HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2022-0172_20220817_Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation_08-08-2022August 8, 2022
Dr. Evan Thomas Project No.: 72661-00
c/o Brion Jeannette Architecture Report No.: 22-9163
470 Old Newport Boulevard
Newport Beach, California 92663
Attention: Ms. Lynelle Smith
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed New Single-Family Residence
700 W. Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
INTRODUCTION
This report presents findings and conclusions of a preliminary geotechnical investigation
undertaken to relate the onsite and certain regional geotechnical conditions to the construction of
a new single-family residence on the subject property. Analyses for this investigation are based
upon the conceptual architectural plans for the property prepared by Brion Jeannette
Architecture.
The conclusions and recommendations of this report are considered preliminary due to the
absence of finalized foundation and grading plans, the formulation of which are partially
dependent upon the recommendations presented herein.
Scope of Investigation
The investigation included the following:
1.Analysis of pertinent reports, maps, aerial photographs, and published literature
pertaining to the site and nearby areas, as well as project plans, in order to relate
geotechnical conditions to proposed construction.
2.Field reconnaissance and logging of two limited-access cone penetration tests to
determine the character and geometrical distribution of soil materials within the proposed
construction areas. The upper five feet was hand-augered to collect samples for
laboratory testing.
3.Laboratory testing of surface materials for various engineering and chemical properties
PA2022-0172
August 8, 2022 Project No: 72661-00
Report No: 22-9163
Page No: 2
4. Analyses of data and the preparation of this geotechnical report presenting conclusions
and recommendations for site development in accordance with the 2019 California
Building Code and the City of Newport Beach Building Code Policy CBC 1803.5.11-12.
This report is suitable for use by your design professionals, contractors, and submittal to
the City of Newport Beach.
Accompanying Illustrations and Appendices
Figure 1 - USGS Geologic Location Map
Figure 2 - CDMG Geologic Hazards Location Map
Figure 3 - Geotechnical Plot Plan
Figure 4 - Cross Section A-A’
Appendix A - References
Appendix B - CPT Logs
Appendix C - Field Exploration and Laboratory Test Results
Appendix D - Liquefaction Analysis
Appendix E - Standard Grading Specifications
Appendix F - Utility Trench Backfill Guidelines
Site Description
The roughly rectangular property fronts 64± feet along 7th street and extends westerly up to 42±
feet to the western property boundary. Based upon a review of the site topographic plan, the
relatively flat lot sits at an elevation of 10-12+ feet (NAVD 88). The existing property consists
of a 2,688 square foot lot improved with a one-story 1,100 square foot residence built in 1914.
The property also consists of a raised deck and landscaped areas. The adjacent properties to the
north and west are developed with single-family homes.
Proposed Development
Based on conversations with Brion Jeannette Architecture, the proposed development consists of
the demolition of the existing residence and the construction of a new 3,200± square foot, three-
level residence and attached three-car garage at the subject property. The proposed construction
will consist of a wood and steel frame structure supported on a mat foundation with a finished
slab elevation of 13.0 feet. Shoring is not anticipated based on the proposed construction.
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
Geologic Setting
The property is located on Newport Peninsula as depicted on the USGS Geologic Index Map,
Figure 1. It is located 600± feet northerly of the Pacific shoreline, approximately 200 feet south
of the W Balboa Boulevard. Review of old topographic maps (1896) indicates that the natural
sand peninsula, prior to the creation of the harbor, was in a low-lying beach forming the natural
PA2022-0172
August 8, 2022 Project No: 72661-00
Report No: 22-9163
Page No: 3
bay. The site is underlain to significant depth by an accumulation of bay and beach deposits,
based on nearby geotechnical investigations performed by Geofirm these deposits are in excess
of 35+ feet. A thin mantle of artificial fill from the historic construction of the building pads
underlies the property at the surface.
Earth Materials
Based on the results of our CPT study, Bay/Beach Deposits generally underlie the site at the
surface to a depth of over 17± feet and generally consist of layered silty and fine to coarse-
grained sand. Cone penetrometer test data reveals that the natural deposits underlying the site
become denser below 10 feet. New engineered fill is considered suitable for new structural
support.
All onsite materials are non-expansive on the basis of visual classification. Laboratory testing of
the same soils on nearby sites indicates negligible soluble sulfate concentrations. These soils are
generally considered suitable for use as compacted fill.
Groundwater
Groundwater was measured at a depth of 9± feet below grade during our field exploration.
Groundwater depth should be expected to fluctuate in response to tidal shifts. Groundwater is
not considered to be a geotechnical constraint affecting the construction of proposed
improvements. Elevated groundwater levels during periods of heavy rain if coupled with high
tide may negatively impact the site as discussed below.
Flooding and Surface Drainage
Localized flooding associated with heavy rains and high tides has been a recurrent phenomenon
in some low-lying areas of Newport Beach. The potential for flooding affecting proposed
development should be evaluated by the project civil engineer. The proposed development will
modify surface drainage, which must be controlled and outlet through appropriate civil
engineering design.
Seismic Considerations
Published Studies
One of the principals of seismic analyses and prediction is the premise that earthquakes are more
likely to occur on geologically younger faults, and less likely to occur on older faults. For many
years studies have described faults with Holocene movement (within the last 11,000 years) as
“Active”, and faults with documented Pleistocene movement (within the last 1.6 million years)
and with undetermined Holocene movement as “Potentially Active”. Informally, many studies
have described faults documented to have no Holocene movement as “Inactive”. Recent
PA2022-0172
August 8, 2022 Project No: 72661-00
Report No: 22-9163
Page No: 4
geologic and seismic publications are attempting to clarify the nomenclature describing faults to
more accurately represent the potential affects from earthquakes.
