HomeMy WebLinkAbout20191121_Geotechnical Investigation_07-19-19COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
of
Proposed New Residence
at
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
BY:
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
W. 0. 576919-01, dated July 19, 2019
FOR:
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wheatley
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, CA 92663
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
1200 W. Co=onwealth Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92833 • Ph: (714) 870-1211 • Fax: (714) 870-1222 • E-mail: coastgeotec@sbcglobal.net
July 19, 2019
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Wheatley
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Dear Mr. Wheatley:
Subject:
w.o. 576919-01
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation of
Proposed New Residence at 2008 East
Oceanfront, Newport Beach, California
Pursuant to your request, a geotechnical engineering investigation has been performed at the subject
site. The purposes of the investigation were to determine the general engineering characteristics of
the near surface soils on and underlying the site and to provide recommendations for the design of
foundations and underground improvements.
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based upon the understanding of
the proposed development and the analyses of the data obtained from our field and laboratory
testing programs.
This report completes our scope of geotechnical engineering services authorized by you in the May
22, 2019 proposal.
SITE DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the existing residence will be demolished and that the site is to be
redeveloped with a new two-story residential structure over slab-on-grade. Structural loads are
anticipated to be light. Significant grade changes are not anticipated.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of the study was to obtain subsurface information within the project site area and to
provide recommendations pertaining to the proposed development and included the following:
1. A cursory reconnaissance of the site and surrounding areas.
2. Excavation of two exploratory borings to determine the near subsurface soil conditions and
groundwater conditions.
3. Collection of representative bulk and/or undisturbed soil samples for laboratory analysis.
4. Laboratory analyses of soil samples including determination of in-situ and maximum density, in-
situ and optimum moisture content, shear strength characteristics, consolidation, expansion
potential, and sulfate content.
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 2
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
5. Preparation of this report presenting results of our investigation and recommendations of the
proposed development.
RECORDS REVIEW
A search of records was performed through the City of Newport Beach online database for
applicable geotechnical records for the lot and tract. No geotechnical records were found for the
subject lot.
Records show that in 2005 the adjacent property on the western side, 2004 East Ocean Front,
installed shoring along the property line for the construction cut of the basement and a new six foot
high retaining wall was constructed in that area.
Readers of this report are advised that a record search is not an exact science; it is limited by time
and resource constraints, incomplete records, ability of custodian of records to locate files, and
where records are located is only a limited interpretation of other consultant's work. Readers of this
report should perform their own review of City records to arrive at their own interpretations and
conclusions.
SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is located at 2008 East Ocean Front in the City of Newport Beach, California, and
is shown on the attached Site Vicinity Map, Plate 1.
The parcel is rectangular in shape, with a split level building pad showing about three feet of
elevation difference. The parcel is bordered by a beach to the south, East Ocean Front alley to the
north, and residential properties to the east and west.
The lot is currently developed with a single-family residence, hardscape, and landscape. Site
configuration is further shown on the Site Plan, Plate 2.
EXPLORATORY PROGRAM
The field investigation was performed on July 9, 2019, consisting of the excavation of a boring by a
limited access drilling equipment (for Boring No. 1) and a boring by hand auger equipment (for
Boring No. 2) at the locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2. As excavations progressed,
a representative from this office visually classified the earth materials encountered, and secured
representative samples for laboratory testing.
Geotechnical characteristics of subsurface conditions were assessed by either driving a split spoon
ring sampler or an SPT sampler into the earth material. Undisturbed samples for detailed testing in
our laboratory were obtained from Boring No. 2 by pushing or driving a sampling spoon into the
earth material. A solid-barrel type spoon was used having an inside diameter of 2.5 inches with a
tapered cutting tip at the lower end and a ball valve at the upper end.
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 3
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
The barrel is lined with thin brass rings, each one inch in length. The spoon penetrated into the earth
materials below the depth of borings approximately six inches. The central portion of this sample
was retained for testing. All samples in their natural field condition were sealed in airtight
containers and transported to the laboratory.
Standard Penetration Test (SPT) was performed for Boring No. 1, based on ASTM D1586. The
number of blows required for driving the sampler through three six-inch intervals is recorded. The
sum of the number of blows required for driving the last two six-inch intervals is referred to as the
standard penetration number "N".
Samplers from Boring No. 1 were driven into the soil at the bottom of the borehole by means of
hammer blows. The hammer blows are given at the top of the drilling rod. The blows are by a
hammer weighing 140 pounds dropped a distance of30 inches. Drive sampling was obtained at two
feet intervals for the upper level foundations in accordance with City guidelines. Considering that
the upper three feet of the pad area will be recompacted, SPT sampling commenced at three feet
below grade.
For liquefaction analysis, CE of 1.0 (for safety hammer), CB of 1.05 (for seven inch borehole
diameter), and Cs of 1.2 ( for sampler without liners) are used to calculate corrected N values.
EARTH MATERIALS
Earth materials encountered within the exploratory borings were visually logged by a representative
of COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. The earth materials encountered were classified as artificial
fill underlain by native soils to the maximum depth explored.
Artificial fills encountered consisted of brown to gray brown silty fine to medium grained sand,
damp and generally loose to medium dense. The fills were encountered to a depth of about two feet
below existing grade.
Native soils encountered consisted of yellow tan to tan, clean, fine to coarse grained sand, damp to
wet, and generally medium dense to dense, to maximum depth explored of 12.5 feet.
Logs of the exploratory borings are presented on the appended Plates B and C.
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered at seven and ten feet below existing ground surface during the field
investigation. This groundwater level is subject to minor fluctuation due to tidal changes. Plate 1.2
in Appendix B shows the subject site area to have a historic high groundwater depth ofless than ten
feet below existing ground surface. In our liquefaction and seismic settlement analyses, a
groundwater elevation of five feet below ground surface is used for more conservative calculations
in accordance with City policy.
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 4
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
SEISMICITY
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
Southern California is located in an active seismic region. Moderate to strong earthquakes can
occur on numerous faults. The United States Geological Survey, California Division of Mines and
Geology, private consultants, and universities have been studying earthquakes in
Southern California for several decades. Early studies were directed toward earthquake prediction
estimation of the effects of strong ground shaking. Studies indicate that earthquake prediction is not
practical and not sufficiently accurate to benefit the general public. Governmental agencies are
shifting their focus to earthquake resistant structures as opposed to prediction. The purpose of the
code seismic design parameters is to prevent collapse during strong ground shaking.
Cosmetic damage should be expected.
Within the past 48 years, Southern California and vicinity have experienced an increase in seismic
activity beginning with the San Francisco earthquake in 1971. In 1987, a moderate earthquake
struck the Whittier area and was located on a previously unknown fault. Ground shaking from this
event caused substantial damage to the City of Whittier, and surrounding cities. The
January 17, 1994, Northridge earthquake was initiated along a previously unrecognized fault below
the San Fernando Valley. The energy released by the earthquake propagated to the southeast,
northwest, and northeast in the form of shear and compression waves, which caused the strong
ground shaking in portions of the San Fernando Valley, Santa Monica Mountains, Simi Valley,
City of Santa Clarita, and City of Santa Monica.
Southern California faults are classified as: active, potentially active, or inactive. Faults from past
geologic periods of mountain building, but do not display any evidence of recent offset, are
considered "inactive" or "potentially active". Faults that have historically produced earthquakes or
show evidence of movement within the past 11,000 years are known as "active faults". There are no
known active faults within the subject property, with the nearest being the Newport Inglewood
Fault Zone and the San Joaquin Blind Thrust Fault.
• Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone: The Newport-fuglewood Fault Zone is a broad zone of left-
stepping en echelon faults and folds striking southeastward from near Santa Monica across the
Los Angeles basin to Newport Beach. Altogether these various faults constitute a system more
than 150 miles long that extends into Baja California, Mexico. Faults having similar trends and
projections occur offshore from San Clemente and San Diego (the Rose Canyon and La Nacion
Faults). A near-shore portion of the Newport-fuglewood Fault Zone was the source of the
destructive 1933 Long Beach earthquake. The reported recurrence interval for a large event along
this fault zone is 1,200 to 1,300 years with an expected slip of one meter.
• San Joaquin Hills Blind Thrust Fault: The seismic hazards in Southern California have been
further complicated with the recent realization that major earthquakes can occur on large thrust
faults that are concealed at depths between 5 to 20 km, referred to as "blind thrusts." The uplift
of the San Joaquin Hills is produced by a southwest dipping blind thrust fault that extends at
least 14 km from northwestern Huntington Mesa to Dana Point and comes to within 2 km of the
ground surface. Work by Grant et al. (1997 and 1999) suggest that uplift of the San Joaquin Hills
began in the Late Quaternary and continues during the Holocene. Uplift rates have been
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 5
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
estimated between 0.25 and 0.5 mm/yr. If the entire length of the fault ruptured, the earthquake
has been estimated to generate an Mw 6.8 event.
We are of the opinion that the more active Newport Inglewood fault is the causative fault for the
subject site. The site is located approximately 2 kilometer northeast of the Newport Inglewood
fault.
SEISMIC HAZARDS
The potential hazards to be evaluated with regard to seismic conditions include fault rupture,
landslides triggered by ground shaking, soil liquefaction, earthquake-induced vertical and lateral
displacements, earthquake-induced flooding due to the failure of water containment structures,
seiches, and tsunamis.
