Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeotechnical Investigation_7-14-2017COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation for Proposed Remodel with Additions at 821 West Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, California BY: COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. W. 0. 533917-01, dated July 14, 2017 FOR: Mr. Richard Hauch 821 W. Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92661 PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1200 West Commonwealth Ave., Fulle1ion. CA 92833 • Ph: (714) 870-1211 • Fax: (714) 870-1222 • e-mail: coastgeotec@sbcglobal.net July 14, 2017 Mr. Richard Hauch 821 W. Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, CA 92661 Dear Mr. Hauch: w.o. 533917-01 Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation of Proposed Remodel with Additions at 821 West Balboa Boulevard, Newport Beach, California Pursuant to your request, a geotechnical engineering investigation has been performed at the subject site. The purposes of the investigation were to determine the general engineering characteristics of the near surface soils on and underlying the site and to provide recommendations for the design of foundations and underground improvements. The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the understanding of the proposed development and the analyses of the data obtained from our field and laboratory testing programs. This report completes our scope of geotechnical engineering services authorized by you in the May 15, 2017 proposal. SITE DEVELOPMENT It is our understanding that the residence will be remodeled with second and third-story additions on the existing residence. A site development plan prepared by the project architect, John T. Morgan Jr., is appended as Plate 2. Strnctural loads are anticipated to be light. Significant grade changes are not anticipated. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES The scope of the study was to obtain subsurface information within the project site area and to provide recommendations pertaining to the proposed development and included the following: 1. A cursory reconnaissance of the site and surrounding areas. 2. Excavation of two exploratory borings to determine the near subsurface soil conditions and groundwater conditions. 3. Collection ofrepresentative bulk and/or undisturbed soil samples for laboratory analysis. 4. Laboratory analyses of soil samples including determination of in-situ and maximum density, in- situ and optimum moisture content, shear strength characteristics, expansion potential, and sulfate content. PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 2 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 533917-01 Julyl4,2017 5. Preparation of this report presenting results of our investigation and recommendations of the proposed development. SITE CONDITIONS The project site is located at 821 West Balboa Boulevard, City of Newport Beach, California, and is shown on the attached Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The parcel is rectangular in shape, near level, and bordered by West Balboa Boulevard, an alley, and developed residential properties. The lot is currently developed with a one and two-story residence, hardscape and landscape. Site configuration is further shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2. FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was performed on June 9 and 12, 2017 and consisted of the excavation of two exploratory borings at the locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2. As excavations progressed, a representative from this office visually classified the earth materials encountered, and secured representative samples for laboratory testing. Geotechnical characteristics of subsurface conditions were assessed by either driving a split spoon ring sampler or an SPT sampler into the earth material. The split spoon sampler was driven into the earth material to obtain undisturbed ring samples for detailed testing in our laboratory. A solid barrel-type spoon sampler was used having an inside diameter of2.5 inches with a tapered cutting tip at the lower end and a ball valve at the upper end. The barrel is lined with thin brass rings, each one inch in length. The spoon penetrated into the soil below the depth of the boring approximately eighteen inches. The end portion of this sample was retained for testing. All samples in their natural field condition were sealed in airtight containers and transported to the laboratory. Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed for Boring No. 2, based on ASTM D1586. The number of blows required for driving the sampler through three six-inch intervals is recorded. The sum of the number of blows required for driving the last two six-inch intervals is referred to as the standard penetration number "N". Samplers from Boring No. 2 were driven into the soil at the bottom of the borehole by means of hammer blows. The hammer blows are given at the top of the drilling rod. The blows are by a hammer weighing 140 pounds dropped a distance of 30 inches. Drive sampling was obtained at two feet intervals for the upper level foundations in accordance with City guidelines. Considering that the upper three feet of the pad area will be recompacted, SPT sampling commenced at three feet below grade. PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 3 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation EARTH MATERIALS w. 0. 533917-01 July 14, 2017 Earth materials encountered within the exploratory borings were visually logged by a representative of COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. The earth materials encountered were classified as artificial fill underlain by native soils to the maximum depth explored. Artificial fills encountered consisted of slightly silty, fine to coarse-grained sand, brown to tan in color, with gravel, moist and medium dense. The fills were encountered to a depth of about two feet below existing grade. Native soils encountered consisted of clean sand, fine to coarse-grained, tan in color, moist to wet with depth and generally medium dense to the maximum depth explored of thirteen and a half feet. Logs of the exploratory borings are presented on the appended Plates B and C. The data presented on these logs is a simplification of actual subsurface conditions encountered and applies only at the specific boring locations, time and date excavated. It is not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other times and locations. GROUNDWATER Groundwater was encountered in both borings at six and a half feet below existing ground surface. The groundwater level is expected to fluctuate slightly with tidal changes. SEISMICITY Southern California is located in an active seismic region. Moderate to strong earthquakes can occur on numerous faults. The United States Geological Survey, California Division of Mines and Geology, private consultants, and universities have been studying earthquakes in Southern California for several decades. Early studies were directed toward earthquake prediction estimation of the effects of strong ground shaking. Studies indicate that earthquake prediction is not practical and not sufficiently accurate to benefit the general public. Governmental agencies are shifting their focus to earthquake resistant structures as opposed to prediction. The purpose of the code seismic design parameters is to prevent collapse during strong ground shaking. Cosmetic damage should be expected. Within the past 46 years, Southern California and vicinity have experienced an increase in seismic activity beginning with the San Francisco earthquake in 1971. In 1987, a moderate earthquake struck the Whittier area and was located on a previously unknown fault. Ground shaking from this event caused substantial damage to the City of Whittier, and surrounding cities. The January 17, 1994, Northridge earthquake was initiated along a previously unrecognized fault below the San Fernando Valley. The energy released by the earthquake propagated to the southeast, northwest, and northeast in the form of shear and compression waves, which caused the strong ground shaking in portions of the San Fernando Valley, Santa Monica Mountains, Simi Valley, City of Santa Clarita, and City of Santa Monica. PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 4 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 533917-01 July 14, 2017 Southern California faults are classified as: active, potentially active, or inactive. Faults from past geologic periods of mountain building, but do not display any evidence of recent offset, are considered "inactive" or ''potentially active". Faults that have historically produced earthquakes or show evidence of movement within the past 11,000 years are known as "active faults". There are no known active faults within the subject property, with the nearest being the Newport Inglewood Fault Zone and the San Joaquin Blind Thrust Fault. • Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone: The Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone is a broad zone of left- stepping en echelon faults and folds striking southeastward from near Santa Monica across the Los Angeles basin to Newport Beach. Altogether these various faults constitute a system more than 150 miles long that extends into Baja California, Mexico. Faults having similar trends and projections occur offshore from San Clemente and San Diego (the Rose Canyon and La Nacion Faults). A near-shore portion of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone was the source of the destructive 1933 Long Beach earthquake. The