HomeMy WebLinkAbout20201105_Preliminary Geotechnical_10-22-202023 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
949 629 2539 | Email: info@Rmccarthyconsulting.com
October 22, 2020
Rock Development Corporation File No: 8479-00
2618 San Miguel Drive, Suite 359 Report No: R1-8479 Newport Beach, California 92660
Attention: Jeff Logan
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Recommendations
Proposed Residential Construction
2286 Channel Road Peninsula Point Newport Beach, California
APN: 048-283-02
INTRODUCTION
This report presents preliminary geotechnical recommendations for 2286 Channel Road in the City of
Newport Beach, California.
The conclusions and recommendations of this report are considered preliminary due to the absence
of specific foundation and grading plans, the formulation of which are partially dependent upon
recommendations presented herein. In addition, a Geotechnical Investigation Report will be
forthcoming and provide supporting data.
Project Authorization
The work performed was per your request and authorization based on our Proposal No: P1-8479, dated September 29, 2020.
Site Description
The subject property is located on the east side of Channel Road on Peninsula Point between
Miramar Drive and Ocean Avenue as shown on the Location Map, Figure 2. The property is
bordered on the north and south by developed residential properties. The property to the north was under construction at the time our investigation. The lot includes a sea wall and a boat dock
extending into the Newport Harbor main entrance channel.
The Topographic Map prepared by Hunsaker Land Surveying, Inc. (Reference 1) indicates that the
lot has an approximate rectangular shape. Site elevations vary from approximately 10 to 12 feet
(NAVD88) based on the topographic plan.
R McCARTHY
== CONSULTING' INC
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 2
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
The site presently contains a 2 two-story residence and an attached 3-car garage. Hardscape includes concrete walkways and driveway areas. Wood decks are present on the north and east
sides of the house. Vegetation includes small planter areas with shrubs and small trees. Drainage
was not well developed. No obvious signs of drainage problems were observed.
Proposed Development
We understand that the proposed development will consist of a remodel and renovation of the
existing house structure. Actual additions to the house will be very minor. There may be
rehabilitation of the existing seawall and exterior improvements. No significant grading is
anticipated. Our office should be notified when the structural design loads for foundation elements
are available to check these preliminary assumptions.
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
SITE
ch
• • •
• • • . •
. •
. • •
• • • • • • • •
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 3
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Geologic Hazard
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 depths of about 7.5 to 8.5-feet in our exploratory borings.
Groundwater levels are anticipated to remain near existing elevations at about elevation +3 in the
area. Groundwater is tidal influenced and will fluctuate daily.
Water Infiltration
From a geotechnical standpoint, on-site water infiltration is allowable. A minimum setback of 3 feet
from the nearest foundation is recommended for large volume runoff. Simple trench drains and
permeable pavement surfaces may be allowable without setback with appropriate agency and
geotechnical review and approvals. Proposed water infiltration features should be reviewed and
approved by the Geotechnical Consultant.
Surficial Run-off
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 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.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 4
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
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 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.
Based on our review of various published and unpublished reports, maps and documents, the site is
located approximately 1 to 3 kilometers northeast of the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone. This fault
consists of a series of parallel and en-echelon, northwest-trending faults and folds extending from the
southern edge of the Santa Monica Mountains to Huntington Beach and then offshore along Newport
Beach. This fault zone has historically experienced moderate to high seismic activity. No active or
potentially active faults are known to project through the site. In addition, the Newport-Inglewood
Fault is not sufficiently well-defined in the area of the subject site to be placed within the boundaries
of an “earthquake fault zone,” as defined by the State of California in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act.
SITE
Fault Map
Newport Beach, California
EXPLANATION
F.ault: ~lid where location known, tong da:hed
where approximate-, dotted where inferred
"
Southw.ud projKtion of .ictive fault tr,Kes ba:~ed
on .l ~u~urface ~tu<fy on che wett bank of the
Sam.1An:1cRiver_
\. Secondaryf.iult trJ.<:es th.11 have bun ~hown
·-to have moved .u&e.i:.t once durins the Holocene.