Reports by the California Division of Mines and Geology indicate faults with documented
Holocene or Historic (within the last 200 years) movement should be considered Active.
However, Potentially Active faults are more appropriately characterized in terms of the last
period of documented movement. The Fault Activity Map of California (Jennings, C.W.; 2010)
defines four categories for onshore Potentially Active faults. The categories are associated with
the time of the last displacement evidenced on a given fault and are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1, Definitions of Fault Activity in California
It is important to note these categories embrace all Pre-Holocene faults as Potentially Active, and
provide no methodology to designate a given fault as “Inactive”. 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.
Local and Regional Faults
The closest published active fault to the site is the offshore extension of the Newport-Inglewood
Fault Zone, approximately 1.5 miles southwest, (CGS/2004). Other active faults in the vicinity
of the site include the San Joaquin Hills, approximately 3.1 miles deep, the Palos Verdes Fault,
approximately 10 miles to the northwest, the Elsinore Fault, approximately 23 miles to the
northeast, and the San Andreas Fault, approximately 53 miles to the northeast.
The offshore portion of the Newport-Inglewood Fault zone is indicated in published reports as
being a Potentially Active and Quaternary fault, (Jennings, C.W.; 2010). This interpretation is
not universally shared, as this portion of the Newport-Inglewood Fault is included as a potential
seismic source in the computer programs utilized to model ground motions for this study, (Blake,
T.F.; 2000). With the fault’s location approximately 1.5 miles to the southwest, it is appropriate
to include this portion of the fault as a causative seismic feature.
Site Classification for Seismic Design
For the purposes of determining seismic design parameters provided in the Recommendations
portion of this report pertaining to the new structures, the upper one hundred feet of soil
Activity Category Recency of Movement
Active Historic Within the last 200 years
Holocene Within the last 11,000 years
Potentially Active
Late Quaternary Within the last 700,000 years
Quaternary Within the last 1.6 million years
Pre-Quaternary Before the last 1.6 million years
PA2022-0172
August 8, 2022 Project No: 72661-00
Report No: 22-9163
Page No: 5
underlying the subject site has been classified in accordance with Section 1613.2.2 of the 2019
CBC and Section 20.1 of ASCE 7-16. Although the soils underlying the site are not liquefiable
to the depths tested, the property is within an identified liquefaction hazard zone and is
conservatively classified as F per the 2019 CBC, requiring a site-response analysis. However,
the proposed new structure is anticipated to have a fundamental period of vibration less than 0.5
seconds (to be verified by the structural engineer). As such, Section 20.3.1 in ASCE 7-16
provides an exception that indicates such liquefiable sites may be classified in accordance with
Table 20.3-1 without performing a site-response evaluation.
Given the exception and the results of our onsite and nearby field investigations, which indicate
the site is predominantly underlain by earth materials with average interpreted N-values between
15 and 50, seismic design criteria may be calculated using a site classification of D. However,
the Site Class remains F.
Tsunami Appraisal
No specific tsunami analysis has been undertaken in this investigation. However, the updated
CGS Tsunami Hazards Area map for Orange County (2021) indicates the entire peninsula,
harbor area of Newport Beach and back bay is within the inundation hazard zone, including
portions of Pacific Coast Highway. This property is considered subject to tsunami inundation to
an undetermined magnitude or depth.
Appraisal of Liquefaction Potential
Review of the Seismic Hazard Zones Map for the Newport Beach Quadrangle (California
Division of Mines & Geology, 1998) identifies the site and all of the Newport/Balboa peninsula
and harbor within a zone of required investigation for liquefaction. In accordance with City of
Newport Beach Building Code Policies CBC-1803.5 and 1803.5.11-12, our office has performed
an analysis for liquefaction potential based on the CPT data collected during our onsite
investigation.
The results of our analysis presented in Appendix D indicate liquefaction settlement within the
zone 10 feet below the proposed foundation level of less than about 1-inch. A stiffened
foundation system or mat slab designed in accordance with the City’s “Shallow Mitigation
Methods” is recommended, as the soils below the fill may be subject to potential liquefaction
during a strong seismic event.
Secondary Seismic Hazards
Review of the Seismic Hazards Zones Map (California Division of Mines and Geology, 1998)
for the Newport Beach Quadrangle, Figure 2, indicates this lot is not located within a “zone of
required investigation” for earthquake induced landslides, but is located in a liquefaction hazard
zone. Please refer to the Appraisal of Liquefaction Potential above for more information.
PA2022-0172
August 8, 2022 Project No: 72661-00
Report No: 22-9163
Page No: 6
Other secondary seismic hazards can include deep rupture, shallow ground cracking, and tsunami
inundation. With the absence of active faulting onsite, the potential for deep fault rupture is not
present. 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. The property is within a
tsunami hazard zone.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed development at the subject site is considered geotechnically feasible
provided the recommendations herein are integrated into design, construction, and long-
term maintenance of the property. Proposed construction should not affect or be affected
by adjacent properties provided appropriate construction methods and care are
implemented.
2. The property is underlain to a depth of at least 17± feet by bay/beach deposits, which are
locally overlain by artificial fill.
3. The removal and re-compaction of the upper 3± feet of existing soil below new
foundation elements is recommended prior to construction.
4. Granular onsite soils are non-expansive and are expected to have a negligible soil soluble
sulfate level, and a low potential for corrosion of buried metal based on laboratory testing
on a nearby project (Reference 8). However, as the concrete is in a coastal environment,
a moderate sulfate exposure should be considered for design purposes.