reported recurrence interval for a large event along this fault zone is 1,200 to 1,300 years with an expected slip of one meter. • San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault: The seismic hazards in Southern California have been further complicated with the recent realization that major earthquakes can occur on large thrust faults that are concealed at depths between 5 to 20 km, referred to as "blind thrusts." The uplift of the San Joaquin Hills is produced by a southwest dipping blind thrust fault that extends at least 14 km from northwestern Huntington Mesa to Dana Point and comes to within 2 km of the ground surface. Work by Grant et al. (1997 and 1999) suggest that uplift of the San Joaquin Hills began in the Late Quaternary and continues during the Holocene. Uplift rates have been estimated between 0.25 and 0.5 mm/yr. If the entire length of the fault ruptured, the earthquake has been estimated to generate an Mw 6.8 event. We are of the opinion that the more active Newport Inglewood fault is the causative fault for the subject site. The Newport Inglewood Fault is about 1.5 km to the southwest. SEISMIC HAZARDS The potential hazards to be evaluated with regard to seismic conditions include fault rupture, landslides triggered by ground shaking, soil liquefaction, earthquake-induced vertical and lateral displacements, earthquake-induced flooding due to the failure of water containment structures, seiches, and tsunamis. Fault Rupture The project is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone (Bryant and Hart, 2007). No known active faults are mapped on the site. Based on this consideration, the potential for surface fault rupture at the site is considered to be remote. Seismic Induced Landslide Earthquake-induced landslide zones were delineated by the State of California using criteria adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board. Under those criteria, earthquake- induced landslide zones are areas meeting one or more of the following: PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 5 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 533917-01 July 14, 2017 1. Areas known to have experienced earthquake-induced slope failure during historic earthquakes. 2. Areas identified as having past landslide movement, including both landslide deposits and source areas. 3. Areas where CDMG's analyses of geologic and geotechnical data indicate that the geologic materials are susceptible to earthquake-induced slope failure. Based on the Seismic Hazard Zone Map published by the State of California, Newport Beach Quadrangle, appended as Plate 3, the site is not mapped as being in an area subject to potential seismic induced landslides. Seismic Induced Liquefaction Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, non-cohesive granular soils exhibit severe reduction in strength and stability when subjected to high-intensity ground shaking. The mechanism by which liquefaction occurs is the progressive increase in excess pore pressure generated by the shaking associated with the seismic event and the tendency for loose non-cohesive soils to consolidate. As the excess pore fluid pressure approaches the in-situ overburden pressure, the soils exhibit behavior similar to a dense fluid with a corresponding significant decrease in shear strength and increase in compressibility. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density, non-cohesive sandy soils; and 3) high-intensity ground motion. Seismic Hazard Zone Maps published by the State of California have been prepared to indicate areas that have a potential for seismic induced liquefaction hazards. The Seismic Hazard Zone Map for the Newport Beach Quadrangle, appended as Plate 3, shows the site to be mapped as being subject to potential liquefaction hazards. The City of Newport Beach has recently changed their policy concerning these areas. The City has assigned certain parameters to existing soil conditions. From ten to thirty feet below ground surface they have assigned the zone to be liquefiable with a seismic settlement of three inches. From thirty to fifty feet below ground surface they have assigned liquefaction and seismic settlement not to be of concern. The client has the option of accepting these conditions and assessing the zone of earth materials from the ground surface to ten feet below the proposed footing bottom for liquefaction and seismic settlement, or ignoring the City conditions and drilling deep exploration for similar assessment. For this project shallow exploration was chosen. A liquefaction assessment for the upper earth materials follows. For liquefaction analysis, CE of 1.0 (for safety hammer), CB of 1.0 (for 7 inches borehole diameter), and Cs of 1.2 ( for sampler without liners) are used to calculate corrected N values. Liquefaction evaluation for the soil zone to ten feet below foundation bottom was based on blow counts from Boring No. 2, a M = 7.2 seismic event from the Newport-Inglewood fault, a maximum PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 6 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 533917-01 July 14, 2017 ground acceleration of 0.721g, and a conservative groundwater level of four feet. Liquefaction analysis, based on these values and field obtained data, is presented in Appendix B. The results indicate some of the soil layers analyzed have a factor of safety against liquefaction below 1.30. Lateral Spreading The occurrence of liquefaction may cause lateral spreading. Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in which lateral displacement can occur on the ground surface due to movement of non-liquefied soils along zones of liquefied soils. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable zone must be continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along sloping ground toward an unconfined area. Our opinion is that the risk of lateral spreading affecting the proposed structure is minimal due to lack of significant sloping ground and lateral distance to a free face. Earthquake Induced Settlement Earthquake-induced settlements result from densification of non-cohesive granular soils which occur as a result of reduction in volume during or after an earthquake event. The magnitude of settlement that results from the occurrence of liquefaction is typically greater than the settlement that results solely from densification during strong ground shaking in the absence of liquefaction. It is understanding that the current City policy, has assigned a seismic settlement potential of three inches for soils depths of ten to thirty feet and no additional analysis of seismic settlement for this level should be required. The seismically induced settlement for the at-grade structure was evaluated based on the "Evaluation of Settlement in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking" by Kahji Tokimatsu and H. Bolton Seed, dated August 1987. The analysis was limited to ten feet below the footing bottom. The result, based on the SPT N-values in Boring No. 2 and shown in Appendix C, indicates that the estimated settlement (including dry and saturated sands) is 0.01 inch. According to new City policy, the City's shallow mitigation method may be used since the seismic settlement is much less than one inch to a depth of ten feet below proposed foundations. Earthquake-Induced Flooding The failure of dams or other water-retaining structures as a result of earthquakes and strong ground shaking could result in the inundation of adjacent areas. Due to the lack of a major dam or water-retaining structure located near the site, the potential of earthquake-induced flooding affecting the site is considered not to be present. Seiches Seiches are large waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Based on the lack of nearby enclosed bodies of water the risk from a seiche event is not present. PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 7 Geotecbnical Engineering Investigation Tsunami Run-up w. 0. 533917-01 July 14,2017 Tsunamis are waves generated in large bodies of water as a result of change of seafloor topography caused by tectonic displacement or landslide. Based on the City of Newport Beach "Potential Tsunami Runup Inundation Caused by a Submarine Landslide" map, the subject site is situated in the zone for potential tsunami run-up as shown on Plate 4, and is referenced on this plate to be areas below elevation 32. For more information about tsunami run-up hazards and evacuation routes you are referred to the City website. GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION The site is within an area subject to liquefaction and liquefaction induced settlements under certain seismic events. Under current CBC codes, City policy, and industry standards residential structures subject to seismic hazards are designed to protect life and safety. Under this design objective the requirements of protecting life and safety could be met but the structure could be damaged. The damage to the structure could range from minimal to being non-functional. The reduction of risk, for the occurrence of structural damage from a seismic event, is generally associated with the structure's foundation system. Within this report we will address two foundation designs typically utilized in the area. If the risk associated with these foundation systems is not acceptable to the client, the client has the option of utilizing alternate designs that could decrease the risk of damage to the structure to a level they perceive as acceptable. The following recommendations are minimum geotechnical design guidelines acceptable under the current City policy for liquefaction areas. As