HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2023-0043_20230411_Geofirm Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Rpt Dated 12-14-2020
December 18, 2020
Lynn and Gerald Pharris Project No: 72539-00
c/o Oatman Architects, Inc. Report No: 20-8800
412 31st Street
Newport Beach, California 92618
Attention: Mr. Homer Oatman, Principal
Subject: Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation
Proposed Residence Remodel
306 Via Lido Nord
Newport Beach, California
INTRODUCTION
This report presents findings and conclusions of a preliminary geotechnical investigation
undertaken to relate onsite and certain regional geotechnical conditions to the construction of
extensive remodel improvements to the existing single-family residence on the subject property.
Analyses for this investigation are based upon the conceptual architectural plans for the property
prepared by Oatman Architects, Inc.
The conclusions and recommendations of this report are considered preliminary as they precede
the development of finalized structural 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 one limited-access cone penetration tests to evaluate
the character and geometrical distribution of soil materials within the proposed
construction area.
3. 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.
December 18, 2020 Project No: 72539-00
Report No: 20-8800
Page No: 2
Accompanying Illustrations and Appendices
Figure 1 - USGS Geologic Location Map
Figure 2 - CDMG Geologic Hazards Location Map
Figure 3 - Geotechnical Plot Plan
Appendix A - References
Appendix B1 - Current CPT Log
Appendix B2 - Reference 9 Field Logs (115 and 119 Via Mentone)
Appendix C - Previous Field Exploration and Laboratory Test Results (115 and 119 Via
Mentone)
Appendix D - Liquefaction Analysis
Appendix E - Standard Grading Specifications
Appendix F - Utility Trench Backfill Guidelines
Site Description
The rectangular-shaped property fronts 45± feet along Via Lido Nord and extends northerly 90±
feet to the rear property boundary, which borders a small sandy beach adjacent to the bay. A
topographic survey provided by Toal Engineering, Inc., indicates the relatively flat building pad
is at an average elevation of 13± feet (NAVD 88). The site is currently developed with a wood-
frame, two-story single-family residence. The adjacent properties to the east and west are
developed with similar single-family homes.
Proposed Development
Based on a review of conceptual plans prepared by Oatman Architects, Inc., proposed site
improvements are generally limited to an extensive remodel of the existing residence with no
new ground-level additions. The remodeled residence is anticipated to be supported on the
existing foundation system, reinforced as necessary by the structural engineer to accommodate
new or revised loads and in accordance with the Newport Beach Building Code Policy CBC
1803.5.11-12.
GEOTECHNICAL CONDITIONS
Geologic Setting
The property is located on Lido Isle in Newport Bay as depicted on the USGS Geologic Index
Map, Figure 1. The property is 0.7± miles northerly of the Pacific shoreline. A review of old
topographic maps indicates that prior to dredging of Newport Bay, the site location was a low
lying, likely intertidal area adjacent to a shallow channel of the natural bay. The site is underlain
at a depth in excess of 40 feet by an accumulation of bay and beach deposits and subsequent
dredge fill placed during land reclamation. A younger generation of fill from construction of the
existing roads and residence may underlie the property at the surface.
December 18, 2020 Project No: 72539-00
Report No: 20-8800
Page No: 3
Earth Materials
Based on the results of our CPT study, Dredge Fill underlies the site at the surface to an
interpreted depth of 5± feet and generally consist of sand and silty sand. Bay deposits underlie
the dredge fill and is capped with a 1± foot thick layer of bay mud at an elevation roughly
equivalent to mean sea level. Below this depth, silty sand and sand were encountered to a
maximum explored depth of 40 feet. Cone penetrometer test data reveal that the earth materials
underlying the site are variably dense within the upper 14± feet, becoming very dense below.
Recompacted dredge fill is considered suitable for the support of new foundations where needed.
All onsite materials are non-expansive on the basis of visual classification, and laboratory testing
of the similar soils on nearby sites indicates negligible soluble sulfate concentrations.
Groundwater
Groundwater was measured at an inferred depth of 10± 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 design and
construction of proposed at-grade improvements.
Street Flooding and Surface Drainage
Localized street 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 may modify surface drainage, which should be evaluated and improved as
necessary by the architect or civil engineer.