'I, faufulh.:u:arenocactive
D ~:~o~::ea;~;,~~g;:~~z:.:;_for reil-e~.Jte
-a... Newport SiiJCh City BoundJ:ry
--Sphere of lmluence
Scale: ·1 :60,000
MIies
3
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 5
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
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 potential for surface rupture at the site is considered to be low and the property is not located
within a special study zone for fault rupture. The site will experience shaking, during earthquake
events on nearby or distant faults. Site improvements should take into consideration the seismic
design parameters outlined herein.
Site Classification for Seismic Design
Seismic design parameters are provided in a later section of this report and in Appendix F for use
by the Structural Engineer. The soil underlying the subject site has been classified in accordance
with Chapter 21 of ASCE 7, per Section 1613 of the 2019 CBC.
The results of our on-site 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 overlying a bedrock shelf. We recommend using a characterization of this property as a Class D (Default), “Stiff
Soil,” Site Classification.
SITE
/ ' ; I -, --,
/, STATEOFCAUFORNIA
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES _., __ _ ,..,,,....,,,., ... ~----c... ---Ml
NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE
OFFICIAL MAP
liquefaction Zone Released; April 17, 1997
Landslide Zone Released: April 15, 1998
, ..
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 6
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
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 CBC Section 1803.5 and the Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117A.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which the strength of a soil is reduced by earthquake shaking or
other rapid loading. Liquefaction occurs in saturated soils, that is, soils in which the void space
between individual sand particles is completely filled with water. This water exerts a pressure on the
soil particles that influences how tightly the particles themselves are pressed together. Prior to an
earthquake, the water pressure is relatively low. However, earthquake shaking can cause the water pressure to increase to the point where the soil particles can readily move with respect to each other.
Liquefaction generally occurs in sandy, granular soils.
When liquefaction occurs, the strength of the soil decreases and, the ability of a soil deposit to support foundations for buildings is reduced. 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 with potential for liquefaction (Morton and others, 1976; Toppozada and
others, 1988).
In order to address liquefaction potential, soil borings were drilled to a maximum depth of 18.5 feet
below the site. The deeper boring included SPT testing at intervals of 2 feet. In addition, liquefaction
analyses were performed to evaluate seismically-induced settlement. The results of our analyses are
included in Appendix E.
Based on the results of our analyses, some of the soil layers below the site, in the locations tested,
had safety factors of less than 1.0, indicating risk of liquefaction during a seismic event strong
enough to induce liquefaction. Layers exhibiting safety factors of 1.3 and less based on Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16) were evaluated for potential seismic settlement. Seismically- induced settlements
were estimated by the procedures developed by Boulanger & Idriss (2010-16), Tokimatsu and Seed
(1987). Additionally, seismically-induced settlements were estimated by the procedures developed by Pradel (1998) for dry sand. The GeoAdvanced GeoSuite Software Version 2.4.2.21, developed by
Fred Yi, was utilized for the analyses. The resultant potential total shallow seismic settlement in the
upper 18.5 feet of underlying soil is less than one-inch. Additional settlement is possible but less
likely below depths of 18.5 feet due to the very dense sands and gravels.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 7
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Lateral Impacts of Liquefaction
Lateral impacts of liquefaction at the subject site such as lateral spreading and lateral loads on
foundations are expected to be negligible due to the presence of the existing seawall along the back
yard to confine the soil on the channel side. The other sides of the site are confined by relatively flat
ground on adjoining properties.
Flooding
Seismically-induced flooding normally includes flooding from inland waters, which is not likely, and
tsunami run-up from tidal wave energy. No specific tsunami analysis has been undertaken in this
investigation. However, the “Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal Cities” (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 unknown bathymetry on 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, describe 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 on-site, 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.
CONCLUSIONS
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. Within the areas explored, artificial fill, beach and marine deposits were encountered. On-
site materials generally consisted of sandy dune and marine deposits.
3. Seismically-induced liquefaction has not historically been observed in the vicinity of the site;
however, the liquefaction of soils in the general area is considered to be a possibility due to
the presence of groundwater, underlying soil conditions and proximity of nearby earthquake
faults.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 8
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
4.Our calculations indicate that potential seismic settlement due to both liquefaction and consolidation of dry sand layers within the upper 18.5 feet is less than one-inch.