5. No active faults are known to transect the site and therefore the site is not expected to be
adversely affected by surface rupturing. It will, however, be affected by ground motions
from earthquakes during the design life of the residence.
6. Liquefaction analysis performed in accordance with City Building Code Policies CBC-
1803.5 and 1803.5.11-12 indicates seismic settlement in the zone 10 feet below the
proposed foundation level is less than 1-inch. Therefore, a mat slab or stiffened
foundation system designed in accordance with the City’s “Shallow Mitigation Methods”
is recommended.
7. Groundwater was recorded at a depth of 9+ feet below ground surface. Groundwater will
fluctuate based on tidal conditions and other factors, and likely will be a design and
construction constraint depending on the depth of improvements and excavations. The
design groundwater level is recommended to be equal to the maximum elevation of
predicted tides during heavy rainfall and storm surge runup, which is considered to be at
an elevation of 8± feet (NAVD 88).
8. The potential for localized flooding affecting the residence during its lifetime is possible
and is deferred to the project civil engineer.
PA2022-0172
August 8, 2022 Project No: 72661-00
Report No: 22-9163
Page No: 7
9. Surface discharge onto or off the site should be appropriately controlled with proper
engineering design and site grading and are deferred to the project civil engineer.
10. The residence should be founded in competent recompacted engineered backfill utilizing
a mat slab or stiffened foundation system.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Preparation and Grading
1. General
Grading should be performed in accordance with the recommendations herein and the
Standard Grading Specifications in Appendix E. Grading is anticipated to consist of
remedial over-excavation and minor export of soils to construct the proposed building
pad and foundation subgrades. Processing, over-excavation, and re-compaction should
be observed, tested and approved in writing by a representative of this firm.
2. Remedial Grading
Remedial grading is recommended to include removal and re-compaction of existing
loose beach deposits below new foundations to a depth of at least 3 feet below existing
site grades. Locally deeper removals may be required pending field review by the
geologist.
3. Removal of Existing Improvements
Existing vegetation, organic materials and/or construction and demolition debris should
be removed and disposed of offsite.
4. Compaction Standard
Onsite soil materials are anticipated to be suitable for re-use as compacted fill providing
they are free of rubble and debris. Materials should be placed at slightly above optimum
moisture content and compacted under the observation and testing of the soil engineer to
at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as evaluated by ASTM D 1557.
5. Temporary Construction Slopes
Temporary cuts for over excavation are anticipated to 3 feet in height. Temporary slopes
exposing onsite materials should be cut in accordance with Cal/OSHA Regulations. It is
anticipated that the onsite soils may be classified as Type C soil, and temporary cuts of
1.5:1 (horizontal:vertical) may be appropriate; however, the material exposed in
temporary excavations should be evaluated by the contractor during construction.
PA2022-0172
August 8, 2022 Project No: 72661-00
Report No: 22-9163
Page No: 8
The safety of temporary construction slopes 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).
Shoring should be anticipated where space limitations preclude temporary slope layback,
or in any location where onsite personnel may be in close proximity to open excavations.
Shoring also should be anticipated where wet materials exist.
Foundation Design Parameters
Due to the potential for liquefaction at the site, we recommend that a stiffened foundation or mat
slab be used for the proposed structure in accordance with the City of Newport Beach Building
Code Policy No. CBC-1803.5.11-12. Such a foundation system should be founded on properly
compacted fill derived from onsite materials.
1. Bearing Capacity and Settlement
Mat foundations should be designed in accordance with Section 1808.6 of the 2019
CBC utilizing an effective plasticity index of 25. The minimum recommended slab
thickness is 12 inches, with a deepened edge, extending a minimum of 24 inches below
grade. Reinforcement should be in accordance with the structural engineer’s
recommendations.
Slabs should be underlain by 4 inches of ½- to ¾-inch open graded gravel. Slab
underlayment is deferred to the project architect; however, in accordance with the
American Concrete Institute, we suggest that slabs be underlain by a 15-mil thick vapor
retarder/barrier (Stego Wrap or equivalent) placed over the gravel in accordance with
the requirements of ASTM E:1745 and E:1643.
The allowable bearing capacity for a mat slab placed on approved recompacted fill with
a thickness of 12 inches or more is 2,000 pounds per square foot. Foundation
settlement from structural loading is estimated to be ¾ inch total and ½ inch differential
over a horizontal distance of 20 feet. Foundation settlement should occur mostly
during construction.
2. Lateral Loads
Lateral loads may be resisted by passive pressure forces and friction acting on the
bottom of foundations. Passive pressure may be computed from an equivalent fluid
density of 150 pounds per cubic foot above the groundwater table, not to exceed 2,000
pounds per square foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.25 may be used in computing the
frictional resistance. These values may be combined without reduction.
PA2022-0172
August 8, 2022 Project No: 72661-00
Report No: 22-9163
Page No: 9
3. Reinforcement
Foundations and slabs should be reinforced in conformance with the requirements of
the structural engineer. From a geotechnical viewpoint, a minimum of two No. 5 bars
should be incorporated at the top and bottom of continuous footings in order to reduce
the potential for cracking during seismic shaking or as a result of subsurface
imperfections.
Hardscape Design and Construction
Ancillary structures such as site walls and landscaping improvements may utilize conventional
foundations embedded in recompacted fill designed in accordance with the foundation
recommendations presented above. Foundations should have a design depth of 18 inches or
more.
Concrete flatwork should be divided into as nearly square panels as possible. Joints should be
provided at maximum 6 feet intervals to give articulation to the concrete panels. Landscaping
and planters adjacent to concrete flatwork should be designed in such a manner as to direct
drainage away from concrete areas to approved outlets. Planters located adjacent to principal
foundation elements should be sealed and drained.