Fault Rupture
The project is not located within a currently designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone (Bryant
and Hart, 2007). No known active faults are mapped on the site. Based on this consideration, the
potential for surface fault rupture at the site is considered to be remote.
Ground Shaking
The site is located in a seismically active area that has historically been affected by moderate to
occasionally high levels of ground motion, and the site lies in relatively close proximity to
several active faults; therefore, during the life of the proposed development, the property will
probably experience moderate to occasionally high ground shaking from these fault zones, as
well as some background shaking from other seismically active areas of the Southern California
region. Residential structures are typically designed to maintain structural integrity not to prevent
damage. Earthquake insurance is available where the damage risk is not acceptable to the client.
Seismic Induced Landslide
Earthquake-induced landslide zones were delineated by the State of California using criteria
adopted by the California State Mining and Geology Board. Under those criteria, earthquake-
induced landslide zones are areas meeting one or more of the following:
1. Areas known to have experienced earthquake-induced slope failure during historic earthquakes.
2. Areas identified as having past landslide movement, including both landslide deposits and source
areas.
3. Areas where CDMG's analyses of geologic and geotechnical data indicate that the geologic
materials are susceptible to earthquake-induced slope failure.
Based on the Seismic Hazard Zone Map published by the State of California, Newport Beach
Quadrangle, appended as Plate 3, the site is not mapped as being in an area subject to potential
seismic induced landslides.
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Seismic Induced Liquefaction
6 w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, non-cohesive granular soils
exhibit severe reduction in strength and stability when subjected to high-intensity ground
shaking. The mechanism by which liquefaction occurs is the progressive increase in excess pore
pressure generated by the shaking associated with the seismic event and the tendency for loose
non-cohesive soils to consolidate. As the excess pore fluid pressure approaches the in-situ
overburden pressure, the soils exhibit behavior similar to a dense fluid with a corresponding
significant decrease in shear strength and increase in compressibility. Liquefaction occurs when
three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density, non-cohesive sandy soils;
and 3) high-intensity ground motion.
Seismic Hazard Zone Maps published by the State of California have been prepared to indicate
areas that have a potential for seismic induced liquefaction hazards. The Seismic Hazard Zone
Map for the Newport Beach Quadrangle, appended as Plate 3, shows the site to be mapped as
being subject to potential liquefaction hazards.
The City of Newport Beach has a policy concerning these areas. The City has assigned certain
parameters to existing soil conditions. From ten to thirty feet below ground surface they have
assigned the zone to be liquefiable with a seismic settlement of three inches. From thirty to fifty
feet below ground surface they have assigned liquefaction and seismic settlement not to be of
concern. The client has the option of accepting these conditions and assessing the zone of earth
materials from the ground surface to ten feet below the proposed footing bottom for liquefaction
and seismic settlement, or ignoring the City conditions and drilling deep exploration for similar
assessment.
For this project shallow exploration was chosen. A liquefaction assessment for the upper earth
materials follows.
Liquefaction evaluation for soil zone to ten feet below foundation bottom was based on blow
counts from Boring No. 1, a M = 7.2 seismic event from the Newport-Inglewood fault, a
maximum ground acceleration of 0.715g PGAM and a groundwater level at five feet.
Liquefaction analysis, based on these values and field obtained data, is presented in Appendix B.
The results indicate that there is liquefaction potential for the subject site.
Lateral Spreading
The occurrence of liquefaction may cause lateral spreading. Lateral spreading is a phenomenon in
which lateral displacement can occur on the ground surface due to movement of non-liquefied
soils along zones of liquefied soils. For lateral spreading to occur, the liquefiable zone must be
continuous, unconstrained laterally, and free to move along sloping ground toward an unconfined
area.
Due to the relatively level lot and distance to a free face, the potential of lateral spreading is not
considered to be significant.
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 7
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
Earthquake-induced Settlements
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
Earthquake-induced settlements result from densification of non-cohesive granular soils which
occur as a result of reduction in volume during or after an earthquake event. The magnitude of
settlement that results from the occurrence of liquefaction is typically greater than the settlement
that results solely from densification during strong ground shaking in the absence of liquefaction.
It is understanding that the current City policy, has assigned a seismic settlement potential of
three inches for soils depths of ten to thirty feet and no additional analysis of seismic settlement
for this level should be required.
The seismically induced settlement for the at-grade structure was evaluated based on the
"Evaluation of Settlement in Sands due to Earthquake Shaking" by Kahji Tokimatsu and
H. Bolton Seed, dated August 1987. The analysis was limited to ten feet below the footing
bottom. The result, based on the SPT N-values in Boring No. 1, groundwater table at six feet
below grade and shown in Appendix C, indicates that the estimated settlement (including dry and
saturated sands) is 0.05 inch. According to City policy, the City's shallow mitigation method niay
be used since the seismic settlement is less than one inch to a depth of ten feet below proposed
foundations.
Earthquake-Induced Flooding
The failure of dams or other water-retaining structures as a result of earthquakes and strong
ground shaking could result in the inundation of adjacent areas. Due to the lack of a major dam
or water-retaining structure located near the site, the potential of earthquake-induced flooding
affecting the site is considered not to be present.
Seiches
Seiches are waves generated in enclosed bodies of water in response to ground shaking. Based on
the lack of nearby enclosed bodies of water the risk from a seiche event is not present.
Tsunamis
Tsunamis are waves generated in large bodies of water as a result of change of seafloor topography
caused by tectonic displacement or landslide.
Based on the City of Newport Beach "Potential Tsunami Runup Inundation Caused by a Submarine
Landslide" map, the subject site is situated in the zone for potential tsunami run-up as shown on
Plate 5, and is referenced on this plate to be areas below elevation 32 feet. For more information
about tsunami run-up hazards and evacuation routes you are referred to the City website.
GEOTECHNICAL DISCUSSION
The site is within an area subject to liquefaction and liquefaction induced settlements under certain
seismic events. Under current 2016 CBC codes, City policy, and industry standards residential
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 8
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
structures subject to seismic hazards are designed to protect life and safety. Under this design
objective the requirements of protecting life and safety could be met but the structure could be
damaged. The damage to the structure could range from minimal to being non-functional. The
reduction of risk, for the occurrence of structural damage from a seismic event, is generally
associated with the structure's foundation system.
Typically the use of a conventional foundation system or a mat foundation system has been utilized
in the area.
Based on analysis presented within this report and City guidelines concerning liquefaction study
mitigation measures the proposed structure can be developed utilizing the City's "strengthened slab
on grade foundation system" for support. This type of foundation system, also referred to as a
conventional foundation system, is a minimum design. As the minimum design, this foundation
system has the highest risk for occurrence of structural damage to the residence.
The minimum geotechnical requirements for a conventional foundation system are as follows:
(1) the structure shall be placed on a mat of compacted fill soil, (2) bottom of all footings shall be
24 inches below grade, (3) foundations shall be continuous or tied together with grade beams, (4)
foundations shall be reinforced with a minimum of four #5 bars, two top and two bottom, (5)
concrete slabs shall be a minimum of five inch actual thickness with #4 bars at 12 inches on
center each way, and (6) footings shall be dowelled into slabs with #4 bars at 24 inches on center.
Additional reinforcement maybe required if the structural engineer's design is more stringent.
An alternate foundation system typically utilized is a structural mat foundation, which is more rigid
than a conventional foundation system, and should be more effective in reducing the risk of
structural damage to a structure during a seismic event. Where a mat slab foundation is planned, the
slab should be at least twelve inches thick with perimeter footing a minimum of 24 inches below
the lowest adjacent grade. Reinforcement shall be determined by the structural engineer.
If the risk associated with either of these foundation systems is not acceptable to the client, the
client has the option of utilizing more stringent designs that could decrease the risk of damage to
the structure to a level they perceive as acceptable. Some of these designs could consist of soil
modifications, grout densification, stone columns, piles placed below liquefiable soils, and other
methods. Additional geotechnical exploration and or analysis would be required to provide
geotechnical design recommendation for these mitigation measures, and would be at the request of
the client under separate contract.
Grading will be required for support of new foundations as stated within this report.
Development of the site as proposed is considered feasible from a soils engineering standpoint,
provided that the recommendations stated herein are incorporated in the design and are
implemented in the field. The proposed grading and or construction will not have an adverse
effect on adjacent property or vice versa, provided site work is performed in accordance with the
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 9
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
guidelines of project geotechnical reports, approved plans, applicable codes, industry standards,
City inspections, and required geotechnical observation and testing.
The following recommendations are subject to change based on review of final foundation and
grading plans.
PROPOSED GRADING
Grading plans were not available at the time this report was prepared. It is anticipated that grading
will consist mainly of over-excavation and recompaction for uniform support of the foundations
and slabs.
GENERAL GRADING NOTES
All existing structures shall be demolished and all vegetation and debris shall be stripped and
hauled from the site. The entire grading operation shall be done in accordance with the attached
"Specifications for Grading".
Any import fill materials to the site shall not have an expansion index greater than 20, and shall be
tested and approved by our laboratory. Samples must be submitted 48 hours prior to import.
Grading and/or foundation recommendations are subject to modification upon review of final plans
by the Geotechnical Engineer. Please submit plans to COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. when
available.
GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS
Removal and recompaction of existing earth materials will be required to provide adequate
support for foundations and site improvements. Earthwork for foundation support shall include
the entire building pad and shall extend a minimum of three feet outside exterior footing lines.
Based on in place densities and consolidation tests, soils found at a depth of three feet below
existing grade and deeper have adequate geotechnical properties to provide adequate support of
proposed fills and the structure; as such, removals to a depth of three feet below existing grade or to
one foot below proposed footing bottoms, whichever is greater, are anticipated; however, field
observations made at the time of grading shall determine final removal limits.
To provide adequate support along property lines excavations shall be sloped at a 1: 1 (H:V)
gradient from property line down to the excavation bottom. As fill soils are placed the grading
contractor shall bench into the 1: 1 construction cut to final grade. Temporary excavations along
property lines are shown on Plate 4.
During earthwork operations, a representative of COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC. shall be present
to verify compliance with these recommendations. Subsequent to approval of the excavation
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 10
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
bottom, the area shall be scarified six inches, moisture conditioned as needed, and compacted to
a minimum of 90% relative compaction.
Fill soils shall be placed in six to eight inch loose lifts, moisture conditioned as needed, and
compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction. This process shall be utilized to finish
grade.
Due to the caving nature of the on-site sands, it is highly recommended that the upper two feet of
fill be mixed with cement to reduce, but not eliminate, the potential of caving of the foundation
excavations. Typically, a 2-3% by volume mixture of cement is sufficient to reduce the caving
potential of foundation excavations. Preventing the foundation excavations from being
surcharged by foot traffic and equipment will also help to reduce caving potential.
Grading for hardscape areas shall consist of removal and recompaction of loose surficial soils.
Removal depths are estimated at one to two feet. Earthwork shall be performed in accordance
with previously specified methods.
FOUNDATIONS -RESIDENCE
The proposed structures shall be supported by a mat foundation or a conventional foundation
system.
Conventional foundations shall utilize spread footings and/or isolated pad footings placed a
minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent grade utilizing an allowable bearing value of
1,800 pounds per square foot. This value is for dead plus live load and may be increased 1/3 for
total including seismic and wind loads where allowed by code. The structural engineer's
reinforcing requirements should be followed if more stringent. Calculations for the bearing
capacity are provided on Plate G.
Where isolated pads are utilized, they shall be tied in two directions into adjacent foundations
with grade beams.
Footing excavations shall be observed by a representative of COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.,
prior to placement of steel or concrete to verify competent soil conditions. If unacceptable soil
conditions are exposed mitigation will be recommended.
Geotechnical recommendations for foundation reinforcement are given under the liquefaction
section of this report.
If a mat slab design is utilized, the structural engineer should design the thickness and
reinforcement requirements for the mat foundation for the building based on the anticipated
loading conditions. The mat foundation slab should be at least twelve inches thick, with
perimeter footings a minimum of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent grade. A modulus of
subgrade reaction of 100 pci may be used in the design of the mat foundation. Reinforcement
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 11
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
shall be determined by the structural engineer. Calculations for the subgrade reaction are
provided on Plate J.
Alternate foundations and or additional ground modification techniques, for support of the
structure, can be addressed upon request of the project manager. All foundation plans are subject
to review and approval of the soils engineer.
All foundation bottoms shall be observed and approved by COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc.
prior to placement of the capillary break.
FOUNDATIONS-SECONDARY STRUCTURES
Property line walls, planter walls, and other incidental foundations may utilize conventional
foundation design.
Continuous spread footings or isolated pads placed a minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest
adjacent grade may utilize an allowable bearing value of 1,500 pounds per square foot. This
value is for dead plus live load and may be increased 1/3 for total including seismic and wind
loads where allowed by code.
Where isolated pads are utilized, they shall be tied in two directions into adjacent foundations
with grade beams.
Footing excavations shall be observed by a representative of COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc.,
prior to placement of steel or concrete to verify competent soil conditions. If unacceptable soil
conditions are exposed mitigation will be recommended.
Foundations shall be reinforced with a minimum of four #5 bars, two top and two bottom, The
structural engineer's recommendations for reinforcement shall be utilized where more severe.
LATERAL DESIGN
Lateral restraint at the base of footings and on slabs may be assumed to be the product of the dead
load and a coefficient of friction of 0.3 5. Passive pressure on the face of footings may also be used
to resist lateral forces. A passive pressure of zero at the surface of finished grade, increasing at the
rate of 300 pounds per square foot of depth to a maximum value of 3,000 pounds per square foot,
may be used for compacted fill at this site. If passive pressure and friction are combined when
evaluating the lateral resistance, then the value of the passive pressure should be limited to 2/3 of
the values given above. Calculations are provided on Plate H.
RETAINING WALLS
Walls retaining drained earth under static loading may be designed for the following:
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 12
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
Calculations for the stated equivalent fluid pressures are based on the Coulomb theory provided on
Plate I. The point of resultant force under static loading is at H/3 above the base of the retaining
wall. Walls are expected to be six feet or less, higher walls would need to be evaluated based on a
site specific plan.
Retaining walls should include subdrains consisting of four inch, SCH 40 or SDR 35 perforated
pipe surrounded by one cubic foot per lineal foot of crushed rock, wrapped with geofabric cloth.
All wall backfill should be compacted to a minimum of 90% relative compaction.
All retaining structures should include appropriate allowances for anticipated surcharge loading,
where applicable. Retaining walls with an ascending slope condition shall include a minimum one-
foot free board and concrete swale in their design.
Retaining walls shall be waterproofed to the degree desired by the client.
FLOOR SLABS
Slab on grades shall be designed in accordance with 2016 CBC codes.
Site soils are non plastic.
Minimum geotechnical recommendations for slab design are five inches actual thickness with #4
bars at 12 inches on center each way. Slabs shall be tied into perimeter foundations with #4 bars at
24 inch centers. Structural design may require additional reinforcement and slab thickness.
Sub grade soils shall exhibit a minimum relative compaction of 90% to the depth determined by the
geotechnical engineer. The soil should be kept moist prior to casting the slab. However, if the soils
at grade become disturbed during construction, they should be brought to approximately optimum
moisture content and rolled to a firm, unyielding condition prior to placing concrete.
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. to verify adequacy of subgrade soils prior to placement of sand
or visqueen.
Section 4.505.2.1 of the California Green Code requires the use of a capillary break between the
slab subgrade and vapor barrier. The capillary break material shall comply with the requirements
of the local jurisdiction and shall be a minimum of four inches in thickness. Geotechnically
coarse clean sand is acceptable; however, some localities require the use of four inches of gravel
(1/2-inch or larger clean aggregate). If gravels are used, a heavy filter fabric (Mirafi 140N) shall
be placed over the gravels prior to placement of the recommended vapor barrier to minimize
puncturing of the vapor barrier. Additionally, a vibratory plate should be used over the gravels
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 13
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
prior to placement of the recommended filter fabric to smooth out any sharp protuberances and
consolidate the gravels.
Slab areas should be underlain by a vapor retarder consisting of an engineered plastic film ( as
described by ASTM:E-1745). In areas where a moisture sensitive floor covering will be used
and/or where moisture infiltration is not desirable, a vapor barrier with a permeance of less than
O.Olperms (consistent with ACI 302.2R-06) such as 15 mil. Stego Wrap Vapor Barrier, or
equivalent, should be considered, and a qualified water proofing specialist should be consulted.
The vapor barrier should be underlain by the above described capillary break materials and filter
cloth. The capillary break materials should be compacted to a uniform condition prior to
placement of the recommended filter cloth and vapor barrier. The vapor barrier should be
properly lapped and sealed.
SEISMIC DESIGN
Based on the current CBC the following seismic design parameters are provided. These seismic
design values were determined utilizing latitude 33.59614 and longitude -117.88638 and
calculations from the USGS ground motion parameter calculator. A conservative site class D was
assigned to site earth materials.
• Site Class = D
• Mapped 0.2 Second Spectral Response Acceleration, Ss = 1.722g
• Mapped One Second Spectral Response Acceleration S1 = 0.634g
• Site Coefficient from Table 1613A.3.3(1), Fa= 1.0
• Site Coefficient from Table 1613A.3.3(2), Fv = 1.5
• Maximum Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short period, SMs = 1. 722g
• Maximum Design Spectral Response Acceleration for one-second period, SM 1 = 0.950g
• 5% Design Spectral Response Acceleration for short period, SDs = 1.148g
• 5% Design Spectral Response Acceleration for one-second period, Sm = 0.634g
SETTLEMENT
The maximum total post-construction static settlement is anticipated to be on the order of 1/2 inch.
Differential settlements are expected to be less than 1/2 inch, measured between adjacent structural
elements over a distance of 40 feet. Seismic induced settlements are addressed under previous
sections.
SUBSIDENCE & SHRINKAGE
Subsidence over the site is anticipated to be negligible. Shrinkage of reworked materials should be
in the range of 5 to 10 percent.
EXPANSIVE SOILS
Results of expansion tests indicate that the near surface soils have a very low expansion potential.
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 14
Geotecbnical Engineering Investigation
UTILITY LINE BACKFILLS
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19. 2019
All utility line backfills, both interior and exterior, shall be compacted to a rmrumum of
90% relative compaction and shall require testing at a maximum of two-foot vertical intervals.