5.Groundwater has been encountered at a depth of about 7.5 to 8.5 feet below existing site
grades and is not expected to be a significant factor during construction.
6.The near surface materials that were encountered were determined to have a very low
expansion potential.
7.In the event that the existing near surface soils are disturbed by excavation or demolition,
re-compaction of the exposed or disturbed materials to provide uniform conditions is
recommended.
8.Excavation and construction methods will need to consider lateral and subjacent support of
adjacent structures and property improvements.
9.Although the probability of fault rupture across the property is low, ground shaking may be
strong during a major earthquake.
10.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.
11.Adverse surface discharge onto or off the site is not anticipated provided proper civil
engineering design and post-construction site grading are implemented.
12.The proposed structure should be supported by conventional footings and a thickened slab
supported entirely by compacted fill materials.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Preparation, Excavation and Grading
1.General
Site grading is anticipated to be minimal and limited to localized areas. Any excavation and
grading activities 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. All excavations should be supervised and approved in writing by arepresentative of this firm.
2.Demolition and Clearing
Deleterious materials, including those from the demolition of the existing concrete,
vegetation, organic matter and trash, should be removed and disposed of off-site.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 9
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Subsurface elements of demolished structures should be completely removed, including any trench backfills, abandoned foundations, cisterns, utility lines, etc.
3. Subgrade Preparation
Excavations should be made to remove the planned cut soils below new interior slab areas
and any soils disturbed by demolition if encountered within the building areas. Removal
depths will generally be less than 12-inches, including the thickness of the removed
concrete slabs. Any loose slab subgrade or footing excavation soils should be compacted in
place. No additional subgrade over-excavation is anticipated within interior slab areas.
Exterior grading is expected to be minimal as part of removal and replacement of limited
hardscape areas.
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.
4. Fill Soils
The on-site soils are anticipated to be suitable for use as compacted fill. Fill soils should be
free of debris, organic matter, cobbles and concrete fragments greater than 6-inches in
diameter.
In the event that soils are imported to the site for use as fill below foundation and slab
areas, these materials should be predominantly granular, non-expansive, non-plastic and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer prior to importing.
5. Shrinkage
Shrinkage losses are expected to be negligible overall since grading is minimal.
6. Expansive Soils
On-site surface soils encountered during our investigation were determined to be non-
plastic, non-expansive sands.
7. Compaction Standard
The on-site soils are anticipated to be generally suitable for use as compacted fill. Highly
organic and oversize materials must be removed prior to compaction. 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 D1557-12.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 10
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
8. Temporary Construction Slopes
Temporary slopes exposing on-site materials should be cut in accordance with Cal/OSHA
Regulations. It is anticipated that the exposed on-site earth materials may be classified as
Type B and C soil, and temporary cuts of 1:1 (horizontal: vertical) or flatter above a 3 foot
high vertical bench may be appropriate to heights of 5 feet or less; however, the material
exposed in temporary excavations should be evaluated by the Contractor during
construction. Dry or running sands may require flatter laybacks.
Excavations should proceed in a manner so as not to remove lateral or bearing support of
adjacent properties or adjoining structures. No excavations along the property lines are
anticipated.
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 T8 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.
Foundation Design
1. General
Foundation elements for the planned renovation will possibly consist of new spread footings,
grade beams, small new slab additions and rebuild of interior concrete slabs. Foundation
elements will bear in compacted fill.
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.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 11
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
2. Bearing Capacity for Foundations
The allowable bearing capacity for new, 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 2,000 pounds per square foot.
Additionally, new footings should be embedded at least 6-inches below adjacent existing
foundation elements. A presumptive value of 2,000 psf may be assumed for the existing
footings. These values may be increased by one-third for short-term wind or seismic
loading. 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. Per 2019 CBC Section 1809.4, a
footing depth below the adjacent ground surface of at least 12-inches is required. A minimum footing thickness of at least 6-inches must be achieved or preserved during
construction per CBC Table 1809.7.