Flatwork elements and driveways should be a minimum of 5- inches and 6- inches thick (actual),
respectively, and be reinforced with No. 4 bars 16 inches on center both ways.
Seismic Design
Based on the geotechnical data and site parameters, the following is provided by the USGS
(ASCE 7-16) to satisfy the 2019 CBC design criteria:
Table 2, Site and Seismic Design Criteria for the 2019 CBC
Design
Parameters
Recommended
Values
Site Class
Site Longitude (degrees)
Site Latitude (degrees)
Ss (g) B
S1 (g) B
SMs (g) D
SM1 (g) D
SDs (g) D
SD1 (g) D
Fa
Fv
D
-117.9094
33.6040
1.393
0.495
1.393
0.893
0.929
0.596
1.00
1.81
PA2022-0172
August 8, 2022 Project No: 72661-00
Report No: 22-9163
Page No: 10
Design
Parameters
Recommended
Values
Seismic Design Category
PGAM
D
0.672
Note: Values provided assume that the structure meets Exemption 2 of Section 11.4.8 of
the 2019 California Building Code.
This evaluation assumes the fundamental period of vibration of proposed structure does
not exceed 0.5 second. The structural engineer should review the above parameters and
the California Building code to evaluate the seismic design.
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 California Building Code, Section 1804.4
is recommended. Roofs should be guttered, and discharge conducted away from the house in a
non-erosive manner as specified by the project civil engineer or landscape architect. Proper
interception and disposal of all onsite surface discharge is presumed to be a matter of civil
engineering or landscape architectural design.
Concrete
Soil soluble sulfate testing indicates negligible sulfate content. As on-site concrete may be
exposed to seawater, a moderate sulfate exposure should be considered for design purposes. It is
recommended that a concrete expert be retained to design an appropriate concrete mix to address
the structural and exposure requirements. In lieu of retaining a concrete expert, it is
recommended that the 2019 California Building Code, Section 1904.1 be utilized, which refers to
ACI 318, Table 4.3. The appropriate exposure should be evaluated by the architect and/or
structural engineer.
Utility Trench Backfill
Utility trench backfill should be placed in accordance with Appendix F, Utility Trench Backfill
Guidelines. It is the owners and contractor's responsibility to inform subcontractors of these
requirements and to notify Geofirm when backfill placement is to begin.
Foundation Plan Review
In order to help assure conformance with recommendations of this report and as a condition of
the use of this report, the undersigned should review final foundation plans and specifications
prior to submission of such to the building official for issuance of permits. Such review is to be
performed only for the limited purpose of checking for conformance with the design concept and
the information provided herein. This review shall not include review of the accuracy or
PA2022-0172
August 8, 2022 Project No: 72661-00
Report No: 22-9163
Page No: 11
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. Geofirm’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 Geofirm has reviewed the
entire system of which the item is a component. Geofirm shall not be responsible for any
deviation from the Construction Documents not brought to our attention in writing by the
Contractor. Geofirm shall not be required to review partial submissions or those for which
submissions of correlated items have not been received.
Jobsite Safety
Neither the professional activities of Geofirm, nor the presence of Geofirm’s employees and
subconsultants at a construction/project site, shall relieve the General Contractor of its
obligations, duties and responsibilities including, but not limited to, construction means,
methods, sequence, techniques or procedures necessary for performing, superintending and
coordination the work in accordance with the contract documents and any health or safety
precautions required by any regulatory agencies. Geofirm and its personnel have no authority to
exercise any control over any construction contractor or its employees in connection with their
work or any health or safety programs or procedures. The General Contractor shall be solely
responsible for jobsite safety.
Pre-Grade Meeting
A pre-job conference should be held with representative of the owner, contractor, architect, civil
engineer, soils engineer, engineering geologist, and building official prior to commencement of
construction, to clarify any questions relating to the intent of these recommendations or
additional recommendations.
Monitoring
Complete documentation of the pre- and post-construction conditions of adjacent improvements
should be undertaken. In addition, monitoring of ground movement and construction vibrations
should be made as an integral part of the construction. Such documentation should include:
1. A sufficient number of photographs to establish the existing condition of nearby
structures.
2. Establishment of a sufficient number of ground elevation control stations so that potential
subsidence or heave associated with grading and lateral movement can be detected.
Monitoring of such points should be accomplished during all grading, shoring (if any)
and excavation work, and continued until retaining walls are backfilled or site grading is
complete.
PA2022-0172
August 8, 2022 Project No: 72661-00
Report No: 22-9163
Page No: 12
Observation and Testing
The 2019 California Building Code, Section 1705.6 requires geotechnical observation and
testing during construction to verify proper removal of unsuitable materials, 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.
A Geofirm representative shall visit the site at intervals appropriate to the stage of construction,
as notified by the Contractor, in order to observe the progress and quality of 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 Geofirm, as an experienced
professional, to become generally familiar with the work in progress and to determine, in
general, if the work is proceeding in accordance with the recommendations of this report.
Geofirm shall not supervise, direct, or have control over the Contractor’s work nor have any
responsibility for the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures selected
by the Contractor nor the Contractor’s safety precautions or programs in connection with the
work. These rights and responsibilities are solely those of the Contractor.
Geofirm shall not be responsible for any acts or omission of the Contractor, subcontractor, any
entity performing any portion of the work, or any agents or employees of any of them.
Geofirm does not guarantee the performance of 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.
These 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.
Typically, at least 24 hours’ notice is required.