minimum recommendations they are perceived to have the highest risk for the occurrence of structural damage under a seismic event. The minimum requirements are as follows: (1) the structure shall be placed on a mat of compacted fill soil, (2) bottom of all footings shall be 24 inches below grade, (3) foundations shall be continuous or tied together with grade beams, (4) foundations shall be reinforced with a minimum of four #5 bars, two top and two bottom, ( 5) concrete slabs shall be a minimum of five inch actual thickness with #4 bars at 12 inches on center each way, and (6) footings shall be dowelled into slabs with #4 bars at 24 inches on center. Additional reinforcement may be required if the structural engineer's design is more stringent. An alternate foundation system commonly utilized in the area is a mat slab foundation system, which is more rigid, and should reduce the structural damage to a structure during a seismic event. A mat slab should be at least twelve inches thick with perimeter footings a minimum of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. A modulus of sub grade reaction of 80 pci may be used in the design of the mat foundation. Reinforcement shall be determined by the structural engineer. PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 8 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 533917-01 July 14, 2017 Beyond these two foundation systems, other foundation systems or combinations of foundation systems and ground modifications could be utilized. Some of these designs could consist of soil modifications, grout densification, stone columns, piles placed below liquefiable soils, and other methods. Additional geotechnical exploration and or analysis would be required to provide geotechnical design recommendation for these mitigation measures, and would be at the request of the client under separate contract. Development of the site as proposed is considered feasible from a soils engineering standpoint, provided that the recommendations stated herein are incorporated in the design and are implemented in the field. The proposed grading and or construction will not have an adverse effect on adjacent property or vice versa, provided site work is performed in accordance with the guidelines of project geotechnical reports, approved plans, applicable codes, industry standards, City inspections, and required geotechnical observation and testing. General comments are as follows. • Earthwork is anticipated to consist of foundation excavations, no grade changes are anticipated for the proposed additions. • Foundation support will be from competent native soil or compacted fill. Foundations may need to be deepened where competent soil is not at the design foundation depth. • Where new loads are imposed on existing foundations, the existing foundation shall be underpinned, existing foundations are expected to be shallow. • New slab and hardscape areas will require compaction for uniform support. • The client, along with the structural engineer, will need to assess the condition of the existing structure and decide if existing conditions are tolerable or if mitigation should be considered to improve the structural integrity of the residence, and to minimize future cracking of brittle building materials transitioning from new and old construction. Geotechnically it is recommended that all foundations have a similar embedment depth and bearing material to minimize differential movement in the structure. Recommendations that follow are subject to change as the project evolves. It is the responsibility of the client and or his agents to understand the limitations of this report and to communicate with the soils engineer as the project design continues, so modifications to our recommendations can be made, if needed. PROPOSED GRADING Grading plans were not available at the time this report was prepared. It is anticipated that grading will consist mainly of overexcavation and recompaction for uniform support of the foundations and slabs. PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 9 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation GENERAL GRADING NOTES W. 0. 533917-01 July 14, 2017 All vegetation and debris shall be stripped and hauled from the site. The entire grading operation shall be done in accordance with the attached "Specifications for Grading". Any import fill materials to the site shall not have an expansion index greater than 20, and shall be tested and approved by our laboratory. Samples must be submitted 48 hours prior to import. Grading and/or foundation recommendations are subject to modification upon review of final plans by the Geotechnical Engineer. Please submit plans to COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. when available. GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS Where new addition areas with slab on grade design are planned, existing artificial fills and unacceptable native soils shall be moisture conditioned and compacted to a minimum of 90% or better, as determined by the project geotechnical engineer. The subgrade compaction requirements shall include areas proposed for slabs, hardscape, asphaltic concrete or other areas as determined by the geotechnical engineer. Removals of existing fills or native soils are not anticipated, although will be field determined. Exposed excavation bottoms shall be observed by the geotechnical engineer prior to processing. Field recommendations will be made depending on conditions encountered. Upon approval, the excavation bottoms shall be processed, moisture conditioned to 2 to 3% over optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. Subsequent fills shall be placed in six to eight inch lifts, moisturized to 2 to 3 % over optimum moisture content and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. This process shall be followed to finish grade. Addition areas should be graded prior to excavating footings. The proposed additions are not expected to change existing grades, as such, a grading or drainage plan is not necessary from a geotechnical perspective. FOUNDATIONS The proposed additions shall be supported by continuous spread footings only placed a minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade utilizing an allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot. This value is for dead plus live load and may be increased 1/3 for total including seismic and wind loads where allowed by code. PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 10 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 533917-01 July 14, 2017 Where additional loads are applied to existing foundations, underpinning should be employed to reduce the potential of differential settlement. Footing excavations shall be observed by a representative of COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc., prior to placement of steel or concrete to verify competent soil conditions. If unacceptable soil conditions are exposed mitigation will be recommended. Foundations shall be reinforced with a minimum of four #5 bars, two top and two bottom, The structural engineer's recommendations for reinforcement shall be utilized where more severe. Where a mat slab design is utilized, the mat slab should be at least twelve inches thick with perimeter footings a minimum of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. A modulus of sub grade reaction of 80 pci may be used in the design of the mat foundation. Reinforcement shall be determined by the structural engineer. LATERAL DESIGN Lateral restraint at the base of footings and on slabs may be assumed to be the product of the dead load and a coefficient of friction of .30. Passive pressure on the face of footings may also be used to resist lateral forces. A passive pressure of zero at the surface of finished grade, increasing at the rate of 250 pounds per square foot of depth to a maximum value of 2,500 pounds per square foot, may be used for compacted fill at this site. If passive pressure and friction are combined when evaluating the lateral resistance, then the value of the passive pressure should be limited to 2/3 of the values given above. FLOOR SLABS Slab on grades shall be designed in accordance with 2016 CBC codes. Site soils are non plastic. Minimum geotechnical recommendations for slab design are five inches actual thickness with #4 bars at 12 inches on center each way. Slabs shall be tied into perimeter foundations with #4 bars at 24 inch centers. Structural design may require additional reinforcement and slab thickness. Subgrade soils shall exhibit a relative compaction of 90% to the depth determined by the geotechnical engineer. The soil should be kept moist prior to casting the slab; however, if the soils at grade become disturbed during construction, they should be brought to approximately optimum moisture content and rolled to a firm, unyielding condition prior to placing concrete. Section 4.505.2.1 of the California Green Code requires the use of a capillary break between the slab sub grade and vapor barrier. The capillary break material shall comply with the requirements of PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 11 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 533917-01 July 14, 2017 the local jurisdiction and shall be a minimum of four inches in thickness. Geotechnically coarse clean sand is acceptable; however, some localities require the use of four inches of gravel (1/2-inch or larger clean aggregate). If gravels are used, a heavy filter fabric (Mirafi 140N) shall be placed over the gravels prior to placement of the recommended vapor barrier to minimize puncturing of the vapor barrier. Additionally, a vibratory plate should be used over the gravels prior to placement of the recommended filter fabric to smooth out any sharp protuberances and consolidate the gravels. Slab areas should be underlain by a vapor retarder consisting of an engineered plastic film (as described by ASTM:E-1745). A vapor retarder with a penneance of less than 0.0lperms (consistent with ACI 302.2R-06) such as 15 mil. Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier, or equivalent, shall be used. The vapor retarder shall be underlain by the above described capillary break material and filter cloth. The capillary break materials should be compacted to a uniform condition prior to placement of the recommended filter cloth and vapor retarder. The vapor retarder should be properly lapped, sealed, and in contact with the slab bottom. SEISMIC DESIGN Based on the City of Newport Beach current policy, 2016 CBC, the site latitude and longitude, and the USGS Seismic Tool Application, the following seismic design parameters are provided. • Site Class = D • Mapped O .2 Second Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss = 1. 734g • Mapped One Second Spectral Response Acceleration S1 = 0.641g • Site Coefficient from Table 1613A.3.3(1), Fa= 1.0 • Site Coefficient from Table 1613A.3 .3(2), Fv = 1.5 • Maximum Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short period, SMs = 1. 734g • Maximum Design Spectral Response Acceleration for one-second period, SM1 = 0.962g • 5% Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short period, Sos = 1.156g • 5% Design Spectral Response Acceleration for one-second period, S01 = 0.641g SETTLEMENT The maximum total static post-construction settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 1/2 inch. Static differential settlements are expected to be less than 1/2 inch, measured between adjacent stmctural elements over a distance of 40 feet. Seismic induced settlements are addressed under previous sections. SUBSIDENCE & SHRINKAGE Subsidence over the site is anticipated to be negligible. Shrinkage of reworked materials should be in the range of 5 to 10 percent. EXPANSIVE SOILS Results of expansion tests indicate that the near surface soils have a very low expansion potential. PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 12 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation UTILITY LINE BACKFILLS w. 0. 533917-01 July 14, 2017 All utility line backfills, both interior and exterior, shall be compacted to a rmrumum of 90% relative compaction and shall require testing at a maximum of two-foot vertical intervals. HARDSCAPE AND SLABS Hardscape and slab subgrade areas shall exhibit a minimum of 90% relative compaction to a depth of at least one foot. Deeper removal and recompaction may be required if unacceptable conditions are encountered. These areas require testing just prior to placing concrete. Hardscape shall be at least four inches thick and reinforced with #3 bars on 18 inch centers both ways. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS An on-site soil sample showed a soluble sulfate content of 55 ppm, which is a negligible sulfate exposure. Concrete with Type II 2,500 psi may be utilized; however, the saltwater environ may cause damage to exposed concrete and a designed concrete should be considered. DRAINAGE Positive drainage should be planned for the site. Drainage should be directed away from structures via non-erodible conduits to suitable disposal areas. The structure should utilize roof gutters and down spouts tied directly to yard drainage. Unlined flowerbeds, planters, and lawns should not be constructed against the perimeter of the structure. If such landscaping ( against the perimeter of a structure) is planned, it should be properly drained and lined or provided with an underground moisture barrier. Irrigation should be kept to a minimum. While section 1804.4 of the 2016 CBC recommends 5% slope away from structures for landscape areas, 2% slope is allowable where justified. Our justification is the use roof drains tied into area drains, the use of area drains, and site grading which will mitigate the potential for moisture problems beneath a slab on grade. Hardscape areas shall be sloped a minimum of 2% where within ten feet of the residence unless allowed otherwise by the building official. Site waters shall not be allowed to drain in an uncontrolled manner. Waters shall be collected and dispersed of in a manner in accordance with governing guidelines. Bottomless trench drain to contain runoff on-site should not be located within five feet of foundations. Run-off should be directed to approved areas. ENGINEERING CONSULTATION, TESTING & OBSERVATION We will be pleased to provide additional input with respect to foundation design once methods of construction have been determined. PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 13 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 533917-01 July 14, 2017 Grading, foundation and shoring plans should be reviewed by this office prior to commencement of grading so that appropriate recommendations, if needed, can be made. Areas to receive fill should be observed when unsuitable materials have been removed and prior to placement of fill. Fill should be observed and tested for compaction as it is placed. SUPPLEMENTAL CONSULTING During construction, a number of reviews by this office are recommended to verify site geotechnical conditions and conformance with the intentions of the recommendations for construction. Although not all possible geotechnical observation and testing services are required. The following site reviews are advised, some of which will probably be required by the City of Newport Beach: ■ Foundation excavations ■ Slab subgrade compaction testing ■ Slab steel placement, primary and appurtenant structures ■ Compaction of utility trench backfill ■ Hardscape subgrade compaction AGENCY REVIEW All soil and structural aspects of the proposed development are subject to the review and approval of the governing agency(s). It should be recognized that the governing agency(s) can dictate the manner in which the project proceeds. They could approve or deny any aspect of the proposed improvements and/or could dictate which foundation and grading options are acceptable. Supplemental geotechnical consulting in response to agency requests for additional information could be required and will be charged on a time and materials basis. LIMITATIONS This report presents recommendations pertaining to the subject site based on the assumption that the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by our exploratory excavations. Our recommendations are based on the technical information, our understanding of the proposed construction, and our experience in the geotechnical field. We do not guarantee the performance of the project, only that our engineering work and judgments meet the standard of care of our profession at this time. In view of the general conditions in the area, the possibility of different local soil conditions may exist. Any deviation or unexpected condition observed during construction should be brought to the attention of the Geotechnical Engineer. In this way, any supplemental recommendations can be made with a minimum of delay necessary to the project. If the proposed construction will differ from our present understanding of the project, the existing information and possibly new factors may have to be evaluated. Any design changes and the finished plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Of particular importance would be extending development to new areas, changes in structural loading conditions, postponed development for more than a year, or changes in ownership. PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 14 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation w. 0. 533917-01 July 14, 2017 This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to the attention of the Architects and Engineers for the project, and incorporated into the plans and that the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field. This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project. We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you. Respectfully submitted: COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Ming-Tamg Chen RCE 54011 PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr. Hauch 15 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation APPENDIXA w. 0. 