The structural engineer shall evaluate the existing foundation elements and wall connections
for any force imbalances, moments, and eccentric load conditions that may result from
lowering/raising the slabs and attendant loss of soil support along interior side of the
footings and provide remedies if appropriate.
3. Settlement
Static
Static settlement is anticipated to be less than ½-inch total and ¼- inch differential
between adjacent similarly loaded columns (approximately 25 feet assumed horizontal distance). 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.
Dynamic
Potential liquefaction-induced settlement based on current estimates of peak ground
accelerations during an earthquake was calculated to be less than 1-inch total within the upper 18.5 feet. Additional seismic settlement is possible below that depth. Based on our
findings, it is our opinion that the total dynamic settlement will be less than 2-inches due to
the very dense conditions encountered below depths of 11 feet. The underlying stratigraphy is fairly uniform below the planned development area; therefore, differential seismic
settlement can be estimated as approximately one-half of the total estimated settlement, or
approximately 1-inch across a span of about 30 feet (Martin and Lew, 1999). Seismically-
induced settlements were estimated by using the procedure of Boulanger and Idriss (2010-
16) and Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). These methods are based on empirical data from past
seismic events that have been studied and are, therefore, approximate.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 12
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
4. 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 2019 CBC, Section 1806.3.1.
5. Footing Reinforcement
Two No. 5 bars should be placed at the top and two at the bottom of new 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 new
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 2019 California Building Code and the
requirements of the City of Newport Beach. On-site materials were determined to have a very low
expansion potential. Concrete floor slabs should be at least 5 inches thick (actual). 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).
Slabs should be underlain by the existing, on-site non-expansive sand, which will serve as an
adequate capillary break. 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 sand 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 vapor retarder. If flooding is a concern, additional
measures may be appropriate and should be addressed by the Civil Engineer and/or project
architect.
Exterior flatwork elements, if planned, should be a minimum 4-inches thick (actual) and reinforced
with No. 4 bars 18 inches on center both ways. The existing subgrade soils should be well moistened prior to placing concrete.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 13
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Seismic Design
Based on the geotechnical data and site parameters, the following table is provided based on
ASCE/SEI 7-16 using the ASCE Hazard Tool to satisfy the 2019 CBC design criteria. A site-specific
Ground-Motion Hazard Analysis (GMHA) was not performed for the site. Site and Seismic Design Criteria
For 2019 CBC
Design
Parameters Recommended
Values
Site Class D (Default)*
(Stiff Soil)
Site Longitude (degrees) -117.88220 W
Site Latitude (degrees) 33.5963 N
Ss (g) 1.369 g
S1 (g) 0.486 g
SMs (g) 1.643 g
SM1 (g) 0.882 g
SDs (g) 1.096 g
SD1 (g) 0.588 g
Fa 1.2
Fv 1.814
Seismic Design Category D
*Per ASCE 7-16, Section 11.4.8, the above values may be used provided the value of the seismic response
coefficient Cs is determined by Eq. (12.8-2) for values of T ≤ 1.5Ts and taken as equal to 1.5 times the value
computed in accordance with either Eq. (12.8-3) for TL ≥ T > 1.5Ts or Eq. (12.8-4) for T > TL. This is due to
the value of S1 greater than or equal to 0.2 g for this site. The values above are generally applicable for typical residential structures. The Structural Engineer should verify that Section 11.4.8 is satisfied per the above.
A Site-Specific Ground Motion Hazard Analysis (GMHA) may be beneficial for this project as part of the
structural design. A Site-Specific GMHA can be performed at an additional cost if requested.
Supporting documentation is also included in a previous section of this report, Site Classification for
Seismic Design, and in Appendix F.
I I
I
I
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 14
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Structural Design of Retaining Walls
1. Lateral Loads
No retaining walls are currently planned at the site. 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. Minor wall rotations should be anticipated for walls that are free to rotate at the top and considered in design of walls and adjacent improvements.
2. Earthquake 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 2019 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 and, therefore, the site development is not subject to
the design requirements of Section 1803.5.12. A seismic load of 30 pounds per cubic foot (inverted triangle) may be assumed for the existing sea wall.
