upon a brief description of the project by Brandon Architects. The purpose of our review and investigation was to evaluate the subsurface conditions, determine the compatibility of the proposed development with respect to the geotechnical features of the site, and provide preliminary geotechnical recommendations and design parameters for site precise grading and planned improvements. Specific information and recommendations for site development are provided herein. Portions of the lot were covered by existing on-site improvements at the time of the investigation. Our investigation is, therefore, preliminary and should be supplemented by additional geotechnical evaluation following demolition of these structures or during subsequent grading. The conclusions and recommendations of this report are considered preliminary due to the absence of specific foundation and grading plans, the preparation of which are partially dependent upon recommendations presented herein. Project Authorization The work performed was per your authorization based on our Proposal, Report No: 20161128- 1, dated November 28, 2016. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 Scope of Investigation The investigation included the following: File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 2 1. Review of collected geologic, geotechnical engineering and seismological reports and maps pertinent to the subject site. A reference list is included in Appendix A. 2. Subsurface exploration consisting of two hollow-stem auger drill holes advanced with a limited access drill rig. The maximum depth explored was about 12.5 feet below ground surface. 3. Logging and sampling of the exploratory borings, including collection of soil samples for laboratory testing. The Logs of the exploration are included in Appendix B. 4. Laboratory testing of soil samples representative of subsurface conditions. The results are presented in Appendix C. 5. Geotechnical engineering and geologic analyses of collected data, including a shallow liquefaction analysis. 6. Preparation of this report containing our geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction in accordance with the current California Building Code (2016) and for use by your design professionals and contractors. Site Description The subject property is located on the north side of Balboa Island facing Beacon Bay. The property is located on North Bay Front, just west of Agate Avenue. The lot is bordered on the south by a service alley. On the north is the North Bay Front "boardwalk" with a seawall beyond along the Beacon Bay channel. The Topographic Map prepared by Apex Land Surveying, Inc. (Reference 1) indicates that the lot has an approximately skewed rectangular shape. The Apex plan was used as a base map for our Geotechnical Plot Plan, Figure 1. The lot size is roughly 2,731 square feet (Zillow.com). Lot elevations are indicated as approximately 6 to 7 feet (NAVDBB). The adjoining properties on the east and west are indicated to be at approximately the same elevation along most of the lot boundaries. The site presently contains a two-story house with attached garage built around 1974. Concrete walkways and tile patios/decks cover much of the area around the existing house. Proposed Development We understand that the proposed development will consist of the demolition of all or a portion of the existing structure to build a new, two-story single-family residence. Grading is expected to consist of reprocessing surface soils following removal of existing foundation elements, unsuitable fill, weathered soil, planter soils and materials disturbed by demolition. Import soil will be required to raise the building pad elevations by 2 to 3 feet. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 ,, March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 3 Structural loads were not provided. We anticipate wood frame and light steel construction that is typical of the area and relatively light construction loads. We assume that maximum column loads will be less than 15 kips and wall loads of 2 kip/foot. A mat slab on grade construction is anticipated. Our office should be notified when the structural design loads for foundation elements are available to check these preliminary assumptions. ~ch • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Earth Materials • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Portion of: PRELIMINARY DIGITAL GEOLOGICAL MAP OF THE 30' X 60' SANTA ANA QUADRANGLE, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, VERSION 2 U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 99~172 Compiled by D. M. Morton Version 2.0 Digital Preparation by Kelly R. Bovard and Rachel M. Alvarez -2004 The site is underlain by Marine deposits consisting of light brown, gray and gray-brown, fine to coarse sand and silty sand. Some thin silt layers were observed. The Marine deposits were generally medium dense. The sands encountered in the borings were saturated below a depth of about 2.5 to 3 feet. Laboratory test results and visual observations indicate that the on-site sands are non-plastic and non-expansive. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 I March 9, 2017 Geologic Hazard File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 4 The potential geologic hazards at the site are primarily from liquefaction, flooding and shaking due to movement of nearby or distant faults during earthquake events. These are discussed in greater detail below. Groundwater Groundwater was encountered at a depth of about 2.5 to 3 feet in our exploratory borings. Depth to groundwater is thought to reflect tidal fluctuations in the adjoining channel, with some lag time for drainage and recharge. Surficial Runoff Proposed development should incorporate engineering and landscape drainage designed to transmit surface and subsurface flow to the street and/or storm drain system via non erosive pathways. Faulting / Seismic Considerations The major concern relating to geologic faults is ground shaking that affects many properties over a wide area. Direct hazards from faulting are essentially due to surface rupture along fault lines that could occur during an earthquake. Therefore, geologists have mapped fault locations and established a criteria for determining the risks of potential surface rupture based on the likelihood of renewed movement on faults that could be located under a site. Based on criteria established by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), now referred to as the California Geological Survey (CGS), faults are generally categorized as active, potentially active or inactive (Jennings, 1994). The basic principle of faulting concern is that existing faults could move again, and that faults which have moved more recently are the most likely faults to move again and affect us. As such, faults have been divided into categories based on their age of last movement. Although the likelihood of an earthquake or movement to occur on a given fault significantly decreases with inactivity over geologic time, the potential for such events to occur on any fault cannot be eliminated within the current level of understanding. By definition, faults with no evidence of surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years are considered inactive and generally pose no concern for earthquakes due renewed movement. Potentially-active faults are those with the surface displacement within the last 1.6 million years. Further refinement of potentially active faults are sometimes described based on the age of the last known movement such as late Quaternary (last 700,000 years) implying a greater potential for renewed movement. In fact, most potentially active faults have little likelihood of moving within the time frame of construction life, but the degree of understanding of fault age and activity is sometimes not well understood due to absence of geologic data or surface information, so geologists have acknowledged this doubt by using the term "potentially active." A few faults that were once thought to be potentially active, have later been found to be active based on new findings and mapping. Active faults are those with a surface R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza / Suite 150 / Newport Beach, CA 92660 / 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 5 displacement within the last 11,000 years and therefore most likely to move again. The State of California has, additionally, mapped known areas of active faulting as designated Alquist- Priolo (A-P) "Special Studies Zones," which requires special investigations for fault rupture to limit construction over active faults. Fault Map Newport Beach, Callfornia EXPLANATION Faulr. :olid \\·here location known, long da,hed where appro.,imate, doned where Inferred A potential seismic source near the site is the San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault (SJHBT), which is approximately 2 to 8 kilometers beneath the site at its closest point, based on the reported fault structure. The SJHBT is a postulated fault that is suspected to be responsible for uplift of the San Joaquin Hills. This fault is a blind thrust fault that does not intercept the ground surface and, therefore, presents no known potential for ground rupture at the property. The site is not located near an active fault, or within a special studies zone for earthquake fault rupture. Inactive faulting has been mapped to occur at depth under the terrace deposits in close proximity (east) to the site in a northwest trending fault, but the faulting occurs in the bedrock which is covered by the terrace deposits, so the potential for surface rupture at the site is low. The closest active fault to the site is the Newport Inglewood fault (north branch) located approximately 1.8 kilometers west-southwest of the site. As such, the potential for surface rupture at the site is very low, but the site will experience shaking, during earthquake events on nearby or distant faults. Site improvements should take into consideration the seismic design parameters outlined below. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 ,t March 9, 2017 Site Classification for Seismic Design File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 6 Seismic design parameters are provided in a later section of this report for use by the structural engineer. The soil underlying the subject site has been classified in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7, per Section 1613 of the 2016 CBC. The results of our onsite field investigation, as well as nearby investigations by us and others, indicate that the site is underlain by Class D medium dense to dense sands and gravels. We therefore recommend using a characterization of this property as a Class D, Stiff soil, Site Classification. Secondary Seismic Hazards Review of the Seismic Hazard Zones Map (CDMG, 1998) for the Newport Beach Quadrangle, 1997/1998 and the City of Newport Beach Seismic Safety Element (2008) indicates the site is located within a zone of required investigation for earthquake induced liquefaction. Liquefaction Considerations The area along Newport Harbor and its channels, is in a Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zones map, Newport Beach Quadrangle. Requirements for investigation are included in several documents including the City of Newport Beach Building Code Policy (Revised 7/3/2014), the California Building Code Section 1803.S and the Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A. The factors known to promote liquefaction potential include high groundwater level, degree of saturation, relative density, grain size, soil type, depth below the surface, and the magnitude and distance to the causative fault or seismic source. The subject site is in an area of high liquefaction potential (Morton and others, 1976; Toppozada and others, 1988). In order to address liquefaction potential in accordance with the City of Newport Beach building code policy for single-family residential structures, a liquefaction analysis was performed to evaluate seismic settlement. The results of our analysis are included in Appendix E. Based on the results of our analysis, some layers of the soils below the site, in the locations tested, below the water table and to depths of at least 10 feet, have safety factors of less than 1.0, indicating risk of liquefaction during a seismic event strong enough to induce liquefaction. Our calculations indicate that the settlement potential due to liquefaction is relatively small, and may be further reduced to less than 1 inch by densification of the soil zones within the upper 3.5 feet below existing site grades. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 H 11AlEOfCALIFORUA SEISMfC HAZARD ZONES NEWPORT BEAOl OUAORA"!GlE OFFICIAL MAP LiquclactionZone Rele~1t<:1, April 17, 190}7 Landslide ZOMReleased:April IS, 19'>S Lateral Impacts of Liquefaction File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 7 U,u,f«'"'" ..... _""''""'-of;.,-.,,,. .. -; ... ..,. .... ••'""'"''•'""'~""""""""'""'--•'-<•P""=•'for -tQ""""d-'P~,--L.,,. ... l9~"''"d"",d"' '""'<"'10U<ff,..,.Jl<l ........ >'.tl-..Mm,""""'--q.w,N_....,,,...,. -·-'"''""""''"-··'-·"""""'~\ ... l:><al _. ............ ulOt««h>'C.llard,.;,,...,..,. .. ,,,,...,.,..., "*'"'""'''~ .. ,, .. _._. __ ,,.., .. .i,~ .......... "'""""""....,...,..""'"-l<i':ci-..t;, ·-- Lateral impacts of liquefaction at the subject site such as lateral spreading and lateral loads on foundations are expected to be negligible due to lack of sloping ground on the property. Lateral impacts of liquefaction will also be reduced by the presence of the existing seawall along the North Bay Front boardwalk to confine the soil. Flooding Seismically induced flooding normally includes flooding from inland waters, which is not likely, flooding of low-lying areas during storm surges and high tides, and tsunami run-up from tidal wave energy. Tidal fluctuations and storm surge effects are relatively well-known phenomena on Balboa Island and we anticipate that potential for these periodic events will be addressed as part of the Civil Engineering Design. No specific tsunami analysis has been undertaken in this investigation. However, the "Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities" R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 I March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 8 (EERI, 2003) provides discussion of the impacts of locally seismic and/or landslide generated tsunamis. The typical maximum run-up heights were estimated from 1 to 2 meters in the Newport Beach area. Because of limited compiled data sources for ocean floor depth measurements, wave field interactions and irregular coastal configurations, actual maximum run- up heights could range from 2 to 4 meters, or more. The City of Newport Beach, in their Seismic Safety Element, describes Newport Beach as somewhat protected from most distantly generated tsunamis by the Channel Islands and Point Arguello, except for those generated in the Aleutian Islands, those off the coast of Chile, and possibly off the coast of Central America. The publication also states that there may generally be adequate warning given within the time- frames from such distant events. The warnings would allow for public safety but would not necessarily protect property improvements. Other Secondary Seismic Hazards Other secondary seismic hazards to the site include deep rupture and shallow ground cracking. With the absence of active faulting onsite, the potential for deep fault rupture is low. The potential for shallow ground cracking to occur during an earthquake is a possibility at any site, but does not pose a significant hazard to site development. Landsliding is not a hazard at the site due to the absence of sloping ground. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 CONCLUSIONS File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 9 1. Proposed development is considered feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided the recommendations of this report are followed during design, construction, and maintenance of the subject property. Proposed development should not adversely affect adjacent properties, providing appropriate engineering design, construction methods and care are utilized during construction. 2. The property is underlain by Marine deposits consisting of silty sands and sands to the maximum depth explored of 12.5 feet. 3. The subgrade materials at the foundation levels are generally not suitable in their present condition for structural support; however, these materials may be removed and replaced as compacted, engineered fill in order to reduce the potential for static and seismic settlement to acceptable levels. 4. Site grading is expected to include densification of the upper 3.5 feet of existing on-site soil. The proposed grading will provide a compacted fill cap that includes the re- compacted fill zone plus an additional imported fill zone to raise the existing site grades and top of slab to a projected elevation of about +9.0. 5. Densification of the upper zone of marine deposits reduces the seismic settlement estimate to less than 1-inch for the upper 10 feet. The proposed remedial grading is outlined herein for your consideration in order to reduce the potential seismic settlement to an acceptable level. 6. Densification of the upper 3.5 feet of the on-site soil may generally be accomplished through conventional grading methods by removal and recompaction of the soil. Other alternatives for remediation of potential settlement due to liquefaction effects may also be considered. Compaction grouting, soil mixing, stone columns, and pile foundations would be among the choices for alternate methods. 7. Seismically induced liquefaction has not historically been observed in the vicinity of the site; however, the liquefaction potential of soils in the general area is considered to be high due to the high groundwater, underlying soil conditions and proximity of nearby earthquake faults. 8. Groundwater was encountered at depths of about 2.5 to 3 feet below the site (elevation +3 to +3.5) and will be a factor during grading. Tidal effects on groundwater levels should be monitored and prepared for throughout the construction time period. Suitable drainage elements need to be installed within excavations and at retaining structures to mitigate possible transient seepage. Hydrostatic forces should be accounted for when building below grade structures, such as spas, wine cellars or elevators, and adequate waterproofing should be provided in sensitive areas. Groundwater conditions should be addressed in accordance with local ordinances and practices, as well as agency requirements. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 10 9. The near surface materials that were encountered have a very low expansion potential based upon laboratory testing. 10. Although the probability of fault rupture across the property is low, ground shaking may be strong during a major earthquake. 11. Tsunami potential for this site is considered moderate; although historically such effects have been subdued in southern California due to topographic protection from distant seismic events and the rarity of significant offshore earthquakes. 12. Adverse surface discharge onto or off the site is not anticipated provided proper civil engineering design and post-construction site grading are implemented. The potential for street flooding is referred to the Civil Engineer. 13. Suitable drainage elements need to be installed within excavations and at retaining structures to mitigate possible transient seepage. 14. Care must be taken during construction to not disturb the existing off-site bulkhead and associated tie-back anchors, foundations, wall systems, etc. along the North Bay Front boardwalk. An appropriate setback limit should be established to protect the sidewalk and bulkhead along the north side of the site. Evaluation of the existing off-site bulkhead and determination of the structural configuration were not within the scope of this investigation. 15. Care must also be taken during construction to not disturb the adjoining properties, alley and street improvements. An appropriate monitoring program is recommended during construction. 16. The existing building is covering much of the property. Additional subsurface exploration should therefore be done following demolition activities or at the time of the initial excavation cuts during grading to verify the preliminary findings contained herein. RECOMMENDATIONS Site Preparation and Grading 1. 2. General Site grading should be performed in accordance with the requirements of the City of Newport Beach, the recommendations of this report, and the Standard Grading Guidelines of Appendix D. Demolition and Clearing Deleterious materials, including those from the demolition, vegetation, organic matter and trash, should be removed and disposed of offsite. Subsurface elements of demolished structures should be removed. Agency requirements also apply as R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 J Newport Beach, CA 92660 J 949·629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 11 appropriate. Subsurface elements would also include any trench backfills, foundations, cisterns, abandoned utility lines, etc. Care should be taken during demolition and construction to not create excessive vibrations on off-site properties. 3. Subgrade Preparation The site preparation and fill placement should include the following components: 1. Excavation of the on-site materials to a depth of 3 feet within the structural footprint of the house. 2. Scarification and compaction of the removal bottom to a depth of 6-inches. 3. Stabilization of the exposed bottom materials (if necessary). 4. Stabilization, if required, may at times be accomplished by mixing the exposed subgrade soils with cement or by placement of geofabric and gravel. 5. Dewatering the excavation as necessary. 6. Placement of on-site and import fill to design grades. Excavations should be made to remove any soils disturbed by demolition, undocumented fill and surficial materials where encountered within the planned building areas. Earth removals are recommended to allow densification of the sand deposits for settlement considerations and to provide uniform bearing conditions below foundation and slab areas. Removals should be followed by 6-inches of scarification and re- compaction. These remedial excavations should be made within the planned building footprint. Grading activities must be carried out in a manner that doesn't remove lateral support or undermine the existing property line walls. We therefore recommend that depths of any existing wall footings be verified when exposed following demolition and prior to the start of grading. Lateral support may sometimes be achieved by the use of bracing, slot cutting, or trenching where wall footings are shallow relative to excavation depths. Due to the groundwater conditions observed in the area, excavations may become saturated. Groundwater levels were at a depth of about 2.5 feet below grade (about elevation +3.5) at the time of our field exploration. For excavations that expose saturated materials, we recommend that geofabric (Mirafi 500X or similar) be placed on exposed soil followed by a 1 to 1.5 foot thick layer of CalTrans Class II filter rock prior to placement of fill soil, if necessary, to help stabilize the work area for compaction equipment and to bridge over soft areas. A 1 to 1.5 foot thick layer of %-inch crushed rock may be substituted for graded filter rock; however, the %-inch rock should be fully enveloped within the geofabric to prevent migration of sand into the gravel layer. The top of the rock and fabric layer should be kept at least one foot below the bottom elevation of proposed foundation. Dewatering may be necessary to perform the grading to required depths. Excavations should be replaced with compacted engineered fill above the stabilized soil layer. Removal depths of 24-inches are expected to be adequate in exterior hardscape areas; however boundary conditions for removals under exterior improvements may be better R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza / Suite 150 / Newport Beach, CA 92660 / 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 12 4. addressed subsequent to demolition when equipment can expose the site materials for evaluation and when improvement limits are identified on the plan. Light track propelled mini-loader type equipment should be used for the grading. Rubber tire equipment shall not be used until a stable subgrade is achieved. The depths of overexcavation should be reviewed by the geotechnical engineer or geologist during the actual construction. Any surface or subsurface obstructions, or questionable material encountered during grading, should be brought immediately to the attention of the geotechnical engineer for recommendations. Fill Soils (On-Site and Imported} The onsite soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as compacted fill, provided they are moisture conditioned to near optimum. Fill soils should be free of debris, organic matter, cobbles and concrete fragments greater than 6-inches in diameter. Soils, including gravels, imported to the site for use as fill below foundation and slab areas should be predominantly granular, non-expansive, non-plastic and approved by the geotechnical engineer prior to importing. 5. Shrinkage 6. 7. Shrinkage losses are expected to be on the order of 4 percent overall. This does not include clearing losses from demolition that could result in volume reductions for available fill soils. These are preliminary rough estimates and actual field results may vary. Expansive Soils Expansive soil evaluations should be performed during grading to determine the expansion potential of the processed fill materials. On-site soils encountered during our investigation were determined to be non-plastic, fine silty sands, with a very low expansion potential. Compaction Standard The onsite soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as compacted fill. Fill materials should be placed at above optimum moisture content and compacted under the observation and testing of the soil engineer. The recommended minimum density for compacted material is 90 percent of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D 1557-12. 8. Temporary Construction Slopes Temporary slopes exposing onsite materials should be cut in accordance with Cal/OSHA Regulations. It is anticipated that the exposed onsite earth materials may be classified R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 13 9. 10. as Type C soil, and temporary cuts of 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) may be appropriate to heights of 3 feet or less; however, the material exposed in temporary excavations should be evaluated by the contractor during construction. Shoring should be anticipated if deeper excavations for construction items such as utilities or elevator shafts, and where space limitations preclude temporary slope layback. Dry or running sands may require flatter laybacks. Saturated sands may require slot cuts, slurry walls or other appropriate methods. Temporary construction slopes should not be left exposed overnight unless approved in writing by the geotechnical consultant. Excavations should proceed in a manner so as not to remove lateral or bearing support of adjacent properties or structures. Care will be needed along the property lines. The soils exposed in the excavation cuts should be observed by the geotechnical consultant during excavation. The safety and stability of temporary construction slopes and cuts is deferred to the general contractor, who should implement the safety practices as defined in Section 1541, Subchapter 4, of Cal/OSHA TB Regulations (2006). The geotechnical consultant makes no warranties as to the stability of temporary cuts. Soil conditions may vary locally and the contractor(s) should be prepared to remedy local instability if necessary. Contract documents should be written in a manner that places the Contractor in the position of responsibility for the stability of all temporary excavations. Stability of excavations is also time dependent. If unsupported property line cuts are made, the contractor should monitor the performance of adjacent structures and improvements during construction. If movement or distress is noted, appropriate remedial measures should be immediately implemented. Dewaterinq Control of groundwater can usually be achieved with the periodic use of portable pumps along with the placement of the crushed rock and geofabric for stabilization as described above. Longer term dewatering is not expected to be necessary; however, if needed, may be achieved with a well dewatering system around the interior perimeter of the below grade excavation. In order to reduce the potential for settlement of adjoining properties, groundwater drawdown should be controlled during pumping in order to limit the drawdown level outside of excavated areas. Drawdown limits should be based on elevation of the mean lowest low tide elevation of -0.2 feet (NAVD 1988). Permits may be required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for discharge of water. It is generally the responsibility of the contractor for permitting and water quality testing. Adjacent Property Assessments and Monitoring The following measures may be considered in order to reduce the potential risks of damage, and perceived damage, to adjoining improvements: R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza / Suite 150 / Newport Beach, CA 92660 / 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 14 • Visual inspections and walk-throughs of each of the adjacent properties should be arranged in order to document pre-existing conditions and damages. • Measurements of all existing damages observed, including crack lengths, widths and precise locations should be made. • Photographs should