533917-01 July 14, 2017 This appendix contains a description of the field investigation, laboratory testing procedures and results, site plan, exploratory logs and expansive soil recommendations. FIELD INVESTIGATION The field investigation was performed on August 12 and 18, 2015, consisting of the excavation of a boring by a limited access drilling equipment (for Boring No. 2) and a boring by hand auger equipment (for Boring No. 1) at the locations shown on the attached Site Plan (Plate No. 2). As drilling progressed, personnel from this office visually classified the soils encountered, and secured representative samples for laboratory testing. Undisturbed samples for detailed testing in our laboratory were obtained by pushing or driving a sampling spoon into the material. A solid barrel-type spoon was used having an inside diameter of 2.5 inches with a tapered cutting tip at the lower end and a ball valve at the upper end. The barrel is lined with thin brass rings, each one inch in length. The spoon penetrated into the soil below the depth of boring approximately 6 to 18 inches. The central portion of this sample was retained for testing. All samples in their natural field condition were sealed in airtight containers and transported to the laboratory. Description of the soils encountered is presented on the attached Boring Logs. The data presented on this log is a simplification of actual subsurface conditions encountered and applies only at the specific boring locations and the date excavated. It is not warranted to be representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. LABORATORY TESTING Field samples were examined in the laboratory and a testing program was then established to develop data for preliminary evaluation of geotechnical conditions. Field moisture and dry densities were calculated for each undisturbed sample. The samples were obtained per ASTM:D-2937 and tested under ASTM:D-2216. Maximum density-optimum moisture relationships were established per ASTM:D-1557 for use in evaluation of in-situ conditions and for future use during grading operations. Direct shear tests were performed in accordance with ASTM:D-3080, on specimens at near saturation under various normal loads. The results of tests are based on an 80% peak strength or ultimate strength, whichever is lower, and are attached as Plates D and E. A consolidation test was performed on a representative sample based on ASTM:D-2435. The consolidation plot is presented on Plate F. Expansion tests were performed on typical specimens of earth materials in accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM D-4829. PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Mr.Hauch 16 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation TEST RESULTS Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture (ASTM:D-1557) Direct Shear (ASTM:D-3080) 2 0-5 (remolded) 100 32 1 3 50 31 Expansion Index (ASTM:D-4829) Chemical Analysis {USEPA Method 375.4) w. 0. 533917-01 July 14, 2017 PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING SITE CLEARING All existing vegetation shall be stripped and hauled from the site. PREPARATION After the foundation for the fill has been cleared, plowed or scarified, it shall be disced or bladed until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to a proper moisture content and compacted to not less than ninety percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM:D-1557 (5 layers -25 blows per layer; 10 lb. hammer dropped 18"; 4" diameter mold). MATERIALS On-site materials may be used for fill, or fill materials shall consist of materials approved by the Soils Engineer and may be obtained from the excavation of banks, borrow pits or any other approved source. The materials used should be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances and shall not contain rocks or lumps greater than six inches in maximum dimension. PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIALS The selected fill material shall be placed in layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed six inches in thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the spreading to ensure uniformity of material and moisture of each layer. Where moisture of the fill material is below the limits specified by the Soils Engineer, water shall be added until the moisture content is as required to ensure thorough bonding and thorough compaction. Where moisture content of the fill material is above the limits specified by the Soils Engineer, the fill materials shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as specified. After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM:D-1557 (5 layers -25 blows per layer; 10 lbs. hammer dropped 18 inches; 4" diameter mold) or other density tests which will attain equivalent results. Compaction shall be by sheepfoot roller, multi-wheel pneumatic tire roller, track loader or other types of acceptable rollers. PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PAGE2 Rollers shall be of such design that they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density. Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Rolling of each layer shall be continuous over the entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to ensure that the desired density has been obtained. The final surface of the lot areas to receive slabs on grade should be rolled to a dense, smooth surface. The outside of all fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepfoot rollers or other suitable equipment. Compaction operations shall be continued until the outer nine inches of the slope is at least 90 percent compacted. Compacting of the slopes may be progressively in increments of three feet to five feet of fill height as the fill is brought to grade, or after the fill is brought to its total height. Field density tests shall be made by the Soils Engineer of the compaction of each layer of fill. Density tests shall be made at intervals not to exceed two feet of fill height provided all layers are tested. Where the sheepfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches and density readings shall be taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface. When these readings indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion there is below the required 90 percent density, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density has been obtained. The grading specifications should be a part of the project specifications. The Soil Engineer shall review the grading plans prior to grading. INSPECTION The Soil Engineer shall provide continuous supervision of the site clearing and grading operation so that he can verify the grading was done in accordance with the accepted plans and specifications. SEASONAL LIMITATIONS No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When heavy rains interrupt work, fill operations shall not be resumed until the field tests by the Soils Engineer indicate the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified. EXPANSIVE SOIL CONDITIONS Whenever expansive soil conditions are encountered, the moisture content of the fill or recompacted soil shall be as recommended in the expansive soil recommendations included herewith. PA2017-095 VICINITY MAP Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California Work Order 533917-01 Plate No. 1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 ARCHITECT John T. Mor9Qn Jr. 18682 Beachmont Avenue North T u.stin, CA 92705 ph (714) 730-272:l ft:>< (71"-;-730-2724 SITE PLAN EXT'G CONC. AC 'X' l'JDICATESS'-'.'JDBA.6-5 AC EXTG CONC. ~LP-CEl""E:NTD.J<!lr~G _____ _,.. c0,s-TRUCilON FCR C:?"-=:Ti<UCflc)l'1 D_!5-i:;nd ~ON COJ'\ T!<!CL. 1-A.ICHJNr:' 1r-C1C.,•\TES ~G ~S. -=1i:zE:P ... -\C:: R=:HGI\.-C ard \.EW CONG. PA··no IN!E:i,ALL:?:D>+-......;;c.._JL~ AC SHADING I\ID!C:ATES N3A ·sr·----H-+%➔ FLCCi::;. A:::Dmo., ~: 30.¼ .F. EATG CONC. EXTG CONC. EXISTING 2 STORY BUILDING EX'l'G CONC. ~~ Boring #1 ~ EXISTING 3 STORY BUILDING Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California AC EXTG CONC. EXl'G CONC, '·' EXT'G CONC. EXISTING 2STORY BUILDING AC EXTG CONG. EXTG CONC. Scale: 1"= 20' Work Order 533917-01 Plate No. 2 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 SEISMIC HAZARD MAP --·-le- ___..----·---------.._ --·---' ----.____:_ -. - 45 39 STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEISMIC HAZARDS ZONES · Delineated In oompllanoa with Chaptef 7.8, Dlvldon 2 of the Callfaml■ Public Resources Cade . ,_ ___ Adj -NEWPORT B!;ACH QUADRANGLE OFFICIAL MAP Liquefaction Zone Released: April 7, 1997 Landslide Zone Released: April 15, 1998 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California MAP EXPLANATION Zones of Required Investigation: Liquefaction AleaB where historic occurrence of liquefactlon, or local geol0Qlcal, geotechnicaf and groundwater conditions lndlcate·a potential for permanent g_round dlsp!acernents such that m~lgallon as defined in.-Public Resources Code Section 2693(0) would be required. E,arthquak►.lnduced Landslldes Areas where previous cccurrence of landslide movement, or lccal topogrl:!,Phic, geological, geotechnical and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential ior pennanent ground displacements such that :tl=~~":" def)ned in Public Resources Cede Section 2693(0) would Work Order 533917-01 Plate No. 3 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 .;:. .. "' ~"'. . '~ ... . ·-~ 4. ' ,;, .> """ ' '"'-, ' ~ ""· Thi! map is intended for general l$nd t!!l!: planning only. lnformation oo this map i:i.-not "' sufficient to ffl'W as a substitute. to' delailed geologic investiptions of {ruftvid.tal s!tei,. nor,i>es it satisfy thnevaluatio!I reEJUirements 'Set forth in geologic lra:zar-d rngulatiom · .Earth Consultants lnh!mational (EO) makes no repmsentatkms orwairantiH regarding the aceurn.cy uf lhe dna from which 1~ maps were detived. Ea .slw.11 not be liable ...,... ,,. under any drcumsta!ll!e$ fur anydlrei...<t lttdlroct, spedat, inc/dental, or oon~uential damagef with respect to any ~aim by .any llSeJ or third party(m :H:(Olmt.ofi orar~lng from. the-me-Qf this nlilp,- Potential Tsunami Runup Inundation Caused by a Submarine Landslide -- Newport Beach, California EXPLANATION Area that would be inundated bv a tsunami generated by a submarine landslide off,hore of Newport Beach (areas at or lower than 32 foot elevation) Newport Beach City Boundary Sphere of Inf! uence Scale: 1 :60,000 0.5 0 0.5 1 1·5 Miles o 1 2 3 Kilometers Base Map; USGS Topographic Map from Sure!MAPS RASTER Source: City of Newport Beach, 2007 based on unpublished research by J.C. Borrero and others at University of Southern California Plate H-11 Plate 4 PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 1. 2. 3. 