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
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)
December 18, 2020 Project No: 72539-00
Report No: 20-8800
Page No: 4
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 1.9 miles west-southwest, (Blake, T.F., 2000, CGS/2004). Other
active faults in the vicinity of the site include the San Joaquin Hills, approximately 3.3 miles
away, the Palos Verdes Fault, approximately 12.6 miles to the northwest; the Coronado Bank
Fault, approximately 24.0 miles southwest; the Elsinore Fault, approximately 23.3 miles to the
east, and the San Andreas Fault, approximately 52.4 miles to the northeast.
The California Geological Survey updated the Fault Parameters and Earthquake Catalog for the
probabilistic Seismic Hazards Maps in 2002. This update included the addition of the San
Joaquin Hills blind thrust fault indicated above, theorized to exist from Newport Beach to Dana
Point, and ramping up inland to the Irvine area, and essentially underlying the site. Earthquakes
of Magnitude 6.6 are presently postulated for this structure. With the fault’s location at
approximately 3.3 miles distant, it is calculated as the most significant seismic source to affect
the site.
Historic Ground Motion Analyses
Utilizing attenuation relationships (Bozorgnia, et al.; 1999, unconstrained/Holocene sediments),
one can estimate the ground motion history of the site. The study indicates the maximum site
acceleration from 1800 to 2004 was approximately 0.5g and occurred during the magnitude 6.3
Long Beach Earthquake 2.7 miles from the site on March 11, 1933.
It is noted that the estimation of historic peak ground acceleration presented above is provided
for the interest of the client and is required by local (City or County) review agencies. The value
derived is not directly utilized in structural design of residential structures. Seismic parameters
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
December 18, 2020 Project No: 72539-00
Report No: 20-8800
Page No: 5
for use by the structural engineer in accordance with 2019 California Building Code in design of
the proposed structure(s) are presented in the recommendations portion of this report.
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
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 liquefiable and
classify as F per the 2019 CBC, requiring a site-response analysis, proposed new structures are
anticipated to have fundamental periods 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 an
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.
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.
Based on the results of our analysis presented in Appendix D, which indicates liquefaction
settlement within the zone 10 feet below the proposed foundation level is less than 1-inch, and
lateral spreading is approximately 7-inches, a stiffened foundation system or mat slab designed
in accordance with the City’s “Shallow Mitigation Methods” is recommended.
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.
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
December 18, 2020 Project No: 72539-00
Report No: 20-8800
Page No: 6
at any site, but does not pose a significant hazard to site development. Regarding tsunami
inundation, please refer to the appropriate section above for more information.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The proposed remodel improvements at the subject site are 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 at a depth greater than 40± feet by bedrock strata of Monterey
Formation, which are successively overlain by sandy beach deposits, and 5± feet of
dredge fill.
3. The removal and re-compaction of the upper 2-3± feet of existing soil below new
foundation elements should be anticipated pending field review by the geologist during
construction.
4. Granular onsite soils are non-expansive, are expected to have a negligible soil soluble
sulfate level, and a very low potential for corrosion of buried metal based on prior
adjacent laboratory testing. However, as placed concrete is in a marine environment, a
moderate sulfate exposure may be used for design purposes. The concrete mix should be
designed by a concrete expert in consideration of structural requirements. The appropriate
exposure should be evaluated by the architect and/or structural engineer. (Reference 9)
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 and lateral spreading analysis performed in accordance with City Building
Code Policies CBC-1803.5 and 1803.5.11-12 indicates seismic settlement and lateral
spreading in the zone 10 feet below the proposed foundation level is less than 1-inch and
7-inches, respectively. Therefore, a mat slab or stiffened foundation system designed in
accordance with the City’s “Shallow Mitigation Methods” is recommended.
7. Groundwater was measured at a depth of 10± 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 design
and construction of proposed at-grade improvements.
8. The potential of street flooding affecting the residence during its lifetime is deferred to
the project civil engineer.
December 18, 2020 Project No: 72539-00
Report No: 20-8800
Page No: 7
9. Surface discharge onto or off the site should be appropriately controlled with proper
engineering design and site grading.