LIMITATIONS
This investigation has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practice in the
engineering geologic and soils engineering field. No further warranty is offered or implied.
Conclusions and recommendations presented are based on subsurface conditions encountered
and are not meant to imply a control of nature. As site geotechnical conditions may alter with
time, the recommendations presented herein are considered valid for a time period of 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 in any form cannot be
PA2022-0172
August 8, 2022 Project No: 72661-00
Report No: 22-9163
Page No: 13
approved unless specific written verification of the applicability of the recommendations is
obtained from this firm.
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this
office.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOFIRM
Kevin A. Trigg, P.G.Jesse D. Bearfield, P.E. 84335
Chief Engineering Geologist, E.G. 1619 Associate Engineer
Date Signed: 08/08/2022
KAT/JDB : mr
Distribution: Addressee via email
PA2022-0172
JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE:
USGS Geologic Location Map, Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangle
72661-00 $8*867 2022 1
Thomas Property
700 W. Oceanfront
Newport Beach
PA2022-0172
JOB NO.:DATE:FIGURE:
CDMG Geologic Hazards Location Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle
72661-00 $8*867 2022 2
Thomas Property
700 W. Oceanfront
Newport Beach
PA2022-0172
SCALE: 1"=10'
Qb BEACH DEPOSITS
EXPLANATION
A'A GEOTECHNICAL CROSS -SECTION
CPT-2
APPROXIMATE CPT LOCATIONS
A A'
CPT-2 CPT-1
GEOTECHNICAL PLOT PLAN
700 W. OCEANFRONTNEWPORT BEACH , CALIFORNIA
72661-00 $8*867 2022 3JOB NO.:REPORT NO.: DATE:22-9163 FIGURE:
Qb
Qb
BRION JEANNETTE ARCHITECTURE THOMAS RESIDENCE, ADAPTED FROM, SITE PLAN, SHEET A-1, 7-26-2022
LIMITS OF THISREPORT
PA2022-0172
GEOTECHNICAL CROSS SECTION A-A'
700 W. OCEANFRONTNEWPORT BEACH , CALIFORNIA
72661-00 $8*867 2022 4
JOB NO.:REPORT NO.:DATE:22-9163 FIGURE:
⅊
1.0
40
30
20
10
0
-10ELEVATION (FEET, PER PLAN)50
A
TD=11.5'
60
70
A'
CPT-2(PROJ. 25')
PROPOSEDF.F = 13.0'
EXISTINGGRADE
3' MIN. OVER-EXCAVATION BELOWPROPOSED FOUNDATIONS
MAT FOUNDATION DESIGN(PER STRUCTURALENGINEER)
TD=17'
⅊
CPT-1
(PROJ. 25')
SIDEWALK 7TH ST.
40
30
20
10
0
-10
50
60
70
CURRENT GROUNDWATERELEVATION
PROPOSEDRESIDENCE
1.5
PA2022-0172
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
PA2022-0172
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1. Al Atik, Linda, M. ASCE, and Sitar, Nicholas, M.ASCE, 2010, Seismic Earth Pressures
on Cantilever Retaining Structures, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, dated October.
2. Bozorgnia, Y., Campbell, K.W., and Niazi, M. M., 1999, “Vertical Ground Motion:
Characteristics, Relationship with Horizontal Component, and Building Code
Implications”, Proceedings of the SMIP99 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data,
pp. 23-49, dated September 15.
3. California Building Code, 2019 Edition.
4. California Division of Mines & Geology, 1998, “Seismic Hazards Zones Map, Newport
Beach Quadrangle.”
5. California Geological Survey, 2008, “Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California,” Special Publication 117A.
6. Geofirm, 2005, “Geotechnical Investigation for Foundation Design, Proposed Single
Family Residence, 801 Via Lido Soud, Newport Beach, California”, dated August 29,
Project No. 71561-00, Report No. 05-5549.
7. Geofirm, 2007, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Foundation Design, Single
Family Residence, 149 Via Venezia, Newport Beach, California”, dated Janurary 24,
Project No. 71702-00, Report No. 07-5967.
8. Geofirm, 2020, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residence Remodel
and Additions, 19 Bay Island, Newport Beach, California”, Project No. 72501-00, Report
No. 20-8723, dated October 9.
9. Geofirm, 2017, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Single-Family
Residence, 1120 West Oceanfront Avenue, Newport Beach, California” Project No.
72337-00, Report No. 17-8158, dated October 12.
10. Grant et al, 1999, “Late Quaternary Uplift and Earthquake Potential of the San Joaquin
Hills, South Los Angeles Basin, California.”
11. Jennings, C.W., and Bryant, W.A., 2010, Fault activity map of California: California
Geological Survey Geologic Data Map No. 6, map scale 1:750,000.
12. Legg, Mark R., et al, 2003, “Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal
Cities,” Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. January
PA2022-0172
13. Morton, P.K., et al, 1973, “Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange County,” California
Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15.
14. United States Geological Survey, 2002, “Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa
Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangle, southern California, Version 1.0”.
15. United States Geological Survey – Earthquake Hazards Program, 2019, “Unified Hazards
Tool”. Retrieved from “https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/index.php”
PA2022-0172
APPENDIX B
CPT LOG
PA2022-0172
!""
!"
!#$
%
!
"# $
%
#$
% &#$' (
)
( (
(
*
( (
!"" !+,
$(-
PA2022-0172
!""
!"
!#&
%
!
"# $
%
#$
% &#$' (
)
( (
(
*
( (
!"" !+,
$(-
PA2022-0172
APPENDIX C
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
(1120 West Oceanfront Avenue Results Included)
PA2022-0172
APPENDIX C
PREVIOUS AND CURRENT LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
I. Field Exploration Procedures
A large bulk sample of typical soil material from a nearby site was bagged and was
transported to the laboratory for classification and physical testing.