Utility lines shall be placed at appropriate depths. Shallow pipes can be damaged by the forces
imposed by compacting backfill soils. If shallow pipes are not capable of withstanding the forces of
backfill compaction, slurry backfill will be recommended.
HARDSCAPE AND SLABS
Hardscape and slab sub grade areas shall exhibit a minimum of 90% relative compaction to a depth
of at least one foot. Deeper removal and recompaction may be required if unacceptable conditions
are encountered. These areas require testing just prior to placing concrete. Hardscape shall be at
least four inches thick and reinforced with #3 bars on 18 inch centers both ways.
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS
An on-site soil sample showed a soluble sulfate content of 34 ppm, which is a negligible sulfate
exposure. Concrete with Type II 2,500 psi may be utilized; however, the saltwater environ may
cause damage to exposed concrete and a designed concrete should be considered.
DRAINAGE
Positive drainage should be planned for the site. Drainage should be directed away from structures
via non-erodible conduits to suitable disposal areas. The structure should utilize roof gutters and
down spouts tied directly to yard drainage.
Pipes used for storm/site water drainage should be stout enough to withstand the force of
compaction of the soils above. This force can be considerable, causing some weaker pipes to
collapse. Drainage pipes shall have a smooth interior. Pipes with a corrugated interior can cause the
buildup of deleterious matter, which can impede or block the flow of site waters and, as such, are
not recommended. All storm/site water drainage pipes should be in conformance with the
requirements from the current California Plumbing Code.
Unlined flowerbeds, planters, and lawns should not be constructed against the perimeter of the
structure. If such landscaping ( against the perimeter of a structure) is planned, it should be properly
drained and lined or provided with an underground moisture barrier. Irrigation should be kept to a
minimum.
Section 1804.4 of the 2016 CBC recommends five percent slope away from structures for
landscape areas within ten feet of the residence. Hardscape areas shall be sloped a minimum of two
percent where within ten feet of the residence unless allowed otherwise by the building official.
Minimum drainage shall be one percent for hardscape areas and two percent for all other areas.
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 15
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
We do not recommend the use of infiltration best management practice (BMP) such as infiltration
trenches, bottomless trench drains infiltration basins, dry wells, permeable pavements or similar
systems designed primarily to percolate water into the subsurface soils within five feet of
foundations. Due to the physical characteristics of the site earth materials, infiltration of waters into
the subsurface earth materials has a risk of adversely affecting below grade structures, building
foundations and slabs, and hardscape improvements. From a geotechnical viewpoint surface
drainage should be directed to the street.
The WQMP requirement shall be addressed by the Civil Engineer.
ENGINEERING CONSULTATION, TESTING & OBSERVATION
We will be pleased to provide additional input with respect to foundation design once methods of
construction have been determined.
Grading, foundation and shoring plans should be reviewed by this office prior to commencement of
grading so that appropriate recommendations, if needed, can be made.
Areas to receive fill should be observed when unsuitable materials have been removed and prior to
placement of fill. Fill should be observed and tested for compaction as it is placed.
SUPPLEMENTAL CONSULTING
During construction, a number of reviews by this office are recommended to verify site
geotechnical conditions and conformance with the intentions of the recommendations for
construction. Although not all possible geotechnical observation and testing services are required.
The following site reviews are advised, some of which will probably be required by the City of
Newport Beach:
• Grading and excavations review for main structures
• Foundation excavations
• Slab sub grade compaction testing prior to placement of the capillary break or waste slab
• Slab steel placement, primary and appurtenant structures
• Compaction of utility trench backfill
• Hardscape subgrade compaction
AGENCY REVIEW
All soil, geologic and structural aspects of the proposed development are subject to the review and
approval of the governing agency(s). It should be recognized that the governing agency(s) can
dictate the manner in which the project proceeds. They could approve or deny any aspect of the
proposed improvements and/or could dictate which foundation and grading options are acceptable.
Supplemental geotechnical consulting in response to agency requests for additional information
could be required and will be charged on a time and materials basis.
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 16
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
LIMITATIONS
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
This report presents recommendations pertaining to the subject site based on the assumption that
the subsurface conditions do not deviate appreciably from those disclosed by our exploratory
excavations. Our recommendations are based on the technical information, our understanding of the
proposed construction, and our experience in the geotechnical field. We do not guarantee the
performance of the project, only that our engineering work and judgments meet the standard of care
of our profession at this time.
In view of the general conditions in the area, the possibility of different local soil conditions may
exist. Any deviation or unexpected condition observed during construction should be brought to the
attention of the Geotechnical Engineer. In this way, any supplemental recommendations can be
made with a minimum of delay necessary to the project.
If the proposed construction will differ from our present understanding of the project, the existing
information and possibly new factors may have to be evaluated. Any design changes and the
finished plans should be reviewed by the Geotechnical Consultant. Of particular importance would
be extending development to new areas, changes in structural loading conditions, postponed
development for more than a year, or changes in ownership.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or of his
representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations contained herein are called to
the attention of the Architects and Engineers for the project, and incorporated into the plans and that
the necessary steps are taken to see that the contractors and subcontractors carry out such
recommendations in the field.
This report is subject to review by the controlling authorities for this project.
We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to you.
Respectfully submitted:
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Ming-Tarng Chen
RCE 54011
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 17
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
APPENDIXA
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
This appendix contains a description of the field investigation, laboratory testing procedures and
results, site plan, exploratory logs and expansive soil recommendations.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
The field investigation was performed on July 9, 2019, consisting of the excavation of a boring by a
limited access drilling equipment (for Boring No. 1) and a boring by hand auger equipment (for
Boring No. 2) at the locations shown on the attached Site Plan, Plate 2. As drilling progressed,
personnel from this office visually classified the soils encountered, and secured representative
samples for laboratory testing.
Description of the soils encountered is presented on the attached Boring Logs. The data presented
on this log is a simplification of actual subsurface conditions encountered and applies only at the
specific boring location and the date excavated. It is not warranted to be representative of
subsurface conditions at other locations and times.
LABORATORY TESTING
Field samples were examined in the laboratory and a testing program was then established to
develop data for preliminary evaluation of geotechnical conditions.
Field moisture and dry densities were calculated for each undisturbed sample. The samples were
obtained per ASTM:D-2937 and tested under ASTM:D-2216.
Maximum density-optimum moisture relationships were established per ASTM:D-1557 for use in
evaluation of in-situ conditions and for future use during grading operations.
Direct shear tests were performed in accordance with ASTM:D-3080, on specimens at near
saturation under various normal loads. The results of tests are based on an 80% peak strength or
ultimate strength, whichever is lower, and are attached as Plates E and F.
Expansion tests were performed on typical specimens of natural soils in accordance with the
procedures outlined in ASTM:D-4829.
A consolidation test was performed on representative samples based on ASTM:D-2435. The
consolidation plot is presented on Plate D.
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Mr. and Mrs. Wheatley 18
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
TEST RESULTS
Maximum Density/Optimum Moisture (ASTM: D-1557)
Direct Shear (ASTM: D3080)
1 0 -5 (remolded) 100 32
2 2.5 50 32
Expansion Index (ASTM: D4829)
Soluble Sulfate Analysis (USEP A Method 375.4)
w. 0. 576919-01
July 19, 2019
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING
SITE CLEARING
All existing vegetation shall be stripped and hauled from the site.
PREPARATION
After the foundation for the fill has been cleared, plowed or scarified, it shall be disced or bladed until
it is uniform and free from large clods, brought to a proper moisture content and compacted to not less
than ninety percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM:D-1557 (5 layers -25
blows per layer; 10 lb. hammer dropped 18"; 4" diameter mold).
MATERIALS
On-site materials may be used for fill, or fill materials shall consist of materials approved by the Soils
Engineer and may be obtained from the excavation of banks, borrow pits or any other approved
source. The materials used should be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances
and shall not contain rocks or lumps greater than six inches in maximum dimension.
PLACING, SPREADING AND COMPACTING FILL MATERIALS
The selected fill material shall be placed in layers which, when compacted, shall not exceed six
inches in thickness. Each layer shall be spread evenly and shall be thoroughly mixed during the
spreading to ensure uniformity of material and moisture of each layer.
Where moisture of the fill material is below the limits specified by the Soils Engineer, water shall be
added until the moisture content is as required to ensure thorough bonding and thorough compaction.
Where moisture content of the fill material is above the limits specified by the Soils Engineer, the fill
materials shall be aerated by blading or other satisfactory methods until the moisture content is as
specified.
After each layer has been placed, mixed and spread evenly, it shall be thoroughly compacted to not
less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density in accordance with ASTM:D-1557 (5 layers -25
blows per layer; 10 lbs. hammer dropped 18 inches; 4" diameter mold) or other density tests which
will attain equivalent results.
Compaction shall be by sheepfoot roller, multi-wheel pneumatic tire roller, track loader or other types
of acceptable rollers.
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SPECIFICATIONS FOR GRADING PAGE2
Rollers shall be of such design that they will be able to compact the fill to the specified density.
Rolling shall be accomplished while the fill material is at the specified moisture content. Rolling of
each layer shall be continuous over the entire area and the roller shall make sufficient trips to ensure
that the desired density has been obtained. The final surface of the lot areas to receive slabs on grade
should be rolled to a dense, smooth surface.