10. The remodeled residence is anticipated to be supported on the existing foundation
system, reinforced as necessary by the structural engineer to accommodate new or
revised loads and in accordance with the Newport Beach Building Code Policy CBC
1803.5.11-12.
11. The foundation system supporting the existing dwelling is largely unknown. The
structural engineer should evaluate any structural connections between the proposed and
existing structures, and provide additional requirements, if warranted, to reduce the
potential for distress along such structural connections.
12. The evaluation and improvement of existing residence slabs and footings may be
performed by the structural engineer utilizing the geotechnical parameters presented
below.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Site Preparation and Grading
1. General
No new ground-level improvements are proposed. As such, no site preparation or
remedial grading is anticipated. Should this change, grading should be performed in
accordance with the recommendations herein and the Standard Grading Specifications in
Appendix E. Grading typically consists of remedial over-excavation and minor export of
soils to construct 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
If required, the removal and re-compaction of the upper 2-3± feet of existing soil below
new foundation elements should be anticipated pending field review by the geologist
during construction. Locally deeper removals may be required.
Remedial grading may be omitted provided improvements utilize structural slabs
spanning underlying soil with no support to the slab.
3. Removal of Existing Improvements
Existing vegetation, organic materials and/or construction and demolition debris should
be removed and disposed of offsite.
December 18, 2020 Project No: 72539-00
Report No: 20-8800
Page No: 8
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 120 percent of 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
Although not anticipated, significant 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.
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,
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
The allowable bearing capacity for a stiffened foundation or 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 distance of 30 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
December 18, 2020 Project No: 72539-00
Report No: 20-8800
Page No: 9
foot. A coefficient of friction of 0.25 may be used in computing the frictional resistance.
These values may be combined without reduction.
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.
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.
3. Ground vibration monitoring during construction to capture peak particle velocities of
drilling, tracking, and excavation activities is recommended. Vibration monitors should
be Sigicom model C-22 tri-axial geophones or equal.
Hardscape Design and Construction
Hardscape 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 should be a minimum 5 inches thick (actual) and reinforced with No. 4 bars
16 inches on center both ways.
December 18, 2020 Project No: 72539-00
Report No: 20-8800
Page No: 10
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 Lattitude (degrees)
Ss (g) B
S1 (g) B
SMs (g) D*
SM1 (g) D*
SDs (g) D*
SD1 (g) D*
Fa
Fv
Seismic Design Category
F
-117.9213
33.6155
1.384
0.493
1.384
1.232
0.923
0.822
1.0
2.5
D
*This evaluation assumes the fundamental period of vibration of proposed
structures does not exceed 0.5 second. The structural consultant 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. On-site concrete may be exposed
to seawater. 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,
December 18, 2020 Project No: 72539-00
Report No: 20-8800
Page No: 11
which refers to ACI 318, Table 4.3.1, and 4.2.1. 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
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.
December 18, 2020 Project No: 72539-00
Report No: 20-8800
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
approved unless specific written verification of the applicability of the recommendations is
obtained from this firm.
December 18, 2020 Project No: 72539-00
Report No: 20-8800
Page No: 13
Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. If you have any questions, please contact this
office.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOFIRM
Erik R. Hilde, P.G., E.G. 2303 Zi Wang, R.C.E. 80199
Associate Engineering Geologist Senior Engineer
Date Signed: 12 / 18 / 2020
ERH/ZW: hsm
Distribution: Addressee via email
JOB NO.: DATE:FIGURE:
USGS Geologic Location Map, Santa Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangle
72539-00 December 2020 1
SITE
306 Via Lido Nord
Newport Beach
JOB NO.: DATE:FIGURE:
CDMG Geologic Hazards Location Map, Newport Beach Quadrangle
72539-00 December 2020 2
SITE
306 Via Lido Nord
Newport Beach
EXPLANATION
3
FIGURE:
GEOTECHNICAL PLOT PLAN
306 VIA LIDO NORD
NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA
72539-00 20-8800 DECEMBER 2020
JOB NO.:REPORT NO.:DATE:
Df
Qb
CPT-1
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
CONE PENETRATION TEST
Df DREDGE FILL
Qb TIDAL BAY DEPOSITS
SCALE: 1"=8'
CPT-1
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
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, 2011, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Single-Family
Residence, 333 Via Lido Nord, Newport Beach, California”, Project No. 71934-00,
Report No. 11-6875, dated September 15.