II. Testing Procedures
A. Corrosivity Series
Soluble sulfates, pH and minimum resistivity were determined in accordance with
California Test Method 417, ASTM D 4972, and California Test Method 643,
respectively. The results from our investigation at 1120 West Oceanfront
Avenue, Newport Beach are presented below:
Sample
Designation pH Soluble Sulfate Minimum Resistivity
CPT-1 @ 0.5-3' 7.6 33 mg/kg 22,000 ohm-cm
B. Grain Size Distribution
A grain size distribution test was performed on a sample in accordance with
ASTM D422. The results of the test are presented graphically on Figure C-.
C. Maximum Density
Optimum moisture and maximum density were evaluated in accordance with Test
Designation ASTM D 1557. These results are tabulated below and shown in
Figure C-:
Sample Location
Moisture Content
(%) Optimum Maximum Dry Density (pcf)
CPT-1 6.4 102.6
PA2022-0172
!" "
# $ % "&%
''(' (
)'
&# *!+
,-
,.
,/
! !# 0
& !"!# 0
!
1
2'#
3 &! !"
! 2 3% 4 0!5
"#$%
%$&
'"
67
!,8
! "#$ %
!
PA2022-0172
! "
#
$%& ''''
& '&%
# #
('$)''
*
"
''+'%''%
*,-./ *,-./
'
$
0-// *-1 ,
2
0-32 01
2- !2.-4 0
( 5". ,
6
!"#$ %&&%'
!#
(
PA2022-0172
APPENDIX D
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
PA2022-0172
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude M w:Peak ground acceleration:
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.69
G.W.T. (in-situ):G.W.T. (earthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Project title : 72261-00 Thomas Location : 700 W. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA
Stoney Miller Consultants, Inc/ Geofirm
33 Journey, Alisio Viejo, CA
CPT file : CPT-1
9.00 ft9.00 ft12.60Based on SBT
Use fill:Fill height:
Fill weight:Trans. detect. applied:Kσ applied:
NoN/AN/AYesYes
Clay like behaviorapplied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:MSF method:
Sands onlyYes17.00 ftMethod based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)2000Depth (ft)17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefact ion
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)1086420
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading
Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground
geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening
Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity,
brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:04:46 AM
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
1
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)3002001000Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance
CPT basic interpretation plots
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)1086420Depth (ft)16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)6420Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)4321Depth (ft)16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Soil Behaviour Type
Sensitive fine grainedClayClay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
SandSand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:04:46 AM 2
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.699.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
9.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes17.00 ft
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to siltyl5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand told9. Very stiff fine grained
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 200150100500Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance
CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)
Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)1086420Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq 10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Sensitive fine grainedClay & silty claySilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:04:46 AM 3
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to siltyl5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand told9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.699.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
9.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes17.00 ft
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Total cone resistance
qt (tsf)3002001000Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Total cone resistance
Liquefaction analysis overall plots (intermediate results)
SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Index Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 200150100500Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor
Kc 109876543210Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs 200150100500Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Corrected norm. cone resistance
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:04:46 AM 4
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.699.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
9.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes17.00 ft
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
CRR plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction analysis overall plots
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction potential
LPI 20151050Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)0Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)0Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:04:46 AM 5
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.699.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
9.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes17.00 ft
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1
10
100
1,000
Liquefaction analysis summary plots
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefact ion
Thickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Analysis PGA: 0.69
PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:04:46 AM 6
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.699.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
9.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes17.00 ft
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 4003002001000Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance
Check for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010))
Grain char. factor
Kc 109876543210Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs 200150100500Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v 0.50.40.30.20.10Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:04:46 AM 7
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.699.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
9.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes17.00 ft
PA2022-0172
TRANSITION LAYER DETECTION ALGORITHM REPORT
Summary Details & Plots
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Index Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Sensitive fine grained
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSand & silty sand
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
SandSand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Transition layer algorithm properties
Ic minimum check value:Ic maximum check value:
Ic change ratio value:
Minimum number of points in layer:
General statistics
Total points in CPT file:Total points excluded:
Exclusion percentage:
Number of layers detected:
The software will delete data when the cone is in transition from either clay to sand or vise-versa. To do this the software
requires a range of Ic values over which the transition will be defined (typically somewhere between 1.80 < I c < 3.0) and a rate
of change of Ic. Transitions typically occur when the rate of change of I c is fast (i.e. delta Ic is small).
The SBTn plot below, displays in red the detected transition layers based on the parameters listed below the graphs.