The outside of all fill slopes shall be compacted by means of sheepfoot rollers or other suitable
equipment. Compaction operations shall be continued until the outer nine inches of the slope is at
least 90 percent compacted. Compacting of the slopes may be progressively in increments of three
feet to five feet of fill height as the fill is brought to grade, or after the fill is brought to its total height.
Field density tests shall be made by the Soils Engineer of the compaction of each layer of fill. Density
tests shall be made at intervals not to exceed two feet of fill height provided all layers are tested.
Where the sheepfoot rollers are used, the soil may be disturbed to a depth of several inches and
density readings shall be taken in the compacted material below the disturbed surface. When these
readings indicate that the density of any layer of fill or portion there is below the required 90 percent
density, the particular layer or portion shall be reworked until the required density has been obtained.
The grading specifications should be a part of the project specifications.
The Soil Engineer shall review the grading plans prior to grading.
INSPECTION
The Soil Engineer shall provide continuous supervision of the site clearing and grading operation so
that he can verify the grading was done in accordance with the accepted plans and specifications.
SEASONAL LIMITATIONS
No fill material shall be placed, spread or rolled during unfavorable weather conditions. When heavy
rains interrupt work, fill operations shall not be resumed until the field tests by the Soils Engineer
indicate the moisture content and density of the fill are as previously specified.
EXPANSIVE SOIL CONDITIONS
Whenever expansive soil conditions are encountered, the moisture content of the fill or recompacted
soil shall be as recommended in the expansive soil recommendations included herewith.
PA2019-242
NEWPORT BEACH QUADRANGLE
CALIFORNIA -ORANGE CO.
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
SITE VICINITY MAP
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
UNITED STATES t.;
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR !
GEOLOGIC SURVEY
Work Order 576919
Plate No. 1
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
HU~,~~IN!~
PHIINE~714148&5006 FAXll?141333"4441l
APEXLSJNC@GNAlL,COM
SITE PLAN
East Oceanfront
Pacific Ocean
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
Scale: 1" ~ 16'
Work Order 576919
Plate No. 2
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES MAP
8------"-...--~·.
----......_________~--:--. ------------3v-.
. ---------45 39
44
~J
~SITE,a
-------------60_ 48 . ~ • ---------_,,.,..--------~ . "-----.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA -------------~ MAP EXPLANATION
SEISMIC HAZARDS ZONES , · -Zones of Required Investigation:
:DeHneated In compliance with
; -1 106 Chapter 7 .8, Dlvlffl)n 2 of the Clll!llfarnia Pubic Resources Code
. _,_ NazardS-!Aapp/n . .Acl) .. <'o--.... ,.......-----~
. NEWPORT B!=ACH QUADRANGLE ---. "--·---·@b
OFFICIAL MAP
· Liquefaction Zone Released: April 7, 1997
Landslide Zone Released: April 15, 1998
171
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
Liquefaction .
Areas where historic occurrence of llquefectlon, or local geological,
geotechnlcal and groundWater conditions lndfcate·a potential for
permanent g_rourd dlspJacements such that mitigation as defined l'l
Public Resources Code Section 2693(0) would be rllqulred.
E,arthquako.-lnduced Landslides
Areas where previous occurrence of landsllde movenierit, or local
topographic, geological, geotechnlcal and subsurface water conditions
indicate a potential fur permanent ground displacements such that
mitigation as de(ined In Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) would
beraqulrlld.
Work Order 576919
Plate No. 3
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
TEMPORARY EXCAVATION ALONG PROPERTY LINES
BUILDING
FACE
NEW
FOOTING
(24")
F.F.
1
/
/
/
SCALE: 1"~ 2'
WALL/PL
/l /
// l~EMPORARY ,f-----.J, SLOPE /: /
// ! ~ BENCIDNG 7 ------~------ti' ~
1:1 PROJECTION
OVER-EXCAVATION
This plate is not a representation of actual site conditions. It is a
general representation of typical conditions and intended for the
illustration of geotechnical data only. The indicated scale is
approximate, and to be used for rough measurement only.
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 576919
Plate No. 4
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
POTENTIAL TSUNAMI RUNUP INUNDATION CAUSED BY A
SUBMARINE LANDSLIDE
/'
~ ,')""'
'~~.
'-"-' ·"-.,
B.aie M.ap: USGS Topogr.aphic M.apfrom Sure!MAPS RASTER '
Source: City of Ne,wpo rt Bea: h, 2007 b.aied on un pu blii hed "
re,e.ao: h by J. C. Bo m:ro .and othen .at Un iven ify of
So ut he rn Ca.I ifo rn i.a
NOTffi: '
This; map i; inbii:n:lr;dforz,;n,;:r.a.J lil.nd umpla.nninz Qn(y. lnfomua.tionQnthi:; map S na: ""-
s;Qfi,:i;;rt ta s;:r.,,;: z a. substitltG: far d;t;a.ik:d p:i b,t~ ir,,,-,;st iza.tio l!ii of individua.l s;i:,;s;.
near dc,;s it 5iiiltisiy th,;: QViil.)Uaticin ri;;qu ir.:m,;:rts; 51il: forth in z,;o:logic: ha..za.n::I r,;gulat io.n!ii.
Guth Col!iiub.nl5 ll'G:rna.tiona.l(ECO millo.s no rc:p~ntaJ:i:in; or",,l,'ilria.nti;s; rqa.idinz
thoa.oc:U""f dthoda!a.from wh<:h tho,;" Jm!)'"""'d"rmd. r.c:1,h~II not bo liabk. ....
un:lra:r any ci ,::u l'IT.ita.nczfor a.ny d ir,;;,:t. indi ~ ~ia.L in-c:mnta.L or a.in~u,;:.rt iii.I
.:I.a.map w~h ~ ta any cb.im by ill'l'f u;;:,r ear th in::I paty can il.CalU rt .:if. a r -.risinz
f1>01,. th .. uooofths impj
Project Num bcr: 2706
D.ate: 20013
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
........ ...
Scale: 1 :60,000
8._-'..,...,....,,,,.,,,,• .. ·• ........ ,,,.,,,,.,1,,.5 Miler
EXPLANATION
Area that would be inundated by a
tsunami generated by a submarine
lands Ii de offshore of Newport Beach
(areas at or lower than 32 foot elevation
Newport Beach City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Work Order 576919
Plate No. 5
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND KEY TO BORING LOGS
UNITED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487)
PRIMARY DIVISIONS SYMBOLS SECONDARY DIVISIONS
GW WELL-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE
GRAVEL AND CLEAN GRAVELS ORNO FINES
GRAVELLY (LITTLE OR NO
SOILS FINES) GP POORLY-GRADED GRAVELS, GRAVEL-SAND MIXTURES,
COARSE LITTLE OR NO FINES
GRAINED SOILS MORE THAN 50%
OF COARSE GRAVELS WITH GM SIL TY GRAVELS, GRAVELS-SAND-SILT MIXTURES
FRACTION FINES
RETAINED ON (APPRECIABLE
N0.4SIEVE AMOUNT OF FINES) GC CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVELS-SAND-CLAY MIXTURES
SW WELL-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO
SAND AND CLEAN SAND FINES
SANDY SOILS (LITTLE OR NO
MORE THAN 50% FINES) SP POORLY-GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO
OF MATERIAL IS FINES
LARGER THAN NO. MORE THAN 50%
200 SIEVE SIZE OF COARSE SAND WITH SM SIL TY SANDS, SAND-SILT MIXTURES
FRACTION FINES
PASSING NO. 4 (APPRECIABLE
SIEVE AMOUNT OF FINES) SC CLAYEY SANDS, SAND-CLAY MIXTURES
INORGANIC SIL TS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR,
ML SIL TY OR CLAYEY FINE SANDS OR CLAYEY SIL TS WITH
SLIGHT PLASTICITY
FINE GRAINED SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW TO MEDIUM PLASTICITY,
SOILS CLAYS LESS THAN 50 CL GRAVELLY CLAYS, SANDY CLAYS, SILTY CLAYS, LEAN
CLAYS
OL ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW
PLASTICITY
MH INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE
MORE THAN 50% SAND OR SIL TY SOILS
OF MATERIAL IS SILTS AND LIQUID LIMIT
SMALLER THAN CLAYS GREATER THAN CH INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS
NO. 200 SIEVE 50
SIZE
OH ORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM TO HIGH PLASTICITY,
ORGANIC SIL TS
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW
PLASTICITY
COARSE GRAINED SOILS FINE GRAINED SOILS
CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FT* CONSISTENCY BLOWS/FT*
VERY LOOSE 0-4 VERY SOFT 0-2
LOOSE 4 • 10 SOFT 2-4
MEDIUM DENSE 10 • 30 FIRM 4-8
DENSE 30 • 50 STIFF 8 -15
VERY DENSE OVER50 VERY STIFF 15 • 30
HARD OVER30
* BLOWS/FT FOR A 140-POUND HAMMER FALLING 30 INCHES TO DRIVE A 2 INCH O.D., 1-3/8 INCH 1.D. SPLIT
SPOON SAMPLER (STANDARD PENETRATION TEST)
KEY TO SAMPLE TYPE: U = UNDISTURBED SAMPLE B = BULK S = SPT SAMPLE
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
(Text Supercedes)
12" 12" 12" 15" 15"
15" 15" 15" 15" 15"
18" 18" 18" 18" 18"
24" 24" 24" 24" 30"
24" 24" 24" 24" 36"
24" 24" 24" 24" 30"
24" 24" 24" 24" 36"
4 #5 Bars 4 #5 Bars 4 #5 Bars 4 #5 Bars 4 #5 Bars
2Top 2Top 2 Top 2 Top 2Top
2Bottom 2 Bottom 2Bottom 2Bottom 2Bottom
5" Actual 5" Actual 5" Actual 5" Actual 5" Actual
#4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on
12" 12" 12" 12" 12"
Centers Both Centers Both Centers Both Centers Both Centers Both
Ways Ways Ways Ways Ways
15 mil 15 mil 15 mil 15 mil 15 mil
Membrane Membrane Membrane Membrane Membrane
#4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on #4 Bars on
12" 12" 12" 12" Center 12" Center
Centers Both Centers Both Centers Both Both Ways Both Ways
Ways Ways Ways Free Floating Free Floating
Same as Adj. Same as Adj. Same as Adj. Same as Adj. Same as Adj.