7. Geofirm, 2012, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Single-Family
Residence, 232 Via Genoa, Lido Isle, Newport Beach, California”, Project No. 72020-00,
Report No. 12-7195, dated October 25.
8. Geofirm, 2020, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Single-Family
Residence, 408 Via Lido Nord, Lido Island, Newport Beach, California”, Project No.
72514-00, Report No. 20-8758.
9. Geofirm, 2020, “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed New Single-Family
Residence, 115 & 119 Via Mentone, Newport Beach, California”, Project No. 72488-00,
Report No. 20-8683.
10. Grant et al, 1999, “Late Quaternary Uplift and Earthquake Potential of the San Joaquin
Hills, South Los Angeles Basin, California.”
11. Legg, Mark R., et al, 2003, “Evaluation of Tsunami Risk to Southern California Coastal
Cities,” Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. January
12. Morton, P.K., et al, 1973, “Geo-Environmental Maps of Orange County,” California
Division of Mines and Geology, Preliminary Report 15.
13. United States Geological Survey, 2002, "Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa
Ana 30' x 60' Quadrangle, southern California, Version 1.0".
APPENDIX B1
CURRENT CPT LOG
Project:Geofirm
Kehoe Testing and Engineering
714-901-7270
steve@kehoetesting.com
www.kehoetesting.com
Total depth: 39.97 ft, Date: 11/25/2020306 Via Lido Nord, Newport Beach, CA
CPT-1
Location:
Cone resistance
Tip resistance (tsf)
5004003002001000
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Cone resistance Sleeve friction
Friction (tsf)
543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Sleeve friction Pore pressure u
Pressure (psi)
20100-10-20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Pore pressure u Friction ratio
Rf (%)
876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Friction ratio Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson, 2010)
181614121086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
CPeT-IT v.2.3.1.9 - CPTU data presentation & interpretation software - Report created on: 12/1/2020, 4:58:26 AM 1
Project file:
APPENDIX B2
REFERENCE 9 FIELD LOGS (115 AND 119 VIA MENTONE)
SM
SP
OH
SC
DREDGE FILL:
Silty Sand (SM) - Light brown tan, moist, loose, fine to medium
grained, few shells
Poorly-Graded Sand (SP) - Light brown gray tan, moist to very
moist, loose, fine to medium grained, with few shells
BAY LAGOONAL DEPOSITS:
Organic Silty Clay (OH) - Black dark gray, saturated. very soft,with many organics
@7.5 feet Groundwater
Caving
Clayey Sand (SC) - Gray, saturated, very loose to loose, fine
grained, with many organics
Caving
Groundwater Encountered @ 7 feet 6 inchesTotal Depth = 9 feet 6 inches
De
p
t
h
(
f
e
e
t
)
Un
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
Sa
m
p
l
e
De
p
t
h
(
f
e
e
t
)
LOG OF BORING
Description
US
C
S
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Co
n
t
e
n
t
(
%
)
In
-
p
l
a
c
e
D
r
y
De
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
Bl
o
w
s
/
1
2
"
Project No.: 72488-00
Date(s) Logged: 3/4/2020
Drilling Company: Mike's ExcavationLogged By: JSM
Ground Elev.: ±12.52'
Figure No.: B-1
Location: Side Yard of 115
Address:
Method of Drilling: Hand Auger
Geofirm
115 & 119 Via Mentone;Newport Beach, CA
BORING NO.: HA-1 GeologicAttitude
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Bu
l
k
S
a
m
p
l
e
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SM
SP
OH
DREDGE FILL:
Silty Sand (SM) - Light brown tan, moist, loose, fine to medium
grained, few shells
Poorly-Graded Sand (SP) - Light brown gray tan, moist to very
moist, loose, fine to medium grained, with few shells
BAY LAGOONAL DEPOSITS: Organic Silty Clay (OH) - Black dark gray, saturated. very soft,
with many organics
@7.25 feet GroundwaterCaving
Groundwater Encountered @ 7 feet 3 inches
Total Depth = 8 feet
De
p
t
h
(
f
e
e
t
)
Un
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
Sa
m
p
l
e
De
p
t
h
(
f
e
e
t
)
LOG OF BORING
Description
US
C
S
Mo
i
s
t
u
r
e
Co
n
t
e
n
t
(
%
)
In
-
p
l
a
c
e
D
r
y
De
n
s
i
t
y
(
p
c
f
)
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
Bl
o
w
s
/
1
2
"
Project No.: 72488-00
Date(s) Logged: 3/4/2020
Drilling Company: Mike's ExcavationLogged By: JSM
Ground Elev.: ±12.72'
Figure No.: B-2
Location: Side Yard of 119
Address:
Method of Drilling: Hand Auger
Geofirm
115 & 119 Via Mentone;Newport Beach, CA
BORING NO.: HA-2 GeologicAttitude
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Bu
l
k
S
a
m
p
l
e
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
APPENDIX C
PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
115 and 119 Via Mentone, Newport Beach, CA
APPENDIX C
PREVIOUS FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
I. Field Exploration Procedures
A. Local Field Exploration
Our field services consisted of two CPT sounding to a maximum depth of 30 feet
and two borings to a maximum depth of 9.5 feet. Borings were hand-augered to
expose subsurface soils. Logs of our CPT and borings are included in Appendix
B2.