12" 15" 18" 24" 24" 24" 24" 4 #5 Bars 2 Top 2 Bottom 5" Actual #4 Bars on 12" Centers Both Ways 15 mil Visqueen 2" Sand #4 Bars on 12" Centers Both Ways 4" Clean Aggregate (1/2 inch or larger) (Text Supercedes) 12" 15" 18" 24" 24" 24" 24" 4 #5 Bars 2 Top 2 Bottom 5" Actual #4 Bars on 12" Centers Both Ways 15 mil Visqueen 2" Sand #4 Bars on 12" Centers Both Ways Not Required 4" Clean Aggregate (1/2 inch or larger) Above Opt. To Depth ofFtg. (No Testing) 12" 15" 18" 24" 24" 24" 24" 4 #5 Bars 2 Top 2 Bottom 5" Actual #4 Bars on 12" Centers Both Ways 15 mil Visqueen 2" Sand #4 Bars on 12" Centers Both Ways Same as Adj. Ext. Ftg. 4" Clean Aggregate (1/2 inch or larger) 110% of Opt MIC to Depth Footing The surrounding areas should be graded so as to ensure drainage away from the building. 12" 15" 18" 24" 24" 24" 24" 4 #5 Bars 2 Top 2 Bottom 5" Actual #4 Bars on 12" Centers Both Ways 15 mil Visqueen 2" Sand #4 Bars on 12" Center Both Ways Free Floating Same as Adj. Ext. Ftg. 4" Clean Aggregate (1/2 inch or larger) 130% of Opt MIC to Depth Footing PLATEA 12" 15" 18" 36" 36" 36" 36" 4#5 Bars 2 Top 2 Bottom 5" Actual #4 Bars on 12" Centers Both Ways 15 mil Visqueen 2" Sand #4 Bars on 12" Center Both Ways Free Floating Same as Adj. Ext. Ftg. 4" Clean Aggregate (1/2 inch or larger) 130% of Opt MIC to Depth Footing Concrete floor slab in areas to be covered with moisture sensitive coverings shall be constructed over a 15 mil plastic membrane. The plastic should be properly lapped, sealed and protected filter fabric (Mirifi 140N) and sand. Two inches of sand over moisture barrier in addition to the four-inches of clean aggregate below the membrane. PA2017-095 Date: >, -·u; cc Q) C) 0 a.. >, ........ ... 0 101 98 105 102 6/9/2017 -(/) -Q) ...,; Q) ...,; =is c.. LL ti c:' E ..c ·a o C'il -Cf) 0. ~'#. Cl) ........ 0 U B 3.6 3.1 5 5.9 8.6 10 SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 1 Description 3.5 " concrete FILL: SAND ---silty, fine to medium grained with gravel, moist, NATIVE: SAND ---clean, fine to medium grained, moist SAND ---clean, fine to coarse grained, moist SAND ---clean, fine to coarse grained, wet End of boring at 7 feet Groundwater at 6.5 feet Hole pinches shut below groundwater Sands are subject to caving Elevation: ... 0 0 (.) Brown Light Gray/ Tan Tan Tan E.G. >, C) C Cl) -(/) ·u; C 0 (.) Medium Dense Medium Dense Medium Dense Medium Dense Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California Work Order 533917-01 Plate B COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 Date: Q) I-.2 a.. C'il Cl) > z 14 18 32 33 35 42 6/12/2017 -en Q) ....:; -Q) C en =i 5 0.. Q) Q) en ~ E ~ C C'il Q) u:: ·o o Cl) a.. ~~ -...., S B 5 2.4 3 3.4 8 23.7 4 23.9 2 24.5 24.7 SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 2 -...:; u.. -...., .c -c.. Q) 0 5 10 15 Description 4" Concrete Slab FILL: SAND ---slightly silty, fine to coarse grained, gravel, damp NATIVE: SAND ---fine to medium grained, clean, damp SAND ---fine to medium grained, clean, damp SAND ---fine to medium grained, slightly silty, wet SAND ---coarse grained, clean, wet SAND ---coarse grained, clean, wet SAND ---coarse grained, clean, wet End of boring at 13.5 feet Groundwater at 6.5 feet Sands are subject to caving Elevation: E.G. >, (.) C L.. Q) 0 -0 en ·u; (..) C 0 (..) Brown Medium Dense Tan Medium Dense Tan Medium Dense Tan Dense Tan Dense Tan Dense Tan Dense Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California Work Order 533917-01 Plate C COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 SHEAR TEST RESULT [ Boring No.1 @ 0 to 5 Feet (Remolded to 90%) } 5 r-------,----.,....-------r-----,------, 4 1----------+----+-----+-----+-------i 0 .__ __ __._ ___ -'--__ ___._ ___ ......__ __ __. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.) Remolded soil samples were tested at saturated conditions. The sample had a dry density of 100 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 25.1 %. Cohesion = 100 psf Friction Angle = 32 degrees Based on 80% peak strength or ultimate strength, whichever is lower Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California Work Order 533917-01 Plate No. D COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 SHEAR TEST RESULT Boring No.2 @ 3 Feet l 5 .-------,-----.------,-----,-------, 4 1--------t-----+--------+----+----------t ,....._ ....; ..... 3 & C/) --C/) 0. :2 - 2 3 4 5 Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.) Native soil samples were tested at saturated conditions. The sample had a dry density of 98 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 26.2 %. Cohesion = 50 psf Friction Angle = 31 degrees Based on 80% peak strength or ultimate strength, whichever is lower Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California Work Order 533917-01 Plate No. E COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS [ Boring No. 2 @ 3 Feet l Pressure (Kips Per Square Foot) 0.1 1 10 0.00 { >--- --ii ~- 1.00 L. .......... • " ---'-~-....... 2.00 ---' ---' ----I'--. ----' --..,, 3.00 -.... C: (I) u 4.00 ... (I) a. -C: 0 5.00 ;; m "'O 0 6.00 ti) C: 0 (.) 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00 0 Test Specimen at In-Situ Moisture • Test Specimen Submerged Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 533917-01 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California Plate No. F COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY Bearing Capacity Calculations are based on "Terzaghi's Bearing Capacity Theory" Bearing Material: Compacted fill Properties: Wet Density (y) = 110 pcf Cohesion (C) = 100 psf Angle of Friction (¢) = 32 degrees Footing Depth (D) = 2 feet Footing Width (B) = 1.0 foot Factor of Safety = 3.0 Calculations -Ultimate Bearing Capacity from Table 3.1 on page 127 of "Foundation Engineering Handbook", 1975 Ne = 35.49 Nq = 23.18 Ny = 30.22 Ou = 1.3 C Ne + y D Nq + 0.4 y B Ny (Square Footing) = 1.3 * 100 * 35.49 + 110 * 2 * 23.18 + 0.4 * 110 * 1 * 30.22 = 4613 + 5099 + 1329 = 11041 psf Allowable Bearing Capacity for Square Footing Oa11 = Ou/ F.S. = Use 1500 psf 3680 psf Ou = 1.0 C Ne + y D Nq + 0.5 y B Ny (Continuous Footing) = 1.0 * 100 * 35.49 + 110 * 2 * 23.18 + 0.5 * 110 * 1 * 30.22 = 3549 + 5099 + 1662 = 10310 psf Allowable Bearing Capacity for Continuous Footing Oa11= Ou/F.S. = Use 1500 psf 3436 psf Increases: 750 psf / ft in depth over 2 feet 250 psf / ft in width over 1 foot Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Blvd. Work Order 533917-01 Newport Beach, California Plate G COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE CALCULATIONS Retaining structures such as retaining walls, basement walls, and bulk-heads are commonly used in foundation engineering, and they support almost vertical slopes of earth masses. Proper design and construction of these structures require a through knowledge of the lateral forces acting between the retaining structures and the soil masses being retained. These lateral forces are due to lateral earth pressure. Properties of earth material: Compacted fill Wet Density (y) Cohesion (C) = = 110 pcf 100 psf Angle of Friction (¢) = 32 degrees Coefficient of Friction = tan ~ Therefore, Coefficient of Friction = tan ~ = tan¢ = 0.625 Assumed H = 2 feet Use 0.35 Pp = 0.5 y H2 tan2 ( 45° + <P 12 ) + 2 C H tan ( 45° + ¢ / 2 ) = 0.5 * 110 * 4 * 3.254 + 2 * 100 * 2 * 1.804 = 716 + 722 = 1438 lbs /LF 1/2 EFP H2 = 1438 EFP = 719 psf / LF EFP: passive pressure Allowable Passive Pressure= 300 psf / LF ( with F.S. = 2.4) Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 W. Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California Work Order 533917-01 Plate H COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 CALCULATION OF SUBGRADE REACTION Subgrade reaction calculations are based on "Foundation Analysis and Design" Fourth Edition, by Joseph E. Bowles. Ks= 24 quit (for ~H = 1/2 inch) Where: Ks = subgrade reaction in k / ft3 quit = ultimate bearing capacity For quit = 10.3 ksf (from bearing capacity calculations) Ks = 24 * 10.3 k / ft3 = 247.2* 1000 I ( 12 * 12 * 12) lb/ in3 = 143. 1 I b / in 3 Use 80 pound per cubic inch Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California COAST GEOTECHNICAL Work Order 533917-01 Plate No. I PA2017-095 APPENDIX B Liquefaction Analysis by SPT Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS BY SPT FOR BORING NO. 2 CN = (Pa/ a0' )112 < 2, Pa= 2089 psf (N1)50 = Nm CN CE Cs CR Cs CSR= Tav / a0' = 0.65 ( a0 I a0') rd ( amax / g ) 111~,~~1111~1111~1r~~111111111~111~ ~1j:~: :[!!~ill "P~: i~~i:i i!i!i!i!: i::~:::; ::t:~1=,~:: :!:!:~1::::: ~~i: ::~~;i;i ~~~~ !~~: !~~:~: :::,::::::::~l~!:!i;::l!l!:! 2 220.0 I 220.0 14 2.00 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.20 26.5 0.99 0.46 5 0.31 1.10 0.34 0.73 4 440.0 I 440.0 18 2.00 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.20 34.0 0.99 0.46 3 0.60 1.10 0.66 1.42 6 690.0 I 565.2 32 1.92 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.20 58.1 0.99 0.57 8 0.60 1.10 0.66 1.17 8 940.0 I 690.4 33 1.74 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.20 54.2 0.98 0.63 4 0.60 1.10 0.66 1.06 10 1190.o I 815.6 35 1.60 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.20 52.9 0.98 0.67 2 0.60 1.10 0.66 0.98 12 1440.0 I 940.8 42 1.49 1.00 1.05 0.75 1.20 59.1 0.98 0.70 1 0.60 1.10 I 0.66 I 0.94 Note: 1. Moist unit weight of 110 pct, saturated unit weight of 125 pct, and groundwater at 4 feet 2. Magnitude of 7.2 and peak ground acceleration of 0.721 g 3. According to Figure 7.1, soil layers having (N 1)60 higher than 30 are not considered liquefiable. Geotechnical Engineering Investigation I Work Order 533917-01 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California Plate M COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 Open-File Report 97-08 Newport Beach '-----------------------------------------------' JJ•Jl!I' Basa map enlarged from U.S.G.S. 30 x 60-mlnute series 117"52'-'0" ONE MILE • Borehole Site -Jo -Depth to ground water in feet SCALE Plate 1.2 Historically Highest Ground Water Contours and Borehole Log Data Locations, Newport Beach Quadrangle. PA2017-095 00 10 201 30 t-I 0,1 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 ~~1.