Ext. Ftg. Ext. Ftg. Ext. Ftg. Ext. Ftg. Ext. Ftg.
4" Clean 4" Clean 4" Clean 4" Clean 4" Clean
Aggregate Aggregate Aggregate Aggregate Aggregate
Above Opt. 110% of Opt 130% of Opt 130% of Opt
To M/Cto M/Cto Depth MIC to Depth
Depth ofFtg. Depth Footing Footing
(No Testing) Footing
1. Basement slabs shall have a minimum thickness of six inches.
2. Floor slab shall be constructed over a 15 mil plastic membrane. The membrane shall be properly lapped, sealed and in
contact with the slab bottom.
3. Aggregate should be Yi-inch or larger.
PA2019-242
Date: 7/9/2019
Cl) -I-.2 C en
Cl) Cl) a.. ro ~ C
Cl) > Cl) u:: z a..
10 2
17 1
32 3
37 3
24 2
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 1
Elevation: E.G.
en >,
Cl) -: -: (.) Cl) C :5s 0.. u.. .... Cl) -0 -en ~ E ..c Description 0 en ro -·1n ·o o Cl) a. (.) C ~ '?ft. Cl) 0 0 (.) -U B
Concrete (5")
FILL: SAND ---slightly silty, fine to medium-Gray Brown Medium
grained, damp Dense
NATIVE: SAND ---medium to coarse-grained, Yellow Tan Medium
clean, damp Dense
SAND ---medium to coarse-grained, clean, damp Yellow Tan to Medium
3.8 Tan Dense
5
SAND ---medium to coarse-grained, clean, damp Yellow Tan to Medium
4.8 Tan Dense
SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, wet Tan Dense
20.8
SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, wet Tan Dense
24.0 10
SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, wet Tan Medium
23.5 Dense to
Dense
End of boring at 12.5 feet
Groundwater at 7.0 feet
Sands are subject to caving
15
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 576919
Plate B
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
Date: 7/9/2019
~ -Cl)
"cii ~~ Q) ......
c.. LL c--Q) 't:5 ->, E 0 a.. Cl) .... ..c:
·5 0 ro -c.'.'.'-Cl) 0.
~~ Cl)
0 -0
2
100.7 3.8
4
101.5 4.8
6
101.9 5.3
8
101.0 11.9
10
SUMMARY OF BORING NO. 2
Description
FILL: SAND ---silty, fine to medium-grained, dry
to damp
NATIVE: SAND ---medium to coarse-grained,
clean, damp
SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, damp,
with shells
SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, damp,
with shells
SAND ---fine to medium-grained, clean, moist to
very moist, with shells
End of boring at 10.5 feet
Groundwater at 10.0 feet
Sands are subject to caving
Elevation:
....
0
0
t)
Brown
Tan
E.G.
~
C
Cl) -Cl)
"cii
C
0
t)
Loose
Medium
Dense
Tan to Light Medium
Gray Tan Dense
Tan to Light Medium
Gray Tan Dense
Tan to Light
Gray Tan
Medium
Dense
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 576919
Plate C
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
[ Boring No. 2 @ 2.5 Feet l
Pressure (Kips Per Square Foot)
0.1 1 10
0.00
n.
L. ~,..__
1.00 NI
..........
............
• ........ ---, ..
2.00 --' --"---" ---"-
--..:,
3.00 --C:
Cl)
~ 4.00
Cl)
CL -C:
0 5.00 .:; ca
"C
0
ti) 6.00
C:
0 u
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
0 Test Specimen at In-Situ Moisture
• Test Specimen Submerged
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Work Order 576919
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California Plate No. D
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
SHEAR TEST RESULT
( Boring No.1 @ 0 to 5 Feet (Re molded to 90%) )
5
4
..--. .::: 3 &
~
C.
:.52 ._.,
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Remolded soil samples were tested at saturated conditions.
The sample had a dry density of 101.1 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 24.4 %.
Cohesion = 100 psf
Friction Angle = 32 degrees
Based on 80% peak strength or ultimate strength, whichever is lower
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 576919
Plate No. E
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
Cl)
Cl)
(
5
4
SHEAR TEST RESULT
Boring No. 2 @ 2.5 Feet
~ 2 .....
Cl)
1 V
.V
0 1 2 3 4
Confining Pressure (kips/sq. ft.)
Native soil samples were tested at saturated conditions.
)
5
The sample had a dry density of 100.7 lbs./cu.ft. and a moisture content of 24.7 %.
Cohesion = 50 psf
Friction Angle = 32 degrees
Based on 80% peak strength or ultimate strength, whichever is lower
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 576919
Plate No. F
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITY
Bearing Capacity Calculations are based on "Terzaghi's Bearing Capacity Theory"
Bearing Material: Compacted fill
Properties:
Wet Density (y) = 110 pcf
Cohesion (C) = 100 psf
Angle of Friction (<P) = 32 degrees
Footing Depth (D) = 2 feet
Footing Width (B) = 1.0 foot
Factor of Safety = 3.0
Calculations -Ultimate Bearing Capacity
from Table 3.1 on page 127 of "Foundation Engineering Handbook", 1975
Ne= 35.49 Nq = 23.18 Nr = 30.22
Ou = 1.3 C Ne + y D Nq + 0.4 y B Ny (Square Footing)
= 1.3 * 100 * 35.49 + 110 * 2 * 23.18 + 0.4 * 110 * 1 * 30.22
= 4613 + 5099 + 1329 = 11041 psf
Allowable Bearing Capacity for Square Footing
Oa11= Ou/ F.S. =
Use 1800 psf
3680 psf
Ou = 1.0 C Ne + y D Nq + 0.5 y B Ny (Continuous Footing)
= 1.0 * 100 * 35.49 + 110 * 2 * 23.18 + 0.5 * 110 * 1 * 30.22
= 3549 + 5099 + 1662 = 10310 psf
Allowable Bearing Capacity for Continuous Footing
Oa11 = Ou/ F.S. =
Use 1800 psf
3436 psf
Increases: 750 psf / ft in depth over 2 feet
250 psf / ft in width over 1 foot
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 576919
Plate G
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE CALCULATIONS
Retaining structures such as retaining walls, basement walls, and bulk-heads are commonly
used in foundation engineering, and they support almost vertical slopes of earth masses.
Proper design and construction of these structures require a through knowledge of the lateral
forces acting between the retaining structures and the soil masses being retained. These
lateral forces are due to lateral earth pressure.
Properties of earth material:
Wet Density (y)
Cohesion (C)
=
=
110 pcf
100 psf
Angle of Friction (¢) = 32 degrees
Coefficient of Friction = tan <I>
Therefore,
Coefficient of Friction = tan <I>
= tan¢ = 0.625
Assumed H = 2 feet
Use 0.35
Pp = 0.5 y H2 tan 2 ( 45° + ¢ / 2 ) + 2 C H tan ( 45° + ¢ / 2 )
= 0.5 * 110 * 4 * 3.254 + 2 * 100 * 2 * 1.804
= 716 + 722 = 1438 lbs/ LF
1/2 EFP H2 = 1438
EFP = 719 psf / LF
EFP: passive pressure
Allowable Passive Pressure= 300 psf / LF ( with F.S. = 2.4)
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 576919
Plate H
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
ACTIVE EARTH PRESSURE BY COULOMB THEORY
Compacted fill
The total active thrust can be expressed as
PA= 0.5 KAY H2
where the active earth pressure coefficient, KA, is given by
COS2 (</J -0)
cos 20 cos(o + O) { 1 + [
sin(o + ¢) sin(¢ -/J)
cos(o + 0) cos(/3 -0)
Where:
() = slope of the back of the wall with respect to the vertical
o = angle of friction between the wall and the soil
/3 = slope of the backfill with respect to the horizontal
Properties of earth material:
Wet Density (y)
Cohesion (C)
Angle of Friction (cp)
()
0
=
=
=
=
=
Caculate KA based on slope of the backfill
Surface Slope Slope Angle (/3) KA
Level 0.0 0.276
5:1 (H:V) 11.3 0.319
4:1 (H:V) 14.0 0.333
3:1 (H:V) 18.4 0.361
2:1 (H:V) 26.6 0.454
1.5:1 (H:V) 33.7 0.765
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
110 pcf
100 psf
32 degrees
0
20
EFP [ = y * KA ], pcf
30.3
35.1
36.6
39.7
50.0
84.2
Work Order 576919
Plate
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
CALCULATION OF SUBGRADE REACTION
Subgrade reaction calculations are based on "Foundation Analysis and Design" Fourth
Edition, by Joseph E. Bowles.