3. Foundation Bearing Values for Walls
Footings for retaining walls may be designed in accordance with the recommendations
provided above for building foundations and should be embedded in compacted fill at a
minimum depth of 18-inches below the lowest adjacent grade.
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.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 15
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Fill soils should be free of debris, organic matter, cobbles and rock fragments greater than 6-inches in diameter. Fill materials should be placed in 6- to 8-inch maximum lifts 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 dry density as determined by ASTM D1557-12. Field density tests should be
performed at intervals of 2 vertical feet or less within the backfill zone and in accordance
with agency requirements at the time of grading.
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.
6. Dampproofing and Waterproofing
Waterproofing in consideration of the local marine environment should be installed in
accordance with the architectural specifications or those of a waterproofing consultant. The
criteria in Section 1805 of the 2019 CBC should be followed as a minimum. Curb type
foundations that extend below the outside grade to a lower interior floor elevation should be waterproofed. A negative side application is required since foundation elements are already
constructed. A penetrating crystalline coating material such as Xypex or Tremco PQ200
should be considered for application along the interior foundations where appropriate. Exterior hardscape joints should be sealed and water should drain away from foundation
areas.
Seawall
The following values may be used in the design of the seawall rehabilitation:
1. Active soils pressure above ground water level = 40 pcf
2. Active soils pressure below ground water level = 85 pcf 3. Active soils pressure submerged = 22 pcf
4. Passive soils pressure submerged = 175 pcf (FS=1.5 included)
5. Passive soils pressure wet = 220 pcf (FS=1.5 included)
6. Soil seismic earth pressure = 30 pcf 7. Friction coef = 0.30
8. Phi angle = 28 deg
If the mudline is about 8-10 feet below top of wall, a point of fixity of 5 feet may be assumed.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 16
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Hardscape Design and Construction
New hardscape is expected to be minor based on the information provided to us. New 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).
Any new 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 with positive side waterproofing; this is
especially important if they are near the lowered slab areas proposed. As an alternative these areas
may be paved over with concrete to serve as a horizontal moisture barrier.
New 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 on-site sandy soils have a low soluble sulfate content; 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 or an appropriate alternate 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 2019 CBC, 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.
Metal Construction Components in Contact with Soil
Metal rebar encased in concrete, iron pipes, copper pipes, lift 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.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 17
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
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 2019 CBC, Section 1804.4, 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.
Surface and subsurface water should be directed away from building areas. Proper interception and
disposal of on-site surface discharge is presumed to be a matter of civil engineering or landscape
architectural design.
Infiltration
It is our opinion that typical gravel trenches and permeable hardscape for periodic water infiltration
into the on-site soil is acceptable from a geologic and geotechnical standpoint. The water levels are
expected to be at a depth of about 7 feet below grade based on our borings. The water table is
ultimately tidal in nature and introduction of the infiltration water is not expected to raise the water
level or create new perched water zones. These types of infiltration will, therefore, not be expected
to create any geohazards due to modification of groundwater levels. Planned infiltration design and
BMP devices should be reviewed by our office prior to construction.
Foundation and Grading Plan Review
The undersigned should review final foundation and grading 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.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 18
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
The on-site soils are anticipated to be generally suitable for use as trench backfill; however, silt materials may be difficult to mix and compact to a uniform condition. The use of imported backfill is
sometimes more efficient when silt soil materials are at high moisture contents. Fill materials should
be placed at near optimum moisture content and compacted under the observation and testing of
the Soil Engineer. The minimum dry density required for compacted backfill material is 90 percent
of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557-12.
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
clarify any questions relating to the intent of these recommendations or additional recommendations.
OBSERVATION AND TESTING
General
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.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 19
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
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 geotechnically involved phases of construction is that of the Owner and
his Contractor. We request at least 48 hours’ notice when such services are required.
Geotechnical Observation/Testing Activities during Earthwork and Construction
Requirements for renovation/remodel projects may differ in some respects from new construction.
Additional observations and testing may be required per local agency, code, project, Contractor and
geotechnical requirements at the time of the actual construction. The Owner, Developer and/or
Contractor are responsible to verify with the governing agencies which services are required and to
notify the geotechnical consultant for services. Note that items not tested or observed will be excluded from geotechnical reports. Exclusions may impact the ability to obtain occupancy permits.