be taken to accompany written notes that refer to damages or even lack of damages. Video may also be considered; however, videos that attempt to show these types of damages are often lacking in detail. • Floor level surveys of nearby structures may be considered especially if pre- existing damage is evident. • Vibrations from construction equipment may be monitored with portable seismographs during excavation. • Surveys to monitor lateral and vertical position of adjacent improvements during excavation and dewatering is recommended. • It is recommended that the project geologist be on-site during excavation in order to evaluate conditions as the project advances. Construction activities, particularly excavation equipment, produce vibrations that can be felt by occupants of adjoining properties. People will often be annoyed by the noise and vibration caused by construction activities, which prompts them to personally perform detailed inspections of their property for damage. Pre-existing damage, that previously went unnoticed, can be unfairly attributed to current construction activities, particularly when pre-construction property inspections are not performed. At that point it may be difficult to determine what caused the damage, especially damages such as wall separations, cracks in drywall, stucco and masonry. Other common problems that may be scrutinized can include uneven doors, sticking windows, tile cracks, leaning patio posts, fences, gates, etc. Implementation of measures such as those listed above can help avoid conflicts by monitoring construction activities that may be problematic as well as provide valuable data to defend against unwarranted claims. Foundation Design 1. General It is anticipated that foundation elements for the residence will bear in re-compacted fill and will utilize a rigid slab and grade beam or mat slab foundation. The near surface materials are expected to exhibit a very low expansion potential. The following recommendations are based on the geotechnical data available and are subject to revision based on conditions actually encountered in the field. Foundations and slabs should be designed for the intended use and loading by the structural engineer. Our recommendations are considered to be generally consistent with the standards of practice. They are based on both analytical methods and empirical methods derived from experience with similar geotechnical conditions. These recommendations are considered the minimum necessary for the likely soil conditions and are not intended to supersede the design of the Structural Engineer or criteria of governing agencies. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 J Newport Beach, CA 92660 J 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 15 2. 3. 4. Bearing Capacity for Foundations Strengthened Slab and Footing System A strengthened slab and footing system may be utilized to support the proposed residence. The allowable bearing capacity for conventional spread and/or continuous footings having a minimum width of 15 inches and founded a minimum of 24-inches below the lowest adjacent grade in re-compacted fill should not exceed 1,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading. A continuous perimeter footing to a minimum depth of 24-inches is also recommended. Spread footings should be connected to the foundation system using grade beams tied in not less than two directions. Actual footing depths and widths should be governed by CBC requirements and the structural engineering design. Mat Slab Foundation System A mat slab foundation system may be considered as an alternative to the strengthened slab and foundation system recommended above. We recommend that the mat slab foundation system have a minimum thickness of 12-inches. The allowable bearing capacity for a mat slab type system founded in re-compacted fill should not exceed 1,500 pounds per square foot. This value may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic loading. For design of a mat foundation system, a modulus of subgrade reaction of 100 pounds per cubic inch may be considered (172 kips per cubic foot). The subgrade is expected to consist of cohesionless sand. Actual thickness, depths and widths of the foundation and slab system should be governed by CBC requirements and the structural engineering design. Settlement Static settlement is anticipated to be less than 3/4-inch total and V4-inch differential between adjacent similarly loaded columns (approximately 25 feet assumed horizontal distance), provided that the recommended site grading is implemented first. These estimates should be confirmed when structural engineering plans are prepared and foundation load conditions are determined. Most of this settlement will occur immediately upon initial loading during construction. Seismic settlement is expected to be less than 1-inch total within the upper 10 feet (see Appendix E). Additional seismic settlements are possible below these depths. Lateral Resistance Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces developed in front of the slab/foundation system and by friction acting at the base of the mat slab. Allowable lateral resistance should not exceed 150 pounds per square foot per foot of depth equivalent fluid pressure. Resistance to sliding can be calculated using a coefficient of friction of 0.25. These values may be used in combination per CBC 2016 Section 1806.3.1. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 5. Footing Reinforcement File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 16 Two No. S bars should be placed at the top and two at the bottom of continuous footings in order to resist potential movement due to various factors such as subsurface imperfections and seismic shaking. Dowelled connections between the slab and footings should be provided and should consist of No. 4 bars at 24-inches on center maximum spacing. Quantity and placement of reinforcing steel should be determined by the structural engineer. Slab-On-Grade Construction Slabs should be designed in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code and the City of Newport Beach Building Code Policy requirements for residential minimum shallow liquefaction mitigation methods (Reference 6). Liquefaction is the governing concern with regard to slab design and soil expansion is not an issue on this site. Engineered, rigid slabs should be at least 6-inches thick (actual) with a 24-inch deep thickened edge (minimum). Mat slabs should be at least 12-inches thick. Slab reinforcement should be determined by the structural engineer; however, the minimum slab reinforcement should consist of No. 4 bars at 12-inches on-center in each direction placed at the mid-height of the slab ( or approved equivalent). These recommendations assume that the subsurface soils have first been placed and compacted as recommended herein. Slabs should be underlain by 4 inches of open graded gravel. Slab underlayment is deferred to the project architect; however, in accordance with the American Concrete Institute, we suggest that slabs be underlain by a 15-mil thick vapor retarder/barrier (Stego Wrap or equivalent) placed over the gravel in accordance with the requirements of ASTM E: 1745 and E: 1643. Slab subgrade soils should be well-moistened prior to placement of the vapor retarder. All subgrade materials should be geotechnically approved prior to placing the gravel for the slab underlayment. The above recommendations are provided for vapor transmission considerations but do not provide for waterproofing of the slab in the local marine environment. If flooding is a concern, additional underlayment measures may be appropriate and should be addressed by the Civil Engineer and/or project architect. Exterior flatwork elements should be a minimum 4 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 bars 18 inches on center both ways. Subgrade soils should be well moistened prior to placing concrete. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 17 Seismic Design Based on the geotechnical data and site parameters, the following is provided by the USGS (ASCE 7, 2010 -with March 2013 errata) to satisfy the 2016 CBC design criteria: Table 2, Site and Seismic Design Criteria For2016 CBC Design Recommended Parameters Values Site Class D (Stiff Soil) Site Longitude (degrees) -117.89636 W Site Latitude (degrees) 33.60818 N Ss (g) 1.731 g 51 (g) 0.638 g SMs (g) 1.731 g SM1 (g) 0.957 g SDs (g) 1.154 g SD1 (g) 0.638 g Fa 1.0 Fv 1.5 Seismic Design Category D Supporting documentation is also included on Page 6 of this report, Site Classification for Seismic Design, and in Appendix F. Structural Design of Retaining Walls 1. Lateral Loads Active pressure forces acting on backfilled retaining walls which support level ground may be computed based on an equivalent fluid pressure of 40 pounds per cubic foot. Restrained retaining walls should add an additional 6H pounds per cubic foot for at-rest loading, where H is the retained height of the soil. Other topographic and structural surcharges should be addressed by the structural engineer. Some minor wall rotation should be anticipated for walls that are free to rotate at the top and considered in design of walls and adjacent improvements. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza / Suite 150 / Newport Beach, CA 92660 / 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 18 2. 3. Evaluation of the existing off-property seawall along North Bay Front is beyond the scope of the present investigation. Earthguake Loads on Retaining Walls The structural engineer should determine if there are retaining walls at the site within their purview that will be subject to design lateral loads due to earthquake events. Section 1803.5.12 of the 2016 CBC states that the geotechnical investigation shall include the determination of dynamic seismic lateral earth pressures on foundation walls and retaining walls supporting more than 6 feet (1.83 m) of backfill height due to design earthquake ground motions. No walls are planned to this height and therefore the site development is not subject to the design requirements of Section 1803.5.12. Foundation Bearing Values for Walls Footings for retaining walls should be embedded in compacted fill at a minimum depth of 24-inches below the lowest adjacent grade. Reinforcement should consist of two No. 5 bars top and bottom, as a minimum. 4. Wall Backfill The on-site soils are suitable for use as retaining wall backfill. Imported backfill, if needed, should consist of select, non-expansive soil or gravel. Gravel may consist of pea gravel or crushed rock. Where space for compaction equipment is adequate, on- site or imported granular, non-expansive sand materials may be compacted into place in thin lifts per the compaction requirements provided herein. Imported pea gravel or crushed rock should be placed in lifts and tamped or vibrated into place. The lift thickness for gravel is dependent on the type of material and method of compaction. Gravel lifts of 18 to 24 inches or less are recommended. The geotechnical engineer should observe the backfill placement of soil or gravel behind each wall following approval of wall backdrains. Gravel wall backfill material should be covered with a suitable filter fabric such as Mirafi 140N and capped with on-site soil or concrete. 5. Subdrains An approved exterior foundation subdrain system should be used to achieve control of seepage forces behind retaining walls. The details of such subdrain systems are deferred to the wall designer, builder or waterproofing consultant. The subdrain is not a substitute for waterproofing. Water in subdrain systems should be collected and delivered to suitable disposal locations or facilities. Additional recommendations may be provided when plans are available. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza / Suite 150 / Newport Beach, CA 92660 / 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 19 6. Dampproofing and Waterproofing Waterproofing should be installed in accordance with the architectural specifications or those of a waterproofing consultant. The criteria in Section 1805 of the 2016 CBC should be followed as a minimum. Hardscape Design and Construction Hardscape improvements may utilize conventional foundations in compacted fill. Cracking and offsets at joints are possible; however occurrence may be minimized by appropriate drainage and the use of thickened edge beams to limit moisture transfer below slabs. Concrete flatwork should be divided into as nearly square panels as possible. Joints should be provided at maximum 8 feet intervals to give articulation to the concrete panels (shorter spacing is recommended if needed to square the panels). Landscaping and planters adjacent to concrete flatwork should be designed in such a manner as to direct drainage away from concrete areas to approved outlets. Planters located adjacent to principle foundation elements should be sealed and drained; this is especially important if they are near retaining wall backfills. Flatwork elements should be a minimum 4 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 bars 18 inches on center both ways. Subgrade soils should be well moistened prior to placement of concrete. Concrete Construction Components in Contact with Soil The onsite soils are expected to have a low soluble sulfate content (see test results in Appendix C); however, due to shallow sea water levels in the area, a moderate exposure to sulfate can be expected for concrete placed in contact with on-site soils. Various components within the concrete may be subject to corrosion over time when exposed to soluble sulfates. To help mitigate corrosion, sulfate resistant cement should be used in concrete that may be in contact with on-site soils or ground source water. Attention to maximum water-cement ratio and the minimum compressive strength may also help mitigate deterioration of concrete components. Type V cement is therefore recommended with a maximum water-cement ratio of 0.5 percent. The minimum concrete compressive strength should be at least 4,000 pounds per square inch. It is recommended that a concrete expert be retained to design an appropriate concrete mix to address the structural requirements. In lieu of retaining a concrete expert, it is recommended that the 2016 California Building Code, Section 1904 and 1905 be utilized, which refers to ACI 318. Testing should be performed during grading when fill materials are identified to confirm the sulfate concentration. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 Metal Construction Components in Contact with Soil File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 20 Metal rebar encased in concrete, iron pipes, copper pipes, elevator shafts, air conditioner units, etc. that are in contact with soil or water that permeates the soil should be protected from corrosion that may result from salts contained in the soil. Recommendations to mitigate damage due to corrosive soils, if needed, should be provided by a qualified corrosion specialist. A series of corrosivity test results is provided in Appendix C. Finished Grade and Surface Drainage Finished grades should be designed and constructed so that no water ponds in the vicinity of footings. Drainage design in accordance with the 2016 California Building Code, Section 1804.3 is recommended or per local city requirements. Roof gutters should be provided and outflow directed away from the house in a non-erosive manner as specified by the project civil engineer or landscape architect. Proper interception and disposal of onsite surface discharge is presumed to be a matter of civil engineering or landscape architectural design. Foundation Plan Review The undersigned should review final foundation plans and specifications prior to their submission to the building official for issuance of permits. The review is to be performed only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with design concepts and the information provided herein. Review shall not include evaluation of the accuracy or completeness of details, such as quantities, dimensions, weights or gauges, fabrication processes, construction means or methods, coordination of the work with other trades or construction safety precautions, all of which are the sole responsibility of the Contractor. R McCarthy Consulting's review shall be conducted with reasonable promptness while allowing sufficient time in our judgment to permit adequate review. Review of a specific item shall not indicate that R McCarthy Consulting has reviewed the entire system of which the item is a component. R McCarthy Consulting shall not be responsible for any deviation from the Construction Documents not brought to our attention in writing by the Contractor. R Mccarthy Consulting shall not be required to review partial submissions or those for which submissions of correlated items have not been received. Utility Trench Backfill Utility trench backfill should be placed in accordance with Appendix D, Standard Earthwork Guidelines. It is the owner's and contractor's responsibility to inform subcontractors of these requirements and to notify R McCarthy Consulting when backfill placement is to begin. It has been our experience that trench backfill requirements are rigorously enforced by the City of Newport Beach. Pre-Grade Meeting A pre-job conference should be held with representative of the owner, contractor, architect, civil engineer, geotechnical engineer, and building official prior to commencement of construction to R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 21 clarify any questions relating to the intent of these recommendations or additional recommendations. Observation and Testing Geotechnical observation and testing during construction is required to verify proper removal of unsuitable materials, check that foundation excavations are clean and founded in competent material, to test for proper moisture content and proper degree of compaction of fill, to test and observe placement of wall and trench backfill materials, and to confirm design assumptions. It is noted that the CBC requires continuous verification and testing during placement of fill, pile driving, and pier/caisson drilling. An R McCarthy Consulting representative shall observe the site at intervals appropriate to the phase of construction, as notified by the Contractor, in order to observe the work completed by the Contractor. Such visits and observation are not intended to be an exhaustive check or a detailed inspection of the Contractor's work but rather are to allow R McCarthy Consulting, as an experienced professional, to become generally familiar with the work in progress and to determine, in general, if the grading and construction is in accordance with the recommendations of this report. R McCarthy Consulting shall not supervise, direct, or control the Contractor's work. R McCarthy Consulting shall have no responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures selected by the Contractor, the Contractor's safety precautions or programs in connection with the work. These rights and responsibilities are solely those of the Contractor. R McCarthy Consulting shall not be responsible for any acts or omission of any entity performing any portion of the work, including the Contractor, subcontractor, or any agents or employees of any of them. R McCarthy Consulting does not guarantee the performance of any other parties on the project site, including the Contractor, and shall not be responsible for the Contractor's failure to perform its work in accordance with the Contractor documents or any applicable law, codes, rules or regulations. Construction phase observations are beyond the scope of this investigation and budget and are conducted on a time and material basis. The responsibility for timely notification of the start of construction and ongoing phases of construction that require geotechnical review is that of the owner and his contractor. We request at least 48 hours' notice when such services are required. LIMITATIONS This investigation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practice in the engineering geologic and soils engineering field. No further warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the conclusions and professional advice included in this report. Conclusions and recommendations presented are based on subsurface conditions encountered and are not meant to imply that we have control over the natural site conditions. The samples taken and used for testing, the observations made and the field testing performed are believed R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 March 9, 2017 File No: 8137-00 Report No: 20170309-1 Page No: 22 representative of the general project area; however, soil and geologic conditions can vary significantly between tested or observed locations. Site geotechnical conditions may change with time due to natural processes or the works of man on this or adjacent properties. In addition, changes in applicable or appropriate standards may occur as a result of the broadening of knowledge, new legislation, or agency requirements. The recommendations presented herein are therefore arbitrarily set as valid for one year from the report date. The recommendations are also specific to the current proposed development. Changes in proposed land use or development may require supplemental investigation or recommendations. Also, independent use of this report without appropriate geotechnical consultation is not approved or recommended. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this office. Respectfully submitted, R MCCARTHY CONSUL TING, _I.:.;N.;.C.""""" .... -i "' Rober J. M€Gajhy Principal Engineer, G.E.2490 Registration Expires 3-31-18 Date Signed: 3/9/17 Distribution: (1) Addressee C/0 Brandon Architects (electronic Portable Document Format PDF) Accompanying Illustrations and Appendices Text Figure -Geologic Map of Santa Ana Quadrangle Text Figure -Fault Map, Newport Beach, CA Text Figure -CDMG Seismic Hazards Location Map Figure 1 -Geotechnical Plot Plan Appendix A -References Appendix B -Field Exploration Figures B-1 through B-3 Appendix C -Laboratory Testing Figures C-1 through C-8 HDR Corrosivity Results Appendix D -Standard Earthwork Guidelines Appendix E -Results of Liquefaction Analysis Table E-1, Figures A-1 through A-3; AA-1 through AA-3 Data Interpretations Appendix F -Seismicity Supporting Data R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza I Suite 150 I Newport Beach, CA 92660 I 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 \ \ J:12..36) / RIDGE AGATE --~~--+- AVENUE EXPLANATION S B-1 Estimated location of exploratory boring Qm Marine deposits Base map: Apex Land Surveying, Jnc. 0 \ \ \ / / 20feet Figure 1: Geotechnical Plot Plan 409 N. Bay Front Balboa Island, Newport Beach, CA File: 8137-00 February 2017 RMcCARTHY = CONSULTING, INC PA2017-045 APPENDIX A REFERENCES PA2017-045 APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. Apex Land Surveying, Inc., 2016, "Topographic Survey, 409 N Bay Front, Newport Beach, CA, 92662," dated 08/12/2016, APN: 050-031-02, Scale: 1" = 8', Sheet 1 of 1. 2. Barrows, A.G., 1974, "A Review of the Geology and Earthquake History of the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone, Southern California,": California division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 114. 3. Building Seismic Safety Council, 2004, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450), 2003 Edition, Part 2: Commentary, Washington D.C., 2004. 4. California Building Code, 2013 Edition. 5. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, "Seismic Hazards Zones Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle. 6. California Divisions of Mines and Geology, 2008, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California," Special Publication 117A. 7. City of Newport Beach, 2014, Community Development Department, Building Division, Building Code Policy, "Liquefaction Study Mitigation Measures," revised July 14, 2014. 8. Geo-Etka, Inc, 1990, "Preliminary Foundation Soils Exploration at 411 North Bayfront at Agata Avenue, Balboa Island, Newport Beach, California," Job No: F-5052-90, March 21. 9. Geo-Etka, Inc, 1991, "Preliminary Foundation Soils Exploration at 205 North Bayfront, Balboa Island, Newport Beach, California 92662," Job No: F-5666-91, June 6. 10. Geo-Etka, Inc, 2000, "Preliminary Foundation Soils Exploration at 401 North Bayfront, "Balboa Island", Newport Beach, California 92662," Job No: F-9104-00, February 15. 11. Geo-Etka, Inc, 2000, "Preliminary Foundation Soils Exploration at 209 North Bay Front, "Balboa Island", Newport Beach, California 92662," Job No: F-9181-00, May 31. 12. Hart, E.W., and Bryant, W.A., 1997, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act: California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 42 (Interim Supplements and Revisions 1999, 2003, and 2007). 13. Jennings, Charles W., et al, 1994, "Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas," California Division of Mines and Geology, Geologic Data Map No. 6. 14. Legg, Mark R., Borrero, Jose C., and Synolakis, Costas E., 2003, "Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities," Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI), 2002 NEHRP Professional Fellowship Report, Funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), January 2003. 15. Martin, G.R. and Lew, M.; 1999, "Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California", Southern California Earthquake Center (SCEC), University of Southern California, dated March, 63 pages. 16. Morton and Miller, Geologic Map of Orange County, CDMG Bulletin 204, 1981. 17. Morton, P.K., Miller, R.V., and Evans, J.R., 1976, Environmental Geology of Orange County, California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Open File Report 79-8 LA. 18. Morton, D.M., Bovard, Kelly H., and Alvarez, Rachel M., 2004, Preliminary Digital Geological Map of the 30' X 60' Santa Ana Quadrangle, southern California, version 2.0, Open-File Report 99-172, Version 2.0 -2004. 19. Douglas M. Morton and Fred K. Miller, compilers, 2006, "Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' X 60' Quadrangles, California," U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2006- 1217. PA2017-045 20. Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Lienkaemper, J.J., McCrory, P.A., and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, "Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California", Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, DMG Open-File Report 96-08, USGS Open File Report 96-706. 21. Schmertmann, Dr. John H., 1977, "Guidelines for CPT Performance and Design," Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA-TS-78-209, February 1977. 22. Seed, Bolton H. and Idriss, I. M., 1974, "A Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential," Journal of Soil Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 97, No. SM9, Sept. 1974, pp. 1249-1273. 23. Tan, Siang, S., and Edgington, William J., 1976, "Geology and Engineering Geology of the Laguna Beach Quadrangle, Orange County, California," California Division of Mines and Geology, Special Report 127. 24. Terzaghi, Karl, Peck, Ralph B., and Mesri, Ghoamreza, 1996, "Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Third Edition," John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 25. Tokimatsu, K., & Seed, H.B., 1987, "Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE,113(8), pp.861-878. 26. U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, 2014, U.S. Seismic Design Maps, U.S. Department of the Interior I U.S. Geological Survey Page URL: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php Page Contact Information: Contact Us Page Last Modified: June 12, 2014 21:31:57 UTC 27. Vedder, J.G., Yerkes, R.F., and Schoellhamer, J.E., 1957, Geologic map of the San Joaquin Hills- San Juan Capistrano area, Orange County, California, U.S. Geological Survey, Oil and Gas Investigations Map OM-193 28. Department of the Navy, 1982, NAVFAC DM-7.1, Soil Mechanics, Design Manual 7.1, Naval Facilities Engineering Command PA2017-045 APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION PA2017-045 APPENDIX B FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM General Two borings were drilled at the site with Pacific Drilling Company using their Mole limited access rig with a 6-inch hollow-stem auger. The borings were drilled to depths of 12.5 feet on January 10, 2017. A Key to Logs is included as Figure B-1. Boring Logs are included as Figures B-2 and B-3. Excavation of the borings was observed by our field engineer who logged the soils and obtained samples for identification and laboratory testing. Exploratory excavations for the current investigation were located in the field by pacing from known landmarks. Their locations as shown are, therefore, within the accuracy of such measurements. Elevations were determined by interpolation between points on the ALS Plan, Reference 1. Sample Program 1. Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) were performed to determine the in-place relative densities and consistencies of the underlying soils. The test involves the number of blows it takes for a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches to drive a 2-inch (outer diameter)/ 1 3/8-inch (inner diameter) split spoon sampler (ASTM: D1586). These blow counts are given in blows per foot for the final 12-inches of driving a sample with a length of 18 inches. SPT samples were immediately sealed in individual plastic bags. 2. Bulk samples representative of subsurface conditions were collected from the excavations and sealed in plastic bags. Summary The soils were classified based on field observations and laboratory tests. The classification is in accordance with ASTM D 2487 (the Unified Soil Classification System). Collected samples were transported to the laboratory for testing. Groundwater was encountered in the borings at a depth of about 2.5 to 3 feet in January 2017. PA2017-045 UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOLS SYMBOL TYPICAL NAMES GRAVELS: CLEAN GW 50% or more of GRAVELS GP coarse fraction Well graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures COARSE-GRAINED SOILS: retained G~iL GM more than 50°/o retained on on No. 4 sieve FINES GC '~~/,(; Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures No. 200 sieve (based on the f-----------+---+-----¥-·.,,_·_ .,C • ._L/eJ-------------~ material passing the 3-inch SANDS: CLEAN SW [75mm] sieve) SANDS SP more than 50% of coarse fraction SANDS SM passes No. 4 sieve WITH FINES SC FINE-GRAINED SOILS: 50% or more passes No. 200 sieve* SILTS AND CLAYS: Liquid Limit 50% or less SILTS AND CLAYS: Liquid Limit greater than 50% HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS ML CL OL MH CH OH PT KEY TO LOGS NOTATION C CA D&M 0 PTB S&H SPT SAMPLER TYPE Core barrel California split-barrel sampler with 2.5-inch outside diameter and a 1.93-inch inside diameter Dames & Moore piston sampler using 2.5-inch outside diameter, thin-walled tube Osterberg piston sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube Pitcher tube sampler using 3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled Shelby tube Sprague & Henwood split-barrel sampler with a 3.0-inch outside diameter and a 2.43-inch inside diameter Standard Penetration Test (SPT) split-barrel sampler with a 2.0-inch outside diameter and a LS-inch inside diameter SYMBOL D D [I] [I] ~ [II]] ~ 1.·•· 1 ·T·. ·1· ..... L -- Well graded sands and gravelly sand, little or no fines Poorly graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Clayey sands, sand-day mixtures Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic days Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays Organic clays of medium to high plasticity Peat, muck, and other highly organic soils Modified California Sampler (3" O.D.) Modified California Sampler, no recovery Standard Penetraition Test, ASTM D 1586 Standard Penetration Test, no recovery Thin-walled tube sample using Pitcher barrel Thin-walled tube sample, pushed or used Osterberg sampler Disaggregated (bulk) sample Water level ST Shelby Tube (3.0-inch outside diameter, thin-walled tube) advanced with hydraulic pressure Figure B-1: NR No Recovery Unified Soil Classification Chart/ Key To Logs R McCARTHY == CONSULTING,INC PA2017-045 SITE LOCATION: 409 N Bay Front EQUIPMENT: Pacific Drilling Mole rig DATE: 1/10/17 SURFACE ELEVATION: 6 +/-BY: RJM G:' ~ ~ BORING NO: B-1 0. l ,_ :E E z .Ji w :, ..., w 0. <I) 8 w :E °' z ~ "' :, w J: ~ <I) ~ 0 J: Ii: I'.) 0. ~ 1'.: Ii: w <I) ~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES w 0 :, !D :E 0 0 -CONCRETE: 3.4 -3.6" thick . I)( MARINE DEPOSITS (Qm): Hand auger to 3' . Light brown SAND, moist, shells, beach sand, fine to medium grained . 4 . SP/ I ~ Sieve . SM 2 I NIR At 3': Gray-brown silty sand, wet, medium dense, shells . 4 Sieve 5-6 At 5': Gray silty sand, wet, medium dense 5-SP/ 6 I; #200 Wash . SM . 6 '-'-. 5 ~~ At 7': Gray silty sand with shells, wet, medium dense . SP/ -SM 8 Sieve . 13 '- -4 r~ At 9': Gray silty sand, wet, medium dense, fine to medium . SP/ 10-SM 9 ~ grained Sieve 10-12 "'--11 'r'-. SP . At 11': Gray silty sand, wet, dense, some shells, fine, #200 Wash 14 micaceous 25 Total Depth: 12.5 feet . Groundwater at 2.5' - 15-15- - -- -- -- 20-20- -- -- . . 25-25- . . . . FILE NO: 8137-00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE B-2 R MCCARTHY CONSUL TING, INC. PA2017-045 SITE LOCATION: 409 N Bay Front EQUIPMENT: Pacific Drilling Mole rig DATE: 1/10/17 SURFACE ELEVATION: 6 +/-BY: RJM UJ G:' __, ~ BORING NO: B-2 c.. ~ ,_ :;: ~ I=:; z <( UJ e., :::, "' __, UJ c.. "' 8 UJ :;: "' z ~ i1i :::, UJ :,: ~ ij 0 :,: t t'.J c.. "' ~ t UJ "' iS ~ MATERIAL DESCRIPTION NOTES UJ 0 :::, "' :;: 0 0 -CONCRETE: 3.5 -3.8" thick -X MARINE DEPOSITS (Qm): Maximum Density Light brown SAND, moist, loose to medium dense, fine to Corrosivity --medium grained, shells -3 #200 Wash -SM At 3': Gray silty sand/sandy silt, wet, medium dense, 6 ..• micaceous, alternating sandy silt layers - 7 ~- 5-5 .,.-5- SP/ 7 At 5': Gray silty sand, wet, medium dense, shells, micaceous #200 Wash SM .. - 7 . ~--5 I-- At 7': Gray silty sand, wet, medium dense, some sandy silt Sieve SM 7 . -• interbedded, shells abundant in tip - 10 L~ -4 ~-At 9': Gray silty sand, wet, medium dense, some shells At 9': small return - SP 6 .. #200 Wash 10-10- 6 ---8 rs -At 11': Gray-brown silty sand, wet, dense, medium to coarse, - -SP 16 F ' micaceous, shells Sieve --~26 -. Total Depth: 12.5 feet -Water at 3 feet 15-15- - -. - -. 20-20- -- - - - 25-25- - - -- -- FILE NO: 8137-00 LOG OF BORING FIGURE B-3 R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC. PA2017-045 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING PA2017-045 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING The laboratory testing program was designed to fit the specific needs of this project and was limited to testing the soil samples collected during the on-site exploration. Soils were classified visually and per the results of our laboratory testing according to ASTM D 2487, the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). The field moisture content was not tested due to the saturated conditions below depths of 3 feet. Density characteristics of the soils encountered were determined by performing in-situ Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) in the undisturbed soil as the borings were advanced. N-Values and soil classifications are shown on the Boring Logs, Figures B-2 and B-3. Gradation Particle size analysis consisting of mechanical sieve analysis were performed on representative samples of the on-site soils in accordance with ASTM D 1140 and C-136. The test results are presented on Figures C-1 through C-7. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 (7Sµm) sieve are tabulated below: Location Classification % Fines (Passino #200) B-1 @ 3' SP-SM 8 B-1@ 5' SP-SM 6 B-1 @ 7' SP-SM 7 B-1@ 7'B SM 12 B-1@ 9' SP-SM 5 B-1 @ 11' SP 2 B-2@ 3' SM 19 B-2@ 5' SP-SM 6 B-2@ 7' SM 13 B-2@ 9' SP 2 B-2@ 11' SP 1 PA2017-045 Maximum Density The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content relationship was determined for a representative sample of the on-site soil. The laboratory standard used was ASTM: D1557. The test results are presented below and on Figure C-8. Results of Maximum Density Test (ASTM: D1557) Test Soil Maximum Optimum Moisture Location Classification Drv Densiht Content B-2@ 0.5-3.0' SP/SM 106.0 pcf 16% Corrosivity Testing A series of corrosivity tests were performed on the sample B-2@ 0.5-3 feet. The test results are presented below and in the attached results from HDR: nH 7.9 Soluble Sulfates 54 ppm oer CA417 Soluble Chlorides 14 ppm oer CA417 Min Resistivity 3,920 ohm-cm Per CA 643 PA2017-045 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Gravel Sand Coarse to I Fine Silt Clay medium ' U.S. standard sieve sizes J I :e C ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z z z z z ' ' I ~ .... ' I I I ~ I I I I I ' ' I 100 80 I I I I I I I ,! I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I 'I I I I I I I I I ,! I I I I I I i' i ,I I I I \ I I I I I II I ' ~ 60 "' I 40 I I I ' I 1: I I I I 1: I I } I I I 20 I 1: ' ' I I I I I 1: ' ' ' 0 Grain diameter. mm Sample Location/Depth: B-1 @ 3' Soil Description: Gray-brown silty SAND with shells (SP-SM) File No: 8137-00 Date: February 2017 Figure No: C-1 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc PA2017-045 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Gravel Sand coarse to I Fine medium U.S. ~tandard sieve sizes J I " 0 ~ § ~ N ci ci ci ~ ci ci z z z z z ' I I I I -I : ! I '-I I 100 I I I I I 1: I I I ! I I I ' I ,! I I Ii I I I I 80 I I i I 1; I I • I Ii I I I I I I I I I I I ,, I ' I I I ! I I \ I I I ! I ,! ~ :§ 60 J 40 I I I I I I I I , I I 20 ,, .I i 1' " I ,! I I I I I I I I I I I ' 0 ' Grain diameter. mm Sample Location/Depth: B-1@ 4' Soil Description: Gray-brown silty SAND with shells (SP-SM) File No: 8137-00 Date: February 2017 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc Silt ;; Q Clay Figure No: C-2 PA2017-045 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Gravel Sand Coarse to I Fine Silt Clay medium U.S. s 1 tandard sieve sizes I ' :a, !;I ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ci ci ci ci ci ci z z z z z z ' ' ' ~l ' I I i ! I I 100 80 I 'i ..... If I I ' I ,r r--. I I I I 'i i I I ,r ' I I 'i i I I I I I I I I i I I r! I I I I I ' I \ i ,, r! i I i I j Ii I ' I ii i I ~ ~ 60 "' J 40 'i II I I I Ii 1i I I I I 11 I\ ~ ' I I I Ii I I 20 Ii I ! I I I I 0 I Grain diameter. mm Sample Location/Depth: B-1 @ 7' (front) Soil Description: Gray silty SAND with shells (SP-SM) File No: 8137-00 Date: February 2017 Figure No: C-3 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc PA2017-045 Gravel v ci z ' I '1 I I " 100 80 I I I ,! I 'i I I ,! I I I ,, I I I I ,! I I! I ,! I I I I I I I I I 11 20 I I I I I 0 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Sand Coarse to I Fine medium U.S. ~tandard sieve sizes " 0 ~ ci ci z z I " 1! I i! I I I I I I ! I I I I I II ci z ~ I I I I I \ I \ I I I I I I I I I I !¥ ~ ci ci z z ' ' I ! I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I l I ,! I ! I I I i I I ' ' 0"'": tn ~o ~ -0 ci ci Grain diameter. mm Sample Location/Depth: B-1 @ 7' (back) Soil Description: Gray silty fine SAND with shells (SM/SC) File No: 8137-00 Date: February 2017 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc Silt Clay q 0 Figure No: C-4 PA2017-045 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Gravel Sand Coarse to I Fine Silt Clay medium I U.S. standard sieve sizes J I g !<I 0 0 ~ g !<I 0 0 0 0 0 0 z z z z z z 0 ' ' I I I I I I I I I ' I 10 8 I I IT I I I I I I I ,! 0 I I I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ,! rl I ! I I I I l " I rl ,! I I ,! I ! 60 J 40 I I I I I I I I I I 'i I I I ,, I I II I I I 20 I[ I I I I I I 0 ' ' g ij 0 0 Grain diameter. mm Sample Location/Depth: B-1 @ 9' Soil Description: Gray silty fine SAND (SP-SM) File No: 8137-00 Date: February 2017 Figure No: C-5 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc PA2017-045 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Gravel Sand Coarse to I Fine SHt Cray medium U.S. standard sieve sizes J I ~ .i 0 0 ~ ~ 0 N ci ci ci ci ci ci z z z z z z ' ' I ~ I I I I I I ~~ I I 100 I I ' I I 11 -I I I ! I ~ I I ! \ I 80 I I I I! I I I I I I I I I! I I I I ,, I \ I I! i; i! I I I I I I II I I I 1! c ~ 8!._ 40 II I I \ I I I I 20 fl ii I " 1: I I I I I lf I I I I I I I I I I ' 0 I Grain diameter. mm Sample Location/Depth: B-2 @ 7' Soil Description: Gray Silty SAND with shells (SM) File No: 8137-00 Date: February 2017 Figure No: C-6 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc PA2017-045 PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS Gravel Sand Coarse to 1 Fine Silt Clay medium r U.S. standard sieve sizes I r " 0 0 0 ~ N 'i " iii ci ci ci ,g ci ci z z z z z C ' I I ~ I I I I I 100 80 I n I I ,! I I ! I I I r I ,, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I 1! I I I I I I I rr I ' I I I I I I I ii ,! I I ,! j 40 I' I I I ' I I I I I I IT I I I .,, 1: I ,! I I I 11 " I I t I I I I I I I 20 0 -, r Grain diameter. mm Sample Location/Depth: B-2 @ 11' Soil Description: Gray-brown SAND (SP) File No: 8137-00 Date: February 2017 Figure No: C-7 R McCarthy Consulting, Inc PA2017-045 U:-u e:. ~ ci.i z w 0 & 0 140.0 \ l ) l l ·--i I ' ' Zero Air Void Line ' , (Specific Gravity= 2. 70) I\ I\ ' I/ \ ~ 130.0 " Zero Air Void Line " ' i\ ' I (Specific Gravity= 2.60) ' ' ' I\ '\ 120.0 '\ I\ \ ' -- '\" Zero Air Void Line (Specific Gravity= 2.50) --,, ' ' I 110.0 ' " ' ' ... \ ' ' J ... ~ ' 100.0 , ' ' ' ' "'' ' ' ' ' ' 90.0 " '-' ' ' ,, " ' 80.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 MOISTURE CONTENT (%) B-2@ 0.5-3' MAXIMUM DRY DENSITY: 106 LBS/FP OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT: 16% FILE NO: 8137-00 MARCH 2017 FIGURE C-8 Fl McCARTHY CONSULTING, INC PA2017-045 1-)~ DATE: ATTENTION: TO: SUBJECT: COMMENTS: TRANSMITTAL LETTER February 9, 2017 Rob McCarthy R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Laboratory Test Data Gunderson Your #8137-00, HDR Lab #17-0057LAB Enclosed are the results for the subject project. James T. Keegan, MD Laboratory Services Manager 431 West Baseline Road· Claremont. CA 91711 Phone: 909.962.5485 · Fax: 909.626.3316 PA2017-045 1-)~ Sample ID Resistivity as-received saturated pH Electrical Conductivity Chemical Analyses Cations calcium Ca2• magnesium Mg2• sodium Na1+ potassium K'+ Anions carbonate co;· Table 1 -Laboratory Tests on Soil Samples R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. Gunderson Your #8137-00, HOR Lab #17-0057LAB 9-Feb-17 B-2@0.5-3' Units ohm-cm 8,000 ohm-cm 3,920 7.9 mS/cm 0.07 mg/kg 32 mg/kg 4.4 mg/kg 41 mg/kg 12 mg/kg ND bicarbonate HC03 1· mg/kg 95 fluoride F'· mg/kg 4.1 chloride c1 1• mg/kg 14 sulfate so/· mg/kg 54 phosphate Po/· mg/kg 5.3 Other Tests ammonium NH4,. mg/kg ND nitrate N031· mg/kg ND sulfide 52-qual na Redox mV na Resistivity per ASTM G187, Cations per ASTM D6919, Anions per ASTM D4327, and Alkalinity per APHA 2320-8. Electrical conductivity in millisiemens/cm and chemical analyses were made on a 1 :5 soil-to-water extract. mg/kg = milligrams per kilogram (parts per million) of dry soil. Redox = oxidation-reduction potential in millivolts ND = not detected na = not analyzed 431 West Baseline Road· Claremont, CA 91711 Phone: 909.962.5485 · Fax: 909.626.3316 Page 1 of 1 PA2017-045 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES PA2017-045 GENERAL APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES These Guidelines present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations observed by R McCarthy Consulting, Inc., (RMC), or its designated representative. No deviation from these guidelines will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the geotechnical report signed by a registered geotechnical engineer. The placement, spreading, mixing, watering, and compaction of the fills in strict accordance with these guidelines shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor. The construction, excavation, and placement of fill shall be under the direct observation of the geotechnical engineer or any person or persons employed by the licensed geotechnical engineer signing the soils report. If unsatisfactory soil-related conditions exist, the geotechnical engineer shall have the authority to reject the compacted fill ground and, if necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to permit completion of compaction. Conformance with these specifications will be discussed in the final report issued by the geotechnical engineer. SITE PREPARATION All brush, vegetation and other deleterious material such as rubbish shall be collected, piled and removed from the site prior to placing fill, leaving the site clear and free from objectionable material. Soil, alluvium, or rock materials determined by the geotechnical engineer as being unsuitable for placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. Any material incorporated as part of a compacted fill must be approved by the geotechnical engineer. The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches until the surface is free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment used. After the area to receive fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be disced or bladed by the contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to the proper moisture content and compacted to minimum requirements. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches. Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks, wells, pipe lines or others not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner prescribed by the geotechnical engineer. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone 949-629-2539 Facsimile 949-629-2501 PA2017-045 MATERIALS APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (continued) Materials for compacted fill shall consist of materials previously approved by the geotechnical engineer. Fill materials may be excavated from the cut area or imported from other approved sources, and soils from one or more sources may be blended. Fill soils shall be free from organic (vegetation) materials and other unsuitable substances. Normally, the material shall contain no rocks or hard lumps greater than 6 inches in size and shall contain at least 50 percent of material smaller than 1/4-inch in size. Materials greater than 4 inches in size shall be placed so that they are completely surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks shall be permitted. No material of a perishable, spongy, or otherwise of an unsuitable nature shall be used in the fill soils. Representative samples of materials to be utilized, as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the laboratory by the geotechnical engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material shall be conducted by the geotechnical engineer in a timely manner. PLACING. SPREADING. AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIAL Soil materials shall be uniformly and evenly processed, spread, watered, and compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness. Achievement of a uniformly dense and uniformly moisture conditioned compacted soil layer should be the objective of the equipment operators performing the work for the Owner and Contractor. When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the geotechnical engineer, water shall be added by the contractor until the moisture content is near optimum as specified. Moisture levels should generally be at optimum moisture content or greater. When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the geotechnical engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by the contractor by blading, mixing, or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is near the specified level. After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density in compliance with ASTM D: 1557 (five layers). Compaction shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compacting equipment. Equipment shall be of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area and the equipment shall make sufficient passes to obtain the desired density uniformly. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 PA2017-045 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (continued) A minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of all fill slopes will be required. Compacting of the slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling the slopes in increments of 2 to 5 feet in elevation gain or by overbuilding and cutting back to the compacted inner core, or by any other procedure, which produces the required compaction. GRADING OBSERVATIONS The geotechnical engineer shall observe the fill placement during the course of the grading process and will prepare a written report upon completion of grading. The compaction report shall make a statement as to compliance with these guidelines. As a minimum, one density test shall be required for each 2 vertical feet of fill placed, or one for each 1,000 cubic yards of fill, whichever requires the greater number of tests; however, testing should not be limited based on these guidelines and more testing is generally preferable. Processed ground to receive fill, including removal areas such as canyon or swale cleanouts, must be observed by the geotechnical engineer and/or engineering geologist prior to fill placement. The contractor shall notify the geotechnical engineer when these areas are ready for observation. UTILITY LINE BACKFILL Utility line backfill beneath and adjacent to structures; beneath pavements; adjacent and parallel to the toe of a slope; and in sloping surfaces steeper than ten horizontal to one vertical (10:1), shall be compacted and tested in accordance with the criteria given in the text of this report. Alternately, relatively self-compacting material may be used. The material specification and method of placement shall be recommended and observed by the soil engineer, and approved by the geotechnical engineer and Building Official before use and prior to backfilling. Utility line backfill in areas other than those stated above are generally subject to similar compaction standards and will require approval by the soil engineer. The final utility line backfill report from the project soil engineer shall include an approval statement that the backfill is suitable for the intended use. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 PA2017-045 APPENDIX D STANDARD GRADING GUIDELINES (continued) PROTECTION OF WORK During the grading process and prior to the complete construction of permanent drainage controls, it shall be the responsibility of the contractor to provide good drainage and prevent ponding of water and damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site. After the geotechnical engineer has finished observations of the completed grading, no further excavations and/or filling shall be performed without the approval of the geotechnical engineer. R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 PA2017-045 APPENDIX E RESULTS OF LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES PA2017-045 Table E-1 Results of Liquefaction Analyses Summary Smax Figure Condition Boring# (inches) A-1/A-2 Post-Grading B-1 0.94 (Tokimatsu et al -1987) A-3 CSR-(N1)60cs Chart B-1 -SPT Data AA-1/AA-2 Post-Grading B-2 0.79 (Tokimatsu et al -1987) AA-3 CSR-(N1)60cs Chart B-2 -SPT Data Smax = Calculated maximum settlement of potential liquefiable layers in the upper 10 feet Please see the associated figures for additional details. Computation: GeoAdvanced GeoSuite Software Version 2.2.2.8, developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE www.geoadvanced.com R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 PA2017-045 I l ' j I uses ~~Ir~ 20 40 80 - 5 10 ~SC CTTI SM [ill] SP·SM R McCARTHY Project: _ CONSULTING,INC Location: Job Number: 4 0 Gunderson r,,,(tsj) .2!:.,IC~ FS 0.1 0.2 0.5 Earthquake & Groundwater Information: Magnitude= 7 Max. Acceleration = 0.7 g Project GW = 5.5 ft Maximum Settlement= 0.94 In Settlement at Bottom of Footing= 0.94 in Liquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16) Seto.: [dry] Pmdal (1996); [saQ Toklmalsu & Saad (1987) Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2006) M correction: av correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) Stress reduction: Blake (1996) Liquefaction Potential • SPT Data 409 N Bay Front L,-00-,-.;-~-,-.-.-.-,-,-0 -,.-=-.,-,.-,-,-,,-,.-,,-,s.,s.s,.s,s,~------------~-,·-=,~~--,.c,,s,-----....J,s.00,"•""'-"---.---~-.-,-,_.J.. _______ ....J ______ ....JL...------.._.J..-,-,_=•,,s,s,s.,-,.s™c,' 8137-00 Boring No.: B-1 Enclosure: A-1 PA2017-045 a ' . ! ,' l ' I ! I i 1 uses ~"Ir~ 20 40 5 10 ~ SC ' [DJ] SP-SM DR(%) 40 80 0 I I SM OCRGO 2 .,3sl~ 0.5 FS D Bottom o Earthquake & Groundwater Information: Magnitude = 7 Max. Acceleration= 0.7 g Project GW = 5.5 ft IS; (in)Pd 0.4 0.8 00 "' Liquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16) Settl.: [d,y) Pradel (191l8); [&at] Toklmatsu & Seed (1967) Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) M correction: ! !1---------------------~--------------------------------l I Maximum Settlement= 0.94 in Settlement at Bottom of Footing = 0.94 in uv correction: Idriss & Boulanger {2008) Stress reduction: Blake {1996) Seismic Settlement Potential -SPT Data R McCARTHY Project: Gunderson CONSULTING, INC Location: 409 N Bay Front umber: ~ Boring No.: L0c.,,,c,,,c@s,s""c,,-.e,s.,s,s,,0-"'c"""•''""'''""'""'·'"''"'''"·'''-------------,~c..,::::,±.s~=,-.,,.,,,c~,:::=,-=•"'·~'•"•'•"•"~=•.•~•.•m•••'•"""~""...;. ___ ....L ______ ....1 ______ ,,.,_,,,,i:::,,.,,~==,,c,c1,0C,a,.a,~, 8137-00 B-1 Enclosure: A-2 PA2017-045 ! i l • ! I ! ~ u .~- E -f -~ & 0.6 ~--------------------+----------, 0.5 I • • 0.4 • 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 10 20 30 40 Corrected standard penetration, (N 1}60c., z (ft) LiquefacUon: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16) Setn.· [d,y] Pradel (1998): [sat] Toklma!su & Seed (1987) Lateral spreading: ldrisi:; & Boulanger (2008) M correction: crv correction: ldr!ss & Boulanger (2008) Stress reduction: Blake (1996) Compression Deformation: Nonlinear (Yi 2011) Magnitude: 7 Max. acceleration: 0.7 g Project groundwater: 5.5 ft N60-,Vs conversion (UCLA): Seed & Idriss (1970) Go-V relationship (UCLA): Iwasaki et al. (1978) ,1-------------------------,---------------------------------l ! CSR· (N 1)60cs Chart· SPT Data ill ;. Boring No.: \,c.,,,cui\e©:::,,c.c.,c.,a,s,s,c.rnc,c,.,c,c,.,=.,::-a:,.,c,s,,c.,c"'o·a"a·'"',------------,,s""'""'"::::.:a==--",""'"'"-=c,c_::;/, .• :-.a,s.,,c"'c••"•"'°"""'·"'"""""'"·'"'',",'"""',------'--------'-------,,..._ce=:,,,_,,,,,.,,,,a,,o,,c,,a,™:::-' Project: Gunderson Fl fv1cCARTHY _ CONSULTING,INC umber: 8137-00 A-3 Location: 409 N Bay Front B-1 Enclosure: PA2017-045 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settf.: {dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Zb(ft) Zm(ft) '(pcf) Noo FC("A,) CC("A,) uses ,t! C' (tsj) u >O (tsj) u >O '(tsj) c, c, 0.50 0.25 110.0 31.5 40.0 0.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.01 0.01 1.7 1.0 1.00 0.75 110.0 31.5 40.0 0.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.04 0.04 1.7 1.0 1.50 1.25 110.0 31.5 40.0 0.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.07 0.07 1.7 1.0 2.00 1.75 110.0 31.S 40.0 0.0 9 40.S 0.0 0.10 0.10 1.7 1.0 2.50 2.25 110.0 31.S 40.0 0.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.12 0.12 1.7 1.0 3.00 2.75 110.0 31.5 40.0 0.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.15 0.15 1.7 1.0 3.50 3.25 110.0 31.5 40.0 0.0 9 40.S 0.0 0.18 0.18 1.6 1.0 4.00 3.75 110.0 31.5 40.0 0.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.21 0.21 1.5 1.0 4.50 4.25 110.0 31.5 40.0 0.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.23 0.23 1.5 1.0 5.00 4.75 110.0 31.5 40.0 0.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.26 0.26 1.4 1.0 6.00 5.75 110.0 31.5 40.0 0.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.32 0.31 1.4 1.0 6.50 6.25 110.0 31.5 40.0 0.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.34 0.32 1.4 1.0 7.00 6.75 110.0 4.7 6.0 0.0 14 29.6 0.0 0.37 0.33 1.7 1.0 7.50 7.25 110.0 4.8 6.0 0.0 14 29.7 0.0 0.40 0.34 1.7 1.0 8.00 7.75 110.0 9.7 12.0 0.0 12 33.4 0.0 0.43 0.36 1.7 1.0 8.50 8.25 110.0 9.9 12.0 0.0 1Z 33.4 0.0 0.45 0.37 1.6 1.0 9.00 8.75 110.0 10.0 12.0 0.0 12 33.4 0.0 0.48 0.38 1.6 1.0 9.50 9.25 110.0 10.1 12.0 0.0 1Z 33.4 0.0 0.51 0.39 1.6 1.0 10.00 9.75 110.0 18.0 5.0 0.0 14 36.8 0.0 0.54 0.40 1.5 1.0 10.50 10.25 110.0 18.2 5.0 0.0 14 36.8 0.0 0.56 0.42 1.4 1.0 11.00 10.75 110.0 18.4 5.0 0.0 14 36.8 0.0 0.59 0.43 1.4 1.0 GeoSuite© Ver.;ion 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Vi, PhD, PE, GE Copyrisht© 2002-2017 GeoAdvsncedlMII rlghts reserved _Commercial Copy fN1)60 53.6 53.6 53.6 53.6 53.6 52.6 50.3 48.4 46.9 45.6 44.2 43.8 8.0 8.1 16.3 16.3 16.3 16.3 26.2 26.2 26.1 Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: (N1)6tk.< DR(%) V,(mls) V,(ftls) GofkPa) 59.l · 100.0 262..l 862.0 121,635.0 59.1 100.0 261.2 856.9 120,192.9 59.1 100.0 259.7 852.0 118,822.3 59.1 100.0 258.3 847.3 117,517.3 59.1 100.0 256.9 &42.8 116,272.7 58.1 100.0 255.6 838.5 115,084.0 55.9 100.0 254.3 834.3 113,946.9 54.0 100.0 253.1 830.3 112,857.7 52.4 100.0 251.9 826.5 111,813.1 51.2 99.2 250.8 822.8 110,810.1 49.7 97.8 248.9 816.7 109,177.6 49.4 97.5 248.5 815.2 108,782.7 8.1 39.4 173.4 568.8 52,968.5 8.2 39.6 173.4 568.9 52,982.0 18.4 59.4 198.6 651.5 69,471.6 18.4 59.4 198.7 652.0 69,594.0 18.3 59.4 200.2 656.8 70,625.8 18.3 59.4 201.6 661.4 71,620.3 26.2 71.0 218.2 715.7 83,858.6 26.2 71.0 219.5 720.2 84,911.2 26.1 70.9 220.8 724.5 85,934.3 Preps red at 3/9/201711:01:26 PM PA2017-045 SPT Data Interpretation Zb{fl) z.(IIJ Go{tsj} (Tp '(ts/) OCRoo Sulu,,o 0.50 0.25 1,270.2 0.07 5.0 1.00 0.75 1,255.1 0.21 5.0 1.50 1.25 1,240.8 0.34 5.0 2.00 1.75 1,227.2 0.48 5.0 2.50 2.25 1,214.2 0.62 5.0 3.00 2.75 1,201.8 0.76 5.0 3.50 3.25 1,189.9 0.89 5.0 4.00 3.75 1,178.5 1.03 5.0 4.50 4.25 1,167.6 1.17 5.0 5.00 4.75 1,157.2 1.31 5.0 6.00 5.75 1,140.1 1.54 5.0 6.50 6.25 1,136.0 1.60 5.0 7.00 6.75 553.1 1.30 3.9 7.50 7.25 553.3 1.32 3.8 8.00 7.75 725.5 1.53 4.3 a.so 8.25 726.8 1.56 4.2 9.00 8.75 737.5 1.59 4.2 9.50 9.25 747.9 1.62 4.1 10.00 9.75 875.7 1.77 4.4 10.50 10.25 886.7 1.80 4.3 11.00 10.75 897.4 1.83 4.3 GeoSulte© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Sett/.