----!--r---1-+ Average :,alues~_1r--- / I . ~\ I ' I \ I I - I I 401 . I (l.l I (l.l l ' ' ..::: 501 a. '1) I I i R ' . . . I onge ,or a1nerent ------._~• soil profiles 1 1. ' I ! a 60 I ! 70 I I I I 80 I I I 90 100 FIG. 1 -RANGE OF VALUES OF rd FOR DIFFERENT SOIL PROFILES PA2017-095 Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California Table 5 .2. Corrections to Field SPT N-Values (modified from Youd and Idriss, 1997) Factor Equipment Variable Term Overburden Pressure c,, Energy Ratio Safety Hammer CE Donut Hammer Automatic Trip Hammer Borehole Diameter 65 mm to 115 mm c. 150mm 200mm Rod Length** 3 mto4m CR 4mto6m 6mtol0m 10m to 30m >30m Sampling Method Standard Sampler c. Sampler without liners * The Implementation Committee recommends using a minimum of 0.4. ** Actual total rod length, not depth below ground surface 12 Correction (P./cr',.)°''; 0.4~CN ~ 2 * 0.60 to 1.17 0.45 to 1.00 0.9 to 1.6 1.0 1.05 1.15 0.75 0.85 0.95 1.0 <1.0 1.0 1.2 PA2017-095 Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California 0.6----------3-7------------------, .29 Percent Fines = 35 I I 15 0.51-------------,--+, ---, ------+------i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 0.41-------+-----;-,i,,,.20,,...,;-' ---,,'-+------+-------I \..,J I I -, ___ , > I I ~ I I CRR curves for 5,15, and ■31 I I I I I I 35 percent fines, respectively I I FINES CONTENT~ 5% Ql.__--l.::==::;:::=L...-J_ ___ .....J.. ___ _jl.__. __ __J 0 20 30 40 50 Corrected Blow Count, (N1)60 Figure 7.1. Simplified Base Curve Recommended for Determination of CRR from SPT Data for Moment Magnitude 7.5 Along with Empirical Liquefaction Data (after Youd and Idriss, 1997) 50 PA2017-095 Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 0.5 0 -+-Seed and Idriss, (1982) --+--------',--.....-t---.,,-----.--....-1 ---Idriss 5.0 Workshop 6.0 7.0 x Ambraseys(1985) ◊ Arango (1996) ♦ Arango (1996) _._ Andrus and Stokoe • Youd and Noble, PL<20% A Youd and Noble, PL<32% A Youd and Noble, PL<50% 8.0 9.0 Earthquake Magnitude, Mw Figure 7.2. Magnitude Scaling Factors Derived by Various Investigators (After Youd and Idriss, 1997) 51 PA2017-095 APPENDIXC Calculations of Seismically Induced Settlement Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 CALCULATIONS OF SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT Calculations of seismically-induced settlement for the subject site are performed based on the II Evaluation Of Settlement In Sands Due To Earthquake Shaking II by Kohji Tokimatsu and H. Bolton Seed, dated August 1987. The calculations of the seismically-induced settlement are as follows: 1. Calculate the effective overburden pressure at the center of each layer. 2. The SPT N-value needs to be corrected depending on equipment used and a0'. (N1)50 = Nm CN CE Cs CR Cs Where CN = (Pa/ a0') 112 < 2, Pa= 2089 psf (N1)50 = corrected N value Nm = field N value CN = correction factor depending on effective overburden pressure a0' = effective overburden pressure, in psf 3. Calculate the maximum shear modulus Gmax = 20 (N1)50 1/3 ( ao') 112 Gmax = maximum shear modulus, in ksf a0' = effective overburden pressure, in psf 4. From the depth in Figure 1, find the stress reduction coefficient, rd 5. Calculate Yeff ( Geff I Gmax) Yeff ( Geff I Gmax) = 0.65 amax a0 rd/ ( g Gmax) amax = 0.721 g and M = 7.2 ( for the subject site) Yeff = effective shear strain induced by earthquake shaking Geff = effective shear modulus at induced strain level (cont'd) Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California Work Order 533917-01 Plate N1 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 CALCULATIONS OF SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT amax = maximum ground surface acceleration a0 = total overburden pressure g = acceleration of gravity 6. From Yeff ( Geff I Gmax ) and a0' in Figure 2, find Yeff ( cyclic shear strain) 7. From Yeff and (N1)60 in Figure 3, find Ec.M. = 7_5 (volumetric strain due to compaction) 8. Interpolation from Table 1, Ec.M. = 7.2 = 0.940 Ec.M. = 7.5 9. This settlement caused by combined horizontal motions is about equal to the sum of the settlement caused by the components acting alone. Calculate 2 .s c.M. = 7.2 10. Calculate the total settlement Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California Work Order 533917-01 Plate N2 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. PA2017-095 SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT OF DRY SAND FOR BORING NO. 2 ·~• •·•~•· :~!E ·~!~; 1:•~1:•1•••;~:••• ••• (:~•·• :·•·~~·•·· ·•~;~;•: .•:•:;;;:;:1::;:;~·:·:· ·~;~;;~;~ :::::::::;~·:·:·:·: :·fu(~;:;·: •·~~t:;·• •·~~;~· ·m~~i~ 1 2 2.0 3.0 2.5 1.0 I 275 I 275 14 I 26.5 I 989 I o.99 I 12.9 *10·5 I 42 *10-5 I o.030 I 0.028 I o.056 0.01 3.0 4.0 3.5 1.0 I 385 I 385 18 I 34.0 I 1271 I o.99 I 14.1 *10-5 I 35 *10·5 1 0.016 I 0.015 I o.030 0.00 TOTAL 0.01 Based on : 1. Moist unit weight of 110 pcf, saturated unit weight of 125 pcf, and groundwater at 5 feet 2. Magnitude of 7.2 and peak ground acceleration of 0.721 g G ( ) 1/3 I 1/2 3. max = 20 N1 60 ( ao ) 4. Yetr ( Geff I Gmax) = 0.65 amax ao rd/ ( g Gmax) Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Work Order 533917-01 Plate No. N3 PA2017-095 --" "' C ·-0 .... (/1 .... 0 ..., .c (/1 IC.?. -4 10 -5 10 ___ ..____,__,__..._.,_._.._._ _________ ..__,__.._.1.-1,..,__ __ ..,___, ,o-3 10-5 ,o-4 raff (Getf /Gma,J FIG. ·:z. -PLOT FOR DETERMINATION OF INDUCED STRAIN IN SAND DEPOSITS PA2017-095 Cyclic Shear Slrain, r -percent 10-3 2 l'j I 10-10· 10·3 ,---.--,--,-,----,----,---,--,-.---,---.--....-.....---~ u w C 0 u 0 0.. ~ 10 1 u 0 - 4,.1 :::l 0 C: 0 "- V, u ... - N1:::::40 ~30 '\ ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' \, 15 Cycles ' ' ' ' \, ' ' ' ' .... --... FIG. 3 -RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VOLUMETRIC STRAIN, SHEAR STRAIN, AND PENETRATION RESISTANCE FOR DRY SANDS PA2017-095 TABLE 1 -INFLUENCE OF EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE ON VOLUMETRIC STRAIN RATIO FOR DRY SANDS Earthquake magnitude ( i) 8-1/2 7-1/2 6-3/4 6 5-1/4 Number of representative cycles at 0.65 'Tmu: (2) 26 15 10 5 2-3 Volumetric strain ratio, Ec,N / Ec,-N-1s (3) 1.25 1.0 0.85 0.6 0.4 PA2017-095 SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT OF SATURATED SOILS FOR BORING NO. 2 illll lllll~ll lllll~f l~11111111iilllll lli~ill1 ll■!ll lllllll~lllllllllllllll~llllllllll!~~il~ll lllil~llllllllll~~~II liiiii~f;1:; 1~1~1111111111~~!!11! 1 4.0 5.0 1.0 I 34.0 3 o.oo I 1.00 34.0 0.46 2 5.0 7.0 2.0 I 58.1 8 o.30 I 1.01 59.1 0.57 3 7.0 9.0 2.0 I 54.2 4 o.oo I 1.00 54.2 0.63 4 9.0 11.0 2.0 I 52.9 2 o.oo I 1.00 52.9 0.67 5 11.0 12.0 1.0 I 59.1 1 o.oo I 1.00 59.1 0.70 Note: 1. Groundwater at 4 feet, magnitude of 7.2, and peak ground acceleration of 0. 721 g 2. (N1)50 cs = a + /3 (N1)60 3. For volumetric strain refer to Figure 7.11 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation 821 West Balboa Boulevard Newport Beach, California COAST GEOTECHNICAL 1.15 0.40 0.0 0.00 1.15 0.50 0.0 0.00 1.15 0.55 0.0 0.00 1.15 0.58 0.0 0.00 1.15 0.61 0.0 0.00 TOTAL 0.00 Work Order 533917-01 Plate No. 0 PA2017-095 ,_ ...... Thomas F. Blake (Fugro-West, Inc., Ventura, Calif., written commurt.) approximated the simplified base curve plotted on Figure 2 by the following equation: a + ex + ex 2 + gx3 CRR7 5 = ---------- . 1 + bx + dx 2 + fx 3 + hx 4 (4) where CRR7_5 is the cyclic resistance ratio for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes; x = (N1)60; a= 0.048; b = -0.1248; c = -0.004721; d = 0.009578; e = 0.0006136; f= -0.0003285; g = -l.673E-05; and h = 3.714E-06. This equation is valid for (N1\0 less than 30 and may be used in spreadsheets and other analytical techniques to approximate the simplified base curve for engineering calculations. Robertson and Wride (this report) indicate that Equation 4 is not applicable for (N i)60 less than three, but the general consensus of workshop participants is that the curve defined by Equation 4 should be extended to intersect the intercept at a CRR value of about 0.05. Correlations for Fines Content and Soil Plasticity Another change was the quantification of the fines content correction to better fit the empirical data and to support computations with spreadsheets and other electronic computational aids. In the original development, Seed et al. (1985) found that for a given (N1)60, CRR increases with increased fines content. It is not clear, however, whether the CRR increase is because of greater liquefaction resistance or, smaller penetration resistance as a consequence of the general increase of compressibility and decrease of permeability with increased fines content. Based on the empirical data available, Seed et al; developed CRR curves for various fines contents as shown on Figure 2. After a lengthy review by. the workshop participants, consensus was gained that the correction for fines content should be a function of penetration resistance as well as fines content. The participants also agreed that other grain characteristics, such as soil plasticity may affect liquefaction resistance; hence any correlation .based solely on penetration .resistance and fines content should be used with t!ngineering judgement and caution. The following equations, developed by I.M. Idriss with assistance from RB. Seed are recommended for correcting standard penetration resistance determined for silty sands to an equivalent clean sand penetration resistance: (5) where a and p are coefficients determined from the following equations: a=O forFC ~ 5% (6a) a= exp[l.76 -(190/FC2)] for 5% <FC < 35% (6b) a; c; 5.0 for FC ~ 35% (6c) ~= 1.0 . forFC ~ 5% (7a) ~ = [0.99 + (FC1.5/1000)] for 5% <FC < 35% (7b) p = 1.2 for FC ~ 35% (7c) where FC is the fines content measured from laboratory gradation tests on retrieved soil samples. 