Short description
1.703.00
0.0250
4
2575
1.95%
1
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:04:46 AM
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
8
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)3002001000Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)0Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Vertical settlements
Estimation of post-earthquake settlements
Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)17
16.5
16
15.5
15
14.5
14
13.5
13
12.5
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:04:46 AM 31
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
Abbreviations
qt:Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance q c corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
PA2022-0172
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS REPORT
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:
Points to test:Earthquake magnitude M w:Peak ground acceleration:
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.69
G.W.T. (in-situ):G.W.T. (earthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:
Project title : 72261-00 Thomas Location : 700 W. Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA
Stoney Miller Consultants, Inc/ Geofirm
33 Journey, Alisio Viejo, CA
CPT file : CPT-2
9.00 ft9.00 ft12.60Based on SBT
Use fill:Fill height:
Fill weight:Trans. detect. applied:Kσ applied:
NoN/AN/AYesYes
Clay like behaviorapplied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:MSF method:
Sands onlyYes12.50 ftMethod based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)3002001000Depth (ft)12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefact ion
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)1086420
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50
12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Zone A1: Cyclic liquefaction likely depending on size and duration of cyclic loading
Zone A2: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss likely depending on loading and ground
geometry
Zone B: Liquefaction and post-earthquake strength loss unlikely, check cyclic softening
Zone C: Cyclic liquefaction and strength loss possible depending on soil plasticity,
brittleness/sensitivity, strain to peak undrained strength and ground geometry
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:08:41 AM
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
1
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)3002001000Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance
CPT basic interpretation plots
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)1086420Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)3210Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)4321Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Organic soil
Clay & silty clay
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:08:41 AM 2
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.699.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
9.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes12.50 ft
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to siltyl5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand told9. Very stiff fine grained
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 200150100500Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance
CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)
Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)1086420Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq 10.80.60.40.20-0.2Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Organic soilSilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:08:41 AM 3
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to siltyl5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand told9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.699.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
9.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes12.50 ft
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
Total cone resistance
qt (tsf)3002001000Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Total cone resistance
Liquefaction analysis overall plots (intermediate results)
SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Index Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 200150100500Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor
Kc 109876543210Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs 200150100500Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Corrected norm. cone resistance
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:08:41 AM 4
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.699.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
9.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes12.50 ft
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
CRR plot
CRR & CSR 0.60.40.20Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
CRR plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction analysis overall plots
FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction potential
LPI 20151050Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)0Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)0Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:08:41 AM 5
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.699.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
9.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes12.50 ft
Almost certain it will liquefy
Very likely to liquefy
Liquefaction and no liq. are equally likely
Unlike to liquefy
Almost certain it will not liquefy
Very high risk
High risk
Low risk
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
Normalized friction ratio (%)0.1 1 10Normalized CPT penetration resistance1
10
100
1,000
Liquefaction analysis summary plots
Qtn,cs 200180160140120100806040200Cyclic Stress Ratio* (CSR*)0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefact ion
Thickness of surface layer, H1 (m)109876543210Thickness of liquefiable sand layer, H2 (m)12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Analysis PGA: 0.69
PGA 0.40g - 0.50gCLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:08:41 AM 6
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.699.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
9.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes12.50 ft
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn 3002001000Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Norm. cone resistance
Check for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010))
Grain char. factor
Kc 109876543210Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs 200150100500Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v 0.50.40.30.20.10Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:08:41 AM 7
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:Fines correction method:Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude Mw:Peak ground acceleration:Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)NCEER (1998)Based on Ic value7.500.699.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):Average results interval:Ic cut-off value:Unit weight calculation:Use fill:Fill height:
9.00 ft12.60Based on SBTNoN/A
Fill weight:Transition detect. applied:Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:Limit depth applied:Limit depth:
N/AYesYesSands onlyYes12.50 ft
PA2022-0172
TRANSITION LAYER DETECTION ALGORITHM REPORT
Summary Details & Plots
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Index Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)1817161514131211109876543210Depth (ft)12
11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Organic soilSilty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Transition layer algorithm properties
Ic minimum check value:Ic maximum check value:
Ic change ratio value:
Minimum number of points in layer:
General statistics
Total points in CPT file:Total points excluded:
Exclusion percentage:
Number of layers detected:
The software will delete data when the cone is in transition from either clay to sand or vise-versa. To do this the software
requires a range of Ic values over which the transition will be defined (typically somewhere between 1.80 < I c < 3.0) and a rate
of change of Ic. Transitions typically occur when the rate of change of I c is fast (i.e. delta Ic is small).
The SBTn plot below, displays in red the detected transition layers based on the parameters listed below the graphs.
Short description
1.703.00
0.0250
4
1817
3.87%
1
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:08:41 AM
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
8
PA2022-0172
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-2
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)3002001000Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)4321Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety 21.510.50Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)0Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Vertical settlements
Estimation of post-earthquake settlements
Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)6543210Depth (ft)11.5
11
10.5
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Strain plot
CLiq v.3.3.1.14 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 7/8/2022, 10:08:41 AM 25
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72661 (Thomas) 700 West Oceanfront\CPT Liquefraction\CLiq.clq
Abbreviations
qt:Ic:
FS:
Volumentric strain:
Total cone resistance (cone resistance q c corrected for pore water effects)Soil Behaviour Type Index
Calculated Factor of Safety against liquefaction
Post-liquefaction volumentric strain
PA2022-0172
APPENDIX E
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
PA2022-0172
APPENDIX E
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
GENERAL
These specifications present the usual and minimum requirements for grading operations
observed by Geofirm or its designated representative. No deviation from these specifications
will be allowed, except where specifically superseded in the geotechnical report signed by a
registered geotechnical engineer.
The placement, spreading, mixing, watering and compaction of the fills in strict accordance with
these guidelines shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor. The construction, excavation,
and placement of fill shall be under the direct observation of the soils engineer signing the soils
report. If unsatisfactory soil-related conditions exist, the soils engineer shall have the authority
to reject the compacted fill ground and, if necessary, excavation equipment will be shut down to
permit completion of compaction. Conformance with these specifications will be discussed in
the final report issued by the soils engineer.
SITE PREPARATION
All brush, vegetation and other deleterious material such as rubbish shall be collected, piled and
removed from the site prior to placing fill, leaving the site clear and free from objectionable
material.
Soil, alluvium, or rock materials determined by the soils engineer as being unsuitable for
placement in compacted fills shall be removed from the site. Any material incorporated as part
of a compacted fill must be approved by the soils engineer.
The surface shall then be plowed or scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches until the surface is
free from uneven features that would tend to prevent uniform compaction by the equipment used.