Ks= 24 quit (for ~H = 1/2 inch)
Where:
Ks = subgrade reaction in k / ft 3
quit = ultimate bearing capacity
For qu1t = 10.3 ksf (from bearing capacity calculations)
Ks = 24 * 10.3 k / ft3
= 247.2* 1000 I ( 12 * 12 * 12) lb/ in 3
= 143.1 lb/in3
Use 100 pound per cubic inch
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
Work Order 576919
Plate No. J
PA2019-242
APPENDIXB
Liquefaction Analysis by SPT
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
Newport Beach
"---------------------------------------' JJ'!W
""'""""
PA2019-242
·.·.·.·.·.•.·.·.·
®flJf
3
5
7
9
11
LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS BY SPT
C = ( p / a ' )112 < 2 N a O -,
FOR BORING NO. 1
Pa= 2089 psf
(N1)50 = Nm CN CE Cs CR Cs
CSR= Tav I a 0 ' = 0.65 ( a 0 I a 0') rd ( amax / g )
315.0
525.0
775.0
:¢JI
(J>$fj),
315.0
525.0
650.2
1025.0 I 775.4
1275.o I 900.6
~;:
l'.ilq~,Wft
10 2.00 I 1.00 I 1.05 I 0.75 I 1.20
17 1.99 I 1.00 I 1.05 I 0.75 I 1.20
32 1.79 I 1.00 I 1.05 I 0.75 I 1.20
37 1.64 I 1.00 I 1.05 I 0.75 I 1.20
24 1.52 I 1.00 I 1.05 I o.75 I 1.20
l tNWJgb\ l ( ~i~ws.xrt:
18.9
32.0
54.2
57.4
34.5
s~~i-2 Hp~HJ~Ht 2~~;.W
0.99 I 0.46 2 0.21 I 1.15 I 0.24
0.99 I 0.46 0.60 I 1.15 I o.69
0.99 I 0.55 3 o.60 I 1.15 I 0.69
0.98 I 0.60 3 0.60 I 1.15 I 0.69
0.98 I 0.64 2 o.60 I 1.15 I o.69
Note: 1. Moist unit weight of 105 pcf, saturated unit weight of 125 pcf, and groundwater at 5 feet
2. Magnitude of 7.2 and peak ground acceleration of 0.715 g
3. According to Figure 7.1, soil layers having (N 1 )60 higher than 30 are not considered liquefiable.
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation I Work Order 576919
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California Plate M
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
0.52
1.50
1.26
1.15
1.07
PA2019-242
(!J
(!J
..:::
0.
(!J
0
0.2 0.3 0.7 0.8 00 0.1
I
101
I
0.4
_;__--,---_I . . _
1
1 _ _L
I l I i .
0.9
I __ ! __
I
I
I
I
I
1.0
I
20!--_..:__ __ _.._ __ -'-1__ I j ~veroge :,alues'":\.J._ __ ....; -~I I I . ~
I I ' I \
~ ,_. I
30
t-I
--.:..--~-----I I -
f I
40!-i I.
: I
i
I
501
I
60
I
!
70
I
I
I
I
80.
I
I
I
90
100
it~· I • I .
I ----T
I
!
FIG. 1 -RANGE OF VALUES OF rd FOR DIFFERENT SOIL PROFILES
PA2019-242
Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California
Table 5.2. Corrections to Field SPT N-Values (modified from Youd and Idriss, 1997)
Factor Equipment Variable Tenn
Overburden Pressure CN
Energy Ratio Safety Hammer CE
Donut Hammer
Automatic Trip
Hammer
Borehole Diameter 65 mm to 115 mm CB
150mm
200mm
Rod Length** 3mto4m CR
4mto6m
6mto10m
10m to30m
>30m
Sampling Method Standard Sampler Cs
Sampler without liners
* The Implementation Committee recommends using a minimum of 0.4.
** Actual total rod length, not depth below ground surface
12
Correction
(P./ cr' vo)°"';
0.4.:s;CN.:s;2 *
0.60 to 1.17
0.45 to 1.00
0.9 to 1.6
1.0
1.05
1.15
0.75
0.85
0.95
1.0
<LO
1.0
1.2
PA2019-242
Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California
.29
Percent Fines = 35
I
I
251".:1
15
o.si---~~~---1-~~~~--1-1-~--+-~~11--~~~---1~~~~~
I
I
I
I
I
I
Adjustment
Recommended
By Workshop
CRR curves for 5,15, and
35 percent fines, respectively
Marainal No
Liquefaction Liquefaction Liquefaction
Pan -American data • m
Japanese data • g a
Chinese data • A
OL--....1.::==:=:::;::::.~-...1-----....L----L---__J
0 10 20 30 40 50
Corrected Blow Coun4 (N1)60
Figure 7.1. Simplified Base Curve Recommended for Determination of CRR from SPT Data
for Moment Magnitude 7 .5 Along with Empirical Liquefaction Data
(after Youd and Idriss, 1997)
50
PA2019-242
Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California
~
Cl.)
~
I-<'
.8 c..>
£
bO c:: ·--t-1 c..>
Cl.)
0
"'O
B ·-c:: ~
~
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
5.0
Workshop
6.0 7.0
-+-Seed and Idriss, (1982)
---Idriss
x A.nlbraseys(1985)
¢ Arango (1996)
+ Arango (1996)
-e-Andrus and Stokoe
A Youd and Noble, PL<20%
A Youd and Noble, PL<32%
• Youd and Noble, PL<50%
8.0 9.0
Earthquake Magnitude, Mw
Figure 7 .2. Magnitude Scaling Factors Derived by Various Investigators
(After Youd and Idriss, 1997)
51
PA2019-242
APPENDIXC
Calculations of Seismically Induced Settlement
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
CALCULATIONS OF SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT
Calculations of seismically-induced settlement for the subject site are performed based
on the II Evaluation Of Settlement In Sands Due To Earthquake Shaking II by Kohji
Tokimatsu and H. Bolton Seed, dated August 1987.
The calculations of the seismically-induced settlement are as follows:
1. Calculate the effective overburden pressure at the center of each layer.
2. The SPT N-value needs to be corrected depending on equipment used and a0'.
(N1)ao = Nm CN CE Cs CR Cs
Where CN = (Pa/ a0') 112 < 2, Pa= 2089 psf
(N1)ao = corrected N value
Nm = field N value
CN = correction factor depending on effective overburden pressure
a0' = effective overburden pressure, in psf
3. Calculate the maximum shear modulus
Gmax = 20 (N1)ao 1/3 ( ao' ) 112
Gmax = maximum shear modulus, in ksf
ao' = effective overburden pressure, in psf
4. From the depth in Figure 1, find the stress reduction coefficient, rd
5. Calculate Yett (Gett/ Gmax)
Yett ( Gett I Gmax) = 0.65 amax a0 rd I ( g Gmax)
amax = 0. 715 g and M = 7.2 ( for the subject site)
Yett = effective shear strain induced by earthquake shaking
Gett = effective shear modulus at induced strain level
(cont'd)
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 576919
Plate N1
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
CALCULATIONS OF SEISMICALLY-INDUCED SETTLEMENT
amax = maximum ground surface acceleration
a0 = total overburden pressure
g = acceleration of gravity
6. From Yeff ( Geff / Gmax) and a0' in Figure 2, find yeff (cyclic shear strain)
7. From Yeff and (N 1)60 in Figure 3, find cc.M. =7.5 (volumetric strain due to compaction)
8. Interpolation from Table 1, cc.M. = 7.2 = 0.940 cc.M. = 7.5
9. This settlement caused by combined horizontal motions is about equal to the sum of
the settlement caused by the components acting alone.
Calculate 2 s c.M. = 7.2
10. Calculate the total settlement
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 576919
Plate N2
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PA2019-242
1
2
SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT OF DRY SAND
FOR BORING NO. 1
iill~y~[I ~1[J~~~r ~~4ID~~ (~) \gfJj (f:}) <w0 i r~(:fJr~ iffi0[~mrn
2.0 4.0 3.0 I 2.0 I 315 I 315 10 I 18.9 I 946 I o.99 I 15.3 *10-5 I 50 *10-5 1 o.056 I o.053 I 0.105 0.03
4.0 5.0 4.5 I 1.0 I 473 I 473 17 I 32.0 I 1380 I 0.99 I 15.8 *10-5 I 34 *10-5 1 0.018 I 0.017 I 0.034 0.00
TOTAL 0.03
Based on : 1. Moist unit weight of 105 pcf, saturated unit weight of 125 pcf, and groundwater at 5 feet
2. Magnitude of 7.2 and peak ground acceleration of 0.715 g
3. Gmax = 20 (N1)50 113 ( ao' ) 112
4. Yett ( Geff I Gmax) = 0.65 amax ao rd/ ( g Gmax)
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
COAST GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Work Order 576919
Plate No. N3
PA2019-242
--CJ >-.