B. Local Sampling
1. Core Samples
Core samples of subsurface materials were obtained by driving a steel barrel
drive sampler. The sampler has an outside diameter of 3.0 inches and is lined
with a series of 1-inch high brass rings having an inside diameter of 2.43
inches. A drive shoe is placed on the tip of the sampler to hold the liners in
place during sampling.
The samples were removed from the sample barrel in the brass rings, placed in
moisture tight containers and transported to the laboratory for testing.
2. Disaggregated Samples
Bulk samples of typical soil types were bagged and transported to the
laboratory for classification and physical testing.
II. Previous Laboratory Testing Procedures
A. Moisture and Density Tests
Moisture and density determinations were made in accordance with ASTM test
methods. The results are summarized on Figure C-1.
B. Corrosion Test Results
Sample Designation - HA-1 @ 9’
pH - 7.8
Soluble Sulfate - 24 mg/kg
Minimum Resistivity - 10,000 ohm-cm
C. Particle Size Analyses
Particle size analyses were performed on a typical sample in accordance with
ASTM D422. The results of the test is presented graphically on Figure C-2.
HA-1 0.00 60 LB SM 4.4
HA-1 3.00 6 MC SP 2.5 98.2 9
HA-1 5.00 6 MC SP 5.5 92.7 18
HA-1 9.00 6 MC SC
HA-2 3.00 6 MC SP 4.3 98.1 16
HA-2 5.00 6 MC SP 5.7 103.4 24
HA-2 7.00 6 MC SP
Borehole Soil UnitSampleType
Dry
Density(pcf)Classification Expansion
Index
Water
Content(%)
MOISTURE, DENSITY AND SATURATION
Depth(ft)
SampleLength
(in)
Saturation
(%)
Client: Wilson
Figure No. C-1
Project Number: 72488-00
Project Name: Wilson
Address: 115 & 119 Via Mentone;Newport Beach, CA Side Yard
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
0.0010.010.1110100
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND
D60
0.315
D100
BOREHOLE DEPTH
finemedium
3 1002416 301 2006 10 501/2
4.00
HYDROMETERU.S. SIEVE OPENING IN INCHES U.S. SIEVE NUMBERS1.5 8 143/4 3/8
PE
R
C
E
N
T
F
I
N
E
R
B
Y
W
E
I
G
H
T
PI Cc CuLL PL
HA-1
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
coarse fine coarse
SILT OR CLAY
HA-1 0.16775
Classification
1403420 406 60
%Clay%Silt
8.988.0
%Sand%Gravel
3.1
D10
0.079
D30BOREHOLE DEPTH
1.13
GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION
9.0
9.0
Client: Wilson
Figure No. C-2
Project Number: 72488-00
Project Name: Wilson
Address: 115 & 119 Via Mentone;Newport Beach, CA Side Yard
APPENDIX D
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS
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 value
6.70
0.67
.