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 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.
PA2020-323
October 22, 2020 File No: 8479-00
Report No: R1-8479
Page No: 20
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this
office.
Respectfully submitted,
R MCCARTHY CONSULTING, INC.
Robert J. McCarthy Principal Engineer, G.E.2490
Registration Expires 3-31-22
Date Signed: 10/22/2020
Accompanying Illustrations and Appendices
Text Figure - Preliminary Geologic Map of the 30’ X 60’ Santa Ana Quadrangle
Text Figure - Fault Map, Newport Beach, CA Text Figure - CDMG Seismic Hazards Location Map
Figure 1 - Geotechnical Plot Plan
Figure 2 - Location Map
Figure 3 - Geologic Hazard Map Appendix A - References
Appendix B - Seismicity Data
PA2020-323
Figure 1: Geotechnical Plot Plan
2286 Channel Road
Newport Beach, CA
File: 8479-00 October 2020
0 20 feet
N
Ef/Qe/Qm
B-1
HA-1
Base map: Hunsaker Land Surveying, Inc.
EXPLANATION
Estimated location of exploratory boring
Ef Engineered ll
Qe Eolian deposits
Qm Marine deposits
GATE VAL.VEX x 'ffi}7 VALVE
10.26 x ~Jg Vii.VE
•
xx 10.25
l'J
xELEC MH 10.12
CONC FS 10.25
l'J 1'4 MHx a:, o.◄o
0)
l[ '11.T COR 10.59
VLT COR
TOP {0.54
10.51
10 19 ,u 105
GUITTR 10 23 TOP X 1050
81M 10.
1
1
CONC FSROOF cJ2Nf o.~
10.72 CONC rs Wacoo 10.68
XGff
;1COR
10.85 BLDG COR 10.64
~4COR
m~rs "'
1 2
xcrr 11.00
W IRON POST
ON POST
BALCONY 19.20
~9 UNE
~SCOR
BALCONY 19.22 BALCOt/Y 19.22 ?r~ rs
BALCONY
CUTTS TC \
19
.
16
.44 to.54 coNC rs F COR
CONC FS 10.96 L4J
10.93
xrr 12.12
BLOG COR
BLOC -= CONC 11. xx rs , ,.45
5•50.58"£ 100.oO' CONC FS X 11.63 X
CONC FS 11.28
11.~
x BLDG LINE 20.34
---------------
\
FACE WM.1
FACE WALL
ff!sWAU
LTT 10.59 DECK 11.96 TOP ':JN
10.60
DECK 11.93
------------------------
RM c == C C ARTHY
ONSULTING, INC
PA2020-323
Feet
Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the
accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of
Newport Beach and its employees and agents
disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to
any results obtained in its use.
Disclaimer:
10/20/2020
0 200100
SITE:
2286 Channel Road
FILE NO: 8479-00 FIGURE 2 - LOCATION MAPOCTOBER 2020
PA2020-323
Feet
Every reasonable effort has been made to assure the
accuracy of the data provided, however, The City of
Newport Beach and its employees and agents
disclaim any and all responsibility from or relating to
any results obtained in its use.
Disclaimer:
10/20/2020
0 200100
OCTOBER 2020 FIGURE 3 - GEOLOGIC HAZARDS MAPFILE NO: 8479-00
Liquefaction
Hazard Zone
SITE:
2286 Channel Road
PA2020-323
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
PA2020-323
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
(2286 Channel Road)
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
1. JT Consulting Engineers, 2020, “2286 Channel Rd, Newport Beach, CA 92661,” Scale: 1”
= 5’, Sheets C.1 and C.2, September 28.
2. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2019, ASCE 7 Hazard Tool,
https://asce7hazardtool.online/.
3. ASCE/SEI 7-16, “Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other
Structures.”
4. 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.
5. 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, DC.
6. California Building Code, 2019 Edition.
7. California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, “Seismic Hazards Zones Map, Newport
Beach Quadrangle”.