After the area to receive fill has been cleared and scarified, it shall be diced or bladed by the
contractor until it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to the proper moisture content
and compacted to minimum requirements. If the scarified zone is greater than 12 inches in
depth, the excess shall be removed and placed in lifts restricted to 6 inches.
Any underground structures such as cesspools, cisterns, mining shafts, tunnels, septic tanks,
wells, pipe lines or others not located prior to grading are to be removed or treated in a manner
prescribed by the soils engineer.
MATERIALS
Materials for compacted fill shall consist of materials approved by the soils engineer. These
materials may be excavated from the cut area or imported from other approved sources, and soils
from one or more sources may be blended. Fill soils shall be free from organic vegetable matter
and other unsuitable substances. Normally, the material shall contain no rocks or hard lumps
PA2022-0172
greater than 6 inches in size and shall contain at least 50 percent of material smaller than 1/4-
inch in size. Materials greater than 4 inches in size shall be placed so that they are completely
surrounded by compacted fines; no nesting of rocks shall be permitted. No material of a
perishable, spongy, or otherwise of an unsuitable nature shall be used in the fill soils.
Representative samples of materials to be utilized as compacted fill shall be analyzed in the
laboratory by the soils engineer to determine their physical properties. If any material other than
that previously tested is encountered during grading, the appropriate analysis of this material
shall be conducted by the geotechnical engineer as soon as possible.
PLACING, SPREADING, AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIAL
The material used in the compacting process shall be evenly spread, watered, processed and
compacted in thin lifts not to exceed 6 inches in thickness to obtain a uniformly dense layer.
When the moisture content of the fill material is below that specified by the soils engineer, water
shall be added by the contractor until the moisture content is near optimum as specified.
When the moisture content of the fill material is above that specified by the geotechnical
engineer, the fill material shall be aerated by the contractor by blading, mixing, or other
satisfactory methods until the moisture content is near optimum as specified.
After each layer has been placed, mixed, and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to
90 percent of the maximum laboratory density in compliance with ASTM D: 1557-70 (five
layers). Compaction shall be accomplished by sheepsfoot rollers, vibratory rollers, multiple-
wheel pneumatic-tired rollers, or other types of acceptable compacting equipment. Equipment
shall be of such design that it will be able to compact the fill to the specified density.
Compaction shall be continuous over the entire area and the equipment shall make sufficient
passes to obtain the desired density uniformly.
A minimum relative compaction of 90 percent out to the finished slope face of all fill slopes will
be required. Compacting of the slopes shall be accomplished by backrolling the slopes in
increments of 2 to 5 feet in elevation gain or by overbuilding and cutting back to the compacted
inner core, or by any other procedure which produces the required compaction.
OBSERVATIONS AND TESTING
The geotechnical engineer shall observe the placement of fill during the grading process and will
file a written report upon completion of grading stating his observations as to compliance with
these specifications.
One density test shall be required for each 2 vertical feet of fill placed, or one for each 1,000
cubic yards of fill, whichever requires the greater number of tests.
PA2022-0172
Any cleanouts and processed ground to receive fill must be observed by the soils engineer and/or
engineering geologist prior to any fill placement. The contractor shall notify the geotechnical
engineer when these areas are ready for observation.
PROTECTION OF WORK
During the grading process and prior to the complete construction of permanent drainage
controls, it shall be the responsibility of the contractor to provide good drainage and prevent
ponding of water and damage to adjoining properties or to finished work on the site.
After the geotechnical engineer has terminated his observations of the completed grading, no
further excavations and/or filling shall be performed without the approval of the soils engineer, if
it is to be subject to the recommendations of this report.
PA2022-0172
APPENDIX F
UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL GUIDELINES
PA2022-0172
APPENDIX F
UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL GUIDELINES
The following guidelines pertinent to utility trench backfills have been adopted by the County of
Orange, Environmental Management Agency Grading Section, effective March 31, 1986. The
application of the guidelines is strictly enforced by the County reviewers and inspectors.
1. Each utility subcontractor (gas, electric, water, sewer, telephone, cable TV, irrigation,
drainage, etc.) shall submit to the developer for dissemination to his consultants (civil
engineer, geotechnical engineer, and utility contractor) a plot plan of utility lines installed
under his purview which identifies line type, material, size, depth, and approximate
location.
2. The developer or his agent shall provide a composite plot plan of all utilities or a copy of
all individual utility plot plans to his geotechnical engineer for use in evaluating whether
all utility trench backfills are suitable for the intended use.
3. The geotechnical engineer shall provide the County with a report which includes a plot
plan showing the location of all utility trenches which:
A. Are located within the load influence zone of a structure (1:1 projection)
B. Are located beneath any hardscape
C. Are parallel and in close proximity to the top or toe of a slope and may adversely
impact slope stability if improperly backfilled
D. Are located on the face of a slope in a trench 18 or more inches in depth.
Typically, trenches that are less than 18 inches in depth will not be within the load
influence zone if located next to a structure, and will not have a significant effect on
slope stability if constructed near the top or toe of a slope and need not be shown on the
plot plan unless determined to be significant by the geotechnical engineer. This plot plan
may be prepared by someone other than the soil engineer, but must meet his approval.
4. Backfill compaction test locations must be shown on the plot plan described in No. 3
above, and a table of test data provided in the geotechnical report.
5. The geotechnical report (utility trench backfill) must state that all utility trenches within
the subject lots have been backfilled in a manner suitable for the intended use. This
includes the backfill of all trenches shown on the plot plan described in No. 3 and the
backfill of those trenches which did not need to be plotted on this plan.
PA2022-0172