G.W.T. (in-situ):
G.W.T. (earthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Project title : 72539-00 Location : 306 Via Lido Nord, Newport Beach, CA
Geotechnical Engineers
801 Glenneyre St # E, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
www.stoneymiller.com
CPT file : CPT-1
5.00 ft
5.00 ft
3
2.60
Based on SBT
Use fill:
Fill height:
Fill weight:
Trans. detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
No
N/A
N/A
Yes
Yes
Clay like behavior
applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
MSF method:
Sands only
Yes
11.50 ft
Method based
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
200
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Cone resistance SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
SBTn Plot CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0.60.40.20
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
CRR plot
During earthq.
Qtn,cs
200180160140120100806040200
Cy
c
l
i
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
*
(
C
S
R
*
)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
C
P
T
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
1
10
100
1,000
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
Friction Ratio
Mw=71/2, sigma'=1 atm base curve Summary of liquefaction potential
FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
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.3.0.2.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/4/2020, 3:38:14 PM
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72539 (Pharris) 306 Via Lido Nord\CPT and Liquefaction\72539-00.clq
1
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Cone resistance
CPT basic interpretation plots
Friction Ratio
Rf (%)
1086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Friction Ratio Pore pressure
u (psi)
1050
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Pore pressure
Insitu
SBT Plot
Ic(SBT)
4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
SBT Plot Soil Behaviour Type
SBT (Robertson et al. 1986)
1817161514131211109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy siltClay & silty clay
Sand & silty sand
SandSand & silty sandSand
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.0.2.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/4/2020, 3:38:14 PM 2
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72539 (Pharris) 306 Via Lido Nord\CPT and Liquefaction\72539-00.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude M w:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
6.70
0.67
5.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
5.00 ft
3
2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
Yes
11.50 ft
SBT legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Norm. cone resistance
CPT basic interpretation plots (normalized)
Norm. friction ratio
Fr (%)
1086420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Norm. friction ratio Nom. pore pressure ratio
Bq
10.80.60.40.20-0.2
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Nom. pore pressure ratio SBTn Plot
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
SBTn Plot Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
1817161514131211109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Sand
Sand & silty sand
CLiq v.3.0.2.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/4/2020, 3:38:14 PM 3
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72539 (Pharris) 306 Via Lido Nord\CPT and Liquefaction\72539-00.clq
SBTn legend
1. Sensitive fine grained
2. Organic material
3. Clay to silty clay
4. Clayey silt to silty
clay5. Silty sand to sandy silt
6. Clean sand to silty sand
7. Gravely sand to sand
8. Very stiff sand to
clayey sand9. Very stiff fine grained
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude M w:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
6.70
0.67
5.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
5.00 ft
3
2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
Yes
11.50 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Total cone resistance
qt (tsf)
300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Total cone resistance
Liquefaction analysis overall plots (intermediate results)
SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
SBTn Index Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Norm. cone resistance Grain char. factor
Kc
109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
300250200150100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Corrected norm. cone resistance
CLiq v.3.0.2.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/4/2020, 3:38:14 PM 4
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72539 (Pharris) 306 Via Lido Nord\CPT and Liquefaction\72539-00.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude M w:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
6.70
0.67
5.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
5.00 ft
3
2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
Yes
11.50 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
CRR plot
CRR & CSR
0.60.40.20
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
CRR plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction analysis overall plots
FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
FS Plot
During earthq.
Liquefaction potential
LPI
20151050
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Liquefaction potential Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0.40.30.20.10
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Vertical settlements Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
6420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Lateral displacements
CLiq v.3.0.2.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/4/2020, 3:38:14 PM 5
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72539 (Pharris) 306 Via Lido Nord\CPT and Liquefaction\72539-00.clq
F.S. color scheme LPI color schemeInput parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude M w:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
6.70
0.67
5.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
5.00 ft
3
2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
Yes
11.50 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
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Normalized friction ratio (%)
0.1 1 10
No
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d
C
P
T
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
1
10
100
1,000
Liquefaction analysis summary plots
Qtn,cs
200180160140120100806040200
Cy
c
l
i
c
S
t
r
e
s
s
R
a
t
i
o
*
(
C
S
R
*
)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Liquefaction
No Liquefaction
Thickness of surface layer, H1 (m)
109876543210
Th
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
o
f
l
i
q
u
e
f
i
a
b
l
e
s
a
n
d
l
a
y
e
r
,
H
2
(
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
CPT-1 (1.64)
Analysis PGA: 0.67
PG
A
0
.