7 PA2017-095 Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California 0.6r----,----.-----,------,----~ Volumetric Strain-% 0.5 10 5 4 3 2 0.5 I I 0.4 ImL. cr/ 0 0.3 0.2 ·0.1 I I I I I ) /,0.2 I I I I I I I //p.1 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/ // // '// '// 1/;' 1/ 10 20 30 40 50 Figure 7.11. Relationship Between Cyclic Stress Ratio, (N1)60 and Volumetric Strain for Saturated Clean Sands and Magnitude= 7.5 (After Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987) 60 PA2017-095 COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. APPENDIXB USGS Seismic Tool Data Output PA2017-095 Latitude and Longitude of a Point https :/ /itouchmap. com/latlong .html 1 of 1 itouchMap.com McibiH!I a;nd :Ocsaktop Mep-s Maps I Country -State I Places I Cities I Lat -Long Home » Latitude and Longitude of a Point To find the latitude and longitude of a point Click on the map, Drag the marker, or enter the ... Address: 821 W. Balboa Boulevard Newport Bea1 Mobile Version Nearby Places of Interest Many points to check? Try LatLong Trace Latitude and Longitude of a Point Get the Latitude and Longitude of a Point When you click on the map, move the marker or enter an address the latitude and longitude coordinates of the point are inserted in the boxes below. Latitude: Longitude: Latitude: Longitude: 33.604632 -117.911675 Degrees 33 -117 Minutes Seconds 16.6752 42.03 Show Point from Latitude and Longitude Use this if you know the latitude and longitude coordinates of a point and want to see where on the map the point is. Use: + for N Lat or E Long • for S Lat or W Long. Example: +40.689060 -7 4.044636 Note: Your entry should not have any embedded spaces. Decimal Deg. Latitude: Decimal Deg. Longitude: Example: +34 40 50.12 for 34N 40' 50.12" Degrees Minutes Seconds Latitude: Longitude: © iTouchMap.com 2007-2016 6/20/17, 10:26 AM PA2017-095 Design Maps Summary Report https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/summary.php?templa ... 1 of2 ■IJSGS Design Maps Summary Report User-Specified Input Report Title Hauch Tue June 20, 2017 17:28:16 UTC Building Code Reference Document ASCE 7-10 Standard (which utilizes USGS hazard data available in 2008) Site Coordinates 33.60463°N, 117.91168°W Site Soil Classification Site Class D -"Stiff Soil" Risk Category I/II/III USGS-Provided Output S5 = 1.734g S1 = 0.641 g SMs= 1.734g SMl = 0.962 g Sos= 1.156 g S01 = 0.641 g For information on how the SS and S1 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. ~ ._. 'II 11'1 l..::l!! 1.ll!I ~ O..h ~ tLl!i ntl'.I +---+--1---+---+--+---if--+--+---+--i o.oo tl.:ll:l o.«i ll$!l o.oo ·1.m 1.w:i vru 1..ro 1.l!IJ 200 P~11'(ne) ,;i .... 'Ci li'.l 1...i:'! 1.00 Cl.!!la tiJ!4 QJ:ll cw:! il~ ll.3!l (!;$1 >:i.00 +---+--1---+---+--+---if--+--+---+----f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1m 1~ 1~ 1~ ,m ~ Per~ T(a.i.:) For PGAM, Tu CRs, and CR1 values, please view the detailed report. 6/20/17, 10:28 AM PA2017-095 Design Maps Summary Report https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/summary.php?templa ... 2 of2 Although this information is a product of the U.S. Geological Survey, we provide no warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of the data contained therein. This tool is not a substitute for technical subject-matter knowledge. 6/20/17, 10:28 AM PA2017-095 Design Maps Detailed Report https:// earthquake. usgs. gov/ cn2/ designmaps/us/report.php ?template= ... 1 of6 Design Maps Detailed Report ASCE 7-10 Standard (33.60463°N, 117.91168°W) Site Class D -"Stiff Soil", Risk Category I/II/III 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. Adjustments for other Site Classes are made, as needed, in Section 11.4.3. From Figure 22-1 c1i Ss = 1.734 g From Figure 22-2 c2i S1 = 0.641 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 Vs Nor Nch A. Hard Rock >5,000 ft/s N/A B. Rock 2,500 to 5,000 ft/s N/A Su N/A N/A C. Very dense soil and soft rock 1,200 to 2,500 ft/s >50 >2,000 psf D. Stiff Soil 600 to 1,200 ft/s 15 to 50 1,000 to 2,000 psf E. Soft clay soil F. Soils requiring site response analysis in accordance with Section 21.1 <600 ft/s <15 <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: 1ft/s = 0.3048 m/s 11b/ft2 = 0.0479 kN/m2 6/20/17, 10:28 AM PA2017-095 Design Maps Detailed Report https://earthquake. usgs.gov/ cri2/ designmaps/us/report. php ?template= ... 2 of6 Section 11.4.3 -Site Coefficients and Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (M_CEg) Spectral Response Acceleration Parameters Table 11.4-1: Site Coefficient Fa Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at Short Period 55 ::;; 0.25 55 = 0.50 55 = 0.75 55 = 1.00 55 ~ 1.25 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 55 For Site Class= D and S5 = 1.734 g, F. = 1.000 Table 11.4-2: Site Coefficient Fv Site Class Mapped MCE R Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter at 1-s Period 51::;; 0.10 51 = 0.20 51 = 0.30 51 = 0.40 51 ~ 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. 7 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 D 2.4 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.5 E 3.5 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4 F See Section 11.4. 7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of 51 For Site Class = D and S1 = 0.641 g, Fv = 1.500 6/20/17, 10:28 AM PA2017-095 Design Maps Detailed Report https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report.php?template= ... 3 of6 Equation (11.4-1): SMs = FaSs = 1.000 X 1.734 = 1.734 g Equation (11.4-2): SM1 = FvSl = 1.500 X 0.641 = 0.962 g Section 11.4.4 -Design Spectral Acceleration Parameters Equation (11.4-3): Sos=½ SMs = ½ X 1.734 = 1.156 g Equation (11.4-4): 501 = ½ SM1 = ½ X 0.962 = 0.641 g Section 11.4.5 -Design Response Spectrum From Figure 22-12 c31 TL = 8 seconds Figure 11.4-1: Design Response Spectrum I I I 'I I . I I I I T<T11 : S,_ = $1:!tl (0.4+0.i:lT /T11 ) T11 :!i T :!i Ts.: S, = $00 r~rL: s,::::s,01 n T >TL: s. =S01TLJ"P 1.000 Ptrioo. T (ee,~) 6/20/17, 10:28 AM PA2017-095 Design Maps Detailed Report https:/ / earthquake. usgs.gov/ cn2/ designmaps/us/report. php?template= ... 4 of6 Section 11.4.6 -Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER) Response Spectrum The MCER Response Spectrum is determined by multiplying the design response spectrum above by 1.5. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Sii1 .. !Mlii2 --:-----------:----------- 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Ta .. !l 111 is..,0555 1,.000 f'~l'(i1ec) 6/20/17, 10:28 AM PA2017-095 Design Maps Detailed Report https://earthquake.usgs.gov/cn2/designmaps/us/report.php?template= ... 5 of6 Section 11.8.3 -Additional Geotechnical Investigation Report Requirements for Seismic Design Categories D through F From Figure 22-7 c41 PGA = 0.721 Equation (11.8-1): PGAM = FPGAPGA = 1.000 x 0.721 = 0.721 g Table 11.8-1: Site Coefficient FPGA Site Mapped MCE Geometric Mean Peak Ground Acceleration, PGA Class PGA::;; PGA = PGA = PGA = PGA ~ 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 A 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 B 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 C 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 D 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.0 E 2.5 1.7 1.2 0.9 0.9 F See Section 11.4.7 of ASCE 7 Note: Use straight-line interpolation for intermediate values of PGA For Site Class = D and PGA = 0.721 g, FPGA = 1.000 Section 21.2.1.1 -Method 1 (from Chapter 21 -Site-Specific Ground Motion Procedures for Seismic Design) From Figure 22-17 c51 CRs = 0.891 From Figure 22-18 c51 CR1 = 0.907 6/20/17, 10:28 AM PA2017-095 Design Maps Detailed Report https :// earthquake. usgs. gov/ cn2/ designmaps/us/report. php ?template= ... 6 of6 Section 11.6 -Seismic Design Category Table 11.6-1 Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Acceleration Parameter RISK CATEGORY VALUE OF Sos I or II III IV Sos< 0.167g A A A 0.167g ::$ Sos < 0.33g B B C 0.33g ::$ Sos < 0.50g C C D 0.50g ::$ Sos D D D For Risk Category= I and S05 = 1.156 g, Seismic Design Category = D Table 11.6-2 Seismic Design Category Based on 1-5 Period Response Acceleration Parameter RISK CATEGORY VALUE OF S01 I or II III IV S01 < 0.067g A A A 0.067g ::$ S01 < 0.133g B B C 0.133g ::$ S01 < 0.20g C C D 0.20g ::$ Soi D D D For Risk Category = I and s01 = 0.641 g, Seismic Design Category = D Note: When S1 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. References 1. Figure 22-1: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/2010_ASCE- 7 _Figure_22-1.pdf 2. Figure 22-2: https ://earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/20 lO_ASCE- 7 _Figure_22-2.pdf 3. Figure 22-12: https ://earthquake. usgs.gov /hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/20 lO_ASCE- 7 _Figure_22-12.pdf 4. Figure 22-7: https ://earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/20 lO_ASCE- 7 _Figure_22-7.pdf 5. Figure 22-17: https ://earthquake. usgs.gov/hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/20 lO_ASCE- 7 _Figure_22-17 .pdf 6. Figure 22-18: https ://earthquake. usgs.gov /hazards/designmaps/downloads/pdfs/20 lO_ASCE- 7 _Figure_22-18.pdf 6/20/17, 10:28 AM PA2017-095