C ·-0 ...
(fl
'-
0
4.)
.c.
(fl
I
<Tm .1 0.1 t 5f 0.2
10 3
-4
10
-~ 10 '---~~'---~---'---'.__...........i ......... ~~--""~--L.---1,......1..--i-.i....J...J...L~~.....i..----' ,o-3 ,o-5 ,o-4
raff (Gef f /Gmax)
FIG. ·:z. -PLOT FOR DETERMINATION OF INDUCED STRAIN
IN SAND DEPOSITS
PA2019-242
Cyclic Shear Strain, 'f -percent
~ 2 xy 10-.) 10-10·1
10-:3 r---,---r-r-r---r---r--.--,--,----.---r-r--..--,.---.
C ·2
~ 10
~
CJ
a.
I
u
w
C
0
u
0 a. ~ 10 1
u
0 -
C
0
"--V,
"" 15
:::::10
:::::5
'
'
' '
' '
' '
' ' '
' '
' '
' ' '
' ' ' '
' ' '
' ' '
' ' ' '
' ' '\,
' ' '
' ' '
' ' '
' '
' '
15 Cycles
'
'\
' '
' '
'
'
' ' ' '
' '\
' ...
' ' '
.... .... .... ...
FIG.3 -RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VOLUMETRIC STRAIN, SHEAR STRAIN,
AND PENETRATION RESISTANCE FOR DRY SANDS
PA2019-242
TABLE 1 -INFLUENCE OF EARTHQUAKE MAGNITUDE ON VOLUMETRIC
STRAIN RATIO FOR DRY SANDS
Earthquake
magnitude
(1)
8-1/2
7-1/2
6-3/4
6
5-1/4
Number of representative
CyCf85 at Q.65 Tmax
(2)
26
15
10
5
2-3
Volumetric strain ratio,
Ec,N /Ec;N-15
(3)
1.25
1.0
0.85
0.6
0.4
PA2019-242
SEISMICALLY INDUCED SETTLEMENT OF SATURATED SOILS
FOR BORING NO. 1
i!!~~~i! ~~,1~11 lllll~llll l!l!l)~illlll lll\~lj//l!l llli!lllllllll~llli 11:11111~1 1111~,,~,111111111~111111111111~111111111111~~~11
.,.,:,:,:,::e,:::::::::::::1:,:,:,:,:,:,: :,::::::::•:•:•
~t~~~~~f J~1111 11:11~~~~i~~t!II
1 5.0 I 6.0 I 1.0 I 32.0 I 1 I o.oo 1.00 32.0 0.46 1.15 0.40 0.2 I 0.02
2 6.0 8.0 2.0 I 54.2 3 o.oo I 1.00 54.2 0.55 1.15 0.48 0.0 0.00
3 8.0 10.0 2.0 I 57.4 3 o.oo I 1.00 57.4 0.60 1.15 0.52 0.0 0.00
4 10.0 12.0 2.0 I 34.5 2 o.oo I 1.00 34.5 0.64 1.15 0.56 0.0 0.00
TOTAL 0.02
Note: 1. Groundwater at 5 feet, magnitude of 7.2, and peak ground acceleration of 0.715 g
2. (N1)50 cs= a+ f3 (N1)50
3. For volumetric strain refer to Figure 7.11
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation
2008 East Oceanfront
Newport Beach, California
Work Order 576919
Plate No. 0
COAST GEOTECHNICAL
PA2019-242
Thomas F. Blake (Fugro-West, Inc., Ventura, Calif., written commun.) approximated the simplified
base curve plotted on Figure 2 by the following equation:
a + ex + ex 2 + gx 3
CRR 7 5 =
· 1 + bx + dx 2 + .fx 3 + hx 4
(4)
where CRR7.5 is the cyclic resistance ratio for magnitude 7.5 earthquakes; x = (Ni)60 ; a= 0.048; b
= -0.1248; c = -0.004721; d = 0.009578; e = 0.0006136; f= -0.0003285; g = -l.673E-05; and h =
3.714E-06. This equation is valid for (N 1\0 less than 30 and may be used in spreadsheets and other
analytical techniques to approximate the simplified base curve for engineering calculations.
Robertson and Wride (this report) indicate that Equation 4 is not applicable for (N 1)60 less than three,
but the general consensus of workshop participants is that the curve defined by Equation 4 should
be extended to intersect the intercept at a CRR value of about 0.05.
Correlations for Fines Content and Soil Plasticity
Another change was the quantification of the fines content correction to better fit the empirical data
and to support computations with spreadsheets and other electronic computational aids. In the
original development, Seed et al. (1985) found that for a given (N1)60 , CRR increases with increased
fines content. It is not clear, however, whether the CRR increase is because of greater liquefaction
resistance or smaller penetration resistance as a consequence of the general increase of
compressibility and decrease of permeability with increased fines content. Based on the empirical
data available, Seed et al. developed CRR curves for various fines contents as shown on Figure 2.
After alengthy review by.the workshop participants, consensus was gained that the correction for
fines content should be a function of penetration resistance as well as fines content. The participants
also agreed that other grain characteristics, such as soil plasticity may affect liquefaction resistance;
hence any correlation based solely on penetration resistance and fines content should be used with
~ngineering judgement and caution. The following equations, developed by I.M. Idriss with
assistance from R.B. Seed are recommended for correcting standard penetration resistance
determined for silty sands to an equivalent clean sand penetration resistance:
(5)
where a and p are coefficients determined from the following equations:
a= 0 forFC;,; 5% (6a)
a= exp[l.76 -(190/FC2)] for 5% < FC < 35% (6b)
a;;::; 5.0 forFC ~ 35% (6c)
p = 1.0 . forFC;,; 5% (7a)
p = [0.99 + (FCi.5/1000)] for 5% < FC < 35% (7b)
p = 1.2 for FC ~ 35% (7c)
where FC is the fines content measured from laboratory gradation tests on retrieved soil samples.
7
PA2019-242
Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and
Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California
Volumetric Stro in -%
0.5 10 5 4 3 2 0.5
I
I
0.4
IaY-
cr;.' 0
0.3
0.2
"0.1
I
I
I
I
I
J /,0.2
I I
I I
I I
/. //p.1
I I 1
I I I
I·/
I I I
I I I / / /
'/ I. I
I I
I I
I I
I / / I
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ / /,,/
/,,
//
I/
'//
'//
'//
'//
V/
~
10 20 30 40 50
Figure 7.11. Relationship Between Cyclic Stress Ratio, (N 1)60 and Volumetric Strain
for Saturated Clean Sands and Magnitude= 7.5 (After Tokimatsu and Seed, 1987)
60
PA2019-242
2008 E Oceanfront, Newport Beach, CA 92661, USA
Latitude, Longitude: 33.5961412, -117.88638220000001
Date
Design Code Reference Document
Risk Category
7/16/2019, 9:54:20 AM
ASCE7-10
II
Site Class
Type
Ss
S1
SMs
SM1
Sos
So1
Type
soc
Fa
Fv
PGA
FPGA
PGAM
TL
SsRT
SsUH
SsD
S1RT
S1UH
S1D
PGAd
CRs
CR1
Value
1.722
0.634
1.722
0.95
1.148
0.634
Value
D
1.5
0.715
0.715
8
1.722
1.93
3.217
0.634
0.697
1.079
1.176
0.892
0.909
Description
MCER ground motion. (for 0.2 second period)
MCER ground motion. (for 1.0s period)
Site-modified spectral acceleration value
Site-modified spectral acceleration value
Numeric seismic design value at 0.2 second SA
Numeric seismic design value at 1.0 second SA
Description
Seismic design category
Site amplification factor at 0.2 second
Site amplification factor at 1.0 second
MCE8 peak ground acceleration
Site amplification factor at PGA
Site modified peak ground acceleration
Long-period transition period in seconds
Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (0.2 second)
D -Stiff Soil
Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration
Factored deterministic acceleration value. (0.2 second)
Probabilistic risk-targeted ground motion. (1.0 second)
Factored uniform-hazard (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years) spectral acceleration.
Factored deterministic acceleration value. (1.0 second)
Factored deterministic acceleration value. (Peak Ground Acceleration)
Mapped value of the risk coefficient at short periods
Mapped value of the risk coefficient at a period of 1 s
OSHPD
PA2019-242
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
MCER Response Spectrum
0.0 2.5 5.0
Period, T (sec)
-Sa(g)
Design Response Spectrum
0.0
0.0 2.5 5.0
Period, T (sec)
-Sa(g)
7.5
7.5
DISCLAIMER
While the information presented on this website is believed to be correct, SEAOC /OSHPD and its sponsors and contributors assume no responsibility or
liability for its accuracy. The material presented in this web application should not be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination
and verification of its accuracy, suitability and applicability by engineers or other licensed professionals. SEAOC / OSHPD do not intend that the use of this
information replace the sound judgment of such competent professionals, having experience and knowledge in the field of practice, nor to substitute for the
standard of care required of such professionals in interpreting and applying the results of the seismic data provided by this website. Users of the information from
this website assume all liability arising from such use. Use of the output of this website does not imply approval by the governing building code bodies responsible
for building code approval and interpretation for the building site described by latitude/longitude location in the search results of this webstie.
PA2019-242