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) K, '' MSF K, K, CSR1.s CRR1.1 1.0 1.00 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 1.00 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 1.00 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 1.00 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 1.00 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 1.00 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.37 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.38 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.40 0.12 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.09 1.00 0.42 0.12 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.43 0.21 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.44 0.21 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.45 0.21 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.46 0.21 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.47 0.37 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.48 0.37 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.49 0.36 Copyright© 2002-2017 GeoAdvancedWAII rights reserved _Commercial Copy FS Ta• (ts/) 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.12 2.0 0.14 2.0 0.15 0.3 0.17 0.3 0.18 0.5 0.19 0.5 0.20 0.5 0.21 0.5 0.23 0.8 0.24 0.8 0.25 0.7 0.26 Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: p (Is/) G!Go r ..... ("AJ e, ("A,) 0.01 0.7272 0.001 0.0000 0.04 0.5018 0.002 0.0000 0.07 0.3634 0.003 0.0000 0.10 0.2710 0.004 0.0000 0.12 0.2069 0.006 0.0000 0.15 0.1523 0.007 0.0000 0.18 0.1113 0.009 0.0000 0.21 0.0825 0.011 0.0000 0.23 0.0620 0.012 0.0000 0.26 0.0472 0.014 0.0000 0.31 0.000 0.0000 0.32 0,000 0.0000 0.33 5.412 2.8478 0.34 5.409 2.8280 0.36 5.354 1.6510 0.37 5.353 1.6519 0.38 5.353 1.6528 0.39 5.352 1.6542 0.40 4.979 1.1302 0.41 4.981 1.1308 0.42 4.989 1.1341 Prepared at 3/9/201711:01:26 PM PA2017-045 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss {2010-16) Settf.. [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Zb(ft) Z,,,(ft) ,s, IS1 (in) SD, ED1 (in) G0 (tsj) Pd GIGoPd Ymruf%)Pd tvl"A)Pd ,s, 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.94 1,270.2 0.9441 0.001 0.0000 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.94 1,255.1 0.9034 0.002 0.0000 0.00 1.50 1.25 0.00 0.94 1,240.8 0.8725 0.003 0.0000 0.00 2.00 1.75 0.00 0.94 1,227.2 0.8453 0.004 0.0000 0.00 2.50 2.25 0.00 0.94 1,214.2 0.8199 0.006 0.0000 0.00 3.00 2.75 0.00 0.94 1,201.8 0.7958 0.007 0.0000 0.00 3.50 3.25 0.00 0.94 1,189.9 0.7725 0.009 0.0000 0.00 4.00 3.75 0.00 0.94 1,178.5 0.7499 0.011 0.0000 0.00 4.50 4.25 0.00 0.94 1,167.6 0.7278 0.012 0.0000 0.00 5.00 4.75 0.00 0.94 1,157.2 0.7062 0.014 0.0000 0.00 6.00 5.75 0.00 0.94 1,140.1 0.000 0.0000 0.00 6.50 6.25 0.00 0.94 1,136.0 0.000 0.0000 0.00 7.00 6.75 0.17 0.77 553.1 5.412 2.8478 0.17 7.50 7.25 0.17 0.60 553.3 5.409 2.8280 0.17 8.00 7.75 0.10 0.50 725.5 5.354 1.6510 0.10 8.50 8.25 0.10 0.40 726.8 5.353 1.6519 0.10 9.00 8.75 0.10 0.30 737.5 5.353 1.6528 0.10 9.50 9.25 0.10 0.20 747.9 5.352 1.6542 0.10 10.00 9.75 0.07 0.14 875.7 4.979 1.1302 0.07 10.50 10.25 0.07 0.07 886.7 4.981 1.1308 0.07 11.00 10.75 0.07 0.00 897.4 4.989 1.1341 0.07 GeoSlllte© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002-2017 GeoAdvancedl!IAII richts reserved _Commerclal Copy ES1 (in} Pd 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.77 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.14 0.07 0.00 Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: y,.,,.. ("/o)rs t:,. (%)1N '8, IS; (in) rs 0.001 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.003 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.005 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.006 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.008 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.010 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.012 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.014 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.016 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.94 5.412 2.8478 0.17 0.77 5.409 2.8280 0.17 0.60 5.354 1.6510 0.10 0.50 5.353 1.6519 0.10 0.40 5.353 1.6528 0.10 0.30 5.352 1.6542 0.10 0.20 4.979 1.1302 0.07 0.14 4.981 1.1308 0.07 0.07 4.989 1.1341 0.07 0.00 Prepared at 3/9/201711:01:26 PM PA2017-045 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Sett/.: {dry} Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Zb(ft) Z.,(ft) }'ma,: ("/o) YI e,.("A>Jn LIS; ES; (in)r, l'ma.-< ("/o) UC e, ("/o) UC JS, J:S1 (m) UC up' (tsj) 0.50 0.25 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.001 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.07 1.00 0.75 0.010 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.21 1.50 1.25 0.023 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.003 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.34 2.00 1.75 o.044 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.004 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.48 2.50 2.25 0.074 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.006 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.62 3.00 2.75 0.122 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.007 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.76 3.50 3.25 D.198 O.DODD D.DD 0.94 0.009 0.0000 D.DD D.94 D.89 4.00 3.75 0.307 O.OOOD 0.00 0.94 O.Dll 0.0000 D.DD 0.94 1.03 4.50 4.25 D.463 O.OOOD 0.00 0.94 O.D12 O.OOOD 0.00 0.94 1.17 5.00 4.75 0.679 O.OOOD 0.00 0.94 0.014 0.0000 0.00 0.94 1.31 6.00 5.75 O.OOD 0.0000 0.00 0.94 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.94 1.54 6.50 6.25 0.000 O.OOOD 0.00 0.94 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.94 1.60 7.00 6.75 5.412 2.8478 0.17 0.77 5.412 2.8478 0.17 0.77 0.72 7.50 7.25 5.409 2.8280 0.17 0.60 5.409 2.8280 0.17 D.60 0.75 8.00 7.75 5.354 1.6510 0.10 0.50 5.354 1.6510 0.10 0.50 1.47 8.50 8.25 5.353 1.6519 0,10 0.40 5.353 1.6519 0.10 0.40 1.51 9.00 8.75 5.353 1.6528 0.10 0.30 5.353 1.6528 0.10 0.30 1.53 9.50 9.25 5.352 1.6542 0.10 0.20 5.352 1.6542 0.10 0.20 1.54 10.00 9.75 4.979 1.1302 0.07 0.14 4.979 1.1302 0.07 0.14 2.02 10.50 10.25 4.981 1.1308 0.07 0.07 4.981 1.13D8 0.07 0.07 2.08 11.00 10.75 4.989 1.1341 0.07 0.00 4.989 1.1341 0.07 0.00 2.14 GeoSulte© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred VI, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002-2Dl7 GeoAdvancedt!V\11 rights re5e1Vi!d _Commercia! Copy OCRn, Up'(tsj) 5.0 0.30 5.0 0.89 5.0 1.48 5.0 2.07 5.0 2.66 5.0 3.25 5.0 3.84 5.0 4.43 5.0 5.02 5.0 5.61 5.0 6.62 5.0 6.87 2.2 1.15 2.2 1.20 4.1 2.12 4.1 2.20 4.0 2.22 3.9 2.24 5.0 2.81 5.0 2.83 5.0 2.85 Lateral spreading: Idriss Bau/anger (2008) M correction: OCR,;60 N1Jpc, V, (mls)il V, (m/s) UC 21.5 95.0 188.8 85.9 21.5 91.7 188.8 111.1 21.5 88.6 188.8 125.2 21.5 85.7 188.8 135.5 21.5 83.0 188.8 143.7 21.5 80.5 188.0 150.6 21.5 78.1 186.1 156.5 21.5 75.9 184.5 161.8 21.5 73.8 183.2 166.6 21.5 71.9 182.1 170.9 21.5 68.7 180.7 177.6 21.5 68.0 180.4 179.2 3.4 7.8 114.0 151.6 3.5 7.9 114.4 153.0 6.0 17.7 140.5 165.2 6.0 17.8 140.6 166.7 5.9 17.8 141.7 168.2 5.7 17.8 142.8 169.6 7.0 27.7 157.5 180.5 6.8 27.7 158.6 182.0 6.7 27.7 159.7 183.4 Prepared at 3/9/201711:01:26 PM PA2017-045 SPT Data Interpretation Zb(ft) z.(11! V, (mfs) UCSo V, (mis) ucs; 0.50 0.25 84.9 86.5 1.00 0.75 110.4 111.S 1.50 1.25 124.8 125.5 2.00 1.75 135.2 135.7 2.50 2.25 143.6 143.8 3.00 2.75 150.7 150.6 3.50 3.25 156.8 156.5 4.00 3.75 162.3 161.8 4.50 4.25 167.2 166.S 5.00 4.75 171.7 170.9 6.00 5.75 178.6 177.5 6.50 6.25 180.3 179.1 7.00 6.75 151.6 128.9 7.50 7.25 153.0 130.2 8.00 7.75 165.2 148.9 8.50 8.25 166.7 150.4 9.00 8.75 168.2 151.9 9.50 9.25 169.6 153.3 10.00 9.75 180.5 170.9 10.50 10.25 182.0 172.4 11.00 10.75 183.4 173.9 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Sett/.: [dry] Pradel (1998); {sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) V, (mis) ucc1y V, (mis) wo,,11 V, (mis) wvSa V, {mis) lf'l/Slc pip. V,p (mis) r,- 125.8 67.94 70.67 51.04 0.013 141.37 150.6 91.90 90.98 72.54 0.039 141.37 163.8 105.76 102.32 85.43 0.065 141.37 173.1 116.02 110.56 95.14 0.091 141.37 180.4 124.32 117.14 103.11 0.117 141.37 186.4 131.37 122.67 109.94 0.143 141.37 191.6 137.55 127.47 115.98 0.169 141.37 196.1 143.07 131.74 121.41 0.195 141.37 200.2 148.08 135.59 126.38 0.221 141.37 203.9 152.68 139.10 130.96 0.246 141.37 209.5 159.81 144.52 138.10 0.291 145.69 210.8 161.48 145.78 139.79 0.302 147.72 137.1 108.48 95.03 102.44 0.312 142.10 138.3 109.82 96.07 103.82 0.321 143.97 163.7 129.13 113.99 118.41 0.337 149.16 165.2 130.73 115.26 119.97 0.346 151.02 166.6 132.27 116.48 121.49 0.356 152.77 167.9 133.77 117.66 122.96 0.366 154.49 192.4 152.51 135.11 136.81 0.374 151.42 193.8 154.10 136.36 138.35 0.384 153.01 195.2 155.64 137.57 139.85 0.393 154.57 Copyright© 2002 -2017 GeoAdvancedMII rights reserved _Commercial Copy Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: V,.. (mls)r, u.,'(tsf)n OCRr, Go(tsf) r; 165.41 0.014 5.00 367.74 165.41 0.041 5.00 367.74 165.41 0.069 5.00 367.74 165.41 0.096 5.00 367.74 165.41 0.124 5.00 367.74 165.41 0.147 4.67 367.74 165.41 0.168 4.32 367.74 165.41 0.188 4.03 367.74 165.41 0.208 3.80 367.74 165.41 0.227 3.60 367.74 165.41 0.263 3.42 390.58 165.41 0.273 3.41 401.52 151.39 0.311 3.23 371.57 151.42 0.321 3.21 381.41 156.46 0.323 3.27 409.39 156.81 0.334 3.25 419.65 158.78 0.344 3.23 429.45 160.72 0.354 3.21 439.16 160.53 0.347 3.09 421.90 162.37 0.356 3.07 430.79 164.17 0.365 3.05 439.65 Prepared at 3/9/201711:01;26 PM PA2017-045 ' ~ j' I l i ' ! l ! uses 5 \/{J< i1fi SP-SM 10 .UIL ~ SC [IT] SP-SM [sJsM 80 OCR00 2 0 r,,,(tsj) ~I~ FS 0.1 0.2 0.5 1 0 Earthquake & Groundwater Information: Magnitude= 7 Max. Acceleration= 0.7 g Project GW = 5 ft Maximum Settlement= 0.79 in Settlement at Bottom of Footing = 0.79 in Liquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16) SetU.: (dry) Pradel (191!8): [sat] Toklma!su & Seed (1 987) Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) M correction: c,v correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) Stress reduction: Blake (1996) !1------------------------~------------------------------------1 l '- u 8137-00 Boring No.: B-2 Enclosure: •,ceoc,c,,c,~c,s,s.-,os,s,s,.c,.c.,coo-,,c_~,-,",,","""-•""'"·"""·""~-----------,c--.e,.=-=-"w",","----...,J"-•",""'"'-.-.-.-,",."~"--,-•• .L.,.,~-....::c.... __ ....Jc.... _____ ....Jc.... _____ "•·-,"--.",-=wc,,c,c,~=,.c,.c,~ Project: Gunderson Liquefaction Potential -SPT Data Fl iVlcCARTHY CONSULTING, INC Location: 409 N Bay Front Job Number: M-1 PA2017-045 ' ' ' ,, i f I ! I I ' i I uses .. !:f..1:M~ DR ("/o) 2D 40 0 40 80 0 5 10 ~ SC . [II]] SP-SM I I SM R McCARTHY _ CONSULTING,INC OCR(j() ~I~ FS E:v(%)Pd Es; (in)Pd 0.2 0.4 0.6 4 Project: Location: Job Number: 0.5 1 0.5 1.5 D Bo om o ooting Earthquake & Groundwater lnfonnation: Magnitude= 7 Max. Acceleration = 0.7 g Project GW = 5 ft Maximum SeWement = 0.79 in Settlement at Bottom of Fooling= 0.79 in Liquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16) SetU.: [dry] Pradel (1996): {sal] Toklmalsu & S&e<i (1987) Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) M correction: CN correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) Stress reduction: Blake (1996) Seismic Settlement Potential • SPT Data Gunderson 409 N Bay Front 8137-00 Boring No.: B-2 Enclosure: M-2 •0s,.s,s0,,s~c,s,.s,0-0s,s,s0_,c,s,s00s,,-.,-.,c,s"-'""'"'"'"""-•"·"-'"'-------------,~c ... =,±•e=="-"w"""""-=-,-=±.s_~e,c,c"'-"-"--=_s~-.-=-•"•"""•-,------'--------'-------,,,._-'--,-,.c~ew=,,•,e0,3e,c,47c,e.~ PA2017-045 l ' ,· ~ f ~ l ' ! l ! f;i u c " ~ ij " " ;,g u c 0.6 ~--------------------4------~ 0.5 I • • • • 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 10 20 30 40 Corrected standard penetration, (N 1) 60cs z (ft) Liquefaction: Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16) Sel!l.c [dry) Pradel (100!!); [satJTokimat•u & S""d (111117) Lateral spreading: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) M correction: ov correction: Idriss & Boulanger (2008) Stress reduction: Blake (1996) Compression Deformation: Nonlinear (Yi 2011) Magnitude: 7 Max. acceleration: O. 7 g Project groundwater: 5 ft N60--+VS co,werslon (UCLA): Seed & Idriss (1970) Go·V relaUonship (UClA): Iwasaki et al. (1978) :1----------------------~-----------C-S_R_·_(N- 1 -),-,-,.-C_h_a_rl_·_S_P_T_D_a_ta ___________ -l I R iv1cCARTHY Project: Gunderson CONSULTING, INC Location: 409 N Bay Front Job Number: 8137-00 Boring No.: B-2 Enclosure: AA-3 GeoSulte-0 Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred V,, PhD, PE, GE Co)J)'Jigh!§ 2002 -2017 GocA,t,,am:,iC·"-All rlghlS moooied _Commeroal Copy Prepared at 3/912017 10:32;47 PM PA2017-045 SPT Data Interpretation Zb(ft) z.(ft) "I (pc/) N., FC{"h) CC(%) 0.50 0.25 110.0 31.5 36.0 0.0 1.00 0.75 110.0 31.5 36.0 0.0 1.50 1.25 110.0 31.5 36.0 0.0 2.00 1.75 110.0 31.5 36.0 0.0 2.50 2.25 110.0 31.5 36.0 0.0 3.00 2.75 110.0 31.5 36.0 0.0 3.50 3.25 110.0 31.5 39.0 0.0 4.00 3.75 110.0 31.5 39.0 0.0 4.50 4.25 110.0 31.5 39.0 0.0 5.50 5.25 110.0 31.5 39.0 0.0 6.00 5.75 110.0 31.5 39.0 0.0 6.50 6.25 110.0 31.5 39.0 0.0 7.00 6.75 110.0 10.2 19.0 0.0 7.50 7.25 110.0 10.4 19.0 0.0 8.00 7.75 110.0 10.5 19.0 0.0 8.50 8.25 110.0 11.5 6.0 0.0 9.00 8.75 110.0 11.7 6.0 0.0 9.50 9.25 110.0 11.8 6.0 0.0 10.00 9.75 110.0 12.0 6.0 0.0 10.50 10.25 110.0 14.7 13.0 0.0 11.00 10.75 110.0 14.9 13.0 0.0 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Sett!.: {dry] Pradel (1998); {sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) uses ,r! C' (ts/) U.o (tef} (J 'If! I (/sf) c, c, 9 40.5 0.0 0.01 0.01 1.7 1.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.04 0.04 1.7 1.0 9 40.5 0.0 0,07 0.07 1.7 1.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.10 0.10 1.7 1.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.12 0.12 1.7 1.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.15 0.15 1.7 1.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.18 0.18 1.6 1.0 9 40.5 o.o 0.21 0.21 1.5 1.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.23 0.23 1.5 1.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.29 0.28 1.4 1.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.32 0.29 1.4 1.0 9 40.5 0.0 0.34 0.30 1.4 1.0 12 33.8 0.0 0.37 0.32 1.7 1.0 12 33.9 0.0 0.40 0.33 1.7 1.0 12 34.0 0.0 0.43 0.34 1.7 1.0 14 34.4 0.0 0.45 0.35 1.6 1.0 14 34.4 0.0 0.48 0.36 1.6 1.0 14 34.4 0.0 0.51 0.38 1.6 1.0 14 34.4 0.0 0.54 0.39 1.6 1.0 12 35.5 0.0 0.56 0.40 1.5 1.0 12 35.5 0.0 0.59 0.41 1.5 1.0 Copyright© 2002-2017 GeoAdvanced!MII rlghts reserved _Commercial Copy (N,)60 53.6 53.6 53.6 53.6 53.6 52.6 50.3 48.4 46.9 45.0 44.6 44.3 17.4 17.6 17.8 18.9 18.9 18.9 18.8 22.2 22.1 Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: (N1)61k.< DR(%) V,{mls) V, (ftls) G0(k.Pa) 59.1 100.0 262.7 862.0 121,635.0 59.1 100.0 261.2 856.9 120,192.9 59.1 100.0 259.7 852.0 118,822.3 59.1 100.0 258.3 847.3 117,517.3 59.1 100.0 256.9 842.8 116,272.7 58.1 100.0 255.6 838.5 115,084.0 55.9 100.0 254.3 834.3 113,946.9 54.0 100.0 253.1 830.3 112,857.7 52.4 100.0 251.9 826.5 111,813.1 50.6 98.6 250.0 820.2 110,115.6 50.2 98.3 249.5 818.6 109,705.3 49.8 97.9 249.1 817.1 109,301.8 21.7 64.6 205.6 674.4 74,458.8 21.9 64.9 205.6 674.5 74,471.1 22.1 65.1 205.7 675.0 74,578.6 18.9 60.3 200.4 657.6 70,785.9 18.9 60.3 200.5 657.9 70,849.9 18.9 60.3 201.4 660.6 71,443.1 18.8 60.2 202.8 665.2 72,433.1 24.7 68.9 215.1 705.6 81,510.3 24.6 68.8 216.4 710.0 82,528.4 Prepared at 3/9/201710:32:47 PM PA2017-045 SPT Data Interpretation Zb(ft) z.@J Go(tsf) u ,' (tsj) OCRao S.,luvl!' 0.50 0.25 1,270.2 0.07 5.0 1.00 0.75 1,255.1 0.21 5.0 1.50 1.25 1,240.8 0.34 5.0 2.00 1.75 1,227.2 0.48 5.0 2.50 2.25 1,214.2 0.62 5.0 3.00 2.75 1,201.8 0.76 5.0 3.50 3.25 1,189.9 0.89 5.0 4.00 3.75 1,178.5 1.03 5.0 4.50 4.25 1,167.6 1.17 5.0 5.50 5.25 1,149.9 1.40 5.0 6.00 5.75 1,145.6 1.46 5.0 6.50 6.25 1,141.4 1.52 5.0 7.00 6.75 777.6 1.49 4.7 7.50 7.25 777.7 1.52 4.6 8.00 7.75 778.8 1.55 4.5 8.50 8.25 739.2 1.54 4.4 9.00 8.75 739.9 1.56 4.3 9.50 9.25 746.1 1.59 4.2 10.00 9.75 756.4 1.62 4.2 10.50 10.25 851.2 1.74 4.3 11.00 10.75 861.8 1.77 4.3 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Sett/.