4
0
g
-
0
.
5
0
g
CLiq v.3.0.2.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/4/2020, 3:38:14 PM 6
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72539 (Pharris) 306 Via Lido Nord\CPT and Liquefaction\72539-00.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude M w:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
6.70
0.67
5.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
5.00 ft
3
2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
Yes
11.50 ft
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Norm. cone resistance
Qtn
300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Norm. cone resistance
Check for strength loss plots (Robertson (2010))
Grain char. factor
Kc
109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Grain char. factor Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
300250200150100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Corrected norm. cone resistance SBTn Index
Ic (Robertson 1990)
4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
SBTn Index Liquefied Su/Sig'v
Su/Sig'v
2.521.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
Peak Su ratio Liq. Su ratio
Liquefied Su/Sig'v
CLiq v.3.0.2.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/4/2020, 3:38:14 PM 7
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72539 (Pharris) 306 Via Lido Nord\CPT and Liquefaction\72539-00.clq
Input parameters and analysis data
Analysis method:
Fines correction method:
Points to test:
Earthquake magnitude M w:
Peak ground acceleration:
Depth to water table (insitu):
NCEER (1998)
NCEER (1998)
Based on Ic value
6.70
0.67
5.00 ft
Depth to water table (erthq.):
Average results interval:
Ic cut-off value:
Unit weight calculation:
Use fill:
Fill height:
5.00 ft
3
2.60
Based on SBT
No
N/A
Fill weight:
Transition detect. applied:
Kσ applied:
Clay like behavior applied:
Limit depth applied:
Limit depth:
N/A
Yes
Yes
Sands only
Yes
11.50 ft
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)
4321
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
SBTn Index Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
SBTn (Robertson 1990)
1817161514131211109876543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Norm. Soil Behaviour Type
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy silt
Sand & silty sand
Silty sand & sandy siltSilty 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
1.70
3.00
0.0250
4
575
34
5.91%
4
CLiq v.3.0.2.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/4/2020, 3:38:14 PM
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72539 (Pharris) 306 Via Lido Nord\CPT and Liquefaction\72539-00.clq
8
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
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
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
SBTn Plot FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
FS Plot
During earthq.
Vertical settlements
Settlement (in)
0.40.30.20.10
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Vertical settlements
Estimation of post-earthquake settlements
Strain plot
Volumentric strain (%)
6543210
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Strain plot
CLiq v.3.0.2.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/4/2020, 3:38:14 PM 9
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72539 (Pharris) 306 Via Lido Nord\CPT and Liquefaction\72539-00.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
This software is licensed to: Stoney-Miller Consultants, Inc CPT name: CPT-1
Cone resistance
qt (tsf)
300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
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
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
SBTn Plot Corrected norm. cone resistance
Qtn,cs
300200100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Corrected norm. cone resistance FS Plot
Factor of safety
21.510.50
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
FS Plot
During earthq.
Cyclic shear strain
Gamma max (%)
6050403020100
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Cyclic shear strain Lateral displacements
Displacement (in)
6420
De
p
t
h
(
f
t
)
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Lateral displacements
Estimation of post-earthquake lateral Displacements
Geometric parameters: Level ground (or gently sloping) with free face (L: 5.00 ft - H: 5.00 ft)
CLiq v.3.0.2.4 - CPT Liquefaction Assessment Software - Report created on: 12/4/2020, 3:38:14 PM 10
Project file: V:\72450-72999\72539 (Pharris) 306 Via Lido Nord\CPT and Liquefaction\72539-00.clq
qt: Total cone resistance (cone resistance q c corrected for pore water effects)
Ic: Soil Behaviour Type Index
Qtn,cs: Equivalent clean sand normalized CPT total cone resistance
F.S.: Factor of safety
γmax: Maximum cyclic shear strain
LDI: Lateral displacement index
Abbreviations Surface condition
APPENDIX E
STANDARD GRADING SPECIFICATIONS
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
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.
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.
APPENDIX F
UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILL GUIDELINES
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.