8. California Divisions of Mines and Geology, 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and
Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A.
9. City of Newport Beach, 2014, Community Development Department, Building Division,
Building Code Policy, “Liquefaction Study Mitigation Measures,” revised July 14.
10. Department of the Navy, 1982, NAVFAC DM-7.1, Soil Mechanics, Design Manual 7.1, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.
11. 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).
12. 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.
13. 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, 63 pages, March.
14. Morton and Miller, 1981, Geologic Map of Orange County, CDMG Bulletin 204.
15. 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.
PA2020-323
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
(2286 Channel Road)
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
16. 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.
17. Morton, Douglas M., and Miller, Fred K., 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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, pp. 1249-1273, September.
21. 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.
22. Terzaghi, Karl, Peck, Ralph B., and Mesri, Ghoamreza, 1996, “Soil Mechanics in
Engineering Practice, Third Edition,” John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
23. Tokimatsu, K., and Seed, H. B., 1987, “Evaluation of Settlements in Sands Due to Earthquake Shaking,” Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 113, No. 8, pp.
861-878.
24. 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.
25. Zhang, G., Robertson, P. K., and Brachman, R. W. I., 2002, “Estimating Liquefaction-
induced Ground Settlements from CPT for Level Ground,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal 39: 1168-1180.
PA2020-323
R McCarthy Consulting, Inc.
23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone 949-629-2539
APPENDIX B
SEISMICITY DATA
PA2020-323
ASCE 7 Hazards Report
Address:
2286 Channel Rd
Newport Beach, California
92661
Standard:ASCE/SEI 7-16
Risk Category:II
Soil Class:D - Default (see
Section 11.4.3)
Elevation:7.41 ft (NAVD 88)
Latitude:
Longitude:
33.596298
-117.882202
Page 1 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Tue Oct 20 2020
PA2020-323
SS : 1.369
S1 : 0.486
Fa : 1.2
Fv : N/A
SMS : 1.643
SM1 : N/A
SDS : 1.096
SD1 : N/A
TL : 8
PGA : 0.599
PGA M : 0.719
FPGA : 1.2
Ie : 1
Cv : 1.374
Seismic
Site Soil Class:
Results:
Data Accessed:
Date Source:
D - Default (see Section 11.4.3)
USGS Seismic Design Maps
Ground motion hazard analysis may be required. See ASCE/SEI 7-16 Section 11.4.8.
Tue Oct 20 2020
Page 2 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Tue Oct 20 2020
Additional Calculations:
SM1 =(FV)(S1)
Fv = 1.814 for S1 = 0.486 g per Table 1613A.2.3(2)
Therefore, SM1 = (1.814)(.486) = 0.882 g
SD1 = (2/3)(SM1) = (2/3)(0.882) = 0.588 g
PA2020-323
The ASCE 7 Hazard Tool is provided for your convenience, for informational purposes only, and is provided “as is” and without warranties of
any kind. The location data included herein has been obtained from information developed, produced, and maintained by third party providers;
or has been extrapolated from maps incorporated in the ASCE 7 standard. While ASCE has made every effort to use data obtained from
reliable sources or methodologies, ASCE does not make any representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, reliability,
currency, or quality of any data provided herein. Any third-party links provided by this Tool should not be construed as an endorsement,
affiliation, relationship, or sponsorship of such third-party content by or from ASCE.
ASCE does not intend, nor should anyone interpret, the results provided by this Tool to replace the sound judgment of a competent
professional, having knowledge and experience in the appropriate field(s) of practice, nor to substitute for the standard of care required of such
professionals in interpreting and applying the contents of this Tool or the ASCE 7 standard.
In using this Tool, you expressly assume all risks associated with your use. Under no circumstances shall ASCE or its officers, directors,
employees, members, affiliates, or agents be liable to you or any other person for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential
damages arising from or related to your use of, or reliance on, the Tool or any information obtained therein. To the fullest extent permitted by
law, you agree to release and hold harmless ASCE from any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from any use of data
provided by the ASCE 7 Hazard Tool.
Page 3 of 3https://asce7hazardtool.online/Tue Oct 20 2020
PA2020-323