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat} Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Ko '' MSF K, K. CSRu CRR1.J 1.0 1.00 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 1.00 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 1.00 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 1.00 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 1.00 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 1.00 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.36 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.37 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.39 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.40 1.30 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.42 0.26 1.0 0.99 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.43 0.26 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.45 0.27 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.46 0.22 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.47 0.22 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.48 0.22 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.49 0.22 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.50 0.32 1.0 0.98 1.14 1.10 1.00 0.51 0.32 Copyright© 2002-2017 GeoAdvancedl:MII rishts reserved _Commercial Copy FS f av (lsj} 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.o7 0.08 0.09 0.11 2.0 0.13 2.0 0.14 ,.o 0.15 0.6 0.17 0.6 0.18 0.6 0.19 0.5 0.20 0.5 0.21 0.5 0.23 0.4 0.24 0.6 0.25 0.6 0.26 Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: p (tsj) G!Go l'mm: ("A) liv (%) 0.01 0.7250 0.001 0.0000 0.04 0.4982 0.002 0.0000 0.07 0.3594 0.003 0.0000 0.10 0.2672 0.004 0.0000 0.12 0.2035 0.006 0.0000 0.15 0.1490 0.007 0.0000 0.18 0.1106 0.009 0.0000 0.21 0.0819 0.011 0.0000 0.23 0.0615 0.012 0.0000 0.28 0.000 0.0000 0.29 0.000 0.0000 0.30 0.000 0.0000 0.33 5.350 1.4384 0.34 5.344 1.4247 0.35 5.339 1.4151 0.35 5.357 1.6138 0.36 5.355 1.6145 0.37 5.352 1.6154 0.38 5.351 1.6175 0.40 5.176 1.2417 0.41 5.179 1.2445 Prepared at 3/9/2017 10:32:47 PM PA2017-045 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Sett!.: {dry] Pradel (1998); {sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Zb(ft) Z.,(ft) iJS; ES1 (in) JD, ED1 (in) G0 (tsj)p,1 G!Gop,1 )',,.... ("/o) Pd e, ("/o) Pd JS, 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.79 1,270.2 0.9441 0.001 0.0000 0.00 1.00 0.75 0.00 0.79 1,255.1 0.9034 0.002 0.0000 0.00 1.50 1.25 0.00 0.79 1,240.8 0.8725 0.003 0.0000 0.00 2.00 1.75 0.00 0.79 1,227.2 0.8453 0.004 0.0000 0.00 2.50 2.25 0.00 0.79 1,214.2 0.8199 0.006 0.0000 0.00 3.00 2.75 0.00 0.79 1,201.8 0.7958 0.007 0.0000 ono 3.50 3.25 0.00 0.79 1,189.9 0.7725 0.009 0.0000 0.00 4.00 3.75 0.00 0.79 1,178.5 0.7499 0.011 0.0000 0.00 4.50 4.25 0.00 0.79 1,167.6 0.7278 0.012 0.0000 0.00 5.50 5.25 0.00 0.79 1,149.9 0.000 0.0000 0.00 6.00 5.75 0.00 0.79 1,145.6 0.000 0.0000 0.00 6.50 6.25 0.00 0.79 1,141.4 0.000 0.0000 0.00 7.00 6.75 0.09 0.71 7n.6 5.350 1.4384 0.09 7.50 7.25 0.09 0.62 777.7 5.344 1.4247 0.09 8.00 7.75 0.08 0.54 778.8 5.339 1.4151 0.08 8.50 8.25 0.10 0.44 739.2 5.357 1.6138 0.10 9.00 8.75 0.10 0.34 739.9 5.355 1.6145 0.10 9.50 9.25 0.10 0.25 746.1 5.352 1.6154 0.10 10.00 9.75 0.10 0.15 756.4 5.351 1.6175 0.10 10.50 10.25 0.07 0.07 851.2 5.176 1.2417 0.07 11.00 10.75 0.07 0.00 861.8 5.179 1.2445 0.07 GeoSuite© ver5ion 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred YI, PhD, PE, GE Copyrightil:12002 -2017 GeoAdvancedt!V\11 rights re5erved _Commercial Copy l:S; (in) Pd 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.79 0.71 0.62 0.54 OM 0.34 0.25 0.15 0.07 0.00 Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: ]'""" ("A)) TS Bv ("/o) TS AS; ES1 (in) TS 0.001 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.003 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.005 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.006 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.008 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.010 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.012 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.014 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.000 0.0000 o.oo 0.79 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.79 5.350 1.4384 0.09 0.71 5.344 1.4247 0.09 0.62 5.339 1.4151 0.08 0.54 5.357 1.6138 0.10 0.44 5.355 1.6145 0.10 0.34 5.352 1.6154 0.10 0.25 5.351 1.6175 0.10 0.15 5.176 1.2417 0.07 0.07 5.179 1.2445 0.07 0.00 Prepared at 3/9/2017 10:32:47 PM PA2017-045 SPT Data Interpretation Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settf.: {dry] Pradel (1998); [sat} Tokimatsu Seed (1987) Zb(fl) z.(11) y..., ("A)n c. ("AJ11 ,s, ES1 {in)r, Ymax ("A) UC ev (%Jue AS; ES; (in) uc u P' (tsj) 0,50 0.25 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.001 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.07 1.00 0.75 0.010 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.002 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.21 1.50 1.25 0.024 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.003 0,0000 0,00 0.79 0.34 2.00 1.75 0.045 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.004 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.48 2.50 2.25 0.075 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.006 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.62 3.00 2.75 0.126 0,0000 0.00 0.79 0.007 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.76 3.50 3.25 0.199 0,0000 0,00 0.79 0.009 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.89 4.00 3.75 0.310 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.011 0.0000 0.00 0.79 1.03 4.50 4.25 0.467 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.012 0.0000 0.00 0.79 1.17 5.50 5.25 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.79 1.40 6.00 5.75 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.79 1.46 6.50 6.25 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.79 0.000 0.0000 0.00 0.79 1.52 7.00 6.75 5.350 1.4384 0.09 0.71 5.350 1.4384 0.09 0.71 1.45 7.50 7.25 5.344 1.4247 0.09 0.62 5.344 1.4247 0.09 0.62 1.52 8.00 7.75 5.339 1.4151 0.08 0.54 5.339 1.4151 0.08 0.54 1.59 8.50 8.25 5.357 1.6138 0.10 0.44 5.357 1.6138 0.10 0.44 1.54 9.00 8.75 5.355 1.6145 0.10 0.34 5.355 1.6145 0.10 0.34 1.59 9.50 9.25 5.352 1.6154 0.10 0.25 5.352 1.6154 0.10 0.25 1.61 10.00 9.75 5.351 1.6175 0.10 0.15 5.351 1.6175 0.10 0.15 1.62 10.50 10.25 5.176 1.2417 0.07 0.07 5.176 1.2417 0.07 0.07 1.97 11.00 10.75 5.179 1.2445 0.07 0.00 5.179 1.2445 0.07 0.00 1.99 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred YI, PhD, PE, GE Copyright© 2002-2017 GeoAdvancedWA!I rights re5erved _Commercial Copy OCRD, q p' (ts/) 5.0 0.30 5.0 0.89 5.0 1.48 5.0 2.07 5.0 2.66 5.0 3.25 5.0 3.84 5.0 4.43 5.0 5.02 5.0 6.03 5.0 6.28 5.0 6.54 4.6 1.95 4.6 2.04 4.7 2.14 4.4 2.07 4.4 2.16 4.3 2.19 4.2 2.21 4.9 2.85 4.8 2.87 Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: OCRN6o N,,,. V, (mls)M V, (mis) uc 21.5 95.0 188.8 85.7 21.S 91.7 188.8 110.9 21.S 88.6 188.8 125.1 21.S 85.7 188.8 135.4 21.5 83.0 188.8 143.7 21.5 80.5 188.0 150.6 21.5 78.1 186.1 156.5 21.5 75.9 184.5 161.8 21.5 73.8 183.2 166.6 21.5 70.5 181.5 173.9 21.5 69.7 181.2 175.5 21.5 69.0 180.8 177.2 6.2 21.8 146.5 157.2 6.2 21.8 146.9 158.8 6.3 21.9 147.1 160.5 5.9 18.7 141.5 167.4 5.9 18.8 141.5 169.0 5.8 18.8 142.4 170.5 5.7 18.8 143.5 172.0 7.1 25.5 154.7 176.2 7.0 25.4 155.8 177.6 Prepared at 3/9/201710:32:47 PM PA2017-045 SPT Data Interpretation Zb(fl) Z,,,(ft) V, (mis) ucs,, V, (mis) ucsi 0.50 0.25 84.9 86.S 1.00 0.75 110.4 111.S 1.50 1.25 124.8 125.S 2.00 1.75 135.2 135.7 2.50 2.25 143.6 143.8 3.00 2.75 150.7 150.6 3.50 3.25 156.8 156.5 4.00 3.75 162.3 161.8 4.50 4.25 167.2 166.5 5.50 5.25 174.7 173.7 6.00 5.75 176.4 175.4 6.50 6.25 178.1 177.0 7.00 6.75 161.4 146.2 7.50 7.25 163.0 147.8 8.00 7.75 164.7 149.5 8.50 8.25 167.4 153.1 9.00 8.75 169.0 154.6 9.50 9.25 170.5 156.1 10.00 9.75 172.0 157.6 10.50 10.25 176.7 164.6 11.00 10.75 178.1 166.0 GeoSuite© Version 2.4.0.16. Developed by Fred Yi, PhD, PE, GE Liquefaction: Boulanger Idriss (2010-16) Settf.: [dry] Pradel (1998); [sat] Tokimatsu Seed (1987) V, (mis) uce/y V, (mis) wn.,11 V, (mis) wru,, V, (mis) w=c pip. V,p (mis) n 125.8 67.94 70.67 51.04 0.013 140.97 150.6 91.90 90.98 72.54 0.039 140.97 163.8 105.76 102.32 85.43 0.065 140.97 173.1 116.02 110.56 95.14 0.091 140.97 180.4 124.32 117.14 103.11 0.117 140.97 186.4 131.37 122.67 109.94 0.143 140.97 191.6 137.55 127.47 115.98 0.169 141.27 196.1 143.07 131.74 121.41 0.195 141.27 200.2 148.08 135.59 126.38 0.221 141.27 206.3 155.76 141.45 134.04 0.265 141.27 207.7 157.55 142.80 135.83 0.276 142.84 209.1 159.28 144.12 137.57 0.288 144.94 162.5 126.41 112.27 115.05 0.309 144.85 163.9 128.04 113.55 116.65 0.318 146.81 165.5 129.76 114.92 118.32 0.328 148.76 169.9 133.53 118.24 121.46 0.333 145.35 171.4 135.16 119.53 123.05 0.342 147.18 172.8 136.74 120.77 124.60 0.351 148.91 174.2 138.27 121.97 126.10 0.361 150.60 183.5 145.71 128.75 131.84 0.374 155.81 184.8 147.22 129.93 133.32 0.384 157.47 CopyrightID 2002-2017 GeoAdvancedlMII rights reserved _Commercial Copy Lateral spreading: Idriss Boulanger (2008) M correction: V.,. (mis) YI Um'(tsf)l'i OCRr; G0(tsj) 11 164.94 0.014 5.00 365.64 164.94 0.041 5.00 365.64 164,94 0.069 5.00 365.64 164.94 0.096 5.00 365.64 164.94 0.124 5.00 365.64 164.94 0.147 4.66 365.64 165.30 0.168 4.31 367.24 165.30 0.188 4.03 367.24 165.30 0.208 3.79 367.24 165.30 0.241 3.47 367.24 165.30 0.250 3.44 375.44 165.30 0.260 3.43 386.53 158.58 0.289 3.36 386.05 158.62 0.299 3.35 396.60 158.67 0.310 3.33 407.21 154.04 0.315 3.20 388.71 154.08 0.325 3.19 398.58 155.74 0.335 3.17 408.03 157.65 0.345 3.15 417.33 163.53 0.353 3.19 446.72 165.42 0.362 3.17 456.27 Prepared at 3/9/2017 10:32:47 PM PA2017-045 APPENDIX F SEISMICITY DATA R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone 949-629-2539 PA2017-045 IIJSGS Design Maps Summary Report User-Specified Input USGS-Provided Output S5 = 1.731 g s, = 0.638 g SMS = 1.731 g SM,= 0.957 g S05 = 1.154 g S01 = 0.638 g View Detailed Report For information on how the 55 and 51 values above have been calculated from probabilistic (risk-targeted) and deterministic ground motions in the direction of maximum horizontal response, please return to the application and select the "2009 NEHRP" building code reference document. l·C:<:I :m u.·.· I.C'.C, ,?; ! ,;1'] 0 '" For PGAw Tu CR5, and CR1 values, please view the detailed report. O.lthough this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the 3ccuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subject-matter knowledge. PA2017-045 mUSGS Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.60817°N, 117.89634°W) Site Class D -"Stiff Soil", Risk Category I/II/Ill Section 11.4.1 -Mapped Acceleration Parameters Note: Ground motion values provided below are for the direction of maximum horizontal spectral response acceleration. They have been converted from corresponding geometric mean ground motions computed by the USGS by applying factors of 1.1 (to obtain S5) and 1.3 (to obtain S1). Maps in the 2010 ASCE-7 Standard are provided for Site Class B. ll.djustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3. View Summary Report Print From Figure 22-1 s, = 1.731 g From Figure 22-2 s, = 0.638 g Section 11.4.2 -Site Class The authority having jurisdiction (not the USGS), site-specific geotechnical data, and/or the default has classified the site as Site Class D, based on the site soil properties in accordance with Chapter 20. Table 20.3-1 Site Classification Site Class A. Hard Rock B. Rock C. Very dense soil and soft rock D. Stiff Soil E. Soft clay soil F. Soils requiring site response analysis in accordance with Section 21.1 >5,000 ft/s 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s 600 to 1,200 ft/s <600 ft/s N/A N/A >50 15 to 50 <15 s" N/A N/A >2,000 psf 1,000 to 2,000 psf <1,000 psf Any profile with more than 10 ft of soil having the characteristics: • Plasticity index PI > 20, • Moisture content w ~ 40%, and • Undrained shear strength Su < 500 psf See Section 20.3.1 For SI: lft/s = 0.3048 m/s lib/ft• = 0.0479 kN/m• PA2017-045 Section 11.4.3 -Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (!".!~_EE) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Site Class A B C D E F Site Class A B C D E F Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient F, Mapped MCE • Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period S5 :S 0.25 S5 = 0.50 S5 = 0.75 S5 = 1.00 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of S5 For Site Class= D and S, = 1.731 g, F, = 1.000 Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient F, S5 " 1.25 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.9 Mapped MCE " Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period s, :s 0.10 s, = 0.20 s, = 0.30 s, = 0.40 s, " 0.50 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4 See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of s, For Site Class = D and s, = 0.638 g, F, = 1.500 PA2017-045 Equation (11.4-1): SMs = F,S5 = 1.000 X 1. 731 = 1. 731 g Equation (11.4-2): SM!= fvSl = 1.500 X 0.638 = 0.957 g Section 11.4.4 -Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation (11.4-3): S05 = % SMs = 2h X 1.731 = 1.154 g Equation (11.4-4): S01 = Y, SM 1 = % X 0.957 = 0.638 g Section 11.4.5 -Design Response Spectrum From Figure 22-12 T, = 8 seconds Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum T < T,: S, = s.., ( 0.4 + 0.6 TIT,) T,:sT:sT,: S0 =S0• T, < T :\i T,: S, = S,, IT T,-, --0.111 PA2017-045 Section 11.4.6 -Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by 1.5. :°:i1C 1.731 ' ' ' ' -_1_ ---------------------' ' ' ' ' :,.111 -D.55:S 1.J:,::;, f',er",cd .. T (".':le,~) PA2017-045 ,, Section 11.8.3 -Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Figure 22-7 PGA = 0.718 Equation {11.8-1): PGAM = FPGAPGA = 1.000 x 0.718 = 0.718 g Table 1L8-1: Site Coefficient FecA Site Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA Class PGA,;; PGA = PGA = PGA = PGA 2: 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA For Site Class= D and PGA = 0.718 g, F,0A = 1.000 Section 21.2.1.1 -Method 1 (from Chapter 21 -Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From figure 22-17 Ces = 0.894 From figure 22-18 Ce, = 0.911 PA2017-045 Section 11.6 -Seismic Design Category Table 11 6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter RISK CATEGORY VALUE OF Sos I or II III IV Sos< 0.167g A A A 0.167g S Sos < 0.33g B B C 0.33g S Sos < 0.50g C C D 0.50g S Sos D D D For Risk Category= I and S0, = 1.154 g, Seismic Design Category= D Table 11 6-2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-5 Period Response Acceleration Parameter RISK CATEGORY VALUE OF S 01 I or II III IV S 01 < 0.067g A A A 0.067g S S01 < 0.133g B B C 0.133g S S01 < 0.20g C C D 0.20g S S01 D D D For Risk Category = I and s0, = 0.638 g, Seismic Design Category = D Note: When s, is greater than or equal to 0. 75g, the Seismic Design Category is E for buildings in Risk Categories I, II, and III, and F for those in Risk Category IV, irrespective of the above. Seismic Design Category = "the more severe design category in accordance with Table 11.6-1 or 11.6-2" = D Note: See Section 11.6 for alternative approaches to calculating Seismic Design Category. PA2017-045